Temperly’s introduction to The Cognition of Basic Musical Structures is intriguing. It definitely explains a lot of his process, but does not begin to hint at what his findings were. I would like to read more of the work, and hopefully as the semester winds down, I will have a chance to.
I was struck by his comment about neurological study of the brain and its functions, especially in regards to music cognition. I have a friend who is a psychologist and have talked briefly to him about some of his work, and about the broader field. It appears to me that most of the studies are funded based on the funder’s criteria, whether it be a grant or institution. This means studies are subject to what the funder deems as critical or important. It’s expensive especially to conduct fMRIs or other imaging of the brain. So who pays for it to examine how the brain processes music? I imagine it would be hard to secure funding for this type of study. It is important, though, especially as it has been shown that studying music can aid students in other types of study, like math.
I liked that Temperly said that trained and untrained listeners share a lot in common in the way they process so much that I stopped reading mid paragraph to write a note about it. I was a little disappointed that he then went on to emphasis the differences, but nevertheless I think it’s an important piece. A lot of the reading I’ve been doing for my paper is about Absolute Pitch (AP) and many psychologists have researched it. One thing found is that though possessors of AP perform very differently in pitch identification tasks, non possessors may be closer to possessors than generally thought. Meaning, pitch memory and pitch identification may be better than previously thought in non-AP people.
I also thought it was interesting in this discussion that linguists ignore the more detailed and extensive education they have when considering their research. I wonder why the two fields have evolved in that way?
I am not sure I totally understand Temperly’s discussion of the piano roll representations but I like the idea of the visual representation of music outside of the standard staff. It’s always been a slightly sad thing for me to admit, but I’m really more of a visual than aural learner, and I’m fascinated by the way that music can be visually represented. My aunt has a player piano, and I used to love looking at the roll. Same for music boxes, I loved to see how the knobs on a canister could move the tines to make the noises that I liked so much.
I found it interesting that Temperly won’t be discussing timbre. Timbre was always a topic or word that my music theory teachers avoided discussing, either because they weren’t sure how to describe it or didn’t think it was important. However, in a reading by Levitin, he mentioned how those of us without AP don’t identify pitches, we identify timbre. We know, generally, a violin from a bassoon from a guitar. Sure, there is fuzziness, and maybe you don’t know the name of the instrument, but you know it’s different. When I read that, I realized how important timbre really is to us as auditory creatures.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Lady Gaga, Capitalism, and 1984
Hakanen’s article Counting Down to Number One : The Evolution of the Meaning of Popular Music was a really fascinating article. I liked how it drew many different disciplines together to assess and dissect such an omnipresent facet of our musical culture. I’m not much of a TV person anymore, but David Letterman’s top ten lists were always a favorite of mine. I also used to fairly avidly follow some of the BillBoard charts. My first radio job was at a station that played a mishmash of country hits and ‘popular’ hits, and subscribed to BillBoard. I read it every week and also read several old books that were around that would have the top 100 BillBoard hits for a certain year and a description, artist biography and other releveant information. Most of them were from the 1980’s. It may have been 1998, but I was my high school’s expert on 1984’s number one hit songs.
One of the things that I felt I learned from the article was not specific to music. The author mentioned the theory behind the counterfeit and its relationship to class. This really resonated with me, and I would love to know more about it. It reminded me of several articles I’ve read in newspaper in the past few years about fashion counterfeit. Upscale designers are angry that the replication of their styles is becoming easier. I understand this for the most part – designers are one of the few jobs that really seem to be artistic and they can make a living from it. Who doesn’t want to be credited for their work? On the other hand, many of the designers who are being copied do not make clothing that is affordable or accessible. Their items, regardless of any artistic value, are symbols of status. At least part of that anger may be that anyone can look like they have the money/desire/fashion sense to buy a certain designer’s item. And, as copies get better and better, who can tell who has the real thing? Again, I’m not much of a TV person, but it reminds me of an episode of the American version of Ugly Betty where Betty somehow gets a very fancy handbag. Her co-workers are jealous, and through some sort of manipulations, she ends up with two bags – one real and one fake. She gives one to a co-worker and keeps one for herself. I don’t remember if it was clear who got which bag, but that was kind of the moral, too. Sometimes the idea of something is worth more than the thing. I also wonder if any of the anger from musicians about unpaid for access to music might be related to previous status given to music owners or consumers?
I disagree with Kakanen’s assertion that “ musicians had little interest in composing their own music because of lack of financial incentive” (p. 102). I think some people make music for music’s sake. Even if they weren’t being paid, I am sure there were people writing music for their own pleasure or the pleasure of others. Also, I think this stands in stark contrast to the argument in The Future of Music that musicians only make music for the sake of music. Neither is entirely correct. People make music for so many reasons that to generalize is offensive, especially if you do not support the generalization with a coherent argument.
The article had an incredible, succinct history of song publishing, music radio & royalty payments. It was such a strong condemnation of the capitalist system and what industrialization has done to music that it almost made me want to stop listening to Lady Gaga out of principle. Almost. Then, the article Analyzing Popular Music made me want to listen to it and discuss her!
One of the things that I felt I learned from the article was not specific to music. The author mentioned the theory behind the counterfeit and its relationship to class. This really resonated with me, and I would love to know more about it. It reminded me of several articles I’ve read in newspaper in the past few years about fashion counterfeit. Upscale designers are angry that the replication of their styles is becoming easier. I understand this for the most part – designers are one of the few jobs that really seem to be artistic and they can make a living from it. Who doesn’t want to be credited for their work? On the other hand, many of the designers who are being copied do not make clothing that is affordable or accessible. Their items, regardless of any artistic value, are symbols of status. At least part of that anger may be that anyone can look like they have the money/desire/fashion sense to buy a certain designer’s item. And, as copies get better and better, who can tell who has the real thing? Again, I’m not much of a TV person, but it reminds me of an episode of the American version of Ugly Betty where Betty somehow gets a very fancy handbag. Her co-workers are jealous, and through some sort of manipulations, she ends up with two bags – one real and one fake. She gives one to a co-worker and keeps one for herself. I don’t remember if it was clear who got which bag, but that was kind of the moral, too. Sometimes the idea of something is worth more than the thing. I also wonder if any of the anger from musicians about unpaid for access to music might be related to previous status given to music owners or consumers?
I disagree with Kakanen’s assertion that “ musicians had little interest in composing their own music because of lack of financial incentive” (p. 102). I think some people make music for music’s sake. Even if they weren’t being paid, I am sure there were people writing music for their own pleasure or the pleasure of others. Also, I think this stands in stark contrast to the argument in The Future of Music that musicians only make music for the sake of music. Neither is entirely correct. People make music for so many reasons that to generalize is offensive, especially if you do not support the generalization with a coherent argument.
The article had an incredible, succinct history of song publishing, music radio & royalty payments. It was such a strong condemnation of the capitalist system and what industrialization has done to music that it almost made me want to stop listening to Lady Gaga out of principle. Almost. Then, the article Analyzing Popular Music made me want to listen to it and discuss her!
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Journal Week Twelve
I don’t really have much to say about the MML website. I think there could be circumstances under which it would be very helpful. I can’t really think of how I would ever use it personally, but I could see it being useful for music libraries and archives.
Our other reading, from Music is Your Future was interesting. I enjoyed the very clear way the authors laid out how they saw the music business functioning. I guess I was a little surprised that they didn’t feel they had seen how the business worked until many years of working in it. Maybe I’ve been lucky enough to read many different written accounts of people’s experience in the music industry so I feel I have an idea of how things work. I’ve also seen the DIY side of things as a fan, musician and friend of musicians.
I definitely agree with their assessment of the Catch-22 of the industry. It seems the only thing to do is to get out there and do it. Just starting somewhere can seem so intimidating that I understand why people don’t get out there more often. Everyone has to start somewhere, though, whether it’s as somebody’s opening act or on a college radio station or at a coffee shop.
It’s interesting to read the discussion of the big eating the small now, after some of the other reading from this semester. I don’t think anyone is doing all that well at this point and time. There are some large acts that are, and some smaller, independent ones that are. I think we are moving away from a music culture where only a few big acts are successful and to one where regional music scenes are stronger and more independent. And regions may not be geographical, they may be self chosen regions by genre. At least, it is my hope that we are moving toward systems of distribution online and physically that will support or engender this. I’ve seen quite a few US acts find success in Europe and not in the US. It’s not as if this doesn’t have precedence, many jazz musicians were well known and well paid in Europe while unknown or largely ignored in the States. It does make me feel better that there are people somewhere who appreciate music that does not get listened to in the US.
Our other reading, from Music is Your Future was interesting. I enjoyed the very clear way the authors laid out how they saw the music business functioning. I guess I was a little surprised that they didn’t feel they had seen how the business worked until many years of working in it. Maybe I’ve been lucky enough to read many different written accounts of people’s experience in the music industry so I feel I have an idea of how things work. I’ve also seen the DIY side of things as a fan, musician and friend of musicians.
I definitely agree with their assessment of the Catch-22 of the industry. It seems the only thing to do is to get out there and do it. Just starting somewhere can seem so intimidating that I understand why people don’t get out there more often. Everyone has to start somewhere, though, whether it’s as somebody’s opening act or on a college radio station or at a coffee shop.
It’s interesting to read the discussion of the big eating the small now, after some of the other reading from this semester. I don’t think anyone is doing all that well at this point and time. There are some large acts that are, and some smaller, independent ones that are. I think we are moving away from a music culture where only a few big acts are successful and to one where regional music scenes are stronger and more independent. And regions may not be geographical, they may be self chosen regions by genre. At least, it is my hope that we are moving toward systems of distribution online and physically that will support or engender this. I’ve seen quite a few US acts find success in Europe and not in the US. It’s not as if this doesn’t have precedence, many jazz musicians were well known and well paid in Europe while unknown or largely ignored in the States. It does make me feel better that there are people somewhere who appreciate music that does not get listened to in the US.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Mongolian Hip Hop!
I decided to write my research paper on autism and absolute pitch. One of the books I found that had extensive writing on absolute pitch was in a book called The Psychology of Music. Something I read reminded me of my earlier post about absolute pitch. The author of the chapter on absolute pitch talks about the phenomenon that I mentioned where a person can recall a pitch at will but does not have absolute pitch. It’s called quasi-absolute pitch. It is not a very glamorous name, and I don’t particularly like it. It is also not a very descriptive term. I would prefer something like selective pitch recall or selective absolute pitch.
The reading from Soundtracks certainly jumped right into a controversial topic right away, that of what is and isn’t popular music. It is a thoughtful discussion of an issues that engages musicians and music lovers across genres. Foa very long time I was very dismissive of what I thought of as ‘popular’ music. Now, I understand it as something to be enjoyed. Sometimes I take it seriously, sometimes I don’t. I no longer beat myself up for having ‘bad taste’ for liking the latest overproduced top 40 hit single. I think that this type of discussion was what I was hoping for from The Future of Music. Even if I didn’t get it there, I’m getting in this book.
The second chapter I read was the chapter on lyrics. The discussion of hip hop outside of the US reminded me of this story from NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112514136. It’s interesting in Soundtracks they mention how French hip hop objects to nationalism, but Mongolian hip hop is all about the nationalism.
The discussion about punk was interesting, and made me wonder is punk really a middle class vehicle? I think punk has more of a working class background than the authors give credit to. I would be more likely to say that hippies were decidedly middle- to upper class kids disenchanted. I have seen punk scenes that encompass a little more of lower socio-economic classes. Sure, I have seen enough trust-fund gutter punks, but I don’t know if I would characterize 30 to 40 years of punk movements on that basis. Patti Smith is a bit of an enigma in that way – both obviously well exposed to literature but working in factories right before Horses. Of course, all these issues of authenticity have been hashed and re-hashed in punk scenes since the 1970s.
I would have liked the authors to draw a clearer line between country and punk. Joe Ely toured with the Clash in the 1970s, I’ve heard a rumor that Dwight Yoakam had some sort of relationship with the Sex Pistols, but I’ve never been able to substantiate that. Also, what about Hank Williams III? I am at least glad they mention the connection and debt owed by country music to African American musics. I grew up in the American South (Kentucky, to be specific) and have always lived with a long cultural history of segregation and racism. However, as I’ve gotten older and learned more about the many complicated ways people interact, I think that it often overlooked the interplay between white and black cultures in the South over the years. White culture and black culture, though segregated by law still had a lot of give and take over the years.
The reading from Soundtracks certainly jumped right into a controversial topic right away, that of what is and isn’t popular music. It is a thoughtful discussion of an issues that engages musicians and music lovers across genres. Foa very long time I was very dismissive of what I thought of as ‘popular’ music. Now, I understand it as something to be enjoyed. Sometimes I take it seriously, sometimes I don’t. I no longer beat myself up for having ‘bad taste’ for liking the latest overproduced top 40 hit single. I think that this type of discussion was what I was hoping for from The Future of Music. Even if I didn’t get it there, I’m getting in this book.
The second chapter I read was the chapter on lyrics. The discussion of hip hop outside of the US reminded me of this story from NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112514136. It’s interesting in Soundtracks they mention how French hip hop objects to nationalism, but Mongolian hip hop is all about the nationalism.
The discussion about punk was interesting, and made me wonder is punk really a middle class vehicle? I think punk has more of a working class background than the authors give credit to. I would be more likely to say that hippies were decidedly middle- to upper class kids disenchanted. I have seen punk scenes that encompass a little more of lower socio-economic classes. Sure, I have seen enough trust-fund gutter punks, but I don’t know if I would characterize 30 to 40 years of punk movements on that basis. Patti Smith is a bit of an enigma in that way – both obviously well exposed to literature but working in factories right before Horses. Of course, all these issues of authenticity have been hashed and re-hashed in punk scenes since the 1970s.
I would have liked the authors to draw a clearer line between country and punk. Joe Ely toured with the Clash in the 1970s, I’ve heard a rumor that Dwight Yoakam had some sort of relationship with the Sex Pistols, but I’ve never been able to substantiate that. Also, what about Hank Williams III? I am at least glad they mention the connection and debt owed by country music to African American musics. I grew up in the American South (Kentucky, to be specific) and have always lived with a long cultural history of segregation and racism. However, as I’ve gotten older and learned more about the many complicated ways people interact, I think that it often overlooked the interplay between white and black cultures in the South over the years. White culture and black culture, though segregated by law still had a lot of give and take over the years.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Journal Week Ten
The music sites listed on visualcomplexity are certainly interesting. Some of them it's clear that they are produced by academics or academic institutions. Some, it's not so clear who the author or creator is. I also wonder how they get the word out. The academic sites are probably being presented at conferences, sent to funding institutions, given to professors or advisers for grading or otherwise used in an academic setting. How are these sites advertising or presenting themselves? Are they waiting for people to discover them on this site, are they presenting their vision to larger companies like Apple, Google or? The parent site started out as an academic endeavor, but it's a dot-com now. The founder works for Nokia, a for profit company.
I visited http://www.formater.de/wordpress/ from visualcomplexity. I like the idea of organizing ideas around the nodes and having a zoomable interface. It also seems like it would be easy to discover new music through this interface. The interface graphics that they feature, at least in this mockup, are very unattractive to me. It reminds me of the Windows Real Player interface, which I hate. I really like the clean, light colored iTunes, however.
I also visited http://www.reactable.com/reactable/. I want one! It looks like an incredible, fun interface. The colors and graphics are attractive, and look almost like they were designed for children. I would love to play with this. Because of its reliance on physical proximity and relationships, it reminds me of the theremin.
So Google has started a music search. I played around with it for a little while. I like it, but when I followed the link to lala.com I could only listen to 30 second clips. From Google's search page, I could listen to the entire song. Granted, I could only listen to a few songs. I know lala is only one of the services that the search results use, and I'm not sure if it would be the same experience at the other sites. With lala, however, I'm a little resentful that I would have to sign up to get access to the information. You don't have to sign up when you search for videos, you don't have to sign up when you go to read a Wikipedia article. Google, as a for-profit company, rides that fine line between providing information for the public as a service like the library, or providing information to profit off of it. It's a rough little road, and I'm curious to see how they come out the other side, especially when it comes to the Google Book project. An in-depth comparison of Google and the Internet Archive would be really interesting in that regard.
Another thing I found I wanted from this week's lesson is the poster of the Genealogy of Pop & Rock Music. How cool is that? And such an attractive way to display information. In contrast to the more interactive sites from visual complexity, this is an engaging way to draw an audience in without Web 2.0 techniques.
I visited http://www.formater.de/wordpress/ from visualcomplexity. I like the idea of organizing ideas around the nodes and having a zoomable interface. It also seems like it would be easy to discover new music through this interface. The interface graphics that they feature, at least in this mockup, are very unattractive to me. It reminds me of the Windows Real Player interface, which I hate. I really like the clean, light colored iTunes, however.
I also visited http://www.reactable.com/reactable/. I want one! It looks like an incredible, fun interface. The colors and graphics are attractive, and look almost like they were designed for children. I would love to play with this. Because of its reliance on physical proximity and relationships, it reminds me of the theremin.
So Google has started a music search. I played around with it for a little while. I like it, but when I followed the link to lala.com I could only listen to 30 second clips. From Google's search page, I could listen to the entire song. Granted, I could only listen to a few songs. I know lala is only one of the services that the search results use, and I'm not sure if it would be the same experience at the other sites. With lala, however, I'm a little resentful that I would have to sign up to get access to the information. You don't have to sign up when you search for videos, you don't have to sign up when you go to read a Wikipedia article. Google, as a for-profit company, rides that fine line between providing information for the public as a service like the library, or providing information to profit off of it. It's a rough little road, and I'm curious to see how they come out the other side, especially when it comes to the Google Book project. An in-depth comparison of Google and the Internet Archive would be really interesting in that regard.
Another thing I found I wanted from this week's lesson is the poster of the Genealogy of Pop & Rock Music. How cool is that? And such an attractive way to display information. In contrast to the more interactive sites from visual complexity, this is an engaging way to draw an audience in without Web 2.0 techniques.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Argh, the future of music.
So it was back to The future of music this week. Again, I found the book’s tone and message a little off key, and I’m not sure if I intended that pun or not. I did agree with the book’s assertion that the real problem will be information overload and not the piracy of copyrighted material. In my LIBR 200 class, our discussion of copyright issues solely focused on whether public librarians are responsible for insuring their patrons are using the c.d.s and other digital media in a legal manner. I thought this was sorely shortsighted. Yes, it should be discussed, but the larger issues is about the copyrights themselves and whether they’re fair to either user or creator and if they still apply to our increasingly digital age. I am glad that I can at least agree with Kusek & Leonhard on this issue.
I found several allusions the authors used annoying. First, they referred to what Paris was like in the 1980s. How do I know what Paris was like in the 80s? I was 7 and I don’t even really know what Paris is like now. I am assuming from the context that Paris had a lot of small cinemas playing art house films to small crowds. This seems a smug allusion to use and a bit alienating. I am an intelligent, well-read audience member but this escapes me. It feels the authors are using almost an in-joke when a short description would have been much more illuminating. And again a page or two later, they refer to the plight of the South Spaniards when faced with Manchester punters. Again, from context I can guess that the English tourists were at best annoying to the Spaniards, and at worse, disrespectful and destructive. The short sentence referring to it is a rather glib way to deal with a situation that sounds like it probably had many complicated cultural implications. And what do they mean, it all comes out in the wash? This sort of glib tone is dismissive and I think demeaning to situations that probably deserve consideration.
On page 166, Kusek & Leonhard talk about the amount of user generated content and whether this will be a problem or not. The tone in the paragraph rather suddenly switches to a very serious, academic tone when they say, “it cannot be really wrong to give some means of self-expression to a larger number of people, provided that potent filtering and selection methodologies exist to help the cream rise to the top.” I am not really sure where to start with this. First, of course it’s not wrong to give means of self-expression to anyone. We are not forced to watch every YouTube video of every kid singing the songs they wrote about their cat. I thought that was one of the beauties of the Internet, that many people could express themselves and find like-minded people. Maybe that kid will tap into a network of many adolescents who like to write about cats and create a community around cat-core songs.
Seriously, I am curious about what ‘potent filtering and selection methodologies’ the authors envision. We are already seeing Google and YouTube favoring corporate content in searches, making it harder to find the homemade content that used to be the only content. Is this what they want? Yahoo’s popular searches always show celebrities who are part of the corporate media that Kusek & Leonhard seem so disillusioned with. I think this touches on a wider issue that I am now convinced that Kusek & Leonhard are either ignorant or not well-informed of: information literacy. I discussed this in an earlier entry, but I think it bears repeating. How do people master filtering and searching? By executing better and more effective searches. And learning how to do so is part of information literacy. On page 169, Kusek & Leonhard assert that younger generations are going to know how to deal with this deluge of information because they will grow up around it. It’s the adults, they argue, that will have the biggest adjustment. I find this argument faulty. I feel like it’s saying that kids are going to learn how to read because they grew up in a house with lots of books on the shelves. Only if an adult takes the books off the shelves and teaches them the alphabet and helps them will the child learn how to read. And, for digital media, it will only be if someone assists the kids in learning will they really become adept at navigating the digital world. I do think it might be a bit more intuitive to someone who has been around the media their entire life, but that is very different than what Kusek & Leonhard assert.
I found several allusions the authors used annoying. First, they referred to what Paris was like in the 1980s. How do I know what Paris was like in the 80s? I was 7 and I don’t even really know what Paris is like now. I am assuming from the context that Paris had a lot of small cinemas playing art house films to small crowds. This seems a smug allusion to use and a bit alienating. I am an intelligent, well-read audience member but this escapes me. It feels the authors are using almost an in-joke when a short description would have been much more illuminating. And again a page or two later, they refer to the plight of the South Spaniards when faced with Manchester punters. Again, from context I can guess that the English tourists were at best annoying to the Spaniards, and at worse, disrespectful and destructive. The short sentence referring to it is a rather glib way to deal with a situation that sounds like it probably had many complicated cultural implications. And what do they mean, it all comes out in the wash? This sort of glib tone is dismissive and I think demeaning to situations that probably deserve consideration.
On page 166, Kusek & Leonhard talk about the amount of user generated content and whether this will be a problem or not. The tone in the paragraph rather suddenly switches to a very serious, academic tone when they say, “it cannot be really wrong to give some means of self-expression to a larger number of people, provided that potent filtering and selection methodologies exist to help the cream rise to the top.” I am not really sure where to start with this. First, of course it’s not wrong to give means of self-expression to anyone. We are not forced to watch every YouTube video of every kid singing the songs they wrote about their cat. I thought that was one of the beauties of the Internet, that many people could express themselves and find like-minded people. Maybe that kid will tap into a network of many adolescents who like to write about cats and create a community around cat-core songs.
Seriously, I am curious about what ‘potent filtering and selection methodologies’ the authors envision. We are already seeing Google and YouTube favoring corporate content in searches, making it harder to find the homemade content that used to be the only content. Is this what they want? Yahoo’s popular searches always show celebrities who are part of the corporate media that Kusek & Leonhard seem so disillusioned with. I think this touches on a wider issue that I am now convinced that Kusek & Leonhard are either ignorant or not well-informed of: information literacy. I discussed this in an earlier entry, but I think it bears repeating. How do people master filtering and searching? By executing better and more effective searches. And learning how to do so is part of information literacy. On page 169, Kusek & Leonhard assert that younger generations are going to know how to deal with this deluge of information because they will grow up around it. It’s the adults, they argue, that will have the biggest adjustment. I find this argument faulty. I feel like it’s saying that kids are going to learn how to read because they grew up in a house with lots of books on the shelves. Only if an adult takes the books off the shelves and teaches them the alphabet and helps them will the child learn how to read. And, for digital media, it will only be if someone assists the kids in learning will they really become adept at navigating the digital world. I do think it might be a bit more intuitive to someone who has been around the media their entire life, but that is very different than what Kusek & Leonhard assert.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Journal Week Eight
Musicovery.com is a very fun website, I must say. I enjoyed exploring it this week. I really like the websites Professor Simon has shared with us that use software to suggest music. It’s a much more interactive and attractive option than Amazon.com’s suggestions. I don’t buy much from iTunes, so I’m not sure what that experience is like. Of course, I still prefer a friend telling me that I’ll like certain music because they know how many times I’ve listened to a Ted Leo and the Pharmacists’ album on repeat.
The reading on improvisation was fairly captivating for me. When I first began playing music, I would make up songs and play a lot, but as I got older, I thought I couldn’t improvise. Part of this was because most of my playing experience was on the violin, in a classical manner. My grandfather played country fiddle, but that was very different than what I did, at least that was what I was taught. It was very intimidating to be put into a situation with much older musicians in my family and being expecting to come up with something to play. I would usually just pick a drone note - I still do this when I’m improving and I’m stuck.
In Part Five, section MIC- the Instrument, Bailey talks about how people learn how to play an instrument. I think much of the ‘natural’ process of learning how to play an instrument the author and the musicians’ he quotes is stopped. Some of it is seen as abusing the instrument, or simply not the ‘right’ way to play an instrument. I agree that instruments should be treated with care and respect, but I do not think this means that musicians can’t experiment with coaxing new sounds of an instrument in a non-conventional manner. How else will innovations happen?
I object to Bailey’s describing ethnic instruments as having, “very limited capability and that very little instrumental skill is needed to play” (p.101). I had a hard time telling if this was his assessment or if he was only trying to convey what the anti-instrumentalists felt about ethnic instruments. First, I think it reveals an ugly prejudice against non-Western musics. Many people only think that Western music is complicated or capable of being considered virtuosic. This is simply not true. Two examples of non-Western virtuosic instruments spring to my mind: the West African kora and the Indian sitar. Both have long, long histories of music and musicians. Each are at least as old as the violin, and much older than the guitar, which I think of two of the most obvious examples of virtuosic instruments in Western music, the other being the piano. Also, I think it’s dangerous to make blanket statements about all music that is not Western music. Can you really say anything very intelligent about a group of musics that includes Tuvan throat singing, reggae and Native American drumming? Most likely, you will make a generalization that will border on offensive and slip into the assumption that all non-Western cultures are primitive.
I enjoyed seeing Alain Danielou’s name pop up in the book. I suspect it might be in the section on Indian music more, too. I did a little bit of research into Danielou as an undergraduate when I was researching tuning modes in Indian music. The research I did contradicted some of Danielou’s assertions in terms of the srutis in Indian music having very exact measurements. My research was probably not nearly as broad as it could have been, so I would be interested to revisit the topic and see if my earlier findings hold up.
The reading on improvisation was fairly captivating for me. When I first began playing music, I would make up songs and play a lot, but as I got older, I thought I couldn’t improvise. Part of this was because most of my playing experience was on the violin, in a classical manner. My grandfather played country fiddle, but that was very different than what I did, at least that was what I was taught. It was very intimidating to be put into a situation with much older musicians in my family and being expecting to come up with something to play. I would usually just pick a drone note - I still do this when I’m improving and I’m stuck.
In Part Five, section MIC- the Instrument, Bailey talks about how people learn how to play an instrument. I think much of the ‘natural’ process of learning how to play an instrument the author and the musicians’ he quotes is stopped. Some of it is seen as abusing the instrument, or simply not the ‘right’ way to play an instrument. I agree that instruments should be treated with care and respect, but I do not think this means that musicians can’t experiment with coaxing new sounds of an instrument in a non-conventional manner. How else will innovations happen?
I object to Bailey’s describing ethnic instruments as having, “very limited capability and that very little instrumental skill is needed to play” (p.101). I had a hard time telling if this was his assessment or if he was only trying to convey what the anti-instrumentalists felt about ethnic instruments. First, I think it reveals an ugly prejudice against non-Western musics. Many people only think that Western music is complicated or capable of being considered virtuosic. This is simply not true. Two examples of non-Western virtuosic instruments spring to my mind: the West African kora and the Indian sitar. Both have long, long histories of music and musicians. Each are at least as old as the violin, and much older than the guitar, which I think of two of the most obvious examples of virtuosic instruments in Western music, the other being the piano. Also, I think it’s dangerous to make blanket statements about all music that is not Western music. Can you really say anything very intelligent about a group of musics that includes Tuvan throat singing, reggae and Native American drumming? Most likely, you will make a generalization that will border on offensive and slip into the assumption that all non-Western cultures are primitive.
I enjoyed seeing Alain Danielou’s name pop up in the book. I suspect it might be in the section on Indian music more, too. I did a little bit of research into Danielou as an undergraduate when I was researching tuning modes in Indian music. The research I did contradicted some of Danielou’s assertions in terms of the srutis in Indian music having very exact measurements. My research was probably not nearly as broad as it could have been, so I would be interested to revisit the topic and see if my earlier findings hold up.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Journal Week Seven
So much to talk about in this week’s readings! First, This is your brain on music. Second page into chapter 6, Levitin begins talking about something that resonates very deeply with me: the performance chasm prevalent in Western culture. This is something I abhor. I am sure that many of my classmates (and probably my professor) have come across this as musicians. Many people who have little to no formal training in music but play or listen avidly seem to imbue musicians who perform as professionals or amateurs with a certain magic. Yes, being able to get in front of a room of people and sing, play or otherwise perform is a big deal. It is nerve-wracking and scary. It does not make the performer magical, or even necessarily more talented than those who don’t. It just means they face that scariness. I get very frustrated with people I know who play who shy away from performing, especially in informal situations. Music is not a museum piece, or even a radio piece! It is living, and I want to share it with others and want others to share it with me.
I wish that Levitin had chosen slightly different wording on page 206. He says, “Some people have a biological predisposition toward particular instruments, or toward singing.” I understand what he means, but I think a more accurate statement would be to say that, “Certain biological predispositions may give people advantages with particular instruments, or toward singing.”
The discussion of emotion and performance was very interesting. I think this aspect of musicianship is very related to that of acting. I would not be at all surprised to find that the same parts of the brain used to relay emotion in music is the same as in acting. I feel all performing arts are very interrelated.
Two of the websites Professor Simon had us look at really struck me. The first was http://www.musicbizacademy.com/. A tenet of being information literate is the ability to evaluate sources. Looking at this website, I am skeptical of the information offered. First, though billing itself as an academy, it is neither a dot-org or dot-edu. It’s a dot-com. That tells me it is most likely a for profit organization. This does not discount it, of course, it just means that at least part of the motivation is to make a profit. I guess what makes me most skeptical is why would a student choose to go to a for-profit academic institution as opposed to a non-profit one? The only reason I would choose to go to a for-profit would be if the program was well respected and had better programs than the non-profits. The faculty appears to have very legitimate credentials. So, is my bias justified? I don’t know, to be honest. I guess I would need to take some of the classes and compare them to my other experiences to know.
I was struck by a section in The manual for performance library where Girsberger speaks about sign out sheets. He refers again to communicating with the conductor of the library. Girsberger refers to the communication between the conductor and librarian repeatedly. I think this is very important, and I’m glad that Girsberger emphasizes it. I think one of the most important responsibilities for a performance librarian is communicating with other orchestra personnel to accomplish a common goal.
I wish that Levitin had chosen slightly different wording on page 206. He says, “Some people have a biological predisposition toward particular instruments, or toward singing.” I understand what he means, but I think a more accurate statement would be to say that, “Certain biological predispositions may give people advantages with particular instruments, or toward singing.”
The discussion of emotion and performance was very interesting. I think this aspect of musicianship is very related to that of acting. I would not be at all surprised to find that the same parts of the brain used to relay emotion in music is the same as in acting. I feel all performing arts are very interrelated.
Two of the websites Professor Simon had us look at really struck me. The first was http://www.musicbizacademy.com/. A tenet of being information literate is the ability to evaluate sources. Looking at this website, I am skeptical of the information offered. First, though billing itself as an academy, it is neither a dot-org or dot-edu. It’s a dot-com. That tells me it is most likely a for profit organization. This does not discount it, of course, it just means that at least part of the motivation is to make a profit. I guess what makes me most skeptical is why would a student choose to go to a for-profit academic institution as opposed to a non-profit one? The only reason I would choose to go to a for-profit would be if the program was well respected and had better programs than the non-profits. The faculty appears to have very legitimate credentials. So, is my bias justified? I don’t know, to be honest. I guess I would need to take some of the classes and compare them to my other experiences to know.
I was struck by a section in The manual for performance library where Girsberger speaks about sign out sheets. He refers again to communicating with the conductor of the library. Girsberger refers to the communication between the conductor and librarian repeatedly. I think this is very important, and I’m glad that Girsberger emphasizes it. I think one of the most important responsibilities for a performance librarian is communicating with other orchestra personnel to accomplish a common goal.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Jealous much?
The Performance Library Manual reading this week was difficult for me to get through. Although I think the topics covered could be very useful in practice, I had a hard time concentrating on what side of music to tape to which piece of paper. Maybe it’s because I’ve spent many hours taping music together and thinking about page turns. The tricks the author shared were ones I’ve employed. So, yes, it’s helpful information, but it is information I’ve been lucky enough to have shared with me by a music teacher. Even as I was reading it though, it made me appreciate what a good reference text the manual is.
The other reading from This is your brain on music was much easier to read. As I mentioned earlier, I’ve enjoyed this book immensely. I think I was also confused last week that we were only go to read the introduction and first chapter of the book, so I was pleasantly surprised to see it in this week’s assignment.
I was surprised to read that musicians get more ear worms than non-musicians (Levitin, 2006, p. 155). I sometimes wake up with songs running through my head. They are usually about 30 seconds long, and it varies whether or not it was a song that I have recently listened to or not. To start my undergraduate career, I moved from Kentucky to New York. I flew, so I also shipped a bunch of stuff to myself. Stupidly, I put my entire c.d. collection in a box, and guess which box was lost? Well, it was a major blow to me, as the music I listened to was very much a part of my identity, as Levitin also discussed. I remember a week in September or October where I woke up with the song “Sleep on the Left Side” by the band Cornershop playing in my head. Instead of being annoyed, I loved it. The c.d. was one of my favorites, and I had definitely been very sad about that particular loss. It was comforting to know that even if the physical item was gone, it was still ingrained in my mind.
Absolute Pitch or perfect pitch is very interesting to me. As a musician, I do wish that I had it, but I think ear training can bring you a long, long way. It certainly did for me. One of my many music teachers who did not have perfect pitch told me a story about doing a performance with another musician. The other musician, a violinist, had perfect pitch. Well, they arrived at the private home they were performing at, and my teacher, a pianist sits down to warm up. The piano, they had been told, was tuned. And, in fact it was, except that it was about a quarter step lower than the standard tuning for a piano. (So, the A key that would normally be 440A was halfway between G-sharp and A natural). For my teacher, this was not a problem for two reasons. First, he wasn’t forming the pitch as a pianist, just hitting the right key. Second, though he could tell it was off from the standard tuning, all the keys were in tune with each other, so it made sense to his ear. His co-performer, however, could not deal. Although the violinist could have (and perhaps did) tuned his instrument to the tuning of the piano, he was so upset that what would normally be an A on his violin was really a quarterstep lower, that he couldn’t play in tune. His idea of what a note was related to an exact pitch, whereas my teacher’s idea of what a note was related to the other pitches.
And though I don’t have perfect pitch, I can generate an A440 out of thin air fairly consistently. How do I know? Well, I’ve tested myself and occasionally shown off in front of friends. And why this particular pitch? It’s the pitch that I’ve been tuning to since I was 9 and first began playing the violin. I have sat through many elementary, middle, high school, college and other orchestra rehearsals all begun with the same A440 tone. I’m glad that I can, it makes me feel that I am a musician and not just someone saying that I play an instrument.
The other reading from This is your brain on music was much easier to read. As I mentioned earlier, I’ve enjoyed this book immensely. I think I was also confused last week that we were only go to read the introduction and first chapter of the book, so I was pleasantly surprised to see it in this week’s assignment.
I was surprised to read that musicians get more ear worms than non-musicians (Levitin, 2006, p. 155). I sometimes wake up with songs running through my head. They are usually about 30 seconds long, and it varies whether or not it was a song that I have recently listened to or not. To start my undergraduate career, I moved from Kentucky to New York. I flew, so I also shipped a bunch of stuff to myself. Stupidly, I put my entire c.d. collection in a box, and guess which box was lost? Well, it was a major blow to me, as the music I listened to was very much a part of my identity, as Levitin also discussed. I remember a week in September or October where I woke up with the song “Sleep on the Left Side” by the band Cornershop playing in my head. Instead of being annoyed, I loved it. The c.d. was one of my favorites, and I had definitely been very sad about that particular loss. It was comforting to know that even if the physical item was gone, it was still ingrained in my mind.
Absolute Pitch or perfect pitch is very interesting to me. As a musician, I do wish that I had it, but I think ear training can bring you a long, long way. It certainly did for me. One of my many music teachers who did not have perfect pitch told me a story about doing a performance with another musician. The other musician, a violinist, had perfect pitch. Well, they arrived at the private home they were performing at, and my teacher, a pianist sits down to warm up. The piano, they had been told, was tuned. And, in fact it was, except that it was about a quarter step lower than the standard tuning for a piano. (So, the A key that would normally be 440A was halfway between G-sharp and A natural). For my teacher, this was not a problem for two reasons. First, he wasn’t forming the pitch as a pianist, just hitting the right key. Second, though he could tell it was off from the standard tuning, all the keys were in tune with each other, so it made sense to his ear. His co-performer, however, could not deal. Although the violinist could have (and perhaps did) tuned his instrument to the tuning of the piano, he was so upset that what would normally be an A on his violin was really a quarterstep lower, that he couldn’t play in tune. His idea of what a note was related to an exact pitch, whereas my teacher’s idea of what a note was related to the other pitches.
And though I don’t have perfect pitch, I can generate an A440 out of thin air fairly consistently. How do I know? Well, I’ve tested myself and occasionally shown off in front of friends. And why this particular pitch? It’s the pitch that I’ve been tuning to since I was 9 and first began playing the violin. I have sat through many elementary, middle, high school, college and other orchestra rehearsals all begun with the same A440 tone. I’m glad that I can, it makes me feel that I am a musician and not just someone saying that I play an instrument.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
What's next, violin lessons for cats?
I really enjoyed this week’s readings. I did not have a strong opinion of The Manual for the Performance Librarian last week, but this week I really thought it was practical, concise and useful. The scope of the writing is limited, and very much geared toward a classical performing body. I think it could be interesting to people outside of the field that are curious about what goes into running an orchestra, chamber ensemble or other performing body. The audience is undoubtedly small, however. I happen to be one of those people who are interested in working with such a group, either as an intern, staff or volunteer. I was impressed with how many details the author included about what information to give to who, or to request of whom. That detail could make the book an excellent reference.
I also felt I was part of the target audience for our second reading assignment from This is Your Brain on Music. I am a musician, and I have studied some science and am interested in the overlap between the two. Part of my musical education included music theory, acoustics and discussions of non-traditional tunings. So far, nothing in the introduction and first chapter were new to me, but I was impressed with how well written it was. One concept in the first chapter was puzzling to me, however. The author asserts that loudness, “is a purely psychological construct” (p. 16). This is hard for me to understand. Can volume not be measured quantitatively in decibels? If so, then how is that psychological as opposed to physical?
I hope to finish reading the rest of this text, but I do not know if I will be able to until the semester is over. I am curious if the author discusses tone in more depth later in the book. From the chapter titles and descriptions, it does not seem so. I found myself wishing for a more in depth discussion of tone and intonation. One of the music professors I worked closely with as an undergraduate was Kyle Gann, who writes music using just intonation. Generally, Western music is now played in equal temperament, where each semitone is the same distance apart. This means the interval between notes is not usually expressed in whole numbers. Before the 20th century, this was not true. Playing in equal temperament means that each major key sounds the same and transcribing between keys is easy and you get the same sound each time. This is related to Levitin’s discussion of how our brains make pitch for us, and we approximate the overtones even when they are not exact. Just intonation uses whole number intervals, sometimes referred to as ‘purer.’ Trained ears can definitely hear the difference, though most ears are not used to anything but equal temperament in Western cultures. The piano is one reason equal temperament has taken such hold. I gathered from Levitin’s discussion he would not be a huge supporter of just intonation, but I am curious what he would have to say.
One last comment about Levitin’s book. He discusses how certain animals can recognize an octave, like cats and monkeys (p. 31). First, wow. Second, I guess I’m not that surprised as I’ve witnessed animals who appear to be moved in some way (annoyance, pleasure, etc.) by music – usually our cats when practicing piano or violin as a child. Third, how did they figure that out? I am sure it was a scientific study of some sort, but how was it run? I don’t imagine there were scientists observing a piano teacher giving cats or monkeys beginning piano lessons. With monkeys, I could see designing some sort of test that humans would be asked to take to see how well they recognized pitch. But cats?
I also felt I was part of the target audience for our second reading assignment from This is Your Brain on Music. I am a musician, and I have studied some science and am interested in the overlap between the two. Part of my musical education included music theory, acoustics and discussions of non-traditional tunings. So far, nothing in the introduction and first chapter were new to me, but I was impressed with how well written it was. One concept in the first chapter was puzzling to me, however. The author asserts that loudness, “is a purely psychological construct” (p. 16). This is hard for me to understand. Can volume not be measured quantitatively in decibels? If so, then how is that psychological as opposed to physical?
I hope to finish reading the rest of this text, but I do not know if I will be able to until the semester is over. I am curious if the author discusses tone in more depth later in the book. From the chapter titles and descriptions, it does not seem so. I found myself wishing for a more in depth discussion of tone and intonation. One of the music professors I worked closely with as an undergraduate was Kyle Gann, who writes music using just intonation. Generally, Western music is now played in equal temperament, where each semitone is the same distance apart. This means the interval between notes is not usually expressed in whole numbers. Before the 20th century, this was not true. Playing in equal temperament means that each major key sounds the same and transcribing between keys is easy and you get the same sound each time. This is related to Levitin’s discussion of how our brains make pitch for us, and we approximate the overtones even when they are not exact. Just intonation uses whole number intervals, sometimes referred to as ‘purer.’ Trained ears can definitely hear the difference, though most ears are not used to anything but equal temperament in Western cultures. The piano is one reason equal temperament has taken such hold. I gathered from Levitin’s discussion he would not be a huge supporter of just intonation, but I am curious what he would have to say.
One last comment about Levitin’s book. He discusses how certain animals can recognize an octave, like cats and monkeys (p. 31). First, wow. Second, I guess I’m not that surprised as I’ve witnessed animals who appear to be moved in some way (annoyance, pleasure, etc.) by music – usually our cats when practicing piano or violin as a child. Third, how did they figure that out? I am sure it was a scientific study of some sort, but how was it run? I don’t imagine there were scientists observing a piano teacher giving cats or monkeys beginning piano lessons. With monkeys, I could see designing some sort of test that humans would be asked to take to see how well they recognized pitch. But cats?
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Thoughts on software, Dischord & DIY and definitions
I spent some time looking at the music notation software websites Professor Simon provided us with this week. Sibelius’AudioScore got my attention with one of their features. I used Sibelius and Finale briefly as an undergraduate music student. I was not a composer so my use of it was very limited. In fact, it was usually easier to hand write the scores for class assignments than to try and fight with other students to get enough time on the department’s computer to use either Sibelius or Finale. Anyway, I was really impressed with the Mic-to-Score Automatic Notation feature of AudioScore. I wonder if it’s similar to the humming by query applications, where it works but is imperfect. It would be fun to experiment with, to be sure.
I have used Adobe Audition for several years now, mainly to edit and produce radio audio. I find Audition to be pretty intuitive and easy to use. I have definitely not explored all of the options in the program, mainly because I have not needed to use them all. It works well for mixing pre-recorded audio programs to be aired later. Although a musician, I am a visual person, so having a concrete way to look at audio and sound waves is appealing to me.
Dischord records kept coming to mind during the Kusek & Leonhard readings this week. In chapter 7, the discussion is about how the music industry is changing, or will change. Dischord records is an easy example of how outsiders to the music industry created their own way of recording, distributing, touring, selling and making their own music. I believe many musicians are finding ways to do so outside of the music industry out of necessity, but Dischord did so both out of need and out of ideals. These punk kids from DC in the 80s weren’t exactly what Warner Brothers was probably looking for. But lots of other kids and adults across the country were hungry for what they were making. Of course, the whole project was contingent on Ian Mackaye’s parents allowing the label to operate out of their house. But, it does prove that to have a long career in music does not mean you have to have an office in downtown L.A.
Of course, the DIY aesthetic is associated with certain genres of music: punk, indie, underground, etc. But other genres have ways of operating outside the confines of the ‘legitimate’ music industry. Mixtapes were also discussed in Kusek & Leonhard, and they operate almost as a proving ground to some hip-hop artists. And, as programs like Adobe Audition and GarageBand become more common and easier to use, the sophistication of the average person will likely rise. I have bought at least one album recorded and produced entirely on GarageBand by a San Francisco band that is getting some larger renown: the Tune-Yards.
The Manual for the Performance Library was interesting to me. I believe someone discussed the difference between a performance librarian and a music librarian on the discussion board this week. I think the author considers a performance librarian to be someone associated and working for a music ensemble, like an orchestra, chamber ensemble or possibly a soloist. I can agree with this definition. I would then consider a music librarian to be a subject librarian in an academic library. Some of the duties might overlap, but it seems a performance librarian is focused on assisting a performance, whereas a music librarian is more focused on assisting research. These may be fairly arbitrary definitions and not in the spirit of Girsberger at all, but they are my take. However, where does that leave librarians working at radio stations, public libraries or elsewhere?
I have used Adobe Audition for several years now, mainly to edit and produce radio audio. I find Audition to be pretty intuitive and easy to use. I have definitely not explored all of the options in the program, mainly because I have not needed to use them all. It works well for mixing pre-recorded audio programs to be aired later. Although a musician, I am a visual person, so having a concrete way to look at audio and sound waves is appealing to me.
Dischord records kept coming to mind during the Kusek & Leonhard readings this week. In chapter 7, the discussion is about how the music industry is changing, or will change. Dischord records is an easy example of how outsiders to the music industry created their own way of recording, distributing, touring, selling and making their own music. I believe many musicians are finding ways to do so outside of the music industry out of necessity, but Dischord did so both out of need and out of ideals. These punk kids from DC in the 80s weren’t exactly what Warner Brothers was probably looking for. But lots of other kids and adults across the country were hungry for what they were making. Of course, the whole project was contingent on Ian Mackaye’s parents allowing the label to operate out of their house. But, it does prove that to have a long career in music does not mean you have to have an office in downtown L.A.
Of course, the DIY aesthetic is associated with certain genres of music: punk, indie, underground, etc. But other genres have ways of operating outside the confines of the ‘legitimate’ music industry. Mixtapes were also discussed in Kusek & Leonhard, and they operate almost as a proving ground to some hip-hop artists. And, as programs like Adobe Audition and GarageBand become more common and easier to use, the sophistication of the average person will likely rise. I have bought at least one album recorded and produced entirely on GarageBand by a San Francisco band that is getting some larger renown: the Tune-Yards.
The Manual for the Performance Library was interesting to me. I believe someone discussed the difference between a performance librarian and a music librarian on the discussion board this week. I think the author considers a performance librarian to be someone associated and working for a music ensemble, like an orchestra, chamber ensemble or possibly a soloist. I can agree with this definition. I would then consider a music librarian to be a subject librarian in an academic library. Some of the duties might overlap, but it seems a performance librarian is focused on assisting a performance, whereas a music librarian is more focused on assisting research. These may be fairly arbitrary definitions and not in the spirit of Girsberger at all, but they are my take. However, where does that leave librarians working at radio stations, public libraries or elsewhere?
Monday, September 14, 2009
Windowing, manipulation, CDs, Pirates and Information Literacy
It is interesting to me that Kusek & Leonhard, both of whom appear to be intelligent, engaged individuals are not more critical of the consumer cycle that they are projecting in the future. I think much of what they discuss will come to pass in one form or another, whether in the exact prescribed manner or not is up for discussion. However, when discussion their ideas, they do not seem that concerned that the consumption pattern they describe is excessive, destructive to environment and artists, unsustainable or manipulative.
The first example of this is the discussion of the movie business’s “windowing.” First, big movie studios do the same thing that ‘big music’ does, concentrating its money and marketing power on blockbuster movies instead of seeding lots of smaller movies. Also, they saturate the market with advertisements not once, not twice, but up to seven times to squeeze as much money out of consumers as possible. Why do Kusek & Leonhard not have a problem with this? If ‘big music’ had allowed different formats to take hold in music, why would they advocate a system that would then let ‘big music’ push Britney Spears on the kids not once, twice but up to seven or eight times? Had ‘big music’ (as a side note, as a co-creator of MIDI, is Kusek not part of the music industry establishment?) adopted this style, I feel that Kusek & Leonhard are arguing, then they would not be in as much trouble. But I thought they wanted to see the industry destroyed or at least reinvented?
Also, having the multiple formats and cycling the product through each with a corresponding media and marketing push is manipulative. It does not fill a consumer need. This practice instead feeds on a darker part of capitalism, that which pushes consumers to consume and consume because of a perceived unfilled need, which has probably either been filled or is non-existent.
I am not sure I agree about the demise of the CD. Or if I do, I am not sure how quickly it will happen. It seems that lots of people still purchase CDs or vinyl at live shows. Maybe these are more mementos. Will downloads start being sold at shows or will it be assumed that audiences will buy from iTunes after or during the show?
I wholeheartedly agree with Kusek & Leonhard’s argument that downloading tracks from Limewire, Kazaa or one of the other P2P services should not be treated the same as the widespread piracy operations. I had never heard this argument articulated before, and I found myself saying, ”Yes, that makes absolute sense!” for the first time since beginning this text. The scale of the two different, currently illegal activities is very different. Someone selling pirated goods is looking to profit off someone else’s work. Someone downloading popular or obscure tracks is looking to enjoy them, or maybe impress their friends.
Now that I’ve briefly agreed with the authors, it’s time to disagree again! I am trying very hard to take Dr. Simon’s advice to not miss the forest for the trees, but I am critical of some of the ideas and assertions. On page 99, the authors assert that kids seek out information more agilely and proactively than their parents. From my LIBR 200 class, I know that kids, especially teenagers, often overestimate their information literacy skills. Sure, they can maybe find the shortcuts to the latest video game, but are they really good at not only finding information but also evaluating it? I think the authors are confusing comfort with technology and information literacy – though I wonder how familiar they are with the second term.
The first example of this is the discussion of the movie business’s “windowing.” First, big movie studios do the same thing that ‘big music’ does, concentrating its money and marketing power on blockbuster movies instead of seeding lots of smaller movies. Also, they saturate the market with advertisements not once, not twice, but up to seven times to squeeze as much money out of consumers as possible. Why do Kusek & Leonhard not have a problem with this? If ‘big music’ had allowed different formats to take hold in music, why would they advocate a system that would then let ‘big music’ push Britney Spears on the kids not once, twice but up to seven or eight times? Had ‘big music’ (as a side note, as a co-creator of MIDI, is Kusek not part of the music industry establishment?) adopted this style, I feel that Kusek & Leonhard are arguing, then they would not be in as much trouble. But I thought they wanted to see the industry destroyed or at least reinvented?
Also, having the multiple formats and cycling the product through each with a corresponding media and marketing push is manipulative. It does not fill a consumer need. This practice instead feeds on a darker part of capitalism, that which pushes consumers to consume and consume because of a perceived unfilled need, which has probably either been filled or is non-existent.
I am not sure I agree about the demise of the CD. Or if I do, I am not sure how quickly it will happen. It seems that lots of people still purchase CDs or vinyl at live shows. Maybe these are more mementos. Will downloads start being sold at shows or will it be assumed that audiences will buy from iTunes after or during the show?
I wholeheartedly agree with Kusek & Leonhard’s argument that downloading tracks from Limewire, Kazaa or one of the other P2P services should not be treated the same as the widespread piracy operations. I had never heard this argument articulated before, and I found myself saying, ”Yes, that makes absolute sense!” for the first time since beginning this text. The scale of the two different, currently illegal activities is very different. Someone selling pirated goods is looking to profit off someone else’s work. Someone downloading popular or obscure tracks is looking to enjoy them, or maybe impress their friends.
Now that I’ve briefly agreed with the authors, it’s time to disagree again! I am trying very hard to take Dr. Simon’s advice to not miss the forest for the trees, but I am critical of some of the ideas and assertions. On page 99, the authors assert that kids seek out information more agilely and proactively than their parents. From my LIBR 200 class, I know that kids, especially teenagers, often overestimate their information literacy skills. Sure, they can maybe find the shortcuts to the latest video game, but are they really good at not only finding information but also evaluating it? I think the authors are confusing comfort with technology and information literacy – though I wonder how familiar they are with the second term.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Jay-Z & Coca-Cola
I found it interesting that Downie (2003) chapter we were assigned this week began with a description of the future of the music listening, just as Kusek & Leonhard (2005) did. Could this be an intentional choice on the part of the instructor?
I found Downie’s way of organizing the chapter very compelling. Breaking down the essence of music into seven facets helps introduce MIR in an easily digestible way. I find myself wondering how many of my classmates read music or have a classical music background. My knowledge of music theory has so far helped me with the denser readings of Downie and Orio (2006). I wonder how accessible this literature is to non-musicians. A good portion of it seems like it would appeal to people interested in Information Retrieval, but not necessarily music. Audio certainly complicates IR, but music seems to compound the complications tenfold.
I really like Downie’s (2003) observation that the incompleteness of early MIR systems makes them more effective than a more complicated system. Really, in the end, isn’t part of IR or librarianship retrieving the desired information or knowledge in the easiest way? My cello teacher in college often told me, and I have repeated this to students I have taught that being lazy is in some way good. He would tell me that I should expend the least amount of energy needed to get something (a shift in the hand, a bowing or a fingering) done so the playing does not sound or feel labored.
I was very happy to see Kusek & Leonhard (2005) mention Jay-Z. I really like Jay-Z, and have enjoyed seeing his name in the press so often since his release of DOA (Death of Autotune). I felt their mention of him was especially interesting in light of the controversy or beef around the song DOA. The rapper the Game is saying Jay-Z’s objection to autotune means he’s old or irrelevant, which I interpret to mean as not open to new technology. Kusek & Leonhard’s mention of Jay-Z actually shows he has not only adapted to new technology, but embraced it in a way that furthered his fame and interests. So, keep it up Jay-Z.
In the same chapter that Kusek & Leonhard (2005) mention Jay-Z, they also make a very big generalization that I object to. They speak about the reasons people are driven to make music, asserting people make music for the same reason: emotion or creativity drive them to it. I agree this to a certain degree, but I think music creation is more complex than that. Yes, people are generally drawn to music innately, but I do not think generalizing about the reasons people use their musical ability is a good argument. Some people write music for money. That may not be why they learned how to play or write or create music, but it may be their primary motivation for continuing to create it.
I do not wish to give the impression that I am not enjoying the Kusek & Leonhard book, because I am. They just present several assertions that I disagree with. For example, satellite radio. I do not believe satellite radio is going to play a part in the future experience of listening or finding music. I feel the merger of XM and Sirius radio signaled how they are struggling, along with the traditional terrestrial radio stations. Much has been made about HD radio by terrestrial radio, and I don’t think this is going anywhere, either. So, it surprises me that Kusek & Leonhard, who seem quite savvy, felt satellite radio was worth discussing. Similarly, they mention Coca-Cola as a giant, but Coke has seen some of its dominance slip since the introduction of energy drinks. It seems to me that Coke is in danger of facing some of the same problems as the music industry. I guess I agree with much of what Kusek & Leonhard have to say, but I just extend it to other non-music industrial giants and they either are unaware of it or just do not mention it.
I found Downie’s way of organizing the chapter very compelling. Breaking down the essence of music into seven facets helps introduce MIR in an easily digestible way. I find myself wondering how many of my classmates read music or have a classical music background. My knowledge of music theory has so far helped me with the denser readings of Downie and Orio (2006). I wonder how accessible this literature is to non-musicians. A good portion of it seems like it would appeal to people interested in Information Retrieval, but not necessarily music. Audio certainly complicates IR, but music seems to compound the complications tenfold.
I really like Downie’s (2003) observation that the incompleteness of early MIR systems makes them more effective than a more complicated system. Really, in the end, isn’t part of IR or librarianship retrieving the desired information or knowledge in the easiest way? My cello teacher in college often told me, and I have repeated this to students I have taught that being lazy is in some way good. He would tell me that I should expend the least amount of energy needed to get something (a shift in the hand, a bowing or a fingering) done so the playing does not sound or feel labored.
I was very happy to see Kusek & Leonhard (2005) mention Jay-Z. I really like Jay-Z, and have enjoyed seeing his name in the press so often since his release of DOA (Death of Autotune). I felt their mention of him was especially interesting in light of the controversy or beef around the song DOA. The rapper the Game is saying Jay-Z’s objection to autotune means he’s old or irrelevant, which I interpret to mean as not open to new technology. Kusek & Leonhard’s mention of Jay-Z actually shows he has not only adapted to new technology, but embraced it in a way that furthered his fame and interests. So, keep it up Jay-Z.
In the same chapter that Kusek & Leonhard (2005) mention Jay-Z, they also make a very big generalization that I object to. They speak about the reasons people are driven to make music, asserting people make music for the same reason: emotion or creativity drive them to it. I agree this to a certain degree, but I think music creation is more complex than that. Yes, people are generally drawn to music innately, but I do not think generalizing about the reasons people use their musical ability is a good argument. Some people write music for money. That may not be why they learned how to play or write or create music, but it may be their primary motivation for continuing to create it.
I do not wish to give the impression that I am not enjoying the Kusek & Leonhard book, because I am. They just present several assertions that I disagree with. For example, satellite radio. I do not believe satellite radio is going to play a part in the future experience of listening or finding music. I feel the merger of XM and Sirius radio signaled how they are struggling, along with the traditional terrestrial radio stations. Much has been made about HD radio by terrestrial radio, and I don’t think this is going anywhere, either. So, it surprises me that Kusek & Leonhard, who seem quite savvy, felt satellite radio was worth discussing. Similarly, they mention Coca-Cola as a giant, but Coke has seen some of its dominance slip since the introduction of energy drinks. It seems to me that Coke is in danger of facing some of the same problems as the music industry. I guess I agree with much of what Kusek & Leonhard have to say, but I just extend it to other non-music industrial giants and they either are unaware of it or just do not mention it.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Journal - Week 1
Kusek & Leonard’s (2005) first two chapters discuss one vision for the future of consumption and sale of music for recreational purposes. It begins with a description of a typical day and then moves onto a discussion of how this vision is on its way to becoming reality. The second chapter has a discussion of the author’s Top 10 Truths about the music industry.
Several things struck me about the reading. First, I enjoyed the descriptive opening and liked how several of the predictions are already in place or seem very close to fruition. There is a significant problem with the vision, I think. I dislike the phrase ‘digital divide’ but I’ll use it for lack of a better phrase. In 2000, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Commerce, 51% of Americans had at least one computer at home. It is probably a slightly higher percentage today, with one website reporting 55% having one in 2003. That’s still a stark number of people not having one. Will these next generation devices described by Kusek & Leonard be more affordable, thereby allowing more people to have one? Will they be more akin to cell phones than home computers?
I disliked the use of the water analogy. It made sense, and I understood their point. But there has been much talk about the privatization of water, which I do not agree with. Water, which used to be something free or nearly free, is being replaced with bottled water, which takes an enormous amount of energy and water to produce. I’ve heard quoted that a bottle of water takes three times as much water to produce. For most places in the US, this has not caused a problem. We mostly still have access to clean water through our taps or can afford the bottled water. There are other places in the world, usually poorer or less developed, that cannot. Our insistence on an unnecessary product robs them of a necessity. So, my concern with the analogy is that the technology that is so enticing and will probably be available to most of the US and Western or affluent nations, will not be available to everyone and will take advantage of less prosperous areas.
Currently, most electronics have some form of hazardous materials within them that ends up polluting wherever they are disposed. And most electronic manufacturers do not offer consumers ways to safely dispose of them.
Now, I must backtrack a bit and say that I am an avid consumer of electronics and music. I have an iPod, 3 computers (only 2 that I use), a cell phone with an mp3 player, a walkman CD player, 2 stereos and…well, I think you understand. I love being able to play music anywhere in my house and in several different formats (yes, I still own and collect vinyl). But I am concerned with where what I see as the US’s consumer habits will take us.
And the last thing I noticed was how dated some of the first chapter’s references felt. There was no mention of MySpace, which has drastically changed how people hear about music and what music they listen to. And, no FaceBook. But, Friendster was mentioned, and it has been a long time since I’ve heard Friendster mentioned in any context without derision or as an historical example. I don’t want to fault the authors on this, however. It is not their fault that the print medium’s print cycle means that any such topical examples are almost certain to be outdated by the time of printing. Or possibly, they thought Friendster, being one of the first and popular social networking sites would be around regardless of what other sites were created. Anyway, it made me slightly nostalgic for those early 2000 years. Sigh.
Several things struck me about the reading. First, I enjoyed the descriptive opening and liked how several of the predictions are already in place or seem very close to fruition. There is a significant problem with the vision, I think. I dislike the phrase ‘digital divide’ but I’ll use it for lack of a better phrase. In 2000, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Commerce, 51% of Americans had at least one computer at home. It is probably a slightly higher percentage today, with one website reporting 55% having one in 2003. That’s still a stark number of people not having one. Will these next generation devices described by Kusek & Leonard be more affordable, thereby allowing more people to have one? Will they be more akin to cell phones than home computers?
I disliked the use of the water analogy. It made sense, and I understood their point. But there has been much talk about the privatization of water, which I do not agree with. Water, which used to be something free or nearly free, is being replaced with bottled water, which takes an enormous amount of energy and water to produce. I’ve heard quoted that a bottle of water takes three times as much water to produce. For most places in the US, this has not caused a problem. We mostly still have access to clean water through our taps or can afford the bottled water. There are other places in the world, usually poorer or less developed, that cannot. Our insistence on an unnecessary product robs them of a necessity. So, my concern with the analogy is that the technology that is so enticing and will probably be available to most of the US and Western or affluent nations, will not be available to everyone and will take advantage of less prosperous areas.
Currently, most electronics have some form of hazardous materials within them that ends up polluting wherever they are disposed. And most electronic manufacturers do not offer consumers ways to safely dispose of them.
Now, I must backtrack a bit and say that I am an avid consumer of electronics and music. I have an iPod, 3 computers (only 2 that I use), a cell phone with an mp3 player, a walkman CD player, 2 stereos and…well, I think you understand. I love being able to play music anywhere in my house and in several different formats (yes, I still own and collect vinyl). But I am concerned with where what I see as the US’s consumer habits will take us.
And the last thing I noticed was how dated some of the first chapter’s references felt. There was no mention of MySpace, which has drastically changed how people hear about music and what music they listen to. And, no FaceBook. But, Friendster was mentioned, and it has been a long time since I’ve heard Friendster mentioned in any context without derision or as an historical example. I don’t want to fault the authors on this, however. It is not their fault that the print medium’s print cycle means that any such topical examples are almost certain to be outdated by the time of printing. Or possibly, they thought Friendster, being one of the first and popular social networking sites would be around regardless of what other sites were created. Anyway, it made me slightly nostalgic for those early 2000 years. Sigh.
Beginnings
I'm beginning this blog to archive my journal writings for the SJSU SLIS class, LIBR 220. It will mainly be a reflection on the readings for the class. And, after the class ends? Well, we'll see where it takes me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
