Phrasing in electronic music and the curse of predictability

[ariston]

And so we're back to "artistic value". And who will be the judge of that, I wonder?

Fwiw, "is she weird" feels completely right to me. Maybe my artistic sense is faulty.

[qa2pir]

And so we're back to "artistic value". And who will be the judge of that, I wonder?

Fwiw, "is she weird" feels completely right to me. Maybe my artistic sense is faulty.

I've just stated my opinion yes that is true. I have no sources.

I'll be the judge of my aesthetics and you be the judge of yours. maybe we share some of it. maybe it's rationally possible to find out and agree about what art really is but even then we'd probably disagree on specifics.

[Gonga]

I think Sendy's original post was about breaking away from the mundane and surprising the listener. I think original ideas in music often surprise the listener, and I agree completely with all she said. I too am interested in playing something new in every piece I do, and often it may be a single note that sounds a bit incorrect, but not. In the case of improvisational wonderment, the listener can be left to ponder how a "mistake" or "wrong note" could be so perfect in its beauty. I suspect it has to do with the humanity of imperfection of the note - such vulnerability, and especially humility, is often missing in music (not just rhythmically rigid EM music, but other types such as over-produced pop as well). As Joe Zawinul said about Thelonius Monk's "incorrectness," "some people say more in one incorrect moment than others say their whole correct lives."

[ghettosynth]

While you're at it, check
out some highly predictable 60's and 70's music. You might
find tedium was prevelant long before computers made music
'easy'

I've never heard that musical period described as
tedium before. Quite the opposite. It was a period of
continuous, wrenching, revolutionary change.

Simon Emerson, a music scholar who studied at Cambridge,
writes:

Throughout the fifty-year development of pop music there
have been periods of creative excitement alternating with
periods of tedium. During periods of tedium pop music
often attempts to emulate large-scale forms like opera or the
orchestral suite. It becomes pretentious and focuses on
conventional ideas of performance virtuosity, emphasizing
the idea that only the instrumental star can make music and
certainly not achievable by everyone. Specialist
knowledge and skills are required to participate. Skiffle/rock 'n'
roll in the 1950s, acid rock in the 1960s, punk in the
1970s, techno/dance in the 1980s and 90s were classic
examples of periods when things were exciting in the pop
world and tedium was banished. These movements pushed pop
music forward beyond the established limits. The music was
underpinned by a kind of return to the basic principles of
pop: anti-virtuosity, appropriation, an adaptation of
technology, creative experimentation and the idea that
'anyone can do it'.

...

The radical psychadelic experiments of the late 1960s had
predictably eveolved into the tedium of 'symphonic' rock,
concept albums, and the musicians wanted to be equated with
the great classical composers. Some groups even made
their own arrangements of popular classics in order to demonstrate
their performance skills.

Seems pretty spot on to me. I'm sure that I don't need to tell you that concept albums and tedious symphonic rock had their heyday in the 70s, right?

[GeckoYamori]

I don't think you can impose viewpoints like that on entire musical movements. If anything, that would be moreso applied to the listeners rather than the creators (just see how Bob Dylan was treated by his fans once he brought electric guitars in). Rhythms, timbres, melodies and harmonies, I just happen to find all this shit very interesting and that makes me naturally drawn to music like symphonic/progressive rock. I don't care about virtuosity or some misplaced notion of intellectual superiority. And I'm sure there are a lot of musicians in that spectrum who are the same.

[Gonga]

Simon Emerson, a music scholar who studied at Cambridge,
writes:

Throughout the fifty-year development of pop music there
have been periods of creative excitement alternating with
periods of tedium. During periods of tedium pop music
often attempts to emulate large-scale forms like opera or the
orchestral suite. It becomes pretentious and focuses on
conventional ideas of performance virtuosity, emphasizing
the idea that only the instrumental star can make music and
certainly not achievable by everyone. Specialist
knowledge and skills are required to participate. Skiffle/rock 'n'
roll in the 1950s, acid rock in the 1960s, punk in the
1970s, techno/dance in the 1980s and 90s were classic
examples of periods when things were exciting in the pop
world and tedium was banished. These movements pushed pop
music forward beyond the established limits. The music was
underpinned by a kind of return to the basic principles of
pop: anti-virtuosity, appropriation, an adaptation of
technology, creative experimentation and the idea that
'anyone can do it'.

...

The radical psychadelic experiments of the late 1960s had
predictably eveolved into the tedium of 'symphonic' rock,
concept albums, and the musicians wanted to be equated with
the great classical composers. Some groups even made
their own arrangements of popular classics in order to demonstrate
their performance skills.

Seems pretty spot on to me. I'm sure that I don't need to tell you that concept albums and tedious symphonic rock had their heyday in the 70s, right?

Though some of these things happened at various times, I don't think any of this in any way characterizes nor summarizes the 60s nor 70s adequately at all. That period influenced music to come in ways that have not been repeated since. I don't think you could characterize Jimi Hendrix, John Coltrane, Herbie Hancock, Mahavishnu, Zappa or Weather Report as being anti-virtuosity, yet their contribution to music was inestimably huge, if only to show that the elimination of stylistic and other self-imposed preconceived barriers to creativity is possible and highly desirable.

Kriminal said tedium was prevalent (dominant) during the 60s and 70s. I strongly disagree.

[ghettosynth]

Simon Emerson, a music scholar who studied at Cambridge,
writes:

Throughout the fifty-year development of pop music there
have been periods of creative excitement alternating with
periods of tedium. During periods of tedium pop music
often attempts to emulate large-scale forms like opera or the
orchestral suite. It becomes pretentious and focuses on
conventional ideas of performance virtuosity, emphasizing
the idea that only the instrumental star can make music and
certainly not achievable by everyone. Specialist
knowledge and skills are required to participate. Skiffle/rock 'n'
roll in the 1950s, acid rock in the 1960s, punk in the
1970s, techno/dance in the 1980s and 90s were classic
examples of periods when things were exciting in the pop
world and tedium was banished. These movements pushed pop
music forward beyond the established limits. The music was
underpinned by a kind of return to the basic principles of
pop: anti-virtuosity, appropriation, an adaptation of
technology, creative experimentation and the idea that
'anyone can do it'.

...

The radical psychadelic experiments of the late 1960s had
predictably eveolved into the tedium of 'symphonic' rock,
concept albums, and the musicians wanted to be equated with
the great classical composers. Some groups even made
their own arrangements of popular classics in order to demonstrate
their performance skills.

Seems pretty spot on to me. I'm sure that I don't need to tell you that concept albums and tedious symphonic rock had their heyday in the 70s, right?

Though some of these things happened at various times, I don't think any of this in any way characterizes nor summarizes the 60s nor 70s adequately at all.
...

Kriminal said tedium was prevalent (dominant) during the 60s and 70s. I strongly disagree.

He implied AS prevalent as today, as does at least on expert as noted above. I'll be waiting for you to cite an expert now, something I know that you know how to do. amiright?

[ghettosynth]

I just happen to find all this shit very interesting and that makes me naturally drawn to music like symphonic/progressive rock. I don't care about virtuosity or some misplaced notion of intellectual superiority. And I'm sure there are a lot of musicians in that spectrum who are the same.

Are you serious? Please give examples of progressive rock musicians that don't care about "virtuosity." Progressive rock is almost by definition anti-pop.

[Sendy]

I hadn't even really intended anything deep or meaningful in my mention of "electronic music", it was just meant as a rough marker in time. This was never meant to be an argument about complexity vs simplicity or even odd time signatures, but a discussion on phrasing. I don't consider myself 'intellectually superior' for sometimes using phrases of 3 or 6 bars long instead of 4, or inserting a bridge of 6 bars into a predominantly 4-bar phrased song, I just find in other people's music, those unexpected changes can be delightful. And I've found from the feedback from others that, when used judiciously, it enhances my music. I care about music, most of all electronic music, and I want to share that. That is all...

I'm not going to discuss this further because now I just don't feel comfortable, sadly that's a trend with KVR where everything is descending into an "us" vs "them" mentality. I'll just end by saying if I offended anyone by appearing to dismiss "electronic" or dance music as boring or dull then that wasn't my intention; and that in my experience of music, music created and played by people doesn't settle into rows of 16 (even if it does intend to create a trance in the listener, let's face it, if you're in a trance you're not going to be counting.... "Hey, that was only 12!"), while a lot of music after the electronic and dance music revolution considers this kind of grouping some kind of immutable law... to the point that newbies to electronic music might not ever consider it as a possibility.

That was really all I wanted to bring into focus. I'm no musicology expert by a long shot, and maybe I'm imagining it, but that's how it seems to me based on my limited experiences as a listener and musician.

[ghettosynth]

I hadn't even really intended anything deep or meaningful in my mention of "electronic music", it was just meant as a rough marker in time. This was never meant to be an argument about complexity vs simplicity or even odd time signatures, but a discussion on phrasing. I don't consider myself 'intellectually superior' for sometimes using phrases of 3 or 6 bars long instead of 4, or inserting a bridge of 6 bars into a predominantly 4-bar phrased song, I just find in other people's music, those unexpected changes can be delightful.

I think that the point here is that such changes can also be irritating. Sure in the right context they are delightful, as can be a deftly placed snare hit.

You might get a more positive response by not starting the post with a criticism of drum machine inspired music. If you're genuinely interested, you might ask how dance music induces the same feeling, or even if it is appropriate.

So many of these threads start with a questionable thesis and then everyone chimes in with their own variant.

[ghettosynth]

if you're in a trance you're not going to be counting.... "Hey, that was only 12!

That statement alone tells me that you don't really know what we're talking about. You convey that you haven't had the experience to any great depth but then go on to dismiss the arguments of other based on your inexperience.

Dancers play their body like a silent instrument. You create interest visually by leading, lagging, and playing with the rhythm. You absolutely expect a certain amount of predictability so that you can anticipate changes in a free form manner.

Of course you can always work around variation but it takes the groove away. Variations in really popular music are less subject to these constraints because the audience is largely interested in music that they've heard before. To the extent that we can generalize, the underground dance music aficionado wants to hear music that he hasn't heard before, but, in a framework such that it doesn't matter.

So, in some sense, you're right, people aren't counting, but fundamentally, you're wrong; one doesn't need to count, in fact, to know that things are off, you feel the 32s. If you had more experience with what I'm talking about then you'd know this. You can look around the room and see people stop on a dime when DJs make either strange choices or mistakes.

It's like asking a hundred people to play the 12 bar blues and all of a sudden you change it up and decide 11 bars is a nice surprise. Maybe you can make it work, but most likely, you're just going to be viewed as an asshole for breaking form for no good reason.

[Gonga]

Ghettosynth, you have single-handedly turned this discussion into a mean, destructive rant. I was reluctant to write this, but your posts are too cruel to ignore. I am sure you will now attack me personally, even though you've totally destroyed any reason I would ever want to return to read it. You've repeatedly demonstrated in this topic that you are literally delusional. You are inventing posts that never were made and attacking them. You fail to grasp the gist of simple statements (multiple), then attack them on bases that aren't even present in their argument (only yours).

Sendy, there are a few forums out there that are much more rational and respectful than kvr, which focus on composition, arranging and so on. You can actually discuss things like meter without being personally attacked! I suspect it may be because the members are primarily focused on music itself rather than primarily the technology and aquisition thereof, I don't know. What a shame.

[jancivil]

if you're in a trance you're not going to be counting.... "Hey, that was only 12!

[aggressive dismissive attack]

Dancers play their body like a silent instrument. You create interest visually by leading, lagging, and playing with the rhythm. You absolutely expect a certain amount of predictability so that you can anticipate changes in a free form manner.

Of course you can always work around variation but it takes the groove away. Variations in really popular music are less subject to these constraints because the audience is largely interested in music that they've heard before. To the extent that we can generalize, the underground dance music aficionado wants to hear music that he hasn't heard before, but, in a framework such that it doesn't matter.

So, in some sense, you're right, people aren't counting, but fundamentally, you're wrong; one doesn't need to count, in fact, to know that things are off, you feel the 32s. If you had more experience with what I'm talking about then you'd know this. You can look around the room and see people stop on a dime when DJs make either strange choices or mistakes.

so if some improperly initiated person at the board introduces the error - of variation? like what, a triplet? - into this 'all about the trance' strict duple subdivision, the dancer's visual presentation (during a trance state, s/he is concerned with what s/he looks like to the crowd), this 'free form anticipation' is thrown so badly off it stops this flow in its tracks? whew.

you seem to be living in a construct of language (ie., bullshit). Which seems to function to make you seem sehr clever as you seek - and invent - problems with people that enjoy things [rhythm qua rhythm] you need to dismiss.

It's like asking a hundred people to play the 12 bar blues and all of a sudden you change it up and decide 11 bars is a nice surprise. Maybe you can make it work, but most likely, you're just going to be viewed as an asshole for breaking form for no good reason.

so you arbitrarily pose a case 'for no good reason' by your terms as if to demonstrate that *when* someone deviates it's 'most likely for no good reason'. You're begging the question (to insist a conclusion strictly by its premise). All you demonstrate, by this great expenditure of verbiage, is that you don't like music to change up very much.

[KBSoundSmith]

Ghettosynth, you have single-handedly turned this discussion into a mean, destructive rant. I was reluctant to write this, but your posts are too cruel to ignore. I am sure you will now attack me personally, even though you've totally destroyed any reason I would ever want to return to read this thread. You've repeatedly demonstrated in this topic that you are literally delusional. You are inventing posts that never were made and attacking them. You fail to grasp the gist of simple statements (multiple), then attack them on bases that aren't even present in their argument (only yours).

Sendy, there are a few forums out there that are much more rational and respectful than kvr, which focus on composition, arranging and so on. You can actually discuss things like meter without being personally attacked! I suspect it may be because the members are primarily focused on music itself rather than primarily the technology and aquisition thereof, I don't know. What a shame.

Could you link a few? I enjoy reading what other people have to say about composition/theory, but I'm increasingly finding this section of KVR too infuriating to read. The general lack of knowledge I can stomach (usually), but the arrogance, presumed "knowledge", bullying and otherwise toxic behavior I can't. I can't tell you how many times I've read a post by a beginner who I thought I might try to help or found a somewhat interesting thread warranting a comment, only to be dissuaded from posting when the thread turns to a shit-fest only two posts in.

I graduated first overall at two colleges studying music theory and composition, I've had compositions played by orchestras, chamber ensembles, instrumental and vocal soloists, etc, and I'm sure there are a large number of equally skilled (and honestly, probably even more skilled) individuals here at KVR. So I'm sure there are others here who find it equally irritating that it's impossible to discuss something as basic and elemental as four-bar phrasing in this forum.

[Gonga]

I started composing pieces at the piano when I was 2 and wrote a 24-piece symphony at 17, but I'm just an amateur who doesn't compare to many people here with very considerable music chops - and that's the shame of it. Sendy's music is absolutely brilliant and original, and she is a fine and sweet person. Of all the people to crap on...

Here are three. I've joined the first two, but the third has Facebook links and though kvr does too, I have begun avoiding FB-linked sites.

http://composersforum.ning.com/forum
http://filmandgamecomposers.com/forum/
http://forum.youngcomposers.com/

The composers forum is interesting. They are very picky about screening members and watching threads (pretty much the antithesis of kvr). The film and game composers forum is really cool, and since I'm now doing game music I think that's where I'll be spending more time.

I will still visit kvr but I spend less time in any serious discussion here - pretty much just meat and potatoes now.