Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:12:47.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Real-time Composition as Performance Ecosystem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2011

Arne Eigenfeldt
Arne Eigenfeldt*
Affiliation:
School for the Contemporary Arts, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article proposes that real-time composition can be considered a new performance ecosystem. Rather than an extension of electroacoustic instruments that are used within improvisatory environments, real-time composition systems are produced by composers interested in gestural interactions between musical agents, with or without real-time control. They are a subclass of interactive systems, specifically a genre of interactive composition systems that share compositional control between composer and system. Designing the complexity of interactions between agents is a compositional act, and its outcomes are realised during performance – more so than most interactive systems, the new performance ecosystem is compositional in nature.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 16 , Issue 2: Performance Ecosystems , August 2011 , pp. 145 - 153
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

Basanta, A., Eigenfeldt, A. 2010. Typological Analysis of Gesture Interaction in Acousmatic Music. Proceedings of the Electronic Music Studies 2010. http://www.ems-network.org/spip.php?article300.Google Scholar
Benson, B. 2003. The Improvisation of Musical Dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyls, P. 2009. Interactive Composing as the Expression of Autonomous Machine Motivations. Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference. Montreal/San Francisco: ICMA, 267–274.Google Scholar
Biles, J. 1994. GenJam: A Genetic Algorithm for Generating Jazz Solos. Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference. San Francisco: ICMA, 131–137.Google Scholar
Blackwell, T., Young, M. 2004. Swarm Granulator. Applications of Evolutionary Computing. Proceedings of The 2004 European Workshop on Evolutionary Music and Art. Coimbra, Portugal: Springer-Verlag, 399–408.Google Scholar
Bown, O. 2009a. A Framework for Eco-System-Based Generative Music. Proceedings of Sound and Music Computing 2009. Porto: SMC, 195–200.Google Scholar
Bown, O. 2009b. Eco-System Models for Real-time Generative Music: A Methodology and Framework. Proceedings of the ICMC 2009. Montreal/San Francisco: ICMA, 537–540.Google Scholar
Bown, O., Lexer, S. 2006. Continuous-time Recurrent Neural Networks for Generative and Interactive Musical Performance. Applications of Evolutionary Computing: Proceedings EvoWorkshops 2006. LNCS 3907, Berlin: Springer, 652–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casal, D.P., Morelli, D. 2007. Remembering the Future: Applications of Genetic Co-Evolution in Music Improvisation. Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Life, Lisbon.Google Scholar
Chadabe, J. 1984. Interactive Composing. Computer Music Journal 8(1): 22–27.Google Scholar
Chadabe, J. 1997. Electric Sound: The Past and Promise of Electronic Music. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Collins, N. 2006. Towards Autonomous Agents for Live Computer Music: Realtime Machine Listening and Interactive Music Systems. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Di Scipio, A. 2003. ‘Sound is the Interface’: From Interactive to Ecosystemic Signal Processing. Organised Sound 8(3): 269–277.Google Scholar
Drummond, J. 2009. Understanding Interactive Systems. Organised Sound 14(2): 124–133.Google Scholar
Eigenfeldt, A. 2007. Real-time Composition or Computer Improvisation? A Composer's Search for Intelligent Tools in Interactive Computer Music. Proceedings of the Electronic Music Studies 2007. http://www.ems-network.org/IMG/pdf_EigenfeldtEMS07.pdf.Google Scholar
Eigenfeldt, A. 2008a. Intelligent Real-time Composition. eContact 10.4 Live-electronics-Improvisation-Interactivity in Electroacoustics, http://cec.concordia.ca/econtact/10_4/.Google Scholar
Eigenfeldt, A. 2008b. Emergent Rhythms through Multi-Agency in Max/MSP. Computer Music Modeling and Retrieval: Sense of Sounds, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4969: 368–379.Google Scholar
Eigenfeldt, A. 2009a. Multiagency and Realtime Composition: In Equilibrio, eContact 11.4 Toronto Electroacoustic Symposium, http://cec.concordia.ca/econtact/11_4.Google Scholar
Eigenfeldt, A. 2009b. The Evolution of Evolutionary Software: Intelligent Rhythm Generation in Kinetic Engine. Applications of Evolutionary Computing, EvoWorkshops 2009 Proceedings, LNCS 5484. Springer: Berlin, 498–507.Google Scholar
Eigenfeldt, A. 2009c. A Realtime Generative Music System using Autonomous Melody, Harmony, and Rhythm Agents. Proceedings of the 12 Generative Art Conference GA2009, Milan. Available online at http://www.generativeart.com/on/cic/GA2009Papers/p7.pdf.Google Scholar
Eigenfeldt, A., Pasquier, P. 2010. Realtime Generation of Harmonic Progressions Using Controlled Markov Selection. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCCX). Lisbon: ACM Press, 16–25.Google Scholar
Impett, J. 2001. Interaction, Simulation and Invention: A Model for Interactive Music. In E. Bilotta, E. Miranda, P. Pantano and P. Todd (eds), Artificial Life Models for Music Applications. Consenza: Editoriale Bios, 108–119.Google Scholar
Jordà, S. 2005. Digital Lutherie: Crafting Musical Computers for New Musics’ Performance and Improvisation. PhD dissertaion, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Langton, C.G. (ed.) 1997. Artificial Life: An Overview. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. 2000. Too Many Notes: Computers, Complexity and Culture in Voyager. Leonardo Music Journal 10: 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, J., Pasquier, P., Eigenfeldt, A. 2009. Hierarchical Sequential Memory for Music: A Cognitive Model. Proceedings of the International Society of Music Information Retrieval Conference, Kobe. http://ismir2009.ismir.net/proceedings/PS3-7.pdf.Google Scholar
McCormack, J. 2001. Eden: An Evolutionary Sonic Eco-System. Advances In Artificial Life, LNCS. Berlin: Springer, 133–142.Google Scholar
McCormack, J., Bown, O. 2009. Life's What You Make: Niche Construction and Evolutionary Art. Applications of Evolutionary Computing: EvoWorkshops 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5484: 528–537.Google Scholar
Miranda, E.R., Todd, P. 2003. A-Life and Musical Composition: A Brief Survey. Proceedings of the IX Brazilian Symposium on Computer Music. Campinas, Brazil.Google Scholar
O'Callaghan, J., Eigenfeldt, A. 2010. Gesture Transformation through Electronics in the Music of Kaija Saariaho. Proceedings of the Electronic Music Studies 2010. http://www.ems-network.org/spip.php?article308.Google Scholar
Pachet, F. 2003. The Continuator: Musical Interaction With Style. Journal of New Music Research 32(3): 333–341.Google Scholar
Paine, G. 2002. Interactivity, Where to from Here? Organised Sound 7(3): 295–304.Google Scholar
Rao, A., Georgeff, M. 1995. BDI Agents: From Theory to Practice. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-agent Systems. San Francisco: AAAI Press, 312–319.Google Scholar
Ritchie, G. 2007. Some Empirical Criteria for Attributing Creativity to a Computer Program. Minds and Machines 17: 67–99.Google Scholar
Rowe, R. 1992. Interactive Music Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schwarz, D. 2007. Corpus-Based Concatenative Synthesis. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 24(2): 92–104.Google Scholar
Small, C. 1998. Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Waters, Simon. 2007. Performance Ecosystems: Ecological Approaches to Musical Interaction’. Proceedings of the Electroacoustic Music Studies Network 2007. http://www.ems-network.org/spip.php?article278.Google Scholar
Weaver, W. 1948. Science and Complexity. American Scientist 36: 536–544.Google Scholar
Weinberg, G., Godfrey, M., Rae, A., Rhoads, J. 2008. A Real-Time Genetic Algorithm in Human-Robot Musical Improvisation. Computer Music Modeling and Retrieval, Sense of Sounds. Berlin: Springer, 351–359.Google Scholar
Whalley, I. 2009. Software Agents in Music and Sound Art Research/Creative Work: Current State and a Possible Direction. Organised Sound 14: 156–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitelaw, M. 2004. Metacreation. Art and Artificial Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Winkler, T. 1995. Strategies for Interaction: Computer Music, Performance, and Multimedia. Proceedings of the 1995 Connecticut College Symposium on Arts and Technology. http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Music/sites/winkler/research/papers/strategies_interaction_1995.pdf.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, M. 2009. An Introduction to Multiagent Systems. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Young, M. 2008. NN Music: Improvising with a ‘Living’ Computer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4969. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, 337–350.Google Scholar