Talk:Recording studio as an instrument

Incomplete article

I'm writing this here only to acknowledge that this is an incomplete article. There is much more information available in the sources that I haven't (yet) incorporated. I'd also like to see more discussion of '50s novelty singles and '60s psychedelia, as I feel those are highly significant (but perhaps underwritten) topics to cover. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

an essay, not (yet) an article

1. Since creation 13 July 2017, RSAMI has received 55 edits, 33 by a single editor, who happens to be the page creator. This suggests potential essayism.
2. In the What links here page, 50 articles are listed. Of these, 21 are musical/tonal instruments, such as Shofar, Zither, Bugle, Euphonium, and Bagpipes. None of these is actually mentioned in RSAMI. As well, there are links from articles about audio-effects devices, including Effects unit, Audio filter, Wah-wah pedal, and Reverberation. A first reasonable guess would be that this was either done in error, or intentionally in order to artificially inflate the putative "importance" of the present article. Upon examining Bagpipes, I see that the only such link back to here is in fact buried deeply, under the Musical Instruments template. RSAMI was added (under the guise of Studio as an instrument) to that template 13 July 2017, by the creator of RSAMI, so I'd say this constitutes intentional inflation.
3. Nowhere in RSAMI is the case spelled out how, in defiance of simple logic, a recording studio qualifies as an instrument. RSAMI should not be allowed to exist until it can overcome some elementary obstacles. For example, an actual physical studio cannot be played on a stage, therefore is not an instrument, Q.E.D.. (And despite the wonders of PC-based recording, a virtual studio is no more a physical recording studio than a virtual piano is a grand piano or a virtual guitar is a guitar, so an image of Eno with a laptop does nothing to support the RSAMI thesis.) For a further example, a physical recording studio is as much a "musical instrument" as is a symphony orchestra or jazz band or any other performance ensemble — that is to say, each is a collection of devices being manipulated to produce an audio-frequency outcome… but not of itself such a device.
4. The opening thesis of RSAMI is that a studio can potentially be a distinct musical instrument or compositional tool, and much of what ensues takes advantage of confusing the former with the latter, two entirely different topics with a very tenuous convergence. All reliance upon the "compositional tool" claim ought to be scrubbed as irrelevant to the topic stated in the very title of RSAMI, and probably as well any leaning upon "production style": if a studio is an instrument, then its "tool" status should be explored in some other essay.
5. RSAMI shows grossly undue reliance upon a single article series, A Brief History of The Studio As An Instrument, published in three parts (autumn 2016), on a blog, by an unnamed writer. Further, RSAMI states an intent (Details can be integrated from … Please expand the section to include this information.) to pilfer even more. This points up potential infringement on intellectual property.
6. That series is a quite interesting read, but it is in no way a scholarly piece, and entirely lacks citation of supporting sources. Balancing an essay upon another essay does nothing to make the first a credible Wikipedia article.
7. Incidentally, most of the Citations of RSAMI are badly formatted and do not themselves actually give the source to which they refer, requiring a reader to instead match them up with the Bibliography.

On the basis of the foregoing, I must consider recommending RSAMI for deletion.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected: where I'd said In the What links here page, 50 articles are listed, I had entirely overlooked that this was merely the first page. I removed the unwarranted links to random musical instruments, which presently leaves 113 page links. Of those, at least 40 are about Brian Wilson or one of the Spectors; though each link may be technically valid, it also may suggest that there are entirely too many WP fanboy articles about Wilson and Spector.

As well, there are dozens of links from articles about audio-effects devices and techniques, via the Music production template. Though (again) technically allowable, RSAMI claims it is NOT about "studio as production tool" — which logically is covered adequately under Recording studio, making RSAMI immediately deletable as redundant — but (sing along with me here!) studio as instrument. Any claims to "studio" being other than "instrument" are irrelevant, given the article title. Therefore, one or the other ought to be changed — soon. On that basis, I intend to de-link RSAMI from Music production.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The article's focus is too narrow at the moment and it stops abruptly at the 70s, but the term is very much real. It's not as literal as you're interpreting it when you say things like "Any claims to 'studio' being other than 'instrument' are irrelevant, given the article title," or "Nowhere in RSAMI is the case spelled out how, in defiance of simple logic, a recording studio qualifies as an instrument." Of course it's not a literal instrument in that sense. You can't "play" the studio "as an instrument" by itself (or, if you do, it would be some kind of EAI). But that's not the claim. Use of the studio "as an instrument" is more like a term of art or a concept embedded in popular music history. The phrase stands for the realization that the studio itself offered creative opportunities that were as significant as the literal instruments being recorded—especially with the advent of multi-tracking, when suddenly musical sounds that were impossible to play live could be achieved in the studio, but encompassing all kinds of innovations from Spector onward. It has to be understood as a historical term that critics and scholars use.

I don't see any issue with the citation formatting... use of a bibliography section is pretty ubiquitous on Wikipedia, and they give page numbers for the sources. The use of the Ableton.com sources isn't undue either. The article is incomplete, sure, and the template merely recommends a potentially useful source to use to expand it. While the absence of a credited author is a little strange, Ableton is a significant music software company and their site (you use the word "blog" which suggests it's a personal blog, but it's a professional blog run by a company) is a reliable source. The Ableton staff are the institutional author, and they have clear expertise. The posts are not just uninformed musings, it's a historically tethered series, but more importantly the blog as a whole is not just for essays, they publish interviews with notable artists as well. —BLZ · talk 18:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's my response:

• #1-2 aren't really critiques, more like observations irrelevant to the article's contents.
• The "essay-like" tag seems to rest entirely on #3-4, which is, again, not a critique against the article itself. In this case, it's nitpicking against 40-year-old, well-established terminology. I suggest you write an e-mail to Brian Eno and tell him that he doesn't know what he's talking about when he uses "studio as instrument" interchangeably with "recording as composition". If we had a ridiculous word like "recordcompositionism" to refer to this concept, I doubt you would have written this.
• #5-6 are sorta-valid concerns. I don't like having the Ableton.com source here, but it was the most comprehensive overview that I could (quickly) find. Like I've already noted, this is not a finished article. I'm unable to finish it only because of my limited knowledge of the subject.
• #7 I don't understand this one -- for the reasons already stated by BLZ.

I made this article because I noticed a lot of music texts use the phrase "studio-as-instrument" to refer to the idea of... well BLZ already explained this too, and much better than I ever could. There are many musicologists, journalists and critics or whatever who write that Les Paul, George Martin, Brian Wilson, Phil Spector, Brian Eno, Joe Meek, and Lee Perry engendered a novel school of thought for record-making, and that idea is generally referred to as "studio as an instrument". It's a notable topic that merits encyclopedic treatment. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I also see a concern regarding essayism. The "55 edits, 33 by a single editor" is not in itself a problem, but it's how it sometimes plays out on the page that is. The way that points have been pulled together to form a narrative seems to underline that this article has been "written" by someone. In other words, it's not clear why certain areas are discussed and whether they're actually relevant to "Recording studio as musical instrument".

The lead's opening sentence states: "The use of recording studios as a distinct musical instrument or compositional tool began in the early to mid 20th-century, as composers started exploiting the newfound potentials of multitrack recording." That's cited to p 127 of the Eno piece, but I can only see that he supports the "compositional tool" half, not the "distinct musical instrument" bit. Yes, the introductory blurb there mentions "studio as instrument", but he doesn't.

Eno's piece (pages 128–29) is our sole source for some major statements under Background. He's undoubtedly a pioneer in the field, but is he an authority on the history of recording and therefore a reliable source? He hasn't gone on to be an educator or author, judging by information given at Brian Eno, and he sounds quite vague in places about the timeline, yet we're taking it all as gospel. Aside from that, he's introduced in that PDF excerpt almost in the fashion of a star interview, so it's a surprise to see our article doesn't even attribute these statements to him.

The point about a "gulf" existing between experimental composers and "out-there" pop musicians seems tacked on. Okay, it's not irrelevant, but its relevance is unclear. I'd say it's the quote that confuses, more than anything.

In 1950s–1960s, the discussion veers off into territory that seems tangential, and so reinforces the idea that the article is written by someone, or, at least, that its structure and content reflect what someone here is telling us is relevant to the subject. The text includes information on the producer per se as if it's part and parcel of the concept of "Recording studio as a musical instrument": Meek being recognised as "one of the first producers to assert an individual identity as an artist"; Spector being considered as "important as the first star producer of popular music and its first 'auteur'"; Wilson as "another early auteur of popular music". Where and why does the auteur aspect come into it, with regard to reliable sources on the subject RSAMI, specifically? On this issue, it reminds me of one of the problems raised at Talk:Brian Wilson is a genius#not encyclopedic – namely, that a loose focus allows the subject to grow in size and stature. On the subject of auteurism in rock music, the Beatles were certainly credited as auteurs with Revolver, if not before (e.g. Kurt Loder of Rolling Stone in his 1987 piece on Sgt. Pepper). They happened to continue working with George Martin but even he acknowledged that he was more a production facilitator, responding to increasingly outlandish requests from the Beatles. I'm not interested in adding auteur credentials for the sake of it, but the point is: why is this auteur factor (ditto mention of Meek's "individual identity") included, as if the article title is "Recording studio as musical instrument and the rise of the record producer"? If the article's going to push out in any direction, I'd say there's so much more that could be said about the Beatles' 1966–67 period alone, all directly relevant, imo, to the studio serving as a musical instrument/compositional tool. With "Tomorrow Never Knows", for instance, it is, and was then, taken for granted that the released recording couldn't possibly have been replicated in concert by the Beatles; but beyond that, the mix down itself was similarly a unique performance, impossible to repeat and guarantee they'd replicate the previous take, because all the tape loops were "played" live, in the control room and down the corridor. Then there's the freak aspect of "Strawberry Fields Forever": two separate recordings, each in a different key, tempo and mood/arrangement, being welded together. (Also, the fact that all of these recordings were done on primitive four-track.) I don't want to Beatle-ify the article, but a) their achievements were immense, as part II of the Ableton article states; and b) these details on TNK and SFF are perfect examples of the "playing the studio" aspect of RSAMI.

I hope the Aberton source is reliable – I thought not at first. What I notice about that three-part article is nowhere does the author mention Brian Wilson, yet here we place him up with Spector and Martin (obviously, I appreciate, because other sources do). But I question the inclusion of Cogan and Clark's point that Wilson was "the first rock producer to use the studio as a discrete instrument". I can't access those pages online or see the context of their claim, but given that their book Temples of Sound: Inside the Great Recording Studios is only about American studios, I wonder whether it's not more accurate to say "the first American rock producer".

I realise the 1970s section is incomplete, but I can't see the direct relevance of Eno's influence on the discussion. I'll answer my own query: I think it's because we introduce him as someone who is "frequently referred to as one of popular music's most influential artists"; and in fact, there is no genuine discussion of how he approached the studio as a musical instrument/compositional tool, only mentions of his influence on other musicians. To state the obvious, and as tagged in the article, there's much to add there.

JG66 (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

"Where and why does the auteur aspect come into it, with regard to reliable sources on the subject RSAMI, specifically?" Confused by this because every "auteur" line you quoted was just one part of a quote that goes on to comment on RSAMI. I suppose being an "auteur" might not be relevant but it was only included to illustrate the producer's cultural stature/influence.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Ableton is a company, they have a product to sell, they have a commercial agenda, this can't be ignored when it comes to why they might want to push the "recording studio as a musical instrument" narrative, as such, it is not a source to rely too heavily upon. As it stands, the entire article is a product of WP:SYN. What we have here is personal research on a topic that is actually not discussed in any great detail in either popular or academic literature. Currently it's a cobbling together of instances where this concept is alluded to, but arguably there simply isn't enough detailed literature available on the topic to justify its existence here. Additionally, what is clear in the available academic literature is that the origin of this concept, in terms of it being 'a thing,' originates with Pierre Schaeffer's theoretical writings and in those the suggestion that the recording studio is somehow akin to a musical instrument is considered contentious, so, to have an entire article called "Recording studio as musical instrument" is dubious unless detailed and authoritative sources - those that make specific reference to the subject matter as 'a thing' - are used throughout. Acousmana (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• "What we have here is personal research on a topic that is actually not discussed in any great detail in either popular or academic literature." Um...? Then how do you explain the dozen-plus popular or academic literature sources that are discussing the subject in detail? (I'm assuming the "great" in "great detail" was an arbitrary qualifier, since level of detail in sources has nothing to do with WP:SYNTH.) I think the article has improved greatly since this issue was first brought up, and I can't understand how anyone could get the impression that the written text is original research or synthesized claims. Are you sure you're not conflating "essay-like" with WP:INTEXT? We kinda have to attribute who is stating what since the topic lacks definition, meaning the sources' comments are bound to contradict each other. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

improved yes, but in terms of reference quality and "detail", we should perhaps distinguish between passing mentions and sources that offer an explicit exposition on the subject (as titled). I would like to see more of the latter, that's all, sifting for short mentions of this that or the other concept, across multiple sources, and then creating an article out of it - in my opinion - is not the best way to go about things. That's just my view, think it's a worthwhile article otherwise. Acousmana (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Well that's much different than what you were initially suggesting. I actually agree 100%, I just think that the current revision is more-or-less acceptable considering what we currently have for sources. If better, more comprehensive reference material is found -- which I'm sure they will be -- then I expect that most of the article will be tightened up and be less rambley.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"much different than what you were initially suggesting" - that was me being knee-jerky, I'm all for less rambley, keep up the good work :) Acousmana (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I asked this before, but where exactly is the synthesis and personal research? It's not the article itself — wording and topic is covered in a lot of sources and it's obviously referenced to other reliable sources. RoseCherry64 (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Per above, my initial response was somewhat ‘knee-jerky,’ I skimmed, saw issues with the way some sources were used and had notability concerns with respect to the “musical instrument” aspect of the original title - and whether or not it could yet be approached as a codified concept. Things improved with the addition of cites from a 2018 publication, one that addresses the subject quite explicitly, and other useful sources have been highlighted below so let's improve the sourcing instead of relying on a Vogue film review or a blog for cites (note also Bell mentions the fact that: “the studio…recognized as an instrument…at present [2018] may not have wide recognition as such.” Acousmana (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources proving this is discussed in popular/academic literature

For some reason, there's still a dispute of whether this is a "real" concept that has been written about. I'm just going to leave these here to illustrate.

• Bell, Adam Patrick (2018). Dawn of the DAW: The Studio As Musical Instrument. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-029660-5.
• Eller, Dylan (March 28, 2016). "Revisiting Brian Eno's 'The Studio as a Compositional Tool'". TechCrunch.
• Eno, Brian (2004). "The Studio as Compositional Tool" (PDF). In Cox, Christoph; Warner, Daniel (eds.). Audio Culture: Readings in Modern Music. A&C Black. ISBN 978-0-8264-1615-5.
• Moorefield, Virgil (2010). The Producer as Composer: Shaping the Sounds of Popular Music. MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-13457-8.
• Schmidt Horning, Susan (2016) [1st pub. 2012 by Ashgate]. "The Sounds of Space: Studio as Instrument in the Era of High Fidelity". In Frith, Simon; Zagorski-Thomas, Simon (eds.). The Art of Record Production: An Introductory Reader for a New Academic Field. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-4094-0562-7.

This doesn't include the other 20-or-so sources in the article that only discuss "studio as instrument" as part of a larger music history. In those sources, references to the concept might be on one page or on 10 pages. It doesn't really matter how much it's discussed (we've long since passed WP:SIGCOV), so long as there's at least one notable claim worthy of being included in the article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Further sources:

• Kealy, Edward R. (1979). "From Craft to Art: The Case of Sound Mixers and Popular Music". Sociology of Work and Occupations. 6: 3–29. doi:10.1177/009392857961001.
• Anthony, Brendan (March 2017). "Mixing as a Performance: Creative Approaches to the Popular Music Mix Process". Journal on the Art of Record Production (11). ISSN 1754-9892.
• Toop, David (2018) [First published 1995]. Ocean of Sound: Ambient Sound and Radical Listening in the Age of Communication. Serpent's Tail. ISBN 978-1-78816-030-8. — chapter 5, "Content in a Void" covers this topic a bunch.

RoseCherry64 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

yep, apart from Techcrunch, all good sources, more of these and less of the single/passing mention stuff. Acousmana (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

further problems

It begins from

The use of recording studios as a distinct musical instrument or compositional tool began in the early to mid 20th-century, as composers started exploiting the newfound potentials of multitrack recording. Before the late 1940s, musical recordings were created with the idea of presenting a faithful rendition of a real-life performance.

Firstly, the given timespan is outright weaselly, claiming RSAMI "began" specifically in 1900 through 1960. The wider the span, the less credibility can be claimed, so narrow it down to like ONE decade, then provide multiple good sources to support the choice. Or just remove the sentence.

The second sentence is outright wrong, a clear leap of overreach. After all, the RSAMI concept predates the technology. For instance, musique concrète —

In 1928 music critic André Cœuroy wrote in his book Panorama of Contemporary Music that "perhaps the time is not far off when a composer will be able to represent through recording, music specifically composed for the gramophone" (Cœuroy 1928, 162). In the same period the American composer Henry Cowell, in referring to the projects of Nikolai Lopatnikoff, believed that "there was a wide field open for the composition of music for phonographic discs." This sentiment was echoed further in 1930 by Igor Stravinsky, when he stated … that "there will be a greater interest in creating music in a way that will be peculiar to the gramophone record."

