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

Even I wouldn't be able to write a song for San Remo, but not because I lack the technical skills, but simply because it's just not in my head.

To write a pop song today, you write the chorus, possibly thinking that whoever listens to it must remember it, then you flip it and write the verse... the whole thing is properly packaged by marketing professionals (these are the true architects of a song's success) and the job is done...

Forget Elio e Le Storie Tese, who with the song "MONONOTA" gave a live lesson in classical harmony !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who even remembers the distinction that existed 20 years ago, with the two themes being clearly distinct and often contrasting, including an expansive section... today's listeners don't make it past 2 minutes of listening, because in the meantime an SMS or a WhatsApp message arrives that must be answered instantly... rather than finishing the song.

I am not talking about the music teacher, as almost everyone who frequents this forum is an industry professional or close to it and knows the figure we are talking about... question... what kind of technical musical and non-musical knowledge should our DJ have to compose pop music that works today?

I disagree, RStrauss. You are trivializing the world of pop. Today there are HUNDREDS of pop and rock niches; most singers and bands struggle to make ends meet as much as or even more than us (no, because the discussion started in these terms: who earns more) and often the chorus and the verse are secondary things. Or rather: instead of fighting a battle against pop regardless, one could find a way to speak well of beautiful pop...

Let's take some examples from my recent listens, which follow the very biased tastes of my boyfriend:

"Contro la ragione", from the very latest album by Verdena, a band from Bergamo

the chorus is secondary in the enjoyment and analysis of the track. And this is because the melodic and harmonic material is not always "substantial" in a pop song. There is something else: there is the sound, meaning that series of timbral elements, effects, and instruments that create a sort of panorama. And then there are the rhythmic structures, the interpretation, the forms. Perhaps we can say that this is not a "typical" pop song, but what can I say, there are Vivaldi concerts that are absolutely banal ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhVy6rBnIeE

"Stonemilker" from "Vulnicura", the latest album by Bjork.

Ok, talking about Bjork is an easy win. But if a contemporary composer can arrogantly ignore who Bjork is, today any rock or pop artist cannot afford that. And this is the level of audio production one must contend with: a series of sounds where you don't know how they are made, how they are placed, or what they want to say, with a voice perfectly under control and an atmosphere that is the closest thing to Debussy in 100 years.

And here, I really want to see if you can manage to listen to it...

an anticipation from the latest album by "Uochi Toki", which is yet to be released. Besides the vocalist, Napo, there is Rico, the one who makes the beats. "Making the beats," whatever that means, is one of the professional roles in the Hip Hop world, and it is diabolically difficult because it essentially deals with electronics and rhythm—fields that, to composers, seem unwelcoming toward creativity. Meanwhile, Rico's "touch" is distinguishable, it is amazing, it is the true cause of Uochi Toki's success, almost on the same level as Napo's absurd lyrics and strange way of rapping.

(Daniele, let your son hear this... and recommend "Libro Audio", a wonderful album by Uochi Toki).

And we conclude with THE hit song

It was a massive global success, also because the video is very beautiful and many people have tried to remake it.

Now, maybe we can think about the chorus and how easy it is to sing. But I like to notice all the traditional things that are in this piece.

The voice of Pharrell Williams is entirely blues; it's not even agile, it's a blues countertenor, plain and simple. The track is full of handclaps, which are one of the most retro things there can be. In the background, there is a Hammond-style organ which is also typical of gospel and blues. And as if by chance, there is even a gospel choir.

Blues, gospel, funk—these are all styles and "references" that are now part of the American pop world and which presuppose a "pro" audio rendering and considerable creative ingenuity to make everything modern and successful.

These things aren't done by marketing professionals; they are done by music professionals. It always bothers me deeply to read phrases thrown out like that one about marketing professionals...

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

I find that these are somewhat senseless questions because they are all exaggeratedly large. The music world is huge; there are DJs of all kinds because billions of different musical genres exist, and there are those who use vinyl, those who use three at a time, those who only use software, etc. etc. But DJs don't just play Pop!

