skip to main content
10.1145/3077981.3078052acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmocoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Piano&Dancer: Interaction Between a Dancer and an Acoustic Instrument

Authors Info & Claims
Published:28 June 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Piano&Dancer is an interactive piece for a dancer and an electromechanical acoustic piano. The piece presents the dancer and the piano as two performers on stage whose bodily movements are mutually interdependent. This interdependence reveals a close relationship between physical and musical gestures. Accordingly, the realisation of the piece has been based on creative processes that merge choreographic and compositional methods. In order to relate the expressive movement qualities of a dancer to the creation of musical material, the piece employs a variety of techniques. These include methods for movement tracking and feature analysis, generative algorithms for creating musical structures, and the application of non-conventional scales and chord transformations to shape the modal characteristics of the music. The publication contextualises Piano&Dancer by relating its creation to concepts of embodiment, interactivity and musical structure and by discussing opportunities for creative cross-fertilisation between dance choreography and musical composition. It also provides some details about the challenges and potentials of integrating a mechanical musical instrument into an interactive setting for a dance performance. Finally, the paper highlights some of the technical and aesthetic principles that were used in order to connect expressive qualities of body movements to the creation of music structures.

References

  1. Rafael Pérez Arroyo. 2004. Music in the age of the pyramids: La música en la era de las pirámides. Natural Acoustic Recordings.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Enda Bates. 2009. The Composition and Performance of Spatial Music. Ph.D. Dissertation. Trinity College Dublin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Gregory Bateson. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology psychiatry evolution, and epistemology. University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Andreas Bergsland and Robert Wechsler. 2015. Composing interactive dance pieces for the motioncomposer, a device for persons with disabilities. In Proceedings of the international conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression. 20--23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Daniel Bisig, Martin Neukom, and John Flury. 2008. Interactive Swarm Orchestra a Generic Programming Environment for Swarm Based Computer Music. In ICMC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Daniel Bisig, Pablo Palacio, and Muriel Romero. 2016. Piano&Dancer. In Proceedings of the 19th Generative Art Conference. 138--154.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Alethea Blackler, Vesna Popovic, and Doug Mahar. 2010. Investigating usersfi intuitive interaction with complex artefacts. Applied ergonomics 41, 1 (2010), 72--92.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Antonio Camurri, Corrado Canepa, Nicola Ferrari, Maurizio Mancini, Radoslaw Niewiadomski, Stefano Piana, Gualtiero Volpe, Jean-Marc Matos, Pablo Palacio, and Muriel Romero. 2016. A system to support the learning of movement qualities in dance: a case study on dynamic symmetry. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct. ACM, 973--976. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Antonio Camurri, Gualtiero Volpe, Stefano Piana, Maurizio Mancini, Radoslaw Niewiadomski, Nicola Ferrari, and Corrado Canepa. 2016. The dancer in the eye: towards a multi-layered computational framework of qualities in movement. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Movement and Computing. ACM, 6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. William CD-ROM FORSYTHE, Nick HAFFER, and Volker KUCHELMEISTER. Improvisation technologies: a tool for the analytical dance eye. Música Thom Willems, Maxin Franke; direção de fotografia Thomas Lovell Balogh, Jess Hall. SI: RD-Studio, 1999. 1 CD-ROM multimídia. (????).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. M Coniglio and D Stoppielo. 2007. MidiDancer: A Wireless Movement Sensing System. Available on-line at www.troikaranch.org/mididancer.html. Accessed January (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Brent Gillespie. 1999. Music, Cognition, and Computerized Sound: An Introduction to Psychoacoustics, chapter 18, Haptics. (1999). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Richard Graham and Brian Bridges. 2015. Managing musical complexity with embodied metaphors. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME). Louisiana State University. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jörn Hurtienne and Johann Habakuk Israel. 2007. Image schemas and their metaphorical extensions: intuitive patterns for tangible interaction. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction. ACM, 127--134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ksenia Kolykhalova, Paolo Alborno, Antonio Camurri, and Gualtiero Volpe. 2016. A serious games platform for validating sonification of human full-body movement qualities. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Movement and Computing. ACM, 39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. George Lakoff. 1990. The Invariance Hypothesis: is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics (includes Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography) 1, 1 (1990), 39--74.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Marc Leman. 2012. Music and schema theory: Cognitive foundations of systematic musicology. Vol. 31. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Aaron Levisohn and Thecla Schiphorst. 2011. Embodied engagement: Supporting movement awareness in ubiquitous computing systems. Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal 3 (2011), 97--111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Mary Michelle Mainsbridge. 2016. Body as instrument: an exploration of gestural interface design. Ph.D. Dissertation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Erin Manning. 2006. Prosthetics making sense: dancing the technogenetic body. the Fibreculture Journal 9 (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Olivier Messiaen. 2002. Traité de rythme, de couleur, et d'ornithologie: (1949-1992): en sept tomes. Alphonse Leduc, Paris.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Olivier Messian. 1994. The technique of my musical language. Alphonse Leduc, Paris.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Jean Newlove and John Dalby. 2004. Laban for all. Taylor & Francis US.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Kia Ng. 2012. mConduct: transcending domains and distributed performance. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Ricardo Pedrosa and Karon MacLean. 2008. Perceptually informed roles for haptic feedback in expressive music controllers. In International Workshop on Haptic and Audio Interaction Design. Springer, 21--29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Stefano Piana, Paolo Alborno, Radoslaw Niewiadomski, Maurizio Mancini, Gualtiero Volpe, and Antonio Camurri. 2016. Movement fluidity analysis based on performance and perception. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1629--1636. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Joseph Rovan and Vincent Hayward. 2000. Typology of tactile sounds and their synthesis in gesture-driven computer music performance. Trends in gestural control of music (2000), 297--320.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jan C Schacher and Daniel Bisig. 2014. Watch This! Expressive Movement in Electronic Music Performance. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Workshop on Movement and Computing. ACM, 106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Denis Smalley. 1997. Spectromorphology: explaining sound-shapes. Organised sound 2, 02 (1997), 107--126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Bàlint Andràs Varga. 1996. Conversations with Iannis Xenakis. Faber and Faber, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Elizabeth Waterhouse. 2007. Technological Artifacts: The Transmission of William Forsythefis Choreographic Knowledge. In Congress on Research in Dance (CORD) 40th Annual Conference, Choreographies of Migration: Patterns of Global Mobility.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Trevor Wishart and Simon Emmerson. 1996. On sonic art. Vol. 12. Psychology Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Piano&Dancer: Interaction Between a Dancer and an Acoustic Instrument

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Other conferences
              MOCO '17: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Movement Computing
              June 2017
              206 pages
              ISBN:9781450352093
              DOI:10.1145/3077981

              Copyright © 2017 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 28 June 2017

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article
              • Research
              • Refereed limited

              Acceptance Rates

              Overall Acceptance Rate50of110submissions,45%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader