We discussed Garageband in class. I found it funny that Garageband was thought to potentially hamper creativity because of how easy it is to put together a piece of music using loops. You can only do so much with loops by themselves. They can be used to base a song around or add to a song, but anything past that is limiting. You can also use manually enter notes for midi instruments. That takes and understanding of music theory (either formally or instinctively) and is basically playing an instrument or at least arranging one. I would compare it to writing a piece of music but not necessarily being able to play the instruments. If you understand music theory you can in theory write down the notes that should be played for each instrument and it should work when all played together.

Loops and midi can’t compare to the real thing yet. I’m sure in the future the customizations and options will expand to the point where it authentic and is impossible to differentiate from the real thing. I know Nord keyboards can simulate the harmonics caused by tapping the keys on a real piano, and it can simulate the sound of pretty much any piano.

I’m not very happy with direct input and using Garageband or LogicPro amp simulators and pedals. I can’t dial in a sound comparable to my amp settings at all. Although midi and loops will eventually be able to simulate my amp, I think it’ll take too much work. It’s much easier to just place a mic in front of my amp, instead of spending hours trying to immitate the sound with a multitude of settings.

A lot of people have turned to programming drums in the industry and in the home. It’s cleaner, and easier than recording a full kit. I think drums are the hardest instrument to record properly. I’ve recorded in a studio where the engineer couldn’t give us a sound we liked (more that he didn’t know exactly what he was doing).

So as far as loops/midi vs real instruments, there are practical applications for both. But when it comes to guitar, you can program your amp settings if you want that standard gross tone.

The other thing I found very interesting in class were the origins of the loops. We don’t know who wrote and played the loops found in Garageband, but now anyone can take them, make a song, and take home all the profits from it.

This doesn’t bother me too much because like I said above, a loop isn’t going to make up the entirety of a song. A few seconds of loop might inspire a new song, or be a finishing touch to one, but anything made entirely of Garageband loops isn’t going to playing on your radio station anytime soon. If it does, than that person is a genius.

What did concern me about loops were their names. Apple decided to use racially rooted names for the loops. Sadly I am able to identify what the loop is going to sound like because of the name. Is that a problem continued/caused by Apple? The music industry? Society at large?

Should “World beat” be a term? Does that instill a sense of racism? Should it instead be “African folk beat”? Even then is that too general? Should it be specific to a country/tribe? Is the questioning of the term “World beat” just an overreaction due to the social outcries of 2015? Has the meaning of racist connotations of yesterday been transformed because of the context of today? Nobody seems to be upset that VW is a car designed specifically for the Aryan race. I would say nobody is really upset over the term “World beat”. Even if it does strike me as racist, I’m not going to lose sleep over the name of loop in Garageband.

Copyright has come into play so that a creator is motivated to research and put time, effort and money into bringing new innovation whether through music, an invention or something else. I think if you write and record a song, you should get the profits for your lifetime. After that it should go to the public. Nobody can buy the rights to your music because that is entirely unethical. A record label should be compensated for funding, marketing and distributing. I think a label should make some money, but the artist shouldn’t sell thousands of records and see zero return.

Once a song is released to the public sphere, if it is sampled into a new song or copied in some way, no profits can be made off it. That way a producer can’t just take an old song and rework it for profit. They can make a hit song and profit through marketing a name or brand and creating recognition. Although ideally I’d like this work, it’s not feasible.

If likened to a pharmaceutical drug, no one would be motivated to produce a generic version let alone sell it for a lower price. I want to promote the reworking of older music because a lot of it is good. I don’t want musicians to profit 100% off of something stripped from early work, but at the same time I don’t want to encourage copyright protection well beyond the original creators. It’s a very slippery slope with no clear answers.

I’ve been away from the keyboard for a little while, but my computer was finally repaired and I’m back. Now when looking for the origins of Punk Rock, am I looking for the label Punk Rock or the actual music itself? Bands considered to be part of the Punk Rock genre and movement weren’t considered Punk Rock and didn’t consider themselves Punk Rock at the time.

The Punk movement has also shifted to being this all encompassing rebel movement where anything that says “F*** You” to something is Punk by nature. That means outside of music art and poetry and even a lifestyle can potentially represent a unique brand of punk. The irony of the idea of punk comes into play when a new punk movement rises to refute another punk movement like the straight edge movement and hardcore punk.

The term “Punk Rock” first gets used as a label for garage bands influenced by the British Invasion during the 60s. These garage bands weren’t as technically skilled as the musicians they aspired to copy and weren’t bound by the rules of music of the time. They ended up making a lot of three chord rock songs.

During the mid 60s you see bands like The Stooges and MC5 whose concerts were violent, raw and politically eye opening. That in combination with The Velvet Underground and The New York Dolls boundary pushing culture creates the foundation for idea of what Punk is.

Now bands like the Ramones who came out of the US during the early to mid 70s are looked at as Punk Rock. At the time though they were not at all associated with the Punk movement. Some musicians were getting tired of bands like Deep Purple with 20 minute solos. The Ramones just took the rock of the time and played it really fast with 2-3 minute song times. People hated it, but were intrigued by it.

The Punk movement doesn’t really start until the British take up around 74-76. That’s when you see the kids with leather jackets all ripped, patched and full of pins. Bands like The Clash, The Sex Pistols and The Damned break onto the scene. This is when Punk Rock as a genre becomes recognized.

I grew up in Northern Virginia, but I did not enter the Virginian public school system until middle school. Upon entering I soon found out that framing the civil war as fought over slavery is a common misconception and that the true nature of the war revolved around states rights. It was often argued by my teachers that the north had a booming strong economy and abolishing slavery was a tactic to help cripple the agriculturally based southern economy and create dependence on the north.

I feel like children are taught not to question the information they receive in class and accept it as truth. The question I have though is does every history teacher in Virginia believe the bias towards the south they teach concerning the Civil War?

To some degree I’ve been swayed by what I’ve been taught in school. I do think the idea of waging such a dividing and bloody war was not simply to end slavery. I think it’s highly likely that fighting to end slavery may have been used as northern propaganda to recruit an army. Using moral purpose is effective in raising a driven and righteous army. It happened during World War II. I won’t say I know my facts spot on, but I’m pretty sure the U.S. weapons and supplies to both England and Germany prior to engagement in the war. The U.S. was very steadfast in its policy of neutrality and isolationism, but once entered into the war recruitment was all about moral duty and patriotism.

But back to topic. Is there any one reason for war? The Civil War was probably fought over a number of reasons. There is probably truth to states rights and slavery as causes. Can it not also be said that the acceptable reasons for war were preached by the politicians of the time while the real reasons remained hidden? I’m alluding to today’s war on terror that has acquired beaucoup bucks for certain businesses. History is written by the victors, and can surely be distorted by those who wrote it and the passing of time and interpretation.

A classmate brought up the point that black culture is frowned upon. A white person can then market that same black culture in the guise of white culture and instantaneously receive both success and acceptance. Iggy Azalea was an example of this. Though I do agree with my classmate’s sentiment, they argued that these white artists misrepresent something they are not truly part of and encourage to further the racist regime started by the minstrel shows.

However, there are artists like Eminem who are white and take from black culture in a genuine way. He grew up in a tough environment surrounded by black people and could be say to be assimilated into it. He genuinely represents that culture, but because he’s white there is automatically this connection to white fans who then think its okay take from black culture. My classmate said that if they do not genuinely represent black culture than it promotes racism and the marketing of black culture. Eminem however is genuine but creates the same problem. Is it Eminem’s fault that white listeners can relate to him and further the racist regime of the music industry? Are politics and music always related? Is the artist’s pursuit of their dream immoral because of the political effects it may cause?

I grew up in a highly diverse environment where racism wasn’t something I knew existed. I saw my classmates as equal regardless of gender or race. I’ve found outside of the bubble I had lived in there is a lot of racism and on both sides. They assume all black people pertain to a certain stereotype and all white people are assumed racist. These extreme views cause harm to the majority who aren’t a stereotype and who aren’t racist. It’s created this hostile uncomfortable environment. I know a black person who calls bystanders equally racist and responsible for not aiding blacks against racists. It’s not exactly against a tangible instance of racism but in general. In being silent and not spamming posts about putting down racism, we’re somehow racist. This fabricated guilt is unreasonable. Yes, I can’t understand the racist oppression that blacks have suffered from, but focusing on the negative aspects of the racial problems is not helpful. We don’t hear the stories of community that transcends race. It happens all the time. It’s in fact normal to be not racist but we tend to overlook that. Positive enforcement of good values is better than repeatedly giving attention to negative values.

I don’t want to overstate and generalize as I’m speaking from my own perspective. I’m not sure whether my feelings are shared by most people or are unique to me. I think the world is very chaotic, or rather we’re unable to comprehend the order that the world adheres to. In order to not be overwhelmed by the complexity of the world, we tend to simplify and categorize creating the perception of order. I think genre is a byproduct of that need.

Genres are groupings of music that share certain characteristics. I think there are some songs that exemplify those characteristics and really represent their respective genres, but there are other songs that draw from multiple genres. Even then I like to imagine a space or overlap similar to a venn diagram between two genres that acts almost as a third genre for songs to fit into. The only problem with this is I know songs that have elements of metal, punk, rock, blues and jazz all in one song. Where exactly does that song fit? Where does the band who plays that song fit? Do they shift genres depending on the song or album you talk about?

I play music and people always want to categorize me to better understand what I’m going for. What bands do you sound like? What genre do you want to play? Really when I’m writing it depends on my mood. I’ll write very ambient soundscapey ideas, mellow acoustic music or something heavier with punk or metal roots. Maybe to an outside listener, my music all has my own stamp or style to it no matter what genres I transcend. When it comes to my own stuff, I stopped trying to categorize or understand and just play and enjoy the music I make.

Rock n roll and all its derivatives are thought to be music created through the white man stealing from the black man. In my opinion, although early “white” rock, jazz and blues  players did “steal” from their “black” counterparts, is this not true for any industry? Ingenuity, whether it be science or arts, or anything in between has been built on what came before. Because much of popular music is, in some way, rooted in slave music, criticism results from racial stigma.

Progress is often made when an old idea is changed through a new perspective. Writers cite other writers as influences that helped them develop new styles and write literary classics. Painters cite other painters as inspiration for their works. Although musicians may cite other musicians as influence to their work, ultimately they are seen, in some way, as stealing from black culture.

I find this criticism of music because of race unfair. I find the idea of race in the US very interesting. There are places in the country with blatant racists with white people who belittle everyone else and black people who are so sensitive to issues concerning race they are oppressing anyone else. On the opposite side, you have areas with the increasing blending of race to where nobody knows what they are anymore. Employers are starting to do away with the race box in applications.

I write music. The idea that I steal from black people is absurd to me. Yes, in some long winded way my music is built on old slave songs, but its not stolen. I think we are all creatures who are ingenious and simultaneously not. The present is built from the past, and creators shouldn’t be criticized for their influences.

I’m taking a French class focused on the Renaissance. In class we debated whether the culture of the Renaissance or today’s had better thinkers, artists, mathematicians and scientists. A classmate argued that the art that emerged from the renaissance was amazing and some of the best the world has ever seen, and that the progresses in math and science were astounding for their time. I acknowledged that sure many of the pieces of art from the renaissance are masterworks and classics. However, in the past only nobles could focus and learn about the arts. Today almost anyone can become an artist. There are millions of talented artists from top selling musicians and painters to street artists who continuously expand the arts on a daily basis. Concerning science and math, algebra was a big deal when that was being reasoned out. Today 6th graders know algebra, and we’re the most educated generation to exist.

I think the problem with today’s ever expanding arts and sciences is its over saturation. We’ve come to the point where the frontier of a subject is highly specialized, and with so many of these specialized subjects, it is difficult for the “right” information to reach the “right” people to continue the advancement of these subjects. This is a concern with data organization that Vannevar Bush predicted.

Each generation that follows will raise the ceiling in all subjects. Some more than others. I think future wars will push us past our limits. My generation is a reflection of that. I won’t write a paper until the night before the deadline. Similarly war and the threat of death seem to create the proper motivation for the world to expand its capabilities. Most modern and advanced anythings were repurposed technologies or methods originally meant for war. Medicine, communication, travel, mass production methods and many more things all were built upon the ingenuity born from war. I think America leads in the development of science and tech because our culture is very focused on military. I’m pretty sure we spend more than the next 20 or so countries combined on defense. And interestingly enough we make the latest phones, computers, streaming devices, pioneered social networking and media sites, and we release the most art in forms of movies, televisions shows and music. I guess the future will tell what my generation is remembered for.

From what was discussed in class, the creation of two selves is attributed to the unnatural act of silent reading. The idea of a second self stems from the question of who does one read to when reading silently? The rise in literacy across the globe created a split in identity. People no longer identified themselves by their job titles or positions. The second self allowed people to now identify themselves in multiple ways.

I can’t exactly prove the above point, nor disprove it, but I can offer another theory. Perhaps this second self wasn’t derived from reading silently, but thinking silently. Do we assume that people thought to themselves exclusively out loud prior to the development of reading silently? On one hand inner thoughts could have been primal desires like ‘I’m hungry’ or ‘I’m cold.’ Thinking may have been a reflex that people were unaware of. On the other, inner thoughts could have consisted of complex questions such as ‘why am I here?’ or ‘what causes the cycles of night and day?’ People may have been curious and pondering. They questioned their surroundings and sought answers having debate with each other over these causes. Did this debate simply cease once people enjoyed seclusion or did it continue internally creating another voice? Food for thought.

The idea of a second inner self may stem from silent reading, but the idea of multiple selves definitely precedes silent reading. The ‘self’ is a complex combination of attitudes and emotions that appear in different combinations depending on the social situation. The way you act with a parent, a friend, a lover, a peer, a superior, or an underling all differ. I think the idea of oversimplifying people to a single ‘self’ is inaccurate. Even dogs show variation in their ‘self.’ They act quite differently with an intruder than they would with you.

Like I said, I can neither prove nor disprove any of these theories, but it’s interesting to see where this chain of thoughts leads.

My class discussion on the increase in volume and compression, and decrease in dynamic range of music over time has been shaped negatively. I think the quality of music recordings now is better than its ever been. I can’t say for certain that it’s because of increased compression, a decrease in dynamic range or just better recording equipment and processes. What I can say is that there is a reason audio engineers choose to mix and master the way they do.

I looked through the Dynamic Range Database, and for the most part, albums with higher dynamic range tended to be instrumental and grand in their number of parts and instruments. Even classic rock songs whose audio engineers criticize the lack of dynamic range in modern music don’t have particularly high dynamic ranges. I found a lot of these modern rock albums have high dynamic ranges on their vinyl releases and not on their cd and digital releases. That makes sense since right now getting the sound quality of vinyl digitally takes up too much memory. I think as technology progresses digital music will eventually surpass vinyl sound quality. It’s currently feasible, but not practical. So in the future when it does become practical to have vinyl or better than vinyl sound with an mp3, we will see the return of dynamic range.

I think when you make a song there are two versions of it: the live and studio versions. The live version is raw and soulful, and the studio version is refined and processed. Between these versions of a song you end up with the two sounding the same, both being different, but sounding good, and the studio version sounding way better. Through these iterations, dynamic range may or may not be important to achieving the envisioned sound.

An artist or producer trying to emulate the live sound in the studio is going to create a more dynamic record. They’ll use recording techniques such as simultaneously recording the whole band at the same time. You’ll see this in classic Blue Note records. They’re very dynamic and sound relatively similar live. Below are two Art Blakey recordings, one live and one studio recorded, that sound pretty similar. Personally I think having a record and live performance sound almost identical defeats the purpose of wanting to see the artist live, but I do think it’s ideal for soulful music.

I maybe biased towards this scenario, but ideally an artist has a processed studio recorded album that’s great and an equally great live performance whose imperfections demonstrate a new side of the music. I think the contrast in having a lower dynamic range in the recorded version and higher dynamic range in the live version makes the live one stick out. This is not to say that higher dynamic range is better. It’s the contrast from the original version that makes it stick out. For example Scar Tissue off of Californiacation (mentioned as notoriously loud on the loudness war page) is a great song both recorded and live with differing dynamic ranges as seen through its solo.

check at 59 seconds

check at 5:20

I’m not really going to talk about the last one. That’s where the studio version processed and sounds great. However, the live version is crap or different mix of the recorded version being played at a venue.

On another note, I think this loudness war creates the idea that dynamic range defines what makes a good recording. The article almost paints modern music as devoid of dynamic range. In my opinion, good music is interesting to listen to. A change in dynamics is just one way of making music interesting to listen to. It’s the contrast in music that creates this interest factor. Examples would be the adding and subtracting of instruments, a change in the sound of an instrument such as clean to distorted guitar or a switch in musical range such as low to high.

Above is We Were Only Dreaming – Tides of Man. The song has the typical mid range scoop (which in my opinion makes recordings sound grander). I still think the song is incredibly dynamic. I’m not sure if its the actually dynamic changes or just the layering of instruments, but its very interesting to listen to.

Stay With Me – You Me At Six has contrast from the low notes the singer sings during the verses and the higher notes he sings during the chorus. Notes themselves lend a change in energy to a song. That’s why Sinatra needs to increase his dynamic range because his musical range is about 4 notes.

To tie it all together, I think dynamic range isn’t everything. Newer recordings are made at a higher level of quality, and contrary to what the article may think are not devoid of dynamic range. I think if you look at mainstream music it could be true, but it may just be the format misrepresenting the audio. It could also be that my ear is trained to enjoy a mid scooped compressed master, but I’ve given my 2 cents.