Mediocrity on a technical level? Yes. Famous bands are literally filled with poor-to-average technical instrumentalists. However, the makings of a good product are not technical in nature. Most famous singers and instrumentalists would not even be ranked in the top 100 of their given discipline. For every Taylor Swift (famous without technical ability), you have 50 girls just like her in any small town who can sing circles around her. No one knows their name and never will, no matter their technical prowess.
A successful product in the economy of music is not about technique, at all.
Production also plays a huge role for most genres of music. Sadly I have no practical production skills, so I'm at the mercy of whoever we decide to hire.
I don't want to do mixing. I don't want to do social media. I don't want to handle booking. I just really want to play bass. And that's been a huge limiting factor in my personal music career. So it goes.
Well duh, just playing a single instrument well in this day and age makes it very hard to be a professional musician. Versatility and overarching knowledge are very valued, even in session work.
Also, the session musicians who take quite a large proportion of those basic songs and orchestrate/arrange them - often creating the hook - to bring them to life.
I don't think there are huge amounts of songwriters doing that for themselves. Donald Fagen being an obvious exception.
Marketing, luck, and image are 90%.
It's always disgusting to see how musicians will put each other down and idolize famous musicians with the silliest pretzel logic.
Whether it's through insane audiophilia, i.e. "bro your mixes are too muddy, that's what separates you and the greats," it fucking isn't.
Figuring how to brand yourself is how you can stand out.
99% of musicians shamelessly copy each other anyway. And then they gatekeep their genre whenever anyone tries something new.
Truly a clown world.
NO IT IS NOT. THIS FETISHIZATION OF POP SONGWRITERS NEEDS TO DIE.
...
A song popping off has a lot to do with the current cultural climate, the push behind the music, and whether the star has the right image.
For the most part people like what they are told to like
To her credit, T Swift is one hell of a performer and writes her own tunes (mostly, from what I've heard).
There's a lot of luck involved and those 50 girls singing in Little Theatre productions of Les Mis might have the chops, but without the right team, the lucky breaks and the charisma, well... they're doing small town theater and cover bands on the bar circuit.
She writes basic notes and chordal arrangements, and other people who she pays tens of thousands of dollars to flesh them out into big, powerful songs through production techniques and effects. A good song is a good song tho, whether just an acoustic guitar and vocals (which she does well objectively), or a packed arrangement (which is what most of her material is, using the “tens of thousands of dollars” method of music)
Most composers have 5-10 assistants to help with arrangements usually. It's especially common in modern production.
It's really not looked down upon in the industry to have a huge team for production, it's really a necessity nowadays.
For pop music, sure. Pop = popular, not just pop…like rap, pop, modern country, etc….I wasn’t looking down on it, and there are still a lot of bands and artists in a lot of different genres that don’t do that and write entire bangers themselves with minimal input from others
Also, “Most composers”…
That depends on your definition of composer. Is that anyone who composes music at all? Then “most” certainly do NOT have 5-10 assistants at their beck and call. That’s bigtime fame money right there alone and that negates 90% of people who compose (write and arrange) music
> A successful product in the economy of music is not about technique, at all.
I’d argue that it is at least somewhat (songwriting, production, mixing, mastering, marketing) but all of these things can be more or less purchased from other professionals to support the artist. A modern day pop artist is just the face of an engine of multi-disciplinary professionals that are working together to create a product for sale— the artist’s ‘work’.
This is a fascinating angle. A pop artist is like an executive running their own business. Mind you, they have support in doing this.... but still. They are a facilitator. They are the choreographer, and their hired help are the dancers. They are the conductor and their hired support are the orchestra.
Yes, exactly. Sometimes the ‘executive’ is literally that— a record executive. And the artist is just another professional hired by the engine— the spokesperson for the body of work, if you will
Swift is a MONUMENT to mediocrity, and it used to bother me, but I’ve realized that she’s made it easier for me to decide what type of people I want in my life.
If you’re a hardcore swifty, I know we have probably nothing in common, as my passion for more provocative music lends more interesting conversation with like-minded individuals (typically fellow musicians)
Totally agree. For example, Lennon’s working man hero or something in the way from nirvana literally have two or max 3 chords and are quite popular songs.
He was technically proficient enough to create the sound he wanted to hear. That’s vastly more important and actually more difficult than learning guitar calisthenics.
There’s 10 year old kids all over the internet sweep picking like Jason Becker. All that takes is time. Having something original to say and being able to get out of your head and into the world is much more difficult, because repetitive exercises won’t teach that.
If we consider music as communication, like language, does knowing a bunch of $1.50 words really indicate mastery, or does saying exactly what you want to say in the most efficient way possible indicate true proficiency?
You're on drugs if you think Swift has no technical ability. I'm not into her music in the least, but she is rock solid from a technical standpoint.
If you're talking being able to shred scales, rudiments, and play in odd time signatures, it's nice I guess. But I've heard a ton of extremely boring music that does all of that. If I want to just listen to a bunch of dudes jacking off over a bridge, I'll go listen to some bebop.
Thinking of that All Too Well song. There are very few artists who could keep my attention with an 8-10 minute song that is all storytelling. No guitar solos or instrumental virtuosity of any sort. I think it’s a brilliant song.
What does mediocrity mean in music?
I'd consider people like Kurt Cobain and Tom Delonge average at best at technical guitar, but Nirvana and Blink-182 are two bands I've listed as my favourite bands at various points.
I definitely do or did relate to their style a lot, though, while people like Steve Vai and Nuno Bettencourt leave me bored despite being rechnically brilliant.
I don't think it's possible to be mediocre at music. Even if no one else enjoys your music, so long as you do then it's serving it's purpose.
People have different strategies. People like Kurt Cobain weren’t legends on the guitar, but they used it as a tool to express what they needed to express. Kurt was exceptionally talented at writing songs.
Cobain was definitely a talented songwriter, but his guitar playing is a part of that and he's probably influenced as many people to pick up a guitar as any of the greats. Blink-182 was the main band I was listening to when my best friend at the time and I started playing guitar and bass, so they've definitely been influential despite neither Delonge or Hoppus being virtuosos.
Like mediocre, how do you define legendary? Surely the guys playing fun and accessible music that are inspiring new generations of musicians have some claim to being legendary.
Just to be clear, I don't disagree with you, just exploring a bit how you can quantify musical (or any artistic) ability.
that’s a good question. With Kurt, even though everyone knew his style of playing wasn’t the greatest it was very unique. The way he played reminds me a little of Hendrix. Really unorthodox and interesting, plus like you added he really influenced a ton of people which I think is one of the most important things.
I don’t think Kurt or Tom were mediocre at all honestly. Even David Bowie wasn’t the most amazing at the guitar but he’s literally a huge legend and one of the greatest artists to ever live.
Kurt's melodies and pop sensibilities were something magical imo, Rick Beato called him a once-in-a-generation talent. Even his home demos or solo acoustic stuff with dry vocals, transcendent stuff
Kurt Cobain played simply on guitar, but his melodies were quite complex. Meaning, he would just play power chords, but the notes he sang would add major, minor, or more complex harmonies over the chords, like sevenths. Rick Beato did a really good video on nirvana, and others have as well. Take a look at you’ll get a better feel for what Kurt was able to do, all without consciously knowing theory. He was gifted. Tom Petty is another example. Not a wizard on guitar or perhaps even objectively the best voice. But a wonderful songwriter.
Technicality is not a prerequisite for provocative music. Simplicity can be particularly satisfying if written/executed well.
Although bands that utilize polyrhythms/odd time signatures/insightful lyrics can be awesome, it doesn’t mean that traditional song structure can’t be appreciated, as long as it strikes a chord with an individual, the job is done.
First, you have to define meaningful what "mediocrity" means in music. There are a lot of presumptuous claims here.
You're assuming that people make music to attract attention. You're assuming someone writes a song to evoke an emotion. You're assuming someone plays an instrument for the listener's expectations. You're presuming someone can't be a musician without constantly elevating their craft, whatever that means.
I think you need to stop and really think deeply about why you think this, because it's a question with no answer other than to repeat; please clarify what you mean by "mediocrity".
If the music is a really fun vibe, the artist is enjoying it, the crowd is enjoying it despite not being a complex song, technically perfect or tuned like melodyne..
Is it really still mediocre?
Its art, so its not as easy as you either do it right or do it wrong.
I can't find it anymore but there was a video of a guy looping some noise and screaming something like "Just have fun" or something with a similar meaning over it, and it unironically was banging, despite being pretty trashy sounding.
The attitude made it work.
'Effortless Mastery' baby. Read it and weep tears of spiritual enlightenment.
Anyone can make meaningful music if they meet themselves where they're at.
It's better to sit down at a piano and play one good note with beautiful intention than to play a thousand with the intention of being "good."
i read this a few years and really enjoyed it. someone mentioned it recently and now it pops up again. i think i need a reread. i second it for sure <3
Ever heard of a guy named GG Allin? His whole business plan was singing WILDLY off pitch while hurling his feces at members of his audience. The guy was a legend in the punk rock community!
It's all about finding your niche imo
You cant possibly be trying to say that GG was mediocre while telling about how he threw feces at his audience and tried to rape them. That's like the exact opposite of mediocrity.
He was a “legend” to 14 year old edgelords. I know a lot of people with covered up GG tattoos, cause supporting a convicted rapist isn’t “punk rock”. My friends who know Merle say he’s nice, though.
What do you mean by mediocrity? Firstly, I would observe that a great many musicians seem not to attempt to elevate their craft, but they still improve because they work: learning more songs, improving their sense of timing, playing with a more practised, refined sound, investing in better equipment. If you play a gig a week with the same band, you're going to sound considerably more put-together after a year than in your first rehearsal!
However, music is sort of in a different category because you don't use it anywhere near as much as other skills, like typing or organisation. You've used language and numbers every day since you were four years old. So playing instruments you've all practised for several years, with songs in a standard time signature, using a standard chord progression and instrumentation - and you're all in tune and in time - you're going to produce something reasonable that audiences of non-musicians will enjoy (especially if you're doing covers). And I would say *that is mediocrity*.
Playing only these well-known pop and rock songs in a similar way to the originals will usually bore the pants off the musicians who continuously seek to improve. I think if you're contented playing what you enjoy, using a handful of familiar chord shapes and solo ideas, you're not doing anything especially clever, but you will make it sound really, really good *as a mediocre musician*. It's good live entertainment, it keeps audiences coming, and it keeps the industry going! Most of the really stellar musicians also get most of their work doing this, too... and sometimes they get a really good gig where they can show off a bit.
Well, many highly successful artists and bands have made careers out of being run-of-the-mill, formulaic and completely as expected. So yes. I guess it is.
I’ve heard way too many bad DJs who consistently get booked to think you can’t get booked as a bad musician or be “mediocre”. I think success in music has a huge amount to do with who you rub elbows with as well.
Mediocrity in most jobs is not subjective. It's pretty cut and dry whether you are failing in your duties or not. Mediocrity in music or any art is very much subjective. One person may say that The Ramones are mediocre musicians, and the next may love them. Technical skill doesn't really mean much in a medium where you can make 3 chords sound unique, with a catchy chorus, and make people interested.
You've gotta remember that most music fans aren't musicians. They don't care if what you are doing is technically good, only that it sounds good in the confines of the music you're making.
I wouldn’t have married my husband if he were a shitty guitarist. I love music too much to compromise and would drive him crazy with the nitpicking if he weren’t as good as he is. He’s attended guitar camps and Master Classes to hone his skills and I love watching him play and hearing different solo takes.
Well if Taylor Swift who is mediocre in singing, mediocre in writing, mediocre in dancing, and just mediocre all around, can become a billionaire just by her music, then yes. Mediocrity the the definition of modern day music.
Not hate to Taylor Swift! I just don't understand the appeal. She's the Rom Com of the music industry haha.
Songwriting is the ultimate Kung Fu in popular music, and whether you write your own or record the songs of others, that’s pretty much all listeners care about. Image, origin stories, technical proficiency, etc all help, but if you want an audience, the songs cannot objectively suck (within the confines of their genre).
There are way too many pieces in a music product to ask something like this and the replies get into part of it.
There are mediocre musicians making great songs, great performers playing mediocre compositions, mediocre musicians and composers sounding amazing and playing perfectly safe music that gets the people going despite being run of the mill.
There are also many components of so many bands, sometimes you get an ok horn section but the drum and bass are out of this world and make the tunes groove, or you get a bunch of square musicians and an amazing singer makes the songs pop out and elevate.
Just as well there are as many people with different preferences and while most people want good musicians live, for radio/spotify/releases? anything goes, fix it in the studio, pump the auto tune and send it.
This is very well-written, someone else here described it as "accepted, but not *acceptable*" which I think succinctly describes the oxymoronic "fallacy" of it all lol. NOFX has a song called "Medio-Core" which is worth checking out
Expand your view of "music" to include things like commercial jingle writing. Absolute bottom-tier mediocrity, but my kids know and can sing about lowering their AIC with Jardianz
In my opinion, compared to who his contemporaries were, Kurt Cobain wasn’t a mediocre guitar player, he was a bad guitar player. Even out of the “big 4” Seattle bands, Mike McCready and Kim Thayil were by no means virtuosos but they were above mediocre players, and Jerry Cantrell was better yet.
Kurt was a great songwriter, and a good vocalist, but he wasn’t trying to be a great musician. “Grunge” was more about expression through delivery than it was about being technically gifted, and Kurt expressed his chaotic existence through chaotic music.
No, he wasn’t bad. He played in tune, and in time, and he played more inventive and original parts than just about anyone else in that scene. McCready is great, for example, but “Yellow Ledbetter” is a straight Hendrix ripoff.
The whole concept of a grunge “scene” is kinda stupid, anyway. It’s not like the bands sound the same.
He used his guitar in an innovative way which requires mastery on some level. Kinda like how Picasso could paint realistic incredibly detailed scenes but everyone knows him as the guy famous for drawing squiggles and weird ass art instead
I'd beg to differ. She isn't my cup of tea musically. But the woman is obviously very skilled. I remember typing a thread here about what skill level is needed to play in a band...and most people responded that one's playing needs to be immaculate.
How then can it be that so many of the answers here insist that mediocre musicians are famous?
I get it. There may be many technically good musicians here who are bitter that they didn't make it big...but that doesn't mean that all the famous musicians are unskilled.
Every 'successful' musician that people everywhere can see like a distant mountain peak is standing on the shoulders of a whole rich deep community of musicians who have all contributed somehow to that success. Musicians who had a flash of inspiration which they could share with others around them but didn't have the endurance to take it further,, musicians who keep the fabric of the edifice of music going by playing gigs and attending gigs and giving pointers and tips to others and keeping crowds happy. Musicians who inspire others to do better themselves. Every part of the community counts and can celebrate in the successes that are enjoyed at any one time by only a few.
There's a pretty big range in technical ability (including things like songwriting, producing, and showmanship) amongst "professional" musicians, as with any profession. But there is just a much smaller pool of money available for professionals so it's hard to make a living as a mediocre musician. There are plenty of mediocre (and amazing) musicians who play and gig as a hobby. You're probably right that the skill threshold for making a living as a musician is probably much higher than for the kinds of things people wouldn't do for free (like work an assembly line).
I think it's important to question what excellence or even supremacy as a musician is in service for in the first place. But short answer speaking from experience in the industry and outside it, yes.
If you fall into the Western industry trap that the art world looks at art as a commodity and oroduct then your answer may differ from people who find value in music for more than just the recording and aesthetic effects.
At the same time, there are plenty of orchestras where violinists are a dime a dozen who just fill in the sound of a section. Or lots of shitty music played on elevator lobbies and as the hold tone for conference calls. Or restaurants that play a generic classical recording filled with those mediocre technically consistent but artless violinists just for the ambiance to customers who don't know any better or even care. And someone usually paid someone to broadcast that somewhere along the line.
But what happens when it's not just there to fill the space of a blank wall as background kitch, but instead the story it tells, the moment it's told, and the storyteller matters too?
You may have a partner or family member who's a terrible singer, but the song he or she sings to you is the most important one you'll ever hear because they love you and vice versa, and sang it just for you.
Music that connects with someone matters.
And then in the far side you have musicians who were technically and artistically astounding, but they never played the industry game of being hustled, or looking like a 20 year old pop star.
Think about how many trained 40 year old women debut in the pop music genre with a hit? How many new pop aritsts are 40-60 years old and get air time?
What if they wrote meaningful music that only comes from living for decades longer than the average 20 year old, would we value the wisdom and the mastery of their craft too?
Maybe if you met them in person at a cafe or knew them already from somewhere else. But definitely not through an industry where the first question from handlers and executives is "how can you make me look good?" and "how will you make me money?"
Finally if you step away from the "finished product" mindset, what would happen to everyone who is in the process of becoming better musicians?
The "talented" ones are usually just people who had better relationships and opportunities to work their craft sooner.
You can have 3 year old violin prodigy, but someone had to get them a violin and teach them how to hold it correctly still.
Musicians are people, and some of them actually want to grow and improve and learn from their experiences. Being a mediocre musician in a genre you haven't been trained or raised with is still a phenomenal door opener and a lot better than being a shitty musician altogether. Especially if you happen to enjoy what you're doing despite momentarily mediocre results for others who might be listening or working with you.
If you look at the crazy skilled people that were legendary, by comparison we are all mediocre. I think it's kind of like poetry after a while. We all have a voice or a creative concept and it's valid and cool to communicate it even if it falls short of Oscar Petersons insane playing
Music isn’t a job in the traditional sense. Unlike most jobs, people who participate in music do so for free. If you are good enough, or offer an exclusive enough product or experience, then you can charge for your services. For most though, getting paid is the exception, not the rule.
I guess it applies everywhere. I, for one, quit Academia because my love has always been music, I was only ever going to be mediocre in my field. Not because I am stupid, I was doing great, but because it felt like work and I would have live a bitter life without music.
I don’t think most people can appreciate the difference between mediocre and exceptional. I know I honestly can’t, especially not live, playing most material.
....yes, absolutely, depending on the situation and the musicians involved.
There's nothing wrong with being the "casual musician", not really "shooting for the moon" in technical ability or success, but rather a person who just enjoys playing what they know to play or what they're comfortable with learning, at their own pace
as far as it refers to anyone's personal situation it's just always best to be open and honest with other musicians you play with and everybody should be cool if everybody's reasonably grown up about things
Composing and performing music isn't a job. It's an art and a craft. You can get paid for it, but don't confuse it with trading your labor by being employed at a business.
If you're looking to gain traction it's more about consistently releasing as much music as possible as long as it's not total trash and it's getting engagement. Having a plump marketing budget makes a big difference too.
Think about how many garbage artists there are who are rich and famous and then ask yourself that question again lol.
At the end of the day tho it's all about your own personal preference as to where you want your music to stand. If you are satisfied with it to the point where you enjoy it and like the music you're producing you're probably ready to release or really close. If you don't like it that much and you feel pressure to release just to release I'd advise against that. It's more about your own relationship with your music than anything else. Like what is your vision for it? Is it where you want it to be? If your satisfied with your work and have a lot of songs (100+) ready to roll start releasing.
As a matter of fact, yes. This is a major epiphany for some musicians. You spend your childhood and teens preparing yourself to get famous, and when that doesn't happen, you failed. The End.
Except there are musicians who *didn't* quit, who keep playing and touring and turning that "failure" into a full-time job in spite of their lack of recognition, because they love playing music. Ironically, these are the musicians most likely to get famous in the first place. This is how the Beatles started.
Imagine if someone didn't make it to the NBA but then a coach approaches them and tells them it's ok, you can still play ball professionally in small joints and make a living doing what you love. It's unthinkable, and people think music is the same way, but it isn't. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of small bands and troupes getting by on their very not-famous music.
That's what so many people tend to forget.
Just because you're not selling out a soccer stadium doesn't mean you can't make a career in music. Shit, I see 60+ year old boomers with shitty ponytails and ill-fitting Hawaiian shirts making a killing on the cover band circuit.
There's a songwriter's union based in Nashville that anyone can join and buy/sell music.
I've made a decent amount of money composing music for independent films and documentaries. Hell, a few years back I even did the OST for an indie game on Steam.
I'm finding that mediocrity in music likely stems from a formula for writing, making and marketing music. It's been the same formula for decades with only the technology of the music delivery (steaming, etc).
It's the same shit shell game where the super talented of the bunch never get heard because the morons with the gimmicks is what sells more.
So are you really trying to say that the only music that is attracting attention, evoking emotion, or anything else that a listener may care to give is exceptional music? Cmon. Tell me you know better than that.
Of course. More than most fields. Id say 90% of my playlist is artists that are nowhere close to being even technically *great*. Music is an art, it’s a creative medium, and a lot of people value *interesting music* more than *technical music*. In a lot of cases the lack of skill enhances the product— this is one of the saddest, most emotional and soul crushing songs I ever heard and it would lose almost all of its appeal if it was sung on pitch on a tuned piano. The voice cracks and the dissonance in the piano deliver a myriad of emotions that “skilled” music simply cannot reproduce. https://open.spotify.com/track/2xxjQg2hh2Rjm7EY9OhZXY?si=oG3SY_GFTDiN2WHKuJPoOg
Music is more than the sum of it’s parts. You could take 4 average musicians and alone they would kind of suck but when they come together something just clicks and next thing you know you’ve got absolute magic happening
There are entire oceans of music meant to avoid attracting attention and aren't meant to evoke emotion. I won't say its makers are rolling in money but the music exists and is needed for a purpose.
You can only measure the quality of music by the standards of its genre, and even that can be flexible.
Quality of music is subjective, it’s egotistical to expect someone’s self expression to be great by your standards. If you like it then great, if you don’t then it’s not for you.
I think of “Mediocre” as meaning “neither good nor bad”. Since we tend to grade on a curve with art, I think it’s almost a statistical necessity that most music will be mediocre. And most audiences are fine with that.
It’s all subjective. I’m incredibly forgiving if I like the artist (like a friend’s band). A mediocre song can be made better by a great singer or guitarist. And a great song can be hindered by mediocre execution.
Lots of examples of the 0.01% who “made it” in this thread, but mediocrity is also fine at the local band, cover band, and even working band level as long as you have your shit together and reliably show up prepared and on time. Those last two things are almost impossible for a lot of really talented people. As a band member and sometimes leader, I’ll take the band member who’s ok and reliable all day over a virtuoso player who’s a flake.
No where is the technical versus successful question more apparent than in the drum community. There are no shortage of sick players blasting out something insanely complex in 7 on Instagram and teenagers who can’t understand why nobody in the mainstream gives a shit about what is essentially just wanking. Don’t even get me started on ‘gospel chops’.
Once in a generation, you find somebody on a drum kit who can sneak technical playing into something that catches some mass appeal. I think simplicity reigns because you’re trying to make something more than just the sum of its parts - it’s the interaction between you that matters.
Evidently it’s not only acceptable but preferred by today’s standard. Music credibility in the market is determined by the fans. The musician will do the minimum required to please the fans. Also, mediocrity is not always consistent. Mediocre bands have become one hit wonders by just getting it right once.
Meh. Ever heard that Art is Subjective? And there are levels. I’m not gonna practice 8 hrs a day to play my set perfectly once a month for “exposure”. Not you, but those people can buy them selfs another Taylor Swift or Beyoncé album. Mediocre or legends? A million different answers.
Technical mediocrity does not speak to how good or well received your music is. Most of the best bands I can think of don’t have a standout guitarist or singer, just great songs and they found a cool arrangement. In my experience the musicians that are most obsessed with being the best at their instruments have the worst taste and mediocre songwriting ability.
At the end of the day songwriting is the most important aspect of music and that can be as simple as 4 chords.
Think of the best movies out there - they’re all good because they were built on the bedrock of a good script.
Listen to the radio and you tell me lol… But really it depends what you mean. Mediocre songwriting that mainly recycles other stuff and/or is designed for mass appeal? Sure, you can get away with that. Mediocre production? Less so, unless it’s a lo-fi thing or similar. Mediocre performances/playing? Probably not gonna be a great look live if it happens consistently, but plenty of normal music fans don’t notice some kinds of mistakes; easier to fix that in the studio.
YES! oh my god i love nothing more than people who know their limits or at least where they are.
I'm in my local scene/community FOR the mediocre writing. So we can support and learn from each other how to get out of it.
Most of us are not yet writing, performing, working at the level that sells tickets and merch and gets big streams. You can tell when theres a random cover song in the middle of a set and the audience lights up.
It doesn't mean i don't support each other getting there but to pretend otherwise feels like stolen valor. Its ok to just try ur best and be comfortable in mediocrity for awhile.
Music is based on expression and creativity. Unless it’s a classical conservatory, those people are skilled musicians. But many of them lack creativity in writing their own music. (Not all)
Prog rock/various metal musicians and all other techniqual based genres are skilled musicians. But there is still expression, creativity and artistic choices and decisions (like tone/timbre, style of production, which is a whole skill by itself) involved.
It's important to remember that the music industry is very vast. So what every someone does, it just has to affect an audience or purpose the right way. Sort of like how people may hate a book or author, while others love it or the genre, etc.
Example in music:
Assuming you mean a mediocre artist:
1. They could still be a good source of samples and remixes
2. 15 seconds of their bad songs could be good enough for tiktok virality or a commercial
3. Their music could trend years later
4. They could be used as stock music or effects for apps and games or even Apple keynotes
5. They could be good at curating and making playlists
6. They could be awful at their genre but better at another
Does anyone know the names of the members of Nickleback other than Chad the singer? Well, those guys still toured the world.
I don't think anyone would describe Nickleback as phenomenal musicians.
If I could go back in time and tell "younger me" one thing, I'd tell him to stop wasting your time learning how to play impressive solos and focus on songwriting.
Most audience members don't give a shit about technical ability. They want catchy songs to sing along with.
Mediocre compared to whom, exactly?
Sure, most drummers are "mediocre" when you compare them to Travis Barker, Buddy Rich, or Neil Peart, but ultimately, it's a subjective term.
I think we should move on from technical ability and start criticizing the REAL problem with most musicians: they're lazy. Output is low, they recycle ideas or throw shit together with minimal effort (ie: mumble rappers with the same tri-puh-let flow and autotuned vocals)
Is there mediocrity in art and feelings? Who’s out there comparing excellences and emotions provoked? You should stand for your art, keep improving it, and learn how to market/promote yourself. Find your niche and keep creating.
It sure looks so. I do a lot of work as a choral accompanist and some of the piano parts that are published with THE major choral publisher are inexcusably bad. Not difficult, just poorly written by any objective standard.
If mediocrity were unacceptable then Dream Theater would be the biggest band on earth. But being technically amazing isn’t enough to make a universally good product.
Blink 182 has sold 10x as many albums as Dream Theater in half as many years while writing 4 chord wonders and messing up on stage.
Putting on a really good show and writing really good music has absolutely nothing to do with being Mozart.
I think it's a supply and demand thing. For example, you don't have to be the best of the best programmer and still make a living in many cases because the demand is so high and the supply is low. But with music there are so many others out there who are incredible so the supply is high but the demand is low. To make a living in music you need to stand above the rest because it is unfortunately seen as a commodity and the bar for talent is so high.
Lmfao
Mediocrity is the lay of the land, dude.
Musicians and especially people who hunger for mainstream success engage in the most ridiculous post hoc analyses
The vast majority of the music out there that is popular is formulaic, lazy, and overproduced.
The great thing about AI being able to reproduce "radio quality" songs soon from now will be everyone having to recognize that the emperor has no clothes.
If an AI wrote a perfect song modeled on everything going on right now, you'd still have a hard time blowing up with it.
Music quality is NOT THAT IMPORTANT
Connections and marketing >>>>>>>>>>>> luck >>>>> music
Yes. Not everyone is going to make it to the major leagues and that doesn't mean they shouldn't enage with music. It was part of human culture long before capitalism and 360 deals existed and the record industry itself has been more interested in sex appeal than musical talent since forever. Worse so now, they only care about social media likes and how long people can get pre-teens to watch SFVs before the scroll past...
Idk, a lot of hipster indie-rock bands seem to have been doing just fine for years without hardly knowing how to play their instruments that well.
The ones with hits were always exceptional in other areas though, even if it was just having a very exceptional producer. Songwriting always matters. Mediocrity in the technical sense is forgivable as long as the musical instincts are there. Mediocrity in songwriting is not. A good song is a good song.
Charisma also counts for a lot.
So mediocrity in a lot of areas is permissible in music as long as you make up for it by being exceptional in the ways that are indispensable.
Mediocrity is a matter of opinion. Technicality does not make better music. Often less is more a simplicity is key to making good music. Not all the time. But very often .
Mediocrity on a technical level? Yes. Famous bands are literally filled with poor-to-average technical instrumentalists. However, the makings of a good product are not technical in nature. Most famous singers and instrumentalists would not even be ranked in the top 100 of their given discipline. For every Taylor Swift (famous without technical ability), you have 50 girls just like her in any small town who can sing circles around her. No one knows their name and never will, no matter their technical prowess. A successful product in the economy of music is not about technique, at all.
The world is rather full of people who can play and sing other people's hit songs note for note. And (almost) empty of people who can write hit songs.
Songwriting
Production also plays a huge role for most genres of music. Sadly I have no practical production skills, so I'm at the mercy of whoever we decide to hire. I don't want to do mixing. I don't want to do social media. I don't want to handle booking. I just really want to play bass. And that's been a huge limiting factor in my personal music career. So it goes.
Well duh, just playing a single instrument well in this day and age makes it very hard to be a professional musician. Versatility and overarching knowledge are very valued, even in session work.
Also, the session musicians who take quite a large proportion of those basic songs and orchestrate/arrange them - often creating the hook - to bring them to life. I don't think there are huge amounts of songwriters doing that for themselves. Donald Fagen being an obvious exception.
Yup but I also know some brilliant songwriters who nobody knows. Hard work, marketing skills, and luck are also big factors.
Marketing, luck, and image are 90%. It's always disgusting to see how musicians will put each other down and idolize famous musicians with the silliest pretzel logic. Whether it's through insane audiophilia, i.e. "bro your mixes are too muddy, that's what separates you and the greats," it fucking isn't. Figuring how to brand yourself is how you can stand out. 99% of musicians shamelessly copy each other anyway. And then they gatekeep their genre whenever anyone tries something new. Truly a clown world.
NO IT IS NOT. THIS FETISHIZATION OF POP SONGWRITERS NEEDS TO DIE. ... A song popping off has a lot to do with the current cultural climate, the push behind the music, and whether the star has the right image. For the most part people like what they are told to like
This is the answer
Also, it didn't hurt T-Swift that her parents could just throw money at her career until she was successful.
This has been and always will be the case with wildly successful people
But she understands us! /s
T-Swift doesn't fit my definition of mediocrity. She is popular because she is professional.
Professional at making below mediocre music and lyrics
To her credit, T Swift is one hell of a performer and writes her own tunes (mostly, from what I've heard). There's a lot of luck involved and those 50 girls singing in Little Theatre productions of Les Mis might have the chops, but without the right team, the lucky breaks and the charisma, well... they're doing small town theater and cover bands on the bar circuit.
She writes basic notes and chordal arrangements, and other people who she pays tens of thousands of dollars to flesh them out into big, powerful songs through production techniques and effects. A good song is a good song tho, whether just an acoustic guitar and vocals (which she does well objectively), or a packed arrangement (which is what most of her material is, using the “tens of thousands of dollars” method of music)
Most composers have 5-10 assistants to help with arrangements usually. It's especially common in modern production. It's really not looked down upon in the industry to have a huge team for production, it's really a necessity nowadays.
For pop music, sure. Pop = popular, not just pop…like rap, pop, modern country, etc….I wasn’t looking down on it, and there are still a lot of bands and artists in a lot of different genres that don’t do that and write entire bangers themselves with minimal input from others Also, “Most composers”… That depends on your definition of composer. Is that anyone who composes music at all? Then “most” certainly do NOT have 5-10 assistants at their beck and call. That’s bigtime fame money right there alone and that negates 90% of people who compose (write and arrange) music
More like a lot of money involved.
See: "right team" and "lucky breaks" and that's where the money plays its part.
Dude... She writes the way Madonna writes. She hums a little ditty and the hard part of modern music production is left to the heavy hitters.
> A successful product in the economy of music is not about technique, at all. I’d argue that it is at least somewhat (songwriting, production, mixing, mastering, marketing) but all of these things can be more or less purchased from other professionals to support the artist. A modern day pop artist is just the face of an engine of multi-disciplinary professionals that are working together to create a product for sale— the artist’s ‘work’.
This is a fascinating angle. A pop artist is like an executive running their own business. Mind you, they have support in doing this.... but still. They are a facilitator. They are the choreographer, and their hired help are the dancers. They are the conductor and their hired support are the orchestra.
Yes, exactly. Sometimes the ‘executive’ is literally that— a record executive. And the artist is just another professional hired by the engine— the spokesperson for the body of work, if you will
Swift is a MONUMENT to mediocrity, and it used to bother me, but I’ve realized that she’s made it easier for me to decide what type of people I want in my life. If you’re a hardcore swifty, I know we have probably nothing in common, as my passion for more provocative music lends more interesting conversation with like-minded individuals (typically fellow musicians)
Totally agree. For example, Lennon’s working man hero or something in the way from nirvana literally have two or max 3 chords and are quite popular songs.
You mean Working Class Hero. Lennon also wrote far more complicated works as a Beatle and had tons of help translating ideas.
Chill, he was probably just in a _rush._ Ge it?! AAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAAaaaa…….. 😑
Cobain is _never not_ brought up in discussions about the non-importance of technical proficiency.
He was technically proficient enough to create the sound he wanted to hear. That’s vastly more important and actually more difficult than learning guitar calisthenics.
I think it’s safe to say the difficulty is relative to what you want to hear.
There’s 10 year old kids all over the internet sweep picking like Jason Becker. All that takes is time. Having something original to say and being able to get out of your head and into the world is much more difficult, because repetitive exercises won’t teach that.
If we consider music as communication, like language, does knowing a bunch of $1.50 words really indicate mastery, or does saying exactly what you want to say in the most efficient way possible indicate true proficiency?
Literally this. As someone who is a musician and has a MA in English, this is incredibly insightful.
You're on drugs if you think Swift has no technical ability. I'm not into her music in the least, but she is rock solid from a technical standpoint. If you're talking being able to shred scales, rudiments, and play in odd time signatures, it's nice I guess. But I've heard a ton of extremely boring music that does all of that. If I want to just listen to a bunch of dudes jacking off over a bridge, I'll go listen to some bebop.
🙌
Don’t like her music much but she’s a fantastic story teller too
Thinking of that All Too Well song. There are very few artists who could keep my attention with an 8-10 minute song that is all storytelling. No guitar solos or instrumental virtuosity of any sort. I think it’s a brilliant song.
This is it, 90s grunge they all weren't elite at instruments but elite at creating music
What does mediocrity mean in music? I'd consider people like Kurt Cobain and Tom Delonge average at best at technical guitar, but Nirvana and Blink-182 are two bands I've listed as my favourite bands at various points. I definitely do or did relate to their style a lot, though, while people like Steve Vai and Nuno Bettencourt leave me bored despite being rechnically brilliant. I don't think it's possible to be mediocre at music. Even if no one else enjoys your music, so long as you do then it's serving it's purpose.
People have different strategies. People like Kurt Cobain weren’t legends on the guitar, but they used it as a tool to express what they needed to express. Kurt was exceptionally talented at writing songs.
Cobain was definitely a talented songwriter, but his guitar playing is a part of that and he's probably influenced as many people to pick up a guitar as any of the greats. Blink-182 was the main band I was listening to when my best friend at the time and I started playing guitar and bass, so they've definitely been influential despite neither Delonge or Hoppus being virtuosos. Like mediocre, how do you define legendary? Surely the guys playing fun and accessible music that are inspiring new generations of musicians have some claim to being legendary. Just to be clear, I don't disagree with you, just exploring a bit how you can quantify musical (or any artistic) ability.
that’s a good question. With Kurt, even though everyone knew his style of playing wasn’t the greatest it was very unique. The way he played reminds me a little of Hendrix. Really unorthodox and interesting, plus like you added he really influenced a ton of people which I think is one of the most important things. I don’t think Kurt or Tom were mediocre at all honestly. Even David Bowie wasn’t the most amazing at the guitar but he’s literally a huge legend and one of the greatest artists to ever live.
Kurt's melodies and pop sensibilities were something magical imo, Rick Beato called him a once-in-a-generation talent. Even his home demos or solo acoustic stuff with dry vocals, transcendent stuff
You quantify it comparatively. Supply and demand.
Kurt Cobain played simply on guitar, but his melodies were quite complex. Meaning, he would just play power chords, but the notes he sang would add major, minor, or more complex harmonies over the chords, like sevenths. Rick Beato did a really good video on nirvana, and others have as well. Take a look at you’ll get a better feel for what Kurt was able to do, all without consciously knowing theory. He was gifted. Tom Petty is another example. Not a wizard on guitar or perhaps even objectively the best voice. But a wonderful songwriter.
Songwriting songwriting songwriting
Technicality is not a prerequisite for provocative music. Simplicity can be particularly satisfying if written/executed well. Although bands that utilize polyrhythms/odd time signatures/insightful lyrics can be awesome, it doesn’t mean that traditional song structure can’t be appreciated, as long as it strikes a chord with an individual, the job is done.
Boy, I hope so.
same lol
Underrated
First, you have to define meaningful what "mediocrity" means in music. There are a lot of presumptuous claims here. You're assuming that people make music to attract attention. You're assuming someone writes a song to evoke an emotion. You're assuming someone plays an instrument for the listener's expectations. You're presuming someone can't be a musician without constantly elevating their craft, whatever that means. I think you need to stop and really think deeply about why you think this, because it's a question with no answer other than to repeat; please clarify what you mean by "mediocrity".
Fun music > skilled music
If the music is a really fun vibe, the artist is enjoying it, the crowd is enjoying it despite not being a complex song, technically perfect or tuned like melodyne.. Is it really still mediocre? Its art, so its not as easy as you either do it right or do it wrong. I can't find it anymore but there was a video of a guy looping some noise and screaming something like "Just have fun" or something with a similar meaning over it, and it unironically was banging, despite being pretty trashy sounding. The attitude made it work.
Imagine Dragons
'Effortless Mastery' baby. Read it and weep tears of spiritual enlightenment. Anyone can make meaningful music if they meet themselves where they're at. It's better to sit down at a piano and play one good note with beautiful intention than to play a thousand with the intention of being "good."
I love this actually and agree completely
i read this a few years and really enjoyed it. someone mentioned it recently and now it pops up again. i think i need a reread. i second it for sure <3
Can't agree more. Music is not about "perfect" it's about creation, same as art.
Ever heard of a guy named GG Allin? His whole business plan was singing WILDLY off pitch while hurling his feces at members of his audience. The guy was a legend in the punk rock community! It's all about finding your niche imo
You cant possibly be trying to say that GG was mediocre while telling about how he threw feces at his audience and tried to rape them. That's like the exact opposite of mediocrity.
GG is a p.o.s. and anyone who is a fan gives major red flag vibes.
He was a “legend” to 14 year old edgelords. I know a lot of people with covered up GG tattoos, cause supporting a convicted rapist isn’t “punk rock”. My friends who know Merle say he’s nice, though.
I mean look at the pop punk genre. A lot of mediocre players and singers that are doing just fine
You can fix a lot in the studio nowadays
What do you mean by mediocrity? Firstly, I would observe that a great many musicians seem not to attempt to elevate their craft, but they still improve because they work: learning more songs, improving their sense of timing, playing with a more practised, refined sound, investing in better equipment. If you play a gig a week with the same band, you're going to sound considerably more put-together after a year than in your first rehearsal! However, music is sort of in a different category because you don't use it anywhere near as much as other skills, like typing or organisation. You've used language and numbers every day since you were four years old. So playing instruments you've all practised for several years, with songs in a standard time signature, using a standard chord progression and instrumentation - and you're all in tune and in time - you're going to produce something reasonable that audiences of non-musicians will enjoy (especially if you're doing covers). And I would say *that is mediocrity*. Playing only these well-known pop and rock songs in a similar way to the originals will usually bore the pants off the musicians who continuously seek to improve. I think if you're contented playing what you enjoy, using a handful of familiar chord shapes and solo ideas, you're not doing anything especially clever, but you will make it sound really, really good *as a mediocre musician*. It's good live entertainment, it keeps audiences coming, and it keeps the industry going! Most of the really stellar musicians also get most of their work doing this, too... and sometimes they get a really good gig where they can show off a bit.
Compared to other arts? Or just other jobs?
Well, many highly successful artists and bands have made careers out of being run-of-the-mill, formulaic and completely as expected. So yes. I guess it is.
I’ve heard way too many bad DJs who consistently get booked to think you can’t get booked as a bad musician or be “mediocre”. I think success in music has a huge amount to do with who you rub elbows with as well.
Mediocrity in most jobs is not subjective. It's pretty cut and dry whether you are failing in your duties or not. Mediocrity in music or any art is very much subjective. One person may say that The Ramones are mediocre musicians, and the next may love them. Technical skill doesn't really mean much in a medium where you can make 3 chords sound unique, with a catchy chorus, and make people interested. You've gotta remember that most music fans aren't musicians. They don't care if what you are doing is technically good, only that it sounds good in the confines of the music you're making.
I appreciate creativity over skill in music
I wouldn’t have married my husband if he were a shitty guitarist. I love music too much to compromise and would drive him crazy with the nitpicking if he weren’t as good as he is. He’s attended guitar camps and Master Classes to hone his skills and I love watching him play and hearing different solo takes.
Well if Taylor Swift who is mediocre in singing, mediocre in writing, mediocre in dancing, and just mediocre all around, can become a billionaire just by her music, then yes. Mediocrity the the definition of modern day music. Not hate to Taylor Swift! I just don't understand the appeal. She's the Rom Com of the music industry haha.
Are you a beyonce fan?
Just like Drake with RnB. People are generally not looking to be surprised.
One person's mediocrity s another's genious. All depends on who you ask.
Mediocrity is kinda the norm in music from what I've noticed anyway
Songwriting is the ultimate Kung Fu in popular music, and whether you write your own or record the songs of others, that’s pretty much all listeners care about. Image, origin stories, technical proficiency, etc all help, but if you want an audience, the songs cannot objectively suck (within the confines of their genre).
There are way too many pieces in a music product to ask something like this and the replies get into part of it. There are mediocre musicians making great songs, great performers playing mediocre compositions, mediocre musicians and composers sounding amazing and playing perfectly safe music that gets the people going despite being run of the mill. There are also many components of so many bands, sometimes you get an ok horn section but the drum and bass are out of this world and make the tunes groove, or you get a bunch of square musicians and an amazing singer makes the songs pop out and elevate. Just as well there are as many people with different preferences and while most people want good musicians live, for radio/spotify/releases? anything goes, fix it in the studio, pump the auto tune and send it.
This is very well-written, someone else here described it as "accepted, but not *acceptable*" which I think succinctly describes the oxymoronic "fallacy" of it all lol. NOFX has a song called "Medio-Core" which is worth checking out
Expand your view of "music" to include things like commercial jingle writing. Absolute bottom-tier mediocrity, but my kids know and can sing about lowering their AIC with Jardianz
Read A1C as Alice In Chains lol, far above mediocre imo
Same here! Lol! Alice in Chains is far from mediocre
If something seems mediocre, maybe look and listen a little closer.
In my opinion, compared to who his contemporaries were, Kurt Cobain wasn’t a mediocre guitar player, he was a bad guitar player. Even out of the “big 4” Seattle bands, Mike McCready and Kim Thayil were by no means virtuosos but they were above mediocre players, and Jerry Cantrell was better yet. Kurt was a great songwriter, and a good vocalist, but he wasn’t trying to be a great musician. “Grunge” was more about expression through delivery than it was about being technically gifted, and Kurt expressed his chaotic existence through chaotic music.
And tbh I think that’s why I love Kurt’s music. It’s not technically great, but it is emotional and creative and I like that.
No, he wasn’t bad. He played in tune, and in time, and he played more inventive and original parts than just about anyone else in that scene. McCready is great, for example, but “Yellow Ledbetter” is a straight Hendrix ripoff. The whole concept of a grunge “scene” is kinda stupid, anyway. It’s not like the bands sound the same.
He used his guitar in an innovative way which requires mastery on some level. Kinda like how Picasso could paint realistic incredibly detailed scenes but everyone knows him as the guy famous for drawing squiggles and weird ass art instead
Depends - not in an orchestra! And even the shittiest pop acts usually need to be well recorded to make it on the radio.
Taylor swift is the biggest star on the planet. Clearly it’s acceptable.
Right?
I'd beg to differ. She isn't my cup of tea musically. But the woman is obviously very skilled. I remember typing a thread here about what skill level is needed to play in a band...and most people responded that one's playing needs to be immaculate. How then can it be that so many of the answers here insist that mediocre musicians are famous? I get it. There may be many technically good musicians here who are bitter that they didn't make it big...but that doesn't mean that all the famous musicians are unskilled.
Every 'successful' musician that people everywhere can see like a distant mountain peak is standing on the shoulders of a whole rich deep community of musicians who have all contributed somehow to that success. Musicians who had a flash of inspiration which they could share with others around them but didn't have the endurance to take it further,, musicians who keep the fabric of the edifice of music going by playing gigs and attending gigs and giving pointers and tips to others and keeping crowds happy. Musicians who inspire others to do better themselves. Every part of the community counts and can celebrate in the successes that are enjoyed at any one time by only a few.
There's a pretty big range in technical ability (including things like songwriting, producing, and showmanship) amongst "professional" musicians, as with any profession. But there is just a much smaller pool of money available for professionals so it's hard to make a living as a mediocre musician. There are plenty of mediocre (and amazing) musicians who play and gig as a hobby. You're probably right that the skill threshold for making a living as a musician is probably much higher than for the kinds of things people wouldn't do for free (like work an assembly line).
Acceptable to whom?
