Why is electronic dance music typically very simple?

[pHz]

as with all forms of art you can look at it both ways

do you create instinctive art that is (unknowingly) bound by theory ?

or

do you start from theoretical knowledge and build it into art ?

and

does it actually matter ?

slainte rob

[mistertoast]

>>Why is electronic dance music typically very simple?

So you can dance to it.

[adj]

>>Why is electronic dance music typically very simple?

So you can dance to it.

Indeed

[adj]

as with all forms of art you can look at it both ways

do you create instinctive art that is (unknowingly) bound by theory ?

or

do you start from theoretical knowledge and build it into art ?

and

does it actually matter ?

slainte rob

[RTaylor]

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

I have several very large books on the topic here on my shelves and I just took one back to the library that dealt with soundtracks similarly. I know there are a ton more at the library. Someone must not be laughing out loud.

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.

Strive to remember that this is how you feel about these things. You need to learn to look at things clearly, without prejudice, and to stop living in such a self-centric world

[Toxikator]

-- 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!

I will confess that I tuned in on this page. From your post I inferred that you were assuming that music couldn't be broken down into rationalizations. Sorry if that's completely incorrect, my bad

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

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

I mean "Beethoven wrote awe-inspiring works that have withstood the test of time. Tupac has already fallen out of popularity." I'm not going to say one is more artistically valid than the other, that would be stupid and untrue. And I'm not going to say that technicality or complexity is the same thing as quality, because that too would be stupid and untrue. What I will say is that I think Beethoven was a creative genius ten times greater than Tupac. Take it for what it's worth.

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?

Possibly. Here in Nashville (and back home in DC) we called them "clubs", not "discos", but your point is valid.

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

Maybe. I was trying to make a clever introduction to my argument about the spirituality of music, but...

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.

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

in other words, how the brain reacts (chemically and psychologically) to various musical ideas or elements. It's not just a bunch of blinding-with-science crap, it's for real.

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.

Music is, of course, an art. But to dismiss a scientific and academic discussion of music on the grounds that "it don't matter, music is about the soul" is meaningless hippie crap designed to skirt the question on grounds of ignorance. Essentially what you're saying is "knowledge doesn't matter, it's all about feeling". That's narrow and defeatist. Difficult though it may be to analyze what music is and how it works, it's a worthwile endeavor.

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?

It IS something scientific on a fundamental level. And you're trying to make it spiritual by denying its scientific value. When you say "music is not something scientific" you are placing it in the realm of spiritual emotional connection.

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?

I feel confident I could speak to the matter more accurately than you can. The two are intertwined. "Art" is a generalization for something which can be aesthetically appreciated, and there is no such thing as art that science cannot explain. Everything is physiologically and scientifically connected to the human mind. You might argue that it's a connection not worth making but I think those who study things like psychoacoustics, human perceptions of musical ideas, aural phenomena, the human response to dissonance and consonance, etc. would disagree.

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.

Poetic phrasing aside you would be a fool to deny that the nature of music's effect on the human mind (especially when it comes to something as universal as dancing) is not scientific.
Obviously music is about the "feeling" but to laugh at the idea that this "feeling" can be scientifically explained is pretty banal.

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.

Wow, that was a rather psychological analysis of the effect of rhythm and it's place in "high" art... I thought we weren't supposed to be scientific?

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.

Music is not illogical, you just don't get the logic. There is a reason why certain notes sound good together, and why certain rhythms click with the human mind, and the better you understand those reasons the easier it will be to make meaningful and powerful music.

To dismiss music theory and the science of psychoacoustics in one fell swoop as "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..." pretty much pins you down as "not getting it". At all.

[simesf]

All passion & no theory = chaos. All theory & no passion = boring.
Passion and theory = summat good.

[pHz]

time to also wheel out my favourite 'art' quote

it took me four years to paint like raphael but a lifetime to paint like a child

how much theory does a child (consciously) know ?

how much theory did raphael know ?

does it REALLY matter if they both paint interesting pictures (even though one is obviously more 'complex' than the other) ?

slainte rob

[nuffink]

Raphael was well versed in the theory of his time as was Picasso.
If you want to make a valid comparison find something clever that Rousseau (a genuinely naive painter) had to say on the subject.

