The previously proposed timeline outlines a trajectory that coincides with the evolution of games, their aspects and the technology themselves. Therefore, it is not surprising that this aspect is also found in the most recent analyses of the relationships between music and video games, or at least sound and gameplay with a significant influence from the visual sphere. One of the very latest and most in depth studies concerning music's role in modern gaming experiences has been presented by Marko Ciciliani and Barbara Lüneburg, in a research that focuses precisely on ludology in a field that is not strictly musical but rather audiovisual. The two researchers, in fact, conducted a 5 year long research for IEM – Institute of Electronic Music and Acoustics of the University of Music and Performing Arts di Graz, in Austria, entitled Gamified Audiovisual Works – Composition, Perception, Performance. From a paper outlining the mid-research results:
The inclusion of elements from games and especially from computer games in audiovisual works carries large artistic potentials and challenges. […] In game-design, well designed rules usually show emergent properties. These are behaviors that are by way of comparison complex, when compared to the rules that generated them. Furthermore, the resulting behaviors are not an attribute of any single one of the rules that generated them, they are typically the result of the combination of the involved rules. A common example from the field of games would be chess. Six different elements are used and the rules of chess fit on half a page. Still, the amount of possible combinations has entertained many people for their entire lifetime. Emergence can also result from the interplay of rules in a musical system. In contrast to rules alone, emergence is a typical bottom-up phenomenon. Musically speaking, it can create richness and complexity on the level of details. Accordingly, when composing music based on rules, a rather fundamental challenge is to design rules in such a way that they generate a level of detail which is musically interesting and meaningful. If this fails, a musical situation might result that sounds schematic, arbitrary and unimaginative.
Ciciliani defines the game outcome as “emergence” or “emergent properties”, sort-of natural consequences of well-designed rules. They are not the result of a pre-determination that aims for them specifically, as well as a sound clearly imagined by a composer and realized diligently by the player. The terms seem to also outline a certain amount of unintentionality included in the process, that resonates with the topic. Emergence properties arise autonomously from the combination of various parameters; similarly, the outcomes of games are spontaneous1 and unrestricted, making them challenging to control with the same level of precision as music.
This kind of work encourages exploration of the intersections between gaming, storytelling, and artistic creativity, highlighting not only the ability of music to engage and stimulate performers but more often also the audience. Another section dealing with the perspective of games in relation to composition’s process approach, is particularly relevant and stimulating to what has been previously mentioned. It outlines how Composing game-based works can be a top-down or a bottom-up path.
Rules are an abstraction. If the choice and description of rules are successful, they offer spaces of possibilities to the players that keep them engaged for extended periods of time. Rules are thereby structuring behaviors, usually without prescribing the individual actions. This is why the design of rules takes place on a level which is detached from its actual completion. Designing rules is therefore a top-down approach. From a musical perspective this can be problematic, because if only rules can be described, a thorough arrangement of musical details is out of reach. The micro-structure of the piece is the result of how the rules literally 'play out.'
The sentence regarding the difference between structuring and prescribing enlighten one to the core distinction between music and games in this dissertation. Traditional Musical Composition in Western Culture is often based on a clear and detailed prescription of every single part of the piece, in order to obtain the most possible control of each event and a great richness in the combination of each one. The aim of this approach is to achieve a result that is as interesting and significant as possible for the audience, not just for those performing the music - which is more in line with the nature of the game. This fundamental discrepancy in approach between musical composition and game design is perhaps one of the most problematic elements in the integration of the two practices, as a fusion or combination of the two approaches seems incompatible. As Ciciliani and Lüneburg point out, "a thorough arrangement of musical details is out of reach." This consideration naturally stems from a perspective that does not consider improvisational practice, which also entails less adherence to a hypothetical realization imagined by the composer. It follows, therefore, that one of the possible paths to integrate top-down and bottom-up processes includes off-the-cuff elements carried out by the performer.
In the examples examined so far, a certain degree of unpredictability has always been anticipated: whether it is the combination of predetermined materials as in the case of the Musikalisches Würfelspiel, or the aggressive singing on orally transmitted patterns of the Slahal of the Native Americans of the Pacific Northwest Coast, not to mention examples where the improvisational part is more pronounced as in the cases of Zorn, up to the almost complete indeterminacy of John Cage, the common parameter to all these is indeed a certain (and different) amount of extemporaneous material. The openness to an incomplete control over the musical outcome thus seems to be definitively a prerequisite for the practice of composition based on game dynamics.
The results of the research by Ciciliani and Lüneburg, at the end of the investigation period (also enriched by the inclusion of Andreas Pirchner in this version), have been compiled in the text LUDIFIED, divided into two parts: Artistic Research in Audiovisual Composition, Performance and Perception and Game Elements in Marko Ciciliani's Audiovisual Works. The outcome encompasses a wide range of elements with great methodological accuracy, investigated through the commissioning of new works, their analysis, and the analysis of audience perception.
This division proves to be particularly effective in an experimental setting, where feedback on the progress of composition-based research can be shared among various stakeholders from different perspectives, such as performers and the audience. However, this study will focus solely on the initial segment of the research, specifically the composition-based investigation, as detailed in the introduction. It is worth noting that Ciciliani and Lüneburg's research questions differ slightly from those presented in this study, as they primarily target multimedia production and select computer games as the main source of games considered. GAPPP also intends to explore the aesthetic of games as a fundamental aspect of the research, marking another distinction from the current study, which seeks to establish a more universally applicable assessment, regardless of the game's origin of aesthetics. This approach acknowledges the evolving nature of aesthetics over time and necessitates a level of expertise in the field that is not available in this context.
“It was not the development of “music games” that formed the focus of investigation, but the question of how system behaviors and configurations that are typical for computer games could enrich and augment the expressive artistic options in the realm of experimental audiovisual composition. We defined an artwork of GAPPP as “a multimedia artwork that uses game elements and possible alludes to game aesthetics; however, [musically] it … belongs to the world of contemporary (art) music.”
Understanding the exact definition of "music games”, from which Ciciliani distances himself, is challenging. Given the lack of a universally accepted and academically shared interpretation of the term, there isn’t a unique perspective to rely on. However, it is evident that his focus lies in the interplay and dynamics that are translated or adapted from the interactions of casual players in living rooms to the performers in concert halls.
This is where there is an important difference compared to normal games: when these pieces are performed in their concert version, I see it as the interpreters' task to sound out their musical potential and not always take the shortest, most direct route to the goal. Even if you don't break any rules, it is still important to make the most of the creative possibilities and musical consequences that such a system provides.
The setting of the event is not secondary, although not in itself, but purely indicative of the type of performance expected. And although it is clearly derived from choices made beforehand: the execution of a game piece is part of an artistic program (and compositional planning) because it is more than just a simple game that could be played in a parlor. It contains an element of interest in terms of sound parameters: it is then up to the program, the audience, the composer, or the performer to define what it is, as Berio rightly argued. And the parameters of such judgment, as is well known, can range from the creaking of a chair to a flawless symphonic performance, from a noise music performance to a philological execution of Renaissance compositions. Any type of aesthetics can be subjected to a dynamic of play, as it is transversal to the type of aesthetic result obtained.
Back to Ciciliani's thesis, this ambivalence of the role of strictly game instructions - pertaining, one might imagine, to a context where the progression of rules is teleological, directed towards a specific goal - is actually the most complex parameter, certainly the most difficult not only to constrain under specific instructions, but also to analyze afterwards, to categorize within specific schematizations and measurements. It is actually the place where the clash between the two approaches resides, the core of the contrasting perceptions for both performers and listeners. A sort of crossroads, in front of which the choice is weighed only according to personal, subjective considerations, but also difficult to express and fully evaluate. Am I interpreting a game piece correctly if I focus on winning? Or am I leaning too much towards the performative aspect? At the same time, if I ignore the interplay and the audience's expectations regarding the game flow, am I simply performing a piece like any other? Practicing an aesthetic exercise that could have been carried out even without any ludic dimension?
On this matter, the Croatian composer has already pondered, and has also attempted to provide an answer.
Thus strict game rules and game-strategic measures can be ignored or taken ad absurdum in Ciciliani's compositions if the performers deliberately break rules to privilege artistic freedom of expression. Criteria such as victory and defeat, which are essential to gaming but unusual in art, may suddenly be applied in a specific way in order to evaluate a musical performance.
Could it be that the skill of a 21st-century musician lies precisely in the balancing act of two such opposing, fluctuating, and evolving performance perspectives? Could it be fluidity, the ability to adapt choices and practices based on various types of input—not only musical, not only visual? Not only artistic? Such a perspective opens up many different horizons for the performance practices of contemporary music performers. Horizons where, alongside improvisations based on harmonic/melodic foundations, conceptual happenings, and aleatoric revolutions, there is a management of musical development in a piece based on gameplay dynamics. No "improvisation" is ever entirely free. Not even 4’33’’, with its request to bring out sounds from presumed silence - somewhat akin to the emergence discussed in the writing of game rules, precisely. In jazz practice, improvisation is guided by more or less established codes and styles, not to mention the customary instrumental ensembles that can be more or less called into question, but still involves the performance taking place in certain contexts, with a relatively regular setup. It is no coincidence that Zorn dedicated himself to conceptualizing Game Pieces at a time when he sought absolute freedom, only to change course, probably realizing that the playful dynamics themselves added another layer of interpretation, thus not providing total liberation. The same applies to other authors of the same century.
Perhaps the term "randomly" is a bit extreme, but it still reflects Ciciliani's thinking regarding the excessive degree of indeterminacy in the works of the mentioned authors. The complete lack of control over a musical outcome, as envisaged in many compositions by Cage, for example, is an important responsibility and a parameter not to be underestimated. Creating a sense with which the performer can resonate is fundamental in pursuing a performance that reflects the composer's vision, and if the degree of involvement—in the case of a stance as radical as total indeterminacy—is not sufficient, then the meaning is lost. It is clear that this does not depend solely on the work itself, but also on a certain type of approach that also depends on the personality and human characteristics of each performer; nothing can be considered universal anymore. However, where total indeterminacy and lack of control may be ineffective, the use of game mechanics and ludic rules can achieve equally interesting objectives. Not that they are a substitute, on the contrary—it is clearly another system. But given their specificity, and in particular, the level of emotional involvement of the performer given by the gameplay and whether or not they can be noted by the audience, they prove to be a very valid alternative if the ludic dimension can be a stronger element of engagement than more or less absolute indeterminacy.
Certainly, the discussion could be much broader than this: one could easily argue that the beauty of total indeterminacy lies precisely in its unfamiliarity, in challenging certainties and questioning established beliefs—both of the audience and the performers. It is not difficult to imagine that this could also be a concept present in Cage's thinking. Unconventionality possesses a charm par excellence. It may have to contend with greater difficulties at times, but it is fascinating perhaps precisely because of them.
For me, however, the aesthetic or artistic experience is my main concern, as opposed to the experience of playing. In other words: When looking at and listening to these pieces, I don't think it is so relevant to identify game elements, rather the works should be perceived as audiovisual compositions as a whole.
Ciciliani is correct in emphasizing the ultimate purpose of the entire project from his perspective. However, it is important to note that this statement shouldn't be regarded as a definitive conclusion; rather, it might be seen as fundamentally different from viewpoints held by figures like Cage and Stockhausen. Nonetheless, it sets the perspective through which to interpret the pieces he has composed.
This final reflection suggests that, despite everything, the significance of subjectivity can be reaffirmed in this context, somewhat akin to Berio's approach. Determining what constitutes a game, what constitutes music, and what qualifies as "game-based performances" eligible for the designation of artistically "relevant" audiovisual compositions, remains primarily subjective.