MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

Is there anything you consider "Cheating?"
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Modular Synth General Discussion Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next [all]
Author Is there anything you consider "Cheating?"
dubonaire
SynthBaron wrote:
dubonaire wrote:
SynthBaron wrote:
Cheating well is also a talent.


There are plenty of illegitimate talents.


Like pop music after around 1999.


Prince clearly knew.
mckenic
BOOM!

starthief wrote:
Sometimes "lazy" is just a lazy word for "efficient" Mr. Green


I think you just blew my mind & changed my world-view completely!
Thank you! thumbs up
Shledge
Making crap music != cheating, though.

Being good at cheating isn't a music skill.
davidh
cheating depend of the point of view, and you can go pretty deep into those cheating layers :

using sample = cheating
ok make your own sample with a synth
but using presets = cheating
ok create your own patch
using a synth someone else has designed = cheating
ok build your own instrument, build a modular
using factory build modules = cheating
ok let's DIY
DIY kit = cheating
ok ok make your own pcb
cloning an existing circuit = cheating
okokok then imaging your own circuits !
yes but using factory build electronic component = cheating
design and build you own electronic components

good, now are not a cheater anymore, any release date for your next album ?
heemmmmm
grin

it's not the hard work you put into, that decide if your music is good or not, it is only the emotion the listener feels.
be lazy if you can, or cheat, or put a lot of effort in it if you like, this is absolutely not the point, if your music touch the heart of a listener it is ok.
spinach_pizza
sduck wrote:
InnnerSight wrote:
Everything is cheating - Unless you make your own instruments and scales. w00t


Electricity from the wall/grid is cheating. You're not a real electronic musician until you've wound your own coils around magnets you've created yourself, rigged up the whole thing with a bicycle, and pedaled like crazy just to get a beat going (on your all DIY rig of course).


Aha, but you're still relying on some kind of contraption to make the sounds! The only honest way to make music, of course, is to rely completely on your own body making all the sounds. Oh wait, It's not really your body making the sounds, it's the air pushing on people's ears...hmmm, I guess we can't really take credit for anything! lol

Based on some of the criteria some have put forward in this thread, I'd guess that painters should consider photographers as cheaters. (As an aside, Bob Ross was the only true painter artist, because he performance painted in real time! lol) Is a composer a cheater? Someone who may not actually play a single note of the composition, and take perhaps months or years to write the music? Authors who endlessly go back and change things, polish them? These are the contexts within which I view multitracking to produce recorded works.

I personally agree with what Dubonaire said above, that perhaps the best concept of cheating is one of misrepresentation. Otherwise, if people are honest about what they've done, who are we to criticize their creativity regardless of the tools or methods used? I'm not talking about aesthetics or taste.
SynthBaron
Editing recorded MIDI and using it for sequencing in your DAW instead of playing live for every take is cheating.
Shledge
No it fucking isnt
Knights Who Say Neve
spinach_pizza wrote:


I personally agree with what Dubonaire said above, that perhaps the best concept of cheating is one of misrepresentation. Otherwise, if people are honest about what they've done, who are we to criticize their creativity regardless of the tools or methods used? I'm not talking about aesthetics or taste.


I think that's it. Milli Vanilli cheated, not because they used session singers, but because they tried to pass themselves off as those singers.

But consider (for example) the guy who just arranges a bunch of premade loops in ableton and then presents his work as original. And his work - the arrangement, that is - is original. But that guy probably isn't going to go out of his way to mention that the loops are pre-made. And that I think is the why people feel that certain things are cheating, because the person taking the shortcut can take advantage of the public ignorance about these things. Some will assume that he composed the melody, played the beat and so on, when he did no such thing, and give him a level of respect he may or may not actually deserve.
luchog
bobdylan wrote:
I can't see how anything could be cheating if it's being used to create art? Plagiarism sure but certainly nothing else.


That's pretty much the only thing I'd consider cheating. I would want to expand that a bit, though, such as using samples as the primary musical base, without adequately crediting sources.

A whole lot of current popular music, especially Hip Hop and Industrial, depends on samples. Samples of rhythms and melody lines, taken from other artists; or random sounds and noises. In the case of Industrial, it's more often those random, non-musical samples that are used to accent larger, more original work; whereas in Hip Hop and recent Pop, it's often entire rhythms, melody lines, even vocals in some cases.

When you have someone like Vanilla Ice using the entire opening riff from David Bowie and Queen's "Under Pressure", and that's pretty much the entire instrumental line, I'd say that borders on cheating if the original source is not adequately credited, and nothing is done to significantly alter the sample from its source, or integrate it into a larger piece. If not actually cheating, it's certainly profoundly lazy, and it's bad art.

"Great artists steal" is a very old aphorism, and it's true. Artists steal from other artists all the time, it's not possible to avoid doing so, really, given the sheer volume of art that has been created over the millennia. But along with that should be the understanding that what they're stealing is just building blocks, bits and pieces that they can manipulate and integrate into a larger work, and that they're doing more of their own work on top of those building blocks.

spinach_pizza wrote:
Based on some of the criteria some have put forward in this thread, I'd guess that painters should consider photographers as cheaters.


And, indeed, that is a debate as old as photography, one that still rages on in the art world to this day. But those who complain that photography isn't really art, or is just cheating, typically don't understand the amount and nature of the work that goes into making a truly great artistic photograph.

People in these debates, as exemplified by certain posts in this very thread, clearly don't really understand the fundamental nature of this debate. They're focus their objections too narrowly on the tools that the artist uses, and the pointless and rather stupid debate over whether a particular tool is artistically valid. All tools are artistically valid. What's important is the process -- how those tools are used, and the effort expended by the artist to master their tools and develop their artistic vision.
pugix
Depends on whether we are talking about music production or limiting it to modular synthesis, a decidedly small subset of music production. I'm fine with using anything for music production, even samples of copyrighted songs (this has been tested in court and found legitimate).

When it is limited to modular synthesis, I am somewhat dismayed by a trend in some areas to put a computer behind a panel with some knobs and CV inputs. If it's for music production, fine. If it's to be 'modular', I have my doubts. I don't use any samples. However I have nothing against taking real time buffer snapshots (such as with Clouds) or delay units. As long as the original signals are being generated and the processing is in real time, I'm fine with it. Wave table synthesis is a grey area, if you consider wave tables as a kind of sample. I have nothing against digitally implemented modules, as long as they act like a black box, for example digital VCOs like Braids or Twin Waves (both of which I have). I am dubious about machines like Morphagene. Legitimate for music production, of course. But how is this modular? Chiefly because of the CV inputs. The only way I want to program my modular is by patching. Never by loading samples. That's a kind of cheating, but only because now you've gone beyond what is to me the essence of modular: patching and tweaking. You have added sample libraries. Again, for music production, all is fair game. But when a computer with samples is used as a module, it's basically an expensive way to do what could otherwise mostly be done with software and a computer.
sexslut
This thread is funny.

How can you possibly "cheat" in art? The word seems meaningless in the context of art or music.
Flareless
sexslut wrote:
This thread is funny.

How can you possibly "cheat" in art? The word seems meaningless in the context of art or music.


Funny, I was thinking this same thing as I read through the thread.

My MU modular is just another instrument in my toolkit which I use to produce music. When I listen to a piece of music I don't think "oh that's a VST and not a real Minimoog therefore this isn't real music". If something sounds good for a piece I'm working on I use it regardless of where it comes from.

For me I know I'm doing the right thing because it's my artwork and what matters to me is "am I pleased with the result?". If others can be made happy (or angry, melancholy, etc..) from my music that's just a bonus. I TRY to provoke an emotional response (just like a Voight-Kampff Test wink ).

