You do realise that writing someone on top of an existing piece doesn't preclude it being music, right? And that this concept, as well as rhythmic spoken-word music predate the Jamaican DJs?Tom_green_day said:
As someone who studies music, I do.
'[Insert genre I don't like] isn't real music'!
- Thread starter Froggy Slayer
- Start date
As someone who studies music, I do.
Except you then mention 50 shades still being a book, despite awful literary content. The "get money, fuck bitches" type of rap is still just rap with content you dislike. So it's the same as saying 50 Shades isn't a book.freaper said:
I'm curious as to what constitutes "musical" enough, though.
Personally, as long as it's not that awful fucking Blood on the Dancefloor, I'll consider it music. But really, if you enjoy it, why should anyone care what I think, or anyone else? My personal definition of real music is if the band or group actually plays instruments,or can at least create meaningful lyrics, but then I actually enjoy some music made electronically, such as DnB.
I'm not going to argue specifics but a lot of it comes down to the idea of defense through technicality.Froggy Slayer said:
It's like looking back at history and having arguements about Barbarians and uncivilized peoples. Looking at say gauls, picts, celts, etc... and argueing they were civilized because they were organized, had a pecking order, religion, and even a degree of infrastructure. "Civilized" largely becomes a matter of being compared to the most advanced people on the planet. These peoples were Barbarians despite being "civilized" by technicalities due to falling so far short of say The Romans, or what was going on through parts of The Middle East or Asia.
That kind of thing comes up a lot in academic discussions when someone doesn't want their forefathers to be thought of as a bunch of rude barbarians. Especially in "white power" arguements when you consider that while whites came to dominate, we were kind of late to the party, and arrived riding the short bus into the wreckage of Rome. That point bugs a lot of white suprecists, to realize that we were "The Barbarians" for most of history.
In a moden sense you see this come up in heated arguements about third world countries vs. first world ones, Progresssive civilizations, vs. others and similar things.
The bottom line being that all technicalities aside, civilization is defined by the most advanced people on the planet and rated from thereon down. This causes much butthurt as technology has advanced to the point where even those on the bototm of the curve hear about it and can shout back (largely due to the efforts of those on the top of the curve to spread technology).
The point of this analogy is to say that it's similar with music. In a purely technical sense someone can argue that some caveman banging two rocks together and screeching is making music. That's a politically correct way of viewing things because it pretty much allows you to include any intentionally generated noise if you want to argue about it. If someone turns on a jet engine, says it's an insturment, and it's music, it can be defended as such even if it takes a very specific ear to appreciate it.
I tend to feel that music, artwork, etc.. are defined by the most advanced peoples producing the highest end examples. Basically the dominant people and the dominant culture set the standard, and it trickles down from there, and those are the people that basically become arbitors of what is music or art for the period they happen to be in. This of course upsets those who don't make the grade so to speak, especially if a lot of people happen to like whatever it is. Similar to a bunch of people getting butthurt over being labeled neo-barbarians, or a third world country. A lot of the time the reasons for it might not be fair, but that doesn't change what it is.
Of course half the problem is that the left wing leanings of dominant cultures like The United States tend to prevent much in the way of official standards. As a result we see art grants going to people who do crap like fling their own poo at a canvas, leave it to dry, and call it art (and I mean this literally). If we aren't going to draw a line ther officially for political reasons, we're not going to set any standards for what constitutes music, or establish other lower forms of audio expression for comparitive purposes (similar to like a third world label). As a result since you can pretty much call a freaking out retarded person in an asylum a singer based on their intent, and the whole performance music, you can defend anything as being "real music" on technical merits. This does not prevent some people from having higher standards and believing a line needs to be drawn, since it's never seriously come up as an issue, with the intent of setting a definitive standard nobody agrees where that line should be drawn. For the most part though if that was to ever happen, the more generally niche a form of music today is, the less likely it would be to meed the criteria. It should also be noted that while not yet official you ARE seeing some lines beginning to be drawn unofficially, but mostly at the low end, for example you'll rarely see primitive "music" labeled as such nowadays (though it happens) your seeing an increasing trend towards labeling it under things like "Tribal Rhythms" to make a distinction between someone say banging a couple of sticks together, while someone grunts in a traditional manner, to far more refined audio entertainment.
Now again, I'm NOT going to argue ANY of this. I'm simply answering a question. You ask "how can someone do this" I'm telling you. You might not like it, or what I think, I'm just spelling it out for your own education. Your not going to convince me otherwise as far as my beliefs go, any more than I am likely to convince you of points here you already disagree with. What we think is ultimatly irrelevent at the end of the day until an official standard is set by the dominant world power(s) and truthfully nobody is willing to open that can of worms, the US has a hard time even policing it's own art grants which are probably one of the most abused things ever. People have literally lived for years on goverment money, simply so they could do "performance art" by which they piss into a bucket with the American Flag on the bottom on stage, and then drop a Cruicifix into it.... your tax dollars in action.
