Music and technology are natural bedfellows, snuggling up to each other in a relationship that makes them both feel better in the morning. That relationship does, however, bring out the worst in their friends, as we saw in the thread beneath Rosie Swash's article from South By Southwest about how both software and hardware were creating a situation in which bands were no longer necessary. As dondi put it, after surveying a wasteland of sniping and countersniping: "A lot of very chippy people on here getting bogged down in Mac vs PC guff and 'I've been doing this for eons' grandstanding."
The grandstanding cast a shadow over a fascinating question that emerged as the debate ran on: what is the purpose of making music? And does technology really democratise the process? To the former question, elliotrandall offered this: "A computer could never ever replace the magic that musicians playing live together can accomplish." A thought expanded on by antonyJ: "Playing music with your mates is fun. Other people can have wonderful & inspiring ideas. Computers just capture those ideas, computers facilitate – they dont contribute. People have been making music in bedrooms since the advent of the portable four-track recorder. The technology changes but the dynamic stays the same." MuchPreferWinter, on the other hand, offered a different view of the same experience: "How about you are stuck making music with people you inevitably fall out with, turn out to be total dicks and ruin all of your ideas because they have to be assimilated into the band. I love being able to work on my own minus other humans. It's a wonderful fabulous thing to cut other people out of the loop."
As to whether all the computing power really democratises music, CaptainBlack had this to say: "Back when I was a youngster in the 80s, I used to think I could make brilliant music if only I had a Fairlight/Prophet 5/Synclavier/whatever like the big names I envied. Well, now I have a set-up that surpasses all those and am I making brilliant music? The point is that all the gear in the world won't help you if you don't have the ideas. You can often tell real musicians simply by their consistent sound and style. You don't get that by trawling the presets."
Our other SXSW feature, in which Catherine Shoard looked at the rise of the non-professional critic and the growing influence of what we might – for want of a better word – call the geek constituency over the film industry, provoked a similarly divided response. Whicher, for one, felt both film-makers and film critics have started pandering to bloggers: "It is fear from the studios that unless they sate the noisy child, bad word will spread on their product. To make matters worse, traditional news outlets are also listening out for the bad word from these 'fans', so it's it's a no-win situation." Not so, said jeromeknewton, who argued that the new breed of writers were a breath of fresh air in their refusal to accept received wisdom: "So many films and directors have achieved greatness status through four to six generations of beret-sporting chinstrokers saying what the guy before said without bothering to think it through. It's refreshing to read intelligent, perceptive 'amateur' film writers asking what the big deal is."
Never mind, said jmcnally. It will all work out in the end: "In 2007, I attended a panel entitled Blogging About Film, and audience questions were mostly about what blogging platform everyone was using. Now, it's more sophisticated stuff about journalistic ethics and disclosure. So the online space is maturing, even as more and more fanboys try to get in on the free movies gravy train. I suspect things will shake out the way they always do, with the better writers and the ones with the most integrity surviving."
