ix665@sdcc6.UCSD.EDU (Sue Raul) (01/23/88)
I asked one of our CME [The UCSD Center for Music Experimentation] researchers about the question of the relationship between music industry and music research... You'll see my questions and his answers below. (Gareth Loy is a top person at CME, gives papers at International Computer Music Conferences and contributes to Computer Music Journal from time to time) here we go - Gareth Loy: Um... Well, my response to your questions are unfortunately limited to what I can say quickly, but suffice to say a full answer would take a considerable discourse. Sue Raul: What do you know about industry and university relationships in music research? Bell Labs comes to mind. Yamaha and Stanford for FM synthesis. Was this research something Stanford (Chowning) did and then Yamaha picked it up or was it funded by Yamaha first? G: Yamaha bought the sole licence worldwide from Chowning and Stanford who had patented the idea. Bell Labs interest in music was a rare example of genuine musical research sponsored by industry, but even there, it was the result of research for other purposes (speech) being applied retroactively to music, and it was not directly funded, but was something they did ``after hours.'' S: I'm curious about certain assumptions about research in universities and industry. In industry, it seems the research is 'product' oriented, while in universities it's more 'pure' research. Are the arts so 'productless' that industry doesn't get involved as much as in the sciences? G: Seems that way, doesn't it? S: Do Yamaha, Roland, Korg, Ensoniq, et al have 'R&D' departments that consider 'pure' music research? G: If by ``pure'' you mean something like music science, no they don't. They are not interested in the cutting edge of music, but rather in what are the most normative musical instruments they can market to the widest audience. As far as I can tell, industry research is always motivated towards product development. S: Why? G: Instrument manufacturers have traditionally been followers--not leaders--of aesthetic and stylistic issues. They usually even follow on technical issues. University-based computer music has always led industry. S: Why is it different in music than in the sciences? G: Music instrument manufacturers in general are interested in science for the same reason automakers are: if it helps profits; so naturally they favor applied research, where they favor anything at all. Of course there are exceptions. But music is a commodity in our culture, like cars. Popular culture barely even consideres music an art-form anymore for all I can tell. One can see two things in computers: a tool for revisioning music, or a tool for making existing musicmaking more efficient. Guess which direction our culture--and therefore also industry--favors? Sorry if this sounds cynical, but I guess it is. and so it goes.... Sue