Easterlin uses a loop pedal in her performances, which is a digital sampler utilized by musicians — most often guitarists— to create short, repetitive riffs that are laid over each other to created textured rhythms. Easterlin has been using the same technology for her own singing performances. Easterlin, a Georgia native, first used the pedal while still in high school, although did not center her work on it professionally at first while in Boston.

“When I switched to the pedal, a lot of the same principles still applied,” Easterlin said. “I do tend to start with a general idea, or an emotion that I want to convey, and words and melody tend to come to mind, then figuring out the harmonic structure of a song to complement the melody and lyrics or to help me convey this feeling that I’m trying to connect with.”

The pedal has one major difference, though, that has shaped Easterlin’s compositions since focusing on it as her main technical tool.

“It is a bit of a limiting format, because it is repetitive by nature,” she said. “It’s also a little bit like a math problem. Everything has to be even and everything has to be perfectly symmetrical. It all has to line up horizontally and vertically. It’s sort of like musical Sodoku. You line all of the pieces up and they all have to add up at the end.”

The creative challenges and limitations of the pedal mean there are certain things Easterlin can’t do in performance that she would be able to with other instruments — no time changes, limited chord change possibilities, no rubato sections — but it’s also been a way for her to make the most of her own voice in a way no other arrangement has. She started out performing solo with guitar or piano, but the loop pedal, for all its structural limitations, freed her.

After six years of performing exclusively with the loop pedal, though, she’s evolved sonically further by adding two drums and a bass player “I had a consistent feeling that I just wanted it to be a little more of a party onstage,” said Easterlin. “I wanted to maintain the thoughtfulness behind the composition and the fun that I get to have with the loop pedal, but I wanted it to be a little bit more like a celebration. I wanted a fuller sound, and for me a full sound consists of having the melody and the harmony, and also the low end, the bass and the drums to enforce the rhythm in the group well, so I’ve been wanting to do that for awhile.” Easterlin debuted the line-up at the Lollapalooza festival last year out of necessity for the venue, but they kept performing together afterwards.

“This is the first band that I’ve ever been a part of, at all,” Easterlin said. “Even before I was doing stuff with the loop pedal, I was performing solo, accompanying myself on guitar or piano. I was solo for a very long time, and this is my first exploration with a band. Certainly performing solo for that long gave me plenty of time and a great opportunity to get a handle on what my sound is, where my writing comes from, how I do a show. Integrating other people into that was a really interesting process, and posed some of its own challenges.”

“As opposed to being an organic development of a band working together from start to finish, it really was bringing people into what I do and then also having the courage to open up what I do to other people’s input, which was frankly a challenge for me for a while. It was scary. It’s scary to open up to people on an intimate level and I don’t think that’s any different when working with a band, when creating something with a group of people. It’s an inherently intimate process.”

After bringing traditional instruments into her mix, Easterlin has been writing songs the same way and not utilizing the loop pedal at that point in the process.

“I will incorporate the loop pedal into this next creative pursuit of mine, but I don’t know that it will continue to be the core of what I do,” she said, “because it’s limiting and you can only go so far with it. I’m pushing for growth.”

One possibility that Easterlin has considered is creating multi-vocal music with other singers. There are logistical concerns, but that’s part of the appeal for the singer. Her intention is to not sit still and definitely not lull herself into musical comfort.

“That’s a thing that I’m open to, but I think pursuing a solution to the puzzle of how do I do x, y and z live when it’s not loopable vocals, I think that’s a worthwhile pursuit. It’s a challenge,” Easterlin said.

“I think it’s important for me to push myself and make myself a little bit uncomfortable. I don’t always like the result, but I think the things I learn in experimentation, even if the end product isn’t exactly what I would hope, the things I learn from that are really invaluable, and it really makes me excited to try weird stuff.”

Before the reformation, the ones who could read were the ones with the power and control over what was read- monks, priests, etc. They read (and wrote) the bible and were relied upon by the entire catholic church to provide accurate information from the bible during mass. Perhaps “relied upon” is not the most accurate term for use here. In general, the Roman Catholic church-going population was not literate. They didn’t rely on priests to present the bible accurately; they simply accepted whatever was presented to them. The control was completely in the hands of the religious elite. When the printing press was invented, everything changed. The bible, once meticulously (and often mistakenly) hand-written by monks, could be printed easily because of Gutenberg’s new technology. Suddenly regular people were able to own personal copies; a fact that changed everything. People had a reason to read, so literacy exploded. Once people could read the bible, its information was in their control. They were no longer spoon-fed by priests; they could read, learn, question. This led to the reformation- hundreds of years of unquestioned power of the religious elite was diffused to the public.

This phenomenon is still happening today. It is called technology. Throughout history, technology has been taking power from the powerful and placing it in the hands of the people. The Xerox machine is another prime example of this. Professionals like lawyers, doctors or police departments kept records which stayed with them and under their control, until the Xerox was invented; the public gained access to copies of its own documents and records, instead of having to blindly trust the professionals.

History is unfolding before our very eyes- repeating itself as it is wont to do. Or shall we say- copying itself. In the past, technology has enabled the public to  acquire a new level of control over information previously exclusive to a higher class of power, in these cases by the copying and increased accessibility of knowledge, information, and resources. Power and control fluctuate according to certain strengths and abilities and how they relate with the newest technology.

Virtually the same scenario is being played out now, through the technology of computers, able to copy music, and of the internet, able to disseminate it. The music publishers are suffering, since their very function involves controlling many aspects of popular music distribution. The internet is decreasing their influence on what people listen to, how they listen to it, how they hear about it, and what they pay for it. Unfortunately, matters are further complicated in this instance because the technology provides the same nature of dissemination, but via a means that happens to be illegal.

Even more unfortunate however, is the system of power and control that has warped the particular law in question. The constitution was developed when America broke free from a group in power. Paralleling the aforementioned trend, they wanted to give the power to the people, and they wanted to promote intellectual progress: “The Congress shall have Power…To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” –The Constitution of the United States

The perfect American ideal: protect individuals by giving them possession of their “discoveries” but only for “limited times” in order to promote progress. Another perfect American ideal: gain enough power to bend the law, reinterpret it, use it solely for personal gain and completely forget about the original goal of the law itself. Anyone who understands the original purpose of the copyright law will take one listen to an artist like Girl Talk and realize that by “Utilizing technical expertise and a ferocious creative streak, Girl Talk repositions popular music to create a wild and edgy dialogue between artists from all genres and eras” (Gaylor, Brett video RIP: A Remix Manifesto). This clearly demonstrates much more practical connections with original laws than the recent idea of them consisting of only what the RIAA decides, which is, conveniently: everyone should have to pay us for everything. Actually, this wasn’t always the way. Peter Friedman explains how it all catapulted out of control (or rather, into the control of the RIAA) in 1991 when a judge ruled against a guy who was sued by the RIAA because he used three seconds of someone else’s song. He could have appealed for a ruling that didn’t blatantly disregard fair use, but he didn’t, for whatever reason, and we all suffered the consequences. Until now!

Girl Talk on copyright: “People’s attitudes on it are just gonna shift over time. So hopefully, we’re at the forefront of, you know, different ways of…how music exists…it’s like, everyone builds upon something.” I think Girl Talk is right- we are at the forefront of change. Thanks to the technology becoming increasingly available to the public. Within a few years I believe copyright will mean something entirely different than it does now. If I can write this essay, creating a mashup of my own thoughts and others’, there is no reason “illegal” use of copyrighted material by artists like Girl Talk wouldn’t be equally, if not more, legitimate and justified.

“Law is forced to change when the material conditions it governs change, and the ability to make and stitch together samples into compositions that can be disseminated world-wide -an ability that in 1991 was held almost exclusive by the recording industry- is now within reach of, literally, millions of people” (Friedman, Peter). And, according to Andrew Dubber (quoted by Friedman), there are more reasons to change copyright laws than just the changing of technology and attitudes in the modern digital world. He demonstrates the possibility of a culture crisis- the record companies are so reluctant to share their music, even libraries and archives which have always documented and preserved art and culture, aren’t granted access and some music is literally disappearing. “Magnetically-charged metal oxide particles are falling from master tapes as we speak.”

Unless you’re a record company, which I think are not going to avoid being replaced by various internet resources, the solution is not so difficult. The only thing keeping us from getting there is the lingering power of the record companies. I see a direct correlation between the decline of record companies’ unfair power and the rise of the “CopyLeft.” It seems pretty clear to me. Fair Use is already a doctrine under the copyright laws, its only problem is it’s pretty much up to the judge’s opinion what fits within fair use and what doesn’t. The thing to do (unfortunately we’re going to have to make another one of those “laws to protect you from other laws”) is make fair use more definite and applicable. Clearly define Fair Use, not leaving it up for more than a little debate, and outline some other clear specifications including the necessity to cite your samples.

We are obviously on the road to getting there, and moving faster than one might think. The great thing about Girl Talk and other artists like him is that they’ve inspired such a dramatic and effective argument against copyright laws as they stand. And they’ve done this not even on purpose- they’ve done it by just doing their thing. The record companies are the ones sending the strongest message here. Why has nobody sued Girl Talk? He would win. And everybody knows it.

December 15, 2009

Professor Scales: final part one

How do we understand the use of Copyright in a contemporary perspective?

