Ok, so following a discussion in the Sinking feeling thread I'm making this discussion to find out peoples opinions on these matters. Please keep comments constructive to the discussion and give reasons for your opinions, lets try to avoid a flamewar.
Ok, so I regard myself as having quite a wide taste in music, I listen to everything from traditional Scottish music through to BOC and classical music. However I simply cannot get into most modern music. I have no desire to listen to Dubstep or Justin Beiberesque music. There are exceptions to this, for example bands such as Porcupine Tree, Biffy Clyro, Florence and the Machine and Ed Sheeran.
So here are my reasons, as it were for liking and disliking the above. I like the music that I said above for several reasons. I admire the skill the musicians who perform it have, as a bit of a musician myself I can appreciated the time and effort required to reach the standard that they are at, where as I find some of the other music to be too easy to produce with computers, autotune and the like. Secondly, there is real emotion and soul behind the music I like, whereas things like dubstep I find to be devoid of any real meaning, just a series of loud computerised noises devoid of any message or reason.
So these are a few of my reasons for liking and disliking what I do, I'm sure more will come to mind in a while.
I hear a song, decide if I like it it or not, and shut my ears whent the artist name comes on. For example, I went 2 months without knowing Ed Sheeran wrote Drunk. Now it is in my top 10.
I do have a preferance for iconic artists in a genre. Eminem for example. I like his raps. Ed Sheeran is a great artists.
I guess I just like a song. But classical bores me to tears and dubstep makes my ears bleed.
I like stuff from pretty much every genre, from classical to noisecore. I have found that each genre has its good stuff, but also some terrible stuff too.
Deadshot wrote:I guess I just like a song. But classical bores me to tears.
I can understand that, it took me a while to get into Classical music, a lot of it I don't like, it is a case of getting used to listening to how the instruments are combined and used together to make you think and feel what the composer wants you to feel. Impressionist music is quite easy listening, for example Debussy's Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun.
I hear about something, and make a point of listening to it, even if I heard about it from someone moaning about how bad it is. (case in point, I find Friday to be an enjoyable song, not because of the quality of the music, but the massive over-reactions people have to it, which I find amusing)
I won't make a judgement on something until I've heard it, but theres very little chance that I won't like it in some way, shape or form. I seem to like pretty much anything. (I've yet to find something that I've actively disliked, most songs I'll be able to find at least a small redeeming aspect, if only "The auto-tune in this is incredibly polished"
I do find people who are dismissive of entire genres irritating though, not aimed entirely at OP, but the statement "It isn't real music if it's made with a computer!" is laughable, saying that someone like Dave Grohl has way more talent than Aphex Twin because Grohl can play instruments, whereas Aphex Twin is electronic is a ridiculous statement; the two are both incredibly skilled at what they do, but what they do is largely incomparable as one writes rock "from the heart" (as he puts it), and the other writes intricately engineered electronic music that requires an incredible amount of technical know-how and skill.
I also love a wide array of music... but like most people, I have bands/groups that I just absolutely hate.
For instance, I love metal, but I don't particularly dig Behemoth, Fear Factory, or Cradle of Filth.
I hate most all rap or "hip hop" people like JayZ, Kanye and other talentless morons really killed the genre for me. In another thread, it was suggested that I listen to Dan Le Sac.. so I did, and have added him to the very short list of rap/hip hop groups that I will actually listen to, including Sweatshop Union, and MC Hammer. Ironic though, I know.. the biggest reason I dislike rap, is the hatred that flows forth from alot of the mainstream stuff.. and the profusion of the use of the N-word.
I don't normally listen to country, but I don't "hate" it.. But when I do, I typically 'only' listen to Johnny Cash.
On my zune, and quite frequently comes up, is Rock Opera, and Scottish Bagpipe music, as well as Corvus Corax (not sure what genre you could classify them as)
So, long story short, I'll give a song or two a listen, and if I like them, I'll probably get an album or two on zune.
I like a good amount of music. I like 80's Pop, 90's Pop, 00's Pop, 90's Rap, Electronic, and Dubstep. I tend to look at the most popular songs of each generation/category that I tend to like and pick the top 10 most popular, because if they're popular, then it stands to reason that they're good. But I also have one genre that I can't get behind. Rock of pretty much all colors just sounds unpleasent to me. There are songs of it that I like, but in general it is just not fun to listen to. I don't deny that rock musicians have skill, I just don't like the music. Also saying something needs to come "from the soul" to be rule music is close minded and stupid. Not aimed at anyone here, its just one of my pet peeves.
Deadshot wrote:I guess I just like a song. But classical bores me to tears.
I can understand that, it took me a while to get into Classical music, a lot of it I don't like, it is a case of getting used to listening to how the instruments are combined and used together to make you think and feel what the composer wants you to feel. Impressionist music is quite easy listening, for example Debussy's Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun.
This is kind of the same with really good electronic music, the artists work on how things are combined and put together, but rather than instruments they remove the human aspect of it, and so you can get incredibly precise, accurate pieces of music with tens of thousands of individual sounds, where each one is exactly where its supposed to be, and nowhere else.
Also one thing I forgot to mention is my love of "new" country. I come from an area where you are more likely to see Cthulu come out of your Smartboard and punch your teacher in the face than find a Jason Aldean concert, but I really do enjoy it. Just my 2 cents
I see what you are saying, TAS and Goliath, and I know it isn't aimed at me. I have listened to dubstep tunes that I have heard about, but I have yet to find anything I like. I wouldn't say that music "has to come from the soul" or not be computerised to be "real" music, and it is clearly very popular with some people. "One man's rose is another man's thorn" as the saying goes.
Goliath wrote:
I do find people who are dismissive of entire genres irritating though, not aimed entirely at OP, but the statement "It isn't real music if it's made with a computer!" is laughable, saying that someone like Dave Grohl has way more talent than Aphex Twin because Grohl can play instruments, whereas Aphex Twin is electronic is a ridiculous statement; the two are both incredibly skilled at what they do, but what they do is largely incomparable as one writes rock "from the heart" (as he puts it), and the other writes intricately engineered electronic music that requires an incredible amount of technical know-how and skill.
And the fact that Aphex Twin can and does play instruments. Prepared piano's on Druqks for example.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I hate most all rap or "hip hop" people like JayZ, Kanye and other talentless morons really killed the genre for me. In another thread, it was suggested that I listen to Dan Le Sac.. so I did, and have added him to the very short list of rap/hip hop groups that I will actually listen to, including Sweatshop Union, and MC Hammer. Ironic though, I know.. the biggest reason I dislike rap, is the hatred that flows forth from alot of the mainstream stuff.. and the profusion of the use of the N-word.
See, the only rapper I actually like is Eminem, for 2 reasons.
1 He basically pioneered to ability of white people to actually be successful in a stereotypically black community/genre.
2 Other rappers are slow in rhythm, pronounced. Sometimes I find myself actually trying to find the lyrics for MM's songs just cause he has pace.
3 He doesn't swing the N- word like a cat. It seems to me, and please take no offense, that the black rappers think they can use it without racism. People don't complain on the basis of insulting himself too. But if Emy said it he would be destroyed for rascism.
Dubstep and techno take little to no skill to create and it just feels absolutely heartless. Though I have to admit they come up with some awesome beats. Other than that it just gives me a headache from the constant and repetitive beat.
Heavy metal and alternative rock are awesome due the variety and ability to tell an epic tale while giving you great rifts on an electric guitar.
Private_Joker wrote:Dubstep and techno take little to no skill to create and it just feels absolutely heartless. Though I have to admit they come up with some awesome beats. Other than that it just gives me a headache from the constant and repetitive beat.
Heavy metal and alternative rock are awesome due the variety and ability to tell an epic tale while giving you great rifts on an electric guitar.
Hip hop just makes me want to destroy the Earth.
Have you ever even tried to make a good dubstep? Its a lot harder then screaming into a microphone and slamming a guitar until the strings snap
Private_Joker wrote:Dubstep and techno take little to no skill to create and it just feels absolutely heartless. Though I have to admit they come up with some awesome beats. Other than that it just gives me a headache from the constant and repetitive beat.
Heavy metal and alternative rock are awesome due the variety and ability to tell an epic tale while giving you great rifts on an electric guitar.
Hip hop just makes me want to destroy the Earth.
Have you ever even tried to make a good dubstep? Its a lot harder then screaming into a microphone and slamming a guitar until the strings snap
I would have to disagree with you, TAS. But I also disagree with the statment that it takes no skill to create electronic music.
Music, to me, isn't just about the noise being pumped into my ears. It's about the entire performance. The energy and motion of the beat, the ability of the band to play, and the overall quality and content of the lyrics.
Consider this:
Baby wrote:
Are we an item? Girl, quit playin'
"We're just friends," what are you sayin'?
Said "there's another," and looked right in my eyes
My first love broke my heart for the first time
And I was like baby, baby, baby, oh
Like baby, baby, baby, no
Like baby, baby, baby, oh
I thought you'd always be mine, mine
Now consider that this is being droned out and autotuned to canned 'instruments' that were probably generated by a computer. It doesn't sound like real music. It sounds canned and processed; sterile.
The subject of the song appears to be that the first love of the singer, in this case, Mister Bieber, has recently become the fancy of another gentleman. This broke his heart; the only valid response for him was to be "like, baby, baby, oh".
But we know this is the case. There's no finding a deeper meaning in the lyrics. There's no appreciating the musical ability that we're hearing, because there's no ability behind it. There's no band, just a kid who, to his credit, probably CAN sing half way decent getting autotuned in a studio. It's the McDonalds of Music.
Compare that with something by Zappa, or Dispatch, or Mozart, and it just doesn't stack up.
I feel the same way about most electronic music though. It just doesn't have feeling. Armin Van Buuren is one of the few electronic composers I've found that I can actually stand to listen to on a regular basis.
Have you ever even tried to make a good dubstep? Its a lot harder then screaming into a microphone and slamming a guitar until the strings snap
Actually, from my days of flirting with FruityLoops WAAAY back in the day, It's not hard to make electronic music. It's just hard to make it GOOD. I've yet to hear anything good come out of dubstep.
There is, surprisingly, metal that is also more complex and interesting than screaming and thrashing your guitar. The majority of it is exactly as you describe however, and you're right in as so far as to say that doing that is not hard.
Private_Joker wrote:Changing pitch and volume of a sound wave, then putting a *duss duss duss* in the background is not that hard.
Screaming "BLOOD DEATH STEEL ANGER" and slamming the same three chords isn't hard either, but to each his own I guess
You are thinking more along the lines of death metal, but still makes for a great live show. Better than some lad behind a computer. As to the three cords thing I would like to introduce you to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJQvyYcVXNg
Castiel wrote:I see what you are saying, TAS and Goliath, and I know it isn't aimed at me. I have listened to dubstep tunes that I have heard about, but I have yet to find anything I like. I wouldn't say that music "has to come from the soul" or not be computerised to be "real" music, and it is clearly very popular with some people. "One man's rose is another man's thorn" as the saying goes.
Obviously, I know that it isn't to everyone's taste, but it's people who dismiss electronic music out of hand that irritate me. "Electronic Music" as a label is kind of annoying, in that music that is made electronically covers an incredibly wide area.
Goliath wrote:
Obviously, I know that it isn't to everyone's taste, but it's people who dismiss electronic music out of hand that irritate me. "Electronic Music" as a label is kind of annoying, in that music that is made electronically covers an incredibly wide area.
I don't know. It's divided into so many subgenres, it's hard to specify anything better. Would that be Techno, Trance, House, Electronica, or perhaps any of the ones from the following link?
I think when people say that they dislike electronic music, they mean anything that goes "thump tissssss thump thisssss thump tisssss thumptisssthumptisssthumptisss" the entire time.
daedalus wrote:I've yet to hear anything good come out of dubstep.
Then you haven't listened to enough.
I find it quite funny people draw these lines in the sand between "real" music and electronic music. Where does Squarepusher fit in? Live he plays bass and uses laptops.
I'd probably be okay with bass and the laptop deal, depends upon the music. As I already said, I like at least some electronic stuff per my comment about Armin.
Dubstep, at least the stuff I've heard, usually sounds like someone fethed the beat on a trance song. Maybe I'm listening to the wrong stuff. Elucidate me.
See, the key word is that musicians take time to buy expensive instruments and pay for lessons or self teach. While anyone can go on and just hit keys untill it sounds ok.
daedalus wrote:Dubstep, at least the stuff I've heard, usually sounds like someone fethed the beat on a trance song. Maybe I'm listening to the wrong stuff. Elucidate me.
TheAngrySquig wrote:So you have to buy talent to make music?
No, but it sure helsp. Plus, music has actual meaning and sound. Lyrics that can sooth or hurt or touch you in a way that makes you take notice. Dubstep is a bunch of rebelious teens trying to get a buzz and an excuse to drink.
TheAngrySquig wrote:So you have to buy talent to make music?
To a certain extent, yes. Strings tied across a shoebox doesn't really sound quite like a $1000 guitar, and you can only make the guitar sound so good if you don't understand the basic tenets of musical theory, which is where the lessons come in to play.
Castiel wrote:That sounds really good, Goliath. How was it performed, is it all computeried?
The album was created electronically, using samples and whatnot, but live is performed using a small army of musicians.
This is a different song from the same album being performed live.
On a similar note, how do people feel about bands like pendulum?
As in, the albums are largely computerised, but live they perform with instruments?
I use pendulum as the example because for their live performances Rob Swire (the vocalist) uses this: Which plays like a guitar, but has samples attached to each "note" rather than playing guitar sounds, and so can be used as a variety of instruments depending on the song.
(the photo is actually the ztar used by the bassist from Linkin Park)
daedalus wrote:Dubstep, at least the stuff I've heard, usually sounds like someone fethed the beat on a trance song. Maybe I'm listening to the wrong stuff. Elucidate me.
some of my favourite dubstep stuff atm.
Spoiler:
I just listened to the Fear. It's... less obnoxious than some of the other stuff I've heard. Parts of it actually reminded me of NIN, especially some of Reznor's later work. I will have to listen to more later.
@ Goliath: I would probably say that it wasn't electronic then. It might have been written on a program, but that doesn't make it electronic music. However, it is in that zone where you can't really say one way or the other.
I listen to music that makes the mood, for example, on a train going through countryside i'll put on wilds forlorn, where as cycling to work on my bycycle will result in death metal bieng played, as long as the song fits the mood i'll listen to it.
What I cannot stand is overhyped music. This includes most radio music and a LOT of rock music.
Moan time.
There seems to be a huge resurgent of old gits who are wanting to live through their youth once more and thus belive all music except cheesy rock (im talking bon jovi, def leppard, alic cooper, deep purple stuff here) is rubbish.
This seems to have come to the fore on planet rock, depressingly however, becuase the old gits like to wallow in self pity and planet rock 90% of the time plays old stuff, it is strangling new talent and not letting it flourish, whoch is the point of a radio station. Radio such as planet rock can do so much more than indulge mid life crisis's but it doesn't it just overyhypes out of date cheesy rock music.
and DO NOT qoute airbourne as a brand new rock band, they are just AC/DC clones.
For me liking music is first visceral, then intellectual. I hear a song, I get one of three reactions:
1. Like it
2. Hate it
3. a sliding scale of "meh"
A common feature of the music I like is the musicianship of the band/artist. If they can play well, I like them (usually). Another thing that I look for is what I call "musicality." For me this has to do with song structure, arrangement, the mix, the music itself... a long list. Sincerity plays a huge part for me as well. Is the artist being sincere with themselves? Are they being sincere to the audience? If a band actually "feels" the music I am more likely to "feel" it as well. An example: one of my favorite bands is Nickle Creek. Allison Krauss produced their first album, and she asked them if they were going to do a love song. Their response was "No, we have never been in love." As they were teenagers at the time I always thought that this showed a remarkable amount of maturity.
Now the big caveat...
The only common feature of the music I like, the only unifying factor... is I Like It.
Music is subjective. I love Kraftwerk, Orbital, and Daft Punk. I despise dubstep with every fiber of my body. Most country I find sappy and twangy. Bluegrass music never fails to cheer me up, and I could listen to Junior Brown all day long. Free jazz gives me a headache, Ella Fitzgerald scatting is the soundtrack to heaven. And on and on...
TheAngrySquig wrote:So you have to buy talent to make music?
To a certain extent, yes. Strings tied across a shoebox doesn't really sound quite like a $1000 guitar, and you can only make the guitar sound so good if you don't understand the basic tenets of musical theory, which is where the lessons come in to play.
And if you can get a 1000 dollar guitar sound for free and then apply it to a song that actually sounds good isn't that the best case scenario? And if there happens to be a good beat, then isn't that just a peach?
I like most real instrument based music however 99% of Electronica of any genre is talentless garbage (and dubstep is the worse offender here) Some older Hip hop is sorta ok and I really like aussie Hip Hop.
I think that anyone who says dubstep takes no talent is either ignorant, or hasn't tried to make it. I've explained it in a way I felt was clear, by now I just have to assume that people who disagree are either going off popular opinion, or are just ignorant
TheAngrySquig wrote:I think that anyone who says dubstep takes no talent is either ignorant, or hasn't tried to make it. I've explained it in a way I felt was clear, by now I just have to assume that people who disagree are either going off popular opinion, or are just ignorant
1. Dubstep has been around for donkey years It was garbage then and it is garbage now.
2. ALL electronica requires very little talent to make however Dubstep is even more devoid of skill and even more formulaic
Come on dare me to make a dubstep track and I will knock that gak out in a few hours..However you must write play and record a song written on a real instrument (with some proof) and post that as well.
God I hate douche bags on a Macs playing around with cake walk thinking the qualify as musicians because the worked out how to copy and paste some a bass loop over a drum track.
Actually electronic music can be quite complex, and like all music, takes a lot of talent to do competent composition of the song.
I'm not saying dubstep is good (I still have no clue what it's supposed to be... must be a brit pop thing) or anything, just that ANY music takes talent in order to have good composition-- knowing when is too much, when is too little, when to have lyrics, when certain parts of the music should pick up and slow down, etc.
TheAngrySquig wrote:I think that anyone who says dubstep takes no talent is either ignorant, or hasn't tried to make it. I've explained it in a way I felt was clear, by now I just have to assume that people who disagree are either going off popular opinion, or are just ignorant
1. Dubstep has been around for donkey years It was garbage then and it is garbage now.
2. ALL electronica requires very little talent to make however Dubstep is even more devoid of skill and even more formulaic
Come on dare me to make a dubstep track and I will knock that gak out in a few hours..However you must write play and record a song written on a real instrument (with some proof) and post that as well.
God I hate douche bags on a Macs playing around with cake walk thinking the qualify as musicians because the worked out how to copy and paste some a bass loop over a drum track.
Only problem is I can't play guitar or any instrument. But thats the great thing about dubstep, you can learn how to make it for next to no money and a few hours of playing. I have plenty of friends who can and do make really good electronica music, and I have made a few songs of my own. I also have friends who play progressive rock music, and if I didn't have to support them I would rather sit at home then go to their concerts.
God I hate douche bags who are jealous of people that can afford Macs and walk around with a guitar, a dumb beard, too long hair, a ridiculous hat and think that they're above everyone because they're parents spent money on getting them guitar lessons when they were ten and wanted to be like the rockstars in the movies
TheAngrySquig wrote:I think that anyone who says dubstep takes no talent is either ignorant, or hasn't tried to make it. I've explained it in a way I felt was clear, by now I just have to assume that people who disagree are either going off popular opinion, or are just ignorant
1. Dubstep has been around for donkey years It was garbage then and it is garbage now.
2. ALL electronica requires very little talent to make however Dubstep is even more devoid of skill and even more formulaic
Come on dare me to make a dubstep track and I will knock that gak out in a few hours..However you must write play and record a song written on a real instrument (with some proof) and post that as well.
God I hate douche bags on a Macs playing around with cake walk thinking the qualify as musicians because the worked out how to copy and paste some a bass loop over a drum track.
If by donkeys years you mean a decade then yes it has. As someone who lived in Bristol (one of the homes of early dubstep) during the early '00s (the time of it's formation) it will always hold a small place in my heart (kind of helps I have an old friend who is becoming quite famous in the scene). It's is much harder to build a good electronic track than it is to make and record a song written on real instruments. Making a 30 second loop is easy as gak, I'll give you that, but you try and make something as intricate as the ebola tune I posted earlier, then come back to me.
TheAngrySquig wrote:I think that anyone who says dubstep takes no talent is either ignorant, or hasn't tried to make it. I've explained it in a way I felt was clear, by now I just have to assume that people who disagree are either going off popular opinion, or are just ignorant
1. Dubstep has been around for donkey years It was garbage then and it is garbage now. 2. ALL electronica requires very little talent to make however Dubstep is even more devoid of skill and even more formulaic
Come on dare me to make a dubstep track and I will knock that gak out in a few hours..However you must write play and record a song written on a real instrument (with some proof) and post that as well.
God I hate douche bags on a Macs playing around with cake walk thinking the qualify as musicians because the worked out how to copy and paste some a bass loop over a drum track.
Did you even fething look at any of the fething videos that I put on here?
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
In regards to your ridiculous challenge, no one one here is saying that "real" music is easy, they're saying that electronic music isn't Challenging someone to learn an instrument, write some music and then perform it, in return for you doing something that you say is incredibly easy is both asinine and unfair.
Damn, I've been on here since 2009 and this is the first time I've ever sworn on here, thats how idiotic your comment was.
Melissia wrote:Actually electronic music can be quite complex, and like all music, takes a lot of talent to do competent composition of the song.
I'm not saying dubstep is good (I still have no clue what it's supposed to be... must be a brit pop thing) or anything, just that ANY music takes talent in order to have good composition-- knowing when is too much, when is too little, when to have lyrics, when certain parts of the music should pick up and slow down, etc.
Anyone with a good knowledge of musical theory can do those things. One of the biggest misconceptions about music is how it requires some innate talent to compose a song, this is not true at all. What notes and chords work together is all explained with musical theory. Thats why jam bands can actauly just "make it up one the fly" because once they know what the key is and they know what progression they are using they can just follow the rules. Now performing well is another thing entirely.
Those songs sound like some half-assed game music from a low to no budget indie game that was sold on Steam for five bucks and regularly goes on sale for two, but nobody still buys it.
TheAngrySquig wrote:I think that anyone who says dubstep takes no talent is either ignorant, or hasn't tried to make it. I've explained it in a way I felt was clear, by now I just have to assume that people who disagree are either going off popular opinion, or are just ignorant
1. Dubstep has been around for donkey years It was garbage then and it is garbage now.
2. ALL electronica requires very little talent to make however Dubstep is even more devoid of skill and even more formulaic
Come on dare me to make a dubstep track and I will knock that gak out in a few hours..However you must write play and record a song written on a real instrument (with some proof) and post that as well.
God I hate douche bags on a Macs playing around with cake walk thinking the qualify as musicians because the worked out how to copy and paste some a bass loop over a drum track.
If by donkeys years you mean a decade then yes it has. As someone who lived in Bristol (one of the homes of early dubstep) during the early '00s (the time of it's formation) it will always hold a small place in my heart (kind of helps I have an old friend who is becoming quite famous in the scene). It's is much harder to build a good electronic track than it is to make and record a song written on real instruments. Making a 30 second loop is easy as gak, I'll give you that, but you try and make something as intricate as the ebola tune I posted earlier, then come back to me.
And yeah go on then, I dare you.
Cool are you going to compose a song on a real instrument the perform it and record it and post it?
Jubear wrote:
Cool are you going to compose a song on a real instrument the perform it and record it and post it?
Yeah, why not, haven't written anything in years so I can't guarantee it will be amazing, and you'll have to give me until tomorrow (it's quarter to one, and the neighbours might not like me playing at this time). But yeah, lets do this.
TheAngrySquig wrote:I think that anyone who says dubstep takes no talent is either ignorant, or hasn't tried to make it. I've explained it in a way I felt was clear, by now I just have to assume that people who disagree are either going off popular opinion, or are just ignorant
1. Dubstep has been around for donkey years It was garbage then and it is garbage now.
2. ALL electronica requires very little talent to make however Dubstep is even more devoid of skill and even more formulaic
Come on dare me to make a dubstep track and I will knock that gak out in a few hours..However you must write play and record a song written on a real instrument (with some proof) and post that as well.
God I hate douche bags on a Macs playing around with cake walk thinking the qualify as musicians because the worked out how to copy and paste some a bass loop over a drum track.
Did you even fething look at any of the fething videos that I put on here?
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
In regards to your ridiculous challenge, no one one here is saying that "real" music is easy, they're saying that electronic music isn't Challenging someone to learn an instrument, write some music and then perform it, in return for you doing something that you say is incredibly easy is both asinine and unfair.
Damn, I've been on here since 2009 and this is the first time I've ever sworn on here, thats how idiotic your comment was.
Right, I think I've calmed down now.
That aphex twin song is just a keys sample over a trip hop beat with the occasionally extra bit of kick drum and snare copy and pasted into the loop....And for the record I never said that real music is easy I just said that elctronica is by and large talentless dribble.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote:
Jubear wrote:
Cool are you going to compose a song on a real instrument the perform it and record it and post it?
Yeah, why not, haven't written anything in years so I can't guarantee it will be amazing, and you'll have to give me until tomorrow (it's quarter to one, and the neighbours might not like me playing at this time). But yeah, lets do this.
As to the challenge, I can play an instrument anyway, so I'll go for it.
I would but I sold my clarinet, and I can't play my brother's guitar for the life of me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jubear wrote:real instrument
You keep using those words.
What do you judge to be a "real" instrument?
One that isn't electronic?
One that requires "skill" to play?
One that Jubear likes?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jubear wrote:That aphex twin song is just a keys sample over a trip hop beat with the occasionally extra bit of kick drum and snare copy and pasted into the loop....And for the record I never said that real music is easy I just said that elctronica is by and large talentless dribble.
No-one said that real music was easy. The way your challenge was posed made you look like you were saying that people arguing for electronic music were arguing that "real" music was easy.
And all the time and effort that went into Bangarang isn't as much as what went into strumming a guitar for fifteen minutes until they found something they like and then repeating that for an entire song?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And as to the whole performance thing, look at a Skrillex or Deadmau5 or Sweedish House Mafia concert versus a Grateful Dead or Rolling Stones or Aerosmith concert. All you have to do is replace the LSD with MDMA and they're the same thing, just one has saggy old dudes jumping and one has ballin laser shows
As to the challenge, I can play an instrument anyway, so I'll go for it.
I would but I sold my clarinet, and I can't play my brother's guitar for the life of me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jubear wrote:real instrument
You keep using those words.
What do you judge to be a "real" instrument?
One that isn't electronic?
One that requires "skill" to play?
One that Jubear likes?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jubear wrote:That aphex twin song is just a keys sample over a trip hop beat with the occasionally extra bit of kick drum and snare copy and pasted into the loop....And for the record I never said that real music is easy I just said that elctronica is by and large talentless dribble.
No-one said that real music was easy. The way your challenge was posed made you look like you were saying that people arguing for electronic music were arguing that "real" music was easy.
Any instrument that requires physical interaction to play about the only exceptions are sample pads (because your not making the tone or sound your just triggering a preloaded sample) and to a lesser degree turntables (scratching well is a talent sorta)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheAngrySquig wrote:You're saying that this is a bad song:
But this is good:
And all the time and effort that went into Bangarang isn't as much as what went into strumming a guitar for fifteen minutes until they found something they like and then repeating that for an entire song?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And as to the whole performance thing, look at a Skrillex or Deadmau5 or Sweedish House Mafia concert versus a Grateful Dead or Rolling Stones or Aerosmith concert. All you have to do is replace the LSD with MDMA and they're the same thing, just one has saggy old dudes jumping and one has ballin laser shows
Both suck giant monkey balls but yes I am sure the second song took a lot more skill to compose and record.
TheAngrySquig wrote:You're saying that this is a bad song:
I'll say that was a bad song. I made it to about 1:33 before I was sure my brain was going to dribble out through my ears, and not in a good way.
If that's your most compelling argument, you might want to reconsider.
But this is good:
And all the time and effort that went into Bangarang isn't as much as what went into strumming a guitar for fifteen minutes until they found something they like and then repeating that for an entire song?
While I'm not a fan of Bad Company, I do not believe that Rock 'n' Roll Fantasy only took fifteen minutes to develop.
Part of the reason why I respect the works of Bad Company more than your "skipping CD" above it is because, other than possessing elements I despise like that horrible thing with the over-modulated voice samples, is because Bad Company, in order to perform theirs, has to play it all out in realtime. It's a musical performance, recorded to become data. The one you showed me isn't. It was developed on a computer with recorded samples and FruityLoops or Garage Band. Quite literally, noise from data, as opposed to the other way around.
On top of that, it's harsh, jarring, and repetitive. Rock 'n' Roll Fantasy's lyrical content at least has variance from between any given moment and three seconds later.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And as to the whole performance thing, look at a Skrillex or Deadmau5 or Sweedish House Mafia concert versus a Grateful Dead or Rolling Stones or Aerosmith concert. All you have to do is replace the LSD with MDMA and they're the same thing, just one has saggy old dudes jumping and one has ballin laser shows
First off, you're either 12 or trolling, right? Laser shows STARTED in the era of the music you're criticizing*, and those dudes were not at all young then (neither were the women). Second off, I'd take LSD over what's out there nowadays, any day.
* That is, for some values of era being pre-dubstep.
TheAngrySquig wrote:You're saying that this is a bad song:
I'll say that was a bad song. I made it to about 1:33 before I was sure my brain was going to dribble out through my ears, and not in a good way.
If that's your most compelling argument, you might want to reconsider.
But this is good:
And all the time and effort that went into Bangarang isn't as much as what went into strumming a guitar for fifteen minutes until they found something they like and then repeating that for an entire song?
While I'm not a fan of Bad Company, I do not believe that Rock 'n' Roll Fantasy only took fifteen minutes to develop.
