# Is music dead?



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

I've noticed that there's no good music since the 1990's, it's all trashy and unoriginal artists dominating the scene these days. How do you think this happened?


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

I'm sure it is MTV's fault....


----------



## Top Guns (Apr 29, 2010)

Perhaps it's time to start looking in other areas. For example, when I was laid up in bed after shoulder surgery, I had a few sleepless nights of channel switching on the television. It's amazing how frequently one can find an up-and-coming artist/group that never really quite makes it. And wouldn't you know it, the music is frequently GOOD!

If POP music isn't your thing, then don't look for "good" music in the pop music venues.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

I've found that dislike a lot of things I hear on the radio these days, but wouldn't say that there's no good music anymore. Amid the muck, there are still a few decent artists out there. Also, most medium to large cities have decent live music scenes that need support. Maybe it'd be a good idea to take in a few concerts at local clubs.


----------



## red sweatpants (Jun 19, 2010)

Will Oldham is still doing right by music fans.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*Gaga is many things, but unoriginal? Really?*

No, you're just older and music does not define your life as much as it once did.

The consolidation of commercial radio station ownership does mean that that medium is largely homogenized, and file-sharing has made recording companies less likely to invest in risky new artists, but that's the old media for you. Try the non-profit stations at the left end of the FM dial.

If you can't find music you like on the interwebs, you are impossible to please. You can search through countless hours of new music in tons of ways. There are interweb streaming 'radio' stations, personal account 'jukeboxes,' or just flipping though YouTube or one of those social network sites. Then there is the iTunes, but that is for people who like to pay for stuff.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

camorristi said:


> I've noticed that there's no good music since the 1990's [/IMG]


Totally disagree. I'm discovering wonderful new music all the time in genres I haven't focused that much on in the past
If you're only sticking to the old rock/pop that you've always stuck too then the risk is, as you've discovered, that you won't hear anything new that appeals to you.

Have you tried any of these genres EBM, modern classical, electronica, pronk, operatic metal?


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Totally disagree. I'm discovering wonderful new music all the time in genres I haven't focused that much on in the past
> If you're only sticking to the old rock/pop that you've always stuck too then the risk is, as you've discovered, that you won't hear anything new that appeals to you.
> 
> Have you tried any of these genres EBM, modern classical, electronica, pronk, operatic metal?


I mainly listen to Italo Dance, I can't say I'm a big fan of rock music.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

As long as I have my "Malt Shoppe Melodies" collection to listen to, I am a happy fan! When I first listened to many of those tunes, I was actually as young as the originator of this thread!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I still have my jammin oldies from the 70's and early 80's,the hell with today's music,it sucks,nothing beats classic R & B.


----------



## Sir Waler Raleigh (May 2, 2010)

The reigns of the arts have been removed from the nobler classes and are now most influenced by a kakistocracy of children, ruffians and other uneducated and unrefined persons that constitute the consumer marketplace. Hence music has been devolved to a primitive nature best understood by brutes lacking the developed taste needed to appreciate classical beauty and sophistication.

There is also much to be said of the idolization of performers by society and how this has perverted the role of one using their natural abilities to bring beauty to the world to one of an egotist selling one's self in the manner of a wholesale prostitute. As such, their is more emphasis on exaggeration and distinction than on proper balance and proportion, and inevitable degradation ensues.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Some of the best music ever produced has come from last decade or so. The trashy and commercial state of music today is no different to that of the last 50 years and beyond. For every decate you care to mention I can offer any amount of dreadful commercial rubbish but I can also offer up any amound of brilliant, clever and intelligent music that's great to listen to time and again.

If all you do is listen to commercial radio and rehash your record collection over and over that's the conclusion you will come to.

Find a good independant record store and experiment. You have to find it as it's not going to find you.

Music, and great music at that is VERY much alive.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Sir Waler Raleigh said:


> The reigns of the arts have been removed from the nobler classes and are now most influenced by a kakistocracy of children, ruffians and other uneducated and unrefined persons that constitute the consumer marketplace. Hence music has been devolved to a primitive nature best understood by brutes lacking the developed taste needed to appreciate classical beauty and sophistication.
> 
> There is also much to be said of the idolization of performers by society and how this has perverted the role of one using their natural abilities to bring beauty to the world to one of an egotist selling one's self in the manner of a wholesale prostitute. As such, their is more emphasis on exaggeration and distinction than on proper balance and proportion, and inevitable degradation ensues.


Excuse me, but are you on crack? I think I hear the 17th century calling you home.......


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

camorristi said:


> I mainly listen to Italo Dance, I can't say I'm a big fan of rock music.


Ok, but my point stands in that If you're not hearing anything new that interests you then it might be an idea to broaden the genres you listen to.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

VictorRomeo said:


> Some of the best music ever produced has come from last decade or so. The trashy and commercial state of music today is no different to that of the last 50 years and beyond. For every decate you care to mention I can offer any amount of dreadful commercial rubbish but I can also offer up any amound of brilliant, clever and intelligent music that's great to listen to time and again.
> 
> If all you do is listen to commercial radio and rehash your record collection over and over that's the conclusion you will come to.
> 
> ...


Very well said, that is exactly how I view it. You can't be an inactive music consumer, you have to search for the good stuff. But the one place you won't find it is on the commercial stations. I go to lots of festivals in the summer and listen to lots of fringe stations and monitor music forums and use Spotify. There is plenty of good music out there if you make the effort to find it.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Howard said:


> I still have my jammin oldies from the 70's and early 80's,the hell with today's music,it sucks,nothing beats classic R & B.


I have to agree with you on this one, Howard. Old school R&B will always be my favorite music genre.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

camorristi said:


> I mainly listen to Italo Dance, I can't say I'm a big fan of rock music.


Well, if you like to listen to italo dance music, I suggest maybe listening to groups/dj's such as:Benny Benassi, Felix da Housecat,Daft Punk,David Guetta,Digitalism, Fedd Le Grand, and Justice. ( all of them make pretty good quality music)


----------



## Top Guns (Apr 29, 2010)

Sir Waler Raleigh said:


> The reigns of the arts have been removed from the nobler classes and are now most influenced by a kakistocracy of children, ruffians and other uneducated and unrefined persons that constitute the consumer marketplace. Hence music has been devolved to a primitive nature best understood by brutes lacking the developed taste needed to appreciate classical beauty and sophistication.
> 
> There is also much to be said of the idolization of performers by society and how this has perverted the role of one using their natural abilities to bring beauty to the world to one of an egotist selling one's self in the manner of a wholesale prostitute. As such, their is more emphasis on exaggeration and distinction than on proper balance and proportion, and inevitable degradation ensues.


How dare the uncouth masses create music by themselves, about themselves, and FOR themselves! Music (along with all other arts) should be reserved for those upper crust elitists who can truly enjoy it. The serfs should just work the fields and stay out of sight!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

StevenRocks said:


> I have to agree with you on this one, Howard. Old school R&B will always be my favorite music genre.


disco dance and funk music.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

camorristi said:


> I've noticed that there's no good music since the 1990's, it's all trashy and unoriginal artists dominating the scene these days. How do you think this happened?


Hmmm.. yes Lady Gaga... nuff said. And whats the biggest things currently here in China?.. It's Lady Gaga and bleedin' Westlife. :icon_headagainstwal

Yes mainstream music sucks completely these days...however there is some really fantastic musicians and music with Creative Commons and podsafe music.

https://www.musicalley.com/

https://www.thesixtyone.com/

https://www.garageband.com/

https://creativecommons.org/audio

Mainstream music often sucked in the 70s as well....


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

ZachGranstrom said:


> Well, if you like to listen to italo dance music, I suggest maybe listening to groups/dj's such as:Benny Benassi, Felix da Housecat,Daft Punk,David Guetta,Digitalism, Fedd Le Grand, and Justice. ( all of them make pretty good quality music)


I listen to Danijay, Gabry Ponte', Molella...



MikeDT said:


> Hmmm.. yes Lady Gaga... nuff said. And whats the biggest things currently here in China?.. It's Lady Gaga and bleedin' Westlife. :icon_headagainstwal
> 
> Yes mainstream music sucks completely these days...however there is some really fantastic musicians and music with Creative Commons and podsafe music.
> 
> ...


I know the Back Street Boys are popular in Asia too, but at least hey did make some good music during my high school days...then, Lady Gaga happened!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Although I agree that music today doesn't quite resonate like it did in the late 60's-early 70's (and keep in mind that much of that music consisted of re-makes of old Buddy Holly, Little Richard, etc. songs), there is still some pretty good music being made today. Rock music moved away from me in the mid-70's and I discovered Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings, Kris Kristofferson, etc., to fill the void then, while today I listen to music classified as Adult Contemporary and Americana. I like Norah Jones, Ray Lamontagne, Dido, John Hiatt, Bare Naked Ladies, and Lyle Lovett to name a few. 

Cruiser


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

One person disliking any and all modern music does not mean music is dead. Sorry, but anyone that thinks like that--"I don't like it, therefore I'm sure nobody else likes it, either"--needs to get over himself.

I happen to think there's plenty of good new music out there.

As for Lady Gaga, I find the person a bit strange, but I'm used to strange people; however, I happen to find her radio hits somewhat catching.

I like a wide variety of music. My tastes lean toward various forms of rock, but out of the nearly 21k songs on my computer, you will find something from just about every genre (except gangsta rap) and decade (from the 1930s on).


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Ray Lamontagne is superb - I've seen him live many times now. Norah Jones too. Also artists like Richard Hawley, Bon Iver, Sufjan Stevens and Madeline Peyroux debunk this myth that there's nothing good about these days. 

Good music transcends time - no matter the genre.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Howard said:


> disco dance and funk music.


I'm with ya.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> One person disliking any and all modern music does not mean music is dead. Sorry, but anyone that thinks like that--"I don't like it, therefore I'm sure nobody else likes it, either"--needs to get over himself.


I don't recall ever saying anything like that, what are you implying? If people like something, anything not necessarily music, does that make it good or right? Absolutely not. 21k songs! I'd have my own records store by now :icon_smile_big:.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

camorristi said:


> I don't recall ever saying anything like that, what are you implying? If people like something, anything not necessarily music, does that make it good or right? Absolutely not. 21k songs! I'd have my own records store by now :icon_smile_big:.


Hmm..."Is music dead? I've noticed that there's no good music since the 1990's..." Why would you ask if music is dead unless you think few people like music these days?

If I could make money with 21k songs, I'd try...but the feds, on behalf of the music industry, tend to frown on that sort of thing. :biggrin:


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> Hmm..."Is music dead? I've noticed that there's no good music since the 1990's..." Why would you ask if music is dead unless you think few people like music these days?
> 
> If I could make money with 21k songs, I'd try...but the feds, on behalf of the music industry, tend to frown on that sort of thing. :biggrin:


I asked music is dead because I genuinely believe that no one is making good music (good in my standards) these days, of course "no one" is an exaggeration and being used metaphorically. But from the replies I got, I think I need to broaden my search. If a CD sells 10,000,000 copies it only means it appealed to a certain group of people, but not necessarily to me, you, or someone else.


----------



## Bermuda (Aug 16, 2009)

you have to look at alternative sources to find out about the new music...MTV and other networks main focus is rap/r+b....the radio is mainly terrible as well
I try to support local bands and I've found that they are more fun to listen to than Lady Gagme


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

Pop music, like mainstream movies, are dumbed down as much as possible to appeal to as large an audience as possible. No surprise with this, if something isn't commercial enough it will take some digging to find. I too find very little worth listening to on radio these days. As mentioned before, look to the pubic funded indy stations. In LA KCRW is great for finding great new music. Don't be afraid to go down to your local library and check out Cd's from different genres that you normally wouldn't listen to. You may be surprised at what might appeal to you.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

People were saying the same thing in 1990.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

It was the same in 1890 too..... The scene is set in the Vienna court...I can see a few of Sir Walter's elitist chums chattering... "Who's that Strauss guy? He 'ain't no Mozart!".... All while the cool kids of the day are spinning around to his latest waltz.

Well, the cognoscenti may have had a point but that's not the one I'm making.... 

Pop music as it's name suggests is exactly that - popular. Be it The Beatles or Lady Gaga. If the A&R guys think it'll sell, they'll produce and publish. So there's pop and then niche - with Italo dance being niche. 

Dance - Italo or otherwise is built around a constant repetitive beat. 

Perhaps you're just bored with your niche....


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

StevenRocks said:


> I'm with ya.


The early 80's rap like Grandmaster Flash,Run DMC and Lady B,now back then that was music,just fun music without talking about sex, violence,women and gang warfare.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

But who actually ruined yesterday's music?


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Howard said:


> But who actually ruined yesterday's music?





Howard said:


> The early 80's rap like Grandmaster Flash,Run DMC and Lady B,now back then that was music,just fun music without talking about sex, violence,women and gang warfare.


I think the downfall was started by people like 50 Cent talking about his personal sexual life, Kanye West, and Miley Cyrus, then others followed.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Howard said:


> The early 80's rap like Grandmaster Flash,Run DMC and Lady B,now back then that was music,just fun music without talking about sex, violence,women and gang warfare.





Howard said:


> But who actually ruined yesterday's music?


I agree, party rap was a lot easier to enjoy than a lot of what's out now. I think what ruined it was A&R guys at record companies pushing raunchier and raunchier stuff because they figured it would sell. And it did.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Jovan said:


> People were saying the same thing in 1990.


Actually in my case, and many others that I knew, it was long before 1990. By the late-70's about the only music that I bothered to even listen to was the "outlaw" country that was taking hold back then and the 60's-early70's classic rock. Most of the rock, pop, and R&B didn't appeal to me at all like it had in the years gone by.

And don't even get me started on the rap music that my son was listening to in the 80's. It just about drove his Mother and me crazy. I absolutely hated that stuff. I did my best to get the boy to listen to some Marvin Gaye, Lou Rawls, Jackie Wilson, etc., but to no avail.

Cruiser


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

People always talk about the good ol' times, I find that quite ironic. I think if you don't appreciate the small details in your life you can never be happy or satisfied with anything.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Of course Rock and Roll died in 1992

It is a matter of coincidence I turned 30 that same year.

Dookie (Green Day) and Pure Pleasure (Shaggy) were the last newly released album/CDs I purchased.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

camorristi said:


> I think the downfall was started by people like 50 Cent talking about his personal sexual life, Kanye West, and Miley Cyrus, then others followed.


Right,I agree with ya,You got all these stupid rappers who don't know how to keep a tune or keep in harmony.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

StevenRocks said:


> I agree, party rap was a lot easier to enjoy than a lot of what's out now. I think what ruined it was A&R guys at record companies pushing raunchier and raunchier stuff because they figured it would sell. And it did.












and he rarely sang about drugs except White Lines (Don't Do It) IN 1983.


----------



## Top Guns (Apr 29, 2010)

camorristi said:


> People always talk about the good ol' times, I find that quite ironic. I think if you don't appreciate the small details in your life you can never be happy or satisfied with anything.


Satisfaction is the death of desire.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Howard said:


> and he rarely sang about drugs except White Lines (Don't Do It) IN 1983.


Very true. Those were the days.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

and then you'd probably remember Ronnie Hudson's* West Coast Poplock*?


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Top Guns said:


> Satisfaction is the death of desire.


I wasn't talking about orgasmic satisfaction :cool2:.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

or when groups had harmony and real instruments like the trumpet,horn and the saxaphone.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Howard said:


> or when groups had harmony and real instruments like the trumpet,horn and the saxaphone.


Wha??

And a crowd of young boys they're fooling around in the corner
Drunk and dressed in their best brown baggies and their platform soles
*They don't give a damn about any trumpet playing band*
*It ain't what they call rock and roll*
And the Sultans... yeah the Sultans play Creole

Creole

And then the man he steps right up to the microphone
And says at last just as the time bell rings
'Goodnight, now it's time to go home'
And he makes it fast with one more thing
'We are the Sultans... We are the Sultans of Swing'


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

You can't have music unless you have the basic instruments.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Howard said:


> You can't have music unless you have the basic instruments.


What would you consider synthesizers?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

camorristi said:


> What would you consider synthesizers?


The Polyester fabric and Corrected Grain leather of the music world!!


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Howard said:


> or when groups had harmony and real instruments like the trumpet,horn and the saxaphone.





Howard said:


> You can't have music unless you have the basic instruments.


This is a curious concept. What are "real instruments"? You say, "_like_ the trumpet, horn, and the saxophone," which sounds like you're listing three examples of a larger list. I'm curious what else is on your list of "real instruments" and what isn't. I'm curious to know what defines "real instruments".

Notably absent from your example list is the guitar. The guitar is a basic instrument used by many cultures for many kinds of music, and I guess it's one of the most commonly thought-of instruments if you ask people to think of musical instruments. The guitar has been around since the 12th century and even then is based on older instruments that have been around for thousands of years. The saxophone was invented in 1841 and patented in 1846. It's curious that the saxophone made your list but the guitar did not. The electric guitar is simply the latest evolution of an instrument that has been evolving for thousands of years and, in my opinion, isn't any more fake than a trumpet placed in front of a microphone that's connected to an amplifier and speaker.

So I wonder if you have any actual "real" definition for "real instruments" or if it's really more like, "The instruments I like are real, all others are not."


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

JJR512 said:


> This is a curious concept. What are "real instruments"?


To me I would say that it's anything that isn't one of the basic string, wind, or percussion instruments. I'm thinking of some of the computer generated electronic music that became common in much of the New Age or Space music, and to a lesser extent in some of the rap music. Whether a synthesizer falls into this category I will leave for others to decide.

I will be the first to admit that I love this New Age music for setting a certain mood and I go to sleep by it most every night, but I don't think of this as "music" in the same way that I think of the more traditional Jazz, Rock, Blues, Classical, or Country music.

Cruiser


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> To me I would say that it's anything that isn't one of the basic string, wind, or percussion instruments.


Uh, can you clarify (confirm or correct) this statement? Because it reads to me that you are saying "anything that is NOT one of the basic string, wind, or percussion instruments" in reply to the question "what are real instruments".


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

JJR512 said:


> Uh, can you clarify (confirm or correct) this statement? Because it reads to me that you are saying "anything that is NOT one of the basic string, wind, or percussion instruments" in reply to the question "what are real instruments".


I'm not sure what you are questioning.

Cruiser


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> I'm not sure what you are questioning.
> 
> Cruiser


Don't worry.

He's a recovering confrontation-a-holic!!


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

As long as we have artists like Amy working, who can proclaim music dead?






I'd make this my ring tone if I knew how to work all of the features of my cell phone.:icon_smile:


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> I'm not sure what you are questioning.


What I am asking is did you mean to say that basic wind, string, and percussion instruments are _not_ real instruments? That's what you wrote. I just want to know if that's what you actually meant, so that I can better understand your point of view.

This is not about right or wrong, me agreeing or disagreeing, or about confrontation. It's just that two of the things you wrote don't seem to jive with each other (that you do not consider those to be real instruments, while you do consider music made with them--jazz, rock, blues, etc.--to be real music). So I'm just trying to understand, that's all.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

beherethen said:


> As long as we have artists like Amy working, who can proclaim music dead?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So what if Amy snorts some coke on stage, at least she's no Lady Gaga :icon_headagainstwal.



WouldaShoulda said:


> Don't worry.
> 
> He's a recovering confrontation-a-holic!!


*clears throat *



WouldaShoulda said:


> The Polyester fabric and Corrected Grain leather of the music world!!


What an elegant sentence! What would you consider the Scottish Cashmere of the music world?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

JJR512 said:


> What I am asking is did you mean to say that basic wind, string, and percussion instruments are _not_ real instruments? That's what you wrote. I just want to know if that's what you actually meant, so that I can better understand your point of view.


You're right, I said it backwards didn't I? I was trying to say that anything that isn't a string, wind, or percussion instrument might not be considered to be a "real instrument" by some. I for one don't usually think of the computer as a musical instrument; however, electronic music is produced by computers every day.

For what it's worth the voice is also a "real instrument" and even this has been computerized. Live performers now sing into microphones that directs the voice through a computer program that enhances and otherwise cleans up the flaws before sending it out through the speakers. There was a time when they could only do this in the studio; however, now they can do it on stage for live performances.

Think of it this way, did Crosby, Stills, and Nash ever sound in person like they did on vinyl? Not even close. As big a fan as I am of CS&N, sometimes in person they didn't sound like they were all even singing the same song; but even so I still preferred a live performance over listening to a record.

Cruiser


----------



## Kravata (Mar 28, 2010)

What a stupid thread!

First of all - there will always be good music. It's the unwritten rule. Just because spotlight is on bad musicians, it doesn't mean there aren't any good ones.

Second - the fact that you, thread starter, even started such a thread, and referenced it to Lady Gaga - of all, tells me you're just another pretentious smartass who's jhust trying to show off. And fails miserably. Congratulations, if you're trying to become a music critic, you're half way there, most of them are just pretentious arses anyway. Those who can - play music, those who can't - preach.

Third - who are you to say what is good and what is bad? You say something is awful, I say it's the best thing since bread in slice - and who is right? _(btw. i'm not talking about LG, i think she's awful, i'm just proving my point)_

The point being - you thread is pointless. Start broadening your horizons and listen to something else.

As far as Ugly Winehouse is concerned, there's nothing that pisses me of more than artists who think just because they're good at what they do they can get away with murder. In fact, i'd even go so far as to enforce harsher punishments for celebrities caught doing something illegal. Have them serve as an example, to show everyone that nobody's above the law.


----------



## Kravata (Mar 28, 2010)

StevenRocks said:


> I agree, party rap was a lot easier to enjoy than a lot of what's out now. I think what ruined it was A&R guys at record companies pushing raunchier and raunchier stuff because they figured it would sell. And it did.


Dalek and Mr Lif are definitely worth a listen, miles away from your regular "money, hoes and guns" hip hop.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

camorristi said:


> What an elegant sentence! What would you consider the Scottish Cashmere of the music world?


The rock ensemble is as follows; Lead, Base, Drums, Vocalist.

The rest is frippery!!

BTW~I'm not a recovering confrontation-a-holic because I eschew 12-step!!


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

*LISTEN UP* - ESPECIALLY YOU NEWER MEMBERS:

DO NOT REPORT INTERCHANGE POSTS unless they contain racist or discriminatory words or any of the 7 words which cannot be said on broadcast TV.

DO NOT ASK FOR ASSISTANCE with things you don't like from other members.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE HEAT ON THE INTERCHANGE *DON'T READ IT!*

*REPEAT: IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU READ ON THE INTERCHANGE DON'T READ HERE!!!*


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Cruiser, that's what I thought you meant.  As a child of the '80s, though, well...you know how '80s music and synthesizers go hand-in-hand. :biggrin: So there'll always be a soft spot in my heart for synths, but I do understand what you're saying.

Personally, I tend to prefer music with a solid wall of sound. That could be why I never got into rap music. I also tend to like a good driving beat. I liked punk rock.



WouldaShoulda said:


> The rock ensemble is as follows; Lead, Base, Drums, Vocalist.


I'd personally be more specific and describe that as a _classic_ rock ensemble. But how about a rhythm guitar? Whether played by a fifth member, or if the singer plays one of the two guitars in a four-man group. The second half of Freebird is probably one of the greatest rock jams ever recorded... 

Alternatively...The White Stripes put out some pretty cool music, yet many of their songs have no bass guitar at all, and some use special effects on Jack's lead guitar to get lower notes.

Queen was an interesting band with synths. Their earlier albums had liner notes like "NO SYNTHS" and "STILL NO SYNTHS" but later on they got pretty heavy into synths.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

JJR512 said:


> I tend to prefer music with a solid wall of sound.


In that case here is the man who developed (invented or whatever you want to call it) what we now call the "wall of sound." Hey, any excuse to bring Phil Spector into the conversation. :icon_smile_big:










Cruiser


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

beherethen said:


> As long as we have artists like Amy working, who can proclaim music dead?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Everything I know about Amy Winehouse I learned in the British tabloids.  Oddly enough, up until you posted this link, I had never actually listened to any of her music. Damn, she has a cool voice. Not anything like I expected. Too bad she seems to be trying to kill herself.

And what's with all the dissing of Lady Gaga? She's a shameless self-promoter, just like Madonna was back in the day. Lady Gaga makes me laugh.

Here's one you'll never get out of your head...






Andy B.


----------



## realbrineshrimp (Jun 28, 2010)

What bothers me a lot is that people hate on some artist for not playing an instrument or something silly but there are a lot of pop artists who actually are classically trained and quite talented they just make pop music or whatever sort of music it's fun to hate on.

And Lady Gaga owns  it's not like she's untalented - 



 here she is on the piano at NYU without the whole persona


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

JJR512 said:


> I'd personally be more specific and describe that as a _classic_ rock ensemble. But how about a rhythm guitar? Whether played by a fifth member, or if the singer plays one of the two guitars in a four-man group.


Acceptable.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

"Popular" music has been horrible for a very long time. But music, if you search hard is not dead. In fact, I feel like music is constantly getting better, if you ignore MTV and the radio and search out the good stuff. It makes me sad to see how these horrible "artist" are making millions while most of the true talent are doing small shows across the nation, never making much. But I also like that because a show at a small bar is always better than one at an amphitheater.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

When I was younger there was some appeal to Stadium Rock shows.

I hate going anywhere larger than the Birchmere now anyway.

https://www.birchmere.com/


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

nick.mccann said:


> I also like that because a show at a small bar is always better than one at an amphitheater.


This reminds me of a story that I heard John Sebastian tell. It was the 60's and his band, _The Lovin Spoonful,_ was playing a date in Nashville. They were staying at a motel not far from downtown Nashville when he and a bandmate went to the little bar next door to the motel where they sat in amazement at the skill of the guitar player in the bar. He said that it was almost embarrassing that they were a famous band on a national tour and none of them were anywhere near as good as that guy playing for tips.

The end result was that Sebastian wrote the song "Nashville Cats" which he intended to be complimentary of the Nashville musicians, but unfortunately was interpreted differently by some.

Cruiser


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*The Wall of Sound...*



Cruiser said:


> Hey, any excuse to bring *Phil Spector* into the conversation. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow... nice hair!!!


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

realbrineshrimp said:


> And Lady Gaga owns  it's not like she's untalented -
> 
> 
> 
> here she is on the piano at NYU without the whole persona


Wow!!! That was actually pretty good.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

ZachGranstrom said:


> Wow!!! That was actually pretty good.


I've always been amazed at how some of these artists go to great lengths to hide what's underneath their outward personna. Kid Rock comes to mind to me as a good example. Whenever I heard his name all I thought about was rap music which I generally hate, and then I was watching something on TV one day where he was being interviewed. During the interview he picked up an acoustic guitar and sang a song that he had written. Boy, that certainly wasn't the Kid Rock that I thought I knew. It wasn't until he wrote and then recorded the song "Picture" with Sheryl Crow that much of the world saw another side of the man.






I disagree with those who say that there is no good music on the radio these days. There is but you often have to sort through some not so good to get to it. I offer up Lady Antebellum doing their radio hit "Need You Now" which they also wrote, as an example of what I think is pretty good music.






Cruiser


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

ZachGranstrom said:


> Wow!!! That was actually pretty good.


Yes, too often artists are accused of sucking or being talentless hacks when really the only problem is they're just not playing the kind of music the accuser likes.

This reminds me of an episode of M*A*S*H in which a USO (I think it was) group came to the camp to visit one of their own who was injured, and wound up being stuck there for a few days due to a "no unnecessary travel" restriction or something like that. One of the girls played the accordion, which naturally Charles Emerson Winchester III found to be a revolting lower-class instrument. The girl sat down at the piano and offered to play him something, but naturally he assumed she was a talentless hack who knew nothing about good music. The she started playing some classical piece, very well, and Charles got into it, and was very impressed. Then he admitted he was wrong for thinking she didn't know anything about his definition of good music, and wondered why she played the accordion with the USO group when she had the talent to play "better" music. She said that playing the accordion was fun...which leads me to my next point:



Cruiser said:


> I've always been amazed at how some of these artists go to great lengths to hide what's underneath their outward personna.


I don't know if they're really trying to "hide" what they're capable of. I think in some cases, they just have more fun doing what they're doing, whether it's the rap for Kid Rock or the funky outfits for Lady Gaga or whatever. In some cases, it might be that they know they can get more exposure playing the more popular kinds of music and doing the more attention-grabbing stuff for the paparazzi, etc. Really, if Stefani Germanotta set out to be a piano player, would any of us know who she is right now? Would she be a multiple-platinum selling pop icon? No, almost certainly not. But if she changes her name to something bizarre, like, say, Lady Gaga, flaunts her bisexuality, and wears some truly out-of-this-world outfits, well...Obviously, Stefani Germanotta knew which way was going to make her more famous and more rich, and she decided to go the Lady Gaga way. She seems to be having fun doing what she's doing and millions of people seem to be enjoying her, so I'm not sure she made the wrong choice.


----------



## realbrineshrimp (Jun 28, 2010)

I agree with JJR512 completely. Lady Gaga herself has said she makes club/dance music simply because that's what she knows and that's what she likes. She may be capable of playing piano classically but that doesn't interest her.

For me at lease pop music will always be pop music. It's entertaining, fun, club/dance music and usually doesn't pretend to be more than that - but I can definitely see how it does not appeal to people.

What blows my mind though is people who listen to things like noisecore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisecore). Maybe I've only heard terrible groups but whenever I listen to these really avant-garde groups that have a ten-minute track of what appears to be static or random noise I really start to wonder


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

JJR512 said:


> I don't know if they're really trying to "hide" what they're capable of. I think in some cases, they just have more fun doing what they're doing, whether it's the rap for Kid Rock or the funky outfits for Lady Gaga or whatever.


I don't think that either. I was being facetious. As Alice Cooper said, "It's just an act."

Cruiser


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

camorristi said:


> What would you consider synthesizers?


Yamahas is one of them.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I'm just saying as soon as the 80's arrived,music was being played on a turntable,it was called scratching,then you had rap and hardcore rap after that when the early to mid 90's arrived.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Howard said:


> I'm just saying as soon as the 80's arrived,music was being played on a turntable,it was called scratching,then you had rap and hardcore rap after that when the early to mid 90's arrived.


Thank God I was not in your version of the 80s. It must have been an awful ordeal. All those ruined albums. I had Talking Heads, Camper Van Beethoven and XTC. I also had The Jam, Joy Division and even some Queen. Not a single scratch between them. Then in the 90s I had Stone Roses, Blur and Cracker. Along with Radiohead, Divine Comedy and the reinvention of U2. Synth? Yep - they had some. Real? Yep. As far as I can ascertain the only instrument that can't be classed as 'real' is the air guitar and they've found a solution to that too....


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

My 80's was music that was electronic and had lots of computer sounds.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

VictorRomeo said:


> Thank God I was not in your version of the 80s. It must have been an awful ordeal. All those ruined albums. I had Talking Heads, Camper Van Beethoven and XTC. I also had The Jam, Joy Division and even some Queen. Not a single scratch between them. Then in the 90s I had Stone Roses, Blur and Cracker. Along with Radiohead, Divine Comedy and the reinvention of U2. Synth? Yep - they had some. Real? Yep. As far as I can ascertain the only instrument that can't be classed as 'real' is the air guitar and they've found a solution to that too....


Well said, and for my 80s I'd like to add The Stranglers, Kate Bush, Cardiacs, Billy Bragg, Madness, Neil Young, Guns n Roses, Human League, Gillan, Cockney Rejects, Iron Maiden, Nirvana, Motörhead, The Smiths, The Sundays, The Cure, Pink Floyd, Queen, Marillion, Christy Moore, Genesis and countless other fantastic pop and rock bands from many genres and many countries. Scratching and rap? Nah, not on my radio it wasn't.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

But music since the 50's was electronic - the amplified sound of a Les Paul and the Moog Synth.... 

I really can't make out the point you're trying to make. You said earlier that you can't make music unless you had basic instruments. My iPhone is every bit an instrument as a piccolo and in the right hands with the right software can make sweet, harmonious music. So either you had very little access to a varied supply of muical genres in the 80s or you had no interest to venture out to explore said genres. Sorry to sound so blunt - and it's not just all aimed at you - but I can't get my head around such closed minded preconcepts in this tread when the core subject under discussion is as open, as free and as natural as it is to the human spirit. Anyone can make music as musical taste is subjective not objective.

Me? I'm off to listen to Frank Zappa's Joe's Garage volume 1. Now there's a gag if anyone knows that album.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

VictorRomeo said:


> But music since the 50's was electronic - the amplified sound of a Les Paul and the Moog Synth....
> 
> I really can't make out the point you're trying to make.


I can't speak for others but when I say "electronic" music I'm not referring to amplified music. All an amplifier does is increase the volume of the music being created. You can amplify electronic music. I'm referring to how the music is created, not how loudly it is played.

For example, some of the New Age music was created using sounds picked up from space. These sounds were recorded and then electronically arranged to create a rythmic sound. I guess you could compare this to a computer program creating a drawing of something from data input by a person vs. an artist drawing the same picture with pencil and paper. Taking a copy machine and enlarging these images (like an amplifier does with music) doesn't alter the fact that one was created by a computer program while the other was created by the hands of a real person. Both take skill, but it's different.

Cruiser


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

VictorRomeo said:


> As far as I can ascertain the only instrument that can't be classed as 'real' is the air guitar and they've found a solution to that too....


I can think of one such instrument that, while it isn't exactly an "air guitar", it produces sound according to the "player's" control yet the player doesn't touch it all: Theramin. Some of you may remember the sound of this instrument from Good Vibrations from The Beach Boys.



Cruiser said:


> All an amplifier does is increase the volume of the music being created. You can amplify electronic music. I'm referring to how the music is created, not how loudly it is played.


No, sorry, wrong. An "amplifier" in the sense being referred to in what you quoted ("the amplified sound of a Les Paul...") is a cabinet with a speaker and an electric amplifier. It does far more than merely increase the volume of sound. Early amplifiers introduced tremendous amounts of distortion to the sound as well. This was because the amplification circuits were very simple and unsophisticated. Further, the process of recording electric guitars was the overly-complicated method of hooking the guitar to an amp and putting a mic in front of the amp's speaker and connecting the mic to a recording system. This introduced even more distortion, like making a copy of a bad copy. It would have made much more sense to hook the electric guitar directly to the recording system, really.

As electric circuits and electronics became more sophisticated, and higher-quality components became possible, it eventually became possible to get an electric guitar to sound virtually indistinguishable from an acoustic. But this is rarely ever done. Why? Because the distortion of the '50s set the tone for what's expected. The distortion became expected and demanded, and in the modern era of digital, there's a huge market for products that deliberately distort the sound and replicate the distortion of the early simple electric amplifiers.

So, to sum up, an amplifier doesn't just increase the volume of sound, it also changes the characteristic of the sound. Anyone who believes that real music comes directly from a real instrument without any modification must then believe that electric guitars are not real instruments. Contrariwise, if you believe electric guitars are real instruments, despite the fact that what you hear from them is not the same as the sound produced on the instrument itself, then that opens the door to believing that other instruments or devices that modify sound before you hear it are also real instruments.

By the way, in reference to your comment, "some of the New Age music was created using sounds picked up from space," I wonder what you're referring to. Sound does not travel through space, if you put a microphone in space all you could record is silence. Unless you're talking about radio frequency noise, which can be modulated down to the human hearing range, sort of like hearing frequency sweeps on an AM dial...is that what you're talking about?

Now, at this point, I'm wondering if people that feel "synths are not real instruments" would be able to tell the difference between a real piano and a synth piano. Specifically, a MIDI synth with sampled grand piano sounds. Some of the best MIDI synths have a multiple samples for every single note, some samples being short and some being long. In a concert hall, back to back, blindfold, some people might be able to tell the difference, but I seriously doubt that anyone could tell on a recording.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

I'm not necessarily referencing a 'loud only' Les Paul either - his contribution was to take sound, amplify it, use chord sequences, fretting techniques and timing. He also experimented and innovated with overdubbing techniques like tape delay and multi track recording. Without him, his innovations and his solid body electric guitar rock and roll would not be what it was back then and is today. Back then this was deemed blasphemous by some. Today it's the norm.

However, with all that said - and to evolve your simile I can't wait to see the new Toy Story 3. It will be a beautiful movie. It will amaze, thrill and entertain. It will win Oscars no doubt. The entire motion picture created by computer. Very different to how say Fantasia was produced but and ultimatly my point is this - no less entertaining.

It matters not a jot how the sound is produced. If it sounds good, and you like it that's all that matters.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

JJR512 said:


> I can think of one such instrument that, while it isn't exactly an "air guitar", it produces sound according to the "player's" control yet the player doesn't touch it all: Theramin. Some of you may remember the sound of this instrument from Good Vibrations from The Beach Boys.


Now, I've actually messed about with one of those. Crazy things altogether! However, unlike the 'air guitar' it actually makes a sound! But I guess you know that already - my behaviour was a tad louche with that glib quip.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

JJR512 said:


> No, sorry, wrong. An "amplifier" in the sense being referred to in what you quoted ("the amplified sound of a Les Paul...") is a cabinet with a speaker and an electric amplifier. It does far more than merely increase the volume of sound. Early amplifiers introduced tremendous amounts of distortion to the sound as well.


Of course it does, just as each person's ear distorts and hears sounds differently due to the way it is processed in the ear. The "purpose" of the typical amp and speaker used by a musician is to make the sound louder so it can be heard by more people. You could certainly stand on the stage at Woodstock and play an acoustic guitar without amplifying the sound, but what would be the point. Nobody would hear you.

The fact that the sound might be distored somewhat by the mechanism is an unfortunate byproduct, but it still isn't the same concept as creating music with a computer program. And yes, I know that musicians use distortion and other electronic manipulations on stage to alter the music (the Beatles are generally credited with being the first to use feedback intentionally in a recording), but again you are engaging in a lot of nit picking here which I think you are aware of.



> By the way, in reference to your comment, "some of the New Age music was created using sounds picked up from space," I wonder what you're referring to. Sound does not travel through space, if you put a microphone in space all you could record is silence. Unless you're talking about radio frequency noise, which can be modulated down to the human hearing range, sort of like hearing frequency sweeps on an AM dial...is that what you're talking about?


I've been practicing amateur astronomy for over 40 years now and I do know what radio telescopes are, such as the VLA; although I will admit that this isn't my primary interest. I do believe that the first such "space music" was created from the rythmic radio waves from a quasar, but I could be wrong about that.

My point is that when you create a pattern of sounds by holding down a string or combination of strings at specified points and then pluck or strum those strings, or blow into a device and alter the sound coming out by covering or uncovering certain holes; and then repeat these processes over and over creating different sounds, regardless of whether these sounds are subsequently slightly altered by amplification, it is not the same manipulating the combination and sequence of sounds with a computer program to create music.

Don't get me wrong, I love New Age music of all types no matter how it's created; but it still ain't the same thing as _Alison Krauss and Union Station_ The first time they go on stage and create _The Man of Constant Sorrow _by means of a computer program rather than with the strings on a guitar and dobro, I'm done with them. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Ah, but part of my point is that now it's possible to produce amplifiers that introduce very little distortion to the sound, yet they are still deliberately made to distort the sound. The distortion is now intentional, rather than an "unfortunate byproduct". And this isn't simple electric distortion that you get with any electrical amplification circuit.

More importantly, many modern distortion and other effects pedals do their thing digitally. In some cases, the guitar is hooked directly up to a computer, and a software program is configured to distort the sound in the same way that old analog effects pedals used to do so. So, from a certain point of view, this isn't natural. It isn't "real". And there are, in fact, many artists who refuse to do it this way, saying that nothing can ever replace their old vintage pedals.

But that raises the same question I already raised about a MIDI synth piano vs. a grand piano: Suppose you play a song through a vintage analog effects pedal and record it. Then you play it exactly the same way, but with all effects done in the computer, and you record that as well. If you compare these recordings back-to-back and can't tell the difference, then is one still real and the other fake? More importantly, does it matter to your enjoyment of the music?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

It's interesting is it not, how quite a few threads develop into electronics/math threads? Remember the insert in the World Cup thread about tuning out the vuvuzela frequencies on radio and on equalizers? Have we a gang of MIT alumni here or is it just an area of general interest in the US?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

JJR512 said:


> Ah, but part of my point is that now it's possible to produce amplifiers that introduce very little distortion to the sound, yet they are still deliberately made to distort the sound. The distortion is now intentional, rather than an "unfortunate byproduct". And this isn't simple electric distortion that you get with any electrical amplification circuit.


OK, this discussion is getting a little bit silly. You can nit pick and split hairs all you want over distortion, but the fact remains that there is a huge difference between Jimmy Page playing _Stairway to Heaven_ on a guitar with real strings, frets, etc., and someone recreating the sound using a computer program. I don't care how much feedback there is, intentional or not; if you can't distinguish one from the other from the viewpoint of a musician then nothing I say will matter.

Cruiser


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> OK, this discussion is getting a little bit silly. You can nit pick and split hairs all you want over distortion, but the fact remains that there is a huge difference between Jimmy Page playing _Stairway to Heaven_ on a guitar with real strings, frets, etc., and someone recreating the sound using a computer program. I don't care how much feedback there is, intentional or not; if you can't distinguish one from the other from the viewpoint of a musician then nothing I say will matter.
> 
> Cruiser


Thank you Cruiser, the voice of sanity. Well said sir.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> OK, this discussion is getting a little bit silly. You can nit pick and split hairs all you want over distortion, but the fact remains that there is a huge difference between Jimmy Page playing _Stairway to Heaven_ on a guitar with real strings, frets, etc., and someone recreating the sound using a computer program. I don't care how much feedback there is, intentional or not; if you can't distinguish one from the other from the viewpoint of a musician then nothing I say will matter.
> 
> Cruiser


But I am not the one who is nitpicking. I am not the one who is attempting to define what are real instruments or what is real music.

Some are saying that synths aren't real instruments and synth music isn't real music. I'm asking: If a synth can duplicate the sound of a piano so exactly that in a recording, one can't tell the difference, then what difference does it make? If you hear a Bach piano piece and think it was great, then does your opinion of it suddenly change if you read the liner notes and learn it was played on a Roland? I'm asking: If you hear Jimmy Page playing Stairway to Heaven on some new solo album (remember, this is hypothetical), and you think it sounds great, would your opinion change if you read the liner notes and learn he used software effects in a computer program instead of "real" effects pedals?

No, I'm not the one who is nitpicking. I'm the one who is trying to get others to _stop_ nitpicking. Like music because you like the way it sounds, not because you approve of the instruments used to create it. By the same token, don't like music if you don't like the way it sounds, not because you disapprove of the instruments used to create it.


----------



## njkyle (Oct 11, 2009)

I suggest that any noisemaker can become a musical instrument when the musician plays with it virtuosity, and when the scales and harmonies conform to current standards (maybe with a little stretching). Listeners to pop music are a little more forgiving, as long as the harmonies and chord progressions are simple enough. Listeners to rap music didn't require melody or harmony in the early days - they just needed a simple tempo and a simple beat. 

However, Jazz (and listen for the prejudice) has always stretched the boundaries. I am sure the bebop that I find thrilling, soaring and inventive was considered noise by many folks when it first emerged. And as for noisemakers - who would have thought Dixieland could still be music when played with a banjo? (There is a circle in Dante's Hell reserved for players of banjos and accordions.)

Go back far enough and a flattened fifth was considered the devil's note. 

I contend that virtuosity, vision and an understanding of the rules that are about to be broken turns modern sounds into music. If the sounds are generated by a computer, they might be musical (Turing's test leaps to mind), but will they remain musical? I suspect that a computer will have a hard time estimating the ability of human standards to shift, and therefore continue to be innovative at a pace that entertains human beings.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

To provide a very early and crass quote, "Jazz is what people who can't play music play". I agree to a degree. Looking at the history of jazz, it certainly seems that it was a free for all genre created primarily by blacks who mostly had no musical education. The great Duke Elllington himself never learned notation or formal music. The same is true of most of the great jazz instrumentalists. Probably why I only ever liked big band jazz and detested the be-bop stuff and free jazz that followed on in the 40s. (Footnote: I do not class that awful stuff Dixieland/ "Trad Jazz" as jazz, that is a formulaic music played by trained musicians following music and based on earlier music in my opinion and as such belongs firmly in the era of the music hall and early popular music) 

As for synths, a lot of my favourite New Wave, prog rock, EBM, electronica, pronk, indie and goth music used and uses synths. 
A synth is as much an instrument as a guitar.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

njkyle said:


> If the sounds are generated by a computer, they might be musical (Turing's test leaps to mind), but will they remain musical? I suspect that a computer will have a hard time estimating the ability of human standards to shift, and therefore continue to be innovative at a pace that entertains human beings.


You sound like you're speaking of a computer as if it's the artist. I don't believe that's what we're talking about, though. As far as I was aware, we were talking about a computer being used by a human artist as a tool to create sounds; in other words, the computer as an instrument, being used to create sound just like a piano, guitar, or trumpet is used to create sound, and a human is deciding what sounds to create and how to arrange them into music. The computer does not have to estimate "the ability of human standards to shift"; it's still the human artist's responsibility to make that judgement. As such, music made with computer-generated sounds is still a human's creation, and will fare just as well or as poorly over time in the same way that piano, guitar, or trumpet music does.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

You know I think most of us on this page at least are arguing the same point. We like all kinds of music and all kinds of instruments.... guitars, rolands, outer space....  It's all good....

Now, I'll leave you hanging with a little story.... Many years ago I worked for Philips Electronics and I was seconded albeit briefly to a R&D centre in Cambridge to help develop and test some software being developed for audio compression. In essence the project was to integrate a concept called psychoacoustics into the development of the lossy MP3 file format. The idea was develop a series of algorithms that compressed audio accuratly by discarding information less audible to the human brain. By keeping the right information in and in the right places, it tricks the brain into thinking the audio sounds good. Or good enough depending on playback devices. Our work was integrated into MP3 and later MPEG formats, ATRAC and MLP. 

It was absolutly facinating, and I can tell you that everyone on the planet (with normal, average hearing for their age) broadly percieves and decodes sound and frequency in exactly the same way. You hear what I hear. Whether you want to listen to it or not, is another matter.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

VictorRomeo said:


> It was absolutly facinating, and I can tell you that everyone on the planet (with normal, average hearing for their age) broadly percieves and decoded sound and frequency in exactly the same way. You hear what I hear. Whether you want to listen to it or not, is another matter.


True, but that said, our brains are such wonderful machines that they detect that we're actually hearing more when we listen to vinyl. And my God, remember how clipped music sounded on some of the early CD players? I had a JVC CD player in 86 & it sounded bloody awful compared to my turntable of the day.


----------



## njkyle (Oct 11, 2009)

JJR512 said:


> You sound like you're speaking of a computer as if it's the artist. I don't believe that's what we're talking about, though. As far as I was aware, we were talking about a computer being used by a human artist as a tool to create sounds; in other words, the computer as an instrument, being used to create sound just like a piano, guitar, or trumpet is used to create sound, and a human is deciding what sounds to create and how to arrange them into music.<snip>


I appreciate the difference. But I can see where a computer can be used by a musician of lesser skill to create passable music. For example, I need not worry about tuning a real instrument, or fretting it correctly. If I cannot play a riff fast enough, I could always get some help from automation. Or the tempo could be fixed by the computer. In simpler terms, I have edited my recorded riffs to improve them. But where is the boundary? If I press keys to represent notes and chords, why not whole progressions? So, my point is - virtuosity with the instrument or tool is what matters.


----------



## njkyle (Oct 11, 2009)

Oh, and one other comment... 

I watched Lady Gaga being interviewed for half an hour, and it seemed to me that there was more substance than I had first imagined. Holding up a cracked mirror to society's eyes, and all that sort of thing. Rather than a singer, you should consider her a performance artist. Not that she is my cup of tea. But then, I don't like French mimes, either.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

njkyle said:


> I appreciate the difference. But I can see where a computer can be used by a musician of lesser skill to create passable music. For example, I need not worry about tuning a real instrument, or fretting it correctly. If I cannot play a riff fast enough, I could always get some help from automation. Or the tempo could be fixed by the computer. In simpler terms, I have edited my recorded riffs to improve them. But where is the boundary? If I press keys to represent notes and chords, why not whole progressions? So, my point is - virtuosity with the instrument or tool is what matters.


Even whole note progressions need to be programmed by somebody, and chances are, that somebody will be a musician, or someone who knows what a good note progression sounds like. You can get the computer to make certain aspects of creating music to be easier or more convenient, but until computers learn how to feel, they simply cannot create music. It's still a person doing it, and the computer is just a tool, just an instrument.

Now, I understand what you're asking about where is the boundary. The same question gets asked everyday on photography forums all around the internet. And, just like synthesized music, the question pre-dates computers and the digital age. There are lots of ways that photographs and negatives can be manipulated in the darkroom, and in fact some of the manipulations possible with software like Photoshop is made to emulate old darkroom techniques--dodging and burning, for example. Anyway, the point is that it's a difficult question to answer. You program the computer with a note sequence you want, tell it you want it to sound like a piano, tell it to be faster than you can possibly play, etc. You expand the contrast range of a photo to show at the same time more detail in shadows and highlights than any image sensor can actually capture, you change the red car into a yellow car, and you take out the ugly power lines in the background. Is it real? Is it fake? Hard to say, but is that as important as: Do you like it? _That's_ what's real.


----------



## njkyle (Oct 11, 2009)

JJR512 said:


> Is it real? Is it fake? Hard to say, but is that as important as: Do you like it? _That's_ what's real.


Agreed. I might add, do you still like it several years from now? I have enjoyed some music due to its novelty, but the attraction faded over time. For example, some of the long, drawn out guitar solos of the seventies, that I found so cool at the time, just leave me cold now. I have collections of Clapton and Hendrix that I don't listen to anymore. But Miles Davis on _Sketches of Spain_ keeps me entertained. Kinda Blue (much better than _Birth of the Blues_) is another example that still intrigues me.

When I was a teenager, my time span for musical appreciation reached back about five years, maximum. As I entered my 30s, I still liked those same collections, but I listened to both current and earlier music. Now, in my 50s, my appreciation of Jazz extends from Louis Armstrong through Miles Davis; and I enjoy many of the current non-rap popular artists, such as Norah Jones, Damien Rice, Diana Krall, etc. In other words, as I age, I become more tolerant and more accepting of each genre's clichés. I didn't mention Bach, Beethoven, Rodrigo, Debussy, etc., but they, of course, please me too.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> And my God, remember how clipped music sounded on some of the early CD players? I had a JVC CD player in 86 & it sounded bloody awful compared to my turntable of the day.


If you think that is bad, I still have my old 8 track tape player from 1971. That thing is painful to listen to; however, the last two tapes I put in it broke (from old age I guess) and I'm afraid to try anymore. The two tapes that broke were Humble Pie's _Rockin' the Fillmore_ and Santana's _Abraxas_. I was just about to try Joe Cocker's _Mad Dogs & Englishmen_ when I thought better of it.

Cruiser


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> and Santana's _Abraxas_.


Let me tell you, that album cover when I was in my late teens was the sexiest album cover I had ever seen. I had 2 black girlfriends when I was 21, and one of them was Nigerian and very tall (the other was Brazilian by the way). The African queen was what my upstairs neighbour called her and she reminded me so much of the woman on that album cover, same hair, same build..oh man.....phew...I better stop now!!!


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

njkyle said:


> But where is the boundary? If I press keys to represent notes and chords, why not whole progressions? So, my point is - virtuosity with the instrument or tool is what matters.


You have no argument for me on that point at all.... Good music needs good musician(s) etc.... It's not just about the instrument.

Now, it's not just early CD releases that sound bad - they can and still do today. It's all about the production you see. Recorded music whatever way you think of it is so heavily produced, mixed and compressed it can ruin what could be a perfectly good piece of music. A poorly produced CD can sound equally as poor as a low bit rate MP3. In the same breath a well produced CD can sound wonderful. Good production is an artform in its own right.

Now, I'm a huge fan of vinyl - I love it's warmth and when an album is pressed on a properly wrighted platter, it's (arguably) the finest source available. In fact the only digital format that comes (very) close to producing the same richness of sound is SACD. By and large the newer higher definition formats along with modern LP pressings tend to have superior production values - by and large.


----------



## JohnRov (Sep 3, 2008)

njkyle said:


> I appreciate the difference. But I can see where a computer can be used by a musician of lesser skill to create passable music. For example, I need not worry about tuning a real instrument, or fretting it correctly. If I cannot play a riff fast enough, I could always get some help from automation. Or the tempo could be fixed by the computer. In simpler terms, I have edited my recorded riffs to improve them. But where is the boundary? If I press keys to represent notes and chords, why not whole progressions? So, my point is - virtuosity with the instrument or tool is what matters.


A computer cannot make passable music on it's own. You are simply talking about the physical playing of the music. Many people can play fast, and to some that's impressive. But what are they playing? Regardless if music is being played by a human or a computer, it's the harmonic and melodic decisions that matter.

Music played by a human, interacting with other humans, is light years apart from something executed by a computer. The push and pull of the beat is what creates a groove, and this makes it different from something sequenced.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

music should never be dead,it just progresses.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

> Tommy Silverman, the music impresario behind Tommy Boy Records and member of the RIAA board, thinks the label/artist relationship is broken. In an exclusive interview with Wired.com he talks about how to fix it, questions the Long Tail, wonders why music sales are up in the land of Spotify and The Pirate Bay, and divulges a possible shady major label practice of buying iTunes singles with label money in order to hype music up the charts.


https://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/07/tom-silverman-proposes-radically-transparent-music-business/


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

just my opinion...but I feel like music died when it stopped being genuine, rock isnt rock any more, hip hop isnt hip hop anymore, I dont really listen to country or pop regularly, but from what I hear on the radio and TV and in various clubs, they really arent the same anymore either...

It would seem that artists are more concerned with creating a brand image for themselves and then once they have people's interest, they milk it for all it's worth by churning out subpar "hit" after subpar "hit" and whoring themselves out to get their faces on as many TV screens and magazines and stuff as they possibly can...I can only speak on rock and hip hop because that's what I listen to the most of, but it seems like both genres share similarities in the fact that fakeness has become the order of the day; you have guys in hiphop who are mainstream millionaires who havent had to live the "hard knock life" (gee I wonder who i'm talking about) for quite some time, yet still rap about being out on the streets, selling drugs and whatnot. Then you have rockers who are also filthy stinkin ritch and living the life of...well...rockstars who record tracks where all they do is b!tch about how their life sucks...it's so disingenuous (sp?) and in alot of ways an insult to their fanbase's intelligence...

In the old days you had guys like NWA who, yes, they acted a little, but at the same time they were genuine in what they were rapping about, and guys like the Ramones who lived like rockstars are supposed to, and didnt crank out whiny subpar "hits" just for the sake of being played on the radio...

It seems like music today is more about creating a persona and being a good actor than actually turning out quality music...but people keep buying it so they must be on to something...again...just my opinion...


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

The Gabba Goul said:


> just my opinion...but I feel like music died when it stopped being genuine, rock isnt rock any more, hip hop isnt hip hop anymore, I dont really listen to country or pop regularly, but from what I hear on the radio and TV and in various clubs, they really arent the same anymore either...


Modern music only isn't genuine if you compare it to older music. Buddy Holly was no Frank Sinatra. The Beatles were no Buddy Holly. The Who were no Beatles. AC/DC were no The Who. Metallica was no AC/DC. Peal Jam was no Metallica. Muse is no Pearl Jam. Each is doing their own thing that's newer and different from what came before. That's called evolution, and not liking the result doesn't mean the new thing isn't real.

Similarly, presentation has evolved, too. Modern artists have more ways to get exposure for their product than ever before. But I don't care about that. I don't care how many magazine covers and coffee mugs a band is on. That will have no bearing on whether I like their music or not. I'm not going to like an artist's music just because I see his or her face everywhere, but by the same token, I'm not going to _not_ like an artist's music just because I see his or her face everywhere, either.

Is there some rule that says an artist is only allowed to sing about what's going on in his or her life that day or that week? Why can't they sing about things that happened years ago, or in their childhood? What does "quite some time" mean, how long is that, when is an event too far back in a person's life that they're not allowed to sing about it anymore?

Musicians are entertainers. They're telling stories. I assume most of the stories are works of fiction to at least some extent. Maybe I enjoy modern music more than you seem to because I don't listen to it with any silly preconceived notion that I'm about to hear factual tales of what's going on in these artists' current lives. I can just hear it and enjoy it without analyzing the story for veracity or trying to figure out how much better or worse they are than some artists from 10 or 30 years ago.

Just sit back, relax, and enjoy the music for what it is supposed to be: entertainment.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

JJR512 said:


> Just sit back, relax, and enjoy the music for what it is supposed to be: entertainment.


I can totally dig what youre saying...but I dunno, maybe I just cant articulate how I feel about the current state of music correctly...I'm sure hiphop isnt the most listened to genre on these fora, but I've been listening to it for the better part of about 23 years, so I'll use it as an example...

In the old days you had groups/individual rappers like Public enemy, Afrika Bambataa (sp?), Grandmaster Flash, NWA, 2Pac, and the like who rapped about more grimy topics, and they all turned out a little bit of "club" crap aswell, but they also "kept it real" and used their positions of influence to try to impart a bit of knowledge into their fanbase (Fight the Power, Renegades of Funk, Express yourself, The Message, Changes just to name at least one example from all the afforementioned artists). Now-a-days, you have kats like jigga and diddy and Weezy just jawboning about how rich they are and how gangsta they feel they are (yet they feel as though they have to roll about 20 deep and strapped up wherever they go)...I personally blame this paradigm shift on the shift of the balance of power in the industry from LA back to NY around the late 90's after we lost Pac, I mean Death row was way more about keeping the music street, and less about going "Hollywood". it was around this time that people discovered that you could basically limit your range to a handful of topics (Money [and how you were either a dope man or a hustla and that's how you got it], pimpin, and thuggin), didnt really need to put any thought into your lyrics beyond some mindless pablum that was guaranteed to get stuck into somebody's head the first time they heard it in the club for the hook, and have lots of flashy cars and hot girls in your video while you wear Versace and pop Cristal (or Ace as-it-were in the now), and you're set...who needs artistic integrity when you've got all this dough rolling in???

There are still a few mainstream guys who seem to rap outside of the box and dont just follow the cookie cutter formula that seems to have brought the industry to it's knees and hand delivered it to suburban white kids (they, or more correctly their parents, have all the dough to spend on these guys CD's, concerts, t-shirts, sneakers, underwear, bed sheets, breakfast cereals etc)...guys like Mos Def and Nas (although Nas works my nerves a little with how into the African struggle he claims to be, all the while rocking diamonds the size of golf balls)...

That's not to say that there still isnt some very inspired stuff out there, you just have to keep an ear to the underground...the funny part is, once your favorite underground rappers start to go mainstream, they usually get bit by the bug and go just as pop as everybody else...I'm assuming the same thing holds true for other genres...


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

music died when groups and artists stopped becoming original.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Howard said:


> music died when groups and artists stopped becoming original.


If rap and power rock is your thang, yeah.... that sums it up....

As for most all other genres.... that statement is false. There's originality to be found all over the world. Open your mind and ears to it.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

The Internet has made it much easier to find music to one's taste, and much more difficult.

Thirty years ago, popular groups could sell millions of records, and record stores would carry artists that might only sell tens of thousands, or only be regionally known. Heck, every record store in Georgia in the early 80s had a healthy inventory of REM albums, back when they were still playing bars in college towns.

Today, the record companies that can put the money behind a potential success have been whittled away, not only by people finding new and obscure music online, but by the rampant availability of everything that's come before. If your really like the Carpenters, why bother listening to someone that's described as "if you like the Carpenters, you'll like these guys" if you can download the entire Carpenters catalogue and listen to it whenever you want?

So we have homogenized music promoted by record companies that won't touch it unless they know it will sell (gone are the days of Berry Gordy and Ahmet Ertegun, who signed people whose music they liked), and a sea of potentially great music surrounded by a bigger sea of swill.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

VictorRomeo said:


> If rap and power rock is your thang, yeah.... that sums it up....
> 
> As for most all other genres.... that statement is false. There's originality to be found all over the world. Open your mind and ears to it.


I was referring to the "old school".


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Howard said:


> I was referring to the "old school".


But when did the old school end?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> But when did the old school end?


I guess I would say mid to late 80's.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

1. "*music should never be dead*,it just progresses" 2. "*music died wh*en groups and artists stopped becoming original." (which contradicts your No1). 3. I was referring to the "*old school"* (which also contradicts your No.1 is you agree with progression) 4. "I guess I would say mid to late 80's."

Howard, these are your last 4 one-liners. I really can't work out what your view is, as you keep changing your
mind and contradicting yourself. ​


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Howard isn't contradictory.

Just complicated!!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> 1. "*music should never be dead*,it just progresses" 2. "*music died wh*en groups and artists stopped becoming original." (which contradicts your No1). 3. I was referring to the "*old school"* (which also contradicts your No.1 is you agree with progression) 4. "I guess I would say mid to late 80's."
> 
> Howard, these are your last 4 one-liners. I really can't work out what your view is, as you keep changing your
> mind and contradicting yourself. ​


Sorry about that Earl,I was confused.


----------

