Dub step and non-sequentialism vs. the writer

[MBTC]

I spent about the last 3 hours listening to Electric Area (SiriusXM). A lot of modern electronic music seems to have morphed into what feels like semi-related, random clips of bleeps and burps pasted randomly together into something that's highly percussive and technologic sounding (which I like, don't get me wrong), but it got me wondering about popularity of here and now versus actually sitting down and writing a song with meaningful melodies versus letting the computer do much of the work for us.

I'm not sure that's necessarily an Ableton clip-triggering thing (because Cubase and FLS, which I use, allow the same thing... to a point where it's disgustingly simple to just record some snippets and assign them somewhat randomly, creating a patchwork quilt of "who knows what comes out"). And I'm not against beautiful accidents, but I thought it might be an interesting food for thought discussion if nothing else.

I enjoy listening to the current dubstep wave, but can't help feeling its a bit automated, kind of like society itself is becoming maybe?

Simultaneously I've gotten this recent urge to produce good old fashioned, cheesy disco... not so much for the musical value itself as for the nostalgic vibe it inspires for someone who grew up watching Starskey and Hutch or Baretta on TV as a kid :) When 80's new wave came about I used to scoff at this music and how passé it was, yet now I have a new appreciation for it and feel inspired to have a go at producing it. Maybe I will say the same thing about dubstep in 20 years? Dubstep is the new Disco!

[Berni]

Well dubstep is a sub genre of dub which itself is a sub genre of reggae that's around a half century old so there's really nothing new in it really. Reggae artists play real instruments & write real songs in the conventional sense. Dub is pretty much a studio/DJ thing which is very rarely performed live if at all. It started out in Jamaica with DJ's/producers cutting up tape & heavy use of reverb & delay on existing recordings to create dub plates which they could then use to play on there sound systems & in the dancehalls to give there sets a bit of exclusivity.
With the rise of the digital revolution & the new instruments it has brought with it it has become increasingly easier to re-create the FX the first dub pioneers made & also do stuff that is even more radical. Having said that I got bored of the dubstep thing years ago due to the fact it is very easy to make a track that you could pass off as dubstep & EVERY spotty herbert is doing THE EXACT SAME THING! The innovation that was the essence of Dub seems to have gone out the window. There doesn't seem to be anything musical at all about it, just who can make the most annoying, screeching sound possible then compress it to the max to make it even louder & more annoying. Fuckin shite state of affairs if you ask me. Same thing has happend to electro house also.
I deeply still love Dub but you can stick the step part up your arse as far as I'm concerned & while I'm having a rant didn't the term dubstep mean a cross between dub & two step???? As far as I can tell it doesn't resemble either genre...OK rant over, I think I'll make a real Dub track, without the step :p

[namnibor]

Not my cup of tea either and get really annoyed at the volume levels as it's almost like, let's see just how much we can compress and then let it explode in very random volume differences...eeek!
Big fan of late 60's to 70's, (as in Emerson Lake and Palmer, The Doors), to Punk, (Iggy Pop), to New Wave. Love electronic music and true Reggae, but crap rap and Skrillix and plethora of imitators make me want to heave! I can have respect for Skrillix's programming skills but rather listen to dust fall on my speakers than to that crap but know this is highly personal so will just call it crap to me rather than 'bad music' because I know very well there's people that cannot understand the Jazz and other intricacies of Prog Rock such as Emerson Lake and Palmer and like mentioned, who knows, a decade from now I may find the crap interesting (shiver):shock:

[Hrvst]

The mainstream "dubstep" sound is crap and seems most of the fans of that sound are moving on to trap while the heads who've been into the deeper bassweight side of the sound have been staying true waiting for everyone to move on past this screeching nonsense.

There's a lot of melodic jazzy dubstep, dark deep apocalyptic atmospheric type of stuff. You really just have to dig for it.

[Celestry]

All i'm going to say is, Seven Lions - Below Us.

(^_^)

[TweakHead]

you know. when some writers decided to cut pieces of text and arrange them sort of randomly, like William S. Burroughs, many people failed to see that as proper writing. the fact you pick pieces of audio and then arrange them, edit them, use extensive automation and such methods to accomplish your vision, doesn't make you any less a musician then a keyboardist. many people talked down to hip hop producers back then, because they heavily relied on samples instead of playing instruments themselves, but sampling is know regarded as a valid and pretty standard method for anyone making music. so...

