The idea of free software has become well established and in growing ever more in adoption. Free hardware is making inroads to the broader public’s consciousness. The idea of open source is also starting to spread beyond the realm of the computer, with free journals such as PLoS as well as Creative Commons licensing of media. As the idea of “open source” spreads, many qualifiers are being added, limiting how free these forms of encapsulated knowledge can be. Ideas such as non-commerical and attribution clauses in the licenses are the norm for journals and media, even though they are generally accepted to be a hinderance in the realm of software. As more and more of human endeavor can be packaged up into digital formats, it starts to come closer to models of software development in most respects. Chunks of sound, image, and text can be woven together to form a new work with no more difficulty than it takes to use other people’s code in your program. If we believe that open source methods provide more efficient production, as has been clearly demonstrated in the realm of software, we need to allow all human knowledge to be as free as free software.

Free software development is merely a new twist in a long tradition of free and open human collaboration and sharing. I think sharing and collaboration are essential human traits, especially when it comes to intangible things like ideas, stories, music, and knowledge. For the past century at least, technology has largely worked against this impulse by turning knowledge into marketable chunks, like recordings, books, etc. Now we have the technology to enable this innate human trait on a broad scale. Digital media and the internet basically eliminate scarcity, the costs of copying and distribution in this realm are miniscule compared to the cost of production. Therefore everything that can work within the realm of digital media, can, should and will operate like free software.

Coming from a free software developer, saying everything will operate like free software may be a bit arrogant, I will admit. But it is important to note that the core ideas of free software did not originate in the world of computers. Academic traditions are often cited as the root of these ideas. There are many other examples. Before recording and the widespread use of sheet music, music was also firmly rooted in this method of development. Musicians freely lifted and used other people’s music, playing it, modifying it, passing it on. This was an essential part of the composition process. I think there are probably many other examples that would serve as excellent examples, like storytelling traditions, and recipe swapping. These ideas are present throughout the development of humanity.

Of course, everyone is entitled to be compensated for their work. Nobody has a right to economic exploitation, and everyone has a right to earn a living. That’s essential for people to survive, so if we are interested in supporting human endeavor, we need to support humans. Whichever culture figures out how to make a system that takes advantage of the lack of scarcity of digital media while ensuring that people can earn a living producing it will become far more efficient. This is the dawning of the next economic system, this is just like the tulip markets in the Netherlands centuries ago, which started capitalism. Capitalism took over because it was more efficient. Economies which produce free media will take over from capitalism because they are more efficient. You can already see this in action, look at GNU/Linux vs. Microsoft. GNU/Linux is built largely by volunteers, many of who are teenagers and hobbyists. Microsoft is one of the richest and most profitable companies ever, and they are known for hiring the best of best. Their only real threat these days is GNU/Linux.

Many novel instruments have been build in recent decades, but they are so specific that they rarely catch on or even get played to any degree of virtuosity. When so few people play a given instrument, it limits the development and sharing of techniques. The goal of many designers of new interfaces for musical expression is to create an instrument that is so compelling that it becomes widely used, therefore allowing the building of shared technique. A new model of instrument design is emerging, shifting away from instruments designed for a broad range of musicians, such as the Theremin. Instead, these instrument builders are creating instruments designed purely for their own compositional goals. Computer music software is making it relatively easy and affordable for individuals to create their own instrument tailored to their goals, or even to a specific piece or performance. Many performers interested in using new interfaces are employing general software and hardware building blocks that allow the individual musician to create their own instrument. Software such as Ableton Live, Pd, and Reaktor provide this kind of high-level modular approach to music programming. But this seems to worsen the problem of developing virtuosity.

Traditional instruments have a great advantage in this regard. There standardization allows musicians to learn and share an existing body of technique. Musicians using standardized instruments can learn from existing masters, as well as collaboratively develop and share a body of technique further. Musical technique can be modular as well, with musicians learning controllers, synthesizers, and even mappings as distinct “modules” of technique. Using high-level software modules with standard human interface devices make a modular approach to instrumental technique increasingly feasible.
Modular technique allows musicians to play newly created instruments with some degree of existing skill, putting virtuosity within reach. These modules of technique can exist separately from whole instruments, therefore a shared body of technique is starting to be developed.

Knowledge of particular synthesis methods is an example of modular technique that has been common in the computer music world for a long time. Many musicians and composers choose a specific synthesizer (software or hardware) and learn the details of the range of sound that it can produce. For example, someone knowledgable about FM synthesizers has a strong idea about what modulating frequencies make vibrato sounds or how high to raise that frequency to stop sounding like vibrato. This knowledge can be usefully applied to any implementation of this algorithm much like how trumpet mouthpiece technique can be usefully applied to a french horn. It can also be applied regardless of the control interface.

Turntable and DJ mixer interfaces have long been standardized, providing a common platform for turntablists. The body of technique is quite established, with a variety of techniques for manipulating the turntables and mixer, with specific names such as “the chirp” and “the flare” [password-protected source, arg!] . Using different source records dramatically changes the resulting sound, i.e. scratching beats versus tones, yet the same techniques apply. The turntables are even becoming a general controller with software like Final Scratch or Ms. Pinky.

Already some musicians are defining technique for consumer controllers. A paper by Wessel and Wright [password-protected source, arg!] describes a few techniques for the graphics tablet: “Drag and Drop”, “Scrubbing”, and “Dipping”. The video game world provides further examples for technique with standard controllers, with an established body of technique, for example: “Pawing (verb): the act of lifting a mouse and returning it to the center of your mouse pad. Useful when trying to make a sequence of fast mouse movements” [source]. Serious video gamers spend years perfecting their skills in interactive tasks that require similar levels of control and concentration as making music. Though certain controllers are better suited to specific games, the technique developed on a given controller outweighs the possible benefit of changing controllers. Similarly, they are hesitant to use unorthodox controllers partly because the technique has not been developed, nor would the user community be as large.

If this approach was applied broadly, skilled performances with new instruments would be within reach for a wide range of musicians.