-
Composition Systems Requirements for Creativity: What Research
Methodology?
Barry Eaglestone, Nigel Ford, Ralf Nuhn,Adrian Moore, Guy J
Brown
University of Sheffield
Abstract
One key area that has been largely neglected in research and
development into electroacousticmusic composition systems and tools
is support for composers' creativity, as opposed to audioprocessing
mechanisms by which creative ideas are realized. Our aim is
therefore to seek a basisfor adding "depth" to composition
software, such that it provides a more fertile environmentwithin
which creativity is likely to occur. In this paper we overview
methodological issuesrelating to establishing a research basis for
creating such composition software. Specifically, thepaper
considers the nature of the research problem from both classical
and qualitative researchperspectives. Previous related work is
critically reviewed and the main conclusions we draw arethat the
significance of existing results are limited because of the lack of
a constructivist approachto researching composition within
naturalistic settings, and a focus on musicology and educationto
the exclusion of software consideration. This will inevitably
involve an engagement withcultural issues of electroacoustic music.
In light of these conclusions, the paper then discussesmethodology
options and experimental design for analysis of the composition
process andcreativity related issues in particular. We conclude by
detailing the research design for our ongoingexperiments with
composers, and present an interim snapshot of actual research
carried out. Thisinvestigation is preliminary to deriving
research-based requirements for enhanced compositionsoftware, which
we will prototype and evaluate in the future stage of our research.
We also viewelectroacoustic music composition as a rich instance of
the creative process, and thus aim to derivegeneral techniques for
improved software support for creative individuals.
1 Introduction
Electroacoustic music composition tools and systemsselectively
attempt to provide composers withservices they require for music
generation, e.g., foraccessing, generating, organising and
manipulatingaudio (and other) objects, which constitute
thecomposition. However, a primary aim of compositionsoftware also
is to create conditions in whichcomposers can be creative in the
use of these services.The evolution of composition software with
respectto the former requirements has been dynamic andinnovative,
stimulated by continuing development ofnew programming and audio
synthesis paradigms andtechniques. However, we believe that the aim
ofproviding a fertile environment for creativity has beenlargely
ignored. Specifically, we believe there to be aneed to establish a
research base for enhancement ofsupport within composition software
for creativity.This begs the two questions addressed by this
paper,do research results exist already that can provide
aneffective research base, and if not, how should suchresearch be
conducted?Accordingly, this paper explores the following
issuesrelating to software support for creativity inelectroacoustic
composition. What is the nature of theproblem? What research
already exists which can helpin solving this problem? The main
contribution is adiscussion in which we bring together the reviews
of
the above two issues and draw conclusions withregard to the
inadequacy of research to date forproviding the required research
base, and themethodological research approaches that may providea
more mature and appropriate research base. Themain conclusion is
that this research base can beprovided through qualitative research
in which aconstructivist approach is taken. Specifically,
thisresearch should be a study of composition involvingexperienced
composers working in naturalisticsettings. The paper concludes by
providing asnapshot of on-going research that is following
theproposed methodological model, together with someearly
results.
2 The Nature of the Problem
Electroacoustic music composition software servestwo purposes.
Firstly, it must make available to thecomposer services by which
she can create acomposition, i.e., services to retrieve, manipulate
andcombine musical artifacts. Secondly, the softwaremust provide an
environment within which thoseservices can be used
creatively.Research into digital signal processing and the
artistsuse of sounds is on-going, and consequently,
servicesrelating to musical artifacts are volatile and evolvingas
new techniques and paradigms are integrated intocomposition
software. This is evident, for example,in the proceedings of the
annual International
-
Computer Music Conference series (published by theInternational
Computer Music Association), sincethese provide a showcase for new
research in this area,including new audio-related techniques
andcomposition software.The software environment within which
thoseservices are used creatively has largely been underresearched.
Instead software developers have appliedcurrent wisdom on what
constitutes good softwareengineering. Accordingly, the evolution
ofcomposition software has largely paralleled theevolution of
paradigms in software technology. Thus,early systems, e.g., csound
(Moore, 1990) andcmusic (Vercose, 1985), supported asynchronous
useand resembled assembler programming languages,whereas subsequent
languages and systems firstintroduces higher-level abstractions,
and later objectorientation. Similarly, there has been a move
fromasynchronous to synchronous systems, and from textto graphical
user interfaces.There are exceptions to the above, where
compositionsoftware diverges radically from conventionalsoftware
engineering wisdom. For example,
Thonk(http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/programs/Thonk/)generates sounds
from audio files using granularsynthesis techniques, and boasts
that the user has nocontrol whatsoever over the process. Thus, this
toolcan be used to generate unanticipated material tosolve writers
blocks without them having to think atall. However, such tools are
the exception, and forthe main part, composition software has
followed amore conservative approach.We believe there to be an
inherent tension betweenprinciples of conventional software
engineering andthe requirements of creative composers (Clowes,2000;
Eaglestone et al, 2001). This tension can beexplained in terms of
models of creativity in theliterature. Creativity is often
characterized by thenotion of divergent as opposed to
convergentthinking (Guilford, 1967), the latter being
associatedwith relatively predictable logical activity andoutcomes,
the former with less logical and predictableactivity and outcomes.
