What are ‘locked in’ legacy systems doing to our ears?

I have found, over many years of painful experience, that the first time I do something, I do it wrong.

Quite frequently, I then do it wrong some more. Often up to 20 or 30 times. But eventually I get better at it.

It is a basic principle of life. If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again (as my mum used to say, ad nauseam.) Or indeed, how do you get to Carnegie Hall? (though I bet that if I went the wrong way to Carnegie Hall the first time, I would replicate the mistake at least two or three times.)

PRACTICE!

This is fine when you are acting on your own, but when you are in a position to persuade or be imitated, the results can be disastrous. Your attitudes, however ill-formed, are infectious to the people who observe you, particularly those under your power. Often with inhuman and disastrous consequences.

For anyone in a position of influence, this presents two constant challenges, with somewhat conflicting solutions.

1. Don’t start persuading until you are sure what you think (take the stick out of your own eye before etc etc). Failure to observe this is called ‘Clegging’.

2. Be prepared to change even these sureties on the presentation of new evidence (the only true wisdom knows in knowing that you know nothing). Failure to observe this is called ‘Thatching’.

So far, so difficult. But what happens when what you are creating is not an attitude, or an opinion, or advice, but a system.

Nothing has such a unique ability to change your worldview, attitudes or your psychology as the relentless reapplication and repeat of a behaviour. And these behaviours are totally reliant on shortcuts and systems, otherwise life would be an endless rotation of confused manual tasks (to experiment in what this feels like, go out and drink a vast quantity alcohol, sleep for too little tme and then attempt to do something tricky like cooking a full cooked breakfast.)

There are many types of these systems – language systems, software systems, etiquette systems – and whilst they all have some historical rational basis, they almost all have some glitches that make no sense. They were developed at a specific point in time, to the specifications of what seemed sensible or possible at that time, and then they got ‘locked in’ – socialized or codified to the point where it was impossible the change them.

Category 1 – fun, weird stuff that doesn’t matter, mainly language

Language is the classic legacy system – a form of communication that was always meant to be ever changing, but has been increasingly ‘locked in’ by such pesky inventions as the printing press and the dictionary. Legacy language can be dangerous, but there are many more examples of it being odd and funny. For example consider the category of ‘fruits’, which includes bananas (which I believe are technically a herb) but not tomatoes (because they tend to hang out with vegetables, in a category that might more usefully be called ‘salads’.)

Or maybe 'Salad Juice'?

Category 2 – little irritants that stop us from getting on with life optimally

I have talked about this area at great length before, being but one social grace and a lot of money removed from Larry David. For example inconsistent systems of measurement (like having to translate the weather across geographies/generations.) Or, to get back on a past hobby horse, different cultural practices in when the clocks change (yes, recently the US and UK were only 4 hours apart for two weeks again.)

Sometimes 4 hours difference, sometimes 5.

Category 3 – systems that degrade the way that people think

There is no doubt that the systems you use change the way that your brain works, and the way that you behave towards people and decision making (see the Nudge blog in the sidebar for more.) The danger here is that more new systems are being created than ever before, more rapidly, and since they are built into software and technology, they tend to become ‘locked in’ very rapidly.

And, given that many of these systems are created by megalomaniac geeks in California, you might want to think about what they might be doing to your brain. I don’t mean by this to rehearse the nonsense idea that using Facebook stops you from being able to talk to people. But the precise systems by which Facebook forces you define yourself could end up shaping the way that you think about yourself and what you like.

not a good description of what i 'like'...

However I just found a more elegant example in a highly provocative book I am reading, ‘You are Not a Gadget’ by Jaron Lanier…the example of MIDI.

MIDI was a casual experiment by a synthesizer geek in the 1980s called Dave Smith, who was trying to find a simple way to represent music in software. It is based on a ‘key-down, key-up’ methodology…great for keyboards, not good for the clarinet solo at the beginning of Rhapsody in Blue.

Dave Smith didn’t intend MIDI to become anything more than a good way of creating and capturing synthesizer music. But it rapidly became ‘locked in’. It spread through instruments, and computers, and is now in billions of phones around the world.

Now it wouldn’t have spread so fast if the software hadn’t been useful. But along with the software, something else got ‘locked in’ – the concept that all of music can be reduced to ‘absolute notes’, that exist not only in theory (ie on manuscript paper) but in reality. Now many millions of musicians around the world spend 90% of their musical creative life playing with systems that are fundamentally rooted in MIDI…and it cannot help but change the kind of music they create (and not for the better.)

The ultimate end point – is this legacy software system, now easily improvable, changing not only the way that we make music – but also the way that we hear it?

This makes new design not just a craft, but a moral discipline, particularly when it comes together with software to create scalable locked in systems. Having spent much of this week at the MIT Media Lab however, there is an optimistic conclusion to this – many of the people creating this future are acutely aware of this…and are determined to make a better future for people through healthier systems…not just brighter and shinier ones.

About these ads

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

4 responses to “What are ‘locked in’ legacy systems doing to our ears?

  1. The thing that really ‘locked in’ music to a strict scale was classical notation – for 5 centuries the only way of recording a tune was on paper, with all the limitations that implied.

    Gershwin was only able to write that Rhapsody in Blue opening because people could listen to recorded music, and hear exactly how it sounded when Gershwin himself was conducting.

    Midi was a blip in the twentieth century’s progression away from ‘absolute notes’, currently best demonstrated in the boom and wobble of dubstep,

    • ok. kingslan and buenosam are both right. it’s an arc. i probably would have been haranguing monks for writing down plainsong, and then grumbling through the years of bach and mozart that it was all just a lot of noise and not as good as when you had to kill a goat and then turn its guts into a single-string atonal lyre.

      BUT the argument that i would make is that once the process of making is built into machines and software, the subjectivity of notation is taken away. it is like the difference between the existence of written poetry and the creation of a machine that automated the rhythms in which that poetry is read. even though notation exists and is a locked in system, it takes a lot of learning to work out what that notation means, what the conventional use of it is, what the rules are ad how to break them. MIDI-based software engines take away that subjectivity, and thus the lazy producer AND the lazy ear become accustomed to new pre-set defaults.

      i guess, to refine my argument slightly, is that for the lazy producer and the lazy listener, MIDI-based systems may begin to corrupt their perception of what music is, and the way they hear music. like the person whose main exposure to music is through x-factor. what delights me about this, as buenosam has reminded me, is the violent kickback that immediately comes from the counterculture. or, in this case, ‘the boom and wobble of dubstep’…

  2. Another interesting article, but I agree with Buenosam, I think the instances you’re talking about are simply the most recent manifestations of eternal human tendency.

    You could talk about the formalization of various religions as essentially the same thing. I heard a fascinating example from Dan. Apparently the incredible range of Jewish rituals and prayers were originally never written down and intended to change and evolve with each new generation. In fact it was clearly said that writing these rituals down would be akin to burning the Torah. But they *were* written down when the destruction of the temple was imminent and the terminal loss of these rituals became a real possibility. And now… the prescriptive inflexible nature of ultra-orthodox jewish custom and ritual is, well, utterly prescriptive and inflexible!!

    • ok. kingslan and buenosam are both right. it’s an arc. i probably would have been haranguing monks for writing down plainsong, and then grumbling through the years of bach and mozart that it was all just a lot of noise and not as good as when you had to kill a goat and then turn its guts into a single-string atonal lyre.

      BUT the argument that i would make is that once the process of making is built into machines and software, the subjectivity of notation is taken away. it is like the difference between the existence of written poetry and the creation of a machine that automated the rhythms in which that poetry is read. even though notation exists and is a locked in system, it takes a lot of learning to work out what that notation means, what the conventional use of it is, what the rules are ad how to break them. MIDI-based software engines take away that subjectivity, and thus the lazy producer AND the lazy ear become accustomed to new pre-set defaults.

      i guess, to refine my argument slightly, is that for the lazy producer and the lazy listener, MIDI-based systems may begin to corrupt their perception of what music is, and the way they hear music. like the person whose main exposure to music is through x-factor. what delights me about this, as buenosam has reminded me, is the violent kickback that immediately comes from the counterculture. or, in this case, ‘the boom and wobble of dubstep’…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s