MikeRobinson

Music is a business. It takes money to produce those recordings, to manufacture those CDs (maybe), and to do everything else that is associated with the process. And, "this money has to come from somewhere." If this were not so, the only music you'd get to listen to was that of your "crazy uncle," whacking away on his guitar.

Entiendo lo que dices, pero no lo que preguntas. "I understand what you are saying, but not what you are asking."

Simply remember that "there is no 'I' in 'AI.'" We have no idea how to make a computer "intelligent." This marketing-driven term refers to a class of computer algorithms which are designed to be self-adaptive and self-tuning. They make heavy use of pattern-matching, and they seek to find useful patterns in [great masses of ...] data which might not be readily apparent to more-conventional approaches. And, in that limited respect, they are a very exciting development with great potential value. But the "Achilles Heel" of computer programming is definitely true for these: "Garbage In = Garbage Out." The algorithms can produce nonsense and they can even be intentionally "gamed." The outputs produced are entirely dependent on the data that is fed in – but it is not always possible to determine what the ultimate effect of "the data" will actually be. (Every [gigantic ...] tranche of "data" is also very much "a mixed bag.") The models might produce something that is very useful, or they might produce something that is worthless. (P.S.: "I'm a Geek.")

Also remember that this never happens: "Suddenly, the heavens open and a beam of light shines down from Heaven as the Angels are up there, singing to you the Perfect Song, so that all you have to do now is to record it [and retire]." Don't "keep starting over," because if you do, you won't "do" anything. Instead, keep every version of everything that you write, and don't be afraid to let someone else hear it. (Especially in a safe place like "right here.") But also, don't find yourself "craving 'affirmation.'" When a song sounds good to you, it is good. "Creativity is not deterministic." There is no "right answer." A song is never truly "finished." And a significant part of the process is – frankly – "trial and error." Or maybe just "trial." "Experimentation." The person who finally hears "the song that you decided to release" never hears, and probably never suspects, all of the stuff that you didn't decide to include. "To them, it simply sounds 'inevitable.'" The decision-making can't be seen ... and you probably should prefer it to be that way. (Just tell 'em that it's magic ...) But to this I would add one more thought: "don't 'discard' anything." What didn't work on this one might be perfect for the next one. Newspapers used to keep what they called "the morgue," where they kept the stuff that they didn't use. Because, every now and then, they'd go back to it and find exactly what they [now ...] needed.

Now, let me also interject this angle ... In most of the "grand old times" that we are still talking about, the only way to get your music out to the masses was to have it pressed onto a vinyl disc. Thousands of wannabe artists spent fruitless dollars with musical "vanity publishers" only to see their musical aspirations turn into dust. But also ... and I actually have a bit of family experience with this and still a few royalties ... even the "biggest stars" spoke of "flinging songs against the wall, to see which ones will stick." Many of the "big hits" were surprises. Plenty "better songs" pancaked. Today's music market is "crazily different." Suddenly, there are no technical obstacles.

Actually, it's very interesting to listen to the very different ways that these artists have re-approached their original works. Please look them up.

"Does anyone else spend more time faffing with guitars and vst amp settings than actually playing???" 😀 You said it yourself: "Just play!" Because the only thing that your audience actually hears is you ... not any group of metal strings nor any piece of wood. There definitely is such a thing in this world that is called "analysis paralysis." Where you spend so much time agonizing over "what is the 'right' thing to do" that you don't do anything at all. In music, at least, there is no "'right' thing." And, no way to know what "the 'right' thing" turned out to be, except in hindsight.

If there actually were a "formula" for "writing a hit song," (1) everybody would be a bezillionaire, and (2) nobody would be listening to [the radio], because there wouldn't be anything interesting to listen to. 😀 On the one hand, a "fairly mechanical" music-production industry is always looking for "fairly mechanical," very formulaic "hits" which [of course ...] don't actually last very long. These songs are their product, and they have developed a fairly consistent machine by which to produce them. "True creativity," on the other hand, is a very curious thing: you usually don't know that you have "an enduring hit" until you do. And, when you do, the craftsmanship of your invention is largely unappreciated.

That's an absolutely terrific! cover of this song! Very excellent music and video production.

What has always struck me about this video is that, when Rick plays the actual music of each piece, it sounds much better than the published recording. And, beyond that, he's basically right: "there's nothing there." As Lucy told Schroeder in the Peanuts comic strips: "Did you know that Beethoven now comes in spray cans?" Yeah. It used to be what broadcasters were the most afraid of: "Dead Air!" The "AutoTune Buzz" that Cher championed in "[Do You Believe In] Life After Love?" becomes the "new normal," and the entire sound is as though it was squeezed through a toothpaste tube. Each of these songs could have been so much more, if they had only taken the time and not resorted to an empty formula. I simply do not like to hear: "musical tropes!"

