Hostname: page-component-76dd75c94c-8c549 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T07:40:24.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ScreenPlay: A topic-theory-inspired interactive system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2020

George Meikle
George Meikle*
Affiliation:
Edge Hill University, Lancashire, UK
*
Email: Meikleg@edgehill.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

ScreenPlay is a unique interactive computer music system (ICMS) that draws upon various computational styles from within the field of human–computer interaction (HCI) in music, allowing it to transcend the socially contextual boundaries that separate different approaches to ICMS design and implementation, as well as the overarching spheres of experimental/academic and popular electronic musics. A key aspect of ScreenPlay’s design in achieving this is the novel inclusion of topic theory, which also enables ScreenPlay to bridge a gap spanning both time and genre between Classical/Romantic era music and contemporary electronic music; providing new and creative insights into the subject of topic theory and its potential for reappropriation within the sonic arts.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 25 , Issue 1: Computation in the Sonic Arts , April 2020 , pp. 89 - 105
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2020

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

Agawu, K. 1991. Playing with Signs. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barthes, R. [1957] 1991. Mythologies, 25th edn. New York City: Noonday Press.Google Scholar
Benford, S. 2010. Performing Musical Interaction: Lessons from the Study of Extended Theatrical Performances. Computer Music Journal 34(4): 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benford, S., Schnädelbach, H., Koleva, B., Anastasi, R., Greenhalgh, C., Rodden, T., et al. 2005. Expected, Sensed, and Desired: A Framework for Designing Sensing-Based Interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 12(1): 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaine, T. and Fels, S. 2003. Collaborative Musical Experiences for Novices. Journal of New Music Research 32(4): 411–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandel, J. 2015. Patatap. http://works.jonobr1.com/Patatap (accessed 11 April 2019).Google Scholar
Brown, C. nd. Collaborations. www.cbmuse.com/collaborations (accessed 13 November 2019).Google Scholar
Dix, A. 1997. Challenges for Cooperative Work on the Web: An Analytical Approach. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing 6(2): 135–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodge, C. and Jerse, T. A. 1997. Composition with Computers. In Computer Music: Synthesis, Composition and Performance, 2nd edn. New York City: G Schirmer Inc.Google Scholar
Drummond, J. 2009. Understanding Interactive Systems. Organised Sound 14(2): 124–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Early Computer Network Ensembles. nd. http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/musicandcomputers/popups/chapter4/xbit_4_3.php (accessed 13 November 2019).Google Scholar
Eco, U. 1976. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fels, S., Gadd, A. and Mulder, A. 2002. Mapping Transparency through Metaphor: Towards more Expressive Musical Instruments. Organised Sound 7(2): 109–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabrielsson, A. and Lindström, E. 2010. The Role of Structure in the Musical Expression of Emotions. In Justin, P. N. and Sloboda, J. A. (eds.) Handbook of Music and Emotion: Theory, Research, Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 367–401.Google Scholar
Garnett, G. E. 2001. The Aesthetics of Interactive Computer Music. Computer Music Journal 25(1): 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J. 1979 [1986]. The Theory of Affordances. In The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 1st edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. and Richards, K. 2008. Bystander. http://katerichards.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/bystander.pdf (accessed 7 August 2019).Google Scholar
Hatten, R. S. 1994. Musical Meaning in Beethoven: Markedness, Correlation, and Interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. E. 2000. Too Many Notes: Computer Complexity and Culture in Voyager. Leonardo Music Journal 10: 33–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippe, C. 1993. A Composition for Clarinet and RealTime Signal Processing: Using Max on the IRCAM Signal Processing System. Proceedings of the 1993 10th Italian Colloquium on Computer Music. Milan, 428–32.Google Scholar
Lippman, E. A. 1984. Progressive Temporality in Music. The Journal of Musicology 3(2): 121–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meikle, G. 2016. Examining the Effects of Experimental/Academic Electroacoustic and Popular Electronic Musics on the Evolution and Development of Human–Computer Interaction in Music. Contemporary Music Review 35(2): 224–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monelle, R. 2000. The Sense of Music: Semiotic Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Monelle, R. 2006. The Musical Topic: Hunt, Military and Pastoral. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, S. 2012. Interval Size and Affect: An Ethnomusicological Perspective. Empirical Musicology Review 7(3–4): 138–43. http://emusicology.org/article/view/3747/3397 (accessed 11 April 2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, D. 1994. Defending Human Attributes in the Age of the Machine. [CD-ROM]Google Scholar
Norman, D. 2002. The Design of Everyday Things. New York City: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Norman, D. 2008. Affordances and Design. https://jnd.org/affordances_and_design/ (accessed 26 February 2019).Google Scholar
Paine, G. 2013. Gestation. www.activatedspace.com/Installation_Works/Gestation/Gestation.html (accessed 7 August 2019).Google Scholar
Poulet, G. 1956. Studies in Human Time, English trans. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Puckette, M. and Lippe, C. 1992. Score Following in Practice. Proceedings of the 1992 International Computer Music Conference. San Francisco: ICMA, 182–5.Google Scholar
Rowe, R. 1994. 1 – Interactive Music Systems. In Interactive Music Systems: Machine Listening and Composing, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–9.Google Scholar
Rowe, R. 1999. The Aesthetics of Interactive Music Systems. Contemporary Music Review 18(3): 83–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, F. de. 1959. Course in General Linguistics, 3rd edn, English trans. New York City: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Smalley, D. 1997. Spectromorphology: Explaining Sound Shapes. Organised Sound 2(2): 107–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STEPSEQUENCER. nd. http://schnellebuntebilder.de/projects/stepsequencer/ (accessed 7 August 2019).Google Scholar
Toch, E. 1948. The Shaping Forces in Music: An Enquiry into the Nature of Harmony, Melody, Counterpoint, Form, 2nd edn. New York City: Criterion Music Corporation.Google Scholar
Waisvisz, M. 2006. The Hands. www.crackle.org/TheHands.htm (accessed 13 November 2019).Google Scholar

