Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-18T23:50:25.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards Unified Design Guidelines for New Interfaces for Musical Expression

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2009

Garth Paine
Garth Paine*
Affiliation:
School of Communication Arts, University of Western Sydney, Australia
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of a laptop computer for musical performance has become widespread in the electronic music community. It brings with it many issues pertaining to the communication of musical intent. Critics argue that performances of this nature fail to engage audiences because many performers use the mouse and/or computer keyboard to control their musical works, leaving no visual cues to guide the audience as to the correlation between performance gestures and musical outcomes. The author will argue that interfaces need to communicate something of their task and that cognitive affordances (Gibson 1979) associated with the performance interface become paramount if the musical outcomes are to be perceived as clearly tied to real-time performance gestures – in other words, that the audience are witnessing the creation of the music in that moment as distinct to the manipulation of pre-recorded or pre-sequenced events. Interfaces of his kind lend themselves particularly to electroacoustic and computer music performance where timbre, texture and morphology may be paramount.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , August 2009 , pp. 142 - 155
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

Atherton, M. 2006. At the Edge of what Comes Next: ‘Comprovised’ Meaningfulness in Jiriyai, a New Work for Percussionist and Dancer. In B. Crossman, S. Macarthur and R. Morelos (eds.) Intercultural Music: Creation and Interpretation. Sydney: Australian Music Centre, 83–89.Google Scholar
Bencina, R. 2003. Audiomulch: Interactive Music Studio. obtained online: http://www.audiomulch.com (accessed 26 June 2008).Google Scholar
Bencina, R. 2005. The Metasurface – Applying Natural Neighbour Interpolation to TwotoMany. Paper presented at the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME-05), Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
Borgo, D. 2005. Sync or Swarm: Improvising Music In A Complex Age. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Carlsen, P. 1988. The Player-piano Music of Conlon Nancarrow: An Analysis of Selected Studies. ISAM monographs, no. 26. Brooklyn, NY: Institute for Studies in American Music, Conservatory of Music, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York.Google Scholar
Chadabe, J. 1997. Electric Sound: The Past and Promise of Electronic Music. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Chapman, F. B. 1973. Flute Technique (4th ed.). London, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. W. 1997. The Social in Musical Performance. In D. Hargreaves and A. North (eds.) The Social Psychology of Music. New York: Oxford University Presspp. 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A. 2008. Everything but the Kitchen SynC… . Obtained online: http://www.resonatemagazine.com.au/article/everything-but-the-kitchen-syn-c.html (accessed 21 October 2008).Google Scholar
Duckworth, W. 1999. Talking Music: Conversations with John Cage, Philip Glass, Laurie Anderson, and Five Generations of American Experimental Composers. New York: Da Capo Press.Google Scholar
Emmerson, S. 1996. Local/Field: Towards A Typology Of Live Electronic Music. Journal of Electroacoustic Music 9: 10–12.Google Scholar
Gann, K. 1995. Music in the Twentieth Century series. The Music of Conlon Nancarrow. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Godlovitch, S. 1998. Musical Performance: A Philosophical Study. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gurevich, M. Treviño, J. 2007. Expression and Its Discontents: Toward an Ecology of Musical Creation. Paper presented at the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME-07), New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
INA-GRM and Favreau, F. 2008. GRM Tools. Obtained online: http://www.grmtools.org/index.html (accessed 21 October 2008).Google Scholar
Kincaid, W. Polin, C. C. J. 1967. The Art and Practice of Modern Flute Technique. New York: MCA Music.Google Scholar
Larkin, O. 2007. INT.LIB – A Graphical Preset Interpolator For Max Msp. Paper presented at the International Computer Music Conference, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Morris, B. 1987. The New York Comprovisation. Obtained online: http://www.archive.org/details/MC_ButchMorris (accessed 21 October 2008).Google Scholar
Morris, G. 1991. Flute Technique. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulder, A. 1989. Design of Virtual Three-dimensional Instruments for Sound Control. Unpublished PhD, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. 1990. The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. 2004. Emotional Design. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ortiz Pérez, M. A., Knapp, B. Alcorn, M. 2007. Díamair: Composing for Choir and Integral Music Controller. Paper presented at the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME-07), New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paine, G. 2002. Interactivity, Where To from Here? Organised Sound 7(3): 295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paine, G. 2004. Gesture and Musical Interaction: Interactive Engagement through Dynamic Morphology. Paper presented at the New Interfaces for Musical Expression, 2004, Hamamatsu.Google Scholar
Paine, G. 2006. Interactive, Responsive Environments: A Broader Artistic Context. In Engineering Nature: Art & Consciousness in the Post-biological Era. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Intellect LTD, 312–334.Google Scholar
Paine, G. 2007a. Interfacing for Dynamic Morphology in Computer Music Performance. Paper presented at the International Conference on Music Communication Science (ICOMCS), Sydney.Google Scholar
Paine, G. 2007b. Sonic Immersion: Interactive Engagement in Real-Time Immersive Environments. SCAN Journal of Media Arts and Culture 4 (1) http://scan.net.au/scan/journal/display.php?journal_id=90 (accessed 20 April 2009).Google Scholar
Paine, G. Atherton, M. 2006. Parallel Lines (musical composition). Tucson, Arizona: Celestial Harmonies.Google Scholar
Paine, G., Stevenson, I. Pearce, A. 2007. The Thummer Mapping Project (ThuMP). Paper presented at the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME-07), New York City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pressing, J. 1990. Cybernetic Issues in Interactive Performance Systems. Computer Music Journal 14(1): 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. 2005. Composing Potentials: Gail Priest talks with Garth Paine. Realtime 67: 12.Google Scholar
Quantz, J. J. Reilly, E. R. 1975. On Playing the Flute. New York: Schirmer Books.Google Scholar
Roads, C. (ed.) 1996. The Computer Music Tutorial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Scaletti, C. 2004. Kyma X Revealed: Secrets of the Kyma Sound Design Language. Champaign, IL: Symbolic Sound.Google Scholar
Schwartz, E. Godfrey, D. 1993. Music since 1945: Issues, Materials, and Literature. New York: Schirmer, Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
Smith, D. A. 2007. Leximancer. Obtained online: http://www.leximancer.com/cms (accessed 21 October 2008).Google Scholar
Wishart, T. 1996. On Sonic Art. Philadelphia, PA: Harwood.CrossRefGoogle Scholar