You mean musicians who learned their craft playing and singing in large ensembles like school bands, orchestras, and choirs don't have to hope for a multi-million dollar loan to pay for live musicians, just so they can record the music they hear in their heads?
You mean refugees who left their instruments behind, because they were more concerned with their families' lives than the stuff they owned, don't have to choose between buying new instruments and buying food?
You mean it's possible to make "real" music with a machine?
Only someone whose worldview is limited to their own tiny, emotionally- and culturally-starved experience would go around bloviating about how "real" music is only made with "real" instruments. And I'm saying that as someone who still owns her original instruments, a boomer who grew up playing so-called "real" music on "real" instruments.
I mean, where is the line? Are you making real music if you use a pick-up? An amp? A 1950s-vintage Gibson hollow-body electric guitar like the one my dad owned?
Is The Who's classic rock (just as an example) any less "real" for having been made on electric instruments, or was their music only "real" until they started using technology like the envelope follower (and, oops!, the synthesizers) they used to such great effect on Who's Next?
BTW, the quote comes from Open Culture's interviews with the always-informed and widely-experienced Brian Eno. If you're going to listen to anybody about music, listen to somebody whose focus is positive rather than negative.
In any case, feel free to use these arguments the next time some drunken geezer starts lecturing you on how computers don't make real music. You're welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment