Musical Tastes

[trippinoneastereggs]

more-over' date=' the people attracted to guitar simply don't seem to be the kind as interested in being original or creative [/quote']

thats absolute rubbish.

[Larsen B]

Why are you being such a prick? Why do any of you think your opinion is worth anything more than anyone elses? It's only because you are content with pulling each others cocks all day' date=' bathing in that tepid pool of tellytubby culture, smugly confident in your conformity, that you even feel like you have the guts to express a so called "opinion". None of you have your own opinions, or if you do you don't have the guts to stand by them, and you have the despicable habit of taking the piss out of those that actually do think for themselves.

THAT is a huge contributing factor to the cultural inadequacy of this city.[/quote']

I quite clearly have my own opinion that music is not deep, or profound, in meaning for the reason of having an abstract sound only. It's not a generally discussed idea, and as such not an opinion that many people hold, although they may come to that conclusion if they really gave the matter some thought. So I am thinking for myself. I would like to have seen you attempt to refute this, but all I've seen is unsubstantiated replies like "you don't understand". I'm afraid that you know you can't refute this argument and that you (of all people!!!) don't even have an actual opinion on the matter. You're just being contrary for the sake of it, because it's the only way you can feel unique.

[Stripey]

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 music *I* make is beside the point. The kind of music I like listening to, yes, as far as I'm concerned it does have miles more artistic merit than most guitar based bands.

[HeinzHines]

The majority of guitar based bands are just products for mass consumer society

Surely thats a minority? I cant see the ratio of bands being signed to being unsigned higher in favour of the signed acts.

the people attracted to guitar simply don't seem to be the kind as interested in being original or creative

I disagree, i think anything done on a guitar or any other instrument is instantly more creative than anything produced on a computer.

I feel this way because everything created digitally is held back by programming parameters, even if you minipulate a patch beyond recgonition, it can still be recreacted by anyone with time, playing an instrument needs a level of skill and even playing a chord badly is creative, as its controlled by a human not a bunch of 1's and 0's that someone has already made.

Actually i make little sense writing this, but i know what i mean in my head and hopefully someone else will get what im saying!

[Larsen B]

Surely thats a minority? I cant see the ratio of bands being signed to being unsigned higher in favour of the signed acts.

I disagree' date=' i think anything done on a guitar or any other instrument is instantly more creative than anything produced on a computer.

I feel this way because everything created digitally is held back by programming parameters, even if you minipulate a patch beyond recgonition, it can still be recreacted by anyone with time, playing an instrument needs a level of skill and even playing a chord badly is creative, as its controlled by a human not a bunch of 1's and 0's that someone has already made.

Actually i make little sense writing this, but i know what i mean in my head and hopefully someone else will get what im saying![/quote']

I don't think that necessity of a level of skill in playing guitar makes it any more creative than digitally created sounds in itself. I don't agree with the statement that people interested in making music with guitars are not interested in creativity though.

[Guest Gasss]

Is this going to descend into one of those troll-tastic computer versus guitar debates? For fucks sake, why don't we argue about which gardening tools are better?

I think a trowel is infinitely better than a spade. There, I've said it.

[Larsen B]

Is this going to descend into one of those troll-tastic computer versus guitar debates? For fucks sake' date=' why don't we argue about which gardening tools are better?

I think a trowel is infinitely better than a spade. There, I've said it.[/quote']

I prefer a sturdy hoe.

[Guest Gasss]

I prefer a sturdy hoe.

You obviously have no understanding of true gardening. Leverage is a gimmick for amateurs with no inspiration. Getting down on your hands and knees adds a real authenticity to your labour.

[Old Gold]

No way folks, garden tools are only cool because they're 'retro' and are as a result uncreative as fuck.

Join the strimmer revolution.

[Guest Gasss]

No way folks' date=' garden tools are only cool because they're 'retro' and are as a result uncreative as fuck.

Join the strimmer revolution.[/quote']

There's no skill in strimming! You just push a button and it does it all for you!

[Alan Cynic]

Goats are the way forward. Gardening done badly, but with personality, plus food and sex available whenever.

[empty-words]

at the end of the day your all talking shite.

[Guest Gasss]

at the end of the day your all talking shite.

Good point

http://www.railwaysleeper.com

[Alan Cynic]

Dung, surely?

[GraemeC]

The music *I* make is beside the point. The kind of music I like listening to' date=' yes, as far as I'm concerned it does have miles more artistic merit than most guitar based bands.[/quote']

When it comes down to it what has "artistic merit" got to do with anything, I believe that music is music is music, if something isn't my cup of tea I give it a swerve and listen to something else. I have no interest in whether or not it massages my intellect just as long as it triggers the entertainment/relax/get goosebumps/hey lets dance synapses then thats OK with me.....and I believe by far the majority are in the same boat.

"there are two types of music, music you like and music you don't."

[Stripey]

I disagree' date=' i think anything done on a guitar or any other instrument is instantly more creative than anything produced on a computer.

