Collective Talent (UvA Proefschriften)

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 -