\u2026 provide[s] common ground for practitioners and researchers to meet and collaborate \u2026 those instances that breach accepted practices and make use of creative and critical approaches in a profound way to our store of knowledge and understanding. This is the legacy of what artist-researchers have to offer (2012, p. 274).<\/p>\n
The development of undergraduate craft through to so-called \u2018artistic research\u2019 (Biggs & Karlsson, 2010) requires reflexive responses to rapidly evolving academic fields. In terms of \u2018the art\u2019 of record production, the idea of producer<\/em> has revised meanings worth exploring here. In this paper I therefore offer a review of pertinent literature in order to argue some broader implications for how both curricula and artistic research methods might be considered.<\/p>\n Figure 1<\/span>: Blind monks examining an elephant<\/em>, by Hanabusa Itch? (1652 \u20131724).<\/p>\n The story of the blind men and the elephant is a useful metaphor for this project. A group of blind men touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt and learn they are in complete disagreement. In recent music seminars at my university I was reminded of this story when we approached the topic of \u2018critical listening\u2019. Students were invited to discuss their favourite music and while this revealed fascinating insights, it was also clear that there were as many interpretations and approaches to listening to recorded music as there were presenters.<\/p>\n Conversely, given a set music piece everyone could describe that same \u2018elephant\u2019 in many different ways. Similarly, when I approached academic staff it was evident that there were a number of presumptions in play, some related to pedagogy or assessment, while others reflected beliefs according to discipline, qualifications, or working conditions. To drill down further, these understandings about listening were quite different from the many external forms of evaluation schema theorised elsewhere. At its most basic, engagement was via highly personalised practice-based drivers \u2013\u00a0 \u201cWhat is that music<\/em> doing?\u201d and, \u201cHow can I<\/em> do that?\u201d Across assorted sub-disciplines this tended to reflect an internalised historical understanding of recorded music as a primary source. For example: for jazz-ers in how to listen to and\/or mimic solos and changes; for composers, in how to understand form, function, or ensemble complexities; through to sound recordists where the associations between close listening and technological decision-making were reminiscent of the relationships between instrumentalist and instrument \u2013 \u201cI want that<\/em> compressor!\u201d In all of this, musicians wished to be producers <\/em>of music while striving to achieve far more than merely a satisfactory outcome. The ways in which this might be achieved was certainly variable (from stage, to score, to conducting, to recording), but overall these ideas frame the premise for the next stage of this paper in that the essential skill for the record producer \u2013 like for every musician \u2013 begins with the ears.<\/p>\n Admittedly, the elephant metaphor presents a larger puzzle which cannot be fully unpacked here, however in terms of its general aims this paper is positioned as a pilot enquiry with some boundaries to intentionally limit its scope. In terms of university contexts which may substitute for apprenticeships of old, one way to frame this is to prioritise just a few desirable key learning outcomes for musician producers in a recording studio setting.<\/p>\n From my own academic experience there are three elements that repeatedly come to the fore. Firstly there is the oft cited application of critical listening but proves to be hard to pin down (as above). It would seem that individual claims are not well articulated \u2013 a doxa<\/em> assuming everyone in a given \u2018tribe\u2019 knows about their ears, yet where practice-based derivations of a given theoretical framework may be less clear. This paper will therefore incorporate a short review of relevant literature, aiming to i) assist the practitioner in locating their work, and ii) set some contextual parameters for subsequent case studies. I do not claim that this scan will be comprehensive but I do intend that this might be helpful as a general starting point.<\/p>\n The second phenomenon is the interplay (or struggle) between music and technology. On the one hand, the tools themselves may easily subsume the original musical intentions for the inexperienced, while on the other, improvisation and \u2018flow\u2019 would seem congruent with the less easily revealed art-making of the experienced producer. Accordingly, the paper will comment on recent scholarship about artistic research (Borgdorff, 2012) which examines the shifting relationships between so called \u2018technical objects\u2019 and \u2018epistemic things\u2019.<\/p>\n The third perspective is in the development of the self<\/em> \u2013\u00a0that is, of \u2018insider\u2019 understandings and reflective \/practice-based \/artistic research processes as higher order thinking. While much of the broader music literature orients around the analysis or critique of other\u2019s works, there are far fewer examples of how an individual exposes their own music-making endeavours to rigorous academic examination in terms of questions, methods, data, findings and validity. To this end, the paper will explore case study excerpts to illuminate the discussion further.<\/p>\n Producer and mix engineer Kevin Augunas reflects on the making of The Lumineers <\/em>album:<\/p>\n \u2026 the first thing I did with many songs was to delete a bunch of tracks and take off the plugs, because I wasn\u2019t hearing the songs in that way. To me these extra tracks and these plug-ins were examples of people overdoing things in DAWs because they could, whereas you need to focus on arranging \u2026 OK, we cut away all the fat from the song \u2026 What are we missing, or are we complete? If we felt there were things missing, the band would record them in the live room, and they would add tracks. After that the final mixes were a matter of setting levels, reverbs and delays, panning things \u2026 That is all mixing should be. (cited in Tingen: 2013, p. 16)<\/p>\n This piece is indicative in useful ways. It highlights the \u2018wholeness\u2019 of the setting and although scant in operational detail, Augunas implies important considerations in only a few lines: critical listening for inclusion or absence, statement, song form, tracks, arrangement, mix, FX \u2013\u00a0and overall, the sense of an individualised approach. While much of this may quietly reflect the writer\u2019s extensive professional experience and interactions over time, there are a number of well-developed critical listening theories central to expanding on this further.<\/p>\n Google \u2018critical listening\u2019 and the first hits indicate \u201cthe engineer\u2019s point of view \u2026 the physical details of the music \u2013 frequency response, dynamic range, tone, imaging, and how instruments are blended together\u201d (White, cited in Shure Blog, 2013). These assumptions are not dissimilar to that of recording students as an emphasis on equipment and the physics of sound, reinforced by routines that spend time in studio immersion at best (or \u2018hunt and peck\u2019 at worst). The theoretical models which are commonly used to support this are as follows.<\/p>\n The Tonmeister concept (literally, \u2018sound-master\u2019) was proposed by Arnold Schoenberg in 1946 as a way to train (sic) \u2018soundmen\u2019 in the fields of recording, radio and film. First introduced in Germany in the same year, the word tonmeister<\/em> was later trademarked by the University of Surrey in 1986 (Borwick, 1973). From out of this tradition, a systematised regime of listening exercises emerged to provide increasing levels of difficulty in identifying frequency bands, levels and their interrelationships for the trained sound engineer. Variously termed spectral solf\u00e8ge<\/em> (at the author\u2019s institution), timbre solf\u00e8ge<\/em> (Miskiewic,1992), or auditory solf\u00e8ge<\/em> (Moulton, 2013), the later is available as the Moulton Laboratories Golden Ears program and CD sets (ibid). Jason Corey (2010) also provides for this and more in his book, Audio Production and Critical Listening: Technical Ear Training.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/sub><\/p>\n Elsewhere beyond fundamental EQ ear training a second element often arises, be it in undergraduate essays or in proposals for higher degree research. When projects offer an analysis of the author\u2019s own work as a reflective practitioner (Sch\u00f6n, 1983), they often cite \u2018critical listening\u2019 as a (somewhat vague) methodology for evaluation. In some cases this is indeed revealed as an investigation of sound engineering decision-making processes, and to this end a frequently adopted approach is detailed in William Moylan\u2019s work, The art of recording: Understanding and crafting the mix <\/em>(2002). In this, Moylan helpfully provides a range of exemplars to analyse well known recordings via the use of stereo placement, EQ, dynamics and overall staging schema represented diagrammatically as a \u2019sound box\u2019 between the speakers.<\/p>\n While the aforementioned methods are generally tied to familiar musical sources, the fields of electroacoustics (electronics), musique concr\u00e8te<\/em> (\u2018real\u2019 sounds) and acousmatics (both) take a different direction. The first two traditions come from a history of electronic composition, tape loops and computer music where the sounds themselves are processed and combined from any origins of interest, for example: ambient natural sources, machinery, synthesizers, tape effects and so on (Camilleri <\/sup>&\u00a0Smalley, 2008). Many music students have creative opportunities to explore this further though \u2018sound art\u2019 productions which provide an engaging platform to further refine their skills with DAWs, plug-ins, processing and mixing, but without the usual pre-emptive baggage about song form, market place and the like.<\/p>\n The field of acousmatics makes a valuable departure point in that because such abstract works are composed exclusively for loudspeaker presentation, this has allowed for expanded thinking about the idea of critical listening where due consideration is given to exclusively sound-based characteristics, say, including timbre\u00a0and\u00a0spectrum. For many theorists what matters most is exactly how<\/em> the listener listens, as Pierre Schaffer (1966) elaborates in his Trait\u00e9 des Objets Musicaux<\/em> (Treatise on Musical Objects) via broad categories of passive (ouir<\/em>), casual (\u00e8couter<\/em>), discriminatory (entendre<\/em>) and intended or \u2018semantic\u2019 listening (comprende<\/em>). Because of the subtlety and shades of meaning available in the French language, there has been useful international examination of Schaffer\u2019s seminal work. One key English text is that of The Digital Musician <\/em>(2012) where Andrew Hugill writes,<\/p>\n \u2026 this led Schaeffer to his most famous notion: reduced listening.