I feel this way because everything created digitally is held back by programming parameters, even if you minipulate a patch beyond recgonition, it can still be recreacted by anyone with time, playing an instrument needs a level of skill and even playing a chord badly is creative, as its controlled by a human not a bunch of 1's and 0's that someone has already made.

Actually i make little sense writing this, but i know what i mean in my head and hopefully someone else will get what im saying![/quote']

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think you really know how digital production works. Take Neotropic for example, she is a classically trained multiinstrumentalist, writes and performs parts, samples them, processes them / mashes them up digitally, uses synths and samplers, arranges the whole lot. The result is some really amazing music. How is she being held back atall? She's simply exploiting the technology to create great compositions made up of a far bigger range of timbres than you would ever find in a "guitar band".

In that sense, producing digitally has a lot in common with classical orchestration / composition.

Anyway, as people have pointed out, technology is just a means to an end, and it's certainly misguided to think of it as merely slapping together loops and samples that someone else has made.

[The Milner]

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, 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.

[Stripey]

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']

What do you mean by recreate? Once you've finished a recording you don't need to recreate it, and it can be made as glitchy as you like, infact digital equipment and sequencing has it's own potential for cute little mistakes that add character.

What samples are you talking about anyway?

[The Milner]

What do you mean by recreate? Once you've finished a recording you don't need to recreate it' date=' and it can be made as glitchy as you like, infact digital equipment and sequencing has it's own potential for cute little mistakes that add character.

What samples are you talking about anyway?[/quote']

as in achieve an almost perfect recreation of another sound/sample.

If for example i heard a cool sound or effect in an electronically piece of music there would be a good chance i could perfectly recreate this sound using the same equipment they used.

I wasnt talking about it anyway i just tried to explain his post.

[Guest Neubeatz]

Goats are the way forward. Gardening done badly' date=' but with personality, plus food and sex available whenever.[/quote']

Did it all from '90-96 Alan, to me that stuffs "old skool" now,

I tend to agree with GraemeC on the topic, erm 2 types of music, good and bad... the individual has the right to discern.

[Stripey]

as in achieve an almost perfect recreation of another sound/sample.

If for example i heard a cool sound or effect in an electronically piece of music there would be a good chance i could perfectly recreate this sound using the same equipment they used.

I doubt it. It's pretty impossible to tell which equipment/software is being used in the first place, unless you are really attuned to certain subtleties some pieces of equipment have or a factory patch is being used. Even then, to work out the signal chain and all the processing between the sound source and the final sound would be very difficult.

I mean, it's no more likely than it is to recreate a van gogh painting using the same equipment he used. You would still have to be equally as skilled to get the same results.

It seems a bit odd to suggest that what are essentially mistakes made during playing like hitting a duff note or whatever, constitute creativity, when really they unintentional accidents.

[GraemeC]

Did it all from '90-96 Alan' date=' to me that stuffs "old skool" now,

I tend to agree with GraemeC on the topic, erm 2 types of music, good and bad... the individual has the right to discern.[/quote']

Try not to misquote me.....o_O

There is no such thing as bad music.....! its just music you dont like...

[framheim]

I doubt it. It's pretty impossible to tell which equipment/software is being used in the first place' date=' unless you are really attuned to certain subtleties some pieces of equipment have or a factory patch is being used. Even then, to work out the signal chain and all the processing between the sound source and the final sound would be very difficult.

I mean, it's no more likely than it is to recreate a van gogh painting using the same equipment he used. You would still have to be equally as skilled to get the same results.

It seems a bit odd to suggest that what are essentially mistakes made during playing like hitting a duff note or whatever, constitute creativity, when really they unintentional accidents.[/quote']

i guess the little imperfections add character to the music.

i actually agree with a lot of what you're saying though, computers/samplers/etc are just another form of musical instrument with their own imperfections and character just the same as guitars, bass and drums. i guess most people assume making music on a computer is just dropping things into preset music blocks so it takes the character out of it, which isn't true. though i'm sure hines knows this isn't the case. you can be just as creative on a computer as a guitar, perhaps more so as you can adjust more of the sound with less equipment.

i prefer using a guitar but that's just cause i know how to get the sound i want with it faster. i don't mind dabbling with computers but i find myself a little lost when faced with all the options.

[Stripey]

i guess the little imperfections add character to the music.

i actually agree with a lot of what you're saying though' date=' computers/samplers/etc are just another form of musical instrument with their own imperfections and character just the same as guitars, bass and drums. i guess most people assume making music on a computer is just dropping things into preset music blocks so it takes the character out of it, which isn't true. though i'm sure hines knows this isn't the case. you can be just as creative on a computer as a guitar, perhaps more so as you can adjust more of the sound with less equipment.

i prefer using a guitar but that's just cause i know how to get the sound i want with it faster. i don't mind dabbling with computers but i find myself a little lost when faced with all the options.[/quote']

Yeah that's what I was getting at really, you have a lot of control because you're essentially playing the role of musician, sound engineer, synth programmer and producer all in one, so you have complete control over all these aspects, which gives you a lot more scope for experimentation.

[bryn]

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.