Phrasing in electronic music and the curse of predictability

[Gonga]

I'll say it again: innovation by means of explicitly defined, conventional theoretical devices isn't actual innovation because you still play by the rules. you let them control and participate in what you're expressing through your music

These sound like your words, not ours! Anyway, what meter isn't "explicitly defined?" Aren't they all, making the statement meaningless? And what isn't a "conventional theoretical device?" I want to try one! I didn't realize I "play by the rules" nor let them control me by inventing surprising rhythmic changes...wow!

instead of accepting tradition as a necessary formal framework and going on with your creativity and questioning, as you say, the cultural hegemony from within. formal innovation is like a revolting child.

So, to be creative I MUST ACCEPT TRADITION AS A NECESSARY FORMAL FRAMEWORK. Huh, who'd a thunk it? All while the FORMAL part is revolting?

Wow, I'm so confused now, I think I'll just go back to my world with no rules except those I accept for musical reasons at the time...

[jancivil]

I see this 'the body knows when it's off from the 32', and it just seems like some lingo in an argument to me. 32 in a grid is an artifice you have likely from the grid in the sequencer. you are at the same time posing this 'trance state' concept, the visuals the dancer is generating with the lights or something, and this knowledge of an artificial construction of the time which is dividing by two to a certain resolution of the grid.

Again, the key part here is that you haven't had the experience in any serious form.
You want to argue, but you don't have, shall we say "a point of entry."

To dancing to 4/4? This is so precious, your estimation of your understanding of f**king 4/4. This is actually delusional. And: we have another master's degree at University of I'm Rubber You're Glue?

you playing the victim card?

what? what are you reaching for now? I objected to your aggressive dismissive tone to Sendy, I did.

[ghettosynth]

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.

Music theory subforums have a tendency to descend into madness no matter where they are. I don't think KVR is particularly unusual.

FWIW for Sendy, Mark Butler's Unlocking the Groove might be worth a look - his schtick (which I don't entirely agree with, because some of his examples would be lost in the context of the DJ's switching and mixing of tracks during a session) is that metrical surprise and dissonance are key parts of dance music even though everything is laid on a four on the floor beat (largely to prevent people falling over at any change points). Page 100 looks at 808 State's Cubik as an example - it's available in the Google preview, which is why I mentioned it, although there are others in the book that look at Jeff MIlls' Jerical and Underworld's Cups.

Great reference.

I contend that many of the nuances of EDM rely on ambiguity
to achieve their effects. The consequences of ambiguity in this
music, therefore, are both formal and aesthetic. Moreover, they
hail the listener in a way that is also social: metrically ambiguous
sections encourage the listener to construe the meter actively
rather than absorb metrical information passively. On the
dance floor, this construction occurs in and between bodies as
well as in minds. In so doing, dancers and listeners challenge
the oft-expressed contention that rhythm in dance music (in
general, not just in EDM) must be simple and obvious—a view
that hinges upon a conception of the dancers as passive recipients of the rhythms they are given. Rather, EDM is consistently
written in a way that promotes active participation in the construction of musical experience, generating interpretations that
are both individual and multiple. (137, emphasis in original)

Here's Jerical, you won't find anything so obvious as the changes in Blackbird. That said, it's a fantastic track to dance to because of where the rhythmic subtlety leads you. If you've never seen Jeff Mills live, BTW, and you like techno at all you should definitively try to find a way.

[jancivil]

instead of accepting tradition as a necessary formal framework and going on with your creativity and questioning, as you say, the cultural hegemony from within. formal innovation is like a revolting child.

So, to be creative I MUST ACCEPT TRADITION AS A NECESSARY FORMAL FRAMEWORK. Huh, who'd a thunk it? All while the FORMAL part is revolting?

innovation seems to be impossible, so I'm not sure creativity is possible either. So obey teh frameworks!

there is so much in music history where innovation occurred, by eschewing old forms. I wouldn't want to go into 'convention' without defining terms as I indicated.

this person is just seriously ignorant of history, ignorant of music really. Just amazing arrogance, you get some lingo together and make a word salad, like it's going to disguise an absolute lack of understanding of terms.

[qa2pir]

Instead of reaching for vocabulary, you could stand to try and reason something through.

instead of constantly hinting at your own life experience and some wisdom never apparent in your treatment of others, you could stand to reason something through.