Part of the reason why I respect the works of Bad Company more than your "skipping CD" above it is because, other than possessing elements I despise like that horrible thing with the over-modulated voice samples, is because Bad Company, in order to perform theirs, has to play it all out in realtime. It's a musical performance, recorded to become data. The one you showed me isn't. It was developed on a computer with recorded samples and FruityLoops or Garage Band. Quite literally, noise from data, as opposed to the other way around.
On top of that, it's harsh, jarring, and repetitive. Rock 'n' Roll Fantasy's lyrical content at least has variance from between any given moment and three seconds later.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And as to the whole performance thing, look at a Skrillex or Deadmau5 or Sweedish House Mafia concert versus a Grateful Dead or Rolling Stones or Aerosmith concert. All you have to do is replace the LSD with MDMA and they're the same thing, just one has saggy old dudes jumping and one has ballin laser shows
First off, you're either 12 or trolling, right? Laser shows STARTED in the era of the music you're criticizing*, and those dudes were not at all young then (neither were the women). Second off, I'd take LSD over what's out there nowadays, any day.
* That is, for some values of era being pre-dubstep.
A) Neither of us are gonna win this arguments, we should both just agree that we like different things and realize that we probably aren't going to change those things.
TheAngrySquig wrote:
A) Neither of us are gonna win this arguments, we should both just agree that we like different things and realize that we probably aren't going to change those things.
TheAngrySquig wrote:You're saying that this is a bad song:
Spoiler:
I'll say that was a bad song. I made it to about 1:33 before I was sure my brain was going to dribble out through my ears, and not in a good way.
If that's your most compelling argument, you might want to reconsider.
Totally agree, Skrillex gives dubstep a bad name.
I'd take LSD over what's out there nowadays, any day.
These days people seem to be quite into ketamine, which is a horrible drug.
TheAngrySquig wrote:I think that anyone who says dubstep takes no talent is either ignorant, or hasn't tried to make it. I've explained it in a way I felt was clear, by now I just have to assume that people who disagree are either going off popular opinion, or are just ignorant
As a friend of Carl Craig, Derrick May, and Frankie Knuckles, my opinion of dubstep is not based out of ignorance. It is my opinion of the style of music. And in this case, it is a rather informed opinion, being a raver kid from the 90's and all. I am not negating dubstep as a musical form, I am not calling you names for liking dubstep. I just don't like dubstep. Again, see my earlier post about music being subjective. If this were a food thread would you call me ignorant because I couldn't make Beef Wellington, and didn't like Beef Wellington? One of my best friends happens to love a style of music that I loathe. We are still friends. Just because everyone else doesn't see things the way you do doesn't mean you are wrong, and it doesn't mean the rest of the world is wrong. The sun will still rise tomorrow, and the world will keep on spinning. Like what you like, love what you love. Don't be ashamed of it, but don't be surprised if anyone else doesn't agree or understand
TheAngrySquig wrote:I think that anyone who says dubstep takes no talent is either ignorant, or hasn't tried to make it. I've explained it in a way I felt was clear, by now I just have to assume that people who disagree are either going off popular opinion, or are just ignorant
Grrr angryish rebuttal...
But Moz would love dubstep, it would remind him of dial-up.
TBF to the angry squig, he didn't say not liking dubstep made you ignorant, just claiming it took no talent made you ignorant.
Edit: treadheads summary of his previous quote added.
Krellnus wrote:Why don't we all just listen to electronic rock which is imo the best of both worlds.
Pfft, electronic rock music, what with it's combination of both "real" and electronic instruments, takes less talent to make and is not as good as music with magical instruments.
While I despise most of the current uber mainstreamed music being mass produced daily like the dubstep and hip-hop/rap styles, there really isn't much that can be done about it. When going clubbing all they play is dubstep and the hip-hop/dance music, I can't complain about it, seeing as I payed to get in and it doesn't make much sense paying to go in and then whine about the music. I've just developed a thick skin to most of the music played and made currently.
Personally I prefer to listen to Soundtracks, trailer music and a little bit of punk and rock here and there along the lines of Two Steps From Hell, Green Day, Good Charlotte, Audio Machine etc.
Also a little bit of Alternative too. Les Friction is one that I recommend to all.
Quick note it would have been way to easy to just use the preset loops (and I assume proper techno artist dont use them) so all the filters,synth etc has been done from scratch.
I like it...
Well some of it.
Like every genre it has some good examples and bad ones...
I was always mystified by metal and its various sub-genres...
I probably have less metal than any other genre...
Melissia wrote:Must be a Yank trend then, as I still haven't heard it played anywhere around here, heh.
Or maybe Californian. They have had some rather bad taste in music in the past, even compared to Texas' country music.
You must have Music Police wandering around tasing DJs if they play it.
It drives me nuts when people say dubstep is good.
Probably shouldn't rant, seeing is it's already been done
Wow quite a debate that about "real" music vs "electronic" music.
I listen to what I like, simple as that. I don't go out of my way to listen to certain genres although it does just so happen that my favourite music tends to be classified as progressive rock, progressive metal, post rock or post metal.
BTW for those say all electronic music involves no skill aside from mucking about with a computer I suggest you listen to early electronic acts like Kraftwek or Tangerine Dream. They had to set up all their synths by hand and whilst early sampling techniques were around then they often had to play the songs properly. Now tell me all electronic music takes no skill.
Though certain genres happen to sound extremely similar, I tend to go song by song or band by band to decide if I like something instead of by genre. Yet nightcore happens to fail to be anything but gak.
Back OT, I like many different kinds of music, mostly some of the various kinds of metal, from Viking Death Metal like Amon Amarth to classic metal like Iron Maiden, some of the rock classics like Thin Lizzy, Classical music like Beethoven, all the way through Progressive rock like Porcupine Tree and, yes, even some Electronic stuff, like the aforementioned Dresden or NIN.
I'll give anything a go at least once. I'm not the biggest fan of dubstep, it often annoys me, but I have heard some that I thought was "ok", I'd never really listen to it by choice though. Pop and Hip-Hop also mostly annoy me, although I do like Eminem, more so than other rappers, since he actually seems to put deeper meanings into his music that I just can't find in other rappers.
If I wasn't in work right now, I would go through every video linked in this video, and if I liked it, maybe even buy an album...
i personally prefer Rock, Heavy metal, classic rock I.E: Creedance, Free, jimi hendrix, metallica, iron maiden, linkin park and rage against the machine.
i just cant stand songs that are completely computerised and make me want to punch a wall.
on the whole dubstep thing..... I prefer music that actually has something to listen to, such as lyrics or a tune I can dance/mosh to. The Dubstep i've heard is just noise, I cant even jump up and down to it properly.
Quick note it would have been way to easy to just use the preset loops (and I assume proper techno artist dont use them) so all the filters,synth etc has been done from scratch.
Kind of reminded me of 90s stuff. Orbital, in particular. If you can spend 20 minutes on FL and sound like Orbital, then I think we have the proof right there. Either that, or you're an idiot savant.
That contributed nothing useful to the discussion beyond pointless flamebaiting. If you have nothing of value to add to this discussion please don't post.
I will concede on the fact it's easier to make things sound professional with a computer, but that doesn't make it easy to make intricate well made stuff, to do that still takes talent.
It is harder to make 'real' music. this is because and instrument is involved that one must practice to get to a decent standard to be able to play, then you need some recording gear to hook said instrument up then actually record what you are playing onto a computer.
Computerised music cuts all that out, all of us on dakka can use a computer and using certain software have the potential to make computrised music.
However it takes a skiled technician to get all the sounds in the right places, and most technical musicians will go out and record various 'noises' for their songs anyway.
It's easier to make a computerised song, however, does not take less skill to get the song right.
However it doesn't matter how skilled you are, it can still sound awfull, just look at Yngwie Malmsteen for example.
Bakerofish wrote:saying everyone can make dubstep if they have a computer is like saying everyone can paint a landscape if they have paint
i dont particularly like dubstep but i can see the skill behind it.
While this statement actually has quite a bit of truth in it, I understand where both sides are coming from.... I will only add this to this discussion: While 'anyone' can make electronic music, not everyone can make "good" electronic music. The same is true for what others have termed "real" music... I own two guitars, and I have knowledge of how to play them... but I do not have the skill to make real music with a guitar. Making good music requires a talented ear, as well as talented hands/mouth, etc. and each requires practice to get better....
If you listen to someone like Armin van Buuren, you will probably notice a progression in skill from his earliest albums to his newest. Some of this can be attributed to new tech, yes, but it also comes from his many hours and days of practice, and mixing to get things to sound just right. The same can be said of most "real" music groups (i say real, because we can cut out groups like Bieber, Brittney Spears, and the "teenie bop" pop type stuff, as it is specifically engineered towards younger kids and teens), groups like Tool, Lamb of God, Johnny Cash, Garth Brooks and all those types of people, you should be able to hear a real progression in their music, both in skill and style, and if you can't your ears are probably out of tune, lol.
Another side note, what about people who write "real" music, but can't play it? They may be able to write music very well, but they need to "hire out" a group of other musicians to play the various instruments for the album and touring.
Just a thought, talking about real music, Where would bands such as Pink Floyd, Yes, Led Zepplin, The Beatles and many other 'real' bands be without using technology in their music, such as voice modification, sampling.
I have a feeling, these bands would be using a lot of computer generated sounds in order to make their music, as they were at the forefront of technology then and the forefront of technology today is a computer.
Quick note it would have been way to easy to just use the preset loops (and I assume proper techno artist dont use them) so all the filters,synth etc has been done from scratch.
Kind of reminded me of 90s stuff. Orbital, in particular. If you can spend 20 minutes on FL and sound like Orbital, then I think we have the proof right there. Either that, or you're an idiot savant.
necrovamp wrote:Just a thought, talking about real music, Where would bands such as Pink Floyd, Yes, Led Zepplin, The Beatles and many other 'real' bands be without using technology in their music, such as voice modification, sampling.
I have a feeling, these bands would be using a lot of computer generated sounds in order to make their music, as they were at the forefront of technology then and the forefront of technology today is a computer.
Hard to say. A couple years past, I saw Rodger Waters performing The Wall live, and he didn't really incorporate any new technology (well, audio technology) into his music. Granted, he was reproducing a classic, not writing new music, but still.
Either way, there's a difference between adding a reverb here and there, and maybe playing some vocals backwards, and building a complete song on FL. The added complexity of it being orchestrated with a band, as opposed to a guy on a laptop, is kind of a big deal too. It's not just about getting every note right and on beat on a synth in those cases; it's about getting the entire band so well practiced that they can replicate it on queue, well. It's the difference between one guy jogging 10 miles, and a sports team playing flawlessly. The first one is a feat, no doubt, and I probably couldn't do it, but it doesn't require all that the latter does.
I mean, compare the 'electronic music' with a live performance like Suburban Legends. Those guys are all dancing around, tossing trumpets into the air and catching them, all choreographed without missing a beat. It's quite a sight to behold in person. After about 20 minutes of searching on youtube, it seems no one was recording at that concert I saw them at, but I assure you it was pretty awesome.
Also, some bands, I think the Black Keys are an example, don't do a lot of post-production in their music, because they want it to have more of a 'raw' feel.
Beiber I don't have a problem with at all. I like most types of music and what little I dislike I can tolerate fairly well. Gospel, many genres of metal, country, techno and its subgenres (even dubstep to an extrent. Country tends to get old quick, but its enjoyable for a little bit. Rap and hip hop I just find annoying. It doesn't help that my earliest recollections of the genre had filthy lyrics. Screaming metal and metalcore/hardcore I don't like because I don't have a chance to understand what the guy or gal is saying. I much prefer clean folk, power, or symphonic metal.
Bakerofish wrote:saying everyone can make dubstep if they have a computer is like saying everyone can paint a landscape if they have paint
i dont particularly like dubstep but i can see the skill behind it.
While this statement actually has quite a bit of truth in it, I understand where both sides are coming from.... I will only add this to this discussion: While 'anyone' can make electronic music, not everyone can make "good" electronic music.
So anyone can can make electronic music, while the ones who can make it good tend not to make dubstep?
Bakerofish wrote:saying everyone can make dubstep if they have a computer is like saying everyone can paint a landscape if they have paint
i dont particularly like dubstep but i can see the skill behind it.
While this statement actually has quite a bit of truth in it, I understand where both sides are coming from.... I will only add this to this discussion: While 'anyone' can make electronic music, not everyone can make "good" electronic music.
So anyone can can make electronic music, while the ones who can make it good tend not to make dubstep?
treadhead1944 wrote:If you don't like this you are dead in the soul
If you do like this you are dead in the ears
This is a song written by a man to his daughter. The girl had been upset by her parents divorce, and he wrote this song to reach out to her, to let her know that she was loved deeply by him. Now that said, Peter Gabriel is one of the leaders in the World Music movement. Why does that matter you say? Because Peter Gabriel's use of sampled African drums led to Drum and Bass. DnB let to garage, which led to dubstep. If you want to know where you are going, you have to know where you have been.
Also, try listening to the lyrics, they open up a whole new world.
necrovamp wrote:Just a thought, talking about real music, Where would bands such as Pink Floyd, Yes, Led Zepplin, The Beatles and many other 'real' bands be without using technology in their music, such as voice modification, sampling.
I have a feeling, these bands would be using a lot of computer generated sounds in order to make their music, as they were at the forefront of technology then and the forefront of technology today is a computer.
Hard to say. A couple years past, I saw Rodger Waters performing The Wall live, and he didn't really incorporate any new technology (well, audio technology) into his music. Granted, he was reproducing a classic, not writing new music, but still.
Either way, there's a difference between adding a reverb here and there, and maybe playing some vocals backwards, and building a complete song on FL. The added complexity of it being orchestrated with a band, as opposed to a guy on a laptop, is kind of a big deal too. It's not just about getting every note right and on beat on a synth in those cases; it's about getting the entire band so well practiced that they can replicate it on queue, well. It's the difference between one guy jogging 10 miles, and a sports team playing flawlessly. The first one is a feat, no doubt, and I probably couldn't do it, but it doesn't require all that the latter does.
I mean, compare the 'electronic music' with a live performance like Suburban Legends. Those guys are all dancing around, tossing trumpets into the air and catching them, all choreographed without missing a beat. It's quite a sight to behold in person. After about 20 minutes of searching on youtube, it seems no one was recording at that concert I saw them at, but I assure you it was pretty awesome.
Also, some bands, I think the Black Keys are an example, don't do a lot of post-production in their music, because they want it to have more of a 'raw' feel.
My point was that i belived if thoses bands were making music, or started out today they would be at lteast incorparating some of the metheods that 'electronic' bands are using now, as they were at the forefront of technology then and the forefront of technology for music at the moment is a computer. Pink floyd were trying to create effects using splicing and other odd means that can these days be made on a computer in minutes. Though they probably would still stand there and just play their instruments.
I think the point im trying to make is these 'real' bands were pioneers in using technology for music in the 70's, while today these 'electronic' bands are the pioneers.
Saying you only like Eminem in regards to hip hop shows that either have horrible taste or are ignorant of good hip hop. I'll grant you that he is the only decent MC to get regular airplay, but that's because everything on the radio sucks.
Amaya wrote:Saying you only like Eminem in regards to hip hop shows that either have horrible taste or are ignorant of good hip hop. I'll grant you that he is the only decent MC to get regular airplay, but that's because everything on the radio sucks.
Who is this aimed at?
Though I'll agree on the horrible taste part, not the "only decent MC to get regular airplay" though.
Though I suppose it might be a different case over in the states.
Amaya wrote:Saying you only like Eminem in regards to hip hop shows that either have horrible taste or are ignorant of good hip hop. I'll grant you that he is the only decent MC to get regular airplay, but that's because everything on the radio sucks.
Who is this aimed at?
Though I'll agree on the horrible taste part, not the "only decent MC to get regular airplay" though.
Though I suppose it might be a different case over in the states.
At least two different people in this thread posted about how they hate rap, but like Eminem because he is the only rapper who puts meaning in his songs. It's such an ignorant statement all I can do is laugh.
Amaya wrote:Saying you only like Eminem in regards to hip hop shows that either have horrible taste or are ignorant of good hip hop. I'll grant you that he is the only decent MC to get regular airplay, but that's because everything on the radio sucks.
Who is this aimed at?
Though I'll agree on the horrible taste part, not the "only decent MC to get regular airplay" though.
Though I suppose it might be a different case over in the states.
At least two different people in this thread posted about how they hate rap, but like Eminem because he is the only rapper who puts meaning in his songs. It's such an ignorant statement all I can do is laugh.
Hehe, I found that interesting too. Like "if it's not on the radio, it does not exist."
necrovamp wrote:on the whole dubstep thing..... I prefer music that actually has something to listen to, such as lyrics or a tune I can dance/mosh to. The Dubstep i've heard is just noise, I cant even jump up and down to it properly.
Music : Sounds + Silences
Noise : Undistinct sounds uniterrupted by silences
If you cannot perceive dubstep as music, I would recommend you go and contact audiologist/psychologist.
Automatically Appended Next Post: How anyone could not like this, I have no clue
********WARNING : EPILEPTICS AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE***********
necrovamp wrote:on the whole dubstep thing..... I prefer music that actually has something to listen to, such as lyrics or a tune I can dance/mosh to. The Dubstep i've heard is just noise, I cant even jump up and down to it properly.
Music : Sounds + Silences
Noise : Undistinct sounds uniterrupted by silences
If you cannot perceive dubstep as music, I would recommend you go and contact audiologist/psychologist.
Automatically Appended Next Post: How anyone could not like this, I have no clue
********WARNING : EPILEPTICS AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE***********
I never said dunstep wasnt music, only I prefer music with a tune, Dubstep is very much like black metal to me, in that there isnt much melody or tune, just noise, I like songs where the noises are arranged so that they make a tune. I'd prefer to listen to say metallica than emperor as metallica play a tune emperor play noise.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
How anyone could not like this, I have no clue
Spoiler:
********WARNING : EPILEPTICS AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE***********
This is made by a good friend of mine, and Dodge who I've met a few times, but Chris I've known for years. He's a real good chap. He also used to play guitar in a band, has a Rickenbacker, so has some experience with both electronic and traditional music making.
