Doctoral Pilot Study – Part 24b

Research Study

Abstract

The aim of this Doctor of Creative Industries Research Project is to investigate both my DIY music and sound-making practice and my self as a practitioner during the process of creating and producing a cultural artefact (EP). My research study is designed to be a multi-method qualitative study: a practice-based, arts practice as research, auto-ethnographic study that 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. As an auto-ethnographic study, I designed the project for me to be performing the dual primary roles of being both the practitioner as subject, and the researcher. Such a multi-tiered examination represents a significant departure from current discussion of music and sound practice, developing praxis of contemporary practice. In this Project 1 research study exegesis submission I narrate the process to date, highlighting observations around my practitioner self, my music and sound-making practice and the emergent distinctions integrated into my developing contemporary music and sound-making praxis.

(Page 2015a)

Preamble

Continuing on from my previous blogs (Page 2015b) in this series….

In the beginning……

My journey in music-making commenced a number of decades ago. I made music via physical instruments without much thought of the process. I strummed chords on a guitar or piano, hummed or played a melodic phrase, developed lyrics, and over time a song emerged. I felt connected to the process; I felt connected to the music. I recall getting positive feedback when I shared my acoustic instrument-based songs with an audience. I followed this process several hundred times over several decades, and because of the relative ease these songs came to me, I did not feel a need to consider my music and sound-making process.

As technologies developed, I transitioned into music and sound-making using digital virtual technologies. I invested in virtual technologies, trialling a number of virtual music and sound-making applications – digital audio workstations (DAWs). I experimented; I spoke to local pro audio retailers; I experimented some more; I bought instructional books and videos; I studied; I experimented a lot more. Over a number of years however, I found that irrespective of how much time and money I invested into my virtual music and sound-making production practice, I never managed to achieve a similar flow or a similar feeling – a creative high – as I had music-making using physical instruments. My frustration using virtual technologies to make music grew. I enrolled into a practical tertiary course. The course assisted me greatly to develop my theory and practical skills. However, using virtual technologies to make music that I felt connected to, (largely) continued to elude me. There was one instance, a remix project where I felt a connection. That experience gave me hope that my attempts to use virtual technologies to make music I felt connected to, was not going to be in vain. I continued to experiment; I continued to read; I continued to invest; I continue to immerse my self into my virtual music and sound-making production practice. However, I still found I wasn’t achieving a similar flow or a similar feeling – a creative high – using virtual technologies to make music as I had music-making using physical instruments. My frustration was at an all-time high. I had arrived at a juncture in my life where I felt there was now no alternative: my virtual music and sound-making production practice needed an intervention. I needed to put my creative practice using virtual technologies to make music and sound under scrutiny. In 2014 I applied to a formal academic research program – a professional doctorate program. I commenced the program in 2015. My formal research journey began.

My doctoral research study……

Research Study – 1st Observation:

I acknowledged that I approached my music and sound-making practice in terms of the outcome – the finished product. I was not considering the process in which I was music and sound-making, any more than with a cursory glance. My music and sound-making practice was product-driven.

(Page 2017a)

I recognised that I approached my music-making with physical instruments in a different manner to my approach to music and sound-making using virtual technologies (using my laptop to make music and sound for example). In drilling down I determined that much of this was how I viewed both devices.

Physical instruments as I played were derived directly from nature. Pianos and guitars that I played were manufactured from woods from the forest. They are physical instruments that have natural resonant qualities. The woods expand and contract, depending upon temperature and humidity. They are large instruments that I can touch, embrace and/or feel the resonant qualities as they are played.

I viewed virtual technologies very differently. The actual device that housed the music-making application software (DAW) was a computer (a laptop for example). I saw a laptop as a device that houses many many application software that enabled me to record data and/or make transactions. I used computer technologies for administrative purposes (applications such as iNote, word, excel, etc); organisation purposes (applications such as iCal, reminders, etc); and everyday personal and business management (services such as the internet-based social media sites, banking sites, utility sites to pay bills, etc). I viewed the music and sound-making application software (DAW) as somewhat removed from me. It was housed in a aluminium and plastic case, that I could see, but not touch. The virtual keyboards were engaged by pressing a computer keyboard letter; or perhaps a key on a plastic physical keyboard controller. Neither devices are derived directly from nature. They are manufactured. A computer and a keyboard controller are physical devices which also have natural resonant qualities. They only minimally expand and contract in extreme conditions, with such occurrences perhaps likely to render these devices inoperable. There is also a slight delay between the time you touch the key and having the sound emitted out of the computer monitors. They are not what I consider to be large resonant devices that can be embraced and/or feel the resonant qualities as they are played, such as I experience with a piano or guitar.

Research Study – 2nd Observation:

As I attempted to scope out the parameters of my research study, I was led to look at the industry of my practice, the field of music production, and the particular discipline of virtual technologies to make music. This process revealed gaps in my knowledge, and enabled me to form linkages across several strands within the field of contemporary music production.

I then looked in greater detail at the history of my practice, understanding for perhaps the first time the implications of how I approached my music and sound-making practice – as product rather than process. I also started to consider me as a practitioner, as the music and sound-maker. Who was I? How did I arrive to be this person?

My eyes were starting to open.

(Page 2017b)

Project 1 Pilot Study – 3rd Observation:

As I progressed my initial Project 1 Pilot Study, exploring the parameters of my music and sound-making practice, I started to highlight certain elements which I considered key to my practice. As a flow on from my music and sound-making practice, I acknowledged that the self was an element that had to be included. What motivated me to practice?

(Page 2017c)

My music praxis (v4) had six (6) elements listed: self, motive, music style, location, technology and workflow.

(Page 2015b)

My initial pilot study was to be an exploratory investigation to determine the parameters of my music practice; and to investigate what – if any – relationship existed between these elements. I engaged in conscious, deliberate and systematic reflective and reflexive practice of my creative practice, and as part of this process I felt obligated to consider everything that I observed.

As I progressively immersed myself into my quite isolated pilot study, I began to focus in on what I was doing at any point in time, as both the practitioner subject and the observer/researcher. To juggle both responsibilities was not beyond challenge and limitations. How was I to do both – be the creative practitioner, and simultaneously observe my practice?

Project 1 Pilot Study – 6th Observation:

One of the first elements I noted to be part of my developing music praxis (v5) – beyond the initial six (6) elements I had observed at the time of my Project Brief submission – was listening. I noticed listening was central to agency within my practice. Listening directed my choices and decision-making within my practice in terms of music style – in my ability to critically and analytically listen to reference tracks; in terms of my selecting appropriate notes and/or sonic event samples during the creative, pre-production or production stages; in terms of hearing needed or possible options of contra-melodies, rhythms, harmonies or instrumentation during the creative, pre-production or production stages; in terms of determining the degree of adjustment of sound sources or processing that needed to occur during the production or post-production stages.

(Page 2017d)

I started to observe that a central aspect of this listening was also in terms of my practice overall, such as deciding when I needed to have a break. Yes, listening to an inner voice, reminding me I was in need a break from creative practice. I started to notice by paying more attention to my self – to listening to my self – there was a great deal of head chatter occurring while I was engaged in practice.

(Page 2016a)

I had always known of my head chatter, but had accepted it by my mid-twenties as the outpouring of my inner fears as I approached a new experience. By my early-thirties I had learnt to manipulate this head-chatter, to work for me rather than against me. I used my head chatter to consciously motivate and focus my self. I have continued to develop this practice throughout my life, assisting me in preparing for any form of performance, be it: public speaking, education practice (as educator), learning practice (as learner in formal instrument or personal development), and my music and sound-making practice (on stage performing). However, I had never considered, nor explored my head chatter beyond this; particularly within the context of my creative practice.

As I listened more, I recognised that this head chatter – inner speech – did not just consist of just one voice, but were in fact multiple voices; multiple voices with multiple perspectives. As I focussed in on my listening – consciously, deliberately and systematically – I realised these voices were not necessarily independent. There was often a dialogue occurring between them. As I honed my focus and developed my inner listening, I noticed that the dialogue within my head was occurring across three perspectives of time – one of now; one of past; and one of future. In effect, three voices representative of each point in time. As Wiley (2010, P17) refers to it: the I of the present; the me of the past; and the you of the future. An epiphany. A light bulb moment, an ‘aha’ moment for me. The head chatter – as I had always referred to it – that had accompanied me in so many events and stage of my life, was indeed the inner speech of my dialogic self.

As my immersion in reflective and reflexive practice of my research study deepened, I honed in on the incessant daily dialogue of my dialogical self and began to distinguish between the inner speech – the three inner voices, the triadic voices of the I, the me, and the you – for each of my three selves operating at any point in time within the site of my practice: the self, the practitioner self and the observer/researcher self. I would take time to listen to the dialogue at any point in time during my creative practice, as they considered and debated: what I was seeing or observing, what I was hearing, what I was feeling, what I was imagining, what I was recalling, what I was smelling, or even what I was tasting; in order to better understand my music praxis. I devised ways to take notes during my practice of these daily triadic conversations, in order to return to them, reflect on them, and decode them. My music and sound-making praxis developed as a result of this process, to not only acknowledge significantly more stages and elements of my music-making process; but, perhaps most significantly, the non-linear form of my music praxis (v8i).

DLP DCI Praxis v8i.20161231.P1.png

(Page 2016b)

I realised my music praxis was in fact very circular, with reflective and reflexive practice occurring constantly at any point in time.

My practice has now developed to the point where I can engage in multiple forms of listening whilst immersed and engaged in any stage of practice. I can now distinguish between the triadic voices of my three selves: the self, the practitioner self and the observer/researcher self in the present, the past, and the future within a very short amount of time, or sometimes, almost instantaneously and/or simultaneously. Just as my critical and analytical listening has developed over many decades of practice, my ability to listen and decipher the dialogue occurring within my dialogical selves at any point in time has also developed.

I liken this developed complex skill to other forms of practice where multiple tasks are required in sequence over a very short amount of time, often times almost instantaneously and/or simultaneously. The practice of driving a car and the practice of performing are similar type complex skills that need to be learnt; and are often awkward or impossible when one first attempts them with no prior experience. The act of driving a car – accelerating, braking, looking to the side for another car, indicating, moving lanes, whilst watching cars to the side, in front and behind is an example of such a complex task. Another example of a complex task would be leading a band, singing into a microphone, engaging an audience, playing guitar, and selecting guitar floor pedals, over a very short amount of time, often times almost instantaneously and/or simultaneously. I recall when I was younger, that I would never be able to learn how to do both complex tasks. Now I reflect on how many times a year I engage in both practices without any preparation, and perform them to a very high level of practice: almost unconsciously.

Learning about, and getting to know my dialogical self has assisted my music practice exponentially. As part of the process, I have developed a greater understanding of my self which in turn informed my practitioner self. This in turn allowed me to develop my music and sound-making praxis to a greater depth and level of detail than I was able to previously. I now have far greater agency of my praxis (v9k), and its twenty-one (21) interdependent elements, at each of the various eight (8) stages of my creative practice.

(Page 2017e)

As a result, I have far greater agency of my praxis (v9k) while practicing music and sound-making. I am now exponentially more focussed and more deliberate in my practice, most noticeably in my music and sound-making within virtual technologies. I have found my self now responding within my music and sound-making micro workflow in a similar vein to that of my performing – improvising – on my long-term physical instrument of choice, the electric guitar. I observe that I now engage – almost instantaneously and/or simultaneously – in the voices of the I, the me, and the you – at any point in time, within my site/s of practice. A split second in-practice, on-practice and for-practice dialogue – in performance, in assessment of what the practitioner self just heard or performed, in consideration of what options the practitioner self now has before them, their decision as to what they want to express, and the performing of the next music-making action. Yes, a fluid practice performance that demonstrates the harmonious integration of the elements of self, listening, reflective and reflexive practice. In essence: I listen, I practice, I reflect, I analyse, I consider, I choose, I prepare to act, I act – almost instantaneously and/or simultaneously.

This Project 1 Pilot Study has been a personal journey of creative and research practice, highlighting the co-constituted nature of my music-making practice. I now engage in the process of music-making in pursuit of authentic expression of self, irrespective of the medium. My authentic music-making practice – in contrast to my practice prior to engaging in this doctoral research – now transgresses the mediums of: physical instruments and virtual technologies. I now have a sense of who I am, what I am attempting to create, why I am attempting to create it, and an affective connection in the creation of it, irrespective of the medium of my music-making practice – physical instruments or virtual technologies. Virtual technologies are now as much an extension of my music-making practitioner self’s body, as playing my physical instrument of choice, the electric guitar. Allow me now to share my finding of this Project 1 Pilot Study – holistic model of sustainable authentic practice – my journey and development through the four (4) phases of: identity-driven practice, value-driven practice, narrative-based practice, and embodied practice.

(Page 2017f)

This blog series is planned to continue next month with Research Practitioner Part 25 (Page 2017g). It is intended for this blog series to continue on a regular basis as I progress through my doctoral research project.

References

Onion image courtesy of: Onion Layers Accessed 28th March, 2015

Page, David L. 2017g. Doctoral Pilot Study – Part 25 Accessed 3rd January, 2018

Page, David L. 2017f .17th Observation image courtesy of David L Page DCI Project 1 Research Study Holistic Model of an Authentic Practitioner. Created 9th June, 2017

Page, David L. 2017e. Praxis v9k image courtesy of David L Page. Created 20th May, 2017

Page, David L. 2017d. 6th Observation image courtesy of David L Page. Created 17th May, 2017

Page, David L. 2017c. 3rd Observation image courtesy of David L Page. Created 17th May, 2017

Page, David L. 2017b. 2nd Observation image courtesy of David L Page. Created 17th May, 2017

Page, David L. 2017a. 1st Observation image courtesy of David L Page. Created 17th May, 2017

Page, David L. 2016b. Praxis v8i image courtesy of David L Page. Created 29th, November, 2016

Page, David L. 2016a. Praxis v5b image courtesy of David L Page. Created 15th April, 2016

Page, David L. 2015c. Praxis 4 image courtesy of David L Page. Created 1st December, 2015

Page, David L. 2015b. Doctoral Research Study – Part 3 Accessed 1st December, 2015

Page, David L.2015a. image courtesy of David L Page. Created 14th September, 2015

Wiley, Norbert. 2010. “Inner speech and agency.” In Conversations about reflexivity, edited by Margaret S. Archer, 17-38. New York: Routledge

– @David L Page 27/12/2017

– updated @David L Page 03/01/2018

Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

SaveSave

Doctoral Pilot Study – Part 17a

(Page 2014a)

This blog is a continuation of a series. See here (Page 2014b) for the previous blog.

Reflecting on 2014 ….

My approach to practice was so different to that of my recently recruited peers. As part of the creative media studies stream, learners were now to be immersed in specific creative media lexis and theory, via tasks that guided the aspiring practitioners in the development of them selves as unique and individual creative media identities. They were to learn to critically consider what creative media is for them as practitioners; researching and investigating both concepts and areas of the creative media industry they may possibly choose to engage in via their practice. They were to then apply these concepts to develop their unique creative media practice. With a developed sense of themselves, having time to form their world views, they would be guided in their development as aspiring professional practitioners; and as academic researchers.

2017 Update

I commenced the doctoral program in February 2015. My formal research journey had begun. On the back of the knowledge and approach in 2014 as described in the previous blog in this series, I implemented a new blog strategy at the beginning of 2015. This saw me changing my blog site from tumblr.com to wordpress.com. I did this for a number of reasons, but primarily due to:

wordpress.com is what we were guiding our learners to create as their primary creative practice blog site;
functionality of the wordpress.com site, including the use-friendly nature of the interface, the editing features, and the ability to publish multi-media within the one entry.

(Page 2017a)

A selection of the 2014 journal entries were published retrospectively in wordpress.com as blog posts as soon as I opened that site. In revisiting this particular blog post- formerly named Reflecting Part 2 – now, nearing the end of my Project 1, I have chosen to rename some of those blog posts. Most noteworthy are:

my realisation that Reflecting Part 1 was essentially about my self , effectively situating my self in regard to my – at the time – pending research study. I therefore renamed this Doctoral Research Study Part 1;
my realisation that Reflecting Part 2 (this blog post) was essentially about my practitioner self , effectively situating my practitioner self in regard to my – at the time – pending research study. I therefore renamed this Doctoral Research Study Part 2.

(Page 2017b)

Standing here today, reflecting, I now realise how my focus within this Project 1 was influenced by my experience within my HE education & learning role in 2013 and 2014. The small sample of blogs I currently have listed on my wordpress.com site under the menu category DCI Phase 0 – Starting Point (Page 2017c) – are representative of some of the new knowledge and approach I acquired and developed during that period. These journals/blogs were completed prior to my official commencement of my doctoral studies, the research study I was choosing to embark on to seek out answers to my long-term queries regarding my music practice. Yes, these blog entries represented 10,000 words book-ending the beginning of my research study.

My view of 2013 & 2014, looking back from 2017….

Reflecting from this point, I realise now how much I have developed over the course of the past almost four (4) years, in terms of new knowledge and approach. I have developed a new set of eyes in terms of my self, and as a practitioner. I look at my developed identity – self and practitioner selves – in 2017, differently to how I saw my self and my practitioner self in 2013, just under four (4) years ago. I am surprised with the level of detail I now see my self, my practitioner self, and my practice is detailed. After all, I have always actively engaged in reflection. However, two (2) key distinctions have emerged.

Firstly: I always knew I was complex; I always knew I was diverse. I now accept I am complex. I now accept I am diverse. I have a wonderfully varied and diverse life. In my need to ground my self during a period of failing creative practice (‘writers block’?), in order to re-connect to my muse, it was suggested I attempt to re-connect to my identity. As a result, I revisited a task that I have led hundreds of professional through in their professional development; I developed a Charter of Values and Beliefs for my self and practitioner self across my Project 1. Three (3) versions over the course of sixteen (16) months. I noted a summary of these developments in my blog last month:

“Quantifiably, the development across the three (3) versions of the Charter of Values and Beliefs over the sixteen (16) months of Project 1 has been:

v1: 26 green entries – new entries – under 8 categories

v2: 55 entries under 10 categories (112% growth in entries)

v3: 87 entries under 11 categories (58% growth in entries)” (Page 2017d)

Viewing this blog in the graphic below – where v1 is column 1, v2 is column 2, and v3 is column 3 – the level of development across the sixteen (16) months is exemplified (see Research Practitioner Part 18 Page 2017d for greater detail of this chart):.

(Page 2017e)

Secondly: I acknowledged early in my Project 1 journey that I realised I was a multi-disciplinary practitioner (see Research Practitioner Part 5):

“I began to recognise that I naturally took a multi-discplinary approach in not only my music practice, but in my life in general. I recall few times in my life where I was content to focus on one discipline for an extended period of time. I have accepted that my practice now covers three broad disciplines: a broad definition of music practice (Small 1998), education and learning practice, and my most recent engagement, research practice” (Page 2016).

As per my blog Research Practitioner Part 16 in January (Page 2017f), this passage of time has also provided me an opportunity to realise I am a multi-facetted, multi-dimensional practitioner. Based on evidenced practice-led data, I have documented at various point in my journey multiple instances of how my self informs my practice; and how my practice inform my self.

Reflecting thus far, I realise how I immersed my self into this research study, a creative project opportunity that has provided me reflections of my self, and of my practitioner self. I can see with more clarity who I am as a unique and individual creative media identity. I have critically considered how I choose to engage in creative media – what motivates me – as a practitioner. I have researched and investigated how I engaged in my unique creative media practice. In doing so, I have left no stone unturned. Having crystallised my world view, with a developed sense of my self, I was then able to guide my own development via conscious, deliberate and systematic reflective and reflexive practice of my creative practice, as a professional practitioner; and as an academic researcher.

Yes, much like Bilbo Baggins (Bros 2014) I am grateful in retrospect, for the opportunity to go on the journey into what was largely unknown territory for me – academic research. It was a self-imposed intervention process in many ways, to look at my creative practice through a very different set of eyes than I had previously. I stepped forward out of my comfort zone, and put just about every facet of my practice under the microscope. I was the subject; and I was the observer. At points I thought I was going out of my mind, observing my practitioner self in the midst of practice, trying to conduct two roles at once. I faced large droughts of creativity, playing with session files for hours on end, and yet not connecting at all to the music I was making. When i finally did connect, i experienced quite the complete opposite situation. All of a sudden I felt I was drowning in a mass of data – electronic and paper notes, creative doodles, mindmaps, charts, textural, theoretical and methodological literature, session files, microphones, recording equipment, software updates, and an increasing list of potential blogs – my attempts to narrate my journey as I progressed. As I near the end of Project 1, and attempt to further streamline my findings, into an exegesis, i immerse my self more into the journey it has been to date. What a journey to date. Once I submit this document, I can then embark on the next Project this research study journey. I can’t imagine what is install for that next leg.

(Terry-Toons Comics 1945-1951)

This blog series is planned to continue next month with Research Practitioner Part 23 (Page 2017g). It is intended for this blog series to continue on a regular basis as I progress through my doctoral research project.

References

Bros, Warner. 2014. “The Hobbit.” Accessed 26th December, 2014

Learning Philosophy image courtesy of: Learning Accessed 25th December 2014

Page, David L. 2017a. David L Page wordpress.com site Accessed 15th May 2017

Page, David L. 2017b. Revised DLP Blog Category Topics Accessed 15th May 2017

Page, David L. 2017c. DCI Phase 0 Starting Point Accessed 15th May 2017

Page, David L 2017d. Research Practitioner Part 18 Accessed 15th May 2017

DLP 2017e. image courtesy of Data for DLPs Project 1_Music and Sonic Collage.20170529.v39 Accessed 15th May 2017

Page, David L. 2017f. Research Practitioner Part 16 Accessed 15th May 2017

Page, David L. 2017g. Research Practitioner Part 23 Accessed 15th May 2017

Page, David L. 2016 Research Practitioner Part 5 Accessed 15th May 2017

Page, David L. 2015. A Creative Artist’s Need – Gratitude Accessed 15th May 2017

Page, David L. 2014a image courtesy of David L Page Linked-In site Accessed 25th December, 2014

Page, David L. 2014b. Doctoral Research Study Part 2 Accessed 15th May 2017

Reflection image courtesy of: Reflection Accessed 15th May 2017

Terry-Toons Comics. 1945-1951. Mighty Mouse in Mighty Mouse #38-85 Accessed 8th March, 2014.

– @David L Page 15/05/2017

– update @David L Page 17/06/2017

Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

SaveSave

History Music Production Part 4b – Experimental practice changes the approach to mainstream music-production

This blog is a continuation of a series. See here (Page 2016a) for the previous blog.

(Maypole 2018a)

Mainstream popular music-making practitioners draw on broader lineage

Musical hybridity is prevalent in most approaches to music-making, particularly roots-based approach music. Mainstream music developed out of traditional roots-based forms of music such as blues, country, folk, bluegrass and jazz musical styles. Fused into an ever-growing range of hybrid musical styles such as rhythm and blues, soul, pop, rockabilly, rock n’ roll, and its various hybrids of country rock, folk rock, progressive rock, psychedelic rock and rock n’ soul. With large record labels in control of studios, mainstream music-making was a commercial venture. Innovation of technology or workflows would generally not be considered until the early adopters of such technology and workflows had demonstrated the benefits (Martin & Hornsby 1979, 58-61). Mainstream music-making benefited from inventive creative practice in the studio by a range of innovators and early adopters in the 1950’s and early 1960’s such as Les Paul, Phil Spector and Frank Zappa (Moorefield 2005, i; Cotter 2002, 593-594).

(Zappa, 1966)

However, it was not until 1966 that mainstream music-making – such as the Beatles and George Martin, and Brian Wilson – adopted the creative practice of Paul, Spector and Zappa[1].

Sgt._Pepper's_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band_The Beatles.1967

(Beatles, 1966) (Beach Boys,1966) (Beatles, 1967)

In the mid to late 1960’s, mainstream music connected with the lineage of experimental music forms. Holmes describes the merging of roots-based approaches to music, and electroacoustic and sonic art-based approaches to music in his Chapter “Rock, Space Age Pop, and Turntablisim” (2012, 442) from the era of the Beatles. Holmes notes McCartney and Lennon’s interest in experimental forms of music-making such as Cage and Stockhausen, their adoption of the Moog Synthesiser (2012, 443-446); discusses Pink Floyd (2012, 448); Emerson, Lake and Palmer (2012, 450); and the Beach Boys, and their adoption of the electro-Theramin (2012, 455).

(Emerson, Lake & Palmer, 1970) (Pink Floyd, 1973)

It was perhaps Brian Eno who continued on the legacy of inventive creative practice in the traditional studio that Paul, Spector, Martin and Wilson had laid (Moorefield 2005, 51). Eno has produced a large number of albums that are stylistically diverse: pop, rock, and progressive rock. Eno’s body of musical work is heavily dependent on technology – so much so, “it could not have existed in any previous age” (Tamm 1988, 63). Eno conceives the studio as an instrument, using the technological devices for purposes that the original manufacturers may or may not have originally intended. His “sound-altering devices are always changing” (Tamm 1988,73).

(Eno, 1974a) (Eno,1974b) (Eno, 1975a)

However, it is the musical style that he created that he is now perhaps become best known for: ambient music (Tamm 1988, 1). This form of music was not roots-based music-making. This was a form of music that drew on a lineage of music-making very distant to that of roots-based music and traditional instruments such as voice, guitars, bass and drums.

Ambient 1_Music for Airports_Eno.album cover

(Eno, 1975b) (Eno,1978a) (Eno, 1978a)

Eno released his first solo ambient album in 1978, Ambient 1: Music for Airports. This album’s music hinges “not on what a musicologist might be inclined to call their ‘purely musical qualities’ of melody, harmony, rhythm and so on – but rather on aspects of production and engineering, on how the recording studio was used to produce a particular kind of sound texture” (Tamm 1988, 63). As a self-confessed non-musician, Eno commenced composing in the studio, rather than the traditional method of arriving to a studio with a completed composition, in order to record the piece. “(I)n-studio composition’ is the result of the multi-track idea ‘that composition is the process of adding more’“ (Tamm 1988, 64).

“In his 1979 lecture “The Studio as Compositional Tool,” first given …. in New York, Eno shared his ideas about recording, composing, and producing in the studio. His talk makes clear that he is already at that time quite aware of the implications of his work, ….. and ….. the history of making records. He places the beginning of his involvement as producer-composer at the dawn of the sixteen-track studio, circa 1970” (Moorefield 2005, 53).

Eno in his London studio in 2014 (Dark Shark 2016)

With the exponential development of technology over the past four decades, the contemporary DIY music-making practitioner can now access – at an affordable price – a very wide range of digital or digital virtual technology capable of producing cultural productions to an industry standard. There are infinite choices of: technology, and combinations of technology; different sites, and combinations of sites; workflows, and combinations of workflows; a contemporary DIY music-making practitioner can compose with. There is infinite choice in which to create one’s own unique sound, in order to express one’s own unique voice. Progressing the legacy of the likes of Paul, Spector, Martin, Wilson and Eno, the contemporary studio – irrespective of a project studio or a portable studio – is now more than ever a creative compositional workspace:

“(T)he studio is where composition (not just recording or even arranging) takes place, and what is being made is not a replication or extension of a concert experience, but something altogether different” (Moorefield 2005, 54).

Eno believes the process actually likens music-makers practice to that of other creative practitioners, such as painters. Using a studio and its technology as a compositional tool affords the practitioner a high degree of flexibility to add, subtract, or to rearrange aspects that have already been laid out (Homer 2009, 91).

Martin was a practitioner who understood the idea of “painting with sound” (Kleon, 2016)

My Life in the Bush of Ghosts_Eno + Byrne.1981.album cover

(Eno & Byrne 1980) (Eno & Byrne, 1981)

As the decades advanced, the legacy of Paul, Spector, Zappa, Martin and Eno gathered momentum. Music styles and approaches to production were appropriated; drawing on different technologies; using many and varied unconventional sites; using converged and conflated workflows. Hybridity was gathering momentum…..

(Maypole 2018b)

[1] I will discuss Frank Zappa’s impact on mainstream music-making in a later section on experimental music-makers

This blog will continue next month History of Music Production Part 4c – Large Format Console Studios to Digital Project Studios (Page 2016b).

References

Beach Boys, The. 1966. Pet Sounds. Capitol. Vinyl LP.

Beatles, The. 1967. Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band. Parlophone. Vinyl LP.

Beatles, The. 1966. Revolver. Parlophone. Vinyl LP.

Cotter, Jim. 2002. “Frank Zappa (1940-1993).” In Music of the twentieth-century Avant-Garde: a biocritical sourcebook, edited by Larry Sitsky, 593-598. London: ABC-CLIO.

Emerson, Lake & Palmer. 1970. Emerson, Lake & Palmer. Island. Vinyl LP.

Eno, Brian in his London studio, 2014 image courtesy of: Dark Shark Access after 1st May, 2017

Eno, Brian. 1978b. Music for films. Editions EG. Compact Disc.

Eno, Brian. 1978a. Ambient 1: music for airports. Editions EG. Compact Disc.

Eno, Brian. 1975b. Discreet music. EG. Vinyl LP.

Eno, Brian. 1975a. Another green world. Island. Vinyl LP.

Eno, Brian. 1974b. Taking Tiger Mountain. Island. Vinyl LP.

Eno, Brian. 1974a. Here come the warm jets. Island. Vinyl LP.

Eno, Brian and David Byrne. 1981. My life in the bush of ghosts. Sire/Warner Bros. Compact CD.

Eno, Brian & David Byrne 1980 image image courtesy of: Talking Heads session, Different Fur Studios Access after 16th May, 2016

Floyd, Pink. 1973. Dark side of the moon. Harvest. Vinyl LP.

Holmes, Thom. 2012. Electronic and experimental music: technology, music, and culture. 4th ed. New York: Routledge.

Homer, Matthew. 2009. “Beyond the studio: the impact of home recording technologies on music creation and consumption.” Nebula 6 (3): 85-99.

Martin on sound on sound image courtesy of: Kleon blog site Access after 16th May, 2016

Martin, George and Jeremy Hornsby. 1979. All You Need Is ears: the inside personal story of the genius who created the Beatles. New York: St martin’s Press.

May pole image 2018b image courtesy of Revels DC Accessed 31st January, 2018

May pole image 2018b image courtesy of Personalised Ribbons Accessed 31st January, 2018

Moorefield, Virgil. 2005. The producer as composer: shaping the sounds of popular music. London: MIT Press.

Floyd, Pink. 1973. Dark side of the moon. Harvest. Vinyl LP.

Onion image courtesy of: Onion Layers Accessed 28th March, 2015

Page, David L. 2016b History of Music Production Part 4c – Large Format Console Studios to Digital Project Studios. Accessed 5th March, 2016

Page, David L. 2016a. History of Music Production Part 4a – DIY Experimental Practice Influences Large Format Console Studios Accessed 5th March, 2016

Tamm, Eric. 1995. Brian Eno: his music and the vertical color of sound. New York, NY: Da Capo Press.

Zappa, Frank and The Mothers of Invention. 1966. Freak out. Verve. Vinyl LP.

– ©David L Page 05/03/2016

– updated ©David L Page 16/05/2016

– updated ©David L Page 01/05/2017

– updated ©David L Page 31/01/2018

Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

SaveSave

History Music Production Part 4a – DIY experimental practice influences Large Format Console Studios

(Paul, 2016)

Development of production techniques in mainstream popular music-making

The making of mainstream popular music has developed exponentially over the past five (5) decades, in terms of musical style, site (creative location), technology and workflow (Owsinski 2013, Huber and Runstein 2013; Izhaki 2013; Gilreath, 2010). As a flow on from both globalisation and technological development, hybridity in mainstream music-making is ever increasing. Musical styles in mainstream popular music draw upon an ever-widening lineage of musical style influences (McLaughlin & McLoone 2000, 187, 190,192, 193). The trend of hybridity, innovation and adoption of technologies and workflows from other approaches to music-making however is not new to the roots-based approach to music-making.

Throughout the 1900’s there was continual experimentation and inventiveness in the industry, enabling a recording industry to develop to what it is today. However, it was in the late 1940’s that saw a noticeable change to the approach to music-making, by a musician who was motivated by trying to make his guitar-playing sound more textured that what it sounded as a single instrument. As a guitarist in the 1950’s, Les Paul experimented in his home with low-level recording devices[1], recording and over-dubbing guitar parts (Théberge 2004). Paul experimented with, adopting principles that he had observed in other music-making approaches[2], and applying them in new and innovative ways. Paul has been attributed with the mantle of the first modern recording engineer, using the recording process in the studio for creative effect. Paul’s experiments with tape players and the “placements of recording and playback heads“ enable him to multi-track his guitar parts with just one tape recording device (Moorefield 2005,4). Further experiments placing playback heads behind the recording head revealed out of sync playback, “resulting in now-standard effects such as phasing, flanging, chorus, and delay”(Moorefield 2005,5). The results enabled Paul to have his electric guitar recordings appear more layered, more complex, more textured. Paul went on to achieve considerable commercial success as both an artist (guitarist) and a recording engineer.

(Sound on Sound 2017)

A few years later, American Phil Spector reimagined Paul’s creative process, creating his own recording workflow. Spector progressed Paul’s legacy by using studio and musical equipment he had access to, in ways the manufacturers had originally designed for them to be used. However unlike Paul, Spector saw the potential of his role as more than just an engineer. Developing his own unique approach to production, Spector saw the role of producer as being in control of the creative process, in control of the artist. In the Spector model, the artist was a commodity in the production process, where Spector was producing them:

“By taking total artistic control of a recording, Spector in fact redefined what it meant to produce a record” (Moorefield 2005, 12).

(MPR News 2016)

Spector looked beyond the previous generation’s approach to production, to merely capture traditional band format instruments for inclusion on the recording. Spector immersed himself in the newly envisaged role of creative producer, exercising curiosity and adventure in every aspect of the production process. Unlike his predecessors, Spector was inventive with his approach to instrumentation, arrangement, production and post-production processes:

“He handles the control dials like an electronic maestro, tuning various instruments or sounds up, down, out, every which way, using things like two pianos, a harpsichord and three guitars on one record; then re-recording the whole thing with esoteric dubbing and over-dubbing effects—reinforcing instruments or voices—coming out with what is known throughout the industry as “the Spector sound.” (Wolfe, 43 in Moorefield 2005, 10)

(Guerrieri, 2016)

As one of the earliest examples of a commercially successful creative producer[3], Spector composed a musical and sonic wall of sound[4] – multi-layered, complex-textured productions – more than what had been created previously. Spector’s approach to the production process was:

“not just with the overdub and mix, but also by using the studio as an acoustic space, certain microphones, and unconventional instrumentation”(Tankel 1990).

Spector approached the studio as that of a composer, using the studio and any musical and sonic equipment within, to create an extravagant music and sonic production experience for the listener[5].

“the studio was a musical instrument, to be tuned and practiced on and performed with. The degree to which he took this idea was considered excessive by some at the time” (Moorefield 2005,14).

In just a few short years, Spector had established a new legacy for the recording industry. Spector developed the definition of a record producer, and the approach to production

(Spector 1981)

“Whereas the craft of the studio technician and producer had formerly been to create for the home listener a perfected version of an artist, band, or orchestra in concert, the rules of the game were now changing: the object was no longer to create a flawless “real-life” experience, but rather to use the available technological resources imaginatively in order to create sounds that were no longer functioning within the metaphor of realism which had previously been the norm. Thus, by the mid-sixties, “manipulating technology” had come to encompass a whole lot more than mic placement or fader levels (Moorefield 2005,15-16).

Turning Songs into Records: The Many Roles of Producers in Popular Music (PBS Learning Media, 2017)

Once Spector had some success in the US, he moved to the UK to and it is here where his multi-layered, complex-textured approach to production influenced British artists and the UK production scene. George Martin and the Beatles embraced the experimental approach to production, exercising curiosity and adventure in every aspect of the production process. The Beatles, Martin and his studio engineer Geoff Emerick became very inventive with instrumentation, arrangement, production and post-production processes (Emerick & Massey 2007, pp6-14). Tape recorders and creative processing was explored to full effect, inheriting the legacy and techniques from both Spector and Paul. Again in their first experimentation into psychedelic style music production with “Tomorrow Never Knows”, Lennon’s voice has a hallucinogenic quality:

“This effect was achieved by an early use of a tape recorder’s record head being used for playback as well as recording. When played back in combination with the signal from the playback head, the gap between the two heads created a delay which could be time-varied according to the speed at which the tape was played back. This is the same principle used by the once widely popular effects unit known as the Echoplex. (Moorefield 2005, 31)

(Lennon McCartney 1966)

However, Martin did innovate the workflow one step further: “a number of tape loops …. are featured prominently in the song and give it its unique character”. Martin then used each of the channels on the studio console to highlight these loops by raising the volume of each, one at a time. Much like a musician could do on an electronic organ, Martin was now using equipment within the recording studio as a musical instrument (Moorefield 2005, 30).

[1] Paul was experimenting with some of the earliest forms of domestic tape players available.

[2] I will discuss the influence other approaches to music-making had on roots-based music-makers such as Les Paul, in a later section on experimental music-makers

[3] Perhaps the best example of Spector’s production approach was with the 1963 global hit by The Ronnettes, “Be My Baby” (Moorefield 2005,12).

[4] Spector became famous for his production approach, know as the Spector ‘Wall of Sound’ (Moorefield 2005,14).

[5] Other musicians and composers were experimenting with music and sonic production experience for the listener – such as John Cage , but were not realising the same degree of commercial success.

This blog will continue next month with History of Music Production Part 4b – Experimental practice changes the approach to mainstream music production (Page 2016).

References

Emerick, Geoff and Howard Massey. 2007. Here, there and everywhere: my life recording the music of the beatles. New York, NY: Gotham Books.

Gilreath, Paul. 2010. The guide to midi orchestration. 4th ed. Oxford: Focal.

Guerrieri, Matthew. 2016 Via Spector and serendipity, the harpsichord invaded pop Image courtesy of Boston Globe Accessed 16th March, 2016

Huber, David Miles and Robert E Runstein. 2013. Modern recording techniques. 8th ed. Burlington: Focal Press.

Izhaki, Roey. 2013. Mixing audio: concepts, practices and tools. 3rd ed. Oxford: Focal.

Lennon, John & Paul McCatney. 1966 Tomorrow Never Knows. 45rpm Parlophone label. Image courtesy of Northern Songs

McLaughlin, Noel and Martin McLoone. 2000. “Hybridity and national musics: the case of Irish rock music.” Popular Music 19 (2): 181-199.

Moorefield, Virgil. 2005. The producer as composer: shaping the sounds of popular music. London: MIT Press.

MPR News, 2016. Phil Spector Wall of Sound Accessed 16th March, 2016

Onion image courtesy of: Onion Layers Accessed 28th March, 2015

Owsinski, Bobby. 2013. The mixing engineer’s handbook. Boston: Cengage learning.

Page, David L. 2016. History of Music Production Part 4b – Experimental practice changes the approach to mainstream music production Accessed 5th March, 2016

Paul, Les. 2016. Les Paul tracking Mary Paul Courtesy of Les Paul.com. Accessed 20th February, 2016

PBS Learning Media, 2017. Turning Songs into Records: The Many Roles of Producers in Popular Music Video courtesy of PBS Learning Media. Access 1st May, 2017

Sound on Sound, 2017 Classic Tracks – Ronettes – Be My Baby Image courtesy of Sound on Sond.com magazine. Access 1st May, 2017

Spector, Phil. 1981. Wall of Sound Vinyl LP Phil Spector International label Image courtesy of Discogs Accessed 20th February, 2016

Tankel, J.D., 1990. The practice of recording music: Remixing as recoding. Journal of Communication, 40(3), pp.34-46.

Théberge, P., 2004. The network studio: Historical and technological paths to a new ideal in music making. Social Studies of Science, 34(5), pp.759-781.

– ©David L Page 20/02/2016

– updated ©David L Page 16/05/2016

– updated ©David L Page 01/05/2017

Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

Doctoral Research Study – Part 2k

My journey continues….

