ThisWayUp wrote:steevio wrote:AK wrote:
I can't listen to a lot of Techno stuff because a lot of it sounds like any other Techno record out there, but I don't hold 4/4 as the culprit, I just assume there's like tons of guys trying to sound like every other guy and you just end up with a whole genre of music which could have been written by anyone of them.
i totally agree,
but again i have to reiterate as the message isnt getting through,
i never said 4/4 was a culprit, how can a time signature be responsible for cloned music ?, i was talking about 4 beat loops and the fact that there is little room for innovation if you use that as a template for your music...just because something is written in a 4/4 time signature doesnt mean it has to loop every 4 beats, please read what i actually said.............i guess i may as well just shut up now.
I agree with you, but this is ambiguous. When I see 4/4 it makes me think time signature rather than 4 beat loop.
Personally I think that there's room for both approaches here. It's wonderful that there are people like Steevio who are permanently engagaed in a quest for unique and interesting ideas; however I think that only a small number of the people who hear works like this understand and appreciate it properly (other producers mainly?). The people on the dancefloor may not be put off by more complex rhythmic and musical motifs, but do they appreciate them?
More mindless, throwaway music is exactly that and I don't think that many people people would argue otherwise. But that's the stuff that keeps the clubs full weekend in, weekend out, and i don't think there are enough producers capable of making the more interesting and complex music that Steevio refers to to sustain the scene. A certain amount of filler is inevitable. Few pop / rock albums can be considered to be 100% top quality tracks from start to finish, so I think it's optimistic to think that techno should be any different.
i know exactly what you're saying, but why i can't accept this 'filler' fodder for the masses philosophy is because when i was growing up the pop charts were full of increadible quality music, some of it quite experimental in nature, Jimi Hendrix, the Beatles, the Doors, Bob Dylan etc.. compare this to the absolute shite that populates the music charts these days.
its doesnt have to be this way, and even more so in an underground music style like techno which has the potential to be anything it wants to be.
the machines we use are increadible, and have almost infinite capabilty, why are the majority of humans using them satisfied with churning out the same old unimaginative shite over and over again ?
i dont profess to have the answers, but i know for sure that what drives me on making electronic music is the desire to unearth something ive never heard before. is that not what all real musicians strive for ?, is that not what has brought us to where we are from guys banging hollow logs with sticks ?
in answer to the question about do the audience appreciate more complex and interesting dance music, i'd say that depends on the audience. ive been to clubs where the crowd are blissfully unaware of anything other than the pounding 4/4 kick that keeps them stomping unfunikly around the dancefloor while they eye up sexual partners, to clubs with real geeked out, chin stroking guys standing perfectly still watching every move the live artist makes totally absorbed in the music and his technique.
but the events i'm involved in are nearly always full of people who are there to appreciate the music on all levels and are usually very knowlegeable.
i dont see any point in performing to people who dont give a sh!t about the music. if they are the type of clubs you are playing in, you are selling your soul pure and simple.
dont get me wrong guys, i can totally appreciate very simple house music that is in no way trying to push the envelope, but there must also be progression in electronic music, its a criminal offense not to try.