Concentrate!

Rodin's Thinker, from Flickr

A lost skill?

I recently heard an (old) This American Life episode about what we learn from music lessons. While much of the lessons illustrated on the program were tongue-and-cheek, one thing that music lessons teach us is concentration, which, according to NPR's Science Friday, is something kids desperately need to learn. The point of Clifford Nass, a psychology professor at Stanford University, is that while everyone (men and women, at least for media tasks) thinks they are being more productive when they multitask, they are all fooling themselves. The antidote for unproductive multitasking is learning how to focus our attention on fewer things and so become more productive. I think music is perfect for this.

Why does music teach us concentration? Well, music is complicated enough, and the coordination required so great that one really needs to focus their whole attention. While it might be easy to listen to music while you check Facebook, it's very hard to practice music doing the same thing. Music rarely pauses, and while one might start and stop while practicing, the final goal is to limit interruptions, which is the opposite of multitasking. Also, in order to improve in music, one needs to practice. Practice is really learning how to repeat something until it's always correct, and that takes patience and persistence.

But there are other ways, right?

Couldn't we learn how to concentrate by another method? Yes, I think one could learn concentration with other arts (such as theater, sculpture, pottery), or sports, or maybe even video games. But music, in my mind, is superior because it combines 4 things: 

1. music is mentally and physically compelling in the moment, 
2. music engages a very large part of the brain, 
3. music is a physical activity, and if done properly, can increase health and well-being, and 
4. music is a skill that continues to benefit practicers years after.*

But, some might argue, that when one performs music, they focus on many things: watching the conductor, counting beats in their heads, moving their fingers, controlling complex breathing patterns, and sometimes marching. Isn't that multitasking? Well, Professor Nass counters this argument: "It's extremely healthy for your brain to do integrative things. It's extremely destructive for your brain to do non-integrative things."

Extremely healthy indeed. Now if we could just pay music teachers more for their needed and health-giving service. Maybe as much as athletic coaches? In my dream world, anyway.

Do you think that something else might teach concentration as well or better than music? Or do you think fears of loss of concentration skills are overblown?

Vocab: conductor, beat

*I will track down studies that have proven these points for next week. Or if any of you know where to find them, please comment!

Pseudonyms, part 2: Answers and Analysis

Quiz winner and answers

So, the Pseudonym game winner is one-time guest post writer Brian Tanner, who's currently doing an internship with Samuel Goldwyn films. He will receive a music download of his choice from Amazon and a guitar pick! (1) Thanks to everyone else those who participated (Bradley).

Here are the quiz answers, for those of you who haven't already looked them up:

• Reginald Kenneth Dwight = Elton John
• Norma Deloris Egstrom = Peggy Lee   
• Declan Patrick MacManus = Elvis Costello
• Alecia Beth Moore = P!nk
• David Robert Jones = David Bowie
• Henry John Deutschendorf, Jr. = John Denver
• Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner = Sting
• Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta = Lady Gaga

Why all the fuss, just for show?

I hope at this point you are asking yourself: "Why? Why do artists adopt pseudonyms?"

The obvious answer is these artists thought their names were not appropriate enough for the presentation of their art. But let's dig a little deeper into this phenomenon, which happens not just in music, but in many arts.

When listening to music, especially solo vocal music, it is as difficult to separate a singer's persona from their music as it is an actor from their given role. While we watch Martin Sheen performing as President Josiah Bartlet, we are still aware that it is Martin Sheen. The cognitive tension of this dual personality usually adds to our enjoyment (though it could also detract). With pseudonyms, however, this symbol goes one step deeper—Martin Sheen is a stage name for Ramón Antonio Gerardo Estévez, a name which might (unfortunately) color our perception of who Josiah Bartlet might be. Similarly in music, a singer or performer's persona can either accentuate or detract from the message of the music. In cases where they believe it advantageous, artists have taken pseudonyms to control the persona-representation dynamic. While Henry Deutschendorf singing "Rocky Mountain High" is fine, changing the artist's name to John Denver somehow adds some level of authenticity, even if it's feigned.

Because adopting new names seems to have some effect on audiences, musicians (or their producers) have attempted to look like what they think their music sounds like. These expectations are especially in some genres such as country music, glam rock, and metal, where your character is almost as important as your sound. After all, these are performers—they aren't just singing, they are putting on a show.

Possible reactions to pseudonyms

But what about honesty? For someone like John Denver, who's persona was folksy earnestness, shouldn't his use of a pseudonym ruin our image? I think there is three possible reactions: one, we just don't know; and two, we just don't care; three, we feel betrayed. John Denver, Peggy Lee, and Elton John are examples of not knowing, as many people are unaware that these are not their real names.

