Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T01:47:20.184Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ear Talk Project: Participatory co-composition on YouTube and the Web

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 February 2022

Toshihisa Tsuruoka*
Affiliation:
1Composer, Tokyo, Japan.
Brian Ellis*
Affiliation:
2Composer, New York, USA.
Leo Chang*
Affiliation:
3Composer, New York, USA.

Abstract

In this article, we present Ear Talk – a co-composition and live performance project that enables remote music collaboration through technologically mediated systems. The Ear Talk project currently exists in two distinct implementations, one that repurposes YouTube’s live-streaming technology, and one that utilises a stand-alone website. Although Ear Talk was conceived prior to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, the necessity for remote collaboration became more apparent during the lockdown, when a vast majority of live events and music concerts were cancelled. The Ear Talk project enables a socially distanced form of online musical collaboration and offers a platform through which to respond to such a crisis, and has grown to be adopted and presented by many different performing groups across the world. In addition to describing the technical implementations of these two systems, we discuss issues that arise from our participatory practice: from musical quality concerns in regard to social aesthetics and artistic ingenuity, to accessibility concerns when designing technologically mediated collaborative systems. Ear Talk embraces continuous musical loops as well as highly asynchronous (i.e., perpetual) collaborative paradigms among remote participants, which raises a conceptual inquiry as to which part of its sonic and social experience constitutes music in the end. Finally, we evaluate performer–audience relationships (i.e., hierarchical versus horizontal interactions) and the efficacy of the Ear Talk systems at enabling socially engaged co-composition.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. 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

Alexa Internet Inc. n.d. Alexa – Top Sites. www.alexa.com/topsites (accessed 12 September 2020).Google Scholar
Born, G. 2017. After relational aesthetics: Improvised musics, the social, and (re)theorizing the aesthetic. In Improvisation and Social Aesthetics. London: Duke University Press, 3358.Google Scholar
Bourriaud, N. 2002. Relational Aesthetics. Paris: Les Presses du reel.Google Scholar
Burns, S. 2015. ArtWorks: Reflections on Developing Practice in Participatory Settings. Paul Hamlyn Foundation. www.phf.org.uk/publications/artworks-reflections-on-developing-practice-in-participatory-settings/ (accessed: 12 September 2020).Google Scholar
Camlin, D. A. 2014. Whose Quality Is It Anyway? Journal of Arts and Communities 6(2–3), 99118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eco, U. 1989. Poetics of the Open Work. The Open Work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ensemble Consensus. n.d. About – Ensemble Consensus. www.ensembleconsensus.org/about (accessed 12 September 2020).Google Scholar
Gaye, L., Holmquist, E. L., Behrendt, F. and Tanaka, A. 2006. Mobile Music Technology: Report on an Emerging Community. Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression. Paris: NIME.Google Scholar
Kant, I. [1790] 2000. Critique of the Power of Judgement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, M. L. 2017. Social Media Engagement: What Motivates User Participation and Consumption on YouTube?. Computers in Human Behavior 66, 236–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. 2010. User-Generated Content (UGC) Revolution?: Critique of the Promise of YouTube. PhD dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Knotts, S. 2015. Changing Music’s Constitution: Network Music and Radical Democratization. Leonardo Music Journal 25, 4752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mignolo, W. D. 2011. The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Durham, NC, and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Quijano, A. 2007. Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality. Cultural Studies 21(2–3), 168–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, C., Wakefield, G. and Wright, M. 2013. The Web Browser as Synthesizer and Interface. A NIME Reader: Current Research in Systematic Musicology 3, 433–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, J. 2008. Google’s Gatekeepers. The New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30google-t.html (accessed 12 September 2020).Google Scholar
Tsuruoka, T., Chang, L. and Hickman, O. 2021. Ear Talk Project: Repurposing YouTube Live for Online Co-composition and Performance. Proceedings of the 2021 International Computer Music Conference. Santiago, Chile: ICMA.Google Scholar
Turino, T. 2008. Music as Social Life: The Politics of Participation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar