Piano Circus

Professor Rush’s anti-piano recital, “Piano Circus” was one of the best shows ever performed in the Davis Technology Suite. The recital allowed Rush to show off his virtuosity in piano performance while enhancing the meaning of many of the songs. His decision to combine random parts of the 10 songs being performed with his live play added depth, dissonance, and perspective to each and every song. On top of that, the constant cycle of the sum of music being randomly played throughout the entire concert and in between each piece connected each current performance to every song on the set list. This made the entire 10 song set list one, unified performance rather than a concert.

Professor Rush has consistently critiqued the academic institution’s massive push to keep music before the 20^th century alive in its students. He is constantly finding ways to question the common practices, courses, and teaching in this school of music. He pushes for opportunities for student to receive education on more modern music; from Miles Davis, to Stevie Wonder and David Bowie, Professor Rush often teaches us as students to study the artist who have had a direct impact on music today and not one-hundred and fifty years ago. He believes studying a broad variety of music and artists will give students a better sense of music happening outside the walls of academia and will furthermore help us as music students transition into making a living off our skills. This concert is a great example of Rush taking a traditional concept in classical music and flipping it on its head into something new, modern, and diverse; the way he used the technology helped enhance those concepts even more.

The diversity comes from Rush’s song selection. Rather than choosing the best of Sergei Rachmaninoff to off his virtuosity as a piano player, Rush chose singer-songwriter songs like Stevie Wonder’s If it’s Magic and Flower’s Grave by Tom Waits.  He chose to celebrate the differences in art-forms by playing songs that are completely contrasting in sound back to back. That concept alone was clear; however, his choice to playback the contrasting songs a midst his performance consistently reminded the audience of the contrasts of songs, and allowed us to aurally relate each song to one another repeatedly. This made us as a listener view every song with a comparative mindset, rather than a simple observing ear. And as the listener compared each song to the next, the listener also compared each song to the first song, the second, and so forth—all while appreciating Rush’s virtuosity—and ultimately had so much to consume in his or her mind that the entire showed was washed together. The listener let go of hearing every note and just appreciate the textures, contrasts, concepts, and comparisons thrown at him. “Piano Circus” found a way through technology to combine ten entirely separate concepts into one complete thought.

Anti-piano recital

One of the compelling effects of Stephen Rush’s “anti-piano recital” was to shape the listening patterns of the audience. In this performance, the performer played pieces live in a random order while pre-recorded versions played back at various volumes in different speakers in a different random order. As stated by the program notes, depending on how the live and playback sounds coincided, three major effects were possible:
• Opposition, where two very different types of music collided, in amusing or maybe annoying ways) • Complementarity, where the same or similar pieces play through the speakers)
 • Displacement, where a piece that has already been played through one format (live or playback) plays through the other, offering a sort of flashback

Initially, I found it easiest to identify and engage with moments of complementarity. Perhaps this is because many, though not all, of the pieces were very avant-garde, consisting of free improvisation, twelve-tone music, and other melodic and harmonic techniques that defied the ear as it is. Thus, “collisions” (at least with my musical sensibilities, which are doubtless considerably less developed than Stephen Rush’s or other music faculty and such in the audience) were already inevitable, while moments of “musical agreement” stood out.

Over the course of the concert, however, it became easier to appreciate moments of opposition as well. This was perhaps most apparent when two colliding tonal pieces played together. For example, the two pieces with vocals, “Flower’s Grave” by Waits/Brennan and “If It’s Magic” by Stevie Wonder, would not only be in opposition because they had identifiably different lyrics but also because they were a half step apart in key. Even for pieces like the Xenakis and Stockhausen, I felt I was able to pick out moments where they would especially collide with music on the other form of media. Of course, audience cues helped--I appreciated the moments where the audience laughed quietly, which happened from time to time on account of all three of these effects. Indeed, we do not listen to music (or experience any art, or anything really) in a vacuum, but rather if we experience it collectively this collective experience shapes our individual perception.

 By design, however, the collective experience was not the same for each person. The playback did not play back in all speakers equally, but rather would play back only from certain speakers, moving around the room in no discernible pattern. Furthermore, as the volume would be randomized, sometimes the music coming from the speaker would be rather soft. This means that people on the other side of the room might barely hear the playback at times, even if people sitting close to the speaker might be able to hear it better. This meant that we did not experience all moments equally or at the same time. Sometimes, for example, I would hear people in the audience laugh before I realized what was going on. Often that was because they could simply hear something I could not--and the reverse is true; doubtless I too heard moments that they did not. Thus, one effect of the randomization of the playback was that it brought about differences in our experiences of the concert: we may have had a collective experience, but not a uniform one.

