2001: Principles for Designing Computer Music Controllers

Perry Cook

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47214-0_1

A NIME Reader pp 1-13 | Cite as

2001: Principles for Designing Computer Music Controllers

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Perry CookEmail author

Chapter

First Online: 07 March 2017

426 Downloads

Part of the Current Research in Systematic Musicology book series (CRSM, volume 3)

Abstract

This paper will present observations on the design, artistic, and human factors of creating digital music controllers. Specific projects will be presented, and a set of design principles will be supported from those examples.

Keywords

Tilt Sensor Stringed Instrument Interval Research Expression Project Vocal Model

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Specific thanks to Dexter Morrill, Dan Trueman, Bob Adams, and Colby Leider. General thanks to all those at CCRMA, Princeton, and Interval Research for wonderful collaborations. This work was funded by CCRMA and the CCRMA Industrial Affiliates Program, Interval Research, Intel, and the Arial Foundation.

Author Commentary: NIME: 15 years Later. Wow!

Perry Cook

What a run it’s been. I could never have imagined that this paper might become one of my most cited and downloaded publications, but I guess it makes sense for a variety of reasons. Here I ponder some of those reasons, and give some thoughts on the time since.

First, it was the very first NIME, actually the ACM/CHI workshop, before the NIME organization and conference itself began running autonomous from ACM CHI. So the network effect of being one of the first papers helps a lot.

I won’t pretend that the information in this paper was particularly sage or epic by any means, but it did provide a good introductory reader and reference for a new curriculum area just getting started in music tech programs around the world. Long before NIME (5 or 10 years or more before) there were courses like Dan O’Sullivan’s Physical Computing course at ITP/NYU, and some other HCI Technology courses (like the multi-university San Jose State + CCRMA + Princeton + others course that Knapp and Duda (1995) got started with many of us back in 1996). But with the birth of NIME, courses like this could be re-focussed on music (the true goal for many of us all along), so having a NIME course made sense for many music technology and digital arts curricula.

This paper came before a lot of other cool things that happened in my academic and artistic life. Most of the experiences that brought about my 2001 list of NIME Principles came from working with NIME builders: at CCRMA, and with DanO, Bob Adams, Michael Brook, Geoff Smith, Dan Levitin, Bill Verplank, and others at Interval Research (Levitin et al. 2002), and Ben Knapp and others on our own HCI Technology courses (Knapp and Duda 1995). Princeton and my DSP + NIME curriculum brought me Dan Trueman and BoSSA, Ge Wang and ChucK, many (hemi)spherical speakers with Dan, Scott Smallwood, Curtis Bahn, Stephan Moore and others, the Princeton Laptop Orchestra (and many other LORks), Ajay Kapur and his Karmetik Robots and Machine Orchestra, Rebecca and Wekinator, many other great students, and lots of other NIME developments.

Finally, I updated the paper subsequently with new insights, revisions, and corrections based on changing technology or a different vantage point on my part.

My NIME 2007 Keynote at NYU, titled: “Principles for Controlling Computer Music Designers,” (Cook 2007) took a look at teaching a NIME curriculum, and early lessons from the Princeton Laptop Orchestra. So I added some new principles:

15.

More can be better (but hard) (PLORk went from an initial 15 members, to 35!)
16.

Music+Science is a great teaching/marketing tool (important in academic jobs)
17.

The younger the student, the more fearless (they don’t know/care what’s hard)

My NIME 2009 paper, “Re-Designing Principles for Computer Music Controllers: a Case Study of SqueezeVox Maggie,” (Cook 2009) was about revisiting some older versions of my NIME instruments and my experiences with actually re-designing/re-building them. And of course, I changed one:

13.

(b) Funny is often much better than serious (whimsical designs are not a crime)

and added even more new principles:

18.

Redesign for backward compatibility (make sure you can play your old pieces)
19.

Design (and pack) for post-9/11 travel (document, make sure things demo easily)
20.

(a) Build a (new) copy, don’t trash the original (keep it around to compare), and (b) Build two or more if you can afford it. (one will invariably work better)
21.

