64 replies to this topic

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

Lil, on 6 Jul 2009, 11:52, said:

WNxMastrefubu, on 6 Jul 2009, 7:33, said:

bah, imo people are much too harsh on mainstream music, the songs are good and fun to listen too near all the time. thats y their main stream, their widely accepted because they are good. their artists worked hard on their songs and for it to be ruled out as filth just because most people like it is wrong

Clearly you aren't familiar with what goes on in studios. Many artists use programs like auto-tune [I touched on this in my last post: I suggest you go read that so I don't have to repeat my spiel on why natural music is better].
I'd also like to point out that music is not "Mainstream" because it's good. It's "mainstream" because the artists have signed certain contracts to have their music publicized.

Seconded. To back up my point, here is a video I posted in the video archive room:
Sadly, this sometimes even happens to me, I hear something so much that I actually know the lyrics and *gasp* begin to tolerate it (not 'like', let's not go over bard ). This is not how music should be.

From 6 Jul 2009, 11:52:

Golan, on 6 Jul 2009, 10:27, said:

Just as we use instruments to further the possibilities of music, just as many great artists use synthetic effects to improve their already impressive music, isn't the use of editing utilities just as well a means to make proper music? IMO music should be judged by how it presents itself in the end, not how it was made.

So you feel that lack of proper lyrics is a downside? Fucking don't touch my Beethoven collection!

Autotune is not always a bad thing, as it can be used to achieve a certain artificial effect that some artists intend to incorporate into their works [take Daft Punk for instance]. However, as I have said before, pitch correction ruins the uniqueness of a piece, as it tunes any notes played or sung to 12 frequencies that are considered the "official" notes.

Editing or enhancing a song with auto-tune and other software isn't necessarily a bad thing... however, what really annoys me is big artists that get a lot of praise for "their" music, when all they do is sing out of tune, and a bunch of other people do most of the work and get no credit for it what so ever.

TheDR, on 6 Jul 2009, 18:27, said:

AJ, on 6 Jul 2009, 17:37, said:

Alias, on 6 Jul 2009, 17:12, said:

Warboss Nooka, on 6 Jul 2009, 23:35, said:

And by "instrumental" I guess I should have been more clear. Pardon me for considering this genre "music", but we all know a lot of Techno doesn't take much to create. Most of the basic beat is rehashed, reused, recycled, ad inf.

Been more clear? You can't really be more clear then 'instrumental', its a pretty broad word to just pull out of nowhere. It shouldn't matter how long the artists take on it, or how much effort it takes to produce.
What matters is how much heart they put into it when making and performing it.

Tbh, I feel Nooka was in fact referring to instrumental stuff similar to Mint Royale's version of Singing in the Rain
[video]
Completely re-used, this probably took a person one afternoon in a recording studio with a few electronic gadgets, which is not what the music industry should ever have been about. It reached number one in the UK, and frankly, never deserved it. It has no sense of cohesion, no sense of 'heart', and winds me the hell up because it is completely recycled nonsense, with not a single lyric, beside recorded versions from the old song. And what is even worse, is that while we think of this as an instrumental piece - I would bet that there was not a single recording from an instrument done for this song. The music industry has gone the wrong way imo, and almost half the songs I hear nowadays recycle the beat, the tune, the lyrics or the whole damn song from another song. It's not on for me, especially when thrown in with a pile of techno-rubbish.

Just because a song is recycled doesn't mean its bad. Good music doesn't need to be original, its all opinion based on what you feel sounds best and shouldn't be classed as bad because its recycling older songs. Even when remixing or editing songs you still need to be a decent musician, its rather insulting when people class everything that has been made using a synthesizer as rubbish techno, when its normally very complicated and extensive pieces of music. I would like to see anyone produce something like the Mint Royale remix in one afternoon, it probably took them months of work, its such a shame that this kind of Electronic music is viewed in this way.

What Doc said^

Quite frankly, some of the views towards digital music disgusts me. It takes the artists just as much time and effort to make music, but because it's made with a computer or other digital equipment it must be really easy to do, right? Wrong. It may be a lot easier to start making music, all you need is a half decent laptop and some cheap software and you can get going, but like all music, just because it's simple to get started, doesn't mean it's simple to make it sound good. Some artists can spend weeks or months on one track, perfecting it.

Let me take this in a different direction. Visual artists (e.g. painting), I would to think no-one here wouldn't appreciate digital art, just because it is made on a computer. I can spend up to a month rendering my anime... and I'm not even that good at it. It takes considerable time and effort to get good at making art (whether that be visual or music), the medium that this is done in doesn't change the end result (or for the most part the journey taken).

