Performance recordivity : studio music in a live context

A broad range of positions is articulated in the academic literature around the relationship between recordings and live performance. Auslander (2008) argues that “live performance ceased long ago to be the primary experience of popular music, with the result that most live performances of popular music now seek to replicate the music on the recording”. Elliott (1995) suggests that “hit songs are often conceived and produced as unambiguous and meticulously recorded performances that their originators often duplicate exactly in live performances”. Wurtzler (1992) argues that “as socially and historically produced, the categories of the live and the recorded are defined in a mutually exclusive relationship, in that the notion of the live is premised on the absence of recording and the defining fact of the recorded is the absence of the live”. Yet many artists perform in ways that fundamentally challenge such positions. Whilst it is common practice for musicians across many musical genres to compose and construct their musical works in the studio such that the recording is, in Auslander’s words, the ‘original performance’, the live version is not simply an attempt to replicate the recorded version. Indeed in some cases, such replication is impossible. There are well known historical examples. Queen, for example, never performed the a cappella sections of Bohemian Rhapsody because it they were too complex to perform live. A 1966 recording of the Beach Boys studio creation Good Vibrations shows them struggling through the song prior to its release. This paper argues that as technology develops, the lines between the recording studio and live performance change and become more blurred. New models for performance emerge. In a 2010 live performance given by Grammy Award winning artist Imogen Heap in New York, the artist undertakes a live, improvised construction of a piece as a performative act. She invites the audience to choose the key for the track and proceeds to layer up the various parts in front of the audience as a live performance act. Her recording process is thus revealed on stage in real time and she performs a process that what would have once been confined to the recording studio. So how do artists bring studio production processes into the live context? What aspects of studio production are now performable and what consistent models can be identified amongst the various approaches now seen? This paper will present an overview of approaches to performative realisations of studio produced tracks and will illuminate some emerging relationships between recorded music and performance across a range of contexts.

Getting in the Groove : The Recording Studio Procedural Guide

This paper examines time management in the recording studio from the perspective of the music producer. The paper is presented in the form of a guide that will provide a common language to music clientele and technical personnel to help achieve the best possible creative outcome. The research for the guide combined the author's experience, literary evidence and external assessment to work towards establishing a practical industry resource. The result of the study explored how the success of any recording project can be forecast before valuable resources are committed. The feedback from the survey group was positive and some professionals recognised an immediate application for the procedural guide, which exceeded the author's expectations.

The film studio: film production in the global economy

The Film Studio sheds new light on the evolution of global film production, highlighting the role of film studios worldwide. The authors explore the contemporary international production environment, alleging that global competition is best understood as an unequal and unstable partnership between the 'design interest' of footloose producers and the 'location interest' of local actors. Ben Goldsmith and Tom O'Regan identify various types of film studios and investigate the consequences for Hollywood, international film production, and the studio locations.

Locomotives and stargates : inner‐city studio complexes in Sydney, Melbourne and Toronto

This article examines the place of large studio complexes in plans for the regeneration of inner-city areas of Sydney, Melbourne and Toronto. Recent developments in each city are placed in the context of international audiovisual production dynamics, and are considered in terms of the ways they intersect with a range of policy thinking. They are at once part of particular urban revitalisation agendas, industry development planning, city branding and image-making strategies, and new thinking about film policy at national and sub-national levels. The article views studio complexes through four frames: as particular kinds of studio complex development; as 'locomotives' driving a variety of related industries; as 'stargates' enabling a variety of transformations, including the remediation of contaminated, derelict or outmoded land controlled by public authorities or their agents close to the centre of each city; and as components of the entrepreneurial, internationally oriented city.

Perceptions of physical versus virtual design studio education

While the studio environment has been promoted as an ideal educational setting for project-based disciplines associated with the art and design, few qualitative studies have been undertaken in a comprehensive way, with even fewer giving emphasis to the teachers and students and how they feel about changing their environment. This situation is problematic given the changes and challenges facing higher education, including those associated with new technologies such as online learning. In response, this paper describes a comparative study employing grounded theory to identify and describe teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the physical design studio (PDS) as well as the virtual design studio (VDS) of architectural students in an Australian university. The findings give significance to aspects of design education activities and their role in the development of integrated hybrid learning environments.

