[cardguy]

Is the music you make - the best music you have ever heard?

And if not - why not?

This might sound like a silly question. But I am dead serious.

If I studied cookery for a few years - I can be sure that every meal I make would be the nicest meal I have ever had. Since it would be exactly to my tastes.

So - along similar lines - if you make music. Why would you finish with a song until it sounds incredible? At least to your ears.

I honestly don't know why musicians cannot make music which they honestly feel is the best music they have ever heard.

Also - with music - is the difficulty in coming up with interesting hooks, ideas and being inspired.

Or is it making that inspiration come to life in the recording studio?

I am just curious about these sorts of questions. Since my best friend is a musician - and all of his music is shit. Yet we have alot of musical tastes in common.

So - why is it difficult to come up with great music? I never come up with clever ideas, funny jokes or moving poems.

But I am constantly inspired to come up with great music (my head is constantly filled with great hooks and so on). And it is hard to listen to a great song without thinking of ten ways to remix it and make it sound even better.

But I can't be bothered learning to spend a few years learning how to make and record music. Whilst I love music - it doesn't strike me as being as fun and interesting as other creative pursuits I have.

I know this post makes me sound like I am drunk. But for real - why do musicians make so much dreadful music?

Surely if you can appreciate good music (and most musicians are fans of talented and inventive musicians) - that taste should guide you away from making boring music?

Its like if you gave me money to make a porno film. You might not like the end result - but if I could pick let my imagination go wild and use any porn stars (etc) I wanted, I can guarantee it would be the best porno film I have ever seen.

So - why is music any different? Just fucking don't hit the record button until you have a killer song.

For any musicians - what are the key difficulties that hold you back. Is it the lack of inspiration, inspiration which is hard to recapture when you spend too much time working on the same song - or is the compromises involved in having to work with the other members of a band?

And on a sidenote - one thing I enjoy about Guns N' Roses is how alot of their classic songs seem to be the result of only wanting to record a song if it is new, different and has a hook which immediately grabs your attention. Isn't that an easy trick for other bands to use?

For fucks sake. If you are a band. Just fucking don't leave the studio until your song you are working on is the best thing you have heard that year. I know that sounds dumb - but I don't see why it should be so hard??!!

Its like this. I don't mind if your music is shit. But I do mind if you don't think it is incredible? It would be like me going to a restaurant and not being able to order food that I thought was kick ass.

[Veloce]

Cooking and music are two very different things.

You cook to satisfy yourself.

You play music to express your creative urges.

Music is by far more abstract than cooking. Basically what you're saying here, "Are you happy with your level of creativity?" If you're not, it's not as easy as turning up the juice and getting it to where you want it to be.

I've come up with some guitar riffs and chord progressions that I thought were pretty badass. But I'm not in the business of recording, performing, starting a band, or being a professional musician in any capacity, so I've forgotten most of it. Occasionally some really good shit comes out while I'm stoned. It's not about, "Is this the best I've got?" it's more about, "Is this what I'm feeling?" Sometimes I'll start a blues riff and realize I'm not in the fucking mood for that shit and move to a more Spanish sounding progression. Or sometimes nothing feels better than blasting some power chords in a 90s goth metal style riff.

Most music is shit because the band is playing what people want to hear, not what they think is "the best". I know a very well known musician; if you've listened to the radio during the past 5 years he's got two hits that are played nonstop, even still. I won't say his name. I hung out with this guy in L.A. 10 years ago when he was playing small venues and coming up with some really beautiful music and I know the guy is a solid songwriter. He never got picked up. Then he met the right people at an agency and they "worked on his sound" for a year or two. Then I hear the shit that he released and did one giant facepalm; it's the most commercial sounding garbage you can imagine and it's painful to know that he had to sell his soul just to make it, but that's reality. These songs have been featured on The Hills, they play sold out shows, you've heard these songs in movies and probably seen the music videos too. That big. Deep down the guy is an amazing musician and songwriter but you'd never know it based on his "hits" that are out.

So people might know that what they're doing is shit, but that's what's paying their rent and putting food on their table. If they were really playing "the good stuff", they'd be busking on a sidewalk with their guitar case open and collecting dollar tips.

[Pyre]

A lot of music and musicians are shit for the same reason that a lot of art is shit and a lot of retaurants are shit and a lot of movies are shit, yet people still flock to shitty art galleries, crappy restaurants and terrible movies...

Because true talent is rare and a whole lotta people can barely recognize talent over nontalent.

[Veloce]

One other thing. It is incredibly rare that someone breaks through the industry and has some actual style. I think this used to be far more common before the massive commercialization of music.

I'll use David Gilmore, the guitarist for Pink Floyd as an example. He's one of my favorite guitarists. He's not the most technically gifted as far as speed goes, but he's got one of the most unique and brilliant styles out of any guitarist. Today, you've got thousands of kids graduating from Musicians Institute that can play 64th notes at 220 bpm (in other words really fucking fast) finger tapping, insane sweeps. Their technique is incredible. But it's robotic and none of them are producing actual music. They'll wind up as session guitarists jerking each other off with how fast they can play scales and change modes.

David Gilmore sings with his guitar. Not a single note is extraneous or out of place. Each bend and run serves a purpose. His guitar solos on "Time" and "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" are absolutely timeless and it's hard to imagine a world where they don't exist. That's fucking musicianship right there; composing something that is timeless and perfectly captures the feeling of what they're singing about.

Jonny Greenwood from Radiohead comes to mind as well. Again, you'll never see him shred like John Petrucci or Marty Friedman, but the sounds and lyricism that comes from his guitar is something that comes along only a handful of times per generation. The focus is not on technique, although it's solid, it's on producing music, something that's becoming more and more rare.

You can't underestimate natural musical talent.

[AnonymousBosch]

(10-21-2013 07:23 PM)Pyre Wrote:  

Because true talent is rare and a whole lotta people can barely recognize talent over nontalent.

'Talent' doesn't exist. Everyone labeled 'talented' has sweated and slogged unseen for hours upon hours to give the appearance of it being effortless. Lazy people believe in the myth of innate talent, because it excuses them from effort.

Cardguy: outside my 'straight' job, I'm a musician. It'll sound like but I've gotten good enough at what I do to have landed a record deal. Obviously, I can't prove it without outing myself, so feel free to discard the rest of this as fantasy self-aggrandisement should you choose.

I loathe the dilettantism of modern music, particularly in the indie world, where I just hear the idle children of the priviliged elite looking to pose for narcissitic affirmation.

When I write, I write to compete with every great artist who has influenced me. When I finish a song, I'm never satisifed. This drives me to write another, better song. It's about bettering the quality of the art. My producer and I discussed this, and we know we're different from the herd because we would still do this in the absence of any kind of audience, and we recognise we've reached a level of musical complexity beyond any valid criticism mainstream culture can offer us, so can only function as our own critics. What's the use of reading a five line review in US Weekly? What possible insight can it offer us?

Most people lack the ability to be brutally-honest with themselves about the results of a creative process. They want to be told their geniuses without working for it. Their egos aren't strong enough to filter valid from invalid criticism, which is why the concept of 'haters' has developed. Cognitive dissonance in action: everything I do is perfect, and if you're not impressed, that's simply because all you must do is hate everything - even if you're able to provide valid reasons why my 'art' is wanting.

These artists can only stagnate, particularly as the music industry attracts narcissists like Miley Cyrus, Rihanna and Amanda Palmer anyway. They never think beyond themselves, including what the audience wants out of the experience other than to worship them and how they can be further exploited financially, so the songwriting is subpar.

I honestly believe that is why most music sucks. You can extend this line of thought to, say, any girl posting selfies on facebook, only wanting to hear praise, and losing her shit when she's criticised. Or the social justice warrior posting her thoughts on how the world should be, going into narcissistic fury when she's challenged. Or the working woman who takes a few days 'sick leave' after the project she had been working on was criticised by others in the office.

One of my idols recently praised my songwriting. He chalked his own development up to the repeated commercial failure of his band. Failure drove him to consistently improve, pushing himself outside his comfort zone, trying to make the art better reach time.

People who do this make fantastic music.

This book is worth a read.

All The Manmen

[Pyre]

(10-21-2013 08:21 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 07:23 PM)Pyre Wrote:  

Because true talent is rare and a whole lotta people can barely recognize talent over nontalent.

'Talent' doesn't exist. Everyone labeled 'talented' has sweated and slogged unseen for hours upon hours to give the appearance of it being effortless. Lazy people believe in the myth of innate talent, because it excuses them from effort.

I disagree to an extent. Certain people have certain aptitudes for certain things. Of course they also work hard at it, but "naturals" exist in any field.

[XYZ]

call it what you want but even a so-called "natural" has thousands of hours of experience. you dont reach the upper echelons without putting in the time and work . look at all the pros out there in any field, they work HARD

[Pyre]

Not denying that. I can practice 10,000 hours and never be as good as Michael Jordan. I could study physics for 10,000 hours and never be like Richard Feynmann, not even in the same league.

It almost seems to me that certain people are born to fulfill certain roles due to their natural talents. Yes, they still work hard, but they're in a different league.

[XYZ]

(10-21-2013 08:50 PM)Pyre Wrote:  

Not denying that. I can practice 10,000 hours and never be as good as Michael Jordan. I could study physics for 10,000 hours and never be like Richard Feynmann, not even in the same league.

It almost seems to me that certain people are born to fulfill certain roles due to their natural talents. Yes, they still work hard, but they're in a different league.

those two guys have well over 10,000 hours of practice time/study time. do 50,000 hours then report back.

also, some things that can be quantified like michael jordan's height or body type aren't the same as this mysterious component called "talent" that people refer to. same thing with something like IQ. We don't call high IQ people "talented."

you can be 6'2'' and practice 1 million hours and never be able to play center in the NBA but i wouldn't say shaq is a more "talented" basketball player than someone who's shorter

[JackDavey]

At some point during the life-cycle of every one of my creations, my music is the worst music I've ever heard. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Vaun]

what holds me back? failure. When I played music, my bandmates used to experiment with powerful recreational treats prior to going on stage. some of those moments on stage were literally the worst psychotic episodes I have ever experienced in my life, in front of my peers, high school, local scene, etc. we played dark, noisy guitar based industrial if you get the picture. This was over 20 years ago, I quit playing live and in bands. I still play guitar and just got through playing. I got educated, started business, got into corp america, and started making money. Do I want to write, record and play? Every single fucking day. Will I again? Hopefully.

I recorded a song a few years ago that I love and everyone that hears it think its really good. I listen to it from time to time. Music is probably the only real raw talent I have at something, other than talking. I have pretty much wasted it.

this is a song I did on garageband a little while ago. the edit is off and I need to fix that.
https://soundcloud.com/puckman1/sept-14-copy

[Pyre]

(10-21-2013 09:04 PM)XYZ Wrote:  

also, some things that can be quantified like michael jordan's height or body type aren't the same as this mysterious component called "talent" that people refer to.

So someone could just by chance be born taller than me or with more acute sense of hearing than me, but by the same token someone cannot be born with a natural disposition to excel at running a 200m, music, or something else?

Of course people are born with talents. Talent alone doesn't make them a superstar though.

[AnonymousBosch]

(10-21-2013 09:11 PM)JackDavey Wrote:  

At some point during the life-cycle of every one of my creations, my music is the worst music I've ever heard. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

I recognise the process. Beautifully put.

[XYZ]

(10-21-2013 09:44 PM)Pyre Wrote:  

So someone could just by chance be born taller than me or with more acute sense of hearing than me, but by the same token someone cannot be born with a natural disposition to excel at running a 200m, music, or something else?

its mental masturbation, studies haven't been able to quantify this "talent" x-factor. maybe its there maybe its not, doesnt really matter. theres no way to find out until you put in the tens of thousands of hours to see how you stack up against the competition. even if there is such thing as talent, its not something that manifests itself until you're already among the elite. that there is such thing as talent that takes you from a beginner to a pro in a short amount of time is a complete myth

[FourToTheFloor]

No, in fact I never think my music is good enough.

I'll always want to add another element, to make the sound even thicker, or to make something sit more prominently in the mix. Most often I sit there tweaking a synth for hours trying to make it sound just like what I have in my head.

Even though others tell me it's great, I always feel like I'm settling.

I blame it on perfectionism and a lack of mastery. I feel like my sound won't ever compare with my that of my heroes.


When it comes to electronic music, some producers can crank out a charting tune in 7 or 8 hours, others take up to 100. It all depends on how well you've developed your workflow.

I can only dream of making something that sounds this good:

[Pyre]

I don't need a study to substantiate the fact that some people are naturally more talented in some things than others.

Just because they're talented doesn't mean they're pro, it just means they were born with a certain aptitude in something greater than the average person. An "outlier" on the bell curve so to speak.

[iknowexactly]

(10-21-2013 10:01 PM)XYZ Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 09:44 PM)Pyre Wrote:  

So someone could just by chance be born taller than me or with more acute sense of hearing than me, but by the same token someone cannot be born with a natural disposition to excel at running a 200m, music, or something else?

its mental masturbation, studies haven't been able to quantify this "talent" x-factor. maybe its there maybe its not, doesnt really matter. theres no way to find out until you put in the tens of thousands of hours to see how you stack up against the competition. even if there is such thing as talent, its not something that manifests itself until you're already among the elite. that there is such thing as talent that takes you from a beginner to a pro in a short amount of time is a complete myth

There are objective tests of musical acuity, it's real and measurable. You COULD have good melodic memory and pitch discrimination, and lack any passion for music, but I would guess there's SOME correlation. What you're talking about when you say "talent" is probably creativity. If millions of people buy your albums, that's objective evidence of talent- Burt Bacharach, Joni Mitchell.

There is a mystery to melody -- some people seem to have a melodic gift.

Then some people work incessantly, make up complex stuff, but it lacks some kind of elegance. Witness the differences between some prog rock acts, which are really complex but unlistenable, and the great prog rock acts like Genesis.

[Parlay44]

The quality of music is subjective. As they say ...There's no accounting for taste.
A band can know every chord and scale in the world and not be able to write a hit song.
A band can be together for 1 week and write a hit album. But does that mean anything?
No. It says nothing of the quality of their music. 10 Million people can like an album but
you're not into it so therefore it must suck. But you happen to love an underground demo
from some shit local band that will never leave their parents' basement and to you they're
great. People like what they like. People like what their friends like. People follow trends.
People follow anti-trends. If you like it and it makes you feel good or connect to the
song in anyway just sit back and be happy. Most people can't connect or relate to anything.
Consider yourself lucky. You're a little bit more alive than the next guy.

[XYZ]

from what ive seen, the way people use the word talent is they consider it something unquantifiable. it's an x-factor--you either have it or you don't.

they think if you have it, you're at a huge advantage. taken to the extreme they think that if you don't have it, you will never amount to anything no matter how much you practice. a less extreme version is you can achieve a lot without it, but you can never be "the best"

the former is clearly false and evident to anyone who's put in hours and become better at something and the latter is a meaningless assumption from a practical standpoint. even if you'll never be the best--so what?

[CaliforniaSupreme]

I can play the piano fairly well, and am beginning to learn guitar. I've tried to make music on the piano myself, but it's always sounded terrible to my own ear. Other people have told me it sounds OK. To me, Piano is like French or Italian: as long as you're "speaking" it correctly, it sounds beautiful to anyone who doesn't understand it. Guitar seems more promising, I hope it's easier to play what's on my mind than on the piano.

[Parlay44]

(10-21-2013 11:29 PM)CaliforniaSupreme Wrote:  

I can play the piano fairly well, and am beginning to learn guitar. I've tried to make music on the piano myself, but it's always sounded terrible to my own ear. Other people have told me it sounds OK. To me, Piano is like French or Italian: as long as you're "speaking" it correctly, it sounds beautiful to anyone who doesn't understand it. Guitar seems more promising, I hope it's easier to play what's on my mind than on the piano.

Guitar is cool because you can express emotion much easier with things like string bends, vibrato and dive bombs if you have a tremolo. It's easier to mimic the human voice. Piano is very stiff and flat in my opinion. It's a good instrument to write on though because it has a huge range and a big sound. Both have their pros and cons.

[iknowexactly]

The cool thing about piano is you can walk into a bar , home or restaurant and if there's an opening where the plebes turn off the EDM for a few seconds, whipping out a decent classical piece can bowl everyone over without you using anything but your brain and fingers. Makes you look like a fucking genius boss. Total Old World romantic game.

Why is my fucking warning level forever?

[FourToTheFloor]

The ability to play the piano or any other instrument is cool, no doubt, but it's not exactly rare. Have you written a classical piece?

I ask because many people play instruments. I myself can play guitar at a fairly high level, but because I find the instrument to be sonically exhausted in music, I've moved on to electronic synthesis.

What I'm saying is that playing an instrument == being a talented songwriter.

[Veloce]

(10-21-2013 08:21 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

'Talent' doesn't exist. Everyone labeled 'talented' has sweated and slogged unseen for hours upon hours to give the appearance of it being effortless. Lazy people believe in the myth of innate talent, because it excuses them from effort.

I disagree with this somewhat. I used to feel this way when people told me that I'm "lucky" when I'd play guitar. I'd get pissed off and think, "You're not seeing the 6 hours a day I practice this shit you lazy fuck."

I don't think there's natural talent when it comes to technique. Technique takes practice and exercise.

But I do wholeheartedly believe in talent when it comes to musical composition. Everyone hears music differently and different music comes to different people. Some of is it better than others.

[Architekt]

(10-21-2013 07:34 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

Today, you've got thousands of kids graduating from Musicians Institute that can play 64th notes at 220 bpm (in other words really fucking fast) finger tapping, insane sweeps. Their technique is incredible. But it's robotic and none of them are producing actual music. They'll wind up as session guitarists jerking each other off with how fast they can play scales and change modes.

I've always felt a lot of the fast guitar players (usually associated with the metal movement) are writing in response to the classical movement of days gone past. Many are indeed heavily influenced by a lot of classical composers.

Of course, there's also the well documented impulse to do everything "bigger and better," that is notably prevalent. Playing fast also provides a fun challenge, especially when you're sweaty, tired and very drunk, in front of a large crowd