It’s a question so elemental in music, you might forget to ask it: what can you get out of a (music) jam?

Electronic music worldwide is dominated by the DJ, the dance party. That, in turn, often tends to the safe playback and mixing of produced records. So, what happens when you let all of that go, invite your audience to get up and make strange noises with you and not only dance at a safe distance? What happens when you just set yourself free and play?

Jam sessions are nothing new in and of themselves – but the beauty of them is, put unexpected combinations of musicians together in a room, and they can always be something new. Here, I’ve invited one set of guest reports authored by the Berlin-based collective Mindpirates. Their recent set of jam sessions was notable in its varied international artists, covering the gamut from gong artist Jens Zygar to electronic artists like Machinedrum and Kid 606. Since you probably didn’t get to attend, you can experience the results through plenty of photos and videos they’ve shared with us. Californian Lionel Williams, grandchild of film composer John Williams, provides the backdrop for all of this with otherworldy, psychedelic imagery. For that reason, perhaps, the Mindpirates get happily far-out in their reflections on what all of this means, and dub the series “an adventure into the supernatural power of the jam.”

Here’s what the Mindpirates’ Easton West, Owen Roberts and Pauline Doutreluingne, tell CDM about the event and what it’s meant to them:

In January, we opened our new project space, Mindpirates Projektraum, with “Let The Sun Shine In — The Berlin Sessions.” The event included an exhibition of the supernatural collage art from the young California-based artist and musician Lionel Williams. Knowing that Williams was also a talented musician, we decided to bless our new space with a week-long series of jams between Williams, special guests, and ourselves.

The guests included visual artist Manfred Kage, Jens Zygar, Raz Ohara and The Odd Orchestra, Annika Henderson & Nick Henderson (from Anika), Hermione Frank aka rRoxymore, Jochen Arbeit (from Einstürzende Neubauten), Brian Mitchell aka 785, Valerie Renay (from Noblesse Oblige), Travis Stewart aka Machinedrum, Miguel De Pedro aka Kid 606, Verity Susman (from Electrelane), Infinite Livez, Michel Morin aka Sneak-Thief, Antaeus Roy aka Lando Kal and more.

Williams comes from a very musical background. His great-grandfather Johnny Williams was a respected jazz drummer and percussionist who played from the 30s to the 50s for the CBS Radio Orchestra, Raymond Scott, Benny Goodman, and Tommy Dorsey. His grandfather John Williams has written some of the most loved and recognized film music of all time. Ed.: Yep, that John Williams. Lionel’s father Mark Williams drummed with Crosby, Stills and Nash, Tina Turner, and Air Supply.

Given the Williams family’s cross-generational success, one would expect Lionel to follow suit in his own musical endeavours. But there’s something of a sunchild in Williams that directs his varied creations. A fascination with the supernatural comes across in his artwork — abstract, yet suggestive windows into a mind filled with cosmic, mystic, and utopian images. Listening to his ambient electronic rock band Vinyl Williams, it’s apparent that Williams inhabits a slightly different artistic realm to his predecessors.

Jamming has always been an indispensable part of music-making across generations and cultures. The immediate connection people make when they combine sounds — instant, unplanned, and unrepeatable — is an incomparable experience. It allows humans to communicate in a language outside of words. The jam creates an opportunity to explore individual sounds and their relationships to one another. While exploring the relationships of tones, we explore our relationships to one another and to our environment. Improvisation demands an amount of personal development and discipline to open up the channels of communication that allow a group to function as one.

From the frequency-drenched opening performance of gong master Jens Zygar and ground breaking visuals of microphotographer Manfred Kage, to the analog dance party rhythms of our friends Michel Morin aka Sneak Thief and Antaeus Roy aka Lando Kal, the week was wildly diverse with approaches to sound, pitch, rhythm, color and texture and from a wide variety of sources.

For us, the main interest in the improvisations was a constantly-evolving relationship between acoustic instruments and digital music technology. This tension was really visible watching the performances. Williams spent a large part of the week hunched over a dizzying collection of guitar pedals while, next to him, he gathered an even more dizzying collection of musical and percussive instruments, effects and processors. Mindpirates became a melting pot of sound, color, movement, and voices, as seen in our film documentation.

Behind everything lay the real pool of inspiration, the seemingly-infinite timbral, rhythmic, and textural possibilities from a relatively small group of attuned musicians. The representation of the supernatural in The Berlin Sessions was achieved by both the organic and digital and the aural and visual. Never was it discernible where a sound began, where it was processed or the nature of that processing. All is One — a beautiful and mystical message realized through the jams.

Archival website on the project:
http://www.mindpirates.org/theberlinsessions/

Session 1: Lionel Williams, Jens Zygar, Manfred Kage & special guests

Session 2: Lionel Williams & Raz O’Hara and The Odd Orchestra

Session 3: Lionel Williams, Hermione Frank aka rRoxymore & Annika Henderson and Nick Henderson (from Anika)

Session 4: Lionel Williams, Jochen Arbeit (from Einstürzende Neubauten), Valerie Renay (from Noblesse Oblige) & Brian Mitchell aka 785

Session 5: Lionel Williams, Travis Stewart aka Machinedrum & Miguel De Pedro aka Kid 606

Session 6: Lionel Williams, Infinite Livez & Verity Susman (from Electrelane)

Session 7: Lionel Williams, Michel Morin aka Sneak-Thief, Antaeus Roy aka Lando Kal, Mindpirates & good friends

We welcome other event reports like this from around the world, particularly as I’m human and can’t be in all places at once. If you can document it, and tell us a bit about what happened, we’d love to hear from you. And we’d love to hear what has made successful – or unsuccessful – jam sessions in your musical experience.

What does it mean to “master for iTunes?” Apple tripped that question with the launch of a suite of utilities and sound-processing algorithms intended to master music for their codecs and software, rather than more generically as would be done with the CD. More significantly, what does it mean that an increasing number of music listeners experience all music through Apple’s software as the final gateway to their ears? In our first look at this issue, we welcome guest writer and producer Primus Luta (David Dodson). He tests this issue the only way that really matters: with his ears.

There’s so much to say, in fact, that almost each line here of David’s conclusions is up for potential discussion and debate. That to me isn’t a red flag for posting – quite the opposite, it’s an invitation. So we consider this the beginning, not the end, of this conversation. -PK

The announcement of Apple’s new Mastered for iTunes suite caught me at a serendipitous time, as I prepped the first release on my new label.  In fact, the day of the announcement came right in the midst of reviewing masters for the release.  It’s an interesting situation for a compilation release, in which styles range from ambient to muddy beats.  Finding a good balance that keeps them all flowing together is an art in and of itself.  But it would seem Apple has that all solved with their Master for iTunes droplet.  Drag the high-quality files to the droplet, and presto-chango — out come files that all play perfectly in iTunes.

Well, that’s the claim, but is it mastering or encoding?  To their credit, in the documentation Apple explains that their 32-bit process manages to encode from high-res audio without leaving a dithered footprint.  Ed.: “Dithering” is the addition of adding small amounts of noise to compensate for errors that can occur in downsampling from greater bit depth to less – it’s used in image processing as well as in sound. According to Apple, their use of greater bit depth in the intermediary file prevents aliasing and clipping, and thus they don’t need to use dithering. -PK Apple’s tools aren’t the only way to do this. Most pro audio editors can achieve the same, but often people are ripping MP3s or AACs in their media players, so it is an important distinction.  It still begs the question: why go down to CD specifications,  especially while making the point of noting their process results in a quality better than CD’s or CD rips? Ed.: The greater bit-depth is only an intermediary file; eventually delivery is not only compressed, but at specifications set by the CD. Greater resolution and bit depth are limited to the mastered files, not to what the listener ultimately hears.

The most important question, though, is how does it sound?  If you send a song to be mastered, you expect in general to get back a song that sounds different than the one with which you started.  Generally, this difference is in perceived overall volume, but also can include changes to dynamics and other touches.  So what changes does the Master for iTunes droplet make to your files?  Well, none: it just encodes them.  They describe the process as such:

The Droplet creates an AAC audio file from an AIFF or WAVE source file by first generating a CAF (Core Audio File) rendered with an iTunes sound check profile applied to the file. If the sample rate of the source file is greater than 44.1 kHz, it’s downsampled to 44.1 kHz using our mastering-quality SRC. Next, it uses this newly-rendered CAF to render a high-quality AAC audio file. Once the final AAC audio file is generated, the intermediary CAF is deleted.

The key part relating to how your files sound is the “iTunes sound check profile applied to the file.”  Rather than changing the volume gain in the file, metadata information is used to tell the playback device how to play it.  What the documentation does not tell you is what or how this information is determined.

Reviewing masters involves listening on many different systems.  I like to listen on studio monitors, a small boombox, a consumer surround sound theatre system, laptop speakers, desktop computer with headphones and, of course, in a portable media player with various headphones.  I’ve also added a cloud-based stream to that mix — and doing that is what brought me to the experiment I conducted.

I uploaded a test master to the the cloud and was comparing listening to it and iTunes, when I noticed a rather huge discrepancy in volume.  At first, I figured they were just set to different levels, but upon checking both were at their max.  So I went to play my reference song, which currently is the title track from Monolake’s new album Ghosts (I tend to try to keep my reference material relatively contemporary.)  The volumes on this track between applications were more or less the same.  Meanwhile, my test master, which was playing pretty much on par with the Monolake track from the cloud, played significantly lower in iTunes.

That was when I remembered Sound Check.  I wasn’t on my normal listening computer and never bothered to see if Sound Check had been enabled, but sure enough, when I looked the preference was checked.

Ed.: I actually had some difficulty getting a solid answer, but consulting with Apple-following journalist Jim Dalrymple of The Loop, we believe that the default setting is off in iTunes for Mac and Windows and on iOS. If someone has a different answer to this, I’d love to hear it. What you can tell about it is what Apple has documented in support document HT2425, namely, Sound Check operates track-by-track, not album-by-album, operates in the background, and computes and stores non-destructive normalization information in ID3 tags. It works exclusively with .mp3, .AAC, .wav, and .aiff file types, and gain increases occur before the built-in iTunes Limiter. That also means you should consider the iTunes Limited as part of this process.

As soon as I disabled it, the volume was consistent across players.  This inspired me to test how Sound Check was affecting other files, and so, going through my iTunes library, I built up a sample set of 25 songs to test the effects of Sound Check:

- = Sound Check turned down the volume
+ = Sound Check turned up the volume
null = Sound Check had no effect on volume

This was all done by ear, and while my ears aren’t what they used to be, I’m willing to guess if you tested, your results would be similar.  Ed.: You should also be able to investigate the actual ID3 data, but in this case, perceived volume may be more interesting anyway, and the effect isn’t necessarily subtle.

About halfway through, I thought it’d be good to confirm these findings with numerical tests, but then I started noticing a pattern.  Almost everything gets turned down, some more extremely than others — the most extreme example being the Nine Inch Nails track.  The two tracks that get turned up are both archival recordings, and so it makes sense that they are at a lower volume.  The vinyl rip from Pharoah Sanders would likely have gotten turned down, as well, save for the fact that vinyl rips are re-mastered to raise their volumes.  Same goes for the live Stevie Wonder boot.

The stand-outs are the ones which Sound Check has no affect on, each of which was released within the last two years. The Tori Amos track comes from her last orchestral album.  Because of the result, I tested two other selections by her on either side of the advances of digital technology, both of which get turned down.  The track “Blood Roses,” like “Night of the Hunters,” features no drums but still gets turned down, as the mixing for the album is definitely rock-influenced and so the harpsichord falls on the loud side.

Stellar OM Source’s track is of the ambient drone variety, also without drums.  But the Monolake track is techno, full of drums and crunching distortions, yet it remained unaffected by Sound Check. (It’s also worth noting that the Powell track, which also has prominent drums, is only barely turned down by Sound Check.)  Because “Ghosts” is one of my reference tracks, I had previously done an analysis of it. I noted that, despite peaking at the max of 0 dB, its RMS only averages out at -14.5 dB.  I’ve done this type of analysis for a number of modern tracks and this is unusually low.  Typically, drum- and bass- heavy tracks manage to hit around -10 dB RMS with some going as high as -6 dB RMS.

The results for the Monolake track led me to hypothesize that what Sound Check was actually doing was applying an RMS limit on tracks of around -15 dB (with a +/- that I haven’t calculated yet).  Anything below that gets turned up and anything above that gets turned down (with the precaution that turning up never results in clipping by going above the 0 dB max).  This was confirmed when I normalized one of my test master’s to an RMS of -15 dB.  This version of the track, when played in iTunes with Sound Check enabled, played at the same volume as with Sound Check disabled.

Where an object of mastering is to create a version of a song which plays at the optimum level across playback devices, where iTunes is understood as rapidly becoming a primary application for playback, and where Sound Check is often enabled as a preference in iTunes, it stands to reason that those producing masters today should be working to create versions of songs for which Sound Check does not need change the levels.  As such, mastering for iTunes can be understood as creating a quality master which has an average RMS of -15 dB.

Prior to this, the primary barrier for the levels of a master was the 0 dB max limit to prevent clipping.  Within that, the RMS levels could fall anywhere, which is the freedom that gave way to the loudness wars. The so-called “loudness wars” refer to the increase in compression to produce greater perceived loudness, as tracked over the rise of big FM radio and the CD through the 80s, 90s, and today.  Two songs with a max of 0 dB can have extreme differences in volume based on the RMS.  Production and mixing tricks, especially with the heavy use of dynamics processors like compressors, can squash a song, allowing the overall volume to be raised incredibly.  Using these techniques, it’s entirely possible to create a mix (not a master) which has a max level of -4 dB but an RMS of -10 dB.  If you master that track, raising the max, to 0 dB, the RMS level will push close to -6 dB.  When this file is played in iTunes with Sound Check enabled, however, it’s going to be turned down to -15 dB RMS which will be below the -4 dB max level that it started with.

The potential of adopting this as a standard is an end to the loudness wars as we’ve known them.  As the above example shows, doing everything you can to push a song to the max ends up having the opposite effect.  So rather than worry about loudness, producers and mixing engineers can return to focusing on getting good, clean mixes of songs.  Mastering engineers can also worry less about pushing the volume to the max and focus on bringing the best out of the mixes.

Incidentally, the system for producing tracks that comply to this have long existed in the mastering world, thanks to Bob Katz and the K system of level metering.  Using the K-14 system of metering for mastering (and producing and mixing) can ensure that engineers are not pushing their mixes too loud.

There are, however, some negatives which can be attributed to the adoption of such a standard.  Because of the headroom afforded by digital, in the last decade, the creative use of volume has increased.  ”Loud” has new musical meaning, and the tools utilized to maximize loudness normally in mastering are being introduced during production to create effects.  An example of this is the pumping effect of side-chain compression on drums.  This can be quite appealing creatively even when (and perhaps because) it pushes to levels of distortion.  Creating this effect without clipping is easily managed with a limiter at the end of the signal chain.  However, creating this effect below -15 dB is not so straightforward, and the results won’t necessarily be the same.

For the mastering of multi-song projects there are other issues.  Over the course of an album, dynamic shifts between songs can help to carry the mood of the project.  One wouldn’t necessarily want all of the tracks to have the same -15 dB RMS; ideally, that would be reserved for the loudest song and the others mixed under that accordingly.   It presents a challenge, but it is manageable.  What’s nice about this type of limit is that, unlike the 0 dB max limitation, going over it does not necessarily result in destructive clipping, so there’s still a dynamic range within which to work.  It’s also worth noting that the Sound Check process can be applied to an album to ensure consistency in listening.

One has to hope that, should this become a standard, new creative ways of working within these parameters will be born.  To be clear, -15 dB RMS, while not the loudest, can sound great for a great mix.  Just listen to the Monolake track if you want proof.  Getting people to adopt to it is a challenge, but I think the incentive to adopt will be there once artists realize that the more they push the volume, like their mother, the more Sound Check will turn the volume down.

As a footnote, I thought to test how Sound Check treated what was previously considered the most perfect album from a mixing mastering perspective – Steely Dan’s Aja.  In iTunes, Sound Check turns “Peg” down.  So it’s not just your bass heavy-beats that could be affected by this.  Also, it’s not just iTunes and not just Sound Check.  Replay Gain is a similar tool found in other media players.  Spotify also has similar limiting for its streaming services.  These things will likely show up in more playback applications as time goes on so adopting to this now is a pretty safe bet.  Sure, your tracks may not sound the loudest when tested without these services, but with good mixes, they will still sound good, regardless. “Good” is far more important than “loud.”

I’m still on the fence, though.  In general, I’m not a fan of auto volume control.  Adopting a mastering standard that caters to them just seems wrong, even if I am (for the most part) on the side of ending the loudness wars.  And, again, on the creative side, I’m very concerned.  A decade of loudness wars in many ways has changed our sense of sound possibilities, and signals pushed into the red — well, I kind of like those, when they’re done creatively.  People talking about the loudness wars are usually talking about traditional rock and pop music being squashed and absent of dynamics.  But we’re at a point now where there are other genres for whom pushing into the red can be seen as more valuable than dynamic range.  It’s a completely different school of thought and need not be shut down (or turned down) because of an antiquated sense of norm.

You can follow David Dodson on Twitter. http://twitter.com/#!/primusluta

We’re interested to hear what you think.

If you’re a Mac user, we’ve got some cheap and free tools for you. And if you’re a Max patcher, you may be surprised with how they were built: they were all exported from Max 6.

This week, we welcome a guest writer developer Dan Nigrin. Amidst some new controversy about Apple and app distribution, here Dan looks at how Apple’s marketplace can indeed be useful to developers using Max 6, the popular graphical patching tool. (Incidentally, the libpd library could work for App Store apps, too, and for mobile on iOS and Android, along with various other tools, so developers now have lots of options for getting their ideas out there.) -PK

CDM has covered the Mac App Store and its impact (or not) on music software quite extensively in the past – see Apple’s App Store May Not Work for Audio Devs; Developers Respond, October 2010, and Six Reasons the Mac App Store Means Little for Music Creation – At Least For Now, January 2011.

But I think a new development may start to change things, at least a little bit. Cycling ‘74’s newly-released Max 6 now makes it possible for standalone apps created with it to be released on the Mac App Store. Previous versions of Max caused some standalone preference files to be written to a Preferences folder on the Mac; believe it or not, this violated an Apple Mac Store rule (an app can only write to very specific locations, not including the Preferences folder – go figure). To Cycling’s credit, they changed the preferences file location starting in Max 6, and so that obstacle has now been removed from getting Max apps in the Store.

I first asked the question about getting Max-built apps in the Mac App Store around the time Apple originally announced it in 2010 – see a thread in the Cycling ’74 forums. Soon after, Oli Larkin tested the waters, and he was the first to discover the above problem with the preference files. After Cycling addressed that, James Howard Young then tackled more minutia required to pass all the approval and validation steps Apple requires, and was the first to successfully get his app live on the store, followed soon after by Oli’s and then my two. We all shared our experience on the above thread, and with each other in private emails.

The apps have done quite well (Audio Plugin Player, below, made it up to #7 on Top Paid Apps in the Music category of the App Store within 48 hours of release), though we are all still experimenting with different price points, support models, etc. — usual App Store growing pains, I would imagine. Here are the apps currently available – note that there may be more, these are just the ones I know about:

Four Apps, Available Now

Defective Records Software (Dan Nigrin)
Audio Plugin Player
Get it on CDM Apps

A lightweight VST and AU instrument plugin host, that allows you to play these instruments using either your mouse, computer keyboard (including support for non-US keyboards), or MIDI device (both hardware and software MIDI devices supported). It has a simple, one-screen interface, without any of the complexity that a DAW takes for a newcomer to get up and running.

Defective Records Software (Dan Nigrin)
General MIDI Player
Get it on CDM Apps

An easy way to turn your Mac into an instrument, using its built-in General MIDI support. You can play these instruments using either your mouse, computer keyboard (including support for non-US keyboards), or MIDI device (both hardware and software MIDI devices supported). It has a simple, one-screen interface.

James Howard Young
TapNTempo
Get it on CDM Apps

A fully featured metronome that offers customizable sounds, real-time tempo tapping, and beat and division capabilities. TapNTempo’s easy-to-use interface includes the best of the traditional metronome, but feature bloating is avoided in favor of simplicity.

Oli Larkin
pMix
Get it on CDM Apps

pMix is a sound design, composition and performance tool that allows you to morph between VST plugin presets using an intuitive graphical interface. 

Presets are represented by coloured balls that are positioned on a 2D plane. The size of each ball and its proximity to the cursor affects the weight of the associated preset in the interpolation.

Morphing between presets often results in the discovery of interesting hybrid sounds. By constraining sound manipulations within a predesigned “interpolation space” complex transitions can be achieved that would otherwise be hard to manage.

pMix can load four VST2 audio plugins. It comes with a suite of specially designed plugins which cover a range of experimental DSP techniques (noise generators, FM synthesis, formant filtering, frequency shifting etc). These plugins can also be used in other VST host applications.

Conclusions, Looking Forward

I made a decision to “start simple” with my App Store apps, compared to for example my Klee or Cyclic. But as you can see, you’re not limited to just simple apps – Oli’s, for instance, is obviously quite complex. So I think that this is just the beginning of what I expect will be many Max apps on the App Store – it makes it possible for the many, many interesting projects developed in Max to reach a much bigger audience that possible before. Just taking a look at the Projects page on the Cycling web site gives a sample of what soon might find its way there.

Perhaps even more exciting is news from Damon Holzborn and Brad Garton of Columbia University, that they are working on a path from Max to iOS apps, and in a way that makes them totally compliant with the iTunes App Store. Really looking forward to this!

We’re looking forward to this, too, so we’ve assembled a special section that shows apps built with Max available on the Mac App Store. We may soon follow this with other tools (Pd, Csound, etc.) if there’s demand. But here are those Max options:

Made with Max, Featured on CDM Apps

Can You Play in the Sandbox?

Ed.: One issue to watch as Apple’s brave, new App Store moves forward is sandboxing requirements. For these Max apps, it shouldn’t necessarily be a problem, but before it appears that we’re endorsing the App Store for all music apps, regardless of purpose, we’re not. A number of Apple developers have raised some concerns about sandboxing and how it’s implemented. They’re worth reading if you’re a developer – and may, in turn, inspire some tweaks from Apple in terms of how this is done. All via Daring Fireball:

Sandboxing and xScope 3.0 [furbo.org]
Fix The Sandbox [Red Sweater]
Sandboxing and Clipstart [Manton Reece]

Here are Dan’s own thoughts on the subject:

No, I’m not concerned about plugin hosting with respect to sandboxing; the sandboxing rules stipulate that you’re allowed to access files on the host system if the user specifies the file in which they are interested via a file dialog. So, in my Audio Plugin Player app, for example, that’s what I do – the user is prompted to pick the plugin they want to use via file dialog (or they can drag and drop it onto the app). That way, I am not breaking any sandbox rules.

Also, one can request additional “entitlements” for one’s application, which allow it to access locations that are not currently “approved” areas within the file system for the app to access. I’d be surprised if requesting an entitlement to access the Plug-Ins folder was not allowed… Ed. That would be, of course, relevant to Apple’s own Logic Pro as a host; despite predictions to the contrary, it appears third party developers should – theoretically – have access to the same entitlements as Apple’s own apps. And if that’s not enough, you can still distribute via other means, including in Mountain Lion, and in contrast to the App Store-only iOS model. -PK

It makes sense that the App Store, with its specific sales model and technical requirements, will suit some applications well and not others. Because you can choose to install apps from other sources, that leaves both users and developer free to choose based on their needs.

Policy, intellectual property, and changing business models remain hot threads to follow on this site as we watch the transformation of music distribution in the electronic age. This time, we welcome a new contributor to look inside the issues. Surprise: one radio host sides with the record industry, and the issues may not be as clear as you think. Jo explains. –Ed.

Imagine this:  A track from your new record is being played out on the radio — nonstop. All the major indie stations in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Miami and Atlanta have picked it up. At this point, I’m sure you’ve already ordered a fancy synth that you plan to pay for with your big check. But there is a problem: You did an acoustic version of Jimmy Edgar’s “My Beats.” So who gets paid? Jimmy Edgar. Guess who does not get paid? You!

The Performance Rights Act is a bill before the US Congress that would require terrestrial radio stations to pay royalties to the performer of a track. It is being supported by artists like Billy Corgan (who recently testified on behalf of the artists’ rights group, the musicFIRST coalition) Don Henley, Jay-Z, Billy Idol, as well as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Aside from the issue of “fairness,” the United States is one of the few countries that does not require payment to the performing artist when her track is played on the radio.

Celia Hirschman, host of “On the Beat” on Los Angeles’ KCRW public radio, a broadcast on changes and trends in the music business, says she agrees with the act. (Celia notes these are her personal views, and do not necessarily reflect the position of KCRW.)

“For decades, the laws have favored a free license to play artists’ music on radio,” says Hirschman. “This was ratified by Congress and basically accepted by all concerned…This free pass no longer makes any sense, especially for commercial radio. A reasonable compulsory license fee for all radio, with lower rates to non-commercial is an equitable solution for artists and labels.  Commercial radio stations earn their income by selling advertising because of their programming content.  It’s only fair that the content providers are compensated.”

“This free pass no longer makes any sense.”

Celia Hirschman, host of “On the Beat” on KCRW

Opposing the bill is the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) who claim the legislation amounts to a “tax” and will force many radio stations to go bankrupt. Additionally, opponents of the bill point out that many artists were first discovered because of radio exposure, which translates into sales (ticket sales, album sales and merchandise) and promotion of their brand. If the station goes under, so does the performing artists’ potential income.

Dennis Wharton, EVP of NAB, claims that the RIAA “relies on cherry-picking international examples that paint a distorted picture of copyright law.” “The US protects sound recordings for 45 years longer than Canada and many countries in Europe, says Wharton. “If it’s “international parity” that RIAA is looking for, they ought to examine the entire landscape.”

In fact, the international landscape is not equal.  Many countries in Europe run stations owned or subsidized by government funding. The foundation of our copyright laws are different as well. In the United States, we use the term “copyright” whereas many European countries use a term equivalent to “author’s rights.” “Copyright” reflects an attitude that is concerned with the restriction of uses for economic reasons, whereas the term “author’s rights” reflects an attitude that is concerned with the extension of the author’s intellect and self.

I recently spoke with Brian Lee Corber, an IP attorney who has closely followed the Performance Rights Act. In his opinion the bill will not pass. “Collecting royalties for the songwriter is already inaccurate; it’s based off of surveys. Logistically, collecting royalties for the performer is even more complicated…what happens when the performer is an orchestra?” Corber feels this logistical nightmare may make it difficult for the legislature to justify passing this bill.

As a reaction to the Performance Rights Act, NAB is backing the Local Radio Freedom Act which calls for no tax or fee for the performance of a sound recording on the radio. As of March 24th, 9 more lawmakers signed onto the Local Radio Freedom Act, making the total number of co-sponsors 158.

For More Information:

Music First Coalition: www.musicfirstcoalition.org

National Association of Broadcasters: www.nab.org

KCRW: www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/ob

Sources:

Dougherty, F. Jay. Copyright Law Class at Loyola Law School, March 24, 2009.

“Mr. Corgan goes to Washington for a Bigger Piece of the Radio Pie”

http://blogs.suntimes.com/derogatis/2009/03/updated_mr_corgan_goes_to_wash.html

“NAB disputes RIAA Claim Ahead of Performance Rights Hearing”

http://radioink.com/Article.asp?id=1206143

“NAB, musicFIRST go Head-to-Head on Royalties”

http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=1235167

“Smashing Pumpkins Singer, Billy Corgan Testifies Before Congress”

http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/news-smashing-pumpkins-singer-billy-corgan-testifies-before-congress

Los Angeles-based CDM contributor Jo Ardalan is the Managing Director and Founder of Fixed Noise, a community-based company specializing in audio software development, artist management and business development in tech and entertainment.

She’s a veteran of Waxploitation and Native Instruments, an experienced sound designer and engineer, and consultant.

And she has a Reaktor tattoo.

Enough of the empty cheerleading. Web-only networking can have a dark side, too — and the music community can do better. Playing devil’s advocate this week to one-dimensional Web 2.0 optimism, we welcome Dave Dri, musician, producer, and founder of Segue. -PK

I write a column for a weekly street press magazine in Australia. The vast majority of the universe won’t have picked up that magazine, of course. But my topic this week has been bouncing around Interwebs, cafes, and clubs like an alarm clock, waking the electronic music community from a happy slumber. The cause for alarm: the dire state of expectations amongst electronic music producers, digital labels and online stores.

Thanks For The Add!!!

For the host of fresh-faced producers who know only digital labels and online stores, the process of making and releasing music is relatively seamless, and entirely virtual. Countless producers have access to affordable computing power, an endless choice of software, and the ease of uploading to sites like Myspace and Purevolume. For much of this generation, the idea of marketing begins and ends with “thanks for the add!!”. Even veteran producers and performers can be lulled into the steady hypnosis of the Web and its links, emails and forum posts.

The process of song writing often finds a global audience almost as soon as one can come up with a catchy, if eventually regrettable, artist name and an upload of the latest renders. Imagine their surprise when a weekend of link farming across MySpace yields a reply from a digital record label showing interest in one or more tracks. Some emails bounce back and forth, the artist agrees to a 50% share of the profits and, soon enough, the label has uploaded a new release to Beatport. What’s not to love about this system? The producer feels validated as a “real life producer guy”, the label has another release on its books and the wheels of the music industry keep rolling.

The Back In My Day Bit

What’s wrong with this process is, basically, everything. As a contrast, let’s look at the previous generation of producers and live acts. This generation existed on the cusp of technology change and would have its feet grounded in the almost unthinkable days prior to cry of “thanks for the add!!!” These artists swapped tracks on CD-R’s with other producers in their local area and shopped and networked with local records stores by virtue of their primary access to local music alone. They stressed over refining and releasing actual EPs. They met, partied, and bought and sold music with other DJ’s, producers, promoters and music press. They refined their DJ skills or live performances and pushed music as a part of a growing local scene. They knew the local street press writers and sent out promos, hung up posters and generally interacted with the real world. IRL – in real life.

One might suggest that while the younger producers are adding each other to friend lists, the veteran live acts and producers are still out working the venues, pushing discs into the hands of promoters, and doing such wild things as asking for interviews and promotions in street press. As I asked a Web forum recently, guess what the proportion is between digital labels and producers sending MySpace and Facebook messages, versus those actually sending well-written press releases and calling to ask for interviews and promotional assistance? The answer is pretty dire, and quite telling.

Take The Red Pill

If anything positive can be taken from the state of the current industry, then it should be a revisiting of the basic ideas of the music industry. Artists should be backing up their passion for music by investing more efforts into creating better music, and pursuing the best deals from the best labels by building their profile through real-world networking and performances. Labels should be sourcing the best artists, artists whoare actually working to push their own music in the real world, and developing them with the aid of a strong network of industry captains, DJs, credible promoters and all the existing and fringe music media. That means actually writing press releases, actually getting out and meeting people, and following up important emails with phone calls. Most importantly, it’s asking for coverage across the full spectrum of media and constantly developing reasons why the act deserves it.

Really, one might say it just boils down to effort. Why an artist wants to give music to a label that spends little effort promoting a release is as hard to fathom as a label wanting to sign an artist who spends little effort creating their art and profile. Maybe your local community and musical genre mirrors these examples; maybe not. But electronic music has little to lose and everything to gain from more effort and more real-world local community.

Oh — and, before I forget, thanks for the add!

Ed.: Now, of course, I’m not going to slam online communities, seeing as I, erm, run one. But I kept thinking while reading Dave’s article how much online tools can help power real-world connections. We’ve had extraordinary opportunities getting together for events like Handmade Music. I still swap CDs. (Bet your laptop still has a CD burner, huh? It runs at, what, 60x now?) I hate press releases, even when they’re well-written. But I love real-world connections.

That’s, of course, just the beginning. So to reframe Dave’s challenge, how can we use online tools to make meatspace connections easier and more powerful, for indie artists and labels alike? How can we start raising expectations again? -PK

Squarepusher has taken over the music page of the Guardian, and the results bring joy and smiles to children and the young at heart. Just how great is it when Squarepusher is in charge?

Music singles are complete and utter fluff, and he’s not afraid to say so, picking them apart one at a time like an angry, deconstructionist Casey Kasem.

Noise and Italian Futurists get their due. Fluxus is the sort of cinema that accompanies your popcorn.

A gentleman drops by to talk about aesthetic theory, and … uh, something about how great Steve Reich is. Got a little lost on that one, in fact (not that I don’t love aesthetic theory and Mr. Reich).

Squarepusher (and Alex Thomas) demonstrate what music can sound like if you’re a musician. (Note: no fancy delays necessary to make it sound like they’ve got rhythm. Quite unlike when I’m playing, in fact. Well, not that I’m much good with Drum and Bass anyway. That’s real Drum and Bass, you see.)

And best of all, he provides commentary for the above video.

"Sometimes I cave right in." As he walked along the edge of the field, the earth seemed to splinter at each step. A glance along the cold hedgerow hurt his eye. Everything he looked at sent dread through his viscera, none the less sharp for all of its familiarity. Stones underfoot seemed to chatter and sneer, the Luton-grey sky was an idiotic, mocking expanse. He paused at the brook, cold dirty glass. Dull pain accompanied a frame of memory; he had bathed his feet here as a boy. Nearly losing his balance, he said, out loud as if to silence the roaring dead air of the November morning: "That water is too shallow to drown myself in."

The Luton-grey sky was an idiotic, mocking expanse, indeed.

It feels good to hate that video.

Enjoy.

Thanks, wesen and Resident Advisor, via Twitter.

Marc “Nostromo” Resibois, aka “m.-.n,” lives the digital life of computers. The Belgian musician and hacker [@MySpace] is renowned as a Game Boy musician, as the inventor of legendary Nintendo tracker LittleGPTracker, and even has a day job as a programmer for VJ software maker Arkaos. But lately, his thoughts have turned to more traditional synthesis hardware – hardware that acts as tiny computers. Nothing is going to shake me from my love of computers, but that doesn’t mean I’m not interested in having what he describes sitting next to mine. Here’s what he imagines – and it’s a variation on a theme I think we’ll see a lot in the coming weeks and months here on CDM. And without giving away the punchline, that Nintendo DS is going to make another appearance.

I’ve always loved small, self-contained units. Because I’m a software guy, I’ve been developing music software on handheld consoles for years. I love these little guys. They are tiny, fairly powerful, and their physical interface gives you a good amount of control, leading to a growing stack of interesting applications.

However, recently, a couple of interesting projects started to emerge from the hardware side of things. That makes it possible to start dreaming about building your own little synth, even for people like me who can’t even deal with sticky tape.

My first hands-on with hardware was when I started fiddling with the Arduino piano. You might argue that once it’s built, it’s still software platform, but I really enjoy working on this bit of kit. The interaction is even more straightforward than game consoles: press a button, turn a knob, and get sound. Although it might seem limited compared to software synths, it also has dimensions that a lot of virtual instruments lack. I’ll call these qualities depth and exclusivity.

Depth: When you turn a pot on this hardware, you’re really in control. You may argue there’s a lot of controllers out there, but compared to the 1024-level resolution of the Arduino, standard MIDI Control Changes turn out to be bogus for smoothly controlling parameters. Just playing with the default FM patch of the Arduino piano makes it obvious. [Ed.: Of course, I will add there are ways around this – higher-resolution MIDI control messages, plug-in automation, OpenSoundControl, and audio-rate / audio-stream control, to mention a few, not to mention even simple interpolation of lower-resolution MIDI controll messages. But then, we’re talking a very, very cheap piece of hardware on the Arduino, so there’s a big point here. –PK]

Exclusivity: When you play with hardware like the Arduino piano, it’s the only thing you do. You can’t fire Google or start reading your mail, and I think it’s really valuable. Every music "tool" should be able to immerse you enough so that the rest of the world doesn’t exist. All computer-based synths have failed to do that for me.

Of course, the greatest thing of all is that this domain is only at its very beginning. It’s a small spore in your hands waiting to morph to the next level. You decide its fate. And that’s where it gets exciting. Playing with the Arduino piano and looking at it as a synth development platform, I started to think about what I could dream of making with it. What would make it "timeless" for me, using existing available technology?

Here’s what I ended up with:

1. The core: At this point, it doesn’t really matter if we’re talking Arduino, Propeller or any other chip. The point is that there are programmable chips out there that will support development of your very own personal synth. They might run at very low sample rate, they might have the tiniest memory for programs, but they have soul. In the 80s, when digital synths hit the mainstream market, they were likewise limited in resources. Still, they were powerful enough to be admired and loved.

2. The engine: Ideally, the processor should be fast enough to allow a fairly configurable synth engine — something that would allow switching between ‘presets’. You don’t want to have to flash the chip every time you want a new sound. It doesn’t take a major CPU to be able to do something decent. For proof of that, look at Korg’s DS-10 running 6 parameterized synths on a lowly Nintendo DS. Maybe the Arduino is too limited to be a good enough candidate for this, but there are plenty of other possible platforms.

3. Controllers: As I already mentioned, direct hardware control is a joy that can’t be overstated. Having high-resolution pots connected directly to the chip provides an easy and cheap way to tweak your sounds in real-time, in ways you’ve probably forgotten (assuming you haven’t recently used analog hardware and the like). Let’s call them generic controllers: we want them to act in the most expressive way depending on the ‘presets’ that were built for the synth engine.

