Seckin wrote:I've read all the responses. Apart from some valuable input, most of them made me think that something must be wrong with me, or maybe that I'm really just the stick-in-the-mud like one of the users said, or maybe I'm just out of context.
I judge musicality by what's written in sheet music, as part of my profession. When you read through the sheet there's no eq'uing, no mastering, no mixing in there. You don't think about how much reverb you should put on that track. It's just music in its purest form. When I talk about music, I talk about that and only that. Surely I would not dare to say that audio quality is trivial. Only a fool would say that. And that's not a new thing, 500 years ago luthiers did their best to make their instrument sound as good as possible. But today's world of music constantly reminds me of what one of my professors in the 90s had forecasted about the future of music, along the lines of: "In the future music technology will become widely available and that's a good thing, but when true talent becomes a rarity, there will come a time when the distinction between "music" and "sound" will diminish to the point of zero."
I think that's part of what's happening today. I don't hear a lot of "music" nowadays but I hear "sound" wherever I turn my head to. Does anybody here really believe that the masses would tell a 100% quality mix from an 80% one? Really? Unlike what one of the users here wrote in response to my post (He wrote this: "For higher-tier vocal and audio edits, inc. #1 piano ballads and international releases, there's Pro Tools. For everything else, and national releases (because they are a different matter, there's Reason."), if you come up with a beautiful tune, you can make it into an international hit in Reason, because the tune will tell. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise. And for those who cannot come up with beautiful tunes (e.g. most of the top "international" singers today), I wish them good luck mixing and mastering what they have at hand to 200%. I do not think I will be enjoying the output no matter what, but that's just me, some stick-in-the-mud with an old-fashioned taste in music.
Here is a cover I made of a Timbaland's instrumental. I've not copied the drum pattern exactly, but one thing is certain - change the sounds and the hip hop heads will immediately hear the difference.
Sure, the masses will not identify a good mix from a bad mix anymore than they will spot bad film grading or low quality audio. They will feel that little bit less connected with the creation. They will not know why. Something just will not feel the same.
A good way of analysing a song is by looking at Harmony, Arrangement (including effects, mixing, structure), Melody (bass, vox, key phrases) and Rhythm (drums/perc plus the rhythm of the melodies and harmonies).
Some songs are heavily focused on the arrangement. A brilliant example of this is Snoop Dogg's Drop It Like It's Hot, or Busta Rhyme's Touch It. The latter is mostly held together by one drum rhythm played by alternating between the kit every 4 bars.
So yes, if your track / sound is heavily focused on the melody, rhythm and harmony but not much invested in effects, then by all means, you could get away with general midi sounds. If on the other hand the core essence is in the effects and the arrangement is otherwise fairly simple, then no, you will hear the emptiness.
And bear in mind there are many tracks now where the music is just keys held for the bar, with the effects and automation playing the grunt work. We're not all 4 piece bands.
but it sounds good. Tbh i've never caught / used a VST in my life. May do one day. Look i dunno what it's all about but everyone is asking for it so .... 
Enhanced by DataBridge v5
Share and download patches!
Join ReasonTalk on Slack!