formulaic, (un)original, and other shallow words..

[whyterabbyt]

Deranger604 quoth
Maybe you didn't understand what I said, Vurt.

Neither did I, it has to be said.

Of course different genres of music have different formulas. That's an obvious given.

I dont know that it is, to be honest.


Keep it all within one realm of music, and then answer me again.

But I dont listen to 'one realm' of music. I just listen to 'music'.

[vurt]

pssst your not me anymore either remember

[VariKusBrainZ]

Yeah, sorry dudes and dudesess

Lets all have a big (non E influenced) hug

[CypherOne]

By the way, I wanted to add. I'm sure this has been mentioned already... but, trance is formatic, just as every other style of music is. I don't understand what all the whinning and flames are about? The only conclusion I can come to is that you see a trance thread, and this means you have an opportunity to be an asshole for a minute. What gives? Me personally, I don't care for Hip Hop/Rap. I simply don't understand it, let alone know enough about the scene and producers to comment intelligently about it. Therefor, I skip over it.

Sit down for a half hour and listen to 'your' style of music. Don't tell me that it doesn't follow a basic root of composition.

And vurt... If you really have that much time on your hands to post concerning my grammer this early in the morning, I feel sorry for you.

you spelt therefore wrong.

That's great.

What is this? Cubase.net forum part TWO?

no, just a hobby.

[shamann]

When it comes to trance etc. (which is obviously what this is all about (again!))

Sadly this seems true.

I just checked in hoping there would be a discussion on the use of language when describing music, but alas.

To the points on language peejunk, you are right of course, people do often use vague and clichéed language, often out of an inability to fully express themselves, but also we should bear in mind that clichés are in essence a form of social and emotional shorthand. We refer to them in order to quickly express an idea to others by using shared information. So if someone says that a song seems formulaic, most people know what they mean: this song seems to adhere to a fairly restrictive set of rules that inhibits artistic license and originality. Most people don't have the words nor time to say that, and so stick to clichés. The problem with doing that, of course, is that we run the risk of forgetting the original, more elaborate meaning.

As for formula, you're right to a certain degree, most music does stick to certain set of rules, only in so far as to remain identifiably music. However, those given set of rules are incredibly broad, and can be basically summed as the human interaction with sound.

But there is a fundamental difference between form and formula. Form is descriptive, it denotes an identifiable structure of any given thing. Formula on the other hand is prescriptive, it assigns an identifiable shape which a form must take.

Ultimately formula could be described as the path towards a platonic ideal, a singular embodiment of an idea of which all else is a reflection. How we as minstrels strive to creatively replicate that formula is what music is all about.

The platonic ideal of trance, as it appears to non-practitioners at least, is perhaps interpreted to be more restrictive than most. For instance, the hard german bass thread recently. Those seeking an answer would only be satisified if those looking to give answers were able to model the sound exactly, to a perfect replica, not to a reasonable, artistically useful facsimile.

However, musicianship is about making do. There's a story Robbie Robertson tells about learning to play guitar. He grew up trying to emulate the American blues music he was hearing on the radio, but didn't know what a guitar slide was, so he taught himself to replicate the sound by playing a slide with his finger only and not a piece of tubing. Not an exact reflection of the platonic ideal, but an invention worhty of its own right.

For us non-trance loving folk, it too often seems that trance lacks that invention. Or at least that sense of invention is missing amongst its most quotidian practitioners. The top practitioners do not insist that they must strive to match without variation the sounds of others. The lesson here is that if you love making trance, rather than just copy others, why not learn from them, and push the art further. Trance fans seem to need some form of communal acceptance. Well if so, bring the people to you, don't just assume they are already there.

Cheers,
Steve

[tee boy]

Having studied a lot of classical music (not through choice, but I am since glad I did!), it is all bound by set rules of the time. Occasionally those rules were broken by people such as Satie by composing with no time signature or bar lines.

4 part chorale harmony is a great example. The whole basis of composition regarding that genre follows a strict set of rules laid done by Bach, such as the leading note always rising to the dominant, or never allowing a pitch to rise by a flattened 5th (ie C to F#).

I can see the point about music having to be laid down in a set format due to DJ friendlyness (!), but that doesn't stop a good tune being written, ie Daft Punk. Take one of my favourite four to the floor tracks by 'Alan Brax', called 'Intro', follows a very set pattern but is funky as hell!

When it comes to trance etc. (which is obviously what this is all about (again!)) for me the music is lacking soul. Anyway, we can all choose what we listen to and that's what matters?!

Not that i want to argue this, cuz what you say is ofcourse correct. However, I just thought it might be worth pointing out that the VAST majority of these rules have been long sacked. To my knowledge, the 20th century layed pillage to pretty much any convention in orchestral music.

[Spe3D]

Not another Trance thread – my goodness

A conventional genre with a conventional trend in threads

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

[peejunk]

I don't make trance. I make mostly breakbeat and drum'n'bass. Tho a lot of my tracks are arguably somewhat trance-influenced in that I have aquried a taste for washy pads, filter sweeps, jumpy 16th sequences and prevailing use of synths over sampled sounds.

The thread was to be about use of cliche words in slaging music. But I suppose that, like every discussion everywhere, it has been taken in the direction of whatever it is that is current days politics, and I participated in that.

@tee boy: I was talking about classical music. Modern "high-art" music is different.

Besides, from what I've heard, serialisam and atonality have became new dogmas so I don't think that formally educated musicians live in such a great and democratic era even now, but they can opt out, with the price of not beingh accepted by their peers, like everyone else I suppose.

