AUP/Collective talent 27-07-2006 10:30 Pagina 1
Jacqueline B. de Jong
UvA Thesis
Faculty of Science
and Cooperative Technology at the University of Amsterdam until 1995. Later she
taught Interaction Design and was consultant in interactive media. At present,
she works at the ICT Policy Department of the Dutch Ministry of Justice. She has
published on a variety of topics such as computers in music education, interactive
Improvised music performance offers remarkable and dramatic examples of the
talented ways in which group members can interact and inspire each other. Such
musical sessions can serve as examples of improvised performance of groups in general.
This thesis reports on ways of initiating and supporting talented group improvisation.
It addresses the question which interface is needed to generate collectives with
collective talent. Inspired by Pask’s Conversation Theory, the author has developed
a theory for supporting collective talent.
The approach and results are not restricted to music, but should yield interest to fields
as management & organization and ICT.
isbn 90 5629 442 3
™xHSTAPGy294 27z
A study on improvisational group performance in music
interfaces, innovation, and social support systems.
Collective Talent
Jacqueline B. de Jong is psychologist and was researcher at the Centre for Innovation
Collective Talent
A study on improvisational
group performance in music
Jacqueline B. de Jong
UNIVERSITEIT
VAN
AMSTERDAM
Collective Talent
The publication of this book is made possible by a grant from the Dutch Ministry of Justice.
Lay out: Gino Laan, Rotterdam
Cover design: René Staelenberg, Amsterdam
Cover illustration: Ralph van Meijgaard, Rotterdam
“The Bremen Town Musicians. An early example of Collective Talent”
ISBN-13 978 90 5629 442 7
ISBN-10 90 5629 442 3
NUR 660/770
Vossiuspers UvA – Amsterdam University Press
© J.B. de Jong, 2006
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this
book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any
form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without
the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book.
Collective Talent
A Study on Improvisational Group Performance in Music
ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor
aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam,
op gezag van Rector Magnificus,
prof. mr. P.F. van der Heijden
ten overstaan van een door het College van Promoties ingestelde
commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Aula der Universiteit
op donderdag 12 oktober 2006, te 14.00 uur
door
Jacqueline Beatrix de Jong
geboren te Nieuwkoop
Promotor: Prof. dr. G. De Zeeuw
Faculteit der Natuurwetenschappen, Wiskunde en Informatica
To my mother
Contents
Preface
11
Anecdote
17
1 Introduction
1.1 Improvised group performance
1.2 Current viewpoints on musical talent
1.2.1 Musical talent as an individual attribute
1.2.2 Musical talent as a culturally defined skill
1.3 Music as a medium to converse
1.3.1 Music and communication
1.3.2 Collective talent
1.4 The research
1.4.1 An alternative approach to music education
1.4.2 The research question reformulated
1.5 Redesigning musical interfaces as a historical problem
1.6 Outline of this book
19
19
21
22
24
27
27
30
32
32
34
36
38
2 Research design
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Strongly connected collectives
2.3 Languages, interfaces and the making of music
2.4 Improvised group performance and conversation
2.4.1 Conversation Theory
2.4.2 Support of a musical conversation
2.5 Conventional versus extended interfaces
2.6 The evolution of conventional musical interfaces
2.6.1 Musical instruments
2.6.2 Systems for music notation
41
41
42
46
52
52
54
55
58
61
66
-7-
Collective Talent
2.6.3 Contributions to the construction of SCCs
73
3 Musical interfaces, performance and talent
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Differentiation of the concept of musical talent
3.2.1 Changes of the initial constraints on music production
3.2.2 Acceptance of irregular musical inputs
3.2.3 Random generation of musical events
3.2.4 Evaluation
3.3 Extension of the concept of talent: interactive injection of
variety in human-machine interaction
3.3.1 Shaping a musical process
3.3.2 Intelligent systems
3.3.3 Evaluation
3.4 Collective talent: interactive injection of variety by human
actors
3.4.1 Music of the East
3.4.2 Jazz improvisation
3.4.3 Flamenco
3.4.4 Evaluation
89
90
95
97
103
4 Unlocking collective talent
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The ‘Spinoza’ project
4.3 Method
4.3.1 Subjects
4.3.2 Sound studio
4.3.3 Procedure and observations
4.4 Results
4.4.1 General findings
4.4.2 Evidence of SCCs
4.4.3 Evidence of a talent to organize
4.4.4 Evidence of collective talent
4.5 Discussion
4.5.1 Musical instruments
4.5.2 The role of the teacher
4.6 Conclusion
105
105
108
109
109
109
110
112
112
113
114
116
118
118
119
120
-8-
77
77
80
80
82
83
84
86
86
87
88
Contents
5 Sensitive Chords: a prototype extended interface
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Technical realization
5.2.1 The mechanical controller
5.2.2 Real-time manipulation of sound and music
5.2.3 Reconfiguration and other applications
5.3 Playing Sensitive Chords
5.3.1 Control and feedback
5.3.2 Rules and constraints on music production
5.3.3 Required skills
5.4 Conceptual realization of an extended interface
5.5 Practical experience, exploration and demonstration
5.5.1 Settings and subjects
5.5.2 General findings
5.5.3 Evaluation
123
123
125
126
127
129
130
130
132
133
134
136
136
137
140
6 Conclusion
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Internal consistency
6.2.1 SCCs as a scientific object
6.2.2 A theory for supporting collective talent
6.3 Other fields of relevance
6.3.1 Management and organization studies
6.3.2 Information and Communication Technology
6.4 Final remarks
143
143
145
146
148
152
152
157
161
Samenvatting in het Nederlands
163
References
170
Glossary
183
Index
187
Table of Figures
197
Appendices
199
-9-
Preface
The research presented in this doctoral thesis has been conducted as part of
the research program “Support, Survival and Culture” at the Centre for
Innovation and Cooperative Technology (CICT), University of Amsterdam,
under the supervision of Professor Dr. G. de Zeeuw. This program brought
together a broad scope of people with varying interests and backgrounds,
such as social sciences, organization sciences, computer science,
mathematics, methodology and arts. It was focused on topics that
concentrate on the development of social support systems. As a nurturing
ground, it has enriched my study with ideas associated with systems
research and second order cybernetics.
Subsequently, the inspiring feedback of my students at the Interaction
Design department of the Utrecht High School of Arts helped to deepen my
conceptual framework by consistently exposing me to current developments
and issues. During these years, I remained an active participant in the CICTnetworks. After several interruptions related to my professional career, I
have allowed myself to spend one more year to complete my dissertation.
The extended series of intensive dialogues with my promoter Gerard de
Zeeuw have been a tremendous inspiration to my work. His particular way of
questioning was a great help to improve my understanding of the rich
complexity of improvisational group performance. His continual comments
on draft chapters served as a course in critical thought. I want to thank him
for his energetic and relentless support to investigate phenomena in which I
was deeply interested and to realize ideas that in the end turned out to be
valuable contributions to the thesis. Furthermore I am very grateful to him
for giving me the opportunity to meet and collaborate with so many original
and colorful thinkers.
- 11 -
Collective Talent
I am especially indebted to Gordon Pask, one of the founding fathers of
cybernetics, who held a position as a professor at the CICT. His major work
was the development of Conversation Theory, which laid a strong foundation
for my research. I fondly recall the many heartening conversations that we
had. As a co-promoter he involved himself genuinely and generously in my
research. I will never forget his stimulating and encouraging suggestions,
filled with warmth, respect, charm, humor, always expressed with a soft and
gentle voice. Gordon Pask passed away in 1996. He will remain a great
inspiration to me.
Special thanks to my reading committee, the professors Peter van den
Besselaar, Jan Boonstra and Bob Wielinga, dr. Karel Soudijn and dr. Rudi
Stouffs for their willingness to read the manuscript. Extra thanks to Karel
Soudijn for his razor-sharp eye in correcting my references.
I would like to thank all my fellow colleagues and collaborators of the
research program “Support, Survival and Culture” at the CICT for the many
discussions, new insights and pleasant contacts. An extra acknowledgement
is due to my sparring-partners from day one: Harrie van Haaster, Nora
Hackfoort, Jules Koster, Bart van Linder, Jacques Meijer, Aad Nienhuis,
Heleen Riper, Joep Schrijvers, Jan Gerrit Schuurman, Henk Sligte, Martha
Vahl, Kees Vreugdenhil and Marjolijn Witte. I am grateful to Koert Beks for
his enthusiastic literature supplies and to Joop Muller for her warm and
enduring support. Jan Kooistra has critically read my final draft and
provided me with useful feedback. I want to thank him for his contributions
and for the dear moments of exchange during the past fifteen years.
The research reported in this dissertation could not have been conducted
without the generous help and support of the numerous persons I met
during my field research and the preparations it required.
I gratefully acknowledge the people at STEIM (Amsterdam) for offering me
every opportunity to study and explore the technical and artistic means
available for developing electronic musical instruments. I particularly would
like to thank Joel Ryan and Michel Waisvisz.
I also want to express my gratitude to the Spinoza Lyceum. I am deeply
grateful to Jacqueline Verver and Alfred Blok, and to all participants that
- 12 -
Preface
accepted my role within the ‘Spinoza’ project. It takes courage to accept
someone external to actively participate in the music lessons for a full year
so intimately as I have had the opportunity to.
The ‘Sensitive Chords’ project drew upon the enthusiastic cooperation and
creative responses of the members of my development team. In the first
place, I want to thank Bert Bongers, for his invaluable role in the technical
realization of Sensitive Chords, including the sensor technology, as well for
his relentless support during the majority of presentations and
demonstrations with Sensitive Chords. More in general, I want to
acknowledge the people at the Institute of Sonology of the Royal
Conservatory in the The Hague for their generous concern and support of
this project. I want to thank Theo Borsboom for the precise construction of
the mechanical components and for building the hardware of the musical
instrument. I am very grateful to Günther Rötter for providing me with
opportunities to demonstrate Sensitive Chords in Germany and for
composing musical licks to be especially used for Sensitive Chords. I also
want to acknowledge Marion de Laat, who as well took the challenge to
compose five different licks for Sensitive Chords, while knowing that these
compositions would never be performed in their original form.
I have completed this work next to being full-time employed at the ICT
Policy Department of the Dutch Ministry of Justice. Therefore, I am grateful
to my employer for granting me a leave of absence when I needed it and for
funding the publishing of this book. For this, I particularly thank Elly
Bogerman and Arend van der Toorn. I also want to thank my colleagues for
their mental support and for cheering me up. A few names deserve special
mention. Tim Berkelaar, who spurred me on to finish this thesis after
reading the draft chapters and continued to encourage me at least on a
weekly basis. René Brozius, who warmly supported my decision to complete
this work, even after he left for a new job. Mariska Steinz and Geert Beks,
who assisted me to digitalize yellowed pages with blurry musical scores.
Special thanks to my friend and colleague Gino Laan, who was of great
support by combining high spirits, encouragement and distraction with
designing the lay out of this book.
- 13 -
Collective Talent
I cherish the close and long-standing friendships of my two paranymphs,
Raymond Raphaël and Ad Serné. They both were more important than one
would normally expect from paranymphs. Ad and partner Wiebe have
endured many times that I brought my laptop and books to their mansion in
France. One cannot imagine a place more divine to write the final version of
a dissertation. I deeply appreciate their hospitality. Raymond, who lives in
Japan and has short visits to Europe, has read my manuscript several times
and has offered suggestions for improvement with respect to content as well
as text corrections.
I also want to thank Corry van Renselaar, who recently went through the
same process, for shared experiences, heartwarming interest, tips, advises
and genuine support.
I am very proud and grateful to Ralph van Meijgaard for designing the
fabulous cover illustration of this book.
I specially want to thank my family for always expecting the best from me
and for their genuine support over the years. I would like to memorize my
dear friend and brother-in-law Henk Gosses, philosopher, artist, inventor,
draughtsman, robotman. He suddenly passed away earlier this year. I know
how much he would have loved to see the final results of my work. Ankie and
Emma, thanks for permitting me to include the wonderful drawing of Henk
(see page to the right) that I was thrilled to find amongst his possessions.
Finally, I want to express my deep appreciation and love for my partner in
life, Hans. More than once I have cherished the mirror he held up for me to
sharpen my insights and reflection. Without his unconditional support I
would not have finished what I have begun.
I have dedicated this book to my mother. During the long period that I have
been committed to this challenge, she has proven to be my most longstanding and loyal fan.
- 14 -
Preface
A Strongly Connected Collective as preconceived by H.I. Gosses
- 15 -
Anecdote
At one time I was convinced being able to produce every kind of music I
could think of, if only I trained hard enough. After many years, however, it
became clear to me that music gradually had become less accessible. While
enjoying the mastering of certain skills, I realized that I had paid a price.
Learning actually means unlearning quite lot. What, for example, had
happened to my ability to improvise? It seemed that I had lost part of my
instinctive sense of music, which, therefore, I could no longer ascribe to
some inborn musical talent. Apparently, musical competence requires more
than talent and training of skills.
I got my first guitar at a very young age. My desire to play just as good as my
older brother made me explore the instrument and its sounds to its full
extent. The act of improvising gave me a lot of satisfaction.
While growing older, I was taught to differentiate a sense of 'right' and
'wrong'. The more my training in music progressed, the more I felt that I
would never become the kind of guitarist I dreamt to be.
This feeling expanded, as I became increasingly interested in Spanish
flamenco music. Although I was trained to play this type of music in a
technical sense, I felt that it missed a certain 'spark'.
In order to improve my sense of music I wanted to overcome these
shortcomings. I decided to go to Andalusia, prepared to join a group of gypsy
musicians and dancers for a while. I hoped that their 'spark' would touch me
and that I would be inspired to play like a talented flamenco.
- 17 -
Collective Talent
I never arrived in Triana, Sevilla, where I had planned to meet these
musicians and to study with them. I was violently robbed and deprived of
everything that I carried with me by the gypsies I wanted to join, before I
even got the chance to enter their territory. Terribly shocked I decided to
give up this way of searching for inspiration. The feeling of not being
accepted deprived me of my desire to interact with these gypsy musicians
and to learn from them.
This dramatic experience brought me to a deeper understanding about the
meaning of this 'spark', the meaning of musical talent, and the way in which
social and musical behavior are related. A touch of the spark is a matter of
‘give and take’.
The act of making music brings about a collective quality, supportive to
musical interaction. In certain musical cultures this collective quality is
embedded, as part of a social culture.
A musical spark is the 'unidentifiable extra' that emerges from an interactive
musical process. It may benefit all participants - both individually as well as
collectively. It can neither be mastered individually, as a skill to be learnt,
nor does it refer to individual talent. It resides in a musical culture.
In order to act as a talented musician, one must form part of such a culture,
and add to it by interacting.
- 18 -
1 Introduction
1.1
Improvised group performance
Cooperation and collective work define core issues of social science. There is
a long history of efforts to deal with these issues, among them efforts to find
out how communities or groups can be supported to collectively solve a
problem, take a decision, and perform a task (Jang et al., 2000; Grudin,
1990; Ponce, 2000; Silverstein, 1987; Suchman, 1990; Winograd & Flores,
1986; Whitaker, 1993). In recent times additional questions have been
formulated, partly stimulated by cybernetic insights (e.g. Espejo, 2002;
Weick, 2001). How can we create organizations that are able to learn and
self-organize? Answers have become important to many different areas, in
particular to the field of information and communication technology and
management and organization.
The self-organizing1 power of social groups is especially evident in
improvised group performance (e.g. Barrett, 2000; Crossan et al., 1996;
Moorman & Miner, 1998; Orlikowski, 1996; Weick, 1998, 2001; Zack, 2000).
It will be the focus of this study. Such performance is interesting from
different points of view and in different frameworks. Two will receive special
attention. One is to consider collective performance as a conversation, or as
an active linguistic interaction between actors (Pask, 1975a, 1975b, 1976,
1987). Another is to concentrate on the interfacing between group members
needed to generate improvised performance.
1
People self-organize as a group when their own dynamics regulate the activity
within the group as well as the interaction with the environment.
- 19 -
Collective Talent
What comes to mind first when thinking about improvised group
performance is not what people usually do in daily life, or in businesses. A
more immediate association is music. It is based on organization, but
evidently stresses self-organization and improvisation2—all three even
constitutive of what music seems to be about. In this sense music refers to
something special. Still, as soon as we think of it, other instances of
improvised group performance come to mind. In fact, wherever there is
organization, as in business, self-organization and improvisation appear to
struggle to be near. Not surprisingly, improvised music performance is often
used as a metaphor for organization (e.g. Berniker, 1998; Hatch, 1998;
Lewin, 1998; Weick, 1998).
In this study I concentrate on interfaces that support improvised group
performance. The ones I have in mind are not the ones that appear to be
most frequent in our social environment, however. What often dominates,
are conventionalized interfaces, where (strict) organization seems to have
‘frozen’ self-organization and improvisation. This raises specific questions:
such as whether there is a possibility of 'unfreezing', what is required to do
so, what the advantages are, as well as more general questions.
In this chapter I will relate these questions to music. I will formulate two
general concepts of musical talent or musicality that can be found in daily
life, in teaching as well as in research. Although the common-sense
definition of talent refers to ‘innate ability’, in research the definition of
musical talent is complex and controversial. As opposed to the idea that
musical talent is ‘innate’, some musical theorists emphasize that such talent
is ‘acquired’ (e.g. Howe et al., 1998). I will discuss the limitations of both
these viewpoints in relation to the choice of a scientific object. This should
clarify what I am after. Next, I will explain a third viewpoint on the teaching
and learning of music and define my concept of collective talent and the
research it engenders.
2
Improvisation is the act of making something up as you go along. This term is
usually used in the context of music, theatre or dance.
Definition retrieved May 10, 2006 from http://musicbookworld.com/
improvisation.htm
- 20 -
Introduction
1.2
Current viewpoints on musical talent
Life endows us with many gifts. We learn to feel, perceive, think, create,
communicate and relate to others. Among these gifts is making and being
able to listen to music. It even may be considered a basic gift, one that
certainly adds to the quality of life. Nevertheless, many people apparently
are denied the pleasure of making music, and have to live their lives without
it. They must be considered musically deprived or illiterate, having dropped
out of all forms of education in or communication on music.
Many reasons have been given why this should be judged unsatisfactory (see
for an overview e.g. Johnson, 2004), similar to being numerically or
textually illiterate, the most common being that rich forms of
communication are basic to ‘good’ society, and to the experience of being
human. People have a ‘right’ to be trained. Many efforts have been and still
are being spent to answer the question how to provide such training.
Most of these efforts emphasize the ‘skill’ of making or enjoying music, as
well as the need to vary according to one’s own preferences. This sometimes
is seen as related to what is considered particularly human, that is being
‘creative’. In the efforts to increase musical literacy and performance two
approaches may be distinguished, similar to the extremes of the
nature/nurture discussion. These approaches can be found at the basis of
societal habits and culture, and also of research (Howe et al., 1998).
In the first approach it is assumed that people have certain characteristics,
sometimes to a high degree, sometimes a low. In this case creativity and
talent are conceived of as inborn characteristics, that is as variables over the
set of individuals. They cannot be changed, although people may show
deviations in terms of their actual behavior. In other words, it is possible to
improve the expression of the characteristics by education and
environmental experiences, but not to change their underlying levels.
The second approach attributes the development of musical enjoyment and
skill entirely to the structure of an individual's environment. This includes
the way musical activities are incorporated or embedded in society, as well
as how musical behavior is taught (see for an overview e.g. Gembris, 1987).
Research in this case emphasizes educational aims, methods and tools. It
allows for a strong influence of general developments in society, in particular
- 21 -
Collective Talent
those of computer technology and cultural diversity, which are reflected in
‘newish’ key-terms in music education such as simplicity, exploration,
discovery, involvement and cultural exchange (Ellis, 1990; Greenberg, 1988;
Pressing, 1998; Van Rosmalen & Kors, 2004).
The two approaches mentioned above each use a different concept of
musical talent. Together, these views on musical talent constitute a solid
foundation for the structure and organization of today’s musical educational
practice. Musical education in general is based on a mixture of both these
viewpoints.
In studies that deal with musical talent, what concept of talent is chosen has
great consequences for the choice of the scientific object. Researchers who
take the first approach mentioned, use individuals as their objects of study.
In research that is based on the second approach what is chosen as one's
scientific object are individuals acting in a cultural environment.
I will deal with each of these viewpoints separately in the next two sections.
1.2.1
Musical talent as an individual attribute
Music is the predominant art form in public education (Colwell, 2000).
Nevertheless, music education generally 'plays second fiddle' to all other
forms of teaching (Johnson, 2004). Educational programs for music
emphasize general musical literacy, although the common view is that
attention should be evenly spread over listening, performing and composing
(Koopman, 1997). Active musical practice is mostly reserved to children
whose parents can afford extra lessons at out-of-school institutions or from
private teachers (Fletcher, 1987). As a result, making music is an activity for
a selected group of children, who often are referred to as the ‘musically
gifted’ or the ‘talented’ (Ellis, 1990; Johnson, 2004).
The idea of musical talent as a special, inborn gift that can (partly) be
quantitatively measured has a long history. The following lines were written
by Seashore in 1919:
“ Musical talent is a gift bestowed very unequally upon individuals.
Not only is the gift of music itself inborn, but it is inborn in specific
- 22 -
Introduction
types. These types can be detected early in life, before time for
beginning serious musical education. This fact presents an
opportunity and places a great responsibility for the systematic
inventory of the presence or absence of musical talent.” (Seashore,
1919, p.6)
In western cultures, the idea of specially gifted individuals is still built into
the structure of musical instruction, particularly at intermediate to higher
levels (Pressing, 1998). Pupils are said to show musical talent in terms of the
marks they obtain when judged against specific sets of standards. The less
fortunate majority is labeled as 'untalented'. Their misfortune is that their
‘lack of talent’ is seen as an unconditional attribute that does not change over
a person’s life, regardless of the broad scope of capacities that may underlie
such talent (see e.g. Haroutounian, 2002). Once having been assigned to the
group of musical dropouts, therefore, opportunities to act as a talented
musician at any other moment in life are seriously reduced. It leads to a
progressive confirmation of a ‘missing talent’.
According to Howe et al. (1998), categorizing some children as innately
talented is ‘discriminatory, unfair and wasteful’. It means that young people
will be prevented from pursuing a goal because of the unjustified conviction
of teachers or parents that they would not benefit from the superior
opportunities given to those who are deemed to be talented.
Examples of the ‘innate talent’ approach are manifold. In the cultural
context for example, the fact that some people lack musical prowess is
formulated in terms of natural variation and inevitability: ‘Things are so that
we cannot all be great musicians’. In the context of research the aim is to
search for the factors that contribute to musical talent as a relatively fixed
property, such as a musically stimulating home and social environment
(Evans et al., 2000; Haroutounian, 2002; Kemp & Mills, 2002; Pratt, 1978;
Scott & Moffett, 1978; Shuter-Dyson & Gabriel, 1981; Shuter-Dyson, 1999).
Given the difficulty and cost of identifying and implementing such factors, it
is understandable that talent is attributed to a lucky few, those ‘naturally
gifted’.
Scientific research that defines musical talent as an unconditional attribute
of individuals can be criticized for two reasons. Firstly, decomposition of the
- 23 -
Collective Talent
variety of individuals into discrete sets (e.g. ‘talented’ or ‘untalented’) leads
to a disregard of the question of how to improve musicality. Secondly,
studying individuals as isolated from their environments (physical, social,
cultural, etc.) leads to a neglect of much information that is relevant with
regard to possibilities to support musical activity.
Both criticisms are based on the observation that people are very sensitive to
constraints imposed by their environment. Environmental structures act like
interfaces. They reveal opportunities to act and at the same time impose on
people. Interacting with others often means that we come to accept and
sustain the historically and culturally defined constraints of the
environments in which we take part.
1.2.2
Musical talent as a culturally defined skill
Over time making music evolved into specialized practices, demanding solid
knowledge and skills and a talent for music. Being a magic charm to
'primitive' people, music developed into a popular art with religious,
informative and entertaining value, in many areas and at least up to the
Middle Ages. While the significance of instrumental music increased, also
the aesthetic qualities of music gained more attention (Sachs & Hamburg,
1986).
Music education as a discipline initially developed with only western
classical and some folk music as reference. Running parallel to broader
movements (such as the East-West dialogue, the recognition of national
identities and the global village concept), the awareness of other musical
cultures and forms became more prominent in the second half of the 20th
century (Schippers, 2004).
Despite modern tendencies to shift the focus to musical expression,
exploration, and other forms of music, in educational practice the western
musical culture and the achievement of standardized results still is
emphasized (see 4.1). Although there are differences between countries,
considerable emphasis is still placed on knowledge about and understanding
of prescribed music instead of creativity and improvisation (Hargreaves &
North, 2001; Van Rosmalen & Kors, 2004).
- 24 -
Introduction
Schippers (2004) and Johnson (2004) criticize the ‘hegemony of the western
classical tradition’ in music education.
“The prevailing philosophy of music education advises us to treat
all music as an aesthetic object of contemplation according to 18thcentury standards of taste and sponsorship”. (Johnson, 2004, p.20)
Making music is conceived of as a professional expertise. Hargreaves &
North (2001) report cases with such ambitious levels of specialized music
education that many young musicians experience high levels of stress and
drop out. At conservatories, the main educational aim is acquisition of the
culturally defined knowledge and skills that should be added to individual
talent to become a professional musician (Otto & Van der Kamp, 1983). To
some this addition dominates. Adherents of this approach conceive of
musical talent or musicality as a culturally defined skill that can be
developed and trained.
Scientific research that is based on this viewpoint deals with individuals
being constrained by the cultural environment in which they take part
(Gembris & Davidson, 2002; Hargreaves & North, 2001; Johnson, 2004;
Pressing, 1998). Apart from historical and political influences that determine
the course of musical learning, cultural constraints on music performance
include such things as musical styles, effects of media, employment
opportunities, instrument types and availability, social status of musicians,
degree of incorporation of music in rituals and social events, and so on.
Many of these constraints have been developed from the past, but still have a
large influence on the development of musical subcultures and collectives
(see 2.6). Research thus focuses on individuals participating in collectives
that strongly depend on externally defined constraints, rather than on
constraints that are internally defined.
We also find this viewpoint in teaching and in daily life. As an example one
may consider use of the twelve-tone equal temperament 3 scale (see 2.6.2),
3
Equal temperament is a scheme of musical tuning in which the octave is divided
into a series of equal steps. The best-known example of such a system is twelvetone equal temperament, sometimes abbreviated to 12-TET, which is nowadays
used in most Western music. Present day standard music notation is based on
twelve-tone equal temperament.
- 25 -
Collective Talent
which offers opportunities but also imposes constraints on musical activity.
Or the emphasis on ‘getting the notes right' when playing a musical
instrument. This emphasis is not only prevalent in educational programs but
has also been implemented in conventional musical instruments (see 2.6.1).
Acquiring mastery over these instruments often requires many years of
intensive training. According to Mathews (1991), this emphasis is limiting
and prohibits musical expression, exploration, and improvisation.
"Learning technique is no small part of the performer's training.
Most performers spend about a decade practicing several hours a
day to achieve a technique sufficient to play the notes of pieces in
their repertoire reliably and correctly at a performance tempo.
Many performers must continue to practice a substantial fraction of
their waking hours all their lives to maintain a technique. Most
techniques do not serve all styles of music, so the performer is
limited in what he can play. Among amateur players who start an
instrument and then discontinue playing, the inability to learn to
play the notes is probably the main reason. With traditional
instruments, learning to play the notes is a prerequisite to
expressive performance”. (Mathews, 1991, p.41)
The traditional focus on learning to interpret and play the scores that have
been written by earlier composers also serves as an example of retaining
tight and externally defined constraints on musical activity. ‘Building up a
musical repertoire’ generally means to ‘improve the ability to reproduce
musical pieces’. When compared to musical improvisation, music
reproduction leaves much less freedom to a performer to vary his musical
acts.
Despite the importance of developing sets of skills that are culturally
defined, the developmental approach nourishes a progressive differentiation
of what we produce and accept as music and what we judge as talented
musical behavior. Educational programs that are based on this approach
often lead to a further crystallization of the meaning of musical talent and to
a tight and stable regulation of making music (Illich, 1972, 1973; Johnson,
2004). In western musical culture, musical talent generally becomes
manifest by playing and varying within the narrow and clear-cut boundaries
that we gradually have come to accept. Possibilities to vary beyond these
- 26 -
Introduction
boundaries often remain unrecognized: such deviations are considered
unacceptable accidents or errors that should be avoided.
It will be clear that learning to make music generally requires more than
merely go getting. The rules and restrictions imposed for example by the
traditional notation system (TNS or ‘standard notation’) and the emphasis
on performing written music implies that much effort is required to acquire
the intended skills.
Despite the ever-growing list of technological and digital tools in music
education, the effects of this approach on pupils' musical behavior appear to
be less dramatic than suggested by the technological 'newness' of the
implemented tools (De Jong, 1989; Lukasik, 1990; Van Rosmalen & Kors,
2004; also see chapter four). In no way simplicity and technological
extensions have been demonstrated to be sufficient to support people in
making music. In spite of the efforts spent, many people unnecessarily
continue to be seen as musical failures.
1.3
1.3.1
Music as a medium to converse
Music and communication
Whatever is accepted as music, what is important in the long run is whether
it is able to move us and to transfer meaning and emotion.
As far as historians, archeologists and ethno-musicians have been able to
discover, music has played an important role in human life ever since there
were people (Sachs & Hamburg, 1986). Musical instruments already existed
more than 25,000 years ago in Europe. The oldest examples of objects that
were used as musical instruments are simple tools to produce rhythmical
patterns of sounds, such as stones, bones and pieces of wood. These tools
were probably used to accent clapping and feet-stamping (Midgley, 1989).
Further development and refinement of musical instruments ran parallel to
the progress of civilization (see 2.6.1).
Musical experience probably started even earlier than the ancient use of
external tools. The human voice usually is seen as the very first instrument
- 27 -
Collective Talent
that enabled people to make music. The act of singing thus is generally
assumed to mark the beginning of music (Sachs & Hamburg, 1986).
If we accept that musical activity dates back to the remotest ages, making
music undoubtedly yields some important profits. In many writings, the
opportunity to communicate is mentioned as a major incentive for
composers and performers of music.
"As an artist the composer creates to fulfill and please himself and
to communicate his musical thoughts to potential audiences."
(Henson, 1977, p.233)
"... musicians, through their instruments, have a marvelous
opportunity for communication. People do and will listen to music.
It is one of the means of communication that is truly international,
for it embraces not only all levels of nationalities, but all levels of
appreciation and accomplishments..." (Kendall, 1985, p.16)
In the following three sections I will comment upon the relationship between
music and communication. For the sake of my analysis, I will distinguish
three levels of this relationship:
The perceptible structure of music production
The implicit assumption that sound production and communication are
related ‘naturally’ has to be questioned seriously. Are opportunities to
communicate inherent to the use of sounds? Or are opportunities to
communicate dependent on a selection of sounds and on the way in which
these sounds are ordered? Of both alternatives, the latter is the most likely.
It is the perceptible musical structure that counts:
"His only method of communication is the structure of his
composition, both he and his audience are dependent on his skill in
transforming ideas into an acceptable comprehensible world."
(Henson, 1977, p.233)
Music is more than a combination of sounds. In order to communicate and
to express meaning, sounds need to be selected and organized into a
recognizable structure. By definition, such a structure is also limiting, for it
imposes rules and restrictions on the production of sounds. This means that
- 28 -
Introduction
communication is not a natural consequence of the use of sounds, but is due
to constraints imposed on the production of sounds instead.
The language of making music
Musical scores serve as an important medium to transmit rules and
constraints on the production of sounds. A written score consists of
performance instructions to reproduce a musical work created by a
composer. It consists of indications of the sounds (the words) to be used as
well as of how these sounds have to be combined into phrases (the
grammar). Although scores that are based on the traditional notation
system (TNS) strongly predefine how performers should act in a musical
sense, they still offer some freedom to interpret and to perform a musical
work4.
The developmental approach of musical talent (see 1.2.2) implies a strong
reliance on externally and previously defined constraints on musical activity.
This suggests an increasing differentiation and refinement of musical
structures and forms. Everywhere in the musical culture of the West this
process has resulted in the development of tight and narrow-defined
constraints on the making music (see 2.6). This may have limited the
opportunities to use music as a medium to communicate, rather than
extended them.
Musical interfaces
A system for music notation, such as the traditional notation system (TNS),
can itself be conceived of as the implementation of an alphabet5 and a
grammar (a language) of making music that has developed from the past.
When we zoom in on the TNS, it can also be conceived of as an interface to
composers to write musical pieces (see 2.6.2).
Much written music is transient and falls into oblivion. Some musical scores
are saved from obscurity; they come to be accepted, used and sustained by a
large collective. From the viewpoint of a performer, such scores act as
4
5
In section 2.6.2 some examples will be given of notation systems that leave much
more freedom to the performer.
The alphabet of the TNS is based on the 12 well-tempered pitches of an octave.
The notation accommodates to extend the alphabet to other octaves. In practice,
the number of octaves is finite, since the range of human hearing is finite.
- 29 -
Collective Talent
interfaces to the production of music. They impose constraints that regulate
individual as well as collective musical activity (e.g. members of an
orchestra; see 2.6; figure 4).
Musical instruments form other important examples of (individualized)
musical interfaces, to composers as well as to performers. In chapter two it
will be argued that the development and design of musical interfaces, such
as conventional musical instruments and the traditional system for music
notation, may have overshot the mark. Constraints imposed on creating and
performing music have progressively become tighter. Obviously, such
consolidation cannot take place without loss. Conventional musical
interfaces predetermine musical activity at the expense of exploration,
improvisation and variety.
In teaching music, use of these interfaces will not only create musical
dropouts, but also restricts the possibilities to use music as a medium to
communicate and to converse.
1.3.2
Collective talent
Although western music education strongly focuses on individuals and often
refers to a one-way process of communication rather than to reciprocity,
making music also has a collective quality. As opposed to a one-way
transmittance of meaning and emotion, this collective quality refers to a
process in which at least two actors mutually respond to each other in a
meaningful way. There are important advantages to such interactive
processes.
People are able to inspire each other by participating in a musical
conversation, even to the extent that a ‘musical spark’6 can spread. While
exchanging musical inputs, a perceptible musical structure may evolve. This
evolving structure can be used as a source to the collective construction and
stabilization of a set of rules and constraints – or a ‘language’ - that
organizes the basic interactions of the participants involved. The interacting
6
Haroutounian (2002) uses the term ‘spark’ in the context of music in a different
way. Her aim is to kindle the ‘spark of musical talent’ in children.
- 30 -
Introduction
participants will obtain organizational closure7 once they collectively
conserve such a language (see 2.2). Their musical interactions may stabilize
into ‘patterns’. In research, the stabilization of musical interactions enables
observational closure of a collective. Once observational closure is reached,
external observers are able to recognize the interacting participants as a
collective, and to transmit their observations to others (see 2.2).
Collectives that are based on a musical conversation tolerate and even
welcome internal variety. At any point in time, each of the participants is
enabled to develop a new idea, a proposal, or a hint. New inputs can be
rejected or neglected by others; they can also be accepted and used as
incentives to develop and stabilize new patterns of interaction.
Although a musical conversation may proceed in a very talented way, this
does not mean that ‘anything goes’. A talented musical conversation requires
that people be enabled to contribute to the construction, stabilization and
modification of a language that regulates individual as well as collective
musical activity. They need to be able to produce some basic sounds and to
create meaningful patterns of sounds. The ability to produce sounds does not
need to be restricted to those with specific culturally defined skills (see
1.2.2). Since a musical conversation is primarily self-regulating, it does not
predefine which musical inputs are acceptable and which not. While
interacting, musical inputs can become meaningful to the participants. It is
my assumption that people who fail to act competently within the narrow
and clear-cut boundaries of conventional musical interfaces can be great
contributors to a musical conversation.
If we conceive of music performance as an activity to communicate, the two
main concepts of musical talent (see 1.2) appear to be too restricted. Instead,
this viewpoint helps to recognize a collective form of talent, which I define as
follows:
7
Organizational closure refers to the degree of self-containment a system has with
respect to its pattern of organization. A system that organizes the relations among
its components in such a manner as to ensure the continuation of its own
organization is considered organizationally closed. Source: http://www.nesh.ca/
jameskay/ersserver.uwaterloo.ca/jjkay/grad/bdempster/gloss.html,
retrieved
May 9, 2006.
- 31 -
Collective Talent
Collective talent is the ability of a collective to self-renew its
internal patterns of interaction independently of external
influences. It leads to both an enrichment of individual experiences
and group produced performance.
1.4
1.4.1
The research
An alternative approach to music education
Not all of us are excellent musicians: some people seem to be attracted more
to music, and to have a better sense for music than others. Neither are we all
great poets, athletic heroes or eminent politicians. I do not see this as a
problem. One could even argue that human variety is of great importance to
the survival and evolution of mankind.
Despite individual differences in musical ability and the fact that they will
probably always remain, what can be considered as musical talent may be
less unequally distributed over people and less a fixed property of
individuals than we have come to believe. The present study stems from the
idea that this may be due to the (western) distinction between talented and
untalented musical behavior itself. It may have led to a neglect of much of
human musical ability.
In this study it will be assumed that musical talent is a cultural artifact.
Cultures influence the way in which people make music and what is
recognized and judged as talented musical behavior (Dunsby, 1995; Fletcher,
1987; Gembris, 1987; Johnson, 2004).
A musical culture is maintained and characterized by a language (see 1.3.1)
that guides and restricts the making of music. Such a language is helpful in
that it suggests to performers which sounds can be used and how to order
these sounds in such a way that others accept the result as music. It implies a
selection of words and a grammar that enables to generate musical works. It
provides performers as well as observers (e.g. researchers, audiences) with
standards that enable to produce and recognize musical structures and to
judge and compare the quality of musical results.
- 32 -
Introduction
Collective use and maintenance of languages, in the sense used here, also
shows pitfalls. It can lead to the implementation of cultures that exclude the
production of specific musical forms, while supporting others. It can lead to
a tight and stable regulation of musical activity, while limiting access to
other ways of making of music. Once such a language has stabilized, it
determines the judgment of what is talent or not.
The increased interest in musical cultures other than western has led to a
wider recognition of musical forms (‘world music’). This does not imply a
broad access yet. Still, widening some of the constraints that are imposed on
musical activity might enable more people to behave as talented musicians.
This implies extending the concept of musical talent.
The study reported here starts from the recognition that there is a clear need
for a more general approach to help people regain or maintain their status as
members of a community in which music is an accepted form of
communication. This study focuses on one such approach, where music is
emphasized as a medium to converse and to interact with others, to
improvise and to create. It differs from the other two in that it specifically
assumes individuals' environments to include other individuals, with similar
aims concerning music.
The choice of this approach reflects present day's interest in collectives and
in processes of self-organization and group improvisation (Barrett, 2000;
Berniker, 1998; Crossan et al., 1996; Hatch, 1998; Kauffman, 1987; Lewin,
1998; Moorman & Miner, 1998; Orlikowski, 1996; Pasmore, 1998;
Reinholdsson, 1998; Sawyer, 2003; Vaill, 1990; Weick, 1998; Weggeman,
1997; Zack, 2000). It also is based on a personal interest in exchange and
interaction. One may think of Flamenco sessions, where people show what I
call collective talent (1.3.2). This form of talent does not refer to properties of
individuals or to properties of environments, but to individuals being able to
do something together, and to cooperate and participate in musical sessions.
Collective talent is an emergent property8 that appears from the interactions
8
An emergent property can appear when a number of interacting actors (or agents)
operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviors as a collective.
Emergent properties are not a property of any single actor, nor can they easily be
predicted or deduced from their behavior. In nature, ant colonies and the shape
and behavior of a school of fish or flock of birds are good examples. Apart from
- 33 -
Collective Talent
between the individual actors. It may be expressed in many different ways:
as a jam session, a concert for a life audience, a Flamenco performance—but
usually not as a quiet evening with a DVD player.
