I think Tim in growing each of Apple's businesses and put the top talent in charge: Beats will take over the iTunes and music business. I think iTunes needs an overhaul and make it independent from Apple's hardware business. Making iTunes available on Android should be top priority.
Ben Thompson (Apple intern, worked at Microsoft) has a thoughtful piece on why Apple might be buying beats. His conclusion is that Apple doesn't really have any meaningful growth drivers (outside of iPhone). So it's either going to become what Microsoft was in the 2000s (massive profits but stagnant stock) or possibly reinvent itself into a fashion house. Tim Cook made Jony Ive head of all design, he hired Angela Ahrendts to run retail and former YSL CEO Paul Deneuve as a special advisor. And now we have the Beats rumor. And Beats is all about brand/fashion (not technology).
Again these are just guesses and speculation but considering that no one so far has been able to come up with any valuable technology or IP (I'm sorry but music curation is not worth $3B) the fashion aspect is worth considering.
Clearly influenced and seduced/fooled by Samsung propaganda, certain people have been claiming that Apple needs to be more cool. As if making the best computers and portable devices in the world isn't good enough.
In response to this criticism, Apple has decided to embark on a "coolness" mission, in order to raise their profile and gain more street cred.
I have it from good sources that Tim Cook will take the stage at this years WWDC wearing pants where the waistline will be at about knee level. Tim Cook will also be sporting a huge gold chain while smoking a blunt on stage and claiming that the iPhone 6 will be loved by crazy bitches all over the world.
Apple's corporate culture will also be influenced by this new direction, and Apple will now contract drive by shootings of their competitors, Samsung had better watch out. And since this is all about money, Apple will eventually get into the drug business, and possibly branch out into prostitution also, as that's always a high margin and profitable business venture. Can you get more high margin than prostitution? A ho's margin makes the iPhone's margin seem pathetic.
Apple will also be starting up it's own gangsta rap label called Apple iThug. Much like Apple's appstore approval process, the songs for Apple's label will have to undergo an approval process, and no songs will be accepted unless they are found to contain at least 50%racist,misogynistic, homophobic and otherwise offensive lyrics. The more, the better.
I think Tim in growing each of Apple's businesses and put the top talent in charge: Beats will take over the iTunes and music business. I think iTunes needs an overhaul and make it independent from Apple's hardware business. Making iTunes available on Android should be top priority.
iTunes Music (and only music) App for Android? That's not really a bad idea since aren't most sales through iTunes now apps and other non-music related miscellany? The problem is the hundreds of different Android devices and trying to get all of them to work with iTunes...hmm... on second thought, maybe not such a good idea.
Those who think all Hip Hop is like that need to chill. The same could be said for Rock when you only look at the extreme examples.
Serious question: What are a couple of 'typical' (i.e., not 'extreme') examples of Hip Hop? (It is implicitly assumed in my question that it has to meet the test of popularity as well).
How many rap songs get turned into a jazz standard?
I present to you Richard Cheese.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
The thing is, there really isn't a melody line. That's the problem. No melody, no real music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Try to sing the melody line to a rap song. That's one test one can do. If there isn't a melody line, then a lot of songwriters wouldn't consider that a song.
These statements are 100% false. Just because you can't detect a melody doesn't mean it's not there.
Serious question: What are a couple of 'typical' (i.e., not 'extreme') examples of Hip Hop? (It is implicitly assumed in my question that it has to meet the test of popularity as well).
I trust all you folks realize Jimmy Iovine is a rock music guy not hip hop? John Lennon, Bruce Springsteen, U2, Tom Petty to name just a few ... Jimmy Rocks!
You'd be happy to learn that a lot of his beats are actually classical music beats that were sampled and drums added or whatever changes he made. YouTube dr Dre samples
CLASSICAL music? Or Classic music? There's a difference. Yeah, I could believe that he'd use classic recordings that were performed by other musicians, that's how a lot of the rap music is created, but that's kind of cheating. It's like copying someone else's work and taking credit for it. that's just dumb.
Yeah, I know, it's an easy way to make a portion of your crap something recognizable. RUN DMC did that, Janet Jackson's done that, a lot of people do that, but it doesn't make Dr. Dre and these others musicians because of it.
I studied from a well known musician that had a bunch of his famous tracks sampled and they originally did it without permission and never gave him royalties. he wasn't upset, he was EXTREMELY PISSED OFF that they were doing this. He had to get an attorney and sue their asses for copyright infringement. He prevailed and that whole thing created a lot of lawsuits as a result. Rappers would do that with James Brown songs, and other famous jazz artists. but they didn't create their work to be sampled for some rap artist. They were creating their own music and years later some loser wants to capitalize on it because they can't come up with anything themselves.
