Music has been changing a lot lately. Turn on the radio, and at least half the time a song comes on, you may not be able to pick out any actual instrumentals.
Because many songs are starting to become computer generated sounds. Autotuned voices to sound perfect, and a sick beat created by your dear lovely littlelaptop. Wikipedia has come to my aid in defining this, "computer music."
"Computer music is...a field of study relating to the applications of computer technology in music composition."
The article goes on in more detail, about how sound synthesis, digital signal processing, sound design, sonic diffusion, acoustics, and psychoacoustics all come into play when creating this electronic music. The result is what the audience hears as an awesome song. Great rhythm, and something you can dance to.
However, it has gotten a lot of criticism as well. The computer generated music got its start from the origins of electronic music, and has recently gotten another jumpstart from the sudden obsession with Dubstep. And again, Wikipedia helps with definitions:
"Dubstep is a genre of electronic dance music...Its overall sound has been described as 'tightly coiled productions with overwhelming bass lines and reverberant drum patterns, clipped samples, and occasional vocals.'"
Dubstep, I have found, is most well known for its characteristic WOB-WOB-WOB-ERRR-SHUH-WOB-WOB-WOOOOOOBBB-WAKA-WAKA-*bass drop.* It's much more distinct when you acutlally hear it.
Starting about...0:24 seconds, comes the WOB-WOB's. And as I've said, the majority of the song is computer-generated.
However, here comes the problem.
"WHAT IS THIS??? THIS IS NOT MUSIC...WHAAAT."
Criticism. Some people love it, some claim it to not even be music. So what's the difference? Music can be hard to define, and I refuse to go to Wikipedia for that defintion. To me, music is pleasant sounds you can sing or dance along to. But there are also more purposes than just that. The reason why we have so many genres.
Still, CAN you compare techno music to "regular" music? Considering one doesn't even have tangible instruments playing?
Personally I've concluded that computer music focuses on the dance aspect. You can dance to it. And that's all you do, conisidering the little vocals. It does not have a message or story to tell. Just sounds.
So you can dance to it. But to stretch the concept, you can dance to anything! Pound on a table, and shake your keys. You can make a rhythm easily. There is such a wide, undefinable gray area where music can be categorized.
When it comes to lyrical and instrumental music, I see it easier to find respect for the artist. They can sing, or play an instrument. Or their message is just plain brilliant. But honestly I am a n00b when it comes to how much skill it takes to create a computer-generated song. I would assume it takes a good ear to pick up pleasant sounds, but how hard is it really? I guess that's a question that I don't have an answer to yet. If it takes a decent amount of skill, and only a handful can really be successful at it, then I would say they are respectable artists. But at this point, I don't have any ground evidence to base that on.
But for artists who honestly autotune their voices...stop. If you do not enough confidence or natural talent to let your normal voice shine(or not shine...) then stop recording. Or at least don't sell yourself as a singer. Because that's not singing if you have to use a computer to fix it. That's like singers on steroids.
Not to point any fingers or anything...but:
Again, not pointing fingers...just cursors. The moment you use autotune is the moment I start to lose respect for the artist of a song. Sorry Miley.
No comments:
Post a Comment