Natural Talent vs. Acquired Skill

                When it comes to being a great musician, are people born with the ability or to they obtain it through diligent practice?  I do believe that certain individuals are born will a higher level of natural musical performance ability than others.  However, potential does not ensure achievement.  Achievement is only reached through application.  Although aptitude may aid in a more efficient pursuit of higher levels of mastery, the achievement of mastery is impossible without application.

                As a public school music teacher (of 15 years) I have observed students with high levels of aptitude who applied themselves and achieved greatness.  However, I have also had high aptitude students who did not apply themselves and were surpassed by students will lower potential but higher work ethic.    

                I often wonder, is aptitude or potential a set figure, or can it be increased.  Theoretically, potential is a set figure that represents the maximum level of achievement one can reach.  I am not convinced that the human brain/body is limited by set levels of potential, however.  Neural scientists use to think that the human brain was incapable of cell growth after a certain age.  One medical study using tracer dye to research cancer cell growth inadvertently revealed new brain cell growth in senior citizens.  This has led to other studies in the field of neural plasticity with convincing results.  If the brain is capable of new growth, then it is impossible to place limits on a person's potential for achievement. 

                Why bring all this up?  We do not have the ability to change the genetics that we have inherited.  We do, however, have the ability to make the most of (or even raise the ceiling of) the abilities we were born with.  As a young musician, I was limited in the areas of reading, dexterity and stage presence.  Through hard work I have been able to elevate my achievement in all of these areas.  I cannot prove whether I have raised my potential or just reached a higher level of my existing potential, but I have experience significant increase.  This is what every musician should strive for.  If you love music, and you desire to pursue it, then pursue it wholeheartedly.  Strive for your maximum level of achievement, and then raise the bar even higher.    

Mastering: Why Presets and Copied EQ Curves Don’t Work

                Mastering is a tough task for the DIY singer/songwriter.  Along with writing songs, practicing our music, handling all the social media and business stuff and learning how to record and mix our music; now we also have to learn the art of mastering our songs.  Even if we have the skill to learn this art and the time to practice it, having the same set of ears both mixing and mastering the same material is not ideal.  We have been listening to these songs over and over in the recording and mixing stages.  We cannot hear as objectively as a new engineer who is approaching the music from a clean slate.

                However, most of us don’t have $500-$800 to spend every time we want to come out with a new album.  Releasing singles can be even more expensive when we calculate the cost per song over time.  If only there was a plug-in that had presets that we could slap on to our mixed track and BAM, it’s mastered.  Even better, imagine if there were a plug-in that could copy the EQ curve of a commercially mastered reference track and apply it to our track. 

                These plug-ins do exist, but they are not the answer.  I know, because I have used them.  Don’t get me wrong, they are great plug-ins and I still use them.  However, I’ve changed the approach on how I use them.  Mastering is an art/skill that needs to be developed through practice.  There are no shortcuts.  If we slap on a preset or copy an EQ curve the track will sound like we slapped on a preset or copied an EQ curve.

                Why is there no easy fix?  Every mix of every song contains an enormous number of distinct and unique variables.  Yes, our track may be in a certain style and sound sort of like a particular commercial track.  However, I doubt that the same instruments, amps, microphones, preamps, microphone placement, compressors, outboard equalizers and playing/singing styles were used when the two tracks were created.  I’ve just listed some of the many variables that make our track vastly different from the commercial reference we have in mind.  In some ways, we want to be different.  If our music sounds like a copy of something else out there we will never stand out.  Why listen to a copy when you can have the original?

                Let’s come back to the topic of mastering.  One thing I have learned through the many articles, videos, courses and hours in the studio is that the changes we make with mastering should be subtle.  Yes, there can be a drastic difference between the sound of a raw and a mastered mix, but this is the result of many layers of subtitle changes.  Looking at EQ as an example, the differences between our track and the commercial reference track mentioned in the last paragraph could result in a different master EQ curve.  Drastic changes to EQ in the mastering stage result in an unnatural sounding master.  EQ is one of the many subtitle layers that we affect in mastering.  If the differences between our track and the reference is great enough then applying a reference EQ curve will cause too drastic of a change.  In this type of situation we need to apply subtle EQ changes that place our track in the ball park of that musical style.  This requires skill and practice, not a quick fix curve.  We could also go back to the mix and make more drastic EQ changes to individual track, but this also requires skill.

                Mastering presets also fail to recognize the subtle differences within our unique tracks.  Yes, the preset may have been designed by a mastering professional, but what was he or she listening to at the time.  Chances are that track is not identical to ours.  The only way to truly enhance the subtle differences of our track is to apply true mastering techniques through listening and adjusting.  A preset may be a good starting point for a track that fits into a particular style, but tweaking that preset according to the details of our track will yield a more specific and tailored result. 

                Just like diets, exercise and all the other gimmicks out there; with mastering there are no shortcuts.  A high quality result can only be achieved through hard work, specific attention to the details of the track and practice.  If things in life really could come easy, then everyone would be able to do everything.  If we really want our masters to stand out as DIY artists, we have to put the time in and learn our craft.  The results will be worthwhile in the end.    

Don't Lose Your Spark

                Being an independent singer/songwriter is a big task.  There are so many hats to wear.  You have to stay on top of booking, marketing, web presence, fan relations, accounting and many other things.  There are tones of blogs and articles out there that give advice on how to maximize your efforts in all of these thing.  There are also many blogs and articles that talk about not being a lazy musician who just sit around practicing or writing all day.  We can't just make music and wait for success to fall into our laps.

                I agree that success must be diligently pursued on all fronts.  However, I question why there are hardly as many articles or blogs encouraging singer/songwriters to keep playing and writing.  Perhaps people feel that we do not need encouragement to be diligent in these areas since these are the activates we naturally tend to do. 

                It is true that I would consider sitting at my piano and getting lost in my music much more enjoyable than sitting in front of a spreadsheet and updating my accounting information.  However, I do think that we need to be reminded to hold on to our spark from time to time.  Our spark is that passion that we have for playing and writing music.  The passion that compelled us to pursue an industry where such a large population of competition is trying to squeeze through such a small window for success.  The passion that caused us to drive all over to gigs that paid less than half what we were worth just for an opportunity to perform. 

                Yes, we can't just be wrapped up in the music.  Yes, we have to be diligent on all fronts, but the spark is in the music.  That's what people come to hear.  That's what separates artists from entertainers.  When there is passion behind the music a magical moment is shared in each performance.  That magic is what gets people to leave there homes and purchase a ticket.  That magic is what builds a fan base.

                After countless nights of singing to five (or less) people, hauling tons of gear, endless book keeping, minimal pay, and frustrating rejection we can easily lose the spark that started it all.  Days can go by without touching our instrument.  Maybe we are just too busy.  Even worse, we may not be in the mood.  The activity that we once found so fulfilling is now a chore.  Somewhere along the way it transformed from fun to work and we find it harder and harder to get lost in our music. 

                So I say, yes, let's keep up with our accounting and update our website.  Let's keep hitting the phone, emails, blogs and street.  Let's do all those diligent, business type things, but above all let's love making music.  Let's stay connected to our passion.  Let's inject that spark into every song we write, chord we play and note we sing.  Music without spark is just pleasant sounding noise.  Let's not lose our spark.

Music For Music's Sake

                Music's value and identity have come under attack in recent years.  I have written posts in the past entitled Is Christian Music Dead?, Albums vs. Singles, The Death of Iconic Music, Entertainer vs. Artist, The Value of Music and What Ever Happened to the Art of Writing A Song.  One of these posts was actually a link to an interview of Gene Simmons.  A quick search on the web will reveal many other blogs written with similar topics.  It seem as if many people agree that music as a form of art and expression is declining in value.

                What is causing this decline?  There are many contributing factors.  As a music educator, I am a firsthand witness to one of these factors, so it is the one I will write about.  Music in our schools is under attack.  I happen to teach in NY state, so the facts I am discussing pertain to NY State schools (but I'm sure other states have similar situations). 

                The actual NY State mandates for music education are very limited.  The elementary school music mandate could be fulfilled by the classroom teacher conducting a musical activity in class.  Most schools  go above and beyond the mandate because having a good music program makes the district more desirable.  However, the constant threat of program cuts places and enormous burden on music teachers and administrators to validate their programs. 

                This minimal mandate by the state makes it difficult to win a validity argument based in the internal value of the subject.  The state has already place a low value on the subject of music based on the low mandate of required teaching.  Music education professionals often use the link between music and other subjects in an attempt to add validity.  They will point out the math skills, reading skills, historical facts, and study skills that are covered in music.  In their minds, Pulling from the weight of these other subject adds validity to the subject of music.

                However, this mindset detracts for the inherent value of music as a subject of its own.  Teachers are forced to include cross-curriculum planning in every lesson.  This leaves less time for focusing on the artistic and performance aspects of music.  Common core and APPR have only expounded on this dilemma.  Along with the additional material, band and orchestra teachers are being given less time for their pull-out lessons.  Teachers are forced to employ any means necessary to pull-off a good concert. 

                This scenario results in us raising a generation that has a different outlook on music.  None of these students get to experience music as a form of art and expression while in school.  As they mature and enter the workforce the definition of music is reshaped.  Those who follow other career paths are the new spectators of music.  The criteria that drive them to purchase singles, albums and concert tickets are different from past spectators.  They do not look for deep forms of artistic expression, because they were never taught how to appreciate the artistic value of music.  This shift affects the sales data, and ultimately the type of music that producers aim to sell.

                In addition, those in the future generation who go on to create and perform music have a limited education and outlook compared to the musicians of the past.  Many see music as an extra-curricular activity that can easily be pursued with minimal effort.  Only the upper percentile with high levels of natural talent and inner drive go on to create music with artistic value.  They are booked for the few elite performance venues available.  Venues of lower artistic value are swamped by low level performers who are willing to play for little or no money.  The rest of the musicians who fall in the middle are left with no opportunities.          

                As I mentioned earlier, there are many reasons why music as a form of art and expression is declining in value.  However, I think the decline of music education in our schools is definitely a contributing factor.  We may be teaching the next Beethoven, Mozart, Beetle or Elvis.  The course of that individuals future may very well be shaped by the music education that he/she and his/her future audience receives.  If we could get rid of all the political nonsense and come back to teaching music for music's sake, imagine the impact that would result.