Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T01:03:58.052Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Politics of Aesthetic Preference in Participatory Music

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2022

Eric Lemmon
Eric Lemmon*
Affiliation:
Department of Music, Stony Brook University, New York, USA
*
Email: ec.lemmon@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bringing together an array of interdisciplinary subjects, this article seeks to proffer a theory of political aesthetic preference emergent within participatory musical works. Beginning with an overview of imitation in music and then recapping the critical work advanced by Kofi Agawu and Jean-Jacques Nattiez on musical semiology, this article first delves into how musical signs are interpreted and propagated within participatory settings. Subsequently, using Jürgen Habermas’s influential theory on the public sphere as well as the critical revisions to said theory proposed by Nancy Fraser and Michael Warner, participatory musics are conceptualised as constituting the formal space of a public in which the aesthetic direction of a participatory music work is negotiated among participants. Based on an analysis of Luke Dahl, Jorge Herrera and Carr Wilkerson’s multi-user instrument and participatory work TweetDreams, this article discusses the ways in which participant inputs and choices impact the poietic process of the work due to the clear rules that are set up within its interactive and algorithmic protocols for sonification. It concludes by pointing towards other recent research on participatory works, where the framing of participatory musics as a political–aesthetic space leads to broader questions about audience power and how the latter is negotiated and shared, then poses questions for future research on the audience’s choice in refusal and dissensus.

Type
Article
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 28 , Issue 1: Socially Engaged Sound Practices, Part 2 , April 2023 , pp. 53 - 63
Check for updates
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

Agawu, V. K. 2009. Music as Discourse: Semiotic Adventures in Romantic Music. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bishop, C. 2012. Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship. New York and London: Verso.Google Scholar
Blaine, T. and Fels, S. 2003. Contexts of Collaborative Musical Experiences. Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression. Montreal, Canada: Springer International, 129–34.Google Scholar
Calhoun, C. J. 1992a. Introduction: Habermas and the Public Sphere. In Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Calhoun, C. J., ed. 1992b. Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chase, S. and Thomas, P. (eds.) 2010. Changing the System: The Music of Christian Wolff. Farnham, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Dahl, L., Herrera, J. and Wilkerson, C. 2010. TweetDreams. https://vimeo.com/15866424 (accessed 2 December 2021).Google Scholar
Dahl, L., Herrera, J. and Wilkerson, C. 2011. TweetDreams: Making Music with the Audience and the World Using Real-Time Twitter Data. Proceeding of NIME’11. Oslo: NIME.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. W. and Good, J. M. M. 2002. Social and Musical Co-Ordination between Members of a String Quartet: An Exploratory Study. Psychology of Music 30(2): 186–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrah, S. D. 2007. Signifyin(g): A Semiotic Analysis of Symphonic Works by William Grant Still, William Levi Dawson, and Florence B. Price. PhD Thesis, Florida State University.Google Scholar
Fraser, N. 1992. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. In Calhoun, C. (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 109–42.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1962. Strukturwandel Der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen Zu Einer Kategorie der Bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Neuwied, Berlin: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Herrera, J. 2012. TweetDreams TwtNodeSynth3.Ck. Python. https://github.com/jorgehatccrma/TweetDreams (accessed 24 September 2020).Google Scholar
Herrera, J. 2013a. CosineDistance. Py. Python. https://github.com/jorgehatccrma/TweetDreams (accessed 29 December 2020).Google Scholar
Herrera, J. 2013b. TweetDreams Tree. Py. Python. https://github.com/jorgehatccrma/TweetDreams (accessed 24 September 2020).Google Scholar
Jordà, S. 2005. Multi-User Instruments: Models, Examples and Promises. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression, Vancouver: NIME, 23–6.Google Scholar
Lange, B. R. 2008. The Politics of Collaborative Performance in the Music of Pauline Oliveros. Perspectives of New Music 46(1): 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. W., Willette, A., Koutra, D. and Lasecki, W. S. 2019. The Effect of Social Interaction on Facilitating Audience Participation in a Live Music Performance. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Creativity and Cognition. San Diego, CA: ACM, 108–20.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. 2008. A Power Stronger than Itself: The AACM and American Experimental Music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, G. 2014. What Is a Co-Author? The Pew Center for Arts & Heritage, 14 August. www.pewcenterarts.org/post/keynote-essay-george-e-lewis-what-co-author (accessed 24 September 2020).Google Scholar
Lewis, G. 2018. Technosphere Magazine: 5. Rainbow Family. Technosphere Magazine. December 23, 2018. https://technosphere-magazine.hkw.de/p/5-Rainbow-Family-5Aj9nAxzG6zFRAAd9icEvH (accessed on 24 September 2020).Google Scholar
Molino, J. and Ayrey, C. 1990. Musical Fact and the Semiology of Music, trans. J. A. Underwood. Music Analysis 9(2): 113–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monelle, R. 1992. Linguistics and Semiotics in Music. Contemporary Music Studies, vol. 5. Chur, Switzerland, and Philadelphia: Harwood Academic.Google Scholar
Monson, I. 1997. Saying Something: Jazz Improvisation and Interaction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nattiez, J.-J. 1990. Music and Discourse: Toward a Semiology of Music. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. 1932. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rancière, J. 2004. The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible, trans. G. Rockhill. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Rancière, J. 2010. Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics, ed. and trans. S. Corcoran. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. 2006. Group Creativity: Musical Performance and Collaboration. Psychology of Music 34(2): 148–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. 1987. Repetition in Conversation: Toward a Poetics of Talk. Language 63(3): 574–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarasti, E. and Forsell, P. 1996. Musical Semiotics in Growth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press/International Semiotics Institute.Google Scholar
Toelle, J. and Sloboda, J. A. 2019. The Audience as Artist? The Audience’s Experience of Participatory Music. Musicae Scientiae, April.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turino, T. 2008. Music as Social Life: The Politics of Participation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wang, G. 2008. The Chuck Audio Programming Language A Strongly-Timed and On-The-Fly Environ/Mentality. PhD Thesis, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Warner, M. 2002. Publics and Counterpublics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zelter, C. F. and Goethe, J. W. 1892. Goethe’s Letters to Zelter, ed. and trans.A.D. Coleridge. London: George Bell & Sons.Google Scholar