Is there still such a thing like instrumentalist snobbery around?

[sjm]

Automation puts factory laborers out of work every day.

I don't think that technology can be stopped, and I think it would be a bad thing if it could. In the long run, technology improves the lives of everyone. But in the short term it can be pretty brutal.

At the risk of going horribly off topic, I do find myself wondering at times whether there is a plan in place for the time when we (humans) don't have to do a lot of the drudge work because of technological advances. As you say, technology can end up putting a lot of people out of work - but is the work that those people were doing "fulfilling" work? In most cases, if it can be reduced to a series of repeated steps (i.e. what machines excel at), I'd say probably not.

The problem is only when society does not find an alternative occupation (by which I mean "meaningful thing to do", not necessarily "job") for those people whose positions are replaced by machines. There doesn't seem to be any real meaningful reevaluation of what it means to work and how society should develop in a world where thankless menial tasks no longer require a human to perform them. I do think that we are going to need a big paradigm shift in this regard over the next century or so.

The solution is most definitely not a group of long-term unemployed who feel excluded from society, so something is going to need to give.

[fluffy_little_something]

Usually automation only serves to cut costs, nobody thinks about the future of humanity. It is all about short-term profits.
We have had automation for decades now, but still people are working overtime like never before, automation does not lead to more spare time.
Plus, the time we do work is getting more and more stressful because of the productivity mania of the over-achieving elite that run the economy.

[IncarnateX]

On a side note, I feel I have to nuance my story a little because I may have given a too black-white impression. When I wrote we did not talk much, me and the instrumentalists, I meant that we did not talk much about music together and didn’t musically “swing” together, when we were placed in the countless ad hoc group constellations during classes. However, we could still have fun, drink and smoke loads of weed when we partied at the end of the term.

I also managed to get some kind of respect during the years, not as an electronic musician, but partly because I wrote a nice piece of music for our big band that this way became our own, and partly because as a keyboard player, I was so bloody shy and afraid to play solos myself (felt I could not live up to any standards in this respect) that I willingly placed my strings and pads gently behind all other instruments and always played 100% after the note sheet in band situations. Especially our big band recognized me for this. In comparison, other key players could go into improvisation mode and extend their chords way beyond the sheet and at volumes that could drown a whole brass section. At one concert, a teacher simply had to turn down the amp of the piano player because he went into me-me-me mode. Since everybody knew I had this problem with exposing my limitations as a player, they actually gave me a shared applaus to a concert when I made my first solo efter studying for a whole year. So I got recognition after all, but still it was given because I became more like them and less like myself, so it did not gave me such a boost. Just to say that my fellow students were human beings after all.

[fluffy_little_something]

Sounds more like a rivalry and incompatibility of different tastes of music. When you are into electronic music, there is probably not much point in jamming with rock musicians and the like

[thecontrolcentre]

When you are into electronic music, there is probably not much point in jamming with rock musicians and the like

I learnt to play guitar by jamming with "rock musicians and the like."

[teacue]

...
But these days I take it for granted that we have long passed this former division, now that everyone, may they be composer or instrumentalists, have access to cheap DAWS and easily can make their own home studios and compositions. But then again, I am not really sure.
So now I ask you, do you have any experience in this regard? are there still instrumentalist snobs around or have they become extinct?

You had then no luck with such an among of narrow minded wannabee musicians around you.
I don't believe that it was everywhere like this.
As I studied classical guitar there were a bunch of very different students in my school, I always found this diversity quite interesting and though we all were so diferent we tried to live together

Depending on how much you are concentrated on a music style you may negligate other types of music and the seemingly snobbery one shows at a particular moment in life may be (hopefully) only superficially.
I believe that at one point or another a musician opens his mind to all kind of music (well I do hope so).
Of course It may take longer for some to be able to do this

But indeed one can always find durable narrow minded and condescendant people in the music world.
I have met quite a few in the music school where I worked during a long time.
And this was not about playing or not an instrument (we all did) but about music genre.

I live in Germany and there is in my opinion an anachronistic and curious division between E- and U-Musik.
Ernste Musik (serious music) and Unterhaltungsmusik (light music meant to entertain).
E-Musik is classical music and modern-classical music (from Schönberg to Stockhausen and further)
U-Musik is everything else.
I don't know the history and the origin of this division but it is used by the GEMA (the german collecting society) and depending to which category your music belongs it has a strong impact on the revenue you get from the GEMA.
I mention this because in Germany this division is quite well known not only among musicians and composers and I believe it influences what people think about music.
In some circles you may find a kind of general condescendance about U-Music which is probably created and perpetuated through this official division.

BTW on this very forum one can find sometimes some similar snobbery between modern music genres.
And I hate it when sometimes some people act exactly as you are describing.
If you take the time to search a little you will find in this forum quite condescendant opinions on music coming from japan and in particular on music created with Vocaloids.
I sometimes cannot believe what some people are writing!

I would say the former division between instrumentalists and electronic musicians without particular instrumental skills maybe less than in the time you are describing, probably because as you mention so many today have acces to so much tools to create music without having to learn an acoustic instrument, but the condescendance and the snobbery between music genres can be quite strong sometimes, even in this forum.
Less instrumentalist snobbery but more genre snobbery.

[breakmixer]

Electronic artists, Dance and Hip Hop have always been looked down upon by fans of traditional rock & roll and popular music, since it all blew up in the early 80s, comments like 'all that rapping is not proper singing", "they just steal music", "it all done by the machines", "it's not real music", so it not confined to traditional musicians.

