1. Musical satisfaction: I have hundreds of CD's in every musical style, including jazz, classical, and every style of rock. Nothing that I can create could ever compete with this library. I can't create something that sounds better than Dark Side of the Moon, or Abbey Road. — TheQuestioner

You're a more experienced musician than me, so I shouldn't have to remind you that this mindset is the antithesis to the creative urge itself. Do you think Pink Floyd started the recording sessions for Dark Side thinking "we have to make a record that's better than Abbey Road"?

Once a few years ago I was making complaints similar to yours to a close musician friend of mine, and his simple response always stuck with me: "There will always be an audience for an honest song".

To begin with I'm not a musician. I have a tin-ear and looking at the kinds of music that are popular these days I sometimes feel that it's a blessing in disguise. Please don't take this as legitimate criticism of musicians, it has to more to do with my tastes than anything else.

I've seen musicians - there are lots of them, the entertainment industry seems inundated with musicians of all shapes and size, playing every conceivable instrument there is. Yet, only a tiny fraction of them make it big and from my personal observations this requires both a high level of proficiency in a chosen instrument and, it doesn't need mentioning, a fair share of luck/fortune. This is probably because music is so subjective - as they say, de gustibus non est disputandum - and striking a chord with the audience, with the public - the ticket to fame and riches - seems to be a matter of sheer luck and, of course, flawless performances.

I was interested to find that your thread on music.

I make art, not music but the reason I am replying is that I search for new music constantly. Going out looking for new music is as central to life for me as philosophers and somehow the two are linked. It is my own way of finding meaning, in coping with truth or the lack of it.

I began going to record shops as a child and listened to Bowie, Bryan Ferry, Status Quo and many other rock stars as a child. During adolescence I found U2, The Alarm, The Cure, Soft Cell and they became as real a part of my philosophical quest as the books I was reading.

But the point you are really making is about new music and I think that many people have stopped searching for it. I am sure that this affects musicians as much as people like me who inhabit record shops. Most people I know, even those in their early twenties do tend to listen to music of present eras rather than looking for the new. Those who do look tend to look on the web. This has led to most of the record shops shutting down. But I prefer physical music and travel into Central London to go to the shops that remain.

I have endless CDs, the piles are taller than me. I do think that the CD is the most durable form of music even though a lot of people have gone back to records. Albums became an hour rather about 30 minutes. This gave more opportunity for creation, but many people, even my mother, seem to be more interested in tracks which misses the whole point of an album as a piece of art. I do believe that certain albums are almost like a philosophy book and to just listen to tracks misses the whole point. Life would not be the same for me without Bowie's Alladin Sane album or U2's Achtung Baby.

Anyway, I think that there must be a need for new music. I listen to all genres from pop, rock, goth, and dance, but have to confess that I can't relate to classical which might even offend you as you are a musician. But I have found new albums this year, because I am a seeker, including new music by Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, The Psychedelic Furs, Sam Smith and up and coming bands.

Perhaps the present time of sadness and chaos of Covid_19 will bring forth greater music and creativity in general. To quote a band called The House of Love (late 80s)' The Beatles and the Stones put the V in Vietnam....'

Who knows, a whole new genre of music may emerge because as one friend, who plays guitar in a post punk band, has grumbled, there has been a lack of innovation since 2000. Of course as a musician yourself, you might disagree with this.

A World without music... there will always be music - the format in which we hear it may change.

Thankfully, musicians will always find avenues for their creative expression to be heard

Thank you for all your comments.
Unfortunately, the following comment is false: "There will always be an audience for an honest song".
On Soundcloud and Youtube, there are thousands of "honest songs" that millions of hours were spent creating, and there is very little audience for 99.99% of them.
Pink Floyd and the Beatles became successful after years of touring. If they posted the same music today, without touring they would receive very few listens.
With the easy access to state-of-the art recording techniques, there are now too many cooks in the kitchen. Unless you are Justin Bieber, or have a manager that can get you on Kimmel, your music will not be heard, so don't bother creating it unless you are doing it just because you enjoy the process of creating it.

What you are saying sounds really sad. You are suggesting that there is no audience any longer and that making music can only be for enjoyment. Is it only music therapy? I am not saying I cannot see where you are coming from, bearing in mind the way music is going on digital devices.

But 'Is this the end?' cries Jim Morrison. Is it the end for art and literature too? Perhaps even philosophy has experimented to its logical end and we are living in the after image of civilisation.

If the Beatles, Pink Floyd, or U2 was a new band in 2021, here is what they would experience:
1. They would spend hundreds of hours creating their magnus opus, and a clever video to get the music noticed.
2. Their YouTube video would receive a few dozen views, so they now have to spend time promoting it, which is not how they would prefer to spend their time.
3. They spend hundreds of hours on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, pimping themselves to beg for listeners.
4. That effort results in a few hundred more listeners, and maybe a few dozen followers.
5. They then sit down to plan their next masterpiece, while the voice inside their heads is screaming "Why bother?".

Here are the last five musical acts on Kimmel: GIVĒON, H.E.R., Perfume Genius, 24kGoldn, Ozuna, and Woodkid. Those are the artists that are getting the most hits.
Wouldn't you rather spend your time listening to one of the hundreds of CD's that you KNOW are good?
Good new music does not get heard, because most of the promoted new music is crap that caters to people who follow the Kardashians.
I have enough good music on my shelf to listen to until the day I die (including all 9 Radiohead CD's), so why should I spend time creating anything new?

"Never compose anything unless the not composing of it becomes a positive nuisance to you." Gustav Holst

I am in a similar situation and deeply relate to what you're saying.

Do you enjoy the process of creating/composing? Do you enjoy listening to your music after is is completed? Do you feel that your music has merit and is worth listening to (don't compare to anything else)?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then I would encourage you to continue creating music - as I have.

Thank you for your reply. However, it seems as idealistic as the other person who said "There will always be an audience for an honest song".

1. If you receive no recognition for your composition, how many times do you have to listen to it to justify the amount of time you spent creating it?

2. If the only reason to create music is to listen to it yourself, can't you receive the same aural satisfaction by listening to any of the fantastic compositions that have already been created, without incurring the work of creating it yourself?

2. If the only reason to create music is to listen to it yourself, — TheQuestioner

I've heard it said, if you want to read a good book, write it. I record my songs to hear them. I'm a pretty average musician, but I think a better than average songwriter, so it's for my enjoyment. Creation is pleasure. I do share them with my friends. :)

I think you are in danger of discouraging the efforts of aspiring musicians and creative people in general. A lot of the best books were rejected many times and a lot of the artists were only valued later.

Surely, we should not be dictated to by the herd mentality. This is true for music, writing and even philosophy. It seems that you want to live in the past, with Radiohead as the be and end all of music. I do like them but they can be a bit gloomy.

What you are saying is rather defeatist. Art is not simply about popularity but the whole process of transformation through creativity and discovery. We need to usher in the new.

Why bother creating new music?

Because it is fun.

I have enough good music on my shelf to listen to until the day I die (including all 9 Radiohead CD's), so why should I spend time creating anything new? — TheQuestioner

Creating music or art isn't simply about turning around and consuming it or just about the end-product. It isn't only about the consumptive aspect. It is about the very process of creating, the joy of discovery, the immersion in the feelings as you express them.

I am obsessed with making music and can't stop messing with it even though I have no anticipation that anyone else will ever care. Much of it, if not most, I don't even want to expose to others. It is better than doing crossword puzzles, for sure! I experience a lot of joy just expressing something and experiencing the rich qualities of the sound I am shaping as I am shaping it, in a feedback loop of feeling-expression.

Imagine that someone questions the value of speaking with their own words and thoughts because there is enough of that from others to read or hear for a lifetime! Seems absurd, doesn't it?

I simply don't understand having no interest in creating. Just consuming has never been enough for me in any aspect of life. I need to participate, to play, to try my own hand, to discover what I have in myself. I don't need others to validate that in order for it to be worthwhile. Who are these others to judge my value anyway? If I depend on their favorable opinions, I am lost.

If your aim is money, music is probably not for you. The same goes for philosophy. The chances of making it big are tiny.

Personally, I see things like money as but a means to support my life to make it possible for me to spend time in creative play, relationships, reflection, enjoying nature, and so on. These things are the ends to which the practical things are but a means. They are the sorts of things that make life worth living, that give civilization its very purpose. Money is not a worthy end in itself. It is but a means to support such ends.

Some artists hope to make money from art mostly so that they can spend most of their time doing it, because they love it, because just creating is the most desired thing. They want what they love to be a self-supporting activity. Such people, even if they can't make money at it, will still be hungry to do it and will do it when they can, assuming their job doesn't kill their creative spirit and spend all their energies.

:up:

Thank you all for your intelligent replies.
The question I presented in this topic (Why bother creating new music?) lends itself to a very basic philosophical question:

What is the best way for someone to spend their time?

If you don't care if your music is heard by others, and just the enjoyment of the creative process justifies the work, then you are spending your time wisely. Unfortunately, I don't fall into that category. If I spend weeks creating music that will not receive any recognition, then I feel like I am wasting my time.

To each his own.

