June 21, 2012 Quality Is A Moving Target
Recently I read a good article by Stephen Carmichael on Music Think Tank called “How Google And Search Engine Optimization Changed The Music Industry.” In it he puts forth the premise that search engine optimization has changed music because it emphasizes good SEO technique as a means for high search ranking, which in turn means that “quality music” usually takes a backseat to what happens to be currently popular.
One of the examples he shows is how Rebecca Black’s viral hit video/song “Friday” still ranks highly on a innocent search of the word “friday.” If you were living in a cave last year, “Friday” became a huge hit mostly because it was so bad that you had to experience it at least once. Unless you were a 13 year-old girl. Then you probably thought it ranked right up there with Justin Bieber in the pantheon of greatest music of all time.
And that’s the problem when we try to define “quality music” (or quality anything for that matter). As the saying goes, “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.” Skrillex’s music might be nirvana if you’re into EDM, but it might be the depths of audio hell if you’re into Nirvana the band. And likewise if you’re a big dixieland fan or marching band fan, or classical music fan, or hip-hop fan……. you get the point.
In fact, Frank Sinatra is regarded as one of the greatest singers and musical icons by most of the world (take a look at this footage of Ol’ Blue Eyes in the studio), but I had a very knowledgeable and well-thought-of music professor from a major university write me about his poor technique and phrasing and how it crushes him that the masses over-rate him so. Quality is a moving target.
That’s one of the reasons that I try to never make blanket statements like “This is bad,” “This is good,” or “This is mediocre” when doing the weekly song analysis on my Big Picture production blog. What I consider good or bad is probably exactly the opposite of someone out there, and who am I to say that they’re wrong?
Music is something that you can’t touch, but it can touch you. It’s all about how it speaks to you and makes you feel. It might be a hook, an arrangement, a melody or lyric that has that special spark that only you hear, even if the rest of the world doesn’t. It’s your special connection that takes you to another dimension that maybe only you can get to, and only from one particular song. Who is any one else to dare comment on that connection?
That’s why it’s so important for an artist to keep searching for an audience, because regardless of what kind of music you’re playing and your proficiency level, your audience is out there. It may be just a dozen people, but they’re waiting for you to find them. The music you make will be really important to them, even if the rest of the world doesn’t get it.
Making a hit is really, really hard, even for the best hit makers. When a song becomes a “hit” (meaning that some group of people immensely dig it), it’s happened for a reason. There’s magic that’s involved that should at least be appreciated, even if you can’t get your arms around it. Any music that touches the heart of another is special. The smartest in our business know enough to learn from that and apply it to their own work. Because in the end, music quality is a moving target. Hitting the bull’s eye is the tough part.
Music, quality | 1 Reference
Reader Comments (5)
Thanks Bobby, I agree 100%. I try not to talk much about the quality of the music when working with an artist. Even if I like it. I see my role as the person looking for the audience for this artist's sound. I have found that artists, on the other hand, have a tendency to be consumed with this issue. Let the hits be the hits and focus your efforts on speaking to your audience.
Thank you for this. It definitely recalls the famous Derek Sivers reminder that "even if only 1% of people dig your music, that's still 50,000,000 people, worldwide"
Stick with it and find that audience!
From my perspective, I think you may be confusing personal preference with quality. Absolutely it is true that any given song or musician may be able to find an audience, and that it is not for anyone to say that no one might like that given song or musician. But the concept of quality itself is another matter. Not to get all Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance on you, but there are persuasive arguments to be made that quality is not entirely subjective, even though any one person's response to quality is an individual experience.
You said it yourself about Rebecca Black-- that the song was really just bad. At a certain level, qualitative distinctions can absolutely be made. At the other end of the spectrum, when music is made with an incredible amount of knowledge and skill, when the musicians are highly trained and/or experienced, and compose with great sensitivity and awareness of musical values and history, whether consciously or unconsciously, the music that emerges will have undeniable quality. This doesn't mean any one individual is guaranteed to like it. As an example. Radiohead makes music of undeniable quality, but very clearly it's not for everyone.
"One man's trash is another man's treasure" is true -- but, that does not negate the reality of actual quality. And just because musicians do not, of course, have to strive for quality to be successful, that should not mean that we jettison the very idea that quality is something real and worth striving for.
Your favorite band sucks! :P
Thank you for sharing the refreshing insight, it really puts the artform into a perspective that isn't so polarized.
It is easy for audiences to be critical - especially when songs don't fit into the comfortable equations/molds of 'popular' music. It is in the commercial marketplace for which 'hits' really flourish, and become ubiquitous like Frank Sinatra. What seems common today... popularity and creative ability are antithetical.