Generative 1

This is an experiment in artificial digital scarcity. This project has been on my mind for a while, but a recent post caused me to push it up in the queue.

I created an application called 'Generative 1' that is designed to produce variations of a specific ambient music composition. Each variation is created using the same set of audio files, but each result is unique.

The sound of Generative 1 is very much like Brian Eno's 'Music For Airports', entirely realized using samples of my own voice. As this is an experiment in artificial digital scarcity, (and out of respect for prospective buyers) I'm not providing an audio preview.



I'm selling 40 unique serial-numbered versions of Generative 1 output. After that, I will no longer personally produce any more versions of Generative 1. Each file is around six minutes long.

You may do anything you like with your version of the Generative 1 file, including share, copy, hoard, sell, broadcast or place in a vacuum for optimum freshness.

But wait. It gets weirder. I'm also auctioning the Generative 1 software itself on ebay.

There are no user-configurable controls aside from an option to gracefully end the music after a certain amount of time.

The application is around 150MB in size due to the audio data.
I will not use the Generative 1 application to produce any more music.
This will be the one and only time I sell the Generative 1 application.

The winning bidder will receive a CD-R containing the Generative 1 application for Mac OS and a Certificate of Authenticity. If you do not wish to receive the certificate, you can opt out of the shipping charges and receive the application electronically.

You may use the Generative 1 application in any way you like, including the output, which you may sell or give away.

You may sell, copy, give away or transfer ownership of Generative 1.

My goal is to raise enough money to fund the purchase of some software that I'll use to produce more free music for you to download.

I look forward to your comments and insights.

The Myth of 'Merch'

Here we go again. Wired is continuing to perpetuate the idea that musicians should make a living selling coffee mugs. OK, who here knows someone who makes a comfortable living exclusively from their CafePress store? Anyone? Anyone? Right. No one. So, why do they think musicians will do any better? In most cases, the answer is guilt. This idea is thrown out to ease the conscience of those who download music.

It seems like most of the people telling musicians how they should earn a living aren't actually musicians. There are a lot of clear signals the person who wrote the article* doesn't really understand the business of music at all. For example:

ReverbNation COO Jed Carlson said that [$3.60 from a $20 product (not including shipping, of course)] represents 100 percent of the profit from the shirt after manufacturing costs, but it still might seem like a relative pittance. According to some estimates, however, the typical band only makes about $1 from each $17 CD sold through normal retail channels, so this represents an upgrade from that deal.

ReverbNation is basically a CafePress for musicians, and this article is quoting the COO justifying the small amount the artist nets (woo?) when using their service. OK, first of all, the $1 from $17 is based on the national/major label/worst-case-scenario for a musician. Would someone signed to a major even have access to their own merchandising rights, let alone use a service with a such a miserable margin? Not on your life. Only an independent artist would use a product-on-demand service like ReverbNation and these artists are replicating their own CDs, in which case, they're getting the lion's share of the profit. Speaking of which, CDs? Really?

The thing that irks me is all of this is an elaborate dance around the fact that no one wishes to acknowledge the utility of recorded music. Magically inserting another corporation between the artist and consumer that OM NOM NOMS over 80% of the net isn't progress, and it doesn't fix anything. It is just another parasitic entity that siphons money from artists and hoodwinks the public into believing the coffee mug, t-shirt or mouse pad they bought is actually supporting the musicians.

So, why do we have to support musicians by buying non-music-related junk through a third party? Take a step back and consider how perverse this entire thing is. Wouldn't it make more sense to support a musician for their music? If a plumber came to my house, could I refuse to pay him for his work, but gladly compensate him by buying a lunch box? My anger comes from the fact that people already believe that artists make most of their money through merchandising, and, while there may be scenarios where this is true, it isn't true for smaller acts, and would NEVER be true through something like ReverbNation. Worse, the very existence of ReverbNation and availability of meaningless schwag perpetuates the myth, and makes illegal downloading a little bit more palpable.

I want very much to buy a copy of Ozone 4 from Izotope. As an independent musician, paying for this tool from 'merch' profits comes out to about 70 t-shirts through ReverbNation. I'm not going to do that. I *do* have another idea in mind, so watch this space. :)

* The author also used the phrase "...to the next level", which immediately identifies them as a hack.

Risk Aggregators

"Risk Aggregator". Finally! I've been struggling to come up with a suitable term to describe what a record company does in 2010. A record company isn't required to create, distribute or market music, so why do they still exist? What do they offer the public?

I've sheepishly defended record companies in the past trying to make the point that they have been known to nurture artists, but I can't make this argument with a straight face. Damian Kulash Jr. writes in his NY Times Op Ed:

...record companies [have earned] a reputation for being greedy and short-sighted. And by and large they deserve it. But before we cheer for the demise of the big bad machine, it’s important to remember that record companies provide the music industry with a vital service: they’re risk aggregators.

