What is Ur view on people who make music solely on a computer?

Would U class them as musicians or technicians?

Personally I think that unless U can make music during a power cut U can't call Urself a musician. A musician is someone who plays a musical instrument and I don't see a computer as a musical instrument. Computers can enhance real music but it could never play real music because the one thing they can't do is play with feeling and that 4 me is the essence of real music. I'm not saying that all music created on computers is worthless, there are quite a lot of computer generated tunes that I really like but don't try'n kid me Ur a musician cos Ur not... And as 4 DJ's... Don't get me started... My dad can play records mate. lol

So what do U think? Do U make music on a computer and nothing else? Do U consider Urself a musician? If so why?

Thomas Dolby did it

luv4u said:

Thomas Dolby did it

Yes but did he call himself a musician after it? lol

I don't like musicians that use computers to make music.

I like musicians that use real instruments to make real music.

luv4u said:

I don't like musicians that use computers to make music.

I like musicians that use real instruments to make real music.

I love computer music.

Isn't a real instrument just an artificial extension that produces a sound your voice would otherwise not be able to produce? Sure, it's more difficult to master a 'real' instrument, but I don't see computers as being something that is unreal.

Hell, I don't think a studio is unreal either, and some people are really good at using the equipment in the studio to produce sounds they otherwise couldn't get perfected in real life. Some Prince classics are so unique by virtue of the studio.

To me, it's not the medium that is used, but how the artist uses that medium. Trent Reznor's Downward Spiral is a great example of using computers to make something great, while Paul Okenfold just produces dull droning crap most of the time. The same could be said about rock bands using real instruments--it depends on the band.

imago said:

luv4u said:

I don't like musicians that use computers to make music.

I like musicians that use real instruments to make real music.

I love computer music.

Isn't a real instrument just an artificial extension that produces a sound your voice would otherwise not be able to produce? Sure, it's more difficult to master a 'real' instrument, but I don't see computers as being something that is unreal.

Hell, I don't think a studio is unreal either, and some people are really good at using the equipment in the studio to produce sounds they otherwise couldn't get perfected in real life. Some Prince classics are so unique by virtue of the studio.

To me, it's not the medium that is used, but how the artist uses that medium. Trent Reznor's Downward Spiral is a great example of using computers to make something great, while Paul Okenfold just produces dull droning crap most of the time. The same could be said about rock bands using real instruments--it depends on the band.

You are quite correct overall.

However, I would like to add something: I'm sorry, but I'll have to quote Prince here (even though his original statement probably wasn't as thoroughly logical, because he didn't give enough reason to support it, but here it goes).

"We're analog people, not digital."

This is quite an amazing, yet simple, remark. But he is completely correct. It's the slight (mathematical) imperfections that make music "sound" emotional. You can't "put emotion into" music and convey it that way, because in the end music is just maths and physics. But your emotion can make a record sound emotional. And there is no more efficient way to convey this by using instruments.

Example: Take a 4/4 beat of only bass drum beats at every fourth created by a computer (you drag your sample to every fourth of a bar). A regular beat. Now let a perfect drummer play that beat on his bass drum. Even though he's a pro, there will be slight imperfections in speed, quality, volume and length. I think this is what Prince meant. These imperfections (even if they are hardly audible) are what makes people ticking and listen.

Sure, you can spend time on every single sample on every fourth and changle tiny little things to simulate those "real drummer" imperfections. But music is also craft and praxis, not only theory. That's why I'd rather listen to a real drummer making imperfect sounds than to someone simulating imperfect sounds.

I hope this doesn't sound too far-fetched, but I spent some time thinking about this and this is how I explain the phenomena of the untouchable value of "real music" to some people (including me).