Power Pros Forum

AgentP, you should probably make this its own thread if you want people to see/listen/comment. Otherwise people will just roll on by and post what they are listening to.

Do you have musical training/ability? Can you play an instrument? A lot of the stuff on Soundcloud is just samples and electronic beats, which really doesn't do it for me...giving people some background on what you do or what you're trying out would help maybe.

"Electronic beats" I guess is kinda what I'm doing. Thanks for this. And to answer your question, no, I can't really play any instruments, though I did take guitar lessons for a while and I still have that and a drum kit upstairs.

Okay, cool. So as you may (or may not) know, I am a musician (hobbyist, not my main profession). Played bass for bands since I was 16 (so thats 16 years now, off and on), recorded bass on several CDs and projects, played guitar seriously since I was 20, took a few music courses in college (to learn to read sheet music instead of just tablature, and piano skills), began fronting my own band at 21 as guitarist/singer/songwriter, toyed off and on with voice lessons, and am now studying serious voice work with an instructor from Juilliard. At this point I am just sharing singing duties in my main band (proggy rock), doing guest vocals for some friends' online projects, and occupying myself playing guitar, bass, piano and mandolin. I also freelance as a music critic and attend a lot of live shows here in Charlotte.

There are three main classifications of musician, or person creating music:
1) classically trained. Doing it as their livelihood; reads music; devoted 110% to their art. Most of the backing musicians you see; symphony members; composers, studio musicians. These people might have been singing or studying since they were 3 years old.
2) plays by ear. May be talented, may be their profession (pop or rock artist, etc), can read tablature or jam, might just be a hobbyist, but could put things together and change the landscape of popular music (the Beatles).
3) Doesn't really 'play' anything. Rapper, DJ, electronic artist. Or some "Punk" musicians - they know enough to strum 3 chords and scream. Sometimes there may be a worthwhile message or poetic value, but it's rare.

It's hard to not have a bias against those in group 3, especially when there is so much media out there from groups 1 and 2 that is more likely to hold value to the ear and mind, and more reflective of their hours/years obtaining mastery. Sometimes pop culture has an appetite for group 3 and it becomes mainstream (punk in the 70s; most rap from '92 to today; many auto-tuned singers since 2001) - sometimes it even has a lasting legacy. Since the number of people that can produce it is higher, though, it can be low lottery ticket level chances.

Music is like anything else people consume - books, food, style, family, friends, work, and love...at a basic level, you get out of it, what you put into it.
If you treat music (and creating music) like a lifelong journey, where you are always expanding and learning and growing, the returns can be exponentially greater. If you accept what is thrown at you (by radio, MTV, media outlets and big record companies) and sort of stop there, then you might build minor emotional connections to music and have something to bop your head to, but that's about the end of it.

Just my $0.02 diatribe!

I agree that there is a lot in your groups 1 and 2 that is valuable and I do enjoy listening to that type of music - I like a lot of things, from more modern rap/hip-hop and some modern rock to classic rock to classical and jazz music, so I get influences from a wide range of different genres, and of course I listen to the pop stations usually in the car - but there is some valuable stuff in group 3. Especially if an artist combines something from group 3 and another group (for example, this song features a classically trained pianist and bassist, and a modern electronic producer), that can be valuable; some rap has a good message, etc. In the same way, not everything from groups 1 and 2 is good. Some of the modern pop stuff that would fit into category 2 is based on a decent voice, a really basic looping beat from some big-name DJ (DJ Mustard, Mike Will Made It, people like that) and as many effects as are needed to make it sound good.

I don't think I'm completely getting the categories though, and they have to be loosely defined to really make sense. There's a lot of stuff that would automatically fit into category 3 that uses elements from categories 1/2 and I don't know where that would fall. And the "auto-tuned singers" - do those fall into 2 ("pop or rock artist, etc") or 3? Does that apply to all modern pop music or just some? And if so, what does and does not fall into that category?

I'm sorry if I asked too many questions, I'm just curious as to a lot of things you said and hope to hear your thoughts as to what I've said here.

It's nothing official, just a basic categorization I've made up in trying to understand music and musicians as a whole (so yeah, REALLY loosely defined). I feel like most musicians who reach a mid-level of competency kind of look up to that first grouping and wish they could be in it. I wish I could spend 50 hours a week playing music, or that I started at 5 years old. Group 1 may not get the chicks or the money...they are doing their thing on a different level, and it's one I have to look up to.

I have a huge range - not much jazz I can really love, but I have the Miles Davis, Dave Brubeck, and a Branford Marsalis quartet in my playlist right now. Classical, my favorite is Vivaldi, but the wife and I subscribe to the symphony and catch most operas when they are in town...yesterday I was studying Verdi's Requiem as part of my voice studies. I grew up with regular alt-rock like Pearl Jam and Soundgarden, and branched out into heavier prog-ish stuff like Tool, earlier prog rock like Rush and Yes, and later-day progressive like Porcupine Tree. All kinds of pop and mainstream in the middle, John Mayer, Jason Mraz, Mumford + Sons, Beatles, Dave Matthews band (at least the first 3 or 4 CDs). Muse is one of the best bands around today IMO...I didn't think so at first but they converted me. Somewhere along the line I dove into bluegrass pretty heavily, and am now big into Alison Krauss, Nickel Creek, John Cowan/Newgrass, Bela Fleck and others. I can't do country really, but I heard the first track from Garth Brooks' new CD and maaaan his voice is stellar.

Back to the groupings...for me it's a way to group individual musicians. the Firemen, for instance, combines Paul McCartney with "Youth" who is more electronic. Its experimental (and not great) but McCartney's voice and guitar makes some of it borderline good.

Auto-tuned singers are probably between 2 and 3 somewhere. Some like Taylor Swift actually write (or partially write) the songs, so they have at least some competency in terms of songwriting and an instrument. But I'm not sure if it counts. If you isolate Taylor Swift, she sounds like trash. Give her 9 months in the studio and $13mil of engineering and you get a viable product. Put her back out on stage live and guess what, she still sucks. It doesn't matter to the record exec, they're still making bank...but what is she? If you can go to the center of your town and find some 25-30 year old that can sing a ton better than the biggest pop music star, then how much of a musical force can that person really be?

I'll never really have an appreciation for the Clash, or the Ramones, or so many of the punk-ish musicians that went out creating music without really knowing what they were doing. Sometimes kids start out with a garage band and as they evolve they grow into something good (U2 as an example - hey they're decent at least). Other times - in the 70s and a lot again today - kids start out sounding like crap, and then just continue sounding like crap for a decade or their entire career. Punk isn't about improving your craft or musicianship. Jack White isn't looking to make his vocals sound better or for his guitar to sound sweeter. A lot of rap is about cashing in on something that kids buy...and that's it. I know there's a 5% or 10% that is worthwhile, but holy heck is it marginalized. I was working with this young 20 year old girl that a studio threw into hip hop...they've completely just made a product out of her. She was spouting out lyrics about doing things she's never done, a lifestyle she's never even been close to...just because that's what they told her to do. I was giving her the only voice lessons she's had, because her record company doesn't really care about getting her to sound good or breath right...they just care about her image, thats what the kiddies like.

The song you linked to does have an accomplished bassist (and probably pianist), but the entire thing is just 8 beats of repeating chords, and then 8 beats of vamping/improv, recycled over and over. I guess that's my biggest problem with a lot of the electronic or sampled music stuff today...even when its actually being performed it's just the same phrase repeated over and over. Doesn't that get a little tiring? I mean, if its conveying something lyrically or emotionally during that, sure...even if a lead instrument is doing something over it...but otherwise, a lot of listeners are just going to go for something more interesting.

As a counter example, check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU4SwIqwcZY Here's 5 guys, all of whom play instruments. Lyrical meaning, a strong lead voice, musical changes, a ripping solo, and yet a light enough part to sing along to. Not a ton of studio magic or auto-tune to get there...these guys go out and do it live. This is the type of thing I've come to appreciate over the years, while other stuff I used to listen to has fallen off my plate.

There's no way in heck everything an artist in group 1 or 2 produces will be great or even good; it just has a higher chance, that's all. The more expertise someone brings to the table, the better the end product (usually). There's still gonna be a wunderkind 14 year old that can do anything and blow everyone away, kids that just have amazing raw ability vocally or musically despite no formal training. But that's an exception, not the rule.

Music is kind of everywhere on the internet right now, and it makes it a weird world. Back in the 60s or 70s when pop music was starting, you kind of had to be immensely talented to get airplay and popularity (until punk, haha). Even the pop stars were the cream of the crop (except the Rolling Stones, ugh). That flipped almost 180 during the late 70s and into the 80s. Nowadays, between record companies pushing who they want, people with no real talent or ability producing tons of content, and auto-tune and electronics filling in the gaps and replacing talent in some cases, it's a hodge podge where noise and good music are all thrown in together. And some people will just take the "I like what I like!" approach and not really analyze what they like and dive deeper into the musical world. Sure, taste is a factor - some people will never like heavy metal, even the best metal. Some people will never like country or bluegrass, even performed by the best musician in the world. But you can tell when someone is kind of dodging things with the personal taste argument. If someone only liked to watch Transformers movies, or only liked to eat at Taco Bell, or only liked to read terrible authors like Patricia Cornwall or Stephanie Meyer, it'd be clear that that person needs to be exposed to more things or to seriously question their life choices. But with music there can be this universal defense that the listener can just like the first thing they hear and never grow or improve. That's kind of worrying, especially in a world where the bad is so ever-present and the good can be hard to find.

I enjoy musical debates, discussions...anything that adds to the dialogue instead of limiting it.

What's wrong with Jack White? He's a pretty well-renowned guitarist, and The White Stripes enjoyed a lot of critical success, as did his side projects to a lesser extent.

Yeah, I wish I had started trying to learn earlier and stuck with it. I suppose you can always learn later in life, but it seems odd to be trying to master basic concepts at 22 or whatever, when most others in that instrument have already moved on to far more advanced things.

Yeah, I don't usually like country but some of the really good stuff is worth listening to even for a non-fan like ourselves.

Agreed, some music is just trying to be "mainstream" and get the artist to have the image the record label wants them to have, not be themselves. Or be good. But not all of it is; I agree that someone can start off as just a small act with minimal skill and grow and develop into something much better and more professional, on their own or with the help of a good record label or mentor.



Appreciate all of this! I listened to the song you linked; it was very different from a lot of the stuff I listen to, but it was good! I do agree that live music is (typically) better than auto-tuned/studio-based pop stuff. And on that note...

"Algiers" - Austin Peralta

I've just never heard him sound good, vocally or on guitar. Some critics and magazines are anxious to pile on the praise - he was even in a movie with Jimmy Page (Led Zeppelin) and The Edge (U2), It Might Get Loud, where he is supposedly the guitarist of today to compare to those two. Most musicians laugh at this, because Jack White isn't really a top guitarist of today - certainly nowhere near what Page was in his day, not even what the Edge was from '79-92.

Critics heap praise on a lot of crap for some reason. Taylor Swift has won awards, let me remind you. A live act that I would be embarrassed to have opening for me somehow won awards. Critics are all over the place today, and the latest piece of trash will get 5 stars from Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, or whatever other outlet there is. It's almost become a non-factor (as sad as that is for my music critic aspirations).

There are a lot of bands that are highly regarded that I've never heard a decent thing from, after sample 20 tracks or so - White Stripes, Black Keys, The Strokes, The Killers...there's like this whole subclassification of poor music that sits around the top of the rock charts. There's a reason Nickelback is still a top act...and it has less to do with them being good than so much competition being bad.

(To be fair, Chris Thile has covered both a White Stripes and a Strokes song and made them into a listenable bluegrass arrangement. then I listen to the original and wharf up my lunch)

How is your opinion any more valid than the critics though? You think it's poor music, but clearly many others think differently.

Nothing does. I'm just one dude with an opinion. But I work with a lot of musicians, and I've only known one guitarist to see Jack White as anything praise-worthy. One for 25 or so tells me that he may be getting more praise than deserved.

It's possible that I fell out of touch with mainstream/popular music as they were rising to their height. It's possible they've got something tremendous that I've missed in the 15 or 20 songs I've sat through from them.

It's also possible that critics feel pressured to snuggle up to crap music simply because it is popular, or that they give them way too much credit simply for taking the garage rock further than anyone else has taken it without growing or expanding.

Honestly it's one thing I'd really like answered. I hear bad voice, bad guitar and simple drumming, and try for the life of me to understand the appeal. Heck if it was that easy to be successful, there are about a million 16-year-olds with the talent and ability necessary in their garages today.

I like the voices of the lead singers of all the bands you mentioned, but I guess that's really subjective.


What exactly makes it bad? If it's pleasing to the ear, doesn't that make it "good"?


Given that you're a musician, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is accurate. If so, why does being "simple" make it inherently bad? Does a song absolutely need to have advanced drumming to be considered good?

"Fear" ~ Drake

Agreed
Agreed. Although maybe he doesn't think it's pleasing. IDK. Early Black Keys stuff (i.e. Thickfreakness) reminds me a lot of Jimi Hendrix, and most wouldn't disagree that his guitar is pleasing.
For what it's worth, the Black Keys drummer knows he's not that great and embraces it. So maybe this complaint has some merit.

Yeah, music is probably the most subjective form of art so it is interesting to hear vastly different opinions about two of my most loved bands (The Clash and The Strokes).

The thing is, I've never really felt that musical skill should come into play when deciding if something is good. If a song is interesting, original and sounds good, then I like it and appreciate the hard work the artists put into it. I don't really care if he/she is the new Clapton or Hendrix on guitar.

The only music I really hate is your average pop bullshit. Songs that have 5 writers credited and weren't really a labor of love or anything. Then again, I've always valued lyrics over sound by a little bit anyway so that might just be it.

This is literally the last topic in the world I would have expected a serious discussion to break out. And I'm horrendously unprepared for it as a result. Basically all I can say is I realized a long time ago that my musical tastes differed wildly from pretty much all of the rest of the forum and have just made peace with that. I can't really understand how some people enjoy what they do, but they probably would have the same trouble understanding my preferences.

I'm not really a musician or anything though, so I don't really have any reason for my opinions to count any more than anyone else's. I've only started playing around with musical instruments a couple years ago (well, real musical instruments anyway), and my musical tastes have undergone very little change in that timeframe.