Posts: 23
Threads: 2
Joined: Apr 2010
i think its seen that way because now anyone can make a track.. anyone can take a bunch of things and mix it all together and wala a funky cool track
any human with half a sense of rhythm, some fingers to click and an ear or maybe even two can produce and send out a decent electro track
problem is most of those people cant even play a single instrument.. i know its not all of them, its just mostly most all of them that cant
look at faithless, those are some well talented people in that group..
Posts: 5,551
Threads: 146
Joined: Jan 2008
The playing of instruments is almost redundant. Nothing wrong with that in my view. Times change.
What makes music interesting is the creative process of composition, and you can't make challenging, and appealing music without creative talent.
Remember, there are plenty of virtuosos on traditional instruments that wouldn't know a good tune if it smacked them between the eyes...
Posts: 212
Threads: 27
Joined: Mar 2009
Tiggi Wrote:What makes music interesting is the creative process of composition, and you can't make challenging, and appealing music without creative talent.
Remember, there are plenty of virtuosos on traditional instruments that wouldn't know a good tune if it smacked them between the eyes...
This exactly echoes my own opinions
Posts: 5,551
Threads: 146
Joined: Jan 2008
Good man, GMR.
I have nothing against virtuoso musicians, and enjoy most of them, but I think people miss the point when they place so much importance on technical ability. Some of my favourite musicians are no great shakes on instruments, but the way they write music can be streets ahead of what some of the musos can manage.
Posts: 212
Threads: 27
Joined: Mar 2009
Exactly.
It's how music sounds and how it affects you that matters, not the technical skill involved in creating it.
This is why it doesn't really matter if computerised music takes no talent (which is wrong in anycase, making good music on computers is not easy, though I might agree that making good music on instruments is harder on average) - because what counts is the creative talent that goes into composing a piece of music that affects the listener in a powerful way.
I'd rather listen to a few simple chords of a punk or goth song that go straight for the jugular and affect me in a powerful way than a guitar player who can play lots of intricate clever notes but bores me to death.
This same logic allows me to appreciate electronic music. If I get excited or otherwise pleasantly stimulated by the way the music sounds then I don't care how it was created because I can appreciate the compositional skill that went into conceiving it.
I do get bored of formulaic house, trance, gabba etc though. I prefer inventive electronic music that is either darkly thrilling or quirkily experimental.
Posts: 466
Threads: 33
Joined: Jul 2009
goth metal raver Wrote:Exactly.
It's how music sounds and how it affects you that matters, not the technical skill involved in creating it.
This is why it doesn't really matter if computerised music takes no talent (which is wrong in anycase, making good music on computers is not easy, though I might agree that making good music on instruments is harder on average) - because what counts is the creative talent that goes into composing a piece of music that affects the listener in a powerful way.
The best example I can find about this is the music in video games of the N.E.S (Nintendo entertainment system, the first Nintendo console ever made) era. If I'm correct, composers where only allowed 3 channels and very limited sound scope. So the only way to really stand out of the bunch was to simply be a good composer.
For example, Nobuo Uematsu, who is the composer of the Final Fantasy series and also became a prominent figure in the genre, started in this era. Same thing for Koji Kondo, the guy who composed the Mario Bros and Zelda music, started also in this era. All their career long, they used computerized music ("easy" music), but why did they became so praised? Because of their composition talent.
There was a lot of video games out at the time and among hundred of composers, they stood out.
Maybe there was a composer who could play the synthesizer faster and/or better, but I never heard of him.
I'd like to butt in here and object. Electronic music is real. Otherwise you wouldn't be hearing anything out of the speakers, would you? That's why I create music, to make stuff that's really coming out of the speakers. Hi, folks, not trying to be a buttinski, enjoying the convo, new here, ttyalll
Posts: 838
Threads: 11
Joined: Jan 2008
eNuminous Wrote:I'd like to butt in here and object. Electronic music is real. Otherwise you wouldn't be hearing anything out of the speakers, would you?
Read the start of this thread. Also, pay attention to the quote marks in the title. I don't think you've read hardly any of the replies either, seeing as how most support electronic music.
Posts: 9,643
Threads: 255
Joined: Jun 2010
OK here's my sixpence worth - It does not matter whether you use a Stradivarius, a Moog synthesizer or a Tupperware dish to create a sound. Does anyone really care about the fact that the opening strains of Pink Floyd's SOYCD was created with wineglasses? The purpose of music and musicians is to create somthing people can relate to and enjoy or to use sound as a canvas to paint an aural picture that people might or might not like to 'look' at. Others might use it as a platform to make a political statement. Others might use it as a background to some other activity, like ballet etc. etc. The point is it has to move you in some way or make you think. A lot of the time music and lyrics allow us to express something we might be thinking but are not able to articulate ourselves. I think all this debate about what music is relevant is pretty pointless. Just pick out the stuff you like and immerse yourself in it. What could be simpler.
Posts: 224
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2009
I've gained a new appreciation for electronic music after reading this thread...
...doesn't mean I'll go listen to it though =]
|
