What do you think about the future of music

[fingerpikingood]

I'm not sure if that face is supposed to mean i'm full of it or not. but just in case, if you do the research then you'll find that they've taken rats limbs off and detached them from the nervouse system and then reattached them in some different order and their brains figured it out.


they also put micro chips in monkeys' brains, and the brain eventually figured out it was controlling a mouse pointer on a computer and they played a simple game like choosing numbers in the correct order or something. wirelessly, hands free, telepathic style.

the brain is smart that way.

it is actually in no way different then when you do the cross your hands trick inside out (hard to explain) and then you don't know how to move the right finger anymore.

then your brain figures it out.


and when you learn an instrument. that's no different physiologically than plugging a bionic arm in your brain.

people say it's like the instrument becomes an extension of your body. that is not just a figure of speech.

it actually does. the brain associates a set, a combination of neurons firing to achieve an end result.

but you must train it to do so.

same with plugging a bionic arm in your head. all of a sudden you will be able to control new stuff. but it will take you a while to learn how to use it properly.

our brain doesn't "know" how many limbs were supposed to have. but only four of them are plugged into it. that's all.

iow you could theoretically plug a digital piano into your brain and play it that way, more then 10 keys at once. but it will take you as long to master as it would a real piano. starting young would probably help.

heck you could even plug a full orchestra into your brain that way. but the overwhelming majority of humans wouldn't be able to handle thinking of so many things at once.

with the right kind of "software" or "interface" i.e. not needing to actually think about playing 10 violins at once as though they were individual objects and simplifying it as sheet music does, then i think mozart could have done something like this. because he could imagine full orchestras at once and improvise them all at once, at least his composing style seems to indicate that. but the huge majority of others i don't think could handle this. when you think about it, imagining full orchestras that way is really quite a feat.

so technology might one day permit for someone to freestyle a full orchestra and others to be able to hear it.

and in all seriousness we are not so far away from the ability.

lots of stuff about humans is crazy that way. stem cells and stuff like that too. the human body is incredibly adaptable.

it's not our knowledge that is more advanced than you think. it's our brains.

look it up.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by bluesking

There are a couple of reasons I still want albums around, but as I was originally saying, most people don't, and these people should form the natural "demand". If they want singles, give them singles. Music is for them more than it is for us (and obviously a lot more than it is for the record companies).

I personally will miss the album. Not because of the physical medium nor the packaging. Only the thematic development that can be realised in a linear arrangement of movements. I can only fully enjoy bands like Chicago & King Crimson when in album form. A single song in a compilation ruins the dramatic effect of the album. Its not just old fogey bands though, I hear Dream Theatre are regarded in a similar light in this respect although I can't say I have listened to much of their stuff.

Of course many bands don't use the album format in this way and they would do just fine with singles only (e.g. I couldn't tell you which album most AC/DC songs are on even though I own all of their albums and I know all of their songs by heart).

Another reason I will sort of miss albums is because, as you say, most albums contain at least one song someone doesn't like. Yes, it spoils the album. But do you remember the feeling of hearing an album with no such songs on it? To find that album where everything sits well together is a magical feeling. Every time I listen to The Nightfly by Donald Fagan I get chills all the way through the whole album. To me, there is not one note on the whole album which doesnt fascinate and please me. If all those songs were muddled up with the whole Steely Dan / Fagan catalogue that magic would be diminished.

Aside from that I agree with all your sentiments, JonR.

I agree about the Nightfly (a rare 100% success), tho I disagree about mixing it up with Steely Dan. I often get confused about which songs are Fagen solo and which are Dan (at least later Dan), and it doesn't bother me. (But then I don't own any Dan albums...)

I also disagree about prog (if we can call it that). I've never heard a convincing "concept" album, where it didn't sound as if a few good short ideas had been artificially stretched, or bolted on to others, just to make it seem like a developing concept. IMO, rock is not made for that sort of thing. There may be one or two rock composers who have the skill and knowledge (say from a classical education) to be able to write a successful 20-minute composition. I just haven't heard any.

That's just my taste, of course (and no doubt controversial opinion)! If we all agreed on everything, the world would be a dull place...

[bluesking]

Originally Posted by fingerpikingood

and when you learn an instrument. that's no different physiologically than plugging a bionic arm in your brain.

I think you need to put this quote in your sig.

[bluesking]

Originally Posted by JonR

I agree about the Nightfly (a rare 100% success), tho I disagree about mixing it up with Steely Dan. I often get confused about which songs are Fagen solo and which are Dan (at least later Dan), and it doesn't bother me. (But then I don't own any Dan albums...)

I also disagree about prog (if we can call it that). I've never heard a convincing "concept" album, where it didn't sound as if a few good short ideas had been artificially stretched, or bolted on to others, just to make it seem like a developing concept. IMO, rock is not made for that sort of thing. There may be one or two rock composers who have the skill and knowledge (say from a classical education) to be able to write a successful 20-minute composition. I just haven't heard any.

That's just my taste, of course (and no doubt controversial opinion)! If we all agreed on everything, the world would be a dull place...

I have no problems at all with your point of view. All I am saying is that natural, freemarket supply and demand does not work in absolutes. If you (and most other people) don't care for albums then there will surely be fewer albums produced but that number won't reach zero untill there is absolutely no demand for them.

The only market model capable of such absolute decisions is the record company. Through a combination of marketing decisions, physical limitations and financial conerns they are just as capable of destroying the album format as they were creating it.

I don't mean to suggest that destruction of the album format is actually what the record companies want. If they have one characteristic it is their fear of the unkown. Why would they mess with their current way of doing things when they won't even change their paradigms as technology overtakes them? All I was trying to do was alleviate any fears album fans may have had about the death of the record company. The death of the record company will not realistically destroy the album format, just diminish it. The death of the record company is a good thing.

[fingerpikingood]

Originally Posted by bluesking

I think you need to put this quote in your sig.

lol.

it's true though. from a brainwork perspective. your brain is doing the same "calculations" but instead of neuron pattern combo x firing which would play C arpeggio let's say. you could just plug in a device that plays C arpeggio straight in your brain. either way you need to learn the thing.

which is no different than the owrk you need to do when your fingers are crossed inside out and you need to re learn how to move the right finger.

[fingerpikingood]

Originally Posted by bluesking

I have no problems at all with your point of view. All I am saying is that natural, freemarket supply and demand does not work in absolutes. If you (and most other people) don't care for albums then there will surely be fewer albums produced but that number won't reach zero untill there is absolutely no demand for them.

The only market model capable of such absolute decisions is the record company. Through a combination of marketing decisions, physical limitations and financial conerns they are just as capable of destroying the album format as they were creating it.

I don't mean to suggest that destruction of the album format is actually what the record companies want. If they have one characteristic it is their fear of the unkown. Why would they mess with their current way of doing things when they won't even change their paradigms as technology overtakes them? All I was trying to do was alleviate any fears album fans may have had about the death of the record company. The death of the record company will not realistically destroy the album format, just diminish it. The death of the record company is a good thing.

I'd even say tha companies don't want that.

just like cable tv companies.

if you say i'll sell you 1000 channels for just 30 dollars a month. hey great deal.

but let's say you only really like 2 channels, and only watch two channels.

you won't pay 30$ for two channels. so by bundling companies can basically sell you stuff you don't want. which is profitable for them because, well, they sell more stuff.

albums is the same.

if you pay per song. you get more exactly what you want. and so you pay less.

20 song album for 20$ a dollar a song.

when yo ubuy a 20 song album you bought 20 songs. if you only like one tune on the album, now you can buy all you want from the album for 1$.

before it was more like 20$ or nothing. or crappy quality recording.

so actually there might be more opportunity for more artists to have basically one hit wonders. less artist allegiance.

more artists making money but each one making less. unless they make alot of songs alot of people like. and full albums people want.

[Madaxeman]

Originally Posted by Marlinark

With such a big amount of different sites there should be a method to stop this. Which come to my solution. We want to universify mp3 to one area.

Just considering the future, any input or noticed logical fallacies?

Why would you want to stop or restrict MP3 availability?
I am guessing doing this would be considered a monopoly by the US Gov't.

I used to use a tape recorder to get songs off the radio and make mixed tapes that way. The concept was the same when CDR's came out.
The concept is still the same, only it is the internet and MP3's and iPOD's, etc...

There are lots of ways to get free music (legally) and many artists are offering free MP3's. The idea is to get you into their stuff, increasing the chance you will buy more songs, or their CD or the full MP3 album.

Almost all new CD releases are coming out in deluxe editions that have DVD's. The MVI format has the songs already in MP3 format so you can stick it right on your iPOD or whatever.

The artists are adapting...

[fingerpikingood]

still though mp3s and p2p sharing of them coupled with lossless digital audio is a whole different beast from recording your tunes off the radio on bad soundings tape recorders with announcers talking or another song fading in and out at the start and end of the tune.

plus it's harder to get exactly the songs you want that way.

nowadays you could catch wind of a song and 5 minutes later own it. legally or illegally.