May/100
Paper summary: Interconnected musical networks: Toward a theoretical framework
Weinberg, G. (2005). Interconnected musical networks: Toward a theoretical framework. Computer Music Journal, 29(2):23–39
Weinberg (2005) discusses musical networks, the concept of performance as an interdependent art form. Electronics expands the range of possible interdependencies in musical performance: ‘Although acoustic-interdependent models provide an infrastructure for a variety of approaches for interconnections and interdependencies among players, they do not allow for actual manipulation and control of each other’s explicit musical voices. Only by constructing electronic (or mechanical) communication channels among players can participants take an active role in determining and influencing not only their own musical output but also that of their peers’ (Weinberg, 2005, p. 23).
Viewing musical networks with an ecological metaphor, Weinberg says that ’the network serves as a habitat that supports its inhabitants (players) through a topology of interconnections and mutual responses that can, when successful, lead to new breeds of musical life forms’ (Weinberg, 2005, p. 23). Weinberg gives historical examples of musical networks: Cage’s 1951 piece Imaginary Landscape No. 4 for twelve radios (Cage, 1951), Bischoff et al. (1978)’s ‘Network Computer Music,’ a variety of internet-based musical networks (including Whalley (2004)), and local, real-time interactive musical projects that include novel player interfaces, such as the reacTable (Jorda, 2003).
Weinberg also classifies interactive musical networks by the nature of their interconnectedness, the centrality of their control and the placement of the participants actions in time (sequential or synchronous). ‘Process centered musical networks’ can be based on social experience, creative experience or learning experience; they can also be exploratory in their interaction or goal oriented, with either collaborative or competitive goals. ‘In sequential systems ... the interdependent interactions occur in an ordered manner by turn-taking procedures. This approach is more tolerant to latency, can be easily supported by remote online networks, and is usually simpler to follow for the individual player’ (Weinberg, 2005, p. 35, emphasis mine).
I am interested in musical networks made partially or entirely of machine controlled participants. If the network participants can control how they interact, or in Weinberg’s terms, they can control the weight of their connections, they may be able to dynamically change their network between synchronous and sequential. Naturally, many sets of connection weights will result in ‘anarchy,’ while only a few will result in ordered behaviour. How can the agents learn the necessary turn-taking behaviours for ordered interaction in a sequential system? How can centralised control emerge? Weinberg’s classification of ‘process centered musical networks’ is useful in considering different situations which may or may not have the possibility of having emergent turn-taking.
Peter
References:
Bischoff, J., Gold, R., and Horton, J. (1978). Microcomputer network music. Computer Music Journal, 2(3):24–29.
Cage, J. (1951). Imaginary landscape no. 4 (March no. 2). Musical composition for twelve radios, 24 performers and conductor.
Jorda, S. (2003). Sonigraphical instruments: from FMOL to the reacTable. In Proceedings of the 2003 conference on New interfaces for musical expression, page 76.
Weinberg, G. (2005). Interconnected musical networks: Toward a theoretical framework. Computer Music Journal, 29(2):23–39.
Whalley, I. (2004). Adding machine cognition to Web-Based interactive composition. In Proceedings of the 2004 International Computer Music Conference, pages 196–200.