[feedingear]

Two words: musique concrete.

I feel that if music has lost meaning for you, its time to chase new genres and sounds. Far too much brilliant music out there to be complaining about lack of innovation - exposure is the tough part.

For beautiful electronica I was enjoying a lot of the european/dreamy electronic stuff a year or two ago, Owsey, Essay/ warminal label, delicieus musique etc.

[TweakHead]

^this. plus, it's all about making the music you want to listen to. if it's not there, all the better!

[MBTC]

^this. plus, it's all about making the music you want to listen to. if it's not there, all the better!

And I would add spending your time on the music making aspects you enjoy most. I look at musical composition and music production as two different things. When I sit down to *write music*, one of my goals is that at the end of it all, if the song is any good, I should be able to walk over to pretty much any piano and play enough basic elements of it that someone else could identify it (or someone who plays guitar should be able to reproduce it there). In other words, the melody / sequence of notes should be able to clearly distinguish it from someone else's work. To me that's more important than the mix or what synths or technology I used in the process of composing music.

By that definition (which I freely admit is my own, and will not imply others should adopt it unless they want to), any organized collections of samples or sound effects that I paste together to form a song would have trouble qualifying as a unique composition. I consider creating Skrillex-like mosaics of sound to be more like a mosaic of samples than a musical composition. It doesn't mean the end result is not music, I think a lot of things can qualify as music, but the truth is that if you gave Skrillex a piano or any other instrument than the specific sound bytes he uses to create a track, and asked him to reproduce the song in a way it was identifiable, he wouldn't be able to... you've got a better chance of success asking an elephant to fart in the same sequence of notes on command. I personally think what Skrillex does is music production, not music composition. He is very good at what he does, and I'm not denying the amount of technical skill and practice it takes to do it well, but I still believe the lines between a musician and a DJ/producer are primarily defined by melody and how much control/understanding the creator has over that aspect of the track. If someone's music cannot be faithfully described in sheet music, then whether it's music at all would be completely debatable to some. I personally have a much more open definition of music than that.

[feedingear]

Your definition of music (whether for arguments sake or not) is very, very shallow. A composition does not require a distinct melody to be a compostion.

Its funny that you say, any organised collection of samples or sound effects, as the broadest definition of music is simply 'organised sound.'

Sheet music is one of the worst and inaccurate methods of communicating and preserving music, due to factors like the insane level of difficulty and restrictions in notating a physical linear score (relaying the composers emotional intentions, notating extended techniques effectively, writing with scales that arent built on 8 notes etc).

Many people have attempted to overcome a lot of the restrictions inherent in scoring (see: graphic scores of the avant garde, non linear scoring http://andrewhearst.com/blog/2006/02/the_amazing_music_scores_of_the_avant_garde_composer_george_crumb) etc, but recorded audio remains the best method of preserving and communicating a composition.

I don't see why it keeps coming back to Skrillex (guy must be losing a lot of sleep over this thread), but eh. Here's a few examples of harmony, melody, counterpoint in his music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e_3Cg9GZFU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJVmu6yttiw

Eg - bangarangs aroung Gm, with clearly defined melodic parts (G Bb, C Eb in main section). Just because a sound has unusual harmonics in it, doesnt mean there isnt an underlying melody thats discernable.

[MBTC]

Your definition of music (whether for arguments sake or not) is very, very shallow.

And as I have mine, you have your opinions, some which I find to be shallow as well, but I guess it's great that we all have ours. The very last sentence in my prior post said that my own definition was much more open than what I was describing, yet you still decided something yet undefined was too narrow for you -- without ever knowing fully what my definition of music is.