But most of the songs are just fad based and they don't last long on the charts and they rarely resurface as anything other than some stupid fad people did for a couple of years.
Seriously give more reasons to study REAL music rather than excuses not to. You'll get more respect that way.
Sampling someone else's work is like going into a high quality book and taking about some scissors snipping out certain portions of that book and pasting it in your own and you never studied any ability to actually write your own book so you end up cutting and pasting someone else's. That's what CHEATERS do. Cheaters usually get kicked out of school, get sued, go to jail or something along those lines.
For a while, there were famous artists that I admired that took one of their songs and added a rapper for a remix version and you know what? It messed up the song and I hated that they did that. But they don't do that anymore. I think some record exec was trying to create a new audience with some of these respected artists. The record industry sometimes stoops that low to do crap like that just to get the kids to buy something with more substance behind it. But it kind of failed. It made their normal fans like me upset and the younger kids didn't buy into it, because listening to real music causes their brains to melt inside their heads and ooze out through their ears because they can't comprehend REAL music.
It's funny how some people hate the sound of a person's real singing voice and they have to have it processed with AutoTune. Music production has gone down hill in a lot of ways. Heck, even a lot of pop music they have the tracks quantized so it's perfect timing, which just removes the soul and the life out of the musician's original tracks. They have vocals go through pitch correction since they probably can't sing well to begin with, and everything is so processed. What one would normally call music is just shifted into processed and homogenized forms of music. The honesty in music is only left by the true musicians that won't cut corners to spit out an album. That's what music IS and SHOULD be all about. Not some scam to sell records to a certain demographic and commercialized through TV, Movies, products, etc. It's just sad how low the music industry has reached.
Oh, and think about this before you buy a new Rap song, these jerkoffs are probably at some point during the production laughing at how stupid their fans are for buying their crap you call music. They trash talk their fans behind your back as they get high. That's the kind of discussions they will have. Don't think they don't think like that. They are two faced. I've heard that some recording studios refuse to sell recording time to a lot of these acts because they've been known to go into a studio and crank their big monitors with so much bass at such high volumes, that they blow speakers and amps which is VERY costly to replace. Freaking idiots. People with NO respect for other people's equipment.
"it could use the keynote as an opportunity to formally introduce its two newest executives"
Let me help you write this accurately.
"it could use the keynote as an opportunity to formally introduce its RUMORED two newest executives"
Nothing has been confirmed and yet you write as if it has been.
That said, if this were true, given the reasons that were laid out why thewouldmake sense for Apple, it would be the biggest waste of money in Apples history.
There is no way Beats is worth $1billion, never mind 3.5 billion.
I'd like to see Iovine up there 80% of the time. The image of a Apple could be improved, if you will, with the quirky Iovine presenting Apple's products going forward. I cringe every time I see the dorky Cook or Schiller with his Mom jeans and big gut sticking out use the word "cool." They (Cook, Schiler et al) have absolutely ZERO enthusiasm when announcing products and services. Things need to change. It's not a huge factor, but it is. People loved Jobs' personality and stage presence. It meant a lot to the company. These 2 50-year olds that they're bringing in have more personality in their big toes than Apple's entire executive team has. Dre is a risk, though, with his history and rap lyrics, so maybe he should sit in the shadows off-stage. His drunken "I'm a billionaire" announcement shows he still poses a risk as a face of Apple.
You say, "It's not a huge factor, but it is."
Which is it? Is it a huge factor or not a huge factor? Or did you just change your mind very quickly, so your opinion is that it is indeed now a huge factor, although previously you thought that it wasn't a huge factor?
Imagine this, a bunch of non-musicians making money creating what they call music. Boy, this society is messed up. I'll watch DDWC, but I'll be cringing if they bring those two schmucks on stage and they actually start speaking.
Imagine this, non-musicians whose ignorance compels them to post on the internet and define what is and isn't music based on their own personal preference. That almost never happens...
Imagine that: a poster whose ignorance compels him to post on the internet and define who is and isn't a musician based on his own wild guess. That happens.
An instrument or a musical instrument? And what's your definition of a musician and someone qualified to play a musical instrument as a profession? I know of plenty of master percussionists that would use found objects, but they have studied and practiced traditional forms of music either from a private instructor, through a formalized process, etc. But they are MUSICIANS. Some ass wipe using a turntable screwing up perfectly good albums to create a scratching noise? That's BARELY qualified to be a musical instrument. Some are good at it, but it's more of a fad that's lasted entirely longer than it should because ignorant people are impressed by people doing it. It's more of a gimmick than a real instrument in my book. Playing a drum machine? Those were SUPPOSED to be used primarily as a means to practice or for songwriting and not really meant to replace drummers, even though they have in some circumstances. Some use them in ADDITION to real musicians.
Production and post production isn't PLAYING an instrument, it's just during the process of making or finishing the product, but that doesn't mean it's really music. It's being marketed that way and it makes money, but it's certainly shouldn't be taken as anything serious on any level. To think that it should be listened to with any seriousness is kind of being a lazy person that doesn't want to REALLY study music that's been around and solidified into REAL HONEST music.
Why are you dismissing everything else? Is it too difficult to study a real instrument and create something that actually uses REAL musicians, has REAL melody, harmony, etc.? Is that too difficult to do? Anyone can learn how to program a sequencer to come up with something that's just as good as any of these guys. It just takes getting used to a software program and knowing the most basic level of rhythm, but the software does most of the work.
Software and synthesizers in the hands of a REAL musician is so much different than someone that doesn't have any serious musical training.
What sucks is the level of musicianship for a lot of these so-called "artists" is not really there. It's a shame when you look at an album and there's not one single musician playing an actual musical instrument during the production. It shows that there are too many musically ignorant kids getting manipulated by the media and society into thinking this stuff you THINK is music. Sorry, you are going to have a tough time convincing a musician that this stuff should replace REAL music created by musicians. It only teaches kids that they don't have to study music to make money in the music industry. This type of mentality would NOT work 30+ years ago. Heck, a LONG time ago, they wouldn't even hire a studio musician unless you read music. Does Dr. Dre know how to read music as a producer? He should. Most of the REAL legendary producers like George Martin, Quincy Jones, and others that have produced legendary classic albums in pop music DEFINITELY know how to read music and those guys CAN play instruments and they know many different styles of music. I look up to them, but Dr. Dre I dismiss as some scam artist that just happened to market his crap to ignorant children.
You are waaaaay more fired up than anyone else here. Dr. Dre has a producer of the year Grammy. He has been involved in the music industry as a producer for a long time.
Serious question: What are a couple of 'typical' (i.e., not 'extreme') examples of Hip Hop? (It is implicitly assumed in my question that it has to meet the test of popularity as well).
Others answered the question. Hip Hop is not all about money and hoes just like Rock is not all about drugs and Country is not all about Tractors. Yes rappers have songs about money and hoes because sadly that's the culture they came from or are accustomed to but not all hip hop artists are like that.
All vocal music is mostly just saying/singing about the same thing in different ways whether it's about love or having fun.
I'd like to see Iovine up there 80% of the time. The image of a Apple could be improved, if you will, with the quirky Iovine presenting Apple's products going forward. I cringe every time I see the dorky Cook or Schiller with his Mom jeans and big gut sticking out use the word "cool." They (Cook, Schiler et al) have absolutely ZERO enthusiasm when announcing products and services. Things need to change. It's not a huge factor, but it is. People loved Jobs' personality and stage presence. It meant a lot to the company. These 2 50-year olds that they're bringing in have more personality in their big toes than Apple's entire executive team has. Dre is a risk, though, with his history and rap lyrics, so maybe he should sit in the shadows off-stage. His drunken "I'm a billionaire" announcement shows he still poses a risk as a face of Apple.
Hopefully Apple's product announcement enthusiastic savior will soon be...
There are many great musicians who never had any formal training whatsoever. Paul McCartney for one (who also never knew how to read music). Far too many early jazz and blues musicians to list (Muddy Waters, for example). I really despise the largely white, upper-class, high-brow definition of what music should be and how it has been used throughout time to keep talented musicians from the lower classes in their place.
As well, read a bit about the sound engineers who worked with the Beatles (notably George Martin) who helped shape their simple arrangements and sound into something unique and magical. Sound engineering and arranging are a vital part of shaping raw talent into something great.
Look, you're grasping hard to argue that great music comes from a scientific formula: formal training + melody + ... = great music. And I'm arguing that talking about music that way is like dancing about architecture.
EDIT: Just realized you and I both used George Martin as examples in different ways. Too funny...
Great music needs harmony or melody or both. Even the freaking greatest drum solo/percussion concerto that is a joy to listen to isn't great music without these elements.
An instrument or a musical instrument? And what's your definition of a musician and someone qualified to play a musical instrument as a profession? I know of plenty of master percussionists that would use found objects, but they have studied and practiced traditional forms of music either from a private instructor, through a formalized process, etc. But they are MUSICIANS. Some ass wipe using a turntable screwing up perfectly good albums to create a scratching noise? That's BARELY qualified to be a musical instrument. Some are good at it, but it's more of a fad that's lasted entirely longer than it should because ignorant people are impressed by people doing it. It's more of a gimmick than a real instrument in my book. Playing a drum machine? Those were SUPPOSED to be used primarily as a means to practice or for songwriting and not really meant to replace drummers, even though they have in some circumstances. Some use them in ADDITION to real musicians.
Production and post production isn't PLAYING an instrument, it's just during the process of making or finishing the product, but that doesn't mean it's really music. It's being marketed that way and it makes money, but it's certainly shouldn't be taken as anything serious on any level. To think that it should be listened to with any seriousness is kind of being a lazy person that doesn't want to REALLY study music that's been around and solidified into REAL HONEST music.
Why are you dismissing everything else? Is it too difficult to study a real instrument and create something that actually uses REAL musicians, has REAL melody, harmony, etc.? Is that too difficult to do? Anyone can learn how to program a sequencer to come up with something that's just as good as any of these guys. It just takes getting used to a software program and knowing the most basic level of rhythm, but the software does most of the work.
Software and synthesizers in the hands of a REAL musician is so much different than someone that doesn't have any serious musical training.
What sucks is the level of musicianship for a lot of these so-called "artists" is not really there. It's a shame when you look at an album and there's not one single musician playing an actual musical instrument during the production. It shows that there are too many musically ignorant kids getting manipulated by the media and society into thinking this stuff you THINK is music. Sorry, you are going to have a tough time convincing a musician that this stuff should replace REAL music created by musicians. It only teaches kids that they don't have to study music to make money in the music industry. This type of mentality would NOT work 30+ years ago. Heck, a LONG time ago, they wouldn't even hire a studio musician unless you read music. Does Dr. Dre know how to read music as a producer? He should. Most of the REAL legendary producers like George Martin, Quincy Jones, and others that have produced legendary classic albums in pop music DEFINITELY know how to read music and those guys CAN play instruments and they know many different styles of music. I look up to them, but Dr. Dre I dismiss as some scam artist that just happened to market his crap to ignorant children.
You are waaaaay more fired up than anyone else here. Dr. Dre has a producer of the year Grammy. He has been involved in the music industry as a producer for a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Serious question: What are a couple of 'typical' (i.e., not 'extreme') examples of Hip Hop? (It is implicitly assumed in my question that it has to meet the test of popularity as well).
Others answered the question. Hip Hop is not all about money and hoes just like Rock is not all about drugs and Country is not all about Tractors. Yes rappers have songs about money and hoes because sadly that's the culture they came from or are accustomed to but not all hip hop artists are like that.
All vocal music is mostly just saying/singing about the same thing in different ways whether it's about love or having fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric38
I'd like to see Iovine up there 80% of the time. The image of a Apple could be improved, if you will, with the quirky Iovine presenting Apple's products going forward. I cringe every time I see the dorky Cook or Schiller with his Mom jeans and big gut sticking out use the word "cool." They (Cook, Schiler et al) have absolutely ZERO enthusiasm when announcing products and services. Things need to change. It's not a huge factor, but it is. People loved Jobs' personality and stage presence. It meant a lot to the company. These 2 50-year olds that they're bringing in have more personality in their big toes than Apple's entire executive team has. Dre is a risk, though, with his history and rap lyrics, so maybe he should sit in the shadows off-stage. His drunken "I'm a billionaire" announcement shows he still poses a risk as a face of Apple.
Hopefully Apple's product announcement enthusiastic savior will soon be...
Dun da da duuuuun
So hip hop is mostly about money and gardening tools? Seems a funny mix.
Imagine that: a poster whose ignorance compels him to post on the internet and define who is and isn't a musician based on his own wild guess. That happens.
You're right. It was an educated guess based on the fact that most musicians I know are a lot more open-minded about music than drblank. As one's experience in a field grows, it tends to make them more humble (the more you know, the more you realize you don't know).
There are many great musicians who never had any formal training whatsoever. Paul McCartney for one (who also never knew how to read music). Far too many early jazz and blues musicians to list (Muddy Waters, for example). I really despise the largely white, upper-class, high-brow definition of what music should be and how it has been used throughout time to keep talented musicians from the lower classes in their place.
As well, read a bit about the sound engineers who worked with the Beatles (notably George Martin) who helped shape their simple arrangements and sound into something unique and magical. Sound engineering and arranging are a vital part of shaping raw talent into something great.
