xguitaristx
Never trust the living
When technology BECOMES the instrument.
Check out this video:
Being a great musician can mean a lot of things, and while formal training has it's place, a lot of people just don't need it to be great composers/musicians
They may not think in “pitch” and complex harmony, but their sound design senses are worth some praise.
Well, you first need to define what being a "great musician" even means. I personally think this is a rabbit hole, and can be very subjective. For example, you have a hard time placing Cobain anywhere near McCartney, but there's a significant amount of people in the world who would strongly disagree with you. So who gets to decide what it means to be a great musician?Sure, I agree, but what I said has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you have formal training. What I'm saying is that it's much harder to become a great musician than it is to be good at using technology (with the exception of engineering, especially mixing and mastering; some of those people are awe-inspiring).
Obviously I'm not sneezing at anyone's hard-earned skills, and even more obviously we all have different talents, strengths, and weaknesses!
Perhaps i read into it wrong?
That's why i said that they're the exception to the rule.Again, yes. I'm just saying that not all skills weigh the same.
Also, someone mentioned Paul McCartney. Well, how many Paul McCartneys are there?! Never mind that the Beatles spent years in Germany playing 23 hours a today - he's as good a songwriter and performer as ever lived!
Edit: it was Mike Fox. Another thing: nothing wrong with Cobain, but... well, first of all, who knows whether he or McCartney pushed out music like it was nothing; I suspect it's a lot harder than it seems. But... we all have our taste, but I'd find it hard to place him anywhere near the same level as McCartney (or Lenon, or the Beatles).
Yeah, there's serious grey area here.Music is harder than using tools. That's all there is to read into what I'm saying!
Given the amount of hit songs that the Beatles were pumping out in such a short amount of time, it's not hard to assume that it they were naturals at it
Yeah, there's serious grey area here.
Right, and your innate talent only takes you so far. Again, the Beatles played all day long seven days a week in Germany. It doesn't happen automatically!
Sure, and as I said, that grey area proves the rule.
Right, and your innate talent only takes you so far. Again, the Beatles played all day long seven days a week in Germany. It doesn't happen automatically!
Sure, and as I said, that grey area proves the rule.
Look, what I'm saying is bleedin' obvious no matter how hard you huff and puff and blow it down. Not all skills are equally difficult to master. 'Nuff said.
Sure, I agree, but what I said has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you have formal training. What I'm saying is that it's much harder to become a great musician than it is to be good at using technology (with the exception of engineering, especially mixing and mastering; some of those people are awe-inspiring).
Obviously I'm not sneezing at anyone's hard-earned skills, and even more obviously we all have different talents, strengths, and weaknesses!
This was basically my argument as well, and I proposed the same question. What does it mean to be a great musician? It's such a rabbit hole, and there's just no definitive answer. In a way, saying that it's harder to be a great musician than it is to be good at technology is an apples vs oranges type of argument. I'm just not even sure how one can demonstrate it to the point that it becomes fact.I'd like to think about that some more.
I don't find statements like this useful at all. Its a generalization, and doesn't cover enough ground to be meaningful from my perspective.
Much harder to become a great musician.
I'm trying to figure out what that means.
What is a great musician? Is it one that touches the most people? Well, pop music shows that it ISN'T the creme of the crop that get the biggest audience. But does that mean that the pop singer isn't great in their own way? Semantics perhaps, but important semantics. Its divisive talk which doesn't move thoughts and ideas along.
How about Aboriginal Australians - with zero formal training, yet training that is a constant part of their culture. A music culture that has completely carried their history for 10's of thousands of years. That's pretty damn incredible really. And the music can touch me as a white anglo in emotional ways in the same way the Rite of Spring does. Perhaps some of this could be considered some sort of folk music tradition. Though thats perhaps a pretty lazy reading / frame....
But it does bring me to folk music. Can folk music not be great music? How is that harder than many of the folk working with technology? The guys working on immersive audio at Barco. Damn they work on much harder things than I do... and what amazing stories they've been able to help bring to life through their audio technology.
A different side of the coin. I went and sat in on some recitals at the local conservatorium of music the other day. Oh man there was some absolutely incredible music coming from these guys. It took me back to my formal training days... they can play the pants off me. Completely. These guys are the wood-shedders. The practice every waking moment folk. They're not great musicians. Not yet at least. So they are in the camp of it being - er - hard. But isn't that the same for a software architect. Mate of mine was is a very well respected software architect. He's been at it 25+ years since uni. And he's only just thinking he's getting to grips with what he's meant to do / what he needs to do. How is that not as hard as a muso who spends 5+ years at uni then another 25 figuring out their voice? Or honing their songwriting / composing / arranging chops? So - he might have been considered "good" at using technology a way back, but his true understanding of it... the deeper meaning / use - that same deeper knowledge / feel / soul for music - that comes with wisdom. Age. Experience. From making tonnes of mistakes. From learning about your own limitations. From time.
Yet this is just one way of looking at it right? There's holes all over that argument. But that's kind of my point. Its not simple.
What is a great musician? What is it to be someone who is great with technology? What about that rare breed who cross between the two. (I feel like they really are in a position to do some incredible things in the future.)
Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick.
What does it mean to be a great musician? It's such a rabbit hole, and there's just no definitive answer.
It means you make great music.
There's no hard line between a great musician and a not-great one, and greatness is subjective. That doesn't mean there's no such thing as a great musician.
so a person who makes great music with no knowledge of music theory or ability to read sheet music can still be a great musician yeah?
...how about someone who cant play any instruments but is really good at midi programming?
How about someone who makes really great music with a lot of easy play tools like instachord?
I don't understand why this argument is getting convoluted with the one about education, which frankly I don't find scintillating.
I am not in any way a lawyer (but I like to pretend I am one on music forums).
Perhaps someone can clarify for me the distinctions regarding the word "copyright" vs. license as applied by their business model. (I don't mean in the way like a few pages earlier where it's clearly a rip off of John Williams)
I am scratching my head as I imagine a few scenarios.
1. How do they protect themselves (meaning AIVA) ? The inclusion of the term "Full Copyright" for their "Pro" (The irony of word choice) plan. Let's say I buy the Pro plan of full copyright -unlimited downloads , and decide to re-sell that to as many others for say 10%, or simply put the access code on the web somewhere.
Now, I know they make a distinction of "copyright" vs. "license". Yes, the agreement terms say one person=1 license.
I get that. Still, I am Dr. Evil and I carry on. My midi world domination plan falls apart and I get caught selling 1000 people my account for 3.99 a month.
So now isn't this just a simple violation of the terms of agreement, and they have no ability to go after "copyright" infringement. Aren't they boxed into either just cutting off my account, or limited to the 3.99 x 1000 ?
For example, if a composer buys Omnisphere, they get a license. They can use the sounds in their own compositions a etc., etc. but it only ever grants a full user license. No where does it offer an explicit "Full Copyright" like AIVA.
So if a "Dr. Evil" is found out, they have the copyright law as the basis for litigation. They can claim each copy is an infringement of their IP.
AIVA terms clearly state "Full Copyright", and "Unlimited Downloads" so wouldn't that mean they would have no basis for a lawsuit regarding IP. It would only, by default, be about the license violation and that would be a waste of time to pursue.
** I've run out of time to write more, but I am also not clear on how the other plans they can "Retain Copyright"
How can they retain total copyright for the lower tier plans and still state.
"IT IS YOUR RESPONSABILITY TO ENSURE THAT ANY COMPOSITION, CREATED PARTIALLY OR FULLY WITH THE SERVICES, ARE NOT INFRINGING ON THE COPYRIGHT OF OTHERS. YOU SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY AND QUALITY OF YOUR CONTENT"
I don't get how that's legally binding...... it's still theirs. Why would I need to care about their property ?
This looks like a word salad and I am sure make a law firm very happy as everything in their
whole user agreement looks so vague and "grey".
What do I know ?