I could use that right now very much so!
That made me spit up a little milk. :rofl: We post in nearly the same threads surely we have to have beefed. I may be thinking of GB, we disagree on nearly everything, mainly his irrational hatred of all things gibson.

ps: I have p90's in my strat. Pretty sacrilegious as well. At least their not Swashbucklers though...jeeze.

this!:clap:

Remixers fall into the category of producers as i understand it.

P90s in a Strat? WOW hahah though i'm pretty sure it was GB who razzed me for my humbuckers too. They're the default pickups though (I got a deal on a Special HH model as opposed to a classic).

Speaking of irrational hate for Gibsons I'm actually debating offering my Jaguar as a straight trade for a Gibson Sonex Deluxe from like 1981. The body is apparently mdf (medium density fiberboard) around a tonewood core, though Gibson called it 'Resonwood', it's colloquially known as the countertop guitar. :crazy:

It looks like a melody maker.

Thirded. I definitely say yes. One thousand times yes.

In my eyes, any artist who uses electronic implements to create music is a musician. Artists who use instruments, such as guitarists, pianists, bassists, etc., to create music are also musicians. The distinctions only differ when you wish to further describe what kind of music such artists make. Is hip hop any less hip hop-py when using a real symphony/ensemble instead of a traditional beat? In my opinion, it is not.

Here's my beef with that angle. Let's say you're realm is the visual arts. You've dedicated years of your life to learn to paint. Then some kid shows up, snaps a digital photo of a scene you've been working on, spends a few hours in Photoshop running filters over the image and then VOILA! their end result looks like a painting. Is that person an actual artist or just an image manipulator?

That's the thing that seems to be lacking for me. A lot of people arguing that angle seem to put musical instruments on the same level as the computer - it's just a tool the musician uses. Which, on one level is completely true and accurate. On another it's complete wrong. There is no other purpose for a piano, guitar, drums, etc to exist other than to make music. That's why they were invented. The computer, not so much.

I guess that's really my main beef with computer / non computer musicians. If you've never actually learned a musical instrument I can't bring myself to call you an actual musician. The computer is NOT a musical instrument.

I think your argumen falls down when you consider what something can be made to be. A urinal isn't inherently art, a knife is not inherently a murder weapon, a human being is not inherently a serial killer, and a computer is not inherently a musical instrument.

But its entirely possible for any of those things to be all of those things by virtue of what someone does with them.

Fine art photography is very much a part of art and has been used by many artists.

http://bwgallerist.files.wordpress.c...05/image22.png

you seem to be using the term artist and musician as if it's an esteemed title to be bestowed only to those that worked on a particular skill set that you value. Whether an artist has any worth to you or anyone else is irrelevant, if they're working in visual arts they would be considered an artist, the medium they use to do it won't change that.

Well that's not really a fair comparison. Making music on a computer isn't the same as pressing a button and getting a picture an artist would have to slave over to even come close. But in that same realm of visual arts, would you consider a person that can make extremely detailed and fantastic artwork by hand on Photoshop to be an artist, or just some lackey pressing a button? Does it matter that he's using a mouse, rather than a paintbrush? Sure, one method might have different sets of difficulties over the other, but both require an artist's mind and skill in order for the end result to be considered art...

You're looking at it wrong. The computer isn't the instrument. The music software is, and is designed for specifically the purpose of making music, which nicely parallels the purpose of an actual music instrument. Also, you might say "well, you still NEED the computer so that the software can work", but that's pretty much the same as saying you need physics in order for a music instrument to work. The purpose of an instrument, whether digital or physical, relies on one thing or another for it to function, but is not defined by it.

Well, if you've read what I've typed above, I hope that you can at least entertain the slightest possibility that music creation software is, logically, an instrument in the intuitive sense of the word. Maybe even in a denotative sense. And if you have any idea of the actual skill that's involved with music creation on a computer, then you definitely know it can't be compared to arbitrarily taking a photo, and that some merit should be given to the musicianship of a person with the ability to create what people consider good music.

:)