[Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Sports, politics, movies, videogames, questionable hobbies, photos from your family vacation, etc. Talk about stuff that isn't ponies or music. But do try to stay on topic and respectful of alternate opinions.

[Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Postby VaporBlaze » 08 Apr 2013 19:00

In my music technology capstone, we got into a debate about whether or not technological aids are helpful or harmful to musicians and music as an art form. It was very interesting, and good points were brought up on both sides. I was wondering if anyone here had any strong opinions about the subject.

Before I paste dump my arguments for both sides, the tl;dr is:
Technological aids help musicians overcome certain barriers, focus on improving other aspects of playing, and ease the difficulties of improv and self expression.
However, they also can lead to laziness in musicians, stagnate innovation from a composition perspective, and homogenize the sound/structure of music.

Paste dump:
Pro arguments:
The technology and music industry grow together hand in hand. Improvements in the design, engineering, form, etc. in instruments afford musicians the ability to play increasingly technical and intricate pieces, breeding more skilled musicians with new ideas about what they would like out of their instruments. Engineers design new equipment to suit their needs, and the feedback loop of progress continues.

However, technical advancements in instrument creation are not always geared towards increasing the accuracy with which the instrument can be played. It may be odd to think about, but sometimes they limit the instrument’s capabilities, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Many useful instrument innovations make the instrument more easily playable and less technically challenging to make music with, while often sacrificing some of the instruments capability. The capo for a guitar is a prime example, as it restricts the notes that are playable on the guitar, but makes certain chords less cumbersome for the guitarist to play. Arguably, the frets themselves are a technically limiting factor that give guitarists easier access to the notes of western tuning but take away many microtones from their sonic palette. Small boons here and there are greatly appreciated by musicians, as they enable some songs that would be otherwise incredibly to play, but the restrictions they place on the instrument are not so dramatic that the artist is severely limited in his creative expression.

These technical assistants are incredibly important to musicians. They allow the musician to focus on other aspects of their performance instead of whatever cumbersome or difficult aspect that the aid is targeting. Many guitarists would balk at the prospect of not being able to use a capo on songs in the key of F. There is a point, however, at which the limitations on creative expression are to such an extent that a good measure of creativity is completely blocked. Imagine the most extreme case: the musician presses a button and a machine plays the instrument for him. The technology has lowered the barrier to entry such that nearly every human being could “play” whatever song was programmed, but the musician’s participation in the music making, and degree of creative expression are virtually zero. Imagine, then, the easiest difficulty in the Guitar Hero games: one does not even need to press the fret buttons, simply strumming the controller in time with the bars coming down the note highway is enough to play the song. The “musician” has control over the tempo at which he plays, but has no control over the notes.

One must ask ones self at what point does it become art to create music with the assistance of technology. If the player was not bound to the note highway of a specific song, but was allowed to improvise with the fret keys, each combination thereof representing a different chord, would playing such an “instrument” be considered art? What if the controller had all 5 strings instead of just one strumming bar? I would argue that the point at which the musician has a reasonable degree of control over both the what notes he plays and the time at which he plays him, the music he produces is art and he is an artist.

Going back to the Guitar Hero controller example, the original idea I proposed was a device attached to the neck of a guitar that would allow the user to hold down a single button with his finger, and it would finger a desired chord, leaving the user free to play the strings however he liked. This unburdened the user of many things: memorizing the fingering of each chord, being able to execute the fingering in time and correctly, the hardship of bending the wrist and fingers at awkward angles and slicing the fingertips on the strings, and transitioning smoothly between chord positions. The user would be completely free to improvise on the strings, plucking out patterns that are guaranteed to be in key, or playing rapid, complex changing chord progressions. The user can focus on these aspects of performance while the fingering of the chords is taken care of for them by technology.

A similar technology for keyboards could also be employed to limit the playable notes on the keyboard (and perhaps rearrange the notes into a homogenous grid instead of different sized and spaced keys). The user would be free to select a key (or make up a new one) and explore different note combinations while not worrying about playing off key notes, making techniques such as soloing much more accessible.

