Mass Producing Mediocrity?

[eduardo_b]

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.

Hmm. Not really finding it, I don't know...bitchy.

Are you saying there is nothing to this? It seems simply inevitable this would happen.

[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.

Hmm. Not really finding it, I don't know...bitchy.

Are you saying there is nothing to this? It seems simply inevitable this would happen.

Well, every technological improvement in history was bad for someone.

At the present moment music technology and the cultural changes they have wrought seem bad to some people, specifically those people who feel that the 60's 70's and early 80's represent some sort of apogee of musical culture.

If you think that the Eagles were the best band ever, then yes, most bands that you will find on Myspace will seem wretched, and todays musical culture will be alienating. If, on the other hand, the Eagles strike you as being an overpaid and extremely mediocre bunch of tunemongers, the chances are that the present situation will seem less bad.

[eduardo_b]

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.

Hmm. Not really finding it, I don't know...bitchy.

Are you saying there is nothing to this? It seems simply inevitable this would happen.

Well, every technological improvement in history was bad for someone.

At the present moment music technology and the cultural changes they have wrought seem bad to some people, specifically those people who feel that the 60's 70's and early 80's represent some sort of apogee of musical culture.

If you think that the Eagles were the best band ever, then yes, most bands that you will find on Myspace will seem wretched, and todays musical culture will be alienating. If, on the other hand, the Eagles strike you as being an overpaid and extremely mediocre bunch of tunemongers, the chances are that the present situation will seem less bad.

Apogees of musical culture are where each person thinks they are, for whatever reasons. A lot of music from the 60s into the 90s was quite good, and a lot more was definitely not, although what falls into which category depends on who you talk to. But there was only so much of it. All the music stores I frequented -- (some will know them, others will not) Licorice Pizza, Wherehouse, Tower Records -- were packed with albums, but that was nothing compared to what can be found now on the Internet.

One could argue that whatever the varying quality of commercial releases, their overall levels of quality -- from talent to production values -- were better than what can be found on many music sites and sites packed with links to music. The mediocrity is simply a result of home and project studios that cost relatively little to set up and allow anyone (and that's the center of the issue) to create music and make it available. Most of it is free (and not worth even that in many cases), but a lot isn't. The talent typically isn't there, and even when it is, the quality of production varies considerably. Overall, it truly is mass mediocrity.

This isn't an elitist proposition. It just is what it is on the basis of so many people posting music. It's no better for writing. Endless blogs (millions, of course, have disappeared, which is no loss) filled with mediocre writing, ideas and content. Sure it's democratic. It's also a lot of swill. Like I said, it's inevitable.

[vurt]

inevitable perhaps.
preferable to previous ages, yes.

[eduardo_b]

inevitable perhaps.
preferable to previous ages, yes.

Because...?

[herodotus]

compared to what can be found now on the Internet.

One could argue that whatever the varying quality of commercial releases, their overall levels of quality -- from talent to production values -- were better than what can be found on many music sites and sites packed with links to music. The mediocrity is simply a result of home and project studios that cost relatively little to set up and allow anyone (and that's the center of the issue) to create music and make it available.

But you keep missing the fact that these sites aren't usually proferred as an alternative to music made by the major labels. They are the musical equivalent of sharing snapshots with friends.

Most of it is free (and not worth even that in many cases), but a lot isn't. The talent typically isn't there, and even when it is, the quality of production varies considerably. Overall, it truly is mass mediocrity.

OK, I am going to ask this officially: which sites do you visit, how many do you visit a week, and how much time do you spend at each of them?

Because these are huge sweeping generalizations you are making. It's like saying most of the 2 million books published last year were horrible when reading more than a handful of them is humanly impossible. In most cases these kinds of generalizations seem to tell us much more about the attitude of the speaker than the culture being commented upon.

[Cordelia]

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.

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?

[vurt]

Who could be grumpy about that?

[Ubiety]

We live in a time when millions of people get to explore the arts and feel the joy of creating.

There needs to be even more of this, in my opinion. It's the near-perfect antidote to consumerism.

[eduardo_b]

But you keep missing the fact that these sites aren't usually proferred as an alternative to music made by the major labels. They are the musical equivalent of sharing snapshots with friends.

Well, to be honest, I hadn't really considered that aspect, which is certainly valid. I'm actually considering of all the talk about alternatives to music labels, as if this is really going to be an equivalent experience. It can be, but often isn't because there's no barrier to entry.

OK, I am going to ask this officially: which sites do you visit, how many do you visit a week, and how much time do you spend at each of them?

Couldn't tell you. I don't keep track. It's quite random, which is actually a fairly good way to sample what's out there. Sorry, can't do better than that.

Because these are huge sweeping generalizations you are making. It's like saying most of the 2 million books published last year were horrible when reading more than a handful of them is humanly impossible.

I'd say a fairly large percentage are not that great. If you sample the opinions of readers, who as an aggregate read a lot of different books, you'll find only a rather small percentage of books rise to the level of outstanding or memorable. And this is through a publishing process that includes acquisition editors and more editors working with authors. Imagine what the quality is like when self-publishing is available.