See, I like this. 'Nurturing artists' sounded way too charitable. 'Risk aggregator' frames the involvement in purely financial terms which feels more appropriate and accurate.

To go from playing at a local club once a month to actually supporting yourself with music requires big investments in touring, recording and promotion — investments young musicians can’t afford. My band didn’t sign a contract with EMI because we believed labels magically created stars. We signed because no banker in his right mind would give a band the startup capital it needs.

Exactly! Breaking a band takes cash, and record companies are basically banks that specialize in high-risk loans. Maybe the record industry needs a bailout?

OK, now check this out. It is really fun to play 'bash the record industry' (usually in the context of justifying piracy) and point out how completely unfair music industry record contracts are - contracts the artists willingly signed and, in most cases, understood with the help of a capable attorney.

Record companies, on the other hand, didn’t expect that all their advances would be repaid. They spread the risk by betting on hundreds of artists at once, and they recouped their investments by taking the lion’s share of the profits on the few acts that succeeded.

This is how the music industry operates. If anyone wants to argue about this, they're perfectly welcome to go get a more favorable contact with some other company, or do everything on their own/raise capital themselves.

Today, as the record industry’s revenue model has collapsed with the digitization of its biggest commodities, companies are cutting back spending on all but their biggest stars, and not signing nearly as many new acts. If record companies can’t adapt to this new world, they will die out; and without advances, so will the futures of many talented bands.

...aaaand we're back to the death of the recording industry as we know it. He's right that record companies are the only entities around willing to make these sort of high-risk investments. As the industry adjusts itself, it will shrink and focus its efforts on low risk, vanilla, higher-return products.

So, where does that leave acts who deserve a national stage, but exist beyond the fringe of a safe investment? Most will die on the vine. I'd like to see major corporations sponsor smaller music acts. Not record labels, but, like national brands like Doritos, Budweiser, etc... Kind of like how your favorite athlete makes the majority of his money. Personally, I want to be sponsored by Advil. ARE YOU LISTENING, PFIZER? I WANT TO BE THE FIRST MUSIC ACT SPONSORED BY A PAIN RELIEVER. These companies have huge marketing budgets. They can sponsor the arts and raise their brand awareness at the same time.

AFOL: A Blockumentary

Modal Tapped Delay 1

On more free download for today - this one is a maxforlive device. I have a few ideas for modal MIDI delays. This is one simple example. There are eight delay lines and each delay can transpose the input and constrain the output to a diatonic output. The new satori that I use is just a straight table lookup so it should be simple to add more scale types in the future.

Download

Make A Video For 'Calculus'

I love mucking about in After Effects for fun, and I think Calculus could use a video. However, I'm completely overcommitted with projects (like everyone else in the world, natch) and I'm curious if there is someone out there who would like to take a crack at it.

Here is an Adobe After Effects CS3 file (105MB) containing the stem mixes from Calculus (bass, drums, stuff, and full) and amplitude-derived keyframe animation based on the stems. In modular-speak, this is like having an envelope follower on each subgroup on your mixer to drive animation. This is a lot more information to work from than just the full mix by itself, and particularly important for a piece like Calculus where you can't simply choose a frame rate that is a multiple of your tempo.

If you're really serious and would like to have things broken down further, get in touch with me.

Free 2GB modular synth sample library

If you woke up this morning thinking, "Gee, I wish I could download two gigabytes of 120 BPM modular synth loops", I have some good news for you.

I've been using the TipTop Audio Z8000 for a while now, collecting material for a video, but I also kept a DAW file handy and recorded bursts of interesting output at various intervals. This process generated a lot of materal, but it is clear to me it would be more useful in someone else's hands.

Here is an audio preview so you don't waste your time downloading something you don't want:

Stretta 120bpm modular preview by stretta

OK, so if you're still interested, the archive is broken into three parts:

Download part one (359MB) [site one] [site two]
Download part two (534MB) [site one] [site two]
Download part three (674MB) [site one] [site two]

Alternatively, you can download the complete archive torrent

This is distributed via a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. Commercial use is fine, no use inherits the license, attribution is the only requirement.


Stretta Sample Library 021810 by Matthew Davidson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at stretta.com.

If anyone finds the content inspirational or as a creative catalyst, I'll consider this a success. If you create a track using something from this library, upload the track to Soundcloud, and post the link in the comments of this post. Come March 15th, I'll collect the results and embed the best (any?) tracks on my blog.

Speaking Piano

This is great. Using a computer controlled piano to resynthesize the frequency content of human speech.

FlexiKnobs

These would look nice next to a wood enclosure monome.