Improvising with Digital Auto-Scaffolding: How Mimi Changes and Enhances the Creative Process

This chapter poses, and proposes some answers to, questions about the origins and nature of creativity when digital media takes an active role in the music-making process. The discussions are centered on Francois’ Mimi (Multimodal Interaction for Musical Improvisation ) system, which enables a musician to seed the computer with musical ideas and then improvise atop re-combinations of these ideas; the system provides the musician with visual foreknowledge of the machine’s intent and review of the interaction. They extend to the different instantiations of, and extensions to, the Mimi system, which are designed with various interaction nuances in mind, and engender new forms of creativity. We review each Mimi version, from the original blue-and-white silhouette display, to the Scriabin -inspired varicolored panels, to the multi-paneled user-directed Mimi4x . In each scenario, we consider the impact of Mimi on the creative process and the resulting performance; specifically, we describe the interaction between a performer, the composer (when this is different from the performer), and the system, analyzing the techniques used to successfully negotiate a performance with Mimi, and the formal musical structures that result from this interaction.

[1]  Shlomo Dubnov,et al.  Using Factor Oracles for Machine Improvisation , 2004, Soft Comput..

[2]  Jeanne Bamberger,et al.  Developing musical intuitions : a project-based introduction to making and understanding music , 2000 .

[3]  Shlomo Dubnov,et al.  Improvisation Planning and Jam Session Design using concepts of Sequence Variation and Flow Experience , 2005 .

[4]  Gil Weinberg,et al.  Robot-human interaction with an anthropomorphic percussionist , 2006, CHI.

[5]  William F. Walker,et al.  A computer participant in musical improvisation , 1997, CHI.

[6]  Christopher Dingle,et al.  Olivier Messiaen: Music, Art and Literature , 2007 .

[7]  Belinda Thom,et al.  Unsupervised Learning and Interactive Jazz/Blues Improvisation , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[8]  Elaine Chew,et al.  Visual feedback in performer-machine interaction for musical improvisation , 2007, NIME '07.

[9]  Morwaread Farbood,et al.  Hyperscore : a new approach to interactive, computer-generated music , 2001 .

[10]  Xavier Serra,et al.  Transmission Two: The Great Excursion (TT:TGE)—The Aesthetic, Art and Science of a Composition for Radio , 1991 .

[11]  William Walker,et al.  Applying ImprovisationBuilder to Interactive Composition with MIDI Piano , 1996, ICMC.

[12]  B. Galeyev,et al.  Was Scriabin a Synesthete? , 2001, Leonardo.

[13]  François Pachet,et al.  The Continuator: Musical Interaction With Style , 2003, ICMC.

[14]  Elaine Chew,et al.  Performer-centered visual feedback for human-machine improvisation , 2011, CIE.

[15]  Miller S. Puckette A divide between 'compositional' and 'performative' aspects of Pd ⁄ , 2004 .

[16]  Camilo Rueda,et al.  Computer-Assisted Composition at IRCAM: From PatchWork to OpenMusic , 1999, Computer Music Journal.

[17]  Christoph Cox,et al.  Audio Culture: Readings in Modern Music , 2004 .

[18]  George E. Lewis Too Many Notes: Computers, Complexity and Culture in Voyager , 2000, Leonardo Music Journal.

[19]  Belinda Thom,et al.  BoB: an interactive improvisational music companion , 2000, AGENTS '00.

[20]  Carlos Agon,et al.  OpenMusic 5: A Cross-Platform Release of the Computer-Assisted Composition Environment , 2005 .

[21]  William Walker,et al.  Improvisational Builder: Improvisation as Conversation , 1992, ICMC.

[22]  Belinda Thom,et al.  Interactive Improvisational Music Companionship: A User-Modeling Approach , 2003, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[23]  Shlomo Dubnov,et al.  OMax brothers: a dynamic yopology of agents for improvization learning , 2006, AMCMM '06.