Which Development Most Revolutionized Music?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=58973
Printed Date: February 23 2025 at 09:58
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Which Development Most Revolutionized Music?
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Subject: Which Development Most Revolutionized Music?
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 07:05
|
Aside from the inventions of musical instruments...
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Replies:
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 07:20
Written music by far. I think that started around Byzantine and Gregorian Chant, and we've been in for a great ride ever since 
|
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 07:43
|
Probably the invention of one of these genres: ../subgenre.asp?style=44 - Experimental/Post Metal ../subgenre.asp?style=43 - T ../subgenre.asp?style=43 - ech/Extreme Prog Metal ../subgenre.asp?style=32 - Post Rock/Math Rock ../subgenre.asp?style=3 - Crossover Prog ../subgenre.asp?style=42 - Eclectic Prog I guess historically The Phongraph is almost as revolutionary as Written Music ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 07:52
|
^ But that only revoplutionised the way we listen to music. So I vote for Written. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 08:41
|
I just realized I left out radio and satellite radio, though they are mediums that used other media... I grew up with radio but have long since abandoned it pretty much.
I think genres that revolutionized music are worthy of their own poll... |
Rocktopus wrote:Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 11:21
| I went with tape. I can't imagine all the music that has been performed in the past and had to be a one shot recording due to not having tape that has been lost. Written music is important but for me that is a given. Modern music existed for hundreds of years prior to tape. Tape made it possible to save that music for future generations. Just my humble opinion. |
Posted By: Sangria
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 11:50
True that music has existed since the first dinosaur farted, but without radio exposure I don't think it would have 'exploded' like it has. How many modern day bands were created because kids many decades ago were trying to get their song played on the local radio station. So I think exposure is the greatest factor. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Stooge
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 12:36
|
I'm leaning towards the phonograph or some other form of recorded sound. Being able to hear a musical performance without being in the presence of the band or musician outweighs written music, in my opinion, because the audio recording means more to the general public than written music (which not everyone can interpret). However, written music (traditional or some form of tabulature) makes it easier for musicians to share musical ideas with each other instead of saying "put your fingers here" or something similar. Hard choice, but I'll vote for the phonograph. |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 13:18
| While being able to listen to music may outweigh written music in some peoples opinions, writing music down gave it the ability to be passed along and evolve more and more |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 13:52
| Actually, three hundred years ago music was played a lot in theatres and the most successful stuff was spreading very fast by oral means. And it was also the snobbery - everybody wanted to see other people at the theatres, and wanted to be seen. There were the good seats, for nobles and other fancy persons, and there was the gallery where everybody could come (it was very cheap). It was unlikely, at that time, that one wouldn't attend to various shows. I'd say that the phonograph and the radio were not that big of a revolution. They brought music to the people, but before people used to go for the music. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 14:42
|
from your list I'd say the phonograph, but I tend to think it was electronic amplification |
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 14:47
Damn you Atavachron. Exactly what I was going to say!  ------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 14:56
|
Written music, of course. It's not very reliable to reproduce music otherwise. Without that, you're basically taking a guess on how the composer played it, unless he's standing right over you critiquing you. Without written music, just like oral stories, the originals will never survive hundreds of years intact.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: DJPuffyLemon
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 15:01
| i vote invention of audio ("tape"). for the above reasons. imo, much more important than anything that came afterward, since those were just improvements over the original.....in second place is written music, however i'm pretty sure that mostly only classical music was preserved in this way, so tape would've been much better if it was available then to the commonfolk. also, internet definately revolutnionized music distribution, so i'd put that 4th, after radio. |
Posted By: meptune
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 15:07
|
The development of written language is one the greatest advances in human history allowing for, not only the documentation and disemination of information, but also serving as an incredible organizational tool. I think the same can said for the development of a musical lexicon. The development of an alphabet (if you will) for music, provided a means for historical record, wide spread distribution, and a means of visual representation that allowed one to analyze music in a different way. Our memories are limited, so when you can write something down, you can more easily study it, analyze it, amend it, and build upon it. Please be aware that I am in no way suggesting that you need to read music in order to be a musician - brilliant or otherwise. Indeed history has demonstrated time and again that there is no logical correlation between the abillity to read music and the abillity to produce great works. I'm merely saying that the development of a written language advanced music theory exponentially.
