Hacker News Reader

Good point for sure. It's not just EDM - a basic Pop song can be produced at practically zero cost once an independent musician and producer has sunk the costs of DAW and equipment into the operation. A lot of music, in general, is stunningly simple. Hip-hop can be done with one MPC and a mic (okay maybe AutoTune as well haha). Country only really needs an acoustic guitar, vocals, and a quality mic. Yes, there's a reason studio quality recordings sound great, and I'm not going to deny that at all. But...

Owl City is a great example of a talented person producing their own material (then mastered) which fit the quality expectations and was, pretty much, recorded in one guy's bedroom.

Gotye's "Used to Know" was recorded all by himself in a room over a barn in New Zealand.

These are just a couple recent examples where I think the technology and dynamics of music production are really coming together (Trent Reznor is a great historical study). Personally I really enjoy playing with a talented drummer - which I will do tonight and probably broadcast on Periscope - but when I'm at home, making tunes that I'll eventually release, I can get fantastic results from Apple's GarageBand "Drummer" algorithm thingy.

The tools that exist now would've changed my world as a teenager. I think teenagers growing up now - the ones serious about making music - have more tools and opportunities than ever before. I'm a wee bit jealous, no lie.

Edit: To clarify regarding your edit, the personal production can now extend to live performance. Rappers typically just have a DJ behind them (sometimes a live band). There's a lot of wiggle-room for mid-market musicians to simply bring their box of backing tracks with them to perform live, and I think that is becoming more and more acceptable. I used to get really odd looks using a Netbook + Akai APC40 on stage, and now that's pretty tame compared to some of the other gear setups indies can employ. This way, the musician makes more money because there are fewer musicians on stage that need to be paid (my personal approach).

It COULD cost that much. But actually it doesn't. See http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/07/05/137530847/how-m...

$78k production $1m in advertising

Teenagers growing up don't only have a plethora more of opportunities & tools -- they also have a plethora of distracting activities that can take away from the careful attention needed to make great music.

Sometimes I believe the guys in the 60s & 70s ironically had it easier because they just sat around, maybe smoking some dope, and played music. There wasn't a smartphone at their hip vibrating every few minutes, so they could really just pour their heart into the music and hey, Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, Beatles, Dylan, etc... you name a great, probably came out of that time period. While I like a lot of stuff today, I do question if it'll hold up to the test of time and personally feel very little of it will when compared to how much did & will continue from the 60s/70s.

Pretty fair point, I can totally see where you're coming from. Music does have a traditionally steep 'learning curve' and it does take focused practice - for good or ill, I do see modern tech and tools being a great short-cut though for a dedicated youngster with enough time on their hands. You're spot on about the number of distractions, that affects even adults who might be working in the industry. Focus is important.

Also, we should keep in mind that there was a ton of silly, throw-away, bubble-gum music during the 60s and 70s. Basically my contention is that the good stuff will, inherently, stand the test of time. Maybe because of, or in spite of, the river of crap surrounding it haha.

But that means there's lots more competition, right? If, theoretically, anybody with a laptop can do what you do, you have to be that much more talented and work that much harder.

It sounds like any other business. It's like saying freelance web developers are incredibly lucky, because their only business expenses are a laptop and maybe some software. That's true, but it also means that high school students can do what they do for free.

Realistically, this is also true of most modern music. Sure it requires a bit more equipment, but with software amp simulation and the plethora of VST plugins you can get, you can almost always get a tone similar to your target for just a couple hundred dollars, at most. Combine with equipment and you're looking at maybe $600 in instruments/equipment and a basic mic for vocals. The only sticking point right now it seems is that drums are still notoriously hard to record, though MIDI/software drums are extremely realistic, and even beyond that. It's extremely easy to find a random stranger on the internet that likes your style and happens to be a drummer with all the equipment for recording drums.

And then again, EDM is cheap, but it can be extremely time consuming if you're going cheap. Good synths don't just build themselves and there's a reason people buy virtual instrument packs.

>you can almost always get a tone similar to your target

Therein lies the rub. You can't beat real circuits and valves especially when you're cranking it loud for a gig. The difference between the (admittedly pretty amazing) VST's and the real deal is the difference between sounding good and sounding great.

Touring a band is still expensive. So much so that it was the difference between going on extensive global touring as a duo or not touring at all (4 piece) for someone I know.

As much as I want to agree with you nostalgia wise on the "real circuits and valves" thing, pretty much every industry magazine interview I've read with the top teir of guitarists basically say that "real amps" are for in the studio and when going on the road just use the Kemper[1] and nobody will be able to tell the difference. Honestly I would buy one of those in a heartbeat if I had the income/need/ability to write it off as a business expense.

[1] A Kemper review from 2012 - http://www.musicradar.com/reviews/guitars/kemper-profiling-a...

>This is the context in which the Kemper truly excels and it proves possible to create amp profiles that are good enough to fool three sets of very experienced ears during our testing process. At one stage, we even find ourselves unplugging the reference amplifier just to make sure that it's definitely the Kemper that we're hearing and there isn't some elaborate hoax taking place!

I'm not a musician and I've never heard of a Kemper before, but that's one amazing piece of kit!

There are too many nonlinearities in real circuits and valves to perfectly model with current technology(or programming methods), but you're absolutely spot on that 99% of people can't tell the difference, even musicians. It's only the person playing the instrument that tends to care

Muse use Kemper but they also mix it up by having 3 amps mic'd up backstage. I didn't mean to suggest that VST's don't have their place in the signal chain at all.

> The difference between the (admittedly pretty amazing) VST's and the real deal is the difference between sounding good and sounding great.

Honestly I think mixing and mastering each make a much bigger difference with recorded music. In my experience the "amateur aesthetic" usually comes down to these five things:

1) Timing

2) Tuning/intonation

3) Variation or lack thereof

4) Mixing

5) Mastering

The old adage applies to music too: Beginners care about gear, professionals care about technique, masters care about sound.

>Beginners care about gear, professionals care about technique, masters care about sound.

Caring about sound means caring about gear. I don't know any masters (and I know a few) that don't obsess over the gear they use in order to get the perfect sound. Shit in shit out. I think this also applies beyond music: Masters optimise at every link in the value chain.

>Therein lies the rub. You can't beat real circuits and valves especially when you're cranking it loud for a gig.

Actually you could very much can, and especially in a gig, where acoustics are not as perfect as at home with expensive hi-fi speakers.

You'd be surprised how many top artists, with huge followings, use amp simulations and plugins both on stage and on their productions.

>The difference between the (admittedly pretty amazing) VST's and the real deal is the difference between sounding good and sounding great.

No, that's talent and a good mixer, producer and masterer (neither of the three lesser acts have).

Tons of great sounding albums where recordings with VSTs. Heck, even Bob Ezrin uses the things nowadays...

As an aside/complaint, I truly wish there was a way to emulate raw feedback. Back when I lived with my parents in the middle of nowhere, I could crank my tiny amp up to 10, put earmuffs on, and just let the noise wash over me when I crouched next to my amp. Now I'm in a house with a child, and no VST is going to give me that same thrill. I could perhaps buy an e-bow and stand near it when I'm soloing, but it won't be utter chaos.

There's no reason this isn't possible with a VST plugin, if you're willing to do it the old fashioned way of grabbing some speakers, playing(monitoring) the playback out, and standing next to them with an instrument. Now, if you're talking about emulating all of that in a VST, then yea that sounds like an incredibly difficult thing to control with traditional MIDI/sound controls

Generally VST's and top gear are used together. I wasn't suggesting VST's have no place in great sounding records but the initial source needs to be great to sound great. While I'm sure that a great producer/engineer will make a better sounding record with only VST's than an amateur with all the best gear in the world generally the top producers don't compromise at all because they don't have to.

a lot of electronic shows are more complicated than that, but i think for someone who chooses to be lean, yeah it's basically like being a programmer that throws parties for a living instead of a band.

Skrillex got rich by marketing "EDM" to the mass US festival market.

That and probably to no small extent the huge influx of MDMA and MDMA-like drugs.