Sometimes we require silence in order to hear ourselves think –such as in a library.
And sometimes we need to squelch sound in order that someone else's story or message can get through, as in a movie theater, or during the exchange of important verbalized communication.
We're in such a rush to score the whole world that it's easy to forget that arranging opportunities for SIMPLE QUIET or shaping RELATIVE SILENCE may actually prove the most intelligible means for creating a platform to communicate with audiences, customers and users.
One reason for that is that more and more of us are bring our own sonic branding with us, principally in the way of customized playlists.
One way to look at a playlist is the same way a radio executive does programming: Audio content aimed at a target demographic or lifestyle position. So, why shouldn't your personally created playlists say something about your own individual micro brand?
Well, they do.
Of course, if you're wearing headphones or ear buds of some sort, you're not actually broadcasting your brand. On the other hand, you might be the only one listening, but it's as if the whole world is suddenly branded with your music!
On the surface, a given experience might appear to be the same for everyone, but is it really if every participant provides their own custom soundtrack? For instance, such as at a Silent Rave?
Does the film, THE WIZARD OF OZ, provide the same experience to those who watch it in its original form, as it does for those who replace Harold Arlen's score for Pink Floyd's classic rock recording, DARK SIDE OF THE MOON (Dark Side of Oz)?
Among other things, personal soundtracks package the environment around us –and influence the emotion within us– so that we each experience (more than ever) separate realities constructed of our own respectively individual designs.
One can therefore assume that if some hypothetical space will perhaps more often than not be used by people bringing personal media players, then maybe the best audio branding for that environment is silence –unadulterated room tone– or acoustically treated specifically in order to diminish natural sound.
Sonic Branding companies invested in selling audible recorded solutions may bristle at the idea that absence of sound is ever a better choice than a creatively voiced sound option. I would counter that unlike music and sound design houses, or music supervisors for that matter, that Sonic Branding consultants needn't specifically sell sound services, but rather present themselves as providers of branded communication solutions, of which quiet space –or the illusion thereof– via Sound Masking or Active Noise Control or otherwise controlling a natural or prescribed Ambient Noise Level, is as valid an advisement as any (if that is indeed the result of one's analysis of a given project).
ILLUSION THEREOF: What do I mean by that anyway?
Silence is rarely absolute, and the pursuit of it might not be a valid goal except for a studio vocal booth, but allowing a public room or environment to murmur with natural activity, or designing an experience so that one or more natural sound sources are accentuated over others can also be a useful option depending on one's entertainment, experience or communication strategy.
Is the sound of a library actually silence? Or is it the sound of movement through the stacks? Pages turned? The shuffle of footsteps in a reverberant space?
* * *
Click any link below to read all the articles in the six-part July 2008 UNBRANDED series detailing the relationship between Effective Sonic Branding and Black Noise (Silence):
TO BRAND OR NOT TO BRAND?
That is the Question.
Part 1: Non Branding For The Best Branders
Part 2: Sonic Branding or Silent Branding?
Part 3: Websites and Sonic Branding
Part 4: The Sonification of Everything
Part 5: Silence Please, for the Soundtracks of Our Lives
Part 6: Black Noise Branding
Monday, July 21, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The Sonification of Everything
The World Wide Web is many things: TV, Movie Theater, Magazine, Library, and Retail Center.
When I go to YouTube or some other media site I expect to be entertained with images and sound.
But just as often (and maybe more often), my attention is already focused on another sound source. I'm either surfing in front of the TV, or I'm engaged in some online work-related activity. In both of those instances, I'm annoyed when I open a site only to find that it's 'sonified'. That's because a sonified site either interferes with the sound assets of the physical space where I'm actually seated (be it the TV, the working environment, the environmental music provided by a retail space, etc) or another sound source emitted from my own computer, such as navigation sounds and music assets playing from iTunes, Internet Radio or another open web page.
No surprise then that I'm also beginning to feel the same way about the sound branding and music choices foisted on me when I'm put on hold during a phone call. That means in order to put a call into your customer service center –already an inconvenience– I also have to turn my music off so that it doesn't interfere with your music. Gee, how else can I accommodate your needs?
Likewise, I appreciate the choice of listening to music at a gym (via my own personal music player or the music the gym itself plays) or plugging into a TV while jogging on a treadmill. But I hate it when several people on several different aerobic machines, each having forgotten to bring ear buds, insist on turning the volume of their individual sets up. And it's always someone who thinks everybody else wants to watch whatever it is that amuses them. A fitness center is not a library, but should it present itself as a platform for media anarchy? Do we really need ten different televisions tuned to ten different stations blasting away while a techno track shouts down on us from the ceiling? Is that what we're all paying hundreds or thousands of dollars a year for?
Sometimes when I'm making a call from a client's office, or a coffee shop, I don't have control over my immediate environment: I've got music on hold in one ear; broadcast music from a TV or Radio in the other; random passing conversations floating by my face; ringtones exploding up with Top 40 tunes and wacky sound EFX from every corner of the room; and obnoxious singing animations suddenly trying to get me to click through a Pop-Under on the ol' laptop.
It's as if the whole world has stopped singing 'Do Re Mi' and started chanting 'Me', 'Me', 'Me'!
Don't even get me started on the topic of traditional noise pollution –car alarms, nearby airports, sirens, jackhammers and garbage trucks at 3 AM in the morning, or lawnmowers at 6AM on a Sunday. For the time being, I'd just like to temper the relatively low level audio cacophony resulting from someone somewhere acting on the belief that every moment of silence is 'an opportunity for sound'. Sure, a reduction in urban noise would be nice, but the management of personal and branded sound emissions in an increasingly multimedia packaged environment is also becoming necessary.
In some cases a sonified website or music-on-hold is entirely appropriate: If you're a music house or a lifestyle company, or otherwise in the business of Sound, Information or Entertainment, and you don't have music, news or some other amusement on-hold, then I'm going to wonder what's wrong with your lot.
But for everyone else, particularly in the b2b space, I would suggest you consider whether more sound actually means better communication. Maybe, before you commission a hip audio agent to create a branded playlist in order to fulfill your 360 degree sonic branding 'strategy', you should first ask yourself if your marketing dollars would be put to better use speeding up the solution process, rather than trying to turn every incoming complaint or communique into an entertainment experience.
Look, whatever I bought from you is broken or not working at the moment, or I'm too lazy too read the manual. Or I just need someone to sign off on an order or deal memo so we can get back to work. So trust me when I tell you, that Ray Coniff extended Norwegian metal remix is not helping at the moment. Even if everyone in account services thinks the hip DJ who made it captures the sound of your brand perfectly.
Instead, perhaps a singular simple sound, cycling just often enough to let customers know that they're still connected, will suffice.
Several options come immediately to mind:
A) Deftly designed (even customized) Comfort Noise
B) A one or two second Tonal ID.
C) An informative (and responsive?) Branded Vocal.
D) A dedicated Phone ID, being constructed according to a design similar to a traditional station identification or call sign.
The difference between the Tonal ID and the Phone ID being the degree of information used in the construct of the element. A Tonal ID provides minimal branding, whereas the Phone ID might be composed as a fully arranged sonic logo.
Even if combined with a brief promotion, any of the above options would still prove suitably respectful (and effective) than a streaming playlist.
I'm absolutely not against using playlists to package an environment, especially not in special venues where amusement or sound is intended to play a role in defining experience. But –whenever possible– I am interested in minimizing the clash of audio titans.
As multimedia sources multiply in public environments, the potential for overlap, intelligibility and distortion increase, thereby undermining marketing strategies, diminishing entertainment effects, and even negating utility for identification (as in the case of custom cell phone tones and tunes).
If you're in marketing, whatever your sonic objectives, I put forward that one must include in the discussion an account for your customer's potential and pre-exisiting acoustic ecology (the device, space or platform by which they communicate to you) or personal soundtrack (audio players, mobile usage, streaming audio, etc). Can you resist forcing your customer to delay their communication needs in order for you to fulfill your own? Is it possible to accommodate both?
Hey, maybe your brand IS all about anarchy. In that case feel free to contribute to the ever growing noise jam. But don't be surprised when like penicillin resistant bacteria, your customers suddenly become immune –and deaf– to the sound of your voice and your brand.
* * *
Click any link below to read all the articles in the six-part July 2008 UNBRANDED series detailing the relationship between Effective Sonic Branding and Black Noise (Silence):
TO BRAND OR NOT TO BRAND?
That is the Question.
Part 1: Non Branding For The Best Branders
Part 2: Sonic Branding or Silent Branding?
Part 3: Websites and Sonic Branding
Part 4: The Sonification of Everything
Part 5: Silence Please, for the Soundtracks of Our Lives
Part 6: Black Noise Branding
When I go to YouTube or some other media site I expect to be entertained with images and sound.
But just as often (and maybe more often), my attention is already focused on another sound source. I'm either surfing in front of the TV, or I'm engaged in some online work-related activity. In both of those instances, I'm annoyed when I open a site only to find that it's 'sonified'. That's because a sonified site either interferes with the sound assets of the physical space where I'm actually seated (be it the TV, the working environment, the environmental music provided by a retail space, etc) or another sound source emitted from my own computer, such as navigation sounds and music assets playing from iTunes, Internet Radio or another open web page.
No surprise then that I'm also beginning to feel the same way about the sound branding and music choices foisted on me when I'm put on hold during a phone call. That means in order to put a call into your customer service center –already an inconvenience– I also have to turn my music off so that it doesn't interfere with your music. Gee, how else can I accommodate your needs?
Likewise, I appreciate the choice of listening to music at a gym (via my own personal music player or the music the gym itself plays) or plugging into a TV while jogging on a treadmill. But I hate it when several people on several different aerobic machines, each having forgotten to bring ear buds, insist on turning the volume of their individual sets up. And it's always someone who thinks everybody else wants to watch whatever it is that amuses them. A fitness center is not a library, but should it present itself as a platform for media anarchy? Do we really need ten different televisions tuned to ten different stations blasting away while a techno track shouts down on us from the ceiling? Is that what we're all paying hundreds or thousands of dollars a year for?
Sometimes when I'm making a call from a client's office, or a coffee shop, I don't have control over my immediate environment: I've got music on hold in one ear; broadcast music from a TV or Radio in the other; random passing conversations floating by my face; ringtones exploding up with Top 40 tunes and wacky sound EFX from every corner of the room; and obnoxious singing animations suddenly trying to get me to click through a Pop-Under on the ol' laptop.
It's as if the whole world has stopped singing 'Do Re Mi' and started chanting 'Me', 'Me', 'Me'!
Don't even get me started on the topic of traditional noise pollution –car alarms, nearby airports, sirens, jackhammers and garbage trucks at 3 AM in the morning, or lawnmowers at 6AM on a Sunday. For the time being, I'd just like to temper the relatively low level audio cacophony resulting from someone somewhere acting on the belief that every moment of silence is 'an opportunity for sound'. Sure, a reduction in urban noise would be nice, but the management of personal and branded sound emissions in an increasingly multimedia packaged environment is also becoming necessary.
In some cases a sonified website or music-on-hold is entirely appropriate: If you're a music house or a lifestyle company, or otherwise in the business of Sound, Information or Entertainment, and you don't have music, news or some other amusement on-hold, then I'm going to wonder what's wrong with your lot.
But for everyone else, particularly in the b2b space, I would suggest you consider whether more sound actually means better communication. Maybe, before you commission a hip audio agent to create a branded playlist in order to fulfill your 360 degree sonic branding 'strategy', you should first ask yourself if your marketing dollars would be put to better use speeding up the solution process, rather than trying to turn every incoming complaint or communique into an entertainment experience.
Look, whatever I bought from you is broken or not working at the moment, or I'm too lazy too read the manual. Or I just need someone to sign off on an order or deal memo so we can get back to work. So trust me when I tell you, that Ray Coniff extended Norwegian metal remix is not helping at the moment. Even if everyone in account services thinks the hip DJ who made it captures the sound of your brand perfectly.
Instead, perhaps a singular simple sound, cycling just often enough to let customers know that they're still connected, will suffice.
Several options come immediately to mind:
A) Deftly designed (even customized) Comfort Noise
B) A one or two second Tonal ID.
C) An informative (and responsive?) Branded Vocal.
D) A dedicated Phone ID, being constructed according to a design similar to a traditional station identification or call sign.
The difference between the Tonal ID and the Phone ID being the degree of information used in the construct of the element. A Tonal ID provides minimal branding, whereas the Phone ID might be composed as a fully arranged sonic logo.
Even if combined with a brief promotion, any of the above options would still prove suitably respectful (and effective) than a streaming playlist.
I'm absolutely not against using playlists to package an environment, especially not in special venues where amusement or sound is intended to play a role in defining experience. But –whenever possible– I am interested in minimizing the clash of audio titans.
As multimedia sources multiply in public environments, the potential for overlap, intelligibility and distortion increase, thereby undermining marketing strategies, diminishing entertainment effects, and even negating utility for identification (as in the case of custom cell phone tones and tunes).
If you're in marketing, whatever your sonic objectives, I put forward that one must include in the discussion an account for your customer's potential and pre-exisiting acoustic ecology (the device, space or platform by which they communicate to you) or personal soundtrack (audio players, mobile usage, streaming audio, etc). Can you resist forcing your customer to delay their communication needs in order for you to fulfill your own? Is it possible to accommodate both?
Hey, maybe your brand IS all about anarchy. In that case feel free to contribute to the ever growing noise jam. But don't be surprised when like penicillin resistant bacteria, your customers suddenly become immune –and deaf– to the sound of your voice and your brand.
* * *
Click any link below to read all the articles in the six-part July 2008 UNBRANDED series detailing the relationship between Effective Sonic Branding and Black Noise (Silence):
TO BRAND OR NOT TO BRAND?
That is the Question.
Part 1: Non Branding For The Best Branders
Part 2: Sonic Branding or Silent Branding?
Part 3: Websites and Sonic Branding
Part 4: The Sonification of Everything
Part 5: Silence Please, for the Soundtracks of Our Lives
Part 6: Black Noise Branding
Monday, July 07, 2008
Mute Me: Websites and Sonic Branding
Lately I've been working with artist management to re-brand several websites. The dilemma is always: Should music start immediately when the index page opens? Or should it be muted, and the listener given the option of turning music on?
Personally, I think if you're in the business of sound, you can't be shy about making a big noise.
On the other hand, we've all experienced websites which we find annoying precisely because A) We find the sound unbearable, or B) The sound on the site is too loud and interferes with work, our own music player, or the sound coming from a website open in another Tab or Page, or C) Every click of the mouse yields redundant audible feedback.
Websites that immediately sound out when the home page opens can provoke a negative reaction. Unwanted voicing, repeated sound bytes, can all leave the audience/ user/ consumer with the impression that the brand itself is annoying.
HOWEVER:
There is a difference between an artist's or musician's website and a utilitarian corporate website, say. FANS. Fans visit artist websites. And fans come predisposed to hearing their favorite artist sing, ping and ringtone all the way home.
Sonic Branding (and skillfully produced, genre appropriate scoring) produces exceptional results on TV and Radio, and in film, because much like the fan visiting an artist website, the audience arrives predisposed to surrender their senses to the experience.
Conversely, most users don't consume websites quite the same way they do TV. We don't arrive 'predisposed to surrender' our senses, except for artist or dedicated entertainment sites. I think that point is key.
Prior great moments in sonic history aside, modern Sonic Branding has been effective since NBC first created the NBC chimes in 1931 or so.
What marketers still haven't completely figured out, however, is when branded sound is the most effective communication tool, and when to leave well enough alone.
It would be utterly fantastic, I think, and uniquely honest, if upon review of a project and subsequent brand analysis, you went back to your client and reported:
"Hey, the graphics is doing a great job in this area, so we don't think you need to introduce sound here in order to effectively communicate with your customers."
But I'm not holding my breath.
In fact, nothing cuts through the cutter like an effective graphic, and nothing adds more to chaos than ineffective or unnecessary sound.
Sometimes it's best to leave it UNBRANDED.
* * *
By the way: Windows Vista users can mute their browsers (or any individual running application). Visit the Windows Vista Team Blog to learn more or find out how.
Just want to mute Flash movies? Einar Otto Stangvik has created Flashmute, a custom app for Windows users which, "will disable or enable sound output globally from Flash movies".
Mac users can install Firefox and add on Adblock, which is a partial solution. Alternately, on his own blog, Arve Bersvendsen suggests Mac addicts browse with Opera, which offers a global plugin shutdown by simply pressing the F12 key.
* * *
Click any link below to read all the articles in the six-part July 2008 UNBRANDED series detailing the relationship between Effective Sonic Branding and Black Noise (Silence):
TO BRAND OR NOT TO BRAND?
That is the Question.
Part 1: Non Branding For The Best Branders
Part 2: Sonic Branding or Silent Branding?
Part 3: Websites and Sonic Branding
Part 4: The Sonification of Everything
Part 5: Silence Please, for the Soundtracks of Our Lives
Part 6: Black Noise Branding
Personally, I think if you're in the business of sound, you can't be shy about making a big noise.
On the other hand, we've all experienced websites which we find annoying precisely because A) We find the sound unbearable, or B) The sound on the site is too loud and interferes with work, our own music player, or the sound coming from a website open in another Tab or Page, or C) Every click of the mouse yields redundant audible feedback.
Websites that immediately sound out when the home page opens can provoke a negative reaction. Unwanted voicing, repeated sound bytes, can all leave the audience/ user/ consumer with the impression that the brand itself is annoying.
HOWEVER:
There is a difference between an artist's or musician's website and a utilitarian corporate website, say. FANS. Fans visit artist websites. And fans come predisposed to hearing their favorite artist sing, ping and ringtone all the way home.
Sonic Branding (and skillfully produced, genre appropriate scoring) produces exceptional results on TV and Radio, and in film, because much like the fan visiting an artist website, the audience arrives predisposed to surrender their senses to the experience.
Conversely, most users don't consume websites quite the same way they do TV. We don't arrive 'predisposed to surrender' our senses, except for artist or dedicated entertainment sites. I think that point is key.
Prior great moments in sonic history aside, modern Sonic Branding has been effective since NBC first created the NBC chimes in 1931 or so.
What marketers still haven't completely figured out, however, is when branded sound is the most effective communication tool, and when to leave well enough alone.
It would be utterly fantastic, I think, and uniquely honest, if upon review of a project and subsequent brand analysis, you went back to your client and reported:
"Hey, the graphics is doing a great job in this area, so we don't think you need to introduce sound here in order to effectively communicate with your customers."
But I'm not holding my breath.
In fact, nothing cuts through the cutter like an effective graphic, and nothing adds more to chaos than ineffective or unnecessary sound.
Sometimes it's best to leave it UNBRANDED.
* * *
By the way: Windows Vista users can mute their browsers (or any individual running application). Visit the Windows Vista Team Blog to learn more or find out how.
Just want to mute Flash movies? Einar Otto Stangvik has created Flashmute, a custom app for Windows users which, "will disable or enable sound output globally from Flash movies".
Mac users can install Firefox and add on Adblock, which is a partial solution. Alternately, on his own blog, Arve Bersvendsen suggests Mac addicts browse with Opera, which offers a global plugin shutdown by simply pressing the F12 key.
* * *
Click any link below to read all the articles in the six-part July 2008 UNBRANDED series detailing the relationship between Effective Sonic Branding and Black Noise (Silence):
TO BRAND OR NOT TO BRAND?
That is the Question.
Part 1: Non Branding For The Best Branders
Part 2: Sonic Branding or Silent Branding?
Part 3: Websites and Sonic Branding
Part 4: The Sonification of Everything
Part 5: Silence Please, for the Soundtracks of Our Lives
Part 6: Black Noise Branding
Friday, July 04, 2008
Sonic Branding or Silent Branding?
In the skirmish to package every experience with sound, from corporate messaging to personal ringtones, sometimes it's good to remember that the relative absence of sound, what we think of as SILENCE, can still be quite effective.
There's a reason why the saying is 'Silence is Golden' and not 'Chaos R Us'.
Even those who make a living in Sonic Branding would do well to heed its message. It's not enough to say 'We are Masters of Sound'. First convince your client you know where and when sound can be effective, and where and when you should leave well enough alone.
A library provides us with an obvious example of a space best left alone:
In a library we don't appreciate a cell phone going off in the history stacks. We all agree it is better to allow room tone to fill the vacuum, therefore creating a sense of QUIET. We certainly don't want the Library administration to feel compelled to brand each section with a unique hum (Just follow the cellos to Biology... –although, wow, I can imagine how that could possibly work).
A movie theater provides us with an example of when it's best to mute our personal branding so that other sound can be heard clearly and enjoyed by all.
Engaging sonic branding can both be a positive expression and produce a positive impression –that's what we hope it does– provided the context in which it is delivered suitable for sound, which is equally important to the equation, if it is to be effective.
What I mean by that is not whether the asset or environment is inherently suitable for sound, although that is a factor, but is the asset or environment a suitable platform for delivering your message?
If it is, then the next step is defining what that message is and how sound can effectively be used to deliver it, or be used as to attract audiences/users/consumers to a platform where they can learn more about a given product, service or experience.
This of course assumes the client clearly understands what they want to convey. Sometimes they don't know. Sometimes they need an analyst to tell them.
And sometimes someone simply needs to make a decision one way or the other.
* * *
Click any link below to read all the articles in the six-part July 2008 UNBRANDED series detailing the relationship between Effective Sonic Branding and Black Noise (Silence):
TO BRAND OR NOT TO BRAND?
That is the Question.
Part 1: Non Branding For The Best Branders
Part 2: Sonic Branding or Silent Branding?
Part 3: Websites and Sonic Branding
Part 4: The Sonification of Everything
Part 5: Silence Please, for the Soundtracks of Our Lives
Part 6: Black Noise Branding
There's a reason why the saying is 'Silence is Golden' and not 'Chaos R Us'.
Even those who make a living in Sonic Branding would do well to heed its message. It's not enough to say 'We are Masters of Sound'. First convince your client you know where and when sound can be effective, and where and when you should leave well enough alone.
A library provides us with an obvious example of a space best left alone:
In a library we don't appreciate a cell phone going off in the history stacks. We all agree it is better to allow room tone to fill the vacuum, therefore creating a sense of QUIET. We certainly don't want the Library administration to feel compelled to brand each section with a unique hum (Just follow the cellos to Biology... –although, wow, I can imagine how that could possibly work).
A movie theater provides us with an example of when it's best to mute our personal branding so that other sound can be heard clearly and enjoyed by all.
Engaging sonic branding can both be a positive expression and produce a positive impression –that's what we hope it does– provided the context in which it is delivered suitable for sound, which is equally important to the equation, if it is to be effective.
What I mean by that is not whether the asset or environment is inherently suitable for sound, although that is a factor, but is the asset or environment a suitable platform for delivering your message?
If it is, then the next step is defining what that message is and how sound can effectively be used to deliver it, or be used as to attract audiences/users/consumers to a platform where they can learn more about a given product, service or experience.
This of course assumes the client clearly understands what they want to convey. Sometimes they don't know. Sometimes they need an analyst to tell them.
And sometimes someone simply needs to make a decision one way or the other.
* * *
Click any link below to read all the articles in the six-part July 2008 UNBRANDED series detailing the relationship between Effective Sonic Branding and Black Noise (Silence):
TO BRAND OR NOT TO BRAND?
That is the Question.
Part 1: Non Branding For The Best Branders
Part 2: Sonic Branding or Silent Branding?
Part 3: Websites and Sonic Branding
Part 4: The Sonification of Everything
Part 5: Silence Please, for the Soundtracks of Our Lives
Part 6: Black Noise Branding
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Non Branding For The Best Branders
Sometimes it seems to me like the best branders in the world either can't or won't brand themselves.Back when I was Head of Production for what was then the leading US music house, the Promo Open that kicked off our presentation reel was left entirely silent, although fully animated with live footage and graphics.
Can you imagine? Beginning a demo reel for a music production company with maybe ten, fifteen or even twenty seconds of silence?
The reasons for this were several:
POLITICS: Of the several in-house composers, management couldn't decide whom to reward with the assignment of providing a sound score for the open.
Conversely, one had to to take into account the feelings of the unselected composers who would certainly feel formally rejected if their own work remain unused for the task. You can't have a bunch of angry, depressed composers walking around, although in retrospect it might have been like that anyway.
There was also the question of BRANDING:
We fulfilled sonic branding assignments so well for others, but we were at a loss for how to brand ourselves (with sound). Just what were we supposed to sound like? What sonic identifier or fanfare should herald our unique presence in the brand universe?
We never quite figured it out.
Of course that didn't stop us from being a successful enterprise!
In the intervening years I've noticed that other dedicated branding companies sometimes share the same quandry.
For instance, look at the screenshot above which depicts websites (circa Summer 2008) constructed for Interbrand, Landor and Wolff Olins.
All three creative solution providers independently arrived at the same white board semiotic/strategy popularized by Google.
Although no sonics involved, each site, as delivered by these creative heavy hitters, opens with something akin to visual silence!
It may make sense in a bald barber sort of way, and I speak as one with a bald barber:
Best Haircut in the World.
* * *
Click any link below to read all the articles in the six-part July 2008 UNBRANDED series detailing the relationship between Effective Sonic Branding and Black Noise (Silence):
TO BRAND OR NOT TO BRAND?
That is the Question.
Part 1: Non Branding For The Best Branders
Part 2: Sonic Branding or Silent Branding?
Part 3: Websites and Sonic Branding
Part 4: The Sonification of Everything
Part 5: Silence Please, for the Soundtracks of Our Lives
Part 6: Black Noise Branding
Monday, June 09, 2008
Sound Solutions for Commuter Spaces
Manhattan's vast system of subway tunnels and platforms provides many great opportunities for sound, but not always or particularly in the area of information delivery.
But while the notorious reverb that is inherent in those cavernous, underground commuter spaces muddles official communications, it conversely provides us with often inspiring performance space acoustics (if one can otherwise ignore all the other distractions that define such an environment, i.e. platform shaking, 80-decibel trains thundering by us).
This circumstance strikes me as somewhat ironic, too, because in no other equivalent modern space have architects quite so flagrantly rejected any and all methods to tame the arguable problem of interior echoes.
Even concert halls known for reverberant spaces are outfitted with acoustic tiles.
Which is to say: Nothing man-made escapes his control, so why should a subway platform be any different?
Cathedrals and temples take another approach: Their inhabitants communicate whether by speech or music in terms that over the years all agree work with the space. The best church music, for instance, is composed with such reverberations in mind. The most inspiring sermons use a call and response that posit soloist with chorus, a model perhaps learned from the Greeks who employed it in their theatre.
Would call and response work for a transit alert? No, of course not. But one thing we can certainly take away from Medieval chant is the fact they were slow moving, allowing for complete comprehension of lyrical data before returning echoes collided with new incoming information.
Indeed, the many cathedral-like spaces within the subway network offer actively reverberant spaces for the many artists who do perform there, both officially and unofficially.
For those readers who are not New Yorkers, the Manhattan Transit Authority (MTA) has since 1985 hosted an ongoing Artist series called MUSIC UNDER NEW YORK (MUNY). According to the MUNY website, more than 100 soloists and groups are participating in the 2008 program, "providing over 150 weekly performances at 25 locations throughout the transit system."
And it was via the MUNY series that I first stumbled on Daphne Hellman and her group Hellman's Angels, playing the main concourse at Grand Central Terminal. Daphne played jazz and blues on an eighty-five pound gilded classical harp. Not only was it some of the most amazing blues I've heard, it re-framed my perception of the harp, and Daphne and her band felt born of the space.
But does anyone know if the MTA simply gives performers space and time, or have the powers that be ever commissioned music inspired directly by transit? When and if they do, the main concourse at Grand Central Terminal would make a fantastic hall for the work's debut.
However, perfect performance spaces don't always make perfect communication spaces. Reverberations essentially render transit alert announcements unintelligible. The result is often frustrating for commuters.
In one sense then, the Manhattan Transit Authority does indeed already possess a Sonic Brand:
For some, the sound of the the MTA is conveyed differently by each artist sponsored by the MUNY project. It is not then any one song that conveys the MTA brand, but the mere fact of song (in what are otherwise caves), which does so.
But I think most strap hangers would say any message is more often than not rudely squelched every time the PA system delivers a burst of incomprehensible noise. And that in fact, it is the squelch itself that is closer to signifying the MTA brand with sound (that and the squeal of a braking train, the two often overlaying one another in something that resembles caterwauling unison).
What if we can get beyond that problem, though?
At that point, –if the MTA were to actually commission a Sonic Brand asset– the resulting sound would no doubt have to deliver a message of safety, timeliness and confidence or authority. Funnily enough, I actually think a variation of the squealing brakes would work, but it would have to be re-sculpted from ear drum piercing to something that conjures up, say, a shooting star or a comet.
However, Commuter Transit and Information Delivery go hand in hand. We live in an age of small networks. We are inspired not just in how to get from point A to point B, but how to do so efficiently, not to mention economically and ecologically.
Obviously at this juncture, it would be premature to commission an aural image campaign, because any such message would land on the city's collective commuter ears with a dull, inauthentic thud.
Who believes the subway travel is safe? Timely? Comfortable? Efficient?
On the other hand, trains do provide a more or less economical and ecological method of transport relative to individuals in cars or trucks. So, one might very well commission a campaign that ignores the common complaints and announces our client's strength's and positives:
Commuter transit by rail: It's cheap and it's green.
I think we all agree, though, it behooves the MTA to first find a way to address the aforementioned issues, the problem of noise inclusive.
We don't just want to get there on time, or on the cheap. We want our trains to be clean and quiet. And we want important announcements regarding travel conditions to arrive on our ears in full comprehensible clarity.
Anything short of that lacks modernity and feels ancient. Time moves forward. Trains move forward. Our expectations move forward.
So, addressing issues related to sound only:
In the near field, the MTA needs to find a way to quash reverberations –albeit only in designated places– so that commuters can always be certain they can receive clear communication regarding the status of their commute.
Far field, the next commission of trains ought to be designed so that they provide a quieter experience for both passengers en transit and for those waiting on the platforms, whose ears are on the other end of an approaching train.
If and when the MTA can accomplish these two things, then the subsequent marketing campaign heralding the acoustic accomplishment might do well to include a Tonal ID or some other scalable construction born from the study of both sound and semiotics that delivers this message, in order that the client might reinforce –and commuters might acknowledge– the old model has faded out, and a new one has taken its place, one that is efficient, economical and ecological and evolved.
The Tonal ID would also prove a valuable asset for any broadcast advertising strategy, and possibly be conceived so as to be integral experiential asset to the information delivery itself.
One beautifully conceived sound to replace many random, often annoying sounds.
In the meantime, the MTA might consider delivering transit update announcements using communication means that are known to work in reverberant spaces.
Maybe it's time to bring on the yodelers!
But while the notorious reverb that is inherent in those cavernous, underground commuter spaces muddles official communications, it conversely provides us with often inspiring performance space acoustics (if one can otherwise ignore all the other distractions that define such an environment, i.e. platform shaking, 80-decibel trains thundering by us).
This circumstance strikes me as somewhat ironic, too, because in no other equivalent modern space have architects quite so flagrantly rejected any and all methods to tame the arguable problem of interior echoes.
Even concert halls known for reverberant spaces are outfitted with acoustic tiles.
Which is to say: Nothing man-made escapes his control, so why should a subway platform be any different?
Cathedrals and temples take another approach: Their inhabitants communicate whether by speech or music in terms that over the years all agree work with the space. The best church music, for instance, is composed with such reverberations in mind. The most inspiring sermons use a call and response that posit soloist with chorus, a model perhaps learned from the Greeks who employed it in their theatre.
Would call and response work for a transit alert? No, of course not. But one thing we can certainly take away from Medieval chant is the fact they were slow moving, allowing for complete comprehension of lyrical data before returning echoes collided with new incoming information.
Indeed, the many cathedral-like spaces within the subway network offer actively reverberant spaces for the many artists who do perform there, both officially and unofficially.
For those readers who are not New Yorkers, the Manhattan Transit Authority (MTA) has since 1985 hosted an ongoing Artist series called MUSIC UNDER NEW YORK (MUNY). According to the MUNY website, more than 100 soloists and groups are participating in the 2008 program, "providing over 150 weekly performances at 25 locations throughout the transit system."
And it was via the MUNY series that I first stumbled on Daphne Hellman and her group Hellman's Angels, playing the main concourse at Grand Central Terminal. Daphne played jazz and blues on an eighty-five pound gilded classical harp. Not only was it some of the most amazing blues I've heard, it re-framed my perception of the harp, and Daphne and her band felt born of the space.
But does anyone know if the MTA simply gives performers space and time, or have the powers that be ever commissioned music inspired directly by transit? When and if they do, the main concourse at Grand Central Terminal would make a fantastic hall for the work's debut.
However, perfect performance spaces don't always make perfect communication spaces. Reverberations essentially render transit alert announcements unintelligible. The result is often frustrating for commuters.
In one sense then, the Manhattan Transit Authority does indeed already possess a Sonic Brand:
For some, the sound of the the MTA is conveyed differently by each artist sponsored by the MUNY project. It is not then any one song that conveys the MTA brand, but the mere fact of song (in what are otherwise caves), which does so.
But I think most strap hangers would say any message is more often than not rudely squelched every time the PA system delivers a burst of incomprehensible noise. And that in fact, it is the squelch itself that is closer to signifying the MTA brand with sound (that and the squeal of a braking train, the two often overlaying one another in something that resembles caterwauling unison).
What if we can get beyond that problem, though?
At that point, –if the MTA were to actually commission a Sonic Brand asset– the resulting sound would no doubt have to deliver a message of safety, timeliness and confidence or authority. Funnily enough, I actually think a variation of the squealing brakes would work, but it would have to be re-sculpted from ear drum piercing to something that conjures up, say, a shooting star or a comet.
However, Commuter Transit and Information Delivery go hand in hand. We live in an age of small networks. We are inspired not just in how to get from point A to point B, but how to do so efficiently, not to mention economically and ecologically.
Obviously at this juncture, it would be premature to commission an aural image campaign, because any such message would land on the city's collective commuter ears with a dull, inauthentic thud.
Who believes the subway travel is safe? Timely? Comfortable? Efficient?
On the other hand, trains do provide a more or less economical and ecological method of transport relative to individuals in cars or trucks. So, one might very well commission a campaign that ignores the common complaints and announces our client's strength's and positives:
Commuter transit by rail: It's cheap and it's green.
I think we all agree, though, it behooves the MTA to first find a way to address the aforementioned issues, the problem of noise inclusive.
We don't just want to get there on time, or on the cheap. We want our trains to be clean and quiet. And we want important announcements regarding travel conditions to arrive on our ears in full comprehensible clarity.
Anything short of that lacks modernity and feels ancient. Time moves forward. Trains move forward. Our expectations move forward.
So, addressing issues related to sound only:
In the near field, the MTA needs to find a way to quash reverberations –albeit only in designated places– so that commuters can always be certain they can receive clear communication regarding the status of their commute.
Far field, the next commission of trains ought to be designed so that they provide a quieter experience for both passengers en transit and for those waiting on the platforms, whose ears are on the other end of an approaching train.
If and when the MTA can accomplish these two things, then the subsequent marketing campaign heralding the acoustic accomplishment might do well to include a Tonal ID or some other scalable construction born from the study of both sound and semiotics that delivers this message, in order that the client might reinforce –and commuters might acknowledge– the old model has faded out, and a new one has taken its place, one that is efficient, economical and ecological and evolved.
The Tonal ID would also prove a valuable asset for any broadcast advertising strategy, and possibly be conceived so as to be integral experiential asset to the information delivery itself.
One beautifully conceived sound to replace many random, often annoying sounds.
In the meantime, the MTA might consider delivering transit update announcements using communication means that are known to work in reverberant spaces.
Maybe it's time to bring on the yodelers!
Sunday, June 01, 2008
The Soho Grand – Lifestyle Branding with Music
In 1996, one of my favorite hotels, New York City's Soho Grand, opened its doors billing itself as "the first hotel to arrive in Soho in more than a century".
William Sofield's interior décor presented weary travelers and local executives alike with a suitably hip refuge from urban chaos. But otherwise the new hotel could hardly be described as a harboring a 'scene' –or a 'sound' for that matter.
In fact, a definitive part of the lobby's appeal, apart from its plush sofas and speedy table service, was that no matter what time of day or night one arrived, the space was relatively absent of all sound, save the murmur of conversation. Being that the Soho Grand was located in 'the city that never sleeps', it was therefore not unusual to find executives continuing a long day at the office with a casual meeting afterward at the hotel's lobby (over cocktails of course), before going home at ten or eleven PM.
But then, at the turn of the millennium, an abrupt shift in strategy:
Now, I don't know if management at the Soho Grand suddenly wanted to move more alcohol and at a faster pace, or if they just wanted to fill the lobby up with beautiful people. More than likely they –like many others– decided to experiment with a trend begun by the Hôtel Costes in Europe.
Stéphane Pompougnac, Hôtel Costes' house DJ explained to the New York Times in a 2005 article titled, Never Mind the Concierge, Where's the D.J.?:
"A lot of famous people, like Robert DeNiro, Madonna and French artists came to see me, to tell me they liked my music," Mr. Pompougnac said. "So I asked my boss to make a compilation CD, just like a present, for the clients of the hotel."
They did, and in 1997 a virtual industry was born out it.
In a 2001 New York Observer article, hotelier Ian Schrager explains what happened after that:
"The Hôtel Costes did a CD which was No. 3 in France... So it made everybody interested in doing it.”
Regardless, whether the initiative was made independently of Pompougnac's success, the decision by the Soho Grand to inject music into its own marketing strategy appears to have proved a good one.
Not only did music serve to create a new New York scene, it also fueled the transformation of the Soho Grand from a hotel downtown into a Downtown Hotel –a substantial differentiation point for the brand.
Eight years later the Soho Grand hosts a series of CDs, of which at least two titles appear to have been created in collaboration with 5 POINTS. 5 POINTS itself is an example of a how to do business running parallel to the music industry, and possibly reinventing it as you go.
From the 5 POINTS website:
"Grand Life Soho and Grand Life Tribeca are the first and second installments in 5 POINTS' Grand Life series, soundtracks to New York's cutting edge, trend setting glitteratti! Under the creative direction of Tommy Saleh, the hotel/underground music venues Soho Grand and Tribeca Grand have been key in launching the careers of The Rapture, Peaches and the Kaiser Chiefs. These compilations, created for and distributed exclusively at the Soho and Tribeca Grand hotels in New York, showcase the underground acts that will be hot tomorrow."
On the Soho Grand's own lifestyle blog, GrandLife, one learns that:
"In addition to the Tribeca and Soho Grand Compilations, we also have a selection of the following cd's in our guests' rooms where guests can simply listen to during their stay or if they like they can purchase the cd to take back home."
In fact there are at least eight titles available for purchase at a premium price of $20 per unit. Arguably that price reflects the fact that customers are buying a lifestyle souvenir as much as they are buying a given disc because of a specific track on it. If that's the case, the marketers have done their jobs well, and the artists featured on the discs can enjoy a new stream of income that simply didn't exist until relatively recently.
Unfortunately, you can't please everyone:
If you followed the link for the Ian Schrager quote you would have found that it came from an article by Elisabeth Franck who disparages the trend in an article titled 'Worst French Import Since Brie: Bad Ambient Music in Chic Hotels'.
It maybe that Ms. Franck (or her editor) felt some empathy for the displaced executives who can no longer rely on the lobbies of boutique hotels to provide a quiet respite from the New York noise.
To Ms. Franck's point, the music strategy executed by the Soho Grand was never supposed to turn the lobby into a disco. In that same New York Observer article, Tommy Saleh, director of industry relations at the Soho Grand and Tribeca Grand in 2001, and 5 POINTS lead, explains the vibe was conceived as being more like "...a sound you want to sit down and have a cocktail to: not boring, but not intrusive."
I haven't been to the Hôtel Costes, but I have been a customer of the Soho Grand brand since it opened over a decade ago. Based my own visits to the hotel, it's not the music that's 'intrusive' –if you're seeking an oasis from chaos– as much as it is the few hundred hipsters that have shown up to listen to it.
The funny thing is that if you asked anyone today what exactly brands the space, I don't think they would put music at the very top of the list, even though music arguably initiated a seismic shift in brand perception for the hotel beginning circa 2001.
In fact, I think music wouldn't even appear until after decor , which certainly would have been first when the hotel launched. Today, I think many would suggest the hotel's branding is a reflection of the PEOPLE who inhabit the space –with little realization that MUSIC is what actually brought many of those people in through the front doors in the first place.
* * *
Visit the Soho Grand's GrandLife blog to check out the current crew of resident DJs –among them, one of my favorites: DJ Jaclyn Marinese
William Sofield's interior décor presented weary travelers and local executives alike with a suitably hip refuge from urban chaos. But otherwise the new hotel could hardly be described as a harboring a 'scene' –or a 'sound' for that matter.
In fact, a definitive part of the lobby's appeal, apart from its plush sofas and speedy table service, was that no matter what time of day or night one arrived, the space was relatively absent of all sound, save the murmur of conversation. Being that the Soho Grand was located in 'the city that never sleeps', it was therefore not unusual to find executives continuing a long day at the office with a casual meeting afterward at the hotel's lobby (over cocktails of course), before going home at ten or eleven PM.
But then, at the turn of the millennium, an abrupt shift in strategy:
Now, I don't know if management at the Soho Grand suddenly wanted to move more alcohol and at a faster pace, or if they just wanted to fill the lobby up with beautiful people. More than likely they –like many others– decided to experiment with a trend begun by the Hôtel Costes in Europe.
Stéphane Pompougnac, Hôtel Costes' house DJ explained to the New York Times in a 2005 article titled, Never Mind the Concierge, Where's the D.J.?:
"A lot of famous people, like Robert DeNiro, Madonna and French artists came to see me, to tell me they liked my music," Mr. Pompougnac said. "So I asked my boss to make a compilation CD, just like a present, for the clients of the hotel."
They did, and in 1997 a virtual industry was born out it.
In a 2001 New York Observer article, hotelier Ian Schrager explains what happened after that:
"The Hôtel Costes did a CD which was No. 3 in France... So it made everybody interested in doing it.”
Regardless, whether the initiative was made independently of Pompougnac's success, the decision by the Soho Grand to inject music into its own marketing strategy appears to have proved a good one.
Not only did music serve to create a new New York scene, it also fueled the transformation of the Soho Grand from a hotel downtown into a Downtown Hotel –a substantial differentiation point for the brand.
Eight years later the Soho Grand hosts a series of CDs, of which at least two titles appear to have been created in collaboration with 5 POINTS. 5 POINTS itself is an example of a how to do business running parallel to the music industry, and possibly reinventing it as you go.
From the 5 POINTS website:
"Grand Life Soho and Grand Life Tribeca are the first and second installments in 5 POINTS' Grand Life series, soundtracks to New York's cutting edge, trend setting glitteratti! Under the creative direction of Tommy Saleh, the hotel/underground music venues Soho Grand and Tribeca Grand have been key in launching the careers of The Rapture, Peaches and the Kaiser Chiefs. These compilations, created for and distributed exclusively at the Soho and Tribeca Grand hotels in New York, showcase the underground acts that will be hot tomorrow."
On the Soho Grand's own lifestyle blog, GrandLife, one learns that:
"In addition to the Tribeca and Soho Grand Compilations, we also have a selection of the following cd's in our guests' rooms where guests can simply listen to during their stay or if they like they can purchase the cd to take back home."
In fact there are at least eight titles available for purchase at a premium price of $20 per unit. Arguably that price reflects the fact that customers are buying a lifestyle souvenir as much as they are buying a given disc because of a specific track on it. If that's the case, the marketers have done their jobs well, and the artists featured on the discs can enjoy a new stream of income that simply didn't exist until relatively recently.
Unfortunately, you can't please everyone:
If you followed the link for the Ian Schrager quote you would have found that it came from an article by Elisabeth Franck who disparages the trend in an article titled 'Worst French Import Since Brie: Bad Ambient Music in Chic Hotels'.
It maybe that Ms. Franck (or her editor) felt some empathy for the displaced executives who can no longer rely on the lobbies of boutique hotels to provide a quiet respite from the New York noise.
To Ms. Franck's point, the music strategy executed by the Soho Grand was never supposed to turn the lobby into a disco. In that same New York Observer article, Tommy Saleh, director of industry relations at the Soho Grand and Tribeca Grand in 2001, and 5 POINTS lead, explains the vibe was conceived as being more like "...a sound you want to sit down and have a cocktail to: not boring, but not intrusive."
I haven't been to the Hôtel Costes, but I have been a customer of the Soho Grand brand since it opened over a decade ago. Based my own visits to the hotel, it's not the music that's 'intrusive' –if you're seeking an oasis from chaos– as much as it is the few hundred hipsters that have shown up to listen to it.
The funny thing is that if you asked anyone today what exactly brands the space, I don't think they would put music at the very top of the list, even though music arguably initiated a seismic shift in brand perception for the hotel beginning circa 2001.
In fact, I think music wouldn't even appear until after decor , which certainly would have been first when the hotel launched. Today, I think many would suggest the hotel's branding is a reflection of the PEOPLE who inhabit the space –with little realization that MUSIC is what actually brought many of those people in through the front doors in the first place.
* * *
Visit the Soho Grand's GrandLife blog to check out the current crew of resident DJs –among them, one of my favorites: DJ Jaclyn Marinese
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Evolution of the Music Designer
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
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
Friday, May 02, 2008
Songwriter Vs. Song Designer
A bit of cursory observation and experience has left me with the impression that in the last ten or fifteen years or so, we’ve heard more ‘Bottom Up’ construction from Music Designers producing non-scored works, than we might have realized, and by that I mean the songwriting process has given way to the Song Designing process.
If you're unfamiliar with the Top Down Bottom Up MUSIC DESIGN processes I've described in earlier posts, click on any of the links that follow this article for the necessary background.
In brief:
Bottom up constructions are marked by the establishment of TIME and RHYTHM before melody.
Likewise, any time a riff, incomplete melodic information ('complete' implies an entire phrase), or a pitch based sample is used as the conceptual seed from which a music production will evolve, we can say the work is being designed Center Out.
In contrast, Top Down composition is marked by melody (combined with lyrics, in the case of songwriting) first. In the Top Down process melody is defined first, after which all the other musical components are conceived in so far as melody defines their natural selection and direction.
Additionally, when music is conceived in the studio, and built from a loop up, with melody and lyric being afterthoughts to production, it strikes me that this music hasn't been composed at all. Rather, it's been designed.
Multiple points in case: Simpy consider the method by which much modern popular music –electronic, hiphop, dance, commercial pop, contemporary rock, etc– is created:
Fire up a graphic interface. Begin with a beat. Layer loops. Add a pad. Slice, dice and connect samples whose origin may be sourced from anything. The melody might not even become cohesive element until the moment the lyrics are written, sung and pitch corrected. –Or until the ‘right’ sample has been found, licensed and dropped into a the perfectly beat matched production. In fact, melody might be an after thought, or even an accident. You might even forgo the license. In fact, you probably will.
Anytime you're building a song up from a GRID, you're engaged in the act of design.
Of course, it’s not as simple as all that, –as both Top Forty Hit makers and Garage Band aficionados will rush to tell you. But I still think there is some truth to the suggestion that the described process may as well be the paradigm, and I wonder how long it will serve us? –Or when will a new technology come along that suggests yet another way of working?
There are still those who sit down with their musical instrument and create new musical works, performing melody and harmony –and even original lyrics, too– all at once, as though born whole from divine ether.
But in my daily professional experience –working with ad agencies, game developers, theme parks and other special venues, etc– most commissioned music today is designed rather than composed. That is to say, in the same manner a sound designer collages audio –layering sound bytes on top of other sound bytes, and from the bottom up and center out. How can it be otherwise when –on top of everything else– so much of it is also now informed by a Brand message or mandate; reviewed during its development by a collaborative hierarchy of other creative professionals; filtered through focus groups; and created for intended release to a target demographic?
Which brings to mind another defining point contrasting designed audio from composed music: Notwithstanding the licensing of non-designed compositions, Music Design –including Song Designs, generally imply conception for a functional or Utilitarian purpose. Whether conceived as part of an entertainment or marketing strategy –Use or User centered– is of little difference.
Of course, art springs from many sources and no judgment regarding any given process is implied. The author draws inspiration from all the techniques discussed here.
* * *
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
If you're unfamiliar with the Top Down Bottom Up MUSIC DESIGN processes I've described in earlier posts, click on any of the links that follow this article for the necessary background.
In brief:
Bottom up constructions are marked by the establishment of TIME and RHYTHM before melody.
Likewise, any time a riff, incomplete melodic information ('complete' implies an entire phrase), or a pitch based sample is used as the conceptual seed from which a music production will evolve, we can say the work is being designed Center Out.
In contrast, Top Down composition is marked by melody (combined with lyrics, in the case of songwriting) first. In the Top Down process melody is defined first, after which all the other musical components are conceived in so far as melody defines their natural selection and direction.
Additionally, when music is conceived in the studio, and built from a loop up, with melody and lyric being afterthoughts to production, it strikes me that this music hasn't been composed at all. Rather, it's been designed.
Multiple points in case: Simpy consider the method by which much modern popular music –electronic, hiphop, dance, commercial pop, contemporary rock, etc– is created:
Fire up a graphic interface. Begin with a beat. Layer loops. Add a pad. Slice, dice and connect samples whose origin may be sourced from anything. The melody might not even become cohesive element until the moment the lyrics are written, sung and pitch corrected. –Or until the ‘right’ sample has been found, licensed and dropped into a the perfectly beat matched production. In fact, melody might be an after thought, or even an accident. You might even forgo the license. In fact, you probably will.
Anytime you're building a song up from a GRID, you're engaged in the act of design.
Of course, it’s not as simple as all that, –as both Top Forty Hit makers and Garage Band aficionados will rush to tell you. But I still think there is some truth to the suggestion that the described process may as well be the paradigm, and I wonder how long it will serve us? –Or when will a new technology come along that suggests yet another way of working?
There are still those who sit down with their musical instrument and create new musical works, performing melody and harmony –and even original lyrics, too– all at once, as though born whole from divine ether.
But in my daily professional experience –working with ad agencies, game developers, theme parks and other special venues, etc– most commissioned music today is designed rather than composed. That is to say, in the same manner a sound designer collages audio –layering sound bytes on top of other sound bytes, and from the bottom up and center out. How can it be otherwise when –on top of everything else– so much of it is also now informed by a Brand message or mandate; reviewed during its development by a collaborative hierarchy of other creative professionals; filtered through focus groups; and created for intended release to a target demographic?
Which brings to mind another defining point contrasting designed audio from composed music: Notwithstanding the licensing of non-designed compositions, Music Design –including Song Designs, generally imply conception for a functional or Utilitarian purpose. Whether conceived as part of an entertainment or marketing strategy –Use or User centered– is of little difference.
Of course, art springs from many sources and no judgment regarding any given process is implied. The author draws inspiration from all the techniques discussed here.
* * *
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
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Film Composer, Sound Maker or Music Designer?
Some musical creators will naturally identify themselves as either Top Down composers or Bottom Up constructionists –both are terms I've introduced in previous posts (Click on the links at the bottom of this entry if you require background). The latter, it seems to me, must think more like sound designers than traditional composers.
In fact, the more I think about it, the fewer differences I notice between the modern compositional process and Sound Design (or sound EFX work).
I would like to suggest that this points to an as of yet unidentified trend:
A new kind of sonic artisan has evolved among us. It's as though the lizard has sprouted wings, and its scales turned to beautiful feathers, and we have only now realized that a transformation has taken place because instead of crawling in the muck, something new soars above us along the horizon, and the thing has taken flight.
So what is this new creature, anyway?
This newly emerged commercial sound artist is neither music composer nor EFX artist, but both those things and much more.
There is but a shade of difference here, nevertheless I think important to take note of it: I do not mean that he or she simply possesses a combined skill set, or that they are adept at mixing music and noise together in mix. That in and of itself would be unremarkable.
What I mean is that this newly formed modern audio professional approaches music and noise (and speech for that matter) as equally available sound sources and viable tonal information colors for any given audio work. There is no differentiation in kinds of sound, simply a palette whose spectrum extends to ranges of human hearing.
Sure, there have been composers before, and tape manipulators, and location recordists, and sound EFX artists, and beat makers, and engineers –but we've been looking at those respective skill sets as separate from one another. Fast Forward to the present and we noticed that these unique specialties, have become combined into a more or less unified, well informed, competent, new breed of audio professional.
I call this person by the hybrid label: 'MUSIC DESIGNER'.
A cursory web search will turn up several individuals who already embrace this nomenclature. For instance: Brian Williams, Robert Rich and Dhrubajit Gogoi.
I believe the term itself, 'Music Design', must have been coined sometime in the first part of the twentieth century, and from someone within the film community. In his book 'Film Music: A Neglected Art', first published in 1972, and with a 2nd edition in 1991, Roy M. Prendergast mentions technological advances in sound production initiated by music editing company that called itself 'The Music Design Group'. And then there is, of course, Soundelux Design Music Group, founded in 1985, meaning the appellation is at the very least now a quarter century old.
But today, as of this writing, the term 'AUDIO DESIGNER' appears to be much more common, especially as a designation in the Game industry.
I understand how 'Audio' might be chosen instead of 'Music'. It suggests a neutral term which embraces both music and sound design. However, there's nothing in the label Audio Designer to suggest musicianship. A job description listed on the THQ job site even assures applicants: "Understanding of Music and composition is an advantage but is not required".
Personally I think 'Audio Designer' is a fancy name for 'engineer', and otherwise misses the evolutionary mark. That's why I prefer the Music Designer designation over Audio Designer, given the context which I use it: My intent is to define a multifaceted musician who composes musical experiences using all sound, not describe an engineer who assembles the disparate sonic elements of a media production into a final mix.
You're welcome to come up with a niftier name, or to argue the practice is old hat in Hollywood. My point is not to create a new job title for you, but simply to identify and codify elements of an emerging trend. And this trend may be defined as the acceptance of a range of post production skills and techniques by even the conventional composer.
You already know people like this. Perhaps you are one of them. I'm inclined to think that if you read this blog with any regularity, you probably are. If you produce sound using raw code, MAX, soft synths and a Digital Audio Workstation, consider yourself enlisted. If you think of an electric guitar as less a musical instrument and more of a sound design tool, you absolutely fall into this category. Likewise, if you're one of those sound explorers who run a traditional instrument through a series of dynamic software filters –the way Robin Eubanks often does using Native Instruments Guitar Rig– in order expand tonal range well beyond the natural limitations of his trombone.
For a Music Designer, the actual instrument of tonal or sonic manipulation is considered incidental. That's because any instrument may be transformed by the addition of technology into an interface capable of sonic colors beyond its traditional or intended use, with the result being that any instrument can sound like any other instrument (and a whole lot more).
The distinction between musician and sound designer is blurring –has blurred–, while at the same time the distinction between composer and engineer, not to mention Graphic designer (which I'll discuss in a future article (MUSIC BY DESIGN)), also appears to be merging.
The final result of a Music Designer's work maybe but doesn't have to be described as audio collage or merely an interesting organization of sound. Rather, it works in such a way that it begs an informed audience to simply accept what they hear as MUSIC, whatever its components or sonic origins.
* * *
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
In fact, the more I think about it, the fewer differences I notice between the modern compositional process and Sound Design (or sound EFX work).
I would like to suggest that this points to an as of yet unidentified trend:
A new kind of sonic artisan has evolved among us. It's as though the lizard has sprouted wings, and its scales turned to beautiful feathers, and we have only now realized that a transformation has taken place because instead of crawling in the muck, something new soars above us along the horizon, and the thing has taken flight.
So what is this new creature, anyway?
This newly emerged commercial sound artist is neither music composer nor EFX artist, but both those things and much more.
There is but a shade of difference here, nevertheless I think important to take note of it: I do not mean that he or she simply possesses a combined skill set, or that they are adept at mixing music and noise together in mix. That in and of itself would be unremarkable.
What I mean is that this newly formed modern audio professional approaches music and noise (and speech for that matter) as equally available sound sources and viable tonal information colors for any given audio work. There is no differentiation in kinds of sound, simply a palette whose spectrum extends to ranges of human hearing.
Sure, there have been composers before, and tape manipulators, and location recordists, and sound EFX artists, and beat makers, and engineers –but we've been looking at those respective skill sets as separate from one another. Fast Forward to the present and we noticed that these unique specialties, have become combined into a more or less unified, well informed, competent, new breed of audio professional.
I call this person by the hybrid label: 'MUSIC DESIGNER'.
A cursory web search will turn up several individuals who already embrace this nomenclature. For instance: Brian Williams, Robert Rich and Dhrubajit Gogoi.
I believe the term itself, 'Music Design', must have been coined sometime in the first part of the twentieth century, and from someone within the film community. In his book 'Film Music: A Neglected Art', first published in 1972, and with a 2nd edition in 1991, Roy M. Prendergast mentions technological advances in sound production initiated by music editing company that called itself 'The Music Design Group'. And then there is, of course, Soundelux Design Music Group, founded in 1985, meaning the appellation is at the very least now a quarter century old.
But today, as of this writing, the term 'AUDIO DESIGNER' appears to be much more common, especially as a designation in the Game industry.
I understand how 'Audio' might be chosen instead of 'Music'. It suggests a neutral term which embraces both music and sound design. However, there's nothing in the label Audio Designer to suggest musicianship. A job description listed on the THQ job site even assures applicants: "Understanding of Music and composition is an advantage but is not required".
Personally I think 'Audio Designer' is a fancy name for 'engineer', and otherwise misses the evolutionary mark. That's why I prefer the Music Designer designation over Audio Designer, given the context which I use it: My intent is to define a multifaceted musician who composes musical experiences using all sound, not describe an engineer who assembles the disparate sonic elements of a media production into a final mix.
You're welcome to come up with a niftier name, or to argue the practice is old hat in Hollywood. My point is not to create a new job title for you, but simply to identify and codify elements of an emerging trend. And this trend may be defined as the acceptance of a range of post production skills and techniques by even the conventional composer.
You already know people like this. Perhaps you are one of them. I'm inclined to think that if you read this blog with any regularity, you probably are. If you produce sound using raw code, MAX, soft synths and a Digital Audio Workstation, consider yourself enlisted. If you think of an electric guitar as less a musical instrument and more of a sound design tool, you absolutely fall into this category. Likewise, if you're one of those sound explorers who run a traditional instrument through a series of dynamic software filters –the way Robin Eubanks often does using Native Instruments Guitar Rig– in order expand tonal range well beyond the natural limitations of his trombone.
For a Music Designer, the actual instrument of tonal or sonic manipulation is considered incidental. That's because any instrument may be transformed by the addition of technology into an interface capable of sonic colors beyond its traditional or intended use, with the result being that any instrument can sound like any other instrument (and a whole lot more).
The distinction between musician and sound designer is blurring –has blurred–, while at the same time the distinction between composer and engineer, not to mention Graphic designer (which I'll discuss in a future article (MUSIC BY DESIGN)), also appears to be merging.
The final result of a Music Designer's work maybe but doesn't have to be described as audio collage or merely an interesting organization of sound. Rather, it works in such a way that it begs an informed audience to simply accept what they hear as MUSIC, whatever its components or sonic origins.
* * *
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)