Internet Communities
This week’s readings revolve around different yet connecting meanings of communities that have been created through the Internet. Defining community in virtual world through medium called the Internet is essential. The main argument sheds light on whether community that is exist through internet can be as real as offline world, or might eventually become a substitution of the face-to-face interaction.
Virtual Community on the Phish.Net Fan Community
The first example is Phish.net. [http://phish.net] A page originally created by music fans to for the purpose of exchanging thoughts on Phish music. Through this page, fans who share the same passion regarding favorite music, song hits, come together voluntarily in contributing to the conversations. This create a shared culture, values, which must be maintained. The distinction between newbies, or new comers and the elders was also made. By having the elders guarding the conversations to be channelled in an appropriate way and directly connected to the “core values” of the community. This included publicly flaming, or silently ignoring the posts that are not valid in the sight of their standard and judgment.
Watson argues that that this type of community is real, citing the example of a real world event that caused by a united voice of people in Phish.net, requesting a specific music they love, resulting in the CD that include the fans’ favorite live performance. This presents clear response to the fan’s voice, that it will be heard when represented through strong, tight coherence communities. Watson also touches upon the concept of representation through community, comparing to political situation. The effective way to be presence in large society is to be a part of a community in order to get a strong representation. The concept of community also shift from physical proximity to the closeness of relationship, and communication, as he remarks:
“We should be begin think of community as a product not of shared space, of shared relationships among people." (p. 120)
The known, constant activities that the Phish.net Fan community immensely upholds during the growth of the participants include:
- Maintaining Intimacy and Behavioral Norms
- Conventionalized language of recognition signals
- Fostering structuration activity
In attaching “community metaphor” into virtual world, a word "community" is first to be defined. Special implications and hidden meanings must be clarified in order to get the pure meaning of the word.
"Internal Values thus show the marking points around which past, present, and future forms of structure are developed. Recognition that the structuration process also takes place inside computer-mediated spaces is embedded in the use of a community metaphor to recognize the development of new social norms." (Watson, p. 120) "This reaction also sits well within a metaphor of community in which a center is often trying to maintain original community values in the face of a changing and growing population. (Watson, p.113)
The word “Commune” is essential to community according to the author. He also reflects on the use of the word “communion” in describing community. To take part in a small community that is tight-knit is rewarding experience. However, problem rises when the Phish.net was expanded with larger amount of enthusiasts knew of the sites and decided to join. Thus, the regulations has to be stated and maintained. The roles of the Phisnet “exclusive” experiences member play in educating, offering detailed informations on how to buy tickets etc. is also created and seen as a dedicated service to a larger portion of fans.
"..we have made a distinction between the communication that is made possible for users by a medium like urban subway graffiti, CB radios, or CMC, and the community that is formed only when that communicative ability is utilized to construct communion, and a structuration of norms and values via ongoing relationships of quality between participants. (p. 121)
Phish.net. became a community that works closely with organizers, even performers themselves. Thus supporting the argument of the author in placing meaning of community into this impactful virtual world.
Music Community in John Prine's Chat Page
Kibby presented a case study of a music community that exists through Oh Boy Records’ [http://www.jpshrine.org/index.html] “chat page” on John Prine. Presenting the similar communicative channel as Phish.Net, connections between fans and fans were made through direct links, as well as an extraordinary way to communicate with the performer who brings all the fans together, John Prine himself. Gathering in a real-time chatting place, electronic place that fans find it extremely close to “home”, which gives new meaning to another level of community. Here, community is not national or international, rather, presenting ‘local’ community.
Pop music industry changes the way people interact with music, from participating to only consuming. Oh Boy Records, by creating this chat page, brings back the root of music of John Prine, which was associated with folk music tradition, including audience participation, trading of ideas and actively engaging in performance. Yet again, the idea of musicking is presented. “Music of People” slogan of his, has been brought back to live again through the invention and ongoing community joined by commonality in the love of music of John Prine in this virtual place people called “home.”
Kibby's definition of community also points to a quality of communication;
Connection does not necessarily lead to the development of community, and gathering in an online place is not automatically followed by the formation of social bonds,… it is ritual sharing of information that binds contacts into communities. (p. 95)
Musical Life in Soft City: The Case of Mod Scene
A metaphoric “ghost town” where individuals left only a trace and travel, “surf”, “go” in internet individually is compelling. Thousands of monuments of a town that exists and awaits to be visited electronically form a virtual community where people put souls and invest their lives in.
If Internet communication is based on what some might consider the illusion of presence and others call "telepresence," can it nevertheless support contemporaneous social collectivity? ….If so, are such "virtual communities" different from communities in the embodied world? Are they extensions of, substitutions for, or alternatives to offline real-world communities? (Lysloff, p. 32)
“mod scene” presented a special case where the community is not an extension of an offline world. But the core and where it lives and breaths is the Internet. The Net, or what the author calls “Softcity” provides necessary tools in creating this electronic music, distributing this music, and sharing this music to the world.
Christopher Small's definition of musicking plays an important role in mod scene. As Lysloff proclaims the shift of meaning in the process of creating, sharing, and contributing to the mod scene, he says "composing is no longer a specialized profession, aimed at the production of a musical object, but an ongoing communal activity that remains perceptually unfinished, undertaken for the sheer pleasure of social interaction" (Lysloff, p.58)
Similar to an offline world, hierarchy of society and community is presented, as seasoned and experienced demo artists are placed at the top of the community, serving as respected elders for the community, whereas younger mod composers, are categorized in the middle level, and the fans, and new composers makes up the largest group on the lowest level.
A case of a real community is also marked here in that this community is not obligated of imposed by outside governments or organization, and the only gain is frame and compliments, no money involves. One can call it a non-profit-passion-only community.
A popularity criteria is based on daily/weekly/monthly downloads and views.
Thus, the mod scene is made up of a social hierarchy based primarily on prestige and authority. Prestige for composers is gained from having a large followings of fans and name recognition, while authority arises out of a thorough knowledge of tracking and computer programming esoterica. (p. 39)
Questions for discussion:
- What do you think of music and potential trends in online communities?
- What are the relationships between offline and online worlds, is online community a substation for an offline one, or does it leads from one to another, or both?
- Please share examples of real communities, whether online or offline you’ve experienced. Based upon that, what do you think are essential components in creating real communities? Are those aspects related to the three authors’ definition of community?
- How and what can we contribute to paving the ways in creating or maintaining a healthy online or offline worlds, especially for a purpose of musicking for the next generations?
- How does the concept of a ‘community metaphor’ Watson talks about play a role in defining the act of musicking throught the internet communities?
- Do you agree or disagree with Lysloff's following phrase, "Small's notion of musicking is similar to an argument that John Blacking made more than twenty-five years ago: "musical things are not always strictly musical" (1973: 25)?
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.
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.
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 Phish.net 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.
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.