So, if I understand you properly, you are essentially saying that EDM only is referring to mainstream EDM styles and artists; basically anything from pop, big rewm hows, and god only knows what else, but as long as it's 4/4 quantized, polished crap?Functional wrote: See, the mainstream audience works mostly the same way. That's how mainstream music is being sold, that's what mostly makes it mainstream. There are variations of this (eg. lyrics that most can relate to in alternative rock or the punkpop scene, compared to mainstage EDM where you mostly want just something catchy, be it the bassline or the melody). The same audience can find a huge list of differences between tunes that have almost identical framework. It's not just ultra-quantized 4/4 rhythm, that's mostly the "utilitarian" function I guess fmr was referring to. That's a huge fundament of many scenes as much as the certain BPM which is ideal for dancing. I'm talking about the actual structure, where you mostly have a set of ideas that are rehashed between the songs. To someone who isn't really involved with music more than the top10 fads (for example), it's not something they can recognize and instead they come up with meaningless differences (as we see it...) that I guess they see significant.
To me, that seems a bit narrow minded, first of all, you now categorize all artists that are part of a genre under the EDM umbrella as garbage. There are artist who may be EDM - as in they are ELECTRONIC MUSIC MAKERS with a DANCEable beat or rhtyhm, that still do more interesting stuff than the tosh you hear on the radio.
I mean, it's in the name of it that makes it sound so broad and "umbrella"-like. Electronic: As in, it is made from electronic means, whether it has an electronic sound, made from a synthesizer, or whatever, so long as the sound is electronic sounding and not organic. Dance; as in, the music has a recognizable, dance-able rhythm or beat to it, and Music: as in, not specific to, but encapsulating all. It goes in a hierarchy her for to even be defined as EDM.
First check: Is it electronic sound? No? Than it's not EDM. If yes, second check: Is it dance-able either in rhythm or beat? No? Then it's not EDM. If yes, third check: Is it music? As in a broad term, whether it's sung, or instrumental, whether it's mainstream or it's underground, whether it's dubstep or ambient house, is it music? If yes, what genre would it fall under?
To me, it makes sense, logical sense, that EDM is just an umbrella to cover all electronic dance genres. Makes sense to me.
By your strict definition, suddenly my music doesn't fall under it, which is odd, since it is very electronic, and sure it mixes things up more than your average Joe-vicii, it's not exactly the pinnacle of originality either. On the other hand, my music also often times takes from EDM ideas but is not very dance-able. With a more lose "umbrella" to define it: as in, if I wanted to sell this music at a store, I would not categorize the latter style of tracks I do to be "EDM" even if it has a 4/4 beat, the instrumentation, production, and writing of it would more place it under a different genre.
Going back to the example of the Combichrist songs I posted, while electronic indeed, their use of Unison voices and detuning on their synths, mixed with screamer vocals and dirtier processing of the music gives it a more rock/industrial feel than an EDM feel. When I put Combichrist on, it's not to dance. I wouldn't play Combichrist at a club, this would chase off everyone by the angry man screaming at them in the music. I put it on to throw up the fuckin' horns (actually, seriously speaking it's good MMO grinding music, but that's unrelated)