JacyDawn82's Criticisms

JacyDawn82 posted some interesting criticisms of the Thummer as comments to Thumtronics’ YouTube videos. A blog like this is a better forum for such discussions, so I've taken the liberty of posting the criticisms below, interspersed with my responses.

Generally, JacyDawn82’s statements seem to fall into three broad categories:

1. No new musical instrument could possibly be superior to all traditional musical instruments in any musically-important way.
2. Making a profit and making a better world are mutually incompatible.
3. The Thummer promotes musical idiocy (in some undefined way), and any claim to the contrary is “ridiculous” and/or “ludicrous.”

These concerns appear to be simple reactionary conservatism – “anything old is better than anything new” – but there may be more to them than that.

The third point is the most interesting to me, as it seems to be hitting a real sore point, which I do not understand.

Here's the thread.

Jacy

[The Thummer] promotes musical idiocy.

Jim
Why? Make your case, Jacy.

In what way does the Thummer and/or ThumMusic System “promote musical idiocy”? What essential concepts of music theory and/or performance does it deprecate, such that those who learn to make music using the ThumMusic System are, as a result, musical idiots?

Jacy
My main problem is the inventor is somehow trying to “improve” upon over 400 years of SUCCESSFUL musical tradition by replacing it with this useless toy.

Jim

I am guilty as charged... just as Henry Ford was guilty of trying to “improve” upon centuries of SUCCESSFUL transportation tradition and Vint Cerf was guilty of trying to “improve” upon centuries of SUCCESSFUL communications tradition. Their useless toys have helped millions.

As to “promoting musical idiocy” – how so? With the Thummer [and ThumMusic System], a higher percentage of people can successfully gain the knowledge and skills necessary to read, perform, and compose music. Is this not a good thing?

Jacy

Are you seriously comparing yourself to Henry Ford and Vint Cerf? Give me a break!

Jim

All inventors – including me – attempt to advance the state of the art. To argue that this is somehow offensive is to argue that we should still be shivering in cold, dark caves.

Jacy
You don't fool me...your BS about wanting to spread the joy of music with your trinket is completely lost and fake to me between interjections of how much you want to make money. The developers of the Theremin or Moog sought to further music as an art form, something you obviously don't intend to do as a musically challenged (however brilliant) businessman.

Jim

Your claims are erroneous. Leon Teremin patented the Teremin all over the world; hardly a sign of unbridled altruism. Robert Moog made theremins for a living, both before and after developing the synthesizer, and always worked (albeit with mixed success) to commercialize his innovations profitably. By offering a simpler, cheaper, and more expessive instrument, I can make the world a better place and a fortune, too. That's the American Dream; as an American, that's good enough for me.

Jacy

How is it that this device is going to make the world a better place? Be very specific, please.

Jim
Let's presume for the sake of this discussion that:

• acquiring the knowledge and skills of music-making has many benefits, both intrinsic and extrinsic; that
• only a given percentage of musical novices -- call it X% -- progress far enough in their music lessons to acquire the above-mentioned benefits; and that
• it costs some average amount -- call it $Y -- to educate a raw novice to the point where they acquire the above-mentioned benefits.

Now, let's imagine that a new approach to music education could be found that

• yeilds precisely the same benefits,
• with a success rate that’s significantly higher than X%,
• at a cost that is significantly lower than $Y.

With this hypothetical new approach, more people could afford to attempt to acquire the benefits of music education, and more would succeed in the attempt. Having more people enjoy these benefits would make the world a better place -- wouldn't it?

No scientific studies have yet attempted to measure the relative advantage of the ThumMusic System, so the extent of its advantage over traditional methods is not yet known. However, the response of many credible music educators (e.g., Leong, Miles, Whitehead, & others) suggests that there is at least a reasonable likelihood that its advantage will prove to be considerable.

The Thummer extends the advantages of the ThumMusic System by providing greater expressive and creative potential than traditional musical instruments (see below), by having the potential to become very affordable (see below), and by offering novel creative potential.

Jacy
How are you contributing to the world as a businessman (because, sir, you are NOT an artist) with your musical innovation? Cut the nonsense; you are very much more interested in tapping into a “$30 billion a year industry.”

Jim
If the Thummer and ThumMusic System do indeed have the potential to deliver the benefits of music education to more people at lower cost, then this would be quite a contribution, worthy of a substantial return on investment.

Jacy
If you would only change your view that the problems of the less musically-inclined is the fault of the music. That just completely boggles my mind.

Jim
The problem is not the fault of music per se, but rather the fault of the level of abstraction at which musical information is displayed and controlled by traditional notation & instruments. The Thummer and ThumMusic System raise the level of abstraction such that the invariant structures of music theory are displayed and controlled in an invariant manner, thereby making music significantly easier to teach, learn, and play.

This is a rather complex and subtle concept, which does not translate well into a TV sound-bite; “it’s music’s fault” is about as close as one can get while being TV-friendly. Those who take exception to the sound-bite will hopefully hit Thumtronics’ website for more information (such as this and this).

Jacy
Face it: what you are indeed promoting is not innovation, but idiocy.

Jim
Why? Make your case, Jacy.

Jacy
You're not talking about cars versus horse and carriage. Music is an art (to some, art in its highest form) and should be experienced by everyone. That much I agree. But to suggest that your way is better and that your device is superior in some way is completely ludicrous.

Jim
Why? Make your case, Jacy.

Jacy
There are countless interested individuals who have toiled for many years learning their instrument – whether piano, violin, guitar, cello, clarinet – both amateur, professional, or somewhere in between who would be more than happy to try or even learn your device (myself included would be interested in at least trying it out).

But I cannot let go of your ridiculous claims about how the Thummer is a “solution” to the problems presented by learning the above instruments, all veiled under the guise of making the world a better place. “By offering a simpler, cheaper, and more expressive instrument, I can make the world a better place and a fortune, too.”

• Simpler? Maybe a little (although it doesn't take too long to learn chords on a guitar or basic progressions on a piano).
• Cheaper? At $450 US, that's not exactly cheaper than a beginner's guitar, and that's just for the Thummer alone, correct?
• More Expressive? The only claim that is just outright wrong. People: compare the Thummer examples here to a fine performance of a Chopin etude or Beethoven sonata on the piano, an Albeniz Tango on the guitar, a Bach partita on the violin, or a simple lullaby sung by a parent to their child.
  

Jim

• Simpler: The ThumMusic System is likely to prove to be considerably more than “a little simpler,” but we can’t know by how much until rigorous scientific studies are conducted. Still, credible experts in music education have stated that its potential is “revolutionary.” Revolutions usually require that the new technology be two or three times as efficient as the status quo; that’s a lot more than “a little.”
• Cheaper: Traditional musical instruments are now about as cheap as they’ll ever get (all else being equal), whereas the eMotion Thummer’s expected initial price can fall rapidly as its sales volumes increase. Because the Thummer is all-electronic, tiny, and has few moving parts, a Pocket Thummer (with battery power and integrated sounds) could eventually retail for under $20 bucks (in constant dollars). There’s no way a non-toy guitar or piano keyboard could ever touch that price; they are too large and mechanically complex. And online computer-keyboard-based ThumMusic lessons are expected to be free, which is a price that’s hard to beat.
• More Expressive: This claim is actually the easiest to prove, as previously discussed on this blog. It also has the most definitive expert support, as from Paine and Goudeseune, who refer to it as being “outstandingly expressive” and “groundbreaking,” respectively.