Disappointment can be traumatic…

[ElmerJFudd]

[ProfD]

I wonder if folks were similarly disappointed when the architect/draftsman started using AutoCAD. 🤣😎

[o0Ampy0o]

Poor analogy.

 

 

[stoken6]

1 minute ago, o0Ampy0o said:

Poor analogy.

 

 

Yeah, for most of the musicians on this forum. For a lot of current top 40, I would say pretty accurate.

 

Cheers, Mike.

[o0Ampy0o]

You could be composer and not play an instrument including vocals. Can you be a musician and say the same? Would anyone describe the bulk of work Quincy Jones has done to impact pop music during his career as a musician? He is a producer and composer for the MJ and gazillion hit machine he manned yes? He did not play an instrument or sing on any of that. He did not program but he essentially did via proxy guiding sessions and engineers and artists and musicians who also programmed their keyboards and drum machines.

 

Programmer onlys are programmers and sometimes composers but musicians? They are getting the computer to play they are not playing.

[ElmerJFudd]

Music is an art form.   How we make music and the styles of music we make are wide and varied.  So any discussion on what is and isn’t “good music”, or who is and isn’t a “good musician” are not going to end with any sort of consensus or final answer.  😉

That said, that meme is funny to me because it does press a few buttons and reminds us all to not take music, our music or ourselves too seriously.  ymmv 

[jarrell]

Quincy maybe isn't the best example... he started out as a trumpet player, but became known as a big band arranger, moving into film scoring, and pop (Leslie Gore) in the 60's... his work with MJ was 20 years later. I think even if he didn't play an instrument, his arranging skills would qualify him to be a musician. Up until the advent of DAW based production, I think pretty much all composers and arrangers play or started out playing an instrument.

[ProfD]

6 minutes ago, jarrell said:

Quincy maybe isn't the best example... he started out as a trumpet player, but became known as a big band arranger, moving into film scoring, and pop..

Correct.  QJ is a bad mofo.  He can sit down at a piano with paper and pencil and compose or a tune or write a score.  In the modern era, he would have used an MPC or a DAW.  😁 😎

[AUSSIEKEYS]

2 hours ago, ElmerJFudd said:

 

That said, that meme is funny to me because it does press a few buttons 

 

Thats what she said he did.

[Anderton]

Funny meme, but for some reason the image cut off the last line: "...and it's a Windows machine!"

[o0Ampy0o]

I clearly delineated which portion and capacity of Quincy's career I was speaking of. 

 

No one was speaking about what is good or bad music or musicianship. The meme was poking fun at the commonly perceived idea that "programing a computer" is not playing an instrument, the other commonly perceived idea being a musician plays an instrument.

 

The draughtsman / Autocad was a poor analogy. Autocad is a tool like a ruler and pencil.

 

As for art and art form, anything can be done at a level of art, not by just anyone but it can be executed in such a way it is Art.

[ElmerJFudd]

2 hours ago, AUSSIEKEYS said:

 

Thats what she said he did.

We all push a few buttons.  It’s just we like to call them keys.   

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, o0Ampy0o said:

The draughtsman / Autocad was a poor analogy. Autocad is a tool like a ruler and pencil.

To a musician, a DAW (computer) is a tool like pencil and paper too. 😎

[Mills Dude]

Not wading into any of the Quincy chatter.  That meme is just totally inaccurate.  No way those 2 hot girls would care about any of that.  More accurate caption would be "He told me he owned 2 houses but he really lives in his mother's basement"

[Adan]

The joke doesn't really work for me, mainly because the idea that someone who spends most of their time at a computer can't be a musician was debunked a long time ago. 

 

Here's some lame off-the-cuff attempts:

 

"He told me he's a professional musician but he didn't mention it was bebop jazz.  Every time we eat out I have to pick up the check!"

 

"He told me he was rich but turns out it's all in crypto!"

 

"My highlights appointment was canceled!"

 

 

[o0Ampy0o]

14 hours ago, ProfD said:

To a musician, a DAW (computer) is a tool like pencil and paper too. 😎

 

The meme is not referencing recording music. "He said he was a musician" not a recording engineer.

 

The meme is relying on stereotypes.

 

The thing people have a problem with is the guy who does not play an instrument and only programs sequencers calling himself a musician. The idea people have is that a musician plays a musical instrument even though technically "musician" can refer to a composer. More commonly, people think of composer and musician as separate things. A recording engineer who does not also play an instrument never refers to himself as a musician. You don't have to play an instrument to be a recording engineer.

 

Musicians don't "play the computer." When asked "What instrument do you play?" no one says "I play the computer." No one goes to a concert to see a programmer program. Nerds at a trade show would say they are going to see a programmer program as they accidentally spit out their retainer.  🤓

 

For a draftsman, the end product is what matters. Someone needs plans to build with. They don't care how those plans were created. I think Autocad is the standard these days so you need to know it to get a job. I suspect there are computers and large format printers at job sites. It used to be that you had to be able to draw on the fly to rework plans at a job site. Everything is a print now so you cannot erase and redraw lines on the master the way they used to do.

 

For a musician, it is common for people to care that someone playing a musical instrument is very good with it. It is common for people to care that a singer is accurate and does not use Autotune. In some genres Autotune is part of the sound and people accept the sound yet if you were to ask those people what they think of needing Autotune vs. being able to sing on key they are likely to say they value the ability more without needing Autotune. It is a common point of view that too much of the heavy lifting is done by the computer when it is the only "instrument" involved, even if it is accepted as an instrument.

 

Again the meme relies on stereotypes.

 

 

[marino]

[KuruPrionz]

This reminds me of the great "Photoshop disagreement" that raged years ago. That was funny too but also missed the point. 

There were a group of photographers who decided that anybody who did something with Photoshop that would be difficult or impossible to do with just a camera were "Graphic Designers" and nothing more. This was bitterly opposed by artists who found freedom of expression using Photoshop (like me). 

 

No good came of it and I am certain there are still photographers who believe that only images that came out of a camera are photography. I don't care, it's sort of funny. I'm an artist, I will create whatever I want with whatever I want and that's that. 

 

Meanwhile, just for one thing I've entered at least 2 re-mix competions on Metapop.com where all contestants were provided with a small, select group of sounds and told to make something with those sounds. You were not restricted to just those sounds but they had to be in your re-mix. This first one provided the sounds of happy cats, I love cats but decided that there must be torment and anxiety. You will probably only want to hear a bit of each piece, unless you just ain't right in the head - then you'll listen over and over. 😁

https://metapop.com/opossum-apocalypse/tracks/cats-n-dogs-opossum-apocalypse-production/97388

Not sure what to say about this one but it's certainly annoying.

https://metapop.com/opossum-apocalypse/tracks/who-else-opossum-apocalypse/85360

 

Is it music? I think it is, I would never listen to it on purpose but I learned many fine things while being freed from expectations and those things have been useful to me. 

I didn't play any instruments at all, technically I suppose I was "programming a computer" but I felt like I was a musician, creating tension and release in composition. 

Some of you will hate this stuff, that's OK, I don't particularly like it either but I am willing to go to bat for anybody who wants to be creative on computers. 

 

If everything was pretty would we get tired of flowers and kittens? We need nasty smells and jarring sounds to provide perspective, no? 😇

[o0Ampy0o]

There are countless examples. Goes without saying.
 

This one is just a meme falling a little short of debate fit for Socrates to take on but I am happy someone at least got some rest without abusing the pharmaceuticals. 
 

(Note: I get the PS reference. This description of that debate may be misconstrued. All “photographs” whether film or digitally originated are captured with cameras, thus photography. It is capturing light with a sensor. The use of Photoshop does not change that detail. Manipulation of photography is not new and started with film sourced images.). 

[KuruPrionz]

2 hours ago, o0Ampy0o said:

There are countless examples. Goes without saying.
 

This one is just a meme falling a little short of debate fit for Socrates to take on but I am happy someone at least got some rest without abusing the pharmaceuticals. 
 

(Note: I get the PS reference. This description of that debate may be misconstrued. All “photographs” whether film or digitally originated are captured with cameras, thus photography. It is TRue, capturing light with a sensor. The use of Photoshop does not change that detail. Manipulation of photography is not new and started with film sourced images.). 

