The following represents the formal submission of my Higher Degree Research (HDR) Professional Doctorate Project 1 Document.
This 47,000 word (excluding references, bibliography and appendices) document is in many ways equivalent to a traditional PhD Doctoral Program Confirmation Document.
The document has been spllit across 7 blog posts due to its size.
Within Pt28a – Research Study Project 1 Submission, it includes the Title page, the Abstract, the Statement of Originality, the Contents, and the Introduction of the Exegesis.
Name: David L Page
Student Number: n2401681
DCI Project 1 Title: Contemporary DIY creative practice: music & sound-making, meaning-making and self-making
Keywords: practice-led, auto-ethnography, arts-practice as research, agency, subjectivity, hybridity, music and sound-making, soundtracks, soundscapes, identity, values, narrative, embodied, authentic practice
Supervisory team
Primary Supervisor: Dr Gavin Carfoot (QUT)
Secondary Supervisor: Professor Andy Arthurs (QUT)
QUT Creative Industries Faculty
Project One (1) submitted for assessment in KK59
as part of the requirements of a Doctor of Creative Industries
Submission Date: August 30th, 2018
Abstract
The aim of this Doctor of Creative Industries Research Project is to investigate DIY music –making practice and self as a practitioner in the process of creating and producing a DIY music and sound recording. My research highlights the co-constituted nature of self, meaning-making and music-making through a qualitative approach; drawing on auto-ethnographic elements, first-person narratives of my personal journey, critical reflection and reflexive practice. As an auto-ethnographic study, I am situated in the dual roles of practitioner and the researcher, and the holistic and multi-dimensional nature of this research is intended to provide rich and nuanced data about the nature of self, meaning-making and music and sound-making practices. In particular, I contextualise DIY creative practice relative to three interdependent tenets: music and sound-making practice, meaning-making and self-making, where these tenets are understood in terms of hybridity, agency and subjectivity.
Statement of Originality
The work contained in this exegesis is that of David L Page and has not previously been submitted for an award at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge, no material previously published or written by another person has been included except where due reference is made.
Selected material – original work of the author – drawn from this experiential journey may have been published during the course of completing this work on the author’s social media site.
David L Page
August 29th 2018
Acknowledgements
To all of the practitioners – creative, professional and academic – who have walked before me, my respect and gratitude. To my colleagues and peers across all forms of practice for their ongoing encouragement in the pursuit of academic inquiry, research and development by asking why?, how?, and what if?, my respect and gratitude.
I would like to acknowledge QUT’s Creative Industries program, for providing me with the opportunity to engage in their professional Doctorate in Creative Industries program; my supervisory team, led by Dr Gavin Carfoot (QUT), including Professor Andy Arthurs (QUT), Dr Colin Webber (SAE Institute) and Dr Jodie Taylor (SAE Institute).
To my extended families; most significantly, my life partner Ms Harsha Patel for her ongoing support of my relentless pursuit of creative, professional and academic practice. Harsha is the calm: I am the storm. Together, Harsha and I share recreational, creative, professional and academic interests that balance our life. Without Harsha’s partnership, I am sure I would not have achieved the calmness, the level of balance and the degree of congruent resonance I have in my life. For you: my respect, a large portion of my abundant love, and my gratitude for sharing a journey together over the past three decades.
To my friends, peers and the many thousands of fellow learners who have shared in my journey over the past five decades in some way, at some time – irrespective of how long – you have my gratitude and respect.
To you the reader, my gratitude goes to you for taking the time to join me in my journey to date. Peace.
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
Statement of Originality………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
0.1 Background…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
0.2 Contextualising my research study……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 12
0.2.1 The changing face of mainstream music-making practice………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
0.2.2 The broadening of terms: music and sound-making practice………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15
0.3 Project 1 Submission Outline…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 18
CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
1.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21
1.1 Theories of self and subjectivity…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
1.1.1 The self as a social phenomenon………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
1.1.2 Self as social construct…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24
1.1.3 Developing subjectivity………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 26
1.1.4 Single and accumulated experiences of self…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 32
1.1.5 Self-making and creative practice……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 36
1.2 Self and musical agency in everyday life……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 39
1.2.1 Consuming music (listening)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41
1.2.2 Musicking – consuming music (listening) everyday…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 42
1.2.3 Musicking – broadening the understanding of the music and sound-making process……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 44
1.2.4 Self-making and meaning-making in music-making practice……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 46
1.2.5 Connection of self to music…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 48
1.2.6 Motives and values…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 51
1.2.7 Experience – meaning-making, self-making, and music and sound-making practice………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 57
1.3 Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 65
CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 67
2.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 67
2.1 Situating methodology………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 67
2.2 Creative practice methodologies and models………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 68
2.2.1 Auto-ethnography and arts-based practice as research…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 80
2.3 Developing reflective practice……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 82
2.3.1 Blog site……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 88
2.3.2 Data Management system………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 89
2.4 Significance of this research study for the industry, field and discipline…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 89
CHAPTER 3 CREATIVE PRACTICE IN CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE……………………………………………………….. 93
3.0 Introducing the creative practice…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 93
3.0.1 Data documents………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 93
3.0.2 Reflective narratives………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 95
3.0.3.1 Exploratory music and sound sessions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 99
3.0.3.2 Exploratory music and sound narratives………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 99
3.0.4 A series of creative narratives of the memories of the selected significant events………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 100
3.1 Holistic observations to date………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 101
3.1.1 My holistic observation of practice…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 101
3.1.2 My holistic observation of self…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 102
3.2 Holistic interpretations of creative practice……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 103
3.2.1 A musical style to inspire……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 104
3.2.2 Head-chatter and Inner Speech…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 111
3.2.3 Effect of Anxiety on Creative Practice……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 112
3.2.4 Dual role approach required…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 120
3.2.5 Observations of my developing perspective……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 123
3.2.6 More examples of data gathered in the pilot study……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 125
3.2.7 Examples of interpretive findings – music and sound making practice…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 126
3.2.8 Utility of this research project: a holistic model of sustainable authentic practice?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 133
3.3 Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 137
CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 139
4.0 Project 1……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 139
4.1 Intention of Project 2…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 140
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 144
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 168
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 178
Appendix 1…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 178
Appendix 2…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 179
Appendix 3…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 180
Appendix 4…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 181
Appendix 5…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 182
Appendix 6…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 183
Appendix 7……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 185
Appendix 8…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 186
Appendix 9…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 187
Appendix 10…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 188
Appendix 11……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 189
Appendix 12…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 190
Appendix 13…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 191
Appendix 14…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 192
Appendix 15…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 193
Appendix 16…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 195
Introduction
0.1 Background
I commenced my music-making practice in the 1970’s with acoustic and analogue technology. This afforded the development of technical, functional skills in particular instruments, analogue studio devices and workflows. Acoustic and analogue technologies are largely tactile physical devices, which resonate and pulsate as they are played; or have increasing amounts of voltage fed into them. It was a physiological experience to be in a large format studio control room. I lovingly immersed my self in the workflows, and engaged in the technologies; and wrote and tracked many songs over the next decade. I felt I had a connection with this form of acoustic instrument-based music-making in an analogue studio environment.
As technology developed in the mid to late 1980’s, and alternative music-making devices became available, I transitioned from acoustic and analogue-based technologies, to digital technologies. Moving to live in Japan, I experimented with a number of new Japanese technological devices as they were released to the consuming public in the late 1980’s. Whilst my music-making practice at the time was largely acoustic-based, recording in analogue based recording studios, I purchased and experimented with new digital DIY production technologies. However, they largely remained home studio tools to note down song ideas, turning them into finished pieces in an analogue studio. I did not believe the home studio tools were of a comparable professional quality as the studio analogue devices I had access to. I continued to feel I had a connection with acoustic instrument-based music-making in an analogue studio environment.
In the early 2000’s I ventured into digital virtual technologies and was immediately confronted with a foreign environment. The actual device housing the music-making application software (DAW) was a computer, which I perceived as primarily for performing routine administrative, business and personal tasks such as banking and communications. Housed inside an aluminium computer case as an application, the music-making application software (DAW) is a virtual representation of a studio console. One can only see a one-dimensional studio console inside a computer screen, and not able to touch or physically engage with it. The virtual instruments were engaged by pressing a computer keyboard letter; right-clicking on a hand held mouse; or perhaps pressing an unweighted key on a plastic physical keyboard controller. Irrespective of how much voltage (volume) was fed into the virtual digital console, the device neither resonated nor pulsated through my body. Driving a digital device with amplification (increasing voltage) does not yield the same result as driving an analogue device above its limits. When driven above their limit, analogue devices emit noise and heat: a digital device does not. When driven above their limit, analogue devices’ signals start to break up and distort, altering the signals’ sonic qualities. In a number of musical styles such as indie rock, this altered signal – distortion – is aesthetically integral to the musical style. When driven above their limit, a digital devices’ signal is cut. This cut is heard as a gap in the audio. Interacting within an analogue environment with faders, potentiometers and external analogue devices is a tactile, physiological experience: engaging with a digital virtual environment was not such an experience for me.
