Examples of 'cutting edge' dance/electronic music?

[ghettosynth]

That whole "manipulating the master track" with edits, reverses, rewinds and glitches reminds me of I Feel For You.



For this and other reasons, Aphex Twin's Windowlicker is twinned (no pun intended) to this song in my mind. Windowlicker is Feel For You's demonic flipside and taken to extremes. Both very funky tracks.

Wow, I'm not seeing that connection. I think that's a bit of revisionism. I Feel For You was a hot club track but that kind of sampler manipulation (abuse) was all the rage in the 80s.





Which, of course, was completely over by the time Max Headroom became popular.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom_(character)

[cron]

The examples were very interesting to hear, but it is not dance yet... so who made the proto-idm, the early electronic glitch music (with beats or rhythms) then ?

perhaps coil?
or oval?

I always like pulling this one out during such conversations. It's a bit of a stretch to call it dance music because it wasn't really made in any sort of dance music context (and probably not made for dancing at all), but I still think there are very few contemporary minimal dancefloors it wouldn't wreck.

[ghettosynth]

Yeah, I know what you are saying, however its the influence together with technology. Just shoving a dance 909 beat and some hi hats on music is just a thing.

No, it's the influence, the technology, and the skill brought by the new artist to weave those things together. Moreover, that's all the examples that you posted were, some technology, some musical ideas, and some skill. You can't so easily dismiss a 909 beat.

[Eauson]

has been explored prior to RHawtin, the same can be said about Aphex, they just popularised and brought it to the mainstream.

Failure to bring your work to the mainstream is to fail to be on the cutting edge. As I've said, many ideas get explored, most are forgotten.

These threads always devolve into how some academic wanker from the 60s is the father of all things EDM. I call horseshit, you get credit for what you did, not for what other people did with your ideas. I don't think Hawtin's older work is as influential as the stuff that he did in the mid to late 90s. I have quite a bit of his catalog and I'm not hearing it. I think that like many artists, he had to figure out who he was musically before he could influence people. Before then, he was mimicking.

Mainstream is not cutting edge its mainstream. So just because someone did not bring something to the attention of others does not put it down as some academic wankerism. It normally shows that no one was switched on yet, the same can be said through out history.
http://www.da-vinci-inventions.com/aerial-screw.aspx
I guess this bloke was just one of those academic fellows
Anyway I digress,


On the subject of RHawtin, yes I have his music, the reason why its popular I still don't fully understand if I'm honest. I will leave this as it seems you are trying to get to the bottom of a bottomless pit.

[ghettosynth]

The examples were very interesting to hear, but it is not dance yet... so who made the proto-idm, the early electronic glitch music (with beats or rhythms) then ?

perhaps coil?
or oval?

I always like pulling this one out during such conversations. It's a bit of a stretch to call it dance music because it wasn't really made in any sort of dance music context (and probably not made for dancing at all), but I still think there are very few contemporary minimal dancefloors it wouldn't wreck.

First, I think you have really good taste in music. Second, so I like that, it's quite interesting, but virtually no-one has heard it, so it cannot really be viewed as influential to everyone. We each borrow from what is available to us and take what works and leave the rest. I've had this record since I was a kid, given to me by someone at some point, don't ask me who or when, it's far older than your example, early 60s I believe.





There are parts of the album that have proto-elements of glitch. Notice the evolution to some extent, your example is a nice little beat driven piece. My example is almost purely academic. One had to be serious about writing electronic music. The only access to equipment at that time was through the university.

So once we have James Brown, Giorgio Morroder, Kraftwerk, and maybe one or two other people, it's all over. Everything house has been invented!

Of course that's not true and these people built on their influences as well. You can't just argue that technology did all the work, both of these works were highly influenced by the available technology. It's not just a thing, it's about using the thing to create music. A piano is just technology, only a lazy musician doesn't hammer the strings directly with his knuckles.

[andyf53]

This is a couple of years old now, but in my eyes (ears?) still cutting edge.
The use of electronics, organic instrumental recordings and field recordings melded together into a harmonious whole is exceptional. The album is one of the best I've heard (Ben Frost - By The Throat)


Also see Grischa Lichtenberger, analogue electronics, field recordings and digital noise


and Martin Stig Andersen, here working with processed clarinet.


Mark Fell, with what may be algorithmically produced music:


And finally, Keith Fullerton Whitman with recordings from studio sessions splintered through his modular system.

[bmanic]

While I'm not sure that most of the list would be my list, this is hot.

I don't understand this one either. Can you explain what you like about this song? The sounds,

Yes.

the rhythm,

It's house, there's not much that stands out in the rhythm, except, it's disciplined sparsity. That said, the feel is great.

the buildup,

So, I do like when the bass drops as well as the interesting sound that drops just before that. But, when I'm playing this record those may not get heard because they will come in under another record. So, while it's a nice aspect of this record, I'd say that the lack of giant buildups while still remaining interesting is key.

the punch of the drums, the "lyrics"?

Yes, and yes. Or, really, the sparse cleanness of the production and the simple rhythmic and tonal qualities of the "lyric." It's easy to fill up the space with noise, it takes a sense of restraint to allow the space to breathe and still keep a listener engaged.

To me these kind of songs just don't have any point.. there's no real buildup, there are no exciting sounds and the beat is very docile and laid back.

And yet it held my attention all the way though. Let me be clear though, it's non-trivial to do so and if I could tell you the secret I'd probably be selling a lot of records.

Everything stays in the same key throughout the song (well this is quite common for dance music so I can't really fault it).

To me there are no exciting elements here. Nothing "stylish".. everything is rather bland. It's like the composers take no risks and stick to the very basics.

So, I think that you're a little out of touch here. Exciting, well, ok, if you're looking for sounds that are "obviously" exciting. But stylish, I beg to differ. It's quite hip, tech-house is all the rage among the underground set these days.

As far as taking risks, you don't think that it's risky to put so little on the record? Was 4'33" risky? Building a track around some simple spoken phrases isn't risky? You could take a lot less risk by putting hilarious snare builds with rising sirens and a diva vocal drenched in reverb and delay.

Is it possible to do an analysis or a dissection of the interesting elements of the track? Or just simply tell us what makes it good in your opinion? This interests me a lot as a sound designer as I'm always keen on learning what people want for interesting, usable sounds.. and it also interests me as a composer to understand the motivations for the choice of tonality, harmony, melody and rhythm.

So we've talked about this sort of thing quite a bit in the "melody in dance music thread." This is good minimal underground dance music, in part, because it exercises restraint in melody.

It's very possible that I just don't get it though.. and I fully accept that. It is after all how we all end up. Stuck in our ways and not understanding the new stuff.

Well, if you don't like it you don't like it. I will point out that while I don't completely dislike the trance track discussed above, it's quite dull to my ears. It's like the difference between Stevie Ray Vaughn and Buddy Guy. Flashy loud obvious changes don't impress me at all. They're just distracting. I was watching a discussion of Clyde Stublefield and what makes James Brown's music so great, it's as much about the space between the notes as it is the notes themselves.

So, I can tell you that for music like this to be good, you should remove everything that you "think" is exciting, and leave only the raw elements that are "actually" exciting. The risk is that if you take one thing too much out, there is a sharp phase transition from "exciting" to "oh my god, who left the drum machine running." Knowing where that transition is and riding it, is the skill.

Awesome explanation/dissection man! Thanks for taking the effort.

I don't doubt at all that this track is "hot" or trendy or whatever. I just doubt my own ability to ever understand it.. then again, I've always been like this when it comes to minimalist productions (some I do like but they are quite rare). I blame it on my upbringing.. studying classical music destroyed a lot of things for me. I just can't seem to live with at least some combination of harmony, melody and rhythm. Harmony and melody can also meld together and form "tonality".. but in this example I just couldn't find anything that moved me.

Perhaps some mind altering drugs are needed and actually being in a club? Oh I miss those days.. but I struggled with the same thing back in the day of ultra-repetitive psy-trance. It got to a point where every track was exactly the same and nobody was innovating any more.

