Poll: Dubstep. Music or not music?

[SirDerick]

You did say music doesn't need to be written, here let me quote you

"For example, in Rusko's song cockney thug, there is 3 layers, vocals synth and beat. I would love the see how someone is to write that up on a stave ? , to see what key it's in because if you can't write it, it's not really ever going to be music?

ummm...why the fuck would you need too? it is as it is" there you go you did say it does not need to have a score....

He said "Write that up on a stave" meaning write that using traditional methods. implying that the traditional methods are inadequate for this type of music, not that it cannot be written at all. I have no idea where you got the idea that he implied that it shouldn't be written at all.

I swear, it's as if you read what you want to read.

 

[Vault101]

You did say music doesn't need to be written, here let me quote you

"For example, in Rusko's song cockney thug, there is 3 layers, vocals synth and beat. I would love the see how someone is to write that up on a stave ? , to see what key it's in because if you can't write it, it's not really ever going to be music?

ummm...why the fuck would you need too? it is as it is" there you go you did say it does not need to have a score....

I don't know what a stave is

so therefore I interpreted that as "it cannot be played on some old timey instrument/cannot be recorded in some old timey way" to which I said there has to be some way it can be recored for future learnign/reference

so partly my fault in that I didn't look it up..partly your fault for throwing around jargon/terminology that no one knows in order to somhow assert your "authority" on the matter

but whatever, stop beating around the bush

 

[dumbseizure]

I am honestly surprised that there is a so called music student who understands very little of the theory.

Let me ask you something "Grant".

Is a musical instrument something that has a purpose just for music? Or is it the way in which you use ANY object that turns it into a music instrument? In other words, with the right intentions, can't any object be turned into a musical instrument?

For example, this http://www.apex.net.au/~keiths/Lagerphones/logorite.jpg

It is a Lagerphone, made from wood and bottle caps and used as a percussion instrument.

Now, are you going to say that because bottle caps were meant as the tops of bottles and not meant to create sound, that the lager phone is not an instrument?

 

[Treefingers]

Stupid question. Yes, it's music. That doesn't mean anyone has to enjoy it. Just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean it isn't.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fucking moron.

 

[Treefingers]

I studied music for a few years... loosely dubstep is music but my personal opinion is if the instruments are not under these categories, it is not music, the classes are Wind(including voice), Brass, Percussion and stringed.

Stupid, moronic, pretentious, twattish thing to say. That goes for the rest of your posts on this thread as well. Ironic too, that you'd bash the digital world on a gaming site.

Have fun in your silly little bubble.

 

[Daveman]

Practically every argument against Dubstep being music can be countered by saying "Surely Pink Floyd isn't music either then?"

You might not get it. A lot of it (like prog rock) is shit. But when it's good, it's good.

Okay I'll try to keep this one short,

not using an instrument is for the musically talentless.

Pants. On. Head. Retarded.

notice how all the people hitting the tubs with drum sticks have the tubs equipped with drum skins? that makes them a percussion instrument....

the clanging is a cymbal....

so this is use of musical instruments... this is a percussion piece that follows time the structure of significant percussion pieces...

can you name the performing media in the piece, do you know the format of the song? can you outline the 5 concepts of music used in that video?

You're really trying hard here. "Equipped with skins"? No... no they aren't. They're plastic tubs. Some of them have lids on. That's it. They clang bin lids together, but they aren't cymbals. I'd love to see you try and justify when they use brooms. Also, what about electronic drum kits or keyboards? They don't have skins or strings. The sound played when hit is a recording of the sound usually made, though it could be replaced with anything. But according to your definition they aren't instruments.

 

[karcentric]

If you can dance to it, it's music.

 

[PiCroft]

I like dubstep, I just think it stand a few less chainsaws.

 

[Mr F.]

I got into this thread from the other thread. You know the one I mean, the "I am butthurt so I made a rage thread about it" thread.

I would like to state the following.

*SNIP*

I don't know what a stave is

so therefore I interpreted that as "it cannot be played on some old timey instrument/cannot be recorded in some old timey way" to which I said there has to be some way it can be recored for future learnign/reference

so partly my fault in that I didn't look it up..partly your fault for throwing around jargon/terminology that no one knows in order to somhow assert your "authority" on the matter

but whatever, stop beating around the bush

Vault101, I officially love you. You have a deeper understanding of music than Grant Hobba, despite your obvious lack of any formal training with classical instruments. Perhaps this is WHY you have a deeper understanding of music. You are not bogged down in the language of music which so regularly messes with those of us that have had any form of training with the classical instruments.

People like you give me faith. Some part of you has an innate understanding as to what music is, an understanding that is far richer and deeper then any understanding that you can find in a book of theory or within the works of Mozart.

You understand the meaning and the point behind music. Grant Bobba understands the theory behind classical music. The problem is that Grant is failing to seperate theory and analyses from reality. When Physcisits come across something which does not fit in with current models, they edit their current models. Grants failing is his inability to seperate the theory, his inability to realise that if it is impossible using current musical systems to adequetly define electronica it does not mean that electronica is not music but that the current models of analyses are flawed.