In order to have a constructive discussion about the tensions between the current ‘remix culture’ and Copyright law, one must understand as Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at Concordia University in Montréal, Paul Théberge writes, “technology must be understood as a kind of discourse” (Théberge 11).  This concept of technology as discourse is an essential mechanism to effectively observe the creation of a contemporary group of peoples’ culture.  The interaction of people through the dialogue of discourse is where vital conceptions of culture, authenticity, and identity begin to develop.  The movement of information establishes methods of interaction.  This is media. Written language can be understood as a media technology that establishes  unique methods to exchange ideas; visual edits, italics, bolding words, CAPITALIZING, are all ways to linguistically interact with people in writing.  Now more than ever, with the advent of the chief of all media technologies: the Internet, and novel music production tools such as digital sampling and sequencing, new ways to use music in creative dialogue with people are readily implemented.

In the use of the recent advances in media and music production technology, original ways to perform ones’ authentic musical identity are executed.  These customs include but are not limited to hip-hop, and remix culture.  Artists such as Girltalk and the Beastie Boys’ Mix Master Mike, readily employ music technologies such as digital music production software (examples include Audacity and Garageband) and turntables, to express their creative identities.  Past musicians and artists did this as well.  Only then they used the modes of expression of their time.  In the Renaissance it was the lute.  Now it is a computer.  It is Important to note that relatively recently corporations have been attempting to control the use of technology as an instrument.

Through cultural discourse and dialogue, despite legal definitions of appropriate usage, a culture will unavoidably define the limitations or boundaries of use for all technological tools it has excess to.  From multi-track recording to digital sampling and sequencing recognizable sections popular songs, artists will (and do) continue to utilize technological tools in the expression of their creative identities.  It is then the chore (although I view it as more of a privilege and responsibility) of ethnomusicologists, and music producers and consumers, to come up with creative and constructive ways to make use of the consistently developing music technologies of our time.  Thus the main argument of this blog entry manifests: a democratic cultural consensus should define the usage of Law, including Copyright.  Although a lot of intellectual people need to heavily weigh in on this consensus, and this may be difficult, it nevertheless needs to be done.

Take the prohibition of alcohol in 1920s America as a prime example of a cultural definition of use that disregards the legal perspective.  Cultures will always exchange ideas on the usage of common practices.  It was common for people to drink alcohol, just as it is common for people to illegally download music online.  When things such as these become illegal the dialogue merely shifted forums.  Underground speakeasies were developed for the distribution of alcohol.  If technology is truly understood as a kind of discourse, then with the outlaw of common practices, these exchanges of ideas on the Internet will simply move to a virtual speakeasy.  We call them torrents.  Thus, the culture will always define the use value for tools of expression, Regardless of the legal perspectives.

Culture is never stagnant, so why should law be unchanging.  The problem is that legal definitions do change, just only to benefit the people that have economic and political influence.  In Wired Sound and Sonic Cultures by Paul D. Greene, he writes, “Music technology has tended to bring about a blurring (in the sense of a loss of distinction) of the spheres of music production and consumption” (Greene 6).  This is one of the key issues that must be addressed when arguing about an appropriate application of Copyright law.  Copyright write must serve the ever-changing cultural contexts that music is produced, disseminated, and consumed within.  Personal Computers have saw to the democratization of music production and consumption.  Any individual who has access to a modern computer can simultaneously be a music producer and consumer.

Likewise, the Internet has brought much of the information of the world to ones’ fingertips.  Right now, I can buy almost any type of music online.  Right now, I can buy a professional music-recording program online.  The democratization of these operations is evident in the Internet.  Thus, the loss of distinction that Greene speaks of above continues to complicate the approaches that individuals use to understand the concepts of musical authorship, and ownership.  This should not discourage people from understanding creative works in an authorship/ownership perspective.  It should only serve as a method of awareness.  Encouraging people to make inquires such as: where is this popular culture coming from, what were its’ intentions, and how will I respond to it?  Reactions that should support the usage of music technology in ways that redefine the dominant cultural understanding of music authorship and ownership, just as mash up artists do.

Due to these cultural redefinitions of developments and usage in music technology, these technologies and their applications have more often times that not been meet with tension (or even opposition) to an established cultural aesthetic of music.  In the article Making Beats by Joseph G. Schloss, he states, “The history of hip-hop sampling, like the history of most musical forms, is a story of dialectical influence.  Innovations are accepted only if they conform to a preexisting aesthetic, but once accepted, they subtly change it” (Schloss 42).  This quotation aids in the understanding of how a given subculture, in this case the hip-hop subculture, and their musical practices become accepted as authentic techniques to communicate ones’ identity.  But this leaves the question, how can one justify ‘remix culture’ and still keep the notion of Copyright intact and functional?

Copyright is considered a bundle of rights.  It consists of the right to control the copying of a work, the right to make adaptations of a work, and the right to issue copies of a work to the public.  A compulsory license then makes up of these next two sections, which are: the right to perform a work in public, and the right to broadcast or send transmissions of a work.  These latter aspects of Copyright are used to force the holder of it to grant the use of the work to others.  The former aspects are sections of Copyright that were originally aimed at encouraging the production of creative works, providing some what exclusive rights to the creators of the content, so that they may be able to make a living off their works.  Thus nurturing more works to be created.

The problem that producers of creative content face now is that Copyright law has been changed by corporate America.  Where the limit of Copyright used to be 14 years until the work would fall back into the public domain, corporate authorship is now 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.  This is crazy.

Here is why.  The United States’ Constitution expresses Copyright as such: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”  The key words are ‘limited Times’.  We must limit the control of corporations, not extend them to nearly a century of control.  Monetary compensation for creative works should not be the only way to reward someone for their ideas.  But it is.  A problem we face in the United States is that we have no standardized way to address the value of works in non-economic terms.  As of now the record industry focus on making money.  Money is very important.  Money makes the world go round, right?  To some extent yes, but it is more important to be aware of what one produces to be consumed.  Money does not have this awareness.

If money talks, people listen.  If youth culture talks, dominant culture turns a blind eye.  This needs to change.  This is how: culture uses dialogue to establish authentic ways to use music technology.  Copyright needs to reflect the dominant conception of musical authenticity, what ever that may be.  Copy right is necessary, just as regulations on alcohol consumption are necessary.  Legislators in both instances just need to understand that culturally established relationships are implemented  before legal relationships are considered.

Culture and Copyright may both be consciously guided to establish conceptions of creativity in progressive ways.  These progressive conceptions should be defined by the amount of happiness they produce.  Our job as privileged Americans is to increase the happiness of the world.  Conceptualizing progress in only economic terms will not be enough to meet the many challenges of the world.  Cultures will use the tools they are able to get a hold of in ways to entertain and spread the happiness of the largest demographic possible, despite the boundaries of legality.

Due to this, Copyright law must be tailored to fit the way in which people consume and produce music; it is as simple as that.  If Copyright Law does not serve the majority of people who use and produce music then whom does it serve? It now serves the corporations.  This is not bad, but it must be limited.  How this will be limited is up to our Congress, and that my friends is a whole other mess.



But the underlying and unanswered question is still: what is liveness and why is it so closely tied to questions of authenticity? Here it becomes important to note that both of the terms are defined subjectively and possess meanings that change over time, from culture to culture, and even throughout different genres of music. There is no music that is universally authentic or truly live, in and of itself; rather, degrees of authenticity and liveness are prescribed to it post-evaluation. Because there is no objective standard measurement for discerning how live or true a piece is, one must assess musical works within the cultures they are rooted within. Electronic and hip-hop music are two distinct genres and subcultures that have pushed the traditional boundaries of how musical media (examples being records and CDs) is used and understood. By doing so, these two forms of artistic expression have, and continue to challenge old conceptions of what constitutes a ‘live’ performance—thus developing new discourses in assessing music’s authenticity.

Hip-hop originated in the later half of the 1970s; in this period, digital sampling technology did not exist. Interestingly enough, Schloss states that “early hip-hop labels…relied on live bands and drum machines” in order to reproduce the music that they wished to sample (Making Beats 34). At the genres formation, hip-hop was ‘live’ in the traditional sense of the word. However, this period of live musical performance was seen as a necessity because of a lack in technological developments, rather than integral in defining what hip-hop is: “many current artists characterize hip-hop’s brief use off live instruments as merely a deviation, a capitulation to circumstance” (Schloss 35). In fact, the turntables are viewed as the roots of hip-hop music, not the original instruments.

It is apparent that with the innovational uses of turntables, records, and samplers, there was a mass movement of disc-jockeys to the studios, now calling themselves producers of music. Digital sampling was viewed by producers as having the ability to expand the creative options for artists, ultimately making more room for putting a personal stamp on the recording process. Besides the DJ, music performed ‘live’ became “almost completely estranged” from hip-hop and the producers’ aesthetics (42).

The hip-hop producer’s instrument is the sampler, not a guitar, bass, or drum kit. Being that a sampler is a piece of equipment found in the studio, the use of it as an instrument in the genre “totally obliterates conventional distinctions between performing…and recording. Everything that is done with a sampler is, by definition, recorded” (46). Additionally, DJ’s utilize only pre-recorded materials to realize their creative visions. By flipping, cutting, and scratching records, the DJ is able to construct unique mixes of other artist’s songs. It is clear that hip-hop’s origins—the turntables—have completely altered the purpose that records serve. Vinyl recordings are now used as instruments in themselves, rather than musical playing media.

