Chasing a Feeling: Experience in Computer Supported Jamming

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

Abstract

Improvisational group music-making, informally known as ‘jamming’, has its own cultures and conventions of musical interaction. One characteristic of this interaction is the primacy of the experience over the musical artefact—in some sense the sound created is not as important as the feeling of being ‘in the groove’. As computing devices infiltrate creative, open-ended task domains, what can Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) learn from jamming? How do we design systems where the goal is not an artefact but a felt experience? This chapter examines these issues in light of an experiment involving ‘Viscotheque’, a novel group music-making environment based on the iPhone.

References

  1. Ashley, R. (2009). Musical improvisation. In The oxford handbook of music psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bakker, A. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(1), 26–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardzell, J., & Bardzell, S. (2008). Interaction criticism: A proposal and framework for a new discipline of HCI. In CHI ’08 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. New York: ACM Request Permissions.Google Scholar
  4. Berliner, P. (1994). Thinking in Jazz: The infinite art of improvisation. In Chicago studies in ethnomusicology (1st ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bryan-Kinns, N., & Hamilton, F. (2009). Identifying Mutual Engagement. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31, 1–25.Google Scholar
  6. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  7. Dobrian, C., & Koppelman, D. (2006). The ’E’ in NIME. In Proceedings of the 2006 international conference on new interfaces for musical expression (NIME06). Paris: IRCAM.Google Scholar
  8. Doffman, M. (2009). Making it groove! Entrainment, participation and discrepancy in the ‘conversation’ of a Jazz Trio. Language & History, 52(1), 130–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Essl, G., & Rohs, M. (2009). Interactivity for mobile music-making. Organised Sound, 14(02), 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fallman, D. (2011). The new good: Exploring the potential of philosophy of technology to contribute to human-computer interaction. In CHI ’11: Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  11. Flores, L., Pimenta, M., Miranda, E., Radanovitsck, E., & Keller, D. (2010). Patterns for the design of musical interaction with everyday mobile devices. In IHC ’10: Proceedings of the IX symposium on human factors in computing systems. Porto Alegre: Brazilian Computer Society.
  12. Forlizzi, J., & Battarbee, K. (2004). Understanding experience in interactive systems. In DIS ’04: Proceedings of the 5th conference on designing interactive systems (pp. 261–268). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  13. Gifford, T. (2013). Appropriate and complementary rhythmic improvisation in an interactive music system. In S. Holland, K. Wilkie, P. Mulholland, & A. Seago (Eds.), Music and human-computer interaction (pp. –). London: Springer. ISBN 978-1-4471-2989-9.Google Scholar
  14. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
  15. Gurevich, M., Stapleton, P., & Marquez-Borbon, A. (2010, June 7–11). Style and constraint in electronic musical instruments. In Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME 2010) (pp. 106–111). Sydney.Google Scholar
  16. Lamont, A. (2009). Strong experiences of music in university students. In Proceedings of the 7th triennial conference of European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music (ESCOM 2009) (pp. 250–259). https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/handle/123456789/20886?show=full.
  17. MacDonald, R., & Wilson, B. (2006). Constructions of jazz: How jazz musicians present their collaborative musical practice. Musicae Scientiae, 10(1), 59–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mazzola, G. (2008). Jazz and the creative flow of collabortive gesturtes. In Annäherungen und Grenzüberschreitungen. http://www.uni-due.de/imperia/md/content/ekfg/sb_mazzola.pdf.
  19. McDermott, J., Sherry, D., & O’Reilly, U. (2013). Evolutionary and generative music informs music HCI—and vice versa. In S. Holland, K. Wilkie, P. Mulholland, & A. Seago (Eds.), Music and human-computer interaction (pp. –). London: Springer. ISBN 978-1-4471-2989-9.Google Scholar
  20. McPherson, A., & Kim, Y. (2013). Piano technique as a case study in expressive gestural interaction. In S. Holland, K. Wilkie, P. Mulholland, & A. Seago (Eds.), Music and human-computer interaction (pp. –). London: Springer. ISBN 978-1-4471-2989-9.Google Scholar
  21. Miranda, E., & Wanderley, M. (2006). New digital musical instruments: Control and interaction beyond the keyboard (Computer Music and Digital Audio Series 1st ed.). Middleton: A-R Editions, Inc.Google Scholar
  22. Monson, I. (1996). Saying something: Jazz improvisation and interaction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Nacke, L., Grimshaw, M., & Lindley, C. (2010). More than a feeling: Measurement of sonic user experience and psychophysiology in a first-person shooter game. Interacting with Computers, 22(5), 336–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Modhrain, S. (2011). A framework for the evaluation of digital musical instruments. Computer Music Journal, 35(1), 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Paine, G. (2010, June 7–11). Towards a taxonomy of realtime interfaces for electronic music performance. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME) (pp. 436–439). Sydney.Google Scholar
  26. Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Group creativity: Musical performance and collaboration. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sawyer, R. K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. New York: Perseus Books Group.Google Scholar
  28. Sawyer, R. K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sorensen, A., & Gardner, H. (2010). Programming with time: Cyber-physical programming with impromptu. In OOPSLA ’10: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on object oriented programming systems languages and applications. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  30. Springett, M. (2009). Evaluating cause and effect in user experience. Digital Creativity, 20(3), 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stewart, D., Shamdasani, P., & Rook, D. (Eds.). (2006). Focus groups: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Stowell, D., & McLean, A. (2013). Live music-making: A rich open task requires a rich open interface. In S. Holland, K. Wilkie, P. Mulholland, & A. Seago (Eds.), Music and human-computer interaction (pp. –). London: Springer. ISBN 978-1-4471-2989-9.Google Scholar
  33. Stowell, D., Plumbley, M., & Bryan-Kinns, N. (2008). Discourse analysis evaluation method for expressive musical interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2008 conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME 2008), Genova.Google Scholar
  34. Stowell, D., Robertson, A., Bryan-Kinns, N., & Plumbley, M. (2009). Evaluation of live human-computer music-making: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 67(11), 960–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Swift, B., Gardner, H., & Riddell, A. (2010). Engagement networks in social music-making. In OZCHI ’10: Proceedings of the 22nd Australasian conference on computer-human interaction.Google Scholar
  36. Tanaka, A. (2006). Interaction, experience and the future of music. In Consuming music together. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Tanaka, A. (2010, June 7–11). Mapping out instruments, affordances, and mobiles. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (pp. 88–93). Sydney.Google Scholar
  38. Tuedio, J. (2006). “And Then Flew On”: Improvisational moments of rhizomatic assemblage in grateful dead musical experience. In Texas/Southwest Popular Culture Association/American Popular Culture Association Joint National Conference. http://www.csustan.edu/Philosophy/Tuedio/GratefulDeadPapers/GD-Improvisation.pdf.
  39. Wallis, I., Ingalis, T., Campana, E., & Vuong, C. (2013). Amateur musicians, long-term engagement, and HCI. In S. Holland, K. Wilkie, P. Mulholland, & A. Seago (Eds.), Music and human-computer interaction (pp. –). London: Springer. ISBN 978-1-4471-2989-9.Google Scholar
  40. Wanderley, M., & Orio, N. (2002). Evaluation of input devices for musical expression: Borrowing tools from HCI. Computer Music Journal, 26(3), 62–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilkie, K., Holland, S., & Mulholland, P. (2010). What can the language of musicians tell us about music interaction design? Computer Music Journal, 34(4), 34–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research School of Computer ScienceAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations