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
Got a Tip?
86 Comments
My God. How true.
I have been saying similar things for years now. What sells music now is image, not the music itself. Which is why I consider it part of my parental duty to expose my children to great music- from Bach to the Beatles, from Stevie Ray Vaughn to Thelonious Monk- so that they may have an appreciation for greatness, and as a result, identify garbage when they hear it.
I am forwarding this article to a few friends. Thanks.
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.
Matt–you must have missed my article on this site about the Pop Underground. Suggest you hie on over to http://www.notlame.com and give a listen to anything they have.
Guitar Hero and Rock Band have their uses. My son plays both, and at 8 years of age he's now interested in music from my childhood that he otherwise would've considered hopelessly "old and lame." Furthermore, the game is what got him interested in playing actual guitar, to which he's taken with a great deal of enthusiasm. Based on comments at the store where the guitar was purchased, I gather this is not at all unusual.
Will he be the next Stevie Ray Vaughan? Possibly, but not likely. Much of his interest will wane when the next fad comes along, as it will for most kids. But a few will pick up the habit and carry it for life, and maybe he'll be one.
[edited: when did HTML tags stop working around here?]
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 2:
Returning to rock and roll specifically: In some ways it was inevitable that a music designed for mass appeal gets reduced to it's lowest common denominator, i.e., mass appeal. Rock Band and American Idol are logical outcomes for music that was meant for everyone to be able to play. When Lonnie Donegan first appeared on British TV, John Lennon and thousands of other British kids started skiffle groups. Eventually, when Led Zeppelin and Queen and the Who made music that was too hard to recreate in the garage, kids turned to punk since it was easier to play, and more raw. Today we live in the age of convenience. Mr. Patterson is right that learning an instrument is hard, but for most people it was never about the instrument, it was about the fame. American Idol and Rock Band make the fame easier, even if it is vicarious. Sugar and starch are quick hits, right?
Part 3:
Where I think Mr. Patterson is off the mark is his lament that music has become democratized, and therefore bad. Music is democracy Mr. Patterson. Your blog implies that only the big bands, the famous guys, make anything worthwhile. Actually, the big guys stopped being original a long time ago. None of the acts you mention have done anything revolutionary for years. The truth is, thanks to the digital age, music has become very regionalized again, very local again.That's a good thing. In a weird way, it's kind of like states' rights. I can now find great talent and original music in all genres, not just rock and roll, and I don't need U2's label, or American Idol to point it out to me. What the digital age has done is enable real musicians to release their music without the need for what I see as the "big government" of the entertainment industry. Rather than depend on the welfare state of the music industry, music is back in the hands of rugged individualists.
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).
A great visual example of what Matt is talking about at "2) Nowadays music is…compressed…" can be found at
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/33549
I can't agree in total with all of his points though. The cream has always risen to the top. Having lots of "artists" and only a few really exceptional ones has existed from the days of Cain and Abel. This is not a result of the digitization or democratization of music. "Cut out bins" in record stores were always full of artists' albums who didn't make it big. Most of them deserved to be there too. (If you don't know what that is see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut_out_bin ).
Great too is the number of musicians who have practiced an instrument and become proficient enough to sound really good and yet never seem to have that creative spark. The movie "Amadeus" is an illustration of the skill Salieri worked hard to hone versus the talent Mozart was born with.
Another reason for the labels doldrums is that they have –always– shipped an inferior physical product at high prices. When high quality "stereophonic" equipment became available to the unwashed masses in the 1970s, records were very often shipped on thin vinyl that warped while waiting to be sold. Many times a record track had a skip or pop from the factory. Audiophiles who could, paid more for domestic stars on imported records because the vinyl was usually thicker and less likely to warp. Cassettes were, for the most part, awful, awful quality. The "thing" then was to get the best equipment you could, buy a record and high quality blank tape, play the record once while recording it then only listen to the tape. I have albums I recorded to Maxell XL ll tapes in the '80s that sound as good today compared to the vinyl as they did new. I have/had commercially produced tapes from the labels that began degrading less than a year after I paid (full price) for them. And then there are CDs problems…see above link.
