A computer is a tool, not an instrument.

[Tentacruel]

As a matter of semantics, I'd say a computer is more a composition tool than an instrument. 

[Catterjune]

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.

I'm impressed the first time I see someone use a bot to do something. The first time I hear a song using just a computer, if it's a good song, I'll give you a pat on the head or a round of applause or whatever. The second, third, and so on times, my enthusiasm diminishes.

A guy doing a live performance on a guitar every night for a month is much more impressive to me than a guy doing a live performance on a computer for a month.

[.Rai]

I'm impressed the first time I see someone use a bot to do something. The first time I hear a song using just a computer, if it's a good song, I'll give you a pat on the head or a round of applause or whatever. The second, third, and so on times, my enthusiasm diminishes.

A guy doing a live performance on a guitar every night for a month is much more impressive to me than a guy doing a live performance on a computer for a month.

From a live perspective, it gets far more complicated. An electronic musician is comparable to a conductor. They are essentially there in order to acknowledge the fact that they were responsible for making the piece sound as good as it is behind the scenes. Their role is generally limited; they are not performers. Of course though, everyone will be concentrating on the performers themselves. So, yes, live, it's much easier to praise a traditional musician because their work is more obvious.

From a purely musical and compositional perspective, basically no. Nothing more impressive about a traditional musician.

[Akira]

Most of the music I listen to these days is exclusively electronic, produced by extremely talented artists. Autotune can get wrekt though. 

[Catterjune]

They are essentially there in order to acknowledge the fact that they were responsible for making the piece sound as good as it is behind the scenes. Their role is generally limited; they are not performers. Of course though, everyone will be concentrating on the performers themselves. So, yes, live, it's much easier to praise a traditional musician because their work is more obvious.

We're talking about Coachella, a festival with live performances. So naturally, we're talking about how interesting a live performance is.

[BehindTheMask]

So, recently on stage at Coachella (it's a prominent music festival, for those who don't know) some f*** 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.)

 

No offense, while I agree with you to an extent, you sound really really really butthurt.

 

To say that Arcade Fire is "shitty" is completely stupid. According to wikipedia "[Arcade Fire] won numerous awards, including the 2011 Grammy for Album of the Year (they hold the distinction of being the only musical group to have won their first and only Grammy in that category), the 2011 Juno Award for Album of the Year, and the 2011 Brit Award for Best International Album for their third studio album, The Suburbs, released in 2010 to critical acclaim and commercial success.^[1] In earlier years, they won the 2008 Meteor Music Award for Best International Album and the 2008 Juno Award for Alternative Album of the Year for their second studio album, Neon Bible. They also received nominations for the Best Alternative Music Album Grammy for all three of their studio albums. The band's work has also been twice named as a short list nominee for the Polaris Music Prize in 2007 for Neon Bible and in 2011 for The Suburbs, winning the award for The Suburbs. In 2013, Arcade Fire released their fourth album Reflektor and scored the feature film Her, for which William Butler (current member of the band) and Owen Pallett were nominated for Best Original Score at the 86th Academy Awards."

[.Rai]

We're talking about Coachella, a festival with live performances. So naturally, we're talking about how interesting a live performance is.

In a Coachella context, that's /mostly/ okay. At festivals though, EDM is mostly just that: sound to help lubricate the rave atmosphere. I think those who go see bands like Arcade Fire at Coachella and those who see deadmau5 are two different crowds, so hopefully it doesn't matter too much (essentially Arcade Fire's attack was a little unprovoked).

Although, Coachella this year was ruled by the electronic acts. Coachella's held in the middle of a desert, and was hit by hard sandy winds this time, so guitar-based bands had a much harder time to get a decent sound compared to the dance acts. Shame, but true. Ruined Outkast's reunion and Pharrell had a little moan about it.

[Tentacruel]

I have one issue.  

 

In terms of composition and musical creation, using a computer is just as valid.  In fact, sometimes it can lead to more creative music, as when you sit down with your instrument you're going to start subconsciously playing what you always do.  However, the other extreme is that the composition is the only thing that matters, which I firmly disagree with.  Performing music is artistic expression.  It's like dancing.  You wouldn't say that the dancers are just mimicking what the choreographer wrote. 

 

Anyway, EDM producers are not musicians, but are composers.  (Some are also musicians but you know what I mean.)  I do believe it's acceptable for them to stand there as part of the performance, as that's part of the art, in a sense. 

 

 

I am slightly biased towards traditional instruments, but in this case,  Deadmau5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arcade Fire 

[Night]

No offense, while I agree with you to an extent, you sound really really really butthurt.

 

To say that Arcade Fire is "shitty" is completely stupid. According to wikipedia "[Arcade Fire] won numerous awards, including the 2011 Grammy for Album of the Year (they hold the distinction of being the only musical group to have won their first and only Grammy in that category), the 2011 Juno Award for Album of the Year, and the 2011 Brit Award for Best International Album for their third studio album, The Suburbs, released in 2010 to critical acclaim and commercial success.^[1] In earlier years, they won the 2008 Meteor Music Award for Best International Album and the 2008 Juno Award for Alternative Album of the Year for their second studio album, Neon Bible. They also received nominations for the Best Alternative Music Album Grammy for all three of their studio albums. The band's work has also been twice named as a short list nominee for the Polaris Music Prize in 2007 for Neon Bible and in 2011 for The Suburbs, winning the award for The Suburbs. In 2013, Arcade Fire released their fourth album Reflektor and scored the feature film Her, for which William Butler (current member of the band) and Owen Pallett were nominated for Best Original Score at the 86th Academy Awards."

 

None taken.

 

I honestly don't like their music in the slightest, however that's not why I labeled them as shitty. They're shitty because for a band as popular as they are in 2014, they've literally no reason to have such backward ideology.

To go on stage at one of the biggest festivals and degrade other artists is not only tremendously disrespectful but it's honestly just outright uncalled for. 

And I literally couldn't give less of a fuck about their accolades, show me the fucking award that allows them the right to tell anyone what is and isn't art. 

[Zauls]

As a guitarist and musician myself, I used to dismiss all electronic music as a complete backward step in musical development. The only electronic music I'd ever listened to was my next door neighbour playing his computer compositions far too loud in the middle of the night. Most of the time it was just the same 4 bars of music copied and pasted. It was dreadful. 

However, using electronic sounds and computers to create music has created far more musical possibilities and in the right hands it can be used to create some fantastic music. The work of Arjen Anthony Lucassen has brought some amazing sounds. I still don't like 99.9% of electronic music and would never listen to completely electronic music, but that's just personal preference. 

I also use computers for music. I use Guitar Pro for compositions and for learning songs and it is extremely useful. In that sense, I am using it as a tool and not an instrument. 

The reasons people may see it as a backwards step is because it does open up opportunities for completely talentless people to enter the music industry (I hate that phrase, but eh) by just using autotune and things, which takes away all the artistry and talent from music. People literally just copy and paste a few bars of music and call it a song... I agree with what Tenta said about music being an artistic expression. I do get annoyed when completely talentless people make heaps of money from music when I'm here working my ass off and not getting anything. That's understandable is it not?

 

All in all, the use of computer technology in music has lead to both great things and terrible things happening, but that's fine as long as one ignores the terrible things, because then you have some great works of art available to you. I am personally sticking to good old fashioned electric guitar though.

[BehindTheMask]

None taken.

 

I honestly don't like their music in the slightest, however that's not why I labeled them as shitty. They're shitty because for a band as popular as they are in 2014, they've literally no reason to have such backward ideology.

To go on stage at one of the biggest festivals and degrade other artists is not only tremendously disrespectful but it's honestly just outright uncalled for. 

And I literally couldn't give less of a f*** about their accolades, show me the f***ing award that allows them the right to tell anyone what is and isn't art. 

 

Oh, i didnt know that people could have opinions on what music is/isnt. I must have forgot that music(and art) to extent is meant to illicit different reactions based off the their perspective. Its like they have their own opinions. Imagine that, people who spend their lives learning one(or more) instruments and practicing to become world famous being mad over people who use computers to create music and are just as famous. So yeah, I get where they are coming from, computer tools =/= instruments, so while technically EDM/dubstep/whatever is music, it isnt the same as live bands. A computer isnt designed specifically to function as an instrument, its multipurposed. Now compare that to a guitar/drumset/glockenspiel. How many functions does the instrument have? Its built to produce notes and thats its primary/only function musically.

