Phrasing in electronic music and the curse of predictability

[jancivil]

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

By whom? What sampling of all that has happened in music have you taken?

and mostly seems like a fancy way to enhance your music artificially. this, I suspect, because time signature is a very theoretical aspect

Here's where you show your problem. There is a whole lot of music on this planet where your 4/4 is not a default! It is one of a number of ways to contain or measure the rhythmic IDEA.
You reveal in a short span of lingo that you have experienced relatively little in the world of music.

Above you tell us about what I see as not a lot more than an arbitrary, mechanistic decision, and surprise surprise surprise, you defaulted to 4. You defaulted as you take it the majority of people will take it as a default? And your language suggests they might have been hurt by the removal of one of these ever-so-normal 4! This is your culture; it seems a very insular one with a very narrow outlook.

There ought to be a difference between 3 and 4 in the idea.

and many musicians thrive on the sense of superiority instilled by using a clearly theoretical approach to make something that sounds off.

Well, there are people that simply like rhythm more than you. There can be a world of interest in 4/4, and there can be the most facile, arbitrary things, and real tedium in a complex time. The time itself does not carry quality; the ideas work or they don't.

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.

You evidently have an inchoate idea of what theory is. This lingo is something you need to dismiss things outside of your comfort zone I guess?

If I for example end up with a particular measurement of the idea, or start with one, the fact of a number or the other number in it is symptomatic of my thinking. I don't think a bar of 5 is per se going to contain more interest than a bar of 4. There is an idea in the first place. I improvise as a beginning usually. Or, once I had a lyric that was set and it turned out to scan best against 3x3 (vs 4x3). I have impulses that end up being more complex than I would decide arbitrarily to do, as a matter of course. This is true of people that have been curious and explored rhythm.

OTOH: You have constructed a characterization to rant against. You sure scored points against that straw man, hear here. (I guess there are people that do what you wrote about, but why bother with them?! Do you feel better now?)

there are so many innovations that can be made with covert prestige, using subtle concepts not clearly defined by theory to make progressive music.

This is amazing language; covert prestige???
If you knew more music, you would perfectly well understand how subtle *rhythms*, which may happen to have numbers that aren't four in them, can be. EG: '7' is '2 + 2 + 3' sometimes; but that's "clearly defined theory"! Which is bad! Unsubtle! Seriously this is some of the more daft yet pretentious lingo I've seen in a while.
It's an aesthetic!

this is pejorative to anyone who doesn't share the need for certain approval.

(first of all, you intend it to be 'pejorative', read negative. It is that per se, ie., to "anyone". ) How does one's need or not for that enter into this discussion?? Let's have a look: you revealed at the top, your ideas are wrapped up in the need for certain approval; the golden rule no less demands you stuck with the 4/4! Over that 3, tricky to you and the others just like you. You have in the same argument: your straw man is looking to impress, but then the need for approval is suspiciously absent. You make no sense here.

NB: There are people in music that make the music qua the music. And seek to make music they enjoy, the first consideration is to make something no one else is making so one can hear it rather than browse about. this is true of artists in all disciplines. The approbation of the rest of the people is not foremost in the mind. You reveal a certain resentment of that, don't you.

+1

You nailed it, I reckon.

OF COURSE you plus 1'd this shit.
So you two have the same limited set of information and experience with rhythm and time and the same reactive mentality towards things a little more involved than your set of interests.

[qa2pir]

jancivil, I honestly think you have too little experience with music outside YOUR comfort zone to understand that even though it is of course possible to make subtle rhythmic accents that go beyond the basic framework, that's not often how it is done.

