Comments by "Classical LP Vault" (@classicallpvault8251) on "How Computers Ruined Rock Music" video.

Ignore all this autotune and Beat Detective crap and approach the DAW as a musical instrument with new and previously impossible possibilities, rather than a digital toolkit to make doing 1990s stuff easier. Computers make rock music BETTER if used correctly - to the point of allowing one to incorporate a complete symphony orchestra if one posesses Native Instruments Kontakt and the right libraries, as well as a PC with 32 or even 64 GB of RAM. Only if you approach recording digitally with the mindset of the 1990s this problem occurs. Why make the sound of the band a slave to the DAW rather than the opposite? Try to think like Mike Shinoda or Liam Howlett or the engineer of Rammstein. Use the computer to your advantage. And perhaps learn a thing or 2 about synthesis and sound design that is less usual in rock than in electronic music. Try and incorporate production techniques from drum and bass, trance, or even Daft Punk in your stuff. Rock would be so much better if people used DAWs to expand rather than limit how a band sounded.
19
@ch3nz3n People are also spending more money at McDonald's than at decent 25 dollar per menu countryside restaurants. That says nothing about how terrible McD's food is compared to the average steak with a nice salad and fried potatoes at a local diner. Popularity is NOT a sign of quality - especially now due to all kinds of mainly economic reasons, even the cerebrally amputated who used to be able to do nothing but toil away in a cotton mill or a potato field back in the 19th century, can now purchase concert tickets and Spotify/Deezer/Apple Music accounts.
17
@n.d.m.515 Because of bad composition techniques and writing. Markers like the predictability of chord progressions and melodic modulations increased, the number of blue notes decreased, use of counterpoint and polyphony decreased, and the average level of lyrics dropped. Nickelback's songs would still suck if they were covered by RATM using the same studio-engineer RATM did - as long as these covers would be note-for-note the same as the originals. Because it's badly composed formulaic tripe using 3rd grade level lyrics. Not all modern music sucks by the way and there are plenty of examples of this that are ONLY possible due to electronic music recording. Rammstein, Stahlhammer, and other 'neue deutsche Härte' acts are fine. So is The Prodigy. And outside rock music there's studio wizards like trance producers Andreas Schmidt (just look up Ace da Brain - Magic Waters, it's a work of art with the complexity of a Bruckner symphony), Darren Porter and Adam Ellis, and there's even artists who still write 19th century-style virtuoso piano works in the style of Liszt and Chopin (check out Corentin Boissier's Youtube channel) using the computer as a music notation and editing software. It's chart-topping music that became terrible, hugely increased access to powerful composition tools significantly RAISED the bar of what hobbyists, and professionals who do not aim for chart hits, put out.
15
@autohmae Music was a commodity well before the first rock and roll or even proto rock and roll emerged. It was already the case in the 19th century when sheet music rather than recordings were the main medium of monetising music. Hell, it was an issue already in the era of Mozart and Beethoven, right when the first modern-ish publishing deals were signed (there's even correspondence of several 19th century composers, including superstars like Chopin, complaining about being ripped off by publishing houses or complaining about bad arrangements made for amateurs of difficult compositions they wrote)
6
@miguelpereira9859 Well I've been a deejay, record collector, and trance producer for 14 years so...
1
Computers didn't ruin rock music. They changed it, with these 2 examples being a negative influence on certain bands, but with the same computers being absolutely vital for the forward-thinking and widely acclaimed sounds of acts like Rammstein, Linkin Park, The Prodigy, Gorillaz, Burzum, etc. that use digital recording technology to add depth to their sound rather than use it as a shortcut to churning out the same sort of tripe over and over again just to make money. Forget Pro-Tools and augmenting acoustic recordings. Think of the limitless possibilities that limitless use of bus channels (Cubase has no upper limit of mixer channels and all can be routed to one another), digitally triggered wet/dry automation on reverbs, delays etc., sidechain compression, parametric EQs like the Pro-Q 2 etc., or even applying EQ spectrums of source recordings to another signal, add to the toolkit of a producer. Let alone the fact that one can use a 1000 USD PC with a few hundred quid worth of software to create the most intricate ambiences, wall-of-sound-type backing parts, and tons of things that are impossible to create using only live controls. Also, and I am talking about FL Studio because, as an electronic music producer, it's my go-to DAW, some DAW's have built-in algorithms to do the exact OPPOSITE of what Beat Detective does. One can enter a beat using a drum computer type step sequencer, then use algorithms to give it a live feel rather than the opposite way around, by randomising note placement, be it rhythmically or of notes played simultaneously when using the piano roll instead of step sequencer. Then there is the possibility of using a plugin like Kontakt to have an entire and 100% realistic-sounding symphony orchestra and choirs, different types of grand pianos sounding 100% impossible to tell apart from the original, tons of digital recreations of vintage and prohibitively expensive gear, ranging from rack FX to the Roland TB-303, etc. All of the above far outweighs the laziness of some unimaginative twats making crappy formulaic tripe.
1