The notion of collective talent will be explored and used in this study to help
add to people's experiences, rather than usurp their individual or
environmental talents. Demonstrations of collective talent may but need not
coincide with the performance of groups of individually talented musicians.
The latter is considered an advantage, as it allows one to avoid the possibility
of imposing on people and to reduce its negative effects. Emphasizing
individual talents in daily life and in teaching, for example, may force less
talented people to spend more effort than they are able to afford. It may even
force highly individually talented people to drop out from musical
experience. Emphasizing environmental influences may also lead to
impositions, moreover, for example to too strong regulations on a collective
level.
It is not claimed, of course, that the notion of collective talent fully avoids
such limitations. It is not a panacea. The main advantage of adding and
exploring the notion of collective talent is the possibility to be more precise
and flexible—in teaching, in cultural development and in research. For
example, if the notion of collective talent turns out to 'add nothing', one may
explore another approach, or a combination of the three approaches. In this
way some of the 'blindness' to be expected may be avoided when trying to
help people to enjoy music as a medium to converse with others—as well as
to improvise and to create.
1.4.2
The research question reformulated
It has been mentioned already that the conventional approaches to musical
talent (see 1.2) have a clear basis in daily life, in teaching as well as in
research. In daily life and in teaching it is possible to identify certain
individuals as 'gifted' players; in research one will choose individuals as
biology, examples appear in many other domains, such as in physics (hurricanes,
the structure and shape of galaxies), culture (e.g. The World Wide Web, traffic
patterns) and in mind studies, artificial intelligence and robotics (see e.g. Steels,
1991; Varela et al., 1997).
- 34 -
Introduction
one's 'scientific object'. The same holds for the second approach. In daily life
one will for instance explore new musical instruments (e.g. computer-based
or electronic instruments); in teaching one will implement these
instruments as new educational tools; in research one will focus on the
properties of such instruments and their influences on musical behavior. The
notion of collective talent also shows instances in daily life (for example in
flamenco sessions and in jazz; see chapter three). This notion is still not
engrained in teaching, however.
Central to this study will be the question how to bring up instances of
collective talent in research, and hence, what is to be chosen as 'scientific
object'. As will be argued later, making this choice requires the additional
notion of a conversation.
With my research on collectives I hope to acquire knowledge that can be
used in teaching to help people discover the collective quality of making
music and to add to their experiences. There is an extra advantage to the
choice of music, moreover. Music is of great interest by itself, but also
appears to exemplify most clearly the processes involved in talented
improvised group performances. The study of musical group activity can be
argued to function as an exemplar of choosing an 'object' with a wider
application. It may thus help explore improvised performance of collectives
more generally. This will be discussed in chapter six.
The question the present study aims to answer is how talented improvised
group performance is to be created and supported.
To do so another question will be answered first, that is how to support
people to participate in musical conversations such that the result can be
experienced as music. Answering this modified question requires two subactivities. Firstly, to study what contributions people are able to make to the
collective process of making music. Secondly—since music requires a
structure—to study how order evolves over these contributions such that the
result is experienced as music. The results of these activities will be used to
answer the original question.
- 35 -
Collective Talent
1.5
Redesigning musical interfaces as a historical problem
As will be discussed in the next chapter, the notion of collective talent is
linked to the notion of an extended interface. It may be used to construct
collectives that are tolerant to internal variety and enable their participants
to improvise and to create.
Most musicians and composers do not perceive the use of conventional
musical interfaces as a problem. They consider them useful and stimulating
by themselves. Many people, however, are insufficiently equipped to act
competently with conventional musical interfaces. In daily life, this
incompetence may simply be accepted as an established fact, like not having
‘a talent for music’. It may also be conceived of as a problem to be solved in
teaching as well as in research, as in the present study.
History offers many examples of both musicians and music theorists who
have made an effort to remove some of the constraints imposed by
conventional interfaces. Such improvements have been made by deliberate
interface changes, so that the making of music could be structured
differently. It generally takes years before such a change is effectuated. When
this happens newly developed interfaces often also become conventional.
An example is the development of different musical styles. Differences in
musical styles derive from different concepts or models of music. Musical
styles act like interfaces. They give rise to the development of collectives that
are based on and maintain specific rules and constraints. Styles change with
the years, as do styles of speech. Nevertheless, the names of individual
composers and musicians are strongly attached to certain musical styles. An
individual or unique style is the mark of originality and sometimes of
innovatory genius. If the changes prove acceptable, styles are adopted for
general use. Examples of composers whose resistance to conform and
restrict themselves to earlier musical styles - ranging from Schubert to
Armstrong, and from Stockhausen to The Beatles - resulted in the
establishment of a new style.
Another example of musical interfaces can be found in the development of
notation systems. In the history of western music, systems for music
notation have gradually developed into the ‘stave notation’ that we use as a
- 36 -
Introduction
convention today. The general acceptance of this notation system has
resulted in a wide application of specific rules and constraints. They are
often experienced as useful, but also as impositions on the act of composing,
interpreting and performing music.
Other notation systems are based on the elaboration of different models of
making music. One example is formed by tablatures, that do not represent
notes by symbols on a stave, but by codes or symbols that direct the player
towards the positions to place his fingers in order to get the right notes. The
oldest Greek notations were in fact tablatures (Sachs & Hamburg, 1986).
Although tablatures are instrument-dependent, in ancient Greece this
system appeared to be sufficient. Since all musicians appear to have been
vocalists, who were expected to accompany themselves, the potential
shortcomings of tablatures remained unrecognized for a very long time. In
the Renaissance tablatures were also used for keyboard instruments and
notably, in German countries, the organ (Hindley, 1986).
Today, we still use tablatures for guitar and lute. To many people the
weaknesses and the constraints of this system are self-evident. To many
modern composers also conventional stave notation has its shortcomings,
however. Their efforts to overcome these limitations have resulted in a
number of new types of notation systems and musical scores (see 2.6.2).
Recent interface changes result from the implementation of electronics and
computers in music. Since the late 1980s interactive computers systems have
developed extensively. Particularly for music, these instruments yielded
numerous aesthetic and cultural implications. Modern technology enables
exploring music on the level of sounds. This gave rise to new models of
music performance that became widely known through the joint effort of the
sound industry and the work of composers like Stockhausen, Boulez, Cage
and many pop musicians.
Until today, there is a growing tendency to realize that musical instruments
need to be improved on a structural level. Pioneers are contemporary
composers and musicians to whom traditional as well as modern electronic
instruments impose serious limitations. Their need to experiment and to
elaborate new models of music performance has led to the design of many
innovative musical instruments and interactive compute systems. Virtual
- 37 -
Collective Talent
musical instruments, accessed for example by glove controllers and visual or
haptic displays, generated by the conversion of information, have been
developed in the 1990s (Pressing, 1998). Still, it appears, that many of these
'new' interfaces are not supportive to improvised group performance (see
chapter three).
1.6
Outline of this book
This book reports on the exploration and elaboration of ways of creating and
supporting talented improvised group performance. The main part of this
research is directed to music, since this is a field that still offers many
opportunities to enter this subject. The study of musical group activity can
be argued to function as an exemplar of studying improvised performance of
collectives more generally. The approach that is used is not restricted to
music, but can be applied to many other fields (management and
organization, information and communication technology). It is based on
and reflects current thinking in second order cybernetics.
The contents of this book are divided into 6 chapters. The contents are not
placed in a chronological order, but describe the path that is followed to
answer the research question. This path is based on a personal learning
process, which was cyclic and reflective rather than linear. It brings out
research that helped to formulate the present research question and the
object of study. By reentering the research findings with the new viewpoints
in mind, it also helped to give answers to the central question of this thesis.
The ensuing chapters contain the following.
Chapter two presents a research design that enables to initiate and identify
collectives that reveal collective talent. The notion of strongly connected
collectives (SCCs) is introduced as the object of study. A conceptual
framework is formulated that enables to define knowledge acquisition
concerning improvised group performance and the emergence of collective
talent. This conceptual framework is stimulated by and related to the
concepts and approach of Conversation Theory (Pask, 1975b, 1976, 1987). In
explanation of the conceptual framework, the historical development of
conventional musical interfaces is discussed and related to the construction
of musical SCCs and our conception of musical talent.
- 38 -
Introduction
Chapter three concentrates on what helps to develop SCCs that reveal
collective talent. A number of types of experimental and cultural interfaces
and interface changes are analyzed in terms of their implicit performance
models and their relation to the concept of musical talent. The differences
between extended interfaces and conventional musical interfaces are
analyzed and explained.
Chapter four and five describe research experiments that were dedicated to
exploring and demonstrating the possibility to support musical group
improvisation in practical situations. Chapter four focuses on the results of
an educational project (the ‘Spinoza’ project). Chapter five evaluates the
effects of an interactive musical performance system (‘Sensitive Chords’), as
an example of an extended interface. Since the notion of an SCC was
developed after completion of these projects, it is retrospectively applied to
describe and discuss the results of these experiments.
Chapter six summarizes the main conclusions and contributions. It discusses
the internal and external validity of this study and its appliance to other
fields of relevance.
- 39 -
2 Research design
2.1
Introduction
Flamenco sessions offer remarkable examples of improvising music
together. Such sessions are dramatic and passionate and bring cathartic
moments to the delight of the audience. This makes such sessions interesting
in their own, but also as instances of the more general notion of improvised
group performances; the main focus of this study. I will use flamenco
sessions as a starting point to derive and to demonstrate the structure that is
crucial to my research design. In this chapter I intend to discuss some of
their distinguishing characteristics.
Crucial to any research design is the notion of a scientific object. It identifies
the class of observations of interest, as well as the extent to which its
elements vary. The latter is achieved if it becomes possible to recognize
whether or not any new observation belongs to the class, but also what
variation can be expected within the class one is dealing with. Such
recognition renders a full enumeration of instances unnecessary, and hence,
makes the object of study independent of specific instances one might be
interested in.
This criterion usually functions as the ideal of being able to 'know' and to
'understand'. Meeting it obviously is not easy. In practice one will be
satisfied if one can approximate the ideal, and may continue to do so.
Approximations obviously imply increasing precision, but more generally
may also require that earlier definitions of one's scientific object be
modified. Research designs should help identify necessary modifications—
and thereby test and eventually justify increased knowledge.
- 41 -
Collective Talent
Many areas of social science show a tendency to stick to one definition of the
'object' to serve in many studies, and thereby to define a 'discipline'.
Psychology, for example, often is characterized by the assumption that the
'object' refers to individuals. Variations within ‘the class of individuals’ are
referred to as variables, and the values of the variables as properties of the
individuals who are members of the class. Full 'understanding' usually is
taken to mean that such properties are 'innate' or 'owned' by individuals (the
first approach; see 1.2.1). Earlier I discussed the possibility of assuming too
early or too automatically that this is the case for musical talent. This raises
the question what other definition to consider in this case.
One alternative is the second approach (see 1.2.2). Here the scientific object
tends to be defined as the class of (observed) reactions of individuals to
environmental influences. This is, for example, the object of study in social
psychology. 'Understanding' now implies that properties (e.g. musical talent)
are 'ascribed' to individuals, and are due to external influences, rather than
'owned' by them.
In the following section, I will propose a third approach. I will elaborate the
notion of collective talent (see 1.3.2) and define strongly connected
collectives (SCCs) as the object of my study. In section 2.3 I will introduce
the concepts language and interface and formulate a conceptual framework
that enables to define knowledge acquisition concerning improvised group
performance and the emergence of collective talent. In section 2.4 I will
discuss the link between this approach and Pask’s notion of a conversation. I
will propose a theory for supporting collective talent. In section 2.5 the
difference between conventional and extended interfaces will be discussed.
In section 2.6 I will apply the conceptual framework to the historical
development of conventional musical interfaces. I will discuss their
contributions to the construction of SCCs and the development of the
current conceptions of musical talent.
2.2
Strongly connected collectives
To avoid the disadvantages of conventional definitions of the scientific object
(see chapter one) I propose to use and explore an alternative definition. I
define my ‘object’ as collectives that are produced and maintained by time-
- 42 -
Research design
dependent variations of their constitutive elements. I take it that the
scientific criterion is satisfied (or more accurately ‘approximated’) if
properties on the level of the collectives are 'owned', for example musical
talent or music performance, while properties on the level of the elements
are 'ascribed', and are due to mutual influences.
According to the above formulation we may say that the properties of the
collectives maintain those of the elements, and vice versa. This suggests a
more familiar way of referring to the elements in collectives, that is, as
'actors', and to the time-dependent observational variations actors generate
as 'actions'. There is a danger in the use of such notions, however, as both
labels, viz. actors and actions, are used also in daily life, or rather when there
is no interest in inquiry. However, no difficulty should arise if one remains
aware of the differences between the two contexts.
The advantage of using the labels 'actor' and 'action' is that they highlight the
directed nature of participation, on two levels. Participants may report or
show their personal variations, often in terms of intentions or objectives.
They also may report or show what is required to be part of a collective, with
what function. Neither type of report or observation needs to be very precise
and allows for some variation, as flamenco improvisations show clearly.
To maintain precision about the constraints on these variations, I will use
the notion of a strongly connected collective (SCC), which I define as
follows:
Strongly connected collectives are produced and maintained by
the dynamic interactions of the actors that make up the collectives.
This definition will serve to indicate my scientific object, and hence will be
part of my research design. It suggests two formulations, at different levels,
which respectively identify what I deem relevant to answer my research
question, and what direction I aim to satisfy the scientific criterion as
formulated above. I will use the term SCC at both of these levels.
Firstly, it may be said that flamenco sessions constitute instances of an SCC,
in case one intends to study them in terms of their ‘owned’ properties (e.g.
what makes them collectively talented), as well as the ‘ascribed’ properties of
their members (e.g. how participants stimulate each other).
- 43 -
Collective Talent
Secondly, flamenco sessions may be labeled SCCs - in case one intends to
study SCCs as such. This allows one to suggest or hypothesize general
characteristics of SCCs, and to talk about the 'actors' and 'actions' involved.
We may say, for example, that exemplars of SCCs continuously come into
being through processes of self-organization and self-maintenance. In other
words, that they do not 'exist' in the traditional sense.
I do not intend SCCs to be used in the study of any kind of collective, for
example collectives of atoms or molecules, or cells constituting a biological
organism. In these cases the 'actors' are restricted to one collective at a time
(Kauffman, 1987; Maturana & Varela, 1987). SCCs should allow for multiparticipation, which means that individuals may participate in more than
one collective, and are able to 'jump' collectives.
The feature of being strongly connected is included to emphasize that it
should not be possible not to interact and still be considered part of a
collective. This excludes subscribers to journals, or the employees of a large
company. In both examples it is possible to be ‘silent’, or to act only on the
basis of strict formal rules. In other words, SCCs require that participants are
active in contributing to their production, and willing to maintain the SCCs
they participate in.
Although my notion of an SCC is still quite general, it does seem sufficient as
a first definition of what I need (to be modified where needed), for two
reasons. Firstly, it is designed to represent the flamenco sessions, as my
favorite exemplars. Secondly, it provides a definition of what may be
considered ‘understanding’ or ‘knowledge’ of exemplars of SCCs.
Such 'knowledge' will refer to two levels. Being able to produce and maintain
a collective that shows 'talented improvised group performance' requires,
firstly, 'knowing how' to start and maintain such a collective, and, secondly,
to recognize or 'know what' has come into being. Together these constitute
'knowledge of the members of a collective’ (knowledge for each situated
user) as well as ‘knowledge of the researcher’ (knowledge for any user,
including participants in future collectives).
This type of knowledge differs from traditional forms of knowledge that only
refer to 'knowing what'. Anyone 'knowing how' to start collectives with pre-
- 44 -
Research design
defined properties will also know how to intervene or act such that certain
effects follow. This stands in obvious contrast to 'knowledge of variables or
properties'. Such knowledge is not addressed to any particular user and thus
lacks directedness in its use.
It may be noted that similar attempts to define 'objects' can be found in what
is called the system movement. The work of Maturana and Varela (1987)
provides an example. They introduced the notion of an autopoietic system to
define an 'object' for biology, and to improve on existing definitions. Many
organization theorists suggest that such systems may fulfill the same
function in social studies (Faucheux, 1979; Luhmann, 1995; Van MensVerhulst & Van Mens, 1990; Mingers, 1994, 2002; Robb, 1989; Zeleny, 1980;
Zeleny & Hufford, 1992). This subject still leads to many discussions,
however (see 6.3.1). I have preferred to define my own 'object’ therefore,
which will be shown to provide special advantages.
One also may find attempts to study 'improvised' behavior on the basis of
direct analogies, for example using parts of 'chaos theory' (Ten Brummeler &
Zuijderhout, 1992; Van Mens-Verhulst, 1992). Advantages are claimed to
include the possibility of studying wide variations in 'internal' behavior.
Although I do expect such variations, I still consider this type of approach
unsuitable. The reason is that 'chaos theory' is restricted to deterministic
phenomena. It does not allow 'actors' to step out, and excludes the kind of
improvisation shown in flamenco sessions.
A more fruitful connection of my 'object' is to Pask’s notion of a
conversation, which is defined as a scientific object to support studies in
Conversation Theory (Pask, 1975b, 1976, 1987). From the viewpoint of
participants in a conversation, organizational closure of their dynamic
exchanges is taken as the criterion to be satisfied. ‘Organizational closure’
refers to the degree of self-containment a system has with respect to its
pattern of organization (see 1.3.2). A collective is organizationally closed if it
organizes the relations among its members in such a manner as to ensure its
own continuation. To the external observer, when studying the internal
dynamics that produce and maintain conversations, the emphasis is on
- 45 -
Collective Talent
observational closure9 (see 1.3.2). Observational closure is achieved if one is
able to recognize the class to which certain observations belong (for instance
an SCC) as well as to recognize instances (for instance flamenco sessions) of
that class (see e.g. De Zeeuw, 2001). The two are special instances of the
criterion discussed above. The link between SCCs and conversations will be
discussed more extensively in section 2.4.
The notion of a conversation clearly depends on people's ability to speak, to
report, to discuss—that is on the constraints imposed by the languages and
interfaces that structure the exchanges with others. The notions of language
and interface will prove important when I explore how actors 'inform' each
other, and how they use other actors' actions as resources for their own
actions. Neither notion is of course alien to music. We often refer to the
language of music as a means of communication and emotional expression
(Cooke, 1963; Raffman, 1993), and to user interfaces to define how we play
musical instruments.
2.3
Languages, interfaces and the making of music
In the previous section I introduced the notion of an SCC as a way to
facilitate my research design. As a scientific object, it enables to reconstruct
instances of SCCs (‘flamenco-like’ sessions) in research. This is not possible
when using the ‘standard’ objects of study.
I will concentrate on collectives that can be identified as exemplars of SCCs
and thereby enable knowledge acquisition. This implies that many kinds of
collectives are excluded from my study. Among the latter are collectives that
do not allow for multi-participation (see 2.2). Other collectives that are
excluded are so-called ‘rule systems’.
From an ontological perspective, ‘rule systems’ differ from exemplars of
SCCs. They are produced and maintained by external commands, just like
many technical systems. They impose solid and inflexible constraints on
social activity and regulate 'proper' or normatively defined behavior. Rule
systems require an effort to maintain, for example through external policing.
9
Pask also used the term observational closure, but he did not make a distinction
between organizational and observational closure.
- 46 -
Research design
The result often is a mindless and unquestioning acceptance of their
regulating effects. Another limitation becomes visible when circumstances
call for new actions and new actors. In this case the operating rules cannot
be adapted easily. We may experience rule systems as very restrictive,
therefore.
Rule systems are singled out here to be distinguished from exemplars of
SCCs as they are abundant in many areas of society such as education. They
specify constraints on speech, gesture, mime or graphics. Many rule systems
have been explicitly designed to teach and give access to music. There are
other areas where rule systems dominate, for example in cultures or subcultures. One may think of legal rule systems, containing rules not to commit
murder.
Rule systems need not be rejected and may even be of great value in daily
life. They may enable the production of ‘local’ SCCs that show collective
talent (e.g. creative project teams within a bank). Unfortunately, they have a
tendency to become immutable and inflexible. These are precisely the
properties that improvised group performances are intended to avoid. As
will be argued in this section, when instances of SCCs fail to support
collective talent, they may become equally immutable and inflexible.
To ensure that the ontological differences between instances of SCCs and
rule systems remain explicit, I distinguish three forms of communication on
different levels. On each of these levels constraints are imposed on action.
Collectives that are instances of SCCs are taken to result from the interaction
between these three levels, and to develop within the framework of this
interaction. I label them L1, L2 and L3.
To describe them I again restrict myself to music. The three types are:
• L1: the perceptible structure of music production
• L2: the language of making music
• L3: the environmental structure that enables the construction of L2 on
the basis of L1
By exploring possible forms of interaction between these three levels of
communication it is possible to clarify the development of ordered sound
production (music) in a collective. The forms of communication differ in the
extent to which they can be observed. While L1 can be observed and
- 47 -
Collective Talent
determined independently of L2, recognition of (the development of) L2
requires L1, as well as the distinction of a third level, namely L3.
L1: the perceptible structure of music production
The perceptible or observable structure of music production refers to the
musical events (sounds, tones, themes, voices, etc.) that are recognized and
used as ‘words’ and to the way these words are combined into ‘sentences’.
To observers, L1 is perceived as the sounds or music being produced by the
interacting performers. L1 can be identified as music if a stable structure of
sound production is recognized (this does not mean that one should ‘like’ the
music). By observer I mean anybody who is able to observe the evolving L1.
This includes outsiders (e.g. the researcher, the audience) as well as the
interacting actors who collectively produce L1.
The interacting actors use L1 also in a different way. Produced and listened
to as a collective resource, the evolving L1 enables individual performers the
communication of meaning and to elaborate on each other’s ideas. While
interacting, participants are enabled to test and improve their personal
experiences and contributions against the collective act of making music.
This is the case even when there is little structure in the ‘sentences’ yet.
L2: the language of making music
In improvised group performance a musical composition is created while it
is being performed. Since music is more than a combination of sounds, a
language may be assumed to guide and restrict the production of sounds in
such a way that the outcome can be recognized and understood as music by
external observers. The guidelines and restrictions are summarized as an L2language, or rather as the vocabulary and grammar that supports the making
of music. L2 refers to the selection of what can be counted as words as well
as to the way in which the words can be combined into sentences10.
Improvised musical performances, such as flamenco sessions, do not start
with a well-defined L2. The latter may still develop, even when L1 is already
in use. During the development of L2, L1 and L2 will interact and mutually
10
L2 corresponds to the meaning of ‘the language of music’ as defined by Cooke
(1963).
- 48 -
Research design
sustain each other (figure 1). L1 is used as a source for the development of
L2, during which process L2 may start to create and maintain itself. We may
say that L1 allows for differentiation in L2, while L2 allows for the
morphogenesis of L1.
Figure 1: Mutual generation and sustenance of L1 and L2
L3: the environmental structure that enables the construction of L2
Production of a musical piece has to start somewhere. People have to be
addressed or invited to produce some L1, from which L2 may be constructed.
L3 refers to the structure that elicits and constrains musical inputs from the
actors who participate in the construction of an SCC, whether or not they are
individually talented. L3s act like interfaces. They give access to music, by
revealing opportunities to act and at the same time imposing on actors.
Crucial is the feedback11 that actors receive.
In this study, I will concentrate on musical instruments and notation
systems as examples of (elements of) L3. Other examples are conductors,
teachers and members of the audience. A clear distinction between
performers and listeners cannot always be made. Firstly, every performer is
also a listener. Secondly, listeners may themselves become active
participants in (the production of) an SCC. In flamenco, for example,
members of the audience explicitly form part of the SCC that is constructed
during a session (see 3.4.3). Also musical instruments can be conceived of as
actors interacting with a human performer in the construction of an SCC
(see 3.2 and 3.3).
11
Barfield (1993) distinguishes future, past and present feedback. Future feedback
is feedback about the interaction that is supplied to the user before the
interaction is carried out. Present feedback tells the user what is happening. Past
feedback gives information about what has happened.
- 49 -
Collective Talent
L3 serves as an external stimulus (or a ‘kick-start’) to the development of L1
and L2. Eventually the internal dynamics of the interaction of L1 and L2 may
take over. When this happens, L1 and L2 mutually generate each other, with
little or no interference from L3. This recursive process thus implies possible
stabilization of L2. What is produced (L1) may be accepted as melodic or
rhythmical patterns by the observers (including participants as well as
external observers).
The convergence to stability should not be taken to mean that L2 would not
change anymore. There may be new stimulation from a new L3. Also the
evolving L1 may elicit new stimuli from the actors and serve as an interface
(L3’) to the development of a new L2 (see figure 2; 2.5). This allows for
improvisation.
As indicated, in improvised group performance the development of an L2 is
assumed to be due to the internal dynamics of constructing a collective. This
implies that the appearance of an SCC need not be due to individual talent.
SCCs and the study of collective talent
We may now define knowledge acquisition concerning improvised group
performance and the emergence of collective talent - using the notions of
SCC, L1, L2 and L3.
Knowledge concerning collective talent consists in being able to produce, to
maintain and to recognize an SCC that shows collective talent. The scientific
criterion is approximated (or satisfied) when we know that an SCC has been
produced, know that it has collective talent, and know how to initiate its
development by the introduction of L3.
Knowing L3 implies being able to impose constraints on the development of
new SCCs. Testing this kind of knowledge involves ensuring that each time it
is used, an SCC develops.
A collective becomes an SCC when L1 and L2 get 'in tune', and their
continued use no longer depends on external constraints from L3.
Recognition of an SCC requires being able to identify L2 as a stable
constraint on the production of L1. This is possible by listening to L1. For
example, stabilization of L2 is indicated when a rhythmical, melodic or
harmonic pattern emerges and is maintained in existence by the interacting
- 50 -
Research design
actors. Although recognition of (complex) musical patterns may depend on
the level of sophistication and the musical frame of reference of the observer,
I assume that many of such patterns are sufficiently generic to be recognized
by anybody who listens.
It should be recalled that the musical patterns produced by SCCs are due to
the dynamic interactions of their members. This differs from predefined
performances and distinguishes SCCs from other collectives that produce
music. ‘Being strongly connected’ implies that participants are attentive and
alert to one another, build on each other’s contributions, modify their acts in
response to one another and try resisting destructive interferences from L3.
These actions help maintain the SCC and contribute to the collective
production of music.
SCCs show great differences with respect to the support their members
receive. Many SCCs do not allow for a change of L2. They therefore will not
show collective talent. Although they are produced in a different way, their
operating rules may become quite as immutable and inflexible as those
imposed by rule systems (see p. 46-47).
SCCs that reveal collective talent accept variations occurring within the
system. These variations may stem from random, accidental or deliberate
actions and give rise to the development of new L2s. The specific qualities of
SCCs that show collective talent are based on the use of L1 as L3' (see figure
2; 2.5). Collective talent emerges from interaction, as opposed to
combinations of individual talent. What needs to be tested, therefore, is if
participants are enabled to modify their own contributions to music in
interaction with one another. The mechanisms involved will be elaborated in
section 2.5 – and will be referred to as the use of an extended interface.
Similarities may appear between L3s and stable L2s, for example such as
implemented in previously composed music. In other words, existing L2s
can be used as L3 and can be categorized in terms of the constraints they
impose on the development of new SCCs (figure 4; 2.6). Such constraints
may be quite strong, in which case they may be implemented and used only
by individually talented individuals. They also may initiate the development
of new SCCs that enable improvisation and the appearance of collective
talent.
- 51 -
Collective Talent
2.4
Improvised group performance and conversation
2.4.1
Conversation Theory
The conceptual framework in section 2.3 is inspired by and related to the
Conversation Theory of Pask (1975b, 1976, 1987). I will present the
theoretical conceptions of Conversation Theory and relate them to my
conceptual framework. It also helps to illustrate more clearly the processes
that take place during improvised group performance and the qualities of
interfaces supporting these processes.
In Conversation Theory, conversations are defined as interactions.
Interaction is seen as an ongoing process in which a language is maintained,
and is designed and sustained in such a way that it can be used to bridge the
gaps between the participants in the conversation. Pask calls this language a
‘protolanguage’, which has the same meaning as the term L2 that I use.
“A conversation is an active linguistic interaction between actors,
namely, the participants by whom personal concepts are exchanged
and, in part, shared. The shared concepts are dubbed as public
concepts and are exteriorized, together with their interrelations. It
has turned out possible to represent these concepts and relations in
terms of a protolanguage or protologic, namely the Lp, which I tied
up with Conversation Theory, when this phrase was first
mentioned.” (Pask, 1987, p.19)
Conversation aims to strengthen the coordination between participants. It
produces consciousness with each other about an agreement to understand
‘something’ in a particular way (Pask, 1987).
Conversation is based on linguistic exchanges, and is itself therefore a
generator of the languages involved. According to Pask, the conversational
language used by the participants must have the power to express
commands, questions, obedience, answers and requests. This language does
not need to be verbal. It may just as well be by means of graphics, music or
facial expression. In addition to the term 'protolanguage' that Pask uses, I
have introduced the term L1, which refers to the linguistic phenomena that
enable the development of meaning through L2. In my conceptual
- 52 -
Research design
framework, L1 and L2 mutually generate and sustain each other (figure 1;
2.3).
Conversation Theory is concerned with events as being experienced and
responded to by participants. The events of conversational interaction are
linguistic exchanges - on occasion producing shared concepts or ‘common
meaning agreements’12. Shared concepts and their relations enable the
participants to coordinate their mutual exchanges and actions.
One of the main contributions of Conversation Theory is that it enables us to
observe events that cannot be observed when using ‘standard’ scientific
approaches. During a conversation, linguistic expressions derive their
meaning from interaction. This means that scientific observation of the
conversational events is only possible when the observations and
experiences of the interacting actors are included. The data of Conversation
Theory are therefore different from ‘standard’ and ‘objective’ data. Shared
concepts and their relations are represented in ‘protolanguage’ - which I call
L2 - that is generated and sustained during the process of interaction. These
shared concepts, and the changes and exchanges involved, can be conceived
of as data about the conversation going on.
According to Pask (1987), when it comes to the question of how to support a
conversation, it is important to establish an interface (which I call L3) that
enables maintenance of the quality of the interactive dialogue. This point is
particularly appealing in situations when modern technology is called in to
support a conversation. Since a conversation is more than ‘transfer of
information’, a conversational interface differs, for example, from an
interface for the communication of data. A conversation also includes (and
depends on) things like mutual comprehension, agreements, or agreements
to disagree. The mediating interface, which enables the construction, use,
stabilization and modification of the protolanguage (L2), should be sensitive
and adaptive to such inputs.
“The main point of Conversation Theory is that conversation is the
converse of control. It leads to deregulation. For sure, concepts are
12
Strictly speaking, agreements and the like are inter-subjective refinements of
meaning (Pask, 1987, p. 19)
- 53 -
Collective Talent
exchanged in a conversation and often some public concept is
shared. Indeed, your personal concepts and my personal concepts
may be enriched. But your personal concept of something is not
identical to my personal concept of what we (may choose to call)
the same thing. The conversational exchange, even in the case when
some public concept is shared, may just as well lead to enrichment
by divergence (of our personal concepts), as to convergence (of our
personal concepts)” (Pask, 1987, p.18)
Conversation is by no way a means whereby one participating actor can
control the behavior of the other participant. A conversation requires the
injection of diversity from different participants. The language of a
conversation (L2) allows to be improved by its participants, using it. It is
manipulated by the interactive injection of variety, which benefits its
continued use.
Becoming a participant in a conversation is not a passive process. It involves
developing goals that shape further participation, it implies developing
characteristics that identify one's contributions to the conversation, and it
leads to the development of procedures to ascertain that one still is a
participant.
Participants in a conversation need not to be people. There are also
conversations going on in ‘one head’, between people and cultures, or
between cultures and cultures (Pask, 1987). Pask also conceived humanmachine interaction as a special form of conversation (see 3.1).
2.4.2
Support of a musical conversation
In order to elaborate more deeply on the qualities of interfaces that support
a musical conversation, we need to focus, in the first place, on the type of
events that elicit musical responses from people, such as the production of
sound. That is, we are to be concerned with events as being observed,
experienced, exchanged and responded to by the participants. Following the
lead of Conversation Theory, these events are personal concepts that are
exchanged and, in part, shared. In a musical conversation, players exchange
and respond to musical events that may express comprehension, answers,
- 54 -
Research design
advises, requests, commands, disagreement, agreement, and the like. In my
conceptual framework, these exchanges are represented by the evolving L1.
Secondly, since music requires a structure, we also need to study how it can
be ensured that an order evolves over the production of sounds. In a musical
conversation, such an order results from musical interactions, as opposed to
external control. Musicians ‘understand’ each other when they are able to
attune their personal experiences and insights in the collective production of
music.
While interacting, players’ actions and reaction flow together, such that a
musical result (L1) emerges that none of the players is capable of producing
alone. The dynamic exchanges may stabilize into specific, observable
patterns or forms (observational closure of an SCC). After stabilization of L2,
participants are – at any moment in time - enabled to drop a new concept or
to respond to the contributions of others in unexpected ways. The injection
of variety on the level of L1 may give rise to the development of new musical
patterns or forms.
Participants may forget about the external constraints (L3) and decide to use
the ongoing musical conversation itself (L1) as L3’ (see figure 2; 2.5). When
this happens, L1 is itself being used as an interface (L3’) that enables the
development of L2 into new directions.
“A feature common to all improvisation is that the creative
decisions of its performers are made within the restrictions of
performance itself” (Kenny & Gellrich, 2002, p.117)
An SCC that allows for improvisation and reveals collective talent can be
distinguished from other SCCs by the fact that the interactive dialogue (L1)
can be used as source to redefine earlier constraints on musical activity.
2.5
Conventional versus extended interfaces
Western musical culture provides many examples of improvisation and
collective talent, even though the emphasis is mainly on individual talent.
Skilled musicians derive much pleasure from jamming and improvising
together and from developing new rules and constraints on music
- 55 -
Collective Talent
production. A flamenco performance constitutes my prime example of a
musical session with the desired form of group improvisation. It clearly
illustrates the process of collectively constructing an L2 that is open to
change and improvement (for a detailed description, see 3.4.3).
A genuine flamenco performance develops within the framework of a
musical culture that specifically supports the construction of temporal SCCs
that reveal collective talent. The flamenco culture can also itself be conceived
of as an SCC. It is based on and maintains a global L2 that acts as L3 on the
production of music during a flamenco performance (see 2.3). The flamenco
culture is enacted by the participants in a flamenco session (which may also
incorporate active members of the audience). The cultural rules and
constraints of flamenco include to use certain schemes, focus on emotional
expression rather than on technical perfection, be attentive to the audience,
respond to momentary events and support each other to bring out the best.
Flamenco performers do make some preliminary agreements, like the choice
of a scheme. In the present terminology, the flamenco culture, the
preliminary agreements, the audience, the other performers the musical
instruments and the atmosphere of the setting can be identified as parts of
L3. Together they apparently make up an L3 that allows and seduces the
participants to start an interactive dialogue, contribute with fresh ideas and
respond to the ideas of others. In this way a perceptible musical structure is
expected to evolve, which is indicative of a stable L213.
During a flamenco performance, the evolving L1 is used as a collective
resource by transmitting information to participants that they need to
initiate the next musical steps. Also the dynamics of the sequence of such
steps are expected to take the evolving L1 as a resource, that is, as L3'. The
use of L1 as L3' is enabled by an extended interface. Such interfaces are
sensitive to the variation that occurs within the SCC (figure 2). The notion of
an extended interface will be further elaborated in chapter three. Flamenco
sessions will serve as one of the main examples (see 3.4.3).
It should be recalled that examples of improvised group performance and
extended interfaces can be found in other fields than music, in particular
13
At this moment, an external observer is enabled to recognize an SCC
(observational closure).
- 56 -
Research design
social networks in which people learn from each other by interacting.
Interpreting them as possible SCCs makes it possible to study what L3s
strengthen specific patterns of interaction such that the resulting collectives
show collective talent.
In the following section, the theoretical notions that I have formulated up till
now will be used to study a number of musical interfaces (L3s) in terms of
the development and stabilization of known L2s. They often turn into
conventional musical interfaces.
Figure 2: Extended interfaces; developmental phases of L2. After
stabilization and SCC-closure, L2 can develop into new directions
- 57 -
Collective Talent
Use of conventional interfaces tends to support the autonomous operation of
L2 (figure 3). They give rise to the construction of SCCs that accept L3 as a
‘given’ and respond defensively to outside as well as to inside variation.
Examples of such SCCs are visitors to a church who sing together during a
service, or members of an orchestra. Such SCCs use and maintain an L2language that imposes narrow and inflexible constraints on musical activity,
but allow for pre-defined differences (as do rule systems; see 2.3). Musical
activity will be strongly pre-determined, at the expense of improvisation and
exploration.
Figure 3: Conventional interfaces: after stabilization and SCC-closure, L2
is resistant to change
2.6
The evolution of conventional musical interfaces
In the musical culture of the West, learning to play an instrument requires
mastering technical skills as well as the traditional system of music notation.
Musical instruments and musical notation are clear examples of artificial
‘things’ that are being used for the purpose of making music. They can be
characterized in terms of function, goals and adaptation (Simon, 1996).
In order to improve the quality of these artifacts, we could focus our
attention to the things themselves. The sound quality of a violin, for
example, could be improved by using different materials or by changing its
shape. A system of notation could be improved by adding new entities that
can be combined into a structure. We could also define new processes that
can operate upon these structures.
- 58 -
Research design
In order to improve musical instruments and notation systems, we could
also consider the situation in which they are meant to be used. Devising a
system for notation that is not restricted to specific musical instruments has
been one of the major inventions in the history of music.
If we view the matter symmetrically, musical instruments as well as systems
for music notation can both be thought of as ‘meeting points’ between ‘what
they are’ and ‘in which surroundings they operate’. If they are appropriate to
their users, they will serve their purpose. If they restrain their users from
competent action, they need to be adapted.
It is helpful to regard traditional musical instruments, notation systems, and
more specifically, also musical scores and written music, as interfaces
between human users and the making of music. They can be used to produce
or to perform a musical work. They give access to music, by opening up some
possibilities to act, while limiting others. They can be viewed as instances of
L3s that support the construction of SCCs (see 2.3).
The evolution of musical interfaces runs parallel with the evolution of new
musical forms. On the one hand, the development of musical instruments
and systems for musical notation is strongly influenced by the evolution of
musical ideas, insights and needs. On the other, new musical ideas often
originate from the exploration of new musical interfaces.
"To take the clarinet as an example ...The influence between society
and the clarinet has been both mutual and circular: with
improvements in the clarinet's ability to play more or less in tune in
all keys and to play chromatically, composers were encouraged to
use it in new ways; the clarinets parts in Til Eulenspiegel could not
have been conceived for a clarinet of the early 19th century.
Conversely, Til as a composition is inconceivable without clarinets.
And the existence of works like Til encouraged, via performers
demands and suggestions to instrument makers, further
improvements in the clarinets control system through the 20th
century to today.“ (Grossmann, 1987, p.214)
History shows how the need to produce more complex and differentiated
musical forms and the improvements and adaptations of musical interfaces
are engaged in a circular process that is mutually determining and
- 59 -
Collective Talent
determined. Opportunities to create increasingly refined musical forms have
led to the construction, use and stabilization of L2-languages that became
more and more narrow-defined. While the actual range of musical
possibilities has been extended throughout the centuries, the constraints
imposed on the making of music seem to have become tighter. As such, SCCs
have been created that were gradually based on more strictly defined L2languages. These L2s progressively allowed for fewer opportunities to
improvise and to vary. Although the course of this development is shifting
into new directions, even today this state of affairs still holds.
Figure 4: Stable L2s may act as constraints on the development of new
SCCs
In the following sections, I will explore and analyze the evolution of musical
instruments and systems for musical notation in the way they function as
musical interfaces (L3). I will regard these developments in terms of the
adaptations that have been made in order to meet the unfolding needs and
wishes of their users. In this analysis, I will concentrate on the effects that
conventionalized musical interfaces have on the construction and
stabilization of musical languages (L2s) and evaluate them in terms of their
contributions to the development of SCCs and to the concept of musical
talent.
- 60 -
Research design
2.6.1
Musical instruments
Musical instruments enable a user to produce sounds and to construct and
use L2-languages that structure the production of sounds such that the
outcome can be recognized as music. In order to facilitate these processes,
musical instruments give access to specific musical 'words’ that can be used
as well as to possibilities to combine these words. In other words, in every
musical instrument that functions as an L3, a global L2 from the past is
implemented. Within these boundaries, new individual instances of L2languages can be developed.
Tracing back the history of musical instruments, two types of evolutionary
processes can be distinguished. Firstly, a differentiation of tools and
instruments to produce music (horizontal variety) as a result of new insights
in music and possible musical forms. Secondly, an increasing refinement in
the evolution of musical instruments, since new instruments often solved
some shortcomings of their forerunners. Not only the technical quality of the
instruments (e.g. sound quality), but also the functional quality (e.g. quality
of control) has been improved (Grossmann, 1987). Electronic and digital
musical instruments are well-known examples of such improvements. These
musical devices have controllers that often resemble traditional instruments,
but offer a much wider range of control possibilities (Pressing, 1990).
Refinement and differentiation of musical tools has ended up in a wide range
of musical instruments. In order to get an overview of the enormous variety
of musical instruments, several classifications have been made. In 1914,
Erich von Hornborstel and Curt Sachs published a system that is still widely
accepted (Midgley, 1989). In this system, instruments are hierarchically
classified according to the physical means that effectuate sound production.
The top level features a division into cordophones, membranophones,
aërophones, and ideophones14. In the late 20th century, the electrophones15
have been added as a fifth category. The fourth level of this tree already
14
15
Cordophones (string instruments), mebranophones (skin instruments) and
aërophones (wind instruments) use a sound-resonating framework as their
effective mechanism. Ideophones are 'self-sounding'‘: sounds are produced by
striking or scraping the object itself.
The working of electrophones is based on electro-mechanical and electronic
oscillators.
- 61 -
Collective Talent
mentions 86 kinds of instruments that can be further subdivided. Based on
this system, Midgley (1989) has described more than 1500 instruments.
Of course, not all of the musical instruments that are classified are common
or frequently used. Some belong to specific cultures; others belong to earlier
periods in history. Later instruments often divert the attention from their
forerunners. This effect seems to be more profound the higher the level of
differentiation.
Traditional musical instruments
In comparison to the instruments that we use today, the earliest instruments
hardly differed with respect to the ‘playing techniques’. Sachs and Hamburg
write about the first musical instruments:
"The variety of musical instruments in the world of the Primitives is
amazing. All raw material that nature offered and that could be
useful was diligently converted into sound producing objects ...
Early in history of civilization mankind already learned to produce
sounds, by striking, clapping, stamping, shaking, scraping,
scratching...” (Sachs & Hamburg, 1986, p.11; translated by the
author)
In spite of the lack of refinement of these instruments, in order to express
meaning and to communicate with each other, members of a community
must have been able to collectively create and sustain an L2-language (and
hence formed an instance of an SCC).
Although these early instruments were still open to develop in any direction,
their evolution has strongly been influenced by the human need to enrich
possibilities for musical expression. For a long time, musical instruments
were used to produce rhythmical patterns. Melodic expression remained
reserved to vocalists.
"The instruments, with all their characteristics, were useful rather
than beautiful ... It would take a long time before the instruments
changed from terrifying, magic charms into musical instruments
that served the purpose of pastime and entertainment." (Sachs &
Hamburg, 1986, p.11; translated by the author)
- 62 -
Research design
In the period of the old Greek, magic connotations were bit by bit replaced
by aesthetic pleasure. Melodic expression became more important. The
development of new musical forms implied an enrichment of possibilities for
musical expression. It also led to the development of L2-languages
(sustained by SCCs) that were more tight and narrow-defined than their
forerunners.
Instrumental music as an independent art was a creation of jugglers in the
thirteenth century. At that time, the most important instrument was the
fiddle. People were already familiar with musical arrangements for several
voices. Instrumental pieces, however, were still conceived of as horizontal
melodies.
It took until the fourteenth century that a vertical, harmonic conception of
music developed. The elaboration of polyphony led to a remarkable increase
of the variety and complexity of possible musical forms. It also implied a
greater diversity and a further refinement of new L2s that were developed. A
tightening of the rules and constraints imposed on music production
progressively constrained the development of new musical instruments and
their embedded L2-languages.
Keyboards - which originated in this period - exemplify how musical
instruments influence the production of specific musical forms and how
their evolution eventually leads to a crystallization of tight L2-languages (see
figure 4; 2.6). The original idea to use keys - justified by a wish to play two or
more tones at a time - reflected the gradual evolution of the twelve-tone
equal temperament. Today, this chromatic scale is still accepted, used and
maintained in existence.
The opportunities and constraints of keyboard instruments are quite
obvious. A keyboard strongly favors combinations and transformations of
pitch. Since a keyboard divides pitch in twelve tones per octave, it restricts a
player to the use of semitones16 (Keane, 1986). The invention of the keyboard
also supported individual music production. The use of keys enabled
individual players to perform musical pieces that previously required the
combined singing of several vocalists. Consequently, the invention of the
16
The shortest interval between two notes.
- 63 -
Collective Talent
keyboard made it possible to appreciate and support the individual
production of music and the use of vertical chords.
Later developments of the keyboard clearly reflect further refinements of the
possible musical forms and of the L2-languages that were developed and
stabilized (and instantiated SCCs). When Cristofori invented the pianoforte
in 1709, the general interest in the earlier harpsichord diminished
dramatically. The pianoforte gave rise to new developments and further
improvement, such as the extension of the keyboard to the lower registers
and the addition of pedals. This enabled the elaboration and use of
counterpoint17. The collective acceptance and use of counterpoint is strongly
reflected in compositions of western classical music (Sachs & Hamburg,
1986).
Contemporary musical instruments
The 20th century has experienced considerable musical movements that
were accompanied by the development of new musical instruments, such as
electric guitars, electronic organs and synthesizers. Great developments have
also been made within the realm of sound generation, tuning and intonation
(Davies, 1987).
Initially, the term ‘electronic music’ was strongly related to the production of
sterile, reverberating electronic sounds (Krefeld, 1990, p. 29). Technological
developments also stimulated modern composers to elaborate new areas in
music that previously were neglected. Many musicians felt freed from earlier
constraints when new musical opportunities, like e.g. the possibility to
explore sounds and to store, mix, and manipulate musical data, were opened
up.
Despite the fact that the application of technology enables musicians to
experiment with sounds and to produce new musical forms, the mainstream
development of contemporary musical instruments tends towards a further
tightening of the constraints that are imposed on the making of music.
17
Also the invention of the organ was driven by the use of counterpoint. The gothic
organ was born when several solo-registers and extra keyboards were added to
the original design of the piano.
- 64 -
Research design
One reason is that the ‘controllers’ or ‘input devices’18 of commercially
produced contemporary musical instruments show a close resemblance to
traditional instruments (e.g. electric guitars, keyboards). From a technical
viewpoint, there are no reasons to retain the physical appearance of
traditional musical instruments. Also from a typological point of view,
contemporary musical instruments have little to do with traditional
instruments (Kendall, 1985, p.12). From a functional point of view, however,
such similarities can be very important. Obviously, learning to control a new
instrument is less time-consuming when a known playing technique can be
used. However, it also means that the constraints that are implemented in
traditional instruments have been transferred to contemporary instruments.
For this reason, access to the musical possibilities of computer based musical
instruments is often very limited (De Jong, 1989, 1991a, 1991b; also see
chapter four).
A second reason is that the main developmental trend of contemporary
musical instruments has been directed towards an improvement of sound
control. This has led to a decrease of possibilities to vary sound production
(L1) and the expression of meaning. Compared to analogue techniques,
digital sound synthesis strongly diminishes the risk of unpredictable and
unforeseen sound effects (Rötter, 1989). Complaints of composers and
musicians have resulted in attempts to counteract the negative side effects of
accurate control. With help of 'humanizing techniques', a human touch can
artificially be added to the music. For example, in order to overcome the
mathematical precision of the rhythmical patterns of sound computers,
slight inaccuracies can be introduced at the timing of the beat.
In chapter three, I will show that the mainstream development of computer
based musical instruments has led to a differentiation of the conventional
concepts of musical talent, rather than to an extension.
18
A device for entering or changing events into a computer or other digital device.
Examples: synthesizers, wind controllers, a mouse, a computer keyboard.
- 65 -
Collective Talent
2.6.2
Systems for music notation
Systems for music notation can be very useful: use of such systems facilitates
transposition, comprehension and composition. One may argue that these
functions are dispensable, as music can also be composed, learned and
played 'by ear'. According to Goodman (1969), the primary function of every
notation system is of a different nature. A score defines a work: it provides
identification of a work from performance to performance.
"Scores and performances must be so related that in every chain
where each step is either from score to compliant performance or
from performance to covering score or from one copy of a score to
another correct copy of it, all performances belong to the same
work and all copies of scores define the same class of
performances." (Goodman, 1969, p.129)
Apparently, the evolution of notation systems has been directed by a need to
define musical works with a greater precision. History shows that later
versions of notation systems generally enable to explore, to compose and to
identify more complex and more differentiated musical forms than their
forerunners. Modifications of notation systems can be conceived of as
changes of L3. These changes gave rise to the development of new L2languages that gradually became more narrow-defined.
Over the centuries, a great variety of notation systems has been developed.
The traditional notation system (TNS), which is commonly used, is based on
the twelve-tone equal temperament (see 1.2.1). This system developed in the
western world over hundreds of years. The evolutionary process of the TNS
clearly shows how its temporal manifestations as L3 have led to the
construction, use and maintenance of L2-languages that increasingly
regulated musical activity more tightly.
The oldest Greek notations were tablatures (Sachs & Hamburg, 1986), which
do not represent tones by abstract symbols on a stave (like the TNS) but by
symbols that indicate where to place the fingers. In ancient Greece this
system was sufficient for a long time. Later it was also used for keyboard
instruments and, notably in Germanic states, for the organ (Hindley, 1986).
The guitar and lute still use tablatures.
- 66 -
Research design
A weakness of tablatures is that they are confined to a specific musical
instrument. Due to the growing diversity of musical instruments, tablatures
became less useful as a system for music notation. Moreover, in order to
identify or to perform a musical work, more information is required than
just the tones to be played. Therefore, it is not surprising that another
system for musical notation evolved: the system of neumes (see figure 5).
This system was developed around the ninth century. It used signs to
indicate tone steps and their combinations. These neumes were originally
used for vocal music. The pitch was known by tradition and the rhythm was
oratorical. There were no notations for tempo or metre.
The system of neumes
Signs
Meaning
punctum
virga
pes or podatus
scandicus and salicus
clivis
climacus
torculus
porrectus
scandicus flexus
porrectus flexus
torculus resupinus
pes sub punctis
single note
single note
upwards
up-up
downwards
down-down
up-down
down-up
up-up-down
down-up-down
up-down-up
up-down-down, etceteras
source: Sachs & Hamburg, 1986
Figure 5: The system of neumes
In contrast with tablatures, which sequentially identify each tone, the
earliest system of neumes merely offered ‘hints’. These hints indicated when
the performer should produce a tone that was either higher or lower than the
preceding one. This gave the artists much freedom for personal
- 67 -
Collective Talent
interpretations. They could start the melody at any pitch, and were free to
choose how much higher or lower the next tone should be. Moreover, there
were no restrictions to the length of a tone. From the viewpoint of efficient
notation this system shows weaknesses, such as failure to indicate pitch and
duration.
In the tenth century, the first refinement of the system of neumes was pitch
indication. The neumes were placed in a position that corresponded to the
desired pitch. At the end of the tenth century a red line was inserted to
indicate the F. All other pitches were symbolized by dots grouped around
this line. Next, a yellow or green line was added for the higher C. These lines
formed the basis of the TNS. They offered a useful means to represent
individual tones. During this period the original neumes, which were
difficult to interpret, were replaced by square and diamond shapes, with or
without a stem, to indicate the length of the tone. These signs were placed
between or on the lines to indicate the pitch. As such, the distance between
tones was gradually defined more accurately. The addition of symbolic
values to neumes turned the original hints into individually specified tones.
Thus far, rhythmic information still was not specified. Although the system
worked fairly well for monophonic melodies, the need for time indication
could no longer be neglected because of the emergence of polyphony.
Because of the synchronization of different voices, representation and
repetition of a musical piece was difficult without precise time indication.
Between the twelfth and thirteenth century a system of six metrical modi19
was used to represent rhythmical patterns that could be combined and
repeated. Since this system only worked for polyphonies that fitted within
the rhythmical constraints of these modi, the general problem of time
indication still remained unsolved.
The development of the mensural system of notation started around the
beginning of the thirteenth century. By using different symbols, two types of
tones could be indicated: the longa and brevis. Shortly thereafter the semibrevis and minimum were added. Since the fourteenth century, a system
developed that divided music even into smaller time units. This resulted in a
standard for the duration of tones.
19
Trochee, jambe, dactylus, anapest, spondeus and tribrachus.
- 68 -
Research design
Over the next five centuries the system was further refined. Names and
symbols were altered and signs were added to provide more detailed
information about rhythmic, melodic and harmonic expression. This
resulted in the TNS as we use it today.
The traditional notation system
The traditional notation system (TNS) has proved to be very effective in
defining and reproducing a (western) musical work. It meets the necessary
requirements that refer to syntax, semantics, composition of characters and
compliance (Goodman, 1969). Apart from melodic information (rhythm and
pitch), also harmony and counterpoint can be represented. The TNS enables
a composer to write a score for separate voices or instruments.
The TNS is also very useful if one wants to reproduce a musical work.
Although difficult to master, this notation system fulfils the objective of
creating strict reproduction, which is strongly emphasized in western music.
The loosely used notion 'reproduction' needs further explanation. Musical
reproduction does not mean copying a score. To do so, reproductions would
be sterile (and can be easily accomplished by a computer). A musical
performer will always be able to exercise some freedom in interpreting a
score, although this freedom is restricted. For example, to play or add
different tones is considered ‘bad taste’. There are some exceptions,
however. Older compositions use an additional notation for figured bass, as
a means of representing the accompaniment. The performer has much
freedom in interpreting the figured bass, but has to adhere to the prescribed
chords. Other exceptions are scores that provides for free cadenzas.
Also, the indication of tempo allows for individual interpretations. Any
words (such as 'allegro', 'andante', 'adagio') can be used to indicate pace and
mood. These terms are not considered to form integral parts of the score
(Goodman, 1969).
Since identification and reproduction require tight definitions of a musical
work, an effective system for writing music should enable a composer to
write a musical score that clearly defines how a performer should reproduce
the musical work that it represents. To composers, the TNS provides access
to many prior defined rules and constraints (an implemented, stabilized L2
from the past). Within the clear-cut boundaries of the TNS, composers are
- 69 -
Collective Talent
enabled to create musical works and to write musical scores. To performers,
such musical scores are the manifestation of a strictly defined L2. Their
possibilities to vary are kept within very narrow limits.
There are composers who wish to eliminate all latitude in performance.
Opposite to this view are composers who give the performer the opportunity
to interpret their works ‘as they feel it should be played’. Most composers fall
within these two extremes.
The constraints imposed by the TNS sometimes show a considerable amount
of overlap with those imposed by musical instruments. Keyboard
instruments - with separate keys reflecting the steps of the twelve-tone equal
temperament - are most closely related to the TNS.
To some modern composers, the L2 that is implemented in the TNS has its
limitations. In the next section, I will discuss some alternative systems for
music notation.
Modern systems to score music and sound
Several attempts have been made to break through the limitations of the
TNS, which has resulted in alternative notation systems. Use of these
systems has enabled composers to explore different musical forms (L1) and
to construct and develop different musical languages (L2).
Some composers have aimed to free performers from the narrow definitions
of musical scores that are based on the use of the TNS. In musical scores of
Roger Reynolds, for example, we find instructions that have no absolute
meaning, but depend on the subjective interpretations of a performer, such
as ‘the low-pitched sounds’ and ‘play as fast as possible’. The score of
‘Emperor’ (1961-62), Reynolds' first theatrical work, specifies not only nontraditional vocal behaviors with a novel and evocative notation, but also the
performers' positions on the stage so as to control the spatial effects of
performer movement and repositioning (see figure 6).
Other composers have made attempts to develop a system for music notation
that gives access to different musical ‘words’ and to possibilities to combine
these ‘words’.
- 70 -
Research design
Most of these alternative notation systems are directed towards defining a
musical work, a ‘soundscape’ or a sound. The resulting scores provide for a
tight L2 that strongly predetermines how a performer should act, just like
scores that are based on the TNS.
Figure 6: “Emperor”, Roger Reynolds, 1961-62 (Library of Congress,
Music Division)20
Alternative systems for music notation include systems that enable to
represent the spatial position and movements of the sources of the sounds,
for example, by graphic patterns (comparable with systems for
choreographic notation). The architect and composer Yannis Xenakis (1971,
1976) has introduced the concept of multi-dimensional vector spaces. It
allows for specification of pitch, time-instant, intensity, density, disorder
and spatial location of sounds. Multidimensional vector spaces form an
integral part of composing spatial music (Harley, 1992).
20
Image retrieved May 3, 2006, from the Library of Congress,
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cocoon/ihas/html/rreynolds/rreynolds-biography.html
- 71 -
Collective Talent
Figure 7: String Glissandi, Bars 317-333 of "Metastaseis", Xenakis, 1954
(Xenakis, 1976, p.8)
Xenakis' plotting of string glissandi in ‘Metastaseis’ (1954) reflect his idea of
a musical 'space-time', where pitch is represented on the y-axis and time on
the x-axis (see figure 7). Xenakis later used this plotting for the curvature of
the walls in the Philips Pavilion, constructed for the 1958 Brussels World
Fair (Zografos, 2006).
Many avant-garde and computer musicians regard sound as the main
component of music. According to Buxton et al. (1990a, 1990b) acoustic
perception is one of the dominant human sensory experiences and sounds
have a very strong communicative function. In section 1.3 I have argued that
the production of sounds is not sufficient to communicate and to express
meaning. Sounds also need to be ordered according to a recognizable
structure. Nevertheless, the TNS fails to provide for possibilities to represent
music on the level of sounds. Several methods have been invented to
overcome this limitation. As a matter of fact, these were efforts to develop a
musical language (L2) that was even tighter than the L2 that is implemented
by the TNS.
- 72 -
Research design
Various attempts have been made to describe the ‘color’ (timbre) of a sound.
One method is to define the acts of the performer that effectuate the
required sounds, such as 'rasp the black keys' or 'rub strings with wire
brush'.
In order to represent sounds, also more advanced methods are being used.
These methods have in common that sounds are decomposed into smaller
units. These units can be defined separately and can be combined according
to certain rules. In FM-synthesis, for example, sounds are generated by
algorithmic combinations of ‘operators’ (oscillators). With regard to their
function, operators can be divided in ‘carriers’ and ‘modulators’. Modulation
of the carriers changes the value of the specified sound parameters21.
To some sound composers, FM synthesis is still a too rough method.
Although it enables modification of timbre, it does not enable ‘perfect
control’. In other words, the resulting L2 still allows some variety in the
development of L1. There are other methods that slightly improve the
control of timbre. In spectral analysis, for example, the timbre of a sound is
decomposed into even smaller - interacting - units ('partials').
2.6.3
Contributions to the construction of SCCs
Conventional musical interfaces (L3) help to maintain the L2-languages that
have been developed and stabilized in the past. They preliminary impose
specific opportunities, rules and restrictions on the making of music. Within
these constraints, users are enabled to produce sounds and combinations of
sounds (L1), which can be used as a source for the construction, use and
stabilization of local L2-languages that will be more refined than their
forerunners.
Wide differences exist between the L2-languages that are implemented in
musical interfaces. Different musical features can be selected as words (e.g.
sound parameters, tones, voices) and different rules to combine these words
(e.g. into patterns or sequences) can be imposed. For example, the words
21
Examples of sound parameters are pitch, timbre, volume, duration, envelops of
timbre and volume, waveform, periodical variations in pitch and volume,
etceteras.
- 73 -
Collective Talent
that are emphasized by computer-based instruments that enable to
manipulate and control sounds differ from the words used by the TNS or by
traditional musical instruments.
The differences between musical interfaces give rise to differences in the
production of L1, in varying degrees of specificity. For example, the L2language that is implemented in a violin (a fingerboard without ferrets)
differs from the L2-language that is implemented in a piano. Each of these
instruments evokes a different type of ‘preferred’ behavior, leading to the
production of specific musical forms (L1).
Conventional musical interfaces also have much in common. In the former
sections I argued that the development of musical interfaces has featured a
progressive tightening of the L2s that are imposed on the making of music.
When used as L3, they give rise to the development of SCCs that are based
on L2-languages that are difficult to change. Such L2’s will strongly regulate
the musical activities of the participants (e.g. the members of a choir, singing
through their repertoire).
Conventional musical interfaces reflect the historically and culturally defined
emphasis on dividing music and sound into smaller, discrete and
measurable units. Such units are treated as variables and conceived of as
identifiable sources of variation that can be controlled and combined into
patterns or sequences.
This emphasis on decomposition and control is fundamentally western in
origin22. Decomposition can be understood as the breaking up of perceptual
and descriptive processes into recognizable parts, in order to make them
more comprehensible or to simplify their manipulation. Decomposition into
smaller units makes understanding, representing and remembering easier
and communication more precise. It leads to improved control and
repeatability. Music causes some difficulties in this respect, since it does not
always allow for decomposition and exact repetition. Compared to visual
information, it is much more difficult to divide music into distinct series of
22
See De Bono’s (1990, 1995) analysis of the historical development of the Western
thinking system.
- 74 -
Research design
parts. Without the measures that were invented to standardize the making of
music, there would have been not much to repeat or to control in music.
The emphasis on decomposition and control is also related to the
conventional concepts of musical talent that I described in chapter one. In
scientific studies that use individuals as objects of study, individuals are
treated as isolated, identifiable sources of variation. Scientific research that
is based on the developmental approach deals with individuals acting within
the historically and culturally defined constraints that we have come to
accept.
Western musical culture offers a wide range of musical instruments. The
apparent range of variety still leaves a large number of musical dropouts.
This is not very surprising, once we realize that the constraints imposed on
the making of music have gradually become tighter. The musical interfaces
that we use today give rise to the development of SCCs that are based on
narrow-defined L2-languages. The tighter L2, the less likely it is that the
interacting SCC-members will express and accept variety occurring within
the SCC, such as sudden inspirations, strange whims and ‘error’. This also
means that possibilities to improvise and to develop L2 into new directions
will be diminished.
The evolution of musical interfaces not only implies a reduction of
possibilities to vary but also reinforces the belief that some musical inputs
are preferable to others and that some people have more talent than others.
Musical talent, as it is conceived of now, is commonly attributed to
individuals who manifest the ability to express themselves within the tight
definitions of what we have come to accept. This also means that possibilities
to respond the variety that is introduced by others are limited.
Participating in SCCs that use and maintain a stable and fixed L2 can be very
helpful and convenient to individual participants. The suppression of
internal sources of variety can also be experienced as restrictive.
The possibility to introduce variety in the development of L2 is of great
importance in e.g. oriental music, improvisation jazz and flamenco (see
chapter three), which allow for improvisational creativity. Accidental
combinations of sounds and unpredictable musical events can be accepted as
information and can be turned into themes or spark off new thematic
- 75 -
Collective Talent
developments. Creating such music appears to be impossible on the basis of
a tight and firm L2.
“After all … the ability to react to and generate music from dynamic
and unpredictable variables is one of the distinguishing features of
improvisation.” (Kenny & Gellrich, 2002, p.129)
In improvised music performance, a hidden conductor seems to guide the
musical process. The L2-language that this conductor uses is not invariant,
neither in its words nor in its rules. It can change continuously. It enables
the players to respond to sudden and unforeseen acts of others, to kick off a
movement in a new direction and to change the course of the music. The
players, while playing together, are producing the language that this hidden
conductor uses. Apparently, these players take part in an SCC that is able to
use the interactive dialogue (L1) as L3’, and to develop L2 into new
directions. This distinctive quality is crucial to the appearance of collective
talent.
- 76 -
3 Musical interfaces,
performance and talent
3.1
Introduction
Musical instruments and notation systems continually evolve with the needs
and expectations of their users. I have illustrated in chapter two how the
evolution of conventional musical interfaces - primarily a process of
functional and technical improvements - has resulted in a wide acceptance of
narrow-defined constraints on the making of music. This has happened at
the expense of musical activities that hinge on variety and stimulation to
creativity.
The apparent need to regulate musical activity has led to a focus on
individual attributes and on learning culturally defined skills, also when
playing in groups. This has provided external observers with standards to
judge and to understand the quality of musical performances. The judgment
of a performance is based on the ability of the performer to play in
conformance with the socially and culturally defined constraints and
performance models that are embodied in our musical interfaces (Grossman,
1987).
Musical talent or musicality, as we see it now, is a construct, embodied and
evoked by our musical interfaces. In chapter one it is argued that, if we
conceive of musicality as an activity to communicate, rather than as an
individual attribute or as externally (culturally) defined skills to be learnt,
less people would drop out as a musician and alienate from music. In
chapter two the notion is developed that, in order to effectuate such a
- 77 -
Collective Talent
change, we need an extended interface that seduces people to participate in a
musical conversation, so that actors take part in an SCC that is based on a
language that is open to change. Such interfaces apparently are used in
musical cultures like flamenco and jazz, which have a different conception of
musical talent than the traditional musical culture of the West.
Extended interfaces refer - at least - to two types of qualities that
conventional interfaces appear to miss.
First, extension means that we need to overcome the tendency to restrict the
variety of possible musical inputs and to stick to predefined constraints.
Therefore we need an interface (L3) that enables to introduce variations in
constraints on music production. The effects of L3 on the development of L2
should be such that the latter – once stabilized - can still be modified during
playing.
Second, the proposed extension refers to possibilities to initiate and
maintain a musical conversation. I consider the fundamental process to be
an interaction of two of more participants, mediated by an interface. Since
my research focuses on people, I have developed the notion of ‘collective
talent’ to refer to human interactions.
On the basis of my conceptual framework, it appears to be difficult to make a
clear distinction between human interaction and human-machine
interaction, however. To a human actor, interacting with an instrument, a
machine or a computer program may come close to interacting with a human
performer as long as its restricted performance is not revealed and meaning
can be attached to its responses (consider e.g. ELIZA23 or AIBO24). In fact, a
23
24
A program developed by Joseph Weizenbaum (1966), which simulated a
psychoanalyst by rephrasing many of the patient's statements as questions and
posing them to the patient. It worked by simple pattern recognition and
substitution of key words into canned phrases. It was so convincing, however,
that there are many anecdotes about people becoming very emotionally caught up
in dealing with ELIZA. This appears to be due to people's tendency to attach to
words meanings that the computer never put there. Source:
http://www.definethat.com/define/4111.htm, retrieved May 9, 2006.
A robot designed by Sony, which has the ability to learn, mature and act on its
own in response to external stimuli. Human interaction with AIBO determines its
ability to express its needs and emotions, as well as its ability to learn and mature.
Source: http://searchcio.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid19_gci536171,00.html,
retrieved May 9, 2006.
- 78 -
Musical interfaces, performance and talent
participant could be anything that is capable to interact and to inject
unexpected variety in the process of making music. Following Pask, I will
consider human-machine interaction as a special form of conversation. A
‘genuine’ participant in a conversation does not only respond (such as in
‘click-button’ interaction), but also learns, anticipates and provokes.
MusiColour, a system developed by Pask in 1953, serves as an early example
(Glanville, 1996; Pask, 1971).
“MusiColour (…) picked out patterns in the music, responded to
these and got bored. If the musicians did not provide enough
variety, MusiColour would provide speculative change of its own
accord … until the musicians changed how they were playing.
(Glanville, 1996)
The above description means that conventional musical instruments will
generally be excluded as conversational participants, and hence, as
contributors to collective talent. Although a stable L2 may develop from the
interaction between a human player and a musical instrument (such as in
song composition or rehearsal), new inspiration to change L2 may occur
from changes of L3 (e.g. the audience, other performers, a new musical
score), but generally not from the interaction between player and instrument
(see 3.2.4).
In this chapter, I will pursue the conception of talented musical activity as an
activity to communicate. I will concentrate on what helps to develop SCCs
that reveal collective talent. My attention will be focused on differences and
similarities between musical interfaces that have been developed from
different perspectives on musical performance. Several experimental and
cultural interfaces will be described in terms of their embedded performance
models and their relation to the concept of musical talent and the
construction of SCCs. Some examples of musical instruments will be
analyzed that can themselves be considered as actors participating in an
SCC. The differences between extended interfaces and conventional musical
interfaces will be further analyzed and explained.
- 79 -
Collective Talent
3.2
3.2.1
Differentiation of the concept of musical talent
Changes of the initial constraints on music production
The need for new types of musical interfaces has been emphasized by the
work of several artists and composers. Most of these efforts have been based
on a differentiation of the concept of talent, instead of an extension. Such
differentiation can be illustrated by attempts to the change the embedded
L2-languages of L3 by using conventional musical instruments in
unconventional ways.
The work of Béla Bartok offers some famous examples. In one of his
compositions he directed his performers to scratch a cymbal on its edge by a
penknife. In other works, he used the piano as a percussion instrument
(Kendall, 1985). Other examples date to the late fifties, when some
composers started to recognize the expressive potential of sounds that
generally were viewed to be due to instrumental deficits or to inappropriate
playing techniques. As such, they freed themselves from some of the
constraints on composing and producing music. In their scores, instructions
were given like 'improvise on piano strings', 'rub strings with wire brush' and
'rasp the black keys' (Grossman, 1987). According to Borgo (2002), such
‘extended techniques’ will always remain an important part of the vocabulary
of many free improvisers.
Also the design of modern musical instruments has often been based on
attempts to widen or to abandon some of the constraints on the making of
music. Since the last decades, examples are just as manifold as the
underlying objectives of the designers.
Within the realm of electronic and computer-based musical instruments,
one of the major trends has been an improvement of the functional
possibilities of these systems. The resulting instruments enabled their
players to explore microtonal tuning, octave division, intonation, sounds,
and to combine sounds with other media (Davies, 1987). Especially within
the range of MIDI25-instruments, there have been many attempts to increase
25
Musical Instrument Digital Interface.
- 80 -
Musical interfaces, performance and talent
control possibilities, resulting in electronic keyboards, percussion, stringand wind instruments (Cadoz et al., 1990; Davies, 1987; Moog & Rhea, 1990;
Rothstein & Metlay, 1990). Some instruments adopted only a few physical
attributes of conventional instruments, such as stringless guitar-shaped
controllers, David Vorhaus’ Kaleidophon and the Laser Harp of Bernhard
Szajner.
Although many electronic instruments are based on conventional
performance models, most require at least some different skills than their
nearest traditional equivalents.
Since a transfer of playing techniques from one instrument to another often
results in similar music, some instrument designers have specifically focused
on this issue (Cadoz et al., 1990). Various new playing techniques have been
introduced, for example by substantially exaggerating one or more
components of the controllers:
"...as in strings stretched across supports up to 100 meters apart
and pipes or tubes up to 15 meters in length." (Davies, 1987, p.12)
The Thérémin (designed by Leon Thérémin in 1924; see figure 8) is the
oldest and perhaps the best-known example of the introduction of a different
playing technique. The instrument relies on an electronic method of sound
generation and is played in free space on the basis of proximity and body
capacitance26 (Manning, 1994; Pressing, 1992)27.
Also non-western musical instruments and instruments that otherwise
remained outside the western mainstream (such as the hurdy-gurdy, the
bagpipe and the nail-violin) have served as sources of inspiration to try out
and to develop unfamiliar playing techniques.
In order to explore new forms of music, Rubine and McAvinney (1990) have
designed the VideoHarp - a programmable finger-tracking instrument that
allows its users to change the way it responds to different types of gestures of
the human performer. As such, the VideoHarp enables its users to define in
26
27
The capability of a body for storing electric charge.
The website of Lydia Kavina at http://www.lydiakavina.com/therem.html offers
more and interesting information about the Thérémin.
- 81 -
Collective Talent
advance the opportunities and constraints that it imposes on music
production.
Figure 8: Thérémin with his instrument (Kavina, 2006)28
Other developments include the MIDI Glove and the development of virtual
reality music technology, where the performer is placed in a threedimensional control reality that both can be viewed and sensed.
3.2.2
Acceptance of irregular musical inputs
Since the nineties, there have been many attempts to introduce variety in the
process of making music from other sources than the (voluntary) inputs of a
human performer. These attempts spring from a ‘new’ attitude towards
music performance. Rather than performing sheet music, the musical
performance itself is considered to be subject to composition. This attitude
towards invention, composition and performance allows spontaneity and
intuition to be coupled with formal abstract thinking as two non-conflicting
poles of music creation (Chabot, 1990).
28
Retrieved May 3, 2006 from http://www.lydiakavina.com/therem.html
- 82 -
Musical interfaces, performance and talent
According to Pressing, this attitude is clearly reflected by some computerbased interactive music systems, which he defines as:
"Arrangements of people, musical instruments, computers,
synthesizers and other hardware that have been designed to
produce music whose details are modified in real-time by the
interaction of distinct parts of the system” (Pressing, 1990, p.12).
In designing such systems, different points of view exist on playing
techniques. According to Pressing (1990), the desirability of literalness of
control is an implicit or explicit design principle of instrument builders in
every known musical culture, especially until the twentieth century. But
apart from this traditional 'model of performance', in which predictability
plays an important role, other forms of instrumental control are possible.
One of these novel models of performance is based on using information
from the human body not produced by voluntary physical movements. This
information is either used (after amplification and/or transduction) as a
sound source itself (e.g. the heartbeat) or to control external sound sources
(e.g. brain waves, myoelectric signals from muscles, eye position, etceteras).
Bioelectric controllers have also been used in dance, so that the act of
dancing resulted in the production of sound and music (Gillet et al., 1985).
The same type of effects has been obtained by constructing instruments that
are extremely tolerant to the natural 'imperfections' of human input. In each
of these cases, unpredictable and irregular inputs of human performers are
accepted and transferred by the system, resulting in the production of sound.
3.2.3
Random generation of musical events
Running parallel with movements in architecture and art, functionalism and
perfectionism have also been pursued in musical performances. While
technological developments opened up wide ranges of new musical
possibilities, this period gave rise to a tendency to bring computers into
action as music performers with a degree of perfection that could never be
attained by humans. Computers took over human action, even resulting in
concerts with computers as the only performers. Although these musical
experiments were successful in
abandoning uncertainty and
- 83 -
Collective Talent
unpredictability, they never expanded to a larger scale. Contrarily, since the
nineties technology has often been called in to introduce variety in the
musical process.
In favor of a revival of the 'human touch' in the conceptualization of musical
performance, 'less perfect' results are considered to be advantageous to
perfection (Rötter, 1989). In modern compositions, digital technology is
often deliberately called in to include a degree of randomness. Amongst
musicians and composers, there is a growing interest in computer-based
musical systems that act more ‘human-like’ and reveal slight aberrations up
to completely unpredictable behavior.
3.2.4
Evaluation
From a historical perspective, the computer-based instruments mentioned
in the former sections, when viewed as L3, have stimulated people to
explore, to improvise, to find creative solutions and to invent new rules of
playing’29. New languages of making music (L2) have been developed, even
up to the point that local SCCs could develop30 (see 2.6). The resulting
musical forms were different from what traditionally was recognized as
music. In order to judge such music and the quality of music performances,
the common ideas about music and musical talent had to be adapted. We
may say that these attempts have led to a differentiation of the concept of
musical talent, rather than to an extension.
Many conventional musical instruments enable their users to change the
initial constraints on music production, e.g. by using different tuning
systems. This often means replacing constraints on the making of music by
other constraints, as for example is the case with the VideoHarp (3.2.1).
However, a replacement of the constraints on music production does not
create an extended interface.
Of course, widening or abandoning some of the constraints on making music
will lead to an increase of the variety of possibilities within which actors can
29
30
I consider ‘rules of playing’ and ‘playing techniques’ as examples of L2.
When rules of playing (L2) are collectively accepted, they may act as L3 on the
development of new SCCs (see 2.6).
- 84 -
Musical interfaces, performance and talent
operate. This may improve creativity and stimulate exploration (Glanville,
1998). Since the aforementioned instruments are to be played by individuals,
they do not by themselves evoke and maintain a musical dialogue between
different human players. Also in this sense they show a close resemblance to
conventional musical instruments. They will be mainly accessible to
individuals who have the right ‘skills’ to play these instruments, or are
endowed with a ‘gift’ for music.
What if we view these instruments as actors interacting with a human
performer, rather than as L3?
In the examples of 3.2.2 a human performer, who has no precise control over
the sounds he effectuates, involuntarily introduces variety in the musical
process. The computer is programmed to respond obediently, no matter how
irregular and fleeting the human inputs are. It directly translates the inputs
into sounds. The output (which is feedback to the human performer) may
vary from (temporarily) rhythmical or melodic patterns to erratic sound
production. As long as the inputs of the performer remain erratic and
unrelated to earlier events, also the system’s responses will be. Through
mechanisms of (bio-) feedback, human performers can eventually learn to
improve control and even to produce sounds that can be recognized as
music. This implies the construction, use and maintenance of a stable L2language and closure of an SCC. However, after stabilization of L2, there is
no new variety expected to evolve from the interactions that stimulates to
develop L2 into new directions. Therefore, it is not likely that collective
talent will show up.
Although these systems accept a greater variety of inputs, improving control
is comparable to mastering the technical skills of playing conventional
musical instruments. Of course, also this novel model of musical
performance has implications for our judgment of musical talent. We may
for instance judge a performers capacity to improve (self-) control, or to cope
creatively with uncertainty.
Randomly generated musical events (see 3.2.3) can be conceived of as
variety that influences and de-regulates the activities of a human actor. In
order to cope with the erratic responses of a computer program, a player
needs to structure his musical acts in ways that differ from usual. Judgment
- 85 -
Collective Talent
of this type of performance requires an adaptation of the conventional
concept of talented musical behavior. We may, for example, define musical
talent as the performer’s ability to use momentary variety and to cope with
unpredictable events.
I do not consider computer-based instruments that randomly introduce
variety as actors participating in a conversation. A musical conversation is
based on an interaction of at least two sources of variation that mutually
respond to each other and are able to learn from it, to anticipate and to
provoke. This is not the case when unpredictable musical events are
generated at random. Random events are - by definition - unrelated to
inputs of a human actor and to the sounds that are being produced. The
computer-based instruments mentioned in 3.2.3 are programmed to
produce such arbitrary effects. Since the random effects occur accidentally
and independently of the history of earlier events (the evolving L1), to some
people, these inputs will be meaningless and even annoying. To others, the
random fluctuations may serve as a great source of inspiration. In any case,
an L2-language will not be sustainable.
3.3
Extension of the concept of talent: interactive injection of
variety in human-machine interaction
Apart from random inputs, new inputs to the production of music may also
stem from the dynamic interactions that take place between actors
participating in a musical conversation. Some examples will be elaborated in
the following sections.
3.3.1
Shaping a musical process
Another type of novel conceptualizations of musical performances refers to
the shaping of an ongoing process or its effects (Pressing, 1990). This idea
has, for example, been elaborated by Michel Waisvisz (1986). The Hands
have been constructed to manipulate running sound sequences (or in fact,
any combination of MIDI messages). The Web has been an attempt to create
an instrument to manipulate continually changing patterns of timbral
variables (Krefeld, 1990).
- 86 -
Musical interfaces, performance and talent
Max Mathews, a pioneer in the world of computer music, has elaborated the
advantages of shaping ongoing musical processes as well. His concept of
‘Active Listening’ refers to an active role of listeners. Instead of passive
listening to musical recordings, listeners should be enabled to influence the
music (Boulanger, 1990). This would be one of the possible usages of his
Conductor Program, combined with Bob Boie's Radio Drum or Radio Baton
(Boie et al., 1989; Mathews, 1991). The latter is an input device that can be
used to modulate sound and music continually in three dimensions.
Also Greenhough's (1990) ideas for developing a program that initially
evokes musical structures at random refer to the shaping of ongoing
processes. According to Greenhough, control possibilities should be based
on Darwin’s evolution model. Programs should be responsive to the likes
and dislikes as indicated by the user, which in the end will lead to the
‘survival’ (sustenance) of a specific musical structure.
3.3.2
Intelligent systems
Apart from the possibility to shape ongoing musical processes, the idea of
mutual responsiveness in human-system interaction has also been
elaborated within the field of musical accompaniment by computers.
Examples are so-called intelligent instruments or interactive music systems
with a capacity to compose along with a performer in real-time or to act as
an improvising accompanist. Here the performer interacts with the
computer as a partner in improvisational performance (Pressing, 1998).
Danny Vercoe developed a system that anticipates on the tempo rubato
(expressive timing) of a human performer. Although Vercoe only partly
succeeded (a process of rehearsal was needed, so that the computer could
learn what to expect), he clearly pointed out the importance of the silent
agreements that take place in the interaction between two musical
performers (Boulanger, 1990). Roger Dannenberg has focused on the same
problem. He developed a system that listens, understands and joins in a
musical part being played by a human performer (Boulanger, 1990).
Some of the work of Jean Claude Risset also deserves mention in this
respect. In the piece ‘Duet for One Pianist’ (in which the other player is
actually a Disklavier), the Disklavier responds to the musical inputs of Risset
- 87 -
Collective Talent
in various ways, by adding embellishments, changing the tempo, or
generating extra tones. These responses are preprogrammed and can be
controlled by the performer, although control algorithms can be quite
complex. The responses of the Disklavier become less predictable the greater
the complexity of control. In ‘Up Down’, control algorithms even change
during the piece, depending on former musical events that have taken place
(Risset, 1990, p.19).
Apart from the high-tech solutions mentioned above, there are other means
to effectuate a two-sided injection of variety in the musical process. In this
respect, the 'low-tech', mechanical stringed sound devices of Jon Rose are
beautiful examples.
"Here multiple and movable bridges (and bizarrely constructed
single and multiple bows) mean that the instrument is really
continuously evolving under one's hands during performance, so
that technique must be continuously updated during playing - a
joyfully risky form of improvisation at its best." (Pressing, 1990,
p.16)
3.3.3
Evaluation
From a historical perspective, the musical instruments mentioned above
have supported the development of musical cultures (SCCs) that differed
from the traditional western musical culture (just like the examples in
section 3.2). These explorations have led to new concepts of musical talent,
which incorporate the ability to improvise.
During a performance, the aforementioned systems can be conceived of as
interfaces that support individual performers to improvise, to explore and to
create new musical forms. Although these ‘musical instruments’ do not
mediate an interactive dialogue between human actors by themselves, they
can as well be viewed as actors interacting with a human performer in the
production of music.
In some examples (see 3.3.1) technology is called in to help a human
performer shape an invoked musical process (L1). The ongoing musical
process will be influenced by the inputs of the performer and will continue
- 88 -
Musical interfaces, performance and talent
into a new direction. The evolving L1 literally acts as L3’ and directly
influences the development of L2.
In other examples (see 3.3.2) intelligent systems that respond to a human
user on the basis of the history of earlier events (the evolving L1) are capable
of introducing unexpected variety in the process of music production. Also
the instruments designed by Jon Rose (Pressing, 1990) can be considered as
sources of variation interacting with a human performer. Interacting with
these instruments literally requires (and is based on) a continual
modification of constraints on music production (L2).
The examples mentioned in this section have in common that the operating
L2 that guides musical activity is changed on the basis of the interactive
injection of variety of the actors involved. The participants may close in as an
SCC and still modify L2. Outsiders can observe these processes by listening
to L1. We may for example hear how unpredictable moves and temporarily
entanglement are turned into new and stable musical patterns (stable L2;
SCC closure). Since these processes result from interaction, talent cannot be
conceived of as an individual attribute, but rather as a specific form of
collective talent. In daily life as well as in research, however, one still prefers
to attribute ‘improvisational talent’ to the human performer, even though
the interactive nature of such performance is widely acknowledged.
3.4
Collective talent: interactive injection of variety by human
actors
In the former sections some examples have been given of (partly) successful
attempts to introduce variety in the process of making music. These
attempts can be considered to spring from the need to design musical
interfaces that structure the making of music differently - and can therefore
be reformulated in terms of an implicit aim to change or to extend the
concept of musical talent.
Common in all examples is a search for ways to increase the variety available
to musical actors and to enhance creativity and possibilities to explore.
Sophisticated technical means, electronics and computer programs have
been applied to free musical activity from some of the traditional constraints
on making music. In section 3.2.4 I have argued that a change of the initial
- 89 -
Collective Talent
constraints on music production is not enough to implement an extended
interface and to support the development of SCCs that reveal collective
talent.
Notwithstanding the remarkable progress that has taken place, especially
within the realm of advanced MIDI performance systems (see 3.3), the
clearest examples of extended conceptions of musical talent are not based on
any technological means at all. These examples spring from collective
processes of making music, where human performers contribute to changing
constraints on music production while interacting with each other.
3.4.1
Music of the East
The term music of the East is used to indicate some important general
differences with western (and, actually also northern) music of the last
centuries. In accordance with the description of Sachs and Hamburg (1986),
the term refers to music as it is being produced from Morocco - and even
parts of Spain - to the Malayan Archipelago.
In our western world serious interest in music of the East has grown only
during the last decades. It took until the fifties before the larger audience got
acquainted with the musical culture of the East (Schippers, 2004). The
records of Yehudi Menuhin and Ravi Shankar, entitled ‘East meets West’
played an important role in the acceptance of non-western musical forms.
From that time on, Oriental music has served as a source of inspiration to
many 'avant garde' and 'minimal music' composers like Stockhausen, John
Cage and Philip Glass. Today, mainly jazz musicians are attracted by
Oriental music (see next section), probably because of the role of
improvisation and the importance of rhythm (Storms, 1985).
Not surprisingly, the popularity of Oriental music did only extend over a
small scale. Positive reactions to this music from uninitiated western
listeners are quite rare. Westerners do not recognize the musical structures
of music of the East. Since the perceptible structure of Oriental music (L1)
does often not match with the western frame of reference, many Westerners
describe Oriental music as 'monotonous' and 'without structure'. The term
'not transparent’ seems to be more appropriate, however. Oriental music is
actually characterized by a very high degree of structure (Storms, 1985)
- 90 -
Musical interfaces, performance and talent
The structure of Oriental music is not vertically determined - by harmony but should be understood horizontally instead - in terms of melody.
Although harmony is sometimes featured, it has nothing to do with our wellconsidered polyphonies. Examples of harmonic interactions are the melodic
tones of the singer or of the instrumentalist against a background of
'bourdon tones', or the accidentally occurring harmony of the vocalist and
the accompanying instrument. According to Storms (1985), in Oriental
music the interactions between performers are meant to create continuously
changing fields of tension. In spite of the distinction between soloists and
accompaniment, none of them is individually responsible for the creation of
such tension fields. They can develop in unpredictable directions and
express much about the dynamic interactions of the performers to external
observers (through L1). Even to western listeners, once they recognize
patterns of interaction that are stabilized and modified by the participants,
this will be a clear indication of the expression of collective talent.
Just as harmony, also melody should be understood in a different way.
Melodies are not fixed and predefined, like in the West. Melodies are
abundantly ornamented and performed differently by every musician.
According to Sachs and Hamburg (1986) Oriental music performers think in
terms of melodic ‘patterns’ or ‘schemes’ that can be characterized by scale,
general time course, emotional expression and melodic turns. Composers of
Oriental music are constrained by about two dozens pre-existing traditional
melodies. In India such ‘patterns’ are called raga's - in Arab countries these
are called maqamât (plural form of maqam).
Sachs and Hamburg speak rather negatively about music of the East in their
statement:
"The freedom of the composer is constrained by possibilities that
do not clash with the invariable qualities of a pattern.”
and
"In accordance with the patterns, melody is very closely connected
to the curious method of 'creating a melody' - following the original
meaning of the word com-posing - from a limited number of
prepared, characteristic melodic schemes or turns." (Sachs &
Hamburg, 1986, p.22; translated by the author)
- 91 -
Collective Talent
Sachs and Hamburg have failed to mention that these melodic ‘patterns’
allow much more freedom and variety than we could ever think of in the
West. Of course, such ‘patterns’ themselves are the product of dynamic
interactions from the past. They are collectively accepted, used and
maintained by a cultural SCC. They act as L3 on the production of music. On
a local level, these patterns support the creation of (temporal) SCCs that
have a capacity to self-renew their internal operations. They elicit the
construction, use and maintenance of L2-languages that still can be modified
by the interacting actors.
The wide range of possible interpretations fits to the Oriental conception of
music that musical performances cannot be repeated, like in the West, not
even by the same musician. In the first place, this is because a great diversity
of scales can be used. Secondly, within a specific scale, various kinds of steps
are possible. One example is the use of crotchets or microtones in Oriental
music, as opposed to the common western standard division of octaves into
twelve semitones at equal distances.
Patterns like raga's and maquamât can be conceived of as frames of
reference for melodic improvisation (Storms, 1985). These frames of
reference consist of formulas and conventions that determine the treatment
of tones. As raw material they form the basis for composition and
performance. Use of these ‘schemes’ facilitates the construction and
communication of meaning. Although this means that the structure of a
musical performance is partly predefined, the patterns leave much freedom
to the performers. Moreover, it is allowed to shift from one pattern to
another during a performance. For example, stressing different tones may
elicit a transition to a new melodic pattern (Hindley, 1986).
While western music melody can be regarded as a vivid realization of the
scale, such a direct link cannot be found in Oriental music. This, again, has a
much to do with the Oriental concept of patterns. In the West, music is
decomposed into separate tones. In Oriental music, most tones are
connected by the use of micro-intervals. A discontinuous transition from one
tone to the next hardly ever occurs. Also the use of the concept 'absolute
pitch' is confined to western musical thinking. The importance of ‘absolute
frequency’ of tones is clearly illustrated by the design of conventional
- 92 -
Musical interfaces, performance and talent
western musical instruments. It would not be feasible to tune up a piano
each time when it is used!
In the music of the East, however, everything is relative. Storms (1985)
wrote about Indian music:
"At the beginning of every concert, the keynote of a raga is
determined again, and may differ from day to day. When the
keynote has been established, the instrument is tuned up according
to the scale of the chosen raga, and the main steps of the scale are
favorably placed. In a technical respect this is not a problem,
because the frets of Indian instruments are either adjustable, or
they have no frets at all. The only exception is the Indian
harmonium. However, this instrument has been added during the
19th century, and actually is an intruder." (Storms, 1985, p. 25;
translated by the author)
Apart from melodic patterns also rhythmical patterns are used in Oriental
music. Also these patterns or schemes can be conceived of as frames of
reference to improvisers. They are used in the same way as the raga's and
maquamât that I mentioned before. They form (part of) an L3 that enables
the interacting actors to develop an L2 that is open to change.
Rhythmical patterns (like the Indian tala's) play a substantive role in
Oriental music. Often these patterns have a very complex structure, which
makes them difficult to understand for westerners. While we divide our
melodies in equal bars and stress the beats accordingly, the Arab or Hindu is
inclined to think in terms of short and long. In Oriental music, the rhythmic
patterns are continuously repeated and can be stressed by subtle variations
of pitch and timbre (Sachs & Hamburg, 1986).
The rhythmical accompaniment may be of a totally different nature than
expressed by the vocalist or instrumentalist. Yet certain rules are applied
here. In Indian music, for example, players should ideally meet each other
exactly at the first beat of a cycle (the sam). This moment can have an
'electrifying’ effect' on the audience, e.g. when performers appear to have
maintained the basic structure of the pattern in spite of their rhythmical
deviations. Competition is part of the performance. The instrumentalist
introduces for instance a novel and complex rhythmical pattern, which the
- 93 -
Collective Talent
drummer tries to imitate, and vice versa, each outdoing the other in
elaborating rhythms while still complying with the pattern (Hindley, 1986).
In this way the joint actions of the performers elicit a ‘tension field’ that can
be increased to a great extent during live concerts. The Indian audience
appears to enjoy this very much (Storms, 1985).
As opposed to western music, notation systems do not play a significant role
in the Oriental musical world. Since music is mostly improvised, there is not
much need of such systems. For centuries, rhythmic and melodic patterns
have been passed on orally. Some notations can be distinguished, however,
although they are incomparable to our well-known 'stave' notation (or TNS).
Notation systems for Eastern music merely provide for conventions with
regard to certain musical aspects and allow much more variation than the
TNS. Moreover, the notations are mainly used for purposes of instruction
and are hardly ever used during a performance (see figure 9).
•
Ecphonetic or ‘group notation’ indicates a group or formula of tones by a
specific symbol (e.g. a figure, a hook, a character, etceteras).
•
Neumatic or cheironomic notation represents the tone steps in a melody
(e.g. up-up, down-down, up-down, etceteras) without defining the pitch.
•
Pitch notation uses specific signs - usually a character – to indicate the
steps of the scale. It does not represent the tone steps in a melody.
•
Tablature or ‘finger position’ notation indicates, independently of pitch,
which strings have to be plucked with which finger.
Source: Sachs & Hamburg, 1986
Figure 9: Notation systems in Oriental music
It will be evident that a description or interpretation of Oriental music with
western concepts in mind is an awkward or even impossible task. According
to Sachs and Hamburg (1986), each transcription into western stave
notation will inevitably distort the specific character and color of Eastern
music because of the use of different intervals. Of course, the problems of
- 94 -
Musical interfaces, performance and talent
translation have much deeper roots. Both musical cultures are based on
SCCs that emphasize fundamentally different ways to interact - one stressing
the development and use of tight and stable L2s, and the other stressing the
use of L2s that are created by the evolving history of dynamic interactions of
the actors involved. In Oriental music performances, transitions to new
tones form a basis for a next transition, combinations of sounds evoke new
sound combinations and rhythmical dialogues proceed in unpredictable
ways. Nevertheless, the performance will always revolve around a
recognizable musical structure.
In the musical culture of the East, talented musical behavior does neither
refer to predefined activity nor to individuals. Players are involved in a
musical conversation and close in as an SCC once L2 has stabilized. This L2language is produced by their dynamic interactions and opens up new
possibilities to act and cuts off others from one moment to the next. This
means that musical talent can show up in its collective form.
Collective talent requires a high level of attentiveness from the SCCmembers. They need to be sensitive to the history of their interactions as
well as to possible future contributions that can be made. Contributing to a
musical performance requires a continuous alertness to the way in which the
music proceeds, to the acts of the other performers and to the possible next
steps that each of them might take.
3.4.2
Jazz improvisation
Collective talent can also emerge from improvised group performance in
jazz. Especially with respect to what we call free improvisation31 it will be
obvious that the music to be played is not a prior defined process (Borgo,
2002). Improvisation has at heart that each musical act helps to decide
which musical act should be taken next, as e.g. verbalized by Errol Gardner:
31
Free improvisation or free music is improvised music without any rules beyond
the taste of the musicians involved, and not in any particular style. Definition
retrieved May 11, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_improvisation
- 95 -
Collective Talent
"All I know is, for every note, there is another note that melts it. I
just hear a sound coming into my head and hope to catch it with my
hands."32
Although soloists regularly get the chance to show their virtuosity during a
jazz performance, jazz music is pre-eminently suitable to collective
performances (Hindley, 1986).
Since jazz improvisation and Oriental music have many points in common,
parts of the former section (3.4.1) also apply here. Many jazz musicians even
acknowledge that music of the East serves as an important source of
inspiration to their musical activities. Common aspects are the importance
of rhythm and improvisation (although not every jazz performance is
improvised), but also less noticeable similarities can be recognized.
A term that is often used in order to characterize jazz is ‘syncopation’.
Syncopation is the shifting of accents to where they are not supposed to be
(normally unaccented beats). It can be thought of as emphasizing the area in
between the beats. Playing off the beat, syncopating, is a way to liven up the
music. It gives the music the ‘drive’ and ‘excitement’. Comparable to the
rhythmic interactions that take place in the production of Oriental music,
syncopation in jazz primarily refers to a rhythmic dialogue between
performers.
Because of the significant role of improvisation, the typical western
distinction between composer and performer is less rigorous in jazz, just as
in Oriental music. In improvised jazz, the performers compose the music
while playing together (Johnson, 2004).
Another similarity with Oriental music is that jazz performers make
preliminary agreements on the basic structure of the interactive dialogue in
which they will take part. They make use of patterns with a cyclic structure
or so-called referents (Pressing, 1998). Such patterns serve as L3 and help to
initiate a musical conversation. They show comparison with the chord
schemes (for example the 'blues scheme') that are used in pop music
(Storms, 1985), or with song forms, including the song tune and chords
32
In: Jazz-agenda 1989.
- 96 -
Musical interfaces, performance and talent
(Pressing, 1998). Within such patterns micro intervals can be used - the socalled 'blue notes' -, which is also a quality of music of the East.
In spite of the many similarities with Oriental music, one of the greatest
differences is that harmony plays an important role in jazz. Music of the East
is primarily understood ‘horizontally’, in terms of melody. Since the
development of jazz is based on harmonic explorations, small-group
ensembles as well as big bands strongly emphasize the production of sounds
that chime well together (the ‘vertical’ dimension or harmony). Although
early jazz improvisers were constrained by tight harmonic conventions, a
less restricted conception of harmonic structures has gradually been
developed. Harmonic structures are not conceived of as a given, but as a
starting point for composition. In jazz, new and exciting harmonies, which
often evolve more or less accidentally, are considered to be essential to the
musical experience.
Jazz improvisation ensembles form examples of SCCs that are likely to show
collective talent. The performers are engaged in a dynamic interactive
dialogue (L1) from which an L2-language develops. After stabilization of L2
(observational closure of an SCC), L2 still can develop in new directions,
depending on how the interactive dialogue (L1) continues.
3.4.3
Flamenco
The term flamenco, as defined in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and
Musicians, is applied to a particular body of songs (cante), dances (baile)
and solo guitar music (toque), mostly emanating from Andalusia in Southern
Spain.
Despite the various conjectures about the origin of flamenco music, in the
prevailing view the early history and development of cante flamenco is
particularly confined to the Andalusian gypsies. As the 'capital' of these
Andalusian gypsies, Sevilla is considered the Mecca of flamenco music,
which is especially due to the suburb Triana. Today's Triana has lost many of
its earlier characteristics, however. Customs have changed and flamenco
music is not longer an intimate art centered in the family tradition of
Andalusians and Gypsies, like it originally was (Starkie, 1958).
- 97 -
Collective Talent
Andalusia has developed its musical tradition from the influences and
remnants of the cultures left by various people who passed through or settled
in this area. Amongst others, the Byzantine, Moorish, Mozarabic and Jewish
cultures have left their remnants. Because of the fact that Andalusia was
under Moorish domination for many centuries, its musical tradition
reflected several Oriental influences. In the 15th century many tribes of
gypsies found their way to Andalusia, where they lived in the fields,
nomadically and under poor conditions. The gypsies assimilated the
Andalusian folklore and contributed to it in their own way. This 'marriage'
gave rise to flamenco, which would never have existed without the old
musical background of Andalusia, and without the gypsies (Livermore, 1972;
Sadie, 1980). In my terminology, an SCC was created which was based on
the acceptance, use and maintenance of a shared language of making music
(L2).
Flamenco became prominent during the first part of the 19th century.
Until 1860 flamenco was part of the life of the Andalusian gypsies and of the
poor, who never performed outside their communities. Around 1850, cante
flamenco became popular as a form of entertainment, although high-class
society still rejected this form of music. A new period arrived that took until
1910: this was the era of Cafés Cantates, special tablaos or places dedicated
to flamenco music.
Around 1920, the art of flamenco was on the decline. The music, which was
performed in flamenco opera's and concerts, was dramatized excessively and
was commercially driven.
In 1922, Manuel de Falla and others tried to revive the old flamenco
tradition by organizing the famous Granada competition. They eliminated all
modernized songs, no matter how eminent the qualities of the competitors
were. Although this was a worthy effort, the revival of interest in ‘original’
flamenco was marked by two later events. The first event was the
reintroduction of the flamenco competition in Cordoba in 1956. This was
followed by a second important event: the creation of the chair of
flamencology in Jerez in 1957. From that time on public interest for
flamenco increased. Flamenco performances resembled again the
- 98 -
Musical interfaces, performance and talent
performances in the period of the Cafés Cantates (Livermore, 1972; Sadie,
1980).
The delicate culture of flamenco resisted the persuasion of commercialism
and the pressure to adapt to modern society. Flamenco survived as an
instance of an SCC - in homes, in taverns, anywhere a certain breed of
Andalusians come together, although it is not widely spread.
The original, special character of Cante Jondo (deep song) and Cante
Flamenco (which includes the lighter styles) is based on some profound and
distinguishing musical features. Striking differences can be found with the
musical characteristics of western music. These differences are partly due to
the fact that flamenco reflects the influences of early Eastern cultures.
The singers of flamenco music (cantaors) are indifferent to ‘well-sounding’
tones or voices and even deliberately produce nasal or metallic sounding
tones in their most characteristic songs. They use quarter and third tones,
and many graces and glides, which sound out of key to us. Just like Oriental
music, the flamenco singer does not produce separate tones; his voice seems
to flow in a continuous river of sound instead.
Similar to the musical practice of the Arab and Hindustani, flamenco’s have
developed a high degree of ornamentation. The more emotion is expressed,
the more complicated the arabesques will be. Flamenco’s have also
introduced harmony (since the guitarists use chords), as opposed to for
instance the African Moors who put the emphasis on melody.
Rhythmical patterns in flamenco music can be very complex as may be
discovered in any cuadro flamenco (group of singers, dancers and guitarists)
performance, such as polyrhythmic passages and additional cross-rhythms.
Often, the rhythmical patterns become so complex and varied that the singer
and guitarist temporarily recede into the background. They let the dancers,
who make counterpoints by heel-stamping, hand-clapping and fingersnapping33, temporarily take over the performance (Livermore, 1972; Sadie,
1980; Starkie, 1958).
33
The use of castanets is not a genuine practice of the gypsies, but belongs to the
popular forms of entertainment by Cuadro Flamenco ensembles. (Starkie, 1958;
Sadie, 1980).
- 99 -
Collective Talent
In spite of the musical characteristics mentioned above, one needs more to
produce the true flamenco sound. Genuine flamenco refers to a way of being,
to participating in the flamenco culture and adding to it by interacting. The
spirit of flamenco can only be conveyed through the production of the
original flamenco sound.
“In Spanish, not only does someone practice the art of flamenco he is also a flamenco. When Diego begins to sing, cante is still in its
golden years and the flamenco manner is still an ideal for the
andaluz, just as the toreo, the contrabandist, the highwayman once
were. The cantaor, in his carriage, social relations, gestures, and
thinking lived integrally as a flamenco, that is, as a certain kind of
andaluz." (Hecht, 1968, p.6)
Although many performers may contribute to a flamenco session, all
performers (dancers, guitarists, singers) are responsible for the way in which
the flamenco performance proceeds. Especially during a dance, when all
members actively participate, the individual actors continuously need to be
sensitive and responsive to the acts of others. Each participant contributes to
the collective process and every individual act can be influenced by the
contributions of others.
Being open and responsive to the musical inputs of other performers means,
of course, that the production of the flamenco sound (L1) cannot be a
preliminary defined process. And indeed, flamenco is known as a free,
improvised form of music, in the sense that a performer is not expected to
repeat exactly what he has learnt from others. The authentic flamenco
performer learns the traditional forms of flamenco, but is not imprisoned by
their structure.
Similar to the Oriental attitude towards music, the Andalusian does not
consider music from an aesthetic point of view, but in terms of its effects on
other people. Musical activity is conceived of as an activity to communicate.
Sounds should enchant the audience, for example by imitating ‘ghostly’
voices and by awakening the duende, the ghost of inspiration. Often,
facultades (physical resources) and too many technical skills act as a
hindrance to what is most essential for the flamenco singer: to transmit his
deeper feelings and to move the listener. Apparently, producing the true
- 100 -
Musical interfaces, performance and talent
flamenco sound requires more than acquiring culturally defined skills. Some
singers who are short on voice modulation, technical and virtuoso
adornments, but who have a sound that penetrates immediately and
powerfully, belong to the most celebrated flamenco singers.
"A singer like Manolo defies all rules, the limiting definitions. It
always happens in flamenco. The intellectuals make rules and then
a singer comes along, opens his mouth and says ay! in a particular
way and the rules come tumbling down. Manolo has very limited
physical resources. He cannot maintain the long, extended line of
many flamenco styles. But his human resources are rich and they
are what create the emotion.” (Hecht, 1968, p.22).
Instead of an extensive study of music, famous gypsy guitarists have more
trust in things like 'the gypsy inspiration’ or ‘duende'.
"El Muriciano would not follow any musical rule, and this proud
independence gave great spontaneity to his playing, but when
anyone wanted him to repeat the effects he had produced in one of
his improvisations he was unable to do so." (Starkie, 1958, p.97)
When accompanying, the function of the flamenco guitarist is to help the
singer and the dancer to bring out their best. The guitarist must create a
suitable atmosphere for every piece; he must provide for the rhythm and
follow the voice of the singer, whatever direction it will take. The guitarist is
also expected to ‘add’ to the voice, by playing brief melodic sequences
(falsetas) between the verses. At these moments, the guitarist is at the
absolute service of the singing, and from the singing he takes all his
inspiration.
"One of the miracles of Flamenco playing is that the guitarist seems
to know intuitively what the singer is going to do; sometimes,
indeed, he seems to possess second sight." (Starkie, 1958, p.102)
"When Manuel Torres rose to the full climax of Cante Jondo with
its inner tragedy, forcing the notes higher and higher, the guitar
produced a similar metallic tone to that of the singer. And when the
latter's voice faltered or his inspiration began to flag, the guitar
- 101 -
Collective Talent
would broaden out into a bewildering series of falsetas or
variations.“ (Starkie, 1958, p.96)
The guitarists create the right atmospheric conditions by producing a ‘sound
curtain’ (comparable to a prelude in Oriental music). The singer may
suddenly break through the sound curtain, for example by evoking a new
‘tension field’, and by livening up the music in order to arouse and sustain
the attention of the audience (Livermore, 1972). When playing solo, the
guitarist must convey the total flamenco atmosphere. The falsetas will
become more elaborate and melodious in order to resemble the singing. Also
the rhythm will be further elaborated in order to resemble the 'foot-work' of
the dancer.
Although every performer will be concerned with the audience, in flamenco
the audience forms part of the dramatic performance and their immediate
response is much needed. Flamenco cannot be performed without the
aficionados, those who enact the pure enthusiasm that is provoked during a
flamenco session, either as a practitioner (práctica), or as a witness
(teórico). In flamenco, spectators or passive listeners do not exist. The role
of the ‘witness’ – as a member of the audience - is active; the testigo
(participating witness) forms part of the SCC that is constructed during a
flamenco performance. Traditional forms of response and accompaniment of
the ‘witness’ include hand clapping, finger popping, heel-and-toe tapping,
knuckle rapping, and vocal phrases to praise, spur and support the singer.
Hecht (1968) mentions the following set of verbal jaleos (responses): ole
(believed by some to be derived from Arabic Allah, to crown a superior
effort), eso es ("that's it"), valiente ("courageous"), vamos allá, ("let's go
there"), sí senor ("yes, sir").
Without the response of members of the audience, who have a large
influence on the musical process, there would be no flamenco (Hecht, 1968).
Flamenco springs from a musical conversation. Although individual
performers - especially singers - may be helped by others to bring out the
best they can, the evolving musical forms and patterns are the result of
talented forms of musical interaction.
In order to judge a flamenco session, one requires - according to the
flamenco's - afición, which is 'the pure, disinterested enthusiasm that is
- 102 -
Musical interfaces, performance and talent
directed at and triggered by the music as it proceeds’. Enacting ‘afición’
means that one is part of the flamenco collective and contributes to it by
interacting.
3.4.4
Evaluation
Collective talent emerges from musical group performances that specifically
share the ability to accept internal variety and to stabilize an L2-language
(and hence instantiate SCCs) that can be modified by internal sources of
variation. The former sections described a few ways in which in actors are
enabled to take part in a musical conversation and close in as an SCC.
According to Conversation Theory (Pask, 1975b, 1976, 1987), participants in
a conversation bring in variety, in the sense that each of them bears their
own roles and perspectives, and therefore determines various contexts. It
may happen that new, shared concepts evolve in conversations between
various persons (or in one person's mind). All participants may profit from
these exchanges. Although the specific outcomes of such interactive
dialogues are unpredictable in time, they may lead to new inventions and
discoveries.
A conversation can be conceived of as a process in which no identifiable
sources of variation can be defined. Participants in a conversation do not
profit from the variety that each brings in as an individual (first order
variety), but from the variety that evolves from these interactions (second
order variety). Second order variety is manipulated and sustained by the
interactive injection of first order variety.
A musical conversation is a source for construction, stabilization and
modification of an L2-language. It enables the production of an SCC that
reveals collective talent. The interface (L3) that is used to elicit and maintain
the interactive dialogue is sensitive and adaptive to the variety that users
bring in. It allows (and sometimes even seduces) its users to bring in new
ideas and to respond to the inputs of others (in terms of acceptance,
rejection, new suggestions, and the like). After stabilization of L2, the
ongoing conversation itself is being used as L3'.
- 103 -
Collective Talent
This resulting perceptible musical structures (L1) cannot be identified as
stemming from any of the individual performers, but rather evolve from
dynamic and circular processes of interaction which stabilize into specific
patterns. The evolving L1 may influence the next musical steps that the
interacting participants undertake. It may give rise to accidental
combinations of sounds that lead to new inspirations, to aberrations that are
turned into new themes, to sparks that affect the musical course. At times, it
also may give rise to harmonic agreements, to disputes, to acceleration, to
delay, to contemplation and reflection.
Although the course of the development of L1 is unpredictable and variable,
the process itself always revolves around a recognizable structure. Such
structure is disclosed by the collective use and maintenance of an L2language that is open to change.
Musical conversation appears to be a fertile soil for the emergence of
collective forms of talent. Such talent is neither to be recognized by
individual attributes, nor by the execution of predefined musical activities.
Judgment of collective talent requires observational closure of an SCC that
has a capacity to self-renew its internal dynamics.
- 104 -
4 Unlocking collective
talent
4.1
Introduction
In 1997 the Dutch CITO34 (Van Weerden & Veldhuijzen, 2000) investigated
the quality of music education amongst 240 primary schools in the
Netherlands (PPON35). The main research questions concerned the
educational content and practice, the results and the developments. It was
the second time in a period of five years that this extensive investigation took
place. When compared to the state of affairs in 1992, the results in 1997
showed that no progress was made in meeting the required educational
goals. In summary, pupils scored even less on cognitive and practice tasks. It
also appeared that the number of pupils that actively played a musical
instrument or took lessons to learn to play an instrument had decreased. On
the other hand, the number of pupils that passively listened to music and
watched music programs on television had increased with 10 %. It was
concluded that the general level of musical knowledge and skills was much
lower than what was desirable according to the experts.
The results of the CITO report gave rise to many discussions. Music
education seemed to have come to a dead end. In search for explanations, it
34
35
CITO is a testing and assessment company, which was founded in 1968 by the
Dutch government.
Periodiek Peilingsonderzoek Kwaliteit Onderwijs (PPON): Periodical
Investigations Educational Quality. This project has started in 1986 by order of
the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.
- 105 -
Collective Talent
is widely agreed that traditional educational methods and tasks are outdated
and do not fit any more within the digital, cross-cultural environment in
which the new population of pupils takes part. There is a growing interest to
search for new approaches to music education and for new methods and
tools. According to Schippers (2004), the hegemony of the classical musical
culture of the West is gradually eroding, which opens up ‘new concepts,
ideas and practices of musical transmission’. Today, music education in the
Netherlands is moving into new directions, although changes appear to take
place at a very low pace (Van Dijk, 2004; Van Rosmalen & Kors, 2004).
According to Van Rosmalen & Kors (2004) a general fear for loss of quality
and depth of music education is one of the main problems in implementing
new approaches and methods. New questions arise, for example how
‘quality’ can be measured or judged. Quality criteria are often based on the
traditional methods and forms of music education, with a strong focus on
transfer of knowledge and skills. Therefore, when methods are changed, also
the criteria for measuring ‘quality’ have to be redefined.
The above observation links up closely with my thoughts on the cultural
constraints on music production, which are embodied by our conventional
musical interfaces (L3) and provide us with standards to judge musical
talent and to compare the quality of musical results (see 1.4 and 3.1).
In search for new methods in music education, current themes that are being
discussed are for example the E-culture, authentic learning and community
art.
The E-culture involves a wide range of new methods and tools, based on the
use of computers, ICT tools, multimedia and ‘going on-line’ in the classroom.
Van Rosmalen & Kors (2004) have distinguished four different areas in
which digital media can be used in art education: to replace physical media
(such as a sound studio), to produce new art forms, to facilitate
communication, and to support an effective exchange of information and
contacts. According to the authors, a clear vision of the use of digital media
in the classroom still needs to be developed. In spite of the new possibilities,
music educators have been criticized for their unwillingness to adjust to new
developments, which is reflected in music programs that are out of step with
today’s students (Johnson, 2004).
- 106 -
Unlocking collective talent
The term authentic learning, that is learning which has personal meaning
and substance for the student, is used to describe ‘activity closely related to
the situation in which the knowledge would tend to apply’ (Mcfarlane, 1996;
Newman et al., 1995). In music education, authentic learning is sometimes
related to community art. The latter offers a new method to present art
education. Both terms draw new attention to the importance of group
improvisation. Although community art is often seen as a means to social
empowerment rather than to talented musical activity, it reflects some
aspects of my collective talent approach. First, support of collective talent
will often go hand in hand with reinforcing people’s status as members of a
community. Second, community art is not only about making art collectively,
but also about supporting ‘access to excellence’ (Van Rosmalen & Kors,
2004). This lines up with my arguments to extend the concept of talent and
to conceive of making music as an activity to converse (see chapter one).
Questions about what is needed to provide such extended access remain
largely unanswered, however.
In the previous chapter I argued that a replacement of the constraints (L3)
imposed on musical activity is not enough to support more people to act as
talented musicians. Although this may result in observable new musical
forms and languages (L2), it is crucial to the emergence of collective talent
that L2 can still be modified by the interacting participants. It is of course
difficult to ascertain that a given L2 is not open to change. We do not know
whether or not a stable musical pattern (which shows evidence of a stable
L2) will change in the future. What we do know is that an SCC must allow its
members to introduce new variety in the interactive dialogue in order to
reveal collective talent. From the description of SCCs it follows that evidence
of collective talent will be diminished if less variation is accepted and
expressed by the participants.
The construction of SCCs with collective talent requires a specific type of L3,
which I have called an extended interface. Such an L3 evokes and mediates a
musical conversation that enables the participants to propose new ideas, to
respond to those of others, and to generate and modify L2 as the
performance moves forward.
- 107 -
Collective Talent
In 1989 -1990 I conducted a series of field experiments in a secondary school
in Amsterdam (the ‘Spinoza’ project). This project offered insight in the
basic requirements of extended interfaces.
I will retrospectively apply the conceptual framework on SCCs to describe
the experiments and the results of the ‘Spinoza’ project. It should be recalled
that I have developed my theoretical notions on SCCs after the ‘Spinoza
project’ was completed. At the same time this project was an important
stimulus to develop these notions. Although the design of the experiments
does not completely match up with my present research question, the results
suggest that it is indeed possible to create an L3 that supports the production
of SCCs with collective talent. These results provide for the initial knowledge
of how to start an SCC.
In the next sections, I will describe the ‘Spinoza project’ in more detail. I will
focus on the reconstruction of examples of SCCs (with and without collective
talent) and evaluate our observations in terms of differences of L3. I will
draw my conclusions regarding the requirements of extended interfaces.
4.2
The ‘Spinoza’ project
The ‘Spinoza’ project was conducted in collaboration with the Spinozalyceum in Amsterdam (De Jong, 1989, 1991a, 1991b). The Spinoza-lyceum is
a secondary school with a strong focus on computer and art education. The
music curriculum is attuned to the requirements of the Sweelinck
Conservatory in Amsterdam.
The aim of the ‘Spinoza project’ was to study how computers and
technological means could be employed to improve music education in two
respects. First, to increase the number of pupils that actively participates in
music. Second, to support a greater variety of musical activity.
We set up a 'sound studio' as a means to create a musical environment that
would be accessible to musically unskilled pupils and that would provide for
ample possibilities to improvise and to explore. A great part of the
assignments was directed to stimulate pupils to collaborate in musical
sessions and to improvise together. When translated to the present
- 108 -
Unlocking collective talent
conceptual framework, we hypothesized that it is possible to intervene in
such a way that SCCs are constructed that reveal collective talent.
We observed the effects of different musical instruments, teaching methods
and assignments on individual musical behavior, group interactions and the
sounds or music that were collectively produced.
The results of this project provide for answers to the question how to create
and support talented improvised group performance.
4.3
4.3.1
Method
Subjects
Six groups of third-grade pupils (age 14-16 years, each consisting of about 25
pupils) were divided in time blocks of 16 weeks (semesters), during which
they could use the sound studio.
There were large differences between the pupils with regard to their musical
experience. Most pupils reported that they had little or no experience with
playing a musical instrument, but some were skilled in playing piano or
another musical instrument. Only two of them were familiar with the use of
electronic keyboards. None of them had previous experience with making
music as a group.
4.3.2
Sound studio
The sound studio was equipped with various tools and instruments that
enabled pupils to explore music and sound without a need to master the
skills and knowledge that normally are required to produce music in western
musical culture.
- 109 -
Collective Talent
The sound computers consisted of eight synthesizers36, a sampler37 and a
drum computer38. With the exception of the drum computer, all sound
computers were provided with keyboard controllers. The synthesizers and
the sampler were used as separate workstations, to be operated by small
groups of pupils (2 to 4). Their functionality could be extended with extra
software. A sequencer (which enables sound recording on several tracks and
modification of the sound sequences after recording) was used most
frequently.
4.3.3
Procedure and observations
During this project, the teacher employed several teaching methods, which
differed in terms of instructions, assignments and the musical instruments
to be used. Pupils were randomly assigned to subgroups that worked on
specific assignments.
Together with the teacher, I actively participated in the music lessons during
two semesters and helped whenever the pupils asked for assistance. We
observed and monitored musical behavior and performance in six different
classes, which were divided over two semesters.
During the first lessons, the pupils were asked to fill in some questionnaires,
which provided us with information about their musical background, taste
and expectations. Later on, I conducted personal interviews with the pupils
in order to investigate their individual perceptions about what was going on.
In all classes, pupils’ (musical) behavior and interactions were recorded with
video cameras.
After a few weeks, the pupils were acquainted with my presence. The effect
of video and tape recordings on their behavior was less profound than when
36
37
38
A sound computer that has an inbuilt ‘controller’ for real-time user input (most
often a keyboard).
A sound computer that enables to record and store sounds or sound sequences,
which subsequently can controlled and modified in real-time through an inbuilt
controller.
A sound computer that renders rhythmical patterns and enables a user to record
and store new sounds (percussion). Real-time control requires an external
controller.
- 110 -
Unlocking collective talent
we started. During some lessons, the pupils were asked to take over the role
of the observer and to make video recordings themselves.
We varied the experimental conditions with respect to the role of the teacher
(assignments, instructions) and the available musical instruments. In the
present terminology, they are considered to form important elements of the
environmental structure (L3).
Based on our observations, the teacher adapted and improved her
instructions and assignments for the following lessons. In order to prevent
patterns from not being recognized so that talented group performance
would be missed (‘false negatives’; see 6.2.2), we decided to use only
percussion instruments in some assignments. Rhythmical patterns and
pattern changes are easier to recognize than melodic patterns.
Our general findings will be described in section 4.4.1. The conceptual
framework on SCCs will be applied to retroactively describe our observations
and the results of the experiments. I will focus on the construction of
instances of SCCs, in particular of SCCs that reveal collective talent.
In the examples described in section 4.4.2, the teacher and I were both able
to observe the development of stable musical patterns during group
improvisation. We could for instance hear how a group of interacting pupils
gradually managed to produce sounds that we both recognized as music. We
could hear how musical patterns emerged and were stabilized by the
interacting pupils (stable L2). We could also see (and hear) how the pupils
carefully attended to one another and corrected each other in trying to
maintain a pattern. At these moments, observational closure of an SCC was
achieved.
Section 4.4.3 describes an example of a group of pupils that showed a great
talent to reorganize their environment and to replace the constraints of L3
by other constraints. Although the L3 that was invented by the pupils can be
conceived of as a product of group creativity, it did not appear to support the
construction of an SCC with collective talent for making music. I have used
the term ‘talent to organize’ to describe this example and to distinguish it
from collective talent. ‘Talent to organize’ can be a special form of collective
talent, but needs not to be. Collective talent is an emergent property of selforganizing collectives. Identification of an SCC and collective talent refers to
- 111 -
Collective Talent
the process of interaction and collective creation (such as in collective music
performance) and not to a collectively created product (such as a book, a
painting or a plan).
Section 4.4.4 describes two examples in which evidence was collected of
SCCs that reveal the desired property of collective talent. In these examples,
we observed how individual actors unexpectedly introduced new variety in
the musical dialogue after L2 had stabilized; how this affected their
interactions and the musical course (L1); and eventually, how temporal
disorders in sound production were turned into a new and stable (musical)
pattern of interaction. These SCCs enabled their participants to contribute in
various ways to collective music production and to create and stabilize new
patterns of interaction while making music together. These impressive group
performances were not due to individual skills or talents. Most of the pupils
involved had little or no musical experience.
4.4
4.4.1
Results
General findings
During the first lessons, the assignment was to try out the new instruments
in small groups and to end up with a collective music performance. The
teacher intervened as little as possible. When the first flush was over, pupils’
interest in the new instruments and their enthusiasm to explore the sound
possibilities appeared to evaporate.
Most groups were not able to fulfill the assignment that the teacher had
formulated. Instead of playing and varying, they persevered in a
conventional conception of how to make music. Although most of the pupils
were unskilled as musicians, they used operating rules like ‘play piano’,
‘reproduce an existing musical piece’ and ‘read from note staffs’. In my
terminology, the students formed part of a cultural SCC that is based on and
maintains specific rules and constraints (L2) for the making of music.
Unfortunately, there were many dropouts, suggesting that the L2-language
that was used was too tight.
- 112 -
Unlocking collective talent
We also observed individuals who made a good start to improvise by freely
producing sounds and challenging others to join in. Unfortunately, the other
members of their group often failed to respond and to contribute to a
musical conversation. After a while, the pupils involved lost their attention
and stopped with playing and exploring the instruments.
After a few lessons, it appeared that ‘skilled individuals’ who already could
play a musical instrument used the keyboards mainly to reproduce wellknown melodies (like Beethoven's Für Elise or a popular commercial jingle).
Even the sounds that were chosen closely approximated the sounds of the
original works. Exploration of sound possibilities remained restricted to a
few ‘space’ sounds and beeps. Also the sampler was merely used for its
preprogrammed ‘real-life’ sounds, such as the sound of breaking glass, a
cock's cock-a-doodle-doo, helicopters, starting cars, etceteras. Some pupils
expressed their boredom and their lack of motivation. Most of them had no
earlier experience with playing a musical instrument. They said to be
envious about their peers who knew how to play a keyboard and believed
that they had no talent for music.
During the final lessons, we restricted the pupils to the use of conventional
percussion instruments. Several assignments were given that differed with
respect to group size, preparation time, performance time, available
instruments, order of the group performances, etc. In every assignment, we
instructed the pupils not to reproduce an existing musical piece, but to
improvise and to communicate with each other instead.
Most groups tended to curtail their freedom to act, by making advance
agreements on the rhythm to be produced (as part of L3). In general, they
still produced a loud cacophony of sounds, without any observable structure.
Pupils acted as individuals and continued to do so, hitting beats while
ignoring the acts of others.
4.4.2
Evidence of SCCs
There were also cases in which the produced sounds converged into a clear
pattern. Such processes always started with one or more individuals who put
effort in synchronizing their beats with the others. After a while, the other
members responded and took over this synchronizing practice, which
- 113 -
Collective Talent
resulted in a clearly recognizable rhythmical pattern. We noticed that
irregular beats were neglected or corrected. This suggested that the pupils
collaborated to maintain and to repeat the rhythmical pattern (stabilization
of L2; observational closure of an SCC).
These SCCs broke up quite easily when one of the actors purposively
disturbed a stable pattern of interaction. The pupils stopped playing as soon
as one members tried to break the rules guiding musical participation (L2)
by producing much louder sounds than the others, or by introducing a
different or a more complicated rhythm. Disintegration was also caused
when a ‘new’ person joined in and contributed in a new and rather dominant
way.
The above-mentioned cases show instances of SCCs that are based on and
maintain a tight and stable L2. Obviously, these SCCs did not accept
unexpected variety (neither from internal nor from external sources) and
resisted to change the L2-language on which they were based (see 2.3). Once
a pattern of interaction (a rhythmical pattern) had stabilized, the interacting
participants showed a strong tendency to preserve this pattern.
4.4.3
Evidence of a talent to organize
This example concerns a group of 5 pupils who were strongly dissatisfied by
the assignment and by the music course in general. Their assignment was to
compose a musical piece, to store it in the computer and to present their
work at a later moment. The pupils reported that they did not like the music
lessons and preferred to spend their time on computer programming or on
doing their homework. They were discouraged because they were not taught
to read note staffs or to play a musical instrument. The teacher was criticized
for the fact that she did not provide instructions as to what to play or what to
compose.
The teacher warned the pupils repeatedly that their lack of musical
experience was insufficient reason to withdraw from the assignment. She
insisted that they should compose a musical piece according to their own
ideas.
- 114 -
Unlocking collective talent
Eventually, the pupils proposed to translate poetry into music. They had
chosen a nihilist poem of the Flemish poet Paul van Ostaijen39. The rhythm
of this poem was a defining feature. In order to transform this poem into
music, the pupils agreed to link every vowel to a specific sound or 'voice' at a
specific pitch. They modified the rules to assign sounds to vowels until the
result sounded well enough. They notated every step very precisely and
ended up with an unfamiliar sound sequence that still could be recognized as
music.
Although these pupils were displeased and unmotivated in the beginning,
they worked together effectively during this process and became enthusiastic
about the assignment.
To the pupils, the extra pressure that the teacher exerted (as part of L3) may
have strengthened their need to find a way out for carrying out the
assignment successfully. They were able to solve this problem by inventing a
new method to compose and perform music. The constraints that this
method imposes differ for example from the TNS. This implies that the
pupils had freed themselves from the conventional ideas about composition
and performance and had introduced a new L3 that would enable them to
satisfy the teacher.
By producing this method, the pupils showed a talent to (re-) organize their
environment in such a way that they were able to fulfill the assignment.
Although the method itself can be conceived of as an L3 that strongly limits
one’s freedom to act, it apparently helped the pupils to collectively compose
a piece of music. This resulted in a written score that precisely prescribed
every musical step40. Finally, when they played the piece, the pupils carefully
performed, one by one, the predefined sequence of the steps. They closely
attended each other and succeeded in collectively producing a fluent sound
sequence, which we could indeed recognize as music. Obviously, during this
process, the interacting pupils closed in as an SCC, although it was based on
39
40
The title of the poem is “Marc groet ’s morgens de Dingen” (Ostaijen, 1952, c.
1996).
We did not observe these processes closely enough, but the interacting pupils may
have formed an SCC and have shown collective talent while producing the method
and the score.
- 115 -
Collective Talent
a very strict L2 that hardly allowed for any variation. It was not likely that
collective talent would appear.
4.4.4
Evidence of collective talent
Example 1
The first example is about the production of a ‘radio play’ by using nonspeech sound. Most pupils were much inspired by the preprogrammed
sounds, beeps and sound sequences. Not surprisingly, the themes and the
stories were quite similar: UFO’s, Martians coming to Earth, etc.
Two groups of pupils used a different strategy, however. The way in which
they collectively created and produced a radio play showed evidence of
collective talent.
The L3 of both of these groups differed from the others in two respects. First,
these groups used synthesizers that provided for less preprogrammed
sounds than the others. This may have stimulated the pupils to create their
own meaningful sound sequences. Second, the pupils spontaneously made
advance agreements about the theme and the story of the radio play. As
such, they changed L3 and added some extra constraints on the production
of sounds.
Once they all agreed upon the global constraints (as part of L3), they started
to improvise. One of the pupils dropped a first event. Subsequently, the
other pupils responded by introducing new events. The teacher and I
observed that meaningful sound sequences gradually emerged. They were
collectively used and stabilized as ‘words’ and ‘sentences’, which repeatedly
returned during their performance (stabilization of L2; observational closure
of an SCC; see 2.2). For example, a descending fifth represented ‘going down
the stairway’ and characters were symbolized by short sequences of notes
(Miss Do-re-mi and Mister Fa-sol-la). While playing together, the pupils
continued to develop and stabilize new characters and themes (modification
of L2), which moved their ‘story’ (L1) into directions that could not be
predicted in advance. Obviously, these pupils were able to forget the
constraints from which they started (L3) and used the ongoing musical
conversation (L1) itself as a source (L3’) to modify L2.
- 116 -
Unlocking collective talent
Both groups could be identified as instances of SCCs with collective talent.
Their interactions did not only stabilize into patterns that both the teacher
and I could recognize, but L2 could still be modified by the dynamic
interactions of the pupils involved. Their outstanding performance could not
be ascribed to individual talents, since hardly any of the pupils had prior
experience with music.
Example 2
The second example is about the use of conventional percussion
instruments. In one experiment, a class of 24 pupils was taken to another
classroom. We gave a percussion instrument to each of the pupils and asked
them to take place in a circle position. Once they were all settled, the teacher
suddenly and unexpectedly asked them to play and improvise together,
without a chance to prepare or to make agreements in advance: ‘Start at my
sign - and stop whenever you want’.
L3 differed from the other assignments. The large group size, the abrupt
start and the lack of preparation time were new conditions. Except for the
fact that the pupils had to produce ‘something musical’ with the available
percussion instruments and that they had to start immediately, there were
no other constraints defined.
It became a very lively place. The pupils seemed to enjoy playing together
and everybody actively contributed by producing sounds. To our surprise,
within a very short time period the group produced recognizable – and
sometimes very complex - rhythmical patterns (stabilization of L2;
observational closure of an SCC). At times, the development of a rhythmical
pattern turned into a short period of randomly produced beats, for example
when one of the pupils unexpectedly introduced an irregular beat. However,
such temporal disorders always developed and stabilized into new
rhythmical patterns (change of L2). Without verbal cues, this group also
demonstrated an almost perfect timing of ‘silence’. At certain moments,
every single member suddenly stopped beating. This silence was kept for a
while. When one of the pupils suddenly dropped in a new event, the silence
gradually blended into a new and swelling rhythm.
These observations showed strong evidence of the construction of an SCC
that was able to self-renew its internal operations by sources of variation
- 117 -
Collective Talent
occurring within the SCC. The dynamic musical interactions not only served
as a source to develop and use a stable L2, but also to develop L2 into new
directions. After stabilization of L2, the ongoing rhythmical performance
(L1) itself was used as L3’. This enabled the participants to improvise and to
act – individually as well as collectively – as talented musicians.
4.5
Discussion
In our experiments, pupils had to perform different kinds of musical tasks
under different external conditions (L3). We observed them while using
different kinds of musical instruments under different conditions
(instructions, assignments, group size).
Most pupils were musically ‘uninitiated’ and had no prior experience with
making music. According to their teacher, they had no musical talent as
individuals. Therefore, talented musical group improvisation cannot be
ascribed to individual talents.
In order to improve our capability to recognize patterns in the production of
music, we restricted some of the assignments to the use of percussion
instruments only.
Since pupils were randomly assigned to subgroups for every task, we
controlled for individual variety and group cohesion.
4.5.1
Musical instruments
At the start of the project we hypothesized that the use of synthesizers and
samplers would support more pupils to act as talented musicians. This
hypothesis was based on two assumptions. In the first place, we assumed
that these musical instruments would enable unskilled musicians to produce
a greater variety of sounds and combinations of sound. Secondly, we
assumed that these new possibilities would stimulate the pupils to improvise
so that it would lead to the development of new musical forms. Things did
not turn out in this way, however.
- 118 -
Unlocking collective talent
The results of this project indicated that an extension of musical possibilities
does not automatically lead to a structural change of musical behavior. It did
not stimulate more pupils to become musically active; neither did we
observe a greater variety of musical activity. This can be explained by
examining the interfaces of the instruments that were used.
Technically speaking, the sound computers offered many possibilities to
explore, to improvise and to produce new musical forms. Nevertheless, they
have ‘input devices’ (or ‘controllers’) that reflect a global L2 that strongly
regulates musical activity in a predetermined way. Since keyboards show a
close resemblance to the user interface of a piano (see 3.2.1), the rules and
constraints that are implemented in a piano have been transferred to
electronic keyboard instruments. Despite the added control possibilities, like
knobs, wheels and sliders, use of these interfaces strongly favors the
production of specific musical forms, while excluding others. Our pupils
reported that, in comparison to traditional instruments, they needed even
more specific knowledge and skills in order to act like a talented musician.
Apparently, these user interfaces offer limited access to the musical
possibilities of the sound computers.
In our experiments, many pupils viewed themselves as a musical failure.
Almost all pupils reported that they felt frustrated for not being able to
operate a keyboard like a pianist does. They also felt insecure for missing
technical knowledge, the ability to read note-staffs, etc. Obviously, the
instruments that were used reinforced their (culturally based) ideas of what
is talent and what not. It appeared to be very difficult to change their
attitudes and beliefs. Also the use of musical instruments that reflect a
loosely defined L2 – such as percussion instruments – was in itself not
sufficient to change their viewpoint on how to make music.
4.5.2
The role of the teacher
The teacher appeared to play a very important role in providing for an
environmental structure (L3) that is supportive to collective talent. In a few
cases (see 4.4.3) it indeed appeared to be possible to construct SCCs that
have this quality. Apparently, these groups were impelled to take part in a
musical conversation and to engage in heightened forms of group cohesion
that were based on internally, rather than externally defined constraints.
- 119 -
Collective Talent
How was this realized?
A shared feature of the examples mentioned in 4.4.3 is that L3 imposed
some new constraints on music production. In example 1, both groups were
provided with less means to fulfill the assignment than other groups. In
example 2, the large group size and the fact that pupils were not allowed to
make preliminary agreements upon their performance were new and extra
impositions. This may have triggered a need to remove some of the
constraints that are normally imposed by western musical culture and - in
the absence of directions of how anyone should act - to listen and respond to
one another closely.
Although it is not sufficient as an explanation, I suggest the following
principles are helpful to create an environmental structure supportive to
collective talent:
• Teachers should stimulate improvisation and refuse to give
straightforward instructions in order to meet pupils’ demands for
certainty and predictability.
• Teachers should prevent pupils from wandering and a feeling of
helplessness. This can e.g. be realized by providing for information and
physical resources, but also by stimulating the pupils to interact, to
listen and to respond to each other, to inspire and to get inspired by
others.
• Teachers should help pupils to remove or to change (some) of the
constraints on the making of music that are normally imposed by
western musical culture, e.g. by adding some new constraints.
4.6
Conclusion
Our observations of the effects on musical activity helped to clarify and order
the weaknesses of the musical instruments that we used in our experiments.
These ‘lessons learned’ yield important information regarding the
requirements of the environmental structure (L3) that is needed to construct
SCCs that reveal collective talent.
1.
The first requirement refers to a two (or more)-sided introduction of
variety (see 3.3 and 3.4). Most traditional as well as most contemporary
musical instruments do not allow for two (or more) interacting sources
- 120 -
Unlocking collective talent
of variation. Preferably, they are to be used by only one player at a time.
The effects of such interfaces were already mentioned in chapter three.
They were also illustrated in this project. Although players still may
respond to each other by their normal listening process, most
instrumental interfaces are insensitive to the dynamic interactions of
the actors involved.
By definition, the construction of an SCC at least requires two actors
that mutually respond to each other. This means that an extended
interface should accept inputs of at least two actors at a time. The
development and stabilization of an L2-language is based on their
dynamic history of interactions.
2.
The second requirement refers to the variety of musical acts that are
accepted as inputs. The interfaces of most conventional as well as
computer-based musical instruments reflect many culturally defined
and narrow constraints on the making of music. They prescribe which
musical ‘words’ are preferable to others. They also predetermine
preferable ways to combine the chosen words into sentences. In our
experiments, we found out that this caused a high number of musical
dropouts. Use of such interfaces severely constrains the development of
local L2-languages. It may lead to the construction of SCCs that are
based on tight and narrow-defined L2s and define clear-cut distinctions
between what is talent and what not.
With regard to the requirements of an extended interface, it is
important that it does not reflect a preliminary distinction between
talented and untalented musical activity. In this respect, percussion
instruments are much more tolerant than the modern keyboard
instruments that we used in our experiments.
3.
The third requirement of an extended interface concerns flexibility.
Although we tried hard to create an environmental structure (L3)
supportive to irregular inputs, exploration and improvisation, we had
strong difficulties in realizing this aim. Being part of a cultural SCC,
some specific externally (and culturally) defined constraints on the act
of making music were maintained in existence by the pupils. The act of
making of music was conceived of as an act of reproduction rather than
as an act of creation. Moreover, the pupils tended to restrict themselves
and each other to playing music that was written (or suitable) for the
- 121 -
Collective Talent
piano. Instead of using irregular events as information, our pupils
showed a strong tendency to correct or neglect such events in order to
minimize their effects.
Not only do people differ in terms of the emotions and meanings that
they want to express, also their individual feelings and beliefs may
change while making music. Considering music as a medium to
converse, irregular inputs of interacting participants may trigger the
development of new patterns of interaction and stability. Crucial to
such dynamic processes is an interface that is tolerant to the variety that
users bring in.
4.
The fourth requirement refers to the mediation of a musical
conversation. An extended interface was successfully created in two
cases (see 4.4.3). In these examples, the pupils not only managed to
develop and maintain a stable pattern of interaction (stabilization of L2;
observational closure of an SCC), but also were willing to introduce new
variety and to respond to the variety that others brought in. In our
examples, at some point an interactive dialogue (L1) was maintained in
existence and was used itself as a source (L3') to develop new and stable
patterns of interaction. The interactive dialogue could change
continually and variably. By being sensitive and adaptive to the variety
occurring within the SCC, it could open up and cut off new and different
possibilities for action at any moment in time.
In order to create an SCC that reveals collective talent, we need an
interface that mediates a musical conversation by changing continually
and variably in response to the interactive process of the actors
involved.
The requirements of extended interfaces, as special instances of L3, can be
summarized as follows:
1.
An extended interface accepts inputs of at least two actors at a time
2.
An extended interface accepts inputs that are not a priori in favor of
some actors and exclude others.
3.
An extended interface is supportive and tolerant to irregular inputs.
4.
An extended interface continually adapts to the events being exchanged
by the interacting actors.
- 122 -
5 Sensitive Chords: a
prototype extended
interface
5.1
Introduction
In the second chapter I described a research design that enables to define
knowledge acquisition concerning improvised group performance and the
emergence of collective talent. As part of my conceptual framework, I
developed the notion of an extended interface. Such an interface seduces
players to participate in a musical conversation, so that they can selforganize as an SCC that is able to modify the internally defined constraints
on music production (L2). Such SCCs may show collective talent.
In the third chapter I analyzed and explained the differences between
extended interfaces and conventional musical interfaces as instances of L3. I
concluded that an extended interface should be sensitive and adaptive to the
variety that users bring in. It should enable and seduce its users to bring in
new ideas and to respond to those of others.
In the fourth chapter I applied my conceptual framework to describe a series
of field experiments that I conducted in music education (the ‘Spinozaproject’). I demonstrated that it is possible to bring up instances of SCCs in
research. I described some examples in which we succeeded in initiating
SCCs with collective talent. I noted that the constraints that stem from
western musical tradition are quite firm and must be removed or replaced in
order to start such SCCs. In the ‘Spinoza-project’, the role of the teacher
- 123 -
Collective Talent
appeared to be very important in creating an L3 supportive to collective
talent. I concluded chapter four by identifying and defining the basic
requirements of extended interfaces. These requirements constitute
knowledge about how talented improvised group performance is to be
created and supported. The combination of these requirements seems to be
crucial to the production of SCCs that reveal collective talent.
In this chapter I will bring the acquired knowledge of extended interfaces
into practice and I will elaborate my theory for supporting collective talent.
For reasons of exploration as well as practical demonstration, I designed and
developed Sensitive Chords41, a prototype extended interface (for pictures,
see appendix A.4). Sensitive Chords is intended to reconstruct flamenco
sessions and to proof and to demonstrate the possibility to unlock collective
talent in improvising groups.
Sensitive Chords is designed such that control of the sounds and the music
to be produced can only be achieved collectively: music and sounds are
shaped and molded by the interactional process of the players. Players of
Sensitive Chords are ‘strongly connected’ by the mechanical controller.
Sensitive Chords is a collective, string-manipulated musical performance
system for two to four players at a time that supports and mediates a musical
conversation. Each individual player is able to contribute something original
to a musical performance and to influence the sounds as well as the musical
patterns that are being produced. However, no single individual is able to
control the flow of the conversation and the resulting musical outcome. The
musical outcome is based on the dynamic interactions of the actors involved.
The system is described and examined in the following sections.
First I will approach Sensitive Chords from a technical perspective. This
allows the reader to get an impression of the system and how it works (see
5.2).
41
Sensitive Chords was technically realized by Bert Bongers, Royal Conservatory,
dep. Sonology, The Hague.
- 124 -
Sensitive Chords: a prototype extended interface
Next (see 5.3) I will explain what it means to play Sensitive Chords. How it
responds to the multiple inputs of its users and what the effects are on the
musical outcome.
The final sections (5.4 and 5.5) will address the following two questions:
• Does Sensitive Chords meet the criteria of an extended interface (as
formulated in section 4.4.2)?
• Does use of the system bring SCCs that reveal collective talent into
existence?
5.2
Technical realization
Sensitive Chords consists of three different components: a mechanical
controller, specific computer hard- and software and audio output devices.
The mechanical controller of Sensitive Chords is constructed from metal
crossbars, connecting rods, chords and handles that stand on a post and a
platform (figure 10; section 5.2.1). Nine sensors monitor the inputs of
players.
The analogue signals of the sensors of Sensitive Chords are converted into
MIDI42 by a programmable computer device, the so-called SensorLab43. A
program written in the ‘Spider’ language defines the relation between the
nine sensors and MIDI (see appendix A.1).
Part of the MIDI-information is directly used as input to a Waldorf
Microwave expander. This is a special kind of synthesizer that enables realtime generation and manipulation of sounds.
Another part of the MIDI-information is first put through the Lick
Machine44, which is a software program that enables real-time manipulation
of musical licks. Licks are short pre-composed musical motifs or phrases.
The licks are written in Q-base (software) and imported in the Lick Machine.
42
45
44
Musical Instrument Digital Interface.
Developed by Steim, Amsterdam.
Developed by Steim, Amsterdam.
- 125 -
Collective Talent
The Lick Machine runs on Atari or Macintosh. The output of the Lick
Machine is also used as input to the Waldorf expander.
A quadraphonic PA45 with four separate outlets renders the sounds and
music.
The concept of Sensitive Chords is based on a specific performance model,
namely that of collectively shaping an ongoing musical process (also see
3.3.1). Since Sensitive Chords enables group control rather than individual
control, it differs from the examples mentioned in section 3.3.1. The unique
feature of the Sensitive Chords system is the mechanical controller that
enables real-time collective manipulation of licks.
In the next sections, I describe in more detail how this was realized.
5.2.1
The mechanical controller
An important part of the realization of Sensitive Chords is the mechanical
construction of the controller (see figure 10).
The controller allows for real-time physical transformations (from square to
rhomb) as a result of the way in which two, three or four players move and
pull the chords. All chords can be moved in three directions. Additionally,
the controller can tumble in two directions as a result of the joint actions of
the players.
The transformations of the controller define the range of physical control for
each individual user. At any moment during a performance, the mechanics
of the controller will resist certain actions, while others will be opened up.
These effects are time-dependent and different for each single player. To
individual players, at some moments, the controller is highly constraining
and leaves only a small range of possible actions, whereas at other moments,
it is hardly constraining and offers a wide range of possible actions.
45
PA: abbreviation for public address system. The term is used for audio systems
that spread sounds equally over a large space.
- 126 -
Sensitive Chords: a prototype extended interface
Figure 10: Mechanical controller of Sensitive Chords
In fact, since the transformations of the controller directly result from the
interactions between players, players collectively constrain and enable each
other. Sensitive Chords continually transmits the rules and constraints on
music production that stem from the interactive dialogue between the
participants.
5.2.2
Real-time manipulation of sound and music
A second important step in the realization of this prototype extended
interface was the idea to take licks as musical units. Ten different licks have
been composed for Sensitive Chords46 (see appendix A.2). All of these licks
are written for four voices and loop fluently at repetition. Each of the voices
of a lick is attributed to one of the chords, which is handled by one of the
players. A quadraphonic loudspeaker system (PA) enables players as well
46
Composed by Günther Rötter and Marion de Laat.
- 127 -
Collective Talent
external observers (e.g. the audience) to recognize which voice belongs to
which chord.
The system enables real-time modification of licks in many ways. The
original licks can be used and transformed to produce new sounds (voices),
as well as new sound sequences and patterns of sounds. For example, at any
moment, the timbre or relative output volume of the individual voices can be
changed. At some moments, one specific voice may dominate the others. The
next moment the other voices may take over. At the same time, it is possible
to manipulate the overall tempo and pitch of a lick, to cut off certain notes
and to jump to other licks. In this way, completely new rhythms, melodies
and orchestrations can be created.
Individuals can contribute to a musical conversation by pulling the chords in
three directions, with variable intensity and duration. A total of five anglesensors (joysticks) combined with four pull chord force-sensors47 continually
measure the pulling activity of each of the four players (on/off, pulling force,
x/y coordinates). The x and y coordinates of the overall position of the
controller (that tumbles in two directions) are continually measured as well.
The angle of the chords (x and y coordinates) determines the timbre and the
loudness of the attributed voices. Due to the mechanical construction of the
controller, moving one chord will also change the angle of the other chords.
In a technical sense, this means that an individual player is not only able to
influence his own voice, but the voices of the other players as well. However,
the players collectively determine how much influence an individual is
allowed to exert at any given moment.
Sensitive Chords can be adjusted to several ‘performance modes’. Within
each performance mode, three different licks can be activated. Activating a
lick requires that at least two chords are pulled at a time. The overall
position of the controller (x and y coordinates of the middle joystick) –
which is the result of players’ joint tumbling actions – determines which of
the licks is activated and what the length is of that specific lick.
47
A lick is only activated when two chords are pulled at a time.
- 128 -
Sensitive Chords: a prototype extended interface
The sum total of the pulling forces of all four players determines tempo or
pitch48 of the activated lick.
Sensitive Chords enables technical control of 14 physical variables that
transmit 9 parallel streams of information. These streams of information
(analogue signals) are simultaneously sent by the combined actions of two to
four players and are converted into MIDI.
Real-time manipulation of the licks and the voices is realized as follows:
• 8 parameters are used to control the timbre and the output volume of
each of the four voices
• 2 parameters are used to choose a specific lick and to control its length
• 4 parameters are used to control tempo or pitch of a lick (sum total of
individual pulling forces)
Players are expected to use the (audible) changes of sounds and licks as
feedback about their personal contributions and those of others, as well as
about the ongoing musical conversation. For that reason, much attention has
been paid to the compositions, sounds, control parameters and to the sound
system (also see 5.3.1).
5.2.3
Reconfiguration and other applications
Sensitive Chords can be adapted in many respects to the needs and wishes of
its users.
• The library of licks can be replaced or extended;
• The parameters of sounds and licks can be changed, as well as the
control relations (the relation between user action and system
response);
• Use of Sensitive Chords is not restricted to sound or music. Since new
applications of modern technology enable real-time shaping of ongoing
processes and their effects in various other media, the system can also be
used to manipulate e.g. visual animation or combinations of different
media.
• The number of parameters that the system renders can be increased or
decreased49.
48
This depends on the lick that has been activated.
- 129 -
Collective Talent
5.3
5.3.1
Playing Sensitive Chords
Control and feedback
In order to play Sensitive Chords, at least two of the strings (chords) have to
be manipulated. As soon as the system is activated, a short musical piece (a
lick) consisting of four voices will start to loop. Individual players can
influence the music and sounds. Control can only take place on a collective
level, however.
Collective control takes places at two levels: musical patterns (or licks) and
sounds (or voices).
Acting upon musical patterns
Players can manipulate the licks in real-time in the following ways:
First, at any moment, one may jump from one lick to another within a
specific performance mode (or ‘preset’). A performance mode refers to a
combination of three different licks. The combined input of the players
activates one of the licks in the preset. As long as players maintain a specific
lick, it will ‘loop’ continually. However, a given lick may sound differently
every time, because of the real-time manipulation possibilities of licks and
voices (see below).
Second, players are enabled to decrease the length of the lick as a result of
their joint actions to a minimum of one single note. For example,
maintenance of a ‘one-note’ lick will result in a repetition of this single note.
This specific effect is known as 'scratching'.
Third, at any moment in time, players are enabled to modify the pitch or
tempo of the active lick. In this way, the melody line (temporary pitch
changes) or the rhythm (temporary tempo changes) of a lick can be shaped
and molded.
49
The usability of a system has a trade-off. In general, the less control possibilities,
the easier it is to operate a system.
- 130 -
Sensitive Chords: a prototype extended interface
Acting upon sounds
Each of the individual players can alter his voice by changing the timbre and
the output volume (relative to the other voices). However, since all chords
are physically connected, individual voice manipulations will also affect the
voices of other players. All the times, the collective determines how much
freedom and influence an individual player is allowed to exercise. In this
way, players enable and constrain each other at the same time. For example,
a single voice may dominate the other voices at one moment and recede into
the background at the next moment. In the same way, players can –
temporarily - make space for each other, so that an individual player can
show personal ‘virtuosity’ with a solo.
Feedback
In order to improvise together, players should be enabled to make conscious
adjustments to one’s actions on the fly, in the very process of making music.
It entails making on-the-spot adjustments to the music based on the
feedback from the situation at hand and from the outcomes of prior actions,
such as the sounds that they hear50.
Sensitive Chords provides for feedback about individual and collective
behavior through three different sense modalities:
1.
Visual: seeing the physical transformations and movements of the
controller;
2.
Tactile-kinesthetic: experiencing the variable resistance and tension of
the chords as well as the movements of the controller;
3.
Auditory: hearing how the music proceeds as a result of their joint
actions. Moreover, the quadraphonic sound PA enables players (as well
as the audience) to hear the separate voices of the individual players
and how each contributes to the musical process.
This multiple feedback (by seeing, feeling, hearing) is considered to be very
important in supporting players to make the complex adjustments that are
needed to contribute to collectively playing Sensitive Chords.
50
Schön (1983) refers to this as reflection-in-action. As an example, he mentions
the way in which jazz musicians improvise together.
- 131 -
Collective Talent
It was a challenge to design a musical instrument that would provide for this
feedback. It was also a great challenge to find composers who were willing to
write musical scores (licks) that would never be performed as they had in
mind, but rather would be modified during a performance by the joint efforts
of the players.
With cooperation, the collective action would result in recognizable musical
patterns. These patterns would be different from the original intended
compositions, since they would be shaped in unpredictable ways. Without
cooperation and mutual attunement the composed licks would result in a
mere cacophony of sounds.
The choice of applying licks was intended to prevent missing the recognition
of interactional patterns as much as possible by the players as well as by
outside observers. By taking licks with a recognizable structure as a basis,
the possibility of not recognizing an emergent musical pattern (‘false
negative’) could be minimized (also see 6.2.2).
5.3.2
Rules and constraints on music production
In descriptions of (electronic) musical instruments the term 'degrees of
freedom' is often used. Degrees of freedom indicate the dimensions of
control. In mechanical engineering and robotics, degrees of freedom
describe flexibility of motion.
One central aim of developers of new interactive systems is to improve
control by increasing the degrees of freedom. In numerous ways users can
control a system, for example, by bodily movements, by using speech,
breath, etc. Such input can be related to various sound and musical
parameters.
Sensitive Chords offers three degrees of freedom to each of the four players:
pulling the chord, moving it up or down along the vertical axis and moving it
in the left-right along the horizontal axis (see figure 10; section 5.2.1). When
we apply the term degrees of freedom to the level of collective control (which
includes functions of the pulling and moving activities of all players
together) two degrees of freedom are added. This means that Sensitive
Chords offers a sum total of 14 degrees of freedom.
- 132 -
Sensitive Chords: a prototype extended interface
Degrees of freedom differ from the scope of opportunities and the
constraints that players impose on each other while playing Sensitive
Chords. Within certain boundaries, the possible actions that are allowed can
change continually and differ for every single individual. The changing
opportunities and constraints stem from the interactive dialogue and are
transmitted by the changes of Sensitive Chords.
The interface changes do not affect the degrees of freedom, but have
temporary effects on the range of control of individual players. At any
moment, players can influence the music and sounds being produced - not
only by means of their own musical contributions, but also by making space
for each other, or by curtailing the freedom of others. Some contributions
leave the next performers with a small range of possible actions; other
contributions impose a weaker degree of constraints, leaving the other
performers with a broad range of possible actions.
As opposed to most other musical instruments, Sensitive Chords is sensitive
to irregular inputs. It welcomes variety. In comparison to conventional
musical interfaces, it imposes less predefined constraints on music
production. This is because Sensitive Chords allows to be changed itself by
the internal dynamics of the group. It mediates and reflects the interactions
that take place within the collective.
Musical patterns may emerge from the musical conversation. In order to
maintain a specific pattern (stabilization of L2; closure of an SCC)
performers continually need to attune their inputs to one another and to
collaborate to achieve the right interactional balance. Nevertheless, the
music that is produced can always be turned into new directions. At any
moment, an individual performer may introduce variety in the musical
process. The other performers, through their responses and subsequent
actions, collectively determine the extent to which variety can enter the
development of a new L2.
5.3.3
Required skills
Sensitive Chords enables collective manipulation and modification of music
and sounds based on the process of interaction of the actors involved. The
evolving musical outcome may stabilize into patterns that can be recognized
- 133 -
Collective Talent
as music. This does not mean that 'everything goes' and that players can
fiddle around. Playing Sensitive Chords is not an 'easy job', although no
special technical skills are needed and anybody who is physically able to pull
a chord can join in.
In order to produce something that can be recognized as music, players must
attune to each other. Being part of a collective, players continuously need to
be sensitive and responsive to the variety that other members bring in - and
to trigger this sensitivity in others.
5.4
Conceptual realization of an extended interface
In this section I review Sensitive Chords in terms of the criteria of extended
interfaces that I have formulated in chapter four.
To summarize, an extended interface is intended to meet the following
requirements (see 4.4.2):
1. accepts inputs of at least two actors at a time;
2. accepts inputs that are not a priori in favor of some people and exclude
others;
3. is supportive and tolerant to irregular inputs;
4. continually adapts to the events being exchanged by the interacting
actors.
1.
Sensitive Chords accepts and processes the inputs of two to four actors
at a time. Unlike conventional musical instruments, the multiple
introduction of variety is welcomed by the system. In order to produce a
musical result, players need to continually adapt their responses to one
another. Sensitive Chords is the most flexible with a maximum of
players. The potential range of collective control increases with the
number of players. To mention a few examples, when two players pull a
chord, the total pulling force of the chords will be smaller than with
three or four players. The more players are involved, the greater the
possible deflection of the chords. Also tumbling the controller can be
more precise and faster when more players participate.
2.
Sensitive Chords can be played by any group of players who are capable
to pull the chords. No specific individual talent, musical literacy or
- 134 -
Sensitive Chords: a prototype extended interface
technical skills are needed to contribute to the musical process. Musical
experience does not give a player an advantage to inexperienced
players. While interacting, it is the collective that determines which
musical inputs are acceptable and meaningful and which are not.
People with no individual talent for music, can become great
contributors to the interactive musical dialogue that is supported by
Sensitive Chords.
3.
Sensitive Chords enables players to be changed as a result of their joint
actions. In comparison to conventional musical instruments, Sensitive
Chords imposes less firm constraints. It directly responds to the inputs
of the players; the players can change a considerable part of the
constraints that it imposes, while they are interacting.
4.
The musical outcome (L1) as well as the mechanical controller of
Sensitive Chords (L3) continually adapt to the musical exchanges of the
players. By enabling a group of players to shape an ongoing musical
process, they collectively impose constraints on the next musical steps
to be taken. These constraints are transmitted by the musical outcome
from one moment to the next and can be observed by the participants
by listening to L1. Usually (when other instruments are used), this is
only mediated by sound. Sensitive Chords provides for feedback in
different sense modalities. Apart from hearing, the mechanical
controller also enables players to see and feel the time-dependent
constraints on the production of music and sounds and the effects on
individual voices. The dynamic controller of Sensitive Chords evokes
the production of sounds (L1) and responds to it at the same time. By
having different media through which players receive feedback, it is
easier to respond to and to anticipate the acts of others. This
strengthens the use of L1 as L3’.
We may draw the conclusion from the above that Sensitive Chords meets the
four requirements of extended interfaces. As such, it can be presented as
prototype of an extended interface.
- 135 -
Collective Talent
5.5
Practical experience, exploration and demonstration
The central question that has to be answered is whether Sensitive Chords
enables the creation of SCCs with collective talent.
Sensitive Chords was tested in practice as a prototype of an extended
interface. Since it is not possible for players not to interact, a talented
performance cannot be ascribed to individual talents or skills. Talent can
only emerge as a collective property, from the individual and successive
contributions of all performers.
In this section I report and evaluate the general findings. Although I did not
yet define my notion of SCCs in that period, I will retrospectively apply this
notion to my descriptions.
5.5.1
Settings and subjects
Sensitive Chords has been used by various groups of players and its effects
have been explored and demonstrated in different situations. These
situations varied from small-group sessions that were needed to test and
improve the (technical) workings of the system, to public demonstrations
with a large audience and inexperienced performers who were invited from
the audience and participated voluntary.
Sensitive Chords has been exhibited and demonstrated as an interactive
music installation at several conferences on music. Musicians, composers
and artists show much interest because of the new musical forms that are
opened up and can be produced with this instrument.
Sensitive Chords has also been demonstrated in various other contexts,
ranging from educational practice, to management meetings and scientific
conferences.
The public demonstrations of Sensitive Chords are listed in appendix A.3.
- 136 -
Sensitive Chords: a prototype extended interface
5.5.2
General findings
Sensitive Chords has first been tested and improved in small-group sessions
with members of my development team (technicians, sound engineers,
musicians) and friends. Although we became skilled users, every time we
played the system we collectively created new and unexpected musical
patterns. It appeared to be impossible to repeat a performance for a second
time. We all enjoyed these improvised sessions very much, especially at
moments when we really felt a unity.
Things were different for inexperienced users, however. During the first
public sessions, I informed the audience about the possible inputs and the
musical effects that could be obtained with Sensitive Chords. Next, I invited
some volunteers to start playing. At these public demonstrations, groups of
players performed for about 10-20 minutes. It soon became clear that
players had strong difficulties to comprehend the peculiar control relations
of Sensitive Chords. They did not understand how their individual inputs
were related to those of others and to the musical outcome. Although the
players tried out Sensitive Chords extensively, most groups produced a
cacophony of sounds without any perceptible structure. Evidently, they were
not able to collectively develop a stable L2-language and to self-organize as
an SCC. Some players reported that they thought that they had no influence
at all. They believed that the sounds and music were automatically and
randomly produced by the system.
During the following sessions, I gradually increased the number of musical
parameters (from 2 to 14) that Sensitive Chords enables to control. Step by
step I explained the added control possibilities to the players as well as to the
audience. I gave the players some time to explore the new functions and to
hear, see and feel the results of their individual and joint actions. In this way,
individual players were enabled to improve their understanding of the
embedded control relations of Sensitive Chords and how their acts were
related to those of the other performers. Although players as well as
members from the audience reported that these ‘workshops’ helped them to
understand the workings of the system, this was apparently not sufficient to
trigger the development of SCCs. Individual players showed a strong
tendency to test the robustness of the mechanical construction, rather than
- 137 -
Collective Talent
to compete with others in doing this, to interact and to participate in a
musical conversation.
At a later stage, I decided that my stepwise introduction and explanation of
the use of Sensitive Chords should be followed by a demonstration of a
‘talented’ improvised performance. I asked two or three experienced players
(members of my development team) to join the first group. One or two other
participants were invited from the audience.
The trained participants helped the others in understanding how to control
the instrument collectively. For example, they showed how to stabilize an
accidentally produced melodic or rhythmical pattern, how individual acts
affected the next acts of others, how they could ‘help’ each other or how
someone could be ‘silenced’.
On the average, it took only a few minutes before a clearly recognizable
musical pattern was produced and was stabilized for a while (a stable L2). At
such moments, members from the audience reported that the group
produced ‘music’. They reported that the ongoing musical process (L1)
clearly reflected the interactions of the participants and the patterns that
emerged. There were also other clues, of course. ‘Outsiders’ could see that
the players were very concentrated on modifying their inputs on the basis of
what the others were doing. Some witnesses even spoke about the ‘dance’ of
the performers. They could see how the position of the mechanical controller
changed from moment to moment as a result of their dynamic interactions.
At times, they could see how the players carefully coordinated their
individual actions in order to maintain the controller in certain position.
They qualified these groups as ‘cohesive’, ‘cooperative’ and ‘open and
attentive to one another’. This suggests that they were able to identify an
SCC.
We agreed that one of the ‘experts’ should leave the stage after a few minutes
of playing and should invite an untrained player from the audience to take
his or her position. One by one the skilled performers left the group and were
replaced by members from the audience. Obviously, groups that consisted of
all ‘beginners’ had difficulties in developing and maintaining a stable pattern
of interaction.
- 138 -
Sensitive Chords: a prototype extended interface
On the average, it took about half an hour before uninitiated subjects were
able to mutually attune to one another and to produce a result that could be
recognized as music by outside observers. As soon as a musical pattern
emerged from their collective action the players showed a great willingness
to maintain this pattern and to make it repeat. This required a precise tuning
of their individual movements, for which they needed a stable L2. Evidently,
when they succeeded, the interacting players managed to self-organize as an
SCC and achieved observational closure.
However, musical patterns easily disintegrated as a result of irregular inputs,
for example when one of the players suddenly made an unexpected move,
intentionally or not. After such a derangement, music playing stopped.
When they started again, the players tried to reproduce the same pattern as
before. Obviously, the interacting participants had great difficulties in
handling the variety that each of them was able to introduce. Therefore it
was not likely that collective talent would appear in these SCCs.
Musical patterns also broke down when one player replaced another or when
a new player joined the group. However, such a condition always resulted in
a short time into the production of new musical forms (and a new and stable
L2-language). This suggested that the internal operations of these SCCs
could be modified by new stimuli from L3.
Finally, in order to improve the understanding of the workings of Sensitive
Chords, I provided the players with directions for use while they were
playing. These sessions demonstrated that use of Sensitive Chords indeed
enables the production of SCCs that reveal collective talent. By ‘coaching’ the
players during the first minutes of a performance, the development of order
over the production of sounds (the development of L2) was speeded up to a
great extent. As a coach, I provided the players with hints and suggestions,
instead of instructions. I showed for example how a single player could
influence the range of control of the other players and how they could
explore the effects on the music and sounds. I helped them to use the various
forms of feedback (visual, tactile-kinesthetic, audible) as information, to
attach meaning to individual contributions and to respond in a meaningful
way. Apparently, this helped the players to interact, to be attentive to one
another, to anticipate possible responses from others, to build on each
- 139 -
Collective Talent
other’s contributions and to take the evolving L1 as a referent (L3’) for their
next actions.
With the extra directions for use, it took groups of players at most 10
minutes to collectively create stable musical patterns (maintenance of a
stable L2). Moreover, external observers reported to be impressed by the
results and to recognize collective talent. They could hear how musical
patterns emerged, dissolved, and were turned into new patterns. We could
watch how players carefully tuned in to one another at one moment (e.g. to
keep the mechanical controller in a certain position), while at the next
moment a sudden ‘swing’ of one of the individuals affected the movements
of all players - until their interactions stabilized again. Despite their dynamic
interactions, players maintained themselves sufficiently as a group to
continue producing music that revolved around a recognizable structure.
These examples can be identified as instances of SCCs that show collective
talent. They are based on an L2-language that is open to change and
improvement. They were able to use internally occurring variety as a source
to modify L2, without loosing their collective identity. Evidently, these SCCs
did not only self-create the constraints on music production, but were also
able to self-renew the constraints on which they were based. This allowed for
the emergence of collective talent.
Players of Sensitive Chords reported to judge and appreciate their musical
performance in a way that differs form normal. Instead of focusing on
individual activities or on the achievement of (western) aesthetic values, the
players appreciated the inspiration that they derived from communicating
with one another and the enjoyment of contributing to a collective musical
performance.
5.5.3
Evaluation
In the former section (5.4) I showed that Sensitive Chords is a musical
instrument that successfully meets the basic requirements of extended
interfaces. It has proved to enable the collective construction, stabilization
and modification of an L2-language that regulates musical activity on an
individual as well as on a collective level. The final examples that I described
in section 5.5.2 have clearly demonstrated that Sensitive Chords, in
- 140 -
Sensitive Chords: a prototype extended interface
combination with specific directions for use, also enables the construction of
SCCs that reveal the desired property of collective talent.
Being ‘strongly connected’ implies that individual as well as collective action
is constrained by the interacting actors. This is literally the case when
playing Sensitive Chords (due to its construction). Playing Sensitive Chords
requires the high state of attentiveness and alertness that participants need
to close in as an SCC.
Next, it is crucial to group improvisation and to collective talent that the
interacting actors are able to introduce variety and contribute to a musical
conversation. Sensitive Chords elicits and supports such a ‘lively’
conversation. The personal inputs of the players may cause the music to turn
into unexpected directions. This may lead to new musical patterns of
interaction, varying from cooperation, negotiation to competition, or even
fierce struggle or fight.
Of course, to the actors involved L3 constitutes a wider context than
Sensitive Chords. It for example also includes the historically and culturally
defined constraints that are imposed on musical activity, which limit the
scope of L2-languages that can be developed (see 2.6).
Practical experience with Sensitive Chords reveals that the environmental
context in which the system is implemented and used is of crucial
importance to create SCCs and to unlock collective talent. The presence of a
coach (as part of L3), who provided for extra information, hints and
suggestions proved to be very helpful to use Sensitive Chords as an extended
interface. Such directions for use appeared to facilitate the development and
stabilization of an L2-language. Providing for directions for use helped to
understand the workings of Sensitive Chords, to interpret and use the
multiple feedback, to attune to each other, to inspire and to get inspired by
others. It supported players to remove and to redefine some of the culturally
based constraints on music production. It invoked the attention and
responsiveness that is needed to collectively use and manipulate the
improvisational possibilities of contributing to a musical conversation.
- 141 -
6 Conclusion
6.1
Introduction
In this study I have concentrated on the question how talented improvised
group performance may be created and supported. I have employed music as
an entry to my research since it clearly exemplifies the processes involved in
talented group improvisation. Flamenco sessions were my favorite example.
My primary concern has been on the design and development of interfaces
supportive to collective talent. They can be used to construct collectives that
stimulate their participants to improvise and to create. I have defined such
interfaces as extended interfaces. My notion of collective talent specifically
assumes that the environments of individuals include other individuals who
are able and willing to interact and to cooperate in musical sessions, to
improvise and to create.
I have argued that my approach to musical talent is an alternative to the two
general viewpoints on musical talent that can be found at the basis of
scientific studies, in music education and in daily life. These two viewpoints
reflect the nature/nurture discussion; they emphasize ‘inborn’ individual
talent and individual skill training. I have explicated that a third approach is
needed to help people experience music as a medium to converse with others
and to collectively improvise and create. My notion of collective talent offers
such an approach. This choice had great consequences for my research
design.
Central to this study was the definition of an ‘object of study’ that enabled
me to bring up instances of collective talent in research. My scientific object
- 143 -
Collective Talent
is represented by the notion of a strongly connected collective (SCC). By
relating my ‘object’ to the Conversation Theory of Gordon Pask I have
derived a conceptual framework that formed the structure of my research
design. It is based on the assumption that constraints on actions are needed
to construct SCCs - with or without collective talent. Knowledge of the
constraints that enable the construction of SCCs with collective talent
implies ‘knowing’ how to implement such collectives.
When applied to musical activity, my conceptual framework has proved to be
helpful to identify how people contribute to a collective process of making
music and how order evolves over these contributions such that the result is
experienced as music. It brings out the circular chain of interaction through
which SCCs are produced and maintained. Moreover, it defines how
observational closure of SCCs is to be achieved and how collective talent is to
be determined.
Stimulated by the concepts and approach of Pask’s Conversation Theory, I
have developed a theory for supporting collective talent. Extended interfaces
invite their users to participate in and to maintain a musical conversation.
This enables the production of SCCs that are able to modify the language
that guides and constrains collective music production. This quality is crucial
to improvisation and the emergence of collective talent. As a next step I have
searched for examples of extended interfaces in order to acquire knowledge
of the constraints that are needed to start SCCs with the desired property of
collective talent.
I have applied my theoretical notions on SCCs and collective talent to
analyze several musical interfaces in terms of their implicit performance
models and conceptions of musical talent. This enabled me to recognize and
to compare the differences between conventional musical interfaces and
extended musical interfaces.
Next, I have applied my theory to describe and discuss the ‘Spinoza’ project,
which comprised a series of experiments in music education. This project
has demonstrated that it is indeed possible to construct and to identify
instances of SCCs, and to achieve observational closure. It also appeared to
be possible to determine instances of ‘collective talent’. Creating an SCC with
this property was not a matter of course, however. I have ascertained that
- 144 -
Conclusion
the pupils showed a strong tendency to maintain the cultural (external)
constraints on the making of music, even when offered ample possibilities to
improvise and to explore. The role of the teacher proved to be very important
in stimulating pupils to reframe their existing beliefs about how to act in a
musical sense. Reflecting on the effects of the interfaces that were used in
these experiments, I have drew up the basic requirements of extended
interfaces.
As a final step, I have designed Sensitive Chords, a prototype of an extended
interface and tested it in practice. Sensitive Chords has proved to enable the
creation and closure of SCCs that reveal collective talent. I have found out
that directions for use and coaching enhanced the production of SCCs with
the required attributes. This helped to invoke the attention and
responsiveness that is required from the participants to create an SCC that is
able to self-renew its internal operations.
With my study on collectives and group improvisation I have intended to
bring out knowledge that is addressed to two different ‘worlds’. Throughout
this study I have referred to these worlds as ‘science’ and ‘music education’
respectively. In this final chapter I will discuss the internal consistency of my
research and reflect on its contributions to the scientific discourse as well as
to teaching. I will also discuss the wider appliance of my theory and reflect
on developments that take place in the field of management and
organization studies and ICT.
6.2
Internal consistency
I have directed my research to the question what interface is needed to
generate talented improvised group performance. The choice of music as an
entry to my research gave rise to the formulation of an alternative approach
to music education. In this approach, music is emphasized as a medium to
converse with others and to improvise as a group. This led me to derive my
second aim, namely to raise the communicative and collective quality of
music in research as well as in teaching. I believe that I have met the two
aims that I have formulated.
One of the advantages of the choice of music was that it helped me to define
an object of study that enables to reconstruct and identify instances of SCCs
- 145 -
Collective Talent
(like flamenco sessions) in research. The distinction of three different levels
of communication (L1, L2, L3) appeared to be especially helpful. Moreover,
the study of musical group activity can be argued to function as a ‘prototype’
of choosing a 'scientific object' with a wider application. It may thus help
explore improvised performance of collectives more generally.
The actual contributions of this study are the following:
1.
The definition of the methodological concept SCC as an ‘object of study’
in scientific inquiry.
2.
Development of a theory for supporting collective talent, including the
formulation of the basic qualities of extended interfaces.
Together, these contributions imply that I have realized what I wanted. This
can be called ‘the internal argument’ of my research. I will reflect on each of
these contributions in the following paragraphs.
6.2.1
SCCs as a scientific object
The type of question that this study has aimed to answer stands in obvious
contrast to research in related fields on collective action, group creativity and
improvised music performance (e.g. Reinholdsson, 1998; Sawyer, 2003).
Disciplines that emphasize collective action use a methodology that focuses
on analyzing group processes and socially situated events. In this way,
socioculturalists have e.g. studied how group collaboration emerges from the
interactions and contributions of the participants. An important difference is
that my approach is not confined to describing the mechanisms involved in
talented group improvisation (‘knowing what’), but also includes ‘knowing
how’ to construct collectives with the intended attributes.
In chapter two I have introduced a conceptual framework that enables
recognition of the self-referring, continuous patterns of interaction through
which strongly connected collectives produce and maintain themselves. By
identifying SCCs as my scientific object, I have emphasized events that differ
from traditional scientific data in social science. In trying to help people
‘know how’ to contribute to talented improvised group performance, I have
been concerned with events being transferred from one actor to another, as
- 146 -
Conclusion
being experienced and responded to by the interacting actors. These
experiences and responses are ‘personal’ and may often vary, but are at the
basis of communication and the production of L1. Observational closure which is the criterion to be satisfied - can be achieved on the level of the
collective, however. This is because participating in an SCC also requires a
higher level of communication, namely the use of an L2-language as a stable
constraint on the production of L1. The production of this language can be
initiated through L3 - on the basis of L1.
My research design (chapter two) has enabled me to derive results that
include ways to initiate an SCC and to allow it to achieve observational
closure.
First of all, the results in chapter four and chapter five have demonstrated
that construction of SCCs is possible and that they can be used as an object
of study. Although we cannot see, touch or feel social systems, like we do
with e.g. biological organisms, SCCs do have a measure of permanence and
are recognizable to outside observers. In this study, the dynamic interactions
involved in the production of SCCs were audible, by listening to L1. We also
could see how the individual actors continuously attended to one another
and responded to each other.
Observational closure of SCCs was achieved once these collectives were able
to maintain a recognizable musical structure despite their changing
interactions. This means that they were using L2 as a stable constraint on
the production of L1. These ‘rules of playing’ were not predefined (imposed
by L3, like in other kinds of collectives) but evolved from the interactions of
the players, while playing together.
Secondly, I have also demonstrated that SCCs with collective talent can be
initiated and be brought up in research by introducing an environmental
structure (L3) that elicits a musical conversation. In the ‘Spinoza project’
(chapter four) and the ‘Sensitive Chords’ project (chapter five) evidence was
collected that providing for an extended interface did indeed make it
possible to construct SCCs that show collective talent. Outsiders could
observe that the music, despite being improvised, continued to contain
changing melodies and rhythmic patterns, often expressing the emotion of
the moment. In both projects, talented group improvisation could not be
- 147 -
Collective Talent
ascribed to (combinations of) individual talent. In the ‘Spinoza’ project, most
pupils were not talented as individuals. Players of Sensitive Chords
necessarily had to interact and were not enabled to show their talent as an
individual.
6.2.2
A theory for supporting collective talent
My theory to support talented improvised group performance forms a strong
basis to draw conclusions about the interface needed to evoke the evolution
and maintenance of SCCs that reveal collective talent. Such SCCs enable
their members to improvise, to explore, to learn from each other and to
improve individual as well as collective competence in collectively
performing a task.
The results of the Spinoza project (chapter four) have indicated that a
removal or change of the technical constraints on the making of music was
not sufficient to create SCCs that reveal collective talent. The role of the
teacher and her instructions proved to be important to help pupils to
recreate their familiar conceptions, rules and procedures of making music.
Some of the assignments could only be accomplished by participating in a
musical conversation and by improvising as a collective.
The experiments with Sensitive Chords (chapter five) have confirmed my
hypothesis that an extended interface is a powerful way to create SCCs that
reveal collective talent. Collective improvisation requires a high state of
responsiveness and attentiveness from the players. Therefore, players need
feedback from the situation at hand and from the outcomes of prior actions.
Sensitive Chords provides for ample, multiple feedback on the level of
individual as well as collective action. It proved to be of crucial importance
to draw the attention of the actors to this mutual feedback and to use it as
input to their next musical steps. In our experiments, a coach provided for
directions for use and helped players to become sensitive, attentive and
responsive to each other’s contributions. The players not only learned to
react, but also to reflect on and to anticipate the responses of others.
Evidence was collected that this enhanced and accelerated the creation of
SCCs with the intended attributes. Members started to think about their own
- 148 -
Conclusion
roles and the effects they had on each other. They particularly learned to use
music as a medium to communicate.
Appropriate directions for use may take the form of hints. They form part of
L3 and facilitate knowledge accumulation of the participants, e.g. by
indicating previously unconsidered sources of information. They suggest
alternative possibilities for action and support reflection and anticipation
rather than trial and error. They stimulate actors to use momentary events
as new constraints on action, which may move the flux of the conversation
(L1) into new directions. The mechanisms involved are comparable to the
generation of a protolanguage (Pask, 1987), or – in fact – to the development
and stabilization of an L2-language that is open to change. In chapter two, I
have introduced the notion of a hidden conductor, which refers to the
structuring language that is derived from interacting. The language that this
‘conductor’ uses is L2. It is produced by the players, while playing together.
The experiments with Sensitive Chords served as ‘a proof of existence’ of the
generative power of extended interfaces. This opens new entries for research
on the (technological) interface needed to support communities to
improvise, to learn and to improve their performance. In section 6.3.2, I will
discuss these possibilities in relation to developments that take place within
the field of Information and Communication Technology
I have intended that my study on collectives would lead to improved
knowledge to be applied in research as well as in teaching. I will summarize
what I believe that my study has contributed to each of these fields
respectively.
Contributions to research
First of all, I have explicitly demonstrated that it is possible to bring up
instances of SCC in research. When combined with proper directions for use,
Sensitive Chords has proved to constitute an L3 that serves as a kick-start to
the development of SCCs with the desired property of collective talent.
Although I have demonstrated and tested Sensitive Chords on a limited
scale, the effects could be repeated in different settings.
In order to meet the scientific criterion (see 2.3), it has to be ensured that
‘instances of SCCs’ were identified, instead of other kinds of collectives (e.g.
those based on external constraints; ‘false positives’). We collected evidence
- 149 -
Collective Talent
of SCCs by observing their ontology (how they gradually developed,
produced and maintained themselves) as well as the behaviors and
interactions of the participants. SCCs can be distinguished from other
collectives by the fact that they are produced and maintained by the dynamic
interactions of the actors involved. Therefore, the members need to be alert
and open to one another, direct their attention to each other, be willing to
interact and maintain the interactive dialogue, and try to resist irrelevant
and destructive variety from L3.
There is always a possibility that SCCs remain unrecognized because musical
patterns remain unrecognized (‘false negatives’). We took measures to
reduce the chance of ‘missing’ recognition of a stable L2. In the ‘Spinoza’
project (see 4.3.3), we restricted the pupils to the use of percussion
instruments in some assignments. In the ‘Sensitive Chords’ project, licks
with a recognizable musical structure were used as a basis for music
production (see 5.3.1).
The scientific criterion (2.3) also requires ensuring that the talent shown by
an SCC is not due to individual talents but to collective talent instead. This
was controlled for in the experiments. In the ‘Spinoza’ project, most of our
subjects were not individually talented. In the ‘Sensitive Chords’ project, the
possibility that individual talent would show up was eliminated by the design
of the instrument.
Being able to produce and maintain an SCC that shows collective talent goes
beyond knowledge of ‘what’ has come into being or knowledge of ‘the class’
to which such collectives belong. 'Knowing how’ to start and maintain such
collectives is more purposeful in use. It constitutes knowledge for anybody
(e.g. researchers, teachers and participants in future collectives) as well as
for the participants in a collective.
Participants in a (starting) SCC continually test and improve their
contributions against the evolving L1. This enables the development and
stabilization of an L2-language that regulates musical activity on an
individual as well as on a collective level. During this process, the members
acquire the knowledge that is needed to collectively perform music and to
maintain the collective.
- 150 -
Conclusion
L2 constitutes knowledge of the collective. This knowledge is attached to a
specific collective, and is sustained as long as the collective maintains itself.
It has to be acquired again in every new collective. Even if collective talent
emerges it is not a matter of course that this property can be transferred to
new SCCs.
Knowledge of L2 can eventually be transmitted through L3, however. People
may address each other on the basis of an earlier acquired L2-language (e.g.
as implemented in the flamenco culture, musical instruments, scores, hints)
and initiate the production (‘kick start’) of a new SCC. This is also the type of
knowledge that can be transmitted by the researcher.
Contributions to education
My notion of collective talent may be fruitfully applied in teaching, as an
alternative to the conventional approaches to talent. It may lead to new
teaching methods that help students discover the collective quality of
making music and to provide for musical experiences that are not offered in
conventional music education. It may especially be useful to music educators
who are trying to develop methods to extend and enrich musical experience
and to support ‘access to excellence’, so that fewer pupils will drop out.
My theory could also be applied to a wider range of content areas in
education. Peer collaboration has proved to be beneficial to learning
(Sawyer, 2003). Teachers already use the technique of collaborating groups
in addition to other techniques, such as lectures, recitations and solitary
work. Unfortunately, many teachers do not know how to support students to
self-organize as a group and to take the benefits of interacting with others.
Sawyer (2003) reports that teachers face a tension between the need for preexisting structures and the need to leave flexibility for emergent interaction
to occur. If they do nothing to structure a collaborating group of students,
the students may become overwhelmed by the challenges of the task and
tend to stick to conventional modes of behavior. On the other hand, when
they offer too much structure, students are prevented from thinking for
themselves and from taking the benefits of collaboration. My theory of
collective talent could be thought of as a basis for teachers to support selforganizing teams and group improvisation.
- 151 -
Collective Talent
Of course, creating an SCC will not always lead to talented performance.
Some combinations of performers are more likely to attain collective talent
(they may refer to this as ‘chemistry’), others less likely. Some combinations
of groups will simply not work well, despite the individual talents and the
faithful efforts of the actors. Performers may not be willing to interact, or
may fail to connect in many different ways. Musicians may e.g. have
different rhythmic styles, volume preferences, or ways of interpreting a
genre. I have argued that collective talent is a property of the collective and
depends on the interaction among performers. This also means that SCCs
can show collective talent even though the participants may not enjoy it very
much.
6.3
Other fields of relevance
The theory for supporting collective talent is not specifically restricted to
musical activity or to teaching. When discussing its wider appliance, many
questions arise. Is it possible to recognize SCCs in other fields of
importance? Is collective talent specifically related to collective music
performance, or can it be generalized to other fields of performance? Do the
results of this study offer transferable and useful knowledge in situations
that are not related to music?
The exchanges involved in a flamenco performance or in jazz improvisation
seem to have much in common with talented group performance in
organizational settings. My notions on SCCs and extended interfaces may
also be connected to developments in information and communication
technology.
In the following sections, I will discuss the appliance of my approach to other
fields of relevance.
6.3.1
Management and organization studies
In the development of mechanistic approaches to organization, the structure
of our organizations has been strongly affected by a general tendency to
regularize and control. Classical management theory and scientific
management were pioneered and sold to managers as the ‘single best way to
- 152 -
Conclusion
organize’ (Morgan, 1986). To adherents of these approaches organizing
means: setting up a structure of clearly defined activities linked by clear lines
of command, communication, coordination and control. Their main
orientation is to make humans fit the requirements of mechanical
organization and feel comfortable in their appointed place, so that
organization can proceed in a rational and efficient way. Classical
management theory deals with the question how collectives can be glued
together by rational planning, command and control. A collective can be an
organization, a division, a group of workers, a network, a think tank,
etceteras.
Scientific management deals with individuals being part of a collective - and
fitting in by acting according to tightly defined, externally imposed rules and
constraints (L3). Although SCCs may still develop within these constraints,
this is certainly not what classical management theory and scientific
management are aiming for.
The organic approach to organization and management approximates my
approach more closely. It suggests that if innovation and change is at
priority, flexible forms of organization are more appropriate than
mechanistic-bureaucratic forms. In the ecological viewpoint, organic
systems exist in a continuous exchange with their environment and are best
understood as ongoing processes rather than as a collection of parts.
Environment and system are to be understood as being in a state of
interaction and mutual dependence. In contingency theory the ecological
viewpoint is applied to organizations. Contingency theory stresses the idea
that organizations are 'open systems' that continuously adapt to their
environment. Scholars have searched for environmental factors that were
supposed to determine the structure and performance of organizations. They
emphasized that knowledge of inter-organizational relations and
environmental interaction is necessary if we are to understand how
organizations actually evolve and survive (Morgan, 1986). As opposed to
classical and scientific management, the organic approach emphasizes the
environmental interactions of an organization as the basis of selfmaintenance.
The focus on interaction and on flexible forms of organization shows
resemblances with my approach. SCCs with collective talent can be
- 153 -
Collective Talent
conceived of as special cases of such organizational forms. However, there
are two important differences. Firstly, in my approach self-maintenance is
based on organizational closure rather than on environmental interactions.
Secondly, my approach is not confined to an understanding of the results of
interactions but is also directed to eliciting interactions such that certain
results will follow.
Since we have entered an age with a completely new technological base (‘The
Information Society’, also see 6.3), new organizational principles have
become of increasing importance. Changes in technology, increasing volatile
markets and foreign competition bring about unprecedented challenges to
modern managers (Hill, 2000; Tan, 1995; Vaill, 1990; Weggeman, 1997). In
modern management studies, there is a growing interest in the question of
how to handle change, turbulence and uncertainty. The new key to
competitive advantage is ‘knowledge’: collective learning and knowledge
management have become important means to increase the productive
capacity of organizations (Weggeman, 1997). My approach of collectives and
collective talent fits in this way of thought. SCCs are examples of collectives
that are able to continue in a turbulent and changing environment because
they are self-referential and close in on themselves. Despite the current
interest in handling turbulence and uncertainty, concrete methods and
research designs that help to create organizations that cope competently
with today’s rapidly changing environments are still missing. The research
design that I have formulated offers one possible way to achieve such results.
During the last decades, self-organization has received increased attention in
organizational studies. Contrary to the aforementioned approaches, the
paradigm of self-organization assumes that organizational behavior cannot
be determined from the ‘outside’. External attempts to control a system’s
behavior have to be conceived of as influences to which the system responds
in a defensive way. Related approaches to organization stress selfproduction. Self-producing systems are characterized by self-reference and
organizational closure51. These approaches have their roots in ‘second order
51
The concept of organizational closure does not mean that the system is isolated,
nor even that it is closed or nearly closed. No system can survive without
assimilation of various classes of inputs flowing from its environment: matter,
energy, and information. However, the system could not survive if these inputs
- 154 -
Conclusion
cybernetics’ and in the ‘system movement’ (Ashby, 1956; Bateson, 1972; Von
Foerster & Zopf, 1962; Pask, 1961, 1975a; Simon, 1996) and more specifically
in Maturana’s description of ‘autopoietic systems’ (Maturana & Varela,
1987). Research that is based on these approaches has contributed much to
our understanding of organizational learning and self-organizing collectives
(Van Mens-Verhulst, 1992).
Maturana and Varela (1987) have modeled the process of self-production or
autopoiesis52 for living systems. A system is called autopoietic if it is able to
produce itself by the interactions of its constitutive elements53. Maturana
and Varela have pointed at the fact that transformations of autopoietic
systems are not caused by environmental changes, but are internally
generated instead. Their work has engendered a considerable amount of
literature outlining a conceptual framework applicable to other kinds of
systems as well. Many organization theorists have pointed out that
autopoiesis represents much potential for developing alternative ways of
understanding social systems and organizations (e.g. Faucheux, 1979;
Luhmann, 199554; Van Mens-Verhulst & Van Mens, 1990; Mingers, 1994,
2002; Robb, 1989; Zeleny & Hufford, 1992). One of the strengths of the
‘theory of autopoiesis’ is that it shows us that there are different ways in
which closure in relation to the environment can be achieved. Organizations
committed to this kind of self-discovery are able to develop a kind of
‘systemic wisdom’ (Morgan, 1996). It is commonly agreed that the ability of
self-observation and knowledge about itself is an important part of an
organization. The idea of autopoiesis has also learned us that knowledge
creation and management requires that we take into account the views,
experiences and learning of everyone involved in producing an organization,
and not only of those responsible for the overview (Espejo, 2002).
52
53
54
should disorganize it and destroy its cohesion and identity (something which
however happens frequently in the real world).
Autopoiesis: Grk. 'self-making'; network of production processes in which the
function of each component is to participate in the production and transformation of other components.
As opposed to ‘allopoeitic’ systems, such as technical artifacts, which are not able
to self-organize and to self-produce.
Luhmann takes communicative events – not people - as the essential components
of social (autopoietic) systems. Communications are produced by communications alone, rather than by people with social interaction. Mingers (2002) has
criticized Luhmann’s theory for leaving the mutual interaction between people
under-theorized.
- 155 -
Collective Talent
The ideas of Maturana and Varela on autopoiesis have also been
incorporated in my concept of SCCs (see 2.2). The work that has been done
in this area is therefore an external validation to the study that I have
presented. However, my focus of attention differs from Maturana and Varela
and the work of other authors who have borrowed from their ideas. While
they have concentrated on describing and modeling the processes of selfproduction and self-maintenance of autopoietic systems, I have been
interested in the question how social systems with self-producing, selfmaintaining and self-renewing capacities can be created. In my terminology,
Maturana and Varela and related authors have mainly focused on describing
L2. My emphasis has been on the production of an L2-language that remains
open to change.
A related trend in studies of organizational behavior is the focus on selfdirected or self-managed teams. Many organization theorists have argued
that these empowered teams lead to a flat organization that is more agile,
flexible, efficient, productive, and adaptive. Their images of organization
include those built around the ideas of improvisation (Barrett, 2000;
Crossan et al., 1996; Hatch, 1998; Moorman & Miner, 1998; Orlikowski,
1996; Pasmore, 1998; Vaill, 1990; Weick, 1998, 2001; Weggeman, 1997;
Zack, 2000). The image of organization is one in which variable inputs to
self-organizing groups of actors induce continuing modification of work
practices and ways of relating (Weick, 2001). We often find the jazz
metaphor used to emphasize the improvisational character of organizations.
For instance, Weick (1998), Lewin (1998), Hatch (1998) and Berniker (1998)
have stressed the relevance of jazz improvisation as a metaphor for
organization. Vaill (1990) has used the performing arts metaphor to compare
the manager’s situation with the problem faced by a movie director, an
orchestral conductor, or a director of a play. According to Hill (2000) the
strategic management of talent and ‘collective genius’ has become the key to
competitive advantage.
“As organizations become increasingly diverse and their boundaries
flexible, the notion of what brings people together to act as one
body becomes more critical.” (Hill, 2000, p.17)
I believe that my theory for supporting collective talent and my research
approach can be extended to management and organization studies and can
- 156 -
Conclusion
offer a serious contribution to this field. Several arguments can be raised for
proposing this extension. A first argument is that Pask’s Conversation
Theory, which offers cybernetic insights that have often been applied in
organizational learning and business innovation, has strongly inspired my
approach. I have also drawn from other resources that are similar to those
that modern organization theorists refer to. A second argument is that my
research on talented improvised group performance addresses similar
subjects as the aforementioned studies. The main contribution of my study is
that it offers a research design that is not only directed to describing the
mechanisms involved in collectives that are able to improvise and exhibit
talented group performance, but also includes knowledge acquisition of how
to construct and implement such collectives.
6.3.2
Information and Communication Technology
Groupware
The introduction of technology and networks for information exchange and
interlocking controls render many aspects of organizational hierarchy
redundant. However, in many organizations the full implications of modern
information and communication technology are not realized yet. Within the
boundaries of our organizations and institutions information-processing
systems are often still used to reinforce bureaucratic principles.
Structuralist models have particularly been applied in automation and in the
design of expert systems, knowledge systems and data base systems. Many of
these systems are inflexible and transient, forcing their human users to
undertake all responsibility for adaptation. Critiques of a structured,
'technology-driven' view on the design of ICT-systems have invoked
important issues of 'human-computer interaction', 'user-centered-design'
and 'cognitive engineering' (Norman, 1993).
Interaction models have become of increasing concern in the design of
business applications (Whitaker, 1993). Since the nineties, we have
witnessed an evolution of local information networks supported by e-mail,
messaging systems and bulletin boards. The focus of designers of such
systems thereby has shifted from individual end users to interpersonal
- 157 -
Collective Talent
communication. The first is the basis for interest in human computer
interaction (HCI)55 and the second is of core interest in computer-supported
collective work (CSCW)56. As systems have been progressively targeted to
support groups rather than individual users, design models that are based on
models of interaction have become more important. This requires new
viewpoints to be explored, amongst which action-oriented views in linguistic
research.
In the ongoing debates about collective support systems, conversational
analogies have been applied for some time in describing human-computer
interplay (Ponce, 2000; Silverstein, 1987; Suchman, 1990; Winograd &
Flores, 1986; Whitaker, 1993). These models are based on the viewpoint that
social networks or groups are implemented and maintained by
communicative interaction. The focus of ICT is taken to be the coordination
of the interconnected activities of a set of people, rather than data access and
transmission. These models provided for credible alternatives to models that
derived from a more rationalistic, structuralist tradition. The approach that
is taken is closely related to Pask’s Conversation Theory, just like my
approach.
Network applications that support groups are commonly known as
groupware, or as CSCW applications. Groupware supports people who are
engaged in a common task or goal and provides for an interface to a shared
environment (Ellis et al., 1991). In my terminology, groupware applications
can be conceived of as instances of L3. Well-known examples are electronic
mail, bulletin boards, real time discussion groups, chat boxes and video
conferencing. Networked business applications vary from group decision
support systems, project planners, on-line calendars, and co-authoring tools
to intelligent databases. Such applications will be successful in
implementing an SCC when they enable their users to develop a stable L2.
55
56
Human Computer Interaction, or HCI, is the study, planning, and design of what
happens when you and a computer work together. As its name implies, HCI
consists of three parts: the user, the computer itself, and the ways they work
together.
Computer Supported Collective Work is a scientific discipline that motivates and
validates groupware design. It is the study and theory of how people work
together, and how computer and related technologies affect group behavior.
CSCW is essentially multi-disciplinary in nature.
- 158 -
Conclusion
Electronic mail (which also includes electronic bulletin boards and
possibilities for asynchronous conferencing) is the greatest success story of
groupware. Electronic mail facilitates communication by its high speed,
asynchronousness and computer processability (Palme, 1995). Electronic
exchanges and active electronic group discussions have spread out from the
academic world to global society (Grudin, 1990; Negroponte, 1995; Tan,
1995). Use of electronic mail (and of the many applications that are built
around the use of electronic mail) has led to the development of an
innumerable amount of worldwide online information communities. The
globally accepted structure of e-mail messages can itself be conceived of as a
stable L2 on the messages that we send throughout the world. This structure
acts as an external constraint (L3) on the production of SCCs that use and
are based on more specific languages, e.g. email policies or email etiquette
rules (Baker, 2003; Kehoe, 1994).
Despite the success of electronic mail, considerable effort is being spent in
studies on groupware applications. Such applications often appear to fail in
supporting the development of L2. Many reasons have been given for these
failures. Most of them are indicative of the difficulty of studying and
evaluating group processes and to learn from these experiences (Grudin,
1990). Design complexities arise e.g. because of the variety of users (with
different backgrounds, experiences, preferences, roles and interests) that
have to be supported simultaneously and the wide range of exception and
improvisation that characterizes much group activity (Grudin, 1990). A
special problem is the lack of ‘awareness’ from which globally distributed
(virtual) teams often suffer. Members of virtual teams report that they miss
the awareness of each other’s activities, availability and perspectives and the
collective process to which they are contributing (Jang et al., 2000). This
suggests that the interface of groupware should provide for feedback on
these issues.
My theory for supporting collective talent opens up a new way of looking at
group processes and collectives and suggests new and concrete directions for
designing extended (groupware) interfaces between members of (virtual)
teams. Since my approach is closely linked to the models that are being used
in the debates about collaborative support systems, it may offer a significant
contribution to research in this field. I have shown a way to produce, to
maintain and to recognize SCCs that show collective talent. This may
- 159 -
Collective Talent
engender new research on the (technological) interface needed to support
communities to improvise, to learn and to improve their performance.
The Internet and the Information Society
In today’s societies, the Internet produces a tremendous expansion ‘in
connectivity and observational capacity’ (Espejo, 2002). The Information
Society can be characterized as a system with a growing capability of
mapping the environment and itself on to its memory.
The effects of ICT and the Internet on organizations, management and
business processes are rapidly growing beyond the boundaries of individual
corporations and institutions. This has e.g. led to the emergence of so-called
‘virtual teams’, constituted by people working at different locations who are
enabled to exchange their (local) knowledge with others. The huge increase
of communication possibilities has strengthened the anticipatory power of
companies. It also offers enormous opportunities for economic growth.
‘Global connectivity’ has enabled a fast growth of network organizations.
With more companies having access to the same technology, markets,
methods of production and channels of distribution, the competitive
environment has dramatically changed. This has raised new questions to
management and organization theorists, such as how companies should be
managed in order to obtain competitive advantage (see 6.2), or how to avoid
unexpected and socially undesirable outcomes of the current ICT
developments (Espejo, 2002).
The Information Society has a deep influence on our social and
organizational activities. The Internet and ICT enhance our capacities to
observe each other’s actions, to learn from one another and to ‘produce
organizations or teams with embodied collective knowledge’ (Espejo, 2002).
This means that there is a great potential to empower people. One way is to
open up opportunities to become members of (global) communities where
not only individual creativity but also collective innovation, based on
communication and cooperative work, are promoted.
“We are committed to building information and communication
societies that are people-centered, inclusive and equitable. Societies
in which everyone can freely create, access, utilize, share and
disseminate information, so that individuals, communities and
- 160 -
Conclusion
peoples are empowered to improve their quality of life and to
achieve their full potential. …” (Civil Society Declaration to the
World Summit of the Information Society, 2003, p.3)
Future research is needed to investigate how the Internet and ICT can
facilitate the production of ‘talented collectives’. Although we may be
inclined to believe that ‘people networks’, ‘virtual teams’ and ‘global
communities’ are instances of SCCs, observational closure has not been
demonstrated as yet. My research design may contribute to allow for such
closure, and thus to acquire knowledge acquisition concerning these
‘globally connected collectives’. No doubt such collectives not only pose
opportunities but also possible threats to society. The more we understand
how to create such collectives, the more likely it is that we will be able to
steer them in desirable directions.
6.4
Final remarks
My thesis has been that providing for an interface that elicits and mediates a
conversation will generate talented improvised group performance. Taking
part in a collective - and contributing to it by interacting – increases
individual as well as collective competence. Remarkable examples exist of
the talented ways in which groups are able to improvise together – up to the
point that collective talent emerges.
One path to support talented processes of interaction is by providing for an
extended interface. From my analysis the conclusion may be drawn that selforganization and collective improvisation are not possible without proper
feedback on individual and collective action. Strongly connected collectives
depend for their continuation on the variety that their members introduce
and are able to perceive. Extended interfaces provide for such feedback and
seduce and enable individual participants to initiate and maintain a
conversation. Directions for use, or hints, may be applied to extend the
observation of participants and to trigger and to enhance the responsiveness,
sensitivity and attentiveness that is needed for collective improvisation.
A large proportion of the technological interfaces that we design and use
appear to miss the qualities that stimulate users to get actively involved in
dynamic process of interaction, to collectively improvise and to create.
- 161 -
Collective Talent
Although they are very useful in many aspects of life, they artificially elevate
some aspects of human performance and ignore others.
Just as essential for human performance is the capacity to interact and to
learn from another, to explore, to improvise and to create—without having a
clear destination in mind. People are endowed with the gift of
communicating and reflecting on the evolving history of their interactions
with others. We should not underestimate and ignore these qualities. They
are at the basis of human development. Technology, for example, would
never have reached its present state without the gift of exploration and
communication.
In different areas of research interest has increased in supporting collectives
to self-organize, to improvise, to learn and to improve on their performance.
If this is more than a temporary trend, a research approach that not only
provides for descriptive knowledge of such collectives, but also for
knowledge about how such collectives can be initiated, is much needed.
My study represents one particular direction of search for such knowledge.
The theory for supporting collective talent - and its embedded research
design - offers a means to construct and study instances of talented group
improvisation. It also provides for a framework to design extended interfaces
and to test and evaluate their effects. I have retrospectively applied my
theory to the experiments in chapter four and five. They are to be seen as a
first step in this direction.
My contributions have been that I have formulated a proper scientific object
for studying collectives and that I have shown an entry to initiate strongly
connected collectives (SCCs) with collective talent. Future research is needed
to improve on our knowledge of SCCs and how they are to be created. Such
research may go hand in hand with research and development of extended
interfaces. Future studies need not to be restricted to music. In the former
section I have shown that my approach can be extended to other areas as
well. Since knowledge acquisition concerning SCCs can only be achieved
upon observational closure, what needs to be done is to find ways to
operationalize L1, L2 and L3 in other fields than music.
- 162 -
Samenvatting in het
Nederlands
Samenwerking en ‘team work’ zijn kernbegrippen in de sociale
wetenschappen. Onderzoekers richten zich al decennia lang op de vraag hoe
groepen kunnen worden ondersteund in het gezamenlijk oplossen van
problemen, het nemen van beslissingen of het uitvoeren van een taak. Van
meer recente datum is de zoektocht naar lerende en zelforganiserende
organisaties. Antwoorden op de vraag hoe we dit soort organisaties tot stand
kunnen brengen zijn op velerlei gebieden relevant, in het bijzonder op het
gebied van management en organisatie en informatie en communicatie
technologie.
Het zelforganiserende vermogen van sociale groepen komt duidelijk tot
uitdrukking in groepsimprovisatie. Dit is het onderwerp van dit proefschrift.
Flamenco en improvisatie jazz leveren fraaie voorbeelden op van de
talentvolle manier waarop individuen binnen een collectief in staat zijn op
elkaar te reageren, van elkaar te leren, onderling af te stemmen en elkaar te
inspireren. Dit soort muzikale sessies zijn niet alleen op zichzelf interessant,
maar ook als voorbeelden van het algemene begrip ‘groepsimprovisatie’. In
dit onderzoek wordt muziek bestudeerd als ingang om dit onderwerp te
benaderen. De gebruikte benadering is ook toepasbaar is op andere
gebieden.
In dit proefschrift staat de vraag centraal hoe getalenteerde geïmproviseerde
groepsprocessen tot stand gebracht en ondersteund kunnen worden.
- 163 -
Collective Talent
Het voorliggende onderzoek is sterk geïnspireerd door de Conversatie
Theorie van Gordon Pask. Groepsimprovisatie wordt beschouwd als een
conversatie.
Het onderzoek richt zich in de eerste plaats op interfaces die collectief talent
ondersteunen. Zulke interfaces worden gedefinieerd als extended interfaces.
De keuze voor muziek heeft geleid tot een tweede doelstelling, namelijk om
de collectieve kwaliteit van muziek naar voren te brengen in onderzoek en in
onderwijs. Een dergelijke benadering kan muzikale ervaringen van mensen
helpen te verrijken.
Het begrip collectief talent wordt geïntroduceerd als een alternatief voor de
twee gangbare gezichtspunten over muzikaal talent. Deze gezichtspunten
zijn terug te vinden zijn in de wetenschap, in het muziekonderwijs en in het
dagelijks leven. Ze komen overeen met standpunten in de ‘nature/nurture’
discussie.
In het eerste gezichtspunt wordt talent beschouwd als een aangeboren
eigenschap van het individu. In het tweede gezichtspunt ligt de nadruk op
opvoeding en training en op individueel aan te leren vaardigheden.
In dit onderzoek wordt muziek benadrukt als een medium om te
converseren en als groep te improviseren. In deze benadering wordt talent
beschouwd als eigenschap van een collectief. Collectief talent is een
‘emergente eigenschap’ van een groep mensen die samen muziek maken.
Het komt voort uit de manier waarop zij interacteren. Dit betekent dat ook
mensen zonder individueel talent hieraan kunnen bijdragen.
Collectief talent veronderstelt dat omgevingen van individuen andere
individuen bevatten die met elkaar kunnen en willen interacteren,
samenspelen, improviseren en creëren. Collectief talent wordt gedefinieerd
als:
.. de eigenschap van een collectief om onafhankelijk van externe
invloeden zijn interne interactiepatronen te vernieuwen. Het leidt
tot een verrijking van individuele ervaringen en van de collectieve
taakuitvoering.
- 164 -
Samenvatting in het Nederlands
De invoering van het begrip collectief talent heeft belangrijke consequenties
voor de keuze van het ‘wetenschappelijk object’. Het formuleren van een
‘object’ waarmee voorbeelden van collectief talent geconstrueerd en herkend
kunnen worden vormt een essentieel onderdeel van dit proefschrift.
Hoofdstuk twee beschrijft het fundament van dit onderzoek, namelijk het
onderzoeksontwerp. Het wetenschappelijk object van dit onderzoek wordt
gevormd door het begrip strongly connected collective (SCC). In het
Nederlands vertaald is dit een ‘sterk verbonden collectief’. Een SCC wordt
gedefinieerd als:
.. een zelfregulerend sociaal systeem dat geproduceerd en in stand
gehouden wordt door de dynamische interacties van de
deelnemende actoren.
Door een verbinding te leggen tussen SCCs en Pask’s Conversatie Theorie
wordt een begrippenkader ontwikkeld dat laat zien hoe SCCs door
buitenstaanders kunnen worden herkend (via ‘observational closure’) en hoe
collectief talent kan worden vastgesteld. Het onderzoeksontwerp maakt het
bovendien mogelijk om antwoorden te vinden op de vraag hoe SCCs met
collectief talent tot stand gebracht kunnen worden.
Om meer inzicht te krijgen in de dynamische processen die ten grondslag
liggen aan de totstandkoming van SCCs worden drie verschillende
communicatieniveau’s onderscheiden. Elk van deze niveaus legt beperkingen
op aan handelingen van individuen. Deze niveaus worden in relatie tot
muziek als volgt beschreven:
L1: de waarneembare structuur van een muziekstuk
L2: de taal van het maken van muziek
L3: de omgevingsstructuur - of de interface - die de constructie van L2
mogelijk maakt.
De interactie tussen deze drie niveaus maakt duidelijk hoe tijdens
groepsimprovisatie een ordening ontstaat over de klanken die de deelnemers
produceren zodat het resultaat herkenbaar wordt als muziek. Hiertoe
moeten spelers een gemeenschappelijke taal ontwikkelen (L2).
- 165 -
Collective Talent
Aan de ontwikkeling en stabilisering van L2 gaat een geschiedenis van
dynamische interacties vooraf. In de eerste plaats is er een
omgevingsstructuur (L3) nodig die de spelers aanzet om geluiden te
produceren. Tijdens het samenspel ontwikkelt zich een resultaat (L1) dat
geen van de spelers individueel kan produceren. Vanuit de gezamenlijke
productie van L1 ontwikkelen spelers een taal (L2) die hun interacties
reguleert (overeenkomstig met Pask’s ‘protolanguage’). Zodra dit proces op
gang is gebracht, genereren L1 en L2 elkaar en vindt loskoppeling plaats van
L3. Dit proces leidt uiteindelijk tot stabilisering van L2. Deze gezamenlijke
L2-taal maakt geordende geluidsproductie mogelijk.
Een SCC is gebaseerd op het gebruik en de instandhouding van een L2-taal.
Dankzij een stabiele L2 kunnen dynamische interacties zich bestendigen in
patronen. Hierdoor wordt het voor buitenstaanders mogelijk een SCC waar
te nemen.
SCCs verschillen in het soort ondersteuning dat zij hun deelnemers bieden.
In het dagelijks leven treffen we veel SCCs aan die niet of nauwelijks
verandering toelaten van de L2 waar zij op zijn gebaseerd. Zulke SCCs laten
zich inperken door invloeden die van buitenaf (L3) zijn ingegeven. Deelname
aan zo’n collectief vereist een specifiek ‘individueel talent’. Dit is op zichzelf
geen probleem. Zulke SCCs kunnen hun deelnemers nog steeds voldoende
ruimte bieden voor improvisatie en variatie en als plezierig en nuttig worden
ervaren. Degenen die echter niet over het juiste ‘talent’ beschikken zullen L2
als beperkend ervaren en vallen al snel buiten de boot.
Een bijzondere eigenschap van SCCs met collectief talent is dat ze in staat
zijn om L2 te veranderen en te verbeteren zonder als collectief uiteen te
vallen. Zulke SCCs staan open voor interne variatie en maken improvisatie
en collectief talent mogelijk. Een SCC met collectief talent verschilt van
andere SCCs doordat de interactieve dialoog (L1) die plaats vindt tussen
spelers zélf als bron gebruikt wordt om L2 te veranderen. Deelnemers aan
dit soort SCCs kunnen reageren op plotselinge en onverwachte inputs van
anderen en nieuwe bewegingen in gang zetten waardoor nieuwe muzikale
patronen kunnen ontstaan. De interface (L3) die nodig is om SCCs met
collectief talent te ontwikkelen wordt gedefinieerd als extended interface.
Dit soort interfaces nodigen hun gebruikers uit om deel te nemen in een
muzikale conversatie en deze conversatie in stand te houden.
- 166 -
Samenvatting in het Nederlands
Het begrippenkader wordt verder uitgelegd aan de hand van de historische
ontwikkeling van muziekinstrumenten en notatiesystemen - als voorbeelden
van ‘conventionele’ muzikale interfaces. Deze ontwikkelingen worden
gerelateerd aan de constructie van muzikale SCCs en ons huidige begrip van
muzikaal talent.
De geschiedenis laat zien dat een behoefte om complexere en meer verfijnde
muziekvormen te produceren hand in hand is gegaan met verbeteringen en
aanpassingen van muzikale interfaces. De L2-talen die in het verleden zijn
ontwikkeld zijn als het ware ‘ingebouwd’ in de conventionele
muziekinstrumenten en notatiesystemen van vandaag. Dit betekent dat
muzikale interfaces historische beperkingen opleggen aan de constructie van
volgende L2-talen. Geconcludeerd wordt dat deze ontwikkeling heeft geleid
tot de vorming van SCCs die gaandeweg zijn gebaseerd op steeds nauwer
gedefinieerde L2-talen. Hiermee zijn ook de mogelijkheden om te variëren
langzaam maar zeker verder ingeperkt. Dit heeft geleid heeft tot een
consolidatie van ‘voorkeursgedrag’. In de traditionele westerse muzikale
cultuur spelen en variëren we vandaag de dag binnen de nauwe beperkingen
die we gaandeweg hebben geaccepteerd.
Flamenco sessies laten zien dat er ook andere manieren zijn om muziek te
maken. Het creëren van geïmproviseerde muziek is niet mogelijk op basis
van een nauw gedefinieerde, inflexibele L2. De L2-taal die wordt ontwikkeld
en gebruikt in groepsimprovisatie is niet invariant en kan op elk moment
worden veranderd. Zulke SCCs maken het deelnemers mogelijk te reageren
op toevallige en onvoorziene inputs van anderen, elkaar te inspireren en van
elkaar te leren.
Hoofdstuk drie richt zich op de vraag hoe het ontstaan van SCCs met
collectief talent kan worden ondersteund. Verschillende soorten interfaces
worden onderzocht in relatie tot de betekenis die zij hebben voor het begrip
muzikaal talent en de ontwikkeling van SCCs. Aan de hand van deze analyse
wordt het begrip extended interface verder uitgewerkt. Er wordt een theorie
ontwikkeld voor het ondersteunen van collectief talent.
Er worden ook voorbeelden gegeven van muziekinstrumenten die zélf
kunnen worden beschouwd als deelnemer in een SCC waarbinnen collectief
talent zich kan ontwikkelen. Voorbeelden zijn muzieksystemen die de
- 167 -
Collective Talent
interactie tussen een menselijke speler en een manipuleerbaar muzikaal
proces mediëren. Andere voorbeelden zijn intelligente systemen die kunnen
leren, anticiperen en provoceren, en daardoor in staat zijn tot betekenisvolle
interacties met een menselijke gebruiker.
Flamenco, improvisatie jazz en Oosterse muziek zijn voorbeelden van
muzikale culturen waarbinnen SCCs met collectief talent kunnen ontstaan.
In hoofdstuk vier wordt de theorie om collectief talent te ondersteunen
retrospectief toegepast op het ‘Spinoza’ project. Dit project omvat een
onderzoek naar de muzikale leeromgeving die nodig is om SCCs met
collectief talent creëren. Onderzocht wordt in hoeverre en op welke manier
technologische hulpmiddelen hiertoe kunnen worden ingezet. Het
onderzoek vindt plaats onder 150 leerlingen van een Amsterdamse
middelbare school.
Gedurende een jaar worden de effecten van verschillende leermethodes en
muziekinstrumenten op het muzikale gedrag van leerlingen onderzocht.
Verwacht wordt dat het gebruik van computers en elektronische
muziekinstrumenten een aantal beperkingen zal wegnemen op het maken
van muziek en de leerlingen zal stimuleren te variëren en te improviseren.
Aangetoond wordt dat het onder bepaalde condities mogelijk is om SCCs
met collectief talent te creëren en waar te nemen. De resultaten laten echter
ook zien dat dit niet een kwestie is van het veranderen van technische
beperkingen. De leerlingen bleken een sterke neiging te hebben om zich vast
te houden aan traditionele beelden over hoe te musiceren. Aangetoond
wordt dat de leraar een belangrijke rol speelt om leerlingen te stimuleren als
groep te improviseren en via muziek te communiceren.
Concluderend wordt een reeks basisvoorwaarden opgesteld waaraan een
extended interface moet voldoen.
In hoofdstuk vijf worden de resultaten besproken van een aantal
veldexperimenten dat is uitgevoerd met de interactieve muziekinstallatie
‘Sensitive Chords’, als prototype van een extended interface. Sensitive
Chords is een muziekinstrument dat bespeeld moet worden door 2-4
personen tegelijk. Sensitive Chords is zodanig ontworpen dat controle over
de klanken en de muziek alleen kan worden verkregen op collectief niveau.
- 168 -
Samenvatting in het Nederlands
Muziek en klanken worden gekneed en gevormd op basis van de interacties
die plaatsvinden tussen de spelers. Onderzocht wordt of met behulp van dit
systeem SCCs met collectief talent kunnen worden gecreëerd. Uit de
onderzoeksresultaten komt naar voren dat dit inderdaad het geval is. Verder
wordt aangetoond dat de ontwikkeling van SCCs kan worden versneld door
spelers te coachen in het gebruik van dit systeem en gebruiksaanwijzingen
aan te bieden in de vorm van hints en suggesties. Dit wekt bij de spelers de
aandacht en oplettendheid op die nodig is voor de ontwikkeling van een SCC
met collectief talent.
In hoofdstuk zes wordt de interne validiteit van dit onderzoek geëvalueerd
en worden de bijdragen van dit onderzoek aan wetenschap en onderwijs
gerapporteerd. De belangrijkste bijdragen zijn terug te voeren op de definitie
van het methodologische begrip SCC als wetenschappelijk object en op de
ontwikkeling van een theorie om collectief talent te ondersteunen.
Geconcludeerd wordt dat de werkwijze die in dit onderzoek is gehanteerd
gegeneraliseerd kan worden naar onderzoek op het gebied van management
en organisatie en ICT.
- 169 -
Collective Talent
References
Ashby, W. R. (1956) An Introduction
Boie, B., M. Mathews & A. Schloss
to Cybernetics. London: Chapman
(1989) The Radio Drum as a
& Hall.
Synthesizer Controller. In: Proceedings International Computer
Baker, A. (2003) Email Etiquette
Music Conference 1989, Colum-
[Electronic version]. West Virginia
bus: The Ohio State University,
University.
42-45.
Barfield, L. (1993) The User Interface.
Bono de, E. (1990) Lateral Thinking.
Concepts & Design. Addison Wes-
Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Pen-
ley Publishing Company.
guin Books (reprint).
Barrett, F. J. (2000) Cultivating an
Aesthetic
of
Unfolding:
Bono de, E. (1995) Parallel Thinking.
Jazz
Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Pen-
Improvisation as a Self-Organi-
guin Books.
zing System. In: Linstead, S. &
H.J. Hopfl (eds.) The Aesthetics of
Borgo, D. (2002) Negotiating Free-
Organizations. London: Sage.
dom: Values and Practices in
Contemporary Improvised Music.
Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to Ecology of
Mind.
New
York:
In:
Ballantine
Black
Music
Research
Journal, vol. 22-2, 165 (15).
Books.
Boulanger, R. (1990) Conducting the
Berniker, E. (1998) Working the Jazz
MIDI Orchestra, Part 1: Interviews
Metaphor: Musings Driving down
with Max Mathews, Barry Vercoe
I-5 past midnight. In: Organi-
and
zation Science, vol. 9-5, 583-585.
Computer Music Journal, Cam-
Roger
Dannenberg.
In:
bridge: MIT Press, vol. 14-2, 3446.
- 170 -
References
Brummeler, L. ten & R. Zuijderhout
Crossan, M. M., R. E. White, H. W.
(1992) Chaos en Zelfordening bij
Lane
het Veranderen van Organisaties.
Improvising Organization: Where
In: Dijkum, C. van & D. de Tombe
Planning Meets Opportunity. In:
(eds.) Gamma Chaos: Onzeker-
Organizational Dynamics, vol.24-
heid
4, 20-35.
en
Orde
in
wetenschappen,
de
Mens-
&
L. Klus
(1996)
The
Bloemendaal:
Davies, H. (1987) A Survey of New
Aramith, 152-161.
Instruments and Sound Sculpture.
Buxton,
B.
(1990a)
Smoke
and
In: Panhuysen, P. (ed.) Echo: the
Mirrors. In: Byte, July (1990),
Images of Sound, Eindhoven: Het
195-201.
Apollohuis, 7-20.
Buxton, B., B. Gaver & S. Bly (1990b)
Dijk
van,
G.
(2004)
Nieuwe
het
Muziek-
The Use of Non-Speech Audio at
Initiatieven
the Interface. Tutorial 4 Notes,
onderwijs. In: Zicht op ... Muziek-
Seattle: CHI’90.
educatie, Achtergronden, Litera-
in
tuur, Lesmethoden en Websites.
Cadoz, C., L. Lisowski & J. L. Florens
(1990)
A
Modular
Utrecht: Cultuurnetwerk Neder-
Feedback
land, 7-11.
Keyboard Design. In: Computer
Music Journal, Cambridge: MIT
Dunsby, J. (1995) Performing Music:
Press, vol. 14-2, 47-51.
Shared
Concerns.
New
York:
Oxford University Press.
Chabot, X. (1990) Gesture Interfaces
and a Software Toolkit for Per-
Ellis, C. A., S. J. Gibbs & G. L. Rein
formance with Electronics. In:
(1991) Groupware - Some Issues
Computer Music Journal, Cam-
and Experiences. In: Communi-
bridge: MIT Press vol. 14-2, 15-27.
cation of the ACM, vol. 43-1, 3958.
Colwell,
R.
(2000)
The
Music
Education / Arts Education Path.
Ellis, Ph. (1990) A Sound Design. In:
In: Arts Education Policy Review,
Arnold, S. & G. Hair (eds.),
vol. 101-3, 19-20.
Proceedings International Computer Music Conference 1990,
Cooke, D. (1963) The Language of
Glasgow: Computer Music Asso-
Music. Oxford: Oxford University
ciation, 27-30.
Press.
- 171 -
Collective Talent
Espejo, R. (2002) Systems and the
Information
Society:
Organisations
Requisite
Environmental
Influences.
In:
Problem
Parncutt, R. & G. E. Mcpherson
Solving, Lincoln: SISN. Retrieved
(eds.) The Science and Psychology
May
of Music Performance: Creative
8,
and
Gembris, H. & J. W. Davidson (2002)
2006,
from
http://itsy.co.uk/archive/sisn/
Evans, R. J., R. Bickel & E. D.
Strategies
for
Learning.
New
Teaching
York:
and
Oxford
University Press, 17-30.
Pendarvis (2000) Musical Talent:
Innate or Acquired? Perceptions
Gillet R., K. C. Smith & B. Pritchard
of Students, Parents, & Teachers.
(1985) MADDM -- Dance-Directed
In: Gifted Child Quarterly, vol.
Music. In: Proceedings Inter-
44-2, 80-90.
national Computer Music Conference 1985, Burnaby, B.C. San
Faucheux, C. (1979), Automation or
Autonomy
in
Francisco: Computer Music Asso-
Organizational
ciation, 329-330.
Design. In: International Journal
of General Systems, vol. 5, 213-
Glanville, R. (1996) Robin McKinnon-
220.
Wood
and
Lifelong
Gordon
Pask:
Conversation.
A
In:
Fletcher, P. (1987) Education and
Cybernetics & Human Knowing, a
Music. Oxford University Press.
Journal of Second Order Cybernetics & Cyber-Semiotics, vol. 3-4.
Foerster, von H. & G. W. Zopf (eds.)
Retrieved May 3, 2006, from
(1962) Principles of Self-Organi-
http://www.imprint-academic.
zation. New York: Pergamon.
Gembris,
H.
(1987)
demon.co.uk/C&HK/vol3/v34rg.htm
Musikalische
Fähigkeiten und ihre Entwicklung.
Glanville, R. (1998) A (Cybernetic)
In: la Motte-Haber de, H. (ed.).
Musing: Variety and Creativity.
Handbuch der Musikpädagogik,
In:
Psychologische Grundlagen des
Cybernetics
&
Human
Knowing, a Journal of Second
Musiklernens, Band 4, 116-185.
Order
Cybernetics
&
Semiotics, vol. 5-3, 56-62.
- 172 -
Cyber-
References
Goodman, N. (1969) Languages of
Harley, M. (1992) The Concept of
Art. An Approach to a Theory of
Musical Space in Music Theory
Symbols. London, Oxford: Univer-
and Aesthetics. Paper presented at
sity Press.
the 12th international congress of
the International Association for
Greenberg, G. (1988) Music Learning
Empirical Aesthetics, Berlin.
– Compositional Thinking. In:
Lischka, C. & J. Fritsch (eds.)
Haroutounian, J. (2002) Kindling the
Proceedings International Com-
Spark: Recognizing and Deve-
puter Music Conference 1988,
loping Musical Talent. Oxford,
Köln: Feedback Studio Verlag,
New
150-157.
Press.
York:
Oxford
University
Greenhough, M. (1990) The Muse in
Hatch, M. J. (1998) Jazz as a
the Machine: Computers Can Help
Metaphor for Organizing in the
Us Compose. In: Physics Edu-
21st Century. In: Organization
cation, vol. 25 -1, 41-44.
Science, vol. 9-5, 556-557.
Grossman, G. (1987) Instruments,
Hecht, P. (1968) The Wind Cried: an
Cybernetics & Computer Music.
American Discovery of the World
In:
of Flamenco. New York: Dial
Proceedings
International
Computer Music Conference 1987,
Press.
Illinois, San Francisco: Computer
Henson, R. A. (1977) The Language of
Music Association, 212-219.
Music. In: MacDonald, C. & R.A.
Grudin, J. (1990) Groupware and
Henson (eds.) Music and the
Cooperative Work. In: Laurel, B.
Brain. London: William Heine-
(ed.) The Art of Human-Computer
mann Medical Books Limited,
Interface Design, Addison Wesley
233-254.
Publishing Company, 171-185.
Hill, L. A. (2000) Collective Genius –
Hargreaves, J. H. & A. C. North
Leaders
must
Attract
and
(2001) Musical Development and
Motivate Talent. In: Executive
Learning: the International Per-
Intelligence, vol. 17-12, 17-18.
spective.
London,
New
York:
Hindley, G. (ed.) (1986) The Larousse
Continuum.
Encyclopedia of Music. Middlesex: Hamlyn Publishing.
- 173 -
Collective Talent
Howe, M. J. A., J. W. Davidson & J. A.
Jong, J.B. de (1991a) Op de Drempel
Sloboda (1998) Innate Talents:
van Muziek. In: Jong, J.B. de & M.
Reality or Myth? In: Behavioral
Witte (eds.) Inspiratie uit de
and Brain Sciences, vol. 21, 399-
Informatica. Beschouwingen over
422.
Onderwijsvernieuwing.
Amster-
dam: Thesis Publishers, 95-109.
Illich, I. (1972) Ontscholing van de
Maatschappij. Het Einde van een
Jong, J. B. de (1991b) Herstruc-
Illusie? Baarn: Het Wereldvenster.
tureren
van
Muzikale
Omge-
vingen. In: Kooyman, R. (ed.)
Illich,
I.
(1973)
De
Ontschoolde
Kunsten
Maatschappij. In: Buckman, P.
&
Educatie,
Utrecht:
LOKV, vol. 4-3, 10-19.
(ed.) Het onderwijs is ook niet
alles. Baarn: Het Wereldvenster,
Kauffman, L. (1987) Self-Reference
17-30.
and Recursive Forms. In: Journal
of Social Biological Structures,
Jang, CH. Y., Ch. Steinfield & B. Pfaff
(2000)
Supporting
vol. 10, 53-72.
Awareness
among Virtual Teams in a Web-
Keane, D. (1986) Music, Words,
Based Collaborative System: The
Energy: a Dynamic Framework for
TeamSCOPE
the
system.
Paper
Study
of
Music.
In:
submitted to the International
Communication & Cognition, vol.
Workshop on Awareness & The
19-2, 207-219.
World Wide Web, Philadelphia,
Kehoe, B. P. (1994) Zen and the Art of
PA: CSCW 2000.
Internet (A Beginners Guide),
Johnson jr, B. L. (2004) A Sound
PTR: Prentice Hall.
Education for All: Multicultural
Kemp, A. E. & J. Mills (2002) Musical
Issues in Music Education. In:
18-1,
Potential. In: Parncutt, R. & G. E.
January and March, Corwin Press,
Mcpherson (eds.) The Science &
116-141.
Psychology
Educational
Policy,
vol.
of
Music
Perfor-
mance: Creative Strategies for
Jong, J. B. de (1989) Muziek en
Teaching
and
Learning.
New
Computers in het Onderwijs: de
York: Oxford University Press, 3-
Ouverture. Technical Report, TR
16.
89-12-20.
Amsterdam:
OOC
Program, UvA.
- 174 -
References
Kendall, A. (1985) Musical Instru-
Lukasik, J. (1990) Computer Assisted
ments. Middlesex: The Hamlyn
Music Instruction: Toward a More
Publishing Group Limited.
Viable Philosophy of Software
Architecture. In: Arnold, S. & G.
Kenny, B. J. & M. Gellrich (2002)
Hair, Proceedings International
Improvisation. In: Parncutt, R. &
Computer
G.
1990, Glasgow: Computer Music
E.
Mcpherson
(eds.)
The
Science & Psychology of Music
Music
Conference
Association, 31-34.
Performance: Creative Strategies
for Teaching and Learning. New
Manning, P. (1994) Electronic &
York: Oxford University Press,
Computer Music (2nd edition).
117-134.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Koopman, C. H. (1997) Keynotes in
Mathews, M. V. (1991) The Radio
Music Education: a Philosophical
Baton and Conductor Program or:
Anlysis. Nijmegen: Mediagroep
Pitch, the Most Important and
Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.
Least Expressive Part of Music. In:
Pope,
Krefeld, V. (1990) The Hand in The
S.T.
Computer
Music
Journal, vol. 15-4, Cambridge:
Web: An Interview with Michel
MIT Press, 37-46.
Waisvisz. In: Computer Music
Journal, Cambridge: MIT Press,
Maturana, H. & Varela, F. (1987). The
vol. 14-2, 28 –33.
Tree
of
Knowledge:
Biological
Lewin, A. Y. (1998) Jazz Improvisation
as
a
Metaphor
Roots
of
The
Human
Understanding. Boston, MA: New
for
Science Library.
Organization Theory. Introduction
to
the
Special
Issue.
In:
McAvinney, P. (1990) Telltale Ges-
Organization Science, vol. 9-5,
tures. In: Byte, July (1990), 237-
539.
240.
Livermore, A. (1972) A Short History
McFarlane,
A.
(ed.)
(1996)
of Spanish Music. Bristol: Wes-
Information
tern Printing Services.
Authentic Learning: Realising the
Technology
and
Potential of Computers in the
Luhmann, N. (1995) Social Systems.
Stanford:
Stanford
Primary Classroom. New York:
University
Routledge.
Press.
- 175 -
Collective Talent
Mens-Verhulst, J. van & M. E. van
Mens
(1990)
Moorman, C. & A. S. Miner (1998)
Zelforganisatie,
Organizational Improvisation and
Innovatie en Heterarchisch Mana-
Organizational Memory. In: Aca-
gement. In: Handboek voor Orga-
demy of Management Review,
nisatie, BC 25.400, Samsom.
vol. 23-4, 698-723.
Mens-Verhulst, J. van (1992) Over
Morgan, G. (1986) Images of Organi-
Zelfproduktie van Organisaties en
zation. Thousand Oaks, London,
Chaosmanagement. In: Dijkum, C.
New Delhi: Sage Publications.
van & D. de Tombe (eds.) Gamma
Negroponte, N. (1995) Being Digital.
Chaos: Onzekerheid en Orde in de
Menswetenschappen,
New York: Vintage Books.
Bloemen-
daal: Aramith, 138-151.
Newman, F., H. Marks & A. Gamoran
Midgley, R. (1989) Encyclopedie van
(1995) Authentic Pedagogy and
Muziekinstrumenten. Alphen aan
Student Performance. Conference
de Rijn: Atrium.
presentation
to
the
American
Educational Research Association.
Mingers, J. (1994) Self-Producing
Systems:
Implications
ERIC
and
Document
Reproduction
Service No. ED 389 679.
Applications of Autopoiesis. New
Norman, D. A. (1993) Things that
York: Plenum Publishing.
Make Us Smart. Addison Wesley
Mingers,
J.
(2002)
Can
Social
Publishing Company.
Systems be Autopoietic? Assessing
Orlikowski, W. J. (1996) Improvising
Luhmann’s Social Theory. In: The
Sociological Review, vol. 50-2,
Organizational
Transformation
278-299.
over Time: A situated Change Perspective. In: Information Systems
Moog, R. A. & Th. L. Rhea (1990)
Research, vol.7-1, 63-92.
Evolution of the Keyboard Interface: The Bösendorfer 290 SE
Ostaijen van, P. (1952, c. 1992)
Recording Piano and the Moog
Verzamelde Gedichten. Aeropa-
Multiply-Touch-Sensitive
gus.
boards.
In:
Computer
KeyMusic
Journal, Cambridge: MIT Press,
vol. 14-2, 52-60.
- 176 -
References
Otto, F. & M. van der Kamp (1983)
Samen
Leren
Musiceren.
Pask, G. (1976) Conversation Theory.
In:
Applications in Education and
Kamp van der, M., F. Haanstra &
Epistemology. Amsterdam, Ox-
J. Oostwoud Wijdenes (eds.) Kijk
ford, New York: Elsevier Scientific
op Kunstzinnige Vorming. Pur-
Publishing Company.
merend: Muusses, 116-122.
Pask,
Palme, J. (1995) Electronic Mail.
Norwood,
MA,
USA:
G. (1987) Conversation &
Support.
Artech
Inaugural
Address,
Faculty of Educational and Andra-
House, Inc.
gological Sciences, University of
Amsterdam.
Parncutt, R. & G. E. Mcpherson (eds.)
Amsterdam:
OOC
Program, UvA.
(2002) The Science & Psychology
of Music Performance: Creative
Pasmore, W. A. (1998) Organizing for
Strategies for Teaching and Lear-
jazz. In: Organization Science,
ning. New York: Oxford Univer-
vol. 9-5, 562-568.
sity Press.
Ponce, H. R. (2000) Managing the
Pask, G. (1961) An Approach To
Introduction
of
Information
Cybernetics. New York: Harper &
Technology
Row.
operative Work. In: Glanville, R. &
to
Support
C0-
G. de Zeeuw (eds.) Problems of
Pask, G. (1971) A Comment, a Case
Action and Observation. Special
History and a Plan. In: Reichardt,
Issue of Systemica, Journal of the
J. (ed.) Cybernetics, Art and
Dutch Systems Group, Southsea:
Ideas. London: Studio Vista, 76-
BKS+, 369-380.
99.
Pratt, C. C. (1978) The Inheritance of
Pask, G. (1975a) The Cybernetics of
Musicality. In: MacDonald, C. &
Human Learning and Perfor-
R. A. Henson (eds.) Music and the
mance. London: Hutchinson & Co.
Brain. London: William Heine-
Pask,
G.
(1975b)
Cognition,
mann Medical Books Limited, 22-
Conversation,
and
31.
Learning.
Amsterdam, Oxford, New York:
Elsevier
Scientific
Publishing
Company.
- 177 -
Collective Talent
Pressing, J. (1990) Cybernetic Issues
Robb, F. (1989) Cybernetics and
in Interactive Performance Sys-
Suprahuman Autopoietic Systems.
tems. In: Computer Music Jour-
In: Systems Practice, vol. 2-1, 47-
nal, vol. 14-1, Cambridge: MIT
74.
Press, 12-25.
Rosmalen van, B. & N. Kors et al.
Pressing, J. (1992) Synthesizer Per-
(2004);
Walter
Maas
Huis.
formance and Real-Time Tech-
Muziekeducatie
niques. The Computer Music and
Utrecht: De Kunstconnectie.
in
Beweging,
Digital Audio Series, vol. 8: MadiRothstein, J. & M. P. Metlay (1990)
son, Wisconsin: A-R Editions, Inc.
Products of Interest; User's RePressing, J. (1998) Psychological Constraints
on
ports. In: Computer Music Jour-
Improvisation. In:
nal, vol. 14-2, Cambridge: MIT
Nettl, B., M. Russell (eds.) In the
Press, 73-86.
Course of Performance: Studies in
the World of Music Performance.
Rötter, G. (1989) Independent - Pop-
Chicago, London: The University
Avantgarde als Grenzbereich Neue
of Chigago Press, 47-67.
Technologien in der Pop-Musik
und der Avant-Garde. In: Musik-
Raffman, D. (1993) Language, Music
pädagogische Forschung, vol. 9,
and Mind. Cambridge, MA [etc.]:
119-127.
MIT Press.
Rubin, D. & P. McAvinney (1990)
Reinholdsson,
P.
(1998)
Making
Programmable Finger Tracking
Music Together: an Interactionist
Instrument
Perspective
Small-Group
Computer Music Journal, Cam-
Jazz.
bridge: MIT Press, vol. 14-1, 26-
Performance
on
in
Acta
Universatitis Upsaliensis: Studia
Controllers.
In:
41.
Musicologica Upsaliensia. UppSachs, C. & O. Hamburg (1986)
sala: Nova series 14.
Geschiedenis
Risset, J. C. (1990) From Piano to
Computer Piano. In: Proceedings
International
Computer
Conference
1990,
van
de
Muziek.
Utrecht, Antwerpen: Het Spectrum.
Music
Glasgow:
Computer Music Association, 1519.
- 178 -
References
Sadie, S. (1980) New Grove Diction-
Shuter-Dyson, R. (1982, cop. 1999)
nary of Music and Musicians.
Musical Ability. In: Deutsch, D.
London:
(ed.) The Psychology of Music.
MacMillan
Publishers
Limited.
Sawyer,
San Diego: Academic Press.
R.
K.
(2003)
Group
Silverstein, M. (1987) The Three
Creativity: Music, Theater, Colla-
Faces of 'Function': Preliminaries
boration. Mahwah, New Jersey:
to a Psychology of Language. In:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hickmann, M. (ed.) Social and
Functional Approaches to Lan-
Schippers H. (2004) Harde noten:
muziekeducatie
in
guage and Thought. Orlando:
wereldper-
Academic Press, 17-37.
spectief. Utrecht: Cultuurnetwerk
Nederland.
Simon, H. (1996) The Sciences of the
Artificial
Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective
(3rd
edition),
Cam-
bridge, London: The MIT Press.
Practitioner: How Professionals
Think in Action. New York: Basic
Starkie, W. (1958) Spain. A Musi-
Books.
cian's Journey Through Time and
Space. vol. 2. Geneva: Edisli.
Scott, D. F. & A. Moffett (1978) The
Development of Early Musical
Steels, L. (1991) Towards a Theory of
Talent in Famous Composers: a
Emergent
Biographical
In:
Meyer J.A. & S. W. Wilson (eds.)
MacDonald, C. & R.A. Henson
From Animals to Animats. Pro-
(eds.)
Brain.
ceedings of the first international
Heinemann
conference on simulation of Adap-
Music
London:
Review.
and
William
the
Medical Books Limited, 174-201.
Functionality.
In:
tive Behaviour, Paris 1990. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 451-461.
Seashore, C. E. (1919) The Psychology
of Musical Talent. Boston: Silver
Storms, G. (1985) Muziek en Dans uit
Burdett Company.
India. Katwijk: Servire.
Shuter-Dyson, R. & G. Gabriel (1981)
The
Psychology
Ability.
London,
of
New
Musical
York:
Methuen.
- 179 -
Collective Talent
Suchman, L. (1990) What is Human-
Weick, K. E. (1998) Improvisation as
Machine Interaction. In: Robert-
a Mindset for Organizational Ana-
son, S., W. Zachary & J. Black
lysis. In: Organization Science,
(eds.) Cognition, Computing and
vol. 9-5, 543-555.
Cooperation. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,
Weick, K. E. (2001) Making Sense of
25-55.
the Organization. Malden, MA:
Tan, D. S. (1995) Van Informatie-
Blackwell Business.
management naar InformatieWeizenbaum, J. (1966) ELIZA - A
infrastructuurmanagement.
Computer Program for the Study
Leidschendam: Lansa.
of Natural Language CommuniVaill, P. B. (1990) Managing as a
cation between Man and Machine.
Performing Art. San Francisco,
In: Communications of the Asso-
Oxford: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
ciation for Computing Machinery,
vol. 9, 36-45.
Varela, F. J., E. Thompson & E. Rosch
(1997)
Mind.
Weggeman, M. (1997) Kennismana-
Cognitive Science and Human
The
Embodied
gement. Inrichting en Besturing
Experience.
van
Cambridge,
Mass.:
MIT Press.
Kennisintensieve
Organi-
saties. Schiedam: Scriptum.
Waisvisz, M. (1986) The Hands, a Set
Whitaker, R. (1993) Interactional
of Remote MIDI-Controllers. In:
Models for Collective Support
Proceedings International Com-
Systems:
puter Music Conference 1985,
Autopoietic Theory. In: Glanville,
Burnaby,
B.C.
San
An
Application
of
Francisco:
R. & G. de Zeeuw (eds.) Inter-
Computer Music Association, 313
active Interfaces and Human
- 318.
Networks,
Amsterdam:
Thesis
Publishers, 119-135.
Weerden van, J. & N. Veldhuijzen
(2000) Balans van het Muziek-
Winograd, T. & F. Flores (1986)
onderwijs aan het Einde van de
Understanding Computers and
Basisschool 2, Uitkomsten van de
Cognition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Tweede Peiling in 1997, Arnhem:
CITO.
- 180 -
References
WSIS-Civil Society (2003) “Shaping
Zeleny, M. (ed.) (1980) Autopoiesis,
Information Societies for Human
Dissipative Structures and Spon-
Needs”. Civil Society Declaration
taneous Social Orders. Boulder,
to the World Summit of the
CO: Westview.
Information Society. WSIS Civil
Society
Plenary,
Zeleny, M., Hufford, C. (1992) The
Geneva.
Retrieved May 9, 2006, from
Application
http://www.wsis-cs.org/
Systems Analysis: are Autopoietic
of
Autopoiesis
in
Systems also Social Systems? In:
Xenakis, I. (1971) Formalized Music.
Thought
and
Mathematics
International Journal of General
in
Systems, vol. 21-2, 145-160.
Composition. Bloomington, LonZografos, M. (2006) Iannis Xenakis:
don: Indiana University Press.
the Aesthetics of his Early Works.
Xenakis, I. (1976) Musique Archi-
Perfect Sound Forever. April-May
tecture (2nd edition). Casterman.
2006. Retrieved May 3, 2006,
from
Zack, M. H. (2000) Jazz Impro-
http://www.furious.com/
perfect/xenakis.html
visation and Organizing: once
more from the Top. In: Organization Science, vol. 11-2, 227-234.
Zeeuw de, G. (2001) Constructivism:
A ‘Next’ Area of Scientific Development? In: Riegler, A. (ed.)
Foundations of Science, special
issue on "The Impact of Radical
Constructivism on Science", vol. 6,
no. 1–3, 77–98.
Zeeuw de, G. (2005) The Acquisition
of High Quality Experience. In:
Journal of Research Practice, vol.
1-1. Retrieved May 9, 2006, from
http://jrp.icaap.org/contents.php
- 181 -
Glossary
Computer Supported Collective
Work (CSCW)
Computer
Supported
Collective Work is a scientific
discipline that motivates and
validates groupware design. It
is the study and theory of how
people work together, and how
computer
and
related
technologies
affect
group
behavior. CSCW is essentially
multi-disciplinary in nature.
Autopoiesis
'Self-making' (Greek); network
of production processes in
which the function of each
component is to participate in
the
production
and
transformation
of
other
components. A system is called
autopoietic if it is able to
produce
itself
by
the
interactions of its constitutive
elements. This term is often
opposed
to
‘allopoeitic’
systems, such as technical
artifacts, which are not able to
self-organize and to selfproduce.
Conversation
A conversation is an active
linguistic interaction between
actors.
Collective talent
Collective talent is the ability
of a collective to self-renew its
internal patterns of interaction
independently of external
influences. It leads to both an
enrichment
of
individual
experiences
and
group
produced performance.
- 183 -
Collective Talent
Emergent property
An emergent property can
appear when a number of
interacting actors (or agents)
operate in an environment,
forming
more
complex
behaviors as a collective.
Emergent properties are not a
property of any single actor,
nor can they easily be
predicted or deduced from
their behavior. In nature, ant
colonies and the shape and
behavior of a school of fish or
flock of birds are good
examples. Apart from biology,
examples appear in many
other domains, such as in
physics
(hurricanes,
the
structure
and
shape
of
galaxies), culture (e.g. The
World Wide Web, traffic
patterns) and in mind studies,
artificial
intelligence
and
robotics.
Hidden conductor
The hidden conductor refers to
the structuring language that
is derived from interacting.
The
language
that
this
‘conductor’ uses is L2. It is
produced by the players, while
playing together.
Human Computer Interaction
(HCI)
Human Computer Interaction,
or HCI, is the study, planning,
and design of what happens
when you and a computer
work together. As its name
implies, HCI consists of three
parts: the user, the computer
itself, and the ways they work
together.
Improvisation
Improvisation is the act of
making something up as you
go along. This term is usually
used in the context of music,
theatre or dance.
Extended interface
An extended interface seduces
people to participate in a
musical conversation, so that
actors take part in an SCC that
is based on a language that is
open to change.
Feedback
Feedback is the return of
information about the result of
a process or activity.
- 184 -
Glossary
Levels of communication
Strongly connected collectives
(SCCs) are taken to result from
the interaction between three
levels of communication, and
to
develop
within
the
framework of this interaction.
On each of these levels
constraints are imposed on
action. These levels are labeled
L1, L2 and L3. In relation to
music, they are defined as:
Organizational closure
Organizational closure refers
to the degree of selfcontainment a system has with
respect to its pattern of
organization. A system that
organizes the relations among
its components in such a
manner as to ensure the
continuation of its own
organization is considered
organizationally closed. The
concept
of
organizational
closure does not mean that the
system is isolated, nor even
that it is closed or nearly
closed. No system can survive
without assimilation of various
classes of inputs flowing from
its
environment:
matter,
energy,
and
information.
However, the system could not
survive if these inputs should
disorganize it and destroy its
cohesion and identity.
L1
The perceptible structure of
music production;
L2
The language of making music;
L3
The environmental structure
that enables the construction
of L2 on the basis of L1.
Observational closure
The criterion of observational
closure is used in empirical
research. The criterion is
satisfied if one is able to
recognize the class to which
certain observations belong as
well as to recognize instances
of that class.
- 185 -
Collective Talent
Protolanguage
In
Conversation
Theory,
interaction is seen as an
ongoing process in which a
language is maintained, and is
designed and sustained in such
a way that it can be used to
bridge the gaps between the
participants in the conversation. Pask calls this language
a ‘protolanguage’, which has
the same meaning as the term
L2.
Strongly connected collectives
(SCCs)
Strongly connected collectives
are produced and maintained
by the dynamic interactions of
the actors that make up the
collectives.
Talent
Although the commonsense
definition of talent refers to
‘innate ability’, in research the
definition of musical talent is
complex and controversial. As
opposed to the idea that
musical talent is ‘innate’, some
musical theorists emphasize
that such talent is ‘acquired’.
The notion of collective talent
(see above) adds a third
viewpoint on talent.
Self-organization
People self-organize as a group
when their own dynamics
regulate the activity within the
group as well as the interaction
with the environment.
- 186 -
Index
actor .8, 19, 30, 33, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,
Bono .........................................74, 170
48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 78, 79,
Borgo ................................ 80, 95, 170
84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 92, 93, 95, 100,
Boulez ............................................. 37
103, 112, 114, 121, 122, 124, 133,
brevis............................................... 68
134, 140, 141, 146, 147, 148, 149,
Buxton...................................... 72, 171
150, 152, 156, 183, 184, 186
afición............................................ 102
Cage .......................................... 37, 90
attention
Chaos Theory .................................. 45
attentiveness19, 22, 24, 58, 62, 79,
closure.. 30, 31, 45, 46, 55, 56, 85, 89,
95, 102, 107, 113, 129, 140, 141,
95, 97, 103, 104, 111, 114, 115, 116,
145, 148, 150, 154, 156, 161
117, 122, 133, 138, 140, 144, 145,
attribute 7, 21, 22, 23, 77, 81, 89, 104,
147, 153, 154, 155, 161, 162, 165,
145, 146, 148
185
audible
coach
auditory ..................... 129, 139, 147
coaching .............139, 141, 145, 148
audience28, 32, 33, 41, 48, 49, 56, 79,
cognitive engineering .................... 157
90, 93, 100, 102, 128, 131, 136,
collaborate
137, 138, 196, 213
collaboration.11, 108, 133, 146, 151
authentic learning................. 106, 107
collective learning..........................154
autopoiesis ............... 45, 154, 155, 183
collective process35, 90, 100, 144, 159
collective talent
Barfield ................................... 49, 170
talented improvised group
Bartok..............................................80
performance8, 9, 20, 33, 34, 35,
Beethoven ......................................113
37, 38, 42, 44, 47, 50, 51, 55, 56,
Berniker .................... 20, 33, 156, 170
57, 76, 78, 79, 85, 89, 90, 91, 97,
Boie.......................................... 87, 170
103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 111,
Bongers ......................................... 124
112, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 122,
- 187 -
Collective Talent
123, 124, 125, 135, 139, 140, 141,
128, 131, 135, 141, 144, 146, 149,
143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149,
155, 156, 159, 161
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 159,
control relation ...................... 129, 137
161, 162, 183, 186
controller
communicate
input device ...9, 37, 61, 65, 81, 83,
communication7, 19, 21, 27, 28, 29,
87, 110, 119, 124, 125, 126, 127,
30, 31, 33, 38, 46, 47, 48, 53,
128, 131, 134, 135, 138, 139, 195
62, 72, 74, 77, 79, 92, 100, 106,
conventional musical interface . 7, 20,
113, 146, 147, 148, 152, 157, 158,
31, 35, 36, 38, 42, 57, 58, 77, 78,
160, 162, 185
79, 106, 123, 133, 144
communities ............. 33, 62, 106, 107
conversation . 7, 12, 19, 30, 31, 35, 42,
community ................ 33, 62, 106, 107
45, 46, 52, 53, 54, 55, 78, 79, 86,
community art ...................... 106, 107
95, 96, 102, 103, 104, 107, 113, 116,
competence .......................17, 148, 161
119, 122, 123, 124, 128, 129, 133,
composer... 26, 28, 29, 30, 35, 36, 37,
137, 141, 144, 147, 148, 149, 158,
59, 64, 65, 69, 70, 71, 73, 80, 84,
161, 183, 184, 186
90, 91, 96, 132, 136
Conversation Theory 7, 12, 38, 45, 52,
Computer Supported Collective Work
53, 54, 103, 144, 156, 158, 177, 186
CSCW ........................ 158, 174, 183
Cooke .................................46, 48, 171
computer-based musical instruments
cooperation
.......34, 65, 73, 80, 83, 84, 86, 121
cooperate ....... 13, 33, 132, 141, 143
conceptual framework..11, 38, 42, 52,
counterpoint ............................. 64, 69
53, 55, 78, 108, 109, 111, 123, 144,
creative
146, 155
creativity .13, 21, 24, 47, 55, 75, 77,
conductor ...........49, 76, 149, 156, 184
84, 85, 89, 111, 146, 160
connectivity................................... 160
Cristofori......................................... 64
constraint 8, 9, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30,
culturally defined7, 24, 25, 26, 31, 74,
33, 36, 37, 43, 46, 47, 50, 51, 55,
75, 77, 100, 121, 141
56, 58, 60, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70,
culture
73, 75, 77, 78, 80, 82, 84, 89, 90,
cultural...18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
106, 107, 111, 112, 115, 116, 117, 119,
29, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 47, 54, 55,
120, 121, 123, 127, 132, 133, 135,
56, 58, 62, 75, 78, 79, 83, 88,
140, 141, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149,
90, 92, 95, 98, 99, 100, 106,
153, 159, 185, 195
109, 112, 120, 121, 145, 151, 184
contribution ..... 23, 31, 51, 56, 90, 98,
cybernetics .......11, 12, 19, 38, 154, 156
100, 102, 112, 113, 114, 117, 124,
- 188 -
Index
Dannenberg ............................ 87, 170
145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 152, 161,
Darwin............................................. 87
162, 164, 166, 167, 168, 184
Davidson.......................... 25, 172, 174
external observer ... 31, 45, 48, 50, 56,
Davies ..........................64, 80, 81, 171
77, 91, 128, 139
digital media
external sources............................. 114
multimedia............................... 106
external validation.........................155
directions for use ...139, 140, 141, 145,
148, 149
Falla ................................................ 98
dynamic
feedback .....9, 11, 12, 49, 85, 129, 130,
dynamics 19, 43, 45, 50, 51, 55, 56,
131, 132, 135, 139, 141, 148, 159,
76, 86, 91, 92, 95, 97, 103, 104,
161, 184
117, 118, 121, 122, 124, 133, 135,
figured bass..................................... 69
138, 140, 147, 150, 161, 186
first order variety.......................... 103
flamenco17, 34, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48,
E-culture ....................................... 106
49, 56, 75, 78, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101,
emergence33, 38, 42, 50, 68, 95, 104,
102, 124, 146, 151, 152
107, 111, 123, 132, 133, 136, 140,
FM-synthesis .................................. 73
144, 151, 160, 184
frame of reference ........ 51, 90, 92, 93
empowerment................107, 156, 160
free cadenza .................................... 69
environment19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
33, 106, 108, 111, 115, 143, 153,
Gardner........................................... 95
154, 155, 158, 160, 184, 185, 186
Gellrich .............................. 55, 76, 175
environmental structure .. 47, 49, 111,
Gembris ....................... 21, 25, 32, 172
119, 120, 121, 147, 185
Glanville .............79, 85, 172, 177, 180
event.8, 25, 48, 53, 54, 56, 65, 75, 83,
Glass................................................ 90
85, 86, 88, 89, 98, 116, 117, 121,
Goodman ...........................66, 69, 173
122, 134, 146, 149, 155
grammar .............................29, 32, 48
explore
Greenhough .............................87, 173
exploration9, 12, 17, 22, 24, 26, 30,
Grossmann.................................59, 61
34, 35, 37, 42, 46, 58, 59, 60,
groupware ...................... 158, 159, 183
64, 66, 70, 80, 81, 84, 85, 88,
89, 108, 109, 112, 119, 121, 124,
Hamburg ...24, 27, 36, 62, 64, 66, 67,
135, 137, 139, 145, 146, 148, 162
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 178
extended interface .7, 8, 9, 35, 38, 39,
Hargreaves........................24, 25, 173
42, 51, 55, 56, 78, 79, 84, 90, 107,
harmony.... 50, 63, 69, 91, 97, 99, 104
108, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127,
Haroutounian .................. 23, 30, 173
134, 135, 136, 140, 141, 143, 144,
Hatch .........................20, 33, 156, 173
- 189 -
Collective Talent
Hecht ...................... 100, 101, 102, 173
innate .......................... 20, 23, 42, 186
Henson ......................28, 173, 177, 179
input. 8, 30, 31, 49, 53, 65, 75, 78, 82,
hidden conductor.............76, 149, 184
83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 100, 103, 110,
Hill.................................. 154, 156, 173
119, 121, 122, 125, 126, 130, 132,
hints31, 67, 68, 139, 141, 149, 151, 161,
133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 141,
169
148, 154, 156, 166, 167, 185
Hornborstel..................................... 61
intelligent systems33, 87, 89, 158, 184
Howe ............................20, 21, 23, 174
interaction8, 18, 19, 30, 31, 33, 43, 47,
Human Computer Interaction
49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 78,
human-machine interaction 8, 54,
79, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92, 95,
78, 86, 157, 158
96, 102, 103, 109, 110, 112, 114,
117, 118, 121, 122, 124, 127, 133,
improvise
138, 140, 141, 144, 146, 147, 149,
improvisation 8, 17, 20, 24, 26, 30,
151, 152, 153, 155, 157, 158, 161,
33, 34, 35, 38, 45, 50, 51, 55, 58,
162, 183, 185, 186
60, 75, 76, 80, 84, 88, 90, 92,
interactional .................. 124, 132, 133
95, 96, 97, 107, 108, 111, 113,
interactive dialogue53, 55, 56, 76, 88,
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 131,
96, 97, 103, 107, 122, 127, 133, 150
141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148,
interactive injection of variety .. 8, 54,
149, 151, 152, 156, 157, 159, 161,
86, 89
162, 170, 175, 176, 181, 184
interactive music system.. 83, 87, 132
improvised group performance
interface7, 8, 9, 20, 24, 29, 30, 31, 35,
group improvisation19, 20, 33, 35,
36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 46, 49, 50, 51,
37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 47, 48, 50, 52,
52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
56, 95, 107, 109, 111, 118, 123,
73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 88,
124, 141, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148,
89, 90, 103, 106, 107, 108, 119,
151, 157, 161, 162
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 133,
improvised music performance
134, 135, 136, 140, 141, 143, 144,
music improvisation .... 20, 76, 146
145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 152, 158,
individual talent18, 25, 34, 50, 51, 55,
159, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167,
117, 118, 134, 136, 143, 148, 150,
168, 184, 195
151
internal argument .........................146
information and communication
internal consistency ......................145
technology
internal operations ...92, 117, 139, 145
ICT... 13, 19, 38, 106, 145, 152, 157,
internal variety ..................31, 35, 103
158, 160, 161, 169
internally defined constraints.25, 123
Information Society 154, 160, 172, 181
Internet ...........................160, 161, 174
- 190 -
Index
jazz34, 75, 78, 90, 95, 96, 97, 131, 152,
124, 135, 139, 141, 146, 147, 149,
156, 163, 168, 177
150, 151, 153, 158, 159, 162, 165,
jazz improvisation ..... 75, 96, 152, 156
166, 185
Johnson21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 32, 96, 106,
Laat..13, 127, 195, 196, 207, 208, 209
174
language29, 30, 31, 32, 42, 46, 47, 48,
52, 54, 60, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 84,
Kavina ............................................. 81
98, 107, 125, 144, 147, 149, 159,
Kendall........................ 28, 65, 80, 175
184, 185, 186
Kenny ................................. 55, 76, 175
learn
knowledge .. 24, 25, 35, 38, 41, 42, 44,
learning ..18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 38,
46, 50, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109,
57, 58, 65, 77, 78, 85, 86, 87,
119, 123, 124, 144, 145, 149, 150,
105, 106, 107, 148, 149, 151, 154,
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 160,
155, 157, 159, 160, 162
161, 162
Lewin ......................... 20, 33, 156, 175
knowledge management .............. 154
lick13, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130,
Kors ..............22, 24, 27, 106, 107, 178
132, 150, 203
linguistic interaction .........19, 52, 183
L1 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 65,
listener .......... 49, 87, 90, 91, 100, 102
70, 73, 74, 76, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91,
Luhmann .................. 45, 155, 175, 176
97, 100, 103, 104, 112, 116, 118,
122, 135, 138, 139, 146, 147, 149,
maintain
150, 162, 165, 166, 185, 195
maintenance26, 32, 33, 36, 43, 44,
L2 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,
45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53, 58, 66, 73,
56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66,
75, 78, 85, 92, 98, 101, 103, 104,
69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78,
111, 114, 122, 130, 133, 138, 139,
79, 80, 84, 85, 86, 89, 92, 93, 95,
144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 159,
97, 98, 103, 104, 107, 111, 112, 114,
161
116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123,
management and organization 19, 38,
133, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 146,
145, 154, 156, 160
147, 149, 150, 151, 156, 158, 159,
maqam .............................................91
162, 165, 166, 167, 184, 185, 186,
Mathews .................... 26, 87, 170, 175
195
Maturana ...........44, 45, 154, 155, 175
L3 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57,
McAvinney........................81, 175, 178
58, 59, 60, 61, 66, 73, 74, 76, 78,
melody .50, 68, 69, 85, 91, 92, 93, 94,
79, 80, 84, 85, 89, 92, 93, 96, 103,
97, 99, 101, 111, 130, 138
106, 107, 108, 111, 113, 115, 116,
member.13, 19, 29, 33, 42, 43, 44, 45,
117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123,
49, 51, 56, 58, 62, 74, 100, 102,
- 191 -
Collective Talent
107, 113, 114, 117, 134, 136, 137,
nature/nurture
138, 148, 150, 159, 160, 161
nature/nurture discussion 21, 143,
Menuhin..........................................90
164
methodology ............................ 11, 146
neumes...............................67, 68, 195
Midgley .............................. 27, 61, 176
North..................................24, 25, 173
MIDI......80, 82, 86, 90, 125, 129, 170
Mingers............................ 45, 155, 176
observation .... 24, 41, 43, 53, 106, 161
minimum ................................ 68, 130
observational closure ...31, 46, 55, 56,
music education
97, 104, 111, 114, 116, 117, 122, 138,
music teaching7, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30,
144, 147, 161, 162, 165, 185
32, 105, 106, 107, 108, 123, 143,
opportunities11, 12, 13, 23, 24, 25, 28,
144, 145, 151, 171
29, 38, 49, 60, 63, 64, 70, 73, 82,
music notation
133, 160, 161
notation systems. 7, 25, 27, 29, 30,
organization..9, 11, 19, 20, 22, 30, 38,
36, 37, 49, 58, 59, 66, 67, 69,
45, 145, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156,
70, 71, 77, 94
157, 160, 170, 185
musical dropout23, 25, 30, 34, 75, 77,
organizational closure30, 45, 153, 154,
121, 151
185
musical instrument.12, 13, 25, 27, 30,
oriental music .. 75, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96,
34, 37, 46, 49, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62,
97
63, 64, 65, 67, 70, 74, 75, 79, 80,
Ostayen .......................................... 115
81, 83, 84, 85, 88, 93, 105, 109,
110, 111, 113, 114, 118, 119, 120, 121,
participant ... 11, 12, 18, 30, 31, 35, 43,
132, 133, 134, 135, 140, 151
44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54,
musical interaction18, 31, 55, 102, 118
55, 56, 74, 75, 78, 79, 89, 91, 100,
musical interface 7, 30, 31, 35, 36, 38,
103, 107, 112, 114, 118, 122, 127,
42, 57, 58, 59, 60, 73, 74, 75, 77,
135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 143, 145,
79, 80, 89, 106, 123, 133, 144
146, 149, 150, 152, 161, 186
musical score ... 13, 29, 37, 59, 66, 69,
Pask.12, 19, 38, 42, 45, 46, 52, 53, 54,
70, 79, 115, 132
79, 103, 144, 149, 155, 157, 158,
musical structure .. 28, 29, 30, 32, 56,
164, 165, 166, 172, 177, 186
87, 90, 95, 103, 147, 150
pattern .. 27, 30, 31, 33, 45, 50, 51, 55,
musicality...................... 20, 24, 25, 77
57, 62, 65, 68, 71, 73, 74, 78, 79,
mutual ... 43, 53, 59, 87, 132, 148, 153,
85, 86, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 99,
155
102, 103, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113,
114, 117, 118, 122, 124, 128, 130,
- 192 -
Index
132, 133, 136, 138, 139, 141, 146,
real-time ....83, 87, 110, 125, 126, 128,
147, 150, 183, 184, 185
129, 130, 178
patterns of interaction. 31, 57, 91, 112,
reflection............ 14, 70, 104, 149, 162
114, 122, 132, 138, 141, 146, 183
reproduce
performance model 38, 77, 79, 81, 83,
reproduction .. 26, 29, 69, 112, 113,
126, 144
121, 139
performer ... 26, 29, 49, 67, 69, 70, 71,
research design.....38, 41, 43, 46, 123,
73, 77, 78, 81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88,
143, 144, 147, 154, 157, 161, 162
89, 96, 100, 102, 133
responsive
pitch 63, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 92, 93,
responsiveness... 87, 100, 134, 141,
94, 115, 128, 129, 130
145, 148, 161
playing technique ..62, 65, 80, 81, 83,
Reynolds ............................ 70, 71, 195
84
rhythm .27, 50, 62, 65, 67, 68, 69, 85,
polyphony .................................63, 68
90, 93, 95, 96, 99, 101, 102, 110,
Pressing 22, 23, 25, 37, 61, 81, 83, 86,
111, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 130, 138
87, 88, 89, 96, 178
Risset........................................87, 178
process ... 8, 14, 18, 29, 30, 33, 35, 38,
Rose...........................................88, 89
44, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59,
Rosmalen ..... 22, 24, 27, 106, 107, 178
61, 66, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 84,
Rötter .. 13, 65, 84, 127, 178, 195, 203,
85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 95, 100,
204, 205, 206
102, 103, 104, 112, 113, 115, 121,
Rubine..............................................81
122, 124, 126, 129, 131, 133, 134,
rule system.....................46, 47, 51, 58
135, 138, 143, 144, 146, 150, 153,
rules26, 28, 29, 30, 36, 44, 46, 47, 51,
155, 156, 159, 160, 161, 183, 184,
55, 56, 58, 63, 69, 73, 76, 84, 93,
186
95, 101, 112, 114, 115, 119, 127, 147,
proof of existence.......................... 149
148, 153, 159
property23, 32, 33, 34, 42, 43, 45, 47,
111, 112, 136, 140, 144, 149, 151,
Sachs24, 27, 36, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 90,
152, 184
91, 92, 93, 94, 178
protolanguage
sam.................................................. 93
Lp 52, 53, 149, 166, 186
Sawyer......................33, 146, 151, 179
prototype....8, 123, 124, 127, 135, 136,
SCC
145, 146, 168, 210
strongly connected collective . 8, 9,
38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49,
raga...................................... 91, 92, 93
50, 51, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62,
random... 51, 84, 86, 87, 110, 117, 118,
63, 64, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 84,
137
85, 88, 89, 90, 92, 95, 97, 98,
- 193 -
Collective Talent
99, 102, 103, 104, 107, 108, 109,
shaping a musical process86, 87, 126,
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117,
129
119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 133,
skill 7, 9, 17, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141,
31, 58, 77, 81, 85, 100, 105, 106,
144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150,
109, 112, 119, 133, 134, 135, 136,
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 158, 159,
143
161, 162, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169,
Sloboda ..............................20, 21, 174
184, 185, 186, 195
social system...................147, 155, 156
scheme .............. 25, 56, 91, 92, 93, 96
spark .............................. 17, 18, 30, 75
Schippers .................. 24, 90, 106, 179
spectral analysis ............................. 73
Schön...................................... 131, 179
Spinoza project ..............108, 147, 148
science ...................11, 19, 42, 145, 146
stable
scientific object
stabilization 26, 30, 31, 32, 48, 50,
object of study9, 20, 22, 34, 35, 38,
51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 64, 69,
41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 75, 143, 145,
73, 75, 78, 79, 85, 89, 91, 95, 97,
146, 147, 162
103, 107, 111, 112, 114, 116, 117,
Seashore............................ 22, 23, 179
118, 121, 122, 133, 137, 138, 139,
second order cybernetics... 11, 38, 154
140, 141, 147, 149, 150, 158, 159,
second order variety ..................... 103
195
self-maintenance .............44, 153, 156
Starkie........................ 97, 99, 101, 179
self-organization... 19, 20, 33, 44, 111,
stave notation ..................... 36, 37, 94
123, 137, 138, 151, 154, 155, 156,
Stockhausen........................ 36, 37, 90
161, 162, 170, 183, 186
Storms....... 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 179
self-production .......154, 155, 156, 183
system movement....................45, 154
self-reference ................................ 154
Szajner .............................................81
self-renewal 31, 92, 104, 117, 140, 145,
156, 183
tablature........................ 36, 37, 66, 67
semi-brevis......................................68
talent
sensitive
musical talent7, 8, 9, 17, 18, 20, 21,
sensitivity 24, 53, 56, 95, 100, 103,
22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31,
122, 123, 133, 134, 148, 161
32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 42, 43,
Sensitive Chords8, 9, 13, 39, 123, 124,
47, 50, 51, 55, 56, 57, 60, 65, 75,
125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131,
76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 85, 86,
132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139,
88, 89, 90, 91, 95, 97, 103, 104,
140, 141, 145, 147, 148, 149, 150,
105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112,
168, 195, 196, 197, 203, 210, 211,
113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119,
212
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 135,
- 194 -
Index
136, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145,
user-centered design ..................... 157
146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152,
Vaill.......................... 33, 154, 156, 180
153, 154, 156, 159, 161, 162, 164,
Varela ...33, 44, 45, 154, 155, 175, 180
165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 173, 183,
variety .. 8, 24, 30, 31, 32, 35, 54, 55,
186
61, 62, 63, 66, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78,
talent to organize ................ 8, 111, 114
79, 82, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 92, 103,
talented music performance ...26, 32,
107, 108, 112, 114, 117, 118, 119,
79, 86, 95, 107
120, 121, 122, 123, 133, 134, 139,
teacher... 8, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116,
140, 141, 150, 159, 161
117, 118, 119, 123, 145, 148
Vercoe ......................................87, 170
teaching..... 20, 22, 25, 30, 34, 35, 36,
virtual....................... 82, 159, 160, 161
109, 110, 145, 149, 151, 152
virtuosity.................................. 96, 131
technical constraints .................... 148
Vorhaus............................................81
technology...13, 19, 22, 37, 38, 53, 64,
Waisvisz..................... 12, 86, 175, 180
82, 84, 88, 129, 152, 154, 157, 160
Weick ...................19, 20, 33, 156, 180
tempo26, 67, 69, 87, 88, 128, 129, 130
Weizenbaum ........................... 78, 180
testigo............................................ 102
western music
Thérémin............................81, 82, 195
western musical culture24, 26, 30,
TNS
36, 69, 88, 92, 94, 99, 109, 120,
traditional notation system 27, 29,
123
66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 94, 115
words21, 29, 32, 44, 48, 51, 61, 69, 70,
Torres .............................................101
73, 76, 78, 116, 121
twelve-tone equal temperament ... 25,
written music................ 27, 29, 59, 82
63, 66, 70
Xenakis ....................... 71, 72, 181, 195
unpredictable...65, 75, 76, 83, 84, 86,
89, 91, 95, 103, 104, 132
Zeeuw.............. 4, 11, 46, 177, 180, 181
- 195 -
Table of Figures
Figure 1
: Mutual generation and sustenance of L1 and L2
49
Figure 2
: Extended interfaces; developmental phases of L2. After
stabilization and SCC-closure, L2 can develop into new
directions
57
: Conventional interfaces: after stabilization and SCCclosure, L2 is resistant to change
58
: Stable L2s may act as constraints on the development of
new SCCs
60
Figure 5
: The system of neumes
67
Figure 6
: “Emperor”, Roger Reynolds,
Congress, Music Division)
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 7
1961-62
(Library
of
71
: String Glissandi, Bars 317-333 of "Metastaseis", Xenakis,
1954 (Xenakis, 1976, p.8)
72
Figure 8
: Thérémin with his instrument (Kavina, 2006)
82
Figure 9
: Notation systems in Oriental music
94
Figure 10 : Mechanical controller of Sensitive Chords
127
Figure 11 : Lick composed by Günther Rötter
205
Figure 12 : Lick composed by Günther Rötter
206
Figure 13 : Lick composed by Günther Rötter
207
Figure 14 : Lick composed by Günther Rötter
207
Figure 15 : Lick composed by Günther Rötter
208
Figure 16 : Lick composed by Marion de Laat
209
- 197 -
Collective Talent
Figure 17 : Lick composed by Marion de Laat
209
Figure 18 : Lick composed by Marion de Laat
210
Figure 19 : Lick composed by Marion de Laat
210
Figure 20 : Lick composed by Marion de Laat
210
Figure 21 : Sensitive Chords
213
Figure 22 : Starting a performance with Sensitive Chords
214
Figure 23 : After a few minutes of playing Sensitive Chords
214
Figure 24 : The author would like to thank the audience
215
- 198 -
Appendices
A.1
Sensitive Chords: Spider definitions for the SensorLab
//SENCHORD 28-1-93, known as "Birds" (formerly psychord)
// 18-9-93: Renamed to "Boids", for the Macintosh Spider
// and the Rev C SensorLab.
ANALOG [30,-18,0,12,0,rawpot1]; //joystick#1
turn
ANALOG [27,-119,0,12,0,rawpot2]; //
,,
swing
ANALOG [30,-18,0,12,0,rawpot3]; //joystick#2
ANALOG [36,-184,0,12,0,rawpot4];
ANALOG [25,-50,0,12,0,rawpot5]; //joystick#3
ANALOG [42,-216,0,12,0,rawpot6];
ANALOG [20,-50,0,12,0,rawpot7]; //joystick#4
ANALOG [34,-185,0,12,0,rawpot8];
ANALOG [59,-170,0,12,0,rawpot9]; //joystick #5 bottom
ANALOG [58,-11,0,12,0,rawpot10] //
,,
top
ANALOG [87,-50,1,12,0,rawank1]; //forcesensor #1
ANALOG [87,-52,1,12,0,rawank2]; //forcesensor #2
ANALOG [111,-67,1,12,0,rawank3]; //forcesensor #3
ANALOG [87,-50,1,12,0,rawank4]; //forcesensor #4
TABLE 1 [lin,256,30,127];
TABLE 2 [lin,256,20,127];
TABLE 3 [lin,256,1,127];
TABLE 4 [lin,256,1,127];
TABLE 5 [lin,256,0,32];
//velocity table
//note table
//channel pressure table
//modwheel table
//wank table
VAR pot1;
- 199 -
VAR pot2;
VAR pot3;
VAR pot4;
VAR pot5;
VAR pot6;
VAR pot7;
VAR pot8;
VAR pot9;
VAR pot10;
VAR NONval = 64;
VAR wank1;
VAR wank2;
VAR wank3;
VAR wank4;
VAR player1act;
VAR player2act;
VAR player3act;
VAR player4act;
VAR act1;
VAR act2;
VAR act3;
VAR activity;
VAR wankie1;
VAR wankie2;
VAR wankie3;
VAR wankie4;
VAR w1;
VAR w2;
VAR wanksum;
//VAR wankres;
VAR pgcpot;
FLAG letsrok = false;
FLAG NoNote = true;
program:
display (0,"JacQ");
//joystick #1:
filter(rawpot1,0,255,2)
{
- 200 -
Appendices
pot1 = rawpot1 ~ 3;
PRS(1,pot1);
}
filter(rawpot2,0,255,2)
{
pot2 = rawpot2 ~ 4;
CTR(1,1,pot2);
}
//joystick #2:
filter(rawpot3,0,255,2)
{
pot3 = rawpot3 ~ 3;
PRS(2,pot3);
}
filter(rawpot4,0,255,2)
{
pot4 = rawpot4 ~ 4;
CTR(2,1,pot4);
}
//joystick #3:
filter(rawpot5,0,255,2)
{
pot5 = rawpot5 ~ 3;
PRS(3,pot5);
}
filter(rawpot6,0,255,2)
{
pot6 = rawpot6 ~ 4;
CTR(3,1,pot6);
}
//joystick #4:
filter(rawpot7,0,255,2)
{
pot7 = rawpot7 ~ 3;
PRS(4,pot7);
}
filter(rawpot8,0,255,2)
- 201 -
{
pot8 = rawpot8 ~ 4;
CTR(4,1,pot8);
}
//joystick #5 (system tilt):
filter(rawpot9,0,255,2)
{
pot9 = rawpot9 ~ 4;
CTR(5,1,pot9);
}
filter(rawpot10,0,255,2)
{
pot10 = rawpot10;
if (pot10 < 90)
pgcpot = 0;
else
{
if (pot10 < 160)
pgcpot = 1;
else
pgcpot = 2;
}
if (?pgcpot)
{
PGC(5,pgcpot);
NON(5,64,64);
NoNote = false;
}
}
//this routine handles the data from the wanksensors:
filter(rawank1,0,255,1)
{
wank1 = rawank1;
if (wank1 > 14)
player1act = 1;
else
player1act = 0;
- 202 -
Appendices
}
filter(rawank2,0,255,1)
{
wank2 = rawank2;
if (wank2 > 14)
player2act = 1;
else
player2act = 0;
}
filter(rawank3,0,255,1)
{
wank3 = rawank3;
if (wank3 > 14)
player3act = 1;
else
player3act = 0;
}
filter(rawank4,0,255,1)
{
wank4 = rawank4;
if (wank4 > 14)
player4act = 1;
else
player4act = 0;
}
act1 = player1act + player2act;
act2 = act1 + player3act;
activity = act2 + player4act;
if (activity > 1)
letsrok = true;
else
{
letsrok = false;
}
if (letsrok)
{
if (NoNote)
{
NON(5,64,64);
- 203 -
NoNote = false;
}
}
else
{
if (!NoNote)
{
NOF(5,64,64);
NoNote = true;
}
}
wankie1 = wank1 ~ 5;
wankie2 = wank2 ~ 5;
wankie3 = wank3 ~ 5;
wankie4 = wank4 ~ 5;
w1 = wankie1 + wankie2;
w2 = w1 + wankie3;
wanksum = w2 + wankie4;
if (?wanksum)
PRS(5,wanksum);
endprogram;
reset:
NON(5,64,64);
//
time(100)
NOF(5,64,64);
PGC(5,0);
end;
- 204 -
Appendices
A.2
Sensitive Chords: licks
Figure 11: Lick composed by Günther Rötter
- 205 -
Figure 12: Lick composed by Günther Rötter
Figure 13: Lick composed by Günther Rötter
- 206 -
Appendices
Figure 14: Lick composed by Günther Rötter
- 207 -
Figure 15: Lick composed by Günther Rötter
- 208 -
Appendices
Figure 16: Lick composed by Marion de Laat
Figure 17: Lick composed by Marion de Laat
- 209 -
Figure 18: Lick composed by Marion de Laat
Figure 19: Lick composed by Marion de Laat
- 210 -
Appendices
Figure 20: Lick composed by Marion de Laat
- 211 -
A.3
Sensitive Chords: demonstrations and workshops
"Interfacing Music". Lecture and demonstration prototype. Conference on
Computers in Music Research, University of Belfast, Ireland, 7-11 April 1991.
"Access to Music". Lecture and demonstration prototype. Second
International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition, Los Angeles,
California, 23-26 February 1992.
"The Hidden Power of Music". Lecture and demonstration prototype.
Conference of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics (IAEA),
Berlin, 26-28 July 1992.
"Collectief Talent". Demonstration. Assessment meeting, Center of
Innovation and Cooperative Technology, Tropenmuseum, Amsterdam, 17
September 1992.
"Stirring Sensitive Chords". Lecture, demonstration and workshop. “Musik
als/im Medium”, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Musikpsychologie e.V.,
Staatlichen Hochschule für Musik, Karlsruhe, 18-20 September 1992.
"Gevoelige snaren". Demonstration and workshop. "In het Licht van
Samenhang", Conference of Pro6, Jacobi Theater, Utrecht, 11 November
1992.
"Das gemeinsame Spielen mit Sensitive Chords". Lecture, demonstration
and workshop. Universität Münster, 4 February 1993.
“Musical Environments: Sensitive Chords". Workshop. “Problems of Values
and (In)Variants”, conference of CICT/The Dutch Systems Group/The
International Federation for Systems Research, Amsterdam, 13-16 April
1993.
“Sensitive Chords”. Lecture, demonstration and workshop. “Dag van de
Elektronische Muziek”, SKVR, Prinsekerk, Rotterdam, 25 June 1994.
“Sensitive Chords”. Lecture, demonstration and workshop. Management
meeting ENW, De Woude, 2 June 1995.
- 212 -
Appendices
A.4
Sensitive Chords: pictures
Figure 21: Sensitive Chords
- 213 -
Figure 22: Starting a performance with Sensitive Chords
Figure 23: After a few minutes of playing Sensitive Chords
- 214 -
Appendices
Figure 24: The author would like to thank the audience
- 215 -