LinnDrum<\/a> and subsequent drum- and
\nsample-playback machines, and its arrival has yet to stop people from
\nbanging joyously on hard objects just as they’ve done since cave days.
\nMore is more. More is good. More is fun, and breeds more access to
\ncreativity and thus, breeds more creativity.<\/p>\nThis one small example–electronic drum sounds–raises an important
\ndiscussion of two distinct issues. First is the complete joy of having
\nmore tools. Fun, fun, fun. Bang on a skin head, or bang on the rubber pad
\nof a DrumKat that triggers samples, or hit a button or key to trigger
\nthose samples, requiring no banging at all, and all of them result in
\ndrumming sounds. Nifty.<\/p>\n
Next is the economic truth that yes, unquestionably, the arrival of new
\ntools sometimes means that the old tools are instantly obsolete. Often
\ncited is the buggy whip: once the automobile took over and people no
\nlonger traveled in horse-drawn carriages, the buggy whip industry went
\ndown the tubes. The downside of new technology. Not so nifty, if you were
\nan expert at making buggy whips.<\/p>\n
But in its place were millions of new jobs in a completely new industry.
\nThe upside of new technology. Might be nifty, if you could enjoy a career
\nthat’s… uh… riveting.<\/p>\n
When the LinnDrum became popular in the very early ’80s, it began an
\nenormous sea change in the recording industry and literally put many fine
\nmusicians out of work. At least, out of work doing the kinds of studio
\ngigs that paid their bills. I can tell you: I was there, working as an
\nengineer in a rock studio in Hollywood when one of the first retrofitted
\nMIDI LinnDrums came in (they were invented pre-MIDI), and we all learned
\nhow to program it. That synthetic sound aesthetically defined over a
\ndecade’s worth of pop music. Interesting times for music–all these huge
\nsounds (to go with the huge shoulder pads and the huge hair)–and a bad
\ntime for drummers. On a session, we’d sometimes use a drummer to trigger
\nthe box by playing an actual drum set, thus melding the old technology
\nwith the new, but just as often we’d simply program a track and have the
\nband play along with it.<\/p>\n
Nonetheless, lots of percussionists were resourceful and found new ways to
\nply their craft and their art. Some went with the “if you can’t beat ’em,
\njoin ’em” approach, and made money recording their own sample libraries.
\nOthers continued to work as drummers by becoming “triggerers” and
\nprogrammers themselves, since no one can create a MIDI drum track more
\nconvincingly than a real drummer. But neither of these examples has the
\ndrummer being able to purely work as an artist. For that, they created
\ntheir own ensembles, and also did what we all need to do in our careers:
\nthey created need. It became clear what the enormous differences are
\nbetween synthetic sounds and real ones, and a new class distinction was
\nmade (often due to budget) between the use of sampled musicians, and that
\nof living, breathing humans dripping beads of sweat onto the drum heads.<\/p>\n
Despite all the impressive drum samples out there now, there have never
\nbeen more percussionists playing in thousands of wind bands, orchestras
\nand small concert, jazz, and rock music ensembles around the globe. The
\nadvent of the drum machine technology did not stop people from being
\ndrummers. It just added drum machines.<\/p>\n
There persists an irrational fear that if just anybody can have access to
\nthe tools to make art, it lessens the standards for art. Since the
\nbeginning of time, everybody has had the same access to something as
\nsimple as a drum. And yet miraculously, lots of great drummers have
\nmanaged to create great careers.<\/p>\n
New digital tools are no different. The newfound ability to create
\nmash-ups from existing material initially recorded by others simply means
\nthat sound and visual artists have yet another medium from which to choose
\nas they create their own statement (I am ignoring the obvious debate on
\ncopyright issues for the moment). The availability of technology to allow
\nus to do remixes will not stop the flow of new string quartets.<\/p>\n
Most importantly, quality does rise to the top, more than many realize.
\nThe economy of art is largely based on the public’s desire to experience
\nsomething. So the difference between an amateur and a professional is as
\nsimple as supply and demand: the latter will almost always be in more
\ndemand. And demand creates the viable economic market for an artist.<\/p>\n
We’re in a world in which sampled drums and live ones coexist, often on
\nthe same tracks. We are also in a world in which art is made of original
\nmaterial from the efforts of one artist, as well as made from original
\nmaterial culled from many other sources, thus creating a new original
\nwork. Adaptability is why our species has been so successful, yet we are
\nresistant to it. Many people fear change, especially when the status quo
\nis working for them. This is human nature, and still, it’s also human
\nnature to explore and invent. Ultimately, we each invent our own balance.
\nIf we can avoid being fearful of the new and instead, ask ourselves how we
\ncan use it to our advantage, we’ll see technology as a gift and not a
\nthreat, and we’ll view most advances as positive opportunities. Fun, fun,
\nfun!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
By Alex Shapiro Marc Weidenbaum’s post below, “Bach to the Future,” reminds us that floating among the myriad of issues Lawrence Lessig raises in Remix, from copyright concerns to aesthetic ones, there is also the topic of psychology, and the resistance many have to to embracing any new, paradigm-altering technology. Often when a new technology […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-116","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-bookclub","7":"entry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=116"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=116"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=116"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=116"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}