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.

Music Brains

When a start-up company invades a market with a new product, it can’t spread its forces across a broad front. Instead, the start-up needs to identify a narrow beach-head, concentrate its limited forces there, conquer the entire beach-head quickly, and use it as a base for the invasion of the wider market. Such a beach-head market’s members should be easy to reach, eager & able to buy, and evangelical to others. This beachhead market needs to be small enough that you can dominate it quickly, but big enough to take you to profitability.

Thumtronics’ initial beach-head market for the Thummer is the “Music Brain,” which we describe as a “serious musical hobbyist with a degree and/or job in science, engineering, or medicine.” We settled on this beach-head market after discovering that the majority of people joining Thumtronics’ online ThumClub were, in fact, Music Brains.

Number of Music Brains
How big is the Music Brain market? It turns out to be just right for a beach-head market, at just under half a million Music Brains in the USA and just over a million world-wide.

The US Census Bureau’s 2007 Statistical Abstract contains the necessary data for the USA. According to its “Adult Participation in Selected Leisure Activities by Frequency: 2005,” if we define being a serious musical hobbyist as being one who plays a musical instrument at least once per week, then 3.5% of Americans are “serious musical hobbyists.”

The same source reports that there are 13 million Americans with degrees and/or jobs in science, engineering, medicine, or related technical fields. If 3.5% of all Americans are serious musical hobbyists, then – all else being equal – 3.5% of scientists and engineers should be serious musical hobbyists, too. So, there should be (0.035 * 13 million = ) 455,000 Music Brains in the USA.

How many Music Brains are there worldwide? We can estimate the answer by looking at population or by music product industry revenue.

The USA’s percentage of the global music products industry’s revenue is 44% of the world total (as reported by The Music Trades). The USA’s percentage of the population of the major markets’ population is 34% (USA: 300, European Union: 450, and Japan: 125). So the USA can be estimated to have between 34% and 44% of the world’s Music Brains – let’s call it 40%.

Using this compromise figure, the number of Music Brains in the major world markets is approximately (455K/0.40 = ) 1.1 million.

Characteristics of Music Brains
Thumtronics’ market research suggests that Music Brains are:

• Experienced: have an average of over 20 years of experience in playing and/or studying music.
• Free-spending: spent four times more money on music products in the previous year ($1300) as non-hobbyists ($280).
• Exposed: more than half played in bands, performing publicly on average twice per month to audiences averaging more than 60 people.
• Evangelical: reported that an average of five friends would buy Thummers after seeing the respondent’s Thummer (and infection ratio of 5:1).
  

More than half of the Music Brain respondents reported jobs in Information Technology, so they are particularly Internet-savvy. This makes them easier for Thumtronics to reach, and also makes them particularly capable of (a) adding value to Thumtronics’ open-source software & courseware development efforts, and (b) helping spread word-of-mouse through blogs, YouTube demos, chat rooms, and other meme-spreading vectors.

In short, Music Brains are easy to reach (through the Web), eager & able to buy, and have the potential to be evangelical to others – exactly the characteristics one wants in an initial niche’s members.

Conquering the Music Brains
Is the Music Brain beach-head niche small enough to conquer quickly, while being large enough to take Thumtronics to profitability? Yes.

Firstly, Thumtronics’ outsourcing-oriented, direct-sales-based, viral marketing business model has a very low burn rate, so it can be profitable at a low rate of sales – 1,500 units in the first year, for example. 1,500 units is 0.3% of America’s 455,000 Music Brains, and only 0.1% of the world’s Music Brains. Given how highly connected Music Brains are over the Web, our initial PR (through the popular science & engineering press, in addition to the music gear press) should reach most of them either directly or through word of mouse, giving them awareness of the product and knowledge of where to learn more about it on the Web. From there, an online purchase is just a mouse click away.

Secondly, as stated above, Music Brains report that each will be able to convince an average of five friends to buy Thummers, too – an infection ratio of 5:1. If convincing all five friends to buy Thummers took an average of six months, then the incubation period between generations would be six months long.

At an infection ratio 5:1 and a six month incubation period, Thumtronics’ sales growth would be astounding. If Thumtronics sold all 1,500 Thummers on the last day of the first year of availability (for the sake of argument), then six months later it would sell 7,500 more, and six months later it would sell 37,500 more. That’s 1,500 Thummers sold in the first year and 45,000 in the second. At this same growth rate, the global market of 1.1 million Music Brains would be exhausted by the end of the third year. Those sales would deliver something like $400 million in revenues. Thumtronics’ low-overhead business model would convert a surprisingly-large percentage of that revenue to profit. These profits could fund the development of the ThumMusic System, the Pocket Thummer, and the subsequent assault on the mainstream consumer market with a lower-priced, fully-integrated music-making solution.

Do I expect that Music Brains will actually deliver a 5:1 infection ratio? No. I would love for it to happen, and such faddish growth is entirely possible (and easily accommodated by Thumtronics’ business model). However, I prefer to assume the more conservative infection ratio of 1.8:1, which means that each Thummer buyer will convince slightly fewer than two other people, on average, to buy a Thummer, too. This lower infection ratio will exhaust the Music Brain market within just five years, and still give Thumtronics the profits it will require to assault the consumer market.

This is not to say that only Music Brains will buy Thummers in its early years of availability. Rather, Thumtronics will focus all of its marketing efforts on reaching Music Brains and convincing them to buy Thummers. If other people are convinced, too, that’s great. We’ll keep an eye on the characteristics of our customers, watching for emerging sales trends which we can encourage as the Music Brain market becomes saturated.

However, initially, you’ve got to invade a market along a single beach, and for Thumtronics, that beach head is “Music Brains.”