Deconstructing DAW Music Production with “A Story of a Garden”: Solitude, Contingency, and Coexistence with AI

Tsunehiro Uno’s “A Story of a Garden” is a thought-provoking book that offers a new perspective on various problems in contemporary society using the unique metaphor of a “garden.”

In this article, I will attempt to present spiritual and practical guidelines for the continued pursuit of creativity by applying the content of “A Story of a Garden” to “music production with a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation).”

About “A Story of a Garden” by Tsunehiro Uno

Tsunehiro Uno’s “A Story of a Garden” is a book that deeply examines the state of modern society using two symbolic metaphors: the “House” and the “Garden.”

The “House,” which Uno views critically, refers to closed-off relationships and spaces where humans try to control everything, such as families, corporations, and online communities. Here, peer pressure is likely to arise, and diversity and contingent encounters tend to be excluded.

In contrast, the “Garden,” whose importance Uno advocates, signifies a half-closed, half-open space that actively accepts contingency and unpredictable elements beyond human intention, enabling dialogue with diverse things. Through this concept of the “Garden,” the book considers how individuals should reclaim true creativity and live a rich life in the face of the “standardization of humanity” and “loss of diversity” brought about by digital platforms.

The importance of this book has also been pointed out by contemporary thinkers such as Koichiro Kokubun and Kazuto Ataka. As an attempt to deeply consider the desirable relationship between digital platforms and humans, its content was extremely insightful for someone like me, who practices music production using a DAW.

Uno’s perspective, which meticulously analyzes the impact of digital platforms like social media on society and then explores the potential for individuals to aim for, centered on the act of “production,” has shed new light on my own theory of creation, as I work with my DAW day and night. I especially found myself nodding in agreement with his point that the game of approval and evaluation played out on social media obstructs the diverse goal-setting and creativity that should exist.

The concepts of the “House” and the “Garden” very aptly capture the conflicts in music production using a DAW. A DAW provides a “House”-like environment where one can perfectly control every aspect of sound and finish a work as planned.

However, as Uno criticizes, this excessive orientation toward control can also cause conflicts such as the stagnation of new ideas and the loss of intrinsic motivation due to the “game of approval and evaluation” on social media. In the next chapter, I will also consider the “positive role” of this “House” aspect of the DAW in creativity.

Uno states that a “garden” is a “half-closed, half-open space.” The “half-closed” aspect refers to the realm of “solitude” where one distances oneself from external evaluations and trends to confront one’s own inner spirit of inquiry. On the other hand, the “half-open” aspect refers to the realm where there is room for contingent events that transcend human intentions and thoughts—that is, unpredictable “discrepancies” and “noise”—to enter. It is the encounter with the resulting contingency that shatters fixed ideas and provides opportunities to enrich one’s life (and creation)—so the author continues.

The DAW Space as a “Garden”: A Reinterpretation of the Digital Production Environment

Next, using the metaphors of the “House” and “Garden” and keywords from “A Story of a Garden,” I will consider “music production with a DAW.”

The DAW is now an indispensable tool in modern music production. It allows for the centralized management and execution of a wide range of processes—composition, arrangement, recording, mixing, mastering, and the operation of plugins and external MIDI devices—all within the personal space of a home studio.

These characteristics, especially the ability to manage and control every detail of creation in a private environment like one’s home, are precisely why the DAW environment can be understood through the “House” metaphor.

To view the DAW production environment as a “House” is not to affirm the “closure and uniformity” that Uno critically points out in the previous chapter. Rather, it refers to aspects of production such as “stability,” “manageability,” and “plannability.” It emphasizes the positive aspect of having a “House”-like environment where order and control are secured, which serves as a foundation allowing one to embrace “Garden”-like contingency within it and immerse oneself in creative activities.

Every time I open a project file, I feel as if I have returned to this digital “House.” The act of meticulously managing everything—track structure, arrangement, MIDI input, mixing balance, effect application, automation—and attempting to construct an intended sonic space is reminiscent of working silently and concentratedly on a creation within a familiar home. The process of minutely designing controllable areas and building the skeleton of a work is the very process of rigorous creation.

And I am made aware that within this DAW project, the element of the “Garden” is also deeply breathing at the same time. For example, this includes unexpected combinations of sounds that the composer did not intend or introduced contingently, the unpredictable effects of trying a plugin for the first time, and even the randomize function of a synthesizer, or simply operational errors and a chain of coincidences.

It is often the case that these uncertain and contingent elements give rise to new sonic elements that go beyond the plan. The feedback noise that occurs when creating a complex effects chain, or the unintended harmonic overtones born from layering multiple sound sources, partially deviate from the author’s control and can bring unexpected depth and breadth to a work.

Uno cites “contingency that transcends human speculation and thought” and nature as a “moving source of random numbers” as characteristics of the “garden.” It seems to me that these resonate with the “encounter and co-creation with unexpected sounds produced by a DAW.”

In other words, it is possible to view rich digital creation not necessarily as something born from absolute control, but as something that emerges from nurturing a “Garden” that allows for the “life” of contingent sounds and creative “growth” within a structured “House.”

And could it not be said that a composer’s skill lies not merely in technical proficiency, but in the ability to recognize the contingent “gifts” born from the digital “Garden” and to integrate them into the work? I believe this can be expressed as “a kind of aesthetics of chance” and “a co-participation and witnessing of creation as becoming.”

To use Uno’s metaphor, perhaps the act of creation is about witnessing the “process by which a work shapes itself” along with the sounds that are born by chance.

Platform Society and DAW Music: The Dilemma of Approval-Seeking and Creativity

So far, I have considered the dual aspects of the “House” and “Garden” that a DAW possesses. Next, I will delve into the challenges that music production using a DAW faces in contemporary platform society.

In the modern era, the primary venues for releasing music produced with a DAW are music platforms like YouTube, SoundCloud, Bandcamp, Spotify, and social media. Metrics such as “likes,” play counts, comments, shares, and follower counts are visualized as the “evaluation” of a work, and it cannot be denied that composers themselves tend to seek “approval” through these.

As Uno points out, this “exchange of approval” carries the risk of losing sight of the original purpose of creation and making “conquering” the platform’s algorithms and trends the objective. The temptation to jump on existing hot topics or to lean toward musical styles that easily gain approval in order to get more “likes” or plays is no exception for composers working with DAWs, and this situation has the potential to cause the “objectification” and “uniformity” of creation.

Uno’s analysis of the “defeat of fiction”—where the “author’s real-life story” and “empathy” are valued more than the content of the work itself, and the 21st century has become an era obsessed with broadcasting one’s “own story”—overlaps with the communication challenges faced by DAW composers.

In modern times, it is considered that there is a tendency not only to release music but also to broadcast the “author’s story” on social media—their production process, sources of inspiration, lifestyle, personal struggles, and successes. For example, it is not uncommon for vlogs of the production process or personal episodes behind a song to attract more attention than the work itself.

However, as Uno points out, if “most people do not have a story of their own worth broadcasting, yet there is a sad human habit of finding it more enjoyable to talk about oneself,” they may gradually come to repeat superficial broadcasts that easily gain approval. This carries the risk of deviating from the original creative activity and leading to a great deal of energy being spent on self-production.

This situation can rob composers of the vital energy and concentration that should be devoted to the deep “production” they ought to pursue—that is, engaging with and exploring sound itself. As a result, there is a risk of transforming into a new form of “approval game,” where the composer themselves becomes a “product,” and music becomes merely a background or a tool to highlight that “product,” rather than an essential creative expression.

“Solitary” Production and Connection to “Community”: The Role and Challenges of Music Production Communities

Based on the challenges of platform society discussed above, I will next consider the importance of “solitude” in composition and its relationship with online communities.

Uno believes that to escape the dominance of platforms, “communication with things” external to the game of mutual evaluation is necessary, and for that, he preaches the importance of “making humans correctly solitary.” In other words, in our modern age of constant connection, one must first become solitary to directly engage with things.

Music production using a DAW often takes place in the personal space of a home studio. It is this very environment that makes it possible to engage with sound in a “solitary” situation, detached from the evaluations and gazes of others, and to immerse oneself introspectively in composition. For example, the time spent alone with a DAW late at night is truly a sanctuary isolated from the outside world and a precious time for dialogue with one’s inner self.

Could not this “solitude” be the foundation for the “society where one can live humanly, freed from the exchange of approval and from dependence on social evaluation” that Uno proposes? I believe that the “Garden” for delving into one’s fundamental questions and discovering unique themes, without being buried in superficial topics, is nurtured within such “solitude.”

DAW composers can receive feedback on their work, exchange information, maintain motivation, and collaborate through online communities (e.g., forums, Discord servers, social media groups, etc.). These communities have positive aspects, functioning as a loose, goal-oriented “community,” not just the negative aspects of “community” that Uno criticizes (exchange of approval, uniformity, peer pressure). They are beneficial in that they complement individual “solitary” production activities and provide a place for learning and stimulation.

However, since these online communities also exist on platforms, they constantly carry the risk of falling into the game of seeking approval. While communities offer valuable support and connections, they have an inherent vulnerability of easily falling into the “approval game” and “mutual evaluation” that Uno criticizes. The desire for feedback can easily transform into a pursuit of “likes” and ratings within the community, potentially undermining the “necessary solitude” required for essential creation.

The “inconveniences” of a community (peer pressure, oversensitivity to criticism, fixation of evaluation standards within the group) can resurface even in a “loose” online environment, potentially hindering a composer’s ability to pursue “fundamental questions” or engage with “things themselves.”

The balance in the relationship between the community and the DAW composer is very delicate. If the relationship with the community is too strong, solitude is eroded; if it is too weak, it leads to isolation. For a DAW composer, navigating this tension between the “solitude” necessary for deep, essential creation and the “community” for growth and sharing is an extremely important challenge.

Under these circumstances, I believe that by using Uno’s concept of the “garden,” it is possible to derive a very important “framework” for DAW composers to benefit from a “shared digital environment (digital commons)” without losing their own creativity.

That “framework” is not limited to the act of simply incorporating contingent sounds into a work. This “framework” complexly includes a way of thinking to secure “solitude” that protects oneself from external evaluations and information overload, a principle of action for “co-creation” that utilizes uncontrollable contingent elements as a source of creation, and a spiritual attitude of “dialogue with things” that deeply engages with and explores sound itself.

In other words, this framework can serve as a comprehensive guideline for DAW composers in the AI era to not lose sight of the essence of their creativity and to continue producing truly rich music.

And at the center of that framework is the idea of “nurturing one’s inner ‘Garden’.”

“One’s inner ‘Garden'” refers to a “spiritual and practical sanctuary” where the composer can directly dialogue with and explore the object of creation itself—sound, or “music”—without being excessively caught up in external evaluations or peer pressure from the community.

This is the process of accepting the contingent encounters with unexpected sounds produced by the tool that is the DAW and incorporating them into one’s own creation. This contingent encounter itself becomes a concrete element of the “Garden.” At the same time, at the root of this practice is the philosophy of respecting contingency that transcends human speculation, which is none other than internalizing the “Garden as an abstract concept.”

Therefore, DAW composers will be required to make the effort to consciously cultivate their inner “garden” while enjoying the diversity of the broader digital space, and thus continue to foster essential creative activities that are not swayed by external temptations.

The Creative and Theoretical Significance of “A Story of a Garden” for DAW Composers and the Future

So far, we have looked at how the concept of the “garden” in “A Story of a Garden” relates to DAW music production, and the relationship with approval-seeking and “solitude” in platform society. Next, based on these considerations, we will look at the creative and theoretical significance of DAW music production in the AI era and its future.

Uno argues that, in response to Koichiro Kokubun’s advocacy of “squandering” over “consumption” in “The Ethics of Leisure and Boredom,” one should “immerse oneself in production” in response to “evaluation and approval.” This can be seen as a warning against the tendency of people in modern information society to waste time on information consumption and gaining approval.

Music production using a DAW is a typical example of this act of “immersing oneself in production.” It is a creative process that produces a concrete “work,” different from mere consumption (listening to music) or squandering (aimless time-killing). DAW composers enter a deep state of immersion (flow state) as they obsess over the details of sound and go through trial and error. This feeling of “continuing because I like it, even without evaluation” is a powerful intrinsic motivation that arises directly from the concrete, problem-solving nature of DAW music production.

In recent years, the rise of AI composition tools has accelerated the democratization of music production, making it possible to create music to some extent even without technical skills. AI has the potential to support composition ideas, arrangement, and mixing, and to reduce production costs (save resources). This is expected to make it easier for more artists to enter music production, and it is actually beginning to happen.

However, since AI produces output by applying typical processing based on training data, there is a fear that originality may be lacking, and it has been pointed out that it cannot grasp the author’s detailed intentions and nuances. Also, there is a possibility that the generated music may resemble existing songs, and copyright issues are also complex.

Against this background, there is a future prediction by experts that goes as follows: in a future where AI becomes widespread, “new musicality and possibilities unique to humans that AI cannot produce” will be re-evaluated more than ever. Given the nature of AI to output statistically plausible answers, it is a natural direction that it will become important for humans to add musical context and individuality.

Uno’s concept of the “garden” is very important when considering human-specific creativity in the AI era. As Uno defines the “garden” as “a place that cannot be controlled,” “a place for encountering contingency,” and “a place for regaining communication with things themselves,” it is thought that an attitude of actively incorporating unpredictable and organic “discrepancies” and “noise,” which are not the “statistically correct answers” or “typical patterns” generated by AI, is what will make “symbiosis in the garden” between humans and AI possible.

AI tools can provide “materials” and “natural growth” in the digital “garden.” AI functions as a “moving source of random numbers” that efficiently generates diverse materials and variations. In contrast, the human composer will take on the role of “gardening” this output from AI, much like the concept of “Tashizen gardening” proposed by Uno.

Specifically, this means not just passively accepting the generated materials, but selecting and refining them, and intentionally introducing “imperfections,” “deviations,” or the composer’s own unique artistic interpretations that AI alone cannot devise, thereby adding unique value to the work.

The process of a human “gardening” AI’s creations highlights the importance of “musical value” that can only be born from human-specific creativity and sensibility. This is a domain that cannot be captured by the “correct answers” or “typical patterns” presented by AI.

When photography first appeared in the world, painting was freed from its role of “faithful depiction of reality,” and as a result, the value of the painter’s inner world and expression itself increased. Similarly, the evolution of AI will likely highlight the importance of “human-specific sensibility” and “intentional discrepancies” in music.

In other words, the more efficient “correct answers” AI produces, the more they will be utilized as a “catalyst” for the deeper and newer evaluation of elements such as “imperfection” and “unpredictable beauty” created by humans.

This redefines human creativity in the AI era. DAW composers are required to have an attitude of actively accepting the “chaos” and “unpredictability” that AI is not good at. And they must make this attitude the core of the “creative process of the garden,” which accepts the spirit of inquiry welling up from within themselves and the contingency of the environment.

By doing so, DAW music production in the AI era should be guaranteed to remain an art form that is not just an efficient output, but one that is constantly driven and evolving through human intention and contingency.

To the Future of DAW Music Production: The Creativity Guided by the “Garden” Philosophy

Through the discussion so far, we have seen how Tsunehiro Uno’s “A Story of a Garden” brings interesting insights into the practice of music production using a DAW, and the position of DAW composers in contemporary platform society. Finally, I would like to summarize the content so far and derive guidelines for how DAW composers can nurture their creativity in the AI era and carve out its future.

“A Story of a Garden” offers deep insights and concrete clues for solutions to the multifaceted challenges faced by DAW composers in modern society, especially the “inflation of the desire for approval” by platforms and the accompanying “uniformity of creation.” The metaphor of the “garden,” which is the core of this book, allows us to delineate a desirable environment for creative activities in the digital space and a creative stance that composers can choose.

The perspective that the DAW production environment itself, while having an aspect as a “House” that the composer meticulously designs and controls, can also become a “Garden” that allows for unpredictable “contingency” and “collaboration with the non-human” brings new meaning and value to creative activities in the digital space. This duality should make it possible to breathe unexpected “life” into a planned structure and to promote the creative “growth” of composers in the digital environment.

The concepts of the “garden,” such as “the joy of being immersed in production,” “securing correct solitude,” “collaboration with the non-human,” and “acceptance of contingency,” will be indispensable guidelines for nurturing essential creativity in digital-era music production.

These concepts function as metaphors for distancing oneself from the standardized information environment and approval games of platforms and for regaining direct communication with things themselves, with sound itself. And this approach leads to an attitude of thinking and expressing oneself outside the “game of mutual evaluation” and “attention economy” on social media.

This concept of the “garden,” in an era where technological evolution is accelerating and AI is deeply entering the realm of creation, makes us recognize anew the importance of human-specific creativity, namely, the attitude of pursuing “encounters with the unintended” and “coexistence with the uncontrollable.” In other words, truly rich creativity is nurtured not only in the “House,” but in the “Garden” full of contingency and diversity.

DAW composers should find their horizons expanded by viewing their production environment not just as an efficiency tool, but as a “garden” for practicing “Tashizen gardening.” This means an attitude of accepting various digital elements (plugins, samples, algorithms) as a “moving source of random numbers” and nurturing the ecosystem of sound they weave. It is important to re-recognize the value of not being overly caught up in the pursuit of broadcasting and evaluation on platforms, but of sincerely engaging with sound and “immersing oneself in production” in the “solitary” space of a home studio.

And what will be required of DAW composers from now on is to continue to create by “gardening” a unique “garden,” by actively incorporating new technologies like AI as a “moving source of random numbers” that stimulates creativity, while weaving into the music the “discrepancies,” “noise,” and “narratives” unique to humans that AI cannot produce.

And “A Story of a Garden” seems to be telling us that true creativity exists outside the approval of others, and that it is nurtured by continuing to cultivate one’s own “garden.”