[RTaylor]

Raphael was well versed in the theory of his time as was Picasso.
If you want to make a valid comparison find something clever that Rousseau (a genuinely naive painter) had to say on the subject.

You could just consider the context.

{And just how good Picasso was at imitating Raphael.}

[adj]

There is a reason why certain notes sound good together, and why certain rhythms click with the human mind, and the better you understand those reasons the easier it will be to make meaningful and powerful music...

Can you really believe you wrote that simplistic drivel?

Maybe it's put up or shutup time professor...

Where's your music?

[adj]

Raphael was well versed in the theory of his time as was Picasso.
If you want to make a valid comparison find something clever that Rousseau (a genuinely naive painter) had to say on the subject.

Perhaps the four year old Marla Olmstead is a better (and more contemporary) example of prodigious naivety...

[pHz]

Raphael was well versed in the theory of his time as was Picasso.
If you want to make a valid comparison find something clever that Rousseau (a genuinely naive painter) had to say on the subject.

heh

i may not be able to hold a candle to most round here when it comes to musical theory but i DO know a little about art history

of course picasso was well versed in theory and history of art and used that knowledge to great effect (even if he did - erm - tend to 'borrow' a few of his cutting edge ideas from others)

personally as long as the end product gets a response from me i dont care whether it was made truly naively / built from an exhaustive theoretical foundation / made by someone with a huge theoretical knowledge pretending to be naive / whatever

to continue with the visual analogy (which is more comfortable for me) i have at least a reasonable level of knowledge about 'visual theory' and art history and obviously all that goes (subconsciously) into any image i make but im just as likely to be thrilled by the work of one of the 11 year old kids i teach or by some hugely conceptual thing i might come across in the tate modern

theory is dead - long live theory

slainte rob

[adj]

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

I have several very large books on the topic here on my shelves and I just took one back to the library that dealt with soundtracks similarly. I know there are a ton more at the library. Someone must not be laughing out loud.

You can postulate and hypothesize all you want to, rummage through your esoteric volumes of important, trivial data, but at the end of the day, all the technical and scientific training and education in 'music as a science' does not mean that you will become a great musician (or dancer).

I have great friends with high degrees of education -- two of them the foremost scientific skeptics in the world -- many of them can no more strum the rhythm to a Bob Didley riff than they can fly like a bird (now you're going to say "Of course they can, after they build an aeroplane!")

One can theorise quite convincingly and sometimes accurately on the mechanics of art, imagination and creativity, but a certain 'aptititude' is still required for artistic endeavours, for which, unfortunately, your theory remains just that, however fascinating it may be.

Saying that, however, I've little doubt that someday a super computer will pinpoint the various genes and brain cell motor neuron facilitators and so forth that one might inherit which gives him/her better coordination or aptitiude towards a given skill. But at this point in time, mere knowledge of a discipline, although certainly helpful, does not a master make.

You need to... stop living in such a self-centric world

mmm... ok... Does that mean I must throw away my Jean-Paul Sartre books?

[Rangtangtang]

adj wrote

Saying that, however, I've little doubt that someday a super computer will pinpoint the various genes and brain cell motor neuron facilitators and so forth that one might inherit which gives him/her better coordination or aptitiude towards a given skill. But at this point in time, mere knowledge of a discipline, although certainly helpful, does not a master make.

Probably true, I would not delve to seriously into those domains, but still handy to learn a little cause it might help a bit. If it helps you do what your trying to do....great. Its more about such things as enjoyment, experiences......not that other side which maybe be in the negative territory, probably don't realy even listen or like music....yep....yep...yep.......zipidy doo dar, zipdidy day oh how wonderful day it is today......plenty of sunshine coming my way...zipidy doo dar, zipidity day.................................................................................................................................