The last week or so, I kept telling myself that I had to write something. I had to make a concerted effort to write something. Anything. But what? And then this article was posted on Drowned In Sound. A lengthy discussion ensued on Twitter between myself and Adam from songsfortheday regarding the article. Needless to say, blocks of 140 characters was not the ideal form for that debate. After we had both made our respective arguments, I had more thoughts on the subject and decided that is what I should write about.
It's a rather short article and I would recommend reading it quickly before continuing. For those of you that would rather not, Steve Ansell from the band Blood Red Shoes is making the argument that music is becoming a passive experience. The crux of his argument is thus:
I have a tendency to value ANYTHING a lot more when I've worked for it, earnt it or somehow participated in it, and that includes music. But now....I don't spend time listening to a song, developing my own sense of narrative and actually creating (in part) the meaning of the song. Nope. I can just read the track-by-track breakdown online. I don't have to leave my house to buy the album, I can buy it online and have it delivered, download it for free, or just stream it. I don't wonder what the band are like live, I can find out on YouTube before I even bother to get a ticket. I don't even need to search very hard to discover new bands because I've got a couple of blogs which represent my kind of taste and I just read them every couple of days. It's an incredibly passive experience. It's all right there ready for me, pre-packed. It's a fucking microwave meal.
After tweeting a link to the article, Adam tweeted me the following:
@InMyTreeBlog still don't buy the argument. you have to work to find stuff you love. were we this pissed about radio? or mtv? or tapes?
— Adam Sharp (@asongfortheday)
Do we still have to work to find stuff we love? Yes. Is it less work than it used to be? Yes. I don't think an argument can be made that the same amount of effort is currently required to find stuff that you love. When I was a teenager, the CD was king. Music stores had ceased carrying tapes and Napster may as well have been a term used to describe someone who was fond of taking naps or perhaps a napping hamster and an mp3 sounded like an obscure character from the Star Wars universe. The Internet was in its infancy. Getting new music involved hearing or reading about it somewhere, which in and of itself was more difficult considering there were far fewer resources for doing so. Then you had to get yourself to a music store where you would buy a CD or two. If you were lucky, your car had a CD player and you could pop it in immediately. Otherwise, you had to wait until you got home to listen to it for the first time. Now? You can visit countless websites or blogs to discover new music. You could open any one of countless streaming radio / music discovery services to do the same. If you hear something you like, you can then open up Spotify and listen again...for free. If you really like it, you can open up iTunes and click "Purchase" and seconds later the track is added to your iTunes library. Of these two options, it is hard to argue for the former. It involved a lot more work and carried more risk. Plopping down $15 or more for an album that you heard one, maybe two, songs from was risky. In arguing for the current system of music discovery and music listening, Adam makes many valid points. It's never been more convenient to be a music fan than it is today...but that's where we disagree. Does convenience necessarily mean better?
As Ansell says, "it's a fucking microwave meal," and we all recognize that microwave meals are far more convenient than conventional methods of food preparation, but we also recognize that microwave meals aren't necessarily better than conventional methods. For a minute, let's pretend that microwave meals taste as good as real food. (I feel comfortable in referring to microwave meals as something other than real.) Even though they taste as good, would we value them as much as food that took us more time or money to prepare? I'd argue that we wouldn't. This is where I agree with Ansell. He never states that we don't love things more when we don't work for them, only that we value them more. Time and effort are at a premium and therefore we are likely to value something more when we exchange time and effort for it. Digital music, be it streaming or mp3s, isn't inferior to CDs, tapes, or vinyl. It's simply more convenient and therefore easier to take for granted. It's easy to forget the value in something that is not tangible. Something that was purchased from the comfort of your home with the click of a button and was delivered almost instantly. Spending the time driving, walking, or taking the bus to a music store, exchanging money, or at the very least a credit card, with a human being in exchange for a packaged object is likely to give that object more value to you. Will you love it or enjoy it more than you will an mp3? Probably not. Will you spend more time listening to it than you would an mp3? That's debatable though I'd say yes. Certainly more than something you streamed for free.
Speaking of free, it's hard to value something if you feel it has no value...you know, as in getting it for free. Not counting piracy, between YouTube, Pandora, and Spotify, there's virtually no point paying for music. I'd say the majority of people rarely, if ever, pay for music anymore. Asnell speaks of music fans feeling entitled and it's hard to argue that a generation raised on free music wouldn't feel entitled. Even older fans feel entitled after overpaying for CDs for years.
Now, Adam and I have debated similar topics before and he is of the belief that it's crazy to long for the days of purchasing an album only to find out that there's one good song amidst a sea of terrible songs. I have purchased many terrible albums, so naturally I concede this point to him. Obviously, it's great to have the benefit of being able to listen to something before purchasing it...if you decide to purchase it at all. However, I probably gave those albums the chance to grow simply based on the fact that I had already spent the money and it was the only new music I had. Lately, I've wondered if the musical landscape has outgrown the "grower." You know, those albums that you didn't love at first, but came to appreciate more and more with each listen.
While we were arguing about the merits of jumping from track to track as opposed to listening to an album front to back, Adam asked me an interesting question: Why should I listen to an album with one good song and nine bad ones when I could listen to a mix of ten songs that I know I like? As I told him, he shouldn't. It's his prerogative to do whatever he wants...but doesn't that speak to a sense of entitlement? Why should I have to listen to a song that I'm not crazy about? I only want to listen to songs that I know I like. I know he's not really saying that, but I'm sure that there are plenty of people out there who feel that way. Going back to the "microwave meal" analogy, a mix sounds a lot like a Hungryman to me. A little bit of everything, all in one neat little plastic package.
Adam also pointed out that growing up likely has something to do with our sense of nostalgia for the way things used to be. His contention is that I am looking back to a time where I had more free time because I didn't have to work full-time or devote time to the myriad other responsibilities that adults generally have. As he said, "we can't just sit on our floors all day and listen" to music. Obviously, he's right. However, I think that only tells half the story. When we were younger, we were "sitting on the floor" because that was one of the only places to listen to music. Sure, there were Walkmen and Discmen, but it's not as if I could carry all my music around with me, so my listening choices were generally limited to the one tape or CD I left the house with. Even as CD players became ubiquitous in cars, I was still limited to a handful of CDs. This led to a lot of repeat listening.
I would make the argument that listening to music has become passive because it's everywhere now. We are connected 24/7. Everywhere I go, I have my entire music collection with me. It's on my laptop. It's on my phone. To put things in perspective, my first car had a single disc CD player. My next had a 6-disc changer. Now? My iPhone, which contains my entire 25,000+ song library thanks to iTunes Match, plays music in my car via Bluetooth. 25,000+ songs and no wires. It's crazy. Listening to music does not require our attention anymore. Maybe it never did, but it's easier to take it for granted when it's alway there. I no longer have to carve out time to listen to it.
To make matters worse, distractions abound. More often than not, when I'm listening to music I'm browsing the internet. Rarely does it ever get my full attention. There have been countless times where I've listened to a song or an album and can hardly remember having listened to it. Again, passive listening. Maybe it's just me, but I'd bet against it. There have been countless studies that have shown that we have shorter attention spans than ever before. The current models of music lend themselves to an ADD-type listening. Jumping from one thing to the next, often before the current song has even finished playing. Why? Because we can. That's why. Because it's so easy. No longer do we actually have to get up to flip a record after a side finishes or change CDs after one has finished. Listening has become passive because it no longer requires a great amount of participation.
I understand that I'm basing this off of my particular listening habits, past and present, and by no means does this apply to everyone...but I know I'm not alone. Steve Ansell is with me. Read the comments to that post and the two of us have plenty of company.
Although I clearly believe music to be more passive than in the past, it doesn't necessarily diminish our collective love of music. If anything, it only speaks to that undying love. Music is everywhere because that's where we want it. In his final tweet, Adam hit it out of the park:
@InMyTreeBlog it's all based on their love of music- as it was with our generation and all others. people who love music, love music.
— Adam Sharp (@asongfortheday)
That was something I simply couldn't argue. Ultimately, he's right...and maybe that makes this a pointless argument to have in the first place. Maybe Anell is right in that music has become more passive. Maybe it has become "a fucking microwave meal." Maybe fans do feel more entitled. However, none of that speaks to our love of music...and Adam's right, "People who love music, love music."
Check out Adam's website, songsfortheday. He's a great dude with a great ear for music and usually posts at least one song every day for your listening pleasure. Follow us both on Twitter so you can be privy to our next debate.
stormborns
kaledo-art
snowghoul
tangentwithtanner
origamiaround
kianamaiart
turnnoffyourmind
annaxmalina