For the second option, not caring about the pseudonyms, I think the best example, and perhaps the most adept at persona creation, is David Bowie. Besides his pseudonym, he has taken on many personas, such as Ziggy Stardust and the Thin White Duke. Of course, he is no stranger to acting, having performed many roles on stage and screen. In the case of David Bowie, his prowess at adopting new personas is his appeal, we might not care that his "real" persona is also a fiction. (2)

On the other hand, pseudonyms might lead to feelings of betrayal just as perceived autobiography might add to feelings of authenticity. I think the reason why someone picks a pseudonym is just as important as the pseudonym itself. If we perceive their re-labeling as an important necessity, or they have produced art that we care about, then we might forgive them or even encourage them with a knowing smile. Perhaps in the case of John Denver and Sting, they truly become their character and it fits their real-life personality more than their real names. But if their real personality starkly contrasts with their performance, we are less likely to forgive. (3)

Perception important, but not the whole pie

So, how one perceives the delivery of a message can change the meaning of the message, especially in something as abstract as music that can easily be interpreted a number of ways.

While the listener's perception of the artist is important, however, I believe the music is really more important, just as a fancy envelope is not really going to make a difference on whether we think its contents are junk or genuine mail.

What do you think of pseudonyms? Are they a useful tool or a unnecessary, unproductive fiction? What about singers who only use one name (called a  mononym) – what does that mean, and why are they almost all women (Cher, Adele, Kesha, Rihana, Jewell, Elvis)?

Vocab: pseudonym, mononym

(1) This is a small operation here.
(2) Right now at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, there is a whole exhibition on the many facets of David Bowie called "David Bowie Is". I attempted to go, but the line was tremendously long.
(3) For more about fiction and songwriting, see this previous post.

Pseudonyms, Part 1: a Game!

This week, I present a game:

Below are 8 real names of famous musicians. The first person who posts their correct pseudonyms in the comments will win an undisclosed prize! Additionally, contestants need to compose their entries without reference to the internet, and include a statement to that effect in their response. People who use the internet will forfeit their prize.

Here are the real names:

• Reginald Kenneth Dwight
• Norma Deloris Egstrom 
• Declan Patrick MacManus
• Alecia Beth Moore
• David Robert Jones
• Henry John Deutschendorf, Jr.
• Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner
• Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta

Good night and good luck with your pseudonymometry. There will be a follow-up post... 

Crowdsourcing metadata at the Bodleian

"The Cleopatra Galop" by Charles d'Albert

Tomorrow, as part of my library summer seminar in England, I’m visiting the Bodleian library in Oxford. One thing I’m interested in asking about is their “What’s the score at the Bodleian?” project. The Bodleian has a huge collection of 19th-century sheet music (back when printed was the only transportable medium for music) that they would like to digitize, but they don’t have the resources to do so. “What’s the problem?” you might ask, “Don’t they just need to run it through a scanner?” Well, the scanning part is not the time-and-money crunch with digitization projects—it’s the metadata.

Metadata is the information that is attached to the digital picture. in the case of sheet music, useful metadata might be the title of the work, composer, the lyricist, a description of the cover, and publication information. Metadata makes digitized images searchable and therefore findable and useful. Sheet music metadata, luckily, is relatively easy to locate and enter, even for non-musicians, and so the Bodleian has decided to crowdsource the project. They are putting this digitized sheet music online and letting volunteer digitizers fill in the metadata.

Not really free

With this project, the Bodleian is following the lead of the New York Public Library, whose "What's on the menu?" project has been a huge success. So far, NYPL has digitized almost 17,000 historical menus using volunteer support. These two aren't the only volunteer digitization projects around, either. Trusting non-cataloging experts is a big leap of faith for institutions to make. But if they can figure out how to train volunteers, and a find a crowd of willing people, then they can digitize much, much faster than with only their own paid experts. Still, these projects not free; it takes some dedicated staff to coordinate and curate all the entries, and both NYPL and the Bodleian have some major funders. Even with major volunteer support, these projects would not get off the ground without this extra money.

Of course, the other reason I'm interested in "What's the score at the Bodleian?' project is that part of my job at UNC's music library is the exact same thing—minus the digitizing (If only I could get everything scanned, maybe I could get volunteers to do my job, too…) Our collection is not quite a old as the Bodleian's, mostly from 1900-1950. It is kind of fun, actually, to see what's changed and what hasn't in popular music from years ago.
 
Have any of you participated in a crowdsourced metadata digitization project? What did you think?

Vocab: metadata, lyricist, composer, crowdsource

Kyary Pamyu Pamyu’s Fashion Monster vs. the Fame Monster

Since I’m blogging from England this week, I thought I’d write about...Japanese pop! It's also simply called J-pop. A few weeks ago, the NPR music show Sound Opinions did a special on popular music from Japan. On that show, I heard about Kyary Pamyu Pamyu, a Japanese fashion blogger-turned-pop-star, and her crazy videos. Check it out (1):

Crazy, right?

I can't resist making the comparison of the craziness of this video, "Fashion Monster," to the craziness of the Fame Monster, Lady Gaga. While both visual styles seem to come from left field, clearly, their brands of crazy are different. While Lady Gaga is crazy in a shocking, sensual way, Kyary Pamyu Pamyu is crazy in a cute, mystifying, maybe endearing way. It's craziness for the sake of crazy, instead of crazy for the sake of shock (2).

Musically, I would also argue that while Lady Gaga's songs are not without some structural experimentation, most have nothing on the interesting musical structure of "Fashion Monster" (3). On first listen, I felt cast adrift in "Fashion Monster's" structure, wondering how all this fit together, something that has never happened to me for a Lady Gaga song. After some repeated listening, I think I got the idea. While I don't have space to structure at the melodic or phrase level, I am going to dive in to a larger structure analysis. The song has four distinct sections (instead of the usual chorus, verse, bridge). Here's an undetailed map:

"Intro" – Chorus – Verse – Chorus – "Intro" – Bridge – Verse – Chorus – Chorus – Chorus – Chorus
         (wordless)                                                                                  (wordless, alt.)           (wordless)

Some notes:

1. Usually, intro material is taken from another section of the music, like the verse or chorus, but here the intro material is distinct (though related). This material also surprisingly comes back in the middle of the song. And also surprisingly, instead of the second "intro" leading to the chorus, it leads to…the bridge!
2. We hear the chorus before the verse, but without words. I think this has the effect of making the music more celebratory (clearly what the video is portraying), but keeping the stakes lower and allowing the worded chorus to still have some extra impact when it finally arrives.
3. A song's bridge is a contrasting section that arrives near the end of a song to break up what being repeated the most, usually the chorus. Instead of being a normal, short bridge, "Fashion Monster's" bridge gets stretched out, hanging out on the same chord. It is such a relief when the music finally changes, but unexpectedly, what follows is not the chorus, but the verse! I think this transition between the chorus and verse 2 is the most effective moment in the song, and it comes a long way from a chorus, usually the big payoff in a given pop song.
4. While the second verse is structurally almost identical to the first, the slight timbral differences make all the difference.
5. After the second verse, we predictably return to the chorus. Usually, at this point we would expect the bridge, but the bridge has already been used up. "Fashion Monster" instead goes back to the wordless chorus—but this wordless chorus is different than the first wordless chorus, taking the chorus to the song's climax with new harmonies. We then get another chorus and a wordless chorus to close out the song. While four choruses in a row is a bit much, it does makes some sense structurally. And these final choruses have some timbral variance to make their repetition a little more interesting.

A few other non-structural thoughts: the musicians, though not really playing their instruments, are actually making a good effort to play their props, albeit in a stylized way, which I think is cool. Also, in a last comparison with Lady Gaga, it's interesting how high Kyary Pamyu Pamyu's voice is. It almost sounds infantile to U.S. audiences, which is the kind of character she seems to portray. This type of high, female voice is not unusual in Japan. In the U.S., however, pop music gravitates toward much lower female voices, despite the fact that the majority of women actually have relatively high singing voices (4).

"Fashion Monster's" words are about having the choice to be creative and free, and I think it succeeds in being both of those, both visually and musically.

What do you think about "Fashion Monster" and Kyary Pamyu Pamyu? Are you as fascinated as I am, or do you think this just sheeny pop music with a crazy video to grab your attention? (If you are fascinated, you should see this, too).

Vocab: texture, bridge, timbral

(1) Extra credit if you can catch the Hayao Miyazaki reference.
(2) To understand a bit more the culture Kyary Pamyu Pamyu comes from, do a quick image search on "Harajuku fashion".
(3) It's somewhat impossible to tell who actually wrote the music to "Fashion Monster."
(4) Many women in the U.S. also speak lower than they naturally should, leading to all sorts of voice problems.