I've heard a lot of people aggressively talk about how they only like "real music" and dont like commercial pop music.
Apparently music is only real if it's rock music where "real" instruments like guitars and drums are used and anything created using drum machines and synthesisers is "fake" or "manufactured" music?
And apparently it's also a big deal if the person who sings is not the writer

'real music' is what I like

There is no such thing as real music, just different genres. We all have different tastes, simple as that!

Maybe it depends how old you are. If you have only grown up with manufactured stuff which is the norm nowadays and Simon Cowell creations then you may not think or know (or even care) any different.

From bits i've read on this forum it appears a lot of younger people on here are only interested in whether they like the song or not and if the person singing it looks good. Anything outside of that is of no relevance.

Maybe that is the way to go and think about things but I think some people like a band or artist to be an individual, where they have there own thoughts and views and express them through their own music and lyrics rather than relying on big promotional budgets, the latest writers that other singers are using so everyone then just sounds the same and just basically being a complete puppet doing and acting as your record company tells you.

what do you mean by manufactured though? Do you mean if the singers didn't write it or if computers are used?

I'm no expert but for me manufactured means that that a singer or group of singers where chosen for their (record company) purpose alone, to sing the songs they want their new act to sing and act and do everything they tell them in order for the record company to make as much money as they can out of them until the public get bored. The record company can them drop them so they can find another bunch of fresh faced wannabe stars to fill their place so the record company can just repeat the process all over again.

I'm sure there have been plenty of examples where groups have been forced together to sing songs they neither wrote or even choose and after a while a member will get stroppy having to play along for the record companies benefit and do a walk out job.

I think real music stays around and is remembered years and years.Most chart music sells for a couple of weeks then is instantly forgotten.

their lives are their problem
I never spend money on music anyway, I just listen to it on youtube lol
but IF I did then I'd just buy whatever sounds good to ME.
As for the background of who wrote it, if the singers believe in the song or how the singers are treated, I couldn't care less if I tried
the only thing that matters for me is whether I like the sound

To me, the difference is whether the song was written/performed by someone who wanted to write a good song, or written/performed by someone who wanted to make some money...

what's real music though?
doesn't any good song do well in the charts?

err no.. the charts aren't really a reflection on what's good its just a reflection on what's marketable at the moment. would you call "Mr Blobby" "Crazy Frog" and "Bob The Builder" good songs?? they all got to number 1.

what a good song is is subjective
it has to be a good song to the buyer to make them spend money on it
if I actually spent any money on music rather than listening to it on youtube then I would buy what I thought was a good song

if the so called "real music" doesnt sell as much then it probably isn't good to as many people

obviously it's not fully reflective of quality
sales of music or films never are

but the point is that just because something is designed to make money that doesn't mean it cant be better music than something which is not aimed at the charts
there are many songs which I know would be called "manufactured music" but I find their sound a lot better than many songs which would be called "real music"

I didn't say that a song that makes money is automatically not "real music", I love The Beatles and Queen, two bands with phenomenal chart success, just as much as say, Can.

I just feel that, while it is of course difficult to judge, the mentality of the musicians while composing the track is what differentiates "real music" and whatever the word for non-real music is.

A synthesizer technically counts a real instrument, if you use a keytar or synth keyboard live, rather than some computer programme that artists such as Calvin Harris or Owl City probably use.

Either way, it sounds good and takes time to make.

if a piece of music is of good quality, which many pop songs are, then the mentality was right
I think whoever created the music to some of the Spice Girls songs for example is a very good musician(s) and the music is certainly real and of good quality
not that I really admire the singers, but the people behind the scenes done good work and deserve for their music to be called real music because its SOUNDS GOOD

exactly you're right
the music sounds good

Depends on your taste I suppose

However, I dont class anything completely made on a computer without instruments to be real music.

Chav music? Yes
Proper music? No.

Lets not even get on to Calvin Harris. What an embarrasment to my ears.

That's pretty ignorant. You've basically just dismissed electronic and industrial, as well as a lot in the goth genres. Most synthesised music isn't chav- in fact, chavs would run a mile from half of it.

I know more or less what you're getting at- you don't like club music or manufactured stuff, and I must say I agree with you there, but there is a lot more to synthesised music than that.

Venetian Snares

Calvin's actually very good at what he does. It's just the whole "celebrity" side he can't get the hang of. I don't think he realises that branding other artists/record labels and GMTV presenters as "shit" on his twitter are going to be seen by his 140,000+ followers

Hence why people think he's an idiot. I can see why, but it's hella funny the way he goes about it

That's reggae, ska, jazz, funk, soul and rap screwed then.

I get so pissed off to the back teeth when some people slag off synthesizers. They say it's not proper music, it's fake etc. The fact is that it's no different from a guitar. When I say that I mean it only does what a human tells it to do. Synthesizers don't make up songs on their own.
If you take one of the all time classic synthesizer hits - 'Oxygene part 4' by Jean Michel Jarre, a synthesizer didn't make that piece of music up on it's own. The melody and sound of the song came out of JMJ's head.

If you want to talk about 'real' music and 'manufactured' music, the difference to me is that what some people call 'real music' means that the sound of the song and the melody was created by the actual members of the band.
Manufactured music is created by people behind the scenes for a bunch of nobodies to sing simply so the record company can make a lot of money.
Manufactured music is basically very formulaic, it's just very normal in a boring repetative kind of way.
Real music often sounds far more imaginative.

This

And on the synthesizers note: It's not the instrument that makes a song good or bad, it's how it's being used.

Radiohead.

Objectively the best band of all time.

Subjectively.