Week 4 - Indulging in Zoom

From now on, Peer A will remain the same person and the musician that I previously referred to as Peer C will now be Peer B. 

Our first meeting took place in the virtual wonders of Zoom. Now although I have had numerous encounters with the software over the past 12 months due to a world-wide outbreak - not once have I actually done a collaboration over it! Most of the time, I've been in a 1 to 1 setting where a teacher is delivering content and the student responds, so this concept of discussing ideas over Zoom is already giving me some nightmare visions of not knowing when to talk, pressing un-mute when I shouldn't and probably most importantly, not being able to read subtle microgestures when my peers want to disagree or put their point across. 

The joys of technology... we would have thought to have pressed the record button for the meeting was an obvious thing to do. Alas, we didn't so you will just have to take our word for everything that happened (promise it did!).

Online Meeting 1 - 1st March 12:30pm-1:00pm

I did do some light preparation for the meeting - as I was expecting there to be little direction from the beginning (given that the module leader said that the theme was free-choice). It was only natural to seek out topics that combined the competancies of the group so that all members of the group felt included and had the opportunity to talk about their own specilisms. 

It seemed like both Peer A and Peer B didn't have much to say in the first meeting. I appreciate that it was quite short (only 30 minutes) but I did start to have feelings similar to the start of this project where I would be 'dragging everyone through' - they certainly had the time to prepare something and it wasn't like it was a busy time in the semester (a bit disappointing).

With no initial theme. it was entirely free reign as to where this discussion was going to begin. I introduced a website within my favourite field (The Mathematics of Music), in the hope that would spark the beginning of the discussion. The simple interactive element of the website intrigued us all and we made the meaningful link that this was similar to the sound installation concepts that was covered in last semester's Studio Techniques. 

At this point, I felt rather excited about where this was naturally leading - my competancy video at the beginning did mention 'breaking traditional norms' and sound installations did exactly that, both with visual and musical aspects of the work. 

Myself and Peer B then shared a moment of recollection in a recent sound installation that is accessible to all (like Pachelballs) and imaginatively uses performance space (similar to what Ames was describing earlier). LINES by Anders Lind explores physical musical interaction that is accessible to all, even with no musical background. The use of walls, floors and ceilings with sensors - to me created this 'musical playground' with endless possiblities for improvisation. 

The connection of using colour to form music was made by Peer A who suggested a project that was based upon synaesthesia (something I havn't come across before). A one to one correspondance between coloured light and a note in the twelve-tone scale lead into a discussion about whether we could do a reverse-sonification to turn music into a piece of visual art or vice-versa.

However, a recolection back to Music Project last semester from Peer A quickly halted our 'vice-versa' thought as a certain music practitioner might have fully exploited this idea entirely. The whole aim for this project was to create something entirely new so this idea of synaesthesia was soon rejected.

There wasn't any fixed ideas at this stage and personally, I did feel everyone had different visions of what they wanted the project to specifically be. Ideas were starting to float around, but the general direction the meeting was leading into was the wide genre of sound installations and using Peer B's expertise in electronics to drive the project forward. This was quite a broad theme and at this stage is perfectly acceptable. Sawyer (2007) explains that keeping things 'open' for as long as possible is important to allow creativity to grow and to allow the collaborative dynamics of the group to take place over time. To me, this statement has been true in many musical collaborations in the past, where the beginning of the project is usually quite murky in terms of its goal but then the sense of 'openess' allows the project to grow in directions that were unexpected at the beginning. 

MBTI Analysis

One final thing that I did manage to get both of my group members to do was the same MBTI that I took a few weeks ago - which did return some interesting results:

Peer A - (ENFP - Champion) ENFPs are typically agile and expressive communicators, using their wit, humor, and mastery of language to create engaging stories. Imaginative and original, ENFPs often have a strong artistic side. They are drawn to art because of its ability to express inventive ideas and create a deeper understanding of human experience.

(1) - Yes, wit and humor was certainly present with Peer A in the meeting - some humor more successful than others ;)

(2) - His mention of synaesthesia could be linked to his interest in art. Of course, as a musician I wouldn't expect anything less!

Peer B - (INTP - Architect) INTPs are detached, analytical observers who can seem oblivious to the world around them because they are so deeply absorbed in thought. They spend much of their time in their own heads: exploring concepts, making connections, and seeking understanding of how things work. To the Architect, life is an ongoing inquiry into the mysteries of the universe.

(1) - This deep absorption could have been the reason for his use of technical language in his competancy video - he was so deeply absorbed into his technology he perhaps might have not be aware of the accessibility of what he was saying - it's not a bad thing but something to be aware of in the future.

(2) - As a ex-CMT student who wants to push technical challenges as far as possible and find out new ways to use the Ableton software - his enquiring mind is clearly shown and will hopefully be of great use later on in the project for problem solving.

I was suprised that not all members were in the extroverted category, however the model doesn't account for someone who is close to the 50:50 cut of extrovert and introvert. 

As a group, we almost covered all of the dichotomies - but it was worth noting that everyone had iNtuition as their dominant dichotomy compared to Sensing. This is something worth being aware of as being realistic and focusing on current facts in a project is important. This is to ensure that projects are realistic within the timeframe given and that someone is honest in the current state of the project at any given time, rather than pin hopes on what the project could be (it might never get reached).

The most important thing to remember is that there is benefit to all types within a group collaboration and that it's not only the member themselves, but the other group members responsibility to find ways of utilizing their personalities to optimise the performance of the group.

Changing the Domain

Last, but by no means least, I made the statement mentioned earlier in the blog 'I want to change the domain in musical collaboration'. 

Both laughed... For a long time...

I'm not entirely surprised - perhaps they were thinking I was big-headed making such a statement or maybe they knew it was a joke. I didn't really mind either way - I was hoping though it had its intended effect.

To be tucked away in the corner of their mind for weeks to come, in the hope that they will start to believe (if I mention it enough) that we can make monumental progress within this project as a group and as individuals, even if we don't quite change the domain! 

References