Why is electronic dance music typically very simple?

[Artie Fichelle]

...because there aren't too many Bachs and Mozarts out there. Of course it's not true for all of the electronic music. But we often have to wade thru alot of stuff too find the pearls. Isn't it the same with restaurants?

Artie Fichelle

"Bach Reloaded"

[Igor 4000]

...because there aren't too many Bachs and Mozarts out there. Of course it's not true for all of the electronic music. But we often have to wade thru alot of s* too find the pearls. Isn't it the same with restaurants?

Artie Fichelle

"Bach Reloaded"

But that's pretty much for any genre of music, isn't it?

Although I think the original question is a bit misquided as it relates to electronic music, which is often created for the dancefloor. In those instances complexity takes a back seat to the most important factor...whether or not it'll make people want to dance.

[pilgrim_heart]

I guess that this might have been mentioned already, but isn't a lot of (relatively) contemporary music - not just the electronic stuff - fairly simple? I can't say that that e.g. Motörhead or The Sisters of Mercy strikes me as very complex either, but that's part of their appeal IMHO.

[Klemperer]

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?

Surely all aspects of these very good questions have already been seen from various points of view (just re-installing my machine, so come here for some minute). But I think there always was very simple music, and it always had had its right. It's a bit difficult now because a) *some* people who don't care for art in music simply find it great to be with those who think "really every 4 to the floor is art". But there always was a "simple" music, and electronic music quite surely gave us something "simple" or not that wasn't there before, a good thing .

Then there *are* really difficult pieces too, not for the dancefloor most of the time. In fact that is the reason why I listen to all this shitty arrogant crap all those over-arrogant DJs have to talk like if they'd think from morning to next morning "nobody is listening to me aaaaaaaa" and so on. Some friends of mine sometimes ask if I am a masochist or why I swallow that ZEITGEIST-arrogance just to listen to new music. (as often said, these art-farts seem to be louder in Germany and in parts of the USA than in some other countries, but I don't know too much about that.)
But as the radio-blabla-ers stop, sometimes you listen to the most bewildering, rhythmical complex song, and to melodic wonders, strange connections of both, and that's always great, I think. The only thing that makes it complicate is that I never know 2 days after who made such a stunning track . So without giving examples this is quite a stupid post too. Then, my old ideal was to just to listen to music without names, (music makes you dream or think about many things, isn't that enough) from all people to all who like to listen, and this is a bit like that

[Chuck E. Jesus]

...because there aren't too many Bachs and Mozarts out there. Of course it's not true for all of the electronic music. But we often have to wade thru alot of s* too find the pearls. Isn't it the same with restaurants?

Artie Fichelle

"Bach Reloaded"

But that's pretty much for any genre of music, isn't it?

Although I think the original question is a bit misquided as it relates to electronic music, which is often created for the dancefloor. In those instances complexity takes a back seat to the most important factor...whether or not it'll make people want to dance.

electronic music didn't start on the dancefloor, but it can be argued music did...electronic music started in the hands of serious composers and eventually the tech trickled down to the hands of everyday people, and they produced what they saw fit..the commercial aspect came later...same thing with any folk style as far as i understand...

as far as the original question: i was first attracted to synths because i liked the sound of the oscs and filters, got more into it for the crazy and musically interesting things one could do with the mod possibilties available...i think if those types of things got bogged down in lots of harmony and such, it would become a different type of music altogether...if the dance music stuff was suddenly bogged down with classical music stuff, wouldn't it turn into the synth version of "hooked on classics"? and although i ain't got the knowledge of some on KVR, i've heard tons of stockhausen, lamonte young, terry rielly, subontnick, carlos, varese, all your musique concret stuff, barron stuff, blah blah blah,etc i KNOW there is tons of serious electronic music to satisfy anyone who grows tired of four on the floor...do your own research, be sure to report back with the gems you find

[VitaminD]

I guess that this might have been mentioned already, but isn't a lot of (relatively) contemporary music - not just the electronic stuff - fairly simple? I can't say that that e.g. Motörhead or The Sisters of Mercy strikes me as very complex either, but that's part of their appeal IMHO.

yeah I agree with that.. I dont think its limited to 'electronic' music..

but I feel thats mainly because there is a DIFFERENT goal between say 'classical' music and 'pop' or 'rock' for instance.. as a result they are built differently.. apples and oranges. both are still fruit but they are of a different type.

also it might be in training, or a lack thereof.. guitars and keyboards being the tools of the 'common man' perhaps..

