How do classical musicians take DJ/Techno "musicians" seriously?

As someone who spends endless hours practicing piano, I get frustrated with the limits of my abilities.

I could give a poor rendition of Liszt's Transcendental Etudes or Chopin's works, but it wouldn't amaze me or anyone else as it wouldn't express the music like it should be expressed.

Just like with running, there comes a certain point where you hit your genetic limit at what you're capable of doing with your body.

So I appreciate that computers allow anyone to express their creative ideas about music without years and years spent simply mastering some simple physical ability that relates to your hands. This is to be admired, but (in my opinion), the ability to move one's hands skillfully is much different than being musically creative.

[quote]ryan foreman wrote:

Actually neither REQUIRE thousands of hours of practice to be good. A lot of Classical Music is actually quite easy if you just take 15 minutes a day for a year or so to learn scales and get a good tone. But I think your point is that any music is as sophisticated as you want to make it. I agree with that.

Wow. Congratulations on making yourself sound like a complete idiot. "15 minutes a day for a year or so" will make you sound like a typical middle school band member, not a professional classical musician.

As to the OP, I think a lot of classical musicians are actually jealous of DJ's and techno musicians because they do less work and get more reward. Besides obvious classical musicians like Yo Yo Ma or Andrea Bucheli the common person wouldn't be able to name 5 current classical musicians. However, the common person could rattle off a couple of DJ's or techno artists. Classical get frustrated by this because while they spend 6+ hours a day in rehearsal, practicing, studying music, and listening to music other artists spend far less time on their work and get far more attention and success. It's the nature of our society though, so if classical musicians want to complain they should move on to other things.

For the most part this is completely true. However most of the DJs I know consider it a hobby and a way to introduce new music to people they might not have heard. For the most part however they just want to have fun listening to music with people who love it as much as they do. I think most people picture Pauly D when they think of DJ douche which sucks

qualia duck fish wrote:

So I appreciate that computers allow anyone to express their creative ideas about music without years and years spent simply mastering some simple physical ability that relates to your hands. This is to be admired, but (in my opinion), the ability to move one's hands skillfully is much different than being musically creative.

^^this

Dutch oven wrote:

classicly trained says nothing about creative ability.

A lot of classic musician can only play music from sheets and stuf.

Then there are a lot a shitty dj's or producers.

The original poster doesn't know anything about music otherwise you will state differently.

Some people write music. (on an intrument or computer)

Others play music

Some play and write

And some you like and i don't

Do you know that 99% of the orkest you hear in movies are actually produced on a computer using (multi) samples.

Also that a lot of drums in studio live recordings are programmed but your not able to hear it.

i rest my case.

Go learn to play an intrument idiot!

Learn to type and spell correctly before spouting off....

Funny, another pianist friend of mine just posted on FB: "Who needs techno when you have Steve Reich?"

qualia duck fish wrote:So I appreciate that computers allow anyone to express their creative ideas about music without years and years spent simply mastering some simple physical ability that relates to your hands. This is to be admired, but (in my opinion), the ability to move one's hands skillfully is much different than being musically creative.

I agree with your point, but I think you are underrating the value of playing an instrument. It's sort of like anyone can easily drive a car faster than a 4 minute mile, but watching Seb Coe run or the feeling of running a fast mile yourself are still something very special.

"Real" classical musicians listen to Mr. Richard D. James. End of thread.

Black Keys wrote:

I agree with your point, but I think you are underrating the value of playing an instrument. It's sort of like anyone can easily drive a car faster than a 4 minute mile, but watching Seb Coe run or the feeling of running a fast mile yourself are still something very special.

Well, I added the qualifier "my opinion" to it. The way I see, good music is all about what reaches my ears. What my eyes see and any further knowledge about how the music was created does not matter to me when I'm assessing whether or not something is good music.

On the other hand, and in a completely different way, I admire being able to play an instrument well. I may not like the piece the performer is playing, but I can appreciate the hard work that went into it. Have you ever heard of Marc-Andre Hamelin? He is the person who most world-class pianists would say is the greatest virtuoso (or Volodos...) but he plays such obscure music that no one knows the guy. (I happen to like his music very much though).

