You Are Not a Gadget Thursdays – The Unbearable Thinness of Flatness

27. January 2011 · Write a comment · Categories: Music, Philosophy, Technology · Tags: ,

Music is for connection.  At least for Jaron Lanier, the music he makes is about connecting with other people.

After he starts this short chapter discussing the inability for digital media to reproduce great works of art (largely because there are so many unique elements to works of art that cannot be handled by a digital replication), Lanier turns his frustration toward music licensing.  When he produces music, he can copyright it such that he gets reimbursed for its use or at least attribution.  However, he would like to set it up so that if you want to use his music, you have to contact him.  If he likes your idea of how to use it, you can use it immediately.  If he doesn’t, you have to wait 6 months, or when you make it, you have to have some way of noting that he doesn’t approve of how you’re using his music.

Using this method, he can connect with those who are interested in his music while still protecting the music, from his perspective.  For him, the music is more than something that can be reproduced or mashed, but something that has a context, and if you remove it from the context, then it loses the intended meaning.

While we could possibly argue with Lanier’s aesthetics and his theory of expression, I would be discussing something that is slightly outside my present philosophical focus.  Instead, I want to return to my favorite drum in these Lanier posts, that is, that Jaron Lanier needs to find NoiseTrade in a bad way.  It is based on the idea that music is based on connection, as the artist gets an e-mail address and zip code for each person who downloads the music, and the artist can contact those who get the music and plan tours accordingly.  (If you want to know more about my thoughts on NoiseTrade, check out these posts.)

Jaron Lanier, if you’re reading this, PLEASE check out NoiseTrade.  I think it might shorten the second edition of your book and allow you to address some other things instead.

You Are Not A Gadget Thursdays – Retropolis

20. January 2011 · Write a comment · Categories: Music, Philosophy, Technology · Tags: , ,

Lanier takes note of a trend in popular music trends and is concerned.

Throughout the last century, each decade has been marked by some new approach to music.  However, in the last decade, what new trends have come about in music?  What about today’s music (in most examples) is distinctive from the music of 10-15 years ago?

Instead of doing something new and truly innovative, the last 10 years have been marked more by a retro feel to the music produced.  While there is nothing wrong with the music produced in this time in and of itself, Lanier is concerned that this move is reflective to the larger culture and the shift toward polishing and refinement rather than creative innovation.

Lanier notes that the most significant contributions of the open-culture technological movement are found in Linux and Wikipedia.  These are polished improvements on UNIX and encyclopedias.  While both of these improvements are noteworthy and undoubtedly better than the originals, Lanier laments that the open-culture movement has yet to produce something innovative and creative.  The dream was not that we would improve on what exists, but that the open-culture would produce new things.  Instead, the new things produced in the last 25 years have been by individuals or closed corporations.

I can’t help but wonder if the reason for this stems from the fact that open-culture is that of large-scale collaboration.  When you collaborate with a large group of people, the view of the majority tends to win.  This approach is useful in many situations in life.  However, when trying to come up with something new and innovative, it does not seem as successful.  Something innovative is often against the popular trends, in part, because it is rejecting, to use Lanier’s language, “lock-ins” in order to make the process better.  However, those lock-ins are what is known by the majority and they are often unwilling to abandon those for something new.

Let me be clear.  I am not disparaging the open-culture movement.  When looking to improve something already existing, having groups of people collaborating together can produce better results than an individual would be able to.  However, to produce creative innovation, one often has to take risks, and with any risk, there is the possibility of failure.  Groups do a good job of reducing the possibility of failure, but in the process, often reduce the possibility that something truly innovative may emerge.

Innovation requires risks.  Whether that innovation is with regard to technology or music or literature or anything, when you try something truly new, there is a chance that it could fall flat on its face.  In fact, I’d venture that more often than not, the new things often fail.  An individual, or a small group fully committed to an idea, can make those risks and are more willing to take risks.  A group without that high level of commitment is less likely to be willing to take that risk, which is understandable, but is able to improve on the status quo.

If want to change the status quo, we have to be willing to take risks.  We have to be willing to go against the lock-ins of society.  We have to try new things.  As individuals committed to those risks, we can band together.  However, it doesn’t seem like a group is, or even should be expected to be willing to leave the status quo.

