Sharing your music.... When it's not very good

[Hink]

Then posting for comments would perhaps be beneficial. Less about tell me if you like it and more what can I do to bring this to a higher level.

takes the "good" or "bad" issue out for sure. Although your implication that it could be at a 'higher level' has real esteem crushing potential. It should really go something like:
"I have worked on this composition for a comfortable length of time. I believe that it is quite appealing and thoroughly non-offensive, won't you please validate my opinion by agreeing?"

and we could all say "yes, I agree" or "gosh that is appealing, was that an out of tune guitar I heard alongside the off time drums?"

"yes.. thank the non existent being I do not worship that things like timing and tuning are no longer relevant when evaluating music"

yes, tuning was far more relevant in the old days for masters like Jimi Hendrix, for instance...

excuse me, but you're working my side of the street now

[MOK19]

Goodness. I had no clue this topic would generate a solid discussion.
.... Sort of an allegory supporting one side of the original premise, eh? heh!
But I'll be damned if I had an easy time following this discussion!

There's a few points that stick out to me, and pardon me if I'm lagging behind the crest of the discussion, but I need to list shit out to make it more 'concrete' in my head.
A) The blanket descriptors of 'good' and 'bad' aren't very useful due to the subjective nature of art. What might replace this idea is, instead, creative intention, and how well the artist follows through with that intention. Even this concept, however, is fraught with problems....
B) Ego plays a pretty important part of this topic. If you find yourself with a stringent 'standard,' then likely you've got an ego that might need wrestling. Basically, it's not a contest.
C) On the other hand, personal standards for your own material can be a major driver for your creativity, and can push the results 'to a higher level'.... Which could be argued as being the same thing as "good/better", muddying the previously implied futility of objective judgment per point A).
D) Filtering yourself has it's place if you're concerned with judgment of your work, and attaining a certain peer/listener-influenced goal or status. Philosophical issues regarding the creative process aside, this can be an effective means to particular ends.
E) I'm forgetting the other points. Help me out? What other major points are being expressed here?

The idea I'm having trouble reconciling is... difficult to express. I'll go back to my sister's example. I hear what she's doing, and knowing her, I have some idea of her stylistic intention. When she says she's done, I think to myself, 'No it's not!!' I don't actually hear it as artistically or aesthetically bad in any way but the technical details, generally: Unintentional dissonant notes, lack of transitions(mute/unmute), unexpressive(unautomated) melodic lines, sections that hold little reason to listen, icky mixing, etc. So the intention behind a work isn't bad. It's the execution that I typically find to be sub-standard. Basically, if she(and other artists like her) would just put in a bit more time and effort to shine up their piece, I wouldn't take issue in this way. Or conversely, to somehow make their intention match the seemingly lazy execution.

So whats this got to do with me? Well, I don't finish my projects that I stop liking. Subsequently, they'll suffer from the same technical dearths. And as one person pointed out, a work in progress gets critiqued on all the flaws you already know about. If I'd put in the time to fix them, well, then there's much less of a problem plugging it onto the interwarbles for critique. Someone might like it, though I'd bet few would. But I'd probably still feel uncomfortable sharing it - I probably don't feel like it reflects my broader stylistic intention. So maybe this has more to do with my apparent phobia of being 'misunderstood?' Heh, I sound like a mad scientist.

And @MOK19 - didn't you just win the latest tattiemannie contest with rogue? Your music can't be that bad mate. Release it to the world and let others be the judge; just be prepared for criticism, good or bad and ignore the mindless comments some idiots can and do make

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but now the problem is a little bit clarified... Although I may be self-conscious about the songs I don't care for, the larger, more immediate problem is that I don't finish practically anything!
That's a different problem entirely.

As for age, I'm all grownsed up @ 28. I'm just particularly tight with my family, and they're some of the few musicians I know.

And a note about artistic intention - The music I make generally has strong existing musical and sonic precedents. It's just not very experimental. For instance, I really like dance music, which is potentially pretty damn codified. I feel like I can relatively accurately judge what songs DJ's generally will play, and what they won't play. To me, in dance music, this is a very relevant defining standard. I don't feel like it's particularly imagined, if you get my meaning.
....Or am I indeed imagining things?

[Chester Desmond]

to vespers:

But those elements could be intentional, as well. One album I listen to regularly (Blut Aus Nord's MoRT) is intentionally almost entirely off time, dissonant, and out of tune.

