Thought of the day: Keeping things interesting.

[AK]

thats what music is about for me. just do something different, and by definition it will be interesting to the people out there who are open and searching.

Absolutely, I don't think anyone can argue that point. I guess we all have different visions of how to go about that ( which is actually a good thing )

[steevio]

thats what music is about for me. just do something different, and by definition it will be interesting to the people out there who are open and searching.

Absolutely, I don't think anyone can argue that point. I guess we all have different visions of how to go about that ( which is actually a good thing )

word

[oblioblioblio]

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.

massive plus one to this whole post. it shouldn't be something that someone actually needs to say, but I'm glad it's out there.

let's also remember about Basic Channel, Jeff Mills... that music was challenging and experimental, but I don't think there's any way you can accuse them of being alienating or challenging for the sake of being difficult.

[::BLM::]

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 ?

Because they have no real passion for making music perhaps?

Plenty of people now just make music just to get gigs. So with this attitude you're just going to stick to a formula that works no?

I think people also try and copy a sound just to get on certain labels. I have heard so much music that now sounds like that x artist.. I myself even bought that Mike Huckaby sample CD so I could use the same tones as him. Thing is though - one of the hardest things I find when making music is being yourself. There are so many influences and sometimes they are so strong that they cloud your vision. I myself have been through this a few times with myself, and it wasn’t really until I got myself some synths and learnt them that I started to form what I perceive to be my own sound.

[steevio]

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 ?

Because they have no real passion for making music perhaps?

Plenty of people now just make music just to get gigs. So with this attitude you're just going to stick to a formula that works no?

I think people also try and copy a sound just to get on certain labels. I have heard so much music that now sounds like that x artist.. I myself even bought that Mike Huckaby sample CD so I could use the same tones as him. Thing is though - one of the hardest things I find when making music is being yourself. There are so many influences and sometimes they are so strong that they cloud your vision. I myself have been through this a few times with myself, and it wasn’t really until I got myself some synths and learnt them that I started to form what I perceive to be my own sound.

very true,
its also quite sad because when the labels here that the demo is trying to sound like their style, it turns them straight off. they want you to be original as well as fit in.

we've all been there when we start out, i was obsessed with jimi hendrix as a teenager and wanted to sound like him, but you've got to get that out of your system as soon as feasibly possible.

[::BLM::]

its also quite sad because when the labels here that the demo is trying to sound like their style, it turns them straight off. they want you to be original as well as fit in.

100%

The people that are really popular tend to be the ones that have started the whole sound in the first place. Then the bandwagon jumpers get involved and try and copy that particular popular sound and it goes downhill from there. I suppose you cant jump onto a bandwagon and lead if what you're trying to achieve has already been done by someone else.

[simonb]

very true,
its also quite sad because when the labels here that the demo is trying to sound like their style, it turns them straight off. they want you to be original as well as fit in.

we've all been there when we start out, i was obsessed with jimi hendrix as a teenager and wanted to sound like him, but you've got to get that out of your system as soon as feasibly possible.

I think it's normal when you're inspired to try to sound like what inspires you at least initially. I was listening to RA's interview with Deadbeat recently where he said he made lots of Basic Channel soundalike tracks then moved on, got it out his system as you say. When you're like me (and I imagine a lot of us here) and spend lots of time keeping up with new music for DJing or simply just to enjoy, reading about artists you like or might potentially like, and generally keeping a finger on the pulse and gravitating towards certain styles it all has a certain effect and whether you mean it or not you try to sound like your favourite tracks.

There's a big difference between that and simply wanting to deliberately emulate, say, a label's sound, of course (although I think emulating others' sounds can be a good exercise in itself...) I definitely think that if you're creative and passionate enough about making music you will find your own voice even if your first efforts do sound derivative. It doesn't have to be something completely different to anything heard before, but something that sounds like you...

[NoAffiliation]

It's actually difficult to try and write rhythms against rhythms in some modern gear. Try writing a 12 step pattern against a 16 step pattern in some sequencers, they wont allow it. Time sigs mess with my head anyways.

not sure if this helps but people often get confused about polyrythm vs. polymeter. polymeter is using contrasting time sigs, like 3/4 on 4/4. polyrythm just means contrasting patterns, they don't need to be metrically related