Australian Audio Industry Survey

[Manning]

Mark

Yup, fair call - my tone was way over the top for the nature of the infraction.

It's been a brutally long couple of days and I over-reacted, so my apologies.

Cheers Manning

[Mark Bassett]

Mark

Yup, fair call - my tone was way over the top for the nature of the infraction.

It's been a brutally long couple of days and I over-reacted, so my apologies.

Cheers Manning

Mate it's all good. Thanks again for the suggestions on the survey, keep em coming.

[ChrisW]

Will some of the research findings be revealed? I would be interested.

[Linear]

Great discussion and big ups to Mark for taking the time to do this.

Personally I too think that the industry labels have been somewhat devalued.

I ALWAYS receive emails from people with little or no experience calling themselves 'ENGINEER/PRODUCER'.

Yes labels don't mean much, but that often comes from people with no qualifications.

The lack of a proper enforcable qualification system means that lots of artists get ripped off by people that have absolutely no idea what they're doing, I've seen it happen lots of times and you can't always spout caveat emptor to some poor band or artist that just blew 3 grand on an unusable recording.

Anyhoo. The more I go on, the more I sound like a grumpy old bastard ;-)

Chris

[ChrisW]

The trouble is often the best music is made by untrained musicians, and many of the best recording engineers and record producers left school at 16.
There is no system in place that rewards TAFE, college or universities for weeding out those who have no interest or ambition to excel at audio, because the system needs income from student fees to stay alive.

[Mark Bassett]

Will some of the research findings be revealed? I would be interested.

Yes, most definitely.

Informally here on Turtlerock at first, and I'll also put together a paper for the AES, released under creative commons so we can all access for free.

[Mark Bassett]

Great discussion and big ups to Mark for taking the time to do this.

Personally I too think that the industry labels have been somewhat devalued.

I ALWAYS receive emails from people with little or no experience calling themselves 'ENGINEER/PRODUCER'.

Yes labels don't mean much, but that often comes from people with no qualifications.

The lack of a proper enforcable qualification system means that lots of artists get ripped off by people that have absolutely no idea what they're doing, I've seen it happen lots of times and you can't always spout caveat emptor to some poor band or artist that just blew 3 grand on an unusable recording.

Anyhoo. The more I go on, the more I sound like a grumpy old bastard ;-)

Chris

Linkedin has a lot to answer for. A popular site that requires that people enter their professional title, even though they don't have one. I have students who have linkedin profiles with titles like "Executive Creative Director", "Director of Media and New Enterprise", and of course for the audio students "Producer / Engineer".

An old colleague of mine used to ask students who was a producer in day 1 of audio school, many students raised their hands. He then asked them how much tax they payed on their producer earnings last financial year. The hands went down pretty fast.

If you don't have a title you don't get noticed, and of course it devalues the title.

I just read a fantastic book called The Cult of the Amateur: How today's internet is killing our culture and assaulting our economy by Andrew Keen, can't recommend it enough, There's 2 chapters in there about the music industry and record stores in particular and how user generated content (and piracy) has brought them to their knees.

Moreover it is a book about digital narcissism, which is what people are embracing more and more. Part of the user-generated content / digital narcissist culture is the de-valuing of experts and of course their titles.

Thanks largely to Wikipedia, an engineer who has 76 grammy's and is widely respected, say Ludwig, now has much weight as a kid in audio school on the internet. There are no experts, years and years of experience and hard work, leaning the lessons you learn over time mean nothing, are completely destroyed, and you are now at the same level as douchbag76 on gearsluts. We used to defer to experts, not anymore. This is then labelled as the 'democratisation of the internet' which Keane so eloquently kneecaps as an argument.

The Web 2.0 revolution has peddled the promise of bringing more truth to more people—more depth of information, more global perspective, more unbiased opinion from dispassionate observers. But this is all a smokescreen. What the Web 2.0 revolution is really delivering is superficial observations of the world around us rather than deep analysis, shrill opinion rather than considered judgment. The information business is being transformed by the Internet into the sheer noise of a hundred million bloggers all simultaneously talking about themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN_n7I0PM3w&t=4m41s

Rant over. Buy that book, seriously.

[Manning]

OK, I'll challenge your specific assertion about Wikipedia democratizing knowledge and devaluing expertise.

(Bias disclosure - I'm one of the founding editors of Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manning_Bartlett. I was also instrumental in defining the Wikipedia philosophy around expertise, which is probably why I'm being a bit defensive

Yes, all authors of Wikipedia are equal, as there is no means of qualifying the authors individually. However (a) there is no correlation between the author and the content in Wikipedia and (b) all content in Wikipedia is reviewed harshly.

Wikipedia derives its informative authority exclusively from the references it cites, NOT from the authors writing the content. In this regard it actually emphasizes the importance of expertise.

This has confused some academics, who think they should be able to write whatever they want in Wikipedia (ie - use Wikipedia as a primary source). When denied the opportunity, they cry "devaluation of expertise".

In fact, the exact opposite is true - because expertise is so valued (and because Wikipedia cannot possibly validate the credentials of every author), only external references are considered "reliable".

The correct process for these experts to share their knowledge is is to have their work published in a "reliable source" (eg. a peer-reviewed journal or an industry periodical), which Wikipedia can then cite.

As far as biographical entries go, I was instrumental in defining the "notability" rules, which also seek to avoid the exact devaluation of expertise you are referring to. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability). Bob Ludwig's article makes his industry stature quite clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Ludwig

Finally, I'll note that authorship on Wikipedia is the complete opposite of digital narcissism - all authors are essentially anonymous, with no prestige and no personal authority.

OK, that's the end of my little rant. (there would be another smiley here if I hadn't exceeded my smiley allowance).

[ChrisW]

But Wikipedia gets things wrong about me all the time.
My entries are written by fans of the bands I played in, who weren't in the room when decisions were taken and weren't aware of what specific songs I played on, and which I didn't (if it wasn't credited on the CD cover).
The quirk of Wikipedia is (I believe) that I can't correct my own page, or even contact someone who will correct it.
Not that I care, but I'm sorry, based on quite good evidence (my memory) Wikipedia is not an authoritative source of facts.

[Alastair Reynolds]

I'll order that book,I've just finished "The Case for Working with Your Hands" which I would thoroughly recommend.
I find a great Irony of the interweb is when I Google myself there is less information about me than there is about my convict ancestor who was transported here on the second fleet and she's been dead for nearly 220 years.
With respect to qualifications, there are aspects in my job where not having the correct formal training is putting your life at risk by not understanding or having awareness of the Danger involved,particularly in high power transmission.
Basically "One Flash and You're Ash" is where it's at. Anyway I digress.looks like a great book, I'm off to booktopia now.

[Manning]

Chris

It is independently assessed as being more accurate than Britannica.
http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-ac ... pedia.html

And contacting someone is incredibly easy. And of course you can correct your own page. If you identify yourself on the talk page, then people will usually help you.

[ChrisW]

I remember sending them a correction a few years ago. Not sure if they changed the entry or not.
I'm just saying there is stuff on there now that is incorrect. I'm not really motivated to put Wikipedia right. I don't regard it as the gospel of truth on projects I've worked on.
Funnily enough, reading your link confirms my experience, with another drummer finding many errors in the page on his band.

It may make sense that Wikipedia would have more reliable articles about academic topics than pop culture ones, considering that the latter are more prone to rumors and hearsay.

[Mark Bassett]

OK, I'll challenge your specific assertion about Wikipedia democratizing knowledge and devaluing expertise.

(Bias disclosure - I'm one of the founding editors of Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manning_Bartlett. I was also instrumental in defining the Wikipedia philosophy around expertise, which is probably why I'm being a bit defensive

Yes, all authors of Wikipedia are equal, as there is no means of qualifying the authors individually. However (a) there is no correlation between the author and the content in Wikipedia and (b) all content in Wikipedia is reviewed harshly.

Wikipedia derives its informative authority exclusively from the references it cites, NOT from the authors writing the content. In this regard it actually emphasizes the importance of expertise.

This has confused some academics, who think they should be able to write whatever they want in Wikipedia (ie - use Wikipedia as a primary source). When denied the opportunity, they cry "devaluation of expertise".

In fact, the exact opposite is true - because expertise is so valued (and because Wikipedia cannot possibly validate the credentials of every author), only external references are considered "reliable".

The correct process for these experts to share their knowledge is is to have their work published in a "reliable source" (eg. a peer-reviewed journal or an industry periodical), which Wikipedia can then cite.

As far as biographical entries go, I was instrumental in defining the "notability" rules, which also seek to avoid the exact devaluation of expertise you are referring to. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability). Bob Ludwig's article makes his industry stature quite clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Ludwig

Finally, I'll note that authorship on Wikipedia is the complete opposite of digital narcissism - all authors are essentially anonymous, with no prestige and no personal authority.

OK, that's the end of my little rant. (there would be another smiley here if I hadn't exceeded my smiley allowance).

{EDIT}

Screw it, here's the founder of Wikipedia in a debate with Andrew Keen

http://fora.tv/2008/02/28/Jimmy_Wales_and_Andrew_Keen_Debate_Web_2_0

There's no such thing as absolute knowledge, it's knowledge in context. Without knowing the identity of the author, you cannot establish context, or apply any of the fundamental practices that you need to apply in order to determine legitimacy or bias. The author themselves needs to be assessed as they are not presenting arguments (a sound argument is a sound argument no matter who says it), rather they are stating facts.

[Mark Bassett]

Academia does't have a stronghold on accuracy, however.

See this groundbreaking paper

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Turns out that two thirds of the positive findings claimed in medical journals cannot be replicated.

[The Tasmanian]

Digital narcissism is rampant in our industry.
I have watched many young assistants proudly pitch for work proudly stating "I worked on the XXX album".
Its on their facebook / credits etc.
When they were second assistant, made tea/got lunch and were aloud to hang around at certain stages of the albums.
They never state what their role was, avoid it and bring up lists of microphones or some tech fact to impress...(like: yeah "we" used a U47 on the vocal into..... or when talking to the drummer "we" had a bla bla on the snare...)
Ive even had people take credit online for my gigs!!

I also have credits that some (untrained) journalist has lazily given me, and then it spreads through the net like Chinese whispers - now its "fact" that I worked on said album > because it is written on many parts of the net.

There are so many frauds in Digital Land.
Agree - Linkedin is a grandstand for narcisism, and so is facebook/gearslutz etc etc...
The ever expanding shitfight for the truth - (Greg hunt - Wiki, climate deniers - Wiki)
Wiki I grant is pretty good for most historic info, but to me trusted peoples websites, with real academic and/or real life experience are becoming my main source for recent factual information.

History is becoming scrambled into millions of "bits" - facts heavily interspersed with BS.
Interesting times.

[ChrisW]

Wikipedia is a decent resource if you take everything you read with a pinch of salt.
On the music industry side of Wikipedia, I find it not much better than anonymous posters on Gearslutz.
On the McCartney and Dire Straits pages where I have personal knowledge, it's just myth and legend. And Chris is right, it enters into an online factfile and gets endlessly repeated all over the web, then used as research into more respectable journalism. It's funny when someone quotes the myth back at you. Even when you say "I was there", they don't believe you.
There is a big sign at the end of my road saying 'No Through Road', but because most satellite navigation shows a bridge crossing the river that was washed away in 1952 and never replaced, most people ignore the sign and trust their sat-nav.
On the interweb level playing field….. I was arguing a point with a guy the other day. He had a link to his webpage so I followed it. By my standards he is a beginner level musician. He trumpets a couple of endorsements. At least one of the endorsements happened because he has a big online presence and is very confident about his skill level. He even offers tuition of his instrument, which I find interesting as he is beginner level (as I say).
He blogs about how to survive in the music industry, how to make money in the music industry, but he works in IT and has never had a career in music.
I don't really care about any of it, but it just says to me you have to be wary about the people you trust online, and the free information they are giving out.

[Drumstruck]

pluckaduck!!! what a thread

[ChrisW]

Yeah, yeah, yeah - the old guys moaning again. I get it.

[Chris H]

........where will it all end?

Fake Service Dog Credentials Easily Available Online:
CHICAGO (CBS) — You see them from time to time on buses, trains, restaurants and even airplanes: Service dogs, who appear to be assisting their disabled owners.

But, a disturbing new trend is raising questions about which dogs really deserve to have special access.

CBS 2 Investigative reporter Pam Zekman took her pet collie Sophie shopping at a Dominick’s and Target store.

She was never stopped or questioned about bringing her pet into the stores because Sophie was wearing a “service dog vest” and identification badge that purchased online.

[Chris H]

On a serious note, there are laws pertaining to being misled about the products and services you buy.

http://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/mislea ... ing-claims

Creating a false or misleading impression

Businesses are not allowed to make statements that are incorrect or likely to create a false impression.

This rule applies to their advertising, their product packaging, and any information provided to you by their staff or online shopping services.It also applies to any statements made by businesses in the media or online, such as testimonials on their websites or social media pages.

[Drumstruck]

Yeah, yeah, yeah - the old guys moaning again. I get it.

Hahaha - when you're as old as me you'll have something to moan about sonny ;-)

[Damien]

I loved doing this.. it made me think.. i believe im a pro, i spend all my time live, in a studio or in the shop and educating people. Ive been doing this all my live.

i would make more money if i worked in a bank or some other "normal" job.

I DONT CARE, i love what i do..

Mark, do we gt to see some of the results? (just numbers, not personal info)

[waitup]

Just filled out the survey, Mark. Thanks!

[audioio]

I'm late coming to this... sorry.

I ALWAYS receive emails from people with little or no experience calling themselves 'ENGINEER/PRODUCER'.

I blame dance music. Somehow the term "producer" got attached to people who were really composers.

The lack of a proper enforcable qualification system means that lots of artists get ripped off by people that have absolutely no idea what they're doing, I've seen it happen lots of times and you can't always spout caveat emptor to some poor band or artist that just blew 3 grand on an unusable recording.

Well, we do have some audio qualifications, mostly in the VET sector. I teach in such a program. Unfortunately, the Training Package system which governs the assessment standards (and informs the curriculum) in the VET sector, is a big fail. I would argue that, while it looks good on paper and atracts laudable claims, the sole purpose of its design is to shift the costs of training from employers to taxpayers.

Rather than rehash the arguments here, some of you might be interested in a thread on Gearslutz, in which Chris W and I had a bit of a tiff mainly due, I think, to misunderstanding one another rather than actual disagreement. In it he identified what he considered to be the failings of musical programs and I added my own knowledge of the history and development of Training Packages and the effects on vocational and higher education.

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/australia-new-zealand-gearslutz-forum/887662-audio-degree-australia-experiences-opinions.html

Anyway, my point is that a system of qualifications wouldn't necessarily solve the problem you describe, especially since education (in general) has become so commoditised.

The more I go on, the more I sound like a grumpy old bastard

I like grumpy old bastards.

[ChrisW]

Oh dear… I had another tiff.

[audioio]

I thought it was a rather good-natured tiff. And we covered a lot of ground.

[ChrisW]

Yep.
No wurries.

[Mark Bassett]

Thought I'd give this a kick in the pants.

Less than a month in and there's over 250 responses so far. This is well on track to achieve 1000 responses which is really what I'd like, for no good reason at all really.

[audioio]

for no good reason at all really.

Err... statistical significance?

[Mark Bassett]

Round numbers don't increase statistical significance.