Has technology helped us to enjoy music?

blue note

When I was growing up I think we used to listen to music very differently. I started buying CDs in the late 90s.

Back then, you put considerable thought into what CDs to buy. I remember going into music shops and trawling through their two for £15 sections (became two for €20) for bargins. A lot of what I bought was based on knowing a couple of songs, but an awful lot was bought on reputation and recommendation.

But I think we appreciated the albums all the more for it. Anything I bought I gave considerable time to listen to. You wouldn't dismiss anything after half a song after paying a meaningful amount of money for it! I remember telling people about great finds and borrowing and loaning albums to people.

Now, everyone seems to have endless music collections which they haven't paid for. You mention Leonard Cohen to someone and they might tell you that they have his entire album collection on their computer. But collection is a very apt word - they're more collecting it than listening to it. The whole thing might be there, but if they had bought I'm Your Man in a shop they'd probably have taken time to listen to it. Having the entire collection there I think it's more likely they've never listened to any of it properly.

So with all this cheap access to vast catalogues of music, has it improved our relationship with music? Do we enjoy it more or less?

TwoShedsJackson

http://s28.postimg.org/747dueacd/26750.png

stefan idiot jones

The same only with better quality.

Spunge

Its certainly allowed me access to a lot of lesser known genres or bands that id in no way have heard otherwise.
But i also think you end up with some much music it does take a bit more effort to really give a certain album or genre the time it may need to properly appreciate it.

Also with things like wikipedia and tonnes of online reviews and forums you can get a good idea about all the different genres and bands, and what people like and what they dont, rather than say just music mag reviews.

Looking at my CD collection now its full of crap, compared to what ive found online in the last few years.

Bipolar Joe

I think it has and it hasn't. It's really down to the listener. A lot of the music I listen to is free online, any ways (Ravenous, Ladyscraper, so on). I still buy music, because I like the art and liner notes, and giving money to the artist creates incentive for the artist to create more. I listen to online music a whole lot, but I know people who haves terabytes worth of MP3s that they've never listened to. On the same hand, there's a couple of records I've owned for ages, and have listened to maybe once.

blue note

Spunge wrote: »

Also with things like wikipedia and tonnes of online reviews and forums you can get a good idea about all the different genres and bands, and what people like and what they dont, rather than say just music mag reviews.

It also lets people have an opinion on music without having listened to it. It might not be their own opinion, but they mightn't care or even notice.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Noel Gallagher talked about this recently. He said when you invest both your time in travelling to the record store and money in the actual record or CD that you'll give it more of a chance, you're not going to skip through with a click of a mouse.

Personally I love physical copies of recordings, the smell, the album artwork the liner notes etc, I like having my collection even though I do use modern technology to listen to music also.

A bit like books and kindles I suppose, the kindle is handy and efficient but I still prefer holding the real deal in my hands.

Kia_Kaha

For me personally, yes. I have discovered so many bands through YouTube and Spotify that I would never have without.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

a friend of mine in Canada put a song on her facebook wall a couple of weeks ago. the next day I listened to it, within 15 minutes I had the album downloaded. 2 hours later I bought it on bandcamp and I've listened to it at least once a day since then. it's easily one of my favourite albums now and I'd probably never have heard of them ten years ago. (they only formed 2 years ago but assuming it was 10 years ago I'd never have heard of them if they formed 2 years before that, you pedantic wanker)

--edit

so yes.



---edit

just so I don't get accused of being a one direction fan years after I lose the ability to edit this post

mikom

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

a friend of mine in Canada put a song on her facebook wall a couple of weeks ago. the next day I listened to it, within 15 minutes I had the album downloaded. 2 hours later I bought it on bandcamp and I've listened to it at least once a day since then. it's easily one of my favourite albums now and I'd probably never have heard of them ten years ago. (they only formed 2 years ago but assuming it was 10 years ago I'd never have heard of them if they formed 2 years before that, you pedantic wanker)

And thus began Sir Digby Chicken Caesars love affair with "One Direction".
Thanks friend from Canada....

uncle_sam_ie

Absolutely. Now we aren't limited to music that some record company deems worthy.

Hello_MrFox

Utorrent allows me the download an album in seconds. It be interesting to find out how many people actually illegally download as opposed to buying a new album.

boobar

Completely agree with OP...

I started to get into music in the mid 80s.

Because there wasn't a lot of money available and music wasn't "free" like today, you chose one or two bands and decided that was your lot.

Now, I have a much broader appreciation of different genres of music, but I admit to having lots of music stored that I haven't invested any time in listening to and enjoying.

drunkmonkey

A Sonos has been one of my best investments, if I never see another CD again it'll be too soon.
Eagerly awaiting Pono by Neil Young if it ever comes. The sound from cd's these days is poor, SACD was a step in the right direction.

Mr. CooL ICE

The sheer amount of commercial sh1te that is shoved down our throats through crappy everyday radio stations has disenfranchised a lot of people to the point that radio is outright ignored. If you want to listen to music that appeals to your senses instead of what marketing tells you to listen to, you need the internet.

The more I listen to the radio, the more I think that music is going downhill and all new bands are crap. However, there are great bands out there, but you need to rely on the internet to find them.

The internet allows a lot of great artists reach a wide audience without the help of the music industry. Unfortunately, this also means that a lot of mediocre artists can force themselves on a wider audience than they deserve.

I never really got into Spotify, but gave google play music a try and I love it. Granted, it is missing a lot of bands, but through it I have discovered a load of bands that I would never have considered.

No real point to this rant. Meh

SamAK

Aha, coincidence!

I made a short radio documentary on this for a college assignment the other day. I used to be a 'digital' kid, but in the last few months i've started collecting vinyl. No comparison, tangible music is the way to go for me. Have a listen if you like ->


https://soundcloud.com/sam-ak-3/vinyl-revival

GLaDOS

I'd never have heard of half the bands I listen to without the internet.

MadsL

Home taping is killing music

Andy-Pandy

I discovered a new music streaming service called Qobuz last night that streams in FLAC. I've signed up for a one month trial and if the collection is any good will go on with it. Streaming in this high a quality is a game changer for me and I'll pay the extra price for it.

Irish Guitarist

My father used to give me £2.00 every week and I would immediately buy a seven inch single and listen to it for hours on end. Eventually I would turn it over and listen to the B side. I could only afford to buy an album when I got money for Christmas or my birthday.

Nowadays teenagers can just listen to whatever they like without having to pay for it. In my opinion this kills their appreciation for music. You just have to look at the comments on a YouTube video. Teenagers would rather complain that "this sucks" than use the search function to find something they like, probably because they have no idea what they like.

Butterface

No doubt about it, the way the majority of us listen to music has changed. I only got my own laptop 5 years ago, and until then I was still buying CDs I really wanted. However, I was also giving my friends blank CDs to fill up with albums I wanted that they had, so that was another way of acquiring music that has probably gone by the wayside too.

I wonder what effect this changing consumption of music will have on artists. Nowadays, I'll easily admit that unless it's an artist I really enjoy or have gone to see live, I don't sit down and listen to whole albums anymore.

It's like music on the go.. the shuffle mechanism on your MP3 player/phone chooses for you. Or you create playlists of songs to reflect certain moods etc. Or you just simply decide to listen to that one catchy song on Youtube and start following links to similar songs by different artists.

So with this type of consumption in mind, how many artists are going to continue to write songs to fill an album? Many of my favourite albums certainly contain a few weak songs. With this new type of consumption, will artists bother to release their weaker tracks?

Bounty Hunter Dan

No.

For a start, you can't just easily play a section of music in reverse and listen to hidden satanic messages telling you to top yourself the way you could in the good old days.

bnt

I find that the listening environment makes a huge difference to my enjoyment, and there's not much that technology can do about that. I walk through central Dublin on the way to and from work, and find that I can't listen to music then, simply because I can't hear it properly over the background noise.

The music I like isn't the over-compressed stuff you hear on the radio, the stuff that sounds like it's always turned up to 11. It can have quiet sections, covering the whole dynamic range from soft to loud. When there's background noise, the dynamics are lost, and in quiet sections it may as well be off. I have some closed-back Bluetooth headphones that keep out the noise fairly well, but I find myself looking round more, worried that I'll find myself under a bus I didn't hear.

