Meaning in Musical Gesture

Fernando Iazzetta
Universidade de São Paulo
[email protected]

How does it come that when someone voluntarily listens to a song with ears and mind, he is also
involuntarily turned toward it in such a way that his body responds with motions somehow simi-
lar to the song heard? (Boethius, 1989: 8).

Introduction

Technique and technology are two cultural aspects that have been deeply involved with music, not only
in relation to its production, but also in relation to the development of its theory and to the establishment of
its cultural role. Since the beginning of the twentieth century the relation between music and technology
became more intense due to a series of reasons, among them, the increasing knowledge about sound
physics and sound cognition; the access to low cost electricity; and the use of electronic and digital
technology to artificially generate and manipulate sounds. Before that, musical sounds were produced only
by mechanical means. Although musical instruments, such as the violin, the piano or even the human voice,
represented a wide variety of forms and mechanisms, all of them were based on the same principle of sound
production, that is, the mechanic vibration of an elastic body. However, the appearance of electrical
technologies and the use of electromagnetic signals brought the possibility of generating sounds without
using mechanical devices.
Although the sound waves coming either from a clarinet or from the electronic oscillators inside a
synthesizer have the same nature, their processes of production are quite different. On one side there is the
concrete, visible and mechanic universe of the traditional instruments where the body of the instrument
and the body and movements of who is playing that instrument are intrinsically related to the qualities of
the sound they are producing. On another side, in the era of electricity and electronics, we start listening
more and more to the sounds of invisible bodies contained in the electronic components of synthesizers,
samplers, and computers.
For many centuries, people learned to listen to sounds that had a strict relation to the bodies that
produced them. Suddenly, all this listening experience accumulated during the long process of musical
evolution was transformed by the appearance of electronic and recorded sounds. When one listens to
artificially generated sounds he or she cannot be aware of the same type of concrete and mechanic relations
provided by traditional acoustic instruments since these artificial sounds are generated by processes that
are invisible to our perception. These new sounds are extremely rich, but at the same time they are
ambiguous for they do not maintain any definite connection with bodies or gestures.
Until the development of sound recording systems early in this century, the contact with music occurred
only trough the performance. The listener, even if not involved in the sound production, participated in the
music realization by mentally reconstructing the connections between the sounds and the physical and
cultural context where the music was taking place. When recording technologies became socially effective,
they brought about two different alterations.

Listening

The first alteration refers to a shift from the prominence of music production processes (composition
and interpretation) to the prominence of listening activities as cultural experience (Mowitt 1987). Here one
can easily note that now the number of people who are listening to music is much larger than the number of
people who are doing music. This fact shows more than a statistical aspect. It also reflects a cultural
transformation: music is primarily produced to be listened to and not to be played or sung and the process
of composition and performance becomes the means to propitiate it.

Reprint from : Trends in Gestural Control of Music, M.M. Wanderley and M. Battier, eds.
© 2000, Ircam - Centre Pompidou 259
 This projection towards the listener is reinforced by the processes of reproduction that imposed new
models of reception. When the phonograph was invented about one hundred years ago, music reception
was based on the listening model of that time, that is, the listening of a live performance. The main goal of
those recording systems was guided by the term fidelity, which in that case would mean that the better a
recording could reproduce the sound qualities of a live performance the better it would be considered
(Thompson 1995). But what we experience today is a different situation. The live performance cannot be a
listening model anymore since, for most of us, listening to music means listening to the music reproduced
by a device such as radio, or CD. Gradually, this new context based on recording and reproduction becomes
the model for music reception and music production. The term fidelity, which presupposes some relation of
similarity, is still in use by phonographic and audio industries, but its meaning became reflexive and
inappropriate: the fidelity of a recorded sound is not based upon the original sound itself but it is
established as a function of the available recording technology. This leads to a paradoxical situation in
which more and more musicians try to reproduce in their live performances the same sound qualities of
their records, specially in pop music. In a stimulating essay, John Mowitt observes that:
"If recording organizes the experience of reception by conditioning its present scale and estab-
lishing its qualitative norms for musicians and listeners alike, then the conditions of reception
actually precede the moment of production. [T]he social analysis of musical experience has to
take account of the radical priority of reception." (Mowitt 1987: 176-77)

