Musical Frustration - public has no ears.

[EL-CeeDee]

Hi there,

Just wanting to vent some frustration.

A friend of mine and me recently went in a new direction. We started making prog music. Being an admirer of the genre, it fits me well.

So, we wrote a "song"

Odd time meters are flying all around, some crazy submeter divisions here and there, some harmonically complex stuff. Truly a DT worthy composition ( as the few conaisseurs confirm ). Sidenote: I'm not claiming to be on DT level.

We bring in a singer, she's in a band. And she insists her band has songs that are "more progressive". I can't even imagine how ( I know the band ).
Issue 1: Overvaluating own productions.

A friend doesn't feel it's ANY good. because it doesn't sound well. ( no mixing mastering done yet, duh )
Issue 2: Very superficial listening, not being able to listen to a composition/arrangement seperately from the "sound"

And least, but certainly not least. it's impossible to write ANYTHING as good as "known" bands. They are gods and nobody can even come close.
Issue 3: Overvaluating known artists

Again: Just wanting to let off some steam.

And no,.. I'm not affected by issue 1. I'm more critical on my compositions than anyone elses.
Why can't people realise so much music IS ****?! Why is saying that Nelly Furtado's latest is simple and nothing special arrogant or ignorant ?

The truth is,.. It's impossible to create anything somebody likes, because we're not celebrities !

I made one track people really, really dug. It was made for this purpose only. It's a "DJ tiesto"-ish song. I added enough bass and whooshy keyboards. Gave it a tough beat people can dance/bob their heads to. Composition is extremely simple, just switched some things around during the song. Included a "one finger keyboard melody" people are so used to hearing. And more of those "fat and sugar" tricks.
And people actually told me: "Hey, you CAN make music!"

Essentially : Make **** and people will like it if you add enough fat and sugar.
Make good stuff, a classical compositions that rivals the best, an epic progressive part even rush, marillion, DT would be jealous of and be prepared for people to "not understand".

Hmm,. I guess I should give up my quest for making the masses develop a taste for the good things

Well,.. back to another endlessly repetative Missy Elliot song..

-rant over-

[jb4674]

Why do you care about what people think?? Dude, make the music you want to make, and if someone likes it, great. If no one likes it, who cares? As long as the music sounds good to you, that's all that matters.

Jimmy

[Ibateur]

... and as long as you have another source of income.

If THIS is your source of income, do what you already did. Do DJ TIESTO crap for the cash, and your own stuff for the love of music.

[EL-CeeDee]

Haha, that's the plan. And trying to get in some "niche"-market.

But I would really appreciate it if the public tried to listen

[ken_r152]

Unfortunately, it's always that way (in fact, it might have been that way all throughout recorded history!). And the same can be said about other industries as well, not just music: popular movies versus art films? Popular books versus literature? Even architecture: most architects probably help build family homes, rather than designing skyscrapers or art museums. But it pays the bills. That's why they call it "work." Something else to remember: the primary reason that bars feature live music is to entertain customers, not to showcase new artists.

Most serious art is cultivated independently, or is funded by one or two people who really believe in it. That's why they have things like the Cannes Film Festival. Art for the artists.

I'm also a big fan of prog rock, as well. Particularly of groups like Yes, Jethro Tull, and ELP. If you really want to challenge yourself, see if you can create music that people DON'T REALIZE is really prog! It can be done. The song "Living In the Past" from Jethro Tull? It's in 5/4. Sting is also quite adept at weaving in other musical styles and make it sound like Pop.

Good luck!

[Dee]

Dump the vocals. Listen to Planet X more often.

[Drew]

Post up a link to the tune.

Also worth noting - maybe there's a lesson here. Musical complexity =/= musical quality. The best Dream Theater tracks (in my opinion, anyway) are the ones that hold up first and foremost as songs, and not as technical excersizes or attempts to one-up the other guys in terms of how many time signature and/or key changes you can squeeze into 32 bars. Sure, that complexity exists in "Awake," but the reason that album is so great is that not only is the playing amazing, but the material is the kind of thing that you can find yourself humming days later, walking down the street and thinking about nothing in particular.

So, is the reason that this isn't grabbing people because "the public has no ears," or is it because you're sacrificing musicality for technicality? It's very easy to look at a lack of public sucess and chalk it up to the general public having no ability to appreciate good prog, and maybe that IS the case here, but, well, like I said, it's awfully easy to play the misunderstood artist card when your song doesn't impress people when you think it should.

/devil's advocate.

[Dee]

The thing is, are you playing for yourself or to please others? I say f*ck 'em. Sorry to be brutal. Do this for you and stop being so nice. jb4674 got the right idea.

[andy7jem]

The frustrations of being a proper musician

It is a shame that so many talentless tw*ts get rewarded for complete sh*te, but thats the way life is unfortunately

At the recent London Guitar Show, Steve Vai was kinda addressing this issue in the second masterclass. He was basically saying that when you have written a song or piece of music that you have put everything into, that piece represents a part of you and who/what you are. Which is why most musicians are so neurotic as you are putting yourself out there to be shot at. That was why he likes writing his stuff alone and producing his own stuff so that it is a true representation of what he was feeling.

The most important thing is to be happy with the result within yourself. That way you can stand by your work and be proud of it

[Dee]

Yeah!

[EL-CeeDee]

Wow, thanks for all the input !

All very true comments as well.
This wasn't a new conclusion to me either, just got frustrated for this single track.
On the fun side: The vocalist didn't notice the time signatures,.... untill she started singing

It's a actually interesting to notice HOW people listen. They don't hear "music" but more "sound". i.o.w. if you made a I-IV-V progression track, with lots of heavy guitars, add some grunts, some thick keyboards and a soprano voice they WILL hear something like after forever / within temptation / evanescence / etc. If you were to take the exact chord progression of one of their most familliar tracks, but execute it with a xylophone, clean arpeggiated guitar, jazz drum kit, male vocals, etc they will most likely not notice it's the same song.
(random example)

In response to "making music for yourself", to me that's not entirely true. If I made music exclusively for myself things would be a lot easier. The challenge for me lies in creating music from a semi-commercial point of view. Sure, I prefer to make things I like, but if I can integrate some commercial value, even better!

And on the "work" comment. We agree wholehartedly! I recorded people so ****ty, I had to wait half an hour for them to practice their open G chord. The tiesto song was fun, but getting into the "vocabulary" of that music wasn't particularly exciting. I combine work and play, keeps the work fun and the fun profitable

I will post a link to some tracks when they're done!

Once again, thanks for the input !

[jemplayer55]

Man this thread has some pretty good opinion going here. I have to agree with a couple of things the others have stated.

1- Creating music must be fun, there has to be enjoyment for both parties. The musician and the listener. The truth is several "hit formulas" still hold a ton of weight. Like keeping your song around 3 min. in length. (otherwise "air" time won't happen often) I mean who wants to listen to a 7 min. song on the radio? Not many. Unfortunatelly air play is what gets you mass recognition.

2- Back to the "KIS" theory.... yep, keep it simple. The average listener is not a trained or schooled musician. They don't give a sh!t what meter complexities you've incorporated in a song as long as they can "catch the groove", clap their hands, tap their foot, shake their head to it. Remember, all great songs have a "hook", something that catches the listener.
Whether it's a lyric, or a repeated musical passage. That applies to every genre from classical to hip-hop. Bury that hook too deep in the composition and you won't catch too many listeners unless they have the time to re-listen several times and are musically hungry enough to search it out.

3- Composition complexity does not equal a masterpiece song. Adding or expanding to a songs meter complexity or layering in subtle polyrhythmic structure only adds to the information you're expecting a listener to grasp within a short time frame. Equate it to this..... Santana once was quoted as saying songs were like meals. Sometimes you're real hungry and would like a big five course meal, kinda like Thanksgiving dinner. But most times you just want to eat light. Like fast food or a tossed salad.... tastes good, is quick, and everyone likes it. I mean can you imagine eating a five course meal everytime you were the slightest bit hungry???

4- Being a musician is work. Work you enjoy though. And like any job there has to be compromise. No different than trying to gauge your success. It has to have three elements, personal reward, some degree of financial reward, and a degree of acceptance. Gotta have an audience/following whether it's local, regional, national, or international.

Have you ever noticed how some of the better "musicians" musicians didn't just happen? (no overnight sensations) Most played with other bands either as members or as hired musicians. Studied their craft and refined not just their technical skill but their compositional skill also. Just look at Steve Vai or Eric Johnson.

But I have to disagree with you EL-CeeDee.... The average listener does hear your music..... not just sound. The problem is they have a short attention span. If you don't give them direction or a path to follow in the first 30 to 45 seconds of a song...... well, they will hear just "sound"!

[Drew]

I guess I'm not explaining myself well, either.

My absolute favorite prog album is Gordian Knot's "Emergent." Why? Because it's f'in gorgeous music. You notice that before you notice things like the polyrhythmic riffs, compound time signatures, tempo changes and key changes, virtuosic soloing, and complexity of the arrangements. You can play it for a non-musician and, provided they don't get scared off by the heaviness (the transition from "Arsis" to the intro to "Muttersprace" IS pretty jarring ), they'll think, "wow, this sounds pretty good!"

So, I don't necessarily see complexity and gut-level asthetic appeal as mutually exclusiveness. I mean, on the most fundamental level, the purpose of music is to create an aural work that appeals to the listener and creates a sense of connection between the performer/performance and the listener. It can be a blindingly impressive technical/harmonic composition and do this, and in fact some of my favorite compositions fall into this category. However, if it's something people can't connect to on SOME level, even if it's a bit outside of their normal frame of reference, well, are you as a musician doing your job?

Agree or disagree with me here, this is a question we as musicians have to ask ourselves, even if you eventually just conclude, "f it, I'm doing this for me and I don't care if anyone else likes it."

[EL-CeeDee]

First of all : Thanks for being such a great community here. You guys are really getting my point and contributing interesting views!!

Originally Posted by jemplayer55

But I have to disagree with you EL-CeeDee.... The average listener does hear your music..... not just sound. The problem is they have a short attention span. If you don't give them direction or a path to follow in the first 30 to 45 seconds of a song...... well, they will hear just "sound"!

Thanks for disagreeing! I love it
Ofcourse, I didn't mean they hear ONLY sound. They do catch melodies pretty well. In fact, so well they completely miss some things. For instance, take Usher's "yeah" , it has a very high pitched, ringing, bell sound going on ( just listen, you'll notice ). To me, it was very annoying, so I wanted to know why other people didn't have the same experience. I asked about 15 people, none of them had noticed before
So my point is, they catch the hook and the sound (instrumentation/PRODUCTION!). Us musicians catch a lot more. Making more information in the same 4 minutes less of a problem. Finding the "hook" in modern jazz or classical music is something they might not be able to do.

Point: Creating something "nice" for the public is relatively easy. Add enough fat and sugar and you're ok. Creating interesting music is harder and will not attract the same appreciation most of the time.

( there are exceptions, the beatles being a good one )

( and yes, I'm too much of a purist at times, fortunately, not always )

[jay ratkowski]

I agree with some of what is said here. The thing that most musicians and even the general public forget is that people like songs for different reasons. If I'm driving around with my fiance listening to some music, there might be a more "top 40" station on and I'll hear a melody and go "that's a neat guitar part." She might hear the same section of the song and say "I love that drum beat." Not everyone hears the same parts of songs as it depends on what gravitates you toward music in the first place. People who like to dance might hear beats over all else. People who like to sing along will hear choruses and melodies first. Others are drawn by "feelings" that the music evokes; be it sadness, happiness, slugeiness (for death metal), etc. Geeky musicians might try to listen to all parts at once and totally miss the meaning or a song.

The idea behind pop music, like any other mass media, is to attract the interests of the largest segment of the public. So most pop music focuses on a catchy melody and strong beat. Lyrical substance, complicated arrangements and other "uninteresting" aspects are not as big a concern.

That's not to completely put down pop music. Although a lot of it is rubbish, not all of it is. Like I said, it's simply focusing on what will attract the largest audience. Most of the artists that perform such music grew up listening to the same stuff, so they are expressing their artistic interest at the same time.

Probably the most important lesson I've learned over the years is that my favorite music annoys others as much as their music annoys me. That mindset has helped me become far more tolerant of different musical viewpoints.