Showing posts with label self-expression. Show all posts
Showing posts with label self-expression. Show all posts

Friday, May 7, 2010

Music Creation for the Untalented, the Untrained, the Lazy, and Those with Some Time to Kill

I've been checking out iPhone and iPad music creation applications. Some are geared for experienced music professionals who already know their way around equipment. But I like the stuff that is intuitive and can produce results in a minute or two. I suppose you could say I was looking for the equivalent of tambourines, finger paints, bubbles, or beach volleyball. In other words, stuff that is so simple to use it is hard to screw up.

Here is some of what I have found. Some are iPhone and iPad apps; others are website-based. (I looked at more apps than I included here, but some of them weren't all that interesting or seemed to make sounds rather than music or musical tones.)

DRAWING

  • Sonic Wire Sculptor 2010: "The Sonic Wire Sculptor turns your 3D drawing into sound. It introduces a simple yet deep connection between visual and audio composition."

  • Squiggle: "Squiggle is an iPad application that allows you to draw lines on the screen which turn into stings and can be played like guitar."

  • Soundrop: "Soundrop is a sound toy application for iPad, iPhone & iPod Touch which allows you to create sounds by drawing lines on the screen and have ball bouncing off them. Each time the ball touches the line, a sound is generated. Depending on the location of the line on the screen, the tone of the sound is set."

  • gliss: "Gliss is a new sound application which lets you play sound files and mix them easily by drawing on your iPhone."

  • MusicDraw: Another drawing-based app. More about it here.

  • Artikulator: "While traditional sheet music is cryptographic for the uninitiated, Artikulator is as simple to understand as a child’s toy. A line that curves upward creates a higher-pitched sound. A line that is bigger makes a louder sound." (ADDED 5/19/10)

  • Singing Fingers -- Finger Paint with Sound: "While you drag your finger across the screen, your voice or any other sounds nearby are turned into colors on the musical canvas. The pitch of the sound is translated into a color, while the loudness of the sound determines the size. If you start on a blank white space you are recording. If you start on a colored space you are replaying. Use up to five fingers to play back many sounds at the same time, forwards, backwards or sideways." (ADDED 10/21/10)

  • Bubble Harp: "Bubble Harp draws bubbles around your fingertips, recording and replaying your movements while creating music based on the animated forms. It’s a combination of drawing, animation, music, art, geometry, and games." (ADDED 10/21/10)

  • Reactable mobile: This isn't a drawing tool. Rather it is a synthesizer you control by moving objects around on the screen. (ADDED 10/21/10)

  • TONES

  • Raindrop Melody Maker: This is web-based, so you can go on this site and immediately begin playing with it. It creates beautiful wind-chime-like sounds by clicking on the raindrops.
    Here's the iPhone version. Dropophone (ADDED 6/16/10)
  • Melodica: An app that also allows you to play around with tones.

  • Euphonics: This application is good if you want to create piano-like songs without actually having to know how to play the piano.

  • rain.: "Rain. is a minimalistic audio visual composition app for the iPhone created by Rainer Kohlberger. Tap to create black sound stripes, double tap to create moire phases, shake to create a colored beat, double swipe to change background loop. The longer a stripe the lower its pitch. After creating a stripe, use your second finger to alter the length."

  • SoundGrid: This one is a bit more complicated. "Even if you have never composed music, you will find SoundGrid simple and exciting to play with and will start creating unique compositions in minutes with just the tips of your fingers."

  • Flourish: Seems to be more visually interesting than musically interesting.

  • ToneMatrix: "Simple sinewave synthesizer triggered by an ordinary 16step sequencer. Each triggered step causes a force on the underlaying wave-map, which makes it more cute." (ADDED 5/17/10)

  • Pulsate (ADDED 5/17/10)

  • Incredibox: This website allows you to create an online beatbox a capella group by dragging symbols of instruments, percussion, effects, chorus, voices onto online cartoon singers. (ADDED 6/4/10)

  • Beatwave: Allows you to create patterns, choose from three basic instruments (with others available to add), control tempo and pitch, and manipulate layers of sound. (ADDED 6/10/10)

  • SoundPrism (ADDED 10/21/10)

  • MUSIC GENERATORS

  • Bloom, Trope, and Air: Three different apps created by Brian Eno and/or Peter Chilvers that produce patterns and melodies. This site (not associated with Bloom) supposedly offers both a web version (though it didn't come up for me) and a downloadable PC version.

  • Lexikon-Sonate: Classical pieces generated by software from composer Karlheinz Essl. "Essl creates electronic and interactive music (with emphasis on algorithmic composition and generative music), and has produced numerous real-time compositions and sound instillations." You can find a downloadable program here.

  • WolframTones: This site generates songs based on mathematical formulas.

  • AMG: Ambient Music Generator: "There are no notes to play, no multitouch, no buttons to play sounds, simply shake iPhone and leave the iphone by your side to fill your space with ambient tones."

  • Aura Ambient Music Generator

  • Melody Generator: This software will generate melodies (in three forms: basic, chord-based, or scale-based) which can be edited and also saved as an audio file and in print form.

  • Musical Images: This is a brand new app that creates music from whatever image you plug in. There isn't anything about the application up on the web yet, but I found this at the website of the organization which created it and appears to be an earlier exploration of the concept. Lotto Lab : Music from colour

  • C O D E O R G A N: Plug in a URL and it generates music based on the text on that page.

  • Chimes: An older downloadable program that generates random sounds based on an African thumb piano and a Native American drum.

  • Marvim Gainsbug: This looks interesting, though I can't find place where you can enter lyrics. So it appears more of a demo of an experiment rather than a working application. "Marvim Gainsbug is a software that acts based on Twitter, implemented to compose and to play songs, with music and lyrics, in real time."

  • The Crooked Road: Build-A-Lyric Song Generator: This site actually produces a song for you, although the melody is set and you have a limited number of lyric options.

  • Synthia: It creates a song from an uploaded image. (ADDED 5/17/10.)

  • Sonic Charge Patternarium: This provides randomly computer generated patterns and rhythms. You can vote on each one to influence which combinations are more likely to develop in the future. (ADDED 6/10/10)

  • LYRICS GENERATORS

    None of these generate music, just lyrics. But I anticipate that before long lyric generators and music generators will be combined so that you'll get finished songs based on the genres and subjects you select. Will any of them be great songs? Well, think of them like digital photos. You may need to produce a lot to get the right one, but you just discard those that don't work. And if you have something that almost works, you tweak it with the equivalent of a musical Photoshop.

  • Song Generator: Fill in the blanks and the program gives you song lyrics based on what you have written.

  • Love Song Generator: Another fill-in the blanks program by the same creator as above, but this one more narrowly focused on love songs.

  • More sites:

  • Country Song Generator
  • Country Western Song Generator
  • Random Pop Song Generator
  • Alanis Morissette Lyric Generator

  • And consider these for lyrics, too (there are actually far too many poetry generators in Google to list them all, but it should give you an idea of where to look if you're stuck when writing lyrics for a song):

  • Poem Generator
  • Poetry Generator
  • The Genuine Haiku Generator
  • Dada Poetry Generator
  • Love Poetry Generator
  • Another Love Poetry Generator
  • If you want to sound vaguely Shakespearian
  • Poetry Forms

  • Once you have found some lyrics you like, this application will create a song around them.

    Songmaker for iPhone: "... simply speak the lyrics you want into the microphone while pressing the keys to enter the melody you want. After recording completed, SongMaker will play the song with your voice following the given melody along with background music." (ADDED 10/21/10)


    I'm sure I have missed some good applications. So let me know about them. Again, I'm not looking for apps that require much training. This is a list for products which will allow the average not-very-musical person to create something worth listening to and perhaps sharing. I anticipate that as more products and tools are developed, the creations will become more sophisticated.

    Suzanne Lainson
    @slainson on Twitter

    UPDATE 5/9/10
    This doesn't have to do with music, but if you are going start promoting your app generated music, you might need these to help you create your web page. 55 Astonishing Online Generators for Web Designers

    UPDATE 6/29/10
    Here's a video where two developers demonstrate a new, easy-to-use iPad music creation tool. They also explain their motivation. And they mention finger painting.
    CultureLab: The first ever iPad music performance

    Monday, March 22, 2010

    Hypercompetition, Scarcity, and the Economics of Music

    I saw this last week and decided to pull together a blog post on several topics I've been thinking about:
    About 1 million design students in China, compared to about 40,000 in the U.S. Implication: your competition for jobs is about to expand exponentially. Welcome to the flat world. ...

    The supply is currently outstripping demand, so compensation for things like logo design is going to be low. "Crowdsourcing & Disruption Event at Pratt: Realities & Denial," eyecube, 3/11/10.
    And also this:
    There are too many films out there, there are too many filmmakers. "SxSW: Nobody Wants to Watch Your Film: Realities of Online Film Distribution," Magnet Media, 3/14/10.
    Because of the Internet and global competition, we're seeing declining income in a number of creative fields (e.g., design, writing, music, video). People are competing for these jobs even when there is little or no payment.
    RU Sirius, former editor of Mondo 2000 summed up the problem at a recent Net 2.0 conference in Amsterdam: “Get people to work for free.” That has essentially become the motto of the post-scarcity economy. "NET 2.0: Post-Scarcity Economics and the problem with Google," Medialternatives, 2/2/08.
    One line of thinking is that if you give away your digital content, you'll gain exposure, build an audience, and then sell "scarce" goods and services. Here are two posts on the subject:

  • The Technium: Better Than Free
  • The Grand Unified Theory On The Economics Of Free

  • While I am not going to argue the rightness or wrongness of "free" (it's already a reality, so I don't think there is much to be gained by exploring the concept here), I am skeptical that there are a lot scarcities to sell. At least not in the areas related to creative content and to human labor. Pretty much anything you offer as "scarce" in these areas can and will be duplicated. Once people see there is money to be made, they will begin offering their own versions until the price is driven down. This is what is now commonly referred to as hypercompetition.
    You may think your business offers rare and valuable goods and services. But the chances are that, somewhere, a recent entrant or potential competitor is preparing to do something similar, for a lower price. As the author says: "Everything becomes a commodity eventually." "A more virulent form of hypercompetition," FT.com, 12/16/09.
    Here's a definition:
    Hypercompetition:
    A situation in which there is a lot of very strong competition between companies, markets are changing very quickly, and it is easy to enter a new market, so that it is not possible for one company to keep a competitive advantage for a long time.
    And two more explorations on the subject:
  • From our financial models, such as using net present value analysis to value projects, to our investment models, which presume more or less predictable and long life-spans for given business activities, we have built a lot of operating frameworks on the idea that our lines of business will be around for a while. And not only around, but profitable.

    All this began to change in the early 1990's, when a number of scholars, such as my colleague Ian MacMillan and his co-author Rich D'Aveni, started talking about a phenomenon they called "Hypercompetition." In hyper-competitive environments, to paraphrase Hobbes, the life of a competitive advantage is nasty, brutish and short. In other words, advantages don't last for very long before competitive entry, imitation and matching erode their edge, or customers move on, or the environment changes in such a way that the advantage becomes irrelevant. "Competitive Advantage Is Fleeting (And It's Okay to Admit It)," Harvard Business Review, June 2009.
  • "Welcome to Hypercompetition—Competitive Advantage at its Fastest"
  • Barriers of entry have kept some competitors out, but technology is reducing some of those. For example:
  • The tools of factory production, from electronics assembly to 3-D printing, are now available to individuals, in batches as small as a single unit. Anybody with an idea and a little expertise can set assembly lines in China into motion with nothing more than some keystrokes on their laptop. A few days later, a prototype will be at their door, and once it all checks out, they can push a few more buttons and be in full production, making hundreds, thousands, or more. They can become a virtual micro-factory, able to design and sell goods without any infrastructure or even inventory; products can be assembled and drop-shipped by contractors who serve hundreds of such customers simultaneously. "In the Next Industrial Revolution, Atoms Are the New Bits," Wired, January 2010.
  • The revolution that is brewing now will get us much closer to another seemingly impossible Star Trek technology: the Replicator. You won't be able (for some time) to press a button and get a whole meal synthesized on the fly, but we are at the stage where a short time after pressing the button you can have a wide variety of objects appear magically. These range from tiny, fully functional gears to large, colorful pieces of art and cover materials as broad as glass, ceramics, metal and plastic. Yes, glass, ceramics and metal! "Communicator: Done. Replicator: Next. The Future of Making Stuff," usv.com, 3/22/10.
  • The music industry used to have significant barriers of entry, but now that everyone can cheaply record and distribute music, the flood gates have opened. There are still some barriers (e.g., getting on broadcast radio), but artists are being told there are many opportunities for them these days. Sure, they may have to give away their recorded music to get some attention, but to make money they can offer fans goods and services that aren't easily duplicated.

    However, I'm saying that just about everything an artist or band can offer can be duplicated:

  • Develop some interesting merchandise, and it will be copied.
    Representatives for the jam-band Phish are due in federal court this afternoon to argue that it should be allowed to stop bootleggers from selling T-shirts, jackets, bumper stickers and other merchandise bearing its trademarked name during its upcoming reunion tour. ...

    The issue isn't necessarily about money, the lawsuit says. The band says the unauthorized merchandise sales "threaten" the band's reputation because it relinquishes control over the quality and appearance of the merchandise, according to the suit. "Phish in court this afternoon to block bootleg merchandise," The Virginian-Pilot, 3/5/09.
  • Create a great live act, and that can be copied as well.
    ... the sheer number and variety of tribute bands has exploded, branching out to modern-era acts such as Pearl Jam, the Dave Matthews Band, and even the Arctic Monkeys. "Tribute bands are music to fans’ ears, wallets," The Boston Globe, 3/6/10.
  • Even relationships aren't perceived as scarce. While it's nice to think that artists/bands will hang on to their fans for life, the reality is we're a society where people too often change friends, even spouses, when they see someone better. Toss in commitment phobia and you have a situation where relationships aren't a sure thing.

    Given all of the above, I question the usefulness in talking about scarcities as a music business strategy. In addition, much of what we buy has little to do with scarcity anyway. Sometimes it just comes down to being in the right place at the right time. For example, if we want a cup of coffee, and we see coffee vendors on all four sides of the street, the reason we pick one over the other isn't a scarcity issue. Similarly, if every girl on our block is selling Girl Scout cookies, we may end up buying from whomever comes to our door first. Or maybe we'll buy a box from each one of them.

    Buying behavior is much more complicated than saying people will pay a premium for scarcity. Here are a few resources that outline the many factors which determine why we buy what we buy:

  • Factors Which Influence Consumer Choice. If you want the PowerPoint version, go here.
  • Buyer Behaviour: Stimulus-Response Model.
  • The Black Box Model of Consumer Behavior.

  • So I think talking about "selling scarcity" can be the wrong strategy. As I have already mentioned, hypercompetition suggests that as soon as you have an idea, someone else will copy it and drive down the price. For musicians, that means being on an endless treadmill trying to find scarcities to sell. As soon as you come up with something fans will pay for, many other bands and artists will try it too. There will be a glut.

    You may make money in music, but I doubt that offering scarce goods and services will be the key. For virtually every option that an artist/band offers, there already is or will be someone else offering something similar. And it won't take much effort for fans and potential fans to find it. All anyone has to say is, "I want ... " and the marketplace will provide it, often in multiple ways. Think of the various "saleables" that artists/bands currently offer (e.g., entertainment, merchandise, community, engagement, celebrity access) and there are equivalents both within and outside of music.
    We're running out of scarcity. ...

    It seems as though once a category becomes successful, the headlong rush to knock it off is stronger (and quicker) than it ever was before. ...

    While there are almost half a million lawyers practicing in the United States today, there are (gasp!) more than 125,000 in school right now. ...

    The same thing is true for doctors, Web sites, T-shirt shops, sushi restaurants, thumbtack manufacturers, and brands of blank CD-ROM disks. ...

    If it's remotely digital (like music), then it's easy to mimic. And if it's easy to mimic, someone wins if they can knock off the original--the sooner the better. When someone starts to sell exactly what you sell but for half the price, how long does your good-service, first-mover, nice-person advantage last? "The Scarcity Shortage," Seth Godin's Blog, 8/27/07.
    And even the fallback argument, that talent is scarce and people will pay for access to it, doesn't really hold water because making money in music and having the most talent do not necessarily go together.
    SUCCESS = SOME TALENT + LUCK
    GREAT SUCCESS = SOME TALENT + A LOT OF LUCK
    Nobel prize-winning economist Daniel Kahneman quoted in "FORMULAE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY," Edge.org, 10/13/07.
    Godin acknowledges there might be a few scarcities, but even those may not confer a lasting advantage.
    So what's scarce now? Respect. Honesty. Good judgment. Long-term relationships that lead to trust. None of these things guarantee loyalty in the face of cut-rate competition, though.
    Some people are even suggesting that we're surrounded by so much abundance that now we want less. J. Walker Smith, president of Yankelovich Inc., lays it out in an article, and then Mike Heronime, Partner/Strategic Services Director, Numantra, expands upon the idea in a presentation.

  • Enough of Too Much
  • Marketing to Consumers in a Post-Abundance Economy

  • However, these models tend to benefit people and companies that provide filters rather than artists trying to sell their music and music-related products. It would be a bit like having a musician say, "Pay me to go away."

    So let's jump ahead and envision a world where there's more stuff than any of us can consume. Imagine a scenario where people are making a ton of music and art, but there are few economic transactions. So how do artists (or anyone for that matter) make a living in the post-scarcity society?
  • In the post-scarcity world, technological advances will facilitate decreasing costs until conceivably almost everything is “free” to the consumer. Scarcity will no longer exist in this world, and, without scarcity, the concept of charging a price to consumers as a means of generating revenue will be unworkable. The post-scarcity world will put tremendous pressure on current business models, potentially rendering them irrelevant and obsolete in the future. If traditional businesses do not adapt to this emerging “free” world, many of the strong, traditional organizations of the early twenty-first century will cease to exist over the next 50 years. "The Post-Scarcity World of 2050-2075"
  • If products are no longer scarce, does this mean that the only jobs left will be service positions? Are there enough service positions for everyone? Or do people do the services that they find fulfilling, leaving others to lounge around and/or be non-productively creative?

    I'm not a regular Burning Man attendee -- the schedule rarely works out -- but I have gone. My first time wandering the playa, visiting the various camps offering gifts of art, services and/or more physical forms of entertainment, I was struck with a realization: this is one model of what a post-nanotech world might look like. Assume your material needs for food, water, shelter and toys were met, and that you no longer needed to work; what might result is a world where creativity, mutuality, and the gift economy ruled... or a world where sex, drugs and sleeping until 2pm ruled. Or, as with Burning Man, both. "Abundance, Scarcity and Beta-Testing Tomorrow," Open the Future, 9/12/06.
  • How are we to survive as producers and creators in an age, in which value is no longer determined by scarcity, but rather the accumulation of bits and bytes, the 1s and Os that describe information?

    ... We figure out a system of revenue sharing, in which the exchange of information is granted value. ...

    One day we will awake to find the proverbial Google cheque in the mail. It will be a dividend in which all the clicks on the internet have been divided by the total population of the world and squared with the amount of money earned by the earth’s service providers. The legend will say: You are user # 51 298 123 187 here is you ten-cents (US$) for the 8kb of data we actually siphoned off your site. We know its yours, because the IP number says it’s yours.

    The result, I predict, will be a practical and infinitely rewarding utopia in which everybody would have a guaranteed income, courtesy of Google Corporation. This is the kind of error, which could make life worth living. "NET 2.0: Post-Scarcity Economics and the problem with Google," Medialternatives, 2/2/08.
  • The above scenarios, where EVERYTHING is abundant, are still in the future. But the world where music (and everything associated with it) is abundant is already headed our way. The oft-proposed solutions, based on some sort of scarcity, are going to be hard to sustain. So I suggest we look beyond that.

    Suzanne Lainson
    @slainson on Twitter

    UPDATE 4/4/10

    This article says that there are now so many photos online available for licensing that the price paid per photo has gone down significantly.
    For Photographers, the Image of a Shrinking Path

    UPDATE 7/14/10
    This article talks about how museums sometimes pay a great deal of money for something that turns out to be fake. The value isn't in the object itself, but in the perceived artist. Therefore, if you can produce a copy and convince someone it is real, they may pay you the same amount as if it is real.
    Testing Art for Authenticity at London’s National Gallery

    UPDATE 10/17/10

    I mentioned in the post that as a society we will even replace personal relationships if someone better comes along. Here's a recent article on the same subject.
    [Writes sociologist Eva Illouz in Cold Intimacies,] "Romantic relations are not only organized within the market, but have themselves become commodities produced on an assembly line, to be consumed fast, efficiently, cheaply, and in great abundance.” In other words, as dating (or ersatz love) has migrated to the internet, it has undergone the same changes as everything else that has moved online: it has been remade by the ethic of convenience into something more solipsistic and disposable. "Love Worth Fighting For," The New Inquiry, 9/30/10.

    Tuesday, February 16, 2010

    Five Degrees of Separation in Music Income

    After reading too many posts by non-musicians about how musicians should give their recorded music away for free and then make their money selling something else, I decided to create a "degrees of separation" chart. If you create music and also have an income stream from something, you are likely to fall somewhere along this continuum.

    At one end, you make music and profit directly from it. And at the other end, you make music and don't make any money from it. Both of those options, and everything that falls in-between, are acceptable.

    If you look at your two goals (to make music and to make enough money to pay your bills), you can combine them into a variety of different ways. Ask yourself (1) what allows you the most time to make the music you want to make and (2) what allows you to make the most money. What mix of skills can you bring to your career planning which will provide you the optimum level of creative activity and income?

    And if you have a spouse and kids, you've also got to factor in those obligations. Maybe you would love to travel the country to expand your fan base, but if you aren't making enough money to take your family along, you may find the sacrifice is too great. So between music, income, and personal goals, you've got to combine them in some mix that works best for you. More than likely, you'll compromise somewhere, but that's what this blog post is about. It's okay to compromise. Most people do.

    Here's my chart:

    No degree of separation: Sell your music.
    This includes selling your recorded music, performing live, working as a studio musician, and so on. You are being paid directly as a musician.

    One degree of separation: Sell stuff related to your music.
    A lot of people talk about this as a way to make a living in today's music environment. The idea is that your music will make you a brand. Then you'll use that brand to sell goods and services around your music. If you are popular enough and good enough at marketing, this might work for you.

    Here are two examples:
  • Jimmy Buffett’s Business Empire
  • Sammy Hagar's Tequila Dreams

  • Two degrees of separation: Use your existing music to sell other people's stuff.
    Using your music for marketing doesn't have to be limited to items you're selling directly to fans. After all, a lot of musicians don't want to bother with developing a line of products to sell. An alternative can be letting your music sell another company's product. Often what happens is that you have a song already out, the company likes it, and you make a deal. But you could also approach a company and work out a partnership where you provide the music and they provide the goods and services to sell.

    This level of music income covers everything from licensing your music to having corporate sponsors. But in each case, you've already written the music for your own use and then you use it to market someone else's goods and services.

    Some examples:
  • Olympics GM Commerical with Brandi Carlile
  • "Bacardi approached us and, we found out later, they had tried so many songs for that commerical. A slew of tons, and songs, and knew 'Daylight' was the one which stood out and worked more than any others." "Interview: Matt and Kim," Alter The Press! 2/6/09.
  • More stories of bands whose songs have been used in commercials: Selling Out to Survive.

  • Three degrees of separation: Write music specifically to sell other people's stuff.
    While people have gotten used to artists having their music licensed for ads, it's still not as common for artists to write music specifically for commercials. Of course, there have always been people who do this for a living (one of the more famous musicians who was also a jingle writer was Barry Manilow) but it's not nearly as common as just having a pre-written song in a commercial.

    Two examples:
  • Robert Schneider, singer/songwriter for The Apples in Stereo, also does commercial work-for-hire.
    For Schneider, who's worked both sides of the fence, he relishes the opportunity to release his inner Tin Pan Alley songsmith and write on demand. "It's like, 'Oh, now I have to write a song about having fun in a new pair of shoes!'" he laughs. "To me, that's a legitimate song topic. Fun in the sun? I'd write a song about that anyway.""Songs that sell," 'boards, 6/01/08.
  • Recently the band Franz Ferdinard was commissioned to write a song for an elaborate promotional campaign by Dior.

  • Four degrees of separation: Play music. Use your visibility as a musician as a way to promote your real profession.
    Now we are into the grey areas of new music business models. Some of the examples being used to illustrate how musicians can make a living are stretching the connection between music and income rather thin. I mentioned some of them here. Musicians are auctioning off their possessions, selling lunch dates, and so on.

    Basically the concept is to use music as a way to generate attention and relationships, but then sell non-music goods and services to fans. Given that concept, why stop at selling your time as a lunch date or selling stuff out of your closet? A lot of goods and services are fair game. If you have skills as a lawyer, or a plumber, or a caterer, you can use your music as your positioning and then sell services and items that people want to purchase anyway. Instead of just being a singer, or just being a plumber, you become the singing plumber. Plumbing, after all, is something people need more than having lunch with you or getting an extra t-shirt. This way you are selling something of real value, and making it more distinctive because it is coming from you, the popular musician.

    Examples:
  • A musical doctor.
    Carl Ellenberger, who has managed to combine a successful medical career (as a neurologist) with enough musical skill to have been principal flutist in several orchestras, beginning when he was preparing for medical school. As a student of Joseph Mariano at Eastman School of Music, Ellenberger never thought of giving up flute for medicine or vice versa. Medicine, he says, allowed him to avoid teaching music to “indifferent students” (among other things musicians do to pay the bills). And music helped him survive the stress of medical school.

    In addition, he has told me, “As a tenderfoot doctor at the bottom of the medical hierarchy, when the vast universe of medicine seemed overwhelming, regular calls for my services as a professional musician did wonders for my self-confidence.” "Musicians with two careers: Pro or con?" Broad Street Review, 12/22/09.
  • A musical priest. "Baton and Sacrament, Tools of Dual Career"
  • Blair Tindall, who interviewed a number of dual career musicians, points out, for example, that "mathematics and proportion learned through musical form may plug directly into another field, such as architecture or computing. Other musicians find more abstract uses for their musical training, citing the competitive nature of performing, the discipline of practicing and flexibility learned from irregular scheduling as among their professional assets."
    "Counseling is much like playing a symphony," says Rae Ann Goldberg, a Bay Area violinist who is also a certified marriage and family therapist in Oakland's Early Childhood Mental Health Program. "There's a rhythm. There are silences. Intensity and release."

    Goldberg completed her master's degree at the California Institute of Integral Studies after her orchestra, the Sacramento Symphony, folded in 1996. With a full schedule and increased income, she now cherry-picks only the gigs she really wants instead of accepting everything in order to survive. "Musicians add second careers to their repertoires," Los Angeles Times, 1/11/09.
  • Five degrees of separation: Play music. Don't mix it with any money-earning activity. Keep your hobby and your income-generating activities totally separate.
    This is what many "amateur" musicians do. They don't play music for income. Just for fun. And there's a lot to be said for this approach. If you don't play music for income, you don't make decisions about music based on money. Which also means, you may be more realistic about your day job, too, if that's your sole means of financial support.

    The reason I want this discussion out in the open is to get us past the idea that today's musician needs to concentrate on fan purchases for financial support. It's certainly one way to survive as a musician, but not the only way. If you can find a non-music day job that pays well, it may be far more time and cost-effective to do that than to jump through hoops looking for music-related projects you can do. Don't assume that being a musician means everything you do for money somehow has to point back to your music.

    To illustrate where I am coming from when talking about the "new music business model," let me point you to some comments I made on this MediaFuturist blog post, "Content 2.0: New Ways to Monetize," which was looking at ways to make money if you are giving away your content (which, for musicians, is usually recorded music).
    I have several thoughts in regards to music:

    1. Labels are in the content business because they already own content. But for individual musicians, it isn't really about the content business anymore.

    2. Musicians are in a relationship or service business these days. While they can sell merchandise, all the emphasis on social media plays up their relationships with fans. However, lots of other people (the vast majority of them non-musicians) are also in the relationship business and can deliver many of the same services (e.g., community).

    3. Music is a powerful force and the people who make it have something to offer. But as we pull away from selling the music directly, that means other companies can grab on to that music and link it to what they are selling. Unless there is some special reason for the fans to connect directly with the music creators, then they can have access to exactly the music they want and exactly the "reasons to buy" that they want, but not necessarily coming from the same sources.
    In essence, what I am trying to say is this:

    Just as it is possible to couple your music with non-music goods and services to generate income, it is also to possible to decouple your music from non-music sources of income.

    And this means that while you can bundle your music with t-shirts or online fan communities, so, too, can non-musicians bundle your music with their t-shirts and communities. (Even if they don't have an agreement with you, there are multiple ways to tie your music to their stuff, which most musicians like anyway as a way to get extra exposure.)

    In other words, there's no rule that says a musician's music is going to automatically be linked with the musician's source of income. They can, and often are, two entirely different worlds. And sometimes it makes financial sense to approach it this way. Don't get so caught up in what you can do to make money from your music that you fail to see what you can do to make money from any source. Don't let people convince you that if you aren't making your living from your music, you aren't a REAL musician. Do what you have to do to survive.

    @slainson on Twitter

    UPDATE, 2/17/10
    I wanted to move one of my comments from the comments section into the blog post itself to further explain my reason for writing "Five Degrees of Separation."
    Some of what is being called Music 2.0 isn't really about music. When Amanda Palmer auctions off her personal possessions, it isn't any more about music than having a day job selling stuff on eBay. True, music has made Palmer a celebrity, but what she is doing to generate income can be done by anyone, in any profession, who has a degree of fame.

    So I'm trying to explain that in situations like this we aren't talking about music, we are talking about marketing and celebrity. Getting a spot on reality TV is probably a faster route to celebrity than doing music. That's the reason for the "degrees of separation." At each stage you get further and further from earning your living directly from music. So at some point it makes sense to accept that the money isn't coming from music and quit trying to pretend that it is.
    UPDATE, 3/9/10
    While owning a restaurant might not necessarily be a more profitable side business than music, here are some people who are doing that.
    Ten Musician-Owned Restaurants

    Tuesday, February 9, 2010

    Participatory Art Is Revolutionary

    In my last post (But Is It Art?) I wrote about how technology enables more people to make music. And I have done blog posts on fan involvement and audience participation. The reason I think all of this is relevant is that some are touting a wealth of opportunities for musicians today because the Internet allows them more direct access to fans than in the past. But I have been pointing out that this concept is still based on the idea that there are artists and there are fans.

    But what about a world where there are only artists, and no fans? If we are going to anticipate the future of the music business, we need to think about this possible scenario. And based on what I have seen in terms of audience participation both at shows and online, artists who provide the most opportunities for engagement seem to do well. I've been taking it a step further to suggest that not only might you want to provide ways for fans to interact with the music and the artists, you may want to provide ways for the audiences to feel creative themselves.

    Now I want to go into the subject even deeper because while these ideas have been an on-going discussion within some circles, they haven't filtered out to all who potentially might be affected. There are two different aspects to the topic. One is "everyone is an artist," which involves providing tools to enable creativity. The other is participatory art, which has traditionally involved a high level of social interaction. In this particular blog post, I'll focus more participatory art.

    It's not a new concept. People have been talking about it for quite some time, particularly as a counter to the idea that art is to be created by a professional elite.

    This paper by G.S. Evans explores the concept in depth and begins with the idea that an artistic elite has not been the norm over the course human evolution.
    This alienation from art is a relatively recent phenomenon. As we shall see, the making of art was a central part of people's lives for most of human history--that is, until the relatively recent advent of a capitalist, commodity-based culture in Europe and North America in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. At that time the emphasis in art shifted from participants, who could satisfy their own artistic needs, to specialists, who demanded a paying, non-participating audience to buy their 'products'. Essentially, the art-commodity came to replace participatory-art in most people's lives, and art increasingly became a source of alienation. ...

    We live in a society where art is primarily a commodity, something people buy instead of make. Consequently, very few people are actively involved in making art. Because of this general lack of participation, many find it difficult to believe that societies have existed in which literally everybody sang, danced and made their own crafts, all on a daily basis.
    Evans extensively covers the history of the arts and how societal and economic conditions transformed them from something everyone did to something mostly done by professionals. There is far too much in the paper to quote, but this is particularly relevant in light of the direct-to-fan discussions dominating music right now.
    A radical monopoly [as distinguished from a commercial monopoly] occurs when pre-recorded music as a product comes to replace the making of music in society; in other words, people stop making music themselves and start buying pre-recorded music instead. A further aspect of a radical monopoly is that it becomes an entrenched and structural part of society. People who only listen to music and do not make it for themselves, for example, will normally put on pre- recorded music, no matter what the situation, rather than make their own. This is partially because of conditioned habit, but also because they will no longer be capable of making music among themselves. In addition, the radical monopoly will set up modes of performance that are exclusive to it and will push more personal modes out of style, i.e., make people like or relate to them less and less. "ART ALIENATED: An Essay on the Decline of Participatory-Art."
    The idea that "everyone is an artist" has been something of a radical approach during the 20th century. There are political and economic ramifications in giving more people control over their arts experiences. Rather than excluding people for lack of talent/experience/resources, they are included as part of a community. In a paper discussing arts participation among Bay Area immigrant communities, Pia Moriarty explains the dynamics of participatory arts using a church choir model. It has considerable relevance to music because (1) church is THE live music experience for many people and (2) she points out how participatory music strengthens those community bonds. Imagine if secular musicians incorporated some of the same techniques.
    Most church choirs are composed of volunteers from the congregation. This is key: the singers are already members and have entry and identity in the larger life-world. Their singing is an expression and deepening of a shared cultural goal, to pray together. To that end they are given a lot of support: physical space, a defined role in the rituals, and perhaps even microphones, songbooks, and instruments. The cultural life of the worshipping community moves forward together, and it carries the singers with it as full members. The line between audience and artistic actors is blurred, overlapping, and permeable; this is typical in participatory arts. The choir practices; it rehearses, but more importantly it engages socially as practicing singers. People learn as they go, but they are already within a living social context....

    With our church choir, “audience development” means that we all learn to sing better together. The community that invites us to develop artistically is the same community that provides entry, actively recruiting us as members in a diversified web of reciprocal relationships. ...

    Participatory art’s membership approach shortens the distance between “who pays” and “who plays,” and so it can develop past the self-limitations of exclusively patronage or sponsorship models. ...

    At a time when non-profit arts organizations are particularly vulnerable to the economy’s protracted woes, the participatory model of “informal,” “folk,” “amateur,” or “unincorporated” artistic production is vibrant and resilient. Participatory arts offer a working alternative for non-profits that will always struggle to survive when they are forced to compete on the terms of a commercial arts model. "Participatory Arts: The Stranger Brings a Gift."
    What is bringing participatory art back so prominently now is the connectivity that the Internet facilitates.
    The internet with all its manifestations is transforming participatory culture, shifting its orientation from the object to the subject and more recently from subject to data. Ideas are no longer collated in sections or categories but tags. The archive has transformed into a ‘cloud’. Participatory dependent internet art is expanding exponentially. Server-side programming enables a cross-cultural, cross-language, cross-border collaboration where the ‘location’ of the artwork is accessible on demand. The reproducible copy of internet based work is one and the same as the original, albeit perhaps, as only a fragment of the dynamic whole. "Thoughts on Participatory Art," by Yiannis Colakides & Helene Black, NeMe, 6/26/09.
    Caterina Fake, co-founder of Flickr and Hunch, says:
    Systems such as Wikipedia, Flickr, Delicious, Facebook, Twitter, Hunch and various parts of the open source movement are based around small contributory systems, bodies of work in which there are incremental improvements by multiple contributors, or exposing small actions that would be insignificant in isolation, but are meaningful in the aggregate. These types of software and platforms are specifically designed for conversation and contribution. That is the point. There is no final product such as a book, movie, song or album. "Participatory media and why I love it (and must defend it)," Caterina.net, 1/19/10.
    A number of people make the distinction between interactivity and participation. This distinction is also very relevant as musicians hope to engage fans and audiences. Some websites deliver interactivity to fans, but don't include the more creative, more social aspects of participatory art.
    At this stage, I also find it important to differentiate between participatory art practices and the much broader term "interaction," wherein the relations established between the members of the audience or between them and the art objects are much more passive and formal (usually directed by certain formal instructions, given by the artists, that are to be followed during the exhibitions).

    ... I want to reflect particularly on the most recent shift of the artists’ focus: from dealing with objects and installations towards dealing with subjects and enabling their participation in art activities." "Participatory Art," Springerin, 2/2006
    The author, Suzana Milevska, goes on to cite the five levels of art participation suggested by Alan Brown.
  • Inventive Arts Participation engages the mind, body and spirit in an act of artistic creation that is unique and idiosyncratic, regardless of skill level.
  • Interpretive Arts Participation is a creative act of self-expression that brings alive and adds value to pre-existing works of art, either individually or collaboratively.
  • Curatorial Arts Participation is the creative act of purposefully selecting, organizing and collecting art to the satisfaction of one’s own artistic sensibility.
  • Observational Arts Participation encompasses arts experiences that you select or consent to, motivated by some expectation of value.
  • Ambient Arts Participation involves experiencing art, consciously or unconsciously, that you did not select. "The Five Modes of Arts Participation," The Artful Manager, 9/14/05.
  • Here's another essay on the subject: Interaction vs Participation.

    In a previous blog post, "Elements of Music Participation," I explored some ways to create music projects which facilitate participation by a wide variety of people with different skill sets. Henry Jenkins, one of the most important voices writing about the future of media and entertainment, gives his definition of participatory culture.
    For the moment, let's define participatory culture as one:
    1. With relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement
    2. With strong support for creating and sharing one's creations with others
    3. With some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices
    4. Where members believe that their contributions matter
    5. Where members feel some degree of social connection with one another (at the least they care what other people think about what they have created).

    Not every member must contribute, but all must believe they are free to contribute when ready and that what they contribute will be appropriately valued. "Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century (Part One)," Confessions of an Aca/Fan, 10/20/06.
    Jenkins also goes on to make a distinction between interactivity and participatory culture.
    Interactivity is a property of the technology, while participation is a property of culture. Participatory culture is emerging as the culture absorbs and responds to the explosion of new media technologies that make it possible for average consumers to archive, annotate, appropriate, and recirculate media content in powerful new ways. A focus on expanding access to new technologies carries us only so far if we do not also foster the skills and cultural knowledge necessary to deploy those tools toward our own ends.
    Another resource on the topic of participatory art can be found here: "Participation & Participatory Platforms." This article mentions the origin of "happenings" which became popular in the 1960s. Flash mobs and Burning Man could be considered descendants of "happenings." Here's a more recent example of a participatory Burning Man-like event.
    A caravan of 19 such trucks were arranged inside a vast indoor garage on the waterfront of a desolate Brooklyn neighborhood. Nothing was for sale, and you needed to bring your own food & beverages.

    The key here is that the event was participatory, meaning you didn’t go simply to passively view art, you were invited to experience it.

    Yet, what made this particular event so fascinating was the many inventive ways each participant completely transformed their truck from something empty and uninspiring into great fun. All I could think was how the next time I see a box truck out on the street, it might be one used here. "Lost Horizon Night Market: Party in a Box Truck," reactions, 1/17/10.
    For all my discussions on participatory art and audience participation, I'm not saying that it is necessarily preferable to take down the walls between artists and fans. There are especially talented individuals who I would like to see have enough financial support in some fashion to be able to devote as much time to their creativity as possible.

    Rather, what I am trying to do is to prepare the music world for what I see happening anyway. The concept of a passive fan, who happily pays money to buy whatever the musician puts out, be that music, performance, art object, or personal interaction, seems to be changing. When fans start getting more attention for themselves by what they are personally doing rather than what they are buying or who they are associating with, they tend to find their own self-expression and creativity preferable to what they can purchase from someone else.

    There can still be a role for the artist in all of this, but it often involves having the artist give up some degree of ownership of the creativity. Here's one artist's take.
    Patricia Reed: I’m also interested in the ways in which such participatory modes of working subvert the branding strategies of institutions by way of clearly identifiable authors and names. ... In participatory practice, it is perhaps the artist who initiates something in the form of an object, idea, interaction, etc., but unleashes it to the influence of the many for further manipulation, engagement, etc. So the artist is the one who “proposes” or instigates certain processes but the authorship is ultimately obscured—it occupies this important space of the “co-,” where a work is partially made with and not by. ...

    Perhaps it’s useful to look at the distinctions in the notion of authorship involved in participatory practice that expands this “artist-as-proposer” we’re discussing. To propose or initiate something is vastly different than to author something. It’s the first step in a process—obviously an important step, but one in a potentially long road. It’s the launching of an idea—and a “hosting” of that idea throughout a process. Crucial, however, to this notion of “hosting” is equally the capacity to “un-host”—for a conventional host assumes situational authority. What I mean by “un-hosting” is not to relinquish authority completely within a group dynamic, but to view the process as a partiality—that is, both being and not being a “host” simultaneously. Throughout the process of un-hosting a certain degree of control (not all) is dispersed and it is precisely that dispersion of “control” that blurs conventional notions of authorship. "What Is a Participatory Practice?" Fillip 8, Fall 2008.
    Game developers and other designers of multimedia think like this because user engagement is their goal.
    For the artist, this means giving up traditional notions of authorial control. “I’m a writer, but I’ve discovered that sometimes writing has to take a backseat to gameplay to ensure people have the most fun,” comments David Varela, who helped create the successful alternate reality game Xi, designed to promote Sony’s PlayStation Home. ...

    “In my work, people spend 30% of the time playing and 70% socialising. We should be facilitating that social experience,” says Lance Weiler. "Participatory Storytelling: A Thousand Authors in Search of a Character," jawbone.tv, 11/11/09.
    Nina Simon makes a particularly good distinction between inviting the public to design a project and designing a project that invites their participation.
    Which of these descriptions exemplifies participatory museum practice?

    1. Museum invites community members to participate in the development and creation of an exhibit. The exhibit opens. It looks like a traditional exhibit.
    2. Museum staff create an exhibit by a traditional internal design process, but the exhibit, once open, invites visitors to contribute their own stories and participation. The exhibit is dynamic and changes somewhat in response to visitors' actions.

    The answer (for me) is both. But the difference between the two examples teases out a problem in differentiating "participatory design" from "design for participation." In the first case, you are making the design process participatory. In the second, you make the product participatory. "Participatory Design Vs. Design for Participation: Exploring the Difference," Museum 2.0, 4/7/09.
    Simon's distinction gets at the heart of what is happening in music among those hoping to engage their fans. Some are letting the fans create the product, while others are letting them participate in something that has already been at least partially developed.

    The reason I have been exploring this to such a degree is that I feel if popular music doesn't at least participate in this conversation, it's going to be outside the wider artist community. Certainly many artists in other fields are talking about ways to generate income for themselves, so I'm not suggesting that music is unique in its discussion of developing careers that involve sales. But I'd like to see more conceptualization about the future of music beyond what is currently being discussed at music conferences and online. The 1,000 True Fans and Tribes models, where the artist is the core surrounded by adoring fans, may not remain the norm. As Evans points out:
    For the most successful of the art-specialists this hero worship has made it possible to sell millions of dollars worth of their art-commodities on name power alone, and gained them large and loyal followings that would do a head-of-state or television evangelist proud.

    ... the prevailing belief is that legitimate art is produced solely by art-specialists and anybody else's efforts are secondary at best. This belief becomes, then, an essentially self-perpetuating definition of art, namely that art is what art-specialists produce.

    The underlying assumption is that this vast number of artistic non-participants will have their artistic needs met, not by actually making art themselves, but rather by consuming the products of the art-specialists. ...

    All of this is the logical result of a commodity culture. If participatory art was a part of our everyday lives, large numbers of people would be actively involved in the making of art. This, however, would severely limit the potential sales of art-commodities and the celebrity status of the specialist. "ART ALIENATED: An Essay on the Decline of Participatory-Art."
    Suzanne Lainson
    @slainson on Twitter

    UPDATE, 3/19/10
    "SXSW: LaDiDa iPhone App Lets Anyone With a Voice Make Music in Seconds"

    Here's a video of Henry Jenkins talking about participatory culture and how most creators do it to share rather than as a way to make money.



    UPDATE 9/10/10

    Here you can find a long discussion about whether or not DJs and mash-up producers are artists.
    Some DJs rebel actively against legal and commercial institutions, while others simply avoid them as a matter of course; in both cases, these factors have helped to break down the artificial distinction between artists and audience. As UK-based musician Matt Wand told me: “I can’t draw the line, I definitely don’t draw the line – he’s artist, she’s audience – I can’t do that at all." "Aram Sinnreich: ‘Mashed Up: Music, Technology, and the Rise of Configurable Culture’ - Book Excerpt," Truthdig, 8/27/10.

    Tuesday, January 26, 2010

    But Is It Art?

    Recently Tod Machover, whose work I discussed in a recent blog post, wrote a guest editorial for The New York Times.

    It fits in with a topic I have been wanting to cover anyway, the increasing use of electronic tools to easily create music.

    As a point of reference, let me say my personal tastes skew toward acoustic music with minimal production. Give me a solo voice or a solo instrument, as unadulterated as possible, and I'll savor the purity of it. I'm partial to warm, uncompressed sounds. Here are two examples:
  • Danielle Ate the Sandwich She has recorded herself in her apartment playing either guitar or ukulele. It's her voice that I love.
  • Chet Baker A great example of emotive jazz.
  • However, I've been reading some very thought-provoking discussions about how new technologies are or aren't good for music and decided the topic was worth exploring. Let me start with this:
    Gary Jarman, singer and bassist for UK indie rockers the Cribs, believes some of the passion has gone missing now that anyone can record and release a song.

    "It shouldn't be easy [to be a musician], you know? Nowadays it's just like everyone's got a laptop, everyone's got GarageBand, everyone's got a MySpace page," Jarman tells Spinner. "People can have a band or do a song as if it's a vanity project." "The Cribs Think It's Too Easy to Make Music," Spinner, 1/11/10.
    In contrast, the people pushing the technology think the ease of creating music is what is valuable.
  • Most of the skeptics I talk to aren’t upset by the use of computer software or programming in and of itself; in fact, many of them are artists and composers who use technology in their own work as well. What upsets them about my work is the way I give up control over the creative process to people who are not necessarily trained musicians and are often complete strangers.

    My response to these critics is to clarify my focus in many of these works: the creative process rather than the creative product. Many of the most exciting, fulfilling, and spiritual experiences of my life have been about creating and performing music. I am trying to share the experience of those moments, not the music that resulted from them, in my own works. "Interview: Jason Freeman," Networked Music Review, 3/11/07.
  • A lot of singers I know don’t like Auto-tune. They grumble that they shouldn’t have bothered to do all that practicing and studying. Auto-tune makes things easier in the studio, and increasingly on stage, no doubt about it. This bothers people who care about how difficult music is to make. Auto-tune threatens some of the myths we have about musicality: that it’s a special talent possessed only by an exceptional few, and that there’s something noble and admirable in the lifetime of discipline it requires. When Lil Wayne goes into a recording studio, smokes a blunt or three and freestyles an Auto-tuned melody off the top of his head, it calls our European-descended assumptions about romantic musical heroism into question.

    In my opinion, this is all for the best. Music isn’t fundamentally about technique. It’s a transmission medium for emotions. A confident and definite performance comes across, accurate pitch or no. When you have a singer do take after take after take in search of technical perfection, you often end up with the sound of a bored and annoyed singer. ...

    It’s way too late in the history of technology to be worrying about authenticity. What’s so authentic about recorded sound to begin with? ... What’s so authentic about multitrack recording, compression, EQ, pop filters, artificial reverb, or selecting from multiple takes to find the best one? All that matters to me when I listen is how the music makes me feel. "In praise of Auto-tune," Ethan Hein's Blog, 12/3/08.
  • Music Creativity Through Technology is dedicated to music educators working with the "Other 80%" of students in our schools who do not participate in the traditional performing ensembles and music classes. With the latest tools in music technology, these educators are finding ways to unleash the creative potential of many of these students....

    The impact that GarageBand had can be seen in the overnight emergence of virtual composers sharing their GarageBand creations on the web and reaching out for comment and guidance. As a music educator, I found this especially exciting as it renewed my interest in finding ways to reach those students in our schools that drop out of the traditional music programs as they progress up through the grades, the traditional programs where more and more emphasis is place on traditional performing ensembles and performance expertise of selected repertoire (see Williams 1987). Through lectures, presentations and keynotes, and the work of my graduate students, I began to focus on what I termed the "non-traditional music student (NTMs)," the other 80 percent of students in our school programs that are disenfranchised from music education in one way or another. "The Other 80% Music Home," Music Creativity Through Technology (www.musicCreativity.org).
  • I watched people go through the same dilemma with online writing. Back in 1998 or so, (a few) people had elaborate personal sites built by hand that would update once a month or so. Then blog software came along and they all thought it was the death of online publishing because anyone could do it, and update not just daily but several times a day.

    And that attitude has been shown to be pretty much total bunk.

    There are now millions of people writing online and if you know where to look, you can find plenty of great things. That also means there are millions of sites that one might call "crap" that don't interest them, but it's worth it to increase that 1% of really good stuff.

    I see the same parallel with music and movies. It's great that things are getting easier. I wish anyone with an idea would write down the idea and have software completely form that into action. I know people invest years in learning tools and they kind of hate it deep down when some kid can pick up the same techniques in ten minutes that took them ten years, but get over yourselves.

    Seriously, the mass democratization of everything is one of the crowning achievements of the Internet. In the long run it will mean tons of great music and tons of great short movies and tons of great writing. Don't worry about the problems of millions of people making music -- there are already tools in place to filter out just the best music (like garageband.com's rating system).

    posted by mathowie at 8:28 AM on December 4, 2004 "Is Reason and other programs making music production too easy?" Ask MetaFilter.
  • Finally, to wrap up the pro-technology folks, let me cite a reader comment on Tod Machover's editorial.
    ... think about musical instruments. How much time does a violin student spend learning to play in tune? Imagine a digital violin that always plays in tune. That frees up hours and hours of time the student can then devote to higher-level exploration of musical expression. (And, yes, the intonation of the instrument can be made contextually 'aware' - q.v. Hermode tuning, an algorithm that tunes digital instruments on the fly according to the harmonic context they are in). ...

    So this is the future I hope we see: digital instruments imbued with context-aware, programmable and customizable musical intelligence. Having tools like that will free people to create music we can't even imagine.
    Paul Henry Smith
    Smith's comment led me to his website where he posted an interview he did.
    This is one of the most exciting and important contributions digital orchestras can make in our musical life. They enable composers to get their music played without the cost and resistance of an acoustic orchestra. My hope is that this new-found avenue for orchestral composition will result in a flowering of activity supporting innovation and refinement in orchestral music, necessary to keep this mode of expression alive and thriving for both acoustic and digital orchestras. In my view, then, acoustic orchestras ultimately benefit from the emergence of very good digital orchestras. Just as interest in acoustic guitar music has been immeasurably increased by the emergence of the electric guitar. "Paul Henry Smith Interview in Beat Magazine," Paul Henry Smith, 9/23/09.
    And this:
    Which brings us to now. The digital instruments are still limited, but they’ve gotten much better than they were even in 2003, and they’re still improving. They are improving faster than acoustic instruments. My five-year investment in learning how to play them, how to master them, is paying off. And within the next ten years there is no question that I will be able to follow my musical imagination anywhere it leads with more suppleness, expression and ease than the current generation of digital musical instruments allows. "Can digital orchestra instruments be musically compelling?" Paul Henry Smith, 8/10/09.
    Among those who do accept technology, they sometimes make a distinction between technology used creatively versus technology used in a banal manner. Here's what Machover said in his editorial.
    Technology has democratized music in ways that are surprising even to me, revolutionizing access to any music anytime with iPod and iTunes, opening interactive musicmaking to amateurs with Guitar Hero and Rock Band (which both grew out of a group I lead at the M.I.T. Media Lab), providing digital production and recording facilities on any laptop that surpass what the Beatles used at Abbey Road, and redefining the performance ensemble with initiatives like the Stanford iPhone Orchestra and YouTube Symphony. ...

    But we can’t take such freshness for granted. Musical technology is so ever-present in our culture, and we are all so very aware of it, that techno-clichés and techno-banalities are never far away and have become ever more difficult to identify and root out. It is deceptively challenging these days to apply technology to music in ways that explode our imaginations, deepen our personal insights, shake us out of boring routine and accepted belief, and pull us ever closer to one another. "On Future Performance," Opinionator Blog, NYTimes.com, 1/13/10.
    Influential musician/producer Brian Eno says that the reason we don't always get great music from technological tools is that, unlike the piano or violin, we haven't worked with them long enough yet.
    On the synthesiser: 1

    "One of the important things about the synthesiser was that it came without any baggage. A piano comes with a whole history of music. There are all sorts of cultural conventions built into traditional instruments that tell you where and when that instrument comes from. When you play an instrument that does not have any such historical background you are designing sound basically. You're designing a new instrument. That's what a synthesiser is essentially. It's a constantly unfinished instrument. You finish it when you tweak it, and play around with it, and decide how to use it. You can combine a number of cultural references into one new thing."

    On the synthesiser: 2

    "Instruments sound interesting not because of their sound but because of the relationship a player has with them. Instrumentalists build a rapport with their instruments which is what you like and respond to. If you were sitting down now to design an instrument you would not dream of coming up with something as ridiculous as an acoustic guitar. It's a strange instrument, it's very limited and it doesn't sound good. You would come up with something much better. But what we like about acoustic guitars is players who have had long relationships with them and know how to do something beautiful with them. You don't have that with synthesisers yet. They are a very new instrument. They are constantly renewing so people do not have time to build long relationships with them. So you tend to hear more of the technology and less of the rapport. It can sound less human. However ! That is changing. And there is a prediction that I made a few years ago that I'm very pleased to see is coming true – synthesisers that have inconsistency built into them. I have always wanted them to be less consistent. I like it that one note can be louder than the note next to it." "On gospel, Abba and the death of the record: an audience with Brian Eno,", The Observer, 1/17/10.
    Musician Jonathan Coulton says that new technologies allow for more experimentation.
    I’ve recently become very interested in all sorts of electronic gizmos and gadgets and composition and performance tools because you can only do so much with a guitar. And I love to play the guitar. I love to listen to the guitar, but there’s really something satisfying about putting it down and picking up a ridiculous piece of equipment with a lot of buttons that’s going to make a lot of noise and also inject a lot of chaos and randomness into what happens. The Zendrum in particular, when I play that, it’s always a little bit different. That’s because I make mistakes and some of the buttons go off by themselves, but you can feel the audience getting sort of excited when that happens. That’s what live performances are about: that process by which you accidentally find something awesome. So for me that’s what I love about those devices and that’s what I love about technology and music: the potential to sort of shake things up and bring you to places you wouldn’t otherwise get to. "Jonathan Coulton Talks Music, Technology and uPlaya.com," The Blogs at HowStuffWorks, 10/28/09.
    In this blog post, producer/composer Spencer Critchley explains why he likes one musician's use of technology, but not another's.
    Thomas' use of technology was creative, taking things apart and reusing them in imaginative ways. His music presented technology through an emotional filter, such as affectionate parody, as in 'She Blinded Me With Science', or a haunting nostalgia, as in much of The Golden Age of Wireless. ...

    The Rhinestone Cowboy's use of technology wasn't creative, just productive. He was simply saving himself the expense of hiring background singers. The harmonizer didn't add anything new to his music, apart from the slightly creepy effect of hearing two perfect clones of the Rhinestone Cowboy. "More Creativity in a Can: When Thomas Dolby Met the Rhinestone Cowboy,"
    O'Reilly, 3/4/09.
    Ethan Hein, who I already quoted above, had this to say about sampling.
    DJs are to traditional instrumentalists as photographers are to painters. You can’t make blanket statements about the validity of the entire medium; you need to go on a case-by-case basis. DJs and photographers have a lower barrier to entry than cellists or painters but the path to mastery is every bit as long.

    We’ve become accustomed to lavish production values in our recorded music, and that comes at a steep price tag if you want live instruments and analog tape. The expensiveness of lavish, dense live recordings forces conservative choices. The effortlessness of sampling leads to more risk taking, more experimentation, more innovation. Also more amateurish nonsense, but that’s the nature of the beast. A low penalty for failure is a necessary precondition for success. "Copyright Criminals," Ethan Hein's Blog, 1/25/10.
    In summary, music technology appears to be either a positive (allowing more people to create music) or, at worst, a neutral (delivering music that may not be artistic, but isn't the fault of the technology).

    Is it bad that technology enables people who might not have talents in the traditional sense to make music? No. If "untalented" people create musical careers because the technology provides a "crutch," then so be it. If the quality of music has gone down as a result of production tricks, then perhaps the solution is to provide exposure to a broader range of musical influences, which does appear to be happening.

    Suzanne Lainson
    @slainson on Twitter

    UPDATE, 1/30/10
    Jazz guitarist Pat Metheny is going to tour with an orchestra of 40 musical robots. They are specially created musical machines which he programmed to play.
    Not only does the visual spectacle of robots playing along with Metheny’s always-impressive guitar work hypnotize the viewer, but it sounds great for the same reason live orchestras sound so much better than CDs: They’re essentially 100-point surround sound speaker systems housed in a massive acoustic space with its own resonances, and no home theater (well, no home theater without robot or human performers) can duplicate that sound. ...

    These musicians may be machines, but their performance varies significantly each time. “Even if you wanted it to be exactly the same every time, it’s not,” said Metheny, adding that subtle variations are caused by the robots’ mechanics, timing and the room in which the machines are playing — and that he can toggle musical parts between the players to switch things up. "Robot Band Backs Pat Metheny on Orchestrion Tour," wired.com, 1/28/10

    Tuesday, January 12, 2010

    The Recession and "Amateur" Talent

    After my last post, "Tod Machover and Musical Innovation," Mike at Radio Nowhere posted a comment about having been initially confused by my focus on the democraticization of music. Since I can't hyperlink just to my response, I'll reproduce it here, and then go on to give some of the examples of changing nature of creativity and fandom that I have run across recently.
    The focus of a lot of future of the music business discussions in the past year have been about "direct-to-fan" sales and 1000 fans. In other words, people are assuming the business model will still involve artists playing for and selling to fans.

    I'm trying to shake things up a bit and suggest that the music business may not unfold this way and, at the very least, the "artists-with-their fans" model is definitely not very revolutionary or forward-thinking enough.

    There are a variety of reasons why I think the trend may be headed this way:

    1. Live shows often seem to be a way for fans to highlight themselves (via sending text messages about the concert to their friends, taking photos and emailing them to friends or posting them online, videotaping to upload on YouTube, etc.). So I see live music being as much or more about the fans wanting to be the center of attention than it is about listening to the music.

    2. Economic trends. If people are becoming permanently more frugal, they may not spend a lot on music-related items. If they can get some satisfaction by hanging out with friends at backyard jams, they may go for it.

    3. Technology is allowing more people to play with the musical process. YouTube, music video games, music iPhone applications. These are all ways for people to get involved, often with little or no skill. As technology gets better, it can do even more to produce music for people. It isn't so much that they will create great music. It will be enough that they feel they have done something worth sharing.

    4. Crowdsourcing. The Internet is allowing more people to collaborate. Therefore they are learning about participatory culture. I think the idea of being passive fans is going to be less appealing to them.

    5. Music consumption changes. Compare classical music audiences to rock concert audiences. As times change, people change how they listen to music.

    In summation, just as MP3s were a disruptive technology for the music business of the 2000s, I think technologies that allow everyone to be a music creator/producer/promoter will be disruptive technologies in the future.

    We have gone from major labels selling millions of copies, to independent artists selling or giving away thousands of copies, to perhaps millions of people sharing music with 10 to 100 of their closest friends.

    If some of my visions of the future are correct, then the music business has to change some more. More people making money; less money, on average, going to each artist.
    Now on to some examples of "amateur" creativity. Here's Newsweek's take on non-professionals moving into the arts.
    In September 2008 English singer Billy Bragg performed at something called the Big Busk. After posting the chords of the songs he would play on the Internet, he invited all comers to bring their guitars. Some 3,000 did, strumming while a crew behind Bragg hoisted signs showing which chord to play. ...

    The global recession hasn't crippled the entertainment industry, as some feared, but it has hastened its embrace of the do-it-yourself movement. From neighborhood theater troupes to bookstore readings, amateur performers are taking their place onstage. It's less a new development than a return to an old way of life. "The whole idea of the professional artist belongs to the 20th century," says Shan Maclennan, Southbank's creative director of learning and participation. "Before that, amateurs were everywhere." When the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic was founded in 1840, she says, half its members had day jobs. "In professionalizing art, [spontaneity and fun] have been lost. What we're doing feels like the way forward."

    ... Robin Simpson, head of the U.K.'s Voluntary Arts Network ... noticed attitudes shifting even before the world economy went south. "The false divide between professionals and amateurs was already breaking down," he says. ...

    How good can any of this stuff be? That's missing the point, says Robert Lynch, president of the nonprofit arts promoter Americans for the Arts: "The word 'amateur' comes from the Latin root for love." Where the arts are concerned, love is definitely in the air. "Amateurs Making Art in Growing Numbers," Newsweek, 12/30/09.
    The National Endowment for the Arts also reports increased participation in the arts, based on a recent survey.
    ... said Joan Shigekawa, NEA's senior deputy chairman. "... there is something about this technology that emboldens people to express themselves."...

    The NEA survey -- which polled 18,000 adults -- also revealed that more people appear to be creating their own art. The numbers of enthusiasts engaging in photography, videography and filmmaking increased to 15 percent last year, a climb from 12 percent in 1992. The availability of digital media, said NEA researchers, accounted for that increase. "National Endowment for the Arts survey shows growth in online arts audience," Washington Post, 12/9/09.
    In the Washington DC area, some of the most expensive chorus groups have closed. But others, using volunteer performers, are springing up.
    ... the secret of choral success appears to lie on a more grass-roots level: in the fact that choruses allow people to make music, rather than merely listen to it.

    "If we don't allow audiences to become involved every once in a while," says Ann Stahmer, executive director of the City Choir of Washington, "we're not doing everything we can to promote choral music. There's something about the 'Hallelujah' Chorus that is universal. It makes people feel they are a classical musician for 3.5 magic moments." "New groups like National Master Chorale signal key change in D.C. choral scene," Washington Post, 12/18/09.
    An interesting variation is the complaint choir.
    Recently a group of about 100 Tokyo residents put their complaints into a pile and a composer, Okuchi Shunsuke, turned them into a song. About 80 of the complainers (accompanied by an accordion, a bass cello and a tambourine) then performed the composition at various sites around the city, becoming the latest example of what has become known as a complaints choir. ...

    ... others have formed choirs in other cities ... more than 60 performances have occurred worldwide — from Melbourne to Singapore to Philadelphia to Florence. People of differing ages and backgrounds are encouraged to participate. Singing experience is not required.

    “If you demand a certain amount of singing skills it would exclude a lot of people,” [Oliver Kochta-Kalleinen, founder of the concept] said. “Anyone who has a complaint should be able to take part.” ...

    Regardless of the complaint and where it is sung, being able to sing it while standing alongside others is apparently often cathartic. "Complaint Choirs Make Whining an Art Form," New York Times, 12/9/09.
    Talent shows, open mics, and the like have had varying degrees of success. I wanted to feature two of them. In both cases, the community element, where people come as much to drink and hang out with people, is as important or more so than who is performing.

  • For nearly 10 years (over 100 shows), the Freak Train has been going on. It was originally conceived as a way to do something with an empty theater on Monday nights.
    Monday night is when the freaks come out. In droves.

    Old freaks, young freaks, gay freaks, straight freaks. Freaks in drag and freaks with cancer. They flock to the Bug Theatre, an old nickelodeon house in northwest Denver.

    They pay $5 for admission and a plastic, bottomless cup the freaks of proper age can fill with not-so-freaky Breckenridge microbrews.

    Some come to the monthly event, called "Freak Train," to perform — anything they want, from songs to stand-up comedy, poems to performance art, anything, uncensored. Most come to be entertained.

    The distinction between the two groups, though, is minimal, as self-described freaks watch their fellow freaks from the seats, then head to the stage themselves. ...

    The comics aren't necessarily funny. The singers can go off-key. Things can be fascinating or painfully tedious. It's all part of the show — a very popular show, usually packed with a crowd of hipsters and half-wits, weirdos, wunderkinds and wannabes.

    "Freak Train is where the lines blur between virtuosity, sincerity and amateurism," says bubbly emcee GerRee Hinshaw. "I wouldn't call it a forgiving audience. The audience never promises to love what you're going to do. But the exchange is always there. We're going through something together. And, really, every audience member is hoping the person on stage is about to blow them away." "Are these people freaks?" The Denver Post, 8/29/09.
  • Ignite is a concept spreading around the country where people get to make five-minute presentations on topics of their choosing using 20 slides that change every 15 seconds. It's PowerPoint combined with standup comedy. In Boulder this has become hugely successful, with each show growing bigger and selling out. The last show attracted 700 people and the next is expected to draw 850.
    Despite being a pretty low-tech endeavor, the idea came from the tech community, and it's an event the exemplifies geek culture. The potential topics are unlimited and determined by the speakers' passions and by attendees' votes (with the odd intervention by the organizers). ...

    The format is tight and keeps things from ever getting boring: If a speaker isn't doing it for you, you grab a drink, and by the time you're tipping the bartender, the next person is up. The crowd is raucous and engaged, encouraging with hearty yells and interjecting the occasional laugh with a well-timed retort. The results are impressive, even to those thinking the whole thing sounds like a colossal bore. "Ignite Boulder lit my fire," Westword, 12/11/09.
  • Finally, I wanted to mention a highly successful website, LOOKBOOK.nu, where people post the looks they have created. They aren't passive consumers.
    ... the idea all along was to see if a global community of creative and talented people could pull off a virtual “LOOKBOOK” that was just as visually compelling as that of any one magazine editor or fashion industry “insider.” That’s why we originally called LB a “social experiment in style.” ... to our astonishment it has now stretched to over 80 countries around the world.

    ... By now, practically everyone recognizes the immense appeal that street fashion has over more traditional fashion media outlets — it’s just so much more real, you know? I think it’s no wonder street style blogs and party photo sites have seen such runaway popularity over the past year, simply because on the streets is where real fashion comes to life. What gives LOOKBOOK.nu its edge in the realm of online fashion is that our content is 100% produced as well as democratically sorted by the community members themselves. "What Are You Wearing Today? A Discussion With Yuri Lee, Founder of LOOKBOOK.nu," Allentrepreneur, 3/9/09.
    Suzanne Lainson
    @slainson on Twitter

    UPDATE, 1/14/10
    The trailer for this documentary says that the ukulele is popular again because it's easy to play and everyone can get involved.
    MIGHTY UKE: A documentary about the global revival of the ukulele in the 21st Century

    UPDATE, 1/20/10
    At the end of the 19th century, an amateur meant someone who was motivated by the sheer love of doing something; professional was a rare, pejorative term for grubby money-making. Now, amateurism is a byword for sloppiness, disorganisation and ineptitude, while professionalism–as Humphrys suggested–is the default description of excellence. Ours is the age of professionalism; it is a concept in perpetual boom. But all bubbles, as we have painfully learned about finance, must eventually burst. Is it time we let some of the hot air out of professionalism? "Are We Too Professional?" More Intelligent Life, Winter 2009.
    UPDATE 8/7/10
    This article (and the comments) list examples of non-professional musicians participating in classical music activities.
    DIY music