[DecentLevi]

@Lunatique I agree with some of your points, such as how EDM music often sounds too dull and generally uninspired if they simply rely on popular, limited formulas and effects - and how this way can be lacking in complexity. I also agree on the difficulty of making concessions in order to get a sound to sit in a mix or not. But for me at least, that's as fat as the cookie crumbles with your above stated views.
 
I for one, believe that electronic music is a "blank canvas" - a way of pure artistic freedom and you don't necessarily need to base everything on the likes of keys / chords, major/minor, rhythmic structure, popular structures, etc. If you do your research, you'll find that the vast majority of the most talented / respected / innovative electronic artists of all time started out in their 'basement' with no knowledge on the likes of music theory, and were self taught as a result of their own brilliance. There are many styles of electronic music that literally don't need working knowledge of these established 'music rules' and many sound quite brilliant and enjoyable in their own right, namely: rhythmic noise, ambient, drone and anything "experimental" which includes myriads of sub-styles within itself. I'd say, start with whatever inspires you and run with it, irregardless of whether it conforms to established rules! Overemphasis on music theory can actually hinder an artists' creativity rather than enhance it - now having to conform to so many boundaries.
 
And there's even "atonal" electronic music and styles with random melodies, in the way that jazz does also in this regard. Myself, along with most electronic music fans often enjoy the results of sounds played on top of a drum loop. Although, if done poorly these can also sound dull, but incredible results can be had herein - think acid house, Detroit techno and trance that everybody used to love and some still do. Especially with anything experimental, melodies and even rhythms are not even necessary at all, which can also sound extraordinary. But of course there are exceptions to this 'lack of rules', hence my choice word "necessarily", because if your aim is to make your music fit into an established genre, or moreso if you are otherwise aiming for raidio airplay or to appeal to the hoards of electronic music noobs out there, then that's when you should really get down with the likes of music theory and the "buildup, drop, verse, build-up, drop" etc. formulas.
 
Electronic music in it's purest form should be a reflection of the artists vision, rather than how well they can "conform" to society's pre-conceived notions of what it should sound like. Those who preach music theory too much on electronic music producers will undoubtedly quell this creative process, resulting in less adventurous music excursions for the music lover.
 
I realize my views may be a little strong, but this is coming from someone who is a very left-field experimental electronic musician. I'm sure many would agree on some of these points however.
 
Anyway this is the electronic music exchange thread, so I recommend any further discussion on this (myself included) to be done instead on this thread. Anyway, back to the music!
 
 

  Thanks to the High Voltage Circumcision show (3 hour archive updated every week), I've really been lovin' the darker side like of industrial / techno / ambient lately
 

Esplendor Geometrico - Polyglophone album (2013)

 

Somatic Responses - Night Driving (2010)

 

Pattern Behavior - The Term Between (2016)

 

The Vomit Arsonist - Until Death (2012)

 

[Lunatique]

  @Lunatique I agree with some of your points, such as how EDM music often sounds too dull and generally uninspired if they simply rely on popular, limited formulas and effects - and how this way can be lacking in complexity. I also agree on the difficulty of making concessions in order to get a sound to sit in a mix or not. But for me at least, that's as fat as the cookie crumbles with your above stated views.
 
I for one, believe that electronic music is a "blank canvas" - a way of pure artistic freedom and you don't necessarily need to base everything on the likes of keys / chords, major/minor, rhythmic structure, popular structures, etc. If you do your research, you'll find that the vast majority of the most talented / respected / innovative electronic artists of all time started out in their 'basement' with no knowledge on the likes of music theory, and were self taught as a result of their own brilliance. There are many styles of electronic music that literally don't need working knowledge of these established 'music rules' and many sound quite brilliant and enjoyable in their own right, namely: rhythmic noise, ambient, drone and anything "experimental" which includes myriads of sub-styles within itself. I'd say, start with whatever inspires you and run with it, irregardless of whether it conforms to established rules! Overemphasis on music theory can actually hinder an artists' creativity rather than enhance it - now having to conform to so many boundaries.
 
And there's even "atonal" electronic music and styles with random melodies, in the way that jazz does also in this regard. Myself, along with most electronic music fans often enjoy the results of sounds played on top of a drum loop. Although, if done poorly these can also sound dull, but incredible results can be had herein - think acid house, Detroit techno and trance that everybody used to love and some still do. Especially with anything experimental, melodies and even rhythms are not even necessary at all, which can also sound extraordinary. But of course there are exceptions to this 'lack of rules', hence my choice word "necessarily", because if your aim is to make your music fit into an established genre, or moreso if you are otherwise aiming for raidio airplay or to appeal to the hoards of electronic music noobs out there, then that's when you should really get down with the likes of music theory and the "buildup, drop, verse, build-up, drop" etc. formulas.
 
Electronic music in it's purest form should be a reflection of the artists vision, rather than how well they can "conform" to society's pre-conceived notions of what it should sound like. Those who preach music theory too much on electronic music producers will undoubtedly quell this creative process, resulting in less adventurous music excursions for the music lover.
 
I realize my views may be a little strong, but this is coming from someone who is a very left-field experimental electronic musician. I'm sure many would agree on some of these points however.
 
Anyway this is the electronic music exchange thread, so I recommend any further discussion on this (myself included) to be done instead on this thread. Anyway, back to the music!

I totally get where you're coming from, and intellectually, I agree with all of it, since my roots as a musician is partly in the underground (played in an industrial band in the early 90's), and listened to a lot of avant-garde and underground music. I'm also well-versed in all the experimental pioneers like Throbbing Gristle, Cabaret Voltaire, Kraftwerk, Art of Noise, Brian Eno, Einsturzende Neubauten, etc. But aesthetically and emotionally, my roots as a composers was in classical, jazz, pop, rock, etc., and I prize musicality more than I do the rebellious intent to be experimental for the sake of breaking away from the conventional. To me, it's much more interesting to be both rebellious AND musical, instead of just one or the other. This is why the tracks/artists I posted all tend to embody that ideal. Musicians who are knowledgeable and skilled in the traditional aesthetics are every bit as capable in creating innovative and rebellious approaches to music. Many of the legendary innovators in the history of music were classically trained, and their musical rebellions at the time scandalized and shocked society. Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was so rebellious that it caused a riot when it was first played in public!
 
A rebel who is actually knowledgeable and skilled is IMO, superior to an ignorant and unskilled rebel. For example, the hardcore punk band Bad Brains consists of accomplished musicians making very innovative punk music that sounds much more sophisticated than the standard three-chord punk rock, yet they are just as rebellious, socially conscious, and have just as much "street cred" in the punk scene. The difference is that when unskilled and less knowledgeable rebels break the rules, they are doing it out of ignorance, and when knowledgeable and skilled rebels break the rules, they know exactly what rules are the most stifling and limiting and they aim to break those rules in order to truly innovate where it really counts. That's also the difference between making mistakes out of ignorance and breaking rules out of knowledge. This isn't to say there aren't interesting things that the ignorant do that the knowledgeable would never think of because their mentalities are very different, but ultimately my personal taste prefers rebels who are skilled and knowledgeable.
 
Okay, I should contribute more music to this thread to make up for all the words I typed.
 

 





 
Here's a really interesting one, because it's an insight into the mindset of aging electronic music pioneers (YMO) and the kind of music they are making in their old age. You can hear how they are going back to the basics and playing acoustic and electric instruments for that organic sounding groove, but the sensibility of the electronic musician is still very much alive:

 
Here's a behind the scene video for that track:
 

 

[moriez]

FP-Oner - The Law Of Correspondance
 

 

[FredrikT92]

 

[Lunatique]

Often, "songs" (as in, with singing and lyrics) in electronic music tends to be irrelevant and often grating (as demonstrated in a lot of house music), and usually have very shallow lyrics. (I'm not including synthpop or other genres where the song format is the main focus, while electronic arrangements is the supporting element. Depeche Mode, Pet Shop Boys, New Order, etc. would be in that camp.) But every once a while, there are gems that really blow me away. One such example, is Jillian Aversa's haunting vocals (she's lent her vocals to a lot of video game soundtracks) and poetic lyrics in the song, "Just Hold On," for Zircon (she's married to Zircon/Andrew).
 
There are actually two different versions of the song. The original version made a splash in the FL Studio community because Andrew/Zircon is one of the few well-known professional composers  (he does a lot of video game soundtracks) who use it as his main DAW:

The second version was the one on Zircon's "Identity Sequence" album. 

It's really hard to say which is the better version. I like them both for different reasons. The original feels more lyrical, while the later version is more aggressive.

 

[BlakeT]

  Often, "songs" (as in, with singing and lyrics) in electronic music tends to be irrelevant and often grating (as demonstrated in a lot of house music), and usually have very shallow lyrics. (I'm not including synthpop or other genres where the song format is the main focus, while electronic arrangements is the supporting element. Depeche Mode, Pet Shop Boys, New Order, etc. would be in that camp.) But every once a while, there are gems that really blow me away. One such example, is Jillian Aversa's haunting vocals (she's lent her vocals to a lot of video game soundtracks) and poetic lyrics in the song, "Just Hold On," for Zircon (she's married to Zircon/Andrew).
 
There are actually two different versions of the song. The original version made a splash in the FL Studio community because Andrew/Zircon is one of the few well-known professional composers  (he does a lot of video game soundtracks) who use it as his main DAW:

The second version was the one on Zircon's "Identity Sequence" album. 

It's really hard to say which is the better version. I like them both for different reasons. The original feels more lyrical, while the later version is more aggressive.

 
I agree with much of what you wrote, but then I listen to the songs you posted and I'm scratching my head because for me, the vocals don't work at all.  She is talented, but her vocals might be better suited to a different music genre. These tracks are bland and predictable, and rather awkward.    
 
Just my opinion and nothing personal whatsoever.  I like chocolate, you might like vanilla and all is well.  You probably don't like the music I like and vice versa.  There is no right or wrong, but I don't think skill necessarily comes into play like you.  I'll take creativity and originality any day.  A song moves you, or it does not.  Over thinking, analyzing and categorizing can ruin things and these songs are an example of that.  Please don't take offense, just my two cents.

 

[Lunatique]

   
I agree with much of what you wrote, but then I listen to the songs you posted and I'm scratching my head because for me, the vocals don't work at all.  She is talented, but her vocals might be better suited to a different music genre. These tracks are bland and predictable, and rather awkward.    
 
Just my opinion and nothing personal whatsoever.  I like chocolate, you might like vanilla and all is well.  You probably don't like the music I like and vice versa.  There is no right or wrong, but I don't think skill necessarily comes into play like you.  I'll take creativity and originality any day.  A song moves you, or it does not.  Over thinking, analyzing and categorizing can ruin things and these songs are an example of that.  Please don't take offense, just my two cents.

Difference of taste is what makes the world interesting, so no offense taken.
 
Her usual chosen style is more new age, and for me, the soothing vocals constrasting against the electronic elements is what makes it more interesting than your typical EDM song or some kind of house track with gospel styled belting, and musically it's more interesting to me as well because the melodic contour actually has a sense of journey and drama, and the arrangement is not so monotonous as most EDM and house tracks. There are distinct shifts in density and rhythmic vibe, giving it a sense of progression and pacing/structure. 
 
You're right that there's no right or wrong in music, or in fact, any creative art, which is why discussions of merit is always so subjective. All we can do is to state why we like or dislike something, and there is no ultimate judgment--not even our history books and authoritative institutions. In a world where punk rockers and DJs can thumb their noses at classically trained composers who studied and practiced music since they were children and can perform professionally at the concert level in the most prestigious halls, or roll their eyes at the most gifted and skilled jazz and metal musicians, how can there ever be a universal consensus? The same could be said about the world of art, literature, film, photography, etc. It's an eternal debate that will never end.

 

[BlakeT]

Well said Lunatique.

 

[DecentLevi]

Well I just previewed almost all of Aphex Twin's newest EP and I hate to talk down on my king but this is the first album from him I can remember that I actually don't want. To me it sounds very bland, uninspired and barely even creative at all. It really surprised me though that it's gotten such positive reviews on Discogs. I get the impression that he's putting the virtue of mass appeal over personal vision on this one.

 

[Lunatique]

  Well I just previewed almost all of Aphex Twin's newest EP and I hate to talk down on my king but this is the first album from him I can remember that I actually don't want. To me it sounds very bland, uninspired and barely even creative at all. It really surprised me though that it's gotten such positive reviews on Discogs. I get the impression that he's putting the virtue of mass appeal over personal vision on this one.

It's more accessible than some of his more outlandish albums, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. There are a few tracks I like a lot on the newest EP.
 
