At this year's Grammy Awards, when Dave Grohl accepted the award for Best Rock Album, he made a statement that caught the attention of many people. It went something like this:
"To me this award means a lot because it shows that the human element of music is what's important,” Grohl said. “Singing into a microphone and learning to play an instrument and learning to do your craft, that's the most important thing for people to do... It's not about being perfect, it's not about sounding absolutely correct, it's not about what goes on in a computer. It's about what goes on in here [your heart] and what goes on in here [your head]."
"To me this award means a lot because it shows that the human element of music is what's important,” Grohl said. “Singing into a microphone and learning to play an instrument and learning to do your craft, that's the most important thing for people to do... It's not about being perfect, it's not about sounding absolutely correct, it's not about what goes on in a computer. It's about what goes on in here [your heart] and what goes on in here [your head]."
See for yourself through the link below:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuAo7aFiQEI
Now this divided many people and while many were quick to applaud the sentiments behind this statement, an equal amount were just as quick to criticize Grohl as being pro-analog and anti-technology. Needless to say the electronic music-making community was up in arms over this one.
Since the Grammy's, Dave Grohl has provided some further explanation and clarified that he "loves ALL kinds of music" and never intended to blast anyone that relies on electronics or technology to create music.
Regardless of where Dave Grohl stands on this topic, it has prompted a resurgence in an ongoing discussion within the music-loving community about the whole idea of 'keeping it real' in music.
Personally, I know lots of people that listen strictly to electronic acts such as Skrillexx and Deadmau5 and on the opposite end of the spectrum, I know people who would denounce any type of music it that lacks traditional instrumentation.
Dave Grohl, himself, stated that I try really fucking hard so that I don't have to rely on anything but my hands and my heart to play a song and that the 'human' element in music-making is lost with recent technological advances that allows for pitch, tuning and instrumentation to be altered and corrected electronically. He also stated that he loves electronic acts like Skrillexx because they sound unique. I guess that is the human element he is referring to.
Interesting viewpoint and a noble one. It seems that Dave Grohl pictures himself as a lone warrior that is one of the last bastions of good old, guitar-playing rock and roll music standing atop a mountain, honourably trying to stand up against the relentless onslaught of electronic music, pitch correction and auto-tuning that is so rampant in today's popular music scene.
To be fair, I've been quite vocal on this blog page regarding my dislike for artists that rely too much on studio wizardry for a clean and polished sound. I'm always a huge fan of raw talent and nothing will ever really replace that.
But one thing I have realized is music, on an individual level, is a personal relationship between a listener and a song. Similar to how everyone has a personal relationship with God, the type of relationship one has to the music they enjoy is a deeply personal one and dependant on many factors. Lately, I am starting to notice how so many people feel a need to juxtapose their own set of rules and values upon what constitutes 'real' music and what is considered crap. Whatever happened to the idea that music is an art-form or a form of expressionism? Doesn't that make the interpretation of a song subjective? What moves one person may not necessarily be someone else's cup of tea, but that does make it wrong for said person to enjoy, connect or identify with that music?
After watching the Grammy awards and reflecting back on the awards show on the way back home with some friends, we were talking about some of the performances. I immediately was quite vocal about my dislike towards Rihanna's sub-par vocal performance, while my other friends found her quite entertaining. I replied by saying 'there is no place for someone like her because she can't sing.'
In that moment, I realized 'Wow, since when did I become so judgmental?'
Whether it is Rihanna or Britney (or the many other singers/artists that I have railed against on my blog page), the one thing that I have failed to realize is that I am no one to judge and condemn these artists. As much as their style/brand of music does not relate to me, there are millions of others that love and connect with these artists. Whatever their reasons may be, I am no one to judge. This goes back to the whole idea that music is a personal relationship between a song and a listener. Outside of that relationship, everything else is irrelevant. Music and song should speak to something within the listener and connect with the listener's soul; whether that is done through old-fashioned guitars, drums and singing into a mic, or through electronically enhanced beats with pitch correction and Auto-Tune, I wonder, is that necessarily a bad thing?
Well of course it is, all the critical die-hards from rock music's pantheon would say. These people feel that anyone who doesn't know how to play an instrument should not be allowed anywhere a record deal, stage or a studio.
While I would agree that understanding the composition, structure and theory of music is necessary in creating music, do I think that taking the route of learning a traditional instrument is an essential requirement?
No, I don't.
Music is first and foremost an art form and beyond mastering an instrument, it is inspiration and an idea that needs to come to life. Whether that is accomplished through hammering out chords on a guitar or twiddling knobs in a studio or a MacBook is irrelevant. When interviewing an indie, Australian band on their stop to Vancouver last summer, the single greatest quote I heard was 'you don't have to know what you are doing, but you have to believe in your ideas'.
If anything, the ability to make music without the constraints of relying on an instrument opens up an entire dimension of music-making. All of a sudden, kids that have access to a laptop can now experiment with different sounds and create something altogether unique and original. In other words, the transfer of a musical idea from the mind to an actual recording does not need to be fulfilled by, often, arduous and pain-staking task of learning an instrument or hiring expensive musicians to do it for you. Now, with the advancements in technology, it is accessible to anybody. In his speech, Dave Grohl lamented: "if it were that easy, anyone could do it, right? ". I completely agree, but question whether it is a bad thing.
As much as I marvel and admire someone's ability to move me through voice and an instrument, I could say the same for a number of acts that favour technology in getting their musical ideas across. As our society is becoming more and more reliant on technology, I say that applying that to the art of music-making is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it makes it far easier and convenient for anyone to bring their musical ideas to fruition, while on the other hand it dilutes the need for actual musical understanding.
What would be cool to see is a meeting of both elements; where music is sonically innovative enough to break new ground in pushing how technology can enhance the listening experience, while retaining the classical qualities and elements behind what makes a great song and retaining the 'human' element of music-making.
Maybe that's the point Dave Grohl was trying to make.
