This week's readings focused on disruptive music technology and the questions this raises. Specifically, much attention was given to the player piano and its impact on society. While much of the scenarios discussed were historical in nature, themes and applications can be drawn to current society.
Instrument vs. Machine
Much of the discussion in each of the readings revolved around whether player pianos and other music technologies are machines or instruments. Gitelman mentions that salesmen were deterred from using terminology such as machine, self-player, automatic, or operator, as this portrayed the piano as a machine, to be operated like a household appliance. Instead, they emphasized the expressive aspects of the pianos; while they were not played like a traditional piano, they required tasteful use of the pedal and a level of artistry. Sousa, meanwhile, asserted that the player pianos were nothing but a series of cogs and wheels in a mathematical system, resembling a machine moreso than an instrument. Pinch and Bijsterveld also bring up this discussion, saying:
"The influence of technology in music raises questions as to the boundary between 'instruments' and 'machines' and the place of the latter within musical culture."
This discussion is then take further by considering recent developments in music technology. Pinch and Bijsterveld address the use of noise instruments and synthesizers in more recent years. Noise instruments lead to a dialogue regarding the true essence of music, and several conflicting perspectives emerge. Mondrian asserts that music is comprised of tone and non-tone, while Antheil claims that the essence of music is time. Consequently, the manner in which one defines music influences how one perceives the distinction between instrument and machine.
Regarding the synthesizer, this debate emerged again. If someone is able to represent an instrumental sound through a machine, does that in turn make it an instrument? Pinch and Bijsterveld cite Weiss who says that the synthesizer:
" was not as accurate as all the engineers wanted it to be…that was what was so wonderful about the machine, in that sense it was an instrument; it wasn't a machine. A machine would have created no inaccuracies…accuracy like that doesn't exist in our lives, nature is never accurate"
Thus, he believes that the intrinsic differences between instrument and machine are based upon humanity and imperfection. In a sense, machines strip the humanity from music due to the great deal of precision that is possible. Further discussion of synthesizer players using broken or adapted instruments intentionally further illustrates this point.
Copyright and Ownership
Sousa's opposition to the player piano stems largely from concerns over copyright. As a composer, he believes that he should receive some recognition and compensation for his pieces when they are used in the creation of piano rolls. Legally, copyright laws of the time did not protect his property, and he was met with backlash for this assertion. Yet, he held to this belief, saying that the piano rolls:
"are something beyond the mere shape, the color, the length of the pages. They are only one form of recording the coming into the world of a newly fashioned work, which by the right of authorship…belongs to him who conceived it" (284)
While occurring a century ago, these discussions are still relevant today as artists discuss copyright concerns and lack of financial compensation in our technological age. Platforms such as Spotify and YouTube allow for the widespread dissemination of music, but often do not provide the composers or performers with compensation in the manner that purchasing a CD might.
Democratization of Means
The other side to this increase dissemination of music is that it may be available to individuals who might not have otherwise had access. Gitelman asserts that:
"Music rolls offered a new form of access…that was immediately enrolled within a rhetoric of democratization by some and painted as trespass by others" (213)
Since less skill was required to 'play' the piano, those who might not have the time or money to engage in taking music lessons could now enjoy piano music and feel as though they were participating in a musical experience. While Sousa asserts that this will decrease motivation to practice, Gitelman takes a different perspective. Perhaps, by listening to the piano and watching the keys be depressed mechanically, people would actually be more motivated to learn to play the piano. Further, some individuals even learned to read the piano rolls, prompting the addition of lyrics, which were read bottom to top.
Participatory Music
Another theme throughout these sources regards the role of the musician. Sousa references singing schools, village bands, and other musical ensembles as central to American culture. Without these institutions, he claims, the amateur musician will not have a place in society. Essentially, when music can be heard with the press of a button and no specialized training, individuals will not be motivated to learn to play an instrument. He says:
"The child becomes indifferent to practice, for when music can be heard in the homes without the labor of study and close application…it will simply be a question of time when the amateur disappears entirely, and with him a host of vocal and instrumental teachers, who will be without field or calling."
Questions for consideration:
- Is music an object (the sheet music) or a sound? How does this distinction influence copyright distinctions?
- Sousa asserts that the player piano and other technologies will lead to the loss of the amateur musician. Have we seen this come to fruition today?
- What technological instruments or machines exist today? How does these influence musical integrity? Imperfection? Expression?
- How did financial concerns drive decisions regarding music technology in the past? Today?
- Are individuals operating machines that produce sounds still considered musicians? How do we define a musician? Also, how does this relate to the concept of musicking?
When Sousa talks about the loss of the amateur musician. He talks about the child becoming indifferent to practice, because when music can be heard in the homes without the labor of study and close application, or the process of acquiring a technic, it will be simply a question of time when the amateur will disappear entirely. This makes me think of the fight to keep music within our public K-12 school systems nationwide. Were the seeds of this problem planted when these Mechanical Menaces were created? I am left to wonder if the indifference shown by those in the Stem community can be linked to the indifference that Sousa speaks of throughout his magazine article. He makes the point that if music is available without earning it, it loses its luster and I think that one can argue that he is correct when you look at todays society and its lack of care for music unless its at its highest level. But society must understand that without its lower levels music does not exist.
As a general idea of today’s society regarding music production and practice, many things have changed in positive and negative light in association to technologies and advancements. Before technology (i.e. radio, television, iPods, cellphones), music was consumed at an interpersonal level – meaning from one physical performance to one physical listener. The ideas of perfection and integrity were presented through hard work, practice, and live performance. One generated a sense of value and purpose of technique through the art of practicing and perfecting their craft at either a professional or amateur level. The integrity of music was then assessed based on the practiced specialist and through the pursuit of the amateur. Music was thought of as a specialized trait that came from a focused and skillful person that had endured the process of playing an instrument or training their voice. But as technology grew to “improve” our day to day lives, it was inevitable that music would get thrown into the mix. This generated a shift in the perception and role music was to play in future generations.
Rather than spending time to understand the workings of an instrument and perfect your inner musician which allows you to embrace the creative part of your being, you can replace that time by purchasing a machine that generates instant success. Years of work and perseverance through the trying and troubling times that associate themselves with practicing were given a price tag, allowing the consumer to buy a machine that could bring them live music whenever they wanted it. This sent a shockwave through the amateur music making community and gave them a way to enjoy music on a different level – a less personal, yet still satisfying level, for an “easy” price that would pay for itself in entertainment value.
I do believe this has lead to a loss in our amateur classical musicians, or at least herded them into a corporate field of playing a specific set of instruments that collectively we have been lead to believe are associated with amateur musicians (Guitar, electric keyboard, percussion/drum set, and electric bass to name a few). These have also been associated with our contemporary rock bands, which predominantly have made their claim to fame through social interactions rather than musical training (not in all cases, but in a noticeably large sum). The general integrity of music in the eyes of the public has also shifted to a monetary value scale rather than a skill set. When someone is making money while creating music, they are looked upon as successful and talented, in turn generating a certain amount of integrity for their efforts. This integrity also comes from the production of the music. Music as a business rather than an art craft. While this is not the case in every situation, by shedding light on the popular music scene, I believe this to be a strong argument for the dynamic shift in where we allocate integrity and value in our modern society.
The readings discuss the introduction of machines in music production and how technology has changed our perception of the performer, composers and the concept of art in music. The article of Pinch and Bijsterveld highlights some important thoughts that critics held on this subject. “Art could ‘consist only in communication…from soul to soul, a communication that the machine is, and ever will be incapable of creating.’”
By saying that “one could copy sound but not interpretation”, the critic's main argument was that art would lose its uniqueness and expression. While, on the other hand, composers and musicians that welcomed the new mechanical instruments said that these were superior as performers of increasingly complex music then expensive musicians. Others still stressed the need for clear and unsentimental music.
The promise of a democratization of "good" music with technology is also expressed in Gitelman's article with the spread of the piano players, exemplifying how performance was reembodied and how it created a new form of access. At the same time, it could also be considered a trespass by others musicians, leading to a rhetoric of authenticity and questions of a virtual reality.
The readings for this week focus on the invention and implications of machines in music performance and public consumption. Each article focuses its scope on more specific issues associated with machines. But, each of the articles seem to circle back to questions about human connection in music versus the introduction and popularity of machines in music.
In Gitelman, one of the main themes is to simply attempt to define the roles that machines play throughout the twentieth century in music. One of the main questions proposed by Gitelman is “Are music rolls digital?” This description appears sufficient with Gitelman’s description of paper music rolls as the “software”, and the inner cogs, hammers, and mechanisms as the “hardware.” Today, we recognize this “digital” description more easily.
Sousa has a few separate issues he addressed in his 1906 article. Firstly, he emphatically criticizes the invention and popularity of machine-produced music, or “canned music” as he would later coin. Secondly, he takes issue with the state of the music rolls and recordings being produced and marketed with increasing success by companies that did not pay royalties to composers. Sousa became one of the leaders of the movement to gain “absolute controlling power” for composers. On these two issues, it is undoubtedly the second that he was more successful and influential. One point of Sousa’s that I did not agree with completely was the assertion that recorded and “canned” music would lower composer creativity and enthusiasm. However, it was simply that the companies and composers had not yet reached an agreement or understanding. Had composers stopped writing in protest, monetary issues would have inevitably arose for composers, driving them to seek employment with the companies producing these music rolls. Composers would have ended up employed by the companies themselves, which Sousa would have likely believed to be a travesty as well.
Pinch and Bijsterveld focus on the history of machine music, and the instruments and techniques that have been most widely successful. However, much of the repertoire addressed is that of popular music. The main issues addressed are questions of “What counts as live entertainment?” Inevitably, there is to be expected a certain degree of disagreement from musicians and audiences.
The meaning of music-making industry was challenged by the entrance of the technology into a musical culture. Gitelman introduced how the role piano rolls, player pianos, the reproducing pianos played impact how society embrace and view music, the material meaning of sheet music changes in the extra involvement of the machines with people, paving a way to later innovations eBook, ePaper, or shared MP3 files. The changes attacked the fear of democratising music making. Player pianos introduced the idea of “even a child (of a wealthier family) can play the player pianos” Making music is seen as an activity of building a character “self-control, perseverance. etc.” Piano players, offers the disembodiment of self, while focusing on the expressive use of pedal, no fingers attached, and selling an idea of the absence of playing by hands will eventually leads to a desire to learn how to actually play the piano. "Music Appreciation" for home musical performance performed by player pianos is advertised as a "stand-in" or substitution for a live performance by a piano girl. Music and gender was also discussed by bringing music making to men with an idea of "mechanical instruments" preserving muscularity rather than a sensitive instrument as a piano. I think the concept of authenticity is still rooted in society’s perception of art. As mentioned in “Should one applaud?”, the music can only be speak from “soul to soul”, and even the perfection or total control made by the machine couldn’t replace true music made by human being. The concept of democratising music was also discussed in “Should one applaud?” as:
“In mounting their opposition to mechanical instruments, critics made explicit their own views concerning real art and interesting music and music making. Their arguments centered on the need for mastery of technique and control over interpretation, for romantic passion, expression, variation, and uniqueness, and on the appearance of a frightening democratization. Performers and music teachers probably also feared for their jobs.”
Sousa also contributed to rendering how mechanical reproducing machines can eliminated the amateur music makers. The concept of ‘shortcut to success’ reduced the development of “the local musical personality.” The authenticity of music making was frightened by canned music as he discussed how the charm the camp fire night were diminished when simplicity of music was replaced by "some disks, cranks, and cogs."
These readings deal with the contentious debate of what role technology plays in music and as a result, in creative endeavors. The authors provide a historical account of the development and/ or evolution of instruments as machines. Even the addition of keys and valves in woodwind instruments was seen at a time as intrusive to"pure" and "authentic" music-making.(Pinch and Bijsterveld). The audience reactions to a performance by a player piano are described as unsure of "whether to clap at a machine". This brings to light the current uncomfortable relationship between artificial intelligence and humans.
Sousa's article deals with his concerns of the consequences of the dissemination of machine instruments. He states that the lack of human interaction in music making would transform music into a commodity and thus discourage music lover's from learning the practice of an instrument. He also addresses, along with Gitelman, copyright issues that arise from the player piano's notational system. This raises questions as to where the essence of music lies, whether in the score, in the concept, etc.
Music is both an object and a sound, simultaneously and not. Having said that, however, it is important to understand the social and legal implications of both. By definition, the object form of "music" can be sheet music or another representation of the music- that is, some sort of container (virtual or physical, as with a piano canister) which carries its sonic imprint. When music loses a physical representation, even somewhat, the question of its ownership and the matter of its reproduction call copyright into play. However, music is always contained in something, even if that something is merely an .mp3 container file in a distant file directory on your computer. Even if that container file just permits you access to the music it holds, the producer of that music has the right to capitalize on your partial possession of it. Once the producer loses the ability to moderate and profit from virtual access to their music, the consumers responsible are technically in violation of copyright.
Although Sousa predicted that technology would lead to the death of the amateur musician- and eventually, all musicians, as Adorno also suggested- the increased virtuality of music has only further created cultures in which the amateur remains the focal point. Not only that, but advancements in the technology (synthesizers, looping, DAWs, etc.) used to make music permit people from fundamentally non-musical disciplines to participate within the realm of production and performance. While many rightly criticize the use of editing and tracking to mask the "natural" imperfections in a given studio take or "live" performance, innovations in recording and editing allow us to transcend time and physical space— as well as human mistakes. :)
While the operation of a synthesizer or the use of a digital audio workstation is often criticized by scholars and "real" musicians as artificial or amateur, many of the considerations involved in their use are still deeply musical. The visual representations of loop and drum tracks in Ableton are closely tied to rhythm and time, and the usage of a media controller to create these tracks requires a strong ear and sense of rhythm, as well. Certain schools of electronic music production claim as much of a background in music theory and musicianship as classical and jazz musicians do. Perhaps the dichotomy between "real" genres of music and those produced virtually is reinforced in order to maintain a historical division between "high" and "low" entertainments, as well as the people that consume and enjoy them…