A computer is a tool, not an instrument.

[Night]

So, recently on stage at Coachella (it's a prominent music festival, for those who don't know) some fuck from the shitty indie band Arcade Fire made a crack towards EDM artists that didn't sit well with many fans of the genre, especially irate was Deadmau5 (Electronic artist/producer.)

 

Here's the rather short article pertaining to this.

 

And no, this doesn't belong in the Music section seeing as though this topic is less about the music itself but rather the composition of said music and how it is received culturally. That and this topic transcends past music as many forms of art are now using digital software. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I love alternative music but just because you know how to play the fucking guitar doesn't make you more talented than someone who's devoted their entire lives to electronic composition. I legitimately don't see why people can't recognize talent in both art forms. 

 

Just as people use a canvas and brushes, people use Photoshop and a tablet. Neither of which is the "correct way" to produce art. 

 

[.Rai]

I don't mind Arcade Fire, but that's awful close-minded. Interesting and oddly though, Daft Punk have actually said incredibly similar about this time last year. Although they came at it at a slightly more sympathetic angle, it was still possibly a silly view. What they did point out though was that computers are good when treated as a musical instrument, not as a template arranger. The difference between buying a self-playing piano and actually playing a piano.

Exact same argument comes up in art. The classic traditional/digital argument. Silly. It's ultimately about the craft itself, not the medium.

Ironically, it's probably Arcade Fire who treat a computer more like a tool. For them, it's just a place to stick in overdubs, some synths and use Pro Tools. For revolutionaries like Brian Eno, it's a massively complex musical instrument. Remember that a guitar is little more than a piece of hollowed out wood.

[Kyng]

Don't get me wrong, I love alternative music but just because you know how to play the f***ing guitar doesn't make you more talented than someone who's devoted their entire lives to electronic composition. I legitimately don't see why people can't recognize talent in both art forms.

I couldn't agree with this more. I sincerely couldn't.

[Βyakuya]

I never followed into Arcade Fire, nor delved much into deadmu5's music and being, but boy is he whining like a 5 year old.

 

There is no true definition of true art. It only depends on how you look at it. As Night said, making art with paints and oils on canvas is no different from a Photoshop program and a drawing tablet. You would see no one in an art museum ranting, "This person's artwork is clearly s*** because he doesn't use X and uses Y instead." And frankly nowadays that's not heresy anymore; We respect each others art forms and if we don't like one medium then you just focus or excel at another.

 

Yet deadmau5 is having butthurt to no bounds on Twitter, for something completely able to be ignored.

[Not-so-Radiant Arin]

I used to make music on the computer. That alone does not make it an instrument. By that definition, everyone would be musically "not-inept", which is simply not true.

[.Rai]

I never followed into Arcade Fire, nor delved much into deadmu5's music and being, but boy is he whining like a 5 year old.

There is no true definition of true art. It only depends on how you look at it. As Night said, making art with paints and oils on canvas is no different from a Photoshop program and a drawing tablet. You would see no one in an art museum ranting, "This person's artwork is clearly s*** because he doesn't use X and uses Y instead." And frankly nowadays that's not heresy anymore; We respect each others art forms and if we don't like one medium then you just focus or excel at another.

Yet deadmau5 is having butthurt to no bounds on Twitter, for something completely able to be ignored.

deadmau5 has a giant point. Arcade Fire are fellow musicians, and often considered fairly legendary ones. For them to be so old-fashioned in view is ridiculous. If they set precedent, they only add to the stigma when producers are actually making legitimate music with computers. Sure, deadmau5 is perhaps going to the point of just making personal comments towards Arcade Fire, but he has the right not to ignore it.

[a bad post]

To Night's point on digital art and traditional art I do both and neither is harder or easier than the other, both require the same amount of skill and effort to create something quality. Different skill sets definitely, but doing something in Photoshop is not any easier than doing it with pencil and paper.

 

The same applies with music, using a computer to compose music requires the same sort of effort as producing it in a "traditional" way. Just because some people use a different skill set than you does not mean they are any less talented than you are.

[Agro]

I can see why so many people really like them as people.

[Susie]

wow...people are still on this point of view, honestly i thought that people grew up, its like just because its not a physical instrument people think its talentless to do, they work their butt of a lot

and when it comes down to electronic music not everyone has the dollars or wants to pay over 2000$ for a nice good hardware synthesizer that can do what their software does (i still personally prefer hardware synths if you cant tell by my username). Yes soundwise the true analog synths are more "pure sounding", but the only people who will notice that are all the old farts who have been sitting infront of a Minimoog and Korg MS20 since they first came out.

as for me i do like Arcade Fire and enjoy their albums (especially The Suburbs), though i sold my liking for deadmau5 a long time ago, still respect him for the artist he is and occassionally play For Lack of a Better Name, for a small dose of nostalgia as well as his really old Get Scraped/Project 56 era stuff

[Tentacruel]

First of all, fuck these guys.

 

However, I can kind of understand the sentiment, as I've heard people outright state that it would be better to advance technology to the point of robots performing music instead of people, and blah blah blah.

 

Point is, there is something from playing an instrument that cannot be achieved through other means, but EDM is just a different form of music.  Nothing wrong with it. 

[Agro]

A musical instrument is a device created or adapted to make musical sounds.

 
I guess the real question here is if an instrument not necessarily designed to do any one thing, instead designed to do everything is considered an instrument. I mean, you could argue that the computer isn't the instrument, and that the program on the computer is, and that the computer is the tool to use the instrument (much like how a pick is used to play a guitar)

[Smear]

Is mayonnaise an instrument?
 
OT tho I think it's stupid that people can say that music made on computers doesn't count as music and that it takes no skill. It's just as much music as anything made by a band, and takes about the same amount of skill and probably more time. You need to have good rhythm and time and to make a song completely from a computer like that is actually pretty amazing.

[Cin]

I have no preference how the music is made as long as I like it. I don't see why people should claim one is more music than the other. It's the themes I have more of a problem with.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Much like Yin, I don't care how the songs I like are made; it just depends if it's in a genre I like. I'm not really a fan of heavy metal or country.

 

Digital is more modern and doesn't require you to be a master at playing instruments, but requires some shelling out at times for programs (depending on what you got). Based on how good you are coding music sequences, it's either easy to do or hard; but regardless, some degree of sound placement and timing is required. You can't just slap a great piece in what, an hour or two; it takes time.

 

(I have a free drum sequence program on computer [Hydrogen]; while I know how to work with the timing and other things; I still need to determine how many beats a certain instrument should play, what synchronizes well with it and so on.)

 

Traditional music requires you to be good at playing said instrument; depending on what you decide to play, either it takes a relatively short time or years to master. It has its perks, yes, but as a whole, it's no different than using software to design music; both methods do the same thing: make something that people will listen to. Heck, I have respect for people who can make good songs using Hatsune Miku software or other related things, because they can make them sound good.

 

Bringing up Night's GFX argument, I agree, though I'm nowhere near his level in PS work, but that's straying a bit from topic. I hand draw stuff at times (though I usually vectorize it in PS for coloring/cleaning reasons). Both hand drawing and digital work are equally hard to do, but accomplish the task of making a beautiful picture to put on dA, sell in public or whatever you do.

 

 

People need to learn to accept modern ways of doing things instead of stubbornly holding on to their beliefs that it isn't proper if not done a certain way. In some disciplines, there's only one proper way to do something; that's not the case here.

[.Rai]

Digital is more modern and doesn't require you to be a master at playing instruments, but requires some shelling out at times for programs (depending on what you got). Based on how good you are coding music sequences, it's either easy to do or hard; but regardless, some degree of sound placement and timing is required. You can't just slap a great piece in what, an hour or two; it takes time.

You've accidentally implied that computers aren't an instrument. Traditional instruments don't necessarily need you to be a master at it (if you play just a piano's black keys, pretty much anything will harmonise so it's impossible to make bad-sounding music even if you haven't touched a piano before). Your point is absolutely true though.

The biggest thing Arcade Fire bring up is electronic music in a live environment, since that may be what they are referring to. Obviously, live, it's far harder to show your workmanship if you are an electronic artist. Somewhat the difference between a conductor and a performer: the conductor is often only there so he is acknowledged for the work he did behind the scenes, while it's the performer who creates the music.

[Rodrigo]

Nah, they're just jealous that they can't make magic with the computer like DJs and such.

[chairman ali]

Depends on the context. I've made better music than 1/2 of the garbage out there simply by using lo-fi technology and a computer. But that doesn't mean I've got incredible skills.

 

This is like photography. Look at photography 50 years back. Out of 100 images you would take, you'd hope that there's just ONE of them that would be amazing. This is because no one understood the idea of exposure. All you had to do back then to get great images was to focus on your exposure.  And if you could do that, you'd get thousands of dollars for 1 photo. But now, no one cares about exposure. No one would pay you 1000 dollars for a good exposed image. They want to see something new. This is because technology enhanced and any one could easily get a few strobes and put together something amazing by accident.

 

And that's what's happening with most com-music. It's something accidental or experimental. Unlike an opera were it has to be studied and segments have to be composed and all that. That's why people see it as a lower form of musical art. I moved away from music a long time ago because I didn't want to depend on something to make my life better or to pass time. I wanted myself, as a human, to find my own ways of living without the aid of these things. That's one of the main reasons why I switched to Traditional art over digital (and another reason is that I'm broke and I'm trying to raise money for a better comp and a cintiq so either way I'm still practicing lul).

 

and why isn't this locked yet? this is demeaning to musical instruments. I just saw a cello crying because of tis

[Catterjune]

I really don't know anything about deadmaus, Arcade Fire, making music, or having talent so I'm probably the last person who should be commenting on this...

However, I do agree with Arcade Fire sentiment, to some degree. I mean, I imagine a human making a pancake, and some super advance robot making a pancake. A human can adjust on the fly as he's making breakfast, make the pancake bigger by adding more batter. Make it smaller by not adding as much. Adjust heat. Adjust time on the burner. Adding the syrup. The pancake is more personal from the human

A robot would cook the exact same pancake for the exact same amount of time and they'd all come out identical until the robot was told to do it otherwise.

That's not to say a human couldn't use machinery to make his pancakes. User a mixer to mix his batter. Use a timer to get the amount of time right and flip it exactly when it says. Thermometers to check the heat.

And also don't get me wrong, Pancake Bot probably took a lot of skill to put together, and a lot of coding to get right. It probably cost more to make than the human's annual salary.

So then the conclusion. Which one is "better"? Pancake Bot probably makes better, or at the least more consistent pancakes, while Human's pancakes can vary wildly. Sometimes they're too burned, sometimes they're still a little raw in the middle, sometimes they're just right.

Ultimately though, I would respect a human who can make a bunch of consistently delicious pancakes much much more than I would respect a robot who did the same thing.

[.Rai]

I moved away from music a long time ago because I didn't want to depend on something to make my life better or to pass time. I wanted myself, as a human, to find my own ways of living without the aid of these things. That's one of the main reasons why I switched to Traditional art over digital.

That's interesting. Are 'these things' technology?

pancakes

A bit of an iffy metaphor. Electronic music certainly doesn't adhere to a template, and neither is it magically automated like a robot. And neither is it more expensive than traditional music (probably the other way around).

That's not to say a human couldn't use machinery to make his pancakes. User a mixer to mix his batter. Use a timer to get the amount of time right and flip it exactly when it says. Thermometers to check the heat.

This is probably the correct metaphor. A traditional musician is one who would mix his batter with a spoon. An electronic one would mix batter with a mixer. The chance of the batter being terrible at the end is fairly even either way.

[chairman ali]

That's interesting. Are 'these things' technology?

 

I was pointing at music, TV shows and gaming mainly. I only game these days if I need to take screenshots or if I need inspiration. I honestly only watch movies for the screenshots. I sometimes quit halfway because I can't take it anymore.

 

But that's an important thing to do as an artist. You have to be aware of everything new that comes out and experiment with it. Movies these days are the new theatres so you'd be able to get the best scenes for sketching and practicing your painting methods.

[.Rai]

I was pointing at music, TV shows and gaming mainly. I only game these days if I need to take screenshots or if I need inspiration. I honestly only watch movies for the screenshots. I sometimes quit halfway because I can't take it anymore.
 
But that's an important thing to do as an artist. You have to be aware of everything new that comes out and experiment with it. Movies these days are the new theatres so you'd be able to get the best scenes for sketching and practicing your painting methods.

That's pretty refreshing. Personally, I'm at it from a completely different angle. I'm always looking at music, TV, games, film, art - it's just sort of my work process. I'm too interested in all of it as a creative platform to ever abandon one form wholly. Obviously, as a musician, I probably wouldn't move away from listening to music in the same that way that I assume you wouldn't from art. Do you ever go to art galleries and stuff?

That said, I've realised that I've partially done the same. I pretty much haven't touched a game for a good few years, and I'm not really a TV guy. Never considered it intentional though.

[Catterjune]

This is probably the correct metaphor. A traditional musician is one who would mix his batter with a spoon. An electronic one would mix batter with a mixer. The chance of the batter being terrible at the end is fairly even either way.

I disagree, a "traditional" musician playing acoustic music would be a guy mixing with a spoon.

One of those Miley Cyrus, auto-tuned scamps would be the ones using mixers.

And a bot that makes pancakes would be an electronic one.

I'm not saying any one would make a worse product than the other. I'm just saying the guy jamming on his guitar is more impressive than the teenager with the autotune voice, and more impressive than the guy on a computer.

[chairman ali]

That's pretty refreshing. Personally, I'm at it from a completely different angle. I'm always looking at music, TV, games, film, art - it's just sort of my work process. I'm too interested in all of it as a creative platform to ever abandon one form wholly. Obviously, as a musician, I probably wouldn't move away from listening to music in the same that way that I assume you wouldn't from art. Do you ever go to art galleries and stuff?

That said, I've realised that I've partially done the same. I pretty much haven't touched a game for a good few years, and I'm not really a TV guy. Never considered it intentional though.

 

I do go occasionally to galleries and exhibition. But it's like going to 9gag's vote section. A lot of crap but a few good ones. You always find artists that are from rich families so their galleries and exhibitions are promoted everywhere. As soon as you step it, you regret even thinking about it. That's where art sucks; it's like a kingdom, if you're from a high class family, you'll be famous regardless of your skills.

 

That's why I usually stick to online exhibitions/portfolios. Sometimes I just forget about everything and read a book then create an artwork from parts of it.

[Goose]

Judging whether or not a computer is an instrument based on how much it impresses us is fickle at best 

[.Rai]

I disagree, a "traditional" musician playing acoustic music would be a guy mixing with a spoon.

One of those Miley Cyrus, auto-tuned scamps would be the ones using mixers.

And a bot that makes pancakes would be an electronic one.

I'm not saying any one would make a worse product than the other. I'm just saying the guy jamming on his guitar is more impressive than the teenager with the autotune voice, and more impressive than the guy on a computer.

Playing a guitar is not representative of being musical, nor is using a computer somehow a shortcut in music. More often than not, using a computer as an instrument is very complex. Plenty of times where electronic artists just create instruments from scratch by messing around with soundwaves.