Digital Killed the Radio Star
by Matt PattersonNever before has music been so easy to create, distribute, and obtain. And never before has it been less inspired and inspiring; never before has it been so inconsequential to human affairs. The villain behind this terrible irony? Ones and zeros.
The digitization of music, while in some ways advantageous (and in any case inevitable), has nonetheless resulted in profoundly deleterious effects from which all of the music industry’s current woes emanate. Let us count the ways.
Digitization has democratized the processes of musical composition and recording, beckoning the masses to participate in once rarefied and expensive art forms.
To be an artist was once to be elite by definition. Artistic mastery which the public revered (and, if you were lucky, payed for), was obtainable only through years of sacrifice, study, and struggle. This arduous and uncertain life had the glorious effect of weeding out all but the most dedicated and talented from the artistic professions.
No more. Today, the technology to create and compose music has become idiot proof and dirt cheap – the gates have been thrown open, and the hordes have rushed in. As a result, the quantity of music has risen to choke the fiber cables and wi-fi networks encircling the globe, just as the quality has suffered a corresponding and predictable degradation.
This democratization in composition and recording has been accompanied by a democratization in performance, as seen in the rise of Karaoke (and its ultimate manifestation, American Idol), as well as the advent of performance games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band.
The former phenomena are merely depressing, but Guitar Hero and its ilk are truly insidious. They simulate the rewards of musical artistry without the gamer having to acquire or display any actual skill.
Which begs the question: Are there any teenagers these days, sitting on the edge of their bed with real guitars, for eight or ten hours straight, learning, jamming, playing along with records, as Eddie Van Halen once described his childhood? Not likely. Learning to master the guitar is hard. Why bother, when a virtual, screaming audience already awaits you in your living room? Unfortunately for the health and future of Rock & Roll, it is the few exceptionally talented musicians like Mr. Van Halen who elevate the form to high art and inspire others to the cause.
Digitization has also devalued music in the minds of the purchasing public, and no wonder: When you take a once solid commodity and make it intangible, you automatically make its worth less apparent. Hey, kids figure, its all just floating in the air. How can you steal air? And they have a point. The consequences have been devastating for the music business and the ability of musicians to generate income.
Astoundingly, bands and record companies – who once rightly fought file sharing and illegal downloading – are now actively participating in the destruction of their own livelihood. Case in point – the new U2 album, “No Line On the Horizon,” was leaked online before its release on March 2. In response, the band decided to stream the entire album for free on their website before it was available for purchase.
Bad idea. According to the Times Online, “The band’s decision to allow fans to stream “No Line”…may have backfired,” Many U2 fans sampled tracks for free online, and, unimpressed, decided against purchasing, suppressing the album’s crucial initial sales.
These fans have thus cheated themselves out of a remarkable sonic experience, and the band helped them to do so. For “No Line” is not the kind of work whose rewards are immediately apparent – it is a dense, layered, and challenging album, whose pleasures are subtle but many for the patient and attentive listener.
Sadly, because “No Line” was available free online, people treated it like they treat all free things – essentially worthless (see: the Tragedy of the Commons).
Digitization has been disastrous for the recording process as well. As Bob Dylan told Rolling Stone in 2006:
“…you fight the technology in all kinds of ways, but I don’t know anybody who’s made a record that sounds decent in the past twenty years, really. You listen to these modern records, they’re atrocious…there’s no definition of nothing…I remember when that Napster guy came up across, it was like, ‘Everybody’s gettin’ music for free.’ I was like, ‘Well, why not? It ain’t worth nothing anyway.’”
Modern records sound atrocious for two reasons:
1) Microphones used to be placed at strategic distances and positions relative to the amplifiers and/or instruments in the recording process, resulting in endless variation in acoustic sensibility. Jimmy Page, a master of this now lost art, summed up this principle as “distance equals depth.” The famous, looming drum sound on Led Zeppelin’s “When the Levee Breaks,” for instance, was captured by placing John Bonham’s drum kit at the bottom of a stairwell, with microphones stationed three stories up. The result of this ingenious use of natural echo is the most sampled and copied drum sound of all time, a menacing thunder booming up seemingly from the depths of hell itself.
