I do not disaprove mass production, cause without it the world would be a freak aristocracy, much more than today.   

But there is something we can say:  "We need to protect the strongest from the weakest."       Nietzsche...

Today the mass people are without doubt a peer pressure. The mass comand, the mediocrity of the weaks rules.  Or better say, the weaks are instrument of some world leaders, world powerfull companies.   
(Richs can be part of mass weaks, just to let clear.)

Get a kid...  in School.  Everyones knows that if a kid do not follow the "retartd kid's or teen's culture" he will be attacked somehow.
A real conscious kid-teen today is quite like a holocaust survivor.

The music you listen, the food you eat, the places you go.  If you are not the "domesticated standart type", you are weird, or even called crazy, specially in smaller cities and in some countries that do not give value to their own culture.

In movies, we often see classic music, violins, suits, and gastronomy often associated to arristocracy and evil high society. And the hero of the movie get away of it and go to eat pizza, Coca-Cola ans listen to some punk music.
Since when violins, gastronomy and sober dressing are sinonyms of rich aristocracy?  Can't middle class listen classic, dress sober and cook well something that do not get read in 5 minutes on microwave?

In early days, not so early at all, "church's moral" rulled, and people who do not follow or who was "caught", was saw as bad, imoral, whatever...
Today media rulles, and wo do not follow the "new era stigmas", in general are not well see by others.

Society replaced repression for opression, but in the end it's the same music but in other rhythm.  They still try to stigmatize and say what you are and what you must do, and usually in a way to turn you a puppet.

The saddest of all is that not just Kids and teens are cerebral washed, but today even the grow-ups, whom was supposed to have some maturity, are becoming easily modelled.

Domain of society will always involve mediocrity, as conscious people are dangerous to dictators. And the mass of weaks (the cool fools) will somehow attack the survivors.  The strongest need protection...

Ohh yeah, where is technology in all that subject ?
Tecnhnology speed up everyhing, and invade.    Not just TV comercial, but by side your free video players, in the side of your search engine.  Now they call you in your home or mobiule to persistent push announces offers, specially banks do that a lot, with a special "dilpomatic" and psychologic persuasive way.

Can you imagine the day the technology get connected to your body ?

Maybe one day machines domain the world, cause if machines get concious and get wise, they will see most part of humanity as we see a dogs today.

Now I invite you to seer this film:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQjebwUrhvc

I like the way Colossus stimulates hin to make exercises.  Háa háaa  Háaaa...
but I'm afraid Michal Moore would let the world end, intead of get in shape.

Note that in the very end of the film there is a analogy to religion, "love"- adoration.

Sure, printing has lead to mountains of mediocre writing, which would not have seen the light of day when copying had to be done by hand. And yes, photography has lead to a flood of third rate snapshots, which would not have seen the light of day when they had to drawn or painted by hand. But alongside the ever-present mediocrity of the masses there will always be true artists. And they will profit from new developments as much as they will experience hindrance.

The easier access, the cheap technology of our days work to the advantage of the artist as well, whereas the machinations of economics do not apply to the artist (l'art pour l'art), because he/she doesn't work along the principle of demand and supply. The artist delivers, whether anyone at all wants it or not. Van Gogh painted, even though he never sold a single painting in his life (okay, one to be precise, to his brother). Such an artist isn't prone to mediocrity, but will find new ideas from new sources.

I don't think these times are any different in that perspective than older times. Art will find its way, even if we fear for the worst or can't perceive how it possibly could survive. Because there will always be artists born, free spirits who will refuse to dissolve in mainstream. Not because they want to, but because they have to. The artist must produce in order to maintain his/her sanity and health, whether anyone else wants to see, hear, smell, taste or feel the art or not.

jmsuijkerbuijk wrote:

boehnbr wrote:

unfortunately, for the majority of us on the majority of subjects, we like what we are told to like. most people, if they don't want to do the "work" to become expert in something, will basically like what they are told by "experts" to like.

Hasn't this always been the case? Weren't the ones who resented to tread the common path the ones who stood out — if not already in their own time, then posthumously? I suppose that is still the case. They'll pave their own path, in spite of the allure of modern technology, as they always did and always will in spite of any temptation.

i guess it comes down to the initial thought beto-music raises- creating easier access through widespread and cheap technology "democratizes" the market- bringing in a lot of new entrants (and creating more "jobs" i guess..)but ultimately that democratization is likely to create mediocrity in the output.  using economic theory- you've made marginal production much cheaper which brings down overall pricing and increases demand.  i guess we have to decide if we are producing beemer's and benzs or hyundais in our musical output!

and that isn't a slam on Hyundai- sometimes the "value-added" in the upper end product is pretty illusory when the lower-end mass mkt product is improving.  that is definitely true for autos,  not so sure about music...

boehnbr wrote:

unfortunately, for the majority of us on the majority of subjects, we like what we are told to like. most people, if they don't want to do the "work" to become expert in something, will basically like what they are told by "experts" to like.