Wow, you really have mastered the art of I'm rubber, you're glue, what bounces off me sticks to you.

I have told you the gist of my argument and you haven't replied to that.

The hell I haven't, you just don't like what was said.

I'll say it again: innovation by means of explicitly defined, conventional theoretical devices isn't actual innovation because you still play by the rules. you let them control and participate in what you're expressing through your music, instead of accepting tradition as a necessary formal framework and going on with your creativity and questioning, as you say, the cultural hegemony from within. formal innovation is like a revolting child. probably much like you picture me.

<Formal innovation is a bad thing!> Do you imagine in this fevered state that the adjectives you attach to the statment make this seem clever? It's idiotic.

I do picture you as a child! Do scream [STRAW MAN!] some more! Do you hope that gets rid of the fact you're relying on them? This is impudent insolent acting out, with this excessive LINGO as if it makes you seem intelligent. It's, with no fear of exaggeration, I think THE most pretentous crap I have even seen here.
'you still play by the rules'. you mean convention is always a factor? Who said that innovation is necessarily about defying all convention? That would be you! To really go into it, we would have to look at specific, concrete cases. There are in reality people, eg. Varese, that arguably tossed aside convention. We'd have to make precise definitions of terms to be serious about this. You don't have much to go on to talk about things on this level; this pretense to an aesthetic is a joke. You have nothing more than I can see than some unexamined premises and an inchoate knowledge of terms.

This is more evidence that you cannot manage an intelligent argument. You cannot expect to if you do not understand how to delineate the general and the specific; this is fundamental in making an actual argument. You're just making assertions out of your own unexamined premises, wildly.

You're just talking to yourself here anyway. You need to define 'innovation' in terms exactly convenient as to get rid of it, and it isn't a factor in the discussion except you seem to intensely dislike the notion. You're chasing your own tail.

You're incoherent here: going by convention is good except when you don't like it: the convention of 4/4, as you stick to it as a comfort zone, is uncompromising and courageous in its honesty. If one uses the convention of say 3s and 2s arriving at an odd number, it is arbitrary and offensively pretentious. The convention itself cannot bear the attributes of a quality, let alone moral quality. This is INSANE. You have a lot of five dollar words, but what you reveal you do not have is experience with the lingo. You're thrashing about really, by elaborate but empty sentences trying to fake it.

I do not at any time approach my work by these criteria. I just get on with it. I do not have these abstractions in front of the process. I have a lot of fun and the greatest of ease creating music. Don't hate me because I'm beautiful!

also your mathematical intuition is severely impaired if you can't grasp the ease, symmetry and potency of 2-multiples.

What I actually said was that 4/4 is not the default except to someone such as you; and you particularly out of your culturally determined, and I'll now complete the statement, narrow and ignorant world view. You're like a mosquito with that desperate try.

Theoretical devices? You don't quite know what theory is I guess. how is 7/8 more 'theory-like' than 4/4? Because you don't know what to do with it? All 'theory' is is a way to describe what's been observed to work, to convey how it works, in consistent and coherent lingo. I'll say it again if it will dissuade you from further nonsense. LINGO! Fvck thee off forthwith.

I gave my experience not because it's special but as the example I know. To illustrate how arriving at a like for complex time can be pretty normative behavior actually.

How do you expect to be received with these bizarre and clueless rants? you seem to expect your ass to be kissed. These rants are unhinged frankly.

haha you're the one with strawman; I haven't discarded 7/8th per se. 7/8th isn't necessarily more theory like, but the way meter shifts are employed often relies on theory. this is an empirical and subjective question. I like to make hypotheses with my conjecture. you're free to disagree but please base your counter-argument on something else than superior wrath and yawn-worthy skepticism 101.

jancivil, you're stark mad whenever someone else has an opinion just as you're stark mad whenever someone doesn't dare have an opinion. please try being a little more concise. most of what you write is just indignation and it gets really hard to reply when your posts are three miles long.

bizarre rants yeah... I expected my view to be challenged or agreed with, probably both. I surely expected you coming in here bickering around.

[sjm]

Does anyone know what Jan, Ghetto and qa2pir are arguing about? I can't follow it anymore.



The thing about time signature changes is that when they're done well, nobody notices - especially not the non-musicians types. It either sounds good or it doesn't. Ditto for songs in "weird" time signatures throughout ("weird" in the sense that most people's comfort zone is 4/4 or 3/4). I had a friend who had zero musical theory knowledge who'd write tunes in 7/8 on his bass simply because it sounded good to him. He wasn't counting or anything, he just played what he heard in his head. So it's not necessarily about being clever or "brain wanking" (as the Germans say).

I'm a big fan of the Pixies too, who show that simple 6 bar phrases in 4/4 can go a long way.

[qa2pir]

I'll say it again: innovation by means of explicitly defined, conventional theoretical devices isn't actual innovation because you still play by the rules. you let them control and participate in what you're expressing through your music

These sound like your words, not ours! Anyway, what meter isn't "explicitly defined?" Aren't they all, making the statement meaningless? And what isn't a "conventional theoretical device?" I want to try one! I didn't realize I "play by the rules" nor let them control me by inventing surprising rhythmic changes...wow!

instead of accepting tradition as a necessary formal framework and going on with your creativity and questioning, as you say, the cultural hegemony from within. formal innovation is like a revolting child.

So, to be creative I MUST ACCEPT TRADITION AS A NECESSARY FORMAL FRAMEWORK. Huh, who'd a thunk it? All while the FORMAL part is revolting?

Wow, I'm so confused now, I think I'll just go back to my world with no rules except those I accept for musical reasons at the time...

my words sound like my words? ok point register'd

not all meters are "explicitly defined" as deviations from form. try reading what I write if you're interested in anything else than mockery.

yes in order to be creative you can't just make the inverted mirror image of the norm. you must bring something NEW. a new feel, a new expression not a new coalescence of meters. you want people to listen not alienate them so you want the song to be simple and straight-forward yet challenging.

shall I add IN MY OPINION

[ghettosynth]

I see this 'the body knows when it's off from the 32', and it just seems like some lingo in an argument to me. 32 in a grid is an artifice you have likely from the grid in the sequencer. you are at the same time posing this 'trance state' concept, the visuals the dancer is generating with the lights or something, and this knowledge of an artificial construction of the time which is dividing by two to a certain resolution of the grid.

Again, the key part here is that you haven't had the experience in any serious form.
You want to argue, but you don't have, shall we say "a point of entry."

To dancing to 4/4? This is so precious, your estimation of your understanding of f**king 4/4. This is actually delusional. And: we have another master's degree at University of I'm Rubber You're Glue?

you playing the victim card?

what? what are you reaching for now? I objected to your aggressive dismissive tone to Sendy, I did.

Should be pretty clear to most here, what I meant by you playing the victim card. It's pretty laughable that you have the gall to accuse anyone else of being dismissive and aggressive.

As far as the rest of it, that's right, you don't have the experience and it prevents you from understanding what I'm talking about. It's as simple as that. Adults would simply admit that they don't have the experience. You're free to question the value of the experience, as others are free to question the value of your experiences.

Someone suggested pages ago that you try to gain some experience with the music that you dismiss so readily if you want to be heard as anything other than "those darn kids", I think that you should take that to heart, metaphorically speaking, of course.

[ghettosynth]

yes in order to be creative you can't just make the inverted mirror image of the norm. you must bring something NEW. a new feel, a new expression not a new coalescence of meters. you want people to listen not alienate them so you want the song to be simple and straight-forward yet challenging.

Spot on.

[jopy]

The thing about time signature changes is that when they're done well, nobody notices - especially not the non-musicians types. It either sounds good or it doesn't.

Now that's a clear and reasonable statement. Like I said earlier in reference to Blackbird by the Beatles, I had no idea that Pink Floyd's "Money" was in 7/8 and then switched to 4/4 for the solos when I was a kid, but I sure thought it grooved like all hell.

[ghettosynth]

Does anyone know what Jan, Ghetto and qa2pir are arguing about? I can't follow it anymore.



The thing about time signature changes is that when they're done well, nobody notices - especially not the non-musicians types. It either sounds good or it doesn't. Ditto for songs in "weird" time signatures throughout ("weird" in the sense that most people's comfort zone is 4/4 or 3/4). I had a friend who had zero musical theory knowledge who'd write tunes in 7/8 on his bass simply because it sounded good to him. He wasn't counting or anything, he just played what he heard in his head. So it's not necessarily about being clever or "brain wanking" (as the Germans say).

I'm a big fan of the Pixies too, who show that simple 6 bar phrases in 4/4 can go a long way.

Sure, so we're talking about when it is obvious, or inappropriate. The OP started out her post by criticizing the powers of two organization of dance music. Strictly speaking, that often begins to fall apart after 2^5, but, whatever.

So, from an EDM perspective, emphasis on the D, my main point is that it's important to consider the purpose of the music and that simply considering whether the change is "noticed" as a listener is perhaps necessary, but not sufficient. One must also ask if the change will be noticed by dancers, and, more importantly, will it be welcome, that is, will it also be viewed as a "delightful" experience. I'm further arguing that these two perceptions are not necessarily in agreement. Surprise is often interesting in dance music, but it must be constrained in a manner appropriate to the style. I'm sure that someone will start ranting about creativity, but nonetheless, everyone essentially agrees with this at some level. Even noise artists eschew music that doesn't conform to the constraints considered appropriate to the style.

So the fact that EDM has as a primary purpose, the goal of being suitable, in fact superlative, music to dance to, then the dancability goals impose this additional constraint when one is considering whether to use such devices.

In practice it most often means that they are either going to be used very subtly, or within a repetitive framework, or, of course, not at all.

Ok, but then, the OP seemed to be talking less about changes in meter so much as simply changes in the length of sections that are in the same meter. She suggested that instead of 4 or 8 bars, perhaps 3 or 6 might be more interesting. For dance music, I doubt that this adds as much interest in general, although again, you can find numerous examples of tracks that violate the power of two framework, and it usually makes the track less "dj friendly", hence, less mixable.

There are many things that make tracks less dj friendly, however, and producers do this all the time, anything from starting the track on the off beat to having no beat in the intro at all.

You might be wondering why I even mentioned the D in EDM at all? After all, the OP was talking about electronic music in general. The fact is, even contemporary electronic music is not as homogeneous as the OP seems to believe. So if one is largely talking about the adoption of a power of two organization, then it seems fairly clear that they are talking about dance music.

[ariston]

The thing about time signature changes is that when they're done well, nobody notices - especially not the non-musicians types. It either sounds good or it doesn't. Ditto for songs in "weird" time signatures throughout ("weird" in the sense that most people's comfort zone is 4/4 or 3/4). I had a friend who had zero musical theory knowledge who'd write tunes in 7/8 on his bass simply because it sounded good to him. He wasn't counting or anything, he just played what he heard in his head. So it's not necessarily about being clever or "brain wanking" (as the Germans say).

I'm a big fan of the Pixies too, who show that simple 6 bar phrases in 4/4 can go a long way.

Solsbury Hill by Peter Gabriel is a great example. It has people clapping along happily without an inkling of the song's odd meter.

In all, though, I have to disagree. You say that "when they're done well"... but who's to judge? If you get listeners who've never expanded their horizons beyond 3/4 or 4/4, then they'll usually say that something in 7/8 is weird. Solsbury Hill as an example just shows that it gives those listeners the illusion of comfort. That doesn't make it "better" than Zappa's "The Black Page". It just means that some people have a very limited scope. Which is fine, no one's forced to broaden their minds.

I (try to) listen to music as "moving air molecules", as Zappa suggested. There is no "right or wrong" or "good or bad" there, it's just sound. Anything beyond that is you as a listener imposing your value judgement and categorizations on said sound. In that case, you're not listening to the music, you're listening to your own preconceptions of what that music should be like. Again, that's a very human thing to do; just don't make general assumptions about "good or bad" based on your preconceptions.

When I say "you" here, I don't mean you in particular, btw.

[sjm]

The thing about time signature changes is that when they're done well, nobody notices - especially not the non-musicians types. It either sounds good or it doesn't.

In all, though, I have to disagree. You say that "when they're done well"... but who's to judge?

The listener, of course

Who else?

[ghettosynth]

The thing about time signature changes is that when they're done well, nobody notices - especially not the non-musicians types. It either sounds good or it doesn't. Ditto for songs in "weird" time signatures throughout ("weird" in the sense that most people's comfort zone is 4/4 or 3/4). I had a friend who had zero musical theory knowledge who'd write tunes in 7/8 on his bass simply because it sounded good to him. He wasn't counting or anything, he just played what he heard in his head. So it's not necessarily about being clever or "brain wanking" (as the Germans say).

I'm a big fan of the Pixies too, who show that simple 6 bar phrases in 4/4 can go a long way.

Solsbury Hill by Peter Gabriel is a great example. It has people clapping along happily without an inkling of the song's odd meter.

In all, though, I have to disagree. You say that "when they're done well"... but who's to judge? If you get listeners who've never expanded their horizons beyond 3/4 or 4/4, then they'll usually say that something in 7/8 is weird. Solsbury Hill as an example just shows that it gives those listeners the illusion of comfort. That doesn't make it "better" than Zappa's "The Black Page". It just means that some people have a very limited scope. Which is fine, no one's forced to broaden their minds.

This sort of unsupported thesis which is little more than an ad-hominem attack on those who disagree is precisely why these threads degenerate into argument.
You're making assumptions about people that you don't actually have any data or sources to back up and then framing them in a pejorative tone. This pisses people off, and prevents you from seeing your own limitations.

There's nothing "weird" about money, per se, but it's a great example of how meter changes don't aid dancability in the sense that I've been discussing it. More precisely, how the meter changes can be jarring. If you've ever played that song in a cover band, you'd know it just by watching the audience. EDM dancers would roll their eyes and move to the next room.

You cannot assume that those who prefer to dance purely to 4/4 music don't like other types of music in different contexts, or even that they are homogeneous in their tastes. They may simply conclude that odd time signatures are sometimes appropriate and sometimes not. Dave Brubek's "Time out" is a desert island record for me, as is probably half of the pink floyd catalog, especially Dark Side of the Moon, additionally Sgt. Peppers - the Beatles, Thick as a Brick - Tull. Almost none of that, however, is welcome on the dance floor. Further, the devices used in those pieces are far from common in pop music. In short, they aren't popular, drum machines have had relatively little to do with it.

Of course, people may have "expanded their horizons" and simply concluded that odd time signatures, or changes in time signatures, aren't in fact, all that interesting. Isn't that part of the message in this thread? That to some, they seem like an obvious attempt at trying to add complexity for its own sake, or, as Raymond Seroul put it, "too clever by half."

There is no "right or wrong" or "good or bad" there, it's just sound.

This assumes that there's no intent, no purpose. If music has a purpose then we can measure its success or failure with respect to that purpose. Marching band music that doesn't suit marching is bad marching band music. Moreover, many in this thread have argued nonstop that there is good and bad in music, so I doubt that you'll find much agreement.

Anything beyond that is you as a listener imposing your value judgement and categorizations on said sound. In that case, you're not listening to the music, you're listening to your own preconceptions of what that music should be like.

Nonsense. Of course the subjective appreciation of music is a value judgement, so what? It's often completely unconscious and context dependent, and, in certain contexts, serves a legitimate purpose. That is the entire point of the discussion in this thread.

When I say "you" here, I don't mean you in particular, btw.

Understood.

I should add, that people love to cite Zappa in these threads as if he's an authority in all contexts. Simply, he isn't.

I think Richard James comment on Stockhausen's view sums it up nicely:

Stockhausen commented:

I heard the piece Aphex Twin of Richard James (sic) carefully: I think it would be very helpful if he listens to my work "Song of the Youth," which is electronic music, and a young boy's voice singing with himself. Because he would then immediately stop with all these post-African repetitions, and he would look for changing tempi and changing rhythms, and he would not allow to repeat any rhythm if it varied to some extent and if it did not have a direction in its sequence of variations.

Aphex Twin, a fan of Stockhausen, responded:

"I thought he should listen to a couple of tracks of mine: "Digeridoo", then he'd stop making abstract, random patterns you can't dance to".

[ariston]

Okay, ghettosynth, I'm making this brief:

I wasn't talking to you, I was replying to sjm.

I am not putting forth a thesis, I am putting forth my experience.

I was not being pejorative. You, however, seem exceedingly intent on taking offence.

Unlike you, I don't make any claims to the "truth". I am perfectly aware that other people have other views. When I say it's "fine", then I mean what I say. I don't think I'm a better person because I can get enjoyment out of Varèse while others can't.

The point of discussion in this thread has been missed a few pages ago, which is why Sendy dropped out of it. But then, you seem to know what it's all about, right?

You didn't understand my last paragraph - your reply makes that abundantly clear - so calling it nonsense is kind of nonsensical.

And that's that. Have fun when Jan gets back, this thread has become like most EDM - predictable and boring.