Centre for Advanced Studies in Music (MIAM)

Programme: Master of Arts

MAY 2008

ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

REVIEW OF CURRENT NETWORK BASED MUSIC

SYSTEMS

M.A. Final Project by

Onur UZUNSMAL

LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................iv
ABSTRACT..........................................................................................................v
ZET...................................................................................................................vi
1. THE HISTORY OF NETWORK MUSIC................................................................1
2. CATEGORIZATION OF NETWORK BASED MUSIC SYSTEMS......................4
2.1. The Method of Gil Weinberg.............................................................................4
2.2. The Method of lvaro Mendes Barbosa............................................................5
3. REVIEW OF CURRENT NETWORK BASED MUSIC SYSTEMS.....................8
3.1. Co-Located Musical Network Systems.............................................................8
3.1.1. ReacTable...................................................................................................8
3.1.2. Beatbugs......................................................................................................9
3.2. Music Composition Support Systems..............................................................10
3.2.1. Digitalmusician.net...................................................................................10
3.2.2. Ccmixter.org.............................................................................................11
3.2.3. The rest......................................................................................................12
3.3. Remote Music Performance Systems..............................................................12
3.3.1. NINJAM (Novel Intervallic Jamming Architecture for Music)...............14
3.3.2. eJamming AUDiiO...................................................................................14
3.3.3. ResRocket Surfer Project - Jamwith.us....................................................16
3.3.4. Riffworks..................................................................................................17
3.3.5. VSTunnel..................................................................................................17
3.3.6. NetPD........................................................................................................18
3.4. Shared Sonic Environments.............................................................................20
3.4.1. Splice Music..............................................................................................20
3.4.2. Indabamusic.com......................................................................................21
3.4.3. Jamstudio.com..........................................................................................22

ii

3.4.4. FMOL.......................................................................................................22
3.4.5. Public Sound Objects................................................................................23
4. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION....................................................................25

iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 The League of Automatic Music Composers (Perkis, Horton, and
Bischoff, left to right) performing at Ft. Mason, San Francisco 1981. Photo: Peter
Abramowitsch. (Barbosa, A., 2006).............................................................................3
Figure 2.3 A Classification Space for Computer Supported Collaborative Music
(Barbosa, A., 2006).......................................................................................................7
Figure 3.4 Schematics for two Networked ReacTables (illustration by Ross Bencina)
(Jord, S., Kaltenbrunner, M., Geiger, G. and Bencina, R. 2005)................................9
Figure 3.5 The Beatbug System (Weinberg, G., Aimi, R. and Jennings, K. 2002)......9
Figure 3.6 A demonstration of a digitalmusician.net session (Digitalmusician.net). .11
Figure 3.7 Screenshot from ccmixter.org (Ccmixter.org)..........................................11
Figure 3.9 Screenshot of the NINJAM Client Software (NINJAM)..........................14
Figure 3.10 The User Interface of eJAMMINGAUDiiO (eJamming AUDiiOO)......15
Figure 3.11 Screenshot of Riffworks (Sonoma Wire Works).....................................17
Figure 3.12 The User Interface of VSTunnel (VSTunnel).........................................18
Figure 3.13 Set of Modules loaded in NetPD. (NetPD).............................................19
Figure 3.14 A Screenshot of Splicemusic.com (Splice).............................................21
Figure 3.15 A Screenshot from Indabamusic.com (Indaba Music)............................21
Figure 3.16 A Screenshot from Jamstudio.com (JamStudio.com).............................22
Figure 3.17 A Screenshot of FMOL (Jord, S. 1999).................................................23
Figure 3.18 The Architecture of PSO (Barbosa, A., 2006).........................................24
Figure 3.19 Devices that PSO can be run. (Barbosa, A., 2006))...............................24

iv

University:

Istanbul Technical University

Institute:

Institute of Social Sciences (MIAM)

Discipline:

Music (Sound Engineering and Design)

Programme:

Master of Arts

Advisor:

Reuben de Latour

Project type and Date:

Final Project 5 May 2008

ABSTRACT

Internet, being the new medium for consuming music, video and information
changed the way we use computers. With the improvements in communication
and computer technologies, geographically displaced people now can make
music as if they are in the same place. This study will review previous and
current network based music systems and discuss the possibilities of using
network based music systems in the future.

Keywords: network, music, internet

niversite:

stanbul Teknik niversitesi

Enstit

Sosyal Bilimler Enstits (MIAM)

Anabilim Dal:

Mzik (Ses Mhendislii ve Tasarm)

Program:

Yksek Lisans

Danman:

Reuben de Latour

Tez tr ve Tarihi:

Bitirme Projesi 5 Mayis 2008

ZET

nternet insanln bilgisayar kullanmn nemli lde deitirmitir.

Haberleme ve bilgi transferlerinin yannda mzik dinlemek ve video izlemek
iin de kullanlan ana kaynaklardan biri olmutur. letiim ve bilgisayar
teknolojisindeki gelimeler Dnyann farkl yerlerinde bulunan insanlarn ayn
yerdeymiesine mzik yapmasna izin vermektedir. Bu alma gemite ve
gnmzde yaplan a tabanl mzik almalarn inceleyecek ve a tabanl
mzik sistemlerinin gelecekteki olas kullanmn tartacaktr.

Anahtar Kelimeler: a, mzik, internet

vi

1.

THE HISTORY OF NETWORK MUSIC

Network based music systems have a relatively short history, since Personal
Computers have been around only for decays. While trying to find the roots of the
network based music systems, there is a tendency to relate the concept to musical
networks and interdependent relations between the musicians. Papers starting from
this point of view consider Western chamber music, Jazz, Gamelan and Persian
music as the roots of musical networks because of the interdependent routines they
have. Also the same point of view considers John Cages 1951 Imaginary
Landscapes No.4 as one of the first network based compositions. The piece was
composed for twelve radios played by 24 performers (Cage, J., 1951). What were
indicated in the score were the exact tuning and volume settings for each performer.
There was no foreknowledge of what might be broadcast at any specific time, or
whether a station even existed at any given dial setting.
But one could have a different starting point in defining networked music systems
which could be something like For a system to be called a network based system,
the peers should exchange information with each other. In Cages piece, the peers
do not share information with each other; they follow the score and treat radios as if
they were instruments. The fact that there was no foreknowledge of what might be
broadcast at any given dial setting does make the radio itself a network tool itself but
it does not connect all the radios to the same network which should be the key
element in network based music. Following this argument, one could consider any
mailing between two musicians which consists scores, feedback or contribution can
be considered as one of the first network based music system. One could also
consider a telephone call between two musicians or non-musicians singing over the
phone as one of the first network based music systems.
As Personal Computers (PC) started to be commercialized in the late 1970s, people
started to experiment on local networks. A group of electronic music
experimentalists formed a band in the San Francisco Bay Area between 1977 and
1983 and called themselves The League of Automatic Music Composers. Widely
regarded as the first musicians to incorporate the newly available microcomputers of
the day into live musical performance, the League of Automatic Music Composers

created networks of interacting computers and other electronic circuits for the
performances they have made.
In 1982, Commodore released Commodore 64; the first personal computer which
had the capability of synthesizing four channels simultaneously. Even though this
was specially made for games, a wide amount of users used and still useCommodore 64 computers for making music.
In the summer of 1986 a mini-festival was produced in San Francisco, devoted to
by then defunct- Automatic Music Bands. It was a collection of composers working
with computers who were collaborating in duos and trios. The festival was called
The Network Muse: Automatic Music Band Festival. (Brown, C and Bischoff, J.)
One of the groups from the Network Muse Festival, the duo of John Bischoff and
Tim Perkis (original members of the League) called their performance "The Hub",
because they were using a small microcomputer as a mailbox to post data used in
controlling their individual music systems, which was then accessible to the other
player to use in whatever way and at whatever time he chose. This was the beginning
of the band, "The Hub". After the festival, the idea of using the standalone computer
to serve as a mailbox for a group seemed like the best idea as a way to continue.
Perkis and Bischoff' used microcomputer called Kim-1 microcomputer, a vintage
1976 product of Commodore. (Brown, C and Bischoff, J.)
In 1987 composers Nick Collins and Phill Niblock invited members of the Hub to
create a performance that would link two performance spaces, Experimental Media
and The Clocktower in New York City, to exemplify the potential of network music
performance to link performances at a distance. John Bischoff, Tim Perkis, Mark
Trayle, Chris Brown, Scot Gresham-Lancaster, and Phil Stone began to collaborate
together as a group. Two trios performed together in each space, each networked
locally with new, more robustly built, identical Hubs, and the Hubs communicated
with each other automatically via a modem over a phone line. This was the first
concert of the Hub. (Barbosa, A., 2006) (Brown, C and Bischoff, J.)

Figure 1.1 The League of Automatic Music Composers (Perkis, Horton, and Bischoff, left to right)
performing at Ft. Mason, San Francisco 1981. Photo: Peter Abramowitsch. (Barbosa, A., 2006)

The function of the Hub was to exchange information between the computers and
devices of players. This idea still serves as the base for most of the network based
music. As the usage of the Internet became wider, the possible scenarios of making
network music increased exponentially. The categorization of network music will be
discussed in the second chapter.

2.

CATEGORIZATION OF NETWORK BASED MUSIC SYSTEMS

There have been two studies that categorized network music in the past. Gil
Weinberg has made the first systematic classification of different Networked Music
Systems (Weinberg, G., 2002). lvaro Mendes Barbosa has published a survey of
Networked Music Systems entitled Displaced Soundscapes: A Survey of Network
Systems for Music and Sonic Art Creation (Barbosa, A., 2003). Also in 2006
Barbosa has published his PhD dissertation entitled Displaced Soundscapes:
Computer Supported Cooperative Work for Music Applications in which he
suggests a network based music system (Public Sound Objects) which will also be
reviewed in this paper.
2.1.

The Method of Gil Weinberg

The first study to categorize network based music systems suggests four different
approaches which characterize different branches of musical interaction that differ in
the level of interconnectivity among players and the role of the computer in
enhancing interdependent social relations:

The server approach: This approach uses the network merely as a means to

send musical data to disconnected participants. Communication is limited between

each player and the central system. The client/peer can not communicate with other
peers in this system, only communication with the server is possible.

The bridge approach: The systems that use this approach connect distanced

players so that they could play and improvise as if they were in the same space.
Unlike the server approach, participants can listen and respond to each other while
playing. The role of the network in this approach is to provide a technical solution
for imitating traditional group collaboration.

The shaper approach: In this approach the networks central system

algorithmically generates musical materials and allows participants to collaboratively

modify and shape the materials. This approach is more likely for non musician
collaborators.

The construction kit approach: The users of the systems that use this

approach are usually skilled musicians and this approach lets them take part in a
4

collective creation of pieces, in which multiple users co-author. Collaboration using

this approach can be done off-line or with pre-built tracks. (Weinberg, G., 2002)
2.2.

The Method of lvaro Mendes Barbosa

Alvaro Mendes Barbosas Survey entitled Displaced Soundscapes: A Survey of

Network Systems for Music and Sonic Art Creation (Barbosa, A., 2003) intends to
provide a systematic classification space of existing systems, and Barbosa has a
whole chapter going through the classification in his PhD dissertation Displaced
Soundscapes: Computer Supported Cooperative Work for Music Applications.
(Barbosa, A., 2006) The way Barbosa categorizes network based music systems is
actually based on integrating different operation modes in Computer-Supported
Cooperative Work made by Tom Rodden 1991 (Rodden, T., 1991) to categorize
network based music systems. And later he integrates the idea of the classification
space for Computer-Supported Cooperative Work to Network Based Music Systems.
Barbosa organizes network based music systems in four main branches:

Co-Located Musical Networks: Computers used in this system must be

connected to the same local area network, so the connection is fast and the latency is
low enough to play and interact together as if they are playing in the same place (also
the systems that two computers are actually in the same place but connected to the
local area network fall into this category)

Music Composition Support Systems: These systems use more traditional

ways the production process. Geographical displaced users can collaborate in an

asynchronous or synchronous way. Users could either record and share tracks (both
MIDI and audio) or just give feedback. Recent systems also give user the option to
work with other collaborators in a virtual studio environment.

Remote Music Performance Systems: The goal of these systems is to simulate

the event of two people playing together as if they were in the same place. The
systems can be multi user systems (like a band jamming) or it could be a peer to peer
connection. The shared data between the users can be message data (as MIDI, OSC)
or pure audio. However there are two big limitations in these kinds of systems;
latency and bandwidth. Since the method internet handles data transfer is a best
effort method, some packets can be lost in active connections. Different Remote

Music Performance Systems have different solutions for these problems, so users
have the option to choose the right system for their needs.

Shared Sonic Environments: These systems have different types of examples

which explore the shared nature of the internet. Most of these systems do not require
previous musical knowledge from the participants. One may raise the argument of
being limited to the programmers vision or being limited to what the program offers
you. This may be true in some cases, but there are several systems that give the user
the creative space just as much as a digital workstation gives.
Barbosa made this classification in 2003 and revised it in 2006; it is interesting that
the classification is still valid in spite of the amazing improvements in web
programming technology. The newest systems made with the latest technology
products (like Adobe Flex and the latest versions of Director and Flash) only helped
to improve the interaction and sharing one step further. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 show the
classification space for computer sound supported cooperative work and Barbosas
integration of the classification to network based music systems.

Figure 2.2 A Classification Space for Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Barbosa, A., 2006)

Figure 2.3 A Classification Space for Computer Supported Collaborative Music (Barbosa, A.,
2006)

3.

REVIEW OF CURRENT NETWORK BASED MUSIC SYSTEMS

In this chapter current network music systems will be reviewed and categorized
using the guidelines of Barbosas study. The reason that Barbosas categorization
will be used as basis is the fact that current network systems can still be categorized
under the same four branches since no radical improvements has been done in
network based music systems until the year of 2008.
3.1.

Co-Located Musical Network Systems

The Hub can be stated as the first example of co-located musical networks. Today
when a pop singer, a rock band or an electronic music band gives a concert, they
usually have networked computers in their setups for various uses. An example
scenario can be the two keyboard players have also computers connected in their
setup and they have to be synced with master engineers computer which runs master
clock as well as the main sequencer. Another example might be a case with only two
electronic musicians creating a wireless network to sync on stage. Currently non
active projects in this category are Fireflies (Weinberg, G., Lakner, T. and Jay, J.,
2000), Squeezables (Weinberg, G. and Gan, S.-L., 2001) and Jam-o-World (Blaine,
T. and Forlines, C., 2002)
3.1.1. ReacTable
ReacTable is a combination of an instrument and a workspace for collaborating
artists. It was developed by a team of digital luthiers (Sergi Jord, Martin
Kaltenbrunner, Gnter Geiger and Marcos Alonso), working in the Music
Technology Group within the Audiovisual Institute at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra
in Barcelona Spain and was presented in 2005. The instrument is based on a
translucent round table, with a video camera positioned underneath, continuously
scanning the table surface and tracking the nature, position and orientation of the
objects that are distributed on it. The objects have different shapes, without any
sensors, the software recognizes the shapes and reacts. Users interact by moving
them, changing their position, their orientation or their faces, controlling software
sound generator and manipulator modules. Under the table, a projector draws
dynamic animations on its surface, providing a visual feedback of the state of the

action that the users are taking. What makes the ReacTable a network based music
system is the ability to connect multiple ReacTables. ReacTable uses the Open
Sound Control protocol to transfer messages between two systems. Figure 3.1
demonstrates ReacTables working mechanism as well as the networking process.
(Jord, S., Kaltenbrunner, M., Geiger, G. and Bencina, R. 2005)

Figure 3.4 Schematics for two Networked ReacTables (illustration by Ross Bencina) (Jord, S.,
Kaltenbrunner, M., Geiger, G. and Bencina, R. 2005)

3.1.2. Beatbugs
The Beatbugs create network of hand-held percussion instruments that are
designed to encourage people to play music together. Players can enter simple
rhythmic motifs, manipulate and develop them, and collaborate with each other to
perform and create music. The system consists of a pressure sensor and two bendsensors (antennas), the outputs of which are sent to the computer and then converted
to MIDI messages to enable users to manipulate and create sounds together. The
system is a co-location based networked music system since the peers can only play
beatbugs that are connected to the same computer. No software for connecting
geographically displaced users had been programmed. (Weinberg, G., Aimi, R. and
Jennings, K. 2002)

Figure 3.5 The Beatbug System (Weinberg, G., Aimi, R. and Jennings, K. 2002)

3.2.

Music Composition Support Systems

The nature of the Internet is sharing. This is how user generated content systems
work as well as all kinds of transfers on the Internet. One may say that because of the
shared nature of the Internet, Online Community Networks are the types of network
based music systems that are mostly present on the web. Also the fact that these
systems only need a database in order to function may be one of the reasons that
there are many systems. To participate in a music composition support system, first
the user has to become a member of the online community (which may be free or
not). After that depending on the way the system work (each system has its own
unique feature), the user starts to communicate with other members of the
community and start collaborating on projects. An example scenario for a guitarist
can be finding a project which is seeking a guitar line, she/he downloads the tracks of
the song she/he needs and record the guitars on his own computer and uploads them
back. Since most of the websites operate the same way but only have their own
unique features, only the websites which have unique features will be discussed in
detail.
3.2.1. Digitalmusician.net
Dgitalmusician.net is one of the most comprehensive online community networks
where users can share their tracks; find commercial or non commercial projects to
collaborate as well as using the websites own software to jam and record projects
online with other users of the website. The website offers different types of accounts
for different levels of usage. One can either choose to be a basic user (which is free),
a pro user or a studio user. Each has different limitations. There are three software
products that the website offers to the users; two plug in format software (VST,
RTAS and AU) and a standalone recorder software. All software has a built in
talkback and a web cam chat utility for communication between users. All of the
connections on the website are peer to peer connections. Figure 3.3 is a screenshot
from the video chat software that the website offers. (Digitalmusician.net)

10

Figure 3.6 A demonstration of a digitalmusician.net session (Digitalmusician.net)

3.2.2. Ccmixter.org
Ccmixter.org is one of the biggest sites where a user can collaborate with other
people. The site is sponsored by Creative Commons and all the songs, samples
hosted on the site are licensed with the Creative Commons License. Apart from
being a music composition support system, this website is a true supporter of
Creative Commons. One may argue that this site may be an actual representation of
the future music business where everyone can remix every song without any
licensing problems non-commercially. Ccmixter also has a feature where the listener
can track back the roots of one song while listening to a song, which means the
original idea always gets credited. Figure 3.4 is a screenshot from a remixed song in
ccmixter.org. (Ccmixter.org)

Figure 3.7 Screenshot from ccmixter.org (Ccmixter.org)

11

3.2.3. The rest

The rest of the current music composition systems offer the more or less the same
features. Rifftrader (RiffTrader.com), Open Music Factory (the Open Music
Factory), Kompoz (Kompoz) and Band-collab (band-collab.net) can be shown as
other composition support systems.
3.3.

Remote Music Performance Systems

The main purpose of these systems is to simulate the act of musicians playing
together. However, a real solution for the perfect simulation has not been found due
to the factors of latency and bandwidth. Each system has its unique way of coping
with these problems. But there are a number of experiments done in the past with
various networking technologies:

Eve Schooler made an experiment in September 1993 named Distributed

Music: A Foray into Net Performance; in which three real time streams from
different hosts were synchronized. The streams were delayed the order of 200
ms and the situation was noted as difficult for performers to be listeners.
(Barbosa, A., 2006)

Paul Hoffert made an experiment in 1996; CyberSoiree, which used ATMbased technology for audio and video streaming of a four-way jazz
performance. The delay was more than 500 ms, but it was noted that
musicians learned to compensate through extensive practice. (Barbosa, A.,
2006)

Dimitri Konstantas made an experiment named Distributed Musical

Rehearsal Studio in May 1996; which was an ATM based distributed
rehearsal with conductor at different location from musicians. 80 ms one-way
delay for audio-video synch; echo resulted in "extreme confusion" (Barbosa,
A., 2006)

Seiji Ozawa conducted choruses on five different locations; Sydney, New

York, Beijing, Berlin, False Bay on the Opening Ceremony Nagano Winter
Olympics (1998). A time adjuster was used to compensate the delay
(Barbosa, A., 2006)

12

Edwin van der Heide, Atau Tanaka and Zbigniew Karkowski formed a band
called Sensorband which was a trio of musicians using interactive
technology. Gestural interfaces like ultrasound, infrared, and bioelectric
sensors - became musical instruments. The band also performed network
performances using ISDN technology in 1998. (Barbosa, A., 2006)

Internet2 Initiative: World's First Remote Barbershop Quartet (Nov. 2000):

Internet2 is an advanced networking consortium led by the research and
education community since 1996. The experiment consisted of a multilocation quartet; each of the 4 singers in different cities, conductor in 5th.
Network delay variances prevented singers from hearing each other or the
conductor. (Barbosa, A., 2006)

The UltraVideoconferencing technology that McGill University has

developed was used in the Jamsession Experiment which was done in June
2002. It was a cross-continental jam session between Musicians at McGill
University and Stanford University. The technology enables streaming fullscreen bidirectional video and multi-channel audio with minimal delay.
Figure 3.5 shows the Jamsession Experiment. (Barbosa, A., 2006)

Figure 3.8 Musicians at McGill University (Dan Levitin sax and Ives Levesque trombone)
(Barbosa, A., 2006)

As stated before, online jamming has limitations because of latency and bandwidth,
but each online jamming system on the internet has its own way of coping with these
limitations. The ways each system operates will be discussed.

13

3.3.1. NINJAM (Novel Intervallic Jamming Architecture for Music)

NINJAM is a cross platform software designed for online jamming. User has to
connect to one of the jam room servers in order to join a jam. When the user enters
the room, she/he hears other peers music and has the option to tweak the mixes of
other peers.
The interesting thing about NINJAM is that it has a totally different point of view
about the latency problem. The latency in NINJAM is measured as intervals instead
of milliseconds. The NINJAM client records and streams synchronized intervals of
music between participants. Just as the interval finishes recording, it begins playing
on everyone else's client. NINJAM uses compressed audio which allows it to work
with any instrument or combination of instruments. NINJAM can also save all of the
original uncompressed source material, for doing full quality remixes after the jam.
Figure 3.6 is a screenshot taken from the NINJAM Client Software. (NINJAM)

Figure 3.9 Screenshot of the NINJAM Client Software (NINJAM)

3.3.2. eJamming AUDiiO

eJamming AUDiio has a (still beta) software, which lets the users of the site connect
to each others computer and jam virtually. The solution that eJamming AUDiiO has
found for delay is patented by the company. The system calculates the distance

14

between the users and delays the whole audio based on the result of the calculation,
so if two geographically displaced users connect, the software first calculates the
distance and the audio starts after the calculated delay. The users can not hear
themselves instantly, this way everything gets synced. However it is not easy to play
an instrument by hearing a delayed version of the output. The software and the
website encourage the user to practice this and use the software by headphones so
that the delayed version will hit the ears instead of direct sound itself. The software
still being in a beta stage has some limitations like not being able to connect to
sequencer software. Although the software supports audio and midi, the midi
connection it supports is in a very basic level, it does not let users plug virtual
instrument plug-ins in. The website of the software has a large support section with a
number of video tutorials, intended for beginners as well as pro users. Figure 3.7
explains the user interface in detail. (eJamming AUDiiOO)

Figure 3.10 The User Interface of eJAMMINGAUDiiO (eJamming AUDiiOO)

15

3.3.3. ResRocket Surfer Project - Jamwith.us

The ResRocket Surfer Project had launched in November 1994The founders of the
project were Willy Henshall and Tim Bran. They began posting messages and sound
files on Usenet (the Internet's bulletin-board)-and later on an ftp and Web site-from
their West London studio. People from all over the world started replying with song
ideas and sound files. By January 1995 The ResRocket Surfer Project had amassed
600 members. In a true expression of Net democracy, the name of the group was
chosen by a vote of the site's membership who picked "ResRocket" from a list of 10
names randomly generated by a computer program. In 1995 the software client
DRGN was created. It was a virtual environment that enabled multi-user, real time
music making across the Internet. ResRocket Surfer's DRGN was unveiled at the
Intel New Music Festival 1997. For a US$14.95 monthly subscription fee, users
could select between public recording studios and jam sessions. Inside the studio,
each musician, represented by an avatar, could either play along in real time or
perfect their part locally and add it to the mix later on. In Mid-August 1997, The Res
Rocket Surfer client software has launched "Distributed Realtime Groove Network"
in which musicians jammed in real time via MIDI.
On March 18, 1989, Rocket Power was used to record a cover-tune of Bob Marley's
'Them Belly Full', recorded live on the BBC in front of over 55 million viewers in a
deadline of less than one hour. The single was being recorded for the charity 'war
child'. The famous people collaborated in this project were: Sinead O'Connor,
Brinsley Forde (formerly of Aswad), Thomas Dolby and Lucky Dube. The single
was recorded live on television in BBC's Maida Vale Studios in London and
produced by Matt Black and Jonathan More of Coldcut and Tim Bran of Dreadzone.
In 1999 Leading audio software manufacturers Steinberg and Emagic have
developed new versions of their products that have "RocketPower". These enhanced
versions enable users to collaborate and produce audio via the Internet. As the
software grew and big companies were included in the operation of ResRocket,
things started to fall apart. In 2003 Steinberg dropped support for RocketPower and
after a short time there was no community left. On April 2004, Avid/Digidesign
Acquires the Assets of Rocket Network Inc. In June 2003, the project is resurrected
by eager community members and www.rocketears-online.net domain and FTP/Web
server is launched. FtpSYNC was used and sessions continued. In 2004, Rocketears16

Online starts to crack under financial pressures. All features are stripped from the site
one by one, including the by then voluminous message boards. A high frequency
tone was place on the front page of Rocketears-Online that could be capable of
damaging Studio Monitors as well as eardrums. On May 28 2004 http://jamwith.us/
was formed by Wilhelm and is still online today. The community and the client is an
evolved version of the previous clients and there still is an eager community
jamming online. (History of the Rocketears)
3.3.4. Riffworks
The software Riffworks from Sonoma Wireworks is a simplified digital audio
workstation software targeted for guitarists. The key features of the software are easy
drum pattern generation, bass line generation, guitar sound creation and online
collaboration. The software has a module called Rifflink, where users can connect to
each other and record parts for each others songs. The users connect to a server and
join to sessions and collaborate. They can record, mix and edit the session as if they
were in the same room. Figure 3.8 is a screenshot of Riffworks (Sonoma Wire
Works)

Figure 3.11 Screenshot of Riffworks (Sonoma Wire Works)

3.3.5. VSTunnel
VSTunnel is an online jamming system which has a different point of view about the
whole process. The client is in VST plug-in format so that the users can use the

17

software directly in their DAW software. There is a server which all the users
connect and individual jam session to join. The user puts the plug-in on the master
channel so that all the audio coming to the master channel is uploaded to the clients
connected on the server. The different point of view in this system is it detects
changes in the incoming audio signal and unless there is a change in the music, it
loops the previous unchanged audio loop instead of continuously looping the entire
incoming signal. This makes the software more useful for electronic music. Figure
3.9 is a screenshot of the user interface of VSTunnel (VSTunnel)

Figure 3.12 The User Interface of VSTunnel (VSTunnel)

3.3.6. NetPD
Netpd is a project based on the open source software puredata. Its intention is to
create an environment for electronic musicians and give them the opportunity to jam
with each other in real time, connected over the internet or a LAN.
Netpd does not provide any software which produces sound, but an environment to
share client created patches and broadcast control data. It is important to the idea of
netpd not to prescribe a way how to make music. For this reason, the users of netpd

18

are asked to build their own patches and to play them in netpd. The topology of the
netpd-system is basically a server with an arbitrary numbers of clients connected.
The clients are represented by the netpd-users. Clients can share data, that is: patches
and controller/state data. The main principle behind this framework is to make sure,
that every user hears/sees the same (or gets the same output in whatsoever
format/medium) at any time, independently from the moment of joining the network.
Every connected client should have the same patches open at any time and all loaded
patches should have the same state on each client at any time
There is a chat module establishes the connection to the server and it allows the user
to talk with other connected clients. Using the chat module, other basic netpd-patches
can be launched, such as creator and logview.
Creator patch is used to load custom made netpd-patches, so that these can be played
within netpd. Whenever a client loads a patch, this patch gets loaded on every
connected client as well even if the patch is not existent on a remote host. The creator
patch uploads it. (NetPD)
Since netpd only sends control messages, and the system is based on sequenced and
looped sub devices, latency is not much of a problem in this system. Figure 3.10 is a
screenshot of a running netpd instance. (NetPD)

Figure 3.13 Set of Modules loaded in NetPD. (NetPD)

19

3.4.

Shared Sonic Environments

The improvements in connection speed and web programming have let users have
most of their time spent using computers on the Internet. Nowadays using software
like Flash, Flex and PHP; one can use an operating system online. However current
websites offering interactivity are still somewhat not mature. When we look at the
software from a pro audio point of view, we can see that they have to improve very
much in order to be used instead of DAW software.

3.4.1. Splice Music

Splice Music is an online remix community. The users can upload and share songs
with each other and remix them online from the web application that the website
offers. The website encourages Creative Commons License, so that every sound that
is uploaded to the site should be licensed as Creative Commons. What make the
website unique are the features of the online studio software that the website offers.
The user can search for previously uploaded sounds from the panel at the right of the
screen, or the user can create an instrument track and create a new track. The user
also can add several effects to individual tracks. The user can also time stretch the
sample that she/he wants to use in the composition. These features push the Flex
technology to its limits. The main drawback of the site is the operating speed and
dependency on a powerful computer. Since the software has to run on top of an
internet browser, the software (as all of the other online virtual studios) runs slower.
Also in order to reduce waiting time, the software uses a compression algorithm
which reduces the sound quality as well.
The software is intended for non musicians rather than musicians; it serves as a way
for interaction and communication between the users. It may also function as a
starting point for an enthusiastic starter. Figure 3.11 is a screenshot taken from the
virtual studio software of the website. (Splice)

20

Figure 3.14 A Screenshot of Splicemusic.com (Splice)

3.4.2. Indabamusic.com
Indabamusic.com is another web community with an online studio. The studio
program of Indabamusic.com is not as powerful as the program of splicemusic.com.
While splicemusic was more intended for creating and producing new tracks,
indabamusic is more intended for mixing the tracks that users already have, or
remixing the tracks that other users have mixed. The unique feature of
Indabamusic.com is giving the user access to open a session that another user has
opened (if the user permits) and remix the song. Figure 3.12 is a screenshot taken
from Indabamusic.com. (Indaba Music)

Figure 3.15 A Screenshot from Indabamusic.com (Indaba Music)

21

3.4.3. Jamstudio.com
Jamstudio.com is a hybrid of an online composition tool and a social networking
community. The website has a different point of view in featuring online
composition to users. Users pick parts to be included in the song, choose a harmonic
progression and mix the output. The software is limited in how the parts are going to
play. The user has a list to choose what parts are going to play what but one may
suggest that there would be no originality in any of the songs built with
Jamstudio.com.

Figure

3.13

is

screenshot

taken

from

Jamstudio.com

(JamStudio.com)

Figure 3.16 A Screenshot from Jamstudio.com (JamStudio.com)

3.4.4. FMOL
Faust Music On Line (FMOL), is a software project for real-time collective music
composition through the net, conceived by Sergi Jord and developed by the former
and Toni Aguilar, after a proposal by the Catalan theatre and performance group, La
Fura dels Baus. This work has been sponsored by the S.G.A.E., the Spanish authors'
association. The main goal of the project was to develop platform free interactive
software for people to make music. But after certain serious considerations, the
author chose the programming language C which is dependent on Microsoft
Windows. Once the program downloaded and installed it automatically manages all
the Internet connections with the database server, with whom it interchanges small
score files, not audio. The FMOL synth engine supports eight stereo audio channels
(real time synthesized at16 bit and 22,050 Hz). Each channel is made of a generator

22

(sine, square, sample player, etc.) and three serial processors (filters, reverbs,
resonators, etc.), to be chosen by each composer between more than a hundred
different synthesis methods, algorithms or variations. The graphical interface is
designed for both musicians and non musicians. The main consideration was to build
an interface which is not boring for musicians yet not confusing for non musicians.
In FMOL, a second composer can add new sounds, or even distort or modify
previous ones, but not make the composition last longer. And the same applies to a
third and a fourth author. Each time the program accesses this database, it receives
and updates the compositions tree structure, allowing the user to see all the
compositions dependencies, with the particular information of each node (author
and time and date of creation). The user is then able, not only to upload his brand
new compositions, but also to download and hear existing ones, and, if he wants, to
enrich/modify/distort them. That way, a musical idea brought by one composer can
grow and evolve in different and possibly orthogonal directions. Figure 3.14 is a
screenshot of FMOL. (Jord, S. 1999)

Figure 3.17 A Screenshot of FMOL (Jord, S. 1999)

3.4.5. Public Sound Objects

The Public Sound Objects (PSOs) is a project consists of the development of a
networked musical system, which has been published in 2002 (Barbosa, A., 2003). It
not only serves musical purpose, but it also facilitates a straight-forward analysis of
collective creation and the implications of remote communication in this process.

23

The PSOs project approaches the idea of collaborative musical performances over
the Internet as a Shared Sonic Environment aiming to go beyond the concept of
simply using computer networks as a channel to connect performing spaces. The
PSOs system is based on client-server architecture. Clients control a visual
interactive interface, while the server controls all computation regarding the sound
synthesis and transformation and all features for a local installation. Figure 3.15
shows the Architecture of a PSO system. (Barbosa, A., 2006)

Figure 3.18 The Architecture of PSO (Barbosa, A., 2006)

Clients communicate with the server through HTTP by sending and receiving
packets of data. After various attempts for a universal user interface, Barbosa
decided to use a Java applet as the final user interface. This way the application can
be run platform independently and also device independently, which means it can
even be run on a PDA. Figure 3.16 show devices that run PSO (a computer, a touch
screen and a PDA). (Barbosa, A., 2006)

Figure 3.19 Devices that PSO can be run. (Barbosa, A., 2006))

24

4.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

It is a fact that network based music systems had improved very much in the last
decades with the improvements in the computer and communication technologies.
But it may be stated that since the latest study about network based music systems
(add Barbosa), no radical improvements have been achieved in live jamming
systems. But there are big achievements web programming, thus in web software
which enable the user to make music. But the new systems improve the interactivity
and the methods of sharing other than trying to find solutions for the latency or sound
quality.
Network based music systems should not only be thought as jamming or composition
with other people using the Internet, it may also be used as a way to do certain tasks
when the communications technology will be improved enough. Example scenarios
may be:

An artist will carry only a computer and controllers to a concert, all the
hardware gears will be used from the studio with a fast connection.

A mobile recording engineer will not need a truck to operate, will only use a
digital to analog converter and use the whole power of his studio with a
network connection to the studio.

A web operating system which is dedicated to music making may be

developed, this way one would not have to carry her/his computer in order to
make music, any computer with certain equipment would be enough.

The example scenarios might seem extreme and impossible to implement, but one
should remember that the internet and computer technologies are still young, and
what we might think of as impossible may not be in the future.

25

REFERENCES

Barbosa, A. 2003. Displaced Soundscapes: A Survey of Network Systems for

Music and Sonic Art Creation Leonardo Music Journal 13 - MIT Press, Cambridge
MA
Barbosa, A. 2006. Displaced Soundscapes: Computer Supported Cooperative Work
For Music Applications. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., Pompeu Fabra University, Spain.
Accessed 10 April 2008 from http://www.abarbosa.org/docs/t_abarbosa.pdf
Blaine, T. and Forlines, C. 2002. JAM-O-WORLD: Evolution of the Jam-O-Drum
Multi-player Musical Controller into Jam-O-Whirl Gaming Interface.

17-22.

Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME).

Brown, C and Bischoff, J. INDIGENOUS TO THE NET: Early Network Music
Bands in the San Francisco Bay Area. Accessed 10 April 2008 from
http://crossfade.walkerart.org/brownbischoff/IndigenoustotheNetPrint.html
Cage, J., 1961.Silence: Lectures and Writings, pp. 57-60, Wesleyan University Press.
Jord, S. 1999. Faust Music On Line (FMOL): An approach to Real-time Collective
Composition on the Internet. Leonardo Music Journal 9.
Jord, S., Kaltenbrunner, M., Geiger, G. and Bencina, R. 2005. The ReacTable*.
579-582. Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference (ICMC
2005), Barcelona.
Rodden, T. 1991. A Survey of CSCW Systems. Interacting with computers - the
interdisciplinary journal of human-computer interaction 3, 319-353.
Weinberg, G., Lakner, T. and Jay, J. 2000. The Musical Fireflies - Learning About
Mathematical Patterns in Music Through Expression and Play. Proceedings of XII
Colloquium on Musical Informatics 2000. A'quila Italy.
Weinberg, G. and Gan, S.-L. 2001. The Squeezables: Toward an Expressive and
Interdependent Multi-Player Musical Instrument. Computer Music Journal 25, 37-45.

26

Weinberg, Gill. 2002. The Aesthetics, History, and Future Challenges of

Interconnected Music Networks.

349-356

Proceedings of the International

Computer Music Conference.

Weinberg, G., Aimi, R. and Jennings, K. 2002. The Beatbug Network: A Rhythmic
System for Interdependent Group Collaboration. Proceedings of NIME 2002. Dublin:
MLE.
band-collab.net Online Music Collaboration. Accessed 10 April 2008 from
http://www.band-collab.net/
Ccmixter.org. Accessed 10 April 2008 from
http://ccmixter.org/
Digitalmusician.net : Make Music Online. Accessed 10 April 2008 from
http://digitalmusician.net/
eJamming AUDiiOO. Accessed 11 April 2008 from
http://www.ejamming.com/
History of the Rocketears. Accessed 11 April 2008 from
http://www.jamwith.us/about_us/rocket_history.shtml
Indaba Music: Find People. Make Music. Online Accessed 15 April 2008 from
http://www.indabamusic.com/
JamStudio.com - The online music factory - Jam, remix, arrange chords and loops free guitar Accessed 16 April 2008 from
http://www.jamstudio.com/
Kompoz - Music collaboration for virtual bands and creative commons online.
Accessed 10 April 2008 from
http://www.kompoz.com/compose-collaborate/home.music
NetPD. Accessed 11 April 2008 from
http://netpd.org/
NINJAM - Novel Intervallic Network Jamming Architecture for Music. Accessed
10 April 2008 from
27

http://ninjam.com/
RiffTrader.com - Audition, Jam, Record the World - Interactive Online Music
Collaboration. Accessed 10 April 2008 from
http://rifftrader.com/
Splice: Make Music. Remix Music. > Meet. Mix. Mashup.. Accessed 15 April
2008 from
http://www.splicemusic.com/
Sonoma Wire Works. Accessed 11 April 2008 from
http://www.sonomawireworks.com/
the Open Music Factory - Online Music Collaboration. Accessed 10 April 2008
from
http://www.openmusicfactory.com/portal/index.php
VSTunnel. Accessed 11 April 2008 from
http://www.vstunnel.com/

28