Gesture

The second alteration is related to musical gesture. Although music has always been strictly related to
gesture, only in the past few decades this issue has deserved some attention by musicologists. This concern
seems to emerge when it became possible to record and to reproduce music and the role of performance
was replaced by a listening situation mediated by new technologies such as the radio, magnetic tapes, or
CDs. As Roland Barthes says, there is one music one plays and one music one listens to. The music one
plays is
"a muscular music, in which the part taken by the sense of hearing is one only of ratification as
though the body were hearing [...] a music which is not played 'by heart': seated at the keyboard
or the music stand, the body controls, conducts, co-ordinates, having itself to transcribe what it
reads, making sound and meaning, the body as an inscriber and not just transmitter, simple
receiver." (Barthes, 1977: 149)
This musica practica has been replaced by a passive and receptive music. Electronic technology brings
this situation a step further by eliminating the traditional role of the performer from the chain of music
production. However, it seems that at the same time that electronic technology stresses this shift from the
idea of a music to be done to the idea of a music to be listened to (Chanan, 1994; Mowitt, 1987), it also
points to the conflict between the physicality traditionally involved in music production and the absence of
concrete objects in the virtual environment of today's digital studios: "It is precisely this physical absence
that is naturally compensated for in music by reintroducing a concern for body, gesture and space" (Chabot,
1990: 15).
Indeed, the interest in gesture's related subjects has been developed by different fields related to human
communication and cognition due to different reasons: the concern with the body in cognitive sciences as
an agent of knowledge (Johnson, 1987; Minsky, 1986; Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991); the growing
interest in non-verbal forms of communication in semiotic and psychology studies (Kendon, 1981; Nöth,
1990; Poyatos, 1983); the development of studies in sign languages of the deaf, especially American Sign
Language (Kendon, 1981: 31); the studies in Human-Computer Interaction promoted by the large
expansion of digital technology that brought the possibility of simulating physical phenomena in "virtual"
environments (Barfield & Furners III, 1995; Carr & England, 1995; Laurel, 1990).
Gesture is taken here in a broad sense. It does not mean only movement, but a movement that can
express something. Therefore, it is a movement that embodies a special meaning. It is more than a change
in space, or a body action, or a mechanic activity: gesture is an expressive movement that becomes actual
through temporal and spatial changes. Actions such as turning knobs or pushing levers, are current in the
use of today's technology, but they cannot be considered gestures. Also, to type a few words in a computer's
keyboard has nothing to do with gesture since the movement of pressing each key does not convey any
special meaning. It does not matter who or what performed that action, neither in which way it was
performed: the result is always the same. However, the situation is completely different when a musician
plays something on a piano keyboard: the result, that is, the musical performance, depends in many
different ways on the player's gesture. Pressing a key or sliding a bow during a performance are movements
that hold a meaning in themselves: they establish how a sound will be produced, they determine some

Reprint from : Trends in Gestural Control of Music, M.M. Wanderley and M. Battier, eds.
© 2000, Ircam Centre Pompidou 260
characteristics of that sound, they set up connections with previous sonic events, and, at the same time,
they furnish an articulatory path to further sounds. Obviously they are more than simple movements, they
are meaningful gestures.
Gesture in music performs a fundamental role in the generation of meaning (Henrotte 1992; Lidov
1987). In a certain way, we have learned to understand musical sounds with the aid of the gestures that
produce and represent these sounds. As G. Kurtenbach and E. Hulteen have noted, the function of gesture
in music is proportional to its power to express something:
"Gestures increase function by virtue of their expressiveness. That is, a gesture may control mul-
tiple parameters at the same time, thus allowing a user to manipulate data in a manner not possi-
ble by modifying each parameter individually. For example, a conductor simultaneously controls
both tempo and volume of the music gesture. The rhythm of the gesture controls tempo and the
size of the gesture controls volume. This allows an efficient communication not possible by
adjusting the tempo and volume independently ."(Kurtenbach & Hulteen 1990: 311-12)
Gesture acquires its signification through our experience with the signs that surround us. This
signification is constructed via the interaction between the brute phenomena we experience during our lives
and the way our senses apprehend these phenomena. Thus, the use of gesture in communicating things can
be a pre-linguistic act. Before a child can speak or even control his movements he is able to establish
relations between the events that occur around him and the consequences brought by those events. From
this, the child is able to start building up its own gestural vocabulary.
There is a strong tradition in the literature making an approximation between gesture and verbal
language. Linguistics is often taken as a basis to analyze any kind of communication and linguistic theories
based on verbal codes have influenced all disciplines involved with communication and language, from
information theory to semiotics. Inspiring works by different authors have stressed the connection between
gesture and verbal language and speech (Efron, 1972; Ekman & Friesen, 1969; McNeill, 1992) even when
they try to define specific traits of gesture (Kendon, 1981; Poyatos, 1983). The classification developed by
Ekman & Friesen (1969) started from Efron's theory of gesture and points to five categories of gesture:
Emblems, Illustrators, Affect Displays, Regulators, and Body Manipulators. In this classification, only
Affect Displays and Body Manipulation are not direct related to speech. McNeill (1992) creates his own
classification based on the ideas of different authors. He classifies gesture as follow: iconics, metaphorics,
deictics and beats. In the same direction Kendon (1988) points to a continuum in order to build a
classification of gesture occurrence – Gesticulation, Language-Like gestures, Pantomimes, Emblems, Sign-
Languages -- in which one can note a decrease of the presence of verbal components going from
gesticulation to sign-languages (Mulder, 1996).
Besides departing from a "linguistic" point of view, most of these categories are specially related to
empty-hand movements that occur during utterance. In a narrow sense, gesture is taken as "bodily
communication by means of hands and arms and to a lesser degree by the head" (Nöth, 1990). This narrow
sense excludes the possibility of considering other types of body action, such as posture, body movement,
gaze and facial expression as genuine types of gesture.
Although this approach can be effective for most HCI applications, we believe that to study the role and
functionality of gesture in interactive music systems, one should consider it in a broader sense in order to
be able to take some music peculiarities into account. For this reason we take gesture as any type of "bodily
movement [...] made consciously or unconsciously to communicate either with one's self or with another"
(Hayes, 1966, Nöth, 1990). This would include not only emblematic hand gestures, but also any other bodily
movement capable of conveying meaning. This would also include actions of touching, grasping or
manipulating physical objects in order to control music or sound parameters.
Besides this conception based on the physicality of gesture, we may also consider a parallel meaning of
the term which has a metaphorical sense and has been widely used in music analysis. Many authors have
referred to music gesture when describing some dynamic characteristics of musical utterance. Coker (1972)
has made one of the first extensive attempts to relate music meaning to gesture in a semiotic context. For
the author musical gesture "comprises a recognizable formal unit and consists of a selection and
organization of sonic and rhythmic properties in sonorous motion, which signifies other purely musical
objects or non-musical objects, events, and actions" (Coker, 1972:18). Another classical approach was
developed by Manfred Clynes (1977) who used an electric device called sentograph to monitor and record
finger pressure. In his experiments, subjects were required to press the sentograph in an expressive manner
in response to different instructions [Editors’ note: see the article by Ungvary and Vertegaal in this
volume]. The results of those experiments indicated a relation between some gestural patterns and specific
emotional states, such as love, hate, anger and joy. The relevance of a "metaphorical" use of gesture in

Reprint from : Trends in Gestural Control of Music, M.M. Wanderley and M. Battier, eds.
© 2000, Ircam - Centre Pompidou 261
music has also been formulated to elucidate other aspects of musical meaning such as in Iwanka
Stoïanowa's study on music-graph-gesture (Stoïanowa, 1973) and in David Lidov's text on kinesthetic
relations in music discourse (Lidov, 1987).
Although these approaches do not directly assume the term gesture in a sense of physical bodily
movement, there is a strong connection between this metaphorical sense and the more physical use of the
term in music. François Delalande (1988) indicates three gestural levels, ranging from the functional to the
symbolic: the geste effecteur, "necessary to mechanically produce sound"; the geste accompagnateur,
which "engages the whole body" of the player, but may not be directly involved in the sound production;
and the geste figuré, "an imaginary ballet which constitutes a third dimension of the movement, and which
could be related to the metaphorical use of musical gesture we referred above. These three levels are
certainly interrelated and they can even overlap in their function. While analytical and aesthetic approaches
are more inclined to the investigation of the geste figuré, fields related to the development of interactive
music instruments and environments rest upon the study of the geste effecteur. The geste
accompagnateur, besides playing an intermediary role between the former two levels, has a more defined
place in performance studies.
The idea of a geste figuré has a parallel in what Bernadete Zagonel defines as mental gesture (Zagonel
1992). While physical gesture (in the sense of geste effecteur and accompagnateur) refers to the production
of sound as a physical phenomenon, retaining an objective relation between the gesture and the sounds that
are produced, mental gestures occurs as an idea or an image that refers to physical gesture. Mental gestures
are closely related to the processes of composition and listening. Thus, the composer often starts from an
idea or a mental image of sound gesture to compose a vocal or instrumental gesture. The mental gesture is
learned through the experience and stored into the memory to be used as a model in composition. At the
same time that a mental gesture refers to the corporal actions of a performer or to the behavior of a musical
instrument, it can also refer to a particular sound structure. For example, an arpeggio can be understood as
a gestural movement from one point to another in the pitch space and the movement of a conductor's hand
can be seen as a gesture that unifies the temporal and articulatory behavior of the orchestra. What we
should emphasize is that the mental gesture always refers to a physical gesture that has been previously
learned.
Concerning music, one can say that physical gesture is directly related to music interpretation while
composition is much closer to mental gesture: As Bernadete Zagonel stresses, "if the composer goes from
gesture to the composition, the performer goes the opposite way, that means, he goes from the score to the
gesture" (Zagonel 1992: 17-18). To this statement we can add that the listener completes this chain by
mentally recreating the performer's physical gestures while listening to music.

Body

The idea of gesture leads immediately to the body. The body is the instrument through which the gesture
becomes actual; it is the interface that translates ideas into physical signs and this can occur in three
different ways, depending on how this gesture acquires its signification: by similarity, by causality, and by
convention. The determination of these three types of gestural categories was inspired by the triadic
categories drawn by the American semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce (1955) and can be taken as an
analogy to his sign concepts of icon, index and symbol. Instead of been rooted in linguistics, Peirce's theory
offers a more general scope to investigate the way any type of signs can represent -- or mean -- something
since he uses logic as the point of departure to create his semiotic theory.
Here, what is important to note is that, according to Peirce, his triadic categories involve a hierarchy
according to which the third element, the symbol, comprises the second, the index, which by its turn
comprises the first element, the icon. Therefore, a sign rarely would be represented by only one of these
categories. Following Peirce's scheme, if we state that a specific gesture belongs to a certain type, it does not
invalidate its efficacy in the domain of another type. To say that the signification of a gesture operates by
means of similarity, causality or convention means that the gesture is more characteristic of one of these
three types but still can be related to the other two types, specially when the same gesture is present in a
different context.
One example of gesture that operates by similarity is the corporal gesture trying to imitate or emulate
the behavior of processes and objects in the world. For example, the fast movement of a conductor's hand to
indicate a fast tempo and a sax player bending up and down during the performance as if his/her body were

Reprint from : Trends in Gestural Control of Music, M.M. Wanderley and M. Battier, eds.
© 2000, Ircam Centre Pompidou 262
following the melodic shape of a solo. These gestures operate by creating some temporal and/or spatial
relation of similarity with other events: the speed of the movement in the first case; the melodic contour in
the second.
On another hand, causal gestures are connected to an event through a cause-and-effect relation. Usually
these are gestures that operate as a response to an actual circumstance. Bringing the hands in front of the
face when we predict a dangerous situation is a direct reaction to this situation. In the same sense one can
often relate someone's attitude to a personal characteristic such as in the case of a shy person who has a
shrunk posture during walk. In this case the gesture (posture) has a necessary relation with its cause
(shyness) and the existence of the former depends on the latter. We may note that, although some authors
tend to take the static character of posture in opposition to the dynamics of gesture (Mulder, 1996), we
consider posture as an effective and expressive bodily action and therefore as a type of gesture which is
extremely important to music performance since it establishes a close relation between the behavior of the
performer's body and his/her musical expressiveness.
As we enlarge our gestural vocabulary we also tend to apply arbitrary signification to specific gestures.
These conventional gestures do not necessarily keep any relation of similarity nor causality but they are
constructed, shaped by external factors such as culture and language. They acquire signification by an
abstract and functional process and must be learned to be shared by a specific group. For example, the
characteristic gesture made by North-Americans with the fingers to mean that something is okay or
positive, in Brazil is taken as an offense. The relation between this type of gesture and its signification is
totally conventional and can easily change from one situation to another.
These gestural types are generic and can refer to more specific levels of gestural classification. For
example, one could associate the categories of iconic and metaphoric gestures drawn by McNeill (1992) as
examples of gesture that operate by similarity, while the deictic gestures would be clearly related to causal
gestures. In the same way, emblematic gesture would fall in the conventional gesture type. Another relation
can be established between Delalande's considerations about geste effecteur, geste accompagnateur and
geste figuré (Delalande, 1988) and the causal, similar, and conventional gesture types, although generally
they could be related to more than one type at once.

Performance

In a book called "The Sight of Sound: Music, Representation, and the History of the Body", Richard
Leppert calls the attention to the importance of the gestural images that are produced during a musical
performance:
"Precisely because musical sound is abstract, intangible, and ethereal [...] the visual experience of
its production is crucial to both musicians and audience alike for locating and communicating
the place of music and musical sound within society and culture. [...] Music, despite its phenom-
enological sonoric ethereality, is an embodied practice, like dance and theater."(Leppert 1993:
xx-xxi)
The lack of musicological studies taking body gesture into account is in part due to the fact that the body
has never been considered as a support for musical expression. When electric and electronic means of
musical production and diffusion eliminated the presence of the musician and his instrument we had to
change the way we experience music. "Traditionally, to attend a music performance is to apprehend
through the sight the intention which is loaded in the instrumentalist's gesture. In the mediation of the
technological work, this prediction does not work all the time" (Battier, 1992: 69). The symbiotic relation
between the player's body and his instrument plays a special role in the comprehension of the musical
discourse. For example, a violent gesture produced by the player reinforces the effect of a sudden sound
attack in the same way that the body expression of a singer can lead to a richer phrase articulation.
The musical background and the daily experience with the objects that surround us help to establish
connections between physical materials and the types of gestures that will produce specific sounds with
those materials. Through our experience we can also establish patterns and links between sonic events and
the materials that could produce these sounds. Of course, the perception of these relations is not precise in
specific terms (for example, it is difficult to determine how loud is the sound of this book falling on the
floor), but this perception is extremely sophisticated in relative terms (for example, one can easily say that
rolling a pencil over a wood table produces a softer sound than hitting the table with that pencil). Moreover,
part of music's expressive power is given by this proportional scale through which one can mentally build
relations among materials, gestures and sounds. It is at this point that lies part of the attraction music
exerts on us. Indeed, among the objects that surround us we don't know of any which would allow the
production of such amazing sounds as we can get from a musical instrument. Our perception tells us that an

Reprint from : Trends in Gestural Control of Music, M.M. Wanderley and M. Battier, eds.
© 2000, Ircam - Centre Pompidou 263
ordinary piece of wood, about 50 centimeters long, would never produce a sound with the same quality,
power, brightness and regularity one could hear from on a violin, for example. Also, ordinary objects
usually don't allow a precise control of the sound produced by a specific gesture. Thus, musical instruments
subvert our expectations about the sounds that such devices would produce. What a musical instrument
allows to do in terms of sound production goes far beyond what our common sense would expect from any
other ordinary object. It establishes an almost magical relation between gesture and sound and, in this way,
the musical instrument is not only the medium for the musical idea, but also part of this idea.
Our experience provides the first step to create perceptual models that correlate classes of gesture,
instrumental properties and sounds. The construction of a gestural vocabulary starts from these intuitive
models and grows up as we enlarge our musical experience. What is important to retain is that instrumental
gestures, that is, the physical gestures the performer applies on an instrument to produce or transform
sounds, are extensively determined by the instrument properties. Traditional instruments are subject to
mechanic laws and when someone plays a piano or a trumpet his/her gestures are constrained by these
laws. Certain types of musical phrases can be more characteristic of a particular instrument just because its
design makes it easy to produce that chain of notes. All these characteristics are attached to the instrument
and are due to a long process of evolution and adaptation. Thus one can intuitively draw stable relations
between classes of instruments and classes of gestures. For example, one could say that bowed instruments
would favor some kind of smooth and continuous gesture while percussion instruments would lead to more
discrete and definite movements.
Obviously, each instrument offers a different level of control and interaction. For example, the
mechanism of a pipe organ works almost automatically in a way that the performer's gestures have very
little influence over the process of sound generation. On another hand, some acoustic instrument families,
such as bowed strings, reed or blown instruments, and percussion, generally will allow the control of very
subtle sound characteristics through the interaction between the player's gestures and the structure of the
instrument. As Richard Moore points out,
"With such instruments the microgestural movements of the performer’s body are translated
into sound in ways that allow the performer to evoke a wide range of affective quality in the musi-
cal sound. That is simultaneously what makes such devices good musical instruments, what
make them extremely difficult to play well, and what makes overcoming that difficulty well
worthwhile to both performer and listener." (Moore 1987: 258)

