A topic that we did not get to today was on Internet collaboration. Frank had mentioned the Postal Service. Upon some research, the amount of collaboration on the Postal Service’s album was quite limited. It would seem that one guy would create some beats and send it to the other guy, who would write and record everything else. The first guy then had some final input into whether or not he liked it.
I think this here is sort of a clear case of why Dreyfus thinks that Internet collaborations are insufficient. The collaborative creativity was taken out of the equation when the Postal Service merely shared a beat. Before any of you Postal Service fans get upset, I do actually like the album. I do not think it lacks anything that most albums nowadays lack regardless of whether or not everyone is in the studio at the same time.
For me, and I would think Dreyfus would agree, the ultimate example of collaborative playing is in a jazz combo. That is a small jazz ensemble meant for playing more improvisational jazz songs, for those of you who have never heard the term. In a jazz combo, everyone plays together and reacts to each other. The important part of this interaction is what you could call a “feedback loop.” That is to say, if the drummer plays something and the bassist reacts to that, but then the drummer reacts to the bassist’s reaction, you have a feedback loop. There is no definite end.
The reason most current songs lack this is because of multi-track recording. In multi-track recording, parts are recorded individually and combined in either a computer or onto multi-track media. This would seem to be a good thing for musicians to play off of and react to each other. However, there is no feedback in the process. Once the drummer records his part, it is set in stone unless the part or sections are rerecorded. The guitarist may be able to react to the drummer’s part, but that’s the end of the line.
This is basically what the whole Internet deficiency for human interaction. There is no real-time, 100%, feel of being with and reacting to another human. Regardless of how transparent the interface for interacting with another is, it still lacks that spiritual warmth of sharing space with a person. I will admit that meaningful relationships may develop through connections on the Internet, but you can never do a trust fall with an AIM friend. And we all know that trust falls are what make human relationships real.
Daniel Worst | 04-Dec-06 at 12:11 pm | Permalink
I agree with the point that was made in this post with the example of music. Some of the most legendary Rock n’ Roll bands just made music by jamming in a room together. They would just sit in a studio and feel what one another were doing and then add their parts as they went, eventually completing a song or record. Doing things through the Internet, such as the Postal Sercive, takes away this feel that musicians have and in turn takes away from the music. (As Greg said, I also like the Postal Service album)
stephanie hernandez | 04-Dec-06 at 6:46 pm | Permalink
This is a good point you borought up and I completely agree with you. Sure bands like Postal Service can make good quality music, but they lack the ability to simply improvise. Because they are not together at the same time, they cannot simply play thus they need some sort of coordination. I see where you are coming from. I too believe that Dreyfus did not believe advances in technology were bad, such as the internet, he simply argued that no matter how advanced tachnology could get it could never replace physical interaction.
Adam Warren | 04-Dec-06 at 9:23 pm | Permalink
I agree that this shows very limited interaction on the part of the band over distance. The jazz band is also an excellent choice of examples for showing the advantage of being with your band rather than communicating via some messaging service. I still tend to disagree with Dreyfus, though, even though this is a decent counter-example. The question is had they tried to communicate more via postal service, would it have added a new dimension to the music? Probably not, but who is to say that more communication by mail would hurt the music in any way? It’s always a tough battle between Clark and Dreyfus because Dreyfus has some good points, but in the end, I’m a Clark man and I’ll stick by him.
Cristina Del Real | 05-Dec-06 at 5:39 pm | Permalink
I think it is quite possible that an album created through correspondence could be just as good as one created with the entire band in one room. While the music aspect would not change, the relationships that the members of the band form with one another by practicing in person would not be the same through postal correspondence. They will always be missing out on the opportunity to form stronger bonds through in person communication. Like someone mentioned, they will never have the opportunity to come up with other music on the spot through inspiration that comes from being together. Correspondence could facilitate things, but it could never fully replace everything that they could get from being together in the same room.
Greg Frazier | 05-Dec-06 at 6:14 pm | Permalink
Adam- the difference is that the song might suffer from the time-lapse. For example, say you and I were both bummed about school, so we decided to write a song together. The song would be a good representation of how we both felt at that moment in time. However, if I write the first part today, and then send it to you so that it arrives after final exams, then will the song still be representative of how we both felt at the beginning of the song’s creation? The emotional aspects of the song might suffer from the disconnect of the time-lapse between creation by me and creation by you.
Cristina- Whether or not the albums are as good as the other is mostly a matter of taste. Certainly for an album that is meant to be cold and emotionless, postal correspondance would have little to no effect on the emotionality of the album. It might even make the album even better. But for something like a jazz album, or even a jam-band album, postal correspondance would be incredibly bad for the resulting work. And I agree with you that the stonger bond might be that might be key to the creation.
Kenneth Sullivan | 06-Dec-06 at 2:37 pm | Permalink
I found this quote from Ben Gibbard, the Postal Service’s vocalist.
“It was really great to get a little package every month or two - ‘Two new songs!’” says Gibbard. “Sometimes I’d say, ‘I want to move that part and this part,’ and it was really fun to have such autonomy in the writing; I could pretty much do whatever I wanted.”
Although this style of song writing allows for Gibbard to do whatever he wanted, it completely deters from actual music making. Anyone can learn how to mix music on a computer, but to be able to not only play an instrument, but to play with someone else is a quantum above any electronic music mixing. It is in my opinion that if you are judging a band’s quality you should look at not just their studio albums but also at their live shows. How can you play a live show with electronic music? Although I enjoy The Postal Service’s songs, their band has absolutely zero chemistry together, because they do not play together. But I guess that can be viewed as a feat in itself, making music without actually playing with the other band members.
Greg Frazier | 06-Dec-06 at 4:52 pm | Permalink
Nice find Kenneth. It really shows that even they felt as if they were working alone on the project.
In terms of completely dismissing all electronic music as unable to be played live, I’d have to disagree. If you ever get a chance to see Nine Inch Nails live, I’d recommend it. Despite the majority of the songs being completely written by solely Trent Reznor, the live band he puts together does an incredible job. Granted, Nine Inch Nails is kind of the rock side of electronic music.
Erin Hogan | 07-Dec-06 at 1:37 pm | Permalink
As Adam said, it’s always hard to choose between Dreyfus and Clark because they’re both really good at making their points. I myself go back and forth a lot. Dreyfus basically says that because there is no bodily risk on the internet, there can be no real bond between people. I find this hard to relate to music at times however because music is experiences differently by everyone. Everyone has different beliefs and aesthetics when it comes to music, so I think that it’s impossible to really argue one way or another in terms of whether or not internet collaborations on music are better, worse, or the same as other types of music. Yeah, there is a lack of improvisation that exists in other forms of music, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, some of you say that this lack of musical bond takes away from the music…but then add an endnote saying that you like the Postal Service. So if you like their music, isn’t that all that matters? Isn’t that sort of the point of music?
William Lee | 07-Dec-06 at 2:12 pm | Permalink
I agree that one simply cannot get the same feel for the music alone that one would get playing together in a group. Obviously, like Greg said, you can still get a pretty cohesive nice sound, but I believe that there lacks that certain element of true unity. Plus, as a musician, there is definitely a difference between playing a part alone and playing a part along with others at the same time. You here their parts and you can hear how your part fits into there’s, but being there as a collective, you can make adjustments on the fly.
Rickin Shah | 07-Dec-06 at 5:46 pm | Permalink
I think its an extremely interesting method that Postal Service uses to create their music. Hearing about it did make me question the importance of human interaction to create “good” music. For me its hard to sit here and say that if they really started to meet that the music would be “better.” What is good is subject to anyone’s opinion. I do understand what Greg is saying that face to face interaction definatly would change the music stylistically but i can’t totally say that meeting to create music is what this band needs to do. I thin its possible that we need give more credit to the technology that supposedly distances us from eachother…because this is a great counter argument.
Teresa Hernandez | 07-Dec-06 at 9:55 pm | Permalink
I agree with the point that was made about the interaction that is missing when you do things, such as make albums solely over the internet. I mean sure everyone can contribute their individual parts, but the interaction that is necessary isn’t there. I think that an album made over the internet could be as good as an album made in person, but the musicians don’t have the ability to talk to one another as they are making the music so no changes can be made immediately. It just seems to me that the interaction that is lacking is something that could potentially have a huge impact on the final product, and the inability to do so has to restrict the musicians’ abilities as artists in some way.
Kenneth Sullivan | 07-Dec-06 at 11:49 pm | Permalink
I play guitar and I use what is known as a loop pedal to enhance my playing. With the guitar plugged into the loop pedal and the pedal plugged into the amp, I can record a chord progression and then solo over it. I can build up energy in the solo notes I am playing, but the progression does not build up at all. This completely rules out the idea of vamping, which is playing the same chord progression while someone solos and the progression’s energy builds up as the soloist takes notes higher or in anyway builds up his energy to where they both reach a musical climax. These internet collaborations do not allow for vamping, or any type of buildup whatsoever which detracts from the song.