Abstract
The introduction of the computer as musical instrument and the development of interactive musical instruments have led to completely new purposes and questions for music research; as a result, it no longer seems adequate to rely on the traditional classification of musical instruments, which is based on the purpose of instrument design and presentation of instruments in public or private exhibition. Based on insights from the philosophy of science, this paper suggests pursuing another purpose of and approach to instrument classification appropriate for basic music research. We argue that (digital) computing systems, to some extent, have the potential to act as autonomous and artificial social agents. This argument is based on the conceptualization of machines as (abstract) automata. In addition, we exploit concepts from dynamic systems theory in a metaphorical manner to find a more appropriate point of view to develop new research questions. Discussing interactivity, for which embodiment and situatedness are prerequisites, we suggest taking interactivity, agency, and autonomy into account to develop an appropriate classification system of musical instruments and at the same time to rethink the traditional concept of musical instrument. Whether a musical instrument can be defined as broader than a device that has the function of generating sounds, i.e. whether it can be viewed as an embodied, situated or even social agent, remains a challenging question for basic music research. To discuss this question, not only sound generating actions, but also other musically meaningful actions that involve agency should be taken for granted.
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.
However, this was not recognized by Rebecca Wolf, who traces the history of the concepts of the automaton, machine, and clock (Wolf 2014).
- 2.
Translation of Thoben (2014, p. 433, Fig. 1) by the authors: “Der Interpret interagiert mit einem musikalischen Interface, […].”
- 3.
One is reminded of the science-fiction author Isaac Asimov’s well-known “three laws of robotics” indicating the importance of an ethics for machines which is now becoming a real social necessity about 60 years ago. A machine ethics (Anderson and Anderson 2011) or android epistemology (Ford et al. 2006) is not only urgently needed for military, educational, or social applications, but also for the arts.
- 4.
This means that the system does not interrupt to ask for new information during computation.
- 5.
For more on agents as dynamical systems and robotics in music research, see Schmidt (2010).
- 6.
‘Autonomy’ related to artificial systems is discussed in Vernon (2014).
- 7.
For a detailed comparison of different agent concepts see Schmidt (2010, pp. 35–44).
- 8.
In different areas of research on classification or categorization such as developmental psychology or cognitive anthropology natural kinds are distinguished from classification systems that are merely conventional. Natural kinds exist independently of our classificatory activity and are not merely conventional (Kornblith 1999). For example, classifying the world into animate and inanimate objects might be a natural kind whereas classifying the world into different kinds of musical instruments is a conventionally culture-dependent categorization.
- 9.
Note that matrix organization enables the intersection of sets.
- 10.
For more about agents as dynamical systems and robotics in music research, see Schmidt (2010).
References
Anderson, M., & Anderson, S. L. (Eds.). (2011). Machine ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Axelrod, R., & Tesfatsion, L. (2006). Appendix A: A guide for newcomers to agent-based modeling in the social sciences. In L. Tesfatsion & K. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of computational economics, Vol. 2: Agent-based computational economics (pp. 1647–1659). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Beer, R. D. (1996). A dynamical systems perspective on agent-environment interaction. In P. E. Agre & S. J. Rosenschein (Eds.), Computational theories of interaction and agency (pp. 173–215). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Beer, R. D. (2014). Dynamical systems and embedded cognition. In K. Frankish & W. M. Ramsey (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence (pp. 128–150). Camdridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bharucha, J., Curtis, M., & Paroo, K. (2012). Musical communication as alignment of brain states. In P. M. Rebuschat, M. Rohrmeier, J. A. Hawkins, & I. Cross (Eds.), Language and music as cognitive systems (pp. 139–155). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
D’Mello, S., & Franklin, S. (2011). Computational modeling/cognitive robotics complements functional modeling/experimental psychology. New ideas in Psychology, 29, 2017–2027.
Davies, H. (2000). Electronic instruments: Classifications and mechanisms. In H. J. Braun (Ed.), ‘I sing the body electric’: Music and technology in the 20th century (pp. 43–58). Hofheim am Taunus: Wolke Verlag.
Dodge, C., & Jerse, T. A. (1985). Computer music: Synthesis, composition, and performance. New York: Schirmer.
Ford, K. M., Glymour, C., & Hayes, P. J. (Eds.). (2006). Thinking about android epistemology. Menlo Park: AAAI Press.
Franklin, S. (1997). Autonomous agents as embodied AI. Cybernetic and Systems, 28(6), 499–520.
Franklin, S., & Graesser, A. (1997). Is it an agent, or just a program? A taxonomy of autonomous agents. In J. Müller, M. J. Wooldridge, & N. R. Jennings (Eds.), Intelligent agents III Agent theories, architectures, and languages—ECAI’96 Workshop (ATAL), Budapest, Hungary, August 12–13, 1996 [=Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 1193] (pp. 21–35). Berlin: Springer.
Hempel, C. G. (1952). Fundamentals of concept formation in empirical science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kartomi, M. J. (1990). On concepts and classifications of musical instruments. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Keller, P. E. (2008). Joint action in music performance. In F. Morganti, A. Carassa, & G. Riva (Eds.), Enacting intersubjectivity: A cognitive and social perspective on the study of interaction (pp. 205–211). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Kim, J. H. (2012). Embodiment in interaktiven Musik- und Medienperformances – unter besonderer Berücksichtigung medientheoretischer und kognitionswissenschaftlicher Perspektiven. Osnabrück: epOs.
Kornblith, H. (1999). Natural kinds. In R. A. Wilson & F. C. Keil (Eds.), The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences (pp. 588–589). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Large, E. W., & Kolen, J. F. (1994). Resonance and the perception of musical meter. Connection Science, 6(2–3), 177–208.
Leman, M., & Maes, P.-J. (2014). Music perception and embodied music cognition. In L. Shapiro (Ed.), The Routlegde handbook of embodied cognition (pp. 81–89). London: Routledge.
Mathews, M. (1963). The digital computer as a musical instrument. Science, 142(3592), 553–557.
Minsky, M. (1967). Computation: Finite and infinite machines. London: Prentice-Hall.
Miranda, E. R., & Wanderley, M. M. (2006). New digital musical instruments: Control and interaction beyond the keyboard. Middleton: AR Publications.
Montagu, J. (2007). Origins and development of musical instruments. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press.
Nelson, R. J. (1989). The logic of mind (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Port, R. F. (2003). Dynamical systems hypothesis in cognitive science. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 1027–1032). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley.
Rowe, R. (1993). Interactive music systems: Machine listening and composing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schmidt, L. (2010). Embodied cognitive science of music: Modeling experience and behavior in musical context (Doctoral dissertation). Universität zu Köln. http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/5342/. Accessed February 20, 2016.
Seifert, U., & Kim, J. H. (2008). Towards a conceptual framework and an empirical methodology in research on artistic human-computer and human-robot interaction. In I. Pavlidis (Ed.), Human-computer interaction (pp. 177–194). Vienna: In-Tech.
Simon, P. (1992). Die Hornbostel/Sachs’sche Systematik und ihre Logik. Instrumentenbau-Zeitschrift—Musik International, 46(7–8), 64–66.
Simon, P. (2004). Die Hornbostel/Sachs’sche Systematik der Musikinstrumente: Merkmalarten und Merkmale. Eine Analyse mit zwei Felderdiagrammen. Mönchengladbach: Verlag Peter Simon.
Stegmüller, W. (1974). Probleme und Resultate der Wissenschaftstheorie und Analytischen Philosophie, Band II: Theorie und Erfahrung. Erster Halbband: Begriffsformen, Wissenschaftssprache, empirische Signifikanz und theoretische Begriffe. Verbesserter Neudruck. Berlin: Springer.
Thoben, W. (2014). Elektronische Musikinstrumente: Interfaces und Controller. In S. Weinzierl (Ed.), Akustische Grundlagen der Musik [=Handbuch der Systematischen Musikwissenschaft, Bd. 5; ed. by H. de la Motte-Haber] (pp. 433–445). Laaber: Laaber.
Vernon, D. (2014). Artificial cognitive systems: A primer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Verschure, P. F. M. J., & Manzolli, J. (2013). Computational modeling of music and mind. In M. A. Arbib (Ed.), Language, music, and the brain: A mysterious relationship (pp. 393–414). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
von Hornbostel, E. M., & Sachs, C. (1914). Systematik der Musikinstrumente: Ein Versuch. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 4–5, 553–590.
Wegner, P. (1997). Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Communications of the ACM, 40(5), 80–91.
Wegner, P., & Goldin, D. (2003). Computation beyond Turing machines. Communications of the ACM, 46(4), 100–102.
Wiener, N. (1961). Cybernetics, or control and communication in animal and machine (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wolf, R. (2014). Musikautomaten. In S. Weinzierl (Ed.), Akustische Grundlagen der Musik [=Handbuch der Systematischen Musikwissenschaft, Bd. 5; ed. by H. de la Motte-Haber] (pp. 409–431). Laaber: Laaber.
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
Kim, J.H., Seifert, U. (2017). Interactivity of Digital Musical Instruments: Implications of Classifying Musical Instruments on Basic Music Research. 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_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2951-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2950-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2951-6
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)