Why are these views prevalent in electronic music?

[tripwire22]

I think me and you had a minor disagreement about that before but actually we both feel exactly the same way about it.

I've had disagreements with everyone, I'm the verbal equivalent of a violent ape on PCP

Absolutely, and for some it will never be more that that but for some there will be a new source of inspiration leading down different paths of study. For me in my case, I would have never gotten into jazz if it weren't for fusion, but I came to that via a circuitous path via punk and dub...

For me the transition was rock> shred metal > death metal - then a massive turn > acoustic fingerstyle > jazz > drum and bass > dubstep

i went

oldies cuz thats what my parents listen to-rap-alternative rock-classic rock-back to rap-80's metal songs- FRENCH DISCO/ELECTRO- Dubstep/Dnb and other stuff

[Neff]

sorry if this is not the point you were getting at i probably read it wrong

To be honest there is no point to anything I said here, like I said, it's a discussion with myself and on forums it's rare you change somebody's mind so that wasn't my intention, I suppose in a way I was consolidating my own views by writing them out, and I ended up posting it in the hopes people might take something from it - so if you asked yourself a question, went away with a new artist or composer to listen to, found yourself disagreeing with me as you read, or at least found what I said interesting in some way, then I consider this thread a success.

no doubt about that man

successful thread is successful

[joekool]

uh.. who are these people that hate theory and think formula is so terrible? i hang out with a lot of EDM producers and none of them have ever said anything like that to me.. some of them know theory, most of them don't, some of them (like me) would like to learn a little bit, others could care less because they don't need it.. i never hear people who are actually serious about making music and appreciate others music dogging theory.

i took some production classes at uni this past semester and if anything it seemed to be the exact opposite. all people did was talk shit about "kids who come in here and just wanna make fucking beats." people who made dance music were seen as pandering to the lowest common denominator and my input in the class discussion was dismissed regularly because i was one of "those" kids who just fucked around in FL until they got something decent and then moved up to live, cubase, etc... the teacher ragged on me all the time and when we would talk about automation or things like that and i would put forth some of my knowledge he'd say, "oh well OF COURSE you know about automation.. its all you do anyways, not like there's much work involved there, drawing a shit ton of lines over 4/4". tbh the few kids that have an issue with theory are really probably just being reactionary to this kind of BS.

its not that i disagree with you, i just think that you're making it seem like this is a much huger issue than it actually is...

[joekool]

I think me and you had a minor disagreement about that before but actually we both feel exactly the same way about it.

I've had disagreements with everyone, I'm the verbal equivalent of a violent ape on PCP

Absolutely, and for some it will never be more that that but for some there will be a new source of inspiration leading down different paths of study. For me in my case, I would have never gotten into jazz if it weren't for fusion, but I came to that via a circuitous path via punk and dub...

For me the transition was rock> shred metal > death metal - then a massive turn > acoustic fingerstyle > jazz > drum and bass > dubstep

and all the other genres I've dabbled in and listen to were just found during transitional periods. But each genre led me to another one, the movement from rock to shred was because I wanted to be a better guitarist, from shred to death was because I wanted something heavier, with death metal the massive turn was caused by my disliking the scene, the movement from acoustic fingerstyle to jazz was a sort of quest for more knowledge and the movement to electronic music was again the same because I'd felt I'd learned as much theory as I could keep in my head and wanted to learn something practical, i.e., production. I'm sure one day I'll move genre again. It's always interesting to see people's progressions laid out.

looking at people's progressions is very cool and always interesting.

for me it was rap > trance > death metal > dub > gabber > noise > dubstep > drumstep atm

sort of a circular thing i feel.. no doubt by the end of the year i'll be doing some serious grit noise type stuff again. i always get drawn back into the intensity of it, even now i'm thinking about getting some bent up delay pedals again..

[BLAHBLAHJAH]

If you're stressing the importance of musical theory, it means you could be still stuck in the middle. The aim is to get out to the other side and lose all formalities through association. Easier to view this in terms of musical improvisation than musical construction, so expand the studies (guessing your excessive focus on 'theory' is a hangover from learning guitar within some kind of scene and having it over hyped by other players)

Also you've missed the boat if you discard rhythm et al from 'theory'

You do know unoriginal music is often so because it OVERUSES theory. Both Lamarkian and Darwinian forms of replication display a high level of exploiting theory that has not only been studied, but proven to a great degree. That explains booms of innovations close to the birth of new styles

Anyway music is about conversating ideas. Consider what communication entails. Consider you and your buddies talking in your native tongue which you take for granted, compared to some mug in another country paying big bucks to study said language at university etc. Music [theory] is a language and is also directly convertable to these conditions. Music theory to the beginner can even be treated as basic language and mathematics, making it much easier to approach than many languages

Communication need not be flowery

One last thing, "Theory" basically means "an explanation of reality" - respect the fact that some simply wish not to explain reality, as sometimes it's better kept surreal

[therapist]

I don't think music necessarily has to be musically/structurally original to be good, but they're easy arguments to make against a lot of the shit music you hear every day. I don't mind a song being predictable in ways if there's some sort of interesting element or expression in there, but lots of people see the 'goal' of making music as to make something indistinguishable from the rest, and that's what I hate.

I think that's the kind of music that causes the comments/views you're talking about.

[gnome]

I thought these were popular views for anybody who has ever thought deeply enough into the subjects. I don't see points which I could disagree with.

[corpu5]

uh.. who are these people that hate theory and think formula is so terrible? i hang out with a lot of EDM producers and none of them have ever said anything like that to me.. some of them know theory, most of them don't, some of them (like me) would like to learn a little bit, others could care less because they don't need it.. i never hear people who are actually serious about making music and appreciate others music dogging theory.

i took some production classes at uni this past semester and if anything it seemed to be the exact opposite. all people did was talk shit about "kids who come in here and just wanna make fucking beats." people who made dance music were seen as pandering to the lowest common denominator and my input in the class discussion was dismissed regularly because i was one of "those" kids who just fucked around in FL until they got something decent and then moved up to live, cubase, etc... the teacher ragged on me all the time and when we would talk about automation or things like that and i would put forth some of my knowledge he'd say, "oh well OF COURSE you know about automation.. its all you do anyways, not like there's much work involved there, drawing a shit ton of lines over 4/4". tbh the few kids that have an issue with theory are really probably just being reactionary to this kind of BS.

its not that i disagree with you, i just think that you're making it seem like this is a much huger issue than it actually is...

exactly this to be honest. Plus im not hating on you either, it's obvious that the music theory you currently have has led you to create some interesting tracks, it's just some people dont need it because music comes naturally to them anyways.

[Dystinkt]

I think me and you had a minor disagreement about that before but actually we both feel exactly the same way about it.

I've had disagreements with everyone, I'm the verbal equivalent of a violent ape on PCP

Absolutely, and for some it will never be more that that but for some there will be a new source of inspiration leading down different paths of study. For me in my case, I would have never gotten into jazz if it weren't for fusion, but I came to that via a circuitous path via punk and dub...

For me the transition was rock> shred metal > death metal - then a massive turn > acoustic fingerstyle > jazz > drum and bass > dubstep

and all the other genres I've dabbled in and listen to were just found during transitional periods. But each genre led me to another one, the movement from rock to shred was because I wanted to be a better guitarist, from shred to death was because I wanted something heavier, with death metal the massive turn was caused by my disliking the scene, the movement from acoustic fingerstyle to jazz was a sort of quest for more knowledge and the movement to electronic music was again the same because I'd felt I'd learned as much theory as I could keep in my head and wanted to learn something practical, i.e., production. I'm sure one day I'll move genre again. It's always interesting to see people's progressions laid out.

looking at people's progressions is very cool and always interesting.

for me it was rap > trance > death metal > dub > gabber > noise > dubstep > drumstep atm

sort of a circular thing i feel.. no doubt by the end of the year i'll be doing some serious grit noise type stuff again. i always get drawn back into the intensity of it, even now i'm thinking about getting some bent up delay pedals again..

My progression was a bit of an odd one really, Punk Rock>House>Math Rock> Fidget>Electro>Reggae/dub> Dubstep
Iv just been a bit of a jack of all trades, master of none unfortunately :')

On the point of working to a formula weakens the music, that is utter bollocks I agree.Take Math Rock its so tightly formulated with all the high end staccato rhythms, yet those tunes are unbelieveably good and they manage to convey a lot of emotion and depth. The Redneck Manifesto are an excellent example, or Foals for a more mainstream vibe.

[Genevieve]

These things aren't just prevalent in electronic music, but in music in general and the reason these and comparable standards are prevalent in music and other art forms is because art is completely subjective when it comes to enjoyment and people like nothing more than to validate their opinions over others. Call it insecurity, I don't know.

