MickyDolenz said:

phunkdaddy said:

R U Serious? You are really reaching here.

You must really miss your upper level Philosophy courses.

You said that "real" music is something that can be reproduced live. Tomorrow Never Knows by The Beatles wouldn't qualify by that definition, because other than Ringo's drumming, most of the song is random tape loops and effects.

On David Letterman the CBS Orchestra play "Tomorrow Never Knows" fairly frequently so of course it can be played live. Not exactly the way it sounds on the album but very few songs do sound the same on album and live.

Dewrede said:

i think real music comes from the heart

that is the definition of real music

damn , i should copywrite that

yeah that!

otherwise MJ fans would be mad 2...becuz they think MJ's safe and his music fits "real music by real musicians" as people mean it

for many people, "real music" is played by musicians who can read music, and who play their "organic" (analogic or electronic, BUT NOT digital) instruments note per note

The Human League, if I'm not mistaken, were considered the first NO REAL MUSIC act...it was the end of the disco era, and some bitter assh*les needed some new targets

too much vitriol...

With live/real instruments and actual musicians, not "producers" who aren't knowledgeable of the basics of music.

Dewrede said:

i think real music comes from the heart

that is the definition of real music

damn , i should copywrite that

yes real music is art. just like a real movie or real novel rather than trash just designed to make $

I've often laughed at that expression, because it's so shadily applied to different things and people are always contradicting themselves when using it. However, I don't think it's complete nonsense. I'll try to explain what I have in mind.

When we speak of cultural products the opposite of something being "real" isn't that the thing doesn't exist or that it's imagined. Something being real means that it's not presented as something other than what it is. For example, it has been rather commonplace during the last couple of decades that household objects and different surfaces inside the houses are made of fake wood.

The question of the "realness" of something arises only when it's desirable to acquire it in our possession or experience it in some direct manner and we also have other options available that are made to resemble it for whatever reason. Usually that reason is financial gain and we usually have a suspicion that we are being lead on somehow. Fake wood might be more practical than real wood for a number or reasons, but some of us still want our household objects to be made of real wood. Inauthenticity tends to bother us.

People tend to appreciate it when someone puts effort into something and they seem to be genuinely into what they do. In the case of "fake wood" or "fake music" the manufacturer or the producer of them has tried to cut corners. What bothers at least me about products like that is that it seems like the people do not seem to be enthusiastic to even make the type of objects that they are offering for people. They know they are selling an inferior product and would not probably themselves buy a product of that kind if they could afford and know of something better.

A lot of "real musicians" these days use digitally modeled versions of acoustic instruments and so on, but I don't think that's the point. It doesn't bother me too much that someone uses a sample library of a Steinway Grand instead of spending a fortune on one and lugging it to every gig. I think the point is that people have developed a craft for themselves and that buyers / audience have taken the time to develop an understanding and appreciation for that as well. A lot of electronic music comes off as a bit fake due to a number of reasons, but I think you can hear it when people have put a lot of time into what they do and they love what they are doing.

That's the best I can do at the moment. A bit long, but what the hell. I had some coconut rum left a little bit earlier and, well, now I don't.

Real music? U can easily get bogged down in the semantics of those simple words.

4 me, real music is an art form created by people whose talent I respect on certain levels.

Prince, Bootsy, P-funk, Mintcondition and others in that vein create original pieces of musical art where I can see the lyrics, music, thought and production all come 2gether 2 give me something I know they created.

The opposite of that? Chris Brown, Rihanna, Black Eye Peas, Madonna,....and probably 90% of the junk on Billboard these days. Songs based on samples really drive me nuts hence I hold rap at the very bottom of the pole.

Real music? At the end of the day, if u like a track...........then it's real music.

Don't shoot me.........these are my opinions on the subject.

[Edited 2/17/12 10:05am]

I understand what you are saying regarding "real" music and "fake" music. Music is music and people hold in esteem that which they prefer (sound wise etc.)

For me, when I go into real vs fake, I am talking about whether or not the artist performing the music makes the music or if the music makes the artist. The example of Milli Vanilli is perfect here.

The music made them, so to me it is fake. They added nothing, but a visual stimulation. Any two people could have been up there and it would not make a difference to the song.

On the other hand, some artists make the music. Their unique outlooks, sounds, quaility is what makes it great music. You can't just put anyone in front of the mic for their songs.

Then you have the issue of autotune, etc. when people do NOT sound the way they do on their records because it is so digitalized to make them sound good, or cover the fact that they cannot sing at all, etc.

One is mindless entertainment and the other is art:

ie - Mindless Noise

Katy Perry

Rhianna

Dave Guetta

LMFAO

Chris Brown

Art:

Mint Condition

Jodeci

Earth Wind and Fire

Stevie Wonder

Miles Davis

Silk

Prince

Art will stand the test of time, the other will not.

Any questions?

[Edited 2/17/12 9:28am]

gdiminished said:

One is mindless entertainment and the other is art:

ie - Mindless Noise

Katy Perry

Rhianna

Dave Guetta

LMFAO

Chris Brown

Art:

Mint Condition

Jodeci

Earth Wind and Fire

Stevie Wonder

Miles Davis

Silk

Prince

Art will stand the test of time, the other will not.

Any questions?

[Edited 2/17/12 9:28am]

You've done nothing here but, like 99% of the other posts in this thread, simply list music

you like and music you don't like.

You have not shown or proven why LMFAO is mindless and why Silk is art; you've only

shown us that:

1. You probably like Silk

2. You probably don't like LMFAO

Guys listen: there is no objective, empirical "real" music reality. It just doesn't exist.

There is only subjectively true good, bad, or anything else music. You (and me) can

offer up intelligent reasons as to why we hold certain artists as good and some as

mindless entertainment, but there are no objectively factual statements that can be said

about the quality of music between "good" (Silk) or "bad/mindless entertainment" (LMFAO).

There is a difference between truthful statements (Mozart is the best) and factual

statements (Mozart is the best). One is subjective. One is objective.

If you make the movement to show otherwise, you're putting on smug, self-satisfied

airs.

Now stop it.

Real music is about conveying some part of your being, it is purposeful and not just there to fill the silence.

If someone can't tell the difference between real music and manufactured American Idol crapola, then you're wasting your breath pointing it out to them.

kenkamken said:

Real music is about conveying some part of your being, it is purposeful and not just there to fill the silence.

If someone can't tell the difference between real music and manufactured American Idol crapola, then you're wasting your breath pointing it out to them.

What if your being is truly dedicated to making money off of your ability to make

music? Is that not purposeful? Wouldn't my music be just as "real" as someone

who was making music out of the kindness of my heart?

What about Beethoven, Mozart, Miles Davis, all the great jazz and classical composers

who were sometimes hired to compose music?

You see?......you can't begin to offer up an foolproof opinion about what "real music"

is because there is no such thing.

This thread should be re-entitled "List your favorite musicians and list your most

un-favored musicians" because that is what is really going on here. Nobody can begin

to talk about real music because real music does not exist.

There is simply music you like, loathe and tolerate.

kenkamken said:

Real music is about conveying some part of your being, it is purposeful and not just there to fill the silence.

If someone can't tell the difference between real music and manufactured American Idol crapola, then you're wasting your breath pointing it out to them.

But that becomes truly subjective. Some people are moved, for whatever reason, by one artist and not by others.

I cannot understand the LOVE of B-Spears and feel Xtina is the MUCH better artist, but not all here will agree. Who is right? Wrong? It is subjective to those who feel a certain way about certain styles.

Even in this very forum people argue over the quailty of Prince songs/albums.

duccichucka said:

gdiminished said:

One is mindless entertainment and the other is art:

ie - Mindless Noise

Katy Perry

Rhianna

Dave Guetta

LMFAO

Chris Brown

Art:

Mint Condition

Jodeci

Earth Wind and Fire

Stevie Wonder

Miles Davis

Silk

Prince

Art will stand the test of time, the other will not.

Any questions?

[Edited 2/17/12 9:28am]

You've done nothing here but, like 99% of the other posts in this thread, simply list music

you like and music you don't like.

You have not shown or proven why LMFAO is mindless and why Silk is art; you've only

shown us that:

1. You probably like Silk

2. You probably don't like LMFAO

Guys listen: there is no objective, empirical "real" music reality. It just doesn't exist.

There is only subjectively true good, bad, or anything else music. You (and me) can

offer up intelligent reasons as to why we hold certain artists as good and some as

mindless entertainment, but there are no objectively factual statements that can be said

about the quality of music between "good" (Silk) or "bad/mindless entertainment" (LMFAO).

There is a difference between truthful statements (Mozart is the best) and factual

statements (Mozart is the best). One is subjective. One is objective.

If you make the movement to show otherwise, you're putting on smug, self-satisfied

airs.

Now stop it.

Well, I'm a piano player and music was my second undergrad degree, so I think I know a bit more about music than your average listener.

There is plenty of emperical evidence that makes music "real" and other types of sound just appear as "mindless entertainment".

Formula is pretty simple:

Musicianship (ie basic musical understandings) + Creativity + Ingenuity/Talent = Solid musical product

The groups I mentioned were musicians from very early on in their lives and were talented ones at that, and the environment of a strong musical background allowed them to expand their expression through instrumentation, song writing, arrangement, production, etc.

Not being a real musician (ie playing an instrument) is similar to a Pharmacist not knowing how to fill a prescription, or Chemist not knowing the periodic table of elements. If you can't respect your craft, then they don't deserve their title!!!

Now back to the comparison you mentioned:

LMFAO aren't even musicians, they make noise. Silk are genuine singers and performers. Go and listen to the compositions of both their tracks and tell me with a straight face LMFAO makes "music".

What this comes down to is the masses or folks who enjoy LMFAO or similar groups aren't musically saavy, nor do they have a decent grasp or appreciation for fine music.

Beethoven and Mozart are rare geniuses that are still emulated nearly hundreds of years after their respective deaths. Same with Bach, Lizst, Chopin, etc. The 19th century was the last century for great classical/romantic compositions anyway, otherwise people just ended up sounding like Mozart.

gdiminished said:

duccichucka said:

You've done nothing here but, like 99% of the other posts in this thread, simply list music

you like and music you don't like.

You have not shown or proven why LMFAO is mindless and why Silk is art; you've only

shown us that:

1. You probably like Silk

2. You probably don't like LMFAO

Guys listen: there is no objective, empirical "real" music reality. It just doesn't exist.

There is only subjectively true good, bad, or anything else music. You (and me) can

offer up intelligent reasons as to why we hold certain artists as good and some as

mindless entertainment, but there are no objectively factual statements that can be said

about the quality of music between "good" (Silk) or "bad/mindless entertainment" (LMFAO).

There is a difference between truthful statements (Mozart is the best) and factual

statements (Mozart is the best). One is subjective. One is objective.

If you make the movement to show otherwise, you're putting on smug, self-satisfied

airs.

Now stop it.

Well, I'm a piano player and music was my second undergrad degree, so I think I know a bit more about music than your average listener.

There is plenty of emperical evidence that makes music "real" and other types of sound just appear as "mindless entertainment".

Formula is pretty simple:

Musicianship (ie basic musical understandings) + Creativity + Ingenuity/Talent = Solid musical product

The groups I mentioned were musicians from very early on in their lives and were talented ones at that, and the environment of a strong musical background allowed them to expand their expression through instrumentation, song writing, arrangement, production, etc.

Not being a real musician (ie playing an instrument) is similar to a Pharmacist not knowing how to fill a prescription, or Chemist not knowing the periodic table of elements. If you can't respect your craft, then they don't deserve their title!!!

Now back to the comparison you mentioned:

LMFAO aren't even musicians, they make noise. Silk are genuine singers and performers. Go and listen to the compositions of both their tracks and tell me with a straight face LMFAO makes "music".

What this comes down to is the masses or folks who enjoy LMFAO or similar groups aren't musically saavy, nor do they have a decent grasp or appreciation for fine music.

Beethoven and Mozart are rare geniuses that are still emulated nearly hundreds of years after their respective deaths. Same with Bach, Lizst, Chopin, etc. The 19th century was the last century for great classical/romantic compositions anyway, otherwise people just ended up sounding like Mozart.

Good! I study jazz piano and I am a beginner in classical music composition; let's sit

down and chop this up.

Point out empirical evidence that distinguishes "real music" from "not real music." The

formula that you provide:

"Musicianship (ie basic musical understandings) + Creativity + Ingenuity/Talent = Solid musical product"...

doesn't add up because you cannot quantify creativity, ingenuity, or talent. Those

are abstracts, dude. You cannot point to an abstract in reality. So let's say that your

formula was indeed accurate; it would still fall short at proving that "real music" exists

because we cannot point to abstracts in reality: I cannot empirically show you god, beauty,

love, talent, good, bad, etc.

The "solid music product" you speak of are sound waves arranged into a pattern that

practictioners of its manipulation and composition have decided what will be the norm of

its aural offering; what will be the norm of its practice and experience - nothing

more, nothing less.

Your chemist/pharmacist analogy falls short. There plenty examples of self-trained musicians

who, yes, because of their lack of training, had a limited musical vocabulary. But that

doesn't mean that:

1. All trained musicians are respectful of their craft

2. All untrained musicians aren't respectful of their craft.

You telling me that Jimi Hendrix didn't play his guitar authentically? He was untrained and

self-taught. Of course I wouldn't want to go have a prescription filled by a pharmacist who

didn't go to school for that shit; but music is something ultimately different. Pharmacology

is a science. Music is an art form. Remember, it's called music theory, not music law.

I can fuck up a B major scale by flatting the 3rds and 7ths and still be okay; you cannot

do that with a science.

I did not bring up LMFAO/Silk - you did. You claim LMFAO make noise; that they

aren't real musicians. You claim that Silk are genuine singers and performers. Again,

music is just systematized "noise" placed in normative settings. But by what standards

are you judging one band from the next? Realize that whatever your answer is, it is

normative, that is, not empirical fact but subjective truth.

Call a spade a spade, dude: you really mean to say:

"I don't like LMFAO; they don't make music I appreciate."

This is a more accurate assertion than the one you are trying to make and cannot

possibly prove:

"LMFAO do not make real music."

What you really mean is the the former; you cannot prove what real music is. You can

only describe (poorly or thoughtfully) what music you like.

I choose to ignore what you wrote about classical music as you are clearly uninformed!

Talking about music is an art form too. So like music, it is subject to interpretation and context, and it's value is in the eye of the beholder.

When someone refers to "real" or "fake" music, that is figurative language. It means nothing literally. As said before, there is not absolute in this, only ongoing discussion that can never be entirely resolved.

I recently read someone who was criticizing a melody, saying it repeated the same note too many times. The song she was talking about was Blowin' in the Wind. So while she may have had a valid point, it also meant absolutely nothing.

Fake Music: Shit Hop

Real Music: Everything else.

duccichucka said:

gdiminished said:

Well, I'm a piano player and music was my second undergrad degree, so I think I know a bit more about music than your average listener.

There is plenty of emperical evidence that makes music "real" and other types of sound just appear as "mindless entertainment".

Formula is pretty simple:

Musicianship (ie basic musical understandings) + Creativity + Ingenuity/Talent = Solid musical product

The groups I mentioned were musicians from very early on in their lives and were talented ones at that, and the environment of a strong musical background allowed them to expand their expression through instrumentation, song writing, arrangement, production, etc.

