It’s 2009 and we are soon to be entering a new decade of (no doubt) further technical innovation. Hell, things have changed significantly since the 90′s and that wasn’t that long ago! Since vinyl records came about, things have evolved! From vinyl to tapes, tapes to CD’s, CD’s to the short-lived footnote of the music world “the mini-disc” and then evolving from all these physical products to the downloading culture of today. Looking back Walkman’s were a sight to behold at the time and no-one even considered the possibility of an iPod type of device. What does this have to do with analogue vs digital? Well it’s a brief timeline of how things have changed since vinyl records were introduced as the premier listening method of music. Surely the newer methods would be better right? However this is where the debate lies…

Vinyl records are the closest representation of the overall master that leaves the studio. In other words the music coming out of the speakers when the record is playing is how the artist intended you to hear it. So, how do CD’s lessen this experience? Well, because of the size of vinyl, more data can be etched onto it resulting in a fuller more rounded audio signal. CD’s are a different matter. Because they have less space to put the full audio on, the signal is chopped up and then pieced together, missing out certain (small) parts of the track. Without getting too technical, the bit-rate is increased so that the gaps between the samples fool the ear (our hearing fills in these gaps). So really we are comparing the closest audio representation (vinyl) to an inferior signal (CD), all to make the disc more “compact”.

Many people claim not to hear the difference between the two forms, but I would extend the comparison to music videos. If you take a music video from today (usually ultra-polished, visual touched etc) and then take, say, the “Smells Like Teen Spirit” video. You can see a difference in character. Polished compared to the more grainy, organic finish. I’ve always noticed that vinyl sounds “sharper” and that the drums in particular are more defined and sound way better than on any CD. It really is quite fun and surprising to see the difference between the two when they are played next to each other! Also when you’re playing a record on turntables, there isn’t really a need to EQ the music (depending on the quality of your speakers) as this has been done in the studio to the desired level. Without adding additional EQ to the signal, the record plays as the artist intended you to hear it!

One of the most important factors that I feel has brought vinyl back into the mainstream is the so called “loudness war”. If you are unaware of what this is then prepare to be taken aback… There was a time where music would be made dynamically (that is have quiet and loud parts both distinguishable on a track). During the 00′s in particular there has become a belief that if your music is louder it will sell more copies and make a bigger impact when it’s on the radio. Upon first look you would probably think “fair enough, it’s not like the song is being compromised right?”. Wrong! During the mastering stages of a lot of today’s music, the gap between the louder and quieter parts of a track is shrunk. Ultimately this takes the tracks dynamics out and makes the song the same level of loudness throughout. To make up for the track being quiet overall, gain is applied to boost the whole signal. So, in short what has happened is the dynamic track has had it’s dynamics removed and has been made louder! (just to sell more copies!). A great example of this is Metallica’s “Death Magnetic” album. You can’t hear many dynamics and the gain applied to boost the overall signal has been made so loud that the whole track clips (distorts). The music has been pretty much ruined just to make more of an impact! Ridiculous right? However, does the same apply to vinyl? Well, the limitations of vinyl make it so that the compression and loudness are restricted so that the record is playable. Because of this, the loudness war will never cause vinyl to suffer like its digital counterpart.

Example of the “Loudness War”

It wouldn’t surprise me if it was proven that the “loudness war” is a key reason why vinyl is making a comeback. A digital rebellion of sorts. If you want to listen to music, you want it to be at the highest quality available right? Not compromised because of other non-musical related reasons! However, quality aside, I think that the analogue world has a more interesting musical culture than that of the digital age. Some could argue better! Record shops are a great musical institution and are still alive today (I would urge you to support your local ones as they really are great places!). The sense of community found in a record store is admirable and sadly becoming a thing of the past. Instead of it being about buying and spending money like inside your local high street retailer, there is a sense of underground camaraderie with fellow record owners with them being able to recommend you new purchases. Some of which you may have never heard of! Independent bands have been known to release material only on 7″ vinyl (in keeping with their underground/indie ethos). There’s something quite special about knowing that people who own a record player and listen to music in that manner are the ones that can hear your music. It may not be the most commercially viable way but it’s pretty cool in its display of total digital disregard.

So, if vinyl is so good, why was it replaced and made pretty much obsolete in the mainstream music world? Well, I guess the saying is true… size does matter! The scale of vinyl records make it pretty tricky to carry about and impossible to listen to on the move. CD’s were initially made to give a more portable alternative to vinyl. Shrinking down the disc and artwork for convenience. If music comes with artwork, than why not have it the proper size instead of shrunken down? It seems every part of the shift from analogue to digital is based around convenience over quality. This has continued to evolve to this day. The selling point of portable music players such as iPods was to provide a small convenient player which could store your whole music collection on. Although that’s a pretty cool thing to be able to do, the audio (again) is sacrificed. Being able to have 1000′s of mp3′s isn’t much of a privilege for the reasons described previously (bit rates and such). You can get around this to some degree by listening to wav files as opposed to mp3′s but they are larger and even those won’t give you the warm sound vinyl delivers. In other words, it’s pretty much quantity over quality.

Last but certainly not least, I think that the biggest difference between analogue and digital is how they are consumed and listened to. As referred to above, it may be cool to listen to your iPod on shuffle or skip between different artists and tracks but what does this say about how we listen to music these days? Do we have musical A.D.D.? Can’t we concentrate on one artist, one album or even one song at a time?! The thing I’ve found with vinyl is that because it’s a single black record, it demands attention. You can’t fast forward or rewind (without continuously lifting the needle!) and skip between artists and albums at the press of a button. It requires a level of patience that the digital age has slowly eroded away. We like to think we’re all too busy and everything is moving so fast, but the reality is we are the ones in charge of how we choose to listen to music and the methods in which we choose to do so.

View This Poll

I hope you enjoyed this article and as always comments are encouraged!

Like this post and want more like it? Why not subscribe?

Leave a comment

Napster

In this article I wanted to look at the effect of illegal file-sharing and its influence on the value of music today. Lily Allen hasn’t been the first (nor will she be the last) to publicly voice her dismay. An infamous case of negative public opinion can be seen as far back as 2000 where Metallica’s Lars Ulrich took a stance against the now legal site Napster (in which he got publicly annihilated). I don’t feel that the artists should have such animosity directed at them because after all they are only trying to protect their content and it is this which brings them their income.

To fully understand the situation, it is important to look at all the factors surrounding it. I’ve chosen to start with why people chose to illegally download music and have detailed a few points below:

• It’s quick and easy
• Costs nothing
• Leaks before scheduled release

These are all good selling points on why you would chose to download music for free, however this is only beneficial to the listener. It is a one-way street. I would guess the average age of people who chose to file-share would be around 15-18. I’ve chosen this is because there is little disposable income available at this age and a high interest in popular culture. I find it quite strange to think about how the current generation has grown up not having to pay for music. How can you expect people to pay for something that they can get for free?

When bands and artists speak out about how file-sharing is negatively affecting their career, most people have little to no sympathy and feel that they are “in the right” to download the music for free. Many big names have come up with different ideas on how to distribute their music themselves (I will dedicate another article to this soon) and enjoy the benefits of being able to do so, with some doing it for free. However these bands have already established a fan base and don’t necessarily face the risks newer bands have placed on them.

Bigger bands choosing to give away their music for free opens up an interesting twist. This is all well and good for them (and also really cool for their fans!) but when the expectation then gets placed on a newer band to follow suit (when it’s not financially viable), it can be detrimental to their progression and livelihood. It’s not the big names (mostly bands that had success before the file-sharing era) that feel the effects of this the most, young “up and coming” bands have been put in a very strange and uncertain position regarding their musical/artistic future. As a member of a band myself I have found it quite striking that friends (those who are supposed to be a bands foundation support system) even ask for free copies of an album. A lot of the time new bands are funding the rehearsal and recording sessions themselves which can end up being very costly. If a band can spend their own money funding their music than why can’t music fans pay for the end result?

Not too long ago I asked a friend what the last album they bought was and they couldn’t remember. I then asked if they had listened to (or liked) any music recently and they said yes, however they chose to download it instead of buying it. The reasoning behind it was quite strange to hear:

“I don’t really buy music anymore, I’ve got more important things to spend money on”

They claimed how they would rather spend their money going out on the town rather than purchasing music. With some cd’s as cheap as a drink or two at a bar, it sounds like music just doesn’t mean as much to people as it used to. It would seem that the value of music today has lessened into that of a disposable commodity. It is no longer the special medium in which time is spent enjoying an album, giving each individual track the attention it deserves and earning the aural reward of doing so.

A thought that I hit upon in regards to what a “successful” album or song is these days made me believe that file-sharing and the internet’s effect on music has had a bigger impact than we may think. It may have changed how music is listened to, but it may also have altered our perception as to what music is “for”. As file-sharing makes everything instant with arguably no lasting value, there is a need to capture the listeners attention straight away which can influence record companies and the artists to approach making music differently. This can give the damaging option for listeners to overlook or not bother with music that isn’t instantly accessible to the ears (as this is what becomes normal). Has music gone from being a personal experience to being about continuous instant gratification? 

In the early stages of the internet and long before iPods were invented, there would be a level of expectation for an album’s release. There would be genuine excitement at the prospect of hearing new music by your favourite bands, or hearing new music from bands that had received good reviews. It would be an event (long gone are the days of queueing up at your local music store at midnight! ). I believe this helped (amongst other things) contribute to what made music special and it’s pretty strange to see the absence of this in today’s culture. I don’t believe that many people look forward to an albums release because, in short, they don’t have to! The expectation has been boiled down to a “leak” with many people downloading and making their mind up on whether they like an album (or even a whole band) based on their first listen (if not the first track!). For each person that would buy an album after hearing a leak there are several more who will keep the downloaded files on their computer and not bother (as they technically already have it). This is a confusing dichotomy, because surely if you like the album and the artist you would support them by buying the product?

Due to this being a hugely broad topic (which offers many other points of discussion) I will finish this article here for now. There are many other aspects that are related to or are byproducts of the above and these will be discussed in future articles.

Leave a comment: What are your views on file-sharing? Do you file-share yourself? What do you think of the subjects explored in this article? What are your opinions on the current state of the music industry?

View This Poll

Like this post and want more like it? Why not subscribe?

Leave a comment