i think it depends. if you get some hack just throwing together a bunch of preset samples.... no. absolutely not.

But if you take someone like Paul Oakenfold, Moby, The Postal Service (just as a reference. most of there stuff is programmed) and even Owl City, then yes. Totally musicians.

Just to add to that rant, the next time I hear the term 'Boy Band' I'm getting armed and heading out to Simon Cowell's house. Your not a band, your a vocal ensemble, and usually not a fucking good one either.

Ok, I need a cigarette and a little less coffee..

i can totally agree with that.


also, i think some of the weiners don't know what a musician actually is.I think the term "producer" is more appropriate.

Maybe thats more where my initial point holds its ground though. In the role definition.

To me a musician is someone who makes music using an instrument. I mean like a piano, or a clarinet, and yes, even a bass player. (jk) To me a computer is a tool or a device, its synthetic, not something you can go on stage with and play in the classical sense, I never saw Moby do an improvisation off the cuff as its pre-programmed and very linear.

Ok, composers write music and develop musical ideas, maybe thats what I would call them, its more relevant than musician.

Producers? Hmmmm, its a close call as I'm still not sure what a producers actual musical role is?

Still, I still feel that musician is out of bounds bro. But this is about what you guys feel on the subject and a discussion not an argument, so I respect your opinion.

Padre, can you post a link to the song/convo?

I'd like to hear it and see what you and they had to say.

Thanks

It was done through the 'Honest Feedback' crap they are trying out.....so its all PM's dude, sorry. But I will say one thing, behind the happy shiny 'everything is wonderful' exterior of the public, family iComp lay a host of bitter, angry people.

I know I started it, but why ask for criticism then go apeshit when you get it? Even on the iComp proper I say what I think, and if I truly don't like something I avoid commenting as its subjective, but this demanded critical feedback and I did.

To surmise all the PM's I got they pretty much assure me that the people that make this form of music, are in fact musicians. I on the other hand think not. Is it more in the definition? Maybe. Am I biased towards people who play instruments because I try to do so myself? Possibly.

Sorry to rain on the parade siddp, but I PM'd the guy and got a reply, then his mate joined in. So its been a backroom brawl so to speak, and I dont kiss and tell. My point in posting here is because I wpould like to hear what others think of the main area of debate here, are they musicians, should people learning instruments for years be lumped into the same category with people who can harness the power of a PC into tossing out this stuff?

I think you can go very far with this argument.

I have heard the same argument applied often to rappers or hip hop artists. Are they musicians or poets?

In my opinion, anybody who creates what can tangibly be called music is a musician. Since dance, techno and hip hop are types of music, I would call all of those artists musicians.

Although it might not seem like it, computer musicians and hip hop artists and DJs spend many hours practicing and composing. I've seen several interviews with DJs where they say they used to practice scratching up to 12 hours a day. On the other hand, some guy playing guitar in a punk rock band may put in minimal hours of practice.

Anyway, just my opinion...

And as always with Padre all opinions are welcome and taken on board.

You have an interesting take on it Joba....could I be biased, or as I think I once heard it 'closed minded'? Man I hope not, I listen to a vast range of music, covering many centuries and genre's. But I felt that it was in some way an insult to music in general that the computer age has made it all too easy for people to just fly out of left-field and be regarded as a musician? Do we accept it as music in the popular sense has become dumbed down? There are a million questions I asked myself and I still cant see why I personally should see them as musicians. Even in your post you struggled to identify them. Both musicians and artists were used as descriptions. To me art is visual, music is not. If someone told me that Moby could be compared to Handel as both are musicians, I would laugh so hard my ass would fall off. Handel was both a musician and composer, to me Moby is a composer, yes, but musician? No, something doesn't sit well with that to me. Again its really just in the relevance of the word.

But you have a fair point and there is no right or wrong here I feel, just personal expression and belief, I was just looking for the G.Com insight on the topic.

Thanks Joba..