In the digital age, by contrast, instruments, if not preprogrammed outright, are plugged directly into the mixing console or digital effects board, resulting in perfect, flat, boring signals.
(The downside of the old way, of course, was that live mics occasionally picked up stray studio noise; an engineer’s cough, laughter in the control room, etc. But even these seeming defects lent considerable charm to the old records, transporting the listener into the room with the musicians at the moment of creation.)
2) Nowadays music is most often consumed in compressed form via computer speakers or tiny earbuds. Engineers and producers have compensated for these limited delivery systems by ultra compressing tracks and mixing them at ever louder levels to grab and hold the listener’s attention as they surf the net or are otherwise occupied. As a result, albums are now so loud and compressed, they are virtual walls of indistinguishable noise.
Rolling Stone summed up the toll digital technology has taken on the processes of recording and listening to music in a 2007 article titled “The Death of High Definition:”
Producers and engineers call this ‘the loudness war,’… But volume isn’t the only issue. Computer programs…let audio engineers manipulate sound the way a word processor edits text, [making] musicians sound unnaturally perfect. And today’s listeners consume an increasing amount of music on MP3, which eliminates much of the data from the original CD file and can leave music sounding tinny or hollow.
Tinny and hollow – not much worth paying for. The results can be seen in the vacant lots where record stores once stood.
And what of ringtones, in which music companies pinned great hope? Well, sales of ringtones have fallen off lately as well, and even if they hadn’t, there would be no cause to rejoice. Ringtones represent an end of music as something to be cherished and savored for its own sake, demoting it to the position of herald only, worthy merely of signifying an incoming and entirely inconsequential phone call.
What can be done about all of this? Nothing, really. The Digital Demon is out of the bottle. We have loosed him for the sake of convenience and cost; in return, he is strangling our Muse.
She is not yet dead but dying, her cries drowned out by the static in our tiny white earbuds.
Matt Patterson’s commentary has appeared in The Washington Examiner, The Baltimore Sun, and Townhall. He is the author of “Union of Hearts: The Abraham Lincoln & Ann Rutledge Story.” His email is mpatterson.column@gmail.com
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
49 Comments
Matt
You have articulated in a studied way, my superficial thoughts. I usually say modern music sucks. you have explained why.
Excellent article, Mr. Patterson! I particularly like your take on how all but the most dedicated and talented are weeded out. I think it's very true; with music, with anything, if you want to be your best, you have to put the time and effort in.
Interesting, too, how mikes were hung three stories above Bonham's kit to help get that booming effect. I didn't know that.
Part 1:
Mr. Patterson's lament is misdirected. Digital music is just the latest version of an age-old situation. Rock and roll has always been a mass media creation. Artistry in this medium is as much about flash as it is about catchy songs. Pete Townshend said it himself, "If you steer clear of quality, you're ok." Please don't get me wrong, I love U2, I love Led Zep, the Who and all the rest. But I am aware of what I am consuming; sugar and starch served on plastic. The music of the past 70 years or so has been clever, interesting and occasionally revolutionary, but for most people it is still just background noise. How many people do you know that actually sit and listen to a record, doing nothing else while listening? In reality, it was the introduction of the recording medium itself that reduced music to wallpaper.
Part 4:
Dylan was right; but he was referring to the industry productions. All you need to do Mr. Patterson, is look around. That may sound hard, but you may find it to be a labor of love.
Cheers,
G Fox in NH
Live Free Or Die Baby.
Matt, your entire article is nothing more than rage against inevitable change, which is the essence of futility.
Look, my nutshell germane creds are these: BM Berklee College of Music, MM Texas State University, and 30+ hours toward a DMA at The University of North Texas. I've been a Synclavier owner and programmer, I've used computers for music since I used a Commodore 64 to program my Yamaha TX-816, and a 512K Macs with Synclaviers. I've worked in some of the greatest recording studios of all time, including Electric Lady, Right Track, Sync Sound, and Unique Recording. I'm fifty-one years old with over thirty years of experience as a musician under my belt.
This is a PHASE that music and the music industry is going through, as the old corporation-centric paradigm is destroyed and a new – who the heck knows what it will really be yet? – more democratic paradigm is "established." I'm happy as heck about it and know that the LONG TERM prognosis is good.
Just as the rigors of a musician's life winnow out all but the most dedicated, so too will the superficial tech addicts of today tire of their EZ MuZic toys in due time. During that time, however, a whole new generation of musicians will arise who use tech to create music in ways we couldn't have imagined even twenty years ago. Things are chaotic during revolutions, for crying out loud, but to think all of the current excesses portend nothing but doom and gloom is just neurotic.
I could go on, but I'd rather pick up a guitar and do some practicing. LOL!
Musically I came of age through the late ‘60s and my real decade of being aware was the ‘70s. A release of an album was a special moment. The way I describe analog to digital is the difference in a, “painting and a print.” For instance a Monet painting is warm and thick with amazing endless depth, it will take your breath away. The print of the same painting is flat one dimensional, and if you use a loop (magnification) you will see the dot pattern of an offset print or photomechanical reproduction (cheap imitation). The remarkable recordings of our times musical taste aside have a depth of field and warmth that the zero’s and one’s simply can’t produce. I to have made sure my kids are exposed to artist from, Miles Davis to The Beatles, Pink Floyd to The Allman Brothers. For me an old halfway hippie and part time musician it’s distressing the death of the anthem of our times.
Nice creds. But just as music is important, so are words. I found no "rage" in Patterson's piece.
Maybe I'm an older foggie (53), but I think most of the fun of music kind of died with MIDI and really died out in the 90s. I think part of it was because these neat tools like cheap synths and sequencers made everyone "think" they could make music, especially film music. There is still some great new stuff being made, just not as much.
What am I listening to this week? ELO's On the Third Day; John Barry's On Her Majesty's Secret Service; Rumon Gamba conducting the BBC Phil: Film Music of Sir Arthur Bliss and Christian Music for choir practice (Discovery Church, Simi Valley).
Matt, I agree with your points about MP3s sounding "tinny and hollow" — believe me, I lament this fact. But you made some other points that ignore evidence to the contrary. Perhaps U2's latest album flopped because it got leaked online, but you didn't even bother to mention Radiohead's experiment with allowing listeners to choose how much they would pay for "In Rainbows". It was rather successful.
And I think you missed Bob Dylan's point. If he was talking about music in the last 20 years, he could not have been attributing that to the digitization or democratization of music, because it was still solidly in the recording industry's hands. Which, coincidentally, is why I turned to Napster — Brittney Spears, the Backstreet Boys, and Puff Daddy made up the majority of radio airplay (at least in the small town where I lived) for a long stretch of time. I turned to the Internet out of sheer desperation. I was desperate to find new music, and I couldn't afford to go to Sam Goodie's and just start buying CDs at random — I tried it a couple times, and it was as hit-and-miss as you could imagine.
I still turn on the radio sometimes, but now all I hear is Nickelback and Rihanna. So, I turn back to the net, sample some stuff, then buy what I like on iTunes. And I've discovered some great bands that I never would have heard of otherwise: Sufjan Stevens, Sigur Ros, Muse, Mute Math, and others.
As for kids not wanting to learn to perfect their craft anymore, I disagree. I know several people, including some very young kids, who are more interested in learning music now because the goal of being in a band or having their music heard is much more attainable. I have even seen evidence of kids wanting to learn other instruments, like cello and trumpet, because "Man, everyone plays guitar, I want to play something different."
You make some excellent points but I did want to counter with a specific example of something positive that has originated from music entering the digital age. Trent Reznor from Nine Inch Nails has used this new standard to truly break away from the stale commercialism often produced by the record companies (think Brittany/Cold Play etc) and has produced some truly amazing material in his Ghosts and The Slip albums. All produced without a Record Company involved and released from Trents website for free…well Ghosts was $5.00! This type of artistic freedom and ability to mass distribute would have been next to impossible 20 years ago.
