The musicians are almost extinct

[waxahachie]

You can believe in martians if you want, call you mama for feed you too, is up to you.
Good luck in your music composition.

[Juho L]

Originally Posted by waxahachie

The answers here speak for each one how much knowledge have the people about music notation.

Hell with notation. What good is writing and reading if you don't know the language. Notation is a triviality in this case. It's a tool, not music itself.

And the big question : who cares? the answer is "you" because you are only one steep to be a real composer learning music and writing your creations like a professional and speak same language over the planet without need to memorize thousand of visual plays.

It's kinda paradoxal to first speak of importance of understanding of notation as a basis of music (in aggravatevily speaking) and then about universal language of music. Universal language of music is rythmic/melodic sound - Not the mice shit on paper. Hoho.

Originally Posted by teethofgold

discussion of the 70's is not relevant here. 80's electronic music was heavily sequenced (new order? erasure). 90's was the blossoming of electronic dance music... and now here we are... in a world where I have a sample sequencing program on my iphone.

Hey, it is relevant! Same shit, different decade, you know. The technology just have offered a new ways to "cheat" in good and bad. Like I mentioned in my last post, it's a double-edged sword. Technology is not an excuse for wiping out the principles and importance of music in terms of theory and playing.

regardless... I heartily defend my definition of electronic music as modern folk music... as not all electronic music is folk music... but some folk music is electronic... and it is folk by definition... not by style.

What we now need is your definition of folk music. As you know, for example Encyclopedia Britannica defines folk music this way: "type of traditional and generally rural music that originally was passed down through families and other small social groups."

Now we need to fit electronic music in that definition. It is possible to create folk music influenced electornic music, but electronic music being folk music? Nope. The problem is that folk music has even more deeper historical roots than classical music. It's very tightly bond to regional cultural heritages.

how long before electronic music parties become a "tradition"?

Really long. For example Finnish folk has its roots in over thousand years in the past. The folk of US is probably the only "new" folk, but it has most of its roots in Irish and British folk, so its not genuinely new either.

By the way what is this obsession with folk anyways? A some certain music being folk doesn't make it any better. It's just a way to differiate culturally and thus historically relevant music from others, just like rock as a genre defines rock music. Genres are there for making defining music easier. Messing the genres just cause confusion.

rock music is going to be classical in 200 years... no? ever heard the term "classic rock"? how do you think black sabbath would have felt about that term back in 75?

how about the term "classic rave"? I'm the one and only dominator!

Classical is classical and probably always will be. It's just all triviality. Let's not confuse people with mixing genre stuff in sake of mixing genres.

[teethofgold]

the definition you provided for folk music is the one I agree with! what will people look back upon from our modern culture and view as "historically significant" music of the people?

the real point is that not all of these people are trying to be rock stars... much like folk musicians aren't trying to be successful... they are just playing the music because they love it. there is room for new traditions... give it time...

still... this discussion of "people can't play keyboards" is seriously flawed in that some of the best electronic music (in my opinion) is not even physically possible to play.

[Juho L]

Originally Posted by teethofgold

the definition you provided for folk music is the one I agree with! what will people look back upon from our modern culture and view as "historically significant" music of the people?

the real point is that not all of these people are trying to be rock stars... much like folk musicians aren't trying to be successful... they are just playing the music because they love it. there is room for new traditions... give it time...

Folk has its roots in the roots of historic culture of the whole nation. That's the reason why electronic music cannot be, or even become, folk in the frames defined earlier. Well, to be exact, electronic music can become folk if you somehow manage to put up a completely new nation with its own cultural heritage includes electronic music, but that just seems utopistic.

still... this discussion of "people can't play keyboards" is seriously flawed in that some of the best electronic music (in my opinion) is not even physically possible to play.

Somehow the whole thread started to revolve around playing instead of general knowledge of basics of music. That's wrong way. Music and playing are different things. Playing is part of music, but not music itself.

Sure thing composer can be lousy player. For example I am a crappy player, but it doesn't prevent me from composing. Although complete lack of knowledge of theory of music and the basic concepts would seriously hinder my composing, or even making it completely impossible. You couldn't play or compose without knowing the basics and theory of music. So in conclusion music is theory and basics. There is no language without grammar. Now this is the point I'm after!

[teethofgold]

I would say "culture" instead of nation. in america we have a variety of different styles of folk music that are tied regionally... but are more about the specific cultures that spawned them.

I thought the thread started off discussing the physical playing of music.. but I agree with you that musical knowledge is the real issue here... because it takes some knowledge to jam with an arpeggiator and make it sound good!

[Juho L]

Originally Posted by teethofgold

I would say "culture" instead of nation. in america we have a variety of different styles of folk music that are tied regionally... but are more about the specific cultures that spawned them.

I pointed out earlier that the "new" folk of US is actually mixbag of old folk from Europe, so it's not actually new stuff.

[teethofgold]

juho, this idea you seem to be perpetuating that folk music is some sort of fixed genre seems pretty short sighted. music evolves. which genre can you point to this isn't synthesized from another, previously existing genre?

your point about american folk is certainly way off base... because some american folk integrates the european folk with the african slaves and their traditional song and chanting styles... creating music which was never heard before. of course you can point to it's roots... but it is still something different from what was there before... and more to my point... it is the music of the people of the time...

[meisenhower]

This kind of "discussion" is going likely polarize its contributors into two distinct groups (with some obvious crossover, hybrids and everything in between), but I'm making a very broad generalization.

1. THOSE WHO PLAY: At its highest level, these are people who have spend years in study, crafting their artform, learning technique, theory, composition and can read, write, perform, and play in virtually any situation presented. This can be somewhat genre specific, but the chops and musical knowledge are there. Think "studio" hired gun in NYC, LA, London, Nashville.

They can also be anyone who took some lessons at some point in their life on their instrument of choice (and became proficient), can read some music (chord charts), maybe play better by ear, played in bands over the years and have some understanding of the creative musical process and how to put together melody, harmony structure, rhythm and texture to create "music."


2. THOSE WHO DO NOT PLAY: These are DJ's, producers and others who "produce" music by creating beats, loops, samples, sequences, patterns. They may or may not; "play" an instrument, may or may not understand music theory, may or may not read music, or have ever performed in an ensemble, and are largely in the electronic music realm.

Both can make musically satisfying sound scapes, make high quality tracks and produce successful commercial product.

However, to call someone a "musician" who doesn't play an instrument or understand musical structure, or "hasn't done the work" is often considered to be a personal affront to those who have.

The tools that have emerged in recent history have allowed virtually anyone to create and perform music and this is a good thing. It is however, akin to the "dumbing down" of the musical process, in that those who create solely by these means are not tapping their full potential, as the more we know, the more we can do.

I think we've seen an overall decline in "musicianship" with the advances in technology and the "playing assist" devices that have become so common in music today.

Why worry about playing a complex passage cleanly, when you can simply play it poorly into a sequencer and "clean it up" afterwards? Why bother to develop technique to play, when the "computer has all the chops you need"?

Why? Because a "musician" is often defined by their command of the instrument. It doesn't matter what your genre is, there are accomplished players and there are "hacks" (except in maybe classical music, as hacks don't usually get too far in the professional ranks).

One doesn't have to be a virtuoso, but should demonstrate some competency on your instrument of choice (and by instrument, I'm not including loop players, sample players, sequencers, beat boxes or drum machines).

If you can play your instrument AND use all the gadgets above, then you have a well rounded "bag of tricks".

[IamEvil]

Originally Posted by meisenhower

However, to call someone a "musician" who doesn't play an instrument or understand musical structure, or "hasn't done the work" is often considered to be a personal affront to those who have.

The online dictionary states that a musician is someone who composes, conducts or performs music.

I don't believe that someone who jangles a tambourine in a band to be more of a musician or musically superior to anyone who composes, sequences and produces full songs.

I think we've seen an overall decline in "musicianship" with the advances in technology and the "playing assist" devices that have become so common in music today.

I don't think we have seen a decline. There are people around who can still play instruments , probably the same amount as there always has been. The thing that has changed is the amount of coverage that people can now enjoy.
20 years ago your average guy with a TR606 and TB303 couldn't make music videos and songs and then post for to the whole world to listen to. They remained hidden in bedrooms until they "got lucky"

Why worry about playing a complex passage cleanly, when you can simply play it poorly into a sequencer and "clean it up" afterwards? Why bother to develop technique to play, when the "computer has all the chops you need"?

In the past music was playable live, people emulated their idols by buying similar equipment and copying the chords and leads. Now alot of electronic music with its complexity is beyond the capability of humans to play live. There is no point trying to learn to play a certain style when it isn't going to bring you closer to the goal you desire. Why waste 8 hours a day practicing keyboard skills when it could be used in learning how to produce professional sounding sellable music ?

[meisenhower]

Originally Posted by IamEvil

Why waste 8 hours a day practicing keyboard skills when it could be used in learning how to produce professional sounding sellable music ?

Are seriously going to stick with that statement?

I guess all of those years of playing scales, learning theory and composition were all a waste then?

Try and sit in with a jazz trio as a pianist and you'll quickly see where those 8 hours a day of practicing scales and learning theory can come in pretty handy. I don't need to sequence anything, as there aren't any technical passages that I can't play live.

I guess that by that ill conceived logic, if you can sequence a Herbie Hancock solo, then that makes you as good as Herbie Hancock? Not by a long shot.

It is exactly this kind of attitude that is making "musicians" extinct.