Fishing for thoughts on dense music

[The_Hidden_Goose]

I recently listened to an interview with Adrian Corker (of Corker/Conboy, A.P.E., and more recently a solo release on Village Green records) around the time of his Way Of The Morris soundtrack which was released on a subsidiary of Trunk Records (the interview was on Johnny Trunk's radio show, he's a specialist in unearthing soundtracks - "library music" if you will)

In it, he mentioned his general dislike of dense music and a preference for music with "just a few instruments, played beautifully". It got me a-thinking.

Much of the stuff I make and listen to could be considered dense music (though not all - I do listen to a bit of what I'd call minimal music too). Though recently I've noticed a borderline subconscious effort to reduce the density in at least some the stuff I make, trying to have a bit more space and not filling up all the frequency bands with sound. I've found myself redoing parts and making them simpler, and in some cases removing parts altogether, despite there being no need to do so in terms of clashing frequencies or mixing problems and such. I think it somehow has added something - more than just "space", although I can't quite put my finger on it or perhaps put it into words adequately.

Now I'm not going to suddenly stop listening to or enjoying Venetian Snares-like breakcore drumgasms, or some of the earcrashing, full-frequency noisefest stuff that I occasionally indulge in or anything drastic like that - I'm not going to start wearing a cap, smoking a old-man's pipe, or buy a rocking chair!

I was just wondering what people's thoughts are on the dense vs. minimal/simple music thing, and if it's a common phase many people swing through (I've noticed such phases in my listening habits over the years, but not so much in my own music-making trends).

[thecontrolcentre]

I try to have only what is needed in my music ... simple as possible. I hear so much music these days that has no space or dynamics.

[The_Hidden_Goose]

Yes, perhaps "dynamics" is the term I'm searching for.

I've heard it bandied around a lot by people who effectively mean plain "loudness" that it might have lost a bit of its true meaning in my head!

[skipscada]

Hey, surprising to see Trunk records mentioned here! Some good stuff there, and definitely passionate people worth listening to. In the alternative guitar pop/rock scene I tend to identify myself with, I've seen far too many bands trying to hide a lack of ideas, melodies, originality in a wall of guitar fuzz. Density as in "let's just keep banging our guitars and hope people don't realise there isn't much of a song here" that's so typical of landfill indie. Some bands like My Bloody Valentine managed to explore that sort of density in interesting ways, though.

To make a general statement, I'd say if you have strong ideas in terms of melodies, hooks, lyrics, intricate instrumental bits, you should keep the arrangement tidy (although not necessarily simple). Classic example: Beach Boys; modern example: Dirty Projectors.

Lots of styles, perhaps especially electronic ones, actively try to overwhelm the senses with dense arrangements, but almost extreme sparseness as in Frankie Goes to Hollywood's Relax and some Depeche Mode tracks arguably sound more powerful and monumental.

Perhaps it's also worth distinguishing between dense and multi-layered. In the former sounds gel and form something approaching a solid, massive block (Beethoven/Aphex Twin?) , while in the latter multiple timbres moving along clearly defined lines form a complex but sharply drawn web (Bach/Orbital?).

[vurt]

regarding dense vs minimal : both have their place, life would be somewhat boring if it was all one or the other. i tend towards music that works in its given scope, as mentioned above mbv would probably sound a little off if it was just an acoustic guitar and donovan would sound off as a wall of sound.

do what thou will shall be the whole of the law

[The_Hidden_Goose]

I came across Trunk records through the association with Finders Keepers and Andy Votel's recent plethora of sublabels and Ghost Box Records, which I'm a big fan of.

I'd agree there's a tendancy in a lot of electronic music to overwhelm the senses (and I'm as guilty as any). And likewise in guitar-led stuff - particularly in the shoegazery style, where some seem to pull it off well and others seem to hide behind the gauze of reverb without much going on. I do like both of those things personally, but finding myself less drawn to those influences in my own stuff.

Interesting the relation u mentioned between Bach and Orbital, which I've never considered. I can really see it though now it's been lodged in my head!

