Show me some melody in modern electronic music.

[ZenPunkHippy]

I don't have any problem with that per se (like I said, DJ Toomp, who comes up with some great orchestral hip hop, can't seem to play a basic riff in key from scratch).

Burial, the UK producer who basically kicked off the first wave of chart-successful dubstep created the album by "painting" loops and frequency. He just created what he wanted to hear / what he thought it should sound like. The result was a classic album of material in a style that was totally new to most people.

From Wikipedia:

According to journalist Derek Walmsley A melancholy tinge runs through the album, but the constant interplay of tension and calm, and of alienation and intimacy, offers the possibility of salvation around the next corner.

I'm not sure if synth & drum based uptempo music will go in a more generally melodic direction or not, but there's a chance. I personally feel I've proved (at least to myself) that it can work very well and still make the body want to move along with the rhythm, as opposed to obscuring it.

You may be on to something, who can tell? Otherwise we'd be shitting gold records left and right But here's something to consider about the role of electronic music: it sets a mood. This also applies to all other music, but I'll try to make it clear like this ...

You're siting in a bar or club on a Saturday night. There is x number of other people in the same venue. No one is particularly jubilant, it's a fairly typical night out. What sound track should accompany this scene?

If the sound system was playing nothing but OTT melodic music all night it would certainly contribute to the mood in the room, but not everyone would welcome that atmosphere. Some low key blues might work better, or mellow jazz. More often than not, it's low key music that fits the bill because it's less intrusive and leads to a calmer atmosphere.

Electronic music sans melody is that low key music for the new generation.

Peace,
Andy.

[Tricky-Loops]

Surely there is more music without great melodies, arranged and mixed in a few hours (Armin van Buuren said he needs half an hour for making a trance track) -- BUT there still are as many musicians as ever who compose quite complex melodic stuff. I do listen to new music, and I KNOW that there are great musicians. For example, I've listened to a Swiss radio for new electronic music, and while there may be 75 % boring 4-to-the-floor trance music, there still are 25 % GREAT melodic EDM compositions.

What I don't like are simple "cracker-barrel prejudices" - like "Music was better in the 80ies. DJ's can't play any instrument. Every child can make music with its i-Pad."

[ZenPunkHippy]

This track is considered a bit of a classic. Setting the mood ... it's the sound of sex ...

[A.M. Gold]

Well, I'm not really sure the generation reaching back to the late '80's can really be called "new".

But that's my point. The more basic, repetitive, less melodic electronic forms aren't new, they've been around since Detroit techno at least. As far as I can tell, that's why we have, by this time, 200 spin-off subgenres within electronic music. People keep trying to do something else, but it ends up being more variations on sonic texture, as opposed to exploring the whole world of more sophisticated composition.

That's part of the gist of my argument: time for something really new, not just another sonic texture experiment.

[revo11]

I shouldn't waste my time on these threads, but what the hell.

You need not look further than the guy everyone loves to hate for making "nothing but noise" - listen to Skrillex's "with you, friends". That is a great example of pop melodicism. If you don't hear it and need it spelled out for you, just look up the numerous piano versions/covers, e.g.

[Bronto Scorpio]

As far as I can tell, that's why we have, by this time, 200 spin-off subgenres within electronic music. People keep trying to do something else, but it ends up being more variations on sonic texture, as opposed to exploring the whole world of more sophisticated composition.

That's part of the gist of my argument: time for something really new, not just another sonic texture experiment.

Again, you could say the same thing about any other genre.

Cheers
Dennis

[ZenPunkHippy]

People keep trying to do something else, but it ends up being more variations on sonic texture, as opposed to exploring the whole world of more sophisticated composition.

[Burial] What could be more sophisticated than a guy sitting at his computer for months on end using expert knowledge and applying taste that he built up from years of being a connoisseur of tunes? (tunes in the slang sense of calling vinyl played by DJs "tunes").

This may not be the traditional composition you are used to, but it really does not get any more sophisticated than this!

Peace,
Andy.

[cron]

People keep trying to do something else, but it ends up being more variations on sonic texture, as opposed to exploring the whole world of more sophisticated composition.

[Burial] What could be more sophisticated than a guy sitting at his computer for months on end using expert knowledge and applying taste that he built up from years of being a connoisseur of tunes? (tunes in the slang sense of calling vinyl played by DJs "tunes").

This may not be the traditional composition you are used to, but it really does not get any more sophisticated than this!

Peace,
Andy.

Seconded. We're in times where the recorded product itself is the composition, not the abstract notes on the page. Now that this is the case, pretty much every strand of music outside the classical canon now needs to consider texture as a core factor in composition, because the recorded performance/production on the CD essentially is the composition.

Dance music in particular will always value texture and rhythm over melodicism. Melodicism in itself isn't enough to carry a dance track; it'll always need texture and rhythm to back it up. Conversely, texture and rhythm alone are often enough to move a dancefloor. You can go right back to the acid house explosion we had in the UK (and even further back I'm sure), which I think is the perfect example of this. The melodic content was just a 1-bar loop locked to 16th steps. Tweaking the knobs on that 303 to transform the sound of those notes was performing with texture/timbre alone, and it was enough to carry an entire dance music movement which eventually crossed over into the mainstream. This whole 'complextro'/popstep stuff, with its insane-o textural manipulation is perhaps the logical conclusion of dance music's textural obsession.

Having said this, there's loads of melodically and harmonically sophisticated dance music in this thread. I go with what somebody said a few pages ago. Find an event that plays music you'd enjoy dancing to, and go out and dance to it. A huge textural 'drop' will never move you if you're listening to it sitting at home while scratching your chin.

[cron]

Great stuff, I think that you've posted some of those before in another thread just like this one. Of course, that's only dance music for a very liberal interpretation of dancing.

It's true: the more interesting the music, the further you're moving away from a certain type of dancefloor. Although having said that, in the early days of dubstep most people said you couldn't dance to it. They said it was too slow, not really understanding that the dancefloor worked at 140bpm rather than the 70bpm that dubstep technically is. Now it (or some bastardised version of it) is the big thing on mainstream dancefloors worldwide!

Well yes, except, I'd replace "interesting" with "less danceable", but then we just have an uninteresting tautology. DnB had the same issue with danceability, frankly, I don't really think that it's ever been resolved with either DnB or dubstep....

...

All I was saying that the music that you presented is indeed interesting and not very danceable. Personally, though, I think that a lot of house music is also interesting and danceable. If you had said that the more rhythmically inconsistent something is, the less danceable, then I would agree.

Sorry, that came out a bit wrong. 'Interesting' was a very poor choice of words. I also love my house and techno.

I think that what I was trying to get at is that dance music is perhaps more about context. It's like the whole 'if a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound' thing. If something is played in a club context and people are dancing to it, does that make it dance music? All those hundreds of different subgenres we have sound completely different, but they're all called dance music because people go out to dance to it. Moving to music, whether it's harsh formless noise, stuffy classical music, or banging techno is perhaps my biggest pleasure in life. When I DJed, I used to love dropping Syncopated Sadie by Winifred Atwell in the middle of house sets. It's unbelievable how beautifully it mixes in and out of house tunes, and how right it feels in there. I can't remember which track I used to lead into it, but I generally mixed Clubhoppn by Para One out of it.

I really believe that, if the energy is right, you can drop just about any tune on any dancefloor and people's limbs will find a way and have a bloody great time in the process! Maybe I'm a dancefloor idealist

[rockstar_not]

Although he probably is looked down upon here, Adam Young/Owl City, has plenty of melodies and melodic hooks in his more electronic sounding pieces.

Begin throwing verbal equivalents of rotten fruit.......NOW!

[arkmabat]

Hmm... None were thrown. I think that means something. I own the Ocean Eyes album. He did the raw vocal recording in goldwave and tuned it himself if im not mistaken.

This reminds me, I've heard good things about Propellerhead's Rebirth freeware. I've been meaning to download that. If it had rewire then it could be Reabirth...

[A.M. Gold]

Yea, I think Owl City is alright, but I've only heard one or two tracks.

I can certainly relate to his themes of insomnia.

[A.M. Gold]

Far from necessitating endless argument, I'm hoping maybe we've clarified something with this lengthy discussion: people dance for different reasons.

For some, the rudimentary "throb" of the basic beat (in divisions of two, probably because most of us have two legs) is foremost in motivating their dance instincts. They want other things going on to build on just a basic beat, but if the composition asserts itself too much, even in a popular melodic sense, they find it distracting.

But others, and I fall firmly into this category, need melody and the beauty and complexity of sophisticated chord progression, in combination with strong rhythmic context, to really feel the energy of dance coming on.

How this breaks down in terms of percentages within the population is anyone's guess. There is conflicting evidence. People used to dance mostly to melodic music, now they seem to dance mostly to beat and texture driven music. Does that mean that people have changed, or did the music making culture just change and the people followed based on what they were given?

Remember, pop music in general started to get more basic and stripped down starting in the late 80's, it wasn't just dance. Was that based on demand, or was it coming from the supply side?

I personally don't see any clear answer to that, and so I'm not afraid to forge ahead in doing something to begin bringing more melody and harmonic richness back into dance music, including synth heavy instrumental music.

[someone called simon]

Interesting topic.

A lot of different angles already haven been adressed but here's my take:

I think of sound & rhythm as the most primal sense we develop. Hearing the heartbeat of our mother when still in the womb. Early and primitive cultures have a strong tradition in sole percussion / rhythmbased music. Repetitive motion wether in sound, sight or movement has strong connotations with trance-like states (think of mantras, walking meditation or classic hypnosis of following the dangling medallion

EDM is very much based upon this underlying principal. Although I think the origin for this lies not in a conscious decision but rather in available equipment (turntables) and basically a lack of musical craftmanship.

As stated earlier in this thread a lot of todays producers don't have a clue about chord-progressions, keysignatures let alone for eg. contrapoint or syncopation and are unable to play a traditional instrument.

I can however sympathise with that. It's amazing to open up some software, loop a beat and play a one-finger melody on a fat synth and just marvel at the rich sounds you produce. How different from having to learn playing that tune on for eg. a guitarstring and spread your fingers, adjust the tension, angle, picking your thumb etc. It's instant gratification!

I think this is the basis to the fact EDM in general hasn't developed lyrically or melodywise. The very lack of actual playing skills in it's own created a whole new dimension of creative development that focused on SOUND and RHYTHM and was pretty much accessible to anyone in it's wake.

Note that I'm not bashing here! One can obviously be tremendously creative within the confinements of one's (lack of) abilities and I can thoroughly enjoy EDM as much as I appreciate classical, rock and world-music.....

very astute

[vurt]

Far from necessitating endless argument, I'm hoping maybe we've clarified something with this lengthy discussion: people dance for different reasons.

For some, the rudimentary "throb" of the basic beat (in divisions of two, probably because most of us have two legs) is foremost in motivating their dance instincts. They want other things going on to build on just a basic beat, but if the composition asserts itself too much, even in a popular melodic sense, they find it distracting.

But others, and I fall firmly into this category, need melody and the beauty and complexity of sophisticated chord progression, in combination with strong rhythmic context, to really feel the energy of dance coming on.

How this breaks down in terms of percentages within the population is anyone's guess. There is conflicting evidence. People used to dance mostly to melodic music, now they seem to dance mostly to beat and texture driven music. Does that mean that people have changed, or did the music making culture just change and the people followed based on what they were given?

Remember, pop music in general started to get more basic and stripped down starting in the late 80's, it wasn't just dance. Was that based on demand, or was it coming from the supply side?

I personally don't see any clear answer to that, and so I'm not afraid to forge ahead in doing something to begin bringing more melody and harmonic richness back into dance music, including synth heavy instrumental music.

"dance music" the electronic kind, has a purpose, i apologise for going a bit hippy here, its about losing yourself to a collective unconciousness
which is why it borrows heavily from tribal/shamanic rituals, steady beats to induce trances, no destractions.

the more "pop oriented dance music" is for dancing as an individual, strutting your feathers to get some action.

/off to get a bath to wash away the stench of hippy this post just gave me!