You are a blank slate, coming to your own theory of music which, in my eyes, is far deeper and richer then the one Grant is buying from some third rate University.

Things change. Language changes. The fact that we use latin to describe classical music shows how stuck in the past it is, music is current and ever changing, we need to shift away from using a dead language, combined with a system of notation that is woefully out of date, and towards new systems.

Right, I just wrote a few paragraphs celebrating Vault101, I think I should add something else to this thread.

Dubstep is music. In my eyes anything that has been deliberately created to be pleasant to the ear is music. The instruments and the methods are secondary to the beauty of creation.

 

[Sebass]

using your argument I could use a vast array of my farts as long as they have tonal value and arrange them in the same way and it's music?

Yes, yes you could. I believe that would fall under the 'wind' category. (Or perhaps percussion, the same way beatboxing is classified though I suspect you do not consider that music either)

glorified wank projects to me are not music... I never said in music theory they have been outlined as not music. I said in my personal opinion having studied music myself I do not think it is.

You're wrong.

By music buff I mean people who studied for years and earned their classical practical grades you know, those professional session musicians who actually read sheet (not tabs) music and construct music not spew verbal diarrhea and calling it a song.

So autodidacts and afficionados can never be music buffs? The pretentiousness and snobbery is overwhelming.

Oh I never said rap wasn't music. in fact it's a variation of blues and old school rap used instruments nowadays it's not because I have yet to hear a song that doesn't have the same recycled 4/4 beat with a bass drop and random tones in between.

[layperson opinion]Rap is lyrical poetry, hiphop is music and rap music is a subgenre of hiphop. (And imo 'rap music' is a fusion of poetry and music)[/layperson opinion]

and no music is not only about the tools, but you need those tools to create the music, again saying anything electronic (not including amplifiers and effects pedals and boards) can make music is saying anything anywhere with enough persistence can be a musical instrument. The very definition of musical instrument is "various devices that can be used to produce musical tones or sounds belonging to the 4 categories of musical instrument, wind brass, percussion and stringed".

I bet you didn't even know the piano is a percussion instrument

That's not the 'very definition' that's one of several classifications and a very old one at that (I believe about 500 years now?) Music theory, like any other scientific theory, is subject to change. Classical Newtonian physics is still widely used and accepted as 'incorrect but close enough' because Einstein's theory of relativy increased our knowledge of physics. The classification you use up there was adopted during a period where electronic music was not 'discovered' yet. Since then several definitions have been made, including several which do include electronical devices as instruments. Ignoring those newer definitions, I could even argue that electronic music is made by instruments which fall under the category of 'idiophone'.

Your definition of musical instrument is wrong. Your argument is wrong. Your opinion is wrong.

And seriously though, if your entire argument about modern understanding of music rests on one single definition of one single classification done by one single person, that's quite a weak argument. And it's totally and completely wrong.

 

[runic knight]

I just had an odd thought. If a trashcan counts as an instrument because it represents a percussion instruments, even in spite of not being designed for that purpose, then yes, computers are instruments as well. So every synthesized tune or melody is music.
Lets look at it closer. We hear sound from computers by speakers. The speakers themselves move to create sound, similar in how a drum beat makes sound in the air. The way the sound is first created, the beat of the drum or the electrical signal to make speaker produce sound is irrelevant. From his own definitions of it, it seems intent and pattern rather then proper use of the instruments is key. After all, smacking trashcans together is hardly the conventional way to play percussion but it counts in his definition because of the percussion aspect, else he is lying through his teeth about every can having a drum hidden within them or some such nonsense. By his attempts to justify trashcans as instruments of percussion, he has to include anything of a similar nature, including speakers themselves. And since how the sound from the instrument is made is truly important rather then how the creator of the music crafts it (be it precision drumming or pressing of keys and clicking of mouse to create the same sounds), anything made through electronic origins is still music because of the use of "percussion" speakers to create the sounds.

Honestly, lets ignore the elitest theory bullshit and concentrate on the sole issue everyone here seems to have with this: He is misdefining music. He keeps trying to circle back and redefine it in a way that excludes what he doesn't like and yet not once does he justify his authority to make that claim nor explains the logical failings in his argument or the language failings even if we took his initial definition of music as true. Just ignore the rest of the crap he spouts and force him to address those key issues instead for trying to red herring away from it with music theory or classical instruments.

To put is simply.

1. Where does he get authority to define what is or is not music, and is that a justifiable authority? So far, we have seen nothing to support this from him other then "in books".

2. Where does he get authority to define what is an instrument? He has used trash cans, human body and familiar instruments, but have not explained why that is the limitation.

3. Why does he argue when he has clearly shown a stalwart refusal to debate or discuss the topic. All I see here is proselytizing and degrading anyone who disagrees. Basically, the attitude of a troll. Why does he argue when the only thing he calls back to that supports him is an ill defined book and everything else contradicts him?

 

[TrevHead]

So this ISN"t music!?

Why do people do nothing but disappoint me?

Thx atleast there is one good tune in this thread. But is this really what they call dubstep nowadays? This doesn't sound too far off the late 90s early 2000 UK house/trance scene which was my heyday for progressive house, only this track has a mellow dubstep beat.

I don't follow the genre as every song I listen to always leads to disapointment.

Start song "wow what a really kickarse melody and timbre" WUBWUBWUB Chainsaw "Noooooo my ears are bleeding!"

While this track is some form of dubstep, I do see someppl using the term to describe all forms of electronica / prog house which I find annoying.

To answer the OP's question, yes OFC it's music

 

[Robot Number V]

Okay I'll try to keep this one short,

not using an instrument is for the musically talentless.

Define instrument. If you can stand one more person explaining why you are SO obviously wrong.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

I give you: Dubstep without the ehm, dub? step?
Whatever, it sounds incredibly awesome:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg290v572Zw

 

[Vault101]

I got into this thread from the other thread. You know the one I mean, the "I am butthurt so I made a rage thread about it" thread.

Spoiler: shameless ego boosting

I would like to state the following.

Vault101, I officially love you. You have a deeper understanding of music than Grant Hobba, despite your obvious lack of any formal training with classical instruments. Perhaps this is WHY you have a deeper understanding of music. You are not bogged down in the language of music which so regularly messes with those of us that have had any form of training with the classical instruments.

People like you give me faith. Some part of you has an innate understanding as to what music is, an understanding that is far richer and deeper then any understanding that you can find in a book of theory or within the works of Mozart.

You understand the meaning and the point behind music. Grant Bobba understands the theory behind classical music. The problem is that Grant is failing to seperate theory and analyses from reality. When Physcisits come across something which does not fit in with current models, they edit their current models. Grants failing is his inability to seperate the theory, his inability to realise that if it is impossible using current musical systems to adequetly define electronica it does not mean that electronica is not music but that the current models of analyses are flawed.

You are a blank slate, coming to your own theory of music which, in my eyes, is far deeper and richer then the one Grant is buying from some third rate University.

Things change. Language changes. The fact that we use latin to describe classical music shows how stuck in the past it is, music is current and ever changing, we need to shift away from using a dead language, combined with a system of notation that is woefully out of date, and towards new systems.

Right, I just wrote a few paragraphs celebrating Vault101, I think I should add something else to this thread.

Dubstep is music. In my eyes anything that has been deliberately created to be pleasant to the ear is music. The instruments and the methods are secondary to the beauty of creation.

[img/]http://i987.photobucket.com/albums/ae353/taniasaur/tumblaahh/tumblr_lgg0s8uv401qcvhfc.png[/img]

I don't think we need to go "that" far. I'm just looking at it as logically as possible..as I said a C is a C regardless of if its digital or organic..seems pretty simple to me

 

[TheFriskySpatula]

Let me show you something Mr.Grant Hobba.
This is derezzed, a electronic song by Daft Punk. It was featured in the movie Tron Legacy. I believe Vault101 linked derezzed earlier in the thread, but here it is again.


And according to this quote by you...

"For example, in Rusko's song cockney thug, there is 3 layers, vocals synth and beat. I would love the see how someone is to write that up on a stave ? , to see what key it's in because if you can't write it, it's not really ever going to be music?"

... it is not music, because it is composed of electronic sounds and synths, which are impossible to write on a stave.

Now here is one very talented gentleman who figured out how to play derezzed, a synth electronic song mind you, on his guitar.


(Some may say that its not just on his guitar, he is using effects and a backbeat, but thousands of bands and guitar players do this, like muse and U2, for example)

This means that it can be written to stave. As a matter of fact, here is the guitar tab for it.

http://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/d/daft_punk/derezzed_ver3_tab.htm

(for those who don't play, its an abridged form of stave music written for the guitar, to make it easier to read)

So, according to your logic, since it can be written to stave, it is in fact music.

 

[Maccaveli]

I don't think we need to go "that" far. I'm just looking at it as logically as possible..as I said a C flat is a Cflat regardless of if its digital or organic..seems pretty simple to me

Except a C flat isn't really a C flat, it's a B

Here's another example: this tune is made entirely with synthesizers and computers, every sound was created by the artist himself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GNbl-jHf6E

It has melody, rhythm and chord progression and it uses this to create something that I think is a very emotionally evocative piece. Would anyone care to try to tell me why this isn't music?

 

[Vault101]

I don't think we need to go "that" far. I'm just looking at it as logically as possible..as I said a C flat is a Cflat regardless of if its digital or organic..seems pretty simple to me

Except a C flat isn't really a C flat, it's a B

Here's another example: this tune is made entirely with synthesizers and computers, every sound was created by the artist himself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GNbl-jHf6E

It has melody, rhythm and chord progression and it uses this to create something that I think is a very emotionally evocative piece. Would anyone care to try to tell me why this isn't music?

ohhhh....right...wait "flat" is still using the black keys as well?

sorry...Piano lessons were a long times ago :/

 

[motyr]

I kind of dislike this sort of question. That being said, there are tons of different styles of dubstep ranging from music like the stuff Skrillex produces to James Blake. I like some of it, dislike others. You should search around too.