|
| quote: | Originally posted by Ishkur
The difference between a classically trained musician and a electronically trained one is the difference between an archer and a musketeer.
It takes a lifetime to learn how to use a bow & arrow effectively. But only an hour to train someone how to use a musket, despite the fact that the musket is a more complicated weapon. But that's because the musket does all the work. All the musketeer has to do is point and shoot.
In the same vein, the creativity and craft required to study, learn, apply, and play a musical instrument is so beyond the reach of today's ADD-riddled bedroom producers that most of them would give up long before they figure out how to compose anything meaningful with it. That's why they enjoy VSTs and softsynths.
If you think learning MIDI or applying an ADSR envelope is some sort of sophisticated, arcane task that precious few are capable of doing, then you're either really stupid or really lousy at doing it.
To be fair, it does take awhile to figure out how softsynths work, but it's nowhere near the amount of technical expertise, care, quality, and practise required in actually learning how to play a genuine instrument, and play it well. Anyone who doesn't know a single thing about electronic music can load up a mad libs template on a sequencer and belch out a rudimentary house track in a day. With a couple weeks instruction and training, they can begin producing semi-decent, quality work. In under a year, they can have a marginally decent hit on their hands, if all things marketing wise is taken care of.
You can't specify that timetable for a real musician in any capacity. |
this is simply not correct, it's written from a very narrow minded point of view. to say that a classically trained musician is nearly always superior to an electronic musician is plain bullshit, and you are just trying to be smart aleck. the point is that many of us are in some way technically talented, else we would not write in an internet forum about music which comes out of circuits or computers. so it's very easy to say that midi and adsr and vsts are easy to understand/use, AND it's easy to say that classically trained musicians are superior and their skills are unreachable for us.
BUT there is always another side to this. imagine a little girl/boy, learning the violin, becoming better and better and after 10-15 years you really become a good musician if you practice regularly. this is not something totally unthinkable. all this violinist ever has done with a computer is writing emails, doing the homework and buying cds (hopefully). if you put this violinist in a recording studio, or at least in front of a computer running ableton/cubase/whatever, all that talent is useless. the violinist knows NOTHING about audio engineering. what i try to point out is that what we consider a matter of common knowledge in our electronic world is completely unknown to many classical musicians. if they dont become extremely good and get to play solos, they are pretty much lost without an orchestra or a band and the obligatory technicians to record them. yes, they might be very good, but only in a very small field of music. what good electronic musicians can do is much broader and of great diversity. and i dont mean asot trance or beatport electro/house (sorry asot/beatport lovers). you cant really compare the worlds.
one last question to think about : if you have 2 persons, one into "music" (learning an instrument), the other one into "audio" (synths, studio, electronic/experimental music) with no previous knowledge, and let them practice for 10 years, each one 2 hours a day. what result is better? you might think this question is ridiculous. it is, as is the whole comparing-music-effort.
concerning this thread, the answer is quite easy: cultural differences. trance is about shallow emotions. and the history of the afro americans doesnt allow that. and if this statement is too drastic for you, then you might want to think a bit more about the coherences in this world
|
