What is conventionality/novelty in electronic music?

[soundmodel]

Yes, to being with, I think electronic music production is half engineering and half art. Most musicians only explore it as consumers of engineering. Yet some combine them.

Engineering and production are definitely important tools in modern production.

It could almost be argued that they're almost as important as composition, musicianship and instruments.

Certainly it can elevate a track from good to great, or great to amazing.

Mixing is an art in itself. It's almost entirely subjective with very little actual technical parts, in my opinion. As long as you keep the overall frequency response in a way that your vision translates to various sound systems, the rest is pure art.

So yeah, I completely agree. If you have a really simple and sparse arrangement with not much going on harmonically or melody wise, then the way it sounds can be the majority of the appeal of a track.

Okay, tell me how to get the processors and FX for that?

In the context of the thread some people would consider a Culture Vulture a competitive advantage.

I also think that if we gave everyone only the ability to use a certain stock plugin set, then we would have much more uniform mixes and less "overleaping" mixes. Which exemplifies why the tools are a half of the trade. One can spend 40 years mixing, and one would still not be able to do the result of a processor that is technically impossible given the tools that one has.

A pro mixer can get good results with rudimentary gear, but the results will certainly not be the same as with good gear. Even they know it.

[soundmodel]

20-30 years ago there was much simpler soft to use & mostly sample-based or straight MIDI workflow clean & clear & few distractions.. nowadays synths, sequencers, DAWs all over the place providing many distractions & also level of music shifting from musical creativity to one-finger dabbler stacking tons of FX way overmodulated or using 'construction kit' or 'MIDI chord packs'... Folks if you gotta buy a construction kit or a MIDI chord pack it's time to 'dabble' in some other hobby...

Also purpose of actually making music has changed, many want 'views' or 'comments' or weirder 'monetization' all adds up to dopamine hit. I see all kinda YT vids with dabblers having tons of equipment yet music is basic, tasteless & krappy. You don't need tons of stuff you need the concept of music you can make music in anything it's good to try simple workflows... I do music in simple 23 year-old tracker that's only 460kb-

Yes, someone understand what the thread was getting at. Conventionality and novelty are difficult concepts in the current landscape of unlimited tools.

For example, we cannot accurately recognize anymore whether a person has produced something by himself or whether it's from a sample pack. There are so many tools that we cannot authentically say which player is more novel than another.

[Bunny_boy]

Yes, someone understand what the thread was getting at. Conventionality and novelty are difficult concepts in the current landscape of unlimited tools.

Well, you've changed the title of the thread, so the gist of it has altered.
Also, you dismissed the Delia Derbyshire tracks are being made with primitive tools whereas they were made with cutting edge tools and techniques.

[vurt]

I'll create a new genre now: mu-dance. Each song lasts 0.5s. To DJ takes quite a lot of tunes, and unfortunately the logistics of DJing vinyl as pretty poor.
Its got a few subgenres: one where the song is written conventionally then time stretched to 0.5s; one where existing songs are remixed to 0.5s, and one where the actual song is written as 0.5s

i was actually thinking along similar but not as extreme lines. not so much out of innovation, but wondering where music will go in the future?
we see 15/30 second videos being hits on tt and yt, will music end up as 15 - 30 seconds, with full abacab arrangements?

Who did the Commercial Album? The Replacements? The one that's only verse-chorus. While I can't see it being all music, I can see it as being some sort of umbrella genre of songs which are just hook only, or like you say, really compressed.
Does this make Naked City the godfathers of your new musical experience?

that was the residents
as you say, verse chorus only, im hoping for something akin, to bohemian rhapsody, in scope, but napalm death, you suffer in duration

[mjudge55]

20-30 years ago there was much simpler soft to use & mostly sample-based or straight MIDI workflow clean & clear & few distractions.. nowadays synths, sequencers, DAWs all over the place providing many distractions & also level of music shifting from musical creativity to one-finger dabbler stacking tons of FX way overmodulated or using 'construction kit' or 'MIDI chord packs'... Folks if you gotta buy a construction kit or a MIDI chord pack it's time to 'dabble' in some other hobby...

Also purpose of actually making music has changed, many want 'views' or 'comments' or weirder 'monetization' all adds up to dopamine hit. I see all kinda YT vids with dabblers having tons of equipment yet music is basic, tasteless & krappy. You don't need tons of stuff you need the concept of music you can make music in anything it's good to try simple workflows... I do music in simple 23 year-old tracker that's only 460kb-

Yes, someone understand what the thread was getting at. Conventionality and novelty are difficult concepts in the current landscape of unlimited tools.

For example, we cannot accurately recognize anymore whether a person has produced something by himself or whether it's from a sample pack. There are so many tools that we cannot authentically say which player is more novel than another.

Right now I think construction kits and the like are still too far downstream of the aesthetics they're poaching for people of discernment to be fooled. But as the audience increasingly comes to expect this poseur-ish sound in a meta way, and as the tools become ever more esoteric (eg construction kits for adherents of music scenes composed of five people who met online) I suppose there comes a point where you won't be able to tell the fakes from the real deal - the new from the rehash -- just by listening. By then I think the bifurcation of existence into online vs offline will have become refined enough that you can't tell your friends in your music scene or their music from an AI so meeting them in person and finding out they're poseurs will be a crucial step. What this tells me is at the core we're interested in the process a human goes through making art, more than assessing the art.

[Bunny_boy]

music scenes composed of five people who met online

Sounds novel

[Jac459]

20-30 years ago there was much simpler soft to use & mostly sample-based or straight MIDI workflow clean & clear & few distractions.. nowadays synths, sequencers, DAWs all over the place providing many distractions & also level of music shifting from musical creativity to one-finger dabbler stacking tons of FX way overmodulated or using 'construction kit' or 'MIDI chord packs'... Folks if you gotta buy a construction kit or a MIDI chord pack it's time to 'dabble' in some other hobby...

Also purpose of actually making music has changed, many want 'views' or 'comments' or weirder 'monetization' all adds up to dopamine hit. I see all kinda YT vids with dabblers having tons of equipment yet music is basic, tasteless & krappy. You don't need tons of stuff you need the concept of music you can make music in anything it's good to try simple workflows... I do music in simple 23 year-old tracker that's only 460kb-

Yes, someone understand what the thread was getting at. Conventionality and novelty are difficult concepts in the current landscape of unlimited tools.

For example, we cannot accurately recognize anymore whether a person has produced something by himself or whether it's from a sample pack. There are so many tools that we cannot authentically say which player is more novel than another.

Right now I think construction kits and the like are still too far downstream of the aesthetics they're poaching for people of discernment to be fooled. But as the audience increasingly comes to expect this poseur-ish sound in a meta way, and as the tools become ever more esoteric (eg construction kits for adherents of music scenes composed of five people who met online) I suppose there comes a point where you won't be able to tell the fakes from the real deal - the new from the rehash -- just by listening. By then I think the bifurcation of existence into online vs offline will have become refined enough that you can't tell your friends in your music scene or their music from an AI so meeting them in person and finding out they're poseurs will be a crucial step. What this tells me is at the core we're interested in the process a human goes through making art, more than assessing the art.

I am not very much aligned on the fact that we should separate the good musicians, purists, not using the tools, and the bad ones, using construction kits or whatever.

For my own preference and usage, I don't use construction kits, I use either heavily modified presets or I create my own. Yet, the last thing I would do is to look down at people reusing more than I do.
Rightly using the material available is also a talent (that I don't have), and I will certainly not judge or look down at Daft Punk or Gorillaz (on the contrary) even if for some of their tracks they took a lot from contruction kits or other artists...
Good for them...

And Gorillaz and Daft Punk did bring a lot of novelty in their genre and are immensely successful for that.

[whyterabbyt]

music scenes composed of five people who met online

Sounds novel

Ive met at least two people in this thread, so we're 60% of a genre already.

[vurt]

music scenes composed of five people who met online

Sounds novel

Ive met at least two people in this thread, so we're 60% of a genre already.

those with multiple personality disorders can be several genres on their own.

[whyterabbyt]

music scenes composed of five people who met online

Sounds novel

Ive met at least two people in this thread, so we're 60% of a genre already.

those with multiple personality disorders can be several genres on their own.

you lot would say that...

[mjudge55]

20-30 years ago there was much simpler soft to use & mostly sample-based or straight MIDI workflow clean & clear & few distractions.. nowadays synths, sequencers, DAWs all over the place providing many distractions & also level of music shifting from musical creativity to one-finger dabbler stacking tons of FX way overmodulated or using 'construction kit' or 'MIDI chord packs'... Folks if you gotta buy a construction kit or a MIDI chord pack it's time to 'dabble' in some other hobby...

Also purpose of actually making music has changed, many want 'views' or 'comments' or weirder 'monetization' all adds up to dopamine hit. I see all kinda YT vids with dabblers having tons of equipment yet music is basic, tasteless & krappy. You don't need tons of stuff you need the concept of music you can make music in anything it's good to try simple workflows... I do music in simple 23 year-old tracker that's only 460kb-

Yes, someone understand what the thread was getting at. Conventionality and novelty are difficult concepts in the current landscape of unlimited tools.

For example, we cannot accurately recognize anymore whether a person has produced something by himself or whether it's from a sample pack. There are so many tools that we cannot authentically say which player is more novel than another.

Right now I think construction kits and the like are still too far downstream of the aesthetics they're poaching for people of discernment to be fooled. But as the audience increasingly comes to expect this poseur-ish sound in a meta way, and as the tools become ever more esoteric (eg construction kits for adherents of music scenes composed of five people who met online) I suppose there comes a point where you won't be able to tell the fakes from the real deal - the new from the rehash -- just by listening. By then I think the bifurcation of existence into online vs offline will have become refined enough that you can't tell your friends in your music scene or their music from an AI so meeting them in person and finding out they're poseurs will be a crucial step. What this tells me is at the core we're interested in the process a human goes through making art, more than assessing the art.

I am not very much aligned on the fact that we should separate the good musicians, purists, not using the tools, and the bad ones, using construction kits or whatever.

For my own preference and usage, I don't use construction kits, I use either heavily modified presets or I create my own. Yet, the last thing I would do is to look down at people reusing more than I do.
Rightly using the material available is also a talent (that I don't have), and I will certainly not judge or look down at Daft Punk or Gorillaz (on the contrary) even if for some of their tracks they took a lot from contruction kits or other artists...
Good for them...

And Gorillaz and Daft Punk did bring a lot of novelty in their genre and are immensely successful for that.

Agreed, I was being flip. Nothing wrong with anything on the tweaked preset to paint by numbers construction kit spectrum, per se. I just think they cut artists out of processes they often enjoy and are behind the times aesthetically. I'd also say the folks who create these are actually more technically proficient than most innovative artists coming up so they just don't sound right to your typical punk ass 20 something -- too impressive in many cases, not filthy enough. Also these kids aren't really into just buying some product, they want to be down with an underground scene and friend group/tribe, and be authentic like some underground artist, they want to know what gear that artist uses, not which construction kit -- and lo and behold those artists came up without those kits so there's nothing there to emulate. Also I think folks tend to just feel like it's too easy and sense to one degree or another if it comes too easily it can't be that great, wrong or right.

You mention valid counterexamples for sure. I'd say for a solid, innovative artist, they'd tend to bring more important, homegrown elements to any prefab stuff they use. Otherwise it's just uninspired and probably not that fun to work on.

So I'm actually not saying what ought to be, I'm saying what is. As technology improves and expectations shift I think a lot of this will change but what I don't see changing is artists actually enjoying to do the work themselves. Not every single thing, but the activity of making art requires you to actually involve yourself in it and putting in the time satisfies something in us. To the degree the tech lets us focus on what nourishes us then I think we'll use it but if the tech cuts us out it's a no go.

[mjudge55]

Dupe

[Jac459]

20-30 years ago there was much simpler soft to use & mostly sample-based or straight MIDI workflow clean & clear & few distractions.. nowadays synths, sequencers, DAWs all over the place providing many distractions & also level of music shifting from musical creativity to one-finger dabbler stacking tons of FX way overmodulated or using 'construction kit' or 'MIDI chord packs'... Folks if you gotta buy a construction kit or a MIDI chord pack it's time to 'dabble' in some other hobby...

Also purpose of actually making music has changed, many want 'views' or 'comments' or weirder 'monetization' all adds up to dopamine hit. I see all kinda YT vids with dabblers having tons of equipment yet music is basic, tasteless & krappy. You don't need tons of stuff you need the concept of music you can make music in anything it's good to try simple workflows... I do music in simple 23 year-old tracker that's only 460kb-

Yes, someone understand what the thread was getting at. Conventionality and novelty are difficult concepts in the current landscape of unlimited tools.

For example, we cannot accurately recognize anymore whether a person has produced something by himself or whether it's from a sample pack. There are so many tools that we cannot authentically say which player is more novel than another.

Right now I think construction kits and the like are still too far downstream of the aesthetics they're poaching for people of discernment to be fooled. But as the audience increasingly comes to expect this poseur-ish sound in a meta way, and as the tools become ever more esoteric (eg construction kits for adherents of music scenes composed of five people who met online) I suppose there comes a point where you won't be able to tell the fakes from the real deal - the new from the rehash -- just by listening. By then I think the bifurcation of existence into online vs offline will have become refined enough that you can't tell your friends in your music scene or their music from an AI so meeting them in person and finding out they're poseurs will be a crucial step. What this tells me is at the core we're interested in the process a human goes through making art, more than assessing the art.

I am not very much aligned on the fact that we should separate the good musicians, purists, not using the tools, and the bad ones, using construction kits or whatever.

For my own preference and usage, I don't use construction kits, I use either heavily modified presets or I create my own. Yet, the last thing I would do is to look down at people reusing more than I do.
Rightly using the material available is also a talent (that I don't have), and I will certainly not judge or look down at Daft Punk or Gorillaz (on the contrary) even if for some of their tracks they took a lot from contruction kits or other artists...
Good for them...

And Gorillaz and Daft Punk did bring a lot of novelty in their genre and are immensely successful for that.

Agreed, I was being flip. Nothing wrong with anything on the tweaked preset to paint by numbers construction kit spectrum, per se. I just think they cut artists out of processes they often enjoy and are behind the times aesthetically. I'd also say the folks who create these are actually more technically proficient than most innovative artists coming up so they just don't sound right to your typical punk ass 20 something -- too impressive in many cases, not filthy enough. Also these kids aren't really into just buying some product, they want to be down with an underground scene and friend group/tribe, and be authentic like some underground artist, they want to know what gear that artist uses, not which construction kit -- and lo and behold those artists came up without those kits so there's nothing there to emulate. Also I think folks tend to just feel like it's too easy and sense to one degree or another if it comes too easily it can't be that great, wrong or right.

You mention valid counterexamples for sure. I'd say for a solid, innovative artist, they'd tend to bring more important, homegrown elements to any prefab stuff they use. Otherwise it's just uninspired and probably not that fun to work on.

So I'm actually not saying what ought to be, I'm saying what is. As technology improves and expectations shift I think a lot of this will change but what I don't see changing is artists actually enjoying to do the work themselves. Not every single thing, but the activity of making art requires you to actually involve yourself in it and putting in the time satisfies something in us. To the degree the tech lets us focus on what nourishes us then I think we'll use it but if the tech cuts us out it's a no go.

Yeah...
Said like that, we agree mate...

There is many important points you mentioned on which I think exactly the same. I agree on the fact that some population will really try to dig about the music, the artist universe and all. That's what make it interesting. If the artist universe is an AI or a kit, they won't be very interested.
Of course you have the counter examples, like some Kpop or boysband where they are just here to dance and somebody is creating all the music behind.

Also I agree on the fact that the process of creating the music does matter also for the musician itself. There is many many ways to be creative. And when you reuse something, you loose some of the ways because part of the music creation process is done. So you really have to nail the part you are creating and that can be very challenging.

[Shabdahbriah]

music scenes composed of five people who met online

Sounds novel

Ive met at least two people in this thread, so we're 60% of a genre already.

those with multiple personality disorders can be several genres on their own.

you lot would say that...

{Iseewhatyoudidthere}

[mjudge55]

Yeah...
Said like that, we agree mate...

There is many important points you mentioned on which I think exactly the same. I agree on the fact that some population will really try to dig about the music, the artist universe and all. That's what make it interesting. If the artist universe is an AI or a kit, they won't be very interested.
Of course you have the counter examples, like some Kpop or boysband where they are just here to dance and somebody is creating all the music behind.

Also I agree on the fact that the process of creating the music does matter also for the musician itself. There is many many ways to be creative. And when you reuse something, you loose some of the ways because part of the music creation process is done. So you really have to nail the part you are creating and that can be very challenging.

Thought experiment for the thread: Someone invents a button that when pushed generates novel, brilliant music, or novel brilliant instruments, or novel brilliant musical ideas -- anything up and down the chain of activities a human has historically done to create, distribute, or perform music. Is there then no point in creating music? If no point, what are we supposed to do with the energies we used to spend making music? If there is a point, what is it?