IIRC there was a similar situation about 200-300 years ago... at least I think i remember hearing that in class....

[Sequent]

Further to the discussion of simple and specifically in terms of classical music... just because it's classical doesn't necessarily mean that it's automatically difficult. Or that the level of difficulty necessarily reflects on the music and its effect on the listener.

If you read through some orchestral scores you see that just as in other genres, there is more technically complex music and also more simplified music.

Stereotypical examples of perennial pieces that are generally looked at as being fairly simple would be something like the Four Seasons by Vivaldi. Or Pachelbel's Canon.

A lot of Vivaldi's work was kept more towards the simple because of the orchestras that he was working with. In his case, he could have made it more complex if he had chosen to.

[Chuck E. Jesus]

Further to the discussion of simple and specifically in terms of classical music... just because it's classical doesn't necessarily mean that it's automatically difficult. Or that the level of difficulty necessarily reflects on the music and its effect on the listener.

If you read through some orchestral scores you see that just as in other genres, there is more technically complex music and also more simplified music.

Stereotypical examples of perennial pieces that are generally looked at as being fairly simple would be something like the Four Seasons by Vivaldi. Or Pachelbel's Canon.

A lot of Vivaldi's work was kept more towards the simple because of the orchestras that he was working with. In his case, he could have made it more complex if he had chosen to.

man, that is a great point...i always loved the famous 3 piano bits by Satie i think is called "The Three Gymnopédies", and they are as lovely as any classical stuff i've heard....

[eduardo_b]

Clocking in at almost 12 pages and no definitive answer to the original question.

Perhaps the reason for the question is the implied assumption that complexity represents greater difficulty and thus a greater accomplishment. Simplicity would therefore seem to indicate less talent, but as another poster pointed out, a remix of their work with two chords by someone else was actually better than their original effort. Simplicity works because, for most people, it sounds good. And simplicity isn't a synonym for repetition, although repetition may be what is needed for certain genres of music.

Less is more because it's so much more difficult to hear details within dense layers of sound. Unless the overall sound is the actual goal, the complexity only gets in the way. Every time I hear a tribute song with a half-dozen guitarists playing together, the effect is musical mush despite the talent and good intentions.

[Chuck E. Jesus]

Clocking in at almost 12 pages and no definitive answer to the original question.

the question has been answered several times already....you just answered it again, i did too, so did several other folk...some answers better than others, but all perfectly valid in the sense of "why"...

[Lusamars]

I just love to get home and turn on foobar2000, my hybrid USB DAC/pre tube/power ss headphone amp > Ultrasone proline 2500 headphones and fly away with electronic music. I especially like Scorn/Mick Harris and techno. I find Mick Harris dub to be very simple rythmically but very complex melodically, but then again it's not dance music.

[dover666]

aphex twin + jarre = this thread sucks troll balls.

[herodotus]

Music's been getting gradually less complex ever since the baroque period.

Possibly rococo.

Well, that isn't entirely true.

Mainstream music, sure.

But Nancarrow, Varese, Zappa, Schoenberg, Webern and others have (mostly unintentionally) fought against this trend of increasing simplicity.

But I think that the OP's question is badly put, because most people here are talking about more or less popular music, which is almost invariably simple, whether played with sequencers or guitars.

That is just how it is. Isorhythms, Counterpoint and all of that fun stuff are just not that interesting to John and Jane Q. Public.

[pgvpgv333]

There is also the case of background music and I dont meen Eno. I almost always listen to music dont have it as something in the background. How can you have Schoenberg as background music. Have to say also that I dont think one is better than the other.

[eduardo_b]

That is just how it is. Isorhythms, Counterpoint and all of that fun stuff are just not that interesting to John and Jane Q. Public.

Not saying this makes some music more important or better because it doesn't appeal to the broader public taste, are you? Surely not.