Music snobbery

[Professor Polonsky]

One of the criteria on which I evaluate artists, beyond just whether I like their music, is their innovation and musicianship. While the former cannot be objectively measured at all, the latter can, and that is where I believe popular music is failing these days. Some of my favourite music comes from artists whom are completely derivative, and there is nothing wrong with that. But for music to progress as something beyond just selling records, it'd be preferable if more artists, especially those with popular appeal, would be more innovative - something which I don't believe the current music industry allows for.

[QuidProQuo]

I don't think that all music is art, as a line must be drawn somewhere. It all depends on where you draw that line. I just like to draw it way up there, as things are a lot more muddled when it comes to popular music.

Disagree there. Music is an intrinsic art form, so it is logically fallacious to state that a piece of music, not considering its quality - or lack thereof - is art. Rather, I think a more pertinent question would be 'does sound always constitute music?' I do believe all sound makes some form of music, though I do - perhaps arbitrarily - categorise music into two categories: legitimate music and illegitimate music. What I classify as legitimate music includes pretty much all genres which rely inherently on genuine performance and expressive intent: classical, jazz, pop, country, folk, you name it. Even nature - nature is instrinsically musical - hence 'the Sounds of Silence.'

But for illegit music, take techno/electro/house music, for example. Virtually all songs in these genres are technologically warped to such a degree that there is no sincere human performance left. Autotune and distorted voicings have seemed to eclipse what can be said to be pure expression. So, while I wouldn't deny that contemporary musical genres like these are 'not music', I do refute that pieces in these genres represent earnest attempts at artistic communication; they are motivated primarily - of course, there are exceptions, but chiefly - by commercial demands and consumerism. Think about it: a new 'song' is released onto the market, raking up a fortune and skyrocketing the artist to stardom - a few weeks later, a new song is released and the previous song is pretty much forgotten about as far as public interest goes. Although, the somewhat fetishised nature of this music does say a lot about the human inclination towards rhythm - looking past the dismal melodies in these pieces, it's all rhythm - syncopations, hard barline beats, simple or compound time. That's what feeds our desire to dance to this stuff.

Now, there is a bit of a conundrum in regard to today's music industry's penchant for mere commercialism. It's one of the dangers of technology, I think, that much of the public has assented - and been rather satisfied - with artists like the Bingo Players, who seem to exploit consumer expectations and consequently become more engrossed in the aesthetics and celebrity status than they ever were in the musicality. But, within the classical music world, there has been a strong push to promote classical music amongst the youth, with the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra putting on programs specifically designed to bring to the new generation some good old musical propriety - not even 'propriety' - just some sense of authentic performance practice, so that this generation can have a legitimate artistic grounding, no matter what genre they branch out into (take Elton John, Billy Joel - both classically-trained pianists). It's this approach, I think, that will serve the greatest favour, more so than kitsch crossover performers like Andre Rieu - who, although gives an ultimately false impression of the nature of classical performance, and is a far more brilliant self-marketer than a violinist, does a fine job at popularising *light* classical music....The problem is that there is a stigma attached to initiatives like those of the MSO which seems to serve as an unconditional deterrent for many non-classicists...this, I guess, is another one those periods when one can think that indeed, "these are the times that try men's souls."

[lala1911]

I'm not going to try to use big words and paragraphs to explain this and I'm expecting someone to protest against what I say, however, this is just the honest truth and there is no other way for me to put this.

People like Nicki Minaj and Lil Wayne are just a disgrace to music. Have you listened to their songs? Heck, do they even write their songs? (this includes all similar artists as well btw). Have you listened to the way Nicki Minaj sings? It's terrible and her music clips are just one word: bad and her attitude is horrendous, if I have kids I would go Kim-Jong-Un on them if they dare listen to her.

Music is meant to have meaning. What happened to bands like Coldplay, Powderfinger and Nirvana and singers such as Cher and Rod Stewart? They all wrote their songs. Now you never hear about them. Sure most of them don't perform or record anymore, but there are still some really great, awesome, amazing, thrilling and true bands out there who are unrecognised because the spotlight is on these hollywood doofuses who make terrible scrappy music, and to top that, they score like 50 million youtube views within a week while other amazing bands or artists struggle to gain 1 million views.

Like WTF, have you listened to the songs of ONE DIRECTION? They don't even write their songs. Their managers probably hire a bunch of specialists and language experts to use the exact appropriate words to seduce young girls so they can buy their albums.They're literally designed to fool little girls into thinking these guys care about them. Do you think they even give a shit about their fans? I shouldn't even be asking.

-=-=-
To sorta reply to your actual post, I don't really have a say in electronic music. I don't really like it actually, but it's sorta the new trend I guess. It's music, but it's not. I don't really know how I can explain my views on it, but I don't really mind it much.

[Mao]

But for illegit music, take techno/electro/house music, for example. Virtually all songs in these genres are technologically warped to such a degree that there is no sincere human performance left. Autotune and distorted voicings have seemed to eclipse what can be said to be pure expression. So, while I wouldn't deny that contemporary musical genres like these are 'not music', I do refute that pieces in these genres represent earnest attempts at artistic communication; they are motivated primarily - of course, there are exceptions, but chiefly - by commercial demands and consumerism. Think about it: a new 'song' is released onto the market, raking up a fortune and skyrocketing the artist to stardom - a few weeks later, a new song is released and the previous song is pretty much forgotten about as far as public interest goes. Although, the somewhat fetishised nature of this music does say a lot about the human inclination towards rhythm - looking past the dismal melodies in these pieces, it's all rhythm - syncopations, hard barline beats, simple or compound time. That's what feeds our desire to dance to this stuff.

There is so much ignorance here that I'm not even going to bother dissecting it.

Who says music must contain human performance? Mastering the art of electronic music is ridiculously difficult, like mastering the piano is ridiculously difficult. Any scrub can come along and attempt it, but composing something decent can take years. Electronic music is not simple,  there are many layers behind the beats. Big label productions tend to contain ~100 or more instruments per track. Most club hits follow a simple algorithm because it is easy to dance to, but it is incredibly ignorant to generalise the entire genre to the small representative selection of popular radio and club hits.

Oh, and most electronic records make huge losses in record sales when you account for the time commitment. Artists survive because they go on tour and people like me pay to see them live at 120 decibels. The emotional communication from the artist is in every way real. The explosion of electronic music is actually very similar to the explosion of rock music a few decades ago.

If anything, electronic music is in my opinion better than any other musical artforms, because of how accessible it is. Anyone with a keen ear and a computer can have a go at making electronic music, using free software. The instruments available can be presets, or any analogue waveform you want (i.e. any audible sound). The reproduction of music is simple (no need for an ensemble), the dissemination of music is simple (via soundcloud and other platforms for free), and the only real cost of production is time. It is not at all about how fast you can move your fingers, or how good your coordination is; the only limiting factor is your imagination and time. That is as pure as an artform can get.

[Professor Polonsky]

Actually, he never said that music must contain a human element. Simply that it loses a lot of its artistic value without it, something I am inclined to agree with. Otherwise, nothing you said contradicts their post.

[QuidProQuo]

Who says music must contain human performance?

I never said that - hence my reference to the Simon and Garfunkel song 'The Sounds of Silence.' Also, to show that there is music in nature and so no performance is required to create music, check out John Cage's piece 4'33. It's a piece consisting of pure silence, designed so that the music becomes whatever the audience perceives it to be (generally, their surrounds).

Mastering the art of electronic music is ridiculously difficult, like mastering the piano is ridiculously difficult. Any scrub can come along and attempt it, but composing something decent can take years. Electronic music is not simple,  there are many layers behind the beats...it is incredibly ignorant to generalise

