A Case Study in Collaborative Learning via Participatory Music Interactive Systems: Interactive Tango Milonga

  • Courtney BrownEmail author
  • Garth Paine
Part of the Springer Series on Cultural Computing book series (SSCC)


This chapter investigates design strategies for developing digital musical instruments (DMIs) for participatory music. In particular, we present strategies to enhance collaborative musical skills such as rhythmic entrainment and listening/responding to other participants: building skills of this kind has the capacity to motivate long-term usage and adoption of the DMI by a broad range of communities. The design strategies described here address the problems of developing DMIs for long-term use, both in collaborative, mixed skill level contexts, and in established musical and dance traditions. Interactive Tango Milonga—presented here as a case study—is an interactive dance system allowing social tango dancers to drive musical outcomes in real-time via their dance movement. Motion sensors are attached to dancers, and the signals from these sensors are sent to a computer, where an algorithm transforms them into tango music. The impact of the interactive tango system on the musical listening and response of tango dancer participants is analyzed and discussed.



Some passages and figures in this chapter have previously appeared in the first author’s dissertation (Brown 2017).


  1. Anthony L (2016) AntConc Version 3.4.4, Waseda University. Accessed Mar 16 2017
  2. Armstrong N (2007) An enactive approach to digital musical instrument design theory, models, techniques. VDM Verlag Dr., Müller, SaarbrückenGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbosa J et al (2015) Designing DMIs for popular music in the Brazilian Northeast: lessons learned. In: Proceedings of 15th international conference on new interfaces for musical expression, Baton Rouge, 2015. ACM, pp 277–280Google Scholar
  4. Behrends A, Müller S, Dziobek I (2012) Moving in and out of synchrony: a concept for a new intervention fostering empathy through interactional movement and dance. Arts Psychother 39(2):107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell A, Nguyen H, Eakin R, Houx P (2017) Accessed Feb 2017
  6. Bevilacqua F et al (2007) Wireless sensor interface and gesture-follower for music pedagogy. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on new interfaces for musical expression, New York City, June 2007. ACM, pp 124–129Google Scholar
  7. Blaine T, Perkis T (2000) The Jam-O-Drum interactive music system: a study in interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 3rd conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, pp 165–173Google Scholar
  8. Blaine T, Forlines C (2002) Jam-O-World: evolution of the Jam-O-Drum multi-player musical controller into the Jam-O-Whirl gaming interface. In: Proceedings of the 2002 conference on new interfaces for musical expression, National University of Singapore, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  9. Blaine T, Fels S (2003) Contexts of collaborative musical experiences. In: Proceedings of the 2003 conference on new interfaces for musical expression, National University of Singapore, pp 129–134Google Scholar
  10. Borgialli D (2015) The tango workbook. AuthorGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown C (2017) Interactive Tango Milonga an interactive dance system for Argentine tango social dance. Dissertation, Arizona State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown C, Paine G (2015a) Towards an interactive Tango Milonga. Paper presented at the 41st international computer music conference, Denton, TX, University of North TexasGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown C, Paine G (2015b) Interactive Tango Milonga: designing internal experience. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on movement and computing—MOCO’15, Vancouver. ACM Press, pp 17–20.
  14. Brown C, Paine G (2016) Digital musical instruments for participatory music: designing internal experience. Paper presented at music and HCI workshop at ACM 33rd human factors in computing systems conference 2016 (CHI 2016), San Jose, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. Bukvic I, Martin T, Standley E, Matthews M (2010) Introducing L2Ork: Linux laptop orchestra. In: Proceedings of the new interface for musical expression conference, pp 170–173Google Scholar
  16. Castro D (1990) Argentine tango as social history, 1880–1955, Mellen Research University PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Collier, S (2002) The birth of tango. In: G. Nouzeilles, G. Montaldo (eds) The Argentina reader. Duke University Press, pp 196–202Google Scholar
  18. Cope D (1992) Computer modeling of musical intelligence in EMI. Comput Music J 16(2):69–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davidson N, Major CH (2014) Boundary crossings: Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and problem-based learning. J Excellence Coll Teach 25:7–55Google Scholar
  20. Essl G, O’Modhrain S (2006) An enactive approach to the design of new tangible musical instruments. Organ Sound 11(3):285–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fancourt D et al (2016) Effects of group drumming interventions on anxiety, depression, social resilience and inflammatory immune response among mental health service users. PLoS ONE 11(3):e0151136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Feldmeier M, Paradiso J (2007) An interactive music environment for large groups with giveaway wireless motion sensors. Comput Music J 31(1):50–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fiebrink R (2017) Accessed Feb 2017
  24. Gibson BE (2006) Disability, connectivity and transgressing the autonomous body. J Med Humanit 27(3):187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hogg B, Norman SJ (2013) Resistant materials in musical creativity. Contemp Music Rev 32:115–118. Scholar
  26. Holbrook MB, Schindler RM (1989) Some exploratory findings on the development of musical tastes. J Consum Res 16(1):119–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holland S, Fiebrink R (2019) Machine learning, music and creativity: an interview with Rebecca Fiebrink. In Holland S, Mudd T, Wilkie-McKenna K, McPherson A, Wanderley MM (eds) New directions in music and human-computer interaction. Springer, London. ISBN 978-3-319-92069-6Google Scholar
  28. Hove M, Risen J (2009) It’s all in the timing: interpersonal synchrony increases affiliation. Soc Cogn 27(6):949–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jensenius A, Lyons M (2016) Trends at NIME-reflections on editing “A NIME Reader”. In: Proceedings of 16th international conference on new interfaces for musical expression, Queensland, 2016. ACM, pp 439–443Google Scholar
  30. Ladas H, Ladas C (2013) Basics of musicality. In: Organic Tango School Red Series 2 expanded.
  31. Langdridge D (2007) Phenomenological psychology: theory, research and method. Pearson Education, Irving, TXGoogle Scholar
  32. Loke L, Robertson T (2013) Moving and making strange: an embodied approach to movement-based interaction design. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact (TOCHI) 20(1):7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Matyja J, Schiavio A (2013) Enactive music cognition: Background and research themes. Constr Found 8(3):351–357Google Scholar
  34. Morreale, F, McPherson A (2017) Design for longevity: ongoing use of instruments from NIME 2010-14. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on new interfaces for musical expression, Copenhagen, May 2017. ACM pp 192–197Google Scholar
  35. Merritt C (2012) Tango Nuevo, University Press of FloridaGoogle Scholar
  36. Nesfield J (2012) Strategies for engagement in computer-mediated musical performance. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2012 conference for new interfaces for musical expression, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  37. Olszewski B (2008) El cuerpo del baile: the kinetic and social fundaments of tango. Body Soc 14(2):63–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Omodei M, McLennan J, Wearing A (2005) How expertise is applied in real-world dynamic environments: head mounted video and cued recall as a methodology for studying routines of decision making. In: The routines of decision making, pp 271–288Google Scholar
  39. Paine G, Salmon R (2012) The thinking head project: knowledge environments. Int JArts Technol 10(10)Google Scholar
  40. Paine G (2015) Interaction as material: the techno-somatic dimension. Organ Sound 20(1):82–89. Scholar
  41. Pinniger R, Thorsteinsson E, Brown R, McKinley P (2013) Tango dance can reduce distress and insomnia in people with self-referred affective symptoms. Am J Dance Ther 35(1):60–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rizzolatti G, Sinigaglia C (2008) Mirrors in the brain: how our minds share actions and emotions. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Schiphorst T (2007) Really, really small: the palpability of the invisible. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI conference on creativity and cognition, ACM Press, pp 7–16Google Scholar
  44. Schneider J et al (2015) Augmenting the senses: a review on sensor-based learning support. Sensors 15(2):4097–4133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seyler E (2008) The tango philadelphia story: a mixed-methods study of building community, enhancing lives, and exploring spirituality through argentine tango. Temple UniversityGoogle Scholar
  46. Sinnott L (2008) Mapping strategies for the augmented tango shoe. Master’s thesis, New York UniversityGoogle Scholar
  47. Terrill M (2015) Laptop orchestra pushes buttons and boundaries. ASU NowGoogle Scholar
  48. Trueman D (2007) Why a laptop orchestra? Organ Sound 12(2):171. Scholar
  49. Turino T (2008) Music as social life: the politics of participation. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  50. Ulyate R, Bianciardi D (2002) The interactive dance club: avoiding chaos in a multi-participant environment. Comput Music J 26(3):40–49. Scholar
  51. van Hout B, Giacolini L, Hengeveld B, Funk M, Frens J (2014) Experio: adesign for novel audience participation in club settings. Proceedings of the 14th international conference on new interfaces for musical expression Google Scholar
  52. Wallis I (2013) Designing experiential media for volitional usage: an approach based on music and other hobbies. Dissertation, Arizona State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  53. Wang G, Trueman D, Smallwood S, Cook P (2008) The laptop orchestra as classroom. Comput Music J 32(1):26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center of Creative Computation, Southern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA
  2. 2.School of Arts, Media, and EngineeringArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations