Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:11:02.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The groove in the box: a technologically mediated inspiration in electronic dance music

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2009

AKSEL H. TJORA
AKSEL H. TJORA
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Even though electronic and computer-based technologies are commonly used in music composition, performance and recording, this field of technology use has, with a few exceptions, remained fairly unexplored within social studies of technology. In this article, the role of technology in music production is investigated by applying the notion of script (Akrich 1992) to an empirical study of users of the Roland MC303 Groovebox, a self-contained instrument for making techno, rap, jungle, hip-hop, acid and other styles of electronic (dance) music. The study focuses especially on individual differences between users' perceptions of the musical-stylistic directedness of the Groovebox and how they construct different user scripts and more advanced needs as they become more familiar with the instrument. The latter observation highlights the relevance of a user trajectory, the notion that enthusiast technology users may keep on using a specific technological artefact through various usage modes or scripts over time.

Type
Articles
Information
Popular Music , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , May 2009 , pp. 161 - 177
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

Akrich, M. 1992. ‘The de-scription of technical objects’ in Shaping Technology – Building Society, ed. Bijker, W. and Law, J. (Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press)Google Scholar
Austin, L., and Clark, T. 1989. Learning to Compose (Dubuque, IA, Wm. C. Brown Publishers)Google Scholar
Bamberger, J. 2003. ‘The development of intuitive musical understanding: a natural experiment’, Psychology of Music, 31/1, pp. 7–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berk, M. 2000. ‘Technology: analog fetishes and digital futures’, in Modulations: A History of Electronic Music: Throbbing Words on Sound, ed. Shapiro, P. (New York, Caipirinha Productions Inc), pp. 188–201Google Scholar
Braun, H.-J. (ed.) 2002. Music and Technology in the Twentieth Century (Baltimore, MA, Johns Hopkins University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brech, M. 2002. ‘New technology – new artistic genres: changes in the concept and aesthetics of music’, in Music and Technology in the Twentieth Century, ed. Braun, H.-J. (Baltimore, MA, Johns Hopkins University Press), pp. 207–222Google Scholar
Bruner, G. and Kumar, A. 2007. ‘Gadget lovers’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35/3, pp. 329–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, M. 2000. Sounding Out the City: Personal Stereos and the Management of Everyday Life (Oxford, Berg)Google Scholar
Cook, P. 2001. ‘Principles for designing computer music controllers’, paper presented at CHI'01 New Interfaces for Musical Expression Workshop (NIME'01), 1–2 April, Seattle, USA, http://www.csl.sony.co.jp/~poup/research/chi2000wshp/, accessed 17 November 2003Google Scholar
Cope, D. 1991. Computers and Musical Style (WI, Madison, A-R Editions)Google Scholar
Den Tandt, C. 2004. ‘From craft to corporate interfacing: rock musicianship in the age of music television and computer-programmed music’, Popular Music and Society, 27/2, pp. 139–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodge, C. and Jerse, T. 1985. Computer Music: Synthesis, Composition, and Performance (New York, Schirmer Books)Google Scholar
Dosi, G. 1982. ‘Technological paradigms and technological trajectories’, Research Policy, 11, pp. 147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durant, A. 1990. ‘A new day for music? Digital technologies in contemporary music-making’, in Culture, Technology & Creativity in the Late Twentieth Century, ed. Hayward, P. (London, John Libbey), pp. 175–196Google Scholar
Feenberg, A. 1999. Questioning Technology (London, Routledge)Google Scholar
Gibson, J.J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Perception (London, Houghton Mifflin)Google Scholar
Gilbert, J. and Pearson, E. 1999. Discographies: Dance Music, Culture and The Politics Of Sound (London, Routledge)Google Scholar
Gitelman, L. 1999. Scripts, Grooves, and Writing Machines: Representing Technology in the Edison Era (Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press)Google Scholar
Gjøen, H. and Hård, M. 2002. ‘Cultural politics in action: developing user scripts in relation to the electric vehicle’, Science, Technology & Human Values, 27/2, pp. 262–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, I. 2001. ‘Technologies, texts and affordances’, Sociology, 35/2, pp. 441–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordà, S. 2002. ‘FMOL: toward user-friendly, sophisticated new musical instruments’, Computer Music Journal, 26/3, pp. 23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. 1992. ‘Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artefacts’, in Shaping Technology – Building Society, ed. Bijker, W. and Law, J. (Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press), pp. 225–258Google Scholar
Lie, M. and Sørensen, K. 1996. ‘Making technology our own’, in Making Technology Our Own: Domesticating Technology into Everyday Life, ed. Sørensen, K. and Lie, M. (Oslo, Scandinavian University Press), pp. 1–30Google Scholar
Lindsey, C. 2003. ‘From the shadows: users as designers, producers, marketers, distributors, and technical support’, in How Users Matter. The Co-Construction of Users and Technology, ed. Oudshoorn, N. and Pinch, T. (Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press), pp. 29–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loy, G. 1989. ‘Composing with computers – a survey of some compositional formalisms and music programming languages’, in Current Directions in Computer Music Research, ed. Mathews, M. and Pierce, J. (Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press), pp. 292–396Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. and Wajcman, J. (eds.) 1999. The Social Shaping of Technology (Buckingham, Open University Press)Google Scholar
Mann, C. 2003. ‘Generating data online: ethical concerns and challenges for the C21 researcher’, in Applied Ethics in Internet Research, ed. Thorseth, M. (Trondheim, Norwegian University of Science and Technology), pp. 31–49Google Scholar
Mann, C. and Stewart, F. 2000. Internet Communication and Qualitative Research (London, Sage Publications)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, P. 2004. Rhythm Science (Cambridge MA, The MIT Press)Google Scholar
Moore, F. 1990. Elements of Computer Music (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall)Google Scholar
Norman, D. 1990. The Design of Everyday Things (New York, Doubleday)Google Scholar
Oudshoorn, N. and Pinch, T. (eds.) 2003. How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technology (Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paccagnella, L. 1997. ‘Getting the seat of your pants dirty: strategies for ethnographic research on virtual communities’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication [Online], 3/1Google Scholar
Pinch, T. 2003. ‘Giving birth to new users: how the Minimoog was sold to rock and roll’, in How Users Matter. The Co-Construction of Users and Technology, ed. Oudshoorn, N. and Pinch, T. (Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press), pp. 247–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinch, T. and Bijker, W. 1987. ‘The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other’, in The Social Construction of Technological Systems, ed. Bijker, W., Hughes, T. and Pinch, T. (Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press), pp. 17–51Google Scholar
Pinch, T. and Bijsterveld, K. 2003. ‘“Should one applaud?” Breaches and boundaries in the reception of new technology in music’, Technology and Culture, 44, pp. 536–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinch, T. and Bijsterveld, K. 2004. ‘Sound studies: new technologies and music’, Social Studies of Science, 34, pp. 635–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinch, T. and Trocco, F. 2002. Analog Days: The Invention and Impact of the Moog Synthesizer (Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press)Google Scholar
Prendergast, M. 2003. The Ambient Century. From Mahler to Moby – The Evolution of Sound in the ElectronicAge (London, Bloomsbury)Google Scholar
Roads, C. 1985. ‘Introduction’, in Composers and the Computer, ed. Roads, C. (Los Altos, CA, William Kaufmann), pp. xi–xxiGoogle Scholar
Robson, D. 2002. ‘PLAY!: sound toys for non-musicians’, Computer Music Journal, 26/3, pp. 50–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, R. 2001. Machine Musicianship (Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press)Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B. 1991. The Portable Radio in American Life (Tucson, AZ, The University of Arizona Press)Google Scholar
Schottstaedt, W. 1989. ‘Automatic counterpoint’, in Current Directions in Computer Music Research, ed. Mathews, M. and Pierce, J. (Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press), pp. 199–213Google Scholar
Shapiro, P. (ed.) 2000. Modulations. A History of Electronic Music: Throbbing Words on Sound (New York, Caipirinha Productions Inc)Google Scholar
Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E., and Morley, D. 1992. ‘Information and communication technologies and the moral economy of the household’, in Consuming Technologies. Media and Information in Domestic Spaces, ed. Silverstone, R. and Hirsch, E. (London, Routledge)Google Scholar
Small, C. 1996. Music, Society, Education (Middletown, CT, Wesleyan University Press)Google Scholar
Sterne, J. 2003. The Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound Reproduction (Durham, NC, Duke University Press)Google Scholar
Taylor, T. 2001. Strange Sounds. Music, Technology & Culture (New York, Routledge)Google Scholar
Théberge, P. 1997. Any Sound You Can Imagine: Making Music/Consuming Technology (Middletown, CT, Wesleyan University Press)Google Scholar
Thompson, E. 2002. The Soundscape of Modernity. Architectural Acoustics and the Culture of Listening in America, 1900–1933 (Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press)Google Scholar
Thrall, C.A. 1982. ‘The conservative use of modern household technology’, Technology and Culture, 23/2, pp. 175–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waksman, S. 2004. ‘California noise: tinkering with hardcore and heavy metal in Southern California’, Social Studies of Science, 34, pp. 675–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolgar, S. 1991. ‘Configuring the user: the case of usability trials’, in A Sociology of Monsters. Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, ed. Law, J. (London, Routledge), pp. 58–99Google Scholar