Is True Music Talent Dying...

[AUS]

This is not a thread to bash current trending popular music but rather it is to ask ourselves if the music being put out today truly require the same amount of effort as it once did. If we listen to top trending music we often times see music with singers voice auto-tuned to hell, all lyrics dumbed down to simple and easy understand state (For example "I luh your Puppy" "Girls, we run the world"), singers rather than being noted for their talented noted for their eccentricities and outbursts and only popularized through Social Media (Do you really think Kanye West would be that popular if it were for how much people like to tweet about him?). Yes I understand that there are exception to this (EG: Adele, Sia, Gotye) however top trenders are just not really as talented, and yes I do understand that everyone has different opinions on what they believe is good music. I just cant help feeling with popular music being what it is today and Jazz and Classical being on the outs, will we still have our Artie Shaw's who can preform clarinet solo's once thought impossible to do (Someone once looked at one of Artie Shaw's music and said that he was fraud because the music was impossible to reproduce on a clarinet, then he went on live television and proved him wrong). Will we still have our Mozart's who can create and conduct a fine orchestra that can play music that will inspire many for generations. I just don't believe that our music stars have as much talent as older musicians once had and as music becomes more electronic I ask the question, Is true music talent dying?

 

[Callu-chan]

First of all. YOOO ITS AUS!!!!! Second get on Skype.

Now for the actual response. Ahem...

Is true music talent dying? No, simply its not. There are thousands of people out there today who are talented singers. Just watch tv singing competitions like The Voice, X Factor etc. The winners of those shows are chosen based on singing talent, not how much people tweet about them (there is an exception for the finals in most cases where people vote, but you couldn't have made it that far if you're not good) and most of them are actually quite talented. Whats sad is that their popularity dies down after the season ends, and they don't go very far from there.

The reason we have people like Jennifer Lopez, Pitbull, and people like that is because they have designed their persona to attract attention due to their social life, looks and not their talent. The "music" just acts as a platform to excuse them for being famous.

And frankly, I'm not worried about talented people dying out of the industry because you just have to look at some of the top 100 most popular songs right now to be reassured. Look at the people on them. Sam Smith, Meghan Trainor, Sia, Bruno Mars, Mark Ronson. Say what you want about them but they are all people who do not use auto-tune, and have genuine talent. Don't believe me? Just go listen to acoustic covers of their popular songs sung by them.

There have always been the Pitbull's of the industry, and they're not going away. But more importantly, there are always going to be people with genuine talent who can and will make it to the top.

So worry not AUS. The music industry is safe, and I'm confident that it will continue to stay strong, even if it has some road bumps to get over.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Talent in anything, let alone music, will never die. There are talented artists, but they're often obscured by the media's focus on the more higher profile singers, like Nikki Minaj or Justin Bieber (not knocking them or anything, even though they're not my cup of tea). Consider that with 7 billion people on Earth, there's always at least one person who can bring gold to a field. One simply needs to look more into the indie side of music news, which isn't hard to do with Google around.

One must ask, however, if people will eventually run out of ideas for good music anytime in the future.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Who had the #1 single back in '69? Who do you guys think? Dylan, maybe? Hendrix? The Beatles? The Stones?

Nope.

The Archies. Anyone ever heard of those guys? Well, I thought it was just a name, but it turns out they're actually touting themselves as Archie's band. Yeah, from the comic. And the music is pablum pop in its purest form - saccharine and completely meaningless. At least, the purest form they had back then. Also huge back then? The Monkees. Auspiciously absent from the top 10 charts? Most of what we'd consider "great music" looking back on that era today. Not a single Jimi Hendrix Experience song was even on the Billboard top 100 in the same year his performance at Woodstock cemented him as one of the great rock-and-roll legends.

Pop music has always sucked. You really think Bieber is such a huge step down from Backstreet Boys, NSYNC, and Brittney (*****, It's)? That Minaj is a new breed of awful? Well, maybe. But actual music talent is still out there. Lady Gaga writes and sings her own music. Just one example worth noting.

But the real talent, as usual, is mostly found outside of the pop scene. Metal still has a lot of its legends kicking around, and new ones being born occasionally. In general, the alternative scene has some really excellent songwriters if you take the time to look for them. Jazz and Classical are not dying; they've just moved out of the popular eye. Hell, classical moved itself out of the popular eye almost a century ago when it collectively lost itself up its own ass. Perhaps there's something to be said for certain "rules" in composing, eh? For example: not sounding like someone dropping lots of marbles on a piano.

