The bad news...but I'm trying to stay optimistic

I finally got the bad news last night. My computer is fried. It happened three weeks ago. I thought it was a minor problem with a fan going down and causing it to overheat. I replaced the fan, but it didn't come back. Then the snow hit, and I couldn't take it to have it diagnosed. Finally took it in last Saturday and waited all week for an answer.

Seems a power surge took out the power supply which then shocked the motherboard. Beyond that they can't tell me anything. So I can try replacing those parts and hope the processor, RAM, and hard drives are okay. Otherwise I'm basically building a whole new system.

Also because the motherboard needs to be replaced, even if they still work, the hard drives will need to be reformatted and the operating system reinstalled. This means I've lost my most recent projects - pretty much everything since last fall because I didn't complete a backup lately.

I'm trying to look on the bright side. Not having a computer has meant I've been limited to playing my guitars, mostly acoustic. This means I'm really working out the tunes making sure the progressions and melodies are strong and that I can really play them very well. It's actually perfect for this current project.

Secondly, the songs  from my blog project were really just demos, and it's probably better that I'm forced to record them from scratch instead of relying on the half-baked versions I have. Having to relocated all of the samples I used from DVDs will be a pain, but maybe it will be good to pare those down as well.

And finally, it will give me a chance to upgrade. I'll definitely be able to go to Windows 7. And since I'm starting grad school this summer and will need it anyway, I'm considering not taking a chance on this desktop and getting a laptop instead. I'm looking at a Sony Vaio as we've had good luck with them in the past. They use top quality parts and really seem to last.

Mass Scale Individuality

Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8amMCVAJQ

The above video really brings to the fore my misgivings regarding intellectual property. Creating something doesn't mean anything until other people see it and spread its message. This whole American myth that each of us is unique and special simply isn't true. Or at least it doesn't have any real meaning. A lone point on a map doesn't mean anything without the context of the rest of the map. It just seems to me that Americans in particular suffer from a mass scale individuality that isn't based in fact. The idea that one person can take credit for something when each of us is the sum total of our experiences within a society just doesn't sit well with me.

We give the creator of things so much credit, but for one, that creation is he product of all of the experiences and influences manifesting themselves through the creator. And secondly, it's those who come along and notice the creation, enjoy it and decide to share it that really bring it to life. So the idea that I write a song and it somehow belongs to me and I should get paid for it and have control over how it's used is very small-minded. In reality, I'm only a vessel for creation, and it doesn't truly become a song until someone else hears it.

This is the problem with today's music industry. A lot of people just aren't buying the old ideas anymore. The industry needs to reinvent itself with an eye toward creating situations where artists and fans collaborate rather than trying to shove crap down people's throats and then complaining that the customers won't pay to have stuff shoved down their throats. That may have worked in the days of radio and television where it was a one way transmission, but this is the world of the internet. Everyone is on equal footing, and the sooner musicians recognize this, the sooner it can evolve into an all new form of entertainment.

My Intellectual Property Circle

Intellectual property has been on my mind lateyl, and I've always had mixed feelings about the whole concept, especially when it comes to art. It goes to the very core of our society, our attitudes about the individual versus the society and how we go about valuing art.

To my mind art is necessarily a social medium. Humans are social creatures and artists can only create out of their experience, the environment in which they live. And art only gains meaning when it's shared with other members of society. As such, it seems to me that a good society should both fund the arts and reap the benefits. I guess that makes me a socialist, but it seems like there are some things that shouldn't be driven by profit - emergency services, health care, and arts. Certain things exist for the good of everyone and should be paid for by everyone.

But then who becomes the judge for what gets funding? In a society the size of our own, every member can't vote on every project. The competitive economy of a capitalist system would seem to be better suited to making such judgments. This would seem to be especially true of the worlds of entertainment or design (which is pretty much our entire word actually, but that's an entirely different post). Fans vote with their dollar and fund the entertainment or designs they prefer.

But even a punk rock band in somebody's basement is operating within a social framework. And it's probably just my own proclivities, but despite the seemingly unfeasible nature of developing a fair system for funding the arts, I just can't shake the feeling that for the arts, the social aspect is just so central that a profit based model destroys the authenticity of the work. Art needs an audience to exist; it can't be the sole property of the artist.

