why is it hard to write good music?

[Mike777]

How motivated you are - with your unlimited DAW universe, 1034 plugins and virtual instruments, bedroom studio and all the music of the world available?

Agreed. Motivation it such an important factor.. And focus (perhaps translated to "less is more", for some people)! Probably about 75% motivation/focus and only about 25% talent required.

yes and something else helps- inspiration

[Unaspected]

Inspiration is essential.

Good is highly subjective but I know what "good" means to me...

Exactly. All in the ear of the listener. My standards for whatever good music is will be different to the next person and so on.

[KBSoundSmith]

Talent is part of the equation. The other is just effort. Music tech is easy to learn in comparison to writing music -- they're just tools for making music after all. But people today don't bother to learn the substance of music, either due to laziness, ignorance, pride, a misdirected sense of "rebellion," or simply feeling "it isn't necessary to learn."

Do a YouTube search for how to use a compressor, then the same for how to construct a melody -- you'll find plenty of good advice on compression, but the "info" on writing melodies will be fluff with no serious technical points pretty much at all...you have to get a good book on music theory for that, where such information is covered in depth. But people don't want to read, because...effort. Cat videos are far easier to consume than music theory, and watching videos is easier than practicing.

People also try to make music too mystical -- all this garbage about spontaneous inspiration, jamming, "it just came to me"...rather than sitting down and learning the craft. Music is 99% technical skill. How melodies are constructed is well understood. How harmony works with melody is well understood. How rhythm works is well understood. With discipline to sit down and work on a melody, anyone can write one. Write a rough draft, and then revise.

When I was studying music and history, something that stood out to me was the comparably insane lengths people of past decades would go to learn music at a high level. Leaving their home country to study the techniques of a composer and essentially become a "disciple," practicing long hours, writing volumes of letters and reflections on technical points... Today, people say "just f**k around, maybe you'll stumble on something you like."

It's no surprise people find music "difficult" to write. They don't know anything about it.

EDIT: just to add...

Watch a video on dance music production, for example, and you'll see a shocking lack of understanding of even basic music theory . There's little effort in construction of pitch-based elements, melody or harmony. A lot of this music, despite being "written" down on the sequencer, is not the same as writing via music notation -- it's far more akin to an oral tradition.

One of the reasons society was able to intellectually advance was because people learned to read and write, which allows the opportunity for superior reflection and revision of ideas. By reverting back to oral tradition construction of music, necessarily the music has to be dumbed down because the tools for reading/writing/revision can't be utilized with any comparable degree of sophistication.

[ghettosynth]

Inspiration is essential.

Good is highly subjective but I know what "good" means to me...

Exactly. All in the ear of the listener. My standards for whatever good music is will be different to the next person and so on.

But! If this is true, then isn't it impossible to know how much good music exists? I mean, you have to know the minds of, at minimum, of a statistically significant and representative sample, no?

[Nielzie]

How motivated you are - with your unlimited DAW universe, 1034 plugins and virtual instruments, bedroom studio and all the music of the world available?

Agreed. Motivation it such an important factor.. And focus (perhaps translated to "less is more", for some people)! Probably about 75% motivation/focus and only about 25% talent required.

yes and something else helps- inspiration

Inspiration by motivation

[Unaspected]

Inspiration is essential.

Good is highly subjective but I know what "good" means to me...

Exactly. All in the ear of the listener. My standards for whatever good music is will be different to the next person and so on.

But! If this is true, then isn't it impossible to know how much good music exists? I mean, you have to know the minds of, at minimum, of a statistically significant and representative sample, no?

I think that is absolutely true. As taste matures, the prospects would also increase. Maybe for some people they would diminish as well.

A general pool of examples of "good music" might be possible to arrive at but it would always be expanding and shrinking if the vote has to be unanimous. Maybe there would be no consensus on a pool of good music if everyone has to agree.

I couldn't even guess at how much good music exists but I know there must be much more than I have heard - probably more than all of us on this forum have heard combined. There will be plenty we will never hear for one reason or another.

[jancivil]

I had a stoned epiphany when I was 14 that I could become a composer. I heard music in my head like a radio, kind of suddenly and I didn't recognize it as mere memory at all (of course it resembled some things, all of which were far beyond my grasp technically; but there was a whole through-line there). I dreamed music like that as well.

It wasn't easy TO DO, I didn't have anything approaching the technique or the knowledge to.
So the upshot of this is I was a musician, and not a slouch at it, for a decade before I had the wherewithal to start writing basically all the time. And writing for me meant a borrowed Minimoog and my Teac 4-track, 1/4" tape machine, well, in addition to writing things out, some of them I would get my friend to play on his band's GS2 to hear it. By then I had strong opinions and was developing a style, harmonically. I woodshedded like a maniac to qualify for music school, which is something I personally felt a need for. That isn't everybody, not at all, mind.

Today having a computer means to some people they are quite ready to start *producing* music. Now, because there is a clock to glue everything to, one can get something together with no appreciable chops at all. There was someone in the 'spoonfed' thread arguing it was stupid to expect them or anyone to have any sense of time at_all because the robot is there to do it, and that's all you need.

This is delusional. There is nothing about creating music that is easy. So I had this notion at 14, an amazing experience but there was nothing there to suggest to me that I was about to actually do the thing. There was no construction kit you buy for it. That fosters a delusion. Yeah, so we're probably about to hear about how loops and construction kits help the songwriter flesh out an idea. Sure, but that not what I mean at all.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

How is "performing now easy"?

I will rephrase that. Performing is easier then before because we can edit in midi. Except when playing a real instrument, then performing next as difficult as composing.

Gotta size with Jace here, I don't think that performing is "easier", in fact, I would argue that, if anything, standards and expectations are much much higher. What passed for performance in the sixties would be laughed at today.

i tried to make the distinction already, but there still seems to be some confusion. The terms "simple" and "easy" are of course interchangeable in many ways. However, the distinction to be made in this example is between process and performance. The process is simpler than it used to be: Back in the day, most people never got to see the inside of a recording studio, never mind actually having the capacity to record their own albums in their bedrooms. Of course, that doesn't make performing a particular guitar solo any easier

[experimental.crow]

... I woodshedded like a maniac to qualify for music school, which is something I personally felt a need for. That isn't everybody, not at all, mind.

woodshedding now reserved for fortnight ...

[ghettosynth]

How is "performing now easy"?

I will rephrase that. Performing is easier then before because we can edit in midi. Except when playing a real instrument, then performing next as difficult as composing.

Gotta size with Jace here, I don't think that performing is "easier", in fact, I would argue that, if anything, standards and expectations are much much higher. What passed for performance in the sixties would be laughed at today.

i tried to make the distinction already, but there still seems to be some confusion. The terms "simple" and "easy" are of course interchangeable in many ways. However, the distinction to be made in this example is between process and performance. The process is simpler than it used to be: Back in the day, most people never got to see the inside of a recording studio, never mind actually having the capacity to record their own albums in their bedrooms. Of course, that doesn't make performing a particular guitar solo any easier

Yeah, no, I agree. It's much easier today to "capture" a performance at a functional level. No doubt! But, technology hasn't really aided performance and, in fact, our connectedness makes the limitations of our abilities immediately visible to everyone.

[jancivil]

This is tangential but interesting to me:

Lennon-McCartney were't that great writer in the first 3 years time (1959-61), when they wrote together (and separately). And if you listen to the Beatles Decca audition tapes, the band didn't sound that great.
But they were giving (thanks to Brian Esptein, George Martin, and babyboomers) time to develop - and that they did!
If I should name one thing, which separates L&M and the Beatles from million other bands, it is the DEVELOPMENT. To be able to develop yourself, you need, talent, of course, but you need a change, time and motivation.

They were still given all the time in the world late, White Album. And the 'great band' is a product of that and a product of George Martin. They weren't a great band in the sense I would apply a certain standard to, ever. Sometimes, it clicked in this major way. They decided not to be a live band in what, 1966?

They had potential before Ringo Starr but that's what put them over, a professional musician finally.

But McCartney in particular had all of this ability through talent and through osmosis from his father and environment, and speaking of the talent that is something almost no one in the world enjoys.

But here are people with a hot desire, which is another thing which is kind of just rare in the world. THAT is what you need, and the time and the willingness to WORK.

[enroe]

Writing a good song, or instrumental work, with a great
melody and song structure etc is truly the hardest part.

Yes, and most people - like myself - trip themselves up
by gathering plugins all the time. The everlasting
search for an even better VST-plugin prevents from
composing music!

[jancivil]

Good is highly subjective but I know what "good" means to me...

Exactly. All in the ear of the listener. My standards for whatever good music is will be different to the next person and so on.

But! If this is true, then isn't it impossible to know how much good music exists? I mean, you have to know the minds of, at minimum, of a statistically significant and representative sample, no?

I think that is absolutely true. As taste matures, the prospects would also increase. Maybe for some people they would diminish as well.

I definitely believe that people without much or any experience {even as a listener} cannot be relied upon for a standard. I think that _prospects diminishing_ is a sure sign of this, one actually finds out that there tends to be a higher standard than they knew about previously and they're maybe not going to be able to cut it. We see that frequently. As a pure hobby they may continue on just because trying is such a rich experience.
And with that I am not drawing a bright line between 'pro' and 'hobby'. For instance Frank Zappa considered his orchestral composing a hobby he supported by having 'an R&B band' and the stupid songs. Edgard Varèse relied upon a successful wife in the literature game and did next-to-nothing for a couple decades.

But with certain activity fostered by having this guarantee via software, increasingly high standards might be harder to come by. As once upon er time if you're going into studio you had to be able to play, and that had to be pretty reliable as time is money.

[foosnark]

why is it hard to write good music?

What is good? Infinitely deep rabbit hole there. It's really subjective, and depends on the genre. I personally think there's a lot of (mis)judgement of music based on the expectations from other genres. I have no real desire to write catchy tunes or great grooves -- but making music that people get lost in, that stays fascinating for the length of the whole album, and makes them feel like they've had an experience is my goal (though I never explicitly thought about that before now).

For some types of music (particularly in the electronic world), "writing" is not necessarily a separate phase from other creative steps. Writing, arranging, sound design, and mixing all sort of swirl together and mutually effect each other.

I think it's not necesarily hard to write good music -- in terms of how much effort each individual piece takes, or there being some kind of struggle, or a high risk of failure.

But it does need a certain judgement and sensitivity. While "talent" can provide some of that, it only goes so far and development of the skill is more important. IMHO you have to listen to a lot of music and develop your sense of aesthetics. If you have write a lot of music, figure out what's good and what's not, and apply a feedback loop to improve it.

Yes, you can create music intuitively and that doesn't make it invalid. I love reading and find theory fascinating, but discounting "oral tradition" and improvisation is elitism based on Western classical music values which ignore many musical genres. But you can't just do shit at random and expect good results; you have to pay attention, and you need that feedback mechanism to improve yourself.

(I also believe that intuition comes partly from knowledge and practice -- if you've ever played jazz you know that learning scales helps enormously with improvisation, and being able to play without thinking about where your fingers go frees your mind to concentrate on higher level aspects of the music. But reading a book is not what makes the difference between someone who can or can't write (or play) music.)

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

But, technology hasn't really aided performance

Well, it's down to each person to work out where they stand - sacrilege or saviour - but we do have technological aids to performance. We have live auto-tuning and scalers (Y'now! Those things that keep you from playing 'bum' notes). We also have arps, sequencers, and chord-memorisers.