The Voice of Experience

            New forums require new models of engagement.  The Web 2.0 forum is based on public participation, and democratic dialogue regarding how we access and put out information.  Therefore, Wikipedia’s paradigm is appropriate because it is open-sourced information.

         The example article I will use to examine this is the one about the American folk opera Porgy & Bess. The Wikipedia article about the opera provides a sound overview to the history and relevance of the work through discussion of the singers, composers, authors, musicology and musicianship, and social impact and reception on the “Talk” page. In popular music the song “Summertime” as been interpreted across genres. It has been most prominently reworked in Jazz, R&B and Blues.  This and other songs from the opera have been covered by many notable Jazz greats such as Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holiday, and Miles Davis.  However, a great many people don’t know the song is a classic operatic aria. Through one song, people become exposed to a host of musical genres and find opportunities to become versed in new interpretations of familiar works.

            The section “Linked by Text” in the article The Social Life of Documents (Brown & Duguid, 1996) discusses how the groups that form out of our contemporary new media platforms are strikingly similar to those scholarly groups that formed around Europe during the Renaissance (Brown & Duguid, 1996).  They also were connected through common interests and thus exchanged information regarding these interests (Brown & Duguid, 1996). They further observe that out of such correspondence through letters, came the prototypes for the scholarly journals we laud today in our academic institutions.  Psyched About Music blogger Becky wrote that her trust in the reliability of Wikipedia’s articles grew when she noticed the attention to detail and prompt revisions the articles undergo (Campbell, 2013).  For this purpose, Wikipedia has created “Wikiprojects” as a paradigm for these emerging communities to self-organize in a way that keeps the openness of the forum. Wikiprojects are defined as the following:

“a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia. These groups often focus on a specific topic area (for example, women's history) or a specific kind of task (for example, checking newly created pages).”(Wikipedia, 2013)

For any fan of Jazz who has heard any of the previously mentioned artists’ interpretations, a simple search of “Summertime” will most certainly bring you to the extensive article about opera from which it came, Porgy and Bess.  The entire article is part of the larger “Wikiproject Opera” by extension, “Wikiproject Musical Theatre”. The value of community is at the foremost of wiki sites.  Any information given is for the betterment of the community through the community. This creates a connection between the people that engage the topics and the work itself. Accessibility is very important to those that use Wikipedia.  Blogger Megan from Meg’s Animated Film Blog noted the currency of using Wikipedia for references and the ease of a digital format as opposed using physical encyclopedias (McGraw, 2013). Open information lends to open critique, and open accountability. The democratic process of including certain information is what keeps the integrity of the work itself. The work isn’t only good because your peers are watching; the work had better be good because everyone is watching. 

            Established structure doesn’t necessarily mean better structure.  As humans, we naturally gravitate towards creating, dismantling, and recreating frameworks with which we engage and interpret the world. We do this by instinct. If we this weren’t so, countless technical, artisanal and artistic skills would hold no importance in our societies.  We wouldn’t care what Frank Gehry does with what is essentially a shelter.  So the assumption that somehow a system is inherently flawed because it doesn’t explicitly ascribe to a specific mode of engagement is counter-intuitive. Especially, when anyone can create a new mode of engagement. Jim Giles published the findings of a study carried out by the weekly science journal Nature that the accuracy of information found in Wikipedia is closely comparable to that of the Encyclopedia Britannica (Giles, 2005). Given the purpose of Wikipedia as a general reference and its rising popularity, for me this was not a big surprise. What surprised was the vehement response of Encyclopedia Britannica against the academic journal.  The Encyclopedia Britannica’s rebuttal of the Nature article and subsequent “demand” that they retract their statements read more to me like cries of a dying elitist stronghold.  If such a death were to occur, it is death by suicide for simply not going with the flow and adapting to change. Throughout the rebuttal, Britannica repeatedly references the highly structured standards for scholarship based on contributions from top academics in the respective fields. As Richard Jensen illustrates in his paper “Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812” (2012), and in practice (he is a retired Historian) as a contributor to Wikipedia, Wikipedia, its contributors and, the members of Wikiprojects are scholars and laypeople working together to ensure the information remains balanced and accurate. His opinion of Wikipedia’s accuracy even coincides with Nature’s findings (Jensen, 1181 2012). The crowd-sourced format of Wikipedia in no way threatens the integrity of the information.

As one blogger wrote:

“Is it right, to label Wikipedia editors as amateur just because they do not have the editors’ credentials and education background for other users to see on Wikipedia?  There is no way that we will ever find out if these editors are actually ‘amateurs’ and not people that know exactly what they are talking about, for a particular topic.” (Derek, 2013)

What would qualify as valid information without those parameters?  The answer is factual information. To Wikipedia it is only important the information is accurate and free to as many people as possible. While I value the importance of higher education, the academic credibility of individuals has nothing to do with the relevance or factuality of the information they provide. The factuality of information is based on evidence, not who the information comes from. Scholarly bias can become social bias when we forget this.

            The key point of controversy revealed on the Porgy and Bess article’s “Talk” page had to do with how to address the contention many African-Americans held throughout the decades with Porgy and Bess for being perceived as a racist depiction of 1930s African-American life.  Some felt this should be better addressed in the article (Wikipedia, Talk: Porgy and Bess 2012). The original novel and play, Porgy, and subsequent opera libretto was conceived and written by Dubose Heyward, a southern white male.  George Gershwin (also white but, quite moved by the novel approached Heyward to compose an opera based on the story. In 1935, being a heterosexual white Anglo-saxon male was acceptable authority on interpreting, judging and categorizing members or groups within the wider culture. White males telling black stories was not uncommon, since most of the theatrical works of the time were written by whites. Still, could an outsider provide a sympathetic depiction or is it inherently misguided? The story of Porgy and Bess struck a particular nerve that has resonates today in music/theater and culture circles, and even more so in the African-American community. The article references the latest revival of the opera, which experienced reworking of the plot and script to translate more of the character subtext of the original work on stage. With the support of the Gershwin and Heyward estates, Pulitzer prize-winning playwright Susan Lori-Parks (who is also African-American) set to work with director, Diane Paulus on the new adaptation.

McDonald and Lewis as the title characters in “The Gershwins’ Porgy and Bess.” Photograph by Francesco Carrozzini.

 American composer Stephen Sondheim in an editorial letter to the New York Times expressed a strong disapproval for what he interpreted as disdain for the original work stating that the life of the characters already exists in the text (The New York Times, 2011). Stephen Sondheim is a revered American composer of musical theatre.  Is his view against re-working a treasured musical artwork somehow more important than Parks and Paulus’ effort to interpret that work into something of broader relevance to the contemporary public? I think the controversy surrounding Porgy and Bess parallels that between Wikipedia and traditional reference works.  The core question they share is, should one person’s perspective accepted/rejected because of her or his place in the social/cultural hierarchy?

            For many, the original Porgy and Bess represented a perspective, not an experience. The new adaptation seeks to rectify that by putting the power to convey in the hands of those who live the experience.  Wikipedia seeks to create a new experience of knowledge simply by opening the community to individuals concerned with its preservation and perpetuation. The spirit of this translates to the contributors and the owner’s calculated process of maintaining accuracy and reliability.  Wikipedia is clearly and unapologetically a public work. It evolves and informs contemporary audiences by involved and informed contributors regardless of credentials and background. Wikipedia encourages the public taking over their power to know and contribute that knowledge to the world.

Creative Crowd-sourcing

The music industry has basically been transformed through crowd-sourced documentation. It’s never been easier to access music from various genres and eras. A quick Wikipedia search not only includes biographical information about artist, but typically there are, links to their outside web spaces, track listings, discographies, affiliations, and collaborations.  Wikipedia has become a primary source for introducing new, or re-introducing unknown genres to a broad audience.  It’s the kind of site one goes to when they’ve heard an act for the first time and want to find out about the artist, work or the genre, to find new artists and works to get into. It’s also never been easier to create music.  Many new artists begin with cover songs that come up easily on a simple Internet search.  Fans (or in this case experts) of the original artist then weigh in on the success of the new artist’s interpretation. There has recently been a surge in online musical collaborations through YouTube, where musicians can literally record music with thousands of miles of space between them.  

A great example of the pros and cons of crowd-sourced documents at work is Opera and Classical music.  While they still lag behind pop singers, Opera and classical singers and musicians are taking advantage of the opportunities a strong web presence has on their careers.  Many hold YouTube, Facebook, and/or Twitter accounts.  A growing number have Wikipedia pages with biographies updated to resemble what is on their professional websites.  In recent years, this has been an industry viewed as elitist, inaccessible, and is experiencing a steady decline in many major markets. While many of those well acquainted lament the its decline, the World Wide Web has broaden the reach of this music to new audiences, through the new media the Internet facilitates. 

This vs.

This.

Before a fan pays hundreds of dollars for a ticket to see their favourite mainstream artist perform in a top-tier venue, they are usually primed with a full promotional campaign (music videos, recordings, endorsements etc.). While people see little issue paying top dollar to see a mainstream pop act, they see little value in spending what in some cases is less to see live Opera or classical music.  Among other things, I believe this has a great deal to do with exposure. YouTube allows audiences to acquaint themselves with the genre, before they decide to spend the money to support it. Also, I have personally spoken to conductors who have admitted they have hired singers based on their YouTube performances.  Take for example, the work of contemporary Classical music composer Eric Whitacre.  In his TED Talk he talks about what his transition into Classical music from initial desire to be a pop star.  His story culminates into his 2000-voice choir project created entirely online through YouTube.  Mr. Whitacre has since produced four more recordings with singers from all over the world, with a variety of backgrounds, languages, ethnicities and cultures. An example of his amazing work can be seen at the end of this post.

Web-based documents can be expose people from all over the world to these genres, thereby developing new audiences, tastes, and interpretations.  A South African version of the well-known aria "Habenera" by French composer Georges Bizet’s Carmen is one such example.  The award-winning Khoisan adaptation of the popular French opera is an illustration of the increasing popularity of Opera among black people of South Africa. My white Canadian 60-something year-old singing teacher discovered it on YouTube and was in awe and told me about it. Go figure. These types of open source web spaces are gradually changing the place music holds in our society by addressing many previous obstacles of involving class, culture and location simultaneously. The Opera and Classical genres are no different and they stand to reap the benefits.

These days, it’s easy to auto-tune anyone singing a cover song, work up a solid visual presentation and voila! You have the main ingredients for a career as a pop star, or at least a YouTube star (which, some might argue, are quickly becoming synonymous). There are many performers who can barely keep pitch, and have never set foot in a music teacher’s studio, using only online resources as training. As result, many develop a host of vocal and physical problems due to poor technique and career misguidance.  Becoming a classical singer/musician usually takes a minimum of 10 years of training to handle the rigors of a professional career. Crowd-sourced documents, while being inferior forums for practical education, they are great for providing supplementing what one does on stage or in the studio. One forum site I frequent called The New Forum for Classical Singers attracts fans, professionals, up-and-comers, and educators from around the world to exchange practical resources, information, and advice on a variety of relevant topics like finding good teachers and coaches, choosing repertoire, professional programs, or the best countries to work in. There are also resources for finding Opera and classical music repertoire, include Aria Database, The Lied, Art Song, and Choral Texts Archive, and Art Song Central. Finally, two widely used wiki sites, IMSLP/Petrucci Music Library and, of course, Wikipedia. These provide user sourced public domain sheet music, lyrics, translations, and comprehensive information on the genre, composers and works both obscure and relevant. These are invaluable resources for anyone who aspires to work in the genre as a producer or performer.

I have focused on Opera and Classical music, but the value and setbacks of crowd-sourced documents are relevant to all musical genres and other art forms.  One thing is for certain this type of documentation engages the community, and thus strengthens the value of knowledge in our culture.  It turns the power of knowing into the power to create and build new experiences that have the potential to enrich all our lives.

Now, get some SLEEP! ;)

Eric Whitacre - Eric Whitacre's Virtual Choir 2.0, 'Sleep'

Pop(ular) Knows Best

-->
I consider sites like Wikipedia as the “Top 40” of information-based documents. When I want to find out about topics relevant to contemporary mainstream culture, it is a great resource.  If I want to find out about anything else, it is a starting point at best. Personally, if I want to know about anything in detail, I'll ask an expert. The article “The Social Life of Documents” discusses documentation as the inevitable vehicle of exchanging information in a literary culture. Authors John Seely Brown and Paul Dugiud identify the World Wide Web as the ultimate social document (1996).  I find their observations give an assessment of the Internet as so dynamic it takes on almost organismic characteristics.  For me, this implication is most fascinating because it speaks to the ability a unified community has to synergistically create something that can take on a life of its own.  I believe this is both a drawback and benefit to “crowdsourced” information.

If we think critically about it, any body of knowledge made public can become “common knowledge.”  I think critics of documents like Wikis, have reservations about certain knowledge being perpetuated by common circles.  For example, in most academic settings, students are often admonished not to use Wikipedia as an information source.  They instead should find “peer-reviewed” articles, books, and encyclopedias.  The assumption is that because the information put forth is from those directly invested in the survival of their respective professions, industries and institutions, that information will thus be a sound characterization for learning purposes.  The main ingredient in this model is control. In these peer-reviewed documents, the practitioners and participants are part of what are essentially sub-cultures. Therefore they have to mold the identity of the culture through the activities taking place and the sharing of information relevant to these activities.  This type of control is very important for those whose engagement with any topic is connected to their personal livelihoods. It keeps the life and integrity of the culture by establishing standards for both preservation and growth. However, under this paradigm, there is potential for elitism, which ultimately compromises cultural growth.

Culture is inherently both preservative and reflexive in that it requires certain conditions to become established and grow, but still adapts to changes with out losing its fundamental identity.  This is where the open source information tools are especially useful.  When I was in elementary school, I finally found practical use for the two encyclopedia sets my mother had bought in the 80s.  I used these extensively for school projects and reports.

Before grade four, I had only casually leafed through the massive volumes out of curiosity, after all they looked important. In five short years from using these volumes, they were quickly out of date. At school, interactive CD-Rom encyclopedias became the norm, quickly followed by “online” versions where the information was updated regularly and without having to buy another 30-volume collection of leather bound books.

The Internet made knowledge accessible, affordable and easier to understand through a myriad of cross-referencing options. Open source documents like forums and wikis all provide a substantial introduction to information on any topic.  With that type of knowledge at our fingertips, we have more power then ever to choose our community, and choose how we as individuals can contribute to growth of our local and larger communities.

The drawback of this openness is that at the end of the day, individuals may only seek to expand their own communities and therefore bias is inevitable (Royal & Kapila, 2009, p.146). In this case, crowdsourced information sites can be a platform for expressing cyber-bullying, malicious, extremist, and sensationalist ideologies and opinions.  Still, as the Internet (at least in theory) is an open landscape, these are not inherently out place. While we as users may not always be exposed to what we want, we have choices to engage what we want, and to challenge what we want. As culture and commerce are converge in these digital spaces (Dijick & Nieborg, 2009, p 863), the individual and the collective body will require continuous re-examination.  Crowdsourced information in many ways, keeps us all honest, and "in the know".

Functional Virtual Vibrations

From Stefani

to Gaga

I want to look more at the topics of art, creativity and fame, with regard to social identity and surveillance.  Art being so broad and abstract allows for connection between different spheres of creativity, and identity. Online social media outlets like MySpace, YouTube, Tumblr and Pintrest, to name a few have become major platforms for this creativity to take place, so that those who master these spaces become “stars” and those who frequent this spaces become fans.  Therefore the idea of fame, and by default celebrity, certainly becomes more fluid, and very subject to the level of interest of the viewer.  This is primarily why a strong web presence is essential to fame and celebrity culture.  If this were not the case, would anyone care who Kim Kardashian is?  Or would we have ever come to know the talents of Stefani Germanotta had she not become Lady Gaga?  After a lackluster response to her second album, it could be argued that “Sasha Fierce” single handedly transformed Beyoncé’s career into pop star status.  These are some of the most contemporary examples of the fluidity of identity on fame culture.  The Internet allows audiences to essentially access the persona without accessing the person.  Virtually anyone can create their own fame, because all you need are fans and the Internet has these in abundance.  Reflexive identity is very much a part of the process of many creative people and almost a given for most artists.  The creative process is so much about materializing aspects of the internal self and expelling them onto the world around. While that may sound vulgar, we do this throughout our lives at varying levels of intensity, and with varying levels of success.  All the while, we are always watching someone else do the same thing to see if they are successful.  With out Albrechtshlund’s “participatory surveillance” there could be no reason for creativity, or fame.  In fact, fame is dependent on this for survival since it rarely goes beyond the expulsion phase of the process.

Now, when I want to see art, I go to a gallery.  If I want to see artifact, I go a museum.  What, you may ask is the difference?  An artifact is any object that is created and used with the purpose of performing a specific function (Merriam Webster, 2013).  Much of it has to do with questions like, when was the work created, and how was it perceived by the audience of the time?  What was the “function” of the creator in his or her society?  How is this work relevant to the aesthetic tastes of my present? What then is the function of art or creativity?   If I have to ability to see any work of art anywhere in the world, though an online source and then share the discovery through online social media, all those participating in my surveillance stand to gain equal enrichment through what was an individual exploit.  I believe this is the function of art and creativity that social media maximizes. By definition, the social media space becomes an artifact that can be recalled and examined as a window into the era to which we belong.  

Now is all of it good?  Absolutely not.  Access to more, often means access to mess, just ask those who were around for Gutenberg’s press.  But the option to refine our tastes through exposure has never been greater, or more welcomed. And refine them we must or we stand to water down the glories of our existence in exchange for cheap thrills and benign ambivalence.  To watch and be watched cannot be taken for granted as some means of self-gratification, but perhaps it can be used for edification.  In our time we are extremely fortunate that we have the ability to initiate these new interactions through a tool like online social media. I think we should also remember the importance of physical contact to human development. As humans we thrive off the sensory exchange of physical touch and vibrations from others like ourselves. After all, life cannot be fully lived looking out of the window. 

Fame, everyone’s a star?

I remember thinking how lame Facebook was when I kept getting email requests from family and friends to join.  Why would I want to be online just to se people? Why not go to visit the, or call them up on the phone.  My former self would laugh and point at me in the present because, as a busy mother of there young children, Facebook has become my touchstone for getting to know new friends, keeping in touch with old ones, and keeping abreast of the general goings-on in the world.  We don’t have cable, so we use, Netflix and YouTube for a lot of our more passive entertainment. Social media has allowed me to manage my public and personal life in a more dynamic way than I could have ever imagined growing up with out computer.  First and foremost, I use social media and mobile devices for function. I find variety of platforms useful depending on the type of interaction I seek, so I release my information based on this.  We always want to know what people are up to and how that relates to our own needs and desires. When thinking about using these mediums for surveillance, it is something I expect to occur where you have copious amounts of people engaging a medium at any given moment.  Whether on a social or political scale, such surveillance is inevitable.  I absolutely agree with the Albrechtshlund’s idea that the surveillance online social networking provides is not negative, but a neutral space because of its participatory nature (2008). One might argue the primary hindrance to accessing information, is based on one’s ability to understand networks.  In other words, if one knows where to look on the Internet, one will surely find the information they seek or at least make contact with whom to ask. This is possible because someone bothered to observe, ask, and respond. Someone bothered to engage and act. 

Along with this active engagement is Sherry Turkle’s observation that the “windows” by which we access the Internet are the same vehicles through we access and develop different parts of our character, or in some cases, we construct entirely new personae (1997).  What I find particularly fascinating is the way the web space has empowered people to be creative.  With social network sites like Pintrest, Tumblr and of course, YouTube, people can literally create their own stage to express there own artistic insights, inclinations and creations.  As a singer, I have the option of taking voice lessons from any number of teachers from around the world via Skype, and watch supplementary workshops and master classes on their YouTube channel.  Which brings me to the Internet “sensation.”  The musical “prodigies” who emerge and are discovered among a sea of, well, other amateurs.  Just because someone is famous, does that make him or her a star? Social media has made fame that much more attainable for more people, and for any lover of art and music that should be concerned.  While I am a firm believer that the arts are first and foremost meant to be shared, and the Internet is perhaps the most effective catalyst for this end, I also believe that it creates a grey area where the access to media means access to “me,” all day everyday. Suddenly, everyone who wants to be famous can be famous out of mere exposure.  Ms. Turkle further alludes to this quasi-narcissism as in her TED as the by-product of our digital social networking culture.  TED blogger Ben Lillie reiterates the three illusions Turkle says our use of this technology gives us: hey offer us three fantasies:

1) We’ll have attention everywhere. 

2) We’ll always be heard.

3) We’ll never have to be alone.

(Lillie, 2012)

Our use of the social media and mobile technologies has made creating as easily as literally clicking a button.  Fame can occur by the same means. How does this change the way we view the arts? How do we choose whom to celebrate in our society? How does our access and exposure to those we celebrate shape our values on art and creativity?  

Photo by Adam Sundana

Welcome to Her Music Reflexions!

My name is Carla.  I’m a singer, wife and mother of 3 under 4, who is currently pursuing a degree in Studies in Arts and Culture at Brock University.  I have been performing for almost 20 years and at 29, am actively pursing a singing career among other arts related business endeavours.  I am very passionate about the arts and its value in society.  The arts are what build, challenge, and shape us toward embodying our greatest aspirations. The arts connect us to one another through the common pursuit of experiencing beauty and wholeness.

Music has a profound impact on all our lives.  This blog is about the experience of music. My interests are in the ways Music influences the arts (visual art, fashion, film etc.) and artists, and how this influence shapes, affirms or dismantles social and personal ideals.

New media and the Web have created connections for musical minds the world over resulting in an intricate and ever changing system. There are many artists that have yet to harness the power of these outlets to expand their reach and their crafts. With the new media formats like viral video, social networking and blogging, the audience has new exposure to more art forms than at any other point in history. Music is definitely no exception. I will explore a broad range of topics pertaining to how music artists are using and can use new media to create and inspire.

I called my blog Her Music Reflexions as a play on words and because of an idea my voice teacher presented to me, that healthful singing is a reflex of sound musical intention.  To put it more clearly, thoughts are what guide the voice, not muscular manipulation. I think artistry and creativity are like that. A reflex is an involuntary reaction to stimulus, whose purpose is two-fold, preservation and function.  The artistic mind creates not out of manipulation, but out of a kind of internal reflex compelling the creation into existence. As musical person, I am musical by reflex, and music causes me to reflect.  

As a black woman, some questions I will consider, are what ideas are being exposed as result of experiencing this music? How and why does the artist draw us into the work? What might we discover about ourselves in relationship to our culture through these interactions?

I think that inspiration has been low in many art forms, especially in Music, so I hope those who follow my blog will find it inspiring.  I am very opinionated, but I welcome constructive debate and new ideas (hopefully with those equally opinionated ;) ).  Basically anything that leaves others and me with a sense that we are better for having made this connection is all right.  Thanks and enjoy yourself.