Dubstepforum.com

Cornbreadddd wrote:

EXit_music wrote:I am tried of hearing you wieners say "New Dubstep isnt even dubstep"

That's the thing though. It ISN'T dubstep. For example:

Whenever somethings evolution causes it to deviate so far from its original source, it typically goes on to be called something different. For instance, rock music was created from the fusion of jazz, beach music, and blues. Each of the aforementioned geners contributed some aspects to the formation rock music, but we don't still call rock music "jazz" or "blues" do we? No. It has deviated so far from its source that it needs to be called something of its own. Same thing with dubstep. Brostep should not be considered dubstep because the only constant similarity that doesn't change is the tempo.

I parallel the relation of brostep to dubstep with blues to heavy metal. "Blues" and "heavy metal" are two distinct genres with distinct artist and both terms are widely known and accepted with no grey area as to the difference between them. Whereas many people use the term "dubstep" to refer to the genre in it's entirety. Unfortunately this is very ambiguous because the new sound is so drastically different than the old sound and many new comers to the scene only know of skrillex, excision, etc. Thus, when people hear the word "dubstep" they don't realize what dubstep actually is and what lies beneath the surface of commercialized, watered down, bullshit tunes for the masses.

It's frustrating to see that the newer dubstep has deviated so far from its root sound, but is still referred to as "dubstep." This social decorum regarding dubstep causes a lot of confusion and ambiguity and therefor causes the more original, minimal, deep sound to be overlooked.

Cornbreadddd wrote:

EXit_music wrote:I am tried of hearing you wieners say "New Dubstep isnt even dubstep"

That's the thing though. It ISN'T dubstep. For example:

Whenever somethings evolution causes it to deviate so far from its original source, it typically goes on to be called something different. For instance, rock music was created from the fusion of jazz, beach music, and blues. Each of the aforementioned geners contributed some aspects to the formation rock music, but we don't still call rock music "jazz" or "blues" do we? No. It has deviated so far from its source that it needs to be called something of its own. Same thing with dubstep. Brostep should not be considered dubstep because the only constant similarity that doesn't change is the tempo.

I parallel the relation of brostep to dubstep with blues to heavy metal. "Blues" and "heavy metal" are two distinct genres with distinct artist and both terms are widely known and accepted with no grey area as to the difference between them. Whereas many people use the term "dubstep" to refer to the genre in it's entirety. Unfortunately this is very ambiguous because the new sound is so drastically different than the old sound and many new comers to the scene only know of skrillex, excision, etc. Thus, when people hear the word "dubstep" they don't realize what dubstep actually is and what lies beneath the surface of commercialized, watered down, bullshit tunes for the masses.

It's frustrating to see that the newer dubstep has deviated so far from its root sound, but is still referred to as "dubstep." This social decorum regarding dubstep causes a lot of confusion and ambiguity and therefor causes the more original, minimal, deep sound to be overlooked.

skitz_0 wrote:only gripe i have is that the synth could be a little less... boring? bline's got me , though.

DREdio wrote:why cant i hear this on my laptop speakers?

Phigure wrote:meh... everything is just too plain and boring...

the lead synths are repetitive and obnoxious
the drums are repetitive and boring... nothing but kick on 1 and snare on 3 for the whole fucking song... same with the same hat/shaker rhythm throughout.
the bassline isn't necessarily bad, but it's a bit too quiet in the mix imo and doesn't really "punch"

honestly, it's kind of insulting to compare this to "2005 dubstep" because it was nowhere near this boring and static

fractal wrote:there was a while when all of our bags were classic cuts because that's all that was pressed!

Cornbreadddd wrote:

EXit_music wrote:I am tried of hearing you wieners say "New Dubstep isnt even dubstep"

That's the thing though. It ISN'T dubstep. For example:

Whenever somethings evolution causes it to deviate so far from its original source, it typically goes on to be called something different. For instance, rock music was created from the fusion of jazz, beach music, and blues. Each of the aforementioned geners contributed some aspects to the formation rock music, but we don't still call rock music "jazz" or "blues" do we? No. It has deviated so far from its source that it needs to be called something of its own. Same thing with dubstep. Brostep should not be considered dubstep because the only constant similarity that doesn't change is the tempo.

I parallel the relation of brostep to dubstep with blues to heavy metal. "Blues" and "heavy metal" are two distinct genres with distinct artist and both terms are widely known and accepted with no grey area as to the difference between them. Whereas many people use the term "dubstep" to refer to the genre in it's entirety. Unfortunately this is very ambiguous because the new sound is so drastically different than the old sound and many new comers to the scene only know of skrillex, excision, etc. Thus, when people hear the word "dubstep" they don't realize what dubstep actually is and what lies beneath the surface of commercialized, watered down, bullshit tunes for the masses.

It's frustrating to see that the newer dubstep has deviated so far from its root sound, but is still referred to as "dubstep." This social decorum regarding dubstep causes a lot of confusion and ambiguity and therefor causes the more original, minimal, deep sound to be overlooked.