INTERACTIVE MUSIC PERFORMANCE SYSTEMS AND INSTALLATIONS

Ableton and Akai Professional. 2013. Push. Berlin and Cumberland, RI: Ableton and Akai Professional. [Dedicated MIDI controller for Ableton Live].Google Scholar
Bischoff, J., Perkins, T., Brown, C., Gresham-Lancaster, S., Trayle, M., and Stone, P. 1987–present. The Hub. [Interactive computer network music ensemble]Google Scholar
fuse*. 2017. DÖKK. Modena: fuse*. [Interactive mixed reality performance]Google Scholar
Gibson, R. and Richards, K. 2004–06. Bystander. Sydney: Ross Gibson and Kate Richards. [Interactive audiovisual gallery installation]Google Scholar
Paine, G. 1999–2001. Gestation. [ICMS]Google Scholar
Timpernagel, J., Heinsch, I., Huber, S., Pohle, R., Haberkorn, M., Bernstein, J., et al. 2013–14. STEPSEQUENCER. Berlin: Schnellebuntebilder. [ICMS]Google Scholar
Waisvisz, M., den Biggelaar, J., Rijnsburger, W., Venmans, H., Cost, P., Demeijer, T., et al. 1984–2006. The Hands. [ICMS]Google Scholar

INTERACTIVE MUSIC GAMES AND DIGITAL MEDIA

Bjoörk. 2011. Biophilia. London: Second Wind, One Little Indian and Well Hart. [Interactive album application]Google Scholar
Boratto, G., Jordá, S., Kaltenbrunner, M., Geiger, G. and Alonso, M. 2012. Reactable Gui Boratto. Barcelona: Reactable. [Interactive music release for Reactable Mobile Android/iOS application]Google Scholar
Brandel, J. 2012–present. Patatap. San Francisco, CA: jonobr1. [Interactive music game]Google Scholar
Division Paris, Skrillex and Creators Project. 2014. http://doompypoomp.skrillex.com/#/. Los Angeles: OWSLA. [Interactive audiovisual website].Google Scholar
Eno, B. and Chilvers, P. 2008. Bloom. Essex: Opal Limited. [Interactive music application]Google Scholar
Eno, B. and Chilvers, P. 2018. Bloom 10: Worlds. Essex: Opal Limited. [Interactive music application]Google Scholar
Flanagan, R. E., Nguyen, Q. and Boom, H. 2011–present. FRACT OSC. Montreal: Phosfiend Systems. [Interactive musical exploration game]Google Scholar
Huntemann, O., Jordá, S., Kaltenbrunner, M., Geiger, G. and Alonso, M. 2012. Reactable Oliver Huntemann. Barcelona: Reactable. [Interactive music release for Reactable Mobile Android/iOS application]Google Scholar
Konami. 1998–present. Dance Dance Revolution. Tokyo: Konami. [Interactive music arcade/video game]Google Scholar
Lady Gaga. 2013. ARTPOP. Santa Monica: Interscope Records. [Interactive album application]Google Scholar
Liine. 2011–present. Lemur. Schoonhoven: Liine. [MIDI/OSC interface design application for Android/iOS]Google Scholar
Madeon. 2015b. Adventure Machine New York City: Columbia. [Web-based ICMS]Google Scholar
Sandler, S., Windle, J. and Muller, L. 2011–present. NodeBeat. San Diego: AffinityBlue. [Interactive generative music application]Google Scholar
So Far So Good. 2011–present. Incredibox. France: So Far So Good. [Interactive music game]Google Scholar
Teengirl Fantasy and 4real. 2014. http://tgfthermal.herokuapp.com/. Carrboro and Durham, NC: Break World Records/New York City: 4real. [Interactive audiovisual website]Google Scholar
WRKSHP. 2016–present. BEAT FEVER – Music Planet. San Francisco: WRKSHP. [Interactive music game]Google Scholar
Yorke, T., Godrich, N. and Donwood, S. 2014. PolyFauna. Sheffield: Universal Everything and Ticker Tape Ltd. [Interactive musical exploration game]Google Scholar

DISCOGRAPHY

Aoki, S. 2018. Neon Future III. New York City: Ultra Music, UL9936.Google Scholar
Booka Shade. 2006. Night Falls. On Movements. Berlin: Get Physical Music, gpm cd006.Google Scholar
Getter. 2018. Visceral. Los Angeles and Toronto: Mau5trap Recordings, MAU50193.Google Scholar
ill.gates. 2011. Otoro. On The Ill. Methodlogy. San Francisco: IODA.Google Scholar
ill.gates. 2012a. The Demon Slayer PT 1. On The Church of Bass. San Francisco: Multi Music.Google Scholar
ill.gates. 2012b. The Demon Slayer PT 2. On The Church of Bass. San Francisco: Multi Music.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. E. 1993. Voyager. Berkeley and Tokyo: Avant, Avan 014. [ICMS/compositions for trombone, saxophone, and electronics]Google Scholar
Lippe, C. 1992/97. Music for Clarinet and ISPW. Kunitachi College of Music, Tokyo: Centre for Computer Music & Music Technology/Los Angeles: Centaur Records, CRC 2310. [ICMS/composition for clarinet and computer]Google Scholar
Mad Zach. 2018a. Noth feat. Yunis. On Noth. Berlin: Mad Lab Recordings, 010.Google Scholar
Mad Zach. 2018b. Brootle. On Brootle. Toronto: Deadbeats.Google Scholar
Mad Zach and Barclay Crenshaw. 2017. Hiroglifix. On Barclay Crenshaw: Revisited. Los Angeles: STX&BRX.Google Scholar
Madeon. 2015a. Adventure. New York City: Columbia, 88875061141.Google Scholar
Manoury, P. 1988/98. Pluton. Paris, France: IRCAM/Helsinki: Ondine, ODE 888-2. [ICMS/composition for piano and electronics]Google Scholar
Mozart, W. A. 1786. Non più andrai. The Marriage of Figaro, K. 492, score.Google Scholar
Mozart, W. A. 1788–91. Piano Concerto No. 27 in B♭ Major, K. 595, score.Google Scholar
R3HAB. 2017. Trouble. Amsterdam: R3HAB MUSIC, AWD325327.Google Scholar
Rowe, R. 1992/99. Maritime. Reading: Harwood Academic Publishers, Volume 18 Part 3. [ICMS/composition for violin and electronics]Google Scholar
Skrillex. 2014. Doompy Poomp. On Recess. Los Angeles: OWSLA.Google Scholar
Teengirl Fantasy. 2014. THERMAL. Carrboro and Durham, NC: Break World Records. [EP]Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Meikle supplementary material

Meikle supplementary material

Download Meikle supplementary material(File)
File 88.7 MB