Music software = bad

swears

preppy-kei
Well, I don't think so really, but Brian Eno does. I was reading an interview with him from a couple of years ago in one of my mates' music technology mags. (Sorry, I don't think it's online) Anyway, it struck a chord with me. His basic argument was: anyone with a modicum of taste can knock up a decent sounding loop in Reason/Fruity Loops or whatever, and then build up a lacklustre track around it.
He compared it to how something like perfume is marketed now: you find the demographic, consider the pricing, draw up an image, then the LAST thing you actually decide is what it smells like. You're building a track up around a weak idea, a mere shell of a song.
Whereas, if you where stuck in front of a say...a piano, you would have to work out the fundamentals of a tune before you even got to the rest of it. The work would have to be strong enough on it's own merits before you got into all the production, effects, various sonic tarting-up procedures. It made me think as well about the roots of techno thread and how those early producers had to work with very limited equipment. Your limitations become fuel for your creativity. Eno talked a lot in the article about how he still mucked about with his trusty old Yamaha DX-7 and how he really loved to get into it's awkward and antiquated programming system.
It's a compelling argument, and I'm starting to think the democracy of software isn't such a great thing after all, I mean imagine working for Warp records and having to come into the office to be greeted by a huge pile of 74 minute long CDs of obscure "IDM" noodling. Yikes.
 

michael

Bring out the vacuum
Yeah, it's not too dissimilar to what Markus Popp from Oval was complaining about when they began... it got sort of sidelined in the novelty of their using skipping CDs and whatever else, but I thought he had a good point.

The thing is there's plenty of music software that doesn't do things that way - or doesn't need to - including cheap things like Plogue Bidule or Audiomulch, which needn't even use one tempo, let alone loops.
 

D84

Well-known member
I dunno if this argument really holds though. I mean even you would admit that there are thousands of people out there who have limited themselves to making music on an electric guitar and who invariably turn out boring, overly referential/reverential crap, which ends up being ignored on some label guy's desk or "round file".

Democratisation of music isn't the problem (jesus...). If it is then what pray tell are the necessary qualifications?

I think you're also missing the point that while people get a kick out of listening to music, the people making the music also get a kick out of it, although in a different way. Maybe some musicians are confusing that kick for talent and skill.

But hey if that's what turns people on and makes them happy, more power to them.
 

michael

Bring out the vacuum
Um, just to be clear I wouldn't go nearly so far as you seem to be trying to say. I don't have any issue with "normal people" making music (to reference swears in the Misty thread) and I make music myself, using such software, so I know the joys of making tunes this way... But I think Eno does have a reasonable point about how easy it can be to get distracted. It's not a big point though, really it just comes down to saying "it's easier to polish a turd nowadays", which I think is definitely true.
 

neupunk

Active member
Reducing it to one statement:

Anyone with basic music training can crank out a decent-sounding tune, but now anyone with reasonable computer skills and a reasonable ear can crank out some decent sounds. It's a lower barrier of entry to be sure, but that doesn't mean that we're going to see an invasion of novices into the mainstream.
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
I think you're all missing the essence of Swears' post, namely:

Whereas, if you where stuck in front of a say...a piano, you would have to work out the fundamentals of a tune before you even got to the rest of it. The work would have to be strong enough on it's own merits before you got into all the production, effects, various sonic tarting-up procedures. It made me think as well about the roots of techno thread and how those early producers had to work with very limited equipment. Your limitations become fuel for your creativity. Eno talked a lot in the article about how he still mucked about with his trusty old Yamaha DX-7 and how he really loved to get into it's awkward and antiquated programming system.

If I understand him correctly he is not so much against increased democratization as he is against the tendency of cheapo but powerful music programs to make composers focus on the endless (and effortless) sonic possibilities instead of working on other, some would say more important, aspects of the craft (e.g. the song-writing). In other words: technology could potentially hinder the creative development because it enables one to dress up "half-ideas" in silk garbs, whereas in the ole days the artists instead went into the studio with a "whole-idea" praying for the producer not to ruin it (needless to say: that's a slight simplification).

I agree with him for the most part. There are so many half-arsed songs I can think of that would have been great had the composers developed their musical ideas instead of turning to some fancy VST-plug for that all-important last stretch that make or break the tune. But that's what we have sampling and re-edits for, I guess: to complete the almost-songs that weren't done justice at the time.

EDIT: If you're uncomfortable with the word "song-writing" you can replace it with "preset-building" (i.e. building your own unique synthesizer sounds) or suchlike.
 
Last edited:

swears

preppy-kei
Well, to be honest I don't totally agree with Eno on this one, although there is definately something in the essence of what he's saying. I have a friend that has been messing around with this:http://www.threechords.com/hammerhead/ts-404.shtml He gets all manner of interesting results out of it. Most techy music guys would probably laugh if you suggested using something this basic in a tune.
And the points about using a traditional band set up, well those fellas have a nice little thing going, because that sounds "right" straight away, especially if you're nicking ideas from your dad's record collection.
 

tatarsky

Well-known member
Yeah, sure a lot of techy guys would laugh at your mates use of primitive kit, but a lot of highly respected musicians would probably applaud him. Doesn't Kieron Hebden use a very primitive sequencer, and I'm sure there are loads of other examples. All those computer music magazines are designed to make you want to buy all the latest kit, 'to keep up to date', but its not necessary at all. FAR better to get really good at using one or two bits of kit, and explore it completely. Eno often bangs on about how he loves finding the mistakes in the DX7, pushing it into doing things it wasn't designed to do. In fact, keeping up to date is distracting - you spend more time learning how to use something than actually making anything.

Also, there do seem to instances of software that are purely designed for half-arsed bedroom producers to have a bit of play with in between playstation and wanking. Reason being the prime example. Is it just me or does everything produced on Reason sound PRECISELY THE FUCKING SAME?

Most software's probably ok, but it's just people approach to it thats the problem. That would be the same with a 4-blokes 4-chords rock band though.

Also, I'm slightly suspicious of some of the language being use here, that seems to suggest that good musicianship is all about having some completely conceived idea, passed down from the hand of God in some moment of beautiful epiphany and then in an instance is committed to record. That's total rockist bollocks. The only person who I know of that is supposed to get anywhere near to that idea is Arvo Part with his meditation. The reality is that, yes, a musician worth his salt should have 'ideas', but these will come to fruition though trial and error, and the hard labour of making decisions about what works and what doesn't. Which this kind of software is as suited to as a guitar, or a piano or a DX7.
 
Last edited:

IdleRich

IdleRich
So Eno says that music software makes it too easy to make songs without ideas and talent. I don't really care about that, don't listen to the rubbish songs. A more interesting question is surely what it makes possible for those that do have ideas and talent.
 

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
Yeah, sure a lot of techy guys would laugh at your mates use of primitive kit, but a lot of highly respected musicians would probably applaud him. Doesn't Kieron Hebden use a very primitive sequencer, and I'm sure there are loads of other examples.
To be honest, a lot of quite techy people seem to enjoy limiting themselves, too. On production-type forums you quite often get people saying 'I'm going to try doing a few tracks with just an atari, a CZ-101, and old Akai and a 4-track' or 'I'm restricting myself to three synths and trying to /really/ learn to use them' or whatever.

Eno often bangs on about how he loves finding the mistakes in the DX7, pushing it into doing things it wasn't designed to do.
A fair few people do that with software, too, though. Admittedly it takes more discipline, since getting a new piece of software to play with the presets on is a lot easier than getting a new piece of hardware...

Also, there do seem to instances of software that are purely designed for half-arsed bedroom producers to have a bit of play with in between playstation and wanking. Reason being the prime example. Is it just me or does everything produced on Reason sound PRECISELY THE FUCKING SAME?
A lot of the time this is because an easy to use piece of software attracts idiots as well as creative people who don't want to mess around with techy stuff, though. Just because it's easy to use Reason to produce cookie-cutter music doesn't mean that all you can use Reason for is cookie cutter music. (Ditto Fruityloops and millions of half-arsed trance / DnB kids.) I know a fair few people who like Reason precisely because it gives them what they need and no more, and lets them focus on composition rather than on playing with shiny toys....
 

swears

preppy-kei
I think a lot of my distaste for hardware/software freaks (even though 90% of the music I listen to is electronic) comes from an idiot in my sixth form that used to make really boring sub-Boards of Canada drivel on his PC which would consist entirely of a four note sequence on some spacey synth pads and a cliched breakbeat stuck over the top.

He would go on about how he was going to get all the latest software or vintage hardware, and then sign to Warp on the strength of one demo. I remember him describing how he needed a Moog before he could really reach his full potential. I told him that it didn't really matter and that whatever talent he had would shine through regardless of what gear he used. His response would consist of looking at me as if I was an idiot and explaining that the moog had a special "lush, warm" sound that you could not recreate on a PC, and how essential it was to the serious home studio boffin. Needless to say, I never heard of him again.
 

oblioblioblio

Wild Horses
hello, I have lurked around this forum for a bit but have never felt the urge to contribute until now.

Brian Eno is totally and uttterly full of shit here... it seems that he is just getting pissy becuase once upon a time people would hear his music and think "wow, that sounds totally futuristic and otherworldly", and he could sit there all smug about how he is so intelectually superior to everyone else on the planet. Though really it was just the exclusivity he garnered from using equipment with high barriers of entry (both intelectual and monetary) that made him sound special.

And now that the advent of easily obtainable and easy to use software has meant that any kid who wants to knock out a little loop of otherwordly electronic textures and beats from his bedroom can easily do so, Eno has kicked up a fuss, like an embarassing dad desperately attention seeking by belittling 'the youth of today', becuase 'life was tougher back then'. Go back to bed Grandad, it's past your bed time, you crusty useless dinosaur.


idleRich has hit the nail on the head. It's how you use the software that make your music sing to people, not rabitting on to them about how using complicated equipment makes you special.
 

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
I've heard this argument from alot of people who, funnily enough, were making music before the software revolution and who, I think, begrudge their now non-mythical status as magis of sound, and Eno is just an arse, an arse who can make 77 million paintings and not one good one out of the lot. The sooner he kills himself the better.
 

Precious Cuts

Well-known member
I'm defintily on the hardware side of things although I do use plugins.

The reason that most things done in Reason sound the same is because its sound engine has a grainy sort of sound (and obviously because a lot of people just use presets). I also find that Ableton live has a distinctly and uniformly crappy sound. I think it must be the time-stretching algorhythm that basically all your audio goes through if you use that program. in the words of Loefah "don't use Ableton. it's shit and it's cheating".

The problem with software is not that you can't make something sound good (which still might be true if your using only Reason, FL or Ableton with no additional software), its that it doesn't sound good almost automatically the way it does using nice hardware. If you run an MPC 3000 > Neve 1073 > distressor > Larvy AD your going to be hardpressed to make it sound bad. If you're doing something in FL then your either going to want to run it through another program to use plug-ins on it, or run it through some outboard gear - which many bedroom producers never bother to do. The problem now is that there is a whole generation that has never touched a peice of hardware besides a crappy e-mu soundcard, and don't really know how good it sounds, and are adamant that their setup (mom's computer full of stolen software) is the cat's ass - to the point where they don't even bother with mastering. I remember Jon E Cash (a reason user) going on Cameo's show bitching about how all the bedroom producers weren't getting their stuff mastered and didnt think they needed to. thankfully dubstep producers realize the importance of mastering, especially if your using software.

In terms of democratization, Im all for it, even if it means more garbage music on the whole. I just don't like recordings that sound like shit.
 

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
The reason that most things done in Reason sound the same is because its sound engine has a grainy sort of sound (and obviously because a lot of people just use presets). I also find that Ableton live has a distinctly and uniformly crappy sound. I think it must be the time-stretching algorhythm that basically all your audio goes through if you use that program. in the words of Loefah "don't use Ableton. it's shit and it's cheating".
It's worth noting at this point that the actual summing engines of almost all of the major hosts have been demonstrated (by mixing down a bunch of waves, and checking whether the resulting waveforms from different hosts cancel) to be the same down to well below the noise floor of any other element in a recording setup. The 'characteristic sounds' in almost all cases come down to a) people using built in effects and synths and (particularly) presets b) different presets for things like overall volume and panning law c) placebo and d) self delusion, in some mixture...
 

oblioblioblio

Wild Horses
The reason that most things done in Reason sound the same is because its sound engine has a grainy sort of sound (and obviously because a lot of people just use presets). I also find that Ableton live has a distinctly and uniformly crappy sound. I think it must be the time-stretching algorhythm that basically all your audio goes through if you use that program. in the words of Loefah "don't use Ableton. it's shit and it's cheating".

The problem with software is not that you can't make something sound good (which still might be true if your using only Reason, FL or Ableton with no additional software), its that it doesn't sound good almost automatically the way it does using nice hardware. If you run an MPC 3000 > Neve 1073 > distressor > Larvy AD your going to be hardpressed to make it sound bad. If you're doing something in FL then your either going to want to run it through another program to use plug-ins on it, or run it through some outboard gear - which many bedroom producers never bother to do. The problem now is that there is a whole generation that has never touched a peice of hardware besides a crappy e-mu soundcard, and don't really know how good it sounds, and are adamant that their setup (mom's computer full of stolen software) is the cat's ass - to the point where they don't even bother with mastering. I remember Jon E Cash (a reason user) going on Cameo's show bitching about how all the bedroom producers weren't getting their stuff mastered and didnt think they needed to. thankfully dubstep producers realize the importance of mastering, especially if your using software.

In terms of democratization, Im all for it, even if it means more garbage music on the whole. I just don't like recordings that sound like shit.

I've never seriously played around in reason but there are many well known producers who use it to great effect.

I can however as an Ableton user testify first hand that what you are saying is not true. The time stretching algorithm is only applied to the audio that you choose put through the time stretching algorithm, nothing else. The only main difference between it and other more 'serious' DAWs is the panning law, where in things like cubase if something is panned hard to one channel there is a 3db rise in gain, or something to that effect. I'm not totally sure on the in and outs of the nature of panning laws, but it doesn't seem like something that will totally comprimise my ability to contruct music to be honest, so I'm not all that worried.

About Loefah's quote from the forum, whilst he has unquestionable talent when it comes to fashioning sick dubstep rhythms and the architecture of chest filling bass. with all respect he is either being deliberately facetious or chatting a little bit of shit there. Cheating. wtf?

I think that the fact that when using software you cannot create sounds that are immediately the finished product (like many analogue users including yourself claim their equipment can do) is a benefit. it means you have to look harder for decent sounds and textures in the programs you use. The core function is after all the same in both.. the creation and manipulation of waveforms.
 

swears

preppy-kei
He's right. Have you heard a moog in action?


My point is that if you can't do something that at least catches peoples' attention in something like Reason (fuck it, even with music 2000 on the Playstation one) no matter how inferior you think those programs are, then having a huge rack of modular synths and vintage gear or the latest top-spec software isn't going to do you much good either. Anyone with ideas and talent is going to be able to bend and work within the limitations of their gear to do something good. They might not be able to exactly recreate the sound in their head, but some spark of talent will shine through.

It's just an excuse isn't it? "Well, I am a genius, I just haven't got the latest gear in this month's Future Music yet."
 

Precious Cuts

Well-known member
It's worth noting at this point that the actual summing engines of almost all of the major hosts have been demonstrated (by mixing down a bunch of waves, and checking whether the resulting waveforms from different hosts cancel) to be the same down to well below the noise floor of any other element in a recording setup. The 'characteristic sounds' in almost all cases come down to a) people using built in effects and synths and (particularly) presets b) different presets for things like overall volume and panning law c) placebo and d) self delusion, in some mixture...

umm thats a pretty extreme claim... where was this demonstrated?

wave cancellation is a notoriously deficient indicator of when two things actually sound the same.. example: the Waves SSL 4000 plugs.. ultra-high wave cancellation between the original and the plugins that should mean exact same sound, but there are clear differences in sound (according to basically everyone in the world).

I honestly can't tell the difference between ProTools, Logic, Nuendo or Sonar, but there are a lot of experts that claim that there are distinct differences in the summing - I don't think they are full of it.
 
Top