5 ms·

> A single songwriter can specialize in literally the snare-drum. I was an amateur level producer in high school. I had hundred of snare-drum samples, not to m

by 21 8y ago

> A single songwriter can specialize in literally the snare-drum. I was an amateur level producer in high school. I had hundred of snare-drum samples, not to mention a lot of way to influence the sound of a particular one. Picking a good snare-drum is very important, it can totally change the character of the song. All of modern music producing it's like that, it's an extremely efficient market, it's really really hard to make "the sound of 2019", and this is why there are such few successful producers. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/22/arts/music/diary-of-a-song-the-middle-zedd-maren-morris-grey.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/22/arts/music/diary-of-a-son... To put it in software engineer terms, saying that "all successful modern music is computer made, recipe driven, there is no originality" it's like saying "all successful modern sites are made exactly the same, you just pick a database, a web frontend, ads to sell, a few programmers, there is no originality"

bdjshsvajwv 8y ago
Except that websites are intended to be functional while songs are intended to be works of art. Thats the problem. Why are we treating music like an industrial product? (The answer is money)
- 21 8y ago
  > The answer is money The individual artist or producer which want's to have a number one song is not driven mainly by money. The drive is just wanting to be the best. And being the best in such a competitive field requires having a highly polished product.
  - njharman 8y ago
    Nobody interested in being best would consider tip of pop charts as "best". Pop is mass appeal for money and or game. It is a lowest common denominator medium. People wanting to be best seek the recognition of their peers. Not commercial sales.
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  Two hundred years ago, most popular music existed primarily as simply a support for public dancing. The audience didn't expect to sit and listen to compelling virtuosos perform. It was only the advent of recorded music that allowed individual performers of popular music to gain specific audiences (with free jazz performers of 1930s being perhaps the first popular recording artists noted for producing "works of art"). So music as just a product, in ways, isn't by itself new or evil. Now one can take issue with the characteristics of our modern music. For discussion of the history of pop music, I'd recommend Elijah Wald's How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll http://www.elijahwald.com/beatlespop.html http://www.elijahwald.com/beatlespop.html
  - existencebox 8y ago
    I'm no music expert, but that (specifically your statement about dancing being premier) doesn't jive with what little bits I know. Granted you could narrowly define bits and pieces of what you said to constrain the set of artists you're talking about, but insofar as you mention free jazz of the 1930s as an early example of producing "art for art's sake", there are certainly earlier comparable examples, the "futurists" of the 1920s and earlier being one (Varese, who was conducting as early as the 1910's) and whose art was _VERY MUCH_ an artistic display intended to push forward electronic sounds. I'm sure someone with a background in musical history can cite many examples even further back, my point being, I think there's been a constant gradient of music For Dance vs. music For Art, I don't think it's fair to say that one or the other is in any way particularly novel. (Victorian era music, for example, was a wide spread including everything from operatic virtuosos, to public house performances for dancing) To your other point however, I certainly agree that music as a product is not new, that concept dates back long past even the eras of our classical masters.
    - baddox 8y ago
      And what about the obvious example of classical music?
      - existencebox 8y ago
- ThomPete 8y ago
  The second you put music on “cd” its not art but a product. The idea of the musician as an artist is highly inaccurate.
  - grfdfserhsh 8y ago
    I don't see anything in your comment but cynicism. Why can't it be a product AND art?
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      It can but it's mostly not especially in the pop music sector and anyone who works in the music industry knows this. Most of the so-called artist in the pop industry are assets for the industry not artists. I see I get some downvotes for saying this, none the less it's true. And I say this as an former full-time now hobby musician/songwriter myself.
- ionised 8y ago
  because that's what all this manufactured, by-the-numbers pop music is, a cash generator.
joe_the_user 8y ago
Why can't both be true? In both your examples, you can have tremendous diversity, craftsmanship and sophistication within a quite narrow range of parameters. You could say "artistry" (bold statements, individual expression, etc) has been replaced by "design" (sophisticated choices based on following existing trends and extended them just the right amount, standing out not too much, not too little, etc).
- 21 8y ago
  > quite narrow range of parameters I think it's just a statistical problem. Target A: you want your song to be liked by 10 thousand people Target B: you want your song to be liked by 1 billion people I don't think there is less art in a massively popular song. It's just a different kind of art.
  - joe_the_user 8y ago
    I think it's just a statistical problem. A lot of people complain about the narrowness of modern popular music. It's a serious if subjective problem for them. The OP is all about ways to objectively statistically measure a problem that many people subjectively previously complained about. The implication of the word "art" have generally involved fundamentally unique personal expression. There's expectation that grasping a piece of "true art" will involve something fundamentally surprising. In contrast, beautiful design certainly involves skill, the designer may even have more skill than the artist. But the implication of design is that you won't experience surprise, just a better version of what you already are familiar with - the sensation of a more beautiful diamond ring or a book laid out more cleanly than you've previously seen.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    "I don't think there is less art in a massively popular song. It's just a different kind of art" Technically you could say thins, but in reality I would say there is definitely 'less art'. Katey Perry is a product, not an artist, listening to her reminds me of walking into a nice, clean, new McDonald's. Sure there is 'art' even in Product Marketing and Segmentation ... but funny enough, most of this music does not last. I have nothing against great and hyper-specialized production, but it's usually done in an industrial manner. The same thing is often done with food ingredients: there are people hired by processed food manufacturers to get the 'ingredient mix' just perfect for taste - and this tends to commoditize products across the board. The article makes a good case for this, i.e. why hyper specialization and product orientation leads to less diversity. Example from another industry: as films become more 'global' - they have to be more bland and generic, and 'lowest common denominator'. International audiences don't 'get' American cultural cues. Do you know why the Transformers movies make absolutely no sense? There is basically no plot. Just 2 hours of a long, ridiculous action sequence? Because they are catering to 'everyone' and 'everyone' is borderline illiterate, and doesn't grasp cultural references outside of their little region etc. etc.. Katey Perry to me is the 'Transformers' of Music.
tpm 8y ago
> All of modern music producing it's like that All of modern pop music produced to earn money, perhaps. Otherwise, there are many music styles apart from pop, and many artists who don't use samples at all.

