Melodic / harmonic complexity and dancing

[DWb]

Okay, this is an attempt to restart the 'why is EDM typically very simple' thread with a couple of alterations.

Firstly, to avoid the usual 'mindless drug noise' flamewars, we're talking about all sorts of dance music - that is, music written primarily to make the general public want to dance - not just the electronic variety. Trance, funk, reggae, jungle, house, swing, techno, reggaeton and Viennese waltzes are all fair game. But probably not (for instance) ballet, where the dance element is another aspect of the performance and not in general something that the audience is going to feel the urge to join in with. Whether or not moshing counts is kind of up for debate.

Secondly, I've specified 'melodic and harmonic complexity', which is still a bit vague but should keep us away from the 'is dance music particularly rhythmically and texturally complex or subtle' issue, which isn't what I'm currently interested in.

So some specific questions would be:
Does melodic and harmonic complexity and sophistication have a positive or negative effect on 'danceability'?

Why is so much dance music based on fairly simple loops and vamps, and relatively simple chord progressions? Are there any good examples of dance music that is 'through composed' or based around long and complex harmonic development? Are the reasons for this functional or historical?

I'd be interested if anyone's got any ideas on this...

[FLS_Roxx]

Architecturing about dance, yes?

[mistertoast]

I think harmonic complexity works in dance music. I think the reason we get some much simple stuff is that it's "product," and a lot of it is cranked out. But when I think about the harmonically complex dance songs, including ones borrowing all kinds of chords from different minor scales, they don't seem any less dancible to me.

I think the melody, however, has to be simple (or repeated enough) for drunk girls to do that lip syncing that they mistakenly think is sexy. (Gals, shut up and dance--THAT's what's sexy.)

The beat. THAT's the thing that has to be dead simple. You start mixing it up and the drunk guys fall over. Even some sober guys.

[DWb]

I think harmonic complexity works in dance music. I think the reason we get some much simple stuff is that it's "product," and a lot of it is cranked out.

I've always thought this is a bit unfair. I mean, who are these people cranking stuff out and why do they do it? There's piss all money in underground dance, and the DJ's are the ones getting all the girls. I think pretty much everyone in it is in it for the love of the music and the dance, it's just that they view a record as having been successful and get the associated warm fuzzy feeling when they see a club full of people going mental for it rather than when they hear a reviewer being politely impressed by the musicianship and production quality.

Actually, come to think of it, EDM actually scores on this one. The people who were actually cranking stuff out for the money were the likes of Motown and Studio 1. Oh the irony.

But when I think about the harmonically complex dance songs, including ones borrowing all kinds of chords from different minor scales, they don't seem any less dancible to me.

I can't think of many actual examples, though. I guess one reason that not many exist is that dance musics tend to come up 'from the street', ie the initial creative spurt where a lot of the classic records are made is driven by people with little or no formal training. Harmonic complexity seems to be grafted on later, generally when someone has the bright idea of combining the genre with jazz, or when it becomes mainstream or established enough that a significant number of people trained in classical / jazz harmony start to take notice of it.

I think the melody, however, has to be simple (or repeated enough) for drunk girls to do that lip syncing that they mistakenly think is sexy. (Gals, shut up and dance--THAT's what's sexy.)

Actually, the other thing I was going to do is restrict this to dance music that at least some people listen to because they like the music and enjoy dancing to it, not just because it's a good soundtrack to drunken pulling. Obviously there's crossover, but drunk people would probably pull to Throbbing Gristle if there was no alternative. It's interesting that E is famous for actually supressing any sort of libido. Does speed (a classic pre ecstacy club drug) do the same thing?

Simple melodies do seem to come in a lot though. I guess recognizability and catchiness are important from the point of view of making a tune successful - although they can be achieved by a gimmick or a sample, a simple catchy tune often seems to do the job. Actually the line up of dance genres on the melody / no melody divide is quite interesting - early reggae and ska, trance, swing, happy hardcore and UK garage are all big on distinctive melodies whereas hip hop, jungle, funk and techno fequently have none at all outside the bass. Dunno why that is.

The beat. THAT's the thing that has to be dead simple. You start mixing it up and the drunk guys fall over. Even some sober guys.

Well, a lot of junglists would disagree on that one - their beats tend to be heavily messed up, and the bass the rhythmically underpins to the tune. Actually, Simon Reynolds came up with the rather cool analysis that a lot the fizzy nervous energy rush that you get from jungle comes down to the fact that as a dancer you're putting your rhythmic trust in the bass rather than the drums, but the bass twists and changes too and isn't 100% reliably there when you expect it. So you're dancing in a constant state of alertness.

But that aside - yeah, I think there has to be a steadyness to the beat on some level. Although other stuff can mess around against that or fill in other levels, eg the way that modern minimal techno often has loads of weird cross rhythms smeared over a steady 4 to the floor kick.

[mistertoast]

Maybe you're talking about a different era than I am. I was thinking 70s and 80s. The disco stuff of the era had all kinds of crazy harmony going on and, I think, a much steadier beat than today's modern dance music. I remember the first time I heard fancy stuttering remixes, everyone dancing booed and complained.

My brother did a dissertation on disco for his master's thesis. Interviewed all kinds of session guys. Apparently, they got creamed when disco died. 70s disco employed all kinds of brass, strings, and other pro players who were hella talented. They said they were playing al kinds of jazzy stuff on those records. But, of course, it's been a long time since I heard "authentic" (non-pop) disco, and I'd have to listen.

But, off the top of my head, I remember that a lot of the BeeGee's stuff was harmonically complex. And I think Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean" is basically a Dorian vamp but has a few borrowed chords that are interesting.

[Topiness]

variation is good.

repetition is also good.

