McLuhan, Medium, Message and Music

In his 1964 book, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, Marshall McLuhan first produced his now famous opinion that "The medium is the message."

This statement has been interpreted widely, but I'm going to limit the meaning of 'message' in this case to mean 'effect'. This speaks directly to McLuhan's argument that while content maybe significant, the medium itself by which content is delivered produces an independent effect (on the person or persons consuming given any given media).

More to point, this effect, McLuhan argues, overrides any effect produced by content alone (were one even able to divorce it from medium).

Agree or disagree, McLuhan nevertheless presents us with food for thought when we consider his statement in regards to the method by which modern music is composed and produced.

Philosophers have focused primarily on Television as The Medium, but McLuhan didn't limit himself to TV. It simply so happened that nothing else so well illuminated McLuhan's points as the example provided by Television.

One could similarly ask whether or not one's experience of consuming music changes whether one listens to vinyl on a turntable, or an mp3 from a hard drive. Instruments themselves can be considered mediums. Is a melody different when 'broadcast' from a Stratocaster than from a Stradivarius?

Yes and yes.

Jay W. Wilkey, in his 1969 article, Marshall McLuhan and Meaning in Music, rightly notes, "A medium may be thought of as an extension of man." But if that is the case, network and cable TV is an extension of the entity originating the broadcast, not the viewer. In the same way for instance that light may be thought of as an extension of the light bulb, not the eye, which reacts to it. Now contrast traditional media with the multipurpose personal computer. The PC is not only an extension of those distributing content but for those using the machine at home to produce it.

For the end user, a TV screen is a canvas, but a computer monitor is also an interactive tool.

Today, (convergence aside) it appears that the personal computer is quickly replacing TV as The Medium –if it hasn't already. Unlike TV, or a light bulb for that matter, our engagement with the PC is not so direct. However symbiotic our relationship with computers is, unlike TV, a PC doesn't simply invite consumption; it also invites engagement. Significantly, we use an interface system to fulfill the task of engagement: usually a mouse, a keyboard and a Graphical User Interface (GUI).

One might even now say it's not the computer that is the medium, but that 'The Interface is the Medium'.

McLuhan suggested content specificity is of little importance, relative to the effect the medium upon which it is delivered also projects an independent message.

If we take McLuhan's concepts and apply them to music, the inevitable conclusion is it doesn't much matter if a composer's output is symphonic in nature or a sample-laden hiphop track. What should really spark your interest is that both traditional-sounding music and (the modern equivalent of) musique concrète today share similar production processes, given the ubiquitous use of Digital Audio Workstations by creators of both.

I can tell you from personal experience that copying and pasting marcato strings is not so unlike copying and pasting funky drum hits.

[FYI: Per Wikipedia: Musique Concrète is avant-garde music "...that relies on recorded sounds, including natural environmental sounds and other noises that are not inherently musical, to create music".]

Certainly, various genres of music –symphonic music, pop music, country, jazz, hiphop, etc– all sound quite different from one another. But whereas thirty years ago the phrase 'electronic music' was nearly synonymous with 'experimental music', that notion has since changed. In fact, both phrases are anachronisms by today's standards. Today, much modern recorded music –from Nashville Country to Nigerian Hiplife– is created using the same formerly experimental techniques. Well, how experimental can one work be relative to another if everyone is using the same techniques to piece together samples and loops, and executing wholesale copy and paste treatments?

An age of collage cannot be also be entirely an age of originality.

But what collage does very well that wholly invented works can only rarely accomplish by themselves (the works of Charles Ives come to mind) is illuminate new perspectives by simply contrasting existing ideas (manifest as graphic, visual, audio or otherwise) within a novel context. In this regard, PC tools invite collage and collaborative techniques, and as a direct result present new context –at least more so (I would argue) than a pencil and a piece of paper.

The old sounds aren't simply being rehashed or recycled; they're being presented in a way that teaches us something new about the component elements voiced within the work, the world and ourselves. One indirect result is the now oft circumstance of sample-heavy works reflecting new light on the works they borrow from, frequently refreshing old content with contemporary insight.

Returning to McLuhan, content may very well be incidental at an empirical level, if the medium by which we create content and then distribute it produces an overriding effect (however subliminal to our senses) on the audience/consumer/user.

On the other hand, instead of having to rely solely on content itself for connection with an audience, content creators now possess an increasingly larger opportunity to manipulate context in such a way that it invites a wider audience, assuming they also have the talent to make a connection in the first place (something the technology also facilitates).

This is a profound concept, because now astute composers, well informed in electronic media techniques, can hope to win listeners over with the mere idea of a musical work, potentially earning fans before the piece has even been performed. This is already especially true for core fans of any specific genre, because the overriding genre concept defining a given work will often endear a bit of forgiveness in fans in regards to actual talent, artistic literacy or skill set of the work's creator.

This can be accepted two ways:

1) Today, everyone has the opportunity to sound like a professional.

And that may be true, but:

2) Equally significant, today even accomplished composers and sound designers can use the same digital tool kit (as amateurs) to produce art well beyond their own however-well-trained abilities.

–Meaning: the opportunity for interesting new works by amateur and professional alike grows exponentially. This is good news for audiences, spectators and the public at large.

In a way, this paradigm also speaks a bit to the power of branding. In fact, it may not be an accident that both the public embrace of branding concepts parallels the widespread shift to digital tools and distribution. But that's another article.

For the moment, consider how much the (digital) medium (by which music is now created and distributed) shares with design creation and distribution. Both rely heavily on digital technologies. Both are produced via engagement with a Graphical User Interface. But not only do Composers and Designers use many of the same commands to produce their respective works, many commands also have a history of usage in Text-only programs, such as Microsoft Word.

Copy and paste a word, an image or a melody: Is the artistic skill informing the various arts really so different? To my mind, they merge once one accepts the notion that a GUI levels differentiating skill sets in favor of a common virtual tool kit.

As a result, Designers and musicians (and writers for that matter) are now using the same tools, and they are using them in very much the same way.

I suspect future music theory and appreciation studies will include techniques and analysis whereby (seemingly) traditional music scores will reveal evidence of collage, collaboration and creation via Digital Audio Workstations. It may be that music educators will also be in a position to produce corresponding design corollaries –visual art and images produced using the same tools and techniques– among the gathered artifacts.

But why wait for the future, when we can do this now?

McLuhan was not the first to argue that communication technology (The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man), be it print or electronic media, affects cognitive organization, but he is perhaps the most popular to expound this idea. It behooves musicians to consider the relationship between their tools (i.e. musical instruments and production equipment) and their own cognitive processes.

Does music shape the mind or is it the other way around?

One needn't limit this consideration to digital interfaces, either. Multi instrumentalists already know how the improvisational composition of music with a keyboard engages a different cognitive process than when referencing a fretboard. The former feels horizontal and linear. The latter resonates with diagonals and feels dimensional, independent of how the resulting music actually sounds to the listener.

Either way, one can't help but notice how partial composition using one instrument is enhanced when the process is completed using an altogether different instrument. (For instance, writing a harmony with a piano and creating a lead melody with an electric guitar –a composer is apt to produce something far different melodically than if he or she composed both harmony and melody via keyboard)

It will be equally interesting when composers tire of the kind of inspiration digital tools provide, and use them as one would a traditional instrument in the hands of a competent performer. That is, with a sense of transparency, influenced only by the innate capacity of one's own inner ear and gifts.

Point of Impact @ Brand Zero

“A brand is always a story well told,” the New York Times reports Ms. Lucas, the vice president, general merchandise manager for beauty and perfume buyer for Henri Bendel, as saying as she gave a reporter a tour of the boutique’s perfume bar (An Underdog Pursues the Scent).

I understand how Lucas arrives at her assessment. For those who have never given women's retail any thought, movies that lend themselves to multi-tier licensing deals –like STAR WARS– illustrate Ms. Lucas' point emphatically.

Likewise, part of our experience of a given brand results from the context which we discover a given product, service or experience.

But I arrive at Branding from a different angle. To my mind a Brand is not a story in and of itself, but the thing a story delivers.

In my market theology: Story is simply a tool to deliver a brand or creator's promise, message, lesson or entertainment. Positioning is what the client or account or company does to carve out market space and visibility. A brand mark is most certainly an element in that strategy. But, brand marks aside, Branding is completed and returned by consumer consensus responding to the promise delivered by the Position.

Both Promise and/or Message are intangibles that your clients want consumers to understand about a given product they represent at first POINT OF CONTACT. –At least in a retail environment.

As with any ideogram, neither the communication itself, nor what is being communicated can be defined as story –there's simply no time for it. Rather, marks, identity assets, logos and packaging provide a business opportunity to inject a single shot of symbolic data into a consumer's brain. Call the resulting impact 'a feeling'. A story may in fact be the vessel for whatever is promised or experienced, but so is an ideogram –or in the case of a sound logo– or audiogram.

Wikipedia defines Ideogram as follows:

"An ideogram or ideograph (from Greek ἰδέα idea "idea" + γράφω grafo "to write") is a graphic symbol that represents an idea, rather than a group of letters arranged according to the phonemes of a spoken language, as is done in alphabetic languages, or a strictly representational picture of a subject as may be done in illustration or photography.

Examples of ideograms include wayfinding signs, such as in airports and other environments where many people may not be familiar with the language of the place they are in, as well as Arabic numerals and mathematical notation, which are used worldwide regardless of how they are pronounced in different languages."

Naturally, Ideograms are abundantly found in portfolios comprised of brand assets.

AUDIOGRAM is my own derivative invention, and refers to the sonic equivalent of ideographic mark.

In any regard, both ideograms and audiograms carry independent messages open to wide interpretation by those who receive them. We can narrow interpretation by creating context, but consumers often connect with companies, products and services before assimilating context. And your context may prove besides the point if public consensus posits a contrary mythology. In effect, Packaging and Content (or Company) only become synonymous with each other after consumers experience the product or service being advertised, and come to consensus on the value of the thing.

Story delivers brand assets, but neither the story nor the promise is the branding. Although, the reaction to it may very well be.

To make it real simple, consider advertising for a film. A trailer can make an awful film look great. The film's producer's want people to think they have a great film so that they'll actually pay to see it. But what happens after the public sees the movie, and everyone walks out the theater saying, 'it stinks'? Is the film's brand: A) Great? Or B) Awful? Or both? Like the The Rocky Horror Picture Show, it may require the right mood to discern its brilliance.

Of course, we can expand the concept of branding to mean anything we want it to, to apply to any and every sort of corporate communication. But when the feet hit the street in a given supermarket aisle, –and dare I say also along the cosmetic counters at Henri Bendel–, the only thing that matters is POINT OF IMPACT.

In fact, how does packaging compete with story?

Forget the hundred million dollar campaign produced by a legacy brand designed to introduce the pubic to a new logo. What intrigues me is what happens in the mind of a consumer who looking at boxes wrapped in packaging that hides their contents will then choose one over the other, instead of first doing research? It happens all the time.

Stories –delivered via advertising– hopefully drive consumers to stores. But faced with a multitude of heretofore unknown choices, how does a given consumer decide whether to buy one cosmetic over another? Or walking into a store, armed with information –and possibly a recommendation– with every intention on making a specific purchase: what happens then, when a given shopper ultimately decides to go with a different, unexpected, untested, new choice?

I would have to guess lacking personal experience or recommendation from a trusted source, nano-second judgments are made by each individual based on symbolic information made manifest by branding and packaging. When it comes to consumers purchasing products new to them, often choices are made first; and once having been made, only then does the consumer go looking for a back-story. Hopefully they accept the one your marketing department has created. Otherwise, it's behemoth brand against the bloggers, and nothing defines a brand like a bunch of unhappy consumers.

In like manner, the same piece of language can be read using one font or another, but sometimes one specific font is a more perfect choice to serve as the vehicle to deliver a specific composition. That is why Typography, like Sonic Branding, creates experiential value.

Say what you want about Art versus Commerce, first impressions do matter, even more than stories –at least until you've earned the full Faith and Trust of your client or customer.

