Mass Producing Mediocrity?

[Ogg Vorbis]

Given the recent discussions in the Music Theory forum on technology and its ability to substitute for musical knowledge, I was reminded of this article in SOS...

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan09/a ... f_0109.htm

It's not really a scathing diatribe...just sort of....

[jancivil]

Oh, pheh, that's mild. I hope when I talk about this shit I'm so much more scathing than that.

Those topics are a constant in this forum. "What can I buy that allows me to never have to think anything through".

[Per Lichtman]

Mark Wherry writes an interesting piece, but as someone who has had a chance to study for a very short while and spend time with John Adams, who is at the focal point of much of the editorial, I feel there are a few blanks that deserve to be filled in.

For starters, in Adams' recent autobiography, some of the later pages are dedicated to the compositional process and the role of technology in changing the way that each composer grows up musically. He talked earlier in the book about struggling with technology in his own compositions, and about the academic reaction against the musical "norms" of the time (which in turn was a reaction to the norms of another time, etc.) , though he goes to great lengths to specify that great works are not composed "in reaction" to anything, though they may be informed by it. He talks about technology today facilitating exposure to many more kinds of music, from many more places than was ever possible in his own youth and college days (nor in the generations preceding him) and the powerful and positive effect it has had on many young composers he has met. Thus, his comments in the recent interview deserve to be interpreted as one side of his perspective, rather than presenting him as recently taking an "anti-technology" stance.

Secondly, I disagree with Csikszentmihalyi's view in regards to a person's most creative moments, but feel it applies to a person's change and growth. Franz Joseph Haydn composed some of his greatest music during a period of almost complete isolation from the contemporary music of the time, resident (as he was) at the Esterhazy estate. He said that it was this very isolation that helped him to compose such great work. Yet, by the same token, it was Claude Debussy's exposure to Gamelan music that inspired much of his creativity and influenced his subsequent work. Both isolation and exposure seem to be possible catalysts for creativity, but common to both the cases noted is that we are talking about a period of creative opportunity, rather than personal challenge: though the creative act can always be viewed as "challange", that's not what either Csikszentmihalyi meant or what I am referring to here. Concurrently, Ives had one of the least personally challenging lives documented for a respected composer of the era, and yet he took some of the greatest chances and was (in several cases) incredibly innovative. So the line between challenge and creativity pales in comparison to the line between challenge and personal growth, at least as far as I can see.

With all of that said, yes of course making it easier to do anything also makes it easier to do it in a mediocre way. It's as true of music as of art or film or cooking. YouTube hosts a lot of videos shot by people that were having fun as opposed to making art (not that the two can't converge) just like MySpace and SoundClick host a lot of music that's in the same vein. Yes, there will be more mediocre music produced, but no there will not be less great music produced.

There is no proven causal relationship between an increase in mediocre music and a decrease in great music because it isn't a zero sum equation. There's just plain more music being made now, and there's more of it than any human being could possibly listen to, even if they spent their time doing nothing else.

So if there is, quite possibly, just as much great music being made now as ever, then why harp on all the less great music that is also being made? It is doing nothing to decrease our ability to enjoy the music we really want or to stop it from being made.

[Ubiety]

This is relevant: Chance and Order -Stanislaw Lem

[Ogg Vorbis]

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.

[slugfest99]

A lot of fine stuff said already here.

On a personal note, I've fallen into this scene only in the last year or so after turning (cough) over 40. I used to play violin to an OK standard when I was 14 (Grade 5 in the UK). After so many years, my ability to read and write music has vanished and, yes, I'm one of those who tends to live in 4/4 and around 140bpm. And it's definitely all in C. Well, almost...

But here's the truth - I'm having a whale of a time. I make what noises I can for myself and if anyone else likes them it's a bonus. I don't force it on other people and have no ambition to make anything out of this other than my own enjoyment. Period (beware of hypocritical link below!).

I'm not making a very clear point here other than let people get on with what they enjoy and what floats their boat. Yup, tons of stuff I don't like out there - it's just the sound of people educating themselves though. Isn't that a good thing?

Going back to being 14 I got to play with a WASP for a few hours. I nearly wet myself with excitement. The issue with DAWs and VSTs is that for the first time ever I've been able to afford, record and play the synth's that I adored whilst growing up. It's a priceless ability.

It's a bit like the printing press. It releases loads of rubbish very cheaply for everyone yet we all get to pick and choose our favorite authors. Can't complain personally anyway.



Mouxbar
[url]htpp://www.myspace.com/mouxbar[/url]

[Hewitt Huntwork]

Per and Ogg, thank you for those wonderful posts!

I was in a restaurant in rural Wisconsin once with my father. We saw a "piece" on the wall that was literally macaroni glued to construction paper, like a child might be assigned to make in school - only this was framed and obviously done by an adult. I wondered aloud why this even existed, who would find it appealing and worthy of displaying? My father replied that it was the by-product of great art; for every Picasso there were countless thousands of macaroni-glued-to-construction-paper creations. I thought that was an interesting perspective.

All of this has been put much more succinctly in the past as well: It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools. Technology will play equal roles in our failures and successes.

[Musicologo]

Basically I find refreshing that I can, in my own home, write a full orchestral score and ear it played in real time, and then record it and show it to my friends or even the world (the boundaries are very large now...). All this without having to pay a penny to any musician and not having to leave my room. This is precious.

If I need a teacher I can ask whatever I want in this forum or similars. We have wikipedia. We have free scores from great masters all around. We have online composition classes. I can even study and improve myself without having to attend a school (altough I already have a masters degree, there's plenty room for improving!)

I'd say that anyone can virtually produce large scale works. Also we have lots of people producing large scale rubbish. Including, probably, myself.

But the good thing is that it might be easier for a Chopin or a Stravinsky to be born and dicovered in the wild.

It simply enlarges the possibilities. We have a lot more music offered and a larger span of diversity and quality (whatever that means in music).

Each listener can nowadays experience all styles he might imagine or not without leaving the room or spending a penny. I've never bought a CD again... I have more music (and the kind one I LIKE!) that I can hear popping around in youtube, myspace, etc...

[jancivil]

There is no proven causal relationship between an increase in mediocre music and a decrease in great music because it isn't a zero sum equation. There's just plain more music being made now, and there's more of it than any human being could possibly listen to, even if they spent their time doing nothing else.

So if there is, quite possibly, just as much great music being made now as ever, then why harp on all the less great music that is also being made? It is doing nothing to decrease our ability to enjoy the music we really want or to stop it from being made.

I don't know. More people with the ability to make and PRESENT music, means more crap music is out there.

If one is trying to find music one has never encountered before, the sheer numbers of rubbish available may decrease one's percentage/chance of finding something better.

[Per Lichtman]

There is no proven causal relationship between an increase in mediocre music and a decrease in great music because it isn't a zero sum equation. There's just plain more music being made now, and there's more of it than any human being could possibly listen to, even if they spent their time doing nothing else.

So if there is, quite possibly, just as much great music being made now as ever, then why harp on all the less great music that is also being made? It is doing nothing to decrease our ability to enjoy the music we really want or to stop it from being made.

I don't know. More people with the ability to make and PRESENT music, means more crap music is out there.

If one is trying to find music one has never encountered before, the sheer numbers of rubbish available may decrease one's percentage/chance of finding something better.

The problem with the viewpoint is that it doesn't distinguish between "available" and "presented with" or even "encouraged to experience".

For example, as an American film goer, the average individual is not directly affected by the quality or quantity of films being made in, for instance, Sweden because they are not presented with them. While there are of course exceptions (Ingmar Bergman's films being required viewing for practically any serious film student) and the films may influence American film makers (or present them with potential collaborators in their own films), the only effect for most people is indirect. Most are never exposed to the content.

On the other hand, changes to what's got the most advertising in stores, on TV, on the front page of MySpace and iTunes (and other similarly high traffic sites) do tend to affect what people are exposed to. You may know more about artists working on genres you don't care about than you do about the people most skilled in your favorite genre if its not considered to be important by the mass media. Exposure is key.

Now, it has been the case for a long time that media exposure is as much about image, marketing and PR as it is about skill. That's why the average Joe on the street is more likely to know about the instrumentalists in Velvet Underground, none of whom demonstrated great musical skill at the time (though they were quite creative and interesting in other ways), than they are to know anything about the most skilled classical instrumentalists of our time (save for the ones that have gotten a great deal of marketing). This isn't something that's relegated to recent popular music, however, as we can look back at composer/performers such as Franz Liszt and see them using showmanship and PR stunts (like planting women to swoon during a performance so that he could stop playing a piece before a particularly difficult passage came up) to raise his profile.

Long story short: the question of what music is being made is, even to many fairly informed listeners, less relevant than the question of what music they are being exposed to. You aren't likely to read about the haphazard, unsuccessful experiments in Gramophone Magazine, nor are you likely to find that the people you respect musically (either in their abilities or taste) are going to steer you toward such music.

In short, if your approach to finding new music is based on random chance, then yes the situation may be getting worse. But in almost any situation I can envision, there are many factors that inform what music a given listener will be exposed to, even if they go searching for it, and those factors are more powerful in their effect than the sheer volume of music being produced.

Now as far as great music that gets ignored, don't even get me started on the topic of the amazing compositional works of Amy Cheney Beach, Elfrida Andree, Marion Bauer, Louise Farrenc, or the utterly superlative work of Lili Boulanger that most people have never been exposed to. Can you listen to Lili Boulanger's composition that made her the first woman to ever win the Prix de Rome and tell me that it's fair that she has been basically ignored by music history textbooks and in the average classroom while so many of her male contemporaries (of equal or lesser skill) are covered in such detail? Did you know that Amy Cheney Beach is supposed to have had an auditory gift that may well have rivaled or exceeded Mozart's?

I don't think I can spell it out much more clearly: the question is far less about the music that is produced than about the music that we are exposed to, the music that is promoted and lauded. History is replete with great music that has been ignored, or took over a hundred years past the composer's death to find an audience, and there is lots of great music that's being created and ignored every year we live in the present day. It doesn't really make much difference in the lives most people lead, but the question of what music they are exposed to does.

[Ogg Vorbis]

I don't think I can spell it out much more clearly: the question is far less about the music that is produced than about the music that we are exposed to, the music that is promoted and lauded. History is replete with great music that has been ignored, or took over a hundred years past the composer's death to find an audience, and there is lots of great music that's being created and ignored every year we live in the present day. It doesn't really make much difference in the lives most people lead, but the question of what music they are exposed to does.

So Per, what could be distilled from your view is that in spite of the proliferation of inexpensive technology for creating, recording and delivering music, a lesser artist with access to industry influencers or direct promotion will always rein supreme over a highly talented, modern-day Debussy with a laptop and a myspace page.

If that's the implication of what you're saying, I'd have to agree. We can't hold to this notion that "the world has opened up" because of cheap software and the internet, and that there will be a sort of indy coup d'état of the mainstream music industry.

Of course, that same industry might occassionally swoop down and acquire an indy artist (at fire-sale rates!) but it's still the industry who is in control.

I don't wish to put words in your mouth, so I'll ask what you think (or anyone else) digital technology implies for the ability of an artist to step out of the shadows.

[Per Lichtman]

Well, to an extent yes.

I guess between my two posts I was trying to present more of both sides.

There are projects I've worked on that would have been borderline impossible prior to the advent of Internet based music pages. I've worked with artists that got thousands of plays on their MySpace page and met highly skilled musicians that they collaborated with electronically, all without ever having spent a dime on self-promotion. So the technology has the potential to be used as a powerfully positive tool.

At the same time, technology hasn't completely changed the rules: mass exposure tends to more often than not take a lot of money, and while there are viral exceptions to the rules (Hamster Dance, Strong Bad, Ask Ninja, etc.) most of the things that reach a wide audience had a much more limited audience until they "made a connection". People that already have connections, an image, a reputation or a "hook" have an advantage in terms of getting exposure.

I guess the one point I keep coming back to is that the quality and quantity of music being produced is largely independent from the quality and quantity of the music we are exposed to as individuals. It makes more sense to concern ourselves with the quality of the music we are personally choosing to listen to and the quality of the music that is being recommended to us by either friends, artists or critics, than the quality and quantity of all the music that is currently available (most of which we'll never have to listen to).

[Per Lichtman]

Just a little follow-up to your earlier post last night Ogg Vorbis, and I'm sorry I didn't comment on it earlier.

Yes, composers have always been influenced by their choice of tools and yes new tools and new media usually take quite a while to be accepted as being equal to the established ones. So in almost every point you made, I agree with you.

The one place where I diverge slightly has to do with the depiction that the natural response to spending a lot of time in a classical or academic setting, studying music in a traditional manner is to grow impatient with people that want the tools to get better or the compositional process to be easier. I am guessing we come from a similar background in this regard and you seem to be a lot more open-minded than you depict yourself as being.

Long story short, I don't see anything wrong with the existence of loops and production tools for those that want to produce or edit rather than compose original works. Writing a great orchestral work has always been hard, no matter how strong your music theory background, and continues to be even with the advent of tools such as DAWs and large sample libraries. But I think there is something to the sentiment that people need to look more seriously (and specifically) at what they are trying to accomplish and what abilities they consider to be most important to develop.

Nadia Boulanger (Lili's sister and a music teacher whose pupils included many well known composers such as Phillip Glass and Aaron Copland) made a distinction between a musician's ear and a composer's ear. A strong background in music theory does not make somebody a great composer, nor does the absence of it prevent someone from making it. In fact such a background is, much like the computer or sample library or access to a quill and ink, often a tool that influences the ease and way in which we work rather than a process that is guaranteed to produce a great composer. Composition is as much about creativity and personal interpretation and sensibility as it is about technical background, and the "composer's ear" isn't really something that can be taught, so much as recognized and encouraged.

To put it another way: if someone comes up with a great piece of original orchestral music, where they have composed it note by note (whether through pen and paper, a program that uses standard notation, a piano roll, step sequencer or a recording of their MIDI performance) then that is to be respected as a great piece of music, whether or not that person knows about all the rules of transposition or has great facility in performing the piece at a given instrument. Many of our greatest composers wrote large quantities of music for instruments they never learned to play and I feel that proliferation of technology has created an unnatural divide between trained and un-trained composers.

I guess it all comes down to drawing distinctions. Are all great composers innovative or highly skilled in their orchestrations? No. Is someone with great skill in orchestration also naturally going to be a good composer? No. Are all great composers great performers? No. Are all great performers great composers? No. Can getting a musical education vastly enrich and inform the perspective from which we view music and provide many great tools to facilitate the compositional process? Yes. Long story short: it's one way of helping you get there, but it's not the only way.

[eduardo_b]

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?"

But this is why the technology, while increasing exponentially the possibilities in creating music, simultaneously decreases the likelihood of having much to show for it. The diminished attention span and lack of patience that is alarmingly common now simply work against truly well done pieces of music. The time spent crafting a work, be it three minutes or 10 times that, is very much a part of the process. Stepping back, revisiting and making changes are all essential aspects of any artform, yet the most modern tools make it seem easy to concoct a masterpiece in an evening. It doesn't really happen that way very often...which is to say, very rarely indeed.

I guess the one point I keep coming back to is that the quality and quantity of music being produced is largely independent from the quality and quantity of the music we are exposed to as individuals. It makes more sense to concern ourselves with the quality of the music we are personally choosing to listen to and the quality of the music that is being recommended to us by either friends, artists or critics, than the quality and quantity of all the music that is currently available (most of which we'll never have to listen to).

You're saying that we and those we direct our attention toward (friends, critics and other artists we respect) are the filters by which we select from the incomprehensible volume of music available to us. Sometimes that happens, but often the push/pull of mass media and entertainment are influences as well. We end up hearing a lot of music that we never intended to (often quite popular, with lots of buzz), some of which we realize we like.

Does this not influence our own musical efforts. It has to. I really don't see the independence from this, nor has it really ever been otherwise except for those who are isolated for some reason from the culture around them. We are all influenced by what we hear, but these influences can be both positive and negative. We will consciously or subconsciously incorporate what we like and avoid what we don't. The arts have rarely been about working in cultural isolation and more about reacting to influences both by emulation with variation and by using these influences as a jumping off point.

Do quality and quantity have a relationship? I do believe that increasing quantities actually lower the percentage, if you will, of quality work. The sheer volume, particular with the aid of current technology, increases the likelihood of mediocrity far more rapidly than the odds of excellence.

[Per Lichtman]

You're saying that we and those we direct our attention toward (friends, critics and other artists we respect) are the filters by which we select from the incomprehensible volume of music available to us. Sometimes that happens, but often the push/pull of mass media and entertainment are influences as well. We end up hearing a lot of music that we never intended to (often quite popular, with lots of buzz), some of which we realize we like.

Does this not influence our own musical efforts. It has to. I really don't see the independence from this, nor has it really ever been otherwise except for those who are isolated for some reason from the culture around them. We are all influenced by what we hear, but these influences can be both positive and negative. We will consciously or subconsciously incorporate what we like and avoid what we don't. The arts have rarely been about working in cultural isolation and more about reacting to influences both by emulation with variation and by using these influences as a jumping off point.

Do quality and quantity have a relationship? I do believe that increasing quantities actually lower the percentage, if you will, of quality work. The sheer volume, particular with the aid of current technology, increases the likelihood of mediocrity far more rapidly than the odds of excellence.

Eduardo, I mean nothing personal when I say that you are quite simply misinterpreting the overall content of my posts. I said, in multiple places, that the mass media has a huge effect on what we hear. I also said the quantity and quality of music is largely independent from what the mass media (and for that matter, many historians) choose to point our attention to. That has more to do with the preferences and perceptions of the people in "gate keeper" positions. The head of Sony Classical loves your work and decides to market it? Great, that just made a bigger difference in terms of how many people will hear your music than how many degrees you have or how large your existing body of work is.

There is no direct link between industry preferences and the quality and quantity of music. Sometimes they line up, sometimes they don't. That's what I meant by the quality and quantity of music being "independent from" what we are exposed to: what we are exposed to has more to do with the preferences of individual gatekeepers, of a business or market as a whole, or even with the culture of the time than it does on any academic or "musical" measure of the quality of the work.

Throughout all of recorded history, there have always been less talented composers that got more promotion, more money or more commissions than less talented ones. There have also been amazing ones that went un-noticed. The situation hasn't changed, just the tools involved.