But of course, the social system we've developed, the American way now exported to most corners of the globe, is in fact Capitalism. Economics is the strand that ties us all together. Everything is ultimately boiled down to resources and profitability. That's our value system. So something as ephemeral as a pop song makes a millionaire, while someone who produces a tangible and useful object gets paid 10 bucks an hour, or someone who develops a new model of artistic development struggles in obscurity until years after their death. Does art in this system have intrinsic, or even social, value?

You see how this is a circle I can't escape. Art is by its nature social, but we risk boiling it down to the lowest common denominator. For an even longer, rambling view of my stream-of-consciousness reasoning read more...
Part of me understands that artists, writers and musicians need to be compensated for their work. The only way new art can come into being is if it's funded, if the artist can avoid starving long enough and get the materials needed to produce something. This is one argument against piracy and file sharing: whether it's books, music, movies or software, it's taking money away from those who create, and if it continues, they will no longer be able to develop new content.

Of course, it seems most people today see this as an empty threat, at least for the arts. The thought may be that artists and musicians create because they have to express themselves, and people expect that to continue whether the artists get paid or not. Or maybe, people just don't care as much about traditional media as they once did. Whatever the reason, music and arts are always among the first things cut in education, and the arts don't command much public funding and often struggle to secure private support so we know there's some sort of societal struggle with valuing art. In the case of music, specifically the popular end of things, sure the massive distribution infrastructures may crumble, some (or all) labels may collapse, and record execs may find themselves cut off from the cash cow, but we have the internet. Anyone can distribute, and presumably artists who are committed to their work will release work into the net regardless, and then maybe somehow people will pay for it. And of course, new filters will develop to help the rest of us find the good content, right? And we'll all pay a fair price, yes?

But we're operating in a hybrid world where the old guard is desperately holding onto what it knows and thinks it deserves, and the new method is still nascent, not fully developed. It's a state of flux, where the world is changing, and those filters haven't become functional. No one even knows what this new way of doing things might eventually look like. So yes, I get that there's fear and uncertainty, and people's livelihoods are at stake, but it's all based on this idea that people own that which they create.

Just for a second consider, what if they don't? What if the world, specifically human civilization, is a vast collaboration? Humans are social creatures, and an artist can only create out of the environment in which they exist. Even if that environment is the isolation of a hermit (whether imposed by the self or the group), the fact of the isolation is a key component to the creation. A reaction against a society is as much a part of society as the society itself. Anyone who sits down to write a song is going to be influenced by the music they've heard before, as well as the books they read, the art they see, and the people with which they interact. Who really deserves the credit?

And if you start crediting outside influences, where does it stop? Is an individual just a collection of experiences (or information) that was bound to produce something of a certain form? But we choose many of our experiences, right? I pick which books to read, what movies to watch, what songs to hear. Or do I? If I am just an assemblage of my experiences, and my early experiences were controlled by others - parents and then a state sponsored education system, not to mention the world of advertising that surrounds us and subconsciously infiltrates our minds, do I even have control over the choices I make now as an adult? How much individual agency and free will do I really have?

Or consider that we are truly individual beings. Do we each have only the limited perspective of a single body with perceptions and ideas that are unique? In that case would social interaction be an attempt to rectify the variations in our perception, a constant comparison between separate beings? And would our desire for this interaction be a result, not of our being various points within a single being, but rather of our extreme isolation as individuals? Do we share experiences for consolation, or as an attempt to build something larger from our individual pieces? Should each individual be rewarded for their contribution, and how is that value system developed? Or are all the parts necessary to the whole? What is an artist without an audience (besides hungry)?

From either perspective you end up at a place where art only exists within the context of a social system. I know, this is some fundamental shit, and I've moved way beyond just talking about the arts here, but I wonder if we, especially in America, suffer from mass scale individuality. Just think about advertising. There's this strange balance between appealing to people both on an individual level and a social level. We're encouraged to fit in and find our place in society by expressing our individual talents. Does that even make sense? Don't humans tend to isolate those that are different? The individuality we seek has to be of an acceptable social form. When it comes to producing something that is necessarily social, like art, is it really the work of the individual? Or is it the product of a system simply expressed through a single piece of that system? Could a genius just be the lucky conduit for humanity's shared progress?

What I'm getting at is that I'm not sure the idea of individual ownership of thoughts and ideas makes much sense when those thoughts and ideas only have a meaning in relation to the group. If you look at things that way, walling oneself off and claiming your ideas as possessions, seems like a pretty pointless excercise. Maybe the ideal is for everyone to be an artist in the sense that we are all collaborating to create a work we call society. What then is the value of individuality? A necessary variation in the parts of the system, a safeguard to keep the system dynamic?

Analogue vs. Digital pt.1

I've never had much of an opinion about recording analog versus digital. I mean it makes sense to me that analog would sound more natural to us. After all, we can't hear 1s and 0s. When I got into recording in high school, I borrowed a bunch of my dad's old analog gear, and eventually I got this little cassette 4-track.

That unit died when I was in college, and a friend and I traded some gear and pitched in on a new one - a Tascam 234 4-track and 106 mixer. Still cassette based, not 1/4" or 1/2", we messed about with it for a couple years, but it was quite challenging. It's amazing to me that recording engineers dealt with tape for so long, and that some would still prefer it. Don't get me wrong, it sounded great. Despite our crappy mics and not really knowing what we were doing, those tapes have a warmth that I still love. But having to keep track of counter numbers, the limitations on track count and having to commit to a mix a few tracks at a time, etc. sometimes made for a frustrating time.

We decided that a computer would be better. I'm not sure what our logic was. I don't think we really thought about digital versus analog at first. I think it was more the ridiculous track counts, unlimited editing capabilities and graphic representation that drew us in. Odd as it may seem, we didn't really consider the sound. We were writing material and recording was recording. And now I've been recording almost exclusively in digital for 10 years because it's just simpler.

The 234 didn't get much use after I bought a computer specifically to use in the little studio/music room we'd built. But I still own it and have carted it around for years for no discernible reason. Recently I read an article about mastering and how some mastering houses still prefer to get the material on 1/2" tape. I was kind of shocked, but it got me thinking about reintegrating analog gear into my computer setup, especially since I've been thinking that my newest project should have a more vintage feel. There are plugins that model classic units and their analog circuitry, but why not just run the music through some real analog circuitry? Or even record it to real analog tape and then re-digitize it?

So, out came the 234. Unfortunately, the tape head doesn't seem to function anymore. Still, I tried plugging my electric guitar as well as a microphone into the 4-track and then patching the outputs to my audio interface, essentially using it as a preamp. I did a bit of tracking, and it worked pretty well. There is definitely a difference in the sound. It's warmer but also a little noisier, perhaps in a good way, and you can't beat the look of this old gear.

Two problems with this method: 1) When mixing these recordings and adding effects, the noise gets enhanced along with the instrument. Not a big deal for 1 or 2 tracks maybe, but beyond that, it really becomes noticeable. And 2) I can only record my guitars and vocals this way. Any electronic or sampled parts don't get the same treatment. I think a better method would be to track and mix digitally, record my final mix to tape, and then record from the tape back to the computer adding any mastering effects at that point for a finalized, release-ready recording. That way I also get the sound of tape as well as the analog circuitry, and the entire mix is treated, not just a few individual parts.

I emailed my dad, and I'm hoping his old TEAC reel-to-reel tape deck from the 60s still works (an attic dweller the last few years unfortunately). Otherwise I'll have to pay to have the 234 repaired (which might cost more than it's worth at this point), or buy a reel-to-reel from craiglist or ebay (there are quite a few available, but any in guaranteed working condition aren't cheap). I've actually been thinking about getting a tube preamp too (the Presonus BlueTube), but we'll see where this goes first...

-TFW

Where does the music stand?

There's a lot of talk about the state of the music industry right now. What happened to the cash cow of the ninties? How do we adapt and become profitable again? Can we stop piracy and illegal file sharing? It seems to me that the biggest problem is that there's a real disconnect between the industry and its audience. Many are running around trying to figure out a profitable delivery method for the same old music - streaming, downloads, ads, subscriptions, clouds, etc. - but the assumption seems to be that the same market is still there. I fear this may not be the case.

The world of music has been split into genre niches. It's true we still have our mainstream acts like Jay-Z and Taylor Swift, but these mainstream artists on major labels aren't bringing in nearly as much profit as they once were. This is often attributed to piracy and file-sharing. While I'll admit that those things have definitely been detrimental to the major label model of the music industry, I don't believe that they are the root cause. Piracy and file-sharing are symptoms of a de-valuation of music in our culture.

Music fans have always been divided into passive and active listeners, but that division is even more striking today. I believe that, in addition to file sharing, another effect of the internet is that it has helped to turn us into a multimedia culture. People have a much greater degree of choice, and it doesn't necessarily mean they're choosing a wider variety of music. In fact, it could be that they're choosing a greater variety of alternatives to musical entertainment. As broadband became commonplace, video became more accessible, and YouTube has turned into a huge hub of online interaction. Video games, especially those played online with other players have become commonplace, and millions of people participate.

As a result of this, the amount of music that is consumed passively has increased exponentially over the last decade. This has a couple of consequences. I think one, and a possible reason music has split into niches, is that the mainstream just doesn't see music as an end unto itself anymore. It's an accompaniment. You're either 1) listening to music, generally on headphones, while you do something else - surf the web, read a book, cook dinner, etc., or 2) music is the soundtrack to your movie, video game, TV show, YouTube clip, etc. Who buys a stereo hi-fi these days? A very small market of audiophiles maybe, but for the mainstream it's all about surround sound which means HD and DVD and Blu-Ray and game consoles. True music fans are few and far between, and because of the mess the major labels have made of their business, the labels have lost credibility with fans, and the fans seek out ever more intimate bands and artists - people they feel they can connect with.

The other consequence is that a lot of really talented musicians don't necessarily see being in a band as the cool thing to do anymore. It's no longer rebellious to rock out when we see 50- and 60-year-olds on stage. I hate to say it, but rock music seems to be gaining "oldies" status. So really good musicians have migrated to soundtrack work - partly because that's where the money is, partly because of the shift toward more electronic and computer based production, and partly because it's way cooler to have your track in a movie or videogame or TV show these days than to have it played on the radio. You have a better chance promoting yourself by being the guy featured on HBO or Call of Duty show than having your record spun on some underground radio show (whetehr terrestrial or satellite) that most people have never heard of.

I just don't think very many people listen to music as an activity anymore. This is especially true of the younger generation, and make no mistake, that's who you need to focus on because the old fogeys, i.e. anyone over 30, are already in the bag having discovered their favorites, bought the albums and collectors sets, etc. MTV started the process - shifting the focus from the auditory to the visual, and video games continued it, pushing music even further into the background. This has led to a situation where musicians aren't the headliner - they're the small print, and therefore, people aren't as inclined to be drawn to a live show to watch their heroes perform amazing feats of musical accomplishment. Right now musicians just aren't megastars. It may cycle back around to that point again, but I'm not sure we're at a place culturally where we, collectively anyway, want to be adoring fans and propel anyone to great heights. The true fans find their niche and want their niche artists to succeed, but the mainstream is on the wane.

Interestingly, as the mainstream has made a psychological shift from active to passive consumption, it's often the reverse for music fans. Sure there are still times where I want to sit and listen to someone else put feelings into words and sounds that I couldn't come up with on my own, but most of the time I want to feel like I'm taking part in something. Have you heard of Dan Deacon? Granted he's got a pretty small niche so probably not, but his shows are interesting because he brings the audience into the inner circle and makes the show about them all doing something together. He paints himself as a facilatator, not a star. You don't worship him, you party with him. That's what the music industry needs to figure out: We don't want to have anything shoved down our throats - we want to be part of the process.

Entertainment needs to become more communal and interactive. Communal doesn't mean a hive where everyone belongs. It's got to be interactive, but still make the consumer feel like an individual, part of an elite group. That's why online gaming and social networking work; the user controls the size of their own network, but yet the technology makes it possible for these small groups to multiply and cross-pollinate. I think the music industry (and the movie, publishing and journalism industries too) need to realize this. And it's not just about using Twitter, Myspace and Facebook to build awareness, though they are useful tools. Those alone barely prop up the old model because internet users are even more savvy regarding advertising than TV viewers have become. The user has control and can ignore you, and it's pretty easy to see through marketing hype online.

If you really want to attract people, it's got to be an entirely new approach. Make the entertainment experience something people in todays world will want to pay for. Maybe the publicity arm moves away from advertising and toward finding ways to create collaborative events. Maybe artist development means more than money for touring and studio time, but helping the entertainer connect with fans. Sadly, I don't have the magic bullet yet - just some thoughts on where we stand, but I think we can come up with the new ideas we need to succeed. It's not about legislating what the fans can and cannot do. It's about bringing them into the fold and giving them a stake in the success of the product.

-TFW