Speaking of gaming, here’s more news that the fledgling game audio and music area is getting more attention — something that we at CDM see as very good news. (See our sometimes-obsessive gaming stories.) CDM’s resident game composer and sound designer checks in …

In an e-mail he sent to me yesterday, Peter pointed out that Mix was soon to offer a bi-monthly newsletter on game audio. We were both summarily unimpressed – until we discovered that the newsletter was in addition to a monthly digital magazine, a sample of which is now available on the Mix website.

The sample issue covers topics such as audio for mobile games, World of Warcraft sound design, and an interview with Tim Larkin – composer for various Myst games, and sound designer for Half-Life 2 episodic content.(…see our previous interview with Tim Larkin.)

While a tad short on content, any level of coverage from the mainstream audio media is more than welcome, and we’re sure to see some great interviews and stories in future issues.

Producers howl over sound cut out by MP3 compression (and I see, while I was sitting on this, it got slashdotted, though no one took the bait

As Joel Selvin writes for the The San Francisco Chronicle, MP3s have less music:

…the music contained in these computer files represents less than 10 percent of the original music on the CDs.

Wow, I knew that compressed digital audio files contained less data, but less music?

In its journey from CD to MP3 player, the music has been compressed by eliminating data that computer analysis deems redundant, squeezed down until it fits through the Internet pipeline.

Of course! If they didn’t, we might stop up the tubes that make the Internet — or … um … one tube, apparently. (No wonder congestion is bad if we have just one pipeline! You need it to fit!) And there’s more:

When even the full files on the CDs contain less than half the information stored to studio hard drives during recording, these compressed MP3s represent a minuscule fraction of the actual recording.

The humanity! All those years when we were buying CDs, we were only getting half of what was recorded in the studio?! Why, that must mean they’re recording, say, four whole tracks when they record the album. And one take. (Okay, I’m assuming they somehow got this statistic by assuming 96kHz sample rates … except that’s not really half the amount of data … and that would still require 16-bit … and I don’t know who told them that, anyway.)

There are the obligatory and predictable quotes from Phil Ramone and others. I can understand engineers being squeamish about someone listening to a low-bitrate MP3 on iPod earbuds, though I wonder how they missed people taping pennies to their turntables in the 60s. (Scratches and dust, I suppose, just give you more music!)

You’ve read these kinds of articles before. They’re not entirely wrong, they just struggle to explain what lossy compression is. A journalist, I can imagine, would do that easily; I haven’t written any compression algorithms this morning so I’ll admit my own understanding of data compression is rudimentary. But, of course, what a journalist should do is talk to experts, and you hope they’ll tell you something that makes sense. In this case, they seem to explain away our ability to hear music at all. Get ready for — experts gone crazy!

Gasp at speaker designers who call into question our ability to hear digital audio — AT ALL! John Meyer, from Meyer Sound Labs:

“It turns you into an observer,” Meyer says. “It forces the brain to work harder to solve it all the time. Any compression system is based on the idea you can throw data away, and that’s proved tricky because we don’t know how the brain works.”

Go ahead. Listen to a digital audio file — right now. I don’t understand it. I have no idea what’s going on. Are you even hearing music? Who knows?

What’s missing here, of course, is the acknowledgment that the digital audio file itself also “throws away data”, because the real world doesn’t have samples. For that matter, this whole argument seems to result from a century of gradually losing the ability to distinguish between a recording and live sound. Part of the reason people are so upset by digital audio compression, even if it’s lossless, may be because people have an artificial attachment to the recording itself. But don’t tell that to people who engineer records and design speakers.

People are so desperate to prove that digital recordings are somehow evil that they even turn to research to prove that your brain on digital files stops feeling emotions:

It could be that MP3s actually reach the receptors in our brains in entirely different ways than analog phonograph records. The difference could be as fundamental as which brain hemisphere the music engages.

“Poorer-fidelity music stimulates the brain in different ways,” says Dr. Robert Sweetow, head of the University of California-San Francisco audiology department. “With different neurons, perhaps lesser neurons, stimulated, there are fewer cortical neurons connected back to the limbic system, where the emotions are stored.”

I expect that’s true — of 64kbps MP3s played through, say, a tin can. Welcome to the age of recordings: we sacrifice superior formats for inferior formats, yes, as higher-fidelity CDs give way to copy protection-laden, incompatible, inflexible, lossy compressed files. But then people get so upset that they throw out any understanding of the actual music in favor of the recording, artificially elevate old records without any real basis, call into question the basic idea of data compression even though its popularity demonstrates that it can work.

Here’s a suggestion: what about what gets thrown out when you go from a live performance to a recording? I love listening to records. I have strong feelings listening to records. (Erm, digital files.) But I’ll bet most people’s limbic systems get the biggest rush when they hear something live.

Oh, well, at least all of this should make Bob Dylan happy. If “new records have sound all over them”, and MP3s “take out some of the music,” does that mean the resulting record has the right amount of sound on it? You know, like taking your finger and wiping extra jam off of toast?

My feature story for Keyboard Magazine on recording live laptop performance is now available online at keyboardmag.com (as well as in the July print issue). When I got the assignment, I think my editor imagined futuristic, sci-fi like network recording, in which audio was streamed entirely virtually from players to a recording server and musicians connected to one another over the ether. Instead, we got just the opposite: quick and dirty solutions for capturing improvisatory computer performance, and intentional efforts to make laptop performances sound more like conventional instrumental ensembles. The case studies:

• The Moscow Laptop Cyber Orchestra hosts laptop jam sessions at the conservatory that bears Leon Theremin’s name. Individual speakers, stereo mic — plus groovy visuals in the background.
• Princeton University’s PLOrk plays with hemispherical speakers so that sound radiates from near the laptop the way it would from a real instrument. Their recording configuration is a little more sophisticated, with not only a stereo pair for the audience but three mics above the stage.
• Share in New York has the toughest challenge of all: a club environment in which anyone can show up with any gear and play. They combine the tried-and-true (old-fashioned analog snakes on the floor) with software tools for standardization (a template in the open source Linux and Mac DAW Ardour).

Check out the full story for details:

Electronica Unplugged

One thing we didn’t broach was what to actually play (these ensembles all experiment with everything from alternative controllers to live coding). But the recording question alone turned out to reveal a lot about laptop performance, and how it’s gradually evolving into just music performance.

Also of interest, Craig Anderton talks about the basics of recording your sets live in Ableton Live. The basic idea: record not only the arrangement, but external audio, as well.

This story also turned out to be an interesting demonstration of what can happen when new online sites (like CDM) interface with a traditional outlet (Keyboard, bringing you music making information since 1976). That’s my ultimate hope: that these outlets will make each other better, and each will expand the knowledge of techniques and what (and who) is out there. Less lofty translation: if Keyboard hadn’t asked me to write this up, I might never have gotten around to it, and conversely, if I didn’t have CDM, I would never have hooked up with folks like the Moscow Laptop Cyber Orchestra.

Speaking of which, let us know how you record your sets and even laptop ensembles, and if I missed anything!

Previously:
Laptop Orchestras Proliferate, from Princeton to Moscow

And in the other corner, we have a never-ending flood of reviews of Microsoft Windows Vista, weeks before third-party developers have shipped most of the drivers and application releases that would let them fully test it, bashing the new OS based on old, often misleading arguments. In a way, it’s only fair. After years of getting unfairly slammed in the press (remember the late-90s, when every Apple news story began with “the beleaguered computer maker”?), Apple now has some of its most vocal advocates helming the computer analysis for the New York Times, CBS, Chicago Sun-Times, Newsweek, and Wall Street Journal.

CDM Senior Editor W. Brent Latta sums up everything I’m about to say, only much more succinctly. “I’m not one to let Microsoft off the hook, but I want to know what is different about Vista – not what makes it a copycat of OS X. I have to use both OSes.”

Amen.

Now, I’m all for comparing Vista to OS X, because for the individual consumer, there is a choice. Apple hardware owners can even dual-boot Windows on their own machine, so they could theoretically make an afternoon of trying a new Microsoft OS — and wind up choosing both. With millions upon millions of users, operating systems are some of the most important technology on the planet. They’re worth criticizing. And it’s about time someone pointed out the real advantage of the Mac is its operating system, which often offers reliability and features well beyond Windows. That’s not just because Windows is “bigger” or more “backwards-compatible” and these features are impossible. For music, Core Audio and Core MIDI offer superior compatibility and performance versus Windows XP. The fact that XP is a usable OS and a favorite for many musicians suggests to me that Microsoft could and should compete with these features.

The only problem is, I’ve heard primarily two criticisms of Vista, and neither seems fair:

1. You’ll need to buy a new computer.
2. Microsoft copied everything from the Mac.

As near as I can tell, both of these arguments are based on incorrect assumptions about the OS, and both are largely superficial issues that fail to speak to the fundamental issues users do need to know when upgrading to the new OS. The latest review comes from The New York Times’ David Pogue, accompanied by an over-the-top, snarky video in which he repeats Apple talking points from this year’s Developer Conference (the review itself is relatively fair, but gets needlessly smug when comparing to Mac and, ironically, misses some points for concern on Vista):

Vista Wins on Looks. As for Lacks …
New York Times Video: Windows Vista

In fairness, I’m not sure the alternative is much better. You’ve seen the pro-Vista articles, which tend to repeat feature lists without analysis. (I don’t think this is the PC press’ fault, necessarily; it may have more to do with print deadlines, the need to put Vista on the cover to sell magazines, and a lack of solid information to write about coming from PR. But that doesn’t make this much more helpful, of course.) I just wish we had a middle ground — somewhere between Vista press releases and pro-Mac Vista bashing.

I think part of what has held back broader adoption of the Mac platform is that Windows users (sometimes rightfully, sometimes not) feel insulted by the reviews they get from Mac users, and that could certainly happen here. But most importantly, I just have to disagree with David Pogue’s arguments here.

Did Microsoft copy Apple? Absolutely. Even Windows fans pointed out to Microsoft in beta builds that the new Calendar was copying iCal’s color scheme and layout, a superfluous act of plagiarism that just seemed silly. (The company later toned-down that design and made it more Vista-like.) In the case of other examples, the copying should be welcome, as in the case of feedback on the number of files being moved or copied.

But here’s the line I take issue with: “Now, before the hate-mail tsunami begins, it’s important to note that Apple has itself borrowed feature ideas on occasion, even from Windows. But never this broadly, boldly or blatantly.” This just doesn’t seem true.

To me, the most blatant, intentional copy of the Mac was Windows95; Vista borrows only minor details. Apple has copied alt-tab switching (both the shortcut and the on-screen feedback), the OS X-style window button layout, right-button contextual menus, some keyboard shortcuts, and various other features. And you know what? Quite frankly, I wish software companies would copy more; too often, they fail to learn from what their competitors are doing.

More to the point, a lot of what Pogue seems to think are Mac copies were actually developed first by other companies or have become so ubiquitous as to say they’re not really the exclusive domain of the Mac any longer:

1. System-wide search and Spotlight: System-wide search is not a new idea, no matter how you slice it; nor is placing a search window in multiple windows. But Microsoft announced many of these features in early Longhorn presentations, long before Apple shipped Tiger. Microsoft is also arguably more committed to hierarchical navigation and file storage than Apple; Apple philosophically argued that search would replace traditional organization, which to me is a little extreme. Anyway, I think it would be more useful to point out that Apple shipped first, and arguably implemented the feature better, than to try to accuse Microsoft of plagiarizing. Apple could easily win this category, but not for the reason Pogue cites.
2. Flip 3D and Expose: Give me a break. Look, the moment anyone is rendering the UI to a 3D interface, they’re going to be tempted to add 3D effects, period. Unless you can make the argument that Apple invented 3D (they didn’t) or mapping bitmaps to quads (they didn’t), this is just a waste of time. And Flip 3D, in which you flip through open windows in 3D space, is much closer to the traditional Windows alt-tab interface (which Apple copied from Microsoft) than it is from Expose. Anyway, I’m not a big fan of using these methods to find windows in the first place. The question reviewers should be asking is, does this even improve productivity in the first place? (And spinning your wheels repeating old Mac/Windows arguments definitely doesn’t do wonders for productivity, especially if the basis of those arguments is distorted.)
3. Sidebar Widgets and Dashboard: This is almost not worth arguing, it’s been argued so many times before. Microsoft talked widgets, again, before Tiger, and Stardock ObjectDesktop and Konfabulator each had widgets long before either Microsoft or Apple caught on. Sometimes good ideas spread, which is good for users: remember Stickies in MacOS 7.5, copied from a shareware developer, copied from the ubiquitous 3M pieces of paper? Actually, probably you don’t remember, because we’ve moved onto better ideas and have better things to talk about. I rest my case.
4. Folder navigation: Now things get even stranger. Another Pogue example of Microsoft copying Apple: “A list of favorite PC locations appears at the left side of every Explorer window, which you can customize just by dragging folders in or out. You now expand or collapse lists of folders by clicking little flippy triangles.” Wait a minute … hierarchical folder views with collapsible views. You mean, like the Folder View already in XP in the exact same location? And in thousands of Windows and Mac applications? And in DOS file managers dating back to the 1980s? And the old Mac operating system? If anything, Microsoft copied the triangle instead of the plus icon, but that’s been in so many pieces of software for so long, it hardly seems worth mentioning. (And, incidentally, it’s a good idea: they’re easier to see.)

