For some styles, but I quite like the new way of music. No longer is mere technical skill the sole measure of talent. These days good music only takes an ear for music and a talent for arrangement. It's a more musically democratic world, with something for everyone.

Still, technical skill is always impressive, so all respect to those who spend the time to build it.

Sorry Zoo, I deleted it   I HATE deleting comments, and especially a great one, but YouTube vids currently make it impossible to comment on an article using Firefox.  It's something to do with how the code for the video is getting embedded in the code for the whole article.  I'm sorry

Well, nuts...guess I'll have to use links from now on.

WWW Link

~Zoo

Well, let's take a song like 'Fridays' by Matty B. He's an MC, so none of the music on the track is played by him nor does he have any real talent for singing. But I've never heard a song express what Friday means more.

The contemporary preference for skill in arrangement over technical skill is what I like. Take a pop song like Gnarls Barkley's 'Crazy', which I'm sure you've heard before. Sure, the singer is good, but if wasn't for the arrangement by UK DJ Dangermouse that talent would be wasted.

Maybe I'm misreading you and Ock, but I've always got the feeling that as musos yourselves you lambaste popular music unfairly. Sure, technical skill isn't overly valued these days, and neither is musical knowledge, but I don't see why that matters when songs are still calculated to have an influence on the hearer. Why are years of schooling important at all when some of the most beautiful pieces of modern music come from untrained amateurs, or those skilled in the combination of classical musical elements rather than the production of new sounds?

Yeah, you're misreading me, at least.  Don't sweat it, though...you aren't alone, and I understand.

 

Years of schooling has nothing to do with it, for what it's worth.  Where is the line drawn between an artist and a poser?  Is there a line?  Should there be?

 

If there is no line, then let's discuss it away from the area I am biased about - just to attempt objectivity.  Let's look at painting.  I might come up with a method for using paint - for example shooting it out of a rifle at a canvas - and after several shots with several colors, I pronounce my work complete.  A group of people find the work very appealing.  Is it enough that they find it appealing to say my name in the same sentence as Rembrandt?  Van Gogh?  If they were to approach me and say I was on par with those guys, I'd be embarrassed.  Anyone can load a rifle with paint and splooge it onto a canvas.  But what Rembrandt and Van Gogh did took a higher skill level.  Should I marginalize that skill level just because there are a group of people that think my painting is good? 

 

The musical "arrangers" you speak of - what exactly is it they are arranging?  Somewhere at the bottom of the pile is a guy playing the notes and rhythms.  He's choosing the notes and the chords and the rhythms based on musical knowledge.  Even in a program like Fruity Loops that generates musical bits from an algorithm, someone had to program the criteria by which that algorithm chooses what it chooses to make a groove.  And that's cool.  But at the bottom of even that software is a real musician somewhere who actually knows what he's doing and why.  Without him, there is no "arranger."

 

That's why I appreciate musicians that can play over ones who cannot.  Musicians like Billy Joel who can play AND arrange are even better.  People that can arrange, play, AND write compelling lyrics are RARE.  People that are solely arrangers are nothing without musicians that can play.  What would they arrange?  Silence?

 

Note that if an arranger can take a computer and have it produce sounds and then arrange the sounds in a rhythm and an order that's appealing, well...that is playing an instrument.  That still requires musical knowledge.  Most arrangers have a lot of musical knowledge whether they actually play anything or not, and I'm fine with that.

 

So I do draw a line between artists and posers.  The line is, artists understand the medium they are working with and posers do not, but the posers are really careful to not let on that they don't know what they're doing.  That's what I meant by "integrity."  When was the last time you heard anyone say "Yeah, I don't know shit about music...buy my new album."  Haha...I'd be more likely to buy that one just because they were honest with me.

 

I guess as long as it doesn't matter to the audience whether a guy laid on his back for years meticulously painting the roof of a chapel or whether he just loaded up a bazooka with paint and blew it unceremoniously all over a canvas, then there's no harm in it.  Not in the short run, anyway.  Seems to me though that 100 years from now, no one will be left that knows the difference between Mona Lisa and a guy that took an artistic shit on a piece of canvas.  I find that saddening.  Maybe others don't care. /shrug

 

Pardon the ramble, it's very late here.  To bed with me.

