'Fake' MusicMusic 

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cobraboy
  • 13 comments
  • 860 views
C

Cobraboy

(Banned)
Messages
7,552
I was listening to my walkman last night while I was trying to sleep when 'Survivor - Destinys Child' came on the station I was listening to. And being a drummer I was pretty focused on the drumbeat. After a while I figured that it was damn near impossible to play that beat on a real drum kit (I will go into detail but I'll probably confuse you non musicians).
Now theres Real Instruments, Legit CG (Computer Generated) Beats, Unreal CG beats, then Techno stuff. Theres no talent in it at all, maybe a few mouse clicks but thats about it. What about at concerts, how would they play it? It would only be the group and a computer backing them up wouldnt it? I dont like that.
Computer riffs are amazing dont get me wrong, technology is the way to go nowadays. But I'd much rather hear a song that has some talent behind it. Thats what pleases me about Eminem. It seems as though most of his songs are played with real instruments. Either that or they are very cleverly generated.

Now to the average Joe, its nothing. They hear the song, like it go buy the CD and dance to it. But to the musically trained ear it can be completely different reaction, like ones own reaction.


What are your thoughts??
 
I think it depends how you look at it. Music, in it's raw form is just an extention of that artist expressing themselves in a creative way. The tools that the artist uses to accomplish this task is at their disposal. The purist would say that the only "true" music is that of the human voice or the churping of a bird, or the crashing of waves. The purist would also say that the aid of "tools" is a synthetic way of cheating the soul. So wheither it's a double-kick pedal for your drum set or a new loop for your software routed to a synth, they're all just tools at your exposal, but that doesn't make it any less real. There's still a great deal of creative energy that goes into "good" music. On the other hand, there's a lot of "bad" music that displays absolutely no creative talent wheither it's done vocally, on an instrument, or in a computer.

So the question becomes not "What tools are considered "real"", but rather "What artists can use their tools to best translate their ideas to the listener".

That's just my 2-cents on the topic....

:cheers:
 
i think i hate pop music partly because theres no band behind the singer. its just a bunch of loops done up by someone with a very basic talent.

take tool for example - try and do that with a PC.
 
Dammit, I tried to think of a response but I cant concentrate. Its so damn hot and I cant breathe, astmha.... But I will respond tomorrow though!! I know what I want to say.
 
Originally posted by   
i think i hate pop music partly because theres no band behind the singer. its just a bunch of loops done up by someone with a very basic understanding of the term "music". take tool for example - do that with a PC.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% :D
 
I like electronic music, even though many people aren't all that crazy about it. When the first music of that genre was created over 70 years ago (that's correct, seventy!), people generally dismissed it as cold, unfeeling, probably because electronic instruments were imperfect at re-creating analog sounds into digital.

But as these "new" instruments have become more and more complex, and more advanced, the sounds became more acceptable to musicians because it could emulate virtually every previous instrument and the human voice. Even nature's sounds could be fairly accurately reproduced.

But one of the faults of electronic music is that the technology of the time invariably links the music to a specific timeframe (not sure if this makes sense). When you listen to the pop-synth of the 80's, it sounds quite dated because the simplicity of the instruments (and possibly, the simplicity of the recording artist).

But when you see all the revolutions in electronic music in the past 10 years, you hear a more natural sound, in my opinion. You can do things with electronic instruments that couldn't be done before; not without very intricate composition, and not without a full symphony orchestra.

That's why electronic music turned me on to "classical" music; it's so intricate in it's own right. And much of it was penned 200-300 years ago. Music was controversial then for being different, now it’s the most popular music of all time…even if it gets no radio play!

What I call “fake” music is that which is used towards another end: that which is used to sell useless products, corporate fantasies, impossible ideals, forgettable movies, etc. Sure, I have no problem with people making money or acquiring fame through music, but to make a largely forgettable song or album and have record execs push the song endlessly until it’s lost any meaning is quite a sin to me.
 
Good posts, pupik and pako. I don't really have time to go into it that heavily, but in general I agree.

I liken the electronic music revolution to the desktop publishing revolution of 10-15 years ago. New tools made almost-pro quality output available to many many more people... but it didn't automatically give them the any special skill or creativity in using those tools.

For instance, Frank Zappa put out an album called Jazz From Hell in the late 80s, which really used the abilities of the then-new Synclavier synthesizer to the full. In the liner notes, he clearly states that part of his intent was to create music that could not be humanly played. He was an incredible musician and composer who was exploring the potential of a new instrument.

But any shcmuck with a sequencer can record a broadcast-quality 60 bpm dance track now, just like every schmuck with a laser printer could create crisp, clean (and butt-ugly) flyers to post for their yard sale 10 years ago.

It's not the tool itself that is bad, it's the intent and the execution.

Mass-market music is another subject entirely. Mass-market anything usually sucks, no matter how it's created.

And on the subject of the Destiny's Child track, that song drives me up the wall. The synthesizer, bass track, rhythm, and vocals are all out of synch and don't work together at all. It's not like a jazz thing where they're playing with differing time signatures, either; it just sucks.
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
Good posts, pupik and pako. I don't really have time to go into it that heavily, but in general I agree.

I liken the electronic music revolution to the desktop publishing revolution of 10-15 years ago. New tools made almost-pro quality output available to many many more people... but it didn't automatically give them the any special skill or creativity in using those tools.

