Another "Do any of you also play..." thread - turntables!

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='BottomE' timestamp='1322668122' post='1454204']There is a difference though because a musician can create a song from nothing. They need a few chords a melody and bang you have a song.

A DJ needs to have another persons material to be able to create something.[/quote]

Well, before the sampling laws stopped them, a lot of hip hop acts were creating whole new songs from sampling other songs - often those samples were unrecognisable, or were reworked in a novel way. Public Enemy for example made a completely new sound from chopping up other peoples' music and adding their own vocals. Aren't they musicians? Or do they get to be called musicians because they contribute vocals, but DJs don't?

[BottomE]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1322668513' post='1454211']
Well, before the sampling laws stopped them, a lot of hip hop acts were creating whole new songs from sampling other songs - often those samples were unrecognisable, or were reworked in a novel way. Public Enemy for example made a completely new sound from chopping up other peoples' music and adding their own vocals. Aren't they musicians? Or do they get to be called musicians because they contribute vocals, but DJs don't?
[/quote]
I dunno. Its confusing. I threw out an obvious difference between someone who uses a musical instrument and someone who doesn't - but the lines are blurry. Looking at a dictionary site a DJ can easily be part of the definition.

[color=#333333]1.[/color]
[color=#333333]a[/color] [color=#333333]person[/color] [color=#333333]who[/color] [color=#333333]makes[/color] [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/music"]music[/url] a profession, especially as a [color=#333333]performer[/color] [color=#333333]of[/color] [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/music"]music[/url].
[color=#333333]2.[/color]
any person, whether [color=#333333]professional[/color] [color=#333333]or[/color] not, [color=#333333]skilled[/color] [color=#333333]in[/color] [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/music"]music[/url].

[risingson]

No but I've seen many quality turntablists in my time. Jazzy Jeff played in Liverpool a few years ago, and he was amazing.

The guys that ran the club night always had an after party, which Jeff came back to this particular evening. As he was leaving the next day to go back to the airport, he declared that he'd had such a good night, would there be any else he could do before he left... so the guys had him filmed being thrown out of their front door a la 'Fresh Prince Uncle Phil' style!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8iHcJwiJys

[RhysP]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1322661609' post='1454080']
Indeed. We have a word which could be used to describe people who can write music but not play it. Why call them musicians?
[/quote]

I'd call them musicians because THEY UNDERSTAND MUSIC.

Somebody could play an instrument & come up with perfectly good songs but not understand what they're doing in relation to the theoretical side, and also not be able to write it down in notation - I personally would not call them musicians even though they may be excellent at what they do. Probably 80% of the people I listen to would fall into this category.

I certainly don't wish to imply that I think people who can read, write & understand are somehow superior; that's not what I think at all.

I certainly wouldn't class anybody playing somebody elses records on a turntable as a musician, even if they are manipulating it to produce other things. To me that would be the same as calling somebody that records & edits somebody elses film an actor.
It's probably an age thing.

Going by my own definitions I would run into problems if I ever come across a DJ who can read music.

[risingson]

[quote name='RhysP' timestamp='1322673894' post='1454345']
I'd call them musicians because THEY UNDERSTAND MUSIC.

Somebody could play an instrument & come up with perfectly good songs but not understand what they're doing in relation to the theoretical side, and also not be able to write it down in notation - I personally would not call them musicians even though they may be excellent at what they do. Probably 80% of the people I listen to would fall into this category.

I certainly don't wish to imply that I think people who can read, write & understand are somehow superior; that's not what I think at all.

[/quote]


I understand your point, but I don't agree. There have been hundreds of years worth of of music passed down the years through aural tradition. This kind of musicianship is no less valid than the kind of musicianship that encompasses theory and reading, it's just that some schools of thought would have you believe this. There's no standardisation of music, just a lot of different kinds.

I'd compare it to arguing that someone who is unable to write is therefore incapable of communication.

Edited November 30, 2011 by risingson

[RhysP]

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1322675047' post='1454375']
I understand your point, but I don't agree. There have been hundreds of years worth of of music passed down the years through aural tradition. This kind of musicianship is no less valid than the kind of musicianship that encompasses theory and reading. I'd compare it to arguing that someone who is unable to write is therefore incapable of communication. Perhaps it is simply a conflict of semantics though.
[/quote]

Why did you deliberately edit out the bit where I state that [i]"I certainly don't wish to imply that I think people who can read, write & understand are somehow superior; that's not what I think at all".[/i]

I don't think it's any less valid either, that's why I originally said the bit I just repeated.

[risingson]

[quote name='RhysP' timestamp='1322675259' post='1454379']
Why did you deliberately edit out the bit where I state that [i]"I certainly don't wish to imply that I think people who can read, write & understand are somehow superior; that's not what I think at all".[/i]

I don't think it's any less valid either, that's why I originally said the bit I just repeated.
[/quote]

That's why I said that I understood what you were saying with the '[i]I certainly don't wish to imply...[/i]' part, but perhaps I should have made this clearer! But you did say that you don't consider someone who doesn't read or understand theory a musician, unless I misread. That part we don't agree on

EDIT - amended my last post, hope this is clearer.

Edited November 30, 2011 by risingson

[Musky]

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1322675047' post='1454375']
I understand your point, but I don't agree. There have been hundreds of years worth of of music passed down the years through aural tradition. This kind of musicianship is no less valid than the kind of musicianship that encompasses theory and reading, it's just that some schools of thought would have you believe this. There's no standardisation of music, just a lot of different kinds.

I'd compare it to arguing that someone who is unable to write is therefore incapable of communication.
[/quote]

+1

It's worth remembering that the music comes first; the theory follows on from that.