This kind of technology can serve two important purposes. Not only can it be used as a type of training wheel to help artists hone a particular skill or technique, and perhaps take them off later one they have perfected it, or as a performing aid, but also as simply a device to lower the skill level required to make decent sounding music for the untrained public. A keyboard or guitar that always played notes in key would be incredibly easy for any one to pick up and play without needing to practice. Some would say that this is a bad thing, even going so far as to say that some people “just weren’t meant to be musicians.” I believe that such a sentiment is incredibly arrogant and even tyrannical. What gives anyone the right to deny a person the ability to use technology to do something with greater ease? Does it threaten them? Does it make them feel jealous that they didn’t have access to such assistive technology when they got into music making? Do they feel like people don’t deserve the right to make beautiful music unless they work as hard as they did? None of these arguments have any value; they only reveal the petty arrogance and vanity of those who hold them. They would do well to consider what benefits of technology that they have taken advantage of in their journey as both a musician and a human being.

The fact is that technology is constantly improving instruments, both in the accuracy and precision that they can be played with, and the ease with which they can be played, and both of these are worthy and desirable outcomes. All people have a right to take advantage of whatever technology is available to them to make their lives easier. If a person feels called to put the time and effort into learning an instrument the “hard way”, then they will enjoy the benefits of greater control of their instrument. If not, they will enjoy being able to play their instrument recreationally without devoting a significant amount of time and energy into it.

Con arguments:
There is a give and a take with everything, and technological assistance in music making is no exception. As a general trend, the more technology an instrument has to make it more accessible, the more limiting it becomes. From a completely fretless guitar with 20 strings that do not have pegs, but must be manually be stretched along the neck to an automated, button triggered mechanical piano, and everything in between, there are many different levels of technological aids that can be applied to instruments, and while there certainly exists a reasonable subset that the musical community all agree on as being standard, necessary levels of technological assistance, both ends of the spectrum have some grey area that can be debated over.

On the end of greater levels of technological aid with less freedom and a smaller range of creative expression, the question of whether what is produced is “art” and whether the player can be considered an “artist” can be a hot topic for musicians, engineers and consumers alike. There do exist some dangers to the music industry and potential harm to the musicians themselves if they become too reliant on technology to play their music for them.

People who may have natural talent for the guitar may pick up the aforementioned guitar that uses a button based mechanism to finger chords automatically before they ever touch a “real” guitar may find that they quite enjoy bing able to make decent sounding music with almost no practice or knowledge. Since they can make “good” sounding music with this instrument, why should they bother taking off the chord aid and going through the effort of learning the fingerings of chords, practicing chords and transitions over and over again, and getting wrist cramps blisters? The auto-chord-fingerer allows them to be lazy and gain a “false” sense of proficiency, stunting their development as a musician. This syndrome could easily “catch” with a large number of musicians, resulting in a collective “dumbing down” of the musical community.

Another danger, relating to the gradual decline of technical skill among musicians, is that if everyone starts using the same technology that limits their creative freedom while playing, the complexity of music being produced over all will decrease, and all songs with rapidly start to homogenize. The four-chord structure, auto tune, midi voices, and the high availability of loops already are having this affect on music. Introducing more technological aids will further remove or at least deemphasize the artistry associated with music making. Being a musician will have little meaning if all it entails is that you can press playing garage band and have the software start generating a song for you, regardless of how “good” it sounds.

Of course progress cannot be stopped, and new technological aids will continue to be developed, released, and used by many people. It is impossible to control the publics purchasing choice, as well as taste in music. However, what can be done is to emphasize the higher levels of musical knowledge, practice, and technical mastery of instrument playing in the professional and academic circles of the music community.
User avatar
VaporBlaze
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 16 Oct 2012 22:11
Location: Colorado
OS: OSX10
Primary: Ableton
Cutie Mark: [-∞, ∞]

Re: [Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Postby Makkon » 08 Apr 2013 21:20

Moving to Community sub-forum
youtube | deviantart | tumblr

I'm Makkon.
User avatar
Makkon
Site Admin
 
Posts: 983
Joined: 28 Jun 2011 01:34
Location: Utah

Re: [Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Postby ghelded_kultz » 08 Apr 2013 21:56

Would that guitar device sort of act like an accordion, where there is a different button for each chord? Because accordions are really hard to play despite their button help.

Anyway, I'm in the "technology is just another means to an end" camp. The second person's argument that said device would make people lazy is pretty much the same as a bad anti-welfare argument and more or less untrue. The people who are that lazy never would have gotten far enough with the device to play music, despite their inborn guitar skill. If anything this device would increase musical creativity because with a little modding, it could start playing chords that a human probably never could play alone.

In a broader scale, technology increases creativity because it opens new horizons that wouldn't have been reachable with out technology. Yes autotune makes singing seem cheaper, but it can create new timbres and sounds that would never have entered music without it. All this talk about music getter dumber is the nostolgia filter playing with our heads. Because remember, everything was better 20 years ago¡

EDIT: I should point out that I don't care much for technicality and as such my opinion won't care about a loss of technical skills.
"Wherever we are, what we hear is mostly noise. When we ignore it, it disturbs us. When we listen to it, we find it fascinating." - John Cage

Trolls and makers of bad music, thats us!
http://soundcloud.com/ghelded-kultz/tracks
User avatar
ghelded_kultz
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 03 Aug 2012 08:36
Location: Stallion Dimas

Re: [Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Postby itroitnyah » 09 Apr 2013 08:01

Without technology to improve music, we'd all still be listening to rock n roll, jazz, or orchestral from the 50's. Music has to evolve, everything does, and the people who believe that music should not evolve are bigoted idiots, just trying to make an excuse as to why some electronic genre or so and so genre is evil or such. Or perhaps they're just hipsters and don't want the originals to leave them. But whatever, those people can fight, and I can sit here practicing sound synthesis on my digital synthesizer within my digital audio workstation.
Image Image I am no longer an active member. here
My studio: [List of equipment]
User avatar
itroitnyah
 
Posts: 2482
Joined: 02 Mar 2012 20:27
OS: Windows 7
Primary: FL Studio 11
Cutie Mark: Blank flank

Re: [Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Postby itroitnyah » 09 Apr 2013 12:01

Well either way, those people who just torrent the software and make music that doesn't sound good won't get heard because their music doesn't sound good. Why are we worrying about this? By the way some people talk about it, you'd think that they accuser things people just vote up a celebrate songs willynilly, simply because it's their favorite genre. No, that's not how life works, if you notice, a lot of the people who make really good music actually know a lot about what they're doing, and that's why they're good. The kid that torrents software and just throws a song together to get e-fame won't get far, because as you said, he doesn't know what he's doing and it won't sound good. No, technology is not removing all the skill involved with making music, because the technology will not mix the song for you, master the song for you, write the chord progressions, design the synths, write the melodies or anything for you. It simply allows you to do these things simpler. No, not easier, it's just simpler to do these things. Ok, sometimes easier at points, where you don't necessarily need to know how to play piano to use piano roll, but you get the idea. It's still as hard to write and make music now as it was so many years ago.

To summarize, the people who make good music will still get popular, the people who write horrible music won't, and the resources required to make music have become easier to obtain but it's still just as hard to write a good song, or learn how to. So now how I understand the message the article is trying to tell us is that the author of the con side of the argument still thinks that musical equipment should cost us all balls of cash to obtain.
Image Image I am no longer an active member. here
My studio: [List of equipment]
User avatar
itroitnyah
 
Posts: 2482
Joined: 02 Mar 2012 20:27
OS: Windows 7
Primary: FL Studio 11
Cutie Mark: Blank flank

Re: [Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Postby Nine Volt » 09 Apr 2013 13:07

itroitnyah wrote:Well either way, those people who just torrent the software and make music that doesn't sound good won't get heard because their music doesn't sound good.

