So... Were Records A Good Thing

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

A few weeks ago, I was reading a book about Louis Armstrong's New Orleans.

 

And what blew me out was how much work there was for musicians. You needed them in dancehalls and churches, to advertise stuff from the back of trucks, and to play for outdoor dances and picnics. All sorts of people who worked on the streets (and I'm referring to knife sharpeners and junksmiths, that sort of thing, not prostitutes) made their presence known by playing some sort of loud instrument. And then there were the parades and concerts and plain old sing-alongs. Lacking juke boxes, men in bars used to harmonize just for the fun of it.

 

It sounded like a fantastic environment and so full of music.

 

And I was wondering... was the invention of sound recording that good a thing? We're always told that it was. But I don't see that music became any better as a result of records and I imagine that, when you had to do it yourself or do without, musical talent ws a lot more ubiquitous. And of course, musicians still used to tour and music spread across the world by means of printed sheet music.

 

So what do you guys reckon? Is sound recording all it's cracked up to be?

[Shoes]

It did to music what the printing press did to folklore and story telling and a great deal of that inspired the very music cook up in the kitchens of every little outpost and hole in the wall.

 

Is it what it's cracked up to be?

 

It's what it was destined to be. We will smuther ourselves in sound and color as we all blend into one and forget who we were and where we came from.

 

I think Neil said it best... Live music's better. Bumper stickers should be issued.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by Guitars are like shoes. But louder.:

It did to music what the printing press did to folklore and story telling and a great deal of that inspired the very music cook up in the kitchens of every little outpost and hole in the wall.

Well... yes, But then again, in every little outpost and hole in the wall there was someone that could play for dances. And if there wasn't, they brought someone from the next village. And changes in music DID occur, albeit a lot more slowly than today. Look at the ragtime craze or the way that waltzes took over ballrooms, all without benefit of recordings. Bach, Stephen Foster, Chopin...

 

 

Originally posted by Guitars are like shoes. But louder.:

Is it what it's cracked up to be?

 

It's what it was destined to be. We will smuther ourselves in sound and color as we all blend into one and forget who we were and where we came from.

Yes. But think about this. Before phonographs, you often had to go out of the house to hear music, you often had to go hang out with people and mingle. Sitting around passively listening to music on your own was an impossibility, unless you were within earshot of a church or a dancehall. Being able to listen to music on your own meant the arrival of a world of lonely misfit humans listening to music on their own and never meeting even their next door neighbours.

 

But you're right, we were probably heading that way anyway, what with pianolas and music boxes and the like.

[J_2012]

Kramer, it's funny that you should mention this because a while back I took a class on Rock music and in the chapters about it's roots they went back, WAY back to the Tin Pan Alley era. What I didn't know was that the major market for music before the record was sheet music. People would take the sheet music and the most musically inclined person in the family would play the piano while the rest gathered around. So I guess in some ways records were part of the down fall of home life. I'm not complaining though, because records are what made me want to embark on a life of rock music.

[J_2012]

Kramer, it's funny that you should mention this because a while back I took a class on Rock music and in the chapters about it's roots they went back, WAY back to the Tin Pan Alley era. What I didn't know was that the major market for music before the invention of mass produced music records was sheet music. People would take the sheet music and the most musically inclined person in the family would play the piano while the rest gathered around. So I guess in some ways records were part of the down fall of home life. I'm not complaining though, because records are what made me want to embark on a life of rock music.

[J_2012]

sorry about the double post. I tried to press the stop button after I hit submit so I could change a few words. oops.

[skipclone 1]

I do think recorded music has given one great thing-the ability to hear music the way a great composer or musician intended, not the way someone decides to interpret it. Having said that I do think that portable headphones have gone too far-it`s not only alienating and selfish but dangerous. How are you supposed to be aware of what`s going on around you? those things are just Darwin awards waiting to happen.

[Gruupi]

I love live music but I can't imagine becoming immersed in so many different styles without recordings. There is no way I would have even known to seek out all the music I like if it weren't for recordings. I wonder if I would have even taken up the guitar if it weren't for radio playing my favorite recordings. I always liked music but the vast majority of my exposure has been from recordings.

[Justus A. Picker]

There's always tradeoffs. On the plus side, my great-great grandkids will be able to hear Jimi, The Beatles, Wes, Chet and really understand what music was like during my lifetime.

 

We read that J.S. Bach was a virtuoso on the organ, able to improvise entire fugues off the top of his head. It would be nice if we could hear what he actually sounded like, or how Paganini played the 24 Caprices, or what a brand new Stradivarius sounded like.

[Sauntman]

Originally posted by J_2012:

Kramer, it's funny that you should mention this because a while back I took a class on Rock music and in the chapters about it's roots they went back, WAY back to the Tin Pan Alley era.

I took a class while in college called "American Pop Music" and it covered the roots of American popular music from basically the Civil War forward. I remember the part of the course where the professor lectured on Tin Pan Alley. I can still remember (20 years later)the recordings he played for us. Such as "Brother Can You Spare A Dime" by Bing Crosby. But, going back further in time, music did develope some out of funeral dirge music. Especially, in the South in places like New Orleans. Religious custom had it where people actually had parties more so than wakes. Songs such as "When The Saints Come Marching In." Also, we learned in this class, the significance of the coming together of European brass and African percussion.

[skipclone 1]

If you want to not only read about but hear the music that became rock and roll-including the first recorded song to use that term-you should have a look at my buddy Morgan`s website www.hoyhoy.com. It has the origins of the term rock and roll as well as the music, and he has a freakin amazing double CD collection, my copy of which I went and left in New York but if you are interested in this topic, I would highly recommend it.

[The Big G]

Good and bad as with nearly all changes / advancements, modern music i think would be the poorer for it obviously but our social interaction has suffered due to being able to ailenate ourselves and immerse oursleves in whatever genre of music we choose with no need for anybody else, so few of us now go to theatres and clubs etc... to hear music or see any performing arts, once upon a time it was "the" thing to do and the social interaction was far greater.

But i still choose the recorded music as great invention and spread the word wider and faster than any religion and in many other ways joined millions more people together in there love for popular music that may never have reached them without it.

G

[Phillydor]

No records??!!Darkness would descend upon Pepperland forevermore...and the Grammy awards would lose all credibility. Thank God we live in a world where such a thing could never happen. http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/panther_pawed/millivanilli.jpg

[Billster]

I think recording doesn't necessarily serve the music being recorded as well as it could - i.e. "Is it live or is it Memorex?"

 

OTOH, certain music could not exist without having been recorded. Not that this is the Electronica and Experimental Music forum, but there's a lot of expressive music that needs the recording process to be practical in any way.

 

Ultimately, recording music moves the music forward, and faster. How many people heard Mozart's music during his lifetime, and were inspired to pick up a quill and sit down at the clavier to add their two cents? Now, how many have heard a recording of Mozart's music and been inspired to do something with their own muse and ambition?

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by Billster:

OTOH, certain music could not exist without having been recorded.

Oh, I know.

 

But AFAIK, except for some svsntgardists who did use the recording process as a part of the composition, until the 1960s most recordings consisted of putting a microphone in front of someone playing live.

 

When I say "avantgardists", I'm refering to two separate groups of people. The first are the futurists, who suggested, back in the 1900s, that the music of the future should be made up of machine noise so as to really represent our living environment.

 

The other group is the 1950s "musique concrete" people, who did things such as play around with tape speeds and so on. Neither group ever gained much chart play, I daresay. If there are other examples, I haven't heard of them.

 

It wasn't until the 1960s that multi tracking (and its inherent possibilities) really came into its own.

 

Originally posted by Billster:

Ultimately, recording music moves the music forward, and faster.

 

How many people heard Mozart's music during his lifetime, and were inspired to pick up a quill and sit down at the clavier to add their two cents?

Yes, there IS that, for better or for worse. The music moves faster, but at the same time, the omnipresence of recorded music means that fewer people are inclined to take up a musical instrument. So the pool becomes smaller.

 

And I'm not sure if Mozart is such a good example. After all, none of us have ever heard Mozart HIMSELF. All we've ever heard is people playing Mozart's written music.

 

At that point, does the recording really matter? After all, a present day orchestra and its 18th century counterpart would have both been playing from sheet music. The recording process itself adds nothing to the music itself.

 

So Mozart, if anything, is a good proof that the system worked just fine without recordings. We know of Mozart and have known about his music for centuries and all without benefit of recording studios.

 

And sure, if we didn't have Deutsche Gramofon and all them, we'd have to find our way to our local concert hall to actually HEAR Mozart. But having to make time to go out and listen to music... wouldn't that make our lives richer?

 

 

 

PS: I haven't turned Luddite, I'm just amazed by how I've always taken for granted that records are a good thing, and yet...

[Trucks]

Well it even comes down to the simple things like DJ-ing for parties.... Once upon a time the best DJ's had the best records, wnet out and spun there thing.. If you had no musical taste you didnt get work.. Now with Limewire and the such like any halfwit can do a DJ gig. When back in the day it probably wasnt much cheaper to get a good dj as it was a half decent local band.

 

I think Vinyl was a great invention... You had to go out and pick your music then buy it.. Then listen the HELL out of it.. Now most are happy to download whatever.. paid or not paid.. and it kind of takes out the effort involved.

[BadLife]

I agree Kramer recording has a lot of negative impact on music. And a lot of it has to do with the business end of it. The RIAA is not interested in getting compensation for musicans, only for the recording companies. Most musicans probably got a lot more of the revenue generated by their music before recording. There just was not as big a pie for others to rip off. Of course without marketing we would only have word of mouth to hear about new music so its a trade off. What I hate the most is some of the techniques that are commanly used in the studio these days. ProTools comes to mind. A lot of muscians just go in and crank out a bunch of noise then cut and paste it togather to make an CD. Then they play it back and learn what they have created. Sometimes they never get it right. A lot of times live you either have to make do with recordings and hope you don't get caught or make a new arrangement that the band can play live. At one time the recording would have be a reflection of what the band was doing live now a lot of times it's the other way around. I don't know what all of the social implications of all this is but I like to see musicans that can play live as well as they can record. Actually one of my favorites is guitly of the not quite being able to do live what was done in the studio. Led Zepplein just ask Jimmy about that, he has complained that he could never quite get the same thing live as in the studio. Part of that was caused by his studio abilities where he inovated all the time then later had to figure out how to get the same thing live.

[Billster]

Originally posted by Kramer Ferrington III.:

Originally posted by Billster:

Ultimately, recording music moves the music forward, and faster.

 

How many people heard Mozart's music during his lifetime, and were inspired to pick up a quill and sit down at the clavier to add their two cents?

Yes, there IS that, for better or for worse. The music moves faster, but at the same time, the omnipresence of recorded music means that fewer people are inclined to take up a musical instrument. So the pool becomes smaller.

I think it makes the pool larger, which has both an up and down.

 

Upside, more people involved with making music makes it more likely that someone truly gifted is inspired to get involved.

 

Downside, more people involved with making music makes it more likely that someone with no real ability clutters the landscape.

 

But in the long run, more people involved is better; and who's to say that something that doesn't appeal to some isn't really good and expressive for a lot to other listeners?

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Wel, Neil, seeing as how your reply was the longest, I'll tackle that one first

 

I'm not surprised that there's more musical instruments being sold than ever before. But you could say the same thing about pints of milk or mag wheels. As the population grows, so does overall demand.

 

I'd be curious to see what percentage of the population is competent at making music as opposed to 100 years ago, in 1906. I would bet that the percentage has gone down. This is also a response to Bill. Of course more people are making music. There's a lot more of us around. But what's the precentage? And anyway, most of us were already playing stuff and decided to record it to share it with each other and whoever's listening. So any recording is in addition to the fact we were already playing.

 

And sure, hearing someone like EVH on record has inspired lots of people to take up the guitar, but before recordings, people took up the guitar anyway. Usually after hearing someone else playing it live.

 

As far as hearing what Mozart himself sounded like, well... who knows? Maybe he's a bad example because he was a keyboard prodigy at 5 years of age. But there's nothing to say that a lot of other guys were any good as instrumentalists. Admittedly, a lot of them were: Lizt, Chopin, Beethoven, Bach and Paganini come immediately to mind.

 

However, if there's no record of Mozart rushing the orchestra pit and yelling "Nein, nein! You've got it all wrong!", we can only assume that he was satisfied with both the sheet music and how it was interpreted. Mozart and scores of other classical composers.

 

Would Van Halen's music survive the next few decades were it not for recordings? Who knows? The fact that we have recordings means that learning rock (like learning jazz) has become, essentially, a listening process. Had there been no recordings, we would have had to make do somehow. A dependence on sheet music certainly didn't stop Paganini's music from surviving to this day.

 

And yes, there are orchestras everywhere, and people do go see them. But are there as many as there used to be? Like I said, imagine a world with NO recorded music at all and you have to imagine a world where even supermarket car-parks would have some sort of band playing. A world of chamber music and dance hall orchestras and families singing around the piano.

 

With all due respect though, I can't see the sense in a lot of your descriptions of Broadway and your local concert-halls. That's live music and follows a tradition which is centuries old. But of course, for every off-Broadway theatre, there's about three discotheques, isn't there?

 

I won't deny that I myself get an immense amount of enjoyment from records, or that I myself would rather listen to a record than spend my life trying to learn to play every single song on every CD I own. But I just wonder whether recorded music is all it's cracked up to be.

 

BadLife: I agree with you, but I'm sure publishing companies screwed composers out of royalties well before Edison came along

 

Trucks: I think the dearth of good DJs sounds like a terrible thing. DJs were not a very good solution at the best of times and if even they are going downhill, God help us.

[Warthog]

Never really thought about it but that's a great point, Kramer. There'd be a lot more live music out there without recordings...

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by Warthog:

Never really thought about it but that's a great point, Kramer. There'd be a lot more live music out there without recordings...

Yeah, I don't really know where this is going, but what a different world it would be.

[Billster]

Originally posted by Kramer Ferrington III.:

But I just wonder whether recorded music is all it's cracked up to be.

We have to remember that we are a subset of the general population.

 

For the average Joe on the street, recorded music is 99% of their musical experience. 200 years ago, the average Joe may never have experienced professionally, or even good semi-pro or amateur music.

[musicalhair]

John Phillip Sousa has a quote about records or the radio, I forget which. But anyway he was lamenting that when he was younger he could here groups singing on every corner and everyone sang, but with recordings people listened but stopped singing. He said he feared the day when noone would be able to sing anymore.

 

I think he is not just talking about music and what we do with our time, but I think there is something in his observations that remind of the ideas expressed above about bringing people together or separating them.

[alittlebatty]

I'm with skipclone on the fact that portable headphones have went waay too far-I recently read an article that showed the result of a survey & the scary thing is this: with our massive & ever increasing populaton,people have fewer close friends than ever before (local ones you can go out for coffee with or drop in on)while 10 years ago most people had a circle of say 6-8 friends,now it has dwindled to one or two. The internet is part of this,but also to blame is the portable headset and/or cell phone. It seems society has decided to plug themselves in & cut themselves off from the world around them. And yes-that can be dangerous!

But on to Vinces' question: I think the ability to record music is a good thing overall-we can hear singers & musicians,for example,who are no longer on the planet.Yes,it's killed a lot of opportunity for live musicians as well,seeing as it's cheaper to turn on the radio at a burger joint than have a live band playing,but I still wouldn't have it any other way. I would've missed too much!

[picker]

Good or bad, it happened.

 

Deal with it.

[Dr. Ellwood]

Originally posted by Picker:

Good or bad, it happened.

 

Deal with it.

Well.....Ok

[Eric Iverson]

Well, there are plenty of people playing music, in spite of recordings, just as plenty of people still play sports and go to live games, in spite of TV and radio.

 

What probably HAS been lost is families sitting around singing and playing together.. not that it NEVER happens, but my understanding was that it used to be quite common!

 

We have so much entertainment available nowadays that lots of people hardly even get out anymore... their world is the TV and Internet and DVD player... they become recluses!

 

I'm a fine one to talk.. OK, yes I am in a band, so that counts for something...

 

Another spinoff question... do any of you find that you listen too much to recorded music to the detriment of your own practicing?

[Dr. Ellwood]

"Another spinoff question... do any of you find that you listen too much to recorded music to the detriment of your own practicing? "

 

That would never happen!

[Shoes]

You know I really miss that my kids couldn't play in the street like we once did but there are just too many cars around.

 

Fences.. we're choking in fences.

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by Kramer Ferrington III.:

Wel, Neil, seeing as how your reply was the longest, I'll tackle that one first

 

(Sorry... I've done it again. )

 

I'm not surprised that there's more musical instruments being sold than ever before. But you could say the same thing about pints of milk or mag wheels. As the population grows, so does overall demand.

 

I'd be curious to see what percentage of the population is competent at making music as opposed to 100 years ago, in 1906. I would bet that the percentage has gone down. This is also a response to Bill. Of course more people are making music. There's a lot more of us around. But what's the precentage? And anyway, most of us were already playing stuff and decided to record it to share it with each other and whoever's listening. So any recording is in addition to the fact we were already playing.

 

This is purely conjecture, but I'd guess the percentage is much higher than it was one hundred years ago. Between the social changes that have allowed us far more "leisure" time than prior to 1950 and the price of instruments being so high when every one was handmade by an artisan, I'd be shocked to find out as many people by percentage were players 100 years ago as now.

 

I think you have a romantic view of life a century ago. Plumbing, electricity, and so many other conveniences made possible by them and assembly line manufacturing fundamentally changed how we can spend our time. 100 years ago I believe most people outside cities went to bed earlier, worked as long or longer hours and had little time for hobbies or outside pursuits. And musicians, for the most part, did not make much of a living unless they were favored with a rich patron. The average folk musician was not well off from everything I've read or heard. I think many people's only musical experiences were at church, in bars or the occasional player around town. Sure, sheet music was an industry fueled by piano owners, but I think you overestimate how many families owned pianos, or any instruments for that matter.

 

I'd be interested to see some data, but I don't think there's much to look at. Maybe MMR magazine can tell us where to look. Musical Merchandise Review (MMR) was founded in 1879, so they definitely were around early enough to have data on the subject.

 

And sure, hearing someone like EVH on record has inspired lots of people to take up the guitar, but before recordings, people took up the guitar anyway. Usually after hearing someone else playing it live.

 

I think we're talking about two different things. You seem to be talking about whether or not people take up an instrument at all. I was talking about losing the enjoyment of a particular musician's playing. If we consider people virtuosos, celebrities worth admiring for their playing abilities, isn't it inherently good to be able to pass that on to future generations?

 

I have no doubt that musicianship would endure in some way, shape or form had recordings never become popular.

 

Here's a question for you: Do painters sit around and lament that photography is ridding the world of painters? Do they question whether photography as art is valid and good/bad for the art of painting? For that matter, is there a problem with people not appreciating a real, beautiful sunset because of the massive amount of paintings and photographs of gorgeous sunsets?

 

...However, if there's no record of Mozart rushing the orchestra pit and yelling "Nein, nein! You've got it all wrong!", we can only assume that he was satisfied with both the sheet music and how it was interpreted. Mozart and scores of other classical composers.

 

We don't know how much scores really tell us about how the music was played because no one was there to hear and compare those compositions played in Mozart's time to today's orchestras. In modern music there performance variables that simply aren't written on the page. There's a lot of room for interpretation.

 

Would Van Halen's music survive the next few decades were it not for recordings? Who knows? The fact that we have recordings means that learning rock (like learning jazz) has become, essentially, a listening process. Had there been no recordings, we would have had to make do somehow. A dependence on sheet music certainly didn't stop Paganini's music from surviving to this day.

 

That's exactly my point, Vince. How many people who've written wonderful music have had that music lost to the centuries because only a handful of composers were deemed worthy enough to be widely heard and published? Even many celebrities of the past century are largely lost to history because they had their 15 minutes and disappeared. Even with recordings there are only so many that people will remember and cherish.

 

And yes, there are orchestras everywhere, and people do go see them. But are there as many as there used to be?

 

I can't speak for the places you've lived, but there seem to be more orchestras now than ever before in the U.S. with a mild resurgence in them going on.

 

Like I said, imagine a world with NO recorded music at all and you have to imagine a world where even supermarket car-parks would have some sort of band playing. A world of chamber music and dance hall orchestras and families singing around the piano.

 

Or a world where music is a rare commodity.

 

With all due respect though, I can't see the sense in a lot of your descriptions of Broadway and your local concert-halls. That's live music and follows a tradition which is centuries old. But of course, for every off-Broadway theatre, there's about three discotheques, isn't there?

 

More like ten or more. But the point is live performance is growing again where people make it a point to grow the scene. It only works if we make it work.

 

I won't deny that I myself get an immense amount of enjoyment from records, or that I myself would rather listen to a record than spend my life trying to learn to play every single song on every CD I own. But I just wonder whether recorded music is all it's cracked up to be.

 

It is what it is. I think musicians became a bit spoiled by their success between the 1920's and 1970's. The dancehall gave way to the bar/club and venues became smaller, which did give way to jukeboxes. But it isn't like there was going to be a live performance everyday at the soda shop in the 1950's anyway. Musicians played at bars because that was where the gigs were. Now we continue to try for bar gigs when little or no money is spent by most clubs to produce live performances. It's an afterthought. They can make more money on records. Musicians need to go where they're wanted instead of where they think they're supposed to perform.