"Creative" quantity vs. quality.... is it just a phase, or.... ?

[Scott W. Hallgren]

I've been struggling with my place in the creative world of late, and have been reflecting on the following:

"Maybe one day soon, when technology makes everyone sound good, sounding good won't be what matters anymore."

- Conor "Freff" Cochran, from his column in Keyboard Magazine, late 1980's

"I'm fascinated by the almost fetish and addictive need to communicate aurally and visually; witness the decline in the quality of communication in favor of quantity."

- David Warren, Australian multimedia artist, Computer Graphics World, July 2008


How prescient, and yet totally unable to envision their eventual scope, are Freff's comments? Does anyone
feel as though the technology serves as a distraction from the real issues? And, if not, why? If so, have we been
fundamentally changed to the point that previous skillsets are (or are becoming) permanently irrelevant?

Does anyone else besides me find Mr. Warren's words to be endemic of what's happened to those of us
who create music as well? Is his creating work that promotes his view hurting or helping those of us who
create for a living? Is manifesting technology to 'create' always 'art'?

[Mozer Martin]

On the contrary, it's not anti-social at all. It's not like this is the only thing we do. This blog is just another resource in addition to the local networks we belong to. It also allows people to interact with others who live all over the world, something that was previously UN-POSSIBLE! Seriously though, it is pretty cool.

I'm not retracting my statement about how technology affects music as a whole, but in this one instance, technology has offered a wealth of resources that were never accessible before.

[Ray Kemp]

Noisy Walls says,
'how cool is this, getting to talk to other composers from my bedroom.?'
Well! it ain't cool at all unless..... it's anti-social from a young musicians stand point. Much more benefit comes from getting out there and interacting with other musicians, pla

[Noisy]

That was a pretty brutal, harsh way of putting things, but essentially that was true. There are definitely a lot of positive aspects to the state of the modern music industry; there are a lot of independent people doing independent things, which is cool. There are tons and tons of artists I'm sure none of us know about, who are probably doing really interesting, innovative stuff. But modern popular music is, on the whole, bad. I can practically sing the words to new songs on the radio, just because they're so unoriginal.

However, technology has enabled a lot of beneficial things for the music industry, like this website. I mean, how cool is this, getting together to talk to other composers, from my bedroom? I write using software called Guitar Pro, which makes it so much easier to edit things than it is using a pencil and paper, and you can hear what you're writing. The list goes on and on.

Also, I think we're taking the whole situation a bit too seriously, here. "Giant, unoriginal amoebas," and "watching the carnage" from the sidelines seem like lines from science fiction stories and war movies, respectively. (:

I'd say that music, as an art-form, is independent of technology. Sure, technology can aid (or be detrimental to, depending on your point of view) the creation and artistic appeal of music, but ultimately, music comes from the composer. By that, I mean that fads are fads; music "without soul" won't last.

[Scott W. Hallgren]

Wow. That's a pretty jaded and somewhat bitter assessment coming from someone who hasn't finished high school... has your personal experience brought you to that thinking, or was it something else? Do you plan on making a difference, or standing on the sidelines watching the carnage? Not that I might blame you if you did.

I think your observation about "unique trade" is the argument we need to have and resolve if possible. ASAP.

[Mozer Martin]

Technology affects every industry the same exact way. Take the world before industrialization took place. Every trade was dominated by what we might consider "small businesses" today. Single entrepreneurs would develop and invent their own ways of doing things, and create a unique product that modern collectors thrive upon. From an economic standpoint, all these single, independent businesses were vastly inferior to the large-structured, efficient corporations that evolved later, but from the artistic standpoint, this is exactly what is needed.

Today, as technology and industry dominate everything from food to aerospace, the economy has flourished, but the unique, one-man trade has all but disappeared. Is this a bad thing? Many think not, but that is an argument for another day. For music, however, there is no debate.

Where the single, unique, independent composer stood before, a giant, unoriginal amoeba stands now. Music has become just like the modern monopolies that dominate the business world. With the aid of mass communications and digital technology, music has simply become a huge conglomerate of regurgitated ideas that punishes those who attempt to venture out on their own.

[Chris Alpiar]

'Sir' Arthur Conan-Doyle hits it on the head, and through his wise words, you speak the truth there Steve ;-)

[Scott W. Hallgren]

I love that, Steve! Thank you.... S

[Adrian Ellis]

"So really it is just forcing the creative community to rise higher than we have had to"

That's the ticket. As always, things run in cycles of new creation > stagnation > revolution > new creation.

The new tech is SOOO blasted SEDUCTIVE. You can have an orchestra play your music (or non-music :) on your computer. You can push a button and lay down a sick sounding rhythm section and huge multilayer, evolving pad. You can sound like Zimmer in minutes.

So what.

Well, everyone starts to sound the same. Which is mostly what we have. And you also get seduced into wanting to sound like 'the latest'... right now it's a lot of John Powell, et al.

So what.

Well, those that feel that it matters and who will push the medium will get tired of it, and either walk away from technology that is no longer conducive to creating meaningful art, or embrace the technology and use it differently. It does take a bit of courage because, at least for those who want to make a living, you are so often asked to sound like the soup du jour.

So ask yourself - do you feel creative? Well?? Do ya, punk?

:)

[Chris Alpiar]

Great topic Scott

I think that art is never changed by technology, and I think its like Marius states, although rather than call non-art music "nonmusic" I will call it non-art music. Its still music and its still viable as such. Britney Spears or any boy band is just as much music as John Coltrane or Stravinsky. Just some music is "entertainment" and some is "art" and very very tiny bits of it are both.

That being said, technology advances make a lot of the craft of making "music" very much easier on one level (hey I can step input 64th note runs!, I can hold one key down and have a solid sounding drum loop play, I can use sounds from live players found in amazing libraries to play perfectly), and restrictive on another (I have to write music in the box of the scope of the software I am using, I have to write *to* the articulations available in my samples, I have to be content with the drum loops provided [assuming you use loops at all]). This absolutely leads to any hack being able to hold down one key on their keyboard, and by learning how to record in a DAW, create something with a high quality sonic sound and a beat that is solid and grooves, and with that alone, can fool the public and it becomes "music". It also leads to creative people being limited and forced into the box of mediocrity by working with samples only and never knowing a world without them. It also helps people realize musical concepts and there are plenty of good qualities to technology. But in the end, real art, inspired music, is something that comes from the soul and is communicated via the language of music. Both the technique of the language and the inspiration of the creative soul are still essential to creating art. And that is what will differentiate your music from some little fruity loops hack. Your experience, depth, understanding of music and the craft, your understanding of the world, is what will shape your music.

So really it is just forcing the creative community to rise higher than we have had to. Yes we have to learn all kinds of things that werent expected 20 years ago. Yes the paying gigs will have a shot at being handed to untalented little amoeba licking paramecium. So we have to make the choice to continue as artists for the love of art and the need to find musical ways of self expression, or we must learn the way of the hack and hold one key for a looped groove, or we must find a day job - those are the 3 choices. Yep it sucks and that is why I have so much distaste for many of the young kids today who call themselves composers without one iota of traditional knowledge. But reality is reality, and I will fight till the day I die to find a balance for me of being commercially acceptable to the world and yet being artistically acceptable to myself

[Marius Amado-Alves]

I too have the impression that more technology causes more nonmusic. But then again there is a lot of nonmusic by Mozart and even Bach... (alongside their works of genius). So it seems that bad compositions with good technology is a timeless thing. (Nonmusic = beautifully sounding things without melodic, harmonic or rythimic interest. This was discussed before, and will be again...)