Speaking the Two Languages of Technology

Can you list all of the “music technology” that you use in your work? It’s a trickier question than you might think. First, there are general tools which help us organize and communicate. Tools such as web browsers, Google Docs, e-mail and text messaging can be an essential part of our toolkit, but we use them in similar ways to most other fields. While there are minor variations, professionals from other fields might look at our use of these tools and find it similar to their own. On the other hand are the “discipline-specific” tools that are unique to our field: notation software, digital audio workstations, field recording devices and music distribution software are all pieces of technology that are specific to, or used in ways that are specific to music professionals. This is not solely a music concern, as each discipline has its own unique subset of technology tools, but even the most skilled technology user in one field is likely to be unsure how to use these specific “tools of the trade” in a field not their own. I was stumped recently when trying to help a student use a piece of scientific data logging software– not because the program was particularly difficult to use, but because I didn’t have the experience as a physicist to understand the software. 

This point is unlikely to surprise people– musicians have always used specific tools to make music. What is surprising, though, is how many people have an imbalance between their levels of comfort with general and discipline-specific technology. Furthermore, both of these categories are essential to our trade, but while we categorize them all as “technology” I find that many users have a subconscious preference for one over the other that reflects their own “tech comfort level.” Some users are highly comfortable working online and have their smartphones or tablets completely dialed in to their organizational and communication needs, but have never used a notation program or have never worked with a MIDI device. These users often have a high level of comfort with technology from their own personal use, but there’s a huge leap in complexity from consumer-oriented devices to a complex notation program. That gap can be overcome with a some training and practice, but will often not come without a specific need to drive it. On the other hand, some users have built a high level of skill with recording tools or editing software through continual use, but are much less fluent with Internet use or digital calendars. In each case, the primary motivator is usually need. There are some people who continually aspire to learn new tools and skills solely for the enrichment or joy of learning. Most of us, though, are motivated more by the “why do I need to know this?” Those with strengths in one area can have a hard time understanding why everyone else doesn’t use tool X or strategy Y.

A common trap is to think that it’s easier to “learn how to use” general tools than discipline-specific ones. After all, you might think, so many people use calendars that it should be easy to find someone to teach us. It’s true that there are myriad opportunities to learn basic skills in general tools, but users struggling with the “need to know” often need to be convinced that a tool is relevant to their specific needs. To continue the example, having a digital calendar is great, but how will it help keep a choir organized? General user training likely can’t answer these questions. Discipline-specific tools, though, come with the relevance built-in. Their needs can be so specific, though, that finding other people to learn from can be challenging unless you happen to have a close colleague or friend as coach. I would suggest that to be a truly fluent technology user, one must be comfortable with both of these spheres, which means finding both the opportunities to use and learn discipline-specific tools while being comfortable enough with general technology use to be able to envision how these tools can be applied to an individual unique use case. With convention season coming quickly, we’ll all be heading to conferences (such as ACDA) to add some bits to our professional toolbox. Amongst the reading packets, concerts and discussions of style and interpretation, there will be plenty of opportunities to read between the lines and see how our peers are using technology to do the work of being a choral conductor, both general and discipline-specific. If you reflect on your own technology usage and find that you are less connected to one of these two spheres, there are few better opportunities to learn from choral practitioners about working with either category of technology in a choral setting.