Why is electronic dance music typically very simple?

[Lunatique]

EDIT:
It's apparent now that my original question was flawed, so I'll revise it here to be more clear.

New (revised) version of qusetion:
Why is it that beat-driven electronic dance music tends to be very simple in terms of harmony, counterpoint..etc. (NOT talking about IDM or stuff like Jarre, Tomita, Carlos..etc--I tend to see those as more experimental or avant-garde, not popular dance music). Could it be because electronic dance music simply sounds better when it doesn't incorporate complex harmonies, counterpoint..etc? Does the use of filters, effects..etc negate the effectiveness of harmony and counterpoint, or they are simply aspects of music theory that does not interest electronic musicians? Maybe electronic dance music has to be kept simple to keep that "vibe" and bogging it down with complexity will kill the dance feel?


The original (flawed) question:
As a fan of electronic music, I've always wondered why most electronic music is very simple in terms of harmony, counterpoint..etc (with the rhythm and melody being exceptions--electronic music can be very complex rhythmically, and sometimes we also get synth solo leads wanking away in a melody as well). I listen to wide range of styles in Electronic music (from classics like Kraftwerk, experimental stuff like IDM, club stuff like progressive house, breakbeat..etc), and more often than not, they follow a very basic formula. Even the more melodic based acts like 808 State or BT, the structure is still quite simple. Could it be because electronic music simply sounds better when it doesn't incorporate complex harmonies, counterpoint..etc (I'm excluding the pseudo-symphony mimicked by synthesizers stuff from the era of giant analog modular synths). Does the use of filters, effects..etc negate the effectiveness of harmony and counterpoint? Or they are simply aspects of music theory that does not interest electronic musicians?

[mindless]

I don't think that's true at all. There's mountains of complex electronic music out there. Too many to even start naming. Do you get out much?

[Lunatique]

Please name some so I can check them out.

I have over 600 CD's and over 150 GB worth of mp3's--I'd say yes, I do "get out much."

[Freeform]

Simplicity is a beauty all it's own. If you disected all of the cascading scales in classical, you will find it's a combination of many simple parts working together through theory. Needless to say, there is much direct emotion input as well, but when dealing with unnatural instruments such as a synthesizer, and electronic current itself generating the sound, it opens a new door of perception in my opinion, providing an atmosphere for the abstract, creative, experimental, and passionate all at the same time. Simple is simply a choice, not a demand.

[zircon]

I think because the focus of electronic music tends to be on the manipulation of timbre. I'm working on a song right now that would look like a beginner's piano book exercise if I wrote it down in staff notation. However, it's actually very intricate. There's a ton of stuff going on sonically, and the rhythms are highly dense and layered.

I think BT has found the best balance. If you go over-the-top with integrating complex melodies and harmonies, with electronic dance music, it ends up sounding silly. I've tried. I have yet to hear anyone pull it off right.

[himalaya]

Yeah, but what if that 'simple' is arrived at through a lack of knowledge ?
Meaning: It's simplistic rather than simple and beautiful.

If you want to tell a story of how it is on, for example, the top of Kilimanjaro, I will listen to your story if you have been there, NOT if you have seen a picture of it only. A big difference, I think.

Simplicity is a beauty all it's own. If you disected all of the cascading scales in classical, you will find it's a combination of many simple parts working together through theory. Needless to say, there is much direct emotion input as well, but when dealing with unnatural instruments such as a synthesizer, and electronic current itself generating the sound, it opens a new door of perception in my opinion, providing an atmosphere for the abstract, creative, experimental, and passionate all at the same time. Simple is simply a choice, not a demand.

[Lunatique]

If you go over-the-top with integrating complex melodies and harmonies, with electronic dance music, it ends up sounding silly. I've tried. I have yet to hear anyone pull it off right.

That's what I'm thinking as well, but does this have to be an iron-clad phenomenon? I'd love to hear examples of exceptions, because I can't help but think there must be a way to do it without making the piece sound silly.

[pHz]

Yeah, but what if that 'simple' is arrived at through a lack of knowledge ?

makes absolutely NO difference in the end

(unless youre a theory wanker)

the result is always just an end point of a process

slainte rob

[The Chase]

Because the particular music you are referring to is simple? Seems like an odd notion to me. I wouldnt call any of Aphex Twin's Drukqs album simple, rythmically or melodically or by timbre, for instance.

[Reverse Engineer]

150GB's of bonkers, euphoria and minstry of sound mp3's doesn't put you in a position to criticise.

Have a listen to Ulrich Schnauss - A Strangely Isolated Place, then come back and apologise for your faux pas.

[clueless]

150GB's of bonkers, euphoria and minstry of sound mp3's doesn't put you in a position to criticise.

I'd be pretty f**king critical if I had that.

[vurt]

If you want to tell a story of how it is on, for example, the top of Kilimanjaro, I will listen to your story if you have been there, NOT if you have seen a picture of it only. A big difference, I think.

so just as an example, holts planets only contains 1 worthy track?

[spacefox]

What we normally consider "electronic music" is mostly popular dance music, as opposed to earlier, more experimental works. Dance music needs to be predictable, to a degree, so you can dance to it.
The complex works of people IDMers and Glitchers of all kinds are in many ways a counter-reaction to this simplicity. These artist are, directly or indirectly, influenced by the true pioneers of electronica - those who predated the rise in electronic dance music (kind of like underground hip-hopers of the late 90s and beyond are influeneced by pre-hip-hop black poets)

[adj]

As a fan of electronic music, I've always wondered why most electronic music is very simple in terms of harmony, counterpoint..etc (with the rhythm and melody being exceptions--electronic music can be very complex rhythmically, and sometimes we also get synth solo leads wanking away in a melody as well)...

A rather 'leading question'?

Because the majority of computers can easily produce electronic sounds? Because just about anyone can buy a computer? Because such are easily groked by virtually anyone, without them needing even a shred of musical knowledge, and thus, by virtue of this, millions of 'electronic composers' are proliferating to the point that they have created their own genre? That perhaps this may not be a bad thing?

Is this where your headed Rob?


Cheers,
Alex

[clueless]

If you want to tell a story of how it is on, for example, the top of Kilimanjaro, I will listen to your story if you have been there, NOT if you have seen a picture of it only. A big difference, I think.

so just as an example, holts planets only contains 1 worthy track?

earth doesn't feature, john.