The Great Debate, when the Computer arrived....

[squ1ggle]

Well, it's not connecting with people the way it used to. Why?

Flares and Glam-rock costumes aren't connecting with the general populace in the way they used to either. I wonder why?
I wonder if there was some quantum shift in home sewing machine technology or something ...

Seriously though SH, whilst I except and agree with some of the points made in this thread in terms of the potential downsides of the new technolgies that have arrived in music, I think it's a huge stretch to lay the non-re-emergence of Prog rock as a commercially popular music form at technology's door.
I think it's a gross generalisation to say that there are no good bands out there now, every bit as good as the golden 70's era. Technically, both compositionally, and as players, there are a whole host of current players who I'd place above our favoured musicians from the golden era. That they are not buying mansions in the country, or selling out Madison Square Gardens, is not a meaningful measure of their lack of ability any more than the driving a Rolls Royce into a swimming pool correlated to your ability as a musician in the 70's. It probably *did* corelate to their ability to sell units, though.

The general population connect with music on a huge number of levels. For some it will be related to the sounds, the notes, the chords, the stage show and, yes, sometimes even the technical ability on display. Often, though, it's got way more to do with what your firends are digging, identifying with being part of a 'group', what the fashion is ...... what liking that music says about *you* as a person to the people you're trying to connect with.

Being technically better, or worse ... cheating with technology, or not, ...has virtually bog-all to do with a band's commercial popularity.

As musicians/ prog music fans, we find ourselves rationalising a lot ... i.e.

- I Like Prog therefore Prog is GOOD
- Prog was popular therefore it was GOOD
- Prog has good musicians therefore having good musicians is GOOD
- Prog has good musicians, therefore Prog is GOOD [circular]
- Good musicians start off BAD, practice, and become GOOD
- Current Prog is not popular, therefore current Prog is BAD
- Current Prog is BAD because current musicians must be BAD
- Current musicians must start BAD, and remain BAD, because they don't practice
- Technology means no need to practice, so it must cause current musicians to be BAD
- Technology is BAD
- So ... no Technology must be GOOD
- So, hitching across the country to play your new 20 minute opus to 6 people, for nothing, must be GOOD .......... sounds great, let's do it

This is circular reasoning rubbish that misses the point entirely ..... popularity does not track ability .... it never did.
Technology hasn't inexorably led to worse musicians and bands ... there are many examples against this (some obvious ones were name checked above)

Whilst you (SH) are clearly missing some fizz in your listening experience of current bands, you are (IMHO) over rationalizing to find a root cause that flies in the face of everyone else's experience here, and overlooks many far more reasonable explanations for it.

[tormato]

Flares and Glam-rock costumes aren't connecting with the general populace in the way they used to either. I wonder why?
I wonder if there was some quantum shift in home sewing machine technology or something ...

You sir, have driven me to use an emoticon, which I never use!

[Skullhead]

You sir, have driven me to use an emoticon, which I never use!

What about Lady Gaga? Isn't that her whole thing?
She is the prog queen of costumes isn't she?

I think there is a significant reality that making a technically complex or perfect production album these days has more to do with having competent computer skills than being a great musician. Being a great editor, understanding all the possibilities on how to fix and manipulate sound on the computer is the ultimate expression of "pretending" to be something you are not... like a "band".

In today's era, pretty much across the boards it's become essential to master the computer skills to release slick music than to master the art of making music organically as has been laid down historically for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Who are we kidding really? Just ourselves I suppose. Not me I guess.

[trurl]

In the 70s several artists made albums completely as a solo artist. Notably, Tubular Bells is a seminal prog work and was done by one man, overdubbing himself in a studio. The music was never performed as an ensemble and certainly was not played by a "band". Important works by Todd Rundgren were also done the same way (where he quite specifically pretends to be a band), as well as many keyboard artists such as Vangelis, Patrick Moraz, Roger Powell, Tomita... the list is long. Are these works invalidated?

I know this is flogging a dead troll, but I enjoy that sort of thing.

[Plasmatopia]

I think there is a significant reality that making a technically complex or perfect production album these days has more to do with having competent computer skills than being a great musician. Being a great editor, understanding all the possibilities on how to fix and manipulate sound on the computer is the ultimate expression of "pretending" to be something you are not... like a "band".

In today's era, pretty much across the boards it's become essential to master the computer skills to release slick music than to master the art of making music organically as has been laid down historically for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Again - your argument might make sense if you were to list specific examples...except, even then, someone else can come up with modern examples of people doing things that didn't involve the sort of computer manipulation you're talking about - or at least no technique that doesn't have a "legitimate" '70s analog. Even the examples you list as being somehow sort of "faked" will have supporters who think the end result is fine. It's quite likely you will find those who are using the computer just like it was analog tape - they are tracking as a band (largely) and then using the computer to do EQ, compression, panning, etc....just like could be done using a lot of other unwieldy and expensive outboard analog gear way back when.

But let's say the editing went further and the pitch and timing of an individual track or two was tweaked to salvage it and to necessitate not having the drag the entire band back in to take a chance on some other minor detail being out of place. Are no punch-ins allowed? What percentage of a track needs to be perfectly performed to pass your test? 100% 99.9 %? Are you sure all examples which you would hold up as models of perfection had zero punch-ins or other fixes (like wholesale re-recording of individual tracks)?

Let's say a completely fake band went all-in on computer-based tweakery. Let's say it was a remote project and there were files being sent all around the world and there was never a single clip of music that was longer than 5 seconds and the timing and pitch of every single one of those was manipulated in the computer and it was all cleverly massaged by a computer genius to shiny perfection and passed off as a "band" and no one was the wiser (bonus points here if Skullhead listened to it and thought it was awesome and came from the '70s and swears he could hear the swishing of bell bottoms in the background). At the end of the whole thing the band got together in the same room, practiced it and played it in front of an audience, proving they could play it.

Who cares? In the end, nothing in that ridiculous thought experiment matters. You either like the studio album or you don't. You either like the live performance or you don't.

[trurl]

Plus, as a composer/writer I'm more interested in the end result and the ends justify the means. Frank Zappa certainly felt that way; he found musicians a necessary evil to get his music performed but they pretty much could never do it 100% right. Now, do I support the music he did on Synclavier? No. Not because I am against it in principle but because I don't think he had the ability at that time to execute the programming necessary to get musically pleasing results. In that time, in that case, human error and musicality still trumped machine perfection. It was a bad compromise, IMHO. But for Frank the emphasis was on the right notes in exactly the right places. As for my own music I'll happily punch every note and use every studio trick that exists to get The Vision recorded. Sometimes collaboration yields wonderful results and The Vision is flexible. Sometimes I have to do it 100% myself to protect The Vision. But I'm not going to be constrained by ideology, like some dumb music version of Lars von Trier's Dogma '95 (which is essentially what Skullhead wants.) Oh, I might do that for a project- as an intellectual exercise. It would be fun really and the results would probably be great, if not expensive and time consuming. But I won't commit my overall vision to it. I'll use what tools God has given us to use here in the 21st century. If some people don't like what comes out as a result... fuck 'em

Now does a lot of total shit get foisted on the world as a result of computers making the music process egalitarian (a fine hippy concept if ever there was one- power to the people)? Yep. But that's life. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[jdenkevitz]

Plus, as a composer/writer I'm more interested in the end result and the ends justify the means. Frank Zappa certainly felt that way; he found musicians a necessary evil to get his music performed but they pretty much could never do it 100% right. Now, do I support the music he did on Synclavier? No. Not because I am against it in principle but because I don't think he had the ability at that time to execute the programming necessary to get musically pleasing results. In that time, in that case, human error and musicality still trumped machine perfection. It was a bad compromise, IMHO. But for Frank the emphasis was on the right notes in exactly the right places. As for my own music I'll happily punch every note and use every studio trick that exists to get The Vision recorded. Sometimes collaboration yields wonderful results and The Vision is flexible. Sometimes I have to do it 100% myself to protect The Vision. But I'm not going to be constrained by ideology, like some dumb music version of Lars von Trier's Dogma '95 (which is essentially what Skullhead wants.) Oh, I might do that for a project- as an intellectual exercise. It would be fun really and the results would probably be great, if not expensive and time consuming. But I won't commit my overall vision to it. I'll use what tools God has given us to use here in the 21st century. If some people don't like what comes out as a result... fuck 'em

Now does a lot of total shit get foisted on the world as a result of computers making the music process egalitarian (a fine hippy concept if ever there was one- power to the people)? Yep. But that's life. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I agree.
I suppose its a question of whether the end product itself is the focus, and/or whether its important to the listener 'how' it became to be.

Most of my albums, I use overdubs, play midi guitars to play fast passages that I couldnt play as proficiently on a keyboard, and program/edit drum performances. Is this 'cheating' in a sense? I dont know, but I dont care much either. Im not a purist in that sense.

For myself, computers have been a godsend. When I was a teenager learning my instruments, the notion of access to a 16 track recorder seemed a tough hill to climb. I spent countless hours on a small 4 track cassette unit bouncing tracks. Now with DAW's, Samplers, Amp and Guitar modelers, and drum libraries, I am only really limited by my imagination, skill, and musical ingenuity. Its an amazing freedom.

Using all of these programs requires its own skillset, and i'm aware that the time I have spent learning/honing DAW based recording, mixing, and production meant that I wasn't practicing guitar, bass or piano with that time. But the trade off meant that I could eventually record however long and whenever I wanted, and was not limited by someone else's time or monetary constraints.

My last album was done on a home DAW, and I could simply not have done it at a commercial facility without a prohibitively expensive expenditure of time and money, in addition to going out and hiring an orchestra and someone like a Virgil Donati to do the drums. The majority of drum parts were programmed/edited using a midi drum kit and notation software. I could never have done this album without the technology. Is that cheating? Some may say yes, and thats fine, but I really wanted the end product to match what I was aiming for musically.

I hope that the music either succeeds or fails on its own merits, not so much as to how dependent it was on modern production techniques (overdubs, triggered samples etc).

Recording piecemeal with a DAW, as opposed to a 'Full band' in a room, is its own animal. Each has its own benefits and tradeoffs.

One person constructing things on their own misses interplay with other musicians and their own set of influences, but on the other hand, they needn't compromise in regard to either time or content.

So when people listen to prog, is it the melodic and rhythmic content itself that attracts listeners, or the accomplishment of the live performance that is important? I suppose for most listeners its a combination of the two.

[Skullhead]

I agree.
I suppose its a question of whether the end product itself is the focus, and/or whether its important to the listener 'how' it became to be.

Most of my albums, I use overdubs, play midi guitars to play fast passages that I couldnt play as proficiently on a keyboard, and program/edit drum performances. Is this 'cheating' in a sense? I dont know, but I dont care much either. Im not a purist in that sense.

For myself, computers have been a godsend. When I was a teenager learning my instruments, the notion of access to a 16 track recorder seemed a tough hill to climb. I spent countless hours on a small 4 track cassette unit bouncing tracks. Now with DAW's, Samplers, Amp and Guitar modelers, and drum libraries, I am only really limited by my imagination, skill, and musical ingenuity. Its an amazing freedom.

Using all of these programs requires its own skillset, and i'm aware that the time I have spent learning/honing DAW based recording, mixing, and production meant that I wasn't practicing guitar, bass or piano with that time. But the trade off meant that I could eventually record however long and whenever I wanted, and was not limited by someone else's time or monetary constraints.

My last album was done on a home DAW, and I could simply not have done it at a commercial facility without a prohibitively expensive expenditure of time and money, in addition to going out and hiring an orchestra and someone like a Virgil Donati to do the drums. The majority of drum parts were programmed/edited using a midi drum kit and notation software. I could never have done this album without the technology. Is that cheating? Some may say yes, and thats fine, but I really wanted the end product to match what I was aiming for musically.

I hope that the music either succeeds or fails on its own merits, not so much as to how dependent it was on modern production techniques (overdubs, triggered samples etc).

Recording piecemeal with a DAW, as opposed to a 'Full band' in a room, is its own animal. Each has its own benefits and tradeoffs.