I have a rack full of LP's and bring out the chestnuts when I feel motivated. There is a difference. The sound is much richer with a more noticable low end. When I worked in a studio, we experimented with mike placement and natural effects – since there wasn't any but the simplest of digital effects – eq & harmonization, compression and limiting. Engineers could shine George Martin was a master, along with Alan Parsons, Jimmy Page and Todd Rundgren. While, I like the freedom of the new technology, and the damned record companies stranglehold is all but gone, the new format causes ear fatigue – the tinny sound wears on the frontal lobe.
Hello to a Tx State Alumni – although I only have a Bachelors from the dept of anthropology…
[...] Originally posted here: Digital Killed the Radio Star [...]
I've been hearing predictions of the demise of music since Hammond came up with an automatic rhythm system on their electronic organs in the 50s. Creative musicians will find a way. I do agree about mini-electronic music players however. They. sound a lot like the early transistor radios.
I appreciate the article, though. I was afraid this was going to be another chapter in the rap wars.
The difference between depth and flatness in music does not spring from the analog-digital change. It springs from lazy recording techniques. It's the difference between recording Bonzo's drums from three stories away and plugging a digital drumkit directly into the board. You can still record good music with digital media. You just need to place the mikes across the room from the Marshall stack instead of setting them against the speaker, or even worse, plugging the guitar directly into the board and applying digital effects to the direct signal. An effect will never sound quite like a real stack, and artificial overdrive will never sound like the feedback from a real Marshall stack on 10 while the guitarist is manipulating a Strat a foot in front of the speakers (wisely using a filter to control the squealing). You can just never recreate that kind of awesome with straight-to-digital.
The upside of all the technology is that it opens up the process of music creation to non-musicians. The downside is that you have to listen to music created by non-musicians. Popular music has always had a large component of social context to it. Now technology has enabled the social component to be distilled from all that annoying musical content and offered up as a purified social identifier. Having little-to-zero musical content means it has no lasting impact. I'm curious as to how rap will be handled by Musac.
This is something I've thought about a lot. Some other points to consider are:
1. In the 80's electronic companies started to produce junk for receivers and amps.
2. SACD's were not marketed very well. Marketing could best be described as nonexistant. And SACD came out around the time of mp3s.
3. MP3s degrade audio quality by their nature. Record companies should have pushed the fact that mp3s were inferior. But now that they are making money on downloads, they don't care that it is an inferior product.
4. Home theater came along. Instead of having proper 2 channel music, you have tiny speakers with all the low frequencies for all channels sent to one subwoofer.
I once heard the Jonas brothers playing live on a morning show. My god they were/are awful!
They need all the computer wizardry available.
Aw gee…….. sounds like the hollywood elite are upset that their apple cart is upside down. I love it. Screw hollywood and the elite recording studios. Power to the common man and the kid in a garage somewhere. Screw the powerful left.
I'm just as passionate about the future of animation. I sit here waiting with baited breath for the animation to progress to the point where loudmouth pukes like Susan Sarandon and Barbara Streisand and Jane fonda and all the rest of the looney left are out of work and just fading memories of what movies used to be like. Gawd how I am going to enjoy watching them whine about the fate of their craft. I will sit here and shed tears of joy as they are all evicted from the homes in Beverly hills.
Digital,……. bad? God Bless Steve Jobs!!!!
They really did push cassette tech to the limits. I have about forty tapes I recorded in the mid-80's on TDK SA-90's. I have beat the living hell out of some of them and they still sound great. No comparison to commercial grade. There is a richness to the sound produced by analog LP's that just isn't there with digital. Granted, the drive mechanism of 8-tracks were crap but, I always wondered how good they would have sounded had someone put the development into them that cassettes got. Same size tape as a reel-to-reel. I miss my TEAC A-6300……*sniff* *sniff*
I accrued a whole new appreciation for Rundgren when I rediscovered Something/Anything about 10 years after it originally came out. I still plop it out for some fun listening. I was a Utopia head for a while, too. Still good.
I'm all for guitar wizardry (not wankery, though, and you Yngwie, Yes and ELP fans know I'm looking at you), and best of luck to your son, malice. That said, still think Paul Westerberg does it best (or sometimes not with the plethora his home studio recordings), rarely to ever using something that's beyond a third take. Once you over-tinker, the music's lost its soul.
Oh yeah, no question digital can be wonderful stuff in the studio much more efficient, with the right engineer, and the right band. The discipline is basically the same to me the only difference is how you catch the sound. Mic placement is as important as it was 50 yrs ago. If you want a Fender Super Reverb or a Marshall Stack for your sound you’d better have one if that’s what your after. It’s all a matter of what you put into it, garbage in garbage out.
The name of this tread is excellent. Indeed, Tech killed the magic. Back in the time, both technology and creative musicianship was simpatico. Each was exploring their abilties and skills. Now Tech has exceeded expectations and the musician is left in a creative slump. Expanding, now the kids can't eat a burger, can't play a tune, and completely misunderstain the true axiom – no pain… no gain., especially when it comes to mastering an instrument. It flows from the heart – something that digital can never duplicate.
I've been playing bass for forty years – can't pass a day without tickling the Fender J
The name of this tread is excellent. Indeed, Tech killed the magic. Back in the time, both technology and creative musicianship was simpatico. Each was exploring their abilties and skills. Now Tech has exceeded expectations and the musician is left in a creative slump. Expanding, now the kids can't eat a burger, can't play a tune, and completely misunderstand the true axiom – no pain… no gain., especially when it comes to mastering an instrument. It flows from the heart – something that digital can never duplicate.
I've been playing bass for forty years – can't pass a day without tickling the Fender J
Well said, but somewhat off base on Guitar Hero/Rock Band. Ask any music store manager to confirm that those games have generated MASSIVE interest in (and revenue from) learning to really play. All of your other points are spot on, but I would suggest we all remain positive about the future. I prefer to liken the digital democratization of music to the premise/moral in the movie Ratatouille: "Anyone can cook" The tech allows anyone to be instantly mediocre, and yes, mediocrity has clogged the environment. However, now no-one is denied access to the tools of creation. The Mozarts of our time need not have rich connected parents to achieve artistic greatness. It is now truly a matter of personal focus and dedication.
Part of the article above sounds similar to complaints about bloggers made by big media journalists. Lower barriers to entry allowed many new voices to be heard. While it is true that this allowed for a great deal more crap, it also allowed much good as well. The cream still rises to the top and excellence is still rewarded. The same will occur in music.
As for the two reasons stated as to why “Modern record sound atrocious”…
1. You are just describing different ways to manipulate sound. The means aren’t important – the result is! One can achieve amazing sounds via programmed machines if one has talent.
2. As for today's formats – I agree they have their shortcomings, but that is only a temporary problem. The quality will increase as cheaper bandwidth and storage allow for larger files with more information.
Another idea comes to mind – Perhaps the reason new music sounds flat to you is because you have suffered some hearing loss. (Lord knows, I have. For example, I can no longer hear the high pitch sound CRT monitors make.) Old favorite songs still sound good because you remember how they are supposed to sound and your mind fills in the missing data. Rush Limbaugh has spoken numerous times about this phenomenon with his hearing loss. He cannot hear new music – it sounds like noise to him, but he can still enjoy his old favorites because he knows what they are supposed to sound like and his mind fills in what is missing.
I have learned of many great new musicians over the past several years. There is no shortage. Of course, I’m listening to online radio that is free from the constraints of traditional broadcasts.
I have been listening to music with the earbuds for years. I finally got some quality headphones and am mad at myself for not having done it sooner. That said, new music still sucks for the most part. The older i get the more i like music from dead people.
"you are old, get used to it. i like this site, but articles like this make me want to puke. give me a fking break. remember when the old farts used to call the beatles "electronic noise." slag off, wanker."
And you are too young to know that what you're peddling is a myth. My mother was a middle-aged OKie when the Beatles appeared and loved their stuff. Most folks did. When you get older and can wear long pants, you'll understand this.
I am one of those people who spent hours in my bedroom trying to master an instrument, grew up, played all over the U.S., and got sick of paying studios money for something I could do myself. I have utilized the home-recording technology, the digital-distribution means of product delivery, and I welcome anyone else who wants to also give it a shot.
Since when did music become so holy. Go ahead and project whatever honor you want to on whatever artist and music you want to, but contrary to what you might think they all have the same right to exist and compete.
To say that anything "killed the radio star" is a false statement. The radio stars are still around, they just aren't the stars of yesterday or yesteryear. If you are getting airplay on radio, you are a radio star of today and that's quite an accomplishment is such a competitive industry. It may not be what trips your trigger, and you may disagree with how they got be on the radio in the first place, and you may wonder why major labels do what they do, but blaming it on the digital revolution of music is a stretch.
Cello and trumpet? I can see those working in a band. Just give the kids a few ELO albums so they know how it's done.
I'm so glad Mr. Patterson knows what's best for everyone when it comes to music. If you don't like something don't listen to it. People listen to a lot of stuff that I think is total crap, but who can say to the person that made the music "hey dude, your music sucks because you are all into the digital way of doing things, get out now boy and go back to recording with a reel to reel and setting your drums at the bottom of the stairs, or you'll never go anywhere."
U2 embraced new techhology and made their music available to the masses. What on EARTH is wrong with that? If people, after hearing the album for free, chose to then not buy it…well maybe they didn't LIKE it. Oh I forgot…."these kids today…don't know good music" blah blah blah________As to Guitar Hero and Rock Star being the death of live performance: Oh puh-LEEZ. Guitar Hero and Rock Star are about as harmful as when guys played air guitar and girls sang into their hair brushes. It's the same thing…just more high-tech.
Part 3
There is still good rock being produced. You can also still find SOME sources for the old-style FM rock stations of the past. (Full disclosure: I happen to work for one in Cincinnati. http://www.classxradio.com and I will understand if you discount everything I say because of the blatant plug) ____Look, I like the music of my past better than the music of my present too, but that's nothing new. You hate your kids music, your parents hated your music, etc. etc. etc. However, I have no problem accepting today's music for what it is. Cheesy, fun, pop. If I can survive "Run Joey Run" and "Heaven on the 7th Floor" then my kids can survive Miley Cyrus and Taylor Swift.__
Part one of my post got gobbled up while I tried to learn this new techonology that is of course RUINING books. It's made writing and publishing democratic and that can't be good, right??
I never thought I'd see a writer on THIS site coming out against democracy…amazing.
Part one originally found amusing the statement that "kids should pay for music but the music is so bad nobody should pay for it." Well if it's so bad, why you are bothered? I also found it amusing that as backup you cited Bob Dylan and Rolling Stone, an artist and magazine that have not been relevant since their audiences discovered soap.
But that's just me.
I believe the decline in the music industry (and the entertainment industry in general) is due to changes in anti-trust laws. Radio, recording industry, ticket sales, venues are now all parts of gigantic lateral monopolies. The telecommunications act of 1996 began a process where the number of radio stations in the US decreased by 33%.
There are just less independent channels for talent to breakthough. The consolidation of media into the hands of a few large companies leads to very generic lowest common denominator type of products, and less opportunity for innovation.
http://www.alistz.net
"Not likely. Learning to master the guitar is hard. Why bother, when a virtual, screaming audience already awaits you in your living room?"
As long as there are lanky, plain-looking, unkempt, largely-uninteresting young men who none the less wish to get laid, there will ALWAYS be someone learning to play guitar
The best thing about all this technology is that it has freed the musician from music-industry tyranny.
That’s funny! I hope you’re right Bob.
Whats wrong with making U2's available to the masses is it's killing the garage bands chance of getting their music to the masses. When your unknown your not getting your music anywhere near the front pages of I-Tunes, I Heart Music because the major recording companies and radio conglomerates and AAA acts have it locked up. The little guy has no chance without the connections
Unless you sold 250,000 cd's and have $5,000.00 a month in gig sales you'll never be free of the music industry tyranny and you'll never see it either.
How many cd's have you sold? If you call that being free from the industry don't give up your day job.