Not being a real musician (ie playing an instrument) is similar to a Pharmacist not knowing how to fill a prescription, or Chemist not knowing the periodic table of elements. If you can't respect your craft, then they don't deserve their title!!!

Now back to the comparison you mentioned:

LMFAO aren't even musicians, they make noise. Silk are genuine singers and performers. Go and listen to the compositions of both their tracks and tell me with a straight face LMFAO makes "music".

What this comes down to is the masses or folks who enjoy LMFAO or similar groups aren't musically saavy, nor do they have a decent grasp or appreciation for fine music.

Beethoven and Mozart are rare geniuses that are still emulated nearly hundreds of years after their respective deaths. Same with Bach, Lizst, Chopin, etc. The 19th century was the last century for great classical/romantic compositions anyway, otherwise people just ended up sounding like Mozart.

Good! I study jazz piano and I am a beginner in classical music composition; let's sit

down and chop this up.

Point out empirical evidence that distinguishes "real music" from "not real music." The

formula that you provide:

"Musicianship (ie basic musical understandings) + Creativity + Ingenuity/Talent = Solid musical product"...

doesn't add up because you cannot quantify creativity, ingenuity, or talent. Those

are abstracts, dude. You cannot point to an abstract in reality. So let's say that your

formula was indeed accurate; it would still fall short at proving that "real music" exists

because we cannot point to abstracts in reality: I cannot empirically show you god, beauty,

love, talent, good, bad, etc.

The "solid music product" you speak of are sound waves arranged into a pattern that

practictioners of its manipulation and composition have decided what will be the norm of

its aural offering; what will be the norm of its practice and experience - nothing

more, nothing less.

Your chemist/pharmacist analogy falls short. There plenty examples of self-trained musicians

who, yes, because of their lack of training, had a limited musical vocabulary. But that

doesn't mean that:

1. All trained musicians are respectful of their craft

2. All untrained musicians aren't respectful of their craft.

You telling me that Jimi Hendrix didn't play his guitar authentically? He was untrained and

self-taught. Of course I wouldn't want to go have a prescription filled by a pharmacist who

didn't go to school for that shit; but music is something ultimately different. Pharmacology

is a science. Music is an art form. Remember, it's called music theory, not music law.

I can fuck up a B major scale by flatting the 3rds and 7ths and still be okay; you cannot

do that with a science.

I did not bring up LMFAO/Silk - you did. You claim LMFAO make noise; that they

aren't real musicians. You claim that Silk are genuine singers and performers. Again,

music is just systematized "noise" placed in normative settings. But by what standards

are you judging one band from the next? Realize that whatever your answer is, it is

normative, that is, not empirical fact but subjective truth.

Call a spade a spade, dude: you really mean to say:

"I don't like LMFAO; they don't make music I appreciate."

This is a more accurate assertion than the one you are trying to make and cannot

possibly prove:

"LMFAO do not make real music."

What you really mean is the the former; you cannot prove what real music is. You can

only describe (poorly or thoughtfully) what music you like.

I choose to ignore what you wrote about classical music as you are clearly uninformed!

I find this hard to believe, if you are a jazz musician, you should know better than most on what quality music sounds like. Sure, I cannot produce "Silk's Lose Control" or B McKnight's "Never Felt This Way" in a physical format (outside of sheet music or lead sheets), but it is certainly more complex than any Rhianna or Chris Brown song....

It was a general formula I put up, and of course not an absolute law, more of a guideline that those elements tend to produce a great, organic, and authentic art form. Are you telling me Trey Songs can sing better than Gerald Levert, or has more range than him? Chris Brown is an entertainer, the former is an artist. Difference is the quality of work they produce.

Music is an art form, sure, but if you understand music theory, it might as well be a LAW,and in certain aspects such as singing in key and playing an instrument of some kind would help alot of these popcorn entertainers....

Hendrix had an unnatural talent and he was so raw, he didn't even need formal training as he was that good, I can't imagine him with some actual training.

I'm willing to bet you think rappers are "musicians" too. If that is the case we have nothing more to say and can agree to disagree.

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....

MickyDolenz said:

All music is real. It doesn't matter if it's canaries chirping or someone tapping a beat on a bucket. Just because someone doesn't like it, doesn't mean it's "fake".

Even shit-hop/r&b (rhythmless bullshit)?!?

JoeTyler said:

for many people, "real music" is played by musicians who can read music, and who play their "organic" (analogic or electronic, BUT NOT digital) instruments note per note

The Human League, if I'm not mistaken, were considered the first NO REAL MUSIC act...it was the end of the disco era, and some bitter assh*les needed some new targets

too much vitriol...

But I like the sound of digital. Have you ever heard of the Yamaha DX7 or Roland D-50? In the right hands, these digital synths can kicks ass.

TonyVanDam said:

MickyDolenz said:

All music is real. It doesn't matter if it's canaries chirping or someone tapping a beat on a bucket. Just because someone doesn't like it, doesn't mean it's "fake".

Even shit-hop/r&b (rhythmless bullshit)?!?

It's faker than RuPaul's pussy.

gdiminished said:

duccichucka said:

Good! I study jazz piano and I am a beginner in classical music composition; let's sit

down and chop this up.

Point out empirical evidence that distinguishes "real music" from "not real music." The

formula that you provide:

"Musicianship (ie basic musical understandings) + Creativity + Ingenuity/Talent = Solid musical product"...

doesn't add up because you cannot quantify creativity, ingenuity, or talent. Those

are abstracts, dude. You cannot point to an abstract in reality. So let's say that your

formula was indeed accurate; it would still fall short at proving that "real music" exists

because we cannot point to abstracts in reality: I cannot empirically show you god, beauty,

love, talent, good, bad, etc.

The "solid music product" you speak of are sound waves arranged into a pattern that

practictioners of its manipulation and composition have decided what will be the norm of

its aural offering; what will be the norm of its practice and experience - nothing

more, nothing less.

Your chemist/pharmacist analogy falls short. There plenty examples of self-trained musicians

who, yes, because of their lack of training, had a limited musical vocabulary. But that

doesn't mean that:

1. All trained musicians are respectful of their craft

2. All untrained musicians aren't respectful of their craft.

You telling me that Jimi Hendrix didn't play his guitar authentically? He was untrained and

self-taught. Of course I wouldn't want to go have a prescription filled by a pharmacist who

didn't go to school for that shit; but music is something ultimately different. Pharmacology

is a science. Music is an art form. Remember, it's called music theory, not music law.

I can fuck up a B major scale by flatting the 3rds and 7ths and still be okay; you cannot

do that with a science.

I did not bring up LMFAO/Silk - you did. You claim LMFAO make noise; that they

aren't real musicians. You claim that Silk are genuine singers and performers. Again,

music is just systematized "noise" placed in normative settings. But by what standards

are you judging one band from the next? Realize that whatever your answer is, it is

normative, that is, not empirical fact but subjective truth.

Call a spade a spade, dude: you really mean to say:

"I don't like LMFAO; they don't make music I appreciate."

This is a more accurate assertion than the one you are trying to make and cannot

possibly prove:

"LMFAO do not make real music."

What you really mean is the the former; you cannot prove what real music is. You can

only describe (poorly or thoughtfully) what music you like.

I choose to ignore what you wrote about classical music as you are clearly uninformed!

I find this hard to believe, if you are a jazz musician, you should know better than most on what quality music sounds like. Sure, I cannot produce "Silk's Lose Control" or B McKnight's "Never Felt This Way" in a physical format (outside of sheet music or lead sheets), but it is certainly more complex than any Rhianna or Chris Brown song....

