Advertisement

Musician Fantasies of Dialectical Interaction: Mixed-Initiative Interaction and the Open Work

  • Leonardo ImpettEmail author
  • Isak Herman
  • Patrick K. A. Wollner
  • Alan F. Blackwell
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9170)

Abstract

We compare some recent trends in mixed-initiative HCI and interactive electronic music, and consider what useful knowledge can be shared between them. We then present two novel principles for understanding the nature of this common trend: \(spaces of co-agency\) and dialectical interaction; and discuss some of the philosophical and technical challenges they present in relation to musical interaction. A technically advanced prototype, the Mephistophone, is discussed as a case-study for understanding these design principles, concluding with some more general points for creative mixed-initiative interaction.

Keywords

HCI Interactive music Haptic control Mixed-initiative interaction Augmented cognition 

References

  1. 1.
    The mephistophone. Accessed: 19 March 2015. http://mephistophone.com/
  2. 2.
    Allen, J.E., Guinn, C.I., Horvtz, E.: Mixed-initiative interaction. IEEE Intell. Syst. Appl. 14(5), 14–23 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Badiou, A., Spitzer, S.: Five lessons on Wagner. Verso, London (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blackwell, A.F.: What does Digital Content Mean? Umberto Eco and The Open Work (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blackwell, A.F., Impett, L., Wollner, P.K.A., Herman, I., Pribadi, H.: The mephistophone. Technical report 855, Computer Lab, University of Cambridge (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bongers, B.: Physical interfaces in the electronic arts. In: Wanderley, M.M., Battier, M. (eds.) Trends in Gestural Control of Music, pp. 41–70. IRCAM Pompidou, Paris (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bown, O., Eldridge, A., Mccormack, J.: Understanding interaction in contemporary digital music: from instruments to behavioural objects. Organ. Sound 14(02), 188–196 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buchanan, I., Swiboda, M.: Deleuze and Music. Oxford University Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cacciari, M.: Krisis: saggio sulla crisi del pensiero negativo da Nietzsche a Wittgenstein, vol. 332. Feltrinelli, Milan (1977)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Collins, N.: Contrary motion: an oppositional interactive music system. In: The Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Collins, N.: Improvisation. Leonardo Music J. 20, 7–9 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Drummond, J.: Understanding interactive systems. Organ. Sound 14(02), 124–133 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Umberto Eco. Opera aperta: Forma e indeterminazione nelle poetiche contemparanee, vol. 3. Tascabili Bompiani, Milan (1962)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fritz, C., Blackwell, A.F., Cross, I., Woodhouse, J., Moore, B.C.J.: Exploring violin sound quality: investigating english timbre descriptors and correlating resynthesized acoustical modifications with perceptual properties. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131(1), 783–794 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harman, G., et al.: Technology, objects and things in heidegger. Camb. J. Econ. 34(1), 17–25 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Herman, I., Impett, L., Woller, P.K.A., Blackwell, A.: Augmenting bioacoustic cognition with tangible user interfaces (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horvitz, E.J.: Reflections on challenges and promises of mixed-initiative interaction. AI Mag. 28(2), 3 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Impett, J.: The identification and transposition of authentic instruments: musical practice and technology. Leonardo Music J. 8, 21–26 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Licklider, J.C.R.: Man-computer symbiosis. IRE Trans. Hum. Factors Electron. 1, 4–11 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McNutt, E.: Performing electroacoustic music: a wider view of interactivity. Organ. Sound 8(03), 297–304 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nash, C., Blackwell, A.: Liveness and flow in notation use. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME), Ann Arbor, Michigan (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    North, J.D.: The Rational Behavior of Mechanically Extended Man. Boulton Paul Aircraft Ltd., Wolverhampton (1954)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Palmer, D.L.: Virtuosity as rhetoric: agency and transformation in paganini’s mastery of the violin. Q. J. Speech 84(3), 341–357 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peek, P.M.: The sounds of silence: cross-world communication and the auditory arts in african societies. Am. Ethnol. 21(3), 474–494 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Segol, M.: Word and Image in Medieval Kabbalah. Palgrave Macmillan, New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Serafin, S., Smith, J.O., Woodhouse, J.: An investigation of the impact of torsion waves and friction characteristics on the playability of virtual bowed strings. In: 1999 IEEE Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics, pp. 87–90. IEEE (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shneiderman, B., Maes, P.: Direct manipulation vs. interface agents. Interact. 4(6), 42–61 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yannakakis, G.N., Liapis, A., Alexopoulos, C.: Mixed-initiative cocreativity. In: Proceedings of the 9th Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonardo Impett
    • 1
    Email author
  • Isak Herman
    • 2
  • Patrick K. A. Wollner
    • 1
  • Alan F. Blackwell
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EngineeringUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeEngland
  2. 2.Computer LaboratoryUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeEngland

Personalised recommendations