oh I never denied that its possible for trance music to do so, what i'm denying is that trance or instrumental music in general is somehow unique as a canvas for musical expression because it bypasses so called vocal/lyrical constraints, and is therefor somehow more meaningfull and "deeper".
I deny those are defacto constraints in the first place.
you've labeled them as such sure, but in terms of "music as an art form" they are just more ( equal) elements as opposed to sounds or rhythmic, patterns tone-ladders or chords etc...You'll have to make a stronger case for those being a hindrance rather then a suplement or addition for your book then your current synopsis contains...
I based my hypothesis on my current understanding of music as an art form, on my knowledge of the trance genre, and on certain studies related to music, intelligence, and patterns (some of which I also linked in the post), which then I used to try to find logical connections between them, this way making further deductions.
Hell, I would even argue from an tribal/ evolutionary standpoint that rhythm and chants (e.a. vocals and lyrics) probably preceed melodies, soundscapes and specifically those made by synthesizers...
According to a
study conducted and published in 2019 in Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences – which
"combined the approaches of evolutionary and social psychology to investigate the relationship between intelligence, music preferences, and uses of music" – more intelligent individuals are
more likely to enjoy instrumental music. This ranges from genres such as ambient and chill-out electronica to big band jazz, film soundtracks, and classical music like Liszt and Bach. And as you probably know, trance is heavily rooted in genres such as ambient and even classical music.
You can make an educated guess why is that. Well, less intelligent people are less likely to look behind the curtain, so to speak. They are less likely to try to find additional meaning and depth in pieces of art. For example, average movie-goers will only really look at the words spoken by the characters (and, sure, take a look at the explosions), and their experience will be quite surface-level. On the other hand, someone with the proper appreciation for the art form will look for subtleties, including how the camera work and the colors portray the mental state of the characters, the state of the world, or just how the movies use different themes to portray bigger messages and moral lessons. Similarly, in music, people tend to predominantly focus on the vocals and perhaps on the general vibe (?) of the tune, because trying to understand/interpret something like melodies and sounds requires visualization, a different form of thinking, and abstraction, and that's way harder to do.
There are also other
studies connected to this topic, including one that is less data-based and more deduction-based, done by Satoshi Kanazawa in 2011. This research primarily focuses on classical music to make a grander point, but it also comes to the same conclusion:
"more intelligent individuals are more likely to prefer purely instrumental music than less intelligent individuals...". However, it also adds that
"general intelligence has no effect on the preference for vocal music".
I don’t think you’re ever going to get a Pulitzer, or a publisher for that matter, in its current conceptual form....nor is that going to be a very interesting or thought provoking read for someone outside of said niche group.
I'm not interested at all in success, money, or fame. I leave that for narcissists. This project is a cultural mission of mine and I want to capture the essence and history of the genre in a physical form. I have no plan to make money from this. As for the publisher part: I already have this mostly sorted out.
you'll have to make a stronger, better underbuild case for the more specific claims you make.
Again, this is not me attacking you or the book for that matter, this is me being an anvil by which you can forge it into something more convincing and interesting other then just: "this is my opinion on specific genres based on more generic claims about music in general"
I appreciate constructive criticism, and this is partially the reason why I shared this draft in the first place. I would like to learn more and see how can I improve (which then could be reflected in my work), I want to get different perspectives on different topics, etc. However, I believe I've made a significantly stronger case for my thesis than you so far, with more reasonings and educated deductions, not to mention the scientific studies and articles I used to build up my hypothesis.
A word, or chant, much like a sample, is a single distinct (and in case of words specifically meaningful!) element of music, speech or writing. when properly sequenced, it can specifically envoke ambiguity, personal interpretation, phantasmagoric scapes, and journeys in the minds eye, As any lover of (abstract) poetry, or even fiction will tell you.
not only that, but in case of classic trance specifically, you'd have to rule out any track, or treat it as sub-par to the rest, that contains vocal elements such as indian chanting, gregorian chants, soft spoken samples, or wispers etc.
not sure you want to do that do you?
I feel that this discussion became slightly redundant and it feels like we are going in circles. Previously, I tried to explain that
"lyrics and vocals effectively ground songs in our perceived reality because they formulate words, which act as our primary ways of communication" and they can only serve similar purposes as melodies and sounds if they act the way they also do. Meaning they no longer take the forefront and get an elevated status (like in most music). Instead, they transcend their linguistic limits by stopping
"acting as direct, straightforward ways of communicating ideas [...] and become another instrument among many that form the complete musical palette".
This is essentially the core philosophy that is present in many classical music, in opera, or in trance, in fact. What really matters is not the words being spoken or sung, and not their direct meaning, but how those lyrics blend into the musical environment and what feelings they evoke, or what ideas they suggest by effectively acting as one of the many instruments (and this way also transcending their linguistic barriers).
So in essence, tracks featuring vocals can still have the same amount of depth, ambiguity, and potential for visualization and interpretation as their purely instrumental counterparts, and from a more liberal standpoint, can also be considered instrumental music. But only if such tunes use vocals as something supplementary that complements the whole picture, instead of something that tries to take the focus away from the rest of the music. And keep in mind that most contemporary (and even old) music is being written and produced in such a way, that the vocals/lyrics take center stage, and everything else is basically an afterthought, or, at best, supplementary. So it's the other way around.
The additional takeaway here is that the more a piece of music relies on vocals/lyrics to be able to tell and convey something, the less it starts to resemble music, and the more it starts to show similarities with other forms of artistic mediums, including novels or poetry. This ultimately proves my point that music that predominantly uses vocals to tell stories and evoke feelings is a lesser demonstration of what music as an artistic medium is capable of than instrumental music (or music that uses lyrics/vocals as an additional supportive layer). In the world of movies, there's a general rule (basically film school 101): show, don't tell. In the world of music, this would be best described like this: let us hear, don't tell. And, again, don't mix this up with the concept of quality. It's easily possible that X music that is primarily vocal-driven is of a much-higher quality than something that is purely instrumental. The point is that instrumental music is way more likely to take advantage of most of the strengths that music as an artistic medium provides.
.