A simple example is providedby early pioneers of flight. These
presumably initiallyworked by analogy with bird flight, and tried
todevise effective flapping wings - a relativelyconvergent
approach. The breakthrough was toconceive of a solution in terms of
a fundamentalreconfiguration of elements of the problem, i.e.
todrive air over a fixed wing - a relatively divergentapproach. The
term "relatively" is important here,since a further breakthrough
may diverge from therelatively convergent idea (now in common
currency)of driving air over a fixed wing. Similarly, forexample, a
musical idea that is innovative andshocking rapidly can become a
tired clich as itbecomes an established technique. The extent
towhich an idea may be thought of as "creative" istherefore time-
and context-dependent. Instances ofcreativity are often thought to
occur as a suddenperception or realisation, occurring when the
person isnot intensely focused on the particular problem. AsGregory
(1987:171) has noted: "our brains are at
their most efficient when allowed to switch fromphases of
intense concentration to ones in which weexert no conscious control
at all. De Bono (1987)has described the first stage of thinking as
theperception stage - how we look at the world, and theconcepts and
perceptions that we form; and thesecond stage as the processing
stage - what we dowith the perceptions. He considers that logic can
onlybe used in the second stage since it requires conceptsand
perceptions to work upon.It may at first sight appear that
computers areirrelevant to creativity, and particularly to De
Bono'sperception stage (De Bono, 1987), in that they arebetter at
convergent than divergent informationprocessing tasks, therefore
having little if any role toplay in supporting creative thinking.
Arguably, toprovide relatively direct computer-based support
forcreativity (as opposed to the more indirect forms ofsupport
currently available), we need further todevelop knowledge
representations and processes, at ahigh level of abstraction,
possibly entailingperceptual pattern recognition and matching
tocomplement logical processing, and entailing someelement of
"non-control", e.g. randomness andserendipity.There is a clear
requirement for a research foundationupon which environments that
better supportcreativity can be based. However, determining howbest
to support creativity in general, and in the area ofelectroacoustic
music composition in particular, isproblematic. As Laske observes,
the kind of musicalknowledge that, if implemented, would
improvecomputer music tools is often not public or evenshared among
experts, but personal, idiosyncraticknowledgethe elicitation of
personal knowledgeand of action knowledge still awaits amethodology
(cited by Polfreman, 1999:31).Thus, an initial research aim should
be to determinewhat research methodologies are most likely to
beeffective in establishing that research base.
3 Related Work
Research into software support for creativity inelectroacoustic
(timbre-based) music composition is alargely neglected area. The
few articles that docontribute to this area of study are discussed
later inthis section.However, there is a small, but more
substantial bodyof research into the composition process
forconventional (pitch-based) composition, largely froma
musicological or educational perspective. Anexcellent and
comprehensive review of this work isgiven in Collins (2001).
Collins identifies fourtheoretical perspectives taken in this work:
stagetheory; emerging-systems theory; information-processing
theory; and Gestalt theory. Stage theoriesmodel the composition as
a staged process, e.g.,preparation, incubation, illumination, and
verification(Wallas, 1926), and mainly rely on biographical
orautobiographical material. Thus, this approach isusually
dependent upon after the event
-
introspections or second source interpretations.Emerging-systems
theories views composition as anevolutionary processes over a
protracted period, andtypically rely on case studies to gain
insights. Morecontroversially, information-processing theories take
amodeling approach, whereby composition isexplained or understood
by constructingcomputational systems, which produce
characteristicoutcomes. Thus this approach is used for
analysisthrough re-synthesis. In each of these cases, theapproach
reduces composition to a procedure. Thoughthis may be useful in
understanding specificcompositions in retrospect, we believe that
it cannotform a basis for composition software. In general, itis
clearly inappropriate for composition software toconstrain
composers by imposing best practice orcharacteristic working
methods and procedures.However, we confer with Collins (2001), that
Gestalttheories provide a more promising basis, since thefocus is
on organizational aspects of problemcomponents, and creativity
through re-configuarationof those components. This approach is
thereforecompatible with the model of creativity as
divergentassociations through flashes of inspiration, discussedin
the previous section. However, most work in thearea has focused on
perception of music, rather thancomposition.Empirical studies are
widely used in audio and musicperception research, but rarely to
research thecomposition process (Sloboda, 1995). Also, theinstances
in which this has been applied, e.g., usingthink-aloud protocols
and computer-based datacollection, reveal the difficulty in
obtaining validresults. Again, Collins (2001) provides an
excellentsurvey of empirical studies in this area. This workfalls
mainly into two categories, the collection of casestudy data, e.g.,
through think-aloud protocols as aprofessional composer composes
(Reitman, 1965), orclose to the event documentation (Eaglestone et
al1993, Collins 2001), and collection of data throughcontrolled
experiment e.g., by setting a group ofpeople an exercise, such as
composing a monophonictune. The subjects of the latter type of
study weretypically students, sometimes children and oftenmusically
untrained (e.g., Bamberger, 1977;Davidson & Welsh,
1988).Collins also identifies the development of datacollection
techniques, from interviews with, andanecdotal evidence of,
composers through to areliance upon the use of verbal protocol
techniques,the use of audio-tapes, and most recently computer-based
data collection systems, but stresses thefollowing limitations to
the scope and depth of theempirical studies. There has been very
little time-based analysis, or studies in naturalistic
settings.Collins explanation of the latter limitation is
thatso-called scientific objectivity, claimed byresearchers, has
been flavoured by their background asexperimental psychologists
rather than musicians.Very few studies go beyond observation of
trivialcomposition exercises, e.g., short monophoniccomposition,
the studies in Reitman (1965) andCollins (2001) being the
exceptions. Finally, most
studies have used only crude and simple soundsources.The nature
of creativity in electroacousic musiccomposition is largely
unresearched, though thereexist a number of reflective and
introspective paperson the requirements of individuals, often
withproposals for future research directions. An exampleis Emmerson
(1989). Emmerson elaborates a modelof composition, the core of
which is a cycle of action,i.e., generation of a musical artifact,
and test, i.e.,evaluation of the artefact. His elaborations
introducean awareness of the importance of a community
andindividual knowledge base and sources ofinspiration. He uses
this model to motivate amanifesto for future research, centred on
the idea thatthe electroacoustic music community should establishan
experimental analysis as a partner to
experimentalcomposition.However, there is a lack of empirical
studies in thisarea. Two rare examples of early work are the
Temaproject (Eaglestone, 1994; Eaglestone et al, 1993) andthe
survey of composers attitudes to the softwarethey use, in Clowes
(2000). The Tema project is ananalysis of composition methods used
to createTema, a piece of electro-acoustic ballet musiccomposed in
1986 by Tamas Ungvary andchoreographed by Peter Raijka. Data for
this studywas Ungvarys diary in which he recorded technicaland
"human" details, including all computerinteractions with
composition software during thecomposition of Tema, and the
motivations andmethod behind each program evocation. A
modelingapproach was taken, using methods associated withsoftware
engineering (Chroust 1989), i.e., analysis oftransformations to
identify objects, events andtransitions, followed by generalization
of activitydescriptions to derive an object-oriented
conceptualmodel. This was in effect a Gestalt approach in so faras
it related to the re-configuring of problemcomponents, as opposed
to a process model. Thismodel thus provided a framework for a
particularcomposition style. However, with hindsight,
theresearchers now believe that the main value of thisstudy was the
qualitative research through study ofelectroacoustic composition in
a naturalistic setting.Clowes (2000) presents a study in which
attitudes ofcomposers to electroacoustic music composition
toolswere surveyed using qualitative and quantitativeresearch
methods, including questionnaires,interviews and the mining of
internet discussiongroup archives. The study explored the
researchquestion, "is composition of electroacoustic musicmade a
more intuitive process through parameters thatcorrelate with human
perception, rather thanphenomenon suggested by spectral analysis,
andinput devices that are closer to the musicalbackground of the
composer?" and attempted to testthe validity of the results of the
Tema project bysurveying a wider population of composers.The above
two studies should be seen as representinga modest start to
investigations in this area. However,they do provide experience in
use of methodology, inaddition to their tentative research
results.
-
In summary, creativity in composition is largelyunder
researched, particularly from the perspective ofcomposition
software. Analysis of compositionaccording to Gestalt principles
provides an approachthat we believe warrants further investigation.
Inparticular, future research should establish knowledgethrough
study of composition in naturalistic settings.Data collection
methods have evolved, butobservation from multiple perspectives and
usingmultiple media may well introduce analysisproblems, and a need
for the development of newtechniques, for example for time
synchronization ofmultiple data sources.A variety of methods have
been used in the researchreviewed, which poses the question, which
have thegreatest efficacy, in which situations should they beused,
and how can they be best used in combinationsto achieve
triangulation. We explore these questionsin greater depth in the
following section.
4 Methodological issues
The preceding review has highlighted that, althoughthere exists
research into the composition process,this largely fails to address
the problems of how it isbest supported by software. Hence, there
is a need forfurther studies of composition, but from a
softwaredevelopment perspective. This in turn begs thequestion, how
should such studies best be conducted?In general, lack of
knowledge, which necessitates theconduct of research, may arguably
be thought of as acurtain preventing us from viewing the reality
beyond or (if we do not accept such an objective notion ofreality)
the relativistic perceptual and conceptualconstructions that we
seek to understand. Ourknowledge may range between two extremes,
whichto some extent map broadly onto so-calledquantitative and
qualitative research approaches(we use these terms as shorthand for
complex clustersof often-associated research
parameters,acknowledging that to do so risks over-simplification).
Once knowledge, which establishesthe nature of the problem, is in
place, furtherengineering approaches then become appropriate
forinvention of technological solutions. These tend tofall into the
modeling and empirical researchcategories. In the current situation
our concern isprimarily to elicit knowledge of composition,
theinvention phase being a future aspiration.There are two further
aspects to the problem ofacquiring new knowledge: how does one
understandthe instance, and how does one gain genericknowledge?
Quantitative approaches may be thoughtof as scattered pinpricks in
the curtain, allowing clearand deep, but narrow and unconnected
views throughto the reality (or relativistic constructions)
beyond.This limitation stems from the fact that muchquantitative
research is based only upon that which iscontrollable and
measurable, and thus omits, forexample, the complex human
dimension. Thus, inthe music domain, quantitative approaches
mayestablish simplistic generalisations on composition
through identification of statistically
verifiablecorrespondences between the activities of composers,but
will not deliver a deep understanding of how anyindividual
composes.Qualitative approaches may be characterised as
moreextensive areas where the curtain is thinned, allowingcomplex,
inter-connected but hazy shapes to showthrough, inviting us to
trace them onto the curtain,elaborating their detail to depict what
we imaginethem to represent. Thus, such techniques will
deliverin-depth understanding of instances of musiccomposition, in
much of its human complexity, butwithout necessarily leading to
reliable generalities.Therefore, the results of qualitative and
quantitativeapproaches are complementary and should often beused in
tandem, recognising the merits of combiningthe advantages of
different research approaches. Forexample, there may be advantages
in combining aquantitative study of the work of a sample
ofcomposers, with a qualitative case study (as in(Clowes, 2001)).