4. The keyboard: It doesn’t take long playing with the Arduino piano to realize the keyboard is not going to take you very far. Not being a keyboard player myself, my idea is to ditch it and keep a few switches for direct action like switching patches, transposing, etc. I’m pretty sure there should be a way to integrate a decent keyboard in this setup, but how to do that is beyond my reach. One could trigger the sound with just a button. A few pots and a “push me” button – sound familiar? Ed.: See the Dave Smith Mopho, though generally people are hooking MIDI keyboards to it so they can easily input pitch. But then, why use a keyboard at all? Quite a few synth lovers regret the addition of keyboards to synths, because they don’t allow for expression between notes, as on instruments like violins or the human voice. I’m not sure a single button is an improvement, but then, you could create the architecture of the synth to easily allow analog input, thus enabling anything you want. -PK

5. The deep end: This is where it gets fun. So far, we’ve got something fairly basic — running a synth on a chip, triggering sound, and having patch-based control on expression parameters. What could make this synth totally self-contained would to some means for editing sounds from the unit itself. There was a recent post on Analog Industries wondering whether people preferred a simple interface or access to all parameters. In my view, an ideal synth should provide both: when editing a patch, you should get access to all the parameters. When playing it, you should get access to only those parameters that make sense for the sound. The first example I remember of this is the Nord Modular: it provides modes geared for a sound designer or a performer. That’s true with the wonderful morphing effect rack in Ableton Live or the generic parameters of the aforementioned Mopho. But how to do this in a small, self-contained unit? The pots give us a performance mode, but the challenge is how to navigate the deeper possibilities of editing a synth engine? I just don’t want to have to use a computer. I’d be checking Facebook or uploading moods to Twitter instead of making noise.

There happens to be a mobile, compact unit that could be perfect for the job, however: the Nintendo DS. It’s got a small form factor, a few additional hardware controlers, a very playable touchscreen, and a serial interface that could enable bi-directional communication with the synth engine. By throwing the NDS in the picture, we could gain:

• A user interface to edit the synth’s parameters (why not implement a touchscreen based VCS3 type matrix, for example?)
• The possibility of running a small sequencer
• Some additional performance capabilities, a la Kaoss Pad, to control the synth.

So in the end, we have a hardware/software hybrid that’s very powerful, yet fits in a very small form factor, and whose cost (beside the blood, sweat, and tears of building the whole thing) wouldn’t go past the USD 300 mark.

Anyone with too much time on their hands? I’d like one, please

Ed.: Some really interesting ideas here. I’m not sure I’m so crazy about the Nintendo DS as a closed platform, though. Reimagine this more broadly as hardware DSP / embedded microcontroller synth engine plus some sort of small mobile computer, and you’ve got lots and lots of possibilities. I’m not tossing my computer – I can close the Internet and focus on music for a while even on a computer – but even as a lover of sound design on a computer, I find all of this very tantalizing. I also know we have some other folks working in similar directions and on other mobile ideas, so stay tuned. -PK

What do you say when it’s all been said? We felt it was time for a fresh perspective on the MPC phenomenon — one a normal review couldn’t provide. So we got the opinion of our friend, samplist/producer and Segue member Dave Dri. And the verdict: there’s still something about an MPC — even if it suggests why there’s also something about software, too. But it involves dust. Here’s his op-ed:

Recently I had the task of reviewing an MPC5000 for a local street press magazine. The MPC part of it was fine — the word limit was trickier. Over the last decade I have reviewed the MPC2000XL and the MPC1000, with a lot of time and gigs passing between them. From early days in a live breaks act to my current progressive house act, an MPC has been right under hand. In the week that I reluctantly handed the 5000 back to Musiclab, the drummer that guested in my band at the Big Day Out festival asked me to play keys and samples in his band at a local festival. [Ed.: Our own Jaymis filmed the Big Day Out gig if you want to check it out.] I found myself in a chance conversation with a friend from the live breaks act Bitrok and the very next day, somehow, I’m on stage with his MPC2500 — a unit which I have since bought. So why did reviewing an MPC5000 lead to me buying an MPC2500 after years of happy service from an invincible MPC2000XL?

If you’re reading this, you probably know what an MPC is, and you can readily review any number of link-bait Google results for the product mentioned in the title of this post. [Ed. Hmmmm, link-baiting MPC's, huh? "10 Ways an MPC is Like a Cupcake"? "15 of the Best MPC YouTube Videos Featuring Hot Women MPCers?" perhaps? -PK]

What you probably want to know is what it’s really like. So I will tell you.

Changes, Rants, and Internet Haters

It’s big. Really big. In fact, it’s so large that it couldn’t fit on the Jerker desk that forms the core of my studio rig, and spent its review loan period on a keyboard stand. In a particularly amusing moment I happened to glance at a nearby MacBook with an Akai MPD-16 controller plugged in to it and formed an unfounded suspicion that the sheer size was simply a ploy by Akai to appeal to some demographic that might use the MPC5000 as the core, if not entirety, of their studio. Would Akai deliberately oversize their hardware to appeal to bling-savvy producers?

It’s got a new screen. Getting past the size, the next comment is usually on the screen. Long-time MPC users with older models are delighted with the display being adjustable in both position and contrast. As one might imagine, navigation and editing benefits immediately, and the old Shift+Number menu system is replaced with context-sensitive Mode and Window buttons. By this point things are getting off to a great start. All the basics work as they should, and getting around the unit is old hat to anyone who has touched an MPC.

It’s a synth – but will it replace other synths? Then we find ourselves exploring the onboard synthesizer emulation that Akai claim “eliminates need for external analog synth modules or buggy software based synthesizers.” We will touch on the concept of buggy software in a minute, but I think we can safely ground the private fantasy jet that Akai seem to be flying around in with the notion that their VA emulation is somehow a replacement for external analog synth modules. As you would expect, the preset patches have a liberal use of the word “Moog” and sound nothing like one. Even worse, it soon becomes clear that you need to load a patch into memory to even preview it. As Just Blaze says on his MPC5000 rant, this is 2008. Having to spend studio time loading a synth patch just to preview to it is ridiculous, and was something that Yamaha seemed to avoid with their RM1X back in the mid to late 1990’s.

As to the marketing claims of “avoiding buggy software”, this is, of course, a point of instant ridicule for anyone who has owned first-generation Akai hardware. If there is any company deserving of an award for consistently disappointing software programming it would be Akai. Optimists like to say that 1.0 OS implementations are likely to have a few issues that soon get fixed, but that kind of logic in the automotive industry would cost lives. In the same sense, broken functionality or crashing operating systems can limit creative output. For a device that costs as staggering an amount as the MPC5000 (MSRP US$3500), it is inexcusable to release such a flagship product without appropriate testing and debugging. It’s not like the world was clamouring for a massive, heavy, expensive hardware sequencer with onboard virtual analog synth emulation. Again I will point to hip-hop producer Just Blaze and his rant at Akai for the state they released the MPC5000. [Ed.: This is not an official CDM comment or my comment on Akai's reliability, because, frankly, I haven't used one. So if anyone wants to add to the rants here or question them -- and perhaps comment on how firmware updates have settled -- I'm all ears; please do so in comments! -PK]

In Australia right now, for the same price as the MPC5000, one is able to purchase a rig such as an Asus laptop, Motu Ultralite audio interface (site | on CDM), Ableton 7 and an MPD drum pad MIDI controller interface. Then again, you couldn’t simply turn it on and start making music out of the box. Despite the need for hardware that simply works, Akai simply cannot afford to rely on Roger Linn’s (on CDM) clever idea from the 1980’s any longer without actually following through on their product promises. Akai commentary aside, this isn’t an outright attack on the MPC5000. Not by any means. The parent company may attract comments on internet forums like “they be smoking crack mangz”, but their products do have a place in the market. This is where anyone left reading can take a deep breath and bask in some hints of genius.

MPC5000′s Brilliant Bits

The MPC5000 does indeed have enough promise to warrant its place on the shelves of your favourite music store or in the database of your choice of online retailer. For a start, the filters and Q-link faders are stunning. Noticing the in-built pre-amp (that Akai have finally copied from their competitors) included in the MPC, I hooked my trusty Vestax turntable and randomly grabbed a record – in this case, one of those James Last records you can’t but trip over in Australian record stores. With it spinning, I pushed record, grabbed a good 20 seconds, mapped the sample to a pad and the pad to a program. Going into sample edit mode, I enjoyed the large screen and multiple faders for adjusting start and end points without the 2000XL style scrolling or shift fader. On a whim, I bumped the resonance on the filter. It took about 5 seconds for me to fall in love with the potential of these filters. Sweeping low, I turned Tijuana trumpets into a resonant sub bass that swept up with my fader movements into the kind of pitched build-up that is still all over progressive house. Sample transformed.

Grabbing other samples from sources less dubious, I began to simply enjoy the hands-on creativity that sampling so effectively enables. Whether you’re a fan of the Sonalksis TBK filter or run your samples through an old Korg MS-20, there is something to be said for the creative aesthetic that comes with a simple sampler, some records and some decent filters. Do I see some heads nodding in agreement over in the French House corner?

Conclusion: Dusty Fingers

So, after a lengthy rant, I managed to say some nice things about the filters and the aesthetic of the MPC. Unfortunately, all specifications and feature sheets aside, the legacy of the MPC series is and always will be the elusive concept of feel, aesthetic, and groove. Once upon a time, this might have been currency to spend on lengthy, impassioned essays to enraptured audiences. These days, the proponents of the tradition of MPC groove tend to get short thrift amongst their contemporaries, who program the same boom bap beats in Fruity Loops, on Roland Grooveboxes and — lest we forget — Madlib’s infamous Roland SP303. There’s a certain element of buying an MPC that’s just down to being down with the MPC format. Plenty of internet forum arguments are waged over hardware versus software, Akai versus Roland, this versus that, purple versus magenta.

Ignoring the actual conflict, it’s obvious that there is something passionate about the range. For me, the MPC5000 reignited a passion that had fallen behind with the 2000XL’s user experience, compared to my workflow in Ableton and Battery. Despite relying on the old grey box for live shows, I had forgotten the unique outcomes of dusty fingers, hands on vinyl, samples on sampler. And it managed to do that in spite of its size, cost, weight and bugs. Once Akai iron out the last of the issues, there is no doubt that this will be a success amongst those producers who are set on hardware sequencing in the box with all the trimmings. For me, the MPC range has been an extension of DAW workflow more than an alternative. In that light, I am content in the MPC2500 bringing crate digging and sampling enjoyment back into my studio and replacing my trusty 2000XL in the flight case at gigs. If the idea of the MPC5000 appeals to you, then I would urge you to test it out for yourself. If you already have then let us know how you found it in the comments below!

Dave Dri is an MPC-wielding Samplist and Producer from Brisbane, Australia. He has been involved with a variety electronic acts running the gamut from Breaks to Jungle. His current project is Segue.

Wallace is CDM’s resident turntablist, and he’s also immune to blind gear lust. I’m waiting to pass judgment until I get first-hand contact with Xponent, but I’m equally confused from a product perspective. Now, let’s see — we could copy and paste a press release here. Or we could try Wally. I just hope we’re able to figure out what he really thinks. -PK

Let me get this straight – an overpriced control surface is what’s gonna change DJing?

M-Audio Torq Xponent

M-Audio announced their Xponent control surface/USB audio interface today, and this long-time DJ is distinctly underwhelmed. You know, when all there was to the SynchroScience line was the Torq software, the Conectiv and the X-Session Pro, I had this idea that they were building this mini-galaxy of interoperable DJ gear that one could purchase bit by bit and eventually put together a nice, integrated digital DJ system with all the bells and whistles. However, the emergence of the Xponent today turns out to be a bit of a head scratcher.

First of all, where are the inputs? It’s got 2 sets of RCA outputs, but no inputs. This thing neither encompasses the functionality of the Conectiv nor does it look like it really works with it. Sure, if I’m a Mac user I can create an aggregate audio device with the Xponent and the Conectiv, but given that Windows users CAN’T do this, I get a pretty strong feeling that this thing is not designed to work alongside the Conectiv.

OK, so let’s judge it on it’s own. MSRP $750 for a USB 1.1 audio interface and MIDI control surface made of plastic? It’s colorful, I’ll give it that – but it doesn’t even have 1/4″ jacks on it. Where’s the mic input? This thing is designed strictly for the person who wants to DJ with their computer and the Xponent and THAT’S IT. You know, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it’s designed to be the replacement for one’s DJ CD players for the DJ who DOESN’T want to DJ mp3s on their turntables, in which case, that DJ is a luddite and probably not going to be attracted to something like this.

OK, so maybe it’s a nice control surface for people who want to DJ with Ableton Live. Still though, I wonder if those people don’t already have an audio interface for their laptop, in which case, why would they want to spend $675-700 street on this when they could get the much slicker-looking Vestax VCI-100 control surface for $499?

I just don’t understand. I think M-Audio has missed a real opportunity here by not making this something that either works with or includes the functionality of the Conectiv. However, one thing I do understand is this — any manufacturer out there who promises that they’re going to “change DJing” has a shiny new piece of plastic to sell, and that’s about it.