Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T13:54:15.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tele-Media and Instrument Making*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 February 2012

Bruce P. Gremo
Bruce P. Gremo*
Affiliation:
No. 2 Xiang Jiang Bei Lu, Quan Fa Villa, Fang Yuan 117, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100102, China
*
E-mail: bgremo@suddensite.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What does it mean to speak of tele-media as a musical instrument? The unfolding of this question is aided by analysis of the control domains of two existing instrument categories, acoustic instruments and digital controllers. Design criteria for making tele-media instruments are formulated thence, and also from consideration of the special capacity of tele-media to bring together multi-lateral non-proximate control sources. Such design anticipates musicians in different continents participating in single sonic outcomes. What does it mean for such a tele-instrument to facilitate virtuosic performance? Any high standard of instrument making urges that instrument makers do so. Virtuosity is understood in part as performance presence, an important issue for tele-media criticism. The broader topic concerning the relation between presence and transmission is represented narrowly here in a single argument. Transmission of performance intention is more important to remote performance presence than literal representations of musicians on stage. Performance presence is better facilitated by interactive graphic notations that dynamically render control domain data into images. Two tele-performances inform the discussion.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 17 , Issue 1: Networked Electroacoustic Music , 14 February 2012 , pp. 73 - 85
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 thank Ken Fields for his help in researching background issues, and for bringing me into the practice of tele-performance.

References

Bischoff, J. 2007. Free Association: Snapshots of an Electroacoustic Musical History. Proceedings of the 2007 Music in the Global Village Symposium. Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
Brown, C. 2007. Know Nothing Network Music. Proceedings of the 2007 Music in the Global Village Symposium. Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
Caceres, J., Hamilton, R., Iyer, D., Chafe, C., Wang, G. 2008. To the Edge with China: Explorations in Network Performance. Proceedings of ARTECH 2008, 4th International Conference on Digital Arts. Portuguese Catholic University, Porto.Google Scholar
Chafe, C. 2009. Tapping into the Internet as an Acoustical/Musical Medium. Contemporary Music Review 28(4–5) (August–September): 413–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, C., Wilson, S., Walling, D. 2002. Physical Model Synthesis with Application to Internet Acoustics. Proceedings of ICASSP 2002, Orlando, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, P., Kapur, A., Cook, P. 2004. A System for Generating Real-Time Visual Meaning for Live Indian Drumming. Refractory: A Journal of Entertainment Media, Special Edition, Spectatorship and Aural Perception, http://www.karmetik.com/sites/default/files/labs/publications/2004_refractory_veldt.pdf.Google Scholar
Hajdu, G., Didkovsky, N. 2009. On the Evolution of Music Notation in Network Environments. Contemporary Music Review 28(4–5) (August–September): 395–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, A., Wanderley, M.M., Paradis, M. 2002. The Importance of Parameter Mapping in Electronic Instrument Design. Proceedings of NIME 2002. Dublin, Ireland, 24–26 May.Google Scholar
Kapur, A., Lazier, A.J., Davidson, P., Wilson, R.S., Cook, P. 2004. The Electronic Sitar Controller. Proceedings of NIME 2004. Hamamatsu, Japan.Google Scholar
Nezzvanova, N. 2000. The Internet: A Musical Instrument in Perpetual Flux. Computer Music Journal 24: 3 (Fall): 38–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palacio-Quintin, C 2003. The Hyper-Flute. Proceedings of NIME 2003. Singapore.Google Scholar
Rovan, J.B., Wanderley, M.M., Dubnov, S., Depalle, P. 1997. Instrumental Gestural Mapping Strategies as Expressivity Determinants in Computer Music Performance. Hypermedia document. Paris: Mediathèque de l'IRCAM.Google Scholar
Takanishi, A., Maeda, M. 1998. Development of an Anthropomorphic Flutist Robot WF-3RIV. Proceedings of the ICMC 1998. Michigan, USA.Google Scholar
Tanaka, A. 2005. Interaction, Experience and the Future of Music. In Kenton O'Hara and Barry Brown (eds) Consuming Music Together: Social and ollaborative Aspects of Music Consumption Technologies. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Tzanetakis, G., Kapur, A., Tindale, A.R. 2006. Learning Indirect Acquisition of Instrumental Gestures Using Direct Sensors. Proceedings of IEEE Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing. Victoria, Canada.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Ge., Perry, R. Cook. 2003. ChucK: A Concurrent, On-the-fly, Audio Programming Language. Proceedings of the 2003 International Computer Music Conference, Singapore.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, M. 2005. Open Sound Control: An Enabling Technology for Musical Networking. Organised Sound 10(3): 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyse, L., Mitani, N. 2009. Bridges for Networked Musical Ensembles. Proceedings of ICMC 2009. Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar