Mass Producing Mediocrity?

[vurt]

yes, because before computers all music was brilliant.

[Per Lichtman]

You know, I think when it comes down to it, a lot of people aren't really talking about "what music is being produced" but rather what music they have to deal with in some way in their own lives. It's really important to recognize that these two are different.

The United States has the largest music industry in the world, England the second largest and Sweden the third. But how familiar would you say the average American is with Aboriginal music or the music produced in the Czech. Republic or Slovakia? Music is being produced all the time that most of us never hear about and are never exposed to, and honestly don't usually think about. But if a given person has to frequently listen to (or be otherwise to) music they don't like, then that tends to be something they feel quite strongly about.

So when we talk about "the music being produced" it really is something quite different from "the music I am presented with in my own life".

[eduardo_b]

Long story short, I don't see anything wrong with the existence of loops and production tools for those that want to produce or edit rather than compose original works.

I chose to focus on this particular sentence in your really excellent post because it seems so completely central to the topic of music tools and music. Loops, presets and samples are tools in the same way that pianos and drums are tools. The works created using them can be derivative, unique, marginal, unoriginal, wonderful. The creative process itself determines this, which includes both talent and attention to craft and detail.

I find very little of compellingly great quality on KVR and a multitude of sites, but sometimes there are good musical ideas in these works that were not properly developed. It could be a lack of talent or a lack of patience and craft, but I also think the tools themselves can make it seem as if the work is easier than it really is for music that isn't trite, mediocre, unoriginal. We're not talking about composing original work per se, but using loops, presets and samples is certainly an exercise in composition, and the final effort can itself be original.

[vurt]

So when we talk about "the music being produced" it really is something quite different from "the music I am presented with in my own life".

thats one thing that kinda what pisses me off, all these people that say "music is shit these days" and then when probed you find they mean that which is on the radio and that they have made no effort to look for anything else.
lazy bastards if you ask me.
you know who you are, but youre probably too lazy to even reply!

[Per Lichtman]

Long story short, I don't see anything wrong with the existence of loops and production tools for those that want to produce or edit rather than compose original works.

I chose to focus on this particular sentence in your really excellent post because it seems so completely central to the topic of music tools and music. Loops, presets and samples are tools in the same way that pianos and drums are tools. The works created using them can be derivative, unique, marginal, unoriginal, wonderful. The creative process itself determines this, which includes both talent and attention to craft and detail.

I find very little of compellingly great quality on KVR and a multitude of sites, but sometimes there are good musical ideas in these works that were not properly developed. It could be a lack of talent or a lack of patience and craft, but I also think the tools themselves can make it seem as if the work is easier than it really is for music that isn't trite, mediocre, unoriginal. We're not talking about composing original work per se, but using loops, presets and samples is certainly an exercise in composition, and the final effort can itself be original.

I would say that "composition" is only one type of musical expression, and there are other types of musical expression that require great skill and creativity. For instance, on a given project you might have a composer, an arranger and an orchestrator and they could all be different people or they could all be the same person. It wouldn't make sense to call them all composers, right?

I would say that "producing" has come to mean a certain level of arrangement and sometimes even sound design, mixing or any number of things. The lines aren't really as clear as between say for instance photography and painting.

But to look at the three examples you chose, here are some arbitrary analogues that came to mind.

Using loops: re-purposing an existing performance in much the way that collage is a re-purposing of existing visual elements into a new form.

Using presets: this is more akin to specifying different instruments, or at the very least different specific makes or model of the same instrument, as opposed to working on sound design or inventing/greatly modifying an existing instrument. We never asked Mozart to invent a new instrument, and similarly I don't think that a modern orchestral composer should feel ashamed of using a preset.

Using samples: depends on the context of the sample to an extent. If we are talking about multi-samples (such as Synthogy Ivory or Dan Dean Woodwinds), then it really is just a question of specifying a given type of performance for each individual note. That's something that the conductor and performer often end up having to do from the more "macro" instructions that the composer provides, though those instructions have grown more specific over the years. In other words, samples can be a way of helping get the sound out of a particular note that a composer wants, and at that point they are a compositional tool. But if they are used to spare the composer the "tedium" of having to choose individual notes or performance characteristics/articulations for a given section, then that is moving from the act of composition to the act of producing, editing or arranging. A great deal of skill and creativity can be present in this completely valid form of artistic expression, where it is the integration of these elements into a new context (in a rather post-modernist fashion) that, once again, is to composing as collage is to painting: a distinct but equally valid discipline.

