Better gear = better music?

[audioconsult]

Originally Posted by Goa-Dubs

edit-BTW..my machinedrum is doing just fine right now.In its governed/controllled way : ]

you managed to gouvern and control it? my was in a permanent flux..resulting in always only 5 working patterns on stage..the rest was history.. i sold it mainly because of that "feature"...

I like it when the memory of a drum machine builds up content i can rely on.

[sctt_stone]

This comment is out of context. To draw such a comparison you need to relate it too the best teck available in that time and place. I seriousley doubt that Michalangelo used a stick to paint with. He would have used the best materials and tools available to him at the time. Would his work have been differant had he used a stick rather than a high quality impliment? Yes it would be differant, it would be low fi for that time and place in history. Better tools allow a skilled operator/ artist to achieve a higher degree of detail when working. Technique and method are an interagal part of creating art, like it or not. I just watched a fascinating film on Netflix addressing the evolution of art with modern teck and the false sense of accomplishment that modern teck instills in so many mediocre "artist". The film is Called Press, Pause, Play. Watch it.

Originally Posted by ksandvik

Michelangelo would have made better frescos with Flash...

Or Bach's music was limited by the lack of modern arpeggiators...

[MrTechno]

Originally Posted by audioconsult

interesting thing about highend gear is that it can be damn cheap when you know what to look for on the second hand market..only problem.. the known stuff gets expensive incredible quick thanks to the internet rumours.. Not so long ago a juno 60 was a synth nobody wanted anymore..you got them for 300-400..and look at them now.. getting over 1000 and probably will hack the 1500.- border soon..

It is a very interesting point you make. I agree.

[ozy]

Originally Posted by Yoozer

It still has rules (all frequencies at equal volume).

of course. White noise is different from pink noise because of a measure. And still it is almost chaos.

People just don't know what "rule" means.

They equate "rule" with their parent-imposed curfew.

The guy (don't remember the name) who quoted the "ruler" instrument had a point.

"rule" = measure, reference, definition, delimitation, step, line, whatever, which alone allows repetition hence rhythm (among others).

A subjective rule is still a rule, and is necessary.

Freedom is self-rule, not absence of rule.

Absence of rule is dissolution, past-the-date primeval soup.

[NAWAX]

In my case:
Better gear = More G.A.S.
More G.A.S. = less music done & empty wallet
Slutty me!!
I need a good therapist asap!

[Phaser1]

Originally Posted by ShadowAMD

I don't get where the lack of common sense overtakes threads like these and it get's swapped out for being pedantic.

1). You need a good song and arrangement
2). You need some talented musicians
3). You need some good musical instruments that are in tune
4). You need the right tools to exploit and get the best sound out of these instruments.
5). Mix it and give it some polish by using the correct tools for the job.
6). Get it mastered and correct any flaw's that hinder the song and leave in the one's that give it impact.
7). Release to general public, then you will find out how good you actually are.

It's so simple and it works. I don't think I have ever heard a major release from a decent band that sounds bad.. Sure some are better than others but none sound bad. Sorry if this offends anyone, but it seems like people justify poor quality songs because they don't know how to make it sound better.

This is gear slutz, we use the best we can to give the client the best possible chance and sound in an overcrowded medium. Sure if you love you're poor quality song and say it's all about musicianship, there are ten's / hundreds of thousands of other musicians in the same boat. Let's see how far you stand out...

Okay, first of all, you're talking about bands. Thats a whole other story i guess. But this is the electronic music prod forum... gear upgrades should be the last of your concerns. You said it yourself: people dont 'know' how to make their music better. so why would buying expensive stuff give them better skills ?

[augustmonroe1000]

Originally Posted by Lune

I was part of an interesting "discussion" (OK, argument) between a son and his father.

The son maintained that technology gave people so many creative options that music is far more interesting than it used to be. He pointed out that now you can make sounds that aren't in the real world, customize sounds more finely, mix with better precision, quantize beats, FX combo's etc. He basically argued that better tools equals better product. He used the analogy of how car safety, computers, etc. everyhting has gotten better with technology. He said it was like a painter having a thousand colors instead of just 10- this made experimentation more likely. He saw technology as adding possibilities that just weren't there in the past.

The dad disagreed and said that with more primative stuff: a decent microphone, sampler or tape deck, and production device (tape decks and mixer or a basic DAW) that any sound or effect could be had. He said music genius is in the composer's head not in the machine and that amazing stuff could be made from sounds of household things and nature. He said high technology limits peoples' imagination and prevents real sonic exploration because all computers push people to follow narrow creative channels. He referenced what a lot of groups (Beatles, Pink Floyd) did with basic things in the 60's and early 70's as his proof. He said the real world was the most liberating for the music spirit and that low tech generates more creativity.