But it's repetition that is the 'good' that makes you want to dance/sing along/generally 'join in'. Think nursery ryhmes, football chants, work songs...

It seems to be a basic psychological effect, And it's also practical - how can you join in if you don't know what's going to happen next?

You might think that a change in harmony wouldn't stop you dancing, but harmony also affects the flow of a piece, not just rhythm. How could you do a happy dance if you thought that there might be a change to the relative minor coming at any moment?

Well, that's my take on why you don't get much harmonic development in dance music.

in terms of just having complex chords - i don't think you can say that dance music has simple chords. Reggae does, 80's pop doesn't. Viennese waltzes do, Techno doesn't.

[eduardo_b]

Does melodic and harmonic complexity and sophistication have a positive or negative effect on 'danceability'?

I think you could divide this into three categories:
1) dancing
2) dancing and listening
3) listening

I say this because simplicity is seemingly most effective for the first category, whereas more complexity would be appreciated by those in category two and even more by the last group. Which is to say, dancing isn't typically about listening in the sense of "critical" listening, so the details of the music may not be heard (or even be necessary) when dancing is the only "reason" for the music.

This make any sense?

[Adaerus]

Why is so much dance music based on fairly simple loops and vamps, and relatively simple chord progressions? Are there any good examples of dance music that is 'through composed' or based around long and complex harmonic development? Are the reasons for this functional or historical?

I'd be interested if anyone's got any ideas on this...

Talking about a functional and/or historical and also traditional perspective I recently stumbled upon these gems:

http://www.romanianvoice.com/sounds/pop ... pe_Iza.mp3
http://www.romanianvoice.com/sounds/pop ... -Sarba.mp3 and
http://www.romanianvoice.com/sounds/pop ... rba_DF.mp3 .

http://www.romanianvoice.com/culture/populara/index.php here are more traditional folk dance songs.

I could see a lot of similarities between these old fashioned folk dance music and a modern high tech dance track; not very complex harmony, similar pregresions, reoccurring patterns. I don't think dance has changed fundamentally, it can't change and it doesn't have to.

[Toxikator]

Dancing is just a reaction to music, particularly rhythm.

Are we talking about music which makes people dance, or music MEANT for dancing?

There's a difference; "Dance" music in a sense could be any music which has a simplistic and intriguing rhythm, which can be "understood" at a very fundamental level. This isn't really the kind of "dance" music we all think of, though; considering that it encompasses all manner of music, such as metalcore, ska, etc.

The other definition is music which is MADE for dancing, or more specifically, a certain kind of dancing; this kind of music is not purely music, but is a larger part of an interactive art. For example, the Waltz is not just music. It is not meant to be HEARD. Instead, it is meant to be a part of a dance (the Waltz), and has movements and aspects which are particularly suited to the dance it accompanies. A composer does not make MUSICAL decisions alone, he must also make DANCE considerations. This is something that, say, a ska musician wouldn't (likely) do.

Electronic dance music is more like a Waltz; it has a set of considerations which it accounts for outside of the purely musical aspect. For example, dance music is mixed to be less than overwhelming in parts (as a backdrop to a club; you wont find any intricate and evolving contrapuntal melodies, as they're highly distracting). Trance music has a very structured "form", designed partially to allow the dancers to cool down, and at other parts to keep people dancing without interruptions. These aren't musical considerations, designed to make the song listen better, but to suit the dance.

This is the converse of some contemporary genres; jazz-styled genres, for example, may be syncopated in such a way that they urge you to dance, but are not composed with the "knowledge" that you are dancing, or with consideration given to how you might be dancing with the track.

To come back to the point, I guess what I'm suggesting is that the melodic/harmonic decisions made for modern dance have certain "rules" that non-dance genres don't... the melody and harmony have to be structured in a way that particularly suits dancing; that is, they're not rhythmically oriented so that you'd lose the beat, they're not overly complicated or disorienting, and they won't generally distract the dancer from their dancing...

[Km7]

Well, actually I don't see the benefit of this topic, but I will try to express my opinion in short, I don't enjoy writing long posts.
First, dance music is made for dancing and the emphasis is on the rhythmic simplicity and clarity; one should be able to dance naturally and easily, driven by the music. Melodies and harmonies which are more predictable, natural and simple make dancing easier in agreement with the music flow because dancing is dependant on prediction, expectation that the music will eventually continue somehow and when things happen in agreement with that, you just relax and move your body to the rhythm. Dance music is mostly for the body and less for the mind. If you have too complex structures, unexpected and complex harmony, this would bring some confusion, surprise and interest which would distract from dancing and will call for the mind.

[monopoli]

Talking about a functional and/or historical and also traditional perspective I recently stumbled upon these gems:

http://www.romanianvoice.com/sounds/pop ... pe_Iza.mp3
http://www.romanianvoice.com/sounds/pop ... -Sarba.mp3 and
http://www.romanianvoice.com/sounds/pop ... rba_DF.mp3 .

http://www.romanianvoice.com/culture/populara/index.php here are more traditional folk dance songs.

I could see a lot of similarities between these old fashioned folk dance music and a modern high tech dance track; not very complex harmony, similar pregresions, reoccurring patterns. I don't think dance has changed fundamentally, it can't change and it doesn't have to.

Nice find. You're so right there. I expect that gabberbeat to kick in any minute.

[Exie]

Dancing is just a reaction to music, particularly rhythm.
There's a difference; "Dance" music in a sense could be any music which has a simplistic and intriguing rhythm, which can be "understood" at a very fundamental level.

Can't agree with you. The "drum&bass" phenomenon had crushed all the straight beat dance music traditions. Yes, it is still 4/4, but it's weird and it is as "danceable" from traditional point of view as extreme metal, for ex. Theoretically "undanceable", i.e. :D
I don't know what is the source for its high practical "danceability".