KVR Audio

Lunatique · Post by **Lunatique** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:43 pm

Don't get me wrong, I love electronic music, and have been a fan of it since I was a kid, and also make electronic music as well. I've heard accomplished composers doing electronic stuff too (for example, Sakamoto Ryuichi), but they are very rare exceptions, and what Sakamoto does electronically tend to fall into the avant-garde arena--not the more accesible electronic stuff.

Freeform · Post by **Freeform** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:51 pm

I think it's a very good topic to bring up. Yes, anyone can make "techno" sounds. They are called presets, but it's how they use them to create an energy, or lack thereof. To say that music is isolated to only certain kinds of people is a horrible statement. Given, some people are more inclined and gifted in the music area, if you enjoy music, you understand it, and if you understand it then you have the potenetial to explore it and make it yourself. This is just my opinion of course, but the one thing I love about music is that it's not exclusive in it's nature.

afreshcupofjoe · Post by **afreshcupofjoe** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:51 pm

How is electronic music any more simple than any other genre of music that has been written in the last 30 years? All I hear when I turn on the radio is the same 3 chords and simple melodies over and over again. Even jazz has been recycling the same coulpe of chord changes and basic melodic structure for some time now.

himalaya · Post by **himalaya** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:52 pm

vurt wrote:
himalaya wrote:

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?

Yeah, but here we have someone who had the knowledge. And you would have to ask Gustav himself how he arrived at that knowledge. You never know, he might have been kidnapped by aliens and be taken on a tourist treck across the galaxy.

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:53 pm

clueless wrote:
vurt wrote:
himalaya wrote:

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.

yah, holts is from saturn, came in with the stockhausen family...

or something

zircon · Post by **zircon** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:56 pm

Lunatique wrote:
zircon wrote: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.

It doesn't have to be, but I have yet to see anyone do it well. Also, keep in mind I am referring to electronic dance music - so trance (and its various subgenres), breakbeat, big beat, drum n' bass, all that kind of stuff. Not talking about ambient or 'experimental' electronic compositions.

Try it yourself... when you listen to the final product it just seems 'off'. Something about having a driving rhythm layered below rapidly changing chords and constant tempo changes doesn't work.

Some people have criticized my original stuff as leaning too far towards the "melodic" direction, when compared to groups like The Crystal Method who very strictly limit how much of that they do. You can check it out for yourself and see what you think; www.cdbaby.com/zircon2

Lunatique · Post by **Lunatique** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:58 pm

adj wrote: 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?

Lord no. More like I'm fishing for people to introduce me to some really kickass and complex electronic music that's not necessarily in the avant-garde experimental arena, or some kind of mellow synth pad drones.

himalaya · Post by **himalaya** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:01 am

pHz wrote:
himalaya wrote: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

It may make a lot of difference. Since music for me is a language and if someone is using a language without having some sort of grounding in it, all we will hear is gibberish.

And it's not just about (music) theory, as you have so succintly phrased it.

Freeform · Post by **Freeform** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:02 am

Check out Shpongle.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu ... d=49430046

Reverse Engineer · Post by **Reverse Engineer** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:05 am

himalaya wrote:
pHz wrote:
himalaya wrote: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
It may make a lot of difference. Since music for me is a language and if someone is using a language without having some sort of grounding in it, all we will hear is gibberish.

And it's not just about (music) theory, as you have so succinctly phrased it.

I love gibberish though.

himalaya · Post by **himalaya** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:12 am

That's fair enough. I can't help that.

shinken · Post by **shinken** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:12 am

himalaya wrote:
pHz wrote:
himalaya wrote: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
It may make a lot of difference. Since music for me is a language and if someone is using a language without having some sort of grounding in it, all we will hear is gibberish.

Or rather, if you don't understand the language then all you will hear is gibberish.

Lunatique · Post by **Lunatique** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:14 am

zircon - I listened to your stuff, and it certainly is more melodically driven compared to the average stuff out there.

I've tried to do more harmonically complex stuff before, and all it does it make is sound like I'm trying to incorporate a symphony into a dance track.

It doesn't work too well, because it does take away the driving element of dance music.

Freeform - I have some Shpongle stuff, and when they go for the more melodically/harmonically complex stuff, they tend to use sounds that are similar to acoustic instruments.

I guess people do incorporate the orchestra or other acoustic instruments into electronic tracks, but it's not the same as using the synthesized sounds. There is a big difference in how they effect the overall vibe of the track.

BASSDRIVE · Post by **BASSDRIVE** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:14 am

Simple is better I think. It's more pleasant to the ear & mind IMO. Some of my songs I'm most proud of are the simplist I've created. I think if you choose to go very simple, you have to use the right sounds though and FX usage. Delay, reverb,... to create a sense of ambience and movement to compensate for the simplicity in the harmonies. I personally can't stand anything that sounds too dry especially if there ain't too much going on in the harmony. If your going to have a couple of simple piano notes or chords, maybe throw in some delay & verb, might help out a lot.

Just check out Robert Miles' album "Dreamland." Overall it's quite simple compared to today's trance, but it's just wonderful because of how he does it. He really creates an awesome sense of atmosphere with all his songs and it makes the simple, sound beautiful.

Another example:

adj · Post by **adj** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:14 am

Lunatique wrote:
adj wrote: 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?
Lord no. More like I'm fishing for people to introduce me to some really kickass and complex electronic music that's not necessarily in the avant-garde experimental arena, or some kind of mellow synth pad drones.

Certainly, in the vanguard of electronic music, you'd have to consider some of the early electro-rock pioneers -- perhaps Keith Emerson and Tod Rundgren, for instance, whose works were musically rich in texture and complexity and kicked arse. I could go on...

In fact, the earliest I know of and adore is the work of Louis & Bebe Barron -- creators of the soundtrack for 'Forbidden Planet', circa 1959, and perhaps the inspiration for all subsequent 'space' music.

Otherwise, perhaps you are speaking of a more specific genre of electro-pop or whatever? The term 'Electronic Music' covers SO much territory...

Cheers,
Alex

Why is electronic dance music typically very simple?