The task of systematically organizing how society, music, and technology directly or indirectly influence each other has proven to be a difficult web to untangle. More often than not, I have the overwhelming sensation of trying to view an episode of Days of our Lives for the first time, in the middle of the 6th season. I attribute this confusion to my desire to view their relationships as a linear progression; however, it is now clear that this love triangle is anything but linear. So, this is how I have made sense of it thus far: human societies consist of community members joined by the glue of shared interests and/or needs. These societies build institutions that are beneficial to the individuals involved in the community and which also represent the shared values and particular viewpoint of the members. This set of common values and viewpoints in society’s structures could be referred to as the group’s cultural identity: which hints at, if not that culture is innate in human group interaction, that society and culture have been historically fused at the hip. Thus culture can provide avenues for expressing attitudes and values of members in its society. One creative cultural form of expression is music. Yet another product of society and its institutions is the development of technologies. Such technological advancements have added to music’s ability to bridge Toynbee’s technospherical gap by expanding the artistic tools for communicating musically; for, “the act of performing music is innately tied with the struggle to contend with a communicative disjunction” (Toynbee 69). However, artists cannot create authentic musical works all willy-nilly, because in order for a work to be viewed as authentic, it must be appropriate to its cultural context—meaning that culture has the final say in whether an artistic means of communication are valuable and authentic. As we know, cultural notions of value are changed with the introduction and naturalization of technologies. And the circular exchange between society, music, and technology goes on and on. Now, I understand that is a vague and basic description of how these concepts interact, but it serves the purpose of illustrating the framework within which this paper is written. The angle I am attempting to take focuses on technology’s part in this sordid affair. The question is this: historically, how does technology shape the cultural contexts in which we interact with music? Music as an expressive art form has since its beginnings, been entangled with technology, however I will start with the advents of the phonograph and gramophone—which for all intents and purposes, I will generally use interchangeably. Thomas Edison’s 1877 invention: the phonograph, gave birth to the glories of recording and playing back sound. Approximately a decade later, Emile Berliner improved upon Edison’s creation and gave the world of recording the gramophone—a more durable device. These recording/playing technologies employed mechanical, analog mediums called records that stored sound information in the form of grooves on a disc. It did not take long for records and gramophones to make waves among the American public: soon enough, they would be mass-produced, made cheaper, and thus, more accessible to an array of economic classes. This notion of recorded sound may seem second-nature to us now, but at the time it was revolutionary and did no less than alter the face of musical consumption, production, and distribution. The introduction of recorded music in a tangible form shook the musical world in a most violent way, with a great deal of cultural impacts. “Capturing Sound” by Katz outlined the various effects that the record brought about, ranging from issues of: tangibility, portability, invisibility, repeatability, temporality, receptivity, and manipulability. Now that consumers were able to go and buy what was (and is) essentially preserved sound, they can ultimately own music—cutting-out the importance and presence of the performer almost altogether. Additionally, the novel phenomenon of record collecting spawned a culture of ‘digging in the crates’, along with a new relationship between consumers and physical music-storing devices. This activity and sometimes obsession with physical artifacts has been made possible by the reasonable prices of mass-produced records and later, cassette tapes. Furthermore, music became more democratic in nature, not only because the poor could afford music that was once restricted to the upper classes, but also due to the fact that later on, individuals would utilize magnetic tape and records to create music that communicated their particular perspectives. CDs are another great example of this, because with the installation of burners in computers, CDs were duplicated with ease. This process of democratizing music through technological advances has forged the way for new genres of music to be invented, as well as the start-up of many independent, small record labels. In general, consumers of music have been given more power and choice in relation to their musical experiences. For instance, recorded music’s portability divorced music from its unique spatial and temporal setting. No longer was the performer/artist’s presence necessary; all that one needed to enjoy her/his preferred tunes was a record, tape, CD, and a player—though in contemporary times these two are conveniently fused into technologies such as MP3 players. Hell, you don’t even have to buy music anymore with online MP3 sharing. Though this all seems like a blessing of convenience, one must consider that by separating music from its original spatial and temporal setting, does one lose something? I would argue that there is certainly something lost in the process of making a performer/artist virtually invisible. Live performances—in the most holistic sense of the word—bring listeners together in a communal setting and often involve some sort of visual stimulation, whether that be the energy of an performers jamming on their individual instruments or the light-person at an electronic music club. Either way, an environment is being created that is meant to add to the experience and meaning of the music. Images can act as communicative aspects that heighten one’s understanding of an artist’s musical vision. It is no matter what side one decides to take on what is lost or gained by technological developments; the point simply illustrates how technology has shaped music and how people interact with it, thus affecting cultural standards of music. Furthermore, these standards draw boundaries for means of authentically producing, distributing, and consuming music within a culture. Technology, in this way, often plays the devil’s advocate by introducing novel developments that are able to add to musical practice and thus, cultural expression. After these technologies are introduced, cultures must assess them and decide collectively to either value them, or discard them. For instance, the ability to share MP3’s with such ease has blurred the lines of authenticity and liveness when these files are utilized to create digitally sampled pieces such as mash-ups. This is especially clear in the case of electronic and hip-hop music genres, which generally utilize samplers as instruments central to musical creation. For “This simple fact [of using a sampler as a piece of studio equipment] totally obliterates conventional distinctions between performing…and recording. Everything that is done with a samper is, by definition, recorded” (Making Beats 46). Schloss’s Making Beats states that the “new and emerging technology” of digital sampling has “greatly [expanded] the creative horizons of the modern composer” (35). With the introduction of affordable and accessible means of producing and organizing one’s own music digitally, came the necessary reevaluation of what kinds of music counted as authentic or live, as well as what artists could said to be talented. It is clear then, that developments in technology serve as catalysts to cultural evolution—in terms

The film RiP! highlights the issue of music copyright laws in a fascinating way: the copyright’s legal grip on cultural materials hinders present and future artists from building off of premade items (in the specific case of music)—thus smothering a great deal of creativity and cultural growth. Or at least, so says the self-titled copyleft. Theberge states under a section of his piece titled “Burden of History” (no doubt where his loyalties lie on this contentious issue) that from the conception of copyright law it has “valorized composition…over performance as a form of musical practice” (140). This emphasis on composition makes sense because at the time, performance could not be fixated and thus “did not lend itself to the evolving economic system based on fixed commodities and exclusive property rights” (140).

Additionally, copyright laws have primarily and sometimes exclusively served the economic interests of publishers and composers, while more collectively created and owned forms of music such as jazz, folk, and indigenous pieces are not very well-served by the collection of laws—though it is clear that materials of this nature can still be ‘stolen’ or culturally appropriated as seen in past readings concerning Herby Hancock and Madonna. The point I am attempting to illustrate here is in support of the copyleft’s general idea about the legal repression of artists: copyright’s basis for creation was founded in an individualist ideology and economics, rather than being based in the furthering of culture.

