22 Jun
2009
22 Jun
'09
12:33 p.m.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Fons Adriaensen<fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
He's not saying that musical creation should be
restricted to a
small number of predetermined people. But de facto, like all
artistic endeavour, it is a minority activity, We may all be
potential great composers or artists, but most of us do not
exploit that potential, just look around. Maybe 10% of the
population is capable of producing anything that would be
regarded by the remaining 90% as music they'd want to listen to.
Less than 1% could do something that would survive a generation
and become part of music history,
Although I don't disagree with anything you've written here Fons, I
feel compelled to note that there is a purpose to artistic creation
that has nothing to do with creation "for others". When we encourage
children to paint or make music, we are not doing so because we
believe that their work will have meaning for others or illuminate
some aspect of the human condition. At least, that wasn't why I
encouraged my daughter to do so, and its not why I encourage her now
with her cello playing.
When I started writing audio/midi software 11 years ago, it was
originally with a goal to providing the tools I wanted so that I could
make music. Over time, I realized that I am a really stunningly
mediocre musician (even that is putting it a little kindly), and its
much more productive for me to use whatever skills I have as a
programmer creating tools for others. BUT ... I still attempt to
create my pathetic little pieces of sound not out of any delusion that
they will last beyond the end of next week but because the *process*
of creation is intensely satisfying even if the end result is almost
certain to be disgarded.
the problem with the "democratization" of music production is, IMHO,
not that most people shouldn't be engaged in it - they should. the
problem is that the same processes that have led to this
"democratization" also seem to have led everyone who can rearrange
loops in garageband to believe that they are creating work worthy of
exposure to others and *this* is where they are mistaken. they should
be enjoying themselves, deeply immersed in creating mediocre pieces
that nevertheless bring some pleasure and meaning *to them*. i
remember eno describing the hundreds or thousands of demo tapes he
would get at one point in his career, and noting that people didn't
seem to realize that for every piece he ever released, he worked on
"hundreds or a thousand" other pieces that he discarded because they
were crap. his allusion was clearly that most of what we all produce
is crap, but that shouldn't stop anyone from engaging in the process.
we just have to find a way to get people to understand how the
difference between making music for others and making it for yourself.
there is no shame in either.