As a Music Designer or Songwriter, your intention might be to compose an epic metal ballad, but your audience will tell you if you are indeed a rock shaman, or if alternately you are received (and perceived) as formed from the same mold as Spinal Tap.

• Audiograms are not inherently Brands by mere virtue or intention alone
• Brands are not stories, but are the subject of them
• Stories deliver and exemplify brand assets
• Logos, Ideograms and Audiograms promise an experience
• Faithful delivery of the promised experience creates Trust
• Trust is the basis of a relationship
• Relationship and Reputation ultimately define a Brand

In effect, the faith and trust that results from consistently delivering a given experience –THAT is the brand.

Branding –whether it is a graphic logo for letterhead or an audio mnemonic for a Television commercial– BEGINS with design and creation. Application of the mark distinguishes one product, service or company from another. But only when customers become return customers, and come to some consensus as to the value and identification of the assets –in effect making mark and thing synonymous with each other– do those assets and the promise they make (or message they deliver) become the brand.

Musician Under the Influence (of Technology)

As it happens, two weeks after concluding a series of articles on the effect technology has on modern music production, I stumbled on Nicholas Carr's article, 'Is Google Making Us Stupid?' (July/August), published on The Atlantic website. I found the article via a mention in a US News & World Report essay titled 'A Digital Dumbing Down?' about "The lively debate over the intellectual impact of digital culture", by Jay Tolson (August 28, 2008). Both articles are well worth consideration.

Naturally, after reading both articles, I felt completely 'on zeitgeist'.

Here's a thought provoking excerpt from The Atlantic article that touches on material related to topics discussed earlier this year in the Critical Noise blog:

"Sometime in 1882, Friedrich Nietzsche bought a typewriter—a Malling-Hansen Writing Ball, to be precise...the machine had a subtler effect on his work. One of Nietzsche’s friends, a composer, noticed a change in the style of his writing. His already terse prose had become even tighter, more telegraphic. “Perhaps you will through this instrument even take to a new idiom,” the friend wrote in a letter, noting that, in his own work, his “‘thoughts’ in music and language often depend on the quality of pen and paper."

Like Socrates in Plato’s Phaedrus (Carr notes), bemoaning the development of writing, Carr spends a little too much time lamenting the suspicion that someone or something has been, "remapping the neural circuitry" of our brains, with the result that his own (and possibly everyone's) attention span is noticeably shorter. Others support Carr's argument offering the wholesale abandonment of print as anecdotal evidence to its truth.

Carr does have a point that can be supported by brain science, regardless. Repeated physical activities and mental tasks do influence brain structure –no doubt about it. Musicians for instance, demonstrate greater numbers of nerve cells in certain areas of the brain related to auditory tasks than non musicians.

And yet, I can't relate to Carr on his point because I still retain the capacity to juggle web surfing and a good book. Not to mention that children who should be most susceptible to a diminished capacity for concentration as a result of new technologies are still somehow able to digest a five to eight hundred page tome belonging to the Harry Potter series.

I do relate to Nietzsche’s friend, the composer, however, and I'm aware of the impact new tools have on my craft. Is there reason for concern? In some instances, perhaps. In one respect, technology IS killing musicianship; Guitar Hero is no substitute for actually playing a guitar. But music software and the  novel interfaces being invented to manipulate that software are  changing performance technique, composition and streamlining production in ways I find interesting, even exciting. A life spent building virtual worlds has never stopped computer scientist Jaron Lanier from also becoming a composer, a visual artist and an author.

Kevin Kelly (Wired), responding to Carr on his own blog, The Technium, suggests that perhaps Nietzsche's change in style was not the result of the typewriter interface, but the effects of age and infirmity. Kelly is possibly correct, but is he also such a unique animal in the universe that he alone hasn't recognized how punching keys creates percussive rhythms that may shape verbal and creative expression in a potentially different way than unaccompanied pen or pencil to paper? Kelly may as well argue no difference in musicality between sliding violin samples across a digital interface than actually playing a violin. Nonsense.

Maybe it's my age –younger than Kelly but not so young that I feel compelled to stay connected 24/7 to the digital social ecosystem. And maybe I don't surf as much as Carr, or perhaps I simply have a different relationship with technology from both men. I started programming music on computers, in BASIC, in the early eighties on a Tandy TRS-80, of all things.

Programming definitely influenced the way I filter information, be it incoming sensory data or outgoing communication. After dabbling in FORTRAN, the world has been ever after filtered through a lens some called Karma, others 'Cause and Effect', but which I know as the IF-THEN construct.

In fact, when selecting and connecting melodic information, thinking 'in FORTRAN' probably plays a bigger role in the formation of my aesthetic than I've previously given the construct credit for. And I don't think that's necessarily a negative.

What I do find interesting is not how unlimited information access or ambient awareness might be eroding our mental capacity or distracting our focus, but how emerging similarities between Modern Audio Production and Graphic Design might be due in no small part to the influence of the Graphical User Interface in both industries (Music By Design).

Increasingly, the lens which we interact with the world is a data chocked screen.

And common or shared software protocols make once dissimilar activities available to experts of one art form who may now choose to experiment with another. The result is a kind of hybrid artist who may not be able to function as a musician or designer in the analog world, but is quite capable of producing something worthwhile in both Photoshop and ProTools.

To Carr's point:

If I have any misgiving about the latest technological advances in music production, it's that so much professional equipment of yesteryear has been replaced by disposable TOYS, virtual and otherwise. New England Digital's pre ProTools music production synthesizer (Synclavier) was crafted with the same buttons the military used to build B52 bombers, and it felt like a Steinway/CRAY super computer blend under one's fingers.

In contrast, few contemporary music tools are constructed with more care and craft than Fisher-Price Toy Musical Instruments, except that Fisher-Price products are actually built to last. It seems that new millennium instrument manufacturers are determined to edge their own products into obsolescence, and do exactly this with each new update. Getting customers to trash last year's product on the false premise that the latest technological advance will increase musicianship is central to countless business plans.

But you'll never find a Pianist abandoning his or her piano, or a Violinist his or her violin. How many electronic musicians are using the same tools today that they were using five years ago? Not many, I bet. This strange circumstance appears to have produced a culture of artists who would rather forgo the development of a competent skill set in favor of access to a perpetually novel tool kit. And, no doubt, the music made by perpetual students will bear evidence of this circumstance.

The flip side, of course, is that good music teachers from all over the world have become instantly accessible to the dedicated few at the touch of a mouse. Also, the tools of music production are now relatively affordable, and therefore within the reach of nearly everyone who wants to express themselves with sound –regardless of whether their ambition is to be a professional or simply enjoy music as a hobby. This can only produce a positive effect on a culture where the Arts have practically disappeared from the syllabus (in favor of new laptops for social networking, perhaps?).

Closer to my point, and as others have noted we've entered an Age of Design.

In his organizational paper of the same name, Jeff Conklin writes in Age of Design (Clicking this link initiates a PDF download!):

"...the job of humanity is now shifting from understanding our world to being conscious about creating it —that is, designing it."

Whatever one calls it, this paradigm shift is informing both our aesthetic and our process. Maybe we do read invent less, and read far fewer books, but we're arguably making and creating more using the tools of collage and synthesis.

It's also possible any diminished interest in text is the result our cognitive systems are undergoing a reorientation towards (or evolutionary preference for) pictographic writing systems (SMS shorthand, emoticons, branding, etc...), over traditional communication via the written word.

As with Ancient Egyptians, our preference is to consume and transmit data in packages that resemble a modern equivalent of hieroglyphics. We're all suddenly thinking visually and purposefully –regardless of whether we're artists, musicians, writers, managers or anything else– we've become a culture of designers.

How often now is every thought, every concept, first conceived as an image? It's only after one sees the thing does one then translate it into spoken words, formal or informal text or even shapeless sounds and music.

Google may or may not be making us stupider, but computers and other electronic tools, and GUI ubiquity especially, are certainly changing the way we connect to reality, process information and communicate our thoughts.

Why use the word when a picture –or ideogram– is worth a thousand, and nuance requires negligible energy to bring meaning into focus. Of course, Text works as well as it does because it is both an image and it conjures a sound.

So, perhaps we are thinking less like verbalists, and more like visual artists?

I don't want to believe that we're dumbing down. I'd like to think we're actually 'Designing Up'.

* * *

Online magazine EDGE has posted other responses to Carr's article. Contributors include W. Daniel Hillis, Kevin Kelly, Larry Sanger, George Dyson, Jaron Lanier, Douglas Rushkoff, W. Daniel Hillis and David Brin. Simply click the link to visit: The Reality Club

* * *

To specifically read more about how digital technology is transforming music composition and production from a primarily aural-centric task into a more visual experience than it it ever has been before (the invention of musical notation notwithstanding) click the following links to visit Table-of-Contents pages for two different but related series of articles posted earlier this year on the Critical Noise Aural Intelligence blog.

Critical Noise 2008 Series 1: Evolution of the Music Designer

Critical Noise 2008 Series 2: Computers Have Changed My Brain

Computers Have Changed My Brain

Click on any link below to read all the articles in the four-part August 2008 MUSIC DESIGN 2015 series exploring the similarities between Modern Audio Production and Graphic Design, due in no small part to the influence of the Graphical User Interface in both industries (and art forms):

Part 1: Defining the Music Designer of 2015
Part 2: Six Trends Shaping the Music Designer of 2015
Part 3: Music By Design
Part 4: 10 Rules for Branded Audio Logo Design

* * *

Like this topic? Related Articles from the Critical Noise Archive:

It's a Cut and Paste World (October 07, 2007)
Six Requirements for Sonic Logos (August 10, 2007)
When Marketers HEAR Double (December 01, 2006)

10 Rules for Branded Audio Logo Design

Back in 1986, I was a big fan of popular performance artists, such as Laurie Anderson and Pina Bausch. In like fashion I tried creating a multidisciplinary performance piece.

In the work I created I instructed a group of professionally trained dancers to improvise dance movement inspired by Brand Logos. Just how does one leverage kinesiology to communicate iconography? Can shapes be imbued with meaning? And isn't that essentially our intention whenever we create something we identify as 'branded'?

How would you, for instance, assimilate the following designs into your own body and then attempt to express them with abstract gesture and movement?

The dancers not only attempted the task, they results were both informative and spectacularly entertaining, and the process certainly contributed to my understanding of non-verbal messaging.

In like fashion,  it occurred to me that it would also be a fun exercise if I applied a set of Graphic Design rules towards the creation of a musical or otherwise sonic work.

I suggest you try this yourself: schedule some 'playtime' and then experiment designing an audio logo using these tried and true suggestions for composing a Logo Design.

A cursory search online turned up these recommendations:

1. Avoid going overboard in attempting uniqueness
2. Use few colors, limited colors, spot colors
3. Avoid gradients (smooth color transitions) as a distinguishing feature
4. Produce alternatives for different contexts
5. Design using vector graphics, so the logo can be resized without loss of fidelity
6. Be aware of design or trademark infringements
7. Include guidelines on the position on a page and white space around the logo for consistent application across a variety of media (a.k.a. brand standard manual)
8. Do not use a specific choice clip-art as a distinguishing feature
9. Do not use the face of a (living) person
10. Do not use photography or complex imagery as it reduces the instant recognition a logo demands

Below, I've modified the above rules so that they directly apply to sound artists:

When designing (or commissioning) a music or sound design logo:

1. Avoid going overboard in attempting uniqueness
2. Use few harmonic colors.
3. Avoid smooth transitions as a distinguishing feature
4. Produce alternatives for different contexts
5. Design for scalability, using melody, so the logo can be rearranged in various genres
6. Be aware of copyright infringements
7. Include guidelines on the placement of the audio logo if it is to be incorporated into other musical works, for consistent application across a variety of media (a.k.a. create an audio brand standard manual)
8. Do not use naked samples as a distinguishing feature (i.e., don't use stock sounds: create your own. Or modify samples so that they uniquely identify the product, service or experience –and/or brand attributes– you've chosen to translate into sound)
9. Do not quote the musical/sonic work of another (living) person (Be original)
10. Do not use lengthy phrases or complex harmonies as it reduces the instant recognition a logo demands (you're designing logo, not composing a song cycle, so keep it under five seconds long)

* * *

OK, you don't want to make this your audio bible, but I think there's something to be learned from this little exercise.

* * *

Like this topic? Related Articles from the Critical Noise Archive:

It's a Cut and Paste World (October 07, 2007)
Six Requirements for Sonic Logos (August 10, 2007)
When Marketers HEAR Double (December 01, 2006)

Music By Design

In several previous posts to the Critical Noise Aural Intelligence Blog, I suggested that previously disparate if related skill sets respectively belonging to composers, engineers, musicians and sound designers were merging –had merged in many instances, especially in commercial audio production– producing a new kind of unified creative professional I labeled a Music Designer.

More recently I suggested that Music Designers consider trends and recommendations identified by AIGA, 'the oldest and largest membership association for design professionals', with the purpose that such information is applicable to our own craft.

Commercial music production and commercial design have always shared similarities, but perhaps more so now than ever.

In the past separate artistic pursuits (illustrator, painter, pianist, engineer, et al) required widely diverse tools and skill sets. Today all parties increasingly share the common method of applying mouse clicks to a similarly conceived Graphical User Interface (GUI) canvas.

The medium, be it light or sound, has become almost incidental. Meanwhile, Art and Artist, bound by a common digital ancestor, and sharing the same design language, have evolved into a single medium.

It may even be an error to continue to think of a GUI as only an interface, when it too may have evolved, from a mere desktop metaphor into a medium itself (GUM).

Certainly there are still illustrators and there are still composers, but others from both groups –sharing the same or similarly conceived tool kits– increasingly identify themselves as simply Digital Artisans without necessarily feeling it too important to distinguish or limit the exact nature their craft, lest they imply any self imposed sensory boundary to the array of communication abilities they potentially wield.

So of course the process has changed the way I think about music. For one, when discussing a modern score I think I probably use the word 'construction' now, more often than I do the word 'composition'.

It sounds a bit like a B-Horror flick, but it's really not too far from the truth when I claim Computers Have Changed My Brain!!!

Ha.

Whether or not it's because I myself come from a design oriented family (both parents were photographers and painters, my father an engineer, and my sister a commercial artist), or because I began using computers for my own creative pursuits back in the early eighties, I have long applied graphic design protocols to music as a regular matter of course. Even limited use of digital tools, let alone mastery, give one with the feeling that the difference between sound and light (as application mediums) is minimal.

Thirty years after first programming my first musical scores and twenty since I first began experimenting with digital imagery, I experience little difference using a Digital Audio Workstation to manipulate audio –and a graphic program, such as the Adobe Photoshop, to process images. And I'm not alone in this experience. In recent years, say, in the last decade or so, I've met more and more musicians and composers who share my perspective.

It's not simply that all the music programs warrant the use of a graphic interface, but rather that they force us to think about about making music as at least a partly visual experience –changing the way we think– even in comparison to the notation of scores by hand with pencil and paper. So, that even when we do compose with pencil and paper, our experience with GUI enabled composition continues to influence our perspective, our methodology, the way we see and hear things.

Creating images and creating music has never been so much alike as it is today. No, I don't (yet) use my ears when modifying images, but (especially when I sit down in front of a computer) I certainly use my eyes in support of design projects, whether visual or sonic in nature.

* * *

Click on any link below to read all the articles in the six-part series detailing the changing relationship between Traditional Music Composition and Modern Music Production:

EVOLUTION OF THE MUSIC DESIGNER

Part 1: Top Down, Center Out and Bottoms Up
Part 2: Top Down Music Composition
Part 3: Bottom Up Audio Production
Part 4: Film Composer, Sound Maker or Music Designer?
Part 5: Songwriter Vs. Song Designer
Part 6: Music By Design

Like this topic? Related Articles from the Critical Noise Archive:

It's a Cut and Paste World (October 07, 2007)
Six Requirements for Sonic Logos (August 10, 2007)
When Marketers HEAR Double (December 01, 2006)

Six Trends Shaping the Music Designer of 2015

As noted in an earlier post, AIGA, 'the oldest and largest membership association for design professionals', in partnership with ADOBE, conducted a broad Industry survey among 2,500 of its members, in order to anticipate future demands on the profession.

Among the results of this exercise, an enhanced redefinition of the design profession was presented, taking into account current trends, with one purpose in mind being to inform design education professionals of possible additions to the syllabus. Designer of 2015 Competencies presented thirteen 'essential competencies' for consideration by the profession.

If you landed on this post via a search engine result, I presented those thirteen core competencies here on a previous Critical Noise Aural Intelligence Blog entry for consideration by readers, arguing such competencies are applicable to our own profession, on the premise that whether they be producers, composers or beat makers, Commercial Sound Artists are designers with but a degree of difference.

You can read that post here: Music Designer of 2015

Or

Visit AIGA's original article here: AIGA Designer of 2015 Competencies

* * *

How did AIGA arrive at these core competencies? One thing they did was examine six trends currently influencing the design profession, and which its members anticipate will continue to do so over the next seven or eight years.

As I did with AIGA's recommendations, I'm reproducing (a condensed version of) the six trends here, for consideration by Critical Noise readers, as such trends undoubtedly also have a bearing on our industry.

AIGA's analysts note:

"These trends define design’s role in a much broader, strategic context than its roots: the making of things and beautiful things. Although that remains an important contribution, they will be a manifestation of a solution that may involve many different forms, including intangibles such as strategy and experiences."

As you read through the six trends, be sure to replace the word 'designer' with 'music designer' or 'composer' –or with whatever sound related professional title you present your self with, although regular readers to this blog already know I've previously suggested another trend, suggesting a subtle shift from the current Music and EFX model (i.e. composer or sound designer) towards a unified Music Designer paradigm (Evolution of the Music Designer).

Without further ado–

(MUSIC) DESIGNER OF 2015 TRENDS

1. Wide and deep: meta-disciplinary study and practice

Designers must be able to draw on experience and knowledge from a broad range of disciplines, including the social sciences and humanities, in order to solve problems in a global, competitive market of products and ideas.

2. Expanded scope: scale and complexity of design problems

Designers must address scale and complexity at the systems level, even when designing individual components, and meet the growing need for anticipation of problem and solution rather than solving known problems.

3. Targeted messages: a narrow definition of audiences

Messaging will shift from mass communication to more narrow definitions of audiences (special interest design), requiring designers to understand both differences and likenesses in audiences and the growing need for reconciliation of tension between globalization and cultural identity.

4. Break through: an attention economy

Attention is the scarce resource in the information age, and the attention economy involves communication design, information design, experience design and service design.

The trend toward an “attention economy” encourages discussion of what is currently driving clients’ conception of form, the attraction of business to design and the problems of designing for a market that values the short term “grab”.

5. Sharing experiences: a co-creation model

Designers must change their idea of customers/users to co-creators (mass customization) to coincide with the rise in transparency of personal and professional lives (social networking, blogging, etc.).

6. Responsible outcomes: focusing on sustainability

Designers must recognize that the pursuit of excellence involves focusing clearly on human-centered design in an era of increasingly limited resources, in which appropriateness is defined by careful and necessary use of resources, simplicity, avoidance of the extraneous and sensitivity to human conditions.

* * *

To read the AIGA article in its full, original form, visit: Designer of 2015 Trends


* * *

Click on any link below to read all the articles in the four-part August 2008 MUSIC DESIGN 2015 series exploring the similarities between Modern Audio Production and Graphic Design:

Part 1: Defining the Music Designer of 2015
Part 2: Six Trends Shaping the Music Designer of 2015
Part 3: Music By Design
Part 4: 10 Rules for Branded Audio Logo Design

Like this topic? Related Articles from the Critical Noise Archive:

It's a Cut and Paste World (October 07, 2007)
Six Requirements for Sonic Logos (August 10, 2007)
When Marketers HEAR Double (December 01, 2006)

Defining the Music Designer of 2015

Earlier in 2008, AIGA, 'the oldest and largest membership association for design professionals', in partnership with ADOBE, presented the results of a broad Industry survey. In the preamble representatives of the organization note:

"For several years it has been apparent that design studios and corporate departments have been looking for a new kind of designer, one that has traditional skills and yet a much broader perspective on problem solving."

Richard Grefé, Executive Director of AIGA, writes (in a related article: 2015: A Design Odyssey):

"Although no one can predict the future, we must prepare for it. Knowing that there are tectonic shifts occurring in the sociological, technological and geographical environments in which designers create their paths, we can begin to formulate a picture. In even the near term, just eight years from now, what will the profession look like—and how do we equip the next protégés and ourselves for this experience? More specifically, who will be the designers of 2015?"

The initial results of this exercise, represents the distilled opinion of 2,500 selected AIGA members. What follows is thirteen core competencies "that will be needed, in various combinations, by tomorrow’s designer".

Of course, Commercial Sound Artists are designers, too.

Absolutely.

Therefore, I thought it would be interesting to reproduce the AIGA/ADOBE recommendations here on the Critical Noise Aural Intelligence Blog. As you read the quoted text below, consider how these recommendations might be applied to our own craft as Audio Designers (be it producer, composer, sound designer, DJ, guitar god with stomp box, etc).

DEFINING THE (MUSIC) DESIGNER OF 2015

1. Ability to create and develop visual response to communication problems, including understanding of hierarchy, typography, aesthetics, composition and construction of meaningful images†

2. Ability to solve communication problems including identifying the problem, researching, analysis, solution generating, prototyping, user testing and outcome evaluation

3. Broad understanding of issues related to the cognitive, social, cultural, technological and economic contexts for design

4. Ability to respond to audience contexts recognizing physical, cognitive, cultural and social human factors that shape design decisions

5. Understanding of and ability to utilize tools and technology

6. Ability to be flexible, nimble and dynamic in practice

7. Management and communication skills necessary to function productively in large interdisciplinary teams and “flat” organizational structures

8. Understanding of how systems behave and aspects that contribute to sustainable products, strategies and practices

9. Ability to construct verbal arguments for solutions that address diverse users/audiences; lifespan issues; and business/organizational operations

10. Ability to work in a global environment with understanding of cultural preservation

11. Ability to collaborate productively in large interdisciplinary teams

12. Understanding of ethics in practice

13. Understanding of nested items including cause and effect; ability to develop project evaluation criteria that account for audience and context


* * *

In the comments to the original AIGA post, a Zach Bruno replies via the comments (Wed Aug 13, 2008) with this interesting offering:

"...To me, a true 'Designer' with a capital D is quite simply, a director of change, since that is what we do. We /alter/clarify/define things."

How might composers, producers and other 'Music Designers' present ourselves as directors (or agents) of change?

No doubt it is often in our domain to "alter/clarify/define things".

* * *

† Also, regarding recommendation #1, I might change three words (to suit the purposes of a Music Designer). Instead of 'visual', I would of course say 'aural'. Instead of 'typography' I might substitute 'memes'. And instead of 'images' I might suggest 'soundscapes', so that the final version reads:

1. Ability to create and develop aural response to communication problems, including understanding of hierarchy, memes, aesthetics, composition and construction of meaningful soundscapes.

What do you think? Comments welcome!

* * *

To read the article in its original form, visit: AIGA Designer of 2015 Competencies

* * *

Click on any link below to read all the articles in the four-part August 2008 MUSIC DESIGN 2015 series exploring the similarities between Modern Audio Production and Graphic Design:

Part 1: Defining the Music Designer of 2015
Part 2: Six Trends Shaping the Music Designer of 2015
Part 3: Music By Design
Part 4: 10 Rules for Branded Audio Logo Design

Like this topic? Related Articles from the Critical Noise Archive:

It's a Cut and Paste World (October 07, 2007)
Six Requirements for Sonic Logos (August 10, 2007)
When Marketers HEAR Double (December 01, 2006)

New Music Deals, No Record Label needed

On a well known music industry forum, one member asked for advice on how to structure a deal between an upcoming band and a potential sponsor. I thought I would post my own suggestion, as well as that of others, for the benefit of readers to this blog, who like me have long considered the future of ROCK BRANDS.

Without further ado:

'Cicada' posted the following scenario on The Velvet Rope:

"There was previous discussion here of the benefits of seeking out marketers to underwrite bands. Look at the Bacardi deal with Groove Armada. The company pays a fee that covers all costs associated with extensive use of the band's music in their advertising campaign and uses the band to play live events and in many other ways to promote their product. It's a great alternative for the band. They get paid, lots of promotion, don't have to worry about sales and it's a non-exclusive agreement so the band benefits from all of the promotion.

But what if you're not dealing with Bacardi, Red Bull, Nike or some other huge corporation with very deep pockets? What would you expect to get paid for a similar deal that is on a much smaller scale? How much do you think this deal is worth?

Scenario:

An 'up and coming' COMPANY, with corporate sponsors coming on board soon, wants to use XBAND's music for an all-in promotion deal. Their promotional area is online and in the Midwest. Keep in mind, it's a sort of "get in on the ground floor" type of deal, where they don't have the mega-funding yet that they expect to have over the next few years. So the pricing should reflect XBAND's desire to build a relationship with COMPANY. The COMPANY deals with sports marketing, the deal will likely include...

• Covering costs for XBAND to play at several events
• Pressing and distribution of 5K copies/ 3 song Promotional CD

Those 3 songs used extensively in...
• Online / Web advertising with COMPANY's website
• Promotional videos for COMPANY
• Free downloads and give-aways offered to promote COMPANY
• Ringtones
• Other promotional use of XBAND's name and likeness
• It's a non-exclusive use

ALSO:

The company is gathering corporate sponsors, building a website, doing a soft launch this year with continued and greater promotions into 2009 culminating in events that are projected to have 40,000 attendees (by 2010). But that's all projected, right now they are limited in what they can spend to develop a relationship with the band. They approached the band, they like the idea of building a sponsorship relationship. Band's name and image, 3 songs, used in website, internet promotions, company videos, cable TV productions, Free downloads, CD give-aways, ring-tones, the band will piggy-back and be included in their promotions as well as perform at several events.

The band has some small recognition in this region with a very big top 10 commercial radio hit last year in one of the major cities in their market and a distribution deal with a major retailer that covers their market and included LOTS promotion (band blurb/photo featured in 7 million circular ads, TV appearances with local FOX affiliate). The band does well in the club circuit here, has headlined a festival (4,000 people) and has had guarantees with colleges of $1000-$1,600 and corporate events for $2,000.

How much is that deal worth? What should the band be looking for? How about a dollar figure range? Remember, this isn't HUGE money yet. But it's not small potatoes either. More like almost medium potatoes. Your thoughts?"

A member logged on as MusicMBA suggested:

"Depending on the regional popularity of the artist (maybe measured by their guarantees in local clubs?) I would look for something in the $50,000 - $100,000 range".

Another contributor, QueenSheDevilCow, cautioned:

"I cannot think of a single case where a corporate sponsorship did not make a band seem cheapened, with the possible exception of sponsorships by companies that produce quality music gear. But, it's not the band's image that I am worried about, it's the chilling effect that this would have on music itself.

Record labels are filled with the reprobate of the Earth, but they are primarily MUSIC companies who live and die based on the success of their music, not the success of their bar soaps, cell phones, apparel, beverages, etc".

Okay, my own reply:

"On the other hand, advertising creatives these days appear to demonstrate greater acceptance for a wider variety of music than their major label brethren.

I can't speak to the variety of corporate sponsorship packages out there, but anyone who has turned on the TV at least once in the last decade can see any number of marketing campaigns that appear mutually positive for both musical artist and advertiser (Sting & Jaguar, for one early example).

As we move into the future, the best active sponsorships will resemble collaborative development deals. Ideally, sponsors won't make you be or do anything you're not. Rather, you'll choose each other because the relationship makes sense. Athletes seem to make it work, why can't artists?

Personally, I would start to arrive at a fee by beginning to think in terms of what the contract is going to look like.

Maybe something like this:

EVENTS:

a) If XCORP books XBAND for specific events delineated at the time of execution of contract: XCORP Provides XBAND $1,500 + Hotel, Air, Ground, Meals & backline requirements per event. (NUMBER OF EVENTS x 1.5K)

b) For XCORP sponsored events beyond the limit of the contract: XCORP Provides XBAND $2,000 + Hotel, Air, Ground, Meals & backline requirements per event.

c) In lieu of sponsoring specific dates, XCORP instead only options to display XCORP signage at TBD number of dates independently booked by XBAND (except for private dates):
FEE: $500 per event.

Additionally, XCORP will be responsible for securing signage and installing its display at each such event, at no cost to XBAND.

Artist's presence at promotional events or live performances of any kind is not guaranteed without the prior written consent of the ARTIST or ARTIST’S Manager.

Signage is not guaranteed for dates already booked by XBAND. XBAND will provide option to XCORP on a gig-by-gig basis as new dates are considered.

In any event, all arrangements shall be made through ARTIST’S Manager TBD weeks/months in advance.

* * *

2. PROMOTIONAL CD – OPTION A: CO-BRANDED CD

a) XBAND grants XCORP the right to produce 5000 units of a CO-BRANDED promotional CD containing 3 songs provided by XBAND (and only these three songs) and selected by mutual agreement by XBAND and XCORP. No other artists to be represented on CD.

XCORP provides at no cost to XBAND: mastering, design, production, manufacture and distribution of Promotional CD.

XBAND grants XCORP the right to design CD to reflect goals of XCORP marketing strategy.

XCORP provides that final approval of design and copy of said product shall be by mutual agreement of all signatories to the contract.

Song selection subject to mutual agreement.

MASTERING:

Songs to be pre-recorded and delivered by XBAND.
Mastering must be provided by XCORP at no cost to XBAND.
XBAND retains option of having representative present at mastering session.

OR

Mastering to be provided by XBAND, for a fee to be determined by both XBAND and XCORP, and reimbursed by XCORP,with any costs above said fee to be responsibility of XBAND.

XBAND grants XCORP option of having representative present at mastering session.

FEE: $9,000 – $15,000 (not including mastering)


PROMOTIONAL CD – OPTION B: XBAND CD w/GUARANTEED SALES

b) Alternately, XBAND produces 3-song promo CD at no cost to XCORP. XCORP guarantees to purchase 5000 copies of XBAND CD at a reduced rate of $3 per unit.

Additionally, XBAND grants XCORP right to apply stickers to CD for the purposes of co-branding (at no cost to XBAND).

Cost of design and application of Stickers during manufacture process to be provided to XBAND at time of production.
FEE: $0
SALES GUARANTEE: $15,000

In either case, regardless of FEE or GUARANTEE, XCORP agrees to return undistributed copies to XBAND at end of term, and at no cost to XBAND.

* * *

3. Use of Band Name, Image and Association:
If applicable: FEE: $TBD

* * *

4. MUSIC LICENSE: 3 songs (same 3 songs as on CD. Original usage)
Usage as follows:
– Unlimited streaming on XCORP website.
– Unlimited usage in non-broadcast promotional videos for XCORP.
TERM: 12 mos.
FEE: $3,000–$6,000

5. MUSIC LICENSE: 3 songs (same 3 songs/additional usage)
Usage as follows:
– Unlimited use in XCORP advertising campaigns, worldwide, in all media.
– Unlimited usage in cable TV productions
TERM: 12 mos.
FEE: $6,000–12,000

6. FREE DOWNLOADS: 3 songs (same 3 songs/additional usage)

CHOOSE ONE:

XBAND grants XCORP right to distribute up to 1500 total downloads –in any combination– of the same three songs covered elsewhere in this agreement, after which XCORP will have the option to renew.
TERM: 12 mos.
FEE: $375–$1,500

OR

XBAND grants XCORP right to distribute unlimited downloads of the same three songs covered elsewhere in this agreement, for a term of 12 months.
TERM: 12 mos.
FEE: $1,500–$3,000

OR

$1 per download


7. RINGTONES

Ringtones to be produced under the supervision of XBAND by vendor of XBAND's choosing, at no cost to XBAND for non-exclusive distribution by XCORP. Vendor to be paid directly by XCORP, or by XBAND and reimbursed by XCORP pending approval of estimate provided by vendor.
FEE: 0$

* * *

The above is for illustrative purposes only. Not a lawyer, don't pretend to play one either, so I would hesitate to use the preceding as a boilerplate. Nevertheless, I've worn the Head of Production hat for three notable music production companies, and therefore possess considerable experience engaging in my own fair share of contract negotiation (with legal teams representing Fortune 400 advertisers and behemoth entertainment companies). More recently, I've gained experience as consultant to artist/talent management on a variety of similar matters. I hope this post provides at least food for thought for any aspiring Rock Brand new to such matters, but only use the language submitted here at your own discretion.

Do Jingles Work?

Do Jingles Work?

In July's Business-Standard, Seema Sindhu asked Indian advertisers if Jingles work (Do signature tunes for brands work?)

The power of the jingle is not just immediate aural stimulation –ear candy– but it's ability to continue stimulating the inner workings of our minds long after the commercial has ended and even after we've turned the television or radio off. In this respect, a good jingle can be measured by it's potential to work as Ear Worm, i.e. little tunes that get stuck in your mind.

The Wikipedia definition of Ear Worm provides us with this amusing example:

A Calvin And Hobbes strip had Calvin's dad getting up from an armchair and pausing vacantly, before asking his wife, "Why is it that I can recall a cigarette ad jingle from 25 years ago, but I can't remember what I just got up to do?"

Good jingles have such infectious melodies that they bounce around our brain and even drive us a bit mad. Even when we think we've finally purged them from memory, they emerge as we stroll down the supermarket aisle or whenever we consider a purchase.

I for one can't buy a 7-Up without thinking that "It's an Up thing".

Kudos to Mary Wood of Frisbie Music and Clifford Lane for managing to make the same indelible impression on my brain (with that 1996 jingle) as Bach and the Beatles.

Sindhu writes that jingles are making a comeback with South Asian companies like Bajaj, Titan, Kingfisher, Nirma and Airtel –all of whom he notes are using their old jingles in new campaigns.

The difference between today, and say, the mid twentieth century –arguably the golden age for jingles (and pop music in general)– is as Prasoon Joshi, executive chairman (India) and regional executive creative director (Asia Pacific), McCann-Erickson, says:

"Today, the entertainment quotient in life has gone up. TV, films, online, ringtones, the options are endless. The shelf life of a campaign or an ad has gone down. The ‘melodious' tune, be it in films or ads, which takes its time to gently make way to your heart is a rarity for these reasons."
When jingles do make an impression though, it's not simply because their melodies are memorable, but because they serve to deliver products and services which we actually find useful in our lives.

Bobby Pawar, chief creative officer, Mudra group, says:

"Audio signatures, such as Titan's Mozart score or Airtel's tune composed by AR Rahman..." don't just sing the virtues of their respective products, but are "...also driven by a strong idea..."

Whatever you think of jingles –and some people write them off as cheesy artifacts that have no place in contemporary advertising– jingles continue to have enormous potential as tools to cultivate relationships between brands and consumers.

–Not to mention between Bands and Fans: What's a ringtone anyway, but a jingle for a recording artist's hit single, or even their entire catalog?

It may seem we hear little of jingles these days, but the truth is they never went away. More often than not, advertisers get them ready made from pop stars, in the way of licensed tracks, instead of commissioning wholly new tunes from composers.

A lot of creative people on both sides of the arrangement think this trend is mutually beneficial, and it can be. There's nothing wrong with providing new revenue streams for bands –or brands.

The downside is strictly for those who compartmentalize the arts as either Fine or Commercial. Any marriage of media diminishes the power of its component parts, often transforming any isolated visual into a 'frame' and any song into, quite simply, well, a jingle.