[goldbrick]

I seldom see such hippie bullshit espoused on HN outside of Bitcoin/Ethereum threads.

Music can sound good and be valuable in any setting: it can sound better with good audio engineering.

It serves everyone to have a high quality artifact.

> technology has empowered us all to make more music faster on our own

That's not what I want; that's not what any of us wants.

[dang]

> such hippie bullshit

This breaks the HN guidelines, which ask you not to call names in arguments:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The comment would be much more substantive without the first sentence. Please edit such stuff out of your posts here.

[saturdaysaint]

I would bet a few shekels that the parent just finished reading the recent "Records Ruin The Landscape" by David Grubbs and is making it count on the internet.

[diydsp]

I hadn't heard of that until you mentioned it. I'm familiar with many of the works listed at [1], but considering the reported theses for a moment "new genres in experimental and avant-garde music in the 1960s actively thwarted the form of the LP" and

"listeners coming to know a period through the recorded artifacts of composers and musicians that largely disavowed recordings." [1] I think is interesting and ironic. But, my argument isn't about the mismatch of recording technology and artistic activity, but of mass reproduction and especially the optimization of recordings for profit.

Even without creative performances such as the Fluxus movements and sound artists of that era, pop music can flourish without massive lithography. The beautiful thing is it perpetuates itself through continuous reinterpretation by musicians and listeners, resulting in an accelerated, rich evolution. That's how we got dance steps like the Tango.

[1] https://dukeupress.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/records-ruin-the...