I don't deny that - yes, there are artistic aspects of electronic music, but let's face, in most cases, electro songs aren't intended to convey a profound message or be particularly evocative in terms of imagery - it's mostly rhythm/variations in pitch but without real melodic development. It's not a perfect analogy to say that mastering electronic music is as difficult as mastering the piano. For one, the art of piano playing takes years and years to get good at; it is pure 'you', with no gadgets in the way to hide any flaws. Getting good at electro, I'm sure it takes a lot of time, especially in the pro industry, but it doesn't appeal to pure musical talent, technique and expression to quite the same extent as other genres do. And electronic music doesn't have to be 'electro', I should have mentioned - there are plenty of experimental composers who are working with technology to create technological, half-bit microtonal symphonies, like Tristan Perrich. This differs from commercial electro because - while there is still no performance in it - it is generally born of a far greater artistic insight (these guys are actual composers to begin with) and doesn't profit very much commercially, beyond their own niche market. Although of course I do acknowledge that just because the electro genre is currently in the commerical spotlight, not all electro artists are seeking that spotlight...so I didn't generalise (I said 'there are exceptions').

If anything, electronic music is in my opinion better than any other musical artforms, because of how accessible it is. Anyone with a keen ear and a computer can have a go at making electronic music, using free software. The instruments available can be presets, or any analogue waveform you want (i.e. any audible sound). The reproduction of music is simple (no need for an ensemble), the dissemination of music is simple (via soundcloud and other platforms for free), and the only real cost of production is time. It is not at all about how fast you can move your fingers, or how good your coordination is; the only limiting factor is your imagination and time. That is as pure as an artform can get.

Accessibility doesn't necessarily equate to good music. That assumes that the public - often the lay music fan - is the best musical judge. As I said, electro/techno etc. music certainly does have an albeit superficial attraction through its rhythmic/melodic patterns. But if one were to sit down and analyse the latest electro song on the markest - compared to Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony or even a Beatles song - based on artistry, innovation, evocation etc. - one generally wouldn't have that much to say beyond 'it's catchy'. Remember, people are swept up into new musical trends all the time; this doesn't mean that they have assessed the quality of that music; it just means that they enjoy listening to it. And that's perfectly cool. The fact that you don't need an ensemble is convenient, certainly. But music isn't all about convenience. I think it's fair to say that when we're reducing the merits of music to it's convenience, there has been at least a slight loss of artistic intention. There are other ways to be convenient that don't completely remove the element of human performance from it, like - singing. Yes, agreed, it's definitely not all about technique (most musicians agree), but the purest music is surely (after nature) the voice. Singing is the heart of all music - one needs no instrument, not even a computer, and it is the key medium through which we can exress and communicate.

[Drunk]

Watch Above & Beyond play live and tell me you don't feel something special

Definitely more than just "catchy" tunes, don't knock it til you try it.

And there's definitely still artistic intention in the sound of electronic music, many producers have their own unique sound.

I wouldn't even compare genres in music because there's obviously going to be many intrinsically different things about how they're produced and what rates as good music.

Sure, classical can be more complex than, say, hip hop, but who am I to say that hip hop is any less of an artform than classical?

There's different criteria for judging music in different genres and attempting to compare them is what I believe to be the beginning of music snobbery.

I can't say much for other genres that I'm not too knowledgeable in, but electronic music is definitely an artform of its own - the emotions they can evoke are beyond what many other genres can do. Any idiot can play the piano or make electronic sounds, but it's the genius who manages to put the sound together into a track who shows what art really is.

[kamil9876]

Actually, he never said that music must contain a human element. Simply that it loses a lot of its artistic value without it, something I am inclined to agree with.

But what's not human about electronic music? As Mao pointed out plenty of imagination is still required and the fact that it isn't constrained by physical limitations as much allows for lots of flexibility and creativity on behalf of the human producing it. Does producing a pdf document with a complicated Tex package suddenly make my writing less human?

but it doesn't appeal to pure musical talent

False: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ0LL1SJ-6U

Also many other examples I can list of classically trained musicians turning to electronic music and others who have previously performed with those so called "human" instruments.

I guess the moral is that most criticisms of electronic music stem from the fact that, just as with any genre that has a popular stream at some point, the commercial shit that most people are exposed to aren't representative of electronic music; it is a lot more diverse that that (it also doesn't help that half the people arguing for electronic music here are giving examples like Above and Beyond).

