Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Jubear wrote:
http://soundcloud.com/
michael-harris-26

techno-is-garbage

done

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.

angel of ecstasy wrote: *snip*

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.

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.

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.

daedalus wrote:

Jubear wrote:
http://soundcloud.com/
michael-harris-26

techno-is-garbage

done

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.

Thanks

I will say one thing it was good fun to make.

Private_Joker wrote:Changing pitch and volume of a sound wave,

You just described all music...

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.

If you don't like this you are dead in the soul

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.

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

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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?

Melissia wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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?

BINGO!

That is all

TheAngrySquig wrote:

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.

daedalus wrote:

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.

Goliath wrote:

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:

Goliath wrote:

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***********

Kovnik Obama wrote:

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.

For those not sure on black metal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRm3eJ5-51s&feature=relmfu

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.

Melissia wrote:Skrillex... *looks up on wikipedia*


Yep, California. Figures.

Also, his hairstyle fills me with rage for some reason.

I remember when Skrillex was just sonny in FFTL. Made much better music then, too. The lyrics are fairly fethed up. Standard post-hardcore fare.