Ableton Forum

The more pervasive technology becomes, the more people value the human touch. People value what is rare, and discount what is common.
I listen to more and more music where I believe I can perceive the artist's intent, their authenticity of performance, whether they evoke anything, whether they have something to say.
Computers have very little to convey. Unless they are all secretly writing emancipation songs !

cold and calculated can't replace soul.














but you kind of have to consider the target audience.

H20nly wrote:but you kind of have to consider the target audience.

yep. new generations of listeners that will probably end up spending more time with computers than with real people. most of our grandparents probably can't stand any music with a synthesizer in it.

the future will be weirder than we can imagine, I look forward to it.

Angstrom wrote:The more pervasive technology becomes, the more people value the human touch. People value what is rare, and discount what is common.
I listen to more and more music where I believe I can perceive the artist's intent, their authenticity of performance, whether they evoke anything, whether they have something to say.
Computers have very little to convey. Unless they are all secretly writing emancipation songs !

I think you're right. Though currently (for me at least) "music making" is 80% tech and 20% creativity. Not because I am not creative, but because I have to master the tech in order to be creative. In my case, that 80% of effort may be "wasted" when technology replaces me. On the bright side, I can concentrate my efforts on being creative, which would be - mostly - a good thing. Though I like learning the tech...

futuremoves wrote: Though currently (for me at least) "music making" is 80% tech and 20% creativity. Not because I am not creative, but because I have to master the tech in order to be creative. In my case, that 80% of effort may be "wasted" when technology replaces me. On the bright side, I can concentrate my efforts on being creative, which would be - mostly - a good thing. Though I like learning the tech...

same way with an instrument- running all of those scales (aka "practice") is the "maintenance" type of work just as making and keeping track of a library of samples & sounds is maintenance.

futuremoves wrote:I think you're right. Though currently (for me at least) "music making" is 80% tech and 20% creativity. Not because I am not creative, but because I have to master the tech in order to be creative. In my case, that 80% of effort may be "wasted" when technology replaces me. On the bright side, I can concentrate my efforts on being creative, which would be - mostly - a good thing. Though I like learning the tech...

it's pretty easy to move that percentage. Accepting a technical compromise is seen as uncool and un-pro. I suggest that a creative compromise is a much worse outcome. Musically speaking.

about 25 years ago I was struggling to get hold of or make the most basic technology with which to create and record what I imagined. Hacked cassette decks, electronic kits, the cheapest shittest synths that money could buy. My whole world was compromise.
Slowly this technology came into being, and although some people obsessed over the technical aspects I obsessed over the functional question: can I create and record what I want yet, and do it at an affordable cost?
In those days the cheapest synth cost a months wages and it was terrible, in fact nothing really worked at all, even a £500 per day studio would break down all the damn time. The tape machine always broke or needed expensive servicing, the desk had bum channels. Everything cost a bazillion pounds. Even int the 1990s trying to use different DATs, synchronisations, converters. It was all shit.

Thankfully I no longer have to immerse myself in the technology, there is every likelihood that the technology will perform more reliably than an infrequently serviced Neve desk, and sound better than a quadraverb which was stored in a damp warehouse.

however, many modern geniuses are unable to make music when the atoms are not aligned like some guy says they should be. Apparently if your dither algorithm is wrong then the music is worthless.
I'm glad I come from a time when we had to make our music out of sticks and mud.

I concentrate on music, not technology.
I don't give a shit about technology if the outcome passes as listenable.

futuremoves wrote:

I think you're right. Though currently (for me at least) "music making" is 80% tech and 20% creativity. Not because I am not creative, but because I have to master the tech in order to be creative. In my case, that 80% of effort may be "wasted" when technology replaces me. On the bright side, I can concentrate my efforts on being creative, which would be - mostly - a good thing. Though I like learning the tech...

I think your taking the wrong approach. The knowledge your acquiring now will more likely than not be utilized with new technologies. Just as producers from the 60's, 70's, 80's are still sought after today for the exact knowledge you're afraid will be made obsolete. Shiite, a Chinese Sage who used an abacus would have a better chance of understanding binary counting than he would had he never learned the abacus in the first place. So my advice is to keep learning. Eventually one gets better at filtering information for the essentials.

to return to the original question: Yes, technology has already made musicians obsolete. They got replaced by DJs in most places.

Next thing: DJs getting replaced by something coming from the cloud.

Then later probably: Music getting replaced by brainwave-stimulation.

then brainwave stimulation gets replaced by blows from blunt objects

then we start again with sticks, rocks and campfires



we repeat this until the surface of the earth looks like char-coal

I think you're reaching a bit far out there dude.

Yeah, music is becoming easier to make. So?

There are always going to be people that are looking for new music that is made differently. It all seems very trendy to me. At least pitchfork does.

yeah, that sounds right.

it's hard for me to imagine that.
music (and therefor the musician) will never be obsolete!

but it might change in it's status..
(already now it's available to an ever growing crowd thanks to computers)
and most players I know...today record..produce...and market themselves
and well probably get new forms..
which will depend on new instruments that are not yet invented(conceived and created

over population will cause everything to get watered down..
including "quality"..

living is going to get rougher..all around..
the only escape would be the arts..
we'll still need our shows around the fire
it's part of our living-force..
no music = no life

the human is the prototype..
.sure you can write a Bach algorithm..
but you will need a genius called Bach to emulate..
and another smart and creative person to write it

also the human is the inventor...and operator of technology

we're at a point right now..
where it's sometimes hard to distinguish a good performer from a good xbox player
I believe were ready at the beginning of these digital times

technology will change.. and change our way of living...as it always has
but the human condition will remain..

My advice: learn to play music on instruments that do not require electricity. Just a precautionary measure to ensure your longevity in the field of music regardless of what the future may bring.

oblique strategies wrote:My advice: learn to play music on instruments that do not require electricity. Just a precautionary measure to ensure your longevity in the field of music regardless of what the future may bring.

I'm dedicating my time to learning how to play tunes on musical spoons.
Authentic instrument of the post-apocalyptic proletariat.

^^^

I'd build a shelter first though.. then start the nuclear winter blues

^

need a bass player?