As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Rockism v. Popism/Poptimism: Go!

Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
edited May 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
Somebody called me a "rockist" the other day, and it seemed to be a reaction to me deriding The Donnas, Evanescense, a lot of rap, and most pop in a single, unfocused rant. I'd never heard this term, so I did a bit of research, and the pimple has come to a head that despserately needs to be popped.

My question: am I in the wrong? I hate the vast majority of chick rock because I find it chintzy and annoying, completely lacking musicality in favor of being "different," but I love bands like Heart that eschew all things gendered as far as presentation and aim, accurately, for real music. I enjoy The Roots and Andre 3000's whole thing, and have found a new affection for Omar and this whole British soul scene, but stand disgusted by most songs with "feat." tagged on to the artist's name. Despite this, though, I always fall back on bands like The Beatles, The Who, Led Zep, Wolfmother (very recently, very quality), but also listen to Tracy Chapman and Melanie for my folk fill.

What do I hate? I hate most chick rock, despise most rap, loathe techno entirely, which I'll freely admit is just a personal thing and will take absolutely no recommendations in this thread, and can't stomache the majority of pop radio mix station stuffs. Does this make me a rockist? If so, is that such a bad thing? From there, what constitutes a popist, and why do they seem to be universally preferred?

TL;DR
Define popism and rockism, and discuss their merits and detractors.

Wonder_Hippie on
«13

Posts

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    My knee-jerk reaction is to dismiss both terms as stupid neologisms, like Web 2.0.

    Daedalus on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    What the hell is chick rock?

    By the way, if you identify as a rockist and you agree with rockism, then yes, you're in the wrong. Rockism isn't just about liking rock over other forms of popular music, it's where you think that rock is the only form of popular music with any musical merit. (Hint: just because you like something doesn't mean it has musical merit, and vice versa.)

    Is that what you think?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Genre circle jerk threads never end well

    You pretty much said you hate al forms of music except rock. Good for you. You know what you like. Just please don't create pointless terms to defend your views.

    and chick rock*whatever the hell that means) is Rock. Deal with it.

    nexuscrawler on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    What the hell is chick rock?

    By the way, if you identify as a rockist and you agree with rockism, then yes, you're in the wrong. Rockism isn't just about liking rock over other forms of popular music, it's where you think that rock is the only form of popular music with any musical merit. (Hint: just because you like something doesn't mean it has musical merit, and vice versa.)

    Is that what you think?

    H5, most of my music collection is supremely embarrassing for one reason or another.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    What the hell is chick rock?

    By the way, if you identify as a rockist and you agree with rockism, then yes, you're in the wrong. Rockism isn't just about liking rock over other forms of popular music, it's where you think that rock is the only form of popular music with any musical merit. (Hint: just because you like something doesn't mean it has musical merit, and vice versa.)

    Is that what you think?

    Honeslty, I can't define chick rock that strictly. A la pornography, I know it when I hear it. Anything that is markedly feminine in marketing or presentation I would consider chick rock. Bands like Heart and Garbage are not, but any band that seems to exist purely because it's all female or has a female lead singer while not differentiating themselves in any other way I would call chick rock. I would meet any musician or band that does that with the same distaste, regardless of the sexes involved. Chick rock just holds that very special place in me, for some reason.

    As far as the rockism, I couldn't find a solid definition of it, so I didn't know what it was. I try to avoid sticking to a single genre simply for safety's sake, but consistently find that I enjoy rock the most, probably due to personal taste. I don't generally think it's any more valid than any other genre, but I think I can listen to my music and safely say that bubblegum pop is, largely, produver-driven tripe that has the consumer's interests in mind over any idea of artistic expression. Much of the pop rap scene seems to be an outgrowth of disco, so I have a hard time with that. I have absolutely no stomach for people like Justin Timberlake or Kid Rock, but I don't know what that means. I certainly don't think rock is it, seeing as how such quality examples of music show up elsewhere. I just have an easier time enjoying rock.

    So, I only saw rockism v. popsim when I did the bit of research; is there such thing as "rapism," or "technoism," or anything else like that? Why is rock singled out as such?

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2007
    girls have cooties

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    What the hell is chick rock?

    By the way, if you identify as a rockist and you agree with rockism, then yes, you're in the wrong. Rockism isn't just about liking rock over other forms of popular music, it's where you think that rock is the only form of popular music with any musical merit. (Hint: just because you like something doesn't mean it has musical merit, and vice versa.)

    Is that what you think?

    H5, most of my music collection is supremely embarrassing for one reason or another.

    Disney is only the beginning of my embarrassing collection. Fortunately, nothing as embarrassingly poser as gangsta rap.

    Fencingsax on
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2007
    Genre circle jerk threads never end well

    You pretty much said you hate al forms of music except rock. Good for you. You know what you like. Just please don't create pointless terms to defend your views.

    and chick rock*whatever the hell that means) is Rock. Deal with it.

    Two things:

    1. Go fuck yourself, and

    2. I didn't create these terms. In fact, I just stumbled across them, as there's appearently been a raging debate going on for years over them. I'm just interested in a more personable and timely discussion regarding them that doesn't consist of music journalists with funky names that constantly cross-reference in their blogs.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Wait, you've never heard the term chick rock? I've heard it, but I've heard it applied to so much different stuff that I thought it basically meant "the lead singer is a woman".

    Fencingsax on
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    What the hell is chick rock?

    By the way, if you identify as a rockist and you agree with rockism, then yes, you're in the wrong. Rockism isn't just about liking rock over other forms of popular music, it's where you think that rock is the only form of popular music with any musical merit. (Hint: just because you like something doesn't mean it has musical merit, and vice versa.)

    Is that what you think?

    H5, most of my music collection is supremely embarrassing for one reason or another.

    Does Maroon 5 count as a guilty pleasure?

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2007
    Does Maroon 5 count as a guilty pleasure?
    They count as one of the few modern pop acts that make my ears physically hurt. Kylie Minogue, OTOH...

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Anything that is markedly feminine in marketing or presentation I would consider chick rock. Bands like Heart and Garbage are not, but any band that seems to exist purely because it's all female or has a female lead singer while not differentiating themselves in any other way I would call chick rock.

    I still don't get what that means. Are you talking about marketing-heavy girl bands like Spice Girls or Pussycat Dolls, or are you talking about feminist punk and riot-grrl like fuckidunno Carrie Akre or PJ Harvey? Like, can you give some examples?
    bubblegum pop is, largely, produver-driven tripe that has the consumer's interests in mind over any idea of artistic expression.

    You know, the Beatles started out pretty damn bubblegummy.
    In any case, a lot of the people doing production work for "bubblegum" pop are actually very sophisticated musicians. Brian Transeau has produced for NSync; Madonna has worked with Bjork and William Orbit; I would easily call Prince and Timbaland musical geniuses.
    By the way, why the hate on techno? Some of the most complex music in the last several years have either been electronica or electronica-influenced. Unless you mean something else by "techno" which is entirely possible. We're kind of working with vague terms here.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    By the way, why the hate on techno? Some of the most complex music in the last several years have either been electronica or electronica-influenced. Unless you mean something else by "techno" which is entirely possible. We're kind of working with vague terms here.


    As long as the people making it do not claim they're musicians, I'm okay with it.

    Fencingsax on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    By the way, why the hate on techno? Some of the most complex music in the last several years have either been electronica or electronica-influenced. Unless you mean something else by "techno" which is entirely possible. We're kind of working with vague terms here.


    As long as the people making it do not claim they're musicians, I'm okay with it.

    Why not?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    By the way, why the hate on techno? Some of the most complex music in the last several years have either been electronica or electronica-influenced. Unless you mean something else by "techno" which is entirely possible. We're kind of working with vague terms here.


    As long as the people making it do not claim they're musicians, I'm okay with it.

    Why not?

    At best, they're composers, although producer would be more accurate.

    Fencingsax on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    By the way, why the hate on techno? Some of the most complex music in the last several years have either been electronica or electronica-influenced. Unless you mean something else by "techno" which is entirely possible. We're kind of working with vague terms here.


    As long as the people making it do not claim they're musicians, I'm okay with it.

    Why not?

    At best, they're composers, although producer would be more accurate.

    So what's the difference between a composer or a producer and a musician?
    Because I see it as a square/rectangle issue. A producer is one type of musician.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    By the way, why the hate on techno? Some of the most complex music in the last several years have either been electronica or electronica-influenced. Unless you mean something else by "techno" which is entirely possible. We're kind of working with vague terms here.


    As long as the people making it do not claim they're musicians, I'm okay with it.

    Why not?

    At best, they're composers, although producer would be more accurate.

    I think "arranger" is a good term. Producer usually implies financial backing and little to no creative input.

    Daedalus on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    By the way, why the hate on techno? Some of the most complex music in the last several years have either been electronica or electronica-influenced. Unless you mean something else by "techno" which is entirely possible. We're kind of working with vague terms here.


    As long as the people making it do not claim they're musicians, I'm okay with it.

    Why not?

    At best, they're composers, although producer would be more accurate.

    I think "arranger" is a good term. Producer usually implies financial backing and little to no creative input.

    I like that better. Musician implies that you have technical expertise actually creating and shaping the noise, rather than letting the computer do all the work. Don't even fucking try the "technical expertise with the computers" route.

    Fencingsax on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2007
    they're all artists

    i mean seriously, its silly enough watching the tendency to identify subsubsubgenres until there's only one song in each category, do we have to do that to the people who make the music too?

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Producer usually implies financial backing and little to no creative input.

    I think you're really underestimating the contribution of a good producer.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Producer usually implies financial backing and little to no creative input.

    I think you're really underestimating the contribution of a good producer.

    See? Whatever. I don't care.

    Fencingsax on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Musician implies that you have technical expertise actually creating and shaping the noise, rather than letting the computer do all the work. Don't even fucking try the "technical expertise with the computers" route.

    Well, if that's the case then I don't consider electric guitarists musicians, either. They should create and shape the noise themselves, rather than let the guitar and pedals do all the work.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Musician implies that you have technical expertise actually creating and shaping the noise, rather than letting the computer do all the work. Don't even fucking try the "technical expertise with the computers" route.

    Well, if that's the case then I don't consider electric guitarists musicians, either. They should create and shape the noise themselves, rather than let the guitar and pedals do all the work.

    Thank you for being facetious and purposely obtuse.

    Fencingsax on
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Producer usually implies financial backing and little to no creative input.

    I think you're really underestimating the contribution of a good producer.

    I said usually. Usually "producer" means "financial backer with maybe a few broad ideas about how the work should be made".

    Unless the terms for the movie industry are different than those for the music industry, in which case, that's all folks and good night.

    Daedalus on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Musician implies that you have technical expertise actually creating and shaping the noise, rather than letting the computer do all the work. Don't even fucking try the "technical expertise with the computers" route.

    Well, if that's the case then I don't consider electric guitarists musicians, either. They should create and shape the noise themselves, rather than let the guitar and pedals do all the work.

    Thank you for being facetious and purposely obtuse.

    I am being facetious, but only to try to figure out where this distinction is that you insist on drawing. I'm not being purposely obtuse, because I don't see a significant difference between plucking strings on a guitar and pressing keys on a keyboard - except that the former requires physical dexterity, but we're not talking about physical dexterity, we're talking about musical ability. Admiring somebody for physical dexterity is like admiring them for having a high lung capacity. Louis Armstrong was certainly not hurt by his high lung capacity, but he's considered a major musician because his senses of melody and rhythm were ahead of his time. Were he merely a technically-skilled trumpetist with good control over his diaphragm, he would have ended up a successful studio musician, not a household name. What makes a great musician great happens in the brain, not in the fingers or the lungs.

    So what makes a great musician great is their ability to create new and exciting combinations of melody, rhythm, pitch, timbre, and so forth - why can't this ability be expressed using a computer?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Musician implies that you have technical expertise actually creating and shaping the noise, rather than letting the computer do all the work. Don't even fucking try the "technical expertise with the computers" route.

    Well, if that's the case then I don't consider electric guitarists musicians, either. They should create and shape the noise themselves, rather than let the guitar and pedals do all the work.

    Thank you for being facetious and purposely obtuse.

    I am being facetious, but only to try to figure out where this distinction is that you insist on drawing. I'm not being purposely obtuse, because I don't see a significant difference between plucking strings on a guitar and pressing keys on a keyboard - except that the former requires physical dexterity, but we're not talking about physical dexterity, we're talking about musical ability. Admiring somebody for physical dexterity is like admiring them for having a high lung capacity. Louis Armstrong was certainly not hurt by his high lung capacity, but he's considered a major musician because his senses of melody and rhythm were ahead of his time. Were he merely a technically-skilled trumpetist with good control over his diaphragm, he would have ended up a successful studio musician, not a household name.

    So what makes a great musician great is their ability to create new and exciting combinations of melody, rhythm, pitch, timbre, and so forth - why can't this ability be expressed using a computer?

    Because it's the combination of creativity and technical ability that makes a great artist, not one or the other?

    Fencingsax on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Unless the terms for the movie industry are different than those for the music industry, in which case, that's all folks and good night.

    Some producers are nothing more than financial backers, but many (and all of the good ones) are more like movie directors; they're the ones with the vision of the final product and a sense of how to best utilize the talented people working under them.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Because it's the combination of creativity and technical ability that makes a great artist, not one or the other?

    I reject that wholeheartedly, because there are plenty of examples of musicians with poor technical skill but great creativity. Kurt Cobain - not a very good guitarist. Tom Waits - not a very good singer. Sex Pistols - not a very good anything. I'm not going to minimize any of these folks' talents because they don't pluck a string very well or might have nodules on their vocal cords.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2007
    Hrm... Okay. Things I wouldn't call chick rock would be Melissa from Smashing Pumpkins (because I can't remember her last name, much less spell it) doing her solo thing, possibly L7, and the aforementioned Garbage and Heart. Your examples of Pussycat Dolls and Spice Girls work fine, but I really have to throw in The Donnas. Bands with females that don't serve any other purpose at all other than being bands with females. Like, "Look! Girls playing their own instruments! They're different!"
    You know, the Beatles started out pretty damn bubblegummy.

    I know, I don't really enjoy much of the early stuff. I enjoy Revolver and the following albums much, much more.
    I would easily call Prince and Timbaland musical geniuses.

    But would you call them bubblegum pop? I'm talking N*Sync and Backstreet Boys, and all this Disney channel stuff with Raven Simone and Lindsay Lohan.

    God damn, that first Prince album was so, so good.
    By the way, why the hate on techno?

    I just have no taste for it. There's a distinction between music theory and music performance for me, and techno resides purely on the music theory side. While theory is complex and technical, the performance is much more visceral and enthralling for me.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Because it's the combination of creativity and technical ability that makes a great artist, not one or the other?

    I reject that wholeheartedly, because there are plenty of examples of musicians with poor technical skill but great creativity. Kurt Cobain - not a very good guitarist. Tom Waits - not a very good singer. Sex Pistols - not a very good anything. I'm not going to minimize any of these folks' talents because they don't pluck a string very well or might have nodules on their vocal cords.

    How could you forget Jimmy Page? Ever see him fuck up live? It's absolutely enlightening.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Because it's the combination of creativity and technical ability that makes a great artist, not one or the other?

    I reject that wholeheartedly, because there are plenty of examples of musicians with poor technical skill but great creativity. Kurt Cobain - not a very good guitarist. Tom Waits - not a very good singer. Sex Pistols - not a very good anything. I'm not going to minimize any of these folks' talents because they don't pluck a string very well or might have nodules on their vocal cords.

    ...You can be extremely creative without being a good musician. I'm not denying they had (or have) talent either. I'm simply saying that the word musician generally means something fairly specific.

    Fencingsax on
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2007
    Feral wrote:
    So what makes a great musician great is their ability to create new and exciting combinations of melody, rhythm, pitch, timbre, and so forth - why can't this ability be expressed using a computer?

    Alright, here I have an issue. Computers are exacting, whereas manual instruments are flawed. Consider Jimi Hendrix; the biggest reason he's regarded as such an auteur (is that the correct usage of that word) is because he did things with a guitar that nobody else had done before then. He would go on stage with a barely-tuned guitar, using the heaviest strings he could fine, and bend the not until it was right. It may be a minor or false distinction, but I find it much more impressive when the musician has to work to get the sound he wants, rather than having every single note discernible by the human ear spelled out before him. Computers, to me, are easy street.

    Let the hate begin. I know I should hit "post" after typing that, but I will.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    There's a distinction between music theory and music performance for me, and techno resides purely on the music theory side. While theory is complex and technical, the performance is much more visceral and enthralling for me.

    Fair enough. I think you can guess which side of that line I stand on.

    Fencing: Okay, I'll drop it after this point because it's clearly just a semantic discussion. I just don't see why "musician" can't simply mean "artist who makes music."

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Because it's the combination of creativity and technical ability that makes a great artist, not one or the other?

    I reject that wholeheartedly, because there are plenty of examples of musicians with poor technical skill but great creativity. Kurt Cobain - not a very good guitarist. Tom Waits - not a very good singer. Sex Pistols - not a very good anything. I'm not going to minimize any of these folks' talents because they don't pluck a string very well or might have nodules on their vocal cords.

