Creative Commons and the Curse of Verification

I am a huge fan of Creative Commons. Many people do not know that I was actually the one that initiated the development of the Australian Creative Commons Licenses. I attended the internet law program at Stanford University in 2003 where Lawrence Lessig lectured on internet regulation and the Creative Commons project. I told Professor Brian Fitzgerald at the Queensland University of Technology about it and he agreed to supervise my independent research project the next semester on this area. I mention this as a prelude to what I am writing about today because I want to be clear that I support this organisation and am very much in agreement with their goals and ethics (note that both of my blogs are licensed under Creative Commons Licenses).

It is with some concern that I have read that the new licence verification system introduced to Google Image Search which is designed to assist users to find and use images which are openly licensed, is proving to be less than successful. Many people have licensed works incorrectly and as such the technology is reported to be producing a number of false positives – that is - listing files that are in fact under copyright.

A few years ago, over the course of a year (2006), I attempted a statistical analysis of Creative Commons Licenses in Limewire and much the same took place. The Limewire software, in co-operation with Creative Commons, enables people to tag files as being openly licensed and allows users to verify the existence of these licenses. Right clicking on a file gives the user the option of ‘viewing the file’ and when viewing the file the user has the option of 'verifying the file'. By clicking on the verification link the software automatically goes to the web page that the uploader has given and checks that the license is on the given page.

More times that I care to state this technology was faulty. Many times uploaders incorrectly tagged files as being openly licensed when they were not. Other times the verification link would link to a page that had a Creative Commons license but was not the correct page for that file. These results, while highly disruptive and very very annoying, can be attributed to uploaders being ignorant or deliberaltely doing the wrong thing. However in other circumstances, the verification link would report that the file could not be verified and yet when one went to the web page that was listed with the file, there was in fact a Creative Commons license on the page and it was for the correct artist.

Reading today about these similar problems with image verification brought back the intense frustration I felt at the time of doing that statistical analysis. What I was trying to establish (with, as it turned out, less than perfect research design) was that there was a growing trend of correctly licensed Creative Commons files. My results did in fact show an increasing trend, however the process or method involved in verifying each license was exhausting and time consuming because I could not rely at all on what the technology told me. Before writing this blog post I went into Limewire to see if it had changed but it hasn’t. There were many files which were clearly uploaded and tagged incorrectly and others that did not verify that should have – Brad Sucks is on Jamendo and is openly licensed but the verification process in Limewire will tell you that it can't be verified.

Many a time I sat there and questioned the effectiveness of this technology.

And yet here again a similar mechanism has been put in place and the system is reported to be achieving the same results.

My concern here is two fold.

Firstly I worry about the artists that are genuinely trying to use open licensing and file sharing networks as part of their business or communication model. This mechanism does little to make the process of negotiating a file sharing network like Limewire much easier. While it is good to have the search mechanism in place the results are far too inconsistent to suggest that it is sufficiently effective.

Secondly I worry about Creative Commons. From my view these imperfect technologies open the organisation up to a secondary copyright liability claim. Just as file sharing networks state that it is up to the public to use their technology lawfully and that they are not responsible for the illegality that takes place, so too Creative Commons appear to distance themselves from responsibility. However there is scope in my mind to suggest that knowingly producing and promoting technology that has the potential to ‘induce’ or mislead a user into thinking something is licensed when it is not, is a dangerous game to play.

Just as the likes of Lawrence Lessig (and myself) advocate for the registration of copyrights, so too should Creative Commons be doing more to ensure that works are correctly licensed. While I understand the logistics of this are immense and the costs prohibitive, the answer does not lie in releasing technology that works, at best, once in a while. I appreciate the need for these search mechanisms and they are in some ways better than nothing but the risk here is that the whole organisation could be held liable for secondary copyright infringement. It would be an unpopular lawsuit but the disclaimers are simply not enough.

In the USA Grokster case and in the Kazaa case in Australia the same arguments were made – that the users were responsible, that it was not the primary purpose of the technology, and that they disclaimed liability; and this was not enough. I hope that those at Creative Commons have better arguments than these otherwise there could be trouble ahead.

I am a huge supporter of this organisation please don’t mistake this criticism as anything other than genuine concern. This litigious environment has had many casualties and I would hate to see this organisation on that list.

Further Reading
The Register, The tragedy of the Creative Commons (16 July 2009) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/16/creative_commons_fail/> at 22 July 2009

Australia’s Digital Economy: Future Directions

I have been reading with interest the report released last week by the Australian Government titled ‘Australia’s Digital Economy: Future Directions’.

Interestingly the Government appears to have considered the lobbying of the content industry in relation to a three strikes policy but does not openly or whole heartedly embrace this as an option. Instead there is acknowledgement that many from the internet industry as well as members of the public consider this to be an unworkable and unnecessary solution:

“A number of submissions received during the consultation phase for the development of this paper argued that a role for Government exists in addressing the apparent popularity of peer-to-peer file sharing of music and movies, without the necessary permissions of the relevant copyright owners. File-sharing is cited by the content industry as a barrier to further investment in sustainable and innovative content initiatives in Australia.

One solution proposed by copyright owners is a “three strikes” or “graduated response” proposal under which copyright owners would work together with ISPs to identify the ISP’s customers who are suspected of unauthorised file sharing and the ISP would then send a notice on behalf of the copyright owner to that customer advising of this allegation. After multiple notices, a series of escalated steps could be taken with respect to the customer’s account.

Several submissions were received which opposed this proposal for reasons including the lack of judicial oversight of administering sanctions based on private allegations, the lack of public transparency about the process and concern over consumer rights.

The Government recognises a public policy interest in the resolution of this issue. On the one hand, the Australia economy benefits from a sustainable content industry and from a general respect for legal rights. On the other hand, issues relating to due process and consumer privacy are important.

The Government is currently working with representatives of both copyright owners and the Internet industry in an effort to reach an industry-led consensus on an effective solution to this issue.” [at pg 38]

Indeed a recent survey conducted by itnews shows that only 1% of 1411 respondents think that the Australian Government should introduce a 3 strikes policy; 4% consider a 3 strikes policy to be preferable to individual file sharing lawsuits, while 95% believe that it is not the role of ISPs to police the internet.

The report is available here and the Government is asking for members of the public to contribute to the discussion on the policy direction Australia should take and case studies which can be used as further examples (don’t use the html version cos half the pages appear to be down).

I urge all those interested in helping artists and ensuring that we are able to realise the true potential of the internet by sharing our culture to make a submission. Submissions can be made:

By email:
DEFutureDirections@dbcde.gov.au

Snail mail:
Assistant Secretary, Digital Economy and Convergence Branch
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
GPO Box 2154
CANBERRA ACT 2601


Further Reading
itnews, Conroy vows to tackle illegal file sharing (15 July 2009) <http://www.itnews.com.au/News/150133,conroy-vows-to-tackle-illegal-file-sharing.aspx> at 22 July 2009

ZeroPaid, Aussie Govt Wants “Appropriate Solution” for Illegal P2P (20 July 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86668/aussie-govt-wants-appropriate-solution-for-illegal-p2p/> at 22 July 2009

Not Off The Grid Just a Little Time Out

Just a note to say that I will not be able to post again for a couple of days – flying back from Liverpool over the weekend. Hopefully Monday I will have a couple of other posts from sessions I have attended at IASPM this week. I also have some comments from readers to approve – these should also be up on the site early next week.Thank you for your comments - I will publish them as soon as I can (along with attending to the other mass of information in my inbox!!!).

 

The International Association for the Study of Popular Music conference has been fantastic – I really hope you have enjoyed reading about some of the presentations. I have recently found out that they will be publishing some of these papers in a journal, hopefully later in the year. If I find out when that happens I will be sure to let you know. For me this conference has been very inspiring with the diversity and high standard of each of the presentations giving me enourmous confidence for the future of the music industry and scholarship. My only complaint is that I couldn't go to all of the sessions. See you on the flip side ~(geographically)~.

IASPM: Day Five

This morning it was again difficult for me to decide which presentations to go to.

 

The first paper I saw was called 'Away with protest song!' by Jan Fairley. Jan began by noting the difficulties in the use of the term 'protest song' suggesting that it was a label that was used to connote a definitive body of songs when in fact it is not that determinable. She played examples of the song We Shall Overcome used in connection with Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson and noted the statement of Mavis Staples at WOMADelaide in which she stated "If he [Martin Luther King] can preach it, we can sing it. We joined the movement to sing freedom songs." Jan noted that the PBS website, Strange Fruits, suggests that there are 8 time periods in which protest songs can be said to have been written.

 

Jan then went on to consider and compare the position of cancio protesta in Cuba, stating that songs written to reflect on the position of people in that country were done so without the influence of western artists and that most artists in Cuba rejected the label of cancio protest as they did not sit down to deliberately write songs with the intention of protesting. Jan stated that it was not until recently that a Colombian rock group Aterciopelados led by Andrea Echevarry wrote and released a song about the USA dropping bombs in country side in the name of the war on drugs, that there was a deliberate choice to adopt the term cancio protesta.

 

I found this presentation interesting. As my research concerns two western jurisdictions I am not extensively familiar with the place of songs of this nature outside of these nations. While I personally do not take issue with the label 'protest' or 'political' music and think that it is useful and necessary to enable discussion and debate (as with most labels) I nonetheless appreciate that not all cultural backgrounds associate the same meaning to these types of terms.

 

 

The second paper that I saw presented today was by Aekyung Park titled 'War, Gender and the Popular Song – with a focus on the Military Popular Song under the Total Moblization System'.

 

Aekyung discussed 1940s Korean protest songs and in particular analysed the gender issues in military songs between the onset of the Sino-Japanese War in 1937 and the Pacific War in 1941. At that time the basis of Japan's cultural policy was one of censorship and prohibition, with full scale control by the authorities. The need to fight against enemy countries like the USA and UK was at the heart of the cultural policy.

 

Korea began to produce militarist songs only after the Sino-Japanese War however these were pushed aside by the popularity of love songs and jazz and almost no militarist songs were released from the middle of 1938. The intense dissemination of militarist songs began in 1942.

 

Aekyung noted that the militarist songs of this time used the female – mother, wife or lover – as the voice of propagandize militarist ideology stating that "the woman as a soldier's helper and war collaborator, internalizes the value of devotion and self-sacrifice". Aekyung gave the example of the Song of Military Nurse (Columbia Records, January 1938) with lyrics reinforcing these ideas.

 

This was a very interesting presentation and highlighted the use of song in times of war and the characterisation of women as empathetic to both conflict and the caring and nurturing of political ideas.

 

 

The third paper I attended was by Kalina Zahiva – Why Do Words Have Songs? Kalina discussed the traditional perception of lyrics as secondary to melody, rhythm and voice. She stated that in reality lyrics are held to be of lower importance than music by music scholars. Typically lyrics are not seen to have their own artistic value – at best they are attributed a sociological, political, gender and/or psychological value.

 

Furthermore those in Literary Studies traditionally perceive sung poetry as popularised, and/or folkorized; as bad poetry especially with respect to popular music where it is considered the 'weak' element of a predominantly mass art without its own artistic value.

 

Kalina went on to discuss the setting of the lyrics as instrumental to their acceptance or attribution. They are able to suggest affiliations, incorporation, togetherness, and contribute to the formation of identity. Lyrics written with a deliberate setting are different to those written in a spontaneous setting and this can assist in determining or affect their purpose. She also discussed the setting of the lyrics as constructive of memory, how the text builds, modifies and generates memory. Setting can also invoke an aesthetic claim and contribute to perceptions of quality and genre. Finally she considered the effects of setting on the effects on memory, the development of new meanings and as a rearrangement of the literary process.

 

This was a fantastic presentation which I very much enjoyed and it provoked much discussion about the role of lyrics and the approaches taken to both their composition and analysis.

 

 

Later in the day I was also lucky enough to see a presentation by Matt Stahl titled 'Indentured Servants, Rich Whiners, or Workplace Democrats? US Recording Artists and Californian Labor Law'. This was a great presentation which considered the contractual arrangements of artists and labels in California.  He stated that recording artists are considered to be employees under Californian labor law (2855 of the California Labor Code) – the law establishes their engagement as being a personal services contract. Important elements of the contractual arrangements include exclusivity, assignment (can be transferred to another label if the company the artist is signed to is sold), as well as duration & option periods.

 

He went on to discuss the duration of recording contracts in California in greater detail. The seven year rule that applies to all engaged in contracts for personal services is designed to remove the employee from an open ended arrangement. Initially the term was limited to a 2 year period but has been extended over time. In 1987 changes were made to the labor law which specifically excluded recording artists from this limitation period. These changes were designed to reinforce changes that had been made to recording contracts following a 1979 dispute with Olivia Newton John (Olivia Newton John v MCA). Newton John refused to record further albums under a recording contract (non performance) which triggered a change in practice by labels from setting time limits on the contracts between artists, to specifying obligations in terms of the number of albums they were required to produce and the damages artists would be liable for if they did not.

 

In 2002 Senator Kevin Murray sought to repeal the 1987 change through SB 1246. The RIAA, label executives, recording artists and artists' attorneys testified before a hearing of the State Senate Judiciary Committee. Matt played some excellent sound bites highlighting the divergent views of those that gave statements for and against the repealing of the legislation. The move to repeal the law ultimately failed with Matt suggesting that their loss was directly attributable to the lack of political and employment theory that artists and their attorneys argued.

 

He also noted that aside from Louisiana there is no other State in the United States that limits the length of recording contracts and how this creates ongoing problems for the bargaining power of artists. Furthermore he noted that these changes had a wider impact with contracts formed in other States able to designate California as the venue for the resolution of disputes.

 

This was a fantastic presentation both in content and style. It was well put together, provided an excellent level of explanation and enough detail in order to comprehend the events that have taken place and their wider implications. I would however, suggest that there is a greater part to this equation, with the United States having a highly corrupted political system with campaign donations 'assisting' to determine the content of the legislation that is passed. I would argue that the result would have been the same regardless of what arguments the artists' and their representatives made. Public Choice Theory would suggest that the Californian representatives would not be in a position to risk losing the economic stability provided by the content industry and would therefore not be in any position to bring in more restrictive laws. Furthermore, as Matt noted, with the vast majority of other States failing to provide any legal limitations, even if it had been successful, the most likely result would be the nomination of an alternative forum for dispute resolution outside of California.

 

IASPM: Day Four

The hardest part of this morning was trying to decide which presentations to see – there was so much to choose from.

 

First I went to Alenka Barber-Kersovan's paper on 'The Construction of Patriotism in the Propaganda Video „For the Freedom" from the Croatian Civil War 1991/1992'.

 

She played a segment of the film and a song recorded by a Croatian popular musician which urged other European countries to help stop the war. The song was sung in English in order to increase its appeal outside of the country with images of the destruction of war, children and the landscape helping to depict the country as weak and vulnerable and in need of assistance. This was a fascinating presentation and I found the video and the talk very informative and interesting.

 

The second paper I attended was "From ghetto laboratory to the technosphere" by Dennis Howard. This was a great presentation which discussed the cross national origins that have led to the development of hip hop – from blues and roots, to Jamaican reggae to hip hop. He discussed the hierarchy that has developed in Jamaica and how western music is most often considered to be of a higher or better quality than that which is composed and recorded at home – he noted that Bob Marley was not played in Jamaica until he had been taken up by the western media. Dennis also noted that for some time there was no copyright in Jamaica which saw all R&B music and reggae copied and distributed at will. Furthermore he discussed the adoption of technologies in the production of the music and mentioned how western technologies were altered and used in different ways in third world countries.

 

The third paper I saw this morning was "Poietic processes in sample-based hip-hop" by Marco Lutzu. Marco discussed the process and equipment used in the composition of hip hop. He discussed producers and the relationship with sound, noting that it is archived, sampled, edited, played, drawn, visualised, then embodied according to genre specific compositional rules and finally humanised which is the point at which it is included in a larger work. He concluded that "the creation of sample based hip-hop beats is a poietic process with several specifications. By relying on a great use of technology, sharing particular listening behaviours, conceiving the pieces by functional layers, basing himself(sic) on an ethical and aesthetical system in which the quotation mustn't become plagiarism, and having a close and direct relationship with the sound, has made the producer a new kind of music creator."

IASPM: “Dare to Be Free”: The Dixie Chicks’ Existential Conversion

By Jim LeBlanc

 

Jim LeBlanc gave an excellent presentation today about the events that took place with respect to the Dixie Chicks and the statement by Maines in 2003 at a concert about George Bush that she was 'ashamed that the President of the United States was from Texas'. Jim's presentation focused on the 2006 single Not Ready to Make Nice which he played at the end of the talk.

 

Jim gave the background to the event and details regarding the hostile response from conservative fans of the band (I have written about this earlier here).

 

He then went on to discuss the musical aspects of the song including the different instruments that are used, dynamics, repetition, the use of overdubbed cathartic whaling, and the conclusion of the track which consists of a gradual silencing of one instrument at a time.

 

Despite not being mentioned by Jim, discussion from members of the audience included questions about the openness of the lyrics and the way that they might be interpreted in another way should they heard by someone who did not know the background and the inherent difficulties in attributing a political label to the song without the context. Jim referred to specific parts of the lyrics in which reference is made to death threats received by Maines and how she was told to 'Shut Up and Sing'. Jim suggested that there were not many other contexts in which these lyrics could be relevant but conceded that without additional context there may, nonetheless, be alternative interpretations.

 

With respect to the philosophical basis of this paper Jim suggested that the existential conversion was apparent when considering the response of the Dixie Chicks and their determination to take what others were making of them (which they had little control over) and to make something for themselves out of it. Indeed one member of the band apparently stated that: "Now that we have fucked ourselves anyway, I think we have a responsibility to continue to fuck ourselves." They did this by refusing to apologise, standing up to those that sought to silence them, engaging in a public debate about the events and at later concerts, using a multimedia presentation about other political issues such as abortion, with the subtitles of truth and freedom. The band took advantage of the public outcry and used it to re-characterise themselves.

 

  

Further Reading

 

OpenContentAustraliaResearchReview, Shut Up and Sing (10 April 2008) <http://ocarr.blogspot.com/2008/04/shut-up-song.html> at 15 July 2009

 

Wikipedia, Not Ready to Make Nice (12 June 2009)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Ready_to_Make_Nice> at 15 July 2009

IASPM: Money for what? An exploration in music crowd funding or “P2P finance”

By Francesco D'Amato

 

Francesco presented a paper on the Do It Yourself business model where members of the public contribute creativity, knowledge, skills, provide suggestions, judge works, provide feedback on recordings and/or money as a part of the recording and distribution process.

 

He focused in particular on Crowdfunding which is the contribution of money by web users to help support creators. This is seen by some as an alternative to the traditional ways of production. Franceso discussed the attributes of some of the most popular platforms for crowdfunding, two of these were:

 

ArtistShare

He stated that this is currently the most popular platform for musicians seeking to use an alternative business model with some profiting more than they would had they signed to a major record label. The platform seeks donations from users and in turn provides them with rewards such as special content, personal relationships with artists and access to the creative process. ArtistShare is not a profit sharing model.

 

SellaBand

This platform sets a goal amount to be raised of $50,000 with users buying shares of $10 each. Fans are given a split of the revenue produced from the recordings with 10% of the funds going to the website operators. Investors and artists receive 50% each of the money while the site takes a five year licenses for the music including both the copyrights and exploitation rights to the music. Investors also receive non economic rewards such as a free copy of track(s) and their names listed in the cover credits.

