NUMBERS TO PRESENT MUSIC and the TWO FACES OF THE FEEDBACK SYSTEM
?
?
Yilong Liu
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Report submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Music Education)
?
UCL Institute of Education
?
Date of 30/August/2023
?
?
?
?
CONTENTS
?
?
Acknowledgements
?
Abstract
?
?
?
Preface
?
Reviews
?
Production
?
Release
?
Critics
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Acknowledgements
?
This research project has been a collaborative effort involving many individuals. They have generously contributed their dedication and support. I want to express my deepest and most sincere gratitude to those who have contributed to this endeavour.
Above all, I sincerely thank the participants: Mengfei, Naya, and Juan. With your invaluable contributions, this experiment reached its fruitful conclusion. I am eternally grateful to you for wholeheartedly dedicating your time to this study. Your insights and pivotal roles have profoundly impacted this research, and I am forever thankful.
My profound gratitude extends to my tutor, Evangelos Himonides, for his selfless guidance, mentorship, and unwavering support throughout this research journey. His expertise and energy have played a pivotal role in shaping the direction of this study and refining my methodologies.
I want to thank the Music Education Department at UCL, the Music Department at Westminster, and the Music Tech Department at Hurtwood House.
I also want to acknowledge the vast and boundless community of researchers, musicians, and composers whose contributions have laid the foundation for this research. Their creativity and determination paved the way for the findings and insights from this study.
Thank you.
Yilong Liu 27/8 2023
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Abstract
?
The report challenges traditional notions of composition by discussing how unconscious music creation is possible. A thought experiment involving sensory integration showcases the potential for artists to create music through unconventional methods, showcasing the holistic nature of music perception. This report illuminates the multifaceted dimensions of music composition, from psychological influences to the interplay of senses, offering a new perspective on the art of musical expression.
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Preface
?
The first question when writing or producing a piece of music is the intention behind the creation. Artists express a wide range of emotions and ideas through their music, whether conveying love and happiness like pop artists or presenting themselves as influential figures like some rap artists. Despite artists' different paths, their creative journey's roots remain rooted in human experiences and an understanding of sound and culture. These passive observations shape a person's conscious and unconscious decision-making, influencing the choices of notes, lyrics, and overall expression in music.
To quantify these experiences and channel them into a piece of music, musicians should be able to condense their experiences into actionable commands. The practicality lies in producing music quantifiably and focusing on the psychology behind the music rather than solely its sound.
When critiquing art, people often focus on visual components; when critiquing food, the taste takes the most dominant role. Music is primarily discussed in terms of how it sounds and how well it evokes certain emotions through chord progressions. This approach assumes that music can only be enjoyed consciously. However, as the three stages of learning (cognitive, associative, and autonomous) define a musician's craftsmanship and skill level, it also dictates that there are different levels of listening to music (Berger, 2002). Is there a different approach to training a musician's ability to present an experience as an idea and then translate it into a performance or a piece of music?
Comparing music to painting, some artists like Jackson Pollock or William De Kooning demonstrate that only some strokes or mixes of colours need to be planned or deliberate.
The process is often disguised in music, and the artist's intentions may soon be apparent. Music is often seen as "disposable" because every performance is unique and cannot be replicated. What remains is the sheet music and the experience embedded in the audience's hearts. The apparent contrast between abstract and realist musicians is often blurred.
Musicians create music without consciously thinking about every line or note that will be represented on paper. The idea of sound transcends logical thinking; it is an intuitive process. However, this leads to whether making music without awareness or the ability to hear is possible.
?
Consider a thought experiment where a group of people, musicians and non-musicians, select samples from a large dataset based on their experiences. The producer then uses these collected samples to create a song. If this group actively participates in the sample collection and is aware of their involvement, the resulting song can be considered a collective work. However, if the group participates in sample collection without conscious awareness, the music created can still be considered unconsciously made. Another question is how thoughts or feelings are linked to various notes. With the infinite patterns a keyboard can create, how does the mind know which notes to play to express happiness, sadness, or other emotions? The conventional explanation is that primary keys are associated with happiness and minor keys with sadness. However, a musician can still evoke sadness while playing a primary key and vice versa.
A cycle of progression in music composition is proposed. The first step is perceiving music and understanding what is considered good or bad and what evokes happiness or sadness. After learning and trial and error, the musician composes and listens to their work, analysing it and making changes to achieve the desired sound. The second step is activation, where the musician can actively manipulate their state of mind to achieve the desired outcome in a song. The third step is cycling, where the musician can perceive and react simultaneously, constantly emitting energy through music and making changes based on feedback. This progression in musical ability indicates concurrent brain development across various senses. While visual perception often takes precedence when considering our interaction with the world, the significance of our auditory sense cannot be underestimated. Our auditory capabilities play a pivotal role, if not a more significant one, in shaping our perception and engagement with the surrounding environment. An intricate interplay of sensory systems within our body contributes to this process.
?
Listening to music has become ubiquitous in our modern world, offering relaxation and solace. Music has the power to soothe the soul and induce positive emotions. People often savour satisfaction listening to familiar or favourite music. The power of music to induce specific feelings is why people listen to certain pieces repeatedly.
If listening is such a crucial part of the experience, listeners should be able to recreate what they heard. Therefore, it is worth exploring how individuals can quantify their musical experiences and translate them into compositions.
Setting aside the roles of conducting and composing music, understanding how people perceive art is intriguing. Even individuals who are hard of hearing can experience and enjoy music to the same extent as those with normal hearing. Deaf individuals receive audio information through other means, such as the tactile sensation of sound vibrations, residual hearing, and visual cues. Presenting existing music in a way that considers these alternative means of listening is familiar, as visual representations of music through sign language or mixed media have existed for years. Recent technological advancements have enhanced the experience of music through vibrotactile cues. However, creating original music that appeals specifically to individuals with hearing impairments has yet to be explored. By considering the perceptions of deaf individuals, composers can create music that is meaningful to this unique audience.
Awareness of one's skills and deficiencies is possible through listening and reviewing music. Musicians compose, review their work, and make changes accordingly. Therefore, it is plausible to skip the initial composition phase and move directly to activating the musician's experience, directing that energy into a piece of music. In other words, a deaf musician can play music without a hearing. Even without the hardware (hearing sound), could the human mind still achieve the second or third stages of composition? Is it feasible to redirect a musician's thoughts and ideas into a song using other senses, such as sight and touch?
In a thought experiment, an assistant gathers hundreds of samples, all in the same key, arranging them into grids and categorising them by instruments and sound characteristics. The samples are then associated with different colours and presented as MIDI data or sound structures.
The "Maestro," deprived of their hearing ability (naturally or through earbuds), is then asked to compose a song using only their sight. In this case, the Maestro relies solely on their ideas without any assistance or feedback regarding the quality of their composition. It is akin to a blind artist painting from memory.
As demonstrated by the "Kylesku Project," an audio-visual collaboration, artists can create works that engage different senses. The project involved sound recordings near Kylesku in Scotland, inspiring a 5.1 surround-sound track for the visually impaired artist to create oil paintings. As viewers approach the painting, the soundtrack elements are heard through the surround-sound speakers. This project highlights how artists can create meaningful experiences by combining multiple senses.
Expanding on the concept of utilising different senses, what about making music based on taste or texture? Linking sound and sight together opens up new possibilities for musicians with hearing difficulties to create and compose. This integration could lead to the emergence of new styles and sound combinations.
The interplay between the senses runs deep. Vision and hearing are closely connected in the brain, allowing for a comprehensive perception of the environment. The eyes and ears are physically linked through nerve pathways responsible for the vestibular-ocular reflex (VOR). This reflex connects the inner ear to the eye muscles, facilitating spatial awareness and orientation.
When making music without hearing, sight takes over perceiving the environment, compensating for the absence of auditory input. However, this can result in a distorted perception of the music and a lack of stability in the overall perception. By interrupting the natural progression of improvement, artists can create unconventionally, drawing upon their life experiences and thoughts rather than relying solely on musical knowledge. After finishing the composition, they can engage in feedback by listening to and fine-tuning their work.
?
?
?
Reviews
?
?
Music composition is an ongoing journey of exploration and innovation. For centuries, composers and musicians have embarked on a quest to comprehend the intricate process of crafting music. This literature review dives into the intricate relationship between music and self-consciousness, psychology, and the philosophy of composition. It also examines the organic progression of compositional improvement and the influence of cultural and technological advancements on music creation. Furthermore, we explore the emerging realm of affective algorithmic composition.
I aim to engage critically with a series of groundbreaking and unconventional music experiments published by Aramaki et al. (2014), as they hold practical significance for this report. Subsequently, I will shift my focus towards the psychological and philosophical perspectives.
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Technology
?
The Perception of Affect in the Singing Voice: A Study of Acoustic Cues (Aramaki et al. 2014)
This particular experiment is intriguing as it delves into the intricate connection between acoustic cues and emotional perception in vocal recordings. The study employs a two-dimensional emotion model, encompassing pleasantness-unpleasantness and arousal, to evaluate vocal recordings regarding affect. This framework could also be applied to our research to objectively identify and assess elements, particularly those involving vocal components. Such a rating system provides an objective way to evaluate unconventional music within a specialised audience.
?
'Vibrotactile Feedback for an Open-Air Music Controller: Enhancing Performer Interaction and Perception (Aramaki et al. 2014)
This research explores the significance of vibrotactile feedback in an open-air music controller, where hand motion governs sound production. The hand motion system parallels the touch mechanism employed in our launchpad experiment. While most digital interfaces lack inherent vibrotactile feedback due to their non-mechanical sound generation, exploring alternative avenues for providing performers with information about their instrument's manipulation is imperative.
An important issue and potential enhancement lies in incorporating a secondary feedback path. Once auditory feedback is removed, composers are often left solely with visual input. The vibrotactile feedback system introduces a supplementary option that broadens the possibilities for feedback mechanisms. This feedback can be synthesised to convey information about musical parameters such as pitch, amplitude, rhythm, timbre, and more. By integrating vibrotactile actuators within the DMI controller surface, performers can perceive and 'feel' the instrument, compensating for the lack of physical contact. This feedback system enhances interaction and perception, addressing precision issues and enriching the musical experience. The typical smooth and lifeless texture of digital buttons on computers and pads significantly hinders musicians engaged in composition and digital instrument creation. However, this distinction sets digital performers apart from their acoustic counterparts. We can harness this disparity to the composer's advantage, allowing for smoother sliding motions or innovative and customised approaches to instrument manipulation.
?
Johnson, Carballal, and Correia (2015) believe in the pivotal role of computing technology in the contemporary landscape of music development. Over the past eight years, advancements in computer science have significantly impacted audio media production and consumption. The author anticipates that ongoing computational progress will continue influencing the music landscape as we know it today. However, conventional computing paradigms may need to be revised, necessitating faster and more efficient technologies to keep pace. Unconventional computing models, such as quantum computing, DNA computing, molecular computing, and reaction-diffusion computing, have emerged as alternatives to conventional methods. The researcher embraces the idealogy and plans to improve and fine-tune the launchpad technology in the fast-changing modern music tech environment. It is generally accepted that music has historically embraced emerging technologies and unconventional computational models regardless of the computing approach.
Nevertheless, unconventional stylised musical systems must be explored due to their complexity and limited appeal to niche audiences. Recent advancements have made unconventional computer prototypes more accessible to music practitioners, potentially unlocking novel creative possibilities. Using new hardware to explore new computing schemes in music is also crucial and often offers unique avenues for music composition. More data, funding, and public interest must be needed to provide creators everywhere with a simple and practical system to enhance their creative experience. The authors detail a similar development of a step sequencer that assists in assembling triggers and MIDI note activations. In the sample-triggering scenario, sounds are triggered based on electrical potential readings, resulting in a naturally progressive output. The MIDI note-triggering scenario employs voltage ranges, note velocity, and duration to enhance musicality and outputs exciting results. A potential improvement lies in creating a software version of the step sequencer to enable real-time control and interaction with performers and audiences. This software version could complement the new vibrotactile feedback system, which relies on touch instead of the traditional reliance on auditory and visual cues.
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Philosophy and Psychology
?
Benzon (1993) centres on the evolution of music and its profound connection to expressive culture, shedding light on the intricate process of music composition and its interplay with the body and emotions. Benzon emphasises the indispensability of forms in music composition. There are two compelling reasons for this assertion. Firstly, forms are often innate, biologically encoded structures rather than mere cultural conventions, rendering them fundamental to self-expression and emotional conveyance. Secondly, these forms can be directly transcribed onto the physical medium of expressive works, acting as energy transfer conduits that enable composers to communicate and evoke specific emotions through their compositions.