As for the claim that today's listeners don't even reach the two-minute mark, I find it to be a somewhat superficial statement that reminds me of the usual "back in my day..."

Also excuse me, these are completely different fields. Let's take two at random, just as an example: Lachenmann and The Prodigy.

The Prodigy use or have used software, samplers, analog synths, VSTs, and so on. They have sampled a vast amount of music and, thanks to this, they have written tracks that became very famous (sampling is not a shortcut, it is a means of expression) which are effective in their field.

Let's assume they used any synth, a Moog, Ableton Live, and some U-he VSTs, just to name a few.

Well, what does Lachenmann do with these things? I say, if he knew about them it certainly wouldn't hurt, but Lachenmann deals with something else.

Should he perhaps know how to sample? He makes acoustic music, so what use is it to him? So, is Lachenmann less competent than The Prodigy?

And if we turn it around and think about his use of instruments, what do The Prodigy know about it? Probably nothing....

So they are less competent than Lachenmann in some aspects and more knowledgeable in others, but fundamentally, who cares?

Or rather, does it make sense to make comparisons of this type? In my opinion no, it serves no purpose.

Finally, I would like to remind you that the song "Samba de uma nota só" by Jobim was written long before the song "Mononota," and I would say that the probability that Elio et al. knew it is not exactly very low..

...but then there are absolutely banal Vivaldi concerts

Watch out, Frank will get angry if you say that!

You are both right ... I am not trivializing the pop world, in fact my argument was limited to the original question which spoke of DJs and not of groups or people who know how to make music like Björk or Pharrell Williams, whose value I also recognize.

I have heard some songs by Verdena and I would like to delve deeper and suggest them to my daughter (15 years old) as well.

yes Thallo ... there are niches ... niches exactly !!!

But what is the percentage of listeners of niche music?

who like you recognizes the "traditional things" in Pharrell Williams?

who is able to discourse on his blues countertenor voice, which I would want to have for my whole life?

You also understand that by making this argument from you as an insider to me as an insider, you have already trivialized the pop world, because you made an argument that most people are not able to appreciate, simply because they don't even know what a countertenor is, for example; you will even find musicians (?) who don't know it. Regardless of the fact that it was liked on a global level.

just to quote ... after the song "Mononota", while talking with my cousins during a dinner, I heard almost everyone say: "what is this stuff ... there isn't even a melody" or "or" "what does the lyric 'minor, major' mean" etc ... I didn't even attempt to explain to them what is behind Mononota, they wouldn't have understood because none of them are musicians and so Samba de uma nota só (which I immediately went to listen to after micamahler's citation).

Without having any technical-musical knowledge you don't compose tracks like these ... you don't use the impressionist influences of Björk or quote blues profusely like Williams.

again ... let's see what background Pharrell Williams ... Björk ... Verdena have (just to stay with those mentioned) ... as it happens, they all play an instrument or studied in their youth and above all they paid their dues playing, playing, and playing again ... far from computers!

And what can you tell me about the voices and instruments in octaves of Soft Machine in the Wyatt era? Aren't those instruments in octaves above and below the voice that Puccini loved so much?

could it be a coincidence?

P.S. micamahler ... I assure you that hearing what my daughter says, the 2-minute story is true ... absolutely true ... sad but true.

danielescarpetti wrote:

...but then there are absolutely banal Vivaldi concerts

Watch out, Frank will get angry if you say that!

worse ... he'll ban him for life !!

I completely disagree with Strauss and instead share what Thallo says (especially because they know the Uochi Toki).

It is, however, difficult to argue because the discussion is really too generic and, in my opinion, makes no sense at all.

Does a Californian jazz musician or a Mississippi bluesman know more?

Does a Cuban pianist or a Brazilian pianist know more? (aside from the very personal "But whatev... ")

Then I would really like to know who is being referred to in this discussion when talking about DJs

Personally (at least I'm playing it “sure”) I am referring to DJs (but I would broaden the circle) who like ready-made meals.

In this sense, even if everyone approaches and resolves (more or less, provided they succeed) in their own way the difficulties that arise when they try to do something, there are substantial differences in using an acoustic piano (even a digital one) and a synthesizer with settable pads.

Over the years I have had many synthesizers; for example, with an accompaniment keyboard, I tried to find a way to create effects that would otherwise be impossible given the lack of a sample player or a sampler (an instrument that in any case I never wanted to use); for me, this is no small difference compared to the kid who imports sound samples and percussion (even unusual ones) onto pads (like old electronic drum kits) and also uses grooves as if they were molds. In jungle and drum’n’bass, there is widespread use of the usual effects (compressor, gain, overdrive, etc...) to enhance the sound, but most are photocopies; I have never worked this way, I created my own grooves, just as for hip hop tracks (which still need to be used and in many cases I have almost ready since 2002, so in highly suspicious times), I tried to make some because I was pushed by some friends who intended to prepare lyrics (perhaps this year we will manage to do something).

When I went to music stores to try out synthesizers, 99.9999999% of the kids only tried instruments with automatic accompaniments, pads with sounds, grooves, pre-programmed patterns, CDs with already played parts and things like that; this is to say that the personal imprint (if we exclude the original one from sound designers) is mostly, (in cases where ready-made phrases are used and/or heavily used, I am not talking about individual sounds) attributable to the subjects in parentheses. I know, everyone spends their money as they wish, but the impression they get (in the sense that they are literally impressed) when they listen to tracks of a certain type would be diminished if only they knew how a certain result was achieved, but do they ask themselves these questions? No.

Thank goodness we adults have all the answers...

Pharrell Williams has an insane sound, guys. In a Justin Timberlake album where they worked together in the recording studio, Williams' rhythm is instantly recognizable. Pharrell works very hard specifically on the rhythm of his tracks.

micamahler wrote:

I completely disagree with Strauss and instead share what Thallo says (especially because he knows Uochi Toki).

It is, however, difficult to argue because the discussion is truly too generic and, in my opinion, makes no sense at all.

Does a Californian jazz musician know more? Or a bluesman from Mississippi?

Does a Cuban pianist know more? Or a Brazilian pianist? (aside from his very personal "But wha... ")

Then I would really like to know who is being referred to in this discussion when talking about DJs.

It's your right to disagree... but just for clarity... I am not in disagreement with Thallo, but I am making a necessary clarification when he speaks of niches... he also admitted "talking about Bjork is like an easy win"... in all arts, niches have always been the refuge topic in case one no longer knows what to say... by citing niche artists, you will always find something different to oppose to anyone who does not agree with you, and precisely for this reason I made the aforementioned clarification... What does Bjork have to do with nightclubs? What do Uochi Toki have to do with DJs or so-called commercial music?... I am sorry to contradict you but the answer is: they have nothing to do with it precisely because they are niche! ... I have heard far too many discussions like this, I mean regarding certain alternative artists brought up when there was no need or that are completely irrelevant. It would be like talking about the works of Puccini and bringing up Brahms, who never wrote operas.

Piccinesco then hit the mark... here we are not talking about Uochi Toki, or Bjork etc., but we are talking about music with wider distribution, as the initial question also stated by speaking of "nightclubs" vs. concert halls.

The conclusions of this entire discussion could therefore be these: one can be a DJ and have a great musical culture, and "conservatory masters" - I used the two extremes proposed by Emanuele who, in the best traditions, threw the stone and then withdrew his hand without saying anything more - with relative musical culture. Because, in itself, the habit does not make the monk.

Everyone should listen to the music that is most suitable for them because it is absolutely not true that all so-called art music is such, and it is equally not true that all pop music is mere commercial junk.

Get rid of the snobbery because there are many "unknowns" who, professing "other" musics, have much to say regarding contemporary and futuristic music.

To avoid misunderstandings in everything I have written, there is no irony; this is simply what I think.

Claudio, I have listened to all the music you proposed and I appreciated it, although, I must tell you that the only thing I found truly interesting was that of "Uochi Toki". I say this not as a DJ, and even less as a composer or conservatory master. Aside from the curses they utter and that it would have been better if they weren't there, it is the only one I will continue to listen to; everything else is, in my opinion, part of a more or less revisited déjà vu.

