7MU009 Music Computing Interaction Module Guide

2015/16
General information
Module Code 7MU009

Module Title Musical Computing

Academic Year 2015-16

Semester 2

Prerequisites None

Co-requisites None

Credit Value 20

Level 7

Prohibited combinations None

Time slot Thursdays

Location Mac Lab

Module Leader Dr. Mat Dalgleish

Email m.dalgleish2@wlv.ac.uk

Phone extension 3035

Module Team various

Description of the module

You will explore the relationship between theories of music and computing and creative
practice. More specifically, you will study human perception and cognition of sound, the
ways in which computers can analyse music and audio, generative musical structures, and
how these compositional processes can be applied to the generation and transformation of
audio. In carrying out the practical assignment, you will critically evaluate, understand the
differences between, and master common musical programming languages.

Learning outcomes
By the end of this module you will be able to:
LO1 - Understand theoretical concepts across the broad fields of computer science, music,
and audio research;

LO2 - Develop problem solving skills: the ability to analyse a modest-scale design problem;

LO3 - Critically evaluate common musical programming languages and select the most
appropriate for a particular task;

L04 - Develop and demonstrate a solution to the chosen problem in code.

Module content
The following is provisional and subject to amendment.

Virtual environments
Music and AI (with Tom Collins)
Randomness and probability
Cellular automata, chaotic attractors, and fractals
Music Computing and education
Neural networks and genetic algorithms
Research in music computing - case studies

Learning activities
● This module comprises lectures, workshops, seminars and tutorials, on different
aspects of music production and its socio-historical context.
● Attendance at all taught sessions is expected. These sessions are important in
relation to students’ learning and equipping students for assessment tasks. Absences
will interfere with the student’s ability to complete the assignments successfully.
● Equipment - all necessary equipment is provided except for headphones. It is
expected that you possess and bring your own pair to every session.

Tutorial policy
Please note that, due to departmental policy, we cannot offer assessment-specific tutorial
support within one calendar week of an assessment deadline. Please ensure that you have
clarified your work more than seven days before the deadline.

For those who need it, there will be a single tutorial opportunity at the start of the resit period
provided you attended at least 50% of the sessions in the first 10 weeks of the module. Resit
tutorial times will be available in university week TBC (this will be published on WOLF after
the module has ended). You will need to contact the relevant member of academic staff to
arrange a resit tutorial if you need one.

Blended learning
This module will cover 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the blending learning entitlements:
1 - All materials from lessons, including the module guide, assessment information, session
notes, presentations etc. will be available on WOLF (Wolverhampton’s Online Learning
Framework) before the lesson. Check WOLF regularly for updates.
2 - There will be formative assessments on WOLF in the form of analysis of mixes, and
submission of your own mixes on WOLF, with feedback from peers and the lecturer.
Students will be asked to submit their own mixes a number of times, so they are able to
reflect and improve their work for their final submission.
3 - The module has a forum set up on WOLF so you will be able to collaborate with your
peers to discuss recording and mixing techniques, or to load up your mixes for peer review.
By discussing different techniques, you will be able to use these for your own assignments.
6 - There will be opportunities for you to engage in interactive learning throughout the
module in face-to-face sessions. There is a lot of practical work in the studio and computer
suites, allowing you to learn how to use all software and hardware, whilst working in teams
with your peers. This will not only increase your knowledge on the subject, but improve your
team building techniques which are essential in the music industry.

Blended learning will be used to provide access to all lecturer produced material on this
module, to enable online discussion as part of the learning activities for this module, and
through interactive learning in all face-to-face sessions.

Resources

Books
Book choices will somewhat depend on individual projects, but the following are a good start:

Scott Wilson and David Cottle (eds.) - The SuperCollider book

Iannis Xenakis - Formalized Music
David Temperley - Music and Probability
David Cope - Computer Models of Musical Creativity
Al Bregman - Auditory Scene Analysis
Curtis Roads - Microsound
Miller Puckette - Theory and technique of electronic music

Journals and Conference Papers

Computer Music Journal
Contemporary Music Review – ongoing
Organised Sound - ongoing

Websites
● Skills for Learning: http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/study
● Harvard referencing:
http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/referencing/harvard_referencing.aspx
● Databases A-Z: http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/resources/databases_a-z.aspx

The following software links may be useful:

● MaxMSP: www.cycling74.com
 ● Pure Data: www.puredata.info
● Supercollider: www.supercollider.sourceforge.net
● tone.js

Additional resources
Additional project-specific resources will be suggested by module staff on an individual basis
as the module progresses.

Specialist equipment/resources
● Studio booking - studio 1 is a 5.1 surround space. You may book either studio
outside of class times by following the usual room booking procedure.
● WH317 listening room - another 5.1 surround sound space, you may book this room
outside of class times by following the usual room booking procedure.
● Lab booking - you may book WH314 or 315 Mac lab outside of class times by
following the usual room booking procedure.

Reference points
● QAA Music 08 Benchmark
● Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ)
● Special Educational Needs Disability Act 2001 (SENDA)
● Race Relations Amendment Act (RRAA) (School Policy Document)
● School documents:
○ University Strategic Plan
○ School Operating Plan
○ School Assessment Handbook
○ Continuous monitoring via course journal
○ School Equality Policy

Professional, Statutory & Regulatory Bodies (PSRB)

N/A

Assessment
There are two assessment elements for this module:

1. Practical
2. Development blog

Assessment - portfolio (100%) due 17/05/2016

Covers learning outcomes LO1,LO2,LO3,LO4

Part 1 - practical

You will conceive, design, and implement an innovative software product in one of the
following areas:

● Generative/algorithmic composition
● Musical analysis and categorisation
● Sound processing and manipulation

You are encouraged to take a modular approach to design, utilising open standards and
protocols to connect the various elements of your final product.

Development should be done ‘in the open’ as much as is practicable - GitHub is the
assumed (although not mandatory) platform for code development, and makes a good
platform for a development journal (e.g. https://github.com/musictech).

Part 2 - development blog

You will need to keep a development blog alongside your code and other work. Wordpress is
a popular choice but you may choose any open platform.

Both components must be submitted at the same time

Arrangements for feedback

Written, verbal, audio and/or video feedback will be given within four working weeks of the
work being submitted. More details will be given in the sessions.

Assessment criteria
The work will be assessed using the criteria detailed below:

90-100% This work is outstanding and of a standard which could be

released commercially and/or published in a professional or
academic context (appropriate). The work demonstrates
engagement in an appropriate and clearly identified area of music
computing and/or a focused academic debate, presenting a range
of evidence underpinning a deep understanding of all the issues
studied. The work is a totally realised artefact/product/piece which
demonstrates a high level of originality with challenges to current
theory and/or practice and specific, focused examples of
contestability. There is evidence of a high level of synthesis of
theoretical exemplars, underpinning principles and practical
interpretation. No obvious errors in referencing or grammar or
syntax as appropriate.

80–89% The work is of an excellent standard and has the potential for
commercial release and/or publication in a professional or
academic context (as appropriate). The work demonstrates
engagement in an area of music computing and/or an academic
debate, presenting clear evidence of a considered understanding
of the professional/academic issues studied, the approach
adopted and the position taken. The work enhances current
theory and/or practice and displays a range of examples of
 contestability. There is evidence of clear synthesis of theoretical
issues and practice. A critical analysis of theoretical models
and/or practical applications has resulted in a distinct level of
originality. Very few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as
appropriate.

70–79% There is evidence of analysis and critique of techniques,

concepts, models of key authors/practitioners, rival theories,
and major debates together with some evidence of synthesis.
The work fully considers the complexity of the context in which
it is situated and the impinging external factors; it takes
cognisance of differing perspectives and interpretations and
recognises dilemmas. Ideas are presented in a succinct manner
and conclusions are well reasoned. The work shows an ability
to analyse the norms and standards in the field and to innovate
in the area. Few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as
appropriate.

60–69% The work demonstrates a capacity to create practical work and

express views based on sound analysis and argument. The
work makes use of solid evidence in an articulate and concise
way, and, where relevant, puts forward and make use of criteria
for the judgement of theories and issues. There is evidence of
effective engagement in a critical dialogue relating to
professional practice and a comparative review of key
practitioners and/or authors, rival theories and major debates.
The work demonstrates a willingness to question norms in the
chosen area, to explore issues and to synthesise theoretical
perspectives and practical application within a given
professional context. Some small repeated errors in referencing
or grammar or syntax as appropriate.

50–59% The planning, format, structure and focus are evident and
relevant to the assignment task. There is evidence of
engagement with pertinent issues. Key practitioners and/or
authors and major debates are clearly presented and there is
evidence of suitable basic reading. The work explores and
analyses issues, but is not strong on presenting synthesis or
evaluations. Written work is mainly descriptive, but has
achieved all the learning outcomes. Some repeated errors in
referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.

40–49% Whilst some of the characteristics of a pass have been

demonstrated, the work does not address each of the outcomes
for the specified assessment task. There may be little evidence
of an ability to apply the principles of the module to a wider
context. The practical work may meet most of the requirements
of the task with limited exploration of the area. The written work
may be an overly descriptive account demonstrating only
minimal interpretation, and very limited evidence of analysis,
synthesis or evaluation. No counterarguments or alternative
frames of reference are generated or considered. There is
evidence of sufficient grasp of the module’s learning outcomes
to suggest that the participant will be able to retrieve the module
 on resubmission.

30–39% The work has failed to address the outcomes of the module.
There are fundamental misconceptions of the basis of the
module. The written work is mainly descriptive, and both
practical and written work shows little or no understanding of
relevant theory. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that
the author will be able to retrieve the assignment without
retaking the module.

20–29% This work shows little or no understanding of relevant theory.

There is little reference to appropriate recordings or literature
and no evidence of independent thought or criticality. Overall
the work is unduly simplistic and descriptive and presents only
a superficial grasp of the essential issues.

10–19% This work is not coherent and shows severe faults in the
realisation of the practical work, referencing, grammar or
syntax. It includes unsubstantiated statements or assertions. It
is unstructured and extremely badly presented. Written work is
totally descriptive and lacks any attempt at analysis.

0–9% No real attempt to address assignment brief or learning

outcomes.