CIM09 - 5th Conference on Interdisciplinary Musicology - Université ...

26-29 octobre 2009 <strong>CIM09</strong>music. But locked in front of their laptop screens manipulating minutiae that audience members, andpossibly other performers, cannot see nor, perhaps, comprehend, such a musical practice might well onlyincrease performers’ tendencies towards self-absorption and isolation (Turner, 2003). This is especiallyproblematic in terms of realizing any kind of progressive praxis since it is precisely on account of itsdialogicality—its enabling of freely constituted, non-coercive, inter-personal relationships—thatimprovisation is so highly valued.CONCLUSIONSReal-time musical interfaces such as Ableton Live have the potential to realize a more interactive andimprovisational laptop-based musical practice than has hither-to been possible; thereby providing apotential solution to some of the problems seen with older forms of electronic music (Rothenberg, 1996;Pennycook, 1997; Laubier, 1998; Pinch and Bijsterveld, 2003). Analysis of such practices can in turn aid inunderstanding the musical experience of contemporary audience members and performers. But, although itopens new musical possibilities, such highly mediated, and increasingly complex systems also carry the riskof further isolating the performer-composer from audiences and fellow performers, thus problematizingthese potential benefits.IMPLICATIONSA number of questions result from these deliberations that we will begin to answer but that also deservefurther research. What does “live” mean in the context of the real-time manipulation of sampled, live andsynthetic sounds? Is it still a meaningful concept? (Auslander, 2002; Belet, 2003) Is there a model, aestheticor otherwise, by which laptop-based music performance should be understood? (Garnett, 2001; Monroe,2003; Irving, 2006) And what can be made of the virtual absence of the body in its performativeconstitution? (Emmerson, 2001; Ostertag, 2002)REFERENCESAbleton AG. 2009. Artists, , March 27, 2009.Alperson, P. 1984. On Musical Improvisation. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 43(1): 17-29.Benson, B. E. 2003. The Improvisation of Musical Dialogue: A Phenomenology of Music. CambridgeCambridge University Press.Cascone, K. 2000. The Aesthetics of Failure: “Post-Digital” Tendencies in Contemporary Computer MusicComputer Music Journal 24(4): 12-18.———. 2004. Grain, Sequence, System: Three Levels of Reception in the Performance of Laptop Music.Intelligent Agent 4(1).Cox, C. and Warner, D. 2004. Audio Culture. Readings in Modern Music. New York: Continuum.Crease, R. P. 1994. The Improvisational Problem. Man and World 27: 181-93.Davies, S. 2001. Philosophical Perspectives on Music’s Expressiveness. In Music and Emotion: Theory and Research,edited by P. N. Juslin and J. A. Sloboda. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 23-44.———. 2007. Philosophical Perspectives on Art. New York: Oxford University Press.———. 2003. Themes in the Philosophy of Music. New York: Oxford University Press.Emmerson, S. 2001. From Dance! to “Dance”: Distance and Digits. Computer Music Journal 25(1): 13-20.Fink, Robert. 1998. Musicology and Popular Music Studies at the Twilight of the Canon. American Music 16(2): 135-79.Fischlin, D. and Heble, A. 2004. The Other Side of Nowhere: Jazz, Improvisation, and Communities in Dialogue. InFischlin and Heble (ed.) The Other Side of Nowhere: Jazz, Improvisation, and Communities in Dialogue.Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press.Fornäs, J. 1995. The Future of Rock: Discourses that Struggle to Define a Genre. Popular Music 14(1): 111-125.Garnett, G. E. 2001. The Aesthetics of Interactive Computer Music. Computer Music Journal 25(1): 21-33.Graham, G. 2007. Music and Electro-sonic Art. In Stock (ed.) Philosophers on Music: Experience, Meaning, andWork. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Jaeger, T. 2003. The (Anti-)Laptop Aesthetic. Contemporary Music Review 22(4): 53-57.Kivy, P. 2002. Introduction to a Philosophy of Music. New York: Oxford University Press.Koopman, C. and Davies, S. 2001. Musical Meaning in a Broader Perspective. The Journal of Aesthetics and ArtCriticism 59(3): 261-273.Kusek, D., Leonhard, G. and Lindsay, S.G. 2005. The Future of Music: Manifesto for the Digital Music Revolution.Boston: Berklee Press.De Laubier, Serge. The Meta-Instrument. Computer Music Journal 22(1): 25-29.Lewis, George. 2004. Gittin’ To Know Y’all: Improvised Music, Interculturalism, and the Racial Imagination. CriticalStudies in Improvisation 1(1): http://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/csieci/article/view/6/15Merleau-Ponty, M. 1945. Phenomenology of Perception. London : Routledge & K. Paul.McLeod, K. 2001. Genres, Subgenres, Sub-Subgenres and More: Musical and Social Differentiation WithinElectronic/Dance Music Communities. Journal of Popular Music Studies 13: 59-75.Meyer, L. B. 1956. Emotion and Meaning in Music. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Monroe, A. 2003. Ice on the Circuits/Coldness as Crisis: The Re-subordination of Laptop Sound. ContemporaryMusic Review 22(4): 35-43.<strong>CIM09</strong> 11