Software historians I’m sure could clarify these points even further, and demonstrate that Be, Atari, or Amiga machines had them first. Bottom line, people think “Mac” because Vista looks less ugly than XP. Look beyond the surface, though, and Aero looks to me like a 3D, glassy, transparent implementation of the XP interface — for better or for worse. And neither Windows nor Mac has really changed the interface much beyond their 90s design. Some would argue that’s a bad thing, but in the meantime, most of us are happy to reap the performance benefits of running UIs in 3D instead of 2D pixel buffers (as XP does) and to keep, you know, using our computers — not staring at the UI.

Speaking of the new UI, let’s dispense with this “you need a new computer to run Vista theory.” Generally speaking, upgrading older computers to run newer operating systems is always a decent rule of thumb. But early reports indicate an ideal Vista system would have a graphics card with 256MB of VRAM, a reasonably fast single or (better) dual-core processor, and 2GB of RAM. Funny, because that’s exactly the same specs I’d suggest for a PC or Mac to run music apps on older OSes. Non-issue.

Why am I so frustrated with these arguments? Because they miss out on significant issues on Vista that are specific to individual markets (this is you, digital musicians), and that largely have gone unanswered. For consumers, I’d like a better examination of hardware compatibility, performance, and functionality. But for us musicians in particular, there are a number of areas of concern, any one of which is far more important than arguing old, superficial “Mac vs. PC UI” points:

1. Vista activation procedures: Microsoft has backed off of some of the more unpleasant Vista ownership requirements, but even in XP, having to regularly prove you have a real, unpirated version of the OS is a pain. What will this really be like under Vista?
2. Audio DRM: One of the more disturbing features of Vista locks off some audio streams, so you can’t rip audio from copy-protected video and music. It’s not yet clear whether this will impact legitimate inter-app audio functionality in pro audio software.
3. Driver signing requirements: Vista wants all audio and MIDI drivers to be “signed”, or validated by Microsoft for compatibility with the OS. Apparently, you can get past this requirement by entering an admin password, but only on the 32-bit OS — the 64-bit OS won’t even allow unsigned drivers installed by an admin account. What will validation cost hardware developers? What happens to legacy drivers that aren’t updated? What about open source, free, shareware, and independent development efforts? MIDI-Yoke, for instance, was developed by an independent developer, and it’s the only way of routing MIDI between music applications (a feature that’s been on the Mac in some form for many, many years). Will these requirements help in any way, or will they just break our hardware with no real benefit and send us screaming back to XP?
4. Old driver and application compatibility: With many minor changes in Vista, it’s hard to even keep track of this, but we just don’t know what will run and what won’t — all the reason to expect a truly final review won’t be possible for some months.
5. Device compatibility and legacy XP issues: XP is full of small but problematic issues with installing drivers, particularly over USB, like arbitrary Registry issues that cause drivers to refuse to install or stop working. What’s been fixed in Vista, and what remains?
6. Performance and reasons to upgrade: Many musicians are concerned that Vista simply offers no compelling reason to upgrade: a new audio system is good news, but it may not work with pro apps, meaning there’s little pay-off for the compatibility cost involved in upgrading from XP.

Quite frankly, I just don’t know what the answer to these questions is. And I need to find out. So instead of writing premature reviews of Vista, I’m going to do my best to find as much actual information as I possibly can. And instead of trying to convince Windows users to switch to Mac, or Mac users to switch to Windows, I’m going to assume you can make some of those decisions for yourself. We have musicians using Mac, we have musicians using Windows, and we have musicians using Linux. My hope is that all of you can make great music with the platform you’ve chosen. I’m sure some of you XP users won’t switch to Vista; I’ll just do my best to make sure your decision is well-informed. Those of you making music on Be, Amiga, Atari, Mac OS 9, Commodore 64, home-built circuits — more power to you.

Here’s my question for you: for those of you considering running Vista — even if it’s just as a secondary OS on your proud, Apple logo-bearing MacBook — what do you want to learn?

I hope to, within the very near future, make good on my promise to test the OS so you don’t have to. So please feel free to keep sharing what you know, and for those of you staying away from the new release, what you want to know.

(Oh, and if anyone does want to do the Vista vs. BeOS shootout, I’m game! That’ll be more interesting.)

Previously:
MOTU Releases Audio Drivers for Vista/XP; Vista Driver Changes in Store
Vista Audio Improvement Details — For Consumers, At Least (lots of useful comments there, as well — more useful, in fact, than what I originally wrote!)

Whether using your home MIDI gear and software or building an elaborate DIY MIDI project, better understanding MIDI is essential to getting the results you want. Many musicians are aware that the applications of MIDI aren’t limited to traditional musical implementations, but a broad range of creative DIY projects. Explaining what MIDI is, how it works, and how to use it not only in music projects but other projects, as well, was the aim of a story I wrote for Make 07:

Make Magazine Volume 07
Primer: MIDI Control

The Primer link includes additional online resources that didn’t fit in print, including:

1. An overview of software that supports MIDI, including “DIY software” like Pd and Max
2. An overview of hardware, with an emphasis on available MIDI boards for DIY projects and sensor interfaces
3. Behind the scenes: An anatomy of a MIDI message

All of this information is freely available to subscribers and non-subscribers alike. The “anatomy” bit I adopted from a sidebar in my book Real World Digital Audio. I find that a lot of people don’t fully understand the data structure of MIDI messages, because normally it’s explained in technical terms. Hopefully this is helpful (though it’s easiest to follow, of course, in context of a full explanation of MIDI or if you have some basic MIDI background).

MIDI isn’t always the best solution for everything, so to me it’s great that the same issue includes a nice feature on the Arduino sensor board, which uses serial and now USB to transmit data from sensors. Ultimately, you’ll choose the scheme that works best for the application you have in mind. MIDI will be perfect if you’re controlling soft synths or VJ software, for instance, whereas USB or serial might work better for acquiring sensor data to be used some custom Processing code or for use with a home-built hardware rig, sans computer.

Mostly, I’m excited to continue to be a part of Make. They’re assembling a group of really incredible makers, and I’m finding myself reading the issues as they arrive cover to cover just to learn everything I can. I’ve traditionally been a “software guy,” and it’s great to learn new approaches to making things, soft and hard.

Subscribers, you should get 07 soon if you haven’t yet; non-subscribers, the magazine hits US newsstands August 21. I’m still trying to get better information on international availability. You definitely want to buy this magazine — not for me, by any means, but for everything that’s in it!

Grooves didn’t make it on the newsstands, but it’s been reborn as an online-only publication, and that’s a good thing: now anyone can get to it and browse through it easily. US$10 buys you four issues, and well worth it (and much easier than tracking it down before). I personally prefer reading music magazines online, because then I can check out the music I’m reading about. (Reading about music just isn’t the same.)

Grooves Magazine Online

[Updated: I incorrectly indicated the subscriptions were free. They're US$10 for four issues.]

The current issue (#20) has plenty to appeal to CDM readers: Matmos on the cover, a roundup of custom ensembles for Native Instruments Reaktor, gear and music reviews, and even live music coverage. The spirit of the magazine I think is embodied in this shot from Brooklyn’s No Fun Festival. (Deathpile, photographed by Pierre Richardson.) I go for more of a well-groomed thang, myself, but it’s great to see one magazine avoiding the hype and heading straight for electronic music’s raunchy, punk underbelly. On the downside, the magazine continues to suffer from the “White guy hanging out along somewhere looking dour” syndrome with the artists it covers, but the online format makes it even easier to skip ahead to the geeky bits. And unlike some attempts to create online magazine interfaces, this one is fairly readable, with a download option.