EDIT:

Golan, on 6 Jul 2009, 19:28, said:

I really can't see how you come to declare whole types of music as "non-music" just because you don't like em. Especially seeing how you use the different terms in an extremely broad meaning and simply apply your dislike for a couple of songs (really, what's 20 to several ten thousands on the whole?) to a whole genre.

Seconded.

Edited by Bob, 06 July 2009 - 18:37.

[Dauth]

I think liking a wider range of music comes with age or the insanity that comes with age.

While I utterly loathe the macerana there is no good reason why I won't dance to it on nights out.

[Golan]

The topic has been defined very broadly and "you" aren't saying what you like, you are massacring a definition because you feel like it.

€dit
This was @Ion Cannon!.

Edited by Golan, 06 July 2009 - 18:37.

[Ion Cannon!]

You apply what you know. I've not listened to 20,000 electronic songs, because they don't interest me. I apply *non-music* to the trash like that on *Dance Nation 09 * or whatever its called. I did actually specify that in my post. I've heard some of dance stuff bob listens to, and its alot better than the trash I described above. Its still music, it just doesn't interest me.

For example the music I often listen to is horribly stereotyped, thats fine. I don't expect you to listen to 20,000 metal songs over the many sub genres. But you comment on what you know. Sadly the most mainstream metal is often the worst, in my opinion.

[Libains]

Bob, on 6 Jul 2009, 19:34, said:

TheDR, on 6 Jul 2009, 18:27, said:

AJ, on 6 Jul 2009, 17:37, said:

Alias, on 6 Jul 2009, 17:12, said:

Warboss Nooka, on 6 Jul 2009, 23:35, said:

And by "instrumental" I guess I should have been more clear. Pardon me for considering this genre "music", but we all know a lot of Techno doesn't take much to create. Most of the basic beat is rehashed, reused, recycled, ad inf.

Been more clear? You can't really be more clear then 'instrumental', its a pretty broad word to just pull out of nowhere. It shouldn't matter how long the artists take on it, or how much effort it takes to produce.
What matters is how much heart they put into it when making and performing it.

Tbh, I feel Nooka was in fact referring to instrumental stuff similar to Mint Royale's version of Singing in the Rain
[video]
Completely re-used, this probably took a person one afternoon in a recording studio with a few electronic gadgets, which is not what the music industry should ever have been about. It reached number one in the UK, and frankly, never deserved it. It has no sense of cohesion, no sense of 'heart', and winds me the hell up because it is completely recycled nonsense, with not a single lyric, beside recorded versions from the old song. And what is even worse, is that while we think of this as an instrumental piece - I would bet that there was not a single recording from an instrument done for this song. The music industry has gone the wrong way imo, and almost half the songs I hear nowadays recycle the beat, the tune, the lyrics or the whole damn song from another song. It's not on for me, especially when thrown in with a pile of techno-rubbish.

Just because a song is recycled doesn't mean its bad. Good music doesn't need to be original, its all opinion based on what you feel sounds best and shouldn't be classed as bad because its recycling older songs. Even when remixing or editing songs you still need to be a decent musician, its rather insulting when people class everything that has been made using a synthesizer as rubbish techno, when its normally very complicated and extensive pieces of music. I would like to see anyone produce something like the Mint Royale remix in one afternoon, it probably took them months of work, its such a shame that this kind of Electronic music is viewed in this way.

What Doc said^

Quite frankly, some of the views towards digital music disgusts me. It takes the artists just as much time and effort to make music, but because it's made with a computer or other digital equipment it must be really easy to do, right? Wrong. It may be a lot easier to start making music, all you need is a half decent laptop and some cheap software and you can get going, but like all music, just because it's simple to get started, doesn't mean it's simple to make it sound good. Some artists can spend weeks or months on one track, perfecting it.

Let me take this in a different direction. Visual artists (e.g. painting), I would to think no-one here wouldn't appreciate digital art, just because it is made on a computer. I can spend up to a month rendering my anime... and I'm not even that good at it. It takes considerable time and effort to get good at making art (whether that be visual or music), the medium that this is done in doesn't change the end result (or for the most part the journey taken).

Music that is ripped off from other artists is not music - it's like someone taking one of Monet's famous water lillies paintings:

And Photoshopping it so it were more pixelated and messed around.

There is only ever one original of a song - after that, anything that is rehashed is messing with the original. Whether better or worse, it's not the same thing, and you cannot persuade me to think otherwise.