What do those have to do with each other? Yes, there's some correlation between pirates and poor musicians, but they really have very little to do with each other. I'm quite sick of everyone assuming that people who pirate software either aren't serious about music or won't try as hard as someone who buys it. I'm not advocating piracy, but honestly that's a very flawed argument.
User avatar
Nine Volt
 
Posts: 3066
Joined: 23 Aug 2012 06:50

Re: [Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Postby itroitnyah » 09 Apr 2013 14:22

Nine Volt wrote:What do those have to do with each other? Yes, there's some correlation between pirates and poor musicians, but they really have very little to do with each other. I'm quite sick of everyone assuming that people who pirate software either aren't serious about music or won't try as hard as someone who buys it. I'm not advocating piracy, but honestly that's a very flawed argument.
I didn't stereotype like that, I was referring to the people who are just in it for e-fame, and generally people who are just in it for e-fame pirate the stuff they get. I agree with your view points on piracy.

eery wrote:How is this any different from the point I made?
I don't know. I'm not very good at reading long stuff like this thoroughly. lol.
Image Image I am no longer an active member. here
My studio: [List of equipment]
User avatar
itroitnyah
 
Posts: 2482
Joined: 02 Mar 2012 20:27
OS: Windows 7
Primary: FL Studio 11
Cutie Mark: Blank flank

Re: [Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Postby ph00tbag » 09 Apr 2013 16:39

I'd say that the inherent limitations to technological aid actually redefine the nature of skill. To use the theoretical easy-mode guitar the author puts forward, this guitar cannot perform slides in the same way that a traditional guitar could, but it could conceivably be programmed to perform slides using a unique input method that requires a certain precision from the instrumentalist. Furthermore, the aided guitar may conceivably introduce new sounds that traditional guitars aren't capable of.

Long story short, I think the author of this argument is working from a limited definition of the word skill that precludes skills that don't exist yet, or didn't exist 50 years ago, to line up more with his argument.
Image
User avatar
ph00tbag
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 769
Joined: 06 May 2012 16:19
Location: Cary, NC
OS: Windows
Primary: FL Studio
Cutie Mark: Blank flank

Re: [Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Postby HMage » 09 Apr 2013 18:20

No.

Major labels will be the ones who will formularise music and will shove same music endlessly down the throats of masses until they'll want nothing else but Justin Beiber.
User avatar
HMage
 
Posts: 346
Joined: 05 Nov 2011 11:44
Location: Moscow
OS: Mac OS X, Windows
Primary: Ableton
Cutie Mark: Blank flank

Re: [Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Postby Makkon » 09 Apr 2013 21:38

Saying that technology and computers are killing music is like saying that digital media is killing visual art.
There are still no shortcuts for making good music, and it's still not a replacement for actual skill. It just removes the repetitive and arduous tasks of general composition (and give you a new challenge, mixing and mastering), and allows you to hear the results of your song instantly. You can work as long as you like, take it any direction you want, and always get the same performance out of your instruments.

I think a proper word to sum up digital composition would be: liberating.
youtube | deviantart | tumblr

I'm Makkon.
User avatar
Makkon
Site Admin
 
Posts: 983
Joined: 28 Jun 2011 01:34
Location: Utah

Re: [Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Postby cplbradley » 09 Apr 2013 22:06

no
Honorary Member of the Yoy and Whistle Club
https://soundcloud.com/cplbradley/perfectly-natural
User avatar
cplbradley
 
Posts: 271
Joined: 05 Jul 2012 01:42
Location: Minnesota
OS: Win7
Primary: Not yet specified.
Cutie Mark: Distorted Fart Noises

Re: [Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Postby MYCUTIEMARKISAGUN » 09 Apr 2013 23:14

Increase in the availability of technologically advanced equipment will democratize anything, from pornography to gun violence. Deal with it, or pray for the collapse of civilization. :lol:

Used to be you had to know somebody to gain access to recording gear and drum machines. Music production was mostly learned via apprenticeship. The Neptunes learned at the feet of New Jack Swing god Teddy Riley. Timbaland learned from DeVante, Jodeci's producer. Kanye had No I.D. Rick Rubin learned the subtleties of hip-hop production from DJ Jazzy Jay. Etc.

Now, anybody with a internet connection, a PC, and indomitable will can join the party.

