Do you have to play an instrument?

[Robert Randolph]

o.k. you got me - I don't know

*pumps fist* YES. I knew it.

now wheres the chalk....

[jens]

now wheres the chalk....

already checked your butthole?

[Robert Randolph]

now wheres the chalk....

already checked your butthole?

couldnt be there. thats where I keep my head.. nobody puts their chalk near their head... thats just dangerous and stupid.

[jens]

- now that's your point

[Bl1tz]

No. But I just started learning to play guitar to see if would give me some kind of big boost in understanding how to create better melodies/chord progressions (it hasn't, but it's cool to have a physical instrument)

I learned everything I know about music from reading/learning on the internet, and I like to think I'm pretty competent in my knowledge.

[pHz]

You didn't quoted smth important "without being influenced during the process". Of course you can but you lose the idea hearing a car passing by or your gf telling you the dinner is ready

youre right - oversight on my part there ... but again ... ALL instruments influence their player to some extent (if i understand your point correctly)

I don't believe in the machines power to replace talent.

neither do i (not what i was getting at AT ALL) ... what we are going to see is a DIFFERENT type of musical talent (like the distinction between a great piano player and a great guitarist - give them each others instrument and theyre going to flounder (ok - generalisation but ... ))

Of course you can do enjoyable music using the patterns your PC has to offer

ALL instruments have their own limitation ... the PC offers ONLY the 'patterns' YOU feed it ... i was talking about doing MUCH more than just choosing a set of loops when i put forward the idea of a 'laptop virtuoso' ... if you think thats all a PC has to offer as a musical instrument then we are always going to beg to differ ...

but these are just rules and if you'll start learning by rules you'll never find the path to YOUR rules.

if my added emphasis is correct then again i agree

slainte rob

[jens]

I don't believe in the machines power to replace talent.

neither do i (not what i was getting at AT ALL) ... what we are going to see is a DIFFERENT type of musical talent (like the distinction between a great piano player and a great guitarist - give them each others instrument and theyre going to flounder (ok - generalisation but ... ))

Of course you can do enjoyable music using the patterns your PC has to offer

ALL instruments have their own limitation ... the PC offers ONLY the 'patterns' YOU feed it ... i was talking about doing MUCH more than just choosing a set of loops when i put forward the idea of a 'laptop virtuoso' ... if you think thats all a PC has to offer as a musical instrument then we are always going to beg to differ ...

but these are just rules and if you'll start learning by rules you'll never find the path to YOUR rules.

if my added emphasis is correct then again i agree

slainte rob

imho that about sums it up rather well

[visa tapani]

For example, you take someone who has no knowledge of music theory. He might be able to create some pretty interesting music, but that lack of understanding of scales, chords, harmony, rhythm, structure, melody..etc will become a handicap, because he will hit a glass ceiling eventually and cannot break through it until he learns music theory.

Riiiight. You obviously have no idea about how many of the musical masterminds of the 20th century are completely self taught. Will hit a class ceiling my ass. Take Brian Eno for instance. Completely self-taught.

You taks someone at the opposite end of that spectrum--let's say, Sakamoto Ryuichi for example. This guy probably knows more music theory than most composers out there. He is well versed in just about every style of music, every time period, and every ethnic culture. He is a Godfather of electronic music (back in the 70's with Yellow Magic Orchestra).

Riiiiiiight. This is just getting too absurd. Their early records never really strayed from the path Kraftwerk had set almost five years earlier, and their later releases were more of synth-pop, and rather unremarkable at that.

So, if we were to compare a musician without music theory knowledge, and a musician with immense music theory knowledge--well, you draw your own conclusions.

Well, let us. Brian Eno vs Ryuichi Sakamoto. What conclusion should I draw?

[visa tapani]

Mind you: theory always is invented to explain complex things to people who can't understand otherwise what is going on. Theory tries to explain a part of reality with rules. Therefor theory is nothing else than a combination of rules.
...
I don't give a shit about rules. Rules are for the insensitive who need it for orientation because they are lacking the ability to find their course on their own.

