Compguy
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 67
- Joined: 2004/02/23 13:56:23
- Status: offline
Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
It seems to me that we are in a unique period in history where there is almost more focus on the functionality and features of the tool itself than on what can be created with the tool.
Back in simpler times, a woodcutter only had to focus on the condition of his axe and wagon for lumber transport. He knew that axes and wagons were the same 100 years ago, and that they probably would "always" be the same. There was no concept of the new, improved axe head with 5 separate cutting heads. No tweaking parameters, no working on "bugs". Certainly he derived great satisfaction from cutting well and efficiently. This was his art.
Ditto for farmers, musicians, painters, etc.
The farmer was engaged in doing what a farmer does in order to grow the best crops possible. Again, this was his art. The musician used an instrument that was almost frozen in time, the same 100 years ago as it was today. All of his focus was on the CREATIVE PROCESS, and not on the tool.
Today, we here on the forum are engaged in analysing every aspect of our complex tool, tweaking settings to the tiniest degree, never being satisfied because this and that feature is missing. We delight in streamlining the tool, and a vast amount of attention is devoted to it. Just look at the time we spend reading and writing these posts.
Now OF COURSE there is nothing wrong with that, because that's just the times we find ourselves in and it cannot be otherwise. And we do love our technology. There is a certain amount of fun to be had in facing the challenges of tweaking the tool. I am in no way saying that we here are doing anything other than that which must be done, and enjoying the challenge.
But it does seem to be a sign of the times that we are far more focused on the tool itself than on the creative process. I think of the Beatles, for example, whose biggest technical challenge was switching from 8 track to 24 and seeing what could be done with that [yes, a simplification]. But just look at the MAGIC they produced. They simply focused on the creative process and knew they were vastly limited in numbers of tracks, but it was kind of like, "That's the way it is right now. What can we do with it?" As an aside, I also know full well that without their producer, the magic would not have been there. Truly, it was a band of five. Hands down, the true artist in the studio is the producer. I digress.
Now I understand also that I am somewhat mixing the roles and perceptions of producers and musicians. But many of us musicians are self-producers, so the line does blur.
Sometimes I think I was much better off (creatively) when all my technology consisted of a Fostex 4 track cassette recorder. It was a solid tool, written in stone. It was what it was, and that freed me up to just concentrate on music.
So, guys, in your opinion, in what ways has our necessary focus on the tool changed the way we write, record, and produce music?
Again, I want to emphasize that I'm not being critical of us as a group nor of any individual. The times we are in are inescapable.
OR ARE THEY????
|
brundlefly
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14250
- Joined: 2007/09/14 14:57:59
- Location: Manitou Spgs, Colorado
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/22 12:30:36
(permalink)
I think you have to take it to the level of the individual. The pure musicians don't give a hoot about the tools, and the pure techies don't give a dang about making music. But, of course, nobody around here is that pure. Obsessive/compulsive disorders notwithstanding, I think everyone naturally finds his/her own zone on the continuum, and surfs back and forth along that zone according to his/her whim at the time. EDIT: I wanted to add that I don't think that's changed a lot over time, though computers and the Interwebz may have fostered a shift toward the analytical tool-tweaking end of the spectrum. EDIT 2: It should also be pretty clear that the folks who spend the most time around here (myself included) are here for reasons unrelated to making more and better music themselves. The musicians who are doing the best job of not letting the tools get in the way of the music are not hanging out here as much, which probably contributes to the impression that tweaking has taken over. This is a self-selected group, not representative of the total population of musicians.
post edited by brundlefly - 2011/10/22 12:42:02
SONAR Platinum x64, 2x MOTU 2408/PCIe-424 (24-bit, 48kHz) Win10, I7-6700K @ 4.0GHz, 24GB DDR4, 2TB HDD, 32GB SSD Cache, GeForce GTX 750Ti, 2x 24" 16:10 IPS Monitors
|
e.Blue
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
- Total Posts : 693
- Joined: 2004/01/04 20:54:51
- Location: Austin,TX
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/22 13:03:43
(permalink)
Compguy
...
Sometimes I think I was much better off (creatively) when all my technology consisted of a Fostex 4 track cassette recorder. It was a solid tool, written in stone. It was what it was, and that freed me up to just concentrate on music.
So, guys, in your opinion, in what ways has our necessary focus on the tool changed the way we write, record, and produce music?
Again, I want to emphasize that I'm not being critical of us as a group nor of any individual. The times we are in are inescapable.
OR ARE THEY????
I think the tools today are amazing, and yet I've also longed for simplicity of the good ol' 4-tracks days as well. Of course, the reality is that we could easily adapt any DAW to function like a 4-track, yet we choose not to. The truth is that there are so many choices it can almost feel over-whelming sometimes. -e.B
post edited by e.Blue - 2011/10/22 13:14:07
|
Middleman
Max Output Level: -31.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4397
- Joined: 2003/12/04 00:58:50
- Location: Orange County, CA
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/22 13:12:34
(permalink)
Well said brundlefly. A lot of people here are software types. They focus on nuances in the software as if rating bathing suit beauties. Many who appear to be knowledgeable are parrots of information. Not fundamental explorers of musical creation or new sound concepts. They aren't necessarily wrong but not genuinely experienced either. In some cases people are highly read, articulate possibly verbose but not creatively interesting. Kind of recording librarians. Not bad mind you but understand the population.
The tools have changed the way music is created and fundamentally music is stalled. There is not a lot of new and interesting music going on out there, in fact the music is more a vehicle for notoriety, for example Niky Menage, where the music serves the image which generates notoriety which generates the clothing and perfume deals. Where do we see Taylor Swift these days....all over the beauty industry products advertisement and magazines. Writing and performing music is only accepted by the masses if the writing and music fall within a defined framework or presentation both structurally and sonically. It services the industry to keep these structures in place because they are some guarantee of return on investment i.e. keeps the lights turned on.
In this sea of music averageness, comes a few sparks of light, Amy Winehouse, John Mayer and many others that are actually artists with no other agenda but to play, create. Not heros, just good musicians & singers.
If you treat a DAW like a recorder and not a musical instrument your chances of retaining a focus on the music and not the tools is intact. The challenge today is that the abundance of tools waived in a musicians face are not sonically that interesting to listen to and they rarely deliver a sonically interesting listening experience across more than 2 or 3 songs. This and the fact that the rooms we record in have a large impact on the sound and these are rarely adapted well for recording. Also the microphones required to allow a broader sweep of a sonic palette which will give you many more options of tonality across multiple musical pieces, come at a high price.
But all that said, the current expectations of the market and sound are actually very high competitively. More so than in the past. The complexity of the tools to match the commercial work out there now, regardless of my opinion that a lot of it is not musically appealing but just technically challenging, requires learning a lot more software and having some very expensive gear available. If you are a recording artist, it takes a lot longer to learn these tools and this detracts from practicing your musical instrument.
|
LpMike75
Max Output Level: -59 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1621
- Joined: 2009/10/04 11:50:50
- Location: CT
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/22 13:51:05
(permalink)
"If a hammer is your only tool all your problems look like nails"
The world would be so much easier with just a hammer. Sometimes sitting at your DAW there is just soo many options it's overwhelming.
Not that I'm complaining, I like the options mostly
|
Thatsastrat
Max Output Level: -65 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1267
- Joined: 2004/05/09 02:20:19
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/22 14:04:45
(permalink)
Compguy
It seems to me that we are in a unique period in history where there is almost more focus on the functionality and features of the tool itself than on what can be created with the tool.
My thoughts go to, we have already heard what can be created with the tool.
The struggle is, learning the features and functions so that what we create sounds
more like what we hoped it would sound like, yet still is not quite there. By taking on
the role of engineer/producer, that becomes a responsibility we have excepted. No longer
can we have the carefree life that just a pure player enjoys. Someone has to be interested
in manning the board and investing the time it takes to make a good recording. Not all players
want to invest the time it takes. It's much easier to let someone else do it. So I will keep my focus
on learning as much as I can about the features and functions. So does this change the music?
I can only hope.
post edited by Thatsastrat - 2011/10/22 15:24:38
Sonar Platimum, Win10 32bit, Quad Q6600,4G DDR2 Ram, BCF2000, Lexicon Lambda interface,Tascam US 1800, WD 500 GB HD, M-Audio AV40 Monitors, Line 6 DI Gold, Guitar Rig 5 Pro, hand full of guitars, Kawia PH50 Keyboard,Digitech GNX3 http://www.soundclick.com/thatsastrat/%3C/a%3E http://www.myspace.com/thatsastrat/music
|
ChuckC
Max Output Level: -61 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1488
- Joined: 2010/02/13 01:22:55
- Location: Port Charlotte, Fl
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/22 15:05:06
(permalink)
I think times were more simple back when I was just a musician and went to "the Studio" to let somebody else record us. True, we could just concentrate on the performance and not the tech side of things, then we'd sit backand be amazed that it sounded great! or conversely dissapointed by the engineers lack of talent at what he does.
I find now that it's kinda like changing hats. I am the engineer til I get the sound checks done & am happy with the tones I am about to get, once I hit record I am back to thinking performance. Then I switch back as the other members track their parts and I start mixing.... I enjoy the engineer hat. Though I a sure the time I've spent learning it could have been used practicing and writing music too.
I kinda looked at it like this.... I could always take my car to a mechanic for repairs or I could buy the basic tools and do most of them here. yeah I took me longer the 1st time I changed a head gasket than it would have taken a mechanic.... but once learned I can do it again, and better/faster than before, and now I learned more about my car. buying a daw and learning this stuff was the same for me, now it is another tool in my bag of tricks and I understand music production better. I get better and better with every song I produce. I can appreciate what I hear coming from the big boy studios and what tricks hey used to get their sound to my speakers. Sure fixing my own car may hurt the mechanic's pocket, just as all of us doing our own recording may eventually put most "Audio Engineers" out of business. but that is the times changing as the always do. I am sure the worlds best saddle & stirrup manufacturer lost a lot of business when the automobile came along and he either learned to make rims and auto parts or went the way of the buffalo.
ADK Built DAW, W7, Sonar Platinum, Studio One Pro,Yamaha HS8's & HS8S Presonus Studio/Live 24.4.2, A few decent mic pre's, lots of mics, 57's,58 betas, Sm7b, LD Condensors, Small condensors, Senn 421's, DI's, Sans Amp, A few guitar amps etc. Guitars : Gib. LP, Epi. Lp, Dillion Tele, Ibanez beater, Ibanez Ergodyne 4 String bass, Mapex Mars series 6 pc. studio kit, cymbals and other sh*t. http://www.everythingiam.net/ http://www.stormroomstudios.com Some of my productions: http://soundcloud.com/stormroomstudios
|
JClosed
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
- Total Posts : 690
- Joined: 2009/12/19 11:50:26
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/22 15:30:00
(permalink)
When I started to make (electronic) music all "tools" I had was a single (self-build) monophonic synth and a few tape units. If I needed a reverb or echo I had to use a endless tape with a lot of tape heads or a spring. Most stuff you had to build yourself. Putting a musical piece together was a LOT of tape-cutting and putting pieces of tape together with adhesive tape (using a state-of-the-art tape-cutting machine). A painfully slow process. Now - fast forward until today. Needless to say I feel terribly spoiled with all that power in just one small computer that is about the size of just one of my old tape units... Incredible...
|
dlesaux
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1034
- Joined: 2009/09/13 09:25:18
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/22 19:08:45
(permalink)
I do so notice a lot of posts here about tools, workflow, ability to customize colors, etc.
Personally, I'm amazed by what Sonar can do! I typically record guitar heavy tracks with drums and bass and Sonar does everything I would expect it to do and then some! The tools help with crafting my tone but I've never been stumped or stopped by Sonar not being able to do something.
Sonar has been very liberating and fun! Just what making music should be!
Peace! Daniel Sonar Platinum - 2017.10 and PreSonus Studio One 3.5.5
Windows 10 64 bit
Studiocat Skylake Desktop PC with Intel i7 6700k processor @ 4.20 GHz / 16G RAM
Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 Audio Interface and Cakewalk UM-2G Midi Interface Check out my website
|
timidi
Max Output Level: -21 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5449
- Joined: 2006/04/11 12:55:15
- Location: SE Florida
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/22 19:27:51
(permalink)
My main instrument is now the computer.
|
bapu
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 86000
- Joined: 2006/11/25 21:23:28
- Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/22 21:19:53
(permalink)
Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself? Nope.
|
Kreative
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 570
- Joined: 2011/08/23 22:45:03
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/22 22:52:35
(permalink)
I suppose when lumberjacks first used chainsaws instead of axes and saws they asked the same question: Has the intense focus on more efficient equipment changed the nature of my work? The trees still fell to the ground using either tool.
Windows 7 64 bit, Sony Vaio Laptop Q740, 8 GB, Sonar Producer X1d, Focusrite Scarlett 18i, Korg Pa500, M-audio 61 Radium Keystation. Using Omnisphere, Trilian, Komplete 8, Morphestra, Orchestral Essentials, Evolve, Orange Tree Guitars, Addictive Drums, BFD2, Melodyne Editor, Studio One 2, Ozone 5, FabFilter.
|
rick keys
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 25
- Joined: 2005/07/23 19:01:50
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/23 00:25:53
(permalink)
I regret the day i sold my tascam 4track !
AMDX4 630 Quad core -1981 rhodes stage 73 -roland xp80 sonar 8.5.3 MPC2000 XL EMU 1820 ableton live 8 reasons 4 sound forge 10 sonarx1
|
rbowser
Max Output Level: -10 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6518
- Joined: 2005/07/31 14:32:34
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/23 00:33:23
(permalink)
Yes it definitely does change the music itself, and unfortunately, often, not for the better. Look at all the "music" being produced now by people who have no idea how to write music - they're using digital tools to string things together, and often even convince themselves that what they're "creating" is legitimate. RB
Sonar X3e Studio Roland A-800 MIDI keyboard controller Alesis i|O2 interface Gigabyte Technology-AMD Phenom II @ 3 GHz 8 Gb RAM 6 Core Windows 7 Home Premium x64 with dual monitors
|
Kreative
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 570
- Joined: 2011/08/23 22:45:03
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/23 01:02:15
(permalink)
rbowser
Yes it definitely does change the music itself, and unfortunately, often, not for the better. Look at all the "music" being produced now by people who have no idea how to write music - they're using digital tools to string things together, and often even convince themselves that what they're "creating" is legitimate. RB
Musical "legitimacy" is certainly determined by the ear and the mind of the individual beholder. And each generation seems to look at the music and styles of the next generation coming up after it with a certain measure of disbelief and bewilderment as to what makes that particular music desirable to those that listen to it. Whatever can capture the imagination of the listener can become alluring, and this is always a matter of opinion. It may not consist of musical genius, but if music speaks to someone in such a way that a person can identify with it, it takes on meaning and value for that person, and it gains legitimacy for that person. This is the way it is with many things. I checked this electronic music out the other day, and found that, even though it was a bit foreign to my personal tastes, it had a spark of genius to it. Its done in a remarkable software app called Renoise. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9jX0whDJvQ
Windows 7 64 bit, Sony Vaio Laptop Q740, 8 GB, Sonar Producer X1d, Focusrite Scarlett 18i, Korg Pa500, M-audio 61 Radium Keystation. Using Omnisphere, Trilian, Komplete 8, Morphestra, Orchestral Essentials, Evolve, Orange Tree Guitars, Addictive Drums, BFD2, Melodyne Editor, Studio One 2, Ozone 5, FabFilter.
|
FastBikerBoy
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 11326
- Joined: 2008/01/25 16:15:36
- Location: Watton, Norfolk, UK
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/23 01:03:02
(permalink)
Definitely. I can no longer make music because the tool bar is too big, and worse still it's grey. 
|
rbowser
Max Output Level: -10 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6518
- Joined: 2005/07/31 14:32:34
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/23 01:24:46
(permalink)
Kreative
rbowser
Yes it definitely does change the music itself, and unfortunately, often, not for the better. Look at all the "music" being produced now by people who have no idea how to write music - they're using digital tools to string things together, and often even convince themselves that what they're "creating" is legitimate. RB
Musical "legitimacy" is certainly determined by the ear and the mind of the individual beholder. And each generation seems to look at the music and styles of the next generation coming up after it with a certain measure of disbelief and bewilderment as to what makes that particular music desirable to those that listen to it.
Hi, Kreative - Thanks for your post. You made me realize what I actually already knew, which is that I shouldn't have ventured into the waters I did with my post. It's all theoretical conversation probably for another platform. I happen to believe that what you've said here isn't true at all, but it is probably what I thought when I was younger. There actually are criteria for what good music consists of, but we aren't aware of that when we're younger. What happens with people who are into music, or at least like to listen to it, is that our tastes expand incredibly as we get older. When I was a teen and in my 20's, I thought Led Zeppelin, The Who, Jefferson Airplane (the list goes on) created The Best Music Of All Time. - But as the years went on, and I still enjoyed music from my era, and from many eras, I realized there was no way I could attribute great musical achievement to those groups the way I can attribute it to Mahler, Stravinski, Bernstein. But, as I said, those realizations and perspectives can only come with the aging process. The topic of the thread was if tools change the music itself - and the answer is definitely Yes, even when actual music is created using those tools. What I was on a toot about earlier was how it's so easy for the Sound of home projects to sound great, even when there's zero creativity behind the making of the tracks - regardless of genre. ---side note story - I'm an ASCAP member, and recently I was contacted by a fellow ASCAP member looking for a collaborator. The demo this person provided for the project was nothing but a two bar and extremely elementary percussion track--a "beat" as we say now. No melody, no chords, nothing more than one or maybe two pre-set drum beats from a soft synth. I replied asking if there was more to the project--Noooo, he replied - he was looking for a "collaborator" to do all that stuff - the actual music. lol.--and he was serious. And I'm sure he considers himself an artist because he knows how to drop a beat MIDI file into a soft synth. Randy B.
Sonar X3e Studio Roland A-800 MIDI keyboard controller Alesis i|O2 interface Gigabyte Technology-AMD Phenom II @ 3 GHz 8 Gb RAM 6 Core Windows 7 Home Premium x64 with dual monitors
|
Kreative
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 570
- Joined: 2011/08/23 22:45:03
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/23 01:54:38
(permalink)
rbowser
Kreative
rbowser
Yes it definitely does change the music itself, and unfortunately, often, not for the better. Look at all the "music" being produced now by people who have no idea how to write music - they're using digital tools to string things together, and often even convince themselves that what they're "creating" is legitimate. RB
Musical "legitimacy" is certainly determined by the ear and the mind of the individual beholder. And each generation seems to look at the music and styles of the next generation coming up after it with a certain measure of disbelief and bewilderment as to what makes that particular music desirable to those that listen to it.
Hi, Kreative - Thanks for your post. You made me realize what I actually already knew, which is that I shouldn't have ventured into the waters I did with my post. It's all theoretical conversation probably for another platform.
I happen to believe that what you've said here isn't true at all, but it is probably what I thought when I was younger. There actually are criteria for what good music consists of, but we aren't aware of that when we're younger.
What happens with people who are into music, or at least like to listen to it, is that our tastes expand incredibly as we get older. When I was a teen and in my 20's, I thought Led Zeppelin, The Who, Jefferson Airplane (the list goes on) created The Best Music Of All Time. - But as the years went on, and I still enjoyed music from my era, and from many eras, I realized there was no way I could attribute great musical achievement to those groups the way I can attribute it to Mahler, Stravinski, Bernstein. But, as I said, those realizations and perspectives can only come with the aging process.
The topic of the thread was if tools change the music itself - and the answer is definitely Yes, even when actual music is created using those tools. What I was on a toot about earlier was how it's so easy for the Sound of home projects to sound great, even when there's zero creativity behind the making of the tracks - regardless of genre.
---side note story - I'm an ASCAP member, and recently I was contacted by a fellow ASCAP member looking for a collaborator. The demo this person provided for the project was nothing but a two bar and extremely elementary percussion track--a "beat" as we say now. No melody, no chords, nothing more than one or maybe two pre-set drum beats from a soft synth. I replied asking if there was more to the project--Noooo, he replied - he was looking for a "collaborator" to do all that stuff - the actual music. lol.--and he was serious. And I'm sure he considers himself an artist because he knows how to drop a beat MIDI file into a soft synth.
Randy B.
Of course the tools change the music. No doubt. They offer a broader palette of sound and capability to the artist. And I understand what you're saying about educated musicians versus the rest, however, the sophisticate's music often goes over other people's heads and is too complex for some people for it to be accessible. Unfortunately, musical genius and sophistication is not what most people gravitate towards. And I, like you, went from Zeppelin, to Yes, to Bach, and back and forth. Nevertheless, whatever we may regard as the epitome of genius cannot argue with the success of something that nevertheless sells, and is listened to. Whether we think it is neanderthal or barbaric thrashing and babble, it speaks to other people in such a way that draws them in. And I do agree with you about the tools making average musicians sound better or more sophisticated than they actually are. Yet I find this intriguing because it makes music more accessible to the average person, and lets creativity become more of a guiding force rather than merely depending upon formal training in the musical arts. Sometimes indeed [but not always], the amateurs are the best innovators. From Ted Talks http://www.ted.com/talks/charles_leadbeater_on_innovation.html In this deceptively casual talk, Charles Leadbeater weaves a tight argument that innovation isn't just for professionals anymore. Passionate amateurs are using new tools,
Windows 7 64 bit, Sony Vaio Laptop Q740, 8 GB, Sonar Producer X1d, Focusrite Scarlett 18i, Korg Pa500, M-audio 61 Radium Keystation. Using Omnisphere, Trilian, Komplete 8, Morphestra, Orchestral Essentials, Evolve, Orange Tree Guitars, Addictive Drums, BFD2, Melodyne Editor, Studio One 2, Ozone 5, FabFilter.
|
Lanceindastudio
Max Output Level: -29 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4604
- Joined: 2004/01/22 02:28:30
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/23 02:23:30
(permalink)
lmao Led Zepplin and Prince are as genius as Bach and Tchaikovsky if you ask me.
They have all made awesome music, regardless how sophisticated it is, which each one mentioned aboce has added something spohisticated for sure.
Back on topic, more tools are better if they don't take our focus from the min motive of getting a nice piece of music done.
Some people do not focus wel, and for those people, I would say limited resources can be a help.
Asus P8Z77-V LE PLUS Motherboard i7 3770k CPU 32 gigs RAM Presonus AudioBox iTwo Windows 10 64 bit, SONAR PLATINUM 64 bit Lots of plugins and softsynths and one shot samples, loops Gauge ECM-87, MCA SP-1, Alesis AM51 Presonus Eureka Mackie HR824's and matching subwoofer
|
hellogoodbye
Max Output Level: -64 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1343
- Joined: 2004/03/22 05:46:36
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/23 02:43:58
(permalink)
A few random thoughts... Of course the times we are in are escapable. If I want to, I can make music the way I did when I was younger, with just a guitar and my voice. No problem. Well, then again... due to artritis I can't play guitar anymore but thanks to my new tools, I can still create guitar music...! The fun for me lies in being able to create stuff that would have taken a LOT of people in the sixties or seventies! I can do it all on my own now! And I can also create music I would never create without the tools: I could have written cinematic orchestral music way back then, but no one would ever perform it. But now I can perform it myself! So the tools opened up possibilities that otherwise would only have been possible for 'pro's'. (More about 'pro's' later...) It's not the intense focus that changes the music itself, it's the tools that changes the kind of music I can make. But the music I make is made by ME and not my tools. So whatever tool you use, you can not create what I would call great music if you can't create music, period. Having said that... obviously nowadays there are well known 'musicians' who have big hits and are 'pro's' and well known MAINLY because of their tools... but I can hardly call their musis music and the fact that the youth today likes those hits, well, let's just say the tools DID change the music itself indeed, but it's not my kind of 'music'... even though I can enjoy some of those er... efforts. About pro's and amateurs... When does an amateur become a pro...? After getting a degree? After getting a hit? After getting his music played by real people? After getting a degree? After a specific amount of time? I don't believe in pro's and amateurs. In the sixties you were a pro when you had access to a studio and a contract with a recording company an could make a living with making music only. That would defined a pro somehow. But to me there are no pro's and amateurs: there are good musicians and bad musicians. When did The Beatles become pro's? After earning their first money with a gig? After Hamburg? After singing up with Parlophone? After their first hit? After releasing Please please me or only after releasing Rubber Soul? What REALLY define's a pro when it comes to music? To me that's the quality of the music they make. There are pro's on this forum and there are amateurs at the top of Billboards 100. In the end I don't care about all this: I just like to make music. And I like what I can do nowadays with all those new toys, er... tools. I am happy I am not forced to only using my guitar and voice, because as it is right now, I wouldn't be able to make music anymore. Well, that were just some random sunday morning thoughts... 
Sonar 8.5 PE, Edirol FA-66, Behringer C-1. All instruments in my songs are VSTi's.
Check out Soundclick
|
Lanceindastudio
Max Output Level: -29 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4604
- Joined: 2004/01/22 02:28:30
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/23 03:31:07
(permalink)
Good thoughts man! I really enjoyed your post, and yes, the modern tools are astronomically enabling to us all,no doubt!
Lance
Asus P8Z77-V LE PLUS Motherboard i7 3770k CPU 32 gigs RAM Presonus AudioBox iTwo Windows 10 64 bit, SONAR PLATINUM 64 bit Lots of plugins and softsynths and one shot samples, loops Gauge ECM-87, MCA SP-1, Alesis AM51 Presonus Eureka Mackie HR824's and matching subwoofer
|
Compguy
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 67
- Joined: 2004/02/23 13:56:23
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/23 12:58:38
(permalink)
21 posts so far and no flame war yet? What's wrong with you guys... you're slipping!
On a serious note, some good discussion here except for the single one-word post. I personally find that concentrating so heavily on the technical end of recording does indeed change my creative output. Some of it I can define, and some of it I can intuit but can't put my finger on it.
For one, I am much less prolific now than I was in simpler days, and I don't think it has as much to do with age as it has to do with spending so much more time tweaking the technology. I would say that emphasis has been diverted from melody and pushing the envelope musically to making it "sound good" from a technical standpoint.
It almost seems that today many people come up with a decent melody and it's "good enough" to go into production, where the emphasis shifts from the writing to the quest for sonic excellence. I can sense that tendency in myself. Back in the day the SPIRIT of the song prevailed and many writers would toil night and day, laboring until their own spirit transferred to the song. Nowadays production prevails, I perceive.
So we end up with highly polished, underdeveloped tunes. Not across the board, of course, but the trend is certainly identifiable.
Oh well, this whole thread was just meant to stimulate thought and elicit ideas, which it has done. Questions like this tend to "cook" in the back of the mind as work goes forward, and sometimes opinions change just because the question has been posed and is now in awareness.
I agree with those of you who talked about too many choices. The existence of too much choice tends to paralyze. We can all see this in day to day life, and it is also easily provable in controlled experiments. I often sense that paralysis in my day to day as I'm faced with a myriad of choices. An overabundance breeds confusion and caution, thereby sometimes constricting and caging the creative flow.
It's pretty interesting to take a step back and look at who or what tells us what we think we "need". This plugin or that becomes a must-have, ditto with any other functionality. Software engineers must justify their existence by coming up with new things that we all "need" or at least want very badly. But that is the free market system, and it's fair enough. I just like to take a step back from time to time and ask how much do I really need, and even do I really want this?
If I had any brains I'd stop posting these brain eruptions on the Internet and instead write songs about them.
|
rbowser
Max Output Level: -10 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6518
- Joined: 2005/07/31 14:32:34
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/23 13:32:17
(permalink)
Compguy
21 posts so far and no flame war yet? What's wrong with you guys... you're slipping!...
hehe--It really is a good thread, lots of interesting conversation. Good stuff, Compguy, Hellogoodbye (The Beatles rule!), Lanceindastudio, Kreative - everyone on this thread really. re: Music in general, and determining what is "great" or not - That's an impossible thing to do, of course. For me, basically, the world is full of music of all sorts, and I don't find myself spending time trying to judge it. But I do want to say that it's an error to think that popularity has anything to do with the ultimate value of music. What the general public gravitates to and prefers isn't the yardstick for determining what is actually "good." Otherwise, in the world of movies, we'd have to say that "Porky's Revenge" is a better movie than something like "The Color of Pomegranates" which is sublimely and confidently light years beyond "Porky's" and the vast majority of popular, successful movies. Van Gogh sold one painting while he was still alive - the general public didn't like his stuff, preferring mediocre, predictable, realistic paintings which are now all forgotten. That story is really the only proof we need about how popularity has nothing to do with intrinsic value. And so forth. ON TOPIC - Wanting to say something more positive in response to the original question. - I still say Yes that technology changes the music itself, and that can be a very positive thing. Tools of all sorts are misused - so why focus on the untalented jerk who strings together a few pre-packaged beats and then claims it as his creation? - The more positive thing to focus on is how, like word processors that came before music software, with computers, a musician/composer is able to organize his compositions in a way he couldn't have before. Phrases, harmonies etc can be retained easily, re-arranged and layered in an instant - Combinations of instrumental sounds can be auditioned in a way where they're actually heard, rather just in the musician's imagination. And so on. Our tools can lead many of us to create pieces of more complexity and sophistication than when we were just sitting at pianos. The tools we have in programs like Sonar can help us discover possibilities we literally wouldn't have thought of otherwise. Randy B.
Sonar X3e Studio Roland A-800 MIDI keyboard controller Alesis i|O2 interface Gigabyte Technology-AMD Phenom II @ 3 GHz 8 Gb RAM 6 Core Windows 7 Home Premium x64 with dual monitors
|
Kalle Rantaaho
Max Output Level: -5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7005
- Joined: 2006/01/09 13:07:59
- Location: Finland
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/23 14:11:19
(permalink)
It looks as if we were focusing more on the tools, because the tools have made music making possible for people, who had not even dreamed about it
100 years ago. They are the ones who think the DAWs can make them musicians, and they are very visible on forums like this, where the tools are in focus.
SONAR PE 8.5.3, Asus P5B, 2,4 Ghz Dual Core, 4 Gb RAM, GF 7300, EMU 1820, Bluetube Pre - Kontakt4, Ozone, Addictive Drums, PSP Mixpack2, Melda Creative Pack, Melodyne Plugin etc. The benefit of being a middle aged amateur is the low number of years of frustration ahead of you.
|
hellogoodbye
Max Output Level: -64 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1343
- Joined: 2004/03/22 05:46:36
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/24 02:49:55
(permalink)
Compguy
It's pretty interesting to take a step back and look at who or what tells us what we think we "need". This plugin or that becomes a must-have, ditto with any other functionality. Software engineers must justify their existence by coming up with new things that we all "need" or at least want very badly. But that is the free market system, and it's fair enough. I just like to take a step back from time to time and ask how much do I really need, and even do I really want this?
That's why I didn't get X1. Or Studio One. Or whatever. I decided (after almost getting lured into buying the latest greatest DAW) to not update or switch because Sonar 8.5 offers me all I need! On the other hand... I did buy Spitfire's Albion...  Because it opens a new world of sounds for me: I am moving from pop/rocksongs to orchestral music right now (well, for the time being). Which would have been absolutely impossible without current technology and tools...! So sometimes we should indeed tell ourselves not to jump on every train that passes, but at the same time we should take care not to miss that ones that might takes us into new direcions, unknown territory, etc.! Obviously there is a difference between a new DAW and a new instrument. A DAW is indeed merely a tool, but an instrument, whatever kind if may be, can unleash creativity, at least for me. Although for instance The Beatles (again) turned the tool into an instrument... I have to add though that my best songs were written during times when something happened in my life... which to me proves that music essentially is a form of expression: music without (a connection to) life ain't (my kind of) music. A DAW is a dead and utterly useless tool until you put your life into it. So my advice: don't focus on the tool, focus on life. And the music will follow. Ha, this is a nice topic. The things you come up with on a monday morning...
Sonar 8.5 PE, Edirol FA-66, Behringer C-1. All instruments in my songs are VSTi's.
Check out Soundclick
|
Kreative
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 570
- Joined: 2011/08/23 22:45:03
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/24 04:54:45
(permalink)
Sometimes having more tech tools is not always better, because we barely scratch the surface with using the technology that we already have. The most important thing is that we have tools that work and that don't use up too much creative time with troubleshooting technological issues. And this is both the promise and the curse of software based recording solutions, that there is so much potential to do so much, and yet, sometimes, so much trouble in keeping everything working and updated and ect ... I just installed S1 2 and I have already seen more trouble with it then I could have expected, draining my time trying to get answers and fixes and ect... at this point I'm rather disappointed with the whole thing. Right now I'm having problems with something as simple as getting VST's that came bundled with it to load. In the world of software and computers, not all that glitters is really made of pure gold. There is a price to pay.  But the promise of more and better tools are ever alluring, and they challenge us to try new things with the hope that they will make us more creative and productive.
Windows 7 64 bit, Sony Vaio Laptop Q740, 8 GB, Sonar Producer X1d, Focusrite Scarlett 18i, Korg Pa500, M-audio 61 Radium Keystation. Using Omnisphere, Trilian, Komplete 8, Morphestra, Orchestral Essentials, Evolve, Orange Tree Guitars, Addictive Drums, BFD2, Melodyne Editor, Studio One 2, Ozone 5, FabFilter.
|
lorneyb2
Max Output Level: -58.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1667
- Joined: 2007/04/26 04:02:10
- Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/24 21:15:22
(permalink)
My favourite musicians are my 2 sons and my next group of favourites are my many brothers and sisters. We are all musicians varying from spectacular to mediocre. However, we all have our fans for the different types of music we do, but mostly, it is about enjoying doing music.
At my last hockey game the kids in the next dressing room came off the ice and were playing some new music which was way to loud for one thing, but even the young guys on my team were commenting on how awful it was. It was me who reminded them(I'm 60+) that we all had our favourite music at that age which was considered horrendous by most previous generations. Although we all tend to have our preferred style(s) of music it is all great if it moves whoever is listening to it and they enjoy it.
The new tools provide a means by which many people who enjoy making and listening to music can have an opportunity to record whatever they wish for the audience that they have. I am just completing a project for a couple of ladies that just wanted to record a project as it was one of those things that was on the "lifetime bucket list" of things they wanted to do before they die type of thing. They are only going to have about 100 cd's printed for their friends. For them it is a major achievement and they are thrilled about it. This simply would not have been possible if they had to pay for the whole project. I was looking to learn some new skills in recording so it worked well together. This is not platinum record project. This is about 2 musicians doing something to please themselves and their limited number of fans.
The tools being available at an affordable level allows for this to happen. Whatever the music it all boils down to the performer and the listener. If both are enjoying it you have winners.
Sonar Platinum 64bit, Win 8.1 Pro 64bit, Quad Core 3.2GHz, 16G ram, Edirol FA 101, Nvidia EW (Platinum Orchestra, Hollywood Strings, Pianos, Gypsy, Fab 4, Ministry of Rock,Choirs, etc)
|
SWANG
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 191
- Joined: 2008/08/26 18:07:57
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/24 21:28:11
(permalink)
when working on my own projects, i limit myself to 16 tracks. fellow daw users think i'm crazy, that i'm overspending on tools that i'm underusing, but most of the recordings that inspired me in my youth were recorded on equipment that accommodated 16 tracks or less. i'm aware that "bouncing down" was commonplace back then, but the standard was "less-is-more", and i feel it still applies (in my case, that is). if i can't "make it work" by the time i get to track 16, 7 or 8 more won't make a difference.
|
rbowser
Max Output Level: -10 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6518
- Joined: 2005/07/31 14:32:34
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/24 22:29:01
(permalink)
SWANG
when working on my own projects, i limit myself to 16 tracks. fellow daw users think i'm crazy, that i'm overspending on tools that i'm underusing, but most of the recordings that inspired me in my youth were recorded on equipment that accommodated 16 tracks or less. i'm aware that "bouncing down" was commonplace back then, but the standard was "less-is-more", and i feel it still applies (in my case, that is). if i can't "make it work" by the time i get to track 16, 7 or 8 more won't make a difference.
Unless you're doing orchestral work, in which case you'll be using more like 64 tracks - because with orchestral work, less isn't more--it's just--less. 16 tracks will get you the basics, and the rest of the tracks make a Very Big Difference. RB
Sonar X3e Studio Roland A-800 MIDI keyboard controller Alesis i|O2 interface Gigabyte Technology-AMD Phenom II @ 3 GHz 8 Gb RAM 6 Core Windows 7 Home Premium x64 with dual monitors
|
Fog
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 12302
- Joined: 2008/02/27 21:53:35
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
Re:Does our intense focus on the tools change the music itself?
2011/10/24 22:49:20
(permalink)
Compguy
It seems to me that we are in a unique period in history where there is almost more focus on the functionality and features of the tool itself than on what can be created with the tool.
you can go back to any period of time and say that.. SERIOUSLY.. wooo 4 track.. woo 8 track etc etc :) here's the specific example I'll give.. a friend is a musician foremost BUT had to learn how to use sequencers etc.. Me, not so crash hot on the music side but was into technology , so samplers are basically computers, so were accessible to me. as he's gone on.. he's learned more about the sequencer.. as opposed to me , I learned a bit more about music you think of it from the angle of something you use will give you a certain sound / edge that others don't have.. that even goes back to the beatles (and far further) using say a mellotron. a lot of the skills / things you learn you just adapt a lot of the time.. if you aren't of the mindset to learn , then that could also be an issue. I do think as time has gone on things have got easier... go back to 89 and try programming / chopping up a drum loop an akai 950 and compare it to a modern soft sampler. a lot of people will pause say 1 or 2 years.. use the tools and only in down time learn new software, NOT mid album. same can be applied to a lot of synths, it's just the various tweaks / nuisances each one has. the thing that has changed a LOT is the reliance on others.. I think that does change things and folk are more a "jack of all trades" rather than doing a specific task.
|