# Is the DAW biased?



## estevancarlos (Nov 14, 2021)

I started off on Cakewalk Pro Audio in 1997. Eventually moved on to Ableton Live and MaxMSP. Then recently to Studio One and Cubase. Through that evolution I could understand that a DAW can be biased. It's baked into intentional an unintentional design. As a visual designer I came to see their bias as more complex that just a set of features.

As a musician I implicitly recognized, and accepted, that these DAWs are also biased towards Western theory as well. Why might some of us care? If we want to explore more music and more opportunities then we need to be aware of the bias. We use Ableton Live for certain tasks. We use Cubase for others. We often recognize how the technology influences us. So we should also consider the Western music theory biases.

I won't dive into many details at the moment. I sort think many people here are aware of this already. I want share a bibliography created elsewhere that contains many articles about the subject.

https://silpayamanant.wordpress.com/bibliography/daw-colonialism/



> “Unassuming as they may seem, these technologies are far from neutral. Like social media platforms, dating apps, and all data-driven algorithms, music production tools have the unconscious biases of their creators baked into their architecture. If a musician opens a new composition and they are given a 4/4 beat and equal tempered tuning by default, it is implied that other musical systems do not exist, or at least that they are of less value.” - Faber, 2021



*What are your thoughts on how your music software influences or limits your creative options? Do you restrict yourself to western theory and if so, why?*


----------



## CT (Nov 14, 2021)

It's quite simple to change meter or temperament in the DAWs I've used. It seems absolutely ludicrous to conclude that the default settings in a DAW imply that other musical systems do not exist or are of lesser value. Holy shit.

Like default language/time being region-based, if there are sweepingly common enough musical methodologies to define the most typical needs of composers in a certain area, by all means, make those the defaults the DAW opens with in that area. That seems entirely reasonable. And I sincerely hope for the ongoing health and value of civilization that people using those DAWs can remember that the default settings do not encompass the entirety of human musical practice.


----------



## Kent (Nov 14, 2021)

This is actually a really good conversation to have, but it’s not worth having if it’s not going to be a conversation. 🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## dhmusic (Nov 14, 2021)

@estevancarlos Not sure if you saw Adam Neely's video... I posted it a while back in a related thread cuz I thought it was really interesting. I thought everyone knew him lol, plus he's super chill. People got really defensive though so I was like "oh shit nvm ya'll." It's funny because so many present themselves as history experts. I guess that usually means selective history. It's like "prof. Bruh, colonialism was a thing and it is still is a thing. All forms of culture get fucked in that maelstrom music included. I'm not saying you did anything chill please"


----------



## CT (Nov 14, 2021)

I agree Kent, and I'll clarify that my own comments here were directed towards the cited quote and one specific logical leap within it, not the questions posed in the post itself, so I hope that won't distract from further discussion. In any case, I certainly have nothing more to say about it (except that non-equal temperament tuning should make more of a comeback).


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 14, 2021)

dhmusic said:


> @estevancarlos Not sure if you saw Adam Neely's video... I posted it a while back in a related thread cuz I thought it was really interesting. I thought everyone knew him lol, plus he's super chill. People got really defensive though so I was like "oh shit nvm ya'll." It's funny because so many present themselves as history experts. I guess that usually means selective history. It's like "prof. Bruh, colonialism was a thing and it is still is a thing. All forms of culture get fucked in that maelstrom music included. I'm not saying you did anything chill please"


I do watch his videos. I'm not sure which you're referring to. Which one? He is chill. Wish I had that on screen personality.


----------



## youngpokie (Nov 14, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> Do you restrict yourself to western theory and if so, why?


The bias and innuendo implicit in this question is really something!

I don’t “restrict” myself to Western theory. It’s so vast a lifetime isn’t enough to master it.

Besides it’s my cultural heritage and I’m very proud of its enduring masterpieces created over hundreds of years. This music nspires me every single day.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 14, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> The bias and innuendo implicit in this question is really something!
> 
> I don’t restrict myself to Western theory. It’s so vast a lifetime isn’t enough to master it.
> 
> Besides it’s my cultural heritage and I’m very proud of its enduring masterpieces created over hundreds of years. This music nspires me every single day.


Saying it's your cultural heritage is a sensible and probably a common answer. For example, it's not necessarily my heritage but I also study Western theory because I find it interesting. Despite this I question why I should limit myself.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 14, 2021)

> @ka00
> 
> “it is implied that other musical systems do not exist, or at least that they are of less value.” - Faber, 2021”
> 
> Introducing CakeWoke Pro.


I think Faber is suggesting, if the software is meant for a global audience, why automatically set defaults to things like equal temperament which is dominant in western theory?


----------



## dgburns (Nov 14, 2021)

The day my shitty little daw stops me from creating my shitty little ditties, I’ll let you know, in the meantime I’ll putter about happily in my own ignorant bliss.

That god damn daw is a gift of creativity. Just today had to punt out a few more minutes of some score that none of you will see, on a show no one will care about in a few years, but I had some moments of writing that I’m happy with. Full orchestra in front of me, getting paid to work. Well pinch me silly.

Carry on.


----------



## dhmusic (Nov 14, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> The bias and innuendo implicit in this question is really something!
> 
> I don’t “restrict” myself to Western theory. It’s so vast a lifetime isn’t enough to master it.
> 
> Besides it’s my cultural heritage and I’m very proud of its enduring masterpieces created over hundreds of years. This music nspires me every single day.


A lifetime isn't enough to master anything - western music isn't extra special

A more charitable interpretation could be "if exposed to more non-western music do you think you'd be more likely to explore it"


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 14, 2021)

ka00 said:


> So what would improve this? An initial splash screen asking you to pick a cultural paradigm to work in?
> 
> Would the software choose defaults for you based on the country of purchase?


I'm not necessarily too focused on proposals to "fix" things. However a prompt that asks for initial music settings is fine and worth considering. I'm not sure it should be limited to region either. That also sounds limiting.


----------



## youngpokie (Nov 14, 2021)

dhmusic said:


> A more charitable interpretation could be "if exposed to more non-western music do you think you'd be more likely to explore it"


It’s only a slightly more subtle way to phrase the same question, with the same innuendo and bias still contained in it.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 14, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> It’s only a slightly more subtle way to phrase the same question, with the same innuendo and bias still contained in it.


What is the innuendo?


----------



## rgames (Nov 14, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I started off on Cakewalk Pro Audio in 1997. Eventually moved on to Ableton Live and MaxMSP. Then recently to Studio One and Cubase. Through that evolution I could understand that a DAW can be biased. It's baked into intentional an unintentional design. As a visual designer I came to see their bias as more complex that just a set of features.
> 
> As a musician I implicitly recognized, and accepted, that these DAWs are also biased towards Western theory as well. Why might some of us care? If we want to explore more music and more opportunities then we need to be aware of the bias. We use Ableton Live for certain tasks. We use Cubase for others. We often recognize how the technology influences us. So we should also consider the Western music theory biases.
> 
> ...


A convention is not bias.

If you think convention is bias then most of my studio is biased towards binary representations because it's mostly digital.

And my studio is 100% biased towards the MIDI protocol.

And the roads I drive on are biased towards driving on the right side.

And this browser I'm using is biased towards HTML.

And science is biased towards the SI system.

Shall I go on?

They're conventions, not biases.

rgames


----------



## dhmusic (Nov 14, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> It’s only a slightly more subtle way to phrase the same question, with the same innuendo and bias still contained in it.


The bias mentioned in the post and the bias you're talking about are two different species


----------



## dhmusic (Nov 14, 2021)

rgames said:


> A convention is not bias.
> 
> If you think convention is bias then most of my studio is biased towards binary representations because it's mostly digital.
> 
> ...


omg you explained my post before I was able to post... wizard

EDIT: wait I read the wrong response. This is all too confusing.


----------



## youngpokie (Nov 14, 2021)

dhmusic said:


> The bias mentioned in the post and the bias you're talking about are two different species


I’m only talking about the bias preloaded in the final question and in your clever version of its phrasing.


----------



## PaulieDC (Nov 14, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I started off on Cakewalk Pro Audio in 1997. Eventually moved on to Ableton Live and MaxMSP. Then recently to Studio One and Cubase. *Through that evolution I could understand that a DAW can be biased. It's baked into intentional an unintentional design. As a visual designer I came to see their bias as more complex that just a set of features.
> 
> As a musician I implicitly recognized, and accepted, that these DAWs are also biased towards Western theory as well.* Why might some of us care? *If we want to explore more music and more opportunities then we need to be aware of the bias.* We use Ableton Live for certain tasks. We use Cubase for others. We often recognize how the technology influences us. *So we should also consider the Western music theory biases.*
> 
> ...


Sorry, I’m getting so tired of the constant judgement and blame in every blasted conversation anymore. I try to keep things lighthearted when I post on here but not this time.. Now we’re asking if DAWs and Music Theory are _biased_? Write whatever you want to write, you don’t have to adhere to any rules at all and any good daw allows you to microtune all you want. A DAW IS TO RECORD WHATEVER YOU WRITE, if the added crutches of a chord track are too western, _don’t use it_. Blows my mind that a post like this is now entering our forum, a place where anyone can write anything they want.

If the west is so horribly biased and bad, then why are you writing your opinion in English? Surely that’s a bad influence. *Having an opinion is one thing, but starting it off with accusations is the same thing everyone else is doing now. Take it elsewhere.*


----------



## antames (Nov 14, 2021)

I have never thought about if a DAW is biased or not. For me I just want to make music, and I use the tools of my DAW to achieve that. I wouldn't say my music is just Western either. I've made lots of different genres, styles and cultures of music. I could understand if someone understands these things and is looking for them specifically in their DAW though.


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Nov 14, 2021)

Well this has been a pretty embarrassing response so far.

The OP has opened up a topic to discussion. Just like all other threads, if you don't want to contribute to the discussion, then don't.
If you want to disagree, feel free! But telling them to "go away" in one way or another is out of line.

Going forward, it'd be nice if people responding could at least finish reading the OP's post before jumping on their keyboards, so that they might notice the actual question left by the OP (it's in bold).

(edit: the thread has been pruned a little since i made this post. Let's pretend it never happened...)


----------



## morganwable (Nov 14, 2021)

The whole point of the concept of bias is that it isn't always intentional.

I think people are reading your post and assuming that _you_ are assuming intention, when you're not.

Convention begets bias, begets convention.
Are DAWs not, then, also biased towards 4/4 common time, 120bpm, Cmaj compositions?
Every single DAW I've ever used has this as a default. The answer is yes. A "default" is the first form of bias a user encounters.

I wonder, not if - but _how much_ - this one thing contributes to the hegemony of radio music.
Of _course_ DAWs are biased favoring western music conventions. To deny this would be positively asinine.

The question is, is this bias out of malice, ignorance, or a simpler explanation: popular demand? I doubt it's malice, and considering that many DAWs also do offer support for microtonality and so on and so forth, I doubt it's ignorance.

I think it's obviously popular demand. The vast majority of music being written and distributed uses western scales, western time signatures, and in general, western conventions.

Is this a bad thing? No, not necessarily. But a thing it undeniably is.

Should other forms of music enjoy more representation - as in, more listeners, more composers, and more developers acknowledging, utilizing, and consuming said forms and conventions?
Yeah. Ideally.

I think this is absolutely a worthy discussion. The question was not whether DAWs _prevent_ you from writing in other styles, or if there's some grand conspiracy afoot - the question was whether any form of bias was present.

And the answer, objectively, is yes.

Anyway, Mr. Texas over on page 1 is sounding a bit like a fascist to my ears. At least the previous, first response, although coming in with a sweeping knee-jerk reaction, likely wasn't commenting in bad faith.


----------



## Pier (Nov 14, 2021)

> music production tools have the unconscious biases of their creators baked into their architecture


Obviously. Everything humans do is biased. There is no escape from this.

And even if it wasn't, no tool can solve all problems. A music composition software will never be able to account for all styles of music ever.


----------



## morganwable (Nov 14, 2021)

Pier said:


> A music composition software will never be able to account for all styles of music ever.


I feel as though DAWs certainly can't account for those "this orchestra has been playing this piece, one note at a time, for 40 years" performance pieces.

Off topic, I know.


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Nov 14, 2021)

I'd be interested to know if there are any software solutions that the OP (or others) feel could be used as an example of how DAWs could encourage more experimentation with other musical cultures.
ie. if what the OP outlines is indeed a problem, is there any sense of "progress" in this area that might better demonstrate what options there are, if one of the developers wanted to address it?


----------



## easyrider (Nov 14, 2021)

Pier said:


> A music composition software will never be able to account for all styles of music ever.


Why ? You can do anything in a DAW you can do on tape.


----------



## morganwable (Nov 14, 2021)

Michaelt said:


> It seems absolutely ludicrous to conclude that the default settings in a DAW imply that other musical systems do not exist or are of lesser value. Holy shit.


Not quite as sweeping as a broom factory and about as knee-jerk as a yearly physical. Like, you know - with one of those little hammers with the triangle bit on it. Never understood the point of those.

Ludicrous it is not. Unexpected to you, yes. But your being taken off-guard by somebody bringing up a thing you hadn't previously considered doesn't make the entire topic of discussion ludicrous.

Also regarding implying that other systems do not exist or are of lesser value... that is not at all what OP was talking about. You projected that that interpretation onto his post wholesale.

Is this direct enough for your sensibilities?



Jdiggity1 said:


> I'd be interested to know if there are any software solutions that the OP (or others) feel could be used as an example of how DAWs could encourage more experimentation with other musical cultures.
> ie. if what the OP outlines is indeed a problem, is there any sense of "progress" in this area that might better demonstrate what options there are, if one of the developers wanted to address it?


I think a good, quick one would be through startup templates: Blank Template (western, cmaj 120bpm), Blank Template (something microtonal? my knowledge of non-western music is very limited).

Just offering the functionality up front without burying it in advanced settings would more than suffice to get people curious and experimenting.


easyrider said:


> Why ? You can do anything in a DAW you can do on tape.


I brought a pretty good example of a limitation of DAWs a few posts ago. It was a joke, but you could extend that to considering other experimental/off the wall formats and performance techniques. Maybe there's a form of sound-based installation art that specifically relies on the decay of sound in an analog format. You couldn't do that in a DAW. I think the point of that comment was not that DAWs aren't extremely flexible, but that there simply is not a one size fits all solution to ANY problem. Not even in physics. They're still arguing about string theory to this day.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 14, 2021)

rgames said:


> A convention is not bias.
> 
> If you think convention is bias then most of my studio is biased towards binary representations because it's mostly digital.
> 
> ...


Selecting a convention is a bias, yes.


----------



## Pier (Nov 14, 2021)

easyrider said:


> Why ? You can do anything in a DAW you can do on tape.


Can you write microtonal Indian music in your DAW? What about Arabic maqams?

Also, up until recently you couldn't even write note pitch bends (not channel pitch bends) in a DAW. Are there any other DAWs other than Bitwig that have per note modulation?


----------



## morganwable (Nov 14, 2021)

Pier said:


> Can you write microtonal Indian music in your DAW? What about Arabic maqams?
> 
> Also, up until recently you couldn't even write note pitch bends (not channel pitch bends) in a DAW. Are there any other DAWs other than Bitwig that have per note modulation?


Ableton has MPE support now.
But uh, I think it's probably just Ableton and Bitwig that have good, robust support for it.
Reaper most likely has some hare-brained ReaJS plugin that adds support, but it's probably about wonky as hell.

This is a very good point, although it's limited in scope to discussion of MIDI based music production. The "can do it on tape" argument still stands on a certain level.

Which, while we're talking about it -
how many _sample libraries_ support microtonality? Specifically without altering the pitch of the output in a way unintended by the developer. I'd be willing to bet there are very, very few.

Again - not an inherently bad thing, just something to observe in the context of this discussion.


----------



## dhmusic (Nov 14, 2021)

easyrider said:


> Why ? You can do anything in a DAW you can do on tape


But on tape everything is at least a little biased


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Nov 14, 2021)

This is an interesting observation - but I’m not sure that the DAW is really at the crux of it. Most people opening a DAW are coming to it with an inherent inclination / education on how they view music composition. That could be the western system - or for example, somebody opening Cubase / Logic in Ghana or India might be coming to it from a different frame of reference. Now perhaps the DAW could have that prompt at startup - since at the moment it is “auto-selecting” western music conventions. However, my “bias” has been in place long before I opened the DAW. It was created in me (along with a deep fondness) due to my western-focused piano lessons, the type of music that surrounded me growing up, etc. All of which is quite different to the system of my ancestral heritage (and what my composer grandfather used). I’ve recently lamented that I don’t have much knowledge of that system - though I don’t think the DAWs I use necessarily hinder me or propagate that limitation.


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Nov 14, 2021)

Pier said:


> Can you write microtonal Indian music in your DAW? What about Arabic maqams?
> 
> Also, up until recently you couldn't even write note pitch bends (not channel pitch bends) in a DAW. Are there any other DAWs other than Bitwig that have per note modulation?


VST3 was supposed to be the tech that allowed for this. It's more about the plugin than the DAW, I believe. Cubase has been able to do this providing the virtual instrument was VST3.


----------



## rgames (Nov 14, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> Selecting a convention is a bias, yes.


The good news is most of the Western world has adopted free-market capitalism. So you are free to go write your own DAW that is unbiased per your conventions.

And then everyone gets to vote with their dollars to indicate how much they agree with you.

Please report back on how you're proceeding!

rgames


----------



## CT (Nov 14, 2021)

morganwable said:


> Not quite as sweeping as a broom factory and about as knee-jerk as a yearly physical. Like, you know - with one of those little hammers with the triangle bit on it. Never understood the point of those.
> 
> Ludicrous it is not. Unexpected to you, yes. But your being taken off-guard by somebody bringing up a thing you hadn't previously considered doesn't make the entire topic of discussion ludicrous.
> 
> ...


Thanks for something a little more than a drive-by scoffing.

There was nothing "projected." As I stated in a subsequent post, I was specifically responding to something the OP cited, which did say exactly what I referred to. You're right that he wasn't talking about that, specifically, and nowhere did I say he was! In fact, I said I didn't want to distract from his own questions, and criticized someone else for their own willful misrepresentation of his post as a whole (although apparently that was deemed delete-worthy by management).

As for what is or is not ludicrous and how possible it is for me to judge that based solely on my own experiences... I consider myself a pretty empathetic person, and I still struggle to imagine a scenario in which a sensible person could come to the conclusion that a DAW-maker's choice of default settings is a suggestion, conscious or otherwise, of the invalidity of anything outside the sphere of that default. A reflection of the cultural conventions of the DAW-maker, yes! But a judgement of value? That simply strikes me as a pretty wacky leap in reasoning, whatever one's background.

Hope this clarifies some things! Not aiming to change your own mind, nor clutter up the thread more, but I don't love being misunderstood/misrepresented. Thanks again for taking the time to respond more fully, and for the stimulating exchange.


----------



## dhmusic (Nov 14, 2021)

Michaelt said:


> Thanks for something a little more than a drive-by scoffing.
> 
> There was nothing "projected." As I stated in a subsequent post, I was specifically responding to something the OP cited, which did say exactly what I referred to. You're right that he wasn't talking about that, specifically, and nowhere did I say he was! In fact, I said I didn't want to distract from his own questions, and criticized someone else for their own willful misrepresentation of his post as a whole.
> 
> ...



I'm trying to think of a more neutral analogy for the DAW-maker's choice of default settings...

I think it's kind of like how our native languages shape how we think, which affects how we speak, which affects the development of language across generations over and over. There isn't really a central problem or solution, it's more of a phenomenon that affects power dynamics and inter/cross cultural relationships in slow, almost invisible waves.

In geologic terms, the central question isn't crying "earthquake, run!", it's suggesting that plate tectonics and continental drift have affected human life in ways that are so normal to daily life that we often fail to appreciate them - but they shape our lives nonetheless and it might be important to address the issues that inevitably arise over time as a result


----------



## CT (Nov 14, 2021)

dhmusic said:


> I'm trying to think of a more neutral analogy for the DAW-maker's choice of default settings...
> 
> I think it's kind of like how our native languages shape how we think, which affects how we speak, which affects the development of language across generations over and over. There isn't really a central problem or solution, it's more of a phenomenon that affects power dynamics and inter/cross cultural relationships in slow, almost invisible waves.
> 
> In terrestrial terms, the central question isn't crying "earthquake, run!", it's suggesting that plate tectonics and continental drift have affected human life in ways that are so normal to daily life that we often fail to appreciate them - but they shape our lives nonetheless and it might be important to address the issues that inevitably arise over time as a result


I do think I get what you're going for, but this, like the language of the initially cited quote, is all very broad and theoretical. What I wonder about is how it applies, if at all, to the individual experience. Is there truly a significant number of musicians worldwide who feel that DAW standards meaningfully marginalize/devalue their own musical paradigms by originating in a different one? I'm open to hearing raw data to that effect.

Beyond that I'd actually be curious how many of these "non-Western" practitioners have crossed over into DAWland in the first place, as in many cases the way DAWs and VIs work seems anathema to those traditions/practices altogether (it is of course no surprise that the glorified multitrack which is the DAW grew out of/to enable a musical culture that places greater emphasis on recording/the non-live experience than most others do).

It does not require a big leap of empathy to understand most other such social issues even if they don't directly affect you, but this one....


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Nov 14, 2021)

Unconscious bias impacts everybody in some way - including software developers (for example, phone cameras have historically been optimized to expose best for lighter skin tones and can be quite bad for darker tones - not because of any technical limitation but because of the problem set development has been traditionally focused on). And this isn’t an east or west or north or south thing - we all have blind spots. And of course we do - the world is huge. So much more to learn about it for each of us. We can only try to keep an open mind and acknowledge that we don’t know what we don’t know.

I think this question would be most interestingly and best answered by somebody who has been raised and educated in a non-western music tradition and is using these DAW programs for the first time.


----------



## CT (Nov 14, 2021)

ALittleNightMusic said:


> I think this question would be most interestingly and best answered by somebody who has been raised and educated in a non-western music tradition and is using these DAW programs for the first time.


Yes, and I think there's an interesting thought experiment worth trying for anyone, involving immersion in an unfamiliar musical tradition and how the feeling of disorientation would affect us.

How would it change the way we view our own musical origins? Would they suddenly seem less meaningful or less valuable due to exposure to other ideas? Would the fact that the instruments used are tailored to the unfamiliar tradition alienate us or make us feel that the culture that produced them thinks less of our own musical methods?

Now, of course this is not a perfect analogy (just a fun thought), as the DAW is ostensibly meant to be a "global" tool (although I'm not sure it's been officially declared as such), which is why again I'll say if there is a truly deleterious effect on musicians from DAW defaults, better to adapt them regionally, or do away with them entirely.


----------



## dhmusic (Nov 14, 2021)

Michaelt said:


> I do think I get what you're going for, but this, like the language of the initially cited quote, is all very broad and theoretical. What I wonder about is how it applies, if at all, to the individual experience. Is there truly a significant number of musicians worldwide who feel that DAW standards meaningfully marginalize/devalue their own musical paradigms by originating in a different one? I'm open to hearing raw data to that effect.
> 
> Beyond that I'd actually be curious how many of these "non-Western" practitioners have crossed over into DAWland in the first place, as in many cases the way DAWs and VIs work seems anathema to those traditions/practices altogether (it is of course no surprise that the glorified multitrack which is the DAW grew out of/to enable a musical culture that places greater emphasis on recording/the non-live experience than most others do).
> 
> It does not require a big leap of empathy to understand most other such social issues even if they don't directly affect you, but this one....


I hear you. Practically speaking, it's difficult to dive into a topic like this on a general forum. Everyone needs to actively deescalate to make any progress and we're too reactive in general. This is one of those things that is easy to reason oneself out of thinking about, and it doesn't take many people chiming in to validate that feeling. But you know somethings up when people get defensive all of a sudden. There is something there that's being threatened, and although the topic seems benign at a surface reading, if you dive deep enough you will eventually arrive at topics that are extremely uncomfortable for people to think about. Examining ones own culture can feel awfully Lovecraftian at times.

I don't mean this pointedly, but when we ask for solid data on topics like this it's often a way to ease our own cognitive dissonance because we know the likelyhood of it being presented is low and we can use the absence of it to confirm our present beliefs. Besides, the point isn't really to overthrow anything. It's more introspective I think, and although there is inherent tension to the question it it's only a problem if one chooses to internalize it adversarially. 

If you went through the question again and gave it the least confrontational reading what might that sound like?


----------



## CT (Nov 14, 2021)

dhmusic said:


> I don't mean this pointedly, but when we ask for solid data on topics like this it's often a way to ease our own cognitive dissonance because we know the likelyhood of it being presented is low and we can use the absence of it to confirm our present beliefs. Besides, the point isn't really to overthrow anything. It's more introspective I think, and although there is inherent tension to the question it it's only a problem if one chooses to internalize it adversarially.
> 
> If you went through the question again and gave it the least confrontational reading what might that sound like?


I wondered if the data thing would be read that way, except it is genuine: if a lot of people feel like shit, I'd like to know and that would be worth acting on. It's just that these broader stroke talking points leave me wondering.

Which question is it that you'd want me to look at again?


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Nov 14, 2021)

Of course a DAW is "biased". And it's not just in terms of the approach to music theory. You could already look at the features most modern DAWs have and what kind of content gets added through updates etc. and say it's clearly biased towards a musical culture that you perhaps have absolutely nothing to do with.

For example, every DAW update video always talks about _editing_, _group editing_ and _faster editing_ and that's just a seemingly very important aspect of a certain type of work in a certain world of music production I just exist outside of. Then there's the usual additions geared towards electronic music, pitch correction and something about compression of something that's being parallely compressed while you compress a compressed something through compression.

I don't care about these things and I realise I'm not the most typical DAW user that the software is gonna be designed and marketed towards. That's OK, we use software to help us realize whatever we're trying to accomplish and sometimes work around some of the stuff it does or, in the best case, we're given the option to adjust and modify to our needs.

Shit, guitars are not microtonal at all, in fact they can't even get the fucking tempered tuning right. I still love 'em to death.

I'm pretty sure that the whole idea of a DAW software was an extension of already existing demands and conventions of producing western pop music. That's fine. That's not an inherent "insult" or anything, it's just where it came from. Although I'm sure in these times, I'd probably even be able to attract a certain user base by just adding a "let's go Brandon" banner to the splash screen of my new DAW, or maybe claim it's vegan and gluten-free.



rgames said:


> The good news is most of the Western world has adopted free-market capitalism. So you are free to go write your own DAW that is unbiased per your conventions.
> 
> And then everyone gets to vote with their dollars to indicate how much they agree with you.
> 
> ...


Sounded like good satire, but I'm kinda getting the dreadful sense that you actually mean it, haha.


----------



## cedricm (Nov 14, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I started off on Cakewalk Pro Audio in 1997. Eventually moved on to Ableton Live and MaxMSP. Then recently to Studio One and Cubase. Through that evolution I could understand that a DAW can be biased. It's baked into intentional an unintentional design. As a visual designer I came to see their bias as more complex that just a set of features.
> 
> As a musician I implicitly recognized, and accepted, that these DAWs are also biased towards Western theory as well. Why might some of us care? If we want to explore more music and more opportunities then we need to be aware of the bias. We use Ableton Live for certain tasks. We use Cubase for others. We often recognize how the technology influences us. So we should also consider the Western music theory biases.
> 
> ...


It isn't colonialism, it's financial realism.
Should a demand arise for DAWs that better support non-western music systems, perhaps first in non-western countries, they will be developed.


----------



## dhmusic (Nov 14, 2021)

Michaelt said:


> I wondered if the data thing would be read that way, except it is genuine: if a lot of people feel like shit, I'd like to know and that would be worth acting on. It's just that these broader stroke talking points leave me wondering.
> 
> Which question is it that you'd want me to look at again?


It sounded sincere to me! I'm not sure how likely that sort of survey would be but it would be interesting for sure, I agree.

I meant OPs initial post. I think a lot of people read it and sense an implied frustration. If we read it as "I'm frustrated with you and hold you accountable" then we are more likely to retaliate to some degree. If the frustration isn't mutually appreciated it could simply be a misunderstanding due to different life experiences - which I find are more rewarding if approached with somewhat detached curiosity. But if we don't remove ourselves personally from the context first it can create conflict instead of connection. I often have to ask myself "why do I not like what this person is saying" for a while and often realize it has to do with me more than anything

It's certainly within our powers of empathy to do so. But it's also perfectly fair to just check out like "nope, can't do this today" because it is a very mentally taxing thing to do.

Take all this with a grain of salt though. I am kind of a dumbass tbh.


----------



## CT (Nov 14, 2021)

dhmusic said:


> I meant OPs initial post.


Right. Well, the problem is I have not even been talking about those questions, I've been zeroing in on one part of the included quote that made me do a triple take, which has been a goofy way to spend the evening, for sure.

My actual answer to the questions posed (which I've got no issues with) would be... no the DAW being what it is doesn't really influence or limit the way I think about music since I try not to conceive of music in that environment in the first place. I'm still largely a paper person. It _does_ complicate the actual execution of certain techniques, of course, but that's as true of "Western" stuff as it is "non-Western." It's an unwieldy beast. Hell I try not to even use the damn click track when I can get away with it.

As for "restricting myself to Western theory," it is certainly the basis of what I do, but I'm interested in any good ideas I can find, regardless of origin. I'm quite content for a piece of mine to be as rooted in Sibelius as it is in principles of Indian and Japanese traditional music. It'll all be executed shittily either way....


----------



## dhmusic (Nov 14, 2021)

cedricm said:


> It isn't colonialism, it's financial realism.
> Should a demand arise for DAWs that better support non-western music systems, perhaps first in non-western countries, they will be developed.


"It isn't colonialism, it's post-colonialism"

Interesting!


----------



## dhmusic (Nov 15, 2021)

Michaelt said:


> Right. Well, the problem is I have not even been talking about those questions, I've been zeroing in on one part of the included quote that made me do a triple take, which has been a goofy way to spend the evening, for sure.
> 
> My actual answer to the questions posed (which I've got no issues with) would be... no the DAW being what it is doesn't really influence or limit the way I think about music since I try not to conceive of music in that environment in the first place. I'm still largely a paper person. It _does_ complicate the actual execution of certain techniques, of course, but that's as true of "Western" stuff as it is "non-Western." It's an unwieldy beast. Hell I try not to even use the damn click track when I can get away with it.
> 
> As for "restricting myself to Western theory," it is certainly the basis of what I do, but I'm interested in any good ideas I can find, regardless of origin. I'm quite content for a piece of mine to be as rooted in Sibelius as it is in principles of Indian and Japanese traditional music. It'll all be executed shittily either way....


Solid answer! hmm I'm trying to think of how my tools might affect me/my writing and maybe even my worldview. It's tough because I'm very much within the comfort zone being discussed.

I know one would be choirs - definitely feel like I'm exploiting something with all of those. But I usually think of that as a sort of threshold that I have to be aware of given the context I'm writing for and everyone sets that for themselves a little different.

I really love balkan/eastern european rhythms/cadences too and use those pretty heavily in most of the things I write. I guess that's a little non-standard for most DAWs... my brain is a bit fried atm haha


----------



## Tralen (Nov 15, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I think Faber is suggesting, if the software is meant for a global audience, why automatically set defaults to things like equal temperament which is dominant in western theory?


Because most DAWs are developed in places where western theory is dominant?


----------



## gamma-ut (Nov 15, 2021)

Some people really do need to get off their high horses when it comes to this type of question. If someone writes that the design of a DAW is biased it's not a criticism of *your* use of it. Also, considerations like this might actually lead to DAWs that work with music a little better than they do today.

The reality is that as others have mentioned, DAWs are developed where 12TET is predominant, so it is inevitably going to be a default. Part of the blame also rests on the design of the MIDI standard, which isn't exactly friendly to anything that isn't 12TET. So alternative tunings become a distinct afterthought. From what I gather from MIDI2, it's still an afterthought but involves jumping through fewer hoops.

The second is the treatment of metre and how it winds up being locked to a pretty static timeline. It's not even a particularly natural fit for western music, which ideally doesn't work with fixed click tracks. But using a fixed click track makes it easier to work with the machine. This gets a bit worse when you're dealing with hierarchical meters or non-isochronous that you find outside conventional western music. These are far from good fits with the conventional DAW.

However, DAWs that use "smarter" techniques to encompass these ideas would probably also benefit composers and performers who want something a bit more flexible than trying to manually lock events to a tempo track if they don't want fixed tempo/meter. We might find some of the work on machine learning would help here by having the DAW make smarter judgments on metric organisation and the placement of beat markers.

So, yeah, they're biased. But "biased" doesn't mean "YOU SHOULD NEVER USE THIS AND YOU ARE A BAD PERSON".


----------



## Crowe (Nov 15, 2021)

Western software is going to be 'biased' towards western conventions. I mean. Duh? It's not that odd that Western-developed daws mainly cater to western sensibilities. It's called 'Target Audience' and it's one of the basics of Business and Marketing.

I don't think this is an issue.



Pier said:


> Can you write microtonal Indian music in your DAW? What about Arabic maqams?


I have no idea. I've never tried and it's not really my thing.

However, business studies have taught me that if there's a demand for an environment in which you can write Microtonal Indian music, it will be made and sold. I'm therefore wondering why these discussions about 'western biases' are popping up all over the place, but nothing is actually really changing in the market place. Caucasians really aren't the only people doing business and writing software. Basically, I don't think it's Europe's job to make software specifically for Arabian music. So where's the Arabic daws? It's really weird.

Off topic, maybe we should all take a chill pill and accept that it's a fact that 'white people' are basically being prosecuted all over the place now for being white. Yeah yeah, the irony is tangible, but you can't expect people not to react defensively when another 'biased towards western culture' props up. *Everyone *is defensive about their culture (well, except me. I don't care about anyone's culture, including my own). And everyone has to accept that we are now a multi-cultural civilization which means we *all* have to adapt to each other.

So. Westerners need to accept they're not automatically being attacked and non-westerners need to accept that the west has its own culture too. And that stuff changes all the time. Relax. You can't force change without bloody revolution. In civilized society, shit takes time.


----------



## AudioLoco (Nov 15, 2021)

I have recorded quiet a lot of "World" music with Cubase and Nuendo.
Indian, West African, and North African music mainly.
The computer program inputting zeros and ones didn't flinch.

anyhow.....

This thread might be..... not very good. 
It seems a bit of a clickbait honestly, like someone who has studied what would make a discussion pick up and decided to roll with it in order to open a popular thread ....and some people are already getting into idiotic racial arguments.


----------



## youngpokie (Nov 15, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> What is the innuendo?


Here is how your post is constructed:

- you write several paragraphs asserting that DAW is biased because it is built on Western theory (the thrust is against a DAW but the real enemy is Western theory). Accusations of bias and racism, even if you don't use the exact word and only imply it, are extremely offensive and are _guaranteed_ to trigger a defensive response.

- _provoking_ this defensive reaction is the real purpose of your post.

- having set this kind of context, you then pose a question: "do you restrict yourself to Western theory?". Notice how "restrict" here applies to the reader as a person in a highly negative way (_do you limit your own human potential_) and suggests close-mindedness (_can't see beyond Western theory_). Notice also how Western theory is repeatedly put in a negative context, again and again.

- what this question does is give a reader two options, both reflecting on him/her in some way, and one of which is a direct and negative association between Western theory, "racism" and you the reader (by proxy of your DAW).

- and that's the really the trick of your post: it's not about the answer to your question and it's not even about DAW at all. The real purpose is to get the reader to doubt, to feel guilty and to self-reflect: am I close-minded? am I racist? and, naturally, to react very strongly to that possibility.

- when this happens (and it has, as shown by responses), the reactions will go in every direction. But the central premise - that there is something wrong with Western theory - will be left unchallenged. Because of that and with enough repetition, it might be accepted as fact. And some might actively try to distance themselves from it to avoid the taint by association.

- mission accomplished.


----------



## babylonwaves (Nov 15, 2021)

AudioLoco said:


> It seems a bit of a clickbait honestly


@AudioLoco This thread is as much clickbait as the other one by the OT in which he moans about the design of a DAW and how it hurts his eyes.


----------



## Kent (Nov 15, 2021)

I've refrained from engaging with the content of the conversation (other than to note that I believe that it is content _worth_ discussion)—and will continue to do so here—but it might help to define the _context_ of the conversation before any meaningful points can be effectively communicated.

I'd like to point all interested parties to the IAT, the Implicit Association Tests, which scientifically help to reveal probable biases one holds. (The data do not become statistically significant until repeatable over time and over multiple 'takes', but be forewarned—it's probably not really a pleasant process regardless.)






Take a Test







implicit.harvard.edu


----------



## ism (Nov 15, 2021)

rgames said:


> A convention is not bias.
> 
> If you think convention is bias then most of my studio is biased towards binary representations because it's mostly digital.
> 
> ...



Conventions aren't so transparent. Gauge theory, for instance, was original about very prosaic engineering convention - literally different gauges of railway tracks, generalized into conventions of units, inches vs centimetres, for instance. 

But first in Electrodynamics, and then in Einstein's General Relativity, it was realized that there was a great deal more going on here. The curvature of space time in Einstein's theory, and it's expression in Reimannian tensor calculus massively complicates units of space time. You can't say that you'r "two inches to the south of one to the north", when space time is curved, for the units themselves encode the underlying Cartesian assumption of flatness. 

Instead you need to choose one coordinate system of a local observer, which induces a second (contra variant) system. So you choice of convention is still seemingly arbitrary, and balanced by it's a second contention of it's contravariant dual. And there are an infinite number of coordinate systems you can choose, it's just that in some, certain equations are easier to solve, and in other certain other equations are easier to solve. So even here, your choice of coordinate systems massively biases the kinds of phenomenon you're able, in practice, to perceive flowing from the Einstein field equations. 

Except that it goes deeper that this. It turns out that the there's quite a lot riding on your choice of convention and the available choices of your coordinate system. And in a more modern understanding of gauge theory (by now having evolved far beyond it's origins engineering and railway track measurements), the Einstein field equations themselves can be seen as placing restrictions on choices of gauge (ie. conventions of coordinates). 

By the time we get to Quantum Electro Dynamics in the 30s-40s, gauge theory has taken on an entirely new life. Light itself (ie photons) is a gauge field, arising from gauge symmetry, meaning the the physical phenomenon of light itself is, in some rather abstract, but still quite real sense, a phenomenon of symmetry in choice of conventions of coordinates. 


My point - conventions, their structure and their symmetries, the freedoms of their choice, and their restrictions, really can matter quite a lot.


----------



## darkogav (Nov 15, 2021)

I think a DAW is a DAW. You can make any type of music you want to make with the DAW you have, you just have to figure out how to use the DAW.



estevancarlos said:


> DAWs are also biased towards Western theory as well. Why might some of us care?


Based on this sort of logic, then the electric guitar is biased towards Western music, as it doesn't do micro tonality, unless you get rid of the frets or switch to a slide, no?

My obligatory plug for my buddy Debashish Bhattacharya must be thrown in.


----------



## ism (Nov 15, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> having set this kind of context, you then pose a question: "do you restrict yourself to Western theory?". Notice how "restrict" here applies to the reader as a person in a highly negative way (_do you limit your own human potential_) and suggests close-mindedness (_can't see beyond Western theory_). Notice also how Western theory is repeatedly put in a negative context, again and again.


You may have a point here. But I'd argue that the reading of "restriction" as negative is itself an artifact of a particular ideology of western liberalism. 

In fact power and expressiveness comes from restriction. A scale restricts the 12 tones of the chromatic scale, and this is entirely a good thing, unless you're writing entirely chromatic music. 

The ability to see notions (or even piano roll) as opposed to continuous pitch data is a restrictions that is entirely empowering in allowing us to focus on abstractions of melody and harmony. Scientifically, a singer of a violinist doesn't just hit an "A", they let loose a massively complex phenomenon of wobbly air, full of intonation and vibrato and all kinds of nuance that a notated "A" doesn't begin to capture. But the restriction of this phenomenon to a simple notated "A" is critical to our ability to write music in dimension of harmony, melody. 


As someone not interesting in write 12-tone, and who happy to respect the enormous sophistication and artistry of, for instance, the microtonality in classical Indian music, without feeling any need to appropriate it for my own, I'm perfectly happy that a DAW encodes this bias via it's carefully chosen dimensions of abstraction as restriction. 


Staffpad is even more restricted that the DAW - and there's certain types of expressiveness that I'd never use Staffpad for. But when I want to focus on things like harmonic structure, the restrictions of Staffpad are entirely a good thing.

So +1 for restriction and bias. And +1 for being to choose, and move fluidly between different possible restrictions and biases.


----------



## easyrider (Nov 15, 2021)

Pier said:


> Can you write microtonal Indian music in your DAW? What about Arabic maqams?
> 
> Also, up until recently you couldn't even write note pitch bends (not channel pitch bends) in a DAW. Are there any other DAWs other than Bitwig that have per note modulation?


Yes you can , you’re assuming all music relies on virtual instruments and midi .

Many use the DAW as a glorified tape machine


----------



## AudioLoco (Nov 15, 2021)

babylonwaves said:


> @AudioLoco This thread is as much clickbait as the other one by the OT in which he moans about the design of a DAW and how it hurts his eyes.


Yes I think if the OP was actually interested in a conversation (which might be actually interesting) and something actually useful other then create engagement and division (therefore engagement), he would have phrased it more or less like:

"Would it be possible to add different non-Western intervals to the piano roll in various DAWs?"

Simple and to the point without forcing silly divisions and veiled accusations.


----------



## PedroPH (Nov 15, 2021)

"If a musician opens a new composition and they are given a 4/4 beat and equal tempered tuning by default, it is implied that other musical systems do not exist, or at least that they are of less value.”

This is not true. The only thing that is implied is that a 4/4 beat is the best default setting (probably because it is the most common) and that equal tempered tuning is the most common too.

All software is "biased" to whatever the software is designed to do, isn't it?


----------



## Bernard Duc (Nov 15, 2021)

DAWs are what they are (meaning very inadequate for most music, even western) because it’s much easier to program things with discrete data (data that fits on grids) than to have constantly changing temperaments (which is what real orchestral or choral music is), constantly changing tempos, unmetered music, microtonal ornamentations, etc. Controllers to input that kind of complex continuous data are also much more expensive to build.


----------



## youngpokie (Nov 15, 2021)

ism said:


> But I'd argue that the reading of "restriction" as negative is itself an artifact of a particular ideology of western liberalism.
> 
> In fact power and expressiveness comes from restriction.


You're using "restriction" here in the sense of overcoming a self-imposed challenge. Yes, it's inherently a net positive when used in this way. But notice how you set your context totally differently: _power and expressiveness come from restriction_. 

The way the OP did it is the opposite. His context is: _this thing is a big bad racist negative, and you are restricting yourself with it. What's wrong with you??_


----------



## ism (Nov 15, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> You're using "restriction" here in the sense of overcoming a self-imposed challenge. Yes, it's inherently a net positive when used in this way. But notice how you set your context totally differently: _power and expressiveness come from restriction_.
> 
> The way the OP did it is the opposite. His context is: _this thing is a big bad racist negative, and you are restricting yourself with it. What's wrong with you??_



No not at all, I’m using restriction in a much more technical way (drawing on themes in the mathematics of language design and syntax/semantics mappings). 

But look how ideologically loaded the concept is regardless.


----------



## darkogav (Nov 15, 2021)

ka00 said:


> So what would improve this? An initial splash screen asking you to pick a cultural paradigm to work in?
> 
> Would the software choose defaults for you based on the country of purchase?





estevancarlos said:


> I'm not necessarily too focused on proposals to "fix" things. However a prompt that asks for initial music settings is fine and worth considering. I'm not sure it should be limited to region either. That also sounds limiting.


This never works out well. I think you as a developer are assuming the end user is always going to be highly technical with computers, just as you are. Me, as an IT guy, can tell you, a great number of your end users are not highly technical, and the more options you give them, the more you mess them up and the more it will generate calls and tickets to your level 1 support.

The #1 rule of enterprise IT is, _"the more you customize it, the less support you will get."_ This includes Microsoft Word install's, Microsoft Windows OS registry hacking, all the way to Linux kernel compiling. My stance is, if you were smart enough to get in and screw around with it without knowing what you are doing, then you are smart enough to figure out a way to dig yourself out of the hole you are in. ;0)


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Nov 15, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> What are your thoughts on how your music software influences or limits your creative options? Do you restrict yourself to western theory and if so, why?


Absolutely not. What in particular would you change? What part of it is "Western Theory"? You can easily set up your default project settings. Even the NI Komplete software has the ability to switch into "cultural" scale modes. I was commissioned for a world-inspired production album a few years ago and was not influenced at all by the DAW I used (Logic Pro), and I composed in a variety of cultural scales.


----------



## Crowe (Nov 15, 2021)

I fully agree that 'Restrict' shouldn't be read as negatively as some people default to here. After all, limitation is known to breed creativity as much as the removal of limitation is.


----------



## b_elliott (Nov 15, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I started off on Cakewalk Pro Audio in 1997. Eventually moved on to Ableton Live and MaxMSP. Then recently to Studio One and Cubase. Through that evolution I could understand that a DAW can be biased. It's baked into intentional an unintentional design. As a visual designer I came to see their bias as more complex that just a set of features.


Note: Have not read all thread postings, so it may be repetitive.

I thought it a wild feature of Zebra2: microtuning in its Global section.

Then inside Reaper I have extensions installed which give access to 1000s of scales which include three banks of Indian Raga, one of Indian Mela, two for Messiean and oodles of theoretical scales 3-note to 10-note. So many in fact, I sometimes make it simple: glance at the clock, note the time display to select my scale choice: 1:13pm = Theoretical Scale 1-113. 

I earlier saw a video mention the fact most DAW songs were coming out at default settings (4/4, 120bpm). Guilty. It's laziness since there are so many resources. 

So, I make it a point to change things up and explore different scales, tempos and time sigs in each song.


----------



## SupremeFist (Nov 15, 2021)

The fact that a DAW is by default set up for "composing music" implies that poetry and sculpture don't even exist, or at least that they are less valuable. In the interests of cultural justice there should only be one piece of software, that allows the user to do literally anything.


----------



## Henu (Nov 15, 2021)

Also, don't forget that a DAW puts you in a disadvantage if you are not musical.

This is both discriminating and outrageous.


----------



## ism (Nov 15, 2021)

Crowe said:


> I fully agree that 'Restrict' shouldn't be read as negatively as some people default to here. After all, limitation is known to breed creativity as much as the removal of limitation is.


There's a formal, mathematical version of this maxim also.



ResSerp said:


> The people criticizing Western culture want to wipe it out. They have zero interest in cooperation.


Huh? I don't like, for instance, Nickleback very much ... therefore ... I want to wipe out Western culture? 

Seriously though, let's avoid this kind of culture war charicatures of eachother. It's only going to end up in the drama zone.


----------



## morganwable (Nov 15, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> The way the OP did it is the opposite. His context is: _this thing is a big bad racist negative, and you are restricting yourself with it. What's wrong with you??_


That was absolutely not the context whatsoever. Why are you assuming that's what the OP meant?? Again, projecting.



SupremeFist said:


> The fact that a DAW is by default set up for "composing music" implies that poetry and sculpture don't even exist, or at least that they are less valuable. In the interests of cultural justice there should only be one piece of software, that allows the user to do literally anything.