?
Benzon also underscores the role of bodily experience in shaping expressive experiences. This can often be observed in artists transcribing the mind to physical elements. Composers manipulate patterns within the physical medium of music to craft compelling narratives. This manipulation facilitates the expression of emotions and the imprinting of personal experiences onto compositions; one of the critical aspects of this experiment is the search for a pattern between composers' minds and compositions.
?
Benzon contends that the holistic nature of the music experience is crucial. Our initial encounter with music is often as a unified whole, gradually unfolding into rhythm, melody, and harmony. Repetition highlights motifs, the foundational units for music analysis. The differentiation between rhythm, melody, and harmony contributes to a gestalt comprehension of individual compositions and an overarching perception of music.
The differentiation of rhythm, melody, and harmony evolves through cultural progression. As cultures advance, these elements diverge, leading to a rich array of musical expressions. The evolution of music can be categorised into different stages, each prioritising distinct musical elements and employing characteristic performance techniques. The merging of personal forms and the differentiation of musical elements are recurring themes throughout the understanding of the mind of a composer.
?
Berger's (2002) book, 'Music Therapy Sensory Integration and the Autistic Child,' delves into the evolution of music composition across different stages, a notion that closely resonates with and elaborates upon the proposed progression cycle outlined by researchers.
In Rank 1, music centres on rhythm, rooted in recitation, and alternates between simple melodies. This developmental phase revolves around gaining rhythmic control over the composition.
Rank 2 marks the distinction between melody and rhythm. Melodic pitches become intrinsic to the music, independent of vocal mechanisms. The relationships between intervals define melodic elements. Rhythm and melody are independently manipulated and developed, paving the way for creating musical meanings within melodies.
In Rank 3, harmonic elaboration emerges. Harmony involves
This overview of the evolution and progression of music composition across different ranks, from rhythm-centric beginnings to the independent manipulation of rhythm, melody, and harmony, is pivotal in comprehending the development of each participant's music creation skills and perception of music and will be later addressed in the release. While offering insights into the progression of musicians' minds, it is crucial to recognise that uncharted territories within the brain await exploration. These uncharted areas hold the potential for progressive understanding and improvement.
?
Leman and Maes (2014) focus on embodiment's role in music perception. They contend that various aspects of music perception are intertwined with the body. Their argument underscores the embodiment theory, which posits that music perception and expression are deeply rooted in sensorimotor processes. This theory suggests that composers' creative inclinations (logical or emotional) are strongly connected to their earlier years. Expressive gestures are fundamental to engaging with music and discerning its meaning. Therefore, it is essential to comprehend and gather data about these gestures. Different categories of gestures, including elementary, primary, and expressive-supporting, play a pivotal role in encoding and decoding musical expressions. The argument highlights the role of a mirroring process, where musicians learn and perceive through imitation. In composing with launchpads, gestures can significantly influence a composition's outcome.
The authors also argue that body movements influence music perception. These movements aid in clarifying sensory information and directing attention to specific cues within the music, subsequently impacting the perception of structural features and musical expressiveness. The interplay between cognitive load, emotions, spatial movements, and music perception is inseparable. The ideas can be reflected in the works of hand gestures in the launchpad experiment. These arguments illustrate a dynamic interaction between sensory, motor, and affective processes in music perception. However, there is still much to uncover about the intricate interconnections between cognition, emotion, motion, and expression in music perception.
?
Marler (1990) laid the foundation for understanding the intricate connection between behaviour and neuroethology within the context of song learning in birds. Marler’s research highlights the variability in birds' aptitude for acquiring new songs and delves into the roles played by hormones and experiential factors in influencing the sensitive period for learning. This exploration naturally prompts contemplation regarding the potential influence of human hormones on mechanisms governing sound production.
Notably, Marler's findings reveal that birds can reproduce learned songs verbatim, suggesting the presence of improvisation and the recombination of song elements. This raises intriguing questions about the neurological underpinnings of these processes within the avian brain. Additionally, it underscores the preference of many songbirds for acquiring and producing songs characteristic of their species, demonstrating a habitual and recurrent behaviour reminiscent of improvisation.
These insights shed light on deviations from strict imitation in song learning, the crucial role of improvisation in generating novel sequences, and the potential functions of improvisation and invention in personal identification and score marking. This leads us to contemplate the decision-making processes involved in human improvisation.
As Huxley (1963) once posed, the ability to see ourselves as others see us is a valuable gift, but the capacity to perceive others as they see themselves is equally significant. This thought-provoking question was initially raised in the context of understanding the minds of saints and ordinary individuals. However, there is merit in reversing this perspective and considering the commonalities between human and animal minds. Could the creative capacities found in human minds also exist within the minds of animals, waiting to be explored? Rather than fixating on achieving higher levels of differentiation, it is more prudent to appreciate the distinctions while preserving the shared attributes between diverse minds.
Consequently, there is a compelling need for further research into the neural mechanisms underpinning vocal learning, emphasising the significance of adopting comparative approaches with animals to gain insights into vocal ranges and the potential universality of creative processes across species.
?
Williams et al. (2015) explore the field of affective algorithmic composition and the interdisciplinary challenges it presents in music psychology, computer science, and composition. Williams highlights the diverse potential applications of algorithmic composition, ranging from mood control for composers to responsive music generation based on the listener's emotional state. There are medical applications of algorithmic composition, including its potential to influence neurophysical responses in children with attention deficit disorder. Williams' work inspires the researcher’s goal of creating a personality test and analysing the data to understand participants' identities based on the launchpad controller statistics results. The challenges of evaluating emotional responses to music should be acknowledged due to the dynamic nature of affective states and individual variability. However, the researcher believes these challenges are surmountable through methodological refinement, longitudinal analysis of recorded statistics, and the exploration of diverse emotional modelling approaches, including categorical, dimensional, and hybrid models. Williams also believes in the importance of musical features in algorithmic systems, where pitch, rhythm, and modality are commonly employed features. However, a consensus on the essential and non-essential features is yet to be reached. The use of different emotional models and the sparse evaluation of affective responses in algorithmic systems are also noted, indicating a need for further research in these areas.
?
Rutherford-Johnson (2017) presents a compelling argument for redefining the narrative of what defines the nature of musicians in modern times. Traditional post-1945 narratives must be reconsidered due to significant global events that have reshaped the world. Events such as Europe's reconstruction, the formation of the European Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the rise of China, 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2008 financial crisis, and the shift from social democracy to neoliberalism have all profoundly influenced how music is perceived and created. Specific historical events challenge and shape the experiences of entire generations, thereby altering the paradigms of music creation, audience reception, tastes, and systems. For example, Steve Reich's incorporation of speech melody facilitated by digital samplers is a mark that changes in culture and technology can shift, exemplify a new dimension in style, and resonate with broader musical trends.1,200 × 675
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Production
?
This research involves a questionnaire, a literature review and involves behaviour observations.?
The researcher utilised convenience sampling, mainly their contacts from peers/classmates in the MA Music Education 2022-2023 student cohort. The thinking behind this decision was that all students qualified for this study would be exceptionally qualified for this research project. The participants were informed using an information sheet. In the information sheet, the researcher offered accessible information about the study's rationale, aims, and objectives and the time commitment to those who wished to participate. Potential participants were also evident in their right to withdraw, and that withdrawal would have no repercussions or impact on their relationship with the researcher or classmate/acquaintance. The information sheet also clarified GDPR and confidentiality-related issues. All participants had to sign consent forms in order to participate. The researcher explained the study and its objectives to participants. The participants were given sufficient time to review the information sheet, including a clear statement of the study, before signing.
?
The quality of the music composition was evaluated by the researcher, who assessed the composition based on errors, loudness and changes.
This research intended to recruit more than three recruits. However, due to uncontrollable, three recruits were found, and each spent 3 - 4 hours participating in this experiment as the Maestro.
The findings section will break down each composition and notify each Maestro's similarities and differences.
?
?
The experiment starts with background information gathering on the Maestro. There is a pre-experiment questionnaire that needs to be filled.
?
Three maestros were selected. Each represents a different set of skills, backgrounds and beliefs.?
?
173 audio samples were collected, arranged into grids, and sorted into horizontal rows of instruments and sound categories. They were separated into colours and presented as MIDI data or sound structures.
The researcher prepared five grids of samples.
?
Each sample is represented in a cell. The cell shows a graphic circle representation of the sample waveform.
?
These grids are projected onto a launch pad, which the Maestro can control. The Maestro can see the sample waveform representation on the computer screen but can only see colour representation on the launchpad.?
?
Hyper Warrior (Grid A) is used to warm up the Maestro, introduces the concept, and will not be established here.
?
Nicoleson (Grid B) is a four-by-four grid. The cells have pre-selected colouring based on the bias of the researcher. Before the performance, the Maestro is asked to listen to a pre-existing composition based on Nicoleson (Grid B) and look at a photo of an artwork (The Maiden, {Klimt}) provided by the researcher.
The Maestro is then asked to perform on the grid for one minute.?
It is followed by a performance in the same condition but with the speaker on mute for another minute.
?
An interview follows it.
?
Bancey (Grid C) is a four-by-four grid. The cells have a neutral system default colour (light blue). The Maestro is asked to listen to each cell and select a customised colour that fits their liking and best represents the sound heard. The Maestro then repeats the same process as Grid B (Nicolseson).
?
An interview follows it.
?
Boly (Grid D) is a seven-by-seven grid. The Maestro has the right to customise colour. Before the performance, the researcher sets a line of instruction for the Maestro and expects the Maestro to follow. The researcher also suggests to the Maestro the gesture of closing the fist to the voluntary eye closing by the Maestro.
The Maestro starts the performance with the right to sound and vision.
The researcher then gradually mutes the audio output. After an appropriate amount of time, the gesture (closing the fist) instructs the Maestro to close their eyes.
After an appropriate amount of time, the sound would be restored, followed by sight.?
?
An interview follows it.
?
Fron (Grid E) is a six-by-six grid. The Maestro has the right to colour customisation. Before the performance, the Maestro is asked to pre-conjure a scene of emotion or scenario as a base for their performance. An alternative is using a photo of a painting provided by the researcher (The Kiss, {Klimt}) and placing themselves in the painting. The Maestro is allowed to switch between during the performance. The Maestro puts an indicator on either side of the launchpad to indicate which way they lean.
The Maestro then repeats the process as Boly (Grid D).
?
?
An interview follows regarding Fron (Grid E), overall performance, and thoughts.
?
?
There are two sets of variables, and the data will be analysed in two parallel ways.
?
1. The differences in the Maestros and how it affects the composition
2. The effect it has on composition when a composing condition changes
?
This will be analysed by reviewing the finished composition preserved on Logic Pro X and analysing the body language and interviews with the participants.
?
?
Information regarding the compositions.
?
?
Abbreviations:?
?
WS - With Sound
NS - No Sound
WCC - With Customised Colouring
NCC - No Customised Colouring
WV - With Vision
NV - No Vision
WI - With incentive (this is when the Maestro is composing based on their vision)
WF - With focus (this is when the Maestro composes based on the picture given by the researcher)
?
PA - Participants A
PB - Participants B
PC - Participants C
?
TPS - Taps per second
LMR - Loudness meter reduction?
?
?
?
Action timestamps-----
?
Boly PA?
0:00 - 3:25 WS x WV
3:25 - 4:48 NS x WV
4:48 - 6:29 NS x NV
6:29 - End WS x NV
?
From PA
0:00 - 3:48 WS x WV
3:48 - 4:59 NS x WV
4:59 - 6:22 NS x NV
6:22 - 8:23 WS x NV
8:23 - end WS x WV
?
0:00 - End WI
?
Boly PB
0:00 - 3:32 WS x WV
3:32 - 4:57 NS x WV
4:57 - 5:51 NS x NV
5:51 - 9:39 WS x NV
9:39 - end WS x WV
?
From PB
0:00 - 4:02 WS x WV
4:02 - 5:41 NS x WV
5:41 - 7:36 NS x NV
7:36 - 9:59 WS x NV
9:59 - end WS x WV
?
?
?
0:00 - 1:04 WF
1:04 - 1:47 WI
1:47 - 2:55 WF
2:55 - 4:26 WI
领英推荐
4:26 - 5:58 WF
5:58 - 10:25 WI
10:25 - end WF
?
?
?
