Phrasing in electronic music and the curse of predictability

[Kriminal]

i dont think 'electronic' music is responsible (whatever thats meant to be ? )

ppl seem very quic to blame 'bad' music on 'electronic' music

get over yourself

[Sendy]

i dont think 'electronic' music is responsible (whatever thats meant to be ? )

ppl seem very quic to blame 'bad' music on 'electronic' music

get over yourself

Yeah, I should really get over myself and stop trying to stimulate discussion on this forum. That personal dig was really neccecary!

Personally, I do feel electronic music has contributed to this negative effect, music was a lot more freeform before the dawn of electronic music, and I honestly believe electronic music in one way or another and at some juncture has created an expectation of the default powers of 2 phrasing usually in blocks of 8 and 16.

How that makes me pretentous for thinking that is anyone's guess.

[ariston]

i dont think 'electronic' music is responsible (whatever thats meant to be ? )

ppl seem very quic to blame 'bad' music on 'electronic' music

get over yourself

Yeah, I should really get over myself and stop trying to stimulate discussion on this forum. That personal dig was really neccecary!

Personally, I do feel electronic music has contributed to this negative effect, music was a lot more freeform before the dawn of electronic music, and I honestly believe electronic music in one way or another and at some juncture has created an expectation of the default powers of 2 phrasing usually in blocks of 8 and 16.

How that makes me pretentous for thinking that is anyone's guess.

Actually, I think punk is to blame. Or maybe bad German folk music, whichever came first.

Seriously, it can't be denied that the entire "programming" paradigm lends itself to simplistic structures - it's an easy route to take, and it doesn't require much planning and/or skill. Electronic music is in many ways a great equalizer, at the cost of complexity.

[Sendy]

True. The fact is, in order to discuss these things which are, in essence, infinitely complex, we need to make simplifications so that we can say anything at all. It makes me kinda sad that I can't talk about stuff and have my (hastily typed and patched together) ideas challenged to further discussion but instead have someone talking to me like I'm a pompous twit. I guess that's just the way KVR is going these days.

[jancivil]

well... I didn't even know he meant you. he is objecting to something that doesn't seem to be evident in this thread. there's nothing new about that individual behaving like that here btw.

[Kriminal]

i dont think 'electronic' music is responsible (whatever thats meant to be ? )

ppl seem very quic to blame 'bad' music on 'electronic' music

get over yourself

Yeah, I should really get over myself and stop trying to stimulate discussion on this forum. That personal dig was really neccecary!

Personally, I do feel electronic music has contributed to this negative effect, music was a lot more freeform before the dawn of electronic music, and I honestly believe electronic music in one way or another and at some juncture has created an expectation of the default powers of 2 phrasing usually in blocks of 8 and 16.

How that makes me pretentous for thinking that is anyone's guess.

You're taking the easy and predictable path in the discussion. Try listening to a wider variety of this nasty electronic music. While you're at it, check out some highly predictable 60's and 70's music. You might find tedium was prevelant long before computers made music 'easy'

[Kriminal]

i dont think 'electronic' music is responsible (whatever thats meant to be ? )

ppl seem very quic to blame 'bad' music on 'electronic' music

get over yourself

Yeah, I should really get over myself and stop trying to stimulate discussion on this forum. That personal dig was really neccecary!

Personally, I do feel electronic music has contributed to this negative effect, music was a lot more freeform before the dawn of electronic music, and I honestly believe electronic music in one way or another and at some juncture has created an expectation of the default powers of 2 phrasing usually in blocks of 8 and 16.

How that makes me pretentous for thinking that is anyone's guess.

You're taking the easy and predictable path in the discussion. Try listening to a wider variety of this nasty electronic music. While you're at it, check out some highly predictable 60's and 70's music. You might find tedium was prevelant long before computers made music 'easy'

[whyterabbyt]

Personally, I do feel electronic music has contributed to this negative effect, music was a lot more freeform before the dawn of electronic music

the 1920s?

