5 music production truisms that are actually nonsense

[skyshaver]

"Creating is not magic but work." - Works for me.

[Bio~Rhythm]

other 4 obvious

There's nothing like "obvious". Especially nowdays, when everybody and their dog wants to make music. Experience shows that most of these people are dumb and clueless

Yip!, and we do are dam best to make sure everyone else remains as dumb and clueless as us. Educated people and their logical bolox .

[Bio~Rhythm]

Certainly in the Dj community the evidence seems clear (listen to the tracks or look at the titles of their tracks) that they do not correlate the music produced by the objective system that they use to produce that music. I.E - Significantly delusional. And then I hear the Big Dj names talking nonsense as they describe how good a computer produced track was, by stating "It's art you know not science!". (Dave Seaman).

A few of the quotes from that article that I enjoyed;

people are straight-up biased against creative ideas

backed it up with some real world research http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/201 ... udies-find

In the past (and in some less open society's today) there was/is probably (haven't got time to research the theory right now) some evolutionary advantage to not being or making things much different than the crowd.

everything in the Beatport Top 100 sounds practically identical

If people were truly wanting music that reflected their own unique personality the music industry would surely not exist as a industry (fashion sells allot of Ba Ba music to the "in crowd"). Note- I actually like people with good intentions even if their ideologically away with the fairies ( I get it! Reality can be a right pain in the _ _ _.

Fundamentally, DAWs are calculators at heart

Absolutely !. And humans have a biological heart and brain ( no evidence for any other human condition)

However, some producers - including experienced audio professionals who you'd like to imagine know better - for some reason think they run on voodoo or some other arcane art.

The key word here is "Imagine". A very powerful tool that excites,scares and confusers many that may not sufficiently comprehend that the imagination is in the part of the conscious brain (Humans have a subconscious also where I imagine imagination wouldn't be of much use).

but anyone who espouses this viewpoint has clearly never done any scientific testing

Yes they don't/can't or won't understand how the scientific method helps people have a certain level of trust in any findings. Very often because the evidence conflicts with a long held ( and dear) ideology.I prefer the facts even it that means I find it difficult to get psychologically delusional (unfounded belief). No need to be depressed though, the facts of science offer far more of a "wow factor!" than any dreamt up myth ever could.

emerging from their mothers' wombs with a working knowledge of post-tonal music theory and the inner workings of classic hardware compressors.

I can relate that to many people whom seem to have no concept that at their own personal individual beginning they were one Cell, that then began to divide. A billion+ cells later and a imagination driven by a huge Ego and they can imagine that their Deity justifies them doing some horrific things (Rest in eternal peace victims of France attacks).

funny thing is, there are plenty of people out there making great music by trial and error, learning as they go.

Yes that was me and it was comparably not as "good" as it could be if I had more knowledge of music production. No point having musical ideas if you don't know how to implement them.

Of course this type of article will attract allot of opinion and that opinion will attract more opinion and so on and so forth = alot of subjective opinion. But it's merely a well written Article.

If it were. for example. a peer reviewed journal on Google scholar https://scholar.google.co.uk, then you could apply your current understanding of the research undertaken (semi-conducting material for example). The research would of been performed with a logical methodology (to be in a science journal the method should be clearly repeatable ). Then, other people can repeat the experiment. Over time if the results statistically prove the original hypothesis(supporting evidence) then the knowledge will become part of the accepted science and maybe used to design even more powerful computers (applied science) that then are used to make even more complex music. (if this process breaks down then the research will be forgotten).

Thus anyone individual whom express their subjective opinion that they don't "believe" in anthropogenic climate change and evolution (to name a few accepted scientific findings) simply do not understand the evidence and how that evidence is fundamentally gathered by using the same logic as 1+1=2.