Of course they can be intentional but that's not what I meant. Blut Aus Nord are talented musicians who are creating disturbing music; their dissonance is meant to be there it's not because their 3rd string is slightly flat or the drummer can't count.
I'm referring to those who are presenting music as finished but which contains flaws that many musicians (those who feel that the theoretical foundations of music and mixing are important) would likely repair. Things like being out of tune, off time, ground hum, little brother walking past during the vocal take etc. Soem people on here act like you're being an elitist prick because you find things like that unacceptable in a "good" track. If it's a lo-fi anti-music irony track then I wouldn't apply the same criteria to it and I would likely be able to tell that it was that sort of track by listening to its (lack of) intent. To go back to my original point in this thread, when a track contains flaws like this I think a person should be aware of them before presenting it as an example of their "craft", more specifically if they are presenting it in the hopes of gaining some sort of job from people who care about these things.


to MOKA:

A) The blanket descriptors of 'good' and 'bad' aren't very useful due to the subjective nature of art. What might replace this idea is, instead, creative intention, and how well the artist follows through with that intention. Even this concept, however, is fraught with problems....

The intention definitely needs to be understood for meaningful criticism to take place. "I don't like it" is not the same as "it's bad" is not the same as "generic but great sounding" or "highly original but the guitar was out of tune". .. this conversation has happened quite a bit on KVR..basically that you really need to be specific about what you want critiqued or face misunderstandings etc.

B) Ego plays a pretty important part of this topic. If you find yourself with a stringent 'standard,' then likely you've got an ego that might need wrestling. Basically, it's not a contest.

Not sure I agree with this. Perfectionism isn't necessarily an ego issue to me. I also believe that it is a contest in many cases where you want to take your music to a certain level. The criteria for trying out as the bassist of a garage rock band and someone auditioning for 1st violin in a symphony are quite different and I think they should be. Again it seems to me that some people have a real problem with this.

C) On the other hand, personal standards for your own material can be a major driver for your creativity, and can push the results 'to a higher level'.... Which could be argued as being the same thing as "good/better", muddying the previously implied futility of objective judgment per point A)

D) Filtering yourself has it's place if you're concerned with judgment of your work, and attaining a certain peer/listener-influenced goal or status. Philosophical issues regarding the creative process aside, this can be an effective means to particular ends.

Exactly. Some people are content with "that's good enough" (and it often is) and some people aren't. At the risk of repeating myself, "good enough" and going the extra length can be an important factor in certain situations.

And a note about artistic intention - The music I make generally has strong existing musical and sonic precedents. It's just not very experimental. For instance, I really like dance music, which is potentially pretty damn codified. I feel like I can relatively accurately judge what songs DJ's generally will play, and what they won't play. To me, in dance music, this is a very relevant defining standard. I don't feel like it's particularly imagined, if you get my meaning.

I think all genres are like this, It's why you don't hear Black Metal on Lite Rock FM stations. I don;t think there is anything at all wrong with trying to make tracks that fit into a certain niche or make them sound good so they can be played by others in public so you can make money. Sure you may get a nagging from the sacred muse or have to listen to "true artists" give you grief about originality, but ut who cares if you are doing what you like. Like has been said, you seem to know what you want and can do it. I would say you should pursue it and quit thinking about it so much, your own inner critic is accurate as long as you don't abuse it to avoid other things (fear of failure, etc). It's ok to want to appeal to someone.

[MOK19]

B) Ego plays a pretty important part of this topic. If you find yourself with a stringent 'standard,' then likely you've got an ego that might need wrestling. Basically, it's not a contest.

Not sure I agree with this. Perfectionism isn't necessarily an ego issue to me. I also believe that it is a contest in many cases where you want to take your music to a certain level. The criteria for trying out as the bassist of a garage rock band and someone auditioning for 1st violin in a symphony are quite different and I think they should be. Again it seems to me that some people have a real problem with this.

I agree with most of what you've said in your entire reply.
This section in particular is something I've debated with myself. Because on one hand, what is it that drives desire to excel? And is that excellence not derived from comparison from others? And is not comparison to others for the sake of raising yourself above others, ergo egotism?
But on the other hand, right there you elaborate a mindset that's very normal, and even encouraged, in which ones' standards and inner critic and drive are good things, and paints that contest in a more socially acceptable light.

As you can see I have a lot of dissonance as to whether or not it's 'okay' pursue excellence, and dismiss my own perceived non-excellent results. Both sides give compelling arguments.
So when I made this post, it was in part out of a sense of guilt that I'm being an egotistical dickwad in my audacity to attempt to present the sum of my material as 'better' than others. That's one very pejoratively framed way of presenting it, at least.
On the other hand, does not the concept of relative quality in music exist? That alone serves in part to invalidate the stigma being placed on all this. And reveals a mild laziness of thought to those who downplay the existence of the inherent competitions in life..... Maybe.