[Mr Keshy]

yes, there are artistic aspects of electronic music, but let's face, in most cases, electro songs aren't intended to convey a profound message or be particularly evocative in terms of imagery

Completely disagree.

I think you need to actually listen to "non-commercial" Electronic music....

Start by listening to A&B Group therapy.

I dismiss a lot of songs in it, but there are some in every episode that really evoke something when I listen to it! They're the ones I keep repeating and eventually buy. You can interpret electronic in many ways in the same way you can with "natural music", but with electronic music, or at least the music I listen to, you aren't bound by lyrics. You can feel whatever you want and associate with it whatever you want to it.

[Mao]

I never said that - hence my reference to the Simon and Garfunkel song 'The Sounds of Silence.' Also, to show that there is music in nature and so no performance is required to create music, check out John Cage's piece 4'33. It's a piece consisting of pure silence, designed so that the music becomes whatever the audience perceives it to be (generally, their surrounds).

So, electro house is not music, but silence is.

I don't deny that - yes, there are artistic aspects of electronic music, but let's face, in most cases, electro songs aren't intended to convey a profound message or be particularly evocative in terms of imagery - it's mostly rhythm/variations in pitch but without real melodic development.

I completely disagree. The entire trance genre is about melodic development. Other sub-genres all have elements of melodic development. You either haven't listened to much electronic music, or you are too far up your own arse to care. I can just as underhandedly say all Mozart sound the same.

It's not a perfect analogy to say that mastering electronic music is as difficult as mastering the piano. For one, the art of piano playing takes years and years to get good at; it is pure 'you', with no gadgets in the way to hide any flaws. Getting good at electro, I'm sure it takes a lot of time, especially in the pro industry, but it doesn't appeal to pure musical talent, technique and expression to quite the same extent as other genres do. And electronic music doesn't have to be 'electro', I should have mentioned - there are plenty of experimental composers who are working with technology to create technological, half-bit microtonal symphonies, like Tristan Perrich. This differs from commercial electro because - while there is still no performance in it - it is generally born of a far greater artistic insight (these guys are actual composers to begin with) and doesn't profit very much commercially, beyond their own niche market. Although of course I do acknowledge that just because the electro genre is currently in the commerical spotlight, not all electro artists are seeking that spotlight...so I didn't generalise (I said 'there are exceptions').

You don't need to be underground and experimental to be able to convey 'artistic insight'. And making an electronic track is also purely 'you', not only is it your composing, you also design your unique instruments and sounds. The art of performance and recital is impressive, but it is an entirely different artform.

Accessibility doesn't necessarily equate to good music. That assumes that the public - often the lay music fan - is the best musical judge. As I said, electro/techno etc. music certainly does have an albeit superficial attraction through its rhythmic/melodic patterns. But if one were to sit down and analyse the latest electro song on the markest - compared to Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony or even a Beatles song - based on artistry, innovation, evocation etc. - one generally wouldn't have that much to say beyond 'it's catchy'. Remember, people are swept up into new musical trends all the time; this doesn't mean that they have assessed the quality of that music; it just means that they enjoy listening to it. And that's perfectly cool. The fact that you don't need an ensemble is convenient, certainly. But music isn't all about convenience. I think it's fair to say that when we're reducing the merits of music to it's convenience, there has been at least a slight loss of artistic intention. There are other ways to be convenient that don't completely remove the element of human performance from it, like - singing. Yes, agreed, it's definitely not all about technique (most musicians agree), but the purest music is surely (after nature) the voice. Singing is the heart of all music - one needs no instrument, not even a computer, and it is the key medium through which we can exress and communicate.

If the public is not the judge, then who should be? A panel of classically trained musicians? You?

I suggest you read some books on synthesiser designs before you start trying to 'analyse' the latest electro songs on the market. I can appreciate many fine elements that are incorporated into modern tracks, and my knowledge pales in comparison to some of the DJs and producers I've spoken to.

Singing is not necessarily the heart of all music. Voicings, more often than not, ruins an otherwise amazing electronic track.

And I disagree that if music production and reproduction became more convenient, it would mean a loss of artistic intention. What kind of artist intends for things to be inconvenient? If anything, it enhances the communication from artist to audience, because there is less crap in between. I don't listen to music to appreciate how difficult it is, I listen to music because I like the sound. The convenience and accessibility of EDM allows rookies to enter the scene on the same footing without a degree and a ridiculous length of training. Of course, there are a lot of opportunist cash/slut/fame-grabbing in EDM production/DJing, just like there were a lot of rock bands for the same purpose, but to dismiss the entire genre based on this is very shallow.

I will go one step further to say that there are a lot of commercially successful EDM that are very 'musical'. Music is not necessarily something to be enjoyed on a couch. The connection between a DJ/Producer and a raving crowd beneath is no less than the connection between a conductor and a standing ovation. The feeling of euphoria is unlike anything else, and these moments are relived every time I put on my headphones. Classically trained musicians may very well decide EDM is not pompous enough for them, but then Gustav Mahler only has dying cat movements, who is to judge?

[Mao]

it also doesn't help that half the people arguing for electronic music here are giving examples like Above and Beyond

I think I have to correct you on this one. If we are talking about emotions in an otherwise typical EDM concert, no one can connect to the crowd in the same way as A&B. This is coming from experience from having seen almost all of the major acts live. It's not a surprise that some people choose to propose to their partners at A&B concerts (with a helping hand from the artists themselves), around the world, whereas these things don't happen in other concerts.

[Mr Keshy]

I think I have to correct you on this one. If we are talking about emotions in an otherwise typical EDM concert, no one can connect to the crowd in the same way as A&B. This is coming from experience from having seen almost all of the major acts live. It's not a surprise that some people choose to propose to their partners at A&B concerts (with a helping hand from the artists themselves), around the world, whereas these things don't happen in other concerts.

Kamil, have you been to an A&B concert?? I haven't, but I'm just asking...

[kamil9876]

Kamil, have you been to an A&B concert?? I haven't, but I'm just asking...

No.

some people choose to propose to their partners at A&B concerts (with a helping hand from the artists themselves

   Need to see proof.

I havn't listened to any A&B since 2006. Mainly a combination of changing taste and also getting a bit sick and disappointed of the more pop-like sound ( I think it was "Alone Tonight" that really broke the last straw). Which is also why I found it surprising that you have claimed it to be "non-commercial" electronic music, I think it is quite commercial. Also those "emotions" you speak of are of the gooey sort (e.g marriage inducing ones) that you can just as well find anywhere else including commercial pop(I'm pretty sure this has also lead to some proposals), not a bad thing but the point is that it isn't a distinct feature of electronic music nor is it a measure of quality. Also, there are other sorts of emotions out there.

[Professor Polonsky]

I suggest you read some books on synthesiser designs before you start trying to 'analyse' the latest electro songs on the market. I can appreciate many fine elements that are incorporated into modern tracks, and my knowledge pales in comparison to some of the DJs and producers I've spoken to.

Synthesisers were used long before electronic music was even conceived. It was actually first used around the Summer of Love, ironically enough. It's quite heavily featured in The Doors' track Strange Days, its first well-known use that I can think of. And from there onwards to the next few years, it's been used in anything from hard rock albums (Who's Next) to experimental synth-only stuff (Harrison's Electronic Sounds). In the early 70s, its best users were the proggers - Tony Banks, Keith Emerson, Rick Wright, et cetera. Then Bowie stole it from Krautrock bands (TD and Kraftwerk), and with Eno's guidance, it was used quite extensively on his two best albums (Low and "Heroes").

But you see, here's the thing. My experience with electronic music is limited to the crap people dance to, so it is very limited. (I call it crap because its only function is to get people dancing - which is not a bad thing. Music like that has existed for millennia. It just doesn't stand up well on its own, musically.) I'm sure that very good music has been created with synths and other electronic gadgets - there's no reason why it couldn't be. But despite my rather limited experience, I haven't heard of any electronic music which is very original or innovative. Usually when a new genre hits the scene - be it, for example, early 20th century jazz (which I actually don't like that much) or 60s rock - then there are innovations in the genre popping up all the time, until it has reached its potential (and there's a good argument to be made that rock has reached its potential, with new innovations being scarce). I mean, listening to records from the 60s and even early 70s as they come out, man, you would have been exposed to sounds you never heard before every few months. I am not too familiar with the genre, but does that happen with electronic music? And keep in mind that while you may not have heard these sounds before, electronic instruments have been around for a good 45 years now. I'm sure someone expanded on their use by the rock scene, but by how much?

