Why are these views prevalent in electronic music?

[OlzaMK]

Very informative posts, thanks to everyone for keeping this thread civilized.

I agree with Kaori to the fullest, and now I just feel like putting the computer down and playing with all 13 of my grandpa's instruments I inherited. At least rock out on the Casio.

[s3f]

I wonder why people are so obsessed with this topic and why they get so very frustrated with it. I've seen it crop up a number of times, basically everywhere and not only on the web, not only relating to electronic music. Am I crazy to think that exactly this kind of diversity (with all it's negative aspects) is exactly what keeps a genre (or anything really) alive and buzzing? Am I the only one thinking this is just how it's supposed to be? How lame would electronic music be if it was like pop where there's just one line of thought and everything is almost exactly the same?

[tripwire22]

what about electronic pop?

[paravrais]

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.

YES! Thank god, someone who agrees with me about genre. I got my ass pounded round here a while ago for daring to say that without formulas there would be no such thing as genre and that dubstep was more linear than people thought. Apparently it was fine for everyone else in the thread to say that the ONE RULE OF DUBSTEP was that there had to be a deep sub bass but as soon as I said that halftime drums at 140 was another integral (quite probably more integral) part of the formula they all strapped massive dildos onto their menstruating poons and rode me like a damn choir boy.

OK, yes I'm still bitter about that... XD but only a little!

Basically the point is a lot of people seem to get upset if you dare to say there are any 'rules' to music. Not in the sense that you CAN'T do this or that but that in certain genres certain things are expected. Some people are so mad for dubstep that even if they make a song at 162 using chopped amens to make a scatty breakbeat it's still dubstep not jungle because they used a sub bass or some minor chords 0.o get over it, not everything you make has to be dubstep for fucks sake. You made drums at full time with a bit of swing? Don't shit yourself over it but you've made some garage, now stop crying, pull your dick out of my ass and make some music.

If making dubstep is so important to you then STICK to the formula but if making the music you wanna make is then do whatever and worry about what genre it falls into after it's finished, or not at all, that's for other people to be able to find your tune etc

[skanky beats]

[paravrais]

Your clearly unaware of the ridiculous amount of tunes that kai manages to write in a week. If anything he should slow down and give the rest of us a chance to catch up

[skanky beats]

[skanky beats]

[tripwire22]

idk what to say to this lol

[skanky beats]

idk what to say to this lol

[tripwire22]

KAI VS SKANKY


CHOOOON BATTLEEEERUUUUUUU

[skanky beats]

KAI VS SKANKY


CHOOOON BATTLEEEERUUUUUUU

lol

[mks]

why the fuck would you take the time to write this out???????? shut up and make some music

Perhaps there are those who like to put words together into sentences to make cohesive thoughts, and there are those who like to discuss what some of these concepts behind the thoughts are. Pretty tall order for an internet forum, I know.

And yes, make some music.

[skanky beats]

[breakmonster]

Equally when somebody like me comes in and writes a 10 page essay on why everyone but me is wrong and why theory is the most important thing in the world what you end up reading is at times a ridiculous exaggeration of my own views, a mixture of an expulsion of verbal bile for my own amusement and childish wankery spawned from my being an intolerably prick

LMAO that is brilliant writing right there.

I enjoyed reading the first page of this thread while i clicked on peoples souncloud tunes and listened to what they had to say musically as well as on this subject, Thumbs up for the post!

I started out with metal, i got into punk rock, learned the drums, and drumming took me in a whole new direction with music. from there i went to jazz school and learned jazz and latin music, then i started playing reggae. I play drums for Peter Tosh's son as well as a few other bands and artists now and I'm a full time drummer . Reggae is what got me into DNB, and DNB is what got me into Dubstep. After jazz school i felt like i learned a lot about the theoretical side of music and i wanted to learn the production side and it has been an amazingly awesome journey. Because i went to school for music I'm terrible at writing down my thoughts in words, and reading your post was seriously hilarious and very enjoyable. I agreed with most of your points. Being someone who knows theory, I have to say that I love seeing someone who has no trained knowledge of theory play a chord progression or melody purely because it sounds great to their ears, not because they know it is a "1-4-5" or that they're "hook" is just arpeggiating each chord starting on the 5th. When you see people do that you do realise that they DO know theory.....they just don't KNOW they know theory...

Biggups
Here's a video of some drumming i hope you'll enjoy

[corpu5]

why the fuck would you take the time to write this out???????? shut up and make some music

Perhaps there are those who like to put words together into sentences to make cohesive thoughts, and there are those who like to discuss what some of these concepts behind the thoughts are. Pretty tall order for an internet forum, I know.

And yes, make some music.

skanky mate your tunes are fucking BIG lol

[Basic A]

Yes, this post appears to be a more terrifying read than a 10,000 word thesis on tentacle rape. No, surprisingly it's not really a rant more just a discussion with myself, you might benefit from it, you might not. If you have a ton of time on your hands reading it might kill some time as writing it did for me. And yes, this could be seen as more appropriate for SNF or General Discussion, but the people I'd like to read it are here and as far as I'm concerned it's all relevant to production.

Electronic music is one of the few realms of music where some of it's listeners and even musicians seem to promote and endorse views that promote a lack of knowledge as an almost perfect, god-like, messianic truth that must be adhered to at all times, it's one of the few realms of music where those who deviate from holding these views are just plain wrong and will be 'proven wrong' no matter how well or diplomatically (hence my never bothering to be diplomatic - except in this post) they present their counter simply because the majority don't agree and will swamp them with the same arguments over and over and over again and crush their opposing views via a sort of verbal war of attrition. So what are these views I'm talking about...

1., Writing using any formula makes your music devoid of emotion. It's 'cookie cutter', it's 'painting by numbers', it's 'mass produced rubbish'.

2., Writing using theory hinders you.

3., If your music isn't original it's not good

I'm going to try to tackle these as diplomatically as I can with logic rather than emotion and silly metaphors and childishness (even though being childish is obviously way more fun) This is a long read, so there are biccies at the end for anybody who reads it.

1., Writing using any formula makes your music devoid of emotion. It's 'cookie cutter', it's 'painting by numbers', it's 'mass produced rubbish'.

[*] I don't understand this one on ANY level whatsoever. Some chord sequences and song structures, stimulate certain emotions and feelings better than others, you're not going to write a song about the death of your father in a major key using a 1-4-5 chord progression are you? ... Well, maybe you would, but I imagine only if he was a total bag of dicks as a person, or Hanz Fritzl, but if you're trying to create a sense of sadness you're far more likely to write in a minor key and follow a standard minor chord progression, like a 1-6-5 or maybe a 2-3-1 in a minor key. Jumping straight to these chord sequences and applying them is following a formula, sadness = 1-6-5 in a minor key, happiness = 1-4-5 in a major key, hope and elevation = 1-2-3 in a minor... etc - but what does that matter? The formula works, it instills and presents the correct feeling you're trying to convey. As for structural formula, the most well received and memorable songs usually are around 3:30, this usually means an intro, verse, verse, chorus, verse, verse, chorus, chorus, out. Since that structure is proven to work, and proven to have enough changes at the right points to keep people's attention why not use it? Why use something less effective than what has been proven to work?

[*] Two words. Bob Dylan, re-uses the same chord sequences in different keys. The man pretty much wrote the same song over and over again. But the content is always moving. While he's clearly found a song formula that works and is sticking to it the creativity, the emotion, and the fact his songs are 'good' as opposed to 'painted by numbers' comes from his ability to voice the same things in new ways in each new song he writes. Great song writer, emotive songs, following a formula.

[*] All pop music follows basic formula. The very reason pop music can be sold to the masses is that it stirs up feelings in the listener, they listen to the tracks, they relate to it, they interpret it in their own way and emotions are stirred - something devoid of emotion couldn't do that, certainly it couldn't do it to such a mass audience - yes you could argue that it only reaches a mass audience because of labels holding a monopoly and forcing it in people's faces, but the argument doesn't really work, since labels have no way to force people to like and embrace the music they shove in their faces - you could argue people only like it because they're musically ignorant but it's a weak argument because even if you educated the public in music the only situational change that would occur is that labels would start making music with a more complicated formula that appeals to people's newly 'developed' (in inverted commas because I don't want to imply one taste is of a higher order than another) taste.

[*] Even classical music, a genre that could be argued to be one of the most complicated and, it's listeners would argue, full of emotion, follows typical structural formulas and the same chord movements will recur infinitely within this genre. Baroque music is notorious for rigorous structure and theory application. Is all baroque music devoid of emotion because of this? No.

[*] The biggest problem with this argument is that it isn't an observable truth. The biggest and best epic songs in pop, Hallelujah by Leonard Cohen, Aerosmith's Don't Wanna Miss A Thing, Who Wants To Live Forever by Queen and November Rain by Guns & Roses (sorry for all the rock examples, I don't listen to as much electronic music as most of you guys so I'm not as well versed as to have big tunes from the electronic scene jump into my head as quick as those ones do), for example, all follow a standard structural formula and use fairly similar chord progressions as others from the whole 'epic' genre (I know it's not really a 'genre' as such more a collection of songs from different genres that hit the 'epic' mark) and they all stir up great deals of emotion in their listeners and most of them were written by people who poured a lot of love into their song and into honing their craft.

2., Writing using theory hinders you.

[*] This is the most annoying and confusing one, it's also voiced quite a bit as the 'Jimmi Hendrix didn't have theory and he was the best guitarist ever!' argument...

First off, it's silly, because, EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION KNOWS SOME THEORY, some know more than others and some don't even realize they know it.

There are a few ways to learn theory. The first is the most commonly practiced path. You go and get lessons, you get taught it directly. The second is harder, you learn it on your own. There's a third path to learning theory too... People's observance of people who follow the third path is where this argument seems to come from in my estimation.

The people who follow the third path are the ones who learn to use a DAW or an instrument without knowing anything about music or how it works (nothing wrong with this) then they start trying to write songs. They learn by trial and error, they learn by ear, they learn by listening to their heroes and trying to emulate them, or by cutting themselves off from listening and writing on their own getting their peers and using their own ears to judge their tunes, and eventually, they start cranking out great tunes, because they've developed their ear so effectively that they naturally pick the best possible chord sequences and melodic movements.

They start writing songs that follow the 1-4-5 chord sequences because their ear has learned that it works, they start adding strong chord embellishments, and they write what would be theoretically strong melody lines, according to standard structures (structures they've heard being used by their favorite artists and subconsciously stored in their heads) - they won't have the words to attach to it, if you ask them what chords they use they'll probably tell you they don't know, or that they just did it by ear, but when you sit and look at the works of great artists who 'didn't know theory' and you analyze it, you'll always see it abides by the rules of theory just as strongly as the songs made by others who learned theory directly.

Just because you didn't sit and read about key signatures and time signatures and scales and modes doesn't mean you don't know theory. You know it, you just know it in a different way.

Since everyone knows and uses theory (even if by accident) this view no longer works.

[*] The other side of this view is that knowing theory will trap you in a box. To counter this, I present Schoenberg, Debussy and Berg. Pioneers in serialist writing and 'atonal' writing. They built upon the theory knowledge they had to write an entirely new rule set, a new system for writing or expanded on the new system of writing. Romantic composers such as Liszt before them did the same. There's also a simple prefix that when attached to any genre utterly destroys this argument... Avant-Garde... Any 'avant garde' genre is usually highly based in theory, but still really interesting and creative.

[*] The other problem with this argument is that it, again, simply isn't an observable truth - partly because of the fact that everyone knows theory anyway, even if my assertion that everyone knows theory - they just don't all realize it and we all have different levels of knowledge - was wrong (which it isn't) and people did either know theory or not know theory it wouldn't be an observable truth that the people writing using theory were any less original/creative/composing good songs than those writing without.

In summary, as far as I'm concerned view number 2 is nothing more than a vast and unrealistic generalization that puts people off learning something new that they could enjoy. For anybody who wants to know, I learned theory the second way, on my own, I just read and read and read, I genuinely enjoyed it, then later I took it up at A level and got tutored. For me the idea that somebody could be put off having that same great experience I had, or simply be put off learning, is almost painful to deal with, hence my so vigorously assaulting and lambasting this view every time it crops up.

3., If your music isn't original it's not good

[*] First off, it's pretty much impossible create an original chord sequence given that in any given major or minor key you've only got 7 notes to work with (unless you go chromatic). Even if you work around the chromatic scale, there's only 11 notes to work with, if each chord has 3 notes in it and you have a 4 chord progression that doesn't leave a whole lot of room for originality, you can double those numbers if you start writing bitonally, but even that's been done before, and apparently it's not very appealing... Music's been around a long time, I'm pretty sure we've exhausted every possible chord progression, so from a musical perspective originality is dead, the best you can do is come up with something that isn't commonly used - you might consider that original, but it probably won't be a strong piece, as if they aren't commonly used it's probably because they fail to entice the listener or because it fails to stir emotion in the same way a 1-4-5 might.

So how do you make original music if not in the actual composition? Well the only way to be original anymore, since musically all the harmonic and melodic movements you could think of have already been done at some point, is in your voicing of old ideas.

