Can over-technology damage artistic creativity ???

Old times were so much better than resent times... Have I heard this before?

If there's any logic in history of music it's something like this:

at some moment of age people start to look back. "Oh dear, music development has stopped. How much better music was at the time I was young". Normally this nostalgy deals with music which is not from last decade but before. For example at 90s we hated 80s but admired music from 70s. But at the same moment when we feel nostalgic about the past for sure there're individuals (probably young people) who are creative and do not look too much to the past. They also know well the newest technology. Problem is that normally we need to let time pass to identify those creative individuals at some time. It has been like this from Mozart to Beatles. And when time goes on those same musical heroes become objects of nostalgy...

But one thing with technology can in fact block creativity: it's like western materialism when you're never happy with your level and allways want more. Let's take pianosound for example. At some point we MUST be happy with the sound and start make music with it. I try to tell this to myself but still I'm allways critical to sounds; I should be more critical to my music.

Beto-Music,

You've brought up an interesting topic for conversation.  I think we can 'let' ourselves get sidetracked from creating good music, by focusing too much on whatever toys are available, and a lot of people do, but there is also a lot of good music out there being created by wonderful artists. Some use pen and paper, some take advantage of the technology available.

Just today I mentioned to someone that I was reading about Chopin, and how he'd labor, sometimes all day, to recapture an idea that flew off his fingers. Imagine him with a midi retrofit on his Pleyel piano, capable of capturing into a sequencer what he played, even notating it! Beethoven the same deal. Imagine one of the masters being able to hear a mock up of an orchestration before commiting to a final version. The list goes on and on. The technology is a gift when used well, and it's not the fault of the technology when we don't.

Michael

Thank you all for the sincere comments.

Well, I'm not just blaming technology. We can blame more things, like alienation, disconection of the world real matters, consumism, imediate hedonism and individualism.
I'm also not trying to criticize pinoteq.

But creativity is stimulated by needs.  Harpsichord have vert limitated dynamic, and they created ways to trt tpo compensate that, with several musical ornaments.
Ok, piano opened a whole a new world of possibioities...    But what if they had a midi piano player and internet to dowload ?

Maybe Beethoven had to get deaf to compose such things with certains quality.   Maybe Chopin would not create some piano classics if he had antibiotics to treat tuberculosis, or if he had MSN to relieve his sadness.

Some people say that the compact quality stereo system is killing musicians. 25 years ago there were a lot more musicians, and today,  in some countries, they basicly play in marriages, quite ignored. 
People prefer fastfood and shopping center, and a compactmp3 to play anything just to pass time or to get easy to ignore others...

Honestly I don't easily see (find) great artist and creativity today, but I don't say they do not exist.  What the main media push to us is basically bullshit.
In sure Europe have more access, but for countries that catch  and copy the basic USA exportation alienation culture (no offense to USA people), we have today, basically, bullshit pushed by TV. 

Don't you remamber that many cinema critics was saying the cinema was nearlly dead 7 years ago ?

Maybe media hide the good artists, and push foolish to society, cause they find out that it's far more easy to controll and sell products to a fool society, than for a inteligent society.  Like it's easy to a dictator domain a nation of fools than a nation of wise persons.

There were times when the cool had something to say, reflection, critic.  Today the cool became a puppet. Cool is not cool anymore.

You need to forgive now, but I see that parallel to globalization there is a  process of "globimbecilization" .  Technollogy ultra comunication is a main tool for that.

Hi all,

     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!

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

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...

Somethings are visions and somethings are illusions.

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!

Really? Hasn't it been seen as a hazard at the time that literature would become mediocre when it was made available to the masses (print)? Weren't graphic arts doomed when photography was introduced? In hindsight we can safely say that the opposite was true.

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.