[eduardo_b]

Eduardo, I mean nothing personal when I say that you are quite simply misinterpreting the overall content of my posts. I said, in multiple places, that the mass media has a huge effect on what we hear. I also said the quantity and quality of music is largely independent from what the mass media (and for that matter, many historians) choose to point our attention to.

But as filters or dams behind which the vast sea of music resides, mass media (the music business) has a better track record than do all the sites with links to non-commercial (read as unsigned) music when it comes to quality. I sample a variety of new music all the time and am more often pleasantly surprised at the talent to be found in commercial releases relative to what I hear when I select links here, there and everywhere.

I'm not trying to interpret the entirety of your posts, although I realize there are certainly contextual issues by selecting specific parts. I'm looking at that which is more directly relevant to the experience of those who find their way to KVR, where current technology tools are a focus. My apologies for doing so if you disagree with this approach.

There is no direct link between industry preferences and the quality and quantity of music. Sometimes they line up, sometimes they don't. That's what I meant by the quality and quantity of music being "independent from" what we are exposed to: what we are exposed to has more to do with the preferences of individual gatekeepers, of a business or market as a whole, or even with the culture of the time than it does on any academic or "musical" measure of the quality of the work.

Given that industry preferences seem to be whatever rises to the top in each genre (larger companies cross genre lines in ways that smaller, more specialized labels may not), they may sometimes pander to what is popular, but they also seek to break new acts that will create interest among those who are not finding much in what's already available. And they can offer a talent pool of producers who bring a higher level of their own talent to the work of the musicians. All of which is to say, I think there is more of a link than not for quality compared to outside the industry on a percentage or ratio basis. And that influence does come to affect those creating music in the box.

Throughout all of recorded history, there have always been less talented composers that got more promotion, more money or more commissions than less talented ones. There have also been amazing ones that went un-noticed. The situation hasn't changed, just the tools involved.

I suppose the central point is which is more common. Going back to quantity and quality, it seems to me that the odds of having less talented people getting more push and more talented artists being ignored is more of the former and less of the latter as the quantity increases. It's in the industry's self interest to find and promote the most talented. In the long run, these are the writers, composers and artists who will generate the most money for themselves and the companies that have invested in them. This is quite the opposite of what happens outside the industry, where the marginally talented run rampant. Where does the greatest influence on those using current music technology come from. I'd think from the industry more often than not.

Again, my apologies if you feel I've not given your excellent posts correct interpretation.

[eduardo_b]

So when we talk about "the music being produced" it really is something quite different from "the music I am presented with in my own life".

thats one thing that kinda what pisses me off, all these people that say "music is shit these days" and then when probed you find they mean that which is on the radio and that they have made no effort to look for anything else.
lazy bastards if you ask me.

Well, it could be what's on the radio, but they might very well also be referring to what is linked to on various music sites on the Internet. It's not as if the majority of music not on the radio is really any better.

you know who you are, but youre probably too lazy to even reply!

It's not me and I only wish I was too lazy not to reply.

[eduardo_b]

I would say that "composition" is only one type of musical expression, and there are other types of musical expression that require great skill and creativity. For instance, on a given project you might have a composer, an arranger and an orchestrator and they could all be different people or they could all be the same person. It wouldn't make sense to call them all composers, right?

No, they're not all composers in the traditional sense of the term. They do, of course, contribute to the final results...the performance of the composition.

This leads me to realize that you are taking a much grander scale regarding this thread than I have been. I'm thinking of the hundreds of threads here in which non-professionals are attempting to be part of music creativity -- an opportunity largely the result of new music technologies. I remember reading the Mark Wherry piece in SOS and thinking how much it applies to what has happened to music "composition" in this decade. The democratization of the process through computers and software has had many consequences for many people and industries. And for music as well. With both negative and positive aspects. Like life itself.

[vurt]

what exactly has happened to music "composition" this past decade?
i cant say ive heard anything that had not gone before composition wise positive or negative imo...

[eduardo_b]

what exactly has happened to music "composition" this past decade?
i cant say ive heard anything that had not gone before composition wise positive or negative imo...

Quantity. And this applies particularly to instrumentation and mixing. I mean, it was the rare individual who was fluent with one or two instruments as it was, let alone many, when it was all hardware. But with virtual instruments, anyone can basically use a wide variety of instruments, badly or well, to create musical compositions. And mix them, badly or well, right there in their bedroom.

And I think the theme is how this rising quantity has fared in terms of quality. Is the ratio higher, lower, about the same. The piece in SOS tilted toward higher I think -- more quantity, less quality.

[elxsound]

I thought some very valid points were made in the article.

Now how "mediocre" is defined, while purely subjective, changes the meaning of the article in many ways, so I'm disappointed it wasn't explained more.

From what I understood, it was that the influence of technology and ease of access (I'm inserting ease of access) to technology in music, which creates an over abundance of individuals sounding very much the same.

I can say from my own experience that writing a song based on what I'm playing on the guitar vs. writing a song with synths produces extremely different results. One of the reasons, was as mentioned... the default setting of BPM. I actually changed my default setting after noticing that the first week I did anything electronic based, most of the songs were set right at 120 BPM.

Even look at some of the standards created from access to technology. Perfect pitch is what we hear in mainstream music even though vocalist that sing the songs can't actually produce perfect pitch. Thanks to vocal pitch control tools, just about anyone can sing a catchy hook without complaints (except for Jay-lo), but it also means lack of individuality. This has lead to many financially successful music careers, that has produced many forgettable albums which in turn has allowed popular music to become as trendy as clothing and lacking any notable classic hits.

It doesn't mean things will alway remain stagnate... there have been various answers through out the years as a result of stale or subpar music. Keeping in mind the subjective nature of the conversation, the following is debatable, but Chuck Berry was an answer to Glen Miller, Nirvana and grunge was an answer to Glam Rock, NWA was an answer to the Fat Boys and Glitch was/is an answer to perfectly synched midi notes. I'm still waiting for an answer for Britney Spears, popular RnB, popular hip hop and all other popular crappy pop stuff. There's a hell of a lot of mediocrity in popular music right now, but mediocrity usually forces something better... eventually.

[vurt]

i find it hard to complain though in a world where little suze believes she is as good as madonna or britney(rightly or wrongly) and therefore stops funding a dying industry which only truley serves the fat bastards paedo mongers at the top of the chain, who also seem to be the only ones complaining. you will find very few artists who complain about piracy, its usually the labels.

i can see what you mean about the ratio of quality perhaps not being the same, but id also like the chance for anyone and everyone to find out if they have anything to offer.
when i started out being interested in music, my family had little in the way of cash to spare on frivilous items and i made do with a tape recorder and a guitar plugged straight in to that, using that to then manipulate the tape with scissors or heat or any other method i could think of. i could never have afforded a moog or whatever...
fast forward to now, if that was me now i imagine id have access to more of the equipment that was inpiring the sounds i was after
maybe the ease of it would have removed my passion, i cant say, but id still like to have been given the chance maybe.
what im saying is id rather the next "beethoven" "lennon" or whoever didnt have to be some one like ronson who has more money than talent

[Cordelia]

What a great thread. I wish I had something to add, but just wanted to say thank you (to Per Lichtman especially) for the interesting and thought provoking responses.
Nice way to start my day.
Carry on...

[eduardo_b]

i find it hard to complain though in a world where little suze believes she is as good as madonna or britney(rightly or wrongly) and therefore stops funding a dying industry which only truley serves the fat bastards paedo mongers at the top of the chain, who also seem to be the only ones complaining. you will find very few artists who complain about piracy, its usually the labels.

Actually, that's the upside of the democratization of music. Anyone, including little suze, gets to create music and believe whatever they want regarding it. I don't think anyone would want to take that away from others.

i can see what you mean about the ratio of quality perhaps not being the same, but id also like the chance for anyone and everyone to find out if they have anything to offer.

I think the issue is an observational one, not right or wrong, good or bad. The point is that the greater opportunity to make music through evolving technologies means really good music may be harder to come by or simply find.

What might be more of an impact is the ability of musicians and vocalists to earn a living. Beyond the small circle of true talent...the kind that shines with its own light, is a large border of varying talent, beyond which is the much larger zone of mediocrity. Within this bordering area are lots of people who may or may not make a living playing live, being a session player or recording/producing. I think the ability to be heard and even get gigs that pay will be increasingly difficult because 1) lots more people are able to participate in the process and 2) there's so much free or low-priced music that only those in the inner circle have a real chance at making a living or even having great financial success. Ironically, greater overall opportunity has come at the cost of a decreasing likelihood of having a career in music.

[eduardo_b]

What a great thread. I wish I had something to add, but just wanted to say thank you (to Per Lichtman especially) for the interesting and thought provoking responses.
Nice way to start my day.
Carry on...

On which continent do you live?