SENSEMAKING IN THE RECORDING
ENVIRONMENT: UNDERSTANDING THE
ROLE OF THE RECORD PRODUCER
Daniel James Pratt BMus, MFA
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
School of Creative Practice Creative Industries Faculty Queensland University of Technology 2020 Keywords
Sensemaking, negotiation, collaboration, organisational communication, record producer, recording studio, creativity, flow, group flow, pragmatism, social, social construction, recording environment
ii Abstract
In this thesis, I develop a new understanding of the record producer as a facilitative sensemaker. To better understand the producer’s role as a central actor in a musical group, I frame record-making as a form of social sensemaking. To position the producer within creative decision-making group, I echo Howlett’s position that the producer is a nexus operating within a complex system of creativity. To further interrogate this concept, I develop several sensemaking models based on Weick's seven sensemaking properties and Rutledge's four active stages of sensemaking. I use these models to examine how organisational concepts play out in thematically connected studies of record production. The connected studies are presented in the form of five papers that examine both pragmatic and sensemaking aspects of record production. In these articles, I present exemplars of producers working in multiple settings that range from traditional production practice through to complex, transnational collaborative networks. Each of these five papers investigate different phenomenological aspects of record production and communication, using a combination of interviews with producers and artists, participant observational data and focus group transcripts from international recording projects. My analysis of these data illustrates how producers operate as active organisational catalysts and technical facilitators, highlighting the roles that communication and facilitation play in traditional contexts of record production, through to future-driven record-making paradigms. Table of Contents
Keywords ...... ii
Abstract ...... iii
Table of Contents ...... iv
List of Abbreviations ...... viii
List of Figures ...... ix
List of Publications ...... xi
List of Conference Papers ...... xii
Statement of Original Authorship ...... xiii
Acknowledgements ...... xiv
Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 15
1.1 Significance of the Research ...... 16
1.2 Research Context ...... 17
1.3 Producer and Educator ...... 22
1.4 Research Questions ...... 25
1.5 Overview of Papers ...... 27
1.6 Sequencing ...... 31
1.7 Chapter Summary ...... 33
Chapter 2: Sensemaking ...... 34
2.1 Sensemaking in Organisational Communication ...... 34
2.2 The Seven Properties of Sensemaking ...... 43
2.3 The Process-Based Four Stages of Sensemaking ...... 50
2.4 Three Case Studies from the Literature ...... 54
2.5 Conclusions ...... 63
2.6 Chapter Summary ...... 65
Chapter 3: Defining the Record Producer ...... 67 iv 3.1 Introduction ...... 67
3.2 Defining the Producer ...... 68
3.3 Artists and Producers as a Collaborative Group ...... 71
3.4 Identity in a Changing Landscape ...... 75
3.5 Narrowing the Definition ...... 76
3.6 Conclusion ...... 77
Chapter 4: Methodology ...... 78
4.1 Introduction ...... 78
4.2 A Qualitative Approach to Recording ...... 78
4.3 Research Design ...... 84
4.4 Overview of Research Methods ...... 87
4.5 Ethical considerations ...... 93
4.6 Phases of research ...... 97
4.7 Organisation of papers ...... 99
4.8 Ensuring Rigour ...... 102
4.9 Chapter Summary ...... 104
Chapter 5: Foreward to the Articles ...... 105
5.1 A Broader View of the Articles ...... 105
Chapter 6: Life In Between Phase ...... 108
6.1 Forward: Investigations in Technical Sensemaking ...... 108
6.2 Abstract ...... 110
6.3 Introduction ...... 111
6.4 Simplifying Phase Interaction ...... 112
6.5 The Problem with a Binary Understanding of Phase ...... 113
6.6 Three Arguments for Pedagogical Approaches ...... 114
6.7 Live Sound Design Approaches to Phase ...... 116
6.8 Understanding Auto-Align ...... 119
6.9 Methodology ...... 122 6.10 Drum Recording ...... 123
6.11 Big Band Mixing ...... 126
6.12 Conclusions ...... 130
6.13 Further Study ...... 131
Chapter 7: The Record Producer as a Sensemaking Facilitator ...... 133
7.1 Abstract ...... 133
7.2 Introduction ...... 134
7.3 Literature Review ...... 135
7.4 Methodology ...... 144
7.5 Data Analysis ...... 147
7.6 Examples and Discussion ...... 148
7.7 Conclusion ...... 153
Chapter 8: Extended Cognitive Looping ...... 155
8.1 Abstract ...... 155
8.2 Introduction ...... 156
8.3 Literature Review ...... 157
8.4 Methodology ...... 167
8.5 Data Collection ...... 169
8.6 Findings ...... 172
8.7 Conclusions ...... 182
8.8 Appendix 1—Sacred Shrines ...... 183
8.9 Appendix 2—Baskervillain ...... 185
8.10 Appendix 3—Soda Jerks ...... 186
Chapter 9: Transnational Flow in Cloud-Based Music Production ..... 188
9.1 Abstract ...... 188
9.2 Introduction ...... 188
9.3 TNF in the Literature ...... 189
9.4 Sensemaking ...... 193 vi 9.5 Methodology ...... 195
9.6 Results and Discussion ...... 199
9.7 Conclusions ...... 208
Chapter 10: Sensemaking in Unfamiliar Environments ...... 210
10.1 Abstract ...... 210
10.2 India 100 Partnership ...... 211
10.3 The Mobile Recording Paradigm ...... 213
10.4 Sensemaking ...... 214
10.5 Methodology ...... 218
10.6 Findings ...... 220
10.7 Parallel Sensemaking ...... 226
Chapter 11: Conclusions ...... 232
11.1 Introduction ...... 232
11.2 Three Unexpected Outcomes ...... 238
11.3 Sensemaking in Education ...... 241
11.4 Limitations of the Research ...... 242
11.5 Further Research ...... 244
11.6 Conclusions ...... 246
11.7 Final Thought ...... 247
References ...... 249 List of Abbreviations
QUT—Queensland University of Technology
BBC—Brisbane Boys’ College
KMC—KM Conservatory
ARP—The Art of Record Production
JARP—Journal for the Art of Record Production
IASPM—International Association for the Study of Popular Music
DAW—Digital Audio Workstation
OMD—Orchestral Engineering Society
TNF—Trans National Flow
UHREC—University Human Research Ethics Committee
UWL—University of West London
JMC—JMC Music Academy
DIY—Do it Yourself
RX—Audio Repair Program
viii List of Figures
1.1 Sequencing of papers………………………………………...... ……..32
2.1 Reducing sensemaking theory to four applied stages…….…………...…53
2.2 Four applied stages…..………………………………………..……..…..55
2.4 Repeated sensemaking model……………………………..……..….…...61
2.5 Repeated sensemaking model…………………………….…...... ……...63
3.1 Spectrum of producer styles………………………..…….…….…..….…70
3.2 The Systems Model of Creativity…………………..…….………..….….72
4.1 Research Methods for Five Papers………………..……….….….…..…..93
4.2 Organisation of papers……………………………..………….……..….100
5.1 Four-stage sensemaking model for drum microphone placement..… ….109
5.2 Constructive waveforms…………………………………………….…..113
5.3 Destructive waveforms…………...…………………….……………….113
5.4 Bx_digital V3 equaliser…...……………………….……………………120
5.5 Auto-Align features a phase scope……………….……………………..121
5.6 Auto-Align distance indicator……………………….………...…….…..121
5.7 The delay metre………………...……………………….…….…....……122
5.8 List of microphones……………………………………….….………….124
5.9 Wrapped phase response…………………………………….…...... 126
6.1 Dynamic spectrum of producer placement…………………....……....…136
6.2 Matching data themes to sensemaking properties…………...…….….…147
7.1. A three-step loop of plausibility and analysis…………………………..166
7.2. A new sensemaking model for recording studios………………………167
8.1. The interaction of creative and analytical states…………….……...…..190
8.2 The four stage model for sensemaking………………………...…....…..194 8.3. Small networked facilities…...... 198
8.4. The first two stages of a sensemaking model…...... 205
8.5. Full sensemaking model…...... 206
9.1. Simplified model of sensemaking…...... 218
9.2. Sensemaking model for noise management…...... …222
9.3. Two sensemaking exercises…...... 224
9.4. Sensemaking model for the placement of the recording station…...... 225
9.5. Sensemaking processes interact and influence each other...... …226
9.6. Advanced parallel sensemaking process...... …230
x List of Publications
Paper 1: Pratt, D., & Bourbon, A. (2019). Life in Between Phase: Understanding and Manipulating Microphone Relationships with Visual Tools. In Art of Record Production 2017 (pp. 225–247). Stockholm: Royal College of Music.
Paper 2: Pratt, D. (2019). The Record Producer as a Sensemaking Facilitator: Conditional Properties for Music-Making. Article submitted for publication.
Paper 3: Pratt, D. (2019). Extended Cognitive Looping: Musical Sensemaking in the Recording Environment. Article in preparation.
Paper 4: Pratt, D., Hoose, S., & Gordon, W. (2019). Transnational Flow in Cloud- based Music Production: Organisational Communication and Collaboration Between Australia and America. In Art of Record Production 2017 (p. 247- 267). Stockholm: Royal College of Music.
Paper 5: Pratt, D. (2019). Sensemaking in Unfamiliar Environments: Designing a Mobile Recording Facility in Between Chennai, India and Brisbane, Australia. Article in preparation. List of Conference Papers
Pratt, D., Seay, T. (2019). The Record Producer as a Nexus Facilitator: Understanding New Spaces and New Musical Conversation. In Biennial International Conference of IASPM. Canberra: Australian National University.
Pratt, D., Hoose, S., & Gordon, W. (2019). Transnational Flow: Experiments in Long Distance Non-Synchronous Networked Collaboration. In In C: Creation, Connectivity, Collaboration, and Controllers. Boston: Berklee College of Music.
Pratt, D., & Bourbon, A. (2018). Life In Between Phase Part 2: Reflexive Microphone Manipulation. In Crosstown Traffic: Popular Music Theory and Practice. Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield.
Pratt, D., & Bourbon, A. (2018). Life In Between Phase Part 2: Reflexive Microphone Manipulation. In Crosstown Traffic: Popular Music Theory and Practice. Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield.
Pratt, D., Hoose, S., & Gordon, W. (2018). Further Exploration of Transnational Flow in Cloud-based Music Production: A Constant 24-hour Workflow. In Crosstown Traffic: Popular Music Theory and Practice. Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield.
Pratt, D., DeMan, B., & Reiss, J. D. (2017). Developing Mix Evaluation Skills in Higher Education: A Technology-aided Approach to Self-directed Learning. In Mono: Stereo: Multi. Stockholm: Royal College of Music.
Pratt, D., & Bourbon, A. (2017). Life in Between Phase: Understanding and Manipulating Microphone Relationships with Visual Tools. In Mono: Stereo: Multi. Stockholm: Royal College of Music.
Pratt, D., Hoose, S., & Gordon, W. (2017). Transnational Flow in Cloud-based Music Production: Organisational Communication and Collaboration Between Australia and America. In Mono: Stereo: Multi. Stockholm: Royal College of Music.
Pratt, D., & Carfoot, G. (2016). Make it Yourself: New Models in the Production and Consumption of Audio Recording Equipment. In 11th Art of Record Production Conference. Alborg: Alborg University.
xii Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature: QUT Verified Signature
Date: 09/01/2020 Acknowledgements
This thesis would not be possible without the friendship and support that I received from my supervision team, friends and family. From my supervision team, I would like to thank Dr Gavin Carfoot; his patience and encouragement kept me going whenever I wanted to just stop and never think again. Dr Kristina Kelman is an unstoppable force of nature; her boundless energy and commitment are an inspiration. Dr Kelman introduced me to India, for which I am eternally grateful. I would like to thank Professor Phil Graham, who encouraged me to begin my studies and has been an academic and professional mentor for years. His incredible intellect is an inspiration, and his understanding of the art and philosophy of record production is unparalleled. I also wish thank the Australian Government Research Training Program for their financial support during my research journey.
Next, I would like to thank my wife, Rose Jensen; her artistry and support have been an inspiration. It is conceivable that I would have starved to death working on my thesis, but she reminded me that I should return to the real world every now and then to eat food and take care of myself. To my mother and father and my two incredible sisters: thank you for all your words of encouragement. I am privileged to have such an engaged and creative family. Also, thank you to Paula Jensen for being my first editor in the early stages of my candidature; I did not make that an easy task. To my band, thank you for your patience; it is time now to record those songs that I keep putting off. A special thank you to my bass player, and partner in crime, Dr Stew Riddle, for helping me detangle my mind on more than one occasion. To Dr Shane Hoose, Dr Lachlan Goold, Wells Gordon, Dr Andrew Bourbon and Dr Brecht De Man, thank you all for collaborating with me on papers and presentations; we should do more soon. Thank you to the Art of Record Production community; you were all so welcoming and are the international family I did not know I needed. Finally, thank you to all the bands that participated in my research, and to all the artists that have waited patiently for me to finish this thesis so that we can work together again. We will see each other soon, and our recordings will be all the better because you waited patiently while I took a deep dive into the rabbit hole.
xiv Chapter 1: Introduction
Let’s try a different environment, or let’s get different instruments, something that inspires. Or, let’s listen to the East Five records on repeat until we meet next time. Let’s get inspired by a book, or painting or a poem, a memory or anything that can be engraved in the work. (Valgeir Sigurðsson, personal communication, 2017)
In a 2017 interview I conducted with multi-award-winning producer Valgeir Sigurðsson, he framed record production as a facilitative role that involves ‘engraving’ ideas into a creative work. Such a perspective offers a useful way to contextualise my approach to understanding the record producer as a sensemaker. To understand how a multiplicity of ideas can be engraved into musical work, I study a specific form of recording practice that involves collaborative decision-making in several different—but thematically linked—recording situations. My passion is being present in the recording studio with a group of fellow musicians and participating in a recording as it takes shape. A recording develops and flows like a conversation conducted between artists, machines and musical concepts. I never know which direction a recording is heading when I begin the process with new artists. I have a fundamental idea, and I have produced enough records to state that I am more than capable of fulfilling the functions of record-making. However, the essential nuts and bolts of the recording process are not as interesting to me as the emotionally driven and messy decision-making that occurs in the recording environment. The fascinating aspects of record production arise from the unexpected, the inventive ideas and the social negotiation of new meaning that occurs in the studio. Because of this, I frame the recording studio as a creative environment in which a range of stimuli informs decision-making. These influences include aesthetic choices, marketplace pressures, personalities and musical traditions. All of these factors assemble to create a social flow that connects in new ways, through unique combinations of personality and tacit knowledge. In my practice, these influences present the potential for a new twist or surprise. Sawyer and DeZutter (2009) refer to this social phenomenon as ‘distributed creativity’, stating that ‘significant creations are almost always the result of complex collaborations’ (p. 81). In my recording experience, these complex creations are often improved through complex collaborative work between the producer and artists.
1.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH
The purpose of this thesis was to investigate how experienced producers and different musical groups use sensemaking to complete work in the recording studio. In its most simplistic form, sensemaking is a theory about groups making decisions in complex contexts and acting on those decisions with agility (Weick, 1995). My aim in this research was to build models of different sensemaking processes, and to demystify how decision-making occurs by participating in a variety of creative collaborations as a producer. Transplanting organisational theory into a record making setting offers a new lens with which to view the art of record production. This lens benefits both the record making community and the organisational community. Despite its benefit to two disciplines, my initial intent was to use sensemaking for the benefit of the record making community. The burgeoning scholarship on record production offers three dominant theoretical perspectives on the art of record production. The first centres on the affordances of analogue and digital technologies and adopts an actor network theory (ANT) lens to record production (Latour, 2005; Bates, 2012; Theberge, 2017). The second is a musicological approach to song analysis. The third is the systems model of creativity research that provides insight into the broader, more macro-interactive nature of creativity, and the larger system within which it exists (Csikszentmilahyi & Sawyer, 1988; McIntyre, 2008, 2011, 2012; Thompson, 2019). My research into organisational communication and the art of record production is an underexplored area of research in this community and offers a socially driven problem-solving lens to view the social organisational concepts surrounding the producer using Weikien (1995) models of sensemaking.
Sensemaking also has pedagogical implications, offering a new method for teaching young artists and producers how to understand the socially negotiated and process-driven thought that occurs in record-making settings. Sensemaking offers the potential for people to ‘actively shape each other's meanings and sensemaking processes’ (Weick, 1995, p. 41). The models that I have assembled from this research offer insight into sensemaking situations that experienced producers encounter in a
16 variety of recording approaches. An understanding of the social problem-solving nature of sensemaking allows young producers to solve issues in the studio and presents tools for collectively working through new ideas. As the studio evolves, the nature of collaboration becomes more decentralised, and sensemaking becomes a tool that allows groups to keep ‘getting things done’ in both traditional and non- traditional recording scenarios. This research examined the recording environment in several socially constructed settings that were aimed at pushing the boundaries of what we consider a recording studio to be. The changing frontier of recording environments presents complexities that can be demystified by bringing sensemaking into these new spaces of collaborative music-making. As such, the value of this research is three-fold:
1. This research offers a new organisational lens for the scholarly study of record production.
2. This research offers scenarios and models that assist new students of record production to better understand the changing nature of the profession.
3. This research presents the recording environment as a new setting for the study of sensemaking in the field of organisational communication.
1.2 RESEARCH CONTEXT
This thesis is an interdisciplinary investigation that brings together sensemaking theories situated in organisational communication scholarship (Battleson & Ramesh, 2013; Maitlis, 2005; Rutledge, 2009; Allen, 2011; Weick, 1993, 1995, 1998) with theories from the record production scholarly community (Carvalho, 2012; Howlett, 2009; Lefford, 2015; McIntyre, 2008, 2011; 2015; Thompson, 2019; Watson & Ward, 2013). I begin by offering an introduction to the concept of the producer as a communicator, drawing on literature from the field of record production scholarship. In doing so, I place the record producer as the nexus communicator situated in the domain of recording practice (Howlett, 2009). Having situated the producer, I offer an overview of the relevance of sensemaking as an applicable tool in the recording studio. I conclude the framing of this research by positioning the recording studio as the research laboratory. However, the definition of a recording studio as a traditional space is evolving to a mix of DIY and large- format recording locations (Goold, 2018). To address this changing view of the
recording space I adopt a Weikien (1995) constructionist lens and depict the recording studio as a socially constructed environment in which the organisational process of sensemaking occurs between record producers and artists.
In the field of record production, several texts serve to define the roles of the producer (Frith, Zagorski-Thomas, 2015, Howlett, 2009; Hepworth-Sawyer & Golding, 2010; Martin, 2014). Some noteworthy highlights relate to a constructionist approach to record-making. For example, Lefford (2015) presents a unique examination of record-making boundary objects, situating music production as ‘a coordinated collaboration among specialised experts, creating heterogeneous work products while sharing resources’ (para 60). McIntyre presents a more constructed systems view of the record production field situating the producer using Csikszentmihalyi’s systems model of creativity (Csikszentmilahyi & Sawyer, 1988; McIntyre, 2008, 2011, 2012; Thompson, 2019). McIntyre's constructionist view of music production and creativity situates actors within Csikszentmilahyi’s tripartite model of the ‘field, the domain and the individual’ (McIntyre, 2011, p. 81). This holistic view of creativity and the recording environment presents the recording studio as an interactive relationship between the three elements. My thesis is concerned with ‘how’ that negotiation occurs between social groups intent on creating music. It uses Weick’s (1995) constructionist organisational theory to assist in the understanding of how social negotiation occurs within a creative domain of record production.
1.2.1 The Record Producer as a Communicator Communication is a fundamental necessity in the recording studio when there is more than one participant involved. The record producer operates at the centre of this negotiation, and the primary purpose of the profession is not just ‘coming up with good ideas, but sustaining the cooperation of others to synthesise and implement them’ (Lingo & Mahoney, p. 48). To combine the network of elements in a recording session, a producer is constantly engaged in the process of creative and logistical negotiation. From the moment the mixing console is switched on, and the computer—or tape machine—is turned on, the producer is planning how to utilise the resources of the recording studio to adapt to the musical and emotional needs of a group of musicians. If the producer is working in concert with an engineer, then this collaboration enables a negotiation which facilitates a variety of elements. These
18 include understanding how the physical space operates, what tools are available and how they can best be used. Howlett (2009) describes this function of the record producer as that of a nexus negotiator, stating that ‘the record producer acts as a means of connection between the artist, the technology and the commercial interest’ (p. 1). This definition goes a long way towards defining the record producer as an actor embedded within a socially negotiated role in the recording environment. However, there is a deeper social element to observe as well, and the producer can function as the actor responsible for guiding the creative elements of the recording, as well as taking responsibility for the social interaction of the group during the recording process. Martin (2014) describes this as a ‘process of mediated decisions, often in a collective setting, leading towards a finished product’ (p. 39). As part of this social mediation that occurs during record production, Hepworth-Sawyer & Golding (2010) remind us that producers must also ‘be fantastic communicators who have depth and consideration for their artists’ views’ (p. 59). There are several texts that already contribute to the discourse on the definition the producer as a ‘nexus’ (Howlett, 2009), the functions of record producers (Hepworth-Sawyer & Golding, 2010), and the phenomenology surrounding the role of producer (Martin, 2014). To build on these established definitions, this thesis takes an organisational perspective and establishes the producer role as a social communicator. In doing so, I adopt Howlett’s (2009) view, which places the producer as a central ‘nexus’ and helps to position the producer as a facilitator of sensemaking.
1.2.2 The Relevance of Sensemaking To understand the communicational phenomena that occurs between groups of people in the recording studio, I turn to the theoretical framework of sensemaking offered by Weick (1995), and adopt the Peircian maxim that ‘knowledge is arrived at through collective inquiry’ (Bacon, 2012, p. 43). The best working definition of sensemaking comes from Weick, Sutcliffe and Obstfeld (2005), who state:
Sensemaking involves the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing. Viewed as a significant process of organizing, sensemaking unfolds as a sequence in which people concerned with identity in the social context of other actors engage ongoing circumstances from which they extract cues and make plausible sense
retrospectively, while enacting more or less order into those ongoing circumstances (p. 409).
Using the definition proposed by Weick et al. (2005), sensemaking can be thought of as a process of organising that engages primarily with social collaboration. Sensemaking is a sequence of events can be observed and applied in recording scenarios to decode and act on complex issues that have the potential to halt the process of recording. Sensemaking occurs in group settings when difficult problems arise and cause groups to halt the flow of events so that they can better understand and act on those problems. Issues that remove groups from the flow of events can be described as obstacles, and they need to be removed collectively through the sensemaking sequence. Obstacles can be both positive and negative. Examples in the recording studio could be musical arrangement problems such as melodic, harmonic or textural clashes, the social generation of new ideas, or the addressing of production approaches that are impeding the development of a recording. Sensemaking is by obstacles which cause the group to step out of the flow of events to socially map and understand the nature of the obstacle. Through social discussion, groups can analyse and map their combined understanding of obstacles in order to produce plausible solutions. Once the obstacle is mapped, the group can observe the problem with more clarity and generate plausible solutions that can remove the obstacle and resume the flow of events. In larger corporate organiusations, sensemaking occurs between multiple stakeholders in boardrooms during meetings. This thesis proposes that sensemaking occurs in the collaborative social environment of the recording studio in a similar manner to previous sensemaking research which focusses on more corporate settings.
The focus on social collaboration and sensemaking reframes the recording studio as an environment in which social groups decode complex musical and logistical decisions. The studio environment becomes the location for producers to operate as a nexus between artists, business interests and technology (Howlett, 2009, p. 1), and it presents the perfect laboratory to observe sensemaking in action across an array of recording-related activities. Recording music is a social negotiation of ideas and sensemaking theory is uniquely suited to the study of the recording environment because sensemaking is concerned explicitly with understanding complicated concepts through group communication. The recording studio functions
20 as a complicated system of creative, logistical and social negotiations and sensemaking is both a practical tool used by actors within this setting, at the same time that it provides a theoretical framework for better understanding how creative outcomes are enacted in this setting. Sensemaking is particularly relevant to the recording studio because it differentiates itself with other cognitive phenomena of representation, perception and cognition. Sensemaking is primarily a process with which ‘people actively shape each other's meanings and sensemaking processes’ (Weick, 1995, p. 41). This active shaping of meaning means that sensemaking concerns itself with the social creation of something that did not previously exist. Such a drive towards creation is what turns sensemaking from a simple reactive decoding mechanism into an active method of meaning-making. This meaning- making is particularly applicable in the recording setting. In the studio, social groups solve complex problems as well as dynamically creating new ideas.
The creation of social ideas within the recording studio is an under-investigated subject in sensemaking research, which usually focuses on large and complex organisational change. Previous sensemaking research documents the phenomenon of sensemaking during meetings, in which groups of participants decode complex issues or negotiate and rationalise large-scale structural change in organisations (Allen, 2011; Kamal, 2013; Maltis & Lawrence, 2007). Using a sensemaking lens to examine the recording studio offers insight into a new setting that has a primarily emotional element to its productive aims. As such, I specifically focused on artists and producers that privilege creative aspirations over commercially driven results. This preference for creative outcomes was a deliberate choice to maximise the focus into a specific form of output. As a result, the examination of both creatively focused producers and artists allowed me to study sensemaking in a less dictatorial and purpose-driven setting of record-making. Such a targeted focus allowed me to present sensemaking as a tool that assists in small group creatively driven projects. Commercial record-making such as high-level pop music-making and advertising music-making offer excellent subjects for broadening the research in the future. However, my initial interest was for research settings that presented more potential for ambiguity in creative outcomes.
1.2.3 The Studio as a Socially Constructed Environment Understanding the recording space as a social construction is a central aspect in this investigation; I situate each article within a different recording paradigm to thoroughly investigate the communicational phenomena of sensemaking. The papers examine recordings conducted in ad hoc environments, traditional recording studios and transnational networks of virtual studios. As such, it is necessary to recognise that the recording space is not a monolithic and unchanging environment. The recording studio is a historically informed and continually changing arena that is frequently impacted by technological shifts and new paradigms in recording practice (Frith & Zagorski-Thomas, 2015; Kirby, 2015; Martin, 2014). Changes in the arrangement of recording equipment, the reduction of budgets and the rise of DIY approach all serve to adjust the composition and practice of record production (Goold, 2018). As the production paradigm continues to move away from the traditional ‘Abbey Road’ view of what a recording space is, recording space becomes more conceptual. Carvalho (2012) argues that modern home recording settings interact with sovereign opinions of recording practice while at the same time, they disrupt traditional methods and assert new paradigmatic approaches that challenge the very traditions that home recording venerates. The result is that ‘the very idea of who can claim the role of musicians, producers or engineers in contemporary culture is challenged’ (Carvalho, 2012, para 10). This research takes the view that a recording can occur in multiple settings that are both traditional and non-traditional. An adaptable view of the recording environment serves to enrich the ways that sensemaking occurs during the recording process. As the studio space becomes less of a concrete building and more of a socially negotiated construction it creates a variety of scenarios for sensemaking to occur.
1.3 PRODUCER AND EDUCATOR
I work for Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and Brisbane Boys’ College (BBC) as an educator in songwriting and recording practice, and I also work as a freelance record producer. As a result of these vocations, I am frequently recording a wide variety of musical acts. Because of this diversity, I can be recording a professional band with ten years of experience, or I can be working with young children just learning how to deliberate their newfound ideas. One of the privileges
22 of my position is observing the development of students at several different stages of their learning. As each musical group grows, I notice that they learn to communicate with each other to create a common goal, in this learning setting their sensemaking develops and becomes more refined over time. I have observed that bands need my help early in their development to finish ideas and complete songs. However, as communication strategies improve, the band becomes more adept at finishing work, and my role diminishes from teacher to collaborator.
1.3.1 Positioning Myself in the Research My interest in communication in the recording environment derives from my abovementioned work as an educator and a professional producer. I conduct recording practice from three distinct perspectives, and each of these viewpoints informs my interest in collaboration and communication. First, I am a self-produced artist that has been writing and recording songs with bands for over 20 years (Pratt, Riddle, Irwin, Wedmaier, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2017). I have professionally composed, recorded and released over 80 collaborative songs through multiple record labels. However, I have never published any solo work; instead I prefer to write and record with other artists. Second, I am a professional producer, interested in recording and writing with groups of musicians such as bands and art collectives. I have gravitated towards a more cooperative approach that assembles the talent of groups, and I am interested in observing how different opinions and methods influence the final recording (Morrow, 2012; Sawyer, 2007; Watson & Ward, 2013). Third, I am an educator who operates a rock music program for high school students at BBC. The program focuses on secondary school students developing skills in writing original music and then talking through the arrangement of songs and recording the outcomes in the studio. One of the educational benefits of this program is that a group of young musicians are learning to negotiate new music into existence through an active discovery process. While overseeing this educational program, I observed that—after a certain level of proficiency—there is no correct or incorrect answer to recording questions such as “how do you write and record a song?” or, “which part should be featured in this recording?” As I assist students in completing recordings, I note that each group eventually arrives at a pragmatic agreement on the parts that need to occur in a recording. In this setting, I find it fascinating to observe young students arriving at a
consensus through negotiation, despite there being no clear pathway or obvious answer. Such a fascination in the social negotiation of songwriting has directed me to spend three years researching how these social sensemaking processes influence creation in the recording studio.
1.3.2 The Story of the Participants In this research, I used my professional background in education and record production to assemble several participants that represent different levels of experience. For example, the band Sacred Shrines are experienced musicians that have more than 15 years of involvement in performing and recording, while the band Baskervillain possesses an intermediate level of production experience with around five years of performing and limited recording productions. I have worked with these two bands before, and I understand their approaches well. I have spent several years recording Sacred Shrines and already have a good insight into their methods and approach. Baskervillain is a newer group with less experience. However, this band is populated with three ex-students that I taught at BBC. Because of this prior contact, I have a mentor-type relationship with them, and I have a reasonable degree of insight into their creative motivations. However, there is an established power imbalance due to my teacher-student relationship that does affect the research. To account for the personal relationships with the previous artists, I recorded two bands that I have no preceding relationship with—OJ Mengel and Soda Jerks. Both of these bands allowed me to work with an unfamiliar group of musicians to compare with my initial two groups. I recruited the two new bands through my professional and university networks. As a working producer and a participant observer, it is crucial to interrogate both established and new musical partnerships to reflect standard recording practice. Because producers in the field frequently work with both new and established relationships, I sought out that mix of relationships to strategically balance the musical participants to real life scenarios.
As well as recording students and adults in Australia, I travelled to Chennai India to work as a part of the India 100 project with QUT (Brisbane) and KM College (Chennai). This new perspective afforded the ability to observe two distinct cohorts of musicians with two different approaches to record-making the recording and music-making process. There were significant differences between the musical cohorts from Brisbane Australia and Chennai India, these differences are discussed
24 in Chapters 7 and 9. There was a significant logistical difference in the approach to the recording process of both India and Australia. These logistical and musical considerations are explored in Chapters 7 and 9. In Australia, I spent 14 days with bands observing their creative negotiations in purpose-built studio environments, giving me the chance to gather rich data from the conversations around creative writing and recording. In India, I operated on an accelerated recording timeline, having four hours to work with each musical act. There was also a distinct difference between musical styles; in India, I recorded six bands with a variety of musical approaches in an accelerated recording project. In Australia, I worked with four bands that have similar styles of guitar-driven rock music. The most conspicuous difference between the cohorts was the facilities. In Australia, I had access to QUT and a private facility at BBC. Both studios were well-equipped spaces, specifically built to record guitar-driven music. In India, I converted a large and noisy auditorium into an ad hoc recording facility using mobile recording technology. In Chennai I was also frequently interrupted with the constant human traffic entering the recording space, which meant that the creative process was far less contained in India than it was in Australia.
Although my sensemaking research is primarily an investigation of creative negotiation and processes, it is impossible to divorce my educational and cultural background from my experience as a record producer. However, there was a vast variety of recording participants in the research that allowed for diversification of subjects, from artists I have known for years, to new interactions with new musical groups and cultures. These differences in experience allowed me to interact with a broader variety of recording projects than I would have accomplished using only my ex-students and existing clients.
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The contextual backdrop of the fluctuating recording environment and the diverse approaches to song recording present a broad view of kinds of creative practices that occur in the recording studio. This research explored a wide variety of recording practices through the lens of the producer, including the writing, recording, planning and technical aspects of record-making. To thoroughly study sensemaking in the studio, I transplanted the recording projects into a variety of settings. These
settings included ad hoc recording spaces, traditional recording environments and transnational, networked recording studios that were conceptual rather than physical spaces. When researching such varied contexts, some themes resonated through all aspects of the investigation. For example, the topic of negotiated decision-making and pragmatic solutions remained a constant theme throughout all of the settings and associated research papers. Each project or setting approached decision-making from a different perspective; but regardless of the setting, creative decisions still had to be made and negotiated. As such, this study investigated how social decisions are made in a variety of recording studio settings, constructing an analytical sensemaking model influenced by Rutledge’s (2009) four stages of sensemaking. As well as presenting models of sensemaking in action, my research contextualises sensemaking practice and identifies how record producers work to construct an environment that encourages the social trust that in turn enables sensemaking to occur. In the five papers that form the body of this thesis, I answer five interrelated questions that range from technical through to social forms of complex decision-making:
1. How can producers use sensemaking to develop a deeper understanding of microphone phase relationships using visual analysis tools?
2. How do record producers tacitly construct environments that facilitate trust and effective sensemaking practice?
3. How do musicians and producers make sense of decisions in the recording studio and what role does the relationship between plausibility and action play in decision-making?
4. How does sensemaking assist in networking transnational studio environments together to create forms of non-synchronic flow in music recording?
5. How can a transnational sensemaking team construct a recording space in an unfamiliar environment that facilitates and encourages a musical exchange of ideas between Australia and India?
I further develop the methodologies of these research questions in Chapter 4. In the following section, I discuss each paper in more detail, outlining how they represent a coherent body of research into sensemaking practice in recording settings.
26 1.5 OVERVIEW OF PAPERS
The purpose of this thesis is to evaluate how producers and artists communicate and collaborate to create music in the recording environment. Record production is already a diverse practice, and it makes sense to examine the record- making process in different contexts so that it can be observed and understood from several perspectives. Each of these articles follows a thematic thread that aims to make sense of record-making from the standpoint of communication and logistics. Using these discrete but connected investigative projects or papers has presented the opportunity to deconstruct different approaches to recording practice and examine them in depth. The following overview explains how these papers are positioned within particular scholarly fields and journals, and to how they connect as a series of interrelated chapters.
1.5.1 Journal for the Art of Record Production I approached PhD by publication to foster my engagement with a community of scholars focused on the record production scholarly field. Although there are other related scholarly communities such as the International Association for the Study of Popular Music (IASPM) and The Audio Engineering Society (AES) that often examine the field of record production, I found that my research fitted best into the Journal for the Art of Record Production (JARP). JARP fosters a discourse between academia and industry that are specific to my research goals in record production. As a result, the community at JARP offers a variety of theoretical approaches combined with the lived practical understanding in the field to expand my research boundaries. During my candidature, I presented six different papers in three Art of Record Production (ARP) conferences (Aalborg, Denmark 2016; Stockholm Sweden, 2017; Huddersfield England, 2018). I specifically used these opportunities to test and then publish my research. The ARP conference combines a mix of high-level audio professionals with scholarly record production theorists. I engaged with this conference and scholarly community because my initial literature and contextual reviews led me to the significant contributions by members of this community, and I aimed to draw on their experience and contribute to this field. My conference trips were an opportunity to engage with the ARP community on a professional level, and moreover, to receive critical feedback, leading towards two publications in the 2018 JARP that are presented in this thesis.
1.5.2 Overview of Paper 1: Life In Between Phase: Understanding and Manipulating Microphone Relationships with Visualisation Tools
Pratt, D., & Bourbon, A. (2019). Life in Between Phase: Understanding and Manipulating Microphone Relationships with Visual Tools. In Art of Record Production 2017 (pp. 225–247). Stockholm: Royal College of Music.
One of the difficulties of conducting my early fieldwork in controlled recording studio environments was that the results kept repeating themselves. The lack of variation in the forms of social negotiation in the studio meant that five different recording sessions contributed to a relatively unified set of observations about the role of sensemaking in the recording studio. To challenge my understanding of the sensemaking process, I decided to start experimenting in different environments that were less suitable for recording. These environments presented several recording issues relating to fidelity, especially concerning drum recordings in which large numbers of microphones capture sound at the same time. In this case, the relationships of the microphones introduced the potential for phase issues that adversely impacted the fidelity of the recordings between the microphones.
To combat issues arising from adverse phase relationships in unfamiliar spaces, I developed a new technique for measuring microphone relationships and applied this technique to all the recordings. The resulting paper is an exploration of the benefits of using visual tools to assist in microphone placement for multi-microphone drum setups. This paper is a technical sensemaking investigation with technical benefits for the recording of drums that have underpinned three of the other papers included in this thesis. This technique is particularly relevant because one of the articles is concerned with recording practice in an unsuitable recording environment. Although Dr Andrew Bourbon and I presented this paper at the 2018 ARP conference in Stockholm as a teaching and learning paper, it is a sensemaking investigation that utilises a new visual measurement system to make sense of the complicated phenomenon of drum microphone interaction. Without this paper, I would not have been able to produce a high enough standard of recording in my paper on facilitating recording in India. Although this was less necessary in purpose-built recording spaces, I applied the same technique for all drum recording to quickly establish improved drum recordings without the need for an extra engineer.
28 This paper was accepted for the 2018 issue of JARP. It contains a foreword explaining how this technical sensemaking process occurred. The paper goes into detail investigating the research problem and applying an educational lens to the recording technique. This paper serves as a modernisation of traditional approaches to drum recording and works as a pedagogical tool for audio educators.
1.5.3 Overview of Paper 2: The Record Producer as a Sensemaking Facilitator: Conditional Properties for Music-Making The second paper in this sequence places the producer in the recording environment and establishes the producer as a sensemaking facilitator. This paper consists of five interviews with record producers investigating how the record producer operates as a sensemaker. The producer interviews lay a foundation of data that exists alongside other complementary data that I produced through participant observation. I conducted the interviews with producers early in the research, which in turn enabled me to refine my critical perspective on sensemaking before I began conducting participant observation in the studio.
This paper afforded me insight into how record producers facilitate a sensemaking environment during a recording session. The analysis in this paper focused on three specific sensemaking properties of social, ongoing, and sensible environment (Weick, 1995). Data from these interviews allowed me to understand that better facilitation of recording conditions allows for improved sensemaking processes and creative outcomes. Data in this paper has also offered insights into spatial or environmental aspects of sensemaking that reveal recording studios as interesting situations for sensemaking research.
The data drawn from these interviews also allowed me to develop theoretical perspectives about record production that were formed in concert with the concerns and perspectives of industry professionals. This, in turn, augmented my tacit understanding of the role or positioning of the record producer. By conducting these interviews with other reputable producers, I was able to minimise personal biases and set a clear and critical path for the following three investigations.
1.5.4 Overview of Paper 3: Extended Cognitive Looping: Musical Sensemaking in the Recording Environment Paper three took the initial sensemaking models from the literature review and generated a new model adapted to suit the recording process. In the creative practice
that informed this article, I recorded four bands over 12 days and participated as a producer. I adopt the position that sensemaking is a discursive phenomenon (Allen, 2011), in which ideas are spoken into existence (Weick, 1995). To observe this phenomenon, I recorded, transcribed and analysed every conversation that occurred over the 12 days of recording. This analysis led to the development of a new sensemaking model adapted for the studio. This new model was a development on Rutledge's (2009) four stages of sensemaking. The significant discovery in this paper was the cognitive looping between plausible actions and retrospective analysis. There was also an interesting application of James (1907) pragmatic ‘cash-value’ proposition that manifested when the recording group reached a consensus on any sensemaking process. These developments allowed me to recontextualise sensemaking models and adapt them to creative group work ideation.
1.5.5 Overview of Paper 4: Transnational Flow in Cloud-based Music Production: Organisational Communication and Collaboration Between Australia and America
Pratt, D., Hoose, S., & Gordon, W. (2019). Transnational Flow in Cloud-based Music Production: Organisational Communication and Collabotration Between Australia and America. In Art of Record Production 2017. Stockholm: Royal College of Music.
At the beginning of my research, I intended to complete the majority of my creative practice and data collection in the large-format recording studios at QUT. I intended to use this data to develop models of sensemaking as an observable phenomenon in a controlled environment. However, after conducting 12 days of recording, I noticed that my way of working in this controlled environment offered a very consistent or even repetitive model of sensemaking. As a result, I decided to change the way that I approached data collection by situating my recording experiments in less traditional settings or paradigms of record production. In article four, I led a collaborative paper with Wellington Gordon from Virginia State University and Dr Shane Hoose from Eastern Kentucky University. This collaboration connected our recording facilities so that we could write and record a song online as three participant observers. We kept a session file on Dropbox, and each member added to the recording from our personal recording facilities in Australia and the USA. This paper provided a complex network of creative studios, non-sequential flow states and analytical meetings. Such an abundance of rich data was ideal for the study of sensemaking in a contrasting environment.
30 1.5.6 Overview of Paper 5: Sensemaking in Unfamiliar Environments: Designing a Mobile Recording Facility in Between Chennai, India and Brisbane, Australia In the final paper, I observed sensemaking in its most challenging setting. In November 2017, I travelled to Chennai India with QUT colleague, Dr Kristina Kellman, to work as a producer in the India 100 project. India 100 is a collaborative project between QUT and KM Conservatory (KMC), and my role in this project was to manage the production team and participate in the recording of six different artists in India. As well as this, Kellman and I produced a collaborative song that featured a selection of artists from the India 100 project. The recording was conducted on a restricted timeline, and I had three days to record seven songs with complex arrangements in an unfamiliar cultural environment. The complexities of this project were intensified because we were not recording in a commercial studio; instead, we set up an ad hoc recording facility using mobile recording interfaces. This research paper frames the production team as facilitators of sensemaking and investigates how the team converted an unsuitable space into a recording facility. The paper examines how the production team made sense of the recording space to maximise the creative conversation across cultures and between KMC and QUT. Additionally, my research on this project observes how the team respond to issues that occurred in an ad hoc space, offering a new sensemaking model that reflects the situational pressure that was unique to the India 100 project.
1.6 SEQUENCING
There is a specific sequencing to these papers that became a feature of my research journey. Each paper offered developments in my thinking and the chapter flow presented in this thesis explains how each paper feeds into the next. Figure 1.1 is a graphical display of the sequence of papers.
Figure 1.1 Sequencing of papers
The green sections represent papers that laid the groundwork for the applied sensemaking papers. The red sections are the sensemaking papers that present sensemaking in its active stages. Each of these papers presents models that are unique to specific sensemaking environments. The blue boxes detail the development of and connectivity between each paper.
1.6.1 Papers Presented at Conferences
Pratt, D., & Carfoot, G. (2016). Make it Yourself: New Models in the Production and Consumption of Audio Recording Equipment. In 11th Art of Record Production Conference. Alborg: Alborg University.
Pratt, D., Hoose, S., & Gordon, W. (2017). Transnational Flow in Cloud-based Music Production: Organisational Communication and Collabotration Between Australia and America. In Mono: Stereo: Multi. Stockholm: Royal College of Music.
Pratt, D., & Bourbon, A. (2017). Life in Between Phase: Understanding and Manipulating Microphone Relastionships with Visual Tools. In Mono: Stereo: Multi. Stockholm: Royal College of Music.
Pratt, D., DeMan, B., & Reiss, J. D. (2017). Developing Mix Evaluation Skills in Higher Education: A Technology-aided Approach to Self-directed Learning. In Mono: Stereo: Multi. Stockholm: Royal College of Music.
Pratt, D., Hoose, S., & Gordon, W. (2018). Further Exploration of Transnational Flow in Cloud-based Music Production: A Constant 24 hour Workflow. In Crosstown Traffic: Popular Music Theory and Practice. Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield.
32 Pratt, D., & Bourbon, A. (2018). Life In Between Phase Part 2: Reflexive Microphone Manipulation. In Crosstown Traffic: Popular Music Theory and Practice. Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield.
Pratt, D., Hoose, S., & Gordon, W. (2019). Transnational Flow: Experiments in Long Distance Non- Synchronous Networked Collaboration. In In C: Creation, Connectivity, Collaboration, and Controllers. Boston: Berklee College of Music.
1.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This research aimed to present insight into the sensemaking processes of musical groups in the recording studio. The preceeding chapter has introduced and contextualised the research problem, situating the record producer and the recording environment within the broad field of research. It has also negotiated the transdisciplinary nature of the study and presented how this research falls between the two distinct disciplines of organisational communication and record production. Despite the transdisciplinary nature of the project, I have intended to present this research to two specific audiences. The first objective was presenting to my research community at scholarly record production conferences and offer a new lens with which to view record production. The second objective of this research was to highlight the importance of sensemaking in the studio and offer modelling tools to assist early career and student record producers. A well-researched sensemaking perspective affords three primary advantages for new producers. The first is a process for the willing of new ideas into existence. Second, is a method for decoding complexity and managing creative consensus. Third, is a tool for recognising creative or logistical complexities and acting to move the group past confusion and back into the creative flow of writing and recording music. This chapter has offered a cursory overview of sensemaking and its relevance to record production research. Finally, it positions the researcher as a learning-focused recording collaborator interested in the communicational aspects of recording practice. The following chapter begins the complex task of defining what a producer is in the twenty-first century, and how this research focuses on a specific, specialised form of record production.
Chapter 2: Sensemaking
In this chapter, I outline the concept of sensemaking as an organisational strategy first proposed by Weick (1995). To better understand how sensemaking applies to the recording setting, I offer a brief review of sensemaking in its original organisational setting while highlighting some key sensemaking research to frame sensemaking in its organisational and pragmatic roots. I discuss the social nature of decision-making and frame the recording environment as one of collective sensemaking. To better contextualise sensemaking in the recording process, I examine definitions of small organisational entities as defined by Weick (1993) and briefly look at other research contexts that sensemaking research has already covered. I then investigate Weick’s (1995) seven properties of sensemaking and compare them to the literature on the recording environment. From this point, I examine the observable process of sensemaking and create models based on Rutledge’s (2009) four stages of sensemaking. I illustrate my arguments through three case studies that highlight the ways in which experienced producers function as implicit sensemakers. The three examples offer a practical evaluation of sensemaking and allow me to form the base model for future chapters. I argue that both macro and micro level sensemaking can offer insights into the recording environment in a variety of musical, social, technical and logistical settings.
2.1 SENSEMAKING IN ORGANISATIONAL COMMUNICATION
Sensemaking is a pragmatic and constructionist theory that has been developed to benefit the group decision-making process of organisations. In its most straightforward interpretation, sensemaking occurs between groups of people who are attempting to understand and communicate complicated cognitive schema, to make decisions and take actions. Kazanjian (2015) refers to this organisation of schema as a form of ‘cognitive mapping’ that is crucial to the sensemaking sequence (p. 303). Through the process of sensemaking, stakeholders negotiate plausible ideas to construct ‘meaning-making’ actively and use that constructed meaning to drive decisions (Brown et al., 2014, p. 36). Because sensemaking is concerned with meaning and understanding, it is the process we go through to both generate actions
34 and evaluate those actions. This positioning of sensemaking both before and after decision-making means that sensemaking occurs as a social process that both drives and evaluates decisions (Battleson & Ramesh, 2013, p.22). Sensemaking manifests in various social settings (such as office meetings) as means of dealing with ‘uncertainty and ambiguity by creating rational accounts of the world that enable action’ (Maitlis, 2005, p.21). Such a framing depicts sensemaking as a critical social activity performed by organisations to generate meaning from confusion (Weick, 1995, p.6). The process of sensemaking often occurs during surprising or confusing moments that drive organisations to use retrospective analysis and rationalise what has occurred (Rutledge, 2009, p. 19). As such, sensemaking is the process by which a social group attempts to understand change and generate new plausible possibilities for future actions.
One of the strengths of sensemaking is its dual nature as both a theoretical framework and a practical tool for decoding complex decisions. This dual nature allows for a flexible application of sensemaking in different settings. Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld (2005) contend that sensemaking is particularly adaptable to atypical situations, making it well suited to contexts where organisations are undergoing structural change or suffering from external disruption (Carter & Colville, 2013, p. 12). At the same time, sensemaking is a theory that can be applied when complex problems have the potential to become overwhelming and halt the flow of activity in organisations (Rutledge, 2009). Weick (1995) situates this practical understanding of sensemaking within a larger philosophical context, building a larger picture of the organisational philosophy of sensemaking and its constructionist roots; he examines the properties of sensemaking to create an organisational framework. Rutledge (2009) provides insight into sensemaking as a tool for working with complexity in organisational scenarios that could be transplanted to musical scenarios. However, before applying sensemaking to new musical and recording studio examples, it is necessary to understand how sensemaking has been applied in the current literature.
2.1.1 Sensemaking, Change and Sensegiving Sensemaking concepts are often drawn upon or enacted during periods of organisational change, manifesting when stakeholders attempt to identify and clarify schema surrounding complexities that are associated with significant structural
transformation (Allen, 2011; Brown et al., 2014; Carter & Colville, 2013; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Weick, 1995). Sensemaking manifests when ‘organisations attempt to change current modes of cognition and action to enable the organization to take advantage of important opportunities or to cope with consequential environmental threats’ (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991, p. 433). Carter and Colville (2003) present examples of sensemaking during organisational change through a comparative study of how environmental shifts impacted upon both a record label and a government civil service department. They examine a specific music company whose business model has been disrupted by piracy, and the ways that the company attempted to tighten loose organisational boundaries in order to deal with the negative impacts of digital disruption on record sales (p. 12). They compare this to a civil service department that is experiencing a legislative change, requiring it to break away from its restrictive hierarchical forms of organisation (p. 11). Despite the differences in organisational structure, both organisations are encountering disruptions that affect the flow of activity. To better understand how these organisations negotiate change, Carter and Colville turn to sensemaking as a form of organisational learning. Specifically, they use Weick’s (1995) interactive duality of sensemaking properties retrospect and plausibility. Weick (1993) explains this duality as ‘ongoing accomplishment that emerges from efforts to create order and make retrospective sense of what occurs’ (p. 635). In Weick’s presentation of plausibility and retrospect, the two concepts of ‘generating accomplishment’ and ‘making sense of occurrences’ are articulated together. In the Carter and Colville (2003) example, the organisations demonstrate sensemaking by socially negotiating the tension between the ‘further engagement and rigorous questioning of past beliefs’ (Carter & Colville, 2003, p. 14). Such a form of social negotiation demonstrates ongoing sensemaking between retrospective evaluation from past events and plausible constructs for future possibilities to guide the organisation through externally imposed changes. Carter and Colville (2003) argue that sensemaking as a form of organisational learning is an area that needs more investigation because it offers a new lens to guide organisations through significant environmental change (p. 17). Their work (2003) mainly deals with sensemaking in practice, although it also touches on the role of organisational leaders as sensegivers rather than sensemakers, using theories developed by Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991). To better understand how
36 sensemaking and sensegiving are interrelated, it is necessary to review the definitions of sensegiving in organisational communication literature.
2.1.2 Sensegivers Sensegivers are a form of sensemaker that ‘attempt to shape the conceptual conversation by influencing the premises on which the conversation is predicated’ (Corley & Gioia, 2011, p. 28). In the literature, sensegivers are portrayed as individuals in leadership roles that have previous experience or access to information that influences sensemaking (Allen, 2011; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Maitlis, 2005). Maitlis (2005) presents sensegivers as group members who are actively ‘constructing and promoting understandings and explanations of events’ (p. 35), presenting a more nuanced understanding of the hierarchical social aspects of sensemaking through four forms of organisational sensemaking. These four forms are guided, restricted, fragmented, and minimal sensemaking (p. 32) which demonstrate that sensemaking occurs with varying influence from sensegivers. Maitlis argues that sensemaking is neither ‘a singular, homogeneous process nor a random, heterogeneous set of processes’ (p. 35). In doing so Maitlis argues that any sensemaking activity is a combination of sensemakers and sensegivers. The contravening argument comes from Carter & Colville who state that sensegiving can assert too much influence on decision-making (2003, p. 16), especially through the guided forms of sensemaking that Maitlis describes (Maitlis, 2005). For Carter and Colville, there is a danger that ‘the sensegiving process in itself may limit the sensemaking process’ (Carter & Colville, 2003, p. 16), and the result of this social influence may be that the more sensegiving is asserted, the less sensemaking occurs. Due to this potential conflict between sensemaking and sensegiving, my research concerns itself with more lateral sensemaking structures of organisation in a musical context, rather than taking a hierarchical approach in which sensegiving sets the conditions for or instructs the sensemaking process.