If I am given the following three choices of how I will spend my time, I will select #2 and #3 over #1.
1. Create music that few people will hear.
2. Win an online poker tournament.
3. Create a website that is used by thousands of people.

It has nothing to do with the monetary compensation. It is the feeling of accomplishment (and ecstasy, when I win an online poker tournament) that each choice provides, in return for the work that was necessary to perform that choice.

I am not trying to discourage budding composers. If you choose to spend your time creating music, knowing that you will probably never achieve any success or recognition, then go for it.

Pink Floyd and the Beatles became successful after years of touring. If they posted the same music today, without touring they would receive very few listens. — TheQuestioner

You would say that the difference between a musician and a successful musical is some timely marketable shtick, a successful presentation plus audience appreciation, which together are measurable in moneys earned?

I should have used the word "recognized" instead of "successful", since "successful" infers monetary consideration.
It doesn't matter how much money Aaron Copland made from Appalachian Spring. It is a well recognized piece, and deservedly so.
If Copland had created that piece in 2020, and synthesized it like I did here (exactly like his original orchestrations), then he would receive the same amount of listens that I got:

Appalachian Spring, synthesized

It was fun creating that, but I received more satisfaction creating a website that is used by thousands of people (OnlineMidi.com).

I have no aspirations for it to provide any monetary compensation or recognition whatsoever. I just enjoy doing it. — TheQuestioner

What more can i say? You enjoy doing it.

Unfortunately, I don't fall into that category. If I spend weeks creating music that will not receive any recognition, then I feel like I am wasting my time. — TheQuestioner

Uh oh, something's amiss here. Don't you have at least some family, or close friends that you could play the music to?

But here's another thing you should consider. When you're writing a piece of music, don't you get personal satisfaction when the piece comes together? You know, first you come up with a riff, melody, or progression which you like, and this makes you feel good, because you know it's good, and you like it. But that one part is not enough to make a complete piece, so you need to come up with more parts, and piece them together. When it all comes together, and you know that it's a completed piece, and you know that it's good, doesn't this make you feel really good?

To each his own.

If I am given the following three choices of how I will spend my time, I will select #2 and #3 over #1.
1. Create music that few people will hear.
2. Win an online poker tournament.
3. Create a website that is used by thousands of people.

It has nothing to do with the monetary compensation. It is the feeling of accomplishment (and ecstasy, when I win an online poker tournament) that each choice provides, in return for the work that was necessary to perform that choice.

I am not trying to discourage budding composers. If you choose to spend your time creating music, knowing that you will probably never achieve any success or recognition, then go for it. — TheQuestioner

I see, you're probably not a composer at heart. Is it the case, that when you compose a piece of music, you don't really believe it is very good, therefore it does not make you feel good. Do you think that you are not a very good composer, and this is why you believe composing music wastes your time?

When you quoted me as saying "I just enjoy doing it", I was referring to my daily piano playing, and not my composing.

It may surprise you to know that I was actually a very successful composer, and I am still receiving BMI royalties. I am still able to compose music of a very high quality (and even make a few bucks doing it), So no, I do not think that I am "not a very good composer". Instead, with very little opportunities for new music to receive recognition, and for the reasons that I previously described, there are other ways I would rather spend my time.

That's quite an achievement, to be a very successful composer. I believe composing takes a lot of hard work and dedication. Despite the comments you sometimes hear, such as, 'I wrote that song in fifteen minutes', there is probably many more than fifteen minutes of frustrated time, when progress is not being made. Maybe this is why there are other ways you would rather spend your time.

I'm not trying to sound critical, but it seems like you already answered your question even before you posed it. Did you think that someone here on the forum would come up with some magical formula to change your mind?

That said - do you like playing with other musicians of your caliber? If so, once the pandemic has eased, go out and join a band or go to some jam sessions. Have fun!

Thank you for your reply. I posted this issue because it is not uncommon for other people to change my mind.

Based upon their replies, I am now considering the possibility of continuing to create music just for the music's sake, and not for the need of recognition. This is a difficult adjustment for me to make, because I respect and economize my time enormously.
To quote Muhammad Ali: "Live everyday as if it were your last because someday you're going to be right."

Based upon their replies, I am now considering the possibility of continuing to create music just for the music's sake, and not for the need of recognition. This is a difficult adjustment for me to make, because I respect and economize my time enormously.
To quote Muhammad Ali: "Live everyday as if it were your last because someday you're going to be right." — TheQuestioner

I think that this is an excellent idea. Take some time and just enjoy creating music. When you create something beautiful, the time is well spent, and you will know it, solely from the beauty of the thing created, regardless of who recognizes it, or whatever else you could be doing with your time.

I have been a musician for more than 50 years. — TheQuestioner

I consider your observation to be a creative insight. Up until the time when recorded music became at least fairly good, plentiful, cheap, and easily distributed, music could not be ubiquitous. All that happened between 70 and 90 years ago. Prior to that, hearing music depended on live performance. Now music IS ubiquitous--everything from early medieval to whatever crap was written yesterday is on tap and often of superb quality. Once the recording is finished, the producers of the piece can all drop dead but their music will live on.

Novels, painting, sculpture, opera, poetry, dance, music--all the arts--have become vastly more available to billions of people than they were before high speed printing, photography, motion film, radio, and television came along. What art hasn't been affected by this?

The role of the non-elite composer or performer has declined in value against the backdrop of the mass art market (of which recorded sound is a part).

I have no advice on the matter except to suggest doing something new and different, maybe.

How old are you now? Maybe age is snowing white hairs on your head; maybe you are past your creative peak? People peak at whatever it is they do--though some peak a lot later than others. I peaked around 50. I wasn't in the arts but I still had a creative peak. Since then bright ideas have been fewer and farther between. My depth has improved (I'm 74 now) but not speed, efficiency, or brilliance.

You're a more experienced musician than me, so I shouldn't have to remind you that this mindset is the antithesis to the creative urge itself. Do you think Pink Floyd started the recording sessions for Dark Side thinking "we have to make a record that's better than Abbey Road"? — Noble Dust

I've felt very discouraged in a similar vein to this from people on this forum regarding the creation of philosophy, not music. Like an attitude of "how dare you be so arrogant to think you could ever possibly come up with anything better than what others have already come up with before you." Okay, so I guess everybody ought to just give up at everything forever starting yesterday, because the odds of anyone ever improving on anything are so low, and it's unforgivable arrogance to even act like it might be possible, by trying.

After more than 50 years, I can imagine being a little tired of music. Maybe doing something else and discovering something new is in order.

I am just a beginner at making music, only a couple of years in, still discovering the fundamentals. So there is still a lot of mystery and sense of possibility in it for me. I am starting late, 43 now, and so music is a change of interest for me.

I tend to lose interest in things when I cease to see mystery in them. I used to be obsessed with painting, but once I felt I understood it and the "great" painters of the past ceased to seem like gods, I mostly lost my verve.

Unfortunately, the following comment is false: "There will always be an audience for an honest song".
On Soundcloud and Youtube, there are thousands of "honest songs" that millions of hours were spent creating, and there is very little audience for 99.99% of them. — TheQuestioner

Sure, it's a pithy statement, but what evidence can you give that the soundcloud and youtube artists are "honest" in their work? It's a qualitative concept that's hard to define in any substantive way, so I think the statement rings true within it's context: two trusted, "honest" friends who both respect one another's work, and consider it to be honest work. So between the two of us, we know what was meant by "an honest song". There will always be an audience for a Leonard Cohen, for a Pink Floyd. And if you're response is that "there's no more good artists like that around", look to hip hop and rap; Kendrick Lamar for instance.

I've felt very discouraged in a similar vein to this from people on this forum regarding the creation of philosophy, not music. Like an attitude of "how dare you be so arrogant to think you could ever possibly come up with anything better than what others have already come up with before you." Okay, so I guess everybody ought to just give up at everything forever starting yesterday, because the odds of anyone ever improving on anything are so low, and it's unforgivable arrogance to even act like it might be possible, by trying. — Pfhorrest

I think 99% of us are susceptible to the fossilization of our understanding, whether of music or philosophy or whatever, as we grow older. It's rare to meet anyone who can maintain a child-like, open-ended (creative, really) mind. I'm 31 and worried that I'm on the event horizon myself...maybe being self-conscious of it's onset can help ward it off?...

I think it's a normal (both as in common and as in correct) process for understanding to become more "fossilized" over time, at least in one sense, as that's an inevitable consequence of education and experience.

While I think the product of such education and experience should always be understood to be a work in progress, always open to question and revision, it should still in time become more and more hardened such that questions to which it does not already have answers become more and more difficult to find, and so large revisions to it become more and more difficult to make.

Learning is all about narrowing down the available options about what might be true and what might be good, reducing the range of what is thought to be possible and permissible. When we are completely ignorant early in life, so far as we have any reason to think, life is full of almost limitless possibilities and almost anything is okay. But as we learn more and more, we discover that more and more things either can't be or shouldn't be, and the intersection of things that both can and should be gets smaller and smaller.

That's different, though, from saying people should give up on exploring the options, just because they probably won't make any progress that hasn't already been made by someone else before; or worse still, that there's something wrong with a person who would dare even try that.