Open-ended ? - State of the art of computer music teaching

[dewdrop_world]

Sending this question around to various people...

On Saturday, I'm participating in a panel discussion in Shanghai on trends in computer music pedagogy at the university or conservatory level. I have some general thoughts, but I've also been out of the university setting for quite a while so I don't have much that's concrete.

Here's what I'm thinking so far:

- There is still probably a lack of consensus on what is a "core competency" for electronic or computer music. How much hardware vs software? How much emphasis on "practical" musicmaking with more or less conventional DAWs? How much on programming approaches (Max/MSP, Supercollider, ChucK) that also force students to learn more of the fundamentals of DSP? Some of it has to do with the identity of a particular program, but in most academic disciplines, there is a core base of knowledge one can assume every practitioner knows reasonably well (with plenty of room for specialization). Is there a clear idea what that is for computer music?

- In most departments, I would suppose there is one, maybe two faculty members driving the computer music curriculum, and the curriculum would then reflect their biases. If I were teaching, it would probably be pretty supercollider heavy because I think it's the best thing out there. That could make it harder for people from different programs to talk to each other (apart from something of a Max/MSP hegemony that seems prevalent on the academic conference circuit -- the sources and ramifications of which I think need to be questioned a bit).

- A big challenge is finding students who can balance the artistic and technical demands. Introductory electronic music classes can easily fill up with people who are eager to learn about the technology, but may not have strong musical instincts. Or, there might be a handful with more musical training, but who can barely get beyond the most rudimentary production techniques (resulting in, basically, instrumental music realized by sequencer, which is usually a yawner). Both technical skill and a musical ear are needed to make music that both is interesting and sounds good. Teaching to people with different skill sets is always difficult.

- I'd go out on a limb and say Ge Wang could well represent the next generation of computer music training. The laptop orchestra concept is, to me, a huge game-changer. By dividing the work among several players, it relieves the individual of the burden of responsibility for the totality of the work (which is an immense responsibility, too much for first-year electronic music students) and it makes computer music into a social activity (where, at least for composers, up to now it's mostly been solitary, reflective work). Technically adept students can help the less technical ones realize their ideas (and the ideas flow the other way too). It remains to be seen what kinds of lasting work will evolve from this, but certainly, creating richly textured works with a lot less pressure on any one person allows the exploration of a very different field of ideas.

I'd love some feedback on this in the next couple of days... of course the discussion could go on longer too!

Thanks,
James

[x_x]

There is a lack of consensus because there are a wide variety of tools. How much hardware vs software, programming approaches? Depends on what does the sound artist wants to express/accomplish. The core base of knowledge for computer music must be founded mainly on music itself, philosophy (yay ), physics, mathematics and other secondary bases (IT, programming, digital systems… etc…) I’d say it’s like a little pyramid.

First level – Music theory, Philosophy, Physics, Mathematics
Second level – Programming, Electronics, Music composition
Third level – Specific music programming tools, DAW’s (etc……)
Fourth level – Computer music production

Yeah or something like that…

My personal approach is IT engineering with minor in music then a master’s degree on MST.

As I understand Stanford’s laptop orchestra is founded on master’s degree students that have an engineering degree.
Just my little opinion

[kijjaz]

I'm new in the electronic/computer music field, but would like to share some ideas.

I'm thinking about how to balance well between technology and creativity (artistic) side of learning. I see the whole electronic music as the co-operation of these two. With technology, we're dealing with systems that can be studied logically. And creativity is how we can use such system to express ideas or experiment and see how the results will be.

The philosophy is very important for start learning both sides, but not the too much theoretical side of philosophy. It should be a way to open the mind of the students to be ready in these fields, mainly to boost creativity and make the students feel the fun in it.

Another thing that is very important is to be able to let the student see as many different kinds of electronic music and performances as possible. If the students can also understand how the system works or what the composer/performer is thinking, it'd make the whole thing more interesting and easier to catch.

Jamming is also important. Working with different people really helps a lot because we can share each person's point of view and interests. Collaboration usually produce unexpected result or style and I think will make both technological and creative side grow fast. It can help make the learning more fun also.

That is all, sorry it's not very detailed, just some ideas popping up. It's something I'd like to see around here in Thailand also.

[seraph]

James
I don't have any suggestion but reading this thread reminded me of the electronic music studios of the '40s and '50s where usually the composition of electronic music was a team effort: there was the composer and the technician, the musician and the sound engineer.

[rbedgar]

>As I understand Stanford’s laptop orchestra is founded on master’s degree students that have an engineering degree.

I'm not part of Ge's laptop orchestra, but I did sit in on one of Ge's beginning-of-the-year classes, and what I saw were young students introducing their own recordings (those I heard were very well-recorded rock bands), and an introduction to the physics of sound. It did not seem to me to comprise MS in EEs.

I also attended a couple early meetings when Ge was introducing Chuck and the idea of a left-coast laptop orchestra. The attendees seemed to be a mixed bag of people who were interested in music made with computers (well, that would make sense now wouldn't it...). But it didn't feel like the technology overwhelmed the musicality.

[rbedgar]

I'm presently teaching an intro course at an art school for people interested in going into film making. Over the last year I've been asking (and re-asking) myself much the same question about that curriculum.

One thing I find is that most (but not all) students are fairly up on the specific computer tools. In the case of video, they know Final Cut or Premiere well enough to have made several finished videos. They have an early gleaming of secondary tools like After Effects.

I would assume that the same would hold true in music: they would have recording and mixing basics down for at least one piece of software.

What I find with students entering college is that they probably have a folk-art level practice down for one approach, emulating one style of making. In recent years this approach has become more and more an emulation of Hollywood production and less experimental. I'd be interested in knowing what others see is the case with freshman music students.

The other thing I'll note here is that with video/digital cinema, the students do not seem to have a developed sense of self to help direct their learning. This is perhaps appropriate to their age, but I believe that a priority should be to explicitly involve the student's development of a sense of self with the process of musical experimentation, as well as the development of a musical teleology. It's as important for someone to learn how to use a compass as it is to learn how to steer a boat.

[x_x]

[x_x]

Having the opportunity to play with two local orchestras as double bass. I have to say it's a great way for learning and it's a lot of fun. Being self-taught in playing the instrument, collaborating with other musicians gave me a different and valuable approach.

[rbedgar]

Let me know if you come up during the summer. I work on campus, will catch you for lunch.
-Robert

[x_x]