I didn't ever assume 4/4 as the norm btw (although it is). I didn't default to 4/4. it was an example and I happen to write in 4/4 most of the time, either because I'm corrupted by western culture or because it is the most natural and mathematically intuitive pulse, its prevalence irreducible to historic coincidence. it shouldn't be too hard to see (even in the barebone idealistic perspective you use while criticizing others' observations) that alteration of it is more likely to be a pose than melodic or rhythmic innovation within its scope is. you make an innovation within the system's theoretical or explicit boundaries and its often overlooked, but on the other hand people who see it will see it untainted by attention-seeking mannerism. they will notice the lack of pretense, the refusal to compromise music just to gain more praise.

it's not the deviation from norm in itself that OFFENDS me. it's the deviation on a very predictable plane, easily definable, easily verifiable as "objectively" different - so often lauded by a public that won't acknowledge the subversive. quite simply it is cowardice. yes, you can make a nice 3+2+2+3+2+3 or whatever. but as a clear theoretical concept (as opposed to, say, some special melodic pattern) the alteration of time signatures is bound to be used as a means to an end quite a lot, not just appear spontaneously.

I'd rather stay in my honest comfort zone than artificially expanding it in hopes of scoring credibility. if you are egoistic and self-conscious, credibility means comfort and of course taste diversification is credible. you can listen to your gamelan and your renaissance revivalist and serialism and never gain anything beyond the mechanical and the "realization" that whoah music sure can sound in lots of ways. your taste and judgment is tautological and redundant and so the game is over. either that or simply say "I don't understand this foreign musical language and probably never will other than as kitsch. most respectful would be benign ignorance... then I can carry on writing music in my language".

I guess this is a question of personality type and different ways to approach creativity. I see thinking and analyzing as a tool for creativity not a hindrance. if you go by simply "what feels best" you may end up with an inferior product motivated by sub conscious desire to be accepted rather than your own idea of what true art is, and how you'd react yourself if the music was presented to you.

of course we all seek approval but not all seek "certain" approval guaranteed by the absolute status of a theoretical system. some are content with approval by people whose opinion they respect.

[qa2pir]

(I guess there are people that do what you wrote about, but why bother with them?! Do you feel better now?)

yeah why bother when they're selling records by being formulaic and insincere.

[jopy]

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."

No kidding. Even some of the "safest" examples (e.g., most popular) musics of the past 500 years ranging from Bach to Mozart to Brahms to the Beatles (or Squarepusher, Autechre, Stereolab, and Radiohead if you want more recent examples), and numerous stops in between have involved people with ideas that are both complex (varying in phrase length or changing time signatures) and natural to the person who has really mastered and internalized the concepts of rhythm. The thing is, you don't even have to be conscious of it to hear something interesting. I liked the Paul McCartney tune "Blackbird" as a simple melodic, direct statement long before I realized that it changes time signatures nearly every other bar.

[ariston]

The way music is perceived is coloured to a large extent by your (mostly subconscious) expectations. I would say that most listeners treat music as a product; they expect to get something when they buy into it, be it a refrain they can sing along to, a simple beat, a certain lifestyle.

There's no need to innovate there; people who expect the comfort of a reliable product don't want innovations, they want to be reminded of the things they already like.

All innovations that have seeped into popular music have come from those who pushed the boundaries and were later plundered by those who'd finally "gotten it". Meanwhile, the innovators were often ridiculed, misunderstood, shunned. And why? Because, in leaving their comfort zone, they somehow threatened the self-esteem of those who just wanted the comfort of the tried and true.


The eagle never lost so much time as when he submitted to learn from the crow. (Dead Man)

[Gonga]

+1

The innovators, as uncomfortable as they are (Stravinsky, Zappa, McLaughlin, Hammer, etc.) are more likely to affect people (through change) and be heard and remembered over the course of time.

"Nature abhors repetition" - Henry David Thoreau

Most people resist change, even though change is surely one of the most certain rules of the Universe. People who learn to accept change, even embrace it, rather than resist, seem to be more content with their lives. I think this applies to life and music.

Obviously, there's nothing "wrong" with listening to repetitive music. Ditto dynamic music. But the extent to which our lives are repetitive bears thought, and music is an expression of our lives (or should be). There may be better ways: doing the same thing over and over will not solve human problems.

Consider this: what message would you like your music to convey?