by 21 8y ago

bdjshsvajwv 8y ago

Except that websites are intended to be functional while songs are intended to be works of art. Thats the problem. Why are we treating music like an industrial product? (The answer is money)

21 8y ago
> The answer is money The individual artist or producer which want's to have a number one song is not driven mainly by money. The drive is just wanting to be the best. And being the best in such a competitive field requires having a highly polished product.
- njharman 8y ago
  Nobody interested in being best would consider tip of pop charts as "best". Pop is mass appeal for money and or game. It is a lowest common denominator medium. People wanting to be best seek the recognition of their peers. Not commercial sales.
joe_the_user 8y ago
Two hundred years ago, most popular music existed primarily as simply a support for public dancing. The audience didn't expect to sit and listen to compelling virtuosos perform. It was only the advent of recorded music that allowed individual performers of popular music to gain specific audiences (with free jazz performers of 1930s being perhaps the first popular recording artists noted for producing "works of art"). So music as just a product, in ways, isn't by itself new or evil. Now one can take issue with the characteristics of our modern music. For discussion of the history of pop music, I'd recommend Elijah Wald's How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll http://www.elijahwald.com/beatlespop.html http://www.elijahwald.com/beatlespop.html
- existencebox 8y ago
  I'm no music expert, but that (specifically your statement about dancing being premier) doesn't jive with what little bits I know. Granted you could narrowly define bits and pieces of what you said to constrain the set of artists you're talking about, but insofar as you mention free jazz of the 1930s as an early example of producing "art for art's sake", there are certainly earlier comparable examples, the "futurists" of the 1920s and earlier being one (Varese, who was conducting as early as the 1910's) and whose art was _VERY MUCH_ an artistic display intended to push forward electronic sounds. I'm sure someone with a background in musical history can cite many examples even further back, my point being, I think there's been a constant gradient of music For Dance vs. music For Art, I don't think it's fair to say that one or the other is in any way particularly novel. (Victorian era music, for example, was a wide spread including everything from operatic virtuosos, to public house performances for dancing) To your other point however, I certainly agree that music as a product is not new, that concept dates back long past even the eras of our classical masters.
  - baddox 8y ago
    And what about the obvious example of classical music?
    - existencebox 8y ago
ThomPete 8y ago
The second you put music on “cd” its not art but a product. The idea of the musician as an artist is highly inaccurate.
- grfdfserhsh 8y ago
  I don't see anything in your comment but cynicism. Why can't it be a product AND art?
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    It can but it's mostly not especially in the pop music sector and anyone who works in the music industry knows this. Most of the so-called artist in the pop industry are assets for the industry not artists. I see I get some downvotes for saying this, none the less it's true. And I say this as an former full-time now hobby musician/songwriter myself.
ionised 8y ago
because that's what all this manufactured, by-the-numbers pop music is, a cash generator.

joe_the_user 8y ago

Why can't both be true? In both your examples, you can have tremendous diversity, craftsmanship and sophistication within a quite narrow range of parameters. You could say "artistry" (bold statements, individual expression, etc) has been replaced by "design" (sophisticated choices based on following existing trends and extended them just the right amount, standing out not too much, not too little, etc).

21 8y ago
> quite narrow range of parameters I think it's just a statistical problem. Target A: you want your song to be liked by 10 thousand people Target B: you want your song to be liked by 1 billion people I don't think there is less art in a massively popular song. It's just a different kind of art.
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  I think it's just a statistical problem. A lot of people complain about the narrowness of modern popular music. It's a serious if subjective problem for them. The OP is all about ways to objectively statistically measure a problem that many people subjectively previously complained about. The implication of the word "art" have generally involved fundamentally unique personal expression. There's expectation that grasping a piece of "true art" will involve something fundamentally surprising. In contrast, beautiful design certainly involves skill, the designer may even have more skill than the artist. But the implication of design is that you won't experience surprise, just a better version of what you already are familiar with - the sensation of a more beautiful diamond ring or a book laid out more cleanly than you've previously seen.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "I don't think there is less art in a massively popular song. It's just a different kind of art" Technically you could say thins, but in reality I would say there is definitely 'less art'. Katey Perry is a product, not an artist, listening to her reminds me of walking into a nice, clean, new McDonald's. Sure there is 'art' even in Product Marketing and Segmentation ... but funny enough, most of this music does not last. I have nothing against great and hyper-specialized production, but it's usually done in an industrial manner. The same thing is often done with food ingredients: there are people hired by processed food manufacturers to get the 'ingredient mix' just perfect for taste - and this tends to commoditize products across the board. The article makes a good case for this, i.e. why hyper specialization and product orientation leads to less diversity. Example from another industry: as films become more 'global' - they have to be more bland and generic, and 'lowest common denominator'. International audiences don't 'get' American cultural cues. Do you know why the Transformers movies make absolutely no sense? There is basically no plot. Just 2 hours of a long, ridiculous action sequence? Because they are catering to 'everyone' and 'everyone' is borderline illiterate, and doesn't grasp cultural references outside of their little region etc. etc.. Katey Perry to me is the 'Transformers' of Music.

tpm 8y ago

> All of modern music producing it's like that All of modern pop music produced to earn money, perhaps. Otherwise, there are many music styles apart from pop, and many artists who don't use samples at all.