Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T21:48:40.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rethinking Collaboration in Networked Music*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 February 2012

Nicolas Makelberge
Nicolas Makelberge*
Affiliation:
Research Center for Science and Technology of the Arts (CITAR), Portuguese Catholic University – School of the Arts, Rua Diogo Botelho 1327, 4169–005 Porto, Portugal
*
Email: nmakelberge@porto.ucp.pt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues that today's sampling culture, emerging out of pioneering efforts in electroacoustic music in the 1950s carries a similar ethos of autonomy found in many significant advances in music instrumentation throughout history. By looking at the evolution of musical instruments, the author hopes to address these continuous effort towards autonomy, which, if proves legitimate should be of great concern for networked music research that deals with all forms of music praxis of varying reciprocity and group dynamics. By further looking into what sets collaboration apart from cooperation and collective creation, and elaborating on the ‘social’ of music, this paper hopes to extend the discourse on current trends of accessing, shaping and sharing music in solitude, from something often seen as unfortunate and anti-social, to something less so.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 17 , Issue 1: Networked Electroacoustic Music , 14 February 2012 , pp. 28 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to acknowledge the assistance of DESIRE (Marie Curie Initial Training Network), CITAR, CIANT and Dr Alvaro Barbosa.

References

Abra, J., Abra, G. 1999. Collaboration and Competition. In Steven R. Pritzker and Mark A. Runco (eds) Encyclopedia of Creativity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Attali, J. 1985. Noise: The Political Economy of Music, trans. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Barbosa, A. 2008. Displaced Soundscapes. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
Barthes, R. 1976. The Death of the Author. In Image/Music/Text. London: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
Bernardini, N., De Poli, G., Serra, X., Leman, M., Widmer, G. (eds) 2007. A Roadmap for Sound and Music Computing. http://smcnetwork.org/roadmap.Google Scholar
Blaine, T., Fels, S. 2003. Contexts of Musical Collaboration. Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME–03), Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Blank, M., Davidson, J. 2007. An Exploration of the Effects of Musical and Social Factors in Piano Duo Collaborations. Psychology of Music 35(2): 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, C., Bischoff, J. 2005. Computer Network Music Bands: A History of the League of Automatic Music Composers and the Hub. In A. Chandler and N. Neumark (eds) At a Distance: Precursors to Art and Activism on the Internet. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carôt, A. 2009. Musical Telepresence: A Comprehensive Analysis Towards New Cognitive and Technical Approaches, PhD thesis, Universität zu Lubeck Germany.Google Scholar
Cox, C., Warner, D. 2004. Audio Culture: Readings in Modern Music. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1988. The Dangers of Originality: Creativity and the Artistic Process. In M. Gedo, ed., Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Art. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.Google Scholar
Cutler, C. 1993. Necessity and Choice in Musical Forms. In File under Popular: Theoretical and Critical Writings on Music. New York: Autonomedia.Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P. 1999. What Do you Mean by ‘Collaborative Learning’? In P. Dillenbourg (ed.), Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Amsterdam: Pergamon, Elsevier Science, 1–16.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. 1987. Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.Google Scholar
Eno, B. 1983. The Studio as a Compositional Tool. In C. Cox and D. Warner (eds) Audio Culture: Readings in Modern Music. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. 1982. Art, Mind, Brain: A Cognitive Approach to Creativity. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. 1968. Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Gould, G. 1990. The Prospects of Recording. In T. Page (ed.) The Glenn Gould Reader. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Green, L. 2002. Technoculture: From Alphabet to Cybersex. Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin, 1–20.Google Scholar
Hamilton, A. 2009. Adorno and the Autonomy of Art. In Stefano Giacchetti Ludovisi and G. Agostini Saavedra (eds) Nostalgia for a Redeemed Future: Critical Theory. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press.Google Scholar
Hecker, T. 2008. Glenn Gould, the Vanishing Performer and the Ambivalence of the Studio. Leonardo Music Journal 18: 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hildebrandt, D. 1999. Pianoforte: A Social History of the Piano. New York: George Brazillier.Google Scholar
Hozer, M., Raymont, P. 2011. Genius Within: The Inner Life of Glenn Gould. Documentary, Lorber Films.Google Scholar
Ingarden, R. 1972. Artistic and Aesthetic Values. In H. Osborne (ed.) Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jordà, S. 1999. Faust Music On Line (FMOL): An Approach to Real-time Collective Composition on the Internet. Leonardo Music Journal 9: 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordà, S. 2005. Digital Lutherie: Crafting Musical Computers for New Musics’ Performance and Improvisation. PhD dissertation, Departament de Tecnologia, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Katz, M. 2004. Capturing Sound. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University California Press.Google Scholar
Koestler, A. 1994. The Act of Creation. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Krippner, S. 1999. Altered and Transitional States. In Steven R. Pritzker and Mark A. Runco (eds) Encyclopedia of Creativity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Loesser, A. 1954. Men, Women and Pianos. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Mithen, S. 2005. The Singing Neanderthals. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Murphy, R. 1999. Theorizing the Avant-Garde: Modernism, Expressionism, and the Problem of Postmodernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyman, M. 1999. Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reid, S., Calloway, S., Dukes, R., Byrne, D., Parry, H., Waller, C. 2003. Mixtapes: The Other Music Industry. http://www.mtv.com/bands/m/mixtape/news_feature_021003/index.jhtml.Google Scholar
Renaud, A., Carôt, A., Rebelo, P. 2007. Networked Music Performance: State of the Art. Proceedings of the Audio Engineering Society (AES) 30th International Conference on Intelligent Audio Environments. Saariselka, Finland.Google Scholar
Rogoff, B. 1995. Observing Sociocultural Activity on Three Planes: Participatory Appropriation, Guided Participation, and Apprenticeship. In J. Wertsch, P.D. Rio and A. Alvarez (eds), Sociocultural Studies of Mind. New York: Cambridge University Press, 139–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rojas, P. 2002. Bootleg Culture. http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2002/08/01/bootlegs.Google Scholar
Root-Bernstein, R.S. 2001. Music, Creativity and Scientific Thinking. Leonardo Music Journal 34: 63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roschelle, J., Teasley, S. 1995. The Construction of Shared Knowledge in Collaborative Problem Solving. In C. O'Malley (ed.) Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 69–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, C. 1940. The History of Musical Instruments. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2006.Google Scholar
Sawyer, K. 2006. Group Creativity: Musical Performance and Collaboration. Psychology of Music 34(2): 148–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, C. 1998. Musicking: The Meaning of Performing and Listening. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Storr, A. 1991. Dynamics of Creation. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Suzuki, D.T. 1964. An Introduction to Zen Buddhism. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
Tanaka, A. 2006. Interaction, Experience and the Future of Music. In O. Kenton and B. Brown (eds) Consuming Music Together. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Tanaka, A., Tokui, N., Momeni, A. 2005. Facilitating Collective Musical Creativity. Proceedings of ACM Multimedia 2005. New York, 191–8.Google Scholar
Toop, D. 2005. Haunted Weather, Music, Silence and Memory. London: Serpent's Tail.Google Scholar
Toynbee, J. 2000. Making Popular Music: Musician, Aesthetics and the Manufacture of Popular Music. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Walter, M.N., Fridman, J.N. (eds). 2004. Shamanism: An Encyclopedia of World Beliefs, Practices, and Culture. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
Watts, A. 1957. The Way of Zen. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Weinberg, G. 2003. Interconnected Musical Networks: Bringing Expression and Thoughtfulness to Collaborative Music Making. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Whalley, B. 2009. Synth Britannia. Documentary: BBC Productions.Google Scholar
Willis, P. 1990. Common Culture: Symbolic Work at Play in the Everyday Cultures of the Young. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Winkler, T. 2001. Composing Interactive Music: Techniques and Ideas Using Max. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar