musical debate thread

[the4thImpulse]

You can dance to just about any type of music out there whether its a simple 4x4 house beat in a club, a waltz to classical 'waltz' music, the 'moshing' to metal/heavy rockish or genres of that nature, or even just interpretive dance to the music one does not typically associate dancing too ect.....

You can also just causally listen to any type of music in the same fashion as above.

There are no 'rules' with music, only what sounds good to your ears. If you don't like a particular song then you either change the song, leave the place thats playing the song (club, coffeshop..), or you just put up with the song and not let it bother you too much. The same applies to Dance, if you don't like dancing to some genres of music then you obviously don't dance to those genres, or you do dance solely to impress that special someone.

[CaptainFluffatun]

EDM stands for Electronic Dance Music. Electronica expands EDM as it's not just music that's made for dancing. IDM is a misnomer because it is neither "Intelligent" nor Dance Music. If it's not made for dancing it's improper to label it as EDM.

-Soft D. String DeHooves

...So?

Just because it's made with heavy kicks and subbasses doesn't mean it's not intended to be listened to casually or otherwise. Any EDM artist ever would be offended if you proposed that their music's sole purpose is to be played in a club and not actually 'listened to'.

Just because it fits a niche doesn't mean its restricted. Stop trying to pointlessly label things.

"THIS ISN'T METAL. IT'S POST-PROGRESSIVE TECHNICAL DEATH METALCORE, ASSHOLE"

1) Calm down.

2) It *is* in the name; Electronic Dance Music was meant to be danced to.

3) Doesn't mean it can't be listened to because you like the atmosphere etc.


I don't see why this is even a debate.

[ph00tbag]

I dance to Tangerine Dream.

On a more serious note, I'd say that taking the name "EDM" at face value is a bit naive. It was once dance music, sure, but the people who make it have branched out, and started looking for ways to experiment with the form that often sacrifice danceability for originality. But it's really just a lot easier to keep calling it EDM than trying to come up with something else.

Interestingly enough, Jazz and Rock went through similar transformations over the course of their evolutions (as did the classical genres, for that matter). I guess no one had a problem with everyone calling Dizzy Gillespie's stuff Jazz, or Dream Theater's stuff Rock, because those names had nothing to do with dancing, so Bebop and Prog Rock don't offend any misplaced lexical sensibilities. But try to call BT's This Binary Universe EDM, and everyone gets their panties in a knot.

Basically, what it gets down to is that EDM is a convenient combination of sounds used to represent an idea. The component parts of these combined sounds do not technically have to indicate the meaning of the whole in order for that meaning to be accurately communicated. It doesn't even have to have meant the same thing historically. What it comes down to is that some people say Electronic Dance Music without intending to suggest that the music in question is for dancing, and that's what the phrase means.

[ghelded_kultz]

While I do like a lot of EDM songs, I've been getting into a lot of experimental ones as well. I've become a huge fan of post dubstep music along with a lot of IDM and Ambient shit. I'd love to see some EDM crossed over with dream pop, now that would be sick

EDM (Electronic Dream Music) would be awesome. I'm sure someone's fused the genres, so let me check. This guy claims that Dream Pop is the point where EDM and Alt-Rock meet and at least modern dream pop should be considered EDM, which I do kind of agree on. Of course he doesn't seem to know (or at least interpets differently from me) dream-pop's history and progeny, especially when talking about post-rock.


Is this what you meant?

Punk>Metal

True dat. Expanding the equation: Hardcore Punk [From here on out H]=Punk squared [P]; P+Metal [M]=Extreme Metal [E] not including Doom [O]; E>P H≥E when E=Death Metal [D], Metalcore [C] or Thrash [T]; H><E when E is Black Metal [b.]; H+D= Grindcore [G]; G≥Everything (I might be exaggerating here); O>M when M is basically metal I don't like but isn't extreme; O+H=Sludge Metal [S]; S>Most Metal; C+D=Deathcore [Þ]; Þ<Pretty much everything. Alternative Rock [A]=P' in respect to time; A>P; A>M; A≧H; A+M=Alternative Metal [R]; R really depends on the song. R+Electronic Dance Music=Industrial Metal (I); I>R; I+Hip Hop=Nu Metal [N]; N=Þ; N<M;

So basically it really depends. But in general I like Punk and Punk inspired music more than metal.

I could generalize metal as three-chord shouty bullshit, but I know that's completely untrue.

You might be talking to the other member but if you were to do that than I would have to call you musically ignorant. Everyone knows what you just described is punk, not metal.

"THIS ISN'T METAL. IT'S POST-PROGRESSIVE TECHNICAL DEATH METALCORE, ASSHOLE"

The sort of people who would say that would understand progressive and technical being more or less equal and death metalcore being deathcore. So they would call it post-technical deathcore (technical because technical is associated with death metal). Switch around the words so that it is technical post-deathcore and it doesn't sound nearly as stupid as you wanted it to. However I think everyone can agree that it would be a terrible genre.

....I take it you don't like progressive rock at all? :/

I'll admit that I like some of it more than I let on. And I think everyone should know that I, the unreasonable member of Ghelded Kultz (and the more well spoken one), make sure that I am familiar with a form of music or band before I bash it. I might be uncompromising and unreasonable, but I am fair.

So Progressive Rock related genres I do like: Post-Punk/Post-Hardcore, Some Math Rock, Noise Rock (Remember how I used Sonic Youth as an example of a creative band that is good. They take quite a bit of progressive influence, not that they'd ever admit it), Krautrock (I especially like Neu!), post-rock, some art rock, the one zeuhl song I heard, some neo-prog.

Progressive Rock related genres I don't like (there are always exceptions, of course): Old school progressive/1970s progressive, Progressive metal, Neo-classical Metal.

Basically I prefer less show-offy genres.

About that Rush song. It's okay. I do not like Geddy's voice (coming from someone who often doesn't care about vocal quality) but his bass part was fine. I liked the intro, but not the outro or the solo. Neil Peart (?) might be a good drummer but I do not like his style of drumming or his self-indulgent solos. The lyrics are okay. Better than the Trees at least. To answer the question, the drums are way too creative.

As far as noise rock goes, Sonic Youth is often people's first encounter with it because they are one of the biggest and most influential noise rock bands. Not to mention they, along with the Velvet Underground, are the definition of "cool". However the easiest way to get used to noise genres would be through noise pop. Yo La Tengo (who released a new album a couple of days ago) has some pretty easy to handle noise pop.


Bands like Lightning Bolt are much harder to handle than noise pop but they sound pretty cool (Notice the drumming. I might be a hypocrite but I like the complex (I think) drumming here).


Just don't look at Cybergrind, Noisegrind, Digital Hardcore, Power Electronics, Harsh Noise or even the first wave or so of Industrial and Industrial rock with out being prepared for ear rape. These are genres made to hurt.

@Everyone
My bandmate disagrees with me on metal and talent and I disagree with him on EDM. I have a whole bunch of EDM for listening and enjoy most of it. Despite its name, it's definitely not a dance only genre. However

We for sure need a way to separate music that was made to be danced to and music that we are supposed to just listen to for the enjoyment!

There is a degree of importance to this. For the most part people don't (or can't) dance to industrial (not EBM or Electro-Industrial but pure industrial), noise, the more extreme forms of ambient, or musique concrète (maybe chiptunes too. Does anyone dance to chiptunes? I'd dance to them if a dj played them at a party but that never happens). These are still electronic music genres though. But they exists for the listener's enjoyment (or to piss of the listener). But that doesn't mean that "dance music" can't be enjoyed without dancing.

Ugg, that was an ordeal. Ends up deltas aren't supported here.

[LoreRD]

Those examples of noise aren't what I think of when I think of noise, and as such.... I don't mind listening to them. I consider those grunge/shoegaze and experimental/math rock respectively.

Also, there are no self-indulgent drum solos in that Rush song (I know what those sound like). And IMO he's one of the more restrained prog drummers out there (despite often considered one of the best drummers in the world). However, I'm not here to convince you otherwise. I can see not liking Geddy Lee's voice, though. That's just personal preference.

Not to mention they, along with the Velvet Underground, are the definition of "cool".

Uh... okay. That's not exactly supported anywhere, ever.
Not everyone actually likes Velvet Underground or Sonic Youth, you know.

[ghelded_kultz]

Those examples of noise aren't what I think of when I think of noise, and as such.... I don't mind listening to them. I consider those grunge/shoegaze and experimental/math rock respectively.

Well then no wonder you don't like noise. You don't know it. Shoegaze is much dronier and reverb heavy (and flangers/phasers, basically more effects) though it takes heavy influence from noise rock/pop (It's basically noise rock/pop combined with dream pop with some psychedelic elements). Grunge has a lot of noise rock influence. Look at Kurt Cobain's favorite albums/bands. Butthole Surfers, Sonic Youth, Swans, Flipper... Steve Albini (a famed Noise Rocker) produced "In Utero" for Nirvana and Sonic Youth got them signed. The other grunge bands took similar influences. So it would make sense that noise pop might sound like grunge (that song doesn't really sound like either to me).

Lightning Bolt is considered experimental rock (and Wikipedia considers Noise Rock a subgenre of experimental rock) but this is a subset of their noise rock. Experimental is a sort of adjective, like avant-garde, that should be only be used as a genre if there really is no better way to describe it.

Noise, in the context of music is something undesirable (at least initially) that changes the sound of the music. Usually this means distortion and feedback. While many genres of rock used these to some effect, noise pop/rock based their music off of these, and are generally the easiest forms of noise to listen to. However they are considered noise music within the context of musicology. Glitch is also considered a form of noise music. This is a nice article looking at noise rock and it's development. Anyway, if you want more pure noise, Metal Machine Music is fairly easy to listen to.



It's not for everyone but there is a world of music that tries to discover the meaning of out there for those brave enough to try it out.

http://bulletformybloodyvalentine.bandcamp.com/
This is some pretty decent droney, noise mash-up

Not to mention they, along with the Velvet Underground, are the definition of "cool".

Uh... okay. That's not exactly supported anywhere, ever.
Not everyone actually likes Velvet Underground or Sonic Youth, you know.

I know that. I know a lot of people can't stand either band. However they are objectively cool. Cool is not necessarily awesome, or good or everybody's favorite or something like that. Cool is beatnik and the East Village (Home of Andy Warhol's stuff and the CGBG, which is the coolest nightclub by the definition of cool). Being basically the musical representation of this, The Velvet Underground and their successors Sonic Youth, are the definition of cool. Not awesome, not goodness, not quality, not favorite, cool.

[LoreRD]

There are lot of ways to define "cool". Beatnick is only one of those, and cool in general is entirely subjective. There is absolutely no way you claim that one attitude is the definition of cool.

And this discussion is utterly pointless.

[ghelded_kultz]

There are lot of ways to define "cool". Beatnick is only one of those, and cool in general is entirely subjective. There is absolutely no way you claim that one attitude is the definition of cool.

And this discussion is utterly pointless.

From Wikipedia "Cool is an admired aesthetic of attitude, behavior, comportment, appearance and style, influenced by and a product of the Zeitgeist"

Both Sonic Youth and Velvet Underground fit with this image of coolness and were highly reflective Zeitgiest. They had the right attitudes and behavior and of course the appearance and style to match.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/10/health/la-he-whats-cool-20121110

Cool is "characterized by "rebelliousness, irony and roughness." Once again both these bands fit under cool.
"It’s just one of those accepted things: Sonic Youth is cool"
This is anti Sonic Youth and it admits it.

[LoreRD]

As I said before, this discussion is absolutely pointless. It just REALLY bugs me when coolness is "defined" as one specific concept or something is the definition of cool. In my experience, every single person who's explained something as the defintion of cool has been wrong, because I meet a lot of people who have wildly different opinions and definitions of cool. I don't care if you found an anti-VU who thought they were cool. I don't consider them especially cool above the rest, not right now anyway, and I don't think I'm alone in that regard. I just think of them as a good band that was quite influencial. Honestly, I'm completely fine with you saying that they're a cool band. Just please don't say a band is "the definition of cool". At least to me, it makes you sound like a fanboy (really sorry if that offends you, I'm just explaining how it all sounds to me).

And besides, those "definitions" are just examples of what can be considered cool. No "the" definition in there.

[ghelded_kultz]

Oh I am a fanboy. And you appear to be a Rush fanboy. Who cares?

But when sociologists analyze the idea of cool using input from random surveys and determine what the common idea of what cool is, there is merit. And when a band fits that definition well, then that band=to that definition.

