Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page »

What is music? How can it be defined, through the way its captured, edited, or distributed? Before this class I have clear cut black and white view of what music was, but now thanks to these readings I'm stuck in a morally grey area now. Sterne argues the MP3 is a “container within a container” and it has created a dichotomy of “policy verses product.” This is true because do you really own a song when you purchase it on iTunes or do you own the right to just listen to it only? Once I pay for something I should not be beholden to a policy of what I can or can't do, I should be able to share my music with whoever I want.

Reading Response by bshort27bshort27, 15 May 2017 05:25

Carroli talks about the centrality of collaboration, breaking down how community is constructed, shaped, and maintained. She says that a virtual community is first and foremost a community of belief. Which echoes what we learned during our previous discussion of community, which is a community is simply a group of people who come together via a common belief. This is something that I totally agree with because if you take the example of Balance Breakfast that I did my report on you can see plain as day that they came together via a common belief in creating a place where a music professionals and performers can do what they love while making money doing it. This also turned into action with them banning together to help each other with booking and other things of need. This also makes me agree with Carroli when she talks about belief turning into action as community members collaborate via modes of communicative action.

Reading Response by bshort27bshort27, 14 May 2017 06:44

In regard to communities and the issues that raise when assessing networks that almost exclusive thrive and grow within a virtual environment, we must look into what aspects are required to form a community. Carroli talks about these conflicts and proposes alternative ideas to what might be instinctual when defining communities. While differences surface and often generate opposing identities, usually in the case of political position, we look to these differences to define us as individuals within a larger community, and as musicians, we see this as personal preference rather than conflicting chaos. In regard to the idea of collaboration, we use these differences to bring strengths and weaknesses to the creative process. As with other situations of group communication, collaboration relays on a certain dynamic of strengths and leaders to take charge, and a certain amount of weakness or followers to continue the process and provide what they can where they can. This brings back the subject of musiking by drawing on the basic understanding that many things are essential to the production of music that are inherently un-musical, but still serve an important functional purpose to the music making as a whole.

by Zachery Scott MeierZachery Scott Meier, 12 May 2017 22:12

In response to the questions posed by Robert and connecting some of this to what Hayley has written, I believe authenticity in music is inherently personal and subjective to the original intent of the artist. While superficial claims can be made to the craftsmanship of certain genres of music and quality of skill and artistry can play a biased role, the implications of questioning authenticity generally serve to diminish what is intentional (if the product is intended to be presented in the way the listeners perceives it). In regard to the Vocaloid, I don’t believe it to be inauthentic as it has presented itself to be a digital, live performance by a digital character. I believe authenticity comes into question when the intention or the “marketed” product is advertised in direct conflict with what is presented or provided in exchange. In talking about the music, I also believe the authenticity is present in the way the product is being marketed.

by Zachery Scott MeierZachery Scott Meier, 12 May 2017 21:00
ascoleriascoleri 20 Apr 2017 03:11
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » March 31 Readings

Carroli's writing speaks not only to the building of more collaborative and supportive communities on the Internet, not just those that are inherently musical. Although these communities find their cornerstones in communication and primary interests, the issue of ephemerality (the disembodiment and lack of physical temporality) still de-stabilizes any arguments for the validity of Internet community. Even so, Linda Carroli also seems to advocate for the construction of groups whose central focus is identity and mobilization towards a common goal (though perhaps not explicitly under the guise of community). In identity-centric spaces today, politics are inescapable, as any form of output by a unit that opposes the majority could be seen as contentious. The ephemerality of these spaces, however, causes these communications to lose significance, though lacking in the reservations typical of physical interaction.

Oliver's understanding of sampling does indeed fall in line with Small's hopes for musicking. However, like some earlier discussions of sampling and collaborative music production, Oliver's article still fails to observe the artistic license of the original producer. Even more so, it may even go so far as to cut the original producer out of the discourse occurring between the people examining and remixing their work. "Call and response" might be more fitting of an initial remix, if the producer is somehow involved in a collaboration and the subsequent conversations circulating around it.

by ascoleriascoleri, 20 Apr 2017 03:11
ascoleriascoleri 20 Apr 2017 02:13
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » March 24 Readings

This week, the readings discuss in depth how the activities and purposes of communities (specifically, those concerning interests of a musical nature) might possibly be conceptualized and function within the context of the Internet. As the capabilities of social media and forum spaces grow, the dimensions in which interactions between people are stages gains a more personal and user-friendly quality. Still, the disembodiment of these communities often brings their validity into question. Indeed, we live in a time where people decry widespread use of online messaging and virtual interaction, as if it will somehow overtake more physical social interaction. (This is, in some respects, a valid concern, although thoroughly invalidating to the successful interactions that do take place in the context of cyberculture.)

Lysloff and Watson both try to contest the prospect of cultivating real, productive communities around interests on the Internet. Lysloff's angle observes the "presence" (or physical lack thereof) of individuals within these communities, while Watson is more critical of the lack of physical space that these alleged communities occupy. Both authors address issues of materiality that cannot be ignored; social interaction is in some capacity an embodied experience, and these scholars still seem to maintain the idea that this embodiment is only fulfilled in truly physical space. Still, our experiences- that is, the experiences of people who often frame interpersonal relationships in fully- and partially-embodied contexts- stand in opposition to these arguments.

Personally, I've contributed to a number of musical and non-musical communities on the Internet for longer than can approximate. In some settings like YouTube and Tumblr, music is a peripheral element to a larger community which seeks to unite people with common interests (or "aesthetics"). These communities are more material-based and rely less on commentary, which is to suggest that, perhaps by Watson's standards, the limited or nonexistent verbal communication that comes with consumption on these platforms makes them less typical of what we would like to classify as a community.

In a similar vein, SoundCloud is largely centered around sound objects. However, a feature allowing artists and fans to collaboratively annotate these tracks adds a more musical facet to the interactions taking place within this pseudo-space. Furthermore, the integration of social media-esque forums and profiles allows these users to interact in contexts that are not strictly musical. In particular, SoundCloud exemplifies a space in which music exists as a focal point. Still, extra-musical social interactions do occur on SoundCloud, perhaps even deepening the experiences of the users participating. There may not be a physical element to these interactions, but the presence of both musical and extra-musical relationships in a dedicated musical community adds a diversity (and therefore, a depth) to the social transactions taking place there. This may very well verify Small (and Blacking's) belief that the musical is indeed not always musical.

by ascoleriascoleri, 20 Apr 2017 02:13
ascoleriascoleri 19 Apr 2017 22:52
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » March 10 Readings

In some ways, I see Burkart's definition of the "Netizen" to simultaneously align and clash with the ideals of musical community laid out in Small's Musicking. While the identification of "Netizen" deals with one who consumes and interacts with media as a member of a cohort facilitated by the internet, the ramifications of this consumption result in the compromise of the individual through what boils down to a capitalistic transaction. However, Burkart goes on to juxtapose this inescapable link to cyber-consumption with a very punk approach to retaining "cyberliberty" within the legally changing terrain of the Internet. Specifically, Burkart calls the reader to co-opt the media and communication methods of those who would seek to regulate and profit from Internet traffic (that is to say, both commerce and communications). By suggesting this, Burkart constructs a new community that exists both within and without the pre-existing framework of the Internet. Furthermore, this suggestion militarizes the act of disobeying copyright and divesting artistic license from the problematic.

Burkart's "Celestial Jukebox" reflects an aspect of the Internet that teeters between these two poles. In some respects, streaming, constantly available access to music does break down pseudo-colonial barriers imposed by geography and time. The "Celestial Jukebox" does increase the representation of music that would otherwise exist beyond the physical reach of its listeners, but is still also tied to a vendor and a form of currency. Within this system, the product being consumed- that is, the music- cannot be acquired and utilized ethically due to the mechanisms behind its provenance.

Still, artists deserve their due. On one hand, the use of sampled work can be ethical if the secondary producer gives adequate credit without profit. In situations where profit is acquired, it is reasonable to believe that any significant appearance of a musical object should result in some monetary cut given to the original producer of the content. For me, it's hard to say where this boundary begins and ends. So much music circulates amongst the various musical platforms on the Internet today that it seems rather presumptuous to guess that of these producers properly compensate the artists that inspire their tributes. I would say that the composition ceases to be a remix when the borrowed elements cease to resemble the original.

by ascoleriascoleri, 19 Apr 2017 22:52

1. In regards to the definition of "virtual", I think we traditionally gravitate more towards the manner in which Jackson and Dines describe, involving a departure from "human-ness" and instead a type of abstract, fairy-tale nature. Auslander and Inglis define virtuality similarly when discussing the Beatles. While the technology available at this time was less advanced than it is today, these artists found ways to augment and substitute for their physical presence with alternate representations. Echard's definition of virtual, in contrast, struck me as an angle I had not previously considered. The concept that music is virtual due to the idea of multiplicity of representation is interesting. This is one of the topics we've talked about in depth throughout the weeks in class, with the whole definition of music (Is sheet music music? Is sound music? etc). However, saying music is virtual because it can be represented multiple ways and performed differently at different times seems like a very different discussion than the notion of virutality that is brought up by auto-tune and the Beatles.

2./5. In today's society, so many platforms can constitute virtuality. Musicians have Facebook and Twitter presences, YouTube channels to post new music, and websites to keep people updated about upcoming concerts/events. In a sense, it would be nearly impossible to be a professional or popular musician today without a virtual presence. Since we, as a society, rely on the internet for our information, we similarly turn to this platform when looking into music/musicians. For example, I follow several of my favorite pop artists on twitter. Through this platform, I am often able to see aspects of their personalities, or at least their construction of personalities. When represented virtually, we can be anything we want to be. Truthfully, I do not even know that these people are composing all of their own tweets. However, I become drawn into this phenomenon of believing these musicians are "just like me" when they post pictures of their dog or talk about politics, for example. Also, when looking into online communities, it became evident that many musicians use a virtual presence to be discovered. They post videos or tracks online in hopes that someone will find them, or join sharing sites to connect with others who may be able to help. Some artists achieve their notoriety entirely through YouTube, doing very little in the area of live performance or the production of full-length albums.

3. In regards to the question of authenticity in music, I think this depends largely on the goal of the performer, and the expectation of the listener. For example, if you are an EDM musician, people will expect that you have altered the sounds from their original state, much as those watching puppet theater enter with certain expectations. In this, software and resources provide an additional artistic tool to adapt and nuance the music. Yet, when these technologies are used in an attempt to hide imperfections or claim something false, authenticity diminishes. For example, if someone is claiming to be a folk artist and producing low-fi tracks with an acoustic guitar, yet utilizes software to improve their pitch accuracy, this does not seem authentic. What my argument boils down to is if you are using software as part of the artistic process, this is more authentic than if you are using it simply as a band-aid for your own artistic shortcomings. This is a bit of a slippery slope, as I can see where this line is certainly not always clear, but it is a starting point for discussion.

by Hayley GrahamHayley Graham, 14 Apr 2017 00:35

In Oliver’s Bring That Beat Back Sampling as Virtual Collaboration, virtual aspects have been explored in many levels, especially in sampling and the solo groove of breakbeats. He points out that the process of disembodiment in sampling is one of the cores for categorising and determining whether it contains virtual elements or not. In this respect, the concept of collaboration also shifts, the word ‘collaboration’ was understood as two musicians/artists/individuals who work together at the same time; however, through sampling, collaborative works occur among different generations of musicians and artists, music from the past present fresh sources for newer generations of musicians. Therefore, “musicking” is created, and not limited to specific space and time. I think this concept ties in directly to the remix 2 assignment, as I work on the project, I experience “call-and-response” notion in remixing a friend’s work, interpreting the underlying meanings in the music, and building upon musical ideas that are given, I also think that this remixing process is one of the examples of musical collaborations that technologies bring in. In my opinion, I view the act of collaboration or musicking in remix also extends to the software provider such as GarageBand, and the performers, composers, and individuals who involves in making music available online, I think they can be called collaborators, as the availabilities of sources and the loops in GarageBand are integral in this collaborative process. The following statement rings true in regards to collaborative work in today's society;

"in the musicking that occurs when a hip-hop producer engages with fragments of existing music/performances from the past via sampling, a kind of virtual collaboration becomes possible for musicians working across temporal, geographical, and stylistic boundaries” (Oliver)

by Nicha PimthongNicha Pimthong, 31 Mar 2017 15:27

Carroli takes an interesting perspective on community in her writing. She advocates collaboration and celebration of differences over finding common ground or consensus. She says it is important "to make the sound of our identities count as we work to contract communities of caring, to technologize and transfer ourselves in the care of others." Politically, we are often grouped into an us vs. them phenomenon, and our voting system specifically focuses on finding consensus, or what the largest number of people agree upon. This idea of caring for and collaborating with those who are different in order to bring out and celebrate these differences paints a different picture from our current political climate. Yet, collaboration, whether in music or in other areas, does have political aspects, as some people tend to be leaders while others are followers, creating a power dynamic. In its purest form, collaboration could allow for many voices to be heard, yet this is not always the case. In cyberculture, social norms are somewhat different in that there is less accountability. When you are sitting at your computer and communicating with someone who you likely will never meet face to face, there are fewer consequences for your actions. Thus, people may act in a less filtered and respectful manner than they would in person. Also, unequal distribution of technology and resources to those who have power/money vs those that do not can further widen this divide.

Oliver brings us back to Small's concept of musicking, suggesting that virtual creation of music allows more and/or different people to engage in the process of musicking. Through sampling, musical ideas can be shared from one person to the next, adapted, and built upon in a way that was not possible prior to this technology. This allows for individuals running technological platforms, creating samples, operating digital technologies, etc to have as much of a role in musicking as do the individuals who played instruments or sang to create the original sample. In relation to the idea of call-and-response, collaboration is critical. One musician responds to another in a communicative way, which could not be done without collaboration. It is, essentially, the very foundation upon which this type of music is built. Sampling and remixing are a form of this, in that musicians are responding to and building upon one another. However, call-and-response happens in real time, allowing for face-to-face collaboration and listening. Additionally, this is more of a two-way interaction, while sampling and remixing may be one-sided, such as when a musician takes a sample from someone else who has died. While the living musician benefits from this collaboration, the original creator does not.

by Hayley GrahamHayley Graham, 31 Mar 2017 14:51
RobertParkerRobertParker 31 Mar 2017 03:29
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » March 31 Readings

The concept of "community" has come up over the last few weeks. Carroli directly addresses the issues that arise with the labeling of virtual environments as "communities." In the traditional sense of the word community, virtual platforms share similarities with face-to-face communication (community). However, aspects such as geography and permanence conflict; or, according to Carroli, "…deny and falsify difference." Another issue discussed by Carolli is anonymity. This is where Carolli's primary argument is synthesized, which is also perhaps the most convincing section of the article. This concept of a "community of strangers" is both a contradiction and an accurate representation of the state of the users and their interactions. As Carroli states, "My proposition is that the Internet can operate as "another place" in which one can lose oneself, and that being caught up with others involves a collaborative encounter rather than a consensual one."

The Oliver text offers evidence for the consideration of sampling as a form of "musicking," in Small's terminology.
The discussion of the different forms of collaboration, most notably found in hip-hop music, provide a background for sampling as a reflection musicking. However, I agree with the notion that Oliver ignores the potential issues of legality and consent in the heightening of this process to the level of any other form of musicking.

by RobertParkerRobertParker, 31 Mar 2017 03:29
RobertParkerRobertParker 24 Mar 2017 19:36
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » March 24 Readings

This readings for this week explore issues concerning "community" and the role that the internet plays in the formation, growth, and operation of various communities. The first issue is the "who?" of internet communities. Who are the individuals or groups that are relaying information and ideas? Lysloff mentions the issue of "Who" when discussing presence on the internet. Lysloff categorizes internet presence as artificial, not really there. Text or music left on the internet is merely evidence that someone was there. To further expand on this Lysloff explores the "softcity" metaphor, by which we can describe the internet as a space of infinite mass that exists without location or materiality. From my own experience engaging with online community and online music, I am susceptible to placing presence just as I would in face-to-face communication. Ultimately, this promotes an acceptance of the internet as reality, when it is simply a representation of reality.

Similarly to Lysloff, Watson attempts to attack the issue of labeling labeling internet communities as "communities." Watson proposes that all parts of the dictionary definition of "community" apply to internet forums and message platforms, except for the element of space. This idea of spatial components in communication is tied to the Lysloff idea of Softcity as an infinite and material-less space. So the issue becomes, do we label these as communities when we may or may not even know who we reading or communicating with? With music, does discussing music on an anonymous forum like constitute musiking? Clearly, the presence and materiality are missing in the process, but the individual engagement with the music through anonymous forums would, I think, still constitute "musicking." In this sense, the consumer (fan) is engaged and engaged with textual dialogue concerning music. It is not a primary interaction with music, but rather a secondary one, where the music itself may be absent, but nonetheless vital to the dialogue.

An anecdotal experience of mine that I thought of often when reading these articles was a blog project I was part of for a semester, in which everyone involved contributed weekly blogs on brass repertoire, pedagogy, performance, instrument design, etc. Posts may have included links to pages from the internet concerning a variety of topics, either for personal growth or simply because the author found them unique and noteworthy. The sense of community (or perceived community) that emerged in this group of bloggers was quite noticeable. The comments reflected a depth of "musicking" that was evident through this secondary channel of communication ABOUT music. The music itself was not being created, but the communities discussion of these musical topics was the creative process.

by RobertParkerRobertParker, 24 Mar 2017 19:36

In the readings for this week, we explore the definition (or the exploration) of “What is Community.” Diving into the world of cyberspace, we are presented with many instances where our traditional definition of community falls short. As Merriam-Webster defines, a community is a “group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common.” Many people would agree that when discussing community, we think of location first; neighbors, hometown, school, job. All of these places cultivate the definition of community through the idea of location, but this also heavily relies on the physical entity of the real. This becomes alarmingly misaligned when we consider the dichotomy of the real versus the virtual as we begin to consider what “community” means in the age of technology.

As Lysloff stated in Musical Life in Softcity: An Internet Ethnography,

”… new media technologies have altered our relationship with the real world around us so radically that the real and the simulated seem to be indistinguishable.”

Considering that this is highly speculatory, as many different people from different cultures have vastly different relationships with the virtual world, this statement sheds light on a pivotal issue regarding what we, as privileged users and consumers of technology, consider to be intimate interactions. This is polarized by the availability of these technologies to different people, furthering the idea that community is vastly different from one individual to another. In regard to virtual versus real, do we allow the use of community to still define these “new” interactions, even when physical or “real” presence isn’t present? When human interaction is being mediated by technology? This is where the second half of the definition, “particular characteristic in common” comes into play, but still leaves out a huge issue: live human interaction.

Kibby begins her article, Home on the Page: A Virtual Place of Music Community, with a small record company, Oh Boy Records, and their interactive or “live” forum page that was intended to create/generate communication between fans of the artist John Prine. As a small group of people, the fans of this artist, were miles apart from one another, so location became a central issue to the lack of interaction these individuals could engage in. There was no “community” around these individuals where they could share their thoughts, their feedback, or interact with one another. This also takes advantage of the second half of the definition, which allows these individuals to cultivate meaningful interactions with individuals across the country through an online environment, thrusting them into a community that wasn’t available to them before.

While this concept of community isn’t hard to understand, as users of technology, and the ideas of sharing a common characteristic with an online based interactive group of individuals that are not centrally located in one physical place, it does propose additional questions of what meaningful relationships have evolve into for these members. While physical interactions - the visual stimulus of reacting to and from other physical entities – play such a key role in our locational communities, the virtual world doesn’t rely on this. Words, graphics, videos, and other sources of information serve as the vehicle to “meaningful” interactions. Does this still apply the same kinds of emotional connections that physical communities generate? I’m not sure they do, but I’m not sure that community can be defined by one person alone.

The sense of community, I believe, is immensely personal. As a 25 year old, millennial, I enjoy my “facebook friends” and seeing the newsfeed of what many people are doing all around the world, but it also asserts a sense of de-humanization and the ability to disregard humanity in such an impersonal way that is completely and 100% unavoidable in the physical community. While the advances in technology have integrated themselves within the physical community so well that we are mostly unaware of what has happened, it has also changed the way we interact within our physical community.

by Zachery Scott MeierZachery Scott Meier, 24 Mar 2017 11:31

Throughout these three readings, a central trend emerges, namely how to define a community. If we are stuck to physical, geographic communities in the traditional sense, we are limiting the potential for meaningful connections and exchange of ideas over online platforms. Yet, there is no mistaking that these virtual communities do possess differences from physical communities. Personally, I think that, while virtual communities are certainly communities, we need to keep them categorically separate from physical communities in our mindsets. This has very little to do with music, but our interpersonal relations and connections with others are stifled when we rely on virtual communication for all forms of interaction. While these platforms are valid and useful, we must take caution not to let them take over face-to-face interactions. Lysloff brings this up when comparing fieldwork in virtual communities to the experiences of fieldwork in a foreign country/culture. While learning and exchange of understanding was still taking place, these were vastly different things.

That being said, there seems to be merit in allowing people who share appreciation for an artist to discuss this using an online format. Especially if those in your geographic proximity do not listen to or care about an artist that you love, I am sure it can be validating and exciting to have a community of individuals with whom you can share this interest. Even these readings seemed a bit out-of-date in terms of technology though, as people are probably more likely to use a facebook page or similar venue instead of a chat room. As technology continues to evolve, the potential for these connections over music is likely to expand and adapt as well.

Lysloff's quotation regarding musicking led me to think about this in a somewhat new light. The idea that "musical things are not always strictly musical" definitely connects to our discussion regarding Small. As musicians, we view musicking as the act of making music. The gray area lies in how far to expand this definition. Almost without debate, performers and composers are musicking. But, does someone who designs CD covers or sells tickets have a right to say they are also musicking? My knee-jerk reaction to this is to say no, as they are not actually creating the musical product. Yet, it could be argued that people couldn't access the music in today's society without these individuals, positioning them as an imperative part of this process. So, my proposition is that there should be two levels of musicking; the first involving those directly involved in the creation of sound (performers, composers, arrangers, sound technicians), and the second involving the intermediaries who allow sound to be disseminated (marketing teams, ticket sales, etc.). This could still lead to debate and the categorization of individuals may spark new ideas about how best to define musicking. Again, we return to the definition of music as foundational to the discussion.

by Hayley GrahamHayley Graham, 24 Mar 2017 04:58

I guess the main discussion of these readings were related to the idea of authorship and ownership and how they usually are put together by big industries and also by a whole concept created by our society. Just because we offer something, doesn't mean that we own it, and with that in mind, we could probably express that we have a voice with the idea of authorship but not necessarily with ownership.
That brings us back to the discussion of what is music, as an object (?) And also, to the argument if music creation needs to be original and new to be considered genuine. (is this possible?)
The examples that we had in class and the Grey Album cited here, could be related to our GB remix assignment in which we had to change a "original" piece. it was very interesting to understand that some of us had a problem with changing the music, specially because of the idea of intellectual property. It seemed like our freedom of creativity appeared to be somehow blocked by moral boundaries. Burkart would probably say that this poinf of view is a colonized perspective of what capitalism make us think. All these ideas exemplify the discussion of originality and copyright and the way that the capitalist industry runs the rules for consumers and creators.
It was also interesting the idea of recontextualization of music, when you do mashups, you are creating a different meaning and adding a certain part of an idea.
If authorship can be separated of ownership more ideas could be democratically exchanged and music making and consumption would have more choice and voice.

by Rebeca FurtadoRebeca Furtado, 21 Mar 2017 20:47

The idea of creating and performing music online collectively was addressed in the Hugill`s reading that we had a couple of weeks ago, which the author creates a classification according to degrees of interactivity between participants. Hugill also explains the technical challenges and the idea of homogenization of the sound. Is asynchronicity in online music collaborations a problem and how it affects the creative process?
The concept of virtual agents interacting with humans and machines, brings us back to the discussion of arbitrariness of data traffic and how this complete new universe of musicking is perceived nowadays.
I thought these were very interesting readings and it was great to understand the reception of the Telharmonium and its development as a revolutionary technology of its time. It is interesting to observe that the idea of performing music connected by a media had an early invention and that it had an important attempt to deconstruct boundaries between people and music making.

by Rebeca FurtadoRebeca Furtado, 20 Mar 2017 22:38

The whole idea as Music as Intellectual Property can be a grey area for sure. I am a full supporter of the free exchange of ideas. When Danger Mouse got permission from Jay Z and the Beatles that are still alive to do this project then there shouldn’t have been a problem. But once you enter capitalism into the conversation then the free exchange of ideas becomes monetized. This is what EMI did by trying to halt the distribution of The Grey Album; (money is the root of all evil as they say). There were several upsides to working together in this situation that EMI missed the boat on. One there was enough money for each participant to make off of this if capitalized properly The Grey Album could have renewed interest in both The Black & White Albums creating a new surge in sales. In addition to that The Grey Album would provide free marketing for both The Black & White Albums, if greed was taken out of the equation EMI could have capitalized off of new interest and sold many more units then it did.

What is original music? Before my exposure to The Grey Album via this week’s assignment I thought of an original piece as a work, that while it might be inspired through the study of another piece, created its own new soundscape and message through the lens of the newly inspired composer. But through the study of The Grey Album I’m left to question my original thought process. I question this because one cannot deny the artistry that goes into what Danger Mouse did throughout the creation of this album, and truth be told he did create a new soundscape through his own lens. This leaves my definition of what is original music in a more grey area then the black and white one I started in.

Reading Response by bshort27bshort27, 20 Mar 2017 19:33

Computer Network Music is centered around performers and conductors communicating using non-acoustic instruments to create music. This immediately makes me think of a Laptop Orchestra. This is due in part to the different levels of engagement necessary for the ensemble to be successful. Both individual and unilateral engagements are necessary for a Laptop Orchestra to function. Individual Engagement is measured by the personal involvement the composer had with the creation of their music. Unilateral Engagement is measured by the amount response one gives to the actions of another during a performance. Both of these are necessary in large numbers for a Laptop Orchestra to function properly.

Computer Network Music has revolutionized music making and listening. A perfect example of how it has revolutionized music making is as I mentioned earlier a Laptop Orchestra ensemble. In a Laptop Orchestra a composer must change his or her process of composing to understand the network that must be created between 5-10 different computers controlled by other composers or performers in order to present their piece effectively. Then each performer or composer involved in the performance of the piece must show a high level of unilateral engagement or crucial elements of the performance will be missed due to human error. This process in it self is one way Computer Network Music revolutionized music making.

Reading Response by bshort27bshort27, 20 Mar 2017 18:47
RobertParkerRobertParker 20 Mar 2017 01:50
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » March 10 Readings

Ownership of music and the ideas of what forms of music constitute property seem to arise weekly, especially this week. The digital forms of music create areas of confusion with the average listener concerning ownership of a song or album. At a smaller level, sampling and covers create even more confusion, and have resulted in lawsuits. McCleod's article addresses these confusions by offering up the Grey Album example, and proposes that music copyright laws have not caught up or even made an attempt to catch up to human tradition of "collage." I am not sure that I completely agree with this argument, as copyright and patent laws concerning other areas outside of music have made minimal efforts here as well, and for good reason. The protection of intellectual property will inevitably trump the human spirit of collage, as artists and inventors seek compensation and protection from intellectual property theft. To seek a less-intrusive system of laws would further cloud and complicate the process of sampling or covering.

Burkhart's ideas concerning the "celestial jukebox" allow us to view the system of instant music, absent of time, space, or sight. This concept, which easily applies to modern streaming services, is a critique of the system that promotes tension between companies, streaming services, and consumers. The DRM terms and conditions essentially strips the listener of their perceived "freedom" in the consumption of music, thus arguably devaluing or "regulating" music. This regulation of music promotes popular ideas that music and its spread or success is dependent on a system of laws, rather than its perceived quality or lack there-of.

by RobertParkerRobertParker, 20 Mar 2017 01:50

From these readings, I think copy right activism and laws that protect the contents and usage of music merges from the desire to claim and preserve the ownership of the music created. In the mean time, new ways of presenting music are constantly being invented, for instance, mashups includes creating, coining, and matching music out of preexisting songs, this invites participation of listeners, music lovers or consumers to take part in the music that they use to be only an appreciator. The concept of the word “deconstruction” that is closely related to “analysis” or to “un-do” really gives new meaning and perspective on recreating music. The difference between musical quotations and music sampling is also discussed, giving the former not a form of real music, the latter is seen as an creative act of music making. The abundant resources provided by the internet also is an important tool in Mashups, file-trading networks available, an even without the internet, mashups is also easily created due to availability of MP3. It is also compelling to see how the modernist collage aesthetic, left a strong impact and influence on popular music. In the case of Grey Album which can be traced back to "music concrete" strategy, this presents close relations between pop music and classical music; modernist is seen as an extension of serialism, along the same line, music concrete is being extended by popular music. In discussing Copyright activism, McLeod argued the case of "Happy Birthday to You" song which was created in a culture that promoted borrowing and sharing melody, rhythm, themes, and even composed based on melody from 19th century, while the copyright protected its usage, making an ironic situation. 

by Nicha PimthongNicha Pimthong, 10 Mar 2017 16:38
page »
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License