As a psytrance musician, I can kind of understand what the question is. Yes, dance music is simple in it's foundation... a 4x4 kick with perhaps a counter high hat and a repetitive bassline. But that foundation is needed to make the trance part work.

Just like how a mantra is repetitive in order to put you in a meditative state... great trance music, psychedelic or not, should be able to put you in that state without the aid of drugs.

And once the musician has you in that state, then we can take you on all kinds of journeys. It's always important, though, to keep that simple beat foundation going and to make it consistant so that you stay in the zone while dancing. It can be very jarring when a clumsy DJ messes up synching two tracks!

Where I find the fun as a musician is layering complexities on top of that simple foundation, whether I toy with higher intricate rythmns, evolving pads, or arpeggiated filter rides... those elements can be extremely complex, far more complex than some flashy minor scale fingering. But in the end that foundation, and how great it grooves thanks to the bassline, is key to the whole thing and in order for it to be dance-able it has to be repetitive and consistant (simple).

can i get some links to your music??

Yes. I think that we're getting (back) into the issue of how you define 'simple'. Going oom tss oom tss for five minutes fits most peoples' definition of simple, but there are relatively few people who can do that and produce a track that will have an impact on the dancefloor or work on peoples' emotions. And so presumably there's something going on in the tracks that 'work' that isn't in the ones that don't. There's subtlety in there even if we can't currently describe it well - see also the difference between a really funky drummer and a slightly forced sounding one: it can be very hard to pin down the difference between the two but it's very reasonable to call one a genius and the other mediocre. Whether this is the same thing as 'not being simple' is semantics.

For instance, the Rite of Spring has more changes of tempo, meter and emphasis than any popular music that I know of, but whether a classical percussionist could groove like (say) Clyde Stubblefield, or even whether Stravinsky could write a beat pattern as funky as something by Omni Trio or Ricardo Villalobos is rather less obvious. 'Rhythmic sophistication' might be a better phrase than 'rhythmic complexity' for what we're getting at here...

A side point from all this - with all the talk about 'music to make people dance' or 'going to clubs to get girls', am I the only person here who dances as a way to get out the energy I'm getting from the music I love rather than listening to music to give me an excuse to move my feet backwards and forwards in a repetitive fashion? If I was hit by a bus tomorrow and paralyzed from the waist down, I'd still listen to a lot of techno, jungle, hip hop, dubstep and so on.

Bah -- what a load of bollocks...

Typical effete jive from a bunch of anal retentive white men who couldn't figure out how to boogie down even with their best slide rules...

Music is ALL about soul, evocative melodies, rhythms and feeling -- whether it's a military march, break dancing or a religious chant -- not some fookin 'technically attractive construct'. What arrogance!

Popular music is 'simple' because that is what most people can relate to and it obviously appeals to the majority -- music they can understand and be a part of. They mostly cannot play any instrument except 'air guitar' but enjoy the hell out of it regardless...

All this banter reminds me of decades of 'intellectual speculation' by inhuman weirdos about RocknRoll and the "sinful, disgusting, primitive urges seducing our young people".

Merely because Beethoven knew the mechanics of musical notation and wrote beautiful, seductive, complex symphonic movements using such does not make his music any more 'intellectually valid' than Tupac's 'Shorty Wanna Be a Thug'.

While one created exotic visions and flights of wonderful musical fancy, the other created modern musical renditions of life on the street. Neither one is any more or less valid a musical form than the other. You can waltz to one and 'get down heavy' with the other.

I can just picture some of the musical snobs in this thread walking past a disco and peering in the window and saying to himself "Look at those simple idiots writhing at each other in disgusting physical gyrations and undulations! How hideous and animal-like!" and then stutting away with a boner..

Music, in all it's forms, is merely an accompaniment to the rhythm of life - no more or less important than that.

Get a job.

will it really sort all those things out?

Well, it's worth a shot...

Why is it that melody-driven acoustic chamber music tends to be very weak in terms of backbeat, groove... etc. Not talking about the great Wiener waltzes or stuff like dixieland and afro-cuban jazz - I tend to see those as more experimental and avant-garde, not popular acoustic chamber music) Could it be because acoustic chamber music simply sounds better when it doesn't incorporate driving basslines, synth stacks...etc? Does the use of violins, cellos..etc negate the effectiveness of a kickdrum and bassline, or are they simply aspects of music theory that does not interest chamber musicians? Maybe acoustic chamber music has to be kept simple to keep the vibe out of it, and bogging it down with groove will kill the cocktail boredom feel?

No -- not every combination is going to work mate. It's most likely as simple as when one mixes a driving bassline and a synth stack with a chamber music group it sounds the equivalent of a mustard and ice cream sandwich -- with the same level of appeal.

Please read the Dance Music Manual by Rick Snoman and then tell me if dance music is "simple!

Try that this way:

As far as I'm concerned, Music, in all it's forms, is merely an accompaniment to the rhythm of life - no more or less important than that.

or...

In my life, music, in all it's forms, is merely an accompaniment to the rhythm of life - no more or less important than that.

or...

In my mind, music, in all it's forms, is merely an accompaniment to the rhythm of life - no more or less important than that.

or...

In my perspective, music, in all it's forms, is merely an accompaniment to the rhythm of life - no more or less important than that.

or...

From my point of view, music, in all it's forms, is merely an accompaniment to the rhythm of life - no more or less important than that.

or...

When I'm out shopping, music, in all it's forms, is merely an accompaniment to the rhythm of life - no more or less important than that.

or...

While I'm playing with myself, music, in all it's forms, is merely an accompaniment to the rhythm of life - no more or less important than that.

or...

In my car, music, in all it's forms, is merely an accompaniment to the rhythm of life - no more or less important than that.

or...

While I'm playing Sonic '99, music, in all it's forms, is merely an accompaniment to the rhythm of life - no more or less important than that.

or, maybe...

Music, in all it's forms, is merely an accompaniment to the rhythm of life - no more or less important than that and I'm a big shot who knows everything about everything so you can't disagree with me or you will just be... so... wrong.

or, maybe, even...

In my mind, music, in all it's forms, is merely an accompaniment to the rhythm of life - no more or less important than that but I have no clue what I'm talking about so you can safely ignore this.

Just to be difficult... This is one of my favorite songs to dance to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=268ZbJj4ODU

...Granted, it's not overly complex but I, like many of the fans of this song, dance primarily to the vocals and melody. In my case the dance is something similar to an Elvis or Ramones inspired, seemingly methedrine fueled {but not really}, version of the little dance that the singer himself does. I, actually prefer the inconsistencies to the consistencies and find them to be cause for a whole series of little dance floor "celebrations".

In your humble opinion anyway...

I've not been humble in.... ummm... I've never been humble.

No, 'arrogance' would be disregarding the theoretical and scientific questions at hand in favor of some mystic mumbo jumbo about soul and feeling.



Fundamentally, this is true. In practice, you'd be hard pressed to put Tupac on the same level as Beethoven.


Indeed. Though since when was Disco still around?



Sacrifice deer. Bring rain.

Just because you or I don't have the experience or capacity to understand the psychological implications of a musical construct doesn't mean that there AREN'T such things.
Boiling music down to "the rhythm of life" is a gross and irresponsible oversimplification, built on the idea that just because you don't understand music outside the realm of "feeling" no one else must be able to either. Trying to make it something spiritual and disregarding the complex technical aspects is about as bad as making an offering to the gods to bring the rain.

You don't get it. That doesn't make it not so.

-- Exactly my point Mr f**king Spock -- as soon as you robots get through 'anal'ising dance music, you'll discover that there's really nothing 'mystical' or 'scientific' about it at all!



Why not? People who like Beethoven better than Tupac are more worthy?

By 'level' do you mean 'technical competence in musical composition' or creativity?



You need to get out more -- 'Discos' are everywhere. But you're talking about the musical genre 'Disco', aren't you? Meaning maybe you've lost the plot here?



A dismissive, trite and shallow attempt at demeaning my point.



Huh? The "...psychological implications of a musical construct..."? WTF



Now you are over-simplifying a rather eloquent and poetic description and, in addition, being obtuse.

What does music invoke within us if not 'feelings and emotive, fantastical scenarios and pleasant dreams and memories? Why do you feel it's so important to make it into something complex and 'exclusive to the schooled' and so forth?

For both the musician and the dancer, it's a 'discipline' -- like painting -- that the artist trains in and masters, not a scientific pursuit. You really do need to strive to remember this very important difference.



Who's trying to make anything 'spiritual'?

Those are your words and your rather sophomoric interpretation of what I said.

Why are you trying to explain music as something 'scientific' when in fact it's not. Why?

Music only appears to have 'complex technical aspects' to those who don't know much about music.

You have no clue about the difference between art and science, do you?



No -- you don't get it -- if dance music is not the rhythm of life, as created by 'human life', then what is it? What better way to descibe it?

You can also say that the wind whistling through the trees is 'the sweet music of nature' and you can even say 'it is the rhythm of nature', but that may be much too eloquent in the face of your 'scientific' interpretations of music -- and in the case of this discussion, 'dance' music.

Dance came out of the rhythmic rituals of our jungle ancestors to the sophistication in art it involves today, but it's still dance and it doesn't diminish the art of our primitive ancestors at all -- it venerates it.

As an experiment, you can take a video of the ballet dancers during the second movement of 'The Nutcracker Suite', and if you replace Tchaikovsky's audio with a breakbeat you may more clearly see that those 'primitive' rhythms still apply, and that they are still there in form that's merely been enhanced within the art.

You appear to consistently confuse the science of 'technical engineering of audio' with music and musical creativity. Music is an art, as is dance. As such, these art forms will never be bound to any scientific theory or practice -- thankfully so -- and thus creativity will flourish with as much illogic as it possibly can.