Plymouth composite session critique response
24 July 2006
The interests of my practice are in music that operates in interactive media, art, and telematic environments. Initially, this research process started as a critique of music in contemporary interactive media. I found that the emergent, non-linear experience of interactivity to be incongruous with the linear, "narrative" music that is often indiscriminately associated with it. This music does little to recognize the emergence, or becoming, that one experiences in the course of an interactive exchange. A linear compositional approach leaves little to no room for the potential of a becoming of music. I started by asking, "What kinds of compositional techniques can be used to create a music that makes manifest the potential of becoming found in a telematic interaction?"
My research has thus far suggested that the greatest potential for music that shares in the rich, emergent quality of interactive media could be achieved through a musical approach that hybridized the terms composition and instrument. Additionally, I have observed that a composition-instrument already exists in limited capacity in the current landscape of interactive art and media. I hope that this weak claim serves to strengthen my argument—that identifying this blurring, and exploiting it as a compositional technique, may lead to a situation where there is a greater expressive potential for music in interactive art and media. I'm not trying to redefine composition, but merely state that a reconsideration of compositional processes is in order.
Telematic connectivity is the means, but not the ends, of the projects I have proposed. One's influence in the course of interaction will be on the content of a generative system. At first this approach may appear to lead a piece of music to inconsequential or chaotic results, but it reveals an imperative in the overall scheme of a generative work. Upon re-reading the writings of experimental composers, improvising musicians, and generative artists I have realized that one very important argument for my position has been neglected. In order for any sort of generative musical system to function, the system designer (the composer, in my case) needs to be very careful about defining the inputs and potentiality of that system. In my case this delicate work constitutes the composing process, which significantly defines the work and its eventual unfolding.
The kinds of musical systems I propose are so much more than compositional tools. Software like SSEYO Koan, Garage Band, Acid Pro, and so on are representative of systems with a buried or latent potential I find within much of contemporary digital media. The differences I perceive are subtle, but significant in terms of how they shape a musical experience. These applications have embedded in them a number of compositions, whereas the work I am concerned with has a specific composition for a specific environment or situation. Contemporary software systems are generalized tools that can lead to a variety of potential outputs. They put one in a situation that proposes, "Here's a scale with 12 pitches, or 14 pitches, or 20 pitches. And here's a bunch of synths you can use to create sounds, and here's a bunch of samples—now let's generate some music." These tools place an onus on the user. A generative music system isn't meant to have this utilitarian functionality, but to provide a construct where music can unfold, and unfold in novel and surprising ways.
At the heart of this discussion is the notion that any sort of collective, generative, or improvisatory process would only result in chaos of the uninitiated. I disagree. In my view, relative to this research, a composer's charge is to create a specific tool (composition) that can lead to a variety of outputs within the constraints of a specific environment. More significantly, this work must create opportunities to connect the musical output with a person's interactions within that environment over the course of time.
Time and the passage of time is indeed a central concern in the reception of the music I make. If one wants to experience the becoming of a thing, they have to be able to perceive the history of the thing. Without a listener's investment of time, it is impossible to reveal to them the essential qualities of the music. These concerns of time are also what make a generative approach so suited for environments of interaction. The interactive experience stretches unpredictably across time. As the length of an interaction varies for each person, music that is meant to enrich these interactions must be unbound by beginning, end, and a fixed duration.
This music is meant to shape experience. From my perspective, the idea of using music is essential to understanding why people would want to engage in openly interactive generative music. If you were to compare "music use" to "drug use," in the context that I propose, you would say that people were using but using responsibly. People are using music as a means of transformation; tending to their aural environment. This means that they have the ability not only to set the tone of what they will experience, but they will be able to tune it—and encourage development in the direction they wish to explore. However, this explanation only addresses music in a context of music and listening. I am mainly interested to consider how generative techniques might be used to enrich one's experience with music in the context of interactive art and media works.
In these environments, listeners or users will recognize their contribution as it is heard. This may be immediate or delayed, but neither suggests a better or worse situation for the musical work. Both kinds of responses have interesting musical potential and encourage different kinds of listening. This is one of the key factors to these compositions. Immediate recognition leads to a direct awareness of the impact an individual sound has in the context of others. There is an immediacy that leaves the listener very aware of their impact. A delayed recognition allows time for building anticipation. Anticipation, in this scenario, leads listeners to a profound state of listening. They know there will be something new to hear and they wait to attend it. These moments draw new sonic details to the foreground. In both cases, immediate and delayed, listeners are able to hear the becoming of a music directly produced by the generative system and through the inputs or perturbations they have to offer.
My present position feels like a precipice. I can now see that my original intentions or goals were to develop ideas that could be prescriptive and "fix the problems" I found with conventional linear approaches to music in interactive media. What seems to be emerging is something completely different. What I now find is that an opportunity for music exists not within the field of interactive media, but because-of and enabled-by interactive media.
Telematic interaction seems to be the essential ingredient in this. The distributed communications enabled by wired and wireless networks enables an enormous variety of open-ended interaction. When considered in a musical perspective there is an incredible potential for the investigation and exploration of new music within this technologically charged territory.
The interests of my practice are in music that operates in interactive media, art, and telematic environments. Initially, this research process started as a critique of music in contemporary interactive media. I found that the emergent, non-linear experience of interactivity to be incongruous with the linear, "narrative" music that is often indiscriminately associated with it. This music does little to recognize the emergence, or becoming, that one experiences in the course of an interactive exchange. A linear compositional approach leaves little to no room for the potential of a becoming of music. I started by asking, "What kinds of compositional techniques can be used to create a music that makes manifest the potential of becoming found in a telematic interaction?"
My research has thus far suggested that the greatest potential for music that shares in the rich, emergent quality of interactive media could be achieved through a musical approach that hybridized the terms composition and instrument. Additionally, I have observed that a composition-instrument already exists in limited capacity in the current landscape of interactive art and media. I hope that this weak claim serves to strengthen my argument—that identifying this blurring, and exploiting it as a compositional technique, may lead to a situation where there is a greater expressive potential for music in interactive art and media. I'm not trying to redefine composition, but merely state that a reconsideration of compositional processes is in order.
Telematic connectivity is the means, but not the ends, of the projects I have proposed. One's influence in the course of interaction will be on the content of a generative system. At first this approach may appear to lead a piece of music to inconsequential or chaotic results, but it reveals an imperative in the overall scheme of a generative work. Upon re-reading the writings of experimental composers, improvising musicians, and generative artists I have realized that one very important argument for my position has been neglected. In order for any sort of generative musical system to function, the system designer (the composer, in my case) needs to be very careful about defining the inputs and potentiality of that system. In my case this delicate work constitutes the composing process, which significantly defines the work and its eventual unfolding.
The kinds of musical systems I propose are so much more than compositional tools. Software like SSEYO Koan, Garage Band, Acid Pro, and so on are representative of systems with a buried or latent potential I find within much of contemporary digital media. The differences I perceive are subtle, but significant in terms of how they shape a musical experience. These applications have embedded in them a number of compositions, whereas the work I am concerned with has a specific composition for a specific environment or situation. Contemporary software systems are generalized tools that can lead to a variety of potential outputs. They put one in a situation that proposes, "Here's a scale with 12 pitches, or 14 pitches, or 20 pitches. And here's a bunch of synths you can use to create sounds, and here's a bunch of samples—now let's generate some music." These tools place an onus on the user. A generative music system isn't meant to have this utilitarian functionality, but to provide a construct where music can unfold, and unfold in novel and surprising ways.
At the heart of this discussion is the notion that any sort of collective, generative, or improvisatory process would only result in chaos of the uninitiated. I disagree. In my view, relative to this research, a composer's charge is to create a specific tool (composition) that can lead to a variety of outputs within the constraints of a specific environment. More significantly, this work must create opportunities to connect the musical output with a person's interactions within that environment over the course of time.
Time and the passage of time is indeed a central concern in the reception of the music I make. If one wants to experience the becoming of a thing, they have to be able to perceive the history of the thing. Without a listener's investment of time, it is impossible to reveal to them the essential qualities of the music. These concerns of time are also what make a generative approach so suited for environments of interaction. The interactive experience stretches unpredictably across time. As the length of an interaction varies for each person, music that is meant to enrich these interactions must be unbound by beginning, end, and a fixed duration.
This music is meant to shape experience. From my perspective, the idea of using music is essential to understanding why people would want to engage in openly interactive generative music. If you were to compare "music use" to "drug use," in the context that I propose, you would say that people were using but using responsibly. People are using music as a means of transformation; tending to their aural environment. This means that they have the ability not only to set the tone of what they will experience, but they will be able to tune it—and encourage development in the direction they wish to explore. However, this explanation only addresses music in a context of music and listening. I am mainly interested to consider how generative techniques might be used to enrich one's experience with music in the context of interactive art and media works.
In these environments, listeners or users will recognize their contribution as it is heard. This may be immediate or delayed, but neither suggests a better or worse situation for the musical work. Both kinds of responses have interesting musical potential and encourage different kinds of listening. This is one of the key factors to these compositions. Immediate recognition leads to a direct awareness of the impact an individual sound has in the context of others. There is an immediacy that leaves the listener very aware of their impact. A delayed recognition allows time for building anticipation. Anticipation, in this scenario, leads listeners to a profound state of listening. They know there will be something new to hear and they wait to attend it. These moments draw new sonic details to the foreground. In both cases, immediate and delayed, listeners are able to hear the becoming of a music directly produced by the generative system and through the inputs or perturbations they have to offer.
My present position feels like a precipice. I can now see that my original intentions or goals were to develop ideas that could be prescriptive and "fix the problems" I found with conventional linear approaches to music in interactive media. What seems to be emerging is something completely different. What I now find is that an opportunity for music exists not within the field of interactive media, but because-of and enabled-by interactive media.
Telematic interaction seems to be the essential ingredient in this. The distributed communications enabled by wired and wireless networks enables an enormous variety of open-ended interaction. When considered in a musical perspective there is an incredible potential for the investigation and exploration of new music within this technologically charged territory.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home