And regardless, my music creation goals and opinions are mine and mine alone. I'm not out to convince anyone they should be more like me, the world doesn't need any cheap imitations :grin:

Skrillex comes up in dub step discussions because he's considered one of the poster boys (if not THE poster boy) of the modern incarnation of the genre. As I said, if he has some tracks where someone could sit down at a piano and start playing the basics of the tune and others would be able to identify it, then those tracks would meet one of my own musical goals. I don't hear that in any of his more popular tracks and the links you posted would not display for me. I'm not trying to tell anyone they should adopt my view, and anyone would need to be trying hard not to have seen that in my prior message -- more less pining for a debate on the subject which I'm not really interested in as much as simple expression of viewpoint.

[boreg]

the truth is if you gave Skrillex a piano or any other instrument than the specific sound bytes he uses to create a track, and asked him to reproduce the song in a way it was identifiable, he wouldn't be able to...

I'm not a fan of Scrillex, but this tune is perfectly identifiable :D

TmJ2QRGghtY

[MBTC]

I'm not a fan of Scrillex, but this tune is perfectly identifiable :D

TmJ2QRGghtY

LOL! She added enough extra musical work to that rendition that he should just give her credit for the actual song :)

[feedingear]

'the truth is that if you gave Skrillex a piano or any other instrument than the specific sound bytes he uses to create a track, and asked him to reproduce the song in a way it was identifiable, he wouldn't be able to... you've got a better chance of success asking an elephant to fart in the same sequence of notes on command.'

The cover above is a perfect example of the harmonic and melodic components of the track (few bung notes aside), and any person who had heard the Skrillex version could easily identify it. The tracks I linked were Skrillex - Bangarang, and Summit (Feat ellie goulding).

If melody is to define a composition, would Penderecki - Threnody therefore not qualify as a musical composition, as it would not be possible to do a piano reduction or reproduce it without an orchestra? Does that render the piece null and void, make it any less beautiful or stirring?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HilGthRhwP8

Fortunately debates aren't one sided affairs - if you want to post an opinion then its up to others to concur or object :)

[MBTC]

'the truth is that if you gave Skrillex a piano or any other instrument than the specific sound bytes he uses to create a track, and asked him to reproduce the song in a way it was identifiable, he wouldn't be able to... you've got a better chance of success asking an elephant to fart in the same sequence of notes on command.'

The cover above is a perfect example of the harmonic and melodic components of the track (few bung notes aside), and any person who had heard the Skrillex version could easily identify it. The tracks I linked were Skrillex - Bangarang, and Summit (Feat ellie goulding).

If melody is to define a composition, would Penderecki - Threnody therefore not qualify as a musical composition, as it would not be possible to do a piano reduction or reproduce it without an orchestra? Does that render the piece null and void, make it any less beautiful or stirring?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HilGthRhwP8

Fortunately debates aren't one sided affairs - if you want to post an opinion then its up to others to concur or object :)

And they are free to do so, but when they start debating with me only to find I'm uninterested, the only way they will not find it one sided is if they find someone else to continue with them. Career contrarians are around every corner, a dime a dozen on the net, and will always find something to disagree about wherever they go. At some point many of them will mature and realize how much of their life they've wasted on that, or perhaps not. Also with maturity comes the ability to have enough confidence in one's own opinions to not feel the need to challenge everyone else's, so as to compare and contrast and split every hair.

Looking at the specifics of my quote, I don't suppose anyone happened to notice that's not Skrillex playing? Unless he changed his hair style a little since I last saw him.. lol. If you have videos of Skrillex actually reproducing all of his tracks in their entirety using a piano or similar acoustic instrument, I would retract my statement. Otherwise it has only been reinforced here.

Of course tracks are easily identifiable when you search Google or Youtube for them by title, especially when the title is displayed right there in the link. Whether or not anyone would identify the track by hearing that rendition (without having a clue of the title or the author or even genre of music) is something that could only be proven (and thus my theory disproven) with a blind study. I personally doubt I would have recognized it but maybe an occasional Skrillex fan would, and admittedly I don't listen to most of his tracks more than once or twice so I won't pretend to be a fan. But of course that was not the crux of my quote that you included (apparently without fully understanding).

Identifying a song by title first, then finding a melodic rendition of it using a search engine in hopes of finding contrarian evidence is actually the reverse process of what I was suggesting. The only way to prove or disprove would be to start with the melody first and provide no clue to the title. Starting with the title might be entertaining but would be "cheating" for purposes of that sort of study.

[feedingear]

There's currently two million views of that piano reduction on youtube, three million on another how to piano reduction. But apparently we need a blind study to make the (apparently difficult) abstract jump from one timbral arrangement to another, despite retaining all the same harmonic information?

Perhaps you suffer from amusia or are tone deaf? That's the only feasible explanation I can find for your blatant musical ignorance. That or you simply don't have a single, solitary clue about writing, producing, or engineering music.

[MBTC]

Yes, I am the delusional one -the simple fact is your statement about a skrillex song being reproducable and recognisable on piano was wrong, and I was right.

'the truth is that if you gave Skrillex a piano or any other instrument than the specific sound bytes he uses to create a track, and asked him to reproduce the song in a way it was identifiable, he wouldn't be able to... you've got a better chance of success asking an elephant to fart in the same sequence of notes on command. I personally think what Skrillex does is music production, not music composition. He is very good at what he does, and I'm not denying the amount of technical skill and practice it takes to do it well, but I still believe the lines between a musician and a DJ/producer are primarily defined by melody and how much control/understanding the creator has over that aspect of the track.'

Try to skew that however you like.

In your old age, shouldn't you have the wisdom to concede you were incorrect, put your ego aside, and acknowledge when you made a mistake?

Well for about the third time, I've yet to see a video of Skrillex reproducing every one of his tracks on a piano. You're kind of lost in the woods fighting your own war. I already said if anyone can show me Skrillex doing it I would retract my statement. Which part of Asian girl is not Skrillex was hard for you to understand?

[feedingear]

Sure, lets get hung up on semantics, and your conjecture about his instrumental proficiency - despite the evidence of him being an accomplished singer and guitarist in previous bands and current recordings.

Are you really going to say you need a video of him specifically playing a reduction of every work to disprove your 'point'?

What is the difference between the composer and a performer playing a very faithful arrangement of their piece?

Why would that make the composition any more or less relevant?

Since when does a composer need to perform a piece they have written?

Arnold Schoenberg
Mahler
Hector Berlioz

All composers who wrote magnificent enduring influential music who could either barely play, or couldn't play at all.

Please, enlighten us!

[TweakHead]

No idea why the two of you can't get along. It's kind of old news for anyone here, but it's kind of sad that it keeps on going and going...

Now back on topic:

A point was made with the piano video. The cover is actually pretty damn close to the original and the original happens to be - arguably - his most famous track of all. The differences are not in the melody itself, it's in the sounds that perform it: and Skrillex managed to compose it and present a big chunk of it with his own processed voice. It's his voice and synthesizers, mostly and the level of production on both accounts is paramount! Regardless of one's own taste, don't know how anyone can claim otherwise.

What made him famous was precisely this: he can make wonderful sounding, cheesy even melodies, he can use his own voice and make it sound like some pop star - but he's the one to credit for both melody and voice, isn't he?; then he can turn things around and bring the more edgier, aggressive mood of (kind of) more banging electronic music. And he does all that with as high as it gets level. He does it all on his own, from composition, to mixing, to mastering - and it sounds as good as it gets in any sound system in the world!

Not a fan either, btw. But been into this music thing long enough to be able to recognize the obviousness of the truth: while there's haters everywhere, the majority of people that actually make it big have earned every step of their way with pure talent!

[MBTC]

A point was made with the piano video. The cover is actually pretty damn close to the original and the original happens to be - arguably - his most famous track of all. The differences are not in the melody itself, it's in the sounds that perform it: and Skrillex managed to compose it and present a big chunk of it with his own processed voice. It's his voice and synthesizers, mostly and the level of production on both accounts is paramount! Regardless of one's own taste, don't know how anyone can claim otherwise.

What made him famous was precisely this: he can make wonderful sounding, cheesy even melodies, he can use his own voice and make it sound like some pop star - but he's the one to credit for both melody and voice, isn't he?; then he can turn things around and bring the more edgier, aggressive mood of (kind of) more banging electronic music. And he does all that with as high as it gets level. He does it all on his own, from composition, to mixing, to mastering - and it sounds as good as it gets in any sound system in the world!