 

This was another interesting talk which focused primarily on the different aspects to each of these platforms. There have been a number of artists that have successfully used this business model independently of third party platforms in recent times which were not within the scope of this presentation but nonetheless it was well worth seeing and very informative.

IASPM: iPod Culture: Issues of Sociability and Democratisation in the Musical Experience

By Melissa Avdeef

 

Melissa Avedeef presented a paper on the sociability, democratization of identity and musical taste for those in the iPod Culture.

 

The 'iPod Culture' is a term that refers to digital natives [TAPSCOTT, D. (1997)] - those that have grown up surrounded with technologies such as the internet, mobile phones and mp3 players. While it connotes the sector of society that fall within the age category of 20 years and younger, this group of people is not limited to just those that have iPods or other similar technology, but includes all those that are effected by the existence of the hardware and software that saturates society with communication and cultural exposure.

 

Melissa's research consisted of quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews on young people engaged with music and technology. The surveys and interviews were conducted to gain a view of both the personal and societal perspectives on the relationship between individuals, music and technology.

 

The development of new sociability in IPod culture

Highlights of the findings of the research include the belief by the youth that music should be omnipresence - that it should always be there for them when ever they want it and that their access should be immediate. In discussing how respondents obtained music, most indicated that they got it by downloading from file sharing networks or from friends with few responding that they purchased CDs.

 

When asked whether they thought these technologies were making them antisocial respondents indicated that this was not true, that they were not becoming more isolated but more sociable as the instant and unimpeded access to culture promotes conversations rather than preventing them from happening. Interestingly older generations also suggested that this technology did not make people less sociable but that it does make it easier for people to remove themselves from social situations if they wish to.

 

Melissa suggests that while it is a value judgment to state whether there has been a positive or negative impact on sociability, that nonetheless there have been apparent and identifiable changes. One example of this is changes to social norms with respect to listening to mp3 players while in a conversation with another person. The majority identified two instances in which listening to iPods are considered rude – when a person is talking and they have to repeat themselves and/or when their music is so loud that it can be heard by the other person that does not have the earbuds.

 

The diversification of musical taste in relation to the online fragmentation of identity.

Melissa's research also suggests that as technology converges musical tastes are becoming increasingly divergent. People are relying less on traditional media to tell them what to listen to and acquiring music on the internet means they can access a whole range of culture that they could not access to before. When asked, most people stated that they "listened to everything".

 

Related to this are changes to personal identity brought about by new technologies. Respondents indicated that society has largely moved past the desire to remain anonymous on the internet and instead use the medium to extend and explore their personality. Technologies such as social networking enable an extension of the offline self and provide the opportunity to showcase different aspects of identity without the immediate consequences of physical space. These spaces allow the expression of negative thoughts about others which we would not feel comfortable doing in physical space – this is called the dis-inhibition effect.

 

Therefore the internet and digital technologies allow people to explore both musical tastes and personal identity with these being interrelated and fluctuating based on the dynamics and changes to technology.

 

This was a fascinating presentation which I enjoyed a lot. The research was well presented and very interesting.

IASPM: The Overdub Tampering Committee and Plunderphonics: popular music and resistance in the postmodern age

By Daniela Furini

 

Today I saw a fantastic presentation by Daniela Furini in which she spoke about, amongst a number of other very interesting things, The Overdub Tampering Committee. I had not heard of this group prior to this seeing this presentation and was fascinated to hear about their activities. According to Daniela, the group started a practice of deliberately downloading songs by well known artists and changing them by adding to and/or removing aspects of the tracks and then uploading them back to file sharing networks with the original song title so that others would download them without knowing that they had been altered.

 

Daniela stated that this practice was designed to challenge both the music industry and those that engaged in file sharing. The practice also highlights the intangibility of the music and how musical works are no longer fixed but rather take on a transient nature.

 

This was a fantastic presentation.

 

 

Further Reading

 

TorrentFreak, Have You Been Punked By TOTC? (7 January 2009) <http://torrentfreak.com/punked-by-totc-080107/> at 14 July 2009

IASPM: The Online Post-Rave Commons: Peer production and the production of offline social spaces for the Australian Psytrance Scene.

By Alex Lambert

Yesterday Alex Lambert gave an excellent paper on the relationship between the two primary social spheres for the psytrance movement. He discussed how doof parties bring together psytrance music, the social culture and the Australian landscape to produce what is in effect a tribal ritual. He also discussed the relationship between the events that take place in physical space and discussion forums such as oztrance.net.

The online discussion forums promote long and detailed conversations online and assist in the development of community. He stated that the forums are a form of commons - decentralized, non proprietary and collaborative, with the sharing of non rivalrous immaterial resources. He stated that the practices of the community defer to peer production, peer property and peer governance.

Peer production takes place with respect to the production of music, artwork, videos, photos, and knowledge through the collection of hyperlinks, discussion threads, music production tutorials and essays.

The creation of peer property consists of the sharing of music under conditions that enable sampling and remixing. Social norms of altruism encourage participants to surrender intellectual property rights. The forums themselves do not claim control over copyright however there is no formal copyleft licensing in place.

The sites are governed by the clustering of power through the architecture of the sites. While site managers and administrators and programmers retain some control over the site, they also delegate control by determining who can be moderators.

In Australia the scene is small in size which enables a dense trade in social capital, the development of social connections between production and consumption, DJ event producers and forum participants.

This was an excellent presentation which I found very interesting. The conflicting desire to hold the parties in a natural environment and yet for community and connections online, struck me as the use of two very different spaces by the members of this scene.

IASPM: The Reception of the Use of Technology in the work of Jimi Hendrix

By Jan Butler

Yesterday Jan Butler gave a great presentation on the construction of authenticity in the record industry in the 1960s.

At that time rock was in a state of flux with neither the industry nor consumers knowing exactly what rock and roll was or what would constitute a hit. In order to address this lack of certainty, the institutional structures of the industry and the roles and activities of members of the bands had to adapt in order to continue to make money. Changes to technology contributed to the ambiguity of the content and style of the music at that time as well as the stability of the industry itself. Furthermore, changes to the participants in the music industry were also important with the rise of rock culture intermediaries such as rock documentary makers, tour managers, and critics taking on the role of helping the public to mediate the changes that were taking place. These changes resulted in a change in market share between major record labels and independents which went from around 50% each to 60% for the major labels and 40% to independents.

Jan then went on to discuss Jimi Hendrix and how the gate keepers, particularly rock journalist and critics, focused on his recordings rather than live performances. While today Hendrix is remembered one of the greatest guitarists of all time and a fantastic showman, he was also a keen user of technological recording equipment. Indeed it was stated that his main motivation for live performances was to pay for recordings and the use of technology. Interviews and articles in the rock press in the USA were consistently positive with respect to his recordings however little commentary was provided with respect to his live performances.

For example, the Rolling Stone Magazine coverage of Hendrix's performance at Woodstock described the time of day when he performed, the names of two of the songs that he performed and what he wore however there was no mention of the quality of his live performance and no mention of his rendition of the Star Spangled Banner.

I found this presentation to be very interesting, particularly the discussion relating to how changing recording technologies drove alterations to the industry.

IASPM: Day One

This my first post from the International Association for the Study of Popular Music's conference, 'Popular Music Worlds - Popular Music Histories' at the University of Liverpool.

On Saturday I was lucky enough to have the chance to look around the city of Liverpool. Known for its popular music heritage, the city has a number of attractions which tell the history of music in this region. I went to see the Beatles Story, a museum dedicated to telling the story of how the members of the band got together, their personal histories, the events leading up to and including the height of their fame as well as the circumstances in which they decided to split up. It was a fantastic display of memorabilia and the audio guide provided some interesting and informative commentary about the life and achievements of the band.

There was also an area displaying pictures of the Lennon and Ono Bed-In in which they protested and actively asserted the needed to Give Peace a Chance. Photographs reflected their personal perspectives, the journalists that interviewed them, the writing and recording of the song 'Give Peace a Chance' and explained the political statement they were seeking to make.

I also attended the White Feather exhibition which provides a family perspective to the life of John Lennon. Presented and complied largely by Cynthia and Julian Lennon the exhibition includes a display of family photographs, post cards and explains the events that took place with respect to John Lennon and his family.

Later in the day I took a bus ride around the city and visited The Cavern. While the original venue where the Beatles played over 200 shows and first met Brian Epstein no longer exists, there is a new establishment which includes a statue of John Lennon.

IASPM : Liverpool

First of all sorry for not posting a lot over the past week or so. I have been very busy preparing to go to England later this week. As I have blogged earlier, next week I am presenting my paper 'The Evolution of Culture: Is Political Music Still Being Heard?' at the International Association for the Study of Popular Music's Conference in Liverpool.

I hope to be posting from the conference to tell you about the great presentations I will be seeing – [tonight's post is a 'mobile blog' and I am in part testing out how my webmail posts are going to look (there is some limitation to the formatting I can use... but otherwise hopefully it should be okay)].

There are some fantastic papers being presented and it is very hard to know what to attend. You can check out the program yourself here.

Here's a list of some that look interesting to me:

Australian

Baker: PANEL: Australia's 'Cradle of Rock': Community, music and the museum that never was

Giuffre: Mediating the musical experience: the role of the Australian music media

Homan: PANEL--'All you can do is step back in time': the politics of historical narratives of Australian popular music

Lambert: The Online Post-Rave Commons: Peer production and the production of offline social spaces for the Australian Psytrance Scene

Technology

Avdeeff: iPod Culture:Issues of Sociability and Democratisation in the Musical Experience

Collins: "Get your geek on: What computer science methods can offer musicologists"

Harkins: The Sampler as Compositional Tool

Kirton: Technology and the Field of Popular Music Production

Maloy: "Stayin' Alive in Da Club": The Illegality and Hyperreality of Mashups

Industry

Letts: Who Sells Out?: Petra Haden in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Sledmere: The struggle over talent in popular music

Stahl: Indentured Servants, Rich Whiners or Avatars of Private-Sector Democracy? Domination in the Recording Industry Examined Through the Critical Theory of Contract

Grossi: Popular music from the perspective of the fans

D'Amato: Money for what? An exploration in music crowdfunding or "P2P finance"

Rogers: Burning Out, Breaking Up, Fading Away: Musicians, Industry and Failure

Protest

Fairley: Away with protest song!

LeBlanc: "Dare To Be Free": The Dixie Chicks' Existential Conversion

Park: War, Gender and the Popular Song –with a focus on the Military Popular Song under the Total Mobilization System

Wheeler: PANEL: Sounds and Noise from the Edges--F*** the U.S.A.: The New Cosmopolitan Class and the Protest of Place

Furini: "The Overdub Tampering Committee and Plunderphonics: popular music and resistance in the postmodern age"

Hip Hop

Harbord: Is hip-hop the new minstrelsy?

Howard: From ghetto laboratory to the technosphere

Lutzu: Poietic processes in sample-based hip-hop

Other

Biddle: Between musicology and museology: archives, repertories and the logic of the musical fetish

Zahova: Why Do Words Have Songs?

Lebrun: Popular music festivals, 'alternative' identities and audience participation

Hill:Hippies, Inc.: San Francisco and the Commodification of the 60s

Shumway: The San Francisco Sound: the Politics and Aesthetics of Place

Webb: Infected by the seed of post-punk bohemia: Nick Cave and the milieu culture of early 1980s London

Butler: The Reception of the Use of Technology in the work of Jimi Hendrix

I doubt very much I will be able to see all of these, but I will try. Come along if you are in England/Liverpool between 13^th and 17^th July 2009.