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.