DrLumen

sharke

Karyn

sharke

tobiaslindahl

sharke

tobiaslindahl
Yea, because music is ALL to do with visuals.
There is no hope for music going forward. The only road I see is more computer generated crap and product. The age of so called "real" music is gone. Not saying everything was better back in the day, but at least it was, to some extent, honest. These days you can't tell the difference between a comercial and a song ... it is all bland crap. 
I don't mid though, there is enough good stuff to last a lifetime, but there is no place for real music from here on and anyone thinking otherwise is kidding themselves. American Idol ... jesus christ. 

You do realize everything you do in Sonar is "computer generated" though, right?

Absolutely, I never claimed to be a true musical genius or anything. I am just playing around. Listening to most of the stuff produced, so is the vast majority of other people too. 

I didn't mean you in particular (I have no idea what kind of music you produce), what I meant was, everything we do in a digital audio workstation is "computer generated." 

That's like saying every painting is "paintbrush generated"

Right, which is on the same level of ridiculousness as dismissing MIDI/synth based music as being "computer generated." Look at some of the art being created using programs such as Adobe Illustrator. There are some truly stunning examples of artistic brilliance, and yet the artists behind them are using algorithmic tools in the program to lay their work out, draw straight lines and curves, apply fills and textures, rotate and resize elements. And yet it still takes immense artistic skill to use these tools to create things with artistic merit. This kind of art is often dismissed by the older generation as being "computer generated," but really, you cannot even begin to create such work with a program like Illustrator unless you have an artistic eye and the skills to use those tools to artistic effect. At the end of the day, what is the difference between someone drawing a perfect circle in Illustrator and someone drawing a perfect circle with a compass? Or using a ruler to draw a straight line? They're just tools, after all. 

I would agree that they are just different tools but there is an inherent ease in doing some work in Illustrator than doing it by hand. For example, pointillism can now be done in a split second with a plugin whereas in the past it would take many hours of painstaking work with an artists eye. It does not take any real talent to apply a plugin. Likewise, would a Rothko be as valuable if it were done in Photoshop in about 3 minutes? (just as an example as I think Rothko's shtuff is highly overrated)
 
I guess it depends on what you consider an acceptable style. A lay person can now drag pre-recorded clips onto a timeline and release it to the world. Does that make them a musician and their work art? Or, are the just polluting the public ear and effectively breaking down any previous standards of talent and good music?

I get what you're saying about Illustrator, but the thing is I don't think technical ability equates to artistic worth. It's impressive, but not what art's all about. Take those photo-realistic pencil drawings that go viral sometimes. You have people who can replicate a black and white photograph with a pencil to such perfection that you cannot tell the difference. I used to know someone who did those. He would divide the photograph into squares, turn it upside down so that he wasn't distracted by the overall form, and work on it square by square. He'd measure distances very accurately and spend as much as a day on each square. The end result is certainly very impressive from a technical point of view - but is it art? Others mileage may vary but I say no. Quite frankly, I'd sooner look at the original photograph - at least the photographer has exercised some artistic value in choosing and framing the subject matter.
 
And it's a similar story in Illustrator. Yes you can do some pretty cool stuff with a single click of a mouse, and if it makes people happy to look at then fair enough. But there are some very talented people out there executing stunning compositions that in no way, shape or form are going to be achievable by someone without artistic talent. They're still using digital tools, and much of the actual laying down of lines and color are done with a few clicks of the mouse, but at the end of the day the finished result is very much a product of the artist's eye. 
 
Which leads us onto the question of electronic music techniques. Really, I don't know of anyone who's getting signed by merely dragging commercial loops into their DAW. Of course someone who hates that style of music and has never attempted to create it will often claim that it is made that way. But give them the tools and tell them to come up with something good in that genre, they'd quickly realize that it's a lot harder than it looks. Even in the case of music that's comprised of samples of other tracks, well that's an artform in itself. There is a tremendous amount of musical skill and taste involved in searching through record collections to find little snippets of music that go together, and forming them into something coherent. DJ Shadow's seminal album "Entroducing" in the 90's was a great example of that. There is something beautiful in hearing disparate recordings thrown together in the same space when it sounds like they're playing together, and anyone without artistic ability who attempts to make music using such techniques will quickly discover that there's a lot more to it than they thought. Some modern EDM productions are extremely intricate affairs involving a level of musical detail that would baffle a lot of the people who claim that there's no talent behind it. 
 
Of course there is awful, generic, bland, predictable EDM out there. In fact, that's the majority of it. But you know what, that pretty much describes a lot of the music of any genre. I love the blues, but I've heard some pretty crap blues in my time - people playing the same licks and singing the same phrases without putting much thought into it. I've heard some pretty bland, derived jazz too. And don't even get me started on some of the boring, sterile Country & Western out there, lol.....

Rain
On the other hand, there are many people out there who have everything going for them - I've seen many genuinely talented classical pianists or opera singers who happen to be gorgeous.
 
It's usually not aa much of a prerequisite to make a career as a classical musician - although I suppose that good looking fellows do tend to get the lead roles. But talent is still required.
 
Similarly, in pop, Elvis who has been mentioned earlier was a lot more than just a pretty face. Of course, nowadays, his looks would be sufficient to build a career.

 
Yeah I was going to say the same thing about Elvis - he'd get signed purely on the basis of his looks these days, but you cannot take away the fact that he was a tremendous singer. And the musicians who worked with him were off the charts good as well. 
 
I think the trouble with some "pretty" people is that they are encouraged throughout life to believe that their looks will open any door for them. Many years ago I knew a guy who was extremely good looking and had to beat off the girls with the proverbial stick. He was a fairly decent singer and formed a band. But in all honesty, the music wasn't that good. It was decent, but nothing to get excited about. They used to come up with excuses as to why they never hit the big time, without ever stopping to consider that they were basically just another fairly good pub band. That guy deluded himself that stardom was just around the corner for 20 years, and now he's in his 40's and he's never had a proper job. 

Two words that go against the OP:  Susan Boyle.
 
Discuss.
(You know, that Olympic event?)

craigb
Two words that go against the OP:  Susan Boyle.
 
Discuss.
(You know, that Olympic event?)

I think Susan Boyle is a special case though - she won the hearts and minds of the public in a televised talent show, and it was the juxtaposition of someone who looked a little frumpy and ordinary with such a spectacular singing voice. Also, people love a good rags to riches story. I doubt whether she would have ever been signed otherwise. 

Beepster

sharke
A bit of an OT question about punks:
 
Have you ever seen one with a beard? 
 

Absolutely. Especially the crop of crust punks of the past couple decades.
 
The ultra manicured, spiky, colorful style of yesteryear isn't dead but it's a pain in tha ballz to do and costs money so most punks just groom up all purty for special occasions or whatevs.

I spent about 30 years doing intensive, academic type study of music with various people and various schools.  It was thoroughly enjoyable, kind of bittersweet on another level.  It's amazing that music could be such a deep subject,  such that  the learning it always seems to be fresh and new .  It's only 12 notes right?  What's the big deal?
 

eph221
 
It's only 12 notes right?  What's the big deal?
 

 
I know, and there's only 26 letters in the alphabet. Why aren't we all best selling authors?

jamesg1213

eph221
 
It's only 12 notes right?  What's the big deal?
 

 
I know, and there's only 26 letters in the alphabet. Why aren't we all best selling authors?

26?  I thought "LMNO" was considered only one letter... 

I don't know what you mean Craig.

jamesg1213
I don't know what you mean Craig.

Someone needs to go back and watch Sesame Street again...