I started in the early days of the music software takeover, so I've been watching people complain about this for almost 10 years. "oh you can't make real music on fruity loops" HA (pretty sure that FL has been used in more hit songs than Reason since then ;) )
Image
onlybuilt4ponylinx.tumblr.com

SADFKLJASFJ;KLFDSAJKL;VJKL;FDSJKLIJKL;'WOIJ[RWIJR
User avatar
MYCUTIEMARKISAGUN
 
Posts: 319
Joined: 13 Nov 2011 18:57
OS: Windows 7
Primary: FL Studio 10
Cutie Mark: A GUN, obviously

Re: [Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Postby Navron » 09 Apr 2013 23:52

pretty sure that FL has been used in more hit songs than Reason since then ;)


Reason is like the Starbucks of the music production world.
DAW: Cubase 6.5, Ableton Live 8
Preferred Genre: Industrial/Trance
Hardware: Schecter Diamond Series Bass, Yamaha Acoustic Guitar, BP355 Effects Pedal, Keystudio 49K Keyboard, Akai APC40, Korg nanoKEY2 25k Keyboard
User avatar
Navron
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 955
Joined: 14 Nov 2011 21:28
OS: Windows 7
Primary: Cubase 6.5

Re: [Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Postby MYCUTIEMARKISAGUN » 10 Apr 2013 01:32

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard ... ade_(2000s)

quick, spot the song that was made on a FL demo w/ stock drums :p

"not the plane its the pilot" etc
Image
onlybuilt4ponylinx.tumblr.com

SADFKLJASFJ;KLFDSAJKL;VJKL;FDSJKLIJKL;'WOIJ[RWIJR
User avatar
MYCUTIEMARKISAGUN
 
Posts: 319
Joined: 13 Nov 2011 18:57
OS: Windows 7
Primary: FL Studio 10
Cutie Mark: A GUN, obviously

Re: [Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Postby Aurum Noble » 11 Apr 2013 06:55

Not necessarily, but it depends on which type of technology is being used and how it's employed, as well as how technology is advancing.

The 1970s gave us microprocessor-based sequencers, which helped make synthesizer sequencing easy, despite the tedious task of inputting information and figuring out where to plug in the CV/Gate jacks, the 1980s gave us digital synthesizers, drum machines that actually sounded like drum machines, samplers, DSPs, home computers, MIDI and state-of-the-art production tools, the 1990s gave us keyboard workstations, grooveboxes, ADAT, project studios, DAWs, digital mixers, and the 2000s gave us what we now have today.

Many argued that the introduction of new technologies were killing music; the most notable example of that was the introduction of the Fairlight CMI. The Fairlight was so revolutionary that there were fears that session musicians would be put out of business, because the samples were so convincing, but at the same time, it augmented them, and even the more established acts found it useful. For example, The B-52's initially didn't like the Fairlight, but after their guitarist died of AIDS, the Fairlight became their friend, and helped save their album from being unfinished as a result. Also, Kate Bush fell in love with the Fairlight after years of using the expensive (and cumbersome) Yamaha CS-80, because it allowed her to add expression to her latest albums during the 80s. The introduction of MIDI and cheaper samplers were also seen as a threat, but it helped boost the music industry, and allowed the creation of home studios, as well as allowing more amateur musicians to experiment without having to resort to expensive equipment.

Although the aforementioned technologies led to the creation of manufactured groups, the technology has helped everyone, and if one knows how to experiment with them, it can lead to uniqueness, rather than another cliché. Initially, I thought that dubstep was cliché, but in fact, I've seen/heard many acts experiment with the genre, the 'wubs' and the growls, and it led to something more unique being created, and even offshoots. House has also led to offshoots being created, the genre having roots in a thriving scene that begun back in the 1980s. Again, technology augmented the genre, and although it also led to clichés being created, there was also a lot of experimentation in the genre, with producers experimenting new basslines, drum patterns, synth leads and pads, thus leading to a renaissance in music.

Overall, I think technological aid isn't killing music, it's boosting it, and leading to new genres being created all the time.
User avatar
Aurum Noble
 
Posts: 49
Joined: 24 Mar 2013 21:12
Location: England, UK
OS: Big Macintosh OS X
Primary: Ableton Live
Cutie Mark: Synths!

Re: [Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Postby Freewave » 11 Apr 2013 18:14

I'm not sure that you see that many new genres evolving out than before thanks to technology. It does mean that artists have many more colors (genres) to draw inspiration from and use but there's only so far you can go in that regard before you start doing revivals, nu-, and post- in front of an exisitng genre name and trying to claim its innovation, its more recycling. Just think how many new wave and synth pop influenced tracks came from the last decade (a lot) and a lot of stuff will appeal to that retro mentality too. Nothing wrong with someone hearing something borrowed from the past and still feeling excited by it though.

If it's killing anything it's the NEED to have a professional music engineer or a music label promoting your track for it to be a success. It's a threat to the music business as a machine and putting a lot of the power into the person who wants to do that all himself. A lot of home musicians are using the skills of a sounds engineer and a promoter in one. When Washed Out releases a track made on his laptop and a month later is playing Letterman, that's pretty amazing. Radiohead did a pay what you want download model and made more money in profit then they would via selling a $15 album through a store. Music label contracts are awful things so if killing the music industry but saving the musicians works then that's a noble goal. People will create better business models to reflect these changes so they can still make a more modest living at it.

With the ability for anyone to join the party (anyone can download software and start) the major threat is that a plethora of small artists will drown each out and few will stand out. We've seen that in the brony community that too many people have joined in w/o knowing the fudamentals perhaps. But who's to deny them a chance to get better? It does mean that whatever advantages you do have become harder and harder as more and more people try to do the same thing and expect the same results. It also makes longevity harder to obtain as music may be just the track of the month to some people rather than having artists that people truly become fans of and follow for years if not decades.....
Links for my music: YouTube, Bandcamp, and Tumblr
Check out the Brony Music Directory and FimMusic. A portal for all pony music
Image
Support the 20+ Musician Maressey Project currently underway.
User avatar
Freewave
 
Posts: 3193
Joined: 29 Nov 2011 12:33
Location: Denver
OS: Windows 7
Primary: Fl Studio 10
Cutie Mark: X$X

Re: [Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Postby Aurum Noble » 12 Apr 2013 06:57

Freewave wrote:I'm not sure that you see that many new genres evolving out than before thanks to technology. It does mean that artists have many more colors (genres) to draw inspiration from and use but there's only so far you can go in that regard before you start doing revivals, nu-, and post- in front of an exisitng genre name and trying to claim its innovation, its more recycling. Just think how many new wave and synth pop influenced tracks came from the last decade (a lot) and a lot of stuff will appeal to that retro mentality too. Nothing wrong with someone hearing something borrowed from the past and still feeling excited by it though.

I was going to say, since I specialise in retro. Although the evolution of technology has lead to more inspiration, at the same time, existing and past technologies have seen a massive resurgence in recent years, and are also leading to more inspiration. Despite the introduction of digital synthesizers and workstations, analogue synths have come back into fashion, and even new ones are being made, and I mean real analogues, not digital synths that pretend to be one.

As for the industry, I do agree that the classic producer/A&R model is killing the industry, but I have seen some exceptions to the rule. For example, all of Michael Jackson's post-Motown albums had production shared between Michael Jackson himself and other producers, most notably with Quincy Jones, who co-produced many hits with him during the 80s. Despite this, I've still seen a lot of hits being made with the vertically-integrated model of manufacturing acts, and to make matters worse, the proliferation of talent shows has lead to more acts being manufactured, with little or no innovation at all, and are being made purely to make money for the labels. However, I have heard many good acts that are signed to major labels, and they're not manufactured at all.

On the bright side, indie (in the traditional sense) is having a massive renaissance, thanks to social media, a cheap second-hand instruments market and flexible models, as well as the fact that independent labels have innovated their business models whilst UniWarnerSony are stuck with centuries-old models.

Nonetheless, in the community, I don't see big names as a threat at all, despite understanding the difficulty of climbing up the fandom music scene ladder. Instead, I see them as creative inspiration and a benchmark. I also work on the onus that if I try harder, I might very well make the next big thing, but I don't want to do it purely to become famous: I want to do it because I enjoy making music, and I know that if I try harder, I'll get better, and that's been the case with a few WIPs I've put out recently.
User avatar
Aurum Noble
 
Posts: 49
Joined: 24 Mar 2013 21:12
Location: England, UK
OS: Big Macintosh OS X
Primary: Ableton Live
Cutie Mark: Synths!

Re: [Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Postby VaporBlaze » 12 Apr 2013 11:47

Thanks for all the replies, I love this discussion!

ghelded_kultz wrote:Anyway, I'm in the "technology is just another means to an end" camp. The second person's argument that said device would make people lazy is pretty much the same as a bad anti-welfare argument and more or less untrue. The people who are that lazy never would have gotten far enough with the device to play music, despite their inborn guitar skill. If anything this device would increase musical creativity because with a little modding, it could start playing chords that a human probably never could play alone.

I wrote both arguments, but I'd just like to point out that the main focus of my con arguments is that as the technological aids become more and more "potent" (aiding? doing more things-y?), the restrictions they impose on the different sounds you can make also increase. The GH style guitar that plays chords with single buttons gives you more ease of expression, but only allows you to play some subset of chords or notes. My worry is that music, by and large, will homogenize if people use technology as a crutch instead of a tool.

I am, however, definitely pro technology, and your point about configuring the device to play otherwise impossible chords is exactly why! It's SO COOL!!!

eery wrote:However, its not like the old ways of making music, learning a guitar and traditional instruments have in any way died out. In fact, many of the technological innovations, such as a launchpad, diverse other midi controllers, and such could be treated as instruments in themselves, as they require skill to truly get mastered.

...

I don't think technological innovation dumbs down the musical concept, I think it just makes us focus on other skills, other things to practise. Apples and oranges.


I definitely agree, the launchpad, push, machine, etc. truly are instruments that require skill to play adeptly. However, there's two sides of technological innovation that push it in different directions. Going from one string stretched across a pank of wood to a complex 12 string microtonal guitar is a technological innovation that adds complexity, increases difficulty, and expands the sonic capabilities of the instrument. Adding a device that automatically fingers chords to said guitar reduces complexity, lowers difficulty, and limits (for the most part) the sonic capabilities, but the barrier to entry is also lowered, which is cool too!

HMage wrote:No.

Major labels will be the ones who will formularise music and will shove same music endlessly down the throats of masses until they'll want nothing else but Justin Beiber.

I definitely agree, I believe labels and big music are waaaaay more of a music industry killer than, say, piracy. I think I'll post more thoughts on this topic soon.

Makkon wrote:Saying that technology and computers are killing music is like saying that digital media is killing visual art.
There are still no shortcuts for making good music, and it's still not a replacement for actual skill. It just removes the repetitive and arduous tasks of general composition (and give you a new challenge, mixing and mastering), and allows you to hear the results of your song instantly. You can work as long as you like, take it any direction you want, and always get the same performance out of your instruments.

I think a proper word to sum up digital composition would be: liberating.

I love the way you put it: liberating. Awesome.
I'd just like to make this point: I believe there definitly are shortcuts to making music that sounds good. Whether or not that equates to making good music. is surely a point of debate.
But I could program my grid based synth to automatically cycle chords between C-M, F-M, G-M and A-m every four notes, then just kinda face roll on it, and it would probably sound "decent" because that chord progression is scientifically "good sounding".
See: http://www.hooktheory.com/blog/i-analyz ... t-i-found/
for a REALLY awesome statistical analysis that demonstrates a lot of things like the "four chord syndrome".

