Real Music is...?

either really good or it's really crappy.

Now that I've answered this philosophical question.... with the help of Duke Ellington.

It's not about what I like or what I don't like.

I've enjoyed a lot of music that I wouldn't consider to be eligible to be placed in the category of "real music". I've gotten a few good laughs from LMFAO videos and I don't mind them. I think they are entertainers, use music as the medium for it and that's perfectly fine. Sometimes I like to watch "mindless" dance pop videos that have half-naked women, because I, well, like watching half-naked women and those songs happen to be often pretty damn catchy. On the other hand, there are a lot of artists that could be considered "real musicians" that I have no interest for. I've never been into Mint Condition or Silk. I don't hate them, but I'm not interested in listening to their records. I think some classical composers made really boring and unimaginative shit, but that doesn't make me consider them "fake".

Many people would use the expression "real music" in the same sense as they would use an expression such as "real man" or "real woman". These type of expressions imply strongly that we are living through times when the authenticity of many our basic values is being questioned. To me a "real man" could be someone that stands by his word and takes care of his family and a "real woman" could be someone that doesn't just run after superficial things and use her looks to get those things. Those are "rules" that I've made up myself for the usage of such terms here, but whether or not everyone would agree to them so that we could point every "real man" and "real woman" currently living on Earth is not the point.

Demanding statements that contain such expressions to be "empirically proven" is just silly. Most statements containing abstractions can not be proven satisfyingly. I've often stated that "Prince is one of the most respected artists by his peers". How would I "prove" that exactly? That doesn't make it irrelevant or a false thing to say. It seems to me that the problem here is how the thread itself is titled ('What exactly is "real music'). However, exactness is not achieved by trying to list everything in the world that falls under a rule, but by trying to formulate that rule itself better. By naming examples that fall under that rule we are, at best, giving evidence that the rule itself works.

Just because something is hard to define doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

gdiminished said:

As for classical music, they will be playing Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Chopin 300 years from now and not any fly-by-night imitators from the 20th....

Name me one classical composer from the 20th who is worth writing home about....

I can name you a couple classical composer from the 20th century worth writing home about: Stravinsky (who'se Firebird Suite and Rite of Spring have become orchestral staples) Bartok (with his many popular string quartets) Debussy (who hasn't heard Clare de Lune?) Ravel (Bolero, another orchestral staple)...the list can go on and on. Also, have you forgotten the great John Williams? His film scores are readily knowledgable to most people.

As to the original topic, this idea of "fake music" is a fallacy. The idea that a real band knows more about music than an electronic composer is purely not a true statement: a guitarist in a band may not even know how to read music, but many composers of electronic works began in classical music and were trained in such, and have branched out to other forms of classical music. There are no absolutes. Also, this whole argument is very Western-centric...through in ideas from eastern musics and it is clear that all music is music, regardless of how you feel about it.

And as someone who has written both electronic and orchestral music, I can tell you both require the same amount of planning, conceptualizing, writing, and rewriting.

=0P

KidOmega said:

"real music" is an invention of douchebags who want to show everyone how superior and hipper-than-thou they are, like it's a contest or something.

if you like any kind of music, good for you. if others don't like it, nobody really cares.

Finally someone said it. Thank You.

I like all kinds of music. there is no ''real music''.... music is music. If you like Nicki Minaj, and I don't... that's fine.. you can like whatever you want, there is no rule.

Really, music is music...

I'm so annoyed by the fact that people are trying to tell me what I can like, and what I can not like.

Because I'm a HUGE Madonna fan, some people act like(mostly Prince fans/stans who I have as friends on Facebook) I can't be a HUGE Prince fan too... so annoying.... Because Madonna isn't ''REAL MUSIC'' & Prince is ''REAL MUSIC''...

Come on, fuck off with that bullshit. I love Rihanna, Britney Spears, M.I.A, Shakira, Mika, etc too.. that means I have a bad taste? No, because I also love Blondie, U2, Bruce Springsteen, Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, etc. I just have a wide taste, and even if I didn't love any of these ''real music'' artists that doesn't mean I have a bad taste..

I love old & new music, pop & rock music, hip hop & dance music, etc, etc. I just love all kinds of stuff.

Hero0101 said:

I can name you a couple classical composer from the 20th century worth writing home about: Stravinsky (who'se Firebird Suite and Rite of Spring have become orchestral staples) Bartok (with his many popular string quartets) Debussy (who hasn't heard Clare de Lune?) Ravel (Bolero, another orchestral staple)...the list can go on and on. Also, have you forgotten the great John Williams? His film scores are readily knowledgable to most people.

As to the original topic, this idea of "fake music" is a fallacy. The idea that a real band knows more about music than an electronic composer is purely not a true statement: a guitarist in a band may not even know how to read music, but many composers of electronic works began in classical music and were trained in such, and have branched out to other forms of classical music. There are no absolutes. Also, this whole argument is very Western-centric...through in ideas from eastern musics and it is clear that all music is music, regardless of how you feel about it.

And as someone who has written both electronic and orchestral music, I can tell you both require the same amount of planning, conceptualizing, writing, and rewriting.

=0P

Those composers write music for coma patients unfortunately and pale in comparison to the works of the 18th and 19th century classical artists. John Williams is a nice bridge between classical and classical contemporary. I have to admit his score for Empire Strikes Back is phenomenal. Bear McCreary has caught my eye for his work with BSG, but to put those two in the same league as Bach or Mozart? C'mon now.

Again, you have had musical training and knowledge and as a composer are more adept than your common knucklehead who makes the same generic and auto-tuned crap spewed out to the masses. You and I are certainly more musical than say a 50 Cent, or a large majority of hip hop entertainers as we are actual musicians. From our knowledge base, we can easily determine garbage and smooth grooves. We could go and write a silly pop-song, but they certainly wouldn't be able to play scales, know of harmonies, theory, or have knowledge of real instrumentation.

It isn't about the ability to read sheets or chords, but the ability to play an instrument of some kind. If you can't play an instrument, you aren't a "REAL" musician, therefore you don't create music

gdiminished said:

It isn't about the ability to read sheets or chords, but the ability to play an instrument of some kind. If you can't play an instrument, you aren't a "REAL" musician, therefore you don't create music

I like u...............

[Edited 2/20/12 5:46am]

gdiminished said:

Hero0101 said:

I can name you a couple classical composer from the 20th century worth writing home about: Stravinsky (who'se Firebird Suite and Rite of Spring have become orchestral staples) Bartok (with his many popular string quartets) Debussy (who hasn't heard Clare de Lune?) Ravel (Bolero, another orchestral staple)...the list can go on and on. Also, have you forgotten the great John Williams? His film scores are readily knowledgable to most people.

As to the original topic, this idea of "fake music" is a fallacy. The idea that a real band knows more about music than an electronic composer is purely not a true statement: a guitarist in a band may not even know how to read music, but many composers of electronic works began in classical music and were trained in such, and have branched out to other forms of classical music. There are no absolutes. Also, this whole argument is very Western-centric...through in ideas from eastern musics and it is clear that all music is music, regardless of how you feel about it.

And as someone who has written both electronic and orchestral music, I can tell you both require the same amount of planning, conceptualizing, writing, and rewriting.

=0P

If you can't play an instrument, you aren't a "REAL" musician, therefore you don't create music

But what if you have a program that simulates the exact same sound? Does that not qualify as music? By definition, music is just:

an art form whose medium is sound and silence. Its common elements are pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythm (and its associated concepts tempo, meter, and articulation), dynamics, and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture

That doesn't solely mean just playing an instrument. Many computers can do the above as well.

[Edited 2/20/12 6:08am]

I think it's a pointless distinction.

I hang with a lot of rock and rollers and sometimes hear it said that "some guy talking over a computer beat? That's not even music!"

But to look up and see a room full of people dancing, and complain there is no music playing, seems really bizarre to me.

I like to think I like music that's made as a personal expression rather than a base attempt to make some money, regardless of the medium & the instruments used, but I'm not positive I can always tell the difference. Those Motown & Brill Building writers were trying to be commercially sucessful too, they just happen to be great artists at the same time.

smoothcriminal12 said:

gdiminished said:

But what if you have a program that simulates the exact same sound? Does that not qualify as music? By definition, music is just:

an art form whose medium is sound and silence. Its common elements are pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythm (and its associated concepts tempo, meter, and articulation), dynamics, and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture

That doesn't solely mean just playing an instrument. Many computers can do the above as well.

Instruments were around thousands of years before the first music computer programs. One takes skill to master, the other can be learned fairly quickly.

gdiminished said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Instruments were around thousands of years before the first music computer programs. One takes skill to master, the other can be learned fairly quickly.

It actually can take a while to figure out a good, professional program, and once you get the hang of it you can be quite proficient. Much like...an instrument.

smoothcriminal12 said:

gdiminished said:

Instruments were around thousands of years before the first music computer programs. One takes skill to master, the other can be learned fairly quickly.

It actually can take a while to figure out a good, professional program, and once you get the hang of it you can be quite proficient. Much like...an instrument.

Naturally, a PC program is cake compared to piano, guitar, or a horn scales. It's a no brainer on what most "producers'' would go for....

gdiminished said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

It actually can take a while to figure out a good, professional program, and once you get the hang of it you can be quite proficient. Much like...an instrument.

Naturally, a PC program is cake compared to piano, guitar, or a horn scales. It's a no brainer on what most "producers'' would go for....

Yes, but you still have to learn how to use it well. Right? Whether or not it's cake doesn't diminish it in any way.

Fear of the computers taking over and creating all the music. Sing, play drums, guitar, bass, writing songs, cgi based performances. But if Y2K was for real people would come crawling to the NPG 1994 begging them to play. After all the electricty gone down.

"Real Music" is a term used by people who think they're special because they like old music.

/Thread

smoothcriminal12 said:

gdiminished said:

Naturally, a PC program is cake compared to piano, guitar, or a horn scales. It's a no brainer on what most "producers'' would go for....

Yes, but you still have to learn how to use it well. Right? Whether or not it's cake doesn't diminish it in any way.

Of course, you would have to learn both, one would take longer. If you learn a music a program for a year, it won't make you a better musician without a background in music, it will make you very skilled in that one program....or a one trick-pony. Prince, Teddy Riley, Devante Swing, Stevie Wonder, Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis, Babyface, Brian McKnight, and many more were excellent musicians BEFORE they were even involved with the production side and their work and programming of tracks. Their musicianship just gave them greater insight, and their work will stand the test of time.

Now if you take a real musician and they hammer away at that same program, the results will be certainly better as they have a stronger musical understanding overall. Without that you get your T-Pain, Kanye Wests, Khaleds, LMFAO, and other meh music.

Terrib3Towel said:

"Real Music" is a term used by people who think they're special because they like old music.

/Thread

gdiminished said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Instruments were around thousands of years before the first music computer programs. One takes skill to master, the other can be learned fairly quickly.

But music was also made for thousands of years without instruments or scales