Effects...just "icing" on the cake? (or) not comparable to playing Bach?
2 points here...(quoting my other post)
1) It was said on another thread that using effects (say, with a guitar) is just "icing" on the cake. I diagree that's ALWAYS the case...and I don't even necessarily think you can always say there is an "icing" and "cake".
I gave the example of "How Soon is Now" by The Smiths...a song that's iconic in large part to the way the effects were used to make the guitars sound so completely kick-ass. The actual guitar playing that's being done is dead simple...but what gives the chords personality, creativity, and makes the artist achieve his vision is the effects (and more specifically, the creative way in which they were actually used).
If effects are indeed the icing, then I guess the actual guitar playing (supposedly the cake) would have to be something more special, complicated, or innovative than what the effects are doing. But that isn't the case in "How Soon is Now". The effects take centre stage and are the thing that have been used in a creative and innovative way, NOT the guitar playing. If ANYTHING, the effects are the cake here (if again there is such a way to differentiate what's "cake" and what's "icing"😉.
It is true however that a lot of (probably most) people can just slap effects on to make themselves sound better than they actually are...that would be "icing". But again, that's not always the case. The effect ITSELF won't make an instrument sound cool, how you use it will...and if you use it creatively and innovatively enough, it can surpass the importance of what the instrument is doing...as in the above example. The effects ARE the music.
2). It was also argued that you can't compare using effects (pedal/button pushing, knob turning etc...) to doing something like what Segovia does...playing (and transcribing) Bach. I totally disagree.
Of course it's not like there's anything hard about the actual pushing of the buttons or turning of the knobs themselves...(and if you made a direct comparrison to the skill it takes to play an instrument it's obvious which one requires more talent). But the things is, talent isn't just measured in skill on an instrument...that's so shallow. Different people have different talents at different things. Segovia has talent using an instrument and transcribing violin to guitar to play Bach, Pavarotti has talent using an operatic voice to sing arias by Vivaldi, and the Chemical Brothers or Underworld have talent using synths, computers and machines to create new sonics and produce/engineer complex and innovative electronic music.
Take"Rez" by Underworld as way to show how using effects (button pushing, knob turning etc...) take as much talent or is simply as great a thing as doing something like playing or transcribing Bach.
For starters, what techno music is, is really just effects - button pushing, knob turning, playing with frequencies and filters etc...You don't have to know how to play an instrument well (or even at all) to make techno. And I hope no one thinks that this gives it any less value or means techno requires any less talent...talent is found in different ways.
Some techno I've heard (and I mean only "some"😉 I easily put up there with some of the other greatest achievements in music...simply because it's SO creative, SO innovative AND intricate (not to mention musical). But again, just like tons of people use effects on the guitar to sound better than they really are, lotsa people grab a keyboard and do the same. But if you know tehcno well, you can tell the good from the crap
Now, just listen to this for the 30 secs...(or don't bother reading the rest)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WY1qn-k9qE
What you have there is a 16 bar riff that gets repeated over an over, getting tweaked and varied more and more throughout the song (although to the untrained ear I'm sure it just sounds random). THAT 16 bar riff has a distinct, particular melody that includes inticate off-beats, augmented orchestration, complicated off-time rythms...and it even builds off the first half (8 bars) of itself to make the whole 16 bars make a kind of sense. And the list goes on as to how a creative, complicated and innovative piece of music it actually is. And what MAKES this piece of music so phenominal isn't any type of playing or transcribing...IT IS button pushing and IT IS knob turning, etc...If you "get" the song, it's pure genius...and if you're in the right state of mind and that thing comes on, it can honestly sound like THE most beautiful thing you've ever heard in your life...and it achieves this by the musicians having been extremely creative and innovative with "button pushing "and "knob turning"...something that's a talent all it's own.
So I have to ask the same question...do you know HOW HARD it is to know how to produce and engineer music like that...and to create the purposeful sonic nuances that are made to sound musical...and to lay down the fast and inticate rythms that are there? (which again, I guarantee you aren't there randomly). Do you know how much WORK and TALENT it takes to achieve the greatness that's been achevied with this piece of music sonically? They've made this piece of music from MACHINES (button pushing/knob turning)...the effects ARE the music (which is why I questioned earlier if there's even such a thing as "incing" or "cake" with effects). The guys in Underworld have worked really hard to used their unique talent and skill to make something so incredible....definitley AS incredible as what Segovia does.
Point is...Don't knock "button pushing" or "knob turning"...it's ridiculous! It's music making IN ITSELF!! There CAN be AS MUCH talent involved in the way that is USED as there is in playing an instrument or transcribing...it's just that the talent IS DIFFERENT.