This topic has veered from DIYers to how do we define "quality" when it comes to music? I wonder if Dot's frustration is more with bad musicians than bad recording techniques?

I don't believe that when speaking of music,
"quality" is subjective as many maintain. "Taste" sure, but quality, na uh.

Why should music be any different than construction, getting a cavity filled, or customer service? There is good and there is bad, period.

The difference is between what we define as a musician and what we define as an artist (musical, not visual). A musician is trained to play an instrument. They go to school like a nurse or lawyer, or they study privately like an olympic athlete etc. They are either good at it or bad it. They can either keep time or not, play in tune or out of tune, and phrase a line convincingly or not. Those things are very objective. Professional orchestras rely on people that have been "professionally" trained to do a job. Like all jobs, you can be proficient or you can suck.

Art on the other hand is subjective. Art is what you do with the rhythmic, in tune, musical phrases. I may prefer Bono over Kelly Clarkson, but they are both "good", competent musicians. At that level, the basic elements of music are assumed to be mastered. People don't argue about whether or not Bono or Kelly should finess that phrase, or hit that augmented 6th leap, they talk about whether or not they "like" it.

Good musicians know they are good musicians. Artists can't always be as certain they are good, there are too many variables. But that is not what we're talking about. We're talking about people that post stuff that just plain sounds bad.

I don't understand why people think that without musical training (and I don't necessarily mean formal) they can or should be able to discern what is good and bad. I think all people can recognize a quality performance, but not all people can recognize when something is sub par. To the untrained ear, many things can pass as great.

A musician is a profession just like a doctor, a contractor, an architect, or whatever. Why do people think they can just "do it" without training? I don't pretend to have an eye for the condition of people's health like a doctor, a plumb floor like a contractor, or wise design like an architect.

So when mrs. so and so get's up in front of church to sing her heart out but can't carry a tune, it's insulting to a musician's profession. And why do we let her? The pastor had to go to college and seminary.

I wouldn't let some guy who always wanted to be a surgeon but never went to med school operate on me.

So why does everyone think they can be an artist without any skills or competence?

jm

"A musician is a profession just like a doctor, a contractor, an architect, or whatever. Why do people think they can just "do it" without training?"

I think there is only one reason--because a lot of them can.

Jmisner..........great points

I run into musicians all the time that have that ..."Well I know good music when I hear it"....attitude...and from there they extrapolate that they must know what they are talking about when it comes to making music. In reality nothing could be farther from the truth.
I have found myself in bands with people who have a fraction of the experience and training that I have...and will stand there and argue with me about a certain point. And they are always throwing up that "I know good music when I hear it" argument.

quote:

A musician is a profession just like a doctor, a contractor, an architect, or whatever. Why do people think they can just "do it" without training?

huh? No it's not. Since when did a doctor express their perspective on the human condition? An architect take you away from your current emotional state....or deeper into it?

quote:

So why does everyone think they can be an artist without any skills or competence?

Because they can be. they only need the skills and competence it takes to express what's in their soul.

Cobain did it.

I thought Nirvana blew. I still do. But, he expressed....and people were moved. Inarguably, a successful "artist".

I could flip that and ask you why you think you should be allowed to be an engineer...

quote:

I wonder if Dot's frustration is more with bad musicians than bad recording techniques?

I dont' think his frustration is really with either. It's with bad end results. His diagnosis? From one guy trying to wear all the hats.

quote:

Originally posted by Popmann:
I dont' think his frustration is really with either. It's with bad end results. His diagnosis? From one guy trying to wear all the hats.

I might even take that a step further and say it's not even the bad results, but the resultant bitching and confusion over "why doesn't my stuff sound any good?"

I think it's getting a little bit out of line and strange that we are answering FOR Dan; that he can stir up a hornets nest here and not explain things himself. I can relate to his "tirade" as can many of us, but none of us can explain what Dan intended but Dan himslf.

Dan?

quote:

Originally posted by Jazzooo:
"A musician is a profession just like a doctor, a contractor, an architect, or whatever. Why do people think they can just "do it" without training?"

I think there is only one reason--because a lot of them can.

Elsewhere I also said "training (and I don't necessarily mean formal)"

Tell me the name of a good musician who has had no training. Private lessons, self taught, countless hours of practice and/or listening, reading, etc. are included in my definition of training. Forgive me for not expounding initially.

I don't mean they necessarily have to have a degree. The home engineers who get crappy results do so because they have had little or no training in music or audio engineering. They pick up a guitar, learn a few songs, buy PTLE and a cheap condenser, and then try to record something thinking it will be great.

And then, yes, they bitch and moan as to why they don't sound good.

I have to wear all the hats because I can't afford to pay any other hats. If I don't pay the other musicians, they may be friends, but they're just not that motivated or dedicated to recording my songs. None of them write, so the offer to give them free recording time doesn't mean too much.