Really made me wonder. I don't know who was right (or if there is a right) but I felt an urge to see what I could do with just acoustic instruments, a microphone, a sampler and a basic DAW. My guess is, this being Gearslutz, most here would agree witht the son (otherwise, why buy higher and higher tech gear?) but I wonder if all this tech cuts us off more and more from the natural acoustic world.

I'm with dad.You can polish a turd,but it will always be a turd.

[Dirty Halo]

Originally Posted by xanax

so what the beatles bought the first synths/mellotrons… that's probably because they were the only ones that could afford them at the time.. they perhaps popularized synths in prog rock etc but i can think of a million artists, even non-edm related that are way more influential to edm then the beatles ever were.. who even uses a mellotron in edm..besides air?!

You're joking, right?

Ever hear of samplers? (basically, a mellotron)

Loops? George Martin and the Beatles were THE pioneers to bring that idea to mainstream.

Moogs, Arps... just listen to "Strawberry Fields," "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," the "White album" alone.

FX, production techniques, on and on... The Beatles influenced YOU and you don't even know it.

Try reading "Recording the Beatles" and you'll see EXACTLY how much EDM owes to the Beatles... and if you can't see those connections, then I just can't help you.

-a

[Lune]

I just watched a fascinating film on Netflix addressing the evolution of art with modern teck and the false sense of accomplishment that modern teck instills in so many mediocre "artist". The film is Called Press, Pause, Play. Watch it.

I just watched that movie online thanks to you, a summary:

1. Technology drives art (meaning all creative forms- including music)

2. Art is more democratic than ever before- tech makes anyone able to create advanced stuff now

3. Art has historically been a product of elites

4. Since everyone is creating art most of the stuff is very mediocre

5. As people listen to mediocre stuff all the time they start to accept it and expect mediocre stuff- thus permanently lowering their standards

6. People used to really concentrate on art

7. Now they consume art in a very distracted way constantly

8. There is a lower bar for distracted listening- any beat will do for most folks now

9. People consume so much art now that no individual piece has much real value anymore

10. The way to survive is live shows since recorded stuff is almost worthless

After watching the movie i was struck by 3 things:

1. Most people don't ask much from their music- i think 99% would be happy with stuff generated by a computer- music is generally decorative background stuff.

2. People go to concerts mainly to be with each other and move together- they don't mind very repetitive stuff

3. Most music today is extremely repetitive- even the classical guy in the movie had a verrrry repetitive classical piece- we are in the age of the loop

[sctt_stone]

Exellent summary. I fear the grey goop of nano bott's. If you think about it overproduction of anything results in a decreased value. Another interesting point made was that although art has been around for a long time, art as an industrie is relativley new. It will be interesting to see where it will go in the next 20 years or so.

Originally Posted by Lune

I just watched that movie online thanks to you, a summary:

1. Technology drives art (meaning all creative forms- including music)

2. Art is more democratic than ever before- tech makes anyone able to create advanced stuff now

3. Art has historically been a product of elites

4. Since everyone is creating art most of the stuff is very mediocre

5. As people listen to mediocre stuff all the time they start to accept it and expect mediocre stuff- thus permanently lowering their standards

6. People used to really concentrate on art

7. Now they consume art in a very distracted way constantly

8. There is a lower bar for distracted listening- any beat will do for most folks now

9. People consume so much art now that no individual piece has much real value anymore

10. The way to survive is live shows since recorded stuff is almost worthless

After watching the movie i was struck by 3 things:

1. Most people don't ask much from their music- i think 99% would be happy with stuff generated by a computer- music is generally decorative background stuff.

2. People go to concerts mainly to be with each other and move together- they don't mind very repetitive stuff

3. Most music today is extremely repetitive- even the classical guy in the movie had a verrrry repetitive classical piece- we are in the age of the loop

[Barfunkel]

Originally Posted by Lune

I just watched that movie online thanks to you, a summary:

1. Technology drives art (meaning all creative forms- including music)

2. Art is more democratic than ever before- tech makes anyone able to create advanced stuff now

3. Art has historically been a product of elites

4. Since everyone is creating art most of the stuff is very mediocre

I kinda disagree with this. High art has always been a product of the elites, because you needed money to make it, but it's not like ordinary citizens didn't sing and dance in the middle ages. They just had no way of recording (obviously) their music, or publishing it, because they couldn't write, and even if they did, there was no way to distribute the music.

Now we have this thing called the Internet, which allows everyone to publish and distribute worldwide for free.

The point is, there's ALWAYS been tons of mediocre music. You just never heard it before the Internet.

1. Most people don't ask much from their music- i think 99% would be happy with stuff generated by a computer- music is generally decorative background stuff.

2. People go to concerts mainly to be with each other and move together- they don't mind very repetitive stuff

3. Most music today is extremely repetitive- even the classical guy in the movie had a verrrry repetitive classical piece- we are in the age of the loop

Some people actually like simple, repetitive stuff (me included). I personally can't stand classical music (except some modern minimal pieces). Way too many instruments going on at the same time, way too many changes in too short an amount of time. I'd much rather have a simple loop repeated for 6 minutes rather than, say, 24 different musical ideas playing for 15 seconds each. Then again, I'm a simple person who likes simple things.

[Omega Arts]

I've been able to creative bad music with great gear
Must be a gift.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

[sctt_stone]

This is a good point as well. Yes there have always been folk songs, songs sung in taverns and at local weddings and gatherings that were not considered "art" before ethno-musicology entered the scene over the last 100 years or so. "High art", is that even a term that one can still apply to modern popular music of any kind? Why are the Beatles songs arranged and preformed by choirs and orchestras all over the world 40 some years after their release? Why can we not say that about more "popular music acts" from the 21st century? Why are choirs and orchestras not arranging Aphex Twin material when this is considered by many in the field of electronic music to be of on par with the level of composition espoused by the Beatles? [QUOTE=Barfunkel;8368394] High art has always been a product of the elites, because you needed money to make it, but it's not like ordinary citizens didn't sing and dance in the middle ages.

[sctt_stone]

I think we share that gift brother. Kinda makes me wish I had just stuck to drawing.

Originally Posted by Omega Arts

I've been able to creative bad music with great gear
Must be a gift.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

[Goa-Dubs]

Originally Posted by audioconsult

you managed to gouvern and control it? my was in a permanent flux..resulting in always only 5 working patterns on stage..the rest was history.. i sold it mainly because of that "feature"...

I like it when the memory of a drum machine builds up content i can rely on.

No-it governs me with its quantising and limited bar format.Other than that its great.I record phrases into ........ and layer them and mix to create new rhythms and texture.I was gonna sell it last week but the guy pulled out.Glad i kept it actually.Man...that box is fast.....

[ozy]

Originally Posted by Phaser1

you're talking about bands. Thats a whole other story i guess. But this is the electronic music prod forum...

are you implying that EDM is for loners, and doesn't include interplay, arrangement, communication?

interesting.

[Bio]

are you implying that EDM is for loners

Aphex twin always claim to be one at least...

[xanax]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

You're joking, right?

Ever hear of samplers? (basically, a mellotron)

Loops? George Martin and the Beatles were THE pioneers to bring that idea to mainstream.

...here we go again.. hail mary to the beatles... i'm familiar with their work and the songs you cited thank you.. as well as their influence on popular music... and the breakthroughs made in recording techniques... but because they used a mellotron does not mean they invented it or participated in the development of sampling technology.. better yet..loops? the beatles invented loops????!! please educated me on this one...to my knowledge repetitive music has existed since the 19th century in various classical movements notably minimalism with composers such as Erik Satie. closer edm influences come from disco which finds it's roots in soul and funk.. but i'm sure beatle maniacs will claim they pioneered that as well

...getting back to these "rules" in music..of course they exist and should be known but who is to say they must be followed?? rules are for tools.. i'm noticing those putting them forward are either trained musicians or music engineers, unsurprisingly schools full of academic rules exist for both... and for a good reason but music on an artistic level should be about experimenting.. i always find things get more interesting when i'm bending theories, circuits or whatever a manual or guide leads us to do..especially true in electronic music where the machine often imposes directions & constraints .. think outside the box & step out of the matrix once in a while

[xanax]

Originally Posted by ozy

are you implying that EDM is for loners, and doesn't include interplay, arrangement, communication?

interesting.

no that's your implication (no surprise either) edm as it's name implies is music to dance to, that usually happens at a party or a club. sounds pretty social to me. on a compositional level it is usually a solo effort as the producer must arrange all instruments not unsimilar to a composer arranging a symphony. interaction is in between the brain & the machines, communication usually through midi

Originally Posted by Bio

Aphex twin always claim to be one at least...

actually i know a little bit about afx, my best friend was his roady for couple years.. he's actually very funny & social.. he just doesn't care much for showbiz and prefers to hang with his gf at the country side..and of course in the studio..

[Bio]

Thanks for the info,

That's something that i heard from him in an interview, but as you say he was certainly referring to showbiz etc...

[bluegreengold]

Originally Posted by Lune

10. The way to survive is live shows since recorded stuff is almost worthless

I disagree with this so much, it's so false, but people repeat it everywhere. 'Making it' from live shows means touring 3/4 of the year, a grueling lifestyle that leaves little room for the time to create music. Particularly in the case of 'studio musicians' the way electronic musicians are. The switch to all in the laptop production by many of the current top performing artists is almost purely a practical response to this. It is limiting for the creation of art and is exhausting too.

The idea that an artist should have to provide an auditory backdrop for socializing or that somehow live performance is better than djing for dance events -- no.

Recorded music is still the most important culturally. If people don't pay for it, it doesn't mean that live music is the best answer. It's far much more freeing to get yourself an education, or to build the social contacts, so that you can find some means of income that is not to so demanding of your energy and time that it allows you to support your own creative endeavors.

It's fantastic if you're one of the lucky successes, that can create relevant art and get by doing it, but that is incredibly difficult in a field where owning or otherwise have regular access to expensive equipment is a necessary part of the equation. Much easier to create as a penniless poet than electronic musician. It's also true that success itself can be a limiting factor to your creativity, for having a career in the arts for the most part means 'sticking to one thing' creatively. I know very creative people that pretty much have to hide their more original work in order to maintain their mystique as an artist in a market that expects one to repeat the same thing, perhaps with minor adjustment, over and over and over again.

[ozy]

Originally Posted by xanax

no that's your implication. edm sounds pretty social to me. on a compositional level it is usually a solo effort. interaction is in between the brain & the machines, communication usually through midi

I.e., no interplay, i.e., music for w@nqers. QED

Anyway, I wasn't talking to you: what about using that "ignore" button?

Originally Posted by xanax

my best friend was his rdy for couple years..

and my uncle's best friend was the janitor at Golda Meir's house.

Based on this knowledge, here's my opinion on the Middle East: yadda yadda yadda

[sctt_stone]

So I think you just said don't quit your day job.





"Recorded music is still the most important culturally. If people don't pay for it, it doesn't mean that live music is the best answer. It's far much more freeing to get yourself an education, or to build the social contacts, so that you can find some means of income that is not to so demanding of your energy and time that it allows you to support your own creative endeavors."

[kirkelein]

Originally Posted by Lune

I just watched that movie online thanks to you, a summary:

1. Technology drives art (meaning all creative forms- including music)

2. Art is more democratic than ever before- tech makes anyone able to create advanced stuff now

3. Art has historically been a product of elites

4. Since everyone is creating art most of the stuff is very mediocre

5. As people listen to mediocre stuff all the time they start to accept it and expect mediocre stuff- thus permanently lowering their standards

6. People used to really concentrate on art

7. Now they consume art in a very distracted way constantly

8. There is a lower bar for distracted listening- any beat will do for most folks now

9. People consume so much art now that no individual piece has much real value anymore

10. The way to survive is live shows since recorded stuff is almost worthless

After watching the movie i was struck by 3 things:

1. Most people don't ask much from their music- i think 99% would be happy with stuff generated by a computer- music is generally decorative background stuff.

2. People go to concerts mainly to be with each other and move together- they don't mind very repetitive stuff

3. Most music today is extremely repetitive- even the classical guy in the movie had a verrrry repetitive classical piece- we are in the age of the loop

Seems stupidly generalising if you ask me. The film doesn't seem to make any distinction between music as art, and music as entertainment, which is very important IMO. It can be either one of the two, or both, or neither. The mass consumption is of course mostly the latter, which undermines most of the reflections that they seem to have made. I don't think for a second that it's any differrent today than from what it's always been. There was music for drinking and dancing then, as there is today.

The only problem now is that the music industry long ignored the real wants of the consumer because the monopolistic competition that is music was too comfortable. Now when piracy lets people give the record companies the middle finger, the artists are left without a good system for getting paid for their recordings.

Don't people listen to music at home? Don't they want recordings that sound good as well as exciting live concerts? The two are obviously different products (which may benefit from different types of music) and to say that one would replace the other is ridiculous IMHO. They've always been different and they'll continue to be so, and the fact that record sales have dropped are not a reflection of any change in this fact.

[sctt_stone]

The film does at one point mention that although art has always been around, the idea of an art industrie is relativley new.

