I accept that it’s art. Beyond that, how to categorize it? I don’t know. It’s available in stores that sell music, but then again, laundry detergent is available in stores that sell food. Rap is just… rap. I’m tired of rationalizing my dislike for a particular style of art.
I should have been clearer on that one. What I meant to say was, in order to be music the melody must be quantizable. That’s my opinion because that’s the way I learned what music is.
And actually I happen to prefer music that has a nice melody (Enya, for example) so to me it’s very important. Given a choice between a song that has a nice rhythm and a song that has a nice melody, I’ll choose melody every time.
That’s just silly. There’s nothing arbitrary about my definition that the melody must be quantizable. Am I going to have to cite what I said about the mathematical relationships between notes? Or describe the mathematics of the equally tempered scale? Your analogy of restricting music to 4/4 time is ridiculous.
If I don’t like rap and choose not to call it music, does that make me a snob?
It would touch me differently, sure. But I would be touched differently if I took out the first violin track of Vivalidi’s “Spring”, or the left hand part of “Moonlight Sonata”. I don’t like rap songs just because of the rap. I like the entire package. I appreciate how all the layers of a song come together. IMHO, the rapping is just another instrument.
Rap is a style of delivering lyrics. Take the rapping out of a rap song, it’s no longer rap. But take the vocals out of an opera and it’s no longer opera. Take the violin out of a violin concerto and it’s no longer a violin concerto. You can sing opera without the orchestra or play the violin without the piano accompaniment. Does that mean “music” isn’t what makes these things important? Or does it mean that something special but equally “musical” emerges from the combination of vocals and orchestra, violin and piano, and rap and “music”?
All of this is IMHO.
And this isn’t any less offensive. To say something is “dumbed down” is to say that it’s purposefully created to cater to the less intelligent. Or, it’s to say that the creators are dumb. You admit that rap is music. Yeah, it’s different from jazz, classical, rock, and country. But by what standards do you decide that it’s dumber? And do you rank the other musical genres likewise? Is rock dumber than R&B? Is country dumber than jazz? Is jazz dumber than classical? How about the ceremonial drumming of aboriginal peoples? Is that the dumbest of them all?
If I take a complete rock song and rap the lyrics instead of sing them, does that lower the intelligence quotient of the song? How about if I sample a part of a classical piece and rap over that?
I’m an amatuer musician. I admit that I appreciate music from an emotional standpoint over an intellectual one. So that’s probably why I don’t see the point of labeling the superiority of musical genres. To me, it’s like judging the superiority of ice cream flavors. I like cherry over chocolate and I’m not afraid to say so, but I also realize that I don’t have to come up with psuedo-intellectual explanations for why I feel this way. Nor do I have to attribute negative things to people who do like chocolate ice cream. It’s all IMHO.
Arbitrarily removing rap from the artistic genre that it most resembles is snobbish. It’s no different than what people used to do jazz or other forms of music that challenged convention.
You know Monstro, I caught that vibe too. It reminded me of the Jazz being called the “music of the sub-human” or rock and roll being “jungle music”, that somehow because it wasn’t created by the status quo, the music was by nature…inferior.
Not putting words in anyone’s mouth’s…just lurking.
You know, I am having flashbacks to my grandfather telling me that this country was great until…the Beatles arrived, Rock and Roll was mindless drivel that ruined our youth, etc…
Maybe I just don’t get it, just like he didn’t get rock and roll. There are certain elements that have always needed to be present for me to enjoy music. Rap doesn’t contain those elements, in my opinion. Thats what I was trying to convey about the music being simplistic. There just aren’t enough layers to it for me to want to listen to. I get bored with it. As far as the lemmings thing, I would think that any of you have to agree that a lot of people listen to rap because it is fashionable to do so. Once the next thing comes along, they will switch. That has always bugged me, listening to something just because it is “in”. And there is a lot of rap that is simply put out to make money. The demeans it. All music has examples of this though. I do see the artistic merit to it but musically, it falls short for me. I have eclectic tastes though and I would expect many people wouldn’t like what I listen to either.
The more I think about the topic though, the more my opinion changes because, to be frank, you all make some very good points. I don’t see my enjoyment of it growing though. I have given it a chance. I lived with a roommate for 2 years that loved it. I have heard quite a bit of it, the popular stuff and the underground stuff. It just doesn’t do it for me.
Having said all of that, I think I have been more condescending in this thread than I would have liked. I apologize for that. I saw the thread title, agreed, and shared my opinion. I could have done that without demeaning the people that like it or those that create it though.
I was gonna throw out a name like Qbert or maybe find some appropriate electronica, but then you’d say “that isn’t music”.
Researching this has been interesting. From this site:
“Pitch-bending is a subconscious groping for sounds outside the 12-tone scale.”
So it would seem that any song that has pitch blending can’t be accurately described in the traditional notation.
Also interesting, looking at a history of musical notation shows that the notation system grew and adapted to the needs of what was being created. With each adaptation, did stuff that was music suddenly become music? How was music defined before musical notation.
I think you’re looking at this backwards. You don’t start with the notation and then define music by what fits in the structure. The structure is formed in order to describe what is considered music. As music changes & grows (due to the new tools available…including software), the notational system will grow to include that music…or new notational systems will be created.
Touché, perhaps, although it’ll take me a couple days to read the entire history site.
Maybe you should have left it at that because…
I dug out my Webster’s Encyclopedia of Dictionaries, 1978 edition (almost predates rap) and looked up “melody”:
So your cite says “pleasing” and mine says “agreeable”. We agree on that one. So far so good?
I don’t like rap, therefore IMHO rap is neither pleasing nor agreeable. Therefore, IMHO it does not meet either of these necessary criteria, and therefore IMHO, rap is not music.
How is this different from people listening to jazz because it’s considered cool and sophisicated, or people listening to classical because its considered high culture? Rap listeners aren’t the only ones who are catering to “fashion” in their music preferences. IMHO, I don’t think there are more rap listeners in this category than other kind of music listeners. I’m not even sure how one can perceive the insincereity of another person’s musical preferences…let alone a “lot” of people’s…without making some hasty, unproveable assumptions.
I think more people–rap fans and everyone else–would benefit by diversifying their CD collections and dropping their prejudices against other genres.
At best you’ve proven that you don’t consider rap to have a melody (and we already knew of your opinion in that regard). This does not necessarily result in rap not being music.
Anyway, let’s look at the process used in your “proof.” Using your deductions, I could claim that the Eagles’ Hotel California doesn’t have a melody, since I find that arrangement of notes to be one of the most annoying pieces of human aural creation in modern times.
Thus, by your interpretation, to the many people who dislike Hotel California, the song has no melody. Indeed, using your interpretation, only songs that we like and enjoy have melody. This is obviously a foolish notion; just because I find the notes that make up a composition disagreeable does not mean there is no melody.
Hence, the dictionary has a poor definition of melody, or your application of the definition is poor. I’ll go with the latter. It seems the dictionary did not intend “pleasing” or “agreeable” to be as subjective as your word games require. Nice try, though. In future, how about you stick to proving that black is white (stay away from zebra crossings)?
musicguy, I think we’ve reached as good an understanding as we’re likely to in this thread. Although, and I don’t mean this to be critical, this:
…is exactly what I’ve been thinking the whole thread.
I think Yookeroo makes a great point when he says the above. For those who are curious, here is a page with links to a popular form of Turntablism Notation. Notation does not and should not be the measure by which we define music, it’s the other way around. In this case of “The chicken or the egg?”, the music definitely comes before the notation. The definition of music that many here seem to be using is far to narrow. It is interesting to note that most artists resist being “pigeon-holed” into categories. The more you try to define and group music the more it seems to resist classification. I prefer the “Chicken Run” test to determine if a piece has any musical value. In the movie when a chicken is exposed to some rock n’ roll (rock is a pretty simplistic form of music itself, by the way) it can’t help but move around and start dancing. The chicken has not ever heard music before, has never danced before, but when the beat kicks in the rhythm has the chicken dancing to the beat. If the sounds get people dancing, then they count as music to me.
Well, musicguy, I said “. . . Claims that rap is not music and does not require talent and/or skill are quite simply expressions of gross ignorance.” According to me, then, one must claim that rap is not music AND that it does not require talent (and/or skill) before I award the red badge of ignorance. Your statements indicating that you do consider it a valid art form seem to exclude you from the “no skill” camp, so I will agree that simply questioning whether rap meets the definition of music is not necessarily an expression of ignorance.
The thing is that rapping (well) is actually quite hard. It takes flow, talent, practice, preparation, confidence, and rhythm. Most people sound like idiots when they try to do it. Those who are able to do it well create infectious grooves that have increased the quality of my life tremendously. The turntablist stuff is even more difficult. I’d like to see anyone who says it takes no skill to be a master dj try to Beat Match, then let’s see them try to Beat chop, then let’s see them try to Beat Juggle.
Beat Matching is where you line up the drum lines on 2 different songs. While one is playing you cue the other up using the headphones. You must line up the kick and the snare on both records (or cds) so that they hit at the same time. After you do this they will quickly get out of time with each other if you have not matched the tempos. So the dj must manually adjust the tempo until the two songs stay in lockstep. When this is done properly, when you move the crossfader it will sound like a single drum kit plays the drums in both songs. One song will blend seamlessly into the other. It may sound easy, but this is quite deceptive. It is tricky as hell.
Beat Juggling is when you use the two records to continuously jump back to the beginning, middle, or end of a given measure as desired. You must manipulate the records so that different beats play when you want them. You can make cool-as-hell original sequences by alternating kick-kick snare-snare to kick-snare kick-snare or some such thing. In this way the two beats play off of each other. Done properly you can create manual delay effects as well as whole new complex beats. Being able to move the records to the exact spots you want them several times per measure without skipping the needle or losing the time, and all the while cutting the crossfader on and off at the appropriate times so that rewinding the records is not heard, well, that is to display great skill. Using doubles of a record, it is possible to manually loop the breakbeats of a song (the part where the beat plays solo for a measure or two). This is where hip-hop has it’s origins, and I promise you, looping records like this is very difficult to do well.
Beat Chopping requires you to move the records with even greater precision and frequency. When one beat chops they basically become a drum kit. You grab one record and find the elements of the percussion in one measure. Say you have a basic kick/snare. You cut the fader on and off as you move the record back and forth and become the beat. In this way, you can create a new beat, with new time, that has never existed before. The motions required on the record and the crossfader to do this without skipping or losing time are damn near impossible - you have to be lightning quick, have a very light touch, and have a finely developed sense of rhythm. This shit is hard as hell and anyone who says different knows not of which they speak. This technique can be used with other instruments as well. If you have a recording of a flute playing a clean C, a clean E, a clean F etc., It is possible for you to then play those notes in an order which may differ from the original recording. Thusly you can create a new melody with just a record. Instead of blowing into a flute and pressing my fingers against holes, I manipulate the crossfader and the record to produce similar sounds. Both actions are the playing of an instrument. I see no reason why one should judge the relative difficulty of producing the sounds rather than the quality of the sounds themselves.
There is a tendency among many musicians to define “good” music as “music that is difficult to create”. I think this is a foolish tendency, personally. The Beatles for example, have some very basic rock tracks that are catchy as hell but not all that musically complex. What matters is how the end product actually sounds (strange concept - I know), not how hard it was to create. I have a kick-ass sampler (Roland 808) and a kick ass Drum Machine (Roland 505). While learning to use them was admittedly much easier then learning to play the drums, I would not say that they are automatically easy machines to use. Most people I know would have no idea how to use these devices. I took months digging into the machines to get to the point where I can say it feels easy to sample and loop on the fly, to build beats, to effect beats, to combine several beats into a track. I can do all of these things now with ease, but that comes from practice. To say that using these machines is a simple or a dumbed down process is really a question of relativity. Is it easier than learning to be a great guitar soloist? Probably. Does that make one skill better than the other? I say no. It simply makes one skill harder to acquire then the other. If one guy makes a great song with machines, and another writes a shitty song with traditional instruments, I don’t really care who worked harder. I care what the music sounds like. Making good music is the skill I value - however it is that you get there.
I’m reminded of grandfathers who went up hill both ways to school. Music technology has gotten to the point where, with the assistance of a computer I can map any sound ever recorded onto a template vinyl record instantly. If it takes a guitarist 5 years to learn something that I can have at my fingertips after a few months practice, then why should I take the time to learn to play the thing? If I can create a guitar solo, or play the drums, or pull a violin from a databank and then manipulate the sound so it sounds live in the room, then whether I can actually play the instrument or not doesn’t matter. It sounds like I do. Even though it is easier then learning the instruments themselves, it still requires skill, talent, and creativity to accomplish. Where the lines should be drawn is, admittedly, a tricky question. I mean, simply pushing play on a cd does not make one a musician. I guess the test for me is if the material that comes out is catchy and original (even if it is reminiscent of other things). If you pull a big beat or a create a great track, it doesn’t matter to me how difficult it was for you to create it, you still get credit for creating something with musical value.
All that said, musicguy, I very much appreciate you rethinking your position on this issue. Your apology for the condescension is accepted and very welcome. I so love it when reasonable discourse actually accomplishes something. Knowing that sometimes people actually listen makes it alot easier to type all of this stuff out the next time folks try a stunt like this. I hate when people get all conceited and exclusive about music. It’s nice to see reasonable folks realize that such positions are often difficult to defend (and with good reason). I’ve enjoyed reading this thread quite a bit.
I knew you were going to try this. Defining melody in purely subjective terms like this leaves us with a pretty worthless definition of melody (at least for this discussion). If that’s how the word is defined, then anything someone doesn’t like isn’t considered to have a melody. I don’t like most mainstream country music, does that mean that it doesn’t have a melody? Does that mean that country isn’t music? And since there’s no music that’s pleasing to everyone, that means that that no music qualifies as music. Think about it, if I were to pop into a discussion of country music claiming that it isn’t music and has no melody just because it isn’t pleasing to me, I’d be laughed out of the discussion (and rightly so).
I think the definition works better when it’s read that as long as it’s an “agreeable musical air” to someone, it can be considered a melody. I think it’s better to be as inclusive as possible in these sorts of things. Of course, this means that to some people the sound of a chainsaw could be considered “melody”, but hey, why not? Or maybe, just to be practical, you need a significant number of people consider it pleasing…rap surely qualifies considered this way.
I don’t understand why people who hate rap can’t be satisfied with just hating rap; why the need to try to justify it by trying to deny that by any reasonable definition of music, it is music. It’s almost like they feel threatened by it somehow.
Actually, I think there might be right now since rap is as popular as it is. But your point is valid. Jazz, way back when, probably did have the trendy jump-on-the-bandwagon types back when it was hot. A few years ago, there were plenty of trendoids showing up at raves when that was briefly the cool thing to do. The fact that a style may become trendy is no reason to dismiss it as a style.
I agree. While I can appreciate the skill & practice it takes to master a musical instrument (particularly at a live performance), when it comes down to it, all that matters to me is what has been created and is that pleasing to me? I understand why musicians who have studied & practiced their whole life might bristle at this notion, but I think that having tools that make it easy to create music is a wonderful thing. I’m glad creative people who may have little ability to play an instrument now have an opportunity to create music.
One of the things I love about this board is that sometimes you don’t truly examine your beliefs until you are forced to defend them.
I’m an old school musician and that is where a lot of my opinions come from. I took the tradition route of learning the instruments to the best of my ability, the theory aspect of trying to figure out why certain notes sound better than others and why, and the technological aspects, so that I could learn how to record them. The ability to pick and choose sounds or musical ideas that others
have created and put them together through technological means is something that seems more to me to be sound engineering than being based upon musical skill. I don’t think that all music has to be theoretically astounding to be good music. I understand the emotional aspects as well. If I didn’t, nobody would like what I create, to be blunt. I have known too many musicians that are so deep into the theory, that their music is bland and devoid of any feeling whatsoever. I’ll take emotion over knowledge any day of the week.
And I use the tools available to help create music as well. I’m quite adept at using sequencers, effects processing, mixers, etc… but if I didn’t have an understanding of the instruments being played or the accepted theory of harmony, I think my music would be lacking something. I see many young musicians that would rather not learn theory because it can be difficult or try to develop their playing of an instrument, realizing that if they want drums on one of their compositions, they can simply find a loop, rather than take a little time to learn how to create their own patterns, or at least have an understanding of why drummers do what they do. I think that is a shame.
One of the reasons that we have all of these wonderful drum loops to choose from is because someone who actually spent the years developing the talent to play a rock solid groove, played the part that was sampled. I would hate to think of a world where there were less musicians who could competently play the instruments that we love to sample. Having real musicians around benefits everyone and there is true beauty in watching someone who is a master of their instrument play it as an extension of their inner self. Some in this thread have said that they don’t care how good a musician is, they just care how the music makes them feel. I think that is a shame. I wish there was more of an appreciation of the fantastic musicians that are out there.
Concerning the turntable stuff, I have no doubt that it is a difficult art to master. I’ve seen the guys that do it really well and it a lot of fun to watch them do their thing. They are artists and it has obviously taken them a lot of practice to do what they do so well. I know that if I tried to do it, I would probably suck at it. But is it really that demeaning to suggest that they are performing a separate, distinctive skill, that isn’t necessarily being a musician, so to speak. To me, they are manipulating sounds in an artistic way but the skills necessary are vastly different than those needed to master a musical instrument. That isn’t putting them down in any way, as far as I can see. It is just a different set of talents, that are just as valid as the talent and skill it takes to play a musical instrument. IMO, there is plenty of room for both in this world, regardless of whether I think the skills they possess are one of a musician. That is not to say that one is better than the other, only that they possess different challenges and require different skills. That is how I feel about someone that raps. It still may fall under the blanket of making music, but his/her skills as a rapper doesn’t mean that they would be any more succesful playing a musical instrument, than I would be trying to rap. We just have different areas that we chose to develop our skills. And I can definitely admire their skill without necessarily becoming a fan of rap music. Rap doesn’t do anything for me musically just as I would expect a Charlie Parker sax solo doesn’t do it for everyone. I can think he is masterful and someone else can think he is making a bunch of noise. Luckily, there are many styles of music for us to explore and find what it is that moves us.
All I was trying to say is that I think that many styles of music tend to suffer a bit when they become popular to the masses. It isn’t exclusive to rap, by any means. Grunge became popular because of bands like Nirvana that were doing something unique and exciting. Then it catches on and everyone sounds like Nirvana for a while, just not quite as interesting. The same thing has happened in just about every other genre of music. I would think that some would agree that the same has happened with rap. Surely there must be some artists that are blatent ripoffs, latching on to someone elses success but without anything unique to offer. That is the consequence of any artform that becomes popular, it can also become diluted in the process.
Likewise, a lot of people latch on to what is popular from a listening perspective, not because it moves them in any way, but because they don’t want to be left out from what is cool to listen to. I doubt that rap is unique in this regard. If we can agree that this happens, then I don’t think that it is a stretch to say that out of the millions of people that listen to rap, maybe not all of them are getting the message that it delivers, care to, or really have any interest in it other than they want to fit in. These are the same folks that buy clothes that everyone is wearing, not because they like them but just to be trendy. They don’t take the time to find out what they really like, fearing that if they do, they won’t fit in. That is what I meant by the "lemming"remark. And it certainly isn’t unique to rap by a longshot.
I don’t know about demeaning but I would certainly call it innacurate. The skills required may differ from those required to play a standup bass, but so what? That doesn’t have anything to do with whether the person playing is a musician. A musician is defined as “One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental” over at dictionary.com. The turntablist counts. Are turntables an instrument? Same web site defines an instrument as “A device for playing or producing music.” Turntables count. So by the most common definitions a turntablist is a musician and the decks are his/her instrument(s).
This seems silly. As far as the physical motions required, the skills required to play guitar are vastly different from the skills required to play the violin which are vastly different than the skills required to play drums. All of these things (including the decks) are instruments. A skilled Dj can use a record with scaled tones to play sheet music (like Beck’s DJ Swamp does). So one could play ‘Mary had a Little Lamb’ with tones on a record (a record that is NOT ‘Mary had a Little Lamb’). On a guitar you press against down on the strings against the frets - on turntables you apply the needle and then manipulate the record and cross fader. Both accomplish the release of musical sounds. The physical techniques required to coax the sounds from the instruments differ, but the end result is musical sound none the less. I see no reason to consider a skilled guitarist, drummer, flutist, violinist, etc. more of a musician then a skilled turntablist. It takes just as many hours to get truly great with the decks as it would any instrument. Like any musician, if a turntablist wants to be great he must play every day for at least an hour (preferably more). I have played guitar and I frequently play the turntables. The master levels of both instruments are equally challenging to achieve based on what I can tell. A small percentage of those who try will actually have what it takes to be great. So, what criteria would allow for the guitarist to be a musician but not the turntablist? If it is a matter of range the guitar loses - the amount of sounds available to a dj greatly outnumber any other instrument. What is left that could seperate the turntablist from other musicians? They can play notes, melodies, create original compositions, play live, improvise, and manipulate the tempo and pitch. No, the turntables most definitely ARE musical instruments. They require skill and have a greater range then any other instrument so far created. Sentiments to the contrary? That is a losing debate, methinks.
Another thought provoking post, to be sure. If I may, could you comment on this…
In motion pictures, most of the sound effects are added later, pretty much anything other than dialog. Sounds may include things such as door slams, footsteps, wind, crickets, etc. These sounds are organized, they must start and stop at very specific times. Any of these sounds could be placed in a sampler and “Mary had a little lamb” could be played with them. Therefore, are the people that are responsible for placing these sounds in the movies, musicians?
Are foley artists musicians?
Is a train engineer who pulls his whistle or someone pressing a doorbell a musician?
Is anyone that works with sound a musician?
I think you made a strong case for a turntable being considered a musical instrument in some regards. I’m just curious where the line is drawn, or does such a line exist, in your opinion.
I’m just still having some problems buying into the argument that anyone that can manipulate a sound is a musician. I can import .wav files into Sound Forge all day. I can cut and paste those sounds in such a way that sounds interesting, maybe even pleasing, without having any knowledge or appreciation whatsoever of music. Does that feat alone earn the title of musician? To me, it could be likened to someone who paints by numbers. Are those people artists? I guess that technically they would be but it still seems like a slap in the face to the people that have spent a lifetime developing an appreciation and understanding of an artform.
To me, art, whether it be music or painting or sculpting or writing goes deeper than the textbook dictionary definition. If a collection of sounds is all that are needed to make music, then the auto garage down the street is making music everyday when they are working on cars. I would like to believe (and maybe I am completely wrong again) that there is more to what makes something music or someone a musician than simply an organization of sound.
Yep. Musician ain’t some magical infamous title that only the elite of the elite can earn. I’m a web designer, but it doesn’t mean I’ve made professional websites and all.
Mixing together sounds in order to make a nice pleasurable whatever makes you a musician. It really doesn’t matter where the sounds originated, be it off an instrument or off a .wav file. The act of putting them together is creating music.
