Mass Producing Mediocrity?

[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.

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.

Actually, I might venture that technology is the facilitator of increased mediocrity. Someone who has never touched a piano keyboard becomes an artist of the evolving synth pad. It's not much different than what happens when a karaoke machine and people who've had too much to drink are in the same place at the same time.

[jancivil]

But there are many, many more examples of how technology has complicated a musician's life.
...
I've had to quickly learn ... 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 ...

Try to get someone who has the technique to do that one to give you unlimited performance for what it cost to purchase the host and vstis. Or, try and do it yourself.

Actually, much of what I 'sequence', I did learn manually, and much I still enter as realtime playing.
Hence my annoyance at seeing this tendency to think the machine is going to do that for you.

There isn't any easy payoff, the result tends to out this.

[jancivil]

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.

I don't know how you get to attribute a quality to 'technology', which is passive. It doesn't make sense to do.

"People would produce mediocrity anyway". What you don't seem to figure, is once upon a time, you wouldn't know about that mediocrity, or that excellence even, unless you were in the person's house making the thing.
The only public art had some form of sponsorship going. Which amounts to meeting a certain level of viability, whatever that may be. So, technology at this level means a lot more produced, which by percentages let's face it means a lot more low quality occurring, much of which finds some outlet and can pretend to be something to notice.

[eduardo_b]

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?

You may have hit upon the crux of the matter. Which came first, the technology or the goal? If it's the goal, then the individual is going to actively pursue it using whatever technology (be it guitar, synthesizer or drum kit -- hardware or virtual) is at hand. This doesn't mean the results will be excellent or even good, but the inspiration will be there.

If it's the technology as music software, there are two likely possibilities. One is that it will create inspiration, and for a person with innate talent the results may be quite good or at least show potential. Alternatively, the technology misleads the individual into thinking they have talent that isn't really there, and while there's nothing harmful in this per se, they may deem their efforts worthy of a wider audience. Public mediocrity is just not pretty, whereas private mediocrity can simply be a guilty pleasure.

[Ubiety]

I don't know how you get to attribute a quality to 'technology', which is passive. It doesn't make sense to do.

"People would produce mediocrity anyway". What you don't seem to figure, is once upon a time, you wouldn't know about that mediocrity, or that excellence even, unless you were in the person's house making the thing.
The only public art had some form of sponsorship going. Which amounts to meeting a certain level of viability, whatever that may be. So, technology at this level means a lot more produced, which by percentages let's face it means a lot more low quality occurring, much of which finds some outlet and can pretend to be something to notice.

People do assign quality to technology -- and we create the standards, mediocre though they are. You say technology is passive, what does that mean in the sense of regarding the quality of a computer operating system?

Another thing is that I'm not restricting the production of mediocrity to that which is facilitated by technology. I'm saying that mediocrity is produced in abundance on a continuing basis every single day that a person lives. There may be some bright spots were performance, and thus quality of production exceed expectation -- but by and large the quality of output highlights inefficiencies that leave us falling short of defined ideals or imagined ones most of the time.

[jancivil]

Now that is a thoughtful post.

I actually have moved away from my computer for a bit, as the process does color the inspiration, whether it's at or near the early part of the process or simply later in the 'build'..
for a similar instance, let's take an earlier technology, a piano: I'm going to have an equally tempered mindset, I can't bend any notes or anything on a keyboard like that, versus a guitar with real light strings and a whammy bar, I'm going to have two unlike palettes as a start.

It's almost a spiritual thing to have an imposed limitation sometimes, like 'I'm singing this song over a single guitar part until it sounds fantastic with nothing else happening', as opposed to a different process where you have a whole fake band available, you hear a bit of sweetening and you're doing that back and forth with the basic part. Which can richly inform the process, but what was the initial idea> shouldn't it be congruent with the inspiration?

[Ubiety]

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?

You may have hit upon the crux of the matter. Which came first, the technology or the goal?

At the moment, I think the goal came first. Man said, "I'm hungry", and so he went looking for food. Technology came into existence when Man first noticed it. Perhaps by accident (or by Monolith) Man noticed that the leg bone from a larger animal could be used to kill smaller animals that would be eaten for dinner. Creation of new technology only happened on a full belly (as surmised by Arthur C. Clarke).

[jancivil]

I don't know how you get to attribute a quality to 'technology', which is passive. It doesn't make sense to do.

"People would produce mediocrity anyway". What you don't seem to figure, is once upon a time, you wouldn't know about that mediocrity, or that excellence even, unless you were in the person's house making the thing.
The only public art had some form of sponsorship going. Which amounts to meeting a certain level of viability, whatever that may be. So, technology at this level means a lot more produced, which by percentages let's face it means a lot more low quality occurring, much of which finds some outlet and can pretend to be something to notice.

People do assign quality to technology -- and we create the standards, mediocre though they are. You say technology is passive, what does that mean in the sense of regarding the quality of a computer operating system?

Another thing is that I'm not restricting the production of mediocrity to that which is facilitated by technology. I'm saying that mediocrity is produced in abundance on a continuing basis every single day that a person lives. There may be some bright spots were performance, and thus quality of production exceed expectation -- but by and large the quality of output highlights inefficiencies that leave us falling short of defined ideals or imagined ones most of the time.

You're going for a different definition of quality than I meant.

'A quality stratocaster', versus 'stratocaster means quality music per se'.

Technology isn't the actor here. Per example: I can get an interesting enough result on a shit guitar that won't even intone properly.

[vespers75]

Per example: I can get an interesting enough result on a shit guitar that won't even intone properly.

Interesting to you, though maybe not to some others. (Not knocking your stuff, just an example)

One person may like what you do with a guitar, and not what I do with it. For another, the scenario may be the opposite.

As far as that goes, how easy is it to get access to a guitar these days? How many teenagers buy some guitar for chump change at a pawn shop, then form a garage band and play the same 3 power chords over and over? I venture its much easier to get a guitar these days than it ever was. Teenage garage bands have been "producing mediocrity" long before computer technology was readily available to the public.

[ivory1029]

Now that is a thoughtful post.

I actually have moved away from my computer for a bit, as the process does color the inspiration, whether it's at or near the early part of the process or simply later in the 'build'..
for a similar instance, let's take an earlier technology, a piano: I'm going to have an equally tempered mindset, I can't bend any notes or anything on a keyboard like that, versus a guitar with real light strings and a whammy bar, I'm going to have two unlike palettes as a start.

It's almost a spiritual thing to have an imposed limitation sometimes, like 'I'm singing this song over a single guitar part until it sounds fantastic with nothing else happening', as opposed to a different process where you have a whole fake band available, you hear a bit of sweetening and you're doing that back and forth with the basic part. Which can richly inform the process, but what was the initial idea> shouldn't it be congruent with the inspiration?

Some thoughtful and useful posts on this thread!

Back in school, I had a comp teacher who stressed two idealogies. One: the final proof in a successful composition should be, "does it WORK?", insinuating that the process to get there mattered less than the result. Common sense, maybe, but that fact can get lost sometimes in the morass of technology available. Two: he always preached putting as many limits on oneself as possible from the get-go, and then working as freely as possible within those limits. This, he reasoned, would produce consistently quality results, especially for a young pie-eyed student who wanted to reinvent the wheel with every piece.

Technology can be a tremendous asset to creativity, but it can also be, and more often is, a fatal distraction. It is human nature to follow the path of least resistance...to be able to transcend that human tendency is a gift.

[vurt]

Actually, I might venture that technology is the facilitator of increased mediocrity. Someone who has never touched a piano keyboard becomes an artist of the evolving synth pad. It's not much different than what happens when a karaoke machine and people who've had too much to drink are in the same place at the same time.

people having fun
oh my, we must stamp it out now!!!

[vespers75]

As for measuring greatness, it's not really quantifiable

Agreed, which pretty much renders this:

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.

as having little relevance to anything aside from a generic history lesson riddled with the previous opinions of others.

[jancivil]

Actually, I might venture that technology is the facilitator of increased mediocrity. Someone who has never touched a piano keyboard becomes an artist of the evolving synth pad. It's not much different than what happens when a karaoke machine and people who've had too much to drink are in the same place at the same time.

people having fun
oh my, we must stamp it out now!!!

People having fun in public behaving basically the same as if it's a private space, hmmmmm.

I thought this was sort of a discussion of relative values in art, but hey, "anything goes" is the mindset in these 'postmodern' times innit.

[jancivil]

Per example: I can get an interesting enough result on a shit guitar that won't even intone properly.

Interesting to you, though maybe not to some others. (Not knocking your stuff, just an example)

One person may like what you do with a guitar, and not what I do with it. For another, the scenario may be the opposite.

As far as that goes, how easy is it to get access to a guitar these days? How many teenagers buy some guitar for chump change at a pawn shop, then form a garage band and play the same 3 power chords over and over? I venture its much easier to get a guitar these days than it ever was. Teenage garage bands have been "producing mediocrity" long before computer technology was readily available to the public.

Hello, the simple enough argument there, which you can choose to ignore, why not, was:
the technology, *passive*, doesn't equal the quality of the *act*.

And, you just made that argument ever more concrete. I take a shitty guitar and do something you never heard the like of; a teenage kid with little to no experience with the vocabularies available takes that same instrument to explore Louie Louie, the endless cycle. THEREFORE, the technology is passive. It isn't the actor.

Taste considerations beside the point, entirely.

[vurt]

Actually, I might venture that technology is the facilitator of increased mediocrity. Someone who has never touched a piano keyboard becomes an artist of the evolving synth pad. It's not much different than what happens when a karaoke machine and people who've had too much to drink are in the same place at the same time.

people having fun
oh my, we must stamp it out now!!!

People having fun in public behaving basically the same as if it's a private space, hmmmmm.

public, ie for everyone.
you dont have to be there though.

I thought this was sort of a discussion of relative values in art, but hey, "anything goes" is the mindset in these 'postmodern' times innit.

well, i never goed to skool to learn what i was allowed to like, is that what you mean?