How many people like music?

bace · Mar 22, 2006

You know Mike I think the fact that you feel so strongly about the lack of talent in music these days, makes you a music lover.

I think music is undergoing a fundamental shift. Large companies are losing money for the first time in years. I think the internet is helping people find new and interesting artists. There are shows going on in small clubs and bars.

It's true though. The "dj" revolution has taken it's toll. Don't think for a second that there is no skill involved in that job though. Although I'm sure most of you don't really care.

voodoocat · Mar 22, 2006

bace said:
Oh hush. I'm sure Mikes only exposure to any hip hop has been through the radio.

How often to you hear Nas's tunes on the radio?

The crap that you hear on the radio is pretty talentless and usually appeals to the lowest common denominator. I'm sure if you gave Mike the lyrics to a lot of good hip hop, he'd appreciate the quality of the writing. Still doens't mean he's gonna like the music.

Ignorant is a strong word. I don't think Mike is ignorant, and neither do you.

What this guy said. I don't like any of the hip-hop played on the radio. But there are some insanely talented hip-hop artists. I don't think anyone could listen to a group like the roots and call them talentless in any way.

Chiller · Mar 22, 2006

bace said:
I think music is undergoing a fundamental shift.

That is sooo true. I think a lot of people who grew up listening to "music" played with instruments, and "music" created electronically are at a bit of a conflict as to what the term music really is now. Musicians can not see how some guy with a turntable, or 5 guys with mikes only on stage rappin can be determined music. Where as the guys doing that, or the dj's scratchin record still refer to their genre as music.
The musicians actually use "notes" to create their music, where as the newer rage in music create "sounds" But there is a line someplace.
Ya can not call a guy, who plays first violin in an orchestra, the same type of musician as the guy who will sit at his computer or a guy who spins a record. I feel that is what creates the difference of opinions.
The music industry has seen such a change. Everything is so convenient. People can create and complete a CD in their own homes now. We had to drag all our equipment to a studio, set it up, record a bed track, master a tape, and the list goes on. That is in the last say...20 years. What do the next 20 years have.

treehuggerhikerboy · Mar 22, 2006

Because I'm in a debating mood...and work is kicking my arse right now:

First off, I don't think spinning is THE music, I think it adds to rap or hip hop or whatever. I think a dj could come on here and argue the point that spinning well takes just as much, or more talent than being able to play G, C, and D on a guitar, and of course it's all relative, but the argument could be made.

Secondly...I'm not sure the evolution of hip-hop/rap squeezed out too many instrumental (traditional) bands , I think the music industry just expanded to accomodate that genre into the mainstream (radio stations and such, much like the Hispanic radio stations). Over 30,000 cd's are produced every year...the competition is crazy because only so many slots are available.

Damn phone call just interrupted my thought process....ok then, that's all I have at the moment. Oh...and radio is actually starting to feel the squeeze from everyone downloading music (Ipods, etc...)and such. The big giants will eventually have to alter their playlists...hopefully sooner than later.

Whooohoooo Britney! :wink:

treehuggerhikerboy · Mar 22, 2006

Chiller said:
.
Ya can not call a guy, who plays first violin in an orchestra, the same type of musician as the guy who will sit at his computer or a guy who spins a record. I feel that is what creates the difference of opinions.

Darn you Chiller, and I was just going to get back to work! I respectfully disagree...sure you can call them each musicians. How is a "Leave it to Beaver" episode less artful than a Van Gogh? They are both pieces of art in their own right.

Maybe it took longer for the violinist to get where they are, but should that detract from the computer guy's talent level to create music with a computer? A sound comes out of a computer or a piece of wood with strings, doesn't matter.

I'm a purist at heart, but I think these arguments could be made...

voodoocat · Mar 22, 2006

Chiller said:
Ya can not call a guy, who plays first violin in an orchestra, the same type of musician as the guy who will sit at his computer or a guy who spins a record.

I do both, am I not the same type of musican as myself?

Chiller · Mar 22, 2006

treehuggerhikerboy said:
Darn you Chiller, and I was just going to get back to work! I respectfully disagree...sure you can call them each musicians. How is a "Leave it to Beaver" episode less artful than a Van Gogh? They are both pieces of art in their own right.

Maybe it took longer for the violinist to get where they are, but should that detract from the computer guy's talent level to create music with a computer? A sound comes out of a computer or a piece of wood with strings, doesn't matter.

I'm a purist at heart, but I think these arguments could be made...

But would you consider the guy at the computer a musician? Or even the DJ, or the guy spinning a record to make scratching noise?
He is creating something on a computer, not a musical instrument. I agree that they both have a talent in their own ways, but where does the term musician come in.
I agree that the DJ who spins the records, or makes samples, and sounds has a talent, but that record player is not an instrument, where as a violin, or a guitar is.
Me.? I could not create a song on the computer if I had a month trying, but if you gave me a guitar, I could write you a song. That make sense? Im trying to blast this off in between boss alerts. :lmao:

Chiller · Mar 22, 2006

Hey Baceman...sorry...we kinda hijacked your thread here.

voodoocat · Mar 22, 2006

Chiller said:
But would you consider the guy at the computer a musician? Or even the DJ, or the guy spinning a record to make scratching noise?
He is creating something on a computer, not a musical instrument. I agree that they both have a talent in their own ways, but where does the term musician come in.
I agree that the DJ who spins the records, or makes samples, and sounds has a talent, but that record player is not an instrument, where as a violin, or a guitar is.
Me.? I could not create a song on the computer if I had a month trying, but if you gave me a guitar, I could write you a song. That make sense? Im trying to blast this off in between boss alerts. :lmao:

Beethoven sitting down with a pen and a paper composing a symphony would not be considered a musician by that reasoning. I'm sure he would have done it with a computer if they were around :lol:

Chiller · Mar 22, 2006

voodoocat said:
Beethoven sitting down with a pen and a paper composing a symphony would not be considered a musician by that reasoning. I'm sure he would have done it with a computer if they were around

I know eh? Can you imagine how much faster he would plunk those suckers out. Instead of 9 symphonies, we would have 99:lmao:

Big Mike · Mar 22, 2006

bace said:
You know Mike I think the fact that you feel so strongly about the lack of talent in music these days, makes you a music lover.

I guess you could say that, to some extent. When I find music that I like, I do really like it. And I find that I really admire those whom I see as very musically talented...which is of course, subjective.

I just want to differentiate myself from the 'fanatics' who spend a good deal of their time, money & resources on music. Not that there is anything at all wrong with spending all your resources toward music. Musicians for example. But a 20 year old, who spends 50% of their income on idolizing (50 cent for example)...is just stupid.

It's just that when this duscission comes up...I think of the MTV generation and the mass brain washing created by the 'entertainment industry'...it just seems so wrong to me. It's not even so much about the music...talentless or not...it's the drain on society and the dumbing of our children...after all, children are our future

I guess music has always been a fabric of this and every culture...but when it comes down to it...it just does not matter that much to me. I will listen to "talentless crap" on the radio...if I'm in the mood...or change the station if I'm not. But I won't hear a song that I like...go buy the CD, buy some t-shirts to advertise them...buy clothes to look like them...buy products because they endorse them etc.

Arch · Mar 22, 2006

I agree and disagree with many of the recent points brought up by this conversation. But one thing is true in my mind.... alot of pop on the radio IS talentless crap IMO..... and this may make me alot of things but it does not make me ignorant...

Definition:
Unaware or uninformed

I have to listen to pop on the radio for at least 6 hours a day at work... i'v heard every song in the top 20.....for the last ??years, uninformed... i think not.

On the other hand if someone says a type of music is talentless and have never given it the time of day.... they could be considered ignorant

treehuggerhikerboy · Mar 22, 2006

Big Mike said:
I guess you could say that, to some extent. When I find music that I like, I do really like it. And I find that I really admire those whom I see as very musically talented...which is of course, subjective.

I just want to differentiate myself from the 'fanatics' who spend a good deal of their time, money & resources on music. Not that there is anything at all wrong with spending all your resources toward music. Musicians for example. But a 20 year old, who spends 50% of their income on idolizing (50 cent for example)...is just stupid.

It's just that when this duscission comes up...I think of the MTV generation and the mass brain washing created by the 'entertainment industry'...it just seems so wrong to me. It's not even so much about the music...talentless or not...it's the drain on society and the dumbing of our children...after all, children are our future

I guess music has always been a fabric of this and every culture...but when it comes down to it...it just does not matter that much to me. I will listen to "talentless crap" on the radio...if I'm in the mood...or change the station if I'm not. But I won't hear a song that I like...go buy the CD, buy some t-shirts to advertise them...buy clothes to look like them...buy products because they endorse them etc.

You could look at it as wasting their money, or supporting the art that is important to them. I say it's money better spent than buying crack. :wink:

Why support Van Gogh instead of 50 Cent? Both are artists in their own right....

I haven't watched MTV in probably 10 years, and I hear they don't even play music videos anymore. BUT, I think it serves its purpose and isn't ALL bad.

Mass brain washing goes on in all big business, it's just if you buy into it. Buy a t-shirt to support 50 Cent, or buy a hockey jersey to support the Oilers, it's just a choice. :wink:

I totally see everyone's point in this....and have argued the other side countless times. I just think a lot of relativity is involved...