Hello Everybody

This is my 5th and final year of undergraduate studies. Because I'm a philosophy major with a music minor, I decided to do a thesis exploring the relation between technology and music, focusing on the 20th Century and even more specifically the development of digital technology.

I was just thinking of how I hadn't had the chance to post on here in a while, and then I thought about how I should be writing and gathering material for this monster, and I figured I could just smack them together like chocolate and peanut butter. I would really like to get feedback, thoughts, suggestions, anything really.

Right now I am planning to look at it in three different lights (however, this could change):

a) How does the availability of digital technology (not to mention this world wide web) affect the role of music in the life of a person?

I think I've seen this mentioned somewhere before, but the increased ease of copying and distributing music leads to a huge explosion in variety. I can if I so desire listen to music from anywhere. Not really anywhen though...Because everyone has this ballooning plethora of choices, it becomes harder for a person to develop a relationship with a particular album. This is related to an observation of technology in general from Martin Heidegger, who claimed that (paraphrase from the Question Concerning Technology) "technology annihilates distance." When all the corners of the globe are reachable within 24 hours, we lose our old sense of distance. Far things seem near(er) and vice versa. There is more to come on this than nutty Germans, but it's a start.

b) How does new technology affect the composition of music?

For this one I've got a funny little demonstration with some toy keyboards. I don't think I've ever heard people talk about circuit bending on here before, but you may have heard of it before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_bending

http://www.f7sound.com/circuitbend.htm

http://www.anti-theory.com/

There is also the more scientific arena of synthesizers and other electronic instruments. I'm not sure exactly what my thesis will be in this section yet. Maybe in the next post.

Another aspect of this rapid increase in technology is the sense of time/nostalgia it gives. The devlopment of different recording medium has left us a trail by which to automatically date and react accordingly to music when it reaches our ears.

c) Thirdly, I would like to address the side of this topic which seems to be in the media most often lately: the realm of legal definitions and economics. First off, I have some weird idea floating around in my head that treating music as 'intellectual property' is nonsense, but I haven't really worked out my argument yet.

Or, failing to produce a compelling argument for that, I might argue that the availability of downloading technology has simply put the power of price setting in the hands of the consumer. The music industry has suddenly been forced to operate on the honor system, as it were.

(slightly off topic) Today, if I don't want to pay to hear an album I don't have to. But I still buy records when I find an album that I want to get close to via holding it in my hands. I've spent about as much money on music in the last 6 months as all of my high school years and my first two years of college combined (pre downloading).

So I hope that I'm not boring everyone to tears with this, but I find it pretty durn interesting. I hope this provokes some discussion.

cheers,
jowy

The only point I would immediately take issue on is C, the issue of intellectual property and music. RL and I have argued about this a couple times, and I still don't see why music should be exempt from intellectual property laws. And although I understand that this would lower the cost of music for consumers, I haven't heard a convincing argument about how artists would be better off under this scenario.

Obviously, if I create something, I don't want other people to be able to make money off of it if I'm not. Intellectual Property laws help prevent that from happening. My fear is that once you take that away, artists will start to be taken advantage of (more than they already are). Once rock and roll ceases to be a lucrative career, I worry that you'll see a decline in quality music being released. If releasing an album results in an automatic loss of money, why bother releasing albums?

Feel free to disagree, as some will, but I'd have to see a concrete plan showing exactly how artists would be better off by not being able to copyright their music in order for me to change my point of view on this.

quote:

Once rock and roll ceases to be a lucrative career, I worry that you'll see a decline in quality music being released. If releasing an album results in an automatic loss of money, why bother releasing albums?

I think this is the spot where our paths diverge. As I see it, the people who are most interested in making music because of the promise of money are doing it for the wrong reason. I think that rock n roll ceasing to be a lucrative career would poke a big hole in the gigantic pus-y cultural blister that is MTV, and that would be a marvelous thing to me. A job that wouldn't be considered lucrative is not necessarily a job that is an automatic loss of money.

This is a bit off topic, but it explains where I'm coming from. I do not think it would be a bad thing for every musician to have a day job. It might dissuade them just a bit from becoming pretentious assholes. I don't think anybody deserves or should deserve to ride around in limos everywhere, spend thousands of dollars in the process of getting shitfaced with Cristal, etc.

Also, new recording technology makes decent recording equipment within the grasp of just about anybody with a normal day job. However, one weakness in my stance is that this new technology was brought about because of many millions of dollars spent in the development of said technology. Those millions of dollars would not have been spent if the smell of fantastic payback were not in the air.