I've never really got into house music unless it swings/shuffles nicely. The straight beat variants just become very tedious to me. I do remember enjoying quite a few tunes a long time ago but I've since forgotten both the artists/DJs and name of the songs. Sigh..

Anyhow, this thread is fascinating and I will try to educate myself and learn some new music so thanks to all who contribute here!

Cheers!
bManic

[cron]

The examples were very interesting to hear, but it is not dance yet... so who made the proto-idm, the early electronic glitch music (with beats or rhythms) then ?

perhaps coil?
or oval?

I always like pulling this one out during such conversations. It's a bit of a stretch to call it dance music because it wasn't really made in any sort of dance music context (and probably not made for dancing at all), but I still think there are very few contemporary minimal dancefloors it wouldn't wreck.

First, I think you have really good taste in music. Second, so I like that, it's quite interesting, but virtually no-one has heard it, so it cannot really be viewed as influential to everyone. We each borrow from what is available to us and take what works and leave the rest. I've had this record since I was a kid, given to me by someone at some point, don't ask me who or when, it's far older than your example, early 60s I believe.





There are parts of the album that have proto-elements of glitch. Notice the evolution to some extent, your example is a nice little beat driven piece. My example is almost purely academic. One had to be serious about writing electronic music. The only access to equipment at that time was through the university.

So once we have James Brown, Giorgio Morroder, Kraftwerk, and maybe one or two other people, it's all over. Everything house has been invented!

Of course that's not true and these people built on their influences as well. You can't just argue that technology did all the work, both of these works were highly influenced by the available technology. It's not just a thing, it's about using the thing to create music. A piano is just technology, only a lazy musician doesn't hammer the strings directly with his knuckles.

Yeah, this is the kicker. We can pull out examples of glitch/rhythm based stuff and retrofit them into what we're hearing today quite easily, but the fact remains that this stuff had no cultural penetration at all. Dance music was always and still is culture driven, so asking who made whatever sound first is a bit of a nothing. The real question is when did people first start dancing to it.

[Eauson]

Yeah, I know what you are saying, however its the influence together with technology. Just shoving a dance 909 beat and some hi hats on music is just a thing.

No, it's the influence, the technology, and the skill brought by the new artist to weave those things together. Moreover, that's all the examples that you posted were, some technology, some musical ideas, and some skill. You can't so easily dismiss a 909 beat.

I finished my last post and then saw this, I think what you are saying is that somehow the people who did things like Delia Derbyshire/electronic workshop were not greater than what is around today. The thing is these people had to build their equipment not buy it from some store. If you want to put down the real influences then look at the creators, all others are imitators. Yes, new artists have to put things together, however the method has been simplified and demonstrated. Also I'm not dismissing the 909, however a lot of beats on original techno trax were samples, compressed several times through vinyl and then the additional mastering process. I'll leave it there, this time for sure and let the show continue.

[bmanic]

if its popular...it not cutting edge. by the time it takes something cutting edge to become popular, theres something already newer happening.

I completely disagree. Cutting edge stuff can very quickly become popular. Plenty of examples throughout music history.. no matter what genre.

Cutting edge doesn't always have to be quirky and "weird". Sometimes somebody comes up with awesome new harmonies or new ways of expressing complex rhythms and suddenly everybody "get's it", thus becoming popular. We see this happening all the time in any art form.

Then there are those who create weird stuff on purpose to distance themselves from anything that came before.. most of these end up creating a huge pile of crap then blaming everybody else of "not getting it". I saw quite a lot of this phenomenon in the classical music scene and young composers trying all kinds of very weird harmonic solutions that didn't make any sense at all (considering our western music background). The more I got to spend time with the composers the more I got the feeling that they put their own need to be "unique" above everything else, even the music itself. Ultimately this is rather limited way of going about things, in my opinion.

Cheers!
bManic

[bmanic]

Example of what I found a little bit cutting-edge these last years, though nothing is new, there is some feeling like more on edge that the crowds or same sounding tracks I hear around. This is not dance following my definition anymore because it's DnB, put people can dance on them.


This (don't pay attention at the picture ^^ )

I like it! The picture too!

[ghettosynth]

has been explored prior to RHawtin, the same can be said about Aphex, they just popularised and brought it to the mainstream.

Failure to bring your work to the mainstream is to fail to be on the cutting edge. As I've said, many ideas get explored, most are forgotten.

These threads always devolve into how some academic wanker from the 60s is the father of all things EDM. I call horseshit, you get credit for what you did, not for what other people did with your ideas. I don't think Hawtin's older work is as influential as the stuff that he did in the mid to late 90s. I have quite a bit of his catalog and I'm not hearing it. I think that like many artists, he had to figure out who he was musically before he could influence people. Before then, he was mimicking.

Mainstream is not cutting edge its mainstream. So just because someone did not bring something to the attention of others does not put it down as some academic wankerism.

That isn't what I said. We've already discussed this, cutting edge ideas become mainstream. So, if the idea isn't attributed to you, then you won't be viewed, at least apparently by this thread, as being on the cutting edge, you're a bit further back.

History IS full examples of first movers that were not on the cutting edge. The laser disc, for example. Different, yes, new, yes, good idea, not so much.

It normally shows that no one was switched on yet, the same can be said through out history.

I disagree, it shows that the influence wasn't quite all the way there. They had ideas, but they weren't on the cutting edge, there were some way back on the dull but still interesting part of the blade lost in a sea of other good and bad ideas. Then, someone else takes those ideas and pushes then to the cutting edge after which they become mainstream.

http://www.da-vinci-inventions.com/aerial-screw.aspx
I guess this bloke was just one of those academic fellows
Anyway I digress,

It seems that the response that you're expecting is "OMG, I never knew", but the reality is, that's just bad disco, and there was no shortage of bad disco being created at the time. To me, that sounds exactly like what someone who wanted to try to sound futuristic would do in the late 70s. It has some interesting components, but it's clearly song driven. It's like post-punk-disco or something. If you asked me when it was made I would have guessed in the seventies or early eighties. I don't think that it's way ahead of it's time, it is of its time, just not mainstream. That said, I like it, it's cool, but given the record is so rare, it was hardly influential. In fact, I imagine that the primary reason that you know about it is exactly because it was discovered by DJs at a boot sale who then went out and promoted it.

Was it cutting edge? I don't think so. It isn't very good disco, it isn't very good post punk, and it's only interesting really because it kind of sounds like music that was written before its time and was found by young DJs who thought that it was "cool."

On the subject of RHawtin, yes I have his music, the reason why its popular I still don't fully understand if I'm honest.

I get that you don't get it. One reason is that it just isn't that good, another reason is that perhaps you don't understand why it is good.

[bmanic]

The more I listen to the examples posted in this thread the more I realize just how limited the dance genre is when it comes to harmony.

Anybody got some examples of a dance track that explores things like going through several different keys in a single short track? I mean, Bach did this already 400 years ago.. surely it's time to explore melody and harmony a bit more, no? Or are we so stuck with the beat and keeping things simple?

I do remember one trance track where this was explored but it's more than 10 years since I heard it and then I also only got to hear it once! What an awesome track it was!

Perhaps the next new thing could be less about the actual sounds themselves and even less emphasis on 4 on the floor but instead explore new realms when it comes to harmonic progression? I've composed a few piano pieces where I go through many keys and it becomes quite convoluted. The listener can't in the end of the track say what the main key of the song was! Perhaps this could be explored more?

.. and I'm not talking about random chords making no sense but rather a natural progression from one key to another, skipping a few music theory rules to create odd situations that still feel like they make sense. Will have to explore if this can be done in a dance music wrapper.

Cheers!
bManic

[Davias]

Ha coil I remember I had a cd long ago.

Very interesting and glitchy indeed... I like this thread because we can hear a lot of interesting things. But I can't find any track danceable with some beats.

I didn't know Oval but I like what I hear, they are still making music it seems !

[andyf53]

Danceable with beats

http://firecrackerrecordings.bandcamp.c ... k/no-music