Album Apps: A New Musical Album Format and the Influence of Open Works
a b s t r a c t Fernanda Sa Dias Since 2011, the term “album app” has been used more frequently by journalists in the music and technology fields. It refers to a new album format that at first seemed an invita- tion to improvisation; one could re-create a musical piece while Listening as Performance From the 1950s to the mid-1970s, listening to it. The result is that open compositions were mainly re- the roles of composing, per- The first two album apps in music history were released in forming and listening become 2011: The National Mall by Bluebrain and Biophilia by Björk. stricted to the classical music en- nearly indiscernible in the album Since then, several articles have speculated on “the future vironment. Later the form was no app context. The author also of music” within the realm of the album format [1]. As Cage longer limited to this select circle discusses the album app’s of people and influenced a wider relationship to “open works,” once questioned: “Composing’s one thing, performing’s an- a term that was coined and other, listening’s a third. What can they have to do with each number of musicians, particularly investigated by Eco in 1959, other?” [2] The format of specific album apps [3] answers in jazz, experimental and elec- a period that disposed of this question—it is noticeable that these three roles are indis- tronic music [7]. Approximately 5 different technologies to apply very similar statements. tinguishable. The audience acts in a manner that exceeds the decades after Eco’s essay, we may conventional way of listening, which is sometimes perceived have reached the point at which as passive. In the album app format, the action of listening is musical open works are accessible dependent on inputs performed by the listener via mobile by the general public via the release gadgets. In order to access the musical content, one must per- of album apps. As opposed to their first appearance when open form actions such as walking, tapping or tilting the device’s pieces were performed for limited audiences in specific times screen. Often the experience occurs while creating new ver- and spaces, currently similar concepts are accessible to a wider sions of the songs, which I refer to here as creative listening. range of people via smartphones and tablets. This is an intervention into the narrative and aesthetics of Björk’s Biophilia was the first album app project to provoke the album, executed by altering musical structures and their debate. The project was conceived mainly to teach children duration. Before the immensely debated changes introduced concepts present in nature in very simplified ways and to in- in the Bluebrain and Björk releases, Simon Frith had already crease people’s interest in music-making [8]. In Biophilia, the discussed the shifting boundary between staged and everyday author did not state an intended order in which the album practices, analyzing the ways in which listeners are perform- should be played. The idea of sequence is nonexistent. In its ing music for themselves: “[It] is not just that in listening to three-dimensional menu, there is no numbered track list. Nor popular music we are listening to a performance, but, fur- are there A and B sides (as on an LP) or time-limited tracks (as ther, that listening itself is a performance” [4]. In detailing his encountered in the MP3 album format). There is no appar- argument, Frith considers factors such as musical pleasure, ent indication of a correct path to follow. The Gutenberg-era meaning and evaluation. As an interesting parallel, “listening “one-at-a-time” [9] behavior, provoked by systems of written as performance” appears as a more physical statement in the language, is not a premise in this case. The album is presented album app projects discussed here. as a 3D universe (on a 2D screen) in which the sounds from The open work, a term coined in 1959 by Umberto Eco, at least three tracks start merging. One is free to decide the refers to “works of art that call upon performers, readers, direction to follow and which sounding stars (in a constella- viewers, or listeners to complete or to realize them” [5]. Eco tion of song apps) one wishes to mix and play. With the first examined the first works of this kind, which “are linked by a interactions, the idea of nonlinear storytelling is triggered. common feature: the considerable autonomy left to the indi- As a brief example, the song app “Crystalline” (the lead vidual performer in the way he chooses to play the work” [6]. single of Biophilia) is about human relationships, crystals and In this case, the interpreter was provoked to perform the piece musical structure. It applies the concept of “gamification” [10] in a creative fashion. That resulted in a transformation of a to engage the listener. Its sonic outcome is dependent on the mimetic reproduction approach toward acts of improvisation. listener’s moves (collecting virtual crystals, tilting the tablet as In this case, the interpreter was provoked to perform the piece if driving a car). Each tunnel explored reproduces a section in a creative fashion, which resulted in a transformation of a of the music, and it is possible to unlock new fragments if mimetic reproduction approach toward acts of improvisation. one collects the right crystals (which influences the duration Consequently, the listener would encounter unpredictable of the music). In its exercise of randomness and choice, one and unique results every time an open piece was performed. perceives the flexibility of the musical structure. In this respect it is comparable to Stockhausen’s open piece Klavierstück XI (1952). In the latter the performer must address a large sheet
Fernanda Sa Dias (researcher), University of Applied Sciences Bremerhaven, Hohenpfad of music paper with a series of note groupings. The creative 17, 28203, Bremen, Germany. Email:
©2014 ISAST doi:10.1162/LMJ_a_00191 LEONARDO MUSIC JOURNAL, Vol. 24, pp. 25–27, 2014 25
Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LMJ_a_00191 by guest on 26 September 2021 a specific order. We can see in both cases Certeau’s studies regarding walking as a and Van Rijswijk, as well as REWORK by a combinatory structure, wherein the creative practice [14]. Philip Glass and Scott Snibbe [19]—to choices of the listener and performer Bluebrain’s The National Mall and Lis- name a few. The structure of the whole shape the sonic outcome. ten to the Light (2011) [15], Tempest by Bob is given by the artists who realize these Considering open work pieces, graphic Dylan (2012) [16], and Walk with Me by projects, while the final musical out- scores may be perceived as peculiar ob- Strijbos and Van Rijswijk (2011) [17] ap- comes will always be a reflection of their jects. Often they are designed to incite ply locative art concepts, already existent listeners’ interventions. Henri Pousseur, the improvisation process in classical mu- in specific sound walks, to musical album when describing his open work Scambi sicians. In Björk’s “Crystalline” a similar apps. However, I believe that accessibil- (1957), stated: proposal is presented, since the graphic ity is a relevant, novel feature introduced It is not out of the question that we con- interface united to the gamification pro- by this contemporary format. It does not ceive these formal notations as a market- posal stimulates listeners to improvise and limit the audience as much as sound able product: if they were tape-recorded create new structures. At the end of the walks’ initial format utilizing Walkman or and the purchaser had a sufficiently so- game, the option of saving the outcome CD players. This feature may produce a phisticated apparatus, then the general (a collection of crystals made during the popularization of the practices of locative public would be in a position to develop a private musical construct of its own performance) represents a metaphor for art and its appreciation in public spaces, [20]. permanence—that is, a graphic score in making it easier for audiences to appreci- reverse. A score is generated after (and ate local art and for artists to expose their I wonder if the “sophisticated appara- not before) the listening to/performing works more widely; additionally it enables tus” mentioned by Pousseur could be in- of the song app. As in this case, the crys- filtering. One can only access the musical terpreted to include the mobile gadgets tal saved is a visual representation of the content when running a specific app and with which the general public currently sonic outcome, which varies depending walking in predesigned spaces. This way uses to play album apps; and, more im- on each specific performance. A visual the music is not invading the universe portantly, if the “new collective sensibility (and not auditory) memory is recorded of the pedestrians uninvited—unlike in matters of musical presentation and for future analysis and comparison. Each artists’ performances on the streets, ran- duration” [21] is actually emerging via listening experience may turn into a less domly delivering a new musical selection the album app format. ephemeral moment. to the sidewalks and impacting diverse The first location-based album app, audiences. Future Album Formats The National Mall by Bluebrain (2011), As Eco comments, “indeterminate com- offers the peculiarity of