Meh. For now, I'm just gonna keep doing what I do, but try to focus on finishing more stuff, even stuff I don't like. At least then, I'll have the option of deciding whether or not to share the material I'm not so hot on. But following my inner critic also means that very often I'll be dismissing others' advice....

Risky business, that.

As for over-thinking, well, I'm a very introspective person. It does not take time out of my day, nor cause me any large amount of undue stress compared to simply not thinking about stuff. Heck, I've been told a few times that I over-think everything. In the end, it's just exploration for exploration's sake.... But I would posit many people under-think too many things. It's also what lends my inner-critic a certain fidelity(IMO), as opposed to perhaps the more common lack of self-esteem.
But this is, again, something I could be getting quite wrong. It's a pickle, no doubt.

[debra1rlo]

Then posting for comments would perhaps be beneficial. Less about tell me if you like it and more what can I do to bring this to a higher level.

takes the "good" or "bad" issue out for sure. Although your implication that it could be at a 'higher level' has real esteem crushing potential. It should really go something like:
"I have worked on this composition for a comfortable length of time. I believe that it is quite appealing and thoroughly non-offensive, won't you please validate my opinion by agreeing?"

and we could all say "yes, I agree" or "gosh that is appealing, was that an out of tune guitar I heard alongside the off time drums?"

"yes.. thank the non existent being I do not worship that things like timing and tuning are no longer relevant when evaluating music"

yes, tuning was far more relevant in the old days for masters like Jimi Hendrix, for instance...

excuse me, but you're working my side of the street now

i knew that would get a response out of ya

[penguinfromdeep]

And a note about artistic intention - The music I make generally has strong existing musical and sonic precedents. It's just not very experimental. For instance, I really like dance music, which is potentially pretty damn codified. I feel like I can relatively accurately judge what songs DJ's generally will play, and what they won't play. To me, in dance music, this is a very relevant defining standard. I don't feel like it's particularly imagined, if you get my meaning.
....Or am I indeed imagining things?

You are right, dance music tends to be very formulaic. You have to have a long intro for mixing, a breakdown that happens at 64 bars etc .. Of course the track needs to be interesting and well mixed too with punchy kick etc. Otherwise the DJ might not play the track as you say, the arrangment is very important. But to be creative and experimental within those rules, now that's a challenge

[vespers75]

to vespers:

But those elements could be intentional, as well. One album I listen to regularly (Blut Aus Nord's MoRT) is intentionally almost entirely off time, dissonant, and out of tune.

Of course they can be intentional but that's not what I meant. Blut Aus Nord are talented musicians who are creating disturbing music; their dissonance is meant to be there it's not because their 3rd string is slightly flat or the drummer can't count.
I'm referring to those who are presenting music as finished but which contains flaws that many musicians (those who feel that the theoretical foundations of music and mixing are important) would likely repair. Things like being out of tune, off time, ground hum, little brother walking past during the vocal take etc. Soem people on here act like you're being an elitist prick because you find things like that unacceptable in a "good" track. If it's a lo-fi anti-music irony track then I wouldn't apply the same criteria to it and I would likely be able to tell that it was that sort of track by listening to its (lack of) intent. To go back to my original point in this thread, when a track contains flaws like this I think a person should be aware of them before presenting it as an example of their "craft", more specifically if they are presenting it in the hopes of gaining some sort of job from people who care about these things.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was just showing an additional view on the topic.

[budd1405]

Never seen so many long posts
I think beauty is the eye of whoever. I love the vast majority of stuff I put out, sales would tell me that most people hate it, does it stop me, no, because I love it. I also have put tracks out, I didnt really dig, an acvount of the views from someone else. In short, you put out whatever you want.

[eduardo_b]

I'll go back to my sister's example. I hear what she's doing, and knowing her, I have some idea of her stylistic intention. When she says she's done, I think to myself, 'No it's not!!' I don't actually hear it as artistically or aesthetically bad in any way but the technical details, generally: Unintentional dissonant notes, lack of transitions(mute/unmute), unexpressive(unautomated) melodic lines, sections that hold little reason to listen, icky mixing, etc. So the intention behind a work isn't bad. It's the execution that I typically find to be sub-standard. Basically, if she(and other artists like her) would just put in a bit more time and effort to shine up their piece, I wouldn't take issue in this way. Or conversely, to somehow make their intention match the seemingly lazy execution.

I have said many times over that the primary problem with DIY home studios is that the creative process of music and the technical process of engineering have become combined, requiring two competing skill sets from one person. Sometimes this works, but more often it doesn't...can't. So instead of concentrating on just the music, one has to also accomplish the substantial task of learning and using the information, knowledge and techniques that audio engineers spend years developing. It complicates the process of creating music and I suspect in many ways impedes the process. So now when a piece doesn't get finished, it can be creative or it can be technical...or both.

