5 ms·

I'm reading a book on the history of Opera (the genre, not the browser) and the author made an interesting observation. Namely, it used to be the case not so m

I'm reading a book on the history of Opera (the genre, not the browser) and the author made an interesting observation. Namely, it used to be the case not so many decades ago that you might only hear your favorite piece of music a dozen times in your lifetime. I can't even fathom the emotions involved should that be the case, trying to take it all in and knowing it might be a very long time until you hear a particular piece again.

philwelch 18y ago
That has some interesting consequences on music quality. I find that pop music usually sounds good enough at first but upon repeated listens gets very tiresome. Whereas good music may sound rather uninteresting at first pass, but upon repeated listenings, one discovers the depth of the song. Were music enthusiasts in the past more sophisticated listeners? Even more provocatively, has recording technology allowed us to create more sophisticated music? Has that indeed happened?
- silentbicycle 18y ago
  There's also the possibility that a lot of unremarkable music existed, but has been forgotten. We're much better at archiving things now, so it tends to accumulate.
- ahoyhere 18y ago
  Does it have to be sophisticated to be good? I don't think so. Some "unsophisticated" music quickly wears thin, others don't. Some of the most beautiful music is the simplest (think Ode to Joy, Brahm's Lullaby, and anything by Irving Berlin). Case in point: Recording technology lets me, a child of the 80s, locate and listen to Ella Mae Morse, a somewhat unlikely white jazz/bluegrass/r&b singer from the 40s. Is her Cow Cow Boogie sophisticated? No. But it makes me very, very happy. Even on repeated listenings (and singings). My life is better for it :)
- jamesbritt 18y ago
  Brian Eno (among others) has often written and spoken about the effect of recording technology on music. Some of his observations: composers can play with tone, timbre, and perceived physical space in previously unavailable ways; composition becomes much like sculpture when you can "carve out" music from a multi-track master (think of dub music); music no longer need be aimed at an active audience (hence the rise of ambient music); music can be much more dense because you can replay it as often as you need to get all the details.
ggchappell 18y ago
> it used to be the case not so many decades ago that you might only hear your favorite piece of music a dozen times in your lifetime. That depends greatly on the category of the music. If you are talking about a symphony, then certainly. But if it was a song you and your friends all liked, then you might have sung it often. Let's remember that music, particularly singing, used to be something that people did when they got together. That's what folk music originally was. See also "drinking songs", which were the music in bars before everyone got used to listening to top-notch musicians all the time, and collectively decided that ordinary people singing wasn't worth much. But today "folk music" gets performed on a stage. In the U.S., church meetings are pretty much the last remaining environment where large numbers of people regularly sing together, but it's fading even there. Sad, I think. (And, yes, I realize I have wandered from your point.)

philwelch 18y ago

That has some interesting consequences on music quality. I find that pop music usually sounds good enough at first but upon repeated listens gets very tiresome. Whereas good music may sound rather uninteresting at first pass, but upon repeated listenings, one discovers the depth of the song. Were music enthusiasts in the past more sophisticated listeners? Even more provocatively, has recording technology allowed us to create more sophisticated music? Has that indeed happened?

silentbicycle 18y ago
There's also the possibility that a lot of unremarkable music existed, but has been forgotten. We're much better at archiving things now, so it tends to accumulate.
ahoyhere 18y ago
Does it have to be sophisticated to be good? I don't think so. Some "unsophisticated" music quickly wears thin, others don't. Some of the most beautiful music is the simplest (think Ode to Joy, Brahm's Lullaby, and anything by Irving Berlin). Case in point: Recording technology lets me, a child of the 80s, locate and listen to Ella Mae Morse, a somewhat unlikely white jazz/bluegrass/r&b singer from the 40s. Is her Cow Cow Boogie sophisticated? No. But it makes me very, very happy. Even on repeated listenings (and singings). My life is better for it :)
jamesbritt 18y ago
Brian Eno (among others) has often written and spoken about the effect of recording technology on music. Some of his observations: composers can play with tone, timbre, and perceived physical space in previously unavailable ways; composition becomes much like sculpture when you can "carve out" music from a multi-track master (think of dub music); music no longer need be aimed at an active audience (hence the rise of ambient music); music can be much more dense because you can replay it as often as you need to get all the details.

ggchappell 18y ago

> it used to be the case not so many decades ago that you might only hear your favorite piece of music a dozen times in your lifetime. That depends greatly on the category of the music. If you are talking about a symphony, then certainly. But if it was a song you and your friends all liked, then you might have sung it often. Let's remember that music, particularly singing, used to be something that people did when they got together. That's what folk music originally was. See also "drinking songs", which were the music in bars before everyone got used to listening to top-notch musicians all the time, and collectively decided that ordinary people singing wasn't worth much. But today "folk music" gets performed on a stage. In the U.S., church meetings are pretty much the last remaining environment where large numbers of people regularly sing together, but it's fading even there. Sad, I think. (And, yes, I realize I have wandered from your point.)