Not a fan either, btw. But been into this music thing long enough to be able to recognize the obviousness of the truth: while there's haters everywhere, the majority of people that actually make it big have earned every step of their way with pure talent!

As I said, Skrillex is really good at what he does. So is Deadmau5 and both earned what they have. And there is a possibility that Skrillex could sit down at a piano and do way more than I've ever seen him to, I don't deny there's a possibility I could be wrong but I have heard him say things in the past that support my theory. If someone has a video of Skrillex proving my statement wrong it would be interesting fodder no doubt. Admittedly I have not searched for that at all. Nobody should be rubbed wrong by what I said if they are a Skrillex fan -- it's really not an insult to him just a statement that he is more of a producer than a musician.

[TweakHead]

I fail to see how him being able to play the piano or not is relevant. He's clearly able to both compose and produce his music, and his music does actually show that he knows his music theory...

A musician isn't just someone who can perform with an instrument. Many times the best performers are not good writers and the other way around. With Electronic Music it's always more about composition then live performance, and people are praised for what they can do within the realm of sound and music (yes, the two combined) rather then just for their clever usage of scales and harmonies, or their keyboard playing skills. Isn't that so? I'm sorry to say I don't see much of a point. A producer is someone who can put things together, but doesn't necessarily have the creativity to come up with something on his own. That's what a producer is. This isn't the case. He's a musician, a producer, he also does all the engineering involved in his music from mixing to mastering. He's the whole deal. He knows audio and music inside out, like those behind all successful Electronic Music acts do. That's what it takes. If you ask me, I think most of this guys, even when they're kids making annoying music that just happens to be what's currently driving people nuts in clubs and outdoor festivals, are much more proficient about what they do then previous generations of musicians, where some of them couldn't compose a song on their own, can't perform or understand the other instruments that were part of the band, couldn't produce, mix and master their own music without hiring professionals to do it for them; so in a way, they were less educated and needed much more assistance to produce their music then Skrillex (or any such acts) - even the Doors.

[MBTC]

I fail to see how him being able to play the piano or not is relevant. He's clearly able to both compose and produce his music, and his music does actually show that he knows his music theory...

A musician isn't just someone who can perform with an instrument. Many times the best performers are not good writers and the other way around. With Electronic Music it's always more about composition then live performance, and people are praised for what they can do within the realm of sound and music (yes, the two combined) rather then just for their clever usage of scales and harmonies, or their keyboard playing skills. Isn't that so? I'm sorry to say I don't see much of a point. A producer is someone who can put things together, but doesn't necessarily have the creativity to come up with something on his own. That's what a producer is. This isn't the case. He's a musician, a producer, he also does all the engineering involved in his music from mixing to mastering. He's the whole deal. He knows audio and music inside out, like those behind all successful Electronic Music acts do. That's what it takes. If you ask me, I think most of this guys, even when they're kids making annoying music that just happens to be what's currently driving people nuts in clubs and outdoor festivals, are much more proficient about what they do then previous generations of musicians, where some of them couldn't compose a song on their own, can't perform or understand the other instruments that were part of the band, couldn't produce, mix and master their own music without hiring professionals to do it for them; so in a way, they were less educated and needed much more assistance to produce their music then Skrillex (or any such acts) - even the Doors.

Opinion heard, though I still have my own. I do agree that a lot of the musicians of days gone by were far more focused on the playing/writing/musical side of the process and did not have the technical skills to mix/produce/etc, so yes we are to some degree seeing a merging of skill sets, more jacks of all trades yet masters of none types.

Not too long ago I had the pleasure of seeing The Eagles in concert. I'd like someone to show me a band that has come about in the last 10 or 20 years that are even in their league. These nearly 70 year old guys got on stage and lit up their instruments like most of the newer generation of kiddies will only be able to dream about. This is why tickets near the stage cost $1000 a piece. When someone shows me $1000 tickets for a Skrillex concert being sold, or even the types of record sales they've had, then I will believe he's in the same league. Until then some can only dream...

As always, not trying to tell anyone they should think like me or even agree.

[MBTC]

Whenever someone has to "set out to prove" that an artists music is actually music, it is often an indication of some sort of issue that leans greatly in favor of what I've been saying here.

Nobody ever needed to even SUGGEST setting out to "prove" that Depeche Mode or Kraftwerk were making music. The notion is laughable. That folks are trying to prove it here says even more.

http://www.laweekly.com/westcoastsound/2012/08/01/classical-pianist-sets-out-to-prove-that-skrillex-is-actually-music

LOL! He even asked her if she could play his stuff on the piano. Maybe he wanted to sign up for lessons?

[feedingear]

Don't waste your energy Tweak - my many, many valid points that were on topic were completely ignored (see: list of famous composers who did not play, links to scores, links to arrangements etc).

As i stated originally, I believe that MBTC has a very shallow and flawed definition of what music composition is. That's not a personal attack - just evidenced in what you've written across this thread and the fact that multiple posters have rebutted your points raised.

Some study might expand your perceptions and understanding - which is why I added links to some topics that could have helped. Few good books that could help you, Audio Culture (Readings in Modern Music), Electronic and Experimental Music, The Rest is Noise.

[TweakHead]

@MBTC

the value of tickets, how much they sell, along with sales records and all of that can hardly constitute any argument as to what's good and what's not. we're living very different times now, there's a lot more people doing music so the crowds are more distributed among artists and few of them get out-of-this-world kind of audiences.

but even if this was the case, you'll have a hard time finding any artist living today who's more busy then Skrillex, as far as gigs go. the guy simply doesn't stop to rest, he's played everywhere and on all major avenues and all over the world. he's also featured heavily all over the radio and other distribution medium - and that's why some people today regard him as a poster guy. he manages to make some music while touring with just a laptop and a headphones set. this is something that's produced to a very high standard of quality, that translates well in the best sound systems available today, such as Funktion One.

it kind of surprises me to read your opinions, dude. you do enjoy electronic instruments, synthesizers and all of that. taste aside, I really can't see how his level of proficiency in music is debatable at all. he's got a very good sense of composition, he knows how to play with the crowd's expectations, contrasting mellow melodic parts with very intensive and aggressive ones and he never fails to deliver on all accounts: be it drum sounds and patterns, even the sound design of them is amazing; the sound design in all the instrumentation involved, the level of skills involved in the production, so forth and so on. how come is this even debatable, without walking into the highly subjective and ambiguous dimensions of taste and personal preferences?

are you really engaging in the old is better then new kind of argument? 'cause that's a very old one and it's happened to the artists you mention as well, back in the day. I think access to instruments and technology in general has enabled much more people to express themselves and that's a good thing. as I've said previously, on that level - and by this I mean, when you get to play to big crowds and manage a big gig schedule - there's hardly anyone lacking knowledge of music theory, composition, production techniques or whatever you can think off.

besides, electronic music is not just about listening, certainly not just about notes and scales and harmonies to. it's also about sound textures, rhythm, bass frequencies that collide with your chest, that you can feel as much as you listen - and that's what makes the crowds move together in unison, that's the driving force behind all this "bass music" thing. if you pick synthesizer sound design alone, you'd have a hard time explaining to me (or anyone) how Skrillex would fall short compared to any - AND I MEAN ANY - act available today or in the past. This isn't true just for Skrillex, it's true for a lot of people.

>I'm just contributing to the debate<

[Timo]

Welcome back, what a mess. I like sorting out pissy little arguments between two grown men about as much as seeing Oscar Pistorius' annoying little phizog continually pop up in the news.

It's a shame as the thread otherwise has a lot of good debate and expression, but these posts are equally intertwined with the dross, making it both repulsive for other respectable users and my life harder.

Both of you should know better, I've spoken to you both in private. I've no option but to give you both time out for one week. Any continuations after that may well be considerably longer. I'd hate to do that, as I like you both and feel you both have given enormous positive contributions, but this forum and its users should be respected.

The irony is that, even though very different, both your arguments are equally valid and correct in your own personal ideals. There's no need to attack someone else's. In fact, the exchange of ideas of what music is is actually beneficial in broadening your own minds and trying something different.

I think music has a different definition for every person out there. It's not anything, per se, that follows a strict set of rules. The ear is in the beholder. The line between what is sound (which is definable by science), and what is music (which largely isn't), is entirely subjective. One man's music is another man's noise. There's no specific formula.

