|
please help me out
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DFOP04 |
im currently in my 2nd year at uni (i know what you guys are thinking, boring, seen so many of these posts before), but im doing a paper on how the music industry is changing, with the accessibility of music as an issue, i was wondering wether any of you people would be able to post anything you have an issue with or could enlighten me with the ability to get music a lot easier today (im talking about downloads.mp3's etc)
i have searched the site and found some stuff, but not exactly what i was looking for.
for example are any of you hardcore vinylists bothered at all about music stores concentrating more and more on download options? do you see this as a threat?
one of the questions im setting is 'is the experience of going shopping for vinyl a major factor of wether people chose to download music from home?'
anything you can help me out with would be much appreciated, like i said i have searched around for answers, but havnt found anything.
Thanks, Max |
|
|
| Ishkur |
excerpts from an essay I began writing a long time ago but never finished...I called it "Reflections on the Death of Quality"
“The biggest thing music can do is to make someone more alert.”
--Keith Jarrett, from Reflections on the Death of Excellence, Keyboarding Magazine interview, March 1993
...where once it (electronic music) championed avant-gardism and quirky, new age thinking, now it’s devolved into structure, form, and a pop sensibility that, ironically, was one of the very things it was striking to do away with in the first place. That polished, glazed sound you hear today is not it’s triumph, but it’s defeat.
What went wrong? In a word: Quality. Electronic music, like the reckless, hedonistic world of clubs and drugs it promoted, was never known to take care of itself. Rather than sit and consolidate its niche, it demanded legitimacy, and its wildly eccentric ethic frustrated composers and consumers alike. Split into two halves--one an acrid, uncompromising field, relentlessly experimental with an unfocused reign of exploited creativity, the other pressured to conform to the rock metaphors and album-oriented marketing rules of pop music. The former sought seclusion from the latter, as the latter became addicted to its own success. And now magazines, clubs, and subcultural scenes are heralding the recession of a musical artform that quite simply can’t figure out what to do with itself anymore. Like an awful DJ, it twisted the knobs of the highest highs and lowest lows, and ignored the mid-range that was the backbone of well-defined music.
As a result of this, Quality is suffering.
Reason
Quality is suffering at the production level. The simplification of the apparatus to create electronic music has culminated in a rush of stagnant, rigid production values, completely at the mercy of the hardware and software that enforce them. The iconic result of this is Propellerhead Software’s epic desktop music studio Reason. Though the simplification of music production has led to stale and derivative music, it wasn’t always this way.
From about the mid-80s onward a musical revolution took place. Not in how music was written, performed or recorded, but in how it was produced. Technological innovations such as MIDI coupled with the dwindling costs of music gear finally allowed, for the first time, a sizable percentage of the working class access to near-professional equipment. The KLF even admitted in their book “The Manual: How to Have a #1 the Easy Way” that it was only possible to have a hit single following their specific instructions after 1988—the year technology became affordable enough to make it possible. At long last, the closed-doors world of audio recording and high-end production values incased in multi-million dollar studios only accessible to label bosses and A&R moguls, had been brought to the masses, resulting in a sudden explosion of new forms, trends, styles and habits—all of it very electronic, and very cheap to make since electronics meant not having to spend money on session musicians.
This can be a good thing. After all, nothing is healthier for the growth and wealth of a scene like the do-it-yourself spirit. But it’s essentially like giving control of the country over to a three-year-old. The soft-synths and programs, defying the age-old mantra of learning the craft before applying it, have made musicians out of people who know absolutely nothing about music. Today’s bedroom producers are almost a complete polar opposite to the pioneers of drum machines, sequencers and samplers 30 years ago. Artists like Jean-Michel Jarre, Georgio Moroder, Vangelis and Tangerine Dream were competent, accomplished musicians, using synthesizers to explore new textures and soundscapes, enhancing their repertoire. Not as work-arounds and shortcuts to cover up for their lack of musicianship.
There is a learning curve to every endeavor, especially in the arts, that demands a strict adherence to its basic principles and craft. A writer won’t find his voice until he’s well into his 30s, even if he’s been writing his entire life. A serious painter might destroy his first 500 paintings, because those “are just for practice”. But in music these codes of professional conduct are quite often relaxed, and in the case of electronic music they are, more often than not, completely obliterated. Reason is the poster child of this type of thinking.
There are scores of crude, amateur productions on the internet now that, while technically proficient, lack soul, craft and style and rely way too heavily on VSTs and plug-ins as stand-ins for genuine creativity. As a result, the quality of electronic music has suffered. Reason, the most popular soft-synth in the world, has influenced an entire generation of musicians trying to emulate music they hear on record charts every week. The recent electro revival, in fact, draws part of its inspiration from the default sound of Reason’s basic setup, a preset samplebank synthline that is tinny, archaic, and very 80s; an infectious meme that has grown on indie electronic musicians and listeners alike, and guided their tastes (and their wallets) towards Reason-sounding releases by larger labels.
Reason is not wholly the problem, however. It’s just a symptom of the larger demand by music neophytes who want to make the music now, skipping the rigorous process it takes to cultivate their sound. And the problem isn’t even the sounds that they are making, it’s the way they are going about making them. Electronic music now almost entirely revolves itself around a group of self-sustaining formulas and tried-and-true mandates, a sort of Parnassian sense of self-pride that hampers the genre’s creative growth rather than foster it.
True artistic expression depends on two things: creativity and craft. The creativity is there, but the craft is being replaced by machine code—more so than it’s ever been—stifling the creativity in the process. Creativity without craft results in incompetent, unprofessional work. Craft without creativity results in boring, unoriginal work. Both in concert is what makes good music.
File-sharing
Quality is suffering at the commercial level. Many labels have gone bankrupt, and more are scaling back their releases and their catalogues. Where consumers would scoff at the idea that file-sharing was making any sort of dent into recording industry profits before, now it’s almost a certainty. Couple that with the rising popularity of CD turntables, Final Scratch, and MP3 mixer programs like BPM Studio, with the addition of wi-fi internet access any DJ could conceivably download any track he likes during his set and play it immediately. The massive explosion of MP3 players have practically willed consumers away from physical media. This sentiment is amplified in electronic music circles, where CDs are seen not only as archaic but impractical, given their limitations of only providing 75 minutes worth of music. It is not uncommon for trading networks to share gigabytes worth of their favourite DJ sets (thousands of hours); an upgraded form of the bootleg tape trading scene of live rock concerts in the 80s, only on a much larger, much more connected, and much more efficient scale.
This does not give the labels any incentive to gamble on a new sound or tune. Facing the reality of dwindling sales, many of them are falling back on derivative works, milking the latest formulas and trends—in some cases, outright stealing the exact same lead synth, drum pattern or bassline in last week’s club hit—in an effort to stay commercially viable. Where once a remix was depended upon to inject new life into a tired track, now remixes by big artists are scarce, since labels can not always afford them. Other labels have gone the “internship” route (an idea taken from tech companies that can’t afford to hire new employees), choosing to host ‘remix competitions’ inviting amateur producers to remix their works. The label gets a free track, and the producer gets the giddy accolade of seeing his name on wax.
Oversaturation
The progress of electronic music in the popular consciousness of society has echoed the dot-com boom and bust in epic scope, sweep and power. The bubble economy of dance music in the late 90s turned mediocre DJs into rock stars, overinflated the importance of superclubs, and brought heated opposition down in the form of government legislation and violent backlash from other established music cultures—an eerie parallel to ‘disco demolition night’ at Comisky Park in May 1979, only not as thorough or complete.
...there's more...little fragments, but that's as far as I got. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Ishkur, very nice work. :D :D :D I can now forget all those other silly things I didnt like you for. |
|
|
| DFOP04 |
cheers mate, great stuff, i need all the research i can get my hands on, finding data from books is kinda tricky dealing with the topic, so its mostly internet where im getting a lot of my content, anybody else have any views on this would be a great help, even first hand views, what you guys think about it, its all relevent.
Thanks,
Max |
|
|
| Ishkur |
| I'm bumping this thread because there's been a lot of talk lately of why trance has gone downhill or other such blather, and my random notes may shed some insight. |
|
|
| iammesol |
| You put my thoughts into words. I just hope people will realize that all of that is normal of everything in life, not just dance music. |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ishkur
Reason
Quality is suffering at the production level. The simplification of the apparatus to create electronic music has culminated in a rush of stagnant, rigid production values, completely at the mercy of the hardware and software that enforce them. The iconic result of this is Propellerhead Software’s epic desktop music studio Reason. Though the simplification of music production has led to stale and derivative music, it wasn’t always this way......True artistic expression depends on two things: creativity and craft. The creativity is there, but the craft is being replaced by machine code—more so than it’s ever been—stifling the creativity in the process. Creativity without craft results in incompetent, unprofessional work. Craft without creativity results in boring, unoriginal work. Both in concert is what makes good music.
File-sharing
Quality is suffering at the commercial level. Many labels have gone bankrupt, and more are scaling back their releases and their catalogues. Where consumers would scoff at the idea that file-sharing was making any sort of dent into recording industry profits before, now it’s almost a certainty. Couple that with the rising popularity of CD turntables, Final Scratch, and MP3 mixer programs like BPM Studio, with the addition of wi-fi internet access any DJ could conceivably download any track he likes during his set and play it immediately.....Other labels have gone the “internship” route (an idea taken from tech companies that can’t afford to hire new employees), choosing to host ‘remix competitions’ inviting amateur producers to remix their works. The label gets a free track, and the producer gets the giddy accolade of seeing his name on wax.
Oversaturation
The progress of electronic music in the popular consciousness of society has echoed the dot-com boom and bust in epic scope, sweep and power. The bubble economy of dance music in the late 90s turned mediocre DJs into rock stars, overinflated the importance of superclubs, and brought heated opposition down in the form of government legislation and violent backlash from other established music cultures—an eerie parallel to ‘disco demolition night’ at Comisky Park in May 1979, only not as thorough or complete.
...there's more...little fragments, but that's as far as I got. |
I agree with you 100% but I recommend a revision for your 'Reason' section. Here's why: Reason or any other software based production program is not to blame for the decrease in music quality, but the increased availability due to file sharing and the dot com boom which you've already addressed. I think that further refines your argument and doesn't allow for much opposition.
If you still aren't convinced, take this example to mind: Let's say Reason existed before the rise of file sharing or better yet when there was no internet at all. Producing was limited only to those who truly were passionate about making music and had big pockets. The fact that those programs are quite pricy and add to that the decreased availability online acted as a filter flushing out any amateur/newbies/wannabe producers and only leaving the most obsessed pros to get a hold of this new technology. As a result all you are left with is a bunch of highly driven producers churning out nothing but good music.
Now fast forward to today keeping the same Reason example constant and you will notice one major difference. The program remains very pricy but it is more accessible through file sharing due to the growth of the internet or dot com boom as you put it. It's a matter of increased availability, not software. You could have made the same debate about Cubase or [insert any other popular production tools here]. Back then only a handful of people had the luxury of buying their own software and producing. Today anybody can leech the stuff online and create their own crap track, hence, my initial statement. More or less I'm using the law of diminishing return which is that the more of something you have, the less of it you want.
This is why I suggest you relabel the title to 'increased availability' (not necessarily that title but something more fitting) or use it as an example to expand on your 'Oversaturation' section which would fit perfectly. |
|
|
| Ishkur |
That's a good point to make, but are you aware that many companies WANT piracy and file-sharing because it enlarges their marketshare. In other words, software companies don't make money selling personal editions to home users. They expect to--and do--take a loss in this department. They make it all back selling suped up enterprise/business editions of their software--marked up at 3 to 4 times its value--to company offices and the tech departments of corporations (who have to justify an expense for every asset, or else the company risks getting audited by financial watchdogs, and that's bad).
Adobe stumbled upon this strategy about 10 years ago. It works like this:
1) Millions of would-be graphic designers taking courses and studying tutorials on the web download Photoshop for free, and play around with it.
2) These students graduate, then apply for jobs at web firms, software companies and other tech divisions of brand name corporations. At the hiring process, these companies ask them what graphics suite they've been weaned on. "Photoshop", they reply. Company buys Photoshop software for new hiree. This happens all the time, and when the software saturates the market, its practically a given that the company will have any and all available software suites purchased for their employees.
Sure, their software has been available for free. They know this. In fact, some of them are helping this. They're fighting over marketshare, after all. They want audio recording, producing and engineering to be as synonymous with their Cubase/Protools/Cakewalk/Acid/Fruityloops/Ableton/etc.... as Photoshop does with graphics.
Protools is available for free (not the latest edition, but I remember the landmark moment when they made v4.0 available, for free download, without restrictions, on their homepage). This is all good for the amateur musician, who downloads without restrictions. But record labels, music studios, and professional audio engineers all buy advanced versions of the software for the honesty of their business. And that is who the software manufacturers really target. Not the amateur kid hogging Limewire 24 hours a day. He doesn't have any money anyway--what would be the point of selling expensive software to him? The corporations and professionals in the field with deep pockets...they keep the industry moving.
It's the same thing with the consumers of records/electronic music. The target market of the record labels IS NOT YOU, the clubber on the dance floor. Their target market is DJs, the ultimate consumer, who will buy multiple copies of the best records, and then promote the music on any given night. Record labels and producers don't see a single damn dime from your wallet when you splurge $300 at the club. They've already sold their music--to the people who play it in front of you: DJs.
But your argument is about accessibility. Believe it or not, Reason did not start this trend. This trend had been going on since the 80s, and in fact it was poor black musicians utilizing cheap, second hand equipment (because they couldn't afford any better) who started this whole god damn culture.
But the difference between then and now is back then electronic musicians were people who used their equipment to try something different. Today's electronic musicians use their equipment to replicate the same thing they heard at the club last weekend. |
|
|
| Az |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ishkur
But the difference between then and now is back then electronic musicians were people who used their equipment to try something different. Today's electronic musicians use their equipment to replicate the same thing they heard at the club last weekend. |
ing A.
necessarily I don't think thats a bad thing, it's been happening forever, it's just the fact everyones doing it, and if labels wont take them on, they'll do it themselves via digital download. It's increasingly difficult to sift through the massive amount of and get to the real Gems nowadays. |
|
|
|
|
