Techno music collides with classical compositions.
Like advances in electric guitar changed music in the '70s and '80s, computer mixing has greatly influenced today’s music. Techno is its name and it's growing in popularity. Techno is meant to be dance music, primarily played in clubs, and UltraMax’s TechnoClassica hits that right on the mark.…
Article comments
26 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Zing...If I was going to argue that last paragraph then I would have to insult your intelligence. Maybe I should...
"instrumental ability and time spent on a product have absolutely no connection to the inherent quality of said product." LOL!! Thats gotta be the most retarded thing I have ever heard anyone say. This alone goes to show that you have never worked on music in your life. That kind of thinking would be the reason why you could ever think that the London Symphony Orchestra would ever produce something "Boring". This is also the mindset that has made the mainstream the big piece of shit that it is!!
Cheap thrills, No Substance...Face it, your beloved Techno will always sound processed and without any trace of the human touch.
27 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
*BTW* "the mastery of an instrument will always be THE mark of achievement." That is the truth...thanks for correcting me!!
28 - Josh
Perhaps it would be a good time to point out that UltraMax plays all their own orchestra instruments and is going to participate in a traditional orchestra
29 - zingzing
the fact that you think what i said is "retarded" is the most retarded thing i've heard all day. i think "inherent" is the word you should be looking at there. your's is a very restrictive opinion. and yes, i think the LSO could produce something boring because i have heard it. snooze-fest. they are (or were at the time) sterile. barely better than muzak.
and yes, i have been in several bands in my day. i produce, play guitar, bass, write, sing, program drums, etc.
i like processed sound. it's an interesting thing. ever heard m83? that's some processed as fuck sound. but it is just as orchestrated and thought out as any classical being produced today. and it is also highly emotional... beautiful and violent at the same time.
"this" (virtuosity does not equal quality) "is the mindset that has made the mainstream the big piece of shit that it is," you say. i'd say it was the opposite. the fact that anyone can make music is what makes it great, makes it diverse, and keeps it interesting. yes, you have to have talent, but talent comes in many forms, whether that be songwriting, production, or performance. a person need have nothing but ideas. without ideas, you've got nothing.
would you rather have a world of eric claptons and phil collins (both great musicians and shitty, shitty artists), or a world of john lennons and bob dylans (shitty musicians, great artists)?
30 - zingzing
ok... #27 just lets me know that this argument probably won't go anywhere...
mastery of an instrument is nothing but the mastery of an instrument. you are well-qualified to play cover songs and impress your friends. whoop. without creativity and artistry, you are nothing but a technician.
31 - zingzing
bob ross has mastered the painting of landscapes in oil. doesn't mean he's a good artist.
32 - Josh
Agreed any idiot can learn to play guitar few can write music, let alone correct music.
33 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
"the fact that anyone can make music is what makes it great, makes it diverse, and keeps it interesting"... I find it to be a constant sorting through piles of excriment!
Honestly, I like the work Lennon did with the beatles but to say he didn't have the instrumental talent that Phil Collins has would be a grave error. As for Eric Clapton, I may not like his music but I would prefer his tunes over any of Dylan's crap.. But, here's where my point shines. Anyone with an ear for music can hear Clapton's talent wether you like his music or not. To argue wether Dylan's lyrics are worthy will always be undocumented and based solely on what people think makes a great song.
34 - zingzing
"I find it to be a constant sorting through piles of excriment!"
that's what you have to do. it's just the way it is. you do it anyway, so why not realize it? if you want it easy, just listen to chart music.
dylan's music is about more than the lyrics. it's the sound of his voice, his melodies, his attitude towards music in general. clapton is a talented musician, but much better as a side man, with others leading him where he needs to go. his solo material is drivel.
phil collins was a very good drummer. see his work with brian eno. john lennon was a passable guitarist (although he had a great sense of rhythm) at best, but that has very little to do with how much i like his guitar playing. i think he's more interesting than clapton any day.
so music is only good if everyone can appreciate it? that so? no one told me. ...a dubious point at best.
35 - Christopher Rose
Clapton has been terminally boring for decades, so I must continue to agree with ZingZing.