Digital virtual-based music-making technologies afford vastly different workflows. In my experience in an analogue studio, production was a group activity; with a group of artists; and a number of engineers. Tracking of the instruments would generally occur simultaneously allowing natural feel and groove to be captured in the recording. In a digital virtual production workflow I found one tends to work alone and create compositions in a linear delineated production workflow: first the drums, then the bass, then a synth, and then a voice. As a result, a digital virtual final production is often devoid of human feel or groove as one would expect from a group performance. In the digital world there are delays in the performance of instruments between the time you touch a key on a keyboard (a representation of a piano key), and the time that sound is emitted out of the computer monitors. I found this unsettling at times. However, a computer-based production device can be used as a digital virtual tape player, capturing live instruments digitally. In this way, a digital virtual device affords great flexibility with production and post-production tasks. For example: arrangement of the composition such as moving and/or duplicating sections; duplication of tracks; editing the tracks; pitch and time correction; and adding both corrective and creative processing conveniently. In terms of a traditional sequential delineated production process in an analogue studio environment, a practitioner can achieve great efficiencies in the conflated workflow of a digital virtual environment. However in terms of an environment in which I felt a connection to – one which I felt I could relocate my music-making practice – the digital virtual environment did not resonate with me. Despite this, over the next decade I explored and invested in a number of virtual digital audio workstations, countless virtual instruments, and sample packs. Additionally, I immersed my self in the manufacturers’ manuals, a range of functional texts, attended numerous courses – informal and informal including both Pro Tools and SAE Institute’s EMP course – with the view of developing my technical agency of a digital virtual music-making practice system. I had hoped to develop my connection with the digital virtual-based form of music-making. I experimented and created music and sound productions, and whilst I advanced my cultural productions, (with the exception of one piece) I did not feel a connection to the digital virtual-based form of music-making compositions as I had with acoustic instrument-based and analogue studio technologies.
As a Senior Lecturer in a Higher Education (HE) Institute from 2012, I started to observe a portion of my audio and music production students were experiencing a similar dis-connection when transitioning from one form of music-making technology to another form of music-making technology. I observed aspiring audio and music production students with a connection to acoustic instrument-based and analogue studio technologies, transitioning to digital virtual-based form of music-making were not able to make a connection. Similarly, I also observed aspiring audio and music production students with a connection to digital virtual-based form of music-making transitioning to acoustic instrument-based and analogue studio technologies, and not being able to make a connection. In determining their creative practice curriculum, this HE Institute sought feedback from industry and academic expertise. They developed a practice-based curriculum focussed on developing an aspiring practitioner’s functional skills across both acoustic instrument-based forms of music-making, situated in analogue studio technologies; and digital virtual-based forms of music-making. However, despite a well-researched, advised and developed creative practice program, I observed aspiring practitioner’s experiencing similar challenges as I had, in their attempts to transition from one form of music-making practice, to another. As was the case with me, I observed aspiring practitioners with connection to one form of music-making practice (for example, acoustic instrument-based forms of music-making, situated in analogue studios), unable to connect with another form of music-making practice (for example, digital virtual-based forms). However I also observed the opposite scenario: aspiring practitioners with connection to digital virtual-based forms of music-making practice, unable to connect with acoustic instrument-based forms of music-making, situated in analogue studios.
It seemed that despite the institution’s best intentions, not all learners we able to adapt and connect across different forms of music making? I wondered what could underlie this situation. Was it due to their preference of musical style? Was it due to their preference of site of practice? Was it due to the learner’s preference of technologies? It seemed not all practitioners felt a connection to music-making practice based on technological preferences of physical interaction and resonance of devices, as I did. Was a practitioner’s ability to connect due to their preference of workflow? My praxis in the first few months of my doctoral program expanded over a number of iterations. It was not long before I acknowledged the subjective nature of connection. I considered motivational differences to practice; a preference to work either in teams, or alone? I considered subjective differences? It seemed not all practitioners valued what I valued in practice. I wondered what different forms of music-making practice mean to different practitioners? I explored my values, and developed a Charter of Values, which I believe underlies how I engage in practice. My praxis model continued to expand.
