Michael Wesch: Musical Error? [No]
| [Title] | There’s Nothing Impossible |
| [Composer] | Deus (composer/performer) |
| [Music Link] | Click here |
| [OMS Rating] | 53 |
This rating is for the music that accompanies a celebrated YouTube video entitled “Web 2.0 … The Machine is Us/ing Us” by Prof. Michael Wesch. This video was an instant hit on YouTube, and has been widely praised as an elegant, succinct, insightful, and inspiring presentation on Web 2.0 and its significance. Wesch, who is Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Kansas State University, used his background to construct an anthropological/ethnographic view of Web 2.0 which is very compelling. Good job, Michael!
However, a puzzling aspect of this video is the music which was chosen. Its OMS rating is a dismal 53 - this puts it in the same range as Alvin and the Chipmunks, and almost as low as (horror of horrors!) “It’s a Small World”. The music has a “cool”, “trendy” façade, but fundamentally it is simple “low-stimulus” music. Even the instrumentation is low-stim - seems to be low-res basic synthesizer sounds. Why did Wesch choose this kind of music?
We asked Prof. Wesch, and excerpts from his response follow. A key point made by Prof Wesch is that for his video, “simpler” musical materials seem to work better than say Beethoven. Prof. Wesch’s comments:
“I selected the music for the following reasons:
* it is licensed under creative commons, so I could use it without worrying about copyright infringement
* there are no words that might get in the way (I needed an instrumental)
* it gives the feeling of movement
* it has some “techy” sounds - both primitive and advanced … my own sense was that they start out primitive - in the genre of cheap casio keyboard from the 80s and move to more full-bodied sounds towards the end. In fact, I think the ending is very powerful, especially when combined with the visual ending of the video.
* it isn’t so complicated that it gets in the way
* it almost has a trance-like quality. I am guessing that the music that shamans use to go into a trance would score even lower on the OMS scale.
One conclusion to draw from this is that the OMS scale is really dedicated to measuring the stimulus of the music itself, but does not take into account the activities one’s mind might engage in while listening to the music. As stimulating as it is, I find much of Beethoven too complicated to think to, but my mind runs wild while listening to something more simple like Deus. It would be interesting to do a survey of people and ask them what music stimulates their intellectual thoughts the most - then see if you can find any patterns using OMS or a new model if necessary.”