Mass Producing Mediocrity?

[jopy]

Why such a focus on result instead of process, anyway? We live in a time when millions of people get to explore the arts and feel the joy of creating. Who could be grumpy about that?

Thank you for posting this; I believe this perspective is too often lost when we think of the 1960's as "the olden days." The period in which recordings have been the primary mechanism through which people experience music has been extremely brief relative to the thousands of years when music was not a spectator sport for the most part. Before the great expanding maw of consumerism hit the world, the idea of "buying" or "owning" music would have been laughable. Making music used to be a very normal family or community activity. There are plenty of styles of music I've experienced (e.g., Ojibwe dance/drumming, West African social musics, drum circles, singalongs) that can't be recorded and mass produced without doing great violence to the whole concept of the music. Turning music into a replicable product to be consumed by non-participants is not human nature by any means, it's a cultural phenomenon of the modern age.

The real question to me is, how many people sing a song or play an instrument at least once a week? That's a sign of how "healthy" music is.

The idea that you can buy a $100 Gibson guitar knockoff at Target is thrilling beyond belief to me. The more that people are engaged in music production activities, the better off we are because we're reclaiming the creative impulse from the A&R department at Sony. The democratization of music to a point where products are rejected in favor of participation is not an aberration, it's a return to normality.

[eduardo_b]

The idea that you can buy a $100 Gibson guitar knockoff at Target is thrilling beyond belief to me. The more that people are engaged in music production activities, the better off we are because we're reclaiming the creative impulse from the A&R department at Sony. The democratization of music to a point where products are rejected in favor of participation is not an aberration, it's a return to normality.

I find the assertion that people are reclaiming creativity from the media companies more wishful thinking than anything close to reality. Outside of the tiny, insular world of KVR, billions of people consume vast quantities of entertainment product, including music. This is simply never going to change. People want quality music, and they aren't going to buy it from someone with a $100 guitar or a host and some plug-ins. Participation in music as a hobby doesn't represent rejection of what record companies produce. Downloads of music from commercial artists dwarfs downloads of amateur music by vast magnitudes (whether it's paid for or not). You can add the sales of concert tickets to this. This is the normality.

Are there talented people creating and playing music who aren't in the music business. Absolutely. But I'd bet they represent well under 5 percent of those who participate in music. The rest are enjoying (maybe) some form of musical creativity, but it's not going to be very good in comparison to what people are willing to pay for.

Why do some become so defensive about this reality. The idea that record companies are keeping people from hearing good music is beyond stupid. There is no business model in investing in anything but talented people. And lots of people who dabble in music creation are under no illusion that their stuff is of professional quality. It may not be terrible, but it also isn't very good most of the time. That leaves lots of room for mediocrity...but so what.

Participation is just that. Watch any company softball team for confirmation of this. Few of those participants could make it in the minor leagues, let alone above that, but they still have fun and it doesn't really matter who wins. That's really what KVR is about. It's not about being good enough to be professional. It is, or should be, about enjoying the process (with credit to Cordelia for this point of view).

[jopy]

The idea that record companies are keeping people from hearing good music is beyond stupid. There is no business model in investing in anything but talented people. And lots of people who dabble in music creation are under no illusion that their stuff is of professional quality.

Out of curiosity, were you referring to something I said here? If so, this perspective isn't even approximately what I was talking about. I may be in the minority among KVRists, but I agree with you when it comes to standards for professionalism. I've played with working professionals either in lessons or in informal jam sessions before and they were universally far better than hobby players like me. Of course, many of them were far better than some of the people with recording contracts too, but modern record contracts are often a matter of entertainment and/or music.

However, to refocus the question, "very good" in this case is the phenomenology of an outside observer looking at a product. The number of professional and semi-professional music makers in any town is dwarfed by the number of people who are taking lessons just for the fun of the process or who are singing in their church choirs. For this group of people, "very good" might have far less to do with the objective quality of the music. There is no damage to "music" so long as this majority of music makers are not discouraged from participating and enjoying the arts as active participants. Recordings in general tended to greatly reduce people's participation in music, which is where I see the real threat to quality of musical experience coming from. Technology may be helping to remake this negative trend that it started.

People want quality music, and they aren't going to buy it from someone with a $100 guitar or a host and some plug-ins.

Buying music isn't the point I was discussing, it's enjoying music, which is distinct from spending money on it. You said that people as purely passive observers of recorded music is never going to change, as if this has been the way music has been produced and evaluated for centuries. I counter that there isn't a very long history of music as commodity, and the extreme damage done to the economic model of the record companies over the past few years suggests that there may be less of a future to the current system than you think. I'm not saying there won't be a place for professionals, but the world of professional music is going to change dramatically and those who can create tools that facilitate audience participation can do a lot of good for re-creating the superior musical culture that existed enjoyed before radios and records (even though I concede that the average person in the 1800's was generally hearing vastly inferior music to what they can access today).

Back on point to the original thrust of the thread as I read it: I believe that more people will move from being passive observers of music to being participant-observers from time to time because of new widely available technology. This gets to the question of whether these extremely cheap music making tools is a good thing or a bad thing. I think it's mostly good.

[ughnonumus]

inevitable perhaps.
preferable to previous ages, yes.

Because...?

Because when I was coming up as a musician in the 70s and 80s I wasn't allowed access to many of the tools of my trade. I had to either be wealthy enough to afford the outrageous prices charged by studios, or be considered worthy enough, by some recording industry executive, to enter that elite world. If you think for one minute that those record executives were "experts" in any position to judge the "quality" of music, then I know for sure you haven't met many A & R men.

A most excellent point.

Why such a focus on result instead of process, anyway? We live in a time when millions of people get to explore the arts and feel the joy of creating. Who could be grumpy about that?

This is a by-product of materialistic thinking. The materialist believes that the ends justifies the means. So, very little significance is placed on doing the internal work- just getting the result. In fact, one can see this in full force in the workplace, as well. A better resource actually has a stronger/larger thinking capacity.

Anyone who has taught music understands that most students quit because they realise that they will have to put in effort that will tax their playtime. For the uninspired, the proposition of learning a musical instrument withers and fades.

Today, the game is more complicated. Technological components that are not yet understood (i.e. by the end-listener) are quickly grabbed and employed, before people figure out that anyone can do it. (This is not a value judgment- just an observation.) Lots of people could do what Milli Vanilli did; many people can paste loops together, employing their preferences.

However, not every individual who presents a finished product will benefit in kind. Unless one performs the internal work (e.g. reflection; trained muscle coordination fused with feelings; etc...), there is, in fact, little or no improvement in the soul structure of the human being. Of course, for some/many, they're not interested in that stuff- just recognition and compensation. For others, the compensation is the closeness to the spiritual aspect of music...the grail. This can be rolled forward/upward into the next round (i.e. repeated lives). Doing the internal work definitely has its advantages.

[vurt]

It's not about being good enough to be professional. It is, or should be, about enjoying the process (with credit to Cordelia for this point of view).

aw come on ed, dont be so disingenuous.
not to say cordelia is wrong, far from it, but myself and others have been saying this all along, and you keep pointing out that more people means more crap.

as someone who has cited lily allen as an example of good in recent years, im not sure how serious you actually are in these threads or whether you feel you are playing devils advocate in someway.

[nuffink]

To be fair he did point out that Lily wasn't quite up to the level of true greats like Dire Straits.

[eduardo_b]

However, to refocus the question, "very good" in this case is the phenomenology of an outside observer looking at a product. The number of professional and semi-professional music makers in any town is dwarfed by the number of people who are taking lessons just for the fun of the process or who are singing in their church choirs. For this group of people, "very good" might have far less to do with the objective quality of the music. There is no damage to "music" so long as this majority of music makers are not discouraged from participating and enjoying the arts as active participants. Recordings in general tended to greatly reduce people's participation in music, which is where I see the real threat to quality of musical experience coming from. Technology may be helping to remake this negative trend that it started.

I think this topic centers on both technology opening new ways for more people to participate in creating music and what that really means in terms of music quality. Quality, in this case, is about perceived excellence. What I see as the critical division is between those who play an instrument and the acquisition of virtual hosts and instruments/effects. The quality of playing for those who have spent considerable time and effort mastering their instrument(s) of choice (or are unusually talented in that regard) is likely to be way better than average, and they can play as a group with others. Will they play original compositions. Maybe yes, probably no. Either way, as an avocation or hobby, the process of participation is the focus.

I don't see this at all for the virtual side of music by hobbyists. Now we talking about many people who have no musical background at all or very little skill with traditional instruments now creating music, including actual compositions, and then mixing all of this into completed songs (although some, perhaps many, never reach that point). Enthusiasm and creativity aside, not much of this is very good or even good. It may be the song itself, the arrangement, the instruments, the playing and/or the mixing, but the net result does not come close to what we would willingly spend money to own.

Participating is wonderful, but let's be realistic about the results. That is my singular observation about all of this. If we expect excellence in the arts, whatever they are, then there is a ranking of what is created. Your scenarios of taking lessons or participating in music do not include sitting at a computer and then posting the results on the Internet, which is where I perceived the typical results of this technology. It reminds me of those who go to American Idol auditions, fully believing they have talent. Most do not, and the experience for the listener is not good...no matter how much the individual auditioning enjoys or believes.

My response to your post was about separating participation from the assumption that buying music damages music. That simply makes no sense. Very few of those toiling away at their DAW are going to come close to the quality of what is offered by record labels. It seems you're trying to make the case that recording reduces participation in music, which I don't see being the case. More to the point, I don't see that it matters either way. Buying recorded music is as much about participating in the enjoyment of music as sitting at a computer creating music, the difference being that the quality of the former is more often than not better in quality than most of what is created by the latter. I think that's the point of the thread's topic. Technology may increase participation, but it doesn't increase quality.

You said that people as purely passive observers of recorded music is never going to change, as if this has been the way music has been produced and evaluated for centuries. I counter that there isn't a very long history of music as commodity, and the extreme damage done to the economic model of the record companies over the past few years suggests that there may be less of a future to the current system than you think.

The way recorded music is acquired may change with technology, but the market for it will actually increase even more because it will become even easier to find professionally recorded music. The damage to the economic model isn't about participation but rather how the technology of distributing music is changing faster than the existing business models can adjust to.

What I find so odd is the assertions I keep seeing that the music business has damaged music, restricted what we can buy and kept so many from making a living at music. The evidence for this seems flawed at best. There's far more music released every year by record companies than anyone can hear or even be aware of. The variety has never been greater, but the economics tend to favor those genres that are most popular. I don't happen to believe record companies can manipulate this given the penchant of the music-consuming public for making up its own mind about what they like and are willing to buy (or download). And, there is no reason to believe more people could make a living as musicians if record companies didn't exist.

Back on point to the original thrust of the thread as I read it: I believe that more people will move from being passive observers of music to being participant-observers from time to time because of new widely available technology. This gets to the question of whether these extremely cheap music making tools is a good thing or a bad thing. I think it's mostly good.

See, I don't think it matters. Most participants are not going to be skilled at making music no matter what the technology is. Participation, while a wonderful way to exert one's creativity, is not going to result in more good music overall. These participants will still buy recorded music and go see the artists who created it because it's way better than what they or their friends can do. This doesn't denigrate their enjoyment of playing around with creating music, but simply recognizes the reality that unique musical talent is enjoyed in recordings and concerts because of what it is.

[ivory1029]

inevitable perhaps.
preferable to previous ages, yes.

Because...?

Because when I was coming up as a musician in the 70s and 80s I wasn't allowed access to many of the tools of my trade. I had to either be wealthy enough to afford the outrageous prices charged by studios, or be considered worthy enough, by some recording industry executive, to enter that elite world. If you think for one minute that those record executives were "experts" in any position to judge the "quality" of music, then I know for sure you haven't met many A & R men.

While it is true that price point (studio time) or the opinions of executives (A & R) has/have excluded prospective artists in the modern age from getting their art to the masses, this is by no means a new phenomenon. Musicians have always fought the battle against those with the purse strings and/or power. Just a few centuries ago, certain chords were considered profane and never saw the light of day! There was always some king or pope or someone with a higher social or political standing who had the power to control what was heard and what was not. The money boys at the record companies are just the latest version.
With an increased volume of different types of art involving an increased number of artists, there will be more bad AND more good by the numbers. The exact ratio I will humbly leave to someone who is better at statistical theory than myself.

Why such a focus on result instead of process, anyway? We live in a time when millions of people get to explore the arts and feel the joy of creating. Who could be grumpy about that?

At least a few, for the sake of discussion.
There are two perspectives here...one, the musician who takes delight in creating a product of the heart or mind (or both), and does so for their own fulfillment, which I think most times will trump whether or not it makes money, or whether people even like it; and two, the listener who decides for themselves whether or not it is "good", and why it is or isn't as an intellectual exercise. One viewpoint does not validate the other necessarily.

[vurt]

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=244286

my heart skipped a beat!

[eduardo_b]

It's not about being good enough to be professional. It is, or should be, about enjoying the process (with credit to Cordelia for this point of view).

aw come on ed, dont be so disingenuous.
not to say cordelia is wrong, far from it, but myself and others have been saying this all along, and you keep pointing out that more people means more crap.

as someone who has cited lily allen as an example of good in recent years, im not sure how serious you actually are in these threads or whether you feel you are playing devils advocate in someway.

I see no contradiction. The process should be and can be quite separate from the results, but that's not what this is about. The results are what are judged in terms of quality. Which makes sense given that the process is not what we get but rather the results of it. Are the songs posted to Music Cafe about the process or the results? We can't know how enjoyable or arduous it was to create (process) but we can listen to the music (results).

Technology does increase participation in the process, but that most certainly doesn't increase the quality of results as a percentage of the whole. There's far more music being created, but the ratio of quality not only doesn't improve but actually gets worse because far more people with no musical training or knowledge are "writing songs" using virtual instruments. That doesn't mean they don't enjoy the creative process, but it does seem to indicate that the technology raises the percentage of mediocre results.

It's a popular sport on KVR to denigrate what others listen to as if it proves a point regarding where quality music is found. But it proves nothing. I don't particularly care for country music, but country music from talented people is vastly better than country music from those with far less skill and ability. Technology won't change that, which is the essence of this thread.

[vurt]

Are the songs posted to Music Cafe about the process or the results? We can't know how enjoyable or arduous it was to create (process) but we can listen to the music (results).

id say the majority are posted by people looking for feedback on how to improve what they are presenting, you act as if theyre presenting a track and expecting praise. i see very few people posting as if they are the next big thing, no one claiming to be the new phil collins or u2 or jayz or coil or throbbing gristle or slayer or bon jovi (covering as many bases as possible) except perhaps the odd indiividual, which had you spent any time in music stores (as in gear shops, maybe you have i dunno) you would have seen umpteen and ten score guitarsts, bassists n drummers over the years claiming god like status when they buy their first plectrum or drum stick, as well as many more looking to improve themselves or just playing for fun.
the only thing thats new is the tool, the attitudes have always been there.
ok, maybe now we as outsiders have more access to the music these folk are making, but i really must have been stoned the night the guy with the gun came and said i had to listen as i really cant remember it.

[vurt]

It's a popular sport on KVR to denigrate what others listen to as if it proves a point regarding where quality music is found. But it proves nothing.

you are the one who claims to know about differentiating quality from mediocrity, im uneducated and just think lily allen is shite.

[jopy]

What I find so odd is the assertions I keep seeing that the music business has damaged music, restricted what we can buy and kept so many from making a living at music.

That's not what I was saying at all. The music business hasn't reduced what we can buy, we're in a consumer paradise.

However, there was a time before recorded music became popular when no educated adult would be incapable of at least some semblance of a musical performance. If you read novels from the 19th century it's amazing how often the adult characters are expected to demonstrate their ability to sing or play an instrument just as a matter of course (I can look for some examples if you're really curious).

Now people can only play the radio and their CD player. This is a slope we've been descending for about 100 years. Many adults now are reluctant to even try to participate in music, because the culture of making music is far less developed than it used to be.

And I do blame this squarely on the commodity status of music. More technology won't increase the average quality of recorded music, of course, but it will increase the quality of musical life for the average person who can now actively understand what skilled musicians are doing. I may be thinking of technology differently than some are here, because I'd even include music education software in the category of "technology helping music."

[eduardo_b]

Are the songs posted to Music Cafe about the process or the results? We can't know how enjoyable or arduous it was to create (process) but we can listen to the music (results).

id say the majority are posted by people looking for feedback on how to improve what they are presenting, you act as if theyre presenting a track and expecting praise. i see very few people posting as if they are the next big thing...

On KVR that makes sense because the focus is as much on learning and fine-tuning the process as it is on the final result. There's more emphasis here on craft, which is a valuable aspect of the site.

I don't suppose a lot of people who found Garage Band on their Mac show up here.

By the way, I'm a process person. Realized long ago that the fun for me was simply noodling about and not even attempting to create actual songs. I'd rather do some post on existing stuff as well, for the same reason...process. Doesn't work when it comes to writing, though. The process must have results.

[vurt]

What I find so odd is the assertions I keep seeing that the music business has damaged music, restricted what we can buy and kept so many from making a living at music.

That's not what I was saying at all. The music business hasn't reduced what we can buy, we're in a consumer paradise.

i wouldnt blame the music industry for a reduction in what we can buy or hear, i would blame geographical location mainly. some people are into more mainstream music, which if we look at history tends to permeate the world, beyonce, britney and other big pop acts. even the "underground" genres often break in, and we get metal bands making the tour money and getting sales overseas from their homebase. but some musics dont have that luxury, very small listener base even world wide, it is difficult to get recordings out there beyond your local areas. even some of the "major" acts in the outsider musics are hard to find, for example ive introduced a few people to the residents and even here in manchester, a big city with a musical history of its own, even using the indie stores you would be lucky to find more than the commercial album and the latest.
what the internet does is allow these lesser funded but still talented acts to find their fans and vice verca.

im a big fan of innuit folk music/throat singing, do you even wanna know how hard it is to find that stuff? now i can find an artist i appreciate and be chatting with them in a few days too.