Why is electronic dance music typically very simple?

[adj]

Music's been getting gradually less complex ever since the baroque period.

Possibly rococo.

Well, that isn't entirely true.

Mainstream music, sure.

But Nancarrow, Varese, Zappa, Schoenberg, Webern and others have (mostly unintentionally) fought against this trend of increasing simplicity.

But I think that the OP's question is badly put...

Rob's a great musician and an obviously well-versed (pun intended) theoretician, but I agree the question seems a bit leading (as I said on page 1) and could have been better phrased.

...because most people here are talking about more or less popular music, which is almost invariably simple, whether played with sequencers or guitars.

That is just how it is. Isorhythms, Counterpoint and all of that fun stuff are just not that interesting to John and Jane Q. Public.

That's pretty much how I see it also mate. The public could care less really. It's the 'music to accompany my daily life by' (there's a French phrase for this somewhere ) that is the most appealing to them and thus what they *usually* wish to surround themselves with -- usually not complex in metre, melody or lyric. (I say their/they as opposed to we/us because not many of JQP are musicians with musical philosophies )

In those three facets of music composition, MUZAK, for instance is chosen for it's 'easy-to-hum-along-with' melodies, but not so much for it's metre or lyric.

That said, I know *some* non-musician members of JQP who collect John McLaughlin albums and can name the brand of jeans that Stanley Clarke wears


Cheers,
Alex

[eduardo_b]

In those three facets of music composition, MUZAK, for instance is chosen for it's 'easy-to-hum-along-with' melodies, but not so much for it's metre or lyric.

Actually, Muzak has changed a lot as a company and is doing a lot of rather sophisticated programming for a lot of customers. You'd be surprised at the kinds of music that is Muzak. There was a very interesting article on the company in The New Yorker about six months ago.

[adj]

In those three facets of music composition, MUZAK, for instance is chosen for it's 'easy-to-hum-along-with' melodies, but not so much for it's metre or lyric.

Actually, Muzak has changed a lot as a company and is doing a lot of rather sophisticated programming for a lot of customers. You'd be surprised at the kinds of music that is Muzak. There was a very interesting article on the company in The New Yorker about six months ago.

Hi eduardo -- indeed mate, good point.

We had a 'MUZAK contest' a few months ago and the ensuing debate in the gossip thread was very educational. I know that Muzak has apparently changed it's modus operandi/business model, but still, supermarket owners still want 'generically appealing -- music-to-shop-by' and thus "simple" because of it's broad appeal and easy to grok characteristics, so this is what I mean when using Muzak as a comparison. But I guess things are changing.

For instance, as a boy I can remember shopping with me mum and listening to cheap studio rehashes of Mantovani and Lawrence Welk epics alongside weak instrumentals of stuff like Sinatra's 'Strangers' and so forth.

So, when I finally got to hear 'High Tide and GreenGrass' by the Stones my life changed forever and all Muzak system speakers (in laundromats, stores, parking lots and shopping malls were targets for my BB Gun.

I believed it was a vast conspiracy to fill peoples' minds with hard-to-erase melodies containing subliminal programming which said things like "Vote For Richard Nixon" and "Join The Army Now" and "Buy Lots Of Useless Crap To Help THe Economy", etc.

Cheers,
Alex

[eduardo_b]

So, when I finally got to hear 'High Tide and GreenGrass' by the Stones my life changed forever and all Muzak system speakers (in laundromats, stores, parking lots and shopping malls were targets for my BB Gun.

Alex,

I started buying Stones albums with 12x5, and of course bought "High Tide..." because I had to have everything they did. Music for me was defined by British bands because they seemed to reach down into a creative well that resulted in some amazing songs and albums. When it came to Yes and Pink Floyd, the music became amazingly complex compared to what had come before (other than exceptions like Sgt. Pepper) and I came to expect it (thank you Queen). I lived with headphones because the mixes were so detailed.

So, I still listen to these bands, but also find that the "simpler" electronica such as trance has a different appeal. It is quite amazing how simplicity, when done well, can have such a strong feel to it. I think some people think anybody can do electronica because it seems simple, but the simplicity is deceiving because, oddly enough, it takes a lot of talent to do it well.

Not heard any trance Muzak yet, but I think it might be coming to a clothing store near you soon.

[adj]

Indeed -- 'Music To Try On New Jeans With'

I think *perhaps* a good example of some recent music that enlivens the 'is it simple or is it complex' debate is some of TV On The Radio's new songs from their 'Return To Cookie Mountain' album.

Is this music simple or complex? Often they use very simple chord progressions, rhythms, and basic instrumentation, but have what I would say are quite complex and unique arrangements of these.

I wonder what others think about their music in this regard, or other similar groups these days.

**I have to add that the Stones were the greatest influence on me musically, with Little Richard and Marvin Gaye as my 'vocalist' inspirations. Marvin Gaye had one of the most musically beautifully, wide-ranged voices I ever heard and many today still cannot touch him.

...and try as he might, Paul McCartney (for example, among many others) could't even get close to Little Richard's energy, feeling and range (imho).

Cheers,
Alex

[RTaylor]

Maybe it's your horse. It's a bit high.

I think you just have problems accepting other points of view.

[RTaylor]

{Though, I have no idea what you see in the Carpenters.}

vox as smooth as a newborns ass...



"merry christmas darrrrrliiiiiing"

But they're so smooth...

[RTaylor]

Well, and Hybrid is now working with Harry Gregson-Williams on some stuff. Not that he's classical per se, but still.

And then you hear some "electronified" songs with a dance-type approach pop up sometimes as bonus tracks on albums of people who would not otherwise be considered as dance oriented.

And now I'm beginning to come across some classically trained people who are working with a pop/dance format (e.g. Gracia).

So, yeah, at some levels the two worlds will meet and have met, or at least you will find ever more people who are willing to explore the combinations.

ELP, Crimson, Floyd, Genesis, The Nazz, Todd, Triumverat, Tangerine Dream, etc, etc, etc...

[RTaylor]

also it might be in training, or a lack thereof.. guitars and keyboards being the tools of the 'common man' perhaps..

Not that it has a lot to do with complexity... New Order did an interview a while back in which they refer to the computer as exactly that... The perfect punk instrument... anyone can play it.

[herodotus]

That is just how it is. Isorhythms, Counterpoint and all of that fun stuff are just not that interesting to John and Jane Q. Public.

Not saying this makes some music more important or better because it doesn't appeal to the broader public taste, are you? Surely not.

Surely not.

The popularity of a given piece of music or of a particular musical technique has nothing whatever to do with it's importance, either positively or negatively.

And I don't think that the fact that a lot of music never finds a sizable listening public says anything bad about that music either.

Popularity is a thing of chance.

[eduardo_b]

Poularity is a thing of chance.

I agree, and yet popularity (as measured by sales figures and revenues) is considered by many to be a watermark of importance -- CDs, films, books and so on. I think the implication is that popularity confirms some level of quality, even though there's no obvious evidence that the two are linked. Awards (there are so many, with Oscar and Grammy sort of at the top) also seem to be considered verification of quality, this despite questionable and inconsistent linkage.

I've seen articles in music magazines in which the qualities for increasing the chances for a song being popular are listed: song length, construction and other attributes. I suppose there's some truth to this because popularity on the charts can be correlated with the attributes of the songs.

And yet, as you note, popularity is also about chance. Odds are good that simple hooks, melodies and arrangements will do better than more complex songs, but why? Is it human nature that most people prefer simplicity in their entertainment? Perhaps this is why classical music is not more widely appreciated. But electronica isn't really widely appreciated either in terms of popularity. Who besides DJs is buying all the CDs in the Dance section of music stores?

[Lunatique]

I agree that my original question was perhaps not as succinct as it should have been. Maybe it's too late, but I'll go ahead and change it (Although I feel that the question's already been answered--the consensus being that complexity tend to kill the dancing vibe, and also a lot of electronic dance musicians aren't well-versed in advanced music theory).

New (revised) version of qusetion:
Why is it that beat-driven electronic dance music tends to be very simple in terms of harmony, counterpoint..etc. (NOT talking about IDM or stuff like Jarre, Tomita, Carlos..etc--I tend to see those as more experimental or avant-garde, not popular dance music). Could it be because electronic dance music simply sounds better when it doesn't incorporate complex harmonies, counterpoint..etc? Does the use of filters, effects..etc negate the effectiveness of harmony and counterpoint, or they are simply aspects of music theory that does not interest electronic musicians? Maybe electronic dance music has to be kept simple to keep that "vibe" and bogging it down with complexity will kill the dance feel?

[adj]

I agree that my original question was perhaps not as succinct as it should have been. Maybe it's too late, but I'll go ahead and change it (Although I feel that the question's already been answered--the consensus being that complexity tend to kill the dancing vibe, and also a lot of electronic dance musicians aren't well-versed in advanced music theory).

There ya go

When I had me wee garage band doing Stones and Animals songs (cause I could sometimes sound like Eric Burdon), my sister would listen to us, then turn on her Donna Summer 8-track and say: "Now THAT'S music!".

Sure enough, Donna Summer made more money in one week than all of us combined in our young lives...

...yet we STILL couldn't figure out how the hell that could be...

New (revised) version of question:
Why is it that beat-driven electronic dance music tends to be very simple in terms of harmony, counterpoint..etc. (NOT talking about IDM or stuff like Jarre, Tomita, Carlos..etc--I tend to see those as more experimental or avant-garde, not popular dance music). Could it be because electronic dance music simply sounds better when it doesn't incorporate complex harmonies, counterpoint..etc? Does the use of filters, effects..etc negate the effectiveness of harmony and counterpoint, or they are simply aspects of music theory that does not interest electronic musicians? Maybe electronic dance music has to be kept simple to keep that "vibe" and bogging it down with complexity will kill the dance feel?

Here you remind me of Mr Spock, who admits that such a thing defies logic, and therefore must be a 'peculiar human trait'...

[RTaylor]

I agree that my original question was perhaps not as succinct as it should have been. Maybe it's too late, but I'll go ahead and change it (Although I feel that the question's already been answered--the consensus being that complexity tend to kill the dancing vibe, and also a lot of electronic dance musicians aren't well-versed in advanced music theory).

New (revised) version of qusetion:
Why is it that beat-driven electronic dance music tends to be very simple in terms of harmony, counterpoint..etc. (NOT talking about IDM or stuff like Jarre, Tomita, Carlos..etc--I tend to see those as more experimental or avant-garde, not popular dance music). Could it be because electronic dance music simply sounds better when it doesn't incorporate complex harmonies, counterpoint..etc? Does the use of filters, effects..etc negate the effectiveness of harmony and counterpoint, or they are simply aspects of music theory that does not interest electronic musicians? Maybe electronic dance music has to be kept simple to keep that "vibe" and bogging it down with complexity will kill the dance feel?

Maybe it's just that "dance" music has become pretty specific and pretty simplified? Aside from ballet and waltz and several classical dance forms {maybe swing}, "dance" used to mean "It's got a good beat, you can dance to it". Since disco and now that we actually have "dance" genres, the focus is on the "good beat".

Personally, I don't like dancing to dance music... It's boring... something to bounce about to rather than something you can "feel"... interpret... actually dance to.

[adj]

Has dancing ever really been an 'intellectual exercise'? I mean, what sort of dance would two physicists do during a discussion of quantum mechanical probabilities?

Dancing is that mating ritual that humans do -- somewhat more sophisticated than that of, say, the Preying Mantis, yet nonetheless motivated by the same primal instincts.

Saying that, I also confess that, being eminently human, I love dancing with a cute babe, our eyes giggling at each other and having *fun*, with perhaps (and often), the promise of having refreshing intimate physical activity a little later -- perhaps the dancing being somewhat like a delightful appertif in prelude to a deeper, more spiritual meal.

In the case of dancing then, music is merely a pleasant accompaniment to life -- an incidental thing that enhances something more fundamentally interesting and socially important for the procreation of the species.