General Music Chat

I want to thank Wegman and his thoughtful postings in the "Professional Musicians" thread for the inspiration to start this one.

We do indeed live in a glorious age as far as technology goes. Musicians have never before had so many options to create and record their music in ways that would have been financially prohibitive even 20 years ago. But like all things, there is an up side and down side to it. While we can create and record in much more accesible and better ways, it is sometimes all too easy to get lost in the technology or even allow it to overshadow our musical content. Getting the latest and newest software and hardware can become more important than working out the poetry of your compositions. We start "covering up" weak vocals or a lacking instrumental part by layering on effects and gimmickrey. So how much technology is too much? When does music stop and left-brained technological masturbation begin? How about considering questions like these:

* Ambient music pioneer Brian Eno once said that he watched a guy in a recording studio flip through dozens of patches on his synthesizer to get the right "sound" for a track he was doing. Eno, though, contends that the guy wasn't frustratedly jumping from one patch to another to find a sound, but that he was searching for an IDEA. Do you agree with him? Why or why not?

* Some say that the synthesizer has played the major part of killing real music. Agree or disagree?

* You obtain a great new music software, and immediately produce three or four pieces that you just adore. What was responsible for your inspiration? The technology itself, or the mind space that resulted from it that opened new doors of possibilities?

* Are DJs instrumentalists?

* Do you write your material on an acoustic instrument and then translate it to the realm of the electronic, or do you write from beginning to end in the compu-sphere?

* Is it possible to capture the feel of folk or ancient traditions, using electronic instruments?


There are many more, but you get the idea. So what do you think? Is technology still helping us or is beginning to hurt?

Creative music for me starts in the head. The only reason i began to write is that I hear my music in my brain, no stereo needed or wanted. Then I don't hear what I want to hear. If you can't find what you want, the natural urge is to design what you want and if you already hear it, why not transcribe to a neutral medium.

The gentleman with the synth flipping though channels is matching his concept in his head to what his ear is hearing. He is NOT searching for an idea, he is matching his idea to what is available.

I think that a synth is a tool. Humans use tools to accomplish goals. What is the issue here? That is is less complicated to write and have a complete project? "Nit picking it seems it is we do, today, why yes", Yoda says. "Strong as you allow it to be the force is within you, young padewons". "Ever you will struggle to achieve your goals, yes will you, until you listen to the inner voice inside inside the mind". ecccch (spits) "Inside the music is, not on your instrument".

Same answer for the software, it's a tool.

DJ's ARE instrumentalists, as they use the tool to play music in an original fashion via scratching and sampling. Their musical ability is less though, as they depend on already recorded music to be able to have their samples. i.e. Without those samples, the amount of music that can be constructed is nil.

I write on electric guitar first. You get the piece that really settles you out, like a juicy piece of meat, then we go to the compu-sphere and play with it. Really though, I hear it in my head first, especially the really best stuff.

Ancient Music often had more than just a melody, it is comprised of a few factors. Keep those factors the same, sure you can play old music with new technology. The question is, "is it still pleasing to the ear" and "how accurate is it to its' original roots".

To me, it's all a tool to further your own cause. No music plays itself. if it could read my mind and play without me touching it, then it is hurting music. Until then, it's all tool.

Kind of like Musicmage, he's a tool as well. lol

I'm not really sure about the deep philosophical issues here but I can say that without the technology today I probably wouldn't even bother being a musician. When I bought my bass a couple of years ago after almost 20 years away from playing I had ideas of getting back into a band again. But I couldn't find anything that really fit me. There's a million threads about the flay musicians in here so I won't get into that. Then I tried the collaboration route but that was a bust since I refuse to play thump thump thump on the root note. I was finally left with no real choice but to create my music by myself. I'm the first to admit my guitar and keyboard playing is pretty bad but with the technology I can at least make a piece of music that will only make you cringe once or twice instead of the whole song. Other than the bass parts it's all smoke & mirrors (in fact I even named one of my tunes this LOL) but at least I can express myself. I would have to put myself firmly in the in favor of it category.

Edit: My tunes are completely composed in my head before I ever start to lay down tracks. The technology only allows me to make it real.