In my estimation these artists are original, Michael Hedges, Steve Vai, Eskmo, and I'm told Burial is original (haven't really listened to a whole lot of him to be honest so can't guage but I'm using him here since he's one you're all familiar with and will probably be able to agree on the originality count) - I've chosen 3 different genres just to expand this whole thing a bit beyond electronic music - look them up if you're not familiar with them, they all came up with original ways to voice old ideas and that's great (you can find sheet music or just listen and work out what's going on in their tracks, none of them are doing anything spectacularly new or original in terms of the actual harmonic and melodic movement, it's great music obviously, but it's nothing really insane, a few Fmadd9s here and there, maybe key changes, or modal changes, eskmo can be quite chromatic at times, as can Vai, but that's the height of the craziness - not saying I could write anything that compares, just saying, technically it's not original, from the perspective of what's being voiced, since a lot of their chord progressions and melodies have been done before)

But... Do we all really need to be the next Eskmo/Burial...etc? If everyone was original then surely none of us would be... You NEED unoriginal music for original music to exist. It's this horrible irony that people are constantly tripping over, lambasting unoriginal music while failing to realize that the only way to gauge something as being original is if you have something 'unoriginal' (I'd use the word 'standard' rather than 'unoriginal' though as unoriginal implies it's bad which I'm not a fan of) to compare it to...

[*] The other painful part of this view is that pretty much everyone is striving to be original now. Everyone is trying so hard to get outside the box. Surely the most original thing you can do is not give a shit about being original and just write the music you want to hear? Write the way you want to, if you want to follow typical chord sequences and you like the sound of typical structures and you enjoy typical voicing and using standard instrumentation, then do it! Equally if you want to be just like Burial then do it, there's nothing wrong with being a 'copycat' musician if that's what you want to do (just don't plagiarize) if you feel the way Burial writes is the way you'd like to write and is the best style you've heard for voicing how you feel then go write tunes like Burial. If we didn't have copycat musicians the music you love that comes from an original artist wouldn't be recreated by new artists in slightly different ways thus creating a genre you enjoy.

One more thing that ties in with all of this... Well, one more thing that comes before the last thing...

Forums are problematic.

A lot of people who state these views on a forum don't actually believe them (bear with me here)

Hypothetical:

Somebody makes a 'having theory vs not having theory' thread. Somebody else responds. Somebody else does the same, a debate is opened up, it naturally degenerates to name calling and childishness (yes I do it too, we all do it at some point, it's natural and nothing to be ashamed of, if everyone hates you you're doing it too much though... I'm probably dangerously close to that point but I'm an opinionated prick so that's natural for me, you should try to avoid it though, you're probably not a terrible human being like I am).

The problem here isn't the debate or even the childishness that it turns into, in fact, sometimes that's the best part of it, the problem is that when somebody voices their views on an issue like this on a forum, the post they make, the post you read, is more often than not a simplification and generalized form of what they really believe, it's a watered down version of their actual thoughts.

An extension on my hypothetical - A lurker comes in and reads the words "you don't need theory, it puts you in a box, get high and just hit random notes" the problem, a lurker has just read a watered down simplification of your thoughts and you potentially have influenced him/her to think, not in the same way you do, but according to your generalization. This is problematic. Equally when somebody like me comes in and writes a 10 page essay on why everyone but me is wrong and why theory is the most important thing in the world what you end up reading is at times a ridiculous exaggeration of my own views, a mixture of an expulsion of verbal bile for my own amusement and childish wankery spawned from my being an intolerably prick, my views are in there somewhere but you're going to need to dive pretty deep into the pool of verbal revulsion I've created to find them and if you really want to do that I recommend taking a harpoon for when you inevitably find yourself wrestling a giant metaphorical argument squid born of childrens' tears - so just as the watered down views should not be taken to heart and followed as truth neither should mine (yes that includes this entire post - painful irony of making everything I've argued for here redundant is painful).

What I'm trying to say is nothing you read here is what anybody actually thinks or believes, everything is laced with truth but it's either watered down in a summary post or exaggerated in the heat of a debate. So to anybody undecided on any debates that crop up here, the best thing you can do for yourself as a musician, is detach yourself from what you read and weigh it up and keep in mind that what you're reading isn't an absolute truth even to the person who posted it.

The last thing

If you read that sorry, I have a lot of time on my hands, it's not a rant, I'm not angry, I might have come across as aggressive, if so it wasn't intended, sorry if anything I've said offends, if you want to disagree with what I'm saying here you're more than welcome, I won't be posting in response to anybody who disagrees with me though, as for once in my time on this forum I'd rather this didn't degenerate into wank (although I'm sure somebody will help it do that, and I can't say I'd blame them, because I'd do the same in your shoes, ruining threads is fun, let's not pretend it isn't)

Oh and there are no biccies, I lied.

why the fuck would you take the time to write this out???????? shut up and make some music

Cause, in another thread, I accidentally said "theory-beating, and cookie cutter" in a one off joke

He wins on sheer wpm though, Im not touching this one with a 30 foot pole. I still think FlyLo and old senseless tape dubbin stuff wins this debate.

[skanky beats]

[pete_bubonic]

Next person to quote that full first post is getting banned.

[3za]

Q. Why did the silly pianoist keep banging his head against the piano?

A. He was trying to play by ear!

seems relevant to me