If any of you want to see just how great your digital music makes the difference I'll be glad to release your music to every major community FM and college radio station in every major city in the country. I'll put your music to the test for 7/8 weeks in a row for under ten grand. You can have radio airplay 6 times a day. I have a release going out in September if anyone wants to ride it out on the back of a major artist. pane@cox.net
Most of us don't have 10 grand to blow on a dubious promise of radio promotion. That's kind of the point…
Nothing dubious about it.
Ok, it was wrong of me to say your promise was dubious, but even if it's a cast-iron guarantee of blanket radio coverage, the overwhelming majority of independent muicians still can't afford that kind of outlay, even if we haven't given up our day jobs.
"Matt, your entire article is nothing more than rage against inevitable change, which is the essence of futility."
Exactly. I could not disagree more with the original article.
Ring tones < MP3s < CDs < Cassettes < Records < Live Performances.
At each step, we sacrifice some quality for convenience. Because we live in a free society, we each get to choose how far down the convenience ladder we wish to travel.
As for the quality of today's music, that is what every generation says about the next generation. "The music of today is not nearly as good as it was when I was young!" Heck, I say that and I am only 35. I can't watch modern music videos because the music just sounds like noise to me.
However, unlike the author of this article, I am willing to recognize that this is normal between generations and not the fault of technology.
Nice article, Matt. And thanks for pointing out the innovative recording genius of Jimmy Page. That band was fully his, and his life blood in in those recordings. But I don't mourn. There are enough purist musicians out there still who savor artistry over the ephemeral. And when the winds blow away the dust and chaff…the artist will still rise.
I agree with Hucbald – as well as GFox, above – though I would substitute "whine" for "rage." My creds are similar to his. I'm 53, with BS in music, having also dropped out of some of the "best" schools, Berklee, and New England Conservatory. I have built and engineered in studios, owned my own for a time, and played in front of audiences since I was 12. I have well over 100 songs to my credit (however, the quality of those songs is often NOT to my credit
).
Taking Mr. Patterson to task, point by point, would involve a much longer response. I'd just like to add to what's been said without being overly redundant. Mr. Patterson's article only carries weight in the context of the "Big Old Media" system of intellectual property rights, production and distribution. He is missing the more important picture of what and 'democratization' means.
Look, most of the results of any artistic endeavor are mediocre at best, and often terrible. I am an elitist. Only a few are the best, the most expressive, the most on target with their results. (Mind you, there's a whole other discussion to have about whether any of the "best" are actually the most successful in the industry!) Think of the current system as a pyramid. With the mass of those trying at the bottom, and those who succeed (for whatever reason) at the top. The "digitization of music", as Mr. Patterson puts it, will essentially result in three significant shifts:
1. The pyramid will flatten out a bit. That is, there may be a little more room at the top, the elite will get bigger.
2. Since the available dollars for entertainment remain the same, with more music available, there will be less money per artist. You can look at this as the 'value' of music going down, or you can look at it as maybe a chance for more musicians to make some money.
3. The elite will be chosen a bit more democratically. Now, in addition to A&R departments, Marketing firms, Managers, Agents, and the layer of "industry professionals" who want to tell us what we like (and this won't be going away), there will be more input directly from the music listening public.
I could go on, but I want to hear Hucbald practicing! Hey Hucbald, send me one of those digitized mp3's of your latest. I could add a track or two and we'll put it up on Alonetone! I know it's only flat, digitized, democratized junk, but it's FUN!
Before the era of recording, music was also democratized, via the piano in the living room or the banjo on the knee or the song in the field. The era of the mega-recording star, from Enrico Caruso through the Backstreet Boys, was the real transient phase, and now we're getting back to everyone, talented or not, making music.
As business and distribution models change, how we'll all find _good_ music has yet to be sorted out, but in some ways, rather than a nadir as Mr. Patterson describes it, I think this may be the beginning of a new golden age of music. There's a lot out there, to be sure, and thus a lot of crap, but there is also more good stuff than ever, and more ways to find it. There are problems and fads — too much dynamics compression, Auto-Tune, and so on — but those always exist (remember the cardboard-box drums of the '70s, or the cheeseball bell-tone DX7 synths of the '80s?). Quality is still there for us to find. And the pop charts no longer need be relevant in that.
You must be logged in to post a comment.