Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T07:50:22.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agility and Playfulness: Technology and skill in the performance ecosystem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2011

Owen Green
Owen Green*
Affiliation:
ACE Graduate School, University of Edinburgh, Alison House, 12 Nicolson Square, Edinburgh, EH8 9DF
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Whilst it is common in much discourse around contemporary musical practices to emphasise the differences between digital and acoustic ways of making music, Simon Waters’ discussion of the Performance Ecosystem as an analytic perspective argues instead for a heightened sense of continuity (Waters 2007). This article lends support to this argument by developing an ecosystemically situated account of our relationships with technology and processes of skill formation. It is argued that this sense of continuity is justified, but that where differences of experiences do arise these are not, as sometimes supposed, an essential characteristic of digital technologies. On the basis that much of our skill formation consists of tacit knowledge, it is suggested that further discussion on how particular circumstances and skills arise would be revealing. Two possible headings for such discussion are suggested in the form of ‘Agility’ and ‘Playfulness’.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 16 , Issue 2: Performance Ecosystems , August 2011 , pp. 134 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Archer, P. 2006. Intervention and Appropriation: Studies in the Aesthetics of the Homemade in Real-Time Electroacoustic Composition. ARiADATexts 5. http://www.ariada.uea.ac.uk/ariadatexts/5 (accessed on 14 November 2007).Google Scholar
Armstrong, N. 2006. An Enactive Approach to Digital Musical Instrument Design. PhD thesis. Princeton University. http://eamusic.dartmouth.edu/~newton/enactive.pdf (accessed on 8 June 2009).Google Scholar
Attali, J. 1977. Noise: The Political Economy of Music. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Born, G. 2010. For a Relational Musicology: Music and Interdisciplinarity, Beyond the Practice Turn. Journal of the Royal Musical Association 135(2): 205–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, J. 2003. Improvising Machines: Ethnographically Informed Design for Improvised Electroacoustic Music. ARiADATexts 4. http://www.ariada.uea.ac.uk/ariadatexts/ariada4 (accessed on 27 October 2006).Google Scholar
Bown, O., Eldridge, A., McCormack, J. 2009. Understanding Interaction in Contemporary Digital Music: From Instruments to Behavioural Objects. Organised Sound 14(2): 188–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, M., Greated, C., Myers, A. 2004. Musical Instruments: History, Technology, and Performance of Instruments of Western Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. 1997. Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. 2003. Natural Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies and the Future of Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. 2008. Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, E.F. 2005. Ways of Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, N. 2006. Handmade Electronic Music: The Art of Hardware Hacking. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Collins, N. 2007. Live Coding Practice. Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME07): 112–16. http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/nc81/research/livecodingpractice.pdf (accessed on 8 January 2010).Google Scholar
Cook, N., Everist, M. 1999. Rethinking Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, P.R. 2004. Remutualizing the Musical Instrument: Co-Design of Synthesis Algorithms and Controllers. Journal of New Music Research 33(3): 315–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, C. 2000. Plunderphonics. In S. Emmerson (ed.), Music, Electronic Media and Culture. Aldershot: Ashgate, 87–114.Google Scholar
DeNora, T. 2000. Music in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Scipio, A. 1998. Questions Concerning Music Technology. Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities 3(2): 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Scipio, A. 2003. ‘Sound is the Interface’: From Interactive to Ecosystemic Signal Processing. Organised Sound 8(3): 269–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, M. 2006. Echo's Body: Play and Representation in Interactive Music Software. Contemporary Music Review 25(1–2): 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreyfus, H.L. 1992. What Computers Still Can't Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H.L., Dreyfus, S.E. 1986. Mind over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Eigenfeldt, A. 2008. Emergent Rhythms through Multi-agency in Max/MSP. In R. Kronland-Martinet, S. Ystad and K. Jensen (eds), Computer Music Modeling and Retrieval. Sense of Sounds: 4th International Symposium, CMMR 2007, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 27–31, 2007. Revised Papers. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 368–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmerson, S. 2001. New Spaces/New Places: A Sound House for the Performance of Electroacoustic Music and Sonic Art. Organised Sound 6(2): 103–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmerson, S. 2007. Living Electronic Music. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Essl, G., O'Modhrain, S. 2006. An Enactive Approach to the Design of New Tangible Musical Instruments. Organised Sound 11(3): 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feenberg, A. 1999. Questioning Technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Feenberg, A. 2002. Transforming Technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frith, S. 1996. Performing Rites: Evaluating Popular Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T. 2000. Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. 2006. Walking the Plank: Meditations on a Process of Skill. In J. Dakers (ed.), Defining Technological Literacy: Towards an Epistemological Framework. New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordà, S. 2004. Instruments and Players: Some Thoughts on Digital Lutherie. Journal of New Music Research 33(3): 321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, G. 1999. Interacting with Latter-Day Musical Automata. Contemporary Music Review 18(3): 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, G. 2000. Too Many Notes: Computers, Complexity and Culture in Voyager. Leonardo Music Journal 10: 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnusson, T. 2009. Of Epistemic Tools: Musical Instruments as Cognitive Extensions. Organised Sound 14(2): 168–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maturana, H., Varela, F. 1992. The Tree of Knowledge. Boston, MA: Shambhala.Google Scholar
Plans Casal, D. 2008. Time After Time: Short-Circuiting the Emotional Distance Between Algorithm and Human Improvisors. Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference 2008. http://www.davidcasal.com/media/1790DavidPlansCasal.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2009).Google Scholar
Porcello, T. 2004. Speaking of Sound. Social Studies of Science 34(5): 733–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodgers, T. 2003. On the Process and Aesthetics of Sampling in Electronic Music Production. Organised Sound 8(3): 313–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, F., Rebelo, P. 2009. The Pontydian Performance: the Performative Layer. Organised Sound 14(2): 134–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, F., Renaud, A., Rebelo, P., Gualdas, F. 2007. Addressing the Network: Performative Strategies for Playing Apart. Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference 2007, 133–140. http://www.sarc.qub.ac.uk/~fschroeder/docs/SchroederRenaudRebeloGualda.pdf (accessed on 8 January 2010).Google Scholar
Small, C. 1998. Musicking: The Meanings of Performances and Listening. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, S. 2007. The Process of Collective Creation in the Composition of UK Hip-Hop Turntable Team Routines. Organised Sound 12(1): 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, L. 2007. Human–Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sudnow, D. 2001. Ways of the Hand: A Rewritten Account. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Nort, D., Wanderley, M. 2006. The LoM Mapping Toolbox for Max/MSP/Jitter. Proceedings of the 2006 International Computer Music Conference (ICMC), 397–400. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.bbp2372.2006.083 (accessed on 26 April 2011).Google Scholar
Varela, F.J., Thompson, E., Rosch, E. 1991. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan, M. 1994. The Human-Machine Interface in Electroacoustic Music Compostion. Contemporary Music Review 10(2): 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, S. 2000. Beyond the Acousmatic: Hybrid Tendencies in Electroacoustic Music. In S. Emmerson (ed.), Music, Electronic Media and Culture. Aldershot: Ashgate, 56–83.Google Scholar
Waters, S. 2007. Performance Ecosystems: Ecological Approaches to Musical Interaction. Proceedings of Electroacoustic Music Studies Network Conference 2007. http://www.ems-network.org/spip.php?article278 (accessed on 14 November 2007).Google Scholar
Windsor, L. 2000. Through and Around the Acousmatic: The Interpretation of Electroacoustic Sounds. In S. Emmerson (ed.), Music, Electronic Media and Culture. Aldershot: Ashgate, 7–35.Google Scholar