But you know, "being an artist" only goes so far. There's only so much "inspiration" that you can take from a millionaire who "made it" – from a person who doesn't even know that "David Bowie®" is a registered trademark. I think that you have to decide for yourself who you want to sing to, why you want to sing it, and why should they care. You should also strive to think about "what would be the highest-quality product to present to them," even if you realize that you don't yourself have everything that it takes to do that.

Reality: "Songs are written by a team, no matter who the actors(!) in the resulting song might be!" "A song" is "a work of fiction." It is not real. Bilbo Baggins never existed. Neither did Captain James T. Kirk. Nor the protagonists of "Black Velvet" nor "Fancy" nor "Does He Love You" nor "The Legend of Wooley Swamp" nor any of the rest of them. And you could probably never name the names of the "royalty collectors" who actually wrote any of them. Whether they be male or female, as the case may be. The fictional characters and scenarios who populate a particular song are chosen for the occasion. They have nothing to do with the creators, nor their physical genders. The actors are placed on the stage as the musical playwrights direct, and they sing their parts as they are told. In due time, a "song pitching" competition begins, as songwriters seek to convince artists to "play the parts" that they have written for them.

Not ready yet. Sorry.

Welcome, and good luck on your dissertation! However ... "what the (!) is ... 'negative harmony?'" Please give us a nice summary paragraph – or two or three or six – which carefully presents to the rest of us what you have spent so many months of your life focusing upon. First, tell us what the subject-matter is. Then, "in layman's terms," introduce your thesis. Next, tell us exactly what input you are looking for. Finally, present your survey. Only then(!) can you reasonably expect your "survey results" to be meaningful and therefore useful to you. You can't simply "throw a baseball to us" and expect us to ... well, anything at all, except to say "ouch!"

I'd definitely chime in here that the notion of "mastering" – which certainly exists today – has altogether to do with concerns of final delivery. For instance: "XM radio?" "Earbuds?" "MP3?" "AIFF?" "Vinyl, when it actually mattered whether your song was the 'outermost' or the 'innermost' track on a stamped LP because of the physical speed differences caused by the disk's diameter?" You might have had this experience yourself when you submitted your song to [any ...] public repository or streaming service – (hopefully, "privately" at first) – and then listened to what "their algorithms" had done to it. Most of these algorithms have to do with compression. They want to make the file as small as possible. They want to conserve satellite bandwidth. A very informative first step – if you can stand to do it – is to download "the resulting file" into your DAW as a new audio file. Now, use the various analytical tools (histograms, waveforms and so forth) to analyze your original submitted project against "how they butchered it." You will for example immediately see that "your beautiful waveforms" just went to boot camp and got a buzz haircut.

Sounds like a very interesting introduction, so I'll just "have a go." A "lyric" is a completely functional genre of "poetry" which will only be heard in the context of the song of which it is a part, but also with its rhythm. (And, "as 'the song' might be," that "rhythm" might well be "irregular.") Thus, the "lyric" is "an inseparable part of" "the song." A "lyric" is also remarkably short! So, to my way of thinking, even though most "lyrics" are "poetic," a functional "lyric" actually isn't "a poem." "A poem," if you will, "doesn't have a job to do." It doesn't have "mechanical constraints." It is free to "pause at a junction on a snowy evening" entirely on its own terms. Whereas, a "lyric," although customarily "poetic" in nature, does have a very definite "purpose," and is very rigidly constrained to fulfill that purpose. You could never take Robert Frost's immortal words and "just by snapping your fingers, 'set them to music.'" You would necessarily have to re-work them, and I'm fairly sure that you would not like the result. You simply cannot "read a lyric" on the Internet without also "humming the song." Without the song, lyrics often make very little sense.

To my way of thinking, articles like this are just "begging the question." (This logical fallacy is classically demonstrated by: "Have you stopped beating your wife?") By asking the loaded question, "why do we stop 'X'," they implicitly assert that we had done 'X.' Even though I am now – (koff, koff ...) – "a little bit older than I used to be," I have never grown tired of music. And, I have never stopped listening, especially, to the "indy artists." It is, in fact, extremely exciting to me to hear what artists can do, now that production technology which used to be "utterly inaccessible" is now available to everyone. (Including me. Heh.) Some of the music, of course, to my ears is "boring and repetitive." But hey, what's new about that?

And, even though this lyric (fairly typical for the era ...) was "crazy erotic (not in the sexual sense)," it very certainly was not "a trope." So, maybe it remains as a demonstration of "what still can be done with music."

Hmmm ...

To add to this ... Two of the most-thumbed paperbacks on my bookshelf concern the original Star Trek television series, and the travails of a screenwriter (David Gerrold: The Trouble With Tribbles) who sold his first television screenplay to them. You all know that the "Starship Enterprise, commanded by Captain Kirk [originally: "Christopher Pike"], First Officer Spock, and so on, was on a five-year mission for the United Federation of Planets ... and that at one point they encountered tribbles." But what you probably did not know is that every one of these things was concocted by the device of "hammering out words, one after another, without stopping, on a manual typewriter." Then, choosing from all those crazy disorganized lines. While at first glance this might have nothing to do with "an academic thesis topic," maybe the notion actually has merit. Maybe.

"The digital computer is: my tool." To the extent that the computer can enable me to make music faster, I'm all for it ... but I do not promise to do what "Band in a Box" actually offers me. One thing that I firmly believe, and have said here before, is that: "Creativity is not Deterministic." Instead, "it is a Process." And you never quite know where you will wind up at the very end of it, although "having done it a few hundred times" probably helps. The process, which consists of countless judgments and decisions, is never visible in "the final result." If you simply look at the final result by itself, it looks just like "Venus popping up out of that magical clam-shell ... fully-formed and (by the way) perfectly starkers." 🤩 It looks and feels like magic, as though "there was nothing to it." No editors. No collaborators. No rewrites. No committee meetings. Easy peasy. But instead, let me point you to Michelangelo's David and point out four things that you do not see: Any number of marble blocks which had to be rejected – "start over" – due to an unforeseen flaw. Or, any changes that might have been made "on the fly" to compensate for "surprise!" defects in the block that was used. The slightest hint of a chisel mark on the perfectly smooth surface. Any marble chips on the floor. Anywhere. Any hint of the work of many skilled craftsmen who played their crucial part in "Michelangelo's" success. He didn't do it alone. You don't see any of that. And, the artists like it that way. You said you wanted it to be "magic," didn't you?

Priceless. And, maybe just a glimpse into how these "classic Christmas songs" were actually composed – often, first for film. They really did know "all that stuff."

Wow ... "cinema and music." If these are two of your favorite things, then it should be fairly effortless to come up with a good thesis topic – but I don't think that an internet forum is the best place to start your search. Instead of looking for someone else's work, I suggest that you begin by brainstorming the idea. One crazy-sounding (except that it isn't crazy) is to open up a word-processor document and literally just start hammering out thesis-statement ideas: one sentence each. Don't think about what you're writing and don't let up for at least twenty minutes. Let one "crazy idea" flow freely into the next one. Then, go back and look over what you have just written. Can you highlight five that you might be able to "become fairly married-to over the next several weeks?" Also: work very closely with your professor. Bounce your ideas off him or her. Ask him or her for guidance, and then: listen closely. Part of the exercise of "writing an open-ended thesis" is to decide what you want to write it about! "No, it wasn't music," but I had a similar encounter in my college days: I had to write a thesis on "applications of computer science in the 16th century." And, believe it or not, with quite-a-bit of help I came up with a very good idea and did it. But my professor – while he never actually suggested the idea – did give me a lot of very careful "nudging." It was actually a fun thing to research ... this long, long before "the Internet days" ... and then to write. (Yes, I used a word processor in those days instead of a typewriter, but just barely.)

If everyone on this planet takes a sudden liking to eating oatmeal – and nothing else – then the AI people should have very smooth sailing ahead of them. Otherwise, "not so much." Otherwise, I am reminded of an early attempt to create a "Russian-to-English translator." The input text was: "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." After going there and back again, what came out was: "The drink is acceptable but the meat has spoiled." Hmmm .... So much for probably millions of dollars' worth of 1970's-era secret military research money.

Interesting ideas. Personally, I think that the most-overlooked part of songwriting is: storytelling. A really strong lyric begins with a powerful story sung by a powerful protagonist (or antagonist) character. The song Fancy, as sung by the one-and-only Reba McEntyre, is a prime example. She can sing a complex story of her life through several verses, then put the cap on with this: "I may have been born 'just plain white trash,' but Fancy was my name!" Boom. Reba knocked the song right out of the park and you never found the baseball. But, she was the "voice actress." Fancy hit the ball.