One person constructing things on their own misses interplay with other musicians and their own set of influences, but on the other hand, they needn't compromise in regard to either time or content.

So when people listen to prog, is it the melodic and rhythmic content itself that attracts listeners, or the accomplishment of the live performance that is important? I suppose for most listeners its a combination of the two.

Not arguing that people don't have the right to play around with computers and engineer music with samples. Not much different than deciding to play Nintendo Golf rather than go out on a course and actually play and embrace all the experiences that could offer.

If one thinks about it... this is really
an absolute whirlpool of narcissism. No intention of sharing your music performed by other humans to a living, breathing and appreciative audience.

So if we wonder why prog gets pushed further and further into the underground, this pretty much sums it up. Not only will no one ever see this music performed live, it will hardly ever be enjoyed by anyone because there are 5 million people doing the same thing so it just get buried into the wash.

So rather than work toward being in a band that could share the music out in the real world and push the musicians to become better live performers, more rounded, creative and artistically accessible, it ends up getting uploaded to bandcamp.

[tormato]

Not arguing that people don't have the right to play around with computers and engineer music with samples. Not much different than deciding to play Nintendo Golf rather than go out on a course and actually play and embrace all the experiences that could offer.

If one thinks about it... this is really
an absolute whirlpool of narcissism. No intention of sharing your music performed by other humans to a living, breathing and appreciative audience.

So if we wonder why prog gets pushed further and further into the underground, this pretty much sums it up. Not only will no one ever see this music performed live, it will hardly ever be enjoyed by anyone because there are 5 million people doing the same thing so it just get buried into the wash.

So rather than work toward being in a band that could share the music out in the real world and push the musicians to become better live performers, more rounded, creative and artistically accessible, it ends up getting uploaded to bandcamp.

Because no musicians or composers were narcissists before the advent of computers, just so we're clear.

I'm really wondering reading your posts if you are the world's greatest troll or actually have that narrow of a vision of what's out there to listen to.

I had my iPod on shuffle last night while driving somewhere and Porcupine Tree's "Up the Downstair" album started. I think it's one of the best prog albums of the last 25 years and nearly all the instruments are played by Steven Wilson and it uses a drum machine. In a lot of ways it a very amateur recording, but the composition and arrangements are well done, Wilson's playing is quite good, and the album has a flow to it that I found refreshing when I first heard it in the late 90's and still find refreshing when I hear it now. The added bonus to this was that between this and Voyage 34, he attracted musicians (Barbieri and Edwin) to the fold and a full fledged band was formed. If the music is good, it will find an audience and can spawn a live following.

[Jerjo]

NP: Stig - Biodiversity

A beautiful wash of music - I could care less if where Stephen created it or if a computer was involved. I do know that a computer was involved in buying the download. Blaming the decline of prog on computers is ridiculous.

[dnieper]

Not arguing that people don't have the right to play around with computers and engineer music with samples.

Well, you've been arguing that they shouldn't. You started this thread to say precisely that.

If one thinks about it... this is really an absolute whirlpool of narcissism.

Hmmm... I would have thought that a person often performs in front of others is more likely to be a narcissist than someone with a bedroom musical project.

So if we wonder why prog gets pushed further and further into the underground, this pretty much sums it up.

Actually, I get the impression that progressive music is doing just fine compared to most other genres nowadays.

So rather than work toward being in a band that could share the music out in the real world and push the musicians to become better live performers, more rounded, creative and artistically accessible, it ends up getting uploaded to bandcamp.

Many modern progressive musicians try to do *both* live performing and computer recording, believe it or not.


Skullhead, I wonder if you could name some specific examples of music that you thought was made worse by being recorded on a computer.

[Skullhead]

I understand that most posters here are musicians and are embracing computers because of the convenience and economics of it. However, I find very little music being made that sounds natural as it would if it were being recorded by a band tracking in real time.

Computers in music are not just in prog but in all genres. In general, the music industry has been in decline for decades.

My point is that I don't think it's a coincidence.

The YES Album "Talk" was recorded in an early Machitosh computer. It's not their best record by any means. It sounds terrible in my opinion.

I caught the RUSH documentary on Geddy and there was a clip of them recording Moving Pictures in Quebec and they are all the backing tracks in real time together.
They were very good players and worked hard to earn their stripes to be able to track that tight onto tape machine. Using a computer to simulate that kind of recording trivializes their efforts and talents and is completely pretentious.

[Gruno]

I'm really wondering reading your posts if you are the world's greatest troll or actually have that narrow of a vision of what's out there to listen to.

…I'm sure this is being ignored because the one you posed the question to doesn't want to expose himself as a previously banned participant here on PE.

Yes, the answer would be 'troll'.

[Plasmatopia]

Yeah, there's not much point in continuing here.

[dnieper]

Since others seem to realize his posts are full of inaccuracies and unsubstantiated conclusions, I don't want to encourage him any more either. Happy trails, Skullhead!

[Plasmatopia]

I caught the RUSH documentary on Geddy and there was a clip of them recording Moving Pictures in Quebec and they are all the backing tracks in real time together.
They were very good players and worked hard to earn their stripes to be able to track that tight onto tape machine. Using a computer to simulate that kind of recording trivializes their efforts and talents and is completely pretentious.

Rush won't be a real band until they can record the backing tracks AND the overdubs simultaneously.

[ytserush]

History is a great teacher. Sure things changed, but so do waves in the ocean... but they usually come back.
I think prog should have come back by now to the mainstream consciousness by now. It hasn't, so something has gone astray.

What changed in the late 70's?

For one, didn't all the prog bands start making crappy albums? Love Beach etc.. everyone blames disco or punk... but I disagree.

Midi, drum machines, sampling, all this stuff came on about this time. Computers, and the promise of convenience over quality.

Every prog band doing their albums today with endless Pro Tools editing isn't working. No one is paying attention. Most of it sounds lifeless and souless. It's not connecting with people like it used to.. but it should. It should be better. I think it needs more of a live feel to it. We need pros back in the scene playing live more and connecting with an audience.

Composing music live in the same room might help too.

[Nijinsky Hind]

I record everything on my Rotsen 110 and it sounds fine!

[Nijinsky Hind]

Composing music live in the same room might help too.

Thats the best way... our Band played into mixer, mixer plugged into pro-tools, few edits, redbooked... Sounds great and a whole lot of fun.

But I have lots of fun alone mixing track upon track of sounds mostly for amusement... Great way to pass the time and learn a little.

[Skullhead]

Composing music live in the same room might help too.

Of course it does. The old way of doing this was prolific, and the limitations of tape machines forced the artists to be more resourceful and keep life and movement in the music. Most kids making music today think that all music should have perfect quantization and they think in terms of sound as digital files rather a stream of sound coming from an instrument.

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

I do not need to choose between music made by a real band like Anglagard or KBB and music made by one guy recording instruments into a computer like Fonya. I can listen to BOTH and like BOTH!

[Skullhead]

I do not need to choose between music made by a real band like Anglagard or KBB and music made by one guy recording instruments into a computer like Fonya. I can listen to BOTH and like BOTH!

Sure you can do that...but are we going to see the next YES or Genesis coming out of a one man band armed with Pro Tools and Garage Band? I think not...

You might like it though...

I'm really talking more about greatness. The kind of music that is going to be discussed 100 years from now, not Joe Monkey making fake music on a computer. That's going to be a short yawn at best in the history books of the future.

It might be in your itunes menu though.

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

Sure you can do that...but are we going to see the next YES or Genesis coming out of a one man band armed with Pro Tools and Garage Band? I think not...

IMO there are already Prog artists using technology who are better than the vastly overrated two you mention. I found those two to be pedestrian back in the 70s and they've done nothing to change my perception.

[Skullhead]

IMO there are already Prog artists using technology who are better than the vastly overrated two you mention. I found those two to be pedestrian back in the 70s and they've done nothing to change my perception.

70's YES and Genesis are overrated? Modern prog artists relying upon computer editing are much better?

Ok

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

70's YES and Genesis are overrated?l

doesnt every Symph fanboy drool over these two as if they are unreachably better than all others?

the very definition of overrated