Music 256A: Week 5 Reading
Derek Chung
Music 256A
Week 5 Reading
I'm not sure if this statement is correct, but from my point of view, it seems like we don't know the limitations of computers when it comes to computer music. There's so much experimentation that can still be done with how to produce sound. I feel like building an instrument first can have multiple consequences. Here's two of them:
1) Lack of repertoire. An instrument that will survive through time needs to have a standard set of repertoire so performers don't also have to compose. The works of Beethoven and Mozart are well known today because multiple pianists have performed their works after their deaths. This lead to multiple different areas of study within music other than performance, such as pedagogy, theory, history, etc. If we are to create a musical instrument from a computer, we would also need to compose pieces that are constrained by the instrument. Not only that, we would have to establish an infastructure that allows those works to be performed and teaches others how to perform them. Because the nature of computer music is so experimental, it would be hard to design an instrument and then write multiple works that people could perform. In contrast, the invention of the piano wasn't a large deviation from the harpsicord, so it was less experimental and more familiar than computer music is today.
2) Technological growth. When classical acoustic instruments were made, there weren't as many changes to the medium of the instrument than there are with technology today. For example, pianos weren't made during a time where the production and quality of wood was creating change on a global scale. Technology, on the other hand, is still experiencing massive growth. It's very difficult to create a stable instrument when computers are constantly being updated or going out of date. I think to create a computer instrument, we have to wait until technological growth has slowed so that it's more likely the instrument will last longer.
I just wanted to go into some reasons why a top-down design might not be ideal at the moment. I would also argue that this approach could be viable in the future.
Finally, I'd like to quickly address topic I.1: Funny is often better than serious. I've been a part of many experimental types of performances, and I can say that the most important aspect of interface is to engage the user or audience. During a classical music recital, I performed a skit that involved spinning around on stage. The audience really enjoyed it. I also performed with the Stanford Symphony last year twice. My first performance went really well and my second one didn't. When I thought about the difference between the two recitals, the main reason I came up with was that "I wasn't feeling it." I rely a lot on my own feelings as a musician and convey that same energy to the audience. When my mental state is off during a performance, it's very easy for the audience to see that. I think it's very important to engage your user or audience, and inducing emotion is a very powerful method in doing so. Humor within design is very unique and memorable, and it can also be very relatable.
Music 256A
Week 5 Reading
Chaper 5: Interface Design
Interlude professor Perry Cook doesn't believe in top-down design, or the idea that you should build the overall system (the instrument) before it's subsystems (the piece). I'd like to elaborate on this idea first and address other points of the interlude.I'm not sure if this statement is correct, but from my point of view, it seems like we don't know the limitations of computers when it comes to computer music. There's so much experimentation that can still be done with how to produce sound. I feel like building an instrument first can have multiple consequences. Here's two of them:
1) Lack of repertoire. An instrument that will survive through time needs to have a standard set of repertoire so performers don't also have to compose. The works of Beethoven and Mozart are well known today because multiple pianists have performed their works after their deaths. This lead to multiple different areas of study within music other than performance, such as pedagogy, theory, history, etc. If we are to create a musical instrument from a computer, we would also need to compose pieces that are constrained by the instrument. Not only that, we would have to establish an infastructure that allows those works to be performed and teaches others how to perform them. Because the nature of computer music is so experimental, it would be hard to design an instrument and then write multiple works that people could perform. In contrast, the invention of the piano wasn't a large deviation from the harpsicord, so it was less experimental and more familiar than computer music is today.
2) Technological growth. When classical acoustic instruments were made, there weren't as many changes to the medium of the instrument than there are with technology today. For example, pianos weren't made during a time where the production and quality of wood was creating change on a global scale. Technology, on the other hand, is still experiencing massive growth. It's very difficult to create a stable instrument when computers are constantly being updated or going out of date. I think to create a computer instrument, we have to wait until technological growth has slowed so that it's more likely the instrument will last longer.
I just wanted to go into some reasons why a top-down design might not be ideal at the moment. I would also argue that this approach could be viable in the future.
Finally, I'd like to quickly address topic I.1: Funny is often better than serious. I've been a part of many experimental types of performances, and I can say that the most important aspect of interface is to engage the user or audience. During a classical music recital, I performed a skit that involved spinning around on stage. The audience really enjoyed it. I also performed with the Stanford Symphony last year twice. My first performance went really well and my second one didn't. When I thought about the difference between the two recitals, the main reason I came up with was that "I wasn't feeling it." I rely a lot on my own feelings as a musician and convey that same energy to the audience. When my mental state is off during a performance, it's very easy for the audience to see that. I think it's very important to engage your user or audience, and inducing emotion is a very powerful method in doing so. Humor within design is very unique and memorable, and it can also be very relatable.
