Does Being "Real" Matter?

[brandondrury]

Maybe it was just my upbringing which featured a stronger influence in the synth pop stuff of the 80s than most of my peers received, but I've been hitting the sterile dance music stuff very hard lately. Everything is sequenced to a grid with the only thing even close to being "real" is the vocal and often times that is quite fake in itself.

Anyway, I'm finding his sort of music to be very exciting these days while I tire of many of the rock / guitar cliches.

Critics of this form of music will often say, "IT'S NOT REAL! IT'S FAKE!". I can't argue with them, but at the same time I find my entire body typing to the rythm to the gayest song in the history of mankind (Remix of the theme to the Never Ending Story.) I'm actually excited to be listening to it.

So, my question is...

Does a songs "realness" have anything to do with ability of that song to inspire emotion?

Brandon

[richiebee]

The beauty of music is that it can be enjoyed and understood at so many different levels. Everyone gets a different experience.

Dance music is no different in this respect.

The fact is that it has all the elements of what we call music, so how can it be fake? Whether or not you like it is irrelevent. Whether or not it emotes you is irrelevant. Whether or not it is original is irrelevant. It is music, and there are people that will enjoy it no matter what it sounds like.

Music doesn't have to be about playing real instruments live. People can criticize the lack of originality in much dance music, but to call it fake is silly.

There isn't much dance music that I like, but I would never think of myself as above it in intelligence to the point of saying "that's not real music".

Much crticism surrounds a subgenre called smooth jazz. It contains elements associated with jazz, including complex chord progressions and extensions and improvisation (albeit usually on a very basic level). There is no doubt about it, this is "jazz lite", but that doesn't mean its not jazz, nor does it mean that every artist who chooses to market themselves under this label is selling out. Could there be some jealousy there among more traditional jazz artists who fail to see why smooth jazz is more popular than their own subgenre?

I think that criticism of any type of music shows either jealousy or a lack of understanding.

My $0.02.


Rich

[snoopy]

I don't think it's fake.
...and how do we define what a real instrument is? That is the question......
Very rarely when we hear a instrument played by hand in a recording is it "pure" in any form......

Dance on brother Brandon............ ;D

[brandondrury]

I agree with you guys completely. To me, the only thing that matters is how the person feels when the sound comes out of the speakers. The end.

Brandon

[CorporateMustache]

I think that it is also important how people feel when they come to see you live too. One of the projects that I am in currently is trying to recreate an album that was done by a very good producer that used a tremendous amount of layering to make an outstanding album. We are trying to make that album sound great live and it is very difficult not to sound like we are "covering" the album because there are holes in spots where a 3rd or 4th guitar may have been. It is very difficult to find two good devoted guitarists these days and even harder to find 3 or 4. I think that there is a balance that needs to be considered if the band or persons creating the album wants to have more success on a larger level. If you want to make money in the bigtime you probably need to tour, but if 1 guy plays all the instruments on an album, your probably not going to see him on tour anytime soon. Of course electronic music is different, I am speaking mostly of the rock genre. I guess once you get signed it doesn't really matter, but most bands have to showcase to get signed. How can you have a successful showcase for a label if you cannot sound like the CD you put in there hand to get the chance? What do you guys think???

[brandondrury]

I think the whole "live vs studio" debate is a crock. They are 100,000% different. In fact, I would put absolutely no thought into whether the studio album remotely resembled a live show and I'll tell you why.

a) Especially on a local level, the PA / soundman are not up to par. At 99.99% of all local shows I've attended, everything sounded like a big blurry mess.

b) Especially on a local level, fans aren't typically THAT interested to notice anyway. When I pay my $40 to go see my favorite band, I know every song and when I'm watching the show I want nothing to distract me from watching it. I don't want to take a piss and usually I don't drink that much. When I see a local band, I'm usually just hanging out at a place that happens to have music. I'm looking for beer and buddies.

There may be some bands that stand out and may have some diehard fans. In my opinion, if these people wanted to listen to the album, they would stay home. They come to the live show because they want the "live" experience which is obviously lightyears away from studio recording.

c) People are going to screw up the parts they are supposed to play. I mean that typically, a studio recording has 99% of mistakes fixed. Live bands generally play nothing but mistakes. There are exceptions. Even really good local bands sound rough (compared to their studio recording ) in the live setting most of the time.

d) There may be parts that are very important to the song that a violin or something played. If they are an integral lead instrument / melody let the guitar player, keyboard player, humming vocalist take that melody. Again, I don't think people are looking for a carbon copy of the cd. Depending on the genre, most peole want to hear the music as it was recorded. I can't stand it when I hear my favorite guitar solos changed (usually it's never as good as the original). But that only matters on truely great, mega melodic solos.

If it was me, I'd be trying to figure out how to get away with less people in the band. People cause problems, force you to split cash, don't show up, sleep with your girlfriend, etc etc etc. I'd be using a drum machine, a video projector, and a guitar and I'd call it a day and put money in my back pocket.

One other thing. Some of these big bands with 12 members tend to just jack off for 12 minutes each song. I'm petrified by the "watch me play the notes on this scale for 3 minutes and then you take your turn" type of shit. Then again, trying to get a big band to hold back and play simple music that generally works well with your average non musician is quite a feat.

Brandon

[TAlderson]

Personally, I like live stuff better. A lot of the cds I own are cds of one take, one mic, recording. They're all hissy and the person fumbles a word every now and then, and not like anything you would ever hear on the radio. But I would listen to that for hours and hours on end (I have, many a time) than most of the processed shit that comes out today. The only way to describe it is that it sounds more intimate. Even if you aren't in the room, you could close your eyes, and it would sound just like Dave van Ronk, or Sonny Terry, or Bob Dylan were in your room, playing. So what if the guitar isn't exactly in tune, or sounds a little thin? There's still that raw, unprocessed emotion that you can't get from anything else.

If you don't agree with me, pick up "The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan", or "Bob Dylan," his first two albums (there are better albums out there, but these are the ones you can find without major searching). Pop the cd in, close your eyes, and you could very well be in the studio, listening to him in 1962. Even better, try any Woody Guthrie or Pete Seeger album. Same thing. There's nothing between you and the music. Personally, I think that these recording capture the essence of the songs much better than a layered, digitally processed, fully mixed recording ever could.

So yeah, I guess "realness" matters, at least to me.

-Tyler

[brandondrury]

All good points, TAlderson. I agree with you 100% for certain types of music.

I think it comes down to what the music is supposed to do.

For example, there is no denying the power of an old Bob Dylan record. I've dabbled in that before, and probably should again sometime soon. You are hearing "intimate soul" for lack of better words.

Of course, the important thing hear is to remember that "intimate soul" isn't always the desired effect...depending on what you are doing. For example, toss a Bob Dylan song in the middle of an action sequence in The Matrix movies. I just don't think it would be as effective. Obviously, the inverse wouldn't go over well, either.

You are also referring to modern overproduction, which is often a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. Records are made more perfectly than ever before and record sales are low. There is obviously a problem hear and I think a part of that is the product. I think "perfect" records have nothing to do records that move me. I'm not sure if this thread is really about that necessarily. I think this thread is more of a question of "can you inspire emotion by programming music with a mouse?". I think the answer is yes.

Brandon