 

Secondly, deadmau5 handled himself like a little kid lashing out against arcade fire. he threw a hissy fit because "muh masterrace edm, respect me as an artist, because i totally inb4'd like a cool kid. i r legion." He could have handled it so much better, and made Arcade Fire look stupider than they were. Instead he undermined what he was trying to accomplish. Using memes to win an argument is like using Hamburgers to go vegan.

[.Rai]

Personally, I think the music that most deserves being targeted is pop; every freaking song has the same key, chord progression, tempo, and structure.  Yet every song tops the charts for all of three weeks?

Yeah, nah. There's been more subversion in pop than there has been in rock for the past two decades. I can't actually name a song in the UK Top 10 at the moment that has the same chord progression as another, let alone sound-wise. Rock has a very specific sound; beyond the avant-garde, there's only a few variants. Coolest chord progression in the charts currently belongs to Pharrell's Happy.

[Rawkobo]

I don't really like Arcade Fire for a number of reasons attributed to what I associated them with out of high school, but the thing is, I'm kind of wondering if it has anything to do with Skrillex and dubstep.

 

Most electronica artists that I listen to have been trying as hard as they can to differentiate themselves from the rising popularity of dubstep as a sort of genre that's draining the value of their own work. From my own experience with his music, deadmau5 experimented with the idea a little bit but stuck with his own sound in a way that makes him still pretty good to listen to.

 

The Arcade Fire position stems from a fear of us losing "real musical talent," considered to be a property of only traditional instruments, which has basically been a stupid position to me since at least the 70s/80s with the development of soundboards for keys and experimentation with aftereffects. Coincidentally, that second one has been experimented on a ton by people who use traditional instruments as well as those who produce music electronically, so a common ground is shared that's key to the development of modern music as a whole.

 

Dubstep basically took that too far and made sounds that don't seem like music to everyone that isn't a fan of it. I certainly don't like it that much at all, even if it is sometimes described as "hype music."

 

But because people assume dubstep to be basically electronica for those who are unfamiliar with the genre, it becomes very, very hard to see that the production of music differs a lot between the two, which leads to the comments that were made.

 

On the other hand, I've never really been to a live performance of electronica that I've particularly enjoyed, because there's nothing really magical about it to me compared to live rock shows. I enjoy Eric Prydz, deadmau5, Daft Punk, etc. at home because their production and composition is fantastic and I'm glad they used computer/modern technology to help them achieve those sounds and mixes. But live, I like seeing someone really play something, instead of mixing it a bit like a DJ. Because a DJ, in my opinion, isn't really an artist and more of a guy who melds sounds to make things seem a bit cooler.

[Zauls]

Yeah, nah. There's been more subversion in pop than there has been in rock for the past two decades. I can't actually name a song in the UK Top 10 at the moment that has the same chord progression as another, let alone sound-wise. Rock has a very specific sound; beyond the avant-garde, there's only a few variants. Coolest chord progression in the charts currently belongs to Pharrell's Happy.

 

I would be inclined to disagree, personally. I think there has been a fairly equal amount of evolution/deviation in both genres, but they have evolved in different ways. It is difficult to compare the two, though. Pop is only really defined as what is popular and is in fact just an abbreviation of that exact word. What is mainstream does not depend on what style of music it is, so naturally artists have a lot more experimentation available to them. Technology and computers also contributed different sound possibilities that have made pop music evolve in sound in recent decades. Rock, on the other hand, is a more specific formula. The instrumentation more or less requires guitars (mostly electric, often with distortion/overdrive), drums and bass. That gives Rock a definitive sound, but it doesn't mean it hasn't been allowed to deviate and evolve and come up with new things. Sure, there are quite a lot of bands that sound almost exactly the same, but there are equally a lot of pop artists that sound very similar or that don't have a unique sound. I know a fair few amount of pop artists, but I can't tell who is who if I hear their music on the radio. Same with some Rock bands. You just have to look in the right places in both genres to find actually unique sounds. The example you gave is definitely more recognisable and definitive than a lot of pop in the charts (not saying I like it, personal preference). Listen to a band like Children of Bodom, then compare that to something like Beyond Twilight, then that to My Chemical Romance, then that to Dream Theater. I could go on and on with that, but Rock has evolved and given us soooo many sub-genres that its hard to keep track. 

 

In fact, look at this image and tell me that Rock all sounds the same:

 

 

Its far from complete and mainly focuses on metal, but its still paints a picture.

[.Rai]

I kinda feel that that diagram proves my point. Most recently evolved genre there is from about 2000, 15 or so years ago. I'm not saying there hasn't been any innovation, but it's almost definitely slower than pop. Mostly because rock is a genre rooted in tradition, while pop is more experimental (by its very nature, it has to be; songs like Call Me Maybe, Gangnam Style, Somebody that I Used to Know and Royals have all subverted the pop trope in some way).

Metal tends to be a bit more forgiving, considering bands like Deafhaven have been doing shoegazey stuff and there are other examples, but it's nothing that pop hasn't been doing for the past while. Obviously, as you say, pop's hard to define, but I think everyone would recognise pop if they heard it.

[Zauls]

I kinda feel that that diagram proves my point. Most recently evolved genre there is from about 2000, 15 or so years ago. I'm not saying there hasn't been any innovation, but it's almost definitely slower than pop. Mostly because rock is a genre rooted in tradition, while pop is more experimental (by its very nature, it has to be; songs like Call Me Maybe, Gangnam Style, Sormevody that I Used to Know and Royals have all subverted the pop trope in some way).

Metal tends to be a bit more forgiving, considering bands like Deafhaven have been doing shoegazey stuff and there are other examples, but it's nothing that pop has been doing for the past while. Obviously, as you say, pop's hard to define, but I think everyone would recognise pop if they heard it.

 

Honestly, of those examples you gave, Gangnam Style is the only truly "different" sound. Call Me Maybe is your average teenage girl like Rebecca Black or Justin Bieber. Haven't actually listened to Royals, so I can't comment on that.

I think most innovation in metal has been within these sub-genres that were created. Then most of the music I listen to doesn't even fit into a genre. When someone asks what music I like, I actually can't explain. Its just the way things have been categorized and some music is so innovative it doesn't fit into a category. 

Its difficult to see or measure innovation, though, so this discussion can never really be concluded.

[.Rai]

Call Me Maybe was a miracle, and nothing like Rebecca Black or Justin Bieber. Friday was bad electropop, and Justin Bieber's work has gone from bad R&B pop -> alright dance pop -> bad hip hop. In the midst of mountains of mediocre club dance, out pops Call Me Maybe: hardly a club synth in sight; instead, funk bass, old-school harmony and perfectly contained pizzicato that turn into big disco strings.

I don't think innovation is a particularly important element of music. Solid, tight music can be unoriginal, if it's just plain out good. It's just much easier to see the good in more innovative music, just because you're being introduced to these new sounds. Post a few examples of the music you listen to? I assume it fits into vague genres, but there's probably a lot of wiggle room as you imply. I should add that I think that genre-categorising for the sake of it is usually a bad idea. Genres restrict ideas, not breed them (but it's good that loads more are being 'invented' each year, since that just means people are smart enough not to stick to pre-existing genres).

[Zauls]

You asked for it...

[Spoiler Songs]

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9p05StGFVY[/video]

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaN3pwBsRf8[/video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pstmzp5WRA8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtx_UisuXAY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQFmfZCcrYw Try and fit that into a genre :/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3rY6WJ9lhs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcSMhPXGqxU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7f4i_YRfKI

[/Spoiler]

 

I agree with you on that one. Innovation is nice because its always interesting to hear and appreciate new sounds. Bands can be very successful from it. Not everything needs to be innovative though, because then you wouldn't be able to find multiple artists with that particular sound that you like and there would be much less sense of familiarity in music. In terms of genres, I listen to metal fairly exclusively. Its just that metal is such a large umbrella and I only stand under very small bits of it.

