Reconceptualizing “Music Making:” Music Technology and Freedom in the Age of Neoliberalism

In this episode I unpack Benedict and O’Leary’s (2019) publication titled “Reconceptualizing “music making:” Music technology and freedom in the age of Neoliberalism,” which explores the use of computer science practices to counter neoliberal influence on education.

  • Welcome back to another episode of the

    csk8 podcast my name is jared o'leary

    each week of this podcast is either an

    interview with a guest or multiple

    guests or a solo episode where i unpack

    some scholarship in relation to computer

    science education in this week's episode

    i'm unpacking a paper titled

    reconceptualizing music making colon

    music technology and freedom in the age

    of neoliberalism this paper was written

    by kathy benedict and jared o'leary

    apologies if i mispronounced any names

    i'm just kidding i actually was the

    co-author for this but it heavily

    relates to an episode that came out two

    weeks ago so it made sense to tie this

    in with that particular episode which i

    do link to in the show notes which

    includes a direct link to this free

    paper and you can find that in the app

    that you're listening to this on by

    clicking the link in the description or

    by simply going to jaredoleary.com where

    there are hundreds if not thousands of

    free computer science education

    resources including a link to the

    curriculum that i create for free at

    boot up professional development which

    is the nonprofit that i work for and you

    can learn more about boot up and the pd

    at boot up pd.org alright here's the app

    shack for this particular paper quote

    recent initiatives by for-profit

    corporations and funding measures

    instituted by governments intended to

    support the preparation of students for

    careers in computer science and

    technology although such initiatives and

    measures can indeed increase

    opportunities for students engagement

    with computer science and technology in

    k-12 schools we question whose needs are

    being served for what purposes and at

    what cost in particular we ask whether

    music educators might be complicit in

    advancing technology that subordinates

    human needs specifically students's

    interests in making music in their own

    creative ways to modes a production that

    benefits certain dominant commercial

    interests in society after discussing

    how current computer technology narrows

    students choices we counter this

    determinism by highlighting a music

    subculture that creates and appropriates

    music technologies for music related

    purposes our example of the chip scene

    illuminates how music educators might

    reconceptualize music making through

    modification of existing music

    technology and thereby restore students

    freedom to reclaim making in the age of

    neoliberalism end quote try to summarize

    this paper into a single sentence i

    would say that this paper explores the

    use of computer science practices to

    counter neoliberal influence on

    education and again you can find a link

    to this free paper in the show notes all

    right so in our introduction we talk

    about digital natives and how the term

    is problematic and that it assumes oh

    well because students are growing up

    around technology and therefore they

    must understand how to use it and how to

    create with it etc this is problematic

    for a number of reasons we kind of talk

    about some of those reasons in the

    introduction we then talk about how

    computer science is being positioned as

    teaching students to create with

    technology rather than just consume with

    it and how there's a ton of funding from

    organizations like national science

    foundation or for-profit institutions

    etc that positions code as quote a

    functional literacy necessary for

    meeting societal demands end quote it's

    from page 27 and then here's a quote

    from page 28 quote such initiatives are

    frequently supported by for-profit

    corporations that not only provide

    schools and organizations with

    significant amount of funding and

    technology but that position themselves

    as industry experts in developing

    curricula and standards to prepare

    students for the future job market end

    quote and then a little bit further down

    on page 28 quote coding this context is

    put forth as functional and as serving

    the productive purposes i.e maintaining

    the status quo of the dominant interest

    in society we wonder in what ways music

    educators might be complicit in

    implementing technology that

    subordinates the human and musical needs

    of students to modes of production that

    benefit a highly commercial society in

    quote okay so then we go on to say that

    we are trying to reclaim the phrase to

    make music by describing hardware and

    software practices from computer science

    that can be used to make music in ways

    that are not typically discussed so

    before we kind of unpack that a little

    bit more we go into a next section

    that's titled defining technology and so

    we talk about how technology is

    presented as this neutral or benign

    device or tool that people use and

    doesn't have biases and among music

    educators this isn't really talked about

    much so i know this is much more common

    practice in computer science education

    there are many podcast episodes that

    kind of unpack this so we highlight some

    of the biases in terms of like facial

    recognition technology algorithms

    tagging photos inappropriately etc and

    then here's a quote from page 29 quote

    there are biases embedded in all

    technology influencing how one

    experiences or uses it moving us beyond

    defining technology simply as a tool

    technology must also be read in a much

    larger way as involving intertwined

    processes the way in which technology is

    used to deliver for example educational

    experiences content and structures of

    accountability for both students and

    teachers extends an instrumental

    definition of technology to encompass a

    range of cultural social and productive

    processes having powerful ramifications

    for the purpose of education end quote

    so the next section is on technological

    determinism and freedom so in this

    section we talk about how

    there is influence on education and

    educational contexts from devices

    themselves and corporations that are

    pushing devices or funding into schools

    so for example we talk about how

    chromebooks and ipads or other tablets

    and whatnot are presented as solving

    issues in education as being the tool

    that is needed to allow students to have

    a voice or be able to create etc which

    is inaccurate and problematic but we

    also talk about how there's this push

    for industry experts having a say on

    what is taught in schools for example by

    having industry experts have a say on

    the standards or curriculum that schools

    will adopt or use in k12 context so

    here's a quote from pages 30 and 31

    quote farming out policy into the hands

    of outside experts because we perceive

    these kinds of decisions to be outside

    our purview serves to ensure predatory

    capitalism's mode of governance and the

    idea that computing skills are geared

    toward enabling students to succeed in

    the 21st century is clearly linked to

    jobs of the future again underscoring a

    model of neoliberalism that is focused

    on the maximization of entrepreneurial

    freedoms and the unyielding logic of

    corporate profit making end quote and

    then here's another quote from page 31

    quote technology as stallman reminds us

    can be said to serve its users only if

    it respects their freedom what if the

    technology is designed to put chains on

    its users in both examples and these are

    two among many technology and computing

    curricula are presented as tools

    designed for instructional ends in

    different with respect to politics

    instead as giroux has observed freedom

    and agency are defined through the

    prevailing ideology and principles of

    the market teachers simply need to equip

    every child with computing skills by

    tapping into the latest technology whose

    potential simply awaits human direction

    the presumed technological beneficence

    unchecked seemingly autonomous and

    purportedly neutral now couple with the

    voracious corporate mentality in a

    society that no longer sees schooling as

    a public good is a cause for alarm end

    quote so we end this section by saying

    that technology in schools is often

    being placed into curricula without any

    kind of critical reflection and i would

    argue that computer science is often

    being placed into other subject areas

    without critical reflection and i talk

    about that in the podcast titled the

    subservient co-equal effective and

    social integration styles and their

    implications for computer science so

    check that one out if you haven't

    listened to that one it talks about some

    of the problems with integration and how

    there are many different ways that you

    can do it that can be problematic not

    just for students and teachers but for

    computer science as a whole so the quote

    that i just read for you is kind of like

    a segue into our next section titled

    education as a public good so this

    builds off of giroud's work of education

    as a public good so the example of like

    the devices being in the classrooms and

    then industry experts having a say on

    curriculum or standards or whatever are

    examples of neoliberal influence on

    education at least according to like

    scholars like giroud and others that we

    cite in this particular paper and so we

    raised the questions on page 32 that

    says quote when design decisions reside

    within commercial entities alone whose

    interests are being served and for what

    purposes how might music education

    curricula be constrained by those

    factors end quote so for example the

    devices limit you to certain hardware

    constraints and software constraints

    that can be used on those devices and

    then the industry experts having an

    influence on the content being taught

    and the purposes that drive education

    like getting a job as a computer

    scientist or whatever all have an

    influence on what students learn and for

    what purposes or even how they learn and

    so we are raising this question of well

    whose interests are actually being

    served with this which resonates with

    the paper that i unpacked two weeks ago

    by aman yadav emery heath so check that

    one out if you haven't listened to that

    one it's a wonderful paper all right so

    here's a quote for pages 32 and 33 and

    think of this in relation to integration

    of computer science into music education

    it kind of is gonna lead us into the

    main point of our paper that's coming up

    quote in music education context where

    teachers have adopted many of these

    standards of judgment the emphasis is on

    engaging with the music and technologies

    created by others performing a

    pre-existing composition rather than

    composing an original composition using

    a manufactured instrument rather than

    designing and building a new instrument

    or engaging with music software rather

    than conceptualizing and developing new

    music software are just a few examples

    using the music tools or literacies

    developed by others rather than

    challenging or crafting new technologies

    for being musical diminishes students

    agency however tobias suggests that by

    viewing technology through a critical

    lens identifying multiple possibilities

    of technology and envisioning how it

    might be used in ways that it was not

    originally intended music educators can

    avoid deterministic analyses of the role

    that technologies play in music teaching

    and learning end quote okay so the way

    that integration is frequently talked

    about in other disciplines is to learn

    domain specific content or to solve

    problems etc and while those are great

    the thing that we're actually

    positioning here is a focus on

    creativity within the arts and

    specifically within music so rather than

    using an instrument that an instrument

    manufacturer has created why not have

    students design their own or hey if

    you're using software to compose music

    or produce music or whatever why not

    actually modify that software or create

    your own to do things that could not be

    done with the inherent constraints of

    the software that you're currently using

    so this approach is very different form

    of integration than simply solving

    problems or using computer science to

    learn content knowledge so we unpack

    this more by providing a more concrete

    example of well what could this actually

    look like so the section title music

    technology in the chip scene elaborates

    on a lot of the research that i did for

    my dissertation so we begin by talking

    about the demo scene and how

    when early computers and video game

    consoles were created people would

    change the code to create what it was

    called demos so the demos would

    demonstrate like your prowess as a

    programmer in terms of creating unique

    visuals or sounds etc in early computing

    hardware this led to like a subculture

    known as chiptunes or chip music or the

    chip scene where people specifically

    focused on creating music with this like

    retro hardware so for example they would

    program software called trackers that

    allowed people to make music with like

    video game hardware that wasn't

    originally designed to make music or at

    least didn't have software to make music

    with so here's a quote from page 34.

    quote rather than accepting the inherent

    music making limitations of early

    computer and video game hardware and

    software people modified existing code

    or develop entirely new music making

    software to create music with early

    sound chips further many of the people

    who now create such software often

    openly share their source code with

    others and encourage modification or

    continuous development when the original

    developer must abandon work on a project

    end quote so this open source nature had

    a profound impact on the ways that

    people are able to create software or

    modify software to make music and i

    actually have an upcoming interview that

    will come out probably in a few weeks

    with somebody where we specifically talk

    about open source and how that can

    influence education so stay tuned in

    addition to like the software

    modifications and whatnot that are often

    discussed like in

    mod culture which is like culture around

    modifying video games to do something

    that they couldn't originally do and

    i've done some podcasts to talk about

    mod culture so check that out members of

    the chip scene also engage in hardware

    modification so for example people would

    modify the nintendo game boys to be able

    to perform live with it so they would

    bypass the internal amplifier and then

    this would allow them to have a better

    signal with less noise that they could

    then plug into like a pa system so that

    way they could perform music in a

    concert or record it using the trackers

    that were developed by members of the

    chip scene and so while that's just one

    of many many examples that i talk about

    in my dissertation for hardware

    modification they also talk about

    designing and building devices

    specifically for making music with these

    retro consoles and computers so here's a

    quote from pages 35 and 36 quote these

    music-related practices and literacies

    are guided primarily by individual and

    group interests in their leisure rather

    than corporations or industry experts

    seeking to fill computing jobs

    interestingly some people within the

    chip scene regularly engage in

    entrepreneurial practices such as buying

    selling trading promoting and

    manufacturing a range of created or

    modified media hardware and software

    while those who create or modified

    devices may appear only to have replaced

    one commercialized interest for another

    some within the chip scene design music

    technologies expressly to facilitate

    modification in other words the

    technologies that these chip musicians

    create are not closed ecosystems limited

    to original design decisions and biases

    but rather are meant to be altered by

    the people who use them in their leisure

    ship musicians encourage or design

    opportunities for such engagement in a

    variety of ways for example one members

    of chiptune discussion forum often sell

    their music under a pay what you want

    model and include original project files

    so people can learn from or remix their

    music two members sell hardware parts

    that can be combined or altered to

    modify existing hardware in an

    individually meaningful manner and three

    software developers within the chip

    scene often release source code for

    their creations and encourage others to

    modify their code to meet their own

    purposes each of these examples

    demonstrates how some people within the

    chip scene engage in commercialized

    practices through the products they

    create which can establish new forms of

    determinism for the created or modified

    technologies however chip musicians

    often do so with the intention that

    users will have the freedom to alter

    these technologies further to better

    suit their own purposes this approach

    enables people to be not only users but

    makers of music and music technologies

    in contrast with those music

    technologies and curricula that lead to

    technological and musical determinism

    end quote okay so that is like the main

    crux of this particular argument rather

    than just using devices as is or

    software as is we are encouraging people

    to modify not only the software but the

    hardware for purposes not originally

    designed into that hardware or software

    whether it's to eliminate biases to

    solve problems or to enable expressive

    mediums that couldn't be done without

    such modifications for example to be

    able to create chiptunes or whatever the

    point is we don't have to let the

    technologies the hardwares and the

    softwares or the corporations that

    donate those technologies determine how

    we use them so this leads into the final

    section of this particular paper titled

    lingering questions and potential points

    of dialogue which reading through this i

    wonder if that's what led to my

    lingering questions at the end of

    podcasts i didn't realize that we used

    this verbage in this paper that was

    written in 2019 so before i actually

    recorded the first episode of the

    podcast it was kind of funny so here's

    two quotes from page 36 in this section

    quote examples above present a

    perspective on music technology that

    reflects the ontological shift that

    takes place when a user of

    commercialized music technologies

    becomes a creator or modifier of music

    technology for leisure end quote then

    another quote quote we intend for the

    examples we have presented to provide a

    heuristic illustration for potential

    reconceptualizations of what it means to

    make music with and through music

    technologies end quote and then we

    provide some questions on pages 37. the

    first set is quote how might a shift

    from music technologies created by

    others to creating and using music

    technologies shape music making and

    learning what copyright laws might music

    educators need to consider when

    appropriating commercialized music

    technologies where is the place for and

    or the balance between time spent making

    music technologies and making music with

    such technologies why might stakeholders

    consider such a shift as a move away

    from music making and learning in what

    ways do these shifts help us to attend

    to democratic education and social

    justice respect for others critical

    inquiry equity freedom civic courage and

    concern for the collective good end

    quote and then the next set of questions

    quote however we also wonder where such

    practices might be situated in other

    words would students code music

    technology software and a computer

    science class a music technology class

    an interdisciplinary class or through

    collaborations between such classes in

    an ideal setting we might respond to

    such a question by asking why does that

    matter in quote and then finally a quote

    from page 38 quote rather than

    conceiving of music technologies as

    being constrained by immutable design

    decisions and biases we invite music

    educators to explore the many creative

    possibilities that could arise through

    students self-creation and

    self-modification of music technologies

    chiptune practices demonstrate one such

    possibility for students to circumvent

    technological determinism such an

    approach expands the notion of music

    making to include the creation and

    modification of hardware and software

    end quote okay so this leads to some of

    my lingering questions to borrow some

    terminology from this particular paper

    so the first one is how might educators

    and hegemonic influences on education

    balance societal organizational group

    and individual needs so that was

    mouthful so for example a societal need

    might be the need to collaborate on

    combating climate change an

    organizational need might be

    corporations who need qualified

    candidates for open jobs a group need

    might be removing systemic barriers for

    marginalized identities and then an

    individual need might be just the goals

    and desires

    of individuals these are all worthwhile

    causes that could be focused on within

    schools but what i'm wondering out loud

    is why do people and the broader

    discourse focus on one over another for

    example we critique organizational needs

    in this paper but they're still valid

    needs while it is problematic that

    corporations are having a say on what

    students learn they do have a need for

    qualified candidates and while i

    forefund individual and group needs over

    organizational the broader societal

    needs also need to be addressed so this

    is where i think as i mentioned

    previously that multi-perspectivalism is

    key i don't think we should have school

    or a single discipline focus on one set

    of needs while ignoring the others so we

    shouldn't just cater to

    for-profit institutions just because

    they give us funding and because they

    need jobs filled but we also shouldn't

    just focus on individual needs we need

    to also think about group needs and

    societal needs but i don't know what

    that balance looks like so let's zoom

    out and look at education in a k-12

    setting like which classes should focus

    on

    one more than another but then if we

    look at individual classes what's the

    balance between these different needs

    within that class or that domain or

    discipline so for computer science how

    do we balance societal organizational

    group and individual needs within the

    curriculum or within a given project etc

    i don't really have an answer to it but

    i think it's something that we could

    explore more and talk about more and we

    need to do that in my opinion by zooming

    out so while the paper discussed two

    weeks ago was critiquing organizational

    needs and focusing on centering group

    needs or individual needs other papers

    have talked about how we need to focus

    more on societal needs all of these

    areas are important for us to consider

    as we shouldn't just focus on one at the

    cost of ignoring all others in my

    opinion but you might disagree with me

    and that's okay i'm happy to actually

    talk with you about it on the podcast

    there's a contact me button on my

    website in case you're interested now

    the next question that i have is when

    might the approach described in this

    paper position computer science within a

    subservient relationship with another

    discipline so building off of the

    bressler podcast that i did a couple

    months ago if we use computer science to

    solve problems in the domain or to

    encourage expressivity or to

    enable expression of creativity or

    motion or whatever or to learn domain

    specific content at what point is it

    putting computer science into a

    subservient relationship to other

    disciplines and i don't have a clear

    answer to that and i mentioned that on

    many other episodes but i say it as a

    critique to the writing that i did in

    collaboration with kathy on this

    particular article one might describe

    this approach as an interdiscipline but

    you could also look at it as positioning

    computer science in a subservient

    relationship with music education but it

    really depends on how you frame that or

    implement that so while i obviously

    agree with a lot of what was written

    here because i helped write it i still

    think it's important to critique it but

    anyways if you're interested in reading

    the actual paper it is available for

    free and you can find the link in the

    show notes or by going to jaredlery.com

    where there's a bunch of computer

    science education resources as well as a

    link to boot up pd.org is the nonprofit

    i work for and then there's also a bunch

    of gaming and drumming content like

    literally several hundred hours worth of

    drum content and a bunch of gaming

    content that i keep adding daily because

    i'm a nerd thank you so much for

    listening to this episode stay tuned

    next week for another and until then i

    hope you're all staying safe and are

    having a wonderful week

Article

Benedict, C. & O’Leary, J. (2019). Reconceptualizing “Music Making:” Music Technology and Freedom in the Age of Neoliberalism. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 18(1), 26-43. (link to pdf)


Abstract

“Recent initiatives by for-profit corporations and funding measures instituted by governments intend to support the preparation of students for careers in computer science and technology. Although such initiatives and measures can indeed increase opportunities for students’ engagement with computer science and technology in K-12 schools, we question whose needs are being served, for what purposes, and at what cost. In particular, we ask whether music educators might be complicit in advancing technology that subordinates human needs—specifically students’ interests in making music in their own creative ways—to modes of production that benefit certain dominant commercial interests in society. After discussing how current computer technology narrows students’ choices, we counter this determinism by highlighting a music subculture that creates and appropriates music technologies for music-related purposes. Our example of the “chipscene” illustrates how music educators might reconceptualize “music making” through modification of existing music technology and thereby restore students’ freedom to “reclaim making” in the age of neoliberalism.”


Author Keywords

Music technology, freedom, technological determinism, neoliberalism, chiptunes


My One Sentence Summary

This paper explores the use of computer science practices to counter neoliberal influence on education.


Some Of My Lingering Questions/Thoughts

  • How might educators and hegemonic influences on education balance societal, organizational, group, and individual needs?

  • When might the approach described in this paper position computer science within a subservient relationship with another discipline?


Resources/Links Relevant to This Episode



More Content