I started to realise the shortcomings of contemporary educational and training programs. The program at the HE Institute I was employed at primarily focussed on teaching aspiring practitioner’s functional skills across different forms of music-making. However, the curriculum did not appear to consider – or address – how a practitioner may adapt across different forms of creative practice in order to authentically connect to a broader range of approaches to practice. Burgess’s assertion also appears to overlook this aspect of creative practice training: “combined with a proactive DIY approach, a good school program can fill in knowledge gaps and instil a deeper understanding of the fundamentals while increasing awareness of best practices” (2013, 36). In my observation, there appears to be a gap in existing knowledge – in industry, literary and textural resources – between a creative practitioners technical, functional skills; and their ability to adapt and connect to different forms of creative practice. There appears to be a need for a more holistic approach to practice, understanding an aspiring practitioner’s technical, functional creative capabilities; and how they may authentically connect to music-making practice (Sagan 2015, xv; Oliva, 2010, 1). It was at this point in time, I recognised my research study required a more expansive investigation across three (3) tenets: practice-making, meaning-making and self-making; examining the relationship between hybrid and convergent forms of practice, agency, and subjectivity.
0.2 Contextualising my research study
0.2.1 The changing face of mainstream music-making practice
Following substantial technological development from the late 1960s to today, music-making practice has diversified exponentially in a variety of social and cultural contexts (Wallis 2001; Watson and Shove 2008). Limited access to major corporate record label and broadcasting studios in the 1970’s and 1980’s aligned with the broader social and cultural developments of DIY culture from the 1970s. Music-making technology – including general devices such as personal computers and sound cards, and music-making equipment such as samplers, digital interfaces, virtual consoles and instruments – are now readily accessible to anyone interested in music-making practice. Wallis observed that practitioners’ access to user-friendly technology has “resulted in many creative artistic talents achieving a high degree of IT literacy, leading to an even broader market” (2001, 13).
Increased access to digital recording and production technology has enabled aspiring music-making practitioners from diverse backgrounds and interests to participate in a do-it-yourself (DIY) capacity, resulting in a significantly more fragmented industry (Kuznetsov and Paulos 2010; Spencer 2005; Moran 2011; Watson 2014). A new music-making discipline has emerged – contemporary music and sound-making practice (Moran 2011; Watson 2014; Spencer 2005; Rogers 2013). Music-makers in the new era of project and portable studios have emerged as a new generation of music-making practitioners (Théberge 1997, 3; Hracs 2012). Burgess identifies practitioners are likely to be of any age, and come from a range of backgrounds such as: artist/musician, audio engineer, songwriter, DJ, self-taught, school-trained, discoverer, entrepreneur or multipath (2013, 29). The contemporary music and sound-making practitioner is likely to have at the very least a portable studio, or perhaps a project studio with a range of both outboard and in-the-box instruments and audio processing devices, of quality ranging from entry level through to professional level. The term prosumer accurately describes the contemporary music and sound-making practitioner; one who is both a purchaser and an operator of technology aimed at the level of domestic, semi-professional or professional use. This technology could be: analogue, digital or digital virtual – built and/or customised from electronic componentry or virtual ware; assembled and/or developed from a procured DIY kit; purchased as an assembled device via retail channels; or procured through a range of file share, shareware, or freeware, either legally or not. Kuznetsov and Paulos identify the following characteristics of the contemporary DIY music-making practitioner: they are likely proactive, motivated, resourceful, and tenacious; sharing the DIY cultural traits of anti-consumerism, rebelliousness, and creativity. They may or may not be currently a professional or a semi-professional DIY music-making practitioner; and may or may not be motivated by commercial aspirations to become a professional or a semi-professional DIY music-making practitioner. They may be motivated by purely creative or social aspirations, operating on a non-commercial basis, at an amateur or hobbyist level. Operating at this amateur level may not necessarily reflect their level of passion or commitment compared to the professional practitioners. Perhaps it just reflects their reliance on alternative forms of income to fund their contemporary music and sound-making practice (2010, 295-304). Kuznetsov and Paulos found the majority of DIY communities engaged “to express themselves and be inspired by new ideas”, “not to gain employment, money, or online fame” with an example being “amateur radio hobbyists in the 1920’s” (2010, 295).
