I just wanted to get an idea of what the rest of the forum thought about technology in music. Thats everything from electronic synthesizes to make your own music programs. Do you think technology has made music better, or worse?
Printable View
I just wanted to get an idea of what the rest of the forum thought about technology in music. Thats everything from electronic synthesizes to make your own music programs. Do you think technology has made music better, or worse?
Is different a valid third option?
Neither.
Things like this cannot be quantified in making something better or worse. They make it different, and that is all. Some things win in the equation (new musical textures to explore, easy recording, the advent of dance music) and some things lose (the lack of musical skill often seen, auto-tune, fake keyboards as compared to the more expensive but way cooler real thing).
It all depends on what the individual is doing with it.
Technology has decimated what we thought about music.
We couldn't have produced or mixed music without technology.
Everything is dependent on technology. It's absolutely ridiculous.
We wouldn't be having this conversation without it. Radio is a very obvious display of what it's done. This isn't a question in my mind.
Technology can't actively make music worse, as it hasn't destroyed anything. It's only added to the tools which musicians have. Clearly this adds to the number of ways they can misuse these tools, but it also creates new and interesting opportunities.
I think the quality of music has stayed pretty constant for the last 50 years or so. If I look at my list of best albums, they're fairly spread. There's a few Beatles records in there, sure, but there's also OK Computer and Loveless. Though, what made those latter records wasn't the technology; it was really just the songs (indeed there's a whole low-tech cover of the whole of Loveless). The technology was a medium, that's all. And indeed there's still a fair share of modern greats which largely used traditional methods, like Arcade Fire's Funeral.
I am presuming Akono means digital technology in this context.Quote:
Originally Posted by no-Name
If we're going to restrict the term, then I would have to agree with Xei and Lsea. It's another tool/instrument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lseadragon
really fucking versatile one, at that.
Not necessarily digital....just a "would music be better off without science" type question. I just want to hear what everyone thinks about the good and the bad each scenario has/could have offered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lseadragon
Well with such a broad question, we can say that music as we know it would not exist without science and so it all comes down to whether existence is better or worse than nonexistence. Harmony, dissonance, tonality, the structure of instruments that create varying pitches, all music theory and most musical practice can fall under the label of science.
Technology and science are two very different things though and I feel like this is really not the same question as in the OP at all. As far as technology is concerned though, a guitar is more technologically advanced than the Guitarra Morisca. How does this fact effect the question presented in the OP?
Lol, Xaq....I think i'm just going to have to ask this question when I'm a little more sober, and whatnot. That or learn what I'm really trying to get at.
Are we talking technology as basic as electricity? If so, then I think it's made it better for sure (electric guitars, electric keyboards, electric everything).Quote:
Originally Posted by Akono
On the other hand, we can't really know what music would be like today. New instruments maybe? New genres? More/less creativity put into it? :-?
Musical instruments are technological devices. The first flute was a new technology. The first drum. As technology progresses, so does our repertoire tools for creating music. Whether or not music gets better is up to the individual to decide. Different kinds of music touch different people. Some sounds can only be created by the more recent devices (within the last century) and will to some people then appear to have improved the actual quality of music, and so the music itself. The only other alternative to "better" is, as was already stated, "different." Technology can't make the music worse. Only the musician can do that.
If it weren't for technology then there wouldn't be a music industry in the first place, save for people singing songs and playing instruments around campfires or whatever. Modern technology has also given us the option to enjoy recorded music in a quality that was unparalleled unless you were sitting there in the recording studio with perfect acoustics.
One thing I do dislike about modern technology is how you can digitally manipulate artists' voices on a computer to make them sound like an outstanding singer, when in actuality they have almost no singing talent at all.
Because of this ability, I think the general quality of music, in terms of the talent behind it has declined over the past 15-20 years, and made the industry more shallow, since image becomes even more important. That is of course, merely my personal opinion, and a massive generalisation.
Music is music, regardless of whether it is "natural" or synthetic. As long as a note is hit, it is hit. As long as it is sustained, it is sustained. As long as a chord is struck, it is struck. What changes most are the sounds - the specific "instrumentations" that are available to music. Some people embrace such a wide array of sounds, some people discard it as noise.
The fact remains, though: Some of the most beautiful music I've ever heard has been electronic.
[Edit]
I haven't read every reply to the thread, but I do completely agree with Photolysis, about digitally altering singers' voices. It doesn't diminish the quality of sound, but the overall talent that is apparent in the music definitely lacks.
I've always thought that all the fuss about altering singers' voices to make them sound better is completely silly. If the track sounds better after alteration, then how on Earth can any reasonable listener possibly complain? I don't know about most people, but I don't listen to music in order to be impressed by the "talent" (whatever that is) of some random singer, or to marvel in the technical prowess of Joe Jazz-Guitarist, I listen to music for an enjoyable sonic experience. Fretting over whether a singer's voice has been electronically altered in order to enhance that experience for the listener is, IMO, baffling.
