«NG SO R U U T N P D CA k k at z HOW T EC ar H m N O O L IC G Y S MU HA SC HANGED UNIVERSITY OF CALIFOR NIA PRESS BERKELEY LOS ANGELES LONDON ...»
k k at z
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFOR NIA PRESS BERKELEY LOS ANGELES LONDON
University of California Press
Berkeley and Los Angeles, California
University of California Press, Ltd.
London, England “The Entertainer” written by Billy Joel © 1974, JoelSongs [ASCAP]. All rights reserved. Used by permission.
© 2004 by the Regents of the University of California Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Katz, Mark, 1970 –.
Capturing sound : how technology has changed music / Mark Katz.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-520-24196-7 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 0-520-24380-3 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Sound recording industry. 2. Music and technology. I. Title.
ml3790.k277 2005 781.49 — dc22 2004011383 Manufactured in the United States of America The paper used in this publication is both acid-free and totally chlorine-free (TCF). It meets the minimum requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48 – 1992 (R 1997) (Permanence of Paper).
We must expect great innovations to transform the entire technique of the arts, thereby aﬀecting artistic invention itself and perhaps even bringing about an amazing change in our very notion of art.
paul valéry A recording is one thing, a concert is another, and never the twain shall meet.
John Pfeiffer The machine is neither a god nor a devil.
H. H. Stuckenschmidt
2. MAKI NG AM E R ICA MOR E M USICALThe Phonograph and “Good Music”
3. CAPTU R I NG JAZ Z
4. AESTH ETICS OUT OF EXIG E NCYViolin Vibrato and the Phonograph
5. TH E R ISE AN D FALL OF G RAM MOPHON M USI K
6. TH E TU R NTAB LE AS WEAPONUnderstanding the DJ Battle
Anytown, U.S.A., 1905: a family and several neighbors stand in the parlor of a modest home, staring with equal parts curiosity and skepticism at one of the technological marvels of the day. Staring back at them is the unblinking eye of a megaphone-shaped brass horn. It protrudes about two feet from a small wooden cabinet with a crank on one side and a felt-covered metal plate on top. The marvel is a phonograph, or “talking machine,” as it was commonly called.1 The gentleman of the house takes a heavy black disc, grooved on one side and smooth on the other, and places it over the spindle with the label facing up. He turns the crank several times, gingerly sets the needle on the outermost groove, and hurries back to his chair. Everyone stares at the phonograph in eager anticipation. The disc spins quickly, and above the whooshing and crackling the machine begins to sing. It sounds to them like actual voices and instruments, albeit in miniature. It is hard to believe that little more than a needle and a record can bring the performers to life, just as if they were right there in the parlor.
After three minutes of rapt attention, the small audience breaks into spontaneous, unselfconscious applause and calls for more. Before the man can replay the record, a small child runs to the machine, peering under the table and jumping up to look into the horn. Everyone laughs when it becomes clear that the boy is looking for the musicians! After each record is played several times, the crowd disperses, with everyone wondering if wonders will never cease.2 This quaint vignette may seem unremarkable, but it reveals a revolution in the making. Those gathered around the phonograph were experiencing music in ways unimaginable not so many years before. They were hearing performers they could not see and music they could not normally bring into their homes. They could listen to the same pieces over and again without change. And they ultimately decided what they were to hear, and when, where, and with whom. All of this was made possible by the distinctive characteristics of sound recording technology. This is a crucial point, for as I explained in the introduction, if we understand the nature of recording, we can understand how users have adapted to, compensated for, and exploited the technology. It is in these actions that we discover the inﬂuence of recording; it is here that we ﬁnd phonograph eﬀects.
Each of the following seven sections examines a distinctive and deﬁning trait of sound recording technology. This chapter is intentionally broad, moving quickly and often between written and oral musical cultures, East and West, popular and classical, the late nineteenth century and the early twenty-ﬁrst. Such breadth is imperative, for the impact of recording is strongly shaped by the time, place, and context in which the technology is used. As we will see, phonograph eﬀects are not simply technological phenomena.
TA N G I B I L I T Y
Before even setting needle to groove, the operator of the phonograph in that Anytown parlor encountered one of the most remarkable characteristics of recorded sound: its tangibility. Taking the disc out of its paper sleeve, he held the frozen sound in his hands, felt the heft of the shellac, saw the play of light on the disc’s lined, black surface. He was holding a radically new type of musical object, for whereas scores prescribe or describe music, and instruments generate music, recordings preserve actual sounds.
This tangibility has allowed extraordinary changes in the way music
CAUS E Scan be experienced. Prior to the invention of the phonograph, Karl Marx observed what must have seemed to be an unchangeable truth about music. “The service a singer performs for me,” he noted, “satisﬁes my aesthetic need, but what I consume exists only in an action inseparable from the singer, and as soon as the singing is over, so too is my consumption.”3 When sound is recorded and preserved in a physical medium, however, the listener’s consumption need not end when the singing is over, for the music can be separated from the performer and be replayed without the artist’s consent. Indeed, the portability and repeatability of recorded sound—two of the technology’s crucial attributes to be discussed in this chapter—derive from its tangibility. Yet tangibility is not simply a “meta-trait.” In itself the material preservation of sound—“the stockpiling of music,” in Jacques Attali’s arresting phrase—deeply inﬂuences the consumption and production of music.4 To illustrate this point I want to explore brieﬂy the impact of recording’s tangibility as revealed in, ﬁrst, record collecting and, second, the physical characteristics of cassettes and compact discs.
As Evan Eisenberg has pointed out, “For the listening public at large, in every century but this one [now two], there was no such thing as collecting music.”5 Certainly, enthusiasts sought out instruments, manuscripts, program books, autographs, and the like. Record collecting, however, represents a new relationship with music, for these collectors seek neither the means to create sound nor mementos of it, but sound itself.