A holistic blended design studio model : a basis for exploring and expanding learning opportunities

While the studio environment has been promoted as an ideal educational setting for project-based disciplines, few qualitative studies have been undertaken in a comprehensive way (Bose, 2007). This study responds to this need by adopting Grounded Theory methodology in a qualitative comparative approach. The research aims to explore the limitations and benefits of a face-to-face (f2f) design studio as well as a virtual design studio (VDS) as experienced by architecture students and educators at an Australian university in order to find the optimal combination for a blended environment to maximize learning. The main outcome is a holistic multidimensional blended model being sufficiently flexible to adapt to various setting, in the process, facilitating constructivist learning through self-determination, self-management, and personalization of the learning environment.

Holistic blended design studio model : potential implication in education of Iran

Iran as a developing country faces many considerable shortages of both physical learning environment and inefficient budget to resolve this shortage. Today, Iran needs a $28 billion budget to add 23,000 schools to the existing 120,000 schools to be able to omit two shifts schools [1], [2]. Moreover, the standard learning space is 6-8 square meter per student, while this rate for big cities in Iran is about one square meter per student [1]. This decrease the time students spend in schools. In addition, the education approach in k-12 and higher education is still teacher-centered based and needs to be contemporized with educational, cultural, and technological changes.

A holistic blended design studio model : Exploring and expanding learning opportunities

This book involves a comprehensive study of the learning environment by adopting Grounded Theory methodology in a qualitative comparative way.It explores the limitations and benefits of a face-to-face and a virtual design studio as experienced by architecture students and educators at an Australian university in order to find the optimal combination for a blended environment to enhance the students’ experience. The main outcome:holistic multidimensional blended learning model,that through the various modalities,provides adaptive capacity in a range of settings.The model facilitates learning through self-determination,self-management,and the personalisation of the learning environment. Another outcome:a conceptual design education framework,provides a basic tool for educators to evaluate existing learning environments and to develop new learning environments with enough flexibility to respond effectively to a highly dynamic and increasingly technological world.The provision of a practical framework to assist design schools to improve their educational settings according to a suitable pedagogy that meets today’s needs and accommodates tomorrow’s changes.

Dichotomy in the design studio 2.0 : adapting to new blended learning environments

In a study aimed at better understanding how students adapt to new blended studio learning environments, all undergraduate and masters of architecture students at a large school of architecture in Australia, learned a semester of architectural design in newly renovated, technology embedded, design studio environments. The renovations addressed the lessons learned from a 2011 pilot study of a second year architectural design studio learned in a high technology embedded prototype digital laboratory. The new design studios were purpose designed for the architecture students and adapted Student-Centred Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs design principles. At the end of the semester, the students completed a questionnaire about their experiences of learning in the new design studio environments. Using a dual method qualitative approach, the questionnaire data were coded and extrapolated using both thematic analysis and grounded theory methodology. The results from these two approaches were compared, contrasted and finally merged, to reveal five distinct emerging themes, which were instrumental in offering resistance or influencing adaptation to, the new blended studio learning environments. This paper reports on the study, discusses the major contributors to resistance and adaptation, and proposes points for consideration when renovating or designing new blended studio learning environments. This research extends the 2011 pilot study by the same authors: ‘Dichotomy in the design studio: Adapting to new blended learning environments’.

Sublime acts : desire in the studio

Acknowledging the recent call to review design creativity and consideration of the body's affective states in education, this paper explores how desire, conceptualized as an immanent force (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) and an irresistible force (Burke, 1753) can be a means of deeper engagement within the design studio. Positing 'disruption or blockage' as a key agent which propels subjects from fields of normalcy to fields of otherness, and subsequently mobilises distinct modes of desire, this paper takes Edmund Burke's Romantic sublime and Patricia Yaeger's feminine sublime as critical lenses through which to review a first year interior program posited around the body. The paper highlights how the embodiment of 'desirous processes' within the design program and relational encounters within the studio represent an overarching pedagogical 'hinge' (Ellsworth, 2005). Rather than being a point of beginning, the start of first year is seen and experienced as a threshold opening to a new rhythm in a proces of becoming that is already underway.

First year industrial design studio-based teaching pedagogies and students’ engagement

Student engagement tends to be viewed as a reflection of learning processes, and in the context of first year university studies, it is a crucial means of an educational process that establishes the foundations for successful later year studies (Krausse and Coates, 2008). In the context of first year design studio teaching in higher education, fostering students’ positive engagement poses challenges to design educators as current trends set these design studios to be large size classes that makes difficult to manage and follow up students’ individual learning experiences. At QUT’s first year industrial design studio classes we engage in a variety of teaching pedagogies from which we identify two of them as instrumental vehicles to foster positive student engagement. Concept bombs and the field trip experience provide such platform as shown in student responses through a learning experience survey.

Dichotomy in the design studio : adapting to new blended learning environments

Since the architectural design studio learning environment was first established in the early 19th century at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris, there has been a complete transformation in how the discipline of architecture is practiced and how students of architecture acquire information. Digital technologies allow students to access information instantly and learning is no longer confined to the rigid boundaries of a physical campus environment. In many schools of architecture in Australia, the physical design studio learning environments however, remain largely unchanged. Many learning environments could be mistaken for those last refurbished 30 years ago, being devoid of any significant technological intervention. While some teaching staff are eagerly embracing new digital technologies and attempting to modify their pedagogical approaches, the physical design studio learning environment is resistant to such efforts. In a study aimed at better understanding how staff and students adapt to new blended learning environments, a group of 165 second year architecture students at a large school of architecture in Australia were separated into two different design studio learning environments. 70% of students were allocated to a traditional design studio setting and 30% to a new, high technology embedded, prototype digital learning laboratory. The digital learning laboratory was purpose designed for the case-study users, adapted Student-Centred Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs [SCALE-UP] principles, and built as part of a larger university research project. The architecture students attended the same lectures, followed the same studio curriculum and completed the same pieces of assessment; the only major differences were the teaching staff and physical environment within which the studios were conducted. At the end of the semester, all staff and students were asked to complete a questionnaire about their experiences and preferences within the two respective learning environments. The questionnaire response rate represented the opinions of 100% of the 10 teaching staff and over 70% of the students. Using a qualitative grounded theory approach, data were coded, extrapolated and compared, to reveal emerging key themes. The key themes formed the basis for in-depth interviews and focus groups of teaching staff and students, allowing the researchers to understand the data in more detail. The results of the data verified what had become increasingly evident during the course of the semester: an underlying negative resistance to the new digital studio learning environment, by both staff and students. Many participants openly exhibited a yearning for a return to the traditional design studio learning environments, particularly when the new technology caused frustration, by being unreliable or failing altogether. This paper reports on the study, discusses the negative resistance and explores the major contributors to resistance. The researchers are not aware of any similar previous studies across these particular settings and believe that it offers a necessary and important contribution to emergent research about adaptation to new digital learning environments.

What is the Architecture Studio?

What is the Architecture Studio? What is the studio? Where do architect’s make architecture? What happens in architecture studios at QUT? How does QUT architecture provide assessment feedback? Why is QUT architecture Experimenting with Change?

De-mystifying [a facet of] mobile learning : collaborative media in studio

“Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach” (Prensky, 2001, p. 1). The influx of available new technology has helped to democratise knowledge, transforming when, where and how learning takes place, and changing perceptions of traditional learning landscapes (JISC, 2006; Neary et al., 2010). Mobile computers combined with wireless technology, have completely transformed the educational world; students have turned nomad[ic], engaging in conversations and thinking across traditional campus spaces (Alexander, 2004; Fisher, 2005). In this workshop we will be attempting to de-mystify a facet of mobile learning, by working in small groups to set up and kick start a number of social media sites, which can be used for collaboration and information exchange, in the design studio.