Abstract
This chapter explores the role of visual representation of sound in music software. Software design often remediates older technologies, such as common music notation, the analogue tape, outboard studio equipment, as well as applying metaphors from acoustic and electric instruments. In that context, the aim here will be study particular modes in which abstract shapes, symbols and innovative notations can be applied in systems for composition and live performance. Considering the practically infinite possibilities of representation of sound in digital systems—both in terms of visual display and mapping of gestural controllers to sound—the concepts of graphic design, notation and performance will be discussed in relation to four systems created by the author: ixi software, ixiQuarks, ixi lang, and the Threnoscope live coding environment. These will be presented as examples of limited systems that frame the musician’s compositional thoughts providing a constrained palette of musical possibilities. What this software has in common is the integral use of visual elements in musical composition, equally as prescriptive and representative notation for musical processes. The chapter will present the development of musical software as a form of composition: it is an experimental activity that goes hand in hand with sound and music research, where the musician-programmer has to gain a formal understanding of diverse domains that before might have been tacit knowledge. The digital system’s requirements for abstractions of the source domain, specifications of material, and completeness of definitions are all features that inevitably require a very strong understanding of the source domain.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The 160 character text message is a good example: the SMS (Short Message Service), although invented as part of the GSM cooperation in 1984, was initially implemented in Nokia phones for their engineers to test mobile networks. The technology was quickly adopted by users who began enjoying this mode of communication. This became a protocol of sorts, and as of 2016, Twitter is still respecting this 140 char limit.
- 2.
Skeumorphic design is where necessary features in an original objects are used as ornamentation in the derivative object. Examples in graphical user interface design could be screws in screen-based instruments, leather in calendar software, the use of shadows, and so on.
- 3.
The contrasting design ideologies between Moog and Buchla are a good example of the problems at play here. It is evident that Moog’s relative commercial success over Buchla’s was largely due to the referencing well known historical instruments (see Pinch and Trocco 2002).
- 4.
There are exceptions of that model of course, such as the discontinued Nord Modular Synth.
- 5.
Hunt’s software is of course no failure. It is a highly successful research project that has served its author and many others as musical tool, for example in education, and it has inspired various other research projects, mine included. But the context of this discussion is innovation and how a specific music technology instance might fare in the world of mass markets and sales.
- 6.
The manufacturers of both interfaces call them “instruments”. Some might argue that they only become instruments when coupled with a sound engine, as familiar instrumental models indicate (e.g., Wanderley 2000 or Leman 2008), but I do believe it makes sense, in terms of innovation, longevity and spread of use, to call these instruments. Will there be a day when something like the Karlax will be taught in music conservatories? How would that even work? What would the training consist in?
- 7.
See Boden (1990) on creativity - although her P-creativity and H-creativity stand for psychological and historical creativity (where the former is always included in the latter), in this case we use the term personal creativity.
- 8.
However, further development and user experience shows that the system is more of a compositional tool, an instrument, and not a musical piece. Admittedly, the boundaries are not very clear here and the author has had interesting discussions with users who are of different opinions of what might constitute a musical piece.
References
Ackrill, J. L. (1987). Nicomachean ethics, book 6, chapter 4. In A. New (Ed.), Aristotle reader. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Attali, J. (1985). Noise: The political economy of music. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Boden, M. A. (1990). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Hunt, A. (2003). MidiGrid: Past, present and future. In Proceedings of new interfaces for musical expression 2003. Montreal, Canada.
ixi. (2000). http://www.ixi-audio.net. Accessed September 8, 2016.
Leman, M. (2008). Embodied music cognition and mediation technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Magnusson, T. (2006). Screen-based musical instruments as semiotic machines. In Proceedings of new interfaces for musical expression. Paris: IRCAM.
Magnusson, T. (2007). The ixiQuarks: merging code and gui in one creative space. In Immersed music: The ICMC 2007 conference proceedings. Copenhagen: Re:New.
Magnusson, T. (2009). Of epistemic tools: Musical instruments as cognitive extensions. Organised Sound, 14(2), 168–176.
Magnusson, T. (2010). Designing constraints: Composing and performing with digital musical systems. Computer Music Journal, 34(4), 62–73.
Magnusson, T. (2011). ixi lang: A SuperCollider parasite for live coding. In International computer music conference. Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield.
Magnusson, T. (2014). Improvising with the threnoscope: Integrating code, hardware, GUI, network, and graphic scores. In Proceedings of new interfaces for musical expression 2014. London: Goldsmiths College.
Marx, K. (2007). Capital: A critique of political economy—The process of capitalist production. New York: Cosimo.
Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pinch, T. J., & Trocco, F. (2002). Analog days: The invention and impact of the moog synthesizer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Roads, C. (1996). The computer music tutorial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Schnell, N., & Battier, M. (2002). Introducing composed instruments, technical and musicological implications. In Proceedings of new interfaces for musical expression 2002. Limerick: University of Limerick.
Stiegler, B. (1998). Technics and time, 1: The fault of epimetheus. Stanford: Meridian. Stanford University Press.
Wanderley, M. M. (2000). Gestural control of music. Paris: Ircam. http://recherche.ircam.fr/equipes/analyse-synthese/wanderle/Gestes/Externe/kassel.pdf. Accessed February 2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Magnusson, T. (2017). Interfacing Sound: Visual Representation of Sound in Musical Software Instruments. In: Bovermann, T., de Campo, A., Egermann, H., Hardjowirogo, SI., Weinzierl, S. (eds) Musical Instruments in the 21st Century. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2951-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2951-6_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2950-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2951-6
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)