Mapping

Due to their mechanic nature, the operation of traditional instruments during performance establishes a
close connection with the mechanic of the player's body. This connection works as a clue for the
formulation of instrumental models of music perception. Most of time, sounds derived from the traditional
orchestra are very clear in relation to which type of instrument they come from and to the quality of gesture
that have produced them. But when we consider sounds produced in electroacoustic music these relations
are not so explicit.
Firstly because electronic instruments can be seen as black-boxes that produce different sounds as
response to external inputs. The process of producing sounds is invisible to musicians and listeners alike
and there is no necessary relation between the physical input and the resulting sound. For every new
instrument it is necessary to learn how a specific gesture acts on it. The mechanic laws that regulate the
components of electronic instruments do not determine how the musician's actions are mapped into
sounds. It is a matter of design: this mapping is designed in the same manner that electronic circuits or
controlling interfaces are. Secondly, because a new electronic instrument may not be related to any
previously known instrumental type. Music history is full of instruments that did not survive because they
could not be adapted to a very well established tradition. Exotic or over-complicated instruments did not
survive because they were not general enough to satisfy our musical demands. This has changed because
today's electronic instruments can be designed without any compromise on an evolutionary process in
which each step represents an improvement on the previous one (Lansky 1990). The life of an electronic
instrument can be as short as the duration of a composition.
If traditional instruments are constrained to the mechanic behavior of their mechanisms and interfaces,
electronic instruments offer no such constraints: they are artificially created by an instrument builder. The
relations between the sounds and the gestures that will produce them are also part of the instrument's
project. Here we approach some of the most prominent questions in the design of today's electronic
instruments: How can we design the artificial relations that will control the sound production in an
effective and meaningful way? How can we map specific gestures to control specific sound parameters in a

Reprint from : Trends in Gestural Control of Music, M.M. Wanderley and M. Battier, eds.
© 2000, Ircam Centre Pompidou 264
natural and meaningful way? If we agree that gesture is a meaningful part of music, paying attention to
these questions regarding the design of electronic instruments is extremely important to propitiate systems
that will allow performers to convey their expressiveness without reducing their role to simply activate and
deactivate sound events.
Although the sound generation in electronic music instruments is based on the flow of electrical signals,
usually their control still relay on some type of physical activity carried out by the performer's body. While
in traditional acoustic instruments the effects of the performer's physical activity on an instrument are
already established by the physical properties of the instrument, in electronic instruments this relation
must be previously designed. Mapping this relation can be critical for the effectiveness of an electronic
instrument.
Three different mapping strategies have been proposed in (Rovan, Wanderley, Dubnov, & Depalle, 1997)
to provide a connection between gesture and the control of sound parameters: One-to-One, Divergent and
Convergent. The simplest mapping scheme, one-to-one, maps each independent gesture to one musical
parameter. In the divergent strategy each gesture is mapped to more than one musical parameter, while in
the convergent mapping many gestures can be mapped to one musical parameter. As the authors have
observed, expressivity increases from the one-to-one to the convergent strategy and we may also note that
the difficulties to implement these strategies increase in the same proportion. Thus, in the design of a new
instrument or musical environment there may be a compromise between the expressivity allowed by the
system and the obstacles imposed by its implementation. We would add that traditional acoustic
instruments usually operate according to a forth layer -- which is a combination of the former three -- in
which many different gestures control different parameters.
Of course, there is a counterpart to this scheme. When expressivity diminishes, as in the case of the one-
to-one strategy, it becomes easier to get a finer control of specific parameters, and this is one of the keys for
the success of most commercial electronic music systems, from the MIDI protocol to the most recent
commercial keyboard synthesizers.

Conclusion

Electroacoustic music forces the appearance of new listening models, which are more extensive and
unsteady than the ones that support traditional music. As Dennis Smalley points out, until recently the
listener expectations during a concert were limited by familiar models which had been determined by music
tradition and repertoire:
"Prior to the electroacoustic era [...] the listener could automatically assume before even listening
to a piece of music that it would be rooted either in the instrumental gesture model, or human
utterance, or both [...] So, traditionally, the indicative framework and boundaries of a musical
work were not only pre-determined but, as far as culture is concerned, permanent." (Smalley
1992: 544)
On another hand, in pure electroacoustic music there is no such limitation to instrumental or vocal
models. The composer is stimulated to create new sonic fields and the listener to develop new listening
strategies. The absence of performers, instruments, and visual and gestural references provides a radically
expanded experience: "everything remains to be revealed by the composer and discovered by the listener"
(Smalley 1992: 545). Since the first works of electroacoustic music works deviated the focus from
instrumental gesture to acousmatic listening, music has often lost the expressive and dramatic power
conveyed by the gestural realization of the performer. Since then, to reconstitute these characteristics
became a challenge in pure electroacoustic music composition.
During the 80's, when technology made it possible to reintroduce the participation of the performer in
the electroacoustic practice the debate around the role of gesture in music emerged under a different
perspective. The performer's action in electronic interactive music contribute as a visual and physical
reference during the performance (Iazzetta 1996). However, many real-time systems for sound controlling
and processing usually do not provide any explicit relation between the gestures performed by the musician
and the resulting sounds. Rather, computers and other digital devices disorganize the causal relations
between gesture and sound. A digital music system can calculate very precisely the trajectory of a sound
parameter and use it to recreate that sound, but "it lacks the anticipation of the effect, because the results
can hardly recover the gesture" (Battier, 1992:69).
Emmerson (1994) suggests that in live performances of electronic music this could be attenuated with a
balance between two systems: on one side, what the instrumentalist can control and can be perceived as a
relation of a human performer action and sound production (which he refers to as local control); on the
other side, the control of an environment where the results are related to the context in which the

Reprint from : Trends in Gestural Control of Music, M.M. Wanderley and M. Battier, eds.
© 2000, Ircam - Centre Pompidou 265
performance takes place (which he calls field control). Emmerson refers to local/field controls as two
complementary systems that might be taken in the research agenda of musicians working with electronic
systems. The balance between local and field controls could help in "reassembling some of the 'cause/effect'
chains which have been broken by recording and computer technology" (Emmerson, 1994: 31).
Indeed, one of the most powerful features of an interactive computer music system is the ability to
constantly reorganize its configuration. While it opens a large spectrum of musical possibilities for sound
production, it also avoids the constitution of stable connections between performance actions and results.
The absence of a unique gestural mapping prevents the performer from deeply exploring the system's
controlling mechanisms at the same time that it prevents the listener from connecting visual input and
music. While the acousmatic effect in pure electroacoustic music tends to put the sound in evidence by
breaking (or at least by weakening) its connection with its source, interactive music renders this connection
very unstable. As composer Dennis Smalley says:
"[...] we can arrive at a situation where the sounding spectro-morphologies do not correspond
with perceived physical gesture: the listener is not adequately armed with a knowledge of the
practicalities of new 'instrumental' capabilities and limitations, and articulatory subtlety is not
recognized and may even be reduced compared with the traditional instrument." (Smalley 1992:
548)
Since the 90's, instrument designers and musicians have to face the particularities of new electronic
devices for music production in order to create effective interfaces that would allow the expressive control
of sound. Mapping gesture into controlling parameters is not a simple task. The manipulation of tape
recorders, synthesizers, and computers eliminates the materiality of sound. Differently from the sounds
produced by mechanic instruments, electronic sounds do not embody any kind of gestural relation to the
devices that produce them. It represents a great autonomy and freedom in terms of compositional
strategies, but at the same time it means a loss in the symbolic and meaningful dimensions that can be
present in a musical work. In the last 50 years electronic and digital technology expanded the possibilities
for creating music in a very significant way, but this expansion also brought the risk of restricting the
semiotic connections conceived during the performance and listening. Today's musical activities based on
the production of pre-recorded or electronic generated music have deviated from the embodied practice of
performance to artificial processes of composition and diffusion. In these processes the loudspeaker
replaces the performer, thus eliminating visual and gestural references that traditionally composed a
significant dimension of musical language. In which way contemporary musical practices such as electronic
interactive music will restore this dimension is something that still has to be elaborated and can be seen as
a challenge that will entertain, for some time, composers, performers and listeners alike.

References

Barfield, W., & Furners III, T. A., eds. 1995. Virtual Environment and Advanced Interface Design. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Barthes, R. 1977. "Musica Pratica." In Image - Music - Text. New York: Hill & Wang, pp. 149-154.

Battier, M. 1992. "Sculpter la Transparence." Les Cahiers de L'Ircam - Recherche et Musique, 1, 57-75.

Boethius, A. M. S. 1989) [c. 500]. Fundamentals of Music. Translated by Calvin M. Bower. New Haven &
London: Yale University Press.

Carr, K., and R. England, eds. 1995. Simulated and Virtual Realities: elements of perception. London:
Taylor & Francis.

Chabot, X. 1990. "Gesture Interfaces and a Software Toolkit for Performance with Electronics." Computer
Music Journal, 14(2), 15-27.

Chanan, M. 1994. Musica Practica: The Social Practice of Western Music from Gregorien Chant to
Postmodernism. London, New York: Verso.

Clynes, M. 1977. Sentics, the Touch of Emotions. New York: Anchor.

Coker, W. 1972. Music & Meaning: A Theoretical Introductions to Musical Aesthetics. New York: The Free
Press.

Reprint from : Trends in Gestural Control of Music, M.M. Wanderley and M. Battier, eds.
© 2000, Ircam Centre Pompidou 266
Delalande, F. 1988. "Le Geste, outil d'analyse : quelques enseignements d'une recherche sur la gestique de
Glenn Gould." Analyse Musicale, 1er trimestre, 1988.

Efron, D. 1972. Gesture, Race and Culture. Hague, Paris: Mouton 1941.

Ekman, P., and W. Friesen. 1969. "The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage and
coding." Semiotica, 1, 49-98.

Emmerson, S. 1994. "Local/Field': towards a typology of live electroacoustic music." In Proceedings of the
1994 International Computer Music Conference. San Francisco: International Computer Music
Association, pp. 31-34.

Henrotte, G. A. 1992. "Music and Gesture: A Semiotic Inquiry." The American Journal of Semiotics, 9 (4):
103-114.

Iazzetta, F. 1996. "Formalization of Computer Music Interaction through a Semiotic Approach." Journal of
New Music Research, 25(3): 212-230.

Jaffe, D. A., and W. A. Schloss. 1994. "The Computer-Extended Ensemble." Computer Music Journal, 18(2):
78-86.

Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago,
London: The University of Chicago Press.

Kendon, A., ed. 1981. Nonverbal Communication, Interaction, and Gesture. Paris, NewYork: Mouton
Publishers.

Kurtenbach, G., and E. A. Hulteen. 1990. "Gestures in Human-Computer Interaction." In B. Laurel, ed., The
Art of Human-Computer Interface Design. Mass., Calif., NY, et al.: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, Inc., pp. 309-317.

Lansky, P. 1990. "A View from the Bus: When Machines Make Music." Perspectives of New Music, 28(2):
102-110.

Laurel, B., ed. 1990. The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Leppert, R. 1993. The Sight of Sound: Music, Representation, and the History of the Body. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Lidov, D. 1987. "Mind and body in music". Semiotica, 66(1/3): 68-97.

McNeill, D. 1992. Hand and Mind: what gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Minsky, M. 1986. The Society of Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Moore, F. R. 1987. The Dysfunctions of MIDI. In Proceedings of the 1987 International Computer Music
Conference. San Francisco: International Computer Music Association, pp. 256-263.

Mowitt, J. 1987. The Sound of Music in the Era of its Electronic Reproduction. In R. L. and S. McClary, eds,
Music and Society: The politics of composition, performance and reception, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 173-197.

Mulder, A. 1996. Hand Gestures for HCI. Technical Report No. 96-1, School of Kinesiology, Simon Fraser
University.

Nöth, W. 1990. Nonverbal Communication. In W. Nöth (Ed.), Handbook of Semiotics, Bloomington &
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, pp. 387-418.

Peirce, C. S. 1955. Logic as Semiotic: the theory of signs. In J. Buchler, ed., Philosophical Writings of Peirce.
New York: Dover Publications, pp. 98-119.

Reprint from : Trends in Gestural Control of Music, M.M. Wanderley and M. Battier, eds.
© 2000, Ircam - Centre Pompidou 267
Poyatos, F. 1983. New Perspectives in Nonverbal Communication. Oxford: Pergamon.

Rovan, J. B., M. M. Wanderley, S. Dubnov, S. and P. Depalle. 1997. "Instrumental Gestural Mapping
Strategies as Expressivity Determinants in Computer Music Performance". In Proceedings of the
KANSEI The Technology of Emotion Workshop, Antonio Camurri (ed), Genoa, Italy, pp 68--73.

Smalley, D. 1992. "The Listening Imagination: Listening in the Electroacoustic Era." In T. H. John Paynter
Richard Orton, Peter Seymor, eds., Companion to Contemporary Musical Though, London, New
York: Routledge, pp. 514-554.

Stoïanowa, I. 1973. "Musique, graphie, geste, musique, graphie..." Musique en jeu, 13, 105-114.

Thompson, E. 1995. "Machines, Music, and the Quest for Fidelity: Marketing the Edison Phonograph in
America, 1877-1925." The Musical Quarterly, 79(1): 31-171.

Varela, F. J., E. Thompson, and E. Rosch. 1991. The Embodied Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

Zagonel, B. 1992. O Que É Gesto Musical. São Paulo: Brasiliense.

Reprint from : Trends in Gestural Control of Music, M.M. Wanderley and M. Battier, eds.
© 2000, Ircam Centre Pompidou 268