Talent vs. Tools to CREATE Talent THIS JUST OCCURRED TO ME

[dbbubba]

I realize that this started WAY before DrumaGog, Autotune, Melodyne and the rest of the gee-whiz fix 'em, computer programs came along.
Punching in, editing or anything short of a one take performance applies I guess, but...

As these tools became available the "door" that prevented un-talented people from entering the music world was opened wider and wider.

I don't believe that many people posses great musical ideas that need to be heard by the masses when they don't have technical skills.
So, if the said devices allow these less talented people into the musical world can we really complain that the current music offered sucks?

It is all about performance and if the performance has to be fabricated...

Of course, your personal abilities will influence your perspective on this.

Or.... if you can't sing in tune, but with AutoTune or Melodyne you can sing in tune JUST LIKE Celine Dione then you are gonna' LOVE these devices.

.... just a thought.

[nickynicknick]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

I realize that this started WAY before DrumaGog, Autotune, Melodyne and the rest of the gee-whiz fix 'em, computer programs came along.
Punching in, editing or anything short of a one take performance applies I guess, but...

As these tools became available the "door" that prevented un-talented people from entering the music world was opened wider and wider.

I don't believe that many people posses great musical ideas that need to be heard by the masses when they don't have technical skills.
So, if the said devices allow these less talented people into the musical world can we really complain that the current music offered sucks?

It is all about performance and if the performance has to be fabricated...

Of course, your personal abilities will influence your perspective on this.

Or.... if you can't sing in tune, but with AutoTune or Melodyne you can sing in tune JUST LIKE Celine Dione then you are gonna' LOVE these devices.

.... just a thought.

????? is that a question....what shall we comment on ?

[Dean Roddey]

I don't believe that many people posses great musical ideas that need to be heard by the masses when they don't have technical skills.

No musical ideas *need* to be heard by anybody. But, lots of people are interested in hearing musical ideas. Pre-judging them is counter productive. Pre-judging them and providing some sort of minimal skill level that must be met for anyone to put their ideas out there is even more so.

It's not the responsibility of the artist to meet any aesthetic metric other than their own. It's the responsibility of the consumer to find those whose metric appeals to them. If people don't, and they just take whatever is handed to them, then that's not the fault of the artist.

[Star Ark]

I hear ya

I never punch in my when recording myself, although i do take it section by section and can sometimes do many takes to perfect it. Especially when quad tracking tight rhythm guitar parts!

Actually i lie, i punch in for vocals because i do think that is where my talent is lacking....however the song is more important to me than the concept of all in one take performance.

Actually as i am writing this i am thinking of many bands who write great albums but are terrible live performers and probably punch in heaps when recording. It's a tough one, i like the idea of quality performers, i definitely respect it (like watching Dream Theater live is incredible or Dire Straits Alchemy) but i like listening to albums of bands that suck live, some of my favorite albums are done by shocking live acts.

It's a tough one

[Lee Knight]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

No musical ideas *need* to be heard by anybody.

Yes, they do need to be heard. It's art, and art is imperative. I'm a big believer in "pop music as art". So yes, we, as a species need to hear great music. Dogs don't care, my tortoise doesn't care, but I do. It's one of the things that serperates us fron the beasts.

Now the question... can great music be created by these "fix it" tools. Because of, and in spite of them. I believe yes. I also believe it is infrequent that it happens. This is where the great ones can rise to the top and champion great music.

I don't plan on letting Elastic Audio and Melodyne stop me from doing my part to help make great music. Even when I use the above programs.

Think soft lens on a starlet in the 40's. Sheesh, it was overkill. Except for those times you didn't realize what was happening and only found yourslf falling in love with her character. It's art, and in art, anything goes. It doesn't guarantee great art, but use of these tools does not preclude it either.

[PMoshay]

i does not really matter how you get there......... just show up with the goods!

P.S. - Nobody has ever questioned the movie industry for using special effects?...... and people don't really care......... it's just entertainment!


You don't get any extra points (or money) for not using Autotune or not punching in.

[Dean Roddey]

Yes, they do need to be heard. It's art, and art is imperative. I'm a big believer in "pop music as art". So yes, we, as a species need to hear great music. Dogs don't care, my tortoise doesn't care, but I do. It's one of the things that serperates us fron the beasts.

There are only a few things we have to have. Food, water, shelter. Everything else is optional. You will not die if you don't hear music.

[JP11]

I don't know what to think on this subject anymore.

The only thing I do know is that there are very few artists who need these tools that I like or respect (maybe none). But I probably wouldn't like them if they didn't use these tools. And they probably don't care what I like.