However, if the contemporary music and sound-making practitioner does have professional aspirations, they are more than likely an ‘entrepreneurial’ producer, “who must increasingly not only perform creative tasks, but also a range of business including searching for work, self-marketing and managing the finances of small studio facilities. This mirrors the increased entrepreneurialism found among independent musicians” (Watson 2013).
I would argue, that in these times of tasking multiple roles in economically tight times (as Braithwaite alludes in Tingen 2014), the choice of music production environment and music production process comes down to what resources are available, how much time one has, and access to funds to support their passion (Théberge 2012). However, as the contemporary music and sound-making practitioner is a resourceful species, in the new economy restraints of budget no longer necessarily equals limitations of access as previous generations of aspiring music producers experienced. The discipline of contemporary music and sound-making is “characterized by infinite choice” and as a result of the burgeoning numbers of practitioners, “intense competition” to have their music heard, irrespective of commercial or non-commercial motives. As a result, practitioners are best to expand their focus beyond just technical music-making practice, to also include business-related activities such as promotion, developing “strategies to ‘stand out in the crowd’” (Hracs et al 2013, 1,144). Therefore, in this era contemporary music-making practitioners require a more holistic perspective of practice.
This democratisation of the field, affording aspiring practitioners access to a greater number of technologies, has enabled a truly diverse and eclectic contemporary music-making practice society (Burgess 1997, 34; Rogers 2013). Recorded music is now created in ways that contrast with previous models where cultural production resulted from established industrial hierarchies and imperatives (Burgess 1997). Without a corporate multi-role structure, contemporary practitioners assume the creative labour roles in their home-style project studios across what were once distinct areas of expertise in the music-making process (Izhaki 2013; Théberge 1997). Contemporary DIY practice requires the practitioner to possess both a global overview – much as the traditional large-format corporate studio producer did – and multiple agencies across all functions of the music-making practice pipeline. Whilst a number of these processes are now conflated with the use of contemporary technologies[1], technical functional competency within each stage informs decision-making process during the creation of cultural production (Homer 2009, 91). Greater access to technology has afforded contemporary practitioners a far greater array of options within their practice relative to previous generations. A larger range of options in practice requires more decisions. Contemporary practitioners therefore need to discriminate during practice between: available elements of practice; and how they interpret and apply them. This phenomenon affords them individuality in practice. Hopefully, with time and development such individualised discriminations transpire as “uniqueness” in musical and sonic style; and “uniqueness” as a music-making subject. This diversity of practice in generating cultural productions now exemplifies contemporary industry (Ritzer and Jurgenson 2010; Purdue et al. 1997).
0.2.2 The broadening of terms: music and sound-making practice
Music and music-making practice as terms are evolving, broadening in definition. Contemporary music-making practice now often includes the broadened terms of both music and sound. Literature such as Bennett and Bates (2018) very recent published text “Critical Approaches to the Production of Music and Sound” lists the terms music and soundalongside side each other, in their title. A number of disciplines now include the terms of music and/or sound within their definitions of practice. An electroacoustic approach to music-making practice acknowledges the ingredients used within composition and production are materials made up of sound objects and sound events (Young 2015, 150; Vella with Arthurs 2003, 143 & 171). These productions may or may not include music – compositional pieces inclusive of pitch, duration, dynamics or timbre – generated by traditional instruments such as roots-based or high art-based approaches to music-making do (Pen 1992, 11). Electroacousticians use the additional terms mass, spatialisation and sequencing to describe and analyse qualities of their sonic soundtracks, where traditional musical description and analysis no longer suffice (Augoyard & Torgue 2005, 194).
In an ecological approach to music and sound, a natural environment with local insects, birds and wildlife is a site of practice. When a person enters that site, they are engaging in the sound, whether they are consciously consuming the sound or not (Madsen 1995, 11). This style is often referred to as nature recordings. Schafer (1993) coined the termsoundscapes to describe such sound experiences. Some artists such as Australian Anton Hughes (1997) composed music as an integral part of these nature recordings, creating a subgenre of new age relaxation soundscapes.
Similarly, an urban environment with inhabitants, technologies (including for example, modes of transportation) and buildings, are sites of practice. When a person enters a site, they are engaging in these soundscape compositions whether they are consciously aware of the surrounding environment or not. Schwarz in his 1940 study referred to his recordings as sound ethnographies; Demers termed these cosmopolitan soundscapes (2010, 12). Within this school of thought, urban dwellers’ engagement with music and sound is an everyday occurrence. Contemporary academics such as Bennett (2005; 2000) and DeNora (2004) refer to these everyday experiences of music and sound as soundtracks to our lives. In a sociological approach to music and sound, a retail outlet is a site of practice. When a retail outlet has music or sound playing and a person enters that site, they are engaging in that music and sound – consuming music – whether they are consciously aware of that music and sound, or not. Referred to by Small (1998) as musicking, music-making includes the participation and consumption of music and sound in any environment or context. Listening in this form may be active or passive. Batt-Rawden and DeNora (2004) note western people have over the past few decades developed their musical agency, now using music and sound to actively manipulate behaviour in everyday contexts (2005, 292). Music-making resides in most cultures and societies around the globe in some form. Most religious rituals have some form of repetitive melodic chant, with participants reciting prophetical language endorsing the values and beliefs of that culture. The instrument is the voice – externalised or internalised – incorporating the musical qualities of duration, pitch, dynamics and timbre. The musical style is akin to acapela, even though the motive of the practitioner is neither to entertain, nor engage in an activity of pleasure. It is highly likely however, the production and consumption of music and sound in this context is an embodied affective experience, possibly providing an aesthetic experience (Reimer et al 2002, 41). Music and sound as terms appear to be merging. This should not be a surprise. Both music and sound are forms of energy that move through space as soundwaves, over time. As such – unlike many other forms of creative practice – music and sound soundwaves are not tangible. Unlike a sculpture, a consumer cannot see music and sound, nor touch it. Unlike a painting, music and sound is transient; music and sound moves across time. Sound waves can be recorded and visually represented using contemporary digital virtual technologies. Music and sound can be stored on tangible mediums such as vinyl long play albums, compact discs, or personal mobile devices for distribution purposes; and played back at ones’ convenience. Music and sound is most commonly received as an auditory experience, via the act of listening. However, consumption is not just an auditory activity. Consumption of music and sound is an embodied experience, drawing on biological, psychological and cognitive faculties to make meaning of the experience (Budd 1992, 52; Graham 1995, 145-146). It is a rational and extra-rational experience (Lawrence 2012, 472). It is also highly likely the consumption of music and sound is an affective experience, and possibly an aesthetic experience. The consumption of music and sound is very much a subjective experience. Tagg (1994) highlights that such subjective development in humans begins prior to birth, at about minus (-) four (4) months. Development of a baby’s auditory capacity – engagement in creating music and sound, and training their ears to make meaning – occurs from the time humans depart the womb (Tagg 1994, 1).
As introduced, one derives meaning from the experience of engaging in music and sound. The original sound source is subjectively interpreted as the receiver hears it. This interpretation may or may not be as per the original sound source; or as the originator of the music and sound may have intended. In the consumption of music and sound, subjects derive meaning based on their rational and extra-rational experience: their environmental circumstances; their cultural and social values, beliefs and attitudes; their autobiographical life experience; their biological, psychological and cognitive faculties and capacities; and their affective experience. Within this experience of consuming music and sound, the subject derives meaning to inform their developing body of knowledge (experience and understanding) (Mezirow 2012, 73). This process affords the person the opportunity to inform their subjectivity; their self-narrative; their values, beliefs and attitudes; and their dialogical self. It is this knowledge that will assist the self – and the practitioner self – in their discrimination between multiple choices presented before them, across a range of future scenarios (Hermans & Gieser 2012, 201; Fredrickson 2000, 577).
It is within this context I am conducting my research study in music and sound. Whilst my initial problem commenced within a more traditional definition of music-making – a roots-based approach to music-making – , my rigorous investigation into existing literature and textural resources has revealed a broadening, more divergent narrative.
0.3 Project 1 Submission Outline
The scope of my proposed research study is: to investigate why I felt I had a connection with one form of music-making (acoustic instrument-based), and not a connection with another form of music-making (digital virtual-based). In Project 1 I investigate existing knowledge in both literature and textural resources. I am hoping to discover existing knowledge that provides insight into the many issues I have had over the past several decades. Some of which are: defining the term music-making now encompass; discussing the concepts of hybridity and convergence; broadening of terms to include music & sound; consider the so-called connection that many of us humans feel while consuming music; exploring self, aesthetic experience, motives, and values in general, and specifically related to music and sound-making practice; and investigate how can one subjectively connect to one form of music, and not another form of music. My rigorous investigations of these issues have led me to the question:
How do the interdependent tenets of hybridity/convergence, agency and subjectivity afford – or inhibit – one’s authentic connection to contemporary DIY music and sound-making practice?
In Chapter 1 I introduce, discuss and analyse contemporary literature and textural resources across these three (3) interdependent tenets. In my initial project brief, my research study was to focus on developing a praxis I was to investigate and observe my practice, delineating the stages of practice, and the elements of practice across. In my initial investigations I highlighted five (5) stages of practice; and six (6) elements of praxis. One of the elements highlighted early in the research study was self. I commence this chapter by presenting an over view of self-making and meaning-making. Discussion includes subjectivity and agency in contemporary life, segueing into creative practice. Creative practice is deliberately broadly defined, to include that of: everyday music practice – musicking – ; and music and sound-making practice. In doing so, I start to illuminate what has become a highly fragmented and yet complex field of contemporary creative practice.
I commence Chapter 2 with a review of the literature in the design of research studies. Despite there being many scholarly and industry texts pertaining to music-making practice, there is a gap in the literature of a practice-led auto-ethnographic research study – through an experiential phenomenological lens – which explicitly considers all three (3) interdependent tenets of practice-making, meaning-making and self-making (Moore 2012, xiii). I illuminate this gap in Chapters1 and 2.
Ryan identifies in an investigative study of contemporary creative practice, there is a need to consider the practice holistically (2014, 80). Ryan explains: as the subject, the practitioner makes subtle but nuanced discriminations in practice continually as the process is unfolding. As the observer, the practitioner then steps back from the process and considers what they have just done. Intrinsic to this process are considerations of subjectivity and agency that only a subject-observer can illuminate and share (Ryan 2014, 80). Young agrees with Ryan by proposing the need for the creative process to be observed from within, in order to determine detail of what the practitioner is experiencing and considering, at any moment in time (2015, 150). Ryan (2014, 77) and Lange (2012, 207) argue the study of self and one’s connection to and engagement with creative practice is vital to understanding the rapidly developing field of contemporary creative practice. In doing so, I intend to illuminate how an investigation of creative arts-based practice is synergistic with an auto-ethnographic research study.
The multi-method qualitative study is to include a first-person narrative of my personal journey, critical reflection and reflexive practice, highlighting the co-constituted nature of my music-making practice. The holistic multi-dimensional examination I propose represents a significant departure from current discussion of music-making practice.
Building upon the methodological foundation of my research study, in Chapter 3 I explore practice I have undertaken to date across Project 1. My pilot study practice generated four (4) forms of data: firstly, a diverse variety of “aesthetic style of text” such as: stream of consciousness journal entries, reflective journal entries, prose, lyrics, short story narrative; “and other forms of fragmented writing” such as iNote and iCal entries; observation notes in written and mind map form (Boyle and Parry 2007, 186); and heuristic methods, such as figures and charts (de Corte 2010, 46); secondly, an extensive series of reflective narratives of aspects of my journey to date, informed by literature and textural resources; thirdly, a series of creative narratives of memories of significant events; and lastly, a exploratory sonic – music and sound – narratives of the memories of these significant events. The pilot study afforded me the opportunity to set parameters around the study, defining what was to be in scope, and what was not. I share three (3) findings across the three (3) years of the study to date, which significantly influenced – and continues to inform – both my creative arts practice; and my research practice. These findings demonstrate the importance of the pilot study process, highlighting aspects of practice I hadn’t previously entertained, encouraging me to investigate these, and expand my investigative review of relevant literature in the process.
In Chapter 4 – the Conclusion – I briefly introduce my intentions for the remainder of my doctoral research study, and the desired outcomes of Project
Footnote:
[1] Historically, different personnel often expedited specialist functions such as composition, instrumentation, recording, arranging, mixing and mastering along a production timeline. A contemporary practitioner using digital virtual technology such as a DAW – a digital audio workstation, a virtual studio console – is likely the conflate these traditional separate specialist functions into an integrated workflow without clear definition between the various functions (Homer 2009, 91).
Please now refer to Pt28b – Research Study Project 1 Submission, for the continuation of this document which includes Chapter 1 Literature Review.
- NOTE:
- all references are included in Pt28f – Research Study Project 1 Submission, and
- a bibliography is included in Pt28g – Research Study Project 1 Submission.
