5 ms·

I know, but it really depends on the style. I'd say low-effort art is usually less interesting and not so unique.

• rorykoehler 8y ago
  Who said anything about low effort? One person I'm referring to in particular is a well respected artist with a global fanbase.
  • mojuba 8y ago
    The thing with tracks made "in a morning" (and that's exactly what low-effort means) is that most of the time it's a variation of something that worked well once in the past, and you can sell more of the same. There's little innovation in this type of art.
    • rorykoehler 8y ago
      That's not necessarily how composition and creation works after you master your tools. In fact often the faster a song is completed the better it is as it's about capturing the original idea as purely as possible. Did you ever have a dream you wish you could remember? It's a bit like this. The composition and production are fully formed in an instant and it is a race against the shortcomings of the human memory/mind to capture them as quickly as possible. FWIW I used to produce music, also professionally for a time (including one major label release), and what I described above was always the holy grail that I was chasing. Quality deteriorates the further you get from the initial energy of the spark. Also I don't mean to say the above is the only way to create. The same artist likes to spend months listening to records to get inspiration the perfect sound for each instrument for other projects (which is ironically closer to the derivative works you described).
      • cageface 7y ago
        I've been making music as an amateur for a long time now. I can't claim any of my work is amazing but the tracks I'm the most happy with were all composed pretty quickly in a moment of inspiration.