— and the roots of electronic music —

The first electronic devices for performing music were developed at the end of the 19th century, and shortly afterward Italian futurists explored sounds that had not been considered musical. … Record players became a common household item, and by the 1920s composers were using them to play short recordings in performances. … Paul Hindemith and Ernst Toch composed several pieces in 1930 by layering recordings of instruments and vocals at adjusted speeds. Influenced by these techniques, John Cage composed Imaginary Landscape No. 1 in 1939 by adjusting the speeds of recorded tones.

So though it's in the lede paragraph, unless that claim can somewhere be explicitly supported, it ought to be removed.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

As well, I think I am going to have to remove all instances of compositional tool. Noweher is the term defined. In the opening RSAMI sentence, compositional tool simply turfs the hapless reader to the top of Musical composition — wherein, predictably enough, the word tool NEVER occurs. This is either weaselly or airheaded, neither of which speaks well for RSAMI.

Is a piano a compositional tool? How about a drum kit? A pencil, maybe? A hearing aid?

I find it bothersome/amusing that there's no RSAMI mention of "I'm Not in Love"; Consequences might be another.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I realize I'm a little late, but yes, pianos, drum kits, pencils, and hearing aids can all be compositonal tools. What is your point? The other issues you raised about "the second sentence is outright wrong" -- well, it says that few classical composers took to the idea of RSAMI, and in the citations you gave, only a few of those composers are specified. So where's the discrepancy? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Outline of stuff to add

@Ilovetopaint: Hey, I'm gonna pop in to add some stuff to the article in the near future. I figured I'd begin by outlining some of what I think merits inclusion for the article to be reasonably comprehensive, some of which is already touched on in the article. I swear I had commented on the talk page that Stevie Wonder and Prince would be essential to rounding out the article's scope, although I can't find that now, so it's good to see those names are already there. Some of these I have sources in mind for, others I'm just jotting down.

Pre-60s

• Novelty recordings (Spike Jones) (potentially useful source)
• John Cage (maybe)

60s

• Frank Zappa
• Jimi Hendrix
• Grateful Dead — surprising perhaps because of their live ethos, but their early studio recordings Anthem of the Sun and Aoxomoxoa include a lot of experimental multi-tracking
• Film composers (Ennio Morricone, John Barry)

Circa 70s

• The increasing trend, starting in the 70s, in separation of instrument tracks (stem mixing and mastering)
• Musicians who play virtually every instrument in their recordings, which would be silly and impossible before RSAMI: Stevie Wonder, Todd Rundgren
• Notable works of extreme multi-tracking in pop: off the top of my head, "I'm Not in Love" by 10cc (see also "Neanderthal Man" by 10cc predecessor band Hotlegs for some weird studio shenanigans), "Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen, probably others
• The Dark Side of the Moon
• George Clinton
• Dub (Lee "Scratch" Perry, King Tubby)
• Germans: Kraftwerk, Can (especially Tago Mago and tape edits as quasi-"cinematic" compositional tool), E2-E4
• Brian Eno (including later with Talking Heads and U2)
• Disco; Giorgio Moroder with Donna Summer

Circa 80s

• Prince as master of direct-input recording in pop production
• Quincy Jones and Michael Jackson
• Hip hop music, sampling. Hip hop (and the modern r&b/pop music that followed in its wake) is arguably where the producer-as-auteur paradigm is most prominent in all of pop. We should also mention a few prominent hip-hop producers who are mentioned in a RSAMI context; not sure who exactly that might include but I'd guess figures like Afrika Bambaataa, Pete Rock, Q-Tip, Dr. Dre.
• Punk rock/indie rock/lo-fi music — the reaction against pristine separation and perfect fidelity. This is your dojo so I'm sure you have something in mind.
• Post-punk (i.e., the strain of punk that, instead of going primitive, doubled down on experimentation) — Unknown Pleasures would be logical
• Latter-day Talk Talk (The Colour of Spring, Spirit of Eden, Laughing Stock)

Circa 90s and beyond

• Loveless (arguably the endpoint of all of this)
• Electronic music after techno; remixing
• Contemporary hip hop. This is distinct from the earlier 80s-90s era of hip hop, here I'm thinking more of the generation that started with The Neptunes. There's unfortunately not very much about this connection that I can find so far, although as a start I found this from Piero Scaruffi: "It was the black producers of the 2000s who inherited the mantle of the white producers of the 1960s (Joe Meek, Phil Spector, George Martin, Brian Wilson) who had coined the concept of the studio as an instrument." [1].
• Rise of digital audio workstation

Etc.

• How RSAMI impacted classical music recording and jazz. There's so much written about this and it gets us out of the strictly pop context. To start, here's a 1966 article on the subject of tape splicing by Glenn Gould
• Interesting essay by Chris Cutler

Incidentally, putting aside the RSAMI article, the lo-fi music should probably include some trends outside pop/rock, like Memphis rap/horrorcore (early Three 6 Mafia circa Mystic Stylez and Underground Vol. 1: (1991–1994)), Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), and extreme metal/black metal. —BLZ · talk 22:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• The Adam Bell book I added still has more information that could be integrated into the article. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• see also Dack (2002) for a more cautious take on viewing the studio as an "instrument." Acousmana (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Page move

Can we get consensus on the recent page move. Acousmana describes the previous title, "Recording studio as musical instrument", as "unwieldy", but at least it's unambiguous. With the new wording, one might easily expect to see sections covering film, art and photography studios as instruments or devices for espousing a particular agenda (in the sense of, say, Film studio as an instrument of propaganda, Artist's studio as an instrument for political dissent, Photographer's studio as an instrument of depravity). Maybe it's just me – does anyone else see it that way? I thought the previous version was fine. JG66 (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

well, another way at looking at it that the entire article is a product of WP:SYN, and that includes the original title. What we have here is personal research on a topic that is actually not discussed in any great detail in either popular or academic literature. Currently what we have is a cobbling together of instances where this concept is alluded to but there simply isn't enough detailed literature to justify the inclusion of an article on the subject. Additionally, what is clear in the available academic literature is that the origin of this concept, in terms of it being 'a thing,' originates with Pierre Schaeffer's theoretical writings and in those the suggestion that the recording studio is somehow akin to a musical instrument is considered contentious, so, to have an entire article called "Recording studio as musical instrument," is dubious, at least "the studio as an instrument" avoids the problem of the "musical instrument" suggestion. Acousmana (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't expecting that ... I don't disagree with your point about WP:SYN, and you might like to join in the discussions above: #an essay, not (yet) an article and #further problems. As for the title, wouldn't the clarification "Recording studio" make sense? JG66 (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Recording could I guess be added to the title, i was hastily trying to make it concise, so recording studio as an instrument then? This kind of article writing is an issue in my view - if we are serious about avoiding OR - not sure what can be done about it though, happens a lot. Acousmana (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"that includes the original title" There is a book published by Oxford University Press that uses the exact wording "the studio as musical instrument", same wording is found in this peer reviewed journal article, section heading "The recording studio: a musical instrument".

• Anthony, Brendan (March 2017). "Mixing as a Performance: Creative Approaches to the Popular Music Mix Process". Journal on the Art of Record Production (11). ISSN 1754-9892.

Where exactly is the synthesis? It's not obvious to me. It's not the topic itself, as there are reliable sources discussing it. RoseCherry64 (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Current title is fine but I didn't really think the previous one was unwieldy. RoseCherry64 (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

the "musical instrument" aspect of the title is not without contention, there's plenty written on music and technology, with respect to what constitutes a musical instrument, so that complicates this matter, it's not as clear cut as one might assume, something that should probably be addressed in the article itself, I also personally think we need more than a handful of usages of "recording studio as musical insturment" before we can take it as a given. Acousmana (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the article subject is a result of OR or SYN. The term is extremely common in pop-music literature and the concept is also found in non-pop contexts for classical and jazz recording. I don't think the article's mere existence implies that it's asserting an uncomplicated, uncontroverted definition that the studio is inherently an instrument, nor that it takes "musical instrument" to be an easily defined or inherently literal term. Some of these sources may regard the studio as an instrument in a literal way, but many others use the term in a metaphorical sense. The term is "the studio as an instrument," not "the studio is an instrument," after all.

@Acousmana: since you are familiar with sources that dispute the "studio as instrument," it could be useful to have a small section summarizing dissenting views on the issue. That said, the source you've pulled seem highly formal and academic. That isn't to say it can't be useful, but it's speaking in different terms than most of the other writers on the subject. It might help clarify Pierre Schaeffer's point of view, but whether he personally believed the studio was an instrument is less important than the influence his ideas and works had on the budding concept, regardless of whether he would agree with musicians who took influence from him or critics who saw continuity between later works and his work under the umbrella of this concept. Whether the studio is an instrument (or like an instrument) depends completely on the definition of what an instrument is, so anyone's technical or precise definition of an instrument could exclude studios or studio equipment. That doesn't mean we should exclude all of those voices; since the subject is the concept of the studio as an instrument, we should include representative voices that say that certain significant definitions of "instrument" exclude "the studio". But again, the point of the article is not an argument for one point of view or another, it's a recognition of an extremely well-established critical framework—certainly far more than a "handful" of sources—to discuss the unique capacities of recording, editing, multitracking, and other forms of in-studio/post-studio manipulation. The point is the broader recognition that the studio can be a tool that allows the creation of music that is not otherwise possible in a live setting, and that therefore the studio enables unique creative capabilities. Compare Soviet montage theory and the Kuleshov effect, the moments that film editing became recognizable as an art form in and of itself that allowed for new possibilities in narrative and the creation of meaning with a new visual grammar. Whether film editing is art is similarly subject to what definition of the word "art" is applied.

For the record, I was agnostic on the page move. I think there's merit to either title. "Recording studio" is more explicit, but "the studio as an instrument" is a common abbreviated form, probably the most common way to see the idea expressed overall since it's shorthand and usually clear based on context because the reader is encountering it within literature about music. (I've also seen other variations, including Simon Reynolds dropping "studio-as-instrument" as a compound adjective, so there are plenty of ways to express the same idea and they're mostly very similar.) On balance, I slightly prefer "recording studio" as a slightly more formal and precise title, but the difference between "musical instrument" and "instrument" seems less consequential to me, so if this modification helps to resolve some of the dispute about over-precision, so be it. It's not OR to choose one title over the other; to pick a parallel example, the article "Auteur" could have been titled "Auteurism" or "Auteur theory", both of which currently redirect to "Auteur". When a unified concept goes by several similar names, editors are free within reasonable bounds to choose one over the others. —BLZ · talk 20:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Brandt Luke Zorn:Thorough response, thanks. Yes, the literal versus metaphorical aspect is not highlighted, and the definitions aspect could be addressed in more detail; would like to eventually add content relating to Schaeffer’s theories and the trajectory musique concrete took as a studio practice. Coverage of the various studios, worldwide, that contributed to the development of tape music, electronic music, electroacoustic music, and computer music, between the late 1940s and late 60s is also required. There are separate strands: commercial studios, intuitional studios (GRM, BBC, RAI, WDR, plus various university studios etc.) and the private studios (the Barons, Scott etc.). It could be argued that the so-called “electronic music studios” of this era were closer to “the studio as a musical instrument” than those owned by record companies at that time. And, contrary to the statement by Eno that’s cited in the article, there were a great many composers engaging in studio based composition from the 50s forward, not a “minuscule number” as he claims (arguably it’s the opposite, initially there were only a handful of commercial music producers that were “playing the studio.”) Acousmana (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Veracity of Eno quote

Eno is a musician, he's not a scholar, it's misleading to direct readers attention to a cite that claims "Initially, the practice of "studio as compositional tool" was evident mainly in the realms of pop music, as only a minuscule number of classical composers took to this form of music-making. This is factually inaccurate, see for instance Schedel's entry in the Cambridge Companion to Electronic Music, see Holmes, to quote Chadabe in Electric Sound, page ix: "By 1967, Hugh Davies' International Electronic Music Catalog could state that approximately 7,500 tape compositions had been written or were in progress since 1951." Acousmana (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

In other words, if we consider that the number of composers must have grown exponentially with each year, no more than 468 tape compositions were created in 1951. The crux of the issue relies on however you define "very few classical composers", as Eno wrote.

So what's the number -- how many classical composers were manipulating tape circa 1950? I don't see any ballpark figures in these texts. Between 1948 and 1955, Holmes lists one institution in Paris (1948), one in Germany (1952), one in Italy (1953), and one in Tokyo (1953). How many members did they have? And how do those numbers compare with classical composers who weren't working with tape? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

inversely, how many "pop" producers were using the studio as a "compositional tool" in the "initial" period Eno is referring to? Holmes lists 19 main institutional studios up to 1967, and 560 known studios functioning as environments for the production of electronic and tape music. That's hundreds of composers producing some 7500 odd works, hardly minuscule. At GRM (and the other early studios), in the 50s, there was a steady stream of composers visiting there to work. How many pop producers were using a studio experimentally at that time? It's self-evident, looking at the history, that the Eno quote is simply incorrect, this not something we should be quoting, there are better sources for this history. Acousmana (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable -- although I think just about every pop producer was doing "RSAI" by the mid '50s (only going by a hunch, I've listened to several compilations of '50s pop and my impression was that records became much more "produced" specifically after 1954). --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

there's probably lots of stuff in the popular domain that simply hasn't been properly documented yet, even the history of the art music side of things it is still being written, and gaps being filled in, also have to consider when Eno made that statement, and how much of the history he had read in 1979 (or how little had been written). Acousmana (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, a significant reason for the existence of this article is to support Brian Wilson is a genius, by merest coincidence created by ilovetopaint. I'm not judging, but you ought to know what you're up against.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I take it you aren't going to help me write The Beatles are awesome and Brian Eno is God? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

basic (very) questions remain

• The term musical instrument needs to be defined in this particular context. Gesturing vaguely toward someone else's usage is in no way adequate. This is necessary because a studio is not used by a musician to sound a tone, much less play a melody.
• A few isolated instances do not indicate a universal truth. Jackyl had a chainsaw solo on "The Lumberjack Song." That in no way validates a claim that "the chainsaw is a musical instrument."
• A pencil is a compositional tool. "The opening thesis of RSAMI is that a studio can potentially be a distinct musical instrument or compositional tool, and much of what ensues takes advantage of confusing the former with the latter, two entirely different topics with a very tenuous convergence. All reliance upon the "compositional tool" claim ought to be scrubbed as irrelevant to the topic stated in the very title of RSAMI, and probably as well any leaning upon "production style": if a studio is an instrument, then its "tool" status should be explored in some other essay." As I wrote that eight months ago, all "compositional tool" claims seem overdue for deletion.
  Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, I have to argue against the claim that

There is no consensus as to how to define the criterion of a musical instrument.

which is based from one Adam Bell, presented (here at least) by Bell in order to support a claim made by… Adam Bell. It is also highly disingenuous to refer to him as an "academic," seeing as his credentials are nowhere on offer (for all we know, he was once a visiting lecturer on sociology) and Adam Bell does nothing to clarify. Altogether: no WP article, no Notable.

The fact is that musical instrument is MUCH more definable than the concept "studio is an instrument." If the former is disallowable because of "lack of consensus" — meaning "not everyone finds the words 100% agreeable" — then that same criterion clearly invalidates the continued existence of Recording studio as an instrument, right?

Musical instrument launches with

A musical instrument is an instrument created or adapted to make musical sounds. In principle, any object that produces sound can be considered a musical instrument

soon followed by

A musical instrument makes sounds.

If "the studio" is a musical instrument, then it falls into the fifth and newest Hornbostel-Sachs category, the electrophone, which is further divided into three subcategories. Thus, it remains to decide whether "the studio" is an electrically actuated acoustic instrument, an electrically amplified acoustic instrument, or an instrument deriving sound from electrically driven oscillators.

This gets into interesting territory: more than one musician has credited the studio — the room/rooms, NOT the electronic gear cluttering it — with providing uniqueness to the recordings from some combination of tonal coloring and inspiration. Since its tonal characteristics are set off by electric gear, I'd contend that "the studio" might qualify as an HB 51 musical instrument, in a manner that excludes humans (engineers, producers, etc.). If this is what has at some point been meant by "studio as instrument" or "studio as compositional tool," then there is no clear way to validly connect that to knob-twiddling "geniuses."
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• I understand your complaints, but it's really not helpful to use this talk page as a platform to voice your disappointment with the way journalists and scholars have written about music production for the last 50 years. Here, the only reference you make to a potential issue with the article (as opposed to the terminology which we can do little about) is its sourcing of 300-page text published by the Oxford University Press, because like, Oxford totally has no quality control or something. (I'm struggling to understand how you came to the conclusion that Adam Bell's credentials were "nowhere on offer at all" just because he doesn't have a Wikipedia article. I found his credentials in two seconds... He's a music professor who's been peer-reviewed. What more could you want?)

Yes, a chainsaw can make musical sounds, therefore one might describe it as a musical instrument, and a pencil can be used to compose music, therefore it might be described as a compositional (i.e. writing) tool. I fail to see the issue with either of those descriptions, and this all just comes across as unbelievably pedantic. It's almost like the rants of an old fogey arguing that shoegaze isn't "real music" because you can't hear the words, or that the Beatles weren't influential because they stole their music from black musicians.

If you're unhappy that this article simply exists then you can always propose its deletion at WP:AfD. Failing that, if you want your non-mainstream (fringe) views noted in the article, I recommend that you compose your own essay using the compositional tool of your choice and have it published somewhere. Maybe by Oxford Press? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• (addendum) I did take note of the "no consensus for definition" claim and reread the cited pages on Google preview. One of them was obscured for some reason (it was not originally), but from what I recall, Bell didn't really make that claim, he just referenced several proposed definitions of "musical instrument" and noted that their inconsistencies. I edited the statement thusly.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)