L.C.D* Dance Music

[Paj!]

*Lowest-Common-Denominator Dance Music

 

Read this article from The Vine where a writer talks initially about On The Floor by J.Lo ft. Pitbull, but then about dance music that aims soley for the lowest common denominator/makes no attempt at being anything more than it is/human history/stuff.

 

One oddity about ‘On The Floor’ is the way that it takes forever to get to the hook - J-Lo’s vocal melodies. The delay may be why Pitbull believes that “I’m like Inception / I play with your brain” – he knows you’re waiting for the hook, but he’s teasing it out until you get there. Or perhaps Pitbull has read a book like Daniel Levitin’s This Is Your Brain On Music, and is aware that music literally does play with the brain, that certain sounds really do make us want to dance. You're at the mythical Club of chart pop fantasy; you hear the beat thumping through the speakers, you’re a little tipsy, the lights are dim and you’re in a good mood/drunk. If you are not dancing after J-Lo’s and Pitbull’s repeated demands that you must get on the floor, you may be an over-analytical music snob. Hi, welcome to the club! If you're not into dancing at clubs, you may ask: why do people want to dance? What’s the attraction?

 

One thing to understand about music is that, if you live in a Western society post-1950 or so (as you almost certainly do if you’re reading this), the way you approach music is really, really weird. At least, it’s really weird as far as human history is concerned. You’re not only listening to music that has been recorded and sold, but music which has been manipulated in a thousand ways, from Auto-Tune to overdubs, to guitar effects to modern equalisation, to stereo effects and techniques in mixing and mastering. This is totally awesome in a way – music has never sounded so larger-than-life – but it’s very different to the experience of music for most people in history.

 

Music for most of the world’s history has been a communal event – it wasn’t until the advent of headphones in the mid-20th century that you could really even hear music on your very own. In a typical African village’s ceremonies (at least before they got mobile phones and AK-47s), there will be skilled musicians leading the music, but everyone in the village at the ceremony participates, even if by singing in a chorus and clapping their hands and dancing. Until the 20th century, this was the default mode of music for most humans. Even in the West, it took until recordings changed how we could hear music (the technology was available for around 70 years before people saw them as anything other than a document making device), before people started to accept recordings as artifacts with their own properties and advantages. And recording technology was available for 80-90 years before people began dancing to records spun by DJs rather than live music.

 

Music is also a communal thing that makes you move your limbs. In many African languages, they don’t have separate words for music and dance; the two concepts are so tightly bound. If you’re referring to one, you’re referring to the other. And this is not because African music is primal, primitive, getting at the basic roots of music – a lot of it is extraordinarily complicated and advanced; it's because dance and music have more or less been the same thing for much of the history of the world. It’s almost impossible to find a culture that doesn’t dance to music. Music makes us want to dance, to participate.

 

 

Evolutionary psychologists wonder whether all this dancing to music has something to do with the evolution of music itself. Music and rhythm seem deeply rooted in the human brain – we don’t need to learn how to listen to music – it just seems to automatically happen. Infants seem to respond to and understand music long before they understand speech, which is why mothers sing to their infants – according to research by Sandra Trehub, two month olds can tell the difference between pleasant sounding music and dissonant, unpleasant music. In fact, there are centres in the brain specifically devoted to music, and these centres have strong connections to the deep, old parts of the brain like the nucleus accumbens, according to research by Menon & Levitin - the same parts of the brain that opiates like heroin or morphine target, a part of the brain that has a role in making you feel orgasmic or to crave something. And one of the unusual things about humans, compared to other animals, is that we have what seems to be a very strong sense of the beat – we are really quite good at clapping in time. This is not entirely unique to us humans - some researchers wrote a scholarly paper on Snowball, a cockatoo that can dance to the beat - but it does seem to be comparatively unusual. All of which makes music appear embedded in our genes.

 

But music is not obviously useful in helping us survive – being able to play the guitar solo in ‘Stairway To Heaven’ won't scare away the mountain lion. So why might it be so? Some have argued that dancing to the beat brings a community together, and that closer-knit communities work together better and thus have survived throughout evolution. Others have argued that we evolved to have music because, being a good musician or dancer probably means your brain and body work fairly well, and so the opposite sex will find you attractive as a result - that ancient tribal ceremonies were basically today's dance clubs. We don't know for sure, but however it occured, our brains naturally find beats and rhythms almost irresistible.

 

Of course, we learn to inoculate ourselves, to resist this because of the sheer amounts of music we’re exposed to every day – we’re no longer the kids at the front of the stage who’ll dance to anything; the hunter returned from the hunt. Because music is omnipresent in modern life, it's natural power has become dulled. In modern society, music now often works as an emotional (and social) regulator, as something we listen to as a work of art, instead of being the base result of a primal urge, meant to inspire similar. And so we’ll happily fall asleep to music that, 60 years ago, would have gotten you thrown out of dance halls for being too loud and suggestive.

 

Critics and discerning musical listeners now attempt hear music as art – we’re interested in what the music says about the world; about the artist and about us. For this kind of listener, social context and artistry enriches the music, as well as meaning to perpetuate it's basic function. There is often art and social commentary in popular dance music; there was a ton of it in Lady Gaga’s ‘Born This Way’, for example. But if you listen to ‘On The Floor’ from this artistic point of view, it’s not going to do much for you. Snobs will think ‘On The Floor’ is as banal as can be. But if all dance music really has to do is be good for dancing (and perhaps remind you of that other good time you had dancing, hopefully to this song perhaps - woah there's your Inception link!), then you can’t really blame RedOne, Pitbull, and J-Lo for scientifically targeting that nucleus accumbens deep inside our brains - the small, spongy bit that responds in primal approval whenever we throw ourselves around a dancefloor, to loud music and amongst like-minded humans.

 

 

--

 

I'm guilty of music snobbery sometimes (I'm sure you all know), but at the same time I love a lot of pop music, or music people would frown upon. But then I think there's good and bad pure pop music blah blah (well obviously there is). Shut up. Anyway. I've found myself being less of a snob over the years as I grew up and got over it.

 

I like a lot of L.C.D pop/dance music (two sides of the same coin, dance is the current trendy style). I really enjoy On The Floor. I really enjoy I Like It by Enrique Inglesias. I really enjoy Commander by Kelly Rowland. And loads more.

 

But I don't like The Time (Diry Bit) by Black Eyed Peas or Party Rock Anthem by LMFAO. I feel this is because there's been no 'effort' made in creating anything other than a purely functional piece of music - there's no 'artistry' or anything. It's 'for dancing', there's no presumption of anything else being derived from it.

 

But then I think maybe this is just me being more aware of them being really bad songs from my 'music snob' perspective, and, since I can dance and have fun while dancing to them, I should just accept them for what they are as much as the above ones I said I liked. They all fulfill a similar function (with varying degrees of success). As the article says, it's like...let's all just deal with bad songs that make us dance when that's all they're meant to do. Or something.

 

Anyway.

 

Views on the topic?

[ReZourceman]

I like some music.

[mcj metroid]

I think good music can come from ANYWHERE. There are times when I hear a piece on a tv show I like and have to find it..

 

As such I've been called having a strange taste in music.

[ReZourceman]

I love this song.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2011 by ReZourceman

[Diageo]

I agree a lot with that article. Most of the time, for me anyway, music is for dancing or feeling good. Maybe even evoking a targeted emotion, or just having fun. Whatever the case. If it does something to me that I like, then I'll like the song. No matter how much or little effort was put into it, how ground breaking it is or how artistic and deep it is.

 

I don't like talking to other people about music. Everyone feels different around different songs, at least slightly. I don't think any sort of meaningful discussion can come from it. I particularly don't like trying to analyse songs to death or why you enjoy them. The whole science behind it is surely interesting. But just guessing that your subconscious is attracted to certain songs because of what you think should be the reason, boring.

