Give Twitter a go: It’s quite good really

ugly chick

Not all birds are pretty

From within the bubble of Twitter enthusiasm the worth of the platform seems self-evident, but there are people out there who aren’t convinced, don’t see the point of the medium and aren’t sure how to approach it. Twitter is a powerful tool and that power is the flexibility contained within the broadcast of 140 characters.

The premise is incredibly simple, but there are many ways to use the platform. DoshDosh has a pretty decent list of 17 ways to use Twitter. Interestingly, communicating with people you know isn’t on that list. This is the way that Andrew Dubber uses it and he explains how he keeps in touch with his personal tribe on Twitter.

Both these posts leave out, at least largely, my favourite benefit of being on Twitter, listening. There are lots of interesting people on Twitter who are leaders in their fields and being interesting people they tend to have interesting things to say either directly through Twitter or posting links to their work or just what they are reading.

Twitter is also highly flexible. You can follow people but you can also follow topics through keyword searches. You can even do this persistently through using third-party client programs like Tweetdeck or Seesmic. I love this method because it removes the emphasis on the personality and the rise of the Twitter Star is a stumbling block at the moment. There are lots of people out there clamouring for attention.

The rise of the marketers and the popularity game

There are two big problems with Twitter at the moment for me. The first is the number of people marketing on the platform. There are lots of profiles of folks pushing out affiliate links, links to coupon sites or even links to sites selling courses on how to use Twitter to become rich beyond avarice. It is fine to ignore these people. They’re not really interested in you they are following you in the hope that you’ll follow them back. Which brings us to the other part of the problem.

The second problem is that it is hard to resist seeing Twitter as a hierarchy or even a game. The currency of this game is, usually, followers. How many people listen to what you have to say. There are celebrities using Twitter with several million followers and perhaps more interestingly there are people whose field of expertise is using Twitter (and other social networks) who have hundreds of thousands of followers.

It is all too easy to feel inadequate with a measly hundred, twenty or five followers, but it’s not the size that matters (insert fnar-fnar joke here, after this meta fnar-fnar one). There are lots of ways to use Twitter. It is useful to stay focused on why you are using it though so as not to be sucked in by the gravity of convention.

Keeping your head above the stream

The primary metaphor of Twitter is that it presents you with streams of information. I think this is a useful metaphor as the information that passes through Twitter is ephemeral and in sufficient quantity it can feel like you’re drowning.

You don’t have to read everything. It’s OK to hop in and out. These aren’t messages targeted at you personally so no-one will be offended if you don’t remember what they tweeted about odd socks last Tuesday. If you start following a lot of people you probably won’t be able to read everything.

Andrew Dubber keeps in touch with about 150 people most of whom he knows personally. I’m not as social as him so I do use Twitter to keep in touch with a few people I know who use the platform, but mostly I use it to learn by following some brilliant people who tweet. In order to keep myself sane I have created lists of people by category, music, webdesign, science, Devon, etc. I can dip into these streams any time to see what the web folks are up to for instance. It’s a bit like wandering from group to group at a party.

I also have one main list that I pay particular attention to. This is fairly dynamic, I move people on and off frequently depending on what I’m most interested in at the time. This list usually has about 30 people on it and almost never more than 50. There is a limit to how many people you can really pay attention too.

In a comment to his post Andrew Dubber mentions Dunbar’s number which is a theoretical limit to the number of people you can maintain stable social relationships with. There’s no precise number but it’s commonly around 150 people. That’s how many he follows.

Why I would like you to use Twitter

The wonder of Twitter for me are brilliant, interesting and provocative people who share 140 character slices of their thoughts. Like the internet in general, there is a wave of commercial interest in the platform. People are trying to figure out how to make money out of the medium. There are lots of business uses, customer service is one of the best, but Twitter’s currency is the individuals who use it.

Twitter’s interest is directly proportional to the number of people who use it. The more folks out there the better chance everyone has of building a community to listen to that fulfils them in some way. There are lots of interesting folks here already but there’s room for more.

The ugly bird catches no worm by Hinderik de Keijzer is used under a Creative Commons License

Posted in Social Media | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Become a better musician: No substitute for practice

Keep going, remember to think about your grip and by the time you’re five you’ll be cooking

Practice is a means to an end, playing well, and it is a vital component to reach that end. I don’t think I have ever met a musician who I thought was a great player who didn’t practice and practice effectively.

When I first went to conservatory I would stumble around in awe of all the amazingly talented people I was surrounded by. They seemed like a different species to me. After a while I was able to hear some stratification of ability between these brilliant musicians and I noticed that the better ones (in relative terms they were all amazing players) practiced a lot and practiced effectively.

Regular practice is the key to the door. If you don’t do that you can’t even gain entry to the temple of Euterpe but to really become good, Manuel Barrueco good, you’ve got to practice effectively. It’s not enough to just punch the clock and lather, rinse, repeat. Getting better demands that you pay attention to what and how you practice too.

Identifying specific element that you want to improve is important whether it’s a technical element or a piece. If you keep practicing that thing you can do well you’re not getting much return on your effort. There’s less room to get better there than there is working on things you can’t yet do so well.

This happened at conservatory too. I would hear the halls echoing with someone banging out a Rachmaninov Prelude and sounding great, but after a while you could notice the same musician playing the same piece over and over. Sometimes a few doors away you could hear another musician trudging through arpeggios or working on a technique like their trill. It didn’t sound so impressive but it served them better in the long run. Being great at playing one thing is no bad thing but it’s not the same as being a good musician.

Practicing is not the same thing as playing. Cranking through your repertoire of pieces isn’t effective practice. It won’t do you any harm, but to build a strong foundation of facility and technique requires thought about who you are and where you are as a musician. Try to identify where you are now as a player and where you want to get to. What can’t you do yet as well as the players you admire? That’s where to put the effort in. Read More »

Posted in Musicainship | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The perils of modern music making, part 2: Blinded by the light

backlit circular VU meter

Don’t stare at the pretty lights!

Music is a sonic medium. As obvious as this is it can be easy to forget when faced with the rich visual environment of modern music creation software. This is, mostly, a good thing but as a card-carrying grumbler I feel compelled to spin a cautionary tale of this land of milk and honey. Don’t let your eyes rule your ears.

Visual feedback is great. It has saved my fat fundament on many occasions knowing that the vocal track is coloured blue and the guitar green and being able to see where the bridge starts from looking at the waveform when I’ve been too lazy to set a marker. The problem comes when you stop listening because you are drunk on visual feedback.

Back in the mythical olden days, when music grew on trees and fell into your lap if you had a nap in the park, this was an issue too. We had VU meters or PPMs in broadcast oriented studios. Even just a twitching needle could be more hypnotic than Dr Mesmer’s glass harmonica. I confess I have spent many hours looking at twitching needles, flashing LEDs and even rotating tape spools when I should have been listening more carefully.

Too much eye-candy

Nowadays there is much more to look at. The very features that aid inputting audio merrily scroll by on playback, virtual faders dance up and down, SMPTE counters tick by and software metering has brought class-A visual distraction to the desktop as well as the dubbing theatre. How can you not stare?

On playback there are two big problems with this. First, it’s just distracting and if you’re feeling a bit tired or a bit bored with the tenth time through the bass and drums checking for timing issues (can those guys actually count?) your mind can wander. Mine does anyway. Secondly, the visual feedback can influence what you think you heard or might hear. If the meter says it’s fine, it must be fine… Right?

The trick is mono-tasking. If you’re listening to the playback then just listen to the playback. Try to use your ears only. If you hear a problem, some clipping or a drop-out, go back and use the meter to check it. You can always bang in a marker to flag up the spot. All those wonderfully beguiling visual tools will be waiting for you whenever you need them.

Those tools can mislead your ears too. Flying faders are big offenders here. If you’re watching the desk, or virtual desk, dance along with the track seeing a fader dip really low can kid your ears that channel is to quiet. It must be too quiet, it’s so low. The big point here is it doesn’t matter what anything looks like it only matters how it sounds. Read More »

Posted in Music Production | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment
  • Follow me on Twitter

  • Meta

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 UK: England & Wales
This work by rubken.net is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 UK: England & Wales.