Thoughts

the rewards of music....

The learning of a musical instrument is a great metaphor to our shifting world. An instrument by its nature is difficult. You learn it through discipline, one small step after another, till one day, many years later, you feel comfortable holding it and skilled at playing; it but still, the nagging feeling that you know absolutely nothing about it persists.  A guitar, piano, the trumpet, the tabla, they're infinite in regards to mastery.

Now, as we shift from an analog world to a digital one in all aspects of life, we also change the relationships of process with regards to analog tools. Our traditional instruments are analog. Our most recent instruments however are software (and in fact, they don't have to represent an analog doppelgänger), and as is the nature of digital tools, constantly changing and updating. Although the base of said software might remain the same through the course of its development, it is in continual iterations. Software instrumentation is also non-linear, automated, capable of interacting with many inputs and outputs and sometimes capable of creating its own musicality with just a set of parameters without even being "played" (a theremin on binary steroids). Our analog instruments do not work in this capacity, for the most part.  

The other key difference is that often, the actual recording software (DAW) is the instrument. This mixes both the instrument(s), and the recording, in one space. This obvious insight might not seem important, but think it through. When I first picked up a guitar, I had no idea that one day I might learn how to record music. But, kids with an iphone or ipad start recording immediately. The instrument is just one piece of the recording puzzle. And we are now handed the recording capability first (without even asking for it in many cases), then the instrument.  This is a complete flip of process. This gives precedent to the making of music, as opposed to the playing of music. 

So, the process is different. Software is by it's nature, much easier to understand, and the brevity of it's learning curve makes proficiency come at a much swifter rate. People do not spend a decade learning a piece of software and then suddenly coming to an "aw haw", a moment of absolute clarity that happens periodically to players of analog instruments.  Mostly because software gives a much swifter response to hardship. With software, you are ready to go after browsing a manual, checking some tutorials, and chugging a huge cup of coffee blended. Of course it helps to have a musical background, but its not a necessity to get started. Sure it gets more difficult when you expand your range and tools, but, it wants you to learn it fast. Your muscle memory is never tested. 

This is a non-judgmental observation.  This is the reality. If you are a teenager thinking about music, a small investment (or, ripping) will get you started, almost immediately. In fact, an intro software is probably included on your phone or computer already for free.  In roughly two years, with some tenacity, talent and luck, you might have uploaded a song on Youtube or Soundcloud and have thousands of people hear it.  In the old world, two years on a guitar might not even be enough time to get you in front of 10 people at your local open mic'd coffee shop. Just look at the ultra youngster electronic producers who are making hit songs, all by themselves and in record time.  

Just like everything else in this new world; we are glued to our screens and creating everything inside a little box with a backlight.

those failing bullet points....

The mind and body work in mysterious ways in the "projects" realm.  One of the best pieces of advice I've ever gotten about life in the arts is that, "your story is never linear".  You cannot force your idea of plot unto the real thing.  And when you do, life is a constant and consistent burden, one that always fails to satisfy, along with falling short of these preexisting narratives.

 

Video Killed The Movie (at least for today)

Video is the new mainstream form.  I've been saying it for a few years now, but as it's producers have gotten more savvy with technology and techniques, they can mimic, but more importantly, innovative trends and styles in the visual medium at a hyper kinetic pace.  This is why individual music video directors are not as sought out as before.  Because, anybody with some visual map can do it.  And they are.  In droves.  You get the good and the bad, but, you get it all.  And fast.  And new, and fresh.  TV anyone?

That in lies the huge challenge for Hollywood and feature films in general (especially ones that really on novelty and gimmicks).  The human appetite for novelty knows no bounds.  And video quenches that thirst weekly, for 1/100th of the price.  Plus, for its consumers, hell, it's free.

That's why, in some weird essence, a movie like SPRING BREAKERS competes with RiFF RAFF and his once a week music videos (the man who I believe is the genesis of the film, even if it be subconscious).  RiFF RAFF has been around for a few years, doing videos which are in the same spirit of the feature film.  For people familiar with his work, the movie feels tedious and outdated.

Of course, I'm exaggerating to make some point.  But, we cannot turn a blind eye to this phenomenon.  It exists.  Just today, I watched a well made, action POV music video that is buzzing the net. Comments include, "best thing I've ever seen", or "hollywood can never touch this".  Of course, this happens almost weekly and is a by product of internet hyper hyperbole. And, once the surface of the video is scratched, the novelty wears off quick.  But, the savvy generation has seen it, internalized it and moved on.  

You can no doubt see that this is where the wellspring of ideas originate these days.  And, by the time Hollywood or some indie director rips it off and places the same scene in a larger context, it's already old news for the next generation.  They've seen it, experienced it, and moved on to about 20 other new things.  This generation doesn't place the same importance on scale as they did before.  In the game of originality, who done it first is as important as who done it better.

For feature films to keep a footing in its proper place, it must rely on it's core strengths, that of unique storytelling, expression and originality no matter how difficult. The rerun, sequel game is not a long term strategy.  If it is, ruin is almost guaranteed.  Once the nerds turn away because there favorite comic book video game is better than the movie, well, then what?  You don't think that's going to happen?  

Long form films must also adapt to a faster distribution strategy.  One that keeps it fresh in a market that changes faster than a blink of an eye. Certainly not an easy task.

The Rick Rubin Experiment

I visited one of Rick Rubin's original LA home studio's recently.  Full of ancient technology, beautiful rugs and a thickly, creeping atmosphere of legend-itis.

Amid the analog gear, there exists a tiny digital corner, consisting of a Power Mac, a small sequencer, midi keys, a couple pre-amps and a compressor.  About 1/20th the size of the analogue space.  

I don't know if Mr. Rubin still uses the place, but I do know someone else who does.  And he wouldn't have a clue how to fire up the old 1000+ button board.  Must have been manufactured in the UK, I'm guessing.  Neve?  Probably.  

No,  he doesn't touch the practically priceless gear.  Doesn't need to get "that sound" that people used to talk about all day.  But he does get to work.  Granted, he is sitting in an inspired place, but, he gets to work.  And with the tools that he's familiar with, to produce results quickly, so that it can feed the loop.  

What's my point?