Advertisement

A NIME Reader pp 465-481 | Cite as

2015: Fourteen Years of NIME: The Value and Meaning of ‘Community’ in Interactive Music Research

  • Adnan Marquez-Borbon
  • Paul Stapleton
Chapter
Part of the Current Research in Systematic Musicology book series (CRSM, volume 3)

Abstract

This paper examines the notion of community as commonly employed within NIME discourses. Our aim is to clarify and define the term through the community of practice framework. We argue that through its formal use and application, the notion of community becomes a significant space for the examination of emergent musical practices that could otherwise be overlooked. This paper defines community of practice, as originally developed in the social sciences by Lave and Wenger, and applies it within the NIME context through the examination of existing communities of practice such as the laptop performance community, laptop orchestras, as well as the Satellite CCRMA and Patchblocks communities.

Keywords

Situate Learning Joint Enterprise Tangible Interface Community Aspect Mutual Engagement 
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.

References

  1. Albert, J. (2012). Improvisation as tool and intention: Organizational practices in laptop orchestras and their effect on personal musical approaches. Critical Studies in Improvisation/Études critiques en improvisation, 8(1).Google Scholar
  2. Arievitch, I. M., & Haenen, J. P. P. (2005). Connecting sociocultural theory and educational practice: Galperin’s approach. Educational Psychologist, 40(3), 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berdahl, E., & Ju, W. (2011). Satellite CCRMA: A musical interaction and sound synthesis platform. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (pp. 173–178). Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowman, W. (2009). The community in music. International Journal of Community Music, 2(2–3), 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Billett, S. (1996). Situated learning: Bridging sociocultural and cognitive theorising. Learning and Instruction, 6(3), 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butler, J. (2008). Creating pedagogical etudes for interactive instruments. In Proceedings of the International Conferences on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (pp. 77–80). Genova, Italy.Google Scholar
  9. Bardzell, J. (2009). Interaction criticism and aesthetics. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (pp. 2357–2366).Google Scholar
  10. Born, G., & Devine, K. (2015). Twentieth-Century Music, 12(2), 135–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox, A. (2005). What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works. Journal of Information Science, 31(6), 527–540.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook, P. R. 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
  13. Cascone, K. (2000). The aesthetics of failure: Post-digital tendencies in contemporary computer music. Computer Music Journal, 24(4), 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cascone, K. (2003). Grain, sequence, system: Three levels of reception in the performance of laptop music. Contemporary Music Review, 22(4), 101–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collins, N. (2011). Live coding of consequence. Leonardo, 44(3), 207–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collins, N., McLean, A., Rohrhuber, J., & Ward, A. (2003). Live coding in laptop performance. Organized Sound, 8(3), 321–330.Google Scholar
  17. D’Arcangelo, G. (2002). Creating a context for musical innovation: A NIME curriculum. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression. Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  18. Fischer, G. (2009). Learning in communities: A distributed intelligence perspective. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Learning in Communities: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Human Centered Information Technology (pp. 11–16). Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Fels, S. and Lyons, M. (2009). Creating new interfaces for musical expression: Introduction to NIME. In ACM SIGGRAPH Courses (p. 11). Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  20. Fiebrink, R., Wang, G., & Cook, P. R. (2007). Don’t forget the laptop: using native input capabilities for expressive musical control. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression. New York, NY.Google Scholar
  21. Gaye, L., Holmquist, L. E., Behrendt, F., & Tanaka, A. (2006). Mobile music technology: Report on an emerging community. Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (pp. 22–25). Paris: France.Google Scholar
  22. Grossmann, R. (2008). The tip of the iceberg: Laptop music and the information-technological transformation of music. Organised Sound, 13, 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gurevich, M. (2015). Leonardo special section: Practice -based research and new interfaces for musical expression: Diversity in NIME research practices. Leonardo, 48(5).Google Scholar
  24. Gurevich, M., Stapleton, P., & Bennett, P. (2009). Design for style in new musical interactions. Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (pp. 213–217). Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  25. Green, O. (2015). Leonardo special section: Practice-based research and new interfaces for musical expression: The situation of practice-led research around NIME, and two methodological suggestions for improved communication. Leonardo, 48(5).Google Scholar
  26. Heinz, S., & O’Modhrain, S. (2010). Designing a shareable musical TUI. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression. Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  27. Irani, L., Vertesi, J., Dourish, P., Philip, K., & Grinter, R. (2010). Postcolonial computing. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (pp. 1311–1320).Google Scholar
  28. Jensenius, A. R. (2014). To gesture or not? An analysis of terminology in NIME proceedings 2001–2013. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (pp. 217–220). London, UK.Google Scholar
  29. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Leeuw, H., & Tamminga, J. (2012). NIME education at the HKU. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  31. Lyons, M. J. & Fels, S. S. (2015). Introduction to creating musical interfaces. In Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2481–2482).Google Scholar
  32. Liu, Y., Goncalves, J., Ferreira, D., Xiao, B., Hosio, S., Kostakos, V. (2014). Chi 1994–2013: Mapping two decades of intellectual progress through co-word analysis. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM Conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 3553–3562).Google Scholar
  33. McPherson, A., & Kim, Y. E. (2012). The problem of the second performer: Building a community around an augmented piano. Computer Music Journal, 36(4), 10–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MacMillan, M. (2007). Autonomous learning within a learning community: Musicians have been doing it for years! In Proceedings of Music Education Research, Values and Initiatives (p. 104). Australian Association for Research in Music Education.Google Scholar
  35. Magnusson, T. (2009). Of epistemic tools: Musical instruments as cognitive extensions. Organised Sound, 14(2), 168–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Magnusson, T. (2010). Designing constraints: Composing and performing with digital musical systems. Computer Music Journal, 34(4), 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Magnusson, T. (2011). Confessions of a live coder. In Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference. University of Huddersfield.Google Scholar
  38. Monroe, A. (2003). Ice on the circuits/coldness as crisis: The re-subordination of laptop sound. Contemporary Music Review, 22(4), 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oore, S. (2005). Learning advanced skills on new instruments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression. Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  40. O’Modhrain, S. (2011). A framework for the evaluation of digital musical instruments. Computer Music Journal, 35(1), 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ostertag, B. (2002). Human bodies, computer music. Leonardo Music Journal, 11–14.Google Scholar
  42. Poupyrev, I., Lyons, M. J., Fels, S., & Blaine, T. (2001b). New interfaces for musical expression. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  43. Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. Sociocultural Studies of Mind.Google Scholar
  44. Rambusch, J. (2006). Situated learning and Galperin’s notion of object-oriented activity. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (vol. 1998–2003, pp. 1998–2003).Google Scholar
  45. Rambusch, J., & Ziemke, T. (2005). The role of embodiment in situated learning. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (vol. 1803–1808). the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  46. Richards, J. (2008). Getting the hands dirty. Leonardo Music Journal, 18(1), 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shelemay, K. K. (2011). Musical communities: Rethinking the collective in music. Journal of the American Musicological Society, 64(2), 349–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schloss, W. A. (2003). Using contemporary technology in live performance: The dilemma of the performer. Journal of New Music Research, 32(3), 239–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stuart, C. (2003). The object of performance: Aural performativity in contemporary laptop music. Contemporary Music Review, 22(4), 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Turner, T. (2003). The resonance of the cubicle: Laptop performance in post-digital musics. Contemporary Music Review, 22(4), 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trueman, D. (2007). Why a laptop orchestra? Organised Sound, 12(2), 171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vallis, O., & Kapur, A. (2011). Community-based design: The democratization of musical interface construction. Leonardo Music Journal, 21, 29–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Waldron, J. (2009). Exploring a virtual music community of practice: Informal music learning on the internet. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 2(2–3), 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Waldron, J. L., & Veblen, K. K. (2008). The medium is the message: Cyberspace, community, and music learning in the irish traditional music virtual community. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 1(2–3), 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wang, G., & Cook, P. R. R. (2004). On-the-fly programming: using code as an expressive musical instrument. Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (pp. 138–143). Hamamatsu, Japan.Google Scholar
  57. Wang, D. T., Smallwood, S., & Cook, P. (2008). The laptop orchestra as classroom. Computer Music Journal, 32(1), 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ward, A., Rohrhuber, J., Olofsson, F., McLean, A., Griffiths, D., Collins, N., & Alexander, A. (2004). Live algorithm programming and a temporary organisation for its promotion. In Proceedings of the README Software Art Conference.Google Scholar
  59. Zbyszyński, M. (2008). An elementary method for tablet. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression. Genova, Italy.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sonic Arts Research Centre (SARC), Queen’s University BelfastBelfastUK

Personalised recommendations