Mat Dalgleish and Matt Bellingham
Presented at Learning On/With the Open Web. DMLL. Coventry, UK. 25th October 2018.
Music recording began to be taken seriously after the first world war but its commercial expansion in the 1920s drew mainly from developments in radio and the ideal was one of naturalism. However, if the studio initially had a documentary role, the perhaps inevitable desire to heighten the effect of recorded music spurred the use of enhancement technologies to manipulate tonal and dynamic balance. Over time this creative curiosity transformed the studio into a space for sonic experimentation; the studio became a kind of playable instrument that could produce artefacts far beyond what could be achieved in a live performance (e.g. The Beatles Sgt Peppers, the Beach Boys Pet Sounds).
The 1970s saw arguably the golden age of the album, and the recording studio continue to grow both in terms of possibilities and cost; fuelled by the knowledge that a hit could sell tens of millions of copies worldwide. To these ends, from the 1970s until well into the 1990s, vast amounts were spent on increasingly sophisticated equipment (typically incrementally rather than radically better than what had come before), and a thriving global music technology industry sprung up around fulfilling these needs and desires.
With the personal computer revolution came another and, initially at least, seemingly luxurious market for these manufacturers; the ‘bedroom producer.’ The bedroom producer’s (largely MIDI-based) equipment was far cheaper than that used in professional studios, but was capable of at passable results. Fuelled by the increasing availability of computers able to run sequencing and early DAW software, and the relatively modest cost of other necessary equipment, the number of home producers rapidly expanded. Unsurprisingly, this increased interest in music technology in turn prompted the arrival of the first formal Music Technology education provision in the UK.[1]
Music was something you bought after protracted debate with friends in the aisles of Our Price, and then, suddenly, songs were accessible from home. They didn't cost anything. We were wilfully blinkered, probably, on the exact details of this last point. (Lamont, 2013)
The irony of this situation lies in its timing. Just as more people started to participate in music production and institutions started to offer Music Technology degrees (typically squarely focussed on recording/production and aimed at preparing graduates for apparently glamorous jobs in large recording studios),[2] the music industry encountered a near-perfect storm: a deadly combination of successive waves of online piracy (Napster, Grokster, Bittorrent, file lockers, etc.) and a large number of people able to make music and share it with others online without the need for skilled professionals, record companies or other intermediaries. With record sales decimated (even if briefly revived by iTunes before the rise of streaming services), the new order saw professional recording studios became unsustainable and start to close en mass. Despite this, more and more Music Technology courses continued to multiply in UK Further and Higher education (Boehm, 2005).
We assumed responsibility for the undergraduate Music Technology course at the University of Wolverhampton in 2011 and 2013 respectively. The course we inherited was still relatively new (only a few years old), but had started to grow rapidly: from 6 students in 2010, there were more than 100 by 2013. Nevertheless, the course still focussed on training graduates for jobs in professional recording studios that effectively no longer existed.[3] It also relied heavily on proprietary software and hardware that tied us to expensive and arguably unsustainable and (in our eyes) undesirable -- if not outright unethical -- business models. This reliance palpably impacted our teaching: certain (educationally expedient) uses and combinations of equipment and/or software were prohibited not only on paper, but at a firmware level, and enforced but practically unnecessary upgrades drained time and budget. At the same time, contracts signed and left behind by our predecessors and management demanded that we periodically run specified extra-curricular commercial courses and actively recruit a specified minimum number of students to take them: regardless of whether we thought the offerings were of little benefit to student learning or were an excessive and/or unnecessary additional expense.[4] This situation reached a head when, in order to seal a deal with a multinational music/music technology equipment manufacturer (thankfully aborted at the last minute), it was proposed that our contracts be altered to specify individual responsibility for maintaining brand exclusivity within the department (at the cost of freedom of choice and potentially more effective or affordable options) and avoiding any critical discussion of the brand. The latter in particular seemed opposed to our sensibilities and any direction we were willing to travel in: especially as contractual terms and conditions would have prohibited revealing the nature of the relationship even to enrolled students.
We considered there to be two main issues:
- restrictions imposed by the existing/inherited proprietary software and hardware -- and associated contracts/license agreements -- compromised key educational principles such as debate, freedom to choose, supporting the development of distinctive individual approaches and workflows, etc.
- it no longer seemed appropriate or justifiable to position (including in marketing materials) the still expanding course as -- in effect -- preparation or training for subsequent employment in what had become increasingly scarce (nearly non-existent) recording studios.
More practically, our new Performance Hub building had been planned for a decade, but at some point the two studio control rooms had been quietly but significantly downsized. Thus, moving into the building in early autumn 2011 we found that that, rather than the stated capacity of 10 people, the reality was 3 or 4 students plus one member of staff. Without any free space in either the new building or the rest of the campus to convert into recording studios (even if this were desirable), the two existing studios became a choke point.
These factors provided significant motivation to rewrite the undergraduate Music Technology course in its entirety over the next year (i.e. 2012-13).[5] In particular, we wanted to change how people thought about the subject: what it could be and what it could do.
To these ends, ideas around ‘open’ and some of the principles of the Open Web have been particularly important, providing the new course with direction and practical structure.
Most obviously, modules make extensive use of open documentation, for example around Arduino microcontrollers and Pure Data and SuperCollider software. We’re also fortunate that many of the main outputs in our area are open access -- from the NIME conference proceedings, to books on interface design and haptics published by Springer -- and these have become key module texts.
Loosely informed by Douglas Rushkoff’s (2011) notion of “program or be programmed”, we also encourage students -- who enter the course as users of tools (almost always commercial tools, sometimes pirated) -- to not only think more critically about the tools they use, but -- wherever they find gaps or perceive inadequacies -- to develop their own. This computing strand runs throughout the course. It starts with augmentations/additions to familiar sequencing software at level 4, moves on to synthesis and processing at level 5 and expands to consider hardware (i.e. the physical interface) at level 6.
This ‘maker turn’ inherently encourages (and is mutually supported by) the use of Open Source software: FLOSS-style licenses empower the user to dig beneath the graphical user interface (GUI) to view, run and modify the underlying code. This “inside” view and license to freely explore and experiment is a vital stepping stone in the transformation from passive user/consumer of tools to active maker/developer.
Moreover, if a defining characteristic of music technology is that it remains extremely difficult to predict its future (formats, softwares and even entire technologies can come and go very quickly), by engaging with code that is written with openness in mind (e.g. code that is clearly and verbosely commented), it is often easier to identify the underlying principles that are at work: and these principles are typically far longer-lasting and durable/re-applicable than specific implementations (key principles -- of acoustics, electronics, computer science, etc. -- have evolved/developed comparatively slowly and linearly).
Equally relevant is that underlying principles (rather than music technology-specific implementations) are often applicable to other areas. We are particularly interested in how concepts can crossover into and influence other domains; and where there intersections might hold the potential for novelty.
Whenever and wherever open, widely compatible formats are used, the potential for crossover is greatly increased. In these circumstances the computer becomes a kind of proxy for exchange. There are also substantial potential benefits in terms of longevity (the ability to open and use files in a year, or ten years) and accessibility (the ability to translate files into formats that ease access for users with diverse needs). We therefore strongly encourage students to consider the dissemination of their work; and how it fits within expectations and standards. We make use of Github as a unified, external-facing platform for code and documentation, and encourage the use of open file/data formats (TXT, RTF, HTML, XML, CSV, etc.) wherever possible. One way of encouraging students to think about this is to do the same ourselves: our class notes and general course documentation are made available in the same ways and in the same kinds of open formats.
A secondary benefit of making such extensive use of Open tools is that almost all are able to run on a very wide variety of hardware: this means that students are able to complete a significant proportion (the vast majority) of their work on whatever computer they are able to access,[6] without necessarily having to travel to campus outside of classes. This is important as many of our students live at home and commute by public transport, many are employed while they study, a significant number have carer responsibilities, and others have a long term illness or disability; all factors that could prohibit coming in to use specialised facilities such as the recording studios, listening room or Mac labs just to access exclusive or prohibitively expensive proprietary software.
More than five years after we initiated these changes (and we continue to make refinements), it is useful to consider how the destinations of graduates have changed. Some of the graduates from the ‘old’ course have gone on to become live sound engineers or start their own studios. Over the last two or three years, we have found that we still get those graduate destinations, but also a significant number working in areas that might not previously have been anticipated: (visual) post-production for film, video games, home automation systems, etc.
Boehm, C. (2005). The thing about the quotes: "Music Technology" degrees in Britain. In: Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference, New Orleans: ICMA.
Lamont, T. (2013) Napster: the day music was set free [online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/feb/24/napster-music-free-file-sharing
Rushkoff, D. (2011) Programmed or be programmed: Ten commands for the digital age. Soft Skull Press.
[1] Although there are electroacoustic and electronic music composition courses that date back far further.
[2] An attempt to formalise and replace the fabled traditional training route that eventually transforms the individual from making the tea to studio engineer or producer. See, for instance, the story of Flood.
[3] And arguably did not existed by the time the course was first planned and validated.
[4] Or even build them into our modules, thereby potentially making them appear near-compulsory.
[5] We also developed the (then) new MSc Audio Technology course in the same period.
[6] Including low cost and older/outdated systems.
Dr. Mat Dalgleish has created new musical instruments and interfaces, sound installations and music-related software tools for more than a decade. Born in Birmingham, Mat studied fine art at Northumbria University and new media at Coventry University, before a PhD that explored how the live electronics can inform the design of digital musical instruments. From 2009-2011 Mat was a researcher at the Music Computing Lab of the Open University and joined the music department at the University of Wolverhampton in 2010. He was course leader for BA (Hons) Music Technology from 2011-13 and became course leader for MSc Audio Technology upon its inception in September 2013. Mat is a Senior Fellow of the HEA and has been Key Proposer for the validation of multiple courses at undergraduate and postgraduate level. He has also acted as academic consultant for Edexcel/Pearson and the University of South Wales. Mat is currently a Senior Lecturer in Music Technology at the University of Wolverhampton and Subject Leader of the MSc Audio Technology, MMus Music and MA Musical Theatre programmes.
Matt Bellingham is a musician, engineer, producer, software developer, and educator. He studied at the University of Salford before joining the Manchester music scene of the mid ’90s. Matt worked in numerous studios with various record labels before moving into education in the early 2000s. Matt has developed a range of innovative courses in and around Music Technology for universities and other providers, including Edexcel, the OCN, and others. Matt is currently Senior Lecturer and Subject Leader of Music Technology at the University of Wolverhampton. He joined the University in 2012, taking over leadership of the undergraduate programmes from Mat Dalgleish in 2013. Matt and Mat wrote the MSc in Audio Technology and rewrote the undergraduate courses around this time. Matt is a Senior Fellow of the HEA, an External Examiner at the University of Portsmouth, and has been an invited external academic at a number of university course validations. He is nearing completion of a PhD in the area of user interface design for algorithmic music composition software at the Open University’s Music Computing Lab.