Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T21:10:01.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ecomprovisation: Project Markarian 335

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2024

Luzilei Aliel Open the ORCID record for Luzilei Aliel [Opens in a new window] ,
Ivan Simurra ,
Marcello Messina Open the ORCID record for Marcello Messina [Opens in a new window]  and
Damián Keller
Luzilei Aliel
Affiliation:
University of São Paulo. Email: luzaliel@gmail.com
Ivan Simurra
Affiliation:
Federal University of Acre. Email: ivan.simurra@ufac.br
Marcello Messina
Affiliation:
Southern Federal University. Email: messina@sfedu.ru
Damián Keller
Affiliation:
Federal University of Acre, Federal University of Paraíba. Email: dkeller@ccrma.stanford.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Through an ecological approach to creative practice (henceforth ecomprovisation), this project deals with the expansion of creative strategies applicable to everyday contexts. Within ubiquitous music (ubimus), we target the convergence of sonification methods with the application of ecological models within the context of comprovisation. These conceptual frameworks inform the technological and aesthetic approaches applied in the making of Markarian 335. We describe the creative procedures and the implications of the design choices involved in this artwork. The contributions and shortcomings of our ecomprovisational approach are situated within the context of the current efforts to foster expanded creative possibilities in ubimus endeavours.

Type
Article
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 28 , Issue 3: Ecologically Grounded Creative Practices and Ubiquitous Music – Interaction and Environment , December 2023 , pp. 328 - 337
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aliel, L. 2017. Essays on Comprovisations in Sound Ecology: Practical and Theoretical Perspectives. MA dissertation, University of São Paulo.Google Scholar
Aliel, L. 2022. Model-Based Comprovisation: Modeling in Musical Composition and Improvisation Based on Guideline and Contingency Plans. Doctorate thesis, University of São Paulo. https://doi.org/10.11606/T.27.2022.tde-12072022–111800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aliel, L., Keller, D. and Costa, R. 2015. Comprovisation Approaches from Aesthetic Heuristics to Composition. Proceedings of the XV Brazilian Symposium on Computer Music. Campinas, SP. SBCM.Google Scholar
Aliel, L., Keller, D. and Costa, R. 2018a. The Maxwell Demon: A Proposal for Modeling in Ecological Synthesis in Art Practices. Música Hodie 18(1): 103–16. https://doi.org/10.5216/mh.v18i1.53575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aliel, L., Keller, D. and Ferraz, S. 2018b. Perspectives of the Gelassenheit Thought-Form: Applications and Experimentation in Cognitive-Ecological Creative Activities. Revista Vórtex 6 (2): 1–27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basanta, A. 2010. Syntax as sign: The Use of Ecological Models within a Semiotic Approach to Electroacoustic Composition. Organised Sound 15(2): 125–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355771810000117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhagwati, S. 2008. Towards Interactive Onscreen Notations for Comprovisation in Large Ensembles. In Lasker, G. E., Luz, M. A., and Dack, J. (eds.) Systems Research in the Arts and Humanities. Windsor: International Institute for Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 43–9.Google Scholar
Boden, M. A. and Edmonds, E. A. 2009. What is Generative Art? Digital Creativity 20(1–2): 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bown, O., Eldridge, A. and McCormack, J. 2009. Understanding Interaction in Contemporary Digital Music: From Instruments to Behavioural Objects. Organised Sound 14(2): 188–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355771809000296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, H. J. 2017. An Acoustic Turn? Recent Developments and Future Perspectives of Sound Studies. Avant: Trends in Interdisciplinary Studies 8. https://doi.org/10.26913/80102017.0101.0005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardew, C. A. 1969. Scratch Orchestra: Draft Constitution. The Musical Times 110 (1516): 617–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, T. 2020. On Ecocomposition: An Interview with Damián Keller. Journal of Digital Media & Interaction 3(5): 112–13.Google Scholar
Chakraborty, S., Yaseen, A., Timoney, J., Lazzarini, V. and Keller, D. 2022. Adaptive Touchless Whole-Body Interaction for Casual Ubiquitous Musical Activities. Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference (ICMC2022), Limerick, Ireland, 132–8.Google Scholar
Connors, T. M. 2015. Audiovisual Installation as Ecological Performativity. Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on Electronic Art (ISEA 2015). Vancouver, Canada: ISEA.Google Scholar
Curran, A. and Teitelbaum, R. 1989. Musica Elettronica Viva. Program notes for MEV Festival, the Knitting Factory, New York. www.alvincurran.com/writings/mev.html (accessed 20 December 2023).Google Scholar
Dodge, C. 1970. Program notes to Earth’s Magnetic Field. Nonesuch LP H 71250.Google Scholar
Donald, M. 2006. Art and Cognitive Evolution. In Turner, M. (ed.) The Artful Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudas, R. 2010. Comprovisation: The Various Facets of Composed Improvisation within Interactive Performance Systems. Leonardo Music Journal 20: 29–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujak, J. 2011. Comprovisación: Notas para la discusión sobre la validez del concepto. Oro Molido 33: 24–30.Google Scholar
Gomes, J., Pinho, N., Lopez, F., Costa, G., Dias, R., Tudela, D. and Barbosa, Á. 2014. Capture and Transformation of Urban Soundscape Data for Artistic Creation. Journal of Science and Technology of the Arts 6(1): 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurevich, M. and Treviño, J. 2007. Expression and Its Discontents: Toward an Ecology of Musical Creation. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression, 106–111.Google Scholar