 

[NotMike]

I was going to reply with a long winded explanation, but Budget got my point across before me.

Basically, Pop will always reign supreme on the charts because it is designed to do just that - Pop does in fact, stand for Popular. It is designed to sell and make money. It isn't good. A lot of the same chord progressions and vocal tuning and other bull and malarky that is just going to sell to the lowest common denominator.

However, good music? It will always exist. Forever. You just have to find it. :D

 

[JayTheUnseen]

One must ask, however, if people will eventually run out of ideas for good music anytime in the future.

I don't believe that will ever happen. Music is a frontier without boundaries. Infinite combinations of notes can be found; add in beats and half-steps, etc, and you have endless possibilities.

 

[gmBottles]

As time goes on it will become more and more difficult to make music that is original and unique, because more music is being made. I listen to a lot of more obscure music, and it is for the most part original and unique. It is hard to make music that doesn't sound like something someone else has already made, but it is definitely possible.

Some people also like to argue that EDM (or in my case IDM) music is easy to make and takes no talent. Music that is made electronically is easy to sound similar, and it takes talent to make something like that original, especially when they usually have no lyrics.

 

[CArniE]

I don't think musical talent is dying, i just think the definition of talent is has kinda changed throughout the years. It's like some people enjoy classical piano music, and think that is talent, while others like EDM and pop music. Talent kinda has a broad definition, different things appeal to different people. What you interpret as talent doesn't necessarily translate to the same thing as what i see as talented. So no, I personally don't think it's dying, it's just changing :x

 

[Deleted member 269706]

I've asked myself this on many occasions, and I think I found an answer...

The talent of music production is not dying, and probably never will. On the other hand, talent of actual music performance is becoming a lost art. You see, as far as music goes, it doesn't matter what medium it is created with, music is music. Doesn't matter if it's a guitar, voice, synth, or computer, as long as it has a beat, a melody, and all that good stuff. However, when it comes to actually performing music, there's a difference between getting a band together and practicing, or pressing a play button on a playlist. As a guitarist, I do feel strongly about this issue. So much hard work goes into playing with a band, getting every little thing right. Every band member relies on each other to get the sound right, and do it properly. When an electronic artist comes along, there's no need for a band. There's no need to practice an instrument for hours upon hours when everything is already right on the tempo, and can be flawlessly and exactly recreated.

Unfortunately, the sad truth is that pressing a play button is more efficient then getting a band together. The world is in a weird state where everything is becoming as simplistic and straightforward as it can get. When you can play a song without the risk of something going wrong, it seems like the better answer. Sadly, when this happens, some of the things that make concerts so magical are lost. I'm talking about things such as improvising or changing the lyrics at will while on stage. These skills are becoming obsolete and less valued, ultimately rendering musical performance as a lost art (in my opinion). It seems as though the common audience doesn't value a random guitar solo any more than they love hearing the same old baseline.

 

[Sucumbio]

There's something to be said about someone who can press play on enough samples to blend a nice landscape. Electronica is by no means talentless and it has transformed the pop culture quite a bit musically though I gotta say I'm really sick of auto tune.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

There's something to be said about someone who can press play on enough samples to blend a nice landscape. Electronica is by no means talentless and it has transformed the pop culture quite a bit musically though I gotta say I'm really sick of auto tune.

Yeah, anyone who thinks good electronica is easy has never tried to make it.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Yeah, anyone who thinks good electronica is easy has never tried to make it.

I once tried explaining this to my brother (he's 14), when he said electronic music is talentless.

It's not that it requires no talent; it's that it requires a different set of skills. He's into pop rock/alternative/singer-songwriter stuff. Singing and playing an instrument certainly requires skill and discipline, but so does learning how to manipulate waveforms and understanding effects and mixing. You can't fault synthetic music for its synthetic nature.

Also, as for the thread topic, I too disagree that "true" music "talent" is "dying". There are musical innovators and auteurs in every musical domain. It's just that, in Western culture, mainstream music tends to the simplistic, more digestible fare. It's easier to jam to a simple, clean hook with simple, straightforward lyrics than to a more nuanced composition.

And I also wonder if there's a feedback loop going on. People like mainstream music, which causes such music to become mainstream, which causes mainstream music to become widely distributed, which causes a lot of people to be exposed to it, which causes people to end up enjoying mainstream music, which causes such music to become mainstream...

It remains that the mainstream in music only gives the illusion of homogeneity and dilution. As such, the mainstream can't be used as a metric for what's possible, or what's out there. As an intermediate connoisseur of metal, I can attest that music can be very diverse and varied, and that talent abounds -- for those willing to seek it out.

 

[SmashTimeGo]

It is because now most of the songs are about sex and love.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It is because now most of the songs are about sex and love.

But that's always been true. Hell, even the great artists of yesteryear wrote a ton of songs about boning. Even when talking about the really famously great music. For every "Stairway to Heaven" there's a dozen songs like "Whole Lotta Love", "Houses of the Holy", "Black Dog", "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You", and the like. Hell, "Whole Lotta Love" has an interlude in the middle which is basically an acoustic metaphor for boning. That's awesome. Lyrical subject matter has little to do with the actual musical talent. You can make a good story out of anything. Remember "Come Sail Away"? That song's about a sailor who gets rescued from dying by aliens. It's really dumb. Now here are the lyrics.

I'm sailing away set an open course for the virgin sea
I've got to be free, free to face the life that's ahead of me
On board I'm the captain so climb aboard
We'll search for tomorrow on every shore
And I'll try oh Lord I'll try to carry on

I look to the sea reflections in the waves spark my memory
Some happy some sad
I think of childhood friends and the dreams we had
We live happily forever so the story goes
But somehow we missed out on that pot of gold
But we'll try best that we can to carry on

A gathering of angels appeared above my head
They sang to me this song of hope and this is what they said
They said come sail away come sail away
Come sail away with me
Come sail away come sail away
Come sail away with me

I thought that they were angels but to my surprise
They climbed aboard their starship and headed for the skies
Singing come sail away come sail away
Come sail away with me
Come sail away come sail away
Come sail away with me

That's ****ing awesome!

And of course, there's the added fact that a lot of the big hits from the last few years were not love songs, and were also astonishingly amazing. Like, as in, pop music has suddenly gotten good again. Exhibit A:

Jesus Christ this song is amazing! Sounds like something pulled straight out of the glory days of the 80s.

 

[whoknowswhat]

I've asked myself this on many occasions, and I think I found an answer...

The talent of music production is not dying, and probably never will. On the other hand, talent of actual music performance is becoming a lost art. You see, as far as music goes, it doesn't matter what medium it is created with, music is music. Doesn't matter if it's a guitar, voice, synth, or computer, as long as it has a beat, a melody, and all that good stuff. However, when it comes to actually performing music, there's a difference between getting a band together and practicing, or pressing a play button on a playlist. As a guitarist, I do feel strongly about this issue. So much hard work goes into playing with a band, getting every little thing right. Every band member relies on each other to get the sound right, and do it properly. When an electronic artist comes along, there's no need for a band. There's no need to practice an instrument for hours upon hours when everything is already right on the tempo, and can be flawlessly and exactly recreated.

Unfortunately, the sad truth is that pressing a play button is more efficient then getting a band together. The world is in a weird state where everything is becoming as simplistic and straightforward as it can get. When you can play a song without the risk of something going wrong, it seems like the better answer. Sadly, when this happens, some of the things that make concerts so magical are lost. I'm talking about things such as improvising or changing the lyrics at will while on stage. These skills are becoming obsolete and less valued, ultimately rendering musical performance as a lost art (in my opinion). It seems as though the common audience doesn't value a random guitar solo any more than they love hearing the same old baseline.

This isn't true at all. Music production takes practice too. There are tons of things to take into consideration when producing like reverb, high and low compression, how curvy to make the compression, making your own synths, how thick do I need it, what waves to use, etc.. The thing about music production is it allows for a lot more experementation. That's a fact. No matter what you do on an instrument, you can take that sample and messwith it more in a DAW.

Music performance never dies as an art. "instrument" music hasn't even remotely died off. It's only getting better. Improv studies are still.just as relevant. I don't know what you mean by "the same old bassline" when rock also uses basslines and guitar riffs as a basic foundation. I also don't know who "the common audience" is. Btw I've been playing guitar for 18 years and I have no idea what you're talking about lol. Music is music.

 

[Foxus]

This is not a thread to bash current trending popular music but rather it is to ask ourselves if the music being put out today truly require the same amount of effort as it once did. If we listen to top trending music we often times see music with singers voice auto-tuned to hell, all lyrics dumbed down to simple and easy understand state (For example "I luh your Puppy" "Girls, we run the world"), singers rather than being noted for their talented noted for their eccentricities and outbursts and only popularized through Social Media (Do you really think Kanye West would be that popular if it were for how much people like to tweet about him?). Yes I understand that there are exception to this (EG: Adele, Sia, Gotye) however top trenders are just not really as talented, and yes I do understand that everyone has different opinions on what they believe is good music. I just cant help feeling with popular music being what it is today and Jazz and Classical being on the outs, will we still have our Artie Shaw's who can preform clarinet solo's once thought impossible to do (Someone once looked at one of Artie Shaw's music and said that he was fraud because the music was impossible to reproduce on a clarinet, then he went on live television and proved him wrong). Will we still have our Mozart's who can create and conduct a fine orchestra that can play music that will inspire many for generations. I just don't believe that our music stars have as much talent as older musicians once had and as music becomes more electronic I ask the question, Is true music talent dying?

One word: Yes.

I don't think "Do you think music talent is dying or has died?" is really subjective. Its heavily apparent in the industry. Those who have talent really lie within the realm of rock, which seems to be shunned from the mainstream media, and it doesn't really make sense to me. You see country music, employing the same instruments (guitars, bass, drums, vocals just much more nasal) that rock does, why the hell isn't it as popular? It lacks to make any sense to me. Columbia recently signed Bring Me the Horizon, which while they dropped their metalcore roots for, was a good compromise.

Billboard made me almost choke on my own spit when I saw Hazier (ya'll know who Hazier is, right?) was in the rock category, as well as Walk The Moon. Okay, even a kindergartener could point one that 1. Hazier is not rock, "Bring Me To Church" is a gospel song and 2. Walk The Moon don't come close to rock, they're more electronic if anything. And no, Imagine Dragons is not rock either. Needless to say, Billboard has become nothing but a joke. Their logic is so heavily flawed its mind numbing.

I think the death of music talent started around 2007 when this huntress, named Lady Gaga, spawned. Poker Face played all the ****ing time (I swear, she must have repeated the phrase a hundred times by the songs end). What was worse, or still is, is the copycats that came after Lady Gaga. You know who I'm talking about. Katy Perry, Nicki Minaj, Jessie J, Lorde, its just one abomination after another and they just keep coming. Around that time, who'd we have before? My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy (when they were at their roots), and The Used that were eating up radio airplay and chart positions.

You could also say the ghoul, Justin Bieber, has led to this demise of musical talent.

You might think I'm a hater, envious, or otherwise heavily biased from my response, I'm not. I'm just a passionate musician who is watching all these untalented dumb-****s with no creative knowledge whatsoever make their fame and fortune while those with true talent go under the radar and pay the consequence of being underground.

 

[Murlough]

No. If you see people on shows like American Idol and such you see that there still are people with great talent.

 

[Foxus]

No. If you see people on shows like American Idol and such you see that there still are people with great talent.

The thing about shows like American Idol is you have to fall in a certain category in terms of your voice, body image, and genre. Most of the vocalists from bands I know, quite successful ones I might add, wouldn't have a chance on American Idol. Either because their voice is odd or too gruff.

It shouldn't matter if you''re skinny or fat, have a picture perfect voice or a odd one, you should still have your chance in music. And from the episodes of AI or The Voice I've observed, that's not the case. Not saying your point wasn't valid, just saying what I've observed.

 

[Takehiko]

Musical talent is still alive. The problem is what sells instance. In this current generation, the main focuses of the people are: partying, drug use, and messages that fuel empowerment that people don't have to act on. These are the things that sell. For instance, there was a situation where I played this song in the car that associates of mine were driving. The reaction was that they both froze up, and one asked could I put on the rapper named Future.


If you notice the content of this song, he's speaking about real life issues that people truly deal with. Whether they are famous or not. However, the 3 music selling points that I mentioned about aren't within this song, so the general public doesn't feel that this is relatable. This was also noted in a YT comment (Ikr?) that if Kanye had come out now in this era of music that he wouldn't have been successful.

All in All: Musical talent will always be around, but it's dependent on if it's marketed to the people.

 

[Foxus]

Musical talent is still alive. The problem is what sells instance. In this current generation, the main focuses of the people are: partying, drug use, and messages that fuel empowerment that people don't have to act on. These are the things that sell. For instance, there was a situation where I played this song in the car that associates of mine were driving. The reaction was that they both froze up, and one asked could I put on the rapper named Future.


If you notice the content of this song, he's speaking about real life issues that people truly deal with. Whether they are famous or not. However, the 3 music selling points that I mentioned about aren't within this song, so the general public doesn't feel that this is relatable. This was also noted in a YT comment (Ikr?) that if Kanye had come out now in this era of music that he wouldn't have been successful.

All in All: Musical talent will always be around, but it's dependent on if it's marketed to the people.

I think subliminal messages that promote illicit activity have been on the forefront since the 90's, when you had Marilyn Manson and artists of the like. I'm not sure how many people saw the tweet Green Day's Billie Joe sent (two of them) concerning why there was never rock mentioned at the MTV music awards (if anything , it looked more like a scantily clad fashion show) and it was repeated today on the radio. Billie had a point, MTV back in the day supported Green Day by showing their music videos.

Meaningful music from my analysis of charts over the past year via Billboard seems to have taken a back seat when it comes to selling. The autotuned, quickly-fabricated pop song that really has no soul of its own is always what you see on the Hot 100 or Billboard 200. Its quite sad really, because music should be like a journal, supporting people in times of heartache and depression by creating content that sympathize with their plight, not some cheaply done Taylor Swift song like Shake It Off.

 

[M15t3R E]

An auto-tuned song about going to the club came on the radio today and I was instantly disgusted and changed the station. This is why I mostly listen to my own playlist these days.
To answer your question, yes. If there was one device somewhere making auto tunes available I would personally lead a holy mission to destroy it. Who among you would be brave enough to join me?

 

[Albie83]

I don't think that good music is dying, but I think good music isn't being advertised well enough. I can still find songs that I find great, but I have to go hunting for them now. If all that you listen to is the stuff that plays on the mainstream stations, then I can see why people think that music isn't as good as they rarely have any real meaning and are over produced. But history shows that music trends go through dry spells. Eventually something great will come along.

 

[Dandy_here]

No. It's just become harder to find in certain genres

 

[oZzIIgk]

One word: Yes.

Your points are all weakened by the first thing you say: that most talent lies in one genre.

I'm not heavily biased

Those who have talent really lie within the realm of rock

Death of music talent

Lady Gaga

Also, you didn't really say this, but you seem to have implied that My Chemical Romance/Fall Out Boy (a band I like, thank you very much)/The Used are "talented" in any manner more than Lady Gaga/Katy Perry, etc.. I hate to break it to you, but I'd beg to differ that My Chemical Romance's music is in any tangible way any more "talented" than that of, say, Ellie Goulding. To me, MCR is less "talented" than Ellie because MCR lyrics seem like they try to snipe kids right in the angst. MCR lyrics don't even lay on the symbolism like Fall Out Boy used to do so expertly.

To everyone else: just because someone doesn't get radio time doesn't mean they aren't popular. Take M83, for example. He's not exactly obscure. Kim and Jessie + Midnight City are both pretty popular. Madeon is another example. Pay No Mind is a song that's sold INCREDIBLY well (so far as I know) on Google Play, but one I've yet to hear on a big-name station.

Another thing: at this point in time, Alternative Rock is what a majority of rock gets categorized under.

Spoiler

Spoiler

These artists are both "alt rock." Let that sink in.
also if it seems like im some brat hating on anamanaguchi thats not what i want it to sound like, because anamanaguchi is easily one of my favorite bands

 

[Foxus]

Ah, I remember when Viva La Vida came out. I actually liked it, mainly for its symphonic elements.

Alternative Rock and Indie Rock are two terms tossed around these days. I call it really a "harder version of pop music". I don't know what happened to Fall Out Boy maybe its the producer they got, but "Centuries" is a far cry from say "Sugar, We're Going Under".

Reason I say Lady Gaga in particular, is because Poker Face from my observations, was when the pop craze really exploded. You couldn't go a day without hearing Poker Face. Same year, MCR came out with Black Parade. You can't sit there and tell me Train, Maroon 5, or Hazier qualify as rock, come on. You know better than that. Quite recently, Bring Me The Horizon got signed to the flagship label, Columbia Records. Sure they gave up their metalcore roots, but its a step in the right direction. Then there's 5 Seconds of Summer, with more of a Blink 182 feel. Again, while it was a turn off they opened for One Direction and members were under 20 years old, they got signed to Capitol Records, and again, a step in the right direction.

MCR's main target was the emo movement in the early and mid 2000's (Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge and The Black Parade relatively dark records, yet commercially successful for the band). Songs that get to the heart deal with real life issues and times of heartache; the times people are on the verge of breaking down. Its songs that expose the world for what it is, not sugarcoating it. Rise Against most notably was another act that benefited greatly, for a punk band nevertheless (although quite recently, they were booted off Interscopes list of artists).

System Of A Down is still signed to Columbia, despite the fact they haven't released a record in ten years.

The state of rock music is one near and dear to my heart, its about cranking up those amps, letting those power chords roar, and creating something raw that gets to the heart of every audiophile. Not the fake stuff that passes off as rock mind you.

 

[Super Ocebe]

First of all. YOOO ITS AUS!!!!! Second get on Skype.

Now for the actual response. Ahem...

Is true music talent dying? No, simply its not. There are thousands of people out there today who are talented singers. Just watch tv singing competitions like The Voice, X Factor etc. The winners of those shows are chosen based on singing talent, not how much people tweet about them (there is an exception for the finals in most cases where people vote, but you couldn't have made it that far if you're not good) and most of them are actually quite talented. Whats sad is that their popularity dies down after the season ends, and they don't go very far from there.

The reason we have people like Jennifer Lopez, Pitbull, and people like that is because they have designed their persona to attract attention due to their social life, looks and not their talent. The "music" just acts as a platform to excuse them for being famous.

And frankly, I'm not worried about talented people dying out of the industry because you just have to look at some of the top 100 most popular songs right now to be reassured. Look at the people on them. Sam Smith, Meghan Trainor, Sia, Bruno Mars, Mark Ronson. Say what you want about them but they are all people who do not use auto-tune, and have genuine talent. Don't believe me? Just go listen to acoustic covers of their popular songs sung by them.

There have always been the Pitbull's of the industry, and they're not going away. But more importantly, there are always going to be people with genuine talent who can and will make it to the top.

So worry not AUS. The music industry is safe, and I'm confident that it will continue to stay strong, even if it has some road bumps to get over.

Word brother.

 

[Kneutronic]

This subject really depends on every person's definition of "good music." There are those people who grew up around older songs, like from the 60s or 70s, and then there are those who had grown up around newer songs.

My opinion on the matter? "Good" music hasn't died off just yet. Rather, it's evolving to fit in with a younger generation who likes to listen to those kind of songs. But myself, having grown up listening to songs from the 60s, has a different taste of music overall. Newer songs don't grasp me as much; in fact, only a handful of them do.

My overall stance on this subject is neutral; I don't like the music that plays today, but I don't agree with the opinion that "good" music is dying off.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Talent is the word lazy people use to justify their lack of achievement. Any skill responsible for a masterpiece was born through persistent effort, not innate talent (although some may be more capable than others).

Expect a decline in the quality of art as work ethic diminishes. Thank the socialists.

 

[Foxus]

Talent is the word lazy people use to justify their lack of achievement. Any skill responsible for a masterpiece was born through persistent effort, not innate talent (although some may be more capable than others).

Expect a decline in the quality of art as work ethic diminishes. Thank the socialists.

If you really feel the impulsive need, the blame really needs to put on technology. Ableton, Propellerhead, all this software is becoming a quick fix for people (which really all dubstep is, is looping certain bass frequencies for two-four minutes).

 

[FlusteredBat]

If you really feel the impulsive need, the blame really needs to put on technology. Ableton, Propellerhead, all this software is becoming a quick fix for people (which really all dubstep is, is looping certain bass frequencies for two-four minutes).

New technology benefits artistic improvement, otherwise music wouldn't have progressed much beyond a bunch of cave-dudes clapping sticks together.

 

[oZzIIgk]

If you really feel the impulsive need, the blame really needs to put on technology. Ableton, Propellerhead, all this software is becoming a quick fix for people (which really all dubstep is, is looping certain bass frequencies for two-four minutes).

Just because music is easier to make doesn't mean that it (as a whole) is worse. Sure, 8 year olds couldn't do DJ sets in their bedrooms in the 70's, but just because that kid can doesn't mean that everyone else who makes music is now unskilled or something. The logic behind that doesn't make any sense. It's like saying that casual clothing made suits and ties less fancy. Sure, fewer people wear suits and ties everywhere, but the quality of a suit and tie hasn't dropped drastically. dont argue against that analogy i know for a fact you aren't from the 1800s
Also, the way you refer to dubstep gives me the "all electronic music is dubstep" vibe, which completely negates every point you could make about electronic music. If you genuinely think that the below songs even belong to be categorized as the same genre as

, you should be listening more closely, honestly.

Spoiler

Hint: This isn't dubstep

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[Sucumbio]

All that music sucked.



This topic is highly subjective.

Talent is the "special" ability to do something "well." I put those in quotes because arguably they're both subjective standards by which the group would measure themselves against. But essentially there are some things that people just have a natural "knack" for, and do "better" than others. Although practice makes perfect, no amount of practice will eclipse the talent of another if their threshold is already reached. The classic that comes to mind is Mozart vs. Salieri. Though the movie Amadeus exaggerates their combat for theatrical purposes, the rivalry was real. Mozart just, had a knack, a true talent, for creating music. As if the music was already inside him and all he had to do was translate it to audible for the rest of the world to hear. Meanwhile his competition at the time, toiled in a futile attempt to "do justice" to the art form, lacking the originality that'd make Mozart's music so profound for endless generations to come.

Anyway, no I don't think true music talent is dying. Every now and again an artist comes along who obviously has a knack for writing good music or songs. There's plenty of cookie cutter musicians out there, who are just good enough to hide the fact that they're completely unoriginal in their approach to music. But they can still deliver what the record labels want to sell, and so they have careers. But ultimately, "talent" is subjective in nature, as one could decry any musician as being talented, and yet you could find someone else who hates everything they do.

 

[Bairbie]

Is scientific research less valid now that scientists have better equipment and technology to easier conduct said research?

Talent is subjective and can come in different forms. Just because someone uses autotune in their songs doesn't mean they're not a good singer, and just because someone is a fabulous singer doesn't mean that they can also write beautiful songs.

"Talent" can never die, and it also comes in different forms. That being said, talent pales in comparison to hard work and passion. And as long as these are present, you can't definitely say that something is "bad".

 

[oZzIIgk]

All that music sucked.

It might not have been the best music, but my point was moreso that electronic music isn't all the same and that anyone who thinks so is obviously not listening.

 

[Foxus]

Is scientific research less valid now that scientists have better equipment and technology to easier conduct said research?

Talent is subjective and can come in different forms. Just because someone uses autotune in their songs doesn't mean they're not a good singer, and just because someone is a fabulous singer doesn't mean that they can also write beautiful songs.

"Talent" can never die, and it also comes in different forms. That being said, talent pales in comparison to hard work and passion. And as long as these are present, you can't definitely say that something is "bad".

Autotune is a good tool, if used conservatively (maybe once or twice in an entire album), Examples of where autotuning has been practiced well in moderation would have to be Pink's "It's All Your Fault" and Offspring's "Cruising California (Bumpin In My Trunk)." When autotuning becomes abused, most notably in pop music, that's when the tool becomes meaningless and utterly annoying to listen to. If you can sing, you should be able to sing without autotune (considering autotune as optional, not required).

Electronic music is not all the same. It is, however, generated from the same or similar software. Talent is birthed from hard work and passion, the hard work part meaning even if you're playing in clubs, driving around in a trashy van, and barely eating at all at the humble beginnings of your career. I have much more respect for people who build their way up like that than say, Justin Bieber who can afford to go into a top-of-the-line studio.

EDIT: Technology boosts artistic improvement depending on what the technology is. Technology, in nature, can be either a ally or a menace.

 

[FlusteredBat]

EDIT: Technology boosts artistic improvement depending on what the technology is. Technology, in nature, can be either a ally or a menace.

Bad pieces of art which explore technological frontiers still represent progress, they show us what not to do. That is to save everybody else wasted effort.

 

[oZzIIgk]

Electronic music is not all the same. It is, however, generated from the same or similar software. Talent is birthed from hard work and passion, the hard work part meaning even if you're playing in clubs, driving around in a trashy van, and barely eating at all at the humble beginnings of your career. I have much more respect for people who build their way up like that than say, Justin Bieber who can afford to go into a top-of-the-line studio.

So, you mean like the DJ's who start on FL Studio making silly songs with their free time, then start to do sets at weird local clubs with their friends, all until they're one of the leading producers on a label? Stephen Walking was one of those guys.
Rock isn't all the same. It is, however, generated from the same or similar instruments. Besides, what software music is made in doesn't really matter. It's the samples that count, and each artist has their unique bank of samples.

 

[Foxus]

So, you mean like the DJ's who start on FL Studio making silly songs with their free time, then start to do sets at weird local clubs with their friends, all until they're one of the leading producers on a label? Stephen Walking was one of those guys.
Rock isn't all the same. It is, however, generated from the same or similar instruments. Besides, what software music is made in doesn't really matter. It's the samples that count, and each artist has their unique bank of samples.

Sampling reminds me of what companies like Roland and Korg are trying to do by making acoustic instrumentation, such as strings, piano and guitars, as realistic as possible. Making it so every nuance is as real as possible as if you were playing the actual thing. While that might seem cool, the more you think about it, that would give people the idea they don't need to learn the instrument being accurately emulated on a keyboard or software. That's my only issue with sampling. I don't want cheap, analog bs, but I don't want something sounding so real, its a excuse to get out of playing the actual instrument.

And you're right. Rock isn't all the same, it just depends on how you take those ingredients and work out the musical recipe so-to-speak. This could branch out into why rock doesn't commercially reap the same benefits as country, since they both share the same instruments.

 

[oZzIIgk]

And you're right. Rock isn't all the same, it just depends on how you take those ingredients and work out the musical recipe so-to-speak. This could branch out into why rock doesn't commercially reap the same benefits as country, since they both share the same instruments.

I think it's because it doesn't have an innate audience. Music (or really any art form, for that matter) with an innate audience tends to succeed because of what it is-- targeted. Take stuff like My Chemical Romance as an example. There are lots of angsty teens. This music sounds like what angst feels like. Or Country music. There are lots of people from the South, or "country" demographics. Rock lacks that identity in part due to how diverse it is. There's no default audience; only people who enjoy it for what it is.

 

[Foxus]

I think it's because it doesn't have an innate audience. Music (or really any art form, for that matter) with an innate audience tends to succeed because of what it is-- targeted. Take stuff like My Chemical Romance as an example. There are lots of angsty teens. This music sounds like what angst feels like. Or Country music. There are lots of people from the South, or "country" demographics. Rock lacks that identity in part due to how diverse it is. There's no default audience; only people who enjoy it for what it is.

We may have completely different perspectives here, since ultimately I'm destined to be a career musician, so what music that is either doing well or poorly commercially in important for me to know.

I asked a friend of mine this question once, and he said because country was "less loud." I guess so, but not by much. You have the bass, the low frequencies tending to have a bigger impact on the ear than the higher, twangy frequencies of the guitar. I recently watched an interview with David from Disturbed and he said hard rock and metal are some of the highest played on Spotify, and the festivals/concerts thereof bring in some of the most revenue. I've seen more metal acts get signed to major labels than their punk or alternative rock (alternative meaning Pearl Jam territory) such as Bring Me The Horizon getting signed to Columbia and Lamb of God signed to Epic.

Without dunking into politics, country tends to be more conservative and rock tends to be more liberal in a sense. Country tends to revolve around the subjects of praising America, big trucks, alcohol and dirt roads. I've also noticed, unless you get into metal,, country tends to have more of a depressing feel to it than its rock counterpart. You can feel this type of vibe by listening to the tone of the singers voice, it has a "woe" type of timbre to it, especially the baritone and bass singers.