The Music Thread!

[Bridget]

Originally Posted by Credge

ETA: I like real musicians more than robot ones.

I hate ignorant comments like this. Any electronic musician uses his computer as an instrument just as much as the regular musician uses his piano or guitar as an instrument. Electronic producers don't worship their computer to have it magically shit out an audio file. Without their expertise, that drum machine isn't going to do anything.

[GenghisTron]

squeek--you made me spit out my tortellini all over my keyboard. Awesome post, major lulz.

[FrenchToast]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

Yes, you both are exactly correct. A toddler could make a beat with FL studio, however, using the software to the capacity at where you're making production-level music is NOT easy.

*Sigh* I can't explain it much clearer without beating you over the head.

You said this:

lol, to master a program like FL Studio takes years, whereas you can read a few tutorials about PS and learn it pretty easily. You're insane if you think FL Studio is easier than Photoshop.

And what we're telling you is that yes, to master FL will take years, and with a couple tutorials you can pick up PS. But it also works vice-versa. To create production quality music with FL takes a long time? Ditto for good PS work. If you refute this post I have the deepest sympathies for those who have to deal with you in real life. It's just fact.

[Credge]

Originally Posted by Bridget

I hate ignorant comments like this. Any electronic musician uses his computer as an instrument just as much as the regular musician uses his piano or guitar as an instrument. Electronic producers don't worship their computer to have it magically shit out an audio file. Without their expertise, that drum machine isn't going to do anything.

Let's define something really fast.

From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Composer

Main Entry: com·pos·er
Pronunciation: \kəm-ˈpō-zər\
Function: noun
Date: 1597
: one that composes; especially : a person who writes music

I don't see how what I said is an ignorant comment. The only mistake I made was to call an instrumentalist a musician.

People who create electronic drum beats aren't playing an instrument, they're composing a piece of music and having the program play it. On the other hand, someone like Beardyman, is using an instrument to create the beats.

YouTube

YouTube

Even when he uses electronic help, he's still doing it.

According to you, somebody who uses this program to create music (http://www.guitar-pro.com/en/index.php) is equal to somebody who can actually play the music he created.

If you really consider computers instruments, by all means continue to think so. If that's the case then I regularly play an instrument when I'm using guitar-pro, using Reaper, or any other music related software. I must spend over 30% of my time playing instruments!

So no, I'd say you're the ignorant one for tossing out the performer.

[Suite307]

WRONGO!
art·ist (ärtst)
n.
1. One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.
2. A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the kitchen.
3. One, such as an actor or singer, who works in the performing arts.
4. One who is adept at an activity, especially one involving trickery or deceit: a con artist.

YouTube

YouTube

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

*Sigh* I can't explain it much clearer without beating you over the head.

You said this:



And what we're telling you is that yes, to master FL will take years, and with a couple tutorials you can pick up PS. But it also works vice-versa. To create production quality music with FL takes a long time? Ditto for good PS work. If you refute this post I have the deepest sympathies for those who have to deal with you in real life. It's just fact.

I realize full-well what you're saying, however, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that Photoshop is dependent on your own creativity to master, where as with FL Studio there's much more to it than applying your own creativity, there's a lot of experience required to fully utilize the program, and it isn't nearly entirely dependent on your own creativity. For example, I have intermediate/borderline advanced knowledge of Photoshop, but I'm just not creative enough to come up with something out of the blue. With FL studio, you have to know a lot about the various (thousands) components of making music, especially 'electronic' music. I guess the ultimate point is--comparing FL Studio to Photoshop is like comparing apples and oranges. It's impossible to do.

In the future can we NOT bitch about people's taste in music? All it does is start shit, and this is the second time now, where it could have been avoided if people just kept their mouth shut and realized that different people have different tastes. I could rag on the tastes of so many people in this thread, but I have chosen not to. Why? Because taste in music is subjective, and therefore is pointless to try and argue because it gets you nowhere.

[Suite307]

YouTube

YouTube

[KubeDawg]

Originally Posted by Suite307

WRONGO!
art·ist (ärtst)
n.
1. One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.
2. A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the kitchen.
3. One, such as an actor or singer, who works in the performing arts.
4. One who is adept at an activity, especially one involving trickery or deceit: a con artist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O2aH4XLbto

+1

[Credge]

Originally Posted by Suite307

WRONGO!
art·ist (ärtst)
n.
1. One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.
2. A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the kitchen.
3. One, such as an actor or singer, who works in the performing arts.
4. One who is adept at an activity, especially one involving trickery or deceit: a con artist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O2aH4XLbto

I dunno if that was directed towards me or not...

Because he's performing a piece of music and that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

And, depending on the definition, music isn't always considered an art. I used to argue against that but the more I've studied it the more I've seen that it's only an art in the sense that bridge building is an art.

Which is why you can put equations or mathematical patterns in to music. Some examples:

YouTube

YouTube

YouTube

YouTube

You can do it in art as well, fractals for example, but music seems to be better fit to a mathematical approach than drawings, paintings, and the like ALTHOUGH applying simple mathematical principles to art (thirds rule in photography, proportion, light/dark, etc) but the more you do stuff like that with art it starts to lose it.

Which is what the song Lateralus is about.

To clarify, the creation of music is about as much of an art as the creation of a bridge. What the performer does with the piece of music (the interpretation of the piece) is the art of it all.

This is why simply playing a scale is terrible but playing within a scale is not.

Edit to expand: This is why the conductor is considered a pivotal part of the orchestra. How he instructs his orchestra to play a piece of music is the art behind an orchestra.

And, in that sense, if somebody is to create drums using beat creation software, he's just build a plain ol' boring bridge. It does the job it's required to do and that's it.

Now, a performer is like the guy who takes that boring bridge and makes it beautiful. Maybe he chooses what color to paint it, maybe he chooses a certain light pattern or color. Whatever he does, that's where the art is. If he leaves it be, he's not really doing anything with it. Often times it's the same person that builds the bridge that also makes it something that isn't ugly.

[GenghisTron]

You're reaching, sir. Music doesn't have a solid definition, because it's so many different things to so many different people. I keep having to repeat myself--taste in music is ENTIRELY subjective, so it's pointless to try.

Also, you quoted that 'math metal' video above as an example of what you think music should be, but then a few posts above you posted a video of Dillinger Escape Plan and said they sucked. Pro-tip, Dillinger Escape Plan is one of the originating bands in the 'mathcore' genre.

[Etzell]

If it ends with -core, it can be ignored.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by Etzell

If it ends with -core, it can be ignored.

[KubeDawg]

except for porn.

[squeek.]

Originally Posted by KubeDawg

except for porn.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...query=porncore

?

[Credge]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

You're reaching, sir. Music doesn't have a solid definition, because it's so many different things to so many different people. I keep having to repeat myself--taste in music is ENTIRELY subjective, so it's pointless to try.

I'm sorry, but you should read my post again.

Also, you quoted that 'math metal' video above as an example of what you think music should be, but then a few posts above you posted a video of Dillinger Escape Plan and said they sucked. Pro-tip, Dillinger Escape Plan is one of the originating bands in the 'mathcore' genre.

You didn't even read my post, or my other posts, and I'm beginning to think you're simply trolling.

1. When did I ever say math metal is how music should be? I said math can be used in music and have it still sound amazing. The fact that music is essentially math was my point.

2. When did I say Dillenger Escape Plan sucked? I didn't. I said the performer and what he does with a piece is what matters, not the fact that you can compose some killer drums. This is the reason why I showed the exact same song but from two different places, one from a person who is incredibly talented and was able to add his own touches to a composition and another who... didn't.

I'm not going to debate in this thread any further. We went from a discussion to you using strawmen. Now it is a debate. Make a thread if you want to debate this further.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by Credge

You didn't even read my post, or my other posts, and I'm beginning to think you're simply trolling.

I'm sorry, sir, but this thread going along smoothly until you decided to basically troll people who don't listen to music with 'performers'.

Originally Posted by Credge

. When did I ever say math metal is how music should be? I said math can be used in music and have it still sound amazing. The fact that music is essentially math was my point.

I should have worded that part a bit better, but judging by the context of that post, it seems pretty clear you think music should have a mathematical element to it. Maybe I'm wrong here, but isn't music supposed to create a message, a feeling, an emotion, an image, etc., that the artist gives their listener through their music?

I'm sorry, but not everyone lives in the dark ages of music, thanks to computers, music has expanded GREATLY. Anyone with a computer, some free time, and a little inspiration and creativity, they can create awesome music. I honestly don't care what you say about music and computers, because I know you're wrong. Everything about computers mixed with music is awesome, and nothing is bad about it, even if it doesn't fit your narrow view of music. What you're telling me is that music with a performer, no matter how bad, is invariably better than music without a performer. This sounds like an elaborate way to say you don't like electronic/computer-generated music, and instead of saying you don't enjoy it, you're fooling yourself into believing that music without a performer is invariably terrible.

If anything, underground artists/bands who use computers to make their music are MORE artistic and creative than mainstream (Yes, even Kings of Leon is mainstream) bands/artists who have what music they're going to play dictated to them by their labels. These underground artists have complete artistic control over their music, and can make their music portray any emotion or image imaginable.

Originally Posted by Credge

2. When did I say Dillenger Escape Plan sucked? I didn't. I said the performer and what he does with a piece is what matters, not the fact that you can compose some killer drums. This is the reason why I showed the exact same song but from two different places, one from a person who is incredibly talented and was able to add his own touches to a composition and another who... didn't.

*ahem*

Originally Posted by Credge

ETAAA: But see, shit like this is terrible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIGvG...eature=related

That's because talent matters.

Originally Posted by Credge

I'm not going to debate in this thread any further. We went from a discussion to you using strawmen. Now it is a debate. Make a thread if you want to debate this further.

This whole 'debate' was started because you launched an all-out affront on an alternative way of making music, and thusforth, peoples own taste in music. Stop projecting the blame onto anyone other than yourself, you started this shitstorm.

[Bridget]

Disagree with me, and you're trolling. I haven't heard that one before. If anyone implies that making music on a computer is for chumps, then I suggest you give it a try. I thought making music was simple as hell on a computer until I actually tried it. My appreciation for electronic music skyrocketed after my failure to produce anything with any depth. It takes talent.

Electronic musicians (Web definitions for musician: someone who plays a musical instrument (as a profession)) use instruments to make music just as well as normal musicians. It is in a physical form too. It's called the computer, the mouse, and the keyboard. Sometimes, many electronic musicians even have real instruments such as midi keyboards and simply use their computer as a medium. Just because the instrument is played in a different way (clicking and plotting notes and stuff) doesn't mean it isn't being played.

Playing music after creating it is irrelevant, it's the creation process that matters, and I would say that anyone creating music on a computer has more discipline and talent than someone playing a fucking guitar in a band. That's one instrument. Electronic musicians have to juggle dozens of instruments, learn multiple angles of music theory, and so on. Many are 'one man bands' in a sense.

I've heard the implication that 'computers do all the work' or that electronic musicians are not doing any hard work. Alright, anyone who makes such an implication is free to pick up any mainstream music software trial (FL Studio, Renoise, etc) and try to produce something with depth right away if it's 'easy' and the 'computer does all the work'.

I could use the same argument against you. "Jimi Hendrix didn't make those tunes, the guitar did!" but you'd come back with the same counter argument: "Without Jimi Hendrix, that guitar is useless." So, then you would accept that electronic music takes just as much to produce? If you were intellectually honest, you would.

[Circuitous]

Play some fucking music you assholes.

[KubeDawg]

okay

YouTube

YouTube

YouTube

YouTube

YouTube

YouTube

[Everything]

As old as it is, it makes me want to try twisted metal.. 2? 3? 4? I'm not sure where I heard this, but I heard it regardless in one of those games.