Who knows more about music, a conservatory teacher or a famous DJ? Let's compare classical music with pop music with a concrete reflection...

From my point of view, if a genre is called pop, there is a reason; just as there is a reason for calling a genre art music.

In my opinion, the discussion should shift to the levels of consumption of a musical piece.

Since time immemorial, in art there is no meritocracy, just as, in a certain sense, there is no merit. And that is as it should be. We are not talking about productivity or goals achieved, but about taste. And if more people like dance music, then it would make sense if the "masters" of classical music also wrote dance music :-) that's where "merit" would actually be understood. How to put it, if music masters knew more about DJ music, then they should be able to be DJs much, much better than the DJs themselves.

But I don't think that is the case...

It's like saying my mother deserves more money than the kebab shop owner under my house. Okay, maybe that makes sense in the abstract, but if my mother doesn't prove she can make kebabs better than the guy, and make a lot of them every day while staying to work in the shop, then the argument no longer makes sense.

The reflection becomes trivial, in my opinion, the moment it compares the music "master" to the DJ. We are talking about two different professional figures. First of all, there are no music "masters." There are composers, flute players, clarinetists, singers, etc., etc. Everyone knows how to do some things and doesn't know how to do others. Conservatory graduates don't know how to do everything that needs to be done in the music world, and considering them as monopolists is wrong. REAL music needs audio technicians, sound engineers, audio directors, producers, luthiers, DJs, and many other "operators" who, in their professionalism, even end up earning mooooore than all of us combined. It's normal, it's the market, it seems normal to me

Exactly Thallo, it makes no sense to compare apples with pears. One is trying to compare two completely different professions... there are pieces of classical music that have become pop, so the argument regarding levels of consumption holds true.

Emanuele95 wrote:

Who knows more about music

I stop at the word music, a word that is too vast. Surely the modern composer "gets their hands dirty" more than it seems with electronics... there is no composition student today who doesn't buy a MIDI controller (typical DJ equipment) to meet the requirements of electronic music subjects in departments. A subject that is increasingly mandatory in three-year composition programs.

An electronic music composer could easily be a DJ because a DJ uses a subset of things that an electronics graduate should know.

Therefore, I expect a contextualization of the subject... because there are perfectly comparable fields, but it is good to know that there are choices behind them. There is someone who wants to be a DJ and someone who wants to write a Max/MSP manual; there is someone who wants to go to San Remo and someone who wants to write a concerto for two pianos and orchestra

It is "normal" but it is wrong (for me). In most cases (regardless of the level of consumption), the DJ does nothing more than re-present versions (when it's not music prepared ad hoc, and in that case it's even worse, but as has already been said, it's a matter of taste) of tracks that, as they are, perform more than well; therefore, in addition to profiting from them (thanks to the stinginess of the followers of the "genre") they ruin the original. Unfortunately, it is true that this is what the music market (seems to) require, but since advertising has an enormous weight in practically every field, it cannot be ruled out that much of the responsibility for this state lies in wanting (and succeeding) to make someone look great who, if you took away the various automations they are used to, would have no other solution than to go home. It's true that it is always a matter of taste, but in everything it would be interesting to know how we got there and not just "enjoy" the end goal, which does not necessarily always justify the means—on the contrary. By saying "it is wrong," I am speaking for myself and not generalizing, knowing that there is always someone who thinks differently and that is certainly a good thing, otherwise we would get bored; however, for me, it would be necessary to "downsize" the "value" of certain characters who—they won't act like someone who is talked about far too much, and this works in their favor, but they are still overrated—and as I always say, it would be enough to take away their electricity (I use it too, so electronic instruments as well, but without pretending to be a great visionary and creative by letting software serve and revere me) to see them flounder.

An electronic music composer could DJ (perhaps, because it's not certain "he who can the most can the least", in this case the opposite, probably paying the price in terms of approach, which limits creativity, which is "usually" emphasized with few means), but the opposite would be very difficult; remaining one thing: one cannot profess to be a DJ without being able to play three consecutive notes.

Piccinesco wrote:

still, one professes to be a DJ without knowing how to play three consecutive notes.

However, I want to be provocative: what should someone with a degree in electronics know how to do? Even play an acoustic instrument? Or rather, should they have had to? And why?

Aside from the fact that, in my opinion, they are two completely incomparable figures, I believe one should start by deciding what is meant by "who knows more about music," because musical knowledge can be more technical or more cultural; in the first case, it is strictly linked to the "dirty work," while in the second case, it is more linked to listening and general knowledge.

Since a concept of "knowledge" cannot be given in absolute terms and since the figure of the maestro and the DJ are totally separate, a comparison cannot be made.

As far as filling venues is concerned, this is not due to the "knowledge" factor in my opinion, but is determined by the "commercial" factor. There is light music, for example, that is listened to by no one because it has no commercial potential, and nowadays "commercial" means "music" (even if in my opinion it is just entertainment/noise) with a catchy little tune, repeated eons of times and capable of getting stuck in your head without you even noticing.

Profit is then mostly given by a good record label; thinking that the musical world is free nowadays is like saying that we are still in a democracy in Italy xD

Lowseling wrote:

Profit is then mostly provided by a good record label; thinking that the music world is free nowadays is like saying that in Italy we are still in a democracy xD

It is not a happy comparison and, as such, forces someone like me to intervene and go completely off-topic. Try to find another one if you want, naturally, that gives the same idea you want to illustrate but without disturbing much larger matters. Then, if we want to talk about whether or not we are in a democracy in Italy and especially what we mean by democracy, that can be done elsewhere. What do you say?

danielescarpetti wrote:

It is not a happy comparison and, as such, forces someone like me to intervene and go completely off topic. Try to find another one if you feel like it, of course, that gives the same idea you want to illustrate but without disturbing much larger things. Then, if we want to talk about whether we are or are not in a democracy in Italy and especially what we mean by democracy, that can be done elsewhere.

Diciamo che più che altro era una frase fatta dato che non esce di mia bocca ma maggiormente da bocca altrui, ho voluto sfruttarla per rendere la frase un po' più "piccante", poi effettivamente ho scritto in modo un po' impulsivo e su questo posso darti ragione. Modifico la frase con qualcosa di meno "cruento", si potrebbe anche paragonare a dire che gli asini volano

This time Daniele, I really don't understand why you got irritated; Lowseling was simply ironizing on the fact that record labels know (unfortunately, I add) how to package a product, because in the end, this is what it is, certainly far from the music we intend as music of substance and immortality. To give you an example, I myself have had electronic music pieces published, but that doesn't mean I consider myself so good as to deserve any particular consideration or, even worse, to have "made it"; on the contrary, I have been living through a terrible crisis for about 10 years (not that it was better before, but since that moment, ten years ago, everything has become denser, more critical and also more dramatic), but despite this, I do not consider myself (at least in that field, which is certainly "easier" for me compared to more complex music to write, without thereby delegating decisions to software) any less than those who see their "own" music published and advertised; this is not what determines someone's "value," but advertising truly makes a difference, however (I think we all understand each other here) regarding substance, if there isn't any, one who appeared will eventually disappear and return to where they came from. I was giving you an example: the record label with which I published something has a repertoire of over 3,000 pieces, with various genres, but one of the parameters with which collaborators are chosen (who have no deadlines) is certainly not verifying how they composed a piece, so you find yourself listening to a well-constructed track and another "composed" (better said assembled) with loops bought or downloaded from p2p or dedicated software. In practice, the figure of the composer (in market jargon and not regarding the musical context that looks at the musician with a certain culture) has been (in my view) improperly absorbed by contexts that have nothing to do with it; let me explain: I am not painting everyone with the same brush, because there is wonderful music in almost every genre, I am talking about those who use software and (as with copy and paste) abuse what I call "facilitations," a natural practice "for him" (or her), after which they publish the fruit of their (in practice, the PC's, the software's—so cup of champions to the programmers and sound designers) work, perhaps even receiving compliments (which please everyone) instead of asking how the result was achieved. It is as if someone used an electric saw to cut branches and said (satisfied, of course) "I did it!". Nowadays it is natural to claim to have done something, but what? Obviously, it still takes someone to turn on the PC (or the Mac), who (though not always) thinks about how to achieve a certain result; there also needs to be a minimum of taste (always personal and subjective), but there is an absurd congestion of tracks on the internet (and that is also a good thing because truly talented musicians, composers, and performers are discovered). There are sites that, after prior payment, allow you to upload your music (but wasn't it the PC's or the Mac's?) and be present on dozens of portals; this, however, creates unprecedented inflation and "only" if you have a proper advertising campaign behind you can you go beyond the few listens you obtain (by pure chance, perhaps interrupted after a few seconds, just because friends or acquaintances are listening, etc...). I don't like the system as it is either, but what I am happy about (a bit like freedom) is that (even if one can be biased) the music we intend does not need these means to come out and, above all, to resist time.

In my opinion, Thallo is the one who has most clearly explained why the argument doesn't hold water. Rather than arguing, I would say that the question is wrong or at least poorly formulated.

In all fields, we have reached levels of knowledge where it is necessary, by necessity (including personal inclinations), to specialize. A physics graduate can never be an expert in all sectors of physics; that's why nuclear physics, astrophysics, meteorological physics, etc., exist. The same goes for potatoes in the world of engineering, and I could continue making another 1000 comparisons. I also spoke about personal inclinations precisely because, entering the discussion of music, I might like sound engineering and playing the piano, but be lacking in or simply not interested in the sphere of composition or jazz music (just to give a few examples).

Asking whether a conservatory graduate or a DJ knows more about music is like asking whether a Jazz musician or a Classical Pianist knows more about music. They are different sectors with different professional roles.

The example of Peppe Vessicchio falls flat; he goes to record in the studio of a very dear friend of mine in Rome, where I happened to be present on several occasions when they recorded. Vessicchio is certainly a professional in his field, though we could discuss at length the fact that he is only seen conducting orchestras for light/pop music and not classical.

He has been recording for years, but it would never occur to him to do everything by himself. As Claudio rightly said, the music world consists of a very long series of professional roles, and even if one wanted to, it is truly difficult to be a professional in everything.

Certainly, nowadays there are people who "compose" disco music by exploiting loops—in other words, playing a bit of dice and using existing fragments. This part belongs to the business side and is certainly not related to ability, but that is another discussion entirely.

I assure you that the first time I put my hands on DJ decks, I had serious difficulties, despite being quite advanced in my piano studies. There too, it is a matter of practice and familiarity with the equipment; just to say that it's not as if someone who is a conservatory graduate, when placed in front of a DJ system, just sits there and carries the evening. To each their own competencies.

Finally, there is the question of whether it is right or wrong. Is it right that an excellent pianist must starve while a DJ must be established and earn 500 euros per night?

Right or wrong, I believe everyone should follow their inclinations; fame is something that does not depend on us who put ourselves on the market, it depends on people's tastes and, for the sake of democracy—to pick up the point mentioned by Lowseling—everyone is free to choose where to spend their 10€.

TheSimon wrote:

Is it right that an excellent pianist must suffer hunger while a DJ must be established and earn 500 euros per night?

Right or wrong, I believe everyone should follow their own inclinations; fame is something that does not depend on us who put ourselves on the market, it depends on people's tastes and, for the sake of democracy—just to pick up the point mentioned by Lowseling—everyone is free to choose where to spend their 10€.

It depends on taste. Of course. But taste is formed through growing and educating it. And here we return (unfortunately) to my favorite topic: musical education.

Regarding the other question you ask, Simone, I have no doubts.

How much do you have to work your ass off to become an excellent pianist versus how much to be an established DJ?...

If we put it in terms of justice, the answer is obvious. But in this discussion, justice is something that must be put in parentheses. Inside many parentheses.

More than one of us has noted that the initial question is poorly phrased, that it needs to be specified, deepened, that they are different fields... it's true. But the question makes sense even on the surface.

Who knows more about music: a conservatory teacher or a famous DJ?

Obviously the music teacher!

Here the answer is already given (I agree). And, without too much elaboration, for the substance of this discussion, "music teacher" refers to both the one who teaches music and the one who knows how to play a musical instrument and composes music. A DJ is someone who manages records (are they still on vinyl?).

But who earns more? Who has more fame?

The DJ.

Nowadays, observing the audience of a classical music concert versus that of a pop music concert, one can see with the naked eye that the audience is significantly larger in discotheques or pop music venues.

This reflection, which may seem like a banality, what does it make you think?

Pop music is more popular.

In what way do you think this new reality characterizing this century can change society?

(It seems to me that it characterized the last century as well). Anyway, I wouldn't know.

What disadvantages will this denied meritocracy toward those who study classical music in the world bring?

The extinction of "classical music" due to a lack of oxygen.

I'll make a quick joke about the condition of one versus the other: the DJ has the fame, the maestro makes you starve. A vocal that changes a life (an earthly one, certainly).

@ Piccinesco

I didn't get irritated at all, believe me. I only invited Lowseling to make another comparison because bringing up the presence or absence of democracy in Italy opens, at the very least, a discussion of a completely different nature in another venue.

In fact, Lowseling changed the comparison and I appreciated it, giving him a "like" precisely because my remark did not concern his thoughts on this topic but rather the comparison.

I am very sensitive to social and political issues and I cannot pretend nothing is happening when I read certain things; therefore, I repeat, I am more than willing to talk about democracy in Italy, but in its own specific topic and in its proper section of the forum: also because, regardless of how it is or however one thinks about it, it is a significant subject.

LucaCavaliere wrote:

It depends on taste. Of course. But taste is formed by growing—by educating it. And here we return (unfortunately) to my favorite topic: musical education.

Regarding the other question you ask, Simone, I have no doubts.

How much do you have to work your ass off to become an excellent pianist versus how much to be a successful DJ?...

If we put it in terms of justice, the answer is obvious. But in this discussion, justice is something to be put in parentheses. Inside many parentheses.

More than one of us has noted that the initial question is poorly posed, that it needs to be specified, deepened, that they are different fields... it's true. But the question makes sense even on the surface.

Who knows more about music: a conservatory master or a famous DJ?

The music master, obviously!

