> Just to clear things up a bit: what I mean by intellectual
> content is the thought or idea that has manifested itself
> musically through the process of composition.
This can be done through electronic music as well. The composition tends
to be alot more complicated and detailed.
> I've "dabbled" in electronica myself and gotten pretty
> tired of it. Sure, pushing buttons can accomplish fast
> results. With the invention of MC-303, etc. anyone (and
> I mean ANYONE) who can count 4/4ths can create cool
> tracks and play around with technological sound. What
> I couldn't get from my dabbling was the feeling of
> actually creating something worthwhile.
This is the same what some people feel about a piano when they first play
it. They can get really cool sounds, just nothing that feels worthwhile.
The problem isn't in the tools used, its in the fact that you are merely
"dabbling" in them. It takes mastery of a tool to really make something
out of it. I no more expect someone to pick up an MC-303 for the first
time and noodle around with it and come up with some deep thought out
groove, than I do someone to pick up a saxophone for the first time and
bust off in an amazing improvisation.
> Being creative
> and communicating a message, a feeling, an impression
> is important to me as a human being and songwriter.
> But it wasn't a human creating the music - it was a
> lifeless, cold, metallic box. Even with techniques
> like Physical Modelling, we've come nowhere near
> recreating the sound of a muted trumpet solo, thedetailed resonnance of
> an old jazz guitar.
Why re-create the sound when you can sample it. Electronic music is all
about making new sounds never before possible.
> Don't get me wrong guys&gals; technological music was evolved
> immensely, but why does it always cater to its own audience?
> What is lacking that is holding it off the charts? Bands
> like Jamiroquai or BNH are commercially oriented, sure,
> but they haven't let techology take over - and I think
> that is part of their general appeal.
Anything caters to its own audience. The difference between electronic
music and live oriented bands is that live bands are better to watch, so
they can book concerts and tours, which make more money, which is why they
tend to get more push from the major record labels. (Which sometimes causes
compromise in the original musical vision for a more market viable
product) The magic in electronic music occurs mostly in the studio, and is
meant solely to be heard and enjoyed, not watched, and due to this lack of
a live performance aspect, it doesn't make financial sense to record labels
to put an advertising budget behind an album without an accompanying tour,
when they could invest the money in a band that could tour. And the
electronic bands that are touring? They aren't even close to whats really
going on. They're the sound of electronica run through the machinery of
the record companies to come up with some odd halfbreed between electronica
and live, pulling off neither very well. IMO.
> People like to be able to identify with what they hear or see.
> That's easier when the music allows room for reflection and
> afterthought, when you can feel that it has organic, human -
> intellectual - content, not when it's just organized sound
> created by a machine.
All music is organized sound. The difference in the feeling depends on who
is doing the organizing, the human or the machine. We must master
technology or it will master us.
randy