Monday, January 28, 2008
What Music Has Lost
WSJ.com: "Modern recordings, for all their glory, are part of the problem, Mr. Hamilton explains. They have conditioned audiences to expect an inhuman degree of performance accuracy, comparable to what a recording studio's editing team can produce by patching together the best moments from multiple takes. Critics, meanwhile, judge performances by the degree of textual fidelity to the 'urtext' -- a score that tries to reproduce the composer's original intent."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
This article hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. It is ridiculous how society has warped its views (and our own) on what is considered "good music". The last paragraph of this article was most compelling. Music is filled with the potential to alter and change the world around it, which is one of its great traits. The fact that one piece of music can differ from performance to performance, performer to performer. But with these standards, all we're doing is cloning what has already been deemed respectable.
It's fascinating because while this article is talking specifically about pianists, this situation can really apply to all sorts of live entertainers. There is a certain degree of expectation when someone sees a performance of a recorded artist, so that sort of pressure is probably the primary reason that we have Ashley Simpson lip-synching. If we stretch our minds, we can examine a more abstract example: film and theatre.
To go along with what Kevin said it is not only pianists, performaning artists, theatre and film, but it goes the same with the expectations of people. And I also think this might have to do with the spread of technology. Of course it is not the only reason, but with the relative ease of getting a hold of technology everyone has help in all areas. Technology is helping us learn faster and do things faster. And because of this that is what is expected of everyone. But back to the point that music has loss something because what technology is giving people. Technology can be a good thing and it can a bad thing at the same time. We just have to learn that its not everything.
This topic is one that I find to be quite irritating in regards to the progression of music over the years. I've had many a conversation with all kinds of people about how the music today just isn't as good a quality as it used to be MOST OF THE TIME. It's really degrading to the art-form and really any kind of entertainment, that the technology can replace what used to be genuine talent.
It's interesting how studio technology is affecting traditional forms of music. Without studios, a lot of today's music just wouldn't be created, polished, and released. However, the one artform that really seems to suffer is classical music. While top 40 artists are encouraged to be emotional and wear their heart on their sleeve, classical pianists are encouraged to show nothing at all.
What the hell? Classical music is just as moving as any other genre, if not more so. There's so much room for expression and improvisation: the very thing that makes this music even more interesting. Why would you censor and stifle this artform?
Joe brought up the fact that a lot of Broadway musicals have large portions of the show "tracked" because audiences would get upset if the performers didn't sound exactly like they did on the album. However, I think the most important part of this article is its questioning of "artistic freedom". Should we, as artists, be restricted very tightly regarding the work of others, or should we be free to improvise and change at will?
I mean it's like the rest of the entertainment industry. It no longer is about making the good art for the society but it's about who can take more clothes off on television. I almost feel like it's a trade off for the advancement of the technology. Because as Grego said, we now have the luxury to record and play the entire tracks of certain character on stage so that they all sound equally nice. But we've just lost the experimentalism. So I guess it depends on which one do we care more about
While I could write a book in response to this, I want to touch on one bit. Technology is great, but in this case it is replacing true talent, which does not result in the same quality of music. Most pop hits aren't even written by the artist, and they are studio edited until they are technically perfect. A lot of lesser rock bands use the same techniques. On the other hand, a 24/96 recording of a concert played back on a good enough monitoring system in an accoustically perfect room sounds noticeably better (clearer) than the pa in the venue. (except that you aren't there).
this is interesting to me because there really only seems to be this problem in pop-culture. as far as the indie, and underground music artists go, their live performances are often better sounding, or of equal quality to that of their records. like many others before me have said, technology can help a lot, but sometimes it is too much. and when it comes time to reveal the true talent to the fans many artists fall short of mediocre because they have depended on effects too much.
Post a Comment