2.1.3 Sensemaking Breakdown Weick (1993) argues that sensemaking is key to removing paralysis from decision-making that may be induced by traditional top-down decision structures employed by organisations (p. 646). He argues that the loss of lives in the Mann Gulch forest fires of 1949 was ‘produced by the interrelated collapse of sensemaking and structure’ (Weick, 1993, p. 634). Under the pressured conditions of the disaster,
a better understanding of sensemaking could have averted the decision paralysis that occurred when learned structural processes failed. Weick maintains that replacing a structure of equitable social decision-making with the exertion of power and hierarchy only serves to reinforce traditional structures and leaves groups unable to make flexible decisions. Weick sums this up in the following paragraph which describes the crew’s reaction to a 10:00 (shorthand for non-threatening) fire:
The crew's stubborn belief that it faced a 10:00 fire is a powerful reminder that positive illusions (Taylor, 1989) can kill people. But the more general point is that organizations can be good at decision-making and still falter. They falter because of deficient sensemaking. The world of decision-making is about strategic rationality. It is built from clear questions and clear answers that attempt to remove ignorance (Daft and MacIntosh, 1981). The world of sensemaking is different. Sensemaking is about contextual rationality. It is built out of vague questions, muddy answers and negotiated agreements that attempt to reduce confusion. People in Mann Gulch did not face questions like where should we go, when do we take a stand, or what should our strategy be? Instead, they faced the more basic, the more frightening feeling that their old labels were no longer working. They were outstripping their past experience and were not sure either what was up or who they were. Until they develop some sense of issues like this, there is there is nothing to decide (Weick, 1993, p. 636).
Weick argues that decision-making in this context needs the flexibility to deal with the unknown and sensemaking offers a pathway to making decisions without the paralysis that is induced by organisationally constricted top-down decision- making (Rutledge, 2009). Weick (1993) suggests that answers are not always a matter of following process; sometimes there is a necessity for ‘vague questions, muddy answers, and negotiated agreements’ (p. 636). He acknowledges that highly structured decision-making can work well until there is an issue that requires plausible possibilities over absolute answers (p.644). In the context of Mann Gulch disaster, Weick (1993) argues that the team suffered from a collapse in both leadership and sensemaking which ultimately led to the loss of lives, summarising this disaster as a ‘collapse in any process of social sensemaking that is tied together by constitutive relations’ (Weick, 1993, p. 647).
38 There are also studies in which sensemaking—or the collapse of sensemaking—becomes influential in human health decisions, with both Rutledge (2009) and Weick et al. (2005) identifying ways that sensemaking occurs in the hospital system. Rutledge (2009) examines the practical use of sensemaking in chronic care, understanding how hospitals adjust care to changes in government policy. Such decisions have social impacts that may determine patient’s quality of life; with this in mind, meetings are established to generate ‘plausible images’ (p. 19) from the complicated systems that allow the hospital to take action on patient care while still observing regulatory guidelines (p. 20). Rutledge argues that such complex negotiations benefit from four stages of practical sensemaking because sensemaking exists explicitly as a tool for the decoding of such complicated health care systems. These four stages are examined in detail later in the chapter. In each of these examples, sensemaking operates as a process and a habit that promotes plausible thinking over exact answers. In hospitals, sensemaking becomes a tool for decoding complex government systems. In the Mann Gulch disaster, sensemaking is used as a critical framework to evaluate rigid organisational structures that collapse during an unforeseen and time-pressured event. In organisational settings sensemaking becomes a method for negotiating change and taking actions to navigate the change. In all of these aspects, sensemaking becomes a tool for mapping and negotiating the unknown and as a method of removing organisational group paralysis.
2.1.4 Sensemaking Applied to Recording Scenarios Existing research has applied sensemaking theory in various settings, such as collaborative meetings in office workplace environments (Battleson & Ramesh, 2013), orchestral management (Maitlis, 2005), nursing (Rutledge, 2009) and disaster management (Weick, 1993). In each of these examples, sensemaking was investigated as a process that can refocus uncertainty to achieve pragmatic and actionable outcomes. A small group in a recording studio regularly encounters interruptions due to complex musical, technical and logistical issues that can impede the creative process in the studio. Sensemaking offers a way to move past these complex issues and negotiate recordings into existence. Weick (1995) discusses the impact of sensemaking on a macro level, and using a broader lens, sensemaking can be used to question larger ‘cosmological’ aspects of social constructionism (Weick,
1993, p. 633). However, sensemaking can also be concerned with micro-processes that are often overlooked, even though they may have a substantial impact on the creative outcomes of collaborative work. Weick, Sutcliffe and Obstfeld (2005) describe these events as ‘a micro-mechanism that produces macro-change over time’ (p. 419). Much sensemaking research does focus on the macro level (Weick, 1996), but research by Maitlis (2005), Battleson and Ramesh (2013), Rutledge (2009) focuses more ‘on the small-scale, local, sometimes individualized processes by which people make sense in ways which, ultimately, are found to have profound consequences’ (Brown et al., 2014, p. 273). These macro- and micro-processes have been observed through sensemaking research focused on organisational meetings, in which participants play an active role in shaping the stories through sensemaking events (Rutledge, 2009). There are several similarities to the meeting space that make the recording studio an interesting setting for sensemaking. Howlett (2009) frames the recording setting as a negotiated setting that brings together stakeholders from different aspects of the music industry with the producer as a nexus negotiator at the centre of the decision-making process. Using a macro and micro view of sensemaking, it is possible to understand a recording session as a similar kind of organisation process, in which a string of micro decision-making events are socially negotiated within the aims or objectives of a macro idea. However, there are clear differences in the recording environment that offer new insight into the sensemaking process. Thompson and Lashua (2014) frame the recording studio as a string of ‘complex interactions between personnel, technology, workplace, aesthetics of musical and production intention’ (p. 72). It is this complexity of interractions in the studio that generates questions of uncertainty, which makes the recording studio a unique location for the manifestation of sensemaking. In this environment we can observe that a series of micro-decisions can narrow the characteristics of larger macro-decisions. These questions manifest in what Weick (1995) refers to as an ‘ongoing temporal coordination’ that occurs in music-making (p. 612). As such, there is an ongoing practice of micro decision-making that occurs in the recording studio that reduces the number of plausible macro-outcomes throughout the process of recording. Thus, micro-sensemaking becomes the driver of macro-outcomes.
Howlett (2007) also explains that record producers and artists are not always comfortable with working together and are often resistant to changing the group
40 dynamic with the addition of a producer. This sentiment is echoed by Morrow (2007) who discusses the resistance that occurred between the band Boy and Bear and their producer Chicarelli. Sensemaking offers a method of negotiation that allows for different perspectives to coexist through striving towards plausible answers rather than assuming that any party holds the correct answer (Weick, 1995). The final motivation to undertake observation of sensemaking in the new space of the recording studio is to find new ways for recording groups to ‘get things done’ in a decisive manner rather than spending too much time in an analytical state (Hall & Gay, 1996 p. 165). The recording studio presents an isolated laboratory undergoing disruptive and definitional change on a macro level, in which micro-processes still exert a dramatic effect on the sound and construction of recorded work. I argue that sensemaking is a potential tool that can be used in the recording studio if we understand the recording process as a series of micro and macro processes where the micro processes have significant influence on the macro processes.
In this thesis, I discuss sensemaking over other common organising processes such as interpretation and sensegiving to illustrate how a more social sensemaking perspective can assist and unify group decision-making rather than utilising more individualistic approaches. The early adoption and practice of sensemaking in a record production setting can improve the creative group flow of recording sessions. Weick (1993) frames this as an inclusive organisational methodology that encourages voices to contribute to the decision-making to form a more sophisticated form of socially negotiated ‘contextual rationality’ (p.634). Once we understand why groups of musicians share knowledge to create music, we can apply a pragmatic framework designed to assist creative groups with the navigation of complex decision-making, in which ‘every purpose of action is to produce some sensible result’ (Peirce, 1878, p. 291). Sensemaking, as developed by Weick (1995), deals specifically with complex problems using a pragmatic and socially negotiated approach. Using such an approach, complex problems are identified when an interruption to the flow of events occurs (Allen, 2011). An interruption occurs when groups are working on a project and come up against an obstacle, they begin the process of dealing with that obstacle by rationalising the obstacle. Sensemaking functions as the ongoing identification of ‘plausible images that rationalize’ the problems that groups incur (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2005, p. 409). Such an
approach that focuses on social, and adaptable decision-making is useful in creative decision-making environments like the recording studio.
Sensemaking theory is also applicable in the recording studio context in the development of a unified vision throughout the process of recording. In this context, a vision is a unified agreement between the stakeholders as to the creative and commercial aims of a record production. Such a vision can be established during an initial meeting before the recording commences. Howlett (2009) explains that these early meetings help to assess the aims of the group, as well as the ‘viability of the project and compatibility of the producer with the artists’ (2009, p.55). Meetings are a common setting for sensemaking because ‘diversity of views triggers sensemaking efforts to overcome the ambiguity about what the task is about’ (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2014, p. 13), although sensemaking also applies to the resolution of complex problems that arise during the recording process itself.
Sensemaking is flexible, and it can be employed individually or as a guiding tool for group decision-making (Brown et al., 2014, p. 271). In the record-making context it can be applied during two points in a recording session: Firstly, to understand the visions of the producer and to unify these aims with the aims of the musical group. Sensemaking allows for this sense of unified vision to be periodically reviewed and updated throughout the recording process (Weick, 1995), enabling a sense that the creative process is proceeding from a democratic approach. Second, sensemaking can be used to develop solutions to issues that arise during recording sessions. Using sensemaking allows for the plausible construction of ideas rather than becoming consumed by the paralyses that occur when ‘structures begin to pull apart, leaving in their wake, senselessness’ (Weick, 1993, p. 650). Sensemaking assists musicians in complex problem-solving by assisting in the social decoding of problems. It does this by mapping out critical words and phrases related to the issue experienced by the group. Once mapped, problems in the studio are better defined which helps musicians to deliver plausible solutions to issues that may arise. This form of mapping is a more process-driven method of dealing with issues, resulting in plausible solutions that can be used to understand and move past problems rather than searching for exact answers (Weick, 1998).
42 2.1.5 Sensemaking Applications In a paper discussing the collapse of sensemaking during the Mann Gulch disaster, Weick describes sensemaking as a tool for developing resilience and for rebuilding a sense of ‘what is happening’ (Weick, 1993, p. 633). This analysis is pertinent to the recording environment because it deals with loosely coupled, ‘minimal organisations’ that Weick explains are vulnerable to confusion and paralysis when presented with the unexpected. I frame the recording group as an example of Weick’s ‘minimal organisation’ because it is a small, loosely coupled organisation chiefly concerned with the complicated process of writing and recording music. Writing and recording songs is a sophisticated and multifaceted process (Pras et al. 2013, p. 612), and because of this sophistication, a small, loosely coupled group is susceptible to the confusion caused by such a process. Rutledge (2009) explicitly frames sensemaking as a guidable tool for managing complexity and moving groups towards productive actions. As such ‘sensemaking is one process by which groups thread their way through complex issues and discover good enough common ground to move toward action’ (Rutledge, 2009, p. 24). Weick (1993) explains that sensemaking is not simple decision-making and that it is different to rational decision-making because it works with ‘contextual reality’ to help one understand ‘vague questions, muddy answers and negotiated agreements that attempt to reduce confusion’ (p. 636). Maltais (2005) frames sensemaking as a process that ‘allows people to deal with uncertainty and ambiguity by creating rational accounts of the world that enables action’ (p. 21).
2.2 THE SEVEN PROPERTIES OF SENSEMAKING
There are disagreements in the literature about the definitive features of sensemaking. This is largely due to its context-dependent and adaptive nature. For example, Rutledge (2009) works from eight properties that relate to sensemaking in the context of nursing practice. However, Weick, Sutcliffe and Obstfeld (2011) states that all properties are merely adaptable variations of the original seven characteristics as developed by Weick (1995). In the discussion below, I include a summary of Weick’s original seven properties of sensemaking, each of which is contextualised and described in terms of the ways that it may function or be observable within the
recording environment. The original seven properties of sensemaking according to Weick (1995, p. 17) are as follows:
1. Identity construction 2. Retrospective 3. Enactive of sensible environments 4. Social 5. Ongoing 6. Focused on extracted cues 7. Plausibility over accuracy.
2.2.1 Identity Construction The first of Weick’s seven properties of sensemaking is identity construction, which begins with the individual sensemaker attempting to understand a shift in their perceived identity due to a change in the environment (Allen, 2011). Identity is central to sensemaking because it allows sensemakers to understand their relationship with a social environment. As Weick (1995) suggests, sensemakers are constantly redefining their own identity and questioning which constructed self is appropriate to a given situation. Brown et al. frame this central identity property as an interdependent, dynamic questioning of self-identity and its relationship to the surrounding environment to place their role in any given situation (Brown 2014, p. 270). Understanding identity within situational roles is also a key element to the recording process, with record producer Joe Chiccarelli (2011) stating that it is a producer’s responsibility to develop several different perspectives to apply in any situation: ‘Not just engineering and music, but also learn about art, poetry, literature, psychology. The job really involves a lot of things, and it changes from project to project’ (Chiccarelli cited in Massey, 2011, para 5). This understanding of different selves is how Chiccarelli adapts his identity in a way that is appropriate to the creative process and project. Perceptions of shifting identity are helpful when confronting challenges in organisational settings such as the recording studio. This is because when complexity becomes overwhelming or chaotic, participants may question their identity and purpose within the framework of the group (Rutledge, 2009). Nijhof (2006) frames this identity questioning as a result of sensemaking, arguing that the way people make sense of situations is directly linked to how they perceive themselves. However, this frames identity as something that shifts after
44 sensemaking although it may be the case that sensemaking occurs both before and after decision-making. Such a view affords a concept of identity that has a more reflexive relationship with sensemaking, better reflecting the producer’s identify (as stated by Chicarelli) as the result of a dynamic negotiation between different selves dependant to the situation. In this sense, there is a negotiation that all members of a sensemaking group undergo personally and in negotiation with the emergent group dynamics. As such, we are constantly negotiating our identity as we move in and out of different settings.
2.2.2 Retrospect The second property of sensemaking is retrospect. According to Weick (1995), retrospective analysis involves stepping outside of the flow of experience and looking back upon what has previously occurred. Retrospect is an analytical observational property that allows sensemakers to observe and evaluate actions after a certain time (Nijhof, 2006, p. 317). In a recording context, this step may be as simple as halting the recording process to review and evaluate what is or is not working. When playing back previous performances and analysing them in the context of a recording session producers and artists obtain ‘retrospective meaning’ (Allen, 2011, p. 14). Retrospect allows the group to ask if something has happened that is affecting the work and causing what Rutledge regers to as an ‘irritation of the senses’ (Rutledge, 2009). Irritations occur when a group looks back and perceives multiple or conflicted meanings, leading to confusion, and removing actors from the flow of experience. Soderberg and Holden (2002, p. 115) explain that this confusion of meaning requires a synthesis of multiple possible meanings that occur through retrospective analysis. Musical examples of multiple meanings occur in melodic and rhythmic clashes. These Musical clashes fight to become the defining characteristics of the music, and such conflicts cause confusion of musical meaning which needs to be analysed by rewinding, listening and understanding in retrospect. When playback and analysis occur, groups are no longer within the duration of a flow experience (Weick, 1995). As such, there is a clear delineation from the flow of music creation and the state of musical analysis. Listening to all of the parts together gives musicians a chance to understand whether their part fits with the other recorded elements, or whether there are problems that need to be revisited. Howlett exemplifies the playback method in this statement: ‘Listening back I felt the
introduction needed something more—when the drums and bass kicked in after the initial synth riff with stabs, the change seemed to be too abrupt’ (Howlett, 2009, p. 62).
2.2.3 Environment The third property of sensemaking is ‘enactive of sensible environments’ (Battleson & Ramesh, 2013, p. 22). Weick (1995) explains this sensible environment as the creation of abstract boundaries that are sensibly within the constraints of the task at hand. The adjective ‘sensible’ implies that the boundaries should be within reason and applicable to the group project (Allen, 2011). For example, a musician uses musically applicable boundaries to solve musical issues just as a nurse uses more medically focused boundaries to solve medical issues. Sandberg and Holden (2002) frame this as three constructed boundaries: ‘relationships to people, attitudes to time, and attitudes to the environment’ (p. 104). As such, it natural for groups to construct their social space according to aims that are constrained by restraints such as time, human relations and the physical environment. These boundaries establish a balance of risk (at the edge of the boundary) and competence (at the core). Without boundary work, there is no focus and there is a high probability that creative groups become stagnant and unproductive. The history of the recording studio provides an established framework for musicians and producers to situate their work. Carvalho (2012) argues that home studios enact boundaries modelled on professional recording studios. In turn, these home studio systems are governed as an imitation of established recording practices. In this sense, a social boundary informed by established practice can become helpful as it references norms that inform the decisions made in less traditional recording settings.
2.2.4 Social The fourth property is the social nature of sensemaking. Sensemaking is ‘likely to occur during meetings’ (Rutledge, 2009, p. 20) or in a group problem-solving exercises. Weick (1995) writes that the presence of other actors influences how we develop different meanings and produces a shared outcome as well as a shared meaning. Sensemaking can appear as an introspective form of meaning-making. However, sensemaking is a social negotiation that generates meaning through interaction. As a result, sensemaking manifests ‘while in conversation with others, while reading communications from others, while exchanging ideas with others’
46 (Nijhof, 2006, p. 318). The social nature of sensemaking is what makes sensemaking an organisational process rather than an individualistic and introspective process. In sensemaking, different actors arrive with their own roles, identities and learnings. This diversity of experience contributes a social negotiation of perspectives that is central to sensemaking.
In the recording context, sensemaking manifests through different musicians, producers, and other influences that contribute to the shared experience that ‘enriches the process’ of discovering meaning (Allen, 2011, p. 14). Such enrichment allows all members of the group to take ownership and have an influence on the outcome of social meaning-making. This collective element of sensemaking is similar to Sawyer’s (2007) group flow theory, in which group members use their shared tacit knowledge to generate meaning assembled from a wider variety of expertise. Sawyer (2007) argues that this leads to answers that are more completely considered. Thus, it is likely that a musical group are constantly in the process of sensemaking just because they are socially negotiating and organising new musical ideas into existence.
2.2.5 Ongoing Weick’s fifth property of sensemaking is its ongoing nature. People are always in the middle of things, and any activity is a micro-element of a larger continuous flow (Weick, 1995). Interruptions in this flow trigger the sensemaking process and take participants out of the flow process (Allen, 2011). As a result, sensemaking is an ongoing process of forming and evaluating ideas through the use of plausible constructs and retrospective meaning. In recording contexts, interruptions in the flow of a recording session are a regular occurrence, and as such the recording making process—like sensemaking—is a constant process of updating and re-evaluating (Rutledge, 2009). Performances are often multi-tracked in the recording studio, and the practice of layering musical parts in a non-linear fashion means that each new layer has the potential to reshape the musical meaning of a recording (Howlett, 2009, p. 57). During this process, producers and musicians are ‘exercising arrangement ideas, crafting the details of their idealized audioscape’ (Williams, 2007, para 55). When layering parts, producers and artists regularly adjust their approach as the effectiveness of musical layers are considered, with layers removed or retained in a process of contant re-evaluation. Such ongoing evaluation can occur on both a micro
level (such as layering of individual instrumental parts) and on a more macro level (such as changing an arrangement or song structure). As discussed in the previous chapter, the record producer is in an ongoing process of evaluating their place in a record industry that is in a state of flux. An ongoing process of updating and refining their place in the recording environment can assist the producer defining their identity for each new project.
2.2.6 Extracted Cues Sensemaking’s sixth property is its reliance on extracted cues such as words or phrases that relate to the community of practice associated with the sensemaking activity. Using a musical example, Lefford (2015, para 10) argues that record production communities ‘have distinct goals, priorities, interests, etc., which lead to their distinct cultures, languages, traditions and ways of communicating and interacting within the community’. In sensemaking practice, these words and phrases are called labels, and they are used to define boundaries and map out complexities that groups are attempting to resolve. It is important to recognise that mapping is more an imposition of order, and it is not concerned with correct answers. In this sense, a map is more of a constructionist definition of the parameters of any given complex issue. Weick (1998) views mapping as a form of metaphorical cartography, stating:
The heart of a cartographic myth is the belief that whatever map one has in hand or in mind, is a sufficiently credible version of the territory, that one can act intentionally. The important feature of any map is that it leads people to anticipate some order ‘out there’. It matters less what particular order is portrayed than that an order of some kind is portrayed. (Weick, 1998, p. 244)
Weick's imposition of cartographic order offers musicians and producers a method of decoding complex musical issues and establishing parameters to guide sensemaking. As a result, mapping labels are critical to speeding up the process of shared understanding between members of a group. When things are ‘bracketed and labelled in ways that predispose people to find common ground’ (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2005, p. 411) they can plot a quicker path to acting on the problem. Labels are based on familiar words and practices associated with any given community of practice (Lefford, 2014). Examples of labels that are common in music production include boomy, thin, punch or pocket (Sauer etal., 2012; DeMann & Riess, 2015;
48 Wilson & Fazenda, 2015). These terms may seem like unsystematic words to the non-production initiated, but within the community of record producers, each word can operate as a code to decipher the problems that are occurring in a recording. In this sense, groups are building a cartographic repertoire (language, tools, rules and processes) that are used to build a clearer picture of the situation and develop plausible constructs that address issues affecting the group.
2.2.7 Plausibility The seventh feature of sensemaking is plausibility over accuracy. Plausibility offers groups the opportunity to move beyond learned patterns and present ideas that do not have to be correct (Battleson & Ramesh, 2013). When organisations restrict themselves to decision-making as a form of imposing power or sensegiving, then they may not possess the flexibility that can help to to deal with unusual situations (Weick, 1993, p. 634). A ‘constructed plausibility’ does not have to be correct and does not have to conform to learned behaviours. As a result, plausibility is capable of generating new experiences that are not restricted to either of these factors. Carter and Colville refer to this as a ‘cognitive repertoire of plausible activity’ (p. 14). While the principal aim of sensemaking is for a democratic group to agree and take action (Weick, 1993), a complex problem can have several different answers, and it is impossible to know which is correct until the group acts. Searching for an absolute answer that does not yet exist becomes limiting, especially when the solution becomes obscured by the complexity of multiple potential interpretations (Rutledge, 2009). Nijhof (2006) argues that ‘organizational decision-making is often based on the odds and can involve more intuition than careful analysis’ and because of this intuitive approach to decision-making ‘people construct the meanings of things based on reasonable explanations of what might be happening rather than through scientific discovery of ‘the real story’ (p. 318). In this sense, plausibility offers a pragmatic suggestion that might work, keeping the process more dynamic. A proposition does not arrive with the burden of having to be correct, only plausible. As a result, there is less attachment to an undefined outcome and more willingness to test, evaluate and refine a solution. Thus, plausible stories ‘animate and gain their validity from subsequent activity’ rather than working backwards from a concrete answer that does not yet exist (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfield, 2005, p. 410). Such an approach of plausibility over accuracy allows groups to arrive at an action point sooner, rather
than slowing down and waiting for ideal resolutions that may never arrive (Battleson & Ramesh, 2013). It also serves to provide a filter that narrows down a potentially overwhelming field to a more sensible boundary of potential solutions (Battleson & Ramesh, 2013, p. 19). Definitive answers to complex problems are rare and serve only to halt a social group, and the speed of arriving at an action point is crucial when artistic groups are making decisions (Kilty, 2014). Plausibility is about knowing enough to get on with the process of creating without wasting too much time searching for an accuracy that does not exist (Allen, 2011, p. 15).
In the studio, decision-making is a democratic consensus between the actors present in the room. As Weick (1995) would suggest, ‘sense may be in the eye of the beholder, but beholders vote and the majority rules’ (p. 6). If a group are unable to reach a consensus, then there is a series of previously mapped phrases that can be used to formulate and test a new plausibility. The result of this process is a cycle of plausible action and retrospective testing that avoids the potential paralysis of seeking exact answers while also allowing for discovery of new pathways in decision-making. (Brown et al., 2014, p. 266). It is important during this process to understand that shifting the focus of absolute answers to plausible constructs allows for less inhibited decision-making and quicker movement towards action.
2.3 THE PROCESS-BASED FOUR STAGES OF SENSEMAKING
Sensemaking can be observed as both an operational process and as an analytical theory. Weick, takes a theoretical and analytical view of sensemaking which is useful for understanding the surrounding conditions of sensemaking. The larger theoretical lens allows us to understand why sensemaking is a necessary sequence for arriving at muddy answers to unclear questions (Weick, 1993). It is important at this juncture to recognise that this thesis is concerned with the practical recording outcomes of sensemaking. The dynamic, creative nature of the recording studio lends itself to the practical application of sensemaking theory. Sensemaking processes in the recording studio need to be as efficient and reflexive as possible so that group creativity is enabled rather than constrained. Weick et. al, (2005) describes sensemaking as a sequence of bracketing and extracting cues, to make plausible sense of the organisational process. Such a sequence benefits from a simplified model that breaks sensemaking down into observable stages. As stated by Battleson
50 and Ramesh (2013), ‘people need to use filters to separate signal from noise to avoid being overwhelmed’ (p. 40). A simplified and process-focused application of sensemaking can draw on the more practical elements of the sensemaking theory. Such an adaptation of sensemaking theory is not unusual, and it offers a more straightforward process for producers that do not over-complicate the recording process during its application. Weick, Sutcliffe and Obstfeld (2011) have already stated that variations on the seven sensemaking properties are prevalent. Rutledge (2009) has presented four observable stages of sensemaking that offer the chance to modelling for sensemaking behaiviour. These four stages offer a reduction of the more comprehensive seven theoretical properties of sensemaking that focus on practical action rather than the individual theoretical elements. To reduce sensemaking down to a more practical four-stage method, I use the stage-based sensemaking model proposed by Rutledge (2009).
2.3.1 Stage one: Bracketing The first observable stage of sensemaking is identifying the problem that has caused an interruption in the flow of ideas. This initial stage is called ‘bracketing’ which is an isolation of the specific problem and use of tacit knowledge to place intellectual boundaries around the key issue (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2005). This mental process is a deliberate simplification of the problem. It reduces a multifaceted and abstract challenge to a simplified state that is easier to comprehend. To reduce the concept further; ‘once bracketing occurs, the world is simplified’ (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2005, p. 411). Weick et al. (2011) suggest that bracketing is an example of our uneven attention to the elements of any given issue, while Battleson and Ramesh (2013) refer to it as ‘establishing attention boundaries’ (p. 113). Therefore, the elements that become the focus of attention are decided on through the articulation of tacit knowledge. In recording practice, there are a number of common examples of bracketing. The first example is identifying a section of music and bracketing a specific part that needs to change due to a musical clash. In this case, the specific part demands our attention because it is causing damage to the melodic or harmonic intent of the composition. In this example, bracketing allows groups to focus on a single musical element because it reduces surrounding distractions and allows the group to focus on an isolated area in which sensemaking can be enacted.
2.3.2 Stage Two: Mapping The second stage in this simplified, practical application is the mapping or extraction of cues. Rutledge (2009) explains that cues are extracted words and phrases that a sensemaker can take from the group (p. 18). These cues are repeated terminologies that the group experiments with to further refine any given bracketed issue. As with many elements in sensemaking, it is important to note that mapped words are neither correct nor incorrect. The ‘underlying assumption in each case is that ignorance and knowledge coexist, which means that adaptive sensemaking both honours and rejects the past’ (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfield, 2005 p. 412). Words and phrases in this stage, therefore, become experimental cues that either assist in defining the problem or become discarded. As the group deliberates the problem, some words will recur and reinforce their influence in defining the problem. Nijhof (2006) frames this as a form of cartography, in which the construction of several plausible maps influences decision-making. Mapping also draws on the ongoing nature of sensemaking as these labels are regularly updated and discarded as the creative process and projects evolve. It therefore becomes a central process that allows groups to move from a bracketed challenge to a plausible solution in any complex challenge, generating and refining collective meaning using reference points from past actions. That meaning then assists in forming cognitive constructions that move groups towards the future (Nijhof, 2006, p. 317). As such, mapping becomes a crucial stage in the sensemaking process because it explicitly links past actions with future actions.
2.3.3 Stage Three: Plausibility Plausibility is an amalgamation of the social nature of sensemaking with the final feature of Weick’s (1995) seven sensemaking properties (driven by plausibility rather than accuracy). A socially driven search for plausible solutions is a common occurrence in studios, and groups often use mapping labels to piece together plausible solutions that address issues during recording sessions. These constructions have to fit within the working environment to pose a plausible explanation. As a result, it is important that such plausible constructs are situated within Weick’s (1995) sensible environment. Plausibility represents a pragmatic move towards action rather than a dogged attachment to absolute or singular answers to identified problems. Rutledge (2009) explains plausibility as a social group coalescing around
52 unfinished images. In such a description, the image is generalised and embryonic but serves as a catalyst that reignites discussion and pushes a group towards action. The plausible focus of sensemaking is useful for musicians and producers precisely because it does not lock the music into a predetermined course, but it allows for discovery to alter the outcome.
2.3.4 Stage Four: Action The specific purpose of sensemaking is the pragmatic drive towards a specific action that adds something new to the process (Rutledge, 2009). For example, a bass player may be unwilling to re-record a part simply because of the extra hard work involved. However, after the process of sensemaking and the resolution to take action has occurred, the problem is no longer the focus. Throughout Weick’s (1995) seven properties of sensemaking, taking action is more of an assumed goal or the natural outcome of the sensemaking process. However, Rutledge (2009) takes the implicit notion that sensemaking is about moving towards outcomes and repositions it to an explicit fourth stage. Such a distinction reinforces the perception that sensemaking is concerned with engaging in solutions. The emphasis on action follows pragmatic philosophers like Peirce (1878) and James (1907) who argued that ‘people can only know what they are doing after they have done it’ (Sandberg, Tsoukas, p. 8). Action fits particularly well with music-making because it ‘highlights the invention that precedes interpretation’ (Weick, 1996, p. 14). Musicians are well suited to sensemaking precisely because it is not just an analytical form of interpreting and negotiating. Instead it is a form of social interpretation and negotiation that explicitly drives towards creating new ideas.
Figure 2.1 Reducing sensemaking theory to four applied stages according to Rutledge (2009).
Figure 2.1 presents a model of Rutledge’s (2009) four stages of sensemaking and their relationship to the seven properties of sensemaking proposed by Weick (1995). The four stages become a useful model to apply to recording scenarios in an effort to observe how sensemaking manifests in a group setting. Beause of this reduction, it is easier to observe the sequence of events that are manifested by groups undergoing sensemaking in real workd situations. By understanding these discrete elements of sensemaking, the recording process can be examined in a linear model that highlights how creative decisions are made in different recording contexts. Such analysis leaves us with a model of sensemaking that can be used as an operational tool for both understanding and implementing sensemaking. This initial model of sensemaking was used in the article chapters as a tool for observing the sensemaking sequences that manifested during the field experiments for this thesis. The four stages generated a starting point that assisted in recognising sensemaking when analysing the transcripts of the field tests for later chapters. However, the later chapters revealed that sensemaking models could fluctuate and adapt to context dependent situations discussed later in both chapters seven and nine. As such, this initial model of sensemaking assisted in developing analysis patterns, but also served as a base for developing newer and more complex models of social behaviour.
2.4 THREE CASE STUDIES FROM THE LITERATURE
In the following examples, I analyse three specific and relatively well-known cases of the recording process in which we can identify Rutledge’s four stages of sensemaking. The first example draws on an auto-ethnographic reflection from Howlett’s doctoral thesis (2009) in which he details his initial meeting with Orchestral Manoeuvers in the Dark (OMD). The second example is taken from Michael Beinhorn’s (2013) essay written in defence of criticism that he received for firing a drummer while working with the band Hole. The final example is taken from Nine Inch Nails producer Reznor’s communications in an interview for trade press publication, Stereogum (Rettig, 2014). These personal reflections explore how the band Nine Inch Nails partnered with a new producer to change their approach and expand their recording systems. I reframe each of these examples as a four-stage sensemaking process to exemplify how each example represents implicit sensemaking in action. These case studies are useful for exploring how experienced creative groups function as so-called ‘natural sensemakers,’ serving a basis from
54 which to develop sensemaking theory in the recording environment in the latter chapters of this thesis.
However, before analysing these examples, it is important to assert that sensemaking can occur with sensegivers such as producers who are employed specifically to achieve results from a record label. Such employment creates an imbalance in power structure that is common in sensemaking groups. To better understand how this relationship between a musical group and a producer work, I turn to Maitlis (2005) and her relational view of sensemaking and sensegiving to negotiate the power relationships between record producers and artists. Maitlis (2005) offers for forms of organisational sensemaking (p. 33). There are two sensemaking models that offer insight into the power relations of the record producer and the artist. The first is guided organisational sensemaking where leaders such as producers exert a high level of sensegiving while the artists also have a high level of sensegiving. Maitlis concludes that such engagaments produce an emergent series of consistent actions through characteristics of high animation and control (p. 32). In the first example here, Howlett arrives with a high level of sensegiving as an established producer who was hired to record a group of artists. However, the artists also have a strong sense of direction and have the ultimate say on whether Howlett will be the producer they choose to work with. As such, both artist and producer have a high sensegiving role to play in this sensemaking exchange.
The second relevant form of organisational sensemaking, is restricted organisational sensemaking where producers have a higher sensegiving role than the artists in the following examples. Maitlis concludes that these forms of sensemaking result in narrow accounts and one off actions. In the second example, Producer Michael Beinhorn exerts a high level of sensegiving to guide the artists to a desired conclusion. In both of these examples there is a different power structure that affects the relationship of the assembled creative group. However, Maitlis (2005) contends that these power imbalances exist in all sensemaking groups and that each form of organisational sensemaking may “vary with the kind of outcomes sought” (p. 46). As such, the power relationship does not negate the sequencing of the sensemaking group, more it affects the dynamic of the group. This connects with Weick’s (1996) view of sensemaking as a voting democracy of stakeholders, but also accounts for
the forms of persuasion that are capable of swaying democratic groups through guided sensemaking.
2.4.1 Howlett’s Manoeuvers According to Rutledge (2009), sensemaking often manifests in meetings, and as such meetings offer a plausible setting in which to study sensemaking. In his 2009 thesis on the record producer as a nexus, Howlett describes his first meeting with OMD: ‘A meeting was arranged in the offices of DinDisc in Portobello Road, Notting Hill Gate, London, where I managed to persuade the group that I could improve on the previous recording’ (p. 58). He goes on to relay the discussion that occurred in the meeting:
Part of a producer’s role is to reassure the group that changes can be made which will improve the commercial potential of the track whilst retaining authenticity. In this instance, I initiated a discussion of how the group felt the production could be improved. One idea we all agreed on was that the first version of the song sounded rather thin because they had used a Roland Compurhythm—one of the first drum synthesizers, using analogue subtractive synthesis—and a new recording would be improved by using a real drum kit and drummer (Howlett, 2009, p. 58).
In this description, Howlett (2009) identifies that he needed to convince the group of his value as a producer using phrases such as ‘improve on the previous recording’ or ‘retaining authenticity’ (p. 58). Howlett further explains this as ‘the distrust and wariness many artists exhibit when an outsider enters their creative inner world’ (2009, p. 57). He recognises that the group were resistant to the injection of a new and possibly corporate-driven opinion interfering with the artistic purity of their recording. Because of this perception, the group were resistant and distrustful of the producer as an ‘agent of change’ that has the potential to cause a negative reaction (Huy, 2002, p. 50). To redirect this resistance into an inclusive discussion, Howlett alerted the groups’ attention to the drum sound. Both Howlett and the group agreed that the sound was too thin because of the use of an early synthesised drum machine (Howlett, 2009). At this point the group has bracketed an issue, thus allowing Howlett to deflect the question on whether a producer is necessary and focus on a creative problem-solving exercise (Weick, Sutcliffe. Obstfeld, 2005). Through group discussion, the band agreed that a plausible solution was to book studio time and
56 record live drums using Howlett as the producer. The vision was altered from an electronic drum sound to an acoustic recording to add weight and authority to the drum sound that was missing from the demo recording.
As the discussion continued, the group concluded that more elements needed improving and the vision began to shift and adapt to the new member of the group decision-making process. Howlett (2009) notes that ‘the decision to use a producer was taken relatively freely by the group after meeting me and hearing my suggestions’ (p. 65). Having bracketed an issue related to drum sound, the group began mapping the issue using labels and phrases such as ‘thin’ and ‘drum synthesiser’ (Howlett, 2009, p. 58) to define the bracketed issue further and connect the issue to a possible future action. Howlett then presented a plausible suggestion that the group accepted, and the drums were re-tracked in a studio. The action that occurred as a result of this discussion was a complete re-recording of the song to fix the problems identified in the meeting. Below is a model of how sensemaking reduced the uncertainty apparent at the beginning of the meeting and moved the group towards a course of action that produced a new recording of the song rather than being halted due to the complexity associated with tracking an entire song.
Figure 2.2 Four stages of sensemaking applied to case study one.
Observing such a process may seem unremarkable, but the subtle complexity of the situation demands a shift of approach to recording, and a connected shift in the band’s willingness to add a new member to their creative process. First, there was an inherent tension between the band and the record label because the ‘record company did apply some pressure to persuade them to use a producer’ (Howlett, 2009, p. 58). Howlett also notes that there was ‘resistance to the idea that someone outside the group circle could come in and change their work’ (ibid). Second, Howlett was able to negotiate with a band to re-record a song that they had already completed. The outcome of re-tracking a song was not achieved by the producer pressuring the band
into a recording studio. It was instead accomplished through a socially negotiated plausible solution, offered in response to a bracketed issue identified by both the band and Howlett. As a result, the sensemaking process achieved a shift from resistance to acceptance, and a plausible pathway to new ideas. This example is also interesting because it takes the record label perspective (that the recording needs to be of higher quality), but negotiates that perspective with the group by involving them in the sensemaking process. hence giving them a sense of ownership over the change rather than forcing a creative decision on the band without their consent or participation.
2.4.2 Michael Beinhorn Fires Drummers I fire drummers. I’ve fired them off their own projects, with the complicity of their own bands. I’ve fired a few over the years and I daresay, I may well fire a few more before I’m done (Beinhorn, 2013).
In this example, Beinhorn (2013) discusses his method for addressing a significant disruption in the recording process, the firing of a drummer. This situation involves a great deal of delicacy and cannot be achieved without the consent of the entire group. The statement ‘I fire drummers’ gives the impression that the producer is about to act by instructing the band on how they should proceed. However, if this situation is mishandled, then there is a risk that the group can feel manipulated rather than being cared for in an authentic manner (Huy, 2002).
Most of the drummers I’ve had to fire were members of the band I was producing. This is always difficult for everyone else in the band, especially since it’s a decision they must be complicit in. I don’t feel that a producer has the authority to take someone off their own recording and I have never done so without first making sure the rest of the band are first in agreement (Beinhorn, 2013).
In this statement, Beinhorn is participating as a direct member of the group to identify and rationalise a problem that is fraught with emotional complexity. Using his experiential knowledge, he recognises that deciding to fire a drummer without the consent of the group would likely result in an unsatisfactory outcome for the creative vision of the project. Beinhorn recognises that he must democratically consult the band because ‘Sense may be in the eye of the beholder, but beholders vote and the majority rules’ (Weick, 1995, p. 6). Rather than opting for a dictatorial approach,
58 Beinhorn has established the democratic roots of a sensemaking process by inserting himself into the decision-making as an equal member. It is also important to note that Beinhorn regularly makes the distinction that he represents the artists’ vision above all other concerns. In this sense, Beinhorn is a part of the musical group attempting to deliver new art. In his essay, he states that his primary motivation for recording with an artist is to break new ground (Beinhorn, 2013). In his own words, ‘there are few things more demoralising than that conversation – both for the person who has to hear it and the person who has to say it. It actually physically hurts’ Beinhorn, 2013, para 23).
The first action that the group takes in this scenario is to halt the project and discuss the identified problem. In sensemaking terms, the group has bracketed the drumming as an issue in the recording process. The group moves from the bracketed problem and begins to map the problem by identifying phrases like ‘benchmark or optimal level of performance’ (Beinhorn, 2013). Not satisfied with just one identified label, the group discusses other maps of the problem which include ‘not getting enough sleep, eating poorly and generally not taking care of herself, personal problems which she brings into the workspace and of course, recreational drug usage’ (Beinhorn, 2013). Beinhorn calls these labels ‘bad omens’ (2013). The group decides that although these are problems personal, they are manifesting themselves in a way that is detrimental to the project. This problematic manifestation highlights that the drummer is not respecting the goals of the group (Beinhorn, 2013). As a part of the sensemaking team, Beinhorn is using previous tacit knowledge acquired through his experience as a practitioner (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2005). He uses this acquired knowledge to identify a problem and take that issue to the group for discussion. This identification of an issue is an example of questioning identity construction concerning a problem that is arising. In this sense, Beinhorn displays the ‘formation and maintenance’ of his identity (Brown et al., 2014, p. 267). In his essay, Beinhorn states that ‘these artists want a collaborator with imagination who has the nerve to help them create an entirely new vision instead of the one they have become identified with’ (2013, para 30). This questioning leads him to seek the group and begin a collaborative sensemaking process.
Sensemaking begins after bracketing the issue, and the group then starts working to create ‘plausible images that rationalize’ (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld,
2005, p. 409) and further define the drum performance. In a different case study, Rutledge describes how ‘labels are woven into an emerging story that addresses the concerns group members have highlighted’ (Rutledge, 2009, p. 21). The first course of action that the group agreed upon was to allow the drummer every opportunity to correct these problems. Beinhorn (2013) argues that this has worked before; drummers have changed their attitude and delivered stellar performances. This argument is an example of a producer using labels from previous experience and applying it to the current situation as part of an ongoing sensemaking process. However, in this example, the drummer is eventually fired when the problem is not corrected. It is worth noting that, in the end, the first plausible solution turned out to be the incorrect action. Consequently, the band moved on to the less desirable action of firing a member. The first plausible explanation did not need to be correct. By the very process of taking action, the group was better able to understand the problem and then retrospectively evaluate the difficulties in a new light. They then moved onto a second plausible construct, took action and fired the drummer, which eventually saved the project. Plausibility triggering multiple potential outcomes is highlighted by Rutledge (2009) who makes the same observation during an analysis of a business meeting (p. 19).
The critical lesson from this analysis is that the group was not working towards the correct solution; instead, they were looking for a pathway to taking action. That is because ‘sensemaking largely leaves belief systems alone and lets the plausible story mediate between differences in member viewpoints’ (Rutledge, 2009, p. 22). To arrive at an action point, Beinhorn and the group have unconsciously applied the first three practical features of sensemaking. This initial course of action was incorrect, but the group was no longer paralysed by the emotional and creative complexity of firing a member. Beinhorn (2013) states that the group has taken the first steps towards taking action on the identified issue. As the drummer did not respond to the first solution, it was easier for the group to move to the next action (see Figure 2.4) and remove the member that was negatively affecting the project. After the action was taken, the group was able to return to a situation in which their creative flow was no longer being affected by a dysfunctional and uncommitted member who was not participating at the same skill level (Morrow, 2012). Figure 2.3
60 uses the four-stage sensemaking model (Rutledge, 2009) to map the social decisions documented by Beinhorn (2013).
Figure 2.3 Repeated sensemaking model.
In this example, the vision of the record was achieved through a process that maps to Rutledge’s (2009) four stages of sensemaking. Because sensemaking is an ongoing and revisional process, we see two cycles of practical, and social deliberation that results in an actionable outcome (Brown et al., 2014, p. 271). This two-cycle sensemaking model offers an insight into how one plausible suggestion did not create the desired outcome, but rather this represented the beginning of a dynamic process. This process was repeated until it achieved the best result for both the record producer (who needs to deliver a professional product) and the band (who were creatively inhibited by an under-performing member).
2.4.3 Bands Fire Producers Sensemaking is a democratic form of decision-making that may not always favour the producer. In an interview for Stereogum (Rettig, 2014), Trent Reznor discusses how a group decision-making process was used to discard a producer that was not fulfilling the vision and goals of the whole production team. As Nine Inch Nails are a self-produced band, this is an example of producers working with other producers to create new art. It is interesting to note that although Reznor is the most recognisable figure in the group, he always uses the pronoun ‘we’ to describe how the band governs the creative process as a group.
…On the last album, Hesitation Marks, we did something that impressed me. I said, ‘This same team of people have done the last several albums, we’re comfortable with each other. I know what’s going to happen. Let’s bring in someone else as a producer’. Moreover, let’s empower them to see what happens. (Reznor, in Rettig, 2014)
This statement is an example of the group stepping out of the flow of their creative process and analysing their past achievements (Weick, 1995 p. 24-30). They are bracketing (Rutledge, 2009) perceived problems of comfort and predictability to improve their process. This quotation reveals a process of identification, mapping, plausibility and action. The plausible construct was to hire an outside influence to reduce concerns that were previously identified during the mapping stage. The group then moved into action, hiring Markis Dravs, a more song-oriented producer, in contrast to the technically focused approach of the existing Nine Inch Nails production team.
I don’t want to throw him under the bus. I’m not here to talk shit about him. However, there was a lot of ‘Let’s get an ensemble of people to play this thing’, and ‘We need an arranger to do that’. It didn’t feel like it was leading anywhere (Reznor, in Rettig, 2014).
As in the previous example, the first solution was a failure. However, the action of working with another producer served to re-energise the band's faith in their own production process. This failure highlights the pragmatic strengths of plausibility because the failed process informed the recording group that they did not need a producer to fulfil their goals. Once it was identified that the first plausible construct was a failure, the group was able to retrospectively analyse their process— eliminating a failed method—and take another course to action. Figure 2.4 maps the decision-making process of Nine Inch Nails in this example to the four-stage sensemaking process (Rutledge, 2009).
62
Figure 2.4 Repeated sensemaking model.
The resolution of this decision-making process is the removal of the earlier paralysis that the group had encountered through doubting their techniques and approach to recording. Reznor sums this resolution up in the following statement.
He [the external producer] was a means to an end to make us realize that our instincts about the record were the right way to go. The record that was finished, I’m very proud of. It felt like a reinvention to me. (Reznor, in Rettig, 2014)
The final result of this analysis was a reinvigoration of the band's approach and a renewed faith in their production method. Without attempting to work through a sensemaking process, the group would have been paralysed by the complexity of reinventing their recording process. Instead, they proposed and attempted a plausible alternative approach to record production. The result was a group no longer restricted by doubt in their production abilities and the generation of new artistic output. This two-stage sensemaking model highlights the process of creating a new record by experimenting with multiple plausible methods of recording.
2.5 CONCLUSIONS
In the first two examples, it is evident that producers deliberately insert themselves into groups in order to become a part of the process, rather than simply operating as a separate or independent director or conductor. It is important to note
that two examples show how the process of decision-making was revisited and refined, leading to different outcomes. The reflexive and re-evaluative nature of sensemaking means that groups could keep driving towards action when addressing problems. The producers in the three examples display implicit sensemaking practices: being established producers, this kind of sensemaking has been developed through lengthy experiential processes. The result is better management of subtle but complex problems, and a habit of action-based problem-solving developed at an earlier point in the career of a producer. This habit of pragmatic, action-based thinking involves bracketing, mapping, then presenting plausible solutions and acting on those solutions. As seen in example two and three, sensemaking is not about absolute answers; rather, it is concerned with setting in motion a process that can be repeated until a democratically desired outcome is achieved. This method untangles counterproductive responses from the analysis of studio recordings to produce work that takes advantage of the group dynamic. The simplified four-stage model of sensemaking is apparent in these three examples, serving to create a base sensemaking template that I intend to test through a variety of creative practice scenarios in my research. The three examples discussed above serve as initial observations of how the sensemaking model highlights certain aspects of the producer’s role in typical recording contexts. In the future chapters, I test this sensemaking model in a greater variety of recording scenarios, looking for areas in which it works, and ways that it may benefit from further development.
One challenge with applying the sensemaking model in musical situations is the frenetic and constant decision-making that occurs on macro and micro areas (Thompson & Lashua, 2014). There is also limited existing research into music decision-making as sensemaking. Most sensemaking research that has been undertaken in music has focussed on organisational aspects of the music business (Carter & Colville, 2003; Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007), or investigations of the kinds of relational communication that occur during the management of musical projects (Maitlis, 2005). In the three examples above, the sensemaking process was never explicitly framed as anything more than a pragmatic process of overcoming and exploring various communicational and creative barriers, as well as trying out ideas through loops of plausibility and retrospective analysis. However, when we map these decision processes to Rutledge's four-stage sensemaking process, we can see a
64 correlation between social and musical choices in the recording studio and the practical model of sensemaking. These examples allow some preliminary framing of sensemaking in recording practice before conducting experiments in sensemaking and observing the result first-hand.
In an article discussing musical practice Weick (1989) frames this musical mentality as ‘rather than following the advice “look before you leap”, they leapt before they looked’ (p. 242). The four-stage modelling process (Rutledge, 2009), allows for the conceptual adaptation of sensemaking theory to the environment of the recording studio. Therefore, it is helpful for producers to understand and guide the sensemaking process as a way of arriving at outcomes that avoid the pitfalls discussed by Weick (1993) of institutionalised thinking that can potentially collapse in unusual circumstances. The unobtrusive nature of sensemaking means that more targeted research is required, using a more participatory approach so that interconnected relationships can be studied from a more internal perspective.
One of the benefits of applying this technique early in the process is the sense of empowerment that creative groups can have when they are involved in the overall decision-making process. Howlett’s inclusive style highlighted this approach during his meeting with OMD, as he worked with the band to bracket specific areas that required attention. Along with the social ownership that sensemaking encourages, there is an additional advantage to formalising a problem-solving process in the early stages of production: it enables the group to commence the project with positive and specified parameters in place and a ‘sensible environment’ from which to work (Weick, 1995, p. 30-38). These parameters can guide producers and artists when encountering future problems. Finally, the ongoing reinforcement of sensemaking can enable the group decision-making process to be streamlined, providing a confident and affirmative environment in which creativity flourishes and disruptions are habitually driven towards action over deliberation.
2.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter provides evidence that the recording environment is a useful and under-examined context for observing sensemaking in action. It links seven properties of sensemaking to the recording environment and proposes a simplified four-stage model that assists in the study of sensemaking in the recording studio. The
chapter focuses on the theory that experienced producers are implicit sensemakers. It examinines three examples that demonstrate how Rutledge’s four-stage sensemaking model can act as a theoretical framework for the future chapters. Chapter 4 outlines how I intend to test these theories by presenting an outline of my methods and methodology, but is preceeded by Chapter 3 below, in which I offer some definitions of the role of the producer in context.
66 Chapter 3: Defining the Record Producer
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a typology of the record producer, accounting for a range of recording contexts and approaches associated with the role. A record producer can be anything from what Martin (2012) refers to as a ‘bedroom producer’ (p. 191), who takes advantage of technological ubiquity and available software, through to producers that work in more traditional roles of record production. The label of ‘record producer’ becomes even more diverse when we consider the idea that even modern-day DJs become producers when they possess ‘the ability to create, express, and sell music’ (Kamal 2013, para 4). The definitions of record producers and their roles are frequently the topic of scholarly discourse in academic conferences such as ARP, in which communities of scholars gather with industry practitioners to examine the broad roles of the record producer in a changing industry (Bates, 2012; Howlett, 2009; Lefford, 2015; Thompson & Lashua, 2014).
The first aim of this chapter is to outline the scope of my research and position the producer within this scope. This chapter also examines the relationship between producers and artists operating as a creative group in the recording studio. In this research, such a creative group aims to produce original recorded music rather than working to a rigid set of boundaries as would occur in more commercial settings. I take Chicarelli’s position that producers assist in developing the unique qualities of the artist to ‘help the record be the best it can be’ (Chicarelli cited in Massey, 2011, para 23). Rather than situating the producer as an outside influencer, this places the producer within the group to understand how the full creative assemblage can work successfully to achieve a better-recorded outcome utilising a more diverse skill set. This placement of the producer inside the group is deliberate because the purpose of this research is to understand the collective sensemaking and social negotiation that occurs between group members in a record-making setting. The record producer is capable of both inside and outside influence. However, for the scope of the research, I define the producer as working with the creative group as a contributing member. Using Sawyer’s (2007) concept of group flow, I discuss the producer-artist
relationship as one that relies on a convergence of tacit knowledge and skillsets. The conclusion of this chapter briefly examines the changing nature of recording practice and the potential impact it has on the relationship between producer and artist.
3.2 DEFINING THE PRODUCER
Historically, the category of the producer is recognised as a contested and unstable one. McIntyre (2015) states that the concept of record production ‘is a dynamic one. It is added to, subtracted from, and built upon by the collective input of engineer-producers’ (para 62). Looking back to the 1950s, producers were largely musicians with a proven track record of writing hit songs and functioned as negotiators between engineers and artists. Some exceptions were independent studio owners who did everything ny necessity like Sam Phelps, Norman Petty, or Phil Ramone. Repsch (2001) claims that Joe Meek was one of the earliest engineers engineer to combine the roles of ‘producer with that of sound-balance engineer’ (p. 52) from the perspective of the balance engineer. Before this challenge to record- making orthodoxy, audio engineers were responsible for operating the technology and were not considered to be producers—who functioned more as musical directors. This expansion of roles is an essential distinction, with examples such as Meek presenting an alternative to the accepted practice of producer-as-musical-director through the addition of the producer-as-engineer. The reframing of the producer- engineer was further developed by the likes of George Martin, who has become synonymous with the concept of producer-as-musical-director through the application of both musical and audio engineering skillsets.
New forms of producer with engineering expertise served to broaden the field rather than change it. As such, the artistic-director style of record producer persists with prominent examples such as Rick Rubin, who states, ‘I do not know how to work a board. I don’t turn knobs’ (Hirschberg, 2007, p. 65). Rubin interprets the producer’s function as less of a technical role and more of a musical director, claiming ‘my primary asset is I know when I like something or not’. Rather than considering himself as a technical producer, Rubin relies on his instinct for record production to guide his decision-making. Howlett (2007) reinforces the discourse of instinctual decision-making based on ‘gut feelings’ or whether something ‘sounds cool’ (p. 2). In this sense, both producers are looking to ‘find what’s good about [a
68 band] and bring it out’ (Brown, 2009, p. 4). Brown (2009) states that Rubin is acting as a member of the band when he produces the record. However, unlike members of the group who are primarily concerned with their instrumental parts, Rubin and Howlett connect themselves primarily with the whole picture.
The theme of a producer being a member of the group but attending to the more macro needs of the project is a common one (Brown, 2009; Howlett, 2009; Martin, 2014). It frames the producer as an organisational figure responsible for negotiating the overall outcome of musical endeavours. Nevertheless, there are differences in how producers approach this role. Shepherd (2009) argues that ‘in very pragmatic terms, the producer is a ‘project manager’ for the recording, mixing and mastering process’ (para 2). Framing the producer as a project manager offers an organisational interpretation of the role. However, when viewing the producer as a project manager it is important to understand that different ‘artists and projects have different production needs, and the best producer is the one that fits those requirements most closely’ (Burgess, 2013, p. 100). To better understand recording approaches and how they relate to artists, it is helpful to establish a spectrum through which to analyse production styles. At one extreme of this spectrum, we have producers that impart a sonic stamp and bend artists to that sound (Warwick, 2013). The other extreme of the continuum is populated by producers who hold the view that it is unprofessional to presume that they know better than the artist (Tingen, 2005). This form of producer dedicates their skill set towards facilitating musicians and helping them to achieve their goals while leaving no discernible sonic imprint. In this sense, the producer is ‘doing little more than documenting what's happening as faithfully as possible’ (Tingen, 2005, para 33). As Steve Albini explains: ‘I think it's rude for an engineer or producer to say, ‘'You guys are wrong about your own music’ I think that's almost unforgivable’ (Tingen, 2005, para 35).
Howlett (2009) argues for a middle ground between these two extremes, suggesting that a producer can interface with the technology, with the artist, and with the commercial side of the music industry to achieve a central nexus that satisfies all parties. These different production approaches allow record production research to be framed within a broad spectrum of approaches, with Howlett’s ‘nexus’ role representing a central axis on the scale.
Facilitator Nexus Sonic Imprint
Figure 3.1. Spectrum of producer styles.
Producers often shift in their roles as their relationships with musicians evolve (Burgess, 2013, p101). It is common for producers to occupy every spot on the spectrum during their career. The flexible and adaptive nature of the producer allows for an expanded range of relationships when working with artists. Within this spectrum of typologies, different genres require specific skill sets. Pras and Gustavo (2011) assert that producers need to develop extensive critical listening skills to adapt to different genres or approaches (p.74). The flexible nature of the role is salient because classification is not the goal of this chapter; it is merely to highlight that the producer’s duties are often ambiguous and reflexive, rather than clearly defined and static. A non-fixed role means that producers often subtly reframe themselves in terms of an ‘occupational identity’ (Kazanjian, 2015, p.289). The re- evaluation of the producer’s ‘occupational identity’ in each new setting can benefit from a flexible approach to group organisation as opposed to more hierarchical approaches to record-making.
This spectrum covers the approaches of record producers, however, it neglects the power relationship that producers – who are experts in recording – can have with artists – who are experts in performance. Fundamentally, a producer is hired as a specialist that posseses a skill that the artist needs to translate their live performance into a recorded text. As such, there is a level of power that sets the record producer up as a sensegiving member of a sensemaking group. This power imbalance is common in recording studios, and it slightly adjusts the social nature of recording situations. In this thesis, that power impbalance is addressed using Maitlis (2005) four forms of organisational sensemaking (p. 33), which recognises that sensemaking is constantly influenced by sensegivers that have either exisit in a higher power position, or have more information. In this framing of the producer as a sensemaker the producer often works with more information, in an environment that they control, recording on a medium that they are familiar with. The result is a group guided by a producer in a form of guided organisational sensemaking (Maitlis, 2005). Such
70 relationships are common in sensemaking settings and it is no surprise that the recording studio also negotiates with this imbalance of power. However, it is important to note that Maitlis four forms of organisational sensemaking are still forms of negotiated sensemaking, and are still centred around group decision-making despite the power imbalance.
3.3 ARTISTS AND PRODUCERS AS A COLLABORATIVE GROUP
Artists often seek out producers to bring a new perspective to their artistic and sonic direction. This added perspective can expand artists’ creative abilities (Morrow, 2012). Sawyer (2007), Csikszentmihalyi (2000) and DeZutter (2010) have explored the creation of a network of ideas focused on creation as opposed to a more individualistic approach to creative invention. Csikszentmihalyi (2000) writes that human beings can achieve a state of individual ‘creative flow’ to experience not only peak mental performance but also to increase our enjoyment of tasks. When working in the recording studio, individuals formulate new and sophisticated musical and technical ideas using these flow states (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Morrow, 2007). However, musical invention does not occur in isolation, and the recording environment is not immune to historical and cultural influence. As a result, both musical and record production ideas come from a social structure built on previous concepts and traditions (Csikszentmihalyi, 1998). In a practical sense, ‘knowledge is arrived at through collective inquiry’ (Bacon, 2012, p. 43), and record producers benefit from the collective contribution of those that came before them. Csikszentmihalyi (1998) argues for a tripartite systems model in which the field and domain are critical influences in the development of creative ideas. This interactive systems model is further developed by McIntyre (2011, p. 82), who situates creative practitioners within an interactive model that includes both field (communities of practice) and domain (culture and tradition) as reflexive influences on their work.
Figure 3.2 The Systems Model of Creativity (Csikszentmihalyi 1999, p. 315).
Such a rhetorical framework suggests that even an individual producer-artist is influenced by what Morrow (2012, para 8) refers to as ‘a system of circular causality’. This system allows for a macro view of record production as a form of creative invention, and acknowledges that any individual creativity does not occur in isolation. McIntyre (2011) adopts Csikszentmihalyi’s (1999) psychological model and applies it to the generation of musical ideas by reframing the domain, the field and the individual. McIntyre’s (2011) investigation considers the domain as a formal and informal process of musical learning through a multitude of sources including but not limited to, peer information, familial relations, learning of songs, and peer to peer interactions (p. 85). The field in this model is portrayed as a complex social structure surrounding the individual, such as record labels and publishers, new digital media, radio, and live performance industries that guide and influence creativity (p. 85). Finally, McIntyre positions songwriters and performers as the individuals that operate in this systems model, producing creative content that interacts with the field and the domain. Using this model, it is possible to understand that the musical creator is not operating as an individual, but is nested within a system that influences the creation of all new content. In this thesis, the systems model operates as a counter to the individualistic nature of Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory and situates the musician as connected to cognitive schema of performing and recording traditions that inform the networked decision-making that occurs in sensemaking groups. As such, is impossible for a sensemaking group to map a process without negotiating the
72 culture, domain, and symbol systems that constitute the overarching systems model of recording practice.
However, there is a tension between the systems model as explained above. That is because musicians are not interacting with the larger elements of the systems model until after the release of a record. As such, musicians in the studio are not interacting with the large systems model until they are finished recording. Because of this conflict, the systems view offers a big picture macro view of cultures, domains, and fields that may feel like they don’t relate to sensemaking groups involved in the micro-processes that occur in the recording studio. However, Thompson (2016) offers a scaled approach to the systems model that specifically addresses small groups of musicians in the recording studio. Thompson (2016) argues that knowledge of microphone performance, songwriting history, social practices, and musical language form a vital part of the social cognitive schema that musicians negotiate when working in the smaller environment of the recording studio. As such, he asserts that the recording studio operates as a microdomain which operates with a small creative group of musicians that he labels as a microfield. In doing so Thompson scales the systems model to a “group level in which ‘creative ideas or actions’ occur at the intersection of the ‘microdomain’, the ‘microfield’ and ‘agents’ (p. 84). It is this scaled system of creativity that places a musical group into the systems model, and it is at the intersection of the microdomain and microfield that sensemaking between groups of musicians occurs.
Csikszentmihalyi identified what he called a state of peak creative flow, a ‘state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. 4). This state of flow is considered an ideal state for ‘intrinsically motivated autotelic activity’ (Nakamura, 2014, p. 89). Record- making operates as a form of creatively motivated work that involves flow states of embedded concentration. However, in the recording environment, it is common for more than one actor to be involved in a flow state. This creates the potential for unified group flow states as described by Sawyer (2007) who suggests that groups can work together to attain a state of collective intellectual unification. This socialised concept of group flow implies that all members of a group are experiencing a unified sense of peak creativity at the same time. Such a group flow phenomenon works well in a musical setting because musicians acquire a variety of
roles depending on the combination of instruments. As Sawyer (2007) states; ‘groups are more likely to be in group flow when there is more diversity; problem-solving groups are often more effective when more tacit knowledge is shared’ (p. 53). However, musicians that have been working in a flow state together for period of time run the risk of disruption when a producer is introduced into the group. Howlett (2007) manages the potentially disruptive influence of a producer by encouraging the more improvisational nature of group flow. He argues that these improvisational approaches can create the ‘magic’ in a recording session, as long as the producer maintains a balance between the ‘specific extrinsic goals’ of the recording team and ‘shared structures’ that they inhabit to produce recorded music (p. 38). Such a focus on the extrinsic motivations of the project allows the producer to manage potentially disruptive exercises in music-making while keeping the project within a sensible boundary that brackets the goals of the project.
Morrow (2012) explains that group flow is a decentralised decision-making process by which members of the group defer to the ‘emergent flow of the group’ (para 5). He argues that record producers can enter into an established group flow to contribute a new perspective and expand the diversity of the group flow (para 22), offering an extended perspective but also the prospect of disagreement with the producer. Martin (2014) observes that there is significant potential for producers and artists to disagree on musical production and construction, with Morrow (2012) describing how the band Boy and Bear and their producer Chicarelli suffered from a communication collapse that affected the flow of the group and the outcome of the record. In his conclusions, Morrow states that group flow necessitates some conflict due to the divergent skills and aims of the group. However, encouraging conflict creates conditions that need to be managed, and Morrow acknowledges that ‘further research is needed into understanding how conflict in the studio environment can be managed’ (para 53).
Motivations for using a producer can vary from the dramatic catalyst added to shake up the artist’s recording practice, or the strategically pragmatic approach of attaching a high-profile name to a record to boost ‘brand value’ (Hepworth-Sawyer & Golding, 2010, p.87). As well as these motivations, producers are often employed to develop and assist in the process of a songwriting entity such as a band or artist. Morrow (2012) argues that bands run the danger of becoming predictable in their
74 approach to writing and recording music. An example of a producer impacting upon a band’s creative process is the relationship between award-winning producer Brian Eno and Coldplay. Eno banned Coldplay’s principal songwriter Chris Martin from the studio for two weeks. ‘He said that he still wanted to work with us on the next album but that I was banned from the studio’ (Martin, 2009, in Michaels, 2009). This removal of the primary songwriter from the process allowed the other members of the band to express their ideas without being influenced by the principal songwriter (Michaels, 2009). Such an approach served to energise group record production and offer an alternative perspective to the songwriting and recording process of Coldplay. The addition of the producer in any band circumstance offers up a new assortment of tacit and explicit skills. This addition of skills can be applied to create a record with a novel perspective that the band is unlikely to possess. A lack of perspective occurs because of the emotional energy and time investment that a band have already devoted to their songwriting process. As well as offering this new perception, producers may serve to assist groups in the negotiation of the recording process which is changing due to digital disruption and the decline of traditional recording models (Goold, 2018).
3.4 IDENTITY IN A CHANGING LANDSCAPE
The record producer exists in an evolving landscape, in which the boundaries of record-making are in flux. This change is accelerating through the technological and social transformation of the industry, resulting in an ongoing renegotiation of producers’ relationships with artists, technologies and the spaces customarily associated with the role. Regarding the importance of space in the record making process, Goold frames the issue as one of constant ‘questioning of where the future of the recording studio lay[s]’ (Goold, 2018, p. 185). If producers no longer need expensive facilities to record groups, then the same applies to musical groups who no longer need expensive producers. As a result, producers struggle with existential questions that attempt to justify the value of a role that used to be defined as ‘professionals [who] have the authority to function as gatekeepers, limiting what is done, by whom and how’ (Carvalho, 2012, para 29). Since this image of the record producer is arguably in decline (Goold, 2018; Homer, 2009; Salmon, 2008), any change to the industry and the surrounding technology means that the record producer must refine their identity to make sense of their position in the recording
industry. The questioning of identity is also considered to be a foundational property of the organisational theory of sensemaking (Allen, 2011; Maitlis, 2007; Weick, 1995), in which such questioning is positioned as the first stage that triggers the process of sensemaking.
Many external factors contribute to the shift in the role of the producer, such as stagnating sales (Martin, 2014), the diminishing of the technological barriers for recording music (Carvalho, 2012) and the erosion of recording budgets (Leyshon, 2009). Goold argues that ‘the need for traditional recording setups in large-format studios is no longer there’ and producers are adjusting to combinations of large- format and DIY recording paradigms (Goold, 2018, p. 179). The shift away from traditional recording paradigms decouples the record producer from the recording studio, meaning that the producer is constantly renegotiating their relationship to technology, space and creativity. The acceleration of change in the recording industry has already impacted the working practice of the producer, with Gould (2004) arguing that changes brought about by digital recording could become profound enough that we will be ‘compelled to redefine the terminology with which we express our thoughts about art’ (p. 126).
3.5 NARROWING THE DEFINITION
This chapter defines the producer on a spectrum of production approaches, and argues that there are multiple considerations that impact upon how a record producer works within a creative group. It also outlines how group flow theory applies to the record-making process. As my research investigates how the producer and participants make sense of social, logistical and technical elements of the recording process, it is important to collect data about the kinds of creative interactions that occur between participants. For this research, I define the record producer as a facilitative member of a creative group seeking to record new music. Examples of technological changes that have occurred in this study include transnational recording using Dropbox and Skype, and mobile digital location recordings in India, along with the more traditional case studies undertaken in the large-format recording studio. Because each of these investigations focus on a record producer perspective it is necessary to state the spectrum of production styles that these papers investigate. The production approach falls between the facilitative and nexus producer, shifting
76 reflexively according to the bands being recorded. The producer operates as a democratic member of the group in order to maximise the sensemaking and group flow of each project.
3.6 CONCLUSION
The producer occupies a precarious position, and it is challenging to create a precise definition of their role in the twenty-first century. As a producer begins a relationship with a new group, environmental boundaries are continuously redefining through technological shifts and the accommodation of the specific aspirations of each new group. Producer Phil Harding frames the role of the record producer as a social one, stating that seventy percent is ‘character and motivation, being able to fit into a team’ (Martin, 2014, p. 73). However, if we shift the focus from defining the producer towards a social interaction model of sensemaking, we can examine the relational aspects of record producing through an organisational lens. Such a viewpoint offers the opportunity to observe a large range of production approaches and systems of recording practice. For example, Maitlis (2005) offers a communicational model of four forms of organisational sensemaking and sensegiving that examines the more relational aspects of organisational communication that could apply to the record producer (p. 32). Another approach would be to use Rutledge’s (2009) four stages of sensemaking to observe production processes during record-making. Using either of these analytical frames, a new producer/band relationship must adhere to the formation of sensible environmental boundaries that observe the specific goals of the group (Allen, 2011). As a result, each new combination of producer and musical group requires an updated strategic approach to avoid structural impediments to sensemaking such as restricted traditional thinking or hierarchical decision-making (Weick, 1993). Such an approach to recording allows producers and artists to create flexible organisational habits that can later inform their recording practice.
Chapter 4: Methodology
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter explores methodological approaches to researching collaborative music creation in the recording studio that underpin the more specific research design parameters in each of the five articles. The chapter provides justification of the specific research methods that I have utilised, detailing how these methods are appropriate for the pragmatic and constructionist onto-epistemological questions explored in the research. Finally, this chapter details the collection, management and analysis of data, as well as indicating how participants were recruited and what ethical issues were taken into consideration during the research.
4.2 A QUALITATIVE APPROACH TO RECORDING
The research in this thesis was conducted from a qualitative methodological approach. Marshall and Rossman (2007) describe how qualitative approaches hold three primary purposes for researchers: to ‘explore, explain, or describe a phenomenon’ (p. 33). During my research, I explore two central phenomena with the intent to link them to the theoretical frameworks of Karl Weick (1993, 1995, 1998) and group interactivity frameworks (Csikszentmihalyi, 1995; DeZutter, 2009; Sawyer, 2007). The first phenomenon is the creative flow state of the group involved with the recording process. The second is the sensemaking that occurs when a collective of musicians and record producers combine their knowledge to write and record new music. I investigated both flow and sensemaking in the recording studio with a ‘uniquely humanistic, interpretive approach, as opposed to supposedly “scientific” and “positivist” positions’ (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994, p. 249). A qualitative methodological approach acknowledges the messy, ‘real-world’ nature of creative performance in the recording studio, accounting for the high level of tacit knowledge involved in understanding the intricacies of the recording studio. The focus on social relations in group flow and sensemaking was important as I was examining ‘relational identities of actors, and in the social and technological contexts in which actors are operating’ (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007, p. 34), A qualitative
78 approach to methodology was more suited to answer the process-driven questions surrounding sensemaking and the social formation of ideas. Cassell and Symon (2004) argue for a more qualitative approach to an organisational investigation because ‘there is no textbook answer to what a dynamic process is, and real life is messy; the people immersed in those situations and circumstances are trying to make sense of them’ (p. 58). As a result, there was less for me to gain from a quantitative approach than there was from a more vigorous examination of the processes of sensemaking and its relationship to the established theory (Allen, 2011; Maitlis 2005; Weick, 1995). A qualitative and humanistic approach shed more light on the critical decisions involved in the socially complex and process-driven record-making environment than remote indicators of nominalistic data (Becker, 1996). Such humanistic approaches aided my understanding of collective, discovery-driven phenomena. Criticism of qualitative exploration asserts that the researcher is ‘biased by implicit assumptions, interests, worldviews, prejudices, and one-sightedness of the researcher’ (Diefenbach, 2009, p 876). However, Sofaer (1999) states that qualitative research ‘serves the desire to describe; it also helps move inquiry toward more meaningful explanations’ (p. 1102). A macro approach to data analysis may offer the potential to make generalised conclusions, but this approach misses the important relational aspects that drive much sensemaking in the recording process, not relating clearly to the messy nature of the recording studio and the social interactions that are difficult to quantify. This quantitative lens was inappropriate when investigating how process-based thinking affects abstract notions of creativity, and the systems of creative flow in the recording context (see. Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, 1990, 2000; DeZutter, 2009; McIntyre, 2008; Sawyer, 2007). As a result of this, I adopted the view that sensemaking phenomena were best observed using a qualitative methodology.
4.2.1 Participant Observation Methodology Throughout the research, I relied heavily on the methodology of participant observation. In doing so, I adopt Jorgensen’s (2011) view that the ‘methodology of participant observation is exceptional for studying processes, relationships among people and events, the organization of people and events’ (p. 13).
Sensemaking is a complicated and interconnected social process that takes place within an embedded environment. Weick, Sutcliffe and Obstfeld (2011) argue
that ‘sensemaking is not a technique to be learned but more a phenomenon to be studied’ (p. 17). It was difficult to comprehend such a socially interactive phenomenon without being in the recording space and interacting with the actors. As a result, I adopted a participatory methodological framework because ‘it can be impossible (or as near as makes no difference) to get sufficient exposure to a setting or a group without becoming a participant’ (Sofaer, 1999, p. 1109). Such an approach allowed me to use personal experience to guide my research, something that was critical to my understanding of the social nature of sensemaking (Weick, 1995). Jorgensen (2011) frames ‘membership’ as a valuable means to qualitative data, stating that ‘by becoming a member, the researcher generates the experiences of a member’ rather than that of a non-participating observer (p. 23). Participant observation is a common methodology in the study of record production, with several examples of observational case studies in sensemaking research that have offered useful insights from this methodological basis (Batthelson & Ramesh, 2013; Maitlis, 2005; Rutledge, 2009). Drawing on these established methods, I adopted the position of an embedded participant or member of the recording context, rather than that of an observer located in an imagined, objective or ‘outside’ position.
A variety of methods have been adopted by researchers within the qualitative research framework described above. Atkinson and Hammersley (1994) contend that such diversity of approaches makes it difficult to assign one encompassing definition of qualitative method and ethnography. Methodological perspectives differ for each researcher, for some ‘it refers to a philosophical paradigm to which one makes a total commitment, for others, it designates a method that one uses as and when appropriate. Moreover, there are positions between these extremes’ (p. 248). These differing approaches are context-specific, and the level of involvement depends entirely on the phenomena under examination. I adopted the method of participant observation, to profit from inter-relational insight into sensemaking in the recording environment. This form of observation also allowed for the use of tacit record production knowledge into the investigation. Utilising my tacit knowledge was an important element of the research because it offered me the ability ‘to show how things hang together in a web of mutual influence or support or interdependence’ (Becker, 1996, p. 3). My reasons for choosing a participant role (as opposed to a purely observational role) have more to do with the design of recording studios and
80 the methods that have already been applied in the relatively new field of recording studio ethnography (Feldman et al., 2003; Thompson & Lashua, 2014). Because gaining access was such an important element of recording studio observation, I choose to play a useful role in the recording studio. Adopting a role in the recording sessions allowed me to gain access to recordings as well as trust with the research participants.
4.2.2 Existing Participant Observation Research in the Recording Studio Key literature in the nascent field of record production research guided my methodological approach (Bates, 2008; Howlett, 2007; McIntyre, 2011, 2012; Porcello, 2004; Thompson & Lashua, 2014). This literature demonstrates a predilection towards participation-driven methodological approaches. For example, Porcello (2004) participates in recording sessions with both inexperienced and experienced recording engineers to gain insight into their process. Porcello (2004) adopted participant methodology because his investigation aimed to uncover auditory knowledge in the recording context which only ‘emerges through interplay between a domain of targeted listening and a set of discursive practices played out in the context of specific sound-engineering activities’ (p. 734). Howlett (2007) takes a more autoethnographic approach to the study of the record producer as a nexus, examining the relationships during record-making: as he writes, ‘it comes down to the personal relationship a producer develops with the artist’ (p. 19). In his approach Howlett takes a narrative approach to investigate the relationships and the layers of consciousness while operating as an intellectual co-participant in the story of record making (p. 3).
Thompson (2014) has used closed-circuit cameras to observe as much of the recording studio as possible but with a less invasive method of capturing data in a creative space. I have adopted Thompson's (2014) approach of relying on video to capture conversations and interactions, to participate in the production process unhindered by the collection and management of data. During transcription of the conversations that took place, it was helpful to conduct stimulated recall of events in a less time-pressured environment. These additional recall notes added another dimension to the transcribed data, along with field notes from the sessions, and interaction observations from the video footage. Alongside the tacit knowledge from years of field experience, producers have access to a broad community of musicians
and artists that already exist in their field of associates. In this sense, record producers working as participant observers operate in a zone between academia and the outside world, creating social movement between actors and brokering new relationships between academia and the broader community (Bratich, 2018). Overall, my position as a participant observer enabled me to work between different settings of the music industry, music education, scholarly research and the broader community in ways that could draw on strengths in each area.
4.2.3 The Positioning of Researcher As Participant In this research, I participated as a record producer, an engineer and a self- produced songwriter. In all of these scenarios, I drew on my extensive experience as a professional record producer and audio educator. This acquired experience allowed me to insert myself as a member of the group that added value to the creative process, bringing insights from a deep understanding of the process of record- making. Boden (2004) asserts that ‘all skills and all intuitive insights are grounded in “tacit knowledge”’ (p. 35), and record production experience equips researchers to ask questions and take actions on a deeper level that an investigator without the required tacit knowledge would likely miss. Experience also informs actions taken in the studio. Elkjaer, & Simpson (2001) argue that knowledge ‘encompasses action not as a representation but as a disposition towards certain ways to act’ (p. 73). Such dispositions allowed me to filter out unnecessary research questions and focus on the actions that were of interest to the sensemaking process. However, tacit knowledge also presented a danger. Producers can fall into the trap of relying on their learned behaviour rather than being aware of cultural, training, or idiosyncratic bias (Csikszentmihalyi, 1998). As a member of a community of practice of record producers, I am familiar with the language and communication intricacies appropriate to the recording community of practice (Lefford, 2015). This experience drives my requirement for a deeper understanding of the social and organisational structures of recording practice. In this research, I applied knowledge obtained as a record producer but combined it with sensemaking theory to gain a deeper insight into the field of record production. I used record production knowledge to search for questions, but used sensemaking theory to frame and investigate the answers.
Using participant observation while studying sensemaking in the recording environment solved three specific problems. First, assuming a specific role in the
82 recording studio offered me a reason to be in an environment which traditionally has very little available space. Recording studios are workspaces developed and optimised for the working roles associated with producing recordings for clients (Thompson & Lashua, 2014). They are not observational laboratories; they are designed and constructed to fulfil the purpose of creating and documenting music. As such, it is unlikely that any recording studio will have a space reserved for an observer that will not interfere with the optimal organisation of the recording sessions. If an observer has the required skills and can fulfil an essential role in the studio, their position as the participant can be advantageous to both creative outcomes and research. Second, this role can reveal a deeper insight into aspects of creative practice and the interconnected nature of creativity in the studio. Working as an insider and directly interfacing with the relationship structures provided the opportunity to understand these relational interactions from within: it afforded ‘access to the network of typifications, or interpretive schemes, which individuals bring to their roles in particular organizations’ (Cassell and Symons, 2004, p. 36). Third, the recording studio is a codified zone of practice that requires a specific skill set and experiential level to comprehend on a deeper level as a researcher. Without in-depth experiential knowledge of recording practice, researchers run the risk of missing details in the recording or examining unnecessary proponents and wasting time. Porcello (2004) refers to this as ‘codified ways of referring to various acoustic phenomena pertinent to the work of sound recording, and that a crucial part of professional competence is knowing and gaining fluency with these linguistic resources’ (p. 740). As such, my ability to understand this codified knowledge while fulfilling a central role in the creative projects provided me with a logical and advantageous position from which to conduct the research.
4.2.4 Limitations of Participant Observation Bratich (2018) states that ‘more immersion and reciprocation in ethnographic work sensibly and ethically blurs lines between researcher and researched’ (p. 958). Feldman et al. (2003) echo this sentiment that ‘The combination of spending long periods with subjects and occasionally ‘helping out’ to gain their trust leads to a blurring of the researcher/participant line’ (p. 120). In a recording environment, producers spend significant amounts of time with artists, a situation in which the development of relationships may colour the recall of events and impact the
interpretation of data. However, to arrive at any relational insight researchers have to relate to their subjects in some way. Jarvie (1969) argues for a spectrum of positions, including ‘complete participation; the participant doubling as observer; the observer doubling as participant; and the complete observer’ (p. 505). Each of these positions offers the researcher a lens with which to view their findings, and understanding which position is the key to understanding identity during embedded research. Before beginning the recording sessions, I was aware that Jarvie’s (1969) position of the complete participant was the only approach to become an embedded member of a sensemaking group. These criticisms tend to position participation as a research technique which misrepresents the nature of participant observation, which, by its nature, is difficult to define using a positivist, scientific approach. Using this logic, ‘participant observation is not a particular research technique but a mode of being-in- the-world characteristic of researchers’ (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994, p. 249). Using the ‘mode of being’ approach meant that participant observation was both a method of interacting with data as well as a methodology. There is always a balance between maintaining critical distance as the researcher, and the intimacy of the insider-researcher embedded in the process. As a result, ‘there is no perfect balance between intimacy and distance that produces ‘objective consensus’; instead, we see a move to collaboration, multidirectional inquiry’ (Bratich, 2018, p. 958). To counter these criticisms, my research supplements observational data with interviews, video footage, and transcribed data that help to triangulate my observations through experiential evidence that has been analysed at the completion of each case study. Throughout this process, it is important to understand that these methodological critiques persist, although the benefits of participating in the relational aspects of sensemaking tend to outweigh the drawbacks identified by such critiques. The specific research methods that I used to enact this qualitative methodology are discussed in the following sections of this chapter.
4.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
4.3.1 Thesis by Publication This thesis was written by publication, and my strategy was to produce an integrated series of articles on sensemaking in the recording studio. Using this approach, I have presented my research to the wider scholarly community in this
84 field. During my second and third years of research, I presented five papers in both Denmark and Sweden at the ARP annual conferences. I utilised these occasions to elicit peer review and feedback on my work, seeking to learn as much as possible in this way from the international community of academics in my field. Participating in academic conferences also presented the chance to understand how sensemaking research can be situated most convincingly within the record-making field. The final result is a collection of thematically linked articles and conference papers that operate as multiple case studies on sensemaking in the recording studio.
4.3.2 Thematically Linked Papers I conducted this research in five separate thematically linked papers to ‘seek to show the range of ways that a phenomenon is experienced within the chosen context’ (Cassell & Symon, 2004, p. 17). I aimed to present ‘an in-depth, multifaceted investigation, using qualitative research methods, of a single, social phenomenon’ (Schwandt & Gates, 2018, p. 623). My intent with combining multiple articles was to cover different ‘contextual conditions’ which were highly pertinent to the phenomenon I am studying (Yin, 2006, p. 13). I adopted Yin’s (2006, p. 14) position that each article was a qualitative examination of different cases, thus creating a variety of thematically linked investigations that examine recording practice in different settings, contributing to our understanding of sensemaking phenomenon and recording practice. The purpose of each article is to generate and refine hypotheses ‘specifically connected to theoretical ideas or propositions of interest’ (Schwandt & Gates, 2018, p. 628).
Thematically linked observational papers—like all ethnographic research—can be the subject of critique because the ‘influence of the researcher on the research design’ may be too great (Diefenbach, 2009, p. 876). However, using isolated papers in the study of record production and sensemaking is essential due to the changeable nature of the recording studio (Carvalho 2012; Kirby, 2015; Pras et al., 2013; Williams, 2007). Due to the nature of the evolving recording environment, I opted to use this approach so that I could examine how sensemaking occurs in a variety of recording sessions. These recordings occurred in traditional studios, or as international collaborations with record producers in the USA, or in ad hoc studio settings in both Australia and India. It is important to note that the choice of case
studies was not to replicate the same process but to observe how the process of recording and social sensemaking occurs in contrasting settings
Considering the variety of definitions that surround the record producer, it is necessary to set defined boundaries around what kind of record production I discuss in this thesis. As such, this thesis deals primarily with recording and observing indie rock bands, and only draws on a very limited or minor aspect of sequencing or other electronic musical elements. The style or genre of recordings undertaken during the data collection phase of this thesis includes soul revival, psychedelic rock, modern indie rock and garage rock. These musical styles were chosen because they fall within my area of expertease. The articles in the manuscript are concerned with producing professional indie rock bands using predominantly live tracking for the rhythm instruments and overdubbing for the remaining instruments. The settings vary from traditional recording studios to internet-based collaborations, but the style of record production uses creative layers of real instruments—drums, bass, synthesisers, guitars, percussion and vocals—to record new musical content. In this sense, the dynamics of changing recording contexts was accompanied by a range of common assumptions about musical style and genre.
4.3.1 Data Collection The data for this research was multimodal due to the case study approach of my research. Each case study had a distinct approach that was unique to the circumstances of the sensemaking that I observed. The data for the first and third papers was collected as video footage, on location at QUT studios and at the Brisbane Boys College (BBC) recording facility. Both of these studios presented a controlled environment that enabled me to set up elaborate live recordings to maximise the group interaction during song tracking. The data for the second paper was a series of interviews that were filmed and transcribed on location at QUT, at various recording facilities and via Skype for the international producers. All of these interviews were arranged at an agreed time that was comfortable for the producers to minimise the impact of my research on their day to day routine. The data for the fourth paper was collected via Skype as both my participants for the fourth paper were from North America. This was supplemented with reflective data from the participants and myself. The data for the fifth paper was the most complex, despite there being only three participants: it was produced through a combination of Skype
86 meetings between India and Australia, reflective data from my own field notes, interviews conducted on location in India, and exit interviews conducted at the conclusion of the project. Data collection occurred from March 2016 to December 2017.
4.4 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH METHODS
The data collection for my research aimed to cover a broad range of sensemaking experiences and interrelated phenomena in the recording studio. Because my primary research method was observation in a working studio space, I had to ensure that the sessions were documented through several different approaches. To comprehensively study recording and sensemaking, I developed a plan that employed reflective notes, video documentation, stimulated recall, transcribed interviews, transcribed studio interaction and recorded Skype meeting sessions for transnational projects. Diefenbach (2009) infers that a broader pool of data including interviews based around the same phenomena paints a more complete picture, with a broader approach manifesting emergent patterns that are not possible in a one-dimensional approach to data analysis. This assorted set of capture methods provided the research with a diverse dataset that formed a complete picture of sensemaking in action.
4.4.1 Documenting Conversations in the Studio Participation and observation formed the dominant research methods in this study. However, due to the demanding nature of the participation it was necessary to document the research using audio or video capture. Using a video camera in the recording studio presents several benefits when collecting data. A visual record offers ‘significant advantages in coming to grips with the often-frenetic swirl of activity in music recording studios’ (Thompson & Lashua, 2014, p. 748). A video camera is also a useful resource for conducting interviews as it ‘allows the researcher to devote his or her full attention to listening to the interviewee and probing in-depth’ (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003, p. 166). The video footage also presents a complete capture in the recording studio, allowing for ‘individuals to be identified and bodily movements examined’ (Cassel & Symon, 2004 p. 131). Because of this ability to visually identify subjects, video footage enables a more accurate transcription of verbal and non-verbal communication. Beaulieu (2004) states that video captures
more than just vocal interaction, a video camera is also capable of capturing ‘the complexity of inscriptions, of other textualities and mediations’ (p. 160). In the studio context, there are multiple combinations of space, orientation, and exotic equipment serving as non-human actors presenting intertextual information that is valuable to the post data analysis. With all of this data captured, video emerges as a reliable record of events despite the time-consuming process of transcription.
However, there are drawbacks to working with a video camera during participant observation in a creative project. Harrell and Bradley (2009) argue that ‘regardless of the approach, it is important to remember that no video or audio reproduction captures every element of the session’ (p. 95). Despite being useful data capture devices, video cameras are invasive and potentially disruptive to actors in a studio recording environment. Researchers relying on cameras must understand that there are restrictions on the placement of an observational tool that potentially disrupts the flow of the recording session. There is also a question of visibility. Becker (1996) states ‘when we set up a video camera, it sits in one place at a time, and some things cannot be seen from that vantage point; adding more cameras does not alter the argument’ (p. 9). Another concern regarding capturing video is that artists are uncomfortable when confronted with a camera during a recording session. As a result, researchers need to consider the implications of camera placement and will have to make visual compromises to avoid the camera obstructing the flow of the recording. Thompson (2014) achieves this by using less invasive closed-circuit TV cameras in corners of the recording studio arguing that small cameras placed out of the line of sight eventually blend into the background as artists become more comfortable in the environment. Despite the potential drawbacks of invasiveness and selective framing of the events, video footage still offers a rich source of interactive data that—when combined with interview data—provides a more complete source of information. Because of the nature of video recording, much of the information capture fades into the background, and the participant observer is free to engage without interrupting the flow of the recording to take detailed field notes.
Conducting and analysing a recording session at the same time can hamper the collection of observational notes. My participation and observation in the studio required an in-depth approach to creative interaction; limited time or intellectual space remained to take any form of detailed field notes. Recording music is a
88 multidimensional, cognitively engaging practice that does not leave any real mental scope for analytical, research work. As a result of this level of attention to the recording process, the field notes I collected during my first recording sessions produced only limited relevant data. This concern was compounded because there was no way to engage in any creative flow or group flow state while in an analytical mindset. As a result, I abandoned the collection of field notes from this point in the research, instead documenting the recording sessions with a video camera and proceeding to transcribe the data at a later date. Generating data in this way provided three distinct advantages. Firstly, there was a more detailed documentation of the recording session that was untainted by the flaws in my memory. On several occasions during my transcription phase, I was surprised that the video painted a very different picture to the one I remembered. Secondly, the use of video recording meant that I could redirect the data collection from production field notes to video capture. Removing field notes from the research increased my mental freedom enabling me to focus on the task at hand without any research driven distractions. As a result of this ability to focus, I was able to engage on a deeper level with the other participants. Thirdly, future transcription and analysis of the recording sessions enabled me to deepen my relationship with the data through the ability to slow down and repeatedly view specific recording moments. Such a comprehensive level of information enabled me to create connections and inferences that were not possible with field notes.
The drawback to this method was the difficulty in placing cameras to capture the entire event as well as the intrusion of a small video camera pointing at the subjects. Also, I occasionally forgot to record moments because of my immediate involvement with the decision-making of record production. The final drawback was the vast amount of data that the video produced which was difficult to transcribe and thematically analyse. Despite the issues of invasiveness and capture that were considered earlier in the chapter, video footage provided a rich source of information that I was able to observe later and compare to my notes. Without video, I would have missed some significant events that I noticed later in the transcription of the footage.
4.4.2 Interviews Producer interviews presented the opportunity to broaden the research scope and expand my understanding of the recording process beyond my methods. According to Harrel and Bradley (2009), interviews offer the opportunity to both clear up potential conflicting information generated from the observation data as well as offer more depth and perspective to the collected data (p. 10). I acknowledge that stimulated recall and interactive transcriptions offer a participant-centric view of social construction and sensemaking in the environment. As such, the interviews I conducted aimed to assemble an extensive collection of data to supplement the participant observation in my research. Without input from a multiplicity of producers, this research offers a one-dimensional interpretation of recording practice.
One of the key reasons to include interviews in the research was to broaden the pool of subjects within a specific field of study. According to Schwandt & Gates (2018), interviews offer the opportunity to ‘understand the experiences, perspectives, and worldviews of people in a particular set of circumstances’ (p. 626). As previously discussed, Skype afforded the opportunity to broaden the interview field using perspectives from different communities of practice from the USA, Australia and Iceland. Conducting interviews offered the opportunity to clarify certain concepts that arose during participant observation sessions as well as clarifying concepts ‘interviews are also the best methods to resolve seemingly conflicting information’ that arose during multiple recording sessions (Harrel & Bradley, 2009, p. 10). The different perspectives of the five producers allowed for a more detailed understanding of key concepts while adding new perspectives on ideas that were not yet considered in the research.
The major issue with interviews is convincing participants to give up their time to further the aims of the researcher. To counter this imposition of time, Ritchie and Lewis (2003) stress that participants must be informed of time requirements, subject matter, and whether they will be identified by name in the research (p. 67). These considerations were addressed by sending a short email to the participants before they agreed to conduct the interview. Each interview was filmed or recorded on Skype to capture a more complete picture of both verbal and non-verbal communication.
90 4.4.3 Skype Skype provided a reliable platform for conducting sensemaking meetings for the international project in India and in collaborations with the USA. I also used Skype to capture interviews with Producers Stephen Bartlett in New York, Ryan Earndheart in North Carolina, which offered the additional opportunity for capturing interaction analysis. To capture these meetings, I used Ecam software, which allowed me to analyse and transcribe the meetings without having to take notes. Such an approach meant that I was free to engage directly with meetings and interviews rather than allow for the distraction of notetaking. The recordings of meetings also offered a rich source of data for use in visual presentations at scholarly conferences.
As the research began to take a more transnational direction, I needed to use video conferencing technology to connect with my participants. Deakin and Wakefield (2014) state that ‘inexpensive, relatively easy-to-use technologies, have made the potential to conduct online audio and video interviews more viable in recent years’ (p. 604). I chose to use Skype because it had ‘another benefit over face to face interviews, in that video footage of both the interviewer and the participant can be recorded very easily’ (Iacono et al., 2016, p. 8). Recorded video conferencing offers the chance to observe more than the human voice, including a richness of non- verbal cues that may identify moods, reactions, and the engagement of subjects (Bertrand & Bordeau, 2010). Beyond the verbal and non-verbal information produced by Skype recordings, there was a wealth of situational information within the frame of the camera. Skype allows researchers to observe participants in their own space and provides a significant amount of supporting situational data. Iacono et al. (2016) reinforce this notion of situational data, arguing that ‘how that location is set (including with background insignia), also may convey useful meanings’ (p. 8). As well as the rich non-verbal and situational data, Skype expands the researcher's ability to broaden the geography of their research, providing the ability to interact with international scholars and—in the case of this research—three international producers.
There are potential drawbacks to using Skype as a form of interview and meeting data collection. First, Skype cameras are positioned in such a way that our eyes are unable to make contact without the participants looking straight at the camera (Bertrand & Bordeau, 2010). The positioning of cameras on computer screens
presents a lack of eye contact that is problematic for researchers. Looking at the camera means that researchers can make eye contact, but, in doing so they miss the facial expressions of the participants. The lack of eye contact means that Skype encapsulates a ‘weaker social presence afforded by the video conference technology’ (Chapman & Rowe, p. 292). Other drawbacks are technology-based, internet bandwidths and computer glitches can cause disruptions to the social interaction afforded by Skype. However, ‘conducting in-person interviews can be particularly difficult for researchers whose participants are geographically dispersed’ (Deakin & Wakefield, 2014, p. 604). This difficulty was apparent in my research, due to the geographical isolation of island continents like Australia and New Zealand. As such, the benefits of capturing visual data with both verbal and non-verbal cues outweigh the communicational issues associated with the Skype platform.
4.4.4 Table of Papers and Methods Throughout the process of assembling the five papers, I relied on several data collection methods including video footage, interview data, reflective notes, multitrack recordings. I relied on different methods to collect and analyse the data depending on the context of each paper. The table below offers an indication of how the research data was generated and collected in each paper. It states the aims of each paper and how the data collection was structured to achieve those aims.
Paper Aim Methods Data Collection Data Analysis Results
Paper 1 Investigate Conducting a Multitrack Aural analysis Discovery of new phase recording recording of and unexpected In Between relationships experiment before and after microphone Phase examples for relationships comparison
Paper 2 Investigate Single Five transcribed Qualitative Discovery of Producer as other qualitative one-hour thematic facilitating role and facilitator production interviews interviews analysis trust-building approaches collected on video
Paper 3 Investigate Participant Video recorded Triangulated Discovery of Sensemaking sensemaking in observation and transcribed qualitative extended social in the studio the studio all conversations, thematic cognitive loops reflective analysis observation
92 Paper 4 Investigate Participant Recorded and Triangulated Discovered how Transnational transnational observation transcribed qualitative sensemaking flow flow Skype meetings, thematic facilitates flow combined with analysis between different reflective countries observational data from all participants
Paper 5 Investigate Participant Recorded and Triangulated Discovering new Sensemaking constrained observation analysed Skype qualitative and complex models in unfamiliar recording meetings, thematic of sensemaking environments sessions in triangulated with analysis unfamiliar reflective environments observational data and interview data collected both during and after the project
Figure 4.1, Research Methods for Five Papers
4.5 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.5.1 QUT Ethical Clearance I applied for ethical clearance for this research through the QUT Human Research Ethics Committee (UHREC) and received approval. My research was conducted in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, 2007 (Australian Government, 2015). QUT Ethical Clearance-Level 1 (Negligible/Low Risk) Approval no 1600000056 was granted on 19 January 2016 from UHREC.
In this research, I was granted ethics approval for individually identifiable data as I was researching record producers in the field and I wanted their statements to be attributable to them. No research data resulting from my work with these participants would be harmful to their careers.
4.5.2 Confidentiality All data collected were stored and protected in accordance with the QUT Office of Research Ethics and Integrity guidelines for the management of research data and records.
4.5.3 Recruitment I provided a more detailed description of the recruitment process in the introduction, but in this section, I describe how I conducted my recruitment according to QUT ethical guidelines. All research subjects were recruited either by a phone call or via email using the QUT email template developed for my ethics application. Each of the recruitments served a different purpose depending on the case study. The producer selection involved an intercontinental selection of record producers from Australia, North America and Iceland. I assembled a list of five producers from my connections made through QUT, attending conferences to meet new producers, cold contacting producers and producers I already associated with in my professional practice. The bands I worked with were all professional working musicians with a track record in recording and releasing music. I have previously worked with two of the bands, and the other two bands were new collaborations. There are more specific details about the participants in each article. Because I needed to assess the social sensemaking side of record production, I selected bands and record producers with a more collaborative and facilitative approach to record production.
4.5.4 Informed Consent As a respectful researcher, I obtained informed consent from all of my participants before conducting my research. My research was classified by the QUT Ethics Department as negligible/low-level of risk as it involved recording music with consenting adults. However, I was guided by the Queensland Government general requirements for consent that:
The guiding principle for researchers is that a person’s decision to participate in research is to be voluntary, and based on sufficient information and adequate understanding of both the proposed research and the implications of participation in it (Queensland Government, 2015).
Upon completion of my research, each participant will receive a copy of my thesis and will have two weeks to review and ask for any changes they may want with the option of having their participation removed if they so wish. However, as the information is about general communication practice and the research does not deal with any conflict it is extremely unlikely that anyone portrayed in this research will object to its publication. None of the participants benefit in any financial way
94 from participating in the study, however, the experience of recording and the completion of recorded music was offered to the musical participants who were giving up significant amounts of time to participate in the research.
4.5.5 Gaining Access to Research Sites There is a risk that unwanted distractions create problems in the recording studio and impede the process of the creative invention. As such ‘studio access is generally open only to those involved in the production’ (Thompson & Lashua, 2014, p. 749). Because recording studios are the realm of recording professionals, there are sets of codified roles and specific forms of practice that occur in a recording studio. ‘Recording studios are not considered “sociable” spaces and are typically only physically accessible through invitation from the studio owner, the main engineer or producer’ (Thompson & Lashua, 2014, p. 749). This unique working environment makes studios challenging spaces for researchers to access effortlessly. Researchers attempting to gain access to recording studios and record productions need to consider that they are inserting themselves into a working environment rather than an idealised social space that only accounts for actors who are fulfilling defined roles. Ethnographers need to understand the level of interaction and the role with which they engage. For example, Feldman et al. (2003) draw attention to the duality of the insider-outsider phenomenon of the researcher as they move from involved membership to a more distant observational orientation. There are clear distinctions between participating in an organisation or a recording and then analysing observations as a researcher. The danger of observation is that ‘researchers may start the research with clear senses of themselves as researchers, the identities often shift during the course of the fieldwork’ (Feldman et al., 2003, p. 20). Such a shifting of identity towards the subjects of the investigation is familiar to record producers who often shift between different projects with multiple artists.
The recording studios inherent resistance to outsiders places the researcher in the position of choosing to participate or to be viewed as an impediment to the creative process. Compounding these considerations, artists are suspicious of observation from someone who is regularly taking notes in the corner of a recording studio. Ethnography encounters a constant struggle with the observer influencing the observed. In a small recording space, this kind of invasive observation is exaggerated by the proximity of space and the self-conscious nature of artists who are trying to
remove inhibitions and build a comfortable environment to take performative risks. Goold (2018) frames this environmental issue as a common assumption that ‘the more comfortable an artist is, the better they will perform’ (p. 18). Producers and engineers present the ideal compromise for this insider-outsider conundrum as they exist in a similar space to a researcher. These actors join with groups for the duration of a recording and then move on at the completion of each recording project.
Howlett (2007) emphasises engaging with artists in meetings before production commences which is a similar paradigm to ethnographers meeting with groups before commencing research. Producers and engineers fulfil functions and position themselves as a part of the social structure of the environment. This role allows the researcher to observe sensemaking from the inside with a small degree of separation from the rest of the group. As the main engineer at a private recording space, I was able to clear recording time to conduct my research at both the BBC and the QUT recording studios. Because I was the record producer for the projects and I understood both facilities at an advanced level, I was able to justify my role as a participant in a recording session.
4.5.6 Establishing Trust Trust is especially necessary when the participant is also recording music for the subjects. Bratich (2018) argues that researchers must understand the non- individualised nature of their interactions to recognise the embedded nature of social relations. This focus on trust is an essential component of the relationship building that researchers in the recording studio need to understand. Paying attention to trust and relationships serves to assist the researcher when analysing their role as an embedded participant. Cassel and Symon (2004) state the trust exists as a part of an ‘honest mode of operation’ where researchers and subjects have an open dialogue about how the research is conducted (p. 217). As well as open discussion, competent actions are essential to building trust, tacit knowledge of the recording process is advantageous because it inspires confidence in the researcher's abilities and gives them a valued place in the studio. Feldman et al. (2003) state that ‘a participant observer, even a passive one, this means participating in the activities with those one is studying to build trust and acceptance’ (p. 119). This demonstration of competence, trust and acceptance aids to increase confidence in the researcher and is crucial to trust-building with the participants. Watson and Ward (2013) discuss trust
96 in the recording studio as two distinct interpersonal phenomena. First, interpersonal trust and second, the trust inspired by competency within the working environment. This concept is reinforced by Deicker (2013), who emphasises that confidence is something that the producer strives to earn so that artists feel comfortable expressing concerns or taking risks. Interpersonal engagement is essential in breaking down the initial discomfort that artists experience meeting new actors in the recording scenario. Grammy Award-winning producer Rick Rubin cites trust-building and a good work ethic as core values to his production practice (Brown, 2009). Strategies such as pre-organised meetings and active, engaged communication can assist the researcher in building trust before entering the recording studio.
4.6 PHASES OF RESEARCH
The following section is a chronological account of how I conducted the research. This journal of events offers insight into the research journey and various stages of the investigation in which I encountered epistemological questions that led me to adjust the scope of my study. I note that my research was very much a journey of discovery and it took me in unexpected directions.
4.6.1 Stage 1 I spent the first year of my research investigating the sensemaking literature to develop an organisationally focused understanding of small groups. During this time, I produced a rough plan for my recording research and completed my ethics clearance. At this early stage, I was establishing the foundation of my work in the literature and planning recording sessions with participants. During this time, I presented my initial literature review chapter, examining case studies of record production from the contextual literature, overlaying sensemaking theory to construct my initial models of sensemaking. After completing the initial literature review for my research, I began investigating studio environments to test sensemaking research, a point at which I encountered my first setback. In my original research design, I had intended to create a thesis that explored sensemaking in the controlled setting of QUT studios. However, several issues disrupted the progression of the research. The first issue was that the QUT studios were still being constructed. Even after completion of the studios, there was an adjustment period when they did not function as intended. It is normal for a new building to take longer than expected to finish;
however, I had not accounted for this disruption in the research design. As a result, I delayed the research and freed up recording time in my private facility so I could start testing sensemaking theories without waiting for the construction of QUT studios. Although this delay was not ideal, it meant that the research contexts were diversified. This diversity of locations later became a strength of the research as it created sensemaking scenarios in a variety of settings, rather than in one controlled environment.
4.6.2 Stage 2 Once the research began, I conducted 12 days of recording to build and examine the first data set on sensemaking in the recording environment. However, after transcribing and analysing the initial recording sessions, I realised I was only approaching the investigation from a singular perspective. There was an overwhelming amount of data that all pointed in one direction, due to the fact that I was expecting a controlled environment to produce unexpected data,.. The result of my first transcription set was a large pool of data that all pointed to a similar conclusion. To broaden my research perspectives, I conducted five interviews with record producers which would later become the basis for my third paper. These interviews allowed me to understand recording-based sensemaking from a multiplicity of perspectives serving to broaden the data pool.
4.6.3 Stage 3 During the second year, I travelled to Denmark to present a research paper that I had prepared with Dr Gavin Carfoot on the subject of DIY studio tools. It was here that I met two American colleagues who would later help assist me in developing more transnationally distributed recording experiments. Upon my return to Australia, I began writing and recording a song with my American colleagues for a paper which we presented in the following year on the subject of transnational collaboration. This collaboration produced my fourth paper on sensemaking and its role in a non- traditional recording setting. At the same time, I began writing an article with Dr Andrew Bourbon from the University of West London. We collaborated to sensemake and develop an approach to microphone placement, drum recording and mix techniques using new recording tools. This collaboration led to my first paper which was a technical investigation of microphone phenomena. The results of this
98 test aided my field research for the final article by developing a drum microphone placement system that works on location recording for less than ideal environments.
4.6.4 Stage 4 The development of the fourth paper on transnational flow with my American colleagues was a breakthrough for the research, and it offered a less traditional setting for the analysis of sensemaking in the field of recording practice. The final paper arose out of an opportunity to participate in a QUT and KM Conservatory partnership project in Chennai India. This trip to India offered the chance to join as a producer in an accelerated recording project, conducted in an unfamiliar cultural environment, recording music in an unconventional space. The level of complexity offered by this project presented the opportunity to study sensemaking in a unique and high-pressure recording environment. The data collected from this setting provided the most unexpected developments and served to add a new level of complexity to the research. These articles provide five different perspectives on sensemaking in the recording environment from technical, logistical, songwriting and social standpoints.
4.7 ORGANISATION OF PAPERS
The following model presents the five papers that constitute my PhD research and their interconnections.
Figure 4.2 Organisation of papers.
4.7.1 Allowing Discoveries to Inform Research One of the features of participant observation is that it allows researchers to make discoveries which inform their journey. During the early stages of my PhD, there were several points where I fought against developing new ideas. This tension occurred because I wanted the data to fit into preconceived notions rather than allowing the data to inform my analysis. However, I discovered that allowing my observations during the papers to influence my future approaches presented an incremental system of discoveries that improved my research. This form of incremental discovery occurs because participant methodologies lead researchers on a revelatory journey in which further questions and ideas push the research in new directions (Cassel & Symon, 2004). Each paper iteratively reframed sensemaking in a new light that offered more in-depth insight into the research. One of the advantages of qualitative research is this exploratory nature that avoids allowing researchers to define their research with their initial assumptions. My sensemaking practice did not assume that I knew the answer before I began my investigation. As a
100 result, an evolving collection of papers using a multiplicity of methods allowed for a sense of discovery and a more open-minded attitude to unexpected outcomes. This scenario reflects Weick's (1998) improvisational mindset for organisational processes, a concept summarised by Diefenbach when he states:
‘You only know the (right) questions when you already know what you are looking for. In this sense, the (re-)formulation of the research question (or adding new ones) is a sign for progress, for an increasingly better and deeper knowledge and understanding of the objects of reasoning and recognition of emerging patterns. Qualitative researchers should felt encouraged to ask themselves throughout the whole research process whether they ask the right questions, to change these whenever it seems appropriate, to challenge their even most basic assumptions and to see ‘things’ from as many different perspectives as possible’ (Diefenbach, 2009, p. 877).
Dieffenbach's (2009) argument fits into the exploration of phenomenology in the recording studio, because the process of recording music is often pragmatic and sequential. As a result, allowing the research to reveal itself iteratively encourages a more discovery led approach to understanding sensemaking. This concept is reinforced by Sofaer (1999) who states, ‘If we focus research only on what we already know how to quantify, indeed only on that which can ultimately be reliably quantified, we risk ignoring factors that are more significant in explaining important realities and relationships’ (p. 1102). Allowing the data to reveal itself during the collection process leaves room for discovery. This is reinforced by Tracy (2010) who states, ‘values for quality, like all social knowledge, are ever changing and situated within local contexts and current conversations’ (p. 837). Tracey’s acknowledgement of the shifting constructs around social research corresponds with Weick’s (1995) theory that sensemaking occurs within a ‘sensible environment’, in which participants ‘shape, modify, and give substance’ to the emerging story of the research (p. 36). As a result, the research process becomes a journey of collecting and discarding concepts until the story is revealed. Cassell & Symon, (2004) explain this process of discovery as formulating ‘single or multiple hypotheses. These hypotheses may subsequently be discarded or refined to accommodate any unanticipated or contradictory observations which may emerge’ (p. 155). The collecting and discarding of schema in the research process operate similarly to the sensemaking
property of mapping, which uses and discards concepts and phrases until patterns emerge to create a clear image of complex events.
4.8 ENSURING RIGOUR
In the following section, I critique my methods and impose a framework to test the ethical conduct and self-awareness of my research. First, there was a risk that I was reflecting too much of myself in the research. Lincoln and Guba (1989) frame this ethical dilemma as ‘not an unwillingness to give up the objective perspective, but the possibility that the self will be allowed greater weight in determining the outcome than it ought to be’ (p. 232). To establish a framework that reinforced the rigour of my research, I adopted Lincoln and Guba’s (1989) terms of discussing ‘the truth value of their findings, using concepts such as trustworthiness, credibility, dependability’ (Kvale, 1995, p. 21). I also included the concept of transferability as my research holds implications in the field of record production and the teaching of record production as a sensemaking event.
Trustworthiness of findings: Tracy (2010) states that to achieve trustworthiness of findings, ‘interpretive analyses should be “plausible and persuasive”’ (p. 842). Such plausibility offers a considered approach to the analysis of data that displays an ‘internal validity and the qualitative trustworthiness and credibility of interpretation’ (Gelo et al., 2008, p. 283). In my writing, I am confident that I have not made any erroneous logical leaps. Rather, I observed sensemaking as a phenomenon, framing models of sensemaking process using well-researched theory from Weick (1996) and Rutledge (2009) and other major authors in the sensemaking field. My reliance on established theory allows me to present plausible constructs that frame the recording studio as a sensemaking environment. Using a foundational sensemaking framework I hope to broaden ‘the attention to the many perspectives from which it is possible to know, while they are at the same time seeking ways to make qualitative methods relatively well justified, well argued, trustworthy, and convincing’ (Dahler-Larsen, 2018, p. 1567). The strength of these arguments lies in their connection to the literature and the plausibility of their application to the recording environment.
Credibility of findings: I acknowledge that there is some disagreement about the reliability of qualitative research and understand that it ‘means the evaluation
102 must make more effort to explain itself’ (Dahler-Larsen, 2018, p. 1567). Through a thorough explanation process, I strive to achieve a qualitative credibility ‘through practices including thick description, triangulation or crystallization, and multivocality and partiality’ (Tracy, 2010, p. 843). In this research, I have paid particular attention to multivocality and triangulation because a multiplicity of voices and methods contribute to more credible and rich data analysis.
Dependability of findings: In sociological research and the observing of a social phenomenon, I am sceptical of the concept of dependability. This scepticism occurs because I am concerned with recording music and producing original texts. Cassell and Symon argue that dependability features the suggestion of audit, which is ‘increasingly being used as a criterion for assessing the quality of qualitative research’ (2004, p. 258). I would argue that it is not possible to recreate the exact circumstances in a studio recording and arrive at the same conclusions. However, there is a high level of plausibility that future researchers will arrive at similar conclusions when comparing music research to sensemaking research. The recording studio is a decision-making environment, just like any board meeting or collaborative setting, and the dependability of socially constructed research hinges on ‘whether the constructions placed on the data by the researcher have been consistently and rigorously derived’ (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003, p. 271). To present research with as much dependability as possible, I engaged in established ethnographic data collection methods such as interviews, observation, participant observation and the filming of the recording process to arrive at plausible conclusions. I contend that these conclusions are semi-repeatable, but music and the recording environment was never an exact science. As a musician and a record producer, I object to the repeatability of naturally occurring phenomena in the recording environment.
Transferability of findings: My research in record production sensemaking has the ‘potential to be valuable across a variety of contexts or situations’ (Tracy, 2010, p. 845). I contend that the recording studio setting is a natural sensemaking environment and is a valuable asset to the organisational communication field of research. This study represents an interdisciplinary commitment to both Weickien (1995) organisational communication, as well as a commitment to ARP as a research community. The main transferrable benefit, however, belongs to the record-making community. At its most elemental level, sensemaking is designed to assist groups of
people in ‘getting things done’. As such, this research is particularly transferable to the education of future record producers and small creative groups that are interested in collaboration. I contend that creative collaboration is a minefield of complexity and process-based problem-solving. This intricate relational hub is the ideal space to conduct and apply sensemaking research.
4.9 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter has discussed the methodological approach to the research conducted in the following chapters. It began with the methodology of participant observation using Jorgensson’s (2011) observational theories. It examined existing literature and discource around participant observation in the recording studio setting. Having reviewed the literature, I positioned the producer as an observer and examined the potential limitations of participant observation as a methodology. The chapter then discusses the research design, which encompasses the thesis by publication approach, and the choice to use thematically linked papers to examine sensemaking in the recording studio. The chapter continues with ethical considerations, including confidentiality, recruitment, consent, access and trust. I then present the stages of my research and the organisation of the linked papers that represent that research journey. The chapter concludes with a section on ensuring rigour in the research using a model of trustworthiness, credibility, dependability, and transferability of findings. The next chapter is the first of the thematically linked papers published in Sweden (2017) for the Mono, Stereo, Multi conference at the Royal College of Music, Stockholm.
104 Chapter 5: Foreward to the Articles
5.1 A BROADER VIEW OF THE ARTICLES
The following is a brief chapter that describes how a thesis comprised of multiple different investigations can change during the course of time. In some articles, I investigate the smaller aspects of sensemaking and present ideas that I was quite sure of two years ago. However, since this time, my thinking on the subject has expanded. I want to preface the following chapters by highlighting some of my conclusions that present a broader picture of where my thinking is on completion of this PhD. Some of these articles ignore broader concepts of power relations that occur in the recording studio and in this section, I would like to preface some of my conclusions and critticisms that were revealed when examining all of the articles as a collection. The following is a thematic analysis that clarifies some points that the articles bring up.
5.1.1 Sensemaking Costs Studio Time Sensemaking of musical ideas occurred throughout the writing and logistical organising of each project. However, there were examples of times when a consensus was not reached. For example, chapter eight investigates cognitive loopingin sensemaking processes. In these sessions, the musicians abandoned far more ideas than they kept. They also spent a significant portion of time developing ideas that could be described as ‘experimenting for the sake of experimenting’. The consequence of this was the continual restarting of sensemaking or the continuation of cognitive looping and testing. Such an approach leads me to think that constant sensemaking for some bands could lead a recording session towards tangents that have the potential to hamper effective practice in the recording studio. This did not occur in the Baskervillain recording, but the drive to experiment and use the studio as a tool for working out ideas was not the most economical use of time for a young band.
5.1.2 Sensemaking, Sensegiving and Leadership In Maitlis’s (2005) investigation of four forms of organisational sensemaking, she frames meetings as an interaction between leaders and stakeholders. Having studied the literature, I approached my observations, my interviews with producers and my participation with a lens that a record producer fulfils a sensemaking role. However, there were times in the research when members of the group guided the sensemaking. According to Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991), titles such as sensemaker and sensegiver ‘complement or subsume other related descriptive metaphors, such as “visionary”, “teacher”’ (p. 446). A sensegiver is framed as a leader who operates as an active conductor to promote understanding and guide the sensemaking group (Maitlis, 2005, p. 35). In several sessions, I transferred my role as sensemaker and became more of a sensegiver. This shift meant that I was adopting more of a leadership role and participating in what Maitlis (2005) refers to as “guided sensemaking” (p. 35). In this role, I employed my tacit knowledge and guided the stakeholders (artists) through mediated decisions in the interest of saving them time. At the end of each collective negotiation, I relinquished the power of leadership. I acknowledge that this is a voluntary abdication of a leadership role and that during recording sessions, I was able to adopt a leadership role whenever necessary. However, such an approach only changes the sensemaking according to the power structure of each decision. It does not mean that sensemaking did not occur.
5.1.3 Producers Control the Environment. There is a temptation to present sensemaking as a form of democratic process where every member has an equal voice in the collective decision-making. However, democratic process cannot ignore that these decisions are negotiated through persuasion. Through their control over the recording environment producers have more tools at their disposal when participating in persuasion. In chapter seven, producers displayed firm control on the passive environmental boundaries that inform the choices of performers. Such environmental manipulations are a passive exercise of power that can be viewed as a form of guided deception. I frame this as a form of mild deception that functions at a background, sensegiving level. This subtle deception is an example of how a producer influences the choices made by a group of musicians. Maitlis argues that leaders – such as producers – and stakeholders – such as artists – operate within four forms of organisational sensemaking, the control
106 over the environment places the producer as a high-level sensegiver using passive tools to influence the outcome of a recording. This control is the one example in which producers can guide the sensemaking in a recording process in a way that is invisible to the artist. It is important to note that this gives the producer an immense power over the recording environment. The producers I interviewed and observed used this form of power to assist artists in realising their vision. However, such control is a form of passive leadership that must be acknowledged as a form of sensegiving.
5.1.4 The Adaptability of Sensemaking During the duration of my investigation, one of the surprises was the many ways in which participants adapted to the situation through various forms of sensemaking. I discovered that the level of complexity of the recording situation influenced the level of complexity displayed in the generated sensemaking models. Of particular interest were the parallel and interactive models of sensemaking generated in chapter nine during the India 100 project. These models occurred as a direct result of time constraints, with the production team enacting complex parallel sensemaking models. As there is only a small body of evidence to support this claim so far, I intend to continue to research how participants react to working under time pressure in recording sessions. This extended research will help to better understand what a recording team is capable of when the demands of time constraints change the cognitive response of the sensemaking group.
5.1.5 Chapter Summary This chapter was a forward to the articles. It examines some of the major questions that were generated from the articles that challenged my thinking on sensemaking as a form of studio communication. It examines four key themes, including, the cost of sensemaking and studio recording time, sensegiving and leadership as a form of democratic persuasion, the environmental control of the producer, and the adaptability of sensemaking. The next chapter investigates pedagogical approaches to tecing microphone relationships. This article was generated via a sensemaking process conducted by me and Dr Andrew Bourbon.
Chapter 6: Life In Between Phase
Life In Between Phase: Understanding and Manipulating Microphone Relationships with Visualisation Tools
Pratt, D., & Bourbon, A. (2019). Life in Between Phase: Understanding and Manipulating Microphone Relationships with Visual Tools. In Art of Record Production 2017 (pp. 225–247). Stockholm: Royal College of Music.
6.1 FORWARD: INVESTIGATIONS IN TECHNICAL SENSEMAKING
This next article was an exploration into a technical aspect of recording practice. I have placed a forward here because this article presents less like a sensemaking paper than the others in this thesis. However, the article is an example of technical sensemaking in action. It serves to make sense of an issue that Dr Andrew Bourbon and I have encountered when operating in recording spaces of varying size and quality. The issue in question is drum recording consistency, and it arises because drums are the most challenging instrument to record. In my work as a mix engineer, I frequently receive work recorded by other engineers and the quality of these productions vary, especially in the drum production. This article is an attempt by Dr Bourbon and me to achieve more control over the parameters of drum microphone placement. We take a pragmatic position that ‘ideas are in principle open to revision’ (Hickman et al., 2009, p. 204) and begin the process of updating traditional approaches to drum recording by using new digital tools as assistants. To achieve an updated drum recording approach, we take a new measurement device and use it to achieve more consistent approaches to drum recording and mixing. To explore this as a sensemaking proposition, I break down the drum recording experiment as a four-step sensemaking process using a model developed from Rutledge’s (2009) four sensemaking stages. I then explain each stage in more detail to reinforce how I think of this as a sensemaking process.
108
Figure 5.1 Four-stage sensemaking model for drum microphone placement
The identification of drum recording consistency arose from an issue that both Dr Bourbon and I have encountered as educators. Students often present inconsistent drum recordings with microphone placement that seems dependent mainly on luck. In my practice as an audio educator, phase is taught to students as a theoretical idea in first year production and as a practical concept in second year production. Phase is introduced in the first-year course to illustrate how two waveforms cancel each other out when they are out of phase. This is demonstrated theoretically using a pair of sin waves as an example, when one of two sin waves is inverted, the tone generated by the sin wave disappears. The issue of phase is revisited in second year production when I teach the students how to measure multi-microphone setups for acoustic instruments and drum kits. Students are taught to hear phase by inverting the polarity on channels in the recording consoles at this stage. Both of these education experiences offer a binary view of phase in acoustic recording. Something is in phase, or it is out of phase. As practising producers that work in a variety of spaces, we both acknowledge that it takes time to learn a new space to get the best drum recording results possible. This time is often a luxury that we do not have as working engineers and students do not have as accelerated learners. However, we wanted to develop a quicker method for attaining consistent drum microphone placement. That way we could create a teaching tool for our students, and approach location recording with more confidence. Therefore, we bracketed drum microphone placement as a complicated issue for sensemaking. Bracketing served to isolate the issue that we needed to address and remove potential distracting issues that may arise (Rutledge, 2009).
Once we bracketed the issue of drum microphone placement, we had several Skype discussions to map the issue using phrases such as “phase relationship, microphone placement and room interaction”. Having mapped these parameters, we created a more defined understanding of the cartography surrounding the bracketed
issue (Weick, 1995). This refined definition allowed us to move towards our aspiration of more-informed microphone placement.
After defining the parameters, we agreed on a plausible solution of a digital measurement tool. Such a tool needed to contribute precise measurements for microphone movements to assist in informing decision-making. The digital tool needed to fulfil specific functions that we identified during our mapping phase. These included distance readings, phase relationship displays and suggested options for different microphone positions. After a review of several digital phase tools, we found that one fulfilled our requirements. This tool recognised the three previous parameters while adding an unconsidered component of microphone relationship to the space.
Having presented a plausible solution to the issue, we then experimented. We filmed a drum recording designed to capture two performances that described the process and presented a before and after comparison of the performances. After the action of recording the two drum performances, we were able to edit together a short instructional video for students and early career recording engineers to view. In our estimation, this sensemaking process allowed us to achieve consistency in drum microphone placement with the added side benefit of producing an educational tool. Subsequent experiments have been presented in conferences in Stockholm (2017) and Huddersfield (2018). We now have a small network of audio educators working to expand the uses of these digital tools to develop new ways of recording drums using new measurement methods. The following paper presents a more detailed analysis and investigation of this sensemaking process.
6.2 ABSTRACT
Phase relationships are a complex and mystifying phenomenon for early-stage recording engineers and university students. In this paper, we take the analytical capabilities of time shifting plugin Auto-Align and use it to develop new methods of understanding phase interaction. We utilise the visualisations and time shifting features to assist in recording a multi-miked drum kit and in the post-production soundstage for a thirty-two-piece big band. We explore new methodologies for phase interaction and microphone manipulation by running these two experiments and documenting the process using a combination of text, audio and video.
110 6.3 INTRODUCTION
In this paper, we examine the phase interaction of multi-microphone recording and mixing with the intent to develop an in-depth understanding of relationships 'in between phase' to produce better recordings and mixes. In our curriculum design in both QUT and The University of West London (UWL) we discuss phase in technical descriptions relating to the acoustic and electronic summation of multiple sources. Phase relationships are also explained in practical recording workshops as well as theoretical lectures. One of the conceptual challenges that our students face is hearing phase variance and implementing the appropriate action to remedy what they hear. For educators, explaining phase becomes problematic when that variance represents a shift that cannot be solved via a simple binary polarity reversal.
We explore the use of metering and phase manipulation in the recording and mixing of audio. On the recording side, we investigate this phenomenon through the creation of an educational drum recording video. The video examines the capture of phase interaction information, the analysis and correction of resulting issues. The data analysis of the phase relationships informs the physical movement of microphones. We demonstrate real-time phase interaction measurement using the innovative metering in the Sound Radix Auto-Align plugin. This information aids us in demystifying phase interaction between microphones and enables us to develop new methods for both microphone placement and the teaching of multi-microphone recording.
We then manipulate the complex phase relationships in a big band recording featuring 32 microphones across 20 sources using a range of mono and stereo techniques. We use metering and analysis techniques to inform our alignment and manipulation of this pre-recorded work. In both of these case studies the sonic impact of the phase analysis and manipulation are presented as video and audio examples. The data will be used as a pedagogical tool for the demystification of phase in the teaching environment. Throughout this process, we are guided by the following questions, how can we use a tool dedicated to alignment to improve the understanding of phenomena like phase relationships? Can educators use this tool as a teaching device to accelerate the education of young engineers in the understanding of complex phase issues that take years of practice to fully understand?
6.4 SIMPLIFYING PHASE INTERACTION
Phase interplay is a phenomenon whereby frequencies of multiple waveforms combine with one another and either cancel or amplify the sound source. Explanations of phase interaction often arrive with complex equations and scientific terminology; this initial overview is a simplification of these explanations with practical uses applied to microphones and speakers. To better recognise how a phase relationship occurs we must first understand how microphones and speakers work. ‘When we record sound, the diaphragms in our microphones essentially replicate the action of our eardrums, vibrating in accordance with those [sound pressure] waves’ (Keller, 2011). Consider that both microphones and speakers are transducers that perform mirror images of the same process. For example, microphones transform acoustical energy to electrical energy and speakers transform electrical energy into acoustical energy (Sigismondi et al., 2014). As a microphone diaphragm moves backwards and forwards it transforms acoustic energy into positive and negative electrical current over a period of time. A speaker conversely takes this positive and negative electrical energy and transforms it into forwards and backwards motion which creates the acoustic energy that we hear as sound. When we use more than one microphone, we introduce the possibility of interference. Corbett (2015) explains these two typologies of interference as constructive and destructive. Constructive interference occurs when two microphone diaphragms are moving in the same direction; destructive interference happens when the microphone diaphragms are in contrary motion (ibid). When a sound is captured through multiple microphones and converted into electrical energy, constructive interference encourages free speaker movement. Destructive interference restricts the movement of the speaker which cannot move forwards and backwards at the same time. This destructive interference is often referred to as phase cancellation. Cancellation becomes more problematic as you add more microphones to any single source such as a drum kit or guitar amplifier. Therefore ‘The principle idea is to get all the microphones working together constructively’ (Weiss, 2014, para 4). Clinch (2011) states that ‘inexperienced engineers often complain about thin sounds when mixing multiple microphones together even though each individual microphone may sound great’ (para 2). Understanding the relationships between microphones is crucial because ‘In most recording sessions, we’re dealing with multiple instruments and multiple
112 microphones’ (Keller, 2011, para 13). These cancellations are neither good nor bad but a choice. Senior (2008) argues for moving microphones not only to remove destructive phase issues but to use minor phase cancellation as a creative choice.
Figure 5.2 Constructive waveforms work together and allow the speaker to move.
Figure 5.3 Destructive waveforms move in contrary motion.
6.5 THE PROBLEM WITH A BINARY UNDERSTANDING OF PHASE
One of the problems associated with explanations of phase interaction is the binary nature of the equipment, which offers only mirror images of phase relationships. A polarity button on a console provides the ability to reverse the phase relationship with an in or out push button. Coppinger (2012) refers to this as a polarity reversal. An experienced engineer is skilled at listening for the sonic change that occurs between multiple microphones when they invert the polarity of one microphone (Paterson, 2007). However, due to its on or off nature, the polarity button establishes a conversation that only offers a binary understanding of phase relationships. For example, a mirroring phase relationship of 180 degrees does not account for a floor tom on a drum kit which is often 90 degrees out-of-phase with the overhead microphones. In this case, a phase reversal will bring a floor tom to a two-
hundred-and-seventy-degree relationship which is the same level of audible phase cancellation. Corbett (2015) argues for an understanding of in-between phase relationships which recognise phase as any relationship within 360 degrees of a wave cycle. As a result, a phase relationship is neither constructive nor destructive; it is a tonal colour that encompasses 360 degrees of frequency-dependant manipulation. Microphone movement is the common methodology for manipulating tonal colour with more creative intent than just a binary response to phase relationships. However, a multi-microphone setup will inevitably have varying degrees of phase cancellation that Paterson (2007) suggests fill the role of creative tonal colours. Paterson (2007) states that ‘there is no known way of alleviating this, and indeed it has become an accepted part of the sound engineer’s art to accept this and indeed harness it to creative effect’ (para 4).
6.6 THREE ARGUMENTS FOR PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES
There is an agreement in the literature that phase cancellation leads to an undesirable sound when using multiple microphones (Sigisomondi et al., 2014, Paterson, 2007, Senior, 2008, Corbett, 2015, Savage, 2011). However, at QUT for example, there are only 24 two-hour tutorials per week allocated for teaching students how to hear and understand all practical recording and mixing concepts for the entire year. The first year is concerned with establishing a baseline of rudimentary theoretical knowledge, the second and third year move into more advanced audio engineering. Hearing microphone relationships are only a small part of the full curriculum designed to develop well-rounded, production-capable music students. As a result, we have limited time to embed ‘a relevant object of auditory knowledge [emerging] through interplay between a domain of targeted listening and a set of discursive practices played out in the context of specific sound-engineering activities’ (Porcello, 2004, p734). Condensing tacit phase relationship understanding must address three main issues.
1. The explanations for detecting phase need to be less vague and binary in their delivery. 2. The assumption that early-stage recording engineers can hear phase problems is flawed.
114 3. If the suggested correction is to move a microphone we must find a method of indicating which direction or how far.
Firstly, there are many variables that create destructive phase relationships such as microphone placement, room reflection, speaker placement and equalisation. Without access to visualisations, it is difficult to explain what phase sounds like to an untrained student. Explanations from the literature include ‘typically a thin-sounding signal with little or no bass sound’ (Keller, 2011), or ‘as a hollow sound in which certain frequencies, or tones, appear to be missing’ (Thompson & Lashua, 2014, p. 82) or ‘a hollow, filtered tone quality’ (Bartlett, 2017, p. 15). Explanations like these make sense to experienced recording engineers but are not useful to an engineer that does not have the experience to understand what descriptors like hollow or thin mean in the context of a multi-microphone drum setup.
Secondly, the assumption that a student can hear phase relationship problems in a stereo setup is flawed. The understanding of relationships between phase and frequency in an audio recording environment is complex and time consuming (Paterson, 2007). Thirdly, moving a microphone is not a helpful suggestion to an inexperienced engineer, especially when there is no indication of which direction or how far. Weiss (2014) indicates that engineers are ‘simply going to have to move the microphone to different proximities and listen for what sounds best’ (para 8). Sigismondi et al. (2014) suggest that engineers ‘place the microphone at various distances and positions until you find a spot where you hear from the studio monitors the desired tonal balance and the desired amount of room acoustics’ (p. 5). Paterson (2007) suggests that microphone placement is ‘the art of the sound engineer, who will make minuscule adjustments to the positioning of microphones in a session, evaluating the monitor mix to choose final placements’. These suggestions are helpful, but ultimately take years of practice to hear and correct. Adding to this, different shaped rooms introduce different phase relationships, so microphone placements do not translate between spaces. This potentially leads inexperienced engineers on a guessing game based on an assumption that they can hear the differences between various microphone movements. This confusion is compounded by the overwhelming amount of options when we move a microphone as stated by Senior.
Tweaking the distance between [microphones] subtly shifts the frequencies at which the comb-filtering occurs. Inverting the polarity of one of the mics yields another whole set of timbres, switching the frequencies at which the sine-wave components in the two mic signals cancel and reinforce, so the potential for tonal adjustment via multi-miking is enormous (Senior, 2008, Para 21).
On top of this potentially overwhelming issue, there is also a personnel concern. Microphone movements for drum recording require a producer to listen, a drummer to hit drums, and an engineer to move microphones. Finally, relying on microphone movement alone does not consider that there are other ways to manipulate phase relationships like equalisation. As stated by Savage.
Applying EQ will alter the phase relationship of the sound that is being processed. This is because there is a certain amount of time required for the EQ to process the frequencies that it is acting on, and so those frequencies get shifted in their time relationships to other frequencies that make up the sound. This time shift creates changes in the phase relationship (Savage, 2011 p. 50).
6.7 LIVE SOUND DESIGN APPROACHES TO PHASE
One subject area outside the studio environment where an understanding of phase is essential is live sound system design. In live sound design, system alignment takes place through transfer function measurement, and is never trusted to the human ear alone. Though they are aligned using technical measuring tools, some aesthetic choices around the performance of the system are the result of either matching a target response curve or the choice of the experienced engineer. One of the key aims is to create a uniformity of performance throughout the space, with a minimised variance in frequency response and intensity through strategic placement and alignment of speakers. Destructive phase relationships cause ripples in the frequency response of the speakers so a system that is improperly aligned is challenging to manipulate by ear.
In the simplest of systems, a single source is able to provide even coverage, however in practice the characteristics of a space normally make it impossible to achieve spatial uniformity without the addition of extra sources such as speakers for reinforcement of the system. Contemporary approaches to live sound design see line
116 array speaker systems employed to increase the efficiency of sound distribution, utilising multiple aligned speakers to cover difficult to reach areas. Individual speakers in the main speaker array, and any auxiliary speaker arrays are designed to focus on isolated target zones. The focus of live sound system design is to avoid multiple sources hitting the same target zone. However, it is inevitable that there will be points in the space where there is interaction between sources leading to acoustic summing of signals much like overlapping regions in an audio crossover. It is these interaction zones where designers focus their attention to optimise the phase coherence of the summed response of two systems interacting at the same target zone. This means engineers must time and phase align speakers in the physical space which, as stated earlier, is achieved primarily through technical measurement and refined by ear. It is also important to clarify that the signals coming from the sources will be almost identical subject to speaker voicing, unlike sound received at microphones at different positions in a space as found in the recording examples.
A summation zone is any area where two independent speakers outputting the same signal are acoustically summed in physical space. This is the exact reverse of multiple microphone signals summing down into speakers. To create a phase- coherent summation zone there are two key factors to take into account: relative level and phase (McCarthy, 2016). The impact of two sounds being acoustically summed is a resultant change in overall level, with potential summed output levels of between +6 dB and -60 dB, depending on the relative level and phase of the two sources. First consider the impact of relative level, with two sources arriving at a single receiver, but each at a different amplitude. If the level offset between the two sources at the point of reception is greater than 10 dB, then the maximum ripple (change in frequency response) is limited to +-3 dB. A ripple of +-3 dB which is considered an acceptable result in PA system design for large venues. Designers strive to minimise the number of summation zones where multiple sources are within 10 dB in level offset to maintain the best possible frequency domain behaviour.
The second point of consideration in exploring a summation zone is that of relative phase between sources. In a line source all the elements in the array are propagating with equal phase and amplitude, though in practice amplitude is manipulated to provide even coverage on complex audience planes where path length from source to the plane varies significantly. When a second source combines with
the primary array, the relative phase has a significant impact on the summed level at the receiver. If the two sources are within 120 degrees of phase rotation, the maximum ripple at the receive is again +-3 dB, with a potential ripple of +-30 dB should the sources arrive with more than 120 degrees of phase difference. System designers are therefore looking to minimise the potential ripple by creating systems that interact within 120 degrees of phase rotation and have a minimum offset in level of 10 dB. It is important to note that, regardless of level, offset with less than 120 degrees of phase rotation, the impact on frequency response is less than +-3 dB, but with a change in that response throughout the phase rotation range. This means that any variance in phase up to 120 degrees is challenging to hear.
In the recording environment, this study of live acoustic summation provides the student with an appreciation of the impact of relative amplitude and phase that does not occur in traditional studio-based music technology education. When placing a room mic and an overhead in the same room it is likely that the signals arriving into the recording device and then reproduced in the control room will be within 10 dB in relative level. This level difference offers the potential for broad frequency response ripple. By moving the microphone, the level difference will not be significantly manipulated, leaving little change in frequency response due to amplitude. For example, a phase relationship change will only be significant when moving a room microphone to within 120 degrees of an overhead microphone. This movement will result in the combined microphones presenting a more balanced frequency response. It is important to note that unlike our theoretical approach to PA system design, the signal transduced by the microphones operates differently. The summation theory discussed here relies on the same signal being produced by both sources and being received at the point of summation. In the studio, indirect reflected sound is used creatively to give an impression of size and space and means that the single source becomes a multitude of sources as it is re-radiated through the boundaries in the recording room. Regardless of this difference, the phase response is manipulated through microphone movement, resulting in different frequency responses and therefore different musical impact subject to placement. Should there be negative tonal and spatial impact from using multiple microphones on a single source the engineer has two choices to improve or change the resultant response, the first being to manipulate the relative level of the microphones and the second to manipulate the
118 relative phase. One of the challenges we face with pedagogical practice is assisting students in distinguishing the sonic impact of relative phase. With significant frequency response ripple and destructive changes in the summed level of the combined sounds, hearing the destructive impact of interactions beyond 120 degrees is unambiguous to the listener. However, learning to hear the interactions in the first 120 degrees of rotation takes time and practice. We propose that visual aids assist students with the development of these skills by identifying phase relationships that they are not yet understanding and allowing students to practice listening to subtler phase shift in recorded text.
6.8 UNDERSTANDING AUTO-ALIGN
In our pedagogical practice at QUT and UWL, we regularly address student concerns based around phase. Our students often worry that they cannot hear phase interactions that are obvious to the lecturers who have more experience in hearing these relationships. To develop a better understanding of phase for these students to improve their recordings we propose that we utilise tools that perform visual analysis to assist in their understanding of phase relationships in both the recording and mixing environment. Auto-Align is an automatic time aligning plugin developed for use in digital audio workstations. Its primary function is to detect, and time align multiple waveforms to reduce phenomena like destructive phase cancellation and comb-filtering while improving the dynamic intensity of multi-microphone recordings. Auto-Align is commonly used to correct microphone placement issues on drum overheads, multi-miked guitar amps, or to align a bass guitar recording that consists of a direct signal and a miked bass amp (SoundRadix, 2017).
Time aligning waveforms is a conventional technique that mix engineers use to correct problematic microphone placements. Savage (2011) recommends that mix engineers experiment with minuscule shifts in audio files known as nudging to create improved phase relationships between multiple microphones capturing the same source. Keller (2011) states that ‘You’d be amazed what a difference just moving a track by one or two milliseconds can make’ (para 20). Auto-Align is one of a few new audio plugins that take the guesswork out of shifting audio to improve phase relationships. It achieves this by employing a detection algorithm that listens to the audio between multiple microphone recordings and then offers the engineer several
selections for phase-coherent wave positioning. This type of detection allows mix engineers to select from a reduced choice of phase-coherent positions, changing the task of nudging audio and listening into an efficient automated process.
Auto-Align also has some additional features for the analysis and calculation of phase relationships and microphone placement. These analysis tools consist of a circular phase analyser, a delay relationship display and a distance evaluation that offers estimated microphone distances in both centimetres and inches. It is this expansive suite of measurement tools that enables recording engineers to understand their microphone placement and phase relationships with an accuracy that redefines phase and microphone analysis. This new knowledge of phase relationships leaves us with a choice of continuing with established methods or using a new understanding to challenge established norms surrounding the recording process. A new measurement device calls traditional methods of recording into question and requires investigation to discover if these established practices can be redeveloped using newly refined methods (Bacon, 2012).
6.8.1 New Visualisations Paint a Detailed Picture In the digital plugin market, there are several options for visualising phase interaction between microphones. Izotope Insight provides a detailed analysis of spatiality, phase interactions and loudness information. There are also some stereo equalisation plugins that come with small phase scopes. By and large, they all use a similar two-dimensional approach to phase metering as the indicator moves to +1 the signal is more phase-coherent.
Figure 5.4 Bx_digital V3 equaliser comes equipped with a phase metre
Our investigation of Auto-Align reveals a paradigm shift in the visualisation of phase relationships, using a 360-degree scope that establishes a detailed analysis of
120 the relationships between microphones. Pointing north indicates the most constructive relationship, but the scope allows for detailed analysis of every single- phase rotation. This level of choice means that an engineer can decide exactly how in- or out-of-phase they want their microphones with high phase coherence offering clarity and punch and less phase coherence offering more depth and space. This new approach to phase metering also utilises colour information to indicate which frequencies ranges are causing constructive or destructive relationships. The more detailed approach to metering allows us to understand and manipulate microphone relationships to a far higher degree than previous analytical tools.
Figure 5.5 Auto-Align features a phase scope with detailed information on phase and frequency relationships.
In addition to the phase meter Auto-Align provides distance calculator that gives information on distances between microphones. Using a combination of both the phase and distance readings it is possible to virtually move microphones in the digital audio workstation (DAW) to test phase relationships before venturing into the studio. Theoretically, this means we can know which direction and how far to move the microphone, removing the usual guesswork associated with the practice.
Figure 5.6 Auto-Align distance indicator allows us to estimate the distance in the computer and check for better phase relationships.
Finally, Auto-Align uses a detection algorithm that suggests multiple in-phase measurements for microphone placements. These measurement points are displayed
on a delay meter which gives users a choice of phase-coherent microphone placements if they are inclined to experiment with different options and different levels of phase coherence to create colouration (Paterson, 2007). Having different choices offers engineers the ability to make informed choices on how much constructive or destructive interaction they want. The choice is an important factor depending on whether an engineer wants a sound that is ‘diffuse or blended, instead of sharply focused’ (Bartlett, 2017, p. 114). This ability to make informed choices between out-of-phase and in-phase microphones allows the recording or mix engineer to design their desired spatiality around multi-microphone recordings by focusing on which instruments are more or less in-phase.
Figure 5.7 The delay metre offers multiple placement options, higher points means more in phase
Such a detailed suite of analytical tools creates several options to enhance the creativity of the recording process without negatively affecting the phase relationships of the microphones. For example, an engineer can choose the best sounding spot for room microphones and not have to measure them and sacrifice the sound of one microphone to ensure that the measured relationship between a spaced pair of microphones is correct.
6.9 METHODOLOGY
Our methodological approach combines the use of nominalistic data generated by two experiments combined with participant observation conducted during the investigations. We use participant observation to bring our in-the-world experience to the research and present a humanistic dimension to the more nominalistic data that
122 we generate (Atkinson & Hammersly, 1994). We triangulate this nominalistic and observational data with our tacit experience taken from our audio teaching practice. We aim to triangulate this multi-method approach to create a more in-depth analysis of our test results (Flick, 2018). We present two systems for using visual tools, in this case Auto-Align, that involve more consideration than just loading the plugin and using auto-detection algorithms. These two tests generate both audio and visual data for later analysis to triangulate with observations that the two participants collected while conducting the experiments. Firstly, we use the live sound system design approach of McCarthy (2016) to understand phase relationships in the post- production mixing of a big band. Secondly, we use the same procedure, using Auto- Align as a measurement tool to explore and manipulate phase issues while tracking a drum kit before the sound is committed to tape.
A better understanding of phase concepts aids educators to reinforce the importance of microphone placement. However, a written medium lacks the practical engagement that we see and hear when physically recording and mixing music. For a lasting pedagogical tool, we use a combination of visual aural and written mediums that offer students and educators a more in-depth understanding through repeated viewings. In the case of the drum recording, an edited video serves to demystify and highlight both microphone movements and relationships in a practical environment. In the big band mix, audio examples aid to highlight the changes in amplitude, spatiality and punch that are problematic semiotic descriptors with vague meanings. In particular, the video offers the opportunity for outside engagement through impact with industry partners and educators around the world. Thus, creating a more in- depth understanding and confidence that visual, aural and written demonstrations give early-stage recording engineers.
6.10 DRUM RECORDING
For the first measurement experiment using Auto-Align, we chose a multi- miked drum kit using a combination of close and distant microphones to present a multitude of destructive phase relationships. We recorded the drums at QUT recording studios, Kelvin Grove in Australia to test our theories in a controlled and professional environment. According to Keller (2011) ‘It’s hardly surprising that the more microphones used in a recording, the more potential for phase problems. In
modern music recording, that usually points to the drum kit’ (para 17). We adopt a similar process to Weiss (2014), which begins with establishing a 'recorderman' overhead setup. The recorderman overhead microphones are set up with one microphone approximately 120 cm directly above the snare drum and the other placed over the right shoulder of the drummer measured equidistant from the snare and kick drum. We then close mic all the snare, rack tom, and floor tom on the kit with microphones approximately 8 cm above each drum. We double mic the kick drum with a dynamic microphone just inside the back hole of the drum and a large diaphragm condenser outside the kick drum approximately 15 cm. We also use two room microphones to capture the space so that we have multiple close and far microphones to measure. These microphones are set approximately 220 cm away from the drum kit and measured so that they are equidistant from the kick drum. The recording was conducted at QUT studios using the Neve Custom 73 Console, below is a list of all the microphones used in the experiment.
Microphone Position Microphone Type Polar Pattern
Overhead Left SE Electronics RNR1 Figure 8
Overhead Right SE Electronics RNR1 Figure 8
Room Left Neumann U87 Ai Omni
Room Right Neumann U87 Ai Omni
Kick In Beyer M88 Cardioid
Kick Out Bock 195 (fat switch on) Cardioid
Snare Top Shure SM 57 Cardioid
Snare Bottom Neumann KM184 Cardioid
Rack Tom AKG C414B Super Cardioid
Floor Tom AKG C414B Super Cardioid
Figure 5.8 List of microphones, microphone positions and polar patterns.
Once the drums were set up Dan recorded a simple drum line using a metronome. This recording is the 'before correction' example of a multi-microphone
124 drum setup. After the recording, we used Auto-Align to measure each phase relationship to the primary overhead above the snare drum. Using the readings from Auto-Align, Dan re-recorded the drum groove for comparison with the earlier 'before correction' example. Each example used the same gain structure, so the only audible difference occurs from microphone movements. For a more detailed explanation of the experiment and to hear a comparison of both recordings, please watch the embedded video.
6.10.1 Video Example—Drum Recording The following video gives an overview of the drum recording experiment. It practically demonstrates the use of visual alignment analysis to inform microphone placement. The video contains examples of drum recordings before and after microphone movement.
Click here to watch the drum recording example
6.10.2 Discussion It is important to note that neither drum recording is perfectly in phase, but the second recording was adjusted for the maximum constructive phase interaction possible. On closer inspection, this experiment yielded some surprising results that challenge the orthodoxy of drum recording. From a logistical perspective, Dan was able to take a three-person job of moving listening and playing and reduce it to a one-person method with a surprising efficiency. We propose that this method of phase measurement is of particular help to smaller studios or self-produced songwriters without the resources to hire assistants. It also benefits producers that prefer to record in the room with a band as phase relationships are nearly impossible to hear when you are standing near a drum kit and attempting to evaluate microphones. Finally, this method benefits students of audio engineering by offering a comprehensive method for measuring and choosing phase relationships in multi- mic recordings. It also affords students the confidence to experiment with different microphone placements which opens up a new realm of creative manipulation in the recording environment. Having excellent recorded phase relationships also reduces the post-production work for any location recording where ideal listening environments do not exist such as mobile broadcast units.
Of particular surprise was the movement of the room microphones. It is common practice to measure room microphones so that they are equidistant from the source you want to emphasise. Up until this point, measuring from the kick drum has been the method of choice for our teaching practice. The aim is to create best phase relationship for room microphones and use those microphones to feature the kick drum in the room. In this case, Dan wanted the kick drum to feature in the room microphone recording, so he initially ensured that the room mics were equidistant from the kick drum. However, after measurement with a distance analytical tool, the right room microphone moved forward 30 centimetres, and the rear microphone moved back 30 centimetres. We posit that Auto-Align is also accounting for the shape of the room and measuring microphones considering the direct microphone relationship, the surrounding space as well as reflective wave information. This surprising development is of value to anyone who is recording in an unfamiliar drum room as phase measurement offers the opportunity to understand the relationships within any given space. This means that engineers do not need to spend time accurately measuring rooms or guessing at microphone placements.
From a pedagogical perspective, the visualisation of phase relationships between the microphones on the plugin offers teachers a precise method for explaining what occurs to a recording when you move individual microphones within a network. This deeper understanding opens up possibilities for students to experiment with microphone placement and manipulate the tonal colour of their recordings without the possibility of accidentally creating destructive relationships. This assurance in microphone relationships shifts the teaching emphasis from mastering microphone placement to a more confident, discovery-based experimental approach to recording. A visual representation also affords the opportunity for students to familiarise themselves with out-of-phase placement. Using analysis tools, students can determine the level of phase colouration they intend to achieve. This information gives students the confidence of knowing the precise phase relationship that they have as well as the ability to creatively manipulate recordings.
6.11 BIG BAND MIXING
Due to the 32 microphones on the recording session, a recording of a big band provides a compelling opportunity to explore elaborate re-alignment in post-
126 production. The methodology undertaken draws inspiration from live sound system design, with sectional mics aligned using an approach similar to that employed in McCarthy's (2016) ABC approach. The initial processing involved alignment of bleed across all the microphones, with the drums providing the fundamental source for alignment. The alignment technique is the same as the one documented in the studio drum recording video presented earlier in this paper. Once the drum alignment was completed, Auto-Align was used to provide multiple in-phase suggestions as earlier demonstrated in the drum aligning video. These phase points are then auditioned and selected by ear. In this sense, we use the plugin to reduce the time shift selections to a manageable set of in-phase points. In live sound system design, the phase alignment in a single system takes place at the crossover point between speaker elements in a system. This crossover point commonly occurs between a subwoofer and the principal part of a line array which is already phase aligned as a part of the speaker design. The crossover point is the region in which there is maximum interaction between elements each generating the same frequency, and as such system designers strive to ensure that the majority of the target zone for the array are receiving both the subwoofers and tops ‘in phase’ (see Figure 5.9). In the big band recording example, a similar approach is taken to alignment, focusing on the target frequency range of the element being aligned to ensure optimised sonic performance in the alignment process.
Figure 5.9 Wrapped phase response showing aligned and unaligned phase response at the crossover frequency
In the case of the drum recording example, moving the room microphone 6 feet from the original position to ensure the desired response will not have a severe
consequence in performance timing. As the microphone is in real physical space, it will provide significant tonal improvement when combining the room mic and close mics. These changes will occur as the relative intensity of the room mic increases and the balance of direct and reflected sound alters. In the case of the big band recording, however, virtually moving one microphone through multiple delay choices in post-production that forms part of a sax section will have negative consequences in the cohesion of the musical timing of each sections performance. To maintain the best possible timing in the performance across instrumental sections the choice of delay value is made based on two considerations. The first being the improvement in sonic performance, and the second is that the decision must minimise the virtual distance moved for each microphone as much as possible. Using a simple automatic alignment selection can see a delay suggested on a saxophone mic that effectively stages the saxophone behind the trumpet. This type of virtual movement is inappropriate for aligning big band microphones as it ignores the sound staging that audiences expect from big band recordings.
Once all the microphones have been aligned to the drum bleed, there is a change in the presentation of the drum sound in the recording. In this case, the impact of the room reflection is reduced resulting in a drier, closer sounding drum recording. The snare drum in particular comes across as being considerably less hollow with more sound of the body of the drum propagating into the recorded space. An example of the drums aligned and unaligned with all 32 microphones open is provided in the example folder linked below.
In live sound design, the ABC approach sees the top section of a line array focusing on the furthest audio plane, this is labelled plane A. The next audience plane is targeted by the middle section of the array, this is labelled plane B. With the frequency response and amplitude at that plane a function of the combination of the top two sections of the array, rather than just the middle section. The lowest audience plane, C, is targeted by the lowest section of the array, but again is influenced by the previously focused array sections. It is imperative that the individual sections are targeting their allocated audience zones, but also that the array as a whole is working as a single unit to provide polar pattern control over the desired frequency range. The lowest controlled frequency is a function of the length of the array, meaning that the response at the listening plane is influenced by more than the section of array
128 targeting that plane. Approaching the big band recording requires a similar methodology, with the need to target not just the bleed from the drums into the sectional mics (sectional mics become plane A) but also the local bleed from other players in the section. The saxophone section provides an example of this approach, with the baritone saxophone providing the primary reference. The ABC approach is used to align the saxophone section as if it were a line array, bringing each element into the best possible alignment at the target frequency range. The tenor saxophone is added to the baritone, and other close measured in-phase points are auditioned, focusing on the tonal relationship between the two instruments at the recommended points. The points that are auditioned are not from an alignment measurement between the two saxophones, but still from the drum alignment (plane A), preserving the phase relationship with the bleed while optimising the relationship between sectional instruments. The process continues, adding each sectional mic (plane B and C) in turn and tuning in to the existing section using alignment options provided by the relationship with the drums (plane A).
6.11.1 Audio Examples—Big Band The following is an example of the big band before and after alignment. The drum only alignment featuring all 32 microphones is also provided for reference. Note that the only change in the audio files is the phase aligning of instruments. The recordings and volumes of the instruments are the same in both examples.
Click here to listen to the big band files
6.11.2 Discussion The end result of this alignment process across all 32 channels of the recording is a significant change in delivery. Before alignment there is a sense of a big band being in a space, with spatial cues arriving at the listener along with the direct sound, creating a sense of distance and a lack of intimacy and urgency. After alignment the staging of the band has changed, with a move from a band situated in a room to a sound that has clearer definition and a greater sense of immediacy, particularly in the brass stabs at the end of the short example provided. The sense of delivery and detail creates a greater sense of energy delivery, with the band now appearing to be located closer to the front of the soundstage rather than further into the room, with the splash of energy in the reverb now feeling like a result of the transient energy of the band,
rather than a space that the transient is filtered through. Through a time and phase alignment process inspired by live sound system design approaches the balance of instruments can be manipulated without significant changes in frequency response, allowing considerable post-production manipulation of sounds that sees significant changes in overall response without alignment.
From a pedagogical standpoint, the realigning of big band microphones using a considered methodology offers students the chance to understand how better microphone placement can affect the delivery of a recorded performance. The opportunity to visualise and understand such relationships without having to move microphones allows teachers to demonstrate extensive phase relationships in a less time-pressured environment. In this post-production example, the visual and automatic options provide the chance for students to hear multiple different placement suggestions from the algorithm. However, it also affords the opportunity for students and teachers to engage in critical discourse as to why certain positions work better than others. Finally, this experiment offers an insight into the choices that engineers need to make when visualising a complete recording as well as an opportunity to evaluate microphone placements that need correcting in future recordings.
6.12 CONCLUSIONS
In both of these phase experiments, we used comprehensive visualisations to inform our choices in pre- and post-production. In the experiments and our pedagogical practice, the value of visual tools to inform recording practice cannot be overstated. In our tests, the ability to utilise a precise visual analysis of microphone relationships removes the guesswork from creative microphone positioning. In our teaching environments in QUT and UWL, phase visualisation tools now play a significant role in presenting an explicit picture of microphone phase relationships to students. However, it is important to remember that there is no correct answer with phase choices. The notion of perfect phase relationships for a multi-microphone recording is an impossibility. Using a multiple microphone setup involves creative decisions between different microphone types and distances. The result of this distance mismatch creates a sense of space around the drum kit due to the natural phase cancellation. As stated by Paterson (2007), these unavoidable phase
130 differences offer the chance to decide on the phase colouration. This colouration is a phenomenon that the listener is familiar with due to the ubiquitous nature of multi- microphonic drum kit approaches in past recordings. This experiment improves the understanding of phase relationships to make deliberate choices as to the aesthetics of multi-microphone recordings. We intended to utilise these systems as teaching tools so that early-stage recording engineers and students can understand and manipulate microphone choices with a deeper understanding of the consequences of their actions. Experienced recording engineers learn to hear and minimise the phase cancellation so that the microphone relationships allow the speaker to represent the recorded text with minimal nullification due to destructive relationships. In other words, the speaker can move with more freedom because it is not being asked to move backwards and forwards at the same time due to ill-considered microphone placement. This listening method is a skill that takes years to acquire. The experienced engineer draws on years of tacit knowledge to quickly understand and correct phase issues. We assert that it is possible for the early career engineer using visual tools to produce their desired phase and frequency relationships in multi- miked drum recordings.
6.13 FURTHER STUDY
Our use of optical phase analysis in post-production reveals a more considered approach to correcting phase issues. It is important to note that the tool we utilised is a post-production tool and is not designed for analysing microphone placement in recording scenarios. However, it was the only phase analysis tool that offered distance analysis as well as comprehensive frequency interaction, time delay and phase analysis. As a result, it is the use of Auto-Align as an analytical tool that shows real promise for creative manipulation of phase in physical space. This experiment in phase analytics has opened up opportunities for experimentation using different microphone setups and relationships. As such, we intend to produce a series of videos that continue to explore the use of post-production analytical tools but with unconventional microphone placement in spaces that are less forgiving than QUT studios. As stated in the literature review equalisation can drastically alter phase relationships between microphones. We intend to explore some aggressive equalisation and processing techniques with recordings to see if we radically shape drums using creative processing then reposition microphones for better phase
coherence. We also intend to explore phase measurement in a variety of settings to test its validity for different applications such as guitar recording, orchestra recording and various other acoustic sources. We feel that real-time phase measurement in the tracking environment offers the chance for us to develop a methodology of multi- microphone tracking that understands and creatively manipulates phase relationships to push analogue recording into new frontiers of creativity.
132 Chapter 7: The Record Producer as a Sensemaking Facilitator
The Record Producer as a Sensemaking Facilitator: Conditional Properties for Music-Making
7.1 ABSTRACT
In this paper, I argue that the record producer operates as a conditional sensemaker that tacitly constructs an environment to encourage creative social meaning-making. To frame the producer in this way, I take Howlett’s (2009) position that a producer is a nexus collaborator who brokers between creative and logistical elements to negotiate newly recorded music into existence. However, the producer does not make music in isolation. To understand how an environment of meaning- making is constructed, I investigate how producers interact with artists through ethnographic observation and semi-structured interviews with five working producers of varying styles. These interviews are thematically analysed, and I discuss specific excerpts using a qualitative analytical approach, focusing on three specific themes: social engagement, the constructed environment and ongoing learning. The three themes are drawn from Weick’s (1995) seven properties of sensemaking. I focus on three specific properties that contribute to ‘conditions’ of sensemaking (Rutledge, 2009) to better understand how producers tacitly interact with surrounding elements of sensemaking rather than examining the more active stages of sensemaking. This research introduces a constructionist phenomenological study of record-making and argues for the facilitation of socially negotiated meaning through sensemaking.
7.2 INTRODUCTION
The collaborative recording environment presents a socially constructed workspace well suited to an investigation of sensemaking. In particular, it is the complex negotiation of recording design, composition, the fostering of creative invention, and the arrangement of musical elements that make the studio such an interesting subject. Each newly recorded take in a project has the potential to become a micro organisational exercise, with artists and producers performing complex negotiations, ‘socially designing new ideas and literally constructing these ideas into existence’ (Weick, Suttcliffe, & Obstfield, 1998, p. 409). In the studio, these cognitive exercises occur between small organisational entities (Weick, 1993) that need a flexible environment to foster creative ideas. The record producer presents an interesting subject as a facilitator of sensemaking in the studio. Sensemaking is an organisational theory described by Weick (1995) as the ‘placement of items into frameworks, comprehending, redressing surprise, constructing meaning, interacting in pursuit of mutual understanding, and patterning’ (p. 6).
In my writing on transnational flow (Pratt et al., 2018) I have investigated the active phenomenon of sensemaking as a process by creating models of sensemaking in action. These models serve as analytical tools that aid in the understanding of group decision-making for small music recording groups. Sensemaking is a useful theory that can guide creative and complex decision-making by generating social meaning out of confusion. Such confusion occurs in the studio when the flow of recording is overwhelmed by complex issues such as a new musical part that clashes with the intent of the music. In this article, I frame the producer as a facilitator of sensemaking and investigate how producers construct habitats that foster collective invention. Recording studios are complex, messy environments that resist traditional hierarchical structures of organisation. Sensemaking presents a practical, social and environmentally flexible method of dealing with complicated and messy environments. This paper investigates how producers and small groups work together to create a sensemaking environment that fosters group creative interaction. With a better understanding of sensemaking, producers can facilitate decision-making and
134 assist groups to complete work with less confusion and more democratic involvement.
To investigate the facilitation of sensemaking, I interview five working producers with different collaborative approaches. Stylistically, the producers range from rock and pop, through to more experimental electronic, and orchestral approaches. These interviews offer insight into a small set of creatively focused producers and demonstrate how their form of record-making is assisted by building an environment for sensemaking. To establish this, I thematically analyse the producer interviews around three facilitative sensemaking properties of social facilitation, environmental facilitation, and ongoing learning (Allen, 2011). Such understanding of these three sensemaking properties is of value to early-stage recording artists. The five producers all work in a professional capacity and make a living by completing and releasing commercial records with creative groups. As such, the producers display a learned understanding of facilitating music-making and creating environments that encourage collective interaction. Their tacit facilitating of sensemaking offers insight that can assist groups of musicians in constructing their environments that encourage the flow of creativity. To understand how these producers facilitate sensemaking, I conduct semi-structured interviews with the producers and then analyse these interviews through the lens of sensemaking.
7.3 LITERATURE REVIEW
7.3.1 Producers Facilitate Sensemaking To frame the producer as a facilitator, I turn to the sensemaking theory of Weick (1995), specifically his concepts of the social, sensible environment, and what he calls “ongoing properties” of sensemaking. These three properties are the more implicit of Weick’s seven properties of sensemaking, in contrast to the more explicit properties of mapping meaning or suggesting plausible solutions. Rutledge (2009) takes the more implicit properties of sensemaking and matches them to conditions, such as meetings settings or reactions to a crisis. In doing so, Rutledge argues that sensemaking practitioners should be cognizant of both ‘surrounding conditions as well as active stages of sensemaking’ (p. 19). Investigating these three sensemaking properties offers an insight into the more environmental concerns that producers engage with when recording artists. These three properties—social, environmental
and ongoing—offer a structure to conduct a thematic analysis of the producer as a sensemaking participant during a recording. Such a thematic frame allows for the interrogation of the record producer as a facilitator for sensemaking who provides a socially inclusive studio environment.
The producers interviewed in this article discussed how they interact with groups of musicians to facilitate the recording of new songs. Framing the record producer as such a facilitator infers that the producer sits somewhere within the dynamic of sensemaker working within a social group to decode complexity, and sensegiver working to guide organisational sensemaking (Allen, 2011).
Sensemaker Facilitator Sensegiver
Figure 6.1 Dynamic spectrum of producer placement
Sensemaking and sensegiving are interrelated phenomena that occur reflexively depending on the actor's position in a group. Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) argue that ‘sensegiving is concerned with the process of attempting to influence the sensemaking and meaning construction of others toward a preferred redefinition of organizational reality’ (p. 442). As an actor that shifts between internal roles of the sensemaker and the more externally focused sensegiver, record producers fit a similar position to a middle manager in a corporate organisational structure. Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld (2011) argue for this shifting view of both roles in middle management as a fusion that ‘has the potential of enabling managers, especially middle managers, to lead and facilitate meaning during significant change’ (p. 67). This analysis of middle managers echoes Howett’s (2009) view of the record producer as a nexus that negotiates between various technical, artistic and business functions in the recording studio. The definition of the producer as nexus frames the research in this paper around a central question of how producers operate as facilitators of meaning-making. As such, the definition of sensegiver attempting to influence sensemaking is better redefined for the record producer. Instead, sensemaking facilitator seems more in line with the aims of the creative studio environment. This is an important distinction that frames the producer with Howlett’s more cooperative nexus role that is more of a negotiator than an influencer.
136 7.3.2 Sensemaking in Musical Environments The aim of this paper is to transplant sensemaking theory from large corporate organisational settings and begin an investigation of a smaller environment like the recording studio. I argue that the complexities in the studio and the social nature of writing and recording music makes it the ideal setting for small group sensemaking research. Sensemaking literature tends to lean towards large organisations such as hospitals and disaster management (Battleson & Ramesh 2013; Rutledge, 2009; Weick, 1993). However, some sensemaking theorists argue for different settings for organisational learning. Tovstiga et al. (2004) demonstrate that western chamber music ensembles exhibit an advanced organisational configuration that exceeds the complexity of corporate structures. Organising in this setting requires the negotiation of semiotic, emotional, aural, long-term memory and muscle memory factors. This form of structural intricacy is best summed up by Tovstiga et al. (2004), who states:
Now, nearly two centuries later, we are left only with pieces of paper with some symbols, perhaps interspersed with a few sparse instructions. And yet, to the group of musicians comprising the octet ensemble, those few symbols are more than enough; more than enough to stir up their own imaginations, emotions and creativity, and more than enough to reach out and evoke powerful emotions in the audience attending the concert performance. (p. 1)
The recording studio is overlooked as an organisational space due to the micro nature of the decisions made when recording. Socially navigated decisions solving complex musical problems are commonplace in the music recording process and often pass by unobserved. Sensemaking research tends to focus on larger forms of social meaning-making in organisations undergoing destabilising change (Weick, 1995: Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991: Allen, 2011), or disaster management (Weick, 1993). The result is that scholars understand ‘relatively little about how heterogeneous sets of sensemaking parties interact in ongoing and quite ordinary sensemaking processes over extended periods of time’ (Maitis, 2005, p. 23). Maitis has begun to address this by studying forms of sensemaking and sensegiving typologies in orchestral management. In this paper, I take an even smaller lens and explore music creation as a socially negotiated exercise facilitated by the producer. This study investigates how producers and artists work together to create new music because ‘this collaboration is at its best a symbiotic working relationship’ (Horning,
2004, p. 703). To begin addressing the lack of sensemaking research in the recording studio, this research provides insight into five producers that work as sensemaking collaborators with artists.
7.3.3 Producer as a Collaborator The five producers were selected to fit the specific definition of the producer as a collaborator concerned with the creative goals of their artists. Martin (2014) asserts that the producer role is one of ‘producer as mediator’ (p. 37) which gives credence to the complexity of social and intellectual negotiation that producers perform. Lingo et al. (2010) take a more comprehensive view of the producer and addresses the role through the concept of brokerage, framing the producer as a vital connector and manager of personnel in collaborative projects. However, it is Howlett’s (2009) framing of the record producer as a nexus that drives to a more inter-relational view of the producer. I assert that record producers tacitly exist in a constant state of sensemaking and that their practice is one of advanced inter-relational problem- solving. However, such recording collaboration is not just a problem-solving relationship, because both producers and recording artists are active agents of creation. Battleson and Ramesh (2013) define sensemakers as ‘active agents that construct sensible events’ (p. 19). Such an active view of the artistic group aids in framing producers and artists as engaged co-creators that “will” music into existence, rather than operating as passive respondents to confusion. Such an understanding of sensemaking best summed up by Weick (1995) who states, ‘if one thinks like a constructivist, and sees sensemaking as a problem of invention, then the inventor has to do something more than ponder what is there’ (p. 163). This distinction is important because active sensemaking is not just a reaction to a problematic situation, but rather it is an act of creation.
Producers are a unique type of participant frequently injected into already established decision-making teams. They operate as a nexus for technical, business, and musical roles (Howlett, 2009). On top of these mixed responsibilities, producers are frequently newcomers to a group and they ‘need to learn both how to interpret and how to express themselves in the natives' vernacular’ (Weick, 1995, p. 41). Learning what a group expects and how they interact means that producers may see artists through an ethnographic lens that is similar to that of a participant observer. It is this combination of creative roles and ethnographic positioning that places the
138 producer as a facilitator who assists artists in achieving their goals. A producer primarily operates as a facilitator, because ‘a high degree of creative collaboration takes place in record productions. The artist usually brings the song idea, but this is rarely fully formed’ (Howlett, 2009, p. 37). Thompson and Lashua take Howlett’s framing further by blurring the roles performed by producer and artist stating that ‘In contemporary record production the artist can be viewed as embedded within the creative team, often with simultaneous duties such as co-writer, performer and producer’ (2014, p. 71). This focus on the creative, collaborative team is suited to making democratic decisions in which the record producer and artists use their varied tacit knowledge to create new music. Pras et al. (2013) frame collaboration as artistic stating, ‘in pop-rock, there is more collaboration between the record producer and the artists regarding artistic decisions’ (p. 621). Using a sensemaking lens, this type of collaborative work is a social negotiation which takes the form of a produced song. Such collaborative decision-making fits into Weick’s ‘social’ sensemaking property, evoking questions about how socialisation and trust are implemented in recording settings.
7.3.4 Socialisation and Trust The positioning of the producer as a facilitator is uniquely compelling because the nature and aims of each recording project are subtly different. Such a renegotiation of boundaries requires social competency on the part of the producer. Martin (2014) describes the importance of social skills during this negotiation stating that social competency is ‘clear and understood as essential to their working practice in a manner that musical or technical skills do not seem to be’ (p. 127). The renegotiation of recording boundary zones with new artists offers the opportunity to interact with a unique set of perspectives in every project (Lefford, 2015). To negotiate this variation in the boundaries in practice, production groups operate in a collectivist mentality in which a group of recording artists learn to interact and trust each other. This type of collective trust is ‘manifested as a belief that those entering into agreement are joined together and share something in common; thus, they should rely on and trust one another’ (Ostland & Bird, 2000). Trust in this context involves fostering voices to join in the development of ideas because ‘creative ideas emerge through interactions and relational processes’ (Lingo & Mahony, 2010, p. 51). Horning speaks of this level of trust and cooperation as ‘a social art’ involving
teamwork, and that no single member of that team deserved full credit for the outcome’ (2004, p. 713). It is a complex task for a record producer to facilitate such trust while being a part of the sensemaking group. It requires consideration and an empathetic social mindset best summed up by Beer (2013):
‘The social and cultural flare of the engineer and their empathy for the art mix with an understanding of the role, the hierarchy and the technical materiality of the space. All these mediating relations are balanced by this capacity to understand and to have an engineer’s eye for what is possible’ (p. 198).
Gioia and Chittipeddi describe this communal relationship as a form of social constructionism, stating that organisational efforts that deal with change ‘seldom happen by decree, but often hinge on consensus-building, a round of negotiated social construction’ (1991, p. 434). Using this analysis of consensus-building, artists and producers become stakeholders in a unified venture of music-making with the producer operating as a facilitator of consensus-building. Without the social trust and the empathy of producers as both sensemakers and sensegivers, this complicated and active process of music creation becomes potentially fraught and divisive. In this setting, the producer is responsible for building trust and assisting the social decision-making team. This means that from a Weikien social perspective, the production of a record is ‘a complex interaction of processes with the producer at the centre, directing, engaging, arranging, collaborating and inspiring—and, ultimately, giving form to an idea’ (Howlett, 2009, p. 92).
7.3.5 Sensible Environment The field of record production as defined by Kirby (2015) is one of constant evolution and decline. From small bedrooms through to purpose-built facilities the definition for the recording studio is becoming more fluid. However, the abstract environmental constraints that producers place around themselves serve to focus their practice. In the simplest terms, producers assemble musicians and writers in groups and collectively design creative spaces. These constructed spaces then serve to constrain decision-making to a sensible range of choices (Weick, 1995). In an article exploring boundary zones of creative practice, Lefford frames the collaborative production space as a socially constructed space, stating:
140 To sustain collaboration, these experts come together in a production space. The space might be conceptual and demarcated by agreement among collaborators. It might be a physical place. Usually, the context for collaboration consists of a combination of conceptual and physical configurations (2015, para 2).
Constructed production environments draw on historical discourse through the nostalgic lens of the “golden age” of recording practice. However, more modern interpretations of recording space challenge this sovereign image of recording practice. As a result, recording practice becomes less of a physical presence and more of an abstract socially negotiated phenomenon (Carvalho, 2012). Despite a new diversity of physical environments, the historical conceptualisation that recording studios are collaborative spaces has not diminished. Thus, the recording environment is not defined by the walls and recording consoles of physical space. It is instead defined through socio-cultural construction, operating as a place of shared collaborative creativity (Lefford, 2015). This renegotiation of space is an enacted environment that sets reasonable limits around the decision-making of the group. In this sense, ‘people enact an environment, controls are put in place, and these controls shape subsequent action’ (Weick, 1995, p. 167). Definitional boundaries also operate as a tool for understanding competition between organisations. Weick (1995) sums this up by stating:
Organizations play an active role in shaping their environments, partly because they seek environments that are sparsely inhabited by competitors, they define their products and outputs in ways that emphasize distinctions between themselves and their competitors (p. 163).
Enacted environments shape the direction and vision of an organisation, as well as their ability to distinguish themselves from their competitors. In the musical world, producers apply these enacted environments in negotiation with artists to make a project unique in a competitive market. Such dedication to finding a new take on recording text is supported by Martins assertion that ‘the increase in the amount of producers and therefore competition means that producers need to find new ways to make themselves unique’ (2014, p. 259). However, it is not necessarily a competitive drive that makes producers strive for unique approaches; rather it is a drive to find the creative voice of the artist with which they are collaborating. This search for uniqueness is exhibited by Lingo and O’Mahony (2010) who frame the
producer as a broker that brings together ‘all of the elements necessary to create a unique music project’ (p. 53). As a result, the producer brokers an environment that can be viewed as a curated space. Battleson and Ramesh (2013) frame this curation as ‘selecting the elements of the situation, setting our attention boundaries, and imposing our coherence’ (p. 20). These enacted boundaries are crucial to the meaning-making between the producer and the artist searching for a unique voice.
7.3.6 Ongoing and Evaluative Recording practice undergoes frequent change and re-evaluation (Goold, 2018), it is a clear example of what Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld (2011) describe as reconstituted and ‘ongoing discursive activities’ (p. 56). The recording community fosters conversations about the creation of records as well as the meaning-making of musical invention. The tradition that producers engage with is dynamic, ‘it is added to, subtracted from and built upon by the collective input of engineer-producers’ (McIntyre, 2015). This discourse surrounding music production is in constant flux because the recording profession endures a high level of disruption from ‘continual advances in digital technology’ (Kirby, 2015, p. 351). The ability to conduct production practice on such a shifting technological framework fosters a revisionist mindset. This mindset adapts to digital disruption and negotiates with differing artist expectations, as well as ‘complex interactions between personnel, technology, workplace, aesthetics of musical and production intention’ (Thompson & Lashua, 2014, p. 72). As a consequence, producers are in an ongoing process of adapting their methods to account for new musical approaches and developments in recording practice.
Clarke (2016) frames the recording studio environment as a hub of technological development. In this realm of what Clarke refers to as ‘magic science’ (2016, p. 198), producers interact with changes in both musicality and production circumstances on a day to day basis. As a result, both producers and recording engineers shoulder responsibilities that include ‘expansive discretion to work with mixing technology and develop the technical flourishes that could transform a song into a hit’ (Lingo & Mahony, 2010, p. 72). The tacit understanding that producers manage all these factors leads to an expectation that producers are capable of shifting their conceptual boundaries to suit new projects. The adaptable vision of the record producer leads to the chameleon metaphor as discussed by Hepworth-Sawyer and
142 Golding (2010) who state: ‘we tend to think of a chameleon and the way in which it changes its colours to blend in with its surroundings’ (p. 210). In an investigation on artist expectations of record producers, Pras and Gustavo (2011) present data that supports this adaptable view of the producer. Artists in this research described their expectations that producers must be ‘accommodating; have new ideas; try different things; willing to take suggestions from the musician’ (p. 91). Viewing the producer as an adaptable chameleon presents the image of an actor that is continually undergoing a process of revision and development. Such a shifting and revisionist image of production practice conform to the notion that a sensemaker is always in the middle of their development and are in a constant state of re-evaluation.
Organisations are always in flux. An ongoing mindset asserts that ideas are not fixed things; they develop and evolve as they appear in new contexts. Weick (1995) takes an evolutionary view of the ongoing sensemaking process by stating: ‘“habituated” action patterns and “routines” are not completely automatic. Instead, they are reaccomplished and evolve’ (p. 171). Despite the repetitive nature of the recording process, artists are different in both subtle and striking ways, and it is up to the producer to adjust their workflow in response to these changes. Choices made in the recording studio can be deterministic down to the smallest detail. Howlett (2009) asserts that critical decisions occur at multiple stages in the recording process. For example, ‘what studio to record in, which engineer, which microphone and where to place it’ (p. 2). At each decision point, the producer must consider the approach of the artist they are working with, meaning that there are an important number of choices that guide each new artist. As a consequence, a producer can never replicate the exact circumstances of recordings. This flow of practice is ‘continuous, and it is important to understand that people cut, or take moments out of continuous flows and are always involved with something’ (Batthelson & Ramesh, 2013 p. 32). When a record producer is working with a new artist it becomes necessary to discard their assumptions and approach each recording as if it were a new proposition. In this sense, recording practice establishes itself as a constant flow of experience that shifts and updates in a liquid fashion.
7.4 METHODOLOGY
This interview data was not originally intended as an interrogation of sensemaking conditions. I collected this data to supplement observations from attended recording sessions. The recording work was focused on the more manifest stages of sensemaking, thus producing models on sensemaking behaviour in controlled studio environments. The five producer interviews were collected to add a perspective to the observational work for triangulation purposes. However, during the first read of this interview data, I noticed a richness of social constructionist views from the producers. Patterns began to emerge during multiple readings of the interviews and producers spoke in-depth about social learning and environmental facilitating. As a result, this paper evolved into an examination of the conditions surrounding sensemaking.
The five interviews provide a qualitative collection of data that exposes the relational aspects of collaborative work from the perspective of the producer. Such a relational dataset demands a methodological commitment to a more ‘humanistic, interpretive approach, as opposed to more ‘scientific’ and ‘positivist’ positions’ (Atkinson, Hammersley, 1994, p. 249). The best practitioners to ask about surrounding elements of record practice are the facilitators of such environments. As such, I conducted interviews with a small selection of producers. When reading through these interviews, I discovered some interesting themes that require discussion in their own right. Hence this paper exists to explore the unexpected commonalities revealed in the transcripts.
I conducted semi-structured interviews with the producers. Each interview began with a thematically linked set of questions. These questions were generated from observing a recording session conducted at QUT by Aria award-winning producer Dr Lachlan Goold. I took a semi-structured approach as opposed to a structured approach to allow ‘an opportunity for detailed investigation of each person's personal perspective’ (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). The less structured approach allowed for each participant to elucidate and move off the chosen subject, allowing for a more reflexive form of data collection. However, the semi-structured thematic approach allowed me to keep the interview on track and return the interviewee to the main themes of the interview. The thematic approach also afforded a structure to
144 cross-analyse the different producers, observing similarities and differences to responses during data analysis.
This research consisted of one participant observation session to develop a line of questioning, followed by five semi-structured interviews with different producers that operate in the USA, Scandinavia, Australia and Europe. The observations from the attended session led me to structure my interview around five themes. The themes were: Session organisation, creativity, communication, vocals and outcomes.
Session Organisation focused on how the producers prepare to meet artists and what considerations they have before embarking on a recording session. Creativity was a line of questions dedicated to understanding where creativity fits into a structured recording session, and how much importance producers place on the phenomenon of creative invention. Communication centred around the strategies that producers employ to foster communication in a recording setting, also focusing on how producers deal with communication breakdowns. The vocal theme delves into how producers specifically approach vocal recording and how they create relationships with performers during a session. The vocal descriptions also gave some concrete examples of communication in the recording studio. The theme of outcomes investigates how producers judge that a recording is finished, examining the social implications of this decision. It also examines what characteristics determine that a recording is finished, in both a creative and pragmatic sense.
After the completion of the attended recording session, I interviewed Goold for the dataset and to further expand on my field notes, I used this initial interview to test and refine my line of questioning. From this point, I developed a thematic frame for the interviews that remained constant for all five producers. In addition to the main themes, I added some prompting questions to account for pauses in the flow of the interview (see Appendix 1). The themes were not approached in a specific order for each producer interview. Instead, I established rapport at the start of each interview by discussing the producers’ background and general views about their practice. I then adapted the thematic questioning depending on the direction of the interview. As a result of this approach, the producers answered all the questions, but not in the same order or with the same level of emphasis.
7.4.1 Range of Producer Levels Five male producers from a variety of recording practices and several different countries agreed to participate in this research. In the future, I intend to interview record producers across a broader gender and cultural pool to establish a more diverse analysis of production approaches. For the article in question, however, my intent was to establish that the working producers that I interviewed act as tacit facilitators in their practice. This is by no means an exhaustive examination of record producers and their establishment of sensemaking practice. Nonetheless, it serves as a starting point to qualitatively cross-analyse five different approaches to record production and organisational construction in professional settings. The following is a brief description of each producer interviewed.
Lachlan Goold—Lachlan is a multi-Aria Award-winning record producer from Brisbane Australia. Currently, he is the director of music production at JMC Academy. Lachlan brings a wealth of experience and an educator’s perspective to the interview data set. Valgeir Sigurðsson—Valgier is a multi-award-winning songwriter and collaborative Icelandic record producer from Reykjavík. He has been nominated for an Academy Award for his work with Bjork. Valgeir has also worked with renowned artists Sigur Ros, Damon Albarn, and Bonnie ‘Prince’ Billy. Valgeir is the most distinguished of this set of interviews and brings a collaborative writing perspective to the research. Ryan Earndheart—Ryan is a producer from the United States of America, owner and operator of Lumen Audio recording studios in Asheville North Carolina. Ryan also runs a record production youtube channel with over two million views and 35,000 subscribers called creative studio lab. Ryan brings an owner-operator studio perspective to the research as well as a thoughtful understanding of the recording process. Stephen Bartlett—Stephen is an Australian freelance record producer based in New York. Engineered and Produced throughout continents with seven top ten records, charting in 18 countries. Stephen provides a freelance, cross- continental addition to the interview set, he is frequently flying to different studios and working in unfamiliar settings. As a result, Stephen frequently interacts with new artists in new spaces on tight timelines and budgets making him an implicit negotiator.
146 Darek Mudge—Darek is a local Brisbane record producer and owner of The Shed recording studio. He has worked in the local scene as a full-time producer for several years and produced work with bands such as We All Want To, Skypilot and Sabrina Lawrie. Darek has built his studio through a DIY approach, he provides a pragmatic, working producer perspective to the interview data.
7.5 DATA ANALYSIS
To analyse the interview data, I adopted Aronson’s (1994) three-step pragmatic view of thematic analysis. First, I took notes on the conversations during the transcription of the interviews. The transcription notes aided in my assessment of each producer’s approach and allowed me to recognise patterns that occurred between the different interview candidates. Second, I organised the notes and various quotes extracted from the interviews to form a common set of thematic patterns. This stage presented some surprising content that sparked the genesis of the paper. During the second step, I noticed that all producers spoke in detail about their roles as facilitators. The notes aided in the formulation of themes based on facilitative sensemaking properties. Third, I built an argument through the literature extending on how these themes are relevant in the overall sensemaking framework. Three dominant concepts kept returning to the conversations. I took these concepts and compared them to the relevant sensemaking properties to construct a coherent narrative. This analysis shaped the basis for my literature review and served to place the producer within the scope of sensemaking. Figure 6.2 illustrates how the producer discussions matched three specific sensemaking properties.
Producer Quote Sensemaking Property
Utilising members of the Socialisation and Trust recording group as assets
Building an orchestra section Adherence to Environment by section in a small space
Never stop learning Ongoing
Figure 6.2 Matching data themes to sensemaking properties
7.6 EXAMPLES AND DISCUSSION
The following examples are extracted from the five interviews conducted during 2016, thematically organised into three categories. Each excerpt is discussed in relation to the three conditional themes of sensemaking: Socialisation and trust; adaptation to the environment; ongoing and updating.
7.6.1 Socialisation and Trust The first data example examines the social nature of the recording process. It discusses the methods producers employ to fold musicians into the decision-making. It was interesting to note that the producers all placed high importance on establishing trust in their artists. In the first two quotes, Lachlan explains how important it is to gain the trust of the artists that he records. It should be noted that there was no discussion on how artists should earn trust from Lachlan. Earning trust is a common theme that all five producers prioritised. None of the producers stated that it is the artist's' job to trust them, which suggests that trust is something that the producer needs to gain as opposed to the artist.
Lachlan: Yeah, it’s all about trust, it’s all trust. It’s amazing how when you can earn someone’s trust how far it can go. I’m a big one for letting people have their way. It’s another way of earning people’s trust. They know that I’m not a barrier in the studio, I’m more of a catalyst, or I’m just very open to letting experimentation happen.
In this excerpt, Lachlan asserts that empowering artists to direct choices is a method of building trust with the social group. From a sensemaking perspective, Lachlan is actively striving to become a member of the social decision process rather than expecting the group to defer to his expertise. Maitlis (2005) explains this level involvement as ‘fragmented organisational sensemaking’ (p. 32), in which the group facilitator takes a low-level role and allows the stakeholders to participate in sensemaking with more creative freedom. As an award-winning producer, Lachlan is capable of acting as a more forceful sensegiver and guiding the group decision- making, but he consciously chooses to defer to the group and facilitate their discovery process. Using this approach, Lachlan joins the group as a sensemaking member. Lefford (2015) suggests that this encouragement of collaboration is a producer choosing to interact with unique perspectives, rather than resting on the
148 assumption that artists do not understand what they want. In the next excerpt, Ryan takes the theme of trust introduced and elaborates on how artist trust and engagement can shape an entire recording session. Ryan explains how he uses a microphone to bring band members into a decision-making role actively:
Ryan: I’ve done subtle things, like taking a talkback mic plugging it into a mixer so that [the band] they can flip it on and off with the switch to coach [the singer]. So now they [the singer] have a more familiar voice coming down the line. They feel more comfortable with that person, so it becomes more about utilising the resources of who’s sitting on the couch back there.
The excerpt describing the switchable microphone is especially interesting because Ryan demonstrates that he not only places importance in trust and social decision-making but that he sees this as a resource for making sense of the recording. This utilisation of inter-relational communication as a tool reinforces Lingo & Mahony's assertion that ideas are a product of mutual interactions (2010). Through this action, Ryan is emphasising collaborative input during the tracking process, demonstrating an ongoing dedication to social engagement during tracking. Through this engagement, Ryan is reinforcing Ostland & Bird’s (2000) notion that trust and socialisation are about allowing voices to contribute and inviting the artists to participate in a collective sensemaking act. In the next excerpt, Valgeir takes this assertion a step further by addressing the similar concept that other minds become like ‘resources’ in a social network. Valgeir explains that there are more social sensemakers involved in the recording process than the producer and artist:
Valgeir: That’s one of the things that I like about music, not being so fixed in your role and having that fluidity in the studio. Like you are allowed to have an opinion, on something that I think that is maybe not necessarily your role. When I work with my engineer—who has been the same person for a long time—I encourage input and leave them with a lot of creative decisions as well. I think that’s just how collaborations get good.
One of the commonalities across the five producers is their level of trust they place in the artists and personnel they work with. In these specific excerpts, we gain insight into the openness with which these producers encourage social meaning- making. Lachlan describes this as openness to letting experimentation happen. Both Ryan and Valgier, however, take this open approach a step further and view the
contributing actors as a resource for achieving a more sophisticated production. Valgeir in particular states that this is how collaborations get good, inferring that he not only values the social input of other actors but feels that the project is better because of these interactions. Thematically, every producer interviewed took a similar approach, encouraging group members to contribute to the music-making. This dedication to socialisation and trust reinforces a democratic approach to consensus and socially negotiated meaning-making (Weick, 1995).
7.6.2 Reliance and Adaptation to Environment In the following example, I take Weick’s (1995) constructed environment property and examine how producers view their recording environment. I examine surrounding constructions that producers manipulate to foster a social environment that encourages creativity. There are also interesting perspectives on adaptations to environmental restrictions that display some unique sensemaking; these concepts push the limits of achievable notions through novel approaches to environmental barriers. In his interview, Stephen Bartlett states ‘I try and be really quick and methodical in how I set up or arrange something to maximise the creativity’ (Bartlett, Personal Communication, 2017). Stephen’s reflection suggests a dedication to adapting the space to encourage creative invention. This type of environmental adaptation creates what Weick et al. (2013) refer to as an ‘enacted environment’ that serves to guide the sensemaking outcomes of the social group (p. 29). This level of facilitated environment demonstrates a producer’s ability to actively shape meaning and sensemaking processes (Alen, 2011). In his interview, Stephen also explains that he dedicates a significant share of recording time to creative invention. In this sense, he is shaping the time boundaries as well as the facility space to encourage creativity. In the next excerpt, Valgeir discusses how he gets around space and personnel limitations to create a recording of a full orchestra.
Valgeir: That comes from a few things, layering sections and building up an orchestra from small parts is something that I like doing. Because you have a lot of control and you can focus on fewer things at a time during a recording. And it’s practical if you don’t have the space or the money to bring in a whole orchestra. It’s time-consuming, so that’s the downside of it, it can take a lot of work to make it acoustically blend. I’ve developed this over quite a lot of years, so I’m pretty confident that I get the results I’m after usually.
150 There are occasions where I might need to go back and re-record something that hasn’t blended in properly. Or when you start with something, and the players don’t have a lot to play to, then you might have to go back at some point and revisit a part here or there.
In this example, Valgeir takes a small studio space and reconstructs it into an imagined space to record multiple layers and emulate an orchestra. This case is a spatial adaptation, in which a Valgeir invents a new process to exceed the physical limits of his studio space. In both examples, producers are dealing with abstracted constructions of boundaries and using those boundaries to inform their practice. In both instances the producers are assessing their physical and abstract boundaries and ‘selecting the elements of the situation, setting our attention boundaries, and imposing coherence’ (Battleson and Ramesh, 2013, p. 20). In each of the producers interviewed there were examples of unique problem-solving approaches that manifest as examples of socially constructed sensible environments. These environments then set the boundaries for social creativity to occur. In this sense, the producers are creating ‘organizational artefacts, services and products [that] come to be reflections of environmental interpretation’ (Weick, 1995, p. 3). Valgeirs’ building of an orchestra with limited personnel and space displays tacit sensemaking. It is a manipulation of the physical boundaries of his recording space to create this new environmental interpretation. One of the benefits to this constructed interpretation of the environment is that Valgeir has now built an abstract orchestra. Such an abstract construction affords more control over the elements of the performance than traditional orchestral recording.
7.6.3 Ongoing and Updating Meaning The final theme explores how each of the five producers displays an open approach to their production practice, framing it as an ongoing sensemaking process. The producers all display an openness to learning and updating their process in an ongoing re-evaluation of their identity. According to Weick (1995), this process of ongoing analysis occurs because organisations are always in flux, and they must continuously update ideas as the environment shifts. However, the first quote in this theme presents another reason for a producer to be open to learning. In this example Lachlan offers a colourful assertion that the artist is just as likely to contribute to his learning process as he is to theirs by stating:
Lachlan: You’ve got to realise that your head does go up your own arse, it’s usually my job to stop that happening with the arse, but sometimes the artist will stop that from happening to me.
This understanding that the artist is as responsible as the producer implies that producers are learning from their work with artists, not the other way around. Lachlan states that he does not want to get lost in his practice, he accepts artist intervention as a contribution to his learning. In this statement, Lachlan is openly challenging his habituated patterns and actively updating his process with each artist (Allen, 2011). In the next example, Ryan presents an interesting take on the continuing learning process or record production that agrees with Lachlan's position, but takes the point further, suggesting that it is arrogance to assume that he has nothing to learn:
Ryan: Kind of the great thing about learning is that there is never this barrier. At least, I don’t think there should be [especially] a barrier out of arrogance that says, “I’m somehow an expert, so I have the right answer and I won’t change it”.
In this quote, Ryan is openly stating that he welcomes change and that he feels arrogance creates a barrier to development as a producer. Sawyer (2007) argues that group determination becomes ‘blocked when one person dominates, is arrogant, or does not think anything can be learned from the conversation’ (p. 50). This form of defensive thinking is an interesting take on Pras and Gustavo's view that artists want producers to be both accommodating and open to new ideas (2011). In the continuous flow of experience, producers who are clinging to old ideas are resisting change, and are not open to updating and re-evaluating their assumptions (Weick, 1995). In the next two quotes, both Stephen and Valgeir reinforce that they are continually learning, and they characterise this as humility and self-improvement.
Stephen: You never stop learning, I’ve seen guys that have untold millions of records sold, and they still have the humility to come and say “hey how did you do that?” Valgeir: One of the reasons that I make music is that I want to be learning something, discovering something constantly. You know, getting better at stuff.
152 Both of these statements relate to Weick’s (1995) assertion that we are always ‘in the middle’ of projects, so sensemaking is invariably an ongoing process of refinement (p. 45). Valgeir goes as far as to state that he actively seeks the learning process and frames his production process as one of discovery. This process of development fits with Bathelson and Ramesh’s (2013) characterisation of sensemakers as ‘active agents’ of invention that construct meaning (p. 19). The final statement from Darek places a small amount of mysticism into the understanding of meaning-making in the recording environment.
Darek: That’s the fun part of it, you just don’t know what’s going to happen in there, and that’s where the magic happens.
This final statement reinforces that music creation is still a mystery to Darek. It is a phenomenon full of unexplained outcomes that drive producers to make sense of what is occurring as an ongoing process of growth in recording practice (Weick, 1995). As Darek states, despite his years of production experience he still does not ‘know what’s going to happen in there’ so as a matter of practice he will always be conducting an ongoing process of discovery an updating (Allen, 2011). As discussed by Valgeir, the discovery of new ideas and the reflexive reaction to other ideas makes this recording environment one of learning and fun, or as he puts it, it is how collaborations get good.
7.7 CONCLUSION
From the thematic analysis of interview data, I assert that the producers in this research operate as facilitators to sensemaking. It is apparent that the producers in the interviews preference a less invasive form of sensemaking. All of the producers show evidence of the three sensemaking properties, and the highlighted examples give insight into how they construct sensible environments of social trust. As a result of this inclusive approach, I submit that these five producers operate less as sensegivers and more as facilitators, fostering an environment that enhances creative meaning- making. I argue that a facilitator of sensemaking operates in a fragmented, organisational sensemaking capacity, allowing the artists to negotiate their way through musical complexity through the building of trust. This level of engagement places the producer in a less dictatorial position. However, there is still a facilitating role that producers play in the establishment of sensemaking conditions of social,
environmental and ongoing processes. There is also data in Valgeir’s interview to suggest that producers consciously expand upon physical boundaries to create abstract working environments. In this sense, producers are capable of pushing the physical limits of creative space and to engage the creativity of artists. Such environmental construction demonstrates advanced sensemaking in the curation of the surroundings to shape recording approaches.
Finally, the interviews suggest that all producers are in the process of ongoing sensemaking and are continually redefining themselves as they interact with new social groups. This ongoing re-evaluation of their practice allows them to develop as producers, but also, it becomes central to their identity as a producer. There are several repeated keywords like discovery, humility and arrogance. These repeated statements indicate that an ongoing mindset for producers is not just about updating practice, but about the very definition of their identity. The evidence from this small set of interviews is in its early stages. However, it paints a picture of five producers that facilitate an environment that is carefully curated for the facilitating of musical sensemaking.
7.7.1 Further Research This paper represents the beginning of my investigation into the producer as a facilitator of sensemaking. As yet there are several areas that I intend to address in future papers on this subject. First, there is a distinct gender bias to this research that only attends to the male perspective of record production. My next paper will be an investigation of five female producers to examine how gender affects the facilitation of sensemaking. Second, despite casting a wide geographical net for the producers, these subjects were all from a similar western cultural background. I intend to construct a final paper in this series to investigate a range of producers from different cultures to understand how different cultural principles facilitate sensemaking in the studio. At the completion of these papers, I hope to have a wide range of approaches to sensemaking facilitators in the recording studio along with a more complete definition of the producer as a facilitator of meaning-making.
154 Chapter 8: Extended Cognitive Looping
Extended Cognitive Looping: Musical Sensemaking in the Recording Environment
8.1 ABSTRACT
In this paper, I participate in the recording studio with two bands to develop sensemaking models around two sensemaking processes. First, I examine how bands generate ideas through cognitive looping between plausible suggestions and retrospective analysis. Second, I observe how sensemaking leads to musical and technical decisions to solve a complex vocal issue that arose during a tracking session. This research constructs a cognitive loop model based on sensemaking properties of plausibility and retrospect. To collect interactive data between producers and recording artists, I participated in 12 days of recording sessions from four different indie rock bands. I filmed and transcribed every conversation during the sessions to discover exemplars of sensemaking in action and establish models of these sensemaking exemplars. This investigation ultimately questions how musicians and producers make sense of musical decisions in the controlled laboratory setting of the recording studio. It seeks to frame the recording environment as a natural sensemaking environment and interrogate the differences in approach to musical sensemaking by building models based around theory from Rutledge (2009) and Weick (1995).
8.2 INTRODUCTION
In this paper, I observe and participate in recording sessions to build models around musical sensemaking practice. Such models benefit early-stage record producers to understand better the pragmatic processes that occur in the recording environment. Sensemaking is an organisational theory developed by Weick (1995) for socially decoding complex problems and taking action on those problems to get things done. I take Weick’s (1993) position that sensemaking is a useful tool for small organisational entities and frame the recording group as such a small organisation. As well as a method of working through complexity, sensemaking assists in developing complex ideas as a group and willing these ideas into existence. Weick, Suttcliffe, & Obstfeld (1998) describe this process as, ‘socially designing new ideas and literally constructing these ideas into existence’ (p. 409). I argue that the recording studio is a social environment for artist–producer collaboration and that this environment is an area to study new forms of sensemaking.
The studio is a creative space that combines artist creativity with the producers ‘ability to enable inspiring performances’ (Goold, 2018, p. 18). In this environment, groups of performers, writers, producers and engineers collaborate to transform abstract musical ideas into concrete recorded songs. This active process is of particular interest to the recording studio because it is active negotiation that changes recording practice from a reactive analysis, to a collective willing of ideas into being. As such, record production is a form of creative invention and ‘the inventor has to put something there, or consolidate what is there, or poke around to see what might be there, or orchestrate some kind of agreement about what is there’ (Weick, 1995, p. 163). To understand what has occurred and what will occur in the recording studio, groups form a cognitive loop between the reflective past and the plausible future. Such loops are manifestations of musical sensemaking in the recording studio. Building models of these sensemaking processes are of value to early career record producers and open a discourse into the relational sensemaking that occurs in the dark control rooms of recording studios.
In this investigation, I examined how musicians and producers interact as sensemaking groups by participating in recording sessions as a producer. In doing so, I observed two significant sensemaking processes. First, I explored how sensemaking occurred during the design of the sonic environment at the beginning of a recording
156 session. Sensemaking was determinative in the instrument, amplifier and sound choices that informed the sonic environment for each new song. Second, I examined specific sensemaking events that occurred in the studio. These events formed models of social behaviour in both reactions to complexity and the designing of new musical ideas. As such, the studio presented a form of reactive sensemaking and enactive sensemaking. To observe this phenomenon, I participated as a producer, recording ten songs for four bands over 12 days. I took video footage of sensemaking conversations throughout those 12 days and examined transcripts to find deeper insight into the sensemaking practice that occurs within the studio. This investigation was chiefly concerned with generating new models to understand sensemaking phenomena better as it occurs in practice.
8.3 LITERATURE REVIEW
8.3.1 Sensemaking in Organisations Sensemaking is an organisational process in which groups decode complexity and create meaning from confusion (Maitlis, 2005). Managers in organisations often facilitate sensemaking to draw on multiple perspectives to understand complexity. During the process of sensemaking, this diversity of perspectives becomes an asset in the clarification of meaning around complex organisational concepts involved with change, development, restructure, and the invention of future ideas (Allen, 2011). However, sensemaking is not an individualistic and dictated form of meaning- making coordinated by organisational managers. One of the critical aspects of the sensemaking process is that it is social and democratic. Weick (1995) explains this concept by stating, although sense is in the eye of the beholder, ‘beholders vote and the majority rules’ (p. 6). It is important to note that, in the studio, consensus occurs after a mapping process, during which, various members of the group are engaged in forms of persuasion. It is impossible in a creative setting to remove bias and avoid the inevitable persuasion that occurs in groups where members all arrive with different viewpoints. Such political persuausion cannot ignore that the record producer has more persuasive power when in the recording studio. However, despite the power imbalance, the process of mapping and setting plausible pathways forward still offers group members the chance to shape the plausible pathway.
There are different interpretations as to how to view sensemaking, but one such view is that social decoding of ideas is a form of mapping to clarify meaning (Rutledge, 2009). Nijhof (2006) frames sensemaking in a similar fashion, as an active form of constructionist cartography used to map large and complex structures to clarify meaning. Once meaning is clarified sensemaking presents plausible solutions over exact answers which are then actively tested and evaluated through retrospective evaluation (Rutledge, 2009). This testing of plausible solutions allows social decision-making to focus on pragmatic solutions to overwhelming complexities that are decided through a democratic form of assessment called the ‘cash-value’ proposition (James, 1907, p. 53). Cash value occurs when an idea fulfils a utilitarian purpose and contributes clarity and meaning to the process (Bacon, 2012). Such a pragmatic approach to ideas suits the nature of creative decisions that occur in the recording studio. Answers in the studio are not absolute things, they are often decided by gut feelings and an agreement from the group (Howlett, 2009). Such dedication to utility means that if an answer works and a group reaches a consensus, then they can move on. As a result, sensemaking enables groups to solve complex tasks without getting bogged down searching for perfect solutions.
In practical settings, sensemaking has been studied as a way to generate new creative approaches (Kazanjian, 2015), or to aid in understanding significant structural change (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Sensemaking has also been observed in complex hospital systems and nursing practices (Rutledge, 2009), or it has been applied in the classification of four forms of organisational sensemaking (Maitlis, 2015). In this paper, I take the consensus-building and process-based nature of sensemaking and apply it in the recording studio as a new environment for the study of sensemaking.
However, sensemaking is not just a reactive process of decoding complexity. It can also occur when groups negotiate ideas into reality (Weick, 1995). Because of this, sensemaking can function both as a reaction to complexity, or as an active process to bring socially negotiated ideas into existence. This paper presents two significant musical scenarios of sensemaking in the recording studio, first, the sensemaking of new musical parts that inform the arrangement of a recording. Second, sensemaking to assist in complex decisions during a problematic vocal session. I take the position that sensemaking is an observed phenomenon and argue
158 that musicians in the recording studio offer a new perspective on the sensemaking literature that already exists (Allen, 2011; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Maltis & Lawrence 2007; Rutledge, 2009; Weick, 1995, 1996). In this paper, I observe that ‘sensemaking is not a technique to be learned but more a phenomenon to be studied’ (Allen, 2011, p. 17). The sensemaking models from this paper offers insight into the processes of musical recording, and the considerations to applied creative group work in the studio. I argue that recording environments operate in a constant state of social negotiation and model these processes using three of Weick’s sensemaking properties of sensible environment, plausible action and retrospect.
8.3.2 The Studio as a Meeting Setting Sensemaking is a phenomenon often studied in organisational meetings. Rutledge (2009) argues that meetings are ideal settings because—by their collective and multilayered nature—they fulfil the social property of sensemaking and function as an assembly of different viewpoints that require complex negotiation. Weick (1995) takes this concept further and frames meetings as a substantive embodiment of organisational and social negotiation stating:
‘Meetings embody the organization and give it some substance. They also are one of the main sites where requisite variety can be mobilized in the interest of sensing and regulating more of the variety that confronts the organization’ (p. 187).
The setting of a boardroom allows the observer to generate rich experiential data through the clearly defined social nature of meetings. However, sensemaking does not always occur in large organisational settings, and the recording studio is a socially negotiated space of sensemaking. Like the meeting setting, studios are spaces where a variety of viewpoints come together to solve challenges and generate meaning. Beer (2015) describes the recording environment as a place where recording engineers are making ‘social and technical connections, making things happen, responding to the organisational, personal and material requirements of the process’ (p. 200). These negotiations of recording complexity are not the sole responsibility of the producer or recording engineer. Howlett (2009) asserts that groups participate in creative decision-making and that ‘often enough the decision is a collective agreement’ (p. 87). Lefford expands on this concept further by stating ‘In music production, a single recorded artefact is produced as the result of coordinated
output by skilled experts and machine labour and through collaborative exchanges’ (2014, para 28). I argue for the collaborative exchanges that occur in the recording studio that potentially generate a significant change to a musical idea. In addition to significant sensemaking events, it is important not to dismiss smaller sensemaking actions and ‘appreciate that smallness does not equate with insignificance’ (Weick, Suttcliffe & Obstfield, 2005, p. 410). The studio offers both micro and macro- sensemaking events in a new, unresearched setting. Often the studio is capable of presenting strings of micro-sensemaking events that seem inconsequential as individual actions, but they form an iterative and significant change when taken together. Taking a sensemaking approach away from the boardroom and into the creative studio offers a new understanding of social negotiation in recording practice. As such, I argue that the recording studio is a natural environment to study sensemaking in action.
8.3.3 Sonic Environment Building and Musical Arrangement In the recording studio, there are three key areas where sensemaking comes to the fore. These are sonic environment building, during the construction of musical arrangements, and when complicated issues halt the flow of recording. Socially constructed environments in the studio serve as boundaries that groups construct to inform their decision-making. According to Weick (1995), when setting environmental boundaries, ‘we impose upon it a coherence which allows us to say what is wrong and in what directions the situation needs to be changed’ (p. 9). In terms of the recording studio, decisions of recording style, location and approach are creative, but also serve to set the boundaries around expected performance decisions. Howlett (2009) argues that even the choice of a microphone is an engineering decision that can change the direction of a recording. In a logistical sense, these decisions are made early in the process, microphones are set according to the choices that the producer and artist agree to. Martin (2014) refers to this sensible environment as the ‘construction of musical objects in such a way where elements can be used, moved and rearranged to end up with the result most likely to succeed’ (p. 36). However, this is not about constructing elaborate recording studio settings with large professional studios. The setting of sonic environmental boundaries is as simple as the choice of a guitar amplifier or the curation of the space according to the aims of the group. In this sense, ‘situations, organizations, and environments are
160 talked into existence’ (Weick, Suttcliffe & Obstfield, 2005, p. 409). These sonic boundaries are actively made by choice and—to and extent—dictated by necessity and budgetary considerations. However, it is important to understand that there is still agency and choice available at any budget due to the digital disruption that brings the sovereign approach to production in line with the modern home recording (Carvalho, 2012).
The second form of sensemaking is applied during the musical arrangement phase that occurs after social and sonic boundaries have been set around the recording process. These are more active meaning-making decisions that centre on group discourse and experimentation. In this sense, the recording environment operates as ‘a site of creative experimentation rather than a stage in the manufacturing process’ (Kirby, 2015, p. 4). Such experimentation is considered a part of the modern recording studio environment; in fact, such experimentation is encouraged ‘to elicit performances that are innovative’ (Lefford, 2015, para 36). Such an environment of social exploration and experimentation offers a new lens with which to view the iterative sensemaking process in the recording environment. The third form of sensemaking occurs when complexity in the studio becomes overwhelming and halts the flow of creativity (Rutledge, 2009). At this stage, the group encounters an issue that removes them from the flow of experience and shifts them into a retrospective analytical state. Sensemaking is at its most important during this stage as the group coalesces to generate meaning out of the confusion. This final sensemaking exercise is the easiest to observe in the studio because of the clear boundaries that occur when problems halt recordings and trigger group sensemaking.
8.3.4 Bracketing and Mapping Bracketing is an identifying property of sensemaking that isolates an issue by placing boundaries around it. Once bracketing occurs, all distracting concerns are removed, and the problem can be investigated without distraction (Rutledge, 2009). A musical example might be a clash with a note or rhythm that is detracting from the effect of the recording. To address such a clash, groups identify what is causing the issue and isolate it for examination and refinement. There are two reasons to bracket in the recording environment. The first is enactive, musicians bracket areas that offer an opportunity for creative invention. For example, arrangements that need new parts, or the desire to experiment with different instrumentation to change the feel of
a song. The second is reactive, when an issue becomes overwhelming and the group is removed from the creative flow leading to ‘an analysis of the causes of the disruption’ (Elkjaer & Simpson, 2011, p. 78). Weick (1995) frames bracketing as a deliberate simplification of the world suggesting that brackets ‘shape, modify, and give substance to whatever other activities the person confronts’ (p. 36). Once the bracketed issue is isolated, groups can move on to refining, and presenting plausible solutions.
8.3.5 Plausible Action, and Retrospect
Plausibility is the pragmatic driver for making sense of complexity. It removes the paralysis that occurs when actors become overwhelmed by the confusion of multifaceted problems. Groups need to move forward in organisational settings and decisions need to be made. As a result, overwhelming complexity becomes an issue that has the potential to affect any structural clarity of thinking. Sensemaking is primarily about taking actions and evaluating those actions in a constant loop that moves towards the future. Kazanjian (2015) frames such a mindset as iterative actions linked together in a cycle of perception that modifies and renews with each new action (p. 293).
This cycle forms the pragmatic heart of sensemaking which is acting before fully understanding the answer. Such action continues the movement of a project and acknowledges that there is no way of knowing the future without some form of doubt. Therefore, the only way to remove doubt about the future is to perform a process-driven investigation and evaluate the results through a retrospective lens. Through such a process we acknowledge that we cannot know what we have done until we have taken action and carried that action into existence (Weick, 1995). A process-based approach such as this generates a cognitive loop similar to Dewey’s experiential learning models of taking actions, evaluating actions and using evaluations to inform future actions in an iterative cycle. Tovstiga et al. (2004) frame these cognitive loops stating that an ‘organization learns through engaging in risk- taking, playing with ideas, experimenting, discovery and innovation’ (p. 3). Using such an approach to experimentation and innovation in the recording studio, new plausible actions become a part of an ongoing loop of action and evaluation (see Figure 7.1). Weick frames a cognitive loop as an interactive duality between
162 plausibility and retrospect creating a ‘sensemaking loop of forward action and retrospective deliberation’ (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2014, p. 89). However, to take action, a group must begin with a plausible idea, set within a sensible environment.
Weick (1995) argues for the sensemaking property of plausibility to be the primary driver towards taking action. This is because plausibility removes the necessity for absolute answers that do not yet exist. Rutledge (2009) discusses this property as developing ‘images that explain and suggest a response to the puzzling information they seek to understand’ (p. 20). A plausible image of the future offers two potential benefits to any form of social decision-making in the recording studio. First, a plausible solution by its nature is not a correct answer, meaning that potentially unpopular solutions are less likely to be rejected, and will be tested and assessed on their results. Second, plausible solutions offer the chance for experimentation with unusual ideas. In the recording studio, the musical challenges revolve around finding unique answers to musical and technical questions. Thus, developing new and interesting ideas to set a production apart in an already saturated market. Producers themselves often strive for unique solutions to differentiate themselves within a competitive market of sonic ideas (Martin, 2014). However, the most critical factor of plausibility is that it drives social groups towards action and lays the foundation for retrospective analysis which generates a loop of plausible action and retrospective analysis.
Weick (1995) describes retrospective analysis as stepping outside of the flow of experience and evaluating previous actions. Retrospect can occur by choice or it can be triggered by an overwhelming complexity that pulls us out of an experiential flow (Rutledge, 2009). As such retrospect is used to analyse complexity with a backwards facing lens, or as a method of interpretation when considering plausibility. It is the latter form of analytical thinking that evaluates a plausible action and creates the opportunity for a realistic assessment of a given action. Within its relationship to plausibility, retrospect operates as a form of experiential meaning- making where ‘perception is memory in that it can only derive from experience’ taken from plausible actions (Allen, 2011, p. 14). Retrospect forms a reflexive relationship with plausibility precisely because ‘people can know what they are doing only after they have done it’ (Weick, 1996, p. 24), as such, retrospect forms a dependant relationship with plausibility. When used in response to a plausible construct in an experiential looping model it becomes ‘the basic evolutionary process assumed by sensemaking is one in which retrospective interpretations are built
during interdependent interaction’ (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfield, 2005, p. 413). This dependability acts as a continuous loop that can only be broken by democratic consensus.
Figure 7.1. A three-step loop of plausibility and analysis each step is an iterative development of the previous step.
8.3.6 Consensus A cognitive loop must come to a pragmatic end, and in the recording studio, correct answers are not always obvious. I propose that the ambiguity in the studio can be reduced by using William James (1907) cash-value approach to reaching agreement. In this approach, the group reaches an agreement that the plausible idea works or does not work relative to the needs of the project. To do this requires a group to converge on an operational truth ‘tied to what, in some sense, we find useful to believe’ (Bacon, 2012, p. 66). James’s concept of useful beliefs have drawn criticism for wishful thinking or expediency of approach (Bacon, 2012). However, when it comes to the recording studio answers are less absolute than scientific truths appear to be. Howlett (2009) alludes to gut feelings or the innate ability of producers and artists to reach a consensus. This consensus ends the cognitive loop of plausible actions and retrospect by agreeing that a new idea fits the cash-value proposition of the group. As such, a new studio focused model of social cognition is created, it
166 begins with the bracketing and defining of something that the creative group wishes to address. Once bracketing and mapping is complete, the group begins a cognitive looping of plausibility and retrospect. Once consensus is reached, the group is able to move onto the next concern having taken an action that fulfils the cash-value of the situation.
Figure 7.2. A new sensemaking model for recording studios, note the central loop continues to iteratively develop until consensus arrives.
8.4 METHODOLOGY
8.4.1 The Studio as a Research Space This paper examines specific sensemaking examples of recording and writing in the studio. It investigates and models how social communication occurs between musical groups and producers at various stages of recording practice. To understand social interactivity in the recording environment, I frame the recording studio as a collaborative experimental laboratory where music as meaning-making is willed into existence through active negotiation. The concept of a recording studio as a space of collaborative invention is not a new one. Recording studios began as laboratories specifically designed to capture performances from groups of musicians. Williams (2007) argues that the evolution of the recording studio is one of ‘transition of the recording process from laboratory experiment to professional vocation’ (para 9). Rather than thinking of the studio as a divided space of power relationships, I take a more reflexive view of the producer and artist as the formulation of a social group intent on negotiating recorded text into existence. As such, I adopt Lefford’s (2015) relational view that producers and artists are experts that ‘share resources such as recording technology or a musical chart’ and the recording studio becomes an ‘agreement among collaborators’ using a ‘combination of conceptual and physical
configurations’ (para 2 & 3). Such a constructed environment coupled with a dedication to musical meaning-making indicates that the studio is the ideal space to study musical sensemaking in action.
8.4.2 Participant Observation and Interaction Analysis To understand the relational aspects of social sensemaking it was necessary to embed myself into the social framework of the recording context. To achieve this relational experience, I took a qualitative ethnographic approach using participant observation, performing the role of record producer. I take Thompson and Lashua’s view that ‘recording studios are not considered ‘sociable’ spaces and are typically only physically accessible through invitation from the studio owner, the main engineer or producer’ (2014, p. 749). Considering this barrier to studio access, I drew on my extensive tacit knowledge as a professional record producer and participated with the bands in the role of producer. This places me in Howlett’s (2009) position as the nexus of the recording experience, which is a central artistic and logistical role that gave me a reason to be in the space with the artists that I was observing. A nexus viewpoint also placed me in a facilitator role that experienced the recording at the central communication point of each session.
Considering that I was participating as a producer for the duration of the research I needed to find a method of capturing both the verbal and non-verbal information for later analysis. In this instance, I am unable to trust my memory because there is a danger inherent in the ‘deterioration in the quality of data collected through problems with recall, distortion and post-event rationalisation’ (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003, p. 54). To solve this issue, I turn to video recording to capture a rich data set of both verbal and non-verbal cues and take advantage of the ‘richness and repeatability of video and audio recording methods’ (Thompson & Lashua, 2014 p. 748). Video capture also affords the advantage of observing ‘the details of social interactions in time and space and, particularly, in the naturally occurring, everyday interactions among members of communities’ (Jordan & Henderson, 1995, p. 41). The recording environment is filled with the social interaction of both humans, situational space and objects. I prefer to capture these inter-relational aspects on film to create a richness of data, fully utilising ‘the resources of the complex social and material world of actors and objects within which they operate’ (Jordan & Henderson, 1995, p. 41).
168 8.4.3 Qualitative Analysis This study was a large-scale analysis of thousands of conversations. However, despite the large collection of analytical data, this is still an inter-relational paper that examines small-scale group interactions. Such small interactions offer qualitative insight into the observation of sensemaking phenomena (Allen, 2011) that occur at various stages of the recording process. The investigation of such relational phenomena lends itself to a qualitative analysis that accounts for the nuance occurring in social collaboration. I focused on meaningful sensemaking events and the interactions rather than producing frequency counts of sensemaking events for a macro view (Kazanjian, 2014). To investigate the communicational interactions that occur in recording studios, researchers need to embed themselves into the practice as a part of a reflexive and interactive setting. From this vantage point, it is possible to observe and interact with sensemaking in action as a part of the social group.
8.5 DATA COLLECTION
The data collection occurred through an exhaustive process spread over a period of three months. To generate the data, I took two approaches. Firstly, I contacted Aria Award-winning producer Lachlan Goold and asked to observe a recording day with a band called Oyster Murders. During this recording session, I participated in the role of assistant engineer and I filmed all conversations that occurred during the tracking process. My intent with this observation was to begin the data collection with a different producer and observe a recording session from an outside perspective. As a result, this initial session offered the chance to interact in a limited capacity on a recording session without the responsibility of acting as the producer. This initial research day also provided some early data points that aided in the narrative models that I later developed in my research.
Secondly, I recorded four guitar-based bands from Brisbane. These sessions took place over a three month period and took a total of 12 days. The recordings were conducted in two professional studios so that I could observe the sensemaking phenomenon in a controlled environment. The two studios were QUT studios and a private tracking facility that I run at BBC, the spaces afforded the opportunity to explore elaborate tracking setups focused on live performances with full large-format studio functionality. During all recording sessions I set up two cameras, one to
capture the conversations that occurred in the control room of the studio and one roaming camera that captured any conversations happening in tracking rooms. I also gave the bands access to the roaming camera so that they became comfortable with the potentially invasive presence of a video camera by having control of their own camera.
My rationale for filming so many conversations was to capture the negotiation between record producer and artists on a large scale. The bulk nature of this data allowed me to pull back and take a more macro view of sensemaking across several recording sessions. These conversations functioned as maps of the decisions made during the process. They captured both small and seemingly inconsequential decisions as well as larger sensemaking events. These larger moments present as halts in creativity, in which the entire social group becomes immersed in an effort to make sense of the interruption. The large selection of data allowed me to investigate more than just major sensemaking events with the entire group, it also allowed for the examination of smaller interactions. For example, there were several vocal sessions in which the entire band could not make the session, so it was just producer and singer negotiating the recording of the vocal and attempting to consider the actors that were not in attendance. The data produced from these recording sessions present a richness and diversity of social negotiation and meaning-making. It also offers the opportunity to investigate whether different artists of different age, gender and experience levels operate as recording artists and social collaborators.
8.5.1 Recruitment I recruited four guitar-based bands with the intent of live tracking rhythm elements of the song followed by creative overdubs. The bands were Sacred Shrines, Baskervillain, Soda Jerks and OJ Mengel. Stylistically, Sacred Shrines and Baskervillain were psychedelic garage rock, OJ Mengel was indie garage rock, and Soda Jerks were indie rock. The similar approaches of the bands allowed for a baseline tracking approach. This removed potential variables that would occur with different stylistic expectations. For example, a synth-pop band has different creative goals to a garage rock band. The live nature of the tracking also allowed me to interact with groups during the creative choices and observe the changes in real time. This reflexive way of working meant that we could change arrangements and ideas quickly without having to re-plug instruments or shuffle resources. Sacred Shrines
170 and Baskervillain were clients that I have previously worked with. As such I already had a working relationship with the members. I worked with OJ Mengel and Soda Jerks for the first time. As a result, I was unfamiliar with their songwriting and recording approaches. The dynamic of having two familiar bands and two unfamiliar bands meant that I had a variety of relationships to study.
8.5.2 Establishing Typologies of Sensemaking I use thematic analysis to interpret a significant body of transcribed data. As a qualitative researcher, I am more interested in building narratives around the large body of transcribed work to explore the relational aspects of socially driven sensemaking. My aim is to present and discuss specific examples of sensemaking in action, rather than present the large data pool in a more nominalist quantitative approach. However, the large pool of conversational data offered a rich source of interactive material which enabled me to understand sensemaking phenomena in an unexpected light. This assisted in the development of a new loop-based sensemaking model.
The first stage of data collection was approached with a reductionist lens, I analysed the transcriptions looking for conversations surrounding any logistical sensemaking exercises that constituted environment building. I define these constructional negotiations as a logistical choice that affects the result of the recording. A typical example of such a logistical negotiation might centre on the choice of a guitar amp tonality or a specific approach to drum recording. These minor social negotiations by themselves can be considered insignificant. However, each of these decisions pushed towards a larger more complex negotiation of constructed boundaries. A small decision like choosing a guitar amp sets a creative choice that defines the direction of the recording and funnels the decision-making through a specific lens.
The data revealed that sonic environment building occurred in all bands, at multiple occasions, in the early stages of the recording sessions. Rather than create a statistical analysis, I opted to provide transcribed exemplars of sonic environment building for each band. To achieve this reduction, I read through the data highlighting each example of sonic environment building as ‘logistical sensemaking’. Once every example was recorded, I reduced the pool to more simplified examples. There was a significant portion of logistical sensemaking
exercises that were repetitions of the same exercise using different instruments, so I eventually reduced this data to significant exemplars for each band. I present this data in Appendix 1 to 4 to establish a base framework for the sonic sensemaking that bands conduct in the early stages of a recording session. As this collection of exemplars constitutes the beginning of the recording session, I present it at the beginning of my data observations to establish micro-sensemaking as a baseline approach for all bands. Once this baseline of sensemaking practice is established I discuss the more significant sensemaking events.
In the second stage of analysis, I searched for significant sensemaking exemplars during the later stages of tracking. These events were typified as interruptions to the flow of the recording or intentional changes to parts or arrangement of the music. Such situations served to shift the group into a retrospective frame of analysis and triggered a significant sensemaking event. This event offered the opportunity to build sensemaking narratives around the transcribed data to interpret and model the process as it transpired. My data analysis concentrated on two critical events that highlighted both enactive, and reactive forms of musical sensemaking. These two exemplars give a broad insight into the process of sensemaking by exhibiting extended plausibility and retrospective cycles. The two examples demonstrated a distinct pattern of sensemaking with several group members interacting to reach a consensus. In these transcripts, the video footage and interaction analysis served to address the non-verbal and interactional cues that are crucial to understanding the emotional and behavioural aspects of the sensemaking process. The result is a rich data set of situational sensemaking with a clear supporting narrative of socially negotiated meaning-making.
8.6 FINDINGS
In this section, I identify three examples of sensemaking in different stages of the recording process. The first example is a collection of small sensemaking events that all the bands experienced during the setup of recordings. At this stage of the process, each band was engaged in musical environment building. The first analysis investigated how much importance each band placed on constructing sensible environments that focused and informed future decisions. The second transcription is an extended investigation of cognitive looping during the arrangement phase of the
172 recording process. It investigates how an entire band worked together to alter a guitar part in the chorus of a song and investigates the process of how this part changed. The third example highlights an issue that occurred during a vocal track when a microphone selection clashed with a vocal, halting the flow of events and sending the group into a sensemaking negotiation.
8.6.1 Observations on Sonic Environment Construction Before exploring the two significant sensemaking events, it is important to note that all four bands engaged in sonic environmental construction. These sonic choices included experimenting with guitar amplifiers through to specific cymbals for the drum kit. Of the four bands that I recorded, Sacred Shrines and Baskervillain displayed the most interest in the expansive sonic environment building of their recordings. Baskervillain even spent time at the start of the recording on choices between different cymbals for the drum kit in specific parts of the song (See Appendix 2). Both Baskervillain and Sacred Shrines are experienced touring entities and have extensive experience in recording studios, so it is fair to assume that they have a more developed idea of how they want their music to sound. OJ Mengel was interested in capturing a live energy and this was their first time recording an EP. As a result, they were more concerned with energy than they were with specific sonic choices. However, it is fair to assert that a commitment to a live energy is a specific environmental boundary that places emphasis on performance and live interaction over perfectionism. As well as presenting an interest in sonic building, the four bands displayed two different approaches to their recording practice. Both Baskervillain and Soda Jerks used the recording studio as more of a songwriting tool. Sacred Shrines and OJ Mengel arrived at their recording sessions having completed extensive pre-production rehearsals. Sacred Shrines, in particular, arrived with notes and arrangements fully formed. As a result, their sensemaking was largely concerned with evaluating performances (see Appendix 1). This difference in approach displayed two distinct attitudes to the recording environment. The first was an attitude that the studio is an experimental laboratory, and the second approached the studio environment as a tool for capturing already formed ideas. This duality of environmental boundaries had a direct impact on the number of songs each band were able to record. The first two bands (Baskervillain and Soda Jerks) managed to record single songs over approximately three days. The latter two bands managed to
record between three (Sacred Shrines) and five (OJ Mengel) songs in the same timeframe. Both approaches are valid in the recording scenarios. However, both Baskervillain and Soda Jerks spent more time in the studio making sense of their parts, writing and evaluating new ideas to create a single finished track.
During the recording sessions, there were several examples of extended cognitive looping. The extended musical arrangement looping occurred more often with Baskervillain and Soda Jerks, who both approached the recording environment as a musical writing tool. The first extended sensemaking example was taken from the Baskervillain transcriptions. It was a clear example of complex social sensemaking using extended cognitive looping to rewrite a guitar part. The second example of extended sensemaking loops occurred in the OJ Mengel sessions.
8.6.2 Extended Cognitive Looping in Musical Arrangement The following transcription is an example of an extended cognitive loop between myself as a producer, and members of Baskervillain. The sensemaking model occurred while rewriting the instrumental arrangement in the chorus of the song. Baskervillain bracketed the chorus guitar part as something that needs attention for enactive sensemaking. They reasoned that each guitarist should play a different chordal arrangement to create more sonic variety in the chorus. This bracketed example highlights the social cognition that occurs between group members as they negotiate a new idea. It is an example of what Weick (1995) refers to as collectively willing new ideas into existence, displaying a complex negotiation of musical concepts. It also lays the foundation for understanding how deeply the negotiation of ideas occur socially in the recording environment. I note that the discussion revolves mostly around chord voicings and part writing as the band have already established their sonic boundaries earlier in the recording session (See Appendix 2 for examples). The group had already constructed the sonic environment and established boundaries around their musical choices. As a result, these ideas focus more on musical parts than sonic ideas.
Group Members Dan—Producer/Researcher Mahler—Guitars Tom—Vocals/Guitars Jack—Bass/Vocals
174
Dan—OK cool, ready? Tom—Yeah, you’ve got that in between, that’s cool. If I just keep it real basic. Like that [demonstrates]. Dan—Sing along with it so we can see if it fits. [Tom sings along]. Mahler—Wait what do you guys prefer? Do you like [plays chord] or like [plays chord differently]. Dan—That one. [Both guitarists play their parts] Tom—I liked it when you went higher, that cool little other chord. Dan—What was your first option? Mahler—Oh it was [plays chord] Dan—Can you go the first time do the second option and the second time do the first option. Does that make sense? [Mahler plays the part] Mahler—It’s a hard chord to hit. Dan—Now the other option. [Mahler plays the other option]. Dan—Can you do three of that and on the fourth one do the other inversion. [points] So that one’s your fourth one. Mahler—And then do this? Dan—That one’s your last one, I think.
During this stage of the transcription, it is interesting to note that Mahler is making chord inversion choices within the context of Tom’s vocal and his guitar parts. Mahler is using the contextual information to inform his choices and placing his new parts in the recording, these contextual elements are already recorded but Tom is also singing along to make sure that the new guitar part does not fight with the yet to be recorded vocal. There is also a good deal of cognitive looping occurring in this section of the transcript. Mahler plays a chord and asks both Tom and I to review the chord choices using our perspective as listeners, rather than making the choices alone. In the following transcription, the group now experiment with mixing the different chord voicing ideas, taking an already complex set of propositions and experimenting with mixing the order of those ideas and evaluating their impact as a collective.
Mahler—Oh man I’m so confused.
Dan—Play me both options and call them A and B.
Mahler—OK, A [plays chord sequence] And B [plays a variation on the chord sequence] The difference being that note.
Dan—I recon go B-B-B-A.
Mahler—OK [plays full sequence]
Jack—[To Tom] Sing the vocals. [Tom sings] I don’t know if it works with the vocals so well. Kind of changes the whole vibe.
Mahler—It does, yeah it does.
Tom—Keep the first option, what was the first option again?
Dan—B, option B.
[Tom and Mahler play with vocals]
Jack—Can we hear it with the bass?
[Dan plays the pre-recorded bass and drum track]
Tom—On the last one maybe I’ll do that one.
[Both guitarists play along with the track]
Dan—Yeah, I like that.
Tom—What’s your other part [referring to the lead guitar part]
Jack—That’s your lead part, this is just rhythm shit man.
Tom—That was cool what you were playing man.
Mahler—I’ve gotta get the right rhythm.
Dan—Try and keep it as open as possible so when your lead part comes you’ve still got room to move.
Tom—That’s gonna be sick, cos we were like yeah, sounds good.
Dan—[To Mahler] Is there any reason you are using down strokes off the beat?
Jack—He always does it.
176 Dan—Is that a deliberate choice to use down strokes off the beat?
Mahler—Yeah, I don’t know.
Jack—You always do it.
Dan—Sorry, guitar teacher coming in. If it’s conscious it’s cool, if it’s not conscious, it’s a thing to think about in the future and not something that I want to fuck with right now.
Jack—You are over strumming it man, slightly. It’s like, brreng dang, dung deng deng.
[Mahler and Tom play again, Mahler’s strumming is less busy this time]
Jack—Yeah! The simplest option.
Dan—Makes me happy.
Jack—Sick!
[Mahler smiles and indicates his agreement with the group non-verbally]
In this final part of the transcript, the group gradually negotiates several elements. The group tries out several combinations of chord voicing, evaluating them in the contextual environment of the recording until everyone settles on the arrangement of voicings. Once the voicings are settled, the group continues to refine the rhythmic strumming pattern because the strumming was fighting a little with the rest of the arrangement. There is an obvious point at the end of this transcript when the band members and producer arrived at a consensus and proceeded to track the chorus guitar part. This excerpt represents a complete rewrite of a part and the negotiation of this part was entirely accomplished by presenting ideas and listening back to these ideas after they were recorded. The parts were not established without considering important boundaries of musical key signatures, established rhythm and chord progressions and already established guitar and amplifier choices. Each of these factors served to create an abstract environment that guided decision-making. The sensemaking occurred as a clear loop of plausible suggestion and retrospective analysis until the group arrived at a consensus that the cash value of the proposition was achieved. It is also notable that this process never hit a point when the ideas
became inhibited or blocked. At first, the plausible suggestions were offered and selected in sequence, as the recording progressed the plausible suggestions were gradually refined. There was no point when the musicians became agitated despite some confusion over the order of chords in the middle of the transcript. It is important to understand that the constant looping of plausible action and retrospective analysis led to a consensus without friction by attempting and discarding ideas in a fluid process of social cognitive looping.
8.6.3 Extended Cognitive Looping During a Vocal Take The following extended sensemaking example comes from the vocal tracking sessions in OJ Mengel’s song ‘Ghost Drop’. The transcript displays how an extended plausibility and retrospective looping aided to resolve a performance issue that interrupted the flow of the recording process. This vocal was recorded later in the session, and the singer was struggling to communicate the vocal performance. The problem did not immediately correct itself when we took a break, so the group begin to bracket where the issue is and begin with some plausible suggestions on how to fix the issue. In the following section, the group is attempting to bracket what the issue is, and they are throwing out mapping phrases to refine the concern so that Dan and Oliver can begin presenting plausible solutions to the lack of energy in the vocal performance.
Group Members Dan—Producer/Researcher Jordan—Guitars Oliver—Vocals/Guitars Nick—Drums Hayley—Manager
[Oliver performs the first vocal take for the song Ghost Drop. The performance is lacking in energy. This is his fourth vocal performance for the day, so it is natural for Oliver to be tiring]. Jordan—is he singing it in a low register a something? Dan—sorry? Jordan—well because normally he sings it a little bit higher. But it might be.
178 Dan—we’ve cut the screams out for now. [too much screaming will tire Oliver’s voice quickly] Hayley—I think he’s singing it normally.
This initial section is an example of the group trying to map and refine the bracketed issue of vocal performance energy. Questions of vocal register and vocal screaming are posed to understand if these are affecting the performance. These mapping phrases go some way towards refining the bracketed issue, the recognition of the lower register is a significant observation contributed by Jordan and may explain why the vocal part is struggling. Once the register and normality of the voice are identified the group begin on a sequence of plausible suggestions and evaluations to assess how the vocal can improve.
Dan—can we try it again with a bit more of a sneer? Jordan—and the uhohs, did we tell him about the uhohs? Dan—Yeah, the uhohs! [Dan demonstrates a more aggressive version of the performance] [Oliver sings uhoh] Dan—[joking] yeah, a bit more stabby. In fact, the whole thing, when you’re going ‘why not’ imagine you’re punching someone in the belly. Or stabbing them. Why not? [stab] why not? [stab]. That’s normal right? You imagine yourself stabbing people? Oliver—that’s something I do understand. Dan—Um, okay. [Laughs] Nick—I don’t know much but I know stabbing. Dan—there’s no need for axes though, stabbing and Liam Gallagher. You’re on a train in the middle of London and someone is trying to rob you, and you’re going: Why not? [stab] why not? [stab]. This is all fantasy, disclaimer! Hang on, Fantasy makes it sound creepier, right? [Laughs] Dan—does that feel better for you? Oliver—it feels the same. Dan—it sounded completely different come and have a listen. [Dan cycles through vocals as Ollie enters the room] Dan—I reckon this is all going to improve a hell of a lot more when we 15 vocals to it. [Dan edits audio to give Oliver a clearer picture of his vocals sound]
Dan—and then I might do something fun like this, [ Dan tries to remember something] come on brain you can do this [Dan demonstrates] that’s what I was thinking. [Oliver is standing in the corner with his arms folded looking unhappy with the vocal take]
At this point in the vocal take, Oliver was not responding to the vocal performances, and the first set of plausible solutions were falling flat. I attempted to cut a better vocal together using a composite of the tracks that they have already recorded. Upon analysis of the new composite, Oliver was still not responding positively. So, I asked the studio assistant Brad to set up a different microphone to assess whether the microphone was the problem.
Nick—what did you think of that Ollie? Oliver—I think the verses just feel a bit flat. Not like in Pitch just lacking in energy. Dan—let’s take a second and then you can go back out Oliver—can you play it again? [Dan plays the track again] Dan—Brad, can you go and get the ELAM [different microphone] set up? [Oliver performed a take with a new microphone in the hope that a different microphone will elicit a better performance] Dan –let’s check this one here, we’re spoiled for choice at the moment. [Oliver enters the room] Dan—so that’s our old guy [Dan plays the previous vocal takes with the U47 microphone] and here’s our new guy [Dan plays the latest vocal take with the ELAM microphone]. Dan –it’s just, the more top end on that [ELAM] microphone suits your lower register. Oliver—yeah. Dan—whereas this [U47 microphone] I think was making your lower register more muffled. What do you reckon? It’s an improvement. Oliver—yeah, I reckon it’s an improvement, I would like to do more takes. Nick—It’s sounding way better [Oliver is visibly excited to return to the vocal booth for more vocal takes].
The conclusion of this sensemaking exercise occurred when the group arrived at a consensus that a different microphone improved the energy of the vocal take. In
180 this instance, the microphone suited the cash value of a situation that had no clear measurable answer. The only indication that the microphone worked was a change in Oliver’s demeanour and the group agreement that the microphone was the solution. The change of microphone performed two functions. First, the different frequency response of the microphone meant that the lower register vocal sat more comfortably with the surrounding environment of previously recorded instruments. Second, the new microphone created a positive feedback loop in the headphone mix because Oliver could hear his voice with more clarity. The vocal clarity encouraged his performance and altered his energy, this change was evident in the non-verbal cues from the transcript. Following this outcome, we were able to complete the vocal take and restored the flow to the session that was impacted by a lack of performance energy.
In the previous example, there was a focus on process-based solutions while the group were attempting to get the vocal take and vocal energy right for the song. It makes the assumption that is similar to the ‘American pragmatist philosophers such as James and Mead, and European phenomenologists such as Schutz, Weick [who] argued that people can know what they are doing only after they have done it’ (Sandberg & Tsoukas, p. 9). It is evident in the data that the recording process relies heavily on plausible solutions that take the form of plausible action and retrospective evaluation loops. Plausibility is the key to the process in this case because ‘group members coalesce around a plausible or approximate story that addresses the bracketed question’ (Rutledge, 2009, p. 20). In this instance, the recording environment was well prepared to enact plausible suggestions with relative ease because each plausible solution could be recorded and evaluated quickly. The recorded take was a useful mechanism for the retrospective element of sensemaking because it presented the plausible solution within the constructed sonic environment. The consensus was reached when Oliver listened back to the new performance and became energised to get back into the vocal booth and perform more takes. However, in this instance, the extended sensemaking presented a possible issue that could have negatively affected the recording. On reviewing the transcription there are several indicators that the scenarios were becoming less plausible, for example, there was an emphasis on performance takes at the beginning of the sensemaking that continued for too long. There is an argument to be made that cognitive looping can serve as a
potential distraction that obscures the obvious solution of changing a microphone. In this case, the extended looping to solve an issue that was affecting the performance served to exacerbate the issue before it was solved. As such, there needs to be an awareness that the micro-looping between plausibility and retrospect can create situations in which searching for plausible solutions becomes a distraction rather than a solution.
8.7 CONCLUSIONS
In this research, I identified a sensemaking model that appeared during studio recording sessions. This form of sensemaking was a natural occurrence in recording environments and centred on the extended cognitive looping of plausibility and retrospect. In the evidence presented, this form of extended cognitive loop was unique to the recording studio for two reasons. First, the looping of plausible solutions was heavily reliant on the surrounding sonic environment which served to contextualise the musical and sonic decisions made in the recording studio. As such, sonic choices of instrumentation and amplification operated as pre-existing environmental boundaries. Second, sensemaking had a direct correlation to the environmental boundaries and creative aims that each band set. This was highlighted by the contrast in sensemaking between Baskervillain and OJ Mengel. Baskervillain’s more experimental musical boundaries meant that sensemaking concentrated on musical choices. OJ Mengel dedicated their environment to capturing energy. As a result, their major sensemaking occurred when performance energy became an issue that needed to be addressed.
The extended forms of sensemaking occurred during the later phases of recordings as songwriting functions such as harmonic and melodic movement are already decided in the external songwriting process. The second unique factor is that these recordings all centred on the development of original music, as such, the recording artists were concerned with a collective willing of new musical ideas into existence. This aggregate form of musical inventiveness is a type of sensemaking that Weick (1995) argues for when he states that sensemaking is not just a form of decoding complexity, but it is also a form of willing new ideas into existence. The recording of original music, therefore, serves as a unique setting for the observation of social decision-making as it is primarily concerned with converting abstract
182 conceptualisations into recorded text. Additionally, the recording environment is well suited to observing the phenomena of loops between plausible constructs and retrospective analysis. The studio comes with the built-in functionality of hitting rewind and reviewing aspects of recorded performance through digitally transcribed retrospect. The result of this functionality combined with the social nature of the recordings presents the recording studio as an appropriate setting for the analysis of complex social sensemaking.
The approach of the band in the recording studio was also directly related to how much-extended sensemaking occurred. Bands who approached the recording studio as a music writing tool spent more time in extended sensemaking than the bands who arrived at the studio having made more preparation in the pre-production process. Sensemaking was particularly apparent in examples in which the bands attempted to enact change in the musical direction of their recorded parts, as highlighted in the Baskervillain example. This performance of extended sensemaking to change songs is consistent with sensemaking research that observes the phenomena in times of institutional and organisational change (Brown et al., 2014; Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Nijhof, 2006). Each of the bands had enough time to achieve what they wanted from the sessions, and each band showed a different approach to using their time productively. As a result, the closed studio environment offered the bands the chance to develop ideas and explore conduct musical sensemaking without the pressure of completing the recording in a required time frame. In future research, I intend to investigate how sensemaking occurs within a reduced timeframe and an environment that is not suited to producing commercial releases. It will be interesting to observe how a producer interacts with artists when the time is running out, and there is no possibility that the musical group can experiment with the musical arrangement and sonic ideas.
8.8 APPENDIX 1—SACRED SHRINES
8.8.1 Members Dan—Producer Matt—Drums Phil—Vocals/Guitars
Bea—Vocals/Keyboards Robbie—Bass guitar
Sacred Shrines had a clear idea of their musical direction, instrument choices and musical arrangement before they entered the studio. The following excerpts are examples of the retrospective analysis that the band performed to assess their various performances.
8.8.2 Checking Drum Parts
Dan—[removes bass and guitar from recording] Matt—Oh no, put the whole track in. I don’t wanna, I don’t wanna be naked. [laughs] [listening to music for about a minute] Matt—I think it’s here. Maybe. Phil—Oh yeah. [music stops] Phil—I mean if you can cut the, it’s not. Dan—Let’s have a look. Phil—It’s not outa time. Matt—It was a [imitates drums] Phil—Its… It’s. Matt—You know what I mean? Phil—It sounds weird that it stops. Matt—Hey? Phil—It only sounds weird cause it stops. Matt—Yeah. That’s right yeah. Dan—Um, hang on, so just… flip it to the other one. [Dan plays a different take of the recording] Phil—Yeah. Matt—Perfect. [music stops] Phil—That’s cool.
Reviewing Vocal Parts Dan—Um… so that was the last take, that was my favourite take. Phil—Yep. Bea—That was really good. Dan—Do you want to listen to the first one? Phil—No, let’s just listen to the other one.
184 Bea—[sighs] Dan—Let’s just commit? Phil—Yeah yeah well, I don’t think. Bea—Yeah well, I couldn’t hear anything in that, that I didn’t absolutely love. Phil—Yeah, I think that’s great. Dan—Hm. I would agree. Phil—I don’t wanna, I don’t wanna confuse myself and listen to the other one. Dan—In fact, I’m just going to mute the other one. Phil—Good
8.9 APPENDIX 2—BASKERVILLAIN
8.9.1 Members Dan—Producer Tom—Vocals/Guitars Jack—Vocals/Bass Mahler—Vocals/Guitars Lachlan—Drums
Baskervillain spent a good deal of time experimenting with instrument choices to build their sonic environment. The following are examples of the lengths to which this band went to create a sonic palette for their recording.
8.9.2 Ride Cymbal Sensemaking Dan—[Listening to the new ride cymbal] Much better. [to the band] That ride, because I think the other one was just washing out over everything and we weren’t getting enough of the other fun stuff. Jack—Yeah, it’s not fighting so much. Dan—[moving over to more equipment] Uh transformer, [to Lachlan] snare. Jack—More spank! Dan—I think I want to just snap it a bit more. Yeah that’s heaps better, keep going. Jack—[Listening to drums] Ooo. Dan—Ooo is that sizzly? Jack—He’s got the sizzle thing on
Tom—Yeah, rivets. Lachlan—[Referring to a cymbal] I changed the one that I was using there for the main one. [Plays to demonstrate] Dan—Yean that’s really nice man, that cymbal sounds fantastic. Lachlan—Yeah, it’s one of the best cymbals you can buy. Dan—Cool. [Lachlan plays a different cymbal that sizzles] Dan—Yeah, I like that, that’s cool. Lachlan—I thought maybe for the outro section. Tom—Yeah. Jack—Yeah, because the outro’s got that—it’s kind of—it’s a different feel.
8.9.3 Guitar Tone Sensemaking
Mahler—I recon both, if we can. Jack—Since we’ve got a guitar plugged in I recon we just go something hectic. Just a couple. Dan—[To Tom] Just go chakka chakka. Without anything, Nirvana style. Jack—Full teen spirit dude. Dan—Turn the volume up. [Tom plays the part] Jack—Full distortion though, phaser off. Dan—I’m on it. [Tom plays while Dan adjusts settings] Dan—Can we do that with a humbucker guitar. Mahler—Can we try the PRS [guitar]. Dan—Those are lace single coils. Jack—How are those humbuckers dude? Dan—Go the Ernie Ball [guitar] it’s got a good cancelling bucker. Tom—Does it need to be that distorted? Dan—[Incredulous] what did you just say? [Swap guitars over] Tom—Whoa, huge difference. Dan—I actually like it with just that.
8.10 APPENDIX 3—SODA JERKS
Dan—Producer James—Vocals/Guitars Michael—Guitars
186 Soda Jerks spent some time writing parts in the studio and creating sonic palettes for the recording. The following is an example of the band choosing a guitar sound to fit with the theme of the song they recorded.
8.10.1 Choosing Guitar Sounds
Dan—how do you like the distortion in that part? James—the distortion, I think it’s probably a bit much. Dan—give it a play just quickly. [Dan backs of the distortion on the guitar] James—I mean obviously it’s called ‘dream girl’ so it’s meant to be that open dreamy sort of sound. That’s why the riff is really good because the riff is a stark contrast to that. So maybe it would be good with a bit less distortion. Dan—let’s try it with less. See what happens. Try without the pauses, we’ve seen what happens with the pauses so let’s try it without this time.
Chapter 9: Transnational Flow in Cloud- Based Music Production
Transnational Flow in Cloud-based Music Production:
Organisational Communication and Collaboration Between Australia and America
Pratt, D., Hoose, S., & Gordon, W. (2019). Transnational Flow in Cloud-based Music Production: Organisational Communication and Collabotration Between Australia and America. In Art of Record Production 2017. Stockholm: Royal College of Music.
9.1 ABSTRACT
In this paper, we take three researchers from different parts of the globe and experiment with long-distance songwriting through a sociological and organisational lens. During this process, we combine production expertise and facilities into a networked recording studio environment with expanded toolsets centred on songwriting production. We investigate a new flow concept that we name transnational flow (TNF). This flow state exists as a form of non-synchronic group flow somewhere between Csikszentmihalyi’s (1995) individualist flow theory and Sawyer’s (2007) group flow theory. The paper investigates the difficulties of managing multiple flow states in a complex organisational network between Australia and North America. We use Karl Weick’s sensemaking (1995) and jazz metaphor (1998) theories to form an organisational framework that enables the creative flow process to occur over a complex network with a time difference of seven hours.
9.2 INTRODUCTION
Several digital workstations have implemented collaborative elements to their platforms with varying degrees of success. Questions of stability, consistency and complexity surround projects when artists collaborate across different counties to produce new music. Rather than focus on the technical aspects of collaboration this paper investigates the communication strategies surrounding a transnational
188 workflow. We take three experienced songwriting producers from three different locations across Australia and North America and explore the interpersonal and technical aspects of group communication and flow. We posit that there is a networked state of non-synchronous flow that occurs in this framework without concrete borders or time restrictions.
In this project, we treated the writing and recording of a song as an organisational exercise informed by distributed creative technologies, communication theory and group flow theory. All members of the group participated in every aspect of the decision-making including the writing, recording and mixing of a new song. This full integration enabled us to investigate group interplay from the inception to the conclusion of a project. Due to the logistical nature of a project between North America and Australia, there was a binary interaction of individual creative flow states and socially negotiated logistical decision-making. The creation of the song occurred as a networked flow of ideas, and the organisation process to facilitate these individual flow states occurred in weekly sensemaking meetings. We tested whether it was possible to maintain a state of networked group flow as a songwriting production team without existing in the same space and time-zone. Our research investigated how a socially constructed organisational approach reduced factors like distance and time in the creation of new musical content.
9.3 TNF IN THE LITERATURE
Transnational flow (TNF) is a networked system of individual flow states occurring in multiple regions of the globe. It utilises technology to connect separate flow states and builds them into a non-synchronous group flow interaction. It draws on Csikszentmihalyi (2000) and Sawyer’s (2007) sociological work on the subject of flow and group flow. TNF is a non-synchronous form of interactive flow that is influenced by group flow and individual flow, it occurs as a network of semi-isolated creative events; this means that TNF lacks the direct physical interaction that usually happens in a creative collaboration such as jazz improvisation, in which group members respond to cues in real time. Unlike Sawyer’s (2007) group flow theory, TNF is reliant on the analytical sensemaking models and jazz metaphor approach of Weick (1995) to facilitate the creation process. TNF differs from Sawyers (2007)
group interaction theory used to explain jazz improvisation and group interaction in theatre because the networked group is involved in a form of delayed networked flow states. However, TNF is not an individualist form of flow as discussed by Csikszentmihalyi (2000). An example of a more traditional form of non-synchronous flow occurs in recording studio settings, in which group members arrive at different times to perform parts in a staggered manner. However, in this TNF example, the group members are never in the same location and have no mediating factor such as a shared studio facility, engineer or producer.
Weick’s (1995, 1998) flexible organisational approach allows us to transverse the increased level of complexity derived from working with mixed technologies in multiple regions of the world. This structure establishes a binary of creative flow states (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, Sawyer, 2007) and retrospective analytical states (Weick, 1995, Sutcliffe & Obstfield, 2015, Gioia, 1988, Rutledge, 2009, Allen, 2009). As a result, this form of group creative flow follows a model of sensemaking meetings, recording in a non-synchronous flow state, analysing the process and repeating until the project ends. Thus, creating an interactive binary process of analysis and creativity.
Figure 8.1. The interaction of creative and analytical states
190 9.3.1 Distributed Creativity TNF is a form of distributed creativity that needs an analytical framework coupled with a creative organisational philosophy and a networked central nexus. This investigation represents a non-individualistic creative process that we refer to as distributed creativity (Sawyer & DeZutter, 2009). Sawyer and DeZutter (2009) define the group creative process as ‘[o]ne that generates a creative product, but one in which no single participant’s contribution determines the result’ (p. 81). Campelo and Howlett (2013) adopt the distributed creativity model to ‘refer to situations where collaborating groups of individuals collectively generate a shared creative product’. Brown (in Salavuo 2006) discuss the cognitive diversity of online music communities, referring to the concept of distributed expertise as ‘individual members possess knowledge of a particular subject, which exceeds the knowledge of the whole community’ (2006: p. 255). In music production, a single recorded artefact is produced as the result of coordinated output by skilled experts and machine labour and through collaborative exchanges (Lefford, 2015). Tasks are not accomplished by separate individuals, but rather through the interactions of those individuals (DeZutter, 2009). To sustain this collaboration, experts come together in a shared virtual production, which is delineated by agreement among collaborators. Usually, the context for collaboration consists of a combination of conceptual and physical configurations (Lefford, 2015).
9.3.2 Flow Flow is a cognitive feedback state that exists as people experience peak mental activity. It is a subjective state in which the human brain processes and adjusts in a seamless motion (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). According to Sawyer (2007), flow is a difficult state to attain and relies on particular circumstances. To reach a flow state a person must have the skills to match the task, clarity of goals, immediate feedback on achieving their targets, and complete concentration on the task (Sawyer, 2007). The knock on effects of a flow state are increased confidence, clarity of goals, the transformation of time constraints and a loss of self-consciousness (Walker, 2010). Csikszentmihalyi (2000) states that flow contributes to the understanding of ‘enjoyment, here and now—not as compensation for past desires, not as preparation for future needs, but as an ongoing process which provides rewarding experiences in the present’ (p. 9). In the recording field, this concept of positive psychology is
backed up by Howlett (2009) in his discussion of recording session flow and the added benefits that arose from a positively flowing recording session. Flow occurs in creative projects like music recording because of the intrinsic reward that naturally takes place in creative, driven activity. This, in turn, attracts autotelic personalities that thrive on the intrinsic rewards that imaginative invention provides (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
Keith Sawyer takes the notion of flow and de-individualised the process. He argues that collectives with an accumulated body of tacit knowledge have the potential to engage in a group flow experience that exceeds the boundaries of mono flow states (Sawyer, 2007). In this sense, groups engage in a synchronisation of flow states but with a wider palette of interconnected knowledge. In a collaborative setting, such as jazz improvisation, a diverse base of tacit knowledge increases the potential for creative outcomes. This decentralised form of creative decision-making results in the recognition of, as well as deference to, the ‘emergent flow of the group’ (Morrow, 2012). However, for productive and insightful group flow to occur, collectives need to meet certain conditions. As previously mentioned, TNF borrows from group flow but lacks some of the direct response to cues due to the delayed nature of individualistic, but influential flow states separated by less compatible time-zones. As an emerging theory, TNF falls between individual and interactive group flow states. To set conditions for TNF, we borrow from both Sawyer (2007) and Csikszentmihalyi (1990) but add intersectional organisational elements from Weick (1996). This triangulation of theories allows us to create the conditions to connect individual flow states that interact over vast distances within a technologically sophisticated framework.
9.3.3 Conditions for TNF 1. TNF group members need to have a minimum level of tacit knowledge and skillsets specific to the project. 2. TNF Group members need to have a common shared knowledge base and can have further specialisation in certain areas. 3. TNF has no concrete boundaries but combinations of spaces that create abstract conceptualisations of the working creative environment. 4. TNF requires the separation of analytical states from creative states to facilitate the individual flow moments for networking.
192 5. TNF needs an overarching pragmatic and improvisational philosophy that facilitates and accounts for the unpredictable nature of networked recording sessions occurring over long distances.
9.4 SENSEMAKING
A network of decentralised music writing relies on regular sensemaking discussions to untangle the complexity associated with the creative invention in a decentralised structure. Sensemaking is best described by Weick, Suttcliffe, and Obstfeld (2005) as ‘the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing’ (p. 409). It is a socially driven group discovery mechanism whereby members examine and discuss complexity to increase comprehension and come to a unified understanding (Rutledge, 2009). Sensemaking differs from the usual cognitive looping that producers and music makers encounter when operating as individuals. Sensemaking is more of a ‘social constructionist process in which people respond to the unusual, the confusing, the unexpected and change by using cues from the environment and their mental maps to construct meaning and literally make sense of events’ (Allen, 2011).
Karl Weick (1995) grounds sensemaking using seven properties with the intent of placing ‘boundaries around the phenomenon of sensemaking’ (p. 18). These seven properties are the construction and questioning of identity, retrospective analysis, adherence to sensible environments, social inquiry, ongoing examination, the extraction and mapping of cues, and the drive towards plausibility over accuracy (Allen, 2009). In Weick's (1995) own words ‘This sequence is crude because it omits feedback loops, simultaneous processing and the fact that over time, some steps may drop out’ (p. 18). When applying sensemaking in a practical setting like TNF, it is necessary to divide these properties into either implicit or explicit categories. This separation means we reduce these crude markers into a more practical model that is applicable during a creative meeting. To develop our context-specific model of sensemaking we draw on the adaptations of Rutledge (2009).
To simplify the process into a practical model, we assert that certain properties of sensemaking occur implicitly to our experience of TNF. Firstly, meetings for a TNF project are implicitly social by their nature. Secondly, the framework, tools and roles occur in a context-specific environment. Thirdly, the communication, file
sharing and recording technology coupled with the historical conventions of music production served to direct our environmental boundaries. Our roles and environmental limitations serve to inform our grounded identity constructions. It is when we question these constructed identities that our sense of flow is interrupted and the practical implementation of sensemaking begins (Weick 1995). Understanding the implicit and explicit sensemaking properties that apply we are able to construct a practical model based on Ruttledge’s (2009) model of sensemaking.
To untangle a complex problem, we begin to ‘bracket’ (Rutledge, 2009) to isolate the interruption that removes us from the the flow of experience. Once outside that flow, we use retrospective analysis to determine and map the nature of the disruption (Weick, 1995). During the mapping process, we try and discard phrases to understand the nature of the interruption. As soon as the mapping occurs, we then suggest a series of plausible solutions. Plausibility is the fundamental criterion of sensemaking’ (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfield, 2005) because it removes the debilitating need for precise answers and moves the social group towards action (Rutledge, 2009). The final stage of this social cognitive exchange is taking action and pragmatically analysing the results of the action. This process is ongoing, and it is repeated at every meeting so that the creative vision of the recording session is constantly revised, refined and updated.
Figure 8.2. The four stage model for sensemaking process based on Rutledge (2009).
194 9.4.1 The Jazz Metaphor Improvisation as a mindset for organisational analysis is part of Karl Weick’s (1998) later organisational communication work which bears similarities to Sawyer’s (2007) jazz-laden group flow metaphors. Using an improvisational jazz based metaphor to support organisation is hardly a new concept in organisational theory (see Barrett, 1998; Hatch, 1999; Humphreys, Brown & Hatch, 2003; Mantere, Moorman and Miner, 1998a, 1998b; Senge, 1994). Weick (1998) presents organisation as the antithesis to creative sociology such as flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). He infers that an improvisational mindset for any organisation adds flexibility to the structure and accounts for interpretation, embellishment and variation. Each of these steps is an incremental departure from the original intent of the plan. In TNF we use sensemaking as a methodology for dealing with complexity in the recording process. However, the improvisational mindset enables us to begin our research without a complete plan. ‘Thus, improvisation deals with the unforeseen, it works without a prior stipulation, it works with the unexpected’ (Weick, 1998, p. 544). Taking this mindset into consideration early in our recording, we experimented with our initial recording setup.
9.5 METHODOLOGY
To understand the relational, interactive and process-oriented nature of TNF we employ a multi-qualitative approach to investigating it as phenomena. We thematically organise our data analysis into three examples of networked states of creative writing that we observe as flow states, sensemaking and improvisational mindset. We triangulate between recorded meeting data, observational reflections and treat the song creation as an observable organisational process. The transnational distribution of the project members creates an enforced separation that offers a chance for us to record our sensemaking sessions and observe our organisational method as a separate analytical state while relying on observational data to understand our creative states.
9.5.1 Participant Observation Participant observation serves as our primary methodology to engage on an interactive level with our emerging data. Atkins and Hammersly (1994) point out that participant observation is ‘observation carried out when the researcher is playing an
established participant role in the scene studied’. This qualitative approach provides us with the ability to develop a deeper understanding of process and relational elements with which to situate our research. Acting from within the system we contextualise and interpret unfolding data of significance to expand our awareness of events (Schwartz & Schwartz, 1995). As participating actors in the process, we generate data that can meaningfully add to our collective understanding of human experience (Guest et al. 2013). Interview data provides opinions on a project in hindsight but does not provide insight on the mechanics of process that happen from the perspective of the participant. One of the difficulties that neutral observation faces is the accusation of participating in a ‘form of tourism rather than data collection’ (Guest, et al. 2013).
In the case of any TNF exercise, we are incapable of allowing ethnographic tourism. Each member must understand the concepts with a depth of insight only possible with an intimate knowledge of recording process. TNF requires a particular type of implied knowledge that sets a minimum standard for participation in a project. Morrow (2007) suggests that for a recording group to experience a cohesive form of flow, ‘the members have to share tacit knowledge and demonstrate comparable skill levels’. Our approach was to assemble a group of researchers that have a diverse enough skill set to enhance our potential for group flow. Each researcher needed a baseline of tacit knowledge appropriate to key recording concepts such as gain staging, equalisation, microphone technique and musical ability. There is an invasive aspect to neutral observation and ‘studio access is generally open only to those involved in the production’ (Thompson & Lashua, 2014 p. 749). This means that observers ‘are considered interlopers, at worst they are obstacles to the recording process’ (ibid). The non-participating observer may alter the course of events, even when the observer is temporarily absent’ (Schwartz & Schwartz, 1995 p. 346).
9.5.2 Interaction Analysis Due to our use of Skype video conferencing we have access to a rich source of non-verbal and interactional information to expand the scope of our transcriptions. Interaction analysis provides a methodology we use to analyse distributed creativity—a method of analysing verbal gestures, body language and conversation during collaboration. (Sawyer, 2007) Using interaction analysis, researchers explore
196 group creative processes and gain new insights into how creative products emerge collaboratively from groups. Multiple viewings of recorded video reveal the richness of both verbal and non-verbal actions, allowing researchers for the first time to study the rich multimodal nature of human interaction (Sawyer & DeZutter, 2009). Transcription methods vary in detail depending on the researcher’s interest; in some cases, only talk is transcribed; in other cases, non-verbal details such as eye gaze and body position are important and recorded along with speech (ibid).
9.5.3 The Technology to Sustain a Creative Network The network for this project consisted of recording facilities in three different locations around the globe, Kentucky, Maine USA and Brisbane Australia. In each location, participants had access to different analogue and digital recording equipment. The distribution of tacit knowledge and studio facilities in this project presented a compartmentalised approach to recording, in which each member performed specific roles. In a musical sense, participants were specialists, but not solo artists. Drums were tracked in Kentucky, bass was tracked in Maine, and the guitar and vocal tracks were recorded in Australia. This larger abstract recording studio also provided the ability to tap into a global network of performers, opening up project studios to a wider scope of musical guests who contributed to a growing pool of tacit knowledge. Additional musicians recorded overdubs in Kentucky such as theremin, saxophone, keyboard and tape effects.
Figure 8.3. Small networked facilities combine to create one large abstract studio.
We used a variety of analogue and digital equipment during the recording. Cockos Reaper served as the DAW for this project because it was an easily accessible platform. Using a unified DAW minimised conversion time and confusion when exchanging sessions. The use of analogue processing including time-based processing like reverbs and delays reduced the need for a unified plugin library. Furthermore, specialised plugins were ‘printed’ into the session to avoid compatibility issues. This combination of unique processing tools allowed us to define our sound.
We saved the Reaper session on the Dropbox file sharing platform. The file sharing platform enabled our session to reside on a server in the cloud, rather than on local machines. File management through Dropbox provided a central nexus for our transnationally distributed creative team. This nexus allowed participants to interact without all having to be present at the same time. Each contributor could upload, download, comment and make changes to a session independently from the other collaborators.
We held regular weekly meetings throughout the songwriting and production process. Using Skype as our communication platform during these meetings enabled us to conveniently make immediate decisions regarding the musical ideas, direction
198 and production techniques. These sensemaking sessions facilitated the group flow and assisted the progression of the project. Working in weekly stages allowed us to revise the previous achievements and plan for the following week of creative invention. The sensemaking meetings allowed us to manage any technical or accidental complications proactively. The video platform of Skype enabled us to gauge each other’s reaction to ideas reflexively. Having the ability to view and socially respond to non-verbal cues added another level of feedback that is not possible through written or verbal communication.
File naming systems and organisation were an especially important aspect of this project. Working collaboratively in the cloud can lead to some potential file conflicts. The numbering system was broken into whole numbers depending on which part of the song we worked on. For example, the drum and bass recordings over the first weeks were numbered 1. As we gradually updated the drum and bass parts, we included decimal increments to the whole number so that we did not accidentally create file conflicts. For example, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. If we worked on any significant parts, we would also add a descriptor to the numbers so that we could access the session quickly during our weekly meetings.
9.6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Our study yielded significant examples of TNF conditions in action. The following three examples are thematically organised into examples of flow and group flow in a distributed environment, sensemaking and improvisational approach.
9.6.1 Reflections on the Beginning of the Project In this example we extracted the reflective entries of the participants to examine how this process began and where the experience sits in relation to the concepts of flow and group flow and the emergence of the creative network.
Daniel Pratt Reflection This song idea began on a coincidental plane ride with myself and Shane on the way back from ARP 2016 in Denmark. By pure chance, we happened to be sitting next to each other on the flight from Aalborg to Copenhagen. At the time Shane and I had not spoken much, but we immediately started talking about writing music together. It was a vague fun plan centred around
connecting two studios and having fun writing a song. After I returned to Australia, we both remained in contact and chatted via Skype about music. One day Shane just sent through a drum track he'd been working on, and it immediately triggered my creative instincts. As a producer, my workflow revolves around bouncing off ideas and adding my take to things. This drum track inspired me to spend a few hours playing with complimentary guitar lines, and, before I knew it, we had effortlessly arranged a song that had an upbeat, energetic vibe. Wells joined the group after responding to a Facebook comment and suddenly the three of us were bouncing ideas around and writing a song. This process grew organically, and I became excited to wake up in my different time-zone to hear what had happened while the other guys were awake and tracking away. It’s a motivating feeling to get up in the morning and hear these great ideas coming from the other side of the world. As the project grew in complexity, we decided to start a weekly meeting so that we could plan the song to avoid a haphazard approach and focus our creative energies. (Dan Pratt, Reflection—September 2017)
Shane Hoose Reflection This collaboration began last December—shortly after the ARP2016 conference. I usually practice with backing tracks in a variety of styles at home. Although most of the stuff that I play falls specifically under the ‘rock’ category, I feel that it is important to be able to play the other styles well. Entering into the process, I honestly had no idea where this thing was headed, or if it would even proceed or would be successful. Since I was essentially playing by myself and only with a metronome, I was very careful not to overplay anything from the beginning. Otherwise, the drum part would be too cluttered, and there would not be adequate space for anything else. I figured that it would be best for me to keep things somewhat basic as well because I wasn’t necessarily sure what styles everyone else was comfortable with. I aimed for a solid backing track that would serve as a bed for anything else that was added. I remember one of the earliest discussions before we actually did anything was an agreement to use Reaper as the DAW. In other words, we agreed on some specific parameters for the project. If I remember right, all of our communications were by email until Wells joined. It was early February when Wells came into the discussion for the first time. That was when the Skype meetings began. That was an important point in the process. The unique thing about this collaboration for
200 me is that I knew absolutely nothing about anyone’s prior musical or production experience or style entering into this. From this standpoint, it seemed like totally shooting in the dark. (Shane Hoose, Reflection—May 2010)
Wellington Gordon Reflection When I first listened to Dan and Shane’s track, I was excited. Sonically it bared resemblances of many of my favourite style of music. Shane’s drums had a classic Motown vibe, Dan’s guitar also suggested a Motown feel but also its skank-like rhythm that reminded me of reggae. Dan’s choice of reverb on the guitar and drums also created a sense of nostalgia for me. The combination of the drums and guitar placed the sonic signature close to artists like Amy Winehouse, the Daptone’s catalogue or Lilly Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld. Dan’s voice and accent also gave me a sense of familiarity and reminded me of some alternative British groups. (Wellington Gordon, Reflection—April 2017)
These three reflections provide insight into the reflexive group flow that occurred in the project. They refer to the organic process that built a technological framework around the group's creative invention. Dan, Wells, And Shane began weekly meetings as soon as they decided that the project had reached a level of complexity that required organisation. Each participant noted that the previous recording induced an excitement and focus to their writing process. For example, Wells explained his nostalgia and excitement when hearing the recordings of Dan and Shane for the first time. He explains how this triggered his past knowledge of musical acts that informed his production practice and how they relate to the feel of the song. As a flow process, each member triggered the other into a collective creative state associated with Sawyer's (2007) group flow. Dan reflected that Shane’s drum work inspired him to write and triggered a flow state. It was interesting to note that the difference in time-zones and the distributed form of creativity gave the participants the ability to both influence each other's creativity while generating new ideas. In drawing conclusions from this analysis, we try to avoid leaning on the emotional responses of the participants, but we do notice that flow states experienced by the participants were influential in the writing process. This makes it difficult to
untangle emotional response to stimuli to the triggering of an individual flow state. As a result, we claim that these non-synchronous individual flow states are influenced by characteristics drawn from Csikszentmihalyi (2000) and Sawyer's (2007) flow and group flow theory.
9.6.2 Tape Loops to the Rescue: Sensemaking to Restore Flow In this example we take three transcripts from the recorded meeting videos to examine a sensemaking process that occurred during a major change to the bridge section of the song. The bridge section was detracting from the individual flow of the group members and caused the creation of the song to halt. These conversations provide insight into how the group made sense of the interruption and how Shane’s contribution provided a flow state that restarted the non-synchronous flow of the group. It is important to note that the group cannot use Sawyer’s (2007) group flow to rewrite the bridge section in real time by reacting to cues and presenting ideas in a shared space. As a result, the group relies on sensemaking to discuss solutions and restore the flow of the project.
Meeting Video #6
Dan: The brass stuff is taking away from the way the guitars bass and drums interacting, and I feel like it's not working. Then there is the Autumn Leaves section, I’m nervous that we will sound like irrelevant white academics trying to play funk. I was thinking that we might be moving away from the funk and moving towards a more Portishead vibe. Remove the bridge and horns and add maybe street percussion.
(Dan makes the effort to look into the camera- so that it appears that he is trying to make eye contact- a form of sincerity when offering constructive criticism and new direction to the song)
Shane: What do you mean street percussion?
Dan: Roto toms, people clapping and talking, like a street party.
Shane: I kind of like the idea.
(Shane nodes and smiles)
Dan: It would be fun.
202 (Dan becomes more animated with enthusiasm when continuing the conversation)
Shane: I could get some timbale and other percussion.
Dan: Let's change the horns and look towards the keyboardist and see what he can do.
Shane: The keyboardist has rhodes, organs, moog synths.
(both visually show excitement for the new plan)
Meeting Video #9
Shane: Alright. I added some more craziness in... (Dan smiles while listening in response and says ohh yeah) Just a little bit. I actually came up with one or two other ideas too for this thing. That middle section where it was originally the circle of fifths type of progression where I think that we are collectively thinking that it is going to do something really different there.
(Shane is more animated than usual when explaining his ideas about the bridge section- showing excitement)
Wells: I am open to seeing where it goes for sure. I wasn’t heartbroken that we went different directions or anything.
Shane: What would it sound like too if maybe we added some guitar feedback in there too maybe
Dan: I’m in. I’ll pop that in. I’m about to spend the day rebuilding the studio.
Shane: I’m not saying that it is something that we have to use, but it is something that came to mind.
Dan: Crowd noise too.
Shane: I did get us some crowd noise too this past week.
Dan: I’m listening to the crowd noise right now.
(Dan Smiles while listening to the crowd noise)
Shane: For some reason I stepped outside on Friday night and they were setting off fireworks, and I thought it was a good idea.
Dan: I might throw in some random yelling too. I am working with some high school students on Friday. I might try to get them to do some yelling. Like ‘yay’ and ‘hey’, stuff like that. The crowd noise sounds great.
(Both Shane and Wells smile and nod in agreeance)
Shane: I also threw a tape loop in there to see what it would sound like.
Dan: You called it ‘tape loops’?
Shane: Yeah.
[Dan listens to the tape loops]
Dan: Oh. Dude, that is cool.
(Dan Smiles in approval)
Meeting Video #14
Shane: I think that the moment that we decided to veer away from the Motown sound and head in a different direction that led us down the road that we ventured down was a good decision in hindsight.
(Shane looks satisfied as he reiterates how the group’s choice to move in the current direction has been a positive experience)
Dan: Yes. It was a really good decision to abandon in than to try to push it. There are things that we do as a collective where Motown is a very good basis for starting, but then it can go somewhere else. And I think that your tape tricks are a thing, and it is a cool thing.
(Shane smiles and nods in agreement) (Dan has enthusiasm in his voice and a satisfied look on his face when mentioning Shane’s approach to using analogue tape)
Shane: I thought of that too as I was messing with that stuff, but we all have different tools that we use. But, the tape machine is one of those tools where not everyone has one now, and the people that do have them are not necessarily use them to do unusual things like obliterating things and taping them back together in random order.
Dan: Yes. The tape machine as a creative tool rather than a mastering device.
204
These three transcripts provide an insight into related sensemaking processes. In the first transcription we observe the identification and bracketing of the area that needs improvement. In the second transcription the group reacts to the plausible solution to a problem that halted the creative flow of the group. In the third transcript we identify the action point that occurred as a result sensemaking process. In the first video Dan is communicating an irritation of the senses (Peirce, 1778), causing him to doubt his process and investigate the source of his irritation. Weick (1995) states that the questioning of identity construction occurs when our senses are irritated, causing members to step out of the flow and analyse the interruption that is impacting the creative process. This interruption to the flow causes a member of the group to begin the process of bracketing (Rutledge, 2009), Dan brackets his concerns around a chordal movement in the bridge of the song. He describes this area as the Autumn Leaves section. The bridge follows the chord progression of Autumn Leaves and the harmonic movement is lifted from a jazz standard which serves to date the section of the music. This informal naming of the bridge informs the members on the positioning of the disputed area, while at the same time identifies the harmonic problem with the specified segment. The team identifies the context-specific obstacle and adopts mapping phrases to assess the boundaries of the problem before they begin the process of plausible solutions. During the mapping process, Dan uses phrases like irrelevant and trying to play funk to help identify the issue to the group. He also states that the recording started with a Motown flavour but has since moved into a more modern sphere and the bridge is holding the music back.
Figure 8.4. The first two stages of a sensemaking model.
After this bracketing and mapping, Dan presents a plausible replacement for the section. The proposition is to remove the Autumn Leaves chordal approach and replace it with a rhythmically focused street party soundscape. This new approach is a reaction to the perceived problems caused by the more harmonically focused
writing methodology. Dan and Shane discuss the details of plausible solutions, Shane offers different forms of instrumentation that he can contribute. During this conversation, a more detailed picture of the new approach to the bridge emerges. In this sense, Shane’s new recording of tape loops stimulates the other members of the group and restores the flow of the project. In this reflexive discussion, Dan and Shane are developing ideas that place boundaries around the developing creative objective for the bridge. Setting contextual limits around creativity gives the group the ability to constrain creativity into a more sensible environmental boundary appropriate to the stylistic approach of the recording.
When Dan suggests there is an issue, both Shane and Wells asks for clarification. After this, the parameters were defined, bracketed and mapped until the group agrees on the boundaries for the problem. Once the mapping occurred the trio begin to plan plausible solutions that move towards action. During this process, there is an action-driven motive emerging through the group dynamic. This outlook displayed by Wells exemplifies the improvisational mindset to the organisation of the recording as opposed to constraining themselves to the already established process of ideation. The information generated by bracketing and mapping then informs the presentation of plausible solutions.
Figure 8.5. Full sensemaking model, taking action on the bridge.
9.6.3 Different Worlds Collide Weick (1998) presents a binary of organisational structures in his improvisational approach that is counter to the musical framework. He asserts that the constrictive nature of organisations serves to repress creative invention rather than nurture it (ibid). His improvisational mindset maintains an attitude of detaching from rigid structures and adopting receptivity to organisational leaps. In this example we investigate the improvisational mindset producing unexpected results in TNF.
Meeting Video #3
206 Dan: When you did a bassline on a conflicted track on Dropbox. Rather than looking at that as a problem, we started playing around with the two conflicted copies and I started copying and pasting things over and all of a sudden, we had a new vocal line and a bassline that never would have happened any other way. Meeting Video #3
Wellington Gordon Reflection
At the point that I started to collaborate with Shane and Dan- I was still a bit disoriented with the recording process and file management system that they had put into place. Unknowingly, I opened the wrong session which looked like the appropriate one. I recorded a bass part based on the arrangement of the drums, guitars and scratch vocals. When we reviewed the work I had done, we soon realised that I had opened the wrong session. Dan, being an optimistic person, tried to make due with the situation. My perspective was that the song’s form and arrangement was still being determined/flushed out- so there was a sense of improvisation and flexibility given to all of our ideas. In some ways I felt that Dan was still familiarising himself with Reaper’s capabilities, pushing Reaper’s editing features and this was an opportunity to see how he could manipulate and work in this platform. The transformed and resulting arrangement was created by Dan’s vision while Shane and I offered positive feedback in support of his musical instincts.
In this example, the group encounters a phenomenon that frequently occurs in the writing and recording of music. A happy accident. However, the unique conditions of TNF lead towards consequences that are unlikely to occur in a traditional recording environment. While recording their parts in the verse, Wells (bass) and Dan (vocals) accidentally recorded on different sessions. The consequence was that they both contributed musical lines without influencing each other. Fortunately, due to the agreed labelling system and the added security that Dropbox saves conflicted files, it was simple to merge the two recordings into a new session and listen to them interact. Dan notes in the transcript that this could not have happened in any other way. This single interaction became integral to the atmosphere of the verse and continued to reshape the whole approach of the song.
This outcome highlights the fifth TNF condition of a pragmatic and improvisational philosophy. Members of the group kept an open-minded approach to the benefits that accrue when organisational leaps transpire. Weick (1998) frames these organisational leaps on a continuum of ‘interpretation, embellishment and variation’ (Weick, 1998, p. 544) using terminology lifted from jazz improvisation. This is an example of variation which is the most transformative of the three organisational leaps. The music transformed in style and approach due to the accident of opening the wrong file and recording two musical parts independently without any form of interaction. In this example, the change worked because Dan and Wells had no affinity to either idea. To account for the shift in direction Dan re- recorded the vocal line to remove minor clashes and the organisation of the future instrumentation was modified to account for the new musical direction. The group embraced the nature of an improvisational mindset, which expanded their compositional options to consider mistakes as possible advantages. This ethos kept the flow of the writing process fluid and responsive to creative leaps.
9.7 CONCLUSIONS
This project demonstrated varying degrees of TNF as defined by our literature support, methodology and research design. As a result, we created a new song, it is about a used car salesman attempting to fix his soul to sell it to The Devil. Unfortunately, The Devil is not buying. Please click the following link to listen to the song.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6a8n1ehkicc0db/Soul%20Man%20Don%27t%20 Know.wav?dl=0
The results of this study determined that collaboration and networked interractive flow states can occur between Australia and North America and that it is possible to maintain a state of networked group flow without being in the same locality. It also revealed that creative use of abstract facility networks expanded the scope and roles within the context of our constructed environment. The group engaged in individual non-synchronous group flow states as well as sensemaking and organisational improvisation in the music production process between Australia and North America. TNF relied on regular sensemaking discussions to untangle the
208 complexity associated with the creative invention in a decentralised structure. In this pilot study we employed sensemaking sessions as well as an improvisational approach to organise the writing and assist in the creative flow of the group.
Our first attempt at transnational flow was a successful pilot, however, more research is required to expand the narrow scope of the project. We used this pilot study to develop models to enhance our organisational and creative flow, but we need to test this on a more far reaching project. Our next aim is to record an entire album and increase the managing complexity of the project to test our strategies. We intend to push the boundaries of our transnational group flow to see if it is capable of adapting to greater complexity. We also need to facilitate an environment with more time pressure. There were no behavioural issues that required management which would be an interesting outcome for the research, but each member of the project contributed a positive outlook. It is impossible in this sense to create conflict for the sake of writing an exciting paper. The obvious drawback is that manufacturing disagreement is disingenuous and there is no way to achieve this without colouring the research. Additionally, Australia and North America share cultural commonalities which reduce the complexity of the exercise. More cultural and gender diversity must occur to develop a more inclusive sensemaking model.
Chapter 10: Sensemaking in Unfamiliar Environments
Sensemaking in Unfamiliar Environments: Designing a Mobile Recording Facility in Between Chennai, India and Brisbane, Australia
10.1 ABSTRACT
In this paper, I argue that a team of record producers operate as an advanced transnational sensemaking team in an intentionally time-pressured environment. I frame the producers as facilitators of a cultural conversation between QUT in Brisbane Australia and KM Conservatory in Chennai India. I use sensemaking theory to evaluate how the production team logistically converts an unsuitable auditorium space into a working mobile studio capable of accommodating six musical groups with varying requirements. Through this setting, I examine a new recording paradigm consisting of an embedded team of producers in India, and an analytical producer in Australia. I use this environment to understand better how a distributed form of creative labour and conflicting time-zones serve as possible advantages when decoding complex logistical and communicational affordances. To investigate this setting, I employ a combination of qualitative approaches to frame two major sensemaking events to develop new models adapted from Rutledge’s active stages of sensemaking. This modelling approach investigates how producers operate in unfamiliar settings to decode multiple levels of communicational and logistical considerations.
210 10.2 INDIA 100 PARTNERSHIP
In the India 100 project, I coordinated a small production team in a cultural exchange project between QUT in Brisbane Australia and KM Conservatory (KMC) in Chennai India. The project aimed to record ten songs over three days on location in Chennai. The production team consisted of two recording engineers from Chennai, two Australian producers and one producer from Chennai working with electronic artists. My role was to coordinate the Australian producers and the assistants from Chennai to turn a small recital hall into a professional sounding recording facility to record new music for professional release. Additionally, it was my role to record, mix, and produce six recordings in three days and to add artist contributions to an additional seventh collaborative track interwoven into the three-day time frame. Myself and the production team mixed the final album produced from this project, which were then mastered as a collection of ten songs, and released by KM Conservatory in Chennai through digital platforms such as Spotify, Apple Music and Bandcamp. This paper investigates how my production team operated as implicit sensemakers in this context, working to logistically transform an auditorium space into an environment that fosters the cultural communication between producers and songwriters from two different continents.
The 2017 iteration of this project is part of an ongoing, reflexive cross-cultural relationship between QUT and KMC. Easterby-Smith et al. (1999) interpret cross- cultural projects as reflexive and unpredictable relationships, with a focus on ‘The importance of managing relationships within cross-cultural research teams and the need to adapt methods for different national and cultural circumstances in ways that cannot be predicted in advance’ (p. 77). This form of adaptive relationship management bears striking similarities to personnel management in record production, which Howlett describes as a ‘nexus’ of reflexive negotiations between interested parties (2009). This concept is reinforced by Pras and Gustavo (2011) who state that music creation itself ‘cannot be separated from the culture of musicians and composers who constitute the project’ (p. 74). This meshing of cultural and musical elements is one of the key aims of the recording project in Chennai, and as such, Ronin’s (1996) propensity towards ‘dynamism and openness in cultural identities’ (p. 61) becomes an important consideration when understanding how collaboration is enacted across cultural contexts. Using a reflexive lens, cultural complexity becomes
a positive form of negotiation and exchange rather than a potential issue or a problem to be resolved. According to Sawyer, a diversity of perspectives improves the ability of any project group to form a ‘collaborative web’ (2007, p. xi), in which the group benefits from such diversity of approach and a multiplicity of tacit knowledge. Such complex or unpredictable contexts present opportunities to evaluate how the production team makes sense of and negotiates the production process. To investigate how the production team creates an environment that makes this conversation possible I turn to the sensemaking theory of Weick (1995). Using sensemaking, I examine how active participants solve logistical problems and foster creativity through social cognition. The four sensemaking stages of Rutledge (2009) informs my development of models that account for the sensemaking actions of the production team. Finally, the time pressure of the India 100 project offers an especially useful context to study sensemaking in an unusual and accelerated record- making setting.
To contextualise the nature of the accelerated recording process in India, it is helpful to consider a binary of two recording approaches: the first being a ‘long’ approach focused on details, and the second being a ‘short’ approach focused on capturing performance energy. These approaches have a significant impact on how producers orient the decision-making in the recording studio. The first is a protracted process, focusing on details and taking the time to craft a record in a studio. In this sense, ‘the creative [recording] process can be viewed as a sequence of decisions from inception to completion; if decisions are not made quickly then the process inevitably becomes prolonged’ (Martin, 2012, p. 132). The benefits of this method include the ability to ‘reflect and discuss with the artist, steering the musical outcome’ (Hepworth-Sawyer & Golding, 2010, p. 16). The drawbacks centre around time management, and motivating artists to make decisions and finish their work. Additionally, the digital tools available in modern recording present the potential for the creation of ‘time-consuming possibilities for editing and audio manipulation’ (Kirby, 2015, p. 235). The second recording approach focuses on the capturing of energy that takes place in a fast-paced recording session. This approach involves swift decision-making, performance delivery, and a focus shift from the detailed view of recording to a more macro view of capturing the energy of a song. Graham et al. (2015) describe such an experience as an ‘intense, collective burst of creativity’
212 (p. 15). This typology of recording workflow relies on instinctive reactions and can produce creative results of varying quality. Embedded in this faster process is an element of risk that takes advantage of what Thompson and Lashua (2014) describe as the ‘frenetic swirl of activity’ in the recording studio (p. 748). When the timeline is shortened, producers focus more on the ‘importance of seeking emotion rather than technicality’ (Pras et al. 2013, p. 620). This time-limited and emotion-focused approach is the essence of the India 100 project which is a deliberately time-limited cultural conversation between Australian record producers and Indian songwriters. Recording six bands in three days focused the producers on capturing bursts of energy without having the time to spend on perfecting details. As a result, this recording takes the second, faster method of producing songs for the project. To address the fact that mistakes, errors, and inconsistencies often emerge during ‘fast’ model of record production, we set up a small production team in Australia to edit and evaluate recordings at QUT.
The India 100 project also took advantage of the time-zone clash between India and Australia which generated the conditions for a non-stop, twenty-four-hour workflow. On the completion of any recording day, the team in India uploaded the sessions to Google Drive for analysis and editing in Australia. This arrangement constructed what Sawyer and DeZutter (2010) refer to as a network of labour’ distributed across people, tools, and environments’ (p. 81). The QUT team consisted of myself and Brad Collumbine embedded in India, while James See filled the role of spectator perspective in Australia. Bacon (2012) explains the Australian spectator perspective resides in a more objective environment than the embedded producers in India. This perspective, combined with the embedded nature of the production team in India, serves to create a multi-perspective approach which is a distributed approach to recording.
10.3 THE MOBILE RECORDING PARADIGM
To produce professional recordings in Chennai, the production team took advantage of new portable recording technologies. The development of new analogue and digital tools makes it easier to produce higher quality recordings in non-studio environments. Carvalho (2012) frames this shift in recording technology as an important element in the rise of the home studio producer, suggesting that the
discourse surrounding digital disruption has led to new breeds of recording engineer. These new breeds of producer now challenge the sovereignty of previous industrial models of creative labour in the recording industry. Carvalho’s observation is reinforced by Leyshon’s (2009) argument that digital software has had a significant impact on the economic models of recording studios. However, this growth in the digital toolset benefits experienced producers as well as early career producers. Pras, et al. (2013) advocate that experienced engineers with high competency in recording practice also benefit from the mobility that digital recording equipment offers. The newer mobility of the recording station means that experienced record producers can leverage their knowledge and adopt the ‘tonemeister’ concept that treats any given recording environment as a metaphorical musical instrument (ibid). Using an instrumental approach to the recording space, an experienced producer can utilise any space to produce professional sounding results. In this example, experience plays an important role; the producer must negotiate the complexities associated with converting unusual spaces into creative recording instruments. However, a drawback of this mobile recording paradigm may be that a producer rarely utilises the same recording space on multiple occasions. As a result, there is a constant need to re- evaluate and transform spaces to function as productive recording environments.
This paper utilises the affordances provided by mobile recording interfaces and investigates the methods for negotiating complexity in unfamiliar environments using sensemaking theory (Weick, 1995). Sensemaking provides a theoretical frame that accounts for complex social construction and gives agency to social groups as the negotiators of meaning-making (Allen, 2011). Regarding the mobile recording environment for the India 100, sensemaking serves as an action-driven process for the social construction of an ad hoc recording studio. Sensemaking theory also aided in the conversion of an unsuitable auditorium space into a working mobile studio capable of accommodating six musical groups with varying requirements.
10.4 SENSEMAKING
Sensemaking is the ongoing rationalisation of plausible constructs for detangling complexity to drive action (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2005), and sensemaking naturally occurs when complexity becomes overwhelming and disrupts the normal flow of events for a social group (Rutledge, 2009). I argue that
214 sensemaking is a useful tool for producers and musical groups who frequently deal with complex and abstract decision-making through semi-democratic, processes. Howlett highlights the frequency of this type of agreement stating that ‘often enough the decision is a collective agreement’ (p. 88). These decisions can be micro in nature such as the placement of a microphone or the selection of a software synthesiser. Or they can occur as larger attempts to decode a complex issue that halts the recording process. Sensemaking materialises meaning out of complexity through social discovery and process-oriented thinking. This materialisation of meaning is an active social construction highlighted by Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld (2005) who state that ‘sensemaking is, importantly, an issue of language, talk and communication. Situations, organisations, and environments are talked into existence’ (p. 409). As such sensemaking is a valuable tool for negotiating complex and culturally unfamiliar recording environments.
Weick (1995) grounds sensemaking theory in seven properties that create conditions and actions for group negotiation of complexity. These seven properties are, Identity construction; the use of retrospective analytical thought; the restrictions of sensible environmental boundaries; the social negotiation of complexity; the focus on extracted cues; the drive for plausibility over accuracy; and ongoing re- evaluation. The seven properties form the theoretical framework for sensemaking as an organisational and social form of meaning-making. These properties are inherently pragmatic in nature and sensemaking borrows from the theories of both Peirce (1878), and William James (1907). Pragmatism influences sensemaking specifically through Peirce’s (1878) adherence to collectively clarifying meaning. Both sensemaking and pragmatism rely on process-driven thinking and the acceptance that truth is an ongoing, socially negotiated construction, which means a social group takes action and arrives at a collective agreement that the action either works or does not work. This negotiation of belief is best summed up by Weick (1995) through his assertion that ‘sense may be in the eye of the beholder, but beholders vote and the majority rules’ (p. 6). In recording settings, any joint decoding of meaning shares a theoretical grounding with James' (1907) ‘cash-value’ proposition (p. 53): what Bacon (2012) describes as a utilitarian agreement that true belief is ‘a reliable habit of action, one which enables us successfully to pursue a course of action’ (p. 65). James (1907) argued that truth can be expedient and does
not have to be correct, it just needs to serve a utilitarian purpose. James drew criticism for this utilitarian thinking from contemporaries such as British logician Bertrand Russell in 1910 who suggested that ‘cash value’ was nothing more than wishful thinking (Burr, 2015). However, in the recording studio, producers and groups of artists often draw on this utilitarian approach to evaluate actions: Howlett describes such utilitarianism as ‘relying on the commonality of his sensibilities, his or her “feelings”, the reliability of which will be tested in the cultural marketplace’ (2009, p. 18). In the India 100 project, there are several complexities associated with redefining a classroom auditorium space into a workable recording facility. As a result, there are cases in which a plausible answer from a sensemaking process becomes a utilitarian truth, serving the purpose of driving action and achieving democratically agreed outcomes. When we make sense of complications or challenges during the recording process, a Peircean democratic adherence to communal decoding of complexity coupled with James’ cash-value approach are crucial tools. As such, the acceptance of an action depends on a social agreement that in turn serves a utilitarian purpose.
10.4.1 Sensemaking in the Recording Studio In the recording environment, I frame the producer as a member of a creative group engaging in minor and significant forms of sensemaking. This form of social discovery differs from individual cognition, addressing group decisions through the Peircean maxim that ‘knowledge is arrived at through collective inquiry’ (Bacon, 2012, p. 43). In the recording studio, less important sensemaking exercises become crucial to building collective decision-making, allowing group members to involve themselves in structural recording decisions. Pras and Gustavo (2011) situate the producer as a facilitator of this process, stating ‘the record producer’s responsibility to make trade-offs between technical constraints and musical aesthetics. To accommodate cultural specificities and aesthetic choices, record producers may want to listen to the music and discuss the process with the musicians prior to the recording’ (p. 75). Less consequential sensemaking exercises occur earlier in the recording process when the creative group negotiates the best use of recording space. Examples include minor discussions on microphone placement, guitar tone or selecting primary instruments to form the framework of the recording. These smaller sensemaking exercises indoctrinate musical groups into a collective decision-making
216 mindset that assists when more significant interruptions occur, as such interruptions result from a build-up of complexity that halts the creative process of the group, driving the group from a collective flow of experience into a state of retrospective analysis (Weick, 1995).
10.4.2 A Model of Sensemaking To better understand the sensemaking process in its practical form, it is helpful to build a sensemaking model of the active process. Rutledge (2009) takes the more explicit sensemaking properties to create a four-stage model for the analysis of sensemaking. The first step of this model is bracketing the issue that the social group is struggling to understand. Bracketing isolates the interruption that has taken the group out of the flow of experience and into a retrospective analytical frame of mind (Weick, 1995). This step isolates complexities and places them within the constructed environment (Allen, 2011). Once bracketing occurs, groups begin the process of mapping extracted cues such as phrases and single words that clarify and refine the isolated issue. The mapping process assists in clarifying and contextualising the bracketed issue (Rutledge, 2009). With the completion of mapping, the bracketed issue is contained and refined, the group can move to the next stage of sensemaking. The third stage is the establishment of plausible solutions to mitigate complexity and foster action. According to Brown et al. (2014), this step is ‘designed to reduce equivocality and to attribute plausible sense in ways which make the world seem stable and enduring is fundamental to human sociality’ (p. 273). Plausibility is the pragmatic key to sensemaking in the recording studio, it removes the necessity for absolute answers and motivates musicians towards action. The final stage in the model is action and review. Rutledge (2009) establishes action as an explicit component of this model in response to Weick's interactive duality of action and ongoing retrospective analysis (1995). Taking action on a plausible solution gives actors a concrete proposition to accept or reject using a cash-value utilitarian lens (James, 1907). If the action is rejected, the sensemaking process restarts with more mapping information. In recording practice, this model is useful for observing and analysing the complex mental models that producers and artists implicitly perform as a form of ritualised social meaning-making, as illustrated in Figure 25.
Figure 9.1. Simplified model of sensemaking using Rutledge’s (2009) four-stage model
10.5 METHODOLOGY
To understand how sensemaking occurs in the India 100 project, I take the methodological approach of participant observation and combine reflective writing with interview data and meeting transcriptions. As this research is attempting to understand the social nature of sensemaking, I proceed from Hammersly and Atkinson's (1983) proposal that we cannot study the social world without being part of it as an embedded participant. However, a multiplicity of participant viewpoints in this research offers the chance to create a more detailed picture of sensemaking phenomena in the recording setting. A variety of perspectives contributes to a relational negotiation between small groups of people within a sensibly framed creative production environment. McIntyre (2012) observes this creative production as a form of Bourdieuian reflexive interplay between agency and structure. This structured understanding of creative production fits within Weick's (1995) concept of a constructionist, sensible environment that builds abstract boundaries around process to inform decision-making. A methodological approach must consider data collection from a socially embedded perspective to aid in understanding the agency of production teams within a constructed environment. Graham et al. (2015) argue for an experiential approach to understanding recording scenarios, stating that ‘there is no part of it that can be fully understood other than through personal experience of the intense, collective burst of creativity’ (p. 15).
In examining different typologies of social interaction involved in this project, it is helpful to use a multimodal approach to the data collection. Alan (2011) argues that sensemaking is ontologically constructivist which leans towards a socially constructive, experiential-driven investigation such as participant observation. However, to formulate a deeper understanding of the social phenomena of sensemaking, it is necessary to collect different perspectives from interview data.
218 Flick (2018) argues for a constructivist formulation of multiple data viewpoints that reveal a deeper understanding of qualitative socially focused research. Ritchie and Lewis (2003) assert that a multifaceted approach to data collection allows for a more complete picture of the examined phenomenon. In the case of the India 100 project, the production team in India and Australia engage socially on multiple levels such as direct recording practice with the artists, Skype meetings and email conversations making it geographically impossible to rely on just one method of data collection. The aim of data collection in this project is to collect a ‘richness and diversity of the data found as well as emerging patterns of diverse opinions’ (Diefenbach, 2009, p. 892) with the intent to reveal more detail and conduct a thorough phenomenological examination through thematic analysis.
To capture as much data as possible, I used a several methods. First, I conducted semi-structured interviews with Brad at the beginning and the end of each recording day. The early morning recordings serve to establish the teams aims at the beginning of each day. Evening interviews serve to evaluate the production team’s efforts in solving creative challenges that arose during the previous recording day. I take these interviews during the recording process for later comparison with more reflective data. Second, I collected meeting data from Skype conversations conducted between the production team in Australia and India. These meetings occurred every morning before the recording sessions and included discussion of the Australian team’s progress in editing and evaluating. The discussions were reflexive in nature, with the Australian team acting as an advisory group who addressed any issues that had emerged in the recording. Third, I generated reflective notes that offered in-depth, reflexive narratives to add context to any revelations. Finally, I administered exit interviews with Brad—who was part of the Chennai production team—and James, who was a part of the Australian production team. These interviews aimed to broaden the scope of the reflective data and gain further insight into their impressions of the social and logistical challenges involved in the project. I then transcribed the interview data and examined the information for thematic patterns that related to the sensemaking process. During the analysis, two distinct sensemaking processes occurred, both of which offer new insights into sensemaking theory and the recording process.
10.6 FINDINGS
In the following section, I analyse the data from the India 100 project according to two central themes. First, I examine the elements of interactivity in small sensemaking decisions. This theme investigates the liquidity of sensemaking when three smaller sensemaking exercises combine and influence each other to create a macro-sensemaking event. Second, I examine an isolated sensemaking event that impacted the productivity on the initial day of tracking. In this example, I present a complex parallel sensemaking exercise that occurred when the India-based production team solved a multifaceted obstacle under the pressure of time-critical circumstances.
10.6.1 Interactive Sensemaking To establish the fluidity of sensemaking in a practical setting, I demonstrate three small sensemaking models that occurred during the setup for the recording. I argue that these three sensemaking models interact and influence one another. The result is the formation of an overarching macro-sensemaking exemplar that folds the three isolated models into a singular thematic phenomenon. The following statements are taken from an interview conducted after the conclusion of the project in Chennai. In this example, Brad reflects on the early power leakage concerns that impacted the quality of the audio recording during the transformation of the space. This discussion examines one of the initial bracketing of an issue.
Brad—Power in Australia is for the most part clean, constant and safe. Power in India is not safe as I have witness for two years now. After recording things in India versus Australia, you have to go through and clean up files, every single file that had a microphone and even Di boxes because of weird power interferences.
Brad—We worked in an auditorium that have a lot of low energy going on. Fans, and weird traffic noise and pigeons on the roof, big air conditioners, people walking through rooms and slamming doors with no regard to the fact that there was a vocal session happening.
The issue of power leakage and surrounding noise was of considerable concern for Brad and myself. In this discussion, Brad ‘brackets’ audio noise interference as a significant problem that will degrade the audio quality of the recordings and affect
220 the final outcome of the production. Once bracketing the noise issue, Brad begins experimenting with mapping phrases such as ‘low energy, interferences and traffic noise’. These mapping phrases serve to build a clear picture of the concerns we needed to address in the early stages of the recording. From the spectator position in Australia, James also brackets the issue of noise. In the following excerpt, James indicates that this noise interference is of particular concern in the vocal microphones. From the quiet laboratory conditions at QUT studios, James can identify the specific areas of concern that both Brad and I are unable to identify in the frenetic recording environment in Chennai.
Dan—Considering the place we were, listening in a kind analytical environment was not an option for us. James—Yeah, absolutely, I think it’s good here because we have the facilities. Big clean open rooms that I can really sit down and have a nice look at what you’ve done. I can imagine with the stress of everything going on there and a bit of a makeshift studio that you didn’t have that environment to really just hone-in and solo things out and listen to what you’ve captured. Dan—I know you picked up on some air conditioning issues that we couldn’t hear. We wouldn’t know because it was being drowned out by the air conditioner. James—Yeah, it was only in one of those main vocals, when it was something loud like a drum kit or a bass guitar it didn’t even phase me at all. It was really when it came to soloing out a vocal it was really quite apparent then. But, you know, nothing that can’t be edited out or fixed with RX. I didn’t know if that noise was a mistake or if that was as clean as it got.
The added perspective of James in Australia enabled us to refine our mapping phrases and target specific areas of concern. As a result, we were able to isolate and assess our concerns and then suggest a plausible action to deal with the noise issue. In the interview above James suggested a post-production approach using Izotope RX editing software to reduce noise in the audio. Brad and I already discussed that there was no possibility of reducing the environmental noise, so we collectively decided that using post-production editing software was a plausible method for dealing with the surrounding environmental noise. As a result, both Brad and I recorded noise profiles while we were tracking instruments. These noise profiles
were later used to reduce surrounding environmental noise in the recording. The following model presents the sensemaking process that enabled the group to mitigate audio degradation from external environmental noise.
Figure 9.2. Sensemaking model for noise management
Following the first sensemaking model described above, I address two other complexities that affect the design of the recording environment. These challenges involve developing a space to facilitate cultural conversations between artists and producers. In the subsequent reflection, I explain the geography of the room and how we negotiated the space. I also expand on the challenges associated with both the noise and communication considerations. At the time of designing the space, our intent was to produce a well-isolated recording, while fostering as much collective performance energy as possible, as represented in my journal reflections:
The space that we recorded in Chennai was not a treated audio facility. It was a large auditorium with a dead acoustic property similar to a cinema. There was a small side room that was not well isolated, a noisy air conditioner and thin walls that let in surrounding environmental noise. We also had to negotiate the constant traffic of artists entering the space due to the communal nature of the project and the enthusiasm of the artists that wanted to be involved with the recordings. The musicians we recorded all wanted to track live electric guitar, so we put the guitar amplifier into the semi-isolated room to reduce some of the electric guitar bleed. We tracked the majority of bands live to account for the lack of time and to capture the energy of the performers. The initial suggestion for the project was to set up the listening station in the isolated room so that the production team could hear the results without being in the noisy room. However, in the end we set up the recording station in the auditorium with the musicians so that we could communicate directly and reflexively with the performers rather than isolate the listening space. There was also plenty of enthusiasm coming from the Indian performers who were excited and keen to be involved as much as
222 possible. This level of excitement and engagement was a new experience for me, it was higher than my usual experience from Australian artists. Rather than dampen the enthusiasm to suit my normal working style, I opted to engage with it and place the recording team in the centre of the activity. This created the added bonus of clear sight lines between the producers and the musicians, giving us access to verbal and non-verbal forms of communication. We relied on closed headphones to listen to the recordings as they happened because communication was more important to us than isolating the recording station. To focus on vocal performances and reduce sound bleed we tracked vocals separately in a small isolation booth that we constructed from baffles near the recording station. The booth did not isolate very well but did provide an inspiring space for vocalists to track and communicate with the recording engineers. We set the drums up at the farthest end of the room in an attempt to use distance and the dead ambience of the space to isolate drums. Having made every effort to set the surrounding space up to minimise noise we then accepted that we would later edit any remaining noise out using Izotope RX. To account for the remaining noise, we made sure to record noise profiles so that we could remove noise in post-production (Daniel Pratt, Research Reflection, 5 December 2017).
In this reflection, I identify two small sensemaking exercises conducted by the production team. The initial priority was to facilitate communication with a new culture of performers in an unusual recording environment with very little time. The second priority was isolating as much potential noise and instrument leakage as possible. Having set these two priorities informed the decisions on setting up this environment for recording over the three allocated days. In this sense, we were setting our environmental boundaries and restricting our choices to guide decision- making (Weick, 1995). The first sensemaking exercise presented a technical post- production solution. However, the consideration of microphone noise leakage demanded a more physical resolution from the production team. In the reflection, I note that two instruments present a concern due to their volume. Loud instruments in the same room tend to leak sound into other microphones, embedding the direct sound with competing, generally undesirable reflected sound. The two instruments that present the largest difficulty are the drums and electric guitar. As a result, we bracketed these instruments for sensemaking. Following bracketing, the production
team used mapping phrases such as ‘isolation’ and ‘microphone bleed’ to identify the issues they must address. The plausible solutions for the next sensemaking model involved the isolation of the guitar amplifier using a separate room. The drums were then moved to the far end of the auditorium to take advantage of the dead atmosphere in the space. Once decided upon, these actions create a template for the recording setup with the drums at one end of the space and the recording station at the other, as illustrated in the following sensemaking model for the placement of loud instruments in the recording environment.
Figure 9.3. Two sensemaking exercises for the placement of loud instruments.
The final sensemaking model emphasises the importance of communication in a recording. In the reflection, I note that the recording station is deliberately placed in the recording space to enhance communication with the musicians. This placement enables the producers to operate as a part of a creative group rather than isolating themselves in the side room to improve their listening environment. Both Brad and I wanted to engage in a reflexive musical conversation with the performers (Easterby- Smith et al. 1999). We achieved this by prioritising an open, communicative environment over a more separatist approach of placing recording engineers in a different space. The removal of barriers between the Chennai performers and the Brisbane production team allowed for a free flow of ideas in a direct communication environment. Placing the production team in the recording space with the performers invites the whole group into the decision-making process and allows for the social negotiation of ideas as ‘individuals working together in a complex social system’ (Kazanjian, 2015, p. 288). This decision had two main benefits. First, it allowed for a more inclusive communication environment with an expanded form of verbal and
224 non-verbal communication. Second, it opened up the isolation room for the guitar amplifier. In this third sensemaking model, we ‘bracketed’ the recording station placement as a primary concern. The mapping phrases included communication (both verbal and non-verbal), and sight lines designed for performance interactivity. The plausible solution was to set up inside the recording auditorium and embed the production team with the musicians, as indicated in the following model of the sensemaking process involved in setting up the recording station.
Figure 9.4. Sensemaking model for the placement of the recording station.
In these three processes (isolated sensemaking, influential sensemaking, and parallel sensemaking), it is interesting to note the interactive nature of all the sensemaking models. For example, the decision to place the producers in the auditorium with the musicians meant that the small isolated room was now available for the guitar amplifier. The placement of the drum kit at the far end of the auditorium occurred because the recording station was at the other end of the auditorium. Each decision was considered within what Weick calls the ‘sensible environment’ within which we make decisions (Weick, 1995, pp. 30–38), and each decision involved negotiating the strengths and weaknesses of the recording environment, with the sensemaking models having a cumulative effect on the overall sensemaking process. In these three examples, there is an interactive network of sensemaking events that reflexively determine the priorities of the space. Weick (1995) explains sensemaking as an ongoing and constant process of cognitive looping, this means that previous models can influence future sensemaking processes. The outcome of these multiple processes is something that can be understood through William James’ utilitarian concepts, such that this recording setup satisfies the ‘cash-value’ of our recording purposes (1907, p. 53). In this case, the cash-value proposition of these sensemaking models was a professional sounding well-isolated recording that fostered an interactive live performance energy. Figure
29 below captures this interaction of sensemaking models and creates a macro view of the overall philosophy behind the ad hoc studio design:
Figure 9.5. Sensemaking processes interact and influence each other combine as an interactive macro design philosophy.
10.7 PARALLEL SENSEMAKING
The next identified theme involves a complex, parallel model of sensemaking that is unique to the time-limited nature of the India 100. In the following example, Brad and I are bracketing a synchronisation issue associated with the first day of drum tracking. Our analysis is confused because there are multiple reasons as to why the initial drum tracking resulted in some odd timing issues. The timing issue negatively affected the performance of the artists during tracking and as such it required bracketing. The following excerpt is from an interview between myself and Brad at the conclusion of the first day of recording in Chennai. In this first excerpt, we are attempting to decode the complex issues relating to the drum recordings. The interview offers a real-time embedded sensemaking exercise, with both myself and Brad bracketing a specific concern and attempting to map the parameters of the issue.
226 Dan—The drums were a little out, but I think there's some sort of a latency thing going on. Brad—A latency thing and he's not a drummer. Dan—The final session we had either latency issues or something was going wrong. Brad—It was a room issue multiplied by a latency issue, there was like a natural latency, and then there was just a conversion latency. Dan—It's an enormous room, and that's probably the first time I've worked in a room that size. Brad—And we had offshoots, and the roof is indifferent, yeah it’s (Brad rubs his eyes and shakes his head looking tired)
In this excerpt, Brad and I are exercising our ‘irritation of the doubt’ (Peirce, 1878, II). In his writing on pragmatic theory, Peirce argues that irritation of doubt occurs when competing meanings become entangled removing the ability to master meaning (1878, para 9). The resultant confusion takes us both out of the flow of experience and into an analytical frame of mind. Weick (1996) asserts that retrospective analysis involves stepping out of the experiential flow and looking back to assess what halted the flow. At this early-stage, we are bracketing a drum timing issue and experimenting with mapping phrases of ‘conversion latency’ and ‘room size’ to further clarify the interruption to flow. James confirmed this concern from his vantage point at the QUT studios in Australia. The following excerpt comes from an interview with James on the subject of drum timing in the first day recordings. James recalls his perspective on the issues with the drum recording. His spectator viewpoint serves to reinforce the problems that both Dan and Brad have discussed in the previous interview.
James—It seems like not even individual beats were behind, it felt like the entire thing was slightly out. Whether something—it can happen—whether an entire group of drums got shifted off the grid. It felt like, the drums if you listen to by themselves, they felt in time. However, to the rest of the song— and I think because that song had Ableton stems which were pre-recorded stems that were on grid exactly—it just felt like the whole thing was a little bit off-kilter. So, I don't know if that was due to latency, or something in your headphone monitoring or if it accidentally got nudged in editing and no one checked it before they finally sent it to me.
In this excerpt, James corroborates the issue with drum performance, reinforcing our initial concerns about the drum recording from his vantage point in a controlled listening environment. This identification of a problem serves to bracket the drum recording as an area requiring attention from all perspectives of the production group. The international nature of the bracketing is of particular interest as it serves to reinforce a concern already noted by Brad and myself, this time from a more objective viewpoint. James contributes more mapping phrases such as ‘headphone monitoring’ and ‘off-kilter’ allowing the production team to refine the bracketed issue further. To continue clarifying and mapping the drum timing issue I refer to my reflection notes below, as written on 15 December 2017. This reflection expands on the multiple environmental and recording factors that contributed to the problems with the drum recording, and I also offer some insight into the definition of latency, as well as some discussion of the meetings that we conducted on Skype. In this reflection, three possibilities are identified that could affect the performance of the drums in this recording.
In the initial tracking day, we encountered latency issues with recording drums through Universal Audio interfaces. Latency is a micro time delay that occurs between playing and recording music as a result of analogue to digital conversion. Brad and I had concerns with the drum issue as there was a lack of clarity in the cause of the issue. Our first meeting with James in Australia validated these concerns. James edited the drums in time to make sure that they did not hurt the recording. However, the problem was still a significant concern for us considering that the upcoming recordings relied more heavily on the drum performances. As a result, it was a priority for us to fix it on the second day before we started to track any session with a substantial drum contribution. The reason for the delay was complicated for us to determine because in the first recording day we did not have any professional drummers to test our theories. We developed three possibilities for the latency issue for us to work through. 1. Because the performers were not drummers, it was possible that they just can't play in time. 2. The drums were around 20 metres away from the listening station. The delay could be as a result of the distance causing diffusion of the drum recordings.
228 3. Something was happening with the plugins on our Universal Audio Apollo converter that caused latency. On the second day, we arrived in the studio early to make sense of the drumming latency issue. Since we had one hour before the bands arrived, we treated all three problems with equal concern rather than running through one at a time. The solutions that we applied were as follows: The first issue was no longer a problem as we tracked experienced drummers on the second and third day. The second concern was distance, so we moved the other players in the bands closer to the live drum kit so that they were able to feel the sound pressure of the drums and interact with the drums on a physical level. The third issue was possibly due to recording through several Universal Audio digital plugins that required extreme processing. We proposed that this could cause latency in the recording path. To solve this problem, we removed the plugins and replaced them with light processing plugins for tracking. This last point was a touch disappointing because we had spent a lot of time getting a great drum sound by taking full advantage of Universal Audio’s processing power. However, in our estimation, having a heavily processed drum sound was not as desirable as having great performances. We never actually found out what the most significant factor of the three caused problems on the first day. However, after these corrections, we had no tracking issues for the remaining recordings. The result was a smooth tracking experience regarding technical matters for the duration of the recording sessions (Daniel Pratt, Research Reflection, 10 December 2017).
In my reflection, I note that one environmental concern is the short timeline with which to complete the project. As a result, the team elects to conduct three plausible solutions in parallel rather than attempting and testing issues in series which consumes more time. Parallel sensemaking also presents a different approach to the interactive serial approach to sensemaking that occurred in the earlier example. As I identified in my reflection, there were three possibilities and limited time to solve the concerns relating to the issue of drum timing. The first concern was the drum performance, and it is fair to assume that a professional drummer negates the performance problems. The mapping phrases surrounding this issue were ‘timing and experience’. The plausible solution for this process was replacing amateur drummers with professional drummers. The second concern was the distance of the musicians
from the drums. Mapping words around this concern were ‘feel and grooving together’ The plausible answer, in this case, was to relocate the musicians closer to the drum kit to assist in physically feeling the groove of the drummer. The final concern was the plugins used in the Universal Audio recording device. Mapping phrases for this problem include ‘latency and processing’. The plausible solution was to remove highly taxing plugins and to replace them with less impressive but lower taxing plugins to reduce latency. The result of these three parallel processes was that the drum performance issue was solved. Throughout this process, there was no attempt to search for a ‘correct’ answer: rather, these sensemaking models all occurred in parallel and the process created the outcome, resulting in an issue-free drum recording. Below is a model of how this parallel sensemaking process occurred in this case.
Figure 9.6. Advanced parallel sensemaking process.
This example helps us to understand production teams as implicit sensemakers who approach complex recording issues with a utilitarian, outcome-focused, pragmatic approach. Furthermore, the parallel bracketing of problems across both Australian and Indian-based teams represents a convergence of opinions over the bracketed issue. The binary of embedded and spectator viewpoints presents a unique take on the bracketing process, offering a dual-lens approach to identifying production issues. The emerging element discovered in this research is that complicated parallel sensemaking processes were performed implicitly by the production team, with both myself and Brad's execution parallel sensemaking tasks emerging in large part due to the time restrictions of the project. This level of complexity presents an interesting model for sensemaking theory, breaking or
230 expanding the more linear or serial nature of sensemaking process and analysis that tends to define existing studies (Rutledge, 2009). The nature of parallel sensemaking processes also emerges through a pragmatic dedication to process over absolute answers. That is, in such a parallel process, there was no weight assigned to any one process in itself; rather all sensemaking processes were all tested at the same time after plausible solutions were completed. The practical outcomes served to satisfy the cash-value of the musical aims (James, 1907) and alleviated the contradiction of meaning (Peirce, 1878). This clarity of auditory meaning served to refocus the production team away from the distraction of drum timing and back into the flow of recording experience (Weick, 1995). As such, the complex nature of the problem, coupled with the limited time created the conditions from which I have identified an expanded understanding of how sensemaking processes can function.
Chapter 11: Conclusions
11.1 INTRODUCTION
I commenced this research to develop models of sensemaking that would be of benefit to the recording industry and apply these models in recording sessions. Specifically, I assumed that I could develop and transplant an unchanged analysis model based on Rutledge’s (2009) four stages of sensemaking. The intent was to impose them on the recording studio context and thus, create a better recording environment. In doing so, I aimed to bring organisational focus to the messy and often confusing process of recording groups of musicians. Looking back on these assumptions, I recognise that I sought to control a process that operates as a complex and organic form of organisation. Only paper 4 (TNF in Cloud-Based Recording) exhibited a form of sensemaking that resembled Rutledge’s four stages. This uniformity in the sensemaking process was primarily due to the separation of sensemaking meetings and creative sessions into discrete components of the process. Such an isolated division of intellectual meetings and creative recordings resulted in an orderly and compartmentalised sensemaking model that was not present in the other papers. Papers 4 and 5 operated in settings in which the sensemaking and musical creation materialised in real time without defined borders between intellectual and creative states. As a result, factors emerged in papers four and five that were not present in paper three, such as reduced timelines and vague borders between creation and sensemaking. These papers suggested new models of sensemaking that were less predictable. Such a discovery speaks to the adaptive nature of sensemaking and its ability to adapt to different environments, reinforcing Weick’s (2003) conclusion that sensemaking is contextually based with ‘muddy answers, and negotiated agreements that attempt to reduce confusion’ (p. 636).
Papers 1, 3, 4 and 5 offered two distinct classifications of recording-based sensemaking that generated situationally dependent models. The first form of sensemaking was musically driven, and it assisted in the negotiation of new ideas. Such a form of sensemaking relied on elongated cognitive looping between actions and retrospective analysis. Parts were recorded, analysed and refined using a duality
232 of action and retrospect. These loops represent a social form of testing and discarding of concepts in quick succession. This process continues until the songwriting team refine an idea and agree to move on. Such organic sensemaking was particularly evident in paper 3. During the recording, instrumental parts were determined in the studio through this testing and review process. The second form of sensemaking was more logistical in nature. This sensemaking was highlighted in paper 5 during the India 100 project. The production group in this project needed to make sense of an unsuitable production environment and used sensemaking to refine the design of the studio space. This logistically driven form of sensemaking generated complex and interactive models. I attribute these complex models to the time-critical nature of the sensemaking that occurred in India. The reduced timeline indicated that the group dispensed with longer cognitive loops in favour of faster parallel processes that generated multiple answers. The interesting aspect of this logistical form of sensemaking was that there was no clear answer during the drum recording sensemaking that occurred in paper 5. Instead, the issues were resolved and the root cause was never discovered. As such, the sensemaking processes served to remove the issue without needing to define it. This type of resolution is a feature of sensemaking which is more concerned with finding ways to resolve complex issues by participating in actions rather than being concerned with waiting for absolute answers.
In all the research, the bands finished their recordings in the appointed time. In each different experience, every facet of the recording studio operated as a sensemaking environment that adjusted according to the space, the participants and the aims of each project. As a result, each group and environment generated multiple sensemaking models that accounted for the differences between scenarios. As illustrated in Chapter 7, Baskervillain took their time writing parts and experimenting with ideas while OJ Mengel arrived with songs that they wanted to track quickly to retain the live energy of the performance. In each chapter of this thesis, the production process adapted itself according to the social group and the sensible environment (Weick, 1995). Any attempts to impose regulated organisation only served to hinder the explorative nature of recording studio work. This resistance to regulation demonstrates how recording studios can be complicated and messy organisational environments that manifest different models of sensemaking
according to the needs of each project. Thus, the natural state of a recording is one of constant and dynamic sensemaking, with groups refining ideas, writing music, negotiating the logistics of the space, and organising the sonic environment. Because of this, the unique setting of the recording studio and the contained nature of the small organisational group presented an environment that is new and valuable to sensemaking research.
11.1.1 Abandoned Sensemaking Sensemaking of musical ideas occurred throughout the writing and logistical organising of each project. However, there were examples of times when a consensus was not reached. For example, The Baskervillain session abandoned far more parts than they kept. They also spent a significant portion of time developing ideas that could be described as ‘experimenting for the sake of experimenting’. The consequence of this was the continual restarting of sensemaking or the continuation of cognitive looping and testing. Such an approach leads me to think that constant sensemaking for some bands could lead a recording session towards tangents that have the potential to hamper effective practice in the recording studio. This did not occur in the Baskervillain recording, but the drive to experiment and use the studio as a tool for working out ideas was not the most economical use of time for a young band. Sensemaking is a tool for dealing with invention and complexity, however, there may be a temptation to engage in sensemaking for sensemaking’s sake. Normally, this kind of extended cognitive looping would be better suited to the rehearsal studio with a portable recording device to record and review ideas.
In practice, the sensemaking model is intended to drive towards resolution, but, in musical and creative work there is a risk that extended sensemaking can negatively affect the flow of a project. There was an occasion during the OJ Mengel session in which the sensemaking process disrupted the flow of the recording. The example was the vocal microphone issue in Chapter 7. The problem in this session occurred when refined loops of sensemaking distracted from the more obvious and institutionalised solution of changing the microphone. Weick (1993) contends that sensemaking is designed to generate solutions from a confusing situation (p. 636). However, during the session, there was an extended sensemaking period surrounding the performance of the vocal. During the recording, there were several vocal microphones set up for
234 the vocal tracking which could have solved the issue. I contend that my research bias towards sensemaking needlessly complicated what was eventually a prosaic solution.
11.1.2 Sensemaking and Sensegiving Roles are Fluid In Maitlis’s (2005) investigation of four forms of organisational sensemaking, she frames meetings as an interaction between leaders and stakeholders. Having studied the literature, I approached my observations, my interviews with producers and my participation with a lens that a record producer fulfils a sensemaking role. However, there were times in the research when members of the group guided the sensemaking. According to Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991), titles such as sensemaker and sensegiver ‘complement or subsume other related descriptive metaphors, such as “visionary”, “teacher”’ (p. 446). A sensegiver is framed as a leader who operates as an active conductor to promote understanding and guide the sensemaking group (Maitlis, 2005, p. 35). However, having participated, discussed and observed these roles, I have adopted a more reflexive understanding that the producer operates as a facilitative sensemaker and occasionally guides sensemaking. In the experience from the multiple recordings I conducted, the role of sensegiver shifted between the group members so often that the title became redundant. Sometimes I was sensegiving as a producer, and sometimes a different member of the group was guiding the sensemaking. Maitlis (2005) argues that there are four forms of organisational sensemaking where leaders and stakeholders hold different levels of sensegiving. These forms are guided sensemaking, where leaders and stakeholders bith exert a high level of sensegiving. Restricted, where leaders offer high sensegiving and stakeholders have low sensegiving roles. Fragmented, where stakeholders are high level sensegivers and leaders offer low sensegiving roles. Minimal, where both parties have low levels of sensegiving. The record production field is capable of adjusting the type of sensemaking depending on the desired outcomes and the relationahip between the record producer and the artists. It is important to note that Maitlis (2005) argues that all sensemaking groups have a distribution of leaders and stakeholders, however, it is the level of sensegiving between the two parties that determines the type of sensemaking outcome (p. 33).
In my personal practice, such sensegiving practice was less of a single role and more a function of which member of the group possessed the necessary level of expertise. As such, the groups fit into Sawyers (2007) view that variation in types of
tacit experience serves to strengthen group decisions. This view of shared sensemaking leadership is likely a result of my selection of producers and emblematic of my production specialisation. As stated in the introduction, I deliberately sought out producers that displayed a more sensemaking approach as I was exploring a specific facilitative style of production. In further research, I intend to examine the role of more commercial and dictatorial styles of production to observe how more hierarchical organisational structures affect the recording process.
The role described by producers in the interviews came across as more of a facilitating and enabling sensemaker, as opposed to a more dictatorial definition. This was particularly evident in Lachlan Goold’s statement that ‘as much as possible I like to let them [ideas] happen. It’s easier when you got there, everyone can hear it and you can kind of go “I don’t think it’s working”’ (Lachlan Goold, personal communication, 2017). Goold presents the picture of a producer that could act in a more dictatorial role but chooses to hold back. Such an attitude susggests that Lachlan is willingly relinquishing power and waiting for the decision-making group to come to a decision. In the interview data I collected, this sentiment of allowing ideas to flow rather than guiding them was backed up by all of the producers. During this interaction, the producer is operating as a sensegiver who is willingly taking a back seat. This assertion is not to say that the producer has no power, it is to say that they choose to relinquish power and allow the group to come to their own realisations in a form of guided sensemaking (Maitlis, 2005).
The evidence from this group of producers supports Lefford’s (2015) assertion that a recording is a domain of shared resources ‘such as recording technology or a musical chart, the skills of the engineer or the acoustic properties of a live room in which they record’ (para 3). Such a viewpoint leaves room for the possibility that producers, songwriters, and performers all have agency in the recording process and that social negotiation drives the act of creation in the studio. In the interview research, producers unanimously identified as facilitators. Taking this identifying role, I define the record producer as a sensemaking facilitator. This role falls short of a sensegiver but does contribute significantly in a more passive manner to environmental conditions that I refer to as ‘constructed sonic environments’, as discussed in Chapter 6. These sonic environments serve to guide choices in a more passive manner than a sensegiver, who would actively guide decisions in a controlled
236 setting. Within the scope of this research, I claim that a facilitative sensemaking approach to production is well suited to working with musical groups as there is an emphasis on creative and collaborative goals and outcomes.
11.1.3 Guiding Micro and Macro-Sensemaking Sensemaking is a phenomenon that is both tacit and observable as well as a simple four-stage process that can be implemented to decode complexity. In this research, sensemaking was observable on a macro level—such as dramatic musical changes—or on a more micro level, such as the looping of ideas to refine a small part. Rutledge (2009) asserts that sensemaking is a vital tool for working with complexity across macro and micro levels (p. 19). As such, I contend that producers can learn to recognise the signs of sensemaking. Once a sensemaking condition is identified, a producer can guide the four active stages of sensemaking until the process completes. This view fits with the facilitative role of the record producer; it is a pattern that I recognised several times during my research. For example, chapter 7 focused on guided extended cognitive loops that presented as prominent sensemaking models. During this time, I encouraged the trial of plausible solutions which allowed the band to keep looping through ideas until they reached a consensus. In this case, encouraging sensemaking allowed the musicians to trial various plausible ideas and eventually agree on a path forward. A different approach would have been to act as a sensegiver, heavily directing the band to speed the process up. This sensegiving approach was rejected during an interview featured in paper two: ‘When I work with my engineer—who has been the same person for a long time—I encourage input and leave them with a lot of creative decisions as well. I think that’s just how collaborations get good.’ (Valgeir Sigurðsson, personal communication, 2017). Letting ideas happen gives musicians and engineers agency to work through possibilities that may not occur to producers, it is a more sensemaking approach that leaves both the group to new possibilities. In this example, the band would not have benefited from a sensegiving approach. Therefore, recognising and guiding the songwriting as a sensemaking facilitator resulted in a consensus between both the band and the producer. This type of leadership in a recording scenario reflects Maitlis (2005) fragmented organisational sensemaking where the leader briefly relinquishes their sensegiving role to the stakeholders to allow for unexpected outcomes.
Sensemaking is not limited to significant change or monumental decisions. After reviewing the session transcripts, I noticed that I missed the smaller cognitive loops of plausibility and action that had a determinative effect on the formation of ideas. It is this second, less obvious process of sensemaking that had a more cumulative impact on the creation of meaning-making in the recording studio. Such observations lead me towards Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld’s (2011) statement that ‘sensemaking is not a technique to be learned but more a phenomenon to be studied’ (p. 17). My research initially pointed to the more determinative view of sensemaking during significant halts to creativity and reflected Rutledge’s framing of sensemaking as a tool. However, my investigation also acknowledges that sensemaking can occur on a micro level that often went unnoticed requiring further investigation. These micro-sensemaking occurrences are only revealed during later scrutiny of transcripts, and they display a significant impact on the creation and recording of music.
11.2 THREE UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES
During the recording sessions, I recognised the adaptable nature of sensemaking and surprising models that arose in the data. For example, the extended interactive duality between plausible actions and retrospective analysis is covered in the sensemaking literature (Nijhof, 2006; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2014; Weick, 1995), but the way that behaved in a musical environment presents an extended form of sensemaking; one that interacts with environmental and abstract musical cues. Such a looping model does not yet occur in any traditional sensemaking literature and presents a new interpretation sensemaking as a songwriting tool. In this next section, I discuss three surprising outcomes unique to researching the producer.
11.2.1 Producers Interact Extensively with the Environment. The first outcome of this research that presented surprise was the emphasis that the producers placed on accommodating artists above other considerations. However, producers did have firm control on the passive environmental boundaries that inform the choices of performers. This level of control allows producers to make subversive negotiations through the constructed environments that are a passive manipulation of sensemaking to elicit a change in performance. I frame this as a form of mild deception that functions at a background, sensegiving level. As such, I assert that producers are in a nexus position when it comes to shaping the physical and
238 constructed environment for a recording. An example of this is producer Darek Mudgee’s use of technical elements to manipulate the sonic environment and influence the timing of the musical group.
I find that a singer guitarist in a band will be the driving force in a band. So, their guitar will always be ahead of the beat. Although they always want to hear the drummer, I try to put click track into the headphones as well. Then I say, “oh sorry, I can’t take that out, it’s in the same send”. I can, but it’s a white lie that makes it work (Darek Mudgee, personal communication, 2017).
This subtle deception is an example of how a producer influences the choices made by a group of musicians. Such an influence manifests through the control record producers have over the environment. Maitlis argues that leaders – such as producers – and stakeholders – such as artists – operate within four forms of organisational sensemaking, the control over the environment places the producer as a high level sensegiver using passive tools to influence the outcome of a recording. This control is the one example in which producers can guide the sensemaking in a recording process in a way that is invisible to the artist. Maitlis (2005) frames this form of manipulation as minimal organisational sensemaking with less influence from sensegivers (p. 32). Such control over the environment warrants further investigation but also presents ethical concerns surrounding the use of mild deception to manipulate the responses of participants. Despite this potential for abuse, all the producers used the environment to help the artist achieve their goals, and this authority was never abused. There was a dedication to the mood and inspiration of the artist with all the producers that superseded anything more than mild and encouraging environmental assistance.
11.2.2 Sensemaking Models Adapt to the Environment During the duration of my investigation, one of the constant surprises was the many ways in which participants adapted to the situation through various forms of sensemaking. In my initial experiments, I was concerned that I was producing the same results, but as I transplanted the conditions of the recordings, the sensemaking model altered. I discovered that the level of complexity of the recording situation influenced the level of complexity displayed in the generated sensemaking models. Of particular interest were the parallel and interactive models of sensemaking
generated in chapter 9 during the India 100 project. These models occurred as a direct result of time constraints, with the production team enacting complex parallel sensemaking models. As there is only a small body of evidence to support this claim so far, I intend to continue to research how participants react to working under time pressure in recording sessions. This extended research will help to better understand what a recording team is capable of when the demands of time constraints change the cognitive response of the sensemaking group.
11.2.3 The Difference in Approach Between Studios in Paper 3 The following section is a series of observations on approach and recording environment. These questions arose when I was recording the bands that featured in my third paper, and they highlight possible limitations that recording space put on the groups who enacted recordings at both QUT and my tracking facility at BBC. During the early phases of this research, I had to accommodate for the lack of facilities at QUT. This delay occurred because the construction of the Z9 building took longer than expected. Because of this delay, I had to relocate half of the bands into my facility at BBC. Both studios had the expanded functionality that enabled the bands to track their recordings in a live studio environment, and both studios operated with recording consoles and extensive outboard equipment, as well as isolated, acoustically treated rooms. However, the different environments may have led to different approaches. This was an unintentional consequence that occurred, and it could be attributable to the differences in space.
In these sessions, I observed that the two bands who conducted their recording at my private facility tended to opt for a more experimental approach. Both groups took more time investigating their songwriting and arrangement in the recording studio, and both groups displayed far more examples of extended cognitive looping between plausibility and retrospective analysis. Conversely, in the QUT studio setting, both OJ Mengel and Sacred Shrines arrived with an ambitious set of goals for recording multiple songs in the same timeframe as the bands in my private facility. It is possible that the appearance of the space may have played a role in the ambitions of the bands and their approach. As stated earlier, there was no discernible difference in functionality between the studio spaces. These differing approaches according to environment lead me to questions over the influence of the space on the approaches to recording experimentation. This discovery confirms Goold’s (2018) assertion that
240 smaller studio spaces present as more ‘relaxed, comfortable, informal and less time- pressured, thus enabling more creativity and time for experimentation’ (p. 176). I frame this difference as an enacted sensible environment (Weick, 1995) that guides and informs creative decisions. Despite the similar functionality, the two spaces presented two starkly different environments and influenced the choices that the musicians made. The sensemaking in the different environments occurred as an interaction between the microdomain (recording studio), and microfield (the small recording group), and individual musicians. Sensemaking was affected and altered through a reflexive interaction between groups of musicians operating in different microdomains in the scaled systems model of creativity (Thompson 2016). This leads me to consider further research into the interactivity of sensemaking and the systems model of creativity developed by Csikszentmihalyi (1988) and further explored by McIntyre (2008, 2011, 2012). Considering the constructionist roots that both Weick’s (1996) sensemaking and Csikszentmihalyi’s (1988) systems model share, is scope for the two theories to intersect. In future work I intend to examine how sensemaking occurs using Thompson’s (2016) scaled approach to the microdomain and microfield.
11.3 SENSEMAKING IN EDUCATION
In the introduction, I emphasised my career as an educator, and I intend to conduct future sensemaking research in high school environments. Having worked extensively with sensemaking as a tool in my research, I have observed how sensemaking assists in removing tension during group negotiation. This reinforces my initial claim that high school students may become better communicators through the collective negotiation they enact during songwriting. I intend to conduct future research to consider pedagogical models of musical sensemaking in high schools. Of particular interest is the cognitive looping associated with sensemaking that operates in a similar mode to Dewey’s (2002) model of experiential learning. Tovstiga et al. (2004) frame Dewey’s looping model as a ‘dialectic process that integrates experience, concepts, observations, and action’ (p. 3). This approach is similar to Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld’s (2005) framing sensemaking as a dialectic process of plausibility and retrospect. Using this cognitive looping model, Carter and Colville (2003) propose that this sensemaking dialectic is a useful tool for organisational learning, I propose that sensemaking is an appropriate learning tool for musically
focused pedagogy in high schools. A focus on sensemaking research assists schools to prepare students for a world that is undergoing significant change through digital disruption, while also generating learning models for effective social communication.
Sensemaking theory offers a new lens to existing research on cooperative learning. Gillies (2008) states that there is a ‘need to ensure that teachers are trained in how to establish cooperative learning activities in their curricula’ (p. 344). Such spaces allow for a more democratic form of discovery-based learning in a social learning setting. Alsup (2003) argues for such a democratic approach in order for students to discover their musical identity through cooperative learning (p. 35). A cooperative learning approach would benefit from a sensemaking lens to understand the relational aspects of sensemaking in educational environments. As such, I see sensemaking as a new tool that enhances my work as an educator, and offers students the tools to understand and negotiate the unexpected (Weick, 2003) without the institutional paralysis that occurs from learning in hierarchical systems. Communication skills and sensemaking offers students a methodology for understanding the changing environment, and their place as future leaders and creative, collaborative, pragmatic adults. As such, I propose that understanding sensemaking as a vital tool for developing future collaborative thinking.
11.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH
11.4.1 Methodological Limitations In this final section, I acknowledge that I encountered limitations conducting qualitative research in the recording environment. Despite my efforts to collect data in a systematic manner, recording studios are often ‘messy’ environments. As a result of the messy nature of the research, I encountered difficulties identifying patterns in the data which was frequently punctuated by the loud noises of the recording environment. As well as the surrounding ambient noise that occurs during recording sessions, musicians are often distracted midway through a thought process. As a result, some sensemaking models begin in the recording environment, but never end. Also, there are large sections of transcripts that are unusable because they are conversations about the social life of musicians outside of the recording process, and have limited bearing on the research. If I were to approach this again, I would not transcribe the entire fourteen days of studio conversations. Rather, I would
242 selectively transcribe conversations that were relevant to the sensemaking process. In addition to the unintelligible studio recordings, there were a few occasions when my Skype recorder did not record audio, resulting in the minor loss of data that I would have preferred to analyse. These issues highlight some of the shortcomings of the methods. The recording space is a messy environment with multiple distracting factors that is not an ideal laboratory for controlled research. However, I discovered early in the research that controlled environments do not create interesting outcomes, so in the end, my research is caught in a paradox of reduced vigour and more compelling findings, or more control producing postentially less engaging results.
11.4.2 Pragmatic Limitations At the completion of the data collection, there were 14 days of transcribed conversations from recording sessions, five hour-long transcribed interviews, 12 transcribed meetings, six video interviews conducted in India, and two exit interviews from the India 100 project. The sporadic nature of the conversations in the recording sessions meant that a significant portion of the transcription data—taken in the recording sessions—was unnecessary. However, the larger pool of data from this research allowed me to develop new strategies for future research, and I intend to be more targeted in my data collection and more selective with my transcriptions. For example, I intend to use less invasive CCTV cameras with timestamping technology so that I can identify specific conversations in real time for further investigation.
Much of this messiness in data collection and transcription occurred due to practical obstacles that occured because recording studios are designed for recording music, not capturing data. Unlike any other participant in the room, a producer is continuously involved in the recording process and has no time to pull back and consider the research implications of a specific conversation. However, this messiness is also a positive reflection of the energy of the creative process in the studio. It coincides with Cassell and Symon’s (2004) claim that ‘there is no textbook answer to what is a dynamic process’ (p. 58). In the end, I consider Goold's (2018) statement that ‘social interactions were an essential part of achieving a successful recording’ p. 176). Therefore, to study social interaction, it is necessary to exist in social spaces that are less suited to collecting data.
The video footage allowed me to return and reflect on the recording sessions as I transcribed the conversations. They also allowed me to view myself through a
different lens which was a confronting experience that has led me to evaluate my recording approach. The transcriptions proved the most valuable data in the end as they revealed patterns that I could not have noticed during the recording. Thompson and Lashua (2014) refer to video capture as a rich and repeatable source of data that presents ‘significant advantages in coming to grips with the often-frenetic swirl of activity in music recording studios’ (p. 748). However, because the transcription occurred after all of the recordings were completed, there was a significant amount of duplication and repetition that could have been avoided.
11.5 FURTHER RESEARCH
Each of the five papers that I conducted warrant further investigation, with some of these investigations underway. In the first paper, both Dr Andrew Bourbon and I concluded that our methods of visualising and interpreting phase presented opportunities to record complicated multi-microphone setups with unusual configurations and in strange spaces. As a result, we have presented a follow-up paper at the 2018 ARP conference in Huddersfield.
The second paper also warrants further investigation. It is beneficial that all of these producer interviews are captured on video. However, these interviews create more questions than they answer. This leaves me with the prospect of repackaging these interviews into a documentary series observing how producers facilitate environments for artists. As such, it is my intention to re-interview these producers and produce higher quality documentary footage of the producers in action to demonstrate communicational techniques. A more expansive collection of interviews would serve to create a richer data set that also includes producers of different genders and nationalities to create a more holistic view of the producer as sensemaker. The current collection of producer interviews is enough to begin a series of record production documentaries that investigate multiple producers and artists in different cultural and social settings.
For the fourth paper, both Wellington Gordon and Dr Shane Hoose will be presenting a follow-up investigation for our transnational flow concept. Our initial experiments with a networked recording system were conducted over an extended period. The next stage of our research deliberately places time constraints on our work, imposing a non-stop twenty-four-hour workflow on our songwriting practice.
244 The new paradigm takes advantage of the differing time-zones to create a new recording method using a distributed non-stop creative network of musicians and producers. So far, there are now three follow up papers to this experiment. The first is a constricted sensemaking timeline, the second paper examines the addition of a new producer and researcher. The third paper is an experiment where all of the musicians meet in a physical recording studio to critique whether recording transnationally solves or creates problems in recording process.
Finally, I am returning to India to repeat the India 100 project on a yearly basis. However, in following projects Dr Kelman and I will be arriving with a cohort of students who will be participating in both the recording project and following the combined performance. I am excited to see how I can generate research and make sense of the apparent chaos that will occur in this next India project. The first paper produced from the India 100 focused more on the logistical complexities that required unique models of sensemaking. However, there is still a significant pool of data that deals with the social and cultural creation of music as it relates to sensemaking. There are several artists that I have recorded on multiple occasions, and there are several examples of musical styles and approaches that both employ and reject sensemaking. Since beginning the project, I have returned to India and experienced recording sessions that represent both the successes of sensemaking and group flow, as well as the complete collapse of sensemaking which resulted in an abandoned recording. The continued research has already provided new insights into sensemaking research such as: How do artists respond to sensemaking in the recording studio? How does sensemaking collapse in a pressured recording setting? How does sensemaking assist in the meeting of Western production approaches with contrasting cultural contexts in India?
The India 100 project is a developing and dynamic transnational collaboration between QUT and KMC. As such, it is subject to ongoing reassessment, which is an ongoing process that is an explicit property of sensemaking (Weick, 1995). Because of this development, the production team continue to explore how to improve on the organisational processes for the next iteration, with the Australian and Indian production teams beginning open-ended sensemaking processes to detangle communication issues that occurred during the project. Using sensemaking we intend to put a more thorough system in place to manage the Australia to India
communication aspects of the project. In the next India 100, there will be a substantial student body added to the growing collaborative team. This means that the India 100 is expanding into a more elaborate undertaking and will require further sensemaking to continually negotiate the complexities of such a project. As stated by Weick (1995), ‘in the end the effects of action cannot be predicted: The dynamic nature of social conduct precludes accurate prediction’ (p. 44). Finally, this paper focused on the logistical and technical complications that the production team clarified to facilitate creative invention. During the next India 100 project there is an opportunity to explore artist–producer relationships in the project using a further critical and cultural interpretation, including an investigation of how different cultural perspectives contribute to and are represented through different styles and forms of communication.
11.6 CONCLUSIONS
In my research on the record producer as a sensemaker, I have argued that producers exist in an ongoing state of sensemaking (Pratt et al. 2018). That previous research draws attention to the serial nature of sensemaking through the examination of group cognition and the social negotiation of songwriting and record production. However, my previous research was situated in more controlled environments and tended to align with the four stages of sensemaking designed by Rutledge (2009). This type of sensemaking evaluation does make sense when applied to specific decisions as they arise in clearly isolated incidents. For example, the well-equipped setting of a high-end recording studio may present fewer opportunities for sensemaking, resulting in a more orderly progression of sensemaking processes. The intent of studying sensemaking in a complex and unfamiliar environment with an internationally distributed team was to examine how record producers work as natural problem solvers, and to understand how such complex structures through an organisational lens. For the project in Chennai, there were complex negotiations of space, cultural communication and noise management that required rapid resolution in an unfamiliar environment. In response to the challenges in this environment, the production team engaged in new sensemaking processes and nuanced models of social and cognitive process. The cultural exchange between QUT and KMC
246 presented an opportunity to examine the social navigation of complexity in a condensed creative setting, similar to the accelerated Indie 100 project discussed by Graham et al. (2015). This setting forced the sensemaking process to proceed and transform in surprising ways, revealing what I have identified as interactive and parallel sensemaking. The consequence of these sensemaking processes was a socially constructed environment that fostered creativity and reflexive cultural communication. Using new sensemaking approaches, the production team minimised the potential for technical obstructions, thus allowing ideas to flow without interruption. The parallel sensemaking process presents a particularly relevant model, given that a multiplicity of possible solutions is something that may also occur in other recording environments such as computer latency, plugin phase alignment issues or space management. In this case, ‘the elapsed experience appears to be equivocal, not because it makes no sense at all, but because it makes many different kinds of sense’ (Weick, 1995, p. 27). This parallel thought process is a familiar method for record producers. A producer often engages in parallel mixing techniques such as mixing unprocessed recording with processed recording to achieve creative results (Golding, 2010, Izhaki, 2012, Kirby, 2015). Howlett (2009) highlights the parallel relationships that a producer conducts when operating as a nexus between music recording technology, music business structure and artists. I argue that this parallel mindset presents a striking sensemaking model that occurs as a pragmatic, action-driven approach to implementing multiple solutions when there is limited time to conduct several sensemaking exercises in series.
11.7 FINAL THOUGHT
Music creation offers a significant opportunity to better understand sensemaking. There are many facets of musical study that present potential for further investigative sensemaking. For example, musical performance, facilitation, production, songwriting, and music business are under-investigated aspects of music creation as sensemaking scenarios and present potential further case studies that could bring more music-making into the organisational scholarly community. Throughout multiple investigations in this thesis, sensemaking has displayed remarkable adaptability through its process-based focus and its response to the environmental constructions that dictated recordings. As such, sensemaking offers a lens with which to examine new models of creative practice and music-making to
create socially organised toolkits for working within the significant complexities of the contemporary music recording studio.
248
References
Alsup, R. E. (2003). Mutual Learning and Democratic Action in Instrumental Music Education. Journal of Research in Musical Education, 51(1), 24–37. Anand, N., & Peterson, R. A. (2000). When Market Information Constitutes Fields: Sensemaking of Markets in the Commercial Music Industry. Organization Science, 11(3), 270–284. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.3.270.12502
Allen, R., 2011. How could knowledge of sensemaking during organizational change contribute to the investigation of how sense is made of organizational perfomance. Cranfield University.
Aronson, J. (1995). A Pragmatic View of Thematic Analysis. The Qualitative Report, 2(1), 1–3. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781446214565.n17
Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participant observation. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bacon, M. (2012). Pragmatism an Introduction (1st ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Barrett, F. J. (1998). Coda--Creativity and Improvisation in Jazz and Organizations: Implications for Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 9(5), 605–622. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.5.605
Bartlett, B. (2017). Practical Recording Techniques (7th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Bates, E. (2012). The Social Life of Musical Instruments. Ethnomusicology, 56(3), 363–395. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/ethnomusicology.56.3.0363
249 Battleson, D. A., & Ramesh, B. (2013). Sensemaking in Enterprise Resource Planning Project Deescalation: An Empirical Study. SSRN Working Paper Series. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2327659
Beaulieu, A. (2004). Mediating ethnography: objectivity and the making of ethnographies of the internet. Social Epistemology, 18(2–3), 139–163. http://doi.org/10.1080/0269172042000249264
Becker, H. S. (1996). The epistemology of qualitative research. Ethnography and Human Development: Context and Meaning in Social Inquiry, 53–71. http://doi.org/10.1080/19398440903192357
Beer, D. (2013). The precarious double life of the recording engineer. Journal for Cultural Research, (July 2015). http://doi.org/10.1080/14797585.2013.826444
Beinhorn, M. (2013). Michael Beinhorn Fires Drummers—Part 2; Authenticity vs Vision. Retrieved April 3, 2015, from http://michaelbeinhorn.com/
Bennis, W. G., & Biederman, P. W. (1997). Organizing genius: the secrets of creative collaboration. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Bertrand, C. & Bourdeau, L. (2010). Research interviews by Skype: A new data collection method. In J. Esteves (Ed.), Proceedings from the 9th European Conference on Research Methods. (pp 70-79). Spain: IE Business School.
Boden, M. a. (2004). The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms (Second Edi). London: Routledge.
Boylan, E. L. (2016). The Big Reveal is Dead. Long Live Collaboration. Retrieved May 30, 2016, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/big-reveal-dead-long-live- collaboration-emily-lonigro-boylan
Bratich, J. (2018). Observation in a Surveilled World. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed., pp. 942– 980). London: Sage Publications.
Brown, a. D., Colville, I., & Pye, A. (2014). Making Sense of Sensemaking in Organization Studies. Organization Studies, 36(2), 265–277. http://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614559259
250 References Brown, J. (2009). Rick Rubin In The Studio. Toronto: ECW Press.
Brown, M. J. (2015). John Dewey’s pragmatist alternative to the belief-acceptance dichotomy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 53, 62–70. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.05.012
Burgess, R. J. (2013). The art of music production: the theory and practice. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Burr, V. (2015). Social Constructionism. Hoboken: Routledge Ltd. http://doi.org/10.4324/9781315715421
Buskin, R. (2003). Sam Phillips: Sun Records The Man Who Invented Rick & Roll. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct03/articles/samphillips.htm
Campelo, I., & Howlett, M. (2013). The ‘ virtual ‘ producer in the recording studio : media networks in long distance peripheral performances. Journal on the Art of Record Production, (Issue 8).
Carter, M., & Colville, I. (2003). on Leading, Learning and Organizational Change: A Sensemaking Perspective. Organizational Learning and Knowledge, 5th International Conference, 1–20.
Carvalho, A. T. De. (2012). The Discourse Of Home Recording: Authority Of ‘Pros’ And The Sovereignty Of The Big Studios. Journal on the Art of Record Production, (Issue 7). Retrieved from http://arpjournal.com/the-discourse-of- home-recording-authority-of-’pros’-and-the-sovereignty-of-the-big-studios/
Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2004). Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand Oaks; London: SAGE Publications. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781446280119
Chapman, D. S., & Rowe, P. M. (2001). The impact of videoconference technology, interview structure, and interviewer gender on interviewer evaluations in the employment interview: A field experiment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 4, 279–298.
References 251 Clarke, P. (2016). ’ A Magic Science ’: Rock Music as a Recording Art Author ( s ): Paul Clarke Source : Popular Music, Vol. 3, Producers and Markets ( 1983 ), pp. 195-213 Published by : Cambridge University Press Stable URL : http://www.jstor.org/stable/853100 ’ A magi, 3(1983), 195–213.
Cleveland, B. (2014). British Recording Iconoclast Joe Meek Heard a New World. Retrieved March 23, 2015, from http://www.emusician.com/interviews/1379/british-recording-iconoclast-joe- meek-heard-a-new-world/46154
Cobos, M., Lopez, J. J., Navarro, J. M., & Ramos, G. (2013). Subjective quality assessment of multichannel audio accompanied with video in representative broadcasting genres. Multimedia Systems, 21(4), 363–379. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00530-013-0340-2
Cole, S. J. (2011). The prosumer and the project studio: The battle for distinction in the field of music recording. Sociology, 45(3), 447–463. http://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511399627
Coppinger, R. (2012). Phase: Timing Difference or Polarity? Retrieved from https://theproaudiofiles.com/phase/
Corbett, I. (2015). Mic It. Massachusetts: Focal Press.
Corley, K., & Gioia, D. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.55662499
Coxx, A. (n.d.). The 5 Best Methods for Recording on Location. Retrieved from https://www.audio-issues.com/live-sound-tips/recording-on-location/
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience (1st Ed). New York: Harper and Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers.
252 References Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2004). Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi: Flow, the secret to happiness. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/mihaly_csikszentmihalyi_on_flow?language=en
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). The Systems Model of Creativity. The Nature of Creativity, 325–339. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9085-7
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The Systems Model of Creativity. The Collected Works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. The Nature of Creativity. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9085-7
Dahler-Larsen, P. (2018). Qualitative Evaluation: Methods, Ethics, and Politics with Stakeholders. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed., pp. 1539–1578). London.
Daniel Clinch. (2011). Phase Correction System Using Delay, Phase Invert and an All-pass Filter, (May).
Deakin, H., & Wakefield, K. (2014). Skype interviewing: reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research, 14(5), 603–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113488126
Deleuze, G. (2006). Nietzsche and philosophy. European perspectives. http://doi.org/10.2307/1772274
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Dervin, B. (1998). Sense-making theory and practice: an overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), 36–46. http://doi.org/10.1108/13673279810249369
Dewey, J. (2004). Reconstruction in Philosophy. New York: Dover Publications.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. The Problem of Training Thought, 14. http://doi.org/10.1037/10903-000
Dewey, J. (1998). Pragmatism, Education, Deocracy. (L. A. Hickman & T. M. Alexander, Eds.) (Vol. 1). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
References 253 Diefenbach, T. (2009). Are case studies more than sophisticated storytelling?: Methodological problems of qualitative empirical research mainly based on semi-structured interviews. Quality and Quantity, 43(6), 875–894. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-008-9164-0
Easterby-Smith, M., & Malina, D. (1999). Cross-cultural collaborative research: Toward reflexivity. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 76–86. http://doi.org/10.2307/256875
Elkjaer, B., & Simpson, B. (2011). Pragmatism: A lived and living philosophy. What can it offer to contemporary organization theory? Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Vol. 32). Emerald. http://doi.org/10.1108/S0733- 558X(2011)0000032005
Everest, F. A. (2007). Critical listening skills for audio professionals.
Farjoun, M., Ansell, C., & Boin, A. (2015). Pragmatism in Organization Studies: Meeting the Challenges of a Dynamic and Complex World. Organization Science, 26(6), 1787–1804. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1016
Feldman, M. S., Bell, J., & Berger, M. T. (2003). Gaining Access: A Practical and Theoretical Guide for Qualitative Researchers. Oxford: Altamira Press.
Flick, U. (2014). Mapping the Field. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, 3–18. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.n1
Flick, U. (2018). Triangulation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed., pp. 796–824). London: Sage Publications.
Frith, S., & Zagorski-Thomas, S. (2015). Art of Record Production: An Introductory Reader for a New Academic Field. Burlington, VT; Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.
Gelo, O., Braakmann, D., & Benetka, G. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative research: beyond the debate. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 42, 266–290. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-008-9078-3
254 References Gioia, D., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(February), 433–448. http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120604
Gillies, R. M. (2008). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students’ behaviours, discourse and learning during a science-based learning activity. School Psychology International, 29(3), 328–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034308093673
Golden, B. R. (1992). The past is the past -- or is it? The use of retrospecitve accounts as indicators of strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 848–860.
Goldhaber, G. M. (1990). Organizational communication (Vol. 5th). Dubuque
Goold, L. (2018). Space, Time, Creativity, and the Changing Character of the Recording Studio: Spaciotemporal Attitudes Toward ‘DIY’ Recording. Queensland University of Technology.
Gould, G. (2004). the Prospects of Recording. In Audio Culture: Readings in Modern Music (2nd ed., pp. 115–126). New York: Bloomsbury.
Graham, P., Dezuanni, M., Arthurs, A., & Hearn, G. (2015). A Deweyan Experience Economy for Higher Education: The Case of the Australian Indie 100 Music Event. Cultural Politics an International Journal, 11(1), 111–125. http://doi.org/10.1215/17432197-2842457
Hall, S., & Gay, P. Du. (1996). Questions of Cultural Identity (Vol. 48). London: Sage Publications. http://doi.org/10.2307/591920
Harper, M. (2014). Producer Joe Chiccarelli Isn’t Just a Legend, He’s Also the Unlikely Connection Between Morrissey, U2, and Oxbow. Retrieved April 9, 2015, from http://noisey.vice.com/blog/producer-joe-chiccarelli-isnt-just-a- legend-hes-also-the-connection-between-morrissey-u2-and-oxbow
Harrell, M., & Bradley, M. (2009). Data Collection Methods. Semi Structured Interviews and Focus Groups. http://doi.org/978-0-8330-4889-9
References 255 Haseman, B., & Mafe, D. (2009). Acquiring Know-How: Research Training for Practice-led Researchers. Practice-Led Research, Research-Led Practice in the Creative Arts, 211–228.
Hatch, M. J. (1999). Exploring the Empty Spaces of Organizing: How Improvisational Jazz Helps Redescribe Organizational Structure. Organization Studies, 20(1), 75–100. http://doi.org/10.1177/0170840699201004
Hatch, M. J., & Weick, K. E. (1998). Critics’ Corner--Critical Resistance to the Jazz Metaphor. Organization Science, 9(5), 600–604. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.5.600
Hepworth-Sawyer, R., & Golding, C. (2010). What is music production?: a producer’s guide : the role, the people, the process. Burlington, MA: Focal Press.
Hickman, L. A., Neubert, S., & Reich, K. (2009). John Dewey between pragmatism and constructivism. New York: Fordham University Press.
Hirschberg, L. (2007). The Music Man. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/magazine/02rubin.t.html?_r=0
Homer, M. (2009). Beyond the Studio: The Impact of Home Recording Technologies on Music Creation and Consumption. Nebula, (6.3), 85–100.
Horning, S. S. (2004). Engineering the Performance: Recording Engineers, Tacit Knowledge and the Art of Controlling Sound. Social Studies of Science, 34(5), 703–731. http://doi.org/10.1177/0306312704047536
Houghton, M. (2010). Vocal Mics: Matching Mics and Voices. Retrieved from http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/vocal-mics
Howlett, M. (2007). Fixing the Volatile—studio vocal performance techniques. Art of Record Production Conference, (December), 1–3.
Howlett, M. M. J. G. (2009). The Record Producer as Nexus: Creative Inspiration, Technology and the Recording Industry. University of Glamorgan.
256 References Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional Balancing of Organizational Continuity and Radical Change: The Contribution of Middle Managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 31–69. http://doi.org/10.2307/3094890
Iacono, V. Lo, Symonds, P., & Brown, D. H. K. (2016). Skype as a tool for qualitative research interviews. Sociological Research Online, 21(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3952
Izhaki, R. (2012). Mixing Audio. Mixing Audio:Concepts, Practises and Tools (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier Ltd. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-240-52222-7.00024-2
James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking (1st ed.). London: Longmans, Green, and Co.
Jarvie, I. C. (1969). The Problem of Ethical Integrity in Participant Observation. Current Anthropology, 10(5), 505-08. http://doi.org/10.1086/201051
John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative Collaboration. Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press, USA.
Johnson, R. (n.d.). Time and Phase Coherence. Retrieved November 5, 2017, from http://greenmountainaudio.com/time-and-phase-coherence/
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction Analysis: foundation and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2
Jorgensen, D. (2011). Participant Observation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985376.n1
Kamal, M. (2013). Will Producers Make DJs Obsolete?—DJ Tech Tools. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://djtechtools.com/2013/04/23/will-producers-make- djs-obsolete/
Kamoche, K., Pina e Cunha, M., & Da Cunha, J. V. (2003). Towards a Theory of Organizational Improvisation: Looking Beyond the Jazz Metaphor. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 2023–2051. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467- 6486.2003.00410.x
References 257 Kazanjian, R. K. (2015). About Creativity in Organizations: a Sensemaking Perspective, 24(May 2014), 286–307.
Keller, D. (2011). Understanding Audio Phase and Correcting Issues. Retrieved September 30, 2017, from https://www.uaudio.com/blog/understanding-audio- phase/
Kilty, D. (2014). Producer Prerequisites—6 Unspoken Expectations of The Modern Producer. Retrieved July 29, 2015, from http://www.pro-tools- expert.com/home-page/2014/1/15/producer-prerequisites-6-unspoken- expectations-of-the-modern.html
Kim, B., By, V., Jackson, R., Karp, J., Patrick, E., & Thrower, A. (n.d.). Social Constructivism Social constructivism emphasizes the importance of culture and context in understanding what occurs in, (2006).
King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Kirby, P. R. (2015). The Evolution and Decline of the Traditional Recording Studio. University of Liverpool.
Klepko, J. (2006). Phase Reversal: Creative Use of Polarity Reversal. Retrieved from https://tapeop. com/tutorials/52/phase-reversal/
Lashua, B. D., & Thompson, P. (n.d.). Producing Music, Producing Myth? Creativity in Recording Studios, 6(2). http://doi.org/10.5429/2079-3871(2016)v6i2.5en
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1163/156913308X336453
Lebler, D. (2007). Student-as-master? Reflections on a learning innovation in popular music pedagogy. International Journal of Music Education, 25(3), 205– 221. http://doi.org/10.1177/0255761407083575
Lefford, M. N. (2015). The Sound of Coordinated Efforts: Music Producers, Boundary Objects and Trading Zones. Journal on the Art of Record Production, Issue 10. Retrieved from http://arpjournal.com/the-sound-of-coordinated-efforts- music-producers-boundary-objects-and-trading-zones/
258 References Lefford, N. (2014). Producing and its Effect on Vocal Recording. CEUR Workshop Proceedings (Vol. 1542). New York: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- 4939-0536-2
Leyshon, A. (2009). The software slump?: Digital music, the democratisation of technology, and the decline of the recording studio sector within the musical economy. Environment and Planning A, 41(6), 1309–1331. http://doi.org/10.1068/a40352
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1989). Ethics: The Failure of Positivist Science. The Review of Higher Education. http://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1989.0017
Lingo, E. L., & O’Mahony, S. (2010). Nexus Work: Brokerage on Creative Projects. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 47–81. http://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.1.47
Lynch, J. (2016). 10 Beatles Songs That Wouldn’t Be the Same Without George Martin | Billboard. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6957260/10-beatles-songs-george- martin
Maitlis, S. (2005). the Social Processes of Organizational, 48(1), 21–49.
Maltis, S., & Lawrence, T. B. (2007). Triggers and Enablers of Sensegiving in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 57–84. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160971
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2007). Designing Qualitative Research. Qualitative Research, 36–50. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208826
Martin, A. (2014). The Role and Working Practice of Music Producers: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. The University of Hull.
Massey, H. (2011). Behind the Glass: Producer/Engineer Joe Chiccarelli on Being a Sonic ‘Chameleon.’ Retrieved April 9, 2015, from http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/behind_the_glass/
References 259 McIntyre, P. (2011). Rethinking the creative process: The systems model of creativity applied to popular songwriting. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 4(1), 77–90. http://doi.org/10.1386/jmte.4.1.77_1
McIntyre, P. (2015). Tradition and Innovation in Creative Studio Practice: The Use of Older Gear, Processes and Ideas in Conjunction with Digital Technologies. Journal on the Art of Record Production, (Issue 9). Retrieved from http://arpjournal.com/tradition-and-innovation-in-creative-studio-practice-the- use-of-older-gear-processes-and-ideas-in-conjunction-with-digital-technologies/
McIntyre, P. (2008). The Systems Model of Creativity: Analyzing the Distribution of Power in the Studio. Journal on the Art of Record Production, (3), 98–99. Retrieved from http://arpjournal.com/the-systems-model-of-creativity- analyzing-the-distribution-of-power-in-the-studio/
Mclntyre, P. (2012). Constraining and enabling creativity: The theoretical ideas surrounding creativity, agency and structure. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 22(1), 43–60.
Michaels, S. (2009). Coldplay Dump Chris Martin for New Album. Retrieved December 11, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/feb/03/coldplay-chris-martin-brian- eno
Montecchio, N., & Cont, A. (2011). Accelerating the mixing phase in studio recording productions by automatic audio alignment. Proceedings of the International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference, 627–32. Retrieved from http://hal.inria.fr/hal-00694045/
Morrow, G. (2012). Creative Conflict in a Nashville Studio: A Case of Boy & Bear. Journal on the Art of Record Production, (6). Retrieved from http://arpjournal.com/creative-conflict-in-a-nashville-studio-a-case-of-boy-bear/
Morse, P. (2012). What Exactly Is A DJ/Producer? Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://www.digitaldjtips.com/2012/08/what-exactly-is-a-dj-producer/
Negus, K. (2011). Producing pop: Culture and conflict in the popular music industry. London.
260 References Nijhof, A., & Ronald. (2006). Editorial: A sensemaking perspective on corporate social responsibility: introduction to the special issue. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 316–322. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8608.2006.00455.x
Osland, J. S., & Bird, A. (2000). Beyond Sophisticated Stereotyping: Cultural Sensemaking in Context. Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(1), 65–77. http://doi.org/10.5465/AME.2000.2909840
Paterson, J. (2007). Phase Experiments in Multi-Microphone Recordings: A Practical Exploration. Journal on the Art of Record Production, (Issue 1). Retrieved from http://arpjournal.com/phase-experiments-in-multi-microphone-recordings-a- practical-exploration/
Peirce, C. S. (1905). What Pragmatism Is. The Monist, 15(2), 161–181. http://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkj004
Peirce, C. S. (1878). How to Make Our Ideas Clear. Popular Science Monthly, 12(January), 286–302. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-006-9037-z
Peirce, C. S. (1877). The Fixation of Belief. Popular Science Monthly, 12(November), 1–15.
Pope, C., Ziebland, S., & Mays, N. (2007). Analysing Qualitative Data. Qualitative Research in Health Care: Third Edition, 320(January), 63–81. http://doi.org/10.1002/9780470750841.ch7
Porcello, T. (2004). Speaking of Sound: Language and the Professionalization of Sound-Recording Engineers. Social Studies of Science, 34(5), 733–758. http://doi.org/10.1177/0306312704047328
Pras, A., Guastavino, C., & Lavoie, M. (2013). The Impact of Technological Advances on Recording Studio Practices. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 3(64), 80–90. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22840
Pras, A., & Gustavo, C. (2011). The role of music producers and sound engineers in the current recording context, as perceived by young professionals. Musicae Scientiae, 15(1), 73–95. http://doi.org/10.1177/1029864910393407
References 261 Repsch, J. (2001). The Legendary Joe Meek: The Telstar Man. Chicago: Cherry Red Books.
Rettig, J. (2014). Trent Reznor Discusses NIN’s Failed Sessions With Arcade Fire Producer, Skepticism About Rock Hall Nomination, U2’s Devaluing Music— Stereogum. Retrieved January 9, 2016, from http://www.stereogum.com/1715900/trent-reznor-discusses-failed-hesitation- marks-sessions-with-arcade-fire-producer-skepticism-about-rock-hall- nomination-u2s-devaluing-music/news/
Reybrouck, M. (2012). Musical Sense-Making and the Concept of Affordance: An Ecosemiotic and Experiential Approach. Biosemiotics, 5(3), 391–409. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-012-9144-6
Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Qualitative Research, 356. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230108
Rorty, R. (1993). Putnam and the Relativist Menace. The Journal of Philosophy, 90(9), 443–461. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Rutledge, M. (2009). Sensemaking as a Tool in Working with Complexity. OD Practitioner, 41(2), 19–24.
Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2014). Making sense of the sensemaking perspective: Its constituents, limitations, and opportunities for further development. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), S6–S32. http://doi.org/10.1002/job.1937
Savage, S. (2011). The Art of Digital Audio Recording: A Practical Guide for Home and Studio. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sawyer, R. K. (2007). Group genius: the creative power of collaboration. New York: Basic Books.
Sawyer, R. K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 81–92. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0013282
262 References Schön, D. A., & Schon, D. A. (1995). Reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Aldershot, England: Arena. http://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005- 0209
Schwandt, T. A., & Gates, E. F. (2018). Case Study Methodology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed., pp. 621–641). London: Sage Publications.
Senior, M. (2008). Phase Demystified. Retrieved from https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/phase-demystified
Shepherd, I. (2009). What Does a Music Producer do, Anyway? Retrieved March 8, 2015, from http://productionadvice.co.uk/what-is-a-producer/
Sigismondi, G., Waller, R., & Vear, T. (2014). Recording Microphone Techniques, 40. Retrieved from http://cdn.shure.com/publication/upload/837/microphone_techniques_for_record ing_english.pdf
Slater, R. (2013). Pstudio Psychology: How Engineers Can Keep Sessions Running Smoothly. Retrieved from http://www.sonicscoop. com/2013/04/02/pstudio- psychology-how-engineers-can-keep-sessions-running-smoothly/
Soderberg, A.-M., & Holden, N. (2002). Rethinking cross cultural management in a globalising business world. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 12(1), 103–121. http://doi.org/10.1177/147059580221007
Sofaer, S. (1999). Qualitative methods: what are they and why use them? Health Services Research, 34(5 Pt 2), 1101–1118. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1089055/pdf/hsresearch00022- 0025.pdf
SoundRadix. (2017). Auto-Align 1.6 User Manual. Retrieved from https://assets.soundradix.com/downloads/Auto-Align 1.6 User Manual.pdf
Speed, B. (1991). Constructivism and Social Constructionism, 395–409.
Theberge, P. (2017). ReCon: Recording Consoles, Reconsidered. Stockholm: The 12th Art of Record Production Conference: Mono: Stereo: Multi.
References 263 Thompson, P. (2019). Creativity in the Recording Studio: Alternitive Takes. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Thompson, P., & Lashua, B. (2014). Getting It on Record. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 43(6), 746–769. http://doi.org/10.1177/0891241614530158
Thompson, P. (2016). Scalability of the creative system in the recording studio. The Creative System in Action: Understanding Cultural Production and Practice, 74–86.
Tingen, P. (2005). Steve Albini—Sound Engineer Extraordinaire. Retrieved April 9, 2015, from http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep05/articles/albini.htm
Tovstiga, G., Odenthal, S., & Goerner, S. (2004). Sense-Making and Learning in Complex Organizations: the String Quartet Revisited. The Fifth European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities Innsbruck, Austria, April 2-3, 2004 SENSE-MAKING, 11.
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight ‘big-tent’ criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. http://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
Watson, A., & Ward, J. (2013). Creating the right ‘vibe’: Emotional labour and musical performance in the recording studio. Environment and Planning A, 45(12), 2904–2918. http://doi.org/10.1068/a45619
Weick, K. E. (1998). Introductory Essay-Improvisation as a Mindset for Organizational Analysis. Organization Science, 9(5), 543–555. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.5.543
Weick, K. E. (1993). The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628–652. http://doi.org/10.2307/2393339
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Weick, K. E. (1995). What Theory is Not, Theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385. http://doi.org/10.2307/2393789
264 References Weick, K. E. (1989). Organized Improvisation: 20 Years of Organizing. Communication Studies, 40(4), 241–248. http://doi.org/10.1080/10510978909368277
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, R. (2011). How could knowledge of sensemaking during organizational change contribute to the investigation of how sense is made of organizational perfomance, 2010–2011.
Weiss, M. (2014). 5 Fail-Safe Steps for Recording Drums. Retrieved November 15, 2017, from 5 Fail-Safe Steps for Recording Drums
Wexler, J. (2005). Phil Spector. Rolling Stone, (972), 68. Retrieved from http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/ 220176276?accountid=13380
White, P. (2003). Recording Bands on Location. Retrieved from https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/recording-bands-on-location
Williams, A. (2007). Divide and Conquer: Power, Role Formation, and Conflict in Recording Studio Architecture. Journal on the Art of Record Production, (Issue 1). Retrieved from http://arpjournal.com/divide-and-conquer-power-role- formation-and-conflict-in-recording-studio-architecture/
Yin, R. K. (2006). Case Study Reserach—Design and Methods. Clinical Research, 2, 8–13. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2010.09.005
References 265 Statement of Contribution of Co-Authors for Thesis by Published Paper
The authors listed below have certified that: 1. they meet the criteria for authorship in that they have participated in the conception, execution, or interpretation, of at least that part of the publication in their field of expertise; 2. they take public responsibility for their part of the publication, except for the responsible author who accepts overall responsibility for the publication; 3. there are no other authors of the publication according to these criteria; 4. potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to (a) granting bodies, (b) the editor or publisher of journals or other publications, and (c) the head of the responsible academic unit, and 5. they agree to the use of the publication in the student’s thesis and its publication on the QUT’s ePrints site consistent with any limitations set by publisher requirements.
In the case of this chapter:
Please state the publication title and date of publication or status: Life In Between Phase:
Understanding and Manipulating Microphone Relationships with Visualisation Tools
(Accepted for Journal on the Art of Record Production 2018)
Contributor Statement of contribution* Daniel Pratt
Wrote the Introduction, experimental design on drum phase, conducted QUT Verified Signature experiments on drum phase, data analysis on drum phase, and overall conclusions 12/5/2019
Wrote the experimental design on big band phase, conducted experiments on Dr Andrew Bourbon big band phase, data analysis on big band phase
Principal Supervisor Confirmation
I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their certifying authorship. (If the Co-authors are not able to sign the form please forward their email or other correspondence confirming the certifying authorship to the RSC).
Gavin Carfoot QUT Verified Signature 11/6/19 Name Signature Date
RSC, Level 4, 88 Musk Ave, Kelvin Grove Qld 4059 Page 1 of 1 Current @ 20/09/2016 CRICOS No. 00213J Statement of Contribution of Co-Authors for Thesis by Published Paper The authors listed below have certified that: 1. they meet the criteria for authorship in that they have participated in the conception, execution, or interpretation, of at least that part of the publication in their field of expertise; 2. they take public responsibility for their part of the publication, except for the responsible author who accepts overall responsibility for the publication; 3. there are no other authors of the publication according to these criteria; 4. potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to (a) granting bodies, (b) the editor or publisher of journals or other publications, and (c) the head of the responsible academic unit, and 5. they agree to the use of the publication in the student’s thesis and its publication on the QUT’s ePrints site consistent with any limitations set by publisher requirements.
In the case of this chapter:
Please state the publication title and date of publication or status:
Transnational Flow in Cloud-based Music Production:Organisational Communication and Collaboration
Between Australia and America
(Accepted for Journal on the Art of Record Production 2018)
Contributor Statement of contribution* Daniel Pratt
wrote the manuscript, experimental design, conducted experiments, mixed QUT Verified Signature the music, data analysis, and conclusions
12/5/2019
Dr Shane Hoose aided experimental design, conducted experiments, data analysis
Wellington Gordon aided experimental design, conducted experiments, data analysis
Principal Supervisor Confirmation
I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their certifying authorship. (If the Co-authors are not able to sign the form please forward their email or other correspondence confirming the certifying authorship to the RSC).
Gavin Carfoot QUT Verified Signature 11/6/19 Name Signature Date
RSC, Level 4, 88 Musk Ave, Kelvin Grove Qld 4059 Page 1 of 1 Current @ 20/09/2016 CRICOS No. 00213J