1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Need help with my music history essay please!

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by basspunk2005, Jan 17, 2006.

  1. basspunk2005

    basspunk2005 Guest

    Jan 31, 2005
    hey the title says it all i would require some help on my essay if thats ok

    the question i am working on is

    'Technology is killing music' discuss. the time period is 1950-1990

    I have to put reasons for why technology is killing music and reasons why it isnt. for example effects in the studio that could be seen as destroying music as it isnt the 'real' sound thats being put through. then on the other hand you say but it enables this and this blah blah. so could anybody give me a hand please?cheers thanks
  2. nateo

    nateo Schubie Fan #1

    Mar 2, 2003
    Ottawa, Ontario
    It might be fun to explore the growing gulf between studio music and live music. I won't say that one is better than the other, but they're certianly different, and I think that's mostly got to do with the technologies available.

    Unless you're James Brown. Then the whole show is so tight you can't tell if you're standing in an amphitheatre or listening at home... except for the fact that standing in the amphitheatre is about a million times more awesome.

  3. basspunk2005

    basspunk2005 Guest

    Jan 31, 2005
    cheers nate ill look into that. Any other comments or help would be great :hyper:
  4. AxtoOx


    Nov 12, 2005
    Duncan, Okla.
    You can go into how prossesors and software like Protools can vastly edit music.
    The good thing is they can make a trained chimp sound good.
    The bad thing is they can make a trained chimp sound good.:)
  5. basspunk2005

    basspunk2005 Guest

    Jan 31, 2005
    lol that is very true. cheers, all this info is good, just quickly when was the synthesizer introduced into music?as im gonna talk about the whole bass/synth thing.
  6. BurningSkies

    BurningSkies CRAZY BALDHEAD

    Feb 20, 2005
    Seweracuse, NY
    I can't say you're shooting in the right direction.

    Technology has opened up a whole bunch of different directions for musical expression, new forms of instruments and devices designed to create and manipulate sound have created new and diverse genres of music.

    Also the convergence of computer development, consumer electronics and music software means that pretty much your average joe can write and produce studio quality music at home...something that wasn't possible way back. The internet has given people a cheap and easy way to distribute and promote the music that they've created at home!

    We're all in a better place for technology.
  7. AxtoOx


    Nov 12, 2005
    Duncan, Okla.
    Google "Moog".
  8. nateo

    nateo Schubie Fan #1

    Mar 2, 2003
    Ottawa, Ontario
    I'm a technical kind of guy, so my instinct is to agree. However, I took an "ethics of technology" class that brought up a lot of interesting arguments, one of the most prominent being about music (sorry basspunk, I just hadn't though of it earlier).

    The argument goes something along these lines.

    Back in the day (say, turn of the century) learning music was considered a fairly noble persuit. Every proper young lady learned to play piano if her family had the means, and singing was a very common form of entertainment. Most social gatherings would involve music in one form or another, often with the group singing along with the performer (think classic drinking songs). The effect of this trend was that everyone wanted to learn not only to appreciate music, but to perform it to some extent. The invention of recording technology caused all that to change.

    Suddenly it was possible to have music in the home without having the ability to play it yourself. Instead of getting together and making music, the entertainment consisted of listening to recorded performances by professional musicians. Eventually musical skill, which was once almost mandatory, faded from the public view. You can argue that this led to today's society where having musical talent is considered special, not the norm. In other words, recording technology has removed the need to be musical from the average joe, thereby causing harm to music as a whole.

    Or something like that.

    I'm sure you can find info on that particular argument, since I think it's fairly well used in the philosophy circles. Mostly I just get a kick out of the discussion. You can just as easily make BurningSkies argument that technology is expanding (at a phenomenal rate, no less) the ability we have to make new and more interesting music, as well as bringing it back to the common man (i.e. software based synthesizers and the techno revolution (man, that'd make a good thesis title)).

    Good luck on the paper. I'd be interested to see it when it's done.

  9. basspunk2005

    basspunk2005 Guest

    Jan 31, 2005
    thanks for all the help so far its been really good, im greatful thanks, just read your last post nateo as i posted this just after you posted yours. Thats great thanks. It doesnt have to be handed in until the start of Feburary but I want to get as much as I can done. Thanks for all the help
  10. BassChuck


    Nov 15, 2005
    If technology is killing music or making it better, you are going to have to define what you mean by 'music' so that you can show the effects of technology on what has been produced since the 1950's. (actually since Les Paul and Mary Ford did "How High The Moon"

    Explore too the fact that since technology has put some musicians out of work, we might have a higher quality of musician left in the studio or touring with live bands. (now there's a can of worms!)

    It has been noted too many times that 'technology will now allow anyone to produce music of professional quality'. Challenge that! If by professional quality you mean the quality of the sound recorded, then that might (maybe) be true, but if you are judging the quality of the music produced, then you have a problem with the statement in this paragraph. (and you might check then the first paragraph of this post).

    Anytime ART is captured, stored and reproduced there have been problems. Most people prefer to see the original painting over a poster print (even though the printing is of fairly high quality). Ansel Adams was very aware of this in talking about his photography. Once a fan told his that they loved his photography because it was so 'realistic'. Adams ask them if they had a picture of their wife and the man said sure and opened his wallet. Ansel looked at the picture and said, "She's a beautiful woman... but so very small!"

    When we talk about 'realism' in music we are clearly on a slippery slope. What music is supposed to sound like 'really' is difficult. Most of the music we hear on any given day is recorded in some manner or another. And when we talk about real sounds versus synthesized sounds... the problem just gets worse.

    When we consider the impact of technology on music (1950-2000) we have to first, IMHO, truely understand what we value and treasure in the musical experience and THEN take a look at what has happened and what the impact is. We need to accept the new and protect the values and traditions that define what we love about music.
  11. Basschair

    Basschair .............. Supporting Member

    Feb 5, 2004
    Stockton, Ca
    Mass communication networks and the "flat world" ideology contribute to a high rate of homoginization of musical styles. That's all I have to say about that.
  12. Ericman197


    Feb 23, 2004
    The popularity of record players and later, CD players destroyed the possibility of a career in music. I believe this is the most significant concept to us as bassists. In the 1800's and even in the early 1900's, it was possible to make a decent living as a musician. It's much more difficult to do so nowadays: why would I, as a consumer, want to go to a local concert to see a bunch of second rate musicians when I can just pop in a Trans Siberian Orchestra (or whatever) CD? Those options weren't available before the average family could afford a good sound system and CD/record player; it didn't matter if you were the best performer in the country, you could find work. I might have, in another life, been a musician. There's no money in it today because as good as I could be (which isn't very ;)), there will always be someone out there who is a little faster, a little luckier and a little cooler. This is a problem unique to 20th and 21st century musicians.

    If we were to combine the collective talents of every member on this forum, good or bad, we'd still have more bassists than are needed in this world. Not only does technology allow the mass production of CDs, but it also allows us to have concerts for tens of thousands of audience members, rather than just a few hundred or thousand. As time goes on, I can only see this trend increasing. Now, we don't even have to pay ~$20 for a CD, we can just download it for free. Other than the mild risk that I might get caught and arrested, what intrinsic motivation do I have to buy a CD instead of downloading it? I've done both in the past, but really, I don't care much about the artist either way as long as I don't get caught. Everyone knows this to be the case, and it's a bad thing for artists. With the exception of a few overzealous musicians and diehard band supporters, everyone I've talked to "on the streets" couldn't really care less about downloading.

    This isn't really such a bad thing, it just depends on your perspective. We as consumers now have better access to the best of the best, whereas in the past, we'd be stuck with whatever crappy group happened to be in our village that day. There aren't that many high paying jobs in the music industry, but there are some that are extremely high paying.