Mind, Body, World- Foundations of Cognitive Science, 2013a

instrument. This requires that a mapping be defined from a measured action to
a computer-generated sound (Verfaille, Wanderley, & Depalle, 2006). Of course,
completely novel relationships between gesture and sound become possible within
this framework (Sapir, 2002). This permits the invention of musical instruments
that can be played by individuals with no training on an instrument, because they
can interact with a digital musical instrument using everyday gestures and actions
(Paradiso, 1999).
The development of digital musical instruments has resulted in the need to
study a variety of topics quite different from those examined by classical and connectionist
researchers. One important topic involves determining how to use measured
actions to control sound production (Verfaille, Wanderley, & Depalle, 2006).
However, an equally important topic concerns the nature of the gestures
and actions themselves. In particular, researchers of digital musical instruments
are concerned with exploring issues related to principles of good design
(Dourish, 2001; Norman, 2002, 2004) in order to identify and evaluate possible
interfaces between actions and instruments (Magnusson, 2010; O’Modhrain, 2011;
Ungvary & Vertegaal, 2000; Wanderley & Orio, 2002). Another issue is to choose a
set of actions that can be varied, so that a performer of a digital musical instrument
can manipulate its expressiveness (Arfib, Couturier, & Kessous, 2005).
The development of digital musical instruments has also led to a reevaluation of
the roles of composers, performers, and audience. In the acoustic paradigm (Bown,
Eldridge, & McCormack, 2009), which adheres to the traditional view of classical
music outlined earlier in this chapter, these three components have distinct and
separable roles. Digital musical instruments result in the acoustic paradigm being
disrupted. Bown, Eldridge, and McCormack (2009) argued that the software components
should not be viewed as instruments, but instead as behavioural objects.
A behavioural object is “an entity that can act as a medium for interaction between
people through its dissemination and evolution, can develop interactively with individuals
in processes of creative musical development, and can interact with other
behavioral objects to produce musical output” (p. 193); it is behavioural in the sense
that it can act and interact, but it is an object in the sense that it is a material thing
that can be seen and touched.
In their role as behavioural objects, digital musical instruments blur the
sharp distinctions between the roles defined by the acoustic paradigm (Bown,
Eldridge, & McCormack, 2009). This is because their software components dramatically
alter the interactions between composer, performer, and listener.
Interaction does not involve the sharing simply of passive ideas or content, but
of potentially active machines that can be employed for musical tasks. Whereas
musical ideas may once have developed and circulated far more rapidly than
the inanimate physical objects that define traditional musical instruments,
Classical Music and Cognitive Science 305