anticipation

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.

mr dave

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 am the universe

GuitarBizarre

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.

Rubato

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



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.

Freebase Dali

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.

Dr_Rez

I do think it is in many cases very dumbed down instrument. Their is no standard for the instrument which makes it a hard thing to categorize. A flute, drumset, harp, etc all are nearly universal from instrument to instrument so when you hear something being played you know that person did all the heavy lifting. When software is being used you dont know anything about what kind of help the dj had.

I mean you and I could make the same piece of music. I could have used software that did all the things necessary to create it automatically and taken samples and such from everywhere and just edited them. You on the other hand did everything yourself. Seems tough to judge who has talent and who doesnt.

__________________
*Best chance of losing virginity is in prison crew*
*Always Checks Credentials Crew*
*nba > nfl crew*
*Shave one of my legs to pretend its a girl in my bed crew*

Freebase Dali

Seems to me the issue would lie with the person that's just pilfering samples. That shouldn't imply that the tool being used to do it is inherently a tool used by talentless hacks, and thus, is not an instrument capable of being utilized by talented musicians.

And, in many cases, it's not so "dumbed down" as you think. Here's something you may identify with... SessionDrummer in Sonar. You might look at it and say, "well, this could be used by talentless hacks that don't know how to play drums, in order to make a drum beat they could never play". Well, as a drummer, I'll tell you now that it is A LOT harder to program a full drum beat with sounds and nuances so that it sounds real (and good), than it is to just play one on a kit. The only reason I even do it is because I can't set up my drum kit in my apartment. Otherwise, I'd just record a real drum beat because it'd be a lot easier.

But I do know that it takes a level of musical ability and insight to even arrive at something approaching decent when you're emulating the real thing on software, and even if you're just making music on a computer in general. Regardless of whether you believe the person did it themselves or not is one thing, but I guarantee you that whoever did it was a musician, and the software they did it on was their instrument, and if it's so "dumbed down", I challenge you to become a virtuoso at it if you want to prove your point.
I think, in general, most of the people that don't credit the hard work and talent involved in computer music creation are usually the people who understand the least of what actually goes into doing it well.

Dr_Rez

I think you misunderstood me. I by no means am saying it is all dumbed down. If it was I wouldnt be asking you for help using things like session drummer. My point is however that I have seen some programs friends use they are basically hitting a button that matches pitch/tempo and just sticking songs together. Adding effects in without having any knowledge of a keyboard or anything.

And do not think for a second I am diminishing the kind of stuff I have heard you make for the competition thread and such. I couldn't do that in a million years, and I realize the amount of effort and know how it takes to do so.

Personally I like this kind of thing so that I can record a dummy drum track when putting together a song. That was the guitar and bass parts can be accurate and at a later time I can record a live drum kit over the electronic drums. I nkow alot of people doing home studio work do this. The problom is getting the drum timing to be remotely like I would actually play it.

__________________
*Best chance of losing virginity is in prison crew*
*Always Checks Credentials Crew*
*nba > nfl crew*
*Shave one of my legs to pretend its a girl in my bed crew*

Freebase Dali

Sorry if I misunderstood, and I wasn't being hostile anyway.
I know you weren't taking any stabs at me, and I wasn't really referring to my own work, but it's hard for me to not seem that way, I guess, because I do have a lot of experience on both sides of the aisle when it comes to traditional musicianship and computer-based musicianship.

That's why I tend to have a fairly adamant perspective about it. But I agree and think the distinction should be made between people who have a musical background and actually use the tools, whatever they may be, to good effect... and people who simply open a new Audacity project, throw a few loops in, add some reverb and call it a day.
It's not hard, though, to know those kind of people when you hear their music. I certainly don't have a problem recognizing when a computer-based composition is done by a musician, versus a clueless guy with good samples. The song itself will tell you everything you need to know, and I'm not even talking about the technical side of things as far as mixing and mastering, which would be more of a specialty, and not necessarily a musician trait.
But the quality of a composition is apparent when it's done by a talented musician. It's that simple.

By the way, the program your friends use that you were talking about, that sounds like a virtual DJ program, which is something completely different from music composition. I could be wrong, but that's what it sounds like.

anticipation

This is a really interesting thought. I'd say that merit lies in the creative process that drives artists to create great works. If, let's say, it really did take someone with a computer 1/12th the effort, time, and dedication to create from nothing Beethoven's "Symphony No. 5" as it did the 19th century composer, my question would still be is it any less moving? Any less beautiful? And would you even care if you weren't told that the two used different processes to achieve their goal?

This is actually really pertinent in my own musical leanings; J Dilla crafted some of the most amazing songs in usually less than 30 minutes because his innovative and groundbreaking musical intelligence, which stemmed from his innate artistic ability to tangentially approach rhythm and harmony. To me, Dilla is definitely on par with any of history's greatest composers in terms of merit, be it technical proficiency or creative impetus. Regardless of how he made it, he still did make beauteous art that is unquestionably worthy of adulation.