You misunderstand. I said lyrical subject and you took it to mean just the lyrics in general.Capitano Segnaposto said:
Rap isn't about delivering a message. In fact it's pretty clear that you don't really understand rap at all yet, so I'll try and explain as best I can. I don't ask you to start liking rap, but by the end I hope you'll at least accept that it's a perfectly valid musical art form.
You say there's very little "music" in rap. I disagree entirely. First of all, there's Cloud Rap, which sounds like this:
<youtube=rBRDGSgsOeQ>
That's got very intricate, beautiful music indeed, and it's an up-and-coming genre I can provide more examples of if you want. You'll notice (or should) how utterly laid-back the rapping sounds in it - that's no accident.
That's not my main point of disagreement, though. Most rap backing tracks are a beat played on a drum machine backed up by a simple melody and possibly a bassline - like this. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSgVZEGpo6U] This is absolutely music - it's just minimalist, and minimalism is a perfectly valid musical style. Furthermore, the rapping in these songs isn't separate from the music - it's part of the music. The lyrical subject isn't important to most rappers at all - what is important is the rhyming and the delivery. It's similar to singing in that way - lots of singers don't give a shit about the message their lyrics deliver, they only care about how said lyrics combine with their vocals to contribute to the atmosphere of the song. It works the same way in rap - the lazy atmosphere of the Main Attrakionz song above is only contributed to by the sleepy raps about pleasant things, and Mykki Blanco's strange, quirky melody is complemented perfectly by his equally strange, quirky enunciation & stream-of-consciousness lyrics (which are a hilarious combination of club nonsense and out-of-place high culture references, IMO). Do you see now? Together, all the sparse elements of a rap song should create an end result that's more than the sum of its parts. You're not meant to focus on the actual rapping by itself - all parts of the song are meant to be taken in as a whole.
Look, here's another example:
<youtube=Z-zL_paDVTc>
Right from the beginning you get those effects creating a creepy, dangerous atmosphere, and then it explodes into that stuttering wuh-wuh-wuh-wuh-wuh and heavy, pounding drumbeat. The raps on top sound like the verbal equivalent of punches - they're just so aggressive and goddamn satisfying (seriously, to anyone who says rapping is "easy" because it's just speaking: Try rapping any of those three verses and come back to me). The fact that the lyrics contain no deep insights into the nature of human existence doesn't matter one bit - it wouldn't fit, any more than it'd fit in your typical death metal song. It's the little details that make it - a line ends with a powerfully-delivered "shifted", and then the next begins with an equally powerfully-delivered "lifted". Trying to make the lyrics more profound would almost certainly mean sacrificing these little things, which in turn would deprive the song of much of its power.
I doubt I can say much more on the subject now - all that is the appeal of rap, in essence. If you have any more queries then I'll try to answer them.
It isn't though, that's the thingMr_Spanky said:
Come on we've been over this beforeZachary Amaranth said:Besides, dubstep isn't real music.
It's primarily just proclamations of hatred. There are some artists who sort of... toe the line, I would say. But it's still music.
Although, I do have to wonder how some songs [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2QKlmMT8II] are considered real (let alone good) music objectively.
Although, I do have to wonder how some songs [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2QKlmMT8II] are considered real (let alone good) music objectively.
Just went to Youtube and listened to the Burial track with the most views that I could find ("Archangel" ~3.7M views)... and yeah, it honestly doesn't do anything for me whatsoever. On the chance that it was a fluke, since even bands I love from time to time put out songs I can't stand (Boston totally dropped the ball with their "Corporate America" album, for example) I listened to the next two most viewed tracks as well ("Ghost Hardware" ~1M views, and "Etched Headplate" ~750K views). Still nothing.AnarchistFish said:
Maybe there is a band out there somewhere within the genre that I'd like - I'm not going to completely rule that out - but from where it stands right now, I think it's just not my cup of tea.
I'll say what I was told by a music teacher of mine: sheet music isn't actually "music", because music is what you hear with your ear; it's sound organized through time. Kinda like the blueprints for a house aren't actually a house, but are useful in creating it. Of course, when you play the notes written on the sheet, it becomes music, so it's just as valid as anything else, it just requires a bit more work on your part.Phuctifyno said:
To answer the original question: it happens when people are ignorant, obnoxious idiots, mostly. Unless we're talking about John Cage's 4'33, or something like that, then it's more of a discussion point. There are some genres that I don't understand, where so many clashing elements are at play that it becomes more noise than anything else, but I'm not sure where you draw the line at what noise you can put out there and call music.
Mmmm, fair enough. It is pretty diverse though. You've got the producers like Burial. He epitomises the ambient side of the genre. Then there's the older producers who lean much more towards the dub side of the genre. It's often quite energetic and groovy, more for clubs. E.g. Digital Myztikz. And these days there are people who mix it with other genres. E.g. Submotion Orchestra who mix it with jazz, and James Blake who mixes it with soulTuesday Night Fever said:
Yeah, pop, the vast majority of country, mainstream rap, they're all music, I just don't like them very much. I'll never say they aren't music, they just suck in my opinion... usually. There are some songs in all of those genres that I do like, but these are the exception rather than the rule.
