Mass Producing Mediocrity?

[jancivil]

jancivil: You can't have your cake and eat it too. Pick one.

1) Mozart was so skilled that much of his work was completed without having to expend great effort on several technical aspects (almost as if those aspect became transparent for him... almost as if he were applying a set of rules so consistently that he could have codified them and set them up to save time for himself so he could focus on creative work rather than mechanical notation that was so obvious to him that he could multi-task it).

2) Mozart struggled and his music was great because he struggled. If it had been easy for him, he wouldn't have written great music.

Pick one and defend it. My remarks were entirely aimed at disputing the validity of the second one.

Hey, guess what, given the level of your recent remarks, it's not shocking that you go for this either/or dichotomy,

Pick one? No. I don't know, I can't know, you don't know either, you were not there.
From what I've read, he had great facility, extremely unusual facility from an improbably early age. I have seen accounts of some pieces he worked feverishly on. [NB: I did NOT base anything I said on any supposition of that, and it's ENTIRELY beside the point.]
He used the same instruments that were available to whatever other musicians at the time, as far as I know.
You ignore, conveniently enough my point of, "what technology was it that made it so easy for the guy?".
That's the argument. You choose to go somewhere else irrelevant to that, what hey.

Your "remarks were aimed at..." bullshit.
Those remarks after my answer were aimed at disputing something I hadn't claimed, and are a revised history of this thread.

To repeat: my argument was merely that having a machine do your work for you to a certain level, what we have now, is going to result in a process of laziness and some very suspect music. You don't have to go far to find evidence of this.

[eduardo_b]

but some people are more than capable of achieving great things without an arduous process, whereas others may struggle but achieve nothing of significance.

In the end though, isn't it really the 'listeners' that decide if something is 'great'?

I suppose most of us are familiar with the phrase, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." It's both true and yet not a measure of what great art is.

Listeners can like what they like, but that doesn't confer greatness. Not saying there are absolutes or that one is obligated to like what the establishment says is worthy, but I also recognize that many people have very simple tastes in music that filter out songs or works that are too challenging. And they know little or nothing about the creative process, from inspiration to recording technology, behind that music. How easy or challenging the process was isn't even a concept. Those who are familiar with music history and great composers/musicians will have a different appreciation than many.

There's a Joni Mitchell live album in which people are shouting out requests, and she remarks about how people regard art. "Hey man, paint another Starry Night." As if all her songs are simply manufactured. Van Gogh used the technology of his day, which was available to many, but only he painted that innovative view of the night sky. Do we depend on those who don't know about art and may or may not be moved by this work to determine it's worth among all the art produced by uncounted millions of people with access to the technology of painting? Was creating this work easy or difficult for the artist? We don't know, and it doesn't matter.

Technology cannot replace talent and a gifted creative spirit. And those who listen to music created with the help of technology don't know or care about the technology. They only hear what someone did with that technology. I don't think technology by itself makes any of this easier, because it is only a tool -- one that may or may not make the creative process easier...or possibly better.

[vespers75]

I suppose most of us are familiar with the phrase, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." It's both true and yet not a measure of what great art is.

How can one "measure" what great art is, though? Upon what authority is something proclaimed great art?

Mental illness maybe? Is "Starry Night" great art because Van Gogh was a nut-job that cut part of his ear off and gave it to a hooker? (the relationship between eccentric artists and mental instability would make for another interesting thread itself, actually)

[loose snare]

Take away all 'modern' music technology.

What happens to the quality of music?

I'd say you'd lose a lot of innovation and ingenuity ..... but also a lot (I mean a lot) of crap 'no effort to make' music......

Now imagine taking away all modern visual and information technology, instead.

What would happen to the quality of music then?

What kinds of bands will be successful now, when they can only rely on a few low quality publicity photos in a B/W edition of Melody Maker, taken with an analog camera and no airbrushing the rest all words. No CH4 interviews with Amstell.

Or what if we had a myspace but it was like a directory of band names only together with mp3 clips, brief biogs and any live dates.

What if a band's image was defined pretty much by the album artwork, so the rest of the time they had nothing else to do but write and perform songs.... what if their personality - or dare I say it: 'character' -was defined by their music.....

I'm just saying..... hypothetically - to make a point you understand.

Everyone talks about modern music technology making music mediocre - I think it's predominantly all the other technologies that are to blame.

[loose snare]

I suppose most of us are familiar with the phrase, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." It's both true and yet not a measure of what great art is.

How can one "measure" what great art is, though? Upon what authority is something proclaimed great art?

Exactly!!! You stumbled backwards fell over and landed on the jackpot!

The very definition of 'great art' is that you know it's great art without anyone having to tell you. It moves you, it stops you dead in your tracks, it f**ks you up with its beauty or power or meaning. It doesn't need pseudo intellectual, post modern, bullshit explanation telling you the artist is exploring the themes of x, y using the medium of z blah blah blah...... great art hits you in the chest, causes your mind to explode with ideas and thought - to resonate with it .... or maybe even stops all your thoughts altogether.

You represent perfectly this modern age- an age where we were all brought up to actually believe the lie that art can be anything.... some bent steel girders next to a library - art! .... an unmade bed - art!.... some sculpture made out of rubbish - art! etc etc It's bullshit. It's a con. A scam. It's just decoration. Virtually all so called art you are exposed to is really just decoration.

Art is more than decoration, one of the defining aspects of art is that it can be great.... and great art can tell us important powerful things we don't know, or have forgotten, or things we know but can't quite express ourselves, ..... great art can move people, change them, WAKE THEM UP!!!! ........ and that is threatening to some people!!!

A bunch of twats sipping champagne staring at a pickled sheep is no threat to anyone.

[vespers75]

You represent perfectly this modern age

Me?

[Per Lichtman]

Good point; but even the MECHANICAL elements, the nuts and bolts, you have to do some actual work, get your hands dirty, learn the grammar, nothing worthwhile comes without it.

And, I'm pretty sure big of Wolfgang struggled with some details of counterpoint before a thing was finished.
At any rate, the tools didn't suss his work out for him, of that I'm quite sure.


For example, I can improvise freely in totally convincing dodecaphony, but I go in and work the thing til it's done. And I got to there by some brain-wracking days and boring ass all-nite research into what went on in that grammar.


But, hey one can stick with Trance and sound real convincing with your arpeggiator and your prefab beats in a box, and whole lotta peoples think you done good. That's fine, but not everybody's convinced; and when you come in a room and say, 'what key am I in', some people might not think you're the coolest dude in the school you know.

Jancivil, your earlier comments were thought provoking and interesting. I got frustrated because the connotations of certain words and passages you used implied that the only path to art was through arduous work, that there weren't alternatives.

In my own experience, I have had to struggle a lot just like you have, with the technical aspects. Others have struggled more with the psychological than the mechanical aspects. Some have been blessed with the ability to express something beautiful, and that ability need only be nurtured rather than forged or refined. It would be easier for people like you and me to know that that such people weren't out there, but they are.

I was not trying to personally attack you, but rather to get you to clarify an apparent paradox between posts. It may simply have been a case of the emphasis of the posts being different than they came off.

What I was trying to say is this: When things line up for a great artist or genius, it can be as if they become a conduit for the music rather than the architect or craftsman of it. In those cases, their the craft and architecture were tools enabled the expression of their music but did not cause the music to be great. Each composer uses the tools of their era and a great composer may be able to do more with the humblest tools than an uninspiring composer might do with the very best tools available. I see the role of tools, of technology, in music as being one of increasing the transparency between composer and music.

As a film score composer today, you don't have to know how to "count feet" of film like many earlier generations did, in order to figure out timings.

As a composer of classical music, you do not have to make sure that I have ample ink and parchment available when I wish to express my ideas, as so many earlier generations did.

I imagine the day when I have children of my own and watch them grow up, as I have watched my youngest brother do, and wonder what avenues they will have for the creative expression and endeavors in their life. I hope that technology will have advanced even further, so that they can spend less time on mechanics and more time on creativity and expression. If they never have to learn about transposition because there is software that handles it for them; or if there is an aid in there composition program that lets them know when they are composing passages that will be difficult for the instrumentalist to perform for reasons of tempo, dynamics, range or simply running out of breath; then I would be a happy father to watch their compositions arise more effortlessly from them and think the compositions were no less their own then if they had, had to learn all the rules you and I did.

All I am saying is: it doesn't have to be hard to be wonderful.

I am sorry if I said in a way that made us seem polarized. As I said, I had honestly enjoyed your posts a great deal and only became frustrated with the one I quoted above for the reasons I have already mentioned. I didn't mean to attack you personally, nor to make you angry, only to bring your attention to the idea that you seemed to be bringing in an idea in that post that wasn't in alignment with your others and that the two couldn't seem to be reconciled.

I am sorry I chose my words hastily and poorly and hope that you will put thought into your response as well. The last thing I wanted to do was to raise anger on a day as special and important as this one.

[Per Lichtman]

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart used to play pool, drink and do other leisure activities while he notated the inner voices of many of his works and could easily remember a piece after he first heard it, without having to exert great effort. Since he is considered one of the most talented composers that ever lived, I would have to say that making things easy for someone does not stop them from creating great work.

*It was easy for Mozart because he had improbable talent*, what in the WORLD does that have to do with the availability of a sequencer to give you a result for relatively no effort?! Did he get that facility out of having an easier keyboard than the other guy? what are you even talking about?

You have got to be kidding me.

Also, my comment that you quoted here was directed at Eduardo B's response to your comment, not your comment itself.

[Ubiety]

Mass Producing Mediocrity?

I was just thinking that humans produce mediocrity regardless of the tools at their disposal. Inventions that become meaningful, i.e., considered useful, depends largely on the disposition of the inventor and society at large. There have been many failed experiments - we expect there to be many. That's the norm. Only a few experiments yield results that we decide are useful. We then replicate those meaningful results over and over again until those results are exceeded by other meaningful results. We discard otherwise.

We are always dealing with product that falls short of expectations in some way. Mediocrity does not necessarily mean not useful. It just means that we expect better.

Also, I don't believe that humans ever set out to be mediocre. Each works according to his or her ability at any given time. That is, given our capability at any time, we perform to our best levels. We are more capable at some times than other times, and our ability is always influenced by what is at our disposal that would help us to pursue our objectives. Knowledge, energy, tools, and other factors continually impact our ability to produce, regardless of internal and external expectations.

Standards of achievement exist (standards that we created), but we do not always produce to those levels. Again, most of the time we fall short. But even if one sets out to give the worst performance ever, one still only achieves the best result that he or she was capable of at that time. This is one reason why it might be better to be process oriented than goal oriented.

(Hope this makes sense. It's a bunch of ideas all jumbled together that I don't feel like refining. I have neither the energy or will to do so. I'm not as capable right now as I have been at other times. )

[Ogg Vorbis]

As a film score composer today, you don't have to know how to "count feet" of film like many earlier generations did, in order to figure out timings.

As a composer of classical music, you do not have to make sure that I have ample ink and parchment available when I wish to express my ideas, as so many earlier generations did.

Just to go off of what Per is talking about here... I am so damn grateful that I don't have to count sprocket holes in film, punch holes in film or scrape silver oxide off of a reel for timing purposes, etc.

These were things that were very laborious and rather unmusical chores and if you got them wrong, you had to beg for another reel to do it all over again!

But there are many, many more examples of how technology has complicated a musician's life. Per brings up examples of computers simplifying things, but these victories are instantly replaced by complexities that I had never bargained for.

For example, I never thought I would have to become something of an expert in repairing cables, reinstalling an OS, downloading and configuring hardware drivers, tweaking system settings to allow more than one plug-in at a time to work, elaborate workarounds to getting a network set up, figuring out which MIDI CC channel is controlled by a particular knob on an old Roland workstation and setting up the automation track accordingly just so I can get the trombone effect I'm after, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Plus, just the whole signal routing thing. I've had to quickly learn aux sends and returns, sidechaining, insert effects, group channels, submixes, sending some MIDI data to one source and other data to an outboard source, and so on. Here's one. Try to get VSL to do simple variations in articulations, such as detache' to pizz, to stacc. It can do it, but it's like driving a tank full speed and firing at a passing speedboat.

So in most cases I can think of, technology has made things far more difficult and complex. The payoff is that you can get professional level results that clients are impressed with.

My notation is a great example. My hand written sheets have always looked like crap. The notation programs are slower and do some really stupid things! Even when you import a MIDI file as a "leg up" you have to spend hours fixing its interpretation of the data.

But, the final product looks like something that only Schirmer and Dover could have done in the past.

You can tell I'm old, can't you.

[Ubiety]

I have some Schirmers and Dovers in a box here somewhere.

[eduardo_b]

I suppose most of us are familiar with the phrase, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." It's both true and yet not a measure of what great art is.

How can one "measure" what great art is, though? Upon what authority is something proclaimed great art?

Mental illness maybe? Is "Starry Night" great art because Van Gogh was a nut-job that cut part of his ear off and gave it to a hooker? (the relationship between eccentric artists and mental instability would make for another interesting thread itself, actually)

To me, these biographical issues would be irrelevant. If how easy or difficult the artistic process might be doesn't count, and I don't think it does, then the mental state of the artist also would be unimportant. Art, ultimately, stands on its own. Yes, it can be placed in a cultural context (such as the British invasion and the San Francisco/Vietnam era of the 60s), but that is peripheral to the work itself. And, as you note, genius is often associated with unusual psychological issues.

As for measuring greatness, it's not really quantifiable, but anyone who has taken art, music, literature or other classes, or studied these subjects, knows there is an extensive body of information, analysis and interpretation regarding them. That's true for current cultural art as well.

And there have always been fads in the arts, just like in everything else. Some, but not much, of it endures when the fad goes away, but there's always those who remain fans both because they never stopped liking whatever it was and because there's some nostalgic sense of that time and place. Is any of this stuff great. It depends on who you ask, but the "experts" are more than willing to tell you.

To me, a lot of artists are overrated by their fans or underrated by critics. Their work is often inconsistent or their best work was early on. True fans sometimes overlook or deny these things, but some of us accept that in art, as in everything else, talent is uneven and often ephemeral. If there's a place for the biographical aspects of these artists, it's in how at different points in their life they were driven to create or simply to stay in the game. The public is fickle, and those who were once famous often become cultural waste -- as in "whatever happened to so-and-so?"

And, of course, technology doesn't change any of this.

[eduardo_b]

Everyone talks about modern music technology making music mediocre - I think it's predominantly all the other technologies that are to blame.

I don't see this. I actually am convinced that the overwhelming amount of mediocrity is a result of the technology being easily affordable for so many people. That means both the talented and the decidedly untalented have access to the same technology, but with vast differing results. The Internet has made it possible for both the small percentage of talented and the large number of untalented to present the results of their use of modern music technology. It was inevitable, and I'm really fine with it as long as the much larger group doesn't try and pretend they have more talent than they do. Self-expression is an important aspect of life, but one should be realistic about it. Owning lots of plug-ins and a host or three isn't a magic pass to artistic excellence.

[Ubiety]

Everyone talks about modern music technology making music mediocre - I think it's predominantly all the other technologies that are to blame.

I don't see this. I actually am convinced that the overwhelming amount of mediocrity is a result of the technology being easily affordable for so many people.

There's always an "overwhelming" amount of mediocrity. Technology would either facilitate the production of mediocrity or not, but people would produce mediocrity anyway. People also produce technology. Come to think of it, I don't see a distinction between technology and mediocrity.

If it's technology, then it's mediocre at best. And we, us humans, produced both.

[jancivil]

Mass Producing Mediocrity?

I don't believe that humans ever set out to be mediocre. Each works according to his or her ability at any given time. That is, given our capability at any time, we perform to our best levels. We are more capable at some times than other times, and our ability is always influenced by what is at our disposal that would help us to pursue our objectives. Knowledge, energy, tools, and other factors continually impact our ability to produce, regardless of internal and external expectations.

Standards of achievement exist (standards that we created), but we do not always produce to those levels. Again, most of the time we fall short. But even if one sets out to give the worst performance ever, one still only achieves the best result that he or she was capable of at that time. This is one reason why it might be better to be process oriented than goal oriented.

I kind of like your 'process oriented' thought, but personally it's less of an absolute distinction than it might be elsewhere. If 'goal oriented', what's the impetus for the goal?

If the idea is for the sake of the idea, I don't think anyone can be said to be pursuing mediocrity.
If the idea is, 'I'm going to craft this product, as a replacement in the chart action for this or that, eg., this will occupy Pink's or Britney's slot in the top forty, I think that's a different case to consider, I honestly do.