I think a musician is someone who 'intends to make sound and craft' music.
As far as the attention span goes - yes people seem to be getting 'dumber' these days and failing education systems where music and reading have been cut back are partly to blame. There's no question about that.
I agree that a DJ 'can' be a musician and composer, but often times they aren't. I don't think DJ music as a genre has been explored fully and because of that it lacks credibility alongside historic genres of music.
We all know of some great technical guitarists, but there are very few proficient or innovative DJ's.
Most are just playing back two records at a time, and re-mixing. That is something that anyone can learn to do.
The difference is there is a world of musical technique involved in physically playing an instrument, and so far there is a real lack of manufactured dynamic turntables that respond the same way a guitar, piano, etc. do .
So I personally don't attach the same amount of musical credibility to DJ's partly because we don't see too much physical innovation there. But I do welcome it and can see it happening in the future.
As far as sampling goes - the idea of sampling someone else's art without their consent is unethical to me.
If I took a piece of the Mona Lisa and put it into my own painting, I wouldn't think I would be that great or inspiring. It would suggest I'm at worst a thief, and at best, someone who needs to rely on the work of others because I can't come up with something better or original. If I painted Leonardo DaVinci painting the Mona Lisa - well that might be interesting.
To me Mellotrons and their ilk are different from contemporary sample use because the performers knew and intended the recordings they made would be used in the creation of other music. Sampling someone else's work or even re-mastering it or altering it after they've died is an artistic rape because it's not in keeping with what the original artists intended.
For example, the Isley Brothers, Kraftwerk, etc.etc. didn't consent to having their music sampled and just because it's a common practice, that doesn't make it morally right.
As far as album credits go, they go from both outright lies to total truth.
You will never have me believe someone like Justin Timberlake (who can't play an instrument) can compose and arrange a movie soundtrack. I don't care what the movie credits say. That's where politics and back scratching are an influence.
The music industry as a whole is completely different than what it was in the 1970's. Marketing and selling is now a science.
In the mid 70's smaller music labels were bought up and absorbed by bigger music labels.
This happened again on a big scale in the 80's when Warner took over Time / Life and Seagrams Liquor bought up most of the major record labels. And it happened again in the 90's and again in the early 2000's.
Today music is completely corporate, and the multinational companies that own the music industry are not interested in selling music with ideas about dragons and fairies, or brewing your own beer, saving your money, meditation, or anything that takes you out of the 'Matrix" so to speak.
The simple reason why is that they can't make big money from it.
They are interested in selling ideologies related to consumerism of products like tobacco, alcohol, and fashion, and also a group-think homogenized mentality where everyone should largely react or think the same way in the world.
Politically, you would do this by removing or censoring diversity of expression on multiple levels.
As record company owners or controllers - they don't want to foster talent and individualism. They would rather have a universe of talentless 'idols' where there is a collective lemming mentality, easily to manipulate contractually, and favouring style similarity over diversity. Why? Because once you create something unique or diverse, you must be willing to defend it and promote it on your own - requiring a much more costly noble and valiant quest.
Record labels don't want to have to fight with individualistic creative artists. The idea of the tradional guitar hero or keyboard hero is not really encouraged.
It's in their best interest to sell and promote a 'mass mentality' where they can push products on to a receptive audience, and make money for their businesses and stockholders. So we really can't compare the time of the 70's and back with now.
This is the reason for the all the observations here.
If you want to control a country and it's people you must make them subservient to a belief system.
You homogenize values through TV, music and magazines so that eventually they all think the same.
And then you've replaced the individualism of invention, innovation, etc. with a dumbed down - go along to get along - collectivism.
Plato said it himself -
“Musical innovation is full of danger to the State, for when modes of music change, the laws of the State always change with them.”
“Those who tell the stories rule society.”
1. Digital life made musicians almost obsolete.
- What's a 'musician'?
- Why is someone who puts together music digitally less of a musician than anyone else?
- If '[a]ny moron can "play, record and post it in the web"' then doesn't that fly in the face of the point entirely? Far from '[making] musicians almost obsolete' doesn't that increase the number of musicians there are out there?
- Are you confusing 'musicianship' with 'personal taste'?
2. Ecstasy is not a good drug for music. People get so stupid that they see a DJ as musician!!!
- Why is it 'not a good drug for music'? Says who? What about the myriad people who take it every weekend and get off on it and the music? Are you perhaps (again) confusing what is 'good' with 'what you personally like'?
- Why can a DJ not be a musician?
- In fact, given the definition of the word, why is a DJ not viewed as a composer?
3. People are so anxious and neurotic that they can't 'listen'to anything without pressing the FWD key to the next song.
- Maybe. I suspect attention spans are getting shorter because music (among other things) is so easy to get your hands on now that it's a disposable commodity. But has it ever not been? Who says it has to be anything but?
- Maybe the music lends itself to the whole ideal. Do you have to be 'anxious and neurotic' for that to be true? Are you seeing a stereotype where none exists?
4. "Total lack of identification with the band. Digital made bands/record covers/credits useless...nobody knows who's playing and nobody cares.."
- To come out with an absurdly sweeping statement like 'digital made bands/record covers/credits useless' requires some form of evidence.
- To say 'nobody knows who's playing and nobody cares' is plainly flat-out wrong. If anything, the speed at which music (digitally played and recorded or otherwise) can be put together and uploaded to the web so a musician is in direct contact with his or her audience is such that it cuts out the middle man entirely. Who needs a publication deal when you can publish it yourself? Why is it that a musician speaking directly to his audience (or market) is a bad thing? Do you think record labels and music publication deals are a necessary thing?
You sign off with 'All in all...nobody cares for music at all I'd say'. How do you know?
Mike
On 26 May 2012 15:06, Fritz Doddy
<fdoddy@aol.com> wrote:
I agree with point #3, but vehemently disagree with 1,2 and 4
Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of iPhonekstan.
fritzdoddy
Hi Chris,
I totally agree. So much so that I said I'd rather visit the Pompeii arena empty and feel the vibes of a bygone concert by the Floyd than see the band nowadays (last 30 years).
As for why this is happening, there are many possibilities of course, my theory.
1. Digital life made musicians almost obsolete. ANy moron can "play, record and post it in the web". Just like picture taking.
2. Ecstasy is not a good drug for music. People get so stupid that they see a DJ as musician!!! Bloody hell...
3. People are so anxious and neurotic that they can't 'listen'to anything without pressing the FWD key to the next song...3000 songs in the Ipod and most never listen till the end...
4. Total lack of identification with the band. Digital made bands/record covers/credits useless...nobody knows who's playing and nobody cares...
All in all...nobody cares for music at all I'd say...Saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad: but true!
best,
Roberto
Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
I almost never go see big name classic rock concerts anymore.
Usually, some of the original band members are missing, (Moody Blues, Beach Boys, The Who, Pink Floyd) or the performers can't sing as well or play as well anymore (The Police, Led Zeppelin).
Or - the band is naturally using some shitty vapid digital equipment in place of the original instruments, and the sound is an updated, sterilized, modern version that has all the life sucked out of it.
I saw The Band once and Garth Hudson (and some other unknown keyboardist alongside him) were using the shittiest, most depressing 80's reverbed Korg and Roland organ sounds to do Chest Fever. It was unbelievably bad.
It sounded like kids playing a casio keyboard in a Walmart toy section aisle.
The same with Jerry Corbetta of Sugarloaf. Green Eyed Lady was played with tinny hip-hop organ sounds - just sonic garbage.
Some of these bands also use augmenting hack musicians on stage and girl dancers that have nothing to do with helping the original band or music style. It's just insulting to the original spirit or identity of the band.
A different example a few years ago was when I went to see Paul McCartney in Toronto. It was enjoyable up to the point when people started trying to sing along. It was sufferable for a while.
But then came 'Hey Jude' which was the absolute worst. The song was literally murdered by the sing-along of the absolute worst choir of out of tune morons I've ever heard. And their collective breath stank like a sewage pipe.
I remember seeing a Beach Boys concert clip where one of them asked those who could sing to sing along, and those who couldn't to 'please keep quiet'.
I thought it was very rude for them to say that at the time, but after that Hey Jude performance, I now understand why.
Overall, the expense, time and the trouble you go through to see a concert just isn't worth it.
These bands today mostly exist as shadows of their former selves - almost their own tribute bands.
I now prefer a good DVD of a classic quality performance from the by-gone days to what's passing as a live show.
Of course, if it's a band I respect and never got the chance to see, (like Nektar) then I'll make an exception, but generally a glorified tribute band version, with tinny keyboards, vocal harmonizer effects, and anonymous helpers and dancers doesn't make for a decent concert.
And the irony is with the technology today - we can have a great sounding concert more times than not.
So why is this happening?
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Bruce Daily
<pocotron@yahoo.com> wrote:
(GROAN)
I'm sure he's READY for it.
I was surprised to hear one of his songs on a TV commercial recently. It was "Big Time", and I think it was on one of those god-forsaken Swiffer ads. Money trumps integrity once in a while.
-Bruce D.
--- In
newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Daily <pocotron@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all-
> It would be fun to see him at Red Rocks here in Colorado, except for the unreasonable ticket prices and the bullshit on-line ticket sale methods. Those reasons alone reduce the enjoyment of the event. I haven't seen a major concert in years.
>
> -Bruce D.
> (with a trace of sarcastic bitterness)
I suppose it's likely that he will do Red Rain at Red Rocks. Perhaps they can get Red Rider as openers.
Jim Bailey
--
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh