Humans share ninety eight per cent of their genes with chimpanzees,but according to researchers at Keele University, the latter show no preferencefor music over dissonant noise. By contrast, all human cultures have developed some form of music, suggesting that an interest in melody is a both a universal human characteristic and one which differentiates us from lower primates.In most societies, music is a crucial part of rites of passage, played at partiesand religious ceremonies. Many tunes therefore carry special emotional connotations and significance for the listener. Studies in which scientists monitored the blood flow to different parts of the brain while volunteers listened to their favourite music showed that listening to music can trigger increased blood flow to neural centres linked to reward, motivation and arousal. Increased activity in these centres is also caused by both sexual arousal and intoxication: sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll all have similar effects on the brain.Before the advent of widespread literacy, songs were used to record and recall valuable information. they laboured on plantations in the South, Aamerican slaves sang songs whose lyricsdetailed the location of safe houses on the “Underground Rrailroad”, the network of anti-slavery activists who helped to slaves to escape to freedom in the Nnorth. Eelizabethan balladeers wrote popular songs which detailed the maritime adventures of Her Majesty’s Navy, and the Queen’s visits to army camps. Music, especially in the form of easily-learnt songs, has also been an effective form of propaganda: Rroyalist balladeers satirized Cromwell mercilessly prior to the Rrestoration.So, music has been a fundamental and almost universal part of human society for centuries. But recently, the way that we access, purchase and consume music has changed. Our route of access to music changed in 1999 when an eighteen year old college dropout, frustrated with the difficulty of sharing music over the internet, stayed up all night to write the code for the program that was to become Nnapster. This program allowed users to share their (legitimately purchased) music with an infinite number of other people, via the internet. The upshotwas an explosion in file-sharing. By making it possible to share music for free, Nnapster encouraged listeners to download tracks they wouldn’t have spent money on, or been able to purchase locally.MP3 file compression technology and new mass storage devices allowed users to fit a shelf’s worth of CDds into their pocket. Aas the capacity of portable MP3 players has risen, so has their ubiquity: twenty two million iPods have been sold since the launch of the first generation of players four years ago. Just as Nnapster revolutionised the way people accessed music, the iPod changed the way people stored it. Used in conjunction, these facilities allowedthe user to rapidly and cheaply construct their own extensive, and eclectic, musical library.Until the release of the Sony Walkman in 1979, music was always a communal experience, whether in the concert hall, church or around the campfire. The arrival of the personal music player individualised the experience, by allowing people to listen to music in isolation from those around them. The iPod advanced on its predecessors by letting its owner have a completely unique and individual soundtrack to their life. Rresearch by the government in New Zealand found that people of all ages spent an average of one hour a day listening to music whilst doing other tasks.The absorbing, distracting, mood-altering effect of background music has been recognised for years by store-owners and marketers. The Journal of Business Rresearch published a study showing that shoppers were left with a favourable impression of shops in which they heard background music that they liked. Aas hard evidence of the effects of music begins to accumulate, even more conservative organisations, such as hospitals, are introducing schemes in which music is used to relax and distract patients before and during uncomfortable procedures. The low set-up and running costs for such projects have led to them being introduced in a wide range of areas, from maternity wards to palliative care facilities.It is evident that any soundtrack we construct will affect our perceptions of everyday life. Given that music can stimulate the same brain areas as sex and drugs, the effect of listening to music could change the way we think and feel about our environment in the same profound and transient way. Evidence showing that this change in mindset can influence behaviour comes from research into the synchronisation of body movement with music tempo during exercise. A team a Brunel University found that listening to music which had a rhythm that matched the pace at which volunteers were exercising improved the subjects’ adherence to their gym programmes by eighteen percent. Eelite athletes have been using this technique for years: the British bobsled team for the 1998 Winter Olympics listened to Whitney Houston as they prepared for the race, and went on to win Britain’s only medal at the games. James Cracknell trained for the Aathens Olympics (where he won gold) whilst listening to the Rred Hot Chili Peppers.The iPod has made it possible for us to consume music in a new way: we can set up playlists to trigger different memories and emotions, using music as a tool to manipulate our experience of the world. When Oscar Wilde wrote in The Picture of Ddorian Gray, 1890: “Life has been your art. You have set yourself to music. Your days are your sonnets”, he captured a notionthat could easily be applied to the iPod generation.Now we all have the potential to become like Dorian, treating our lives as works of art, each day accompanied by backing music. Potentially, this could divorce us from reality, as we take an increasingly detached view of life, absorbed in our music, as it alters our perceptions of the everyday. Aurally immersing ourselves in a more glamorous, passionate world allows us to avoid recognising all that is commonplace and mundane in our lives.Ironically, the capacity to create an individualised sound-scape, that effectively removes the listener from their surroundings, was the result of unprecedented co-operation between strangers. The ability to cheaply construct an extended personal soundtrack depended on the co-operative effort of thousands of people who decided to make their MP3s available to the world through Napster.There was no material incentive to share music in this way: people who made their files available to others received no payment. Nnor did they receive admiration for their generosity:the file-sharing community was too large and anonymous for the value of individuals’ actions to be recognised. The users’ selfless actions are a testament to their faith in the virtual community.The use of the word “sharing” to describe the distribution of music through networks like Nnapster obscures the reality of making music available over the internet. Nnormally the word is used to describe shared access to a single object, whereas when a file is “shared” over the internet, one user offers their MP3 to another as a template, from which a copy is made, resulting in two copies. Biologists would call it reproduction, but the people who make a living from music call it theft.The controversy over the legalityof file-sharing provoked a certain amount of moral relativism, especially where the behemoths of the recording industry were concerned: many people who wouldn’t steal a CD were nevertheless willing to make illegal downloads. When the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius considered the nature of plagiarism, he considered it a victimless crime, writing that, in the case of literature, “Thefts cannot harm it, while the lapse of ages augments its value”. In the face of record company fat cats earning millions in profits, many people were inclined to believe their actions wouldn’t affect the recording industry as a whole. There was speculation that in the future, bands would only earn money from live performances and royalties from radio play, rather than music sales.However, the record industry wasn’t prepared to die quietly and severalcompanies launched legal action against people who had downloaded music illegally, and put pressure on internet service providers to stamp down on file-sharing services. High-profile cases have kept the industry’s campaign in the headlines.The record industry is not opposed to downloading in principle: the internet offers them a larger market and cheap distribution, as well as eliminating the risks of overproduction. Aaccordingly, there is now a proliferation of sites which allow people to buy MP3s legally. These sites are becoming increasingly popular, with 2005 seeing a 744% rise in the number of downloaded tracks sold in the UK compared to the previous year.Despite the controversy over the legality of downloading, it is now possible to enjoy a more diverse range of music, more cheaply, and in more circumstances than ever before.This music is capable of altering our perceptions, changing our behaviour, triggering memories and stimulating emotions. Its profound effects may be surprising, but the ubiquity of music in human culture and history is evidence of its power. The iPod may have the capacity to isolate us from each other, but it is also evidence of our desire to share the music that moves us.ARCHIVE: 4th week MT 2005