    ...You can be extremely creative without being a good musician. I'm not denying they had (or have) talent either. I'm simply saying that the word musician generally means something fairly specific.

    I would classify someone with mostly creative and less technical ability as a skilled artist (musically), but not neccesarily a skilled musician. Conversly, a number of musicians may be very technically skilled, but they don't really do anything new, so I would hesitate to call them artists.

    Of course, the true legends have both creative and technical talent in spades, but I wouldn't say one is definately much more important than the other, especially when one man's music is often another man's noise.

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Musician implies that you have technical expertise actually creating and shaping the noise, rather than letting the computer do all the work. Don't even fucking try the "technical expertise with the computers" route.

    Well, if that's the case then I don't consider electric guitarists musicians, either. They should create and shape the noise themselves, rather than let the guitar and pedals do all the work.

    Thank you for being facetious and purposely obtuse.

    I am being facetious, but only to try to figure out where this distinction is that you insist on drawing. I'm not being purposely obtuse, because I don't see a significant difference between plucking strings on a guitar and pressing keys on a keyboard - except that the former requires physical dexterity, but we're not talking about physical dexterity, we're talking about musical ability. Admiring somebody for physical dexterity is like admiring them for having a high lung capacity. Louis Armstrong was certainly not hurt by his high lung capacity, but he's considered a major musician because his senses of melody and rhythm were ahead of his time. Were he merely a technically-skilled trumpetist with good control over his diaphragm, he would have ended up a successful studio musician, not a household name.

    So what makes a great musician great is their ability to create new and exciting combinations of melody, rhythm, pitch, timbre, and so forth - why can't this ability be expressed using a computer?

    Because it's the combination of creativity and technical ability that makes a great artist, not one or the other?

    So playing a keyboard or a turntable or using a drum sequencer or a synth doesn't require technical ability? I think it's pretty ridiculous to say that someone like Aphex Twin is not a musician, because he's obviously very creative and obviously very technically skilled.

    flamebroiledchicken on
    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Wonder Hippie's obviously never seen a really good DJ spinning.

    nexuscrawler on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Musician implies that you have technical expertise actually creating and shaping the noise, rather than letting the computer do all the work. Don't even fucking try the "technical expertise with the computers" route.

    Well, if that's the case then I don't consider electric guitarists musicians, either. They should create and shape the noise themselves, rather than let the guitar and pedals do all the work.

    Thank you for being facetious and purposely obtuse.

    I am being facetious, but only to try to figure out where this distinction is that you insist on drawing. I'm not being purposely obtuse, because I don't see a significant difference between plucking strings on a guitar and pressing keys on a keyboard - except that the former requires physical dexterity, but we're not talking about physical dexterity, we're talking about musical ability. Admiring somebody for physical dexterity is like admiring them for having a high lung capacity. Louis Armstrong was certainly not hurt by his high lung capacity, but he's considered a major musician because his senses of melody and rhythm were ahead of his time. Were he merely a technically-skilled trumpetist with good control over his diaphragm, he would have ended up a successful studio musician, not a household name.

    So what makes a great musician great is their ability to create new and exciting combinations of melody, rhythm, pitch, timbre, and so forth - why can't this ability be expressed using a computer?

    Because it's the combination of creativity and technical ability that makes a great artist, not one or the other?

    So playing a keyboard or a turntable or using a drum sequencer or a synth doesn't require technical ability? I think it's pretty ridiculous to say that someone like Aphex Twin is not a musician, because he's obviously very creative and obviously very technically skilled.

    A keyboard or synth is in a category all it's own, and honestly, a combination of both. Aphex may be an artist, but he's not a musician. Computer skills != Music skills.

    Please, I'm not saying they aren't artists. I'm saying they aren't musicians.

    Fencingsax on
  • JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    So people who are making music aren't musicians, only artists?

    I thought art went on canvasses? Are you saying Aphex Twin makes canvas pieces? what.gif

    Jinnigan on
    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    But the art that they make is music

    So I really don't see the distinction

    flamebroiledchicken on
    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I'm kinda with Fencingsax on this one. There is a difference between the traditional live performer and modern electronic artists. I think what you have to avoid is ascribing negative or positive traits to one or the other simply because one is modern and one is traditional. You can quibble over the terms you use to distinguish the two modes of music production, but I think he's right in saying that they really shouldn't be talked about as being entirely analogous.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
Sign In or Register to comment.