Seems to me the best thing to do if you don't like these tools is to make great music without them. That'll show 'em.

The big question is...how many pages on this thread?

[hurd300403]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

No musical ideas *need* to be heard by anybody. But, lots of people are interested in hearing musical ideas. Pre-judging them is counter productive. Pre-judging them and providing some sort of minimal skill level that must be met for anyone to put their ideas out there is even more so.

It's not the responsibility of the artist to meet any aesthetic metric other than their own. It's the responsibility of the consumer to find those whose metric appeals to them. If people don't, and they just take whatever is handed to them, then that's not the fault of the artist.

very well said

[JP11]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

It's not the responsibility of the artist to meet any aesthetic metric other than their own.

If you're talking pop artist, then you're probably going to want to be popular (with business people as well as people people.)

If you're talking crazy artist, then, yeah, they have more freedom as failure is very much an option.

[Dean Roddey]

I said it wasn't their responsibility. But any artist can choose to try to make what they think will sell instead of what they believe in. But I don't think that many artists that have a long term impact or career take the latter approach too heavily. Trying to guess what people will like is generally a losing game.

[dbbubba]

Notice that I ended my original post with "just a thought."

.... and NO, I don't consider ALL pop music to be art really.
It is "art" by some definition, but like re-painting the works of the masters isn't really "art" re-writing the same old music over and over isn't really art is it?

Now don't get me wrong...
For many years I have used MIDI and the entire arsenal of a pro studio to re-create many pieces of very complex music that I really don't have the chops to pull off without SEVERE studio trickery.
I am not going to tell you that I was creating art.
I was copying art that created by others who WERE creating art.

In this same sense, writing music that is pretty well the same as previously written music IS NOT ART.

There are a lot of people who are wrapped up in the "romance" of music that have VERY LITTLE knowledge of music beyond their immediate music of choice.
Just because you are grooving on a musical concept doesn't automatically make it art.
It might be art to you, but art requires originality.

[JP11]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

Trying to guess what people will like is generally a losing game.

Pop music is generally a losing game.

I would bet that most all pop artists and people in the pop music world try to some degree, consciously or unconsciously, to make a viable product that people will like and want to pay for.

[Dean Roddey]

I would bet that most all pop artists and people in the pop music world try to some degree, consciously or unconsciously, to make a viable product that people will like and want to pay for.

Perhaps so. But I'm not sure that's really necessary. There are many artists out there, making a lot of different types of music. You don't have to find people who hate music that has wide appeal and get them to make that kind of music. There are plenty of people who like to play that kind of music.

Obviously even those people might once in a while think it would be cool to do a 40 minute 12 tone piece, and think probably it wouldn't go over better with their audience and don't do it.

[dbbubba]

VERY FEW people get into the commercial side of music to NOT make money.
Still, if we qualified music that way we'd be in A LOT of trouble!

Average pop music might be art, but it sure isn't high art.
It is art in the loosest sense.

[Dean Roddey]

Is it really to make a lot of money? Or is it to get those things that lots of money are a measure of?

[Protools Guy]

I don't think it matters unless you want to go out and play live.

[Lee Knight]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

There are only a few things we have to have. Food, water, shelter. Everything else is optional. You will not die if you don't hear music.

Well, since you're playing semantics, I'll ask. Do you equate needing something with that something playing a part in your death if you don't have it? I don't. So semantics table tennis is done.

Yes, per my definition, I NEED music. I'm sorry you don't. This is important stuff. Pop music is American Music. Its what we do better than anyone else. Or used to. We have a tradition of making great pop music.

And the OP's question is an important one.

[Never1]

Originally Posted by JP11

Pop music is generally a losing game.

I would bet that most all pop artists and people in the pop music world try to some degree, consciously or unconsciously, to make a viable product that people will like and want to pay for.

To anyone who wants to make music for a living, this is the ultimate goal, is it not?

I always get a kick out of the snobbish attitudes of the "indy" "artsy" types who lie to themselves about the fact that they want their music to sell as much as anyone else; they just go to great lengths to conceal this fact from everyone, including themselves as a form of musical selfrighteousness. Their music is music.. emotion... art. Yes it is, but so isn't alot of what I'd consider pop. There will always be some bands that are just manufactured crap but alot of the successful contemporary artists have as much credibility as anyone... they just found their niche and became successful. Can't fault 'em for it.

And if you aren't aware on some level of what will appeal while you're creating, then you're just taking shots in the dark.

Anyone who doesn't fall into this category is either content with obscurity or oblivious to the fact that you're either selling or you're not. There's no in between.

I've always subscribed to the mentailty that says I can write what I love and write what I want to, but maintain some perspective on how it will be recieved by the lisetner and take every step to ensure the message of the song is delivered appropriately.

just my 2 cents.

[Dean Roddey]

I always get a kick out of the snobbish attitudes of the "indy" "artsy" types who lie to themselves about the fact that they want their music to sell as much as anyone else; they just go to great lengths to conceal this fact from everyone, including themselves as a form of musical selfrighteousness.

I think you have to make a distinction between wanting your music to appeal to (to be appreciated by) as many people as possible, and doing it for money. They aren't the same thing, though the former usually implies the latter (or it used to before the modern age of downloading.)

[dbbubba]

"Art" versus "commercial potential" is a sharp precipice to walk along for sure!

I have been studying The Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" and "Smile" a lot lately.
Ask Brian Wilson about the dangers of walking the fine line between the two.

Al;so, remember that I have been a HUGE Frank Zappa fan for more than thirty years.
His music is a great study of this question.

[Never1]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

I think you have to make a distinction between wanting your music to appeal to (to be appreciated by) as many people as possible, and doing it for money. They aren't the same thing, though the former usually implies the latter (or it used to before the modern age of downloading.)

Indeed. My post was assuming this distinction without implying it. good catch.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

I realize that this started WAY before DrumaGog, Autotune, Melodyne and the rest of the gee-whiz fix 'em, computer programs came along.
Punching in, editing or anything short of a one take performance applies I guess, but...

As these tools became available the "door" that prevented un-talented people from entering the music world was opened wider and wider.

I don't believe that many people posses great musical ideas that need to be heard by the masses when they don't have technical skills.
So, if the said devices allow these less talented people into the musical world can we really complain that the current music offered sucks?

It is all about performance and if the performance has to be fabricated...

Of course, your personal abilities will influence your perspective on this.

Or.... if you can't sing in tune, but with AutoTune or Melodyne you can sing in tune JUST LIKE Celine Dione then you are gonna' LOVE these devices.

.... just a thought.

Bingo! This is what I've been screaming about for years now.

[dbbubba]

yes... and YOU Henry actually have chops and came from a time when wood-shedding to develop chops was a good thing.
As you know, VERY few people take the time any longer.
They want results NOW!
Joe and Jill Average are thinking,
"Make ME sound like Django RIGHT NOW!
I don't have time to study keyboards, but I need to record a track that sounds like Jimmy Smith RIGHT NOW!
Whip out the thing that makes me sound like them NOW.
I don't care about the details that make it unique and interesting.
I just want to fool musically un-educated people.
Plus, we ALL are only interested in the stuff that is happening NOW.
We won't compare it to stuff that happened in the past.
In fact, that stuff bums me out because it reminds me of where I really am as a "musician."
I don't acknowledge it."

Myself? I can play the F*CK out of a guitar (that skill and a quarter will barely buy you a cup of coffee) but...
I've played it since I was six or seven, so I'd be be somewhere with by now since I am turning 53 in a few weeks!
Still, I can't sing for jack.
I can punch, edit and auto-tune (I guess, never used it) and get an acceptable performance.
No matter how good my final result is I am not a singer.
The same goes for KYBDs.

I'm a track act, I guess!

I could dress up funny and sing to a CD.
The guitar could be live except for the speed metal solo which would have to be on the CD as well.
I can't play speed metal without punching in a lot.

...and you can BET that it'd be ART.
Oh yeah, it would!

Plus... I'll get HIGHLY offended if you don't acknowledge it as art and heap LOT'S of praise on it.
It'd really be cool if you bought some copies of it, too.

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

I realize that this started WAY before DrumaGog, Autotune, Melodyne and the rest of the gee-whiz fix 'em, computer programs came along.
Punching in, editing or anything short of a one take performance applies I guess, but...

As these tools became available the "door" that prevented un-talented people from entering the music world was opened wider and wider.

I don't believe that many people posses great musical ideas that need to be heard by the masses when they don't have technical skills.
So, if the said devices allow these less talented people into the musical world can we really complain that the current music offered sucks?

It is all about performance and if the performance has to be fabricated...

Of course, your personal abilities will influence your perspective on this.

Or.... if you can't sing in tune, but with AutoTune or Melodyne you can sing in tune JUST LIKE Celine Dione then you are gonna' LOVE these devices.

.... just a thought.

I ain't buying it Danny. I know this didn't just occur to you and I know you can hear the difference between Aretha Franklin and Ashley Simpson or the Motown sound of the Funk brothers vs. Fall Out Boy's rhythm section.

Tools do not provide talent. They hide mistakes. I know you know better.

I personally like the idea of a bigger pool of people breaking down the control room door with better creative ideas regardless of their prowess on their instrument.

[henryrobinett]

Yeah well Danny, at risk of offending a bunch of folk, I think of today as the slacker generation. It's a McDonalds world that pretends to have world class taste. But real great taste takes years of careful development.

I had a friend who's girlfriend was a complete snob. She worked in a bookstore and knew all the titles and could talk to you very learnedly about these various books and authors. It was funny because she comes from a very modest background. Not educated. My friend, her boyfriend, was English, so somewhere along the line this girl/woman developed a sort of english accent. But she was from the boonies, you know kind of trailer park. Seriously NOTHING AGAINST TRAILER PARKS! And she never read any of those books she'd talk to you about. She just heard other people talk about them. But she wanted to BE that learned, sophisticated, intellectual person. She just didn't want to do the work.

I know, that was kind of random.

With music, to play it well also takes years of careful study, development, skill and taste. We who love music and/or are in the production of music, all have varying levels and degrees of great taste in music -- we know what we like and don't like, and can be snobby about it.

But with music, to PLAY IT WELL, I think it's best to connect with it; the instrument, full bore. Not fix it in the mix. Not necessarily cut and paste.

I saw the writing on the wall actually way back in the mid 70s when I saw my first drum machine. And then word processors and Page Maker. It was all over.

And don't get me wrong. All this stuff is great. If you know how to play it's fantastic. Of course it's also great if you don't know how to play. I think it's different if you're an accomplished or semi accomplished trombonist, oboist, guitarist, pianist and need to piece together other parts. You UNDERSTAND -- you KNOW music. But when you have no clue and you sit and try to put sounds together-- well you can come up with some cool and interesting things that way, but ultimately I think you're limited by the lack of your own knowledge.

Today we seem to be cubicle musicians; parts musicians. Import sounds musicians. How many of us can play a sets worth of music on their instrument, alone? How many can back up a singer and change key, without the transpose button, on the spot? How many people can play almost any style convincingly and read the parts if called upon in an emergency to help another band out?

Music is a language. I think today most people are far more illiterate than they were 20 years ago and longer. Hell, more than half of all homes used to have a piano and the children were required to play it, or some instrument.

Today the programmers are more the real musicians than the operators of Logic, Cubase, DP, etc.. The programmers are the ones coming up with the sounds, the quantize algorithms, etc.. THEY'RE ones actually manipulating the sounds. We're just moving the parameters.

It's really a funny time to be a musician.

[chrispick]

I practice my instrument everyday (guitar). And I'm versed on composition and theory. And I've played live off and on for many years.

But I look at all that as means to an end -- namely, making music.

I don't romanticize it or hold it in high regard just because it's my discipline. I think that's egocentric and self-aggrandizing.

Who cares if much of today's pop music product appears to require all this technical doctoring? Honestly. It's an entertainment factory not a museum tour. It has been since at least the '50s.

Seriously, compression is artifice. At a certain level, even microphonics are artifice.

I suppose you could argue that ballet (or clogging) is a language. Who laments the loss or diminishment of that language? Ballet dancers and clogs who think all their study and discipline entitles them to something. That's who and that's all.

[henryrobinett]

Yeah, but I'm not talking about clogging. I mean there will always be some great artists, but perhaps in less supply. I'm not as much talking about pop music. There's always been folk music; music of the people by the people. But what about orchestral music? Symphonic? Music that requires some gonads to play and write? I'm not romanticizing at all. I'm looking at losing an art form.

When the Beethovens of today decide they'd rather spend their time playing xBox 360. And yes, sometimes ego has a lot to do with it. Musicians, artists want to do something that will grab your attention and make you sit up and notice, carve out new territory previously unimagined on their instrument; -- and I thank them for their attention and intention and creativity to create something worth my while to listen to and imagine by.

But part of what I call the "slacker mentality" is the comfort and agreement with mediocrity. "Yeah we all suck!" Then attack anyone who says they DON'T. And people who spend time being accomplished are often criticized for being ego-manics. They never called Chopin and Franz Liszt "shredders," as a put down.

Part of it is people who think that the only music there is is current pop, rock, hip hop, grunge and music created by fellow cubicle musicians. Well there's a world of music out there, somewhere, beyond that.

[Unclenny]

Capture the performance as it is........ or take it to a different place in the mix.

It's all music.


All It Left Me

[henryrobinett]

Yeah. Most of the stuff I do is live recording. I'm going to start doing AGAIN, some piece it together tunes/compositions. But it's so disconcerting programming drums, playing bass parts and crimping together softsynth keyboard parts when it's so much easier, better and quicker to just get the guys over and have them read a chart.

I'm gonna check that out unclenny