Korgscrew
Group: Super Admins
Posts: 3511
Joined: Dec. 1999 |
 |
Posted: Aug. 11 2012, 14:14 |
 |
I started writing this a few days ago, before CJJC posted his reply, which says some of the same stuff in a more concise way...but seeing as I'd started, I figured I'd finish 
I have to say I also agree with them - Mike's treading a dangerous line in saying what he has been, which he probably knows.
Different methods of producing music do come with different learning curves when it comes to getting a basic sound out of the device. It depends then on what we consider an acceptable output.
It's harder to get a sound out of a flute than a piano (or maybe I've just been missing all the youtube videos of cats playing flutes), so does that make the flute a more real instrument, because that initial act of sound creation demands more effort? I think it's a dangerous road to go down when we start to say "All you have to do is..." - after all, all you have to do to play the flute is blow air across a hole and tap a bunch of keys (and for the piano, you just have to push the keys without blowing anything...or at least if your piano teacher told you that you need to blow something, I'd suggest considering going elsewhere for lessons)...that's just describing the very basic mechanics of it. None of that says anything about how to achieve any kind of subtlety with the instrument, or of what is demanded of a player before they're considered to be good.
I think the same goes for computers. Sure, you can just click stuff and make sound come out. It's probably not going to be anything very good, and I think it also needs to be borne in mind that in the cases where software allows a full track to be created with one button push, an awful lot of people are going to be out there pushing the same button and coming up with the same track. That's been the case with arranger keyboards for ages, you start to hear their signature all over the place and the feeling of excitement at hearing something original dies as soon as the hallmarks of their sound rear their ugly heads.
I think it's ultimately a question of what the advantages of a particular music-making tool are. I'd not recommend taking up the piano because 'all you do is push keys' - I think that's the road to disappointment, because as anyone out there who plays the piano knows, producing good music with a piano is rather more complex a process than that. I've heard the old "bass is easier than guitar, it's only got four strings!" thing countless times, but I've also heard enough bad bassists (and put in enough time on the instrument myself), alongside knowing really superb bassists, to know that statements like that just aren't true...and I don't think they apply to computer music either.
Ultimately, I think it's the musical knowledge which is the hardest part to acquire, having a sense of whether what you're creating is good or bad. I once sat down with a cello and got quite a convincing sound out of it within about 5 minutes...would I then go up to Yo Yo Ma and say "Hey, you're not a real musician, I learnt your instrument in five minutes!"?
For a start, I was only able to do that through experience of other instruments, and of music in general. Secondly, though, there's a big difference between being able to get a decent sound out of something and really being a top notch (or even decent) player.
The fact that Mike may be able to create music with a few clicks doesn't necessarily mean that anyone can do it and I certainly don't think it necessarily means that it's possible to create good music that easily (I suppose a poll of fan opinions of Light + Shade would be a good starting point for examining that particular matter in greater detail...).
I also think talking about 'computers' and 'software' is very vague really. There are very few ways of recording music which don't involve using a computer these days, so we really have to be asking what kind of computer and what purpose it's being put to. Even stand-alone audio recorders tend to be a form of computer nowadays, as do digital mixing desks (and even larger analogue ones have been using computer automation since the 70s). Even if we narrow it down to personal computers, there are still an awful lot of tasks which they can perform - anything from acting purely as a recording platform for acoustic music to providing something close to the one-click solution which Mike seemed to be talking about. The latter kind of thing (Apple's Garageband, with its drag and drop loops, might be an example of that) is certainly 'easy', though I suspect that you have to put in quite a lot of work if you want to get something that's at all personal out of them. Certainly in general, I'd say that making good music with computer-based tools isn't any easier than making it with any other tools - certain technical functions are more convenient, but I'm not actually convinced that they're very closely related to what makes the music good. If we were to talk about multitrack audio recording, for example, it's possible to very precisely edit individual tracks, which can be extremely helpful in rescuing a performance which is ruined by some kind of slip or unwanted noise, but to take someone who can't play and use those tools to make it sound like they can, it's going to take so long (and most likely still isn't going to sound very good) that it's probably going to be quicker to just learn to play the part properly. Same goes for pitch correction - it can take a good singer who's made a few slips and make the performance easier to listen to, but it's never going to make a terrible singer sound good, and it takes a fair amount of musical judgement to get it right even when using it on a decent performance (take a listen to the Hiawatha 2011 mix to hear what it sounds like if you approach it thinking it's a one-click solution...Maddy Prior's been turned into something that sounds like a robot that's about to throw up).
The same goes for sequencing, it's not hard to just click in a bunch of notes and set it playing, but to make that interesting takes some skill, and you either have to pick a sound and musical style which works well with a robotic-sounding performance, or you have to work hard at getting those sequenced parts to sound expressive. Personally, that latter situation is where I decide that's not how I want to go about making music, and play the part on some kind of physical instrument (or MIDI controller).
I think we also shouldn't forget that there's plenty of great hand-played instrumental music out there...and a lot of very young people with an interest in making music with 'real' instruments. If Mike plans to kick-start a renaissance in his own particular brand of hand-played instrumental rock through leading by example, that might well turn out to be a good thing, but I think it needs to be clear exactly what form of 'computer' we're supposed to be throwing out and why it's going to make music better...
|
