I don't know why I'm jumping into a post 11 pages late, but here goes.

Sure, a turntable can be used as an instrument. I agree that practically any object can be used to make music. But like heavy metal, there are just a lot of individuals making crappy, gimmicky art with turntables. However, it seems to me, the original subject was about mash-ups, for which I have little appreciation.

People making mash-ups are more akin to graphic designers working with art/graphics to communicate a message. Just because you make a pretty ad or magazine layout, does not mean you are an artist. Yes, you are participating in the creative process; you chose a nice san-serif font for your headline, and the photo really fits the mood of the layout, but that alone does not make your work art.

Sorry pal, but that Shellac...err, whatever the fuck it is you did with it...is fucking terrible.

I've never heard a good mash up, and I generally don't want to, but I have nothing against it.

Sampling a break or something, and really making a track flow well is a hard feat to accomplish. Guys like Shadow dig, and dig, and dig all day for records just to sample a two-second piece. That in and of itself deserves respect.

zom-zom wrote:And I think Turntable "Music" sucks. It bores me. Do not try to convince me otherwise by citing examples that bring you to tears with the wakkity wikkity blub blub. That's your problem.

What music do you like? Like, what instruments are you allowed to use regardless of what the music actually sounds like?

Cause basing what music you like on what instruments were used to make it, judging it purely on that fact, ignoring what the music actually sounds like seems a bit weird. Like, I don't like music made by black, gay men under the age of 33.

What if you found out that At Action Park was actually made using turntables but sounded that way? Would that make that a rubbish LP?

Go listen to Amon Tobin or Cinematic Orchestra, even early Shadow- great examples of how fucking stupid your opinion is, and how clever mine is.

Everybody who doesn't like what I like is ignorant and uncultured.

Everybody who likes stuff I don't like is stupid and has no taste.

There, I said it.

Colonel Panic wrote:Everybody who doesn't like what I like is ignorant and uncultured.

Everybody who likes stuff I don't like is stupid and has no taste.

There, I said it.

Slightly wrong, it's what I like that's right.

Yngwie Einstein wrote:People making mash-ups are more akin to graphic designers working with art/graphics to communicate a message. Just because you make a pretty ad or magazine layout, does not mean you are an artist. Yes, you are participating in the creative process; you chose a nice san-serif font for your headline, and the photo really fits the mood of the layout, but that alone does not make your work art.

I respectfully disagree with this. I see mash-ups as a form of collage art.

Skronk wrote:I've never heard a good mash up, and I generally don't want to, but I have nothing against it.

Have you heard Girl Talk's Night Ripper? Fucking mind-blowing how many different sources he smashes into those 16 tracks. I'd never call Girl Talk a "musician" or his compositions "songs," but the dude is most definitely a pop artist.

Mash-ups are the sonic equivalent of found art pieces, or Warhol-style pop art. Whether or not the individual mash-up is any good is open to interpretation, just like whether or not Duchamp's Fountain is a work of art or just a urinal with a title.

Ivan: Field-leveling advances in technology (from ProTools to Reason to samplers to synthesizers) have been trivializing music for over five years now. Also, your cat-related comment brings up the topic of familiarity with/appreciation for a genre. Not to default to Ornette Coleman for EVERYthing (I'm just not a jazz scholar; sorry), but while simply blowing randomly (or SEEMING TO, right?) through a sax or whatever isn't necessarily "music," I contend that it's closer to "TV" than you seem to think.

Steve V.: No need to apologize! That would be like me apologizing to you for not taking your comment seriously. If you have anything to say besides "dude ur sucky," I'm all ears.

Yngwie: You have brought up what I think is a valid distinction/sub-argument (akin to the whole "music made more easily with non-traditional tools can be either good OR bad" perspective). I'm thinking it over!

Finally: I challenge any of you who give more than the half-ounce of rat's ass it takes to crap on a genre on a messageboard to explore it a bit deeper. & I don't mean all you rap experts who are sick of hearing Lil' Wayne on the radio when they SHOULD be playing Richard Thompson 24/7 WTF!!! I mean the people who seriously consider themselves informed on & intrigued by the process of creating music. If you give some chopped & screwed music (not mine) a serious listen, & can make an honest effort to evaluate it in the context in which it was created, I'll take your opinions a little more seriously. Until I hear evidence that you know what you're talking about, you're wasting your & my time.

Meanwhile, I initially said that I wanted to know what people thought about this stuff who were more Shellac fans & less hip-hop fans, & I think I've got a pretty good idea. So, thanks!


Mr. Graham

Mr. Graham wrote: Until I hear evidence that you know what you're talking about, you're wasting your & my time.

You're wasting your own time. I know what I'm talking about.

It's all like "Green Eggs and Ham" or something. Where the narrator is all like "but how do you know you don't like to eat handfuls of shit until you've eaten at least a few handfuls?!?!"

I keed.