And why are alot of people under the impression that "real music" is something that's slowed down? Why can't uptempo, lighthearted, funky stuff be considered "real music" too? Stuff has to sound slow and have depressing lyrics to be real for alot of people. WTH?

In a general sense, sample-free music that is based on organic basic instruments that play actual melodies & rhythms, fast or slow(without the constant use of computers and digital settings).

But real music to me is far than that, its Originality.

Alot of music history makers don't know how to play an instrument or even know how to read/write music sheets, but they had the imagination to upgrade the standards into another level.
[Edited 11/25/07 8:59am]

real music to me is FUNK, just kidding

Real music is music made with REAL instruments and withought the help of a computer.

No.

I'm pretty sure if Mozart had acces 2 a computer he'd use it.

Lord please.

instruments + tallent

motownlover said:

How do you define instruments? Can a voice alone be an instrument? How about no voice but a stick on a concrete stoop? Can anything be an instrument? The poet, K'naan, made a song with water...rhythm played on water. Is that real music?

I won't even get into the talent part because quite a few people without talent have managed to create music. Can music be bad and still real?

This is going to be a long thread.

Scorpion said:

Did you read that definition here or somewhere else? I'm sure the complaint was against the use of samples.

See.....Prince
Mint Condition
Meshell
P-funk
Bootsy
James Brown

anon said:

Oh yes, a voice can def be an instrument; Sarah Vaughan is an example

But knowing how to craft that instrument IS a talent. Everybody can bang on the tom-toms, knowing how to play them is a different matter.
[Edited 11/25/07 10:00am]

Scorpion said:

That's the same all around, not just in music. The feel good movies aren't often considered the "real movies". When people are forced to think, or explore something new emotionally or something dark, or simply challenged...it's by the "real" movies. It's funniest when the movie/song is deemed brilliant because no one really wants to admit they don't get it. It's this way in all the arts.

It's funny that you should make this thread , since the attitude of a handful of orgers around here seems to be "if it's not uptempo or funk-related, it's not worthy" (which, IMO, is a rather narrow-minded attitude to have), the exact opposite of what you stated in your original post.

Harlepolis said:

When I think of voice as instrument, Sarah is always the first to come to mind.

I agree, the craft of playing is a talent in itself. The greater instrument, though, is the brain. Even when a musician can no longer play the way he used to, because of age etc...he can think of new ways, often more profound ways, to say the same thing, and more, with less.

squiddyren said:

Don't talk about Andy like that!

Scorpion said:

Because people feel like that type of music has the most emotion. it's not an emotion if its party music even when it is original and funky.

Now people get on the issue of real instruemtns. prince didnt use "real instruments" when he created those beats for "When Doves Cry" and "I WOuld Die 4 U" "777 9311". Mtume didnt use instruments when he made the beat for "Juicy" George Clinton didnt for "Atomic Dog". How about Zapp for "Computer Love"...or what about grandmaster Flash's "The Message". Although they did have instruemtns within the songs themselves...Im talkin about the drum programming.

They were unique in what they did with the drum patters. Fuck the bullshit talk.

Now stuff like South rap thin casio keyboard made up rent-a-beat-for-a-hit bullshit is what i dont like.
[Edited 11/25/07 10:14am]

Martinelli said:

Computers are def helpful

But their constant use can and will def kill any sign of warmth and hardship.

The harder somebody plays their instrument, the more I feel them. Computers are just damn cold.

Actual Musical Ability..
Yes many "Musically Talented" people have and still continue to use technology to produce music..But thats simply a choice..for various reason..some artistic and some simply because it cuts out a lot of the pressure/time/cost of doing it live..when a fool who is nothing more than a glorified record collector slaps various elements of someone else's "REAL" music together and clicks or presses a few buttons to add some heavy bass beats under it and calls it NEW or HOT..thats bullshit to me ! I respect people that can play instruments and plays them well..those people can do whatever the hell they want with music and its still real because there will always be some kinda Organic elements going on..chords..changes..musical fills..ect..Of course since we are in the middle of one of the worst times ever for the development of Organic Traditional musicians a lot of people will dispute what Im saying..But ask anybody that got into music or production pre 1986 !

PFunkjazz said:

No, not here. This board seems to be the most musically cultured and diverse out of the other music/entertainment boards that I've been on. The demographic is younger at other places and the music interest is more contemporary. The general inclination is that songs that are slow and are somber in lyrics usually get classified as "real music" opposed to a record that is up tempo and fun. If you're not singing/writing about Darfur, gov't, depression or something "deep"...yo shit ain't "substance". It's a contradicting way of thinking when you recall music from back in the day that was great but it wasn't ALL boring and complaining about what's in the news or killing themselves. But its still generally considered "classics" today. I just think the varying perception of "real music" is interesting...ppl seem to have diff. ideas.

aesthetics toward music are always bias.
people thrive and will to continue to thrive on what they find fancy.
[Edited 11/25/07 10:39am]

Real music is real music no matter if it's live or computerized, the difference is emotion. If you're just playing an instrument just to play it or making beats without having the feeling for it, it really has no merit then. "Real music" can be interpreted in VERY different ways, there's really no way of defining it really no matter how hard someone tries to. That's my opinion on it anyway.

Some of the worst music ever has been made by "real musicians" playing "real instruments". Cue "technical heavy metal", "phil collins school of mass oriented radio music", "elevator jazz" or European exploitative "schlager" music or "new country" in the States.

"Emotion" could be one good criteria, but it's not always sufficient (for instance, it doesn't really apply to minimalist music that well). The only difference between a person / collective that makes decent music compared to those who do not, is that one should always take into account and respect what other musicians of different forms of musical expression are doing and then applying the standards of quality to their own material. If you're not looking around you'll end up just making shit inevitably, because you do not know what else is out there and what people are going to compare your material to.

Freak accidents of reclusive geniuses of course do not apply to even this rule, but I guess the "emotion" criteria would on the other hand.

"Real" music is a made up term. It's just a form of musical snobbery. Everyone who whines about synthesizers not constituting real music needs to listen to Kraftwerk's "Computer Love" on the double.

anon said:

I like vainandy... he cracks me up. Still, in my opinion, it's just a silly attitude to have. I don't truly have anything against the guy. And he's not even the only one (there's several more around the org) I was referring to.
[Edited 11/25/07 11:07am]

squiddyren said:

He's only having fun...to make a statement. Little known fact: Andy has quite an extensive Whitney collection.
Another Andy tidbit: He cries to Bodyguard...it's his favorite movie.

Real music is real instruments. Not any of that synthesized electronic shit

Janfriend said:

You mean like that stuff that shows upon Janet Jackson tracks?

PFunkjazz said:

I don't understand what the point was in bringing her up, but her music is Hybrid as opposed to some other folks out there. She uses real instruments in her music with synthesized drums and keyboards

squiddyren said:

FuNkeNsteiN said:

Well, hey, it's not like I can change people's tastes and opinions, right? It's people's prerogative to think funk is the best, dislike this or that, whatever.

Janfriend said:

So do Britney and Puff Daddy.