Francisco Zamorano

Feed Rss

Trinidad: The Initial Approach

10.01.2011, Comments Off on Trinidad: The Initial Approach, Journal, by .

Inspired by a trio configuration–which is very common in Jazz and Rock–Trinidad is operated by three participants. Following the trio model of guitar-bass-drums and their individual roles within the music ensemble, in Trinidad one player performs the melody, a second one performs the base, and the third player performs the rhythm.

My initial idea for Trinidad was to create an audiovisual system that allowed novices to play as a band. My assumption was that participants, when confronted to an interface that makes music performance accessible for everyone, would start jamming, trying to create different musical phrases and moods, just as experts would do with traditional instruments. Although this worked out up to a certain extent, after the initial prototype tests, I realized that my assumption was not totally accurate. People didn’t care about creating “great music” as much as they cared about having a good time together. It opened my eyes to the idea that although the musical outcome was important to provide grounding and facilitation, it was not as important as the social experience. This was a groundbreaking discovery that had a profound impact on the direction of the project in several ways: I was no longer interested in making an instrument but an experience, where despite the expertise and the musical expectations, everyone could be able to participate, have fun doing it, and ultimately experiencing flow. After all, isn’t that the point of making music?

Taking this idea into account, for the final user testing I chose a proper context, paying attention to the sound and lights conditions as well to the graphic style and general look of the interface, trying to provide fertile conditions for the social behaviors I was looking for. I tested this with three groups, all of them classmates, some of them knew a bit about my project and some of them didn’t, but none of them were musicians. The overall experience was successful: participants had fun, they communicated between each other in verbal and non-verbal ways, and they were completely focused on the experience. It was extremely interesting to see what happened in that test and I was delighted to be able to experience it from an observer position.

During the hour and a half that the experience lasted, I could observe a common pattern in the way the experience evolved in each of the three groups. First, they explored their own individual space, figuring out how to operate the interface: understanding how the gestural inputs were translated to sonic and visual output, discovering how certain gestures produced different outcomes. Once they learned and felt comfortable about their individual role in the whole system, they started communicating with the rest of the participants, most of the times being curious about each other’s sounds or about what the others were doing. Communication allowed sharing knowledge, teaching each other about the features of the individual sounds and controls. The last step was trying to make something together,  coordinating and synchronizing to create a common outcome.

After all these steps, the most interesting phenomenon happened, they started playing with the interface in different ways, for instance, occupying the individual sound space of a partner without permission, jumping around in circles or trying to play–all together–the same sound at the same time. They were totally breaking the implicit rules of the interface and behaving as children.

I find this last thing very interesting: given a very basic and simple set of rules, the system allows the users to explore the interface, but most importantly, to explore the territories beyond the ruleset. As Salen and Zimmerman explain in The Rules of Play[5] , emergent play is the play that arises from breaking the original ruleset of a game, creating then a new kind of game, becoming an endless loop that makes play evolve.

Most of the ideas from Trinidad are being carried to my current thesis, my plan is to keep exploring this phenomena around sound experiences: how people communicate, how they build up strategies to coordinate and synchronize, how they break the rules of the given system and create play, and how a joyful collective experience leads to the state of flow.

More details on Trinidad here : http://franciscozamorano.cl/?p=1067

__________________________

[1] Salen, Katie and Zimmermann, Eric. Rules of play: game design fundamentals. Cambridge  Mass.: MIT Press, 2003.

2_ Physical Sound Control

09.29.2011, Comments Off on 2_ Physical Sound Control, 2. Gestural Sound Control, Prototypes, by .

Date:

26-30 September, 2011

Objective:

Observe user behavior when confronted to a sound interface with body as input without giving them any directions.

Description:

A sound controller using camera vision that is capable of understanding if you extend your arms to the right, left or up.
This set of three actions are used to trigger three different sounds


Learn more

1_ Collaboration – simple rythm

09.29.2011, Comments Off on 1_ Collaboration – simple rythm, 1. Collaborative drumming, Prototypes, by .

 Date:

14-17 September, 2011

Objective:

Observe the communicational behaviors of players when engaged in creating a collaborative sound piece.

Description:

– Four players sit around a midi device with buttons that trigger different sounds.
– Each player will be in charge of operating one quart of the interface ( a 4×4 matrix ) .
– The goal is to collectively create a rhythm where each participant plays only one sound, basically is dividing the role of a drummer within four participants.

Contraints:

Participants can play one sound at a time and they can only do it after the previous player’s turn

Questions:

  • How do players build a strategy to tackle a common goal?
  • What stages in the developing communication can be identified?
  • What kind of communications can be observed (i.e. physical, verbal, through the interface)?
  • How is the learning process when operating the interface?

Conceptual Module Presentation

09.29.2011, Comments Off on Conceptual Module Presentation, 1. Conceptual Module, Presentations, by .

Download pdf version

First Steps

09.29.2011, Comments Off on First Steps, Journal, by .

My current exploration starts last year with my final project for Major Studio II. Pitched as a mini-thesis, it became an initial approach to the current concerns of my thesis. I started that project reading my Statement of Purpose that I wrote to apply to the MFADT program. One of the main goals explained there, was to develop projects integrating education, music and animation, responding  to my different interests and professional background: I worked as a film director in a production company for several years developing motion-graphic-based projects, I had been teaching design at various universities, and as a hobby, I’ve been playing music for more than fifteen years.  It made sense to me that these interests that have been part of my life needed to come together in a common project, that would at the same time, satisfy  my own artistic curiosity and become something meaningful for others.

With that goal in mind, I developed a project called Trinidad, a collaborative sound and visual interface, that allows people with no previous musical training to experience musical expression as a group. The limited time for developing the project completely influenced on the way I approached it. Since the subject was novel to me, I operated mostly by intuition.

This was extremely positive, it allowed me to explore a virgin territory without prejudice, with complete openness and sometimes, positive ingenuity. But despite this intuitive approach, I did some interesting research, and I found out that there is a large body of research around the field of collaboration and cooperative performance in sound environments. One of the most revealing materials is an article from the Journal of New Music Research (2003) by Tina Blaine and Sidney Fels. Collaborative Musical Experiences for Novices [1] outlines the main aspects, concerns and outcomes for developing collaborative sound systems for non-musicians. It became some kind of bible for me, and up to the present day I feel it is one of the most valuable documents for my research. Equally relevant is the book Flow: The Psychology of optimal Performance by the psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi [2]  where he coins the term Flow, a mental state of complete energized focus in a certain activity. In a TED talk, Csikszentmihalyi cites a music composer he interviewed regarding the state of flow around music:

You are in an ecstatic state to such a point that you feel as though you almost don’t exist. I have experienced this time and again. My hand seems devoid of myself, and I have nothing to do with what is happening. I just sit there watching it in a state of awe and wonderment. And [the music] just flows out of itself.[3]

I have experienced this myself when I used to perform music with other people. Most of musicians know about the unique state that is reached in the music sessions: you are not focused on yourself, you are focused on the collective action, on the others, on the music. Your self-consciousness is reduced and the perception of the synergy generated as a group is enhanced. There’s a pleasurable rewarding feeling about the idea of creating something together, becoming then some kind of group ritual that–using Victor Turner’s terms–enhances the sense of communitas.[4]

__________________

[1] Blaine, Tina, and Fels, Sidney. 2003. Collaborative musical experiences for novices. Journal of New Music Research 32 (4) (12): 411-28.
[2] Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper & Row, 1990.
[3] Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi on flow | Video on TED.com”, n.d., http://www.ted.com/talks/mihaly_csikszentmihalyi_on_flow.html.
[4] Turner, Victor. The ritual process: structure and anti-structure. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1995.

Interview with Ryan Raffa

09.28.2011, Comments Off on Interview with Ryan Raffa, Interviews, by .

I. Introduction

On September 23, 2011, I conducted an online interview with Ryan Raffa 1, a designer, artist and musician currently living in Brooklyn, New York. He holds a BS in Business Management and Marketing from Cornell University (2000) and an MFA in Design and Technology from Parsons The New School for Design (2011). He is interested in rhythm, sound and the intersection between design and technology. He has recently graduated and his thesis project consisted in a tabletop music sequencer operated through colored acrylic pieces displayed over the surface of the interface. Raffa’s project is relevant to my own research because it deals with similar aspects and concerns: collaboration, music synthesis, and synesthetic relations between sound and visuals. Furthermore, I’m interested on his vision and experience tackling the process of making a thesis project.

II. Anticipated questions – Intended areas of conversation

This is the list of intended areas of conversation prepared prior to the interview:
Thesis process

  • Can you explain how your thesis idea evolved during the thesis year?
  • How different it ended up being from your what you first imagined?
  • What were the things that influenced in the evolution of the idea?
  • How broad were your subjects of study/ what different were the users you used for testing? Did you see any difference in how they approached the interface?

User experience and prototyping

  • How did the prototypes tests change your preconceived ideas?
  • What (in general) were the most valuable aspects of performing the tests?
  • How broad were your subjects of study/ what different were the users you used for testing? Did you see any difference in how they approached the interface?

Collaboration

  • Was this an important subject for your project? Why?
  • How does the individual experience differ from the collective ones?
  • What were the main features of RhythmSynthesis in terms of providing a space for collaboration?
  • Postmortem evaluation
  • Now after some time, how do you evaluate your project? Any improvements you would perform?
  • Why do you think your project is relevant?
  • What is the most valuable thing you can take out of the thesis process?
  • Any “golden phrase” to share with me that I’m starting this process?

III. Record

The thesis process

Ryan Raffa stated that at the beginning he had no clear idea of how the final form would look like. The project started taking shape after attending several conferences and meetings with relevant people. He recalls a meeting at Carnegie Hall about Music Education which changed the direction of his project. After this meeting, his interest in exploring how is sound made, and what are the ways to illustrate that back to people became more clear.

Using the library resources was also an important aspect in the evolution of the idea. He basically checked out anything related to sound: from engineering manuals to art, trying to get as much influence from different areas as possible.

At first he was very focused on the idea of how to use sound to learn about about our everyday’s life, and even though is not an explicit aspect of the final piece, he feels that that original idea is still embedded: “ I ended up building an instrument, an installation” so the original idea comes to light in a more exploratory manner.

User experience and prototyping

When prompted to talk about the things that were most influential in the evolution of the project, Raffa points out the importance of constant prototyping and iterative design. One of the milestones was the moment when he was able to escape from the idea that building a very sophisticated prototype is better than building one with lower resolution. Rapid prototyping allows you to test many aspects in a short period of time, so he created a lot of quick prototypes, sometimes building two or more per week, and some of them were made in less than fifteen minutes.

Consequently, he states the importance of putting those prototypes in front of people without telling them what to do, or without correcting their behaviors when performing a test. Taking this passive position leads to important unexpected discoveries.

In general he was very specific with the people he chose to test the interface, especially in the first stages of evolution of the project. Every time he made a prototype he also created a storyboard or a user scenario to better define the target user for that specific iteration. He had a specific list of people from different backgrounds to test the interface: a designer, a musician, an engineer, a scientist and an educator. Seeking needed a broad sample of people so he could get different feedbacks. “ Not everyone is going to see the project as you do ”, he states.
As important as having a broad range of feedback is the ability to filter all that information : “ …you finally decide what feedback to use and what to disregard ”.

Collaboration

According to Raffa, one of the most important parts of music is the community around it, and how they collaborate and share. Within his project, one of the main goals was to create an environment where non-musicians could feel comfortable and that was still challenging enough to attract more experienced musicians. He thinks that collaboration is becoming every time more important not only in the music realm, and in the future it will dominate the way to operate in every aspect of our lives. With that idea in mind, a musical instrument seemed to him a good way to investigate collaboration.

“ The whole idea of music is a pairing of different instruments or rhythms. Although you can have one person playing different set of beats, where the interesting things come out -like in jazz- is in the introduction of new ideas or new directions, that can only really happen with more than one person”.

Postmortem

Looking back to his project now with more time perspective, Raffa is able to make the distinction between projects and iterations. He states that a project is never done and what is finite are the iterations of that project.

As for the future of the project, he is planning to create a new iteration, because he feels that this current version is already finished. For the ACM conference, for instance, he is going to make something different, incorporating the feedback he has compiled so far.

As a final word to finish the interview, Raffa was asked to share any thoughts that could be helpful for someone that is starting its own thesis project. He instantly responded with the Ten Thousand Hour rule by Malcolm Gladwell : “If you do anything for ten thousand hours, you will become good at it”.

 

IV. Conclusions

Conducting this interview was a great learning experience because now I know much more about the experience of thesis process. Now I have a better overall understanding of what is difficult, what are the key points that need to be addressed in an investigation involving interfaces for sound generation.

Definitely one of the most important points that I can take away from Raffa’s experience is the relevance of having an iterative and constant user-testing process. The fact that it is more valuable to build rapid low-res prototypes to test several different aspects instead of trying to build less but more finished ones is something that I will try to incorporate into my own iterative process.

 

Bibliography

Buxton, William. Sketching user experiences: getting the design right and the right design, (Boston : Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann, 2007), 337.
Gladwell, Malcolm. Outliers : The story of success. (New York: New York : Little, Brown and Co.,2008).