The idea of cheating in creating music by not using a "correct" instrument or sound is like the idea of cheating in painting by mixing blue and yellow to get green.

That's just my opinion though and I respect the points made here in this thread. It's quite an interesting read.
memes_33
which is more important, the end result or the means of achieving it?
cycad73
dooj88 wrote:
LoFi Junglist wrote:
I also consider logical fallacies a form of cheating


if a tree falls in the woods...

if a thought forms in the mind and there's no one there to recognize it, was it a candidate for logical fallacy?


There are always other "ones" in the woods. A fact so evident, only philosophy can forget it wink

"Cheating" as such makes no sense as a concept. Everyone has things they don't do. I don't use samples or virtual instruments, because I haven't exhausted the possibilities of what I use. I also don't upgrade my computer/DAW or have much of an interest in modern gear. It's about framing and focus. To evolve within one's own means. When the time is right, some of those other approaches may be viable.

I think of Eliane Radigue. For 30 years she used only ARP 2500. Then she began composing only for acoustic instruments. Just like a switch. You never know.

"If I could just push a button" -- but who really wants to do that? Music isn't something in one's mind, some master plan that one imposes upon the world. It's a truth already being born through our engagement with the world. We can only acknowledge it and assist it, perhaps bring it out a bit more. We can impede it, too, but only when we try to master it.
SynthBaron
sexslut wrote:
How can you possibly "cheat" in art? The word seems meaningless in the context of art or music.


If there is truth in the composition or performance, then it will shine through no matter what is used to make it.
sexslut
I agree, SynthBaron. That's what I was trying to convey.

Cheating in this context would mean something like doing tricky things to get to the truth. Which is irrelevant, imho. As long as you get there, does it matter how you got there?

Edit: I understand as well that process can be an integral part of the "truth", but if it is... still, how could it be cheating? If that makes any sense. Guinness ftw!
gonkulator
I think the key, or one of the keys, is full disclosure. If one listens to Forbidden Planet, or Switched on Bach now you would think, yeah, that is nice, but what is the big deal, I could do that. But knowing the painstaking process (at least) it took back then, makes them landmarks. And now, while I fully appreciate and admire the skill with which so many can now produce extremely complex and sophisticated pieces by using even inexpensive tools, I also appreciate the fact that others voluntarily limit themselves (for whatever reason,) without passing judgement on anyone else using whatever legitimate tools they choose.
BaloErets
I think having any form of deity in your life is cheating.

And scooping up some peanut butter directly from the jar with your finger is definitely NOT CHEATING!!! angry angry
Joe.
BaloErets wrote:
I think having any form of deity in your life is cheating.


bah, now i'm sad again.

I think you're right though. Having a way to escape the concept of a finite life, and nothing after, is effectively cheating. You're not having to struggle with all of the questions arising from 'what is it to be human', you've found a way to not deal with reality.

but if you're indoctrinated into a way of thinking, kept ignorant from other possibilities, is it really cheating?
electricanada
pugix wrote:
Depends on whether we are talking about music production or limiting it to modular synthesis, a decidedly small subset of music production. I'm fine with using anything for music production, even samples of copyrighted songs (this has been tested in court and found legitimate).

When it is limited to modular synthesis, I am somewhat dismayed by a trend in some areas to put a computer behind a panel with some knobs and CV inputs. If it's for music production, fine. If it's to be 'modular', I have my doubts. I don't use any samples. However I have nothing against taking real time buffer snapshots (such as with Clouds) or delay units. As long as the original signals are being generated and the processing is in real time, I'm fine with it. Wave table synthesis is a grey area, if you consider wave tables as a kind of sample. I have nothing against digitally implemented modules, as long as they act like a black box, for example digital VCOs like Braids or Twin Waves (both of which I have). I am dubious about machines like Morphagene. Legitimate for music production, of course. But how is this modular? Chiefly because of the CV inputs. The only way I want to program my modular is by patching. Never by loading samples. That's a kind of cheating, but only because now you've gone beyond what is to me the essence of modular: patching and tweaking. You have added sample libraries. Again, for music production, all is fair game. But when a computer with samples is used as a module, it's basically an expensive way to do what could otherwise mostly be done with software and a computer.


Is there anything in modular that can't be done inside a computer?
SynthBaron
electricanada wrote:
pugix wrote:
Depends on whether we are talking about music production or limiting it to modular synthesis, a decidedly small subset of music production. I'm fine with using anything for music production, even samples of copyrighted songs (this has been tested in court and found legitimate).

When it is limited to modular synthesis, I am somewhat dismayed by a trend in some areas to put a computer behind a panel with some knobs and CV inputs. If it's for music production, fine. If it's to be 'modular', I have my doubts. I don't use any samples. However I have nothing against taking real time buffer snapshots (such as with Clouds) or delay units. As long as the original signals are being generated and the processing is in real time, I'm fine with it. Wave table synthesis is a grey area, if you consider wave tables as a kind of sample. I have nothing against digitally implemented modules, as long as they act like a black box, for example digital VCOs like Braids or Twin Waves (both of which I have). I am dubious about machines like Morphagene. Legitimate for music production, of course. But how is this modular? Chiefly because of the CV inputs. The only way I want to program my modular is by patching. Never by loading samples. That's a kind of cheating, but only because now you've gone beyond what is to me the essence of modular: patching and tweaking. You have added sample libraries. Again, for music production, all is fair game. But when a computer with samples is used as a module, it's basically an expensive way to do what could otherwise mostly be done with software and a computer.


Is there anything in modular that can't be done inside a computer?


Nope, and they've gotten a hell of a lot easier to use recently.
Joe.
electricanada wrote:
Is there anything in modular that can't be done inside a computer?


FUUUCCKKKK!!!
Dead Banana
SynthBaron
LoFi Junglist wrote:
electricanada wrote:
Is there anything in modular that can't be done inside a computer?


FUUUCCKKKK!!!
Dead Banana


There are ways.
pugix
electricanada wrote:
pugix wrote:
Depends on whether we are talking about music production or limiting it to modular synthesis, a decidedly small subset of music production. I'm fine with using anything for music production, even samples of copyrighted songs (this has been tested in court and found legitimate).

When it is limited to modular synthesis, I am somewhat dismayed by a trend in some areas to put a computer behind a panel with some knobs and CV inputs. If it's for music production, fine. If it's to be 'modular', I have my doubts. I don't use any samples. However I have nothing against taking real time buffer snapshots (such as with Clouds) or delay units. As long as the original signals are being generated and the processing is in real time, I'm fine with it. Wave table synthesis is a grey area, if you consider wave tables as a kind of sample. I have nothing against digitally implemented modules, as long as they act like a black box, for example digital VCOs like Braids or Twin Waves (both of which I have). I am dubious about machines like Morphagene. Legitimate for music production, of course. But how is this modular? Chiefly because of the CV inputs. The only way I want to program my modular is by patching. Never by loading samples. That's a kind of cheating, but only because now you've gone beyond what is to me the essence of modular: patching and tweaking. You have added sample libraries. Again, for music production, all is fair game. But when a computer with samples is used as a module, it's basically an expensive way to do what could otherwise mostly be done with software and a computer.


Is there anything in modular that can't be done inside a computer?


A hundred large knobs to turn, patch cords to wrangle. That is what it's about. Dead Banana
R.U.Nuts
To all those who say sampling is cheating: If I record ten minutes of banging on random stuff with mallets, process the recording with fuzz, ring mod, flanger, whatever pedals, re-record it, EQ the recording in a DAW, load it into a sampler module, pipe it through a LPG to make a hi-hat sound because I think that sounds better than the hi-hat from a 808 replica hi-hat module. -Do you think that is cheating? If no: we're not worthy
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Modular Synth General Discussion Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next [all]
Page 3 of 5
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group