Do you have to play an instrument?

[pHz]

heh ... i thought that this thread had stayed RELATIVELY civil ...

slainte rob

[Emerald Tablet]

question :
isn`t being able to controll a daw the same as mastering a regular instrument?
it both takes perseverance and talent

didnt i say that a few pages ago ???slainte rob

ow - haven`t read all pages
in this case i agree with you
and indeed :

nowadays interfacing puts every aspect of the human anatomy in to play

if your able to sing / swing / clap / mouth drum / scream / you can use it as input perhaps some are able to sing a perfect guitar solo - if you can, you can easily transfer it into a real sounding guitar

wave2midi - live input2midi / life midi control / morphing / automated button control / every link that can possibly be made between daws / vsti`s / vst`s etcetera - it's all a replacement or addition to /of a hand strumming some instrument

the next step is Neuro-interfacing
the new computer era will be biological

kewl times

[Sascha Franck]

You know, in the end it's just as Liquih said: You listen to something and you like it or don't.
This isn't about a certain "target" audience which has to have some theoretical knowledge to know about special styles and what not (of course there's a special audience for all sorts of music, but IMO that's beyond the point).
And it certainly isn't about the way a certain "composer", "player" or "arranger" has done the music.

Yes, there's a certain amount of knowledge that *might* help both the listener and the composer, but it's not that this would necessarily be required.

You listen to it and you either like it or not.

[VicDiesel]

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.

Your answer is complete and absolute bullshit

Ok, now we're even and this discussion is officially worth zip.

I'm outa here. Personally I don't see why you distinguish between Bach, Beethoven, Ravel, Bartok. It's all "serious" music, and liking it doesn't take any interest in theory. Just open ears. After that you can like or dislike someone's "voice" (I don't like Beethoven; he belabours the obvious too much), but htat's just personal preference.

Anway, as I said: outta here.

V.

[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.

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...).

Wopelka, if you haven't read my original post and thus take above reply of mine out of context it might appear as if I was being an elitist though I actually
mean quite the opposite. I was NOT speaking generally about orchestral music and even not speaking generally about the work of Bartok or Ravel. But both works are for me prime examples of compositional wankery. Sorry, but that's the way I feel about it.

b.t.w.: I highly appreciate Ravel's work as an orchestrator.

[jens]

I'm outa here.

fine

[Wopelka]

But both works are for me prime examples of compositional wankery.

i must admit i didn't read the first post.


compositional wankery, eh?
actually, that doesn't help your case much...


nevermind, hope we'll see you soon

[dystonia_ek]

People like you are basically aesthetic fascists.

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

I'm sorry if I ruffled too many feathers, but I think I've raised a few valid points that no-one has actually responded to. I'm not trying to turn this into an emotional issue - I just feel that making dictatorial statements while looking down one's nose does not constitute a rational response to an intellectual challenge.

So I'll sit out on the rest, no problem, and no hard feelings to anyone - it's a sticky subject, and it's bound to get heated, but it's also a subject that needs to be examined and re-examined if the art and science of sound and music are to evolve. But I will restate my question before I go:

Following your argument, a slight, if not substantial, majority of contemporary pop music subgenres are not, in fact, music (this is what I was referring to in the out-of-context line that TrekStar quoted above). How is the arbitrary dismissal of the vast number of entire musical genres that are not based on instrumental virtuosity justifiable?

I think it would clear up a lot of tension if the pro-training people could respond directly and thoughtfully to this point. If you think I'm wrong in my analysis, explain why.

Anyway, It's been a good debate

-Jmz.H

[Equilibrium]

People who are saying that computers are instruments are just playing with words. Play a smooth scale on a computer without using a keyboard. Play a computer round a camp fire. Play a computer behind your neck. Ok so you can define a computer as an instrument, aren't you clever, but it lacks things that trational instruments have, that are essential. A computer is a computer, it does what a computer does. And as for a bag of nails being an instrument, I suppose you could define it as an instrument, regardless, it's a shit one.

[jens]

People who are saying that computers are instruments are just playing with words. Play a smooth scale on a computer without using a keyboard. Play a computer round a camp fire. Play a computer behind your neck.

Have ever tried to play a flute 'behind your neck'?

Have ever tried to play timpanies 'round a campfire'?

[vurt]

People who are saying that computers are instruments are just playing with words. Play a smooth scale on a computer without using a keyboard. Play a computer round a camp fire. Play a computer behind your neck. Ok so you can define a computer as an instrument, aren't you clever, but it lacks things that trational instruments have, that are essential. A computer is a computer, it does what a computer does. And as for a bag of nails being an instrument, I suppose you could define it as an instrument, regardless, it's a shit one.

play a grand piano round a camp fire
or even behind your neck

a computer makes sounds its an instrument,are you saying only "acoustic" instruments are real?if so then you are clearly mistaken.
if music can be made with something it is musical,therefore ergo and a matter of fact it is in essence a musical instrument.whether or not you agree.altho i respect your right to an opinion but feel it my duty to give you the facts so you dont look silly in future

[jens]

I beat to to it, John

nene nenenene nene

[vurt]

I beat to to it, John

nene nenenene nene

yeah but i said it better

[Wopelka]

OK, i won't read the whole thread, but here are my thoughts about the main subject:

playing an instrument and composing music

are two separate things.



playing is about performing music

while

composing is about creating music



you can create music without actually perfoming it



however, thanks to todays technology, we can now play our music without being a real performer, thanks to sequencers and other software studios.

very cool indeed. however be careful, for crafting a nice track without performing it is something that requires some skills, too.

so it is pefectly valid to say that a computer is a sort of instrument. some kind of virtuosity is needed to put together a good track, in the same way a good performer has to sweat a little when he plays his solo.

[visa tapani]

I beat to to it, John

nene nenenene nene

yeah but i said it better

no I think his examples were funnier I mean lol, playing a flute behind your neck or think about the situation where someone would entertain a campfire posse with a goddamn set of timpanies hehe lol...