Re: more toys / "individualizing" music

["L Tremblay" <ltct@concentric.net>]

James' chronology of the events of the past 30 years is correct,
and one that everyone involved in music should be familiar with.

I usually boil down the modern "rock era" into four watershed
epochs contributing to the DIY aesthetic: (much simplified, btw)

1957: 3-chord Rock and Roll & Rockabilly - Elvis & the rock pioneers

1967: the height of the singer-songwriter/Beatles era; electronics/
      psychedelia

1977: Sex Pistols/Punk - the Death of Rock n Roll via Rock & Roll

1987: Post-punk fallout, affordable synths, Digital everything and
      the rise of Hip Hop, Rap, etc.

The dates and specific genres to include may be debated, but basically
this is it. Almost *anything* you can imagine creating within the
context of the last 30-40 years of rock music (ambient is rock, btw)
has been done before. If you go back a little further - to Dada,
Futurism (the Art of Noises), the Situationists, etc... you'll realize
that modern music is nothing more than the rehash of all the major art
and/or literary movements that preceded it, only occasionally
contemporaneous with each other. Another consequence of this trend was
the disappearance of the avante-garde, i.e, no separation between High
and Low art.

But the increased fragmentation (or individualization) of music,
and all arts and media generally, is symptomatic of the late-20th
century trend towards de-massification overall. There is no longer
a "mass market" in the sense that there was as recent as the 70's
when there were only 3 TV stations (in the USA) and a handful of
national magazines (Time, Life and Newsweek) force-feeding a
"massified" agenda or worldview to the great unwashed.

Now we have the Internet and the Web - which is the perfect
technology to address and serve this highly fragmentated world.

Sure, a lot of mediocre dreck will be produced, but that's beside
the point (as James points out). The point of DIY is "doing it
yourself" - everyone can be an Internet Troubadour and be heard.
Anyone with a computer/connection can get into the game, express
themselves, learn and interact with potentially millions of people,
separated by thousands of miles. It's really unprecedented unless
you compare it to Gutenburg's press and what it did for the
codification and spread of knowledge.

Regarding the "musician vs non-musician" issue, I think it was settled
long ago. Eno is probably the most famous "non-musician" in the world
and few would doubt his importance and lasting influence on music and
other arts. IMO, "musician" is an increasingly specious term that smacks
of music conservatory elitism. Completely irrelevant.

- Larry



>Michael wrote:
>>> ive spent years and
>>lots-o-money
>>> to do this sort of thing (kind of) and now anyone can jump on the
>>> bandwagon
>
>Don "Mango" wrote:
>>Advances in technology are are always a double (or triple, or more) edged
>>sword. While they can be used to produce previously impossible, inspired
>>works in the hands of talented artists, they also make it possible for
>>legions of people to create an endless supply of mediocre works.
>>
>>Which, in itself might produce another side effect; a quite desirable one
>>in my mind. With the means of artistic creation widely availabe, when the
>>average citizen is faced with the daunting task of separating the 
>precious
>>wheat from the abundant chaff of other people's art, perhaps they will be
>>encouraged to produce their own art instead. These days, too much 
>emphasis
>>is placed on the marketing and consumption of art, and too little 
>emphasis
>>is placed on its creation - an equally important, or even more important
>>part of the equation, IMHO.
>
>
>These are some really good points.  There's been a real overhaul of the
>entire music making process within the last 30 years.  I for one think 
>this
>is a good thing.  Traditionally in the past if a person wanted to become a
>musician s/he would have to spend long hours of training learning to read
>and write music, as well as to develop a high level of proficiency on at
>least one instrument.  It was customary that only after these goals were
>achieved would the musician begin to "compose" music, if that was the
>individual's desire.
>
>There was much hue and cry back in the late 60's and early 70's over the
>introduction of synthesizers.  I recall reading shocked protests from
>orchestras and musician's unions who claimed that these new devices would
>make live music obsolete and would put professional musicians out of work.
>So far that hasn't really happened.  But the gradual inclusion of
electronic
>instruments into the musical mainstream has certainly enriched music as a
>whole.
>
>The "punk" revolution of the late 70's and early 80's, rebelling against
the
>bloated self-importance that had developed within rock music, brought a
>great "do-it-yourself" ethos into popular music.  This began with bands of
>musicians who had little to no musical training or technique, but had lots
>of spirit.  I can't say I enjoyed all the music that came out of this
>movement, but I greatly appreciated the populist attitude behind it ---
>i.e., "Why shouldn't *I* be able to make music too?"  This attitude also
>spread into the business and distribution end of music, spawning the rise
of
>numerous "indie" labels, etc.  Another good deal, IMO.
>
>Then in the 80's there was the rise of drum machines, sampling (coming out
>of "turntabling"), looping, etc. which were all natural lead-ins to Rap,
>Hip-Hop, etc.  I admit I was somewhat appalled by the rather blatant
>"lifting" of bass lines, melodic hooks, etc. in this musical "mix and
>match."  I'm still not entirely comfortable with the ethics of it.  But 
>I'm
>very impressed by how far the music has developed, considering once again
>the "do-it-yourself" mindframe.  The same applies to DJs as composers.  I
>think that the technology has really helped bring music-making to the
>people, not just to already trained/established musicians.
>
>I can understand why "musicians" would be threatened with new music-making
>technology.  As in "It took a long time for me to learn my instrument,
learn
>to read, learn theory, put this all together and make it work, etc. and 
>now
>*anyone* can flip a few switches and do the same!"  But I agree with Don,
>that anything which allows more people direct, hands-on access to
>music-making can't be too bad.  In earlier (pre-electronic, pre-electric,
>pre-radio) times it was common for many households to have a piano, and 
>for
>many people to have basic competence on it, enough to read and play sheet
>music to sing along to the "hits" of the day.  Radio and television have
>made this formerly widespread talent nearly obsolete.  Since there seems 
>to
>be a universal, innate "need" for music in mankind, I welcome anything 
>that
>makes music and music-making more available.
>
>As far as leading to much mediocrity, that's bound to happen.  But I would
>argue that the satisfaction of "creating" even a mediocre piece of music 
>is
>worthwhile.  The value is in the "hands-on," "I did it myself" feeling 
>that
>comes from any creative work.  Who among us has never created something
>mediocre in our music-making?  Do we have to create masterworks every time
>we pick up an instrument?  How many times have we jammed with other
>musicians and had a great time, lots of fun, then listened to a tape of it
>afterwards and been amazed at how bad it sounded after the fact?
>
>I can appreciate the fact that musicians spend years training and
perfecting
>their art.  But I have a hard time dealing with the elitist attitude that
>"only musicians can make music."  I know that Michael has a great sense of
>humor and that his comments were tongue-in-cheek.  But I've had many
>experiences with "high culture" musicians snubbing "pop culture" 
>musicians,
>and am riled by this disparity.  I can only imagine how they'd deal with
>"non-musicians" making music.  But I'm all for it.
>
>James Pokorny
>
>