It is in these ways that hip-hop has turned the traditional conception of ‘live’ on its head, and this has led to new discourses in authenticity. For obviously hip-hop music authenticity is not tied in anyway to traditional live performances. A great analogy was made in Schloss’s article to explain how sampling another artist’s record creates new and unique meanings in music:

looping “allows producers to use other people’s music to convey their own compositional ideas”, it is similar to an “origami master folding a print of the Mona Lisa into some elaborate shape. A critic could argue that…the surface of the paper remains an unaltered image off da Vinci’s masterpiece. But the surface is not where the meaning lies”. In the case of looping and sampling breaks, the meaning and significance “lies in the ability” of the producer “to harness repetition itself” (138).

Similarly, electronic music—particularly in the rave and club cultures—has aided in the redefinition of live and authentic through the use of looping, sampling, record, CDs and various stage performance technologies. Records, and more recently CDs, are the authentic musical instruments of the electronic music subcultures, though they were first viewed as alienating music from its true, live roots. Sarah Thornton states in her piece Club Cultures that records underwent “the process of becoming originals”, and during so, “accrued their own authenticities. Recording technologies did not…corrode or demystify ‘aura’ as much as disperse and relocate it” (27).

What Thornton is getting at, is the relocation of ‘live’ in the electronic music scene. Liveness is no longer found on the stage where the DJ spins, but instead, is in the overall atmosphere or environment that is created from the exchange of the performer’s music and the crowd’s energy and ‘vibes’. The goal of the DJ is to create a music space that is conducive to this exchange of energy and music; this is different from many other artist’s endeavors in that DJs, often times, do not spin original creations of music. Much like the origami master’s rendition of the Mona Lisa, the significance and meaning does not lie in the originality of the music (as far as authorship goes). Rather, the importance of the DJ as a figure lies in her/his ability to scan and read the crowd, and from that assessment, form a fluid and intensity-building mix. The set should leave the individuals of the crowd feeling drugged in a euphoric way; “rhythms can lull one into another state. With rave culture, this potentially was ritualized as the ‘trance dance’ by dancers actively seeking an altered state of consciousness through movement to the music” (60). Thornton states that the original connotation of ‘live’ music was “full of energy and potential” and modified musicians, electronic music has established a liveliness within its music, but instead the word modifies the atmosphere of a “living communal experience” (42; 65). Along with this change in the meaning of ‘live’ comes an equal alteration in traditional notions of authenticity within the musical world for “a musical form [records and CDs] is authentic when it is rendered essential to subculture or integral to community” (29).

Furthermore, developments in technology have been the primary cause for the need to expand definitions of ‘live’ and ‘authentic’, so they are able to include various musical expressions. Open initial attempts to integrate new technologies into musical genres, they may seen foreign, unnatural, and even “threaten the authenticity or the ‘truth’ of music” (29). However, as time goes by, technologies ‘grow’ on people and seen more organic and less artificial than they did originally. Additionally, it becomes clear that advancements in technology make new creative discourses possible. Thornton identifies the DJ as the key player in “the enculturation of records for dancing”, acting as a creative artist, but also “as a representative and respondent to the crowd” (60). As the figure at the forefront of constructing a musical space, the DJ often works with other technologies that serve the purpose of fashioning an atmosphere and vibe, such as lighting equipment, smoke machines, and other forms of visual stimulation that make going to a club or rave more than a musical show, but a full-blown sensory experience.

Moreover, it is clear that new developments in technology have continued to propel the dialogue of authenticity and liveness in reference to hip-hop and electronic music. These advancements have forced listeners, performers, musicians, and producers to question what these terms truly mean, who gets to define them, and what there relationship is. The community and its historical context ultimately inform the collective and democratically made decisions concerning the meaning of live and authentic. Schloss notes that “In any community, history draws borders; that is, in fact, one of its primary functions (57). From within these historical boundaries, people are able to culturally construct definitions—this is apparent in the hip-hop and electronic musical subcultures and their innovative uses for the record, CD, and sampling technology.

RCAH 340

Authenticity and Liveness

This question: What is the relationship between “liveness” and “authenticity?”, seemingly a simple one, is particularly intriguing in reference to cultural and technological innovations in contemporary music.  Practices in Hip-Hop and DJ culture, as seen in artists such as DJ Jazzy Jay and more recently Girl Talk, have distinct and intense cultural reactions to novel advancements in music technology.  Some of these technologies I refer to are as follows: digital recording, digital sampling and sequencing, and even the common record player.

The dense varieties of use for these specific technologies are most likely immeasurable.  Given a tool (a new technology for example), an individual can make practically any conscious application of it.  This personal agency of choice gives light to new conceptions of a technology’s functionality.  An overt example of this choice is evident in the common Hip-Hop instrument: the turntable.  Once a common record player, the modern turntable is now an instrument that arguably requires as much talent and dexterity to play well, as a six-string guitar.  The turntable is ‘played’ by ‘scratching’, this means that while a record spins and is heard, the musician rhythmically moves the vinyl record back and fourth.  Thus, ‘scratching’ the needle against the vinyl.  This creates a unique musical sound.  The interesting point here is that the use of the record player as a musical instrument was not its intended function.  As Sarah Thornton states: “the record shifted from being a secondary or derivative form to a primary, original one” (Thornton 27).

This is the argument: With new innovations in musical practice, comes new cultural conceptions of the use of music technology.  The use of technologies, in a sense, fill cultural niches.  These cultural practices, on a communal level, can be considered authentic only through a democratic consensus.  As Joseph G. Schloss states: “In any community, history draws borders; that is, in fact, one of its primary functions” (Schloss 57).  These borders Schloss speaks of are the structures in which cultural practices are analyzed within.  These boundaries are culturally defined.  Authenticity is culturally defined in this same way.  If a musical practice is within the borders of the respective cultures’ conception of authenticity, then it is authentic.  Similarly, if enough people believe that using a record player as an instrument is authentic, then it becomes just that.  In the same way, if the majority of musical players decide that liveness is a definitive musical marker of authenticity, then it becomes as such.  History and people define the lines of authenticity.

In many musical genres, liveness consistently refers to a venue.  A place where ‘live’ music can be experienced.  This could be a concert hall or a basement.  Consider the word live.  This word comes from the idea of being alive.  How can one be sure if they are living?  People need interaction to affirm existence.  A venue provides a place where this type of interaction can take place.  Thus, in order for liveness to be authentic, people must be at a venue that fosters communal communication.  This is the connection: communities define all forms of authenticity including liveness.  The instruments do not matter. It is the people that do.  As seen in the case of the turntable, it is the community that defines if musical practices are authentic.

With digital recording came a fundamental change in the aesthetics of sounds themselves, therefore affecting virtually all corners of the realm that is music. Genres started popping up everywhere, and indeed still are today, many of which have been made possible by technology. Metal, for instance, is a genre born of digitally altered sounds. Can you imagine a group of musicians with acoustic instruments trying to produce a brutal cacophony of doom? You already thought regular metal sounds bad…

In addition to changing the sound itself, the digital moment allowed musical movement beyond tangible objects. Disguised as a string of numbers, music suddenly was able to traverse the seas! This was a catalyst for the explosion of music sharing, sending, uploading, and downloading. One no longer needed to know or even see the people with whom one was swapping files. Music itself was becoming its own entity in the digital world, a way for people to share and connect with others. Indeed, perception of music by the public is the third influential change that lends to the idea of a significant break.

The way people listen to and interact with music is so dramatically different today than it was before the advent of digital music technology, and a big part of that is the transfer of music over the imagined space of the internet. The internet has perpetuated the transfer of music to the point where music listeners can infinitely expand their collections. I would go so far as to say the digital moment changed they way people listen to sounds in general. Most of my friends listen to music at any given time of day, during any activity that does not involve its own sound. Some older people cannot pay attention to music and read at the same time- they are not used to having music downloading, storing, and playing technologies available at their finger tips. Music listeners have honed their multitasking skills inadvertently.

Along with new recording technologies came sampling technologies. To listen to a song and be able to hear something new in it, to take it out of its own context and combine it with any number of other unrelated songs and snippets in an aethetic way, that to me is pure genius. We tend to get stuck in the box when it comes to our thinking. When people can overcome that, think outside the box, use a thing not as it’s meant, or take something old and make it new again, art is born.

Advances in digital technology have certainly put a new set of tools in the hands of musicians, producers and engineers to aid them in the creation (composition and recording) of music. I feel these advances constitute not so much a significant break from “analog” (i.e., magnetic tape and before) methods of recording, but instead an unfolding, or elaboration, on past practice. These changes also have had an effect on the way people regard and understand this music.

I do not support the notion that digital sampling requires the same amount or kind of talent that was required of musicians before technology made it so very easy to “lift” a portion of someone else’s song, and manipulate it into something else that you may then call your own. To clarify, let’s consider the tools a “musician” makes use of who makes his or her music relying entirely or in part on someone else’s song(s). This “musician” would need no knowledge of how to play any traditional musical instrument. S/he would need only to know how to steal someone else’s labor, wrought into music by acquired skill, honed by training, practice, knowledge, emotion,  and theory, perhaps later adding some additional flair, and then again perhaps not. He or she would need only to press a few keys, and all the nuance, personality, and very soul the artist put into performance can be captured, plagiarized, reproduced, repackaged, and sold as someone else’s. The thief-musician (I’m talking to you, Girl Talk; you too, Madonna; stop trying to hide, Enigma) need to know nothing about the way the original music was created. What the thief needs is the ability to recognize when someone else’s music is powerful and effective. S/he can then, with relative ease, STEAL a true musician’s work, and perhaps be hailed a genius (not to mention all the $$$)! When did dressed-up plagiarism become an art form? Can we really claim that “quoting” musicians of the past implies some sort of authorship on our own part?

What is even more disturbing to me is the complacency with which this change has been accepted. I have heard reactions to this echolalia-music to the effect that it is an “inevitable” result of advances of technology. I do not accept this. What it is an inevitable result of is apathy and lack of inspiration coupled with greed and the desire for fame. Blatant thievery and distortion is an attempt to hijack the credit due to a true musician, who writes and records original pieces, and to deflect it unto oneself, who needs only a computer equipped with sufficiently advanced software to do so. Before programs such as Garageband, this could be achieved with a turntable and someone else’s record. Now that the floodgates have opened, there are ever more complicated ways to dismantle the very framework that gave rise to such masterworks as those contained within the discography of Led Zeppelin, to name one virtuous group. Maybe that’s what it’s about: virtue. Should it be accepted that manipulation of past works of other authorship might be itself an art form–certainly I have enjoyed remixes of old favorites, that can afford a new perspective from which to enjoy them–there remains a distinct lack of “purity” in this style of music. When someone says, “Did you hear such and such new Girl Talk song…?” what I hear is something like, “Did you hear such and such new regurgitation of that same old song…?”

Out With the Old, In With the New?

In the last century musical technologies have advanced drastically, as have musical possibilities and genres, with the introduction of new technical editing and morphing options music has reached a new level since the digital era began. Through all this advancement, there has been a debate as to whether artists who create music using primarily and/or only digital programs to create their own “original” music, or editing old tracks and making them into something new, are authentic, and whether or not they would be in existence without the invention of the earlier analog inventions of recording, sound and editing technology.

All the new technology was made as a form of improvement and expansion of previous ideas and inventions that were used previously in the recording/ music industry. For example, current turn tables, used by most DJs now which are electric/ digital technology rather than the previous models which involved actual vinyl records for scratching. There is a debate between the authenticity of an artist’s work who uses the digital format over the vinyl form because it takes less effort and know-how to establish great results, which I think is the point of technology advancement, these artists should receive just as much credit for their works as those who use the earlier models in technology because they are taking what has been expanded upon and using it to their advantage, after all these inventions wouldn’t be possible without the older versions, they are a way for more people to be incorporated into the music scene, and expand music into even more variety yet. These new innovations have either complicated or simplified the task of editing and creating music, because there is the opportunity for those in who grew up around technology and are familiar to it to create works in the blink of an eye; however it further complicates music for those who weren’t brought up in this generation. This isn’t a disadvantage or an advantage simply because it allows each generation to use the technologies from their time to create works and expand on them to their technological limitations, and still seek improvement which is where some artists may experiment back to basics or with new technologies to create an all new sound.

For centuries inventions have been created to make life and every aspect of it easier on people, and musical technology is no exception though it is recognized that today’s technology would not have been remotely possible were it not for the early inventions of the phonograph, gramophone and numerous other ground breaking inventions beneficial to the music industry. These inventions all paved the way for everything from syncing to itunes, to keyboards and synthesizers, which are now so pivotal to music of today.

RCAH 340: Music Technology

Essay On Digital Music Technology

October 18th 2009

Digital Is Okay In My Book

New music technologies, techniques and musical tools, such as digital sampling, sequencing, and MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) recording, have complicated the notions of authorship and authenticity in contemporary music recording and consumption.  This complication is addressed in a plethora of ongoing debates about musical talent and music ownership.  The utilizing of many of these tools and technologies has also distorted the notions of the musician, producer, and sound engineer; this blurring of musical roles has established new kinds of producers, musicians and engineers.  In this blog entry, I will argue that these new technologies and tools, coupled with novel ways of perceiving musicians and producers, can be viewed as an ongoing process of technological phenomena. Notably these phenomena can be seen, in retrospect, to have consistently changed the way music is understood and importantly how music is created and consumed.  This legitimizes many new methods of composing and recording music in our society.

Any person who has access to an up-to-date computer can be simultaneously a music producer and a musician.  The technologies of digital music recording programs such as Macintosh’s Garageband and digital music making such as MIDI controllers help make this possible.  Starting in the early 1980s, a boom of digital music production made high-quality sounds and dynamic music recording devices, readily available .  The author Alan Durant, in his article: A New Day For Music? Digital technologies in contemporary music-making, states that: “such changes in music production gradually alter how people think…setting up standards of excellence and musical ideals…challenging many existing practical ideologies of music theory, technique and education” (Durant 175).  From reading this, one may understand Durant’s augment to address that new music technologies create new musical activities and new musical opportunity.  These innovative notions of music production include new sounds, and therefore new music.

However, in order for these digital music technologies to be new, there must be old technologies.  These old technologies found themselves in the same scrutiny that new technologies find themselves today.  Dr. Jason Toynbee, in his article Technology: the instrumental instrument, states that: “Recorded music became available on the market in the 1890’s”.  He goes on to say that multi-track recording did not take off until the 1960s (Toynbee 71).  Where his point here is that there was a slow development of music recording comparatively to film, this can also be evidence to suggest that the slow development of recording may be due to a dominant ideology of musical practice.  An ideological shift in musical understanding was required to cope with the new music technologies of the turn of the 20^th century, just as a shift was required of the overarching musical landscape of the early 1980s.

This ideological shift of music production is still happening.  As one can see even in RCAH 340, the debate of musical authenticity and authorship (in regards to digital music production) is enduring.  Where I did not get into the density or the central issues of these debates, my goal here was merely illuminate a processes of music technological development.  And moreover that the cultural ideologies of music production, continue to strive to catch up to an industry that is so affected by new technological developments.  In music, technology will forever be ahead of the facility of musicians and producers.  Thus the technologies of digital recording can continue to change and be applied in music production ethically, despite the plight of talented musicians and producers, who become less valuable as technology finds ways to replace their talent with digital reproductions.

Lauren Halsey
In the late 19th century and the early 20^th century music was always played and listened to in person, audience and performer together. In the 1920’s technology began to expand to help music reach new audiences and be more easily accessible. Since the Gramophone and phonograph were invented, and people no longer had to be in the same room or venue to hear their favorite artist’s music, people’s musical tastes have expanded and genres have grown to cater to all sorts of musical needs. Each genre requires different aspects of recording to make them sound authentic for their type of music and sound, and each uses different instruments and acoustic techniques. As soon as recording became readily accessible and common for most songs, artists developed solely to edit pieces and fit them together to make the perfect recordings for their audiences, though deeming the ideal sound of the song impossible to an extent.
The club scene would not be possible were it not for these recording technologies and amplification inventions.  Loud music blasts through the speakers, blasting one or many songs at once mixed together,  or hinting at what song could be coming up next with the turn tables scratching and changing the music constantly to keep the audience entertained, these people come out to a large public venue not necessarily to see their favorite bands in person, as would happen many years ago, but here they can hear all kinds of music and artists that flow together and mix together with the technologies and enjoy the music and appreciate it in large groups rather than by themselves or at home, which used to be more common ways to appreciate recorded music.

Music recording popularity and technology allowed for people to learn about new artists that they may not have come on contact to if they had to hear them in person, technology has now expanded to be able to sense a person’s musical taste and recommend new music they wouldn’t have known about or tried before, which I think would not be possible if recordings weren’t so easily accessible. And, music downloading, though a majority of which is not paid for, therefore illegal was inspired by the recording technologies and the need to expand music to everyone.  Downloading allows anyone to easily search for an artist, or genre , etc. and find whatever they want and be able to listen to it in the comfort of their own homes, or in their cars, on CD mixes, their iPods or other portable devices easily, which creates a deeper connection for the person to the music, though they aren’t right there hearing them in person making that connection, the artist can be with them anywhere they go, which would then inspire them to want to see them in concert because they’ll know all their music and this would make their experience all around more exciting and meaningful for the most part.

The law on the issue became settled in 1991 when rapper Biz Markie was sued for his use of portions of ”Alone Again (Naturally)” by Gilbert O’Sullivan on his album I Need a Haircut. In Grand Upright Music, Ltd v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. 780 F.Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy ruled that ”the defendants in this action for copyright infringement would have this court believe that stealing is rampant in the music business and, for that reason, their conduct here should be excused. The conduct of the defendants herein, however…the copyright laws of this country.” The artist knew he had to clear the samples, and even against the advice of his counsel they chose to use the samples. This was a clear violation of the law.

As the law stands now, copyright protects musical recordings in two different ways. First, the composition is protected, including both the lyrics and the music notation as it is written (17 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) affords protection for ”musical works, including any accompanying words,” which are fixed in some tangible medium of expression). Second, the sound recording itself (a.k.a. the sound as it is affixed in a tangible form, like a compact disc or in a digital file) is protected by 17 U.S.C. 101, which affords protections for work that results from ”the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work.” Unauthorized sampling impacts each copyright.

In short, artists and producers should clear any samples they use. And if they choose not to, they need to make sure that any record labels or other entities they work with need to be aware that the sample the artist/producer used is not cleared. Otherwise, it could come back and bite the artist or producer in the ass.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28music%29

——————-

This article is intended for informational purposes only and is not offered as legal advice or legal counsel in any way. For questions regarding this article please contact: email@sakucollins.com.