natural as in, the opposite of synthetic.

synthetic drums.
synthetic instruments.
synthetic playing via programming.
synthetic chops via technological correction.

all of this, for the sake of reference, adds up to fake breasts, fake ass, fake lips, acrylic nails, fake eyelashes, penciled on eyebrows, a weave or wig, too much make-up and poor fashion choices in a woman.

which, imo, is not deemed desirable by society at large.

yet this is the state of our music in our life and times.

why do we tolerate it?

and while we tolerate this stuff that big entertainment pumps out for our dollar - we then secretly forlorn over yesteryear which big entertainment caters to as well via pimping the past or even a semblance of the past to try to fool whoever they can...

glorified talent shows of the 00's gave us merely a peak at "natural" ability and they drew some of the highest ratings on tv.

what does this all add up to?

perhaps the public is tired of synthetic or that is to say, has a desire for more "natural" elements of music to come back into the fold but cannot put their finger on it and articulate it...

i'm not saying music needs to be stripped down to 1 man and 1 piano or 1 guitar.
i'm just saying perhaps it's time, or beyond time, that synthetic elements in music take a backseat to something more universally relatable within humans.
i'm saying that "naturalism" in music is such an understated quality that perhaps is a major part that people are still talking about music from 197x like they were in 199x and music from 200x is vaguely remembered (as proven by my failed solo-attempts to "romanticize" the 00's).

tolerate implies people have a problem with it.

I don't think people care about synthesized sounds vs. real sounds.

>tolerate implies people have a problem with it.
>
>I don't think people care about synthesized sounds vs. real
>sounds.

only music nerds do. Average music listeners just want to hear good music...how ever limited their musical scope may or may not be.

. . .a prejudice against a "certain type" of music fan, I generally agree.

(not trying to make you feel bad about it, but to use your own term, there's plenty of "music nerds" that prefer synth or primarily electronic music)

Would anyone else liken this debate to the movie fan that is opposed to the use of CG versus those who aren't opposed?

~Austin

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

Kidding.
But as an aside, i do feel folks better get used to acoustic sounds if energy all the sudden vanishes O_O
Sucks, because i prefer electric ___ to any acoustic counterpart
(electric bass > upright,
electric piano >> acoustic piano,
electric guitar >>>> acoustic guitar
That's just my taste tho.)



BACK ON TOPIC, i think it boils down to being able to play an instrument or voice in order to appreciate those aspects.
Sucks to say that because that kinda sounds snobby and not everyone is privileged enough to learn/be around an instrument or music-creation.
But that type of experience DOES add more perspectives in appreciating music.

Obviously, synthetic creation can still move you.
(Stevie was a major person i can think of who used synthesized sounds very soulfully.
Brian Jackson and Roy Ayers definitely did this as well.
All three IN THE 70s.)
Nonetheless, most of synthetic sounds are still BASED on how real instruments function,
AND real sounds from everything in life.
And the highly-synthesized songs that make you dance or bop your head are STILL based on rhythms which if you played on real drums, would still have the same effect of making you wanna dance.
(With the exception of drum & bass. You gotta be on crack to dance to that.)
So it's "tolerated" because it's just plain-old enjoyed, but not really delved into and compared to, say, a live version of it.

Understandably, people want to be content with what they musically got, and to just feel good.
It's just gotten to be contentment w/ a decrease in effort to play music as it has been naturally played.
And then less effort to compete with this great band or that great band like the 60s and 70s because no matter if it's shytty,
no matter if it's real instrumentation or not,
if it's just DIFFERENT, then that's enough.
PLUS no one around them is really using instruments no more, and STILL getting shine regardless.
(And clearly you can see, instrument-solos BARELY get any love these days on songs, let alone radio edits of songs.)
So no one questions the particular trend started.
Then go back to not wanting to complain and accepting what's given because it makes them feel good.
So on and so forth...

------------------
reflect.

Adele and Taylor Swift. I'm sure T Swift has a few tracks with electronic elements, but most of her stuff is acoustic or at least just regular pop stuff.

The problem is when bands eschew electronic instruments, it comes with a retro image that makes them corny at best, boring at worst. You can be natural without dressing like a civil war veteran or a member of the J.B.'s.

-------------------------------
If life is stupendous one cannot also demand that it should be easy. - Robert Musil

>Adele and Taylor Swift. I'm sure T Swift has a few tracks
>with electronic elements, but most of her stuff is acoustic or
>at least just regular pop stuff.

and that shows that the white dollar is there for "natural".

>The problem is when bands eschew electronic instruments, it
>comes with a retro image that makes them corny at best, boring
>at worst. You can be natural without dressing like a civil war
>veteran or a member of the J.B.'s.

i agree. i actually touched on this exact thing in that menahan street band thread:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=2754444&mesg_id=2754444&page=#2754503

Why get instruments when you got a macbook....and then you spend 6 months in a basement and create some new shit, upload to soundcloud and you have a new future.

It's that simple, humans are going to take the easy route period. And computers are just eaiser.

phemom's the name, all-star writer/
searching 4 journalistic fame, mindframe igniter....www.twitter.com/hayabusaage

>It's that simple, humans are going to take the easy route
>period. And computers are just eaiser.

is it really that simple?
do you think that innately there is something that humans respond to that is merely void in "synthetic substitutions"?

i mean the raw emotional charge you get from watching a live performance is not going to be all there on a recording medium.

sometimes we have to accept that certain things,
certain methods are just going to have an EFFECT on us.
and for that they have a value.
despite how far things have deviated...

if nothing else, consider the fake breast, fake lips analogy carried to music.

>if nothing else, consider the fake breast, fake lips analogy
>carried to music.

some people are completely indifferent to there being any difference ("If I can touch it and feel it, then it's real") and some--nobody is more puzzled by this than me--even find them superior.

(For some reason, fake asses are still universally ridiculed, though I have seen acceptance of them slowly growing, as long as they don't look absolutely ridiculous)

But the principle is the same with music. Over the years I have encountered folks who think Smooth improved upon Al Green's "Love & Happiness" or that Donel Jones "funkified" Stevie's "Knocks Me Off My Feet" or whatever modern, synthetic remake of an old song of your choice is almost always better than the source material, which to them sounds quaint, low-tech, square.

For many, many people, the key value is not "natural"... It's "new."

Also: "Louder"

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

>some people are completely indifferent to there being any
>difference ("If I can touch it and feel it, then it's real")
>and some--nobody is more puzzled by this than me--even find
>them superior.

i would argue those sensibilities have fallen very out of favor in contemporary times. late 80s-early 00's? sure.
but now? nah i think you'll see a lot of dissent against fake cosmetic alterations of sex-related organs.
and a lot more appreciate of "natural" ones.

>(For some reason, fake asses are still universally ridiculed,
>though I have seen acceptance of them slowly growing, as long
>as they don't look absolutely ridiculous)

fake tits, fake lips, fake eyebrows aren't really "in style" despite some women think they're pulling a fast one.
we know what time it is and nah that is really not the move.
fake hair is the only one i would grant you but that's a Black thing.

>But the principle is the same with music. Over the years I
>have encountered folks who think Smooth improved upon Al
>Green's "Love & Happiness" or that Donel Jones "funkified"
>Stevie's "Knocks Me Off My Feet" or whatever modern, synthetic
>remake of an old song of your choice is almost always better
>than the source material, which to them sounds quaint,
>low-tech, square.
>
>For many, many people, the key value is not "natural"... It's
>"new."
>
>Also: "Louder"

yeah i agree, but these people are not the tastemakers.
they are conditioned to abide and respond to whatever is put into motion by people above them.
if people recognize there is something intangible and effective in a more "natural" approach to music, there is a value in that.
and i think secretly in some ways we see people yearning for it with all the "retromania" and glimmers of lack of synthetic being praised as godsend.
you see garbage like mumford and son's climbing the charts for absolutely no good reason if other than they are more "natural" than -insert pop flavor of month-.
imagine if some actually GOOD music had a more natural infusion...
just my opinion, but i think the public WANTS it but hasn't articulated it.
so i ask - will "natural" ever be the "IN" thing again?
or are we going to continue to be shoveled synthetic music by corporations due to ease of production?

but it doesnt care if it sounds new or sounds old, 'fake' or 'natural' by and large, unless youre talking about music fans, which i dont think you are. although, if you did want to launch retro acts, now is as good a time as any as the present is looking quite scary for everyone, though even there, the public have seen through substandard artists trying to ride the winehouse wagon. why? cos the songs arent that good, in spite of their 'natural' production values.

the internet has kinda changed this convo anyway as you can get what you want that much easier. you want porn with women who have fake cement-looking tits? its there. you want porn from the 70s with women with great hair styles, a full bush and natural breasts? thats there too. same goes for music.

unfortunately i hate everything you had to say.

just because the layman can't articulate what they like better about brand a vs brand x doesn't mean there isn't an innate characteristic that is different that they can pick up on as listeners.
people who know less about music production are actually MORE prone to listen to it based on their emotions.

and "retro" acts are doomed from the get-go.
and i'm not talking about that.
i'm talking about a return to standards that were manifested before the advent of technology that made "programming" instruments possible to achieve an emotional evocation that has otherwise been lost.
live playing, not over-processed programming.
a return to naturalism.
all the tacky make-up comes off.
not that "let's pretend it's still 1974!" bullshit people have been doing since the early 90's.

---
“Change is inevitable. Progress is optional.” – Tony Robbins

which is organic, live instrumentation, warm, natural in all ways, but doesnt sound like its trying to pretend its 1974? well id love more of that, or the last whitney single written by alicia keys too, but the public, despite hearing these songs, doesnt want things to only sound like that. they want songs that sound BRAND SPANKING NEW as well! you think they dont know whats 'good' music? of course. but they want automated, processed, factory line, robot beats (or a nice sheen at least) along with it.

the problem is that in 2012, music is seen the same way as food, between whats good for a person and what isnt and the public doesnt want to only hear whats good for him. he wants some garbage too. see, i always hear people say things like 'but that was pop in the 70s!' well its not the 70s anymore. what was once commercial (or popular at least) back then is now elevated to a higher status and that makes people want to resist.

to compare, you think people give a shit that the french connection or whatever is a superior police/action movie than whats in the multiplex today? they dont. they dont want to be oppressed by todays self elected elitist arbiters of taste.

was a dope ass pop song that hit #1 in like 10 countries! the First time i heard that? that song was my shit. now of course it's been over played the fuck out now.. but.. that was a dope ass pop song that was a cool break from the norm

* * * * =========
* * * * =========
* * * * =========
==============
==============

I fuck with folk, so I ain't mad. I hate that an album like Landing On A Hundred is considered
"old sounding" because it has real instruments though. People say that because that's the only
place they're used to hearing "natural" instruments.

The other thing that bugs me about this "unnatural" obsession is that even if artists do something
amazing with an "unnatural" instrument, hardly anyone realizes how amazing it is, because
they either assume it was programmed or just don't understand the discipline it takes to do
something like that. Basically, it doesn't seem to mean anything to anyone when you play 12
different instruments. All that matters is the resulting sound. Can't say that's very different
from any other era, but synthetic music has made a lack of talent way more prominent over the years.

what's "natural" about recording music?

sorry i confused you.

the only manner in which you confuse me is your persistence in making shitty posts.

Perhaps analogous to asking if film-makers will return to puppets and matte painting, rather than cgi - it's more efficient to use electronics/producers than instrumentalists/arrangers (edit: I just noticed austin made a similar analogy, oops). It's an extrapolation to frame this as 'fake' versus 'natural,' but you know this.

-------

http://soundcloud.com/ajiav
http://www.last.fm/user/ajiav

Games without front ears / born without ears

>Perhaps analogous to asking if film-makers will return to
>puppets and matte painting, rather than cgi - it's more
>efficient to use electronics/producers than
>instrumentalists/arrangers

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

It's a good question; I have to think it depends on how well it's used. The dancehall methods in reggae of relying increasingly on existing rhythms or digital production rather than live bands, I don't think that's entirely detrimental --- though the analogy may be imperfect since at some point instrumentalists still often played a role.

-------

http://soundcloud.com/ajiav
http://www.last.fm/user/ajiav

Games without front ears / born without ears

Rap music hasn't been natural since the Sugarhill Records days when they had a band performing all the music.

https://tinyurl.com/y4ba6hog

---------
"We in here talking about later career Prince records
& your fool ass is cruising around in a time machine
trying to collect props for a couple of sociopathic degenerates" - s.blak

?

https://tinyurl.com/y4ba6hog

---------
"We in here talking about later career Prince records
& your fool ass is cruising around in a time machine
trying to collect props for a couple of sociopathic degenerates" - s.blak

Likewise I like synthesized drums, moogs, yamahas, sampled loops, etc. but I'm not into vocoder or auto tune voice stuff.

Didn't really answer your question, but I think some "fake" is good and interesting.

Happy 50th D’Angelo: https://chrisp.bandcamp.com/track/d-50

>natural as in, the opposite of synthetic.
>
>synthetic drums.
>synthetic instruments.
>synthetic playing via programming.
>synthetic chops via technological correction.
>
>all of this, for the sake of reference, adds up to fake
>breasts, fake ass, fake lips, acrylic nails, fake eyelashes,
>penciled on eyebrows, a weave or wig, too much make-up and
>poor fashion choices in a woman.
>
>which, imo, is not deemed desirable by society at large.
>
>yet this is the state of our music in our life and times.
>
>why do we tolerate it?
>
>and while we tolerate this stuff that big entertainment pumps
>out for our dollar - we then secretly forlorn over yesteryear
>which big entertainment caters to as well via pimping the past
>or even a semblance of the past to try to fool whoever they
>can...
>
>glorified talent shows of the 00's gave us merely a peak at
>"natural" ability and they drew some of the highest ratings on
>tv.
>
>what does this all add up to?
>
>perhaps the public is tired of synthetic or that is to say,
>has a desire for more "natural" elements of music to come back
>into the fold but cannot put their finger on it and articulate
>it...
>
>i'm not saying music needs to be stripped down to 1 man and 1
>piano or 1 guitar.
>i'm just saying perhaps it's time, or beyond time, that
>synthetic elements in music take a backseat to something more
>universally relatable within humans.
>i'm saying that "naturalism" in music is such an understated
>quality that perhaps is a major part that people are still
>talking about music from 197x like they were in 199x and music
>from 200x is vaguely remembered (as proven by my failed
>solo-attempts to "romanticize" the 00's).

---
“Change is inevitable. Progress is optional.” – Tony Robbins

even if there is a band playing 'natural' music, they wont be able to sound 'natural' if they want to be seen to be commercial, which basically is a way of saying 'new'.

and to be new, technology has made it so that you must sound spit-shined and glossy with modern production values. its too late to go back.

if you want rustic, raw, i.e. OLD sounding music, you wont find it in the mainstream. the average person doesnt want to hear music that sounds 'old'.

like Avett Brothers, Mumford & Sons, Lumineers and Delta Rae sound glossy as shit.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

towards the end of their career

not glossy per se but def less gritty - i remember the blue orchid single being surprisingly modern sounding. he had to give in.

but it shouldnt really be a surprise - just as humans seem to enjoy making themselves obsolete through computers and so on, we seem to enjoy a hell of a lot of music that is less 'human' or 'natural' sounding.

>but it shouldnt really be a surprise - just as humans seem to
>enjoy making themselves obsolete through computers and so on,
>we seem to enjoy a hell of a lot of music that is less 'human'
>or 'natural' sounding.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

to be fair, htough, early Avetts was gritty as hell.

Lumineers, though.... arena-folk. Sad thing is I don't prefer the shambling, less glossy indie-folksters to them really at all, and there's not a lot out that balances the two in a way that I find non-corny.

Ben Sollee, on the other hand, probably remains my greatest hope for 'natural' music in this decade so far.

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct

>if you want rustic, raw, i.e. OLD sounding music, you wont
>find it in the mainstream. the average person doesnt want to
>hear music that sounds 'old'.

>if you want rustic, raw, i.e. OLD sounding music, you wont
>find it in the mainstream. the average person doesnt want to
>hear music that sounds 'old'.

how many weeks was "locked out of heaven" #1 for?

"the public wants 'good' music and 'good' songs" but it doesnt care if it sounds new or sounds old" © you, an hour and 40 minutes after you wrote the former quote.

---
“Change is inevitable. Progress is optional.” – Tony Robbins

i didnt say that the general public doesnt want to hear any music that sounds old, but that it doesnt want to live in the time-frazzled charts of lenny kravitz's imagination. that bruno mars song is kind of a different deal though - it still sounds obviously modern in its EDM-ish drops and build-ups, despite sounding like a mix of various early 80s hits from the police, MJ and so on. as i said earlier, the public doesnt want to hear period piece music, but if something is obviously based on an older era, it is happy with a nice gloss or a nice sheen, something to indicate that it isnt a 1979-forever time capsule piece of work.

...that's a part of the territory. If you want to follow trends, go ahead. New technology will always mix it up with porn and music. Fact. But as Sly Stone once said, it's not a fashion in the first place, it is a feeling, and I speak specifically about "natural" music. Now, I will admit to being a sucker to the Spice Girls. I know, my views are automatically invalid now, right? Anyway, "Wannabe" popped up on the radio and as off as their voices were, they were still human voices. That song came out no more than 17 years ago, and yet there is a healthiness about that song. Yes it's pop fluff, yes it may very well be sappy/happy crap, but go listen to "2 Become 1", "Say You'll Be There", or "Spice Up Your Life".

Of course, mass-produced pop may be different from jazz, country, funk, or soul played with real instruments. Why have The Roots not gone massively over? Because of the fact that we as fans view hip-hop as one thing, and not this, that, and definitely not "other". The funny thing is, as much as there is always a constant push to be of the now, when people come out with a new song or single, it's called a "record". It's physically not a record, in fact a song is not physical at all. To me, a record is a physical item but by calling it a record, you are immediately trying to give it value and credibility. Then again, a recording is a preservation of time through audio, an archive, a memory. It's placing value in a memory, in a time where music personas are more valuable than what music someone is making.




THE HOME OF BOOK-NESS:
http://www.thisisbooksmusic.com/
http://twitter.com/thisisjohnbook
http://www.facebook.com/book1


http://i32.tinypic.com/kbewp4.gif
http://i50.tinypic.com/hvqi4w.jpg

mostly from each other

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

no recorded music, the technology if recording, analog or not, distorts and undermines the true natural sound of music

no microphones

no electric anything

just acoustic naturally made instruments, non amplified vocals & live performances

instead of our ipods & radios we can listen to ourselves humming tunes...and barbersop quartets & street corner doo wop singers...maybe the homeless acoustic guitar player's sounds will make their way to our ears, or the town lyre player...

(seriously ppl kno im not a fan of synths, i like my samples & drum raw & organic sounding, but w/o synthetic means my favorite music doesn't exist)

*goes back to listening to vhvl's 'rndm sngles' EP*

________________________________________________________________
whenever you did these things to the least of my brothers you did them to me