This new relationship is most vividly illuminated in its pathological extremes. Record collecting has long been described (aﬀectionately, for the most part) as an illness or addiction. In 1924 the British magazine Gramophone playfully warned of “gramomania,” alerting readers to its “insidious approach, its baneful eﬀects, its ability to destroy human delights.”6 Two years later, on the other side of the Atlantic, the Phonograph Monthly Review asked readers to recount their most dire sacriﬁces in the name of grooved shellac. One contestant, with the self-deprecating pseudonym “Adam Pfuhl,” spun a woeful tale of spending all the money for his family’s Christmas presents on records; another told of literally selling his shirt to support his habit.7 Appropriately—or perhaps not—the winning contestants received gift certiﬁcates for records. Nick Hornby’s 1995 novel High Fidelity demonstrates that the disease is far from eradicated. Rob, the 10 CAUS E S owner of a second-hand record shop and a passionate collector of pop music discs, sympathetically observes the habits of his more obsessive
You can spot the vinyl addicts because after a while they get fed up with the rack they are ﬂicking through, march over to a completely diﬀerent section of the shop, pull a sleeve out from the middle somewhere, and come over to the counter; this is because they... suddenly sicken themselves with the amount of time they have wasted looking for something they don’t really want. I know that feeling well:... it is a prickly, clammy, panicky sensation, and you go out of the shop reeling. You walk much more quickly afterward, trying to recapture the part of the day that has escaped.8 In the world of hip-hop, hunting for LPs is known as “digging in the crates,” a reference to the way in which discs are typically stored and displayed in second-hand stores and thrift shops. As we will see in chapter 6, digging is a way of life among hip-hop DJs, for their creativity is judged in part on their ability to ﬁnd rare, unusual, and catchy tracks. The 1992 rap song “Diggin’ in the Crates,” by Showbiz and A.G., makes it clear that this activity is as addictive as any form of collecting: “Buying old records is a habit/You know I’ve got to have it.”9 The darker side of this addiction comes out in Pearl Jam’s 1994 rocker “Spin the Black Circle,” in which a phonograph stylus is like a hypodermic needle and the act of playing an LP parallels the ritual of shooting up heroin.10 Such addictions are directly connected to the materiality of recorded music, for it is often the physical artifacts themselves, more than the sound of the music, that collectors ﬁnd meaningful. In speaking of his records, High Fidelity’s Rob explains: “This is my life, and it’s nice to be able to wade in it, immerse your arms in it, touch it.”11 To be sure, record collecting involves more than music. Collecting is about the thrill of the hunt, the accumulation of expertise, the display of wealth, the synesthetic allure of touching and seeing sound, the creation and cataloging of memories, and the pleasures (and dangers) of ritual. Record collecting represents a relationship with music that helps us, in some part small or large, to articulate and, indeed, shape who we are.12 The relative aﬀordability of these musical objects is also signiﬁcant, and
CAUS E Shas aﬀected all types of listeners, whether the sweaty-palmed disc junkie or the casual consumer. Recordings are often (though not always) cheaper than tickets for concerts of the same fare, and their aﬀordability may aﬀect listeners’ access to music. As the next chapter will show, the inexpensive disc was hailed as one of the keys to helping America become a more “musical” nation in the ﬁrst decades of the twentieth century, for cheap records of the classics meant that access to “good music” need not be the exclusive domain of the rich. And one of the crucial issues in the debate over ﬁle-sharing—which I explore in the book’s ﬁnal chapter—is that these sound ﬁles are being collected by the millions free of charge, much to the delight of many listeners and to the outrage of the recording industry. But as we will see, MP3s and the like are a special case, for they are not tangible in the way traditional media are.
To understand the full signiﬁcance of the tangibility of recorded sound, we must know something about the speciﬁc physical characteristics of the various media, and the diﬀerences among them. Consider, for example, the cassette tape. Developed in 1963 by the Dutch company Philips, the small plastic cassette was markedly diﬀerent from its predecessor, the longplaying record. Perhaps most important was that its physical characteristics made recording and duplication much easier and cheaper than had been possible in the LP era. As Peter Manuel asserts in his 1993 book Cassette Culture, these attributes have led to enormous changes in music and musical life. One compelling case in point, the focus of Manuel’s research, is North Indian popular music. Before 1978 cassettes were rare in India (LPs being dominant), and a single entity, the Gramophone Company of India (GCI), controlled the nation’s recorded music. GCI’s monopoly led to an extreme concentration of performers and styles. Most of its releases were of a particular type of love song, an adaptation of the classical ghazal form, updated for use in ﬁlms; moreover, nearly all of the tens of thousands of songs—which even to fans tended to sound similar—were recorded by just a handful of long-lived singers. The resulting homogenization of Indian popular music is hard to comprehend. Imagine that for the past ﬁfty years popular music in the United States has consisted of several thousand slight variations on “I Will Always Love You” (featured in the movie The Bodyguard ), all sung by Whitney Houston. (Now imagine that you don’t like Whitney Houston.) When one critic quoted by Manuel complained of 12 CAUS E S “the crushing power of the monotony of musical soundscape” in India, we should not take this to be hyperbole.13 In the 1980s, with relaxed government regulation on their importation, cassettes quickly came to account for 95 percent of all commercial recordings in India.14 The arrival of the cassette utterly changed the pop scene.
The less complex, cheaper medium allowed smaller labels and even individuals to create and distribute recordings, ending GCI’s stranglehold on the market. This diversiﬁcation brought new perspectives, giving rise to new stars, even new musical genres. And it was precisely the physical characteristics of the cassette, tangibly diﬀerent from the LP, that helped prepare the ground for this revolution.