From LLandy at dmu.ac.uk Wed Aug 29 10:58:50 2018 From: LLandy at dmu.ac.uk (Leigh Landy) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 08:58:50 +0000 Subject: [Muwisys] Organised Sound - call for submissions - first of two - 25/1 'Computation in the sonic arts' Message-ID: <4563_1535533144_w7T8x3Yh022017_2333_1535533143_w7T8x2Ol027667_D7AC1E75.39571%llandy@dmu.ac.uk> Organised Sound: An International Journal of Music and Technology Call for submissions Volume 25, Number 1 Issue thematic title: Computation in the sonic arts Date of Publication: April 2020 Publishers: Cambridge University Press Issue co-ordinators: David Worrall (worrall at avatar.com.au) Deadline for submission: 15 May 2019 There are many ways to generate and organise the sounds of a composition. Notwithstanding the early precedents in musical dice games and the rules for contrapuntal voice leading, the use of formal procedures to make musical artifacts without direct human intervention became practicably realisable with the availability of digital computers. This occurred in the second half of the twentieth century at the same time as artificial intelligence researchers were dreaming of a model of the human personage in which bodies and minds were more like machines than self-generating organisms. Some composers took the opportunity to develop algorithmic procedures to model works of the past, others to explore the representation of mathematically defined, natural and abstract processes that have no immediate musical connection to music such as set and group theory, probability distributions, Markovian stochastics, self-similarity, iterated function systems, adaptive networks and other combinatorial techniques. More recently, attention has also turned to the representation of messy collected data, scraped from the internet, or gathered by monitoring human, natural, environmental and other activities. Early collaborations with computational systems were met with some hostility by the musical establishment. Arguments ranged from whether or not, in replacing parts of the creative process with an automated system, we were dehumanising the resultant artifact. Were we cheating by letting the tools do the work? Was is it even possible to produce tools which can adequately challenge the intensely human ?creative? process? Did reason alone have any place in musical composition in a domain of human activity which should be driven by feelings, intuition, and other non-algorithmic considerations? This issue of Organised Sound seeks articles which go beyond the description of how specific compositional procedures are used in individual compositions in order to address the social and musicological dimensions of computation, specifically focusing on the sonic arts. Suggested themes include but are not restricted to: · What styles of computational sonic arts exist today? How are they defined? · What is social context in which they exist? · Do or should listeners listen differently to music in which computers are involved in the creative decision-making? · In what ways are the computers involve being creative or imitating creative processes? Is there a difference? · Both in creation and performance, how does such work fulfill composer and listener needs for artifact formation and artistic communication? · What is the role of the ego when composing computationally? · In socio-cultural environments in which AI research is currently faced with difficult conceptual and definitional issues such as embodiment, has this affected how computational creativity is considered? · In performances where computational algorithms are freely used in improvisation, what does it mean for a composition to be well formed? Does it matter? · Is there a role for computational processes in music education? · Are the compositional situations in which you would not consider using procedural approaches? Why? As always, submissions related to the theme are encouraged; however, those that fall outside the scope of this theme are always welcome. SUBMISSION DEADLINE: 15 May 2019 SUBMISSION FORMAT: Notes for Contributors and further details can be obtained from the inside back cover of published issues of Organised Sound or at the following url: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayMoreInfo?jid=OSO&type=ifc (and download the pdf) Properly formatted email submissions and general queries should be sent to: os at dmu.ac.uk, not to the guest editors. Hard copy of articles and images and other material (e.g., sound and audio-visual files, etc. ? normally max. 15? sound files or 8? movie files), both only when requested, should be submitted to: Prof. Leigh Landy Organised Sound Clephan Building De Montfort University Leicester LE1 9BH, UK. Accepted articles will be published online via FirstView after copy editing prior to the paper version of the journal?s publication. Editor: Leigh Landy Associate Editors: Ross Kirk and Richard Orton? Regional Editors: Ricardo Dal Farra, Jøran Rudi, Margaret Schedel, Barry Truax, Ian Whalley, David Worrall, Lonce Wyse International Editorial Board: Marc Battier, Manuella Blackburn, Joel Chadabe, Alessandro Cipriani, Simon Emmerson, Kenneth Fields, Rajmil Fischman, Eduardo Miranda, Rosemary Mountain, Tony Myatt, Garth Paine, Mary Simoni, Martin Supper, Daniel Teruggi ===== From LLandy at dmu.ac.uk Wed Aug 29 10:58:55 2018 From: LLandy at dmu.ac.uk (Leigh Landy) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 08:58:55 +0000 Subject: [Muwisys] Organised Sound - call for submissions - second of two - 25/2 'Time in electroacoustic music' Message-ID: <15391_1535533147_w7T8x66n016527_22568_1535533146_w7T8x5Ye024466_D7AC1E76.39572%llandy@dmu.ac.uk> Organised Sound: An International Journal of Music and Technology Call for submissions Volume 25, Number 2 Issue thematic title: Time in Electroacoustic Music Date of Publication: August 2020 Publishers: Cambridge University Press Issue co-ordinators: Rosemary Mountain (rosemary.mountain at concordia.ca) and Kevin Dahan (kevin.dahan at dmu.ac.uk) Deadline for submission: 15 September 2019 Music is a time-dependent art - often conceived and expressed with explicit reference to the temporal placement and duration of sounds. Yet its attraction is generally in the temporal design which may evoke a more subjective feeling of time passing. The patterning of time in music usually draws on familiar impressions of time, but is welcome because it is clearly outside the mundane due to its nature or treatment. Complex works often compress and juxtapose different pacings of time within a relatively short duration, in amusing or unpredictable ways. One of the problems with discussions about time is that the perspective can influence the choice of terminology and metaphor, and these are not always shared across disciplines. In many disciplines, the regularity of the clock measurement aspect of time is considered the most useful model, whereas in the temporal arts, as in philosophy, the subjective experience is often the more central aspect. But for musicians, who use the clock time model for both performance instructions and digital creation, the apparent dichotomy and possible correlation between these perspectives is rarely acknowledged, despite their being crucial to our craft. To improve the effectiveness of our investigation, we would benefit from some easily shared language to speak about the perception and cognition of time and its manipulation in electroacoustics, as well as an understanding of current theoretical models of time. This issue therefore is particularly interested in presenting a summary and critical review of existing schema, metaphors, terminology, software, etc. which have been used to describe temporal aspects of music and how these might be adjusted, if necessary, to thinking about this corpus of music in its various manifestations. In addition, it would be helpful to compare these to perspectives of time used in cognate disciplines, to enable us to discuss their advantages and weaknesses in relation to the analysis of electroacoustic music. The investigation can also start from an examination of specific aspects of electroacoustic music composition and performance, as revealed, for example, in collected interviews or psychological studies. Does the ability to work to millisecond precision and looking at visual sonographic representations of a work have an effect on the composer?s attitude towards the creation of illusions of time presented in the work? How does the presence of previously unheard sounds or the absence of physical sound-producers affect the listener?s reception and sense of time? How does the absence of a quasi-universal symbolic system for the representation of time information influence electroacoustic composition mechanisms? Do presentation formats ? for example, listening in darkness, multi-channel diffusion ? enhance the appreciation of temporal design in some ways? What are the performance challenges to mixed electroacoustic-live pieces, and how does the presence of visible sound-producers affect the perception of time? How does/could our analyses of electroacoustics reflect temporal aspects? Would it be beneficial to build on extant philosophical frameworks (e.g. Bergson)? Does electroacoustic music provide exceptions to the ?note-based? music discussed by previous authors about musical time (e.g., Zuckerkandl, Rowell, Yeston, Kramer, London)? Do we need to modify mainstream music psychology studies on rhythm to make them more applicable to the electroacoustic field? Can we propose more relevant models for psychological-type investigation of electroacoustics? What are the differences/similarities between the forging of sense of time during composition, its articulation during interpretation, and its reception during listening in EA/computer/technologically-mediated music? Finally, to paraphrase Bergson in a somewhat provocative way, is music the art of time (an uninterrupted stream of successive and similar temporal units), or the art of duration (made up of successions of variable states of consciousness)? or both? Thus, topics for investigation could include: ? critical schema of time representations which have been previously articulated by composers/analysts (e.g. Stockhausen, Xenakis); ? comparison of analytical approaches in their treatment of subjective temporal aspects of music; ? evaluation of representational models of time for EA and their impact on composition; ? a comparison of terminology and metaphors used in composers? writings and/or textbooks about music; ? a comparison of musical concepts of time with reference to those in another field (performance studies, history, film studies, psychology, etc.) ? the perception and effects of audible reference to body movements in music ? gestures, footsteps, etc. ? whether artificially created, recorded directly, distorted, or mediated by gestural controllers; ? the effect of tools and software on the conception and manipulation of time in ea (as opposed, for example, to acoustic music composition); ? shifting trends in the electroacoustic field of attitudes and techniques towards time manipulation; ? a comparison on various composers? attitudes towards temporal aspects viewed in the context of the cultural/historical views of their environment/community; ? ontologies of time in EA music. As always, submissions related to the theme are encouraged; however, those that fall outside the scope of this theme are always welcome. SUBMISSION DEADLINE: 15 September 2019 SUBMISSION FORMAT: Notes for Contributors and further details can be obtained from the inside back cover of published issues of Organised Sound or at the following url: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayMoreInfo?jid=OSO&type=ifc (and download the pdf) Properly formatted email submissions and general queries should be sent to: os at dmu.ac.uk, not to the guest editors. Hard copy of articles and images and other material (e.g., sound and audio-visual files, etc. ? normally max. 15? sound files or 8? movie files), both only when requested, should be submitted to: Prof. Leigh Landy Organised Sound Clephan Building De Montfort University Leicester LE1 9BH, UK. Accepted articles will be published online via FirstView after copy editing prior to the paper version of the journal?s publication. Editor: Leigh Landy Associate Editors: Ross Kirk and Richard Orton? Regional Editors: Ricardo Dal Farra, Jøran Rudi, Margaret Schedel, Barry Truax, Ian Whalley, David Worrall, Lonce Wyse International Editorial Board: Marc Battier, Manuella Blackburn, Joel Chadabe, Alessandro Cipriani, Simon Emmerson, Kenneth Fields, Rajmil Fischman, Eduardo Miranda, Rosemary Mountain, Tony Myatt, Garth Paine, Mary Simoni, Martin Supper, Daniel Teruggi =====