Mark Lynch

Professor Wade Maki

BLS 363-11D

01 November 2016

 

The Machineries of Joy  

(Music Technology through the Centuries‒ For Better or Worse)

 

            Music is one of the most universal experiences of humanity. Every society that we know of from the the distant past to the present has incorporated it into their culture. Music enhances many various life experiences such as romantic love and marriage, or comforts us when mourning the passing of a loved one. The power of song can make the workday less daunting, or add resonance to social functions such as religious worship or sports contests. People might cry to it, express their anger through it; make love and indeed even make war‒ with music as the soundtrack.

            Although it is very difficult to define in words, music, per Wikipedia, is “an art form and cultural activity whose media are sound and silence, which exist in time... the common elements of music are pitch, rhythm, dynamics, and timbre” (Web). While accurate enough, this gives no sense of the subjective musical experience. We know it when we hear it, basically, and it's an almost instinctual recognition, considering how even young infants are soothed by lullabies, or tinklings of a music box.

            Tracing and delineating the technology of music begins with the understanding that it began without any, other than the discovery by some ancient human that their larynx could produce a musical tone. Perhaps they were trying to imitate the baying of a wolf, or the hoot of an owl, but for whatever reason the act seemed significant to this proto-singer, and to others in his or her company of nomads. From this humble beginning the “art form” emerged that evolved with subsequent generations and eras.

            Percussion would have been the next logical step for an early tool-making people, with that most basic of implements, the stick, creating a resonant sound when struck against a hollow log. Someone whom we can designate as the world's first drummer found it pleasing to do so in a regular and repeating series of strokes. It therefore wasn't long until the first dancers responded with their bodies (and because humans are bipeds, most of the music from then until now has contained an even number of beats per measure, the most common time signature being 4/4... “marching” music).

            So how do we explain the origins of other instruments, such as those with strings, or ones that are blown to make a sound? The latter category seems obvious enough, when we remember that these are often called “horns.” The hollow horn of a dead animal was no doubt the prototype of the trumpet and other brass instruments we know today; maybe a strong wind blowing over the top of a clump of reeds inspired the flute. As for stringed instruments, a likely candidate might have been an archer's bow and the twang it produced when an arrow was let fly. These basic instruments are so old that we cannot know their specific inventors, and can only hypothesize as to how the initial ideas arose.

            What we do know is that performances of music (and the tools to produce it) have proliferated and diversified ever since. Each culture with its own unique voicings; every generation creates its own genres. Music is still an important facet of life for the majority of people on the planet. To explain why is beyond the scope of this essay, and one might daresay that a definitive answer is impossible. I hope instead to examine how some important technologies have affected music over time, and altered the roles of those who compose, perform, market and/or consume it. With each advance, some factions have benefited while others have suffered. Music, like other types of art, is very malleable to trends.          

            Of all the many inventions and innovations that have changed music, surely one of the most profound paradigm shifts came with the ability to record it. In much the same way that the printing press revolutionized the reach of language and communication, Thomas Edison and subsequent inventors in the audio field made music accessible to an exponentially larger audience. No longer did one have to attend and hear a performance in real time; now the music could be brought into an individual's home and listened to at their convenience, repeatedly if desired. (Another step heading in this direction had been the ability to notate music, having the performance “instructions” for a piece of music on paper so other musicians could duplicate it).

            Early on, recorded music was something only the elite could enjoy, and the sound quality was marginal. Edison for example merely saw the phonograph as a tool for recording people’s last wills and testaments or diary-type entries, and he could never have foreseen how ubiquitous (and on how many types of media) music-on-demand would eventually become in the future.

            It would be the advent of radio into popular culture (1920s) and later the mass-production of vinyl recordings (1950s) that realized the full extent that the phenomenon could spread; a trend that continued with cassette tapes, CDs, and right up to the current MP3 format. Music is now everywhere.        

            So who won and who lost in this historical shift in the way music could be experienced? Well, the winners were (and are) the masses who could now hear music on their own terms; no longer having to travel to a venue and hear what the symphony conductor had decided to put on the program (or, later on, which acts the concert promoter could book). And isn't it obvious who ended up losing? It was first and foremost the musicians, and then the venue owners and booking agents... basically anyone who had made their living from live performances. Their monopoly was broken.

            It wasn't a drastic change, but instead a process that has gradually eroded the appeal of all but the most elite live musical performers. I'm a professional musician myself, who began playing gigs in the late 1970s. Live bands were still popular then, and played in clubs throughout even my modest hometown area of Hickory NC. Whatever kind of dance or party there was to be had, one hired a group of musicians to come in and supply the entertainment. There weren't really any other options.

            The competition began with DJs, who (ironically) brought vinyl out of the privacy of the home and back into venues! It seemed ridiculous‒ going to a club to listen to someone spin records? But it worked. Disco was a factor, with it's steady 120 BPM (beats per minute) keeping the dance floor packed, and it was more cost-efficient to hire one guy to handle the festivities. Most local bands, truth be told, could hardly compete with the quality of a studio recording played through a powerful sound system. Clubs sometimes had both; live bands and a DJ when the band took breaks. (And it's a bit of a bruise to a musician's ego to see a dance floor empty when the band returns).

            Karaoke was next (thanks, Japan) and seemed even more unlikely: listening to total amateurs get up and sing, often very poorly, to a backing track. Doesn't sound like much fun, does it? But apparently it is. With DJs and karaoke as a “technology” the winners and losers are fairly clear. The club owners save money with either option; compared to hiring a live band, that's a win. Some people prefer hearing what they've already been exposed to on the radio (or the internet) and not having to bother with another artistic interpretation of it; a DJ is safe and will not challenge that mentality. For those of that “mind”, the DJ is a win. For the many amateurs out there who want to share in the experience of being “on stage”, and/or who enjoy watching their friends humiliate themselves‒ karaoke is definitely a win.

            The losers, beyond the obvious being professional musicians who have suffered these and other encroachments onto what was once their turf... I would posit are the members of the public who have succumbed to this dumbing-down. Removing myself as a musician from the equation, it is still a sad state of affairs. I can't guarantee that every live music performance is worth hearing; but I can assert that someone who has spent years of their life developing a talent might deserve more respect than someone who can cue a record, click a mouse, or read lyrics off of a screen; in other words people that have invested nothing. But that's merely my opinion, and one that is losing ground.

            In a related dimension, technology has made it easier for non-skilled people to make music. Computer software can generate all sorts of “virtual” instruments, having the ability to digitally record the real-world versions (known as “sampling”) and then replay them via either a hardware piano-type keyboard interface if you wish, or by clicking on a virtual one on the screen. You don't have to know any music‒ the programs will generate various musical sequences, sync them all up to a drum-machine, and you have “composed” a song. Now, if you dare sing on top of this track, to add a human element to it, don't forget to use the “auto-tune” function that will correct the pitch of your vocals if you go a little sharp or flat. Here's how one musician, Corey Taylor of Slipknot, sums up the current musical climate:          

            "...you've got people who don't really have the skills, because technology hides it, going out and putting these crappy singles out. And because that's all there really is, people basically eat it like hamburgers. It's become very, very commercialized” (Consumer Reports, Web).

            Another thing that's changed is how we listen to music. Many people now do so mostly on their devices and don't choose to play it at home. Music has transformed from a main form of entertainment into something many just listen to on the go; while they're working out or grocery shopping. Musical depth has been traded for convenience, and to rework an old adage, convenience breeds contempt. When we can listen to music anywhere, anytime; pulling up any song we desire instantly, or letting the computer suggest for us‒ then it's no longer very special, is it? You can still go to a club and dance to it, but don't forget to take some “selfies” while you do and post them to Facebook...          

            I have come precariously close to sounding nostalgic and technophobic from this angle; like some bitter old dude that regrets that his glory days are behind him. Let me try to balance that with my belief that there are still wonderful musicians and music coming along all the time. One just has to look harder. You see younger and younger kids who are monstrously adept at their instruments on YouTube; music festivals are a popular phenomenon again. And technology hasn't benefited the lay people and amateurs only; it has also made life much easier for the real working musicians still out there.

            I made a decent living, recently (2010-2015), as a musician in Wilmington NC and the surrounding area. I was in a few full bands, but the vast majority of my work was in duos, where often I was the only musician accompanying a lead vocalist. And I used some technology that gave these projects a competitive edge: a “loop” machine.

            Here's how it works: most songs have the format of a verse/chorus that repeats. During the first verse and chorus I would play a live guitar part while my partner sang, and this was also being recorded on the looper; as the second verse started, I could hit  button with my foot and what I had just recorded would begin playing back, through my amplifier. (So it sounded just like me playing live, and it was, just a minute ago). Now I could add another guitar part if I wished, or switch to bass guitar, or keyboards, depending on the song... and record that too. In short, we could sound like a three- or four-piece band, for the price of two (or a DJ or karaoke service). One has to fight fire with fire. Technology taketh away?... technology giveth back.

            Learning music is much easier with new technologies. As a teenager trying to learn guitar parts by someone like Jimi Hendrix, I had to repeatedly “drop the needle” onto a vinyl record, a very crude (and detrimental to the album) method of rewinding. Nowadays I can take an MP3 version of a song and slow it down as much as I want, without it changing pitch, and easily hear the notes and find them as I go. For that matter, YouTube will have guitarists that can show me how to play it. After 40 years experience, I don't need these short-cuts very much... but they would have been quite helpful when I was 14. (And this explains all those modern virtuosos out there who are still in elementary school).

            Music and technology have had a rocky relationship, it would be fair to say: a great courtship and marriage during the tool-making era, in which composers and artisans evolved‒ from primitive call-and-response chants and “found” instruments to full-scale operas and symphony orchestras. The Industrial Age can be seen as the child-rearing years; recording and radio technologies allowing music to multiply and diversify all over the planet. Some of these musical offspring were blessings, and some curses; all families have some black sheep.

            What phase of the relationship are they in now? Empty-nesters, with no new genres or media to bring forth? No, that seems too bleak. A few aficionados still carry the torch for them both. Maybe just stuck in the doldrums, some temporary rut? This sounds more like it. A plateau has been reached, one where it's hard to imagine what else can be done. But people thought like this‒ that technology had reached its limits, back when we hadn't even come up with airplanes yet...

            Maybe it's just time for music and technology to renew their vows.

 

Works Cited

 

“Music”. Wikipedia, 28 Oct. 2016. Web.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music

Nelson, Daryl. “Has Technology Ruined Music?” Consumer Reports, 12 Aug. 2013. Web.

            https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/has-technology-ruined-music-081213.html