DJ Michael on genre identification

Michael,

I found the reference. After calling your piece "dance music" or something else, you offered this:

"Secondly, the type of music I make, is NOT dance. Dance is full of simple themes (IE 1 melody or 2 at most), aggressive sharp/punchy synthesized leads, and often 4-on-the-floor beats. I almost always make abstract breakbeats, not 4-on-the-floor, use more organic/less-noisy/more-legato sounding instruments, and have at least 4 melodic themes. Maybe you just don't have much experience in electronica and are jumping to easy stereotypes?

Anyhow, what I make is much more in-line with "ambient/abstract breakbeat" than dance and many of the solos cross into jazz territory (and jazz is anything but normal in pop/dance style music). You could make a stretch and say it's IDM, but IDM is nothing like pop/dance music either."

And you get upset at making a distinction between a piece of music that has lyrics and a singer, and instrumental music of other configurations? That simply identifying a "song" as it was intended is too much bother, compared to the above in your own work?

C'mon, man, own it.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:

> C'mon, man, own it.

You've got a point. I think I'll go back to using "dance music" to mean music that sounds as if it was intended as something people can dance to. But I'll stick to "ballet music" when it is.

Jon>"And you get upset at making a distinction between a piece of music that
has lyrics and a singer, and instrumental music of other configurations?"

    No, the exact opposite....

  Look...if you had followed the thread...you would realize I said it was Carl who blew up at me for calling the Debussy midi files I was asking for "songs"...and then Juhani (again, NOT me!) made the argument that songs MUST have vocals in the form of lyrics.
  
    In fact, this is far from the first time such a thing has happened.  Once I mentioned my song was "polyphonic"...and Chris and several others blew a fuse saying polyphony meant multiple VOICES played at once not simply multiple notes played at once.  Then they started arguing amongst themselves what polyphony meant in even further specifics.  They even started bringing up Motets and claiming those who don't know what a Motet is are ignorant about polyphony.  It was insane...  In fact, thinking about
it almost a year later, it still looks just as insane as when it happend.

When I said
    "Secondly, the type of music I make, is NOT dance. Dance is full of
simple themes (IE 1 melody or 2 at most), aggressive sharp/punchy
synthesized leads, and often 4-on-the-floor beats."
   I was alluding to the fact I felt my music and electronica on the whole was being pigeon-holed into the categorization of "pop/dance", and that trying to categorize things into formal terms with very specific limitations (IE electronica music with beat MUST be dance OR songs must have vocals) is a BAD IDEA NOT A GOOD IDEA!!!

--------------
   Do you finally get it now? :-S

I say, if someone calls Debussy's work a song/track/tune/instrumental and not a specific term like prelude/sonata/...that's COOL WITH ME. And if I release music and one person calls it a song, another calls it a track, another calls it electronica, another calls it has "some new age-ish influences" or "some dance influences"...that's fine by me.
Where I get angry is when people say "you only write in x type of genre and that genre has y limitations...and I'm going to pigeonhole everything you make into that categorization and say it's ignorant of influences from any other genre".

Which is kind of what you seem to be doing by calling me "DJ Michael" or in any way alluding to "all DJ's do dance music and all dance music (and dance music only includes very little breath)".

Me: Please don't call them songs!

Normal person: [googles "song"] Oh, I learned something today.
Should we really call them "pieces" though? That's kind of awkward.

Me: It certainly is, but I don't dictate terminology, I just use it.

~~~~

Me: Please don't call them songs!

Michael: Argue argue argue argue argue.

[Ten other people supply the definition of song]

Michael: Oh, I guess a song means a piece of music with singing
in it. Maaaah bad. But still, uh, argue argue argue. Argue.

-Carl

Argue argue. Argue. Argue argue argue? Argue argue.

-Carl

At 06:21 PM 2/26/2011, you wrote:
>Jon>"And you get upset at making a distinction between a piece of music that
>has lyrics and a singer, and instrumental music of other configurations?"
>
> No, the exact opposite....
>
> Look...if you had followed the thread...you would realize I said it
>was Carl who blew up at me for calling the Debussy midi files I was
>asking for "songs"...and then Juhani (again, NOT me!) made the
>argument that songs MUST have vocals in the form of lyrics.
>
> In fact, this is far from the first time such a thing has
>happened. Once I mentioned my song was "polyphonic"...and Chris and
>several others blew a fuse saying polyphony meant multiple VOICES
>played at once not simply multiple notes played at once. Then they
>started arguing amongst themselves what polyphony meant in even
>further specifics. They even started bringing up Motets and claiming
>those who don't know what a Motet is are ignorant about polyphony. It
>was insane... In fact, thinking about
> it almost a year later, it still looks just as insane as when it happend.
>
>When I said
> "Secondly, the type of music I make, is NOT dance. Dance is full of
>simple themes (IE 1 melody or 2 at most), aggressive sharp/punchy
>synthesized leads, and often 4-on-the-floor beats."
> I was alluding to the fact I felt my music and electronica on the
>whole was being pigeon-holed into the categorization of "pop/dance",
>and that trying to categorize things into formal terms with very
>specific limitations (IE electronica music with beat MUST be dance OR
>songs must have vocals) is a BAD IDEA NOT A GOOD IDEA!!!
>
>--------------
> Do you finally get it now? :-S
>
> I say, if someone calls Debussy's work a
>song/track/tune/instrumental and not a specific term like
>prelude/sonata/...that's COOL WITH ME. And if I release music and one
>person calls it a song, another calls it a track, another calls it
>electronica, another calls it has "some new age-ish influences" or
>"some dance influences"...that's fine by me.
> Where I get angry is when people say "you only write in x type of
>genre and that genre has y limitations...and I'm going to pigeonhole
>everything you make into that categorization and say it's ignorant of
>influences from any other genre".
>
> Which is kind of what you seem to be doing by calling me "DJ
>Michael" or in any way alluding to "all DJ's do dance music and all
>dance music (and dance music only includes very little breath)".
>

Rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble!

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Argue argue. Argue. Argue argue argue? Argue argue.
>
> -Carl
>
> At 06:21 PM 2/26/2011, you wrote:
> >Jon>"And you get upset at making a distinction between a piece of music that
> >has lyrics and a singer, and instrumental music of other configurations?"
> >
> > No, the exact opposite....
> >
> > Look...if you had followed the thread...you would realize I said it
> >was Carl who blew up at me for calling the Debussy midi files I was
> >asking for "songs"...and then Juhani (again, NOT me!) made the
> >argument that songs MUST have vocals in the form of lyrics.
> >
> > In fact, this is far from the first time such a thing has
> >happened. Once I mentioned my song was "polyphonic"...and Chris and
> >several others blew a fuse saying polyphony meant multiple VOICES
> >played at once not simply multiple notes played at once. Then they
> >started arguing amongst themselves what polyphony meant in even
> >further specifics. They even started bringing up Motets and claiming
> >those who don't know what a Motet is are ignorant about polyphony. It
> >was insane... In fact, thinking about
> > it almost a year later, it still looks just as insane as when it happend.
> >
> >When I said
> > "Secondly, the type of music I make, is NOT dance. Dance is full of
> >simple themes (IE 1 melody or 2 at most), aggressive sharp/punchy
> >synthesized leads, and often 4-on-the-floor beats."
> > I was alluding to the fact I felt my music and electronica on the
> >whole was being pigeon-holed into the categorization of "pop/dance",
> >and that trying to categorize things into formal terms with very
> >specific limitations (IE electronica music with beat MUST be dance OR
> >songs must have vocals) is a BAD IDEA NOT A GOOD IDEA!!!
> >
> >--------------
> > Do you finally get it now? :-S
> >
> > I say, if someone calls Debussy's work a
> >song/track/tune/instrumental and not a specific term like
> >prelude/sonata/...that's COOL WITH ME. And if I release music and one
> >person calls it a song, another calls it a track, another calls it
> >electronica, another calls it has "some new age-ish influences" or
> >"some dance influences"...that's fine by me.
> > Where I get angry is when people say "you only write in x type of
> >genre and that genre has y limitations...and I'm going to pigeonhole
> >everything you make into that categorization and say it's ignorant of
> >influences from any other genre".
> >
> > Which is kind of what you seem to be doing by calling me "DJ
> >Michael" or in any way alluding to "all DJ's do dance music and all
> >dance music (and dance music only includes very little breath)".
> >
>

>"Michael: Oh, I guess a song means a piece of music with singing

in it. Maaaah bad. But still, uh, argue argue argue. Argue.

-Carl"

   Yes, I DID look it up and DID admit.  The argument I made was NOT that I used the definition of song perfectly, but that I didn't see it was such a huge error that it warranted the shouting fest you started by using (*&*() at the end of your initial "don't call it a song" message.

  You did curse at me, you did not supply definition of song and, come to think of it, no one on here has come up with a fair definition of what to call Debussy's music (simply pieces of music?...the songs Mike B originally posted certainly were not all quartets/sonatas/preludes/etc.)...
   I can't "learn" anything unless you give me an alternative, Carl.  You're telling me what NOT to do does not automatically tell me what to do.

--- On Sat, 2/26/11, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: Re: [MMM] DJ Michael on genre identification
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, February 26, 2011, 7:10 PM

Me: Please don't call them songs!

Normal person: [googles "song"] Oh, I learned something today.

Should we really call them "pieces" though? That's kind of awkward.

Me: It certainly is, but I don't dictate terminology, I just use it.

~~~~

Me: Please don't call them songs!

Michael: Argue argue argue argue argue.

[Ten other people supply the definition of song]

Michael: Oh, I guess a song means a piece of music with singing

in it. Maaaah bad. But still, uh, argue argue argue. Argue.

-Carl

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> Should we really call them "pieces" though? That's kind of awkward.

You could call "La cathedrale engloutie" a prelude, but if you aren't sure what to call something, "piece" is a good, safe choice. And no, it is no more awkward than "song".

For the record, that was from a fictional dialog I made up. -Carl

Gene wrote:

>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>> Should we really call them "pieces" though? That's kind of awkward.
>
>You could call "La cathedrale engloutie" a prelude, but if you aren't
>sure what to call something, "piece" is a good, safe choice. And no,
>it is no more awkward than "song".
>

Block block block block...

Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

cityoftheasleep wrote:
> Rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble!
>
> -Igs
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma<carl@...> wrote:
>> Argue argue. Argue. Argue argue argue? Argue argue.
>>
>> -Carl
>>
>> At 06:21 PM 2/26/2011, you wrote:
>>> Jon>"And you get upset at making a distinction between a piece of music that
>>> has lyrics and a singer, and instrumental music of other configurations?"
>>>
>>> No, the exact opposite....
>>>
>>> Look...if you had followed the thread...you would realize I said it
>>> was Carl who blew up at me for calling the Debussy midi files I was
>>> asking for "songs"...and then Juhani (again, NOT me!) made the
>>> argument that songs MUST have vocals in the form of lyrics.
>>>
>>> In fact, this is far from the first time such a thing has
>>> happened. Once I mentioned my song was "polyphonic"...and Chris and
>>> several others blew a fuse saying polyphony meant multiple VOICES
>>> played at once not simply multiple notes played at once. Then they
>>> started arguing amongst themselves what polyphony meant in even
>>> further specifics. They even started bringing up Motets and claiming
>>> those who don't know what a Motet is are ignorant about polyphony. It
>>> was insane... In fact, thinking about
>>> it almost a year later, it still looks just as insane as when it happend.
>>>
>>> When I said
>>> "Secondly, the type of music I make, is NOT dance. Dance is full of
>>> simple themes (IE 1 melody or 2 at most), aggressive sharp/punchy
>>> synthesized leads, and often 4-on-the-floor beats."
>>> I was alluding to the fact I felt my music and electronica on the
>>> whole was being pigeon-holed into the categorization of "pop/dance",
>>> and that trying to categorize things into formal terms with very
>>> specific limitations (IE electronica music with beat MUST be dance OR
>>> songs must have vocals) is a BAD IDEA NOT A GOOD IDEA!!!
>>>
>>> --------------
>>> Do you finally get it now? :-S
>>>
>>> I say, if someone calls Debussy's work a
>>> song/track/tune/instrumental and not a specific term like
>>> prelude/sonata/...that's COOL WITH ME. And if I release music and one
>>> person calls it a song, another calls it a track, another calls it
>>> electronica, another calls it has "some new age-ish influences" or
>>> "some dance influences"...that's fine by me.
>>> Where I get angry is when people say "you only write in x type of
>>> genre and that genre has y limitations...and I'm going to pigeonhole
>>> everything you make into that categorization and say it's ignorant of
>>> influences from any other genre".
>>>
>>> Which is kind of what you seem to be doing by calling me "DJ
>>> Michael" or in any way alluding to "all DJ's do dance music and all
>>> dance music (and dance music only includes very little breath)".
>>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think Gene's comments here are right on the money, and to the point. Just,
when in doubt, if it's a classical-leaning context, call it a 'piece' or
'work'---both neutral enough. And it even works if it's in an electronica
context (e.g. Michael's output)---what's wrong with calling any of Michael's
'tracks', 'pieces'? Or 'works'? Nothing.

Now, please, in the name of all sacred cooked cauliflower, can we move on?

AKJ

On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:38 PM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...
> wrote:

>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> > Should we really call them "pieces" though? That's kind of awkward.
>
> You could call "La cathedrale engloutie" a prelude, but if you aren't sure
> what to call something, "piece" is a good, safe choice. And no, it is no
> more awkward than "song".
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Aaron>"I think Gene's comments here are right on the money, and to the point. Just,

when in doubt, if it's a classical-leaning context, call it a 'piece' or 'work'---both neutral enough. "

    Again, sounds good.  Hopefully next time around I can get such to the point tips without all the hostility.
  Ok, let me try this again, thank you Mike B. for posting all those Debussy PIECES.

   Is that decent enough for you all?  Because I've had enough of being flamed for what was actually intended as a compliment to Mike and agree...let's all move on.

  Also (to all), for crying out loud, don't ever call me "DJ MIchael" or whine to me about how I'm "biased toward respecting dance music and nothing else".

  It's simply not true.  I'm not a DJ but simply guy who produces electronic music and collects odd white-label (by unknown artists) vinyl for his own guilty pleasure.  And much of that vinyl is ambient, abstract breakbeats, live/instrumental jazz over tribal beats...stuff completely opposite to the typical 4-on-the-floor DJ scene.
   I'm no more a "pop-style-aspiring" DJ than general electronica producers like Jacky Ligon, Marcus Satellite, or Sevish (IE not at all).

  True my yahoo alias has DJ in it...but none of my recent artist names "Spectra", "Paragon"...have DJ in it and this ID has been around since around 1998 when I actually did DJ for fun and went by "DJ Trancendance" (the play on words is deliberately more toward "Transcendence" rather than "Trance and Dance").  And I kept the alias because that's what all my friends know my e-mail by IE it would be a pain to switch e-mails and tell everyone I've "changed my address".
   This explanation is in case any of you all really have an aching need to know why.  And even back then, I played weird stuff (IE odd BT tracks, Way Out West, Hybrid...) and certainly nothing cheesy or played for the purpose of "getting chicks" (lol).   :-D

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]