Music as Commodity

Ideas About Music Under Capitalism

Art or Product?

It could be argued that some music is made to be art, and that some music is made to be sold.

Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony is art, Cheryl Cole’s new single is not art – it is just a product which is made to be sold.

The theorist Theodor Adorno suggested that the major difference between ‘serious music’ and ‘popular music’ is that popular music is made as a product, in much the same way as a hamburger or a training shoe is manufactured. Serious music, on the other hand, does not care whether it is sold or not: it is ‘the thing itself’ which is important.

He went further and suggested that serious music provides the active listener with a deep intellectual and spiritual experience, whereas popular music simply keeps the masses stupid, happy and dancing.

He thought that the reason for this difference was standardisation. He felt that popular music was standardised, just like other producs in a capitalist society. It must have this kind of beat, that kind of vocal sound, this kind of chorus, that kind of bass line. He thought this was a bad thing. Serious music, by comparison, only adhered to rules which were internal to the music, not external to it.

He felt that the lack of serious internal musical meaning in popular music meant that it could only provide the most shallow experience to the listener. The meaning of popular music is in the money that it generates, not in the experience that it offers the listener.

There are a number of possible responses to this, including:

• so what? popular music isn’t supposed to be serious
• says who? I get massive emotional satisfaction from Cheryl Cole’s new single
• music that requires a PhD to understand isn’t worth listening to anyway – music should be for everyone
• absolutely right, mate. Popular music is rubbish.
• he’s only saying that because he doesn’t know anything about pop music. It’s a lot more complicated than he thinks.
• you can’t compare classical and pop: they are different languages
• classical music is also limited in its possibilities and was often paid for by patrons – not made for the love of it
• what is popular music anyway? Does Aphex Twin count?
• what is ‘serious music’ anyway? Does Pavarotti count?
• Adorno was writing in 1941. Popular music was a bit different back then.

The main argument in response to Adorno accuses him of elitism. His lack of respect for popular music is similar to the western countries’ disrespect for Indian music before they knew how complicated it was. It could be argued that Adorno was a posh German bloke writing about something he didn’t understand.

Nonetheless, we still seem to believe that some music is ‘art’ and other music is ‘product’.

Think:

• What music do you think is art?
• What music do you think is product?
• Which do you prefer?

Standardisation and McDonaldisation

In his 1993 book, George Ritzer argued that our culture is becoming increasingly similar to the business model used by McDonalds, in that it is based on the following aspects:

• efficiency
• calculability
• predictability
• control

The major factors in music are melody, timing and sound.

We looked at ways in which these factors are being affected by McDonaldisation:

Melody: lack of microtonality in Western synthesisers and instruments focuses on our basic semitone system. We export our keyboards and synthesisers all over the world. Countries which previously may have used microtonal musical systems (such as India) find themselves using instruments with only twelve possible tones. In this way, melody is being standardised to ‘our’ system. The use of pitch correction software such as Melodyne or Autotune is now widespread, resulting in vocal recordings that appear to be pitch perfect – to the semitone system. In this way, even the human voice is becoming standardised.

Timing / Tempo / Time Signature: drum machines / sequencers / DJ technology: it is now easier to be in strict rhythm than free time. Electronic musical tools and the process of studio recording means that it is now important for timing to be regulated. This makes music easier to record, manipulate and create. DJ mix culture means that music that does not conform to a strict tempo will not be played. Music that strays from a 4/4 time signature will also be eliminated. The timing of our music is becoming standardised.

Sound / Voicing / Timbre: presets and GM sounds are exported around world, a reduced palette of sounds, worldwide. We export our synthesisers and software globally. Musicians all around the world are using the same sounds. A global audience is learning to like the sound of them, resulting in a limited, predictable range of sounds which can constitute popular music.

These factors and others mean that the creation of music often favours speed and efficiency over quality, musicianship or artistic depth. This is what is meant by the McDonaldisation of music.

Are artists opting for speed and efficiency in order to make more and better music?

Or are artists opting for speed and efficiency in order to become rich and successful more quickly?

Selling Out

We have all had this experience: an artist that once meant a lot to us creates some new work that we feel has been made for the wrong reasons. Perhaps we feel that the artist is now just making work ‘for the money’. Perhaps we feel that they are making work in order to be more popular. Somehow they lack the integrity and authenticity that they once had?