[tee boy]

I dont know mate, it was my impression that the experimental works by people like Glass, Cage etc were very highly regarded. Debussy (although not as far out as these guys) knowingly broke pretty much every rule in the harmony book with his works! And that is without considering some of the fantastic stuff done for film. Being a huge fan of Elliot Goldenthal I can say this is some of the most innovative and powerful music ever wrote. I wouldnt know how this stuff is considered by the classical world though (and i really couldnt care). This all Im sure you know, but I mention it purely to illustrate the point - modern orchestral music is by no means formulaic, especially considering the highly regimented nature of its roots. Maybe when dance musicians have exhausted all ideas, then they too will start thinking outside the box.

Sorry, slightly OT.

[shamann]

The thread was to be about use of cliche words in slaging music.

While I hesitate to keep this going in perpetuity, I find I can't help myself. So...

I addressed a lot about the use of cliché in my previous post, none of which you countered. That's why the clichés exist, because when we do post fully realized explanations of our positions, no one reads it all. Or at the very least, few tend to actually address the specifics of long posts. W'rabbit does, often quoth line by line, and then people complain that he's paying too much attention to the words.

Clichés help speed up the process, especially in an English-language forum where not everyone speaks English as their native tongue.

I don't think this thread's intent was to discuss the use of cliché when slagging music styles, rather than just the slagging itself, perhaps objecting to the use of dismissive language, but mostly objecting to insensitivity to others' feelings. Here the clichés exist to avoid saying "this sucks, you suck" ad nauseum.

In the last thread, now locked, any answers that truly provided context for any given opinion were ignored in the follow up replies, which usually would get stuck on a tangent focusing on one word to the exclusion of all others. For instance, one party said they didn't like country and folk music. When questioned on that, and the seemingly inconsistent nature of that answer with that party's desire for tolerance from others, the party's reply was a deflection: that was just an example. Gee, no kidding, never would have figured that out. But examples are like clichés, they are mentioned to sum up a point. The point was in question, not the example.

Here's a cliché that seems to apply to many posts in the trance-related (or any other singular dance stylee) threads: I'm sure I could see the forest, if it wasn't for all those damned trees in the way. The taking of the piss obviously can't be far behind.

Cheers,
Steve

[Wopelka]

Besides, from what I've heard, serialisam and atonality have became new dogmas

That was certainly the case 40 years ago.

Now we can rather see a kind of tonal revival. Which is nice, too:

In the view of many young composers the style of 12 notes and serialism are totally antiquated notions. Above all we should not regret this but simply ascertain that history goes faster and faster...
Maybe some late followers of serialism still exist: some nostalgic ones. For example the English Bryan Ferneyhough who writes unplayable full scores and who persists in returning to Darmstadt and giving lessons there: but nothing happens there any more.
At the moment there are post-modern movements, which oppose themselves completely to the spirit of Darmstadt. One is even speaking of a tonal revival. The Estonian composer Arvo Part, who by the way also used to visit Darmstadt, has found a new simplicity again and his music finds many admirers. And then there is also, coming from minimalism, repetitive music: Steve Reich, born in 1936, Phil Glass, born in 1937.

entire article

[spaceman]

BEN!!!!!

[shamann]

BEN!!!!!

Pourquoi the Ben?

This is in 'everything else' and a thread on the language used to describe music should apply to that category. No serious name calling, no copyright violation. Pointless rambling, sure, but that should come as no surprise.

So, pourquoi the Ben?

[peejunk]

BEN!!!!!

I don't get it. This thread seems pretty civilized (and the discussion, especially in the last couple of posts, is everything BUT a useless flame).

I sure have learned a lot today (no I'm not talkin social-KvR-wyse, to be honest I don't really care that much) from some people here.

@Shaman: you're only partly right about what my intentions are. I thoght the discussion is going to take another direction, the discussion about whether or not having some sort of formula, limitations, system, repetition (in many tracks), common places in music is all that wrong.

It came out as if I was defending trance.

I was just saying (or tryng to) that these words applied to music, tho seemingly (and intentionaly) derogatory, aren't neccessary so. Well this is closest I could get to what I mean anyway.

Things I don't comment I either didn't disagree with, didn't think they matter or maybe didn't understand and I falsely assumed the previous two.

[shamann]

@Shaman: you're only partly right about what my intentions are. I thoght the discussion is going to take another direction, the discussion about whether or not having some sort of formula, limitations, system, repetition (in many tracks), common places in music is all that wrong.

It came out as if I was defending trance.

I was just saying (or tryng to) that these words applied to music, tho seemingly (and intentionaly) derogatory, aren't neccessary so. Well this is closest I could get to what I mean anyway.

Things I don't comment I either didn't disagree with, didn't think they matter or maybe didn't understand and I falsely assumed the previous two.

Fair enough. Another common one is 'the music lacks structure,' funny enough since it would seem to be the exact opposite of the formulaic tag.

But formulaic can be decoded to mean 'sounds too much like something I've heard without expressing an individual voice,' while no structure usually means 'it all seems aimless, without any identifiable motif, progression, or point.'

Still, you're right, formulae can be found all over music, but the good stuff exceeds the formula, makes it the style its own. That's why people often will say the old stuff is better than the new stuff of any given style. Jungle in 1994 was fresh sounding, it stood out from other stuff at the time. Jungle today has to compete with all the stuff like it we heard 10 years ago until now.

Cheers,
Steve