According to the previous chapter, sequencer software in general is characterized by features that may be understood as paradigmatic, facilitating a specific kind of aesthetic. However, different types of sequencer software program exist. In the following, I will argue that software may be characterized according to different degrees of freedom of choice from the perspective of the user.
Thus, some sequencer programs only allow the user to conduct few types of operations, whereas others offer a substantial number of parameters to choose between. In the following the attempt is to discuss and categorize different types of software, how they is related to different levels of
expertise, and how this may influence the creative process, freedom of choice, and levels of autonomy.
9.2.1 Software and music pedagogy
The fabrication of musical software is related to pedagogical traditions within the musical field in general (Boysen, 2015b). Most obvious are the similarities between musical software designed for children and the so-called Orff Instruments. The Orff Instruments are mainly designed in order to facilitate improvisation and ensemble-play among children (Orff, 1932, 1964). The instruments embody a limited number of notes and the selected notes belong to a specific musical scale. Thus, the children are not allowed to break with predefined musical norms. No matter what, the music will sound fairly acceptable (Orff, 1964; Boysen, 2015b). The parallel to musical software is significant. Thus, software designed for children equally offers the user a limited number of choices. Banja Band may represent such type of software. In this program, the user is only allowed to turn on and off five different loops. If the user plays the loops together, the music will sound acceptable according to traditional musical norms. Other examples are the Lego Music Composer and RoboMusicKids (see above, section 9.1).
175
9.2.2 Rules and freedom
The freedom of choice implemented in musical settings is seemingly related to questions of subjective autonomy. In the article Creative thinking in the context of music composition, Maud Hickey discusses the question of choice in relation to different types of pedagogical settings. She suggests that there exists a specific connection between the musical outcome, the task, the
implementation of musical rules, and the number of parameters provided. This basic connection is further explicated through the construction of a diagram that is presented below (Hickey, 2003, p.
43). It should be mentioned that the way Hickey uses the diagram resembles the way positional maps are used within situational analysis in order to facilitate reflections (see Chapter Two).
Accordingly, the diagrams play a key role in this chapter as they do in my memos (see Appendix M)
Diagram 9.1 Rules, parameters, and musical outcome (borrowed from Hickey)
Maximum
On the vertical line, the amount of craftsmanship and musical rules are outlined. As far as I interpret Hickey, this is a question of task formulation as well as a question of the skills of the student. Thus, the student may be asked to follow specific musical rules. However, this is only possible if the student is able to follow these. On the horizontal line the degree of openness of the task is outlined, with respect to the number of instruments, notes, sounds, etc. Thus, a closed task involves a number of specific parameters chosen a priori, whereas an open task involves no parameters. In other words, the horizontal line outlines numbers of possible choices.
According to Hickey, four scenarios may be identified based on this diagram. First, the ‘non-musical exercise’ is explained as a result of a closed task with minimal ‘non-musical rules involved, e.g.
176
the distribution of notes in a bar without any musical norms and rules: ‘A closed musical
assignment that has several parameters, yet is bound by no traditional craftsmanship guidelines, will most likely result in an exercise that is neither musical nor creative’ (Hickey, 2003, p. 42). Second,
‘chaotic noise’, which is explained as the result of ‘an open musical assignment with no parameters given (‘compose anything you want’) and devoid of any guidance or understanding of
craftsmanship’ (p. 42). Third, the ‘rule-bound’ composition, that ‘results when the assignment is bound by too many parameters (e.g. key signature, time signature, length, style, and notes) and strictly follows prescribed past-writing rules’ (p. 42). Finally, the ‘creative composition’ is
understood as the result of a ‘room for variety and uniqueness, while teaching techniques for good composition practice will encourage the production of truly musical creative compositions’ (p. 42).
In other words, ‘creative composition’ is the result of a balance between too few and too many
musical rules/norms, as well as a balance between too many and too few choices/parameters.
Hickey's diagram reflects general notions about pedagogical settings and creativity in the sense that too many strict instructions and too many attempts to follow rules are considered inhibiting for the creative process (e.g., Amabile, 1996, pp. 91-96). On the other hand, no involvement of rules results in meaningless noise (see Appendix O for further discussions of Hickey’s model).
9.2.3 Rules and freedom and musical software
Hickey is primarily adopting a pedagogical approach without specific focus on materiality and mediation (see Chapter Eight). Thus, the teacher is described as the main coordinator of the musical setting, and questions of mediation, e.g. the notation-system and different forms of instruments, are not explicitly considered. In other words, what Hickey describes as a musical setting without any rules and with endless parameters involved might still be rather filled with rules, norms, and prescribed parameters, in the sense that such elements are represented in the applied
media/instruments. Hence, it seems reasonable to include the aspect of technology more explicitly in the diagram drawn by Hickey. In the following, Hickey’s model will be applied in order to discuss how different musical software might be understood in regard to freedom of choice, implementations of rules, and parameters involved.
If the role of technology is implemented in the outlined diagram, the vertical axis represents different degrees of rules and norms represented by the software (see diagram 9.2). According to
177
Hickey’s model, the continuum also includes the craftsmanship represented by the user. However, what is central to musical software is that the outcome does not necessarily depend on the user’s musical competence. In other words, human craftmanship is partly substituted by non-human craftmanship. Thus, by adopting a specific kind of musical software, the outcome will be
characterized by well-known musical norms almost regardless of the user’s actions: Banja Band is an example of such a type of software. On the contrary, Logic represents few rules, in the sense that the user can create different types of music that break with common musical norms. Further,
algorithmic-based software such as MAX might be considered even less rule-bound. Yet, such musical software is still based on a certain paradigm and promotes a specific type of music (see Chapter Eight, section 8.3).
The horizontal axis in the diagram below outlines the number of parameters and choices represented in the software. Thus, software like Banja Band represents few choices and parameters, whereas Logic represents many choices in the sense that you can do many things with the software. In the below, different types of musical software are incorporated in the diagram.
Diagram 9.2 Rules, parameters, and digital software
Maximum
9.2.4 Positioning musical software on the basis of freedom of choice
One of the problems of placing different types of software in the constructed diagram is that they operate with several platforms. Thus, GarageBand, Logic, Cubase, etc. can be used in very different ways. You can record acoustic instruments and use the software basically as a tape recorder. You can apply the MIDI features and primarily use a MIDI keyboard for composition. You can work
178
with samples and loops. Furthermore, you can supply these platforms with more sounds and effects, etc. found online. Accordingly, the musical software is flexible and cannot be unambiguously placed on a scale with respect to rules and number of choices. Nevertheless, by splitting up the different platforms it is possible to draw a map somehow portraying the overall freedom of choice within these types of software.
Diagram 9.3 Rules, choices, and different types of software
Few rules
MIDI-recording represents relatively few constraints (few rules implemented) in the sense that you can play many notes and you don’t have to follow a specific tempo. Still, musical norms are of course implemented through the adoption of the MIDI keyboard that only allows the user to play twelve different notes, etc. The number of choices between different sounds and effects depends on the musical software within which the MIDI feature is embedded. Thus, software such as Fruity Loops and the loop platform in GarageBand represent many different choices in the sense that you can choose between many loops. However, there are still many rules implemented. Finally,
sampling and audio recording represent many choices and few rules. GarageBand includes all the described platforms simultaneously. Thus, GarageBand may be used in a manner whereby many constrains are imposed (the loop section) or few rules are imposed (sampling, audio recording, MIDI)