Mashups are an art form on the same level as any other musical endeavor – and I’m going to try my best to prove it.
Let’s first start by creating an outline for what “music” is. If we look at the range of genres that people have created, we can conclude that their isn’t a stubborn stylistic definition for the term. Especially when one considers fringe genres like noise music, the idea that music has a unified point becomes flawed. Thus, I submit that music can be defined only as having purpose in and of itself, regardless of that purpose’s content. Sound in organization that is understood differently if changed is what we can refer to as music. Spoken word can even be considered music, given that its delivery is markedly designed to beg interpretation.
There has always been a notion with some that even if we accept this liberal definition, we can cut out much of the field because of certain, arguably measurable, reasons. The most popular notion, it seems, is that music must be the product of difficult, practiced delivery. The idea that, if it doesn’t come from an “instrument,” in the traditional sense, it is not music. I tend to disagree – if we take a step back from a musical noise, any medium of its creation could be considered an instrument if the user is in this mindset. To say a sequencing keyboard (one that ‘memorizes’ sequences or progressions of notes) is less of an instrument than a piano is self-serving and constricting. Lets say an artist can play twice the notes on a sequencer compared to what he can one on a piano. The ability to do more with less physical movement doesn’t disqualify musical merit – the sounds could be the same. Its subjectively easier, but he had to program the sequence, and understand how it worked.
(More simply – it urks me when people discredit music because it can’t be created by a ‘band’ and acoustic instruments. A piano’s sustain peddle allows an artist to work in ways beyond what 2 hands and 10 fingers allow. Perhaps that disqualifies its use from music too?)
So what if the sequencer isn’t playing piano sounds? What if it is playing samples (pieces) of an existing piece? Of multiple pieces? The artists must still understand how these pieces fit together, as they would the sounds in a piano piece. The artist must learn how to digitally run these sounds together, in such a way that serves a purpose, which is usually to entertain This is all that a mashup is. Using samples as an instrument, no matter how “easy” that may seem to the listener. Some of the time, admittedly, it is. Others… quite the opposite. So, to the naysayers, I propose a challenge. Find me a piano teacher that can decompose this, and I’ll rethink my definitions.
I definitely agree with you on the topic of the whole “its not an instrument” argument. I mean when it comes down to it, how do you even define an instrument? Its such a vague term that virtually anything can qualify, and if its designed to make some sort of music then I don’t see why it wouldn’t be a musical instrument (though it can always be a bad one). I’ve heard enough dubstep and mashups to know that it does require skill, as some of it is just awful. I like both acoustic and synthesized music, I don’t see why everyone else can’t feel the same (or not if they dislike one, but still acknowledge that its music)
I think you raise some very valid points with regard to the definition of music. You did not mention, however, a category that nearly as large as instrumental… the choral and vocal word! I agree with the notion that if the ‘noise’ has purpose, it certainly can be considered ‘music’.