A rise of "Page 22" (post by Jan) rubbish in the Cafe?

[jancivil]

As a property of this or that generation and reaction, that doesn't take up any space in my life. My father and I liked a lot of the same music and I never heard him say anything about the music that I gravitated to that he wasn't interested in. I think it's worse today, but I think the world is going down the drain, don't mind me. But it isn't about 'you punks with your shitty music, get off my lawn'. I think you could be my age and do exactly the same bad moves, it isn't a property of when you were born necessarily. If you're going to be a musicologist, why not blame it all on my generation, actually.

'EDM' as per KVR is a thing. There are people that would I think occupy the center of under that umbrella that get mentioned a lot in the production techniques and sound design forum, and for a while there frequently in music theory. I honestly never saw it as a tag before KVR, and I don't see it outside of KVR. It stands for a line in the sand here, typically. But I have a passing familiarity with a couple of those names, and those guys make turds which some people find to be polished turds.
There is a certain sound which comes to mind for me that I encounter occasionally in a police procedural or the like in TV or cinema, a scene 'in tha club'.

So it's a shorthand here. Some people don't like it used as a diss, such as in the thread title, and if we're going to be very scrupulous it probably isn't very fair.

[Sendy]

Good argument, and all I can say is that while commercially produced music may be a neccecary evil

Is it really evil? Music which makes women dance makes the world a better place.

EDM (tm) doesn't make people dance, they just kind of wobble in place. Not that that's a bad thing mind you, resonance and all that.

They wobble in place, while 70% of them film eachother on their iphones.

All that filming really isn't condusive to letting go and submitting your body to the groove. It brings too much attention to the physical. It's certainly not an atmosphere I'd want to be part of. I rarely go out to events, but when I do, I want to rave. I want to let rip and try and transcend time and space. That may sound pretentious, but after an hour of wild dancing, you do feel like this is happening. And it's amazing. (No drugs needed). But I'm sure you know about that

[jancivil]

I don't know, I stay out of social activities that involve alcohol consumption (I never took to it, and drunkenness is gross, it's not that I have a problem), so I only have what I see on TV to go by. I've thought that the emphasis on 'dance music' all along smacked of disco, and that didn't seem like really authentic response to musical stimuli in too many cases, more of conformist posing. Does it get you laid, this EDM stuff? If so, it's all good.

[DJ Warmonger]

I stay out of social activities that involve alcohol consumption

I stay out of music that needs alcohol consumption Yet it doesn't stop me from dancing at the party.
Of course, as long as music is good and musical. Rhytmic, interesting, passionate. Recent EDM inarnation is not, it is aimed at deaf, drunk people with no musical ear and poor sound systems.

No drugs needed

People ask me for drugs every now and then when I'm dancing. But you just need to absorb energy from music to keep raving for hours

[ntom]

Does it get you laid, this EDM stuff? If so, it's all good.

I used to help a friend set up various DJs at clubs - it wasn't exactly what I wanted to do, it was just me kissing ass because he had a pull with some of the downtown clubs, so I hoped I could use that to my advantage - anways, that's a different story.
This often meant sound checking and all that fun stuff pre-show (granted a lot less work than when I have to sound check and help set up my dad's 12 piece band). Usually afterwards the DJs that played weren't horrible, most of them produced their own music to perform (though a couple didn't) and so I usually enjoyed listening even if it wasn't the most inspired of genres, it was fun, it was also a roof-top lounge which was pretty neat in it's own right.

But, all in all, I went home every single night without a lay. I mean, I'm pretty socially awkward as it is. But I can confirm EDM is not the best wingman, at least not good enough to spot me for my incredible social awkwardness.
...I also don't really enjoy clubs or...really any social event...I was just there in hopes of furthering my music - and that never happened either.

[vurt]

I don't know, I stay out of social activities that involve alcohol consumption (I never took to it, and drunkenness is gross, it's not that I have a problem), so I only have what I see on TV to go by. I've thought that the emphasis on 'dance music' all along smacked of disco, and that didn't seem like really authentic response to musical stimuli in too many cases, more of conformist posing. Does it get you laid, this EDM stuff? If so, it's all good.

that depends how much speed youve done.

stuff on tv never looks like proper clubs/raves to me, except for the rave scene from spaced of course.
i never felt it was a posey type atmos when i used to do that circuit, although this was many years ago now, it was always just people out for fun, from the expensive clothes wearers to the crusty in a hi vis vest everyone just throwing shapes in the church of dance and getting along. obviously this was probably a symptom of the amount of ecstasy everyone had taken.
but i had some of the best nights of my life in those sweaty rooms, but then i did take an awful lot of drugs over those years. for all i know it never really happened

[herodotus]

How many of us have taken on a soundtrack job because we needed the money when we would rather be rocking hard with our buddies? How many of us have made a "beat" because we needed money or to draw recognition to our startup studio? How many artists have written or performed music to "blow up" or "expand their audience" and later talked about how much they hated it (Cheryl Crow, Elton John, and Billy Joel come to mind)? Was any of that WRONG?

Morally wrong? No.

I don't begrudge people a living doing audio work of whatever sort. Hell, do porn soundtracks if it pays the bills. The problem is that (for some reason I will never understand) doing porn soundtracks is something sort of embarrassing, while producing, say, a Lady Gaga song is considered to be the pinnacle of achievement.

I mean you are a SOMEBODY if you pull that off.

A friend once told me how much they LOVED my music, but also told me it was hard to listen to and inaccessible for the average listener. In essence they asked me to dumb down my skills for the sake of the listener. So I did.

I'm sorry, but to me that's a sad story. But then, I am a freak that hates 95% of the pop music of the past 50 years, so I would think that, right?

The only self serving ones are those who make music that no one but them can appreciate. Money, fame, or whatever else might be selfish too, but at least offers something that pleases others...even if that was not the original motive.

But you see, this doesn't have to be 'self-serving' at all.

Here's the deal, there are all kinds of different aesthetic perspectives in the world.

The notion that you should have a large audience of your peers who like your music is an aesthetic perspective.

The notion that you should have a small but violently engaged audience of people who show their enthusiasm by furiously slamming into each other 3 feet in front of you as you perform is another aesthetic perspective.

Yet another aesthetic perspective is the notion that the proper goal of artistic activity is to create "something that is valuable in itself and that works in itself"; and that the artist as such "is concerned with the good of that which is made".

Now an artist who is operating within this last perspective might seem self-serving. But if you regard your job as making the best doohickey you can possibly make, and you won't stop until you honestly believe you have achieved this goal, aren't you really more a servant of the doohickey than vice versa?

[vurt]

i serve the doohickey
so say we all, well just me really, even my cat hates my stuff

its not about being selfish though, its about doing something I enjoy. yes i know there are people who like my stuff, some of them have even given me money for it, but i dont make any attempt to cater for others i do it because i enjoy the process and record it because the occasional listens remind me of those moments where i am free in my own world.

i dont believe that means im morally wrong, its not like im hurting anyone.

[jancivil]

"dance at the party" - I never quite made the transition from the teenage pot party even to collegiate 'Hey let's party', and I'm not comfortable in crowds, which I believe is hereditary. I didn't realize until really too old to care that some people would say 'Hey, wanna party?' and mean have sex.

Where does she think she is, Russia?

[jancivil]

So, you know, that line about 'self-serving' - I agree with serving music, and 'self-serving' is a diss -
vs other people being happy by my music, when what makes them happy is maybe Nicki Minaj, I prefer not.

[ghettosynth]

i serve the doohickey
so say we all, well just me really, even my cat hates my stuff

My cat gets excited when I sing (badly), it makes him want to come sit in my lap. Of course, neither of my cats likes loud thumpa-thumpa music and they head for the hills when I turn it up too much.

its not about being selfish though, its about doing something I enjoy.

I think that the notion of self-serving or selfish as applied in this thread is, in itself, self serving, and, moreover, that the latter is the correct use of the words/phrase, and the former is not. Selfish doesn't just mean that I do things for myself, it specifically means a lack of consideration for others. Choosing to make music that one enjoys does not represent a lack of consideration for others unless one is contracted, financially or socially, to make a particular style of music.

[herodotus]

i serve the doohickey
so say we all, well just me really, even my cat hates my stuff

My cat gets excited when I sing (badly), it makes him want to come sit in my lap. Of course, neither of my cats likes loud thumpa-thumpa music and they head for the hills when I turn it up too much.

You should see the cats fly when I start playing my drum set. One of them sort of winces and ducks when she walks past it, even if I am nowhere near it, like she isn't entirely certain that it won't just eat her for the sheer brutal fun of it.

Clearly, nothing that makes a noise like that can be trusted.

[jancivil]

Yeah, 'self-serving' connotes slanting or distorting towards one's own ends or to create an impression. Someone that acts like they did it all themselves when they had a lot of support.
It goes beyond 'selfish' and is a more precise term.

[JonSolo]

Here is what the dictionary has to say-

self-serv·ing

adjective: self-serving; noun: self-serving
1. having concern for one's own interests before those of others.
"public accountability is replaced by self-serving propaganda"

noun
noun: self-seeking; noun: self-serving; plural noun: self-servings
1. concern for oneself before others.

So in support of my comment- I was willing to consider other's taste in music ahead of my own. I don't necessarily like that, but at least it is not self serving. Of course I could be selfish if I did it SOLELY to benefit myself but that would be subjective. And again, while it it may sink in on side personally, none of this no matter which side of the plate you are on is conclusively wrong or right.

[jancivil]

Well, if you want to argue, I say that your remark as to the [strawman] of the musician that is self-serving because she is only making music for herself, that no one else cares about, was self-serving in that you were slanting things to favor doing it for other people, at least making other people happy.
Which frankly signals to me a defensive posture.

I don't actually require you to trot out a dictionary. It doesn't make it mean something other than what ghettosynth and I are saying.
"at least it is not self serving" - I know what people mean by 'self-serving' and I think you are either reaching or don't get it. If you disagree, keep googling, I mean in the meantime lacking experience with the word in currency. You're hoping to take the dictionary with no context to prove a point. That's self-serving. If I make music for myself primarily, you can say I'm selfish, but 'self-serving' has a tinge to it that doesn't apply; so your insistent usage is either ignorant or bellicose.

It's a strawman, because who are you talking to that's making this music that no one cares about?
There will be two areas this will fit:
1) someone is so ahead of their time that no one can follow it. This is exceedingly rare. I can give an example, Edgard Varese in the 1930's made statements about being an inventor of sounds rather than a musician - definitely coming out as anti-career - and pretty much self-exiled somewhere in here for a couple of decades. THAT SAID, Debussy thought he was pretty great! And so did others that had enough going on to appreciate the innovation.

2) someone makes music that no one likes because it's not well-made.

So since there is no actual case you're even talking about, it's pure strawman argumentation. And it's insulting.