Readings:

Response:

The principal assumption behind collaborative filtering for music recommendation is that your listening choices act as an implicit signal not just about your preferences, also the preferences of “listeners like you”. In a short repsonse based on your reading of the two papers (and skimming the slides prepared by an ex-Spotify employee), what are some of the challenges faced by the designers of recommendation systems that use collaborative filtering, and, if possible, suggest ways that this technique can be improved or used in tandem with other approaches to recommendation in order to overcome these problems?

Readings:

Reponse:

In a short response, contrast Weizenbaum’s design for an artificial interlocutor with Lewis’s. How can ideological differences be reflected in the construction of the software systems that they propose? What are the fundamental differences between designing a system for intelligent verbal conversation and for musical improvisation?

Readings:

Response:

No written response required, but be prepared to discuss the Drott as the main target piece for the seminar.

• Link to Moseley (2013)
• Read Chapter 1 (p. 11-36) of Darley (2000) only [Link to download chapter]

Readings:

Response:

Watch this short video review of the PC version of Dylan Fitterer’s video game Audiosurf (2008), and using ideas from the assigned readings, compare and contrast the experience of playing Audiosurf with that of Guitar Hero and/or Rock Band (described in Moseley). Your short (150-200) response may touch on how varying degrees of “interactivity” (as understood by Collins) are afforded by each game’s distinct mechanics, questions of immersion/virtuality, the (percieved) difference between active and passive listening, and/or score vs. audio-based visualization techniques.

Originally due for Monday 10/22

Readings:

• Link to Summers (2016)

Cheng: Introduction and Chapter 2 only

Response:

Many of the games consoles that were once used to play the games described in these pieces are no longer available or are only available at great cost to collectors. As a result, researchers sometimes use emulators to reproduce some of the experience of these games. In a short (150-200 word) response, reflect on what is lost when emulators are used in the study of video game music. If possible, refer to one or two specific moments in the readings that you think could have been enriched with reference to the “non-emulable” aspects of playing video games.

Readings:

• LINK TO THELWALL (2018)

Optional

Response:

How can the methodology described in Thelwall (2018) be used to supplement the investigation of Born and Haworth (2017)?

In your short response you may consider some of the following questions:

• Do you think that Thelwall would approve of the use of their method in this context?
• If not, what problems can you imagine that they would find with such a technique?
• Do you think that Born and Haworth would accept conclusions drawn from the use of CFTC?
• If not, what problems can you imagine that they would find with such a technique?

Readings:

Link to Vernallis (2010)

Link to Harper (2016) if you are having trouble getting access through the library

Response:

Write a short (150-200 word) response describing a YouTube video of your choice with a significant musical/audio component (e.g. a music video), focusing on how the disposition of your chosen video on that particular platform changes how you might experience the same video if viewed elsewhere (e.g. on a television screen, on the cinema screen, as a download…). In your answer, you can consider any aspect of the platform: the use of video compression, the commenting system, recommended videos, pre-roll ads etc.

Supplementary:

Links to Internet Archive/Wayback Machine snapshots of Beyoncé user page and YouTube video (c. December 18, 2009)

• https://web.archive.org/web/20091218025916/http://www.youtube.com/user/beyonceVEVO
• https://web.archive.org/web/20091218025431/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGkvXp0vdng

Readings:

Response:

In a short (150-200) response to these three papers, think about how of the methodologies that are described could be used to study some context for collaborative musical creativity (e.g. group performance, online musical collaborations, mashups, classroom music making, music therapy) of your choosing. In your answer, assess the applicability of the models that are described in each paper to your chosen area.

Whiteboards:

Readings:

Katz, p. 114-135 only

• Link to Katz, p. 114-135

Response:

In class, we will discuss the proposition that “anti-piracy legislation harms musical creativity”. Prepare two or three points on both sides of the proposition that draw on the reading for support, and be ready to discuss them in class. You don’t have to post a reply this week but you will be expected in class to have your points to hand, so you might benefit from writing them down somewhere.

Readings:

Sterne, p. 1–31; Kittler, p. 1–19 only

• Link to Kittler [p. 1–19]

Response:

Pick a digital format (it does not have to be an audio format) that you are familiar with (not the MP3 or the LP) and, following Sterne and/or Kittler, describe how you think how the technical or material facts about your chosen format can be used as evidence of one or more of the following, more broadly reaching, concerns: specific social practices and habits of media consumption, the aesthetic priorities of artists who make use of your chosen format, any empirical human-centered user research that was used in the development of that format, the fetishization of innovation (conversely, Luddism), or any other topic of your choice.