Is Reason and other programs making music production too easy?

December 4, 2004 8:01 AM

I have a question that relates to the recent announcement about Reason 3. Reason is a intuitive and relatively simple (probably the easiest) software based music program. Is Reason and other programs making music production to easy? Has it been demystified? Coupled with the internet there is certainly a lot of electronic musicians nowadays.

I just have trouble when I think about it because I make music (with Reason) and I'd like to believe it's original and everything, but maybe it isn't.

I have a friend who makes short movies and he says that it has happened to movie making because of Final Cut and Premiere. But I can't imagine this is so because films are (or should be) complex and there are so many things that have to be done right.

Is the musician not special anymore?

Does anyone think that music is too simple a thing to learn? I've been making it for a little more than a year and the learning curve has really slowed down, I'm learning less about music and more about the program itself.

Will people who listen music have to change what they're looking for? Vying for the more complex and unique than the perfectly timed? I myself (I'm using my own opinion to try and relate to everyone else) am moving towards the more and more complex music and genres.

Is it like that for many of you here?

posted by Napierzaza to media & arts (26 comments total)

Reason, like most music production software (and, for that matter, scales, chords, and music theory in general) are tools, no more , no less. Their effectiveness is completely dependent on the imagination, creativity, and energy of the artists who use them. The technology comes into play, for example, when you decide that you want some reverb on that particular drum track. With Reason (and various other programs), you have access to a wide variety of reverbs that can sound extremely good. But if the drum part isn't interesting, creative, innovative, etc., in the first place, then it doesn't really matter how good the application of technology is.

In other words, you can shine shit, but it's still shit.

(Conversely, look at Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. I have at my disposal exponentially more recording capabilities on my 5-year-old G4 than all the money in England could buy back in the winter of 1967. Doesn't make it any more likely that I'll create something as enduring...)
posted by fingers_of_fire at 8:08 AM on December 4, 2004 [1 favorite has favorites]

As for the complexity matter, I'm moving in the opposite direction from you, Napi. I've been playing music for 30 years, professionally for 15. There was a time when I bought the whole "complex is good" argument - it led me to studying Jazz for 10 years. In the end, the music that I couldn't get out of my head was simple, beautiful, enduring melodies - most often pop music.

As a practitioner, I'd say keep at it... things that sound simple often are masterful for that very reason ("Hey Ya" being the most obvious recent example). It's not too tough to notice when a composer does something complex for the sake of doing something complex. The trick is to do something complex because it needs to be done compositionally, because the song calls for it, and to do anything else would be wrong.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 8:16 AM on December 4, 2004

I watched people go through the same dilemma with online writing. Back in 1998 or so, (a few) people had elaborate personal sites built by hand that would update once a month or so. Then blog software came along and they all thought it was the death of online publishing because anyone could do it, and update not just daily but several times a day.

And that attitude has been shown to be pretty much total bunk.

There are now millions of people writing online and if you know where to look, you can find plenty of great things. That also means there are millions of sites that one might call "crap" that don't interest them, but it's worth it to increase that 1% of really good stuff.

I see the same parallel with music and movies. It's great that things are getting easier. I wish anyone with an idea would write down the idea and have software completely form that into action. I know people invest years in learning tools and they kind of hate it deep down when some kid can pick up the same techniques in ten minutes that took them ten years, but get over yourselves.

Seriously, the mass democratization of everything is one of the crowning achievements of the Internet. In the long run it will mean tons of great music and tons of great short movies and tons of great writing. Don't worry about the problems of millions of people making music -- there are already tools in place to filter out just the best music (like garageband.com's rating system).

I don't mean to sound harsh, but again, swallow your pride and get over yourself. This is good for music (and movies, and writing, and every creative thing on earth).
posted by mathowie at 8:28 AM on December 4, 2004

It makes cookie-cutter music easy, but that's been easy for two decades. Give me a few days and Reason and I could probably crank out a killer drum-n-bass 12" -- but would I want to?

Automation isn't the end-all of electronic music -- some of my favorite electronic acts are just one guy playing relatively-simple-but-engaging melodies (by hand) on old synthesizers (e.g. Lilienthal, Novel 23), or using a limited palette of sounds (e.g. Lusine ICL).
posted by neckro23 at 8:30 AM on December 4, 2004

As an electronic musician (after having spent 7 years in rockish bands), I seek a sort of minimalism in the use of instruments but usually follow pop song structures. Neither of which is true of most electronic music.

The way I look at it is, final cut pro, premiere, and imovie make it easier for people to make movies. This is a good thing. We are likely to see more unique voices and more stories than under the current situation. It was the same with electronic tools, they make it easier for people to become craftsman without the sharp learning curve. However, it doesn't make it easier to make truly beautiful creations.

The same can be said of electronic music programs. It's easier to learn how to make music, but it's still just as hard to make a song that resonates with a large number of people.
posted by drezdn at 8:32 AM on December 4, 2004

IMHO, the availability of software (and digital technology in a more general sense) has certainly opened up a lot of opportunities for people to learn to make music, films, etc. But technology could never be a substitute for talent.

Sure, you can load a simple groove into Reason, tweak it a bit, add some samples, compose a decent track, but it all starts with an idea.

I think the demystification only happens in the minds of non-musicians (or would-not-be-musicians until they discovered Reason or any similar app and starting twiddling about) who suddenly "see the puppet strings" and decide that the act of making music is not so esoteric after all.

The general public, however, will continue to be in awe ofthe apparent "magic" that musicians create in their minds. I'd say that that's 50% honest, justifiable awestruckness (is that a word?), because it really is an art (and as I said, talent comes first), and 50% a trick that artists play on their audiences. Which is also fine, because lovers of music just love believing in that illusion. I know I do.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:37 AM on December 4, 2004

swallow your pride and get over yourself

Huh? I feel I'm relatively new to making music so I don't really have a hugely built up sense of pride about it.

I guess it is like film making, it's easier to make film/music with these programs. But it is just as easy to miss as well.
posted by Napierzaza at 8:38 AM on December 4, 2004

Oh, Mathowie I forgot to mention:

I have only ever used the computer for music. I have no skill (learned behavior) at any physical instrument. I was using some crappy program (Mixman) for a long time and then I moved onto Reason. I almost bought a guitar recently but I couldn't be bothered at the space/time/money required to get a good sound out of it when I could just record noise from Captain Scarlet instead.
posted by Napierzaza at 8:42 AM on December 4, 2004

just do what you enjoy.

things aren't special just because a few people can do them. they're special because you are lucky enough to see them that way.

you must, at some point in your life, have walked out on a crisp winter's day and seen a spider's web outlined in frost, and been stunned, for a moment, at the beauty. spiders are nothing special, and webs are nothing special, yet that moment was, and is. if you can feel the same about something that you have made, that's enough.


i spend large chunks of my time working on projects that hardly anyone appreciates, and less use. in my bleaker moments, i wonder why. but in the end, it doesn't matter. fuck the rest of the world. i'm doing what i want to do.

do what you want to do.
posted by andrew cooke at 9:03 AM on December 4, 2004

(and read camus ;o)
posted by andrew cooke at 9:03 AM on December 4, 2004

bugger: because a few -> because few
posted by andrew cooke at 9:05 AM on December 4, 2004

I have only ever used the computer for music. I have no skill (learned behavior) at any physical instrument.

While physical instruments have their advantages over the computer, the computer is an instrument, and facility with using it shouldn't be underestimated. Nor do I think you're really giving the skill necessary to use it well its full due. While it's true that computers are becoming better/easier-to-use instruments, the fact is, they still take practice to use well, like any other instrument.
posted by weston at 9:16 AM on December 4, 2004

The feeling or the story will always come through.
posted by orange clock at 9:30 AM on December 4, 2004

"Is Reason and other programs making music production to easy?"

No. More music from more people means more good, more bad. Matt said it better above.

That said, I have heard a fair share of stuff that had a good core to it, be it melodies, arrangement, humor, etc. but was marred beyond belief by handing over half the power to the software, and all of the "features" that sell a product these days.

"Nor do I think you're really giving the skill necessary to use it well its full due." There are always viruousos, and always people saying "you did this, with that"?
posted by Jack Karaoke at 9:33 AM on December 4, 2004

In other words, you can shine shit, but it's still shit.

Spot on. Making music has become very easy- that's a good thing. Making good music is not. That's also a good thing. I love the fact that anyone with a decent computer can make music these days; it certainly opens the door for a lot of people who wouldn't have had the chance 10 years ago. Not all of it's going to be great, but that comes along with opening the art form to everyone. All the expensive studio sessions and Pro Tools goodness at their disposal couldn't stop U2 from making a plodding, uninteresting new album (my personal opinion only. Great group, disappointing album).

A while back I went to Houston on a family trip and we stopped at a museum of modern art. The museum primarily showcased student works from around the area. A good 90% of the exhibits could've been mistaken for high school projects. Just little collages and models and piecemeal sculptures that (with all due respect to the created) didn't seem to have a lot of effort put into it.

OP: What a whole bunch of other people said. Wrote this on and off whilst at work.
posted by kryptondog at 9:39 AM on December 4, 2004

You should have also asked yourself if the mass production of the electric guitar and amp made musicians "not special" anymore. Or the synthetsizer. Now we're at the stage of the computer.

Same questions. Same crypto-elitiness.
posted by skallas at 9:44 AM on December 4, 2004

I started a big long post and deleted it when I realized much of it wasn't on point. The most important thing I can tell you is start listening to everything you can from people making music this way. Then, try to repeat what they've done. If nothing else, you'll develop more respect for your chosen instrument.
posted by melissa may at 9:47 AM on December 4, 2004

I have to echo back what fingers_of_fire said: great tools don't make great music (see: The Velvet Underground's first three records). And in some ways, I find computers to either limit music making - or take things in the wrong direction. 15 years ago, I was making pretty crazy indie pop on a 4-track, bouncing tracks to my heart's content and not worrying about tape hiss. Now, I get derailed tweaking sounds of drum samples, trying to get things just right. When I should be writing and playing. Sometimes in Logic, I'm like a magpie, just picking at the shiny bits.
posted by hamfisted at 9:50 AM on December 4, 2004

I'm also a bit curious as to what you mean by "special." Do you believe that some people just have some mystical ability to make music? Err, no. Its ordinary people who said to themselves "I like this, I want to learn this" and spent a lot of time working to achieve that goal. Why its "good" for them to suffer with sub-par tools is beyond me and why the existance of mediocre dabblers is a bad thing is beyond me also.

Some of my favorite art comes from amateurs, dabblers, and non-professionals. Sometimes using high-tech solutions, sometimes using lo-fi solutions.
posted by skallas at 9:50 AM on December 4, 2004

I think fingers_of_fire nailed it with that shit shining chestnut.

BTW, are you able to reproduce in Reason the music that you hear in your head? Or do you sit down at the computer with only a general inkling of where you want to go? It's really easy to let the software lead you.
posted by crumbly at 10:05 AM on December 4, 2004

I think for many months it was just learning to program. Now I can think about concepts or ideas that I want to try out. Also I can pick out things that I want to use as samples.

In terms of special I don't know what I meant. Maybe I meant the market is flooded, I know that's what my friend was talking about in regards to independent cinema. Mathowie was right that the internet distribution places must have rating systems to keep all the crap filtered out.

I forget who said it but I agree with the concept of doing something no one would appreciate just because I enjoy it. I did that for some time for music and visual arts. But it's hard when you start meeting people. I don't really want to tell people I just watch TV and hang out when I'm exploring all sorts of projects.
posted by Napierzaza at 10:56 AM on December 4, 2004

i have to admit, i was pissed by the arrival of software synths. i've spent probably more than a couple grand and several years acculumating hardware, and all of the digital ones pretty much sound the same as what i can get straight out of bits. i hardly even have a reason to turn on my rack these days, and just end up using absynth or some of the korg emulators.

that said, my music has become more engaging now that i'm tracking it on a computer; as a computer allows me to program very mobile beats and riffs -- on a hardware sequencer, i would usually work three or four loops into a song, whereas on a computer i'll work with up to twenty.

the one thing i'd say if you're concerned about the originality of your music is this: never use loops off a sample cd without significant editing, and preferably, don't use them at all. I've broken down and started to use breakbeats for my drums just because live drums sound so much better -- if i had the capability and skill to sample out a live drummer myself, i'd do it. However, I recognize that even the cut-up breaks that i end up using are a little canned (ie, BOR-IIIING), and every melody/riff sample cd i've heard absolutely blows.

still, i'll say this: i was having more fun when i only had one synth (oberheim 1000), a drum machine (yamaha ry30), a sequencer (yamaha qy20) and a mixer. i played some live sets that i'm still pretty proud way back when. sometimes it's good to limit yourself, because then you come up with techniques to break those limits that are ultimately musically interesting. with a computer it's too easy to be all "well, i'll just get this plugin or download this new software and it'll do that for me."

take it from someone who's been a gearwhore for nearly ten years -- in the end, the machines don't make the music for you.
posted by fishfucker at 11:42 AM on December 4, 2004

Rundgren did his latest record mostly on Reason. That doesn't mean you could make that record.
posted by kindall at 11:56 AM on December 4, 2004

I've been using Reason for over 3 years and have recorded 30+ tracks with it. I love it because it takes away a lot of the hassles of setting up and configuring - you just play away, experimenting with sounds. Some of my all-time favourite tracks have been made by Reason. However, as pointed out, this also causes the problem of people recording a track very easily - suddenly the internet is full of mp3s by amateurs who spent an hour layering 4 tracks of 4-bar long samples and calling it an "original song".
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:35 PM on December 4, 2004

I agree with most of the comments here, but Skallas - Are you kidding? Hard work is what allows naturally gifted artists to become creators of great art. Some people really are more innately talented than others. That goes for music, literature, medicine, sports, computer programming, and (as far as I can tell) every area of human endeavour.

At least 99.999% of the human population, were they to dedicate their entire lives to the effort, would never be as good a composer as Mozart was at twenty-six years old.

And if Mozart had Reason at his disposal, it is not even clear to me that his music would have changed that much. Most gifted composers use the tools available to express what is in their heads.
posted by mzurer at 5:57 PM on December 4, 2004

There are more word processors, more 'simple' composition programs, more simple editing programs...cheaper than in all time of human history.

And there's 100x more crap and very few new hemingways, beethovens or kubricks.
posted by filmgeek at 6:42 PM on December 4, 2004