Page 4 of 6

Re: Poll: your musical influence for interest in synthesizers

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:17 am
by otto
A bit of a general post here as I don't want to quote everyone.

Classification is important to humans and it is important to music. Imagine if we had the inability to classify anything. You don't go out for Thai, Mexican, BBQ, you just go out for food. It's difficult to identify a restaurant you like, you'll just have to try it all first. God forbid humans have a system for identifying types of music. Think of the longwinded explenation you would have to give for each band/song if you didn't have classifcations such as country, rock, pop, R&B, classical, etc. Now think of how broad those catagories are. What is rock to you? Guns and Roses, Elvis, Slayer, the Beatles, Nine Inch Nails, Death Cab For Cutie? Is sure would help to have some sub-genres that might further define bands so when someone says "what is EBM" You could say something like "It's like industrial and electronic dance" and it would probably give someone a better idea of what the music might sound like.

Of course many bands cover multiple genres and can be difficult to define or put in a single genre. However most bands can be described by the various genres they combine or help to create. I think the genealogy of music and genres is interesting. As with the history of anything, it's in the eye of the beholder and those writting it down. So frequently stories exagerated, distorted and taken out of context. Even the memories and ego of those there can distort the realities of what happened.

It too get annoyed at revisionist history and it is what it is, to a large degree hype. One of my pet peeves is calling 60's garage rock "punk" as is seen on the pebbles compilations. I think to a large degree even calling this music proto-punk is misleading because it is doubtful many punk and proto-punk bands ever even listened to most of these unknown garage bands...

My point is, make your own decision. Take others opinions with a grain of salt and do your own research. However, for all their faults, history and catagorization are invaluable tools.

Re: Poll: your musical influence for interest in synthesizers

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:22 am
by otto
redroomrecordings wrote: for the record....who cares, we all share a similar interest in the end, doesn't matter why.
This sentance was all I was talking about when I said you were whining, redroom. I hate when good discussion turns into "let's not talk about it lest we hurt someones feelers". If it's not a discussion you can stomach (i.e. meatballfuton) than why participate? I have a feeling you really do want to talk about it. Want to lay on my couch a while? :D

Re: Poll: your musical influence for interest in synthesizers

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:01 am
by redroomrecordings
otto wrote:
redroomrecordings wrote: for the record....who cares, we all share a similar interest in the end, doesn't matter why.
This sentance was all I was talking about when I said you were whining, redroom. I hate when good discussion turns into "let's not talk about it lest we hurt someones feelers". If it's not a discussion you can stomach (i.e. meatballfuton) than why participate? I have a feeling you really do want to talk about it. Want to lay on my couch a while? :D
no, i absolutely do. i wasn't trying to say we should stop the discussion, i was just trying to say that despite our different reasons for getting to our interests in synths it is neat that we all got here somehow and share a common love. i guess i could have worded that better then who cares. i think you know what i mean.

also i do believe in classification as an identifying tool in music and am quite guilty of feeling the need to make new genera classifications to fit my needs when describing something, but at the same time classifications can be very misleading and generally have more than one meaning. Dark Electro for example could mean two TOTALLY different things to different people, these types of precise genres are only really good when used in discussions involving people into the larger genera's they stem from.

Re: Poll: your musical influence for interest in synthesizers

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:07 am
by Automatic Gainsay
redroomrecordings wrote:also i do believe in classification as an identifying tool in music and am quite guilty of feeling the need to make new genera classifications to fit my needs when describing something, but at the same time classifications can be very misleading and generally have more than one meaning. Dark Electro for example could mean two TOTALLY different things to different people, these types of precise genres are only really good when used in discussions involving people into the larger genera's they stem from.
Yes, and that is the problem. There is how people describe music to other people, and then there is musical classification based upon groupings of musical, timbral, instrumental, and other musical/scientific/symbiotic/etc. groupings.
If "Dark Electro" doesn't describe a specific genre of music to EVERYONE, it's not a classification. The benefit of a good classification is that it covers a broad spectrum of artists and instrumentations, etc. but is still, at the same time, unmistakable. If I describe a piece of music as "Rococo," or "New Wave," you and everyone else know (if you know what elements define the classification) exactly what I'm talking about. That is the POINT of classification; it is a list of elements consistent through all music/composers within that classification.
Musical classification is SCIENCE, not vibe. Or, it should be.
If musical classification is too specific or too general, it loses its meaning. That is the problem.

Re: Poll: your musical influence for interest in synthesizers

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:21 am
by redroomrecordings
Automatic Gainsay wrote:
redroomrecordings wrote:also i do believe in classification as an identifying tool in music and am quite guilty of feeling the need to make new genera classifications to fit my needs when describing something, but at the same time classifications can be very misleading and generally have more than one meaning. Dark Electro for example could mean two TOTALLY different things to different people, these types of precise genres are only really good when used in discussions involving people into the larger genera's they stem from.
Yes, and that is the problem. There is how people describe music to other people, and then there is musical classification based upon groupings of musical, timbral, instrumental, and other musical/scientific/symbiotic/etc. groupings.
If "Dark Electro" doesn't describe a specific genre of music to EVERYONE, it's not a classification. The benefit of a good classification is that it covers a broad spectrum of artists and instrumentations, etc. but is still, at the same time, unmistakable. If I describe a piece of music as "Rococo," or "New Wave," you and everyone else know (if you know what elements define the classification) exactly what I'm talking about. That is the POINT of classification; it is a list of elements consistent through all music/composers within that classification.
Musical classification is SCIENCE, not vibe. Or, it should be.
If musical classification is too specific or too general, it loses its meaning. That is the problem.
you're right. however i think it is unruliest to entertain the idea that it is even remotely possible for people to stick to only using correct, universally defined classifications. i think it is possible, and necessary, for proper classifications that follow rigid guidelines when used to historically classify music or for musical eduction but in every day musical discussion it is not even fathomable. not everyone who will use genera terms to describe music is a music expert who knows every classification in existence, or even a musician. there is also the fact that new styles of music are being created at such a rapid pace right now that genera names are needed for descriptions before the style even has a chance to mature and be fully defined. in the end it would probably be better for everyone to use less classifications. if someone decides to make traditional egyptian influenced drum and bass we should still just call it drum and bass and not pharaoh bass or something equally silly.

Re: Poll: your musical influence for interest in synthesizers

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 8:11 am
by Electroluver
otto wrote:I would say most of New Orders music is still synth-pop. You can still answer the question the best way you feel fit.
Actually, New Order's "Blue Monday," is definitely EDM. Considering the music gear that was produced to make this music (DX, SH-09, TR-808, MC-202, SH-101, Drumtrax, etc.) I would think that if there was access to MIDI gear, this track would have been made a club track, which it was later remixed into, though not even close to the original. Consequently, the argument that "Blue Monday," is a synth-pop doesn't really stand up against the argument that it's actually early EDM.

BTW, have you heard New Order's current tunes like "Crystal?" Kind of a Run Lola Run style CD compilation (same track produced many different ways, they all kinda sound the same) Definitely not synth-pop, so who's to know. Wiki has this to say: New Order are an English alternative dance band formed in 1980 and The band have often been acclaimed by fans, critics and other musicians as a highly influential force in the alternative rock and dance music scenes over the past 25 years. Which means that they are both alternative and Dance music, so the whole poll is skewed to some degree.

Re: Poll: your musical influence for interest in synthesizers

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:18 pm
by otto
I said that I think new order is primarily synth-pop. I did not say blue monday, a single song, was primarily synth-pop. I would totally agree that blue monday is EDM, I never argued that. If blue monday was your singular reason for interest in synths than, yeah you probably fall on the edm side of things. If New Order in general was responsible for your interest, I disagree that they are completely a EDM band but rather a band the dabbled in EDM, synth-pop, post-punk, etc.