Because half the time it doesn't necessarily make it better. The main reason for contention is that it hides the singer's true voice, but at the same time, it's really only used for people who aren't very accomplished singers, in the first place. So it still ends up leaving a lot to be desired. Some people like to know that a singer's talents are truly his/her own. So it takes a lot from the experience, knowing that the person's singing isn't really the person's singing.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuB
Think of it like breast "enhancements." Are all breast enhancements "good things?"
No?
Why not?
Exactly. :)
Clearly an alteration of any kind can reduce as easily as it can enhance the final quality of the song, but that seems to be missing the point. The point is that using something like Pro Tools to tinker with a singer's voice is seen by so many as being a Very Bad Thing even when it actually does make the song sound better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Certainly there are people who do want to know this, and it's that very attitude that I find silly--and I say that speaking as a musician myself (not professional). Why should it matter if "a singer's talents are truly his/her own"? As far as I'm concerned, the only question that is relevant for judging one's musical experience is, "Does it sound good?" That question is completely orthogonal to how much "talent" (again, whatever the hell that is) may or may not have gone into making it. Just as "talentless" musicians can make great music, musicians who are oozing with "talent" are still capable of painstakingly composing songs which are simply crap. The very question of "talent" is completely irrelevant when all we're talking about is how good a song is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
I don't like the way most mainstream pop nowadays insists on using robots to compensate for an artist's lack of talent, but only because it begs the question 'why do these people even have jobs as musicians if they don't write their own songs and they can't sing'?
The reason of course is due to superficiality, and essentially glorifying looks over talent, which is what I don't like about it.
Look at all these girl bands for instance which are comprised of ridiculously attractive women. It's essentially discrimination and gives other people a very bad message about what is virtuous in society. Is it a coincidence that all 5 members of Girl Band X are ridiculously good looking? Of course not; they were chosen for their looks. The problem is that they can't sing, and they were chosen over other people who can sing but don't fit in with this ridiculous idea of perfection.
What it boils down to is "crap begets crap."Quote:
Originally Posted by DuB
Those songs that have their voices synthetically enhanced often aren't much better for it. It is simply putting a fresh coat of paint on a car that anyone with any perspective will already know is garbage. But what happens when you can butter a crowd up just enough that they start buying more of your music (since your music is made more off of a gimmick than talent)? You get copycats. You get a drop in the learning curve of songwriting. You get a new generation of hacks that dominate popular music, and you can't turn on a radio without being subjected to the horrible reality that is the mainstream realm of "good music."
While I understand your point, there is another side to why people like natural talent over manipulated singing. And I know you're a musician, but it really makes no difference, for it is all simply a matter of tastes. Some people just respect natural talent. They like a person's artistic ability to be judged for just that - not what that ability can be manipulated to sound like. It's not a matter of "if it sounds good, you should like it." People don't just listen to certain artists or songs, simply because they "sound good." They have their own, visceral reactions and relationships to the songs they love - and a lot of that has to do with a respect for the artist's natural ability.
Though it's not something everyone is going to agree with, surely, I wouldn't think it's all that hard to understand or empathize with.
There's a very obvious and simple answer to this. Tools/technology are not capable of making music better or worse. PEOPLE do that.
Relying on technology instead of skill is an acquired mindset, nothing more.
Has technology (or should I say electronics) helped music? The answer to that is most definitively "yes". Because of it, good music that I love has been created, that could never have been created without it. Because of it, I have found many songs and artists I could never have met without, due to things like geography. Without it, I wouldn't be able to enjoy that music when I want to. Is there even a question about technology being a big help?
On the note of changing the vocalists voice (no pun intended), I generally don't like this. I like knowing that something is real, and I prefer supporting those I perceive to have talent. Additionally, I like knowing I can go to a live performance and the musicians and vocalists will perform.
I understand it, but I don't agree with it. I think it's a silly (I feel like I'm overusing this word...) way to think about music, but meh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Synthesizer's have changed music. It has showed the evolution of technology. I think it is better with it, but that is just my opinion. :)
Not all that silly, really. There is more to music than just sound. People recognize that, and their assessments are affected by it. Such taste is not without reason. But, like was said, not everyone is going to agree with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuB
It's perfectly legitimate to want a true gauge of what to expect from a performer beyond the confines of a single recording, and to find the "speed it up and put some fuzz on it" school of music production distasteful. If the products of that approach actually did sound good, you might have a point, but more often the reason for the tweaking is to hide serious shortcomings. The result might be better than it would have been otherwise, but that doesn't mean it's good. There's a big difference in the results of using technology creatively to make a better piece of music verses airbrushing a radio track to squeeze the most sales out of something disposable.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuB
I'm not saying we have to tear people's McMusic out of their hands and spit in their faces--to each their own, but as someone who loves music and pays attention to what I'm hearing, I don't personally have time for that crap.