I don't like techno, dubstep or electronica among a few other genres.
It's still music, I can even accept that people like it. X is not music is simply a thing of us pretentious guys. We have our taste and the things we don't like are entirely separate from the thing we're discussing. I wish I could say this was a thing of internet and forums, but sadly it's older than that.
It's still music, I can even accept that people like it. X is not music is simply a thing of us pretentious guys. We have our taste and the things we don't like are entirely separate from the thing we're discussing. I wish I could say this was a thing of internet and forums, but sadly it's older than that.
Several posters before me have mentioned rap's origins, poetry on music, which is why I don't see it as a real musical genre. The money/bitches is just my personal bias against the genre, I know there's "good" and "bad" rap, I'm just not a fan of it. Yes, it's regarded as music, but that doesn't mean I have to see it that way.Zachary Amaranth said:
Yeah, I can see how that's true in a physical sense. Like a tree falling in the woods actually doesn't make a sound unless there's an eardrum nearby to catch the vibrations, which otherwise are just wasted. But consider that we can imitate the sensation of hearing things, to an extent, within our minds. When you read words you can imagine hearing them as you read, so if you can read music, you could imagine hearing it as well.MisterGobbles said:
Now I'm thinking of that scene in Amadeus where Mozart is sick in bed, dictating Requiem to Salieri, who's just writing it all down furiously while the music swells (in the score, unplayed to the characters), then they cum all over the place. Or Mozart dies. I forget which. [small]Spoilers?[/small]
You think you have it bad? He keeps leaving threads all over the Brovengers chat.Froggy Slayer said:
The house keeper is running out of patience, I tells ya!
I think you misunderstand me. I wasn't saying that rap isn't music, I was just sharing a fun little fact. And although rhythmic speech was around before the Jamaican DJs, this is where it became really popular and therefore lead to rap.Zachary Amaranth said:
Actually, while I wasn't being serious (the hint was in the fact that I used a tongue smiley, and smilies are often used on the internet in lieu of aural tone and facial features to indicate the weight of an indication), a lot of the dubstep I've listened to either a. falls easily into another genre of music or b. lacks the melodic element that is one of the core defining elements of music.AnarchistFish said:
It's really not all that hard to push that notion. But if we have, indeed, been here before, you should know that.
Look, I don't even really care if someone considered dubstep a genre or not. I think it's garbage, so I generally avoid it. So far, most of the dubstep I've been exposed to by well-intentioned people has been mediocre at best, and usually is the child of another genre of (normally) electronic music. And I'm not a huge fan of electronic music either, but I don't think it is, as a whole, crap.
However, whenever we get into one of these "X isn't music" threads, I don't mind stretching my knowledge of music to point these things out. This is basically all 4 years of theory, practice and history at a college level is good for 88% of the time. It doesn't even do much for me as a musician.
However yes, even this is fluid. The definitions of music are varied. Some people will expand it such that a musical performance can literally be the sounds in the auditorium--coughing, rubbing of feet, muttering--or to the point that you can have a chord whose fingering is "however many keys you can hit with your forearm."
That's fine and dandy, but I doubt people who are precluding music based on its origin as spoken word poetry over music would consider that. It won't fly with most laypeople or theoreticians, so I wouldn't particularly go there. However, rhythm/beat plus melody in time? One of the simplest, easiest and even most agreeable definitions.
But I've explained this all before, too, so I'm assuming you know this if we've "been here before." Hell, I may have even used those same examples, because I'm quite fond of them.
"Poetry on music" is actually sort of bullshit. Spoken word elements in music kind of predate this concept, as our faux-music history buffs should know. Spoken word as a rhythmic element within music predates it, and is considered a musical element.freaper said:
Regardless, how it started doesn't change what it is (for example, dubstep isn't invaldiated solely because it originated with someone forgetting to turn off their washing machine when recording a song
). How it started doesn't make you any less disingenuous for your 50 Shades parallel, either. You don't have to like it, but that doesn't make it not music. The rap you singled out is really no different than the smut you singled out and then defended as real books. Pick a standard. That's all I ask.George Carlin once said gymnastics were not a sport because it was something Romanians were good at. His arbitrary definitions were at least done for comedic effect, however.
You said:Tom_green_day said:
I pointed out that this wasn't precluded from music.
Not significantly more than other elements that led into it. There were already "rappers" by the point this was a thing with the Jamaican DJs, the only real difference is the semantics of the name.
My main issue is I'm not sure what you think the genre is or how it's defined. The main problem with these arguments is that many people don't know exactly what dubstep is or how it started so it just breeds a lot of confusion and ignorance.Zachary Amaranth said:
Oh and if you're saying something needs melody to be music, that's needlessly exclusing a hell of a lot of music.
I know you weren't being serious originally by the way.