As is the norm in these posts, this fact is one reason I appreciate the work being done with NoiseTrade.  (I promise you that I am not on their payroll, nor do I have any kind of personal stake in the site.)  They give artists avenues to put their new stuff out there for an audience that they would not have otherwise.  They do it at no financial cost to the artist or the audience.  Instead, they allow artists to put their music out there for free, risking that there will be fans out there who will download it and find it enjoyable enough to come to concerts.  Fans take the risk of their time to download the artist’s work.  These may seem like small risks, but those risks allow the possibility of something new emerging from their work.  The masses may not embrace a new and innovative artist, but they may find a fan base to encourage them to keep doing new music, pushing the envelope and eventually leading to another shift in music.

I think the innovative thinkers in teaching are also working by themselves or in small groups of people, and are often fighting against the larger trends in their profession.  However, places like the ATL at Baylor (as a matter of full disclosure, I am on their payroll) give these individuals a safe place to explore those ideas and encouragement to improve those thoughts and to continue persevering.  It also presents opportunities to introduce these new ideas to an audience larger than any of those individuals would be able to have by themselves.

I have no idea how this model would be helpful in other areas and with other products, but please throw out any ideas that you have to help give these opportunities to innovative thinkers!

You Are Not a Gadget Thursdays – Three Possible Future Directions

13. January 2011 · Write a comment · Categories: Music, Philosophy, Teaching · Tags: , , ,

Lanier sets forth three ideas in this chapter that he sees as options that can save us from the Singularity and the ones who control the cloud.  The three ideas are Telegigging, Songles, and Formal Financial Expression.  I’m going to focus on the first two as I found those most interesting.

Lanier defines telegigging as allowing musicians to perform gigs at remote locations through holographic projection or something similar.  The costs associated with traveling would basically be eliminated, provided that they have the ability to record themselves holographically and the place they are “performing” can project holograms.  I think this technology is quite a few years away from being affordable enough to seriously discuss, but I think the NoiseTrade idea resonates with telegigging quite well.

The most interesting of the three ideas to me were the songles.  Songles are a complete reversal of how we approach music today.  Songles are objects that contain a song and when the songle is in the proximity of a device that can play songles, the device can play the song associated with that songle.  Lanier thinks that this route could allow artists to produce a limited number of songs and give value to fans who buy the songles and invest in a up and coming band and their songles.

While Lanier is not necessarily advocating the elimination of other forms of music (for if he was advocating that, I would have serious concerns with the limitations of the spread of music), he does think that songles would make the music business more interactive and have the fans more engaged with the artists, as the songles could almost serve as stock in the artists.

My concern with songles is that they seem to be trinkets that would be novelties instead of serious investments.  Additionally, we would have to adjust our entertainment devices in order to be able to read the songles.  Like telegigging, songles may have some potential, but it seems like they are still down the pike a few years.

Given that both of these ideas seem quite a few years away and that Lanier has serious concerns about the effect of lock-ins (discussed in previous chapters), I can’t help but wonder if these ideas are going to be seen as “could-have-beens” rather than realities.  If we become locked in to using our iPods and buying devices that we can download songs onto and collect them there, the songle may be a novelty, but unlikely to dislodge us from our already ingrained approach to how we enjoy our music and even our movies.

You Are Not a Gadget Thursdays – The Prospects for Humanist Cloud Economics

06. January 2011 · Write a comment · Categories: Philosophy, Teaching, Technology · Tags: , , ,

In this chapter, Lanier assures his readers that there is a way out from the concerns of being controlled by those who control the cloud.  The present trends point in the direction of the cloud being free or paying for access to the cloud, giving control to those who control the cloud.  Lanier prefers something like Ted Nelson suggests.  Instead of paying for access to the cloud, there would be single copies of all content and you pay for access to the content.  All of the content on the web would have a small cost, but just as you pay to access the pictures of your friends, your friends would pay for access to your pictures as well.  Theoretically, after you figure what you pay and what you are paid, you would pay roughly the same amount you pay for internet access now.

This move would put the control of content back into the hands of individuals rather than in the hand of those who control the medium.  It also allows people to be reimbursed for their work on the web.  It would require great organization that would likely involve the government, but Lanier thinks that government involvement to allow users to control their content is a better poison to swallow than allowing a select few to control the cloud and to reap the financial benefits of that control.

On a personal note, I had to stop and think about how Lanier’s proposed change would influence the way that I view the internet.  If I knew I was paying an amount every time I clicked on a link, I think I would be more careful and limit myself in my internet habits.  In the beginning at least, I would not click on links willy-nilly, but would find myself being much more intentional in what I clicked.  It would also motivate me to try to post more often and to post things that people are interested in as an attempt to earn some money for my work. As time progressed, I might become more at east about paying for content, much like I have with spending money on songs through iTunes or Amazon’s mp3 store.  It would be a significant adjustment, but my gut agrees with Lanier about the positives over the cloud control method.

I wonder if this move would make it more difficult for people starting up on the internet.  If someone is an unknown commodity, people might be less likely to spend money on their work, similar to what we see in the music industry today.  Given my openly professed love for NoiseTrade, I tried to think what a similar site would be under this pay model, but was unsuccessful.  If anyone has any ideas on this dilemma, please post them in the comments.

You Are Not a Gadget Thursdays – The City Is Built to Music

16. September 2010 · 2 comments · Categories: Music, Philosophy, Technology · Tags: , ,

You can’t always get what you want…

In this short chapter, Lanier bemoans the present state of the music industry, specifically the music distribution industry.  His concern is that with the decline of traditional music distribution services, musicians will be hard-pressed to make it in the world as a musician unless they are young, without kids, and willing to tour all the time.

Given that Lanier is a musician, it would have been interesting to hear him tie his own experiences into the chapter.

The significant concern I have with Lanier’s chapter is his apparently misplaced attack on music recordings.  He heavily critiques MIDI earlier in the book, claiming that it has had a destructive impact on music.  What better way to combat the effects of MIDI but by making the live performance the centerpiece of the musician’s experience and livelihood?

Granted, it does take a lot of work to travel and tour.  However, many musicians would argue that no recording can fully capture a live performance.  I imagine that the original purpose of a recording was to give a taste of a live performance that was not experienced or to trigger the memory of the live performance that was experienced.  I believe that music, especially non-MIDI music like Lanier holds up as a beacon of the Good, was not intended for recording but for the live experience.

This criticism by Lanier appears to be a case of wanting his cake and eating it too.  He wants to critique the music that has become all about the recording because it has locked artists into the use of technologies like MIDI and prevented them from the fullest expression of their music.  However, he also wants artists to be able to make money primarily from recordings rather than live performances.  I believe that if Lanier wants artists to be able to make a living off of recordings, then he has to accept that the recording has then become the focal point of music rather than the performance.  But if he believes that the performance should be the focal point (as it appears he does), then he has to make the performance, not the recording, the focal part of what it means to be an artist.  If the recording is not the focal point, then it should not be expected to be the primary source of income.

I will make now yet another plug for NoiseTrade.  NoiseTrade puts the focus of the artist on the performance by offering the recordings for free.  This mode appeals to me because I am the type of person who goes to concerts to get something more than the recording.  When artists give concerts by basically performing the songs exactly as they are on the album while not talking about their songs, I am sorely disappointed.  When I’m at a concert, I think the artist should give me something that I can’t get when listening in the comfort of my own home.  (I can get sore ears and surround myself in a bunch of sweaty, screaming bodies in my own home if I want, if you were about to claim that it a bonus.)  NoiseTrade encourages artists to make their concerts an experience worth going to, which, I hope, puts the focus on the live performance of music rather than recordings.

NoiseTrade Update

13. September 2010 · Write a comment · Categories: Life, Music · Tags:

Last week, I blogged about NoiseTrade as a possible model for music distribution in this ever-increasing digital age.

Today, the founders of NoiseTrade announced a desire to upgrade the NoiseTrade service.  In order to help raise the capital for this upgrade, they have put out a 25 song sampler.  (The upgrades they want to make are listed on that page as well.)  These songs are from artists available on NoiseTrade, although I’m not sure all the songs are available.  The idea is that this sampler is free, like all albums on NoiseTrade.  However, they are making a direct appeal asking for whatever tips (donations) you can give, and all the tips will go directly to upgrading the service.

Let me encourage you again to check out NoiseTrade.  Listen to a few samples from different albums.  Download a couple (while promoting them through e-mail, Twitter, or Facebook if you can’t donate).  Then check out the sampler and give a little bit to help fund this wonderful service.

You Are Not a Gadget Thursdays – Digital Peasant Chic

09. September 2010 · Write a comment · Categories: Philosophy, Teaching, Technology · Tags: , , ,

When all art is free, how do the artists live?

This concern carries the fourth chapter of You Are Not a Gadget.  Many people support the idea of an open or free culture, where content is free and available to all, not just for viewing, but also for use.

Lanier polemically refers to these people as digital Maoists, rejecting hierarchy for the most part while embracing “digital metaness, in which a mashup is more important than the sources who were mashed.  A blog of blogs is more exalted than a mere blog (79)”.  (Lanier does recognize that open culture does not claim authoritarian control of the communication of ideas.)

When the meta level becomes king and everything is subsumed into the noosphere or hive mind, Lanier claims that only advertising has value.  Because every form of expression (blogs, music, movies, art, news), in becoming open and free, is to be “remashed, anonymized, and decontextualized to the point of meaninglessness” (82), the advertisements become what has value.  When advertisements are the only thing to have value, then the advertisers have all of the control over what is seen, as they decide what to contribute the value of their advertisements.

Ironically, this move of valuing advertisements is, in a sense, a failure of the noosphere according to Lanier.  If the hive mind is capable of doing a better job than paid experts, then it seems that the hive mind should be able to direct us in our decisions rather than advertising.  If advertising is paid persuasion, it tries to say that there is something where those who are paid do better than the hive, that is, give advice on what to do.  So in reality, if we are given completely free and open content, the advertisements attached to that content become overly pervasive.  They do not butt in on our experience, but are always sitting there, speaking to us.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, Lanier doesn’t find the hive mind to be appealing, but he also does not find this advertiser run life any more appealing.  He says:

If money is flowing to advertising instead of musicians, journalists, and artists, then a society is more concerned with manipulation than truth or beauty.  If content is worthless, then people will start to become empty-headed and contentless (83).

I would argue that if you look at the musicians/journalists/artists that are most popular/successful/wealthy, you’ll see something that looks far more like advertising than music/news/art.  This move makes sense, due to the fact that you can make a lot more if you have endorsements and advertising in addition to album sales and concert profits, especially with the uncertainty that appears to be accompanying the future of media distribution.  However, at that point, it is not longer about the music/news/art.  Lanier is concerned that if advertisers control everything, that eventually those who want to make a living on the basis of mental activity will have to be part of institutions or commissioned by patrons in order to survive.  While this possibility is not in the realm of impossibilities (although it may be in the realm of improbabilities), I think there is a model already emerging for music distribution that may prevent musicians from having to be patronized in order to make a living.

This model for music distribution is noisetrade.com.  NoiseTrade is a website started by a group of people (including Derek Webb, a former/present(?) member of the band Caedmon’s Call) that dubs itself as “Fair Trade Music”.  The idea behind NoiseTrade is that artists can upload songs/albums onto the server for NoiseTrade and people for the price of your zip code and e-mail address, you can download the music from NoiseTrade, leaving the artist an additional tip if you’d like.  Since artists make the significant portion of their money from tours, having the zip codes of those who download their music allows them to plan their tours more efficiently and having the e-mail addresses allows them to keep in contact with those who download their music.  I believe the artists have to give something like 20% of their tips, but pay no other costs.

I give the plug for NoiseTrade, because I think it is an interesting model for musicians.  Webb offered an album of his for e-mail addresses and zip codes over the course of a month in 2006.  Interestingly, the sales of that album increased and the attendance for his shows increased drastically.  The artist puts the music out there for the fans to decide what they want to pay upfront.  If the music is good, they’ll tell their friends who will download with the same zip code, which then becomes a place where the artist will want to try to tour, and the fans will come to the show and pay the artist back in ticket sales for the great music produced.  The music, while free, is connected to the artist, and although NoiseTrade does have advertisements on their site, the advertisements tend to be for magazines that promote indie music, much like the artists available on NoiseTrade.

While Lanier might be leery of something like NoiseTrade, I think NoiseTrade is one example of how social networking can support artists apart from the artistic-integrity-bashing-because-we’re-ruled-by-advertising model that Lanier concerns himself with.  How something like this would work out for journalists, visual artists, or even philosophers, since we don’t tour, I’m not sure, but I’m not willing to give up hope that even in Lanier’s worst case scenario, something would emerge.  If the thing that emerged was sold out philosophical speaking/questioning tours, I personally think that the world would be a better place… and I know some philosophers for whom I would love to be their opening act on tour.