'I like this, this person doesn't approve of what I enjoy, this makes me insecure about what I feel and I will now validate my choice by a number of claims that I see as irrefutable truths, and this person's inability to recognize its greatness makes them inferior to me'

[decklyn]

If you're stressing the importance of musical theory, it means you could be still stuck in the middle. The aim is to get out to the other side and lose all formalities through association. Easier to view this in terms of musical improvisation than musical construction, so expand the studies (guessing your excessive focus on 'theory' is a hangover from learning guitar within some kind of scene and having it over hyped by other players)

Also you've missed the boat if you discard rhythm et al from 'theory'

You do know unoriginal music is often so because it OVERUSES theory. Both Lamarkian and Darwinian forms of replication display a high level of exploiting theory that has not only been studied, but proven to a great degree. That explains booms of innovations close to the birth of new styles

Anyway music is about conversating ideas. Consider what communication entails. Consider you and your buddies talking in your native tongue which you take for granted, compared to some mug in another country paying big bucks to study said language at university etc. Music [theory] is a language and is also directly convertable to these conditions. Music theory to the beginner can even be treated as basic language and mathematics, making it much easier to approach than many languages

Communication need not be flowery

One last thing, "Theory" basically means "an explanation of reality" - respect the fact that some simply wish not to explain reality, as sometimes it's better kept surreal

This guy has some of the best posts on the forum. Yeah I think it's a mysticism vs science thing - people know that direct experience brings enlightenment and some people hand on to words on the level of mind. If you want to make great music, whether or not you understand the math behind the music, you have to be present. Doesn't matter whether or not you know your key is in g flat minor or not, just as long as it sounds good.
Remember theory is only the pointing hand, it isn't good music, it points at good music, so you must leave the pointing hand behind at some point and just feel the music.

[bum robot]

all your points were great and i found it to be a nice read and opened up some thoughts but at the end of the day i just want to make music and thats all im ever gonna do i dont care to think about theory one bit and obviously i guess i know it by ear and certain things i do but i like to leave it at that, kind of pisses me off a bit to think i do know but dont know theory ya know? so fuck it im just gonna make some music and thats it i dont like to make it a big deal about theory

[kaiori breathe]

uh.. who are these people that hate theory and think formula is so terrible?

I actually see these views voiced a hell of a lot even just locally on these forums.

its not that i disagree with you, i just think that you're making it seem like this is a much huger issue than it actually is...

I wasn't trying to make a big issue out of it, I was just thinking out loud really. I just shared my internal dialogue here in the hopes people might take something from it. Sorry if you feel like it was a waste of a read.

i think sometimes people shouldnt over think what they're producing and stick true to themselves. If it works it works, if it doesnt, it doesnt ..... thats life, some people suceed, most fail. Dont spend your time mulling these ideas/opinions over, you're just wasting time imo. Get off these forums and write some music innit

EDIT : actually no you should express yourself but tbh there's nothing to get frustrated over now is there? slash was never musically trained and if he was what difference would it make? he'd still play the same sounds he had in his head ...

To me it's not a waste of time to consolidate your own philosophies/beliefs/ideas even if it's just on the simple things like my post was, which is what I was kinda trying to do, I just shared it with people in the hopes they might find something interesting in it. I apologize if you read it and didn't find anything of value. I feel too I've already covered your Slash point in the whole "hendrix didn't have theory" section. If you read it and disagree fair enough but I don't really think I can take it any further than I already have.

And shouldn't you get off these forums and write some music too?

If you're stressing the importance of musical theory, it means you could be still stuck in the middle. The aim is to get out to the other side and lose all formalities through association. Easier to view this in terms of musical improvisation than musical construction, so expand the studies (guessing your excessive focus on 'theory' is a hangover from learning guitar within some kind of scene and having it over hyped by other players)

Well I thought from the title of my thread and my introduction to it's content that what I was saying and stressing was obvious, maybe it wasn't but the title was "Why are these views prevalent in electronic music?" and the three views are in bold. So I thought it was clear that I'm not stressing the importance of theory but rather questioning why a number of music listeners and even musicians are holding views which are in my estimation anti-knowlege/anti-learning while questioning the views themselves.

People are complicated, we're all striving for different things and there's no right idea or situation or musical goal to be working towards that fits us all. Our aims are not the same, I do not want to hold the same aims as you just as you do not want to hold my aims as your own. And I don't exactly think it's entirely tactful to tell somebody you assume their focus on something they love is a 'hangover' from a scenario you created (which is actually pretty far from the truth) and put them in.

Also you've missed the boat if you discard rhythm et al from 'theory'

I don't, I just didn't cover it because it didn't feel like an integral point to be made against those three views, just as pitch axis theory, or using augmented chords as transitional chords didn't feel very integral.

You do know unoriginal music is often so because it OVERUSES theory.

After reading my post it should be obvious what a complete non issue the originality of music is to me. I did write vast sections on this issue - if you disagree with them then that's fair enough, once again, I'm not trying to change anybody's views, you're free to disagree and indeed so is everyone else,but like I say it's all there in my post and I don't really think I can cover any new ground on this subject with you.

[Siderealdb]

Well, I thought your post was brilliant. I believe that from the second we're born we understand chord theory. Just look at how children's songs in western nations exploit that very principal. Is it indoctrination or genetic, after a thousand plus years?

[AllNightDayDream]

Every genre has formulas that follow them, that's what makes it a cohesive genre. The only time people will say things against them is when the discussion is about a song/genre they personally don't like. Chances are, most music they listen to is just as formulaic *cough*dubstep*cough*.

If you listened to two talented producers in the same genre, one who's read on theory and one who isn't, their music won't necessarily sound different. They'll do the same thing, write the same chords, it's just that one of them picks them out from trial and error/habit and the other knows how each chord/tone is related and will choose based on that. Jimi Hendrix didn't know any theory, but Jimmy Paige did. It's really up to how you feel comfortable making music as long as you don't take it to extremes.

[nowaysj]

K, why u always talking about chords? Who gives a shit about chords?

Chords are different nowadays. Take this chord: The first is lawnmower on a sunny California morning, the third is Oregon creek through sequoias, the fifth is Manhattan yellow cab tire screech.

When you start to look at chords like this, all that I iv V mumbojumbo seems awfully formulaic and pretty uninteresting... to me at least, to each their own.

[AllNightDayDream]

Theory only relates to tones. I don't get how you could apply theory to perc/etc in a way that'll help you write tunes.

[BLAHBLAHJAH]

Rythm thing was aimed at the comment style of trip wire, infact the majority of my post wasn't directly focused at you, more chucking bones into th'discussion

to A.N.D.D.
"Theory only relates to tones. I don't get how you could apply theory to perc/etc in a way that'll help you write tunes."
'lol u mad' - can you not tell how rhythmn directly effects tone? Play a 'fifth chord' vs a 'fifth interval' as a quick start then ask yourself why one of them is used in 'somewhere over the rainbow' to give an uplifting vibe to the opening riff then work rom there etc etc. You can use subtle drum tunings to immitate this which leads to the choice of what makes up a song's percussive arsenal. There's theory behind "it just sounded like it worked together"

Again check out the moonlight sonata for another blindingly obvious one. Consider why all the chords arn't just power-punked out. A most basic example of rhythmic theory is arpreggios vs straight up chords aye. Also people seem to forget that even percussion etc have tones. Example... play the notes C then D at varying speeds, keep it in mind, then you'll twig on why this interval is the cliché of kick and snare settings. If you

Also nowaysj check out this http://www.birdsoft.demon.co.uk/music/notecalc.htm to find out the general notes of the frequencies in your lawnmower samples and be crippled that you were dabbling in real chords all along

Anyway got some brutal infection gotta do on to l'opital peace chaps!

[pete_bubonic]

I think the problem you're talking about is not inherent to electronic music, more discussion on the internet. People always love to speak in absolutes, as you say, either black or white, right or wrong. When I'm down the pub or in the studio with friends,we never talk like in forums. You state this after your massive posts about the points, to my mind, it's the most important part.

1. Using a formula is one of the most effective things for any artist, creating a distinct sound, evolving a single idea or story. End users begin to identify certain projects with certain sounds and a following is born.

However whenever I read about formulas on the net, much like you, people mostly refer to this as a bad thing and I think this is because of people over using a formula. Dillinja is the best example I can think of in this respect. All through the early 00's Dillinja consistently churned out poor mediocre tunes as a result of rinsing the same formula over and over again (many agreeing that he had taken it as far as he could go about a year in!). I believe this gif was made fro DOA specifically about Dillinja:




2. Musical theory hinders you. LOL. Surely no genuinely thinks that? Giving you ready access to a larger selection of chords, rhythms and structures can't hold you back. I agree this is ridiculous, however, later on, you state that anyone who has experimented with production for a length of time will auto pick up music theory. Though I agree with this, I don't think this is what people are referring to. For instance I would say I understand little to no musical theory. I am of course referring to being classically trained in music theory. I can't play any instruments and only have passing knowledge of chord structures and the maths behind it. I think for a large proportion of home electronic producers that's probably the case. At least that's how I have always interpreted that statement.

3. Originality. I'm of the camp that music does need to be original to be goo or to catch my interest. This, to my mind, doesn't mean coming up with some new crazy chord and/or berserk rhythm. But expressing yourself in your music. We are the unique bits out of every tune we make. Our experiences, our stories to tell, our ideas and tastes. That's the original bit in tunes. When I can't hear the producer in the tunes it turns me off. So this is the only bit I disagree with you on I think, originality is important to me, perhaps the most important thing.

[pete_bubonic]

dbl post