The 'ten commandments' haven't been invented for the good people - they have been formulated for the bad ones.

Well this glorification of the uneducated is immensely stupid as well. Like yeah, you are the muthafuckicking man for like dissing rules. "theory always is invented to explain complex things to people who can't understand otherwise what is going on ... Rules are for the insensitive who need it for orientation because they are lacking the ability to find their course on their own." These comments are even more arrogant and self-indulgent than those of Lunatique. And that analogy at the end is hilariously bad as well.

No, you are not more sensitive than those who study musical theory just on the basis that you don't f**king give a shit about no rulez. You really have some nerve...

[jens]

Mind you: theory always is invented to explain complex things to people who can't understand otherwise what is going on. Theory tries to explain a part of reality with rules. Therefor theory is nothing else than a combination of rules.
...
I don't give a shit about rules. Rules are for the insensitive who need it for orientation because they are lacking the ability to find their course on their own.

The 'ten commandments' haven't been invented for the good people - they have been formulated for the bad ones.

could you explain it a bit why this

Well this glorification of the uneducated is immensely stupid as well. Like yeah, you are the muthafuckicking man for like dissing rules. "theory always is invented to explain complex things to people who can't understand otherwise what is going on ... Rules are for the insensitive who need it for orientation because they are lacking the ability to find their course on their own." These comments are even more arrogant and self-indulgent than those of Lunatique. And that analogy at the end is hilariously bad as well.

No, you are not more sensitive than those who study musical theory just on the basis that you don't f**king give a shit about no rulez. You really have some nerve...

Could you explain a bit where in my post you read a 'glorification of the uneducated'?

It seems you completely missed my point.

[donkey tugger]

I don't give a toss. as long as I like it!

Re; the theory/no theory thing, at an open mic night I go to, you can always tell the tossers from Leeds College of Music; they always play the most horrible self indulgent pap, and the singers all have that horrible warbling up and down trained 'R&B' type of voice. c**ts And widdly Graham is the worst c**t of em all

[jens]

[Equilibrium]

LOL! Ok, wasn't expecting so many replies, and I can't read all of them. Fair enough I used my terms in a sloppy way, "Good" could mean anything.

As for the 'genius' and Co who called me elitist, get it right rightious . If it's your opinion that it is only your opinion that matters, fine, but that is only your opinion. I think there is an objective element to how good something is. Mozart for example gets a big reaction out of Animals, Children and even helps people with Autism. I'm also guessing that Mozart will be around in a hundred years time whereas DJ Krust won't, and yeah I do think that means something. And for the record I don't like Mozart, I just respect the fact that he was perhaps the most natural musician in Western history. You learn your ABC's to a Mozart tune even.

What makes someone an authority over another then? Profession, an Architect is going to know more about what a good building is, (IMO!) they could even perhaps tell you if it's going to fall down. I respect people's judgements on classical music who have been listening for years, rather than me who knows very little about it. Is that really that elitist?

I've played drums for years, listen to hip hop and jungle since I was six. DJ Shadow's beats are more technical, original, varied and have a better time feel. (Good was a stupid word fair enough)

To my mind that is an objective deal. If you don't agree fair play.

Anyway that's not what the question was about. It's interesting what everyone has said though.

[Mr Lizard]

Squarpusher - messy noise.

never, it's all very rational and thought

I thought that might put the pigeon amongst the cats. I haven't really heard that much Squarepusher, but he is among a very small group of artists who have forced me to take the CD back and get a refund - I really don't do that very often.

Maybe it is all thought out and rational, just didn't do it for me, it all sounded way to self indulgent.

But hey, different strokes for different types of paintbrush I guess. It would be really dull if we all liked the same things...

I do kind of like some of his stuff but I think a lot electronic music is just people wanking over laptops which is just as horrible as vocal (read -carey & shit RnB) or guitar wankery (read - your malmsteems and whatnot)!

Wankery must go!

[jens]

blindly shot in the wrong direction - therefor edited it