I've had this argument in my head for many years. (along with other good ones, like when aliens probe their abductees, why do we always assume that it's for scientific purposes? What evidence do we have they're not just perverts? Or another one would be: Is gravity optional? What if I simply choose not to be believe in gravity? OR what do you reckon happened to Jesus's dinosaurs after they crucified him?)


But anyway, particularly in relation to samplers: if I cut out pictures of flowers from magazines and put them all together in a scrap book, does that make me a gardener? (or just gay as?)

DJs: If I dance around in my bedroom while I play records on my own, I'm a loser, but if I do it onstage, am I suddenly a musician (albeit still a loser? especially if I've got some stupid fucking hat on backwards!)

On the other hand, if a guy banging two sticks together can be a musician, then isn't the technical method used to create the music irrelevant.

I don't know the answers to any of these questions. Actually I think the alien probing one needs to be resolved fairly quickly - what if we arrive on another planet which turns out to be populated by relatives of the obsessive probers that we always get here. How will we translate expressions like, "No thanks, I've already been probed" or "Do you have to use the whole fist every time?"

Anyway, here's a picture of some fudge-packers ---------------------->

Most programs require a midi synth as input. I love electronic music, have numerous programs and love to play with synths in addition to my strat. So YES, of course they're (we're) musicians! I might even argue that to play a keyboard instrument and create melodies and harmonies that make sense you would need to know more theory than most guitar players rely on.

What would you do if you sat in front of my DAW with a synth VST loaded and a blank treble cleff starring back at you? Would you be "musician enough" to figure out your key, time sig, and what chords to use to accompany your melody?

Well they can put a paintbrush in an Elephants trunk and sell the result to idiots. Does that make the Elephant an artist?

I can safely say that a large part of what is produced in the dance world has taken no musical knowledge whatsoever to put together. A child can know what it likes to hear, yet comprehension of musical notation among 8 month old baby's isn't rife in these parts. Does GIT have a nappy changing facility?

My cousin 'produces' dance music which is widely available to buy. He wouldn't know what a keyboard looked like if you glued it to his forehead. If we are to pick out the few that play keys, of course they are musicians, it would be silly to assume otherwise, my discussion if you look is with the computer generation that have no idea about instruments. If in doubt read it again.

Here's the deal with me, and I'll make my initial point a little simpler for you. I couldnt tell you what an F# was if you asked me to play it on my guitar, and I've been at it for 15 years or more maybe. BUT. If you put me in a room with my guitar, a piano player, and someone who threw out this crap using Looperman, asked the piano to play a chord progression and take it from there, my guess is I'll be jamming along in seconds while the other 'musician' is updating Norton.

I don't think it is cut and dry, as others have mentioned. I think the main issue here is how they perceive themselves in relation to the criticism they asked for. They have a vision of who they are and what they do and then you came in and kind of woke them up a bit.
I dunno

This is such a big debate.... I personally enjoy quite a lot of electronic music. I believe you can call people such as Moby even though he is a total prick a composer... Even a producer.

But some of that dance shit is just bollocks. If a song is made completely by samples of other people you are NOT a musician. Its impossible to call yourself one as you have no emotional attachment to the song you have created.

Moby who might I add is a right Knob, does play some keys and some drums on most of his tracks apparently. But he is probably lying about that because hes a dick.

For me unless you are creating your own music from your own soul even if its note for note the same as someone else's you are a musician. Even playing covers means you are true musician because you are playing them your way!!!

Really, the question is: Are they musicians? Right?

I've got a few questions in my mind after I've read this thread:

1. Why is a composer not a musician - He needs the same (if not more) amount of theory and understanding of music. To say Beethoven wasnt a musician is bullshit.

2. Who is a musician? - Someone who merely plays and instrument? I'm sorry, but I find there are a lot of guitar wankers out there who are incredibly good technically, but I dont consider them musicians. A musician (i believe) is someone who creates music. That's it. But it leads to the next, major question:

3. What defines music? - Wikipedia says -"Music is an art form whose medium is sound." Now, of course wikipedia isnt the most reliable of sources, but this seems to be the closest you can get to defining music.