But I see that you are tired of this discussion and it is time for more prompts (while I wait for the americans to get a chance to come to the board and see what they missed during their sleep).

Indie Folk/Rock (like Mumfurd and Sons, Bon Iver, etc): Good or bad? (And lets try to avoid discussing hipsters here)

[LoreRD]

Damn it, I stressed the fact that you SOUNDED like a fanboy, not that you were one! Please learn to read more carefully. As for myself, I'm NOT a Rush fanboy, they're just a band that I like and one that I brought up as a good example for the point I was making. I could've just as easily chosen Porcupine Tree as a different example for my argument. It would've worked just as well.

Anyway, I actually really like a lot of indie rock, in fact, some of my favorite bands are in that genre. For example, Gotye's Making Mirrors was my favorite album of last year (NOT Clockwork Angels), Mumford and Sons are in general pretty good and have some great songs, and Bon Iver's recent album was my favorite album of 2011 so there.

A great example of good indie folk would also be soundtrack to Once. Quite often, simplicity is really nice.

[ghelded_kultz]

I find Indie Rock to be a giant misnomer, hardly any of it is really independent anymore. While in theory it should be a very wide genre and indeed old school Indie Rock was, the bands that usually get labeled as Indie Rock tend to have a very narrow range of sound in my opinion, there is a very distinct sound to this modern Indie Rock scene, and I find most of it to be quite boring. There is some Indie Rock I like, Mumford and Sons is fine and I like a few other songs, but to me most of it just sounds the same. I It's really ironic how "Indie Rock" is the most popular Rock scene at the moment. Now it seems to be even more over-saturated and commercialized than Metalcore. I prefer real Indie Rock, music actually made by people who aren't signed to major labels and don't suck up to Pitchfork Media.

Brony Rock > Indie Rock, and it's not because of ponies.

-Soft D. String DeHooves

[LoreRD]

What?

Seriously?

While "indie" is a giant misnomer, there is actually a surprising amount of breadth in "indie" genres, and I don't how you can say that it's extremly narrow in the present day. Just tell me with a straight face that MGMT, Gotye, Mumford and Sons, Foster the People, Glen Hansard, Fleet Foxes, Florence + the Machine, Death Cab for Cutie and Radiohead have fewer differences between them compared to most metalcore bands.
Feel free to find these artists boring all you want, but they do NOT "just sound the same".
You should REALLY just stop generalizing, this time you not only generalized the genre entirely, you claim that all signed "indie" artists are automatically worse and just suck up to Pitchfork.

[ghelded_kultz]

The other Kult:
I know you never said I was a fanboy. I don't see why you are offended that I am wearing a fitting label with pride.

I'm actually fine indie for the most part, but get a little annoyed with some of the more samey stuff (Edit: Which is not so much the ones you mentioned but the sort of ones that follow the aesthetic more than the spirit) . My favorite indie bands are probably Sparklehorse (It's too bad he killed himself), Low and Codeine. I've listened to quite a bit of Pavement the last couple of days and they weren't too bad. I haven't really been able to get into the more heavily produced baroque-poppy indie though.

Bon Iver, Bon Iver was fine but as far as 2011 indie releases went, I prefered Low's C'mon. Of course most indie was better than what we were being bombarded with on the radio and at school in 2011 and 2012 like this:


and a whole bunch of Adele (who I do not like). The radio also made me make sure to never even try to listen to Florence and the Machine by always talking about the band in their ads and the over hyping (but never actually playing) made me sick of ever hearing anything related to the group ever again.

I'll admit that My Head is an Animal was a somewhat guilty pleasure of mine when it came out. So many similar sounding songs yet I still liked it.

Similar to Florence and the Machine, I can't listen to Death Cab for Cutie with a straight face thanks to over hyping from a friend of mine. I do like the motorik in this song though.


And Radiohead, while technically independent (or at least they were for a while) isn't really indie rock in my opinion. Indie rock as I meant does have an aesthetic that Radiohead doesn't fit. It's a very wide and ill defined aesthetic but one that you kind of feel. Radiohead, while pretty awesome, isn't in there. Nor do some of my favorite bands like Kaizers Orchestra and Gogol Bordello, despite the fact they are pretty awesome and pretty indie.

What I consider genres in the indie aesthetic: Chillwave, Indie Folk, Indie Pop, Baroque Pop, Dark Cabaret (with gothic), Post-Punk/Garage Rock/New Wave Revival, lo-fi, slowcore/sadcore, etc. Dance-punk might be part of the aesthetic too.

Oh, and Hey Ocean! They aren't my favorite but aren't too bad.

[LoreRD]

What I consider genres in the indie aesthetic: Chillwave, Indie Folk, Indie Pop, Baroque Pop, Dark Cabaret (with gothic), Post-Punk/Garage Rock/New Wave Revival, lo-fi, slowcore/sadcore, etc. Dance-punk might be part of the aesthetic too.

No indietronica? :/

Anyway, I'd say that Radiohead is still indie rock (No Surprises, High and Dry, most of Hail to the Thief), but regardless, those were only a few of the ones that came to mind.

How about:

Vampire Weekend, Arcade Fire, The Vaccines, The Strokes, Arctic Monkeys, Los Campesinos!, Bright Eyes, The xx, The Horrors, Friendly Fires, Hot Chip, Animal Collective, The Main Drag, The Civil Wars, Phoenix, LCD Soundsystem, The Shins, Glasvegas, The Mountain Goats and Fun. (the last one is a bit of a border case, almost a little too mainstream pop oriented).

Simply put, there's a whole lot of variety, more than (one of) you seems to think. I can totally understand overhyping, though. Could you possibly link some of the "samey" stuff you're referring to? Not that I doubt it exists (I'm 100% sure that it does), but I just haven't come across it all that often.

Also, Adele is indie rock? Since when? I thought she was R&B/Soul :O

I don't see why you are offended that I am wearing a fitting label with pride.

I was never offended. Offended's a strong word for me and I rarely get offended. And in these hardly serious discussions, the worst I'll get is mildly annoyed.

[Freewave]

I just get so annoyed by the whole indie/alt rock split and classification. I mean i get the fact that people in the late 80's called it generically college rock, people in the 90's stuck with alternative, and then in the 00's started generically calling it indie. But the biggest issue i have is the size qualification. That once you get signed or become popular you're worth ignoring or can't be part of the same music scene. This simply allows people to have an everchanging array of new artists vs investing in some really good ones. I get that a lot of bands get poppier, more glossy, and appeal to the alt radio as they become popular (and that's a drag) but i don't get how that reflects on their their older stuff or if the music is still quality. It's just such ingrained snobbery involved and i hate that. Indie should not be a light switch which has an on and off button to whether its good or not. Part of why i don't care to listen to as much of it as before and why i don't look for the hot new band that will be ignored 1 year later as being passe.

Radiohead has always been an alt rock band if you consider the size but they've always had an indie rock spirit, aimed high artistically and made amazing albums, and that's what makes them special. I just don't like the negativity present in a chunk of their writing even if i love them for what they still do. They've always been given a special pass by the press for being both popular (enough) and critical favorites and yet not fallen to "selling out" like so many other bands. That's rare.

[LoreRD]

^^ Thanks for hitting the nail right on the head, Freewave. I agree with you completely. Also, I find the term "sellout" really stupid. It instantly creates a negative vibe for that band, even if all they did sign on to major label. And if a band "sells out" (*shudder*) and starts making music you no longer like....? Stop listening to them. They made the choice to cater to a different audience, and it's not you anymore. Tough luck, but stop blaming the artists for trying to get more recognition for their music.

[topitmunkeydog]

Bro, I feel it. Indie and alternative just says something about whether a band is on a major record label and doesn't indicate anything about the music itself. It's like the term "World music." Is Foster the People a world music group for people living in Indonesia? I don't think so. So why are all foreign singers or groups, whether pop, folk, rock, or whatever always classified as world music? And why are there exceptions even? (ABBA for example.)

[ghelded_kultz]

Vampire Weekend, Arcade Fire, The Vaccines, The Strokes, Arctic Monkeys, Los Campesinos!, Bright Eyes, The xx, The Horrors, Friendly Fires, Hot Chip, Animal Collective, The Main Drag, The Civil Wars, Phoenix, LCD Soundsystem, The Shins, Glasvegas, The Mountain Goats and Fun. (the last one is a bit of a border case, almost a little too mainstream pop oriented).

Yeah I'd consider pretty much all of these indie.

I never said Adele was indie. I said that the local stations only played Brazilian country/other Brazilian pop and not-so great pop so any sort of indie was better than that. It was also relevant because the same station would also talk about Florance and the Machine in their commercials making me associate it with annoying radio stations.

Indietronica and Alternative dance mostly fit in the aesthitic too (especially Indietronica), I just didn't feel like putting more genres down.

I personally consider Indie Rock as a subgenre of Alternative Rock (one of my super labels in the genre of Rock. One day I'll put my understanding of music genealogy into an understandable format) with indie rock having a certain sound (though not all that well defined) and indie folk having its own (similar) sound, and whatever-revivals having its own (slightly louder) sound, so on and so forth. So in my understanding, while indie music is just the new alternative (which is yes, the new college rock) indie rock is its own genre within indie. So when I brought up indie rock I meant it not as all indish music, but that subset of music that the commoner associates with indie.

As far as selling out goes I only have a problem if signing and getting big if the music becomes watered down/ or less interesting. But then I just stop listening to the artist so it doesn't matter anyway.

It doesn't really have much to do with labels anymore either, but there is a sound that is more unified than world music (which is a really stupid term as non-european folk would work just as well of a name and be less western biased. But really, outside of iTunes level genre classifcation and music stores, just use the name of the music).

Funny you bring up Indonesia. No, Foster the People would not be world music here and folk does not mean gamelan. It still refers to anglo-folk. But the music industry very much influenced by American culture. It's not like you go to a music store in one of the malls and there are just shelves of Gamelan, I-Pop and all foreign music is listened under some stupid label like "dunia" (I'll check this next time I'm at the mall but I'm pretty sure the biggest sections are "alternative" (aka Nickleback, Creed (they did a concert a couple months ago and it was being advertised everywhere) and the like) and "electronic"). In return no one in the US should consider I-pop as world music considering it's pretty much just pop in Indonesian (though the stuff I've heard is also more laid back than a lot of pop. It still sucks though). Is this world music .
No it's power pop.

When I lived in Brazil, world music meant pretty much the same thing as it does in the US (unless the music industry in the US considers bossa nova, samba, axé, and sertanejo universitário world music, in which those genres would not be counted as world music). Once again, the music industry there is modeled off of the music industry in the US, so the genres meant pretty much the same thing.

ABBA isn't world music because they sung in English (and are European. Most European music is not world music, unless it's from some backwards place like Greece). The European thing is important because you have bands like Kaizers Orchestra that don't sing in English but would never be considered world music.

This is all tangential, but like David Byrne, I hate world music. Long story short, indie is a much more indicative term than world music. There is more of a united indie sound than there is a world music sound.

[topitmunkeydog]

I realize that that sort of thing is not too popular in the US and that is why it's categorized as World Music. However the majority of stuff you mentioned could definitely be considered jazz or easy listening.
ABBA was a bad example. Here's better examples:

Caravan Palace is Electro Swing


Yet Paris Combo, a really similar band, is classified as world music.

ehh, I don't know. My father used to listen to a lot of Putomayo world music samplers but those are organized under like, Jazz or Lounge or Samba. So even the biggest "world music label" doesn't claim that world music is an identifiable genre. I think it should just be put in the proper category

In response to the indie music thing most of the stuff LoreRD mentioned are Alternative bands rather than indie because although they retain their style, they have relative popularity. (Like Mumford and Sons, Death Cab for Cutie, Of Monsters and Men, Coldplay. Of course a few of those are Alternative Folk but...)
I guess indie bands are more obscure because they are still on an indiependent record label. Stuff like Yeasayer, Amiina, Utidur, Seapony, Royal Teeth, Defiance Ohio, Ezra Furman, Jonsi, hrmnzr, Alt-J etc. IDK, I am really bad at judging how popular a band is. I first heard of Passion Pit from a friend who is like an extreme music hipster, and so I thought they were really obscure. Then I went to their concert and I saw a whole bunch of people there. So I don't know how popular a few of LoreRD's bands are but I feel like Vampire Weekend, Arcade Fire, LCD and fun. at least should be considered alternative.

Not to mention a lot of those bands have been around for a good long while so they pioneered the sound we associate with alternative.

EDIT: WHOOPS, FORGOT THE UNICORNS! THEY ARE THE MOST INDIE OF ALL INDIE BANDS