Phrasing in electronic music and the curse of predictability

[jancivil]

you're hitting a brick wall with your understanding of terms of discourse, or you are just too quick to react?
It's an ANALOGY. Probably not the best in the world... But you are in asserting 'the dancer is as the musician', which we can find above {Dancers play their body like a silent instrument}, actually confounding the two roles.

you're able to bring verbosity but after a point you don't even talk so good.

[ghettosynth]

Moved from the previous page, trying to keep the thread on topic.

I'm thinking specifically about music arranged into sets of multiples of 16 (or 8 sometimes). Two or four sets of those, usually... Now, a lot of music probably needs to have this kind of phrasing, because a DJ will need to mix it without having to think, and there's an argument for dance music being predictable to make it easy to dance to, but in a lot of cases, it's just taken for granted that everything'll be done in powers of 2 in electronic music.

Maybe this thread would have been more interesting if we had discussed your assumptions up front.

Who takes it for granted? Can you give examples of how it's "taken for granted" and could be better in some other way.

This is a pattern ubiquitous in all music, but it seems to be much stronger in electronic.

Perhaps the pattern of powers of two, to a point, but in general, I disagree that any pattern of replication is stronger in electronic music. A pattern of DJ friendly structure is more prevalent but this fits well with the purpose of the music. If you are listening to a five to eight minute record and thinking that the record as a piece is unnecessarily structure, you might be overlooking how that record is actually heard in the intended context.

Breaking this mould has always lead me to fresh inspirations, either by basing a song on an unusual number of bars phrasing (such as 3 sets of 3 bars), or by following the normal trend but breaking it selectively for effect.

So, as you point out, with respect to dance music, this is un-welcome most often. But that doesn't mean that there isn't variation in rhythm, see UTGamma's post for an excellent reference. If it helps you get where YOU want to go, fine, but there's no reason to assume that others, especially the large numbers of successful dance music producers that tend not to do that, have that need.

A good example that springs to my mind is Squarepusher's Ultravisitor. Some major changes happen right when you're expecting a repeat of the last phrase, and it really adds to the feeling of rushing forwards that the song has.

Again, not really EDM. Also, it's not necessary to upset the powers of two form to achieve the effect of repeating a phrase some odd number of times.

The problem with incessant sets of 4 and/or powers of 2 is that it can get pretty mind numbing to me.

So here's the big problem. First, what are you talking about because if you're talking about dance music, you contradict yourself and you are trying to listen to it in a context and manner for which it wasn't designed. That repetition and structure serves a purpose in EDM.

If you're not talking about EDM, but electronic music in general, then I'm not seeing "incessant sets of 4 and/or powers of 2" in any greater sense than we see specific repetitive forms in other pop music.

As far as it being boring, that's a personal matter of taste.

but music should play with your expectations. At the end of the day, that's the basis of all music!

That sounds like a very broad claim. I don't think that it's true in the global sense that you are trying to imply. What expectations does choral music play with? I'd say that the basis of music is probably much more fundamental than that. It comes across as a broad claim that is stuck at the end of a post to try and lend universal support to your thesis, which in this case, is a bit questionable.

[jancivil]

Progressive rock is almost by definition anti-pop.

almost by definition. But not quite. So the definition of 'progressive' you want is 'anti-pop'.

basic principles of pop: anti-virtuosity, appropriation, an adaptation of
technology, creative experimentation and the idea that 'anyone can do it'.

I'll take Simon's definition over yours. Which, if your reading skills had any chance of competing with your loud screechy internal rantalogue, should have been obvious that his definition was what I had in mind.

My reading skills? Show me where I defined anything. I discussed what I found. What he whom you agree with wants, what you want it to mean - did you show me a difference? So, what reading problem. But having at my reading comprehension this nastily is not screechy, that you have me making a definition, where I simply didn't, is sound reading.
You're pretty rattled!

Principles of pop must be defined by negating a manifestation of progressive, principles of progressive must be defined by negating pop? Reading your quote: does he want pop to be anti-virtuosic and experimental at the same time? An 'adaptation of' technology. What does that even mean??

'Anyone can do it.' That's a diy yourself aesthetic; but you should know that 'define' is to limit, make finite. Is everything that amounts to diy pop? What does it say about the content that would make it the genre pop, or get it to be pop as in accessible to the degree of certain popularity? Nothing so far.

This isn't very impressive. This is good journalism to you? It's shite.

[ghettosynth]

Progressive rock is almost by definition anti-pop.

almost by definition. But not quite. So the definition of 'progressive' you want is 'anti-pop'.

basic principles of pop: anti-virtuosity, appropriation, an adaptation of
technology, creative experimentation and the idea that 'anyone can do it'.

I'll take Simon's definition over yours. Which, if your reading skills had any chance of competing with your loud screechy internal rantalogue, should have been obvious that his definition was what I had in mind.

My reading skills?

I think that I was pretty clear. I was using the cited definition, and not my own. Had you read my posts, that should have been obvious in context. I'm not interested in your opinion on the definition unless you cite a music scholar, as I did. By scholar, of course, I mean someone with the appropriate credentials who engages in scholarly work at a professional level. I think that we can reasonably accept that a Cambridge scholar's definition of the principles of pop is more sound than your own. Granted, that's an appeal to authority, but you offer only an appeal to your opinion.