<\/em> This means listening to a sound for its own sake, in itself<\/em>, as what Schaeffer calls a \u2018sound object\u2019, by removing its real or supposed source and any meaning it may convey. A sound can have inherent value on its own and not just because of what it may appear to represent. Schaeffer recognized that this is different from ordinary listening and is, therefore, somewhat unnatural. The benefit of listening in this way is that we can understand sonic phenomena for themselves and in themselves (pp. 21\u201322)<\/p>\n The book goes on to provide a detailed guide to further reading, listening, practice and application in a format designed for use by educators and students alike. At its core, Hugill explains how a reduced listening aesthetic may benefit sound producers of all persuasions.<\/p>\n Schaeffer\u2019s notion of comprende <\/em>provides a segue into the field of semiotic analysis now so prevalent in popular music studies, aiming to \u201clink[s] musical structure with other aspects of culture and society\u201d (Tagg, 2013). Some argue that this field arose comparatively recently in the UK as a reaction to the dominance of classical musicology (Middleton, 1993), and\/or in order to gain credibility in the burgeoning business of university credentialization. While often intellectually compelling as analyses of familiar recordings, many of these pieces may also be disconcerting or at least humorous to artists when such interrogations are seen to be devised by academic critics and not by practitioners, and\/or \u2013 if the writer is indeed an accomplished musician, opinions are subjugated to the background given conservative concerns for validity. However, recent hybrid methodologies have emerged to reason several standpoints within a single reading. Underpinned by a semiotic framework, they incorporate other schema in meaningful ways: from musical analysis (scores, forms), to acoustmatic considerations, or the use of the between speaker \u2018sound box\u2019 or similar graphical representations. Of interest to practice-based researchers, the persona of the writer tends to be less well \u2018disguised\u2019 but more critically self-aware. Two examples of this kind of work are identified here, both of which notably begin with artistic disclaimers. Allan Moore (2012) writes:<\/p>\n It is not about what songs \u2018actually\u2019 seem to mean, its about how <\/em>they mean, and the means<\/em> by which they mean (p. 33)<\/p>\n Similarly, Aaron Liu-Rosenbaum (2012) offers:<\/p>\n Importantly, there is no claim of intentionality on the part of the artists or recordists, though elements of a sonic narrative may indeed be so. (p. 1)<\/p>\n Clearly this proves to be the case as the reader is guided through a detailed hybrid analysis of Led Zeppelin\u2019s When The Levee Breaks,<\/em> interspersed with intriguing historical citations from Jimmy Page as producer, arranger and performer. One is led to consider how this kind of thinking might be viewed by Page himself, or in framing the author\u2019s own music-making (if applicable), or more centrally: in what ways might this be adapted by other artists to assist in examining their original works? Moore (2012) expands on these points in his book, which \u2013\u00a0following the presentation of a series of differing analytical frameworks \u2013 concludes with four valuable chapters: Reference<\/em>, a comprehensive overview of the pertinent analysis literature; Belonging<\/em>, on relationships between musicians and sounds; Syntheses<\/em>, integrating earlier viewpoints\u00a0 together into single readings; and Questions,<\/em> a comprehensive list of research questions, many of which may be valuable to the practice-based music researcher.<\/p>\n In addition to specialised ear training, some meta considerations are worth considering as fundamental to a position on practice-based research. If the producer may be considered a \u2018composer\u2019 in the broadest sense, then Richard Vella (2000) leverages this into his Musical Environments: A Manual for Listening, Composing and Improvising.<\/em> Each chapter is accompanied with listening examples from a wide range of world cultures and styles to be experienced, discussed and analysed. Well suited to in-studio contexts, the book progresses with improvisation and composition exercises which allow practitioners flexible application according to their own needs. Elsewhere, in the paper The Marriage of Art and Academia<\/em>, Huib Schippers (2007) insightfully expands \u2018the studio\u2019 as a place where,<\/p>\n Thousands of deeply considered and split-second decisions are made using notation or memory; ideas from publications about music (structure, history); consulted or remembered recordings in private collection and libraries and performances; learned, acquired and developed values; experience and assessment of audience reactions; and probably most importantly an aural library, which, for a mature musician, would typically consist of 20,000 to 50,000 hours of listening, learning and playing. (p. 3)<\/p>\n This idea of an \u2018aural library\u2019 has resonance in relation to musicians interpretations of sound recordings. In this, notions of critical listening are informed by a \u2018personal psychology\u2019 of music initially dependent on matters such as opportunity, access, nationality, or peer group. Dave Collins (2012) takes this further in the edited collection, The Act of Musical Composition: Studies in the Creative Process<\/em> where contributors examine musical perception, performance, preferences, and memory. The central themes focus on time-based work: from compositional processes, through to creative thinking and problem-solving, these aspects are integrated alongside theoretical understandings of creativity and empirically supported reflective practice.<\/p>\n It could be posed that the producer undertakes the \u2018laboratory\u2019 phase of the research in the recording studio. Here is where epistemological questions are asked, but are intertwined with applied skills and the operation of technical devices, ideally so that\u00a0 \u201c[recording] \u2026 is not something done to<\/em> music but a process in which sound becomes music\u201d (Frith & Zagorski-Thomas: 2012, p. 277). Over time the producer more confidently and transparently interacts with the recording studio as a musical ensemble to create persona and style in sound as a desirable outcome. Simultaneously however, such embodied knowledge may challenge explication at advanced levels and\/or as academic research. Henk Borgdorff elaborates,<\/p>\n Artistic research articulates the fact that our natural relationship with things we encounter is more intimate than we can know. At the same time, it also familiarises us with the fact that those things are in some way foreign to us \u2026 artistic research is the acceptance of that paradoxical invitation. The artistic, pre-reflective, non-conceptual content enclosed in aesthetic experiences, embodied in art works and enacted in artistic practices is articulated, amplified, contextualised and thought through in the research. (2010, p. 60)<\/p>\n This foregrounds research design considerations in terms of how to unpack, progress and communicate practice-based work. For example, the \u2018doing\u2019 of record production \u2013listening, recording, arranging, editing, processing, mixing \u2013\u00a0is a very different activity to the post analysis of its by-products. Improvisation, instinct and serendipity are familiar in high creativity situations, whereas the examination of real time actions in may indeed change their outcomes, or as one colleague quipped, \u201cthe music knows<\/em> you\u2019re looking at it\u201d. Further, technologies may forcefully dictate their own outcomes, perpetuated by design assumptions (and celebrity or nostalgia) just as Theodor Adorno once famously wrote, \u201c\u2026 an element socially predetermined \u2026 such an objectified impulse of the material has its own kinetic laws\u201d (1973 [1949], p. 3).<\/p>\n Borgdorff (2012) further investigates the relationships between physical tools and creative ideas in a recent chapter, Artistic Practices and Epistemic Things. <\/em>Based on work of Hans-J\u00f6rg Rheinberger (Max Planck Institute), this theorizes the philosophy of science and its experimental systems as a shifting interplay between \u2018technical objects\u2019 and \u2018epistemic things\u2019:<\/p>\n Experiments are not merely methodological vehicles to test knowledge that has already been theoretically grounded or hypothetically postulated \u2026 Experimental systems are characterized by the interplay of \u2018technical objects\u2019 [TOs] and \u2018epistemic things\u2019 [ETs] \u2026 [ETs] may turn into [TOs] or instruments, thereby ensuring the relative stability in the experimental system that enables new epistemic things to appear \u2026 [TOs], if deployed differently may sacrifice their stability and diffuse into epistemological questions \u2026 Experimental systems must be sufficiently open to allow these indistinct things to come into view; enough space must be present to produce what we do not yet know. (Borgdorff, 2012, pp. 188\u2013190)<\/p>\n For the record producer as artistic researcher this promises useful ways in which to consider studio practice by acknowledging and examining exactly where these conceptual shifts occur en route<\/em> to overall aims. For example, a project may have had earlier well-conceived methods for achieving its goals, but along the way some elements were rejected while other new techniques may have been \u2018discovered\u2019, investigated further, practiced, then to be intellectually discarded but artistically applied (and retained as new improvisational skills).<\/p>\n Next I will exemplify the discussion thus far via a number of case study extracts. While not reproduced in their entirety, these examples will reflect upon common themes arising from recent practice based projects.<\/p>\n In the following examples, authors have sought to be better producers of music by devising projects to track their insights, emerging skills and new language. In some cases this may have examined only a specific stage of the production continuum, for others, the delivery of an overarching creative portfolio may have been the intention. Whatever the topic, common elements include: i) a quest for the development of musical self; ii) fit for purpose critical listening schema; iii) pathways which reflexively expose creative interactions between musician and technologies, and iv) the adaptation of mixed research methods reminiscent of the social sciences and humanities. These themes are now arranged as a connected narrative.<\/p>\n An undergraduate Honours project examines the dilemma of producing high quality recordings, yet which is known to be destined for lossy codec dissemination. Mastered for iTunes (MFiT) <\/em>(Thomas, 2013) begins with a literature review of data compression technology, then turns to insights from mix and mastering engineers. The dissertation subsequently argues technical schema, null tests and software tools via which to begin to measure some of the differences between high resolution recordings and their encoded counterparts while also adapting the familiar \u2018sound box\u2019 evaluation schema proposed by Moylan (2002). These methods then notably begin to extend and \u2018mix\u2019 because in a final reading, ultimately, the project is realised through a personal application of critical listening accompanied by original recordings. Overall this is paced by a thick description of insights about audio trials via journal entries and reflective comparisons. Ultimately the work aspires to improve the author\u2019s artistic practice though optimised tracking, mixing and mastering processes with MFiT delivery in mind.<\/p>\n Another example (Draper, 2011a) offers similar insights into a \u2018morphing\u2019 research trajectory via a quest to incorporate free improvisations within the DAW production environment. Rather than lose attractive energy or move to formal song-writing, tracking and overdubbing processes, the paper examines if and how the material might be directly incorporated. What emerges is that the lack of bar \/beat reference is a block to harnessing the arranging power of a modern DAW, and so the work becomes an investigation into how Logic Pro\u2019s tools \u2018map\u2019 the audio material. At this point the project almost entirely shifts to focus on the beat mapping \u2018technical object\u2019 as an \u2018epistemic thing\u2019 (Borgdorff, 2012). This progresses with insights drawn from notes, save as states, screen dumps and the like, but over time becomes increasingly musical \u2013 from beat mapping, to marker mapping (form) and harmonic mapping (chordal) \u2013\u00a0 the former technical \/epistemological interest begins to fade while new realisations arise as \u2018mind mapping\u2019. That is, as a result of\u00a0 low level mechanical processes, beat mapping not only becomes a tacit skill, this coding leads to a deeper understanding of the musical material itself.<\/p>\n In a recent book chapter (Draper & Cunio, 2013), the authors dissect and present the development of a new musical piece: from improvisation, to recording, arranging, and mixing. In this a parallel is made to the well known PhD-by-composition format (new music plus analytical exegesis) as being a potential model via which to undertake all artistic research: that is, as a relationship between creative activity and written intellectual reflection. In this the concept of so-called \u2018little-r\u2019 thinking is elaborated:<\/p>\n \u2026 a European conservatoire \u2018research festival\u2019 provided a intensive framework for graduating Master of Music candidates to defend their research projects in compelling blends of talk, text, screen and performance \u2026 Of particular impact was the apparent ease with which students expressed themselves to offer deep insights into the meaning of their own artistic practices while never seeming to offer any less than complete transparency, validity and trustworthiness. To which the institution\u2019s principal enthusiastically exclaimed, \u201cAh no, not the [science] \u2018big R\u2019 rhetoric. We do \u2018little r\u2019 research here \u2013\u00a0and we\u2019re proud of it!!\u201d (Draper, & Cunio: 2013, p. 1).<\/p>\n What would seem increasingly accepted (expected even) for exegetical components are rich and often unique blends of \u2018little-r\u2019 first person writing together with mixed methodologies comprising for example: phenomenology, thick description, action research, and authethnographies which meaningfully triangulate the practices \u2018behind the music\u2019. In addition, there is an emphasis on the real time documentation of artistic problem-solving to accompany the emergence of creative works (Collins, 2012) \u2013 via save-as states, journals, videos or other forms of multimedia which are often less about product than process. Two notable HDR models for just such work are to be found in The Intersection of Improvisation and Composition: A Music Practice in Flux <\/em>(Knight, 2001) and Exploring Individuality and Musicianship Through Recording Studio-based Songwriting <\/em>(Snell, 2011).<\/p>\n The next examples further elaborate on \u2018portfolio\u2019 research and record production. That is, as a reflective continuum which iteratively informs the making of albums and academic publications.<\/p>\n In the album Foreign Objects<\/em> (Draper, 2010), Clocked Out Duo devised a collection of new music as a tribute to the work of minimalist composer Terry Riley. This proved to be a demanding project because of the interplay between Eric Griswald on prepared piano and Vanessa Tomlinson\u2019s swathe of \u2018found\u2019 percussion, including bottles, bowls, sticks and ropes. For the recordist, the application of tonmeister sensibilities (Borwick, 1973) proved valuable when it was heard that subtle harmonies began to alter when subjected to \u2018out of the box\u2019 techniques including tape saturation or non-linear summing. It was revealed that this interfered with overtones later understood as carefully crafted by the musicians and that high sample rate, minimally processed \u2018in the box\u2019 mixes presented the material at its best. Moreover, these negotiations encouraged a \u2018reduced listening\u2019 aesthetic (Hugill, 2012) appropriate to the sound sources (perhaps previously obscured by familiar elements of groove, pitch and form).<\/p>\n Acousmatics became central to a particular piece entitled \u2018Lavender Mist\u2019 (musically suggesting the Jackson Pollack painting of the same name). Production was made more complex by the integration of material from studio and concert recordings (often edited within a single track). In the case of Lavender Mist however, this stubbornly refused to make musical sense in the studio:<\/p>\n Tomlinson uses ropes tied to a piano leg to move over and play various scattered glass, china, metal and wooden objects on the floor. Griswald accompanies on prepared piano and improvises by watching Tomlinson’s body movements and listens to sounds. And in turn she responds to his sounds in an iterative musical process. In live performance the piece was possibly the highlight of all the music, with audible gasps coming from the audience at times, and being heard and responded to by the performers. This seemed to present a \u2018complete\u2019 work \u2013 with the bodies, the performance and stage craft, the interaction by performers with and through the audience. (Draper: 2009, pp. 1\u20132).<\/p>\n Figure 2<\/span>: Clocked Out performing Lavender Mist in concert (Clocked Out, 2009).<\/em><\/p>\n In a later interview Tomlinson commented,<\/p>\n \u201cThis project just didn\u2019t lend itself quite as well [to traditional recording approaches] \u2026 in this particular instance I think we are looking at a more creative mix \u2026 like \u2018scoring the sea bed\u2019, examining fragments of bric-a-brac on the floor, uncovering (by striking) different objects\u201d \u2013 perhaps aiming to present an \u2018acousmatic\u2019 experience of sound \u2026 where a curtain has been lowered between . . constituent sounds and their previous existence in the world . . eliminat[ing their] literal qualities; the listener spontaneously detaches the sound from its source or cause\u201d. (Ibid: p. 2).<\/p>\n In the final analysis, it was decided to use the live recording of Lavender Mist (available online, Clocked Out, 2009) to best represent the aesthetic. Similar to the Jackson Pollack painting and its viewers, perhaps every listener will have a different acousmatic experience.<\/p>\n An on-going interest in such issues of representation was discussed in relationship to planned classical music recordings by pianist Stephen Emmerson. Over a subsequent three year period the project would produce a number of research papers (Draper & Emmerson, 2011; 2009; Draper, 2009) as well as a double album set entitled Remixing Modernism (Draper, 2011b). This began as an idea to perform, record and present seminal piano compositions from around the turn of the twentieth century, but aiming to provide new insights and interpretations for younger or mainstream audiences unaware of the works. From the outset, it was advantageous for the record producer to work closely with the pianist who was also a highly accomplished musicologist. From conceptual outset, there became a clear sense of the personal lives of the composers, the stories around the pieces, and the historical contexts within which the music originally resided. Similar to retrospective readings offered by popular musicologists, yet notably different in that these interpretations were to be directly incorporated into the performances and the recordings going forward. For example, in Bart\u00f3k\u2019s Bagatelles:<\/p>\n Emmerson is convinced that the sharp contrasts in style are part of the overall concept of the work as a cycle of pieces that successively builds with a cohesive sense of narrative progression. Beyond merely a collection of compositional experiments or exercises, he understands them as having strong emotional and programmatic implications that develop through the cycle \u2026 he argues that these pieces reflect Bart\u00f3k\u2019s pain and disillusionment at a failed and unreciprocated love affair with the violinist Stefi Geyer for whom he had composed a violin concerto in the previous year (1907) \u2026 the falling scale passages in the first Bagatelle reflect the sense of being emotionally defeated and depressed, but in this piece they are juxtaposed against the pentatonic, positive and life-affirming right hand part which seems to be the second approach adopted \u2026 (Draper & Emmerson: 2009, p. 3)<\/p>\n Figure 3<\/span>: 1st<\/sup> Bagatelle, bars 1\u20135 (Ibid).<\/em><\/p>\n Over time, these aspirations were developed via a range of micro audio treatments, to be later termed \u201cDSP orchestration\u201d (Draper & Emmerson: 2011, p. 4). Sometimes applied broadly in slow movements across pieces, at other times, at the note level. Overall, each and every interpretation and decision was made on the basis of historical interpretation though sensitive performance technique in the first instance, then to be highlighted and refined via various production treatments. Semiotic representation was therefore at the heart of the work and as its final outcome was released as a two CD set (Draper, 2011b) \u2013\u00a0one traditionally produced as the \u2018horizontal CD\u2019 to mimic traditional score or performance (from left to right \/start to finish), the second as the \u2018vertical CD\u2019 to present multiple layers of DSP orchestration \/automation as a filmic like reading of the pianist\u2019s musicological readings.<\/p>\n Overall, this discussion has been in contrast to \u2018industry\u2019 literature or interviews with producers in periodicals and websites which trend to assumed generalisations from (increasingly rarer) \u2018on the job\u2019 experience \u2013\u00a0all of which provides arguably little benefit to the discipline. In some quarters there is even resistance to the idea of artistic research, as Katia Isakoff reports:<\/p>\n My problem is with the kind of research being undertaken. I feel a large part of it is somewhat self-indulgent and contributes little to the music industry in a wider sense. Spending hours trying to evaluate why or how a particular artist, engineer or producer achieved a particular result benefits no one and in fact is pretty near impossible because there are too many variables to allow a proper scientific evaluation. (Platt, cited in Isakoff: 2012, p. 274)<\/p>\n As has been reported here, what is central to the work is precisely those spaces where science-oriented assumptions are turned \u2018inside out\u2019 to reveal musicianship. Like the story of the blind men and the elephant, researchers examine different parts of their practice to discover that: a creative aim may not have the same intention as a research question; method can often be emergent as \u2018findings\u2019; measurement may be futile in seeking to display artistic processes; research conclusions can be embodied in an artwork. A recent European study confirms,<\/p>\n \u2026 [that] the concepts, the technical terms and their related distinctions, assumptions, and theories that are handed down to us by the traditional disciplines \u2026 do not necessarily reflect the way musicians experience and think about their art \u2026 programmes may provide a suitable platform for young musician researchers to develop their own concepts that are truer, or a better reflection of their own perceptions and thoughts. Young researchers may be encouraged to actively influence the world of music research and to determine the research discourses as they see fit and not as they are told to see fit. (Polifonia: 2007, p. 17)<\/p>\n For the future, it would be useful to examine these frameworks in situ <\/em>more closely: how might a given semiotics principal be deployed as a frame for a recording studio project? In what ways might a given technological tool be tracked to understand its shifting epistemological persona? Perhaps like Vella\u2019s Musical Environments <\/em>(2000), there may be ways to bridge educational gaps via the design of thoughtful project boundaries, explicit reflective aims, and\/or by drawing on visible higher degree exemplars. More broadly, this paper encourages practice-based researchers to make connections with other institutions who may be undertaking this kind of work, and overall, aspire to progress an understanding of \u2018the art\u2019 in record production.<\/p>\n Paul Draper<\/p>\n Professor of music technology<\/p>\n Queensland Conservatorium Griffith University, Brisbane Australia.<\/p>\n http:\/\/www29.griffith.edu.au\/draper<\/a> p.draper@griffith.edu.au<\/a><\/p>\n Adorno, T. (1973)\u00a0 Philosophy of Modern Music. (<\/em>A. Mitchell & W. Bloomster, Trans.) London, UK: Sheed and Ward. (First published in 1949).<\/p>\n Biggs, M & Karlsson, H. (Eds.) (2010). The Research Companion to Research in the Arts<\/em>. Oxon, UK: Routledge.<\/p>\n Borgdorff, H. (2010). \u2018The Production of Knowledge in Artistic Research\u2019. In M. Biggs & H. Karlsson (Eds.)\u00a0 The Research Companion to Research in the Arts<\/em> (pp. 44\u201363). Oxon, UK: Routledge.<\/p>\n Borgdorff, H. (2012). The Conflict of the Faculties: Perspectives on Artistic Research and Academia<\/em>. Leiden, The Netherlands: Leiden University Press.<\/p>\n Borwick, J. (1973). \u2018The Tonmeister Concept\u2019. In Proceedings of the AES Convention, 46 (September 1973).<\/em> New York, NY: Audio Engineering Society<\/p>\n Camilleri, L. &\u00a0Smalley, D. (2008). \u2018The Analysis of\u00a0Electroacoustic\u00a0Music: Introduction\u2019. <\/strong>Journal of New Music Research, 27 <\/em>(1\u20132), 3\u201312.<\/p>\n Clocked Out (2009). \u2018Lavender Mist\u2019 (excerpt). MP4 and audio recording. [online]. Available at http:\/\/www29.griffith.edu.au\/draper\/music\/lavender_mist_excerpt.mp4<\/a><\/p>\n Collins, D. (Ed.). (2012). The Act of Musical Composition: Studies in the creative process.<\/em> Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.<\/p>\n Corey, J. (2010). Audio Production and Critical Listening: Technical ear training.<\/em> Burlington, MA: Focal Press.<\/p>\n Draper, P. (Producer & mix engineer). (2009). Foreign Objects.<\/em> Performed and composed by Clocked Out Duo (Vanessa Tomlinson and Erik Griswald). Music CD. CD Baby 370924.<\/p>\n Draper, P. (2010). \u2018Foreign Objects and the Art of Interpretation\u2019. In Proceedings of The Second International Conference on <\/sup>Music Communication Science<\/em>, 3-4 Dec. <\/sup>2009, Sydney.<\/p>\n Draper, P. (2011a). \u2018Toward a Musical Monograph: Working with fragments from within the improvisation-composition nexus\u2019. The Journal on the Art of Record Production<\/em>, 6. [online].<\/p>\n Draper, P. (Producer & mix engineer). (2011b). Remixing Modernism: Music by Berg (Sonata), Schoenberg (3 Pieces opus 11) and Bart\u00f3k (Bagatelles op.6).<\/em> Performed by Stephen Emmerson. Double Music CD. Move Records MD 3341. Excerpts available at http:\/\/www29.griffith.edu.au\/apar<\/a><\/p>\n Draper, P. & Cunio, K. (2013). \u2018The \u2018little-r\u2019 in Artistic Research Training\u2019. In S. Harrison (Ed.), Research and Research Education in Music Performance and Pedagogy. <\/em>The Netherlands: Springer.<\/p>\n Draper, P. & Emmerson, S. (2009). \u2018Music, Recording and the Art of Interpretation\u2019. In Proceedings of CreateWorld 2008,<\/em> 9\u201312 December 2008, Brisbane.<\/p>\n Draper, P. & Emmerson, S. (2011). \u2018Remixing Modernism: Re-imagining the music of Berg, Schoenberg and Bartok in our time\u2019. Journal of the Art of Record Production, 5<\/em> [online].<\/p>\n Draper, P. & Harrison, S. (2011). \u2018Through the Eye of a Needle: The emergence of a practice-led doctorate in music\u2019. The British Journal of Music Education, 28<\/em>(1), 87\u2013102.<\/p>\n Frith, S. & Zagorski-Thomas, S. (Eds.). (2012). The Art of Record Production<\/em>. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.<\/p>\n Howlett, M. (2012). \u2018Interlude 2: Comments and commentaries by industry professionals and producers\u2019. In S. Frith & S. Zagorski-Thomas (Eds.), The Art of Record Production<\/em> (pp. 189\u2013190). Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.<\/p>\n Hugill, A. (2012). The Digital Musician<\/em> (2nd<\/sup> Ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.<\/p>\n Isakoff, K. (2012). \u2018Interlude 3: Comments and commentaries by industry professionals and producers\u2019. In S. Frith & S. Zagorski-Thomas (Eds.),\u00a0 The Art of Record Production<\/em> (pp. 273\u2013274). Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.<\/p>\n Knight, P. H.\u00a0 (2011). The Intersection of Improvisation and Composition: A music practice in flux.<\/em> (Doctoral dissertation). Griffith University: Brisbane. Available at https:\/\/www120.secure.griffith.edu.au\/rch\/items\/90c4f35c-c284-e54a-1e3f-6b9d5fabcad8\/1\/<\/a><\/p>\n Liu-Rosenbaum, A. (2012). \u2018The Meaning in the Mix: Tracing a sonic narrative In \u2018When The Levee Breaks\u2019\u2019. Journal on the Art of Record Production, 7<\/em>. [online].<\/p>\n Middleton, R. (1993). \u2018Popular Music Analysis and Musicology: Bridging the gap\u2019. Popular Music, 12<\/em>(2), 177\u2013190.<\/p>\n Miskiewicz, A. (1992). \u2018Timbre Solfege: A course in technical listening for sound engineers\u2019. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 40<\/em>(7\/8), 621\u2013625.<\/p>\n Moore, A. F. (2012). Song means: Analysing and interpreting recorded popular song<\/em>. Surrey, UK: Ashgate.<\/p>\n Moulton, D. (2013). \u2018Golden Ears. An audio ear-training course for recoding engineers, producers and musicians\u2019. Moulton Laboratories. [CD set]. Available at http:\/\/www.moultonlabs.com\/full\/product01<\/a><\/p>\n Moylan, W. (2002). The Art of Recording: Understanding and crafting the mix.<\/em> Boston, MA: Focal Press.<\/p>\n Polifonia (2007). \u2018Guide to Third Cycle Studies in Higher Music Education\u2019. The 3rd cycle working group, Association Europ\u00e9enne des Conservatoires, Acad\u00e9mies. [online]. Available at http:\/\/www.aec-music.eu\/about-aec\/work–policies\/third-cycle<\/a><\/p>\n Schaffer, P. (1966).\u00a0Trait\u00e9 des Objets Musicaux<\/em>. Paris: Le Seuil.<\/p>\n Schippers, H. (2007). \u2018The Marriage of Art and Academia: Challenges and opportunities for music research in practice-based environments\u2019. Dutch Journal for Music Theory, 12<\/em>(1), 34\u201340.<\/p>\n Sch\u00f6n, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action.<\/em> London, UK: Temple Smith.<\/p>\n Shure Blog. (2013). \u2018Critical Listening: How to train your ears\u2019. [online]. Available at http:\/\/blog.shure.com\/shure-notes\/critical-listening-how-to-train-your-ears<\/a><\/p>\n Snell, Y.\u00a0 (2011). Exploring Individuality and Musicianship through Recording Studio-based Songwriting.<\/em> (Unpublished Master of Music dissertation). Brisbane, Qld: Griffith University. Personal website, available at http:\/\/youkasnell.com<\/a><\/p>\nLocating the Listening<\/strong><\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/arpjournal.com\/asarpwp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/12\/figure1-monks-elephant.jpg\" "\\"figure1-monks&")
<\/p>\nScope and Foci<\/h3>\n
1) Approaches to Critical Listening<\/h3>\n
The Tonmeister and The Sound Box<\/h3>\n
The Musical Object and The Reduced Listener<\/h3>\n
The Critic and The Artist<\/strong><\/h3>\n
The Musician and The Music<\/h3>\n
2) An Interplay Between Technology and Music<\/strong><\/h3>\n
3) Reflections on Reflection in Action<\/h3>\n
\u00adTechnical Enquiry and Skill Building<\/h3>\n
The \u2018Little-r\u2019 in Artistic Research<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Record Production and Foreign Objects<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/arpjournal.com\/asarpwp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/12\/figure2-clocked-out1.jpg\" "\\"figure2-clocked")
<\/p>\nSemiotics and the Art of Interpretation<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/arpjournal.com\/asarpwp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/12\/figure3-1st-Bagatele.jpg\" "\\"figure3-1st")
<\/p>\nImplications and Conclusions<\/h3>\n
About the Author<\/h3>\n
References<\/h3>\n