Music and technology, religion, and gender

Discuss an example of technology shaping the creation or experience of music.
Technology has shaped the creation and experience of music throughout time, even prior to the discovery and manipulation of electricity. Every musical instrument can technically be considered a piece of technology. However, electronics have more dramatically altered both the creation and the experience of music. First, the phonograph allowed music to be recorded for the first time in history. Recording music was revolutionary, because prior to this point, all music would have been encountered live. Recording music took away its temporal component, allowing people to listen to music anytime they wanted, anywhere they wanted. Subsequent changes to recording technology have enhanced both the quality of the recordings and the portability of recordings. Currently, digital recordings have revolutionized music because they barely require any equipment at all.
Electronics have also changed the way music is created. Through electronic instruments, from the guitar to computers using software to synthesize sounds, music takes on a whole new dimension. Composers and musicians can now create music with different spectrums and frequencies, something which could not be done before. Combining electronic recording tools and electronic instrumentation, a musician can develop multilayered, multi-track songs using just a laptop. Then those songs can be instantly uploaded to a website where the entire world can have access to the recording.
Considering that in Mozart’s day, people could only hear the music composed if it was performed live, electronics have made a huge difference in the way music is experienced. Yet electronics would have also changed Mozart’s own life. Mozart would have been able to quickly sound out what sounds were playing in his head, experimenting and making adjustments as needed. It is unlikely the quality of Mozart’s music would have been different, but the technology would certainly have made a difference.
Think if other examples in which gender bias has negatively affected musical performers and/or fans. 
Gender bias has been pervasive in every sector, and music is no exception. In many traditional cultures, only men are allowed to play certain instruments. Likewise in the most technologically advanced democratic societies, men dominate the music scene. Women are all but absent from positions of power in the music industry, and are in the minority in many of the most respected musical domains such as jazz, rock, and hip-hop. There are always notable women in these genres, of course, from Ella Fitzgerald to Beyoncé, from Grace Slick to Madonna. However, gender bias has impacted the ways performers are received. In some cases, women are perceived of only in terms of their sexuality. Other times, women are viewed as novelty acts, as they frequently were in rock and roll. Women are more abundantly represented in pop music, but men still do outnumber women in terms of clout, power, and overall presence in the industry.
Because male artists are sometimes taken more seriously than their female counterparts, the gender bias perpetuates itself through fans. When the consensus is that a male performer is worth more, or more talented, than a female performer, fans will react differently. As a result, music that is created by women might get overlooked. In the DJ and electronic dance music (EDM) scene, there is also an overabundance of males. Female DJs are not in the norm. Although there is some debate over whether males and females actually prefer different types of music, gender bias certainly impacts which music will be commercially produced, and how that music will be critically received.
Describe a composition or performance created for a religion of your choice. How do you think the meaning of religious music is affected by the context in which it is heard and experienced?
Having heard a lot of different religious musical performances, I will focus on the chanting of Tibetan monks. I often do think about the fact that religious music is often not perceived of as “music” by those who create it. Just as with religious art, the music is an act of reverence, a spiritual act, or a ritual. With Tibetan monk chanting, they are meditating but also creating a sound in public that can be construed by listeners as music. The tones they use are harmonic and resonant, although there is no discernible melody. Indeed, some listeners might not necessarily perceive the monks as making music, but many musicians have and have therefore incorporated Tibetan chanting into their recordings. I have heard Tibetan chanting in the actual context of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries as well as in digital recordings. Of course, the live chanting has an entirely different dimension. Not only can I see the monks, their regalia, and the religious icons that surround them, but I can feel the vibrations of their chanting in my body. The best analogy would be the way that hearing a live concert, especially a loud one, can be felt in the body because of the bass frequencies. Beyond the frequencies or music alone, I would also say that the context does affect how the listener perceives the music. If I had never seen Tibetan monks in person and came across the recording, I would not know what to make of it. It reminds me a little of throat singing from Siberia, but other than that, I would have zero cultural context for the sounds I was experiencing. Context may also impact how favorably we view the music. In this case, I personally like the sounds of the chanting but I do know someone who did not like the sound when she heard it in the recording but in person, the monk chanting brought her to tears. Thus, context does matter in hearing and experiencing music.