[qa2pir]

and then there's the real innovation, the innovation in attitude to creativity and message. it more than likely follows convention just like one follows the rules of a language. it expresses itself fluently and simply, recognizing that one is bound by cultural specifics and that a confession of nature over nurture must formally adhere to the nurtured principles. we cannot produce a meaningful sentence that is structurally analogous to the truth behind. we can only express profound doubt.

you guys just proved what's the appeal of being able to talk about this "objectively" without reasoning. "hey zappa introduced the double altered mixolydian over a Maj7add13 chord in 7/4 while singing about dental floss, no one did that before, no denying he shaped the future of music".

[Gonga]

You sound eloquent but I can barely understand what you're trying to say.

and then there's the real innovation, the innovation in attitude to creativity and message. it more than likely follows convention just like one follows the rules of a language. it expresses itself fluently and simply, recognizing that one is bound by cultural specifics and that a confession of nature over nurture must formally adhere to the nurtured principles.

I understand this part, and respectfully disagree. It may be the conventional wisdom though, I grant you that. However, I started the first day of my first music theory class by breaking every rule that was put before us. At the end of that class, I received tons of remarks from the other students about the beauty of my compositions.

we cannot produce a meaningful sentence that is structurally analogous to the truth behind. we can only express profound doubt.

you guys just proved what's the appeal of being able to talk about this "objectively" without reasoning. "hey zappa introduced the double altered mixolydian over a Maj7add13 chord in 7/4 while singing about dental floss, no one did that before, no denying he shaped the future of music".

You totally lose me with these paragraphs. The first makes no sense to me, the second appears to be a straw man. Is your point that Zappa was not innovative, or that he didn't affect music, or what?

[jopy]

and then there's the real innovation, the innovation in attitude to creativity and message. it more than likely follows convention just like one follows the rules of a language. it expresses itself fluently and simply, recognizing that one is bound by cultural specifics and that a confession of nature over nurture must formally adhere to the nurtured principles. we cannot produce a meaningful sentence that is structurally analogous to the truth behind. we can only express profound doubt.

I gave several examples of artists who successfully innovated to create popular music that were not explicitly linked to theoretical artifice. I see you bypassed this altogether to argue with the most extreme examples. So to reiterate, what about Bach, Mozart, Brahms, the Beatles, or Radiohead (I can go on like this for a while), all of whom innovated with phrase length and/or metrical conventions to huge popular acclaim in their own time? My thesis here is that even your most popular musics MUST be creative and innovative by questioning the norms of a genre and producing variation beyond the strict grid type of composing. Can you give concrete examples of actually influential artists who follow this comparatively conservative approach you're advocating? I would guess they can sell records in the short run, but don't have much staying power by comparison.

[qa2pir]

and then there's the real innovation, the innovation in attitude to creativity and message. it more than likely follows convention just like one follows the rules of a language. it expresses itself fluently and simply, recognizing that one is bound by cultural specifics and that a confession of nature over nurture must formally adhere to the nurtured principles. we cannot produce a meaningful sentence that is structurally analogous to the truth behind. we can only express profound doubt.

I gave several examples of artists who successfully innovated to create popular music that were not explicitly linked to theoretical artifice. I see you bypassed this altogether to argue with the most extreme examples. So to reiterate, what about Bach, Mozart, Brahms, the Beatles, or Radiohead (I can go on like this for a while), all of whom innovated with phrase length and/or metrical conventions to huge popular acclaim in their own time? My thesis here is that even your most popular musics MUST be creative and innovative by questioning the norms of a genre and producing variation beyond the strict grid type of composing. Can you give concrete examples of actually influential artists who follow this comparatively conservative approach you're advocating? I would guess they can sell records in the short run, but don't have much staying power by comparison.

