"Mike J. Brown" <mjbrown@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
quoted 11 lines well, in a sense it is similar to what i think might evolve, but i> > well, in a sense it is similar to what i think might evolve, but i
> > envision the possibility of something started much more slowly, building
> > more slowly, but to an even higher peak, a process drawn out over 20
> > minutes or so..
>
> but not very creative. most musicians wouldn't be satisfied with something
> that easy, unless you are talking about something more than just layering
> multiple tracks. when you're composing something, you don't want people to
> listen to it and say "anyone can do that." so doing what are suggesting
> and maintaining originality and diversity withing the song at the same time
> is no small task.
i'm not sure if i'm being misunderstood or what.. i can't see where
creativity is compromised by the song style that i speak of.. i'm not
talking about building a song piece by piece by adding parts, and adding
more parts and adding more parts.. i'm not sure what i said to imply
that..
i'm simply saying that i think we will see a greater number of songs
incorporating ambient sections that are longer and more ambient than we
see now.. this in effect will enable the artist to start at a very low
degree of intensity and have a greater effect of building intensity to a
peak..
the gravitational arch of 10 example was already brought up.. just
imagine if it had a longer ambient introduction and the beat didn't come
in quite as suddenly - the song would more gradually introduce the synths
and bassline and would later add a dance-type beat.. i can't see where
that compromises creativity..
quoted 4 lines but then you would just have a really long song... it wouldn't be the> but then you would just have a really long song... it wouldn't be the
> simple idea you were proposing. i guess you should ask whether it is the
> arrangement of the song you want to deal with, or the flow of the energy
> between the song and the listener/dancer.
i think when you talk about a song you have no choice but to "deal with"
both as the arrangement has a lot to do with the flow of energy as you
pointed out.. i must also add i don't think every song of the future is
going to follow this pattern of course! i simply used that pattern as an
example.. i just think that we will begin to see a greater fusion of
ambience and "beat" oriented music in the same song..
i can't think of many "perfect" examples but there are two that come to
mind.. on the into the great white light cd on mfs, the song "a night on
E" (which was previously mentioned on idm) begins rather ambient, builds
fairly slowly, but eventually goes through the roof.. this is an okay
example but it is a rather simplistic song..
another example is in a completely different ballpark.. lost tribe's new
12" on stress called "gimme a smile" is a rather housy type trance track
with 2 mixes fused together on the record meant to be played as one
track.. smack dab in the middle of the song (about 7 minutes in) the
song drops off to almost nothing for a minute or two, no beat, and a bpm
approaching 50 or so.. it kicks back in, goes for a while and ends by
slowing down the bpms once again to almost nothing..
all i'm really saying is i think we're slowly seeing greater use of
ambient sections in "danceable" songs and we will probably see even more
use in the future.. and furthermore i think many djs will use more
ambience in their sets.. right now, here in florida, some of the biggest
cheers are reserved for long ambient sections of music.. when sasha spun
here one of his biggest cheers in the whole night was during the
ambient break in the lost tribe track i mentioned.. (the ambient section
was even accented by the club shooting off a pyrotechnics display during
it..)