Really, I'm trying to stay on topic here, and I'd encourage you to do the same.

Let's discuss electronic music and repetition in the context of a power of two structure to the measures.

[Tricky-Loops]

Did I have learned anything important after 8 pages of this thread??

[KBSoundSmith]

Progressive rock is almost by definition anti-pop.

almost by definition. But not quite. So the definition of 'progressive' you want is 'anti-pop'.

basic principles of pop: anti-virtuosity, appropriation, an adaptation of
technology, creative experimentation and the idea that 'anyone can do it'.

I'll take Simon's definition over yours. Which, if your reading skills had any chance of competing with your loud screechy internal rantalogue, should have been obvious that his definition was what I had in mind.

My reading skills?

I think that I was pretty clear. I was using the cited definition, and not my own. Had you read my posts, that should have been obvious in context. I'm not interested in your opinion on the definition unless you have, as I did, cited a music scholar. By scholar, of course, I mean someone with the appropriate credentials who engages in scholarly work at a professional level. I think that we can reasonably accept that a Cambridge scholar's definition of the principles of pop is more sound than your own. Granted, that's an appeal to authority, but you offer only an appeal to your opinion.

Really, I'm trying to stay on topic here, and I'd encourage you to do the same.

Let's discuss electronic music and repetition in the context of a power of two structure to the measures.

A bit too late for that, don't you think?

Thread-lock please, this is just disgusting.

[ghettosynth]

Did I have learned anything important after 8 pages of this thread??

What did you expect to learn? Is that now a requirement for threads on KVR?

Actually, I learned several things in this thread. I found two interesting sources on pop-music history that I didn't know about, one specifically with respect to dance music.

[Tricky-Loops]

Did I have learned anything important after 8 pages of this thread??

What did you expect to learn? Is that now a requirement for threads on KVR?

Actually, I learned several things in this thread. I found two interesting sources on pop-music history that I didn't know about, one specifically with respect to dance music.

Monsieur Varése?:roll:

I learned better bashing without immediately being called straw man...

[Shabdahbriah]

Did I [...] learn anything important after 8 pages of this thread??

If "pedantic" ever comes up in a crossword puzzle, you'll have it aced.

[ghettosynth]

Did I have learned anything important after 8 pages of this thread??

What did you expect to learn? Is that now a requirement for threads on KVR?

Actually, I learned several things in this thread. I found two interesting sources on pop-music history that I didn't know about, one specifically with respect to dance music.

Monsieur Varése?:roll:

Are you serious? I said pop-music. What's with the eye-roll?

[Tricky-Loops]

Did I [...] learn anything important after 8 pages of this thread??

If "pedantic" ever comes up in a crossword puzzle, you'll have it aced.

Nope. I'm just in fear that someday musicians will kill each other just because of 4/4 time signatures...

[Tricky-Loops]

Did I have learned anything important after 8 pages of this thread??

What did you expect to learn? Is that now a requirement for threads on KVR?

Actually, I learned several things in this thread. I found two interesting sources on pop-music history that I didn't know about, one specifically with respect to dance music.

Monsieur Varése?:roll:

Are you serious? I said pop-music. What's with the eye-roll?

I've learned that I could be a better musician by listening to Varése...

[ghettosynth]

Did I [...] learn anything important after 8 pages of this thread??

If "pedantic" ever comes up in a crossword puzzle, you'll have it aced.

Nope. I'm just in fear that someday musicians will kill each other just because of 4/4 time signatures...

It's already happened, I'm sure.


http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valley ... _after.php

A 20-year-old man was shot and killed this morning after an argument over loud music at a pool inside a Tempe apartment complex, police say.

The article doesn't say, but it's a good bet that the music was 4/4. Although, if it turns out to be ruled as justifiable homicide, then Zappa is more likely.

[ghettosynth]

Did I have learned anything important after 8 pages of this thread??

What did you expect to learn? Is that now a requirement for threads on KVR?

Actually, I learned several things in this thread. I found two interesting sources on pop-music history that I didn't know about, one specifically with respect to dance music.

Monsieur Varése?:roll:

Are you serious? I said pop-music. What's with the eye-roll?

I've learned that I could be a better musician by listening to Varése...

Have you done it yet? Or are you still fiddling about with loops?

[Gonga]

I've learned that I could be a better musician by listening to Varése...

I spent years convalescing, and used to spend whole days staring at the trees out the window, listening to Integrales. It's probably my favorite piece, up there with Rite of Spring and Nubian Sundance.

My symphony (I wrote it in 1975 when I was 17) was mostly influenced by Varese. The meter changed almost every measure, odd as often as even, to accommodate the sound structures, and most of the chords were built by adding instruments one at a time, a 16th or 32nd note after the other. I wanted to build physical (moving air) sonic structures. The only unconventional instrument was a monosynth.

Of course it was never transcribed, and I later discovered I had made mistakes in tuplet subdivision, but the best part is that after writing it, my manuscript was dramatically improved