~DLP Pro Image Fun 5b small.20141020

(Page 2014)

This blog is a continuation of a series. See here (Page 2015a) for the previous blog.

Year 2015: 2nd Observation Part k

As part of the professional doctorate program I had entered, we were inducted into the world of academic research study. Whilst I was a relative open book in terms of my quest for new knowledge, I found the requirements of being fast-tracked from a position of practitioner into the world of academia at a doctoral level, overwhelming. The level of growth required was enormous.

As part of our program, we were being led to examine three (3) aspects of our practice:

the field and discipline of practice
the site of our practice
and me as a practitioner

Bordering my music-making practice

Over the preceding ten (10) blogs – Parts 2a through 2i – I have developed my knowledge in the fields and disciplines of contemporary music-making, and as a result been able to border – and define – my music-making practice.

I have looked in depth at:

a. Historical development of the industry from the 1830’s to the current era. Recording industry – from the invention of the 1st recording, microphones, corporate studios, progressing to large format recording studios

Music Production
Digital Technology – Consoles
Digital Technology – Organs, Synthesisers, Samplers
Project Studio
Consoles – DAWs and, Digital Virtual Instruments – Organs, Synthesisers, Sampler
Portable Studio

b. Industry standards of practice – commercial

Industry standards of practice – technical
Industry standards of practice – creative, aesthetic or affective
Industry standards of practice – soft skills

c. Defining DIY

d. Social, Cultural and Music-making practice Related

e. Changing Face of Music Production

f. The traditional definition of Music Producer

g. A new discipline of music-making emerges

h. The contemporary music-making practice

i. The contemporary music-making practitioner

Following this historical investigation, I examined me as a practitioner, outlining:

a. My autobiography as a music-maker

b. What form my practice currently takes

c. Broadening definition of music-making practice

d. Changing motives of practice

I then outlined my specific site/s:

e. My sites: my DIY Studio Production setup/s.

I concluded the bordering – defining – my music-making practice with:

f. Defining the Music Production process

g. Defining a holistic DIY Music Production process

In the following three (3) blogs, I outlined the Aim of Research Study, listed the existing theory and research studies had already been completed within the industry, field and disciplines; and finished outlining the significance of this research study for the industry, field and discipline.

A holistic view of a higher degree research study

By the end of 2015, my research study journey was well under way. As outlined in the preceding sections, I had begun my investigations across six (6) areas (see figure I below). I had gained clarity regarding the Industry and field of my practice, and standards of practice; my autobiography and events in my life that may have influenced who I am today. I had started to examine my practice, and identify the elements of praxis. I investigated the field and discipline theory, identified the lens that I viewed the world; and developed an appropriate research methodological approach.

Figure I – Preparing for Research Study (Page 2015b)

In doing so, I developed my research study brief. I gained clarity as to how the research study was situated, and the scope of the project. Additionally, I was clear on the potential benefits – the significance of this research study could have – in terms of the wider industry, various fields and disciplines. I did not assume for one moment that I was an expert in any of the areas. This twelve (12) month entree had provided me enough information to understand I was a novice academic research practitioner. Such research had provided me an opportunity to start to frame my music-making practice, in ways I had not previously considered.

My eyes were starting to open re who I, David L Page was in terms of my contemporary music-making practitioner identity. I had looked at a number of events in my life that had in some way influence over my approach to music-making. I had always known I had vast musical influences, but it was only in putting them together into a mind-map, that I comprehended the vastness of these, and could begin to make additional linkages between what may have seemed to be contrasting music styles. In doing this, I could better understand the diversity of my music-making practice, and why I was perhaps so enticed to so many corners of music-making practice. In re-exploring such diversity as outlined in the previous blogs, I recognised the need for me to develop how I defined my music-making. I accept now that my definition of music-making necessarily needs to include a broader term that is inclusive of everyday music-making engagement – that of musicking.

At the end of 2015, despite my twelve (12) months of intensive investigation and discovery of new knowledge, I accepted that I was in many ways, only just beginning my formal academic journey.

This blog series is planned to continue next month with Doctoral Research Study – Part 3 (Page 2015c). It is intended for this blog series to continue on a regular basis as I progress through my doctoral research project.

References

Onion image courtesy of: Onion Layers Accessed 15th December, 2014

Page, David L. 2017 2nd Observation image courtesy of David L Page Created 10th June, 2017

Page, David L. 2015c. Doctoral Research Study – Part 3 Accessed 29th April, 2015

Page, David L. 2015b. Preparing for Research Study image courtesy of David L Page Created 19th November, 2015

Page, David L. 2015a. Doctoral Research Study – Part 2j Accessed 15th April, 2015

Page, David L. 2014 image courtesy of David L Page Created 15th December, 2014

– @David L Page 20/11/2015

– updated @David L Page 01/12/2015

– updated @David L Page 10/06/2017

Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

SaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

Doctoral Research Study – Part 2j

Design of Research Study

This blog is a continuation of a series. See here (Page 2015a) for the previous blog.

Significance of this research study for the industry, field and discipline

The significance of this research can be categorised into three areas: a blended philosophical approach additional to the current academic literature; the expansion of research methodologies usually applied in this area; and the development of a new music-making praxis, inclusive of the practitioner self.

The combination of my ontological perspective, epistemological approach and multi-methods research study, will add a unique perspective to the literature on music and sound, cultural sociology, phenomenology, arts’ literacy, self and narrative. This empirical research study will be conducted through my experiential phenomenological lens (Grace and Ajjawi 2010, 198), using qualitative methodologies of: practice-led research, reflective practice, critical thinking, reflexive practice, ethnography and evocative auto-ethnography over the two projects. No current studies seek to blend these three into the one paradigm.

As mentioned, Bennett (2000) and Frith (1996) discuss music and sound, cultural sociology, and narrative for example, but from a different ontological perspective, disregarding arts’ literacy and self. Others sharing my ontological perspective such as Griffiths (2010) and Ryan (2014) tend to discuss areas of my intended phenomenology – arts’ literacy, self and narrative – but disregard music and sound, as well as the specificities of cultural sociology. Others such as Bartleet (2009) and Davidson (2015) both cover practice-based research regarding their music-making, but offer more of an insight into the auto-ethnographic research aspect of the study, rather than a specific focus on their music-making (Dogantan-Dack 2015).

There is no literature that I have found which takes a comprehensive look at music-making practice across multiple stages of practice, from an experiential phenomenological lens, as a practice-led auto-ethnographic research study. It is this differentiation that will provide my intended research study significance in its perspective.

This multi-tiered examination will represent a significant departure from current discussion of music-making practice, developing praxis of contemporary music-making practice. As outlined in the previous section, functional music production texts generally propose very narrow views of practice. My research will serve other industry practitioners by investigating the relationships of these elements of practice. I will also expand this discussion by considering music making practitioners’ motives, offering a further unique insight to the most frequently discussed motive – technical practice. Other motive orientations such as aesthetics or creativity – with the exception of Moylan (2007) – are seldom discussed. Most significantly, I will be including an examination of the self in context, to provide a greater understanding of, and develop a broader view of music praxis. . This study will innovate through refocusing success in terms of bringing the social self into the industry literature and bringing the industry into the identity literature. I had considered the completion of interviews at the beginning of Doctoral Research Study Project 2 to provide a source of empirical data about contemporary music practitioners, in terms of their view of self, their motivations and the relationship of their choices of technology, music style, workflow and creative location. The data collected throughout the two projects will illuminate a more holistic and inclusive approach to practitioner-based research, and stimulate discussion amongst fellow researchers, field and discipline practitioners and creative industry educators.

As an examination of music-making practice and self, the research methodologies not only focus on evocative auto-ethnography but also draw on critical reflection and reflexive practice principles. As Rescher notes:

“not only is knowledge indispensably useful for our practice but the reverse is the case as well. Knowledge development is itself a practice and various practical processes and perspectives are correspondingly useful—or even necessary—to the way in which we go about constituting and validating our knowledge” (2003, xvii).

It is one of my objectives to showcase the opportunities and challenges of such a qualitative study, particularly within a creative arts’ discipline. In this way my research study will contribute to transforming existing epistemologies of practice. I would expect to contribute in terms of the extensive empirical data that will be gathered throughout my research study, in terms of music-making practice as an expression of the self, allowing a greater understanding of the self, as the creative practitioner. I would also expect to contribute an increased understanding of contemporary music-making practice in the creation of EP’s. This will include a guide for aspiring practitioners in best practice.

Lastly, I would expect my research study to contribute in terms of higher order behaviours in a taxonomy of reflective practice. As a multi-method practice-led approach, I will draw on and apply multiple approaches of reflective practice across the four-year part-time research study, in both Project 1 and 2. There will be extensive empirical data gathered as a matter of process, with commentary and reflection regarding the opportunities and challenges of such approaches including that of: Archer (2007, 2010), Ryan (2014), Griffith (2010), Brookfield (1995), and Finlay (2008), within contemporary music-making practice. Of particular note will be data elicited regarding a creative practitioner performing the dual role of both practitioner and researcher, and the implications this has on the music-making practice workflow.

The findings in this research study will also provide utility across disciplines. In a world with a developing DIY intent, of developing practice across all disciplines, I trust my research study will broaden discussion in the field of social and cultural studies by providing both data and narrative for dual primary role-based (subject and researcher) formal research studies.

This blog series is planned to continue next month with Doctoral Research Study – Part 2k (Page 2015b). It is intended for this blog series to continue on a regular basis as I progress through my doctoral research project.

References

Archer, Margaret S. 2010. Conversations about reflexivity, Ontological Explorations. New York: Routledge.

Archer, Margaret S. 2007. Making our way through the world: human reflexivity and social mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bartleet, Brydie-Leigh. 2009. “Behind the baton: Exploring autoethnographic writing in a musical context.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 38 (6): 713-733.

Bennett, Andy. 2000. Popular music and youth culture: music, identity and place. New York: Palgrave.

Brookfield, Stephen D. 1995. Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Davidson, Jane W. 2015. “Practice-based music research: lessons from a researcher’s personal history.” In Artistic Practice as research in music: theory, criticism, practice, edited by Mine Dogantan-Dack, 93-106. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Dogantan-Dack, Mine (Ed). 2015. Artistic Practice as research in music: theory, criticism, practice, edited by Graham Welch, Adam Ockelford and Ian Cross, SEMPRE Studies in The Psychology of Music. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Finlay, Linda. 2008. Reflecting on reflective practice. Practice-based Professional Learning Centre paper 52 29 (August 12th, 2015). www.open.ac.uk/pbpl.

Frith, Simon. 1996. “Music and identity.” Questions of cultural identity: 108-27.

Grace, S and R Ajjawi. 2010. Phenomenological research: Understanding human phenomena. Researcing practice: A discussion on qualitative methodologies. Rotterdam: Sense.

Griffiths, Morweena. 2010. Research and the self. In The Routledge companion to research in the arts, edited by M Biggs and H Karlsson, 167-185. London: Routledge.

Moylan, William. 2007. The art of recording: the creative resources of music production and audio. 2nd ed. Boston: Focal Press.

Onion image courtesy of: Onion Layers Accessed 15th December, 2014

Page, David L. 2015b. Doctoral Research Study – Part 2k. Accessed 20th November, 2015

Page, David L. 2015a. Doctoral Research Study – Part 2i Accessed 20th October, 2015

Page, David L. 2014 image courtesy of David L Page Created 15th December, 2014

QUT image courtesy of: Queensland University of Technology Accessed 4th September 2015

Rescher, Nicholas. 2003. Epistemology: an introduction to the theory of knowledge, edited by George R Lucas Jr, SUNY series in Philosophy. New York: SUNY Press.

Ryan, Mary Elizabeth. 2014. Reflective practice in the arts. In Literacy in the Arts, edited by G Barton, 77-90. London: Springer.

– ©David L Page 10/11/2015

– updated ©David L Page 20/11/2015

– updated ©David L Page 10/06/2016

Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

SaveSave

SaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

Doctoral Research Study – Part 2i

Design of Research Study

This blog is a continuation of a series. See here (Page 2015a) for the previous blog.

Existing theory and research studies had already been completed within the industry, field and disciplines

As part of my preparing for my research study, I investigated a broad range of literature – industry-based text-books, and academic-based peer-reviewed literature. A variety of these resources have been informative to my intended research study. These include:

Industry-based text-books focusing specifically and comprehensively on one aspect of the music-making process in detail. These resources predominantly look at the technical elements of music-making practice, such as composing within a DAW. Examples are:

Gilraith’s (2010) “The Guide To MIDI Orchestration“;
Edstrom’s (2006) “Musicianship in the digital age” ; and
Dodge and Jerses’ (1997) “Computer music: synthesis, composition and performance”.

There were also a range of peer-reviewed articles outlining their research studies. Whilst I found these studies useful in terms of highlighting considerations of the compositional process within a digital virtual environment (DAW), none took a holistic perspective of the music-making process. Little attempt was made in any of these to develop music-making praxis; nor to consider the self or practitioner self as worthy elements of practice.

Nevels’ 2012 study, as summarised in “Using Music software in the Compositional process: a case study of electronic music composition”;
Chen’s 2012 Hong Kong-based “A Pilot Study Mapping Students’ Composing Strategies – Implications for Teaching Computer-Assisted Composition”;
Folkestad et al’s 1998 study, as summarized in “Compositional strategies in computer-based music-making”; and
Marrington’s 2011 study as summarised in “Experiencing Musical Composition In The DAW: The Software Interface As Mediator Of The Musical Idea”.

A number of other peer-reviewed articles looked at the studio more from a holistic perspective, but had a number of limitations of perspective; namely the lack of attempt to develop music-making praxis; nor to consider the self or practitioner self as worthy elements of practice. For example:

Bell’s 2014 study, as summarized in “Trial-by-fire: A case study of the musician–engineer hybrid role in the home studio”;
a number of studies contained within Frith and Zagorski-Thomas’s 2012 “The Art of Record Production: An Introductory Reader for a New Academic Field”;

I read with interest the title of Thompson and Lashua’s “Getting it on Record: Issues and Strategies for Ethnographic Practice in Recording Studios”, only to realise in the abstract that they focussed on a very narrow view of production. Their upfront claim of “(g)iven that recording studios are, first and foremost, concerned with documenting musician’s performances” signalled to me that their view of production was only to focus on forms of musical style where this was the case. By definition, they would exclude the majority of musical styles where the recording studio was used as an instrument, with the producer acting as composer [1]. However, from a methodology point of view, Thompson and Lashua’s article – along with some of the others mentioned, do outline some useful considerations for my research study.

I continued my investigation broadening my scope. Peer-reviewed books and articles such as Bennett (2000) and Frith (1996) discuss music and sound, cultural sociology, and narrative. These were useful – interesting and informative – in terms of my research and developing understanding of specific sociological concepts. However, they have limited use in terms of my particular research study given their differing ontological perspective relative to my experiential phenomenological lens. Those studies exclude any engagement or discussion of the elements of motive and self.

Other peer-reviewed research studies such as De Carvalho’s (2012) perspective in her article “The Discourse of Home Recording” do consider the self and identity. However, they are similarly limited due to De Carvalho’s ontological lens of a radical structuralist. Viewing the home music-making in terms of power relationships (Burrell and Morgan 1992), whilst an interesting point of view in understanding the dynamics of the broader industry – and perhaps even how I as a practitioners has arrived at this point of access – , has similarly limited relevance for me trying to understand the process of my practice, and develop music-making praxis.

Webber’s (2009) study “In music and in life: confronting the self through auto-ethnography” is perhaps the closest to my proposed study. Webber is a music-making practitioner, who also drew on an auto-ethnographic methodology, and focused on self. However, that study differs – subtlety – to my proposed study, in two ways:

Webber was diagnosed with the condition Asperger syndrone just prior to commencing his study, and therefore was motivated to use his study to understand himself, and how specifically that condition informed his music-making practice. I have no such known condition, and am motivated by a need to examine process in order to engage with my music-making practice more effectively;
Webber’s music-making practice is composition for theatre, and therefore quite a specialist skill relative to my broader definition and application of music-making as previously outlined.

Irrespective of these differences, there is much I believe I can learn from his study, and as a result, I gained Dr Webber’s agreement to be an Industry Mentor on my research study.

Footnote

[1] In later blogs I will discuss approaches to production, with includes (of many) two quite distinct approaches. As outlined in Moorefield’s 2005 “The Producer as Composer: Shaping the Sounds of Popular Music”. Organic style of music such as classical, jazz and roots styles of music attempt to capture the performance as accurately as possible – as Thompson and Lashua infer – in order to maintain the integrity of the art and craft. However, others styles of music such as pop (and its many commercially motivated sub-genre derivatives), hip-hop, rap and electronic dance music styles of music are – in this era – more likely to be produced with the intention that the producer will embellish the artist’s performance, often beyond recognition of the original tracked artist’s performance. Both approaches are valid, but are prescribed by the style of music one is endeavouring to produce. Given my broad approach to production, Thompson and Lashua’s article is severely limiting, effectively excluding a number of musical styles I am likely to focus on.

This blog series is planned to continue next month with Doctoral Research Study – Part 2j (Page 2015b). It is intended for this blog series to continue on a regular basis as I progress through my doctoral research project.

References

Bell, Adam Patrick. 2014. “Trial-by-fire: A case study of the musician–engineer hybrid role in the home studio.” Journal of Music, Technology & Education 7 (3): 295-312.

Bennett, Andy. 2000. Popular music and youth culture: music, identity and place. New York: Palgrave.

Burrell, Gibson and Gareth Morgan. 1992. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: elements of the sociology of corporate life. Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate.

Chen, Jason Chi Wai. 2012. “A pilot study mapping students’ composing strategies: Implications for teaching computer-assisted composition.” Research Studies in Music Education 34 (2): 157-171.

De Carvalho, Alice Tomaz. 2012. The discourse of home recording: authority of pros and the sovereignty of big studios. Journal of the Art of Record Production 7.

Dodge, Charles and Thomas A Jerse. 1997. Computer music: synthesis, composition and performance. 2nd ed. Melbourne: Macmillan Library Reference.

Edstrom, Brent. 2006. Musicianship in the digital age. Boston: Thompson Course Technology.

Folkestad, Göran, David J Hargreaves and Berner Lindström. 1998. “Compositional strategies in computer-based music-making.” British Journal of Music Education 15 (01): 83-97.

Frith, Simon. 1996. “Music and identity.” Questions of cultural identity: 108-27.

Frith, Simon and Simon Zagorski-Thomas. 2012. The art of record production: an introductory reader for a new academic field: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Marrington, Mark. 2011. “Experiencing musical composition in the DAW: the software interface as mediator of the musical idea.” Journal on the Art of Record Production 1.

Moorefield, Virgil. 2005. The producer as composer: shaping the sounds of popular music. London: MIT Press.

Nevels, Daniel L. 2013. “Using music software in the compositional process: a case study of electronic music composition.” Journal of Music, Technology and Education 5 (3): 257-271. doi: 10.1386/jmte.5.3.257_1.

Onion image courtesy of: Onion Layers Accessed 15th December, 2014

Page, David L. 2015b. Doctoral Research Study – Part 2j. Accessed 20th October, 2015

Page, David L. 2015a. Doctoral Research Study – Part 2h Accessed 5th September, 2015

Page, David L. 2014 image courtesy of David L Page Created 15th December, 2014

QUT image courtesy of: Queensland University of Technology Accessed 4th September 2015

Thompson, Paul and Brett Lashua. 2014. “Getting it on record issues and strategies for ethnographic practice in recording studios.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography: 0891241614530158.

Webber, Colin. 2009. “In music and in life: confronting the self through auto-ethnography.” In Music ethnographies: making auto-ethnography sing – making music personal, edited by Brydie-Leigh Bartlett and Carolyn Ellis, 261-273. Bowen Hills: Australian Academic Press.

– ©David L Page 20/10/2015

– updated ©David L Page 20/11/2015

– updated ©David L Page 10/06/2016

Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

SaveSave

SaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

Effective and best practice for the contemporary music practitioner

Standards of effective practice have played an important part in the audio industry, even though these may be challenged by DIY culture and practices. Historically, the music and audio industry’s standards have addressed commercial and technical criteria. In commercial terms a “successful record producer is, by definition, someone who has had multiple hits” (Burgess 1997, 162; Grammy Awards 2015), while technical standards have been formulated through industry bodies such as The Audio Engineering Society (Gibson 2006, 42) and more recently, the Recording Producers and Engineers Wing (2008).

Historical development of practice

The Audio Engineering Society {AES} was formed in 1948 in New York as a governing body, and to offer industry expertise to the developing recording and broadcast industry (AES 2015). A significant outcome of the AES was the creation of standards for which the industry could operate, and that manufacturers of any recording and broadcast industry equipment could comply with. This was very beneficial as the development of certain equipment such as microphones were being constructed with a variety of unique fittings that meant that microphones were not universal, requiring different microphone cables for each manufacturer’s device. The AES was instrumental in influencing a universal standard over time (AES 2015; Huber and Runstein 2010, 111-179). However, the majority of standards developed, were technical or theoretical to audio engineering, not process or workflow-based for the more global discipline of music production (AES 2015). As access was limited to recording studios up until the 1980’s, such music production process or workflow remained to those in the one of the specific skilled roles previously referred to, or as an artist. Practice was aligned to the typical corporate organisational effectiveness objectives, to maximise profitability. Music production practice was controlled by the management of the commercial radio and television studios or the recording studios; the skilled scientists, technicians or manufacturers creating the technology or the processes, with the focus on ‘correct’ use and application of technology, inline with the studio management’s directives of conservatism to preserve the organisational objectives; or the music producers who had successfully produced recordings for artists, contracted to abide by management’s directives to meet the organisational objectives (Robbins et al 2009, 708-710; Burgess 2014, 38-41, 42-55, 82-97; Emerick and Massey 2007, 54).

As technology developed and music production related equipment became available to the prosumer market, user manuals provided by the manufacturer instructing the user how they were best to use the unit was one of the few mediums of effective practice being made available outside of the professional studio environment[1]. One of the first units with such a user manual was for the TASCAM series 144 model Portastudio user manual (TEAC 1979). A decade later, the first industry functional text, sponsored by one of the major manufacturers on the sector was released. Initiated by two audio engineers, arranging sponsorship from the Yamaha Music Corporation to be able to write it, the “Yamaha-The Sound Reinforcement Handbook” was at the time the only comprehensive audio engineering textbook of its kind, and instantly became a standard reference book to the industry (Davis & Jones 1990). The text remained for more than a decade as the only text book comprehensively, outlining audio engineering theory and techniques for ‘sound reinforcement’[2]. The third service and support more recently provided for budding DIY music producers is a range of instructional courses, vocational courses such as the likes of the Australian-based SAE, the School of Audio Engineering (2015), and JMC Academy (2015). In order to teach subject content, audio engineers with studio experience had to be employed to teach the industry standard practices. Whilst it may have taken some decades for this process to become refined and consistent, Burgess confirms their relevance in the discipline: “combined with a proactive DIY approach, a good school program can fill in knowledge gaps and instill a deeper understanding of the fundamentals while increasing awareness of best practices” (Burgess 2013, 35).

The industry to date has only a few disparate best practice documents such as The Recording Producers and Engineers Wing (2008) “Digital Audio Workstation Guidelines for Music Production” advice but it does not comprehensively cover contemporary music production practice. The industry has progressed from the traditional music production model, where exemplars existed across the different roles and skills. However, now within the decentralized music production era, the disparate roles across the music production process tend to be fused and completed by the one person, the contemporary DIY music producer. Music production practitioners have access to a large range of ancillary services and products, such industry trade magazines, texts, forums and blogs. Audio industry magazines such as “Sound on Sound” and “Audio Technology” are recognized as reputable magazines within the audio industry and music production discipline. But do they truly reflect the contemporary music production practice, or are their roots from the traditional music production model causing a widening gap of relevance? Alternative press options such as “Computer Music” (2015) and “MusicTech Focus” magazines have their origins in the development of digital technology. But do their roots limit their relevance by not including the more creative and musical requirements of the contemporary music production practice? Other alternative press includes “Wire”, which focuses more on the cultural and aesthetic aspects of music culture and practice. There is a vast range of support for music practitioners in the form of forums and blogs, with some of these operated by recognised industry professionals[3]. However, many of these are run by hobbyists with well intentioned advice, whilst others are commercially driven, with some of their marketing tactics, products and advice is at best, questionable.

Current practice

Some scholars refer to the current field of DIY music production as being in transition (Hracs, 2012), although it can also be thought of as a fusion or hybrid of two prior developments: that of traditional large format console studio music production and computer-based sound generation. Irrespective of the definition, twenty-first century contemporary DIY music production illustrates the ways that practitioners have broken with previously accepted industry practices, with consensus about effective or best practice now difficult to identify, or indeed where the idea of best practice has been actively challenged through social and cultural changes in the practices of cultural production. As such, the discipline of contemporary DIY music production lacks the infrastructure of an established and mature industry where consensus of what effective practice is, might be found.

The notion of effective practice [4] originated in business centred on notions of effectiveness, efficiency, and productivity (Montana and Charnov 2000,12; Robbins et al 2009, 313; Griffin 1996). In this way, effective practice is a quantifiable measure and assumes the ‘organisation’ or practice has commercial or technical objectives. In contrast, contemporary DIY music production practitioners may not be motivated by either commercial or technical objectives, and therefore effective practice measures may not apply to many practices within the discipline (Rogers 2013, 168). In fact, contemporary DIY music production is a discipline in which notions of effective practice may actually be actively disregarded due to the perception that other motivations such as creativity, emotional connection and free-spiritedness are more important (McWilliam 2008, 38; Davie 2012, 41). As a result, the term best practice is perhaps more appropriate in the discipline of contemporary DIY music production, bringing with it the idea of benchmarking, or “analysing and copying the methods of the leaders” in the field (Robbins et al 2009, 313). However, without accepted discipline standards, and consensus of what best practice is, it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to accurately and effectively benchmark amongst the discipline and its practitioners. Further, if the contemporary DIY music production practice is lacking in organisational characteristics of a mature industry such as robust management processes and procedures, sophisticated vision and strategic planning, then the contemporary DIY music production practitioner is less likely able to measure quality standards should they exist, nor consciously position their practice within the field in order to optimise the chance of success (Robbins et al 2009, 708-710, 716-717).

Note [1]: The manufacturer’s user manual described ‘effective practice’ for the user to operate that unit safely, following a technically correct process

Note [2]: Sound reinforcement is a term used to describe the live audio industry function which still remains today

Note [3]: Pensado’s Place (2015) is operated by Dave Pansado who has had a recognized audio industry career

Note [4] :The notion of effective practice originated in business and post-War Japan, centred on notions of effectiveness (“doing the right thing”), efficiency (the effort exerted in “doing the right thing”), and productivity (the relationship between input and output) (Montana and Charnov 2000, 12; Robbins et al 2009, 313; Griffin 1996).

This blog series is planned to continue next month with Research Practitioner Part 2.

References

AES. 2015. “Audio Engineering Society (AES) History.” Accessed May 3,2015

Audio Technology Magazine. 2015 http://www.audiotechnology.com.au Accessed August 15, 2015

Burgess, Richard James. 2014. The history of music production. New York: Oxford University Press.

Burgess, Richard James. 1997. The art of record production. London: Omnibus Press.

Computer Music. 2015. http://www.musicradar.com/computermusic Accessed August 15, 2015

Davie, Mark. 2012. “The diy revolution.” Audio Technology (91): 98.

Davis, Gary and Ralph Jones. 1990. Yamaha-The Sound Reinforcement Handbook. Milwaukee: Hal Leonard Publishing Corporation.

Emerick, Geoff and Howard Massey. 2007. Here, there and everywhere: my life recording the music of the beatles. New York, NY: Gotham Books.

Gibson, Bill. 2006. The s.m.a.r.t. guide to becoming a successful producer/engineer Boston: Thompson Course Technology.

Grammy Awards. 2015. “The 2015 Grammy Awards.” Accessed May 20, 2015. https://www.grammy.com/nominees.

Griffin, RW. 1996. Management. 5th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Hracs, Brian J. 2012. “A creative industry in transition: the rise of digitally driven independent music production.” Growth and Change 43 (3): 442-461.

Huber, David Miles and Robert E Runstein. 2014. Modern recording techniques. 8th ed. Burlington: Focal Press.

JMC Academy. 2015 http://www.jmcacademy.edu.au/?gclid=CN636-HnmcsCFQGbvAod7GoMDQ Accessed August 15, 2015

McWilliam, Erica. 2008. The creative workforce: how to launch young people into high-flying futures. Sydney: UNSW press.

Montana, Patrick J and Bruce H Charnov. 2000. Management. 3rd ed. Vol. 333, Business Review Books. New York: Barron’s Educational Series.

MusicTech. 2015. http://www.musictech.net Accessed August 15, 2015

Recording Producers and Engineers Wing, The. 2008. “Digital Audio Workstation Guidelines for Music Production.” Accessed May 27, 2015. https://www.grammy.org/files/pages/DAWGuidelineLong.

Robbins, Stephen, Rolf Bergman, ID Stagg and Mary Coulter. 2009. Management 5. Sydney: Pearson Education Australia.

Rogers, I. 2013. “The hobbyist majority and the mainstream fringe: the pathways of independent music-making in Brisbane, Australia.” In Redefining mainstream popular music, edited by Sarah Baker, Andy Bennett and Jodie Taylor, 162-173. New York: Routledge.

SAE. 2015. “SAE Institute.” https://sae.edu.au/ Accessed August 15, 2015

Sound on Sound. 2015 http://www.soundonsound.com Accessed August 15, 2015

Target image courtesy of: http://www.clipartpanda.com/clipart_images/target-skills-53658831 Accessed 15th August, 2015

TEAC. 1979. “TEAC Tascam series: model 144 Portastudio manual”, edited by TEAC Inc. www.tascam.com: TEAC Inc.

Wire. 2015. http://www.thewire.co.uk Accessed August 15, 2015

Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

SaveSave

Doctoral Research Study – Part 2g

My journey continues….

(Page 2014)

This blog is a continuation of a series. See here (Page 2015a) for the previous blog.

Year 2015: 2nd Observation Part g

Bordering my music-making practice

As mentioned in the previous blog, I came to understand within the first few months I needed to broadly explore the fields and disciplines of contemporary music-making, in order to border – and define – my music-making practice. Following exploring the breadth and rapid exponential growth of the music-making industry over the past century in the previous five (5) blogs, I continue to examine an aspect of my practice – me as a practitioner – outlining:

d. Changing motives of practice

and then outline my specific site/s:

e. My sites: my DIY Studio Production setup/s.

I will then conclude with:

f. Defining the Music Production process

g. Defining a holistic DIY Music Production process

Changing motives of practice

Given my current motives for practice are very much exploratory – research and investigation – not volume sales-based, I do not feel it is appropriate for me to categorise my music-making practice as per the industry definition of professional practice. In looking for an alternative classification to define my music-making practice, I considered the classifications for my practice of: professional, semi-professional, amateur or hobbyist (Rogers 2013). Could it be semi-professional, as I earn multiple small income streams from various forms of music-making practice? Or is it amateur, referring to my current status as a music producer where I am earning minimal income at present because of my current pursuits of creative industry education, and full-time doctoral studies? Referencing Kuznetson and Paulos’s article, I am reluctant to assume the title of expert for my music-making practice, as I consider myself a generalist across a breadth of skills and experiences. (Kuznetson and Paulos 2010, 295). However, I daresay my clients, the Institute that employs me as a Senior Lecturer, and my students may see that differently. What I do however accept is who I am: highly motivated, possessing an impassioned commitment to my practice, with a very high level of focus on developing my knowledge, skill level and technology. After four decades of music-making practice, I seek to learn on a daily basis: newly released creative technologies, applying them in a variety of creative locations; familiarising my self with new music styles; developing new practice workflows; better understanding my motives, and my self. I engaged in this doctoral research study to investigate my practice, in order to develop greater understanding and workflows. I therefore am of the opinion I exhibit qualities and attributes that reflect an attitude of professionalism. For these reasons, not with standing my experience, knowledge and skills accumulated and developed to date, both within the field and discipline of music and sound, and all other experiences in life, I also classify my self as an aspiring music practitioner.

As I continued my investigations, I began to recognise I approached my music-making with physical instruments in a different manner to my approach to music-making using virtual technologies (using my laptop to make music for example). In drilling down I determined that much of this was how I viewed both devices. I commenced my music-making practice with acoustic and analogue technology, developing a workflow that reinforced my musical literacy, instrumental skills and personal taste in music. However, as technology developed in the mid to late 1980’s, and alternative music-making devices became available, I moved from acoustic to digital technologies. In the early 2000’s my development of alternative devices included digital virtual technologies.

I viewed virtual technologies very differently. The actual device that housed the music-making application software (DAW) was a computer (a laptop for example). I saw a laptop as a device that houses many many application software that enabled me to record data and/or make transactions. I used computer technologies for administrative purposes (applications such as i-Note, word, excel, etc); organisation purposes (applications such as iCal, reminders, etc); and everyday personal and business management (services such as the internet-based social media sites, banking sites, utility sites to pay bills, etc). I viewed the music-making application software (DAW) as somewhat removed from me. It was housed in a aluminium and plastic case, that I could see, but not touch. The virtual keyboards were engaged by pressing a computer keyboard letter; or perhaps a key on a plastic physical keyboard controller. Neither devices are derived directly from nature. They are manufactured. A computer and a keyboard controller are physical devices which also have natural resonant qualities. They only minimally expand and contract in extreme conditions, with such occurrences perhaps likely to render these devices inoperable. There is also a slight delay between the time you touch the key and having the sound emitted out of the computer monitors. They are not what I consider to be large resonant devices that can be embraced and/or feel the resonant qualities as they are played, such as I experience with a piano or guitar.

Moving from acoustic to digital and digital virtual technologies in recent decades, I observed the vastly different technologies and associated workflows that lend themselves to creative locations and music styles. This transition impacted my music-making practice, hindering the realisation of my creative productions: my EPs. I am compelled to learn more about my practice, and my practitioner self. I continue to practice a variety of music styles across multiple sites, motivated by multiple motives, developing my knowledge, skill level and technology. Whilst I have found my self at various times asking a number of questions in isolation, I now find myself seeing them as connected issues within a more global problem as I proposed for this doctoral research investigation.

Despite my four decades of practice, I have my eyes very much on the future. I still have a lifetime of music goals still to realise: songs to write and arrange; sonic textures to explore; creative productions to develop; and engage with both my peers and the public to a far greater degree than I have to date. I am hopeful of continuing my journey with music as an integral part of my life, core to my being, accompanying me wherever I am – wherever I choose to go.

My DIY Music Production setup

I have two music-making setups: a portable studio setup; and a project studio setup.

My portable setup includes:

An Apple MacBookPro 17” laptop[1] sits before me as a multi-dimensional tool for music production. It is portable, with me using it daily in a range of sites, from my project studio, the staffroom, a classroom, the waiting room of a professional service provider such as a doctor, on a train station while waiting for a commuter train, on a bus, on an airplane, in a park, or on the beach during my recreational time. The device includes a 2.5 Ghz intel processor, 16 gigabytes of random access memory (RAM) operating at 1,333 Megahertz, 1.75 terrabytes of storage, with an Intel high definition 512 megabytes graphics card. It has in excess of 170 applications installed on it {and to name but a few applications}, allowing me to use the device as a word processor, a multi-media player for both movies and music, a recording device, a multi-track recorder, or an instrument. And not just one instrument, but just about any instrument you can imagine, from an acoustic – European[2] or world[3] – instrument to a synthetic instrument[4]. In addition, I carry a two terabyte external hard drive with my laptop shoulder bag which stores my numerous and varied sample libraries[5] that allows me to have numerous instrumentation options wherever I am. Irrespective of the size, material, weight or value of that instrument, the need for electricity or batteries to operate it, or the technique and skill level required to play it, I have these instruments with me anytime I choose to travel to any location, and can choose to integrate any one of them into my music productions, as my creativity desires.

But such choices were not always available. I could not even begin to imagine in 1987 when I purchased my first digital recording console[6], with relative limited options, flexibility, speed, and quality that such a device with its enabled process and workflow would be possible. Several decades later, in 2004 when I purchased my first digital virtual audio recording workstation (DAW)[7], I did not imagine that I would be able to procure a device, the equivalent of a large note pad, and with it hanging lightly over my shoulder, be able to board a plane with such a powerful music production tool, with exponential more options, flexibility, speed, and quality in just another 8 years. My mind now ponders what I will be able to do in another 8 years time?

My project studio setup:

a 27” iMac has five (5) TB of internal hard drive with many TBs of samples. It runs a the industry standard DAW operation software (Pro Tools 11), and is supported by a 32 channel console with multiple monitors and a number of external analogue and digital audio processing devices. This setup allows extreme flexibility to be able to record and produce just about any style of acoustic or synthetic-based music possible.

I have practiced as a musician and a music producer in a number of locations globally for the greater part of my life. Irrespective of my geographical base, I approached these roles quite independently in my formative years. However, over the past decade I observe I am increasingly being drawn to attempt to fuse these two roles into what I would refer to as a singular, interdependent practice – musician as music producer. How I do this, and how I can do it more effectively is to be the basis on my Doctoral Research Study topic: “Holistic DIY Music Production: The effective integration of acoustic instruments with synthetic instruments during DIY Music Production in the digital environment[8].”

Defining the Music Production process

In order to explore these changes and new relationships, and what the implications have been on the process of music creation and production, we need to define the stages.

Raimond et al differentiates the music creation process (the musician composing) with that of the performance and recording process, whilst labeling them both under the ‘Music Production workflow’ (Raimond et al. 2007). Within the audio engineering industry, via anecdotal conversations with my audio engineering colleagues over many years, it is generally accepted that the Music Production process is divided into 3 main stages: Pre-Production, being prior to Production where the recording session is planned, and all logistics and all equipment confirmed; Production, being the actual recording process; and Post-Production, being the process following recording, up to having a ‘completed audio product’ in hand. This definition of the Music Production process is confirmed in such industry recognised texts as the “Art of Music Production”(Burgess 2013, 60-75), but I was unable to find such a suitable audio industry-based graphic, I am drawing on a similar practice described in a film industry document. Apple’s film digital workstation Final Cut Pro 7’s manual describes the process in terms of 5 stages {see graphic below}, with the two additional stages being ‘Scripting’ {what could be argued as the film equivalent of the music creation process with the film scriptwriter composing the film’s narrative – storyline and dialogue}, and Distribution {that which comes after the completed film product/artifact is in hand} (Apple 2010).

(Apple 2010)

It was common to have multiple roles for the various specialist technical skills along the music and audio industry production chain. Some of the specialist roles were: songwriters/composers, artists, arrangers, recording engineers, tape operators, console operators, mixing engineers, mastering engineers, and producers (Leach 2011).

Defining a Holistic DIY Music Production’ process

I will therefore refer to these five (5) stages both the Music Creation and Production stages, as the Holistic DIY Music Production process, including:

the music creation stage (musician composing, lyrics and orchestrating the musical piece);

the three stages of the audio engineering process of,

Pre-Production – pre-meetings to the actual performance and recording of that performance, planning the logistics of the production session, organising the ‘event’ including studio and equipment bookings, staffing, coaching people, setting up the session;
Production – the actual performance and recording of that performance, control room and live room management, tracking, overdubbing, discussing the arrangement, creating an environment or space that will elicit the best out of the musicians
Post-Production – following the completion of the actual performance and recording of that performance, an process that may include: arrangement, orchestration, decision to re-track, re-overdub, editing, mixing, embellishing all elements of the mix (including FX and interest), mastering, etc up to having a ‘completed audio product’ in hand;
- and the final stage,
Distribution – with the ‘completed audio product’ in hand, how this product will be released or distributed to the consumers or marketplace (irrespective of whether it is a commercially-motivated product, or not)

Footnotes

[1] I purchased this in February 2012. The system came with a 250 gigabyte hard drive and cost my the equivalent of AUD$4,000 at the time. I currently have a 1.75 terrabyte hard drive capacity installed within it.

[2] Such as a double bass which I have seen many times in both European music orchestras and contemporary Jazz bands, but never played one

[3] Such as a Kenyan instrument – the Nyatiti – which I have only ever seen in Kenya during one of my trips in the early 1980s.

[4] Such as a Jupiter-8 synthesiser which I saw being played live in Japan in the late 1980s

[5] Sample libraries such a ‘symphonic orchestras’, ‘marching bands’, and ‘kitchen pot’ sets. I have compiled my sample libraries via purchases (about $10,000, including multiple instruments or play engines), creating samples from my recorded stock, and also trading via my peer network. I currently have approximately 2 Terrabyte of samples available for my use in music production at this time

[6] A TEAC Tascam Porta-4 Studio digital console. It cost me the equivalent of AUD$200 at the time.

[7] Referred to as a DAW, I purchased Pro Tools 6 and shortly after Logic Pro 7 multi-track software in August 2004, installed on a Mac Tower with a Digidesgn 002 interface. The system came with a 150 gigabyte hard drive, and cost me the equivalent of AUD$5,500 at the time

[8] As part of that KK59 Doctoral Research Study, I will necessarily need to define the ‘musician as music producer’ process, and intend to include both the Songwriting/Composition stage, and the Distribution stage in what I currently refer to as a Holistic DIY Music Production process. However, for the purposes of this KKP623 Essay “Assignment #2 Contextual Review of currents and trends that are shaping Effective Practice”, I will use the more common industry definition of Music Production as discussed by Burgess (1997, 64) in the “Art of Music Production”, excluding any extensive discussion of these two ‘additional’ stages of Songwriting/Composition and Distribution

This blog series is planned to continue next month with Doctoral Research Study – Part 2h (Page 2015b). It is intended for this blog series to continue on a regular basis as I progress through my doctoral research project.

References

Apple. 2010. “Final cut pro 7 manual. Accessed 10th May, 2015.

Burgess, Richard James. 2013. The art of music production: the theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Burgess, Richard James. 1997. The art of record production. London: Omnibus Press.

Kuznetsov, Stacey and Eric Paulos. 2010. “Rise of the Expert Amateur: DIY Projects, Communities, and Cultures.” In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, Reykjavik, Iceland, October 16-20, 2010, edited, 295-304. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1868914&picked=prox: ACM.

Leach, Joel. 2011. A concise guide to music industry terms. Missouri: Mel Bay Publications.

Onion image courtesy of: Onion Layers Accessed 15th December, 2014

Page, David L. 2017 2nd Observation image courtesy of David L Page Created 10th June, 2017

Page, David L. 2015b. Doctoral Research Study – Part 2h Accessed 5th September, 2015

Page, David L. 2015a. Doctoral Research Study – Part 2f Accessed 20th May, 2015

Page, David L. 2014. image courtesy of David L Page. Created 15th December, 2014

Raimond, Yves, Samer A Abdallah, Mark B Sandler and Frederick Giasson. 2007. “The music ontology.” In ISMIR, edited, 417-422: Citeseer.

Rogers, I. 2013. The hobbyist majority and the mainstream fringe: the pathways of independent music-making in Brisbane, Australia. In Redefining mainstream popular music, edited by Sarah Baker, Andy Bennett and Jodie Taylor, 162-173. New York: Routledge.

– @David L Page 29/07/2015

– updated @David L Page 05/09/2015

– updated @David L Page 10/06/2017

Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

SaveSave

History Music Production Part 4d – Digital Project Studios become the platform for contemporary DIY music-making?

(MIDAS 2014)

This blog is a continuation of a series. See here (Page 2015a) for the previous blog.

The changing field of music production

Portable Studio

With the development of laptops and handheld microphones such as the Zoom H4, the project studio got smaller and more mobile. Coined as portable studios, anyone with musical aspirations could compose and produce in a studio one moment, and then move outside to into nature, or even the extreme, “on the beach of a remote seaside island under battery power” and continue to compose and produce (Huber and Runstein 2013, 78). Such flexibility of recording environments enabled the composer producer the choice of using actual instruments (acoustic or digital), virtual instruments, purchased sample libraries, or creating their own sample libraries directly from the environment they habituate using these portable studios. The laptop, particularly the Apple MacBookPro, was an integral part of this technological development enabling the portability of music production.

(Goyte, 2011)

Discussing the music production process of his 2011 Grammy Award winning “Making Mirrors” CD, Goyte reinforced choice with “some songs I sang into the mic of the MacBookPro – for whatever reason it sounded really good in that room and I left it in the final mix” (Holder 2011). Hewitt concludes that such choice and options of practice allows aspiring music producers “a significant degree of creative freedom”, to “produce highly accomplished soundtracks”, of a standard where “some of these tracks … can literally be sent straight to the record company for final mastering” (Hewitt 2008, xv). Certainly, the portable studio became a new environment for music production (Huber and Runstein 2013, 78). Specialising in the Post-Production stage of the Music Production process, Grammy award winning Mix Engineer Leslie Braithwaite mixed the Grammy Award winning song “Happy” entirely within a digital audio workstation (Tingen, 2014).

(Tingen 2014)

Contemporary music-making practitioners challenging traditional industry standards?

Technology has continued to develop at an exponential rate, with increasing “interest and wider adoption of DIY cultures and practices through 1) easy access to and affordability of tools and 2) the emergence of new sharing mechanisms” such as the internet having a prolific effect on the widespread interest of music production (Kuznetsov and Paulos 2010, 295; Wallis 2001,10). Numerous companies commenced manufacturing to fill “a tremendous need for good and affordable sound equipment”, entrenching the “prosumer or home-recording market” (Music Group 2015). Continuing technological developments influenced the increase of music production setups in the home, based around a personal computer, a sound card, and some form of digital audio workstation to either record or arrange the music. The technological developments have afforded multiple benefits, such as decreased production costs and increased convenience. With project studios, “the hiring of expensive studios was no longer a requisite” (Izhaki 2013, xiiii). More major artists were being recorded in these evironments [1]. Other professionals[2] such as Braithwaite moved their workflow entirely within a digital audio workstation.

(AE 2015)

As Leyshon highlighted, “the recording studio sector is not a particularly profitable or efficient part of the musical economy overall” (2009, 1315), and therefore from an industry perspective, it was positive that alternative options evolved. The development of the digital audio workstation, along with virtual instruments and sample libraries, provided resources ready to include into productions (Gilreath 2010). The project studio now had virtual technology accessible by both novice and professional producers alike. This “brought about monumental changes in the business of music and professional audio”, with music producers able to “select from a wide range of tools and toys to generate specific sounds – or to get the particular sounds that he or she likes”, without needing to have that instrument or musician capable of playing that instrument, on hand (Huber and Runstein 2013,76). In an article on best practice within the music industry, Wallis (2001, 13) observed that access to user-friendly technology has “resulted in many creative artistic talents achieving a high degree of IT literacy, leading to the emergence of the combined studio producer/ writer role. Max Martin from Sweden…is such an example”. Today, continuing technological developments have further opened the field and discipline to an even broader market. Music production technology is now accessible to anyone who has a degree of interest in the creation and production of music, irrespective of their background {social status or professional role}, their musical or professional audio training and/or experience, or the genre of music they may be interested in attempting to produce, making for a truly diverse and eclectic music production society (Burgess 1997, 34; Rogers 2013).

Historically, the music and audio industry’s standards have addressed economic and technical criteria. Both of these criteria are included in annual industry award events, well known and usually televised events the public engages in with interest, as they make up the consumer market for such music and audio artifacts (ie songs, mp3s, CDs, albums). The Grammy Awards (The US), the British Music Awards (the UK), and the ARIA Awards (Australia) acknowledge publically released artists and their music, in terms of specific criteria such as: commercial success (song sales via record companies and formal distribution channels such as i-tunes); popularity (via radio play which may or may not transfer into song sales[3]); with a few categories acknowledging the technical and creative expertise of the engineers and producers behind the artists[4]. “A successful record producer is, by definition, someone who has had multiple hits” (Burgess 1997, 162). Artists such as Lorde are taking greater control of their creative careers by proactively tasking aspects of the music production process themselves. Lorde writes her own compositions, and has achieved global success in part by engaging in informal distribution channels such as ‘Soundcloud’[5], However, Lorde remains produced by an external professional[6], and therefore does not fit entirely within the definition of contemporary DIY music production practitioner (Bockstedt et al 2005).

Different Motivation?

The limitation of such an industry standard such as the awards listed above is two-fold. Firstly, these awards acknowledge only publically-released music through formal distribution channels. Secondly, the awards are predominantly for non-DIY artist producers, where the artists contract the professional services of an external producer.

Perhaps motivated by the power imbalance and limited access to studios in the 1970’s and 1980’s, aligned with the broader social and cultural developments of DIY culture from the 1970s, with music-makers in the new era of project and mobile studios, emerging as a new generation of prosumers – both producers and consumers (Theberge 1997, P3; Hracs, 2012). The ever increasing access to technology appears to be attracting a diverse range of aspiring practitioners to he process of music creation and production. Burgess has observed the diversity of DIY music production practitioners has expanded from the previous music producer list several decades earlier of artist/musician, audio engineer, songwriter, entrepreneur and multipath, to now include: DJ, self-taught/school-trained and discoverer (2013, 29). In addition, as Rogers in his 2010 study on local musicians in the Brisbane scene found, there are now varying levels of professionalism found amongst the participants: professional, semi-professional, emerging and several non-commercial aspirational levels – including amateur or hobbyist practices (Rogers 2013, 168). By far, the largest group is the amateur category. I adopt the term amateur “not as a reflection on a hobbyists’ skills, which are often quite advanced, but rather, to emphasise that most of DIY culture is not motivated by commercial purposes” (Kuznetson and Paulos 2010, 295) . The “status and position of the amateur have been redeemed and a new, less aristocratic, breed of amateur has emerged .. (who) .. are technologically literate, seriously engaged, and committed practitioners” (Prior 2010, 401). A contemporary DIY music production practitioner is not likely to be motivated by economic motivations, and less likely to release their music through formal distribution channels. In fact, they are likely to deliberately choose to release their music through alternative informal independent DIY music channels in line with DIY ideals (Purdue et al 1997).

DIY perspectives are particularly influential in music production, in many ways redefining the field today (Kealy 1982; Hemphill and Leskowitz 2012; Frith 1992; Watson and Shove 2008; Watson 2014; Kuznetsov and Paulos 2010; Ritzer and Jurgenson 2010; Purdue et al. 1997), traditional standards of effective practice, which have played a central role in the music production industry, are now being challenged. Music and audio industry’s standards of commercial sales and technical criteria (Burgess 1997, 162; Grammy Awards 2015; Gibson 2006, 42; Recording Producers and Engineers Wing 2008) appear to be less valued by contemporary DIY music production practitioners. Breaking with previously accepted industry practices (Hracs,2012), the notion of ‘effective practice’ appears to be actively disregarded due to the prioritizing of other motivations such as creativity, emotional connection, networking, and free-spiritedness. That is, creative practice, affective practice and social practice, with a preparedness to reject accepted effective practice (eg: technical or genre standards) as the contemporary DIY music production practitioner sees fit (Montana and Charnov 2000,12; Robbins et al 2009, 313; Griffin 1996; Rogers 2013, 168; McWilliam 2008, 38; Davie 2012, 41).

In summary

Prior to my own research study and planned interviews, what I have discovered about the likely profile of a contemporary DIY music production practitioner is: They appear to be proactive, resourceful, tenacious and rebellious practitioners with eclectic backgrounds, musical tastes and skill levels. They most certainly possess a just do it spirit as the Nike slogan has encouraged since 1971. They are likely motivated by creative, affective or social practice, rather than effective practice, making aesthetic choices over technical standards, and working in what could be once considered, ineffective or inefficient workflows. They are more likely to be passionate hobbyists, who want to create, express and be heard, using project or portable technology as either a studio or an instrument, probably in a way that was not originally intended by the manufacturer, and yet creating unique sonic qualities or textures, influencing new genres to emerge (Wallis 2001,13; Burgess 2013, 29; Huber and Runstein 2013,76; Izhaki 2013, xiiii; Gilreath 2010; Watson 2014; Burke 2011; Doyle 2008; Wallis 2001,11; Kuznetsov and Paulos 2010, 296; Spencer 2005, 226-273; Moran 2011, 1; Rogers 2013, 168; Kuznetsov and Paulos 2010, 295; Watson 2013, 334; Prior 2010, 401; Watson 2013, 331; Braithwaite alluded in Tingen 2014; Theberge 2012, 6; Hracs et al 2013, 1144).

Footnotes

[1] In 2005, Stuart Price used his home-based project studio, based around an Apple computer with a range of analogue outboard hardware and synthesizers to produce Madonna’s commercially successful ‘Confessions On A Dancefloor’ album, achieving commercial success reaching the US Music charts (Doyle 2008).

[2] Grammy award winning Mix Engineer Leslie Braithwaite mixed the Grammy Award winning song “Happy” entirely within a digital audio workstation. He explains his recent change of workflow to a DAW-only workflow: “With my workload increasing and me also trying to meet the demands for smaller budget projects, going into the box made total sense” (Tingen 2014).

[3] Radio play which may or may not translate into album sales such as Australia’s Triple ZZZ ‘Unearthed series’, acknowledging emerging artists, and by default, their productions (ABC 2015)

[4] Within these music and sound awards, there are numerous categories, in which the artist, the producers and the recording engineers are acknowledged. These categories cover predominantly the economic criteria (album or song sales), but there are some categories that acknowledge the technical and creative of music production. For example: ‘68. Best Engineered Album, Non-Classical’, ’69 Producer of the year, Non-Classical’, ’70 Best Remixed Recording, Non-Classical’, ‘72 Best Engineered Album, Classical’ (Grammy Awards 2015).

[5] Soundcloud.com is an informal hosting site for musicians, producers and artists. Soundcloud is not a sales based distribution site, and therefore I am classifying it an informal distribution site, as it is possible to generate interest to a potential consumer market (Souncloud 2015)

[6] Lorde’s producer of her first album was local Auckland NZ producer, Joel Little (Davie 2015)

This blog will continue next month History of Music Production Part 5a – The DIY Music-making practitioner (Page 2015b).

References

ABC. 2015. “Triple J Unearthed.” Accessed 6th June, 2015.

AE Project Studio, 2015 external live devices image courtesy of AE Project Studio. Accessed 7th June 2015

Bockstedt, Jesse, Robert J Kauffman and Frederick J Riggins. 2005. “The move to artist-led online music distribution: Explaining structural changes in the digital music market.” In System Sciences, 2005. HICSS’05. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, Hawaii, USA, edited, 1-10: IEEE.

Burgess, Richard James. 2013. The art of music production: the theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Burgess, Richard James. 1997. The art of record production. London: Omnibus Press.

Davie, Mark. 2015. “DIY: don’t be a tool.” Audio Technology 2015 (106): 98.

DIY image courtesy of: DIY Accessed 24th July, 2015

Doyle, Tom. 2008. “Stuart Price: producing Seal & Madonna.” Accessed 7th June, 2015. https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb08/articles/stuart_price.htm.

Frith, Simon. 1992. “The industrialization of popular music.” Popular Music and Communication 2: 49-74.

Gibson, Bill. 2006. The s.m.a.r.t. guide to becoming a successful producer/engineer Boston: Thompson Course Technology.

Gilreath, Paul. 2010. The guide to midi orchestration. 4th ed. Oxford: Focal.

Goyte. 2011. Making Mirrors. Eleven May 5, 2015. Compact Disc.

Grammy Awards. 2015. “The 2015 Grammy Awards.” Accessed 6th June, 2015. https://www.grammy.com/nominees.

Griffin, RW. 1996. Management. 5th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Hemphill, David and Shari Leskowitz. 2012. “DIY activists: communities of practice, cultural dialogism, and radical knowledge sharing.” Adult Education Quarterly 63 (1): 57-77. doi: 10.11.77/0741113612442803.

Hewitt, Michael. 2008. Music theory for computer musicians. Boston: Cengage Learning Course Technology.

Holder, Christopher. 2011. “Goyte.” Audio Technology (84): 98.

Hracs, Brian J. 2012. “A creative industry in transition: the rise of digitally driven independent music production.” Growth and Change 43 (3): 442-461.

Hracs, Brian J, Doreen Jakob and Atle Hauge. 2013. “Standing out in the crowd: the rise of exclusivity-based strategies to compete in the contemporary marketplace for music and fashion.” Environment and Planning A 45 (5): 1144-1161.

Huber, David Miles and Robert E Runstein. 2013. Modern recording techniques. 8th ed. Burlington: Focal Press.

Huber, David Miles and Robert E Runstein. 2010. Modern recording techniques. 7th ed. Boston: Focal Press.

Izhaki, Roey. 2013. Mixing audio: concepts, practices and tools. 3rd ed. Oxford: Focal.

Kealy, Edward R. 1982. “Conventions and the production of the popular music aesthetic.” The Journal of Popular Culture 16 (2): 100-115.

Kuznetsov, Stacey and Eric Paulos. 2010. “Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures.” In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, Reykjavik, Iceland, October 16-20, 2010, edited, 295-304. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1868914&picked=prox: ACM.

Leyshon, Andrew. 2009. “The software slump?: digital music, the democratisation of technology, and the decline of the recording studio sector within the musical economy.” Environment and Planning 41 (6): 1309.

McWilliam, Erica. 2008. The creative workforce: how to launch young people into high-flying futures. Sydney: UNSW press.

MIDAS 2014 console image courtesy of AE Project Studio. Accessed 29th June, 2014

Montana, Patrick J and Bruce H Charnov. 2000. Management. 3rd ed. Vol. 333, Business Review Books. New York: Barron’s Educational Series.

Moran, Ian P. 2011. “Punk: the do-it-yourself subculture.” Social Sciences Journal 10 (1): 13. http://www.behringer.com/EN/Our-Story/index.aspx

Music Group. 2015. “Behringer : our story.” Accessed 4th June, 2015. http://www.behringer.com/EN/Our-Story/index.aspx

Onion image courtesy of: Onion Layers Accessed 15th December, 2014

Page, David L. 2015b. History of Music Production Part 5a – The DIY music-making practitioner Accessed 24th July, 2015.

Page, David L. 2015a. History of Music Production Part 4c – Large Format Console Studios to Digital Project Studios Accessed 5th March, 2016.

Prior, Nick. 2010. “The rise of the new amateurs: Popular music, digital technology and the fate of cultural production.” Handbook of cultural sociology. London: Routledge: 398-407.

Purdue, Derrick, Jörg Dürrschmidt, Peter Jowers and Richard O’Doherty. 1997. “DIY culture and extended milieux: LETS, veggie boxes and festivals.” The Sociological Review 45 (4).

Recording Producers and Engineers Wing, The. 2008. “Digital Audio Workstation Guidelines for Music Production.” Accessed May 27, 2015. https://www.grammy.org/files/pages/DAWGuidelineLong.

Ritzer, George and Nathan Jurgenson. 2010. “Production, consumption, prosumption: the nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer’.” Journal of Consumer Culture 10 (1).

Robbins, Stephen, Rolf Bergman, ID Stagg and Mary Coulter. 2009. Management 5. Sydney: Pearson Education Australia.

Rogers, I. 2013. “The hobbyist majority and the mainstream fringe: the pathways of independent music-making in Brisbane, Australia.” In Redefining mainstream popular music, edited by Sarah Baker, Andy Bennett and Jodie Taylor, 162-173. New York: Routledge.

SoundCloud. 2015. “SoundCloud.com.” Accessed 7th June, 2015. https://soundcloud.com.

Spencer, Amy. 2005. DIY: The rise of lo-fi culture: Marion Boyars London.

Théberge, Paul. 1997. Any sound you can make: making music/consuming technology. Hanover: University Press of New England.

Tingen, Paul. 2014. “Inside track: Happy – secrets of the mix engineers: Leslie Braithwaite.” Accessed 5th May, 2015. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may14/articles/inside-track- 0514.htm.

Wallis, R Dr. 2001. “Best practice cases in the music industry and their relevance for government policies in developing countries.” Paper presented at the United Conference on Trade and Development, Brussels, Belgium, May 14-20, 2001.

Watson, Allan. 2014. Cultural Production in and Beyond the Recording Studio. New York, NY: Routledge.

Watson, Allan. 2013. “‘Running a studio’s a silly business’: work and employment in the contemporary recording studio sector.” Area 45 (3): 330-336.

Watson, Matthew and Elizabeth Shove. 2008. “Product, Competence, Project and Practice DIY and the dynamics of craft consumption.” Journal of Consumer Culture 8 (1): 69,74.

Watson, Allan. 2012. “The world according to iTunes: mapping urban networks of music production.” Global Networks 12 (4): 446-466.

Webb, A. 2007. “Is GarageBand top of the pops?” The Guardian Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/oct/18/news.apple.

Zagorski-Thomas, Simon. 2005. “The US vs the UK sound: meaning in music production in the 1970s.” In The art of record production: an introductory reader for a new academic field, edited by Simon Frith and Simon Zagorski-Thomas, 57-90. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate

Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

David L Page

Educator, Mentor, Songwriter,Musician, Engineer….

Research Study

Abstract

(Page 2015a)

Preamble

Continuing on from my previous blogs (Page 2015b) in this series….

In the beginning……

My doctoral research study……

Research Study – 1st Observation:

I acknowledged that I approached my music and sound-making practice in terms of the outcome – the finished product. I was not considering the process in which I was music and sound-making, any more than with a cursory glance. My music and sound-making practice was product-driven.

(Page 2017a)

I recognised that I approached my music-making with physical instruments in a different manner to my approach to music and sound-making using virtual technologies (using my laptop to make music and sound for example). In drilling down I determined that much of this was how I viewed both devices.

Research Study – 2nd Observation:

My eyes were starting to open.

(Page 2017b)

Project 1 Pilot Study – 3rd Observation:

(Page 2017c)

My music praxis (v4) had six (6) elements listed: self, motive, music style, location, technology and workflow.

(Page 2015b)

Project 1 Pilot Study – 6th Observation:

(Page 2017d)

(Page 2016a)

(Page 2016b)

I realised my music praxis was in fact very circular, with reflective and reflexive practice occurring constantly at any point in time. ­

(Page 2017e)

(Page 2017f)

This blog series is planned to continue next month with Research Practitioner Part 25 (Page 2017g). It is intended for this blog series to continue on a regular basis as I progress through my doctoral research project.

References

Onion image courtesy of: Onion Layers Accessed 28th March, 2015

Page, David L. 2017g. Doctoral Pilot Study – Part 25 Accessed 3rd January, 2018

Page, David L. 2017f .17th Observation image courtesy of David L Page DCI Project 1 Research Study Holistic Model of an Authentic Practitioner. Created 9th June, 2017

Page, David L. 2017e. Praxis v9k image courtesy of David L Page. Created 20th May, 2017

Page, David L. 2017d. 6th Observation image courtesy of David L Page. Created 17th May, 2017

Page, David L. 2017c. 3rd Observation image courtesy of David L Page. Created 17th May, 2017

Page, David L. 2017b. 2nd Observation image courtesy of David L Page. Created 17th May, 2017

Page, David L. 2017a. 1st Observation image courtesy of David L Page. Created 17th May, 2017

Page, David L. 2016b. Praxis v8i image courtesy of David L Page. Created 29th, November, 2016

Page, David L. 2016a. Praxis v5b image courtesy of David L Page. Created 15th April, 2016

Page, David L. 2015c. Praxis 4 image courtesy of David L Page. Created 1st December, 2015

Page, David L. 2015b. Doctoral Research Study – Part 3 Accessed 1st December, 2015

Page, David L.2015a. image courtesy of David L Page. Created 14th September, 2015

Wiley, Norbert. 2010. “Inner speech and agency.” In Conversations about reflexivity, edited by Margaret S. Archer, 17-38. New York: Routledge

– @David L Page 27/12/2017

– updated @David L Page 03/01/2018

Copyright: No aspect of the content of this blog or blog site is to be reprinted or used within any practice without strict permission directly from David L Page.

(Page 2014a)

This blog is a continuation of a series. See here (Page 2014b) for the previous blog.

Reflecting on 2014 ….

2017 Update

wordpress.com is what we were guiding our learners to create as their primary creative practice blog site;

functionality of the wordpress.com site, including the use-friendly nature of the interface, the editing features, and the ability to publish multi-media within the one entry.

(Page 2017a)

my realisation that Reflecting Part 1 was essentially about my self , effectively situating my self in regard to my – at the time – pending research study. I therefore renamed this Doctoral Research Study Part 1;

my realisation that Reflecting Part 2 (this blog post) was essentially about my practitioner self , effectively situating my practitioner self in regard to my – at the time – pending research study. I therefore renamed this Doctoral Research Study Part 2.

(Page 2017b)

My view of 2013 & 2014, looking back from 2017….

“Quantifiably, the development across the three (3) versions of the Charter of Values and Beliefs over the sixteen (16) months of Project 1 has been:

v1: 26 green entries – new entries – under 8 categories

v2: 55 entries under 10 categories (112% growth in entries)

v3: 87 entries under 11 categories (58% growth in entries)” (Page 2017d)

Viewing this blog in the graphic below – where v1 is column 1, v2 is column 2, and v3 is column 3 – the level of development across the sixteen (16) months is exemplified (see Research Practitioner Part 18 Page 2017d for greater detail of this chart):.

(Page 2017e)

Secondly: I acknowledged early in my Project 1 journey that I realised I was a multi-disciplinary practitioner (see Research Practitioner Part 5):

(Terry-Toons Comics 1945-1951)

This blog series is planned to continue next month with Research Practitioner Part 23 (Page 2017g). It is intended for this blog series to continue on a regular basis as I progress through my doctoral research project.

References

Bros, Warner. 2014. “The Hobbit.” Accessed 26th December, 2014

Learning Philosophy image courtesy of: Learning Accessed 25th December 2014

Page, David L. 2017a. David L Page wordpress.com site Accessed 15th May 2017

Page, David L. 2017b. Revised DLP Blog Category Topics Accessed 15th May 2017

Page, David L. 2017c. DCI Phase 0 Starting Point Accessed 15th May 2017

Page, David L 2017d. Research Practitioner Part 18 Accessed 15th May 2017

DLP 2017e. image courtesy of Data for DLPs Project 1_Music and Sonic Collage.20170529.v39 Accessed 15th May 2017

Page, David L. 2017f. Research Practitioner Part 16 Accessed 15th May 2017

Page, David L. 2017g. Research Practitioner Part 23 Accessed 15th May 2017

Page, David L. 2016 Research Practitioner Part 5 Accessed 15th May 2017

Page, David L. 2015. A Creative Artist’s Need – Gratitude Accessed 15th May 2017

Page, David L. 2014a image courtesy of David L Page Linked-In site Accessed 25th December, 2014

Page, David L. 2014b. Doctoral Research Study Part 2 Accessed 15th May 2017

I realised my music praxis was in fact very circular, with reflective and reflexive practice occurring constantly at any point in time.