Mass Producing Mediocrity?

[Ubiety]

I think a lot of what I deem mediocre music around the Internet, and in the Music Cafe here, isn't necessarily a problem with the musical ideas but often the production values. Funny how even average music sounds better when it sounds better.

And sometimes your girlfriend singing directly into your ear is the best music you've ever heard.

No limiters, full dynamic range.

[vespers75]

And sometimes your girlfriend singing directly into your ear is the best music you've ever heard.

No limiters, full dynamic range.

Now that is a theory I can get behind.

[jancivil]

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.

A different definition of quality? I'm talking about mediocrity; whether something is considered not very good relative to the expectation or desire for it to be better.

Also, I'm talking about the quality of production. The quality of production regardless of whether it is technology that is produced, something else, or whether technology facilitates production.

Your "quality stratocaster', versus 'stratocaster means quality music" example has been addressed.

yes, a different, dictionary definition of 'quality'. Are you deficient in English, I mean is it not your native tongue? If so, or regardless, here is a brief lesson:

QUALITY (I'll limit myself to two definitions):

1: level of excellence
2: differentiating property


you see the difference here? the usage I went for, you'd derive *qualitative* from that. "of descriptions or distinctions based on some quality (as opposed to some 'quantity')"


some examples: you describe a triad as having a major or minor 'quality'. one isn't 'more better' than the other, it's assigning specific 'qualitative information' to its component parts.

assigning a quality as I used it, to a passive set of tools, is absurd. NOTE the article 'a' here.

Mediocrity in art, attributed to the tools, makes no sense. But, I've already made that argument well enough.
Still you want to argue about, something.

[vurt]

:woo we're spiralling down :

[jancivil]

We're in muck there anyways. Can you spiral either way in muck?

Somebody wants to argue, I'll give 'em argument.

[vurt]

Somebody wants to argue, I'll give 'em argument.

argue, yes, you do seem to do that well.
its substance you tend to lack.

[hao nao]

I'd just like to mention that my own mediocrity is hand-crafted in a hasty, slapdash manner that does not involve mass-production.

[Ubiety]

yes, a different, dictionary definition of 'quality'. Are you deficient in English, I mean is it not your native tongue? If so, or regardless, here is a brief lesson:

QUALITY (I'll limit myself to two definitions):

1: level of excellence
2: differentiating property


you see the difference here? the usage I went for, you'd derive *qualitative* from that. "of descriptions or distinctions based on some quality (as opposed to some 'quantity')"


some examples: you describe a triad as having a major or minor 'quality'. one isn't 'more better' than the other, it's assigning specific 'qualitative information' to its component parts.

assigning a quality as I used it, to a passive set of tools, is absurd. NOTE the article 'a' here.

Mediocrity in art, attributed to the tools, makes no sense. But, I've already made that argument well enough.
Still you want to argue about, something.

OK. Up until now I've been polite for your benefit. Last attempt.

This discussion is does not refer to the multiple meanings of quality. It merely refers to a type of quality. Mediocrity. Therefore it is presumed that any mention of quality in this discussion refers to a type of quality rather than the indefinable term of quality itself. (I know that meanings of quality are given in a dictionary, but they are meaningless absent reference to types of quality. Types that do have cogent meanings.)

You can speak about "levels of excellence" and "differentiating properties" all day, but those terms are meaningless in themselves. Only when one refers to a particular level of excellence or particular differentiating property would any meaning be conveyed, and thus understood. For example, a scale that measures excellence would highlight the shortcomings of mediocre performers relative to performers who perform well.

No one is speaking about regarding the quality of a hammer as it hangs in the tool shed. (Though there is nothing to prevent one from doing that if one has a reason to do so. Still life artists make such qualitative assessments every day.) However, what is being discussed is regarding the quality of a hammer in use, the quality of the observable and achievable results, the quality of the performance of the person using the hammer, and the quality of the product whose invention was facilitated by a person's use of the hammer.

If a certain paintbrush is supposed to produce a smooth finish but instead produces a textured finish, then that is not a very good paintbrush.

As for triad qualities and chord qualities, it depends on their contextual use for the triads and chords to have any meaning at all. You can talk about the quality of triads and chords all day, but those triads and chords have no meaning outside a given musical context. So -- you might not want to end your piece on a Minor 7(b5).

The quality of a tool does determine quality of output to a limited extent. A paintbrush dipped in paint produces a readily observable result on the canvas. No, it is not responsible for the quality of a completed piece, in fact many types of brushes may have been used in the completion of the piece. Other types of utensils might also have been used. The painter assumes the responsibility of the quality of the work. However, the quality of the paintbrush and the paint will both have inherent characteristics, strengths and weaknesses, that the painter attempts to manipulate and exploit. It does come down to the capability of the painter, and as such the quality of paintbrushes and other materials impact the performance of the artist and the final product.

[Edited for clarity.]

[Ubiety]

An example of absurdity:

assigning a quality as I used it, to a passive set of tools, is absurd.

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.

Yes. Absurdity. What determines the guitar to be a "shit guitar"?

[vurt]

Why? Some are possibly rebelling against the super-slick polished production sound of contemporary releases, and are tired of hearing that shit.

and isnt the music of the youth supposed to annoy the fogeys?
seems like everythings as it should be to me.
carry on.

[herodotus]

Has it ever struck anyone that there something kind of, I don't know.....bitchy about all of these complaints about how widespread musical technology makes for widespread crappy music?

It's like saying that Play-doh cheapened the art of sculpting, or that Polaroid cameras cheapened the graphic arts.

[vespers75]

Why? Some are possibly rebelling against the super-slick polished production sound of contemporary releases, and are tired of hearing that shit.

and isnt the music of the youth supposed to annoy the fogeys?
seems like everythings as it should be to me.
carry on.

I'm sure our own music would still annoy the fogeys anyhow, and we likely aren't considered 'youth' anymore.

[robogone]

Not too many around here who could get away with 'youth'...

[vespers75]

Not too many around here who could get away with 'youth'...

I understand there are a few teenage DJ types here around though.

[vurt]

Not too many around here who could get away with 'youth'...

i meant chase n arke