But what's not human about electronic music? As Mao pointed out plenty of imagination is still required and the fact that it isn't constrained by physical limitations as much allows for lots of flexibility and creativity on behalf of the human producing it. Does producing a pdf document with a complicated Tex package suddenly make my writing less human?

This is my second issue with electronic music (or at least the type I hear), and it is highly subjective. I find that being able to personify the creator of the music gives it tremendous emotional resonance. It certainly makes it a lot more enjoyable for me. And that's something which, as far as I have been able to tell, is at least somewhat lost with electronic music.

I guess the moral is that most criticisms of electronic music stem from the fact that, just as with any genre that has a popular stream at some point, the commercial shit that most people are exposed to aren't representative of electronic music; it is a lot more diverse that that (it also doesn't help that half the people arguing for electronic music here are giving examples like Above and Beyond).

But you see, commercial music used to be pretty much the most innovative (and best) around. It changed music from being based on 2:50 long singles to LP's of 30-45 minutes. Invented psychedelia. Revolutionised the guitar, a sound which is still being heard on your Top 40s even today. Changed lyrics from their folky, non-serious (or storytelling) background to something completely serious, which tugs at your heart. Most songs in the 50s maybe featured 50 words. That's not necessarily a bad thing, some of my favourite songs feature very few lyrics (Echoes; I Want You (She's So Heavy)) or even none at all. But proper lyricism certainly has its value; ask Dylan. And certainly, as Mao said, lyrics can ruin a track. Back on the subjective side of this, most of the 'commercial' electronic music which I've heard is just pretty bad.

But I guess that doesn't really matter. I'm not dismissing electronic music as a whole, but what I am saying is that at least its sub-strand which I have been exposed to doesn't really sound interesting to me, and frankly, I don't really like it. If you've got recommendations, I'd be happy to give them a listen.

EDIT:

And I disagree that if music production and reproduction became more convenient, it would mean a loss of artistic intention. What kind of artist intends for things to be inconvenient? If anything, it enhances the communication from artist to audience, because there is less crap in between. I don't listen to music to appreciate how difficult it is, I listen to music because I like the sound. The convenience and accessibility of EDM allows rookies to enter the scene on the same footing without a degree and a ridiculous length of training. Of course, there are a lot of opportunist cash/slut/fame-grabbing in EDM production/DJing, just like there were a lot of rock bands for the same purpose, but to dismiss the entire genre based on this is very shallow.

There's nothing wrong with listening to music simply cause you like it. Actually, that's kind of the purpose of it. But looking at music as an art form, its only way to progress is if innovations are made. Sometimes, I personally hate the revolutionary product, and thus don't listen to it at all - but I appreciate the progress which it made and the music which was subsequently built upon it. You see, if we find some sort of formula for music which a lot of people like and stick to it, things will get very boring very quickly.

[kamil9876]

But you see, here's the thing. My experience with electronic music is limited to the crap people dance to, so it is very limited. (I call it crap because its only function is to get people dancing - which is not a bad thing. Music like that has existed for millennia. It just doesn't stand up well on its own, musically.) I'm sure that very good music has been created with synths and other electronic gadgets - there's no reason why it couldn't be.

Good point.

I haven't heard of any electronic music which is very original or innovative.

There's a lot you should check out. For instance, Brian Eno - oh wait, you've mentioned him here:

and with Eno's guidance

So this means that either you don't consider Eno as innovative or you don't consider him as electronic? I would count him as a recommendation.

If you've got recommendations, I'd be happy to give them a listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9DBeVN-CS4

Aphex Twin, can't say he isn't innovative : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlZ-NEMt_iI