We live in a world where iPods are ubiquitous. People use them to provide a soundtrack to a whole range of everyday activities, from working out to walking down the street. The idea is appealing—why not have a soundtrack to one’s life? For decades music has played in every restaurant, store, bar, etc. and the iPod phenomenon seems a natural extension. Yet I wonder if this is problematic. Are we becoming so used to having music in the background of our lives that we are in effect relegating music to the background? And, by having music as a constant presence, are we coming to ignore the music of the world around us—chirping birds, humming automobiles, distant conversations?
This past summer there was an article in The Atlantic about how Google and the internet are affecting our brains. In essence, the immediate availability of thousands of sources of information is reshaping our brains in a way that is shortening our attention spans. The article focuses on reading, but I wonder if the same thing isn’t happening with music. Are we losing our ability to really focus on music, to really listen hard? Might we no longer be able to listen through a complete album, or give a challenging track the multiple listens required in order to appreciate its complexities? Why give a difficult song or piece or album an hour of your time when with The Hype Machine you can sample 30 tracks in the same time period in order to find a track that is immediately pleasing?
I don’t know the answer to these questions, but I am a little worried. To many, listening to music is no longer a primary activity, but a sideshow, a soundtrack, to other activities. No longer do people gather around a record or CD player and listen through an entire album. Furthermore, a generation is growing used to music being free—i..e. without value. Value in its most basic sense is what one is willing to exchange for a good or service (or such is my layman’s understanding). And many are unwilling to exchange anything for recorded music.
Granted, live music is doing extremely well, and that is wonderful. But I do wonder about the future of recorded music. Many suggest that music will soon become a service rather than a product, where one pays a fee as part of their internet subscription and can then have access to any music they want. In essence, it will become a utility, like electricity, the internet, and water. And while utilities are certainly valuable, and it would be hard to imagine life without them, lumping music into the same category seems unjust to something as interesting, diverse and powerful as music.
Anyways, these are some of my thoughts and concerns. I am making no attempt to fight iPods or free music downloading—it would be a pointless fight at this point, and I’ve offered up many free tracks on this very blog. And I’m not going to stop (see below). Call me a hypocrite, but there are certainly benefits as well as costs to the ready availability of music (perhaps a topic for another post). I just think we need to think hard about and be aware of how technology is affecting our relationship with music. In truth, I know that people value music, and I have faith that people will always value music. After all, many claim that music evolved before language. I’m just trying to spark some thought and discussion. My worries may be misplaced, or totally off base, and if so, tell me. Leave a comment.
And here are a couple long tracks off of great albums that deserve a good, focused listen. Listen, and then go buy the albums.
Isaac Hayes - Hyperbolicsyllablecsesquedalymistic (YSI) (filesavr)
Fela Kuti - Sorrow Tears and Blood (YSI) (filesavr)
3 comments:
I have similar concerns about a. the fate of the recording industry (I don't mean major labels, but rather the entire process of writing pieces to record for a profit) and more critically b. the evolution of music from art to too-easily accessible and digestible commodity. You point out that live music is still making money, but it's important to remember that most classical music (and many other genres besides) is only performable via the generous financial support of philanthropists and subscribers. This reminds me of Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead’s adventurous tactic of releasing downloadable albums for free with a “pay what you want” option. Radiohead’s venture was a success, as they managed to sell more copies of In Rainbows (digital and hard copy, ~3 million) than their previous three albums (in the low hundreds of thousands). Perhaps recorded music will go the way of the fine arts, viable only through connoisseurs and fans who are willing to pay.
Julie
Another thought – I see what you mean about music becoming a utility, but I see it more like television. Now that page hits can translate into dollars practically speaking, music could be available online for free or nearly, paid for by advertisers. Combined with shrinking attention spans and shrinking notions of music’s value, this could spell disaster. Which is the bigger nightmare scenario: 15-second commercials in the middle of songs, or the death of the album in favor of singles, music videos and viral marketing games sold in conveniently packaged individual flash drives (sup John Legend)? Worst of all, these scenarios aren’t even mutually exclusive.
Julie
Good points Julia. I like the comparison to television, it seems more relevant as it is content-based, unlike electricity, water, etc. And because advertising will certainly play heavily into whatever happens.
As for the potential of a fine arts model, there was an article in the Boston Globe this weekend about artists who are forgoing attempts to land record deals in favor of raising funds from fans. Not artists like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails, but small-market singer-songwriters. In exchange for donations, these artists are offering perks ranging from free tickets to Executive Producer status. Pretty interesting, I think.
No idea how things will progress--I just hope that neither of your nightmare scenarios play out.
Ben
Post a Comment