improvised listen- Authorship in Open Works positions” were once a reflection of a ing via walking in outdoor public spaces. and Album Apps post-theological era, when the open- The album was set up in a predefined The concept of authorship, as in a com- ended universe of Einstein, Heisenberg area of the National Mall Park, in Wash- poser delivering a closed musical piece, and Bohr undoubtedly influenced the ington, D.C. The premise of “music for can turn into a question mark when con- artistic scene. It is clear that album apps landscape” (where the artist invites the sidering open works and album apps. should be interpreted as a product of our audience to listen to/experience the al- When listeners’ interventions result in new media‑oriented times, but I person- bum via exploring a physical space) also countless versions of a single song app, ally believe that contemporary artistic proposes that the walking incorporate who is supposed to be considered the production may also reflect economic the actions of curating and composing. composer? Should one perceive album factors and technological availability. Ryan Holladay describes one of the fea- apps as composed by an immeasurable That often will determine when specific tures of the album: “Approach a lake and number of authors? An interesting per- works of art are accessible (or not) to a piano piece changes into a harp. Or, as spective is presented in Eco’s “work in their audience. After the Napster era (in you get close to the children’s merry-go- movement” analysis: which access to any kind of digitally re- round, the wooden horses come to life corded music was made possible anytime and you hear sounds of real horses get- The possibilities which the work’s open- and anywhere) [22], artists and music ness makes available always work within ting steadily louder based on your prox- labels needed to conceive new manners imity” [11]. a given field of relations. As in the Ein- steinian universe, in the “work in move- of engaging their public. The times de- The location-based musical album app ment” we may well deny that there is a manded new solutions for how a musical introduces aspects analogous to the con- single prescribed point of view. But this album could offer extraordinary facets to does not mean complete chaos in its in- cept of open works as well as the “ walk- engage their public. I cannot determine ing as remixing” by Behrendt [12]. The ternal relations. What it does imply is an organizing rule which governs these rela- whether the album app was merely a re- directions and time taken while walking tions. Therefore, to sum up, we can say sponse by artists to “digital Darwinism” determine the aesthetics and duration of that the “work in movement” is the pos- [23] or if it was a natural consequence of the album. LaBelle’s observation also il- sibility of numerous different personal the state of the art of mobile media tech- lustrates the concept: interventions, but it is not an amorphous invitation to indiscriminate participa- nology [24]. Personally, I find both view- Walking, as a performative act . . . sets tion. The invitation offers the performer points plausible. From the perspectives into relief a dialogue between subjec- the opportunity for an oriented insertion of media ecology [25], new media and tive consciousness and the dynamics of into something which always remains the media culture studies, I see the aspect world intended by the author [18]. place. . . . The walking body carves out of creative listening as a major feature within the environment a sort of refuge for making contact or for cultivating an According to the premise of the un- presented. It invites the listener to play explicit orchestration [13]. finished work, the composer draws paths a new role, merging the listening with that stimulate the exercise of choice by improvised creation, promoting subtle That idea resembles Debord and the the performer. Similar conditions are or drastic musical interventions. Situationists’ approach to psychogeogra- evidenced in the projects noted above In this article I raised initial questions, phy and the theory of the dérive or de by Björk, Bluebrain, Dylan, and Strijbos relating album apps to a historical past.
26 Sa Dias, Album Apps
Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LMJ_a_00191 by guest on 26 September 2021 However, I believe there is a lack of em- in Modern Music (New York, NY: Continuum, 2004) 18. Eco [6] p. 172. pirical research on the side effects of this pp. 167–175. 19. CreativeApplications.Net REWORK (Philip Glass specific format. Creative listening rep- 7. Cox and Warner [5]. Remixed) by Snibbe Studio, 13 December 2012:
Sa Dias, Album Apps 27
Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LMJ_a_00191 by guest on 26 September 2021 a word of thanks
Thanks to Our Supporters Leonardo/ISAST is a nonprofit organization that serves the international arts community by documenting work at the intersection of the arts, sciences and technology and by encouraging and stimulating collaboration through its programs and activities. Donations and grants are integral to the future of Leonardo. Contact
Leonardo Codex Guy Levrier Angel ($5,000 and above) Isabel Maxwell ($249 and under) Estate of Stephen Wilson Merrill Lynch Foundation Anonymous, Aaron Alpar, Charles Ames, Roger Malina Emanuel Nadler Craig Anderson, Art Science Collaborations The Malina Trust Nessim & Associates Inc. (ASCI), Yasuhiro Asoo, Bret Battey, Marc National Endowment for the Arts Sam Okoshken Battier, Mark and Lauren Beam, Patricia Sonya Rapoport Steve Oscherwitz Bentson, Timothy Binkley, The Birse Family, Rockefeller Foundation Trudy Reagan Marc Böhlen, Deborah Branton, Robert A. Al Smith David Rosenboom Brown, Ronald Brown, Willi Bruns, Annick Darlene Tong Jack Sarfatti Bureaud, James Burke, David Carter, Rosa University of Texas at Dallas Joel Silverman Casarez-Levison, Webster Cash, Katherine Christian Simm Casida, Joel Chadabe, Alison Chaiken, Sforza Monument Tami Spector Yongsoon Choi, John Chowning, Richard (The Bronze Horse) Meredith Tromble Clar, Computer Art Studio/Gunter Schulz, ($1,000 to $4,999) Ivo Cristante, Elizabeth Crumley, Mary & Martin Anderson Flying Machine Michael Cunningam, Danish Film Festival, Lisa Bornstein Taylor ($250 to $499) Bob Davis, Derrick de Kerckhove, Goery CalArts Loren Basch Delacote, Lily Diaz, Agnes Denes, Emma Lou Donna Cox Ray Bradbury Diemer, Steve Dietz, Augus Dorbie, Hubert The Daniel Langlois Foundation Bettina Brendel Duprat, Elmer Duncan, Ann Elias, Sherban Char Davies Shawn Brixey Epure, Theodosia Ferguson, John Fobes, Tim Penny Finnie David Carrier Fox, Alan & Mickey Friedman, Ryozo Fujii, Steve Forestieri Eva Craig Kai-hung Fung, David Gamper, Jonathan Gregory Harper Holly Crawford & Donna R. Gennick, George Gessert, Ken John Hearst Eugene Epstein Goldberg, Yusef Grillo, Karen Guzak, Craig Marc Hebert Lawrence Fane Harris, Isabel Hayden, Margaret Hermann, Intel Corporation Herbert Franke Doris Herrick, Estate of Dick Higgins, Kathy The LEF Foundation Doreen Gatland High, Anthony Hill, Toshiyuki Hiruma, Gerald Alan Malina Pamela Grant-Ryan Holton, Hungarian University of Crafts & Marjorie Malina Oliver Grau Design, Amy Ione, Susan Joyce, Raymond Jacques Mandelbrojt Linda Dalrymple Henderson Jurgens, Eduardo Kac, Robert Kadesch, Christine Maxwell-Malina Robert Hill Marshall Kaplan, Ken Knowlton, Zdenek Sheila Pinkel Curtis Karnow Kocib, Kenji Kohiyama, Thomas Kostusiak, Michael Punt Melinda Klayman Kathleen Laziza, Levi Family Foundation, Itsuo Sakane Kathleen Laziza Frederick Loomis, Carl Machover, James Martin Segal Thomas Mercer Maher, William Marchant, Delle Maxwell, Sonia Sheridan Gianluca Mura Elliot Mazer, Kevin Meehan, Minneapolis Marcia Tanner Frieder Nake College of Art & Design, Mit Mitropoulos, Makepeace Tsao Barbara Nessim Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton, Jason Monberg, Jack Ox Roger Mulkey, Geetha Narayanan, Alex La Gioconda (Mona Lisa) Ed Payne and Liss Fain Nicoloff, Greg Niemeyer, Hiroshi Ninomiya, Nancy Perloff ($500 to $999) Elaine Petschek, Anne Brooks Pfister, Glenn Frank Popper Roy Ascott R. Phillips, Victor A. Pickett, Otto Piene, Ann Harry Rand Lars Ole Belhage Pizzorusso, Herbert & Joan Webster Price, Beverly Reiser Martha Blassnigg Patric Prince, Wolf Rainer, Peter Richards, Mark Resch Anna Campbell Bliss Ron Rocco, Peter Rudolfi, David M. Russell, Eric Roll Leif Brush Mr. and Mrs. Robert Russett, Colin Sanderson, Edward Shanken James D. Burke Piero Scaruffi, Patricia Search, Allan Shields, Leonard Shlain Richard Clar Gregory C. Shubin, Joel Slayton, John Slorp, Todd Siler Una Dora Copley Avril Sokolov, Kirill Sokolov, Christa Sommerer, Jesse Tischler Bryony Dalefield Rejane Spitz, Anait Stephens, Robert Strizich, Joan Truckenbrod Michele Emmer The Sun Microsystems Foundation, Inc., Robin Kelvin Tsao William Fawley and Barbara Tchartoff, Tamiko Thiel, Rodrigo Jonathan Willard Arana Greenberg B. Toledo, Heinz Trauboth, Mark Tribe, Karen Barbara Lee Williams Michael Joaquin Grey Tsao, Roman Verostko, Alexandre Vitkine, Richard A. Wilson Dene Grigar Annette Weitraub, Natalie & Mark Whitson, Stephen Wilson Rosemary Jackson Alan Thompson & Sharon A. Widmayer, Gary Zellerbach Larry Larson Ioannis Yessios, Robert Zimmerman Lynn Hershman Leeson
Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LMJ_a_00191 by guest on 26 September 2021