Comments on: A Better Definition Of Soul Music

By: chrisdisco

chrisdisco — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:10:03 +0000

brinkmann’s interview struck a similar chord with me too. what i found really interesting is that i read almost identical comments from theo parrish and bvdub about there being something missing, something lacking, which for a better term people are calling ‘soul’. i think what they are all trying to get at is something that is part of the artistic process which they feel is lacking or disappearing in much of the current music. pain, frustration – whatever it is that leads to music which has some more in it. the fact that 3 different producers all were independently saying the same thing at the same time about this lacking ‘soul’ really struck me. it also made me think of bone’s lyrics from ‘life soundtrack’:

“This sound comes from dirt, pain, boredom, cold streets… nothing from nothing to everything, from frustration to innovation. This sound makes you laugh, makes you cry, makes you hate, makes you stomp, makes you clap. This music, deep down, special place, special time, special sound, lives forever – life soundtrack.”

By: roy

roy — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:40:57 +0000

i should add that this kind of shit on the other hand makes for more of a conversation, which is nice!! you need it as a kick in the ass a lot of times to get you to actually think about things.

By: roy

roy — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 03:56:43 +0000

Jacob: “I like reading your shit when you hype stuff that you think is good, but damn it gets old fast when you start ragging on the stuff you don’t like.”

i think there might be some good ideas in what you say here (not in the dissin’ tom way necessarily!).

something like “soul” is most likely the result of a whole bunch of factors, production, songwriting, etc., and the fact that it’s really hard to pinpoint specific things that give music “soul” is evidence, i think, that it is something where the whole is more than the sum of the parts.

so where jacob’s shit comes in here, i think, is that it’s a lot easier to talk positively about soul or just music that you love, because you can pick out a bunch of specific things you do like (but which might also be found in music you DON’T like) and put all these things you like together and so you’re building it up, trying to recreate the whole-greater-than-parts thing that is so great about he music, and so you’re making something yourself.

Whereas when you’re talking something down you’re picking it apart, and so there are all these crappy bits lying around and it’s just a bit of a mess, you know? you’re not creating anything so much as just making noise. and its the same thing with music you might say lacks soul. you’re taking stuff away, rather than selecting the good shit and putting it together.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:34:11 +0000

The problem is that someone else could listen to the same 100 tracks, pick out the same 1 track, but give a completely different reason e.g. “it’s got attitude” or “musicianship”.

The second problem is that if you think soul is undefinable and not related to genre, instruments etc. then you have to admit that it’s possible for a german minimal techno record to have ‘soul’. E.g. Mike Ink! So while it’s cool for you to talk about the stuff you like on these terms, it’s complete nonsense to then say that because something comes from Berlin, is liked by hipsters or uses Ableton that it can’t possibly have soul.

I remember the 90s and I can assure you that in Europe hipsters were all over DBX, Rob Hood and the like, so something being trendy is hardly the curse you make it out to be.

I like reading your shit when you hype stuff that you think is good, but damn it gets old fast when you start ragging on the stuff you don’t like.

By: pipecock

pipecock — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:50:08 +0000

” ‘I know it when I hear it’ isn’t a valid answer!”

but it is the only answer! i can listen to 100 tracks that are nearly exactly similar, and the one made with soul will stand out from the other 99. you can try to scientifically break it down, but i dont think it’s going to work. people have to work to really say something personal that touches you, and most people (especially in techno) just don’t do that.

as for Le Tigre, i dont want attitude and aesthetic without good music, and that is what they provide. i want all three! not giving a fuck is alright until your music sucks

By: frank

frank — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:49:44 +0000

We’ve had this conversation before, but it bears repeating… Who is the arbiter of what does and does not have “soul”? How can one define something as ephemeral as emotion? While I agree that Dan Bell has more soul than a lot of techno produced these days, can we really explain why? There are a lot of records that I’d call soulful that others would not.
I think that book I recommended (This is Your Brain on Music) touches on concepts like this, and I definitely need to reread it. My point is, until we can come to some scientific understanding of what separates a soulful record from one that isn’t soulful, the discussion is largely moot. “I know it when I hear it” isn’t a valid answer!

Also, I find it interesting that you lament the loss of “‘punk’ that made techno and house interesting in the first place” yet you slag on artists like Le Tigre (granted, not very current, but again, somebody we’ve talked about in the past). They produced some of the most punk dance music of the past five or so years, according to your definition. I think that lo-fi aesthetic and willingness to “just say fuck it” and get their music out the way they wanted to is probably why they were so well received in the underground.