Creative Industries Journal

ISSN: 1751-0694 (Print) 1751-0708 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcij20

Independent music production: how individuality,

technology and creative entrepreneurship
influence contemporary music industry practices

Daniel A. Walzer

To cite this article: Daniel A. Walzer (2016): Independent music production: how individuality,
technology and creative entrepreneurship influence contemporary music industry practices,
Creative Industries Journal, DOI: 10.1080/17510694.2016.1247626

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2016.1247626

Published online: 25 Oct 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 46

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcij20

Download by: [University of Regina] Date: 01 November 2016, At: 16:37

CREATIVE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2016.1247626

Independent music production: how individuality, technology

and creative entrepreneurship influence contemporary music
industry practices
Daniel A. Walzer
Composition for New Media Music Department, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Independent music production, often viewed as a niche-driven and Received 28 January 2016
genre-specific practice restricted to isolated and fragmented Accepted 10 October 2016
communities lacking financial and technological resources, KEYWORDS
generates a wealth of creative work and opportunities for Independent music
entrepreneurship. Independent producers, artists and musicians production;
refine their recording and promotion skills through intense entrepreneurship; musical
dedication, creative marketing and a deep want to connect their identity; recording studio;
personal ideologies with a global audience. The modest project creative practice; recording
studio, a source of creative inspiration, and cultural study, exert a class
powerful influence through its accessibility, simple functionality and
connectivity to the Internet. The author examines some of the
multifaceted cultural, ideological, technical and entrepreneurial
factors contributing to a significant evolution in do it yourself (DIY)
music production and distribution. The rise of this independent
‘recording class’ anticipates the many changes in the contemporary
music industry and offers new production and cooperative business
models.

Introduction
Independent music production has experienced resurgent creative output in the past
decade, thanks to a globalised community of inspired practitioners, communities and
accessible technology. Migrating contemporary recording practices from commercial facil-
ities to smaller, independent project studios supports the notion that music production
occurs more and more in smaller artist communities – each group pooling their modest
resources to meet the common goal of producing creative music. Furthermore, as this
shared music, business and technology-based capital steadily increases, independent
artists can potentially transform into formidable small-business owners.
The independent producer’s artistic and aesthetic preferences, inspired by personal
choice, individuality and intrinsic values, intersect with the music production already
happening in bedroom studios with laptop computers and via Internet collaboration.
As the independent producer’s evolving music production skills fuse with a renewed
sense of community-based entrepreneurship, these factors illustrate compelling

CONTACT Daniel A. Walzer Daniel_Walzer@uml.edu

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 D. A. WALZER

transformations in the music industry. That change suggests increased autonomy and
possibilities for independent artists to produce high-quality sound, function autono-
mously and generate modest profits without major label support.
Indeed, music production software is readily available, and there exist a plethora of
tutorials covering all aspects of recording, distribution and promotion. Independent artists
have more options than ever to create and distribute their ideas using forward-thinking
business models and affordable technology. Moreover, these converging trends expose
opportunities to look at the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of independent music production, and how
those factors signal fluctuations in the global music economy.

The ‘indie’ question

There exists a growing body of literature that frames the ‘studio’ as a gateway to deeper
and meaningful artistic, social and cultural experiences.1 Likewise, those encounters often
stimulate the independent artist to explore new collaborative models to produce creative
work and generate possible revenue. Turino (2008) argues that audio recording exerts a
pervasive, complex, and diverse influence on contemporary culture. Turino’s (2008) idea
that audio recording shapes popular culture is especially relevant as more open-source
technologies provide novices with a platform to express their thoughts. The following
research questions offer some context to the inquiry:

 RQ1: How does the independent music production studio function as a relevant site
for ethnographic study?
 RQ2: What role does digital recording technology have on independent music cul-
ture, and how does this technology wield influence on the entertainment industry?
 RQ3: What role does collective effort have on independent music production and
distribution?
 RQ4: If independent or ‘indie’ suggests that beginners cannot properly record and
distribute their music, how can artists emerge as confident producers of media con-
tent fuelled with a contemporary do it yourself (DIY) mind set?
 RQ5: What are some of the misconceptions and stigmas associated with indepen-
dent music production? How can artists overcome these barriers?

One theory grounding these questions draws on the philosophies of collective and
personal creative effort, drawn from recent cognitive and ethnographic studies in ‘dis-
tributed creativity’ (Sawyer and DeZutter 2009; Campelo and Howlett 2013). I look at the
connections among reasonably priced recording and computer technologies, informa-
tion access, globalisation, independent musician values and Hofer’s (2006) scholarship
connecting digital audio production and identity. Frith’s (1996) important work linking
artistic performance to bespoke experiences also provides contextual background about
music and identity. The last section examines Prior’s (2010) notions of the misunder-
stood amateurism commonly associated with contemporary recording practices. Finally,
this article considers the important work of Th
eberge (2004), which explores the role of
place, global networks and technology in the modern recording studio and music
industry.
 CREATIVE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 3

‘Indie’ changes
Historically, independent music production has close associations with small labels, often
loosely organised, and yet committed to engaging an attentive audience (Strachan 2007;
Hesmondhalgh 1999). Burgess (2005, 31–32) indicates musicians with affordable equip-
ment, aided by available resources and a willingness to learn, mature into independent
producers with a clear approach to recording. Burgess’ (2005) argument that accessibility
and persistence are driving forces in the rise of a self-sufficient ‘recording class’ is an
important point that rings true a decade later. On a broader scale, Sexton’s historical anal-
ysis of recording (2008) argues that improvements in digital music production underscore
a pre-existing fascination with creating artificial sounds and thus have cultural and social
implications. The suggestion here is that modern technology (over the past decade in par-
ticular) has moved creativity forward – recording music is no longer confined to a small
percentage of interested stakeholders (2008).
Laptop computers and free digital audio workstations are two proper tools that reduce
the time for musicians to capture and distribute new ideas quickly. Unlike the low-fi efforts
of decades past, this autonomous recording class can produce rich digital-quality media at
home. To be fair, just because today’s artists have access to small audio interfaces, tablets
and laptops, and USB microphones, do not imply they know how to use these tools.
Recording technology’s accessibility and affordability enable novice producers to assimi-
late the content and connect with others via the Internet (Taha 2011). A possible scenario
involves an artist learning how to record vocals on YouTube, tracking and recording their
parts with a USB microphone or an iPhone and then uploading the finished product to
SoundCloud the same day.
Citing Castells (2000, 407–409), Th
eberge (2004, 761) perceives that the populated
centres of economy and technology are no longer separate, but rather a part of a larger
chain of informational exchange, one that emphasises a broader process not limited to a
single place. In essence, modern recording technology and the entertainment industry
criss-cross into a complex global network fuelled by culture and data. Leyshon (2009,
1313) further considers the proximity and economic influence of the entertainment sector
on commercial recording studios in the major metropolitan regions. Global and local net-
works intersect into an intricate web of activity.
Traditional recording studios, mostly seen as an extension of the music industry, once
invested in technology that expanded their recording processes to reach a global clientele
(Th
eberge 2004, 761). Today, although recording studios do serve a significant role in the
global music economy, they must continually find new business models to generate reve-
nue and stay afloat as technology changes.2 Indeed, with competition and changes in
business models comes innovation from opportunistic music entrepreneurs. The record-
ing budgets are smaller; therefore, cost-effective approaches ensure that the musical
stakeholders produce a reliable product without compromising audio quality. Also, while
it is unfortunate to see iconic studios close, independent artists and producers must
acknowledge these realities and embrace the growth and reinvention opportunities that
arise due to changes in the audio industry.
The demise of traditional recording studios now demands the rise of an intelligent,
confident, media-literate and self-directed community of producers who take it upon
themselves to learn how to create their ideas. Production methodologies, once a guarded
4 D. A. WALZER

secret, are readily available for aspiring recordists to learn from through tutorials, forums
and websites – these are vital resources that contribute to the independent artist’s techni-
cal literacy. Likewise, that literacy extends to the music industry as artists can learn about
how to promote their ideas and albums. Sexton’s (2008) example of artists using and reus-
ing musical samples illustrates this point and draws comparisons to the kind of literacy
that comes about by honing a craft through trial and error. An artist must find samples,
edit them and use them in new and fresh ways. That effort produces creative work that
can also be repurposed by others (2008).
Whether by choice or by necessity, I argue that this emerging recording class can pro-
duce and distribute art in ways scholars have yet to conceive – simply because the infor-
mation is finally available to learn how. Granted access to data does not guarantee that
the individual will be successful in their artistic pursuit. At the very minimum, independ-
ents no longer need a major label to get them started on or monopolise their creative
path. For clarification purposes, the ‘recording class’ refers to an independent artist or pro-
ducer who demonstrates confidence and technical proficiency in all aspects of their crea-
tive work. A ‘graduate’ of the new ‘recording class’ is a person that understands how to
produce and promote. A student of the new recording class need not be enrolled in a tra-
ditional university. The student knows how to procure information for his or her specific
needs. They experiment and seek out like-minded associates with whom to collaborate.
The student demonstrates literacy across technical platforms and accomplishes these
goals with minimal expenses.

A bedroom producer?
In the short documentary film Rise of the Bedroom Producer, Taha (2011) interviews British
electronic dance music (EDM) producers about the ways the Internet feeds an enthusiastic
community of original music creation. Within the larger scope of EDM, the Internet
inspires a global movement of new ideas and creativity through social networking web-
sites like SoundCloud and YouTube. Bedroom producers consume and produce finished
mixes and works-in-progress (2011). Online networks encourage peer collaboration, and
users reference these communities to sculpt new sounds and patches for use in home-
mixing projects (2011).
In a way, the notion of a ‘bedroom’ producer could simply illustrate a modern type of
independent musician, curious about sound and armed with a laptop, a drum machine
and a recording program. That person need not be confined to a bedroom to accomplish
his or her goals. The point is that the artist is transient and free to create wherever they
feel like. They use the Internet and affordable tools to create ideas and then release those
compositions to the world. Subsequently, a ‘bedroom’ community illustrates Sexton’s
(2008) point that technology affords independence. Technological accessibility removes
the romanticised notion that music production must occur in proper studios, with skilled
experts in designated roles, and under the supervision of a record label. In actuality, it can
happen anywhere, anytime.
Taha’s (2011) documentary sheds light on common music production trends found in
other genres. The Internet functions as a virtually endless resource of musical production
guidance through tutorials, podcasts and free resources found on YouTube and else-
where. Since music production (in all related forms) is no longer a mystery, this
 CREATIVE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 5

information saturation democratises the ways independent artists create their art. Simi-
larly, when an artist lacks skill in a particular area, technology facilitates greater automa-
tion and change as recording software enables an artist to accomplish multiple tasks
(Sexton 2008). Moreover, there are numerous digital media tools available to document
how independent musicians and producers choose to work. That rich data ultimately pla-
ces the ‘studio’ in a variety of places and functions that adjust with trends in independent
sound recording. The ‘bedroom’ is simply a place where the artist feels at ease and opens
to exploring his or her creative vision.

The indie recording studio as a source of cultural research data

Duran (2011, 245) references the debate in academic and commercial music circles on
production-as-research. This discussion reflects the challenges in how practitioner/schol-
ars must place the recording studio into an ethno musicological context. Thompson and
Lashua’s (2014, 746) recent case studies raise similar issues to the recording studio’s value
as a source for ethnographic fieldwork. Both Duran (2011) and Thompson and Lashua
(2014) use the recording studio’s advanced tools to capture music-specific observations
to analyse for cultural and social purposes.
Turino (2008, 71) suggests that studio production differs from field recording and live
performance due to lack of visibility, noting sonic quality must account for this vacancy
through creative tracking and mixing techniques. This lack of visibility supports Turino’s
(2008) assertion that a recording studio is a fundamentally private place. A proverbial cur-
tain shields artists in the studio from the mistakes that happen during a live performance
and reiterates the studio mystique.
Dubber’s (2011, 20–21) recent studies bridge a substantial gap between documenting
recording practices for social research purposes and data analysis that explores the rela-
tionship between multimedia technology and Internet-based music consumption. These
research trends offer scholars exciting possibilities to see how independent artists develop
music production skills and use global technology for peer-based collaboration. If the
Internet facilitates new research methods, scholars now have access to the ways musicians
interact with each other.
Dubber’s (2011, 20–21) use of multimedia tools to document an extensive recording
project achieves two significant purposes: (1) to give technical insights into the produc-
tion itself and (2) to gather relevant cultural data useful for dissemination by scholars and
music fans. These collective efforts illustrate that the recording studio is a sufficient plat-
form to conduct multidisciplinary research with, and the data generated from the study
appeals to academicians and music industry professionals (Duran 2011; Thompson and
Lashua 2014; Finn€as 2001; Dubber 2011).
Finally, scholars can deploy rich new media tools, web-based technologies and mixed
method research strategies to capture recording studio practice and its cultural, economic
and creative influence in higher education and the music industry. Specialised courses in
music production and industry are a recent phenomenon, considering longstanding path-
ways in instrumental and vocal performance, music education and composition.
Thompson and Lashua’s (2014) practice-led case studies, which examine how students in
vocationally focused courses like audio engineering and music business, address issues of
6 D. A. WALZER

creativity in the studio and how future graduates might grapple with promoting their
music later.
Similarly, Dubber’s (2011) work allows us to experience music production, recording
and distribution as a global phenomenon. Thus, the researchers mentioned here draw
from their professional experience in academia and the music industry, and attempt to
bridge industry trends with new media and diverse research methodologies. Moreover,
these trends in digital scholarship offer music business and audio scholars with data that
place the recording studio in various research contexts – especially when considering
how independent artists collaborate and engage with music audiences in new ways.

Higher education as an indie music production incubator

Perhaps, then, it is in university settings, where various music and entertainment incuba-
tors live, that trends in independent music production develop new historical approaches,
which will affect the direction of the music business. Given that students can major in
these areas, scholars can investigate the many ways millennial entrepreneurs hope to
accomplish their goals. Students must understand how to produce and promote creative
work simultaneously – and college may be the safest place to do that as the music busi-
ness changes.
Practitioner-researchers benefit from daily contact with passionate students, observing
their successes and failures at adapting to rapid advances (both technologically and fis-
cally) in the entertainment business. Technological advancement benefits researchers and
those stakeholders with an interest in how music production and distribution now over-
lap. As more data become available, academics may examine the way they teach and stay
current, and media ethnography may offer some insight in how creativity and business
trends evolve over time. One example includes the migration of recording practices from
big studios to smaller facilities. Likewise, media ethnography permits the practitioner-
researcher to explore his or her process and document every aspect of the creative
pipeline.
Just as the Internet removes the mystery once associated with record production, digi-
tal media offers researchers a chance to see how musicians capture new ideas in their pri-
vate studios. That media creates new data, which gives educators a better understanding
of how millennial artists work. One example of this paradigm happens when successful
independent artist-producers transition into university teaching. These entrepreneurs
bring recent, practical experience in how to produce and promote music in a ‘new’ indus-
try – a business rife with tighter budgets and smaller profit margins. A ‘successful’ indie
artist can answer questions about how they accomplish certain goals by documenting
aspects of their work in the studio, booking gigs, connecting with audiences and the like.
These activities can be recorded and distributed via podcasts and through the Internet.
Students that wonder how to accomplish their goals can now access this information
through YouTube and in social media outlets.
The implications are both pedagogical and industry-specific in scope and may appeal
to music business and audio scholars alike. Here, digital media serves three central func-
tions. First, it gives musicians a chance to record and promote music very quickly and very
efficiently. Second, when used for ethnographic documentation, novices can experience
first-hand the realities of how roles in the music industry intersect and move toward the
 CREATIVE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 7

individual. Third, researchers in music and media disciplines can access data for qualitative
analysis and use the information in multiple ways. Digital media finally allows researchers
to explore how the complex relationships between musicians unfold, in particular, who
contributes ‘what’ to each session. Media ethnography allows us to see how the final
product comes about, especially when the entrepreneur works in non-traditional sites to
accomplish his or her goals. One way to explore this concept is to see how various stake-
holders interact with each other in recording environments. Bell’s (2014) fine case study
with the independent artist’s multifaceted roles in recording and producing music is an
example of this kind of qualitative research. To better understand the nature of recording
studio collaboration, a brief overview is presented in the following paragraphs.

Change in recording environments

Pulling inspiration from Aug
e’s (1995, 77–78) concept of ‘non-place’, Th
eberge (2004, 763)
portrays recording studios in a similar light, noting while recording spaces are frequently
located in big metropolitan areas, creative activities in such locations are isolated, and
yield momentary results. This builds tension between the thriving exchange of data in
large epicentres and the focal point of capturing a secluded musical event away from the
public eye. Although commercial studios function as an indispensable component of a
bigger music infrastructure, recordings are intimate affairs (Th
eberge 2004, 763).
Gurevich’s (2006) research suggests that musicians in remote locations value seclusion
when exploring collaborative projects.
Th
eberge (2004, 763) notes the historical development of recording studio practice,
conceding that in the beginning, labels were not concerned with capturing sound in an
acoustically treated environment. Putnam (1980, 3) describes the strict recording proto-
cols of major label recording studios in the 1940s. Modern recording technology has
improved the overall quality novice recordists capture. Th
eberge (2004, 763) argues that
fledgling early recording practices are applicable in modern recording contexts. Here, the
question is whether independent producers are getting back to that same ideology –
where the boundaries in makeshift bedrooms and rehearsal spaces inspire new creative
works and models for distribution. Those same limitations inspire a new DIY mind set
among the new recording class stakeholders.
This is a relevant observation and brings up the circular nature of the modern recording
and promotion process. Prior (2010, 402) contends that deep pockets and corporate capi-
tal are not prerequisites to generating creative output. Well-informed practitioners inte-
grate computer technology to produce media. They maximise the utilisation of affordable
and plentiful tools, more than previous decades (2010, 402). Now, the DIY production aes-
thetic comes equipped with a digital-quality output.
Makeshift bedroom studios have Internet access and smaller, affordable technologies,
placing the producer in a much larger network, capable of consuming and producing orig-
inal creative material to a global audience. Artists preferring to work in isolation produce
innovative sample-based collages with subtle dynamics and pop sensibilities receiving
much-unexpected commercial success (Tingen 2012). Bedroom producers are no longer
secret. Their melodic, sonic and cultural imprints influence mainstream commercial pro-
ductions as well (Taha 2011).
8 D. A. WALZER

Prior (2010, 400) observes that the hyper-fragmentation of cultural communities,

mostly influenced by advancing technologies, are not as powerful individually, but when
their efforts combine, the results are remarkable. Production creatively manifests itself
through modern hip-hop, sampling, digital audio workstations and global collaboration.
Independent artists use software-based digital audio workstations and synthesisers to
make new pieces across an impressive scope of musical genres (Hofer 2006, 312). Prior
(2010, 399) sees the modern recording studio as a vital function of a changing artistic cul-
ture that is equal parts producer and consumer. Th
eberge (2004, 769) views the mixing
console as an essential communication device, noting the home-studio market experi-
enced this phenomenon as four-track cassette recorders decreased in cost, while mostly
self-contained with a simple mixer.

Order, participation and evolving tools

Historically, creative music production activities included three separate events. King and
Vickers (2007, 62) note that while the traditional process of studio recording is classified
by pre-production, production and post-production; these isolated activities are now
called ‘production.’ Independent musicians, mostly lacking the same technology and
monetary resources, must fulfil multiple roles in the conception, production, distribution
and promotion of a finished recording. Leyshon (2009, 1313) frames these various roles
across a ‘musical network’, each contributing to the music industry’s overall capital.
Weighing these factors, all pathways towards completing final recordings intersect, widely
defined from beginning to end.
King and Vickers (2007, 62) generalise record production as a series of interrelated
issues and consider musician participation as an intersecting and overlapping creative
process. Zagorski-Thomas (2007, 328) explores how scholars measure musical participa-
tion throughout recording sessions, questioning whether participation happens at spe-
cific times, or whether that process extends beyond tracking, post-production and
mixing. At the very least, King and Vickers (2007) and Zagorski-Thomas (2007) illustrate
that record production is not an isolated occurrence. It involves a series of events that
influence how the music is produced and later perceived by the listener. The musical
network might include contributors in different cities or even different countries. They
may participate asynchronously, which makes quantifying each area of input even more
complicated later on.
Th
eberge (2004, 760) similarly observes evolving tendencies in contemporary record-
ing practice. The global virtual studio, accessible to anyone with an Internet connection
and basic recording technology, has reduced the monopoly of commercial recording stu-
dios, characterised by acoustically treated spaces with trained audio engineers armed
with working knowledge of professional-grade equipment (2004, 760). Today, musicians
can download Audacity and record digital-quality files on their mobile phones and porta-
ble tablets at little to no cost. Moreover, while these open-source technologies do not pro-
vide specific training in audio engineering, they do afford beginners an opportunity to
learn the basics of music production.
Porcello (2004, 733) suggests that audio engineers develop a clear and accessible lan-
guage structure, which enables them to communicate with all participants in a recording
session. How easy is this skill to assimilate if the independent artist works by themselves
 CREATIVE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 9

or with a small cohort of collaborators? It may be that Porcello’s (2004) language observa-
tions can be adapted to address how independent musicians express their ideas – particu-
larly when each of their roles overlap and blur throughout an album’s production cycle. A
balance of technical and musical knowledge helps the independent artist to communicate
across a range of areas and with different stakeholders. With freedom comes responsibil-
ity. If the independent artist is not controlled by a major label or producer (each with dis-
tinct roles in the recording process), they must then understand how to communicate in
ways that are appropriate for each situation.
Leyshon (2009, 1313) views all recording session participants as ‘actors’ from different
fields, tasked with working towards a completed product. Collective participation in music
production must consider the personal and collective roles, responsibilities, communica-
tion patterns and aims of the recording sessions. Affordable technology enables a single
individual to reach conclusions around their creative product without corporate and insti-
tutional limitations. Commercial recording studios function as a single part of a larger mar-
ket structure where label executives make final decisions on the subjective quality of
creative output (Prior 2010, 398). If these managers are removed from the pipeline due to
redundancy, the independent artist has more room to explore their ideas and creative
inspirations. The independent artist becomes the leading actor in this entire process.

The tension in individual and collective effort

Sawyer and DeZutter’s (2009, 82) concept of ‘distributed creativity’ describes a process
where collaborating groups create a product through collective interaction. That collective
interaction inspires a ‘collective emergence’ where (1) the result is not explicitly known,
(2) individual actions are immediately determined by another person’s preceding action,
(3) each person forms and directs group perception based on their actions, (4) the entire
process is collective with each member contributing equally and (5) the collective effort
anticipates the fluid, improvisational and unpredictable interaction of group members
(2009, 82).
Influenced by cognitive scientists, Sawyer and DeZutter (2009, 81) link distributed crea-
tivity and collective emergence with qualitative research methodologies, noting cognitive
processes are visible across groups through verbal and non-verbal forms of communica-
tion. Nevertheless, a question comes up about how to keep this behaviour when the inter-
action is not in real-time. Do the observations work similarly if two musicians collaborate
on a track over the Internet for an undetermined period? For solo performers, collective
emergence has some relevance. If the answer is not always clear and should the musician
work with someone else, his or her roles become harder to specify.
Measuring the various roles of musicians, producers, sound engineers and man-
agement executives involved in music production is a complicated procedure that
must consider the existing stresses and the dynamics between personal and collec-
tive group structures. Shared collaboration is a necessity at times, where the collec-
tive group demonstrates leadership towards the project completion; however, not all
project outcomes are unanimously accepted (Sawyer and DeZutter, cited in Campelo
and Howell 2013, 17–19). The multifaceted relationship between independent musi-
cians working towards completing a shared goal is often dictated by personal prefer-
ence and financial necessity.
10 D. A. WALZER

Independent music production and entrepreneurship

Jackson and Oliver (2003, 240) suggest network theory as a useful framework for contem-
plating the bigger structures and distinct relationships between creative entrepreneurs.
Jackson and Oliver (2003, 241) view the independent entrepreneur as disjointed in their
decision-making process, preferring the immediacy and risk taking. Additionally, the crea-
tive entrepreneur prefers to operate in communities of like-minded people, who feed their
knowledge infrastructure and ability to generate partnerships (2003, 241).
Kruse (2010, 625) believes that the rapid expansion of Internet-based music communi-
ties allow independent artists to connect with each other regardless of geography.
Although the Internet significantly contributes to music production’s global reach, Kruse
(2010, 626) suggests that cost-effective promotion and recording strategies are longstand-
ing traditions in the independent music community, inspiring practitioners to connect
with their audience long before the Internet existed. Technology’s growth enhances the
ways independent artists produce material and distribute it to their audiences; however,
their pragmatic approach considering budgetary constraints remains unchanged.
McLeod (2005, 527) suggests independent record labels turn once-perceived limita-
tions into modest, yet innovative business strategies. Wilson and Stokes (2005, 5) indicate
that while autonomy and self-reliance are important traits driving independent labels to
create new music, like-minded communities extend that process through the strength of
their network. McLeod (2005, 527) notes these micro-communities share their tools and
resources to publish content in multiple formats, resulting in a creative art representative
of the artist’s designs.
Kruse (2010) and McLeod’s (2005) research illustrates a theme about the business prac-
tices of independent labels, artists and producers. Digital distribution facilitates a quick
exchange between the artist and consumer. Kozinn (2013) reports successful attempts by
artists to engage their audiences through a subscription-based service. Fans pay a nomi-
nal monthly fee to receive access to new tracks and media content, enabling the artist to
control their distribution outlets, increase their audience and work towards profit genera-
tion (Kozinn 2013).
Although the technology allows this seamless exchange to take place, the independ-
ents do not abandon their broader ideologies of artistic integrity, financial practicality and
community relationships. Regardless of the distribution format, successful independent
artists routinely pool their resources, balancing their artistic interests with realistic goals.
The result of these deliberate efforts is an independent community that releases creative
music, inspiring culturally diverse listening experiences, without requiring help from cor-
porate record labels (McLeod 2005, 527). Doomtree (2016), a Minnesota-based hip-hop
consortium, is one such example of a community of independents working collaboratively
to build an international presence for the past 15 years.

Globalisation in music production

Multimedia content saturates the Internet. Burgess and Green (2009, 42–43) describe
YouTube’s densely populated space as a complex web of amateur and professional media
content, constantly intersecting and overlapping. Prior (2010, 399) notes like-minded com-
munities of independent user networks create and broadcast music and media, thus
 CREATIVE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 11

creating tension with existing corporate-driven structures about digital rights manage-
ment, profits and copyright. The Internet’s vast openness, coupled with accessible tech-
nology, influences notions of identity in modern EDM practitioners and audiences (Hofer
2006, 308).
Th
eberge (2004, 775–776) suggests large-scale and independent facilities, armed with
increased remote recording capabilities, illustrate the studio’s function as a smaller piece
of a bigger whole, where the networked technology enables musicians and producers to
make towards a common product without geographic constraints. Furthermore, the
advances in technology allow for a productive flow of expressive ideas, hence explaining
the ‘network studio’ ideology (2004, 775–776).
Prior (2010, 403) notes the computer is a powerful engine, capable of multi-platform
integration with production, distribution and promotion. A single tool suffices, and users
of that device expect to master these tasks in the modern age. Musicians using digital
audio workstations customise their visual experience with the program, choosing colour
settings and screen dimensions to enhance the recording process (Merrington 2011).
Overdubbing, once considered a novel idea, is an essential way independent musicians
create fully realised works (Prior 2010, 402). Independent artists can produce robust tracks
with a single tool, and use it to share their works-in-progress and finished mixes to a
global audience.

Independent production and musical identity

Frith (1996, 109) suggests that personal artistic experiences are most authentic when the
person adopts an individualised and group perspective on the event itself. The experience
is all encompassing, and it changes the individual’s perception of the world, and their
place in it (1996, 109). Frith’s (1996, 109) perspective on music and identity shares some
similarities with Sawyer and DeZutter’s (2009, 82) notion of collective emergence in that
the entire creative process is fluid, irregular and without a defined end goal (Frith 1996,
109).
Frith (1996, 109) explains that the musical event itself embodies both the action and
the story behind that action. When an independent artist records a take in their bedroom
or project studio, the performance and production shape audience perception. Turino
(2008, 107) observes that audiences respond to an artist’s connection with their personal
story, which establishes the musician’s credibility through authentic performances and
creative output. Additionally, the artist’s interaction with others or lack thereof contributes
to their perception of who they are creatively (Frith 1996, 109).
The recording space and personal narrative mould the independent musician’s concep-
tion of the person they are (Frith 1996, 109). This is perhaps one reason why many artists
choose to operate in privacy. Their narratives unfold before and after the recording ses-
sion by connecting their musical identity to their craft (1996, 109). Indeed, many indepen-
dent practitioners prefer not to disclose their personal insecurities in such an informal
setting, opting to play solo.
Hofer (2006, 312) views the unlimited amount of tracks available in digital audio work-
stations as an opportunity for independent artists to change their identities, casually
switching from one style of music to another. Hofer (2006, 312) suggests that available
technologies, sounds and tools encourage independent artists to research different facets
12 D. A. WALZER

of their personality. Each track presents the solo artist with an opportunity to create a new
persona while exploring diverse styles ranging from commercial pop and EDM, to abstract
jazz and world music (2006, 312).
Because modern digital audio workstations include non-destructive editing features,
the musician discards the experiments they consider unacceptable. However, once the
artist finds a group of patches, loops, samples and grooves to experiment with, they real-
ise their creative potential within the confines of the project studio. The artist customises
his or her studio production experience regardless of commercial release pressures.
The current discussion on affordable recording technology must acknowledge how the
lines between professional and amateur production influence the subjective quality of a
finished recording and its perceived value. Th
eberge (2004, 773) reflects on early Musical
Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI) technology that fuelled the rise of project studios in
the late 1980s. The first project studios consisted of modest set-ups in confined spaces,
leading to over-dependence on artificial, MIDI-generated sounds (2004, 773).
Prior’s (2010, 405) observation of ‘prosumption’ is noteworthy. Advancing broadband
technology improves communication exchange; two collaborators do not need to be in
the same room, as long as they establish a clear vision of distance-based cooperation. The
networks are quicker, deeper, more precise and yet withdrawn from social interaction.
Ultimately, for producers and musicians working closely with a few trusted associates
online, this arrangement proves advantageous.
Strachan (2007, 246) indicates that outside the realm of commercial music, there exist
large communities of amateur and semi-professional artists and businesses, each commit-
ted to connecting their craft with a sense of culture. These independent organisations are
inspired to create art that opposes the ideologies expressed in the commercial music
industry (2007, 246). It is no surprise that like-minded entrepreneurs attract one another.
They congregate for mutual support and to rebel against the commercialised monopoly
embodied by major labels.
The subtle shift of the mainstream music industry intertwines with the blurring lines of
production and consumption of fresh thoughts. Prior (2010) indicates that it is the tech-
nology that blurs the lines of the novice, professional, ‘prosumer’ and amateur – stating
that the concept of production is now far-reaching (400). While independent artists com-
bine different tools and motivations, their study has persuasive creative merit. Once the
independent musician grows in confidence, both musically and technically, their sense of
control and belonging increases as well. In a way, as the recording class emancipates itself
from the confines of a major label hierarchy, independent musicians experience unparal-
leled freedom. This DIY autonomy fuels their creative inspirations regardless of whether or
not the project makes money.

Discussion
Independent musicians make a conscious choice to work individually or in native commu-
nities, regardless of their economic circumstances, access to professional technology and
pre-existing knowledge of recording practices or setting. Recording original music in a
bedroom or commercial recording studio is an intensely personal experience. From the
independent musician’s standpoint, living up to multiple roles, previously controlled by
specialised actors, may suit their individual needs and yet present fiscal and logistical
 CREATIVE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 13