In most cases these kinds of generalizations seem to tell us much more about the attitude of the speaker than the culture being commented upon.

Both actually. I'm someone who spends considerable attention assessing cultural shifts and details, and I'm well aware that music, film, books and other arts are commercial enterprises that have large pipelines to fill on a continual basis. A lot of excellent work comes through those pipelines, and a lot more less than excellent work. It's to be expected. And these organizations contain talented people who filter out the worst stuff and try to maximize the quality of what they offer to potential customers.

Now remove this filtering and see how much worse the quality becomes. Denial is futile. It is the reality. A lot of people may enjoy the creative process, but not many are actually creating works that others find interesting, worthwhile, exciting. That's all I'm saying.

[eduardo_b]

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?

It's wonderful that more people get to experience creativity. There are many, many ways to do so. The focus on results is largely a combination of human nature and a cultural emphasis on the end result far more than the process. You can see it here, with concerns about not finishing songs and how to achieve the best results. The process is more often than not for a purpose instead of being the purpose. And I don't think this is limited at all to the arts.

[jancivil]

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.

I thought Polaroids just took pictures, I didn't know you did graphic arts with one.

I haven't actually complained about widespread availability of musical technology; personally.
I find the amount of space taken up here asking 'what software can I buy or more like cop for free which will do incredibly basic tasks instead of even looking up "how to for idiots"', ghastly, ya know, that's a bitch for me.

[ughnonumus]

There are always those who shake their heads at technology and announce that it's the end of the craftsmanship. I remember learning that in Europe, the installation of organs in the cathedrals was met with disapproval because "all you had to do was to press a key and out came the music." But of course, the craft of music performance survived just fine.

I think that photographic technology caused reactionaries to decry the facile "click of a button" that would mean the end of painting and other "pure" visual media.

The thing is (and it's been said here already) is that yes, cameras can be operated by everyone. But has this sheer volume of equipment and the common person's ability to take snapshots by the gazillion somehow diminished visual arts (including fine photography)? Not even a little. In fact, someone might be able to make a case to say that it's made it even more precious and appreciated.

It still takes as much skill, attention to detail and mastery of the basics as ever to create really great music. And none of that is automatically at odds with using digital tools. In fact, the point that the article made (seemingly a criticism) about the many works which just so happen to be in 4/4 at 120 BPM, is actually a natural part of what I find to be the creative process.

The carpenter swings the hammer, but the hammer also swings the carpenter.

When you sit down with your robes, long beard and a piece of papyrus with staves and your quill dip pen, your product is still being dictated by your process. The staves suggest western scales and tuning, the piano you are writing for suggest certain conventionalities that are taken for granted, the experience you are drawing from and the ideas that flow from your pen are drawn from a reservoir of all the music you've heard and have been influenced by.

There is no such thing as 'pure' music that is not influenced by the tools, the process or the approach. In digital music production, certain things are dictated to you. Computers have a way of bending YOUR will to THEM. But to me, none of that automatically means that your music has been "fatally infected" by the influence of sequencers and virtual instruments or that the craft of your composition is somehow compromised because of it.

What dangers lurk is the seduction of the digital tools to create instant decisions. It's very easy to copy n' paste your way through a delicate transition or to arppegiate a solution to your duration problem when syncing to picture, etc. It also sets up an expectation that "all solutions to compositional problems are tool-oriented." This gives us questions such as, "what software can show me how to create compelling melodies (or harmonies, or whatever)?" or "What plug-in can tell me what key I am in?"

Some of us who have spent hours in practice rooms all our lives, or have analyzed the shit out of every tune in every fake or real book ever published or have studied Stravinsky scores to the point of exhaustion chime in with the poorly received answer of, "Get your ass in the woodshed and don't come out until you can do it in your sleep!"

But sometimes, that's really the answer to questions in music.

Enjoyed your prose; on board. Personally, my concern is the active component that lurks (and lives) in the human body. Can this bit express itself as lively without the appendage of the tool? I believe this is a fair question...a perennial question. Regardless, the effect on the body human remains. After all, the essence of life that works through the physical body is what we're aiming at and evaluating , yeah? It's what appears before the senses.

Good post. Thanks, for that.

[Ubiety]

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.

I thought Polaroids just took pictures, I didn't know you did graphic arts with one.

He said, "cheapened graphic arts". Ever think about the kind of work that a graphic designer might do?

[Ogg Vorbis]

Enjoyed your prose; on board. Personally, my concern is the active component that lurks (and lives) in the human body. Can this bit express itself as lively without the appendage of the tool? I believe this is a fair question...a perennial question. Regardless, the effect on the body human remains. After all, the essence of life that works through the physical body is what we're aiming at and evaluating , yeah? It's what appears before the senses.

Good post. Thanks, for that.

Hey Ugh,

Can you elaborate a little on that "active component?" Is this what you're calling the creative spirit? And is your question regarding whether or not this impetus can express itself without tools?

If my interpretation of your question is correct, that I would guess that the answer is no. Whatever there is internally as a impetus for creation must be manifest by a "tool" whether it is a instrument, a computer, paper and pencil, etc.

Did I get your question wrong?