Plugging in, Tuning out
Considering
the current technological environment we are living in, vast amounts of
information can be accessed at our fingertips instantly. The internet has
broken down space and removed time from our lives, enabling us with abilities
brought about in science fiction novels mere decades ago. The methods with
which we consume music have changed drastically due to new technology. Not only
do we acquire and share it differently, we’ve actually begun listening
differently. Through reference of specific theories from various culture
critics as well as my own research in music psychology, I’ll attempt to explain
how portable media devices have changed our perception of music.
As
mp3 players became popular, more people started casually listening to music.
Certainly, music was popular before this, but the ease and portable nature of
the mp3 player increased the overall amount of music being consumed and
subsequently altered our listening habits. Portable walk-mans and cd players
became archaic quickly as we could now store a variety of albums in a sleek,
pocket-sized device - doubtfully more appealing than carrying a bag full of
cd’s around, incase you wanted to hear something other than the album you left
home with. Not to mention the stylability of these devices, due to the over-fetishized
qualities they display. Some people aren’t even listening; they’re functioning entirely as fashion accessories or
status symbols. They’re often used as deterrents as well, suggesting that if
someone is plugged in they’re occupying one of their senses and therefore
excluding themselves from the reality they’re otherwise totally a part of. All
of a sudden we have access to a new morning soundtrack to rouse us out of the
mundane routine, something to wear on the bus to avoid conversation, something
to listen to while studying because the second hand on the wall clock is
infuriatingly precise and so on.
Does
this accessibility of music come at a cost? Are more people listening because
of the music or is it something completely different? Perhaps if we remove
ourselves from the “stage” and take an outsiders view on the ways in which this
new listening structure has changed, we can start to draw some conclusions. The
technologies we use can reveal a great deal about our culture and the rate of
change it’s become a part of. As Marshall McLuhan was fond of saying, “We drive
into the future looking through the rear-view mirror. We march backwards into
the future,” meaning that we never really examine where we are, we instead only
reflect on the past and where we have been (McMahon, 2002). So if we alter our
position, gaining a perspective of the present, we can then make informed
decisions on how new technology will ultimately affect our surroundings. In his
book Laws of Media, McLuhan and his
son set out to provide a basis for the media observations he’d been writing
about. He claimed, “everything we invent has four essential effects.” The first
effect was that “every medium or technology enhances some human function,
exaggerating a body part or capacity of which it is an extension (McLuhan and
McLuhan 1988, 98 - 99).” To apply this to the portable music device we could
start with the most obvious extension, that of our ear. These devices extend
our ability to hear music from where the music was created, performed, recorded
- what have you. But what’s more important is what we’re extending via our ear,
for we are focusing on what the device itself is promoting not solely the
headphones.
Walter
Benjamin’s notions from The Work of Art
in The Age of Mechanical Reproduction help describe what happens to art and,
more importantly our perception of art, after original pieces of work have been
reproduced for mass consumption. With paintings, Benjamin describes a loss of aura that occurs when the original
painting has been reproduced. The aura,
according to Benjamin, is the singular authority within the work itself.
Reproducing paintings granted everyone access to them, allowing for open public
criticism. Before they had been reproduced they were only viewable to the few
privileged enough to behold their
magnificence, thus possessing great “cult value” (Benjamin 1936, 5). This
availability constructed a platform for discussion and politics amongst the
rest of society, changing how we were used to experiencing art. The same thing
happened with music: Initially it was shared simply through voice and
performance, printed and exchanged sheet music and eventually broadcasted over
the radio. It also became accessible once recorded and distributed on vinyl,
eight track, cassette, compact disc. Most recently it’s distribution and
sharing over the internet; which I believe is a wonderful platform for any
musician to share their work. However in my opinion, the way in which the
mobile music devices are conditioning
us to listen to music is quite detrimental. My two major concerns are the low
quality audio we’re being fed and how, for a number of reasons, they are
turning us into passive listeners. So, on the whole, like Benjamin I believe
the breakdown of the aura to be a
good thing as it has opened up the platform for globalized music sharing and
discussion, but the subsequent popular music listening methods are not letting
us truly experience music (Benjamin 1936, 4 - 5).
Benjamin
touches on performance art in his essay but it is difficult to comment on the aura through live performance; this may
be due to my own personal bias as a musician. Live performance does contribute
in Benjamin’s “loss of aura” as does any other platform for dispersing music.
However, I think the enthralling combination of expectation; excitement and
anticipation that audience members experience during a live performance create
a unique experience unlike anything possible via a recording. The emotional
state having left an enjoyable performance only adds to the experience and
becomes an immutable memory. The emotional experience of a live performance is
sought after in many studio recorded albums, but rarely achieved. The reproduced
versions of songs in popular music can become noticeably over-produced. All
kinds of things can be fixed or adjusted to suit a popular music trend,
ruining the spontaneity of anything experienced live. For example, things like
autotune can be used to keep a singers voice in the correct key, tracks will
get over compressed and increased in volume. According to Alf Gabrielsson, “performed
music represents everything the composer/performer is trying to convey in an
honest auditory manifestation.” He states, “our experience of music and our
ideas about music mainly derive from listening to performed music (Gabrielsson
1988, 27).” Think of the relationship between a Mozart sonata and how it’s
interpreted and performed by other composers. The audience’s impressions of
these performances vary from each one but the aura of Mozart’s symphony remains
intact. The new performed piece has it’s own aura in fact; that of the
contemporary composer. (To clarify the way I’m using aura here, it is not in
agreement with Benjamin’s aura. I’m
talking about the emotional experience of a piece of recognizable music
performed live and arguing that it is not significantly attributing to loss of
(Benjamin’s) aura, it is, rather,
generating it’s own aura, for that specific moment in time that may or may not
be referenced, based on the performance, for the rest of that particular
performer’s career. This seems like a much more intricate relationship with a
piece of music than you would get with a recording. To quote Jakomi Mathews
from musicvoid.com, a recording is not the song, it’s just an instance of it,
and a digital audio file is just an instance of the recording. Equating these
reduces music to recordings, to files.” From now on if I make reference to the aura of music it will be the experience of
the music performed live as explained above, unless stated otherwise.
We
have grown accustomed to the contemporary imperfections and without taking a
McLuhan-inspired stance we’ll never think to reconsider them. He states, “when
pushed to the limit, every new invention reverses the effect for which it was
intended (McLuhan and McLuhan 1988, 99).” The intended effect of the portable
music device is to give us the ability to bring music along with us when we
leave a stationary music device. We can now listen to music anywhere we’d like
no matter how socially awkward it may seem. Although music portability is not
experiencing a direct reversal, we are experiencing a detrimental effect on the
ways in which we value the music we’re listening to. We discussed how live
performance cannot be completely replicated, have these devices played a part
in removing the lasting aura of music as well? What else has the digitization
of music taken away from our experience of it?
Benjamin
states “during long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception
changes with humanity’s entire mode of existence (Benjamin 1936, 4).” The
excessiveness of media in our society today is bombarding our senses, altering
the way in which we experience it. There was an immense change when music
became available in one’s house that he or she could listen to and enjoy
privately. Before that people would own sheet music and perform their own or
travel to witness someone else performing it elsewhere acoustically. Now we can
experience it privately whilst being out in public. The accessible nature of mp3’s
via the device may be inadvertently creating a disconnect between the music
found digitally vs. where the music actually comes from. Paul Virilio speaks of
“the conceptual dimensions of time and space becoming fundamentally
destabilized due to modern technology’s strategic urge to produce better
results and more complete knowledge at an increasingly faster pace.” Perhaps
the availability of music made possible by the internet has “destabilized” it’s
position in time and space, stripping music of it’s romantic qualities. Virilio
also claims “speed allows the power of the real, a fixed location in time and
space, to disappear.” This could be applied again suggesting that us, the
consumers, are dealing with the reality of what we’re are accustomed to
vanishing due to the inconceivable amount of information (music) we have access
to. In other words we have too much to choose from and cannot decide what we
truly like. According to Virilio this “erosion of consciousness” is “a slow
cultural suicide” where “we are losing the means to distinguish between the
original and the copy…” (Hanes, 2-4).
My argument is that our devices are so efficient and reliable at providing us
with music instantly, wherever we’d like to obtain it that it’s deterring us
from really spending time experiencing the music; letting music “grow on us.”
The most popular method of music discovery today is actually quite detrimental due
to its presumptuous nature. The average user cannot distinguish between music
they do and do not enjoy, which ultimately leads to a sever music gloss-over.
This
intensity with which we are consuming music contributes directly to the lack of
emotion we experience when listening, this ultimately affects people’s ability
to choose what performances they’d like to experience live – which as
Gabrielsson said, is where “our ideas about music mainly derive from
(Gabrielsson 1988, 27).” Another law from Laws
of Media is that “every new invention retrieves something old by using it
in a new way (McLuhan and McLuhan 1988, 99).” Music that becomes digitized
becomes somewhat timeless in a sense; digital copies are pretty safe from incurring
damage. The new music platform created new methods of remastering older music.
So of course older music can be accessed again through new technology and
remain unchanged from then on. Due to the new ways of listening, songs with certain sentimental value, nostalgic
of a specific moment in time can become easily overplayed. The mix tape from
junior high suddenly loses all sentimental value after the 5th time
you’ve remixed it in iTunes. Some songs are as effective at evoking memories as
certain smells are. But a memory only lasts as a memory as long as it’s kept at
bay. If you try too hard to re-enact one you may risk the possibility of losing
it forever.
In
the digital music platform, mp3’s are probably the best example, are audio
files that have been compressed down enough to a bit rate a tenth the size of
what an uncompressed compact disc’s quality equates to. This is mainly due to
file size/storage issues on people’s personal devices. We’ve grown accustomed
to jeopardizing music quality to save space on our computers - that’s how much
people value their music today. The surpassing audio quality of vinyl compared
to a CD makes you wonder how mp3’s are even audibly bearable!
Jonathan
Berger, a music professor at Stanford, puts his incoming students through a
perception test at the start of every year. He gives them a variety of music to
listen to and then asks them to rate the songs in terms of highest and lowest
quality. What he's found is that the mp3-formatted songs are on a steady
incline to becoming most favorable over the other songs with superior audio
quality (Dougherty 2009.) Even music students cannot distinguish between good
and poor audio quality. This reinforces McLuhan’s argument that we “shape our
tools, and thereafter our tools shape us (McMahon, 2002).” The quality we’ve
adapted our ears to listen to has become the standard our brains perceive to be
true. He also states how “it’s a loop” of manufacturing, distributing,
marketing, “where we start out as consumer and wind up being consumed (McMahon,
2002).” Besides the most popular digital audio file distribution methods, there
is a growing number of “freemium” services that stream music at even lesser
qualities for next to nothing. P2p networks are still a popular platform for
music sharing as well; some argue that these files create an even greater
disconnect from the artist due to lack of authenticity, album artwork, etc. I
think the music should speak for itself, but obviously audio quality is a major
contributor to that conversation. As long as music is freely available then why
would a casual listener pay for a CD or Vinyl copy of their favorite music?
They could pay a dollar for a song if they feel morally obliged but they’re not
getting much better quality. Even if we were given access to a superior audio
format we would all need to shell out more money for new earbuds because the
ones included with our music devices today are made cheap -understandably,
given that they only have to transmit a small fraction of frequencies compared
to what our ears can actually pick up.
The
music market had to turn digital out of necessity. The unfortunate thing is the
lack of digital music available at a decent quality. This market is consuming
us. To share an example, people buy automobiles to be able to drive. They are
extending their own legs, making themselves more portable. As automobiles
become more popular the roads for which they travel on become more congested.
This results in less portability due to the fact that cars are spending more
time idling than actually moving. This also inadvertently contributes to the poor
air quality of that urban centre (McMahon, 2002.) As digital music became more accessible,
physical (compact disc, etc) music sales went down. To cope with this shift,
music corporations began selling digitally. New technology emerged with this and
changed the relationships we have with music, inadvertently conditioning our
ears to low quality audio. This, in my opinion, could have a negative effect on
people’s overall mood and listening abilities, causing more negative reactions
towards the music their devices are supplying them. There are currently no
studies I’m aware of linking contemporary audio quality of popular digital
music files with any negative emotional effects, but there is a lot of research
on noise pollution that link sound with a number of different health effects. Besides
the obvious strain on our ears and hearing-related issues, there are effects
that can disturb a person’s normal emotional balance. According to an article
in the British Medical Bulletin, “noise can interfere in complex task
performance and it modifies social behavior. There is an association with
hypertension but only weak relationships have been found between noise and
cardiovascular disease. Traffic noise exposure is associated with psychological
symptoms but not with clinically defined psychiatric disorder. In children,
chronic noise exposure impairs reading comprehension and long-term memory
(Stansfeld, Stephen and Matheson 2003, 244).” Music/sound vibration therapies
claim to stimulate different brainwaves through use of specific frequencies.
There are disclaimers however, stating not to over-expose yourself to any
frequencies. If these frequencies can be used to stimulate brainwave activity,
it doesn’t seem too far-fetched to imagine that overexposure to low quality
audio couldn’t might also affect us in some way. This could contribute, in
turn, to people actually listening
less. Listening more, in terms of exposure but due to subconscious strain, not
being able to listen as inherently as
our ears are built to, listening passively, (painfully even,) yet again.
In
conclusion, I think that the accessibility of music via the portable music
device is over-stimulating our listening capacities. The audio quality or lack
thereof is clouding our intellectual processes to truly hear music for what
it’s worth. The portable nature of these devices and instant access to such
broad collections of music are making us more passive listeners and stripping
any nostalgic connections we may have once had to specific songs or memories
from live performances. I agree that music quality is subjective, this is
proven through Berger’s study, but if this is the future of music I think we
should be a bit more adamant about the audio quality we’re receiving.
Benjamin, Walter. “The
Work of Art in The Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Frankfurt: Zeitschrift Fur
Sozialforschung, 1936. Accessed April 8, 2011 http://www.arch.kth.se/unrealstockholm/unreal_web/workofart.pdf.
Dougherty, Dale. “The
Sizzling Sound of Music.” March 1, 2009. Accessed March 25, 2011. http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-sizzling-sound-of-music.html.
Mathews, Jakomi. “The
Ongoing Devaluing of Music.” May 24, 2011. Acessed March 25, 2011. http://www.themusicvoid.com/2010/05/the-ongoing-devaluation-of-music/.
Marc Hanes. “Paul
Virilio and the articulation of post-reality.” Department of Philosophy,
Fordham University, Bronx, NY. Accessed March 21, 2011 http://www.haneswinereview.com/about/hanes_philosophy001.pdf.
McLuhan, Marshall, and
Eric McLuhan. “Laws of Media” in Laws of
Media: The New Science. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988. 94 –
128.
McLuhan, Marshall.
"The Medium is The Message." In Understanding
media: the extensions of man.
New York: New American Library, 1966. 19 – 40.
Mcluhan's Wake. DVD. Directed by Kevin
McMahon. Los Angeles: Disinformation, 2002.
Comments
Post a Comment