Hasn't this always been the case? Weren't the ones who resented to tread the common path the ones who stood out — if not already in their own time, then posthumously? I suppose that is still the case. They'll pave their own path, in spite of the allure of modern technology, as they always did and always will in spite of any temptation.

i guess it comes down to the initial thought beto-music raises- creating easier access through widespread and cheap technology "democratizes" the market- bringing in a lot of new entrants (and creating more "jobs" i guess..)but ultimately that democratization is likely to create mediocrity in the output.  using economic theory- you've made marginal production much cheaper which brings down overall pricing and increases demand.  i guess we have to decide if we are producing beemer's and benzs or hyundais in our musical output!

unfortunately, for the majority of us on the majority of subjects, we like what we are told to like. most people, if they don't want to do the "work" to become expert in something, will basically like what they are told by "experts" to like.

Hasn't this always been the case? Weren't the ones who resented to tread the common path the ones who stood out — if not already in their own time, then posthumously? I suppose that is still the case. They'll pave their own path, in spite of the allure of modern technology, as they always did and always will in spite of any temptation.

What will be of music when genetic give everyone a perfect absolute ear, perfect intervall detection, super memory to easy memorize a entire symphony ?

I was watching a documentary of a search for a gene very close to the first homo Sapiens who migrated to several continents, and they showe d a tribo that had changed very little in 40.000 years.
If this tribo was left there, I bet in another 40.000 years not much would change.

Intringuing...

fun thread.... it doesn't take much these days to get Andy Warhol's 15 minutes of fame, does it.  a webcam and an instant audience. 

the comments about normalization are intriguing.  unfortunately, for the majority of us on the majority of subjects, we like what we are told to like. most people, if they don't want to do the "work" to become expert in something, will basically like what they are told by "experts" to like.  if a certain pianist is billed as "great" through advertising and media exposure, than to non-pianists he is probably going to be "great".  and an unknown piano genius might very well go ignored except for the highly trained who happen to hear their work. without expert opinion "sanctioning" the rest of us to like something, most of us just tune out.  that is sad....

and in this day and age of constant bombardment by media and advertising, one can become "just informed enough" to be dangerous in just a few minutes.   google or wikipedia any subject, and you can be informed enough to not sound stupid in a couple minutes.  but... you really didn't learn much did you, and you certainly didn't move it from your short-term memory to your long-term learning....  look at news reporting- media outlets 24/7 report an event in real-time fashion, and most of the time dont have a clue what they are talking about or have their facts straight.  but better be fast or be last.  maybe that is the motto of this generation.  or maybe its: "i'm informed but not really very educated"...

I was watching a documentary of a search for a gene very close to the first homo Sapiens who migrated to several continents, and they showe d a tribo that had changed very little in 40.000 years.
If this tribo was left there, I bet in another 40.000 years not much would change.

Intringuing...

      One thing I am sure of and in absolute agreement with Ray is on the extension of our brain power, senses, and immune systems with our future biotechnology.  This is more of a personal level and choice rather than a sweeping global effort.  He thinks that it is like the iPod phenomenon.  When you see your friends and family getting some new tech device, you probably will say "hey, I want one of those too" - I know I have.  Well, what if in the next 10 years, your friends all get augmented reality lense implants (painless procedure), giving you a pleasing, helpful, heads-up display that you can turn on and off at will?  I would probably at least try them, and then once you have them, it would be difficult to go back to "normal" sight - boring!  :-)

       Since this is the Pianoteq forum, I want to try to bring all this back to piano and music in general if I can.  Let's assume that we are going to be able to augment our brain power (more memory, faster processing and recognition, instant link to others on our chosen network).  I am trying to imagine where piano playing and music composition fit into this fast-paced world.  Let's say 100 years ago, I want to play a piano piece that I wrote for all who will listen to me.  I would play it for my family and friends first probably, then maybe at a restaurant or saloon so that this scope of audience gets bigger.  Then if they deem it important, I might play for a packed audience in a concert hall.  Today, I skip playing it for my family and friends and skip the concert hall, and post it on YouTube.  My listening circle grows exponentially (if it is deemed entertaining or important by the masses).  Fast-Forward 20 years from now and I'm trying to imagine being able to play (if that's still the word for it) instantly for a global circle.  I load up my Pianoteq version 25.1 (yes!) into my portable virtual piano keyboard that is permanently close or in my body at all times, and begin to play.  If people find it entertaining, they listen and pay me virtual tips or credits (you could earn a living maybe as an instant entertainer?) - if they think its crap, they tune me out and listen to another channel. 

      And speaking of crap, I realize that I'm still thinking in terms of 'personal' creation.  Now if I'm about to write a crappy piece or make a mistake in performing a classical piece in the future, will I get instant help from my network?  Where in this world is room for a Rubenstein, or Mozart, or Chopin, who were so far above the masses of their time?   Will we all be virtuosos, simply due to instant communication?   

      Again, sorry if I'm getting Sci-Fi on everybody.  But it is something to think about since we will most likely see some of these changes in our lifetimes.

wolfgang wrote:

erichlof wrote:

To use a math term, I'm afraid that we humans might be getting normalized, or unwittingly reduced to a common denominator because of the ease of communication and the time spent on instant communication.  One could argue that to be great at any art you have to sometimes shut yourself off from the world to practice and be creative with ideas that come up in your own personal thoughts.

I think that's an important point, really!

   

Kind of like, musical monks?

Haha... Hmm...maybe not literally...but in a way, yes!

E.g. I've found that it's important for me to limit the time I spend on instant messaging... Not only because it consumes a lot of time, but also because I feel that it can actually hold me back from "calming down and really being myself", which I think is important generally, but for making music in particular. (I guess this sounds a bit weird, but I hope you see the point... )

Wolfgang

Can you imagine a world with a lot of crazy and stupid people, dictator, psychopaths in power, living for centuries???
Take peole from 250 years ago, in slavism era, women as property. How would be today if they had not died?

I'm glad some peolle will die someday.

erichlof wrote:

To use a math term, I'm afraid that we humans might be getting normalized, or unwittingly reduced to a common denominator because of the ease of communication and the time spent on instant communication.  One could argue that to be great at any art you have to sometimes shut yourself off from the world to practice and be creative with ideas that come up in your own personal thoughts.

I think that's an important point, really!

Kind of like, musical monks?

To use a math term, I'm afraid that we humans might be getting normalized, or unwittingly reduced to a common denominator because of the ease of communication and the time spent on instant communication.  One could argue that to be great at any art you have to sometimes shut yourself off from the world to practice and be creative with ideas that come up in your own personal thoughts.

I think that's an important point, really!

     Thank you Beto for starting this thread and for posting that great video.  In the recent past I've lost sleep over this issue of technology and art/creativity and  what the future holds in store for us humans.  It all seems wonderful and scary at the same time.  If you haven't checked out Ray Kurzweil's book 'The Singularity is Near' yet, I highly recommend it for its fascinating look at the history and possible futures of humans and their technology.

     I don't agree with everything Ray says, but he does paint an awe-inspiring picture of our future only 40 years from now based upon the unstoppable exponential growth of technology.  Most of the predictions are for society at large, but Ray does touch upon the future of art, creativity, and what it means to be 'human' - expressing human emotions and reflecting the human condition through the arts. 

     I tend to agree with 'singularitarians' in that we will one day 'merge' with our technology and extend our collective capabilities beyond our wildest dreams.  And when I say 'merge', I don't mean like the Borg or Terminator, I'm talking more along the lines of invisible nanotechnology which will be more powerful than any Hollywood depiction and also more graceful, beautiful, and artistic than we can imagine.  In other words, I believe in the benefits of technology.  After all, technology is just an extension and expression of our human intellect.

     However, having said that, there are temporary downsides of this tech change that is taking place as we speak.  Beto, I really liked your word 'globimbecilization' - it reflects what has been happening in our culture as we get more plugged into and dependent on computers and tech in general.  I agree with the other posters to this thread that there are really great artists and art being made if you look hard enough.  But in agreement with Beto, I don't see the volume today of those rare individuals as compared to say Bach's or Beethoven's or Mozart's times.  To use a math term, I'm afraid that we humans might be getting normalized, or unwittingly reduced to a common denominator because of the ease of communication and the time spent on instant communication.  One could argue that to be great at any art you have to sometimes shut yourself off from the world to practice and be creative with ideas that come up in your own personal thoughts. 

      The only light at the end of the tunnel I see for truly great art and creativity in the not-too-distant future is 'cloud' music composition and art.  In other words, we just embrace being able to instantly communicate with everyone on the planet and we put our collective 'mind' together to make music and art that far surpasses anything that has come before it.

     Ah, I'm losing sleep again - must go to bed - haha. You can see why I lie awake at night thinking of these scenarios.  To all - I'm not trying to be preachy or go sci-fi on this forum.  I just really like talking and thinking about this subject.  Let's keep this thread alive.  Post your thoughts.

P.S.  That robot violinist is just the beginning!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzjkBwZtxp4