Introduction

This post is fueled by a curiosity in exploring the evolution and history of improvising and jamming together online. As with networked music performances in general, there has been a significant progress in the field for quite some time already. Let’s dive into the topic by visiting a couple of papers on the subject. In “Displaced Soundscapes: A Survey of Network Systems for Music and Sonic Art Creation”, Barbosa makes a non-exhaustive survey of different technologies available for collaborating in music-making and creation of sonic art over different network systems (Barbosa, 2003). For this review, I will focus on his section of “on-line improvisation and shared sonic environments”. In “Dislocated Sound: A Survey of Improvisations in Networked Audio Platforms”, Mills goes even deeper into the improvisational part of networked music collaboration (Mills, 2010). In the proceeding section, I will discuss some of the early development in the field, as the sources dates back to 2003 and 2010 respectively.

Discussion

Barbosa states that although a session of pure improvisation online would require the same kind of set-up as a non-improvisational one, these two approaches have major conceptual differences (Barbosa, 2003, p. 57). The improvisational approach leaves more space for individuality and spontaneity than it would when practicing and performing pre-composed music. I appreciate that he uses the term sonic environments, which to me sounds inclusive – where he places what he calls “computer network music” partly under the larger category of “sonic art”. Advancements in music technology and networking technology naturally lead to new possibilities for musicians to express themselves. Not limited to musicians, this could also welcome a much bigger part of the population not musically trained in the traditional sense. In fact, Barbosa states that “Since no musical knowledge or instrumental performance requirements can be demanded from an Internet user, a spontaneous improvisational approach is quite suitable, […]” This approach to online musicmaking will probably lead to new kinds of musical and sonical outcome, which could be thought-provoking for the traditionalists. I think sonic environments is a clever use of terminology in the sense that we don’t need to bother with any old-school definition of what music is. Let’s just get together online, make some noise, and improvise.

One of the examples Barbosa offers as platforms for improvising, is the “Public Sound Objects” (Barbosa & Kaltenbrunner, 2002). This project brings together an actual physical space and a virtual presence on the internet. Multiple users can manipulate sound objects remotely, sent as control signals to the Public Sound Objects server when triggered. The server will handle all the synthesis and processing of audio. This will in turn be sent to the public installation site as well as streamed continuously back to the online users. It is worth mentioning that this software dates back to the early 2000’s.

In his paper, Mills presents an even earlier attempt at networked improvisatory performance dating as far back as 1991, when composer and performer Pauline Oliveros celebrated her 40th anniversary as a composer (Mills, 2010). This event was hosted on a video telephone transmission between six cities and sported twenty-minutes of broadcast from each city, ending in a grand improvisation between all participants. Even from the early days of networked improvisations, the technological conditions and latency was addressed and acknowledged as elements inevitably shaping the improvisation, exemplified in the following remembrance by Oliviero herself: “Since the telephone line would grab the loudest signal the improvisation was based on sensitivity to give and take. (Olivieros, 2009)” Mills continues his paper with an example of how online improvisation conceptually could attempt to be free-for-all with the “Cathedral” project by Duckworth and Farrell. Duckworth wanted his web-based multi-user environment to be as inclusive as possible, regarding the musical ability and culture of the participants. This was approached by implementing a real-time synthesizer who converted words or phrases in any language to musical sounds. Such low thresholds for being able to improvise with others isn’t necessarily always for the better, at least if we were to measure the musical quality of the output. But it sure contributes to democratizing the online improvisational scene, and I think it arguably will provide an entry-point for creative souls to discover the joys of music-creation and improvisation.

Mills goes through various platforms for online collaboration and improvisation, and the definition of improvisation is sometimes pretty broad. An improvisational interaction in a more traditional sense would suggest that the participants respond to each other by playing their instruments, while some of the mentioned platforms merely require users to upload sound files and mix them in response to others. This could be thought of as more of a collaborative interaction than actual improvisation. I will not attempt to define or limit what improvisation is, but I appreciate the inclusiveness of these platforms – not least from a music educational perspective. Mills finally arrives on real-time jam platforms tailored for musicians, with NINJAM from 2004 making it possible to plug in your microphone/instrument and jam with up to eight musicians synchronously. The technology behind this software will synchronize the collaborators to a “measured latency” after selecting the tempo (Mills, 2010, p. 188). JackTrip was soon to follow, relying on uncompressed audio, which would require high-speed internet access but also avoid the latency introduced by compression encode/decode algorithms.

Much have happened in this field since the advent of these papers, and some sections will expectedly feel outdated. Even more sophisticated low-latency technology has since appeared in LoLa1 – although JackTrip is still widely used today. The advancement of processing power in laptops and introduction of smartphones and tablets has been a game-changer, sky-rocketing the availability and mobility of collaborative musical interaction, with a vast library of cross-platform applications. Still, it seems we’ve had some great network platforms around for quite some time, making it possible for nearly each and everyone with a computer and internet access to engage in the joys of improvising. Meanwhile, the musicians among us are longing to log on with ever increasing speed and ever decreasing latencies.



Footnotes

[1] LoLa - Low Latency AV Streaming System


References

Barbosa, A. (2003). Displaced Soundscapes: A Survey of Network Systems for Music and Sonic Art Creation. Leonardo Music Journal, 53-59. https://doi.org/10.1162/096112104322750791

Barbosa, Á., & Kaltenbrunner, M. (2002). Public sound objects: A shared musical space on the web. 10.1109/WDM.2002.1176188, 9-16. https://doi.org/10.1109/WDM.2002.1176188

Mills, R. (2010). Dislocated Sound: A Survey of Improvisation in Networked Audio Platforms. NIME. https://www.nime.org/proceedings/2010/nime2010_186.pdf

Oliveros, P. (2009). From telephone to high speed Internet: A brief history of my tele-musical performances. Leonardo Music Journal Online Supplement to LMJ, 19, 2009.