Do you have to play an instrument?

[peppy197]

i STILL think that within 5 years or so live performers playing 'laptop' musically and expressively will become relatively commonplace (look how quickly many bands have incorporated turntablists into their line-ups - even f**king texas have one now !!! )

slainte rob

5 years? Heck there are strange monsters coming out now, like the Open Labs OPENSYNTH Neko which is only 7000 Pounds Sterling or about 12,000 US or 18+K Cdn. Their site is
http://www.opnlabs.com/
and it was reviewed in a recent FutureMusic mag.

You can put Windows XP pro in it. And Sampletank2 or Gigastudio or even The Grand can be put in it, It has 2Gigs RAM

etc..etc..etc.../

[kaden]

In what way is mastery of digital recording technology more...er...instrumental than mastery of analog recording technology?

Forgive me, but I'm finding the lengths people are going to to rationalize their lack of instrumental/theoretical ability a bit nonsensical.

It's also kinda disappointing that no one has pointed out that playing a instrument and having a working knowledge of theory facillitates communicating and playing with other musicians. For most of us, this is a real big deal.

There are undoubtedly those of you who feel that playing with other musicians would dilute the purity of your personal musical vision in the same way that knowledge of theory, or the ability to actually play an instrument would interfere with your muse to the point of ruining any hopes you may have of achieving musical oneness.

Knock yourselves out, guys.

You're really not fooling anyone.

K

[Sascha Franck]

Hm, kaden, I know both sides of the coin.
I would consider myself being a rather well trained musician (a guitar player that is) and a rather well trained DAW user as well.

And while I love playing with other musicians live I also love what I can do with my DAW. And that doesn't necessarily have much to do with my guitar playing skills.
For me it's just almost like another instrument indeed. Just a rather complexed one.

[dystonia_ek]

Forgive me, but I'm finding the lengths people are going to to rationalize their lack of instrumental/theoretical ability a bit nonsensical.

It's also kinda disappointing that no one has pointed out that playing a instrument and having a working knowledge of theory facillitates communicating and playing with other musicians. For most of us, this is a real big deal.

This is such bullshit... most of the highly trained musicians I've played with were either a: devoid of any kind of real expressiveness, b: stuck in predictable patterns or c:showboating wankers who were always off on some private tangent and not listening to anyone but themselves. I was guilty on both counts in my formative years.

The only thing you need is the ability to LISTEN. Something that a lot of 'pedigree' players seem to forget to do - too busy preening and showing off.

There have been exceptions but most are dinosaurs. I've enjoyed watching faceless bedroom producers, dj's and experimentalists slowly take over during the last decade or so.

There are undoubtedly those of you who feel that playing with other musicians would dilute the purity of your personal musical vision in the same way that knowledge of theory, or the ability to actually play an instrument would interfere with your muse to the point of ruining any hopes you may have of achieving musical oneness.

Some of us can play several instruments. Some of us none. That's not the point. There are entire musical genres that don't require traditional instruments, and this is nothing new.

The issue is change, and there will always be a few defensive luddites trying to make up for their incomprehension of the new with an elitist attitude.
This sometimes has a very discouraging effect on people who are just starting in this field - many drop out, many end up in the same macho alpha-guitarist(insert instrument of choice) ego trip that we can't seem to eliminate. Sad but true.

People like you are basically aesthetic fascists. Arguing for traditional virtuosity negates entire genres - tape music/musique concrete, acousmatics, pretty much all techno subgenres, hip hop, dub (where the musicians were just sound sources for the guy at the mixing desk) and any number of genreless hybrids that are creeping between the margins of 'accepted' categories. Are you prepared to go out on a limb and declare that these genres are not 'music'?

[Sascha Franck]

VERY well put, dystonia!

[Shane Sanders]

Hm, kaden, I know both sides of the coin.
I would consider myself being a rather well trained musician (a guitar player that is) and a rather well trained DAW user as well.

And while I love playing with other musicians live I also love what I can do with my DAW. And that doesn't necessarily have much to do with my guitar playing skills.
For me it's just almost like another instrument indeed. Just a rather complexed one.

I should probably read this whole thread.

My initial thoughts are that more than anything, music is a gesture of the mind. So, in that sense, it only requires a mind - it doesn't even require ears, just a mind's eye (so to speak). But ultimately, like the Bauhaus school so eloquently pointed out, being able to use one's hand is nothing to abandon. The more you can do to get your body and mind in touch with each other, the better. What can one lose from having experienced a riff, not with the ears, but with the entire body. There's a goodness to it that can only be appreciated by someone who has put the time into an instrument.

I can play several instruments, but now that I spend more time composing, I don't actually commit that practice time to tape very often. Why? I suppose because now that I've worked through some of the mind-body issues, the end result is the most appealing, not the process. Though the process has that "flow" that Cziksenmihayli talks of in his books, it's the crystalized composition that I really want. The other is just a by-product of desire. But I still play, and I find ideas there, but it's rare that the sound of the instruments I own is what I'm really wanting to hear when it comes time for the composition to live on its own. Thus, VST's rock!

Mumbo jumbo, I know...

[liqih]

to put it out shortly,
it's not an AUT AUT,
rather an ET ET,

you can sum or not, traditional theory skills
to intuitive creativity,

someone needs that, others don't,
there's no rule IMHO,
no objective definition,
each musician composer sets his own rules,

we can only check the result,
why arguing on the method?

[tee boy]

I dont think anyones argueing. Discovering new ways to work, and studying other people methods is something i find extremely enlightening. When i hear how some people go about things i wonder how the f**k they get such fine results, but that probably why it is so fascinating.

[Hink]

see the thing is, we are recording artists. Now for years that meant being a star, an idol, a diva. Now it's our artform 'recording'...thus recording artists. That's the common bond, some of us record ourselves singing, some of us record outselves playing our instruments and some of us record electronic music we have created...but we're all still artists, and all still recording artists...

[jens]

Maybe you have to know a lot about musical theory to compose something like 'Daphne & Chloe' or
'the miraculous mandarin' but likewise you have to be very much interested in musical theory to be able to enjoy it.

Complete bull.

Most of the people going to classical concerts (and I mean most of the ones who go there to listen, rather than to be seen ) know diddley about theory. You don't have to know anything about theory to recognise that one composer has talent by the thimble while another has it by the bucket.

V.

first of all, both works I mentioned aren't classical
but modern compositions

(Daphne & Chloe' is from Ravel and 'the miraculous mandarin' is from Bartok).

What you mean with 'classical concerts' I suppose is
orchestral music.

Your answer is complete and absolute bullshit and shows that you know nothing about orchestral music because you are making some king of general statement instead of taking into consideration the diversity of different orchestral works which can be
everything from baroque to modern music.

(Bach e.g. was a baroque composer and I usually don't like his music too much because it is too 'courtish' for me while Beethoven is known to be a classical composer while a lot of his works already contain romanticisms and I love most of Beethovens works. That's only two composers out of several hundreds.)

I never wrote that people without some kind of musical education won't be able to enjoy orchestral work in general. I myself enjoy a lot of it highly but maybe I'm not a good example as this answer has proven. You on the other hand are a far better example because your answer has proven that you know nothing.

[TrekStar]

People like you are basically aesthetic fascists.

OK dystonia_ek, that's enough...I think now you have disqualified yourself from the discussion.

[Wopelka]

Maybe you have to know a lot about musical theory to compose something like 'Daphne & Chloe' or
'the miraculous mandarin' but likewise you have to be very much interested in musical theory to be able to enjoy it.

Complete bull.

Most of the people going to classical concerts (and I mean most of the ones who go there to listen, rather than to be seen ) know diddley about theory. You don't have to know anything about theory to recognise that one composer has talent by the thimble while another has it by the bucket.

V.

first of all, both works I mentioned aren't classical
but modern compositions

(Daphne & Chloe' is from Ravel and 'the miraculous mandarin' is from Bartok).

What you mean with 'classical concerts' I suppose is
orchestral music.

Your answer is complete and absolute bullshit and shows that you know nothing about orchestral music because you are making some king of general statement instead of taking into consideration the diversity of different orchestral works which can be
everything from baroque to modern music.

(Bach e.g. was a baroque composer and I usually don't like his music too much because it is too 'courtish' for me while Beethoven is known to be a classical composer while a lot of his works already contain romanticisms and I love most of Beethovens works. That's only two composers out of several hundreds.)

I never wrote that people without some kind of musical education won't be able to enjoy orchestral work in general. I myself enjoy a lot of it highly but maybe I'm not a good example as this answer has proven. You on the other hand are a far better example because your answer has proven that you know nothing.

jens, what are you talking about? you don't need to be interested in musical theory to be in a position to appreciate Ravel, Bartok, Schoenberg and their heirs...

you just need to be interested in music.
you just need to have an open mind and to train your ears a little...

once you are familiar with this kind of music, the interest in theory might grow in you, but that's not a prerequisite.

please don't add to the elitist thing about classical music (classical in the wider sense possible, in french we sometimes say 'musique savante', erudite music...).

[CypherOne]

In response to the original question, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say maybe...

[liqih]

I dont think anyones argueing. Discovering new ways to work, and studying other people methods is something i find extremely enlightening. When i hear how some people go about things i wonder how the f**k they get such fine results, but that probably why it is so fascinating.

I agree with you, about studying other people methods,

but if you read all thread...

[tee boy]

Yes mate, i followed this thread from the start, very interesting too. Funny thing round here though, there seems to be an awfully fine line between heated debate and all out war!

Good to see people are so passionate over their art.