Do you have to play an instrument?

[visa tapani]

I think a musical ear is basically the opposite of tone deaf. As there are people who are tone deaf I think musical ear is a suitabe description for those who are not tone deaf. A musical ear does have levels and does improve in it's note recognition, key recognition and overall peerception of the music (harmonies, dissonance ect).

Well, if this is how you define musical ear, I can quite sincerely say that it is imo not at all necessary to have a musical ear to be a good musician. There is for instance this one musician who has serious troubles saying if some two parts are in tune with eachother or if this sample he has recently added is in tune. Yet he makes wicked tunes and has in fact released on quite a few recordlabels up till now...

you lost me on one thing though, what does it mean to 'cane'?

Well, I got to say that I'm not all that player from the muthafucking streets myself, but I believe that to cane, as in 'to hit with a cane' can be used as to rock. I was, thus, expressing my admiration of Dj Shadow's output.

[Hink]

well I was just defining my opinion of a musical ear, not making a statement on whether having a musical ear is essential, because for atleast 35 years of my life I have had a constantly improving musical ear. I have no real comparison, I can't compare myself with others so I can only rely on my experience. Having been a musician most of my life I really have little experience as a non musician...

[visa tapani]

It's nothing to do with pitch, or tonal awareness, and it is *absolutely* a vague and nebulous quality, but this basal, innate *understanding* of what makes a combination of sounds 'musical' is an essential thing nonetheless. It's how noise becomes music.

Creativity has nothing to do with it. Neither does emotion. Or instrumental ability. Or ear training. Or theory.

Now you are making a bit more sense, even if ruling out emotion and creativity is too provocative for your own good. I would like to elucidate that when I was talking about tonal ear or ear for melody, I was referring to that kind of 'hearing' that hink recently placed on the same line with tone-deafness, the part which is associated with ear training. And this, I'm sure you would now agree, is not necessary for a good musician.

I still think this concept of "musical ear" is unnecessary and nondescript. You are basically trying to build a new terminology around the concept of "musical ear". Then you throw out creativity as irrelevant. IMO you are just making a new notation (to use Wittgenstein's terms of language analysis) where (the newly-defined) creativity does not play a role.

[visa tapani]

well I was just defining my opinion of a musical ear, not making a statement on whether having a musical ear musical is essential, because for atleast 35 years of my life I have had a constantly improving musical ear. I have no real comparison, I can't compare myself with others so I can only rely on my experience. Having been a musician most of my life I really have little experience as a non musician...

Yeah, I know, I was just basically examining this earlier comment from kaden in the light of your definition:

"A 'musical ear' (however you want to define it) is what allows people with no formal training or innate instrumental skill to actually be musicians."

[cron]

I play a few instruments reasonably proficiently and, not only is my music what most instrumentalists would call "non-musical", it's also totally shit.

[dystonia_ek]

I've played with guys with outlandishly world-class chops, and not even the smallest amount of musicality, and I've played with guys who could barely find middle C on a piano but who were so musical their farts woulda made somebody's end-of-year top ten (Mark Spybey from DVOA springs to mind immediately).

It's nothing to do with pitch, or tonal awareness, and it is *absolutely* a vague and nebulous quality, but this basal, innate *understanding* of what makes a combination of sounds 'musical' is an essential thing nonetheless. It's how noise becomes music.

I totally agree with this. Many of the most powerful recordings of the last few decades have come from self-professed non-musicians (I'd single out Steve Stapleton, Andrew MacKenzie, David Jackman, Richard Rupenus, Boyd Rice, John Duncan, William Bennett, Masami Akita, Daniel Menche, Marc & Eric Hurtado... )
Excessive musical training can be a handicap, and very few seem to break through the bars, so to speak.
I've had bad experiences trying to collaborate with trained classical and jazz musicians who were interested in experimentation but couldn't let go of the theory - always thinking in the same scales and intervals and rhythms.

This is not to say that a musical education is bad in and of itself. It just becomes harder to step out of the space provided, as it were, and easier to slip into banal convention.

Boyd Rice summed up the downside of this nicely when he said that he believed music can be dangerous because it tends to systemise thought - you know what's coming next before you hear it.

Creativity has nothing to do with it. Neither does emotion. Or instrumental ability. Or ear training. Or theory.

Theory and emotion, not necessarily. Learning how to listen ACTIVELY rather than passively seems pretty essential though. As is a sensitivity to minute detail. Technique should be invisible.

[tee boy]

I read an interview once with some Italian composer (forgotten his name), and he made a point which has really stuck with me. He said that although he was experience in both guitar and piano, he choose to use neither when composing his music. Why? He said that when writing on guitar, the instruments influence on the music was to strong. Same with the piano.