It was a general formula I put up, and of course not an absolute law, more of a guideline that those elements tend to produce a great, organic, and authentic art form. Are you telling me Trey Songs can sing better than Gerald Levert, or has more range than him? Chris Brown is an entertainer, the former is an artist. Difference is the quality of work they produce.

Music is an art form, sure, but if you understand music theory, it might as well be a LAW,and in certain aspects such as singing in key and playing an instrument of some kind would help alot of these popcorn entertainers....

Hendrix had an unnatural talent and he was so raw, he didn't even need formal training as he was that good, I can't imagine him with some actual training.

I'm willing to bet you think rappers are "musicians" too. If that is the case we have nothing more to say and can agree to disagree.

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....

Bond

People keep talking about quality/art/garbage/mindless entertainment/etc. but no one has said what real and fake music is. If you buy a diamond ring from someone, and later you have it appraised and they tell you it's cubic zirconia, then it's a fake diamond. It can be proven. But if you have a ring with a diamond or one with cubic zirconia, they're both real rings. You can put both on your fingers. Quality doesn't make one thing real and one thing fake.

NDRU said:

Talking about music is an art form too. So like music, it is subject to interpretation and context, and it's value is in the eye of the beholder.

When someone refers to "real" or "fake" music, that is figurative language. It means nothing literally. As said before, there is not absolute in this, only ongoing discussion that can never be entirely resolved.

I recently read someone who was criticizing a melody, saying it repeated the same note too many times. The song she was talking about was Blowin' in the Wind. So while she may have had a valid point, it also meant absolutely nothing.

Very nice!

===

Too often "real music" is simply defined in the false superiority of another.

I think we all can agree that all music falls in a scale between 1 and 10. Determining the order is part of our infinitely expandable/pliable experience.

Some choose a lifetime of learning and tearing down their false notions, others at some point are mostly satisfied with who they are. Can't we all just get along.

I think it all comes down to security. If you've got it, there isn't a person alive who can talk down to you. But if they are also secure, you both might learn something.

While it's certainly true that no individual or group will ever reach the shiny shores of objectivity, we can all surely travel far beyond the peas we spat out on our bib. And we weren't stupid then either.

Ultimately I think we've learned nothing if we start describing what we know as a metaphor for the end of the road; a path whose superiority to others is usually implied.

gdiminished said:

duccichucka said:

Good! I study jazz piano and I am a beginner in classical music composition; let's sit

down and chop this up.

Point out empirical evidence that distinguishes "real music" from "not real music." The

formula that you provide:

"Musicianship (ie basic musical understandings) + Creativity + Ingenuity/Talent = Solid musical product"...

doesn't add up because you cannot quantify creativity, ingenuity, or talent. Those

are abstracts, dude. You cannot point to an abstract in reality. So let's say that your

formula was indeed accurate; it would still fall short at proving that "real music" exists

because we cannot point to abstracts in reality: I cannot empirically show you god, beauty,

love, talent, good, bad, etc.

The "solid music product" you speak of are sound waves arranged into a pattern that

practictioners of its manipulation and composition have decided what will be the norm of

its aural offering; what will be the norm of its practice and experience - nothing

more, nothing less.

Your chemist/pharmacist analogy falls short. There plenty examples of self-trained musicians

who, yes, because of their lack of training, had a limited musical vocabulary. But that

doesn't mean that:

1. All trained musicians are respectful of their craft

2. All untrained musicians aren't respectful of their craft.

You telling me that Jimi Hendrix didn't play his guitar authentically? He was untrained and

self-taught. Of course I wouldn't want to go have a prescription filled by a pharmacist who

didn't go to school for that shit; but music is something ultimately different. Pharmacology

is a science. Music is an art form. Remember, it's called music theory, not music law.

I can fuck up a B major scale by flatting the 3rds and 7ths and still be okay; you cannot

do that with a science.

I did not bring up LMFAO/Silk - you did. You claim LMFAO make noise; that they

aren't real musicians. You claim that Silk are genuine singers and performers. Again,

music is just systematized "noise" placed in normative settings. But by what standards

are you judging one band from the next? Realize that whatever your answer is, it is

normative, that is, not empirical fact but subjective truth.

Call a spade a spade, dude: you really mean to say:

"I don't like LMFAO; they don't make music I appreciate."

This is a more accurate assertion than the one you are trying to make and cannot

possibly prove:

"LMFAO do not make real music."

What you really mean is the the former; you cannot prove what real music is. You can

only describe (poorly or thoughtfully) what music you like.

I choose to ignore what you wrote about classical music as you are clearly uninformed!

I find this hard to believe, if you are a jazz musician, you should know better than most on what quality music sounds like. Sure, I cannot produce "Silk's Lose Control" or B McKnight's "Never Felt This Way" in a physical format (outside of sheet music or lead sheets), but it is certainly more complex than any Rhianna or Chris Brown song....

It was a general formula I put up, and of course not an absolute law, more of a guideline that those elements tend to produce a great, organic, and authentic art form. Are you telling me Trey Songs can sing better than Gerald Levert, or has more range than him? Chris Brown is an entertainer, the former is an artist. Difference is the quality of work they produce.

Music is an art form, sure, but if you understand music theory, it might as well be a LAW,and in certain aspects such as singing in key and playing an instrument of some kind would help alot of these popcorn entertainers....

Hendrix had an unnatural talent and he was so raw, he didn't even need formal training as he was that good, I can't imagine him with some actual training.

I'm willing to bet you think rappers are "musicians" too. If that is the case we have nothing more to say and can agree to disagree.

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....

1. Musical complexity does not automatically equate to quality music. Jazz music reached

all time heights with Kind of Blue which is mostly harmonic expression and improve over

modes.

2. You cannot prove that someone sings better than anyone else. You can begin to illustrate

why one singer may have more technical ability than another but why can't you seem to

understand the elusiveness of "better," "good," or "bad?" You can't prove that Chris Brown

isn't as "good" as Levert. You can only begin to show why you prefer one over the other.

3. You cannot prove that anything on this Earth is better than the next.

Until you've understood this, I've nothing more to say to about this subject.

Real music is what you make it, what is Beethoven & Stevie Wonder to one person maybe Lil Wayne or Kesha to another.

I love jazz, but some people may find it boring or pretentious. I love metal & some people find it to just be noise, i also love R&B, Electro-Pop & Grindcore. And many people hate those genres.

So i don't think one can really define ''real'' or ''fake'' music... real & fake is all how you make it in the end

Some people may also just talk shit on a certain artist cause it is ''cool'' in the metal community Michael Bolton is hated on a lot

Like HARDCORE as if he stole all there virgin daughters & burned down there houses & sent a plague of 1,000 years on there houses type hate. And i notice people hate on him all the time, but once i listened to his songs & got past the fluff & popcorn, i realized he could actually sing his ass off & had lots of talent. Once i saw him do a cover of Georgia On My Mind that was stellar.

People used to hate on Journey a lot back in the day, and now there one of the Americas most beloved bands so it can always turn around

[Edited 2/17/12 18:35pm]

[Edited 2/17/12 18:36pm]

Well since we are trying to be all technical about what is real music and what is not

let's just break it down and say there is real music and manufactured music.

It has nothing to do with what you like and what you don't like. Freddie Jackson would

be considered real music by music purists as well as myself and i don't own anything

Freddie Jackson. I only like a few of his songs. By contrast i have 4 Heavy D cd's and his

music can be considered manufactured but his rhymes aren't.

[Edited 2/17/12 18:47pm]

"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.

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....

Three hundred years from now? Maybe, but how small will the audience for classical music be by then? Every year less and less people are interested in classical music, who can say what the state of the genre will be three hundred years in the future?