For instance, Frank Zappa put out an album called Jazz From Hell in the late 80s, which really used the abilities of the then-new Synclavier synthesizer to the full. In the liner notes, he clearly states that part of his intent was to create music that could not be humanly played. He was an incredible musician and composer who was exploring the potential of a new instrument.

But any shcmuck with a sequencer can record a broadcast-quality 60 bpm dance track now, just like every schmuck with a laser printer could create crisp, clean (and butt-ugly) flyers to post for their yard sale 10 years ago.

It's not the tool itself that is bad, it's the intent and the execution.

Mass-market music is another subject entirely. Mass-market anything usually sucks, no matter how it's created.

And on the subject of the Destiny's Child track, that song drives me up the wall. The synthesizer, bass track, rhythm, and vocals are all out of synch and don't work together at all. It's not like a jazz thing where they're playing with differing time signatures, either; it just sucks.
Click to expand...

In regards to your (broadcast quality) - I used to be of the school of thought that all I needed was a computer, a mic, and some software to get that Pro Sound..., I am finding that I am greatly mistaken with that assumption. The digital relm is just now getting to point where you can start comparing digital to analog with 24-bit, Nyquest (192khz) sample rates, and good converters at that resolution isn't cheap. Let's also not forget that the analog-digital converters can only sound as good as the source which starts with the instrument->mic->cable->preamp. If anything in that chain degrades the signal, the highest resolution will only translate the flaws in your equipment. Software EQ's and Compressors are alright, but they just don't hold up to ventage outboard, analog gear (yet). So, yes the average Jo can get broadcast quality now, but that's not the standard anymore. The audiophile consumer is expecting much more out of the quality of music then ever before.

Just wanted to thow that out... :-)

~Peace~
 
I agree with everything you guys have said. But what I was getting at was the generated music that cant be played naturally. Sure, you could get an 80's track and jam along to it with what ever instrument you play, but some songs cant be reproduced (not including techno).
 
Originally posted by pupik
I like electronic music, even though many people aren't all that crazy about it. When the first music of that genre was created over 70 years ago (that's correct, seventy!), people generally dismissed it as cold, unfeeling, probably because electronic instruments were imperfect at re-creating analog sounds into digital.
Click to expand...

I know a lot of people don't care for synthesized sounds.

I am not one of those people. :)

There are certain sounds I just like. Some synths sound really good when they're just synths, and not trying to emulate "real" instruments. (Don't believe me? Listen to any early seventies Stevie Wonder album). Artistic intent makes all the difference - if the sound on the tape is the sound in your head, that's all that matters! We just have a much broader range of tools to use now.

Saying you don't like a synth because it doesn't sound like a violin is like saying you don't like grapes because they don't taste like bananas. Everyone has their preferences, but it's not a matter of right or wrong.
 
There's music, and then there's music for musicians. That's what you get for listening to Suvivor.

I generally do not listen to the radio. I know what I like and I listen to it a lot. I acquire a new band or artist only rarely... but only rarely do any come along that are worth listening to.

Electronically generated music is fine by me, but with one caveat...
Don't try to trick me into thinking it is anything other than what it is. I sometimes think of electronica as "sound art" rather than music because the entire mindset in creating it is different from a band getting to gether and playing their respective instruments. Good electronica is generally a solo deal. And I know some electronica that is absolute genius. But it is supposed to sound electronic. That is the whole thing. Occasionally a band can incorporate a little synth or drum machine and it sounds good. But when they try to make themselves sound better than they really are, the ones who can tell have zero respect for their "music."

But seriously... SURVIVOR?! :reallyodd

P.S. For some seriously great electronica pick up Chinese Whispers. I believe the label is Scrawl. It is an interesting project where many like-minded musicians made a piece out of the same set of samples and sounds. Sort of like making music murals... sound art.
 
For me, I take music pretty much as it comes. There's such a variance in styles and substance in music, that I don't really find it relevant to describe some music as 'real' and some as 'fake' by whether it's possible to actually play the tune.

However, I do like to believe that the portrayed artist is actually involved in the creation of the music, and not some beautiful puppet. This is why artists such as Coldplay earn my respect, and Destiny's Child do not.

To me, it's about whether the artist has created the music, be that by writing, playing or programming.
 
Originally posted by milefile
There's music, and then there's music for musicians. That's what you get for listening to Suvivor.

But seriously... SURVIVOR?! :reallyodd
Click to expand...

I was listening to the radio hoping it would lull me into sleep. I have no control over the radio and what it plays. Just that this station plays most of what I like and then the crap on the side....
 
i like the music (the real one).
just like cobra said (or i think he did): i don't see the point of see your favorite artist if they gonna show a big band and fake sound.(a beat)

i love live sound more than the recorded ,cause when i'm in a concert and heard the musicians i can know who is real artist and who is not.

i look in the same way for the artist.

today even me can sing like pavarotti (if i use a computer) thats why many artist (i don't think they're) today are nothing ,they are just a fake (just a beauty face +a nice body+a nice promotion ) that all they are a fake.

and sometimes when you see someone and you think wow what a performance,then when you see it in person you say wow what a 🤬.

nothing can be compared with live perfomance that separe the real artist from the fake's.
 
Back