Piano Circus Blog Post

by Ben Roberts

Professor Stephen Rush’s performance, Piano Circus, was an intriguing and stimulating experience to enjoy. By rethinking the way an audience can experience a piano recital, Rush was able to augment our perceptions and encounters of the pieces played. Starting with the idea of the way we remember a “normal” concert in snippets of time and musical ideas, he was able to flesh it out in a way that brings the very act of remembrance to the real-time performance itself. Using short, randomly played sections of prerecorded pieces played over loudspeakers, he was able to compliment and contrast the performance, with the same performance pieces. Arguing that piano recitals are “stupid,” Professor Rush sets out to challenge the idea of them, as well as our understanding of, experience of, and comfort with them.

The technology in this performance was vital in realizing its conception. In collaboration with Professor Leith Campbell, Rush created a MAX patch that would select each prerecorded sample at random and play it through the speakers of the studio. The patch would also pan the samples throughout the speaker array. This meant that each person in the audience had a different experience. For example, if you were sitting on one side of the piano, and the sample was playing out of the speakers on the opposite end, you were most likely unable to hear that sample, therefore being endowed with a different experience. Without a patch that did these actions flawlessly, and continuously, this type of performance and effectiveness would not be possible. Also, the volume of these samples was extremely important. Rush playing piano was the loudest sonority in the room, which meant you were able to tell exactly what piece he was playing, and follow it fairly well. The samples however, were played at a slightly ducked volume, which left the audience members hearing it as if it was inside their own head, juxtaposing what Rush was playing live. As the samples moved from speaker to speaker, the perceived loudness changed and shifted, creating a very interesting and never-stagnant performance experience.

Personally, I truly enjoyed this show. The parts that caught my interest the most, where when samples naturally and unexpectedly complimented the pieces being played. For example, at one moment during the performance, Professor Rush began the second verse of a song, and at that exact moment, the prerecorded sample of the very same song began to play the first verse. They lined up in a way that sounded like a call and response. Another example is when the atonal sonorities of the experimental pieces complimented one another, which in theory should never happened, but happened quite a few times. These wonderful “awe-inspiring” moments, and others like it, where what made the performance the spectacle that it was.

Professors Stephen Rush and Leith Campbell where able to create a performance that challenged the typical ideas of recitals and concerts, while at the same time, driving the very experience of attending and remembering them into the conceptual nature of the recital itself.

An article I thought would be of interest, especially to Bens of the Green variety.
http://www.factmag.com/2017/02/16/justin-walter-breath-powered-synth-unseen-forces-kranky/

Group Blog #2

The idea I will be delving into is the use of electric trumpet with a groove based interaction. Specifically I will be talking about variations of the electric trumpet.

1. The first possibility is that we use electronic trumpet synonymously with the groove based production and just simply pick up the trumpet. The interaction between the producer and instrumentalist is improvised and organic, all humanly made etc.

2. The second possibility is using the electronic trumpet and the groove based production but adding in effects/pedals for the electronic trumpet sound, creating another dynamic to the improvised piece. The effects could either be done with pedals or with a digital sound processing program.

3. The third possibility is again utilizing electric trumpet and a groove based production but adding in an AI component into the mix, letting a computer (randomizer etc) choose what effects are being applied to the trumpet sound as well as the groove based track. This will bring another form of improvisation to the performance on top of a human organic one.

Group Blog 2

The idea that is going to be fleshed out is the electrified hammered dulcimer combined with cinematic drums and triggers, with both instruments controlling some lighting and imagery. Three different variations are:

1) Putting contact mics within quadrants inside the hammered dulcimer, using these to effect certain images and/or lighting, while the drums would trigger different and contrasting images/lighting.

2) Having no live audio controlled visuals but rather predetermined ones that me and mark could react to live, or just play along with.

3) Use projection mapping to split the room up into distinct separate areas to represent each instrument, and having a sort of battle or call and response between me and mark that is represented aurally as well as visually, with an arc in intensity and climax.

Collaboration 1 ideas

Our first idea is to use the hammered dulcimer and synth (Mark) along with some heavy drumming and possibly stark visual effects, possibly a silhouette for example (Ben) to create a very cinematic hi-tech meets world music piece. Our second idea is to combine visual motion tracking (gesture recognition, perhaps) or picking up from sensors attached to strings to allow hammered dulcimer performance itself (Mark) to control other effects (Ben). Finally, Ben is interested in projection mapping to map musical control onto a physical surface. Mark could assist in performing this technology and/or interspersed with augmented, programmatically controlled piano.

Idea/Concepts

My first Idea for this class is a Groove based project utilizing some sort of electronic music along with an amplified trumpet. This Trumpet amplification will be done in the style of Miles Davis. the amplified trumpet will then be amplified with effects.

My Second Idea for this class is utilizing the electronic trumpet alongside motion tracking to creat some sort of digital response program that can control what happens to the amplified trumpet sound with the movement of the body.

My third idea is to be able to motion track or use some other method of sensor to track a ping pong ball as 2 people play pingpong. Then, divide up the field into sections that create different pitches in response to the signal reaction and then perform on this new instrument.

Blog 2

My area of expertise would be jazz. One term that I always find people being confused of when used among my friends is the word "bad". When someone refers to someone else or what they are playing as "bad" it means they are killing and sound really great or really hip. This obviously can be confusing. Another word would be the "shed" or "shedding" which means the place where you practice or practing, someone might ask "what's up" and a response could be "hittin the shed" etc. Lastly the word "out", either as "that shit out" meaning the music or idea or the subject in general is very hip and modern, or a "that's out" as in not not really that killin (you will know that connotation when you hear it).

Lastly I think the most inaccurate conception of jazz is for it to be miscontrune as a "series of wrong notes". I feel this is disrespectful to the art that jazz is.

Benjamin Green

I work in computer science, machine learning (basically trying to glean actionable insights from recognizing patterns in data) to be specific. Some buzzwords are: -Scalable: This means the algorithm (theoretical description of the procedure) or implementation can run in a "reasonable" amount of time on very large datasets (millions of data points). This is very relative, but with the current trend in machine learning being to work on bigger and bigger data sets, many papers need to make the claim that the techniques they propose are scalable. -Fast: Broadly speaking, this means that the algorithm performs slightly better in theory than the next best algorithm known to solve the problem. It may still take a long time to run in practice. In particular, it doesn't refer to an absolute measure of time. -Data-driven: an adjective used to describe a choice made with machine learning techniques (based on a pattern in the data). Basically "we used machine learning." This sometimes is used in machine learning to make it clear that certain choices are made for principled reasons rather than dark art on the part of the researchers. But it's more often used by other fields who realize that machine learning and "data science" is hot right now and want to claim usage of it. All of this is a little tongue in cheek. I like my algorithms to be scalable, fast, and data driven too. These terms can be overused (especially in academic papers trying to get past conference reviewers) but machine learning does yield impressive results in many fields, even music and the arts. One term that gets used in a derogatory way in computer science in general is "hacky". This might refer to a piece of code that was made to work by trying unprincipled or sub-optimal techniques until something works, as opposed to being actually elegant or cleverly written. More importantly, many people refer to most of programming as "hacking" perhaps a bit unfairly. (Both within computer science, where theoretical computer scientists may look down on some efforts from the empirical community--this is true even at a more specific level in the machine learning community, and from non-computer scientists.) There is value in trying to insist on maximum elegance, since this corresponds with other people being able to read your work and use it themselves. However, I also think that "hacking" is important since no one starts off knowing everything, but it is a very valuable skill to get interesting things work by any means necessary. I think "hacky" should carry more of a connotation of "scrappy".

My area of expertise lies in music production and electronic composition. Three words that are often not universal are:

1. MIDI - (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) a language standard for interconnecting electronic musical instruments and computers. Basically this is an electronic instrument signal language that sends messages to and from each other and/or a computer. For example: if you plug a keyboard into your computer and play notes that you can manipulate on the computer, all that information is being send by MIDI.

 2. ADSR Envelope - (Attack, Decay, Sustain, Release) this is a term referring to the amplitude envelope used in some synthesizers. Attack - the time it takes for a sound to go from nothing to its loudest point. Decay - the time it takes for that initial attack to the sustain level. Sustain - the level at which the sound remains while holding the note. Release - the time it takes for the sound to fade to nothing once the note is no longer being played.

3. DAW - (Digital Audio Workstation) any electronic system designed to record, edit, and playback digital audio. Any music production software is a DAW. For example: Ableton Live, Logic, FL Studios, Cubase, Reason, Pro Tools, etc.

Something that is mentioned quite a bit when referring to my area of study, is a misunderstanding or limited view of what people like to call “real music.” Plenty of people will ask me “do you play or write any real music?” This is probably one of the most degrading things to me, especially because of the fact that I have been a percussionist for 11 years and not just “pushing buttons on a computer.” (another phrase that degrades the complexity of good music production). The way I view music is simple. It is an emotion and a feeling. No matter what kind of technologies, materials, or objects where used to make the music, as long as it invokes an emotion or feeling in you, it is real music. Period.

Blog 2

In each discipline, and really in any human endeavor that involves a closed group, the members develop an internal language that has specific meaning for them and little or no meaning for those outside the group. Even words that are in normal usage take on a new meaning in the in group. What are three of your favorite words from the 'secret language' of your discipline, and why are you drawn to them? Conversely, people outside of the group, not knowing the intricacies of the discipline, tend to reduce the function of the group using an unfair condensation of one or two words that they use to describe the totality of the group. What is the outsider description of your discipline that you find to be most inaccurate, reductionist or plain wrong? Due Sunday, 11:59 PM.

This is a piece I recorded with my quartet about a year ago, I hope you all enjoy! The piece is entitled Billies Bounce and was written by Charlie Parker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU3yf3tu94A

This is something I'm interested and have always wanted to do. I think electrifying the trumpet and using effects is super super cool and I've always wanted to experiment with this aspect of the horn. I'm going to post two links, one is an example of an electrified trumpet and the other is a recording of Miles Davis's electric ensemble where he uses his trumpet with a violin pickup.

electric trumpet-  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ER_RsaHCUc

Miles Davis-   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxSFSdcGPLM

Here is an audio piece I made for class last year. It is composed entirely out of found sounds from my dorm room, around campus, etc. Everything I am currently working on is unfinished so I figured I would just post this.


The video below is obviously quite a large scale production, but I have always loved the way projection mapping and light were presented in this video. I hope to do something that is visually intriguing like this is, but also something a little more interactive, and of course with lots more music.

Here's an audio recording of a composition I made for erhu, a traditional Chinese instrument that could be compared to a violin (synthesized in Garageband--I only wish I could play one well enough to make decent music) accompanied by an acoustic hammered dulcimer playing and various electronic sounds and effects.  I chose this because it demonstrates some of my classical and folk influences as well as my interests in combining acoustic and electronic sounds and techniques (and how far I have to go as a composer and as a student of electronic music).

In the spirit of combining acoustic and electronic textures, one direction I'd like to go in would be to augment acoustic instrument performance (something I feel more comfortable with to date) with live electronics, as in this composition by Kaija Saariaho:


As I indicated above, I like acoustic music and think that it and electronic music have a lot to offer each other.  But in comparison to what I know how to do now, I would like to use electronics to enhance the performance, not just in playback.  I like the aesthetics of this piece (not that the recording is of the best quality) and some of her other work in a similar vein but for other instruments like the cello.  

Mr Funn

Write a reflection on your collaboration with your team throughout the semester. Address questions such as:

* What did you learn from observing or crossing over into your collaborators' disciplinary practices? 

I learned the most about listening to others and how to balance wants, needs and desires to fit into the composition. To listen I found where I could fit in my skill sets to offer a dialogue from the palate of which i had to offer

* What was surprising about the collaborative process? 

For us it was how close our ideas over lapped of wanting to use our work to speak to social awareness of the things that are currently facing out world and communities. 

* Identify any hurdles you overcame that might have been created by disciplinary expectations or norms.

 I think time management was key to us pulling off our project. We all had busy schedule being grad students. We had a chance to really figure out what the other persons thought process was not even being in the studio. We were able to check out other arts that helped tease out ideas for ourselves.

* What insights did you take away that might inform future interdisciplinary collaborations?

I think to remain open to ideas and not to get to attached to anything in the process. We can set things aside for a version 2-3 or 4. Another take away is that there is no thing such as perfection in some of these processes. It is about making work that fits that circumstance and space.  I think that is a great way to manage expectations. This also gives room for others to explore past their norms.

BPM YO

               This semester I learned that collaborations are extremely important and allow you to create things that you probably never would have made before. I also learned that I am not the best communicator and that I need to be more assertive. 

               Our creative process was quite slow. I feel as though we knew our goal: electronic dance music and flute. Unfortunately, that gave us a wide variety of options, and without a clear leader in the group we were quite stagnant in ideas. I feel as though the amount of options we had combined with our group lack of experience in dance music made all of us nervous about what exactly we should work towards within the classroom. For a while, Paige and I were mostly worried about how to make “dance music and flute” a cool and exciting project while keeping it challenging enough to give us a good grade in the classroom.

               I felt the pressure of making sure our project was “PAT” enough, and I feel like Paige thought that too; half the time I was wondering how to throw MAX at our project without really any creative experience in MAX at all. To be frank, I looked at all the other groups with a Kiran, a Sam, a Peter and so on and was concerned about how our group would be graded if we didn’t make our finished project complicated enough in comparison what the heck others did.

               In hindsight, Paige and I love to compose. Meryl is a great improviser. We should have jammed out. Our minds took ourselves out of our own strengths and tried to force us into a technician space that we aren’t that strong in.

               With all of that happening, I eventually freaked out about making sure we made progress and started to bulldoze the group. The first track we had was basically me making a bunch of decisions without asking for too much input. We threw Purplopia together and that felt good, but then I got worried about the tech of it all again and most of the work we did was focused on Listen to The Rhythm.

               Our progression was terrible, and eventually we had two weeks to learn to perform well two unfinished songs live and somehow make the sound travel around in a circle in a room and I took over because I was stressed out about failure. I stopped asking for input and just started doing. I could feel Paige feeling frustrated with our process. There were so many tech problems combined with our time limit and I lost trust in any hands that weren’t mine.

               The tracks turned out great in my opinion, but I feel like we could have done better working as a unit. I think we could have done a lot more if we got another shot at it. All in all, I learned so much about Ableton and the challenges of performing live.

BPM 4EVA

The end!

What an incredible ride this course and semester has been! I have to say, I feel extremely fortunate to have been in a group with AJ and Carlos. Not only am I happy about the work we achieved together, but I am so grateful that the three of us created bonds together throughout this process. 

There were many experiences throughout that assisted in uncovering more about my artistic practice and my attitudes in collaboration. One of the greatest parts of this collaboration was re-learning how to let go and embrace every moment. During my music degree, this was something that was really hard to uncover- especially during practice sessions or performing. I've definitely gotten better throughout the years, however, being around other individuals who practice this (like my team) reaffirms this approach. 

I think just the general notion of being/staying CHILL no matter what technological mishaps during collaborations can be a bit tricky  - especially as a techy PAT major - who has to make sure that everything is working and developing with the larger technological framework.. this was definitely challenging during "the Dante sessions". Shout out to Leith for all his help on this :) 

Another aspect of our performance that I am really happy about is how we utilized this space. I remember when I first went to the Davis studio, I was looking around the beams and speakers, and was brainstorming about the performance possibilities of the space. It was really cool designing the staging with my teammates - this is something that I think we could expand on. Installations always feel so rewarding because of the transformation of the physical space and how it informs a performance and/or social interactions. It was really cool to see AJ and the dancers do just that during the performance. It was also really rewarding learning how to build the projector mounts and screens. 

It was such a unique opportunity to take a brand new collaborative course, and I would definitely suggest everyone to take a course like this at some point during their degree, because you get to experiment and play with incredible resources including the space and other talented individuals. 

Go Team Pineal Gland!

On Collaboration

What an interesting experience.  Looking back, this couldn't have gone more differently than I imagined.  The process that Sydney, Spencer and I developed was very fruitful for our personal practice and the project we were developing.  I gained a lot for what I do individually in many of my projects, and I also grew into a better understanding of how to be a better collaborator in a personal sense, and in a practical sense.

The outcome of our final performance was very fulfilling mostly because of this unique practice.  I do not believe our intention was to end up with a product that we would have found such confirmation and fulfillment from like one might feel after composing a very detailed work, our intention was to create something that was informed from our practice that felt natural, honest, and authentic.  I am pleased to say that I do love our piece, and I find great satisfaction in what it became.  To me, that is an incredible bonus because we didn't want spend much energy on "making a piece", as opposed to making a collaboration.

I learned a lot about structure.  We spent a lot of time trying different forms of improvisation.  Using simple prompts and constraints informed me in new ways about how and what form and structure can exist in a improvised work.  We didn't dance as much as I would have assumed in the beginning, but many of these ideas about form and structure came from Sydney and my time in a performance improvisation class we were taking this semester.  In that class, we spent our time moving and dancing, but the concepts were universal to whatever we chose to apply them to.

In any future collaboration I think I have realized the value in talking about perspective.  For example, talking about how an idea looks and feels to different audiences really matters.   Something I am familiar with may look and feel different to someone that isn't familiar with it like I am.  This concept might seem obvious, but this was a hurdle we had to overcome together and I learned a lot from it.

I am so glad to have taken this course.  I loved the opportunity to take a collaborative class with my brother and Sydney.  I know we will continue to make more projects together in the future and this class was what brought us together.

THIS CLASS MADE ME THINK ON A PSYCHOLOGICAL LEVEL ABOUT SO MANY IMPORTANT THINGS AND I LOVE STUDENT PARTNERSHIPS

This semester was unpredictable and made me realize many positives and negatives faced while collaborating. 

I realized what little time it takes for Merryl to come up with something genius. Guess that's what happens when you play your primary instruments for hours upon hours every day. Computers take much longer to figure out. Problems happen. Things crash. Flutes don't crash unless you drop them. Often times Merryl would be very unoccupied while Ben and I trouble-shooted. 

Toward the end of the semester, Ben and I started having separate meeting times to do trouble-shooting. This does not mean Merryl did not help us with “tech.” Merryl helped compose our track Purplopia in the MTL with Ben. She also learned how to set up and strike a lot of our gear. She also wrote every flute part.

I was surprised by how SUCCESSFUL all three of us were. At the beginning, I wasn’t sure if our music would be “academic” enough, “fun” enough, “technical” enough, or “creative” enough. You would think that after taking ECM I would be way over that hurdle, but academia is terrifying.

MANY unfortunate situations occurred throughout our collaborative process. My interface broke on the same day Ben’s keys broke. I erased a day’s worth of work in Ableton. Nights were spent in Davis until 2AM. Even during the show itself, things somehow got unmapped, and Ben had to map in Ableton during the show. But it all came together in the end. It always does.

I took this class to better myself in collaborative situations. I do fine as a solo worker, but I struggle to voice ideas and opinions if others are involved. Unfortunately, thoughts such as their ideas are better than mine constantly flood my head. I have been told this fact about myself by many others. They have criticized me for letting people unintentionally step all over me in creative settings. This semester I continued to struggle with this problem. Even when I didn’t like something we were doing, I assumed I was wrong to think so. 

Toward the end of the semester, I felt comfortable pointing out what I didn’t think was working, but I still struggled to voice new ideas. What I did feel comfortable doing was experimenting with Max patches / Ableton plugins, designing cool sounds, and commenting on the mix. What?! The mix?! Also known as subjects I'm NOT good at! But what I specialize in, composing and performing, felt super scary to talk about with my group. This class now has me thinking. Am I scared that if people shoot down my ideas regarding composition, that means I'm a bad composer? Because if people shoot down my ideas regarding mixing, I won't care. I don't want to be a mixer for a living. (Does anyone?) The mind is really weird. 

I view myself as a composer and a performer, but I feel like because of this weird mind concept, I didn't do much of either of those. I updated the blog, set up equipment, provided software, designed plugins, booked rooms, scheduled things, recorded things, wrote lyrics, held onto all of the files, etc etc etc. I didn't do much composition.

Because of the type of collaborative work my group was doing, most of the action was happening on one computer. Ben ended up programming the sends because both of us couldn’t do it at the same time. I ended up sitting in the middle of Davis listening to the mix and throwing out suggestions every once in a while. This made me feel extremely guilty and useless. I felt like Ben was doing all of the work, but there was nothing I could do to help him. I would resort to updating our blog or setting up equipment / striking what we didn’t need anymore. 

Ben is fantastic at drums and bass. I am not. Because of this, Ben would work at home and complete portions of our songs. Sometimes he would continue to write even more on top of that. I constantly felt guilty throughout this process. At the same time, I was battling that dumb thought: their ideas are better than mine. Ben did not ask for my input, so I didn't want to bother him with my ideas. His were "better." It was not Ben's job to ask for my input. It was my job to shout out my ideas the way Ben did.

All right, I contributed compositional ideas sometimes, but they were always ideas that I was 100% confident about. They were ideas that I knew everyone would like. Any risky ideas I conjured up, I kept inside of my head. And if someone else ever had another idea in relationship to mine, I automatically assumed their idea was better and did not consider if I even liked it or not. (I'm sure I did though. Our group is crazy talented. I mean was talented. So sad!)

If I took a class already knowing how to do everything I was going to learn while taking it, then what was the point of taking it? I wasn't supposed to know how to collaborate with others before this class started. While in college, we're allowed to fail. That's not going to happen outside of this safe space. We can stay cooped up in our rooms for weeks, trying our  working on one school project, trying our hardest, and end up not doing the best but OUR BEST, and still learn SO much. Can I get a round of applause, PAT451? 

Thanks everyone. Student Partnerships rules. I hope to see this class continue for many more years.