In comparison I think it is safe to say that developments in recording technology also allow for not only a historical record and provide a means for wide spread distribution, but have also made possible previously unimaged methods of composition such as musique concrete, backward tracking, and others. However I don't necessarily believe that recording technology has had as broad an effect on music theory and composition as writing has.
There was, in an earlier post, a suggestion that the development of certain musical genres has revolutionzied music. I would argue that it isn't genres but techniques developed in those genres that cause the greater change. For instance, I think the development of a dodecaphonic (12 tone) technique in composition did more to revolutionize classical music than any technological adcancement has. ------------- 
"Arf, she said" |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 15:15
Being able to record music has totally revolutionised the way artists can create music. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 15:16
Has it? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 15:22
Karaoke 
|
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 15:23
There's so many ways to creat music that wasn't possible before you could record it. You can cut and paste, and create a melody/song/track that never actually "happened", or combine extracts from several jams, to create a whole. People that can't read notes (or play an instrument, or sing) can spend a year in a studio and record a three minute "masterpiece" etc... [/QUOTE] ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 15:25
Even better, Guitar Hero.  ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 16:05
|
I think written music alongside music theory (as in the science of cadences, modes, etc) revolutionised music entirely.
------------- "Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value." Arnold Schoenberg |
Posted By: meptune
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 17:28
Keep in mind, writing music is recording. The musician has recorded his thoughts on paper. That said, most of what you've described here actually came with the advent of writing. You can "cut and paste" sections in a written score. By writing it, you do create a piece of music that hasn't actually "happened". You can write for instruments that you can't play, you merely need to know what they are capable of. These "revolutionary" advancements occured long before audio recording. The "revolution" that came with audio recording is simply the new ability to manipulate the audio playback. The music had to exist first. -------------
"Arf, she said" |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 17:38
|
^You couldn't do these things "live" and then manipulate the sound. I
mean the producers of music has ended up being the stars as a resdult
of recording. I think your writing is recording comparison is far fetched, and it certainly isn't the same as recording a band improvising or jamming. And btw, I only wrote that its almost as revolutionary as Written Music ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: meptune
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 19:48
Why is this far fetched? To record means to create a semi permenant document. Our ancient ancestors recorded events in pictures on cave walls. Once we could write, we created written records. A Mozart manuscript is as much a record of his work as an audio recording of the LSO performing it. Obviously a manuscript is not identical to an electronic audio recording (I never said it was) and certainly there are things the latter can do that are impossible with the former, however, I don't think it's far fetched at all to draw comparisons. -------------
"Arf, she said" |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 20:35
|
I'm going with the phonograph. My understanding is that is what brought diverse music to the masses on a regular basis. Regarding written music, how is a Bach or Mozart manuscript a record of his work (other than the obvious fact that it documents it)? We still don't know how they intended it to sound, hence at least in the classical arena numerous interpretations of a given artist's work. ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 21:04
Even though I posed the question I still haven't made a choice. For centuries written music was the primary means that music was shared by. It was the foundation that the other forms were built upon. Tape, the phonograph, and radio (sorry I didn't think of including that) kind of went hand in hand. I believe the phonograph came in first, but it wasn't long before albums were recorded on tape and then records were made from that and that was the medium that was used to reproduce music for radio broadcasts. Then the cassette and the 8-track brought new portability to music. Radio was sort of portable, though you weren't in control of what was being played. Of course you could always call in requests. For those of us who grew up on records the CD was a big leap forward as you no longer had the medium subject to needle damage, not that there aren't other ways to mess up a CD. The other advantage was that you could access any track quickly and didn't have to flip a record over or drop the needle at the beginning of the track. Vinyl almost died out, but there are many enthusiasts out there keeping that medium alive. The VHS, now approaching extinction, was incredible when it was developed to the point where you both could see a performance and hear it in hi-fi. Of course the DVD came along and blew that out of the water. VHS tapes are subject to degradation and not easy to access sections of the recorded material. It will be interesting to see where we go beyond the digital music file, if anywhere other than refinements in storage capacity of the devices. When I got my first player I looked on it as kind of faddish. But now that I can take along my entire music collection in a device not much bigger than a cassette. And while we're at it, a big thumbs up to the internet, which has brought all of us together at this site, and has surpassed radio as a source of music discovery for me. 
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 23:19
Presenting recorded sound and written notes like there's not that much of a difference is far fetched, imo. Its the soundrecording I think "revolutionised" music. Before recorded sound Mozart's Requiem was to performers, conductors etc. the notes he wrote. The best performance/recording can be many different ones. Robert Wyatt's Rock Bottom is Robert Wyatt's Rock Bottom because its recorded in a studio, and LP's were made of that piece of constructed music. The notes and lyrics to Alifib aren't pointless, but it wouldn't really be Alifib without Wyatt himself singing it: Not nit not nit no not Nit nit folly bololy Burlybunch, the water mole Hellyplop and fingerhole Not a wossit bundy, see ? For jangle and bojangle Trip trip Pip pippy pippy pip pip landerim Alifi my larder Alifi my larder All popular music, rock, artists, boybands, electroaqoustic ... the whole 20th century's history of sound wouldn't sound anything near how it ended up sounding, if we still had to buy notes and play it in our living room on a piano, synthesizer or any other instrument to hear the sound of Mozart or anyone else's music (or attend to a concert). And a lot of music that does exist, wouldn't. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: meptune
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 23:34
I never suggested, intimated, or implied in any way that there is "not that much difference" between a written manuscript and an electronic audio recording. Technologically, they as different as a book is from a film. I'm saying that there are comparisons that can be drawn. Do you think that a book and film are so fundamentally different as to be incomparable; likewise for a manuscript and an audio recording? I think THAT'S far fetched. -------------
"Arf, she said" |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 23:44
| Written music, although electricity has had to have been the greatest contributor today. If it weren't for electricity, music might be more segregated, since you wouldn't be able to share it over the internet/radio. There also wouldn't be any recorded music either, so you either would learn to play it or listen to someone else play it. |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 23:47
Fine. I read what you wrote like you did.
No. Like I wrote, I just think recording sound revolutionised music, almost as much as written. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 24 2009 at 01:43
Hmmm. I strill disagree. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: meptune
Date Posted: June 24 2009 at 02:20
Hey Rocky, no worries. I agree with you! Audio recording has revolutionised music! -------------
"Arf, she said" |
Posted By: Sangria
Date Posted: June 24 2009 at 17:12
|
I still think exposure (primarily radio) is the largest factor in that, it brought music (and the recordings you speak of) to the largest audience in the quickest manner. Theater was great, but other than postbills and word of mouth, how would you know what to seek out. With radio, as a kid in the '60's, I would hear a song on my little AM transistor radio and that is how I learned of new bands etc....aside from my older brothers. But without radio, how would you have heard the Beatles in the first place, unless you saw them on Ed Sullivan or saw them "Live" at the cavern etc... I would hear a band on the radio and then go get the 8-track (wow did those suck) / or album. -------------
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: June 25 2009 at 10:30
|
Hi,
I think that both written music and vinyl ... changed music forever ...
Written music may have been the first and probably most important in terms of the propagation of music learning ... why?
Easy math ... the world at that time was not "that big" or populated ... the distances between places were huge and there were only horse carriages or your feet for transportation ... so you can imagine that all of a sudden someone can bring music to you, and can bring a little instrument with them ... and teach you and have you practice on your own ... where before you would have to remember it or die.
The vinyl age ... did something else ... it showed the world that there was music every where ... and of all different kinds ... and as such, it would expand the knowledge that there was a whole lot more than just sheet music ... and for all intents and purposes it did one thing that was only local before ... it blew up popular music ... all of a sudden popular music is huge ... and it took the business 50 years to realize they could let classcal music die on its own and that the money was in pop music!
They both were important ... by our standards and what we are used to seeing, we're gonna think that vinyl is more important ... when in essence both were equally so. Before vinyl if an orchestra didn't come through you didn't know what a violin was or what it did more than likely ... see the difference?
|