The argument is that application of social computing coupled with artistic creativity can combine to point out ways in which technological evolution can be assimilated directly in cultural production, ultimately leading to possible new forms of musical content.
The article begins with a concern that the way music is played through digital means not as socially inclusive as it should be and it should "return" to a form of cultural expression. It doesn't necessarily mean we should play musical instruments and sing in a circle. The article suggests that the user should use digital media for humanistic purposes. Some people, like myself, would find this form of listening collectively sufficiently at a show or a concert. And Digital Media has some elements of allowing listeners to simultaneously listen to the same music through the advent of social networking with embedded music.
... we could send audio and video from a camera onstage in one city to another stage in another city, to organize a performance connecting the two cities with musicians at the remote sites in live musical interaction.
Bands that are on social networking sites have been doing this prior, though maybe not live, but playing their instruments in separate locations and editing them with Audacity, Pro Tools or Soundtrack Pro; and playing their music simultaneously. It does indeed collapse geographical distance and I believe most of what music is doing in a social way online as I write this (in November 2008) is reaching an audience that it has never reached before and is social in the fact that it bucks the major record label's attempts at homogenizing music.
I am, as the composer, gently guiding or deviating the user or pulling him through my way of seeing things and inviting them to send in a piece of sound that becomes part of the piece.
Artists like the "I" referenced are idealistic and perhaps too overly idealistic in their aims because I believe what happens during the process of interaction is that the art or music gets lost in the experimenting with the machine. It becomes a mechanical interaction rather than an exploration of the art.
Listening to a Walkman is no loner (spelling error) a passive, isolated activity, but a participative social activity.
Music that is sensitive to a social dynamic doesn't seem to differentiate too much from a local radio station which in fact I hope they allow for a live internet radio to be played from an iPod or iPhone-like device.
And, finally, there is interaction between the performer and the audience. There must be some kind of relationship set up, a communication or perhaps a dis-communication, some kind of dynamic that goes out but also feeds back.
This already exists at music venues and likely will not go away anytime soon. Live music is as popular, if not more popular by way of the internet, as it always has been. I used to post show rosters for an all-ages music site and do promotions and people used to follow my recommendations from the internet. To suggest this is not enough is frankly too idealistic of an aim.
The negotiation between master narrative and personal narrative allow music heard by groups of people to shape the personal identity of individual listeners, leading to feedback where the behavior of a fan-base could drive marketing efforts...
Isn't this a similar concept with internet radio stations like Last.fm?
Experience feeds the inspiration that motivates the creators of music.
This truism is a good one to mention because that can be said with just about any other art form especially my areas of interest which are photography and poetry.
Allusions to Benjamin's mechanical reproduction is mentioned yet I don't see music any more commodified than it has been in previous decades. What is nice, however, is that the reproducibility of music enables the listener to have more flexibility in the selection he or she wishes to listen to.
We bring music back to its dynamic cultural medium, and by doing so reinvent music.
Idealist tripe.
The article opens with talking about John Cage and him using often everyday objects that were not meant to be played as musical instruments. The article then suggests that a way to go further with music is to explore sound through digital technology in the same way Cage uses everyday objects. Max, this program I instinctively dislike because of DANM's requirements to use it, is mentioned.
I was more concerned with creating an interesting and thought-provoking piece than with developing a highly refined prototype.
This is an important issue to address in art because no matter how intricate the technology is, the depth of the art is a very important issue to address for those who are concerned with depth. I can see others diverge by making a thought-provoking piece with an intricate prototype that resembles digital kitsch.
The article mostly mentions specific installation ideas which touch on how the listener or user would interact and explore with the art. These ideas are specific examples to the ideals that the previous article suggests "we" live up to.
twitter
flickr
facebook
Equipment