If you're taking a hardline-traditionalist approach to what constitutes music, why stop at pencil, paper and hard work. Music has existed long before written notation and documented musical theory. You're not only taking an incredibly western-centric view, but you're ignoring a large amount of music by doing so.

Yikes, don't tell Dave Grohl, Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Eric Clapton, and the countless other musicians who don't know how to read or write sheet music...

One could argue that the basics involve putting sounds together in the simplest way possible - something like this. And that it takes far more work and skill to get to the advanced, low level stuff like writing on staff paper (and on the production side, compression, EQ, mastering, etc.).

To put it another way: Is learning x86 assembly the "basics of computer programming"?

You may be new here, but asking for downvotes has been in the guidelines for ever.

Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downvote you or proclaim that you expect to get downvoted.

I have a musician friend who doesn't think drums are a musical instrument and that drummers are not musicians. As far as I can figure it's has primarily to do with drums not having the same concepts of pitch/melody.

I feel like this is along your line of reasoning- only certain (classical, western) ways of doing music is real music.

I somewhat agree with your first sentence, but it's not a super advanced technique, either.

It's simply teaching rhythm and orchestration utilizing a step-sequencer. Similar to how beginners to music are taught rhythm and division of the beat, or Common Core Math grouping.