I can tell you without a doubt that 99% of up and coming bands, who are struggling and working day jobs, dream of a day when they can quit their day jobs. If that end was never in sight, I don't see a lot of them putting in the effort. Speaking for myself, and I know I can't be alone in this way of thinking, why go through all the work to create, release, and promote a record (and yes, it is a lot of work) only to reap no reward?

At that point, you might as well start a good cover band and play bars on the weekends. You'll get more out of it.

I have no idea what you want to do with your life, but would you do it for free, even if you loved it?

One point that I didn't see raised here concerning intellectual property and music is how laws on intellectual property protect artists from misappropriation of their work by people looking to make money off of them. I'm not talking about kids illegally downloading records. I'm talking about how without intellectual property laws there would be nothing to prevent some corporate dickhead from taking just anyone's music they want to and putting it into a commercial to sell cars, clothes, etc. and not having to pay or consult with the artist first.

quote:

Originally posted by jonathanbrisby:
One point that I didn't see raised here concerning intellectual property and music is how laws on intellectual property protect artists from misappropriation of their work by people looking to make money off of them. I'm not talking about kids illegally downloading records. I'm talking about how without intellectual property laws there would be nothing to prevent some corporate dickhead from taking just anyone's music they want to and putting it into a commercial to sell cars, clothes, etc. and not having to pay or consult with the artist first.

I did make that point in my argument with RL about this a couple weeks ago.

Copyright laws also prevent someone from starting a band called the Rolling Stones and touring the country playing Jagger/Richards songs.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
I can tell you without a doubt that 99% of up and coming bands, who are struggling and working day jobs, dream of a day when they can quit their day jobs. If that end was never in sight, I don't see a lot of them putting in the effort. Speaking for myself, and I know I can't be alone in this way of thinking, why go through all the work to create, release, and promote a record (and yes, it is a lot of work) only to reap no reward?

At that point, you might as well start a good cover band and play bars on the weekends. You'll get more out of it.

I have no idea what you want to do with your life, but would you do it for free, even if you loved it?

It was always my perception that unless you're one of those gigantic, selling-millions-of-records types of bands, you don't make a lot of money in album sales. I thought all the money was in touring. I'm pretty sure that's the case with indie bands, at least. I think the motivation for making records in this case is to produce something that'll entice people to go see your live set.

My remarks in no way are meant to say that I think copyright laws shouldn't be in place for music. I just don't know if bands really care if their albums are largely stolen from the internet, as long as their shows sell well. I still thing stealing music from the internet is wrong, given that a record label invested, in some cases a lot of money, on a record, only to then have it stolen off the web.

I guess I can understand it with popular music, where a band releases one or two singles, with the rest of the album being comprised of filler, that a teenager without a lot of disposable income would not want to spend 17 dollars on it.

quote:

Originally posted by musicfanatic:
It was always my perception that unless you're one of those gigantic, selling-millions-of-records types of bands, you don't make a lot of money in album sales. I thought all the money was in touring. I'm pretty sure that's the case with indie bands, at least. I think the motivation for making records in this case is to produce something that'll entice people to go see your live set.

Well, there is some truth to that, but I think most notable indie bands make a little money off of album sales. I think RL mentioned an interview with the guy from the Silver Jews who said he made $40,000 of of his last album. $40,000 isn't huge, but it's not chump change either. And it's not as if the Silver Jews are one of the biggest names in indie rock.

There's also money to be made in licensing songs to movies, tv shows, and commercials. As JB said, that money would go away for artists as well if intellectual property laws went away.

quote:

Originally posted by vitunkrapula:
a) How does the availability of digital technology (not to mention this world wide web) affect the role of music in the life of a person?

It has become easier and easier over the years to gain access to more and more music via the web, and thus the consumer is faced with the prospect of expanding their own horizons; people with fairly conservative folk-rock tastes may download TV On The Radio's latest album and suddenly be swept up by sounds they have never heard before. Or rap fanatics may suddenly develop an interest in classical music. The Internet opens up many new doorways that would pretty much be closed; you see a recommendation on a forum, download it, and suddenly you're plugged into a whole new type of music that you've never heard before. As you say, we are not as far apart as we used to be, and this creates a cross-polination the likes of which this world has never really seen. Does it take away some of the unique attributes of rich foreign cultures, sone of what makes novelties like that special? Sure. But this only forces musicians to come up with new tricks. Innovation is the norm of the future.

quote:

Originally posted by vitunkrapula:
b) How does new technology affect the composition of music?