[The_Hidden_Goose]

Well your Broken... album cetainly had bits of both to be fair vurt. Torrential passages and bits where the goo is being dribbled in the ear.

As I say it's a fairly subconcious trend for me, and I've noticed it more looking back after listening to that interview which sent my brainplates spinning

[ariston]

I really need both. In the music that I make and in the music that I listen to. Or, to put it another way: sometimes less is more, and sometimes more is more.

Speaking as a musician, I lean towards dense music much more. I love polyrhythms, interleaving melodic lines, organized chaos. So it takes a good deal of effort for me to strip things down to their bare elements. It's not that I'm afraid of banality, it's just that I find it a lot more difficult to create something meaningful with minimal elements. And, aesthetically speaking, the more space you leave, the more important the single elements become. So you need to make every sound count. In dense music, a lot of masking goes on, and it's also much easier to fudge things. This makes for a more "organic" sound, which is more what life itself is like - unruly, dense, full of twists and turns and not a single straight line or right angle in sight.

My favorite example for dense music is "Bitches Brew" by Miles Davis. I completely prefer the "old" version vs. the new, remastered one, because the old one is so dense that it's almost impossible to say what's playing what. It's a hot, bubbling pot of gumbo, whereas the remastered version is much more transparent, like a chicken broth (to stay with the soup metaphor) and the music loses a lot of its mystery.

[vurt]

Well your Broken... album cetainly had bits of both to be fair vurt. Torrential passages and bits where the goo is being dribbled in the ear.

i may get that quoted on the site

the next on is more of a shock and awe attack on the ear drums if initial recordings are anything to go by
want to hire a guitarist too, and do a couple of live installations with it.

[whyterabbyt]

Personally I find minimal stuff to be too in-yer-face. I prefer listening for the tiny subtleties in something massively dense.

[The_Hidden_Goose]

Seems paradoxical but I think I get what you mean.

Although I can sometimes appreciate listening out for seemingly very small changes in minimalistic compositions and the effect they have...like what Philip Glass does with repetetive stuff and accents (but not actually Philip Glass...usually find his music very boring, but it's an obvious example off the top of my head). And what Steve Reich does with phasing and that kinda thing.

With minimal instrumentation they can sort of force your attention on them, and don't give a wandering ear much else to grapple onto I guess.

[The_Hidden_Goose]

want to hire a guitarist too, and do a couple of live installations with it.

I keep trying to learn to play guitar, as I'm always thinking guitar would sound good on something I'm doing. Always end up giving up in frustration - my fingers just won't do what I tell 'em, and I can't get any software guitar sims sounding like I want them so far.

I got a mate who plays great but trying to pin him down without him going off on a hundred tangents in every direction but the one I want is too hard!

[vurt]

i do play guitar, but i want to be doing the synth parts and other noisy bits. plus i feel a twat when im onstage alone
have the guitarist i want, but i dont have the cash yet as ill probably have to also hire the venues, sound engineer and possibly another "act" to play with me. doubt ill sell many tickets either but that isnt the point. the point for me is to get it videoed for a multimedia explosion

anyone who did want to attend i can probably put a few up here afterwards though

[whyterabbyt]

Seems paradoxical but I think I get what you mean.

Although I can sometimes appreciate listening out for seemingly very small changes in minimalistic compositions and the effect they have...like what Philip Glass does with repetetive stuff and accents (but not actually Philip Glass...usually find his music very boring, but it's an obvious example off the top of my head). And what Steve Reich does with phasing and that kinda thing.

With minimal instrumentation they can sort of force your attention on them, and don't give a wandering ear much else to grapple onto I guess.

Well, it was slightly flip, because ive not really got a specific bias, but yes, you pretty much got my point; when something is sparse, the individual elements 'relatively' dominate more, they intrude more. Think of ambient material; its predominantly washes of sound than discrete, transient sonic events. Human observation is geared to picking up on exceptions (and patterns), visually and audibly, we're keying out everything else for that which 'stands out' and its that which demands our attention. A minimal piece is dominated by 'stand out' events.

[robogone]

i feel a twat when im onstage alone

If you're doing that then there's at least one other person on stage, no?