The physical way the artists' product has been delivered to the audience (i.e. the purchaser) over the decades has consistently been poor. So when music was digitized, consumers had a way to get that music without warps, pops, degradation and without high prices. The labels response was to sue the customer rather than come up with something like iTunes on their own.
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."
Another thing that has contributed to the amount of bad music out there is that artists used to be confined to 45 minute records or cassette tapes. Now that you can release as much music as you can record, songs that used to be relegated to the trash can are now included on CD's, MySpace sites and artist websites. When you knew that you only had 45 minutes to impress the listener and you released an album every other year I think it focused the performers to really put out a great album.
Two artists that I wish were confined to 45 minute releases every other year would be Guided By Voice's Robert Pollard and Ryan Adams. Both write and perform great songs, but on every release I have to wade through 3-4 songs that are lame or just plain awful to find the gems that these guys are capable of.
Yes. I agree with you.
I was raised on music, all kinds, and I like to think I have a good ear for it.
But since the late 80s, when MTV became bad, very bad, I haven't like really any modern pop music.
I just can't find the soul in it, I'm sorry.
With that said, I will add this: Coldplay's Viva La Vida (sp?) is wonderful. I love it. I really miss strings in pop music. Not sure if it's synth strings or not, but I do love that song. For me, that's big.
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.
Write your comment here…
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.
Excellent post, but I think the challenge to find excellence now rests in the hands (or ears as it is) of the listener. Great stuff is out there in the cyber world and, more importantly, at the clubs/halls. Fortunately, too, there are still bands and producers who remember the good ol' days of recording — Drive-By Truckers, a band who purposely make albums with a record mentality, spring immediately to mind. Lord know it translates to much better shows as well. Hopefully, the younger fans are paying attention.
I agree and one of the reasons Eddie Van Halen sat around playing guitar was life in the 60's and 70's offered a lot less choices on what to do with your time. So many more choices means our time is spread out.
Could it be because people have a taste for crap? Seriously, there are tons of talented, hard-working musicians out there. Yet corporate-derived marketing machines like Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers are abound. American Idol is the only star-making enterprise left. And people buy their records in droves.
High schools and iPods are flooded with the latest one-hit-wonder hip hop and Emo garbage. Nothing with any depth, or melody or conscionable musical value. And the teenage and 20-something set eat it up.
A vast public availability of Pro Tools isn't the blame. The problem is the acceptance of mediocrity and the lack of interest in musical value, all given up for 3-minute orgasmic pop hits that have all the lastingness of two-week old pizza.
Skilled musicians are out there, technically fluent ones at that (see Joe Bonamassa), yet the public doesn't devour them like they once did. Technical fluency on guitar was once akin to special status, not anymore.
About the only thing exposing kids to good music is Guitar Hero. Without, they would be lost in a see of Fall Out Boys.
FOLKS!!
The real point of this story goes way beyond the current state of the music and music industry. It is really about what happens when the unintended consequences of technological advances begin to play out. IF the new technology was not in existence, then where would we be? Probably more or less back where we were before it existed.
Technology creates, but it also destroys existing conditions permanently. I wish the scientists currently working on artificial intelligence and robotics would be more mindful of this reality, and hope the public will have the imagination to understand what our world may be like, not in 10 or 15 years down the road, but 25 or 50, when we are very likely to have the potential to create extremely dangerous, powerful robots that can think on their own, unencumbered by the one thing they cannot ever possess–a human conscience.
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.
This is an argument I've heard for 20-25 years, only back then it was vinyl vs. the CD, and it was MTV that was destroying music. At least we know the people on American Idol can or cannot sing; Milli Vanilli fooled the world for a period of two years.
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.
Listen to Don McLean – American Pie
Yeah, but "When the Levee Breaks" still sounds great in mp3 on an iPod.
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.
My son might have been one of the last teenagers to sit on the edge of bed and learn the guitar for ten hours a day. He started at age 8. He's 25 now and an electrifying guitar player of thrash heavy metal music. This is one of the most difficult types of guitar playing. He can blow anyone off guitar hero with his eyes closed.
He's now paying with emptiness surrounding a real guitar player. He's the poster child for poor musicians. The industry abandoned his skill, his music his ethics. Jimmy Hendricks couldn't excel in this day and age of fake musicians, fake recordings, and fake music general . His razor edge guitar accuracy is now captured by digitization in every studio. Even though the quality sucks and you can hear the difference between real guitar playing and fake in all instruments the ignorant people can't. American Idol is filled with fake music and vocals.
If anyone needs a real guitar player with dedication, integrity, and accuracy he's available for studios, touring bands contact pand@cox.net
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.
But they could also be incredibly sexy robots who only want to please humans. There is a flip side to everything.
There is good music out there.
My band wrote, recorded, and released an album last year, with our own money… and I would stack it up against ANY mainstream release over the past 12 months. Unfortunately, what you are saying (the lyrical content, song structure as metaphor, etc.) isn't nearly as important as how loudly you say it (the promotional/advertising budget)
Oh well… every once in a while someone stumbles upon our stuff and finds it to be of considerable quality, and of real value. Here's to those folks, and to the next…
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.
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.
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.
"One can achieve amazing sounds via programmed machines if one has talent. "
There's the rub. Why should talented people waste their time on unprofitable efforts? Intelligent and creative people will seek out work that rewards them properly. Because their work is so easily stolen they can not be paid the true value of their product.
"The cream still rises to the top and excellence is still rewarded"
No, excellence is no longer rewarded to the degree it should be. And while cream does rise it is hard to separate it out in today's homogenized product.
I'm a sound guy and a keyboardist, so I have seen both sides, as a mixer/sound editor and as a performer.
Current technology is truly remarkable. The ability to more closely control a recording is a plus in my view. We don't want to confuse the tool itself with how the tool happens to be used. "Digital doesn't kill people, people kill people."
It just so happens that it is cheaper and easier to make bad music than ever before. But digital music, properly recorded and mixed, is every bit as good as analog. Some have complained that digital isn't as "warm," and for the trained ear I suppose that might be true. But we also no longer have to endure the clicks, skips, and pops of LP records.
The same technology that allows Britney Spears to transform from a monotone to a "Singer" also allows me to record an entire live band for 3 straight hours onto a 16 channel multitracker no larger than a brief case that cost me $400 on ebay.
Music is good because it is good. It's still a craft that requires years of dedication and practice. Digital hasn't changed that.
"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.
Nice creds. But just as music is important, so are words. I found no "rage" in Patterson's piece.
Nice creds. But just as music is important, so are words. I found no "rage" in Patterson's piece.
I recently purchased (yes, purchased) some newly recorded music by a fairly talented band. The tunes were good, but the actual recording of the music ended up driving me around the bend. Each instrument and each vocal was given the same emphasis, clarity and volume. There was no depth, accompaniment, background or shading to the otherwise good compositions. Listening to the music ended up being an irritating experience.
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.
This whole article can be summed up in three short phrases:____"Why, when I was your age…."____"These kids today…."____"The music today is just too darn loud, by crackety!"____You can polish a cliche as much as you want, but you still wind up sounding like a grumpy old man who can't find Rare Earth on the radio.____As was said before….music IS democracy. Anyone can do it, that's what makes it GREAT! I never thought I'd see the day when a writer on this site LAMENTED democracy. Amazing.____If you think the music is so awful today that nobody should pay for it, then why complain that "the kids" aren't paying for it??? I'm not following the logic on that one. Of course, it doesn't help when you find backup from Bob Dylan and Rolling Stone, an artist and a magazine that have not been relevant since their audiences discovered soap.____
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
Sorry,but I think youve got it wrongo boyo,I play more instruments and create Live tracks thru my P.A./mixing
board/31 band EQ and Then into my bazillion track studio PC thingy.And no,there still isnt an unsuck button,and I can create music now that was impossible for me even 10 years ago.