It's interesting to hear you use the rifle example. I wonder how closely the changes in the musical world in the last half-century mimic the changes in the military arena with the introduction of gunpowder?
There are a couple of obvious differences (besides the whole art is war thing). For one thing, music isn't necessarily about efficiency, although it can be.
But I think you've hit upon something important here. The decline of the professional soldier was brief; so too I think the decline of the professional musician. Although it's true that nowadays there's something of a fad for democratised music, the fact that the big players in modern music are so few suggests there will still be a bigger market for quality than quantity (however quality is judged).
As for the idea that modern music is cannibalised, I'm not sure what separates that from music of any kind. There are very few new tunes. Most are variations, subtle at best, on ancient riffs and melodies or transpositions to new keys and new instruments. It's the combination of these sounds that has always been the most important part of music. Whether you draw your sounds from clicking on Samba rhythm no. 16 in GarageBand and then overlaying it with Generic Bass 1 or play it yourself, you're still playing an instrument.

It's just that the ones we use these days are much more sophisticated, capable of creating variations in tone and sound and playing multiple notes automagically.



Why should it matter? There's something admirable in doing something the slow way, sure, but if you can produce the same effect much faster, why should people be expected to do it the slow way? This is where music differs from painting, as while you can produce a perfect reproduction of Bach with a few hundred clicks of the music, you can't produce the same effect as the Sistine Chapel with modern art techniques. Modern music is an evolution; modern art is a new way of thinking about art. We won't lose those old sounds just because they're generally made with an easier method.

 

And who was it that laid down Samba #16 and generic bass pattern #1 so that someone else could just choose them?  If you answered "a musician with musical knowledge," you are correct

 

The musical scene is driven by the audiences.  More specifically, the musical scene is driven by what audiences will pay for.  That means the musical scene is currently driven by money.  This is the very reason why what you state is true - "There are very few new tunes. Most are variations, subtle at best, on ancient riffs and melodies or transpositions to new keys and new instruments."

 

And all of this conversation is dealing with recorded music, so far.  What about the live experience?  Will people pay to watch some guy fire up his computer and hit play on Sonar?  Probably not.  Or I *should* say - only if they don't know about it.  So there are now two choices.  Either hire musicians that can reproduce what was created using a computer, or just play the recording and put some guys up there with instruments in their hands and have them Milli-Vanilli it.  Sad thing is, many people would be fooled by this last idea.  The ones that weren't fooled would probably want their money back.  Is your opinion the same here?  What difference does it make if they're actually playing as long as people are having fun?  It doesn't matter if the product is what it presents itself as, does it?

You are a musical snob.

And you're crazy.

And I'm in the very same boat.

They will. Hardly any bars have live music these days. Live DJing is an art all of its own, but mere disc jockeying isn't particularly rare either.
There's probably a big market for a festival where you simply have a videoscreen of a band playing and then a good sound system pumping out popular tracks. I know I'd go if I had an idea of the setlist and it looked appealing.
As for hiring musicians, well that's popular too - Gotye has a live show where he does the drums and the singing and a whole host of ring-ins perform his samples live.
But honestly I'm no longer sure what I'm arguing about. I think we both like seeing talents musos play, with the only difference being that I think it's great that untalented musos can now play their vision.



Lipsynching is terrible, but if you're going to see a show like a US poptart, then chances are you're there for the dancing as much as the singing, so really you're not attending a musical concert so much as a dance recital. And if that's the case, what's wrong with a little lipsynching?

 

Eep...my bad.  That's not the kind of live I meant.  And for what it's worth, money drives that too.  Less people to pay, and less space required.  And a CD player doesn't need breaks or get drunk.

 

What I meant is that when an "artist" puts on a concert that you buy tickets to go see.

 

 

Nothing at all, but once again you have to bring oranges into a discussion about apples for this argument to work.

I'm late to this discussion I know.  I read this a couple of days ago and have been thinking about it ever since. 

First of all, I too would like to say Happy Birthday, Mr. Joel.  Count me as one of those who appreciate your talent, both lyrically, musically and as an arranger. 

The snobbery Cacto speaks of is something I completely understand.  As a musician (writer, arranger and producer) I am at a level where I find it difficult to accept that people can build careers without really knowing their instruments or having even a basic understanding of music theory.  Sure, raw talent can be helpful but I believe this coupled with a good understanding of music and technical ability are the things that will sustain a career.

Having said this, I disagree that modern music no longer has musicians with technical ability.  Pardon me if I'm making an incorrect assumption, Ock, but I think what you're referring to when you say "These days to be a musician, musical ability and knowledge is the LAST thing that's important.  Image is far more important." is the MTV generated idea of what a musician is.  I don't believe you're so cynical as to believe there are no 'real' musicians making music these days.

But I do understand what you're saying.  It appears as though there is a dumbing-down of music but this is the pop market.  While you and I, musicians who appreciate good musicianship, are increasingly aware of it, the market is not geared for us.  The market is geared for disposable pop with hooks aplenty.  You and I are the few, not the many.  Hopefully, we will continue to carry on and prove to others technical ability and musicianship are still important.

Good article, Ock.  I would like to say more but I think I need to write it as a seperate article instead of hijacking yours.

 

As usual, I wrote what I meant poorly.  What I mean is that when a recording company is looking for new "talent," talent in music is the last talent they seem to be looking for.  A marketable image is first.  And notice what happens to a musician that speaks out against the recording industry.  They vanish - almost over night.  Fiona Apple anyone?

 

My issue is that WE let them do this by not being informed, or just plain not caring what criteria are necessary to label something as "good."  We let the recording industry aka businessmen, not musicians, tell us what is good.  Of course, in America at least, the major part of the population is led around by what television popularizes.  Again, all it would take is some care on the part of the viewers to get informed and then form their own opinions, but I guess at the end of a workday, it's easier to pick your opinion from a list of common choices.  The most common choice is to pick whatever is most popular, and then stamp one's foot and say "Who are YOU to say this isn't good?  Who are YOU to tell me what criteria blah blah blah."  If you dig into the "why" with these people, it gets clear real fast they don't know why.  They just want to fit in.

 

I'll leave you with a quote that hints at one person's thoughts about how the record industry is manipulating what music we get access to.  It was part of the induction speech of John Mellencamp into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame:

 

Don’t let this club membership change you, John. Stay ornery, stay mean. We need you to be pissed off, and restless, because no matter what they tell us - we know, this country is going to hell in a handcart. This country’s been hijacked. You know it and I know it. People are worried. People are scared, and people are angry. People need to hear a voice like yours that’s out there to echo the discontent that’s out there in the heartland. They need to hear stories about it. [Audience applauds] They need to hear stories about frustration, alienation and desperation. They need to know that somewhere out there somebody feels the way that they do, in the small towns and in the big cities. They need to hear it. And it doesn’t matter if they hear it on a jukebox, in the local gin mill, or in a goddamn truck commercial, because they ain’t gonna hear it on the radio anymore.  -  ~William Martin Joel

 

 

I know I have called you a music snob before, and I STILL think you're a music snob, but this article and your (and Asaxy's) replies have helped me understand your position better.

That's what happened to Fiona? I miss her. 'Extraordinary Machine' was wonderful.

Maso - your response was right on. Hopefully you've clarified the way you (and I, and Ock, and Mari) feel about these kinds of things - because there are plenty of super-talented musicians out there.

They're on Indie labels.

They're playing little clubs on a Thursday night instead of selling out arenas on Saturday.

And they're calling to me, and I must root them out. Thank you teh intarwebs, for making it possible.

Ock - So . . . Hiromi.





And once more -

Expect an article on it soon. I just have to write it in my journal first.

 

Yeah...cheeky girl.  She used her Grammy acceptance speech to say what she thought of the music industry.  David Copperfield has never made anything vanish so fast.

 

 

Can't wait