Electronic music is obviously a controversial issue atm - half of the world thinks it's godawful and half thinks its the way of the future. Frankly I'm in the first half. Electronic music isn't really music. It's a mess of sounds put together with a poor beating backdrop that just about holds all of the elements together. There are exceptions to every rule, but tbh 90% of new music I plain don't listen to as it's a horrible, nasty beat that makes me think 'chavs and booze', neither of which I like to associate with. As for 'all techno is rubbish', that's simply not true - one of my fave songs atm is this one by Mint Royale again:

It's different, but it's got a real musical blend to it and it seems natural - Moby's mixes also go very high on my list. While it's not dead easy to create synthesised music, it is still not as difficult to do as it would be to record a full band, and then do all of the digital work in one step - there's something not right to me when you listen to music that has never actually been heard played from an instrument.

We don't disrespect the musicians that do this, but we are entitled to our opinion, and frankly, music reached a peak about 15-20 years ago, and since then people have been failing to produce better content, or have just rehashed the old stuff because it sells. There are very few artists that really TRY nowadays as instead they sit back and let everyone else do the work and live off the brand name.

Finally, please stop acting like the wounded party here - for those of us that don't like rehashed music, people are destroying the music that we listen to with endless horrible club and disco remixes. We dont like your music, but to be fair, you're the ones who are trying to force it upon us in the first place, then cry foul play when we say we don't like it. There are always exceptions, granted, but there are not many.

[Golan]

What the? Half my collection is pre-90's music, one forth my collection is Indie music which I bet you don't know either. Don't come up with any "you attacked first" bullshit - you (seeing that the "we against you" seems to be the norm in this "discussion" now) have branded a good portion of todays music as no-music-at-all-don't-even-try-to-argue-against-it. That's stupid, and as we all know, I'm the local expert when it comes to talking stupid shit, so believe me on this.

[Sgt. Nuker]

Golan, I don't believe anyone in this thread came out and attacked you directly. No one in this thread came out and said "Golan, stop acting like such-and-such". Indie music, depending on which artist it is, does tend to have a "we're not with a main-stream label so our stuff is going to sound better" feel to it (and I mean that as a compliment), which is great. It's just the main-stream, i.e those that make up "popular culture", have either 1). never heard of it, or 2). have heard it and shun it.

[Golan]

I didn't say or mean to say that anyone attacked me - it ain't my fault that this language doesn't properly differentiate between 2. person singular and plural. What pisses me off is how you guys are drastically overgeneralizing a big portion of todays range of music as something not even worth considering as pure enough to properly talk about. It makes you seems like the dickheads you are trying to argue against - which incidentally is another field of my personal expertise.

[Libains]

Golan, on 6 Jul 2009, 21:28, said:

I didn't say or mean to say that anyone attacked me - it ain't my fault that this language doesn't properly differentiate between 2. person singular and plural. What pisses me off is how you guys are drastically overgeneralizing a big portion of todays range of music as something not even worth considering as pure enough to properly talk about. It makes you seems like the dickheads you are trying to argue against - which incidentally is another field of my personal expertise.

Golan, you would be surprised how much music I listen to - I would put it at about 10hrs worth a day. I also listen to almost any radio station, and will listen to any song once. Techno music does nothing for me, and while i will listen to it to see if it is worth it, likely I will move on and skip it. As for Indie music, I have roughly 2000 tracks in my library filed under Indie... I enjoy indie music, but not techno/club indie, which is still particularly rubbish. I am generalising, but I stated VERY clearly that there are always exceptions. If I haven't the experience to comment on a topic, I won't, so I'd rather you didn't accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about. Finally, calling people 'dickheads' is not acceptable, please don't generalise an entire subsection of the forums as the only one that comes across badly, is you.

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

[quote name='AJ' post='665749' date='6 Jul 2009, 20:01'][quote name='Bob' post='665742' date='6 Jul 2009, 19:34'][quote name='TheDR' post='665716' date='6 Jul 2009, 18:27'][quote name='AJ' post='665695' date='6 Jul 2009, 17:37'][quote name='Alias' post='665686' date='6 Jul 2009, 17:12'][quote name='Warboss Nooka' post='665625' date='6 Jul 2009, 23:35']And by "instrumental" I guess I should have been more clear. Pardon me for considering this genre "music", but we all know a lot of Techno doesn't take much to create. Most of the basic beat is rehashed, reused, recycled, ad inf.[/quote]Been more clear? You can't really be more clear then 'instrumental', its a pretty broad word to just pull out of nowhere. It shouldn't matter how long the artists take on it, or how much effort it takes to produce.
What matters is how much heart they put into it when making and performing it.
[/quote]
Tbh, I feel Nooka was in fact referring to instrumental stuff similar to Mint Royale's version of Singing in the Rain
[video]
Completely re-used, this probably took a person one afternoon in a recording studio with a few electronic gadgets, which is not what the music industry should ever have been about. It reached number one in the UK, and frankly, never deserved it. It has no sense of cohesion, no sense of 'heart', and winds me the hell up because it is completely recycled nonsense, with not a single lyric, beside recorded versions from the old song. And what is even worse, is that while we think of this as an instrumental piece - I would bet that there was not a single recording from an instrument done for this song. The music industry has gone the wrong way imo, and almost half the songs I hear nowadays recycle the beat, the tune, the lyrics or the whole damn song from another song. It's not on for me, especially when thrown in with a pile of techno-rubbish.
[/quote]
Just because a song is recycled doesn't mean its bad. Good music doesn't need to be original, its all opinion based on what you feel sounds best and shouldn't be classed as bad because its recycling older songs. Even when remixing or editing songs you still need to be a decent musician, its rather insulting when people class everything that has been made using a synthesizer as rubbish techno, when its normally very complicated and extensive pieces of music. I would like to see anyone produce something like the Mint Royale remix in one afternoon, it probably took them months of work, its such a shame that this kind of Electronic music is viewed in this way.
[/quote]
What Doc said^

