spacetownsavior wrote:AndrewKilpatrick wrote: I like dance music, but it's not a genre that really connects with me, I find a bit too one sided in its approach (it is fulfilling a specific need after all) , and when it does connect it's usually a cheap thrill that dries up quickly.
What do you think is "one sided" about the approach? I'm genuinely interested, because I think that a lot of modern EDM these days is "one-sided," as you say -- however, I think it's hard to justify an entire form as one-sided, mostly because in order to do that you have to 1. Define where dance music is trying to get and then 2. Define the approach to that aesthetic space as "one-sided." It's true that mainstream EDM lacks complexity most of the time, but I think that has to do with the "popification" of dance music (or the "dancification" of pop music) more than the form itself.
Because dance music by definition is music made to make you dance, thereby limiting its potential. For instance, for a more striking example, the difference between, say, Deicide and Opeth, one goes for a straight genre-definition affair, the other doesn't attempt to limit themselves. That's probably a bad, and definitely an irrelevant to this topic, example, but I hope you catch my jist.
As I said, there are always exceptions, I just think when someone creates something that goes towards a specific audience on preferred method of consumption (whether purposefully or otherwise), they are creatively tying one hand behind their back. That is what I think causes my perception of dance music, in general, being one-sided.
