|
Please read this and tell my friend he is wrong (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| varun |
| Don't bother educating the uneducatable:p |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by twisted
you said a trance song cannot be played live..
you dont even know enough about electronic music to argue your point. |
I said a trance song can not be made live, you ing spoon. Should have gone to specsavers. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
You're friend is a lot more correct than you are. A rock song, comprising of three seperate instruments, all playing live, will take more talent to play than any trance track. As trance is almost completely programmed, in theory you could spend as long as you want composing it in the studio and then just play it back. A rock song must be played entirely correctly all the way through by each member of the band, which takes much more skill. Marshall Jefferson was so crap at the piano (a much easier instrument than guitar) that he played it at half-tempo and speeded it up in the studio afterwards.
Another factor is, although most modern and mainstream rock is very simple (punk, progressive and indie being the main ones), older genres of rock such as metal and hard rock songs are very complex, with usually three or four riffs and at least one guitar solo in addition to drums, bass and vocals. Plus nu-metal and hardcore rock can be very technical genres.
You're argument "trance melodies are brilliant" is very weak. Sure they may sound good, but it's not exactly hard to write a rondo form hook and loop it to death. Compare even the most complex, 32 bar mega-trance melody to a average length guitar solo, and then also consider which is being played live, then try and tell me trance melodies demonstrate big talent.
A final note, most older, and traditional styles of trance don't even have big melodies, they have small, understated melodies that don't require much skill to compose. Rock music is always harder to play, and it's very often more complex musically than trance music. |
|
|
| DRM |
| making a trance track is a hell of a lot harder than playing a few chords on a guitar. and i can do both. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
You're friend is a lot more correct than you are. A rock song, comprising of three seperate instruments, all playing live, will take more talent to play than any trance track. As trance is almost completely programmed, in theory you could spend as long as you want composing it in the studio and then just play it back. A rock song must be played entirely correctly all the way through by each member of the band, which takes much more skill. Marshall Jefferson was so crap at the piano (a much easier instrument than guitar) that he played it at half-tempo and speeded it up in the studio afterwards.
Another factor is, although most modern and mainstream rock is very simple (punk, progressive and indie being the main ones), older genres of rock such as metal and hard rock songs are very complex, with usually three or four riffs and at least one guitar solo in addition to drums, bass and vocals. Plus nu-metal and hardcore rock can be very technical genres.
You're argument "trance melodies are brilliant" is very weak. Sure they may sound good, but it's not exactly hard to write a rondo form hook and loop it to death. Compare even the most complex, 32 bar mega-trance melody to a average length guitar solo, and then also consider which is being played live, then try and tell me trance melodies demonstrate big talent.
A final note, most older, and traditional styles of trance don't even have big melodies, they have small, understated melodies that don't require much skill to compose. Rock music is always harder to play, and it's very often more complex musically than trance music. |
Comparing rock and edm is pretty much like comparing ninjas and pirates: one stays in the land, the other stays in the sea. They're in completely different environments.
Besides, we all know ninjas rule, we don't need to tell pirates that :D |
|
|
| UWM |
| What about ninja pirates? |
|
|
| Irida |
| i know exactly what are u talking about! i hade a friend who was ina band played guitar and he was also making music with fruityloops with samples from guitar and other instuments and he was saying the same thing....and nobody could change his mind... :crazy: |
|
|
| Ory |
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
 |
You suck. Can't come up with a counter-argument so you use stupid message board pictures to further prove your dumbass-ness. Good job. :stongue: |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
You're friend is a lot more correct than you are. A rock song, comprising of three seperate instruments, all playing live, will take more talent to play than any trance track. As trance is almost completely programmed, in theory you could spend as long as you want composing it in the studio and then just play it back. A rock song must be played entirely correctly all the way through by each member of the band, which takes much more skill. Marshall Jefferson was so crap at the piano (a much easier instrument than guitar) that he played it at half-tempo and speeded it up in the studio afterwards.
|
under the assumption that by trance you mean the whole spectrum of EDM, you are wrong.
cause there are people who make techno live - from scratch.
i myself am perfecting my technique at it. and believe me, it takes more skill to actually make a track (actually, the time scale is much longer then that of a 'track', 'set' would be more appropriate) in front of an audiance live then it does to play all the notes you have typed in front of you (or memorized) in synchronization with your fellow band members.
the basic skills a guitarist needs are just good coordination, good hearing and a good memory. (music writing talent is not essential considering there are plenty of writers out there who do nothing but).
an EDM producer doing a true liveact needs much more then that.
p.s: sorry to repeat the mistake of discussing a genre i dont know much about.
edit: jazz on the other hand (in its original form) is much closer to the levels of talent im talking about here |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ory
You suck. Can't come up with a counter-argument so you use stupid message board pictures to further prove your dumbass-ness. Good job. :stongue: |
:rolleyes:
It's not as if a counter argument would make any difference with you, you miserable little orc.
As soon as you see the words 'ASOT' or 'Armin Van Buuren' you go off on another of your pathetic and boring little rants. Why don't you just off back to where you came from, and leave me in peace you fun sized piece of . |
|
|
| Gravgon |
you're both wrong but your friend is less wrong (and he has a more decent MSN nick btw).
Music is art
In art, the skill that matters the most is creativity.
If you go to the root, the trance producer and the guitarist are using the same skill: imagining something which sounds cool in their mind and play it.
It's pointless to compare the techniques used in Art 'cause it's the outcome that matters.
Another exemple: Van Gogh and Joan Miro -> both are artist painters, van gogh is expressing his creativity with a realistic method of painting which might requires more "skill" (as in harder to master the drawing and painting technique) while Miro's style is minimalist (sometimes, just few lines are drown).
In the end: Some people prefer van gogh, some prefer Miro but they are both genius. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Gravgon
you're both wrong but your friend is less wrong (and he has a more decent MSN nick btw).
Music is art
In art, the skill that matters the most is creativity.
If you go to the root, the trance producer and the guitarist are using the same skill: imagining something which sounds cool in their mind and play it.
It's pointless to compare the techniques used in Art 'cause it's the outcome that matters.
Another exemple: Van Gogh and Joan Miro -> both are artist painters, van gogh is expressing his creativity with a realistic method of painting which might requires more "skill" (as in harder to master the drawing and painting technique) while Miro's style is minimalist (sometimes, just few lines are drown).
In the end: Some people prefer van gogh, some prefer Miro but they are both genius. |
even though im pretty clueless about visual arts...
why wasnt van gogh (and i assume miro aswell?) a 'genius' at his time? |
|
|
|
|
