Do you consider electronic music creators musicians?
 

First off let me say I dont mean any slight towards them, as it takes a wealth of knowledge and skill to create elaborate soundscapes. I say this because Im curious if people would consider them a musician or a producer.

Now To clarify I realize their is a huge overlap in bands like Air in which live instrumentals are recorded and used in unison with electronic accompaniment. I am speaking in this post of strictly computer generated music with no help from analog instruments.

I say yes. If you create music, you are a musician.

sure

if you merely program music with no basic idea of music theory, it'll be crap

i did that before with the Commodore Amiga

keep in mind that some producers don't know how to play or compose music but are technicians only in making how the music sounds

Definitely yes.

Listened to a lot of electronica & synthpop in the early 90s.

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.

This, exactly this.

Nor is a sheet of paper and a pen a musical instrument but composers have been using them for years to compose music, music is composed in your head, not on your instrument. Performance is very much a part of musicianship but not a requirement of a musician.

I actually deleted a comment about composers in my original reply. I don't consider someone who solely composes without an ability to perform to be a musician.

Though... most composers sit at a PIANO when they write, and I'm pretty sure pianos have always been considered instruments.

Also 'performance is part of musicianship but not required of a musician'? WHAT?!?!?!?! While I agree performance -for commercial gain- is not a requirement of being a musician you'd better believe the ability to perform is a fundamental part of being a musician. If you can't perform your music without needing to hit a button on a machine to make it play - YOU CAN'T PERFORM MUSIC!

Some composers find that when using an instrument to write music your muscle memory tends to stunt your creativity, some feel an instrument is needed for more technical passages that can be hard to imagine. My point is an instrument shouldn't be needed to compose.

The ability to perform is a fundamental part of being a performer, Musician is a collective term for performers, composers and directors, certainly it would be very rare that a composer or a director hasn't picked up an instrument, or a performer hasn't attempted to write their own tune at some point, after all I'd assume they have enough interest in music to pursue something in those areas, but they are all still very separate parts of the music trade.

I am not sure why this is even a question. Essentially you are wondering if a certain segment of people that create music are musicians. Based on that question, one could ask if music creators of ANY genre are musicians.

Whether or not one is considered a musician should be entirely up to the individual. It should have nothing to do with the genre they work in.

/thread

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.

This has nothing to do with genre at all... it has to do entirely with the means used to create the music. It just so happens that electronic music is the only genre created with a computer. So again, I dont care if they are making rock and roll or jazz on their computer the same question applies and has nothing to do with genre.

I tend to agree with Dave. I think it all depends on your personal definition of musician. A creator of such music has to have a knowledge of music theory, song structure, and all those type of things to be considered a musician. Some one can play guitar, piano, drums and not be a musician as well. If you can't tell what an Am or AMaj chord is and yet you make music then your are certainly no musician. Also you have to consider a big part of being a musician is live performances, and lets face it electronic music is not exactly conducive to a enaging live performance one you take out the drugs, light show, and stage antics. I always looked at the definition of musician though as :

An artist who plays a musical instrument.

So I think this comes down to another threads question of is the computer a musical instrument.

edit: On further thought I think making music as such does not necessarily take any knowledge of theory at all. I have a couple friends who know almost nothing about any theory or that could even match a pitch and make some pretty good music with their computers.

I don't take drugs at gigs because I've never tried Ecstasy. Most people do though, loads and loads of it.

I'm seeing a lot of problems here with what people's definition of musician is so here we go. According to Merriam-Webster, a musician is "a composer, conductor, or performer of music; especially : instrumentalist." So, technically, they would count. However, I have to lean with Mr. Dave on this one too because I feel as though a musician should have the capacity to perform on the spot for a crowd and in a dynamic setting such as with a band or other musicians... in essence, to jam. Then again, there are weird technologies like the Kaoss pad. I don't really know too much about them but my understanding is that its an outrageous looping and sound modulation device that can be used on the spot. I'm sure someone here can talk a little more about that in terms of whether or not that is an instrument or a computer and whether or not the operator is a musician or a programmer.

I believe it's the thing of something relatively recent coming out, and those who are purists, for lack of a better word, aren't quite sold on its legitimacy yet.

I'd imagine that people were appalled by the electric guitar in much the same way at some point...the theremin...etc.

My opinion on the matter is that if you're creating music, using an instrument (regardless of how complex it is or isn't) you are making music. You can be bad at making electronic music, but I think there's still the possibility of someone being a legitimate prodigy.

So, yes, I consider them musicians.

Ok what about Frederick Delius? Despite never playing an instrument in public and ending up blind and paralysed he still continued to compose music, at what point did he stop being a musician or would you even consider him one?