Moreover, it is clear that issues with ownership were becoming muddy with the dawn of tangible music, i.e. the record. The record was one of the early musical scandals of technological advancements. Music-lovers could now own their favorite songs in a form that was tangible, repeatable, and as seen later, could be potentially manipulated. The previous temporal and spatial limitations that live music possessed were no longer. Not only could consumers have a bit of legal ownership to a physical item of music, but recording companies could literally own the recording. A trend is appearing here: a performer absent of legal ownership rights, unless they also act as the author and/or composer. Not until the Rome Convention of 1961 would copyright laws begin recognizing performers as having rights under copyright law, and even then, their rights were situated on the low end of a legal hierarchy.

Years after the record and phonograph/gramophone were introduced came the wartime technology of the radio, which greatly improved the microphone’s quality. The microphone of course, became and an integral piece of recording studio equipment. This novel development also spawned new intimate musical styles (such as crooning and other techniques either played on instruments or sung softly) of which iconic figures such as Frank Sinatra participated in.

Then in the 1960s multi-track recording changed the face of musical production and creation. With the new room to manipulate and experiment with their creations, “musicians began to…regard sound recording not simply as a means of reproducing music but as an integral part of musical creation” (Theberge 146). Musicians were now able to act as their own producers, composers, arrangers, and/or sound engineers and vice versa! A great example of a producer has often been viewed as playing the role of a musician was the fifth Beatle: George Martin. The studio became an instrument in itself, where music and sounds were being created exclusively—without being recreated in live performance. Oh, and did you notice how copyright laws divide the musical work away from its physical recording and process of recording? The experimental music made in the studio—which was viewed as an instrument—showed this distinction to be an artificial and untrue one by synthesizing both the process, product, and the creative work put into it the recording. Even in the 1960s copyright laws were showing to be a burden to the creative process and that was roughly fifty years ago! In Theberge’s section titled “A New Mode of Production”, he hits the target by stating that “traditional assumptions surrounding musical authorship simply do not hold” when the lines between roles such as producer, musician, composer, etc. begin to be blurred.

Problematic copyright matters have only multiplied since the 1960s with sound developers, the use of turntables as performance instruments, digital sampling technologies, and internet file-sharing. Those with access to a computer can now illegally upload all of their music, video, and picture files onto the internet for other users to download. Many music consumers have opted-out of the traditional ways that one could obtain music and turn to outlets such as iTunes’ store where songs can be purchased individually or within the context of an album. However, many fans chose to flee the monetary confines of obtaining music altogether by illegally downloading torrents or file sharing via programs like Napster and Limewire—giving birth to a whole can-o-copyright-worms. Though there have been many lawsuits attempting to make examples of these citizens illegally sharing and downloading music, the sharing has not ceased and in fact, the movement towards free and illegal files has gained momentum.

To take it even further, people are illegally acquiring music that they could potentially make remixes or mash-ups of! Of course, this is not to say that all remix and mash-up raw materials are found illegally—but the potential is there. We must now ask the question: are sounds objects of value that can be owned? “Sound developers have staked a claim to the aesthetic and economic value of their work…[and] have helped to reinforce the notion that individual sounds can be considered as aesthetic objects and, as such, assigned commercial value” (Theberge 146). This is obviously important in the hip-hop, rap, and electronic music communities because not only are many of the sounds utilized in creating this music developed by computer programmers/sound developers, but much of it is sampled from other musical artists. Take DJ Shadow for instance: he could use up to thirty samples from thirty separate tracks in order to create one song for his album. If every one of those samples is priced at a low-balled bargain $1,000, is it reasonable for him to pay even the sale-sticker $30,000 purely for the raw song materials to make one track? Is this a reasonable request to make; better yet, is it even possible for most artists? I think not. The issue here is the unnecessary emphasis that copyright laws make on “isolated fragments of sound as objects of exchange” while they almost completely “ignore the significance of the creative uses to which they are put” (Theberge 147). It is important to view the songs as raw materials, rather than stolen goods because they are often times undergoing major reconstruction to the point of unrecognizability. Viewing sampling as an artistic style challenges traditional conceptions of recorded music as being a finished piece of work. Also, this notion adds the importance of originality when deciding whether one has stolen or used another artist’s work inappropriately.

This brings to mind another issue I have with the current copyright laws: how they perceive artists. As we have seen, creators with rights to their music are able to file lawsuits on proceeding artists who have illegally copied unfair portions of their work. This view implies that the original artist created her/his pieces within a vacuum of little-to-no influence or copying. I have to agree with the copyleft here: culture always builds on the past and thus, must disagree with the copyright: romantic notions of solitary artists are simply falsehoods. Past works will always influence, inspire, and act as building blocks for the foundation of present and future artists. Thus, I see a definite need for altering copyright laws for though new technologically advanced practices “may appear to be the negation of older forms of musical practice…they in fact…displace them, forcing a redefinition of our notions of creativity and originality”—novel approaches to music-making have brought to our attention a systematic belly ache (Theberge 153). I like to think of this in terms of Kuhnian paradigm shifts: once an anomaly has been found (in this case, the issue of copyright oppressing new artistic practices and thus, cultural growth) within a paradigm, it is focused on until a resolution is discovered, and *voila* we move into a new paradigm. Indeed, the new paradigm will need to expand the outdated terms of those before it, to include a more up-to-date set of views and values on virtual file-sharing and the artistic expression made possible by recent technological developments.

America loves individuality and property. The determination of what is mine is the prevailing business of the legal system. Technology has has rendered every aspect of American life increasingly complicated, and music as physical and intellectual property is without exemption. Music has moved from the intangible realm to physical reality, from temporal restriction to simultaneity, from physical presence to virtuality, and from nonreciprocity to interactivity. As the processing of music is broken down into further stages, it passes trough more hands, and more individuals might try to lay claim to property ownership and copyright. Various cultures have emerged that sought to change the methods of and attitudes toward music, brought on by artistic perspective , personal need, and in response to technological advancement. To illuminate this process, let us trace the evolution of a song, its ownership, distribution, and position within a culture as prominent changes in technology and cultural norms have taken place.

Before we as a nation came to find ourselves increasingly integrated into the technological “grid,” before the internet, personal music players, television, film, radio, and even before the phonograph, music was written, performed, consumed, and enjoyed. The methods of its diffusion were hopelessly rooted in “real-life” situations: horrifyingly, one need actually be present at the location of the generation of music in order to experience it. Concerts provided a social outing, but a piece of music could not be captured as a physical recording to be consumed elsewise at one’s own discretion. A spot of piano music could be owned as sheet music, and for those with the ability, performed at one’s own leisure. This was the extent of one’s ability to personally own a piece of music not personally written. The performers at the concert to which you took your date might own their music if they were also the composer; if they were not, they probably did not. To the people, music was a pleasant distraction, a vehicle for expression, a significator of cultural value, a profession, an achievement of human kind. The technology was hardly new.

Recording provided the liberation of spacetime. Physical (analogue) recording had its limitations, such as length of tracks (determined by space of template) and concerns of fidelity, which would be overcome by the eventual conversion to magnetic tape and finally, digital formatting. For the people, this was a remarkable achievement. Of a sudden, I could take a performance home with me in a way more present than only in mind. The memory took physical shape. I could collect these “memories,” put them on my shelf, compare them with those of my friends, load them into the phonograph/record player/tape deck/CD player and feel immersed in the music I could previously only experience within the locality of live performers. For the listener, ownership took the form of recordings. The simultaneous genesis of freedom to own music via recording that opened to consumers began to complicate the issue of ownership for composers, performers, and those who recorded music. The rules regarding this issue have been in flux since the beginning, and questions concerning the amount of involvement of each party have weighed in at differing degrees at different stages since its inception. Record companies, composers, producers and performers have had to duke it out for rights and royalties, and the battle still ensues. Eventually, a new breed of contender would take the scene. Let us first consider broadcast technology.

Broadcasting became mainstream with radio. Signals transmitted over the air could be received by the proper device, which could be (as advertisers were wont to expound) nearly everywhere simultaneously. Oh, miraculous machine! No longer were the people bound to the locus of creation. Music could be enjoyed in the home, on the bus, emanating from my hoop skirt. Its applications were endless: for therapy of the decrepit, for the soothing of colicky babies, as an organizer of social function, as family ritual, not to mention the dissemination of information. Recording technology changed radio to include recorded incidences of music, rather than wholly live ones. Further, the microphone came to change musicians’ approach to music. Crooners were born from personal tenderness afforded by the amplification of voice it could provide. The radio affected cultural change as it largely became included in the home, reaching an audience who simultaneously could experience the same broadcast in an array of locations, and created the arena for new styles of music. Stars were born of this. As the recording industry largely owned music and controlled what came to be broadcast, it was relatively easy to control the market for music. The advent of the computer and internet shifted that power into the hands of consumers, and as such the face of the industry.

Music is a virtual commodity. Computers, internet, and gaming have changed the nature of the game. Record companies and artists are losing money; pirates are zealous, though at risk of legal action; copyrights are flippantly disregarded; video games like Rock Band and Guitar Hero have created new avenues of musical interactivity and challenge the very meaning of musicianship; remix artists are sparking controversy and gaining in popularity; and the recording, synthesization, editing, distribution and promulgation of music are more complicated yet readily accessible than ever. The nature of current technology renders control of the distribution of music almost impossible, and as such, those who would otherwise receive their legal due for the use and consumption of music are often not being paid. Downloading services are rampantly available to those who would like a personal copy of their favorite artists’ works and who would also like not to pay for it. The copyright is increasingly ignored. While there have been instances of lawsuit and reprimand for the pirate or illegal downloader, this has generally not been enough to quell the storm of activity. Certain legal music downloading providers, such as iTunes, charge a fee per track downloaded, providing a freedom to consumers who do wish to recompense for music consumed, but do not wish to pay for certain tracks on an album that are lesser enjoyed, previously a common gripe of consumers. Artists can record their own music and sell it online through iTunes and other sites, bypassing the traditional record company entirely. Not only is music shared to the extent that it can be listened to for free, some people have taken it a step further by actively using parts of others’ music to creatively form a version of their own, including sampling techniques and aspects of the DJ culture, to which they can then assume their own right (although sometimes facing legal action). Controversy has arisen regarding the authenticity of music created in this fashion, but those who utilize the technique have asserted their position that it takes genuine ingenuity and musical sensitivity to do what they do. What’s more, people like it. As such, the popular conception of talent has undergone a radical change in response to the increasing availability of technology and software that enables remix music to be composed, often with little or no compunction. Someone sufficiently skilled can amaze his friends and the internet with the virtuosity of his performance of the Free Bird solo on Guitar Hero, leading one to ask again what it means to be a performer of music in this age. Complications such as these are unrivaled in the history of music as an art form and industry.

What will be the resolution? The record company must fall. Put copyright in the hands of the people, and let artists choose how they would have their music used. If the community embraces change, restitution and retribution should naturally come to those deserving it. Music production for economic gain is in my opinion anyway a perversion of the true beauty of expression.

Building blocks of music
Music and technology have evolved a great deal in the past century, from only being able to hear music or your favorite artists when at a venue listening to a performance, to now being able to listen to countless songs from your own computer in your bedroom. Music would not be nearly as successful and important today were it not for these key technological advances that allowed music of new forms and old to reach out and be heard by a wide array of audiences from all over the world at their convenience. Though, there have been numerous controversies relating to file sharing and copyright infringement, the point of making music is for it to be heard by as many people as possible, and I think that goal is being reached today.

In the early 20^th century a few key inventions were made that would change how people hear and experience music today. The Phonograph was the first, it allowed for an artist to record themselves singing, though it was expensive and non-practical for everyday use for the average person. Though, still a step in the right direction, which leads to the Gramophone recording system which allowed the voice to carry better, and it was easier to playback and allowed for mass production to be a possibility. These were two of the most important steps in technology for music, because it made the audience no longer has to be in the same room as the audience to listen and enjoy their music, and it allowed for an artist to have a concrete version of their music rather than just memories and sheet music.

Soon after, as technology advanced, the Vinyl record and way of recording was invented, and this made it very easy to mass produce works and much more effective to distribute to households where people could listen to music on their own time in the comfort of their own homes. Though this made the experience and relationship between the artist and the audience a little different than it had been with face to face contact, it allowed for more people to hear the music that may not have had the opportunity to beforehand, and allowed the music industry to make more money off of their artists and recordings because it was easier accessible to the common public.

Tapes were another new invention of recording technology that allowed for recorded takes to be cut and pasted creating a finalized version of a song in a few perfect takes, rather than attempting to play an entire song perfectly in one take to send to be copied and produced. This opened the doors for numerous new types of music and ways to record sounds separately and place them together so they would sound perfect when put together in the end.

The next huge step for music recording technology was electric recording. This made distribution even easier yet, and prompted music radio to begin. This made it so all someone needed was a radio to hear their favorite songs playing on the radio as many times as they want, which then increases record sales due to popularity of songs, and increases the knowledge of different artists and their music adding to the artists fan base even more than was possible before the radio was created. When CDs, compact discs, were invented, they made mass production and distribution even easier and cheaper yet. And were a smaller more convenient size and easily storable in a person’s home or CD cases, and weren’t too expensive for the consumers to purchase, making them an easy collector’s item. CDs encouraged people who liked one group to hear one of their songs on the radio, think “maybe I’d like there other music too” and go out and buy the whole CD, expanding their musical library.
Now here is where the tricky part starts, with the ease of access to CDs and the ability to burn them easily onto one’s computer and then retain the files on the computer hard drive without the CD in the disc drive anymore, and for the CD to not have a restriction on how many computers it can be loaded into, music sharing was much easier. Someone could buy a new CD and then lend it to a dozen or more friends who would each add it to their computer music library and be able to play it whenever they want to without having paid for it. This is not in the lines of copyright laws which were created to insure that artists were receiving the recognition they deserve for their work, as well as that they and their labels were receiving payment in return from each person.

CD mass production and distribution to computer libraries became so popular, and when the internet was created, so was file sharing. This made it possible for one person to transfer a music file directly to their friend’s computer through the internet connection without that person paying for use of the song, essentially creating an illegal copy. Numerous programs were created to aid file sharing, but most were shut down when the record industry caught wind of the illegal copying, and decided to take action to prevent this from happening with a few threats to members of the community for “stealing” music. However, downloading music illegally is still a very common practice today, years later, and so common in fact that people barely consider it to be really stealing anymore, more of taking something for free, and assuming that one copy is not going to hurt anything or anyone. However, one copy times however million of people do this, does certainly add up, and has been causing strain on technology and the relationship between consumers and industry for years.

Though copyright exists to protect an artist/ owners rights, it does not entirely stop new technology from being created to get around these guidelines and allow it to remain possible for file sharing in mass quantities, and even now it has become possible to edit your own remixes of sampled music and call it your own when it is a finished product thanks to computer music technology software.  Though this software aids mash up artists in creating bootleg and illegal material, it also exists for musical technicians to splice together different takes and sounds to make a finished product even easier than Tape technology had allowed for earlier. It made it possible for an artist to create a “perfect version” that sometimes is not even possible to be recreated in person for a live audience on stage due to all the synthetic editing and cut and pasting, but that version is what gets mass produced and dispersed all over the world for fans everywhere to listen to and enjoy.

In the movie “Remix!” We watched for this class, the narrator talks about how culture always builds on the past, and music being a large part in today’s culture does not disappoint in living up to this rule. Each of these technological advancements started with an idea sparked to make a previous invention better, more efficient, and more profitable. This makes it easy for more artists, who may not even play a conventional instrument to use their computers as their instruments and create new works of art based off original content of their own or even off of others content. This is definitely by all terms considered illegal, without receiving permission to do so by the artist or owners of each piece of work included in the single mash-up no matter if it is an entire chorus, or a single note. However, Mash-up artists still are going strong, and even building an empire of their own with the growing popularity in their work, as well as receiving compliments from artists whose work is in their music, rather than demanding they remove the content.

Not only has the internet helped to share music by file sharing programs to download songs, but it also allows for bands to make sites to keep in touch with fans, and these usually include free listening music player functions to hear the bands newest things, though generally they are not free for downloading, artists have been able to create a stronger fan base by remaining personable to their fans, rather than simply expecting their CDs to be bought, and their concerts to be sold out simply because it is available.

Overall, I’m inclined to say that technology has definitely helped music grow over the years and increase in popularity and diversity. Had we stayed where technology was with the phonograph, music styles would remain limited, and millions of people would be out of the job in the music business. The music industry has grown through the advances in technology, and though some may have been seen as negative due to illegal downloading of music by most people these days, there still remains the thirst for new music, and creativity which is the point of making music and sharing it anyways.

Copywrong
Before copyright law existed; Technology had not reached a point where mass production was easily established, and where people were able to transfer music among other things easily to each other’s computers or iPods with one simple click. Now that this technology exists, and there seems to be much less control by the record labels and artists in maintaining their rights to material copyright has been enabled. Though some would argue on its efficiency, and the fact that it is putting unnecessary restrictions on freedom to create new work, new is made out of and built off of old. Copyright made this difficult for artists to maintain all the rights to their pieces as well, because record labels gained the rights to their music and recordings once signed and then began to profit off of the finished product without doing much work.

When mass production became a possibility, and technology evolved enough for this to be an easy and common trait for artists to distribute their work, record labels had it made. They were receiving money as well as numerous other workers, who aided the final product, but little profit actually made it to the artist who wrote and performed their songs, and they no longer owned the rights to either of those aspects of their work. This was frustrating for artists, and annoying to fans who wanted to support the artists but not the companies who were holding the rights to this work. Then the internet happened, and it became easy to share files among friends and other people through the internet connection. This then prompted listeners to get as much work of the artist as they wanted, and not have to pay any money to enjoy it, and free is always better.

Soon after, artists began to lose out even more on the profit of their music, and record labels began to be very irritated with their property being essentially stolen from them, thus copyright laws were created and added to make it harder for people to duplicate music and videos because it became illegal. Though most people these days wouldn’t think they were stealing, exactly, when they look up a song, click on it, and it magically appears on their iTunes folder a few seconds later, that is essentially what is happening and it is causing the music industry to lose a lot of money in the process, though making it easier for music to reach audiences and expand. This then brings up the issue of if money is really the only reason for music being made, rather than if the whole point was for entertainment and to get your voice/music heard by as many people as possible.
Many people I know that do download illegally would admit to it, though also reason that they don’t consider it stealing because they wouldn’t have spent money to attain a lot of the music in their libraries today. It was simply downloaded because it was free, and worth a listen to, and that is how most artists get new fans because they hear one of their songs and download the rest to see if they’d like them. Sometimes, if they like them enough they will go through the effort of buying them just to support the artist, but if they don’t like them it is money they don’t have to spend, nor would they without knowing. Therefore, the record labels aren’t necessarily losing that much business due to illegal downloading.

Mash-up artists have been becoming increasingly popular since the early 21^st century, and there are now dozens of programs someone can buy or download to be able to make their own mash up music or videos, which generally if not always consist of using at least one  work that does not belong to them.  In Remix!, the narrator adds up how much it would cost for an artist to receive permission to use the work, and to pay the artists and companies who own the works, it would end up being roughly $4 million per song on some of the more intricate mash-ups including a few different artists. This seems highly unreasonable to make art, which is why the Copyleft stance has been created to encourage more public domain on music and art, making it less risky for mash up artists and other types of artists to build off the past and make it new.

In fact, in doing another project for this semester, I discovered that most mash-up artists have not been confronted about breaching the law, yet praised for their good work by record companies and artists who like what they have done with their original pieces. Some record labels even go as far as to hire mash-up artists on the down-low to use their artists work to give it more attention, and a newer fresher sound.  This seems to be contradicting the whole purpose for the copyright law, because it was the record labels and music industry complaining in the first place about losing money, and wanting to claim ownership. Rather than allowing for limited free use of music for artistic purposes, record labels seem to have their own interest at hand rather than the interest of the common population and the love of music, and the need to expand genres.

Music will always be a large part in cultures all over the world, and yet there are different restrictions on it for each country, rather than one uniform law to abide by for ownership. The lines of copyright are blurry and confusing, and seem to make more problems than they solve, especially when lawsuits against a small mash up artist or person doing a creative project using copyrighted work can never really be won, even if they were within fair use. Record labels have endless amounts of money that they can throw at cases to make them go away and come out on top, while the average Joe, cannot do this. Copyright seems to be confusing to though abiding by it, and annoying to those ignoring it. Though it was put in place for good reason, it has not been enforced or enacted in the right way, and I don’t think any progress is being made to fix it at the time being.

Before the reformation, the ones who could read were the ones with the power and control over what was read- monks, priests, etc. They read (and wrote) the bible and were relied upon by the entire catholic church to provide accurate information from the bible during mass. Perhaps “relied upon” is not the most accurate term for use here. In general, the Roman Catholic church-going population was not literate. They didn’t rely on priests to present the bible accurately; they simply accepted whatever was presented to them. The control was completely in the hands of the religious elite. When the printing press was invented, everything changed. The bible, once meticulously (and often mistakenly) hand-written by monks, could be printed easily because of Gutenberg’s new technology. Suddenly regular people were able to own personal copies; a fact that changed everything. People had a reason to read, so literacy exploded. Once people could read the bible, its information was in their control. They were no longer spoon-fed by priests; they could read, learn, question. This led to the reformation- hundreds of years of unquestioned power of the religious elite was diffused to the public.

This phenomenon is still happening today. It is called technology. Throughout history, technology has been taking power from the powerful and placing it in the hands of the people. The Xerox machine is another prime example of this. Professionals like lawyers, doctors or police departments kept records which stayed with them and under their control, until the Xerox was invented; the public gained access to copies of its own documents and records, instead of having to blindly trust the professionals.

History is unfolding before our very eyes- repeating itself as it is wont to do. Or shall we say- copying itself. In the past, technology has enabled the public to  acquire a new level of control over information previously exclusive to a higher class of power, in these cases by the copying and increased accessibility of knowledge, information, and resources. Power and control fluctuate according to certain strengths and abilities and how they relate with the newest technology.

Virtually the same scenario is being played out now, through the technology of computers, able to copy music, and of the internet, able to disseminate it. The music publishers are suffering, since their very function involves controlling many aspects of popular music distribution. The internet is decreasing their influence on what people listen to, how they listen to it, how they hear about it, and what they pay for it. Unfortunately, matters are further complicated in this instance because the technology provides the same nature of dissemination, but via a means that happens to be illegal.

Even more unfortunate however, is the system of power and control that has warped the particular law in question. The constitution was developed when America broke free from a group in power. Paralleling the aforementioned trend, they wanted to give the power to the people, and they wanted to promote intellectual progress: “The Congress shall have Power…To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” –The Constitution of the United States

The perfect American ideal: protect individuals by giving them possession of their “discoveries” but only for “limited times” in order to promote progress. Another perfect American ideal: gain enough power to bend the law, reinterpret it, use it solely for personal gain and completely forget about the original goal of the law itself. Anyone who understands the original purpose of the copyright law will take one listen to an artist like Girl Talk and realize that by “Utilizing technical expertise and a ferocious creative streak, Girl Talk repositions popular music to create a wild and edgy dialogue between artists from all genres and eras” (Gaylor, Brett video RIP: A Remix Manifesto). This clearly demonstrates much more practical connections with original laws than the recent idea of them consisting of only what the RIAA decides, which is, conveniently: everyone should have to pay us for everything. Actually, this wasn’t always the way. Peter Friedman explains how it all catapulted out of control (or rather, into the control of the RIAA) in 1991 when a judge ruled against a guy who was sued by the RIAA because he used three seconds of someone else’s song. He could have appealed for a ruling that didn’t blatantly disregard fair use, but he didn’t, for whatever reason, and we all suffered the consequences. Until now!

Girl Talk on copyright: “People’s attitudes on it are just gonna shift over time. So hopefully, we’re at the forefront of, you know, different ways of…how music exists…it’s like, everyone builds upon something.” I think Girl Talk is right- we are at the forefront of change. Thanks to the technology becoming increasingly available to the public. Within a few years I believe copyright will mean something entirely different than it does now. If I can write this essay, creating a mashup of my own thoughts and others’, there is no reason “illegal” use of copyrighted material by artists like Girl Talk wouldn’t be equally, if not more, legitimate and justified.

“Law is forced to change when the material conditions it governs change, and the ability to make and stitch together samples into compositions that can be disseminated world-wide -an ability that in 1991 was held almost exclusive by the recording industry- is now within reach of, literally, millions of people” (Friedman, Peter). And, according to Andrew Dubber (quoted by Friedman), there are more reasons to change copyright laws than just the changing of technology and attitudes in the modern digital world. He demonstrates the possibility of a culture crisis- the record companies are so reluctant to share their music, even libraries and archives which have always documented and preserved art and culture, aren’t granted access and some music is literally disappearing. “Magnetically-charged metal oxide particles are falling from master tapes as we speak.”

Unless you’re a record company, which I think are not going to avoid being replaced by various internet resources, the solution is not so difficult. The only thing keeping us from getting there is the lingering power of the record companies. I see a direct correlation between the decline of record companies’ unfair power and the rise of the “CopyLeft.” It seems pretty clear to me. Fair Use is already a doctrine under the copyright laws, its only problem is it’s pretty much up to the judge’s opinion what fits within fair use and what doesn’t. The thing to do (unfortunately we’re going to have to make another one of those “laws to protect you from other laws”) is make fair use more definite and applicable. Clearly define Fair Use, not leaving it up for more than a little debate, and outline some other clear specifications including the necessity to cite your samples.

We are obviously on the road to getting there, and moving faster than one might think. The great thing about Girl Talk and other artists like him is that they’ve inspired such a dramatic and effective argument against copyright laws as they stand. And they’ve done this not even on purpose- they’ve done it by just doing their thing. The record companies are the ones sending the strongest message here. Why has nobody sued Girl Talk? He would win. And everybody knows it.

Many of us don’t remember that before the beginnings of music recording, music was actually performed regularly by average citizens. After the rise of the piano in the middle class, it was customary for most families to enjoy musical entertainment produced by the eldest daughter in the family. Way back in the day the only source of professional popular music was band and symphony music, which was not enjoyed frequently by most people, but could be reproduced. So developed the piano-centric era, where the eldest daughter was expected to master the piano and provide entertainment for everyone in the evenings. Purchasing the sheet music for popular songs and having your eldest daughter learn and perform them on piano was the only way to bring them into your home. Unfortunately for Piano manufacturers, technologies are constantly changing, and the process doesn’t care who gets the short end of the stick when it comes to being overshadowed, outperformed, surpassed or eclipsed, not necessarily as a reflection of the quality of the product or company, but more so as an integration into modern increasingly frenetic American Life. We have seen this happen regarding the transformation of music technology since the beginning. Gramophones, once cheap enough, provided an obviously superior mode of bringing music into the home of Americans, and with it came a transformation. This has been happening over and over again, and time after time the technologies in question (in innumerable forms) continued to transform the way music was produced, consumed, and distributed, and through music, so too, was life.

In the America I know, music is the strongest and perhaps only emotional connection that I know I share with almost all other Americans. Everyone loves music. On top of that, the same music reverberating in my apartment will be heard in a ridiculously overpriced tiny beach house in LA, a ridiculously oversized mansion near New York, and a snowed-in log cabin in Portland. Even when I travel abroad, the music brings me abruptly back to an American mood when I hear the popular stuff bumping behind Akihabara’s ridiculously cute electronics display in Tokyo. Music coming out of earbuds, stereos, speakerphones, laptops, ipods, earphones, and just about everything else. It’s on a CD, it’s on a disk, it’s on a stick,  It creeps on all the corners of my experience on the web, and it comes to me at my whim from the overwhelmingly imagined yet unimaginably significant flow of information that remains a part of the internet I still have not quite grasped. A river of data, small electrical signals, a series of numbers and circuits that somehow magically inspires noise? Users separated by miles, directly contacting one another, never communicating, but connecting beyond words. Is there a connection between the clicking of my keyboard and a key pressed on a piano? Both produce beautiful music. How could that possibly have happened?

The Gramophone was only the beginning of that transformation, the genesis of thousands of connections, creeping first into living rooms then into lives, leaving nothing untouched, invading all implications of reality, and even, first for drug users and then for internet junkies, meta-reality. Connections with others, connections with ourselves,  connections with music and art and change.

Recorded music was unlike anything they were used to experiencing. The eldest daughter need not learn piano if she so preferred! The piano itself an unnecessary investment, replaced by recording and playing machines- new and exciting! What a ridiculous idea, that we could be at the exact same time as our neighbors listening to the exact same performance. A snippet of time, a snapshot of sound, copied copied copied. Passed around. Invisible. Shared.

The first of the two most important aspects of recorded music detailed by Mark Katz is Repeatability. The catalyst to a whole new world of human interaction. Americans began to find that friends could be made, and what’s more- defined, by music, by shared interests in repeatable performances. Music became a language, an entire new form of communication, constantly changing, warping and wrapping around social communities, whispering wondrous melodies light and sweet enough to change a nation. Social habits were incredibly transformed because of music. Newer and wilder dances developed along side music, and so did the clubs themselves, transforming to match a new generation or a new genre of this shared language (Sarah Thornton, 55). Dancers would move, according to the music, to the fads, to their feelings, wound up in the narrative of dance. Notes, merely vibrations moving through the air, weave in and out and twist around each other, forming an entity that is so much more than the sum of its parts. Stories of sounds, inimitably involved in what is distinctly and purely human- stories. With recording technology songs were kept and treasured and passed on, the song itself spinning tales of tune and verse, vignettes of melodious musical lyrics lasting lifetimes and perfectly preserved, a new part of the epic anthology that is humanity’s permanent and ongoing narrative. Musical stories that were connecting people to each other in a way that was deep, undeniable and yet totally noninvasive. This same ability of music to effortlessly weave itself into stories connecting humans with each other, could just as easily and just as beautifully morph into an all-too-relative fable, a full-length-feature stimulating a fierce connection within one and only one being.

Music has become increasingly available in forms that promote connection with the self. Before recording, one could not even hear music without having another human present. Since then technology has continued to reveal new ways to interpret and experience music. Personal music players with headphones provided listeners with music that has proved useful for many reasons. Just as everyone’s stories and connections with music are different, so might be their reasons for listening alone. Earphones to reduce annoyance to people around you, or to block the annoyance out, or to hide from others your song, your personal music, safe in your total lack of judgment. Listening to music alone can be a strong form of therapy, for seeking a peaceful moment in your own mind, or for letting go of life for a while, or for desperately screaming along with a singer when you know no one can hear you. Since the advent of infamous iPods and the like, listeners have a portable collection of music. It says a lot about you, or it doesn’t. You select each song with care, or you don’t. It means something to you either way; it is your personal collection of tunes, no one else’s. Yet another tool for personal music experience is the internet. An increasing number of websites are music oriented and user-customizable, encouraging musical introspection by evaluating your “likes” and “dislikes”, offering suggestions, downloads, and lyrics left and right.

Perhaps the most interesting trait, and certainly the most changing and innovative in today’s world, is Katz’ Manipulability. The technologies of music production have changed over the years and affected music in unforeseen ways. Production styles and abilities inspired entirely new genres and influenced the works and aspirations of music artists who jumped at the chance to do something new and different. The musical needs of artists and the rise of new technology exist as a mobius strip- each leading the other, and each following as well.

The amazing array of musical technologies available and aspiring has gotten so developed and complex, it is often difficult to sort out the intricacies and differences, relating to how we previously defined aspects of musical development. Production, consumption, distribution, three terms once so distinct, so irrevocably separate, who would imagine their applications and meanings in the technologies of music today would blur in any way? But they have. They have and it works and I wonder why they ever were so sequestered from each other in the first place. The three terms of our class are related closely to Katz’ titles “Composer, Performer, Listener”. All of these terms have become tangled in each other, erasing boundaries and ignoring societal lines. Katz proposes “It is no longer necessary for listeners and performers, or for composers and performers, to work together in order to create music. Yet at the same time, listeners and composers have discovered a more intimate relationship, one that can bypass the mediation of performers” (Katz, 46). These kinds of “new relationships” are happening in regard to our ideas of production, distribution, and consumption, tying in Katz’ ideas catalyzes even more complicated interrelationships, creating an imbroglio of new ways to experience music. Girl Talk is once again, a good example of ways the lines between such ideas are being bent and played with. His work ties production and consumption together in a way that makes them unrecognizable as distinct terms. He is the consumer, listening to songs just like the rest of us. Then however, he takes the exact music to

which he is a consumer and composes/produces with it songs that are neither exactly new nor old, pushing ideas of authorship beyond even established legal boundaries.

Perhaps the example most indicative of future change is Radiohead. Their release of their music online was unheard of, reinventing distribution and consumption completely. A band that can distribute its own music online, and consumers that can download the music for however much money they wish to pay, that can still make money, challenges the stability of the system of distribution and consumption we all thought was set in stone. I, for one, cannot wait to see what plays out in the next couple of years. We can expect to see some major changes in how things are done, how we are affected by these changes in our everyday lives. The ways in which we consider music itself will most likely not stay as they are for long.

The invention of recording technology was the first major change that completely set the music world in a different direction. The phonograph and the gramophone, for the first time ever, gave people the ability to record sounds and play them back. This revolutionary technology greatly changed production, distribution, and consumption of music. Music consumers could now listen to music in the more private space of their own home, with company they were able to chose (if any), and were able to chose what to listen to. This is a break to previous music practices as music was generally experienced through performances where the audience often had little say in what songs were performed. Music became a much more personal art as people began to be able to listen to the same recording multiple times when they chose, where they chose, and with whomever they chose. Recording technology also greatly changed the distribution of music. Previous to recordings, the distribution depended solely on live performances and the consumer’s presence, but with recording technology, music could be distributed without the presence of the musicians except to record the music. As technology increased, recordings became mass-produced, which led to the rise in popular music. Recordings of a single artist could spread throughout the country and gain popularity in such a manner that would be impossible for the performer to do in person. The recordings also only generally allowed about three and a half minutes of music on one side, which set the standard still in effect today for the length of a popular music song.  The production of some music changed too in order to react to the recording technology. Some instruments, like violin, were hard to record so special versions were developed for recording. Standard instrumentation for many different styles was also developed in reaction to recording technology’s abilities, for example the standard instrumentation for jazz settled in because of its ability to be recorded well.

Radio was one of the next big advancements for the music industry. This too influenced changes in all three areas of production, distribution, and consumption. For example, in production, crooning was developed in response to radio speakers, which couldn’t handle too harsh of sounds. The effects on distribution were some of the biggest changes that radios influenced. Sound now had the capability to be transported instantly and simultaneously to different locations. Many different things were broadcast, first using mainly live feeds such as speakers or live performances, and later using recorded performances. The consumption of music also changed with the radio as the selection of popular music was based on the radio hosts or early forms of DJs, which influenced the homogenization of popular music.

