Do you consider electronic music creators musicians?

**Janszoon** · 02-21-2012, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave

After a good 15 years of flip flopping on this very issue... I'm still on fence and leaning back on the 'no' side of things. It really depends on where you draw the line. Air is a perfect example of that blur between both camps.

Then you've got a pair like Autechre who (at least at some point in the past) created their music exclusively by using/creating mathematical formulas they'd then dump into their own homebrewed software and hope for the best.

I think Billy Corgan said it best back in the day (paraphrased) - If you can't play your new song on an acoustic instrument you don't actually have much of anything.

Yes, there's a certain je ne sais quoi with great electronic performers who can transform their laptop into something else. But ultimately a laptop is not an instrument, it doesn't create so much as replicate. If push comes to shove and there's a technological apocalypse in the near future how many of those 'musicians' and producers who work exclusively with DAWs and the like would actually be able to pick up an instrument and entertain their peers? Plotting a series of notes in a tracker is not at all the same as playing that same series of notes on a piano, nor does it actually make the individual a musician in my ears.

Setting aside for the moment the fact that I think Autechre make far better music than Billy Corgan, why on earth should acoustic instruments be the yardstick for measuring things? I feel like that viewpoint is akin to saying you're not a sculptor unless your work can be made with a hammer and chisel.

mr dave · 02-22-2012, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Setting aside for the moment the fact that I think Autechre make far better music than Billy Corgan, why on earth should acoustic instruments be the yardstick for measuring things? I feel like that viewpoint is akin to saying you're not a sculptor unless your work can be made with a hammer and chisel.

That's fair. My main thing is if you take the guys from Autechre out of their comfort zone and drop them in a completely different musical environment could they accomplish anything? Would they be able to pick up an instrument and make something happen? Maybe they could, but the impression I'm left with based on their musical output and what I've read about them leads me to believe they'd just stare at the instruments.

Conversely someone like Corgan, while still likely being a colossal dick, would be able to step out of his comfort zone and still manage to create something based on the technical and theoretical knowledge he would have learned through his instrument.

I don't quite agree with your sculptor analogy though. It's more like I'd be hesitant to call someone a sculptor if they've only ever used something like a CNC machine and never learned to use a hammer and chisel.

As for Freebase Dali's introspection, I'd still call you a musician since you retain that knowledge. You might not be a virtuoso on your instruments but you can still play in the moment right? Your focus might be refined to a different aspect of it but you've still experienced the full spectrum. I think that's really what I think is lacking with some of the exclusive computer composers, they only have the one aspect. To me it's like calling yourself an athlete because you know the rules of the sport and bought a jersey.

**Janszoon** · 02-22-2012, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave

That's fair. My main thing is if you take the guys from Autechre out of their comfort zone and drop them in a completely different musical environment could they accomplish anything? Would they be able to pick up an instrument and make something happen? Maybe they could, but the impression I'm left with based on their musical output and what I've read about them leads me to believe they'd just stare at the instruments.

I absolutely think they could accomplish something. Their whole career has been one of building their own equipment and finding new ways of doing things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave

I don't quite agree with your sculptor analogy though. It's more like I'd be hesitant to call someone a sculptor if they've only ever used something like a CNC machine and never learned to use a hammer and chisel.

The point I was making relates to the fact that a lot, perhaps most, of the extremely well-regarded sculptures of the past few hundred years were not produced directly by the hands of the artist, but nevertheless nobody would ever accuse their creators of not being sculptors. Anyway, it was just a metaphor.

mr dave · 02-22-2012, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

The point I was making relates to the fact that a lot, perhaps most, of the extremely well-regarded sculptures of the past few hundred years were not produced directly by the hands of the artist, but nevertheless nobody would ever accuse their creators of not being sculptors. Anyway, it was just a metaphor.

I'm going to step away from the whole Autechre / Corgan thing because I was taking it into ridiculous projection land.

Though I'm curious about the sculpting side of things now. It sounds more like a construction type situation between the architect/sculptor and the construction workers/artisans who follow through with their plan. Though on the artistic side of things you'd build yourself up from artisan to artiste over the course of your career; conversely no amount of putting up drywall is going to give you the experience necessary to design an actual building.

Going back to the music thing, I really think if all a person has done is focus on the composing side of things then they're not quite fully realized as a musician. Yes, they're vital aspects of the art form - so are recording engineers. Does the guy who does the mix for an album count as a musician? He's still very well invested within the process, still has a very tangible effect on the finished product, but most people don't count them as musicians.

Here's my personal anecdote about an 'electronic music creator'. I was in an A/V class years ago and one of the assignments was to create a radio spot using stock or original music. One group made a spot for 'The Music of Student's Name'. It was jam packed with phenomenally smooth and intricate piano arpeggios like Chopin channeled through Oscar Peterson.

The guy had stubby sausage fingers.

All he actually did was plot notes into a piece of computer software. Is it OK for him to present himself as a musician when he lacked the ability to perform or tangible experience with the actual instrument. No one in the lecture theater outside his study group thought so. From what I've read in this thread so far I'm curious. Was he (with his complete lack of ability to actually play the instrument called the Piano) and actual piano based musician?

@Rubato - Why so defensive?

~~Rubato~~ · 02-22-2012, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave

@Rubato - Why so defensive?

Defensive? I do apologise if it looks that way, I'm just putting my opinions across and trying to understand your point of view. Try reading my posts in a more cheerful tone, text tends to leave itself open too much to interpretation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave

Here's my personal anecdote about an 'electronic music creator'. I was in an A/V class years ago and one of the assignments was to create a radio spot using stock or original music. One group made a spot for 'The Music of Student's Name'. It was jam packed with phenomenally smooth and intricate piano arpeggios like Chopin channeled through Oscar Peterson.

The guy had stubby sausage fingers.

All he actually did was plot notes into a piece of computer software. Is it OK for him to present himself as a musician when he lacked the ability to perform or tangible experience with the actual instrument. No one in the lecture theater outside his study group thought so. From what I've read in this thread so far I'm curious. Was he (with his complete lack of ability to actually play the instrument called the Piano) and actual piano based musician?

Yes, he is a musician, there are many instances where a musician has created something beyond their own ability, Scriabin composed a few pieces he himself couldn't play. If someone is writing a piece for orchestra they don't go about it by playing every instrument separately, in fact they often write pieces for instruments they don't play themselves.

What's the fundamental difference between Just plotting down notes into a piece of computer software and just playing a few notes on piano? a piano is just a tool, as is the program used to play the piece. Most electronic music tends to fail at being able to use convincing articulation, dynamics and rubato, leaving the end result rather cold, even those that can are severely outmatched by their more traditional counterparts, but their use and end goal is the same, the electronic one just lacks the performance value.

rnrloser_IX · 02-24-2012, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rubato

What's the fundamental difference between Just plotting down notes into a piece of computer software and just playing a few notes on piano? a piano is just a tool, as is the program used to play the piece. Most electronic music tends to fail at being able to use convincing articulation, dynamics and rubato, leaving the end result rather cold, even those that can are severely outmatched by their more traditional counterparts, but their use and end goal is the same, the electronic one just lacks the performance value.

There is actually a big difference between plotting the notes and playing the notes, even if the tune is the same and the sound produced by the computer is accurate and doesn't sound like a "generated piano" tone. A piano, or any other instrument, is not just a tool. There is an important relationship between the player and the instrument that affects how it sounds, especially things like woodwinds/brass, percussion, and stringed instruments. My brother can take my guitar and play something and then I could mimic it on the same set up, but it wouldn't sound nearly as good. He plays better than me, even really easy basic things sound better with him. There are a bunch of factors that go into producing a specific sound that is just not accomplishable by plotting an A note. This can include how hard you push air with your lungs, where your pushing it from, how you position you're hand or strum, or even how you press to the next note on a piano (this is an array of things pertaining to a bunch of different instruments). Modifying these things can have huge impact on the overall sound of a piece and really separates the weekend warriors from the professionals (not trying to discredit the weekend warrior, just saying a professional is usually a bit, or a lot, better).

Besides, have you ever noticed that not everyone can play an instrument. There is a reason. An instrument isn't simply push here and blow and therefore is different from a tool. If it were just a tool then anyone could do it as easily as using a screwdriver (twist here), a hammer (hit there), a saw (do back forth motion), or a power drill (pull trigger). Its different, even with the very basics, not everyone can play basic patterns like a seasoned player. Even if they do the motions correctly, it can still sound like crap. This is a huge distinguishing feature between a mediocre rhythm player and a professional. Even if they're playing an incredibly easy progression, the professional will sound better.

~~Rubato~~ · 02-24-2012, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rnrloser_IX

There is actually a big difference between plotting the notes and playing the notes, even if the tune is the same and the sound produced by the computer is accurate and doesn't sound like a "generated piano" tone. A piano, or any other instrument, is not just a tool. There is an important relationship between the player and the instrument that affects how it sounds, especially things like woodwinds/brass, percussion, and stringed instruments. My brother can take my guitar and play something and then I could mimic it on the same set up, but it wouldn't sound nearly as good. He plays better than me, even really easy basic things sound better with him. There are a bunch of factors that go into producing a specific sound that is just not accomplishable by plotting an A note. This can include how hard you push air with your lungs, where your pushing it from, how you position you're hand or strum, or even how you press to the next note on a piano (this is an array of things pertaining to a bunch of different instruments). Modifying these things can have huge impact on the overall sound of a piece and really separates the weekend warriors from the professionals (not trying to discredit the weekend warrior, just saying a professional is usually a bit, or a lot, better).

you mean like articulation, dynamics and rubato? a musical instrument is more hands on, it gives the user more direct control over the sound produced and after a good few years you can really make the tone your own. Electronic music has been trying to reproduce this, you could tweak every single note individually, it's attack, decay, dynamics and tone by hand, If I'm worried about the subtleties of the finished product I honestly find just playing it on violin to be easier and far less time consuming, if I put as many years into electronic music it would more than likely be the other way round.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rnrloser_IX

Besides, have you ever noticed that not everyone can play an instrument. There is a reason. An instrument isn't simply push here and blow and therefore is different from a tool. If it were just a tool then anyone could do it as easily as using a screwdriver (twist here), a hammer (hit there), a saw (do back forth motion), or a power drill (pull trigger). Its different, even with the very basics, not everyone can play basic patterns like a seasoned player. Even if they do the motions correctly, it can still sound like crap. This is a huge distinguishing feature between a mediocre rhythm player and a professional. Even if they're playing an incredibly easy progression, the professional will sound better.

Playing an instrument was mandatory when I was going through school so I'm not sure I can agree with you, it takes a lot more time to get to grips with an instrument than it does with a hammer or screwdriver but it doesn't make it any less of tool. Not everyone can master an instrument I'll give you that, but the same can be said for a lot of tools, anyone can use a hammer and chisel but it takes a lot of work to become a master joiner.

Dr_Rez · 02-25-2012, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rnrloser_IX

There is actually a big difference between plotting the notes and playing the notes, even if the tune is the same and the sound produced by the computer is accurate and doesn't sound like a "generated piano" tone. A piano, or any other instrument, is not just a tool. There is an important relationship between the player and the instrument that affects how it sounds, especially things like woodwinds/brass, percussion, and stringed instruments. My brother can take my guitar and play something and then I could mimic it on the same set up, but it wouldn't sound nearly as good. He plays better than me, even really easy basic things sound better with him. There are a bunch of factors that go into producing a specific sound that is just not accomplishable by plotting an A note. This can include how hard you push air with your lungs, where your pushing it from, how you position you're hand or strum, or even how you press to the next note on a piano (this is an array of things pertaining to a bunch of different instruments). Modifying these things can have huge impact on the overall sound of a piece and really separates the weekend warriors from the professionals (not trying to discredit the weekend warrior, just saying a professional is usually a bit, or a lot, better).

Besides, have you ever noticed that not everyone can play an instrument. There is a reason. An instrument isn't simply push here and blow and therefore is different from a tool. If it were just a tool then anyone could do it as easily as using a screwdriver (twist here), a hammer (hit there), a saw (do back forth motion), or a power drill (pull trigger). Its different, even with the very basics, not everyone can play basic patterns like a seasoned player. Even if they do the motions correctly, it can still sound like crap. This is a huge distinguishing feature between a mediocre rhythm player and a professional. Even if they're playing an incredibly easy progression, the professional will sound better.

That is honestly the best post in this thread. you described what I wanted to perfectly.

~~Rubato~~ · 02-22-2012, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave

That's fair. My main thing is if you take the guys from Autechre out of their comfort zone and drop them in a completely different musical environment could they accomplish anything? Would they be able to pick up an instrument and make something happen? Maybe they could, but the impression I'm left with based on their musical output and what I've read about them leads me to believe they'd just stare at the instruments.

why on earth would that matter? if you left a cellist in a room with a trumpet and they failed to knock out a tune do they lose their musician status? If someone created the most complex masterpieces and wrote them down without using an instrument would you only accept him as a musician if he could play one chord on guitar?