Wire and document for future surgeries (labeled 20 in paper, should be 21)
22.

Build in diagnostic features and displays (labeled 21, should be 22)
23.

Construct controller proxies (functional GUIs) (labeled 22, should be 23)

So one additional (personal) principle that I would add has to do with double-checking the numbering of lists in papers and sequels. Another principle might be that we never know where a piece of work, or publication, or small workshop as an adjunct to a larger conference, might lead. The ACM/CHI New Interfaces for Musical Expression workshop turned into something bigger than any of us might have dreamed.

I’m really happy to have been a part of the NIME history (so far). All indications are that we’ve still got a lot ahead of us.

Expert Commentary: Perry Cook’s Principles Still Going Strong

Marcelo M. Wanderley

The NIME 2001 workshop was a very interesting venue. A rather active musical controllers community already existed for several years in 2001mostly active at the International Computer Music Conference (ICMC), with key papers in the area already published before the NIME workshop (including many by Perry himself. See the electronic book “Trends in Gestural Control of Music” for a state of the art in 2000).² Even so, the NIME 2001 workshop was a unique opportunity to meet researchers directly working in this area, see demos of their work at the Experience Music Project in Seattle, and discuss possible ways to organize a research community around it. Several of the papers presented in the workshop became main references in our field, with several hundred citations each: Perry’s, Wessel’s and Wright’s (2001) and Orio et al.’s (2001), the two last ones with sequels published in the 2002 Computer Music Journal special edition (vol. 26, number 3) on NIME.

It was very interesting to re-read Perry Cook’s 2001 NIME workshop paper, as well as its NIME 2009 follow up paper where he reviews the original 2001 guidelines in light of newer developments. Perry’s 2001 paper belongs to a tradition of works from builders/performers (or performer/builders) who excel in both areas. Such works have the advantage of bringing to the community lots of personal, first hand performance experience informed by a strong technical/scientific component. In this sense, it is complementary to works by designers who mostly focus on technical aspects, who nevertheless collaborate with (multiple) artists when designing their devices. The advantage of the later group is that one can (hopefully!) more easily avoid one’s own aesthetic ideas about music and art and provide a larger, albeit forcefully less coherent, set of examples from which to derive guidelines. The study of both approaches, taking into consideration their own strengths and limitations, should lead to interesting (and informed!) designs.

It is amazing to see that in almost 15 years, many (most?) of its principles and guidelines still hold true. My favorites are (#4) “Some players have spare bandwidth, some do not” (true, how true!), (#2) “Smart instruments are often not smart,” (#1) “Programmability is a curse,” and (#6) “Instant music, subtlety later.” The last one ties well to Wessel and Wright’s principle: “Low entry fee, with no ceiling on virtuosity” (Wessel and Wright 2001).

Being part of the group who focuses mostly on technical issues (an example of a great paper about design is Bongers (2000)), I am less in agreement with principle #5 (“Make a piece, not an instrument or controller”), as I have seen many interesting instruments made without a musical piece in mind, but that subsequently were extensively used musically. The case in mind is Joe Malloch’s t-Stick (Malloch and Wanderley 2007), who in collaboration with composer/performer D. Andrew Stewart, developed a device that became an established instrument used in dozens of musical pieces (check Andrew’s impressive t-stick performance videos at vimeo.com).

I also take principles #10 and #11 (“New algorithms suggest new controllers” and “New controllers suggest new algorithms”) with a grain of salt, as I believe that they underplay the idea importance of mapping (between controller outputs and algorithm inputs). Complex mapping strategies can provide tools to use a variety of algorithms with the same controller (e.g. Hunt et al. (2002)), leading to interesting instruments. Furthermore, not all instrument designers are proficient in sound design and might just want to use algorithms they are familiar with, even when using different controllers (and conversely).

Finally, other principles seem to have become less useful with time, as for instance, battery life that has dramatically improved in the last 15 years (#8), making the use of cables is less necessary in instrument design (although still useful in many occasions!) (#9). In short, this is still a very useful, inspiring paper. Perry’s direct style is excellent and the review of his previous works until then is enlightening. Some of its principles will hold for a long time (forever?) and have become basic bricks to our community.

References

Bongers, B. (2000). Physical interfaces in the electronic arts. Interaction theory and interfacing techniques for real-time performance. In M. Wanderley, & M. Battier (Eds.), Trends in Gestural Control of Music. IRCAM—Centre Pompidou, Paris.Google Scholar
Cook, P. R. (1991). Identification of control parameters in an articulatory vocal tract model, with applications to the synthesis of singing. PhD thesis, Stanford University Department of Electrical Engineering.Google Scholar
Cook, P. R. (1992a). A meta-wind-instrument physical model, and a meta-controller for real time performance control. In Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference.Google Scholar
Cook, P. R. (1992b). SPASM: A real-time vocal tract physical model editor/controller and Singer: The companion software synthesis system. Computer Music Journal, 17(1), 30–44.Google Scholar
Cook, P. R. (1993). New control strategies for the Singer articulatory voice synthesis system. In Stockholm Music Acoustics Conference.Google Scholar
Cook, P. R. (1996). Physically informed sonic modeling (PhISM): Percussive synthesis. In Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference.Google Scholar
Cook, P. R. (1997a). Physically informed sonic modeling (PhISM): Synthesis of percussive sounds. Computer Music Journal, 21(3), 38–49.Google Scholar
Cook, P. R. (1997b). “Pico I,” for seashells and interactive electronics. In International Mathematica Symposium, Rovaniemi, FinlandGoogle Scholar
Cook, P. R. (2007). Principles for controlling computer music designers. Keynote talk, NIME 2007Google Scholar
Cook, P. R. (2009). Re-designing principles for computer music controllers: A case study of SqueezeVox Maggie. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Cook, P. R., & Trueman, D. (1999a). Spherical radiation from stringed instruments: Measured, modeled, and reproduced. Journal of the Catgut Acoustical Society.Google Scholar
Cook, P. R. & Leider, C. (2000). SqueezeVox: A new controller for vocal synthesis models. In Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference.Google Scholar
Cook, P. R., Morrill, E., & Smith, J. (1993). A MIDI control and performance system for brass instruments. In Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference.Google Scholar
Goto, M. (1997). Internet RemoteGIG, concert #3. In Intercollegiate Computer Music Conference, USA/Japan.Google Scholar
Hunt, A., Wanderley, M. M., & Paradis, M. (2002). The importance of parameter mapping in electronic instrument design. Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (pp. 149–154). Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Knapp, R. B. & Duda, R. (1995). The human-computer interface. National Science Foundation Grant #9527459.Google Scholar
Levitin, D. J., McAdams, S., & Adams, R. L. (2002). Control parameters for musical instruments: A foundation for new mappings of gesture to sound. Organised Sound, 7(2),Google Scholar
Malloch, J., & Wanderley, M. M. (2007). The T-Stick: From musical interface to musical instrument. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (pp. 66–69). New York, NY.Google Scholar
Morrill, D. (1994). Works for saxophone. Compact Disc, Centaur Records CRC, 2214.Google Scholar
Morrill, D., & Cook, P. R. (1989). Hardware, software, and compositional tools for a real-time improvised solo trumpet work. In Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference.Google Scholar
Orio, N., Schnell, N., & Wanderley, M. M. (2001). Input devices for musical expression: Borrowing tools from HCI. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression. Seattle, WA: ACM SIGCHI.Google Scholar
Trueman, D., & Cook, P. R. (1999). BoSSA: The deconstructed violin reconstructed. In Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference (pp. 232–239). Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
Wessel, D., & Wright, M. (2001). Problems and prospects for intimate musical control of computers. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression. Seattle, WA: SigCHI.Google Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Perry Cook
- 1
- 2
- 3
Email author

1.Department of Computer Science (also Music)Princeton UniversityPrincetonUSA
2.Smule, Inc.San FranciscoUSA
3.Kadenze, Inc.ValenciaUSA

2001: Principles for Designing Computer Music Controllers

Abstract

Keywords

Notes

Acknowledgements

References

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter