bryn

I like quite a lot of electronic based music, but I always think there's something slightly soulless about sounds that aren't being generated by the source instrument.

At times, Aphex Twin, in particular, is some of the most touching, beautiful music I have ever heard.

Isn't perfection ultimately a sterile' date=' safe experience?[/quote']

In terms of rock and jazz, I think a rough edge is cool, I sometimes find albums like Blood Sugar Sex Majik, Metallica's Black Album pretty horrible for their perfection. The Kerrang-type, pop-metal production ideal is repulsive.

However, a decent set of speakers highlight the flaws in my own production and gives me a greater appreciation of well-produced music. I can sit back and really appreciate even top forty music; I'm interested in how the music is put together.

Being creative has got nothing to do with your mastery of your instrument' date=' some people who I regard as highly creative are no more than average on their chosen intruments.

.[/quote']

Whilst I agree with this, I'd also suggest that skill allows said people to voice themselves in multiple ways. You could have all the talent in the world but without some degree of skill, nobody is going to know about it.

Skill and knowledge are in perfect concordance with natural talent, contrary to the beliefs of many people who see skill somehow as a dampener on creativity / enjoy dismissing 'elitist' approaches etc.

there's no need for this media frenzy over the damn thing. Instead of getting in a panic' date=' I'd prefer the media to be educating the public on precautions, and advising them that they can still eat chickens, etc.

.[/quote']

I've not really heard or read anything overly dramatised about it. Even the P&J was pretty informative this morning.

Its pretty strange that this early twentieth century outbreak hasn't really entered most peoples' radar prior to this, as it seems like a fairly significant moment!

Sorry but i have to disagree with most of what you say....again.... I work for an old Prog band .. Pallas .. and by far the majority of their current album was created via keyboards computers and sequencers long before they went into the studio' date=' they then all had to learn their parts before recording it with "real" instruments, not an easy task.

And why do you mock me for listening to music I enjoy, does that place me beneath you the evolutionary ladder?[/quote']

I didn't intend to mock, I merely noticed something you said that agreed with my opinion that there is in existence a majority group of music listeners and players who essentially have the same motives; hence the descriptive terms 'original' and 'creative' in my opinion should not be hastily applied to anyone.

When I suggested older people are incapable I was referring particularly to beginners, and I stand by that. It wasn't a comment against you, for I have no idea who you are.

i think what he means is no one can recreated the exact sound of someone playing a duff note on guitar or slighty missing hitting a drum' date=' during a recording, things which people like to hear, however it is alot easier to recreate something made using computers as the samples and the ways to do it are already in front of you, you just have to find the right buttons.[/quote']

This concept has become really unappealing to me upon acquiring a decent soundsystem, whereby I now cherish perfection. Its really quite enlightening, for example, the other day I was listening to Madonna of all people, and I became aware of notes and sounds (in particular a long sustained bass note in one section) that are simply not picked up when listening through standard speakers. People don't actually know what their favourite songs are 'supposed' to sound like.

So what instrument do you need to play to be original/creative and why cant you be creative/original on the guitar...

I made it clear I wasn't criticising the instrument. 99% of the time' date=' the young are too impressionable and can't see beyond their idols to be original whilst the old are simply incapable.

The recruitment pool for guitar playing is so wide that the reduction in quality is inevitable. Its accesible, easy and corresponds with pop culture. Computer music, on the other hand, must be dug out, and I think this represents a significant distinction already from the mind of the thirteen year old Nirvana fan (or middle-aged obsessive).

Most people are content with skimming the surface of music, a point illustrated by Greame C, chapter 9, Pg142:

...just as long as it triggers the entertainment synapses .....and I believe by far the majority are in the same boat.

Do you think the music you make has more artistic merit than most guitar based bands? Seriously i am interested to know and why you think so.

The majority of guitar based bands are just products for mass consumer society, so the ratio of artistic merit versus corporate trash is bound to be pretty low. I don't mean that as a criticism of the instrument, more-over, the people attracted to guitar simply don't seem to be the kind as interested in being original or creative (cue the angsty teen wanting to be a rockstar, abundance of slayer fans etc etc).

I never said that people were incapable of making decisions for themselves. I just said that enviromental factors play a role in determining what sort of music someone will enjoy listening to.

Surely circumstance can only really define what exactly you are exposed to, not in fact, what you 'like'. Though this potentially brings up a fairly difficult concept in that, is it circumstance that defines musical taste and are all people capable of liking the same music depending on circumstance?

We are all surely, at least in the beginner stages of music listening, influenced by others. Take a good friend or sibling - could it be that, whatever music said person introduces you to is what defines your taste? We are all highly impressionable; blank canvasses that are merely influenced by others who were influenced by others etc etc etc?

Fair enough there are shite bands in my opinion.

its the whole' date=' one persons shit is another persons gold and far too many people tend to slagg of bands etc, rather than have any constructive criticsm.[/quote']

Blah blah blah... who gives a shit? I'm sick of these attempts to be 'fair' and 'criticise constructively'. This website just goes round and round, the same scenarios being re-enacted with less conviction each time. You asked why people like the music they do and wind up with a poorly written moral mix-match of other shit you've read composed by equally 'objective' people.

Get an opinion. Don't feel forced to be a 'cool guy' and post objectively, fairly etc because everyone remembers SoM's debut on here.

I'm fairly unrestrained and uninfluenced by magazines, websites, other people; lacking commitment to one specified 'genre' - a concept that often consists of a glue that binds genre and follower into a system of approval, elitism and subsequent limitation.

Generally when I'm 'looking' for music these days its usually something that will be some sort of advancement on my musical thought, if you like, and that is governed by whatever I may be listening to at that time, if you get me.

I also think I can define quite accurately what I do and don't like, purely because I understand the concept of 'like' and 'appreciate' - something that possibly defines, in some way, what listening to music as a musician is; you can't realistically expect musically un-educated people to have a very objective view.

Whilst in total agreement with the above post' date=' I'm wondering (but not very deeply, as I haven't had any breakfast!), if it's more about social bias rather than cultural?[/quote']

Thats what I was thinking. Doesn't 'cultural' suggest ethnicity issues as opposed to 'class'?

Isn't that everyone nowadays???

I can never decide. I have intelligent friends who aren't at uni; there are lots of rich-boy no-hopers in the same halls as me. One guy next door went to Gordonstone (sp?) and has' date=' like his two brothers, dropped out in his first year. I am surprised that this guy can read he's so stupid. How ever these people slip through the net..

But then again, is it that same old cultural bias in the education system?

Note - I'm not sure if it is and can't be bothered reading that quote again.

I've been using Audition for the past few days just for recording some guitar; found it pretty simple to use.

Live 5 came in the post today but I have to wait a week until I'm back to my computer to install it

Ollie def. states 'From Wikipedia' at the start! He's just looking for a few opinions' date=' that's all.[/quote']

That doesn't detract from the absence of substance in the first post, the wikipedia quote and the university trash-talk. I wonder if they study people who are naively forced into further education on the basis of social / class convention as opposed to actual ability?

Are you sayin that i have a tight arse bryn? thanks. ollie x

Its doubtful.

Naw naw naw thats brilliant, just got a bit more of an authentic feel to it

nice one!

ps..no I dont have a scanner...)

hehe

Its fairly cliche but I really fancy learning 'Well You Needn't' I should probably just stick to pissing around with my classy walking bass / solo in C minor.

8)

Anyone know where you can get free online, printable piano music? I quite fancy learning some Thelonious Monk bits.

Thanks

Yes bryn' date=' i study Ma sociology (honours) at the University of Aberdeen, one of the leading places to study for this subject..[/quote']

I feel that a reply such as this above combined with the initial concept of shamelessly posting relatively advanced topics on the wasteland - essentially creating a useless thread intended to sponge off of anyone on here who may be informed (lethargy? stupidity?) - de-values the whole education selection process that many work hard to meet.

The more and more I read the above quote the funnier it gets. Its like I'm at a party and theres a fit girl who also happens to be a complete bitch and she's trying to convince you she's not an idiot. She reels this line off then walks away shaking her tight arse and really believing she 'got one' on you and proved her worth with her trying-hard-not-to-sound-bitchy retort.

Yes bryn' date=' i study Ma sociology (honours) at the University of Aberdeen, one of the leading places to study for this subject.[/quote']

Ah, University you say?? fancy stuff eh.. Trying to start an essay is it? How long? got research to do I bet. Should probably get off wikipedia and down the library I'll say, gota fill that bibliography and all..

From Wikipedia -

Bourdieu's theory of power and practice

'Bourdieu shared Weber's view that society' date=' contrary to traditional Marxism, cannot be analyzed simply in terms of economic classes and ideologies. Much of his work concerns the independent role of educational and cultural factors. Instead of analyzing societies in terms of classes, Bourdieu uses the concept of field: a social arena in which people manoeuvre and struggle in pursuit of desirable resources. A field is a system of social positions, structured internally in terms of power relationships. Different fields can be quite autonomous and more complex societies have more fields.

In his theoretical writings, Bourdieu employs the terminology of economics to analyze the process of social reproduction, of how social and linguistic capital tend to transfer from one generation to the next. For Bourdieu, education represents the paradigmatic example of this process. Educational success, according to Bourdieu, entails a whole range of cultural behaviors, extending to ostensibly non-academic features like gait or accent. Privileged children have learned this behaviour, as have their teachers. Children of unprivileged backgrounds have not. The children of privilege fit into the world of educational expectations with apparent 'ease'. The unprivileged are found to be 'difficult', to present 'challenges'. Yet both behave as their upbringing dictates. Bourdieu regards this 'ease', or 'natural' ability as in fact the product of a great social labour on the part of the parents. It equips their children with the dispositions of manner as well as thought which ensure they are able to succeed within the educational system and can then reproduce their class position in the wider social system.

Bourdieu sees the legitimation of cultural capital as crucial to its effectiveness as a source of power. It is seen as symbolic violence, violence which is exercised upon a social agent with his or her complicity. What this means is that people come to experience systems of meaning (culture) as legitimate; there is a process of misunderstanding or misrecognition of what is really going on. So it comes that working class children see it as legitimate that their middle-class peers have more success in the educational system as based on their objective performance. A key part of this process is the transformation of people's cultural habits or economic positions into symbolic capital that has legitimacy and is seen as real. Symbolic capital is nothing more than economic or cultural capital which is acknowledged and recognized and then tends to reinforce the power relations which constitute the structure of social space.

Habitus can be defined as a system of dispositions: durably acquired schemes of perception, thought and action, engendered by objective conditions but tending to persist even after an alteration of those conditions. Bourdieu sees habitus as the key to reproduction because it is what actually generates the regular practices that make up social life. It is the product of social conditioning and so links actual behavior to class structure.

Bourdieu insists on the importance of a reflexive sociology in which sociologists must at all times conduct their research with conscious attention to the effects of their own position, and in particular their own set of internalized structures.

Bourdieu's sociology in general can be characterized as an investigation of the pre-reflexive conditions that generate certain beliefs and practices that are generated in capitalist systems.'

I was just asking whethar or not people agreed with his concept?[/quote']

Do you have an opinion yourself? Have you researched it at all? The chances of finding a decent argument on this subject are non-existent on this site.. o_O

She really sounds like a proper shit person. Ditch her asap and find some real people.

Take the examples of Jimmy Page and Steve Vai. Pagey's live stuff is full of mistakes (so's some of the studio work)' date=' but is loaded with groove and heart - whilst Vai, a brilliant technician, produces (IMHO) calculated and souless music that leaves the listener respectful of his abilities, but cold (again IMHO).

DZL[/quote']

I find it hard to see how anyone can call Vai's music cold. Some of his stuff is really quite beautiful if you invest a bit, so I'll assume you're merely using a non-existent knowledge of this guy as a metaphor for all piss-artist shredders?

As for your comparison...Jimmy Page is GASH. Undeniaby they created some cool tunes, but Page's solos and impro are soooo balls. One particular song, Heartbreaker I think, though its a few years since I've listened to LZ, where theres an extended solo and Jimmy really tries to shred it up? - worst, most painful, unjustly rated solo ever.

Vai - the potential to hear something innovative, ground-breaking and generaly interesting.

Page, LZ - crap-ass, teenage rock riffs and the ultimate rock cliche. Ughh - nightmare.

Because they epitomise(d?) generic American rock.