This is easy. As a musician, the rise of easy access to powerful computers and incredibly versatile musical software makes one's job somewhat easier in a few ways. You don't have to know how to play a guitar to use Reason, or train yourself in playing the violin to snatch a sample from a classical peice and loop it. Does this take away some of the organic nature of music? Maybe. It all comes down to the music of course -- but does the mode modify the message that such digital music becomes a reflection of it's source? Powerful, interesting, and complex, but utterly emotionless? Some would say this.
(Sorry to snub your Circuit-bending obsession, but I thought that was a bit more interesting. )

quote:

Originally posted by vitunkrapula:
c) Thirdly, I would like to address the side of this topic which seems to be in the media most often lately: the realm of legal definitions and economics. First off, I have some weird idea floating around in my head that treating music as 'intellectual property' is nonsense, but I haven't really worked out my argument yet.

The best time to be a musician and to make your music heard is indeed right now. The same is true for consumers; free music is great for everyone but the Executives that demand payment for work they did not produce. And most signs show that it's even good for them, as more people are willing to buy music that they know they like.

On the other hand, the advent of I Tunes and the single song download has lessened the impact of full albums, which places more pressure on artists to create hit singles... but also removes importance from the album. If I walk down the street hearing a song pumped from an Ipod, I can't help but wonder if the person listening has ever heard anything else by the artist. It's disappointing to me. An album is a meaningful peice of art that should be left intact unless special occasion calls for it. (I admit I disassemble albums to create playlists suited for activities such as gaming; otherwise I try to preserve the artist's intent.)

The future is obviously the only way to go for music, and the digital age is indeed the future. Whether the advent of such technology has corrupted the message that the music brings or allowed it to become free and be heard is not really a valid question. To some extent, it has done both. But in the end I think that, no matter what effect it has had on the music itself, the draw of the internet and the downloading of music has only been a good thing for the true artists: for the sellouts, it has been rough. But those who are in it for the dough are in it for all the wrong reasons -- once that happens, you no longer have anything to say. Yes, if you are a true artist, you will indeed do it for free.
For the art of it. To say otherwise is to say that it's no fun being a rock star unless there's a crowd to cheer: that doesn't matter. Only the music matters in the end.

quote:

Originally posted by Dork:
the draw of the internet and the downloading of music has only been a good thing for the true artists: for the sellouts, it has been rough. But those who are in it for the dough are in it for all the wrong reasons -- once that happens, you no longer have anything to say. Yes, if you are a true artist, you will indeed do it for free.
For the art of it. To say otherwise is to say that it's no fun being a rock star unless there's a crowd to cheer: that doesn't matter. Only the music matters in the end.

Whatever makes you feel better about stealing.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
Whatever makes you feel better about stealing.

Well, actually I was writing from the viewpoint of an artist, rather than that of a consumer. Having remixed material, for free, and released it on the internet, for free, I know what it's like to produce music for absolutely no money. Heck, right now I'm hammering out an album which will never see the light of day outside my living quarters. I do it for art's sake, not to hear the tinkle of money in my pockets.

And I rarely download music. If I do, it is mostly legal; songs that bands put out anyway for free. I am not a theif and to simply categorize the infrequent downloading of single songs (never albums) as theft is flamebait, and uncompromising. The fact is the people deriding the practice of illegal downloading as theft are the suits, the people who really cound't care less about the music or the musicians; most artists that have spoken up about the issue seem to be completely fine with it. To them it's just another way that people can experience their art, rather than a dollar out of their pockets.

Yes, the artist has a right to be paid for their work, but digital downloading has not stopped that. Look at Radiohead's Kid A: not a single song released for promotional purposes, but it hit #1 in the US. This is arguably due to the leaking of the album onto the internet. I honestly don't see how that hurt the band, or the record label.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:

Whatever makes you feel better about stealing.

And I agree that this is ultimately where we end up. The people who gripe the most about paying for music all seem to fall into a particular age and financial bracket. You think you shouldn't have to pay for entertainment. Fine. Keep downloading. When the music industry at large abandons the CD format and goes download-only, enjoy all the commercials.

I don't oppose peer-to-peer because anything I download to tryout I almost always purchase anyway. I had the new Man Man for several weeks, and could have very easily passed up the hard copy. But, not being a cheap asshole, I bought it on CD. I don't think it's their job to entertain me for free.

quote:

Originally posted by m.leland:
The people who gripe the most about paying for music all seem to fall into a particular age and financial bracket. You think you shouldn't have to pay for entertainment. Fine. Keep downloading.

This is the impression I get as well. Every time I hear the argument that "true artists aren't in it for the money", it's rarely from an actual professional musician, but from some jobless college kid who thinks that he's entitled to free music because technology has enabled him to get free music.