I hope that anyway, your boyfriend is just as willing to listen to the music that you usually listen to - or used to listen to? -: Wagner, Scelsi...

I forgot: why be scandalized if a particularly high-profile DJ makes a lot of money - if they truly make a lot: to tell the truth, I don't even have the slightest idea how much they might make, but it wouldn't surprise me at all - after all, we live in a world where those who kick balls earn scandalous amounts. But it's all normal, right? After all, we are the ones who make the rankings with our preferences.

Marco hates Wagner :-)

Anyway, regardless of the issue of niches, I take Simone's attention to production and sound as my own. This is not niche; it is now a minimum level required from everyone.

That being said, I am NOT at all an expert on DJs, DJing, and club music, but I am certain that our discussion is trivializing even in this sense. And for once, I would like you to make an effort :-) the 'you' refers to RStrauss and those who think this way: what is listened to in clubs today?

Look, Claudio, that is exactly the point: beyond Marco, every time I read discussions of this kind, I ask myself this question which does not seem impertinent at all and which should, anyway, presuppose some reflection: I am speaking in the first person, I, only in these last years of my life, have listened exclusively - so to speak, of course, because I am talking about two thousand years of music history and that doesn't seem like a little - to music - whatever you want to call it - classical, art, or...? But in my life I have often listened to pop music, and even to this day - I have no difficulty finding beauty and goodness even in that music.

I wonder: how many of those who love and listen exclusively - or almost exclusively - to pop music do the opposite?

Even if they didn't exist, what would change for you?

Article, I'd better say what I said before so as not to appear merely polemical: during this discussion several times it has been said "how many know that it is done this way?", "they don't ask themselves questions", "they did their apprenticeship playing... anything but computers!". But do we really know so much about all the people in the field of popular music? Because I would also like to remind you that the discussion relates to popular music, not simply to disco music (but then: what exactly is this disco music? there are different types of discos with different types of music! there is house, there is hardcore, there is techno, there is minimal, breakbeat, etc.).

Then Thallo says that Pharrell is a countertenor and is right to say it because he proposes a listening and then analyzes it. But I believe that the important thing is not the fact that Pharrell is a countertenor (besides, does he himself know he is one? and if he knows, what good does it do him?) but rather the claps, the gospel reminiscences, and everything else, which cannot be analyzed with the traditional tools (read: Soft Machines like Puccini for the octave voice) proper to "classical" music.

Finally: we all know that playing is useful; it seems quite obvious to me that I have to emphasize it. But I would also like to remind you that even using software and doing your apprenticeship with it is not a very simple thing; it's not as if everyone uses Garage Band or Fruity Loops; the Radiohead guitarist processes his sound through Max MSP, Autechre play via Max MSP, there are those who practice Live Coding and so on. Doing your apprenticeship only by playing in some of these fields serves very little; programming is not exactly a trivial matter.

Certainly, the latter ones I mentioned are niches, but I would like to know, since we are talking about Puccini, who, in a room like Thallo's, would be able to "discourse" on the composer's harmonic refinements (just as Frank had done, for example, in one of his posts on Suor Angelica). - I modified the msg because the video covered part of the text -

Examples of live coding :

long live Autechre

I think we are failing to understand each other, I'm sorry.

I find the question Daniele posed in his penultimate post to be more than pertinent (not in reference to the discussion title, but regarding the role, with all its possible nuances, that the consumer, the enthusiast, the "obsessive," the musician who prefers pop, hip hop, r&b, soul, rock, etc... music has in relation to the music most discussed here on the forum). Normally I am more attentive when it comes to talking about a certain type of music (symphonic, chamber, choral) and more aggressive when it comes to "simpler" music. In 2002 I made some tracks, let's say hip hop beats that some defined as strange, too complicated for that genre; however, now the kids have grown up and after listening more than me regarding this genre, they have started to say that I am even ahead of the Americans (I would be more satisfied if I could write a fugue, a symphony, a string quartet instead of an electronic music piece, but one cannot be different from what one is. I have listened to quite a lot of material and, in the hip hop sphere, much of the American production is ridiculous; if it were up to me, it wouldn't deserve publication, I am an insecure person, but in certain cases experience or "paying your dues" is not necessary, one must—and on this I won't mince words—say that a lot of hip hop and rap music is literally laughable, because the approach is static, passive, repetitive, and it can be heard, just listen to "the beats"; unfortunately, I cannot be overly kind and diplomatic, it wouldn't make sense, even if I were on my deathbed and the one watching over me was the person I had harshly criticized) since I was already doing certain things more than 10 years ago (always staying within this genre), because the approach was and is to make music for what I am and not based on the genre (which "requires" a kick drum like this, the snare in that way, fixed rhythm, etc...), the result? Contacted by people who (in their words) were looking for alternative beats, they then replied "but if the snare isn't on beat and the beat isn't 'fixed,' how am I supposed to rap over it?", and I say "I don't care at all, you want to do alternative things? Try it, but don't place ads looking for different things if you then retreat into convention." This is to say that almost everyone uses software, but how is it used? I see the same attitude even in photography (which I have "practiced" for only a few months); in forums, people discuss methodology and technique, and then "everyone" goes searching for the same things (now I'll do a comparison between music and photography): compression/HDR effects; random pattern_burst mode; phrase loop_image stabilizer; and the list would not end.

I always hammer on this point because I have always heard people whose almost sole purpose is the end goal, regardless of how they get there; the important thing is to show off the result. Personally, I would lock two people in two different rooms, provide them with the same means, and then return to observe the results: with the same approach, those who have always supported "the easy way" would come out destroyed, forget about videos, CDs, covers, slogans, commercials, and other bullshit of that sort. Returning to Daniele's question, I have heard people who have never even heard of Bach (it happens), it depends on life experience, context, a bit of everything; I almost never notice people who listen to light music naming Chopin, Brahms, and others; some are convinced that "Song in A" by Keys is all her work, while the "inspiration" derives from the sonata called Moonlight by Beethoven, yet another piece by Houston that takes inspiration from "Für Elise." In short, while it is understandable that one cannot know all music, it is equally true (and it is a "symptom" of how many perceive or do not perceive the importance of certain music deemed outdated, when on the contrary, that which they defend makes one's milk curdle) that if a person believes a singer-songwriter like Keys to be the real author of the theme of Beethoven's sonata op 27, demonstrating they do not know the original (one of the most famous pieces in the world, and not just for a week), it opens the way to a reflection on the level of knowledge that many people have. Obviously it can happen, it is not mandatory or automatic to know everything, but I say that this state of affairs does impact things a bit.

There, Piccinesco, you have given an answer to my question!

Demographically speaking, I come from a generation that listened to Genesis, Premiata Forneria Marconi, Banco del Mutuo Soccorso, Zeppelin etc., or singer-songwriters like Bob Dylan and Fabrizio De André. These were the "politically engaged" ones; otherwise, others listened to Fin che la barca va and Scende la pioggia.

I used to propose to my peers the music of Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Brahms...

I listened to their music and I had no problem finding it beautiful and interesting to the point of making it my own in many of its expressions: on the other hand, all those groups—but did they know it?—were inspired by the great classical tradition.

They listened to my music and often did so to please me: as long as it was Mozart's Fifth or Fortieth, or the K 467 concerto, everything was fine, but as soon as I offered them Bach's musical offering... that's when the problems began.

I also frequented discos quite a lot: back then you heard and danced to disco-dance, and every time I left there, I wondered how I managed to combine listening to that music with the one I preferred.

If I proposed something of "my" music to one of my friends at the disco, I would be told it was old and tedious music.

I wonder: how many of them realized they were also dancing to the notes of Für Elise or the Fifth, appropriately revised and modernized?

Here is the point, in my opinion! Here is the difference!

Today, how many of those listeners—I am not talking about composers because I don't know—of niche pop products are aware that they are nonetheless children of that tradition which casts its roots into Greek and Christian music with everything that has followed?