Quite frankly, some of the views towards digital music disgusts me. It takes the artists just as much time and effort to make music, but because it's made with a computer or other digital equipment it must be really easy to do, right? Wrong. It may be a lot easier to start making music, all you need is a half decent laptop and some cheap software and you can get going, but like all music, just because it's simple to get started, doesn't mean it's simple to make it sound good. Some artists can spend weeks or months on one track, perfecting it.

Let me take this in a different direction. Visual artists (e.g. painting), I would to think no-one here wouldn't appreciate digital art, just because it is made on a computer. I can spend up to a month rendering my anime... and I'm not even that good at it. It takes considerable time and effort to get good at making art (whether that be visual or music), the medium that this is done in doesn't change the end result (or for the most part the journey taken).
[/quote]


Music that is ripped off from other artists is not music - it's like someone taking one of Monet's famous water lillies paintings:

And Photoshopping it so it were more pixelated and messed around.

There is only ever one original of a song - after that, anything that is rehashed is messing with the original. Whether better or worse, it's not the same thing, and you cannot persuade me to think otherwise.
[/quote]
I'm sorry... but what the fuck?

How are remixes and less of music than the original? If I painted a picture of a cat, that would be art... if someone then added one more brush stroke to it, it doesn't suddenly stop being art, it is art regardless of who has worked on it. One thing I will say though, the original artist should be credited just as the person who made the remix, but that is straying from the point.

I can understand people not liking music... but saying that all remixes are not music is just plain stupid.


[quote name='AJ' post='665749' date='6 Jul 2009, 20:01']Electronic music is obviously a controversial issue atm - half of the world thinks it's godawful and half thinks its the way of the future. Frankly I'm in the first half. Electronic music isn't really music. It's a mess of sounds put together with a poor beating backdrop that just about holds all of the elements together. There are exceptions to every rule, but tbh 90% of new music I plain don't listen to as it's a horrible, nasty beat that makes me think 'chavs and booze', neither of which I like to associate with.[/quote]
Again, that is complete bollocks, how is "real" music any different ?(and I use "real" in a sarcastic way)

Music is just a bunch of physical objects that interacted with in some way to produce sound, a collection of those sounds is then "music", so how is using a computer of other electronic device any different? I don't think anyone would argue that someone using an electric guitar isn't making "real" music.

[quote name='AJ' post='665749' date='6 Jul 2009, 20:01']As for 'all techno is rubbish', that's simply not true - one of my fave songs atm is this one by Mint Royale again:

It's different, but it's got a real musical blend to it and it seems natural - Moby's mixes also go very high on my list. While it's not dead easy to create synthesised music, it is still not as difficult to do as it would be to record a full band, and then do all of the digital work in one step - there's something not right to me when you listen to music that has never actually been heard played from an instrument.[/quote]
Can we get just one thing straight here (going a little further off topic), techno is a very small part of electronic music. There are many, many different types digital music.

[quote name='AJ' post='665749' date='6 Jul 2009, 20:01']We don't disrespect the musicians that do this, but we are entitled to our opinion[/quote]

Could have fooled me. I would say saying x, y and z isn't music is pretty disrespectful, when it is, regardless of whether you like it or not.

[quote name='AJ' post='665749' date='6 Jul 2009, 20:01']There are very few artists that really TRY nowadays as instead they sit back and let everyone else do the work and live off the brand name.[/quote]
That may be true if you look at the mainstream artist, but speaking for the underground DnB, Dubstep, Electronica (and probably most genres even at the other end of the spectrum like rock, metal, country, true hip hop (as in not mainstream)) they try extremely hard to make good music. You are always going to get mainstream artists that don't do much... but that doesn't mean that no-one tries any more.

