What Are Sound Recordings?

Sound recordings are a perfect mean for musical compositions to be developed independently of different rituals and presentations. Sometimes people would say approach is “electronic” even if instruments are not, if the music was conceived especially for the record. Examples are some records of Mike Oldfield or Adiemus, as well as movie music, which since always was “electronic” with one leg, because of being made to be reproduced through speakers.

But some people were so used on live performances, that the recordings were often understood only as documentations of a live performance; they enable us to, in a way, imagine ourselves inside of a performing ritual. Thus, instead of being alone with the sound, we now in our heads imagine the performance which is not there. There is an information printed on the record who, where and when performed the music, so a record becomes a sort of a souvenir. This is the dominant attitude even today – so despite music today mostly comes to us via the speakers and not from concert music stage, it is principally made with some stage in mind. Pop and jazz music, classical music, modern dance music, even movie music, all draw from the concept of stage: rock, jazz, classical stage, or from not strictly musical stages such as dance-floor, movie-hall stage, or even Internet “stage” etc. Jean Michel Jarre makes all of this clear in his interview from 1978:

"We have to consider two ways of using the record. It can be a documentation of a live performance, as it has been from the beginning, for Beethoven, or Kiss, or Elvis Presley, or Frank Sinatra. It's a kind of souvenir. Or, on the other hand, we can consider the record as an original expression, in its own terms as a medium, with music that has been conceived especially for the record. That's the way that Oxygene was conceived".

But is a sound recording an artistic medium on its own grounds? When we say ‘a medium’, we mean something that stands between us and the piece of art; something that provides a presentation of a piece of art. We didn't have to be aware of this in the past. In order to hear music at all, in tradition people had to be on the same place in the same time, together taking part in an performing ritual. Maybe it is not easy for us anymore to imagine that, but before XX century one could never listen a piece of music outside of some context. Music was listened to in churches as sacred music, or in dance-halls as dance music. In XIX century classical music came the most close to pure music-listening experience that traditional music ever did, through an institution of specialized performance concert halls for music interpretation. A conductor – who was a personification of this simultaneous sounding – articulated the army of players in front of the audience gathered in the “temple of music” – the concern hall. The experience of attending the lively played music was made a cult of. This was a part of outer layer of classical music culture.

Today we might say that listening to a musical record is the best way to connect with music. But there is a misunderstanding when we say a sound recording is a medium, because obviously there is nothing at all between us and a musical piece. With sound recordings we have means to come face to face with music with nothing in-between. With gramophone there still was some physical association left, although very abstract: while hearing the music coming from speakers you could look the record spinning around and associate rendered sections on its surface with sections of compositions, and the spiral rotational motion of the vinyl record with the timeline down which the music happens. But with later CD players, even this abstract physical association disappeared. Eventual outer layer could be the world of Hi Fi machines, since sound-reproducing devices are masters of soundworld in physical sense. There is a “ritual” of listening to this music, that includes Hi Fi system, record cover etc., forming a concept of “arm-chair music” as some scornfully call it. But all of this is thin, not really presentation. Thus, musical records can not be regarded for an artistic medium on its own terms, as a kind of presentation. JM Jarre seemed to have erroneously been thinking about sound recordings in these terms. Instead, a recording is bare composition (more precisely, a particular version of a composition), that is not yet presented on any way. Brian Eno did propose “ambient” presentation, that is the ‘presentation’ to be our natural surrounding itself which music embraces, and called it ambient music; almost all record-minded music that JM Jarre was speaking off is often today referred to with “ambient” music. Yet music on the record does not have to be such. Record as such should be understood as nothing else but bare music.

There is one more misunderstanding considering musical records: that sound recordings are nothing else, but what written down notion was in its time – pure composition that is not yet presented. The recording, composition that can now be heard without the performance, is what composition used to be on paper.

Bob Doerschuk: “As a creator or composer, do you ever regret not being able to read music?”

Vangelis: “No, not at all. I don't need to. My score is my tape. I score on the tape, not on paper.”

But this is not true. A sound recording is full sound-version of a piece and corresponds to a complete performance of a composition; while a noted version is a rational deconstruction of a piece. In music, rational deconstruction is very important, so symbolic notation of a piece remains important despite sound recordings.

Yet sound recordings made many dreams of classical composers come true. Before them, composers always had trouble to get theirs music sound exactly as they wanted to. Especially in symphonic music the inability to achieve this greatly frustrated classical composers.

“You see, people just can't observe the printed signs, and so they sin against the sacred laws of dynamics as well as against the inner rhythm that lies at the heart of any work. As soon as they see a crescendo, they immediately play louder and get faster; for a diminuendo, they immediately play softer and hold back the tempo. In vain you may seek for the finer nuances of mezzo-forte, forte, fortissimo, or piano, pianissimo, pianississimo. Much less do sforzando, fortepiano or any shortening or lengthening of the notes ever register." Gustav Mahler

Another example is Stravinsky who was feeling that all the work he put in his “Symphonies of Wind Instruments” was damaged by performance on the premiere, that failed to connect with audiences as he believed it would if performed correctly: “The character of my music needed the most delicate care if it was to win the ear of the public”.

And even if composer would get performance right, it would be lost forever afterwards and all that would remain is abstract notation. With audio recordings music can be physically preserved “for eternity”, as in other arts. A composition can now be equated with its actual sound captured on the recording. Composer can think of himself as simply a writer in sound – which was composer's dream since always.

Listeners benefit also. Not only music is listened more then ever, but also starts to get understood better. Maybe not easily imaginable, but before musical recordings, it was very difficult for anyone to really get to know with any piece of some proportions without knowing to read music from paper, since without actual performance it could not have been heard. Since sound recording is mechanically replayed, composition - or only its parts - can be heard at wish, again and again. This proved to be important for getting to know with music of certain classical composers, such as Gustav Mahler, whose popularity was considerably boosted thanks to appearance of sound recordings.

The obvious drawback of listening music from records is that it is a stale rendition that always sounds the same, with no change according to mood or any improvisation - unlike in concerts, where performers can play music in a way that suits the time and place. Do we want to listen to music like this at all?

“Everyone both grown ups and children, free and slave, male and female, and whole state should never stop to express messages of which we were talking about through intoxicating songs, and at that with every sort of change and variability so that the singers would always feel passion for their's hymns and enjoy in their's singing”.(Copleston, History of Philosophy, Volume I: Ancient Greece and Rome). Plato

“When John D. Smoot, an engineer for the European company Odeon, carried primitive recording equipment to the Indonesian archipelago in 1904 to record the gamelan orchestras, local musicians were perplexed. Why copy a performance? The popular local tunes that circulated in their villages had half-life of a few weeks. Why would anyone want to listen a stale rendition of an obsolete piece when it was so easy to get fresh music?” Kevin Kelly, Where Music Will Be Coming From

“Now if I play without recording myself, the music is lost forever. This is also fantastic, in a different way, but we humans have a tendency to preserve things. Maybe in a different theological society this would be wrong, but we do.” Vangelis

Than again, a record is not so stagnate as it seems.

"When you have a picture, whether it's of a battle of a bird, you have what it was at that moment forever. This is the recording. You can repeat it, and every time you repeat it you can feel it and see it in a different way.” Vangelis

Recordings did seemingly jeopardize ability to hear many versions of compositions, making us get to know with some singular versions solely, but this was only seemingly so. When digital advancement has been made, recording technology is not anymore jeopardizing variety since different renditions are more easily made then ever. Musicians can make different versions of theirs pieces or pieces of others quickly and easyly, which all in a way corresponds with old idea of interpretation. Again, as in the old times, there is an abstract notion of composition and then different renditions of it, only now those renditions correspond to different versions, arrangements, “remixes”. Music became even more shiftable than even before – these arrangements and remixes can deviate much more from original composition than different traditional interpretations could. And also, something completely new – now versions can principally be made by amateurs also, as they can edit photos – more superficial accommodations to theirs tastes, which does not require great musical knowledge. So even persons who are not into music can make a performance of theirs own. And if in the possession of a noted-down version, possibilities are even greater.

So does from everything said comes out that digital recordings practically overcome all of problems that bugged composers and listeners, and are seemingly a perfect way to listen to music we always wanted and have striven for?

Purely aesthetically speaking, yes. Contemporary musical technology is an ideal aesthetic musical space. But music is not only aesthetic affair. Despite everything said, ritual is necessary for art; more exactly, from everything said, follows that artistic world can not be constituted purely from aesthetics itself – and in music, this is composition – despite beauty is the only possible basis to it, spiritus movens of every artistic world. Despite composing is the essence of music, solely essence is not enough for music to continue existing.

“However auratic way of existence be communicated, it can even in most banal forms of service to beauty be recognized as a secularized ritual.” Walter Benjamin

What is important is piece of art to create a string from man to man, who are physically on the same place. Such experience is fuller than a purely aesthetic experience; while principally nothing is lost from aesthetic experience, a number of other experiences are present, among other of social kind, which add to it. Neglecting of these facts – and the premier such in music history -- was one of the problems of composers of electronic music of XX century, who created musical pieces of greater artistic value then, for example, pieces of rock music – or any other of the time – but they had no presentation. Audiences could only get to know with compositions themselves, listening to them over Hi Fi devices. We saw that Jean Michel Jarre (at least in one moment) thought of sound recordings as one way of presentation, as a medium. This certainly was one of the reasons why this culture soon got tired. Musical world can not do without its outer layer; without it, composing will cease, end there will be no inner layer neither. So whole great production which existed in order only to hear music, and which is not necessary anymore, takes on another, more deep cause: presentation.

That people have the need for a ritual, an idea that music has to belong to some concrete life space, some “cult”, was seen when electronic music itself started to get it, through concept of DJs and dance music.

“Even with the most perfect reproduction something is lost: time and space coordinate of a piece of art – it’s unrepeatable existence in the place on which it exists”. Walter Benjamin

What’s more, there is a hidden connection between quality of the ritual and artistic quality: by some subtle, metaphysical rule, the true artistic value of music is best seen from how convincing and fulfilling its appropriate ritual, its performance and presentation is.

Conclusion is, presentation remains important, but unlike in past times, when there was no need for awareness of the value of concert performance regardless of the actual sound that we hear, now sound recordings made us think more about presentation. And also about the way we should consume music. We can even wonder, do we want to listen to music outside of ritual? Someone might even call this mere informative listening, lacking true delight of a ritual.

But why not? Sometimes we want to come in touch just with composition, from purely aesthetic reasons, without any ritual – to be alone with the music and the musician(s) (and in the company of all the spirits that he evokes). We want to enter that aural inner world of musical art. It could be understood that sound reproducing devices create a sort of an absolute sound world, detached from the surrounding space, in which all the music physically resides. We have to admire that maverick mind of German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, who was about the first to write about possibility of a world made entirely of sounds, much before sound technology was able to materialize it. Now this world of music outside of ritual is not anymore, as it was before electronic era, only an idea in our heads; now it is physically there, equated with sound recordings that we reproduce at will, in our homes or where we want to; metaphysics becomes physics.

It’s surround systems, able to freely position, spatialize and move sounds in space that are a true realization of soundworld. It is a natural environment for music, a space in which musical messages are sent through textured and spatialized compositions.

Consequently, modern music is often not written with the expectation that it will be performed live; it is understood that listener will receive it in any context, and it always belongs to one and only world of sound. People often testify that they understand JM Jarre’s Oxygene the best when they hear it when they don’t expect to hear it; it is then when they don’t expect it, so are not receiving in any particular, concrete context, that this music connects with them the best (concept of music which is listened to exclusively in such world, “auratically”, completely matured already with pioneers of music concrete Pierre Schaeffer and Pierre Henry, as can be seen from name of the first piece from their’s workshop: “Symphony For The Man Alone”).