challenges (Thomson 2012). Similarly, an artist’s role can blur the creative and technical
boundaries when faced with challenging issues needing to be resolved (Bell 2014).
Thomson’s (2012) summary of the Future Music Coalition’s Artist Revenue Streams Proj-
ect illustrates that the consortium of contemporary musicians is deep, and thus breaking
down perceived economic and financial successes is difficult. Additionally, scholars must
rate the independent musician’s creative output based on these existing preferences,
regardless of traditional practices in related industries. Just as the independent musician’s
relationship with others is both fluid and complex, so too is their relationship with their
personal identity.
Fortunately, digital media affords researchers a glimpse at how musicians work through
video observations and diaries. This qualitative data may help researchers understand the
economic motivations of independent musicians as well. Likewise, videos give researchers
a look into the unfolding relationships among a smaller group of actors in the studio. A
group might consist of a beat-maker and a lyricist and no one else. This dynamic is very
different from a full group of session musicians, producers, assistant engineers and crew
on a major label session. Regardless of the type of team presented, there are fiscal, social,
artistic and emotional implications every time an album is produced. Getting beyond their
self-perceived limitations may be the biggest obstacle independent artists need to over-
come. Bell’s (2014) qualitative study is one example of this kind of research. Additionally,
my writings (Walzer 2016) on digital storytelling explore pedagogical applications of this
work in higher education.
Regarding music and recording technology, how must scholars quantify the indepen-
dent producer’s contributions? What role does the mixing or mastering engineer, who
receives the finished stems and works on them in a separate space, have on the finished
output if not a work-for-hire? It would seem these questions are largely contextual. If the
producer co-writes or plays on the track, then their role blurs. However, if they are con-
tracted as a work-for-hire, it would seem collective emergence does not apply. For prag-
matic purposes, these settings are not always purely defined and absolute. What is clear is
that independent musicians produce art, with smaller and robust tools, which is meaning-
ful to them in non-traditional recording locations. They also choose trusted collaborators
based on their own financial and ideological goals.
At one time, traditional music actors had their predefined roles. Now, those roles blur. If
the independent musician is the audio engineer and producer, it is hard to evaluate every
aspect of how an album is made. By encouraging independent musicians to document
their work through video diaries, researchers and fans alike can better understand how
they create art. From there, researchers can better understand how independent artists
work with specific collaborators and why those relationships offer new ways to think
about music production and distribution.3
Drawing parallels to solo theatrical performance, Pinney (2006, 183) classifies the rela-
tionship between the solo artist and director as fragile, requiring a tactful exchange of
feedback where both parties contribute ideas. Jackson and Oliver (2003, 240) frame actors
within an entrepreneurial perspective, suggesting they aggressively pursue their goals
while interacting with a variety of networks. Leyshon (2009, 1313) similarly views actors as
a small part of a greater whole. All parties must identify their goals, communicate and
allow space for new ideas to develop which may prove challenging for independent
artists (Pinney 2006; Jackson and Oliver 2003). Indeed, clear communication and shared
14 D. A. WALZER

goals are vital for success in the independent music sector. Fostering this clear, shared
communication among a group of independent stakeholders is advantageous.
Without visual access to the work habits of a solo artist, particularly one who collabo-
rates with other musicians, it is challenging to assess their overall contribution to the fin-
ished product. When cooperating via the Internet, independent musicians must consider
their partner’s motivations, availability and ambitions, and skill with digital audio worksta-
tions. Aspiring producers and musicians collaborating synchronously on moderated web-
sites prefer the anonymity and functionality these networks provide (Gurevich 2006).
Gurevich’s (2006) research may support the notion that collective effort has a major
impact on how independent music is produced. Those musicians that are willing to share
their intimate performances with each other share a deep connection towards fulfilling a
common artistic goal.
Sawyer and DeZutter (2009) mention that group collaboration inspires new creative
practice; yet, little is known how teams work towards a completed product, and more sig-
nificantly, how to organise and classify the personal and collective roles within the larger
group structure. Scholarly inquiry addressing these contextual issues must consider the
recording studio, regardless of its physical site, as a viable place to conduct research while
focusing on the recorded sound and its cultural implications (Meintjes, cited in Duran
2011, 246).
Campelo and Howlett’s (2013, 18–19) case study involving a transcontinental recording
session, explores the complex and evolving relationship between musicians, sound engi-
neers, conductors and producers. The authors note the producer’s physical absence com-
plicates the existing communication structure, and decision-making process towards
project completion, with musicians taking on an active role, instead of the producer’s per-
ceived distance from the group (2013, 18–19). Campelo and Howlett’s (2013) important
research sheds light on how independent artists can work together. Without any per-
ceived constraints, the new recording class appears with newfound confidence brought
about by experimentation and trust in their musicianship.

Conclusion
The recording studio, when employed as a research-based tool, provides academicians,
practitioners and industry professionals with valuable information for a future scholarly
study that looks at the rapid changes in session protocols, the influence of technology
and cultural perceptions of independent record production and distribution of products.
Independent producers have the tools and knowledge to create musical ideas and
share their finished work with a global audience through the Internet with their loyal fan
base locally. As major labels and commercial recording studios face an uncertain future,
these scenarios present entrepreneurial independents with an exciting opportunity to
generate new music business and production models for the future. As this paper has sug-
gested, the ‘studio’ itself is an ideal location to study human behaviour. The affordable
media tools that give independent artists certain fiscal advantages offer the same possibil-
ities to research scientists. With thoughtful research design, scholars can collaborate with
independent artists all over the world via web cameras, Skype and by using encouraging
autobiographical narrative through video journals.
 CREATIVE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 15

Independent record production, as a process and ideology, intersects with technology

and deploying that technology has personal implications for the artists using it. While
independent musicians prefer software-based production methods through digital audio
workstations and Internet-based collaboration, their recorded performances are creative
expressions of their identity and personal account. Internet connectivity and affordable
music production software remove the need for independents to use a ‘proper’ recording
studio. Additionally, independent artists are no longer constricted by geography. The
global music production culture, primarily drawn from Internet communities with shared
interests in software and musical styles, participates in a rapid exchange of information.
This information guides novice engineers on how to use the tools they have with confi-
dence through tutorials and constant peer-to-peer feedback.
The recording studio, mostly functioning as a creative vehicle, exposes the complex
relationships among producers, artists, sound engineers and management. Further schol-
arship must consider if the proliferation of smaller, project studios is a reaction to corpo-
rate structures long-held by the music industry, or if independent artists prefer to work in
isolation, with affordable tools and convenient access to trusted colleagues who share
their values and long-term goals. Additionally, future multidisciplinary research incorpo-
rating new media and web-based methodologies promise to bring to light the many
changes currently underway in the global music industry. Conducting music business and
audio-related research in higher education settings could be an exciting way to predict
future industry trends.
For the lone music producer working in many different simultaneous roles, collective
effort emphasises their close association with trusted associates. In this case, the artistic
and financial outcome is not always apparent. Future psychological research into this area
may explore how independent musicians react in different studio environments – the first
where they successfully collaborate and another where the communication is less effec-
tive. This type of scholarship offers many fascinating possibilities to see how musicians
work with each other, especially via the Internet. This paper has argued that independent
producers, artists and musicians share many commonalities with actors. Both groups face
significant challenges in establishing a particular yet autonomous role within ever-chang-
ing and globalised industries. Their creative functions and output, not easily quantified,
requires a thorough qualitative assessment that reflects financial, cultural and artistic pref-
erences. Future studies must consider how leadership styles influence small-group
dynamics within creative fields.
Globalised networks inspire a cross-cultural exchange of musical ideas and information;
future research must consider how the Internet’s pervasive influence drives creative inno-
vation in local communities. Independent artists explore ways to generate capital, specifi-
cally from crowd-funding campaigns and related efforts, and research must consider how
these endeavours influence creative entrepreneurship and aesthetics. Additionally, while
independent artists and labels value autonomy, their creative efforts strengthen with care-
fully aligned networks. Doomtree’s (2016) longevity over nearly two decades exemplifies
this point. Though Minnesota has a rich urban music history, Doomtree continues to inno-
vate through collaborative recording and distribution arrangements. Whereas mainstream
acts often get dropped without much thought, Doomtree continually pools their resour-
ces to reach a growing audience.
16 D. A. WALZER

Cooperative systems breed confidence among the user base and give artists a sense of
belonging. Equally, since the growth of global indie music communities is so expansive,
artists simultaneously offer tips and instructional materials on how to record and distrib-
ute music. These techniques, once kept highly confidential, are completely open for the
new recording class to use. This free exchange of information is transformational and
changes how independent artists learn their craft.
Finally, and maybe most significantly, independent artists continually find ways to
improve their recording ability, promotion strategies and income flows. Although indepen-
dent producers and musicians make less than mainstream artists do, many, though certainly
not all, remain determined to reach their audience through creative production, mixing and
distribution. Indeed, some artists are perfectly content to explore conventional methods to
realise their ideas and yet others get signed and achieve mainstream success. The DIY aes-
thetic, once viewed as a fledgling effort at best, now criss-crosses all aspects of the music
and entertainment sectors. As Sexton’s (2008) point illustrates, new media technology gives
those persons, once considered ‘fringe practitioners’, a path to realise their artistic aims.
Once the fringe population becomes the ‘new mainstream’, the term indie becomes almost
a mischaracterisation. If the vast majority of global artists with access to contemporary tech-
nology produces new ideas, then how indie are they, really? Certainly, that is a philosophical
question that deserves greater exploration in future research.
Time will tell how the rise of this new recording class influences the commercial music
industry. The recording class itself is not organised by socio-economic status or power
structure. Rather, it is a loose association of technologically aware millennial producers –
each guided by a sense of free enterprise and transparency. These efforts, mostly inspired
by the blurring lines of recording and business strategies, generate many opportunities
for more scholarly discourse about the direction of independent music production and its
emergence as a viable creative venture in the next decade. Finally, could it be that indus-
try practitioner-researchers come across robust subjects for qualitative researching using
new media as a form of ethnography? Time will tell. The technology is readily available,
just as the tools for music production and distribution are. Perhaps, then, a new form of
‘indie research entrepreneurship’ will shed light on the music industry and recording prac-
tice for years to come.

Notes
1. The Journal on the Art of Record Production and the supporting ARP Conferences offer multidisci-
plinary research inquiries into the diverse aspects of record production. Additionally, Simon
Zagorski-Thomas’ The Musicology of Record Production (Cambridge University Press) and The Art
of Record Production: An Introductory Reader for a New Academic Field (Ashgate) – edited by
Simon Frith and Simon Zagorski-Thomas – are comprehensive resources on this emerging disci-
pline. For more information, please visit http://alturl.com/d5fyf.
2. Avatar Studios, a legendary recording space in New York City, recently announced it was
closing – much to the dismay of popular music fans all over the world. This is just one example
of major studios that are struggling to stay open. For more information, please visit http://alturl.
com/ouym9.
3. I have written about the benefits of use of this type of research elsewhere, particularly in music
technology and educational contexts (Walzer 2016).
 CREATIVE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 17

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank the anonymous peer reviewers for their helpful and thoughtful feedback
on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Daniel A. Walzer is an assistant professor of Composition for New Media at the University of Massa-
chusetts Lowell, USA. Walzer received his BM degree in Jazz Studies from Bowling Green State Uni-
versity, MM degree in Jazz Studies from the University of Cincinnati’s College-Conservatory of Music
and his MFA degree in Music Production and Sound Design for Visual Media from Academy of Art
University. Originally trained as a jazz percussionist, Walzer has an extensive performance back-
ground as a session and touring musician, along with relevant experience as an independent record
label owner, album production supervisor, composer, media broadcast professional, audio engineer,
academic researcher and educational administrator. Walzer’s published research and reviews appear
in the Leonardo Music Journal, Journal of Music, Technology & Education, Journal of Radio and Audio
Media, the Journal of Media Education and in several refereed conference proceedings. Walzer is cur-
rently pursuing doctoral studies at the University of the Cumberlands.

ORCID
Daniel A. Walzer http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3826-1356

References
Aug
e, M. 1995. Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. Translated by John
Howe. New York: Verso.
Bell, A. 2014. “Trial-by-Fire: A Case Study of the Musician-Engineer Hybrid Role in the Home Studio.”
Journal of Music, Technology & Education 7 (3): 295–312. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/con
tent/intellect/jmte/2014/00000007/00000003/art00004.
Burgess, R. 2005. The Art of Music Production. 3rd ed., 31–32. London: Omnibus Press.
Burgess, J., and J. Green. 2009. YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture, 38–58. Cambridge,
MA: Polity Press. http://tinyurl.com/nwjrxls.
Campelo, I., and M. Howlett. 2013 “The ‘Virtual’ Producer in the Recording Studio: Media Networks
in Long Distance Peripheral Performances.” Journal on the Art of Record Production 8: 1–21.
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/68315/2/68315.pdf.
Castells, M. 2000. The Rise of the Network Society. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Doomtree. 2016. About Doomtree. http://www.doomtree.net/about/.
Dubber, A. 2011. “Monkey on the Roof: Researching Creative Practice, Music Consumption, Social
Change and the Online Environment.” Creative Industries Journal 4 (1): 19–32. http://www.tandfon
line.com/doi/abs/10.1386/cij.4.1.19_1?journalCodeDrcij20.
Duran, L. 2011. “Music Production as a Tool of Research, and Impact.” Ethnomusicology Forum 20 (2):
245–253. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17411912.2011.596653?journalCodeD
remf20.
Finn€as, L. 2001. “Presenting Music Live, Audio-Visually or Aurally – Does it Affect Listeners’ Experien-
ces Differently?” British Journal of Music Education 18 (1): 55–78. Abstract only. http://tinyurl.com/
o52vlle.
18 D. A. WALZER

Frith, S. 1996. “Music and Identity.” In Questions of Cultural Identity, edited by S. Hall and P. du Gay,
108–127. London: Sage Publications. http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Frith-Music-
and-Identity-1996.pdf.
Frith, S., and S. Zagorksi-Thomas, eds. 2012. The Art of Record Production: An Introductory Reader for a
New Academic Field. Surrey: Ashgate Press.
Gurevich, M. 2006. “JamSpace: A Networked Real-Time Collaborative Music Environment.” CHI’06
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems 821–826. Abstract only. http://dl.acm.
org/citation.cfm?idD1125613.
Hesmondhalgh, D. 1999. “Indie: The Institutional Politics and Aesthetics of a Popular Music Genre.”
Cultural Studies 13 (1): 34–61. https://www.academia.edu/1092240/Indie_The_institutional_
politics_and_aesthetics_of_a_popular_music_genre.
Hofer, S. 2006. “I am They: Technological Mediation, Shifting Conceptions of Identity and Techno
Music.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 12 (3):
307–324. http://con.sagepub.com/content/12/3/307.short.
Jackson, J., and T. Oliver. 2003. “Personal Networks Theory and the Arts: A Literature Review with
Special Reference to Entrepreneurial Popular Musicians.” Journal of Arts Management, Law & Soci-
ety 33 (3): 240–256. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10632920309597349.
King, A., and P. Vickers. 2007. “Problem Solving with Learning Technology in the Music Studio.” Jour-
nal of Music, Technology & Education 1 (1): 57–67. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
228976348_Problem_solving_with_learning_technology_in_the_music_studio.
Kozinn, A. 2013. “A Pay-What-You-Can Music Model.” The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/
2013/08/22/arts/music/a-pay-what-you-can-music-model.html?_rD0.
Kruse, H. 2010. “Local Identity and Independent Music Scenes, Online and Off.” Popular Music and
Society 33 (5): 625–639. http://hollykruse.com/PM%26SArticle2011.pdf.
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
41 (6): 1309–1331. http://www.academia.edu/2461001/The_Software_Slump_digital_music_the_
democratisation_of_technology_and_the_decline_of_the_recording_studio_sector_within_the_
musical_economy.
McLeod, K. 2005. “MP3s are Killing Home Taping: The Rise of Internet Distribution and its Challenge
to the Major Label Music Monopoly.” Popular Music & Society 28 (4): 521–531. http://ir.uiowa.edu/
cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articleD1004&contextDcommstud_pubs.
Meintjes, L. 2003. Sound of Africa! Making Music Zulu in a South African Studio. Durham, NC: Duke Uni-
versity Press.
Merrington, M. 2011. “Experiencing Musical Composition in the DAW: The Software Interface as
Mediator of the Musical Idea.” Journal on the Art of Record Production 5: 1–8. http://arpjournal.
com/experiencing-musical-composition-in-the-daw-the-software-interface-as-mediator-of-the-
musical-idea-2/.
Pinney, A. 2006. “Between a Director and a Cast of One: A Beginning Aesthetic.” Theatre Topics 16 (2):
183–191. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/tt/summary/v016/16.2pinney.html.
Porcello, T. 2004. “Speaking of Sound Language and the Professionalization of Sound-Recording
Engineers.” Social Studies of Science 34 (5): 733–758. http://sss.sagepub.com/content/34/5/733.
short.
Prior, N. 2010. “The Rise of the New Amateurs: Popular Music, Digital Technology and the Fate of Cul-
tural Production.” In Handbook of Cultural Sociology, edited by John R. Hall, Laura Grindstaff, and
Ming-Cheng Lo, 398–407. London: Routledge. https://www.academia.edu/354591/The_Rise_of_
the_New_Amateurs_Popular_Music_Digital_Technology_and_ the_Fate_of_Cultural_Production.
Putnam, M. T. 1980. “A Thirty-Five Year History and Evolution of the Recording Studio.” Paper pre-
sented at the Audio Engineering Society 66th Convention, Los Angeles, CA, May 6–9. http://
www.aes.org/aeshc/pdf/putnam_history-of-recording-studios.pdf.
Sawyer, R., and S. DeZutter. 2009. “Distributed Creativity: How Collective Creations Emerge From Col-
laboration.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 3 (2): 81–92. ftp://pop3.infomus.org/
pub/AestheticsPapers/Creativity-Sawyer2009.pdf.
 CREATIVE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 19

Sexton, J. 2008. “Digital Music: Production, Distribution and Consumption.” In Digital Cultures: Under-
standing New Media, edited by Glen Creeber and Royston Martin, 92–106. Maidenhead: Open
University Press. http://alturl.com/h6bzq.
Strachan, R. 2007. “Micro-Independent Record Labels in the UK Discourse, DIY Cultural Production
and the Music Industry.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 10 (2): 245–265. http://ecs.sagepub.
com/content/10/2/245.abstract.
Taha, M. 2011. Rise of the Bedroom Producer. Southsea: Mota Films. http://vimeo.com/23455083.
Th
eberge, P. 2004. “The Network Studio: Historical and Technological Paths to a New Ideal in Music
Making.” Social Studies of Science 34 (5): 759–781. http://sss.sagepub.com/content/34/5/759.
abstract.
Thomson, K. 2012. “DIY Musicians – Alone Together.” Berklee College of Music – Music Business Journal
7 (2012): 1–8. http://www.thembj.org/2012/07/diy-musicians-alone-together//.
Thompson, P., and B. Lashua. 2014. “Getting it on Record: Issues and Strategies for Ethnographic
Practice in Recording Studios.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 43 (6): 746–769. http://jce.
sagepub.com/content/43/6/746.full.pdf.
Tingen, P. 2012. “Mixing Gotye’s ‘Somebody That I Used to Know’ – François T
etaz.” Sound on Sound.
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul12/articles/it-0712.htm.
Turino, T. 2008. Music as Social Life: The Politics of Participation, 66–107. Chicago, IL: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Walzer, D. 2016. “Digital Storytelling in Music and Audio Education: Inspiring Modern Reflective
Practice with Modern Technology.” TOPICS for Music Education Praxis 2016 (1): 46–76. http://
topics.maydaygroup.org/articles/2016/Walzer2016.pdf
Wilson, N. C., and D. Stokes. 2005. “Managing Creativity and Innovation: The Challenge for Cultural
Entrepreneurs.” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 12 (3): 1–27. http://eprints.
kingston.ac.uk/2319/1/Stokes-D-2319.pdf.
Zagorski-Thomas, S. 2007. “The Study of Groove.” Ethnomusicology Forum 16 (2): 327–335. http://
tinyurl.com/nc8u5jl.