[herodotus]

You do know, I am sure, that 'pleasant' is relative to the person listening.

Right?

Sure, but if someone likes what I dislike, I don't think much of them, anyway
Like many music critics, they seem to be obsessed with complexity rather than appeal. That's why their verdicts have often nothing to do with what most people like.

You are a silly man.

Why?
Excellent musicians don't necessarily make appealing music. Sure, there is always a relatively small, elitist audience for them, but most people don't seem to care about great musicianship. Of course they do expect a certain level at live concerts, but even there the purpose of music is not to provide intellectual stimuli, but to entertain.

What is wrong with appealing to a relatively small elitist audience? Why do you have to care what most people like?

I don't like the music most people like. It isnt a pose or an attempt to be cool. It is a direct, immediate reaction, just like yours. The difference is that you seem to either accidentally or intentionally conflate what is appealing to you with what is universally appealing.

Unfortunately, there is no "universally appealing".

[fluffy_little_something]

You do know, I am sure, that 'pleasant' is relative to the person listening.

Right?

Sure, but if someone likes what I dislike, I don't think much of them, anyway
Like many music critics, they seem to be obsessed with complexity rather than appeal. That's why their verdicts have often nothing to do with what most people like.

You are a silly man.

Why?
Excellent musicians don't necessarily make appealing music. Sure, there is always a relatively small, elitist audience for them, but most people don't seem to care about great musicianship. Of course they do expect a certain level at live concerts, but even there the purpose of music is not to provide intellectual stimuli, but to entertain.

What is wrong with appealing to a relatively small elitist audience? Why do you have to care what most people like?

I don't like the music most people like. It isnt a pose or an attempt to be cool. It is a direct, immediate reaction, just like yours. The difference is that you seem to either accidentally or intentionally conflate what is appealing to you with what is universally appealing.

Unfortunately, there is no "universally appealing".

No. Most people don't like the specific music I listen to, and I am aware of it. And I don't care.

I am basically speaking of Pop music vs the rest. Pop as in popular music, meaning the populus (people) like it.

[fmr]

I am basically speaking of Pop music vs the rest. Pop as in popular music, meaning the populus (people) like it.

Problem is that "pop" no longer means it is to or from the "populus". It's just to a small, urban, part of that "populus". The old "pop" muisc is now called "folk" or even "ethnic" (like it is some kind of strange inheritance from a distant race that's forever lost in the past)

[lfm]

Unfortunately, there is no "universally appealing".

Very true - and still some seem to think so.

The European Song Contest is an event since like 70 years and more back.
All european countries and some more like Turkey, Ukraine, Russia and Israel participate as well.

For a good while into the 70's sweden had expert groups - producers and whatnot in the music industry - to select swedish song/artist. They should know, right?

1973, the year before ABBA won with Waterloo(1974) ABBA had this Ring, ring-song which did not win swedish election - the experts thought another song nobody care about should be swedish song. But many state that this really prepared ABBA to be successful next year - maybe to this day biggest landslide victory with Waterloo.

Then they started with jury with non-professionals and later on telephone votes as well.
Since then sweden has won a couple of times, at least. I thin Ireland might be the most successful participant.

I haven't looked or followed this event for the last ten years - but maybe it's the same now.

[sjm]

All european countries and some more like Turkey, Ukraine, Russia.

Those are European countries. Ukraine is completely in Europe, while Turkey and Russia are in both Asia and Europe. Moscow is in Europe. While Ankara is not, Istanbul is, although not in its entirety.

Fun fact: Kazakhstan is also partly in Europe and partly in Asia.

[fluffy_little_something]

The ESC is crap through and through. The worst kind of pop music usually, the other end of the spectrum. A weird mix of bad taste and nationalism.

To me Turkey is not part of Europe, nor Israel, nor Australia.

[jancivil]

You do know, I am sure, that 'pleasant' is relative to the person listening.

Right?

Sure, but if someone likes what I dislike, I don't think much of them, anyway
Like many music critics, they seem to be obsessed with complexity rather than appeal. That's why their verdicts have often nothing to do with what most people like.

You are a silly man.

Why?
Excellent musicians don't necessarily make appealing music. Sure, there is always a relatively small, elitist audience for them, but most people don't seem to care about great musicianship. Of course they do expect a certain level at live concerts, but even there the purpose of music is not to provide intellectual stimuli, but to entertain.

What is wrong with appealing to a relatively small elitist audience? Why do you have to care what most people like?

I don't like the music most people like. It isnt a pose or an attempt to be cool. It is a direct, immediate reaction, just like yours. The difference is that you seem to either accidentally or intentionally conflate what is appealing to you with what is universally appealing.

Unfortunately, there is no "universally appealing".

Most people don't know shit about music. And the popular music now reflects that more than ever. It's manufactured to pander and the powers-that-be in this realm second-guess, levels upon levels of second-guessing rather than ever taking any kind of chance so we have all of this garbage that's copying the last thing. Particularly the urban radio, it's all the same thing.

That statement about elitism is anti-intellectualism at its worst. The emphasis on complexity, like all the music you_don't_have the tools to grok, is people doing complexity for its own sake, or some other argument from ignorance in order to justify your laziness and fecklessness - and your lack of curiosity - in music.

[fluffy_little_something]

Well, most people don't expect music to be intellectually challenging, they just want to hear something to hum/sing along or dance or make out to

Think of the music of the Middle Ages, most of it was simple and jolly, to brighten up the difficult lives of the masses.