<snip>...DJ's ARE instrumentalists, as they use the tool to play music in an original fashion via scratching and sampling. Their musical ability is less though, as they depend on already recorded music to be able to have their samples. i.e. Without those samples, the amount of music that can be constructed is nil. <snip>

So let me try and come up with a term here...would you say that DJ's are 'second tier' instrumentalists?

All agree with that.

I admit to being fundamentally unsound when it comes to the term DJ. lol

Eno, though, contends that the guy wasn't frustratedly jumping from one patch to another to find a sound, but that he was searching for an IDEA. Do you agree with him? Why or why not?

Well, he was there, so who knows? But it seems more like he was searching for a "sound" to match his idea, or compliment it. He was in the recording studio after all, so he pretty much had what he wanted in theory, ready to go. It was a matter of realizing the vision on "canvas" as it were. Like a painter, it seems he was searching for the right color and brush stroke.

* Some say that the synthesizer has played the major part of killing real music. Agree or disagree?

Disagree of course. Instruments produce sound through vibration in order to be audible. Just because sounds can be produced now through programmed electrical signals, as opposed to wood and horse hair, does not negate the sound or feeling produced when our ears receive them. Synths have expanded the possibilities of music, not diminished them. If artists were satisfied with one type of sound, there would have been no need to create various tones of wood instruments and brass instruments and so on. Synths are merely the continued evolution of music, that has always existed and will undoubtedly always continue. Technology has developed sounds today that are not able to be duplicated from natural or ancient sources.

* You obtain a great new music software, and immediately produce three or four pieces that you just adore. What was responsible for your inspiration? The technology itself, or the mind space that resulted from it that opened new doors of possibilities?

As you said, it was an "inspiration". What is done with that inspiration is ultimately the artists doing. The legend of King "Leir" inspired Shakespeare's "King LEAR" but the eloquence of writing, the romanticism and stark depiction of tragedy is accomplished through the "art" of Shakespeare's talent and immagination. No one accuses Shakespeare of "ripping off" previous writings about King Leir simply because he was inspired by them. In fact, Shakespeare's play is world renowned and celebrated, much more so, than the original writings that inspired it. That was the work of the artist, not of the legend that inspired the art.

* Are DJs instrumentalists?

Yes. They produce melody and rhythm through scratching and synching tracks. A single drum made with animal skin may in fact produce less variations of tones and even rhythms than do some DJ's. On the other hand, they are using other's music as opposed to single tones that are manipulated, so perhaps some would consider them arrangers or in a very loose sense, even conductors? Also, many DJ's are not just using spinning turntables and faders, these days, many have sampling equiptment with pads to trigger them, as well as keyboards. Clearly they are not merely dropping records, but altering the sounds, mixing them and even adding to them with various tools in a unique synthesis of pre-recorded materials and their own manipulation of them.

* Do you write your material on an acoustic instrument and then translate it to the realm of the electronic, or do you write from beginning to end in the compu-sphere?

Personally, I've done both, but generally my music is created in my head or inspired by my instruments.

* Is it possible to capture the feel of folk or ancient traditions, using electronic instruments?

Sampling is so advanced these days, that almost every nuance of an acoustic instrument's possibilities can be replicated. So if we are talking "sound" than yes. Electronic instruments are capable of replicating sounds that are almost indistinguishable from the real thing for the average listener.

There are many more, but you get the idea. So what do you think? Is technology still helping us or is beginning to hurt?

I think as previously stated, it is an evolution, it is a new tool, and perhaps the first that is actually limitless in it's potential applications. But once again, it is all in the talent and immagination of the artist. Music is an expression of what is inside the composer or performer. If the writer or artist is lazy, unimmaginative and boring, all the technology in the world will not disguise it.

"Some say that the synthesizer has played the major part of killing real music"
Have to disagree with that one, in fact quite the contrary, traditionalists are killing real music with their by the book rules and limitations of imagination. Musically everything has already been done over and over again albeit with some variation.
Synths allow the next phase of music, the phase where new unheard sounds can be incorporated and unlimited arpeggio sequences utilised only limited by the imagination, not by the limitations of musician or instrument as in the past.
Guitarists usually have an array of effect pedals, why? simply because only so much can be done with limited sound potential and by the nature of the beast most of us are searching for something a little different, either to set us apart from the sheep or just to stimulate on a different level.
A synth is basically a keyboard which im sure is recognized as an instrument even by the traditionalists. The only difference is that this particular keyboard can create literally thousands and thousands of sounds that can blow the average Joe away, and is quite intimidating to a certain mindset.
What most people dont realise (although Irminsul and I have discussed this on a different thread some time ago) is that the synth can complement all other instruments and all styles of music brilliantly if allowed. The most enjoyable times I have had playing synths is when I have accompanied various musicians and their instruments from ethnic to folk. .....This brings me to my next point Irminsul wrote "Is it possible to capture the feel of Folk or ancient traditions using electronic instruments"?
Although I usually do folky stuff on guitar, last year I wrote a folkish piece
on synth using guitar sounds from my mo6. This was put onto cd and as an expereiment was played to a few of my die hard traditionalist friends and I asked if they would be willing to put down some fiddle, squeezebox etc over it. The piece was very well recieved and all were willing until I was asked what guitars I had used. Although their professional ears could not tell that it was all done on synth, as soon as I told them they lost interest, this was no surprise to me and made me chuckle, most people are so intimidated by these machines tis hard to comprehend why.
Next point to address:- "Are DJ's instrumentalists" This made me laugh my tits off. DJs are masters at pressing the play button to let people hear the music of instrumentalists. Although some mixing skills are involved I suppose.
In general as far as music is concerned I think technology is greatly beneficial to us all, im sure most of you remember the days of the four track, excellent fun but compared to digital it was prehistoric hissy and compressed.

Well, completely subjective discussion of course...but an interesting one nonetheless.

As a player of bagpipes(an ancient instrument), I have heard many in the playing circles lament the inclusion of synth into "celtic music", but if it weren't so, we wouldn't have gotten to this.
Which I happen to love.

So, my answers are:
* Some say that the synthesizer has played the major part of killing real music. Agree or disagree?

* You obtain a great new music software, and immediately produce three or four pieces that you just adore. What was responsible for your inspiration? The technology itself, or the mind space that resulted from it that opened new doors of possibilities?

* Are DJs instrumentalists?
If they are just spinning CD's I'd say no.


* Do you write your material on an acoustic instrument and then translate it to the realm of the electronic, or do you write from beginning to end in the compu-sphere?
The little I do write, mostly starts out on ac guitar & is mainly developed into a full band piece.(key parts as well).

* Is it possible to capture the feel of folk or ancient traditions, using electronic instruments?
No.
I say that because, if the tune was written for a lute, then only a lute will do: for those who seek to recapture the original intent & 'feel'.
I think a message of a song can be communicated, but the music itself..I'm doubting


There are many more, but you get the idea. So what do you think? Is technology still helping us or is beginning to hurt?

I think it's a tool: not sure if I would say either way..
The electric guitar was revolutionary, yet borne out of acoustic guitars.
It was an evolution.
It was new technology: and I think there's agreement that IT has furthered the musical world.

shoot, I dunno...

Where to start:

1980-1984 I was a recording engineer major at Memphis State University. We had a 24 track reel to reel system there. I think they told us the whole complex cost $500,000 to build. At the time it was state of the art.

2001 I bought a Roland VS 1880 system that I still have today. With a CD burner, effects cards it was around $2000. This little system will do way more than the college studio would, with unlimited tracking potential.

I write on guitar or a vocal line. I have wired my house to set up a half stack in the garage and mic it back to my recorder. Do I use it? Not very much. The little sound cards in my recorder have amp simulators that I can dial up in a matter of seconds instead of setting up mics and the such. Occasionally playing with the guitar effects on the sound card I come up with something interesting that might be the basis of a song or add to a pre-existing song.

My point, technology allows me to play and record music in a moments notice. Not that Im that great but I enjoy it and its easy. How many songs have I missed or forgotten cause I didnt go to the trouble to plug everything up thru the years.

When inspiration strikes I can save it in a hurry, I can record in a cost effective manner and enjoy it later at my convenience. It doesnt get much better than that.

If a synthesizer is used to create original music good or bad I would say it is the same as an acoustic guitar or acoustic piano. Its simply something to hold on to inspiration with.

I wouldnt consider a DJ a musician, I dont consider scratchers musicians, I dont consider spoons to be a musical instrument. I would think of these as rythmic devices. I cant imagine writing a song scratching, Can You? I think they are performers I just cant classify them as musicians.

Question: Is a song a song if its never recorded?

JW 123

Great thread idea Irminsul. Thanks for starting it.

To me as the captain stated music begins in the mind. I also hear songs in my head as if they are playing on the radio. When I was younger I heard symphonies however as I have aged that muse has left me.

When I compose I hear the song finished in my head and I desperately try to put it in a tangible medium. I hear the guitar sound, drums, vocal melodies, bass line everything. The frustration for me is one, trying to get some one else to understand it, and two, to actually play it. I have this problem when composing myself. I do not have the tools, and mostly the patience to do what I hear. My drum machine has nearly met it's demise being launched across the room on several occasions because of frustration.

I am a guitar player. That is all I play. The guitar for a single instrument is not capable of creating mutli part harmony/orchestration on say the level of a piano. So as a composer how am I to create what I hear in my head with and instrument that is pretty limiting? This is where the saviour of technology comes in. Sure, if I have access to an orchestra section I can do it, but I haven't approached or been approached by any. However on my computer I can do whatever I want. I can score an entire string, brass, percussion or whatever section. The technology enables possibilities that never would have been available to me before and thus IMO enables the composer, it does not detract. Like the guy hunting for the sound on his synth, he already knew what he wanted. He heard it in his head, he was actually limited by his instrument because he could not readily find it.

However I think it was Irminsul who stated, if the composer lacks creativity or general composational skills, an orchestra, computer or the sun and moon is not going to help them.

Next, as far as a DJ being a musician, we need to define what a musician is, and then what an instrument is. As far as a DJ being a musician, in my minds eye the jury is still out. Could go either way. In a traditional sense I say absoloutely not, but I can see how it could be considered. The DJ did not compose the music, but in a way is composing using the music and his interpretational/improv skills, thus he is composer within his medium.

This conundrum in turn leads to techno music and remixing. If some one remixes some one elses composition, who's tune is it at that point?

Macawber,
You said, "traditionalists are killing real music with their by the book rules and limitations of imagination.'
. . . interesting way of putting it. Good point.

Wow, these are some great responses. Almost essays!

celticpiping: I always like to hear your take on things because I also play an instrument used heavily in Celtic music (celtic harp) and it appears that we have encountered some similar things in our journeys with those instruments. So I had to laugh, and agree with macawber when he said

"traditionalists are killing real music with their by the book rules and limitations of imagination"

That is so true that it made my teeth hurt. I found early on in my harp training (I'm self taught but by training I mean getting my "stripes" playing in the "sesiuns") that the traditionalists were starting to piss me off. At some point, they wring the beauty, power and truth right out of a song by piously sticking to their set forms or particular arrangements. Well by the 500th time playing it, even the most compelling Celtic piece will get stale if you never EVER change it or at least your expression of it. So my new mantra with Celtic music is "Never play it exactly the same way twice". You can keep melodic integrity and still make it alive. After all, that's what tradition is. If it is not ever living, evolving and turning into something new, then it is just useless. Stuff for dusty book shelves.

You all have obsessed me with the need to define for myself "instrumentalist", in re the DJ question. So here goes - it's the best I can do right now...A musical instrumentalist is one who can, through physical manipulation, coax music from an object that has no inherent music in it. By inherent of course I mean "recorded". So apologies to my DJ friends, but unless you do actually play a musical instrument with your spinning, you wouldn't satisfy that definition.

And on to this -

jw123
Question: Is a song a song if its never recorded?

Answer: The Sufis would sure say so. But then again they forbid the recording of music at all. They consider it a unique gift of God that is for the moment and is essentially "uncapturable", even profaned, by recording it.

That's deep!

That's deep!

I don't know about "deep", that would imply truth. Maybe "sacred" is a better term?

The idea "seems" profound (and certainly it would be to them) but in light of modern scientific understandiing, not very defensible.

I'm not so sure, Craig. In scientific terms you can certainly record SOUND....but can you really record the music in it? That's a much more esoteric concept.

The Sufis may be on to something there.