The “talkies”, or films that incorporated pre-recorded sounds and speech, also changed the distribution and consumption of music. Now, the same exact sounds could be heard every time a film was watched in any number of theatres in diverse locations. Live orchestras began to fade out of the scene of playing live music for films, though some did continue to record music for films.

Recording technology, the radio, and the “talkies” all led to smaller industries for live performers. They were no longer needed as much to perform music as recordings could now be used in movies, at events, in the house, etc. All three also led to the rise of popular music through the increased ease of the distribution of music where more people had access to the same songs by the same artists that could be listened to multiple times. This helped to develop more widespread appreciation for particular artists and songs, and to develop larger followings. With the invention of recording technology, recordings eventually sold more copies than sheet music for the first time in history. The more public forms of music in the performance industry shrank as the more personal forms of the recording industry grew.

After the first series of innovations that revolutionized the music industry, there came another series of innovations that greatly affected the production of music. Many of these were based on computer technology, such as MIDI configurations, drum machines, computer sequencing, sampling, synthesizers, etc. One of these that started with tape cassettes and later moved to computers was layering technology, which allowed musicians to record multiple tracks and layer them on top of each other for the first time to create compositions that would have otherwise been impossible to create and that would be impossible to perform with the same amount of members that created it. It also created new sounds, such as singers harmonizing with themselves. This was a huge step forward in the production of music, as artists no longer had to be limited by the amount of performers they had. One man had the capability to create an entire album by playing each part himself, for example.

Sampling technology, which allowed artists to use clips of other songs to create their own, was also a revolutionary technology. Here, pre-recorded music could be inserted into a different composition to add another part. This has been used in many different ways since its invention. For example, one could use recordings of songs from a different country in their own composition in almost any way that they could think of. Although this technology has existed for years, one of the best examples of this is a modern-day artist called Girl Talk. His music is almost completely based on sampling and layering other artists’ work, but he is so creative with their works that his creations are completely different than the original songs that went into them. He will use a fraction of one beat and repeat it multiple times to create his own beat. In one of my favorite examples of his, he successfully mixes “Bohemian Rhapsody” by Queen and a song by the Jackson 5 to create a small section of his song that is one of the most refreshing moments I have heard in music simply because of its pure creativity. He also has mixed rappers and pop artists with heavy metal guitars, and makes them sound like they belong together. Although his use of these samples is completely against many kinds of copyright laws, his music nonetheless showcases impressive amounts of ingenuity and artistic ability even though he is sampling other artists’ work.

Correctional technologies are recently becoming more and more widespread, especially in popular music in the United States. The two most used are pitch- and tempo-correction technology. Pitch-correction focuses on refining pitches to be more in tune. While at a base level this can improve the sound of music, it can be taken to further levels to create a completely different sound. There is a mid-level that makes music sound devoid of human inaccuracy to the point of sounding somewhat fake or computerized. Even further, pitch-editing can offer dramatic effects with fast and extremely precise changes of pitch that are very noticeably only possible with computer intervention. In popular music, T-Paine is one of the artists best known for using this technology. In his songs, he could have been recorded speaking the lyrics and sound engineers could have edited pitches in his voice to make melodies. Another example of this is in a recent YouTube phenomenon known as “Auto-Tune the News”. These clips are entertaining examples of how pitch-editing software can be used to create songs using the voices of newscasters, television personalities, and even Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and President Obama. Tempo-correction technologies work in similar ways, but make the tempo and the beats more precise. This is often less exaggerated than pitch-editing has been recently, but still noticeable on occasions. These two technologies influence the way that modern music consumers value accuracy in music. Many are beginning to expect precision in performances that are almost humanly impossible to recreate due to inherent human inaccuracies. Every day I listen to the radio, I hear more and more songs that use pitch-editing to enhance their music. These two are also creating a dichotomy in the music scene about the effects of using so many corrective technologies. Some could argue that this creates better and more accurate music. I, however, argue that it is slight human inaccuracy and agency that is the driving force behind artistic expression in a song. Corrective technologies give companies the newfound ability to hire people to sell their images as icons and to edit their songs to make them sound musically competent. There is much debate on whether this is true music or not. What will happen when computers are capable of imitating human agency, emotion, and inaccuracy in music? These are issues that are currently complicating the music industry and will continue to be confronted in the coming years.

Layering, sampling, and corrective technologies all have complicated different aspects of the music industry. One of these is the realism of music. Songs are increasingly becoming less likely to be able to be performed completely live due to the sheer impossibility of recreating the music the same way it was heard in the recorded and edited music. For example, Iron and Wine has typically been a one-man-band with one man singing and playing guitar. His recent album The Shepherd’s Dog included incredible amounts of layering instruments as well as vocal harmonies. These songs are obviously completely impossible to perform live with just the one man. Some turn to using pre-recorded tracks and mixing them with live tracks during performances, completely staging a performance based solely around pre-recorded tracks, or even to simplifying songs to make them performable. Another complication that is happening within many studios is the conception of authorship of these works. No longer is just the performer or the composer the sole author of a song. Due to the increasing use of technology, sound engineers also play a large role in interpreting a song and creating its sound, as well as the producers, and in some cases the composers if they are not performing their own work.

One of the most recent and most complicated changes that has happened to the music industry is its increasing intimacy with the internet. In some ways this is beneficial for musicians as it gives greater and easier access to musicians and their work. Music distribution can happen instantaneously with two people sitting on their beds from different sides of the planet. There is a disappearing necessity to have albums sold in other outlets such as Wal-Mart. The consumption has also changed because music consumers now have access to a larger amount and a greater variety of music and recordings through the internet than what one may find in a typical store-based retailer. For many, bypassing copyrights to download songs and albums for free has become a common practice. This is essentially opening up the music industry to start being defined by its consumers as we have greater access to musicians that we may not hear on the radio, on television, or from our friends. It is democratizing the industry and breaking down the control that corporations had on what music consumers used to have access to. Theoretically, I could post music that I made on my laptop, become a huge sensation and be successful. This could happen without the use of a record company to give me professional connections and funding, but also control some of my music and some of my career. There is a big debate around this topic as the record industry is seeing the threats of becoming obsolete if they can’t find a way to be needed and profit off of it.

In the past 150 years, the music industry has undergone incredible changes. Its common practices have moved from taking an outing to the symphony to downloading music and listening to it in almost any situation. The industry would have never gotten to where it is now if it weren’t for the technological revolutions that have shaped and continue to shape the industry, from recording technology, to layering, corrective technology, and the internet. There is no doubt that technology will continue to evolve and continue to influence where the music industry goes in the future. Complications will be settled, others will arise, new technologies will make us question what counts as music, and what we value in music. What will the music of the future be like? How will we have access to it? What will we do with it? How will it be made? These are questions that are constantly being answered as each second passes, only to be asked again the next—but that is the nature of innovation.

December 16, 2009

Professor Scales: Final Part II

An Investigation of Music-based Cultures Through Advancements in Music Technology

Let us start from the beginning, or at least as basic and fundamental as I understand it.  Music is art.  Musicians are artists.  Sound is a musicians’ avenue for expression.  Music is then a method of humanistic communication.  Influential critical pedagogy theorists Paulo Friere has written this: “It is only through communication that human life can hold meaning” (from his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed).  History shows us that in the exploration of human meaning, people have continued to strive for new ways to communicate with each other.  One can see this in the ever-advancing applications of the Internet as a tool for communal interaction and more historically with the development of written word: from the Gutenberg Bible to fanzines and pulp fiction.

Cultures are created out of communal interaction.  This interaction can happen in various venues.  The ability for an individual to comprehend the meaning of information within these venues is only understood within cultural context.  This context defines the appropriate uses of the tools one has for personal expression.  Many times these cultural contexts and venues become synonymous with the music technologies that are used in the respective scene.  Take the name Disco for an overt example of this.  The Disc and its’ music were the very things that brought people together.  Sarah Thornton states in her writing on club cultures that “Records had become integral to a public culture; they were the symbolic axis around which whirled the new community of youth” (Thornton 53).  The symbolic nature of music technologies can be seen recording software interfaces as well.  In Macintosh’s Garageband 2009 there is an interface that allows a musician or producer view analog guitar affects pedals.  The affects are not authenticity analog, for the sounds are digital reproductions, however the symbolic use of the analog pedal can understood to be a cultural maker of a perceived musical authenticity and identity.  Thus, even when the practical use of a music technology seems to be gone, an ideological mindset that values the symbolic use of an analog pedal presents itself.  One’s musical ideology as it is defined by their practices and behaviors of consumption, production, and distribution in the music industry, will always shape and in many instances confine, the ways in which one understands musical authentic practices.  Understanding how the forum one uses to communicate with others, establishes distinct ways of comprehending meaning, is key to addressing the cultural impacts of the historical changes in common music technological practice.

Places or scenes for the interaction of music consumers that further complicate the dominant ideological musical mindsets include face-to-face live music scenes as well as virtual scenes on the Internet.  The forum that it used in public interaction has a considerable impact on the development of culture.  In the article Internet-based Virtual Music Scenes: The Case of P2 in Alt. Country Music by Steve S. Lee and Richard A. Peterson, they articulate this: “Local scenes serve as places where musicians, singers, and DJs can learn their craft and directly see the reactions of fans to their performances…[where] virtual scenes…focused on fans’ reactions to the music and not on creating and experiencing the music itself ” (Lee 201).  This touches on the differences between the intentions of communication in virtual and geographically local music scenes.  Thus, the way in which information is exchanged shapes the understanding of the information’s purpose.  Now, the question I wish to explore is this: if music, in both virtual and geographically local spaces, is a unique method of communal interaction, then how do advancing music technologies impact these music-based communities?

To address this question in a functional way technology must be defined in broad terms.  As Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at Concordia University in Montréal, Paul Théberge writes, “technology must be understood as a kind of discourse” (Théberge 11).  With the discourse of novel advancements in music production, consumption, and distribution comes new tools for creative expression for musicians, music producers, and consumers.  The expressions of consumers include the club culture that Sarah Thornton writes about, and the Virtual Internet scenes that Steve S. Lee and Richard A. Peterson speak of.

The technological tools that people, namely musicians utilize to express themselves continue to change.  Thus, the expressions of musicians have always been subject to the technologies of music production, consumption, and distribution of their time.  These technologies include but certainly are not limited to contemporary technologies such as MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) recording, MP3s, and the Internet.  The various culturally accepted applications of music technologies such as these, inevitably define the boundaries or limitations of authentic musical practice.

Music producers have seen a transformation from craftsmen to artist due to the changes in music production technology.  As Edward R. Kealy states in his article From Craft To Art: “The results of such a transformation show up primarily in two ways: (1) a change in the aesthetic conventions for judging the crafted objects from utilitarian to expressive and (2) a change in the status of the works—from technical to artistic” (Kealy 207-208).  The two results of this transformation above address a change in music production culture do to changes in music production technology.  The heightened use of Multi-track recording in contemporary music production has given more creative opportunities to music producers.

Bands such as Radiohead and the Beatles have benefited considerably from the rise of multitrack recording and the transformation of music producers from craftsmen to artists.  In the book Repeated Takes by Michael Chanan, he states: “Sgt. Pepper could not have been created without a four-track tape recorder, but the Beatles were not the first popular recording artists to use these techniques, which had already cropped up on so-called novelty numbers during the 1950s.  More importantly, they shared the credit for these albums with George Martin, marking in the process the emergence of a new kind of popular record producer” (Chanan 143). The using of a four-track tape recorder in the Beatles’ case was not the first use.  However I would argue that it was one of the first authentically inspired uses, the novelty uses of the 1950s that Chanan speaks of seem to be strictly commodities.  This could be evidence to suggest that the development of multi-track recording may have faced a dominant ideology of musical practice that frowned on the new music production practices.  An ideological shift in musical understanding was required to cope with the new music technology.

As time has progressed, the uses of some music technologies have been established as common practice.  In the past, both sheet music and vinyl records have been music technologies that were utilized to distribute music to consumer markets.  ‘Tin Pan Alley’ is a term attributed to a street in New York where many music publishers produced music for consumers.  In the Chapter ‘Polyhymnia Patent’ of the book Repeated Takes Michael Chanan writes that “This new breed of publishers [in Tin Pan Alley], many of them songwriters themselves, proceeded to develop new formulae to govern the production of songs expressly designed for commercial exploitation” (Chanan 44).  The notion that a ‘new breed’ of people published music at this time helps to illuminate how using different music technologies facilitate the development of new cultures of music producers and consumers.  Music technologies then greatly aid in the definition of their counterparts: the musicians, producers, and consumer markets.

Media technologies have an immense impact on how individuals attribute meaning to musical practices.  With consistent changes in media technology comes an equally consistent change in understanding the relationship between humans and their music.  Developments in media technology have changed the distribution, consumption, and production of music.  A prime example of this change has occurred in the Television Industry.  Andrew Goodwin, in his writing Fatal Distractions: MTV Meets Postmodern Theory, states that “In its first decade MTV has thus moved from an almost exclusive focus upon the promotion of specific areas of pop music (New Pop, heavy metal) to a role as an all-encompassing mediator of rock culture—a televisual Rolling Stone (or Q magazine)” (Goodwin 54).

The comparison between MTV and music-based magazines help us understand how these media technologies are related.  Each has distinct methods to convey meaning to their audiences.  Written word uses italicizing, and bolding, where television has its own set of resources with visuals choreographed to sound.  The differences in these methods have equal differences in how the information is understood.  Reading a book is different than watching a film.  Listening to a Record is different than listening to an MP3.  Most media technologies have considerable similarities in narrative, which include notions of irony, climax, and mood, but all have consistently divergent reactions in the populations that consume them.  These reactions, when established as common and acceptable, define the dominant ways in which people produce and consume music.  Thus, advancements in music technologies have a remarkable influence on the common conceptions of authentic ways to consume and produce music.