Impact of Technology on Music

[CloudDragon]

I starting thinking about this idea earlier today. I noticed that a lot of the music I listen to know wouldn't have been possible 30, 40, or even 50 years ago. I believe music in the past half century or so has become completely revolutionized and partly because of innovative technology. Sure people will probably always uses certain instruments like the guitar or drums in bands. How many bands do you think were successful 50 years ago that consisted of 5 guys playing solo keyboards and synthesizers, with the occasional electric or base guitar?

I believe technology has helped for the rise of so many genres people may not have ever though possible or ever dreamed of.

[Rengori]

I listen to metal, the same stuff that was around in the 80's is really all that it needs. I think the fact that technology is becoming so powerful that it is damaging a lot of the music that is made today.

[Heath]

Technology has definitely had a huge impact on music. Entire genres exist now that wouldn't have been possible about 30 years ago really which is quite something. I'd also agree with Rengori about technology damaging music due to the insistence of some artists to simply include as many technical additives to the music which can sometimes spoil it.

I think technology has also allowed artists to reach a much wider audience. Music television channels and the Internet simply didn't exist until relatively recently (20 years or so for music channels?). Of course there's also the downside from the record companies' perspective in that Internet = free music for a lot of people.

[Rengori]

Music television channels and the Internet simply didn't exist until relatively recently (20 years or so for music channels?).

MTV and VH1 stopped being relevant with Madonna and Micheal Jackson.

[starseeker]

I think that technology has increased the number of studio polished manufactured pop groups. Then the marketing machine promotes them over groups that play their own instruments.

[Slothy]

I'm going to take a position that's on the otherside of the fence from some of you as someone who's a musician and composer in his free time. Technology isn't damaging music anymore than bad artists have always damaged music. There are those who make good music, and those who don't. The ratio hasn't changed, it's simply the number (due to increased accessibility new technologies provide), and the wider audience that can be reached these days thanks to things like the internet.

Technology has opened up a lot of opportunity for artists. These days you can compose entirely in a software program, or record a studio quality album in your home. People also have access to sounds, textures, effects, and more that weren't an option a couple of decades ago. The barriers are coming down so more people can make unique music that's never been heard before. Right now I'm working on a video game with a few friends of mine at the moment with the hopes of getting our own development company off the ground. I'm doing the entire soundtrack myself, and I'll say right now that it likely wouldn't exist, and certainly not in the form it's in, without a little program called Reason. Technology has done great things for music. It's certainly had no more ill effect than putting a guitar or set of drumstcks in the hands of someone with little or no talent ever did.

[JKTrix]

My 2cents-

Technology is great for music, but potentially bad for musicians. I don't know what it's like in other parts of the world, but in Bermuda we have live bands in restaurants and bars and such being supplanted by one man with a microphone and a synthesizer. Sure it's cheaper for the owner to hire one person instead of a small band, but people can't make a living like that.

And they end up bringing in foreigners to do their one-man act (Foreign wokers vs local workers is a pretty big issue here).

Regardless, the technology itself is great. Even these one-man folks have skills in doing this, so it's not all doom n' gloom. I feel that Technology shouldn't be overused in music, else we will lose genuine talent.

[Madame Adequate]

Using technology to make good music requires skill and talent just as much as using instruments. Technology is an instrument, come to think of it. The skills used are not necessarily the same, but to make good music, you gotta have skills.

I think the fact that 90% of what I listen to comes from OCRemix probably highlights my take on the issue :p

[Heath]

Music television channels and the Internet simply didn't exist until relatively recently (20 years or so for music channels?).

MTV and VH1 stopped being relevant with Madonna and Micheal Jackson.

Wouldn't know, I don't bother with them, but they're still a considerable force in presenting music to an audience.

[CloudDragon]

Using technology to make good music requires skill and talent just as much as using instruments. Technology is an instrument, come to think of it. The skills used are not necessarily the same, but to make good music, you gotta have skills.

I think the fact that 90% of what I listen to comes from OCRemix probably highlights my take on the issue :p

This is what I was referring to. I was talking about the effect technology actually has with music that is played. As far as new possibilities with instruments and other things and combining them to make a new sound. I wasn't really referring to MTV or VH1. I guess technology has also helped in introducing new artists to a wider audience.

[Fonzie]

This made me think of Rush.

Dun nuh Dun nuh NUH!

[CloudDragon]

I remember when MSI made a cover of the Rush song "Tom Sawyer". It was pretty cool and better than the original.

[blim]

Improvements in technology have made making music available to a wider range of people and have allowed imaginative people to take music in new directions and that aspect of it can only be good whatever people do with the technology. As a friend of mine often says there is no such thing as bad music, music you dont like yes but not bad music. (i exempt manufactured pop from this as IMO that is advertising not music)

That said i do believe the test of a good song is if it sounds good round a kitchen table on an acoustic guitar then its a good song.

EDIT: just seen the post above, if it really is better than Rush's original then i'll have to check that out, that song is f***ing cool

[CloudDragon]

I agree with that for the most part. Music is generally taste in opinion. I believe that music can be bad in the sense that bad musicians or those with no musical talent produce a piece of garbage. A lot of ideas are pretty nice and unique, but there are some things that most people can agree on just suck.

[Bolivar]

good question. it would be a lie to say this doesn't go both ways: much of it has been for the better, but alot of parts of it have had serious negative implications.

Obviously it's great because, for example, you could find and use a specific indian sitar without leaving your room. that alone is mindblowing, and there's so much potential that it really has done wonders for music.

Unfortunately it's done alot to damage it. Technology has made Music less of an art and more of a science. The brain has grown tremendously but its heart has diminished. Back when all you had was an 8-track recorder you had to put your all into it to make sure each track was utilized the best it can. Now with protools it's alot easier to make music, and when it requires less effort you don't put as much heart into it. Also with all the great equipment in studios, even a sub-par song can sound great, and that type of material gets pressed onto CD's and put on TV/radio.

I don't know.

[Slothy]

Unfortunately it's done alot to damage it. Technology has made Music less of an art and more of a science. The brain has grown tremendously but its heart has diminished. Back when all you had was an 8-track recorder you had to put your all into it to make sure each track was utilized the best it can. Now with protools it's alot easier to make music, and when it requires less effort you don't put as much heart into it.

I disagree completely. Technology has made the tools to make great sounding music more widely available, but by no means has it necessarily become easier. An artist still has to spend a lot of time writing and arranging a song, messing with settings on every instrument and mixer to get it just right. It takes some skill and a good ear. If anything, much of what new technology offers can make things harder. For example, if you're using some synths in a program, it's great to have hundreds, if not, thousands of sound options, but try finding the perfect one to fit what's in your head. It can be a challenge. Some things may have been made easier, but in the face of more options for tweaking a song comes one heck of a challenge.

If the drive and the desire to create good music is there, then it will show. People who don't have the drive and dedication just won't make interesting music, regardless of how "easy" technology makes it.

PS: Just listened to MSI's version of Tom Sawyer. It doesn't even come close to the original. I think I'll go listen to the original just so I can cleanse my musical pallette of that atrocity actually.

[Rengori]

Music television channels and the Internet simply didn't exist until relatively recently (20 years or so for music channels?).

MTV and VH1 stopped being relevant with Madonna and Micheal Jackson.

Wouldn't know, I don't bother with them, but they're still a considerable force in presenting music to an audience.

Music videos don't even start anymore until like midnight.

[daggertrepe]

I think technology is great for music as long as they don't "computer" any of the songs. These lazy asses can't get up and play a real instrument.

[Bolivar]

Unfortunately it's done alot to damage it. Technology has made Music less of an art and more of a science. The brain has grown tremendously but its heart has diminished. Back when all you had was an 8-track recorder you had to put your all into it to make sure each track was utilized the best it can. Now with protools it's alot easier to make music, and when it requires less effort you don't put as much heart into it.

I disagree completely. Technology has made the tools to make great sounding music more widely available, but by no means has it necessarily become easier. An artist still has to spend a lot of time writing and arranging a song, messing with settings on every instrument and mixer to get it just right. It takes some skill and a good ear. If anything, much of what new technology offers can make things harder. For example, if you're using some synths in a program, it's great to have hundreds, if not, thousands of sound options, but try finding the perfect one to fit what's in your head. It can be a challenge. Some things may have been made easier, but in the face of more options for tweaking a song comes one heck of a challenge.

If the drive and the desire to create good music is there, then it will show. People who don't have the drive and dedication just won't make interesting music, regardless of how "easy" technology makes it.

PS: Just listened to MSI's version of Tom Sawyer. It doesn't even come close to the original. I think I'll go listen to the original just so I can cleanse my musical pallette of that atrocity actually.

How can you disagree completely when you cede that "some things may have been made easier..."? Not calling you out, just seems a little awkward...

Also, you're right that the unlimited availability of different synthesizers and other instruments has made things alot harder to pick the right one. However, you're overlooking the fact that the average A&R/Producer doesn't give a :skull::skull::skull::skull: about that and you can constantly hear the same instruments (and uses of them) being used in pop music.

Plus, the fact that technology, combined with our market-culture, has made things able to be made easier and faster, you're absolutely wrong - artists do not spend alot of time writing and arranging songs. If anything it has caused stricter time restraints on recording sessions and more specific alottment of record company advances.

Please do not misunderstand me - I am not saying there aren't great artists today who spend a great deal of time trying to create amazing music. I think you completely ignored my first statement about how it has helped music, and I suggest you read an entire post rather than skimming for points (you think) you disagree with. My entire point is that technology, as a side effect, has allowed an already atrocious and artistically indifferent music industry to become that much worse.

Like I said, I'm just trying to point out that there is no one answer to this debate - technology has had both positive and negative implications on music. And I'll be the first to agree that it has allowed some great musicians to make music that just would not have been possible 50 years ago.

[Madame Adequate]

I think technology is great for music as long as they don't "computer" any of the songs. These lazy asses can't get up and play a real instrument.

That's a nonsensical stance to take. Lazy?

Okay. Go here: FL Studio Homepage (http://www.flstudio.com/) Download FL Studio, learn to use it in a manner which is proficient and can put out good music.

There, that was easy, wasn't i... oh no wait, it was actually kind of difficult, if you did anything more than four tracks repeating with the occasional soundbite.

Not playing an instrument does not mean no/less effort is made. It means, merely, that the effort must go somewhere else.

Edit: Bolivar - Not to call you out too harshly, seeing as you're freely admitting that technology has had plenty of good effects on the music industry, but I would suggest that if people are willing to buy unoriginal/poorly made/etc. music, then that's their business and it is apparently not as bad as we seem to think. If it sells, in short, it is good by the only remotely objective measure we've got.

[CloudDragon]

Technology made possible through computers has helped to expand the music industry I believe. I've seen music made through computers and the effects have been extraordinary!