Just Saying -- the soapbox thread

[TheDude]

I think the hardest thing for anyone who loves human musicianship to see is a human to be replaced by a machine. Its like, if you want to use the machine, great. But couldn't you have just started with the machine and let the human use their talent somewhere that we'll get a chance to experience it rather than on the cutting room floor?

A human made the machine and another told it what to do.

People record musicians all the time and have other musicians come in and play parts instead. I've had my parts on other peoples' albums replaced and I've done the replacing. How is THAT any different? But most people would say that's perfectly reasonable. The songwriter wanted something else and decided that what they ended up using was better for their song. But the second the source of that sound is a particular piece of electronics it's bad (all this other artificial stuff is fine, though).

It's not like ALL of Copeland's parts were replaced by a machine, just like the Thriller album didn't use one beat source (human or machine) exclusively. This may be hard to accept but a studio musician is just a tool in the same way that a machine is.

EDIT: I should say, people can have whatever emotional reaction they want to art and that's fine. But I think people should reexamine their prejudices, because some of them are received criticism. I believe the dislike of drum machines and the dislike of any autotune whatsoever are mostly received criticisms and not honest assessments of the art.

Ok, first of all, I want to say I was not attempting to be snarky, or passive aggressive, or retort your response. You're a smart dude, so I thought this
would be a worthwhile spot to explore more sides to the discussion.

I never said machine playing replacing human playing is objectively bad. I understand that the writer has full control over their art, and can do with it what they want. One human being recorded to replace another isn't less of a shame, to me, than is a machine replacement - barring a downright poor original performance of course.

I think that's part of why so many people love to hear demo and working tracks of their favorite songs. Personally, I love getting to to aurally explore that creative process. Hearing the first demo, the second demo, then the final is such a fun exploration.

Of course, this is all just my opinions and musings based on my experience. I personally don't like electronic centred music because its just not my jam. Doesn't mean the music is objectively bad, nor does it mean I dislike all electronic instrumentation.

But I also don't listen to music in order to objectively judge its quality as art. I listen to it for a lot of reasons, but never that. So for me, the consistency that a drum machine may produce over a human drummer doesn't do anything for me. I enjoy hearing those slightly off beat hits, or the tempo speeding up or slowing down ever so much, and when you replace that with the consistency and, sterility if you will, of a drum machine, to me that's a shame. That's all. Doesn't mean the drum machine version is bad. It just changes my personal interest in that song.

This also is not an explanation for a lot of the 'purists' either. I wholly understand where you are coming from with that, lots of people will argue that makes music objectively bad.

Like I said, just wanted to explore another side of the argument.

Sent from my LM-X410PM using Tapatalk

[midwayfair]

I enjoy hearing those slightly off beat hits

I'm learning drums and this is giving me hope after listening back to my practices.

[TheDude]

I enjoy hearing those slightly off beat hits

I'm learning drums and this is giving me hope after listening back to my practices.

Love it! There's always something about the way a certain person playa a certain piece of music that adds an element that I quite enjoy.

Sent from my LM-X410PM using Tapatalk

[alanp]

By 'play their own instruments' I do include things like drum machines -- I couldn't say otherwise and be able to keep my sweet synth rack, I suspect

I was more referring to just taping over someone else's released recordings and dubbing yourself on top.

[Muadzin]

I understand that the writer has full control over their art, and can do with it what they want.

I'm not a big fan of that. I usually write music by myself, creating everything including sampled drums. And then when I present this to my band I of course would love too have it recreated note for note as it was. But I've also noticed that critical feedback is key to making good music. When the other musicians take my musical ideas and are allowed to run with it songs can start to groove in ways that was never in my original vision. It doesn't always work, sometimes it doesn't live up to my original vision but usually it becomes better. And the best riff I ever wrote came about because my bandmates thought what I originally had wasn't that good so they demanded something better. It's this push and pull that makes for better creativity, even when what the others contribute is only tiny. This is why I think Sting was infinitely better when in the Police as opposed to his boring solo career. Why Roger Waters was better in Pink Floyd then solo. And why the original Star Wars trilogy was so much better then the prequel trilogy. Full creative freedom is a curse as much as it can be a boon. Studio musicians can't give you that critical feedback because they are just hired guns, not full members of a cooperative enterprise with something at stake.

One can argue that Thriller worked with the computer drums, because it became a mega hit album, every song a hit. And that is fine. We will however never know if the version with an actual drummer would have been better or not. Personally I find the drums on most MJ songs to be bland and boring, too much standard 4/4 kick snare kick snare. Your basic disco drum beat.

[matmosphere]

I understand that the writer has full control over their art, and can do with it what they want.

I'm not a big fan of that. I usually write music by myself, creating everything including sampled drums. And then when I present this to my band I of course would love too have it recreated note for note as it was. But I've also noticed that critical feedback is key to making good music. When the other musicians take my musical ideas and are allowed to run with it songs can start to groove in ways that was never in my original vision. It doesn't always work, sometimes it doesn't live up to my original vision but usually it becomes better. And the best riff I ever wrote came about because my bandmates thought what I originally had wasn't that good so they demanded something better. It's this push and pull that makes for better creativity, even when what the others contribute is only tiny. This is why I think Sting was infinitely better when in the Police as opposed to his boring solo career. Why Roger Waters was better in Pink Floyd then solo. And why the original Star Wars trilogy was so much better then the prequel trilogy. Full creative freedom is a curse as much as it can be a boon. Studio musicians can't give you that critical feedback because they are just hired guns, not full members of a cooperative enterprise with something at stake.

One can argue that Thriller worked with the computer drums, because it became a mega hit album, every song a hit. And that is fine. We will however never know if the version with an actual drummer would have been better or not. Personally I find the drums on most MJ songs to be bland and boring, too much standard 4/4 kick snare kick snare. Your basic disco drum beat.

For me that give and take/ back and forth is what has defined Rock n Roll for the most part. Regardless of if you are playing an instrument manually or programming an electronic instrument. It's certainly the part that makes me enjoy playing in bands.

If you are Mozart or Bach and have that genius then sure what comes out of you might be better than what comes from the group. But no individual member of the Stones, the Beatles, Zeppelin, the Clash or any huge band really has shown to have that on their own. Maybe McCartney is the closest. What defines Rock to me is that a group of normal people, that may not have any training in music, can get together and put out something that is so much better than the sum of its parts. I know that there are some exceptions, but they are few. Rock is a collaborative artform. Maudzin, you clearly respect your band mates input and collaboration, even though you might be the guy bringing in the songs it sounds like you still enjoy that collaboration. It makes us all strive to be better, so we can make art.

Sting was better with the police
Byrne was better with the talking heads
Even Bowie was only as good as the band that backed him at the time (although one of his most stunning abilities was putting those bands together)

[TheDude]

Sting was better with the police
Byrne was better with the talking heads
Even Bowie was only as good as the band that backed him at the time (although one of his most stunning abilities was putting those bands together)

And Gwen Stefani was immeasurably better with No Doubt. Still salty about that one...

Sent from my LM-X410PM using Tapatalk

[matmosphere]

Although Dylan is better solo than with the Wilburys. Nothing against those guys but...

[davent]

I enjoy Strummer's solo output as much as his work with The Clash, both settings in my collection still get regular plays.
dave

[alanp]

Probably only applies to Cooder, but given that the weather right now is one, far too damn hot and two, sunny beyond belief, everyone take care out there

[matmosphere]

I enjoy Strummer's solo output as much as his work with The Clash, both settings in my collection still get regular plays.
dave

Sure but was he the only solo artist that mattered?

Nothing is without exception. Paul did some fine work after the Beatles.

[davent]

I enjoy Strummer's solo output as much as his work with The Clash, both settings in my collection still get regular plays.
dave

Sure but was he the only solo artist that mattered?

Nothing is without exception. Paul did some fine work after the Beatles.

Not sure what you mean about the Clash? I do have the first Big Audio Dynamite which got lots of listens in it's day, The Clash, the first four but only the first three still get attention. Also heard some of a Paul Simonon album i was interested in but never able to track down.

Post Beatles i have a single Paul album and a single Ringo album which is the keeper of the two.
dave

[matmosphere]

I enjoy Strummer's solo output as much as his work with The Clash, both settings in my collection still get regular plays.
dave

Sure but was he the only solo artist that mattered?

Nothing is without exception. Paul did some fine work after the Beatles.

Not sure what you mean about the Clash? I do have the first Big Audio Dynamite which got lots of listens in it's day, The Clash, the first four but only the first three still get attention. Also heard some of a Paul Simonon album i was interested in but never able to track down.

Post Beatles i have a single Paul album and a single Ringo album which is the keeper of the two.
dave

I believe at the time the Clash were famously referred to as "the only band that matters" by several critics. I think I read a book called that at some point. Just stick with me.

I don't actually have any of the Beatles solo stuff but I've heard a lot and they all did great stuff.

[alanp]

Massively impressive documentary, considering it's not made by a corporation or company. Impressive no matter the source, I think.

Learnt quite  a bit from it. Jupiter was a rowdy drunk in it's youth, punching out planets it didn't like the look of, while in it's old age it settles for punching out solar bodies that act up.

[Muadzin]

The best documentaries on youtube are made by individuals. Companies always seem to feel the need to dumb things down. These guys can go into details so obscure it boggles the mind.

ParallaxNick - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0QdW-H7_l0zh_CoNhlwoBw
John Michael Godier has two cool channels = https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz3qvETKooktNgCvvheuQDw  and   https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEszlI8-W79IsU8LSAiRbDg
Isaac Arthur - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g
Cool Worlds - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGHZpIpAWJQ-Jy_CeCdXhMA
Melodysheep - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCR9sFzaG9Ia_kXJhfxtFMBA
And if you are a wonderful person, Anton Petrov - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCciQ8wFcVoIIMi-lfu8-cjQ