Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T02:42:18.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Musical Interface Technology Design Space

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2009

Dan Overholt
Dan Overholt*
Affiliation:
Aalborg University, Department of Media Technology, Section for Medialogy, Niels Jernes Vej 14, DK-9220 Aalborg, Denmark
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents a theoretical framework for the design of expressive musical instruments, the Musical Interface Technology Design Space: MITDS. The activities of imagining, designing and building new musical instruments, performing, composing, and improvising with them, and analysing the whole process in an effort to better understand the interface, our physical and cognitive associations with it, and the relationship between performer, instrument and audience can only be seen as an ongoing iterative work-in-progress. It is long-term evolutionary research, as each generation of a new musical instrument requires inventiveness and years of dedication towards the practice and mastery of its performance system (comprising the interface, synthesis and the mappings between them). Many revisions of the system may be required in order to develop musical interface technologies that enable us to achieve truly expressive performances. The MITDS provides a conceptual framework for describing, analysing, designing and extending the interfaces, mappings, synthesis algorithms and performance techniques for interactive musical instruments. It provides designers with a theoretical base to draw upon when creating technologically advanced performance systems, and can be seen as a set of guidelines for analysis, and a taxonomy of design patterns for interactivity in musical instruments. The MITDS focuses mainly on human-centred design approaches to realtime control of the multidimensional parameter spaces in musical composition and performance, where the primary objective is to close the gap between human gestures and complex synthesis methods.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , August 2009 , pp. 217 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Birnbaum, D., Fiebrink, R., Malloch, J. Wanderley, M. 2005. Towards a Dimension Space for Musical Artifacts. 2005 Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME–05). Vancouver, Canada, 192–5.Google Scholar
Cadoz, C. 1988. Instrumental Gesture and Musical Composition. Proceedings of the 1988 International Computer Music Conference. San Francisco, International Computer Music Association, 1–12.Google Scholar
Cadoz, C. 1994. Le geste canal de communication homme-machine. La communication ‘instrumentale’. Sciences Informatiques, numéro spécial: Interface homme-machine 13(1): 31–61.Google Scholar
Carse, J. 1986. Finite and Infinite Games. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Collins, N. 2003. Generative Music and Laptop Performance. Contemporary Music Review 22(4): 67–79.Google Scholar
Cook, P. R. 2001. Principles for Designing Computer Music Controllers. Proceedings of the 2001 Workshop on New Interfaces for Musical Expression, CHI, 2001. Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Crawford, C. 2002. The Art of Interactive Design. San Francisco: No Starch Press.Google Scholar
Dobrian, C. 1992. Music and Language. Available online at: http://music.arts.uci.edu/dobrian/CD.music.lang.htm.Google Scholar
Fitts, P. M. 1954. The Information Capacity of the Human Motor System in Controlling the Amplitude of Movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology 47: 381–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghazala, R. 2005. Circuit-Bending: Build Your Own Alien Instruments. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Godøy, R. I. 2001. Imagined Action, Excitation, and Resonance. In R. I. Godøy and H. Jørgensen (eds.) Musical Imagery. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Grey, J. M. 1975. An Exploration of Musical Timbre. PhD dissertation, Stanford University. CCRMA Report STAN-M–2.Google Scholar
Guiard, Y. 1987. Asymmetric Division of Labor in Human Skilled Bimanual Action: The Kinematic Chain as a Model. Journal of Motor Behavior 19: 486–517.Google Scholar
Jaffe, D. A. 1995. Ten Criteria for Evaluating Synthesis and Processing Techniques. Computer Music Journal 19(1): 76–87.Google Scholar
Kessous, L. Arfib, D. 2003. Bimanuality in Alternate Musical Instruments. Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME–03), Montreal, 140–5.Google Scholar
Menzies, D. 1998. New Performance Instruments for Electroacoustic Music. PhD dissertation, University of York.Google Scholar
Mithen, S. 2006. The Singing Neanderthals: The Origins of Music, Language, Mind and Body. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.Google Scholar
Nachmanovitch, S. 1990. Free Play: Improvisation in Life and Art. New York: JP Tarcher, Inc.Google Scholar
Nies, J. 1999. The Art of Circuit Bending. Available on-line at: http://www.klangbureau.de/cb_E.html.Google Scholar
Oore, S. 2005. Learning Advanced Skills on New Instruments. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME–05).Google Scholar
Overholt, D. 2000. The Emonator: A Novel Musical Interface. MS thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Overholt, D. 2005. The Overtone Violin. Proceedings of the New Interfaces for Musical Expression Conference, 2005.Google Scholar
Overholt, D. 2006. Musical Interaction Design with the CREATE USB Interface: Teaching HCI with CUIs instead of GUIs, Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference. New Orleans, LA, 6–11 November.Google Scholar
Overholt, D. 2007. Musical Interface Technology: Multimodal Control of Multidimensional Parameter Spaces for Electroacoustic Music Performance. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Overholt, D., Bell, B., Kleban, J., Putnam, L., Thompson, J. Kuchera-Morin, J. 2007. The Multimodal Music Stand. Proceedings of the New Interface for Musical Expression Conference, 2007.Google Scholar
Piringer, J. 2001. Elektronische Musik und Interaktivität: Prinzipien, Konzepte, Anwendungen. PhD thesis, Institut für Gestaltungs- und Wirkungsforschung der Technischen Universität Wien.Google Scholar
Pressing, J. 1990. Cybernetic Issues in Interactive Performance Systems. Computer Music Journal 14(1): 12–25.Google Scholar
Ryan, J. 1991. Some Remarks on Musical Instrument Design at STEIM. Contemporary Music Review 6(1): 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subotnick, M. 2007. Personal communication.Google Scholar
Wanderley, M. M. Orio, N. 2002. Evaluation of Input Devices for Musical Expression: Borrowing Tools from HCI. Computer Music Journal 26(3): 62–76.Google Scholar
Wessel, D. 1979. Timbre Space as a Musical Control Structure. Computer Music Journal 3(2): 45–72. Reprinted in C. Roads and J. Strawn (eds.) Foundations of Computer Music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985, 640–57.Google Scholar
Wessel, D., Wright, M. Schott, J. 2002. Intimate Musical Control of Computers with a Variety of Controllers and Gesture Mapping Metaphors. Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME 2002), Dublin, 171–3.Google Scholar

Overholt violin movie

Overholt violin movie

Download Overholt violin movie(Video)
Video 32.4 MB