[deaf dunderkwac]

I'll go back to my sister's example. I hear what she's doing, and knowing her, I have some idea of her stylistic intention. When she says she's done, I think to myself, 'No it's not!!' I don't actually hear it as artistically or aesthetically bad in any way but the technical details, generally: Unintentional dissonant notes, lack of transitions(mute/unmute), unexpressive(unautomated) melodic lines, sections that hold little reason to listen, icky mixing, etc. So the intention behind a work isn't bad. It's the execution that I typically find to be sub-standard. Basically, if she(and other artists like her) would just put in a bit more time and effort to shine up their piece, I wouldn't take issue in this way. Or conversely, to somehow make their intention match the seemingly lazy execution.

I have said many times over that the primary problem with DIY home studios is that the creative process of music and the technical process of engineering have become combined, requiring two competing skill sets from one person. Sometimes this works, but more often it doesn't...can't. So instead of concentrating on just the music, one has to also accomplish the substantial task of learning and using the information, knowledge and techniques that audio engineers spend years developing. It complicates the process of creating music and I suspect in many ways impedes the process. So now when a piece doesn't get finished, it can be creative or it can be technical...or both.

Ed get a clue

[eduardo_b]

I'll go back to my sister's example. I hear what she's doing, and knowing her, I have some idea of her stylistic intention. When she says she's done, I think to myself, 'No it's not!!' I don't actually hear it as artistically or aesthetically bad in any way but the technical details, generally: Unintentional dissonant notes, lack of transitions(mute/unmute), unexpressive(unautomated) melodic lines, sections that hold little reason to listen, icky mixing, etc. So the intention behind a work isn't bad. It's the execution that I typically find to be sub-standard. Basically, if she(and other artists like her) would just put in a bit more time and effort to shine up their piece, I wouldn't take issue in this way. Or conversely, to somehow make their intention match the seemingly lazy execution.

I have said many times over that the primary problem with DIY home studios is that the creative process of music and the technical process of engineering have become combined, requiring two competing skill sets from one person. Sometimes this works, but more often it doesn't...can't. So instead of concentrating on just the music, one has to also accomplish the substantial task of learning and using the information, knowledge and techniques that audio engineers spend years developing. It complicates the process of creating music and I suspect in many ways impedes the process. So now when a piece doesn't get finished, it can be creative or it can be technical...or both.

Ed get a clue

[Arglebargle]

I'll go back to my sister's example. I hear what she's doing, and knowing her, I have some idea of her stylistic intention. When she says she's done, I think to myself, 'No it's not!!' I don't actually hear it as artistically or aesthetically bad in any way but the technical details, generally: Unintentional dissonant notes, lack of transitions(mute/unmute), unexpressive(unautomated) melodic lines, sections that hold little reason to listen, icky mixing, etc. So the intention behind a work isn't bad. It's the execution that I typically find to be sub-standard. Basically, if she(and other artists like her) would just put in a bit more time and effort to shine up their piece, I wouldn't take issue in this way. Or conversely, to somehow make their intention match the seemingly lazy execution.

I have said many times over that the primary problem with DIY home studios is that the creative process of music and the technical process of engineering have become combined, requiring two competing skill sets from one person. Sometimes this works, but more often it doesn't...can't. So instead of concentrating on just the music, one has to also accomplish the substantial task of learning and using the information, knowledge and techniques that audio engineers spend years developing. It complicates the process of creating music and I suspect in many ways impedes the process. So now when a piece doesn't get finished, it can be creative or it can be technical...or both.

I don't agree much at all, I have faith in peoples ability to multitask and learn different skills. True it requires more work to take on both musicianing and engineering, but I don't see it as an insurmountable obstacle. There seem to be plenty of people who can handle both just fine.

[eduardo_b]

I'll go back to my sister's example. I hear what she's doing, and knowing her, I have some idea of her stylistic intention. When she says she's done, I think to myself, 'No it's not!!' I don't actually hear it as artistically or aesthetically bad in any way but the technical details, generally: Unintentional dissonant notes, lack of transitions(mute/unmute), unexpressive(unautomated) melodic lines, sections that hold little reason to listen, icky mixing, etc. So the intention behind a work isn't bad. It's the execution that I typically find to be sub-standard. Basically, if she(and other artists like her) would just put in a bit more time and effort to shine up their piece, I wouldn't take issue in this way. Or conversely, to somehow make their intention match the seemingly lazy execution.

I have said many times over that the primary problem with DIY home studios is that the creative process of music and the technical process of engineering have become combined, requiring two competing skill sets from one person. Sometimes this works, but more often it doesn't...can't. So instead of concentrating on just the music, one has to also accomplish the substantial task of learning and using the information, knowledge and techniques that audio engineers spend years developing. It complicates the process of creating music and I suspect in many ways impedes the process. So now when a piece doesn't get finished, it can be creative or it can be technical...or both.

I don't agree much at all, I have faith in peoples ability to multitask and learn different skills. True it requires more work to take on both musicianing and engineering, but I don't see it as an insurmountable obstacle. There seem to be plenty of people who can handle both just fine.

Not really. Faith is not part of the equation. Multi-tasking is not the issue. Do you have any idea how many people never finish any songs, finish any mixes? A lot. And much of the music that gets shared isn't what it might have been aesthetically or technically. Insurmountable depends on how one sees the issues involved. Not saying it's wrong to try. If it's fun, do it, but when little gets completed it's good to wonder why. No?

[vurt]

I'll go back to my sister's example. I hear what she's doing, and knowing her, I have some idea of her stylistic intention. When she says she's done, I think to myself, 'No it's not!!' I don't actually hear it as artistically or aesthetically bad in any way but the technical details, generally: Unintentional dissonant notes, lack of transitions(mute/unmute), unexpressive(unautomated) melodic lines, sections that hold little reason to listen, icky mixing, etc. So the intention behind a work isn't bad. It's the execution that I typically find to be sub-standard. Basically, if she(and other artists like her) would just put in a bit more time and effort to shine up their piece, I wouldn't take issue in this way. Or conversely, to somehow make their intention match the seemingly lazy execution.

I have said many times over that the primary problem with DIY home studios is that the creative process of music and the technical process of engineering have become combined, requiring two competing skill sets from one person. Sometimes this works, but more often it doesn't...can't. So instead of concentrating on just the music, one has to also accomplish the substantial task of learning and using the information, knowledge and techniques that audio engineers spend years developing. It complicates the process of creating music and I suspect in many ways impedes the process. So now when a piece doesn't get finished, it can be creative or it can be technical...or both.

Ed get a clue

i think he meant "do some actual research for a change instead of stating opinion as fact as you do so often. you may want to google [the history of the recording studio], spend several months reading everything you can, and then come back" or something similar.

[debra1rlo]

I'll go back to my sister's example. I hear what she's doing, and knowing her, I have some idea of her stylistic intention. When she says she's done, I think to myself, 'No it's not!!' I don't actually hear it as artistically or aesthetically bad in any way but the technical details, generally: Unintentional dissonant notes, lack of transitions(mute/unmute), unexpressive(unautomated) melodic lines, sections that hold little reason to listen, icky mixing, etc. So the intention behind a work isn't bad. It's the execution that I typically find to be sub-standard. Basically, if she(and other artists like her) would just put in a bit more time and effort to shine up their piece, I wouldn't take issue in this way. Or conversely, to somehow make their intention match the seemingly lazy execution.

I have said many times over that the primary problem with DIY home studios is that the creative process of music and the technical process of engineering have become combined, requiring two competing skill sets from one person. Sometimes this works, but more often it doesn't...can't. So instead of concentrating on just the music, one has to also accomplish the substantial task of learning and using the information, knowledge and techniques that audio engineers spend years developing. It complicates the process of creating music and I suspect in many ways impedes the process. So now when a piece doesn't get finished, it can be creative or it can be technical...or both.

I don't agree much at all, I have faith in peoples ability to multitask and learn different skills. True it requires more work to take on both musicianing and engineering, but I don't see it as an insurmountable obstacle. There seem to be plenty of people who can handle both just fine.

yeah I can agree with that, and we're all posting here, which means were making an effort to learn about our craft/hobby/whatever...

for instance the biggest "problem" I hear in stuff posted at the Music Cafe isn't mixes or shoddy performances or poorly thought out melody/progression... it's that the track doesn't resonate with me, usually because of stylistic considerations or it doesn't have a hook that grabs me... not saying it's not good, it just didn't reach me for whatever reason... most music I hear on the radio doesn't resonate with me for the same reasons, so I don't necessarily think that any of this music is "bad" music because obviously it appeals to someone and i'd probably put much of the stuff in the Cafe in the same category... for my tastes.

there is no universal quality yardstick, there are no rules... most listeners might call Ween crap but I love the hell out of them. there's a madness that resonates with me despite (or because of, I'm not sure) the f**ked up vocals and instrumentation. it would send some folks I know running for the hills holding their ears. oh well...