An aspiration of mine for the past 5 or 6 years has been to someday make it out to Anaheim, California, for the Winter NAMM show (or the Summer one in Nashville, TN). This is a huge music industry expo, where companies showcase the latest inventions and innovations in music technology. Everything from aspiring new guitar manufacturers (with a few hands on luthiers thrown in the mix) to the latest DJ equipment can be seen here, as well as performances from rock n' roll legends and up-and-comings.
Unfortunately, once again, I didn't make it out to NAMM this year. That's not a surprise and I didn't expect to, but it's still unfortunate. However, after the expo, I always enjoy pictures and blogs from those who were fortunate enough to be there. Yesterday I read one such blog, Discmakers' Echoes. Their 3 part post on NAMM was rather interesting, yet also somewhat concerning.
In todays digital world, there is little innovation seen on traditional instruments. The guitar has essentially been the same for decades, pianos don't change much, nor do orchestral instruments. Sure, the electronic side of guitars has slowly progressed, pianos have turned into keyboards, and electronic drum sets are being improved every day, but the instruments are all played like the versions before them and still make comparable sounds.
Consequently, traditional instruments are not a part of the displays that turn the most heads. As I read through the Echoes posts, the items turning heads were things like the KITARA, reactable, and loads of iPad apps. I understand that digital music modulation through these means is the next big thing, but, to me, this also presents some problems.
Essentially what these things are doing is making it easier to make music. Making something that sounds "good" is taking increasingly less effort and skill. In this way, being a "musician" takes less and less effort. It used to be that being a musician was a full time career, often chosen for you by your family line. By no means do I think that music should be this exclusive, but I think a more clear line between musicians and non-musicians should be drawn. I've worked hard to get to where I am, am know a ton of other musicians who have done the same.
I don't mean to be stuck up about this, but I feel like this is a fairly valid point. The number of guitar knock offs, samplers that line everything up for you, and automatic music maker mechanisms are sorta like get-rich-quick schemes for people who don't want to take the time to learn anything about music. For a hobbyist, these make great toys. The problem is when non-musical people release sub-par computer-generated music that clutters the web, making it harder for real musicians to be discovered.
What does this mean for real musicians?
This means that real musicians have to work extra hard in order to have any new fans. Between blogging, facebook, twitter, and a real website, artists need to focus more and more on getting their name out in order to combat those non-musical music makers. Ultimately, though this does force artists closer to their fans, it also takes away from the time that artists have to spend on their music.
The main issue here is the artist's start-up. You do want to end up being close to your fans, but trying to get close to people while trying to put out enough music to keep people interested is a daunting task. All the while, most musicians have day jobs, further keeping them from being able to excel at what they're doing.
I'd love to hear some other peoples' thoughts on this. Don't get me wrong - I love that non-musical people are able to make music. I'm just opposed to sub-par music being written off as musical talent and, in the process, making it harder for musical musicians to make it.
-Alex
No comments:
Post a Comment