So, anyone who actually produces sound then is a musician. Well, not quite. But the general idea is that anyone who conveys their ideas through sound is a musician. Not just someone who can play 64ths at a million bpm

So, the actual question here is: Are people who sample other people's music musicians. Hmmm. It depends. Are you sampling to convey your idea, or are you sampling to convey the original idea.

Now I dont really like electronic music, so dont think I'm biased, but the idea of having music accessible to everyone with a computer appeals to me. Someone who feeds in notes with a true understanding on them into a midi software is as much a musician as someone who plays an instrument. Honestly, MIDI helps me create a backing band for my music.

yeah, this isnt cohesive. But I have a final point to make:

Different people find different music pleasurable. So, you cannot define what music is, except for yourself. So, you cannot really define who or what a musician is. :P

Wooh. I havent typed this much ever.

Siddp, I hate to be the one to point this out, but you indeed managed to quash your points in your summaries.

It is entirely possible for a composer to also be a musician when the instrument is factored into the equation. Beethoven was both a composer and a musician. He musically interpreted his compositions using the instrument. If you write a concerto in notation you are a composer, a musician is the one to play it. If music is an art form who's medium is sound, then writing music isnt musicianship, it is composition as sound isn't always necessary in writing. That in itself gives clear distinction between the two acts.

As Beethoven wrote while profoundly deaf, does the lack of sound when he played stop him being a musician also? No, it was the act of playing the instrument that made him a musician.

So to clear all that up in bite-size, Beethoven was not a composer and musician because he had a vast knowledge of theory. He was both a composer and a musician because he wrote the music and played it. If he had done one or the other he would have been one or the other. As he done both, he was both.

I'm not sure why you singled out the guitar noodlers in the next bit, but by your own admission you state that being in possession of theoretical knowledge, and having the ability to produce sound would make you a musician, then why rule out the technical guitar wankage? Take for instance John Petrucci. There are few out there can wank a fretboard like John, but if your theory is correct he has vast musical knowledge, and produces sound, but because of the speed its played at you may or may not classify him as a musician? I dont get the equation?

Back to the point, my initial knee-jerk was at the computer programmers who call themselves musicians. Ok, thats my opinion I know, and everyone is different hence my asking here, but if you use Wikipedia's definition (Oh dear God not Wiki) then any art form who's medium is sound is music, making the producers of said sound musicians. That makes 'Stomp' a bloody symphony then?

You see thats why the instrument is a big factor in music. Without it its noise. You see my point???

Playing the harp = musician, programming a computer to make music = composition. Entirely different animals.

I object to Alan's definition for the need of power. As of yet, even fully electronic instruments are indeed only adaptations of pre-existing acoustic intruments. But I don't exclude the possibility that there will be new fully electronic instruments in the future, although it's hard to imagine what that could be. Mind-controlled perhaps, in a couple of decades?


Playing and mixing samples to me is not too different from playing back entire prerecorded songs. In that sense, if the guy playing samples is a musician, then the radio DJ is a musician too and that's obviously not true.

So the difinition of a musician is in the ability to make sounds. But with software suits anyone can make music by pointing and clicking. That's not musicianship. At best you may be called a composer. Musicianship is the ability to make music in real time with nothing more than a sound-making device that responds to your handling of it with a single sound for each time you trigger it. As such, skill in handling the device is required. As the TV series Friends well demonstrated, Ross's way of playing the keys is NOT the same as playing keys.

"dance music" is a pretty general term. At clubs you really don't hear the kind you're talking about - where someone points and clicks at premade sounds and melodies to create a song. You hear stuff like Wolfsheim, VNV nation, Apoptygma Berzerk, Assemblage 23...those guys are CERTAINLY musicians as they play an instrument and rely on their knowledge of music theory.

