Re: more toys / "individualizing" music

["James Pokorny" <j.pokorny@worldnet.att.net>]

Michael wrote:
>> ive spent years and
>lots-o-money
>> to do this sort of thing (kind of) and now anyone can jump on the
>> bandwagon

Don "Mango" wrote:
>Advances in technology are are always a double (or triple, or more) edged
>sword. While they can be used to produce previously impossible, inspired
>works in the hands of talented artists, they also make it possible for
>legions of people to create an endless supply of mediocre works.
>
>Which, in itself might produce another side effect; a quite desirable one
>in my mind. With the means of artistic creation widely availabe, when the
>average citizen is faced with the daunting task of separating the precious
>wheat from the abundant chaff of other people's art, perhaps they will be
>encouraged to produce their own art instead. These days, too much emphasis
>is placed on the marketing and consumption of art, and too little emphasis
>is placed on its creation - an equally important, or even more important
>part of the equation, IMHO.


These are some really good points.  There's been a real overhaul of the
entire music making process within the last 30 years.  I for one think this
is a good thing.  Traditionally in the past if a person wanted to become a
musician s/he would have to spend long hours of training learning to read
and write music, as well as to develop a high level of proficiency on at
least one instrument.  It was customary that only after these goals were
achieved would the musician begin to "compose" music, if that was the
individual's desire.

There was much hue and cry back in the late 60's and early 70's over the
introduction of synthesizers.  I recall reading shocked protests from
orchestras and musician's unions who claimed that these new devices would
make live music obsolete and would put professional musicians out of work.
So far that hasn't really happened.  But the gradual inclusion of 
electronic
instruments into the musical mainstream has certainly enriched music as a
whole.

The "punk" revolution of the late 70's and early 80's, rebelling against 
the
bloated self-importance that had developed within rock music, brought a
great "do-it-yourself" ethos into popular music.  This began with bands of
musicians who had little to no musical training or technique, but had lots
of spirit.  I can't say I enjoyed all the music that came out of this
movement, but I greatly appreciated the populist attitude behind it ---
i.e., "Why shouldn't *I* be able to make music too?"  This attitude also
spread into the business and distribution end of music, spawning the rise 
of
numerous "indie" labels, etc.  Another good deal, IMO.

Then in the 80's there was the rise of drum machines, sampling (coming out
of "turntabling"), looping, etc. which were all natural lead-ins to Rap,
Hip-Hop, etc.  I admit I was somewhat appalled by the rather blatant
"lifting" of bass lines, melodic hooks, etc. in this musical "mix and
match."  I'm still not entirely comfortable with the ethics of it.  But I'm
very impressed by how far the music has developed, considering once again
the "do-it-yourself" mindframe.  The same applies to DJs as composers.  I
think that the technology has really helped bring music-making to the
people, not just to already trained/established musicians.

I can understand why "musicians" would be threatened with new music-making
technology.  As in "It took a long time for me to learn my instrument, 
learn
to read, learn theory, put this all together and make it work, etc. and now
*anyone* can flip a few switches and do the same!"  But I agree with Don,
that anything which allows more people direct, hands-on access to
music-making can't be too bad.  In earlier (pre-electronic, pre-electric,
pre-radio) times it was common for many households to have a piano, and for
many people to have basic competence on it, enough to read and play sheet
music to sing along to the "hits" of the day.  Radio and television have
made this formerly widespread talent nearly obsolete.  Since there seems to
be a universal, innate "need" for music in mankind, I welcome anything that
makes music and music-making more available.

As far as leading to much mediocrity, that's bound to happen.  But I would
argue that the satisfaction of "creating" even a mediocre piece of music is
worthwhile.  The value is in the "hands-on," "I did it myself" feeling that
comes from any creative work.  Who among us has never created something
mediocre in our music-making?  Do we have to create masterworks every time
we pick up an instrument?  How many times have we jammed with other
musicians and had a great time, lots of fun, then listened to a tape of it
afterwards and been amazed at how bad it sounded after the fact?

I can appreciate the fact that musicians spend years training and 
perfecting
their art.  But I have a hard time dealing with the elitist attitude that
"only musicians can make music."  I know that Michael has a great sense of
humor and that his comments were tongue-in-cheek.  But I've had many
experiences with "high culture" musicians snubbing "pop culture" musicians,
and am riled by this disparity.  I can only imagine how they'd deal with
"non-musicians" making music.  But I'm all for it.

James Pokorny