This. I cannot believe people on here have poor enough reading comprehension that they're projecting an entire imagined point of discussion onto this thread - that anybody whatsoever is suggesting that "DAWs are implying [non-western musical conventions] do not exist or are otherwise invalid". _Nobody is saying that._


----------



## SupremeFist (Nov 15, 2021)

morganwable said:


> that anybody whatsoever is suggesting that "DAWs are implying [non-western musical conventions] do not exist or are otherwise invalid". _Nobody is saying that._


Er, OP quoted a guy literally saying that?


----------



## dhmusic (Nov 15, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> The fact that a DAW is by default set up for "composing music" implies that poetry and sculpture don't even exist, or at least that they are less valuable. In the interests of cultural justice there should only be one piece of software, that allows the user to do literally anything.


You had me thinking this was a half-court shot until it slammed hard on the floor

that's cool though, I was on the edge of my seat for a moment haha


----------



## youngpokie (Nov 15, 2021)

morganwable said:


> Why are you assuming that's what the OP meant??


Because I clicked on the link he included in the post. And read it.


----------



## ism (Nov 15, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> Er, OP quoted a guy literally saying that?


Well not literally. Here's the quote:

"If a musician opens a new composition and they are given a 4/4 beat and equal tempered tuning by default, it is implied that other musical systems do not exist, or at least that they are of less value."

Which is a bit provocatively phrased, I suppose. But it does serve dramatize the way the constant foregrounding of one thing risks de-emphasizing other possibilities from one's consciousness. It don't mean that 4/4 is evil. But it is dominant. How is not good to just kind of keep this kind of stuff in mind?

4/4 time in Logic is a trivial example. But Western Civilization will survive this mode of critical engagement with the way restrictions are choses and biases are embedded.


----------



## SupremeFist (Nov 15, 2021)

ism said:


> Well not literally. Here's the quote:
> 
> "If a musician opens a new composition and they are given a 4/4 beat and equal tempered tuning by default, it is implied that other musical systems do not exist, or at least that they are of less value."
> 
> ...


Oh sure it will, I don't disagree!


----------



## morganwable (Nov 15, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> Er, OP quoted a guy literally saying that?


Looks like I'm a dumbass. I think that the quote in question may not have been part of the post originally, but it's definitely there now.

Eh. I think the bias thing is absolutely a worthy line of discussion, but to suggest that _specific wording_ of the idea is definitely a bit absurd. But I think that was the point of what the OP was quoting - to be provocative in order to get people to consider a detail they had previously overlooked.

At any rate,


ism said:


> Well not literally. Here's the quote:
> 
> "If a musician opens a new composition and they are given a 4/4 beat and equal tempered tuning by default, it is implied that other musical systems do not exist, or at least that they are of less value."
> 
> ...


Yeah, this is more or less what I was about to say.


----------



## Crowe (Nov 15, 2021)

ism said:


> Well not literally. Here's the quote:
> 
> "If a musician opens a new composition and they are given a 4/4 beat and equal tempered tuning by default, it is implied that other musical systems do not exist, or at least that they are of less value."


Ok, this is pretty much nonsense. When we design a product that enables you to use different settings, we always default to the one that is most often used. This is UX design. It's fine to think about *why* this the most often used setting, but the have yet another racial and cultural foodfight over it is just not helping.

Now please attempt to convince me that having a standard of 120bpm is insensitive because of colonialism. Ffs.


----------



## morganwable (Nov 15, 2021)

Crowe said:


> Ok, this is pretty much nonsense. When we design a product that enables you to use different settings, we always default to the one that is most often used. This is UX design. It's fine to think about *why* this the most often used setting, but the have yet another racial and cultural foodfight over it is just not helpingl


It isn't nonsense at all. It is, very explicitly, examining _why_ those conventions are considered the default (and the historical context by which they became dominant). 

The only people making it a racial and cultural foodfight are the ones throwing a shitfit just because the topic was _mentioned._ The rest of us are trying to have a discussion.


----------



## dhmusic (Nov 15, 2021)

morganwable said:


> Looks like I'm a dumbass. I think that the quote in question may not have been part of the post originally, but it's definitely there now.


I kinda made that joke on page 3 and put it in quotes. Not sure if that's what you mean haha


----------



## ism (Nov 15, 2021)

There's an argument that one distinctive feature of the Enlighment (read: Wester Civilization in its preferred form, at least for many people) is bases on this kind of critical engagement.

And I read a book once that locates that the seeds of this particular form of Western tritical thought firmly in the Middle Eastern prophetic tradition of speaking truth to secular powers. So maybe this is a nice thing about Middle Eastern Civilization also.




Crowe said:


> Ok, this is pretty much nonsense. When we design a product that enables you to use different settings, we always default to the one that is most often used. This is UX design. It's fine to think about *why* this the most often used setting, but the have yet another racial and cultural foodfight over it is just not helpingl



Ok, but in that most UX design (on the web at least) isn't being paid for by users, it is very often not always designed for the benefit of users. It's designed to encourage users along the path towards wherever whoever's paying for the UX design wants them to do (typically a shopping cart, or away from the "cancel my subscription" button). See "Dark Patterns" in UX to get a sense of how UX is perfectly capable of encoding bias / being evil, against the interests of users, or even usability.

The 4/4 time is a silly little example of course - chosen, I imagine, precisely because it's so silly and non controversial. But UX is a discourse of great power in our lives. And I don't see how employing critical though towards what it's actually doing is going to be a bad thing (much less how it's going to destroy Western Civilization).


Which has me thinking .. I should really try writing more in 3/4 time. Fight the Power!


----------



## Crowe (Nov 15, 2021)

Hah. Alright. I'm going to say that yes, western DAWs are biased towards western sensibilities.

And that's completely fine.


----------



## morganwable (Nov 15, 2021)

ism said:


> There's an argument that one distinctive feature of the Enlighment (read: Wester Civilization in its preferred form, at least for many people) is bases on this kind of critical engagement.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Which has me thinking .. I should really try writing more in 3/4 time. Fight the Power!


Well articulated.

This thread isn't to say, "you can't write in 4/4 time". Or that using equal temperament is _racist_ or something.

It isn't a directive, it's a question - have you considered pushing the limits of these conventions in your own work? Has your workflow limited any parts of your thought process, even in subconscious, imperceptible ways?

The answer to the second question there is a resounding yes, especially for every one of y'all who's finding a way to take this thread super personally.

Is that a bad thing? Probably not. Just something to keep in the back of your mind.



Crowe said:


> Hah. Alright. I'm going to say that yes, western DAWs are biased towards western sensibilities.
> 
> And that's completely fine.


I think this sums it up. Bias isn't an active evil, it's by nature just... a quiet, unintentional influence on things. Nobody's discounting other culture's artistic conventions _on purpose_. Or, rather, I'm sure most people aren't.

All _I'm_ saying, at least, is that it's worth stepping back for a moment, taking in the broader context, thinking about it, then getting back to work. It'll make you a better artist.


----------



## ism (Nov 15, 2021)

Crowe said:


> Hah. Alright. I'm going to say that yes, western DAWs are biased towards western sensibilities.
> 
> And that's completely fine.


It would be so annoying if it wasn't.

But it's an interesting question to ask - what might non-western composers like in their DAWS? And if capital and competitive market space were ever to find it's way to answering this question, is it possible that the rest of us might not benefit by new ideas and new investments and new perspectives? 

I have no idea how, in that I'm writing very western music myself, which is hard enough with this kind of theoretical distractions. But new critical perspective on problems is well know to provide completely unexpected, often brilliant, innovations.


----------



## gamma-ut (Nov 15, 2021)

morganwable said:


> Looks like I'm a dumbass. I think that the quote in question may not have been part of the post originally, but it's definitely there now.
> 
> Eh. I think the bias thing is absolutely a worthy line of discussion, but to suggest that _specific wording_ of the idea is definitely a bit absurd. But I think that was the point of what the OP was quoting - to be provocative in order to get people to consider a detail they had previously overlooked.
> 
> ...


That quote actually comes from a Pitchfork article which is, well...Pitchfork (clue's in the mag's name, I guess). It's a bit of a shame as the source article has some interesting material in there on things like plugins for Live (I assume they are M4L) that are designed for some North African styles among other things. The line itself just looks like a piece of journalist reductio hyperbole rather than some serious point about the intricacies of DAW design. But outrage-happy people gonna outrage.


----------



## gamma-ut (Nov 15, 2021)

ism said:


> It would be so annoying if it wasn't.
> 
> But it's an interesting question to ask - what might non-western composers like in their DAWS? And if capital and competitive market space were ever to find it's way to answering this question, is it possible that the rest of us might not benefit by new ideas and new investments and new perspectives?
> 
> I have no idea how, in that I'm writing very western music myself, which is hard enough with this kind of theoretical distractions. But new critical perspective on problems is well know to provide completely unexpected, often brilliant, innovations.


The irony of this discussion is that the article that contains the quote that some are getting so outraged over actually looks at this, at least for a couple of artists.


----------



## youngpokie (Nov 15, 2021)

ism said:


> But it's an interesting question to ask - what might non-western composers like in their DAWS?


I really wish this was the way the discussion was framed, both here on the forum as well as in media generally. Sadly, it's not.


----------



## ism (Nov 15, 2021)

One of the biases I struggle with, which the DAW didn't invent but does perpetuate, is "white key bias" I write way too much in they key of C (or Am). 

A stronger version of this is "piano bias" - ie. Eric Whitacre says he never write choral works at the piano, as this results in music that's biased towards the piano and that therefore doesn't fully embrace the qualities of musicality specific to choirs.

Sample libraries and DAWs, in this sense, can actually ease, if not fully eliminate, the risk of this bias in letting us hear what a real choir (or string quartet / oboe etc) might sound like.


----------



## ism (Nov 15, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> I really wish this was the way the discussion was framed, both here on the forum as well as in media generally. Sadly, it's not.


You're right. Some of the language uses seems to be .. triggering, or something ... for some people. And while admittedly I'm being a little provocative in some of my language too, I'm also attempting to refame to something I think we can all more or less agree on.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 15, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> Here is how your post is constructed:
> 
> - you write several paragraphs asserting that DAW is biased because it is built on Western theory (the thrust is against a DAW but the real enemy is Western theory). Accusations of bias and racism, even if you don't use the exact word and only imply it, are extremely offensive and are _guaranteed_ to trigger a defensive response.
> 
> ...


Interesting theory.

For years I restricted myself to Western theory because it was easier to study. Am I also trying to provoke myself with this question? Wow. So much to unpack here...

/sarc


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 15, 2021)

ism said:


> One of the biases I struggle with, which the DAW didn't invent but does perpetuate, is "white key bias" I write way too much in they key of C (or Am).
> 
> A stronger version of this is "piano bias" - ie. Eric Whitacre says he never write choral works at the piano, as this results in music that's biased towards the piano and that therefore doesn't fully embrace the qualities of musicality specific to choirs.
> 
> Sample libraries and DAWs, in this sense, can actually ease, if not fully eliminate, the risk of this bias in letting us hear what a real choir (or string quartet / oboe etc) might sound like.


This is so real. In other threads I discuss UI/UX. The way we design things influences our interaction and behavior. Which was part of what I was trying to reference in my original post.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 15, 2021)

In another forum, elsewhere, I shared this post with ethnomusicologists. No one responded with:

Holy shit!
Get the fuck out!
Innuendo!
Take it elsewhere
In fact the ethnomusicologists responded with "Thank you!" and "This is interesting." I don't think anyone here wants me discussing this so frankly I'm leaving. Adios.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 15, 2021)

PaulieDC said:


> Sorry, I’m getting so tired of the constant judgement and blame in every blasted conversation anymore. I try to keep things lighthearted when I post on here but not this time.. Now we’re asking if DAWs and Music Theory are _biased_? Write whatever you want to write, you don’t have to adhere to any rules at all and any good daw allows you to microtune all you want. A DAW IS TO RECORD WHATEVER YOU WRITE, if the added crutches of a chord track are too western, _don’t use it_. Blows my mind that a post like this is now entering our forum, a place where anyone can write anything they want.
> 
> If the west is so horribly biased and bad, then why are you writing your opinion in English? Surely that’s a bad influence. *Having an opinion is one thing, but starting it off with accusations is the same thing everyone else is doing now. Take it elsewhere.*


I'll leave one more comment. An accusation of bias is not the same as an accusation of racism, nationalism, jingoism, or bigotry. It seems many around here conflate them. I have many biases. When I discuss and teach subjects relating to UI/UX I tell students about reflecting on bias. Sometimes they will overuse colors due to an aesthetic bias.

The technology will come with a bias as some others have noted. Product design can come with bias. When we use tools for creativity we could reflect on that in order to assess how we are creating. For example, many (maybe not all) will agree that Ableton Live is biased towards loop/phrase based composition. This relates to it's design.

I won't go further into it because this is clearly NOT a forum to discuss these things. Goodbye!


----------



## ism (Nov 15, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I don't think anyone here wants me discussing this so frankly I'm leaving. Adios.


Some culture wars hyperbole aside, I really think majority of people on the thread have found your post very interesting.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 15, 2021)

Jdiggity1 said:


> I'd be interested to know if there are any software solutions that the OP (or others) feel could be used as an example of how DAWs could encourage more experimentation with other musical cultures.
> ie. if what the OP outlines is indeed a problem, is there any sense of "progress" in this area that might better demonstrate what options there are, if one of the developers wanted to address it?


Unfortunately I can only recommend MaxMSP which at least removes initial assumptions from a UX perspective. It's a very unreasonable solution but their philosophy is worth reflecting on. That's it for this topic on my end.


----------



## ism (Nov 15, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I'll leave one more comment. An accusation of bias is not the same as an accusation of racism, nationalism, jingoism, or bigotry. It seems many around here conflate them. I have many biases. When I discuss and teach subjects relating to UI/UX I tells students about reflecting on bias. Sometimes will overuse colors due to an aesthetic bias.
> 
> The technology will come with a bias as some others have noted. Product design can come with bias. When we use tools for creativity we could reflect on that in order to assess how we are creating. For example, many (maybe not all) will agree that Ableton Live is biased towards loop/phrase based composition. This relates to it's design.
> 
> I won't go further into it because this is clearly NOT a forum to discuss these things. Goodbye!



I feel your pain on this. But as a counterpoint, the benefits of attempting to discuss such things on vi-c over a more academic forum is that this is a very real, raw interface between the UX and working composers, and all the commercial and ideological contexts that entails. 

In the current critical-engagemet-is-from-satan political environment, it's alas hardly unexpected, (and hardly accidental, and hardly incidental) that academic language will trigger this kinds of conflations. 

So yes, a conversation on vi-c is inevitably going to be messier. 

But perhaps it has compensating merits?


----------



## ism (Nov 15, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> It seems many around here conflate them. I have many biases. When I discuss and teach subjects relating to UI/UX I tells students about reflecting on bias. Sometimes will overuse colors due to an aesthetic bias.


If you teach this kind of thing, I'd love it if you'd be able to share some syllabus grade references?


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 15, 2021)

ism said:


> I feel your pain on this. But as a counterpoint, the benefits of attempting to discuss such things on vi-c over a more academic forum is that this is a very real, raw interface between the UX and working composers, and all the commercial and ideological contexts that entails.
> 
> In the current critical-engagemet-is-from-satan political environment, it's alas hardly unexpected, (and hardly accidental, and hardly incidental) that academic language will trigger this kinds of conflations.
> 
> ...


Someone removed the knuckle dragger, Texan post who told me to leave the west. Which was funny because I'm also from Texas. As I noted in my post, on the very same day as his comment, his tribe of people also told me I was going to hell. Which is a very *normal*, Texan, thing to do. It's like saying "Good afternoon."

I know how this world is. I've been around it. Those who think my post was too provocative because I used words like "bias" and "restrict" don't need to read anything I wrote.

Moving forward I'll put these resources on DecolonizeMusicTech.org and then people can email me about how I should leave the country or how I hate white people, yadda, yadda.


----------



## SupremeFist (Nov 15, 2021)

I do think the paradigm of midi "regions" that can be copy and pasted does tend to prioritise a certain compositional approach, even when EDM or other music that relies on repetitive eight-bar patterns is not the goal. Rather than a "bias" I might call this something like a "structural path of least resistance".


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 15, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> I do think the paradigm of midi "regions" that can be copy and pasted does tend to prioritise a certain compositional approach, even when EDM or other music that relies on repetitive eight-bar patterns is not the goal. Rather than a "bias" I might call this something like a "structural path of least resistance".


Technology influences human interaction and behavior.


----------



## morganwable (Nov 15, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> I do think the paradigm of midi "regions" that can be copy and pasted does tend to prioritise a certain compositional approach, even when EDM or other music that relies on repetitive eight-bar patterns is not the goal. Rather than a "bias" I might call this something like a "structural path of least resistance".


This is exactly why I moved from FL studio to Reaper. I desperately missed "MIDI regions" because the EDM-driven "patterns" paradigm from FL was useful when I was writing video game music, but surprisingly restrictive when trying to move back to symphonic work.

A concrete example I've experienced of how UX design can influence my own workflow.

Man, I miss Logic. But I simply cannot afford Apple hardware.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Nov 15, 2021)

morganwable said:


> Man, I miss Logic. But I simply cannot afford Apple hardware.


I hear you! When I had the $$ for a computer upgrade last spring (from a 2013 MacBook), I almost went back to PC running Cubase (from Logic). I priced out a 2020 iMac and a custom-built PC comparable specs.....and it wasn't substantially more for the iMac (which I bought and love). I also have an Apogee Element interface (Mac only), so I had to factor that in as well. At the end of the day, if you are a professional (even part time), get the tools you really want and be done with it IMO.


----------



## CT (Nov 15, 2021)

morganwable said:


> Looks like I'm a dumbass. I think that the quote in question may not have been part of the post originally, but it's definitely there now.


It's definitely been there from the start! It was what made me respond in the first place. I'll await your apology for that "projecting" misinterpretation. (just kidding) (but really)


----------



## Pier (Nov 15, 2021)

morganwable said:


> This is exactly why I moved from FL studio to Reaper. I desperately missed "MIDI regions" because the EDM-driven "patterns" paradigm from FL was useful when I was writing video game music, but surprisingly restrictive when trying to move back to symphonic work.


I've never used FL Studio but this guy on Youtube seems to be doing fine:



Maybe he puts up with it because there are other benefits?

I've read many times people raving about the piano roll.


----------



## dhmusic (Nov 15, 2021)

Pier said:


> I've never used FL Studio but this guy on Youtube seems to be doing fine:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think he likes that it's a bit of an underdog/underestimated DAW from what I remember from an interview I saw. I can def appreciate that


----------



## Trensharo (Nov 25, 2021)

Michaelt said:


> It's quite simple to change meter or temperament in the DAWs I've used. It seems absolutely ludicrous to conclude that the default settings in a DAW imply that other musical systems do not exist or are of lesser value. Holy shit.
> 
> Like default language/time being region-based, if there are sweepingly common enough musical methodologies to define the most typical needs of composers in a certain area, by all means, make those the defaults the DAW opens with in that area. That seems entirely reasonable. And I sincerely hope for the ongoing health and value of civilization that people using those DAWs can remember that the default settings do not encompass the entirety of human musical practice.


The example was exaggerated - likely to drive the point home (in a mediocre manner) - but the premise is spot on. The biases of the developers shape the DAW's development and affect what/how features are implemented and how feature requests are triaged in project management.

Pro Tools developers are going to triage recommendations from Recording and Mix Engineers higher than those from Composers and Producers, because the software was developed with a heavy bias to that market - which has affected its development to such a degree that the areas prioritized by multiple other segments of the market have been retarded.

This also applies to other software markets, but I think Music Production Software displays this more than many (if not most) other market segments due to the diversity of the medium and how it is created via the software.

It's why we have DAWs with such heavy biases to certain use cases:

ACID Pro
FL Studio
Ableton Live
Pro Tools
Digital Performer
Maschine

These are all DAWs, but they all bias to a different market segment by virtue of design and development over the years - even though their feature sets overlap heavily.

The whole point of developing a software package is that you get to do it the way you'd prefer it to be done. That is the nature of a capitalistic software market...

Some DAWs, like Cubase and Studio One, have been more successful at developing into pretty vast "generalists" without esoteric user experiences (e.g. Digital Performer), but they are more the exception to the norm, IMHO. Most DAWs are pretty easy to compartmentalize based on design and feature set biases.

Default Settings is never something I care about because the first thing I do after installing any software is go through all of the settings and set that stuff the way I want it. I change the defaults immediately, and never really encounter unsavory defaults when I start a new project /shtugs/


----------



## Trensharo (Nov 25, 2021)

Pier said:


> I've never used FL Studio but this guy on Youtube seems to be doing fine:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Usable *and *Optimal *are two different things. Most DAWs are usable for most genres of music production, but also Optimal for certain genres for which their feature sets cater heavily.

You can do orchestral composition and film scoring using FL Studio, but it's Optimal for Beatmaking and EDM.


----------



## Pier (Nov 25, 2021)

Trensharo said:


> *Usable *and *Optimal *are two different things. Most DAWs are usable for most genres of music production, but also Optimal for certain genres for which their feature sets cater heavily.
> 
> You can do orchestral composition and film scoring using FL Studio, but it's Optimal for Beatmaking and EDM.


I've never used FL Studio, but if you look at the videos from that channel it would suggest it's much more than usable.


----------



## Trensharo (Nov 25, 2021)

Pier said:


> I've never used FL Studio, but if you look at the videos from that channel it would suggest it's much more than usable.


It's a spectrum because these things are comparative.

I wouldn't say it's "as usable as" - say - Cubase or Digital Performer for that same stuff (mentioned in the post you referenced).

However, it's usable to the point that it is often not worth picking up a second DAW to do this if you already have mastery of FL Studio, or Ableton, or Bitwig, or REAPER, or Samplitude, etc.

Anything is "much more than usable." The only limiting factor is the willingness of the producer or composer to put in the work to reach that breakpoint. If you can do this without feeling like your productivity is suffering, then there is no point considering another DAW (unless you can pick it up quickly and the productivity gaines [FOR YOU] are worth it - though that is often hard to estimate for most people).

However, that work may be surplus over the investment needed by a composer or producer with comparable mastery of a more optimal platform for producing that type of work.

Cubase is "much more than usable" for producing EDM, but there objective reasons why most producers in that genre's market segment are on Ableton, FL Studio and Bitwig...


----------



## Pier (Nov 25, 2021)

Trensharo said:


> Anything is "much more than usable." The only limiting factor is the willingness of the producer or composer to put in the work to reach that breakpoint.


Well then why even argue about usable vs optimal? That's your original point, isn't it?



Trensharo said:


> Cubase is "much more than usable" for producing EDM, but there objective reasons why most producers in that genre's market segment are on Ableton, FL Studio and Bitwig...


It's really more nuanced than that.

DAWs are really a set of tools. Some of these tools might be better than others at doing genre specific stuff but I don't agree about these categorical declarations you're making.

Live and Bitwig might be better at working with loops and sound design than Cubase. OTOH Cubase's piano roll and arrangement view, that are fundamental to writing any sort of music, are really lightyears ahead.

You're also arguing about popularity which I don't think has a strong relationship with the tools themselves. There are huge cultural implications. Maybe they don't use Cubase because their friends use Live, or maybe because the UI is aesthetically outdated. I know plenty of Live users who haven't even tried other DAWs. And let's not forget Ableton has invested a ton of money positioning its brand in that particular market.


----------



## Trensharo (Nov 25, 2021)

Pier said:


> Well then why even argue about usable vs optimal? That's your original point, isn't it?


I'm not arguing. I stated that something being usable doesn't mean it's optimal, because you stated that someone seems to be doing fine with FL Studio.

What is there to even argue about?

You can paddle a boat with a baseball bat, and it's usable, but a paddle is better. That is my point. DAWs are no different.

Pro Tools is - objectively - a more optimal studio recording solution than FL Studio. Can you "do it just fine" with FL Studio? Yes. Sure... However, we know what even its own users have to say about that.


Pier said:


> It's really more nuanced than that.


Which is kind of the premise of my initial statement. It's more nuanced than seeing a YouTube video and saying "this guy gets things done just fine using DAW_01."


Pier said:


> DAWs are really a set of tools. Some of these tools might be better than others at doing genre specific stuff but I don't agree about these categorical declarations you're making.


How can you say a DAW can have better tools for doing genre specific stuff, but then say that you disagree with what I'm saying? Those mutually exclusive statements.


Pier said:


> Live and Bitwig might be better at working with loops and sound design than Cubase. OTOH Cubase's piano roll and arrangement view, that are fundamental to writing any sort of music, are really lightyears ahead.


The disparity between Cubase and Ableton's Piano Rolls are not in the same stratosphere as the disparity with some of the tools that Ableton has for Sound Design and Loop work that eclipse what Cubase has on offer. Most people would say FL Studio has a better Piano Roll than Cubase, but that doesn't change my statement on the matter (upthread).

What Cubase can do in the Piano roll is generally able to be accomplished in Ableton or Bitwig. What they can do with Sound Design is - in some cases - literally undoable in Cubase without a plug-in.

Which was exactly my point. You can do the scoring stuff in FL despite it not being as optimal as Cubase because there are ways to accomplish the things that Cubase does better in FL Studio. But there are pockets of functionality that give massive productivity or functional gains for the production of certain type of music that isn't possible in some DAW. This is what makes them "less optimal" than others for producing those types of music.


Pier said:


> You're also arguing


I'm not arguing. Disagreeing is not arguing. Offering a different perspective is not arguing.


Pier said:


> about popularity which I don't think has a strong relationship with the tools themselves.


Popularity has nothing to do with it. I'm stating that there is a reason why those tools are popular in those markets, and if you ask uses the reasons are often not "popularity" but pockets of functionality in those solutions that are weak - and sometimes nonexistent - in Cubase.

For example, many people in the EDM market do not rate the Sampler [Track 2] in Cubase as highly as that in Ableton, FL or Bitwig - objectively.


Pier said:


> There are huge cultural implications. Maybe they don't use Cubase because their friends use Live, or maybe because the UI is aesthetically outdated. I know plenty of Live users who haven't even tried other DAWs. And let's not forget Ableton has invested a ton of money positioning its brand in that particular market.


This has literally nothing to do with what I'm stating. Bandwagoning and peer pressure has nothing to do with my aforementioned statements. No projection, please.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Nov 25, 2021)

音楽制作ソフトウェア ABILITY 3.0（アビリティ）｜株式会社インターネット


株式会社インターネットは、作曲・音楽作成・サウンド編集・DTMソフトをご提供しています。



www.ssw.co.jp





Japanese developers crack at a DAW.

UI is not Japans strongpoint and many are used to drop down menus overall. More emphasis is put on the chord track with extended chords because that's common for Japanese music. Less emphasis on loops because 4 bar phrases are not standard. Phonetic nature of Japanese generally requires longer melodic phrases. Also no major emphasis on scales because Japanese songs tend to loosely utilize pentatonic scales. In japan I believe the top daws are logic, cubase, pro tools and studio one. Most of the features that appeal to western music aren't so extensively used and a major determining factor in which daws and instruments are used depend on their multilingual support.


----------



## LatinXCombo (Nov 25, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I started off on Cakewalk Pro Audio in 1997. Eventually moved on to Ableton Live and MaxMSP. Then recently to Studio One and Cubase. Through that evolution I could understand that a DAW can be biased. It's baked into intentional an unintentional design. As a visual designer I came to see their bias as more complex that just a set of features.
> 
> As a musician I implicitly recognized, and accepted, that these DAWs are also biased towards Western theory as well. Why might some of us care? If we want to explore more music and more opportunities then we need to be aware of the bias. We use Ableton Live for certain tasks. We use Cubase for others. We often recognize how the technology influences us. So we should also consider the Western music theory biases.
> 
> ...


Is a set of metric wrenches biased?


----------



## brainditch (Nov 26, 2021)

LatinXCombo said:


> Is a set of metric wrenches biased?


Yes. Most certainly Metric Wrenches are biased. Get my point?


----------



## chocobitz825 (Nov 27, 2021)

its a simple question with an obvious answer. Does a DAW have a bias? absolutely. We know DAWs have bias by design. Genre bias is baked into many DAWs. Even if they have to the tools to accommodate any style of music, their marketing and design favors certain styles over others. We've seen daws move more toward beatmaking in recent years. We know some daws are better suited for scoring than others. Its obvious and we acknowledge that, but when considering that the non-western cultural elements of music might also be underrepresented, now its some challenge to western culture and supremacy? note I only use the term supremacy since someone brought up the idea that "if western culture is so bad why are talking in English" or some nonsense.

The most popular daws right now do tend to exclude the genres and cultures of music that the western world has simply lumped altogether into the ironically titled genre of "world music". thats a fact. non-offensive fact. still, since DAWs are versatile tools, even though they might not cater to those other genres of world music, there is generally a work around to make a DAW work for what you're doing.


----------



## Sugar Free (Nov 27, 2021)

A DAW is a tool just like a hammer or a saw. While Western hand saw cuts when you push, a Japanese hand saw cut when you pull. Would you say, they have bias? You pick whichever tool works best for what you intend to do. A modern DAW barely covers the basics of Western music. Any attempt at "tempo rubato" or expressive timing and you are better off with a multitrack recorder.
Your DAW has can't even output a perfectly steady MIDI clock without jitter. In other words, your electric saw can barely cut a straight line, and you complain that it's biased and culturally insensitive? No, it's just a tool, which may be inadequate for most types of music.

If you ask what kind of music a DAW supports best, my answer is: Modern Pop.
Which is not the same as Western Music, which BTW has never been limited to the equal temperament.

P.S. The piano is not tuned to the equal temperament, neither is the violin.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Nov 27, 2021)

Sugar Free said:


> A DAW is a tool just like a hammer or a saw. While Western hand saw cuts when you push, a Japanese hand saw cut when you pull. Would you say, they have bias? You pick whichever tool works best for what you intend to do. A modern DAW barely covers the basics of Western music. Any attempt at "tempo rubato" or expressive timing and you are better off with a multitrack recorder.
> Your DAW has can't even output a perfectly steady MIDI clock without jitter. In other words, your electric saw can barely cut a straight line, and you complain that it's biased and culturally insensitive? No, it's just a tool, which may be inadequate for most types of music.
> 
> If you ask what kind of music a DAW supports best, my answer is: Modern Pop.
> ...


Given that those saws are still made differently today, instead of a universal design that “fits all”, yes you could say there is a bias and cultural influence in their design and application. Ask a person why they’d buy one or the other, even though they both cut, and you’d likely have defenders of both who believe one is inherently better than the other because of its cultural relevance to them.

DAWs were designed to accommodate the needs of modern western pop music, and the rest of us found a way to use the same tools for everything else, even if it doesn’t specifically target other genres as well. I think we agree on that. The shortcomings you mention are an example of bias in the design. Where more emphasis was inherently put on certain needs more than others. It’s why we can have cubase and dorico at the same time. They overlap in many features but they’re designed to accommodate different needs.

I’m still not sure why this is offending people so much. Bias is not an inherently malicious thing. It's just acknowledging the focus or lack of focus on certain things that matter to others. Knowing daws have a bias toward pop, and less toward classical, isn't that relevant to acknowledge so we could expand the feature to better accommodate classical? Couldn't the same be said for making changes that benefit other languages and world genres?


----------



## Trensharo (Nov 27, 2021)

I can't believe someone found a way to turn even this discussion into a social justice debate...


----------



## chocobitz825 (Nov 27, 2021)

Trensharo said:


> I can't believe someone found a way to turn even this discussion into a social justice debate...


I'm not sure where "social justice" has come up anywhere since your last comment.


----------



## Sugar Free (Nov 27, 2021)

chocobitz825 said:


> Given that those saws are still made differently today, instead of a universal design that “fits all”, yes you could say there is a bias and cultural influence in their design and application. Ask a person why they’d buy one or the other, even though they both cut, and you’d likely have defenders of both who believe one is inherently better than the other because of its cultural relevance to them.
> 
> DAWs were designed to accommodate the needs of modern western pop music, and the rest of us found a way to use the same tools for everything else, even if it doesn’t specifically target other genres as well. I think we agree on that. The shortcomings you mention are an example of bias in the design. Where more emphasis was inherently put on certain needs more than others. It’s why we can have cubase and dorico at the same time. They overlap in many features but they’re designed to accommodate different needs.
> 
> I’m still not sure why this is offending people so much. Bias is not an inherently malicious thing. It's just acknowledging the focus or lack of focus on certain things that matter to others. Knowing daws have a bias toward pop, and less toward classical, isn't that relevant to acknowledge so we could expand the feature to better accommodate classical? Couldn't the same be said for making changes that benefit other languages and world genres?


We agree on most of what you said, except the meaning of "bias".
There are two basic definitions:
1. prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
2. a concentration on or interest in one particular area or subject.

The first definition, suggests that the status quo is unfair and should be changed.
The second definition is an objective statement of fact.

The way the original question was phrased reads like the definition 1, which is emotionally loaded, especially today, and that's why it's getting some push-back.
Tools can be generic or specialized, multi or single-functional, well-made or poor etc.
If you simply want a better or a more universal tool, and know how it should work, then just go ahead and make it. The market will reward you.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Nov 27, 2021)

Sugar Free said:


> We agree on most of what you said, except the meaning of "bias".
> There are two basic definitions:
> 1. prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
> 2. a concentration on or interest in one particular area or subject.
> ...


I think at the core, both definitions fit, but are made harder to understand without clarification. I believe that honestly, DAWs are generally designed under the second definition. Only occasionally I'm sure some DAW makers are like "ugh, I will never cater to hiphop beat making", but in general, its a tool with certain genres in mind, and very little interest in excluding or belittling others.

That being said, I've studied in both Japan and the US, and the first definition bias is THICK in western music education. terms like "standard" and "universal" get thrown around for music concepts, even when very clear Asian and African contradictions exist. As someone else pointed out Adam Neely's video on the subject, its a valid thing. Every time it gets brought up though, the range of responses go from "music theory is universal, period" "western music is just more popular" "if it's so bad why does everyone in the world listen to it?" etc. etc. I've seen asian students graded poorly for having longer phrases in their pop writing courses because "in pop music, short and repetitious is the standard" despite that not being the case for music in their own languages.

The problem with the bias is that when you assume your method is standard, you can easily view everything outside of that as wrong. You can also interpret other music incorrectly when trying to dissect the music through the only filter you know. I'm not saying every DAW needs to go out and make features for every rhythmic and harmonic/tonal ideology from around the world, but we should at least be honest that there is a broad range of music that gets left out because some people look at their DAWs/Western education with its harmonic and rhythmic standards and proudly proclaim "all music everywhere, fits into this box".


----------



## Trensharo (Nov 27, 2021)

I'm definitely not white - very black in fact.

But the only people I see making everything about racism are...

definitely not "white supremisists."

Just saying. No Tea, No Shade.

One has to wonder how much can one make their world view revolve around race before they can safely be labeled racist, themselves. Or, does the scapegoat never lose its potency?

I never read the OP as going in that direction, but that is not the way I think and it's certainly not the way I view the world. I thought he was talking about bias to certain market segments.

This racial discussion really isn't something that belongs in this forum. These discussions are never egalitarian because people of a certain group will never feel like they can freely express themselves openly without exposing themselves as racist to someone who has broadened the definition of these things to kingdom come. Many here are successfully working in the industry and use their real names here. We all see the world we live in.

I am not above a good debate, but this is not a discussion we should be having here.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Nov 27, 2021)

Sugar Free said:


> Did your teachers really tell you that there is there is only one true theory of music? I'd genuinely like to know?


not all instructors but quite a few, especially music theory instructors were quite vocal about the idea that music theory is the indisputable standard for all music that has ever been, and ever will be. Some of the following quotes from this very thread are also extremely common:


“If the west is so horribly biased and bad, then why are you writing your opinion in English? Surely that’s a bad influence.” (Kind of the equivalent, “if you don’t like it go back to where you came from”)

“It isn't colonialism, it's financial realism.” (The idea that the free market indiscriminately determines quality and relevance)

“The people criticizing Western culture want to wipe it out. They have zero interest in cooperation.”
(The false narrative that any attempt to reflect on the topic is an attack on all things western, and by extension, white)

“If you simply want a better or a more universal tool, and know how it should work, then just go ahead and make it. The market will reward you.” (As the one before, the idea that the mass use validates quality)



Trensharo said:


> I'm definitely not white - very black in fact.
> 
> But the only people I see making everything about racism are...
> 
> ...


so this is the thing. I don’t know how this became specifically a racial discussion. Yes part of the conversation does involve white supremacy at its deepest point of discussion, but the original topic was western music, which has participants of various races. African American musicians are not the same as african musicians, nor are british asians the same as artists born and raised in Asia. Theres an immediate triggered reaction that tries to shut down the entire conversation when it gets a bit uncomfortable.

I thought more about it on my way to work, and I think the issue is pride. There is nothing wrong with pride in the accomplishments and quality of western music, and I don’t think many people mean to destroy the legacy of those works. It’s not racist to appreciate western music and culture. There is just a false connection people tend to make that easily strings us from music appreciation, into the realm of western supremacy in the malicious sense. This really shouldn’t be so complicated.

For example, saying “the classic works of western music are incredible examples of musical craftsmanship and innovation.” Fair enough, true and nothing inflammatory there.

saying “western music is the standard by which all music, worldwide, of the modern age should be judged by. No music has every exceeded its cultural relevance.“ is a pretty strange thing to say given that most people arent aware of the works they’re excluding with that statement, nor is it accurate. Its not honest about its competition, and its not even honest about how many non-western elements influence western music.

It not a hard concept to grasp, we all relate to this. It’s like saying mcdonalds is the greatest expression of the culinary arts and American exceptionalism because its 70+ year history has resulted in its market dominance and brand recognition around the world. Yeah i mean, we can say its a huge presence in the world of food, but that doesnt mean its best, nor does it even mean that its the most relevant in all the markets it operates in. to bring an example of music, its like saying Justin Bieber or BTS are the greatest musicians because their world dominance equates to the superiority of their music. We know these statements are not true, and we know that their dominance is not just about quality, but also about marketing, and aggressive practices to insure market dominance over other quality works. We all know of works that sell less, but are of better (subjective) quality to us. So its strange to look at the entirity of western music, and claim its universal importance, dominance and superiority worldwide, without honestly considering that the playing field is not level, and that we’re not considering all the works of the world when we make this claim.

I hope that’s fair.

(P.S. for where I am, if you asked people who was greater, or who had more relevant works, in Japan people would far easier say Joe Hisaishi over John Williams. I doubt you could even get many people in Japan today who would reference modern composers as being some of the greats. To Japan, most of the most iconic western names ended with the greats of classical music, which is likely to do with the influence of Pre-and-Post war efforts to impose the idea western greatness on Japan.)


----------



## Trensharo (Nov 27, 2021)

I am not interested in having that dialog, but whatever floats your boat with that...

----

The proliferation of Western Music theory has more to do with cultural openness than anything else.

Japan was a relatively closed society up until the 20th century. People in Europe had far less of a clue how they composed music there in the 1600s, when there were already multiple treatise in circulation in Europe. Countries were all exporting their musical ideas, stylistic preferences, etc. across Europe. In addition to that, the fact that practically all of the monarchs in Europe were related (due to arranged marriages, etc.) means that there was a fairly large degree of cultural exchange beyond geographical proximity - as high society's preferences and FADs had a huge effect on the rest of those cultures.

Italian, German, French, Russian, et al. proponents of music were pushing this artform across Europe from the 14th or 15th century. Music is not the only art form where this happened. Look at Ballet. It happened there, as well - spreading from Italy to France to Russia and beyond.

It also happened in sports. Figure Skating, Football, Basketball, etc.

Conversely, cultures like Japan, China, and Korea were fairly closed for - literally - centuries longer. They were rarely exporting and pushing their ideas the way Europeans were. Colonialism also saw this pushed far and wide (same thing happened in the Ottoman and Chinese Empires).

Japan has a long history of isolationalism, and they're a fairly small nation state. Japan is actually a terrible example to use.

DAW developers are businesses. They develop for the market's demands.

Music Theory is like a language. The lingua franca is generally going to win out in these cases. Lingua Francas can change, but until they do... most people are more apt to acclimate it than try to rail against it - as that generally accomplishes nothing.

English is generally the Lingua Franca in the business world. Italian is generally the Lingua Franca in the music world. French is generally Lingua Franca in the Ballet world.

"Western Music Theory" basically serves the same purpose in the musical world.

You are free to speak another language, but the tools and much of the documentation is going to bias to the lingua franca, because who wants to spend hundreds of hours writing a book for a small niche audience - purposely? And who wants to spend millions developing a DAW custom tailored for a small population (music producers/composers) of a niche user base (1 country out of... how many) - for example. The goal is always to cast the highest net. Businesses need money to survive. Not kudos.


----------



## Sugar Free (Nov 27, 2021)

chocobitz825 said:


> not all instructors but quite a few, especially music theory instructors were quite vocal about the idea that music theory is the indisputable standard for all music that has ever been, and ever will be.


I see your point and I'm sorry to hear that you had this bad experience. 
Peace.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Nov 28, 2021)

Trensharo said:


> DAW developers are businesses. They develop for the market's demands.
> 
> Music Theory is like a language. The lingua franca is generally going to win out in these cases. Lingua Francas can change, but until they do... most people are more apt to acclimate it than try to rail against it - as that generally accomplishes nothing.
> 
> ...



You spent a bit there explaining how culture exchanged in the west, while sidestepping how it was often injected into the east and other regions. Often by colonialism. Japan has its own vernacular for musical concepts that it still uses to this day for more traditional Japanese music. For Some pop it’s a combination of Japanese traditional terms mixed with some European terminology and fixed-do solfege. Adopting western education was a post-war agenda. It's not a critique, blaming anyone, or trying to shame the west. It's just history. So again, where it feels like you're using the broad exposure of western music theory to validate it as "naturally" most relevant, you're sidestepping the part where social and political elements have forced those ideas in certain regions.

None of this has, for me at least, been about forcing daws to reform to accommodate other cultures, but it's simple enough to acknowledge that they are excluded and wonder if there would be universal benefit from expanding the format to include them. Not an imperative, but an option. Would adding more options make the daws better? If they add it, cool, if not, fine. Daws don't have to do everything for everyone.

The other false assumption I'm getting from you is that the fact they don't exist in the daws now is a validation of the idea that they're not wanted or not marketable, profitable features to add for the majority. This idea that the market determines what is optimal and only does things without waste. I don't think adding them would be catering to a niche market or waste of time and money since composers could benefit worldwide. Potentially it would be adding features that benefit all users if it did go that way. It's like the daws that tried to avoid adding features to accommodate rap and electronic music until their hands were forced by the changing of markets, and now those features are key selling points.

The idea that western ideology and market values are international, universal, and inherently "right" is a legit circumstance thats narrow-minded and unnecessary. Western music theory is a language, not THE language. Western daws aim at a certain spectrum of the market but it is not the entirety of the market. That's the only point I think the thread needs to make. There is a bias, but that's fine.


----------



## Trensharo (Nov 28, 2021)

For someone on a moral crusade, there is quite a bit of intentional misinterpretation and intellectual dishonesty in those replies.

And I told you I am not interested in that kind of discussion.

My post was constructed to avoid the Twitteresqe stuff, but it does address the stuff that you mention regardless. I already told you discussions had from that perspective are inherently discriminating. 

Again, the west exported that stuff while the east isolated.

If you develop a daw in house for that system, don’t localize it, and only sell it in Japan you can’t complain that it’s the only DAW that caters to that system and call the world biased because they standardized on solutions that are more universal - leaving you with 1% market share and very few choices. 

I don’t call that bias. I call that inferior marketing and bad project management.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Nov 28, 2021)

Trensharo said:


> For someone on a moral crusade, there is quite a bit of intentional misinterpretation and intellectual dishonesty in those replies.
> .


Pot, meet kettle.

Not a moral crusade, just a discussion. Seems it’s run it’s course. Good day.


----------



## Trensharo (Nov 28, 2021)

chocobitz825 said:


> Pot, meet kettle.


Thats not quite how this exchange has gone, but you can have that.


----------



## youngpokie (Nov 28, 2021)

Sugar Free said:


> The way the original question was phrased reads like the definition 1, which is emotionally loaded, especially today, and that's why it's getting some push-back.


Indeed. I would only add that it's highly likely that making it "emotionally loaded" was the entire point of the post.

It's a very old but highly effective technique: in order to make people truly internalize something, they must be made to continuously engage with it. And making it emotionally charged and provocative is the best way to achieve that. This way people can be easily triggered into a defensive mindset without even realizing what's happening and the kind of subtle re-framing and word games that are taking place. 

And that's how a sentence such as this....



chocobitz825 said:


> UI is not Japans strongpoint


... can be easily revealed as insulting, biased and colonialist, using the same exact framing trick as used in the original post and its links. 

All we have to do is take the perfectly normal concept of having a particular point of reference and start calling it a problem, using charged vocabulary that would put this person into defensive frame of mind.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Nov 28, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> Indeed. I would only add that it's highly likely that making it "emotionally loaded" was the entire point of the post.
> 
> It's a very old but highly effective technique: in order to make people truly internalize something, they must be made to continuously engage with it. And making it emotionally charged and provocative is the best way to achieve that. This way people can be easily triggered into a defensive mindset without even realizing what's happening and the kind of subtle re-framing and word games that are taking place.
> 
> ...


Partway through this we already established that there are two ways in which bias could be perceived and I believe we agreed that in general the discussion as it was progressing was not meant to invoke the defensive response it's received. 

Context is everything, and yes, you could try and flip my statement to mean something else, and I'd be happy to review any valid possibility of problematic consequences from my statements. At the same time though, twisting a statement like the one you quoted only works if you aren't familiar enough with the topic of Japanese UI/software to understand the validity of the statement.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 28, 2021)

LatinXCombo said:


> Is a set of metric wrenches biased?


Under careful analysis one can discover whether or not this is the case. However all design can contain bias. Yes. 

Your question is insincere and you mean to say that you don't believe any designed thing can contain bias in its designed function. Which is silly.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 28, 2021)

Trensharo said:


> You are free to speak another language, but the tools and much of the documentation is going to bias to the lingua franca, because who wants to spend hundreds of hours writing a book for a small niche audience - purposely?... Businesses need money to survive.


- How did it become "lingua franca"
- Should it remain so? If so, how come?

Those are rhetorical questions.


----------



## Trensharo (Nov 28, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> - How did it become "lingua franca"
> - Should it remain so? If so, how come?
> 
> Those are rhetorical questions.


They're rhetorical because they are answered in large post you snipped 2 sentences from


----------



## tressie5 (May 6, 2022)

I think DAW and notation creators are (slowly) embracing non-Western scales. Finale lets you create your own scales. I only recently just started studying Dorico so I don't know if it allows that. Studio One can correct your scale to the usual 12 suspects - chromatic, major, Dorian, Mixolydian, etc - but nothing more. Cubase 12 is extremely generous with 29 scales - Arabian, Hungarian, Oriental, Persian, RagaTodi, etc. - plus you can create your own scale. That's another reason why I switched to C12, that, and its powerful ASIO-Guard tool.


----------