Going off on a tangent, I remember travelling down to London one time on the Duchess of Sutherland (http://www.prclt.co.uk/images/6233_Kings_Cross_Oct_06.jpg) (not a posh harlot, unfortunately, but a steam locomotive, all 200 tons of it, plus the carriages), and I'm no train geek but there was one specific period where the train was travelling at full tilt (beyond the legal speed limit according to a nerd who has his head stuck out the window), and for a minute, all the sounds that the train made - the rhythm from the steam locomotive itself (á la Skylined (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGbDvjKbPhA) by the Prodigy), along with a certain part of the railtrack making the 'clickety clack', and a whole lot more besides, ghost hits, carriage noise, reverberation and decay, etc. - everything just suddenly blended together and formed the most amazing, deeply embodying and intricate rhythms I have ever heard. If only I had had a recorder! D'oh.

The mosaic of what would otherwise be classed as noises came together to blend into something much greater than its parts (you may say this of dubstep). Of course you couldn't ever expect to play it with a piano, it was percussive than instrumental, but for me, it was music right there.

That said, I even found music in the absolutely cacophonous racket that an MRI scanner screamed into my ears on various occasions whilst having scans of the head (they're still searching for my brain, if found please take it to the nearest lost property for collection). The noises an MRI scanner belts out actually sounds not unlike progressive dubstep, but exceedingly brutal, and makes dubstep itself sound like a timid musical box.

If pushed to describe music, then entirely subjectively I'd suggest recognisable tones (even if nonharmonic, to an extent), recognising repeatable structure (loops, or variations of), and timing (rhythm) - possibly followed by harmonic structure and melody a close second - could play a large-ish part in attempting to encapsulate the term.

I think if you unexpectedly enjoy listening to a certain sound - be it birds chirruping, or even the MRI scanner screaming out nonharmonic, unnatural but rhythmic noises - and the sounds have some form of structure, then that effectively can be music (for you).

Then again, some music is entirely organic and fluid, without any discernable repetition yet have recognisable tone(s) structure. Think avant garde artists, Brian Eno, et al.

Is someone who plays the digeridoo a musician?

I don't think the method of composition has any bearing on whether the result is 'music'. If the end result is (perceived by many as) music, and you made it all yourself, then surely that's all that matters, regardless how you got there? Like someone else mentioned earlier, people who initially used sampling were thought of as non musicians. Then it was embraced, and used by nearly everyone.

With Skrillex (seeing as others enjoy continually referring to him on Infekted ;)), I guess it also comes to that old comparison (second only to 'PC vs Mac'): is a DJ a musician? I think Skrillex is a blend of the two. His songs are very, very musical in many ways, and he clearly knows what music is and is heavily passionate about it (as are his many fans), so even though his tools may not necessarily involve a piano, I feel he's no less of a musician.

And given his success, who's doing it wrong - him or us?

[Timo]

WgII2gDY-Rw

Quite interesting, from several standpoints and different musical backgrounds.

[Berni]

Welcome back, what a mess. I like sorting out pissy little arguments between two grown men about as much as seeing Oscar Pistorius' annoying little phizog continually pop up in the news.

It's a shame as the thread otherwise has a lot of good debate and expression, but these posts are equally intertwined with the dross, making it both repulsive for other respectable users and my life harder.

Both of you should know better, I've spoken to you both in private. I've no option but to give you both time out for one week. Any continuations after that may well be considerably longer. I'd hate to do that, as I like you both and feel you both have given enormous positive contributions, but this forum and its users should be respected.

The irony is that, even though very different, both your arguments are equally valid and correct in your own personal ideals. There's no need to attack someone else's. In fact, the exchange of ideas of what music is is actually beneficial in broadening your own minds and trying something different.

I think music has a different definition for every person out there. It's not anything, per se, that follows a strict set of rules. The ear is in the beholder. The line between what is sound (which is definable by science), and what is music (which largely isn't), is entirely subjective. One man's music is another man's noise. There's no specific formula.