[heroicjanitor]

Yeah fuck it, we'll all give up then. I thought you were a psychology student :p

[Diageo]

The brains systems that control it are interesting. As in, the science. Listening to people tell me how their songs are awesome, and why they like certain songs. Shit.

 

Also, it's not important or worth the effort. No matter how much you think you know about your tastes, you'll hear a song inconsistent with what you believe you should like, and like it anyway.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Diageo

[nekunando]

I wouldn't go as far as to say that I'm a music 'snob', but I do find a lot of the popular music of today to be quite poor and derivative

 

My friend and I talk about this sort of think quite often and we both agree that an awful lot of songs these days, rather well highlighted by 'On the Floor', focus around the idea of getting on the floor, checking out girls, making them sweat and watching them shake their 'booty'.. Sex, basically. These song aren't just heard by those out clubbing until all hours but by everyone, including children! To me, it says a lot about where society is going, unfortunately..

 

The popularity of songs such as 'I've got a Feeling' by the Black Eyed Peas is beyond me. To me, that is one of the worst songs I have heard in recent years both musically and lyrically. That song alone has gone some way to making them, for me, one of the most annoying bands out there

 

I caught part of that 'King Of..' programme on Channel 4 at the weekend and one segment of it aimed to highlight the king of instruments. During this part of the show, guest Stephen Mangan claimed that he preferred to listen to music in his room by himself, mainly stuff that would almost make him feel sad and depressed and would bring out his emotions.. and I kind of agreed! I'd much rather do that than go out in a club full of people and dance around with a lot of people with music that does nothing for me emotionally..

 

I would consider Fightstar to be my favourite band. One of my friends says that he finds their music too dark and depressing while my boss in at work calls it "wrist-slitting" music. I actually find it somewhat uplifting, if that makes sense. When I absord myself in the music and the vocals, I feel like I can relate to it and often mouth along to the words. As I do this, I feel any stress or anger that may be within me suddenly evapourated. It's like a release..

 

I also understand that others can go out and feel that release by dancing along to this 'L.C.D.' music but that just isn't for me.. at all..

[heroicjanitor]

But it could all be worked out by a formula that we could figure out. Like (flow x guitar) / penis.

 

The point of the article is that they have figured out all of this(with regards to dance music which is very simple apparently). Gives promise that the rest will be figured out.

[Diageo]

The point of the article is that music is for dancing, and it's only recently that people decided to go "snobby" and complain when songs are made purely for dancing.

[Dan_Dare]

The thing about this L.C.D dance music is that it's irrelevant. OK, so it twinges some primal synapse in your brain that makes you dance. Beyond that, it's impossible to engage with it on any kind of intellectual and critical level.

 

But you know who else twinges that part of the brain? The Chemical Brothers, Daft Punk, Justice, Mr Ouizo, SMD, SebastiAn, Danger, New Order and hundreds upon hundreds of other dance musicians. The difference is that they can be engaged with, they do stimulate more than the basest parts of the brain.

 

So the question re: l.C.D is why? Why just...waste your time on it?

[ReZourceman]

So the question re: l.C.D is why? Why just...waste your time on it?

 

Well thats easy, not everyone wants to or cares about engaging with music.

 

[Paj!]

It's an interesting topic.

 

On a personal level for me. I mean I like a lot of stuff that is considered and I consider to be of high artistic value (people like Joanna Newsom, Radiohead blah) but then get a huge amount of enjoyment from a lot of crap stuff. But then I feel that it's to do with an attitue/feeling/mood/thing. Shut up. But yeah, I'm not agreeing with Diageo (god forbid).

[The fish]

The thing about this L.C.D dance music is that it's irrelevant. OK, so it twinges some primal synapse in your brain that makes you dance. Beyond that, it's impossible to engage with it on any kind of intellectual and critical level.

 

Ah, but things can be enjoyed even if they don't engage on an intellectual or critical level. Dance music is generally intended to be fun, and a bit of a laugh. It also has the great advantage of, as the lowest common denominator, being a very social thing to be interested in (ie intoxicated club dancing).

[chairdriver]

There's just something so yeesss when a dance song is done well. When everything's in its right place. When a song is so great that you forget to be self-conscious, and just dance. That's when I'm in my homerealm.

 

Like.. when this comes on in the club, I am the happiest I ever am.

 

 

 

And I do think there's something primal about dancing. As in, people who can dance well are many times more attractive than those that can't.

[ReZourceman]

Too many thank-worthy posts today. Can everyone stop being so brilliant please?

[My Buttons are Magic!]

I like Jennifer Lopez. Im not quite sure, I think it goes along the same lines of I like Katy Perry and Lady Gaga as well. But I never dance in clubs.. well to be honest I never go to clubs. Pubs are more my thing :P

I like these music cause they do quite cheer me up. When Im feeling sad or something and you put some of those songs on you cant help but laugh n stuff and start to shake your thing in your own room xD

 

Then again you see me more listening to rock music most of the time (Incubus, Placebo, Silversun Pickups, Alkaline Trio, stuff like that :P)

 

Im up for listening to most stuff though I dont like rap and dubstep -_- . I will never forget when they made a dubstep version of Foo Fighters I nearly cried

 

There's just something so yeesss when a dance song is done well. When everything's in its right place. When a song is so great that you forget to be self-conscious, and just dance. That's when I'm in my homerealm.

 

Like.. when this comes on in the club, I am the happiest I ever am.

 

 

 

And I do think there's something primal about dancing. As in, people who can dance well are many times more attractive than those that can't.

 

I love this song!!!

[Diageo]

The thing about this L.C.D dance music is that it's irrelevant. OK, so it twinges some primal synapse in your brain that makes you dance. Beyond that, it's impossible to engage with it on any kind of intellectual and critical level.

 

But you know who else twinges that part of the brain? The Chemical Brothers, Daft Punk, Justice, Mr Ouizo, SMD, SebastiAn, Danger, New Order and hundreds upon hundreds of other dance musicians. The difference is that they can be engaged with, they do stimulate more than the basest parts of the brain.

 

So the question re: l.C.D is why? Why just...waste your time on it?

 

What's intellectually engaging about Daft Punk?

[Dan_Dare]

I actually started answering that, then realised that if you really have to have why Daft Punk are good explained to you on any level you're basically a fuckwit.

[The fish]

I actually started answering that, then realised that if you really have to have why Daft Punk are good explained to you on any level you're basically a fuckwit.

 

The use of "if you can't see it you're stupid, and I'm too fucking snobby to explain it to a pleb like you" means you lose. Big time.

 

Oh, and he didn't want to know why they're good, he wanted to know why they're intellectually engaging. They're too very different things.

 

Lets see if you can redeem yourself: why do you think Daft Punk are intellectually engaging?

[Dan_Dare]

Yeah well so's your face.

[The fish]

Yeah well so's your face.

 

Ah, but so's your mum.

 

And you smell.

[Coolness Bears]

 

This makes me go mental, inwardly. I can feel my brain nodules breaking down.

[The Bard]

The only place I would ever hear this shit is some lousy club in London, probably above an adult bookstore in Soho, where I would not be for the intellectual engagement, let me assure you.

Edited June 28, 2011 by The Bard

[Diageo]

I actually started answering that, then realised that if you really have to have why Daft Punk are good explained to you on any level you're basically a fuckwit.

I knew you would say something like that.

 

"Of course Daft Punk is intellectually engaging, it's so obvious it needs not be said out loud." Which basically means, you have no argument.

 

But then it turns out you said the same thing, but addressed it as if I questioned the quality of his music. Which is even worse.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I think music is a tool. And whether it is a good song or not depends on it's function. A song can be good at making people dance, or exposing deep social issues. But if it's just "good", it's too vague. Most of the time, it just means that the person who calls it good just likes the song, for any reason. So anyone that says, how can you not think bladibla is good. Is just asking, "Why don't you like the same things I do?". Which is a silly question.