Personally, Im a guitarist. I learned classical as a wee boy, then went on to blues / jazz, then went back to classical... then joined a metal band! When i think of music i cant help but think of it as notes on the fret board. I consider this both a important asset and a handicap, for the same reasons as mention above - i can only really write with the guitar and therefore all of my stuff ends up being written in a 'guitar' kind of way. For example, a music teacher i know could tell instantly that my instrument was guitar simply by looking at some notation i'd done. Since then iv been getting used to writing in the sequence with using a software instrument and the mouse. Iv found that the stuff iv done has been much less restrained... if that makes sense!

So to answer your question, i think the answer is definately no! Instrumental technquie really is of no benefit to you as a composer / producer (unless of course you need a certain live track!). However, i would say that musical experience is invaluable. Understanding theory is one thing, but musical experience is something that can only be gained over time imo, and it is of massive importance (to me atleast). Usually people get this type of experience throught instrumental training (as i have), so in this sense playing the instrument was essential.

But whatever, Im sure many people would disagree with me here. I suppose you have to do whatever you feel comfortable with. If you're making great music then dont worry about it. If you feel your musical knowledge is letting you down, then maybe try learning some keyboard + theory?

[Markleford]

Theory and emotion, not necessarily. Learning how to listen ACTIVELY rather than passively seems pretty essential though. As is a sensitivity to minute detail. Technique should be invisible.

Full agreement here: listening and sensitivity is key to being a good musician.

And guess what: playing an instrument is a great way to learn this! I don't think you have to do it particularly well, or concentrate on developing expert chops, but working with other people ironically teaches you to listen even to yourself.

There are many "lower" cultures around the world that don't have access to technology and wussy Web forums where people like to argue about music. Instead, their society has rich musical traditions that everyone can participate in, rather than being relegated to consumer roles and taught that "musicans are special: you'll never be able to do what they do".

No absolutes, though: some people can grow up never having played an instrument or collaborated with other people, but if they have a musical ear and access to an endless supply of recordings then they can absorb the past and synthesize it into new forms entirely in a vacuum.

Anyway, bottom line for the extremist snobs on both sides of this: quit f**king talking about it and go record something to help prove your point.

Next though, we'll have to fight about "good musician" versus "good composer"!

- m

[liqih]

Squarpusher - messy noise.

never, it's all very rational and thought

[meeks]

Don't know, can't say, I do. I was also in a consevatory. I think, however "no", technically the computer is the instrument making noise.

You know, I use to laugh at the triangle guy in the orchestra, until I found out what they really do. There is a lesson there.

[liqih]

on topic my opininon is that you don't need to be able to play a traditional instrument,

but funnly reversable, who can make good interesting music even with no instrumental technique background*,
would also find easy to learn to play an instrument IMHO, as said, who is a sensitive listener and a creative human can do both,
but it's also a matter of culture, you can be "indirectly" trained to be sensitive and creative.

* a bit of nonsense there, since to make music you
need some sort of instrument (as sound generator)

[Lunatique]

Whether one plays an instrument or can play it well isn't as important as whether one understands music theory. The more music theory you know, the wider your range and scope.

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.

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). He's made industrial, synth pop, techno--and he can turn around and compose full orchestral film scores, opera, full piano solo album, avant garde orchestral..etc. Then for his personal works, he's heavily into jazz, ambient, techno, house, traditonal ethnic, 19th century french impressionism, bossa nova, reggae..etc, and he even spins as a DJ sometimes. With his experimental/avant garde works, he breaks down all the rules/restrictions he's learned as a trained composer, and basically can revert back to the primal state of someone who is composing without music theory. Granted, it is highly unusual for a highly trained composer to be able to put aside his training to do something totally experimental, but Sakamoto is one of the few that can do it--and that's why he is one of the most respected musician of our time.

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.

Personally, I'm in awe of highly talented musicians with strong theory knowledge. I think musicians without theory knowledge make some interesting stuff, but hardly comparable to the masterworks of someone like Sakamoto.

[Robert Randolph]

The answer is yes.

Cause the human voice is an instrument... and I have never heard of, or seen someone make good music who cant at least HUM their ideas.... with the exception of perhaps a few mutes... tho I hear they're really big on solo's.

So, what makes music. I thought instruments made music eh? is there some new magical device that makes music with no semblance to an instrument?

[Crackbaby]

I think a musical ear is basically the opposite of tone deaf. As there are people who are tone deaf I think musical ear is a suitabe description for those who are not tone deaf. A musical ear does have levels and does improve in it's note recognition, key recognition and overall peerception of the music (harmonies, dissonance ect).

Who was it that wasnt tone deaf, but just deaf? Bach? Brahms? .. Bethoveen! Hmm.. i guess experience IS important

Sorry, its early here and im on new medication
Dont know what im talking about

[Ja.x]

I had some musical education in the past. I studied piano as a child and I taught myself to play guitar starting from that knowledge (which is not too deep). I'm not a virtuoso in either instruments, and I use more the piano roll editor than the midi keyboard to enter the notes; neverthless I can't think of that background but as an advantage.