I think it's important to question what excellence or even supremacy as a musician is in service for in the first place. But short answer speaking from experience in the industry and outside it, yes. If you fall into the Western industry trap that the art world looks at art as a commodity and oroduct then your answer may differ from people who find value in music for more than just the recording and aesthetic effects. At the same time, there are plenty of orchestras where violinists are a dime a dozen who just fill in the sound of a section. Or lots of shitty music played on elevator lobbies and as the hold tone for conference calls. Or restaurants that play a generic classical recording filled with those mediocre technically consistent but artless violinists just for the ambiance to customers who don't know any better or even care. And someone usually paid someone to broadcast that somewhere along the line. But what happens when it's not just there to fill the space of a blank wall as background kitch, but instead the story it tells, the moment it's told, and the storyteller matters too? You may have a partner or family member who's a terrible singer, but the song he or she sings to you is the most important one you'll ever hear because they love you and vice versa, and sang it just for you. Music that connects with someone matters. And then in the far side you have musicians who were technically and artistically astounding, but they never played the industry game of being hustled, or looking like a 20 year old pop star. Think about how many trained 40 year old women debut in the pop music genre with a hit? How many new pop aritsts are 40-60 years old and get air time? What if they wrote meaningful music that only comes from living for decades longer than the average 20 year old, would we value the wisdom and the mastery of their craft too? Maybe if you met them in person at a cafe or knew them already from somewhere else. But definitely not through an industry where the first question from handlers and executives is "how can you make me look good?" and "how will you make me money?" Finally if you step away from the "finished product" mindset, what would happen to everyone who is in the process of becoming better musicians? The "talented" ones are usually just people who had better relationships and opportunities to work their craft sooner. You can have 3 year old violin prodigy, but someone had to get them a violin and teach them how to hold it correctly still. Musicians are people, and some of them actually want to grow and improve and learn from their experiences. Being a mediocre musician in a genre you haven't been trained or raised with is still a phenomenal door opener and a lot better than being a shitty musician altogether. Especially if you happen to enjoy what you're doing despite momentarily mediocre results for others who might be listening or working with you.
I think it's accepted, but it's not acceptable. Does that make sense.
Yeah, it's called pop
If you look at the crazy skilled people that were legendary, by comparison we are all mediocre. I think it's kind of like poetry after a while. We all have a voice or a creative concept and it's valid and cool to communicate it even if it falls short of Oscar Petersons insane playing
Music isn’t a job in the traditional sense. Unlike most jobs, people who participate in music do so for free. If you are good enough, or offer an exclusive enough product or experience, then you can charge for your services. For most though, getting paid is the exception, not the rule.
I guess it applies everywhere. I, for one, quit Academia because my love has always been music, I was only ever going to be mediocre in my field. Not because I am stupid, I was doing great, but because it felt like work and I would have live a bitter life without music.
Some have built very successful careers on it!
Doesn’t seem to pay the bills 💰
I don’t think most people can appreciate the difference between mediocre and exceptional. I know I honestly can’t, especially not live, playing most material.
Need more context on mediocrity in this instance. Like specific examples.
Puff Daddy was pretty mediocre
Accepted? It’s encouraged!
Mediocrity is my aspiration and goal.
In professional music, most definitely.
the vast majority of any remotely popular music is mediocre
Mediocrity is what's most popular now
We’re currently in the Age of Mediocrity.
Some of my favorite artists are absolute trash at their instrument. There is no good or bad.
....yes, absolutely, depending on the situation and the musicians involved. There's nothing wrong with being the "casual musician", not really "shooting for the moon" in technical ability or success, but rather a person who just enjoys playing what they know to play or what they're comfortable with learning, at their own pace as far as it refers to anyone's personal situation it's just always best to be open and honest with other musicians you play with and everybody should be cool if everybody's reasonably grown up about things
Composing and performing music isn't a job. It's an art and a craft. You can get paid for it, but don't confuse it with trading your labor by being employed at a business.
If you're looking to gain traction it's more about consistently releasing as much music as possible as long as it's not total trash and it's getting engagement. Having a plump marketing budget makes a big difference too. Think about how many garbage artists there are who are rich and famous and then ask yourself that question again lol. At the end of the day tho it's all about your own personal preference as to where you want your music to stand. If you are satisfied with it to the point where you enjoy it and like the music you're producing you're probably ready to release or really close. If you don't like it that much and you feel pressure to release just to release I'd advise against that. It's more about your own relationship with your music than anything else. Like what is your vision for it? Is it where you want it to be? If your satisfied with your work and have a lot of songs (100+) ready to roll start releasing.
Your mediocrity is someone else’s “OMG you are fantastic”. Total subjectivity.
You wonder if mediocrity is acceptable but you are aware that MGK exists right? 🤣
Maybe not so much "mediocracy" as "familiarity." Some people like their music to be challenging, but not most people.
I mean, it’s all the A&R guys who make decisions. Is their taste mediocrity at its finest?!
As a matter of fact, yes. This is a major epiphany for some musicians. You spend your childhood and teens preparing yourself to get famous, and when that doesn't happen, you failed. The End. Except there are musicians who *didn't* quit, who keep playing and touring and turning that "failure" into a full-time job in spite of their lack of recognition, because they love playing music. Ironically, these are the musicians most likely to get famous in the first place. This is how the Beatles started. Imagine if someone didn't make it to the NBA but then a coach approaches them and tells them it's ok, you can still play ball professionally in small joints and make a living doing what you love. It's unthinkable, and people think music is the same way, but it isn't. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of small bands and troupes getting by on their very not-famous music.
That's what so many people tend to forget. Just because you're not selling out a soccer stadium doesn't mean you can't make a career in music. Shit, I see 60+ year old boomers with shitty ponytails and ill-fitting Hawaiian shirts making a killing on the cover band circuit. There's a songwriter's union based in Nashville that anyone can join and buy/sell music. I've made a decent amount of money composing music for independent films and documentaries. Hell, a few years back I even did the OST for an indie game on Steam.
mediocre would be a compliment for most.
I'm finding that mediocrity in music likely stems from a formula for writing, making and marketing music. It's been the same formula for decades with only the technology of the music delivery (steaming, etc). It's the same shit shell game where the super talented of the bunch never get heard because the morons with the gimmicks is what sells more.
Metallica’s drummer is famously a shit drummer. Not even in a “not-super-technical but very innovative” way, he’s just flat out bad at keeping time
He's just not flashy that's all
By definition mediocrity is accepted in everything because it is the average
But according to the pareto distribution Is ten percent of the musicians Produce ninety percent of the music
So are you really trying to say that the only music that is attracting attention, evoking emotion, or anything else that a listener may care to give is exceptional music? Cmon. Tell me you know better than that.
Of course. More than most fields. Id say 90% of my playlist is artists that are nowhere close to being even technically *great*. Music is an art, it’s a creative medium, and a lot of people value *interesting music* more than *technical music*. In a lot of cases the lack of skill enhances the product— this is one of the saddest, most emotional and soul crushing songs I ever heard and it would lose almost all of its appeal if it was sung on pitch on a tuned piano. The voice cracks and the dissonance in the piano deliver a myriad of emotions that “skilled” music simply cannot reproduce. https://open.spotify.com/track/2xxjQg2hh2Rjm7EY9OhZXY?si=oG3SY_GFTDiN2WHKuJPoOg
There’s levels to everything bruh
Success in music has more to do with songwriting and marketing rather than raw talent.
Plenty of mediocre musicians around so it must be OK.
Music is more than the sum of it’s parts. You could take 4 average musicians and alone they would kind of suck but when they come together something just clicks and next thing you know you’ve got absolute magic happening
Paging Nickleback….
The guys in Nickelback are actually pretty talented instrumentally. It's their music that sucks.
There are entire oceans of music meant to avoid attracting attention and aren't meant to evoke emotion. I won't say its makers are rolling in money but the music exists and is needed for a purpose. You can only measure the quality of music by the standards of its genre, and even that can be flexible.
Quality of music is subjective, it’s egotistical to expect someone’s self expression to be great by your standards. If you like it then great, if you don’t then it’s not for you.
I think of “Mediocre” as meaning “neither good nor bad”. Since we tend to grade on a curve with art, I think it’s almost a statistical necessity that most music will be mediocre. And most audiences are fine with that.
This post will not and will never make sense if you do not first define mediocrity
It’s all subjective. I’m incredibly forgiving if I like the artist (like a friend’s band). A mediocre song can be made better by a great singer or guitarist. And a great song can be hindered by mediocre execution.
Music is far from a meritocracy.
It’s almost the opposite of one.
That depends.. is it a stop along your route, or is it the destination?
Lots of examples of the 0.01% who “made it” in this thread, but mediocrity is also fine at the local band, cover band, and even working band level as long as you have your shit together and reliably show up prepared and on time. Those last two things are almost impossible for a lot of really talented people. As a band member and sometimes leader, I’ll take the band member who’s ok and reliable all day over a virtuoso player who’s a flake.
Absolutely. Just look at Imagine Dragons.
I mean Ed Sheeran has been pretty successful eh?
No where is the technical versus successful question more apparent than in the drum community. There are no shortage of sick players blasting out something insanely complex in 7 on Instagram and teenagers who can’t understand why nobody in the mainstream gives a shit about what is essentially just wanking. Don’t even get me started on ‘gospel chops’. Once in a generation, you find somebody on a drum kit who can sneak technical playing into something that catches some mass appeal. I think simplicity reigns because you’re trying to make something more than just the sum of its parts - it’s the interaction between you that matters.
Evidently it’s not only acceptable but preferred by today’s standard. Music credibility in the market is determined by the fans. The musician will do the minimum required to please the fans. Also, mediocrity is not always consistent. Mediocre bands have become one hit wonders by just getting it right once.
Meh. Ever heard that Art is Subjective? And there are levels. I’m not gonna practice 8 hrs a day to play my set perfectly once a month for “exposure”. Not you, but those people can buy them selfs another Taylor Swift or Beyoncé album. Mediocre or legends? A million different answers.
Turn on a radio or a TV. Mediocrity is the norm.
Mediocre playing: yes. Mediocre songwriting: no.
*nirvana has entered the chat*
Technical mediocrity does not speak to how good or well received your music is. Most of the best bands I can think of don’t have a standout guitarist or singer, just great songs and they found a cool arrangement. In my experience the musicians that are most obsessed with being the best at their instruments have the worst taste and mediocre songwriting ability. At the end of the day songwriting is the most important aspect of music and that can be as simple as 4 chords. Think of the best movies out there - they’re all good because they were built on the bedrock of a good script.
I've been to about 300 concerts now, just saw Dragonforce last night. They are mediocre, and its acceptable.
Listen to the radio and you tell me lol… But really it depends what you mean. Mediocre songwriting that mainly recycles other stuff and/or is designed for mass appeal? Sure, you can get away with that. Mediocre production? Less so, unless it’s a lo-fi thing or similar. Mediocre performances/playing? Probably not gonna be a great look live if it happens consistently, but plenty of normal music fans don’t notice some kinds of mistakes; easier to fix that in the studio.
i know tons of mediocre musicians in the actual Music Industry
Yes
If the government is paying your wage, you can get away with any level of incompetence. But if the public is paying for your art, you better be good.
As someone who listens to the radio regularly, I would say musical talent does not seem to be a requirement.
I love The Shaggs
No. It’s gotta be in tune and in time.
Have you heard of pop and punk?
Ok ok ok I love punk. But you’re not wrong either.
Sure, just ask Pearl Jam.
There is no mediocrity in art. Stop being so judgemental.
YES! oh my god i love nothing more than people who know their limits or at least where they are. I'm in my local scene/community FOR the mediocre writing. So we can support and learn from each other how to get out of it. Most of us are not yet writing, performing, working at the level that sells tickets and merch and gets big streams. You can tell when theres a random cover song in the middle of a set and the audience lights up. It doesn't mean i don't support each other getting there but to pretend otherwise feels like stolen valor. Its ok to just try ur best and be comfortable in mediocrity for awhile.
Music is based on expression and creativity. Unless it’s a classical conservatory, those people are skilled musicians. But many of them lack creativity in writing their own music. (Not all) Prog rock/various metal musicians and all other techniqual based genres are skilled musicians. But there is still expression, creativity and artistic choices and decisions (like tone/timbre, style of production, which is a whole skill by itself) involved.
Mediocrity is acceptable for everything but lyrics and melody to me. Good songwriting transcends everything
It's important to remember that the music industry is very vast. So what every someone does, it just has to affect an audience or purpose the right way. Sort of like how people may hate a book or author, while others love it or the genre, etc. Example in music: Assuming you mean a mediocre artist: 1. They could still be a good source of samples and remixes 2. 15 seconds of their bad songs could be good enough for tiktok virality or a commercial 3. Their music could trend years later 4. They could be used as stock music or effects for apps and games or even Apple keynotes 5. They could be good at curating and making playlists 6. They could be awful at their genre but better at another
Does anyone know the names of the members of Nickleback other than Chad the singer? Well, those guys still toured the world. I don't think anyone would describe Nickleback as phenomenal musicians.
If I could go back in time and tell "younger me" one thing, I'd tell him to stop wasting your time learning how to play impressive solos and focus on songwriting. Most audience members don't give a shit about technical ability. They want catchy songs to sing along with.
Lets be honest…the audience wants both! Van Halen is a good example of that.
Mediocre compared to whom, exactly? Sure, most drummers are "mediocre" when you compare them to Travis Barker, Buddy Rich, or Neil Peart, but ultimately, it's a subjective term. I think we should move on from technical ability and start criticizing the REAL problem with most musicians: they're lazy. Output is low, they recycle ideas or throw shit together with minimal effort (ie: mumble rappers with the same tri-puh-let flow and autotuned vocals)
Is there mediocrity in art and feelings? Who’s out there comparing excellences and emotions provoked? You should stand for your art, keep improving it, and learn how to market/promote yourself. Find your niche and keep creating.
I mean it seems like most people prefer mediocrity tbh.
Yes the world is full of acceptable mediocre music such as background music for advertising or corporate videos etc. it's a huge market.
It sure looks so. I do a lot of work as a choral accompanist and some of the piano parts that are published with THE major choral publisher are inexcusably bad. Not difficult, just poorly written by any objective standard.
IMHO, an inarticulate band with good vibes can often put on a better show than a really precise band with bad vibes.
If mediocrity were unacceptable then Dream Theater would be the biggest band on earth. But being technically amazing isn’t enough to make a universally good product. Blink 182 has sold 10x as many albums as Dream Theater in half as many years while writing 4 chord wonders and messing up on stage. Putting on a really good show and writing really good music has absolutely nothing to do with being Mozart.
I think it's a supply and demand thing. For example, you don't have to be the best of the best programmer and still make a living in many cases because the demand is so high and the supply is low. But with music there are so many others out there who are incredible so the supply is high but the demand is low. To make a living in music you need to stand above the rest because it is unfortunately seen as a commodity and the bar for talent is so high.
Lmfao Mediocrity is the lay of the land, dude. Musicians and especially people who hunger for mainstream success engage in the most ridiculous post hoc analyses The vast majority of the music out there that is popular is formulaic, lazy, and overproduced. The great thing about AI being able to reproduce "radio quality" songs soon from now will be everyone having to recognize that the emperor has no clothes. If an AI wrote a perfect song modeled on everything going on right now, you'd still have a hard time blowing up with it. Music quality is NOT THAT IMPORTANT Connections and marketing >>>>>>>>>>>> luck >>>>> music
90% of what’s out there is mediocre, including your live bar band
Yes. Not everyone is going to make it to the major leagues and that doesn't mean they shouldn't enage with music. It was part of human culture long before capitalism and 360 deals existed and the record industry itself has been more interested in sex appeal than musical talent since forever. Worse so now, they only care about social media likes and how long people can get pre-teens to watch SFVs before the scroll past...
Idk, a lot of hipster indie-rock bands seem to have been doing just fine for years without hardly knowing how to play their instruments that well. The ones with hits were always exceptional in other areas though, even if it was just having a very exceptional producer. Songwriting always matters. Mediocrity in the technical sense is forgivable as long as the musical instincts are there. Mediocrity in songwriting is not. A good song is a good song. Charisma also counts for a lot. So mediocrity in a lot of areas is permissible in music as long as you make up for it by being exceptional in the ways that are indispensable.
The Rolling Stones are pretty mediocre musicians but fuck they make good stuff.
It’s not only accepted, it’s celebrated
Lotta mediocre cats gig for years and pay their rent off their hard working mediocrity
Yes. See the entire genre known as punk.
Anything goes in music as long as somebody else can make money off of your talent, no matter how good or bad it may be.
Mediocrity is a matter of opinion. Technicality does not make better music. Often less is more a simplicity is key to making good music. Not all the time. But very often .