This will allow generalizations tobe validated against the
characteristics of instances,and vice versa. This methodological
pluralism maytake forms ranging from a belief followingFeyerabend
(1975) that any one paradigm is asgood as any other (methodological
relativism), to onein which differences between approaches may be
usedpositively for example, to map different paradigmsonto
different types of problem; to encourage criticalconstructive
dialogue on common phenomena fromthe different perspectives
afforded by differentparadigms; or to blend different paradigms
within asingle study. However, at the same time weacknowledge that
there are counter arguments to theabove idea of triangulation. .
Burrell and Morgan(1979), for example, suggest that:"Contrary to
the widely held belief that synthesis andmediation between
paradigms is what is required, weargue that the real need is for
paradigmatic closure."Olaisen (1991) considers the difference
betweenproblems that may be characterised in terms of "whatwe know
that we don't know" as opposed to "whatwe don't know that we don't
know". The formercategory represents what may be described as
"takingthe next logical step" in a research area, as opposed
toapproaches in which the bounds of the problem aresurrounded by
more uncertainty, and the results areless susceptible to precise
anticipation. Such a focusarguably entails relatively convergent
thinking incomparison with the type of thinking that isappropriate
to the second type of problem.Olaisen (1991) considers that the
"what we don'tknow that we don't know" type of problem
ischaracterised by high-complexity, an emphasis onsocial-intuitive
as opposed to more logico-mathematical analysis, and "sensitising"
as opposedto "definitive concepts. Sensitising concepts(Olaisen,
1991: 254) are somewhat tentative andspeculative concepts that:
"... offer a general sense ofwhat is relevant and will allow us to
approachflexibility in a shifting, empirical world to 'feel out'and
'pick one's way in an unknown terrain."Approaches geared towards
this type of problem, and
-
to developing sensitising concepts arguably entailrelatively
divergent thought or what we have referedto above as creativity. In
an extreme form, thisapproach represents what de Bono (1987) has
termed"lateral" thinking. It must, however, be acknowledgedthat
creative thinking may also entail levels ofconvergent, as well as
divergent thought (Ford,2000), and that assuming any
exclusivecreative/divergent correspondence would be
over-simplistic.We argue that the state of our knowledge in the
fieldof musical creativity at least at the level ofcomplexity that
forms the focus of our researchinterest is not yet well endowed
with definitiveconcepts offering the certainty, control
andanticipation appropriate to relatively quantitativeresearch
approaches. Rather, the field is characterisedby the need to
establish exploratory and relativelytentative sensitising concepts.
Our belief is that thecomplementary use of the strengths of
differentapproaches used in combination will be bothdesirable and
necessary. Our argument here is that theintegration of relatively
quantitative approaches willbe more appropriate at a later stage.
An analogy maybe seen with software engineering. The
Multiviewmethodology is a combination of soft systemsmethodology
and structured techniques, based on thetheory that the former
relatively qualitative techniquemust precede the latter modeling
approach in order toestablish the nature of the problem.We are
aware that either a qualitative or quantitativeapproach if used in
isolation risks its owncharacteristic limitations. Quantitative
researchwithout qualitative mediation may often producehighly
reliable answers to highly meaninglessquestions. But without some
element of quantitativetesting, the subjective analysis of
introspections,typical of qualitative research, may often
supplyhighly meaningful questions with highly unreliableanswers.
Some balance and integration must beachieved between the two
extremes.In summary, this section has argued for researchbased upon
both qualitative and quantitativeapproaches to establish a research
base forcomposition software support for creativity. However,it has
also identified a need for a preliminary phase ofstudy which is
predominantly qualitative, so as firstto identify the sensitising
concepts for this domain,and thus better establish the parameter of
the researcharea and research tools. Further, taking into
accountour conclusions to the review of related work, weidentify an
immediate need for qualitative studies ofprofessional and expert
composers at work.In the following section we illustrate and
evaluate theapplication of the above strategy by describing
andjustifying the research methodology for our
on-goingresearch.
5 A Snap Shot Of An On-GoingStudy
This penultimate section discusses methodologicalissues relating
to the first phase of our on-goingresearch into electroacoustic
music composition. Inthis work we are applying the strategy argued
in thepreceding sections, i.e., we are taking a qualitativeapproach
to analysis of data collected throughobservation of composers at
work.The first phase of our investigation consists of in-depth case
studies of only a few composers. Ourapproach follows the
naturalistic paradigm asdescribed by Guba and Lincoln (1985), which
stressesthe existence of multiple constructed realities and onthe
need to remain true to context.A central aspect of this
naturalistic paradigm is thetriangulation of different data
gathering methods.According to Erlandson et al (1993),
triangulationleads to credibility of the naturalistic inquiry,
andhence increases the truth value of the study. The
termcredibility replaces the notion of internal validity ina more
conventional inquiry.An equally important feature of the
naturalistic modeof inquiry is the absence of a clearly
definedhypothesis before the data collection begins.Consequently
there is no predefined goal how toanalyse the data, but data
collection and data analysisare an interactive process, and in an
ideal situation,theory will emerge from the data alone.This section
is organized to describe and justify eachof the data collection
methods used, in turn. Thesection concludes with an evaluation of
the methodsand preliminary analysis of the data collected
byapplying these.
6.1 Data Collection Methods
Collection of data through observation of composersat work in
problematic. It is not possible to see intothe minds of the
composers, as we would wish, andso inferences must be made from
that which isobservable. Accordingly, we therefore attempted
tocapture as complete a picture as possible through arange of
techniques, i.e., verbal protocol techniques,computer data, video
recording and unstructured andsemi-structured interviews. These are
discussedrespectively in the following sub-sections.
Verbal Protocol
Sloboda (1995) strongly favors think-aloud protocols- to have a
living composer speaking all his or herthoughts out loud to an
observer or a tape recorderwhile they are engaged in composition -
as the mosteffective data gathering method to capture the natureof
the compositional process.However, Sloboda himself as well as other
researcherspoint out that, the think-aloud protocol is notwithout
dangers. In particular when utilizing aconcurrent protocol,
verbalization can affect thecompositional process in as much as it
can negativelyinterfere with the creative flow.With the rationale
to make the process ofverbalization as unobtrusive and natural as
possible,
-
in the first data collection exercise, two composersworking
together on a single composition wereobserved. The subjects were
selected because they areused to composing in collaboration with
others, andalso they have complementary approaches, one
beingmethodically oriented and the other intuitive, or toput it in
different terms, one being an academiccomposer the other one a
non-academic composer.This idea does not only reflect the notions
of dialecticsynthesis and maximum variety sampling pertinent tothe
naturalistic paradigm, but it also echoes ourideological position,
which is to bridge the gapbetween academic and non-academic sectors
of timbrebased music. For a comprehensive analysis of thecultural
gap between these two fractions the reader isreferred to Cascone
(2000).
Video camera recording
Additionally, we also video-taped the physicaldimension of the
composition scenario. Therecording of the physical interaction
between the twocomposers as well as between composers andcomputers
(i.e. physical computer input devices)addresses Ericssons and
Simons findings, that whensubjects are involved in physical
manipulation they"appear to lack a mediating symbolic
representationthat can be readily encoded into the verbal
code"(cited by Collins, 2001:102). Hence, the videotapingshould be
regarded as a complementary method to theverbal interaction
protocol.
Computer data
The most obvious source of data in computer musiccomposition is
produced by the composition toolsthemselves. In prior, process
based research ofconventional music composition, computer data
havemainly been used in the form of midi save-as files,audio files
and screenshots.We believe that this snap shot approach is
toofragmental and also puts an unnecessary burden onthe composers
mind, because she has to constantlyconsider as to what is a
noteworthy developmentwithin the composition process. We have
thereforeintroduced a permanent capturing of the compositionprocess
by simply connecting a video recorder to thevideo output port of
the computer. This provides aremarkably rich record, not only of
the evocation ofsoftware processes, but also of some of the
nuancesapparent in the intervening manipulations of inputdevices,
e.g., hesitation and hovering over icons, andtheir relative
timing.
Interviews
At the end of the one-day composition scenario therewill be an
unstructured , reflective interview wheretopics and incidents that
have arisen during the taskwill be reflected on.Further, we will
resort to semi-structured interviews,which will be conducted at a
preliminary meetingwith the composers . These will provide
background
information about the composers and cover moregeneral
composition related areas, such as therelationship between composer
and computer,attitudes to computer music composition. Inparticular
we will try to shed light on those lengthyperiods of time that are
difficult to monitor, wherecomposers gain inspiration for
compositions.A distinctive feature of both interviews is
theencouragement of respondents to enrich their answerswith
metaphors. We believe that metaphors are a verypowerful tool to
mediate meaning between respondentand researcher or between a
persons interior worldand the exterior reality. We would like to
join Eisnerwhen he discusses metaphor: What is ironic is thatin the
professional socialization of educationalresearchers, the use of
metaphor is regarded as a signof imprecision; yet, for making
public the ineffable,nothing is more precise than the artistic use
oflanguage. Metaphoric precision is the central vehiclefor
revealing the qualitative aspects of life. (cited byJanesick,
2000:380)
6.2 Evaluation
The following subsection will summarize andevaluate the
practical implications regarding the studyof our first pair of
composers.In order to stay true to our naturalistic objective,
thecomposers were involved in defining the situationwithin which
they worked. In particular, we adoptedtheir request to work on
separate computers for themost part of the composition process,
theconsequences of which will be implied by thefollowing
discussion.The working process between the two composers,from now
on referred to as Richard and Martin, wentextremely smoothly and
both assured the researcherthat they felt the situation was pretty
natural. Theydidnt feel they were taking part in a
scientificexperiment, but rather experiencing an intense,
butenjoyable situation.They stated that even though there wasnt
muchverbal exchange, they had a fair amount of exchangeby listening
to each others sonic output and also viathe Ethernet file
exchange.When they were asked about the lack of verbalexchange,
Richard stated that the main reasons were,the intensity of the
working process and the worrynot to interfere with his colleagues
flow ofcomposing. This being the first time the twocomposers had
worked together, he compared thesituation to being on a first date
where one feelsslightly awkward and is on ones best behavior.Again,
Richard assured us that the presence of theresearcher didnt really
bother him, because heregularly performs in front of people
anyway.The verbal exchange increased drastically as soon asthe
composers worked on the final phase of thecomposition day, which
was the arranging andediting of the final outcome on one shared
computer.As became apparent during the composition task aswell as
in the reflective interview, the time restrictionof one day, was
initially an exciting challenge for the
-
composers, but we all realized that this time periodwas simply
not enough to bring the compositionalprocess to a satisfying, and
more importantly,naturalistic result. The composers request to work
on separate computersduring the first, and longest stage of the
compositionprocess, their obvious reluctance and difficulties
toincrease the verbal exchange during this first stage,and the
shortage of time strongly implied arethinking of the methodological
approach. In thereflective interview, Richard made clear that he
wouldfeel a lot more comfortable to talk concurrently aboutwhat he
is doing while working on his own. The nextobservation will
therefore only involve one composerand the time limit will be
extended.It became also apparent that the relationship
betweenresearcher and research subject is of utmostimportance for
the success of the project. Richardpointed out that composing is a
pretty private andpersonal thing, and therefore to share this
processwith an observer requires a relationship based onfamiliarity
and trust. This opinion is in line with ourown assumptions, that
one must create anconstructivist, experimental and individually
tailoredresearch situation, in order to investigate a processwhich
is highly experimental, uncontrollable andpersonal.In terms of the
actual data colleted we found that onlya single observation day had
produced an amount ofdata that was already hard to manage. In
particular theidea of analyzing the data produced by
threesimultaneous video tapes running (the video outputof the two
computers plus the video camera) seems inhindsight rather
illusory.Looking at the actual data it became apparent that onehas
to be very careful, when analyzing thecomposition process solely
according to the computeroutput. For example, in one particular
five minutesection, the action (image and sound) on thecomputer
screen seemed to point towards a veryunfocused and frustrated phase
within thecomposition process. However, when we juxtaposedthe
computer output with the video camera recordingof that same section
we were surprised to notice thatthe composer had taped the output
on minidisk andwas actually improvising on the computer during
thatcrucial time. He also seemed to be rather pleased
thanfrustrated with the result. On the other hand it can bevery
useful to concentrate on the computer datawithout any comments by
the composer, as thesecomments might sometimes be an interpretation
ofwhat the composer thinks he is doing rather thanreflecting what
he is actually doing.
6.5 Data analysis, preliminary results:
Already, in the initial interview it became evidentthat our
findings from previous research, i.e.Eaglestones and Clowes
studies, were rather likely tobe confirmed. For instance,
randomness and chance asa conceptual approach to composition as
well as interms of embracing accidental results during theprocess
of composition seem to be favored by both
composers and were confirmed in their compositionalbehavior.The
composition process reflected our earlier notionabout a combination
of divergent and convergentbehavior within the creative process.
Whereas the firstphase of the composition process mainly consisted
ofthe creation of a variety of short-ish sound artifacts,in which
the composers seemed to express a desire tointuitively expand the
sonic spectrum of the overallsound material, the final phase was
distinguished bya much more methodological effort to make sense
ofthe material created and to work out strategies on howto put the
material together. However, this mixture ofdivergent and convergent
behavior did not only revealitself on the macro-structural level of
the process, butwas an almost constant feature when dealing
withmore microscopic portions of the sound material.In Richards
case, in particular, we observed veryintuitive, often seemingly
arbitrary, manipulating ofsound files, which, as soon as an initial
acceptableresult was achieved, was followed up by a moremethodical
and deliberate elaboration of that initialresult.Between the two
composers there was a cleardifference in approaching the material.
WhereasRichard stated he always tries to stay as open aspossible to
whats contained within the [sound]material and obviously was
looking forcompositional inspiration in the sounds provided,Martin
stated that he had some ideas as to how hemight approach the
material prior to the composition.Martins working process was
overall moremethodical and guided by preconceived concepts, e.g.he
made notes about certain features of sounds withthe intention of
exploring those features in a custom-made piece of audio software.
However, in terms ofthe audio material produced the two
composersseemed to share a very similar aesthetic awarenessbased on
the fascination and involvement with thetimbral contents of
sounds.Without making any claims on scientific correctnessor
epistemological soundness at this point, webelieve that there are
several pointers in the initial andthe reflective interview and,
more importantly, in thedata obtained by the observation of the
compositionprocess, which indicate that an analysis based on
theapplication of Gestalt concepts might be particularlyappropriate
and fruitful.For example, we have detected several incidenceswhere
the overall Gestalt of one sound file was usedas an Gestalt stencil
according to which asubsequent sound or sound sequence
was(consciously or unconsciously) shaped . This
Gestalttransposition did not only occur between sound filesof
similar lengths (lower level structures), but thosestructural
stencils were also transposed and imposedon the macro-structural
level of the composition.One composers idea, which is to just
dumpeverything on one tiny little hard drive and you makethat the
item that is published further underlines theidea that, at least
some, electroeacooustic composerstry to defy the notion of a fixed,
time-lined structureof audio events, but instead emphasize on
the
-
relationships between all sound events and possiblytry to
involve the listener in the structuring process.One could argue
that this notion draws attention toearly philosophically grounded
claims of Gestaltthought, which emphasizes on the relation
shipbetween the different parts of a system and thedynamic nature
of those systems. Reybrouck (1997:64) has pointed out, that
incontrast with a geometrical figure, the temporal,successive
nature of a music/sound hampers theholding of a musical Gestalt as
a whole. It can,however, be grasped in a monothetic way if
lengthymusical material is conceptualised. Monotheticgrasping can
then be defined as a combination ofactual and virtual impressions
of soundWe believe that especially in the case of computerbased
composition, or at least as far as thecompositional behavior of (at
least one of) ourindividuals is concerned , the virtual impressions
ofsound are visualised by the graphic representation ofsound on the
computer screen, e.g. as a soundspectrum in the form of energy
variations in the time-frequency plane, and thus the Gestalt-like
perceptionof sound is actively reinforced. Moreover, research
inauditory scene analysis suggests that not only theordering of
simultaneous sound events but also thegrouping of sound events over
time is mediated byGestalt principles (Bregman, 1990; see
alsoGodsmark & Brown, 1999, for a computationalaccount). These
findings make our translation ofGestalt principles from the visual
to the auditorydomain all the more plausible.
6 Conclusions
In this paper we have identified the need for a researchbase for
enhancement of electroacoustic musiccomposition software, such that
creativity is bettersupported, and discussed how this research
should beconducted. Weaknesses of most related studies
ofconventional (pitch-based) composition have been thereliance on
after the evant introspections andobservations of composition, or
experimental datacollected from unnatural settings through
oversimplistic composition exercises, involving non-expert
composers. Further, these have been fromeducational and
musicological perspectives, and havenot addressed software
requirements. The proceduralexplanations derived in this work fail
to provide arealistic basis for software support, since this
shouldbe enabling, rather than prescriptive. We thereforeidentified
a need for future research intoelectroacoustic music composition
involving expertcomposers in naturalistic settings, possibly taking
aGestalt perspective.Further, we argue that, given the preliminary
stage ofthis research, initially a qualitative research
approachshould be taken, in order to identify sensitizingconcepts
which will more clearly establish theparameters of the problem and
methods that shouldbe used. We then envisage a second phase, in
whichboth qualitative and quantitative methods will be
used in tandem to achieve triangulation. Research-based
invention of software devices to improvesupport for creativity are
therefore a future aspiration,at which stage engineering
methodology will alsobecome appropriate.Finally, the paper has
described methodology issuesrelating to our on-going research
towards establishinga basis for composition software enhancement.
Thisstudy involves observation of professional composersat work.
This research is currently at a piloting stage,in which much
attention is being given to therefinement of the methodology and
researchinstruments. A number of principles are emergingfrom this
pilot study. These include: observationfrom multiple perspective is
necessary, since a singleview, e.g., computer interactions only,
can givemisleading clues; a more complete picture is givenby
observation through multiple complementaryviews, but care must be
taken to avoid datasaturation; it is more important to adapt to the
needsof the composer, rather than the needs of datacollection,
since data collected in a unnatural oruncomfortable setting may be
meaningless; therelationship between the researcher and subject is
ofgreat importance, since it will determine the opennessof
composers, both conscious and subconscious, tothe observer; and
finally, our initial work has verystrongly confirmed to us that
getting inside the mindof a composer is a very difficult research
problem.
7 AcknowledgmentsThis ongoing research has been partly funded by
theMosart Research Network
programme.(http://www.diku.dk/research-groups/musinf/MOSART.html),
funded under the EU Framework 5
References
Bregman, A.S. (1990) Auditory Scene Analysis.Boston, MA: MIT
Press.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. Sociological paradigmsand
organisational analysis. London:Heinemann, 1979, 397-8.
De Bono, E. (1987). Oxford Companion to theMind.
Cascone, K. (2000). The Aesthetics of failure: Post-Digital
Tendencies in Contemporary ComputerMusic. The Computer Music
Journal, 24(4),12-18.
Chroust, G. (1989) Duplicate Instances of Elementsof a Software
Process Model, ACM SIGSOFTSoftware Engineering Notes 14:4, June
1989,pp 61-64.
Clowes, M (2000) An investigation of compositionalpractices in
the field of electro-acoustic music,with an evaluation of the main
softwareenvironments currently in use. Dissertation,Master of
Science in Information Management,The University of Sheffield.
-
Collins, D. (2001) Investigating computer-basedcompositional
processes: a case-study approach.Ph.D. Thesis. The University of
Sheffield.
Eaglestone, B.M. (1994) An Artistic DesignSystem, SOFSEM '94
Invited Talks, Milovy,Czech Republic, Czech Society of
ComputerScience, pp 15-37.
Eaglestone, B.M., Davies, G.L., Ridley, M., Hulley,N. (1993)
Implementation of an ArtistsVersions Model using Extended
RelationalDatabase Technology, Advances in Databases,BNCOD-11,
Keele, UK, July 1993, LectureNotes in Computer Science, Springer
Verlag,pp 258-276.
Eaglestone, B.M., Holton, R., Rold, L. (1996)GENREG: A
Historical Data Model Based onEvent Graphs, 7th International
Conference onDatabase and Expert Systems Applications(DEXA96),
Zurich, September, 1996, LectureNotes in Computer Science 1134,
Springer, pp254-263.
Erlandson, D. A. et al (1993). Doing naturalisticenquiry. Sage
Publications, London.
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method: outline of ananarchist
theory of knowledge. London: NewLeft Books.
Ford, N. (2000) Improving the darkness to light ratioin
information retrieval research. Journal ofDocumentation, 56(6),
624-643.
Godsmark, D. & Brown, G. (1999). A blackboardarchitecture
for computational auditory sceneanalysis. Speech Communication, 27,
pp351-366.
Janesick, V. J. (2000). The Choreography ofQualitative Research
Design. In Denzin, N. K.& Lincoln Y. S. (eds.), Handbook
ofQualitative Research (2nd ed.). SagePublications, Thousand Oaks,
CA, USA.
Gregory, R.L. (ed.) (1987) The Oxford companion tothe mind.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moore, R.F.(1990) Elements of Computer Music, byF. Richard
Moore, Prentice-Hall.
Olaisen, J. (1991). Pluralism or positivistictrivialism:
important trends in contemporaryphilosophy of science. In H.E.
Nissen, H.K.Klein & R. Hirschheim (Eds.). Informationsystems
research: contemporary approaches andemergent traditions.
Amsterdam: Elsevier. pp.235-265.
Polfreman, R., (1999), A task analysis of musicalcomposition and
its application to thedevelopment of Modalyser, Organised Sound
4(1)
Sloboda, J. (1995). Do psychologists have anythinguseful to say
about composition? Paperpresented at the Third European Conference
of
Music Analysis, Montpellier, France, 16-19February. Courtesy of
the author.
Ungvary, T., Waters, S.and Rajka, P. (1992)Nuntius: A computer
system for the interactivecomposition and analysis of music and
dance.Leonardo (Pergamon Press, Oxford). No.1.
Ungvary,T., Kieslinger, M. (1998) Creative andInterpretative
Processmilieu for Live-Computermusic with the Sentograph. "
InControlling creative processes in music(Herausgegeben von R.
Kopiez und W.Auhagen). Publisher : Peter Lang, Frankfurt amMain.
(Schriften zur Musikpsychologie undMusiksthetik. ISBN :
3-631-33116-9
Vertegaal, R. & Ungvary, T. (1995) The Sentograph:Input
devices and the communication of bodilyexpression. Proceedings of
the InternationalCompuer Music Conference, San Francisco,Computer
Music Association, pp 253-256.
Vertegaal,R:, Ungvary,T, Kieslinger, M. (1996) TheMusician's
Cockpit: Transducers, Feedback andMusical Function. in the
Proceedings ofICMC96- Hong-Kong. Published
by{HYPERLINK"http://music.dartmouth.edu/~icma/"}.
De Bono, E. (1987). Oxford Companion to theMind.
Chroust, G. (1989) Duplicate Instances of Elementsof a Software
Process Model, ACM SIGSOFTSoftware Engineering Notes 14:4, June
1989,pp 61-64.
Clowes, M (2000) An investigation of compositionalpractices in
the field of electro-acoustic music,with an evaluation of the main
softwareenvironments currently in use. Dissertation,Master of
Science in Information Management,The University of Sheffield.
Eaglestone, B.M. (1994) An Artistic DesignSystem, SOFSEM '94
Invited Talks, Milovy,Czech Republic, Czech Society of
ComputerScience, pp 15-37.
Eaglestone, B.M., Davies, G.L., Ridley, M., Hulley,N. (1993)
Implementation of an ArtistsVersions Model using Extended
RelationalDatabase Technology, Advances in Databases,BNCOD-11,
Keele, UK, July 1993, LectureNotes in Computer Science, Springer
Verlag,pp 258-276.
Eaglestone, B.M., Holton, R., Rold, L. (1996)GENREG: A
Historical Data Model Based onEvent Graphs, 7th International
Conference onDatabase and Expert Systems Applications(DEXA96),
Zurich, September, 1996, LectureNotes in Computer Science 1134,
Springer, pp254-263.
-
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method: outline of ananarchist
theory of knowledge. London: NewLeft Books.
Gregory, R.L. (ed.) (1987) The Oxford companion tothe mind.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Olaisen, J. (1991). Pluralism or positivistictrivialism:
important trends in contemporaryphilosophy of science. In H.E.
Nissen, H.K.Klein & R. Hirschheim (Eds.). Informationsystems
research: contemporary approaches andemergent traditions.
Amsterdam: Elsevier. pp.235-265.
Polfreman, R., (1999), A task analysis of musicalcomposition and
its application to thedevelopment of Modalyser, Organised Sound
4(1)
Ungvary, T., Waters, S.and Rajka, P. (1992)Nuntius: A computer
system for the interactivecomposition and analysis of music and
dance.Leonardo (Pergamon Press, Oxford). No.1.
Ungvary,T., Kieslinger, M. (1998) Creative andInterpretative
Processmilieu for Live-Computermusic with the Sentograph. "
InControlling creative processes in music(Herausgegeben von R.
Kopiez und W.Auhagen). Publisher : Peter Lang, Frankfurt amMain.
(Schriften zur Musikpsychologie undMusiksthetik. ISBN :
3-631-33116-9
Vercoe, B. (1985). The Csound Music SynthesisLanguage .
Cambridge, MA: Media Lab,
MITftp://sound.media.mit.edu/pub/Csound.
Vertegaal, R. & Ungvary, T. (1995) The Sentograph:Input
devices and the communication of bodilyexpression. Proceedings of
the InternationalCompuer Music Conference, San Francisco,Computer
Music Association, pp 253-256.
Vertegaal,R:, Ungvary,T, Kieslinger, M. (1996) TheMusician's
Cockpit: Transducers, Feedback andMusical Function. in the
Proceedings ofICMC96- Hong-Kong. Published
by{HYPERLINK"http://music.dartmouth.edu/~icma/"}.
