Thanks everyone--I think my primary interest is only the Pro-Q right now, so I'm going to try out the trial first before I make any moves.

Just reread over everything you wrote and all the judgements you are making on the character of people you do not personally know, and the condescending implications of a statement like "Now that I've cleared it up for you," then tell me if you're really not being elitist and holier-than-thou.

These are observations that I have made based on my experiences dealing with people that I do personally have gotten to know and understand. I didn't have any intention of condescension so I apologize if it came across that way, but you seem to be a little more hostile than the rest of the people here with your last two posts, so I urge you to stop. I'm not going to argue with you about such petty things any further.

There is interesting aspect to this thought though. I totally agree with it and in my opinion the music should be about the message. ...but there's this quite common pattern among starting musicians, or really different musicians, who make music that is not appealing to masses. In extreme cases, not appealing to anyone. That leads to discourage. They seek advice and the most common one they get is: "Well screw others, you're doing it for yourself. It's your expression." This kills the music appeal in some people, but strenghten it in others. I kind of hope I don't have it set up that way, but I can understand people who do. To them, speaking about personal success and ego might come natural. I don't like it, but there's the way how it might start without bad intention at the beginning.

What I find is easier to dissect and interpret is replacing music with comedy--particularly stand-up comedy. It is almost the purest form of entertainment because there is just an audience and you--no real tools. It's entertainment--it doesn't work if the entertainer's only audience is himself, or does it? Can he truly have the mindset of "Well screw others, you're doing it for yourself. It's your expression" and have material that works brilliantly with others? It's possible, but we can't help but bring the feedback and inclusion of an audience into the mix, because there is a difference between art and entertainment, but there are so many similarities as well.

But yes, we've all heard success stories of famous artists that wrote about what was important to them and showed the public the more relatable material for recognition. We don't really hear from those who, in our opinion, make great music but is extremely unpopular. I know of one: Robot Love... minimal music. Not many people like it at all, but I personally love his music, and I think it is brilliant in a way. But have you ever met someone who is egotistical and his music is unpopular, but you thought he was brilliant? Why or why not?

TL;DR indeed! I'm going to specifically answer the part about why we hate the music we hate.

I started a spreadsheet with a bunch of bands in it. I started with just my favorite rock bands, and rated various aspects of them (musicianship, originality, earnestness, heaviness, quality of lyrics, etc.) and averaged it all out at the end to come up with a kind of General Musical Exellence Quotient. I tweaked it to come up with weighting systems that I thought were honest (according to which aspects I consider most important) and also yielded scores that I agreed with (i.e. my favorite bands should get higher scores than bands I just sorta like a lot). Then once I was happy with the system, I added bands I don't like very much--but maybe like one or two aspects of--to see how they scored.

I believe that if I kept at this I could eventually predict how much I will like or dislike any given artist within that genre. I could create similar spreadsheets for other genres with similar predictive power. I urge you to try.

I'm not entirely sure if I can do this. It's not a linear ladder of numerical rankings for me, it's 3-dimensional.

Quote from: Nadav on January 18, 2016, 03:56:31 am

I started a spreadsheet with a bunch of bands in it.

Haha, I love the geekiness of this


I'm really interested in why people like the music they like. Sure, the music you get into when you're growing up tends to remain special to you once you get older, but I'm still intrigued by what it is about that particular music that attracts you in the first place. I feel like the music you like is somehow related to personality or psychology, but I wouldn't have any idea why.


Are you sure those things you listed - musicianship, originality etc. - are actually the things that explain why you like the music you like? There's a psychological tendency to come up with an explanation for our feelings when we don't honestly know the deeper reasons behind them. Tight beats seem to be very important in music to me, and I also seem to like a lot of music that's strongly melodic - liquid d'n'b, trance, early east coast hip hop, but also (e.g.) Miike Snow or Tame Impala, even though on the whole I don't like guitar-based music. I dunno just rambling at this point

See, that's what I've always observed and wondered. I think I personally love the Dorian mode because... well, the relationship between the 1 and the b3, the quality that gives it the minor sound, is like Star Wars. It's cool, it's awesome, it's dark but interesting, and everyone loves it. The Natural 6 in the Dorian gives it the triumphant feel, which may reflect my personality. How? I may be able to give a few theories, but nothing is ever certain.

To be clear, I was talking about the more modern, generic pop that is frequently sought after by those with disrespectable values. I am not saying that at all pop, but rather I'm trying to distinguish the negativities of that genre.

And that goes for any genre, disregarding its origins or the stems of its historical source--whether it started out as music with no purpose, anyone can give it one.

And yes, no point in being guilty--like I said, it's personal interpretation and perspective. For example, I've always seen Wolfgang Gartner as the primary example of the level of production I wanted to achieve, and musically I believe, in his own way, he is brilliant. All he listens to is Top 100 Billboard tracks or old-school hip-hop. I don't judge him in any aspect except than what he chooses to do with his own music.

Having all this said, Mussar, I think you've misunderstood the entire point. As I've established, I don't look at a particular genre or a group and judge it, but rather the individual artist that make up a sort of... community, I suppose. Having sex with a dead baby sounds absolutely horrifying, but I don't know the context, nor really the artist. It's not about the content being necessarily being bad or good, but rather there being content in the first place. That's the whole point. The 'decrying' of this certain Pop music that I am saying is that it's surface value--it says absolutely fuck all.

Interestingly enough, I hated music as a child, so I am not subject to a single path of music. I listened to a fuckton of Hollywood Undead growing up as well as a lot of alternative rock, and the phases keep cycling, and in my career, as never stopped cycling.

Just because someone talks about money, fame, or sex doesn't mean it's terrible. It's the context. There is a musician that writes rap that I had the pleasure of talking to for a brief moment, and although his musical approach is a bit naive, his eagerness was admirable. He wrote a certain line that went something like, "I want to put my mother in a Benz." The message wasn't about getting rich and being materialistic, it was about the hardship his family went through and the hope that he put onto himself to achieve a financially stable life for his family.

And no, there is nothing wrong with making music that makes people feel good. As a matter of fact, that, to me, is a wonderful thing. But when your priorities overpass those good values for own selfish gains such as fame, money, and exploitations of the mass, then I have a fucking problem with it. Writing for others and writing for selfishness is sometimes hard to distinguish among many, but it's there.

Now that I've cleared it up for you, there is no elitist and holier-than-thou attitudes here.

Be warned: This thread is TL;DR, but if anything, please read the brief summary in the introduction below.

This thread is ultimately about how we, as musicians, write our music. I want to delve into the reasons why we write the way and things we do, why they sound they way they do, why we like the music we listen to, and why we hate the music we hate. I prefer this thread to become a discussion (although it's TL;DR so... well whatever).

Okay.

One's musicianship is how I like to define the intangible, deeply buried aspects of a person's influence and decisions they make when they have anything to do with music... whether they perform, write, arrange, compose, analyze, or simply enjoy. I wrap it up simply with this: what you like is what you are.

My natural tendency to the Dorian Mode seemed to be a strange phenomenon. I first discovered this mode when I was first writing music, and I discovered that there was more to than just the Natural Minor and Major keys. I didn't know it was called Dorian then, nor did I know what Modes were, but I found it when I was studying Hans Zimmer's Jack Sparrow, a piece to the score of Pirates of the Caribbean, Dead Man's Chest.

Soon, I started writing most of my music in Dorian. A Minor Key is awesome--it can be incredibly energetic, blissfully melancholic, soulfully moving, or just downright awesome. The Dorian's favor of the Natural 6 over the Natural Minor's flat 6 just makes everything incredibly brighter; what was once blissfully melancholic is now bright and hopeful. For example, the 2-chord progression, I-7 IV-7 in Natural Minor is melancholic. But in Dorian, the I-7 IV7 progression provokes a much more hopeful, composed feel. With the right instrumentation and type of performance, it can even be energetic, but the sole feel will stay. The bright change of the Natural 6 is powerful yet not conflicting with the minor-y relationship between the Natural 1 and the Flat 3, still giving that minor feel.

A friend of mine is an amazing guitarist. His favorite thing is the modal interchange of the I- chord to simply Imaj. A chord progression he would often play over was Emaj, Cmaj, then Dmaj. The Emaj here would be the obvious borrow from the parallel Major Key. But my question would be... why? Now, I love this chord progression. You can modify it a billion ways to get different things--you can tailor it to something specific, as with anything, but it's not my favorite. Why is it his favorite and not mine? What does he see in it that I don't? Unfortunately, I don't know him that well to formulate an answer, let alone a theory.

If I hear a song that was pleasant to the ears but provoked nothing at all, those songs will never become classics to me, which is not something I forced but something I noticed. There are songs that dig deep--deeper into your mind and soul and change you from within--you don't need me to tell you that. And it's clear that, although some (not all) music have things to say, it's more or less subjective, that our interpretation of a certain piece of music is the final form of the influence... whether or not the message was intended by the artist who created the work.

Interpretation also happens outside of music--in all art. Paintings can be interpreted in many different ways, but the people who appreciate those works will choose either the most logical interpretation or their favorite, and their favorite will probably relate to themselves or what they believe in. This happens in movies, poems, novels, music--anything that can be interpreted whether it be a symbol, a metaphor, a character's actions, or the choice of chords.

I tend to have a habit of judging those who say the phrase, 'if it sounds good to you, then that's all it matters.' I absolutely despise this line, because whoever follows this to me don't seem like any kind of patron of art, but rather just a consumer that takes art based on face value. Why is modern Pop so popular? It's no secret that most Pop music is tailored to appeal to the masses, and it's no secret that every single aspect--the sound design, the production, the composition, the arrangement--is all tailored to appeal to the listener instantly... most don't last long.

This is why I don't particularly enjoy modern Pop, because to me, it says nothing. It doesn't relate to me. Why is it that people enjoy dance music in the right place and time? Obviously that's what the music is about, that's what the music says... what it talks about--getting drunk, getting high, getting money, having sex, losing control, partying, having fun now and escaping the consequences--I'm not particularly that type of person. Don't get me wrong, I like alcohol, sex, and parties (I don't really care for money unfortunately) perhaps as much as the next person, but when it comes to expressing or participating those aspects in my life, the expressive, explicit way the music is portrayed doesn't appeal to me. The connotations of Pop that is played in clubs comes loss of control in favor of feeling good, among others... and especially control--losing it gives me anxiety. I am a control freak.

I know the way I said it seems negative and critical of Pop, but as we've established, it's also the subjective interpretation of the person listening to it... and of course, not disregarding the purpose of the music either. But this is why I find that I don't really click with people that solely only listen to Pop that is tailored solely for marketing purposes. What you like is what you are, and what you listen to define your values. (P.S. I do have my criticisms within the Pop industry, as we all do, as well as other genres).

Why is it that every person that likes modern Hip-Hop (that talks about drugs, sex, money, and crime) that I've met so far are complete tools? Every guy I've met that listens to this kind of music has been overcompensating with the alpha male attitude, talking about forcefully expressing their manhood and establishing their apparent dominance, sexually stereotyping women, oversensitive and unable to have a sense of humor, unable to pick up certain social clues, attempting to justify their gluttony of excessive consumption of drugs and alcohol, and undermining others in favor of petty greed. I'm sure there is someone out there that listens to this type of music but must be altruistic, angelic saints... or are there? If there are, I'd really like to know why they listen to that music and why they are the way that they are. I'm sure some of you may know people like this. But sadly, I haven't met a single one. Yet. But I have met people that listen to a different breed of Hip-Hop, and the rap seems to talk about ideas, tell stories, explain perspectives and hardships, and pulling through... and I've worked with them and they have great ideas. I've gotten drunk with them and they really get into discussing about music and what they express through it, passionately. Ultimately it's the messages behind the genre. A genre is just a classification... it doesn't necessarily define anything of value.

A lot of people even say 'everything has been done already.' I highly, extremely disagree. What is the hell is everything? There is a video that mathematically broke down if we will ever run out of new melodies, that there is a finite number of tones, and filtering out melodies that our brains don't have a tendency to like. But there are so many aspects that influence our liking of music, such as context, sound design and instrumentation, who wrote it, what it's about, composition, arrangement, rhythm, performance, external stimulus, emotional provocation, repetition, recycling of same melodies in different ways--the list goes on and on and on, and makes the answer an honest no. Even in the piano performance world, the interpretation of a certain classical piece differentiates every performer of how they perform that certain piece. Having that said, there is always more than just face value to music or any art to that matter, that 'if it sounds good to you, then that's all that matters' is downright, repulsively negligent and ignorant... SO FUCK THAT.

I was in Boston a year ago, going to school there. One time I entered a taxi, and the driver asked me straight away whether I was planning to use cash or card. I didn't have any cash on me, so I said, "I'm going to use my card."
"You Americans are so lazy," he said.
"What?"
"You know the card companies take 7% off every transaction?"
"Complaining about getting less money just because I use a card seems lazy to me."
And after a while...
"So, where do you go to school?"
"Berklee."
"Music?"
"Yeah."
"What kind of music?"
"Electronic."
"Electronic?" He spews, "That music is ruining the real music, man."
Needless to say, he didn't receive any tip.

So, the realism is, not too many care. Most people don't love music, they like it. That was the whole point of this little anecdote. Most consumers may enjoy a song in its entirety, but will not have a burning passion for music and search for a deeper understanding of why they like it--that's why they're not musicians. It may not be always 'it sounds good, that's why I like it,' and may go a little deeper than that, but most people don't go deep enough. They can't be bothered. Same thing with me--I don't analyze certain art forms too much, such as paintings from the Renaissance Era or books Ayn Rand wrote (I hate Ayn Rand) simply because I don't necessarily love them. It's a shame, but it's reality.

I understand the point of this post is easy to miss. It's not just about establishing a deeper appreciation for music, but how this affects us as musicians--how these things influence our understanding, interpretation, and most importantly, expression of music... others and our own.

I'm sure most people like it fine not to analyze too much, but it's not a bloody headache like it seems when I explain it. It's just something I've grown to notice when I listen to music or write--that there is always a reason why I like something. It's the same thing where you can look at someone and their fashion and sort of assume what kind of person they are or what they might like. To me, a world where the music I listen to has nothing to say and just 'sounds pleasant' is a fucking boring, monochrome, and soulless world.

But this is an issue I constantly find in others' music. A lot of music I hear says nothing--and I'll ask the writer what it's about, and usually there is no answer, nor is it skillfully expressed, or it's usually just an excuse to "verify the integrity of their musicianship." And the truth is, 99.9999% of the music I hear from peers is never something I'll ever come back to listen to. It doesn't become a classic for me. It usually never becomes something I admire or idolize within, nor is it something I truly regard as intuitive, creative, or beautiful.

But it doesn't need to be complex! A song can be ultimately beautiful even if the meaning is extremely simple. There have been poems about the gracefulness of a lion and the intricate, social precedent of its tribe--there have been poems about the gazing beauty of the infinite universe and the drifting, everchanging planets, stars, and ethereal gases that roam the galaxies... but there have also been poems about ice cream--just plain fucking vanilla ice cream and how much the writer loves it, written beautifully that can make you crave for it. Simple, but beautiful. Poems have something to say. Books have something to say. Whatever art form--art is expression. Doesn't it just make it a million times better when a piece of work can provoke your thoughts and tickle your brain, even if it's just a little bit? Don't you enjoy that much more?

I'm sure that this doesn't bother you as much as it does me, and that's okay. And please don't think of me as pompous--I'm not trying to say that my music is better or worse, nor am I a better person for liking a certain type of music over others--absolutely not... my music is terrible. My only goal is to explain the concept that the music we listen to and write define us, and if we are to let it define us, let us grow as artistically intellectual musicians, that everything is absolutely not fucking done and we can revolutionize music if we wanted to... and for us to reach that deep of a level, we can't listen to things and take them for just face value.

I hated music as a child, and now I bask in it.

I initially played guitar to be cool and popular, and then I gave it all up because my life went down in flames and turmoil. Music was long gone.

But then again, it was never really with me, that is, until I reached rock bottom. That's when I dedicated my life to it.

I used to spend all my time doing music--12 to 16 hours a day, because there was so much to learn, so much to discover--so much magic. Then I started doing less and less, not because I lost passion, but because I needed to live my life in order to write. I learned that I ran out of things to write about, so I decided to simply live my life--sometimes in extremes, sometimes in subtle silence. Then I'd come back and write about my adventures.

I've never been happier since!

Unfortunately, I just gave away my back-up Focusrite... I'll have to find a way to obtain a different audio interface from somewhere else. With the MBox, it doesn't even support USB--I am running a 1394 Cable into my PC from the MBox. Surprised they even had a Windows driver for it, not surprised it's been discontinued.

Regardless, I think you are right. This MBox has been giving me hell ever since I started using it--serves me right for treating it like shit ever since I bought it. Although I repaired the driver and it seems to be stable, if there is a stall or a buffer limitation, I need to upgrade. I don't believe Image-Line is responsible for the issue, but I'll give it a go.

Thanks for all your help, it was quite enlightening.

Interestingly enough, some 3rd party plugins don't have the option to be multi-threaded, but Task Manager reports all cores are being used and active, just that every core is at 8% to 16%.

Just because it is free does not mean it is free to distribute or free to sample and commercialize. Youtube most likely has something on their Terms and Conditions or EULA or whatever it's called.

From what I understand, unauthorized sample by any means is illegal. It doesn't matter if it was used to not make money, nor does it matter if the sample in question was 8% or lower length of its original source--it is illegal without permission.

But the unwritten rule here is that nobody really cares unless it is depriving them of money, which is very hard to prove. Not only that, the legal fees cost too much so the rights holders often let it go. Larger companies or individuals are much more likely to send a cease and desist order.