Array, the journal of the International Computer Music Association

Basu, Sharmi

About Decolonizing Sound
By Sharmi Basu, edited as comment
from an interviewwithM. Akkermann
I went to Mills College and worked
with Fred Frith, Pauline Oliveros,
Chris Brown, and Maggie Payne. I
worked with all of them, and I
learned so much from that process
and was grateful to be there. I also
felt very alienated; In the music de-
partment, I was often the only per-
son talking about racism, colonial-
ism, and white supremacy while we
were having protests about police
brutality in Oakland, where Mills is
located, not even 10 minutes away. I
continue to benefit frommy con-
nection to Mills, but I really dropped
out from that academic music
scene. Since leaving Mills, I have
been so fortunate to be connected
to a very diverse queer and trans
freak experimental music commu-
nity that is engaged with both arts
and politics. While there are plenty
of Queer and Trans people of color
using computers to make music,
this community doesn’t necessarily
embody computer music, which is
ok! The white supremacist nature of
computer music in the west often
means that it can be very boring.
There is a dryness to technique
without soul, or story, or struggle.
There are missing pieces when com-
posers and musicians put too much
emphasis on sound for only sound's
sake.
As a South Asian person, I have felt
it strange to be in between this aca-
demic “newmusic”world and this
punk DIY realm. I find myself fitting
into this model minority idea of my-
self, at least initially. Quickly and
dramatically, I break that mold, in-
tentionally or unintentionally – I
don't know if it is colorism – I don't
know what it is. But as soon as I say
something like ‘racism‘, they – the
people in power – want this person,
me, away from them. And then,
when there is an opportunity for
said institution to build its reputa-
tion through addressing issues, they
will call me back in. It's confusing to
see where I stand, where people will
appreciate my presence and where
people will push away my presence,
within academia and institutions.
I live in the US and my family is from
India, so as Indians, we have our
own colonial history. In India, and in
most of the world, they have less of
a connection to what the American
colonization process was. The colo-
nization of what is now known as
the U.S. was a devastating mass
13
array2021
genocide, which is far different from
what colonization process was like
in India. When I talk about decolo-
nization with sound, within experi-
mental music, I try to focus on our
relationships with sound and
trauma. I try to think of our practices
as forms of resistance that have an-
cestral roots in resilience. So much
of experimental music, computer
music and electronic music is medi-
ated by the Academy and by west-
ern institutions. Arbitrary white men
decide what is good and what is
bad, what belongs in one funnel
versus what belongs in another fun-
nel, what deserves funding and
what doesn’t, until that object feels
accessible and commodifiable to
the white man. So many things
could be considered computer mu-
sic that are actually popularized or
discovered by Black communities or
by indigenous communities all over
the world. I think about minimalism,
like LaMonte Young, Steve Reich
and Terry Riley or whomever. All
these dudes went to India once,
came back with these practices and
then implemented those practices
into their own – and are suddenly
the king of this music, because this
music that's been existing for thou-
sands and thousands of years has
been“discovered”all of a sudden.
There is this constant colonial ap-
proach to the ways that computer
music or electronic music codify
music.
This decolonizing approach is really
to first of all recontextualize and re-
historicize what is good music and
what artists deserve support and
funding. For myself, I feel that so
much of my music has a strong in-
fluence from ancestral sources – you
don’t even have to go as far as to say
ancestral. But I grew up going to
Pujas with my parents, which are
like little festivals that go on at a
community college or something,
with some guys singing for like six
hours at a time. I grew up falling
asleep in these auditoriums to all
sorts of Hindustani music, over and
over again, so for me it is part of my
blood. In so many ways, this is a part
of how I grew up. It is automatically
incorporated into my music
whether or not I'm explicit about it.
I make ambient music and I have
this really formative history with me.
I also came from punk, and I feel
grateful for that, because I think for
me the idea of ‘no rules‘ mixed with
communal care comes from that. It
doesn't come from John Cage or
prescriptions of what a randomized
14
array2021
music or chaotic music system is. I
don't have to like these horrible
people. In my opinion, John Cage is
a racist, and we shouldn’t be talking
about him ever, as he is explicitly
Anti-black.We also have plenty of
people around now, of whomwe
can say are the forefront of Black
thought in experimental music.
George Lewis is an amazing com-
puter musician who has really
shifted a lot of what these experi-
mental music communities looked
like, throughout his time in Chicago
and in NewYork. Or Raven Chacon,
a noise musician who is part of Post-
Commodity, who does really what-
ever he wants, all sorts of multime-
dia sound art and performance art.
He is based out of NewMexico, he is
an indigenous artist who very much
makes work about colonialism and
struggle, but is also a total noise
guy. There are so many Black and
Brown artists out there; even the
history of techno is rooted in Black
resistance. There is so much history
in Black, Indigenous, Asian, Swana
and South American cultures that
we ignore because the people who
have commodified and capitalized it
were white, as are the people who
have authority to decide to do so.
I think the function of music is to ad-
dress aspects where the soul and
spirituality meet. This can get taken
out of computer music and elec-
tronic music when so much empha-
sis is put upon the technical process.
The decolonial process is actually
having tools and asking, how can
we further access the healing that
we need. It can be expressing our
emotions or maybe at least feeling
connected emotionally to what we
are doing.Why is music even impor-
tant to us? Because it serves these
multiple functions that do have de-
colonial purposes. I grew up listen-
ing to indie rock – when I was in
middle school and 11-12 years old –,
this provided me some emotional
solace. Later, this was how I found
my community, my friends, and the
people I politically organized with:
through experimental music. These
functions are actually deeply impor-
tant. Punk functions in both here
and Europe when people open up
their homes for folks who are on the
road. I think so many forms of mu-
tual aid developed within under-
ground musical communities.
Within the Academy and institu-
tions, the musical community func-
tions differently. The Academy con-
tinually holds on to computer music
as a means to decide who gets what
15
array2021
resources. That's what keeps it
white. All these folks of color doing
techno, thinking about what sam-
pling is and where plunderphonics
come from just don't exist for them.
Any of these artists could get sup-
port from the Academy, but the
academy does not exist to provide
resources for them.
For me, it is really hard to talk about
anything that has to do with decolo-
nization or decolonial practices
without talking about material
struggle. Having to actually think
about what is anti-colonial, what is
anti-colonial struggle, what does it
look like to confront the state, what
does it look like to confront the po-
lice, what does it look like to con-
front the systems that keep people
unhoused, that keep resources out
of people's hands, that keep people
unfed. Those things are really impor-
tant to think about together. My
wish is for all institutions to disap-
pear, and for all of the resources
within institutions to be freely ac-
cessible to whomever wants them. I
wish for the world that people have
enough food and shelter and secu-
rity – internal and external security –
to be able to be creative in whatever
ways they see fit and experience joy
and presence within that.
I really wish for respect and kind-
ness for all of us who are having to
navigate such annoying paths just
trying to make some bleeps and
bloops.
16
array2021


English

About Decolonizing Sound

Wolek, Nathan

Slater, Andy

Can we align our research and
shared values to improve
accessibility?
By NathanWolek and Andy Slater
Introduction
Accessibility is a term from disability
studies that describes the process of
removing barriers to full participa-
tion (Fritsch 2016). In 2018, Emma
Frid published a systematic survey
of accessible digital music instru-
ment research that had been pre-
sented at NIME, SMC, and ICMC
conferences. (See also Frid’s article
in the present issue of ICMA Array
[Frid 2021]). The overall number of
publications in each year was small,
but she also noted, "Little research
in the community appears to have
focused on developing musical in-
terfaces specifically for persons who
are blind." (Frid 2018) After review-
ing the title and abstracts from all
proceedings available for these or-
ganizations, she reported that "only
one paper mentioned persons with
visual impairment as target user
group". Let that sink in: one paper
in over 40 years of conference pro-
ceedings.
If we are serious about improving
this organization's overall record on
inclusion, we must not overlook ac-
cessibility in that discussion. And
while we acknowledge visual im-
pairment is only one part of the
larger discussion on accessibility,
it is the one that the current authors
(one sighted and one blind) can
speak about from direct experience.
One paper in over 40 years of con-
ference proceedings is a symptom
of broader issues we must face.
The vast majority of the tools we
use in computer music rely heavily
on visual feedback. Such interfaces
present barriers to blind and visually
impaired creators. The biggest prob-
lem is that we expect creators to rely
on their vision to do sound work.
The“Young Sound Seekers”
project
The two authors of this paper met
because of Young Sound Seekers
(Atlantic Center for the Arts 2020), a
program designed to provide expe-
riences with the natural soundscape
and field recording for blind and
partially-sighted youth. The project
was developed with financial sup-
port and logistical cooperation from
the United States' National Park
Service, which addresses issues of
soundscape quality through their
28
array2021
Natural Sounds and Night Skies Di-
vision (National Park Service, n.d.).
Students from age 13 to 25 visit the
Canaveral National Seashore once a
month for lessons and activities de-
signed to enhance their apprecia-
tion of the natural environment and
its soundscape. The park contains
24 miles (38.5 kilometers) of unde-
veloped shoreline and a large tidal
estuary, all with far fewer people
than most Florida beaches.Whether
we are learning to listen without
distractions, documenting sounds
with small field recorders, or using
hydrophones to hear beneath the
waves, the Canaveral National
Seashore provides us with an excel-
lent outdoor classroom. There are
plenty of animals using acoustic
communication, like the osprey
circling in the sky, cicadas in the
various trees, and dolphins in the
lagoon. It provides an exciting loca-
tion to enjoy and explore the natu-
ral soundscape.
Our lessons have drawn on so much
of the rich vocabulary that we com-
monly use as sound artists and com-
puter musicians to describe sounds
with better precision.We use the
word "soundscape" to designate a
"sonic environment", a word first in-
troduced by R Murray Schafer
(1977). We use the words "bio-
phony", "geophony", and "anthro-
pophony" to distinguish between
major categories of the soundscape,
words that were developed in the
writings of Bernie Krause (2012). We
teach the students about different
ways of listening, borrowing ideas
and vocabulary from Pierre Schaef-
fer (2004) and Michel Chion (1994).
It has been a joy to experience the
excitement some of them display
as they connect with a word that
perfectly conveys the thing they
have always noticed, but never
knew how to describe.
Recognizing the barriers
But while our vocabulary has been
empowering, our software and
hardware tools present many chal-
lenges.While designing lessons for
blind and partially sighted students,
it has been critically important to
always have accessibility front and
center. That means extensive test-
ing and planning before presenta-
tions with our students, as well as
consulting with blind sound artists
about the accessibility of specific
recorders and software. Teaching
visually impaired students about
29
array2021
field recording and audio editing
has brought the impact of current
interface design trends into sharp
focus. The small touch screen on a
recording device can open a deep
set of options for sighted users, but
it presents a large barrier for blind
sound recordists. By contrast, physi-
cal knobs and buttons on a mixing
console or hardware synthesizer
create an interface that is tactile
and can be memorized by visually
impaired sound artists. Additional
barriers result from the virtual coun-
terparts to these knobs and buttons
found on many graphical user inter-
faces [GUIs]. Complex GUIs prevent
independent work by blind creators
if they are not connected to key-
strokes, screen readers, or voice
commands.
There is an uneven track record on
accessible tools for sound. For years,
digital audio workstations [DAWs]
like Pro Tools and Reaper have been
accessible for blind creators. A com-
munity of dedicated users has cre-
ated screen reader compatible
macros that make it quite simple
to record, mix, and compose using
these programs (Halatyn 2014;
Teh 2021). More recently, digital
field recording has become accessi-
ble through the creation of smart-
phone recording apps that connect
with companion microphones. The
best of these apps (Shure Inc. 2021)
integrate screen readers and voice
commands so that blind creators no
longer have to engage with the mi-
nuscule displays and menus that
have frustrated them for years. In
contrast, the opportunities to use
more specialized plug-ins and soft-
ware for sound design and spatial
audio are unfortunately still limited.
When an application is designed to
be engaged with visually (e.g., 360-
panners, point-and-click patching,