The answer is already given here (I agree with it). And, without too much elaboration, for the substance of this discussion, "music master" refers to both the one who teaches music and the one who knows how to play a musical instrument and composes music. A DJ is someone who manages records (are they still on vinyl?)

But who earns more? Who has more fame?
The DJ

Nowadays, observing the audience of a classical music concert and that of a light music concert, one can see with the naked eye that the audience is significantly larger in discotheques or light music venues.

This reflection, which may seem like a triviality, what does it make you think?

Light music is more popular.

In what way can this new reality characterizing this century change society, in your opinion?

(It seems to me that it characterized the last century as well). Anyway, I wouldn't know.

What disadvantages will this denied meritocracy toward those who study classical music in the world bring?

The extinction of "classical music" due to a lack of oxygen.

I feel like playing Socrates in this situation, asking a series of "trick" questions that lead to the negation of some of the things you wrote, Luca :-)

but I would rather reconnect to the discussion that Simone also made, but from the other direction: trying to understand WHO the "music master" is :-)

Let's decide that a music master is a conservatory graduate. And we decide this in the sense that there are fields where this is not automatic: the director of my town's brass band is an excellent clarinetist but is not a conservatory graduate; in the world of opera singing, to this day, the majority of professional singers have never attended a conservatory...

What do you study at a conservatory? Let's take the "old system," where the programs were the same for everyone, so we can have a somewhat more homogeneous discussion: in a conservatory, one essentially studies TECHNIQUE and EXECUTION of the repertoire. Within this forum, we often have a partial view of what the world of musical professionalism is, even the "classical" one, because there is a large number of composers here. But I would like to remind you that the VAST majority of conservatory graduates

1) took a music history exam that did not require them to listen to ANYTHING;

2) took a harmony exam that wouldn't allow them to compose even half of a Sanremo pop song;

3) did not take a specific musical analysis program; they only dedicated a few harmony lessons to the analysis of slow movements of Beethoven's first ten sonatas (because this was the analysis program in the old system) and memorized the classifications of musical forms.

Much of what we consider musical "culture" is cultivated by the musicians themselves for pure personal pleasure. "Music masters" are primarily instrumentalists, performers. Very few of them know how to compose, and therefore they could avoid launching attacks at pop songs (I wouldn't know how to write a song, so I avoid accusing others of being ignorant... like me). Few of them have a real historical culture of music, and, incredibly, often those who know the most are those who play "badly," because those who play well concentrate on the repertoire of THEIR OWN instrument. Along the same lines, instrumentalists who make a living as instrumentalists deal with "commercial" issues just as much as DJs or pianobar singers. If I sing an opera in a choir and I sing it for 16 performances, and it's an opera like L'elisir d'amore (which is actually what I am singing these days) that pulls me very little "artistically," I do nothing more than ensure professionalism, repeatability, precision. I keep time, I try to be in tune and not miss the words, and I act silly on stage to make the audience laugh. THIS is professional music-making. You aren't hit by a beam of light with angels singing and a voice telling you "art for art's sake!", no, you have the production manager telling you that they don't have shoes in your size"}

:-) 

Paradoxically, the pop-rock world tends to have a more "totalizing" contact with creation and performance. If I improvise, the conductor strikes me down. If Cesareo from Elio e le Storie Tese does it, the audience goes wild. And the postscript is that he KNOWS how to improvise, I don't...

...there are no shoes in your size

???????

Geez, Claudio, fairy feet or Goofy feet?

... it is very likely that you are (also) right!

Who knows more about music, a conservatory teacher or a famous DJ?
Obviously the music teacher!

In my opinion, however, the answer is not at all so obvious, and I must return to the discussion regarding the vastness and complexity of the musical world. The DJ has certain skills that the conservatory teacher does not have, just as the opposite phrase is also true. Now, on the surface, to follow up on the discussion introduced by Daniele, if we want to focus solely on the amount of knowledge without specifying the field, certainly a conservatory teacher knows more, but we cannot make credible comparisons based only on volume without contextualizing. This is why I was saying that the question is poorly posed.

thallo wrote:

But I would like to remind you that the VAST majority of conservatory graduates

1) took a music history exam that did not require them to listen to ANYTHING;

2) took a harmony exam that wouldn't even allow them to compose half a Sanremo-style little song;

3) did not follow a specific musical analysis program, they only dedicated a few harmony lessons to the analysis of the slow movements of Beethoven's first ten sonatas (because this was the analysis program in the old system) and memorized the classifications of musical forms.

ACC THALLO!!!... "But is it possible that you never give me good news!!!" (Verdone to Ornella Muti in "Io e mia sorella")

If you feel like it, go ahead and be the Socrates of the situation ... my first cat was named Socrates

For the rest... I agree with everything.

In life, nobody has 32-hour days. If you do something exceptionally well, the others . . . it's not that you can dedicate too much time to them.