Pretty naive view.
We have shit music, because the contemporary composers/lyricist are mostly talentless/lazy, not because they have to make formula based music.
When your income comes from your patron or your publisher, you focus on getting the most out of your melodies.
A symphony would earn you more in the past, when people that wanted your music had to actually buy the whole piece.
If you were a composer of songs in the pre-recording era, you would be gaining almost nothing from your talent compared to the composers working in the more "serious" genres.
Now is the reverse situation.

 

Naive is when one only takes into account a small period in human's music history without question how/why was before and after.

You "like" a piece of music when your brain releases dopamine. As anything with our brain, contrast defines the threshold between "meh" and "wow". No musical piece is good in absulote terms. Bring a tribe to a orchestra concert and they will freak out. Play a single drum to the same tribe (or whatever they are used to) and they would dance and enjoy. Music is good only in a context. And that context is the formula, which changed over thousands of years in relationship with human culture, available instruments and listening habits and coutless other aspects.

When only flute existed, people listening then a simple flute song would experience the same pleasure as you are experiencing now when listening your absolute favourite music part. When you hear thay simple flute song you will say "meh". Which one is better, a crappy flute song or your favourite song?

 

Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2017

I found the question of this poll a bit funny because 1st of all I don't currently have any acoustic instrument at my disposal and even if I had one, I don't have any theory background.

For me, music is a great hobby just like photography for example and the most important point is to enjoy myself and have fun.

Life is just too short to waste it and be ashamed of anything in front of anyone.

 

No

 

The phrase ". . . a big shame" is pretty loaded; kind of prescribes the level of drama in the discussion.

Is it to be considered "a big shame" if one
• owns a car but is uninterested in knowing how to repair it, oneself?
• visits a foreign country and not have any interest in learning any of the langage spoken there?
• drives one's car to the store five blocks away just to buy a gallon of milk, rather than just walking there and back?
• reads the Cliff's Notes version of a classic work of literature, to be superficially conversant in it, rather than to read the original work and appreciate its scope and nuances?

Knowing how to compose music in three-dimensional space/time is valuable for – what reasons or purposes? If that question doesn't answer itself, then one should try it, and see for oneself.

 

Thanks for all your honesty!

 

In general, yes.

It is my belief that composition is more important than timbre or engineering. Humming a melody is a universal thing where everyone will instantly identify with a song, "oh, Jingle Bells!", whereas some movie trailer using that now trite "dubstep" style pitchbend might sound cool but is also instantly forgettable.

That said, I agree with the notion that every aspect of audio skill has its place. People that design instruments, program patches, fix gear, etc. all have validity even if they're not writing hit songs.