Recording Studios Without Walls

Transcription

Recording Studios Without Walls:Geographically Unrestricted Music CollaborationbyM. Nyssim LeffordB.M., (cum laude) Film Scoring and Music Production and Engineering (1995)Berklee College of MusicSubmitted to the Program in Media Arts and SciencesSchool of Architecture and Planningin partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofMasters of Media Arts and Sciencesat theMASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYSeptember 2000„Author.2000 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All Rights Reserved.Program in Media Arts and SciencesAugust 28, 2000Certified by. .Barry VercoeProfessor of Media Arts and SciencesProgram in Media Arts and SciencesThesis SupervisorAccepted byStephen A. BentonChairDepartmental Committee on Graduate StudentsProgram in Media Arts and Sciences

2

Recording Studios Without Walls:Geographically Unrestricted Music Collaborationby M. Nyssim LeffordSubmitted to the Program in Media Arts and Sciences,School of Architecture and Planningon August 28th, 2000in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofMasters of Science in Media Arts and SciencesAbstractMusic production fuses the technical requirements of the recording process with the aesthetic imperativeof music creation and performance. The producer is an advocate for both technical and artistic excellence.It is the collaboration, or co-performance, of the recording engineer, producer and performer thatgenerates music recordings and it is the role of the producer to intermediate between the worlds oftechnology and art. The psychological and social details of the interaction between these collaborators arenumerous and complex and they are essential to the production process.Music producers and recording musicians move from city to city and one recording facility to another inorder to expand the their options for collaboration with other musicians or technicians. This examines thedevelopment of an Internet-based, music recording system that will enlarge the pool of potentialcollaborators without requiring physically movement from location to location. The Internet provides amedium through which recorded performances can be transmitted from performer to producer in (near)real-time over great distances. This research investigates the design of a system that will make optimaluse of available bandwidth during transmission while retaining the artistic dialogue between collaboratorsthat is central to the music production process.To envision an expanded music production paradigm that takes advantage of the opportunities presentedby networked collaboration it is necessary to thoroughly comprehend the production process. Productioncan be analyzed as a set of tasks that support collaboration. These tasks can be examined independently ofthe technology that supports them. This thesis begins with a detailed analysis of the cognitive,psychological and social aspects of artistic collaboration that underpin the behaviors observed during theproduction process. This foundation provides the basis for the design criteria of a networked collaborativesystem presented later in this thesis.Readers who are interested only in the specifics of the proposed system may wish to skip the introductorymaterial. However, the later material presumes a deep understanding of music production process, and thesystem s design is integrally hinged on the elements of production process essential to musiccollaboration.Thesis Advisor:Barry VercoeProfessor, Machine Listening Group3

4

Recording Studios Without Walls:Geographically Unrestricted Music Collaborationby M. Nyssim LeffordThe following people served as readers for this thesis:ReaderTod MachoverProfessor of Music and MediaProgram in Media Arts and SciencesReaderBrian SmithAssistant Professor of Media Arts and SciencesProgram in Media Arts and Sciences5

6

AcknowledgementsI am indebted to my advisor, Barry Vercoe, for making it possible for me to pursue this rather unusualcourse of study. Also, I am grateful for the support, encouragement and insight I have received from the(current and past) members of the entire Machine Listening Group especially Bill Gardner, RicardoGarcia, Youngmoo Kim, Keith Martin, Joe Pompei, Eric Scheirer, Paris Smaragdis, and Chai Wei.Special credit goes to the two people I have shared an office with over the past two years, Eric andRicardo, both for their good advice and meaningful discussion and for putting up with cables,microphones, mixing consoles, and musicians everywhere. Additionally, I would like to thank my readersProfessor Tod Machover and Assistant Professor Brian Smith for their tutelage and feedback, and Dr.Judy Brown, Dr. Kathryn Vaughn, and Connie Van Rheenen for advice and encouragement.I can not convey how much I have learned from developing and observing the Internet recording sessionsthat were conducted as part of this research. I would like to express my sincerest thanks to all theparticipants in those sessions. I hold a deep respect for every one of them. Each met the spirit of theexperiment and tackled the challenges of networked collaboration with terrific enthusiasm,professionalism and humor. I learned a tremendous amount from all of them, and hope that they too cameaway from the experience with a new appreciation of what it means to collaborate.Without the faith and support of my friends and colleagues I would not have even applied to graduateschool. I would like to thank Dr. David Griesinger who has been a mentor to me for several years. I havenever known anyone else to integrate so seamlessly and musically the science of sound with the art ofrecording. It is a remarkable trait. He reminds me (constantly) that the properties of sound, how we hear itand how we record it are the most amazing things in the universe. I would also like to thank MarkDonahue who has been a great friend and colleague over the years, and also Bill Winn and John Newton.I think these people set the standards for recording. They have all taught me much and been a tremendoussource of inspiration. A very special thanks goes to Dr. Daniel Coore and Hoang Tran who not onlysuggested that I apply to MIT in the first place, but had the follow through to support and encourage meevery step of the way. Your friendship and encouragement continues to be invaluable to me. I would alsolike to thank Dr. Jody (Suede) Davie for her tireless support and unwavering perspective.7

The completion of this thesis feels like a significant event, but it is not because of the effort required tomeet the task that the accomplishment is notable. It is cogent because the opportunity to deliberatelyconstruct a vision for the future has expanded my perspective on what can happen to an individual in life.I dedicate this thesis to the dark, looming figures of my childhood — the pure scientists and detached,analytical observers — who thought the world was a subjugating stricture to the imagination and the spirit.How glad I am to have found out you were wrong!I also dedicate this to the Bedouin of the Southern Sinai Peninsula who, in the August of 1990, offered mewater from hidden wells and asked me to join them in their songs even though I did not know the words.8

Table of duction15Motivation.Cross-cultural, Pan-global Artistic CommunityHumans, Collaboration and Machines.We-ness.Industrial Expansion.Recording Studios Without Walls.Art versus 02324242525AudienceMusical Evolution.Cognition, Music Psychology and Artistic Expression.2.1Human Perception and Collaboration.2.1.1Cognition and Artistic Collaboration.2.2Collaboration Process.2.2.1Collective Choices and Individual Contributions2.2.2Choice Set.2.3Human Behavior and the Psychology of Music Performance .2.3.1Teacher/Pupil Relationship.2.3.2Social Facilitation.2.3.3Leadership.2.3.4Effective 329

3Recording studios:The science of duplication, the craft of replication, and the artof interpretationRoots of Contemporary Music Production3.13.2The Art of Production.3.3The Medium of Recorded Music3.4Human Behavior and the Recording Studio3.4.1Job Allocation.3.4.1.1The Musical Performer.3.4.1.2The Producer3.4.1.3The Recording Engineer.3.4.2Subjective Meaning in Music.3.4.3Music Psychology in the Studio.3.5Social Aspects of Collaboration3.5.1Vocabulary of the Communication3.5.2Non-Linearity in the Recording Process3.6Recording Machines3.6.1The Studio Architecture3.6.1.1The Studio Configuration.3.7Conclusion About worked Music Collaboration47Humans and Networked Machines.Technology and Musical SocietyCollaboration and MachinesIntegrated Services Digital NetworkPrevious Experiments and Approaches to Internet CollaborationsTurn TakingSynchronized Playback.Generalized Multimedia Control.Conference Call Paradigm.Synchronized Performances.Networked Ensembles.Commercial Applications.Next Steps.47484849495050515151525354

.56.66.77Recording Studios Without Walls55Networked Music Collaboration.System Proposal.Constraints of an Ideal SystemMusical Requirements.Communication Requirements.Technical RequirementsPresumptions about the System ArchitectureCurrent Progress.5556595960616262Networked Recording Experiment63Goals of the Experiment.Experimental Procedure.Parameters.Collecting Data.Internet Recording Experiment QuestionnaireCharacteristics of the Data.Unexpected Benefits.Complications.6364666868717172.The Sessions7.1Descriptions of Individual Recording Sessions7.1.1Session One.7.1.1.1Instrumentation and Genre . . .7.1.1.2Performer One. .7.1.1.3Producer One. .7.1.1.4Experimenter s Observations.7.1.2Session Two.7.1.2.1Instrumentation and Genre .7.1.2.2Performer Two .7.1.2.3Producer Two .7.1.2.4Experimenter s Observations.7.1.3Session Three.7.1.3.1Instrumentation and Genre .7.1.3.2Performer Three.7.1.3.3Producer Three.7.1.3.4Experimenter s Observations .73.7374747474757575757676777777777811

7.1.4Session Four.7.1.4.1Instrumentation and Genre.7.1.4.2Performer Four.7.1.4.3Producer Four.7.1.4.4Experimenter s Observations.7.1.5Session Five.7.1.5.1Instrumentation and Genre.7.1.5.2Performer Five.7.1.5.3Producer Five.7.1.5.4Experimenter s Observations.7.1.6Session Six.7.1.6.1Instrumentation and Genre.7.1.6.2Performer Six.7.1.6.3Producer Six.7.1.6.4Experimenter s Observations.7.1.7Session Seven.7.1.7.1Instrumentation and Genre. .7.1.7.2Performer Seven.7.1.7.3Producer Seven.7.1.7.4Experimenter s Observations. .7.1.8Session Eight.7.1.8.1Instrumentation and Genre.7.1.8.2Performer Eight.7.1.8.3Producer Eight.7.1.8.4Experimenter s Observations.7.2Expectations and Preliminary Findings.7.2.1Establishing a Recording Strategy.7.2.2Asserting Managerial Control.7.2.3Negotiating the Start of the Session and Each Take7.2.4Strategies for Compensating for Latency.7.2.5Communication Styles.7.3Inconsistencies Between Recording Sessions7.3.1Impact of Experience and Familiarity.7.4Generalizations About On-line Production7.4.1Referencing Specific Sections of Music7.4.2Interrupting Performances7.4.3Overcoming Physical Separation.7.4.4Musical 3838384858585868687878788899090919192929293

7.4.57.57.67.77.8Latency.Unexpected ResultsFuture Experiments.Evaluation of the Procedure.The Success of Experiment and Findings8Designing Collaborative 8.38.48.5Prototype Design.Communication.SynchronizationManagement Tools.Latency and Quality of ServiceNetwork Configuration.InterfaceExpanding the System.Machine Listening.Design ConclusionsOther Applications of the AppendixICQ Chat TranscriptsSession OneSession TwoSession ThreeSession FourSession FiveSession SixSession SevenSession 213614014513

14

1 IntroductionIn dreams begins responsibilities- Delmore SchwartzSound recordings are a re-creation of sound locked in time. When we listen to an old Jazzrecording we don t just hear Billie Holiday. We hear the microphones that weremanufactured that year. We hear the leather on her shoes, and a Gardenia wilting in thehumidity of a Harlem Jazz club in 1945. No signal processor could ever replace this. Wereally do hear the Gardenia. Maybe it s because the petal hits an earring or sweeps acrossthe microphone. In between saxophone notes leaks the sound of a brush moving acrossthe head of a snare drum, or a gust of air rushing through the opening club door. It sbarely audible. It s a sound that can not be synthesized nor copied in any modern studio,with any amount of time or recording equipment or with any attention to detail. When werecord, yes, we artificially create and construct a sonic image. But unavoidably,inadvertently, we capture reality. Always. No matter how much we try to suppress it.That is why recording music is an art. Any recording tool must be precise enough torender the unique, subtle signatures of each artist that uses it. Any limitation of thetechnology must be organically integrated into the experience of listening and the craft ofrecording. Music production is the process through which performances are captured andprocessed to create a completed recording. It is a sinewy and intricate undertaking. It isthe process of applying technology artistically to the creation of a recording. Theexperience of the audience is markedly different from the experiences of the musiciansresponsible for that recording. When listening to a completed recording, the listenerderives meaning from the lyri

Geographically Unrestricted Music Collaboration by M. Nyssim Lefford B.M., (cum laude) Film Scoring and Music Production and Engineering (1995) Berklee College of Music Submitted to the Program in Media Arts and Sciences School of Architecture and Planning in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Media Arts and .