3 ms·

You do have a blind spot. It's not just about progress, "better pop" or "better music". The 20th century has seen 3 true revolutions in music technology that h

You do have a blind spot. It's not just about progress, "better pop" or "better music". The 20th century has seen 3 true revolutions in music technology that have changed the nature of music itself (photography went through similar paradigm shifts) 1. Recorded music (straight to wax then vynil records) was the first one (before that there were only live performances) : it made music ubiquitous, created a new industry and business model. 2. Multitrack recording to tape was the second, as you could now edit, tweak, refine after recording. Skilled instrumentists still mattered, but less so. A crucial new artistic role was invented : music producer. 3. Digital music production is the 3rd and largest one : for the first time in history, music is not limited by a human's ability to play an instrument, or even by the law of physics governing the sounds a physical instrument is able to make. Anything an algorithm or AI can output as series of 16/24bit values going through a digital/analog converter around 44100 times per second and ending up in speakers : that can now be music, or at least an instrument. Electronic musicians can still record and assemble familiar sounds from physical (acoustic or electronic) instruments if they choose to, but they can now also be their own luthiers and introduce one or 100 of their own never-heard-before instruments in a single song. They can still play music live, they can do so through new human-machine interfaces driving software, they can assemble sounds in a UI, or through code, and they can code the sounds themselves, or do a combination of all that. There is now absolute freedom to produce anything the ear can hear, only limited by one's imagination and ability to procure (or code) software instruments and effects. Of course, this has had a massive impact on the art of music itself, much like CGI has enabled telling stories in movies that could never be told before. Virtually all "interesting" new music being released (i.e. not country music, not rock :) ) takes advantage of this new normal.

xamuel 6y ago
Thanks for the interesting comment. Yes, digital music exists, but you haven't convinced me why I should listen to it. I'm sure some of it is awesome, and most of it is junk, just like all music has been through the ages. The difference is that with old music, I can rely on the "test of time" to weed out the junk. One can spend one's whole life exploring music which has stood the test of time and is pretty much guaranteed to be awesome. By sticking to critically-acclaimed classics, one pretty much eliminates all risk of hearing junk music. One also loses the opportunity to hear new great music in its infancy, but so what? The classics also have "canonicity". By exposing myself to them, I better understand references to them in novels; I recognize them in movies; I have something to talk about at dinner parties; etc. None of this applies to some bandcamp page with ~1000 all-time listeners, no matter how good the technology. You talk about this new music being so great, but is it qualitatively anywhere near as good as the classics? Again, as I said in my first comment, can you post some examples? If some new band is conquering the world because they've discovered the long-hidden Fundamental Theorem of Music, then I want to know about it!!! (But I doubt it, because if anyone had done so, it would usher in a new "mania" like Beatlemania, and I would have heard about it already.)
- rotoradiator 6y ago
  I just gotta bite. You don't have to listen to it. But: "risk of hearing junk music" ?. If you are smart enough to know the difference you can just skip the track. However it seems you absolutely rely on external validation. As new ideas emerge they often are raw and intense. As they get adopted by commercial music producers, these ideas become tamed and soft. Would you like to hear an original idea or a version adapted for average taste? Thats what you are constantly missing out on. I guess your main problem is you think you can qualitatively compare art. Nope, stop dreaming that some theorem or critic will prove that music is good. Its all subjective, don't be afraid to explore your own taste. As long as you keep listening to curated top 1000 lists, it shows that you have personally no actual opinion on the matter.
  - xamuel 6y ago
    Thanks, I appreciate your well-thought-out response. Re "you can just skip the track", I've found that often a new kind of music will initially not sound good to me, but if I force myself to listen to it a bunch, eventually it'll "click" and I'll love it. I think if I just chose music based on what sounds good to me, I'd end up always listening to variations of the same basic kind of music. Can you post an example of some of this "raw and intense" music? I'm asking sincerely, and I'm baffled why so many people in this subthread seem so resistant to post even one single example. Are you guarding your musical finds close, like they'll run out if someone else listens to them?

xamuel 6y ago

Thanks for the interesting comment. Yes, digital music exists, but you haven't convinced me why I should listen to it. I'm sure some of it is awesome, and most of it is junk, just like all music has been through the ages. The difference is that with old music, I can rely on the "test of time" to weed out the junk. One can spend one's whole life exploring music which has stood the test of time and is pretty much guaranteed to be awesome. By sticking to critically-acclaimed classics, one pretty much eliminates all risk of hearing junk music. One also loses the opportunity to hear new great music in its infancy, but so what? The classics also have "canonicity". By exposing myself to them, I better understand references to them in novels; I recognize them in movies; I have something to talk about at dinner parties; etc. None of this applies to some bandcamp page with ~1000 all-time listeners, no matter how good the technology. You talk about this new music being so great, but is it qualitatively anywhere near as good as the classics? Again, as I said in my first comment, can you post some examples? If some new band is conquering the world because they've discovered the long-hidden Fundamental Theorem of Music, then I want to know about it!!! (But I doubt it, because if anyone had done so, it would usher in a new "mania" like Beatlemania, and I would have heard about it already.)

rotoradiator 6y ago
I just gotta bite. You don't have to listen to it. But: "risk of hearing junk music" ?. If you are smart enough to know the difference you can just skip the track. However it seems you absolutely rely on external validation. As new ideas emerge they often are raw and intense. As they get adopted by commercial music producers, these ideas become tamed and soft. Would you like to hear an original idea or a version adapted for average taste? Thats what you are constantly missing out on. I guess your main problem is you think you can qualitatively compare art. Nope, stop dreaming that some theorem or critic will prove that music is good. Its all subjective, don't be afraid to explore your own taste. As long as you keep listening to curated top 1000 lists, it shows that you have personally no actual opinion on the matter.
- xamuel 6y ago
  Thanks, I appreciate your well-thought-out response. Re "you can just skip the track", I've found that often a new kind of music will initially not sound good to me, but if I force myself to listen to it a bunch, eventually it'll "click" and I'll love it. I think if I just chose music based on what sounds good to me, I'd end up always listening to variations of the same basic kind of music. Can you post an example of some of this "raw and intense" music? I'm asking sincerely, and I'm baffled why so many people in this subthread seem so resistant to post even one single example. Are you guarding your musical finds close, like they'll run out if someone else listens to them?