I can't deny the value of those composers. but I can claim that what I appreciate in their music isn't the "experimental" metrical aspects. as said I see music as a language. formal attributes are secondary to the interrelations between signifiers. Beatles made some natural sounding extensions of bars etc but their melodies, lyrics, delivery are what counts and they're almost always contained in a grid-like structure. the grid isn't cultural malice, it's simple mathematics.

and I can give you a long list of excellent artists and tracks but I don't measure success in "influence". quite the contrary... being considered influential probably means you've something in your artistic ethos is faulty. innovation is an excuse. all that matters is lack of intention and instrumentality. such music will be timeless and it won't need "innovation" other than in the weak sense that it hasn't been done before. "influence" is completely irrelevant because it only says that people have copied, not that what's been copied is good. a complete finished artistic statement won't influence anything. it will deter imitators.

[jopy]

being considered influential probably means you've something in your artistic ethos is faulty.

what on earth do you mean here? you're saying that influential=bad? surely i'm not understanding you properly. lots of people tried to imitate the sound of the beatles (sorry to keep using that example, but it works) and in some cases, they actually produced pretty good music. you are simultaneously saying that being influential on others is bad, but being massively influenced to the point of not innovating is good. this strikes me as incoherent.

innovation is an excuse? i'm sorry, but i've never heard someone bag on creativity as a component of art before, so i'm rather shocked by your approach.

[qa2pir]

being considered influential probably means you've something in your artistic ethos is faulty.

what on earth do you mean here? you're saying that influential=bad? surely i'm not understanding you properly.

innovation is an excuse? i'm sorry, but i've never heard someone bag on creativity as a component of art before, so i'm rather shocked by your approach.

sorry I made a shitload of edits.

but yes that is my stance.

not bagging on creativity though, from my perspective. just saying creativity is something else.

[jopy]

here's a thought coming from somehting you said earlier: if being influenced by other cultures and styles of music is bad, why are so many europeans imitating african american club music from the 70's of detroit, chicago, and new york? why aren't they delving into their own folk traditions? i'm not aruging that they should be hermetically sealed here, far from it, but that seems almost a natural extension of your thesis. are you saying carl craig, juan atkins, or derrick may are bad music because lots of people now days are influenced by them?

[qa2pir]

being considered influential probably means you've something in your artistic ethos is faulty.

what on earth do you mean here? you're saying that influential=bad? surely i'm not understanding you properly. lots of people tried to imitate the sound of the beatles (sorry to keep using that example, but it works) and in some cases, they actually produced pretty good music. you are simultaneously saying that being influential on others is bad, but being massively influenced to the point of not innovating is good. this strikes me as incoherent.

innovation is an excuse? i'm sorry, but i've never heard someone bag on creativity as a component of art before, so i'm rather shocked by your approach.

nothing wrong with the example, it sure works.

gahh it feels so egocentric just explaining yourself all the time.

it all comes to whether you see music as language or not, I think. Beatles made structural innovations to pop music, popularized new things etc, but those who used Beatles as a foundation for their own music could have made something equal anyway, just speaking in a different language. music should be less about formalism and more about the artistic quality of what is being said, imo.

sure it may be some sign of quality when an artist popularizes a musical idea, but the highest thinkable quality would mean there was no point to keep on elaborating on that idea; it's been given a final, complete outlet.

[qa2pir]

here's a thought coming from somehting you said earlier: if being influenced by other cultures and styles of music is bad, why are so many europeans imitating african american club music from the 70's of detroit, chicago, and new york? why aren't they delving into their own folk traditions? i'm not aruging that they should be hermetically sealed here, far from it, but that seems almost a natural extension of your thesis. are you saying carl craig, juan atkins, or derrick may are bad music because lots of people now days are influenced by them?

primarily I say that it's problematic to equate influential with good. and the historical "is" cannot provide deduction to the "ought". I'm not talking about good/bad in terms of what works and what becomes popular. if I did I'd be wrong. I'm trying to construct my own ethical concept of art, I suppose.

I can't think of artists I like that have clearly influenced more music I like. music I like usually has completely different influences, commenting on them in a critical way that is in itself the "innovation". if that makes sense. it's about the artist seeing something truly hidden in the mundane, and showing that. that's what being original means. I'd rather say original than innovative. it better describes what's important.