[qa2pir]

playing around with form, like dropping the last bar from an 8bar pattern just sounds pretentious to me most of times. there's so much more interesting and less blatant parameters to vary. music is always, implicitly or explicitly, a compromise between innovation and familiarity. trying to innovate by using odd numbers of bars just shows you have no real ideas. it's construed.

not always but in an overwhelming amount of cases.

How does using one idea show you have no other ideas? If someone created music that ONLY relied on odd phrasing with nothing else interesting about it, you'd have a case, but this is like me showing you a green balloon and you assuming I only have green balloons... or more topically, it's like hearing a reso filtersweep in music (you can't get more obvious than that) and claiming lack of innovation without even investigating the other elements. You just can't make a judgement about the whole by looking at one part, it's illogical.

Sounds more like a prejudice on your part, to me. And I'm kinda inclined to agree that it can sound very pretentious, if handled incorrectly or done gimmicky. It's a prejudice I've battled with internally for a long time, coming from dance music background myself (drum and bass)... I just found that as I matured as a composer, I found myself compelled to play with this element of form, and drawn to it, noticing it more and more in music I considered outstanding.

And for some genres like dance, it's simply inappropriate (even though as Gonga pointed out, it doesn't actually harm the dancability or mixability of the music, though it might make the DJ require a bit more planning in advance).

I quote you but answer everyone I suppose.

this is a personal aesthetic choice for me. in one of my more recent songs I've struggled for a long time whether or not to shorten the finishing bar to 3/4th during one part of the song. it works quite well but so does keeping it 4/4. considering audience response (as conceptualized by me, i.e. what would I think if someone else did this, golden rule etc) I'd rather keep it 4/4.

all I'm saying is this time signature juggling is very seldom done in an integrated way and mostly seems like a fancy way to enhance your music artificially. this, I suspect, because time signature is a very theoretical aspect and many musicians thrive on the sense of superiority instilled by using a clearly theoretical approach to make something that sounds off. then the fans can blame non-fans for just "not understanding", because theory has an element of absolute objectivity to it and making "theoretical" progression and innovation can seem undeniably good. this is pejorative to anyone who doesn't share the need for certain approval. crap metal like dream theater is full of it. grunge has a fair bit of it. let's not begin talking about 70's monty python prog. and personally I like the pixies a lot better when they do straight 4/4. "Hey" is s case in point, though they add bars during "we're chained" very smoothly so it's a case in point for you as well. they sound a lot more natural and intuitive there compared to something like "is she weird" which is permeated all through by stop-start antics.

there are so many innovations that can be made with covert prestige, using subtle concepts not clearly defined by theory to make progressive music that isn't so unfoundedly insistent and bragging. doing something that obviously breaks a rule or expands upon a concept just for the sake of it irritates me a lot.

there are counter-examples, sure, when it doesn't sound like a stacked mess but I concur that this device is one of the most mistreated ones, used mostly in ad-hoc.

but yeah it might all be my prejudice *

imo, the filtersweep comparison fails because those are quite clearly not innovative in any way while chopped and added bars often give off that impression falsely even though they're just as over-used (in other genres).

tl;dr: I guess it all boils down to concepts defined by theory more readily being accepted as advancements; a mode of innovation that very often relies on theory - and me being bitter about this because the very nature of artistic advancement is to deny conventional theory and follow your instincts.

[ghettosynth]

this is a personal aesthetic choice for me. in one of my more recent songs I've struggled for a long time whether or not to shorten the finishing bar to 3/4th during one part of the song. it works quite well but so does keeping it 4/4. considering audience response (as conceptualized by me, i.e. what would I think if someone else did this, golden rule etc) I'd rather keep it 4/4.

all I'm saying is this time signature juggling is very seldom done in an integrated way and mostly seems like a fancy way to enhance your music artificially. this, I suspect, because time signature is a very theoretical aspect and many musicians thrive on the sense of superiority instilled by using a clearly theoretical approach to make something that sounds off. then the fans can blame non-fans for just "not understanding", because theory has an element of absolute objectivity to it and making "theoretical" progression and innovation can seem undeniably good. this is pejorative to anyone who doesn't share the need for certain approval. crap metal like dream theater is full of it. grunge has a fair bit of it. let's not begin talking about 70's monty python prog. and personally I like the pixies a lot better when they do straight 4/4. "Hey" is s case in point, though they add bars during "we're chained" very smoothly so it's a case in point for you as well. they sound a lot more natural and intuitive there compared to something like "is she weird" which is permeated all through by stop-start antics.