drag-and-drop actions, and other
common GUI features), the assistive
technology used by blind creators is
never compatible. These accessibil-
ity boundaries make it hard for a
blind creator to work autonomously
and on their own terms. As we look
ahead to more immersive forms of
content like XR (virtual reality, aug-
mented reality, and mixed reality),
the tools for creation seem to be
getting more visual, not less, and
this is why there are only a few blind
artists creating work for XR. There is
certainly interest in creating more
immersive audio content, but the
lack of accessible tools presents bar-
riers to entry.
30
array2021
Defining our responsibilities
ICMA is an organization that sup-
ports and encourages the develop-
ment of hardware and software
tools through its annual call for
papers presented at an international
conference.We share knowledge on
the latest developments through
the process of peer review and pub-
lic presentation, and even archive
those papers as a record of the inno-
vation happening in computer mu-
sic. That record has the power to
influence future work for both aca-
demic and commercial developers
going forward. Therefore, we have a
collective responsibility to improve
our record of developing tools that
are accessible and inclusive. If we
want things to improve, it will re-
quire us to align our research and
shared values.
What actions can we take? Should
accessibility factor into the peer
review process? The current authors
would answer yes. While we ac-
knowledge the work that goes into
publishing a paper is already signifi-
cant, without each ICMAmember
taking on part of the work, we can-
not hope to see our present situa-
tion improve. Our modest proposal
is that authors seeking to publish
about software or hardware projects
through ICMC should be required to
address the issue of accessibility ex-
plicitly in their paper. At minimum,
authors who are truly unable or not
sure how to address accessibility
could include a simple call for col-
laboration with blind creators and
researchers aimed at improving the
project. This could be augmented
with some honest self-reflection in
either the Discussion or FutureWork
sections of the paper. Ideally, au-
thors would document the ways
that they thought about accessibil-
ity throughout the development
process and made adjustments to
improve the overall design of the fi-
nal product. Exemplary develop-
ment of inclusive tools would in-
clude consultation during beta test-
ing with blind creators who are
compensated for their time and
feedback. Reading about the devel-
opment of a project like the Haptic
Wave (Tanaka and Parkinson 2016),
which was specifically designed for
blind audio producers, can provide
more general lessons about how to
address accessibility throughout the
development process. And when we
fail at accessibility, authors need to
document that as well so that others
31
array2021
can learn from their missteps. These
small additions to the work we al-
ready do can promote impactful
conversations to about best prac-
tices.
We firmly believe creators should
not have to rely on their vision to do
sound work. The ocular-centrist ten-
dencies embedded in the pedagogy
of computer music and its related
industries are by far the greatest
cause of excluding blind creators
from its own ecosystem. If the tech-
nology continues to grow without
a set of accessibility best practices,
blind creators will be left uninvited
to explore and experiment along-
side sighted creators. Their natural
expertise and unique perspective of
sound is excluded from shaping the
future of computer music. Inclusion
of blind creators begins with the
software and hardware tools we de-
sign, so let's get started designing
better tools.
References
Atlantic Center for the Arts (2020).
“Young Sound Seekers.”Atlantic
Center for the Arts. https://
atlanticcenterforthearts.org/
youngsoundseekers/ [Accessed
24th August 2021].
Chion, M. (1994). “The Three Listen-
ing Modes.”Audio-Vision: 25–34.
NewYork: Columbia Univ. Press.
Frid, E. (2018). “Accessible Digital
Musical Instruments - A Survey of
Inclusive Instruments Presented at
the NIME, SMC and ICMC
Conferences.”Proceedings of the
2018 International Computer Music
Conference: 53–59.
Frid, E. (2021). “The Gender Gap and
the Computer Music Narrative - On
the Under-Representation ofWo-
men at Computer Music Conferen-
ces,”Array 2021: 42-48. DOI:
10.25370/array.v2021.1
Fritsch, K. (2016). “Cripping
Concepts: Accessibility.”Review of
Disability Studies: An International
Journal 12 (4): 1–4.
Halatyn, S. (2014). “Making DAW
Software Accessible for Blind Audio
Engineers and Musicians.”Avid Blogs
(blog). May 9, 2014. http://
www.avidblogs.com/music-daw-
software-for-blind-and-visually-
impaired-audio-professionals/
[Accessed 24th August 2021].
Krause, B. (2012). The Great Animal
Orchestra: Finding the Origins of
Music in theWorld’s Wild Places. New
York, NewYork: Little, Brown and
Company.
32
array2021
National Park Service (N.d). “Natural
Sounds and Night Skies Division
(U.S. National Park Service).”https://
www.nps.gov/orgs/1050/index.htm
[Accessed 24th August 2021].
Schaeffer, P. (2004). “Acousmatics.” In:
Audio Culture: Readings in Modern
Music, edited by c. Cox and D.
Warner, NewYork: Continuum, pp.
76–81.
Schafer, R. M. (1977). The Sound-
scape: Our Sonic Environment and the
Tuning of theWorld. Rochester,
Vermont: Destiny Books.
Shure Incorporated (2021). “Shure
Plus MOTIV™ Recording App for
Android.” https://pubs.shure.com/
view/guide/Motiv-Android/en-US.
pdf [Accessed 24th August 2021].
Tanaka, A., and A. Parkinson (2016).
“HapticWave: A Cross-Modal
Interface for Visually Impaired Audio
Producers.”Proceedings of the 2016
CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems: 2150–61. CHI
’16. NewYork, NY, USA: Association
for Computing Machinery. https://
doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858304.
Teh, J. (2021). “OSARA: Open Source
Accessibility for the REAPER
Application.”https://
osara.reaperaccessibility.com/
[Accessed 24th August 2021].
33
array2021


Can we Align our Research and Shared Values to Improve Accessibility?

Treviño, Jeffrey

Interview Series

Gluck, Bob

25 26
TA: I came to the United States at the end 
of  1962 with my wife Pnina. I didn’t really 
know what I was going to do there. I only 
knew that New York was an important 
center of  new ideas and that it offered a 
wide variety of  activities that might be of  
interest to me. I did know that I wanted 
to find a way to learn about what was 
going on in the world. After World War II, 
the Israeli War of  Independence and the 
difficult economic situation in the years that 
followed, we in Israel were cut off  from the 
rest of  the world. In the early 1960s, Israelis 
of  my generation were eager to seek ways 
to find out about the world.
BG: How did you learn about the Columbia-
Princeton Electronic Music Center?
TA: Once I arrived in New York, somebody 
arranged a meeting with Edgard Varèse 
for me. He asked me, “What can I do for 
you?” He listened to a few tapes of  my 
work and said, “It’s very good. You are 
a composer. Do you want to learn my 
tricks? Go find your own tricks! Go to 
Columbia University.” Varèse then spoke 
with Luening, who met with me, listened 
to a few of  my compositions, and spoke 
with Ussachevsky. Ussachevsky enrolled 
me in the course of  study at the Columbia-
Princeton Electronic Music Center. 
BG: With whom did you study at Columbia-
Princeton?
An Interview with Tzvi Avni
by Bob Gluck 
Tzvi Avni is one of  the preeminent 
composers in the history of  Israel. He 
was born in Germany in 1927 and 
immigrated to Israel in 1935. He studied 
composition with the major Israeli 
composers of  the previous generation 
and subsequently visited the United 
States in 1963-1964. While in the United 
States, Avni studied at the Tanglewood 
Music Center with Aaron Copland 
and Lukas Foss, and at the Columbia-
Princeton Electronic Music Center in 
New York City. Upon his return to Israel, 
Avni taught at the Jerusalem Academy 
For Music and Dance, where he opened 
an electronic music studio in 1971. It 
became the second such studio in Israel. 
Tzvi Avni has won many of  the major 
artist awards in Israel, including the 
coveted Prime Minister’s Prize (1998) 
and the Israel Prize (2001). This interview 
draws from a September 14, 2006 
telephone conversation, which builds 
upon previous email correspondence 
on August 8, 2005. Tzvi Avni was at his 
home in Jerusalem and Bob Gluck was 
in Albany, New York.
BG: What brought you to the United 
States?
field to have the support of  her teachers 
and colleagues.  In addition, as we have 
seen with racial inequities in academia, a 
bit of  creative affirmative action can help. 
Why not offer a special scholarship each 
year to a woman in the field?  Or ensure 
that a search committee for a new position 
interviews at least one woman?  Or 
include pioneers such as Pauline Oliveros, 
Bebe Barron, and Laurie Speigel in our 
discussions of  the history of  electronic 
music?   
These suggestions, of  course, come from 
within my own “system.”  If  you find 
yourself  working in a different system, 
you may have a different list of  actions to 
pursue.  Gregory Taylor’s list suggests a 
few.  My hope is that each one of  us will 
commit to doing something.  Then, bit by 
bit, byte by byte, we may reap the fruits of  
our efforts.
--Bonnie Miksch
Bob GluckResponses to Gender and Computer Music array 2007/2008
27 28
BG: Tell me about your electronic work 
Vocalise, which you composed at Columbia-
Princeton.
TA: I remember hearing the sounds of  
the subway and this gave me the idea for 
the first sound in Vocalise. This was the 
period following President Kennedy’s 
assassination—quite a tense time in the 
world, a time of  international concern. 
I think that the general atmosphere goes 
into everything people do, quite aside from 
compositional technique, such as splicing 
and mixing.
BG: What about the formal structure?
TA: Vocalise is principally a sonata. It has 
two themes: the voice and the electronic 
sounds. After they are introduced, they go 
through a series of  variations, and at the 
end, there is a brief  reprise. I didn’t speak 
of  the work as a sonata at the time because 
it was too conventional a category. But 
times change. In the development—the 
middle section—the material gets very 
tense. All of  the sounds build up and reach 
a climax, almost like an explosion. I didn’t 
mean to imitate the sounds of  an explosion, 
but I wanted a build up of  something that 
was very tense. I had recently read George 
Orwell’s novel 1984, and was thinking 
about some of  the forces and trends that 
were affecting modern society negatively.
Karlheinz Stockhausen and Pierre Boulez 
were there. Everyone came to the Hunter 
College concert series. It was a dramatic 
time in the whole world. When I was at 
Tanglewood during the Summer of  1963, 
right before I came to Columbia-Princeton, 
Aaron Copland said to me, “When you get 
back to Israel, it will take you a while to 
return to yourself  from the confusion of  
your time here.”
BG: Did you visit other places while in the 
United States?
TA: During that year, I also spent a month 
working with Myron Schaeffer at the 
University of  Toronto, on a scholarship 
from the Canada-Israel Foundation. This 
was two or three years before he died. He 
had the multi-track machine that Hugh 
Le Caine had built. You could choose 
any loop you wanted for the mixer, and 
it had a keyboard. When I returned to 
Columbia-Princeton, I told them about it. 
Mario Davidovsky said that that if  it had a 
keyboard, it wasn’t for him.
BG: Did you have contact later with 
any of  the people you met at Columbia-
Princeton?
TA: The only people with whom I met 
many years after the course was Mario 
Davidovsky, who visited Israel a few times, 
and, once, Ilhan Mimaroglu, who seemed 
very frustrated with music. 
BG: What did you learn from Mario 
Davidovsky?
TA: Mario Davidovsky is a very bright 
person and a gifted musician, one with very 
definite opinions about what is right and 
wrong in music. Structure and accuracy 
