Pop-M-S @ 2013.

I don't like dance music.

I'm sorry, whatever form it is - techno, rave, trance, house or the new-fangled sub-genres I heard today in lecture like psy-trance - I don't like them. Much. At all.

Nope.

As a student of music, I really ought to be more open, tolerant of new forms of music. Mind you, I do see the beauty in dance, electronica, and this... type of music. There's an extension of the Kyber, cyberculture in electronica. Its very genesis from the cusp of technology is exciting for observers of history, music, culture and also, for us nerds who believe in the long encompassing reach of the Net.

As an observer, I find dance (I use "dance" as the encompassing term for all genres like techno, electronica, trance, house and like-sounds) and its culture exciting and new. A bubblepot of possibilities is this genre; and the behaviour of its fans at rave parties and events is to say the least intriguing.

The latter is like a postmodern tribal community. The idea of a postmodern tribal community flashed into my mind when lecturer Brian Morris talked - and perhaps waxed some lyrical - about the ritual of this community, driving out to the Victorian countryside, pausing to see if they can hear the sound of music carried over the still night air, and also when he flashed the quote from an online forum when a fan expressed why he/she prefers the bush doof to an indoor party.

I would even say that dance music itself has a postmodern edge to it, with its nature of sampling and appropriating various songs to create a new hybrid.

So yes, dance music possesses a certain amount of intrigue and perhaps even mystic for me who live in an age where Moby and Fatboy Slim can sel millions of records without being actually musicians and in my opinion, half-baked singers/ rappers/ whatever you would call their intonations over their electronically engineered music.

In part, I attribute my disdain for dance music to my musical pride. I play the keyboards, guitar and drums. Subconsciously and then consciously, I realise dance music turns me off so because most times, dance music is music that doesn't require a musician, music that doesn't need a lifetime of practice to be a virtuoso, sound that could make the musician obsolete.

What an insult.

While the computer nerd and cultural observer in me watches the evolution of dance music with interest, the musician and purist protests. The strong beat of dance music offends me, offends me in its repetitive nature, loops which I know how to generate on my computer keyboard with a music programme.

I also stand by the usual format of a song, with verses, a bridge and chorus, moments where your emotions ebb and then rise as the music manipulates. Dance music, though not devoid of highs and lows, brings its listeners into a trance with repetition. I scoff this method, which I fancy okay if used with restraint but scoff otherwise.

When I listen to a song, when I buy a record, I want to be listening to skills, musical and vocal excellence and skills, not just production and technical skills of people who used ProTools, a synthesizer and a computer to stitch a song together.

Cheers.
- posted by sg girl @ 8:00 pm
 

Thursday, May 06, 2004

 

Pop-M-S @ 2058

So the white man came and took away the brown babies and the stolen generation was thus created. Where is the line between commercialising an event and giving it due coverage? When an Aboriginal country singer records a song, hit it big, though his/her songs will be political by default because of their skin colour and heritage, will his/her songs have apolitical, apathetic lyrics because well, it is commercial?

The question of "selling out" is so arbitrary, so ambivalent. And it's relevant not just to the musician but also to the writer and every one who is an artist.

I've made my peace. I believe - this will sound Matrix-y - that to beat the system, you have to be in the system. And to retain integrity in yourself and your work, you have to master the system and play by its rules so well so that you can twist and manipulate it your way eventually.

So if an Aboriginal country singer has to release a "cleaned up" version of a political song, well, swallow it because that song - sanitised or not - will still make an impact and create awareness. Because the singer in himself/ herself is a political message in his/her body and mere existence itself.

- posted by sg girl @ 8:57 pm
 

Thursday, April 22, 2004

 

Pop-M-S @ 1626.

Today, in tutorial, Geoff played two pieces of music then asked if the way we take to both pieces would be different if either one was made up of samplers. Consecutively, the discussion went on and it was mentioned that most artistes would have been influenced by some other artistes and genres any how.

My question is: Can music ever be completely original? To answer that, one has to ask just what is the meaning of "authentic" really.

What really is authenticity? It seems like every genre derived its roots partly from other genre or genres. Is rock n roll unoriginal because it has its roots in blues, country and gospel? And since a wide spread of popular genres now are influenced by rock n roll, are these bands the synthetic and fake because their sound is partly derived from another sound that has gone before?

Does original music exists really?

Just what is original?

- posted by sg girl @ 4:40 pm
 

Friday, April 02, 2004

 

Pop-M-S @ 16:24.

"Christian music" has changed so drastically. From hymns and churches which disallow any musical instruments to genres like Christian rap and Christian dance and churches with praise and worship music resembling the stuff we hear on commercial radio. There's radio-friendly pop, there's guitar-driven acoustic music, there's synthesizers and electrical drumbeats fading in and out, there's very loud electric guitars, heavy beats and basslines which won't be out of place at even a Metalica gig. You even hear deejays on some records scratching various effects. Influences are aplenty, punk, indie, trace... etc

I'm unable to link MP3s to this site since I don't have server space to hotlink MP3s to but refer to the CD I burned and submited which contains samples of different genres of Christian music.

[The MP3s in the CDR are from two Australian praise and worship groups - Adelaide's Planet Shakers and NSW Hillsong. They are both prominent in the praise and worship music industry. The former has set up a new church in Melb and is in fact meeting at RMIT's Storey Hall 6pm every Sun. There's also a track from an American Christian rock group which "covered" a worship song.]

Selling records to both commercial and Christian music lovers, bands like Jars of Clay, POD and Sixpence None The Richer replaces the likes of Amy Grant and Michael W Smith with sounds that would no doubt have been frowned upon by the earlier church.

Christian music is not the only one who seem to be adopting the sound of the day. Bands like Native Deen, a muslim rap band from Washington DC, makes music not unlike 50 Cents and other rap stars but with lyrical difference. are not uncommon.

Some would say the church is copping out when it seems to adopt musical changes from the secular world. Though it might be true that the change of the church's sound is in part to remain relevant or reach out to the world, the reason for the change could simply be because the young folks within the church is using this generation's music to express their adoration for the Almighty.

William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, once asked, "Why must the devil have all the good music?" and decided to "appropriate" tavern and popular songs and changed their lyrics to glorify God. (Incidentally, Christian band Striper put the title to a rock n roll song in the 1970s. Yeah, there was Christian rock n roll).

Should the theme and object of your song - in this case, God - automatically create walls around your music and limit your target audience? Should music has boundaries?

- posted by sg girl @ 4:42 pm
 

All works on www.popms.blogspot.com copyrighted by Skye Tan.