And yes overcompressed tinny little songs suck,
Bob
"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
No, digitization did not kill music. Saying that it did is akin to saying that photoshop has killed photography. If anything, it's opened up vast areas of technological exploration that were inconceivable a few decades ago. Say whatever you want about pop music, some of the production values today are fantastic and many of them wouldn't be possible w/o modern studio technology. Many terrible sounding albums and terrible bands came out of the 60's and many of today's genres would sound completely wrong if recorded with older techniques. You don't get that big, in-your-face hard rock drum & guitar sound from using 3 microphones on the drum kit; you get it from close-mic'ing everything and compressing the snot out of it. "When the Levee Breaks"didn't sound awesome because they used a pair of mics at the top of a staircase; it sounds awesome because John Bonham was a sick bad-ass mofo who played drums like an unholy deity. Put a crappy drummer behind the same kit in the same room with the same gear and it'll sound terrible.
If anything's killed pop music, it's the poor management and marketing of radio & record labels and the loss of exposure that kids have to a wide variety musical styles. The machine is driven by money and what will sell; with tie-ins to all sorts of multimedia outlets, artistic integrity and talent often take a back seat to the visual spectacle. The risk-averse nature of large corporations pushes them to stick with known formulas rather than experimentation. This shelters kids from more experimental styles and influences their future musical creativity.
I think what shows that this guy really doesn't know what he's talking about is his explanation of why modern records sound atrocious. It's painfully obvious that he's never actually sat in on a recording session, but is instead working off of second/third-hand information. Real instruments are used all the time and not just run direct into the console. Yes, drums can be augmented by samples, but if you look at the web site for any studio large or small, one of the first things you'll find is their list of microphones. Studios don't spend LOTS of money on construction and acoustics just so they can run a guitar into a DI box.
Regarding Guitar Hero, I've seen several different music teachers in various online communities talk about how they've experienced a growth in private music lessons that can be directly tied to kids' experiences with GH/Rock Band.
If digitization has been bad in any way, it's because it facilitates bad decisions. To draw a photography analogy, check out #31: the Migrant Mother Makeover:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/aprilfool/P30/
In some cases, these sort of touch ups are appropriate; in this case it obviously isn't. That would have been possible with analog technology, but digital's made it much easier. The same sort of thing applies to music. In some cases, heavy editing and 8 million tracks of overdubs and samples are appropriate – that's how modern pop music sounds the way it does. You don't have 30+ tracks of perfectly-harmonized, perfectly-sync'd vocals w/o it. You could have done that with analog, but the razor blade used to splice the tape would have gone to your wrist before you finished. OTOH, taking the same approach to an acoustic bluegrass record would be completely inappropriate. There's a continuum between pop and bluegrass where different levels of manipulation are ok, but computers make it easier for people to go too far.
The best thing about all this technology is that it has freed the musician from music-industry tyranny.
If it wasn't for Guitar Hero, my high school senior would never have picked up his own guitar, would never scour the guitar store for old issues of guitar magazines and sheet music. He's only been playing a year, but he's got the calluses on his fingertips to prove he's much better at it than my husband.
The true artists are still out there you just don't know about them. Their talent is drowned out due to the sheer volume of hacks across the nation. A real life example: A fellow named Christian Lane (resident of Los Angeles, transplanted from Chicago) Incredibly talented, he like so many others like him has kind of been dragged into the internet age. His music is out there, it is wonderful stuff – but why/how would you click on his page, verus the other 90,000? When he plays a live show, people are walk away thinking it was really special – which is very hard to do in L.A. – but then their attention is immediately shifted elsewhere. They might tell their friends, but as we have all come to realize, friends ain't what they used to be. Everyone has thousands of so-called friends on their social networking page – and we have become conditioned to give any communication from there .5 seconds of time. Which brings us back to true word-of-mouth spreading the message from your few real friends – people whose words delivered in person, that you actually pay attention to. Exactly where we were 20, 30, or 40 years ago. The more things change, the more it stays the same.
That’s funny! I hope you’re right Bob.
As an amateur musician, I found some of Mr Patterson's comments ignorant and offensive. He seems to be saying that music would be in a better state if the grubby likes of us were denied access to the tools to create it.
The reverse is true. We are providing an alternative to the mass-produced prolefeed that too often clogs up mainstream radio.
This is a golden age for independent musicians – it's now cheap to make decent-sounding music, and easy to distribute it around the world. Some of my favourite music is made by guys like me, recording on a shoestring budget with no major label interest. Yes, there's often a lot of complete crap to wade through before you find something really good, but isn't that always the case, regardless of how far up the food chain you go?
It's sad, but rather predictable, that some media types associate a supposed decline in music quality with the technology that facilitates the creation of some of the most interesting stuff out there. There's a hell of a party going on down here, Matt. Shame you're missing it.
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.
Awesome discussion. I completely gave up on new music for years and got my head stuck in the old stuff, downloading, etc. Over a year ago, I was up VERY late and watched a movie called ONCE on cable. It had some good tunes in it but I was half asleep and didn't totally take it in. I had googled the title and when I woke up the next morning… it lead me to the "Swell Season" = Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova, then the Frames, Josh Ritter , Liam O' Manlia and so many new people in another world of music I had never heard of.
I never would have found them without the "digital exposure" I listened to them on YOUTUBE, AOL, etc. of course I went out and bought all their CD's and finally saw the Swell Season, twice in one year no less. So now I am more into music again then i have been in 30 years. I witnessed over 300 concerts between 1976 and 1982 as I worked in a major arena in the south. I even want to take up guitar, something the most passionate guitar player I have ever witnessed, GLEN HANSARD, has inspired me to do, at well over 50 years old. I can't stop singing their tunes which drives my wife nuts
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.
Low quality?
EVERYONE is making music now. Most of it is garbage, except to the individual making it. Just because I don't like it is no reason for anyone to be disappointed. I can now do my own 80's sounds now, and not inflict it on others not appreciating my bent. Some folks are real happy about that; including me. Today's whining stuff grates on me. Mine grates on them. When we do our own things, we're both happy.
U2 has passed its "best when used before" date long ago. A lot of people sampled the thing, found it lacking, and went on down the road. Like me. They outgrew U2. It happens.
We all move to our own personal sound. The deal is, nowadays, you can make your personal sound for yourself. Its your own earworm that you can dance to.
Amusing article, but way off the mark on so many levels.
For a start, U2 make by far the most money from their live shows, not album sales. So the fans didn't like the album ? Solution – write a better album.
(Actually, I do think this is a challenge for musicians today – namely people reject music that needs patience to appreciate – but that's all about our need for instant gratification, not allowing people to hear music before they buy it. Nothing can be worse than a record store listening post…)
Here's a great, provocative article by Andrew Dubber explaining why Giving Music Away For Free is a good idea:
Why give music away for free?
The one thing I do agree about is that a loss of traditional recording techniques and playing skills means people miss out on some of the best things about recorded music, but as many people here have commented, that's not the technologies' fault. And some of my favourite music has never been heard through a microphone.
Fantastic discussion, though !
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!
There are many new musicians that make money doing what they love – playing music. We may not have as many of the super rich mega stars, but there is still money to be made. While folks can record a liver performace, they cannot steal the experience – people will still pay to see talent live.
If you feel that music is "homogenized" then I recommend that you explore the world of online radio. I have learned of a great variety of musical styles that I didn't know existed over the past few years by listening to online stations.
Heh heh, I messed that up by hitting post before I was done… See below:
Musicians will still make money from live performances – folks cannot steal the experience of being there. Additionally, piracy will be reduced as the industry improves distribution methods. Zune Marketplace subscription service is a prime example of doing it right. They make it easier to buy music than to steal.
As for excellence not being “rewarded to the degree it should be”… How do you propose setting the reward/price? Personally, I prefer allowing the market set prices. Musicians need more than talent to get noticed – marketing savvy is also needed…just like in every other profession on the planet.
Lastly, as for the homogenized product – there is an amazing variety of artists and styles available, but you won’t find them on broadcast radio. Internet radio has opened up a whole new world of music genres with dozens of artists previously unknown to me.
Yeah, nothing more annoying than commoners playing music.
And you're right on about that Guitar Hero thing… heck, I was pointing out years ago when kids were playing around with 'air guitar', that it was going to just keep kids from taking any real interest in really playing guitars… and sure enough, no kid wants to make music now.
Keep up the good work.
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.