In class, people cited Metallica, Dizzee Rascal and Jay-Z as examples of this. There were mixed feelings, ranging from anger to disappointment to sympathy.

We looked at an interview with Vanilla Ice, an artist who spoke honestly about having ‘sold out’. He described how it hurt him to lose his credibility, but that the offer of $1.5 million was just too much to resist.

The phenomenon of ‘selling out’ tells us that we do discriminate between music that is made for its own sake, and music that is made for some other reason. We seem, like Adorno, to prefer music that is made for its own sake.

Think:

• Is it wrong to make art for money?
• Can it still be called art?

Popular music is very reliant on ‘coolness‘. It is closely linked with fashion. What may be cool to one person might not be cool to another, but we all have a good idea of what we think ‘cool’ is.

An artist or genre of music often goes through a process like this:

They start off relatively unknown (obscure) and seem very cool to their small group of fans.

They become more popular and hit a peak where they are cool to the most number of people (popular).

At this point, most artists then become uncool, at least to their original fans, because they are no longer ‘special’. The fans might feel betrayed. Why?

In the early days, the value of the artist is high, in terms of cultural currency. As they become ‘owned by everybody’ they become less valuable to those early fans, who go on to find new obscure artists to love. Viewed in these terms, the artist is like a commodity to the fans. They have a value, which can go up and down.

In a capitalist society, culture is used as a currency and operates in the same way as any other product. A product which everybody likes has a high value and can make a lot of money. A product which nobody likes any more has a low value and will be sold off in bargain bins.

Many artists have tried to fight against this situation by creating music that can not be viewed as a commodity: punk rock or experimental music attempts to retain its own value by resisting commercialisation. Nonetheless, as we live in a capitalist society, these artists end up being traded all the same: just on smaller scales.

It is very hard for a musician to remain true to their musical ideals once they become ‘saleable’. The nature of what they do has changed.

Summary

• ‘Selling out’ is only possible if you accept that some music is art and some isn’t
• All music for sale is a commodity
• ‘Serious music’ may be viewed as ‘more than a commodity’. But what is ‘serious’? The music of the rich and powerful?
• Music may be produced like a car or a burger
• Rationalised production might result in the ‘McDonaldization’ of culture

Types of Societies

Introduction

We asked, ‘What is Society?’

We noted the following points:

• It is not a “thing”.
• Nonetheless, it seems to exist.
• We can feel its “force”.
• Like gravity, for example.
• It can be studied by looking at its effects.

We are going to study music in a capitalist society, as capitalism is the major force in our country.   We have looked at feudalism, capitalism and socialism, to illustrate that there are different ways of organising a society from an economic point of view, and to show how our society has developed.

No society can be called ‘natural’ or ‘normal’. All societies are different. All societies are constructed by people who have an interest in the way that they are constructed.

Each society is a construct, usually based around power or money.

Feudalism

We asked what music would have been like under the feudal system:

• “Church” or “classical” music paid for by the rich and powerful.
• “Traditional” or “folk” music for the poor (for dancing, story telling and communication for the illiterate).

This was the result of an extremely class based society: extremely class based music.

Think: is there still a division between music for the rich and the poor?

Capitalism

Capitalism can be defined as:

• Competition and the pursuit of individual self-interest which unintentionally produces a collective good for society

• Minimal government intervention in the economy to allow for maximum competition

The unintentional good effect is supposed to be caused by the ‘trickle down effect’ in which the profits made by bosses are passed on to those lower down in the form of jobs and wages.

Who will pay for music under capitalism?   If everyone has money to spend… then everyone might pay for music! What sort of music will get made?
If everything revolves around money, then everything is a commodity (something that can be bought and sold). What sort of music will get made? Whatever sells!

Britney Spears Sells!

Under the capitalist system, it is not strictly necessary for music to be good, in an artistic sense. The important thing is that it sells. We can deduce this from the way in which music is valued: the charts are the first place we look to find out what is regarded as ‘the best’ music at any moment in time.

The charts show us that music is regarded as a commodity, as a product that can be bought and sold.

In order to keep up sales, there is a constant updating of product: songs ‘go into the charts’ and are then ‘old’ and ‘go out of the charts’. The constant turnover of songs, artists, genres and fashions ensure that sales are kept to a maximum.