The guys I play with are great live, but not comfortable recording. None of us really knows how to make a drum kit that sounds pretty good live sound decent in the studio. Everyone plays together tight live, but wanders when playing to a click track.

Scheduling is tough; everyone's worn out after working 40+ hours a week and although recording sounds great at 10 in the morning when we're stoked on Starbucks at work, in the evening everybody's dragging; we're all ~ 50 years old.

Finally, I like noodling around with the DAW and experimenting. The rest of them could care less about the gear; they just know it takes too much time to get it setup and rolling.

That said, the best recordings I ever got was with these same guys in a living room headon into a board and straight into a Teac 3340. Sonically funky, but great groove.
bilco

Originally posted by Popmann:

quote:

huh? No it's not. Since when did a doctor express their perspective on the human condition? An architect take you away from your current emotional state....or deeper into it?

You're talking about job description as if I was saying a doctor and an architect are supposed to have the same function as a musician. That is not my point at all. A doctor's job is to fix people. An architect's is to design buildings. And arguably, a musician's JOB is to give perspective on the human condition and/or take you to a deeper emotional state, or at the least, play their instruments well.

But you also missed the fact that I was differentiating between the job of a "professional musician" and an artist.

A professional musician is someone who makes their living doing music. Music teacher, orchestra player, studio engineer, wedding singer, composer, etc. These are jobs that pay incomes just as any other job does.

quote:

Because they can be. they only need the skills and competence it takes to express what's in their soul

You're agreeing with me then. I did not specify to which level of competency they needed to reach, but they do need, as you said, enough to express what's in their soul.

quote:

Cobain did it.

I thought Nirvana blew. I still do. But, he expressed....and people were moved. Inarguably, a successful "artist".

Exactly my point. You thought he blew, but others liked him. That's the artist part. Art is subjective. The musician part is that he was competent enough to play in time, sing/yell in tune, etc. People that can't even do that much are not going to get to the soul expressing part.

quote:

I could flip that and ask you why you think you should be allowed to be an engineer..

When did I ever say I think I should be an engineer?

quote:

I dont' think his frustration is really with either. It's with bad end results. His diagnosis? From one guy trying to wear all the hats.

uh, yeah, bad end results because of bad musicianship and bad recording techniques. how else do the bad results come to be?

jm

You can have the hottest, smartest brother and sister in the world mate, and they're still likely to end up with a deformed child.

Same deal here.

Doesn't make them less sexy...or less smart. Means that when brothers and sistes hump...genetics gets screwy. Their genes aren't bad--quite the opposite. the lack of any outside genes in a normally collaborative process causes...different output.

Music is traditionally a collaborative process.

quote:

Art is subjective. The musician part is that he was competent enough to play in time, sing/yell in tune, etc.

I don't think he did. See...that's just as subjective.

quote:

Originally posted by Popmann:
You can have the hottest, smartest brother and sister in the world mate, and they're still likely to end up with a deformed child.

Same deal here.

Doesn't make them less sexy...or less smart. Means that when brothers and sistes hump...genetics gets screwy. Their genes aren't bad--quite the opposite. the lack of any outside genes in a normally collaborative process causes...different output.

Music is traditionally a collaborative process.

Huh?

quote:

A professional musician is someone who makes their living doing music. Music teacher, orchestra player, studio engineer, wedding singer, composer, etc. These are jobs that pay incomes just as any other job does.

And none of those have ever singlehandely moved me.

It's different. making a living as a musician and being a musician are different things.

Arguably, a person with a medical degree who is in politics is, for all intents and purposes, not a practicing doctor.

But, whatever...we disagree. You think it can be done in your room, and I'm not gonna be able to spare you the years of trying to find that out.

quote:

Originally posted by Popmann:

I don't think he did.

See...that's just as subjective.

no it's not. he played his down beat with grohl's down beat. he sang his phrases in time with the music. he sang the right pitch for the melody he was constructing. these things are very objective.

jm

quote:

Originally posted by Popmann:

And none of those have ever singlehandely moved me.

never said it should. that's the art part. just saying it's a legitimate job that requires "competency" NOT necessarily "artistry."

quote:

It's different. making a living as a musician and being a musician are different things.

i never said they were the same things.

quote:

Arguably, a person with a medical degree who is in politics is, for all intents and purposes, not a practicing doctor.

But, whatever...we disagree. You think it can be done in your room, and I'm not gonna be able to spare you the years of trying to find that out.

I never said it can be done in my room. I don't even know what you mean by that. I don't know what your opinion on the original topic is. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

jm

quote:

no it's not. he played his down beat with grohl's down beat. he sang his phrases in time with the music. he sang the right pitch for the melody he was constructing. these things are very objective.

This is getting silly.

JM, you seem totally unaware of the fact that all of the above are simply your opinion, your taste, not quantifiable facts.

I happen to agree with you on Kurt, but there are plenty of people who find him out-of-tune and with bad timing.

"Good timing", "good tune", and especially "good phrasing" (LOL!) - these are all totally open to interpretation.
As any number of threads in this forum alone can attest: there is no "objective truth" on this stuff. Re-read the "best singer" thread. There is no agreement on ANYTHING - not even who sings in tune or who doesn't.

It's art. Not dentistry. Not carpentry.

quote:

There is good and there is bad, period.

Sorry man, this kind of attitude is simply inapplicable to art. You'll just have to accept that your opinions on what are good and bad are just that: opinions. Not universal truths.

Chris

jm,

I hear what you're saying, and I think you're right.

Incidentally, just because people disagree on objective facts doesn't make them equally valid. Either one has proper (good)timing in a performance or not. Whether you *like* that timing is subjective.

Same with pitch. It's either in tune or it's not. Whether it expresses something you like is subjective.

I don't think that's controversial. Remember, JM said he's separating the idea of technique from 'art'. He specifically said ART is subjective, on which we can all agree.

quote:

This is getting silly.

i don't think it's silly. why is it silly to talk about perceptions of music and what may make something better or worse? people spend tons of time talking about gear, frequencies, hertz, ohms, cables, tubes, etc. which are things that most people that listen to music aren't even aware exist. I'm not trying to nitpick, get into a semantics battle, or be difficult. I don't have the desire or time to bs. i feel strongly about this and for the sake of people that suffer because they only hear the compliments and reject the criticism as "oh it's all subjective and just a matter of personal taste." the original comment was about why do people think they can do it all themselves? which includes performing, engineering, writing, arranging, etc.

i realize this is a recording forum, but what are people recording? music.

quote:

JM, you seem totally unaware of the fact that all of the above are simply your opinion, your taste, not quantifiable facts.
"Good timing", "good tune", and especially "good phrasing" (LOL!) - these are all totally open to interpretation.
As any number of threads in this forum alone can attest: there is no "objective truth" on this stuff. Re-read the "best singer" thread. There is no agreement on ANYTHING - not even who sings in tune or who doesn't.

this is simply not true. i make my full time living as a private violin teacher. so when i'm playing a duet with a student and they hold a quarter note in 4/4 time for 2 beats which is A) WRONG and B) gets us completely off with eachother, i'm supposed to tell them, "good job. it's all subjective." or when they try to tune their instrument to A440 and they're a quarter step flat I'm supposed to say, "well i don't think that's correct, but some people may like it if you're 1/4 step flat of the piano accompaniment because it's all subjective."

that's why people study music and engineering for years. there are objective fundamentals one must master in order to sound good.

quote:

It's art. Not dentistry. Not carpentry.

it'd be nice if people actually read the totallity of what i write before commenting. i've twice made a destinction between a musician and an artist.

quote:

Sorry man, this kind of attitude is simply inapplicable to art. You'll just have to accept that your opinions on what are good and bad are just that: opinions. Not universal truths.

Again, not talking about art. I'm talking about the elements of music and the skills of playing an instrument.

If people don't want to hear this kind of thing and go on producing recordings they aren't happy with or remain ignorant to things they could improve on, fine by me. They'll cease to grow. The fact that someone can get "better" by taking lessons, or practicing, suggests there are measurable (objective) aspects to music. otherwise we wouldn't use the terms good, bad, worse, better, etc. It'd be totally ridiculous for me to give no feedback to my students about how they are doing in the spirit of "it's all subjective" so just do whatever and hopefully it works for you.

I'm not understanding why people are so opposed to this. Many people spend a lot of time on these forums giving feedback to others about how to improve mixes, tracking, etc. Why is anyone telling anyone anything if it's all subjective? Why is anyone asking anyone's opinion if it's all subjective?

It's illogical to me.

JM

quote:

Originally posted by tenchijin2:
He specifically said ART is subjective, on which we can all agree.

I haven't followed this debate at all. I don't even know what it's about really and don't know who's making what point. But I will say this, I've had arguments with people until the cows come home and not everyone agrees that art is subjective. I don't understand it, but many people feel it's objective.

There - so I'll go back to not reading this some more.

quote:

this is simply not true. i make my full time living as a private violin teacher. so when i'm playing a duet with a student and they hold a quarter note in 4/4 time for 2 beats which is A) WRONG and B) gets us completely off with eachother,

Sure, that approach works for reading music. There's either a right or wrong if you're trying to play a quarter note for 2 beats.

But that's not really what we're talking about here.

However, I'm not suprised to hear that you're a violin teacher. Classical folks always have this "right and wrong" attitude.

quote:

I'm talking about the elements of music and the skills of playing an instrument.

Which varies considerably from genre to genre. try evaluating blues singers using your current method of analysis. You'll get laughed off the critical "stage".

quote:

there are objective fundamentals one must master in order to sound good.

And - outside of perhaps classical music - we could argue all day about what they are.

Chris