I'm Nick, i'm a musician and a "university student". I was told to treat this like a CV. Very well then. I work minimum wage jobs while optimistically working to complete university in the hope that it could possibly ever take me someplace. I appear to be having more success with music, oh dear...
Nick Smethurst 2:53, 21 Oct 2004 (EST)
Note: the area I aim to explore is one that has not been explored in any significant detail. As a result, it has been quite difficult to find published discussion (academic or otherwise) of relevance, and the majority of my resources have come from the internet.
96 Decibels (2004) retrieved August 10th 2004 from http://96decibels.com/index.asp?pg=P30&col
Similar in nature to Loopwise.com, this site occupies its own unique territory for the ways it goes about achieving its goals. The site has two listed aims – as well as serving as a place for musicians around the world to meet and work together on projects, it also operates as a distribution portal for the finished products. The approach adopted for collaborations appears much more relaxed than those of other collaboration sites. The collaborations page states specifically that users should “… not wait for an invitation to participate in a collaboration, it won't happen!� and further states that “This is an OPEN collaborations forum, if it is posted here, it is fair game.� The implications of this are that any member may contribute to any listed track, which is significantly less rigid than the loopwise approach. The other noteworthy attribute of this site is it’s affiliation to the Weed File music format. Born as an attempt to find a middle ground between purchased MP3’s and free downloads, A WeedShare file is a protected Windows Media Audio file that can be played three times for free. Once the three listens have been used, users are given the option of purchasing the file, at which point they can then burn and share the song. The combination of this open, “friendly� collaborative process with a very intelligent method of sharing the end product comes together as a wonderful example of the alternative music industry in the 21st century
iA Wiki: Collaboration (2004) retrieved August 9th 2004 from http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Collaboration
Info Anarchy, an online community which in itself is a composite of new media devices such as a weblog, an IRC channel, and a mailing list, has its own wiki dedicated to topics including file sharing and peer-to-peer research. The provided definition of Collaboration bears much relevance to the explored topic of online musical creation. With specific connection to areas of New Media Technologies, it discusses what would otherwise be extremely broad notions. The specific mentions of the importance of operating collaboratively without proximity are worth noting. While at times veering into dramatically radical left-wing territory, the site is generally a very insightful resource. The site also provides links, both internal and external, to relevant articles and explications. One point of note, however, is that this site, along with most other similar ones, makes very little mention of the specific area explored in this reference list, so while this definition may pertain to musical creation, it is not addressed specifically.
Bruns, A (2003) “From Blogs to Open News: Notes towards a Taxonomy of P2P Publications.� Retrieved August 8th 2004 from http://www.bgsb.qut.edu.au/ conferences/ANZCA03/Proceedings/papers/bruns_full.pdf
This article reflects upon peer to peer technologies in the modern media environment in a fairly general fashion. Many points made within, however, bear much significance to the topic of musical collaboration on the internet. At the most basic level, Bruns provides grounds to define this form of collaboration as a type of peer-to-peer communication. This, therefore, makes much of Bruns’ information and insight relevant. For example, Bruns notes that “Common to such sites is that the role of site owners and editors appears largely to be limited to maintenance interventions, rather than content-editorial screening and filtering.� This relates to all collaborative sites discussed herein, as the editors of the site have no say in what music is accessible via the site, or what is exchanged within collaborations. The ramifications of this are that there is no censorship at any point within the collaborative process, allowing for an unrestricted creative environment. The Flew book has, I believe, more insightful discussion of peer to peer communications
Hearn, L (2004 Aug. 12) Singer/guitarist in pop band Sonnet [interview]
In July of this year, my former bandmate Lucy Hearn moved to Newcastle. Originally, we feared that our musical collaborations would be unable to continue. However, our recordings were all digital using my home computer, and so the solution soon became clear – we have embraced the world of online musical collaboration. Prior to her leaving, Hearn and myself had begun to shift from a musical paradigm of my adding to her songs to one where we were sharing both lyrical and musical duties. Thanks to the multitudes of new technologies available, we have been able to continue with this system. In an interview I conducted recently, she discussed with me her views on the success of this process, as well as her thoughts on various related topics. She talks about the bare-bones equipment required to participate in an online collaborative environment, which is something not discussed in any other article I could find. A particularly noteworthy section involves Hearn listing the pros and cons of the online creative process in comparison to that which occurs in the real world. Removing myself from the fact that I know the interviewee, the interview provides many useful notes for musicians considering involving themselves in the world of online collaboration.
Leuf, Bo (2002) “Peer to Peer: Collaboration and Sharing over the Internet�, Indianapolis; Pearson education, ISBN 0201767325.
This book may not have anything of significant insight to say that is not to be found elsewhere, but the insight contained within would appear valuable. While I was not able to consult the text for a significant period of time (library cards are a terrible thing when you don’t have one and can’t get one), the book appeared to mainly explore the technical side of peer to peer systems. With enough lateral thinking, however, one can develop some interesting speculative concepts in relation to the future of online musical collaborations in an environment embracing what Leuf labels “the Internet 3.0�
Loopwise.com (2004) retrieved August 9th 2004 from http://www.loopwise.com/
This site is an excellent example of the potential of new media technologies in fostering commercially viable musical collaborations. The site provides musicians with a system to upload their musical segments recorded on any instrument (the site refers to these as “musical beds�), be they simple percussion loops or complete songs, and give them exposure to an enormous community of possibly interested parties. Other musicians seeking assistance on projects, or others such as television producers and film-makers with who require music, may then browse an online database of over 40,000 “beds� and purchase that which they deem useful. Registered musicians can also contact other members if they are interested in collaborating on a project, allowing like-minded artists (who would once have never been able to work together) to compose music and exchange their efforts via this extremely forward-thinking site. The site boasts daily access by such prestigious buyers as “Universal, Warner, Walt Disney Pictures� and numerous other major corporations, as well as “A&R reps from major labels such as Priority Records, Epitaph, Capitol and other major/independent record labels.� With these well-known corporations browsing loopwise, there would most certainly appear to be a major commercial viability in such a service. However, the potential for humble home musicians (with DSL internet) to flesh out their ideas with the aid of other creative minds from around the world shows that such services have a multitude of positive ramifications for the musicians of today.
Musings in Cb (2004) retrieved August 9th 2004 from http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article_center.php?in_type=50
Part of an online Jazz magazine, this column by saxophonist Chris Barnett featured a 4-part series on online collaboration in march 2003. These articles are very important, as they discuss and demonstrate practical applications of the issues discussed herein. The first of the articles examines the early history of collaborating via the internet, and discusses the Rocket Network, the first website to offer a “virtual studio�-style collaborative environment. The second article provides a fascinating look at the machinations of a “world-wide jazz band� carrying the awful name The Funkdawgs. Creating their music online, this band’s members hail from all over the USA, as well as Canada and Italy. They state that they have 5 cd’s of music, all created using a set method discussed in detail in the article. This example of the viability of using the internet to create music, as well as the advantages of using a set method to ensure a balanced equality within the creative process, is invaluable to a study of this musical process as a whole. The third is in the same vein, showcasing the experiences of a German musician in the online environment. It does, however, discuss the practicality of bringing online collaborations into the real-world live sphere. The fourth and final article summarises the current state of music online, and reflects upon the true usefulness of the internet for artists. All in all, the very fact that a “respectable� style of music like Jazz is embracing the online working environment is a sign of its potential, and the information contained within these articles proves severely useful in researching and understanding the creation of music through the use of new media technologies.
Nick Smethurst 18:54, 12 Aug 2004 (EST)
