Pinning Down Sound

Historically, people used their bodies, or created instruments that they played with their hands, to create the sounds that make up music. This process required a certain level of musicianship. With the advent of sound recording, those who had access to the equipment and the skill to use it could take music out of its live setting and manipulate it in various ways. For example, they might record in layers or add mechanically produced sounds. Recording required technical skill and the equipment could be costly. Currently, a person can create a song with minimal knowledge of musicianship and technical skills using computers and pre-recorded loops. Recorded music also has an impact on social relations – where music was once exchanged between musician and audience directly, it may now be recorded by a ‘bedroom producer’ in solitude, distributed via the internet and then listened to in solitude, cutting out the social interaction aspect of live music. Our sense of ‘community’ may be reduced to ‘user groups’ (Théberge, 1997, p. 90).

In this essay, I will discuss one of the most accessible recording software packages, Apple’s GarageBand (GB) which comes pre-loaded on Macintosh computers. GB is exceptional due to its low price and its ease of use – you do not have to be a millionaire or a recording engineer to use it. The price and entry-level skill required make GB appealing to a much wider audience, however, the concern is that the music made with this software may not be particularly original or meaningful. In addition, GB is part of a suite – it cannot be used on a PC and so requires a Mac computer, and the files created in GB are generally exported to iTunes and perhaps subsequently to an iPod. All of these products are owned by Apple and there is some question as to whether the main purpose of GB is to foster creativity or to sell Apple products. On the other hand, GB makes home recording available to a mass audience and could be used as a tool that supports musical creativity.

RECORDING TECHNOLOGY LEADING TO GARAGEBAND

GarageBand did not spring into existence; it is simply the latest incarnation in a long line of recording technology. Michael Chanan provides an excellent history of recording, “from Edison’s talking tin foil of 1877 to the age of the compact disc” (Chanan, 1995, p. ix). According to Chanan, the inventors of various sound recording technologies generally had other applications in mind than the inception and revolution of the music industry. In other words, these inventors’ explorations were not in pursuit of the future creation of GB. Rather, the creations of these curious and business-minded inventors were turned to musical purposes in response to the market.

In 1855, the phonautograph is introduced by Leon Scott (Chanan, 1995, p. 23). Almost a decade later, the phonograph is patented by F.B. Fenby, although it is Edison who produces the first working prototype using cylinders (Chanan, 1995, p. 24). At this time, Edison is also working on the telephone, telegraph and even the light bulb (Chanan, 1995, p. 24) and while Edison is busy with these, Alexander Bell develops the idea of a phonograph into a graphophone (Chanan, 1995, p. 25). Lateral inventions such as the jukebox in 1889 by Louis Glass, the kinetoscope (for cinema) invented by Edison and the push-button camera from Kodak in 1888, give the reader some context in terms of how sound recording fits into the larger landscape of technological invention (Chanan, 1995, pp. 25-27). In 1887, Emile Berliner invents the gramophone and uses discs rather than cylinders (Chanan, 1995, p. 27). In 1896, there is competition between Bell and Berliner that produces further innovations to the gramophone, including more durable discs; discs are made initially with wax, then rubber/ebonite, bakelite, shellac and finally vinyl. From this point forward, we see a steady progression in technological advance. Following vinyl, we have ‘tape’ in its many forms: reel-to-reel, 8-track, the standard audio tape cassette and DAT, which brings us to digitalization – CDs and mp3s.

In terms of the recording ‘studio,’ initially most music is recorded in hotel rooms or on radio soundstages (Chanan, 1995, p. 31), however, as the technology evolves, we have the plush recording studio of the seventies, and currently we have the flexible, portable, digital technology of the present day, often found in a domestic setting. Each technological evolution replaces the previous mode, however this is nothing new. At the turn of the 20th century, record sales begin to outstrip sheet music sales (Chanan, 1995, p. 31). According to Chanan, it is around this time that there is “the discovery of a new economic law… a new kind of commodity… [a] technical linkage, where the commodity takes on a double form – like record player and record (Chanan, 1995, p. 31).” In other words, putting aside the particular mode of technology, you need something to play on a player, whether it be a cylinder, vinyl disc, tape, CD or mp3. This is highly relevant to the current situation with Apple; Macintosh computers are loaded with software such as GB and iTunes that connect with iPods that then require iPod docking systems and Gelaskins. In other words, Apple has created a fully integrated system of hardware, software and accessories, where buying one item may lead to buying another in this vertically integrated chain of products. Chanan offers a similar example in Kodak, a company which not only sold cameras, but had a monopoly on selling film and film processing (Chanan, 1995, p. 32). Paul Théberge notes the same phenomena in the synthesizer market: the “package sale” (Théberge, 1997, p. 84).

MUSIC AND SPACE

Now, let us leap ahead from the history of phonautographs, phonographs, graphophones and gramophones to the revolution caused by magnetic tape (Chanan, 1995, pp. 96-99). Previously, one could record live music and take that recording to any location, therefore, music had already been distanced from its original source in a geographical sense. However, magnetic tape paved the way to multi-track recording, which further divorced live music from recorded music. This newest wave of technology allowed one to record in layers – ‘overdubbing’ (Théberge, 1997, p. 217) – and introduce a variety of natural and mechanically produced sounds. In other words, sounds from various locations could be brought together to form a new kind of music. The ability to tape multiple tracks allowed music producers the freedom to blend together disparate sounds and form new relationships between these sounds. For example, beforehand, one could only tape live musicians performing in one take, however, now it was possible to record a violinist from Vienna, an oboist from Hoboken and combine it with the beeping of a car horn in Detroit. The point is that multi-track recording has no rules in terms of the source of sound; any sounds from anywhere may be combined in any fashion. One can now construct imaginary universes where North American birds chirp, Big Ben chimes and it sounds as though aliens are landing from outer space. Music becomes more than just a quartet playing Bach and becomes fragmented to the point where almost any world of sound may be created out of the pieces.

The next major development in music recording is the move from analogue to digital. Sound may now be broken down into zeros and ones (Katz, 2004, p. 137) – bits of information that may then be manipulated in almost infinite ways. Again, we see how a change in technology can radically change music itself; the limitations shift from whatever sound a musician might be able to produce using an instrument and their own bodies, to almost any sound imaginable. Instruments become only one option for producing sounds, whereas technology offers near-limitless sound production capability. We can now produce sounds that may not even exist in everyday reality. However, if we can produce these sounds, then do they not become some form or part of reality? Music has been released from the confines of time, space and realism.

What then does GB do, that all of the technology to-date has not already done in relation to music? GB simplifies and expands access to the recording process. GB is relatively inexpensive compared to an analogue studio, and so more people may now claim to have a ‘home recording studio’ if they own a Mac and a mic. Historically, recording sound required a certain level of technical skill and musicianship, however, GB simplifies some of these functions. If one cannot play an instrument, one can still access the pre-recorded loops included in GB. If one can play a little, but only in a few ‘comfortable’ keys, one can change the key of the loop with a few clicks of the mouse, rather than learn to play a scale with six sharps. If the loop is moving faster than the musicianship of the user allows them to follow, they can slow down the tempo of the loop with a few clicks. GB makes music-making easy, however, is this a good thing? Will the ease of GB result in diminishing musicianship? Will access to pre-recorded loops reduce our technical ability to construct music samples from scratch? Will a limited pool of loops reduce our creative output overall? If machines can make music production simpler, why does it matter if we release our musicianship and knowledge of recording sound? Perhaps, the computer is the new all-in-one instrument and quite a sophisticated one at that. However, what if the power goes out? What if Apple gains a monopoly and raises the price? Will we be looking around for tin whistles and instructions on how to play them? If the electricity ceases to flow, will we be rendered mute and artless?

GarageBand anchors the recording process to the computer. GB may be used to support a live performance, however, that is not its primary function. Where music and space are concerned, GB supports individual users to produce music privately and share that music via the web; the integration between the various softwares available on a Macintosh encourages music to flow in certain directions. In the next section, I will discuss how GB influences the flow of music between people and changes the nature of social communication.

MUSIC AS SOCIAL COMMUNICATION

Andrew Whelan discusses the social interactions of an on-line chat group that shares music loops, and how demonstrating technical savvy may gain one more access to samples (Whelan, 2006, pp. 64-75). Andrew Hugill states that one of the reasons to compose music is “to explore and expand human experience (Hugill, 2008, p. 100)” and discusses the element of meaning in music as a communicative tool. Tia DeNora describes music as “the basis of our social experience” (DeNora, 2006, p. 19) and describes how it influences human behaviour. Amy Voida et al make the argument that iTunes supports more intimacy between people than peer-to-peer music sharing, similar to the social function that sharing mixed tapes had at one point in time (Voida et al, 2006, pp. 60-61). These authors discuss the value of music as social communication and demonstrate how music is not always delivered directly to the listener – the exchange is often mediated by some form of technology and this mediation changes our social relations by adding a middleman.

Currently, I am sitting at my Apple computer writing this paper about music, rather than playing live music with my musician friends. Earlier this morning, I was dancing alone to a playlist I ‘created’ in iTunes, rather than socializing with real live human beings. This evening, I will watch a film on my Mac. This personal information would not be relevant to an academic essay, except that these points exemplify how often we spend time with machines over people in our modern world. The last hundred years have seen a shift from people playing live music together, to people interfacing with their technology, sometimes to deliver an enhanced musical construction to the ears of another solitary being. Michael Bull discusses the iPod culture and how teenagers are increasingly consuming media privately and creating their own soundscapes to keep themselves ‘company’ (Bull, 2005, pp. 343-347).

Jacques Attali offers the best communication theory to help explain the role of GB in the big picture. Attali discusses the political economy of music, and how “[t]he music of power no longer conveys information…. The modern musician says nothing, signifies nothing if not the insignificance of his age” (Attali, 1985, p. 114). There was once a time when music was used to enhance human existence – for example, to communicate a warning of approaching danger – a sentry could play a drum that could be heard over a greater distance than a human voice and the beats could be coded like Morse Code to represent different ideas. In other words, music was a language – it had meaning. Algorithmic music may sound like music, but what does it communicate? What does it mean? GB loops may make music-making a snap, but what meaningful message is conveyed in a pastiche of randomly chosen samples? The point is that music is more than just a construction – it is a vehicle for expression; it is a way for people to connect. We must question how technological mediation effects that expression and connection. Does it enhance the process? Are we closer, happier, richer human beings as a result of GB? As technology and the music industry giveth, what do they taketh away from us?

Attali sounds the warning that music is not simply a vehicle for expression and connection – it is also a commodity; a vehicle of commerce and economics; a marketable unit. If we look at GB as a tool for creativity, we may judge it as a boon to musicians everywhere – the democratization of music (Théberge, 1997, p. 131-133); access for the masses to sophisticated recording technology once reserved for the elite few. However, if we look at GB through the lens that Attali offers, we see the economic implications of this software. (I will discuss this issue further under the MUSIC ACCORDING TO APPLE section heading.)

MUSIC AND THE HUMAN CONNECTION: MAN-MADE AND MACHINE-MADE

Music is made by body movement and may also inspire the body to move; music is made and enjoyed by humans. Simon Emmerson discusses how the mechanical process of repeating, refining and perfecting music may destroy the human element that makes it meaningful (Emmerson, 2007, pp. 61-68). The repetitive nature of pre-recorded loops included in GB may mean that music is simplified or even sanitized. There are only so many loops to choose from and millions of users accessing these loops. It is inevitable that a single loop may serve as the base for many songs, diminishing the originality of each song.

While one is able to use GB to record live original material, the loops take up less computer memory than using real instruments, and the effort of dragging and dropping a loop is much less taxing than building your own original loop or recording from scratch, assuming you have the musicianship and technical know-how to do so. Other recording softwares demand an entry-level of musicianship or technical skill to use them, while GB allows a non-musician to make music-of-a-kind by using the loops as construction blocks. GB simplifies recording to the point where the art of recording may be lost.

Peter Manning discusses the expansion of the medium of electronic and computer music, however, he states that electronic music only becomes powerful when framed by ‘concrete’ sounds (Manning, 2004, p. 202). In other words, while it is possible to make music through the use of algorithmic programs, music still requires a human component to make it interesting to human ears. Robert Rowe discusses ‘Machine Musicianship’ as a support for human music-making, not a replacement (Rowe, 2001, pp. 1-7). GB allows the user to use real instruments, software instruments or construct pieces of music with loops. Therefore, GB does not confine the user to samples – a musician may use it as a recording device for original music as well. However, users who have limited musicianship will tend to rely on the loops to construct pieces and the resulting music may not be as soulful. Théberge notes a similar behaviour regarding the Prophet-5 in 1978 – the manufacturers noticed the returned machines “still had the factory preset programs in their memory banks…. The majority of users, 80 percent or more, were not actually programming at all but were relying almost exclusively on the presets” (Théberge, 1997, p. 75). Théberge also discusses the process of ‘quantization’ where music produced by a machine is then manipulated in terms of timing and timbral qualities so that it sounds more human (Théberge, 1997, p. 226). It seems like a roundabout route to skip the human musician and use a machine, only to then take the beat ever so slightly off the grid to make it sound human.

Attached to this essay are two appendices, both from the Apple website. The first addresses the issue of musicianship in the sense that GarageBand ’09 now includes music lessons, some taught by artists such as Sting, Sarah McLachlan and Norah Jones. The second appendix has to do with using Macs to make music, not with GB, but with the “MacBook itself as an instrument” according to Ge Wang the composer/programmer behind this initiative, who states that he wants to explore the “intersection of music and computer science” (Stanford Laptop Orchestra – SLOrk, p. 1).

MUSIC ACCORDING TO APPLE

GarageBand is not a stand-alone entity. It is part of a vertical chain developed by Apple that includes the Mac computer, iTunes and the iPod. Apple carefully planned the timeline for launching these applications/devices (Cosentino, 2006, pp. 189-192). While GB is marketed as a creative tool, it may be that Apple has an agenda for the development of these products that leans more toward commerce than the creation of art.

Attali presented a communication theory regarding the economy of music. Let us put this into more concrete terms. A modern musician may spend $3000 on a Macintosh, $300 on a mixer, $600 for a condenser microphone, $100 on a Shure 58, $100 on cables, $200 on headphones, $300 for an iPod, etc. and still be no closer to producing a meaningful, soul-changing note. Apple had an impressive 900% sales growth in 2003 and sold four million iPods in the holiday quarter of 2004 (Cosentino, 2006, p. 185). In conversation, producer Kevin Hamilton (Fresh Air Studios) stated that in the music industry “there are people who make money and those who don’t; I’m one of the ones who makes money.” We spoke about how the desire to be a star can drive a person to spend money in pursuit and how there are people in the industry ready to harness that desire. Apple has taken note of the market and has provided the market with strategically integrated, purchasable options. If one only wanted to make music, then one would only need talent, practice and an instrument. It is the need to go further that gets pricey; the need to be heard far-and-wide.

If it were simply a straight business deal, then an economically shrewd musician would only spend money to make money. However, Apple is selling more than equipment – they are selling promises, possibilities and dreams. Apple and other music industry money-makers are capitalizing on our desires. They do not sell us the brass ring – they sell us a ride on the merry-go-round with no guarantees on the ring. Many a musician has gotten into debt buying the accoutrements of music-making without selling enough recordings to recoup their costs. Théberge cites Steve Jones who observes, “the purchase of suitable recording equipment seemed a more viable route to a successful career in pop music. ‘Paying your dues’ now meant making payments on your gear” (Théberge, 1997, p. 221). Théberge later notes that many musicians turn to commercial work to pay for and get more gear (Théberge, 1997, p. 234). Are we music-lovers or gear-lovers? According to Théberge, musicians are not only buying gear, but samples or “the very sounds they need to produce music” (Théberge, 1997, p. 244).

It is interesting that a computer company, Apple, is involved in a discussion regarding the music industry. The music industry boomed when digital technology was first introduced as they were able to re-sell music in the new format; people replaced their old scratchy albums with new shiny CDs that were advertised when they came out as practically indestructible and the height of sound quality. However, once this transition had taken place, the record companies were back where they started in terms of having saturated the market. Digital technology may have initially infused the music industry with a new revenue source, however, this technology was also an open door to piracy (Katz, 2004, pp. 164-169). Why pay for songs you can burn from a friend for free? The music industry dug their heels in at this point and started suing their customers (Katz, 2004, p. 176) to try to stem the flow of cash they claimed to be losing as a result of music file-sharing.

Perhaps Apple was able to succeed in the market due to the fact that they had not been burned by piracy as the major labels had, and so they had a fresh perspective. According to Gabrielle Cosentino, Apple became the “strongest player in the distribution of digital music…. presenting iTunes as a revolutionary legal solution to digital piracy… unfettered by digital-rights management restrictions (Cosentino, 2006, p. 187).” Mark Katz, writing in 2004, listed reasons why the market/public might willingly buy music they could burn for free – for example: if it were easy, fast, legal, offered a wide selection and benefited musicians (Katz, 2004, pp. 182-183). Katz states that Apple launched iTunes in 2003 (Katz, 2004, p. 184) and it is clear now in 2009 that iTunes has done very well. Katz stated that the music industry stood “to make huge sums of money if only they would stop alienating” their customers (Katz, 2004, p. 186). Apple gave the public what they wanted and grabbed the lion’s share of the market, and they wrapped it up nice.

MUSIC FOR THE MASSES – AFFORDABLE HOME RECORDING

It is easy to paint a sinister portrait of GB, however, viewed in another light it has made sound recording accessible to a wider audience. Producer Hamilton stated that GB, while certainly not as powerful as more professional packages such as ProTools, was still very useful for laying down initial tracks. While Apple would probably prefer GB files to go directly to other Apple products, it is possible to export GB files into ProTools and other software packages with a little effort. In the seventies, an analogue recording studio would be prohibitively expensive for many and certainly required much skill in the art of recording. Apple has provided a relatively inexpensive, easy-to-use option, useful to non-musicians and skilled veterans alike. While there are some valid concerns about the originality of compositions created solely with loops, GB also offers the opportunity to lay down original tunes. Producer Hamilton stated that the number one rule of recording is having something to record. One could use the most expensive equipment and have all the technical skill in the world – unless one has music worthy of recording, it would all be for naught.

The current reality is that musicians are better off if they are able to harness technology. A band can save considerable expense if they are able to conduct the early stages of recording independently – studios are pricey and so not the ideal setting for experimentation when the meter is ticking (Théberge, 1997, p. 220 and 231). While sophisticated studios offer major perks in terms of sound quality and polish, those who are not yet at this level are not excluded from recording altogether. A musician might use GB to compose, to construct, to experiment, to learn about the recording process, to make demos for their MySpace page, to make recordings to sell at concerts, to convert their live music into mp3s that may be easily distributed via the web, or to prepare for the studio so that songs are well-honed beforehand. However, one must not lose sight of the point that all of these possibilities go hand-in-hand with the rhetoric employed by companies like Apple to sell their products. When one uses a technology, they may also be used by that technology. Apple is selling hardware, software and the dream that one can create star-quality music independently. A musician may save on some studio costs, however, Apple is happy to pick up the economic slack by diverting those ‘saved’ dollars to their own bottom-line.

Apple advertises GB as a tool for unleashing one’s creative energy; Apple encourages you to use GB to “tap into your inner Mozart” on the package for iLife ’04. However, surely inspiration is not the sole domain of Apple and its products. One can tap into one’s creativity without any intermediary technology. Furthermore, using the provided loops within GB as building blocks has its creative limitations; millions of users accessing a limited pool of loops is not the recipe for originality. However, stranger things have happened; it may also be that a truly creative mind could select, click, and cut-and-paste their way to something new within the limited GB universe of options. If a band managed to make a hit song using GB loops, would they own the rights to ‘their’ music? Or would Apple come along to take a big bite out of their profits, claiming to be the original producer of the loops used? Théberge notes that copyright law is observed through contractual agreements that “set one party off as employer/copyright owner and the other as employee/wage labourer” (Théberge, 1997, p. 236). If Apple created the loops, does that not make them the copyright owner and those who play with loops the wage labourers? Would a musician who had ‘created’ an ‘original’ song using Apple loops be satisfied with their ‘creative’ output, or feel fraudulent? If GB is used as a straight recording device, it may be that its impact would be similar to the impact of any recording technology, however, those tempting loops and key/time effects are another matter. An appropriate analogy may be the difference between Van Gogh painting an image, and someone doing a paint-by-number of a Van Gogh and calling it one’s own, and thinking of oneself as an artistic genius.

THE FUTURE

If the past is any indication, there will be new technological advances, new formats, new players for those formats, new fabricated worlds of sound, etc. Industry will continue to find ways to sell us the hybrid of music and technology, again and again. However, all technology has an impact on human beings and their ability to connect to one another and express themselves in general. There is a certain addictive quality to technology – using any technology can create a form of dependence. If I rely on technology to provide music, then I may lose the ability to make music myself. However, if I use technology to make music, I may make music that I could never have made relying solely on my own music-making ability. The main point is to cultivate a sense of awareness in terms of what you gain and what you give up with each technology adopted. It may be best to use GB sparingly; play the flute and allow GB to record that sound, rather than have GB play flute in my place and rob me of my musicianship and joy. On the other hand, GB is welcome to play drums – live drums are hard to record and annoy the neighbours. Most importantly, we must maintain a critical stance, remembering that while GB may or may not be ‘free,’ the Macintosh is certainly not – and Apple is not the source of creativity, we are.

Music was once ethereal – played live in the moment. Recording technology gave music substance in the sense that it could be transferred into the world of matter – a touchable artifact. We now seem to be returning to the ethereal with mp3s. However, this arc from ethereal to substantial and back to ethereal, is driven by a market that consumes and an industry that attempts to feed that need. Pinning down music might be possible from a technological standpoint – a format that would last for centuries could be developed/utilized, however, the industry benefits from ever-changing technology – they can sell us the same music ad infinitum. In fact, the industry would probably prefer that people ‘rent’ music as opposed to having any ownership. However, the market does possess some power – they turned to piracy and seriously undermined the music industry rather than be price-gouged. Then again, the market may also be swayed by new toys.

Théberge (writing in 1997) anticipated that in the future, people would be singing along to pre-recorded arrangements – a sort of ‘participatory consumption’ – where technology allows a user to shape and rearrange ‘songware’ (Théberge, 1997, pp. 252-253). In 2007, I attended a presentation by Terry McBride, President of Nettwerk (Sarah MacLachlan, Avril Lavigne, Bare Naked Ladies). Terry stated that Nettwerk was looking into selling ‘stems’ – selected tracks from songs that his artists had done to be sold to fans so that they could add their own tracks. It seems Apple has facilitated, and perhaps anticipated, this scenario. GB allows you to construct a song around loops – you could then omit some of those loops and invite other users to add their own musical stylings. Alternatively, you could construct a loop-based song and invite other musicians to create the lyrics. You would not even have to send them an mp3 of the base track; you could simply e-mail, “Club Dance Beat 05 – 64 bars – 110 bpm – Key of C” and they could reconstruct it on their own Mac. This shorthand might even represent a new form of musical notation, although the missing coordinate – perhaps the most salient – may be the grand total on the Apple invoice. Having stated that, I have priced my next Mac. – Apple ‘gives’ you a ‘free’ iPod with every purchase and the latest version of GarageBand is ‘complimentary.’


Attali, Jacques (1985). Noise: The Political Economy. United States: University of Minnesota Press.

Bull, Michael (2005). No Dead Air! The iPod and the Culture of Mobile Listening. Brighton: Department of Media Studies, University of Sussex.

Chanan, Michael (1995). Repeated Takes: A Short History of Recording and Its Effects On Music. New York: Verso.

Cosentino, Gabrielle (2006). Ayers, Michael D., ed. “‘Hacking’ the iPod: A Look Inside Apple’s Portable Music Player” in Cybersounds: Essays on Virtual Music Culture. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.

DeNora, Tia (2006). O’Hara, K. & Brown, B., eds. “Music and Emotion In Real Time” in Consuming Music Together: Social and Collaborative Aspects of Music Consumption Technologies. The Netherlands: Springer.

Emmerson, Simon (2007). Living Electronic Music. Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Hugill, Andrew (2008). The Digital Musician. New York: Routledge.

Katz, Mark (2004). Capturing Sound. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Manning, Peter (2004). Electronic and Computer Music. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rowe, Robert (2001). Machine Musicianship. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press

Théberge, Paul (1997). Any Sound You Can Imagine: Making Music/Consuming Technology. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press.

Voida, A., Grinter, R. E. & Ducheneaut, N. (2006). O’Hara, K. & Brown, B., eds. “Social Practices Arounds iTunes” in Consuming Music Together: Social and Collaborative Aspects of Music Consumption Technologies. The Netherlands: Springer.

Whelan, Andrew (2006). Ayers, Michael D., ed. “Do U Produce?: Subcultural Capital and Amateur Musicianship in Peer-to-peer Networks” in Cybersounds: Essays on Virtual Music Culture. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.