Going off on a tangent, I remember travelling down to London one time on the Duchess of Sutherland (http://www.prclt.co.uk/images/6233_Kings_Cross_Oct_06.jpg) (not a posh harlot, unfortunately, but a steam locomotive, all 200 tons of it, plus the carriages), and I'm no train geek but there was one specific period where the train was travelling at full tilt (beyond the legal speed limit according to a nerd who has his head stuck out the window), and for a minute, all the sounds that the train made - the rhythm from the steam locomotive itself (á la Skylined (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGbDvjKbPhA) by the Prodigy), along with a certain part of the railtrack making the 'clickety clack', and a whole lot more besides, ghost hits, carriage noise, reverberation and decay, etc. - everything just suddenly blended together and formed the most amazing, deeply embodying and intricate rhythms I have ever heard. If only I had had a recorder! D'oh.

The mosaic of what would otherwise be classed as noises came together to blend into something much greater than its parts (you may say this of dubstep). Of course you couldn't ever expect to play it with a piano, it was percussive than instrumental, but for me, it was music right there.

That said, I even found music in the absolutely cacophonous racket that an MRI scanner screamed into my ears on various occasions whilst having scans of the head (they're still searching for my brain, if found please take it to the nearest lost property for collection). The noises an MRI scanner belts out actually sounds not unlike progressive dubstep, but exceedingly brutal, and makes dubstep itself sound like a timid musical box.

If pushed to describe music, then entirely subjectively I'd suggest recognisable tones (even if nonharmonic, to an extent), recognising repeatable structure (loops, or variations of), and timing (rhythm) - possibly followed by harmonic structure and melody a close second - could play a large-ish part in attempting to encapsulate the term.

I think if you unexpectedly enjoy listening to a certain sound - be it birds chirruping, or even the MRI scanner screaming out nonharmonic, unnatural but rhythmic noises - and the sounds have some form of structure, then that effectively can be music (for you).

Then again, some music is entirely organic and fluid, without any discernable repetition yet have recognisable tone(s) structure. Think avant garde artists, Brian Eno, et al.

Is someone who plays the digeridoo a musician?

I don't think the method of composition has any bearing on whether the result is 'music'. If the end result is (perceived by many as) music, and you made it all yourself, then surely that's all that matters, regardless how you got there? Like someone else mentioned earlier, people who initially used sampling were thought of as non musicians. Then it was embraced, and used by nearly everyone.

With Skrillex (seeing as others enjoy continually referring to him on Infekted ;)), I guess it also comes to that old comparison (second only to 'PC vs Mac'): is a DJ a musician? I think Skrillex is a blend of the two. His songs are very, very musical in many ways, and he clearly knows what music is and is heavily passionate about it (as are his many fans), so even though his tools may not necessarily involve a piano, I feel he's no less of a musician.

And given his success, who's doing it wrong - him or us?

Well put my friend & should make sense to even the most prejudiced musician & lets face it in no other art form is there more of it than in music. Do you know how long it took the orchestra's of the day to accept the saxophone when it was first invented? A really long time Lol & now you can't imagine Jazz without it. The early Jazz bands hated singers at first, total purist's but found out they could make more money if they had a hot mama up front :D And so on & so forth...but really, there is no room for bigotry in creativity. If someone wants to make music with rubber band's so what??? Then when you find out that the 'elastic' sound is the latest craze and he's doing sell out dates all over the country & has a million followers on Soundcloud don't get yourself all twisted out of shape just because you didn't think of it yourself ;) Peace!

[MBTC]

Both of you should know better, I've spoken to you both in private. I've no option but to give you both time out for one week. Any continuations after that may well be considerably longer. I'd hate to do that, as I like you both and feel you both have given enormous positive contributions, but this forum and its users should be respected.

First, thank you for the ban! (and no, that's not sarcasm), because something needed to be done. Even prior to the ban, I of course already committed to ignoring the issue going forward (and just as I kept a commitment I made to you a few months back privately regarding a completely different subject that I've honored, I'm sure you realize I will honor this one as well), so in that sense the effect is redundant, but the reasons behind it are well-appreciated.

I did think it was funny that all of this came about from a thread that was going on a year old. I just wish we'd gotten ourselves banned much sooner! Things could have been so much quieter around here :)