Advertisement

What’s that Sound? Culture, Significance and Interpretation of Electronic Sound and Noise

  • Roger Mills
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series on Cultural Computing book series (SSCC)

Abstract

Electronic and acoustic sound and noise, including signal processed acoustic instruments, and autonomous IMSs (Interactive Music Systems), are key features of many online jam sessions. However, the types and qualities of sound that this introduces to an improvisation may be alien to many cross-cultural performers. This chapter explores the role of un-pitched, sound and noise, across musical cultures and how performers interpret them in intercultural tele-improvisation. Included in this examination, is how online cross-cultural performers perceive electronic sound, and the ways in which this shapes their interpretation and improvisatory responses. The investigation draws on the findings from the performance case studies and perspectives from practitioners and authors who incorporate these elements into their work. While exploratory in approach, consideration is also given to how networked performers engage with an IMS as a collaborative partner in intercultural tele-improvisatory context.

References

  1. Attali J (1985) Noise: the political economy of music (trans: Massumi B), vol 16. Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  2. Aural Archipelago (2016) Talempong Botuang—Bamboo Tube Zither of West Sumatra [Video file]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=23&v=jWuyFUvv7xQ. Accessed 14 Feb 2018
  3. Bailey D (1992) Improvisation: its nature and practice in music. Da Capo Press, Ashbourne, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  4. Bown O (2014) Empirically grounding the evaluation of creative systems: incorporating interaction design. 5th International Conference on Computational Creativity. Ljubljana, SloveniaGoogle Scholar
  5. Bown O (2015) Player responses to a live algorithm: conceptualising computational creativity without recourse to human comparisons? In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on computational creativity, Park City, UT, USA, pp 126–133Google Scholar
  6. Bown O (2018) Performer interaction and expectation with live algorithms: experiences with Zamyatin. Digit Creativity (Special Issue on Improvisational Interfaces) 29(1):37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braasch J, Oliverso P, Van Nort D (2017) “Triple Point 2008–2016.” Online http://dvntsea.com/triplepoint/Accessed 20th Oct 2018
  8. Brown N (2017) Interview with the Author/Interviewer: R. MillsGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown A (2018) Creative improvisation with a reflexive musical bot. Digital Creativity 29(1):5–18MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown AR, Gifford T, Voltz B (2013) Factors affecting audience perceptions of agency in human-computer musical partnerships. In: Proceedings of creativity and cognition 2013, UTS, Sydney, pp 296–299Google Scholar
  11. Brown N, Chudy M, Papadomanolaki M, Schroeder F, Stolfi A, Pase T, Wilkie S (2015) FLO female laptop orchestra (Official Website). https://femalelaptoporchestra.wordpress.com/. Accessed 19 Mar 2018
  12. Byrne D (2012) How music works. Cannongate, Edinburgh, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Cáceres JP, Renaud AB (2008) Playing the network: the use of time delays as musical devices. In: Proceedings of the international computer music conference, Belfast, Northern Ireland, pp 244–250Google Scholar
  14. Cage J (1973) Silence: lectures and writings. Wesleyan University Press, Hanover, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Carey B (2012) Designing for cumulative interactivity: the _derivations system. In: Proceedings of NIME12, new instruments for musical expression, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA, pp 491–494Google Scholar
  16. Chadabe J (1997) Electric sound: the past and promise of electric music. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  17. Cox C, Warner D (2004) Audio culture: readings in modern music. Continuum, New York, pp xvii, p 454Google Scholar
  18. Emmerson S (2007) Living electronic music. Ashgate, Hampshire, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. Fields K (2017) Interview with the Author/Interviewer: R. MillsGoogle Scholar
  20. Galliano L (2002) Yogaku: Japanese music in the 20th century. Scarecrow Press, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  21. Ganburged B (2012) Video cue recall interview with Author/Interviewer: R. MillsGoogle Scholar
  22. Gburek J (2018) The ‘Field’ Facebook Discussion with David Toop, Christopher Fox, Jeff Gburek and Roger Mills [Personal Communication]Google Scholar
  23. Halmrast T, Guettler K, Bader R, Godøy RI (2010) Gesture and timbre. In: Godøy RI, Leman M (eds) Musical gestures: sound, movement, and meaning. Routledge, New York, London, pp 183–211Google Scholar
  24. Kane B (2007) Aesthetic problems of net music. Paper presented at the Spark 2007: festival of electronic music and art, University of Minnesota School of Music, Minneapolis, USA. http://browsebriankane.com/My_Homepage_Files/documents/Aesthetic_Problems_of_Net_Music.pdf. Accessed 28 Aug 2018
  25. Keen P (2016) Talempong Botuang: Reviving the Minangkabau Tube Zither. http://www.auralarchipelago.com/auralarchipelago/talempongbotuang. Accessed 14 Feb 2018
  26. Lainhart R (2011) Ethernet Orchestra ‘Kunstmuhle Session’s’ post performance discussion [Audio Recording]Google Scholar
  27. Lakoff G, Johnson M (1980) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  28. Leman M (2012) Musical gestures and embodied cognition. Paper presented at the Actes des Journées d’Informatique Musicale (JIM 2012), Mons, Belgium, pp 4–7. http://jim.afim-asso.org/jim12/pdf/jim2012_02_i_leman.pdf. Accessed 6 Mar 2017
  29. Levin TC, Edgerton ME (1999) The throat Singers of Tuva. Sci Am 281(3):80–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewis GE (1993) Voyager: improvised duos between human and computer musicians [Audio Recording]. Avant/Disc UnionGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewis GE (2000) Too many notes: computers, complexity and culture in voyager. Leonardo Music J 10(December 2000):33–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ljungstrand P [adhoc] (2018) Symbiotic interaction in improvised human-machine performance. In: Presentation by Ben Carey at the technologies and improvisation symposium, Nordic Summer University, Göteborg, Sweden [video file]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmcLxBMUH3c&feature=youtu.be&t=4h6m. Accessed 14 Aug 2018
  33. Maturana HR, Varela FJ (1980) Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, HollandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McLuhan M (1964) Understanding media; the extensions of man. Ginko Press 2003, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  35. Mills R (2011) Field work memo’s and notes. University of Technology, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  36. Mills R (2014) Tele-improvisation: a multimodal analysis of intercultural improvisation in networked music performance. Ph.D., University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/31925/1/01front.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2018
  37. Mills R, Jenkins N (2006) Live networked audio-visual performance. Month of sundays: Bristol Watershed media centre. Online: http://eartrumpet.org/projects.html#mos. Accessed 13 Aug 2018
  38. Mills R, Riddoch M, Scullin B (2011) Sound spectrum I—staff and student networked improvisation performance. Sound spectrum 2011, Perth. https://ethernetorchestra.net/education/. Accessed 13 Aug 2018
  39. Nyman M (1999) Experimental music: cage and beyond. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Paine G (2002) Interactivity, where to from here? Organised Sound 7(3):295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Perez H (2012) Post performance video cue recall Interview/Interviewer: R. MillsGoogle Scholar
  42. Ravikumar PT, McGee K, Wyse L (2018) Back to the experiences: empirically grounding the development of musical Co-creative partners in Co-experiences. 6th International Workshop on Musical Metacreation. 9th International Conference on Computational Creativity, ICCC 2018. University of Salamanca, Spain, In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Musical Metacreation (MUME 2018): 1–7Google Scholar
  43. Roseman M (2013) The Indigenous Peoples (Orang Asli) of the Malay Peninsular (based on manuscript by Hans Oesch). Routledge, New York, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Rowe R (1993) Interactive music systems: machine listening and composing. MIT Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Rowe R (1999) The aesthetics of interactive music systems. Contemp Music Rev Part 3 18:83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Russolo L (1986) The art of noises, vol 6. Pendragon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Schroeder F, Rebelo P (2009) Sounding the network: the body as disturbant. Leonardo Electronic Almanac 16(4–5):1–9Google Scholar
  48. Slawig M, Utermöhlen E (2017) A.O.S.C—Nervensystem (Autonomous system telematic sound performance). Blackhole-factory, Braunschweig. https://blackhole-factory.bandcamp.com/album/a-o-s-c-nervensystem. Accessed 13 July 2018
  49. Slawig M, Utermöhlen E (2018) I hear distant tossing of trees across the park (Audio-visual installation). Blackhole-factory, Braunschweig. https://www.blackhole-factory.com/i-hear-the-distant-tossing/. Accessed 13 July 2018
  50. Smalley D (1993) Defining transformations. J New Music Res 22(4):279–300Google Scholar
  51. Tatar K, Pasquier P (2017) MASOM: a musical agent architecture based on self-organizing maps, affective computing, and variable Markov Models. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on musical metacreation (MUME 2017), Atlanta, Georgia, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  52. Toop D (2018) [Personal Communication: The ‘Field’ Facebook discussion with Christopher Fox, Jeff Gburek and Roger Mills]Google Scholar
  53. Tsabary E (2016) Improvisation as an evolutionary force in laptop orchestra culture. Crit Stud Improvisation/Études critiques en improvisation 11(1–2):1–12Google Scholar
  54. Van Leeuwen T (1999) Speech, music, sound. Macmillan, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Nort D (2009) Instrumental listening: sonic gesture as design principle. Organised Sound 14(2):177–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Nort D (2011) Human: machine: human: gesture, sound and embodiment. Kybernetes 40(7/8):1179–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Nort D (2008) FILTER: Freely Improvising, Learning and Transforming Evolutionary Recombination system. Online http://dvntsea.com/filter/ Accessed 12 May 2018
  58. Van Nort D (2018) Conducting the in-between: improvisation and intersubjective engagement in soundpainted electro-acoustic ensemble performance. Digital Creativity 29(1):68–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Nort D, Oliveros P, Braasch J (2013) Electro/acoustic improvisation and deeply listening machines. J New Music Res 42(4):303–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Whalley I (2004) PIWeCS: enhancing human/machine agency in an interactive composition system. Organised Sound 9(2):167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Whalley I (2009) Software agents in music and sound art research/creative work: current state and a possible direction. Organised Sound Int J Music Technol 14(2):156–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Whalley I (2012) Internet2 and global electroacoustic music: navigating a decision space of production, relationships and languages. Organised Sound 17(1):4–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Whalley I (2014) Broadening telematic electroacoustic music by affective rendering and embodied real-time data sonification. In: Proceedings of the international computer music conference, Athens, Greece, pp 301–307Google Scholar
  64. Whalley I (2017) Interview with Author/Interviewer: R. MillsGoogle Scholar
  65. Winkler T (2001) Composing interactive music: techniques and ideas using max. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  66. Zavada I (2017) Interview with the Author/Interviewer: R. MillsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations