Unconventional inputs: New/old instruments, design, DIY and disability

Dalgleish, Mat

dc.contributor.author	Dalgleish, Mat
dc.date.accessioned	2016-11-28T16:03:08Z
dc.date.available	2016-11-28T16:03:08Z
dc.date.issued	2016-12-01
dc.identifier.citation	Dalgliesh, M. (2016) Unconventional inputs: New/old instruments, design, DIY and disability, eContact! 18(3)
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/2436/620295
dc.description	© 2016 The Authors. Published by Canadian Electroacoustic Community (CEC). This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://econtact.ca/18_3/dalgleish_unconventional.html
dc.description.abstract	Musical instruments today exhibit a split between old and new. On one side, there are a modest number of canonical forms that have slowly evolved over millennia; they are now extremely familiar and a few can reasonably be labelled “iconic”. However, rather than idealized or even near-optimal designs, they are necessarily the product of compromise between incompatible acoustical and human factors, and therefore invariably imperfect. For some musicians and composers these limitations are a source of creative stimulation (Eno 1996; Strauss 2004), but many more rarely deeply consider their interaction possibilities — good or bad. In either case there may be little to no demand for changes to be made in the design of an individual instrument, let alone to a family of instruments
dc.language.iso	en
dc.publisher	Canadian Electroacoustic Community (CEC)
dc.relation.url	http://econtact.ca/18_3/dalgleish_unconventional.html
dc.subject	Musical Instrument Design
dc.subject	Digital Musical Instruments
dc.subject	DIY
dc.subject	Disability
dc.subject	Adaptation
dc.title	Unconventional inputs: New/old instruments, design, DIY and disability
dc.type	Journal article
dc.identifier.journal	eContact!
dc.date.accepted	2016-11-01
rioxxterms.funder	Jisc
rioxxterms.identifier.project	UoW281116MD
rioxxterms.version	VoR
rioxxterms.licenseref.uri	https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate	2016-12-01
dc.source.volume	18
dc.source.issue	3
refterms.dateFCD	2018-10-19T08:32:40Z
refterms.versionFCD	VoR
refterms.dateFOA	2016-12-01T00:00:00Z
html.description.abstract	Musical instruments today exhibit a split between old and new. On one side, there are a modest number of canonical forms that have slowly evolved over millennia; they are now extremely familiar and a few can reasonably be labelled “iconic”. However, rather than idealized or even near-optimal designs, they are necessarily the product of compromise between incompatible acoustical and human factors, and therefore invariably imperfect. For some musicians and composers these limitations are a source of creative stimulation (Eno 1996; Strauss 2004), but many more rarely deeply consider their interaction possibilities — good or bad. In either case there may be little to no demand for changes to be made in the design of an individual instrument, let alone to a family of instruments