Show me some melody in modern electronic music.

[parma]

here's one of the better (IMO) synth-pop tracks of recent years. The beat does its job, but the melody really carries the track:

[Gamma-UT]

Then let's say that melody makes dance music better. If this were true then DJs would be SAMPLING melodies whole cloth and people like you would be selling fresh melodic lines sample libraries hand over fist. They would play these samples of entire melodies and crowds would go crazy and music would be different today. But, that didn't happen. It doesn't even happen when the classic melody is available in it's entirety and the track is all about sampling it. Listen to that swing house mix. Hooks are sampled, and for some parts you hear more of the melody, heck, the style is much more melodic than most, but, the tracks are still mostly repetitive.

In a lot of cases, I think you can go further than that. Melody becomes counterproductive. I do a fair amount of long-distance running and at big group runs, organisers had a habit of playing Tiesto's Adagio at the start. After about the sixteenth loop of the first part of Barber's main melody line I'd be standing there, thinking, "resolve, you f**ker, resolve", simply because I was familiar with Adagio for Strings. But it can't because it's euphoric trance and euphoric trance is all about going up, up, up. With that kind of track, you could only get away with the descent part of that melody in the breakdown or at the end. The hyperstructure of a trance track doesn't allow it in any other place.

So, the classic call-response approach to melody writing takes a back seat to the need to provide an ostinato riff until the time comes to release the pressure.

[Gamma-UT]

Yep, easy to dance to because of the drum machine!

Because of consistent groove, yes. Because of drum machine alone? No. The drum machine is the hamburger of the dance industry. You know what you're going to get each time and some people do really good hamburgers. But a live rhythm section on a good day will outgroove the machine any night. I was at the Gilles Peterson awards in London in January - they're good because you get a really good mix of acts in one night. But the guys with the drum machines, even with live support like Mala in Cuba were thoroughly upstaged by Marcos Valle - all live instrumentation. Everyone danced. It was impossible not to.

[A.M. Gold]

Scritti Politti used drum machines and seqeuncing extensively (one of the first pop acts to do so) but they were melodically complex. Miles Davis even loved one of their songs and covered it.

Hey, I sequence everything. Sequencing is'nt a barrier to melody writing, but it did tend to make riffs repetitive in the days of hardware sequences. Not a problem, though, because the main melody is in the vocal.

There is still melody extant in modern dance songs (from Sweden, Belgium, France, the UK, etc.), though, and in HUGE hits like that Shakira song. It's just not the case that, after the techno and house roots of purely instrumental electronic music, melody has really penetrated that world.

And maybe it isn't because DJ's can't write "real" music, maybe it's just an offshoot of the fact that electronic music as it is today started in Germany with people who loved the sound of repetitive sequences and that caught on here in Chicago and beyond. That fine, that's a certain approach to music, I'm just still not convinced that it establishes any kind of line in the sand that prohibits the effective use of melody in dance music.

Maybe the uptempo pop approach isn't going to work in dance clubs, that's distinctly possible, but people like uptempo stuff for other reasons. They like it to just wiggle to in the car or on the bus with their iPods, or while doing housework.

[ghettosynth]

Yep, easy to dance to because of the drum machine!

Because of consistent groove, yes. Because of drum machine alone? No. The drum machine is the hamburger of the dance industry. You know what you're going to get each time and some people do really good hamburgers. But a live rhythm section on a good day will outgroove the machine any night. I was at the Gilles Peterson awards in London in January - they're good because you get a really good mix of acts in one night. But the guys with the drum machines, even with live support like Mala in Cuba were thoroughly upstaged by Marcos Valle - all live instrumentation. Everyone danced. It was impossible not to.

I don't want to be misinterpreted here. I'm not at all suggesting that a drum machine is all you need, or that it's always better, or even that it's ever better, but, I am saying that it's always consistent. That was new in pop music in the 80s and it was part of what drove the evolution of dance music. I remember that song well, I still play remixes of it, I was dancing in clubs when it came out. New Order was particularly good at what they did, not everyone that employed drum machines were able to provide the groove between the ticks of the metronome.

So yes, I agree, consistent groove is the key point. The drum machine "can" make that better over the long term. This is what I was saying earlier about samples. Samples can be of live drummers, but when looped, have consistency in the large but groove in the small. You can also bore the shit out of people with a drum machine which is why some people think that dance music all about the guy who left the drum machine running. It's more than that, of course, but it's not the same without the consistent groove.

Or said differently, I think that New Order was not Joy Division in part because they embraced sequencing technology. It's not clear to me that they would have been the same band otherwise. The use of the drum machine forced them to work within it's rigid timing.

I've seen a number of bands with all live percussion trying to fit into EDM. It's never really worked for me. I pick up on the long term variance and it sounds like disco. Of course, I wasn't there, but, I'm not a Marcos Valle fan per se. I can't imagine him doing anything that would drive "me" to dance. I usually go for a beer and sit down to trip off the detail for stuff like that.

Now, loop that guy for 8 bars and toss him over a solid kick, now you've got something, heh!

[A.M. Gold]

By way of example re: my point about melody still surviving in vocal dance music, here is what distinctly sounds like disco revival to me. I don't know how big of a hit this was, but I know Rita Ora has been pretty successful overall in the UK.



Edit: interesting how they didn't put any dancing in that video.

To me that was a choice by the video director that wouldn't have been mine if I was in his place, though.

[A.M. Gold]

So you guys are helping me get my bearings but I gotta say, it's disappointing since it means for now I'm stuck writing hip hop instrumental music.



And now, for old times sake...

This is one of the few albums that always, and I mean every single time I listen to it, instantly transports me to a certain time of my life like it was yesterday.



P.S. Few people ever got more quality mileage out of a DX7 than David Gamson.

[Gamma-UT]

So yes, I agree, consistent groove is the key point. The drum machine "can" make that better over the long term. This is what I was saying earlier about samples. Samples can be of live drummers, but when looped, have consistency in the large but groove in the small.

No disagreement from me. Hip hop artists knew what to take.

Or said differently, I think that New Order was not Joy Division in part because they embraced sequencing technology. It's not clear to me that they would have been the same band otherwise. The use of the drum machine forced them to work within it's rigid timing.

There were hints of it in the later JD stuff. Isolation, Sound of Music have a drum machine feel to them so I get the sense that Morris at least could see the potential of the machine at the time. But it's probably Everything's Gone Green where it all changed.

I've seen a number of bands with all live percussion trying to fit into EDM. It's never really worked for me. I pick up on the long term variance and it sounds like disco. Of course, I wasn't there, but, I'm not a Marcos Valle fan per se. I can't imagine him doing anything that would drive "me" to dance. I usually go for a beer and sit down to trip off the detail for stuff like that.

I was surprised to be honest. I wouldn't have expected it before the night. But you can't argue with the sight of the entire crowd dancing their asses off. And they weren't doing that for some of the more rigid dance acts.

[Gamma-UT]

Of course, the Factory act that was completely transformed by the machine was the Happy Mondays. On the Rushent-produced album, it was a shambling mess. Remix of WFL. Utterly different story.

[A.M. Gold]

For the record, I don't mind drum machines at all. In fact I have to remind myself not to quantize my sequences 100% all the time.

I don't see a divergence between machine beats and melodic writing automatically. That may explain why, while the electronic musicians totally lost me after the mid 80's, when the scene became more German than British, I never gave up on the idea of electronic dance. That's why this thread exists. I want to embrace EDM, but I think I'm stuck with my own reinvention of it and I'll see if I can ever find a commercial outlet for it.

[ghettosynth]

Scritti Politti used drum machines and seqeuncing extensively (one of the first pop acts to do so) but they were melodically complex. Miles Davis even loved one of their songs and covered it.

I never said that you can't put melody over drum machines, I said that drum machines provided a machine like groove that wasn't possible before. You asserted that people were dancing madly to New Order, it's the song that you remembered. I'm pointing out that I'm not surprised by that. They were part of the shift.

A little bit earlier, I was dancing to stuff like this which was all the rage in the clubs in europe.

There is still melody extant in modern dance songs (from Sweden, Belgium, France, the UK, etc.), though, and in HUGE hits like that Shakira song. It's just not the case that, after the techno and house roots of purely instrumental electronic music, melody has really penetrated that world.

Of course, I thought that you were asking about what people think about melody in dance music. I'm sharing my point of view, I agree with Gamma, it can be counterproductive.

Now, if you're just trying to ask about what sells, I think that pop music with melody still sells. Just not much in an instrumental sense. You mentioned "moves like jagger" which I think is a nice track with a fun vocal melody. I'd even dance to it, but it wouldn't be the same as a "real" house track.

And maybe it isn't because DJ's can't write "real" music, maybe it's just an offshoot of the fact that electronic music as it is today started in Germany with people who loved the sound of repetitive sequences and that caught on here in Chicago and beyond. That fine, that's a certain approach to music, I'm just still not convinced that it establishes any kind of line in the sand that prohibits the effective use of melody in dance music.

Perhaps, but it's not like this is a new thought. I think that there is a line in the sand to some extent. There has been plenty of opportunity for it to catch on. Certainly tarnce has plenty of attempts at melodic excess. The current new house crowd is more melodic and certainly styles like electro swing also have more melodic components. Is it really just melody that you're talking about, or are you talking about more of a song structure?

Maybe the uptempo pop approach isn't going to work in dance clubs, that's distinctly possible, but people like uptempo stuff for other reasons. They like it to just wiggle to in the car or on the bus with their iPods, or while doing housework.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Can you sell instrumental electronic music with melody? Sure, to someone? Isn't that what Yani does?



I listen to house in the car and while I work. And frankly, I think that in some clubs, uptempo pop is absolutely the thing. David Guetta et al is popular with the bottle service crowd. I mean Kelly Rowland could eat all the crackers she wants and sing that syrupy song all night if she wanted, I can't say that I don't like it, but I can say that I don't want to hear it while I'm listening to real house music. But, hey, if you're just trying to sell music, then you could pick a worse model.



I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think that there's any lack of melody in electronic music if your definition includes what I would call pop music. There's plenty of melody in the form of vocal lines and the chord progressions are more song like than underground music. So yes, you should find a vocal collaborator.

[A.M. Gold]

Yea, Yanni isn't a good fit for what I'm aiming at. Neither is John Tesh. They use synths, but they are really adult contemporary artists. I've dabbled with that but my EDM invention is very different.

I really need to post some tracks of what I'm talking about but the production quality still needs work before I'll think it's presentable.

It wasn't a question in my mind as to whether there was melodic dance pop, I made the assertion that there still was only as a counter to the proposition made early in this thread by ZPH that there was sort of this popular uprising where people just made it clear they don't want melody in dance music. I don't agree with that as a clear cut historical event, but I do take the point that a lot of people don't seem to be bothered by the lack of melody in a lot of uptempo music.

I just started this thread as an exploratory thing, to try to see if there was something I missed within uptempo electronic instrumental music---something much closer to what I instinctively do. I'm gathering that the answer is probably no.

[GeckoYamori]

I think you and I are largely on the same page in regards to this. I adore the 80's pop period of Scritti Politti (was almost entirely sequenced on a Fairlight I think). Great use of counterpoint phrases, or call-and-response or whatever you'd label it. And it's funny in retrospect that most of the music from that period which I liked the most, it turns out David Gamson was involved in some capacity.

The theory about DJs taking over sounds about right. The difference with electronic music throughout the 1980's is how it was computer music largely approached by classically trained musicians who had grown up without this approach to music. As the technology got cheaper and more accessible, along with the boom in home computers, this opened up a whole new catalyst for people into the world of music. Now, I've seen plenty of people talk about this generation of bedroom producers with a very condescending attitude (some even on this forum) which I really don't agree with.

This is how I got into making music in the first place. Never was a band type of person and parents never sent me off to learn an instrument or anything, so it's doubtful I would have gotten started at all if it weren't for computers. I just happen to have an inherent interest and appreciation for melodies and harmonies.
Nonetheless it remains true that if you are a computer musician, you will most likely by a very large margin either be making dance music or hip hop. As such I often get shoehorned into this preconception when I say I don't play any instrument, and then people are surprised when they hear my music.

On a side note I feel that this whole watering down of melodic substance is also mirrored in modern Hollywood scores. It often really feels like I'm just listening to dance music without the dance aspect, with simple 1-bar phrases repeated forever. I don't think it has ever been this stripped down and homogenous before.

[vurt]

as for djs not being ableto write anything beyond rhythym...



pic of william orbit, at his orchestral suite performance.
(im in that pic )

[trimph1]

as for djs not being ableto write anything beyond rhythym...



pic of william orbit, at his orchestral suite performance.
(im in that pic )

That was an amazing concert....