True but two things are important - one is that capture starts with a camera but there is no reason that it ends there and two - the word "photography" is based on ancient Greek languaage. Photos means light and Graph means write - literally "writing with light". If Photoshop is not writing with light I don't know what is. 

 

Well, three things. In photography classes I took in college, we made photographs by placing objects on photography paper and exposing that to light - room light or even sunlight. There were no lenses (not even a pinhole lens), therefore there were no cameras. Photographs can and are made without cameras. Some of them even happen in Nature, the sun and shadows can create images over time. 

None of that made a dent in the "photography is done with a camera and nothing more" crowd but I've learned not to discuss facts with people who have beliefs, they won't budge. 

[o0Ampy0o]

Photography doesn’t stop being photography if you involve Photoshop. PS was a digital darkroom but it evolved to include advances in manipulation not possible with traditional tools. If a photo is involved it is photo manipulation. It is now possible to create images starting with a blank canvas and never including a photo in PS.
 

I guess it is ironic that getting farther away from cameras it is truly “writing (drawing and painting) with light.” As technolgy is developed definitions need refinement. You can write with light using lasers or neon light also and neither are photography.

 

One good thing that this particular debate does is cement a space for purists’ future. Traditional photography has its virtues in process and results. I love the look of photographs made using early large format cameras. They illustrate form, depth, space, light and shadow differently than cameras today. 

 

 

[KuruPrionz]

4 hours ago, o0Ampy0o said:

Photography doesn’t stop being photography if you involve Photoshop. PS was a digital darkroom but it evolved to include advances in manipulation not possible with traditional tools. If a photo is involved it is photo manipulation. It is now possible to create images starting with a blank canvas and never including a photo in PS.
 

I guess it is ironic that getting farther away from cameras it is truly “writing (drawing and painting) with light.” As technolgy is developed definitions need refinement. You can write with light using lasers or neon light also and neither are photography.

 

One good thing that this particular debate does is cement a space for purists’ future. Traditional photography has its virtues in process and results. I love the look of photographs made using early large format cameras. They illustrate form, depth, space, light and shadow differently than cameras today. 

 

 

I had 2 semesters with a Sinar 4x5 with fulll movements and a Rodenstock lens checked out to me 24/7. I agree that look cannot quite be replicated any other practical way, yet...

There are photographers who are putting digital medium format backs on 4x5 cameras, there are even full frame 8x10 digital backs but that's $$$$$$$ most of us do not have. 

The college also had an 8x10 camera, just one (they had a dozen 4x5 or more) so I only got to take a photo of a coffee pot with it once. That was one hell of a contact print!!!!

 

At the same time, probably the worst possible way to shoot ice skating or birds in flight. Horses for courses, modern DSLR cameras are fantastic for the right circumstance. 

 

Way off in the other direction, I used to shoot 35mm T-Max 3200 at 6400 ISO and process it in straight Dektol (strong paper developer) with violent agitation (ie, I did EVERYTHING wrong!!). The grain looked like granite, an interesting look. 

 

I started with Photoshop 1.07 in the early 90's, it was much more that a digital darkroom from the get go. It was always possible to create an image that originated on the screen, not from a camera. It was possible to change photos to the point of being unrecognizable even then. 

 

To bring this back on topic, it's what you do with a computer that matters, the results can speak for themselves. Artists will use it as a medium for expression, craftsmen will use it for the incredible diversity and quality of the tools - the keyboard player can own an orchestra on an iPad and summon up a massive collection of tonal variation from VST plugins, at a cost less than a single great piano that is too large and heavy to move practically. It's a new world and it will continue to evolve in ways that we may not forsee. 

 

In my mind, this is where the meme that started this conversation falls short.

 

 

[ElmerJFudd]

22 minutes ago, KuruPrionz said:

I had 2 semesters with a Sinar 4x5 with fulll movements and a Rodenstock lens checked out to me 24/7. I agree that look cannot quite be replicated any other practical way, yet...

There are photographers who are putting digital medium format backs on 4x5 cameras, there are even full frame 8x10 digital backs but that's $$$$$$$ most of us do not have. 

The college also had an 8x10 camera, just one (they had a dozen 4x5 or more) so I only got to take a photo of a coffee pot with it once. That was one hell of a contact print!!!!

 

At the same time, probably the worst possible way to shoot ice skating or birds in flight. Horses for courses, modern DSLR cameras are fantastic for the right circumstance. 

 

Way off in the other direction, I used to shoot 35mm T-Max 3200 at 6400 ISO and process it in straight Dektol (strong paper developer) with violent agitation (ie, I did EVERYTHING wrong!!). The grain looked like granite, an interesting look. 

 

I started with Photoshop 1.07 in the early 90's, it was much more that a digital darkroom from the get go. It was always possible to create an image that originated on the screen, not from a camera. It was possible to change photos to the point of being unrecognizable even then. 

 

To bring this back on topic, it's what you do with a computer that matters, the results can speak for themselves. Artists will use it as a medium for expression, craftsmen will use it for the incredible diversity and quality of the tools - the keyboard player can own an orchestra on an iPad and summon up a massive collection of tonal variation from VST plugins, at a cost less than a single great piano that is too large and heavy to move practically. It's a new world and it will continue to evolve in ways that we may not forsee. 

 

In my mind, this is where the meme that started this conversation falls short.

 

 

 That rotates back to my point that it’s fruitless to get into what is good music.  To me, musicians are those that create music.  Simple definition, very wide, very inclusive.  No question about being professional, or about the tools used.  The process can be  in real time - as in performing live, or the result of extensive thoughtful contemplation, or throwing sounds out and seeing what sticks.  Different types and styles of music require different skill sets and mind sets, but it’s all music.  The measurement of quality is in the ear of the beholder.  

[KuruPrionz]

2 minutes ago, ElmerJFudd said:

 That rotates back to my point that it’s fruitless to get into what is good music.  To me, musicians are those that create music.  Simple definition, very wide, very inclusive.  No question about being professional, or about the tools used.  The process can be  in real time - as in performing live, or the result of extensive thoughtful contemplation, or throwing sounds out and seeing what sticks.  Different types and styles of music require different skill sets and mind sets, but it’s all music.  

For me, good music is music that I like but I know better than to assume that anybody else likes the same things or that the same value judgements we make about other topics apply to creativity. I also have to allow for the fact that I might hear the same thing very differently at a different time or place. I've heard birds sing all my life, lately I've been listening in a different way and finding new things there. 

 

My own "body of work" is not focused on any specific genre or direction, I don't know where creativity comes from but I welcome it when it does. I might write a short, concise pop song with a story, I might draw a page full of demonic animals with human teeth or I might work on creating a video of a pie fight with freaky sound effects. I've left a path of experiments and attempts that would fill a junkyard to overflowing if they were physical objects instead of ideas. 

 

Explanations and definitions are few and far between and in the context of creativity and the emotional response to that creativity, it doesn't mean fish to a sidewalk. 

 

[o0Ampy0o]

2 hours ago, ElmerJFudd said:

 That rotates back to my point that it’s fruitless to get into what is good music.  To me, musicians are those that create music.  Simple definition, very wide, very inclusive.  No question about being professional, or about the tools used.  The process can be  in real time - as in performing live, or the result of extensive thoughtful contemplation, or throwing sounds out and seeing what sticks.  Different types and styles of music require different skill sets and mind sets, but it’s all music.  The measurement of quality is in the ear of the beholder.  

Distinction is sooooo pre-21st century. We make noises that entertain us growing up, aka music to our ears, we are all musicians. Why not toss out the word? At least up until the turn of the century I have also been a doctor since I knew enough to play one with my gf when I was in the 2nd grade. Nowadays we are all blobs. Out of all the blobs would you pay any to perform music for you? Would you be in a band with just any blobs? Auditions must take forever. Just going through countless blobs looking for any that are not just any blob could take years and you might never find anything but more blobs like all the blobs you already met. Really, it is guaranteed once everyone who lived long enough during the pre-21st century and accomplished something distinguishing themselves is dead. But you’ll need to identify the rebels unwilling to conform to your non-distinguishing society by breaking the rules of non-distinction. 

 

[ElmerJFudd]

27 minutes ago, o0Ampy0o said:

Distinction is sooooo pre-21st century. We make noises that entertain us growing up, aka music to our ears, we are all musicians. Why not toss out the word? Who is to say what is or is not music? At least up until the turn of the century I have also been a doctor since I knew enough to play one with my gf when I was in the 2nd grade. Nowadays we are all blobs. Out of all the blobs would you pay any to perform music for you? Would you be in a band with just any blobs? Auditions must take forever. Just going through countless blobs looking for any that are not just any blob could take years and you might never find anything but more blobs like all the blobs you already met.

 

Not at all.  I’m not interested to debate what is good music or who is a good musician.  It gives me flashbacks of high school cafeteria banter that never comes to a resolution.  People like, appreciate, value what speaks to them regardless of levels of musicianship - from paint by numbers to say,  Rembrandt.  On the opposite side of the coin, there are generally accepted geniuses in the field of music who create things that few enjoy.  
 

I can only speak from personal experience, but there are music-makers aka musicians who I would not want to work with depending on the job for lack of experience or familiarity with the knowledge and skill sets required.  At the same time, I’m happy to admit I’m not going to get gigs for the same reasons.   There are Phd’s of music from esteemed institutions who are the wrong person for all sorts of musical jobs.  
 

The same holds true in medicine, no?    The field is so wide, we need to have specialists in so many areas.  Get second and third opinions for procedures.  Is everyone qualified to call themselves a doctor because they play with their privates or like to investigate those of others?  No.  But all doctors aren’t Neurosurgeons either.  

[o0Ampy0o]

34 minutes ago, ElmerJFudd said:

Not at all.  I’m not interested to debate what is good music or who is a good musician.  It gives me flashbacks of high school cafeteria banter that never comes to a resolution.  People like, appreciate, value what speaks to them regardless of levels of musicianship - from paint by numbers to say,  Rembrandt.  On the opposite side of the coin, there are generally accepted geniuses in the field of music who create things that few enjoy.  
 

I can only speak from personal experience, but there are music-makers aka musicians who I would not want to work with depending on the job for lack of experience or familiarity with the knowledge and skill sets required.  At the same time, I’m happy to admit I’m not going to get gigs for the same reasons.   There are Phd’s of music from esteemed institutions who are the wrong person for all sorts of musical jobs.  
 

The same holds true in medicine, no?    The field is so wide, we need to have specialists in so many areas.  Get second and third opinions for procedures.  Is everyone qualified to call themselves a doctor because they play with their privates or like to investigate those of others?  No.  But all doctors aren’t Neurosurgeons either.  

From your perspective are there any people who are not musicians? 

 

 

[jarrell]

A musician is someone who creates music, so it falls to what is the definition of music. That definition seems to have changed in the 20th century, to be more a personal than consensual judgement, i.e. what any listener decides is music. For some, it is just a frame around sounds, as in Cage's 4'33", in other words, the creation is the frame itself...

 

Here is an interesting quote from Cage on music:

 

“When I hear what we call music, it seems to me that someone is talking. And talking about his feelings, or about his ideas of relationships. But when I hear traffic, the sound of traffic - here on Sixth Avenue, for instance - I don't have the feeling that anyone is talking. I have the feeling that sound is acting. And I love the activity of sound [...] I don't need sound to talk to me.”

[ElmerJFudd]

3 hours ago, o0Ampy0o said:

From your perspective are there any people who are not musicians? 

 

 

Yes! And no.   I think there are musicians all around us, at every level of experience, abilities, pro, semi pro, students, hobbyist, dabblers.   They are all music makers - so musicians by the widest definition.  They aren’t all classical composers, or pianists, or jazz saxophonists, or classical sopranos, or rock drummers, Indian tabla or Ukrainian bandura virtuosos, rappers or beat boxers with street cred,  etc.   Is all music people make “good” to me?  Hell no.  I’m as discerning a listener as any and there are aspects of music and musicianship that I value.  This particular topic isn’t about what I value.  It’s about that meme which I saw posted in an electronic music group - clearly he that shared it was comfortable with self deprecation.   Which made me laugh and I thought others would chuckle as well - despite it relying on stereotypes.    Most memes do, and only ever show all but a tiny piece of an issue.  

[Bif_]

What's more important, how music is made or how it sounds?