Hannan, M. 2006. Interrogating Comprovisation as Practice-led Research. In Speculation and Innovation: Applying Practice-Led Research in the Creative Industries. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology,Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 1966. Discourse on Thinking. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Hermann, T. 2011. The Sonification Handbook. Berlin: Logos Publishing House.Google Scholar
Hunt, A. and Hermann, T. 2004. The Importance of Interaction in Sonification. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Auditory Display, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Keller, D. 1999. touch’n’go: Ecological Models in Composition. Master of Fine Arts thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/srs/EcoModelsComposition/Title.html (accessed 20 December 2023).Google Scholar
Keller, D. 2000. Compositional Processes from an Ecological Perspective. Leonardo Music Journal 10: 55–60. https://doi.org/10.1162/096112100570459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, D. 2012. Sonic Ecologies. In Brown, A. R. (ed.) Sound Musicianship: Understanding the Crafts of Music. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 213–227.Google Scholar
Keller, D. 2014. Characterizing Resources in Ubimus Research: Volatility and Rivalry. Cadernos de Informática 8(4): 57–68.Google Scholar
Keller, D., Aliel, L., and Silva, C. R. 2018. The Handy Metaphor: Bimanual, Touchless Interaction for the Internet of Musical Things. Annals of the ubiquitous Music Workshop/Proceedings of the Ubiquitous Music Workshop (ubimus 2018). São João del Rei, Brazil: Ubiquitous Music Group.Google Scholar
Keller, D. and Berger, J. 2001. Everyday Sounds: Synthesis Parameters and Perceptual Correlates. Proceedings of the VIII Brazilian Symposium on Computer Music (SBCM 2001). http://gsd.ime.usp.br/∼lku/site-sbcm/2001/ (accessed 20 December 2023).Google Scholar
Keller, D. and Capasso, A. 2006. New Concepts and Techniques in Eco-Composition. Organised Sound 11(1): 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355771806000082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, D. and Lazzarini, V. 2017. Ecologically Grounded Creative Practices in Ubiquitous Music. Organised Sound 22(1): 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, D., Lazzarini, V. and Pimenta, M. S. (Eds.). 2014. Ubiquitous music. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, D., Messina, M. and Oliveira, F. Z. 2020a. Second Wave Ubiquitous Music. Journal of Digital Media & Interaction 3(5): 5–20.Google Scholar
Keller, D., Simurra, I. and Messina, M. 2020b. Toward Anticipatory Ubimus. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Creative Technologies, 7(24). https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.13-7-2018.164664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, D. and Truax, B. 1998. Ecologically Based Granular Synthesis. Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference (ICMC 2010). Ann Arbor, MI: MPublishing, University of Michigan Library.Google Scholar
Lazzarini, V. and Keller, D. 2021. Towards a Ubimus Archaeology. In Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Ubiquitous Music (UbiMus 2020). Porto Seguro: g-ubimus.Google Scholar
Lazzarini, V., Keller, D., Otero, N. and Turchet, L. (Eds.) 2020. Ubiquitous Music Ecologies. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, G. E. 2000. Too Many Notes: Computers, Complexity and Culture in Voyager. Leonardo Music Journal 10: 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1162/096112100570585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lima, M. H., Keller, D., Pimenta, M. S., Lazzarini, V. and Miletto, E. M. 2012. Creativity-centred Design for Ubiquitous Musical Activities: Two Case Studies. Journal of Music, Technology and Education 5(2): 195–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messina, M. and Aliel, L. 2019. Ubiquitous Music, Gelassenheit and the Metaphysics of Presence: Hijacking the Live Score Piece Ntrallazzu 4. Perception, Representations, Image, Sound, Music – 14th International Symposium on Computer Music Multidisciplinary Research, Marseille, France, 14–18 October.Google Scholar
Messina, M. and Aliel, L. 2023. Things, Objects, Subjects and Stuff: IoMuSt and Ubimus Perspectives on AI. IEEE Big Data 2023. 1st Workshop on AI Music Generation (AIMG 2023), Sorrento.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nance, R. 2007. Compositional exploratçions of Plastic Sound. PhD thesis, De Montfort University.Google Scholar
O’Callaghan, J. 2013. Orchestration of Ecology, as Ecology. Proceedings of the Music and Ecologies of Sound Symposium, Paris, France. www-artweb.univ-paris8.fr/spip.php?action=acceder_document&arg=1397&cle=76ad47cf4b0914fe3ddb826b37426eff6bdec9e6&file=pdf%2Focallaghan_orchestrationofecologyasecology.pdf (accessed 11 January 2022).Google Scholar
Opie, T. and Brown, A. 2006. An Introduction to Eco-Structuralism. Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference (ICMC 2006). Ann Arbor, MI: MPublishing, University of Michigan Library, 9–12.Google Scholar
Rolfe, C. and Keller, D. 2000. Decorrelation as a By-Product of Granular Synthesis. Proceedings of the XIII Colloquium on Musical Informatics. L’Aquila: AIMI. https://ccrma.stanford.edu/∼dkeller/pdf/Decorrelation2000.pdf (accessed 20 December 2023).Google Scholar
Simurra, I., Messina, M., Aliel, L. and Keller, D. 2023. Creative Semantic Anchoring: Creative-Action Metaphors and Timbral Interaction. Organised Sound 28(1): 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355771822000322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolfi, A. S., Milo, A. and Barthet, M. 2019. Playsound. Space: Improvising in the Browser with Semantic Sound Objects. Journal of New Music Research 48(4): 366–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wessel, D. and Wright, M. 2002. Problems and Prospects for Intimate Musical Control of Computers. Computer Music Journal 26(3): 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aliel et al. supplementary material

Aliel et al. supplementary material 1

Download Aliel et al. supplementary material(Video)
Video 45.6 MB
Supplementary material: File

Aliel et al. supplementary material

Aliel et al. supplementary material 2

Download Aliel et al. supplementary material(File)
File 53.2 KB