Vault101 said:
Which means nothing. Take it from someone who knows music theory, it doesn't address this in any sense that you mean.
Please don't misuse the term or link it with elitism (as you are about to do).
but dubstep is music...no matter what some elitists think (while wanking off to their precious rock music)
Of course, "elitism" is only a requisite for this belief if you use the GOP definition of "people who disagree with me." It's kind of ironic, because I'm pretty sure you'd find more of this from the low-brow common man, as opposed to the educated theory guy. Since, you know, dubstep can be deconstructed as any music and can analysed with theory if one so chooses.
That said, I think it's shit. And while it is technically music, shit is technically food in the sense that you can eat it, too.
yeah...as you can tell music elitism pisses me off to no end
Even where it doesn't exist lololololol!
...Yeah, finished that thought.
in other words calling somthing "not music" is another way of saying "I think its crap"
Not always, but you haven't been using words and phrases according to actual meaning so far, so why start now.
[/quote]liek I said you'd have to aks somone who is familiar with music theory..the rest are jsut idiots who dont know what their talking about[/quote]
Putting stock in music theory like that warms the cockles of my heart, but it reeks of the guys I knew who had one year of theory and thought they were the end-all of music. Theory doesn't impart some specific, mystical knowledge on you. It does not make you the elite in any sense other than "I'm actually fucking educated on something," which in art neither makes you accomplished or worth listening to in and of itself.
At best, AT BEST, it is a tool that will allow you to persuasively argue a point, because you have the tools to deconstruct the music. But that's a best case scenario. Even psycho-acoustic theory doesn't really tell you why something sounds good. It explains, and I am being very brief and simplistic here, that the human mind likes certain tones, intervals and progressions better than others. But it can't really tap in to why. That's like asking "what is art?" And it's a bad question to ask. In part because there is no real answer and in part because any answer you get is likely to be wrong.
Thing is, those "idiots" who "don't know what they're talking about" aren't really more or less correct. Except in the case of the perception of elitism, where us theory folks are up in our ivory towers, scoffing at the naive plebeian peasants beneath us...In which case, you're probably not going to find a viable support for dubstep, anyway.
Theory does, intrinsically, carry some definitions. But none of them are so exclusive that you probably couldn't come up with them yourself. They just formalise terms that people use to describe music already. In fact, it's not much different from what you could pull off Wikipedia:
Music is an art form whose medium is sound and silence. Its common elements are pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythm (and its associated concepts tempo, meter, and articulation), dynamics, and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture. The word derives from Greek μουσική (mousike; "art of the Muses").[1]
Now, it's not a complete or comprehensive look into what's what, but ask yourself: Does dubstep have these elements? Congratulations, you have the tools to answer the question, and you're not even a theoretician! And I bet you thought of music in these terms already, albeit likely in different (r possibly even unconscious) terms.
Gah. I have an appointment to get to, but TL;DR: Music theory is not what you think it is. Hating something or disregarding it does not automatically mean elitism. Use words more correctly.