 

Rebecca Black, Justin Bieber and Carly Rae Jepsen are all similar in the fact that they are teenage girls singing about standard teenage girl stuff. I suppose I am too dismissive of pop to really bare to listen to it and analyse any incremental differences. I can see the instrumental differences of Call Me Maybe, but it is still very much the same recipe and appeals to the same kinds of people.

[.Rai]

Lyrically, similar recipe, but that's expected. I don't usually expect a lot from pop lyrics; if they're great, that's a bonus. It's just that, instrumentally, Call Me Maybe was clever as heck. We didn't have a pop song that sounded like that until Get Lucky, another disco throwback - which got popular above heaps of mediocre club dance once again.

A lot of the stuff you posted was straight out symphonic or neo-Classical metal, right? Then, with Ayreon, he just happens to combine a lot of genres with metal. Depends what scale we're talking here. On an album scale, sure, it's ecclectic but loads of pop artists have done the same. Janelle Monaé pops to mind since her debut was rooted in R&B, but randomly jumped around prog rock, funk, jazz, Eurodance, folk, had orchestral overtures and ended with an orchestral R&B 8-minute extravaganza. But no single song on the album physically breaks any genre boundaries (which I don't think Janelle Monaé does either, but the genre-hopping is still impressive). With Ayreon, a lot of basically Classical compositions with folk influences and synths and guitars.

Basically, Ayreon uses a lot of genres on one album, which is almost as impressive, but never creates a new one. The last big example of totally changing a genre was James Blake making R&B sound minimalistic and garage-y back in 2010. Since then, it's the new big sound of R&B music.

[Zauls]

Right so I just listened to The Duel Police's parody of Call Me Maybe, Trade Me Maybe, so I had a version that I could bare the lyrics to and actually think about the music going on behind it. I see where you are coming from, but it is far too copy and paste for me. Even the middle 8 had the same instrumentals as the chorus. There was a nice little lick with the violin going all dissonant and and temporarily became Flight of the Bumblebee-esque and the very last chorus had a nicely placed electric guitar sound (even though it was just playing the same thing over and over again). Still, the sound is different to standard electro-pop, I will give you that.

 

And yes, symphonic and neoclassical metal is generally what I'm into. It can be anything on top though, but generally its power, black or death metal. Then on top of that, most of it is just inherently progressive because that is what fits with symphonic or neoclassical. 

 

Ayreon is a bit of an anomaly, really. I wouldn't even call it metal for the most part, since it is equally electronic and there is a considerable amount of folk and classical. A lot of the relatively heavier parts aren't even that heavy and there are only a few parts that are truly metal. I would agree with you that Ayreon hasn't created any new genres, but it is so innovative in blending so many different genres together and making it work so well.

[boyblunder]

Music is music, it can be created through various processes. I don't believe one less but rather each an expression of the artist and should be judged accordingly. 

[J-Max]

If you design a song completely from scratch and make it in something like Cubase then Props to you! If however you take an existing song (In the past this used to be Midi files) and try to change it ever so slightly and call it your own? No......

 

Another thing I am totally with is people using a Video Games soundchip to create mixes from other games (Was hilarious listening to Champion Iris's theme using the Trumpety sounds from R/S/E XD)

To summerize, using a computer to design music is just fine. Although yes it is a Tool and not an instrument. We are merely inputting commands for it.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Arcade Fire needs to take the fucking bongos out of "Reflektor".

[Susie]

If however you take an existing song (In the past this used to be Midi files) and try to change it ever so slightly and call it your own? No......

there are creative, interesting and unique ways to use samples
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgoEPIIZcRs[/media]
this album is entirely sample based yet it has a high amount of praise and was very well received at the time it came out, also DJ Shadow is considered as a legend in Trip Hop and sample based music mostly due to this album

[ＳＯＮ ＧＯＫＵ]

CS418 created Minecrafts music alone, on a computer.

 

And it's beautiful. Also, I follow deadmau5 on facebook, his updates are hilarious.