there are so many innovations that can be made with covert prestige, using subtle concepts not clearly defined by theory to make progressive music that isn't so unfoundedly insistent and bragging. doing something that obviously breaks a rule or expands upon a concept just for the sake of it irritates me a lot.

there are counter-examples, sure, when it doesn't sound like a stacked mess but I concur that this device is one of the most mistreated ones, used mostly in ad-hoc.

+1

You nailed it, I reckon.

[ghettosynth]

And for some genres like dance, it's simply inappropriate (even though as Gonga pointed out, it doesn't actually harm the dancability or mixability of the music, though it might make the DJ require a bit more planning in advance).

What do you think mixability means? It absolutely does affect the mixability. Mixability is not a binary proposition; it's not as if DJs can't mix records that aren't DJ friendly. The kinds of records that you're suggesting are, almost by definition, "less" DJ friendly. An extra 8 stuck in the middle might affect a choice to mix out at some point in an interesting way. Many DJs mix on 32s, they call it 'phrase mixing' which is a bit of a glorification, nonetheless, the idea itself is valid. For your typical wedding DJ, no, this won't make a lick of difference, but for an underground DJ, it makes the record less mixable.

Whether it affects "dancability" is contextual. It really depends on who your audience is and what they think that means. If you're using an extra 8 to add in another build extension (close cousin of the hair extension) then that audience doesn't care, they're not dancing anyway they're too busy throwing their panties at the DJ.

If you're playing to a crowd that likes deeper EDM, some may be annoyed, others may find it interesting, if, as has already been pointed out, it doesn't come across as too clever by half. That said, in that context, It's more likely that it will affect dancability, than not. If I'm in a deep groove I might be cycling on the 32s and an extra 8 might be all that I need to snap out of it and go get some water. Again, are you trying to impress your audience intellectually, or physically, there's potential for such a move to in fact, do neither.

[Gonga]

A lot of music software doesn't permit the use of odd time signatures. That's a very large, serious limitation on creativity, and I agree that beat boxes and software limitations (such a drum software's inability to work in odd or even 3-time signatures) influenced music in some negative ways through people who accept limitations too completely.

I have never been able to accept the yoke of style for the same reason. To me the whole notion of style is simply a self-imposed limitation on what is possible - the antithesis of creativity.

Odd signatures are so much fun to listen and dance to, it is a shame we don't hear them a lot more. I am quite sure that numerous trends (by definition antithetical to creative freedom), have negatively limited musical creativity and expression, including some of the technology of "drum machines." It's not the technology that limits music, it's the influence of the pop music industry culture on musicians who are happy to limit their lives to small, narrow worlds of someone else's design, to the exclusion of their own essential voice.

Some day, music will be less a matter of style. It is much too good and too important for so much of it to be so restricted. During the 60s and 70s, musicians blew the lids off most musical styles and started mixing them and adding new ingredients. Since then, I think we've been trying to put the lids back on in a futile attempt to be popular and make money, losing site of vision and even our own voices.

[vata44]

I think the predictability leads to an easier state of trance... and reaching a true state of trance is what it is all about for me.

[Gonga]

While you're at it, check out some highly predictable 60's and 70's music. You might find tedium was prevelant long before computers made music 'easy'

I've never heard that musical period described as tedium before. Quite the opposite. It was a period of continuous, wrenching, revolutionary change.

There have been periods of explosive creativity in music, followed by periods of relative stasis. We're currently into a stasis period at best compared to the 60-70s. I would say the changing nature and economics of the music industry could help spur another era of creative change. We can hope.

[Gonga]

trying to innovate by using odd numbers of bars just shows you have no real ideas.

I guess Stravinsky, Bartok, Copland, Varese, etc., are not "overwhelming cases."

This is very narrow thinking my friend, particularly during a period when popular music is so limited in vision, even while the tools are most unlimited.