One thing we have to keep in mind, is that creative artists change with life experience, and they are also influenced by and evolving with the world as time goes by, not to mention not wanting to repeat ideas they've already explored and wanting to try something they've never done, or simply wanting to indulge themselves and do what they really want to do despite what their fans might think. Also, many creatives mellow out as they get older, having gotten all the rebellious stuff out of their system, and no longer feel like they have something to prove to the world, thus evolving to a new creative vision. The fact is, we are not mind-readers so we can't know for sure if they are "selling out to the mainstream" or if they genuinely like the direction they're taking things. 
 
Aphex Twin is famous for not giving a ****** about what others think of him, and he's always done what he wanted to do. He's likely not in need of money after being so famous for so long (assuming he invested his money wisely all these years instead of blowing them carelessly), so there's no reason to think he's definitely selling out in some way. 

 

[DecentLevi]

I get what you're saying, but I for one would despise a possible reality where "slower" equates to appealing to the masses, but at least in some senses that may be true.
However I would really like to drive home that unique musical expression does not mean "rebellious" in any way. It's my impression the artists intent with avant garde / experimental music is more to thrust an idea out into the world for others to delight in, rather than to actually be different or to rebel.
 
Anyway my two cents. Now back to the music, anyone? 

 

[Lunatique]

  I get what you're saying, but I for one would despise a possible reality where "slower" equates to appealing to the masses, but at least in some senses that may be true.
However I would really like to drive home that unique musical expression does not mean "rebellious" in any way. It's my impression the artists intent with avant garde / experimental music is more to thrust an idea out into the world for others to delight in, rather than to actually be different or to rebel.
 
Anyway my two cents. Now back to the music, anyone? 

I agree. It goes both ways. A musical artist or band who's known for making slow ambient music and then suddenly release a song or album full of upbeat, catchy tunes, people would instantly make accusations of "selling out." And if an artist who's known for making experimental, noisy, unique music suddenly release something that sounds structured, melodic, harmonious, people would make accusations of the same. But is that really fair? 
 
What if inside all of us, are different emotions, moods, and states of mind, and we as creative talents are simply picking and choosing from a vast array of them when we create something to express ourselves, and there's no "selling out" because it all comes from within? If Quentin Taratino suddenly made a romance movie, would he be selling out if that movie is in fact an ode to the love of his life--the woman he cares deeply for? Does he have to make that movie really gory and full of foul language and witty sarcasm if that's not the love story he wants to tell? 
 
Same thing with musical artists. They have different aspects of their intellect and soul they want to express, and no matter what we the fans think, all of their artistic expressions are ultimate a part of them. Richard might be feeling less experimental in this new EP because he simply wants to express a different part of his creative vision--a part that doesn't require outlandish sounds and quirky structure. Being experimental isn't some kind of merit in and of itself, because there are plenty of horrible avant-garde music out there that sounds like nothing more than random noise, regardless of how people want to intellectualize it, while some avant-garde music are truly mind-blowing in how innovative and interesting they are. 

 

[DecentLevi]

Back to some awesome sauce, shall we 

 

Perc - London, We Have You Surrounded (2011)

 

Exclipsect - Motoroller (2014)

 

[Lunatique]

  Back to some awesome sauce, shall we 

 

 

 

Exclipsect - Motoroller (2014)

That one was really satisfying. I was hoping for a bit more musical information in the mid to higher frequencies though, to give the arrangement a bit more balance in some parts.
 
I went back and listened to Syro, and then listened to Cheetah again, and I can see why you were disappointed. The only track on Cheetah that sounds like it had the more interesting mixture of different sonic sculpting and arrangement was CIRKLON3, and while CIRKLIN 1 and 2X202-ST5 both aren't bad, their sonic palettes are very limited--in fact, it sounds like he used the same set of sounds for those two tracks, and they sound like two different alternate take of improvisation instead of totally different musical ideas. I read somewhere that was one of the things he forced himself to do--to use the same set of sounds to create different compositions. 
 
BTW, speaking of disappointment, Paul Hartnoll's new solo project, 8:58, was a big disappointment for me. With the exception of the first track (once it picks up the pace around the half-way point), the whole album did nothing for me--just a bunch of mediocre songs sung by guest vocalists (for me, when electronic artists make "songs" with vocals, they are usually big disappointments).
 
Here's that first track. You might want to just skip to the middle where it starts to get interesting:

 

[DecentLevi]

Did you listen to the whole song? And using good headphones? I thought that song is exquisite song and it really showcases his technical prowess and brilliance and is a great example of synthetic  / organic hybrids. I think at least half of the synths were sampled vocals. He sure has deep expertise from his decades with Orbital.