Great advice for anyone doing/making music.

[noisewreck]

In this thread I was bemoaning about what's wrong with the current DAW generation but then comes this on the same site, to redeam it. Great advice for anyone learning to make music, record, mix, etc. Of course if you listen to Hipnotic's music, you'll hear how lovingly it is crafted. He certainly puts his money where his mouth is.

 

[loquat]

I don't get it. I thought the first forum post was great. Not knowing the key you're playing in is still wrong. I don't care what genre of electronic music you're in.

 

[gecko zzed]

In this thread I was bemoaning about what's wrong with the current DAW generation but then comes this on the same site, to redeam it. Great advice for anyone learning to make music, record, mix, etc. Of course if you listen to Hipnotic's music, you'll hear how lovingly it is crafted. He certainly puts his money where his mouth is.

I agree . . . he gives sound advice. It's well worth a read!

 

[kcearl]

+1 good read....


stuff the key..I did 5 years piano and music theory..I forget but..eh...I don't forget

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

This guy basically says "it's all in the ears" and just like every other part of the body, ears need practice and experience. Not exactly earth-shattering news, but spot-on truth that is hard to over-emphasize. He also explains pretty well why some of us don't do the MP3 clinic.

The basic truth that many folks know and believe, but are afraid to come out and downright directly say is, not everyone can or should be doing this stuff. This racket is not a democracy - even as a hobby; not everyone "has game", and most never will.

If you have to ask someone else what something "should" sound like, or if you can't tell on your own whether something sounds the way you think it should, or if you don't know yourself going into the project how you thing something "should" sound or how you want it to sound, you're probably in the wrong pursuit if you're trying to record or produce music, even on an amateur/hobby level.

As far as the whole "what key" thing, is it 100% absolutely necessary? No, not if you have the skillz to make up for that deficiency. There is an underground railroad car full of successful first-generation blues guitarists that don't know from key. But in this day and age, there's very little excuse why anyone who play the instrument shouldn't know something that basic; and I can almost guarantee you that those blues guys' kids know the keys and that their fathers insisted they learn that.

We live in a culture now here everything is measured by whether it's wrong or not. If it's legal, it's OK. We should be going by a higher standard; "is it right?" It may not be "wrong" to mix in mastering, but there's not a whole lot "right" about it. It may not be "wrong" to act like an asshole while hiding behind an anonymous Internet ID, but there noting really "right" about it. And, it may not be "wrong" to not know what key you're playing in, but ask yourself, is it really "right?"

G.

 

[noisewreck]

I agree with you to some extent that knowing the technical terms might not be all that necessary to come up with harmonious, "pleasant" and "in tune" sounding stuff. However, knowing about tonal relationships and some knowledge of even basic harmony opens up a much wider palette of compositional techniques that make it easier to create music and help one avoid wasting time with a lot of "trial and error"...

Not only that. Part of the reason why I find a lot of current music, and especially a lot of electronic music boring to listen to, it's not just the overly repetitive nature of it, but also the lack of interesting key modulations, chordal relationships, etc. Let's leave Jazz out of it for now, in that regard jazz is much closer to classical music. I am talking about your average pop and dancefloor stuff. A lot of it simply revolves around maybe two or three chords, and pretty much stays in the same key througout the tune/song. It may work on the dance floor, where a simple 4/4 boom boom boom boom will work. However take that tune out of the dance floor and listen to it in the car, especially while sober, it loses its effectiveness and becomes irritating real quick.

It is possible that this came about due to things such as analog sequencers, Roland's TB-303 and later one with digital patern based sequencers that ended up defining and influencing a lot of the late 20th century electronic music which in turn has influenced a lot of "girly-pop"

I hope that at one point we will come back full circle and start exploring complex tonal modulations and migrations as was seen towards the end of the 19th century/beginning of 20th century with the likes of Wagner, Stravinski, Richard Strauss, Bartok and the like with a decidedly 21st century flare and sounds. For this, knowing harmony is important in expanding ones musical vocabulary.

 

[miroslav]

If you have to ask someone else what something "should" sound like, or if you can't tell on your own whether something sounds the way you think it should, or if you don't know yourself going into the project how you thing something "should" sound or how you want it to sound, you're probably in the wrong pursuit if you're trying to record or produce music, even on an amateur/hobby level.

I agree.

You don't and probably won't know every little intricate detail of recording processes, techniques, production, songwriting...etc...but there are some fundamental basics that once must acquire (through time, practice, education) before getting to any serious recording.

I still cringe at the posts (and rather large number of posts) where guys are asking some real *beginner* questions while apparently already in the middle of "serious" recording projects.
"I gotta band coming in today in *my studio* to record a CD...and I'm not really sure what kind of mic I should use for drum OH? For a heavy guitar sound, should I mic up-close or further away? Can I EQ the vocals going in? Should I compress everything going in?"

...etc...etc...etc.



I know everyone has to learn, has to start somewhere...but IMO...DAWs put way too much "power" into the hands of beginners, and of course, many of them dive right in thinking that it's the DAW that does the recording/mixing/mastering.
It's like getting a fighter jet to learn how to fly!

This is why I've said that learning with limited, basic gear is a better place to start, and I think my early 4-track tape days were instrumental in getting some decent foundation, and plus, when you make mistakes with limited setups, you kinda have to follow more specific paths to correct them...with a DAW, you can really get lost quick if you never did any recording before!
” Help…I can’t get the vocal track to sound right. I’ve added several comp/EQ plugs…but it still sound thin and hollow, and I have to get this mixed and mastered for the band today!!!”

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

A lot of it simply revolves around maybe two or three chords, and pretty much stays in the same key througout the tune/song. It may work on the dance floor, where a simple 4/4 boom boom boom boom will work. However take that tune out of the dance floor and listen to it in the car, especially while sober, it loses its effectiveness and becomes irritating real quick.
...
It is possible that this came about due to things such as analog sequencers, Roland's TB-303 and later one with digital patern based sequencers that ended up defining and influencing a lot of the late 20th century electronic music which in turn has influenced a lot of "girly-pop"

I think it goes back a lot further than that; let's not forget the roots of this stuff stems from often little more than basic I IV V progressions or simpler. But as Elvis Costello once said (paraphrased): "Considering we often have only three chords and twelve bars to work with, I think we've done a pretty damn good job of it."

People like BB King - who's pretty much a one trick pony musically, let's face it - can move mountains with that one trick. Lonnie Brooks couldn't even spell "Chicago" on the post card I had him sign as a gift for a friend of mine, let alone name the key he was playing any given song in, but man, head down to see him at the Kingston Mines could he play and sing and you could listen to him all night!

I don't disagree with your main premise; the more one listens to music, the more one gets bored with the same ol'-same ol'. As I have observed in my friends who are true musicians, this can be even truer as a player than it can be as a listener. But a couple of (IMHO) important caveats:

First, we started this about by talking about knowing what key one is playing in. There *are* musicians with the ear and the upbringing and knowledge style where they couldn't tell you the key, but they could hear it and know what to do to play along with it and improvise around it, and get your blood pumping while doing so. But in most (not all) cases they'll tell you that they would like to know more, and probably would not ask you to use them as an excuse for not learning what you can for anything more than just jamming on the stoop with your buddies and a jug of corn mash.

I don't advocate avoiding learning the names of the keys, especially if you want to work in the studio. When the producer says, "I think this would work better in A", it sure would help to know what he's talking about, especially if you're tracking to a rhythm track only and don't have the rest of the band to use as an aural crutch.

I'm not saying that everyone *has* to become a PHD in music theory (though that would be way cool! ), but knowing the keys by name and learning more than one way to play any given chord would (IMHO) be pretty basic stuff anybody should - and should be able to - learn, the blues greats notwithstanding.

I still cringe at the posts (and rather large number of posts) where guys are asking some real *beginner* questions while apparently already in the middle of "serious" recording projects.
"I gotta band coming in today in *my studio* to record a CD...and I'm not really sure what kind of mic I should use for drum OH? For a heavy guitar sound, should I mic up-close or further away? Can I EQ the vocals going in? Should I compress everything going in?"

Yeah, honestly you gotta wonder who's the more foolish: the guy for taking on a task he's not yet ready for and in over his head before it even starts, or the band for selecting this guy to do it for them to begin with.

I've said it a thousand times, now I'll say it for the 1,001st time: I simply just don't understand why everybody is so impatient and in such a hurry to hit the record button these days. Is there an asteroid coming to hit the earth next week and I just didn't get the memo?

Recording your music should be an *event*, not a throw-away commodity. Like getting your portrait done or getting to home plate with Suzy the first time . You prepare for it and *do it right when the time is right*.

G.

