Algorithmic Thinking and Musical Performance

Mieko Kanno

This presentation examines instances of elementary algorithmic thinking and musical examples that bear the same principles. A particular focus is given to the function of algorithmic thinking as a performative skill in action. The presentation takes as its background that the application of the procedural logic of algorithm has a long history in music, and that examples can be found in many types of music-making as activities. While much of this application is already discussed in the discipline of musical composition, I observe that the significant presence of algorithmic thinking in performance is still to be articulated. In the three sections titled ‘affordance’, ‘combinatoriality’, and ‘sequence’, I examine each concept in algorithmic operations, and how the same principle can be observed in musical practices. These three sections provide reflection on the nature of the processes involved in music-making. They also simultaneously argue that contemporary musicians possess the capacity to process necessary information and tasks algorithmically, consciously or not.

Adorno, T. (1981). In search of Wagner. Translated by Livingstone, R., London: Verso

Benson, B. E. (2003). The Improvisation of Musical Dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Bourdieu, P. (1972). Esquisse d’une théorie de la practique, précédé de trois études d’ethnologie Kabyle. Genève: Librairie Droz; translated into English by Nice, R (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Crispin D. (2004). Re-reading the String Quartets of Arnold Schoenberg. PhD, Kings College London

Croft, J. (2007). ‘Theories on liveness’. Organised Sound, 12(1), 59-66; Collins N. and d’Escriván J. eds. (2007), Cambridge Companion to Electronic Music, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Emmerson, S. (1994). ‘‘Live’ versus ‘real-time’’, Contemporary Music Review, 10:2, 95-101

Essl, K. (2007). ‘Algorithmic Composition’, in Cambridge Companion to Electronic Music, Collins N. and d’Escriván J. eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 107-125

Galkin, E.W. (1988). A History of Orchdestral Conducting in Theory and Practice. New York: Pendragon Press

Gibson, J. J. (1966), The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Mifflin

Griffiths, P. (1995). Modern Music and After: Directions Since 1945. Oxford: Clarendon Press

Hayden, S. and Kanno, M. (2013). ‘Towards Musical Interaction: Sam Hayden's Compositions for E-Violin and Computer’, Contemporary Music Review, 32:5, 485-498

Impett, J. (2016). ‘Notation as Technology’ in New Notations Symposium, IRCAM, Paris, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmYjkj650Kw

Ingold, T. (2010). ‘The textility of making’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34. 91-102

Kanno, M. (2014). ‘Order Matters: A Thought on How to Practice’, Artistic Experimentation in Music: An Anthology. Orpheus Institute Series, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 143-147

Kanno, M. (2007). ‘Prescriptive Notation: Limits and Challenges’ special issue on Contemporary Performance (Barrie Webb, ed.), Contemporary Music Review, 26/2, Routledge, 231-254

Lockyer, K. G. (1964). An Introduction to Critical Path Analysis. London: Pitman Publishing

Loy, G. (2006). Musicmathics, volume 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

MacKenzie, A. (2002). Transductions: Bodies and Machines at Speed. London: Continuum

Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books

Simondon, G. (1958).On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects. Paris: Aubier, Editions Montaigne

Voegelin, S. (2010). Listening to Noise and Silence: Towards a Philosophy of Sound Art. London: Continuum

List of References

Tip

Tip