The title of the thread is about musicians. And there's two ways of classifying them as great: they produce great music or they are very skilled at playing music.

Obviously you don't listen to classical music. Much of it is very easy. A middle school who really does practice 15 minutes a day and doesn't quit out of boredom really can play a lot of classical music. Clean and note for note. Classical music just means a style of music and nothing more. It says nothing about the sophistication one chooses to put on it.

ryan foreman wrote:

Obviously you don't listen to classical music. Much of it is very easy.

??

I think that's more the exception than the general trend. If you go to imslp.org and click on any of Liszt, Alkan, Mozart, Beethoven, Rach, Bach, most of the pieces are sufficiently difficult to merit more than 15 minutes a day to give a good rendition of the piece.

And I hate sounding artsy-fartsy with this statement as it's overused, but: accurate note striking doesn't translate into a "good" rendition of the piece. Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata Mvt. 1 is simple, but you wouldn't believe how many crap performances of the piece there are on Youtube (yes.. I'm fairly certain I could tell the difference in a double-blind test).

Not sure why that is. I AM a classically trained musician. I have many friends who are classically trained musicians (most of them piano players, but a couple of guitarists in there two), and we talk about music frequently, so I know what they think. I also know what I think, and since I meet the criteria, I responded. not sure why that is laughable.

There ARE musicians who operate about as you suggest, but there are also some GREAT musicians out there who make a lot of money on the wedding scene.One of the guitarists in one of my former bands was classically trained (BA in guitar), and he used to do the wedding thing...soloist at either the service or the reception, and he charged $3500. He worked as many weekends as he wanted.

agreed wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

As a classically trained musician (one with a liberal view of music at that), I can tell you without hesitation that classical musicians do NOT appreciate DJ/Techno musicians at all. I would count myself as not appreciating their musical ability. I DO appreciate the fact that they are able to use technology to produce music that many young kids want to hear (my 11-year-old son being one of them), but I do not take them seriously as "musicians".

I don't take classically trained musicians very seriously as "people with jobs"; whenever anyone tells me they're a classically trained musician I take that to mean they rent a tuxedo and play cello at three weddings a year and the rest of the time they're a waiter or something

Meh.

This thread is kind of a straw-man anyway,

and and shows that thread starter probably has little insight into what he is asking about.

First, being a DJ and producing "techno"(or anything else) are two entirely different things and can't easily be lumped together.

Second, this techno that you speak of is such a broad genre of music, meaning different things to different people, that you can't really speak of it like that with out making sweeping generalizations.

It's almost like asking what does classical musicians think about rock music. Or pop or country music, or whatever.

What people label as techno can be anything from the lamest commercial dance/euro-trance (it sounds like this is what you might be referring to as techno) to artsy fartsy, avant-grade style modern classical/noise music, to highly complex compositions like ala Aphex Twin. And anything in between.

And to the dude that speaks for all classical musicians:

There are numerous classical musicians who has crossed over to other music styles including techno.

One is pianist Francesco Tristano who has made several piano renditions of classic techno tracks.

Here are a few examples:

http://youtu.be/H1wF8Xw2Ru8

http://youtu.be/srjzW4ec8mc

http://youtu.be/RU-NwmRRPIg

In the last one he talks about his relationship with techno.

He was nominated for the 2008 European Concert Hall Organization's "Carnegie Hall Rising Stars" series, so chances are he's a bit bigger name than most of your classical musician friends.

And here is Alarm Will Sound, a 20-member chamber orchestra,

playing renditions of Aphex Twin :

http://youtu.be/DP_w_Mvh9tU

http://youtu.be/LUajcFPa-pc

http://youtu.be/xRpiTHfV3Kc

(good stuff)

And finally, an all time personal techno favorite of mine:

http://youtu.be/PMbK631xevU

Puh! end of rant.