Look, you're grasping hard to argue that great music comes from a scientific formula: formal training + melody + ... = great music. And I'm arguing that talking about music that way is like dancing about architecture.
EDIT: Just realized you and I both used George Martin as examples in different ways. Too funny...
{Paul studied music in school as he sang in choir. He played many musical instruments and listened to classical music. And who was the 5th Beatle that pretty much took what they did and elevated it to a much higher level. George Martin. Go look him up while your at it. Paul McCartney at least knew how to play and sing. Some use the ear method. And? At least he knew how to play. But Paul McCartney was never a hired studio musician to my knowledge. Studio musicians is a whole other ballgame. they either need to read or pick up on things VERY quickly in order to keep getting called for more work.
Again, are you Paul McCartney or have the same level of talent he has? If not, then don't use him as an excuse to not learn how to read music. Steve Jobs didn't have a college education, but I guarantee you that a lot of people he hired DID and DO have a college education.
Paul will never get hired to play in a straight ahead or bebop jazz gig, EVER. He can't play it. He also can't play a lot of certain types of music, so in a lot of ways, he's kind of limited and I'm sure he'll admit that he wishes he DID know how to read music. Most of the more famous musicians that didn't know how will say that. Not knowing how to do something limits you. But I guarantee you, George Martin knows how to read and write music and that's their big name producer and if it wasn't for George Martin, these Beatle albums wouldn't be as good as they are. REMEMBER THAT. That's why they call George Martin SIR in the UK. He's one of the biggest legendary producers in pop music HISTORY.
It's funny to read posts saying that rap isn't music and then referencing The Beatles. IIRC, there once were people who claimed that they didn't make real music either.
Comments
I am losing interest on WWDC. What is happenning to the world?
Spinning.
I think Tim in growing each of Apple's businesses and put the top talent in charge: Beats will take over the iTunes and music business. I think iTunes needs an overhaul and make it independent from Apple's hardware business. Making iTunes available on Android should be top priority.
I am losing interest on WWDC. What is happenning to the world?
We'll see. WWDCs big focus is 10.10.
Ah, yes. OS X Tintin.
http://stratechery.com/2014/apple-buying-beats/
Something similar was posted by Dave Troy at medium.com again, the angle is Apple is transitioning to a fashion company.
https://medium.com/p/ef40bb2cd162
Again these are just guesses and speculation but considering that no one so far has been able to come up with any valuable technology or IP (I'm sorry but music curation is not worth $3B) the fashion aspect is worth considering.
Clearly influenced and seduced/fooled by Samsung propaganda, certain people have been claiming that Apple needs to be more cool. As if making the best computers and portable devices in the world isn't good enough.
In response to this criticism, Apple has decided to embark on a "coolness" mission, in order to raise their profile and gain more street cred.
I have it from good sources that Tim Cook will take the stage at this years WWDC wearing pants where the waistline will be at about knee level. Tim Cook will also be sporting a huge gold chain while smoking a blunt on stage and claiming that the iPhone 6 will be loved by crazy bitches all over the world.
Apple's corporate culture will also be influenced by this new direction, and Apple will now contract drive by shootings of their competitors, Samsung had better watch out. And since this is all about money, Apple will eventually get into the drug business, and possibly branch out into prostitution also, as that's always a high margin and profitable business venture. Can you get more high margin than prostitution? A ho's margin makes the iPhone's margin seem pathetic.
Apple will also be starting up it's own gangsta rap label called Apple iThug. Much like Apple's appstore approval process, the songs for Apple's label will have to undergo an approval process, and no songs will be accepted unless they are found to contain at least 50%racist,misogynistic, homophobic and otherwise offensive lyrics. The more, the better.
Lol! You forgot gambling and money laundering.
I think Tim in growing each of Apple's businesses and put the top talent in charge: Beats will take over the iTunes and music business. I think iTunes needs an overhaul and make it independent from Apple's hardware business. Making iTunes available on Android should be top priority.
iTunes Music (and only music) App for Android? That's not really a bad idea since aren't most sales through iTunes now apps and other non-music related miscellany? The problem is the hundreds of different Android devices and trying to get all of them to work with iTunes...hmm... on second thought, maybe not such a good idea.
Those who think all Hip Hop is like that need to chill. The same could be said for Rock when you only look at the extreme examples.
Serious question: What are a couple of 'typical' (i.e., not 'extreme') examples of Hip Hop? (It is implicitly assumed in my question that it has to meet the test of popularity as well).
Can't think of more than one: Run, Rabbit, Run.
I present to you Richard Cheese.
The thing is, there really isn't a melody line. That's the problem. No melody, no real music.
Try to sing the melody line to a rap song. That's one test one can do. If there isn't a melody line, then a lot of songwriters wouldn't consider that a song.
These statements are 100% false. Just because you can't detect a melody doesn't mean it's not there.
Serious question: What are a couple of 'typical' (i.e., not 'extreme') examples of Hip Hop? (It is implicitly assumed in my question that it has to meet the test of popularity as well).
I trust all you folks realize Jimmy Iovine is a rock music guy not hip hop? John Lennon, Bruce Springsteen, U2, Tom Petty to name just a few ... Jimmy Rocks!
An example of rock music: Climb Every Mountain.
You'd be happy to learn that a lot of his beats are actually classical music beats that were sampled and drums added or whatever changes he made. YouTube dr Dre samples
CLASSICAL music? Or Classic music? There's a difference. Yeah, I could believe that he'd use classic recordings that were performed by other musicians, that's how a lot of the rap music is created, but that's kind of cheating. It's like copying someone else's work and taking credit for it. that's just dumb.
Yeah, I know, it's an easy way to make a portion of your crap something recognizable. RUN DMC did that, Janet Jackson's done that, a lot of people do that, but it doesn't make Dr. Dre and these others musicians because of it.
I studied from a well known musician that had a bunch of his famous tracks sampled and they originally did it without permission and never gave him royalties. he wasn't upset, he was EXTREMELY PISSED OFF that they were doing this. He had to get an attorney and sue their asses for copyright infringement. He prevailed and that whole thing created a lot of lawsuits as a result. Rappers would do that with James Brown songs, and other famous jazz artists. but they didn't create their work to be sampled for some rap artist. They were creating their own music and years later some loser wants to capitalize on it because they can't come up with anything themselves.
But most of the songs are just fad based and they don't last long on the charts and they rarely resurface as anything other than some stupid fad people did for a couple of years.
Seriously give more reasons to study REAL music rather than excuses not to. You'll get more respect that way.
Sampling someone else's work is like going into a high quality book and taking about some scissors snipping out certain portions of that book and pasting it in your own and you never studied any ability to actually write your own book so you end up cutting and pasting someone else's. That's what CHEATERS do. Cheaters usually get kicked out of school, get sued, go to jail or something along those lines.
For a while, there were famous artists that I admired that took one of their songs and added a rapper for a remix version and you know what? It messed up the song and I hated that they did that. But they don't do that anymore. I think some record exec was trying to create a new audience with some of these respected artists. The record industry sometimes stoops that low to do crap like that just to get the kids to buy something with more substance behind it. But it kind of failed. It made their normal fans like me upset and the younger kids didn't buy into it, because listening to real music causes their brains to melt inside their heads and ooze out through their ears because they can't comprehend REAL music.
It's funny how some people hate the sound of a person's real singing voice and they have to have it processed with AutoTune. Music production has gone down hill in a lot of ways. Heck, even a lot of pop music they have the tracks quantized so it's perfect timing, which just removes the soul and the life out of the musician's original tracks. They have vocals go through pitch correction since they probably can't sing well to begin with, and everything is so processed. What one would normally call music is just shifted into processed and homogenized forms of music. The honesty in music is only left by the true musicians that won't cut corners to spit out an album. That's what music IS and SHOULD be all about. Not some scam to sell records to a certain demographic and commercialized through TV, Movies, products, etc. It's just sad how low the music industry has reached.
Oh, and think about this before you buy a new Rap song, these jerkoffs are probably at some point during the production laughing at how stupid their fans are for buying their crap you call music. They trash talk their fans behind your back as they get high. That's the kind of discussions they will have. Don't think they don't think like that. They are two faced. I've heard that some recording studios refuse to sell recording time to a lot of these acts because they've been known to go into a studio and crank their big monitors with so much bass at such high volumes, that they blow speakers and amps which is VERY costly to replace. Freaking idiots. People with NO respect for other people's equipment.
"it could use the keynote as an opportunity to formally introduce its two newest executives"
Let me help you write this accurately.
"it could use the keynote as an opportunity to formally introduce its RUMORED two newest executives"
Nothing has been confirmed and yet you write as if it has been.
That said, if this were true, given the reasons that were laid out why the would make sense for Apple, it would be the biggest waste of money in Apples history.
There is no way Beats is worth $1billion, never mind 3.5 billion.
I'd like to see Iovine up there 80% of the time. The image of a Apple could be improved, if you will, with the quirky Iovine presenting Apple's products going forward. I cringe every time I see the dorky Cook or Schiller with his Mom jeans and big gut sticking out use the word "cool." They (Cook, Schiler et al) have absolutely ZERO enthusiasm when announcing products and services. Things need to change. It's not a huge factor, but it is. People loved Jobs' personality and stage presence. It meant a lot to the company. These 2 50-year olds that they're bringing in have more personality in their big toes than Apple's entire executive team has. Dre is a risk, though, with his history and rap lyrics, so maybe he should sit in the shadows off-stage. His drunken "I'm a billionaire" announcement shows he still poses a risk as a face of Apple.
You say, "It's not a huge factor, but it is."
Which is it? Is it a huge factor or not a huge factor? Or did you just change your mind very quickly, so your opinion is that it is indeed now a huge factor, although previously you thought that it wasn't a huge factor?
Imagine this, a bunch of non-musicians making money creating what they call music. Boy, this society is messed up. I'll watch DDWC, but I'll be cringing if they bring those two schmucks on stage and they actually start speaking.
Imagine this, non-musicians whose ignorance compels them to post on the internet and define what is and isn't music based on their own personal preference. That almost never happens...
Imagine that: a poster whose ignorance compels him to post on the internet and define who is and isn't a musician based on his own wild guess. That happens.
Others answered the question. Hip Hop is not all about money and hoes just like Rock is not all about drugs and Country is not all about Tractors. Yes rappers have songs about money and hoes because sadly that's the culture they came from or are accustomed to but not all hip hop artists are like that.
All vocal music is mostly just saying/singing about the same thing in different ways whether it's about love or having fun.
Hopefully Apple's product announcement enthusiastic savior will soon be...
Dun da da duuuuun
. . .
There are many great musicians who never had any formal training whatsoever. Paul McCartney for one (who also never knew how to read music). Far too many early jazz and blues musicians to list (Muddy Waters, for example). I really despise the largely white, upper-class, high-brow definition of what music should be and how it has been used throughout time to keep talented musicians from the lower classes in their place.
As well, read a bit about the sound engineers who worked with the Beatles (notably George Martin) who helped shape their simple arrangements and sound into something unique and magical. Sound engineering and arranging are a vital part of shaping raw talent into something great.
Look, you're grasping hard to argue that great music comes from a scientific formula: formal training + melody + ... = great music. And I'm arguing that talking about music that way is like dancing about architecture.
EDIT: Just realized you and I both used George Martin as examples in different ways. Too funny...
Great music needs harmony or melody or both. Even the freaking greatest drum solo/percussion concerto that is a joy to listen to isn't great music without these elements.
An instrument or a musical instrument? And what's your definition of a musician and someone qualified to play a musical instrument as a profession? I know of plenty of master percussionists that would use found objects, but they have studied and practiced traditional forms of music either from a private instructor, through a formalized process, etc. But they are MUSICIANS. Some ass wipe using a turntable screwing up perfectly good albums to create a scratching noise? That's BARELY qualified to be a musical instrument. Some are good at it, but it's more of a fad that's lasted entirely longer than it should because ignorant people are impressed by people doing it. It's more of a gimmick than a real instrument in my book. Playing a drum machine? Those were SUPPOSED to be used primarily as a means to practice or for songwriting and not really meant to replace drummers, even though they have in some circumstances. Some use them in ADDITION to real musicians.
Production and post production isn't PLAYING an instrument, it's just during the process of making or finishing the product, but that doesn't mean it's really music. It's being marketed that way and it makes money, but it's certainly shouldn't be taken as anything serious on any level. To think that it should be listened to with any seriousness is kind of being a lazy person that doesn't want to REALLY study music that's been around and solidified into REAL HONEST music.
Why are you dismissing everything else? Is it too difficult to study a real instrument and create something that actually uses REAL musicians, has REAL melody, harmony, etc.? Is that too difficult to do? Anyone can learn how to program a sequencer to come up with something that's just as good as any of these guys. It just takes getting used to a software program and knowing the most basic level of rhythm, but the software does most of the work.
Software and synthesizers in the hands of a REAL musician is so much different than someone that doesn't have any serious musical training.
What sucks is the level of musicianship for a lot of these so-called "artists" is not really there. It's a shame when you look at an album and there's not one single musician playing an actual musical instrument during the production. It shows that there are too many musically ignorant kids getting manipulated by the media and society into thinking this stuff you THINK is music. Sorry, you are going to have a tough time convincing a musician that this stuff should replace REAL music created by musicians. It only teaches kids that they don't have to study music to make money in the music industry. This type of mentality would NOT work 30+ years ago. Heck, a LONG time ago, they wouldn't even hire a studio musician unless you read music. Does Dr. Dre know how to read music as a producer? He should. Most of the REAL legendary producers like George Martin, Quincy Jones, and others that have produced legendary classic albums in pop music DEFINITELY know how to read music and those guys CAN play instruments and they know many different styles of music. I look up to them, but Dr. Dre I dismiss as some scam artist that just happened to market his crap to ignorant children.
You are waaaaay more fired up than anyone else here. Dr. Dre has a producer of the year Grammy. He has been involved in the music industry as a producer for a long time.
Serious question: What are a couple of 'typical' (i.e., not 'extreme') examples of Hip Hop? (It is implicitly assumed in my question that it has to meet the test of popularity as well).
Others answered the question. Hip Hop is not all about money and hoes just like Rock is not all about drugs and Country is not all about Tractors. Yes rappers have songs about money and hoes because sadly that's the culture they came from or are accustomed to but not all hip hop artists are like that.
All vocal music is mostly just saying/singing about the same thing in different ways whether it's about love or having fun.
I'd like to see Iovine up there 80% of the time. The image of a Apple could be improved, if you will, with the quirky Iovine presenting Apple's products going forward. I cringe every time I see the dorky Cook or Schiller with his Mom jeans and big gut sticking out use the word "cool." They (Cook, Schiler et al) have absolutely ZERO enthusiasm when announcing products and services. Things need to change. It's not a huge factor, but it is. People loved Jobs' personality and stage presence. It meant a lot to the company. These 2 50-year olds that they're bringing in have more personality in their big toes than Apple's entire executive team has. Dre is a risk, though, with his history and rap lyrics, so maybe he should sit in the shadows off-stage. His drunken "I'm a billionaire" announcement shows he still poses a risk as a face of Apple.
Hopefully Apple's product announcement enthusiastic savior will soon be...
Dun da da duuuuun
So hip hop is mostly about money and gardening tools? Seems a funny mix.
Imagine that: a poster whose ignorance compels him to post on the internet and define who is and isn't a musician based on his own wild guess. That happens.
You're right. It was an educated guess based on the fact that most musicians I know are a lot more open-minded about music than drblank. As one's experience in a field grows, it tends to make them more humble (the more you know, the more you realize you don't know).
There are many great musicians who never had any formal training whatsoever. Paul McCartney for one (who also never knew how to read music). Far too many early jazz and blues musicians to list (Muddy Waters, for example). I really despise the largely white, upper-class, high-brow definition of what music should be and how it has been used throughout time to keep talented musicians from the lower classes in their place.
As well, read a bit about the sound engineers who worked with the Beatles (notably George Martin) who helped shape their simple arrangements and sound into something unique and magical. Sound engineering and arranging are a vital part of shaping raw talent into something great.
Look, you're grasping hard to argue that great music comes from a scientific formula: formal training + melody + ... = great music. And I'm arguing that talking about music that way is like dancing about architecture.
EDIT: Just realized you and I both used George Martin as examples in different ways. Too funny...
{Paul studied music in school as he sang in choir. He played many musical instruments and listened to classical music. And who was the 5th Beatle that pretty much took what they did and elevated it to a much higher level. George Martin. Go look him up while your at it. Paul McCartney at least knew how to play and sing. Some use the ear method. And? At least he knew how to play. But Paul McCartney was never a hired studio musician to my knowledge. Studio musicians is a whole other ballgame. they either need to read or pick up on things VERY quickly in order to keep getting called for more work.
Again, are you Paul McCartney or have the same level of talent he has? If not, then don't use him as an excuse to not learn how to read music. Steve Jobs didn't have a college education, but I guarantee you that a lot of people he hired DID and DO have a college education.
Paul will never get hired to play in a straight ahead or bebop jazz gig, EVER. He can't play it. He also can't play a lot of certain types of music, so in a lot of ways, he's kind of limited and I'm sure he'll admit that he wishes he DID know how to read music. Most of the more famous musicians that didn't know how will say that. Not knowing how to do something limits you. But I guarantee you, George Martin knows how to read and write music and that's their big name producer and if it wasn't for George Martin, these Beatle albums wouldn't be as good as they are. REMEMBER THAT. That's why they call George Martin SIR in the UK. He's one of the biggest legendary producers in pop music HISTORY.
It's funny to read posts saying that rap isn't music and then referencing The Beatles. IIRC, there once were people who claimed that they didn't make real music either.