Re: Poll: your musical influence for interest in synthesizers

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:32 pm
by Pro5
For me, my first knowledge of New Order was 'True Faith' being the pop boy that I am ;)

Re: Poll: your musical influence for interest in synthesizers

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:09 pm
by Automatic Gainsay
redroomrecordings wrote:you're right. however i think it is unruliest to entertain the idea that it is even remotely possible for people to stick to only using correct, universally defined classifications. i think it is possible, and necessary, for proper classifications that follow rigid guidelines when used to historically classify music or for musical eduction but in every day musical discussion it is not even fathomable. not everyone who will use genera terms to describe music is a music expert who knows every classification in existence, or even a musician. there is also the fact that new styles of music are being created at such a rapid pace right now that genera names are needed for descriptions before the style even has a chance to mature and be fully defined. in the end it would probably be better for everyone to use less classifications. if someone decides to make traditional egyptian influenced drum and bass we should still just call it drum and bass and not pharaoh bass or something equally silly.
Very good points!
I think that in the past, there has been a period of settling between when a musical or art form arose and when it was documented and named. Because of the internet, that period no longer exists, and art forms are being written of in a historical manner before they have had time to settle into what they are, demonstrate extant relationships with other art forms, or even sink or swim.
It's a confusing time!

Re: Poll: your musical influence for interest in synthesizers

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:10 pm
by Yoozer
The poll question could've been simplified - "do you feel old? y/n".

Re: Poll: your musical influence for interest in synthesizers

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:53 pm
by redroomrecordings
Automatic Gainsay wrote:
redroomrecordings wrote:you're right. however i think it is unruliest to entertain the idea that it is even remotely possible for people to stick to only using correct, universally defined classifications. i think it is possible, and necessary, for proper classifications that follow rigid guidelines when used to historically classify music or for musical eduction but in every day musical discussion it is not even fathomable. not everyone who will use genera terms to describe music is a music expert who knows every classification in existence, or even a musician. there is also the fact that new styles of music are being created at such a rapid pace right now that genera names are needed for descriptions before the style even has a chance to mature and be fully defined. in the end it would probably be better for everyone to use less classifications. if someone decides to make traditional egyptian influenced drum and bass we should still just call it drum and bass and not pharaoh bass or something equally silly.
Very good points!
I think that in the past, there has been a period of settling between when a musical or art form arose and when it was documented and named. Because of the internet, that period no longer exists, and art forms are being written of in a historical manner before they have had time to settle into what they are, demonstrate extant relationships with other art forms, or even sink or swim.
It's a confusing time!
yup, this is exactly the problem. people are writing musics history on the inter-webs before it really even happens. another big problem i've noticed, at least in the EBM scene is that artists or labels are beginning to use new genera terms to classify themselves when in reality they havn't done anything different at all and there is NO need for the new term. It's the same in a lot of the dance music scene, genera labels have become almost a gimmick or fashion accessory, a tool to unjustly hype non inventive c**p that really isnt making any advancements or changes in the style.

Re: Poll: your musical influence for interest in synthesizers

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:35 pm
by premieklovn
"Alt. rock"-->Post-punk-->Synth pop-->Kraftwerk-->Kraut rock-->Berlin-->Minimal (Steve Reich)-->Acid-->House-->Minimal House (Johnny D etfckncetera)-->Techno-->adwk,cxz x.

Re: Poll: your musical influence for interest in synthesizers

Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:26 pm
by balma
I was a kid at the primary school when I heard that song by the first time.

I felt something itchy when I heard those three notes of a tremolo lead, they sound so bizarre, so thick and wonderful!

Then, OBSESSION by Animotion

Similar lead, but not so thick as ghost busters....

but the song that got my a*s ( [-X ) was

RELAX from Frankie Goes to Hollywood

Yeah, I know is gay, but Relax will kick asses forever!



The point here, is that when I became interested on synthesizers, I didn't know anything about synth pop or electro or techno or whatever. |I was a boy and I just liked the sound

Re: Poll: your musical influence for interest in synthesizers

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:15 am
by Stab Frenzy
I divide music into three categories; Classical, Jazz and Rock. I mostly like Rock music, ie music that generally has a heavy beat and simple harmonic and melodic structures, and can be traced back to post-war blues musicians.

The primary purpose of Rock music is entertaining crowds of people and making them dance.

All of the categories in both poll options are Rock music.

Re: Poll: your musical influence for interest in synthesizers

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:44 am
by Tchammosaur
As if the original poster weren't in enough trouble, I'd like to say I feel like there is an unspoken judgement about "dance music" being "non-experimental" and "generic" in the original poll. I for one despise that judgement. When someone makes a track with a heavy kick drum it doesn't necessarily mean that anything before it has sounded like it, or at least not more similar than two different jazz tracks from the 60's.