Hey, I'm not trying to start a war, i just wanted a discussion and people's opinions. Quite frankly, I don't know, actually forget that... I just decided. Pre-paralyzing, I only consider him a musician if he played, whether by himself or to himself in order to compose. More over, I would only call him a composer because that is his job. He apparently made a living via composing, not performing. After becoming paralyzed, he's not a musician but a composer. I probably went back on myself somewhere but I don't care. Merriam Webster is full of it. A composer is one who writes music, a performer is one who plays and a musician does both at once, on the spot typically with other musicians. Good ol' Ludwig Van did both, he is a musician. This guy apparently mostly wrote music, so he is more of a composer. Highschool band students play songs, they're performers. Some do both some do one or the other. I hate evolution debates, keep it just a discussion.

Here we go... Conclusion: a "computer musician" can be a composer but not a musician. Thats my decision as of now. Unless more can be discovered about that Kaoss pad. That would be they're only hope so I hope someone can tell more about those things.

Here's a question to all of you:
I play several different traditional instruments, have been in many bands that have played live many times, and I also compose music on a computer, and have been doing so for 13 years. Now, I'm no longer in any bands, I can still play my instruments but I just noodle around here and there, and I still compose music on a computer (which I don't perform at all).

Was I a musician, or am I a musician?

Here's a different way to ask the same question:
An imaginary band called "Poop Chute Rockits" gets very successful playing rock gigs, lands a record contract, and sells music as their career. Suddenly, they flop and break up because the whole world started liking Dubstep and all the members decide to hang their hats because they could never bring themselves to making Dubstep, and would prefer to work 5 to 9s for their coin. To prevent themselves from the urge of creating Dubstep-like arpeggios and drum rolls on their instruments, each member burns their instruments and vows never to play music again.

Were they musicians, or are they musicians?

What I see is that you really have to define "musician" in a particular way in order to answer either of those questions. In my case, I no longer perform music, nor do I really play my instruments. Does the fact that I have the ability to do so qualify me as a musician, or the act of doing so regularly? Am I a musician because of my inherent abilities? Or do I have to put them to work in order to achieve the title of musician?
In Poop Chute Rockits' case, they no longer make a living as musicians, nor do they even play music. They burned all their radios and their favorite records too, in the very same bon fire as the instruments. When music plays at a restaurant, they leave. Are they musicians? If not, well they definitely were, but why aren't they any longer?

I wonder if, when novels were first invented, purists didn't consider the authors to be storytellers since the medium didn't require them to recite their work out loud to people.

To actually give my opinion, I think "musician" is a general title meant to encompass the more specific types of musician. Where you have performers, composers, etc., these all require a particular skill set that is common to most, if not all, musicians. While you can be any of these things, you can be considered a musician... BUT... simply as a general term that everyone can understand.
If you wanted the term to be an actual professional title, then you would term it "professional musician".

I really don't think it's necessary to argue whether the general term of musician is correct for computer composers, as many of those people have the very same skill sets and abilities as performing musicians. Many of them might actually do so in their spare time. So I think it's unnecessary to try and differentiate between them. Call them musicians and call it a day.

Touche'.

Heres the thing though, we dont know what you are unless we saw the process used in created and what went on in your head making the music. I mean you clearly have a musical background and my guess is put a good amount of the theory you knew into making the music you do making it more of a musical (musicianship) experience.

Say you had all that knowledge of theory and musical instruments/composing and you decided not to use any of it on your latest project, I would then consider you a producer. While most producers have music degrees or extensive live sound backgrounds their are certainly some that just know what sounds good and have learned to program and edit very well.

Like I mentioned earlier I think its a fine line in what is a musician and producer when talking about electronic music. I guess my problem with it (when talking about creating it) is the pretentious attitude lots of these Dj's or "musicians" (depending on the outcome of this thread ;) have about their own music and many of the classics out their in other genres. I mean blues/jazz/classical/some rock players/composers have put more time into learning about their instrument and genre than most electronic bands have been around. It takes years to learn the intricacies of it all, and then I see a few of my friends who started making music on their computer 6 months ago and I cant tell the difference between them and DJ so and so who has been doing it for years.

I guess I take this attitude towards it because I had much higher hopes for the technology that is being misused by many in my opinion today. The possibilities when mixing live instruments and computer programmed music is huge. I find electronic live shows (when not on drugs) to be intensly boring with no reason to watch someone playing pre recording music for the most part, but why is their not more bands doing that with the aid of live instruments. Mixing and making samples of whats being played on stage in real time. Surely it could be done an is probably happening somewhere. It would make for an exciting interactive show.

edit: Also just to be clear I very much respect guys making this music and know I could never do it without much work and practice.

Here's the real question:

What happens when computers become self aware and make their own music? Is it then producing or musicianing?

Also, I think thats a good way to distinguish a chunk of it. Especially from the weekend warriors from the starving artists.

Holy crap thats some deep stuff. I think by that point the human race will be terminated.

Symbiotic relationships man. Then the question will be whether or not human music people are musicians or biological programmers. I guess in the grand scheme, it doesn't really matter. Does anyone here know a few names of some actual good electronic stuff. Right know, about 99% of what I've heard is garbage.

How do you not use any of your knowledge or "theory" on music when writing? and what's wrong with going off what sounds good? the whole point of composition is to write what you feel sounds best in whatever place it's needed and the whole point of theory is develop your sense of form and put it down on paper as clearly as possible. When a student has to write an exercise on harmony avoiding parallel octaves and fifths, repetition and retrogression, he's not learning that these things are bad and therefore should never be used, he's avoiding that which stands out too much until he can make use of them, otherwise his works would be filled with odd appendages and growths that would make the real direction of the composition seem weaker. When it comes to composition it is completely down to your own judgment, not a bunch of rules set down for a student that are in essence stabilisers. Also given the fact that we have become more desensitised to dissonance, the resolve doesn't have to come about immediately, or at all in some cases, greatly opening the possibilities of free form.

Here's a quick little list of people that I think have put out great electronic music in the past decade, might be a good place to start:

Third Eye Foundation
Caribou
Fuck Buttons
M83
Tipper
Two Lone Swordsmen
Crystal Castles
Receptors
R-MiT
Bong-Ra
Otto Von Schirach
Shitmat
Xanopticon
Salem
Vitalic
Boxcutter
The Bug
Burial
Milanese
Scuba
Vex'd
Alva Noto
Matmos
Pan Sonic
Clark
Kid 606
High Places
Instituto Mexicano Del Sonido
Epstein y El Conjunto
Amon Tobin

Thanks man, I'ma check this stuff out soon.

I actually have to agree with this for the most part. I know some basic theory as far as a few scale modes and which scales to bust out, but past that, I sort of turn my brain off unless if I'm actually trying to think a specific phrase or technique that I want to do, like playing a harmony. Everything else, I just feel. Like I play the opening to crazy train and do a pinch harmonic on the D. Don't know why. I just started doing it. I will say though, knowing a lot of theory really brings one to the next level. I've noticed this with my brother who just graduated with a performing degree o the tenor sax. He always really good but now it just blows me away.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

I would say, yes, it is a case of the creator having other people implementing their plan, much in the way the guys from Autechre might use a piece of software to implement theirs.

Meh. I think I've really driven the analogy into the ground at this point. One interesting side note though: one or both of the members of Autechre come from an architecture background, something which I think you can really hear in their music.

Now that's an interesting question. I'd lean toward yes, but I that's certainly an intriguing thing to consider.

I'm not sure I fully understand the context of this story. Claiming to be a pianist when you can't actually play the piano is definitely bullshit, I agree with you there, but that's a very specific claim. Claiming to be a musician when your instrument is the computer, even if the music you make sounds like it was played on a piano, seems okay to me. I certainly don't think there's anything dishonest about it, which is what it sounds like you're getting at here.

To take this in a personal direction, I'm sort of curious if you'd consider me a musician or not. I've been making music for about 17 years. I took guitar, piano and sax lessons when I was younger, am able to read music with some effort, and have a little understanding of music theory. I make music via computer, generally by creating loops and utilizing a sequencer to some extent to get what I'm going for. I play keyboard, bass and guitar all at a very basic level that would terrify me to try and pull off on stage, but I'm pretty good at taking these pieces, cutting them up and stitching them together to make a song. I also sing, not amazingly well, but good enough to have done so in a couple of bands and to surprise people on the occasional karaoke night.

I usually say "I make music" rather than saying I'm a musician, not because of the computer element, but because it's my hobby not my vocation. I've known plenty of people who make music full time, who've gone to school for it, etc. and it seems kind of presumptuous to put myself on their level.

why aren't people considering the whole etymology or philology of the word "musician"

if you make music, i'd say you qualify as a musician

i don't think performance or virtuosity comes into the equation

or even theory - you might need to have some building blocks, I guess

On a related note, if an electronic music creator can write songs that OTHER people perform using musical instruments, is it possible that the songwriter is not a musician?

Applying the theory mentioned here a few times that one must be able to perform their work using widely accepted musical instruments, I wonder what to call the songwriters that are not able to play their work on guitar, or piano, etc.

I am enjoying the comments in this thread!