In understanding and exploring the above question, one must break down the term technology and look upon the electronic technologies such as microphones, amplifiers, and multi-track recordings.
One could argue that technology allows one to create new and unique sounds due to invention of multi microphones. Similarly, the idea of the ‘perfect recording’ makes music more meaningful and accessible as an artist can create the exact sound they want bit by bit. Without technology this would be impossible.
Likewise, amplifiers allow wider and a greater choice of venues to showcase music, without such technology it would be impossible for a one man band to be heard clearly around large open air stadiums.
On the other hand, playing live and recorded sounds are very different on stage; songs that are made up of many different components make it hard to produce the same sound live. Yet, when seeing an act live do you actually want to hear the artist sing exactly like the record?
This idea of unplugged music is as www.mtv.com suggests, ‘…the peeling away of the trappings of an artists music to reveal the essence at its core.’ Therefore meaning perhaps that it is the lyrics and meaning of the song that is more important then the construction of the tracks. However, music is made much more accessible through technology and without it certain popular music would not work or develop.
Thursday, 20 March 2008
Thursday, 13 March 2008
Week 4: What is World Music and why does it exist?
The term ‘world music’ is often associated with music other from that of Anglo-American culture. The traditional and authentic culture of ‘world’ or ‘local’ music represents not only, ‘…a tiny subculture.’ (J. Guilbault. World Music.) Yet it promotes a distinctive sense of national, historical and cultural identity for the people.
Yet this definition of world music is problematic in itself, as a number of texts are seen to be a combination of both local and global music, by use of language, instruments, musical styles or even ideas represented in both distinctions.
Subsequently, the fact that world music is made more accessible through the internet, television, theatre and film leads one to question the effects of global music within the world music network. For example, if one is exposed to world music through these medians does it then become ‘global’?
An important point to make is that it is through an individual’s interpretation of what world music is that defines it. In a sense, music is universal and in discovering world music or the music of a certain culture, one discovers the culture as a whole. Is this not why world music really exists, for us to appreciate and learn from cultures other than that of our own?
Yet this definition of world music is problematic in itself, as a number of texts are seen to be a combination of both local and global music, by use of language, instruments, musical styles or even ideas represented in both distinctions.
Subsequently, the fact that world music is made more accessible through the internet, television, theatre and film leads one to question the effects of global music within the world music network. For example, if one is exposed to world music through these medians does it then become ‘global’?
An important point to make is that it is through an individual’s interpretation of what world music is that defines it. In a sense, music is universal and in discovering world music or the music of a certain culture, one discovers the culture as a whole. Is this not why world music really exists, for us to appreciate and learn from cultures other than that of our own?
Wednesday, 5 March 2008
Week 3: Can Mass Produced Popular Music be Art?
In order to comment on the above question it is essential to consider the workings of Theodor Adorno, whose reaction to the swing and jazz genre in the 30s and 40s was critical of mass produced medians, and can also be applied to canonical popular music to date.
Suggested in his theory is the idea that popular music is baseless entertainment that is unchallenging and distracting from what is going on in the world. Adorno illustrates that mass produced music cannot be art as it limits the questioning of our social and industrial lives.
However, art is defined on Dictionary.com as, ‘…a production, expression or realm according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing or of more than ordinary significance.’ This leads one to question that mass produced music could therefore be art as it appeals and effects different people in different ways.
Consequently, Adorno’s standardisation of popular music is a somewhat narrow conception, after all music is an expression of cultural identity within certain social and time frames. Therefore who is to say that mass produced music is not art if it carries great significance to an individual through the expression and content of the song?
Suggested in his theory is the idea that popular music is baseless entertainment that is unchallenging and distracting from what is going on in the world. Adorno illustrates that mass produced music cannot be art as it limits the questioning of our social and industrial lives.
However, art is defined on Dictionary.com as, ‘…a production, expression or realm according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing or of more than ordinary significance.’ This leads one to question that mass produced music could therefore be art as it appeals and effects different people in different ways.
Consequently, Adorno’s standardisation of popular music is a somewhat narrow conception, after all music is an expression of cultural identity within certain social and time frames. Therefore who is to say that mass produced music is not art if it carries great significance to an individual through the expression and content of the song?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)