Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T09:10:33.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The production of space and the changing character of the recording studio

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2022

Lachlan Goold Open the ORCID record for Lachlan Goold [Opens in a new window]
Lachlan Goold*
Affiliation:
Department of Music, Room K.2. 23A, 90 Sippy Down Drive, Sippy Downs, Maroochydore DC, Queensland 4558, Australia E-mail: lgoold@usc.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The propagation of low-cost music production technologies changes the way recording artists experience the spatial environments and technology of the recording studio. Concomitantly dwindling recording budgets have led to large-format studio closures. Many artists are choosing do-it-yourself (DIY) recording practices with the help of a producer, or self-produced, in non-purpose-built and domestic environments. This research seeks to understand the differences in creative agency and recording experience for performers in various recording environments. I use a practice-led approach to record performers in DIY recording spaces, large-format recording studios and a hybrid combination of both environments. I then use a Lefebvrian theoretical lens to analyse participant interviews and field notes. This research suggests that artist attitudes towards the choice of recording space are variable, with each participant preferring a different aspect of large-format and domestic spaces depending on which facet of those spaces they are considering. Despite this, the participants seem to experience DIY recording as broadly positive for creativity but respond with views that emphasise freedom from time constraints, a reclamation of power, fewer economic burdens and freedom to experiment. The research indicates that the DIY studio is emerging as a new paradigm in the recording field and defines the current era of music-making.

Type
Article
Information
Popular Music , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , May 2022 , pp. 238 - 256
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Altman, R. 1992. Sound Theory, Sound Practice (London, Routledge)Google Scholar
Attali, J. 1985. Noise: The Political Economy of Music (Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press)Google Scholar
Auvinen, T. 2016. ‘A new breed of home studio producer: Agency and cultural space in contemporary home studio music production’, Etnomusikologian vuosikirja, 28, pp. 1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auvinen, T. 2017. ‘A new breed of home studio producer?: Agency and the idea “tracker” in contemporary home studio music production’, Journal on the Art of Record Production, 11. http://arpjournal.com/a-new-breed-of-home-studio-producer-agency-and-the-idea-tracker-in-contemporary-home-studio-music-production/Google Scholar
Bates, E. 2012. ‘What studios do’, Journal on the Art of Record Production, 7. http://arpjournal.com/what-studios-do/Google Scholar
Bennett, S. 2012. ‘Endless analogue: Situating vintage technologies in the contemporary recording & production workplace’, Journal on the Art of Record Production, 7. http://arpjournal.com/endless-analogue-situating-vintage-technologies-in-the-contemporary-recording-production-workplace/Google Scholar
Bennett, S. 2016. ‘Behind the magical mystery door: history, mythology and the aura of Abbey Road Studios’, Popular Music, 35/3, pp. 396–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryman, A. 2012. Social Research Methods, 4th ed. (Oxford, Oxford University Press)Google Scholar
Burgess, R. J. 2008. ‘Producer compensation: challenges and options in the new music business’, Journal on the Art of Record Production, 3. http://arpjournal.com/producer-compensation-challenges-and-options-in-the-new-music-business/Google Scholar
Burrell, G., and Morgan, G. 1992. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life (Farnham, Ashgate)Google Scholar
Byrne, D. 2012. How Music Works (San Franscisco, McSweeneys, CA)Google Scholar
Candy, L., and Edmonds, E. 2018. ‘Practice-based research in the creative arts: foundations and futures from the front line’, Leonardo, 51/1, pp. 63–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carew, A. 2017. ‘Genre profile – Lo-Fi’. https://www.thoughtco.com/genre-profile-lo-fi-94022Google Scholar
Denzin, N. 1973. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods (New York,Transaction)Google Scholar
Flanagan, J. W. 1999. ‘Ancient perceptions of space/perceptions of ancient space’, Semeia, 87, 15Google Scholar
Frith, S., and Zagorski-Thomas, S. 2012. The Art of Record Production: an Introductory Reader for a New Academic Field (Farnham, Ashgate)Google Scholar
Gibson, C. 2005. ‘Recording studios: relational spaces of creativity in the city’, Built Environment, 31/3, pp. 192–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goold, L. (2018). ‘Space, time, creativity, and the changing character of the recording studio: spatiotemporal attitudes toward “DIY” recording’, PhD thesis, Queensland University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
Goold, L., and Graham, P. 2018. ‘The uncertain future of the large-format recording studio’, in Proceedings of the 2017 Art of Record Production Conference, Royal College of Music, Stockholm (Stockholm, Journal on the Art of Record Production and Royal College of Music).Google Scholar
Graham, P. 2013. ‘Australian copyright regimes and political economy of music’, in Music Business and the Experience Economy: The Australian Case, ed. Tschmuck, P., Pearce, P. and Campbell, S. (Berlin, Springer), pp. 11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, D. 1989. The Conditions of Postmodernity: an Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change (Oxford, Blackwell)Google Scholar
Haseman, B., and Mafe, D. 2009. ‘Acquiring know-how: research training for practice-led researchers’, in Practice-led Research, Research-led Practice in the Creative Arts (Edinburgh Edinburgh University Press) pp. 211–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennion, A. 1989. ‘An intermediary between production and consumption – the producer of popular-music’, Science Technology & Human Values, 14/4, pp. 400–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesmondhalgh, D. 1997. ‘Post-Punk's attempt to democratise the music industry: the success and failure of Rough Trade’, Popular Music, 16/3, pp. 255–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homer, M. 2009. ‘Beyond the studio: the impact of home recording technologies on music creation and consumption’, Nebula, 6/3, pp. 85–99Google Scholar
Horner, B. 1998. ‘On the study of music as material social practice’, The Journal of Musicology, 16/2, pp. 159–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, M.J.G. 2009. ‘The record producer as nexus: Creative inspiration, technology and the recording industry’, Phd thesis, University of GlamorganGoogle Scholar
Hracs, B. J. 2015. ‘Cultural intermediaries in the digital age: the case of independent musicians and managers in Toronto’, Regional Studies, 49/3, pp. 461–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, G.P., Hutchison, T.W., and Strasser, R. 2011. The Music Business and Recording Industry: Delivering Music in the 21st Century, vol. 3 (New York, Routledge)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huron, D. 2006. Sweet Anticipation: Music and the Psychology of Expectation (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kealy, E. 1990. ‘From craft to art: The case of sound mixers and popular music’, in On record: Rock, Pop, and the Written Word, ed. Frith, S. and Goodwin, A.. (London, Routledge), pp. 207–20Google Scholar
Knowles, J., and Hewitt, D. 2012. ‘Performance recordivity: studio music in a live context’, Journal on the Art of Record Production, 6. http://arpjournal.com/performance-recordivity-studio-music-in-a-live-context/Google Scholar
Kraugerud, E. 2016. ‘Meanings of spatial formation in recorded sound’, Journal on the Art of Record Production, 11. http://arpjournal.com/meanings-of-spatial-formation-in-recorded-sound/Google Scholar
Lefebvre, H. 1991. The Production of Space, Vol. 142 (Oxford, Blackwell)Google Scholar
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, pp. 1309–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNally, K., and Seay, T. 2020. ‘Studying recording techniques’, The Bloomsbury Handbook of Music Production (New York, Bloomsbury Academic), pp. 233–47Google Scholar
Milner, G. 2009. Perfecting Sound Forever: an Aural History of Recorded Music (London, Granta)Google Scholar
Moylan, W. 2012. ‘Considering space in recorded music’, in The Art of Record Production. An Introductory Reader for a New Academic Field, ed. Frith, S. and Zagorski-Thomas, S. (Farnham, Ashgate) pp. 163–86Google Scholar
O'Grady, P. 2020. ‘Sound City and music from the outskirts: the de-democratisation of pop music production’, Creative Industries Journal, 14/3 pp. 1–15Google Scholar
Schmidt-Horning, S. 2012. ‘The sounds of space: studio as instrument in the era of high fidelity’, in The Art of Record Production: An Introductory Reader for a New Academic Field, ed. Frith, S. and Zagorski-Thomas, S. (Farnham, Ashgate)Google Scholar
Simons, H. 2009. Case Study Research in Practice (Los Angeles, CA, Sage)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirppiniemi, A. 2006. ‘Home studio aesthetics: Tracking cultural processes of popular music production’, in Music, Meaning, and Media, ed. Pekkilä, E., Neumeyer, D., and Littlefield, R. (Helsinki, International Semiotics Institute), pp. 174–91Google Scholar
Slater, M., and Martin, A. 2012. ‘A conceptual foundation for understanding musico-technological creativity’, Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 5/1, pp. 59–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sofia, Z. 2000. ‘Container technologies’, Hypatia, 15/2, pp. 181–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soja, E. 1996. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places (Oxford, Blackwell)Google Scholar
Spradley, J. P. 1980. Participant Observation (New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston)Google Scholar
Stake, R. E. 2010. Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work (New York, Guilford Press)Google Scholar
Starman, AB. 2013. ‘The case study as a type of qualitative research’, Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies/Sodobna Pedagogika, 64/1, pp. 28–43Google Scholar
Théberge, P. 1997. Any Sound you can Imagine: Making Music/Consuming Technology (Hanover, NH, Wesleyan University Press)Google Scholar
Théberge, P. 2012. The End of the World as we Know it: the Changing Role of the Studio in the Age of the Internet (Farnham, Ashgate)Google Scholar
Thompson, P., and Lashua, B. 2014. ‘Getting it on record: issues and strategies for ethnographic practice in recording studios’, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 43/6, pp. 746–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P., and Lashua, B. 2016. ‘Producing music, producing myth? Creativity in recording studios’, Iaspm@ journal, 6/2, pp. 70–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toynbee, J. 2000. Making Popular Music: Musicians, Creativity and Institutions (London, Arnold)Google Scholar
Watson, A., and Till, K.E. 2010. ‘Ethnography and participant observation’, in The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Geography (London, Sage), pp. 121–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, A., and Ward, J. 2013. ‘Creating the right “vibe”: emotional labour and musical performance in the recording studio’, Environment & Planning A, 45/12), pp. 2904–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, A., Hoyler, M., and Mager, C. 2009. ‘Spaces and networks of musical creativity in the city’, Geography Compass, 3/2, pp. 856–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A. 2015. ‘Technostalgia and the cry of the lonely recordist’, Journal on the Art of Record Production, 9. https://www.arpjournal.com/asarpwp/technostalgia-and-the-cry-of-the-lonely-recordist/Google Scholar
Williams, A. 2006. ‘Phantom power: recording studio history, practice, and mythology’, PhD Thesis, Brown UniversityGoogle Scholar
Williams, A. 2007. ‘Divide and conquer: power, role formation, and conflict in recording studio architecture’, Journal on the Art of Record Production, 1. https://www.arpjournal.com/asarpwp/divide-and-conquer-power-role-formation-and-conflict-in-recording-studio-architecture/Google Scholar
Zagorski-Thomas, S. 2012. ‘The US vs the UK sound: meaning in music production in the 1970s’, in Art of Record Production: an Introductory Reader for a New Academic Field, ed. Frith, S. and Zagorski-Thomas, S. (Farnham, Ashgate)Google Scholar
Zagorski-Thomas, S. 2020. ‘Recorded music’, in The Bloomsbury Handbook of Music Production, ed. Bourbon, A. and Zagorski-Thomas, S. (New York, Bloomsbury Academic)Google Scholar
All recordings created for this research are available at https://theoystermurders.bandcamp.com/ accessed 28 February 2020. One song on this album was completed by me at a studio not under analysis for this research – track 7, ‘Eliza Battle’.Google Scholar
All recordings created for this research are available at https://theoystermurders.bandcamp.com/ accessed 28 February 2020. One song on this album was completed by me at a studio not under analysis for this research – track 7, ‘Eliza Battle’.Google Scholar