 

[noisewreck]

First, we started this about by talking about knowing what key one is playing in. There *are* musicians with the ear and the upbringing and knowledge style where they couldn't tell you the key, but they could hear it and know what to do to play along with it and improvise around it, and get your blood pumping while doing so.

I think we are talking about slighly different things. I agree with you that a player with a reasonably good ear can play "in key" with whatever music he's playing along with. Heck, my youngest uncle who likes to play the piano at amature level (very well I might add) and doesn't read music at all, plays a lot of popular tunes by ear and most of the time he has no idea what key he is in.

However, in the original post I was referring to, the wording is slightly different. He is talking about knowing the key one is "working in". I also want to stress that it is not a performance oriented board, but rather a music creation/composition/recording oriented board, where people create their own music, meaning they have to actually compose the thing.

And my argument is that at the compositional level, it is definitely far more important to have a good grasp of harmony, if for nothing else, for at least having a good vocabulary to draw from when writing a tune.

Sure, we have your basic I IV V progression at the root of most musical phrases. However, there is no reason to stay in the same key throughout the whole thing. Furthermore, there is no reason why you can't be in two different keys at the same time, while still keeping things sounding quite harmonious. In this regard, out of all modern genres, the only standout is jazz, and maybe to some extend some of metal.

I remember I was analyzing Brahms' Clarinet Sonata in E-flat Major back in my first year of college, and was surprised how seamlessly he had managed to move from E-flat major to C# minor throughout the first movement through some quite interesting harmonic shifts and modulatons.

I suppose in my own way I am bemoaning the loss of certain richness of vocabulary in the art of music composition as many of you bemoan the loss of certain richness of vocabulary in the art of music recording/mixing/production.

 

[noisewreck]

This is why I've said that learning with limited, basic gear is a better place to start, and I think my early 4-track tape days were instrumental in getting some decent foundation, and plus, when you make mistakes with limited setups, you kinda have to follow more specific paths to correct them...with a DAW, you can really get lost quick if you never did any recording before!
” Help…I can’t get the vocal track to sound right. I’ve added several comp/EQ plugs…but it still sound thin and hollow, and I have to get this mixed and mastered for the band today!!!”

Yes. I constantly have to remind myself to K.I.S.S.

 

[miroslav]

Recording your music should be an *event*, not a throw-away commodity.

While I know that people often have to record by the clock in a commercial studio...for my own work, I move like a snail.

It's not that I'm not sure about what I want to do...rather it's that I like to savor the process and contemplate the details.

 

[Seafroggys]

or getting to home plate with Suzy the first time . You prepare for it and *do it right when the time is right*.

this is my new favorite quote. Thank you!

A lot of times recording is great not for generating presentable works of art, but for self-evaluation. Of course, you just need a Sound Blaster and a radio shack mic and you can tell how good you're playing. Recordings never lie, and they're great teaching tools. In that case, it is good to record relatively often, just to gauge your progression and analyze your weak points.

 

[noisewreck]

this is my new favorite quote. Thank you!

A lot of times recording is great not for generating presentable works of art, but for self-evaluation. Of course, you just need a Sound Blaster and a radio shack mic and you can tell how good you're playing. Recordings never lie, and they're great teaching tools. In that case, it is good to record relatively often, just to gauge your progression and analyze your weak points.

Great point. I have definitely done this while practicing piano, to identify issues with a performance and to hear how others would hear it when I play. It's a valuable teaching/practicing tool.

 

[gecko zzed]

When people come in to record, I warn them of what I think are the two big obstacles to getting a good recording: they will not hear what they should be hearing, and they will hear what they don't need to hear.

The first part - "they will not hear what they should be hearing" - summarises pretty well what Hipnotic was saying when he discussed the fallibility of the human brain. Whether it's the excitement of the moment, the desire to get things done, or our lack of listening sophistication, it is easy for our brain to supply the wish fulfilment and create a mental masterpiece from something that is flawed; an aural equivalent of rose-coloured glasses.

The second part - "they will hear what they don't need to hear" - happens when we focus our attention on details that have no material affect on the final product (such as spending hours trying to fix a 'mistake' whose presence will either not be noticeable in the final mix, or will not be perceived as a 'mistake' by the listening audience.

The consequence is that we can dwell on the second, wasting huge amounts of time on trivialities, in self-generated oblivion to the fact that the whole bass track is out of tune, or that there is a disturbing timing tension in the track.

I agree with Noisewreck's concern about the lack of musical sophistication in current music, which seems to have shrunk to the most basic elements needed to appeal to the masses. While there is nothing intrinsically 'wrong' about music that is simple, repetitive and unchallenging, a diet consisting of nothing but this seems impoverished to me.

I had someone come in to record once. He played keyboard, and 'wrote' his own material. 'Wrote' is in quotes, because he didn't write anything. He had no musical knowledge at all, and played keyboard on the basis of shapes, patterns and what, to him, sounded good. Everything was committed to memory. His songs and playing were quite accomplished and musically sophisticated. But I expect his musical future is limited: he couldn't join a band, for example, because he would be unable to describe what he was playing, nor would he be able to read a chart. He is a prisoner of his own musical form of autism

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I think we are talking about slighly different things. I agree with you that a player with a reasonably good ear can play "in key" with whatever music he's playing along with. Heck, my youngest uncle who likes to play the piano at amature level (very well I might add) and doesn't read music at all, plays a lot of popular tunes by ear and most of the time he has no idea what key he is in.

However, in the original post I was referring to, the wording is slightly different. He is talking about knowing the key one is "working in". I also want to stress that it is not a performance oriented board, but rather a music creation/composition/recording oriented board, where people create their own music, meaning they have to actually compose the thing.

Ah, OK, I did not realize the topic was talking about the song creation aspect of it. "Dogs on Acid" is not exactly a dead giveaway board title the way "Home Recording" is . In that case, then, I agree completely. My misunderstanding.

this is my new favorite quote. Thank you!

As long as Suzy appreciates it too,

A lot of times recording is great not for generating presentable works of art, but for self-evaluation. Of course, you just need a Sound Blaster and a radio shack mic and you can tell how good you're playing. Recordings never lie, and they're great teaching tools. In that case, it is good to record relatively often, just to gauge your progression and analyze your weak points.

Oh yeah, I agree with that completely. That's not what I hand in mind at all when I talked about the rush to record. Perhaps I may have better called it "rush to publish" or "rush to produce" or something like that. Recording for self-evaluation - which is a fine idea - is something I consider part of the band practice and not really an "official" (for lack of a better word offhand) recording session.

When people come in to record, I warn them of what I think are the two big obstacles to getting a good recording: they will not hear what they should be hearing, and they will hear what they don't need to hear.

I think you're saying something somewhat different than this, but I think it is related to the intersection between critical listening and entertainment listening. It can be tough to learn to develop both kinds of listening, even tougher to do both simultaneously, and toughest yet to tell when you hear something that tweaks your ear, which of those ears it's actually tweaking.

But many who come into the studio never get to that first step even. They still are stuck in an "ego listening" mode. The obvious symptom is the drummer claiming the drums are not loud enough and the guitar player complaining the guitar is not loud enough, but it shows up in more subtle ways too, which I think is a lot of them "hearing what they don't need to hear".

As far as the over-simplicity or not of today's music, I personally think that it's a bit a red-herring of a categorization breakdown for me, though it may not be for everyone. If a song gets under my skin, if it MOVES me, I don't give a rat's dropping whether its a two-chord pendulum in G or whether it's a savant masterpiece of music theory with unconventional transitions and modulations all over the place that still manages to hold symmetry in 17 dimensions. There are songs on both ends of the complexity spectrum that can make me cry tears of joy or put me into a coma-like sleep. There are millions of blues tunes that bore me to tears, and millions of musical masterpieces that, while I may intellectually appreciate and admire them, do nothing to actually make me want to listen to them a second time. And vice versa.

What bothers me more about the "similarity" of much of today's up-and-coming recording musicians is just how many of them - and how much they - are interested in sounding like someone else. Why would anyone purposely want to do that?

G.

 

[noisewreck]

As far as the over-simplicity or not of today's music, I personally think that it's a bit a red-herring of a categorization breakdown for me, though it may not be for everyone. If a song gets under my skin, if it MOVES me, I don't give a rat's dropping whether its a two-chord pendulum in G or whether it's a savant masterpiece of music theory with unconventional transitions and modulations all over the place that still manages to hold symmetry in 17 dimensions. There are songs on both ends of the complexity spectrum that can make me cry tears of joy or put me into a coma-like sleep. There are millions of blues tunes that bore me to tears, and millions of musical masterpieces that, while I may intellectually appreciate and admire them, do nothing to actually make me want to listen to them a second time. And vice versa.

I agree with you on this in principle. I can also say that FourTet's music is much higher up on artistry and quality, even though by his own admission he just uses a SoundBlaster card and a cheapo computer mic, compared to anything put out by Spears, Aguilera or the like.

You are right, just because a piece of music is harmonically complex doesn't mean it's "good" music. By the same token, just because an album has been recorded in a multi-million dollar studio, doesn't mean it's worth the CD it's printed on.

What bothers me more about the "similarity" of much of today's up-and-coming recording musicians is just how many of them - and how much they - are interested in sounding like someone else. Why would anyone purposely want to do that?

Lack of imagination.

 

[noisewreck]

I feel I should add to my post above as reading now it seems it needs some clarification. It is about having a large vocabulary (or knowledge) in one's field of activity. You might not use every element of that knowledge in a given piece, work, project whatever, indeed it might be completely unnecessary, however it will make one's life much easier in the end.

I make a living as a Systems Administrator and deal with a rather large datacenter in my daily activities. If I want to check on the status of some service or component on a server, I have three choices:
1. I can drive to the datacenter which is several miles away from my main office, login to the server and check on it.
2. I can remote into it and check on it that way.
3. Or I can issue a simple command from the Command prompt and get the information in a fraction of a second.

Knowing that I can issue a command to do it, and knowing what command to issue vastly increases my productivity throughout the day, especially if I have to deal with hundreds of servers.

The same applies to music. I know, I know I am stating the obvious.

A tune that revolves around two chords... heck even one chord with an ostinato bass line that repeats over and over can be very effective. However, the person creating music is in serious trouble if that's all he can do, and doesn't have the ability to go beyond that.

I am with Gecko on this where he says, "a diet consisting of nothing but this seems impoverished to me."

Just as many are concerned that a vast knowledge and experience of recording techniques and studio operation that was developed and accumulated in the last century is being lost on the newer generation, I have the same concern when it comes to diminished knowledge in other aspects of music creation.

This is a problem at both ends of music, one is creation, and the other is enjoyment. Because the audience experiences more complex forms of music less and less, they are also becoming more averse to such complexity.

This is perhaps part of a larger cultural phenomenon. There is a certain level of "dumbing down" of everything. I remember about 20 years ago Scientific American was full of all kinds of deep scientific discussions, and they were not afraid to print some complex formulae in their pages. Nowdays I will be surprised to see even a single formula in an article dealing with particle physics for example.

There was a time when magazines, movies, news were a source of education. Now it's all about pleasure and entertainment.

"Impoverishment"... Yup Gecko has nailed it with that word.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I am with Gecko on this where he says, "a diet consisting of nothing but this seems impoverished to me."

Just as many are concerned that a vast knowledge and experience of recording techniques and studio operation that was developed and accumulated in the last century is being lost on the newer generation, I have the same concern when it comes to diminished knowledge in other aspects of music creation.

...

This is perhaps part of a larger cultural phenomenon. There is a certain level of "dumbing down" of everything.

There is definitely a problem with not only "dumbing down", but "wimping up". We are turning into Eloi, no question. Can you imagine taking your average person today and transporting them back to the 1709 and asking them to start a colony in the New World, or sending them back to 1859 and asking them to join a wagon train to settle the West? They'd be dead within a week.

And as far as the "dumbing down", this is what happens when one becomes too dependent on technology; who needs to even do simple math when calculators are everywhere, including watches and cell phones? Who needs to even know how to prepare food when we have Stouffers and McDonalds to do it for us? Hell, we don't even have to know how to use a microwave oven anymore, just press the "popcorn" button! How much more freakin' lazy and pathetic can you get than having to simplify the use of a microwave oven? The next generation won't even know how to drive a car because automobile autopilots are getting pretty good pretty fast. God forbid the autopilot on the car goes out on the same day their Segway is still re-charging; they'll be stuck right where they stand because they also forgot how to walk. It'll be a good thing they have one of those talking Japanese toilets so it can instruct them how to piss and shit, in case they forgot.

And, of course, now you don't even have to learn how to play an instrument or sing, you have Rock Band and Guitar Hero so you can just pretend. But even if you're still too advanced for that, you have Autotune and samples and so forth so you can actually perform without actually having to have any talent.

You know what's next, don't you? I almost started working on this myself (it would be that relatively easy), but then drew back because the thought repulsed me and because I figured that there were already companies with actual money working on this: Auto-mixing editors. All you gotta do is label your tracks by instrument or part and then select a mixing scheme from a pull-down menu, and the software will automatically analyze the tracks, perform parametric sweeps on them, run differential EQ on them, adjust phase for mono check, pan the tracks to a set scheme and set relative levels based upon per-track RMS energy calculations. The Platinum version will automatially Autotune and grid as well. One-button mixing. And yes, it'll suck (at least until v3). But it'll also catch on and spread like a California wildfire.

---

You know, there is plenty of variety and quantity and quality music out there still, perhaps more than ever. Including the most inovative of artists. Just don't expect it to get played on large-wattage radio stations or college-town radio. It's gotta be searched out via Internet, public radio, or satellite radio.

The problem is on the Internet, people tend to "silo"; i.e. they tend to seek out and reinforce what they are already familiar with. This is true with everything from political beliefs to social groupings to musical tastes. The problem with public and satellite radio is too many folks don't have access to it, and even if they do, it still takes a bit of effort to find the right programming.

Here's an idea that just popped into my head. Anybody interested in the idea of starting an "alternative to vanilla music programming" (it would need a better name than that ) thread in the Prime Time forum here where folks can meet to share sources (Internet radio stations, lesser-known record labels, specific syndicated radio shows or podcasts, etc.) and/or share specific artists or releases of particular personal interest as not being the same old Clear Channel/college radio pablum?

G.

 

[obsidian3d]

I think we're actually talking about two different things here. One is recording, the other is composing/performing. In both cases, a solid understanding of the tools and techniques available are necessary to produce high quality results. However, regardless of how you feel about others methods, skill level, intention, talent or ability, the simple truth is that we all had to learn somewhere. I think that perhaps the largest problem is that the expectation of 'achieving pro-level results' is far too prevalent. Hell it's written on the box of almost every DAW software I see now.

As for me, I spent years learning to play classical music in a concert band...and am not ashamed to admit my first instrument was flute. That's a bold choice for a 6-ft tall, 200lb white dude, when every one else my size was playing trumpet, sax and trombone. Over time I moved on to playing guitar and bass in metal and rock bands. I cut my recording teeth with an old Tascam 4-tracker and a copy of Cakewalk. When it finally came time to record in a REAL studio we spent 3-months working with a producer we trusted to make sure we were ready before we ever stepped in the door.

Were I 20 years younger I would probably have the same sense of entitlement and expectation of instant gratification that seems so prevalent now. It's not the fault of the people who want to learn, and it's up to us to point them in the right direction. I'm no pro either, and come here to learn and grow as a musician, song writer and continuously improve my recordings.

Would you refuse to rescue someone from drowning just because they jumped into deep water in their excitement to learn to swim?

 

[mferguson]

As far as the over-simplicity or not of today's music, I personally think that it's a bit a red-herring of a categorization breakdown for me, though it may not be for everyone. If a song gets under my skin, if it MOVES me, I don't give a rat's dropping whether its a two-chord pendulum in G or whether it's a savant masterpiece of music theory with unconventional transitions and modulations all over the place that still manages to hold symmetry in 17 dimensions. There are songs on both ends of the complexity spectrum that can make me cry tears of joy or put me into a coma-like sleep. There are millions of blues tunes that bore me to tears, and millions of musical masterpieces that, while I may intellectually appreciate and admire them, do nothing to actually make me want to listen to them a second time. And vice versa.

Thank you! This describes exactly how I feel about music. When I was a teenager I was a real musical snob - wouldn't listen to anything that wasn't complex & hard to play. Over the years my musical palette has expanded to include a bit of just about everything, & the one thing I've come to appreciate most is simple music that sounds great. When I'm writing simple music, though, I try to add subtle things to give it a bit more interest for the listener w/ more musical knowledge than the average American (and for myself of course). But there's definitely a reason 'pop' music is always simple. Average people find complex music just not that easy to listen to.

What bothers me more about the "similarity" of much of today's up-and-coming recording musicians is just how many of them - and how much they - are interested in sounding like someone else. Why would anyone purposely want to do that?

I think most of the time they just have no idea how to come up w/ something other than to copy someone else. You see that in every industry. You'd be surprised how bad computer programmers are about this - most lack the imagination to find (or even look for) the best solution to any problem - they usually tend to solve problems the only way they can figure out how. Which often is by writing code that figuratively is getting from one side of the street to the other by way of China. Think of that the next time a computer does something it "shouldn't".