[quote name='AJ' post='665749' date='6 Jul 2009, 20:01']Finally, please stop acting like the wounded party here - for those of us that don't like rehashed music, people are destroying the music that we listen to with endless horrible club and disco remixes. We dont like your music, but to be fair, you're the ones who are trying to force it upon us in the first place, then cry foul play when we say we don't like it. There are always exceptions, granted, but there are not many.[/quote]

I don't know how we are the ones trying to force anything upon you. I enjoy main genres of digital music, but I still enjoy analogue music, made with instruments, and wide spectrum at that. I can enjoy country, rock, metal, hip hop... pretty much anything other than main stream/pop music (and that is more of what they stand for, than music per se)... one things for sure, regardless of how much I dislike pop music, I would certainly never say "it's not music". I would never say anything is not music. I am pretty sure that we are "the wounded party" when we except that what you listen to is music, but you don't grant us the same respect.

Edited by Bob, 06 July 2009 - 22:37.

[Alias]

For all of the people here dissing sampled or remixed music, you should seriously check out DJ Shadow's Endtroducing. It was the first album made completely from samples and to be honest the skill he needed to mix more than a hundred tracks together and still sound good is more than some bands these days.

[Ion Cannon!]

[quote name='Alias' post='665819' date='6 Jul 2009, 23:46']For all of the people here dissing sampled or remixed music, you should seriously check out DJ Shadow's Endtroducing. It was the first album made completely from samples and to be honest the skill he needed to mix more than a hundred tracks together and still sound good is more than some bands these days.
[/quote]

That sounding "good" is open to deliberation. The starting melody is good, but then its lost in a load of fast beats, completely ruins it and makes for a rather disjointed experience. Overall I would say the song isn't great, definately not something I would enjoy listening to. Its just not very good.

For the 2nd time I am not saying all dance music is non music. But the mainstream stuff like - Dance Nation 2009, or Clubbers guide is not music. I still maintain rap shouldn't be classified as music though.

Like I said before, I listen to music for emotions/feelings. I get no emotions or feelings from dance / rap / electronic so I do not listen to it.

Edited by Ion Cannon!, 06 July 2009 - 23:25.

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

Ion Cannon!, on 7 Jul 2009, 0:21, said:

For the 2nd time I am not saying all dance music is non music. But the mainstream stuff like - Dance Nation 2009, or Clubbers guide IS. I still maintain rap shouldn't be classified as music though.

Like I said before, I listen to music for emotions/feelings. I get no emotios or feelings from dance / rap / electronic so I do not listen to it.

That's just as bad TBH. Just because you don't like a certain type of music doesn't mean it's not music. Just because I don't like wearing formal shirts, doesn't mean they aren't clothes.

[Ion Cannon!]

Bob, on 7 Jul 2009, 0:26, said:

Ion Cannon!, on 7 Jul 2009, 0:21, said:

For the 2nd time I am not saying all dance music is non music. But the mainstream stuff like - Dance Nation 2009, or Clubbers guide IS. I still maintain rap shouldn't be classified as music though.

Like I said before, I listen to music for emotions/feelings. I get no emotios or feelings from dance / rap / electronic so I do not listen to it.

That's just as bad TBH. Just because you don't like a certain type of music doesn't mean it's not music. Just because I don't like wearing formal shirts, doesn't mean they aren't clothes.

In 99% of rap I have heard there is no musical talent involved, not even in the beat as its often the same beat just repeated over and over. No musical talent = Not music in my book.

If your going to argue that rap is music then talking is music as well? A tree falling over is music? They are sounds, not music.

Edited by Ion Cannon!, 06 July 2009 - 23:32.

[BeefJeRKy]

Indeed mainstream techno that they blare on the radios such as the product dispensed by Klaas, DJ Antoine and a few other similar DJs is very very plain if useful for clubbing etc.. However, the real treat in electronic music comes from the darker progressive side by less mainstream artists such as Sasha, Digweed and Markus Schulz not to mention "minimal techno" like Matthew Dear. I like electronic dance music because I find it mentally stimulating.

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

Ion Cannon!, on 7 Jul 2009, 0:30, said:

In 99% of rap I have heard there is no musical talent involved, not even in the beat as its often the same beat just repeated over and over. No musical talent = Not music in my book.

If your going to argue that rap is music then talking is music as well? A tree falling over is music? They are sounds, not music.

Actually, yes I am going to argue that. There is a genre called "Spoken word", which is like a fusion of poetry and rap. Arguably a tree falling is music, but certainly would never say it was good. There is a thing called "Bird Song", which I am sure most people are aware of, this is considered music, but how can something that isn't self-aware be able to create music?

[Libains]

[quote name='Bob' post='665810' date='6 Jul 2009, 23:35'][quote name='AJ' post='665749' date='6 Jul 2009, 20:01'][quote name='Bob' post='665742' date='6 Jul 2009, 19:34'][quote name='TheDR' post='665716' date='6 Jul 2009, 18:27'][quote name='AJ' post='665695' date='6 Jul 2009, 17:37'][quote name='Alias' post='665686' date='6 Jul 2009, 17:12'][quote name='Warboss Nooka' post='665625' date='6 Jul 2009, 23:35']And by "instrumental" I guess I should have been more clear. Pardon me for considering this genre "music", but we all know a lot of Techno doesn't take much to create. Most of the basic beat is rehashed, reused, recycled, ad inf.[/quote]Been more clear? You can't really be more clear then 'instrumental', its a pretty broad word to just pull out of nowhere. It shouldn't matter how long the artists take on it, or how much effort it takes to produce.
What matters is how much heart they put into it when making and performing it.
[/quote]
Tbh, I feel Nooka was in fact referring to instrumental stuff similar to Mint Royale's version of Singing in the Rain
[video]
Completely re-used, this probably took a person one afternoon in a recording studio with a few electronic gadgets, which is not what the music industry should ever have been about. It reached number one in the UK, and frankly, never deserved it. It has no sense of cohesion, no sense of 'heart', and winds me the hell up because it is completely recycled nonsense, with not a single lyric, beside recorded versions from the old song. And what is even worse, is that while we think of this as an instrumental piece - I would bet that there was not a single recording from an instrument done for this song. The music industry has gone the wrong way imo, and almost half the songs I hear nowadays recycle the beat, the tune, the lyrics or the whole damn song from another song. It's not on for me, especially when thrown in with a pile of techno-rubbish.
[/quote]
Just because a song is recycled doesn't mean its bad. Good music doesn't need to be original, its all opinion based on what you feel sounds best and shouldn't be classed as bad because its recycling older songs. Even when remixing or editing songs you still need to be a decent musician, its rather insulting when people class everything that has been made using a synthesizer as rubbish techno, when its normally very complicated and extensive pieces of music. I would like to see anyone produce something like the Mint Royale remix in one afternoon, it probably took them months of work, its such a shame that this kind of Electronic music is viewed in this way.
[/quote]
What Doc said^

Quite frankly, some of the views towards digital music disgusts me. It takes the artists just as much time and effort to make music, but because it's made with a computer or other digital equipment it must be really easy to do, right? Wrong. It may be a lot easier to start making music, all you need is a half decent laptop and some cheap software and you can get going, but like all music, just because it's simple to get started, doesn't mean it's simple to make it sound good. Some artists can spend weeks or months on one track, perfecting it.

Let me take this in a different direction. Visual artists (e.g. painting), I would to think no-one here wouldn't appreciate digital art, just because it is made on a computer. I can spend up to a month rendering my anime... and I'm not even that good at it. It takes considerable time and effort to get good at making art (whether that be visual or music), the medium that this is done in doesn't change the end result (or for the most part the journey taken).
[/quote]


Music that is ripped off from other artists is not music - it's like someone taking one of Monet's famous water lillies paintings:

And Photoshopping it so it were more pixelated and messed around.

There is only ever one original of a song - after that, anything that is rehashed is messing with the original. Whether better or worse, it's not the same thing, and you cannot persuade me to think otherwise.
[/quote]
I'm sorry... but what the fuck?

How are remixes and less of music than the original? If I painted a picture of a cat, that would be art... if someone then added one more brush stroke to it, it doesn't suddenly stop being art, it is art regardless of who has worked on it. One thing I will say though, the original artist should be credited just as the person who made the remix, but that is straying from the point.

I can understand people not liking music... but saying that all remixes are not music is just plain stupid.
[/quote]
I actually missed a little bit there (was meant to say 'is not as good as the original music') All I am saying is that I often find remixes/rehashes of songs to be worse than the original. I did, however, explicitly state that 'Whether better or worse, it's not the same thing'. So while it may sound better, it will always lack that cutting edge to the song that is it's originality.

[quote][quote name='AJ' post='665749' date='6 Jul 2009, 20:01']Electronic music is obviously a controversial issue atm - half of the world thinks it's godawful and half thinks its the way of the future. Frankly I'm in the first half. Electronic music isn't really music. It's a mess of sounds put together with a poor beating backdrop that just about holds all of the elements together. There are exceptions to every rule, but tbh 90% of new music I plain don't listen to as it's a horrible, nasty beat that makes me think 'chavs and booze', neither of which I like to associate with.[/quote]

Again, that is complete bollocks, how is "real" music any different ?(and I use "real" in a sarcastic way)

Music is just a bunch of physical objects that interacted with in some way to produce sound, a collection of those sounds is then "music", so how is using a computer of other electronic device any different? I don't think anyone would argue that someone using an electric guitar isn't making "real" music.
[/quote]
You have answered that question yourself: physical objects. Nearly all electronic music that I have heard comes sythesised from a computer, thrown in a bit of techno/elctronic music, fiddled around with like any musician would do, and then burnt to cd. My issue that I have is that the music has never seen a real instrument - electric guitar is still being played, but I'd like to see someone play a computer.

[quote][quote name='AJ' post='665749' date='6 Jul 2009, 20:01']As for 'all techno is rubbish', that's simply not true - one of my fave songs atm is this one by Mint Royale again:

It's different, but it's got a real musical blend to it and it seems natural - Moby's mixes also go very high on my list. While it's not dead easy to create synthesised music, it is still not as difficult to do as it would be to record a full band, and then do all of the digital work in one step - there's something not right to me when you listen to music that has never actually been heard played from an instrument.[/quote]
Can we get just one thing straight here (going a little further off topic), techno is a very small part of electronic music. There are many, many different types digital music.
[/quote]
I realise that, but it was in fact a direct response to something that was quoted at me earlier..

[quote][quote name='AJ' post='665749' date='6 Jul 2009, 20:01']We don't disrespect the musicians that do this, but we are entitled to our opinion[/quote]

Could have fooled me. I would say saying x, y and z isn't music is pretty disrespectful, when it is, regardless of whether you like it or not.
[/quote]
Never said that techno/electronic music is not music actually, said (thanks to typo) that I didn't find rehashed versions/remixes of music to often be as good as the original.

[quote][quote name='AJ' post='665749' date='6 Jul 2009, 20:01']There are very few artists that really TRY nowadays as instead they sit back and let everyone else do the work and live off the brand name.[/quote]
That may be true if you look at the mainstream artist, but speaking for the underground DnB, Dubstep, Electronica (and probably most genres even at the other end of the spectrum like rock, metal, country, true hip hop (as in not mainstream)) they try extremely hard to make good music. You are always going to get mainstream artists that don't do much... but that doesn't mean that no-one tries any more.
[/quote]
For the most part, artists do little work for themselves anymore. There are songwriters, recording blokes, all of that jazz. The best artists are those that do all of the work themselves - makes for a more rounded and heartfelt interpretation of what they wanted to achieve in the first place, not what will sell well.
[quote][quote name='AJ' post='665749' date='6 Jul 2009, 20:01']Finally, please stop acting like the wounded party here - for those of us that don't like rehashed music, people are destroying the music that we listen to with endless horrible club and disco remixes. We dont like your music, but to be fair, you're the ones who are trying to force it upon us in the first place, then cry foul play when we say we don't like it. There are always exceptions, granted, but there are not many.[/quote]

I don't know how we are the ones trying to force anything upon you. I enjoy main genres of digital music, but I still enjoy analogue music, made with instruments, and wide spectrum at that. I can enjoy country, rock, metal, hip hop... pretty much anything other than main stream/pop music (and that is more of what they stand for, than music per se)... one things for sure, regardless of how much I dislike pop music, I would certainly never say "it's not music". I would never say anything is not music. I am pretty sure that we are "the wounded party" when we except that what you listen to is music, but you don't grant us the same respect.
[/quote]
For the hundreth time tonight, I did not say that your music is not music, I said that endless remixes rehashes don't stand up as much as the original song did... I understand that you like this as music, but it's my right to feel strongly that it is not something I would remotely enjoy for the most part. As for the forcing, we have been bombarded tonight by people who wish to show us how this electronic fad is not a fad, but something far more so.


EDIT: And a falling tree does not constitute music. Music is defined as Organised Sound. A falling tree is not organised. Birds singing are not organised - you may see them as musical, but they are not producing music.

Edited by AJ, 06 July 2009 - 23:49.

[Ion Cannon!]

Bob, on 7 Jul 2009, 0:34, said:

Ion Cannon!, on 7 Jul 2009, 0:30, said:

In 99% of rap I have heard there is no musical talent involved, not even in the beat as its often the same beat just repeated over and over. No musical talent = Not music in my book.

If your going to argue that rap is music then talking is music as well? A tree falling over is music? They are sounds, not music.

Actually, yes I am going to argue that. There is a genre called "Spoken word", which is like a fusion of poetry and rap. Arguably a tree falling is music, but certainly would never say it was good. There is a thing called "Bird Song", which I am sure most people are aware of, this is considered music, but how can something that isn't self-aware be able to create music?

In that case we think very differently. I differentiate between music and sounds, you do not seem to.

[Alias]

"Music" by definition is simply a series of sounds that is appealing to somebody.

A blind person who has never played piano in their life pressing random keys on the piano is music, as long as they are enjoying what they are doing and what is coming out of it.

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

AJ, on 7 Jul 2009, 0:44, said:

Bob, on 6 Jul 2009, 23:35, said:

I'm sorry... but what the fuck?

How are remixes and less of music than the original? If I painted a picture of a cat, that would be art... if someone then added one more brush stroke to it, it doesn't suddenly stop being art, it is art regardless of who has worked on it. One thing I will say though, the original artist should be credited just as the person who made the remix, but that is straying from the point.

I can understand people not liking music... but saying that all remixes are not music is just plain stupid.

I actually missed a little bit there (was meant to say 'is not as good as the original music') All I am saying is that I often find remixes/rehashes of songs to be worse than the original. I did, however, explicitly state that 'Whether better or worse, it's not the same thing'. So while it may sound better, it will always lack that cutting edge to the song that is it's originality.

Why would all remixes be worse than the original, that makes no sense. Again going back to my bad cat example... I draw a stick figure cat, then someone changes it so it's ultra-realistic, that realistic can never be better or more "cutting edge"?

AJ, on 7 Jul 2009, 0:44, said:

Quote

AJ, on 6 Jul 2009, 20:01, said:

Electronic music is obviously a controversial issue atm - half of the world thinks it's godawful and half thinks its the way of the future. Frankly I'm in the first half. Electronic music isn't really music. It's a mess of sounds put together with a poor beating backdrop that just about holds all of the elements together. There are exceptions to every rule, but tbh 90% of new music I plain don't listen to as it's a horrible, nasty beat that makes me think 'chavs and booze', neither of which I like to associate with.

Again, that is complete bollocks, how is "real" music any different ?(and I use "real" in a sarcastic way)

Music is just a bunch of physical objects that interacted with in some way to produce sound, a collection of those sounds is then "music", so how is using a computer of other electronic device any different? I don't think anyone would argue that someone using an electric guitar isn't making "real" music.

You have answered that question yourself: physical objects. Nearly all electronic music that I have heard comes sythesised from a computer, thrown in a bit of techno/elctronic music, fiddled around with like any musician would do, and then burnt to cd. My issue that I have is that the music has never seen a real instrument - electric guitar is still being played, but I'd like to see someone play a computer.

I think you are missing my point, why are "physical" objects any better than digital objects? If someone made a music track that sounded like it was made with real instruments, completely undetectable from the real thing it could never be on the same level as the "real" thing? ( I fear I know you're response)


I probably have more points... but it's late.

[TheDR]

AJ, on 7 Jul 2009, 0:44, said:

Ah too much to try to edit down and quote, unless i'm missing a vital tool.

Anyway, you can play a computer, and god damn its a lot more complex than any instrument i have ever seen

[Dr. Strangelove]

TheDR, on 7 Jul 2009, 0:59, said:

AJ, on 7 Jul 2009, 0:44, said:

Ah too much to try to edit down and quote, unless i'm missing a vital tool.

Anyway, you can play a computer, and god damn its a lot more complex than any instrument i have ever seen

In b4 Gary Numan.

You cannot group electronic music like the techno crap in Dance Nation 2009 with his stuff.

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

Electronic music even with artificial singer can be really good too, and I certainly enjoy it, but lately music and lyrics doesn't match and it seems like song writer can just write a random piece of word and put it in any song. It may be the style, but its certainly a lot less work than creating lyrics that rhyme with the music and have deep meanings.

[Sgt. Nuker]

Alias, on 6 Jul 2009, 19:53, said:

A blind person who has never played piano in their life pressing random keys on the piano is music, as long as they are enjoying what they are doing and what is coming out of it.

So what you're saying is that the person playing the music has to first enjoy it in order for it to be "music"? Sorry, but there's a part of me that feels the need to be the Devil's Advocate.

Discord and "unpleasant" (I use the term unpleasant because sounds that don't sound quite right can be thought of as such) sounds actually take a bit more effort than just simply setting a prerecorded beat to sample itself over and over throughout a song.

[Ion Cannon!]

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Jul 2009, 6:50, said:

TheDR, on 7 Jul 2009, 0:59, said:

AJ, on 7 Jul 2009, 0:44, said:

Ah too much to try to edit down and quote, unless i'm missing a vital tool.

Anyway, you can play a computer, and god damn its a lot more complex than any instrument i have ever seen

In b4 Gary Numan.

You cannot group electronic music like the techno crap in Dance Nation 2009 with his stuff.

For the third time, i'm not grouping dance nation 2009 with things like chase and status(One of the things I know Bob likes), neither of us have said that.

I maintain my posistion that rap shouldn't be classed as music though. You can call me ignorant all you want, its not music.