Mash-Up for the Masses

In an interactive feature titled, The Recombinant DNA of the Mash-Up, the New York Times offers a neat summary of the last hundred years of audio collage.

It reminded me how current technology now allows even the least musical of us to enjoy the feeling of making music, exactly because neither triggering nor even beat matching samples requires any dexterity or talent (given the right software).

Of course, there are varying degrees of electronic artistry, but many programs find popularity precisely because anyone can begin combining samples and 'making music' without any training whatsoever.

But what I find interesting, is that even with such immediate magic at our disposal, many would still prefer it if someone else chose the loops and pushed the buttons.

Sidestepping the notion of DJ as musical curator, why is that?

Maybe it's like choosing a designated driver? Most people can drive, but once you and your friends decide that you're going to spend the night mainlining one pure pop hook after another, fueled by a potent mix of rap and rhythms, it's simply more prudent to let someone else get behind the wheel –or laptop– and do the actual driving, and generally direct all the madness for the entire evening so that everyone else can safely reach peak ecstasy as they bump and crash and spin around the floor, and into each other, searching through movement and spirit for the joy that comes with surrendering oneself to a collective sonic singularity.

It’s a Cut and Paste World

From Photoshop to ProTools: We live in a Cut and Paste world.

Modern music making tools –synthesizers, samplers and digital audio workstations– draw a striking parallel to cameras, scanners and software applications such as those provided by Adobe; Illustrator and Photoshop for instance.

Think of a camera or scanner as samplers, and Photoshop a Digital Workstation for its ability to manipulate, enhance and process media elements into a composite whole.

One interesting side effect of modern image and audio production tools is that their use often allows amateurs to create images or sound works that are as entertaining and engaging to behold as those produced by a master artisan.

Some argue audio samples and their use by electronic musicians cannot even be described as a legitimate art. [The Artistic Legitimacy of Electronic Music]

Consider, though, the photographer who captures an image. You might say he samples it. He may present it later unadulterated, as a journalist might, or manipulate it into a unique photo collage. Who would deny the photographer his claim to art? Not I. After all, the camera didn't take the picture, the photographer did!

I've come to consider samples in the same vein I think of stock photography: Convenient and useful when producing commercial art under a deadline and limited budget; or as source material for a collage.

Being a Rauschenberg fan I absolutely consider the art of collage to be Art with a capital 'A', and I think of it is every bit as substantial as masterwork paintings, sculptures, or any other kind of work.

I tend to think of every human action as resulting in art, too, but I'll leave that one for another blog entry.

Not everyone feels the way I do. Some will argue that a collagist begins with found elements, and beginning with 'something' therefore makes one's job 'easier' than say, a traditional painter who they will argue must create an image from scratch, –'out of nothing' so to speak.

But master collagists aren't simply reproducing verbatim the existing works of others and then offering exact reproductions as their own original works of art. Rather, they modify and manipulate images into something new; they may certainly build on existing images by adding their own original enhancements, too; but what I find really intriguing is how they create new context around existing media that somehow transforms them by transforming the very idea of them.

The result can be extremely engaging and intellectually sustentative, and otherwise engages a viewer to an equivalent degree as would the original source/s, and perhaps even more so.

One could argue that curators and people who frame pictures do the same thing. Well, there is art in that, too. Oh, I hear a collective groan out there, but consider this:

In a very elemental sense art is nothing more than the presentation of one or more ideas whose juxtaposition against one another serves to communicate a composite concept. The addition of a frame to an artwork often serves to underscore, emphasize or otherwise enhance the artist's original communique by demanding that one focus on the presentation itself, at the exclusion of other concepts competing in the space. Examples follow: A frame around a picture; a stage in a theater; a movie or television screen; or even the civic space around a city sculpture. Anyone who is a fan of dance or drama has experienced the marked difference of watching the same choreography or play performed in a black box contrasted with under a proscenium arch.

A curator selects several complete works as his or her palette. Using the exhibit space itself as the 'frame', their juxtaposition against one another implies a connection, or causes us to create one. The curator's work results in the transmission of a new communication. Perhaps it is an idea about the works themselves, –their relationship with one another. Or perhaps once completed the display conveys nothing about the works themselves, but rather uses the collective artworks to deliver some sort of unified social commentary.

Hip Hop artists, for another example, use loops to frame samples, and may juxtapose samples from various sources within a single musical work. The individual samples themselves may be unmodified by the musical collagist, but their inclusion within one single work changes the context by which our brains consume them. The result is a transformation of the original communication into something new and if not wholly different, potentially and substantially original in concept.

It's All the Silent Rave

I'm intrigued by the idea of Silent Raves. In some instances, everyone listens to the same music broadcast to wireless headphones. But at other seemingly similar parties, each participant instead shows up with their own iPods and personal playlists in tow.

This former rave is both a party and a public service (for the neighbors), but the latter speaks volumes to the power of individually selected music: The members of this tribe may share the same dance space, but they certainly aren't dancing together, at least not to the same unified beat.

I wonder if raves of this sort can reach the same ecstatic highs as the former often do, if its participants aren't experiencing the same musically induced emotional ride at precisely the same time, the way a deft DJ can coax simultaneous and shared joy from a crowd thousands.

Individuality and personal branding are important elements in today's modern media centric society, but we also miss something if the singular intention to bask in the reverberations of our own message makes communication with others impossible, or even irrelevant.

When Marketers HEAR Double

In the November 28th issue of the Wall Street Journal, Emily Steel reports in an article titled 'When Marketers See Double', on unwitting overlap by advertisers who coincidently choose the same photo for parallel running campaigns. One notable example given is when Bank of America and Key Bank, the article points out, both chose the same ‘heart warming’ image of father and daughter hanging over a laptop.

Consider this example presented by the Wall Street Journal, and culled from the US BankCorp and Travelers respective Websites:


It occurred to me that this phenomenon is even more prevalent in the music and sound design we hear on TV and Radio commercials, and sometimes embedded into the soundtracks of the productions themselves.

One reason for this is the convenience afforded by MUSIC PRODUCTION LIBRARIES. Production libraries are collections of prerecorded music created specifically for use as audio companions to visual material, such as film and TV. Often cheaper than commissioning an original score, media producers also like production libraries because licensing is a snap. Like stock photo libraries, the contents in a music production library are rarely licensed for exclusive use, meaning someone else can come along and use the same track for their TV show, movie, commercial, et al.

Another source of recycle sound is the increased reliance by composers and sound designers on SAMPLES.

SAMPLES –as is commonly known– are short audio recordings, which are then often used as fodder for composers and sound designers. Sometimes samples are recorded from existing works: That's how The Meters and James Brown became embedded into countless Hip Hop tracks.

But most often samples are recordings of instruments (or ensembles) playing singular notes (or short rhythms) in every style, and then compiled into a 'library'. The samples are typically arranged across a keyboard making it easy for anyone to summon up a string orchestra with the push of a button.

Other common libraries include Loop libraries, which contain a measure or more of a rhythm track. Re-recorded and looped in a composer's computer, the loops become the basis of what one hopes is something otherwise original.

Or as ILIO –makers of the Vienna Strings Library– likes to say: "Virtual Instruments, Sample CDs and CD-ROMs, Loops, Sounds, Software and Tools for the Modern Musician."

Although, I think modern has nothing to do it with it: Samples –notwithstanding the fact that they can be quite effective– are just way cheaper than hiring a sixty piece orchestra for a demo.

As it stands, there are so many sample libraries today, that every instrument, in every configuration has been recorded. Need a Stradivari violin, cello, oboe, didgeridoo? No problem. Need rock guitars? –A techno loop? –A hip hop beat? Simply Add to Cart and proceed to Check Out with a valid Credit Card.

There are also libraries that cover the gamut of sound effects. Everything from car drive-bys (for every model manufactured) to 'ambient' or 'atmospheric' FX that call up specific genres, like, 'scary', for instance.

The result of this trend in using samples for every audio event in a music or sound design track is that we –the audience– are hearing the same sounds over and over again. For those of us with any kind of aural intelligence, an hour watching television can drive you batty as you hear –yet again– the same sound used in a ten year old X-Files episode recycled for the millionth time in a video game or a commercial, and now in the show itself.

It’s as though every soundtrack composer and sound designer on the planet is now drawing from the same pool of pre-recorded stock sounds. –And you know what? My ears tell me that they are.


stock, photography, samples, sound effects, music production