Freewave wrote:I'm not sure that you see that many new genres evolving out than before thanks to technology. It does mean that artists have many more colors (genres) to draw inspiration from and use but there's only so far you can go in that regard before you start doing revivals, nu-, and post- in front of an exisitng genre name and trying to claim its innovation, its more recycling.
...
If it's killing anything it's the NEED to have a professional music engineer or a music label promoting your track for it to be a success. It's a threat to the music business as a machine and putting a lot of the power into the person who wants to do that all himself.
...
With the ability for anyone to join the party (anyone can download software and start) the major threat is that a plethora of small artists will drown each out and few will stand out. We've seen that in the brony community that too many people have joined in w/o knowing the fudamentals perhaps. But who's to deny them a chance to get better? It does mean that whatever advantages you do have become harder and harder as more and more people try to do the same thing and expect the same results. It also makes longevity harder to obtain as music may be just the track of the month to some people rather than having artists that people truly become fans of and follow for years if not decades.....

Freewave, I definitely have to go with your point on genres. And I totally agree about it removing the need for "professionals" and studios. One of my favorite things about technology is its ability to just virally spread into the homes of countless consumers. When everyone having a computer capable of sound synthesis, and perhaps a reasonable midi controller, the total amount of creative energy being directed toward music increases, and with that, musical innovation. It's an awesome feedback loop! I think that the correlation between tech innovation in general and increases in world literacy rates is no coincidence, and the same principle applies to music!

While there is the "thing" (I don't want to say issue) of all the lesser known artists being ignored for the big names, our community is very, VERY effective at giving people exposure. A feature on EQD means you can expect about 1000 views over the next few days, no matter who you are. And our big shots are pretty much all really awesome people that do collabs and promote remixes by other, smaller names. While there definitely exists a e-fame attention grabbing syndrome in a lot of people, I think that for the most part, we are all just passionate, friendly people who enjoy seeing other people make it big as much as making it big ourselves.

Aurum Noble wrote:Nonetheless, in the community, I don't see big names as a threat at all, despite understanding the difficulty of climbing up the fandom music scene ladder. Instead, I see them as creative inspiration and a benchmark. I also work on the onus that if I try harder, I might very well make the next big thing, but I don't want to do it purely to become famous: I want to do it because I enjoy making music, and I know that if I try harder, I'll get better, and that's been the case with a few WIPs I've put out recently.


Exactly. The difficulty in climbing the ladder shouldn't be a problem because it shouldn't be the goal. And I hope that listeners will have a discerning ear for the people who truly care about music and put a lot of effort into it (or who are really trying to improve themselves) and the people who decide to churn out a generic house track, rub some pony on it, and acquire fame.

I think that 90% of our beautiful fandom's music owes just about everything to technology. It's accessibility and the ease of distribution it gives us have allowed us to create art without needing expensive instruments and recording studios, share our ideas with the whole world without ever needing to leave our homes. It is truly awesome!
User avatar
VaporBlaze
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 16 Oct 2012 22:11
Location: Colorado
OS: OSX10
Primary: Ableton
Cutie Mark: [-∞, ∞]

Re: [Debate/Discussion] Is technological aid killing music?

Postby MYCUTIEMARKISAGUN » 02 May 2013 13:23

related story: hip-hop producer who I used to chill with (idk what he's doing now, last I heard like....almost his entire family died. :( smh) had all this nice-ass equipment back in the day. Roland Fantom X6, Akai MPC 4000, Yamaha MOTIF XS6. You'll be lucky to get all that used for 6 grand today; pretty sure he paid like double that for this ish new. And he had to buy em TWICE cuz someone broke in and stole it all the first time.

Then he got a Open Labs MiKo, started raving about these magic things called "VSTs"......next time I went over to dude crib, all those other keyboard workstations and the MPC literally had a layer of dust on them........he was in love with everything from Kontakt libraries to Delay Lama.
Image
onlybuilt4ponylinx.tumblr.com

SADFKLJASFJ;KLFDSAJKL;VJKL;FDSJKLIJKL;'WOIJ[RWIJR
User avatar
MYCUTIEMARKISAGUN
 
Posts: 319
Joined: 13 Nov 2011 18:57
OS: Windows 7
Primary: FL Studio 10
Cutie Mark: A GUN, obviously


Return to Off-Topic Discussion



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

cron