So I tend to listen to spoken word material e.g. audiobooks & podcasts, where it's all about the content, not the sound quality. I compress the heck out of podcasts (and speed them up) before I transfer the files to my phone. That way the words come through clearly at volume levels that don't deafen me.

What I should do at home, more, is sit down to listen to an album in one sitting. Just me and a pair of good headphones. But for that to work, I need to cut out other distractions: put the phone aside, close Boards, and just listen.

Lightbulb Sun

stefan idiot jones wrote: »

The same only with better quality.

I'd argue technologies like mp3 have lessened quality by encouraging compression. In many cases what people are listening to won't sound as good as a CD or vinyl.

J_E

Vinyl is making a comeback because the CD failed in terms of a physical package and staying value. If you're the kind of person who downloads full discographies all the time you're doing a disservice to the music and to yourself, it never leaves the same impact.

People who download Youtube videos and convert to MP3...oh boy. Can't stand that. If you're content listening to awful quality on your 5 euro earphones, just don't drag me into the cesspit with you.

Also, loudness war on chart music gets worse and worse...don't know how people bear it sometimes.

Tennis Ball

Yes, the invention of stings and pipes has certainly improved our enjoyment of music. Amazing technology.

BetterThanThou

I feel I definitely wouldn't have as much interest in music without advances in technology. For instance, if I hear of a band, usually my first instinct would be to search a song by them and listen to it. This is how I gained an interest in many bands. And there's also a lot of bands I don't like as bands, but I like some of their individual songs. So I wouldn't spend €10+ just to listen to one or two songs when I can just pay 99c per song. Then Spotify came along and deepened my interest in music, I can listen to most songs at the click of a button with no extra cost, and not only that, based on what I listen to, Spotify will also make recommendations for me, discovering new music is as simple as clicking the "Discover" tab and trying what Spotify suggests. I feel I'm also much more likely to appreciate bands as a whole now, rather than just some of their music. I have playlists with the entire discography of many bands which I listen to, compared to only two that I purchased physically/digitally. So, I personally feel technology has helped me enjoy music a lot more.

MadsL

Tennis Ball wrote: »

Yes, the invention of stings and pipes has certainly improved our enjoyment of music. Amazing technology.

Always knew he was a robot.

Molester Stallone

Spotify has been a major boost to music imo. Never would have spent money on actual cd's if I hadn't first had the opportunity to listen to individual tracks beforehand. I've found it's broadened my musical horizons a little

SilverScreen

Technology, in particularly the internet, has definitely helped me to enjoy music more and find new stuff to listen to. Before I had internet access I used to have to rely on radio, music channels and music magazines like Kerrang! (lol) to find new music. In the past few years with websites like last.fm, Rate Your Music and various music blogs I can pick and choose and avoid having crap music shoved down my throat by the powers that be.

J_E

Molester Stallone wrote: »

Spotify has been a major boost to music imo. Never would have spent money on actual cd's if I hadn't first had the opportunity to listen to individual tracks beforehand. I've found it's broadened my musical horizons a little

Spotify is great. It's massively curbed piracy. Whatever some artists claim about crappy royalty rates, don't realise how much more potential loss there is with big crowds. Hoping it lives on.

DamagedTrax

Lightbulb Sun wrote: »

I'd argue technologies like mp3 have lessened quality by encouraging compression. In many cases what people are listening to won't sound as good as a CD or vinyl.

you would be 100% correct. mp3s shave off the ultra high and low frequencies that we 'feel'.

if you open an mp3 and WAV version of a song in a DAW, phase reverse one of them you can then hear for yourself the differences between the 2. its quite disgusting what an mp3 is pumping into your ears without you even knowing it.

bnt

Cydoniac wrote: »

Spotify is great. It's massively curbed piracy. Whatever some artists claim about crappy royalty rates, don't realise how much more potential loss there is with big crowds. Hoping it lives on.

The problem with that idea is that you're treating every instance of piracy as a lost sale. This is the tactic that record companies have used for years, but it's just not true. A lot of piracy - most, I would even say - happens on a "because it's out there for free" basis, not a "I've got to have it" basis.

If piracy couldn't be done easily, what would the potential pirate do? Just what they did before home taping, or Napster: buy some of the music or movies that interest them, and do without the rest. Recorded music is not food or water, we aren't going to die without it. If it wasn't so easily available, maybe more folks would go back to making their own music. There was a time when every respectable home had a piano. :cool:

D1stant

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I still prefer holding the real deal in my hands.

I'll bet you do

DamagedTrax

bnt wrote: »

The problem with that idea is that you're treating every instance of piracy as a lost sale. This is the tactic that MAJOR record companies have used for years,

fixed that for you.

MilanPan!c

Yes with and "if"
No with a "but"

At the end of the day technology helps in some ways and hurts in others. The ratio of good/bad is dependent on the person.

gracehopper

Yes and no.

Music is more accessible, we can hear more bands we would never have come across in previous decades but having said that MP3 quality is a step back and music is more throwaway now so you devote less attention to an album.

Some albums that need more than one listen are often the ones that stay with you for years.

I feel like technology has diluted the experience a bit.

Rsaeire

DamagedTrax wrote: »

you would be 100% correct. mp3s shave off the ultra high and low frequencies that we 'feel'.

if you open an mp3 and WAV version of a song in a DAW, phase reverse one of them you can then hear for yourself the differences between the 2. its quite disgusting what an mp3 is pumping into your ears without you even knowing it.

This, exactly this! How can a new distribution method for music be offered that is so pervasive yet is unable to retain the same quality as the previous methods? This isn't advancement, it's taking one step forward and two steps back. There should be a new digital audio format that offers SACD quality in the same file size as MP3. FLAC and OGG are too big, we need a new format.

MilanPan!c

Welllll....

There's a thing called the Golden Ear Challenge that no one has every successfully passed.

The point is to try and see if anyone can, in a properly controlled test, consistently hear the difference between a CD quality WAV/high quality mp3 and any higher quality version of the same recording. The obviously corollary is that people can't tell the difference consistently between 320kps MP3 and CD quality WAV. The test material is professionally mixed/mastered.

"The unproven claim that comes up the most often is that there is a clear audible difference in sound quality between a super-high-resolution format like 24/192, and either standard full-resolution audio at 16/44.1, or a high-resolution mp3 at 320kbps.

That these claims are in fact, unproven, may surprise some people. If you’re one of them, don’t worry, you’re not alone."

www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/09/03/think-you-have-golden-ears-take-the-scientist-challenge/

J_E

bnt wrote: »

The problem with that idea is that you're treating every instance of piracy as a lost sale. This is the tactic that record companies have used for years, but it's just not true. A lot of piracy - most, I would even say - happens on a "because it's out there for free" basis, not a "I've got to have it" basis.

If piracy couldn't be done easily, what would the potential pirate do? Just what they did before home taping, or Napster: buy some of the music or movies that interest them, and do without the rest. Recorded music is not food or water, we aren't going to die without it. If it wasn't so easily available, maybe more folks would go back to making their own music. There was a time when every respectable home had a piano. :cool:

I'm fairly sure the sales would be a lot higher if piracy was out though. Having said that, bottom line is within reason, people will take the easiest route to entertainment. As I've said in threads like this before, the current situation with the film industry is broken.

Cinema; 30mins of ads before the film starts and obnoxiously high prices at times.
DVD/Blu-Ray; More trailers, and junk most people don't really want to see, sometimes unskippable (and yes, I know it can be bypassed but you're talking about the average person on their bog standard player here)
Illegal Download/Streaming service(Netflix); Watch.

If Spotify, iTunes, Steam and Netflix can show that convenience can overtake illegality and still be feasible to maintain, there is definitely a lot of change that can be done.

Capt'n Midnight

The technology is better.

Reproducing the sound exactly as it was recorded has never been cheaper.

However what's recorded these days is usually just a result of the loudness wars with very little dynamic range and a loss of clarity. Vocal harmonisers and auto tune mean that if you can talk you can be made to sound like you are singing. The peaks aren't much above the average so there is no impact , there is no WOW moment. If you are doing the 1812 Overture you want it build up until the cannons.

Early chart CD's had audible mains hum on them.

I don't like hearing singers breathing in.

OntheStrings

It's difficult to have a one sided answer to this. For me though, buying a song or album off itunes will never ever have the same effect as going out to the record shop to buy a physical copy. Clicking a button to download an album may be convenient, but it just seems a lil bit soulless.

the_syco

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Noel Gallagher talked about this recently. He said when you invest both your time in travelling to the record store and money in the actual record or CD that you'll give it more of a chance, you're not going to skip through with a click of a mouse.

There have been a couple of bands that I've seen live, that I wouldn't have gone to see without checking their music out online first, who may not even have had a CD out. Although I do agree with your point, I also have a couple of CD's that had a good review, but only one good song on it. Now, although I do youtube music, I'm more likely to goto their gigs, and buy band merc at the gigs.

DamagedTrax

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Welllll....

There's a thing called the Golden Ear Challenge that no one has every successfully passed.

The point is to try and see if anyone can, in a properly controlled test, consistently hear the difference between a CD quality WAV/high quality mp3 and any higher quality version of the same recording. The obviously corollary is that people can't tell the difference consistently between 320kps MP3 and CD quality WAV. The test material is professionally mixed/mastered.

"The unproven claim that comes up the most often is that there is a clear audible difference in sound quality between a super-high-resolution format like 24/192, and either standard full-resolution audio at 16/44.1, or a high-resolution mp3 at 320kbps.

That these claims are in fact, unproven, may surprise some people. If you’re one of them, don’t worry, you’re not alone."

www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/09/03/think-you-have-golden-ears-take-the-scientist-challenge/

i can tell the difference between 320kps mp3 and 44/16 wav. its my job. plenty have passed this test, its very easy once you know what to listen for in the high end and have a pro quality listening environment.

only a bat can tell the difference between 192khz and 88.2 but you're talking samplerates there, not differing audio formats.

MilanPan!c

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i can tell the difference between 320kps mp3 and 44/16 wav. its my job. plenty have passed this test, its very easy once you know what to listen for in the high end and have a pro quality listening environment.

only a bat can tell the difference between 192khz and 88.2 but you're talking samplerates there, not differing audio formats.

You should take the test then!

DamagedTrax

MilanPan!c wrote: »

You should take the test then!

i have on GS. documented and all.

the test linked to above claims that no one can hear the difference between mp3 320 and ANY higher format.

if a working engineer cant hear the difference between 320kps mp3 and 192khz/24bit then they need to hang up their ears. ( 44/16 wav is a different story, some engineers hear bit rate differences, some dont. if there was no difference then we wouldnt bother with dither and noise shaping to mix down.)

there are proper tests around the higher sample rate formats that clearly prove i dont have golden ears but the test mentioned above is ridiculous and more likely meant for the general listening public (in which case i agree with the results).

SamAK

Whatever about mp3 versus wav, but I definitely heard a difference when I got a proper 24 bit A/D interface. Miles ahead of the sh1tty soundcard in my laptop.

DamagedTrax

SamAK wrote: »

Whatever about mp3 versus wav, but I definitely heard a difference when I got a proper 24 bit A/D interface. Miles ahead of the sh1tty soundcard in my laptop.

exactly. proper flat response monitoring and pro level conversion instantly shows up the differences.

SamAK

DamagedTrax wrote: »

exactly. proper flat response monitoring and pro level conversion instantly shows up the differences.

Haven't got round to flat response monitors yet, only running a pair of 2-way Missions through a technics amp.

Considering a pair of KRK RP6's, then i'll be happy:pac:

DamagedTrax

we all need these bad boys :cool:

http://www.barefootsound.com/minimain12.html

SamAK

DamagedTrax wrote: »

we all need these bad boys :cool:

http://www.barefootsound.com/minimain12.html

They purdy!!!

But I see the frequency response it 20hz to 40khz, and that confuses me.

How can a manufacturer claim a frequency response of up to 40khz when the human can't hear anything above 20khz (at BEST!)....?