Where would you draw the distinction between music as art and music as entertainment?

Captain Beefheart/ Lady gaga?


[QUOTE=kirkelein;8369378 The film doesn't seem to make any distinction between music as art, and music as entertainment, which is very important IMO. It can be either one of the two, or both, or neither. The mass consumption is of course mostly the latter, which undermines most of the reflections that they seem to have made.

[kirkelein]

Originally Posted by sctt_stone

The film does at one point mention that although art has always been around, the idea of an art industrie is relativley new.

Where would you draw the distinction between music as art and music as entertainment?

Captain Beefheart/ Lady gaga?

That is of course a difficult question. Lady Gaga is obviously entertainment, but I wouldn't say that it's devoid of artistic value. Enrique Iglesias would be a better example.
In other words the line is not just blurry, but probably almost as thick as the spectrum is wide.

[bluegreengold]

Originally Posted by sctt_stone

So I think you just said don't quit your day job.





"Recorded music is still the most important culturally. If people don't pay for it, it doesn't mean that live music is the best answer. It's far much more freeing to get yourself an education, or to build the social contacts, so that you can find some means of income that is not to so demanding of your energy and time that it allows you to support your own creative endeavors."

Not so much 'don't quit your dayjob' but if you're young and want to be an productive independent artist, make the choices so that you can have a low stress dayjob or belong to some kind of supportive community rather than expect to make it professionally.

[ozy]

Originally Posted by bluegreengold

Not so much 'don't quit your dayjob' but if you're young and want to be an productive independent artist, make the choices so that you can have a low stress dayjob or belong to some kind of supportive community rather than expect to make it professionally.

It is a very wise suggestion for anybody in a creative job nowadays.

Either you are very young and already in demand for some professional skill [e.g.: a 17-years old session-man with huge chops. This was a common case when I was a kid. You could pay college by playing piano for a few bucks an hour. A few, but daily. But it was 35 years ago],

and "in demand" means "you don't need to call people. people call you and your parents are afraid you will make too much money and quit college"

so, "in demand" doesn't mean "you think you are good and the world just doesn't understand you",

either all of that,

or

get a solid day job (work in a repair shop, or teach music in a school for a monthly salary - private lessons with floating payments are not the same thing. Make coffee for a stockbroker, attend a hotel's night desk, whatever),

free yourself from rent-and-food worries,

and once that's settled don't waste a minute of your spare time.

No parties, no holidays, no booze, no hanging around, no working for free for friends, no spending time on gearslutz : it's NOT business.

Consider the monthly salary as a scholarship: establish objectives and deadlines, hurry up learning skills and promoting yourself quickly, as if you were in danger of LOSING the scholarship if you flunk tests.

If you study, set objectives: fooling around on INTERESTING websites is not "studying".

Work for free for important people.

Don't help your penniless loser friend publish his "EDM Opera" on the internet. Don't "produce" your sister's fiance.

You will lose months, learn nothing and grow old without any serious accomplishment to show.

Go to a serious, rich, studio and tell them you can make coffee. Help fixing loose plugs. Accumulate credit with profesisonals (asking them to listen to your demos is NOT a way of accumulating credit. Making them boring copies, installing the new windows-10 on their home computers, doing routine work for them, covering for them, is the way).

Enjoy the few precious moment when your FREEDOM from hunger and from distraction will let you write a song.

One day you will be able to take a sabbatical, will have some spare money, will have the skills and the friends (see above: "accumulate credit"),

and a portoflio of 10/15 unfinished songs.

Finish them and demo them to IMPORTANT friends. Because you will have important friends, who AT LEAST will owe you 5 minutes for a coffee.

All of the above is exactly the OPPOSITE of:

being 25, sitting in front of a DAW 12 hours a day, fine-tuning the "professional" details of your derivative imitation of skrillex, and sending emails to producers, while hunger and desperation and NEED for quick results haunt you.

[Neodym]

ofcourse better gear is.... well.... better,but let me say this,I think person with inferior gear but superior talent/experience will make better music than oposite one ( better gear,less talent/exp )

[xanax]

Originally Posted by ozy

I.e., no interplay, i.e., music for w@nqers. QED

Anyway, I wasn't talking to you: what about using that "ignore" button?

Trollific as always..thanks for reminding me!!

Originally Posted by ozy

and my uncle's best friend was the janitor at Golda Meir's house.

Based on this knowledge, here's my opinion on the Middle East: yadda yadda yadda

damn granps you really are stuck in 1969...