View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The Research Repository @ WVU (West Virginia University) Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2018 Rethinking Interaction: Identity and Agency in the Performance of “Interactive” Electronic Music Jacob A. Kopcienski Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Part of the Musicology Commons, and the Other Music Commons Recommended Citation Kopcienski, Jacob A., "Rethinking Interaction: Identity and Agency in the Performance of “Interactive” Electronic Music" (2018). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 7493. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/7493 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rethinking Interaction: Identity and Agency in the Performance of “Interactive” Electronic Music Jacob A. Kopcienski Thesis submitted To the College of Creative Arts at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Musicology Travis D. Stimeling, Ph. D., Chair Evan MacCarthy, Ph.D. David Taddie, Ph.D. Joel Diegert School of Music Morgantown, West Virginia 2018 Key Words: Music, Interactive, Electronic, Computer, Identity, Agency Abstract Rethinking Interaction: Identity and Agency in the Performance of “Interactive” Electronic Music Jacob Kopcienski This document investigates interaction between human performers and various interactive technologies in the performance of interactive electronic and computer music. Specifically, it observes how the identity and agency of the interactive technology is experienced and perceived by the human performer. First, a close examination of George Lewis’ creation of and performance with his own historic interactive electronic and computer works reveals his disposition of interaction as improvisation. This disposition is contextualized within then contemporary social and political issues related to African American experimental musicians as well as an emerging culture of electronic and computer musicians concerned with interactivity. Second, an auto-ethnographic study reveals a contemporary performers perspective via the author’s own direct interactive experience with electronic and computer systems. These experiences were documented and analyzed using Actor Network Theory, Critical Technical Practice, theories of Embodiment and Embodied Cognition, Lewis’s conceptions of improvisation, as well as Tracy McMullen’s theory of the Improvisative. Analyses from both studies revealed that when and how performers chose to “other” interactive technologies significantly influenced their actions. The implications of this are discussed in terms of identity formation both within performances of interactive electronic music and interactive technologies generally. iii Acknowledgements: This project would not have been possible without the collaboration, guidance, and assistance of many individuals. I would like to thank Dr. Travis D. Stimeling and Dr. Evan A. MacCarthy for their guidance and support throughout this duration of this project. In particular, I am grateful for their support of creativity and risk. Similarly, I would like to thank Dr. Michael Ibrahim DMA for his musical guidance, support of artistry, and mentorship. I am indebted to Dr. David Taddie for introducing me to electronic music composition and for his technological support at many junctures. I would like to thank Joel Diegert for his assistance and advice at various stages of this project by: helping with debugging, rehearsals, documentation techniques, video editing, and providing musical guidance. I am similarly indebted to Justin Massey for his assistance in rehearsals, managing live sound in performances, and his unfailing “can do” attitude. In addition to composing three works which have become the cornerstone of this document, I would like to thank Ben Carey, Ravi Kittappa, and Peter Kramer for their collegiality in collaboration and friendliness in conversation. Similarly, I am grateful for the members of Mountaineer Musicological Community for their inspirational collegiality, and warm, supportive friendships. I would like to the College of Creative Arts and the School of Music at West Virginia University for material support for concerts and rehearsals. Additionally, I am grateful for their financial support to attend various conferences, particularly the 2016 SOUND WORK: Composition as a Critical Technical Practice seminar which was germinal to the discovery of many of the methodologies in this document. Finally, I would like to thank my family John Paul, Martha, and Mary Claire, for their ceaseless support of my musical career and personal growth. iv Table of Contents: Preface and Chapter Summaries……………………………………………...…...………...…..1-4 Chapter 1: Introduction and Methodology………...…………………………………………..5-36 Chapter 2: Early Interactivity: A Survey and Analysis of the Work of George E. Lewis…...37-77 Chapter 3: Chapter 3: Interaction through Embodiment and Re-Embodiment………......….78-95 Chapter 4: Auto-Ethnography of Experience with Interactive Electronic Systems………...96-137 Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………..…137-144 1 Preface and Chapter Summaries At Google’s May 2018 I/O, the company’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, unveiled a groundbreaking development in Google’s “assistant” technology called google Duplex. Pichai described Duplex as designed to help connect customers to businesses. To demonstrate these functions, Pichai nonchalantly asked Duplex to schedule a hair appointment. Immediately, Duplex initiated a phone conversation with a human receptionist of an actual hair salon. Throughout the conversation, Duplex performs perfectly. The receptionist asks a number of questions, trying to clarify the time and services required for the appointment. Duplex negotiates the conversation convincingly, making logical inferences and responding with appropriate follow up questions. At the conclusion of the conversation the audience applauds, marveling at the success of the interaction and, no doubt, the countless minutes they will save with the new feature.1 In the 21st century, interactions with “intelligent” devices are increasingly commonplace. Absent novelty, what explains the enthusiastic response from the audience? Simply put, the Duplex virtual assistant exhibits nothing in the interaction to hint that it is indeed not a human. Its cool female voice, natural upbeat speech cadence and word choice all adhere to appropriate English language conversational conventions. A confirmatory “mhm” to the human secretary’s request for a few seconds of time to verify the schedule strikes the audience as particularly humorous. Duplex’s natural response becomes both impressive and humorous to the audience, who marvels at the apparent spontaneity and deception. The human secretary has no idea she is speaking to a computer program. In fact, the interaction is startling similar to what we expect of an interaction between two humans. The groundbreaking and incredibly refined technology that powers Duplex certainly contributes to the perception of the success of this interaction. However, beneath the veneer of highly advanced 1 This demonstration of google assistant can be viewed at the following link from 35:04-37:50 https://youtu.be/ogfYd705cRs?t=2104 . 2 technology, Duplex succeeds because it meets the expectations of both the identity and agency of a human being. But whose expectations? In this instance, Duplex appears to meets the expectations of the apparently uninformed human secretary as well as those watching the interactions. Underpinning the expectations from both of these perspectives lie assumptions about the identity and agency of Duplex, as well as the nature of the interaction itself. Listen to the conversation again. Note that the incredible computational powers of the system are described by Pichai as an “assistant” to the human user. This assistant is realized through the accent and speech patterns of an ostensibly white, urban dwelling woman. In the interaction, the human and non- human assistant appear to negotiate the particulars of appointment in relatively neutral manner. No party is perceivably in control of the conversation… at least from the perspective of the secretary. The audience observing this interaction appears to a least want the non-human secretary to be human. The laughter in response to the interjectory “mhm” reveals a slight, if only light-hearted affirmation of this human response and the human-like identity of Duplex. Yet this laughter reveals an understanding of Duplex which places the audience in a position of power over Duplex. The audience is ultimately in control over deciding whether or not Duplex acts appropriately. The source of this power is drawn from the identities of this audience: designers, developers, and supporters