Viewing Thread:
"New distinction in music"

This morning, being bored, I decided to watch CD:UK, and Top Of The Pops Saturday, simply because there was nothing else on and I had nothing better to do. Originally this was going to be a rant about the state of music today, and in some ways it is, but instead I want to point out a new distinction in music I noticed on CD:UK, we now have “live performances” and “fully live performances.” That’s right, if there is a person on stage, it’s live, but when they’re actually singing, as opposed to miming, it’s “fully live.”

I’m inclined to believe the producers of these shows have been forced into this position, as it is now immediately obvious who is miming and who is not. Take Dannii Minogue on TOTP: Saturday, the second she opened her mouth, I knew she was miming. Only the large teeny-bopper fanbase must believe these acts are actually performing live, when Blazin’ Squad performed all their fans in the audience were “singing along,” probably not even realising they were the only ones who were actually singing.

What benefit to music is this? We now have artists who don’t write their own songs, mime under all circumstances during performances, and even fake playing instruments – ie. Busted and their missing guitarist during their acoustic run last week.

I was going to suggest the next step was to just synthesise an entire tune, but that’s already been done, and it’s the latest fad among trendies – Dance music. I don’t want to step on anyones toes by saying this, but if it offends anyone, tough: Dance music is crap, all the “songs” sound the same, and they’re made by some geek sitting in front of a computer.

Real music is gone, and the people who still enjoy proper music are becoming fewer and fewer, as most would much rather fit in than have abuse hurled at them, as is the trend.

I wonder what the next step in terminology after “live” and “fully live” will be….

Why is "synthesising" lazy? It has just as much artistic merit as playing a flute or bass. It takes tallent to construct a dance track, which yes, may involve a sample at some point. This does not take away from the ability of dance producers. They still have to have the vision of constructing a track that people will enjoy. Instead of hiring some session musician to come in and bang a drum or whatever, they sample it. It takes immense skill to listen to a track and pick one one of the hundereds of elements that may be present for use in another genre. Maybe picking out the bass from some old soul 45 and building a floor filling record out of it - this is the same as someone who just happens to stum a guitar may like the way bands X, Y and Z were and lift influences from their music to interpret in their own way.

Dr Gonzo wrote:
> NO! Have you ever played a guitar? It is the easiest instrument in
> the whole world. I played piano for ages and had a huff when it
> begain to get difficult (not practicing didn't help). Then I picked
> up a guitar and was laughing.

True, guitars are quite easy. And yes, I own two.
>
> The difficulty of the instrument is irrelevant - it's having the
> alibity to construct a song. Strumming a few chords on a guitar takes
> very little tallent - as does striking a few keys on a synthesiser.
> Anyway, what's the obsession with synthesisers? It's just one of many
> instruments that can be used in putting together a dance track.

But synthesising is just damn lazy!
>
> It's like building a house, laying one brick isn't hard - designing
> and building a whole house is.

Well, that's debatable :P

Small Blue wrecked the intelligent discussion :(

Was there any need to quote all that?

Hold my horses? I bloody hate horses ever since they shot the only one I liked. Prudence hated jumping, I hated jumping, she was keen to canter, I was keen to canter, she responded to the lightest of kicks, I didn't like kicking much, she got cancer, they shot her.

Anyway... ermmmm... I'm the one saying there is great dance music, you don't need to tell me. Just bought Beautiful by Jask, amazing house track.

Hold you horses, Dr Gonzo - sopme dance music out there is decent enough. It must be all these idiotic "club" dance tunes you're referring to.

Papua New Guniea by F.S.O.L. is a great tune, for example...

NO! Have you ever played a guitar? It is the easiest instrument in the whole world. I played piano for ages and had a huff when it begain to get difficult (not practicing didn't help). Then I picked up a guitar and was laughing.

The difficulty of the instrument is irrelevant - it's having the alibity to construct a song. Strumming a few chords on a guitar takes very little tallent - as does striking a few keys on a synthesiser. Anyway, what's the obsession with synthesisers? It's just one of many instruments that can be used in putting together a dance track.

It's like building a house, laying one brick isn't hard - designing and building a whole house is.

Dr Gonzo wrote:
> Small Blue wrote:
> Too sodding right. Dance music is a mixed piece of shate that takes
> almost no talent to produce. Any moron (no geekism required) can
> make
> a *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum*
> *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum*
> *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum*
> *dum* *dum* *dum* tune.
>
> Indeed, and the only thing they accomplish is making a rubbish record.
> Aware I'm fighting a one man battle here, but there are thousands of
> great dance tracks out there (again, pointing out that
> "dance" is an incredibly diverse genre that covers many
> totally distinct styles of music) that takes a rediculous amount of
> tallent to produce.
>
> Another repeating-myself comment; but I don't write of The Who or The
> Beach Boys because I don't like The Sterophonics and Feeder. Awww
> man, all they do is strum some guitars, takes no tallent to emulate so
> must be dead easy to do. I mean, I've listened to music with guitars
> in it a lot on Radio One, therefore I must be an expert on the subject
> of all music with guitars in it.

But surely it takes more talent to play guitar than press a few buttons on a synthesiser.

Dr Gonzo wrote:
> (Said by the hoodie wearing, in need of a hair cut and shower guy with
> the world's most beautiful guitar sitting inches away - just so you
> know I'm messing with you :)

Oh, should probably point out the guitar is resting against a bookcase containing all my nasty "dance" records, just to balance it out.

Small Blue wrote:
> Too sodding right. Dance music is a mixed piece of shate that takes
> almost no talent to produce. Any moron (no geekism required) can make
> a *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum*
> *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum*
> *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum* *dum*
> *dum* *dum* *dum* tune.

Indeed, and the only thing they accomplish is making a rubbish record. Aware I'm fighting a one man battle here, but there are thousands of great dance tracks out there (again, pointing out that "dance" is an incredibly diverse genre that covers many totally distinct styles of music) that takes a rediculous amount of tallent to produce.

Another repeating-myself comment; but I don't write of The Who or The Beach Boys because I don't like The Sterophonics and Feeder. Awww man, all they do is strum some guitars, takes no tallent to emulate so must be dead easy to do. I mean, I've listened to music with guitars in it a lot on Radio One, therefore I must be an expert on the subject of all music with guitars in it. Oh, and everyone who listens to that are geeks with long hair and hoodies who don't wash.

(Said by the hoodie wearing, in need of a hair cut and shower guy with the world's most beautiful guitar sitting inches away - just so you know I'm messing with you :)

Well, I only found out about them on Saturday, theres about 15 of them or so, none of them play any instruments, I don't think they write the songs, and well, mime very badly.

Why on Earth there are 15 is beyond me.