Collaborating in music has the potential to be both beneficial and restrictive. Introducing a second consciousness to the creation process can provide new influences, techniques, experience and ideas but it may also mean that more preemptive organisation is involved, possibly slowing the creative process.
There is only one thing more volatile than a human and a computer making live music together and that is multiple humans with multiple computers creating music. Unlike traditional musical instruments, where to create expression the user can simply adjust the way in which they play the instrument these expressions must be pre-explained to the computer, making musical ideas such as stops, time changes, inversions and tempo changes much harder to consciously materialise. Conversely, the amount of things that can be done by two humans and two computers, when planned could easily match that of a full band. The restrictions involved in this process are comparable that of a traditional band. It is simply based on what the members are physically and creatively able to do. It does create more choices to ponder. The contemplations involved in a traditional band situation are simply what each member should do with their designated instruments. However, when these limitations are removed the process can become overwhelming and the creative freedom can actually result in a less polished product. More choice isn’t necessarily better. Having access to such a vast array of digital instruments can lead to frustration, especially when individuals conflict and all seek the ‘lead’ role. This may result in the gradual increase in volume as members complete for presence. Other variables to consider are the fact that two people means four hands and when there are a thousand buttons and knobs to twist throughout a song, more hands is definitely MORE.
The creative process within this type of music has its differences but is effectively the same. The preference between collaboration and solo work is very subjective and personal. Some artists believe that creating music should be a lonesome process as it allows a more accurate translation of personal emotive influence. This point of view is much more expansively explained by the artist Claudio in her TedxTalk.
It is abundantly obvious, despite this, that collaboration has many benefits. It allows personal development and for our art to be affected by others. It was once said by George Harrison that all of The Beatles catalogue consists of “personal ideas filtered through the minds of each member of the band”. Whilst The Beatles are exceptional in many ways, this is an effective way of describing the process of collaboration in any type of music. It allows others to interact and effect the process. An effective model for collaboration in technology based music is having one operator of technology and then a traditional instrumentalist allowing both of the stylistic elements of each to be combined to create a cohesive, emotive work. A good example of this is comes in the form of a track named ‘Little Nerves’ created by Binkbeats, an experimental technology based musician and Niels Broos a more traditional musician, even though his instruments of choice may argue him, more technological than most might consider a musician to be.
This performance boasts many impressive, persuasive, sonically interesting sounds. Watching this process is beyond impressive, proving a perfect example of the amount of rehearsal, organisation and planning that must be employed to collaborate successfully within technological music.
Jordan Vaughan: Creative Sound Design 