The problems is you're taking an extremely small group of people who point and click on premade sounds in a program, and applying it to the general term "dance music." I'm thinking of the bands I listed when you use that word, not some goof ball who downloaded a program yesterday and has his "cd" already made. Big difference.

I have been trying to defend musicians from post one. The whole point I made was to differentiate them from the 'point and click' generation. Sure I could have made the title a little more defined, but I didn't have room to type in

" Can we call the producers of Dance/Techno/Garage/House/Chill/Ambient/Hardcore/ Industrial/ Beatdub/Electro/Trance/Hard Dance/Breaks etc who only use a computer to produce music actual musicians as they seem to think that this clearly defines that they are in a vast majority of cases"

Catchy title I'm sure you'll agree.

David, I'm in defense of musicians, those who PLAY an instrument, not in opposition of them because of what they play on it. My point was trying to remove those that see 10 minutes of throwing loops together or having a computer to develop sounds, from those that DO play an actual instrument.

So your argument against what I am saying, is exactly what I said. But as I used a generic term it somehow makes it completely different?

I think I'd just call them conductors, and arrangers.
Their egos will fill in all the deficiencies, there's not much anyone can do about that, short of giving them a good beating, and making them cry.

Short and to the point. And I agree!!! Thats twice now Chester, :-)))

Well, here's my 10 cents on the subject. I have listened to alot of different forms of music over the years, heard it warped and twisted, to this way or that, and I have heard some really shitty sounds out there. But I think that The Crystal Method are musicians, and The Chemical Brothers. Do I think all forms of electronica is music, no. Some of it sounds like a sasquach upchucked a japanese prostitute on the rag, no doubt, but it is up to the interpreter to decide whether something is music or not. That's my open onion on the subject. Take it or leave it.

Alright, maybe I read what you were saying wrong, if what you're actually saying is -

"People who rely 100% on loops to create their music are not musicians." Then I agree. That's not relegated to just electronic music though, and it's not indicative of the genre at all. If fact, I've never once bought a CD and found out it was created using only loops from some generic program.


So your rant is really about a specific type of program and the goof balls who use it, not a genre of music. Because I swear I've heard country and rock "songs" pieced together too..

Jesus H. Christ why do I always get them........

Its about how I dont feel the use of computers to generate music qualifies someone as a musician. In that case the computer is the musician and the person operating it is merely a composer. Its not electronic music I used as a point, it was a dance track on iComp.

Fuck me if I wanted to go for it I'd say the daddy's of electronic bullshit were Kraftwerk, but they were musicians as they DID play instruments. Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails is a composer AND musician as he plays a bloody instrument as well as the electronic composition using a PC.


I'm not explaining myself and my view again, its clear as day up there and everyone else seem's to get it quite fine. I simply asked how others felt and if these people with no actual instrumental work involved in what they do can consider themselves musicians.

My answer is no, they would be composers.

I was going to agree with Hetjr's original comment but someone else pointed out the person who creates his own music using the computer would be considered more of a composer. That seems more accurate to me.

A musician would be able to recreate the song without the computer using some sort of musical instrument. Be it a guitar, some other stringed instrument, a horn, or a piano or some sort of keyboard instrument.

then there is the guy who copies and pastes samples of existing music together and feeds them through a processor... that's not a musician or a composer.... a producer possibly but that's as far as I'd go with giving them credit as a musician.

Well,

Firstly I think you all make some great and valid points. Without muddying the waters with academic crap....music is essentially supposed to be dance music. Music for dancing has occupied a major percentage of the created music over the centuries, so in the general sense, yes, dance music is truly music.

In the modern context of technology, I don't think it matters so much how the sounds are created and put together so much as how it makes people move. Does it have beat? Does it have rhythm? Does it have melody? These are elements we use in ethnomusicology to define a music and anylize it.

Now as to whether or not it's music for you, that's of course for the individual to decide...