Making records from previously-existing components (via editing) is obviously easier than writing, performing and recording music made up from scratch. It is easier in the same way it is easier to play a piano than it is to build one and then play it. I don't think even the loudest defenders of this idiom would deny this.

Electronic music makers often allude to this, in many cases dismissing or even deriding the "dead" skills of using instruments.

This is all fine, of course, and I pass no judgment on people who make their music this way. That's their thing, whatever. It remains that it is orders of magnitude easier to fiddle with existing sounds using software than it is to imagine, perform, record and then present music from scratch. In the sampling/manipulating method, one can pick and choose from elements with intrinsic charm, often culturally and aesthetically pre-loaded, sometimes ordained with iconic significance. These are rare, fragile and hard-won qualities in the physical realm.

Anybody making an equivalence between the two idioms (physical music and computer/editing music) by saying they are "just as hard to do" is talking out his ass.

What these people mean is that this music can be made with serious intent, in the same way that other music can, and its practitioners spend a lot of time and energy making it "just so." I don't doubt that at all.

This looped/sampled beep-beep music incorporates an element of scavenging, though, and induces a mentality that nothing is worth defending as the unique provenance of the people who originated it. This is probably why computer-electronic music has so easily been incorporated into the advertising industry. It shares the worldview that everything can be taken and manipulated, and its inherent appeal co-opted for commercial purpose.

It also comes from club music and club culture, both of which I despise, primarily because I despise the vapidity of club people. I guess these must be the same people who are inspired to make this music. I am guessing, of course, but it makes sense, because it sucks in the same insistent, style-over-substance way.

It is tempting to dismiss my criticism of this music (and some of you have already been so tempted) by suggesting that I don't understand it, and therefore have no standing to criticize it. While it is true I don't know the names of the artists and the myriad sub-genre taxa (and I dislike this music enough that I am unlikely to pursue it in detail), I do know what about it strikes me as both phony and horrible. I understand that part of it pretty good.

Rick Reuben wrote:You claim that you are not grading this music on 'difficulty', but then you spend your entire last post telling us that 'it is not difficult to create this music'. Why make that post if you think that it does not bolster your criticism of the genre?

While I don't think ill of it for this reason, it is demonstrably true that it is easier to make this music than physical music. That's all. It's a point often argued by the music's defenders, and I think they ought to concede it. Partly because it is irrelevant.

Do you agree or disagree that electronica's independence from live recording facilities has influenced your criticism, based on where you sit in the marketplace?

This aspect of it is meaningless. I like a lot of music not made in recording studios.

Despite 200 years of capitalist propaganda, markets don't drive everything.

Rick Reuben wrote:How you identify this 'lack of soul' in this music if you didn't actually think about the process with which it was made? If you call the creative process irrelevant to your distaste for electronica, then where do the complaints about the missing human feel come from?

I have no complaint about any missing human feel. I've never mentioned it. I have never mentioned a lack of soul, and I don't particularly care if music has what you would call "soul." I particularly like some music that has an inhuman, bloodless quality (Kraftwerk, Xenakis, Conlon Nancarrow, the White Noise), and I don't consider it a prerequisite for music to be of interest.

If that is how you have internalized my criticism of this music, I'm sorry, but that isn't my fault.

Steve's post

Making records from previously-existing components (via editing) is obviously easier than writing, performing and recording music made up from scratch. It is easier in the same way it is easier to play a piano than it is to build one and then play it. I don't think even the loudest defenders of this idiom would deny this.

Who cares? Do you deny that you can create something innovative and beautiful by assembling previously-existing components? Please explain. And what makes you so sure it’s easier to conceptualize and compose a piece of electronic music? Yeah, Excellent Italian Greyhound transcribed note for note to synth and drum machine would sound pretty pathetic, but that’s not what these guys are doing.

Electronic music makers often allude to this, in many cases dismissing or even deriding the "dead" skills of using instruments.

Who the fuck says that? Name names.

This is all fine, of course, and I pass no judgment on people who make their music this way. That's their thing, whatever. It remains that it is orders of magnitude easier to fiddle with existing sounds using software than it is to imagine, perform, record and then present music from scratch.

Again "easier". It is orders of magnitude easier to compose and perform “Smells Like Teen Spirit” than it is a Liszt piano sonata. So?

In the sampling/manipulating method, one can pick and choose from elements with intrinsic charm, often culturally and aesthetically pre-loaded, sometimes ordained with iconic significance. These are rare, fragile and hard-won qualities in the physical realm.

Ok, so let’s not let the electronic artists use them to recreate something novel as only they can? Steve, this is like a total rejection of postmodern principles. Do I have to get the Jameson off the shelf?

Anybody making an equivalence between the two idioms (physical music and computer/editing music) by saying they are "just as hard to do" is talking out his ass.

What these people mean is that this music can be made with serious intent, in the same way that other music can, and its practitioners spend a lot of time and energy making it "just so." I don't doubt that at all.

This looped/sampled beep-beep music incorporates an element of scavenging, though, and induces a mentality that nothing is worth defending as the unique provenance of the people who originated it. This is probably why computer-electronic music has so easily been incorporated into the advertising industry. It shares the worldview that everything can be taken and manipulated, and its inherent appeal co-opted for commercial purpose.

Wow. I think that’s the “bad faith” premise that Sparky pretty effectively refuted. Plenty of fragile, physical world music has been co-opted for commercial purposes. Mozart car commercials? Plenty of electronic music has not.

It also comes from club music and club culture, both of which I despise, primarily because I despise the vapidity of club people. I guess these must be the same people who are inspired to make this music. I am guessing, of course, but it makes sense, because it sucks in the same insistent, style-over-substance way.

Wrong, and so ignorant. You know nothing about “club” people, or your idea of club culture is extremely narrow or outdated.

It is tempting to dismiss my criticism of this music (and some of you have already been so tempted) by suggesting that I don't understand it, and therefore have no standing to criticize it. While it is true I don't know the names of the artists and the myriad sub-genre taxa (and I dislike this music enough that I am unlikely to pursue it in detail), I do know what about it strikes me as both phony and horrible.

Of course it does. Your notions of about the music are totally dogmatic, unfair and wrong and I don’t think you’ve ever given it a chance.

steve wrote:Making records from previously-existing components (via editing) is obviously easier than writing, performing and recording music made up from scratch. It is easier in the same way it is easier to play a piano than it is to build one and then play it. I don't think even the loudest defenders of this idiom would deny this.

Electronic music makers often allude to this, in many cases dismissing or even deriding the "dead" skills of using instruments.

This is all fine, of course, and I pass no judgment on people who make their music this way. That's their thing, whatever. It remains that it is orders of magnitude easier to fiddle with existing sounds using software than it is to imagine, perform, record and then present music from scratch. In the sampling/manipulating method, one can pick and choose from elements with intrinsic charm, often culturally and aesthetically pre-loaded, sometimes ordained with iconic significance. These are rare, fragile and hard-won qualities in the physical realm.

Anybody making an equivalence between the two idioms (physical music and computer/editing music) by saying they are "just as hard to do" is talking out his ass.

What these people mean is that this music can be made with serious intent, in the same way that other music can, and its practitioners spend a lot of time and energy making it "just so." I don't doubt that at all.

This looped/sampled beep-beep music incorporates an element of scavenging, though, and induces a mentality that nothing is worth defending as the unique provenance of the people who originated it. This is probably why computer-electronic music has so easily been incorporated into the advertising industry. It shares the worldview that everything can be taken and manipulated, and its inherent appeal co-opted for commercial purpose.

It also comes from club music and club culture, both of which I despise, primarily because I despise the vapidity of club people. I guess these must be the same people who are inspired to make this music. I am guessing, of course, but it makes sense, because it sucks in the same insistent, style-over-substance way.

It is tempting to dismiss my criticism of this music (and some of you have already been so tempted) by suggesting that I don't understand it, and therefore have no standing to criticize it. While it is true I don't know the names of the artists and the myriad sub-genre taxa (and I dislike this music enough that I am unlikely to pursue it in detail), I do know what about it strikes me as both phony and horrible. I understand that part of it pretty good.

i have always stood by the notion that sequencing/programming/editing-based music (stuff that is strictly software, midi-synths, drum machines, samples, stuff along those lines) can't totally stand on its own as something with much musical depth, but that a whole lot of depth is to be found in combining these techniques with other forms of music that involve things like live performance. this doesn't mean just sampling the live performance of a musician.

for instance, take godflesh as an example... drum machines, but guitars being played live and vox as well. plus, the vox are going through fx, some attention is paid to what is electronically happening to the guitar sound. drum machines and fx boxes were meant to be used in this sort of setting, a mix of electronic-sound-programming and live instrument performance. i don't think they were meant to be used just on their own. in fact, fusing those techniques with live performance is way more in line with the futuristic/cyberpunk/etc notion of technology physically fusing with a human.

i can't really get into things made without any real human component. i don't listen to electronica, but i listen to rap and the rap equivalent to that is rjd2 (the final, fully-arranged song has no newly recorded sounds in it)... he's very impressive and i enjoy listening to him, but there's obvious limitations on how he can create/control/twist a sound, when compared with how a live musician can do that. furthermore, i can't really take his songs so seriously as actual "songs".

tocharian wrote:Who cares? Do you deny that you can create something innovative and beautiful by assembling previously-existing components? Please explain.

I said it was irrelevant, though true. Defenders of electronic music often claim that it is "just as hard" to make music this way, and I was saying, no it isn't, and also shut up about it because that has nothing to do with why it is horrible music.

[i]Who the fuck says that? Name names.

Well, you'll probably dismiss these as the "wrong" names, but I've read such dismissals from Aphex Twin, Tricky, Michael Paradis and a few other '90s electronic artists. I don't know about every particular current click-whirr-beep artist.

Again "easier". It is orders of magnitude easier to compose and perform “Smells Like Teen Spirit” than it is a Liszt piano sonata. So?

Yes, so. It is irrelevant and electronic artists ought to drop equivalence as a defense.

Wow. I think that’s the “bad faith” premise that Sparky pretty effectively refuted. Plenty of fragile, physical world music has been co-opted for commercial purposes. Mozart car commercials? Plenty of electronic music has not.

Which magisterium do you think has a higher adoption/co-option rate, the electronic one or the physical one? Why do you suppose that is?

Wrong, and so ignorant. You know nothing about “club” people, or your idea of club culture is extremely narrow or outdated.

You seem to think you know the totality of what I know, and that I don't know what is so enriching about clubbing. Please mount a defense of clubbing as a lifestyle. I would "enjoy" reading it.

Of course it does. Your notions of about the music are totally dogmatic, unfair and wrong and I don’t think you’ve ever given it a chance.

I'll grant that I haven't spent a lot of time listening to music that I hate and that was manifestly not made for people like me. Club music is made for people who have an affinity for it as a genre, and (like christian ska punk) it has adherents whose world it confirms in some way. I am not about to delve deeper into repellent music in the interest of developing an immunity to it or studying it in an anthropological fashion. It sucks, I hate it, and that's me getting plenty far enough into it.

Rick Reuben wrote:Is that a case of New Order writing worse songs, or a case of New Order writing songs that you were no longer prepared to like, because you heard sequencers and not live instruments?

I did not parse "the songs" out from the totality of "the music," because I believe they are indivisible. New Order's music began to suck when they stopped playing instruments, but that they did is probably a symptom of their bankruptcy rather than its cause.

The close correlation may have something to do with sequenced music being easier to execute and encouraging sloth, but I can't be sure of that.

Rick Reuben wrote:Why would you mount a defense for rock musicians regarding their skill level and then say that electronica musicians should not defend their skill level, because you claim that you are not making judgements about their skill level when you critique their music?

I do not equate "ease" with skill level, and the two arguments you have conflated are not the same.

Some electronic artists are obviously quite skilled and accomplished. So are some pickpockets. That isn't what I was talking about.

Rick Reuben wrote:Why are you making a distinction between the form and the substance of Burial's music, when you just babbled out previously that no such distinctions should be made? The 'form' is what Burial delivers to listeners as his final product- and you are determined to demean his work by calling it virtually devoid of substance, which it cannot be, because clearly, you can hear the motherfucking shit. It has the same 'substance' as all other forms of music: tones, dynamics, tempo, etc. If it was composed of 'nothingness', you wouldn't be able to hear his work.

You are right, I should not have said "pure form and pure substance". I should have said that both form and substance go into the making and performance of a piece or work.

All music is necessarily comprised of form and substance. The form is comprised of the melodies and progressions as stored in the musicians' heads. The substance is comprised of the type of instruments involved, the past influences on the musicians, audience makeup, etc. Or, for example, Shakespeare's lines are the form of his plays, while everything else -- the actors' performances, the scenery, the costumes, the mood of the theater, the socio-cultural impact of his plays -- is the substance which goes into making a performance a complete whole. The form of a cathedral is its blueprint (possible or actually existent), while its substance is comprised of the building materials.

I guess what I am then saying is that Burial's music isn't devoid of substance, but of form. The melodies and progressions are simply absent. There is no form. I may then comment on the different aspects that go to make up the substance (or matter) of his artwork, but what I am saying is that all of this is entirely peripheral to the form.

Form and substance are interlocked with one another in good art. Both should be considered. But Burial's music is formless and, therefore, unlistenable. Just as John Cage's music, or Throbbing Gristle's music are unlistenable due to complete formlessness.

Steve wrote:

Tocharian wrote:Who cares? Do you deny that you can create something innovative and beautiful by assembling previously-existing components? Please explain.

I said it was irrelevant, though true. Defenders of electronic music often claim that it is "just as hard" to make music this way, and I was saying, no it isn't, and also shut up about it because that has nothing to do with why it is horrible music.

Dude, easy/hard was too part of your argument.

Steve wrote:

Tocharian wrote:Who the fuck says that? Name names.

Well, you'll probably dismiss these as the "wrong" names, but I've read such dismissals from Aphex Twin, Tricky, Michael Paradis and a few other '90s electronic artists. I don't know about every particular current click-whirr-beep artist.

Oh yeah, I remember. Ancient history. I haven’t heard anyone who matters say anything like that in ten years.

Steve wrote:

Tocharian wrote:Again "easier". It is orders of magnitude easier to compose and perform “Smells Like Teen Spirit” than it is a Liszt piano sonata. So?

Yes, so. It is irrelevant and electronic artists ought to drop equivalence as a defense.

What part of making music are we talking about then? The conceptualization? The composition? There may in fact be some equivalencies here, despite your continually dodging this .

Steve wrote:

Tocharian wrote:Wow. I think that’s the “bad faith” premise that Sparky pretty effectively refuted. Plenty of fragile, physical world music has been co-opted for commercial purposes. Mozart car commercials? Plenty of electronic music has not.

Which magisterium do you think has a higher adoption/co-option rate, the electronic one or the physical one? Why do you suppose that is?

The physical one. It’s been around longer, there’s more of it, and people are more familiar with it.

Steve wrote:

Tocharian wrote:Wrong, and so ignorant. You know nothing about “club” people, or your idea of club culture is extremely narrow or outdated.

You seem to think you know the totality of what I know, and that I don't know what is so enriching about clubbing. Please mount a defense of clubbing as a lifestyle. I would "enjoy" reading it.

In Albuquerque? The club scene as I know it is mostly indie rock heretics who like good music and are fed up with indie rock piety and outmoded, dogmatic, oppressive stances about music such as yours. The Seattle crowd was basically the same.

Steve wrote:

Tocharian wrote:Of course it does. Your notions of about the music are totally dogmatic, unfair and wrong and I don’t think you’ve ever given it a chance.

I'll grant that I haven't spent a lot of time listening to music that I hate and that was manifestly not made for people like me. Club music is made for people who have an affinity for it as a genre, and (like christian ska punk) it has adherents whose world it confirms in some way. I am not about to delve deeper into repellent music in the interest of developing an immunity to it or studying it in an anthropological fashion. It sucks, I hate it, and that's me getting plenty far enough into it.

Oy, oy, oy, talk about tautology. Electronic music is terrible because the people who like it suck because I hate it because it’s horrible.