There are many kinds of charts. An interesting new development is the rise of internet download charts which might not be linked to payment: perhaps this indicates a change in the nature of music consumption?

Socialism

Socialism is based on the idea that capitalism unfairly favours the wealthy few. Socialists believe that resources should be shared more equally and that workers are important and powerful if they get organised and act together.

Socialists believe that workers are the most important part of society and that bosses exploit workers. This means that it is not fair for the boss to take all of the profits, considering that it is the workers who seem to do most of the work. They believe that the hierarchy left over from feudalism (with the King at the top, the rich and powerful next down, and the poor workers at the bottom) is immoral and unjust. They also usually believe that religion is used by the powerful to keep the poor in their place. Socialism can seem at first sight a very attractive idea.

One of the difficulties of socialism is that it is often difficult to persuade people to share their wealth.

In order to maintain a fair distribution of wealth, the government must be very active, taking control of people’s incomes, and therefore their lives.

Another difficulty is that rich people have a tendency to run away from socialist countries. As a result, it is sometimes necessary to close the borders to prevent all the wealth from leaving the country.

The people in the country might therefore feel considerably less ‘free’ to do what they want to.

In its most extreme form, this is called Communism. The former Soviet Union (Russia) was a communist country.

Q: Who would pay for music in communist countries?

A: Mainly, the central government.

This would lead to a situation where the music of the country is likely to support the government and to support the communist ideal. Music in communist countries tends to be censored heavily.

Rock Music, in particular, is a form of music that favours freedom as an ideal. This is not popular with governments that seek to restrict the freedom of their people.

The United Kingdom

Like most Western nations, the United Kingdom is a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

We are a mainly capitalist country, supporting big business and profits wherever possible.

However, we have other values beyond profit: we have free education, free health care (NHS), free books (libraries), free money for the poor (the social benefits system), free money for the old (pensions), free money for artists and musicians (the Arts Council).

All of these free services are paid for with the consent of the public: we agree to pay our taxes so that we can look after the most needy in society.

Culturally we are very liberal: that means we are very ‘free’. We let people say what they want in whatever way they wish, so long as they do not offend the majority of people’s sense of right and wrong. We tolerate difference, as a matter of principle. As a nation, however, we ‘draw the line’ in some cases and decide that something is wrong, despite our desire for tolerance.

An obvious example of ‘unnacceptable material’ is violent pornography. Most people find this disturbing and unpleasant – as a result, it is deemed to be obscene and is not allowed.
In the case of music, we find that it is very rarely ‘banned’. When music is controversial, we tend to debate its pros and cons through our newspapers and TV programmes, rather than have a central authority decide for us what is right and wrong.

Our values are fairly clear in both our economy and our culture: in general we favour profit, private wealth and freedom, but we also have a ‘minimum level’ of poverty and general morality beneath which we would not like anyone to sink.

The Media, the Masses and Influence

Brainwashing?

The earliest research into the mass media suggested that the media ‘were like hypodermic needles, injecting the masses’.

Television is often regarded as the most powerful medium; which has the biggest effect on people’s opinions.

This view supposes that there is a small ‘elite’ group (the media bosses) who are influencing a large group of similarly minded ‘masses’ (that’s you).

Following the industrial revolution (1800s), it was thought that bonds between individuals were weakened. As people stopped living and working in small villages and communities,  family and community values were thought to be broken down. This led to a loss of ‘traditional values’ and the common people were regarded as being so alienated that they were now easy prey for advertisers, political persuaders and so on.

What are these traditional values that were perhaps lost?

• Christianity
• Old fashioned morality
• Knowing your place
• The ‘work ethic’

It was feared that without these good, basic, working class values, working people might be vulnerable to socialist ideas or other undesirable messages. If people stopped ‘knowing their place’ they might challenge the rule of the rich, powerful, educated elite… in favour of some genuine democracy or form of socialism. The media have been accused of both brainwashing people for and against the government, of being left-wing, right-wing, socialist, conservative, consumerist…

Is there bias in the media?

Everybody thinks so – it just depends who you talk to:

The left-wing view: Yes. The media is owned by the rich (e.g. Rupert Murdoch). Therefore, it’s reasonable to assume that it will favour messages that favour the rich. There are of course examples which contradict this (Sky One showing The Simpsons, for example), but not so much if you look at the big picture. The media is largely concerned with keeping us spending money, consuming products and keeping quiet.

The right-wing view: Yes. The media is controlled by left-wing socialists (the BBC, apparently) who are brainwashing the public against capitalism and favouring labour against conservative.

Both of these viewpoints assume that the media is very powerful and capable of brainwashing the public.

If this is so, then it is very important to decide what the public should see and hear. Censorship should be a very important issue. However, the UK is a ‘free country’ which means that we are – in theory at least – allowed to say and do what we like, within reasonable limits. As a result, there isn’t a great deal of censorship, in comparison to a country like Iran, where the newspapers and television are simply propaganda for the government. There is bias in our media, but if we look at countries with repressive regimes, we will realise that our press looks very free, by comparison.

Are we, the public, a bunch of stupid sheep?

No, we are not. It is not quite so easy for the media to influence us.

We tend to live in communities: we discuss things, question things, evaluate things, make interpretations and judgements. We are not passive patients, being injected with the media medicine.

Nonetheless, we are no doubt influenced a great deal by what we see and hear: how else can we get our news, views and opinions? Why else would advertisers spend millions of pounds in order to influence us?

You could think of this relationship as a kind of battle: the media attempts to influence us in a variety of ways, and we do our best to catch them at it. It is only possibly to resist media manipulation when we know that they are trying to do it. If it is a battle, it is a strange, friendly sort of battle – we rely on the media for so much, it is hard to imagine the world without it.

So, no we are not a bunch of stupid sheep, but nor are we so clever that we can easily detect when we are being manipulated.

The Conversational Model

2 way street

The media and the public influence each other. Recent changes in the distribution model of music (myspace, etc.) reinforces this idea of a ‘conversation’ between the artist and the fan (or the media and the masses).

This model of music and society is a good one: it does not assume that musicians (and the media) are responsible for everything, nor does it assume that fans are stupid sheep. In fact, the new kind of conversation between fans and artists shows that the one way communication from ‘the media’ to ‘the masses’ might break down. With the internet, the masses can become the media. You can publish your own work, talk to your fans and become a powerful communicator in your own right. You can do this – everyone can do this.

What does this mean for musicians?

It means that you may not need a rich and powerful record company to ‘approve’ your work before you can publish it. This might mean that the nature of the music you make will be different. Perhaps it will be more independent minded. Perhaps it will be more ‘your vision’ and less ‘their vision’. Perhaps the intimate communication with your fans (provided by the internet) means that your music will develop more closely with your fans expectations and desires.

The only thing that we know for sure is that the way the media is changing will change our relationship with popular music.

The Influence of Music on Society

Introduction

We looked at four popular areas of debate regarding popular music and society:

1. rap music and violence

2: heavy metal and satanism / suicide

3: pop music and promiscuity

4: censorship

We then looked at the impact of government censorship, self censorship and the mass media in general.

Rap Music and Violence

The media often portrays our society as being increasingly violent, sexist and intolerant. Do you think that this is actually true?

A quote from The Daily Mail says “Thanks to gangsta rap, this atmosphere of violence, rampant sexism and cold-eyed intolerance slowly becomes the norm.”

Do you think gangsta rap encourages violent behaviour, or do you think that it is – as Public Enemy’s Chuck D says – ‘the newsreels of the inner cities’?

In other words: is gangsta rap music making people more violent, sexist or intolerant, or is it simply ‘telling it like it is’?

N.W.A. were one of the first groups to make headlines with gangsta rap. They used explicitly violent language and described life in ‘the hood’ in a way which seemed to glamourise a life of crime, drug taking, killing and survival. The following video plays the song and runs through the lyrics. How do they make you feel when you listen to them? Do think that this is dangerous in any way?

An online poll in 2007 found that most people did not think that hip hop was responsible for violence. It was agreed that poverty was a more likely cause of inner city violence than rap music. In class, however, many felt that rap contributed somewhat, or at least didn’t help to create a peaceful environment. Despite this, the song was generally enjoyed and there was very little support for censoring it in any way.

It was useful to compare the song to films or video games with similar content.  It was noted that one major difference between CDs and films and video games is that there is no age restriction applied to music, although there is the Parental Advisory Sticker, which we will come to later.

Heavy Metal, Satanism and Suicide

Since its invention, heavy metal has been associated with the darker side of fantasy and spirituality.

Black Sabbath were one of the innovators of the genre and used references to satanism and magic as a gimmick in their music. They were no more real satanists than Alice Cooper – it was more like dressing up for Halloween – but nonetheless they were taken seriously by many fans and the ideas developed across the genre as a whole. Groups like Led Zeppelin furthered the mystique around themselves by suggesting that they were influenced by dark forces. The British group Venom were one of the first to openly say that they were ‘real’ Satanists (although they probably weren’t) at the turn of the 80s. Heavy Metal grew in popularity around the world and by the late Eighties there was widespread concern – mainly from religious groups – that it was having an evil influence on its fans.

Many of these arguments seemed laughable until some black metal bands in Norway appeared in the early 90s who seemed to be proving the religious groups correct: they burned down churches. The group Mayhem were particularly controversial after their lead singer shot himself in the head, leaving a note apologising to his band members for the mess. It seems that band members wore bits of his skull as jewellery.

In 1999 two students at Columbine High School in Colorado, USA, massacred 12 students and one teacher in a killing spree that was almost immediately blamed on gothic and heavy metal music. Marilyn Manson was one of those singled out as being responsible for inspiring their acts.

To what extent do you think that ‘dark music’ influences the behaviour of its fans?

Is it possible that this music makes young people depressed, angry, suicidal or homicidal?

Or is it possible that young people who are depressed, angry or suicidal will find some outlet for their feelings in this music? A good example of a song from this genre that seems to be designed as a kind of catharsis is Institutionalised by Suicidal Tendencies, here. In this song it is suggested that adults blame young people for not being ‘happy’ or for seeking escape, without realising that they (and the world that they have created) might be responsible for their offspring’s depression or lack of interest in the first place.

Do you think that dark music is a dangerous influence or a cathartic outlet for young people?

Pop Music and Promiscuity

There is a widespread belief that teenage pregnancy is increasing and that this is evidence that young people are more sexually active than ever before. The reason for this is often attributed to our media (TV, radio, films, pop songs, etc.) which is seen to be increasingly sexualised.

The following link is an American Christian Fundamentalist view of the Spice Girls. Please note that this is an extremely biased video clip which contains views that some people may find extremely offensive. The statement implying that lesbians die younger than other women is not only wrong: it is ridiculous. Watch with awareness, please!

Many studies show that rates of teenage pregnancy did not go up a great deal in the last ten years, and that the areas which did see an increase were underprivileged ones. Richer areas remained constant. This suggests that there is a much stronger link between teen pregnancy and poverty than anything else. The UK has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in Europe – this may be attributed to a number of factors but one of them is certainly our unwillingness to talk about contraception and sex We are, as a nation, famous for being embarrassed about sex. In class we discussed the possibility that groups such as the Spice Girls are helpful in raising awareness about safe sex and help young people to discuss sex without embarrassment.

Do you think that ‘sexy’ pop music encourages people to have more sex at a younger age?

Or is it possible that our more sexualised culture means that people will be less embarrassed to talk and think about sex in a more adult and responsible way?

Censorship

Let’s imagine for a moment that some forms of music are one day proven to have bad effects on society. Should the offending music be banned? If so, how? Are we talking about just protecting children, or adults too?

The Parental Advisory Sticker aims help parents to protect their children from pornographic or explicit content in music

It is not a rating; there are no agreed-upon standards for a parental advisory label. It is totally up to the record company whether an album needs one or not. The sticker came about after big court battles in the 80s in the USA. Right-wing moral groups wanted some music censored, their were some great arguments, and finally the recording industry agreed to a self-imposed sticker. They could decide for themselves whether a recording was liable to offend children (or more likely their parents) and advertise this fact with the famous sticker. As a result, the sticker became a quick advert for juicy content which no self-respecting cool band would want to be without. Dee Snyder tells a good tale here, from the excellent film about heavy metal, ‘A Headbanger’s Journey’:

Governments do not usually like banning things: it’s complicated, messy, unpopular and makes the public feel patronised. Things do get censored, however, usually by broadcasters such as the BBC.

An interesting article about BBC censorship of music, here.

Some singles banned by the BBC, here.

You can tell from these examples that what gets banned by a broadcaster will depend almost entirely on the mood of the public at the time. Relax, by Frankie Goes To Hollywood, for example, was initially ‘banned’ by DJ Mike Read, but the BBC found that they were out of step with the public who persisted in liking the single very much. It then became ‘un-banned’. There are no hard and fast rules regarding public taste.

Another thing that might get you banned is simply bad timing. After the terrorist attacks on 9/11, a great many records were taken off the airwaves in America and the UK, as documented here.

Australia has recently passed laws to ban the sale of some music to under eighteens. Some records are considered too dangerous for non-adults to hear or buy. This is a radical development. The offending CDs bear the following sticker:

The choices are quite peculiar – Biffy Clyro, for example. You can read the Australian Recording Industry Association’s explanation here.

The censorship of music takes on much more sinister and political dimensions in less free countries all around the world. We looked at the FreeMuse website and watched videos by many artists who had been banned, imprisoned or even tortured in their countries just for playing music that the government didn’t like.

A  browse through their website will give you an idea of how serious the problem is in some countries. It will also introduce you to some great music from the unlikeliest of places – African Death Metal, Asian Emo, that kind of thing. At least watch their introductory video, which gives you a good overview of their work:

Music Censorship Laws in the UK

Music is subject to the same laws as any other form of media in the UK

If it breaches the law in terms of inciting racial hatred, blasphemy, obscenity, etc. then it is likely to be withdrawn from sale and the perpetrators liable to prosecution

Obscenity means that something is likely to deprave and corrupt. The meaning of this changes over time.

How location affects the experience of music

BTEC National Diploma

Music and Society

Task: list all the places in Weymouth and the local area that provide music,

what is their audience?

who do they serve?

Formal or informal?

Audience protocols?

Personal or social?

Possible local locations (you will find many more):

• the college
• music shops
• pubs (e.g. http://www.myspace.com/thequeenshotelweymouth)
• clubs (e.g. http://www.banusclub.com/newbanushome.php)
• venues (e.g. http://www.numbersixpub.co.uk/whatson.html)
• pavillion (e.g. http://www.weymouth.gov.uk/home.asp?sv=1032&pagenum=1)
• churches
• festivals (e.g. b-side, camp bestival, weymouth carnival, trawler race day, olympics…)
• orchestras (e.g. http://www.dorsetcountyorchestra.org.uk/)
• halletsound studio
• fuzzy’s studio
• atlantic audio rehearsal rooms
  

  Audiences and things to consider

• young
• old
• families
• local
• tourists
• lack of 19-30 age group in area

Consider the use of non-traditional and alternative locations

• Link for B-Side Video: http://www.weymouth-arts-network.co.uk/

KEY QUESTIONS

• WHAT IS WEYMOUTH LIKE FOR MUSIC?
  

  • what is Weymouth like for music?
  • why is it like that?
  • what possibilities does Weymouth in particular offer for music?
  • what could you do to transform the scene so that it suits you better?

Technology and the creation of music: instruments

BTEC National Diploma

Music and Society

Notes from ”Plugged in’: technology and popular music’ by Paul Theberge, The Cambridge Companion to Pop and Rock, pp 3-25

The electric guitar is the primary instrument in rock and pop music, with particular instruments (e.g. the Fender Stratocaster) attaining cult status. It cannot be viewed alone as it is always accompanied by an array of effects, from the wah-wah pedals of the Sixties through to the multi-effect digital pedals currently in use. It might be fair to say that the electric guitar is in effect a truly ‘electronic’ instrument.

Although drums are perceived as a ‘primitive’ instrument, they are usually treated with so much reverb, compression, gating, spatial widening and so on, that they too have become ‘electronic’ in the way that they are experienced. Despite the controversy that surrounded the arrival of drum machines in the late 1970s, there is very little difference between the sound of most drum machines and the sound of ‘real’ drums by the time they go down on record, or increasingly, treated for live performance.

Electronic drum machines such as the Roland 808 have achieved their own cult status (more so than any real drum) and have been simulated in software, such as Propellerhead’s (now free) Rebirth. These machines had a rigid matrix within which drum patterns could be created, giving rise to the whole concept of rigid, repetitive, electronic dance music.

The turntable became an instrument in its own right in the 1980s, in which the various skills of DJs were brought together and displayed: their specialist taste, the status as collectors, their ability to pace and build up a night of music, their ability to manipulate the vinyls themselves to create new sounds, their ability to play two or more vinyls simultaneously to create a new composition. It could be argued that the turntable was cheap and a kind of ‘folk instrument’ for early NY DJs like Kool Herc, and that the technology defined the sound. On the other hand, it could be argued that the demands of the dancefloor led to the evolution of these techniques (which also included layering in live drum machines and reel-to-reel tapes) to keep people excited and moving.

The use of the turntable laid the groundwork for the cultural acceptance of the digital sampler, which is both a recording device and a musical instrument. Similar to earlier devices such as the Mellotron. Sampling, however, allowed the manipulation of sonic cultural material (previous recordings, news reports, film soundtracks – anything) in a way that had been previously impossible. This led to a brief crisis over authenticity and copyright in the early Nineties.

Synthesisers were mainly the province of avant garde composers and university boffins since their introduction in the 1950s. By the Sixties a few ‘progressive’ bands were using them a little and in the early Seventies these bands became more popular, such as ELP and Tangerine Dream. Mid Seventies groups like Roxy Music and (a little later) Devo used synthesisers in a more direct and confrontational way, while at the same time Kraftwerk developed their ‘all synth pop’ sound. In the 1980s synthesisers (and gradually, samplers) became cheaper and more widespread (also the introduction of a new sound palette in the form of FM synthesisers from Yamaha). There was a simultaneous breakthrough in the ability to load preset sounds on machines via cartridges (or tapes) and musicians were increasingly seen as consumers for prefabricated sounds. By the 1990s much dance music was based around preset sounds and samples derived from specially prepared sample CDs.

An unexpected result of these developments is that the piano has ceased to be a standard feature in amateur musical homes, now replaced by electronic keyboards such as the Tyros.

1b Technology and Creation

Music and Society, BTEC National Diploma

Notes from ”Plugged in’: technology and popular music’ by Paul Theberge, The Cambridge Companion to Pop and Rock, pp 3-25

The microphone started to be used in the 20s. As a result the string bass was able to be heard and so in Jazz it started to replace the tuba.

More importantly singing styles changed: introduction of the crooner. Artists like Bing Crosby were initially disliked by critics as being technically and emotionally dishonest.

Bing Crosby in particular benefited from the ‘proximity effect’ : low frequencies were exaggerated by holding the microphone close. Human beatbox performers are a good example of the continuation of this trend.

As multiple microphone techniques became more widespread in the 1960s, the engineer and the mixer became more responsible for the sound of music than the performers.

Amplification arrived in the 1920s with the ‘talkies’ in cinema [interestingly, surround sound and dolby followed a similar path]. These developed in the late 50s and 60s with bands such as The Who and The Beatles who were playing larger venues, allowing music to reach larger live audiences. The sound of amplification – particularly when overdriven (distorted) resulted in the sound of rock music. Artists such as Jimi Hendrix used feedback to extend their repertoire, essentially playing not just guitar but guitar and amplifier at once.

The loudness or rock or the booming bass of hip hop would be impossible without amplification.

Amplification and loudspeakers allowed the largest communal music events ever known in the history of the world, such as Woodstock Festival.

Tape Technology not only allowed music to be recorded, edited and replayed, but allowed the layering of sounds on multiple tracks which played back in sync. In the Sixties, the tape recorder became central to a new kind of compositional process.

The manipulation of tape machines created the first audio effects, such as slapback delay, phasing and flanging. These sounds still form a staple part of the sonic palette of popular music.

Four track recorders became available in the mid Sixties, enabling a single performer to harmonise with themselves, creating a previously unheard timbral combination: Joni Mitchell was a prime example.

By the early Seventies, 24 track recorders were available, enabling artists such as Steve Wonder to release record upon which they sung and played everything themselves.

In the early Sixties a band would not enter a studio without songs ready to record.

By the mid Seventies a band could enter the studio with nothing but the intention to create something there from scratch, with the help of the technology.

Creative recording engineers and producers gave rise to the concept of the remix in which previously recorded material was reworked for a variety of commercial sectors, thus maximising the profit from each song.

Democratisation of audio technology

By the late Seventies some artists invested in their own studios so that they could experiment and create freely without financial worries. As prices gradually came down the technologies became less ‘specialist’ and more in the realm of the ‘hobbyist’.

Tascam released their first Portastudio in 1979 which combined a 4-Track tape with a mixer. This gave rise to a surge in ‘lo-fi’ post punk productions, in which the poor sound quality was worn as a badge of honour: the more dirty sounding, the more authentic it was.

MIDI arrived in 1983, enabling the ever more affordable synthesisers, drum machines, samplers, computers (and tape machines, at the time) to be linked together. This led to increasingly sophisticated ‘home recordings’ and was crucial to the development of electronic dance music.

Computer technology has gradually simulated the entire chain of the traditional recording studio – look at Reason as an example – and has only relatively recently started to look beyond traditional practices to explore new concepts for capturing and controlling sound (Ableton Live, for example) that are not based around a tape machine concept.

1 – Individual Experience of Music

BTEC National Diploma

Music and Society

Individual experience of music

1

entertainment; communication; employment; to make money; enrichment, enlightenment. To influence (manipulate emotions, calming music) . Technology and creativity: affordability; creating own compilations; rip and burn; sampling and remix; do-it-yourself recording; easy-to-use music software; orchestra in a box (synthesised instruments) personalised portable soundtrack; mood-based selection; updatable personal music library

List all the ways that you experience music in your life.

Notes from ‘Consumption’ by Will Straw, The Cambridge Companion to Pop and Rock, pp 53-60

Music can enter our ears uninvited, almost anywhere and at any time.

The music of others can be construed as a disturbance, a transgression.

We can consume it in private, alone, full of intense connection to the music.

We can consume it at dinner parties or live events, where it forms a backdrop for social activity.

At festivals, it is both the centre of the action but also a simple ‘atmosphere setter’.

Dance DJs are often just creating an ambience.

Music in general connects people to other places and times: they take it with them on holiday. They play it in immigrant restaurants.

Recorded music is a kind of extra-somatic memory (memory stored outside of the body).

Task:

How your experience different from their parent’s or grandparent’s experience when they were young?

The rise of the personal stereo allowed people to pursue more and more idiosyncratic tastes in private without having to reveal too much to other people.

The boombox on the other hand, was a means of “asserting one’s presence in a public space”.

Group A: What are the pros and cons of being ‘into music’ today, as opposed to 30 years ago?

“The musical past now seems more differentiated, richly documented and abundantly accessible than at any other historical moment”.

Group B: What are the pros and cons of being ‘into music’ today, as opposed to 60 years ago?

After the 2nd world war, radios became portable. It was possible for the first time to take it into your ‘own space’ and enjoy music without needing a consensus. Radio helped to create mass popularity (swing music) while records helped more to let people nurture more individual tastes – Modern Jazz, for example, which is an acquired taste.

Music in the lives of youth. Why do young people dominate pop music?

Notes from ‘Consumption’ by Will Straw, The Cambridge Companion to Pop and Rock, pp 63-67

Teenage years are generally viewed as a “phase generally characterized by heightened social, emotional, sexual and deviant experimentation” – Richard Dixon (1980).

The more extreme nature of rock music was deemed to be reflecting this.

The attachment of teens to music hides the fact that other sectors of the populace are too, they just don’t buy it all the time: think of old people who listen to the radio all day, or people who work all day with the radio as a backdrop to their lives. Major segments of the broadcasting industry cater to people who don’t buy records.

The tastes of older listeners is often regarded as inconsequential – the left over residue of their youth and of a collectively shared historical period.

There are reasons why older listeners might veer away from musical involvement – a lack of interest in the information surrounding music can lead to a loss of interest in the soap opera of it all, so they miss important developments. They may start to prefer activities that don’t revolve around music. Music is central in forms of social interaction which is more common in the lives of youth than adults (or parents, in general). People buy music based on all sorts of guidance and social movement, which is simply less important to middle aged mums and dads.

Music is cheap to buy and becomes a key element in a young person’s investigation into their aesthetic judgment and allegiance. Young consumers exercise choice – the commercial vs the authentic, for example.

Only youth exists within the intense peer cultures which invest this change [the constant flux of fashion] with significance. Adults couldn’t care less whether hard house is different from trance.

Music is one of the key areas where young people mark their differences from others. We would be surprised if the staff of an office only made allegiances with people who had the same taste in music as them, but it seems quite normal for groups to form in this way for sixth formers, for example. Or it used to…