are very important for him. Not a fan of  
loops, he thought very carefully about 
sounds and how they were worked out and 
placed in a piece. 
BG: What other recollections do you have 
about Columbia-Princeton?
TA: It was a time of  trial and error and 
everybody was looking for new ideas and 
techniques in order to find a language 
for themselves. I remember playing my 
Vocalise to Walter (later Wendy) Carlos, who 
was highly enthusiastic about the piece. 
Altogether, I worked in the studio for a year 
and a half. Babbitt was already working 
with the Mark I Synthesizer and we were 
invited once to see that instrument. It was 
as big as a room. It seemed to us like the 
eighth wonder of  the world because we 
were used to do everything manually by 
splicing, mixing, filtering, and so on, but 
this wasn’t necessary with the Mark I.
BG: What was it like for you to be in New 
York City?
TA: This was a fascinating period for me. 
TA: Vladimir Ussachevsky was our teacher. 
We didn’t see much of  Otto Luening. Mario 
Davidovsky was already quite a dominant 
figure and already a veteran. The technical 
instruction, though, was done by Andres 
Lewin-Richter. The students that year 
(1963-1964) included Walter Carlos, Ilhan 
Mimaroglu, Charles Wuorinen and Harvey 
Sollberger. We met once or twice a week for 
a couple of  hours. We would analyze pieces 
and speak about them. Then Davidovsky 
and Lewin-Richter would teach us the 
how-tos. Individual work was with Lewin-
Richter. Later, at the end of  my time at 
Columbia-Princeton, when I was finishing 
my work Vocalise, they gave me the keys and 
I would stay on my own all night long. 
BG: What recollections do you have about 
Vladimir Ussachevsky?
TA: Vladimir Ussachevsky was a very 
kind and nice person. He was of  course 
one of  the pioneers in the field, and when 
I was with him, he was already summing 
up his life’s work. He was much more into 
concrete sounds than electronic sources, 
even though he was the one who developed 
the RCA synthesizer lab. He was a founder 
of  the basic language using splicing and 
other tape techniques. He was also a more 
conservative musician than the students, 
such as Mario Davidovsky and Charles 
Wuorinen, who were very much into 
serialism and other approaches. 
Bob GluckAn Interview with Tzvi Avniarray 2007/2008
29 30
most logical approach to take: to work 
with the students more theoretically and 
then give them a chance to try and create 
a piece. They had to do this at the end of  
each course. 
Every student at the Academy had to take 
the electronic music course. This became 
the policy when I was the head of  the theory 
and composition department. Some were 
less enthusiastic than others, but students 
created all sorts of  pieces, some of  them 
even funny. I believe that students should 
have the experience of  composing all types 
of  music, including twelve-tone, and gain 
some degree of  understanding.  
Bob Gluck is a composer and historical 
writer. He is on the faculty of  the 
University at Albany, where he directs 
the Electronic Music Studio. Gluck serves 
as Associate Director of  the Electronic 
Music Foundation. For more information 
about Tzvi Avni and electronic music 
in Israel, refer to Gluck’s “Fifty years of  
electronic music in Israel,” Organised Sound 
10(2), Cambridge University Press, 2005 
and “Electronic Music in Israel,” EMF 
Institute, 2005. On the web at http://www.
emfinstitute.emf.org/cgi-bin/ireading_
search.pl?keywords=articlesmaterials.
from electronic music. I began to explore 
more open forms and I was much freer and 
more abstract in my formal thinking. This 
work was a big first step towards a more 
amalgamated approach for me.
BG: What electronic music works did you 
compose after Columbia-Princeton?
TA: I composed Collage for voice, flute, 
percussion and tape (1967) three years after 
returning from New York. Lyric Episodes 
for oboe and tape (1972) was composed 
originally for a ballet. It was included on a 
Folkways recording of  electronic music from 
Israel in 1981. I composed Synchromotrask 
for female voice, tape and a door in 1976, 
A Monk Observes a Skull for mezzo-soprano, 
cello and tape in 1981, and Five Variations 
for Mr. K. for percussion and tape followed 
in 1982. I think of Vocalise, Collage, Lyric 
Episodes and Five Variations for Mr. K. as the 
most important of  these works.
BG: What was the influence of  Columbia-
Princeton on how you taught electronic 
music?
TA: When it came time for me to put 
together a studio at the Jerusalem Academy, 
the model in my mind was Columbia-
Princeton. I gave a weekly lecture with 
examples from works, which we would 
analyze. We would listen to music of  
different types. We also had a technician 
who worked with the students. It was the 
BG: What were the lasting influences of  
your studies in electronic music?
TA: I think that my experience with 
electronic music changed much about 
my approach to musical thinking, and 
it remains with me even today. I became 
involved in more abstract ways of  thinking 
about sound, not only as a component of  
harmony or melody, but as something with 
its own meaning. And of  course, my mind 
became changed about noise, its qualities 
and possibilities. While we in Israel were 
influenced by impressionism, I learned 
about a new way of  approaching texture 
in New York and I encountered new, less 
linear ways of  looking at development. My 
earlier works were generally in Classical 
forms, such as rondo and sonata. What I 
learned about electronic music influenced 
my later works, and not just those with 
electronics.
BG: You mentioned Aaron Copland’s 
comments about what it might be like to 
return to Israel. What was your experience 
like?
TA: Indeed, after returning home from 
Columbia, it took maybe two or three 
years to adjust. The work that I completed 
a year later, Meditations on a Drama for 
chamber orchestra, was the product of  
collecting myself  and assimilating the new 
ways of  musical thinking that I learned at 
Columbia. You’ll find in it some influences 
Bob GluckAn Interview with Tzvi Avniarray 2007/2008


An Interview with Tzvi Avni

--, -

ICMC 2006 Reviews

ICMC 2007 Concert Reviews

Empreintes DIGITales [CD], Valentina Bertolani
Designing Audio Objects for Max/MSP and Pure Data [Book],&nbsp;Christopher Hawort

Reviews

In this paper we present the research and teaching activities performed in the Multisensory Experience Lab at Aalborg University Copenhagen. We also briefly describe the Sound and Music Computing Education started at Aalborg University in September 2014

Serafin, Stefania

	  
ICMA	  Array,	  vol	  2016,	  Special	  Issue:	  
Proceedings	  of	  Si15,	  Singapore,	  August	  2015,	  pp	  16-­‐18	  
16	  
Sonic	  Interactions	  in	  Multimodal	  Virtual	  Environments	  
Stefania	  Serafin	  
*Department	  of	  Architecture,	  Design	  and	  Media	  Technology	  
sts@create.auu.dk	  
 
Abstract	  
	  
In	  this	  paper	  we	  present	  the	  research	  and	  teaching	  activities	  performed	  in	  the	  Multisensory	  Experience	  Lab	  at	  
Aalborg	  University	  Copenhagen.	  We	  also	  briefly	  describe	  the	  Sound	  and	  Music	  Computing	  Education	  started	  
at	  Aalborg	  University	  in	  September	  2014.	  
Keywords:	  sonic	  interaction	  design,	  multisensory	  interaction,	  sound	  and	  music	  computing	  
	  
1.	  Introduction	  	  
Sonic	   interaction	   design	   is	   an	   emerging	   field	  
recently	  defined	  as	   the	  study	  and	  exploitation	  
of	  sound	  as	  one	  of	  the	  principal	  channels	  con-­‐
veying	   information,	   meaning,	   and	   aesthet-­‐
ic/emotional	   qualities	   in	   interactive	   contexts.	  
This	  field	   lies	  at	  the	  intersection	  of	   interaction	  
design	   and	   sound	   and	  music	   computing	   (Fra-­‐
ninovic	  and	  Serafin,	  2013).	  At	  Aalborg	  Univer-­‐
sity	  Copenhagen	  we	  examine	  sonic	  interaction	  
from	  different	  angles.	  
	  Since	   we	   live	   in	   a	   multi	   sensorial	   world,	  
sonic	   interactions	   become	   more	   meaningful	  
when	  combined	  with	  simulations	  of	  other	  mo-­‐
dalities.	  It	  is	  well	  known	  that	  sound	  can	  indeed	  
complement,	  enhance	  or	  even	  substitute	  other	  
senses.	  	  
Our	   research	   explores	   sonic	   interactions	  
when	  combined	  with	  other	  senses	  such	  as	  hap-­‐
tic	  and	  visual	  feedback.	  This	  includes	  the	  phys-­‐
ics	   based	   simulation	   of	   multimodal	   interac-­‐
tions	   together	  with	   evaluation	  of	   the	   user	   ex-­‐
perience.	  	  
Recent	   applications	   have	   been	   focused	   on	  
the	   field	   of	   virtual	   reality,	  where	   the	   focus	   on	  
auditory	   feedback	   has	   been	   rather	   limited	  
when	   compared,	   for	   example,	   to	   the	   focus	  
placed	   on	   visual	   feedback	   or	   even	   on	   haptic	  
feedback.	  Other	  applications	  have	  been	  in	  the	  
field	  of	  cultural	  heritage,	   in	  order	   to	  use	  sonic	  
interaction	   technologies	   to	   reconstruct	   and	  
preserve	   musical	   instruments.	   In	   particular,	  
thanks	   to	   a	   project	   supported	   by	   the	   Culture	  
2000	   EU	   framework,	   we	   reconstructed	   and	  
exhibited	  the	  devices	  and	  the	  music	  of	  the	  Rai	  
Studio	  di	  Fonologia	  Musicale	  in	  Milan	  (see	  No-­‐
vati	  and	  Dack,	  2012).	  
2.	  MultiSensory	  Experience	  Lab	  
In	   the	   MultiSensory	   Experience	   Lab	   (see	   Fig-­‐
ure	  1)	  we	  research	  the	  integration	  of	  different	  
senses	   by	   combining	   technology,	   computer	  
simulations	   and	   user	   experience	   evaluation.	  
The	  lab	  consists	  of	  three	  main	  spaces.	  	  
The	   larger	   space	   is	   used	   for	   multimodal	  
(audio-­‐visual-­‐haptic)	  simulations,	  and	  contains	  
a	  motion	   capture	   system	   (16	   cameras	  motion	  
Optitrack	  system	  by	  NaturalPoint),	  a	  nVisor	  SX	  
head	   mounted	   display	   and	   Oculus	   head	  
mounted	   display,	   a	   24	   channels	   surround	  
sound	   system	   (Dynaudio	   BM5A),	   and	   several	  
devices	   for	   haptic	   feedback.	   In	   addition,	   the	  
lab	   contains	   an	   anechoic	   chamber	   and	   a	   64	  
speaker	   wavefield	   synthesis	   system	   (see	   Fig-­‐
ure	  2).	  
	  
 17	  
 
	  
Figure	  1.	  The	  Multisensory	  experience	  lab.	  
	   	  
	  
Figure	  2.	  The	  wavefield	  synthesis	  lab.	  
	  
 18	  
3.	  The	  Sound	  and	  Music	  Computing	  edu-­‐
cation	  
From	  September	  1st,	  2014,	  Aalborg	  University	  
in	  Copenhagen	  will	  offer	  a	  Master	  of	  Science	  in	  
Sound	   and	   Music	   Computing.	   The	   Master	   of	  
Science	   is	   a	   2-­‐year,	   research-­‐	   based,	   full-­‐time	  
study	  programme,	  set	  to	  120	  ECTS	  credits. Its	  
mission	   is	   to	   train	   the	  next	  generation	  of	  pro-­‐
fessionals	  to	  push	  forward	  the sound	  and	  mu-­‐
sic	  technologies	  of	  the	  new	  information	  socie-­‐
ty.	  By	   combining	  practical	   and	   theoretical	   ap-­‐
proaches	   in	   topics	   such	   as	   computational	  
modeling,	  audio	  engineering,	  perception,	  cog-­‐
nition,	   and	   interactive	   systems,	   the	   program	  
gives	   the	   scientific	   and	   technological	   back-­‐
ground	   needed	   to	   start	   a	   research	   or	   profes-­‐
sional	  career.	  This	  program	  trains	  students	  on	  
the	   technologies	   for	   the	   analysis,	   description,	  
synthesis,	   transformation	   and	   production	   of	  
sound	  and	  music,	  and	  on	  the	  technologies	  and	  
processes	   that	  support	  sound	  and	  music	  crea-­‐
tion.	  	  
More	  information	  can	  be	  found	  at	  URL	  
http://media.aau.dk/smc	  	  
	  References	  
	  K.Franinovic	  and	  S.Serafin	  (2013).	  Sonic	  Intera-­‐
tion	  Design.	  Mit	  Press.	  	  	  
	  M.	  M.	  Novati	  and	  J.	  Dack,	  (2012).	  The	  Studio	  Di	  
Fonologia:	  a	  musical	  journey	  1954-­‐1983,	  update	  
2008-­‐2012.	  Ricordi.	  	  	  
	  
 


Not a member yet