Boly PC
0:00 - 4:38 WS x WV
4:38 - 5:49 NS x WV
5:49 - 6:46 NS x NV
6:46 - 8:20 WS x NV
8:20 - end WS x WV
?
Fron PC
0:00 - 2:46 WS x WV
2:46 - 3:57 NS x WV
3:57 - 5:15 NS x NV
5:15 - 8:03 WS x NV
8:03 - end WS x WV
?
0:00 - 0:25 WI
0:25 - 1:02 WF
1:02 - 1:37 WI
1:37 - 2:38 WF
2:38 - 3:12 WI
3:12 - 3:52 WF
3:52 - 4:35 WI
4:35 - 5:25 WF
5:25 - 6:59 WI
6:59 - 7:53 WF
7:53 - end WI
?
?
The researcher ensured that all participants were clear about the research aims and objectives and explicitly recorded their willingness to be part of this project. This was done using an information sheet and consent form.
?
Participation in this research project was not considered risky to the participants or the researcher. All necessary steps were taken to protect the anonymity of all participants. No participant was identifiable if they wished to stay anonymous. The information and data collected by the researcher were stored on an encrypted hard drive.
?
The researcher was aware of the potential psychological or emotional impact on participants and provided appropriate support to participants who experienced discomfort. Additionally, participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study without the need to justify their decision and without the fear that their decision might jeopardise their relationship with the researcher.
??
All data were securely stored in an encrypted storage medium of my secure personal computer. This computer was always with the researcher. Protection of the data was above the minimum levels described within DPA2018. The data were only available to the researcher. The report supervisor has been granted access if necessary. Data were securely shared using official UCL file-sharing technology. It was stored on the encrypted storage medium of the researcher's personal computer (also seen above). Besides the primary device, a fully encrypted backup of the complete dataset was also kept on an iCloud drive. It remained in the above two devices/media for the prescribed/suggested time for data safekeeping. The data is kept for a minimum of 5 - 10 years after the completion of the study as a single, encrypted, archived (zipped) file.
?
Research Contribution:??
?
This research aims to contribute to the field of music composition by exploring a new approach and reviewing the conventional way of creating music while discussing the feedback system. If successful, this approach could expand the accessibility of music composition to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing individuals and provide a new perspective on music composition for hearing individuals. Additionally, this research may provide insights into the role of an effective confidence cycle in the creative process and contribute to understanding human perception and cognition.?
This research includes composing without the ability to listen. The researcher gave the participants complete control if they wanted to stop. The researcher also focused on experienced musicians. Nevertheless, the proposed task was cognitively demanding, so people might have experienced anxiety. The researcher ensured they were comfortable and clarified that they could stop or pause during participation. The researcher also reiterated helpful information about student support services and counselling in the program handbook.
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Release
?
The gathered data can be analysed and deconstructed using audio samples in each cell. These samples can then be modified, combined, and simulated to form a comprehensive instrument. The researcher can compare the data using a visual representation of the recorded MIDI data on Logic Pro X.
?
The researcher aims to establish and substantiate three key assertions:
?
1. The possibility of composing without the ability to hear.
2. The need for a correlation between improvisation skills and the level of musical knowledge.
3. The potential assistance of visual feedback while acknowledging its inability to replace audio feedback.
?
Additionally, it is suggested that performing confidence is closely tied to live feedback from the performers themselves, and there exists an inner drive that identifies sound, albeit without actively composing.
?
The researcher wants to invite the reader to get familiarised with three participants to understand the data and findings to their potential.
?
Participant A
?
Participant A (PA) brings the least experience to the experiment, boasting a logical approach to music creation. She uses auditory feedback to refine her compositions, showcasing a structured methodology. Her preference for audio cues demonstrates this inclination towards iterative refinement and precision. While open to new technology, PA holds significant scepticism towards AI's creative capabilities, which stems from her belief in the indispensability of human consciousness and spontaneity in genuine artistic expression.
?
PA requires auditory feedback to explore new creative avenues, indicating discomfort with deviating from established methods. While PA's openness to participation suggests flexibility, her reliance on auditory cues and scepticism towards AI's potential implies a degree of rigidity in their music creation approach.
?
Participant B
?
Participant B (PB) possesses a musical history dating back to a young age, displaying a relationship for rhythm through involvement with various instruments such as the piano, drums, and percussion. PB's focus on rhythmic intricacies over melodic exploration is evident in her pragmatic and improvisational composition approach, driven by curiosity rather than a profound artistic challenge.
?
PB's engagement with the experiment reflects a sense of uncertainty. While her open-mindedness towards visual cues and experimentation is notable, her limited improvising and performing experience and emphasis on rhythm indicate potential cracks in her musical skill set.
?
Participant C
?
Participant C (PC) has a musical foundation steeped in vocal folk songs spanning two decades. Her experience revolves around studying existing melodies rather than crafting new compositions. However, with the most superior musical experience of the three, she displayed calm and ease throughout the experiment. This background informs PC's comfort in navigating the visual interface, alongside a curiosity to explore new methods for individuals with hearing impairments, showcasing openness to broader applications of the experiment's outcomes.
?
PC's adaptation to the visual interface is remarkable, yet her limited composition experience raises questions about her potential for critically reflective approaches. The reliance on familiar harmonies from folk traditions might hinder her ability to engage in her work correctly.
?
Shared Traits:
?
1. Interest in Music Creation: All participants share a typical enthusiasm for music creation, encompassing composition, arrangement, and experimentation.
?
2. Musical Background: Each participant possesses a background in music, including playing instruments, composing, and studying music education.
?
3. Music Appreciation: Despite variations in preferred genres and styles, participants in all groups exhibit a music appreciation.
?
4. Navigating uncertainty: Uncertainty emerges as a recurring theme, particularly when navigating novel creative processes.
?
Points of Distinction:
?
1. Composing Level:
??- Participant A possesses a rookie level in Jazz and improvisational composing.
??- Participant B exhibits a basic understanding of Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs) and intermediate composing skills.
??- Participant C has a rudimentary grasp of composing and improvisation.
?
2. Perception of Music:
??- Participant A prioritises rhythmic and melodic structure in music.
??- Participant B values rhythm while evolving her music perception.
??- Participant C traverses an emotional-to-rational transition in music perception.
?
3. Instrumental Experience:
??- Participants A and B play the piano .
??- Participant B extends to drums and percussion instruments.
??- Participant C's experience focuses on vocal folk songs.
?
4. Collaboration and Professional Engagement:
??- Participant A studied in art management
??- Participant B engages in diverse music styles and amateur collaborations.
??- Participant C is a professional in folk and children's songs.
?
These participants, while distinct, share numerous facets. Despite varying paths, PA, PB, and PC display differing ideologies in music composition.
?
Throughout the interview, PA elucidates two composition methods. The first involves chord progression as a foundation, building the composition atop it. The second starts with a hummed/sung melody transposed to the piano. Rooted in listening experiences, PA likens music composition to sketching, requiring pre-planning for logical, baseline-following composition. PA's fixation on composition brings challenges when introduced to a new instrument; initial unfamiliarity with the launchpad grids prompts reliance on audio feedback. Despite analytical composition strategies, PA eventually adapts through memory and experience, identifying suitable cells through iterative attempts. PB shares a similar approach owing to comparable music backgrounds. However, a more excellent composing experience allows PB to identify advantageous grid interactions quickly. Successful immersion showcases coherence between listening and composition.?
?
With limited composing experience, PC adapts swiftly due to extended vocal performance exposure—Fearlessness and instinct guide PC's composition, highlighting vocal intuition. PC's distinctive response to errors highlights two observations: experienced composers' susceptibility to errors challenges the notion of flawless composition, and analytical composition, while vital, is not absolute.
?
?
Proposing the launch pad sampling as an instrument reveals a wealth of insights from graph analysis. Evaluating recorded image representations entails assessing mistakes, their frequency, cell replacement/stopping intervals, and participant reactions. Defining mistakes as short, incomplete cell recordings, the research focuses on two metrics:
?
?
- Frequency of new notes.
- Loudness of the composition.
?
This exploration questions composition's essence:?Does typing random piano notes, unheard, constitute the composer's work? Removing auditory feedback was anticipated to evoke anxiety, yet participants exhibited unexpected confidence. They knew the destination was ahead, fostering continued composition despite possible revisions. Feedback removal alleviated performance pressure, enabling more accessible expression.
?This research does not assert no-feedback superiority but demonstrates that errors and misalignments occur with or without auditory feedback.
?Crucial data centres on changes within compositions. Detecting these changes, encompassing notes, voices, loudness, and emotion, underpins a conductor or composer's role. While typically sound-based, understanding can manifest through other means like experience or memory. Considering what a cell represents—a group or chord rather than a single note—raises the question: What defines good composition? This experiment rejects binary judgments and seeks patterns between composition modes, utilising statistical analysis over subjective evaluation. It can be summed up with an evocative analogy: a person navigating darkness with tactile awareness. Knowledge of forward direction remains key, paralleling composers' inner drive. Ultimately, the findings challenge and enrich our understanding of composition's multi-dimensional nature.
?
?
The data extracted from this experiment provides a foundation for further analysis, aiming to dissect and explain the observed trends using logical reasoning. One standout finding that combines surprise and predictability is the consistent similarity in Taps per Second (TPS) among the participants. However, to fully grasp the significance of this observation, it is essential to comprehend the underlying meaning of TPS.
?
As the experiment's background indicated, the objective was to explore the creative process using a launchpad to mimic various tap-based instruments, such as piano, trumpet, and violin. Each "cell" represented a distinct musical element, and participants referred to as Maestros, aimed to compose music using this unconventional interface. This novel approach allowed researchers to gain insights into the composer's mind, offering an alternative method to analyse compositional patterns that diverge from traditional music scores.
?
A noteworthy distinction arises between the two depicted images—one displaying a composer's score using sound and the other without. This disparity highlights the importance of understanding the differences in approach and outcomes. Consequently, one of the primary statistical aspects under scrutiny is the Taps per Second metric, which gauges the number of decisions made by the Maestros through "taps" divided by the total composition duration in seconds. Here, a "tap" signifies a decision point, encompassing choices such as initiating a new cell, concluding an existing one, or combining multiple cells. These choices, often veiled as intuitive decisions, are intriguingly examined in the context of the composer's ego and internal drive.
?
?
?
Transitioning from theoretical discourse to statistical analysis,
it becomes evident that participants PA and PB exhibit nearly identical curves and consistent TPS values across their compositions. In contrast, participant PC demonstrates a higher TPS. This divergence hints at a pattern related to composers' confidence levels and creative methodology. The analysis reveals that composers who employ a logic-driven approach tend to subtract from the creative process, involving assessment and judgment of their musical decisions. Conversely, those with a more open-minded, additive approach aim to achieve their desired auditory outcomes, leading to a higher TPS.
?
?
?
This trend also indicates the internal dialogue within composers—between the ego-driven inner critic and the free-flowing, explorative mind. Notably, the similarity in TPS values between participants PA and PC is thought-provoking, suggesting a particular alignment in their creative thought processes.
?
These statistics also provide insights into how participants cope with errors or unfamiliar scenarios. For instance, when logical composers are stripped of the ability to reflect and analyse (no sound), their TPS values consistently decrease. However, participant PA's TPS increased during the initial trial of composing without sound, suggesting a period of exploration. Subsequently, a decrease in TPS is observed, revealing the influence of reflection on creative choices.
?
The interplay between reflection, exploration, and the impact of feedback systems on creativity becomes evident. While reflection is essential for artistic growth, excessive feedback might hinder creativity by fostering a fear of making mistakes. This delicate balance is evident in the divergent behaviours of participants' PA and PC. PA's TPS decreases as she becomes more critical of her compositions, while PC's TPS soars, suggesting a willingness to explore and invent new scenarios.
?
Furthermore, the influence of incentives and focus on creativity is explored. Participants PC and PB exhibit higher TPS during the incentive-driven composition phase, implying that internal stimuli can drive creative action. However, a profound message emerges when comparing participants' responses to directed composition versus complete creative freedom. TPS values drop when composers are constrained by external direction, underlining the importance of granting artists autonomy to unleash their creative potential.
?
?
?
Turning our attention to the loudness metrics, ???
a notable observation arises regarding the participants' utilisation of loudness levels. PC consistently demonstrated higher loudness levels throughout the entirety of the experiment. This pattern echoes her confidence as an experienced performer. Conversely, PB and PA exhibited similar loudness metrics. However, a deeper analysis hints at the rationale behind PB's slightly higher Loudness metre Ratio (LMR) than PA. This disparity can be attributed to PB's marginally advanced composing experience, leading her to opt for cells slightly louder than PA's.
?
This prompts a significant question: Does a higher volume level correspond to increased confidence? Could it be that less experienced artists instinctively shy away from employing louder elements? The statistics reveal that a lower LMR indicates that the participant's peak volume point is relatively quieter than others. It becomes evident that PA and PB consciously or subconsciously avoided using significantly louder cells. The question then arises: Why this avoidance? After all, a heightened volume level does not necessarily equate to less coherence. A conjecture can be proposed: "Less experienced composers often grapple with insecurity and apprehension towards their compositions." Novel sounds inherently invoke a sense of unease.
Conversely, seasoned performers are more inclined to confront these "intimidating sounds" head-on and incorporate them into their compositions. At some point, every composer experiences a phase where they harbour doubts about their creations. Upon receiving feedback, composers in the initial stage of their journey "perceive, analyse, and distinguish between what is good and bad."
?
However, the inverse perspective is plausible as well. In the case of our two seasoned composers, their comfort zones gravitate towards quieter, more familiar sounds. On the contrary, the least experienced composer, akin to a newborn, unabashedly voices her emotions through her compositions.
?
Among the most intriguing statistics is the shift in LMR from composing with sound to composing without sound feedback. Notably, PA's LMR average, which stood at 6.5 for composing with sound (WS), surged to 7.5 without sound (NS). PB's LMR remained unchanged, whereas PC, the seasoned veteran, experienced a drop in LMR. This observation invites a thought: Assuming that higher volume signifies more confidence and audacity, the absence of a feedback system elevates PA's LMR average. This suggests that the feedback system may have negatively impacted her confidence level. Unfettered and liberated from self-critique, her confidence soared, leading her to experiment with louder elements.
?
However, this experiment's most intriguing and enlightening revelation lies in the PC's LMR drop following the cessation of sound feedback. While PA and PB witnessed an increase in their LMR, PC's LMR declined each time sound feedback was absent. This observation offers a compelling insight: As one becomes more seasoned as a performer, the sound feedback system evolves into a foundational pillar of confidence. It identifies personal attributes and assumes a distinct identity within the performer's creative system. Performers lean on this identity, fostering the exploration of louder sounds. Stripped of this privilege, a performer's display becomes restrained, curbing expressiveness.
?
While these statistics offer a window into the compositional process, it is crucial to approach them with caution. The TPS values, while indicative of decision-making frequency, might not directly correlate with creativity or composition quality. Various factors like experience and musical background influence this multifaceted process. Additionally, the statistics need contextualisation—detailing the specific musical elements, participants' intentions, and subjective evaluations.
A comprehensive understanding of musical creativity demands a broader evaluation, incorporating qualitative aspects alongside quantitative measures.?
In essence, the dynamics of loudness metrics not only offer a fascinating avenue for exploration but also unveil the intricate relationship between a performer's confidence, experience, and the role of feedback systems in shaping their musical identity.
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Critics
?
We embarked on this journey to unravel the intricacies of music composition in the world of hard-of-hearing individuals. It has proven to be both an inspiring pursuit and a personally eye-opening experience. The researcher wants to critically evaluate the path in conducting the experiment and formulating the rule system. At the core of our experiment lies the innovative concept of translating musical equations into visual representations. This experimental departure from traditional methods offers a practical and convenient way for everyone to engage and learn. This departure has offered us a unique perspective for studying the creative process. However, it is vital to acknowledge that while visual graphs shed light on structural aspects like density, volume, and rhythm, they might fall short of capturing the intangible essence of music—its fluidity, emotional resonance, and melody. Music's multi-dimensional nature, encompassing melody, harmony, and timbre, poses a challenge to confinement within a two-dimensional graph. Though the visuals illuminate specific composition dimensions, they risk overlooking the profound intricacies that infuse vitality into music.
?
Our experiment focuses on loudness and rhythm, inadvertently sidelining the intricate interplay between these fundamental components. Music's enchantment often emerges from a seamless fusion of bodily experience and creative expression. Our experiment's partial exploration of this relationship leaves a significant void in our comprehension of how composers who are hard of hearing or who opt for an unconventional approach navigate this intricate interaction.
?
One of the challenges we faced was the limitation of our participant pool. The narrow diversity and sample size raise concerns about our findings' applicability and generalizability. Given composers' diverse experiences and unique perspectives, expanding our participant pool becomes pivotal to capturing the complete spectrum of viewpoints. Relying solely on a single researcher for analysis and interpretation introduces the potential for bias, compromising the objectivity of outcomes.
?
Another critical point is that the experiment's conclusion underscores the need for caution, interpretation, and the absence of external peer review. The absence of peer review introduces ambiguity, as the entire set of findings relies solely on one researcher's perspective, leaving room for alternative readings and challenging the equivocal nature of the results.
?
Though intriguing and thought-provoking, the findings are susceptible to interpretations, underscoring the importance of a robust validation process. Additionally, the experiment's inherent limitations, including uncontrollable variables and inconsistency in participants' decisions regarding the influence of researcher guidance on their compositions, pose potential threats to internal validity.
?
A notable lack in our experiment is the need for a live audience during the improvisation and composition phases. This neglects the symbiotic interaction between performers and audiences—the cornerstone of musical performance. The absence of this interaction fails to explore a fundamental aspect of musical expression—the reciprocal relationship between performance and the energy of a live audience.
?
Furthermore, the system lacks a reward system. While we aspire to create an inclusive recognition platform for deaf or unconventional composers, the absence of a reward system hampers the authenticity and effectiveness of the system. The core of the system's viability lies in other feedback. A compelling visual feedback and engineering mechanism is insufficient for the composer to feel satisfied and motivated.
?
The experiment's limitations stem from numerous assumptions underlying its design. It assumes that the collected data can be effectively analysed and modified and that audio samples alone can accurately represent participants' potential capabilities. This assumption overlooks the intricate interplay between auditory perception and musical expression, potentially downplaying the role of auditory cues in shaping compositions. Moreover, focusing on commonalities and differences among participants must be more accurate to simplify individual experiences, potentially ignoring nuanced factors influencing their behaviours.
?
The experiment's significance lies in its controversial claims. However, technological considerations, issues with music competition aspects, and the reward system need refinement. The researcher acknowledges the need for peer reviews and further refined approaches to data analysis. The experiment's emphasis on measuring taps per second as a metric for creativity is intriguing. However, it could oversimplify the multifaceted nature of musical composition. The system's value lies in its initial illustration, but its overreliance on assumptions cautions against broad conclusions. The experiment's emphasis on quantity over quality disregards the intricate elements contributing to creative compositions. This reductionist approach fails to capture the intangible elements that make a piece innovative and overlooks the potential of deliberate and impactful musical expressions. Therefore, the argument that higher taps per second equals greater creativity must be more nuanced. A more advanced and precise measure and less aggressive data analysis are necessary.
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
End note
?
?
?
One may dedicate a few words to the composition and artistry.
In bringing this discourse to its close, I am compelled to extend my sincerest appreciation again to the participants and esteemed mentor who have gracefully supported this endeavour.
?
?
With gratitude and knowledge, I find myself poised with possibility. The luminous compositions done by avant-garde artists and researchers beckon me to reimagine the essence of composing.
In this era where the symphony of technology and creativity harmonise, the artist of today and tomorrow stands as both custodian and visionary (ChatGPT, 2023).
?
?
Rutherford-Johnson designates 1989 as a pivotal juncture that catalysed transformation in the landscape of musical artistry. This era was characterised by the fall of the Berlin Wall, pro-democracy movements in China, and the commencement of the dismantling of apartheid in South Africa. Concurrently, this period bore witness to the inception of the World Wide Web and the ascendance of neoliberal global politics, thereby facilitating the onset of cultural and musical renaissance. These changes unfolded around artists with an inevitability that eludes their control.
?
A resounding conclusion emerges through our findings: the environmental feedback system influences the artist's cognitive landscape. This phenomenon stands as an incontrovertible truth. When artists are exposed to feedback, a subtle yet significant shift occurs in their creative process, subsequently impacting their artistic performance, either enhancing it or introducing complexities. Amidst these considerations, recognising received feedback is paramount for artists and all individuals. It is imperative to value these inputs, yet the true crux lies not in excessive self-analysis but in dissecting the tools of creativity surrounding us.
?
In both thought processes and music composing, our understanding of the underlying mechanisms is more intricate than we often realize. We tend to believe that our thoughts follow a linear path, one conscious idea neatly leading to another. However, this is only sometimes the case. Many impressions and thoughts arise in our conscious experience seemingly out of nowhere, without a clear trace of their origin. For example, consider how you come to believe there is a lamp on your desk, how you sense irritation in someone's voice, or how you instinctively respond to a potential threat on the road before consciously processing it. Much of the mental work that generates these impressions, intuitions, and decisions occurs silently within our minds (Kahneman, 2011).
?
This same complexity applies to music composing. When asked about the genesis of a musical composition, it may seem straightforward to attribute it to certain emotions or thoughts that inspired it. However, tracing the precise origins and the decision-making process behind translating those thoughts and emotions into a musical form is impossible. In this context, every musician's composition can be seen as improvisation. When the music begins to play, it takes on a life of its own, and as the composer, we should just allow it to flow and enjoy its fluidity.
?
Embracing the creative mind, distinct from the creative self, emerges as a fundamental tenet. Allowing the mind to traverse its unique pathways, unhampered by excessive intervention, becomes the key.
?
Our research underscores the potency of environmental feedback systems in shaping the artistic journey. I humbly appreciate feedback, safeguarding against over-analysis, and nurturing the workings of the creative mind.
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
References
?
Aramaki, M., Derrien, O., Kronland-Martinet, R., & Ystad, S. (Eds.). (2014). Sound, Music, and Motion 10th International Symposium, CMMR 2013, Marseille, France, October 15-18, 2013. Revised Selected Papers. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12976-1
?
Baker, D. (2017). How to present your dissertation.?British Journal of Presentation,?23(2), 1–14.
?
Berger, B. (2002).?Music therapy, sensory integration, and the autistic child. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
?
Benzon, W. (1993). Stages in the evolution of music.?Journal of Social and Biological Structures,?16(1), 55–82.
?
Caldwell, R. (2015). Getting off to a good start with the presentation.?International Journal of Dissertation Presentation,?22(1), 23–67.
?
Collins, A. (2014). Music education and the brain: What does it take to make a change??Australian Journal of Music Education,?48(1), 3–11.
?
Collins, B. (2005). A synthesis process model of creative thinking in music composition.?Psychology of Music,?33(2), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735605050651
?
Huxley, A. (1963). The Doors of Perception: and Heaven and Hell. Harper & Row.
?
Johnson, C., Carballal, A., & Correia, J. (Eds.). (2015). Evolutionary and Biologically Inspired Music, Sound, Art and Design 4th International Conference, EvoMUSART 2015, Copenhagen, Denmark, April 8-10, 2015, Proceedings. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16498-4
?
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
?
Leman, M., & Maes, P. J. (2014). The role of embodiment in the perception of music. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1-12.
?
MacDonald, R. A., Byrne, C., & Carlton, L. (2006). Creativity and flow in musical composition: An empirical investigation.?Psychology of Music,?34(3), 292–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735606064838
?
Marler, P. (1990). Song learning: The interface between behaviour and neuroethology.?Animal Behaviour,?40(3), 331–338.
?
McCarthy, M., & Goble, J. S. (2002). Music Education Philosophy: Changing Times.?Music Educators Journal,?89(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/3399880
?
Rutherford-Johnson, T. (2017).?Music after the Fall: Modern Composition and Culture since 1989. The University of California Press.
?
Research conducted at the University of Plymouth Has Updated Our Knowledge about Unconventional Computing (2019). Applying Quantum Hardware To Non-scientific Problems: Grover's Algorithm and Rule-based Algorithmic Music Composition (p. 423–). NewsRX LLC.
?
Williams, A. P., Kirke, E. C., Miranda, E. R., Roesch, E., Daly, I., & Nasuto, S. (2015). Investigating effect in algorithmic composition systems. Psychology of Music, 43(6), 831–854. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735614543282
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Appendices
Acknowledging the use of Artificial Intelligence during the writing of this report.
Grammarly was used to correct mistakes and improve grammar.
Chat GPT was used to improve logic and language use.
Chat GPT was used in summarising articles.
?
Some of the compositions are published on
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?