People like to talk about how technology "exploded" in the 20th century, particularly in the later half. Basically, progress and invention got to the point where we were able to create more in a century than we had created in all the time previous combined. This is not to say that the new technology was definitely better, only that there was more of it. The wheel or the sail was far more valuable to humanity than an iPod, but considering the iPod made technology that was widely used only five years before essentially obsolete, it is a different climate and pace in modern times.
I feel this is pretty widely accepted, though I hear less observation when it comes to noticing that music has undergone a similar passage--often mirroring the advances in technology. Now, I'm sure that many people have written academic papers on this exact subject, and if they haven't they should, but, dig this...
Before a relatively not-so-long-ago point (let's use 1950 as a general benchmark) the genres and types of music were generally few (this takes a very, very western-centric view of music, but that's really all I'm talking about). There was obviously classical music (which includes a lot of sub-genres), swing and jazz, some folk and country, gospel and other spirituals, and a few others that I'm not going to rack my brain to think of. Since 1950, just think about how much music has been created and then think about a world where none of that music exists. It's kind of crazy. Now, one could make the argument that as I dismiss classical music as one genre, the music that I claim to be many genres is really just "pop music" or "rock and roll" or something similar. I don't agree with this so, for the purposes of this argument, let's classify music generally the way we classify it on iTunes (another invention) or in a record store (the 'technology' it's replacing).
So, anyway, as technology advanced and people learned how to use "machines" to change the sounds of their instruments (guitar and bass guitar primarily, then electric keyboards) the playing field was changed completely. This may sound rudimentary, but think about how a fairly simple advance in retrospect (a drum machine or artificial reverb) can spawn an entire band's career and an entire genre. There are a multitude of examples of this: DJ's and programmed beats with rap, all electronica/techno, and so on. This is naturally not to necessarily declare Radiohead better than Mozart, but to today's listener the difference between Radiohead, Jay-Z, and Johnny Cash is a lot bigger than the difference between Mozart, Beethoven, and Chopin. The classical music enthusiast would probably even have to accept that, right?
In addition to the way technology changed how music is performed, it also dictates the way it is shared. For Mozart, sharing his music meant writing out the scores and having an orchestra perform his music. If one wanted to hear Wolfie's Requiem, it meant going to the symphony. With the advancements in radio, records, tapes, CDs, and now the internet, music is everywhere, instantly accessible to anyone with a computer. The literal number of songs being written may not be higher per capita (though I imagine it still is) but the diversity of those songs dwarfs that of the rest of human history combined.
This even has a significant effect on the way music is listened to just between 1965 and today. Buying an LP used to be an event, people would sit around and listen to records together. Part of this may be the fact that I wasn't alive in the 60s, but I'm pretty sure that a music junkie today can digest as much music as even a Lester Bangs of yesteryear. Music is more niche oriented now. That is, the more it develops the more specific genres develop. If I like quasi-psychedelic post/prog rock (I do) I can go out and find it becauseI can easily track down amazing bands from Iceland (Sigur Ros*), Denmark (Mew...who I get to see in two weeks!), or Sweden (Dungen) that I never could have found 20 years ago, and not just because they didn't exist yet. As a result, I can be afforded the luxury of only listening to that kind of music if I so choose. We can label music fans as punks or metalheads because those genres are so expansive that one could listen exclusively to music from that one specific vein. This also ties into why I'm positive that no band will ever even approach the widespread popularity of The Beatles again. A band could potentially be as good (or even better) but that won't translate to the same popularity, and that opinion will then be a minority one, as opposed to the nearly universal acceptance of The Beatles.
*Watch this one in particular. It's amazing.
Obviously, this is a simplification of some ideas that aren't particularly surprising, but I do think it's interesting to consider music as a function of technology. I do feel that music, more than any other art form, is indicative of the specific time and climate it was created in. All art characterizes its era to some degree, but music isn't just something you go to view, it colors actual moments of your existence and, as a result, I feel is always on the pulse of a generation...but that's a debate for another time.
Until then, let's enjoy one of the greatest artists of our ample musical universe...
No comments:
Post a Comment