Creativity vs Technology

[Blue JC]

Do we succeed as modern musicians and keyboard players because we embrace complex technological systems and still be creative or because we can be creative in spite of complex technological systems?

 

The story:

 

I was playing a gig with my 8-piece horn band, the first set absolutely smoked and we were just beginning the second set with the same energy - until the FOH mains went down and brought everything to a screeching halt.

 

We quickly determined that we had blown the mains amp. We had a spare amp in the truck but it was not powerful enough to run the mains so we had to divert the monitor amp to the mains and the spare amp to the monitors and take the blown amp offline.

 

Everyone pitched in to help and dug into their gig bags for connectors to switch out these 3 amps and jury rig the system to get through the night.

 

My singer came over on the break and said "that really shook up the guys - everything sounded different when we started playing again." I replied without thinking that we had switched from creative mode to problem-solving mode - as a group - and needed to switch back before the next set. She just nodded and said you boys work it out.

 

I've never been a big believer in the bilateral brain (right brain creative - left brain logic) theory but I also can't deny what happened either.

 

I've been thinking a lot about this seemingly equal fascination we have with keyboard operating systems and reharmonizing the Great American Songbook. Is it one, or the other, or measures of both that make it work for you?

[iLaw]

... I've never been a big believer in the bilateral brain (right brain creative - left brain logic) theory but I also can't deny what happened either....

 

I agree. Nothing worth doing is all one or the other. There's creativity in mathematics and logic in your best improvisation.

 

Larry.

[timwat]

Art is bigger than just one set of problems to solve.

 

The easiest solution to all the challenges, questions and problems (what's the best digital piano? how do I configure my laptop? what portable PA speaker do I buy? Do I even need it if I use IEMs?) is unacceptable - because the easiest solution is to stop making music. Just walk away.

 

But we make music because we want to say something with our art. It's nice if money's involved, but we'd still make music if it wasn't.

 

What we want to try and say varies from musician to musician. And therefore the technological means we choose to explore differs from musician to musician. The means we choose come with inherent unknowns and difficulties - technical problems to solve.

 

To bring the pontification to a screeching halt, what I like about dialogue with other musicians (unlike audiophiles, of which I formerly was one too) is that we seldom lose sight of the goal. No one wants to buy their favorite digital piano just to impress other forum members (giving the benefit of the doubt to a few posters). But many audiophile gearheads don't give a rip about music as an end in itself, only as a means to accumulate and display technology.

 

We want answers and opinions and solutions so we can make our music. So my response to the OP's Q is that technology is the handmaiden of creativity.

 

 

 

[ProfD]

Excellent question JC.

 

My belief is that we succeed as musicians because we can be creative in spite of complex technological situations.

 

There are many 'successful' musicians who merely use technology as another tool.

 

Surely, many of us go a step further, embracing it in conjunction with our creative muse.

 

Still, when the power goes out, the gift enables us to make a statement musically. It just might sound different.

[spotty]

I remember a violin concerto being performed a while back and right in the middle the soloist breaks a string. The first violin lends her her instrument to keep the show rolling.

 

Instruments are technology whether there a set of pan pipes or a $10000 Korg wammy thingy.

 

No?

[cnegrad]

My belief is that we succeed as musicians because we can be creative in spite of complex technological situations.

 

There are many 'successful' musicians who merely use technology as another tool.

 

Surely, many of us go a step further, embracing it in conjunction with our creative muse.

 

As examples of this, Michael Brecker & Joe Zawinul immediately come to mind.

[arneyz]

I don't know about this. New technology certainly gives you more sounds and and styles to be creative with but I still try to stay away. Whenever I sit down and try to write something on a fancy synthesizer with a gazillion patches and arpeggiators and filters and wave forms I just get distracted with making cool sounds and don't get anything done musically. I guess this is just another form of creativity through experimentation but I, personally, can't get anything done like that. Thats why I stick to simpler older technology.

[delirium]

because of the technology many think they can play...

 

 

[Dave Horne]

because of the technology many think they can play...

 

Aint't that the truth. It still gets down to electricity or no electricity to separate the men from the boys.

[raddtunes]

Cool topic - -

 

It seems that advances in musical instrument technology have always, among other things, inspired fresh, new, creative music.

 

What's different now is that the technology is so advanced that people are able to:

 

1. Play / write / create music without, perhaps, undergoing much of the practicing and training that musicians have had to undergo for hundreds of years. (This makes people who have practiced and trained - like me - - jealous. Period.)

2. APPEAR or SEEM to be playing/writing/creating music without this training.

3. CREATE or SEEM to be creating music that is not AT ALL their own composition or idea.

 

This is also occuring during a time when there are vastly fewer "galleries" for our art. Music exists in time, and our lives in this era provide less time for music. Consequently,

so much music we hear is much simpler and repetitive. Requiring less time to digest. It's as if a composer today came up with the opening riff of Beetoven's 5th symphony, all he'd have to do is repeat the thing for three minutes. No need for all that drama, development, and beauty that Beethoven took time to create.

 

The last thing that I feel is happening in a big way is that music is almost entirely now a "graphic art" instead of a pure art - - - always there, a part of our life, enhancing or decorating some experience, but less and less music for its own sake.

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

 

 

[bloodyMary]

I enjoy encorporating the technology into music production. The technology is enjoyable by itself for me - if I'd be just a sound tech, not making any music, it'd be fun too.

 

I don't think that having powerful electronic toys distracts me from making music - I don't waste my time browsing through patches when writing - use just the GM set within my sequencer. Also, I don't use arpeggiators/KARMA/loops to create music - my workflow is coming up with an idea on piano, then powering up the laptop with midi keyboard attached, and transferring the idea into MIDI sequence. After I'm done composing, I start to look for right patches for the parts in my main axe - the Korg.

 

 

Bottom line - I sure can write/perform without help of technology - I just need some kind of keyboard to play on, and a tool to write down ideas.

 

 

Lately I've been enjoying jamming with my friends, playing just the piano (well, digital, but only the piano patch). I find it liberating not having to think about splits/layers, frequency response, equalizers, setting up mixes, etc. Just me and the keys to press.

 

 

But I still like my advanced workstation, which enables me to create compex sound palette - use multiple sound in one song, even simultaneously.

 

 

 

I guess you can say that the only technology I rely on is MIDI multitimbrality, and sequencing.

 

 

 

 

raddtunes, I sure agree that nowdays there are a lot of 'musicians' who rely on technology so much they're worthless without it - many people create music by just combining loops, and are better familiar with Cubase then with any musical instrument. It's awful. Or there are these guitarists who can play only with distortion, because they sound like crap without it (usually they sound like crap even when distortion IS present).

 

 

 

 

Dave Horne, you said it right. IMHO, one can be called a musician only if he can somehow entertain people (musically) with simplest tools - guitar, piano, trumpet, basic drumset, etc.

[tarkus]

I saw a guy entertain a whole crowd with a dijereedoo and an antler...

 

 

[ITGITC]

In a discussion not too long ago we debated whether to continuously leave your computer running. I thought it best to try to save energy and turn it off when you're not using it.

 

However, regarding creativity vs. technology, I may need to rethink my stance on this issue.

 

From a cold start it takes a bit of time to get ready to record. You need to boot the computer, start the application, load any helper apps, connect and test the hardware, get your monitor levels right, etc.

 

By the time you're ready to record, you've lost the will.

 

Another problem I've found is that when you're in the middle of recording and a tech problem arises. For some reason, the problem seems magnified. Not only must you figure out the solution, but the problem has interrupted your inertia to be creative.

 

Solution? One of my needs is to thoroughly know and understand the software. But have you ever tried to take a software manual on a plane, for instance, to digest and comprehend what's going on back home on your computer? It can be pretty frustrating. You really need to be sitting in front of your workstation with the manual in order for it all to come together.

 

But when you DO have that little slice of time, if you're like me, you just want to be making music - NOT futzing with the learning curve.

 

 

AAAAAArrrrrrggggggghhhhhhh.

 

 

[MusicWorkz]

(Music) technology is meaningless without the creativity to exploit it and our creativity is oft times inspired by the technology that is used. While measures of both work for me, creativity is still at the foundation. It isnt (or shouldnt be) solely dependent on technological availability for me to be such.

 

Ideally, creativity will remain with or without technology and that is the place we should always be grounded instead of becoming a slave to the technology. And it Is okay to acknowledge there are moments when one impacts the other, and sometimes it is negative.

 

The challenge, when that does happen, then becomes our ability to be able to switch from creative to logical and back, and even have them co-exist at the same time. Some people never seem to master it; others thrive in it.

 

The trick I try to use when I am in that flux between being creative and tackling a problem (i.e. using the left vs. right brain) is to make a conscious effort to detach and focus at the task at hand and then re-engage myself in one process or the other. Especially in performance situations, we cant allow setbacks to shake us out of our zone-we have to adapt and move on, literally at times without skipping a beat.

 

That takes work and conscious effort to be focused on what you are doing, and that itself is part of the creative process to me.

 

[Blue JC]

Cool topic - - The last thing that I feel is happening in a big way is that music is almost entirely now a "graphic art" instead of a pure art - - - always there, a part of our life, enhancing or decorating some experience, but less and less music for its own sake. Your thoughts?

 

In many ways, I think that is the inevitable result of broadcast media. Music became so much more accessible with radio and commercial music took on a whole new meaning.

 

Constant background music is now so pervasive, I need to actively seek out silence after the gig instead of just being able to assume there would be silence once we stopped playing.

 

I absolutely hate tearing down my gear after a gig with loud obnoxious music playing. Sometimes, it's even disorienting to the point where I have to go outside, have a smoke and collect my self before I finish.

 

 

[Blue JC]

The challenge, when that does happen, then becomes our ability to be able to switch from creative to logical and back, and even have them co-exist at the same time. Some people never seem to master it; others thrive in it.

 

The trick I try to use when I am in that flux between being creative and tackling a problem (i.e. using the left vs. right brain) is to make a conscious effort to detach and focus at the task at hand and then re-engage myself in one process or the other. Especially in performance situations, we cant allow setbacks to shake us out of our zone-we have to adapt and move on, literally at times without skipping a beat.

 

That takes work and conscious effort to be focused on what you are doing, and that itself is part of the creative process to me.

 

You're a lucky man if you are able to switch between the two so easily and stay focused on the many simultaneous tasks at hand. When I do both, one usually suffers and, unfortunately, it is usually the creative.

[MusicWorkz]

You're a lucky man if you are able to switch between the two so easily and stay focused on the many simultaneous tasks at hand. When I do both, one usually suffers and, unfortunately, it is usually the creative.

 

I have to be able to switch modes and it isn't always "easy", but I think there are alot of folks that can, especially around this place. Much of it is circumstantial that gives me the ability to apply it elsewhere since I have to function that way by virtue of my professional pursuits (Engineer by day, musician by night).

[meccajay]

Do we succeed as modern musicians and keyboard players because we embrace complex technological systems and still be creative or because we can be creative in spite of complex technological systems?

 

The story:

 

My singer came over on the break and said "that really shook up the guys - everything sounded different when we started playing again."

 

One of the worst nights of my life as a musician was the night I sat in on bass with a band I was doing sound for.. I'm a drummer but always wanted to "get some stage" on bass, as the saying goes. The band had done this hip-hop medly, where folks were stepping into other roles, drummer is rapping, bass player on drums etc.. and they needed me to step in on bass, which served my purpose as well. Great! Except that it wasn't. I'd put our light guy on the faders, strapped on the bass which was already tuned, and did the medley..I never felt into it at all. In fact, I felt out of it and couldn't wait to get offstage. Anyways, I chalked it up to playing bass live for the 1st time, and being used to being behind the drums onstage. I didn't play badly, it just felt painful, not fun. The mix fromn the board that night was excellent btw.

 

Months later, same scenerio. Except the band asks me to play drums. I rehearse both at home and with the band, and I'm determined that I won't screw it up as I've been a drummer all my life. rehearsals go well, and at the show I'm so focused on my playing that I play a perfect medley. I go back to the sound board, and I can't maintain any vocal levels to save my life! Mikes are feedbacking, the singers are asking for monitor...during the songs! Worst night of my life as a soundman!! So bad I couldn't get back on the bike.. I didn't take sound gigs for more than a year after that night. And when I did, it was after working with another sound crew as an assistant. Another year before I felt I'd "relearned" my craft and trusted myself enough. I know it sounds absolutely crazy that one night would do that to a person, but nothing ever happened like that before.

 

So for me anyway, the technology-brain and the creative-brain mix like oil & water!

[gliderproarc]

...By the time you're ready to record, you've lost the will.

Thats how my recording starts, but then once I start recording something I'll get inspired and start to record some more.

Other times I'll have an idea I want to record before I start. Once I get that initial idea down, I usually let it sit for a few days, then re visit it. Thats when I'll start to elaborate it out into a full fledged song.

 

I guess because I've grown up with all of this technology around me, that it just doesn't bother me a much. When I get into making music, taking a few minuets to program a synth patch doesn't jar me out of a creative mood.

 

Technology inspires me to be creative, and being creative motivates me to make use of technology.

 

...now this is when the technology is behaving it's self. I've recently gone through an episode of Logic 8 choking on simple stuff and rendering it extremely hard to use. That was definitely not inspiring my creativity.

[SK]

Great topic.

 

The value of 'creativity vs. technology' is a question many musicians need to ask themselves. Overall, technology has both helped and hurt the musician in many ways, but it's no substitute for creativity.

 

Musicians need to find their individual creativity, and use technology as the tool it is, to that end.

 

About gear... you can find a voice in new gear and different sounds, but it still has to be 'your' voice, since anyone with some money can buy the same product with the same sounds. (big 'DUH') Meaning, don't expect technology to replace the effort musicians need to make to become good players.

[spotty]

hmmmmm, thought provoking indeed.

Sometimes I find that when I discover a new patch or sound on a synth, it in itself inspires a new improvizational jam.

 

Someone said:

"Aint't that the truth. It still gets down to electricity or no electricity to separate the men from the boys."

 

I dunno if that is necessarily true and I don't agree with the connotations of it.

What if I said that the conductor of an orchestra really isn't showing any talent because the orchestra is doing all the playing. Isn't the orchestra just a sophisticated sound engine that the conductor or composer is using. Is that so different from sitting at a keyboard with a zillion sounds available?

Perhaps when it comes to sequencers and arpeggiators you could argue diminished playing skill at the synthesist, but composition and arrangement are part of 'playing' too, aren't they?