Maybe I'd change my stance on this if some actual working musicians came out and said, "we're fine with it, go ahead and take our music." But, I have to imagine that if that were really the case, bands wouldn't bother releasing albums at all, but just throw some tracks up on their website for people to download. It would save them and their label a great deal of money.

quote:

This is the impression I get as well. Every time I hear the argument that "true artists aren't in it for the money", it's rarely from an actual professional musician, but from some jobless college kid who thinks that he's entitled to free music because technology has enabled him to get free music.

Well no shit you aren't going to hear it from someone who is already working for money. In asking "actual working musicians" to come out and say "Hey kids download our music," you're playing with an oxymoron. The "actual working musicians" you speak of are people who already have it in their head that they get paid to play.

My stance is definitely contrary to the ideas and values of the day. I now realize that taking this stance as radically as I have is just one step shy of communism. Which isn't where I had planned to end up, so I probably need to do some more thinking.

Yes, I am younger (22). But I think you're throwing some cheap blows with the jobless cheapskate mudslinging routine. I have a job. I work full time in the summer. Only about half time now because I also have 18 credit hours to deal with, as well as practicing/recording music and lining up some shows to play. And I still pay for music. For the past couple months I've been averaging about 30-40 albums bought per month (albeit mainly used LPs). But that's because that's the majority of what I've been downloading as well - older stuff.

I'd be insane to say that I like to pay for music more than I like to have it for free. But I'm not some conscience-less ungrateful leech. When an album (new or old) knocks me on my ass I'm still going to buy it. End of story.

I just have problems stretching my brains to figure out exactly what 'intellectual property' is. When someone owns the rights to a song or a book, what the hell does that mean? Do you own the chord progressions, modulations, the words themselves? But those are just patterns that can be mimicked by someone who has never heard the original song. What the fuck. It seems like there is a contradiction buried in the very definition of intellectual property, or at least some essential vagueness about the whole situation.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: V,

quote:

I have no idea what you want to do with your life, but would you do it for free, even if you loved it?

Of course I would do it for free! That is if I had some other way to keep myself fed and sheltered. Which is where the whole situation really gets sticky.

quote:

Originally posted by vitunkrapula:
Of course I would do it for free! That is if I had some other way to keep myself fed and sheltered. Which is where the whole situation really gets sticky.

Well, exactly. But I think once you start taking away artists' ability to own rights to the product they're producing, you take away being a musician as a viable career path. If you have to work another job in order to do what you really love, it's no longer a vocation, but a hobby. If you have to wait for your favorite band to release their next album, because they're too busy working day jobs to make ends meet, I think you're going to see a pretty big decline in the quality of music available.

quote:

Originally posted by m.leland:
The people who gripe the most about paying for music all seem to fall into a particular age and financial bracket. You think you shouldn't have to pay for entertainment. Fine. Keep downloading.

Well, this is where you seem to go off of the edge. To be perfectly honest I have very rarely seen cases like the ones you describe. (Those who beleive they should not pay for entertainment.) In fact, the seeming majority of people I have encountered on the internet do in fact practice "Try before you Buy" downloading -- the key is that they will indeed purchase the album, but not if they know it's garbage. But you must understand that this is just as illegal as the pimply kids in college dorms downloading truckloads of free music! Where do we draw the line on where it is OK to download music for free, legally?

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
Maybe I'd change my stance on this if some actual working musicians came out and said, "we're fine with it, go ahead and take our music." But, I have to imagine that if that were really the case, bands wouldn't bother releasing albums at all, but just throw some tracks up on their website for people to download. It would save them and their label a great deal of money.

Muse has several tracks up on www.muse.mu and The Secret Machines also have the same deal. Though those are streaming, it is fairly easy for a tech-savvy person to get them onto the hard disk. And as I recall, when I watched MTV2's (yes, I'm embarrassed) Subterranean, several bands including the aforementioned Secret Machines and Ambulance Ltd. expressed a positive viewpoint towards the downloading of their music. Unfortunately I can't find a source out there.

quote:

Originally posted by Dork:

Muse has several tracks up on www.muse.mu and The Secret Machines also have the same deal. Though those are streaming, it is fairly easy for a tech-savvy person to get them onto the hard disk. And as I recall, when I watched MTV2's (yes, I'm embarrassed) Subterranean, several bands including the aforementioned Secret Machines and Ambulance Ltd. expressed a positive viewpoint towards the downloading of their music. Unfortunately I can't find a source out there.

Labels and/or bands offering streams or sample tracks on their websites isn't really the same thing as kids downloading full albums on Soulseek.

I have no problem with a "try before you buy" scenario, but more and more artists are making streams and/or sample mp3s available online. If that's the case, it makes the need for p2p downloading unnecessary.