Discussion in 'TRIBE Main Forum' started by deep, Mar 1, 2002.
Reread. I was referring to 'negative' music.
Negative music tends to be slower, minimalistic, and relies on melodies, not technique. For this reason, I think it would be easier to play without a computer.
Do you all find analog forms of music (i.e. bands) more repetitive than electronic music?
I do. I find with electronic music, where the unit of repetition is so minute, that it induces a desensitization to its repetition, whereas the chunks of repetition in analog music is comparatively more predictable and obtusely done
deep you're referring now to pop
watch out how you use "contemporary" music
we've been using it to represent all non-electronic music
there isn't much repetition in debussy
techno personifies repetition, if repetition were a human attribute.
not o sound condescending or something, and im not frowning on you, but i find it sad that you cannot feel any warmth or an emotional connection with the music unless you are under the influence.
perhaps you should learn to appreciate electronic music without the use of a pill in order to discover the emotional depth that electronic works can create in the lsitener.
and hard trance can be dark and scary. negative emotions. bo!
whoah, slow down there.
that's called jumping the gun ...
sure, pop bands are repetitious
but there are live performing "bands" that aren't repetitious, which are usually of the non-pop variety.
sorry about that last reply/quote
tori amos made me do it.
she is the devil.
It's funny, cause analog music seems to have been around a lot longer than electronic music, and right now, it seems to be stagnating, and safe. Be it pop, rock, grunge, alternative, nu-alternative or whatever it is, very little new ground (I feel) is being broken. I don't think that means that they've reached their limit, just lacking some inspiration right now.
From the Ministry of kind of agree. and rock and roll will never die.
Prime Minister Highsteppa
I love tori
I don't necessarily restrict my comments to pop. Even bands that were at their time very progressive and ground breaking. In comparison to electronic music the phrases in their music seem comparatively primitive, not complex, predictable. It seems like the general patterns in the music (chorus, etc.) are less subtle than electronic music. The complexity and diversity of sounds employed in each section limited.
its interesting to note though that whatever progression is made is by usually incorporating electronic music's aesthetic or sound into what already exists (ie; radiohead)
Radiohead seems to be one of the execptions, though I still don't "get" what it is they are trying to do with their more recent work. But I still very much respect their work, even if I don't totally understand it, and can't quite find the rhythm and pattern in it. I haven't tried actively. I did quite like OK Computer, though
There are some bands that are doing some interesting work, but they seem to be in the vast minority. Grunge really doesn't sound that different from punk, except with a lot more screaming and distortion and a few more chords. that's just my take, and I fully realize that one man's garbage can be another man's art.
From the Ministry of finding a lot of appeal in the older stuff.
Prime Minister Highsteppa
brit pop bands have always merged quirky electronics in their music
there was that stint as well back from like 1998 till 2000 when many of the old bands and artists that were getting stale and runnning out of steam infused their sounds with electronica (for which this termn is better suited, rather than for the music we listen to). sure it wasnt anythign uber great but it allowed artists to explore something more rather than the same old 6 strings on their guitars.
radiohead managed to do the whole electronica thing but much more succesffully than say, eric clapton or u2 or madonna.
But funnily enough, Depeche Mode went in the opposite direction with their album Songs of Faith and Devotion, and really lost me. I thought they were light years ahead of themselves when they did Violator back in 1989. I saw Songs of Faith and Devotion as a large step backwards except for a few songs (In Your Room). Their remixes I thought, however, made up for the album. They do seem to be back on track with their new stuff, and Alan Wilder went on to do Recoil which took a lot of interest with me (one album features Moby rapping!).
Madonna always managed to pull it off when she did a remix of one of her songs. Look at frozen, the Stereo MC's mix and the widescreen mix are so much better and lush than the original mix. Orbital's remix of Bedtime Story is phenominal (though, I will admit that I like the original mix best) and Deep Dish did a tribal version of it, which isn't too bad.
Eric Clapton. Ugh. That FMDAHANRHO or what ever that album was called was such crap. The track that was remixed for the Sasha and Digweed Communication disc however, was very cool.
U2 - Pop -> not the least bit impressed. Again, give it over to the remixers and they'll work their magic. I can't hear any of Howie B's work on the album.
From the Ministry of that's just my take though.
Prime Minister Highsteppa
I have definitely noted this.
I can so easily predict where non-electronic music is going now. It's almost insulting to listen to, with its predictability.
The nuances of "electronica" keep me guessing, as opposed to any shit played on CFNY or the mighty Q107.
I actually didn't listen to music for about 3 years until I found the sounds of "electronica". (Not totally true... I listened to a lot of classical stuff... cranking Beethoven's Ode to Joy will bring tears to my eyes always).
Music just seemed so dead until I found out about "electronica".
"Fuck genres" -- The Dukes, with these simple two words, have awakened something in me once again...
^^^^^^ PosTMOd, not sugar
Logging out, and back in sucks!
Separate names with a comma.