For would-be magazine tycoons, though, let’s compare. Grooves:

Easyriders:

Which do you think sells better? Now if we could somehow add a little of the latter to the CDM formula, I’m sure this could be really big. Oh, and tattoos. Gotta have tattoos.

In case you haven’t seen it yet, The New York Times reports today that New York-area schoolkids have resorted to an unusual solution to cellphone bans. Apparently unaware of phones’ vibrate mode, the students have opted for an incredibly annoying ringtone pitched at 17,000 Hz. Theoretically, “adults” shouldn’t be able to hear that. (The real issue is middle-aged adults, an ironic choice in New York schools where many of the faculty are younger.) I also think that’s a liberal estimate of hearing loss; while most people lose some of their high-end hearing as they age, the numbers from the private security firm quoted in the article seem a little odd — 12,000 Hz for a 50-year-old? I hope not! (Better cover your ears on the subways, huh?)

A Ring Tone Meant to Fall on Deaf Ears [NYTimes.com; registration required and free story may expire]

The upshot of all of this is that there’s a free, if primitive, hearing test in the article (and presumably, all over the Web where these students are getting it). Hearing loss is a major problem; according to Aetna and the Harvard Medical School, 24% and 40% of adults over age 65 have difficulty hearing, and thirty percent of people over age 85 are deaf in at least one ear. For a better hearing test, here’s a free online example (I’m sure there are others online, and of course this does NOT substitute for a medical exam . . . nor can it measure just how annoying a kid with a cell phone can be):

Free Hearing Test

Anyone out there know what typical hearing loss figures are around middle age? (Lately, every time I write something some real experts show up out of nowhere, which is a pleasant experience!)

Case in point:

Found in comments, Keys (Germany) will have the full version of the fantastic electric piano plug-in, Lounge Lizard Session. Look for the issue out today, June 2.

Meanwhile, plug-in developer Chris Randall (of Audio Damage) reports on his blog that Computer Music (UK) will have a free copy of Pulse Modulator in CM issue #102. (While you’re there, check the front section for my monthly Create Digital Music Downsampled column.) What’s Pulse Modulator, you ask? Why, it’s a tremolo with three LFOs and distortion. In other words, it is goodness, in software form. Better yet, if you miss issue 102, subsequent issues will have this plug-in, too, as part of CM’s excellent free studio that comes with the magazine. I’ll let you know when I get my hands on it.

In the meantime, feast your eyes on the inspiration for the Pulse Modulator plug-in, the original Electro-Harmonix hardware, conveniently posed and ready for makeover in the slick on-screen visual format Audio Damage has used on their recent plugs. Shown above.

Real World Digital Audio review, interview [Matrixsynth]

*Disclaimer: Boookshelf pictured does not represent the wall-obliterating shelf space in my apartment.

What’s striking to me is that Matrix went through and reviewed each chapter individually, something a reviewer normally would never do. It’s funny, because you hear so much about digital supplanting the Web. But I think the Web demonstrates how important books and print are — and vice versa. Writing on the Web is social and interactive; writing print tends to be fairly lonely but more contemplative. The forms and styles are different, too. But the bottom line is, you can learn and experience something different through books, as Matrix says:

I find that I spend most of my time behind a monitor. Being able to take some time off and kick back with a paperback filled with all of this information was refreshing.

I’ve been really reliant on books lately for learning, as I work on developing interactive 3D visual compositions in Max/MSP/Jitter. In the past couple of months, I’ve poured through Foundation Actionscript Animation by Keith Peters, O’Reilly’s JavaScript Definitive guide, the OpenGL red book, and Peachpit’s C Programming: Visual Quickstart Guide, all of which are indispensible for learning 3D in Jitter even though none is dedicated to the application specifically. I think, frankly, there aren’t enough books that deal with underlying techniques rather than an app du jour. And I can personally never get enough of print, even though I know book and magazine sales were down in the last quarter of 2005. (I don’t blame blogs for that, incidentally.)

I’d also be nowhere without books that come on paper. Had I been reading about C on the subway today on a Sony Reader instead of folding a book over my arm while I hung onto the handrail, would it have been the same experience? Hardly. (I probably would have dropped it.) Likewise, while I’ve learned a lot from application-specific books, my favorites remain those that look more generally at technique.

Let’s put a little of these two media together now: got a favorite book for learning about music production? Or are you looking for a specific topic, but haven’t found one that fits it?

Thursday rant time: It’s time to get over loops, stop generalizing about music technology, and find the record button.

Poor GarageBand. Loops can be a fantastic tool, a way of sketching out ideas, having virtual instrumentalists with which to practice your chops, or remixed into something truly original, and they’re useful to beginners and pros alike in those roles. They don’t replace live musicians, but that’s not the point; they’re useful for what they do well. They’re also the most misunderstood of modern music tech. Unfortunately, non-musician journalists like The New York Times’ Michael Walker keep trying to squeeze some deeper meaning about modern music-making out of loop-based software without understanding either music creation or technology. In Mr. Walker’s case, researching an article means piecing together random loops, failing to impress KCRW radio’s star DJ or the masses on MySpace, and then deciding the whole experience reveals something profound about digital music technology:

A computer had generated it. I had helped things along but was more of a spectator. Nevertheless, “Eventide” was something I had created, and like all creations was entitled to a measure of emotional exuberance from its creator.

Sure, the Times author set his expectations low, and is surprised when his track came out sounding decent. That’s the reaction of many people to GarageBand. But the assumption that the computer is somehow doing the work is awfully naive. The computer didn’t create anything. The results are nothing more magical than piecing together recordings of someone else’s playing, made easier by the software interface, but still the basic recorded music production process at heart. In fact, the fundamental nature of the process is producing a track, but without any interaction with the musicians — hence the relatively stale results. Look closely at some of the Apple Loops included with Apple’s software, and you’ll often see the names of the Apple developers who recorded the loops. (Others are licensed from a third-party developer.) They’re the ones who really created the track, with Mr. Walker as producer.

Despite that, the author takes this as an opportunity both to imagine a future of music freed of actual musical talent, all the while criticizing his own work as being overly dependent on the computer. Huh? Mightn’t the clear message instead be that you get out what you put in, and that faking musical ability with loops might sound slick, but it won’t sound real?

Failing to notice this wouldn’t be so bothersome, if KCRW’s Nic Harcourt and Walker alike didn’t try to establish a broader message about music. Does this really democratize music creation? In terms of establishing the musician at the center of the recording process instead of the studio, perhaps. But that’s nothing new. The tape recorder did that; accordingly, listen to a reissued Beatles demo tape, and it still sounds great. In fact, GarageBand changes nothing about the nature of recording, about musicianship, or about craft. But for some reasons music technology topics are license for mainstream newspapers to publish pieces with zero news, zero research, and strikingly little to actually say. Sounds like a blog entry to me.

Sadder to me, though, is that the technology itself gets the blame, rather than the musician. It’s not just the Times story that’s frustrating here, because we’ve heard this far too many times before. Who’s to say GarageBand has to be mechanical? Plug in a guitar, a vocal, a MIDI keyboard, and play live. Turn off the metronome, if you want. (How many journalists have missed the fact that GarageBand can record MIDI and audio?) The results might not sound good, but they will sound human. And that’s where the next hit will come from, if that’s really what you want. In fact, musical hits can come from novice musicians. Musical traditions around the world from folk to rock depend on untrained musicians, putting their heart and soul into a track. No technology is every likely to change that. But nothing’s stopping you from doing that with tools like GarageBand, either. Unless you can’t find the record button, that is.

I hope that laypeople will come to better understand the technology, and that means we need to do a better job explaining how it works to non-experts. But even more so, I hope journalists will start to pay more attention to musicians, and try a little harder to actually learn something. And that’s by no means an elitist position. On the contrary, the writing I’ve most enjoyed doing has been when I’ve gotten to talk to master musicians in a variety of genres and listen to what matters to them. I know what my own process is, and I know what my own music means, so I’m not nearly as interested in that as I am in other people. It’s a tremendous opportunity to learn and grow, and it’s one of the reasons I enjoy writing — because it’s a chance to find out someone else’s story.

So get over the loops already, and make some actual music. Even if it means singing badly over your new backing track. Most of the world’s music is probably still made in the shower, anyway — and I bet some of it isn’t half bad.