The New Multimedia

What is Multimedia?

How many hours a day are we spending consuming multimedia? Why does it matter how much multimedia we are consuming? These two questions define the flow of information, especially digital information in our internet age, and control the ways in how we receive information. Thus, we attempt to answer: Why does multimedia matter?

First, we have to create a definition of multimedia. What is multimedia compared 'single-media'? I think that a comparison can be made be between silent films and talkies. In a silent film, the flow of information comes only through one of our senses, sight, and is therefore limited by the speed of processing through this single sense. If there is dialogue presented through text, we cannot process it at the same time as the action. Think of captioned videos too, reading the text and watching the action could be presented at the same time, but anyone who enjoys foreign films will know that processing the text and action are individual thoughts, not simultaneous. Now take a look at talkies, videos with both sound and sight. We use two senses to engage in information. Dialogue can happen at the same time as action, and we are able to process it simultaneously as we process anything in real life simultaneously; we are not limited by the technology of the singular media. 

In this definition then, we are expanding the traditional definition of multimedia from "many mediums", the literal definition of the word, to many mediums that can be processed by the brain simultaneously. In this case, a multimedia work must be able to deliver more information in the same amount of time as a singular media work.  

The New Multimedia

To answer our question about why multimedia matters, I must explain the reason of this post. Social media, through the consumption of short videos (reels, shorts, TikTok) is a completely new form of multimedia. Short videos are no longer a part of the same medium as social media is broadly. Short videos hold this intermedium space, where news, entertainment, education, combine together to form an odd conglomerate of needs that were previously held by multiple mediums. It is also a step forwards into a multimedia that uses a third sense: the sense of sped up time. 

Short videos, looked at individually, is just another form of talkies, a video with sound. Taking sound and video together, the use of two mediums of our senses, to deliver information far faster than just reading text or listening to audio. However, the third sense of short videos can be seen when short videos are taken into the context of their consumption. Short videos are to be consumed one after another, with various topics, and designed to be consumed in great quantity. 

Short videos are not singular pieces of media. Because they are designed to be consumed with other short videos on the conglomerate of topics, they fill many niches. The evening news has been replaced with short videos on news. Movie trailers have been replaced with short videos with movie clips. Opinion pieces and essays have been replaced with short videos on everything from world events to financial analysis. Academic topics, and I say this very broadly, pop-academic topics, have been replaced with short videos on quasi-academic topics. 

The third sense of the short video is the speed in which you can watch a clip of a movie trailer, and then watch a clip of Mormons evangelizing, and then watch a clip of half clothed ladies dancing, and then finally a clip of the newest analysis on politics. Within the span of seconds, and through multiple sense of sight and sound, you are able to consume information at a speed in which, even a couple of years ago, you would have needed multiple webpages, books, magazines, and a trip to the local library.

Thus, we are now consuming a new form of multimedia. No longer bounded by two mediums, I argue that the speed of topics constitutes a new medium, the medium of time. The New Multimedia then advances the speed of information, of sight and sound, through the immense flow content that we are able to consume. 

Adverse effects of the New Multimedia framework: Prosumption and Profit

Going back to our questions Why does multimedia matter? and How many hours a day are we consuming multimedia? I want to propose a new question: Why does the (over) consumption of the New Multimedia matter? 

The New Multimedia (short videos) through the rapid rate of topics presented at such short amount of time, sounds like it gives us the opportunity to become educated with the topics of the world in mere seconds, with relative ease through our devices. And I would agree. It's true that the New Multimedia through short videos can be used this way, however, with the current setup of short videos as entertainment (and ad revenue), it is not being used in this way at all. 

The devices and frameworks that the New Multimedia is being produced on and consumed on promotes two key modes of operation: prosumption and profit. 

The New Multimedia is designed to be produced and consumed by the same people, an endless cycle of new items to consume and the same people to produce them, and then with this cycle of prosumption, money to be made through adverts. The only piece of the New Multimedia puzzle that is not made through prosumption. 

I want to end this post by zooming out to look at a wider picture of mediums and the rate of the consumption of information. Physical mediums such as the printed word, moving on to books with diagrams, silent films, talkies, videos --- and now advancing to such a rate of information transfer that the very topic of information is being blurred. We need to remove the New Multimedia from this prosumptive framework, a framework for generating profits, and into a framework to harness this new rate of information. A framework that provides us with the information that we need to live our lives more effectively and interconnected with each other. The New Multimedia should not be feared as destroying our brains and attention spans. A new technology always has that fear, but instead as the tool that it is to most effectively connect information to our brains. We just need to use it properly. 

The Modern Toronto Choral Sound: Concreamus' Sonoluminescence Concert

On February 17, I was fortunate enough to attend Concreamus' Sonoluminescence concert. Concreamus, a choir associated with the Modern Sound Collective, consists of forty singers between the ages of 18-30 performing works by young composers in the Toronto area. Their programmes usually feature a mixture of works by known composers (canonic) and new works, either commissioned by Concreamus, or written by members of the choir. 

However impressive Comcreamus' sound and technique are (most members are either professional musicians or very experienced singers), what enchants me the most is the quality of the compositions that they perform. The title piece, Sonoluminescence by Toronto-based composer Erik Kreem, wowed me both through its innovative compositional technique, but also through its defiance of the modern Toronto choral sound.

It's hard to describe the modern Toronto choral sound. With the geographic hyper-locality of certain compositions that embody the modern Toronto choral sound (now abbreviated as MTCS), there must be some sort of a combination of both compositional technique and 'heard-sound' phenomenon. When it comes to compositional technique, the biggest idea that shines through in the MTCS is repetitive parsimonious chromatic voice leading. These pieces often use techniques that spotlight long smooth phrases, often with the melody obscured in the middle voices or lacking a melody at all, and above all, very smooth and relaxing. However, 'heard-sound phenomenon', are the ideas that tie all of these works that embody the MTCS together. It is a set of philosophical ideals that these composers are unconsciously vying towards: the idea of being inoffensive. 

No gasps! The MTCS is writing inoffensive music. Pieces that are written this way? Perfectly fine, if not too fine to be completely indistinguishable from others in the same style. 

The conclusion being? Erik Kreem's work, Sonoluminescence did not fall into the trap of the MTCS style. Unafraid to be offensive, it stood out like Erik Kreem himself in a crowd: tall and bold. 

Music Theory Education and Public Perception: Lockhart's Lament

I just read an essay written by Paul Lockhart titled "The Mathematician's Lament", and after doing a little bit of research, found to be quite the famous and well-read text in the math community. Published online in 2002, it even got turned into a book a couple years later.

Lockhart's Lament, as most mathematicians lovingly call this essay, details a central philosophical question about math pedagogy: is math art or a set of instructions to follow? Lockhart argues that schools teach too much in the latter direction, eliminating the reason math exists in the first place: as a way to explain our curiosities about the world, rather than training students to become experts at assembling IKEA furniture, following a step-by-step guide to solve 'problems'. Lockhart further argues that math is being viewed in our culture as something 'rational thinkers' do, as opposed to what 'poetic dreamers' do. He pushes that people (and pedagogues) just don't understand what mathematicians do and therefore categorizes mathematics incorrectly into the 'rational thinkers' genre, when it really should be treated as an art.

Why do I bring his essay up? I think there are certain parallels to draw between his lament and the lament of many music theory pedagogues. Funny enough, there's a wonderful anecdote that Lockhart makes in the introduction of his paper, that compares mathematics to music! I will quote it below; I think it makes quite the compelling argument if we tweak it a little bit to encompass music theory more specifically. Read this with more of a sarcastic tone:

"Music class is where we take out our staff paper, our teacher puts some notes on the board, and we copy them or transpose them into a different key. We have to make sure to get the clefs and key signatures right, and our teacher is very picky about making sure we fill in our quarter-notes completely. One time we had a chromatic scale problem and I did it right, but the teacher gave me no credit because I had the stems pointing the wrong way."

Quite humorous, but is this not the way music theory is taught in schools? Do we not just learn skills that might apply to future forms of analysis and 'theorizing', but never do those activities from the beginning? As a personal anecdote, I have found that the public perception of music theory, and even the perception of music theory from other musicians is one of this 'skills-based, IKEA furniture' style of thinking. How do I spell a D augmented triad? What 'music-theory' do I need to learn to improve my guitar solos? What scale do I play over a Bb major seven chord? 

As much as these are valid questions, I would hardly categorize them as music theory questions. They are composition questions, performance questions, and more or less, opinion. Should music theory be taught for students to understand actual music theory that theorists are doing? 

Then again, I am not saying that these skills are useless! Of course, as mathematics needs students to understand basic arithmetic, so does music theory need students to understand how to spell chords and conduct roman numeral analysis. But it is the combination of these basic skills and ideas that should be introduced to students at a young age.

Ideas such as 'tonality', which I have found that students, even after studying roman numeral analysis, have no idea why they are providing these numerals to chords. That their tutors that robbed them of the joy and understanding that theorists have thought and defined certain chords having certain functions within a key, which is a key idea to understand all of the common practice!

Along with a knowledge of history, students possess skills, ideas, and facts, about this whole field of music theory! Why, then, do we still teach music theory like cooking class? Why do we take the joy of discovery, the joy of the art of music theory, out of the pedagogy? Teach ideas along with skills in theory class! So many ideas about music that students never get exposed to, ideas about music so prevalent, it's almost unethical for students not to learn about it! Put the music theory back in music theory class! 

Contagious Energy from the MRU Kantorei Choir

Last Friday, I saw the Mount Royal Kantorei Choir perform at the Bella Concert Hall, their first solo concert post-COVID. It was my first time seeing them perform and I had little expectation on what this choir would look like, let alone sound like. I must say, I was happily surprised to see a mixed community choir with over 80 members sing (with great skill and ability) a vast and expansive repertoire that included everything from Thomas Morley to a new Jake Runestad commission. I was even more happily surprised to find them present a concert that not only included interesting music, but also kept me engaged throughout the entire nearly two hour length. Too often do choirs sing technically challenging or serious repertoire but fail to realize that the audience often cannot bear to listen to same 'choral ahhs' for many hours without end.

What the Kantorei Choir had was an abundance of contagious energy, of musical oomph, that forced the audience to pay attention, and follow along with the story they had to tell. Personally, as much as I enjoy choral music, it is rare for me to attend a choral concert that can transmit such an energy to keep the audience engaged for the entire concert. 

I have included the program from the concert, mostly as an archival habit, but also for you to browse if you want to draw your own conclusions.

VIEW PROGRAM HERE

What does it mean to transmit such an energy? 

Basically just two things. Their tone and their diction. And I find that they come together as a set. Since Kantorei is a community choir, I did not expect King's College choir sounds to spring forth from their lips. They delivered a sound that, although not professional trained voices, added great colour and expression to their pieces. The pop-esque sound (non-discriminatory) that they produced traded the traditional choral sound for lots of energy. And the repertoire called for it! Pieces like Fire from Elements by Katerina Gimon needs that energetic sound. From my point of view, a lot of the enjoyment of this choir comes by them producing different sound than what I am used to. Perhaps I've been listening to too many church choirs. Sure, they might not blend as perfectly as professional choirs, but they don't need to! Their unique tone cuts past what traditional audiences might consider to be flaws in their sound. Even pieces such as the Morley did not suffer as one might expect; they sung it with such joy that they found the 'spring' that so much Renaissance choral music requires. 

Furthermore, their vernacular sound production allowed for vernacular diction. A choir that size (over 80 members!) with clear diction is basically unheard of. And I can happily say that I could easily pick out the text. There's a reason why they didn't provide the text in the program! A piece that would've been a mess if it wasn't for their immaculate diction was Would You Harbor Me? by Ysaye M. Barnwell. The homophonic text setting was as clear as reading the words off a page. Every word drew you closer to hear the next. And since the text was so powerful, they for sure could not afford to drop a single word.

I hope I get to hear the MRU Kantorei Choir perform again. Their unique sound transmits a contagious energy; I hope they never change. Truly a gem in the Calgary choral scene. 

Glenn Gould's Bach Partita No.2, BWV 825

The first movement of the second partita, the sinfonia, opens with this dotted pattern of block chords with arpeggiated ones in-between. While Schiff and others play the passage with speed and ungraceful mechanical force, Gould splits the section up into two distinct parts. The block chords and the arpeggiated chords. He keeps it very "baroque" during the block chords, and lets the piano ring when he rolls them. And I think Bach would have wanted it in this way. Gould does what Schiff always misses out on, the Bach pulse. The way that Bach can write a series of eighth notes or sixteenth notes, but you can still tap your feet to it. You can still feel the rhythm. When pianists are playing Bach on stage and you see their heads nod and shake the Bach pulse. Any good recording of any Bach piece should have the Bach pulse; it's what drives the music away from monotony. The block chord and rolled chord change maintains the pulse and keeps the introduction from becoming a race against how fast the pianist can finish this part up to get into the two part section. Schiff just rolls through with such speed and vigour, it breaks the pulse and the tension, just to feel incomplete at the start of the two part section. I hate to say it, but even Wim Winters plays the intro better than Schiff. At least he slows down (it's what he does best) and savours the chords, without rushing to play the next part. No, Winters doesn't vary his chords, but it's really saying something when clavichord playing, double beat crazy conspiracy guy Wim Winters sounds better than world-class pianist Schiff.

The two part or two voices section makes up one half of the rest of the sinfonia. Gould really shines through here. Disclaimer, this is definitely personal preference and I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with what I'm about to say but all of this goes back to what I believe good Bach playing should be. And that is to accentuate the Bach pulse. That being said, Gould does exactly that. He takes the two part section at a true Andante. Too many players take this section at a truly blazing speed which neither my ears or my fingers want to hear. It just doesn't contrast too well with the fugue in the next section. Having the tempo slower also helps us rock out to the pulse, which Gould brings out in his LH. Can you think of what it is? The bass line of course! I swear to Go(ul)d that no one but he actually makes the bass line sound like something. No stupid finger legato dragging the dance-like feel down to the ground, no soft touches with the left hand to really bring out the melody. No way. Gould plays with a balanced, staccato touch throughout the entire two part section and guess what? It sounds amazing. The melody is brought out, not because he decided to play the melody louder, but instead the bass accentuates the melody. More generally, the pulse accentuates the bass, which by bring it out. accentuates the melody. Its crisp and refreshing, both light and powerful. Quick apologies to all the harpsichord purists, but the two part stuff? Yeah, that sounds terrible on harpsicord. I'd rather not drag my feet through the mud of voice equality. I'm much more into voice equity that one can do on the piano.

That's the end of the rant. Gould sounds good. And it's going to take an excellent pianist that knows what he's doing to top this performance.

For the North American Audience: Marching Band Field Shows

Marching band field shows are every bit musically and artistically important as large forms of "serious" music. I would even go as far as to say, that in the modern era, especially in North America, these field shows communicate ideas far better than traditional forms such as operas.

I recently had the opportunity to go see the Calgary Stampede Showband perform their field show "Rush" and I've linked to it below. I will be referring to this show when I make specific examples. And I do think this show is something worth your time to listen to, it's just under 10 minutes long, and the performers are so very engaging, that time will just fly by.

I hope you can agree with me that the entire point of performance, any arts performance, is to convey ideas from the performer(s) to the audience. Keeping that in mind, I don't think classical music does that for the North American audience. Communication is often blocked by external factors that don't involve the actual music. Take opera for example. How could an English-speaking audience come to understand songs that are being sung in a foreign language, let alone relate so deeply to them as to make up for the ticket price? I for one can't do that, especially reading the surtitles. Opera companies tries very hard to, at least I assume to make up for the communication gap by using surtitles and such, but in the end it just takes away from the enjoyment of the music. And we cannot forget symphonic works that require long attention spans and a vast musical vocabulary to fully enjoy the work, to actually take in what the performers are trying to communicate to the audience, just for their efforts to be thwarted by lack of interest and attention.

No, to communicate with a North American audience, these forms need to be changed somewhat to align with what these audiences are used to.

The first thing that might surprise you is the use of popular music. I think that with the use of  "tunes" that the audience already recognises, it solves the entire problem of relatability. The audience won't become bored easily by something that they already enjoy and are familiar with. Take a listen to the first tune of the "Rush" show, "The Ecstasy of Gold" from "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". Even without any visual cues, you can instantly put together a picture in your head on what this show is about. Images of the west, guns, and cowboys perhaps? It's a great use of music to set the scene, where the overture in an opera would be, it doesn't leave the audience grasping at "what the composer meant", but instead puts them right in the middle of the action. I can hear you now asking, "There's no original music? I thought the entire point of going to a concert was to listen to the music?" I think that if the point was to listen to music, there would be no problem with large forms such as opera, since audiences going to those shows would already be familiar to the music presented. But the reason why this marching band show so caught my eye, or ear, is for the very reason that it appeals to people without the background of classical music, and it effectively communicates an idea that a larger scale work such as this show would be. The use of popular music is its selling point. And I would remind you that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The chorography and dance in marching band shows are what tie the music and the story together. The music might set the story, but the dance makes the show.

I like to think about it as such: the musicians are the "chorus", while the colour guard (dancers) act out the important parts of the story. While in an opera, the chorus would use words that the audience cannot make out, or the orchestra would play some cryptic motif or "musical symbol" to move the plot along, in these field shows, the band plays tunes that immediately set the scene and move the plot along because the audience members are already familiar with the repertoire. By removing the "block" that is unfamiliar music, the musicians and the colour guard can not only communicate with each other on stage, but also very easily with the audience.

I can tell you now, that watching this show was an experience. Something that I don't get to feel much while watching opera. The lack of words didn't feel like a barrier at all when it came to communication and the fun "pop-esque" music moved the story quickly to avoid boredom. No one fell asleep, no one had to read the libretto before attending, no one left during the intermission, and yet there was still a standing ovation given. Perhaps it's time we changed the way we think about art music as a whole.