The essence of music styles...and should they be always used?

  • Thread starter Thread starter miroslav
  • Start date Start date
miroslav

miroslav

Cosmic Cowboy
As I slowly continue to work on another album of tunes...I'm wondering about some of the choices we make during tracking (and overall production). How many are based on knowing how something "should" sound AFA a particular style of music dictates...and should that always be followed?

As an example we all are familiar with:
That STUPID Autotune "chirp" that was made famous in Cher's "Believe" and has been heard in almost EVERY R&B tune since. Is it necessary to use those kinds of sounds or production techniques once they've been identified with a certain style, if you want to also do that style...? Like with the "chirp", if you want to do an R&B tune, does it really beg for the "chirps" to be included in order for your R&B to be consider "current/hip"?

Am I making sense?

I understand that certain signature sounds often frame a particular style of music at a given time in history...but how often is music made to mimic that style rather than for its own sake. IOW...could you do an R&B tune and NOT use the "chirps" and still have it accepted as modern R&B?

Same goes for Rock or Country...etc.

Take the typical Alt Rock snare drum sound...it seems it's just got to have that ringy, hollow BONK tone...otherwise it's not "alt" enough. :D
Like, could you instead use a '60s snare sound and still fit it into modern Alt Rock...and have it be current?

I'm just wondering how often we have our hands forced into going for a particular "sound" in order to make a song more style-focused for a particular genre and/or historic time period, rather than just going with what a song dictates and the mood we are in, and letting the style come out of the song, rather than using a particular style to shape the song.

How much style essence is almost mandatory and how much can we step away from the cookie-cutter sounds that have already been married to specific music styles?

Can you use the Autotune "chirp" in a Classic Rock tune and still make it work...or will that immediately turn the Classic Rock into R&B...??? :)
 
Excellent topic.
I try to get away from those certain sounds especially on the stuff I'm doing now...but maybe subconciously it creeps back in on another level.
For the record I bloody hated that Cher song.....but it seems to be an Industry standard that when something 'clicks' then you've got to kill it to death on everything else after in that genre.
The nice thing about doing your own recording is we don't have 'industry standards' that we have to confine ourselves too.
Maybe we can just experiment to death and just do our own thing.
I'm having fun just going back to the early Elvis way of doing percussion...banging on guitar cases with drumsticks....
creating sounds using any old stuff that lies around the house.
If there are barriers maybe it's our job to try and knock some of them down.

YouTube - Please Tell Me Why
 
Do whatever you want to do when you want to do it where you want to do it. But do it because YOU like it, not because you think someone else will like it.

There are no music "styles". There are only artists and engineers. What comes out of that collaboration is what it is.

G.
 
Innovation is difficult and risky. Copy-catting is easy. Somewhere between the two is just plain old influence, which is really what keeps music alive.

I love being influenced by great musicians and producers. But I'm just a basement hack. It's not my profession. Maybe if it was then I would be more likely to copy-cat the guys making more money than me and try to mimic their success? IDK.

So throw some over-the-top auto-tune into a classic rock sound. Maybe it'll work. Maybe we'll be stuck listening to copy-cats doing the same thing for ten years after.:)
 
hawaiianshirt said:
So throw some over-the-top auto-tune into a classic rock sound. Maybe it'll work. Maybe we'll be stuck listening to copy-cats doing the same thing for ten years after.:)
Click to expand...

If Hollywood's anything to go by you have your answer, hell they remade Death Race 2000. As for autotune, it's here to stay since it can make ANYTHING into a song, of sorts.
 
I know we can all just do whatever we like with our music...;)...and generally, I tend not to follow any prescribed production method for a given song style, and yes, I know you could also say "who cares" ...or not bother considering any of that if you do music just for your own personal pleasure.

However...the general listening public seems to identify individual music styles with some specific elements that seem to make up the essence of that style...."Metal"..."Country"..."Rap"..."R&B"...etc....so I was mainly interested in discussing/identifying what it is that makes up that essence, and wondering how far can you stray from or ignore those things, and still have some style identity for a given genre, and still be somewhat audience friendly, since most people tend to gravitate toward specific genres and consciously avoid others.

I also do see a lot of artists consciously aiming for that essence...and it appears that some of it is almost required in order to get your music to "fit in"...to make it more clearly identifiable. Yeah, that sounds all so very cookie-cutter...but then, that's the essence of my questions...:)...identifying what is the essence of a given style and wondering if you can avoid hitting on it and still having some "identity", 'cuz regardless what people say about just "do whatever you feel like"...9 out of 10 songs actually DO tap into that identifiable essence (and maybe some people are not even aware that they in fact ARE following a "formula" up to a point).

That said, I also do notice that the occasional songs that don't, or that only very lightly touch on the essence of a style (or even one of several styles within the same song)...can sometimes be ground-breaking tunes. Stuff that makes us take notice because while it kinda' sounds familiar, at the same time, it doesn't sound the same as a lot of other current music in any one given style...and it has a certain freshness to it.
 
miroslav said:
However...the general listening public seems to identify individual music styles with some specific elements that seem to make up the essence of that style...."Metal"..."Country"..."Rap"..."R&B"...etc....so I was mainly interested in discussing/identifying what it is that makes up that essence, and wondering how far can you stray from or ignore those things, and still have some style identity for a given genre, and still be somewhat audience friendly, since most people tend to gravitate toward specific genres and consciously avoid others.
Click to expand...
I believe it to be a faulty premise to put onus on the general public for such categorizations. In some more extreme cases, there are obvious delineations; death metal for adolescents is a pretty obvious category, for example.

But for much - I'd say most - of the stuff out there, the categorization is far more for the convenience of marketers than it is an actual difference in music style or a public definition of such. How much of today's country is readily identifiable as a specific genre or style of music different from pop, rock or a half dozen other labels? Lyle Lovett still found in the Country section simply because he is from Texas and wears cowboy boots, though most of his stuff bears about as much relation to country as Harry Connick Jr. does. And on the other side of the same coin, when The Rolling Stones went definitvely country (Wild Horses, Dead Flowers, etc.), they were considered rock classics. You'll never find Johnny Nash's version of "I Can See clearly Now" in the reggae bin, even though it's solidly reggae and even covered by Jimmy Cliff, who's version you WILL find in the reggae setion. There's plenty of R&B that also has rap in it, and plenty of Hip Hop that swings R&B as well.

What it boils down to more often than not, is that songs and albums are categorized by music style not because of the actual music style, but rather by *WHO* performs it. If it's the Stones, it must be rock, and can't be blues, country or jazz. And if it's Tom Waits, it's got to be "alternative", and not actually mambo or jazz or folk art, and if it's Rascal Flats, it has to be country, and not rock or pop or anything else .This is for over-simplicity in marketing purposes, not because of an actual musical style identification.

G.
 
Last edited:
I agree with what you are saying...often it's the face and not the music that people identify with...and yes, there is a LOT of crossing over going on there days, many styles seem to merge at times...
...but I think a lot of the general public can identify styles pretty good, even if they have no idea who the performer is, so that implies that there is "something" that goes into a tune to make it fit a particular style...and not just at the extremes - "Death Metal"....etc.

And I'm not talking about the way music stores categories albums in their bins...but how the music sounds. So if it sounds "reggae" (no matter who did it or what bin it's in)...then there is a reggae essence in the song, and I think the same can be said for most any genre. There are elements that identify a specific style.
Are they always needed and how far can you step away from the more "expected" elements and still have your music sit comfortably in a particular style, if you so desire.

What are the fundamental features of a given style and if they are stripped away...do you still have a solid song....or do you get " plain oatmeal"...?

Mind you...this is just a fun discussion...so no real arguing of opposing views is intended. :)
 
Formulas are formulas for a reason. They work. I don't care what the "song calls for" or any other dumbassed lazy overused cliche. It really does sound stupid to have a kick drum panned hard left and a snare panned hard right, so don't do that. I personally don't care about art or idealism or re-inventing the wheel. Just do what you wanna do, but make it not suck. Thanks.
 
But shit....now I have to go and remix all those hard panned kick drums! ;)

Yeah...I think we all try to get to the "not suck" place...sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. As I make my way through my next album effort, I decided to change up some of my own approaches...sort of shedding any earlier preconceived notions about how to record certain things and just doing it differently...intentionally.
Hopefully it will get into the "no suck" zone. :)
 
My point is, miro, one cannot separate type of music from it's public label. "Wild Horses" will be forever known as a rock classic. The illuminati will acknowledge that it's more "countrified" than anything - meaning that it was an attempt to follow country stereotypes (right down to Jagger's fake vocal twang); i.e. a purposeful attempt to make a "country song". And it succeeded. Yet it is a rock song heard and played on classic rock stations, not on country stations.

The point is, by public recognition, it's not a country song, even though it contains all the musical earmarks of one. It is, by public definition, a rock song that contains elements typically meant to be "country". Thus illustrating a perfect example of how one does not define another.

Is a I-IV-V, 12-string progression, blues, rock or jive? Does a country song have to contain a steel pedal guitar, or does having a steel pedal automatically make it a country song?

Is Blondie's "Heart Of Glass" New Wave or Disco? Is the 4/4 beat an automatic identifier of Disco? Does a song even have to absolutely be 4/4 to be called Disco, or can a perfectly popular Disco dance mix be made in another signature?

How about Santa Esmerelda's version of "Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood"? Is that British Invasion Blues Rock, Disco or Spanish World music? Which element of it is more important to it's sound, the disco beat, the Spanish instrumentation, or the blues rock melody and lyrics?

How about the classic textbook example; George Gershwin. Jazz or Classical?

Is Pink Floyd really rock? Why? How does DSotM even close to being considered to be in the same music category as, say, almost anyone else put in the classic rock category? It's certainly not the 7/4 time signature of "Money".

Speaking of time signatures, does the 11/4 time of "Whipping Post" disqualify it as a blues rock song? Does it put it in the same jazzy musical class as Dave Brubeck's "Eleven Four"?

There's so much inbreeding constantly going on in Western music, that stereotypes are the exception, not the rule.

You want to make a sterotypical genre song? Knock yourself out. But chances are you'll be re-writing a song that's been written a hundred times before by a hundred different artists, and probably better. You want to write something
worth sticking to disc? Forget the stereotypes and classifications. They aren't really there.

G.
 
Last edited:
miroslav said:
That STUPID Autotune "chirp" that was made famous in Cher's "Believe" and has been heard in almost EVERY R&B tune since. Is it necessary to use those kinds of sounds or production techniques once they've been identified with a certain style, if you want to also do that style...? Like with the "chirp", if you want to do an R&B tune, does it really beg for the "chirps" to be included in order for your R&B to be consider "current/hip"?
Click to expand...

This is a silly question. People were making great R&B music for decades before AutoTune came along. The "chirp" is not even remotely close to being a characteristic or defining R&B sound.

miroslav said:
Can you use the Autotune "chirp" in a Classic Rock tune and still make it work...or will that immediately turn the Classic Rock into R&B...??? :)
Click to expand...

You must never use the "chirp" in any song of any genre, under any circumstances. DO YOU HEAR ME?!?
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
You want to make a sterotypical genre song? Knock yourself out. But chances are you'll be re-writing a song that's been written a hundred times before by a hundred different artists, and probably better. You want to write worth sticking to disc? Forget the stereotypes and classifications. They aren't really there.
Click to expand...

Just to again clarify...I'm not asking "How do I write/record a __________ style of song?"... I'm not trying to nail any one stereotypical genre. :)
It's just a discussion about what creates a certain style of song.

Now, I get your points about the specific song examples that you gave, and there are many others that also may not fit any specific catagorization...but I don't think one can say that there aren't any elements that place/push a song toward a certain style...and that's what I was getting at.

Like...why does most Rap sound like Rap...why does most R&B sound like R&B...why does most Alt Rock have that Alt Rock vibe...etc...?
There are elements in each of those styles that cause them to sound different than any other style. I was simply wondering what elements would most dramatically create a given style, and how much of those elements could be omitted and still keep the style somewhat identifiable....hence less stereotypical.

Like...if you crank up the Slap Echo on your lead guitar and play a certain way...it's hard NOT to think of "Surf" music...etc..etc. :D

I was also wondering how often does the choice of certain elements drive a song's production...VS...how often the song itself begs for specific elements...?
There are those songs that have been covered to death under many styles...but often the majority of styles don't really work, no matter how accurate they are portrayed, and there's only one or maybe two ways to do that song and have it sound really good....sound right.
It's like when you transpose a song...it's still accurate in every key, but only one key might sound just right, and all the others are somewhat "off" sounding.

Finally...
I know we got into talking about the general public and their listening skills. I only brought them up in an effort to explain what I was trying to talk about in this thread, but we can leave them out...we can also leave out marketing labels assigned to songs....
...I'm just talking about us guys...the songwriters and recorditsts...how we perceive song style as we work on stuff, and what if any elements we add or avoid adding so as not to sound stereotypical. Like the Autotune "chirps" I initially mentioned...adding them to a song seems to push it toward a specific style...like it or not.
 
diggy_dude said:
This is a silly question. People were making great R&B music for decades before AutoTune came along. The "chirp" is not even remotely close to being a characteristic or defining R&B sound.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point...
I'm not saying all R&B...I'm saying currently in R&B, the "chirp" has been hard to get away from...it's currently one of the elements of R&B producition...though certianly not needed.
 
miroslav said:
You're missing the point...
I'm not saying all R&B...I'm saying currently in R&B, the "chirp" has been hard to get away from...it's currently one of the elements of R&B producition...though certianly not needed.
Click to expand...

Quite honestly, it's hard for me to regard the chirpy stuff on the radio these days as R&B. Seems like there was a completely different ethos in the 70s and 80s compared to now. The Cher song that started this whole AutoTune chirp fad certainly wasn't R&B. It was just mainstream Top 40 pop.
 
I agree....R&B during the Motown days has little to do with what you hear today....but then, what other *current* style is the "chirp" most associated with if not R&B (and I'm not wanting to just talk about the "chirp" :D)...?
It's still used/heard a lot, even though it been played out for along time no, IMO...and I'm mostly hearing it in R&B style music.
 
In the old days, R&B was often referred to as "Soul" because of the soulful singing. It's hard to sound soulful through a cheesy effect.
 
miroslav said:
Just to again clarify...I'm not asking "How do I write/record a __________ style of song?"... I'm not trying to nail any one stereotypical genre. :)
It's just a discussion about what creates a certain style of song.
Click to expand...
And my point is, there is not as much as one might think, because a certain "style" often is not really the "style" one thinks of it as.

Yes there are some basic characteristics here and there; reggae is a sound that originated in Jamaica tends to lag the beat ("skank" it) and accentuate the off beats, whereas rock tends to apply a more "traditional" (if there is such a thing) backbeat, and things like that. Rap refers to a type of "street poetry" that's more rhythmic than melodic, applied over standard "beats". usually strpped down rhythm sections in the form of synth sequences and samples taken from previous productions from other genres. Et cetra. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, I'm sure.

R&B, I gotta say does not apply - any more than Country or rock do. R&B has changed and evolved significantly in sound a couple of times from the 60s to now. About the only time Beyonce actually sounds like Etta James is when she plays her in a movie and covers her original song. It's like trying to compare Rascal Flats to Merle Haggard, or Coldplay to Little Richard. All country or rock, but all quite different.

And when you're talking about cheap studio gimmicks like autotune chirps, you're talking about production fads or fashion. Just like synthed drums and keys dripping with reverb were all the shit in the 80s but out of favor now, the same is/will be true of the fad techniques used today. Autotune chirping is not just limited to one genre, as far as I can tell, and will fall out of favor when the Next Big Gimmick replaces it.

Yeah, OK, some fads tend to silo a bit; chirping may happen more often in post-R&B and tremelo may have been very big amongst those tying to sound like the Ventures, but more often than not, IMHO, that indicates more of an attempt to re-create success in production style by following a popular example than it does a definable quality of the music style itself.

G.
 
Yes...specifc styles have evolved over the years from what they might have been at some other time in history...no argument there.
I wasn't suggesting that all R&B since it's beginnings, is or should, have the same exact elements as current R&B...nor any other style for that matter.
When I brought up the "chirps" I said that "current" R&B uses it as an identifier very often.

Same goes for other styles. Metal in it's early days didn't sound like Metal does today....but within each evolution of a particular style, there still IS a particular style. There alway has been and there is today, even though it's true that there is also a lot of crossing over and mixing of styles. Granted there's much more music today than ever, so of course, there is going to be a greater amount of crossing over and mixing and sub-styles...but it's hard to deny that styles don't exist...not just 'cuz Billboard says so, but because we CAN and often DO think of a given style(s) when we hear some song, even if it's subconscious, we make some of those connections....
...and that's only possible if the styles exist, and if we hear and know how to identify some of the individual elements that make up a given style. I don't think that just comes out of some DJ's or Label's marketing plan...I think it comes from the musicians who initially created it.

Like I said...why do we all know a Rap tune when we hear one...or a Jazz piece...or some Punk....etc...?


So again...all I'm trying to get at here are some ideas as to what is it that makes up the essence of a given style, in current music, and consider how much the particular elements are key to that style?

Just some musings...nothing more. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top