Interaction and collaboration in computer music using computer networks: An UbiMus perspective

References

• Barbosa A. (2003). Displaced soundscapes: A survey of network systems for music and sonic art creation. Leonardo Music Journal, 13, 53–59.
   Google Scholar
• Bukvic I., Martin T., Standley E., & Matthews M. (2010). Introducing L2Ork: Linux laptop orchestra. In K. Beilharz, B. Bongers, A. Johnston, & S. Ferguson (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on new interfaces for musical expression (pp. 170–173). Sydney, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Clément, A., Ribeiro, F., Rodrigues, R., & Penha, R. (2016). Bridging the gap between performers and the audience using networked smartphones: The A. Bel system. Proceedings of international conference on live interfaces, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Cotton M., Vegoda L., & Meyer D. (2010). IANA guidelines for IPv4 multicast address assignments (No. 5771). RFC 5771 (Best current practice). IETF. Retrieved from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5771.txt
   Google Scholar
• Damião A., & Schiavoni F. L. (2014). Streaming objects and strings. Live coding and collaboration symposium. University of Birmingham.
   Google Scholar
• Dannenberg R. B., Cavaco S., Ang E., Avramovic I., Aygun B., Baek J., & Barndollar E. (2007). The carnegie mellon laptop orchestra. Proceedings of the 2007 international computer music conference (Vol. II, pp. 340–343). The International Computer Music Association.
   Google Scholar
• De Lima M. H., Keller D., Pimenta M. S., Lazzarini V., & Miletto E. M (2012). Creativity-centred design for ubiquitous musical activities: Two case studies. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 5(2), 195–222. doi: 10.1386/jmte.5.2.195_1
   Google Scholar
• Dubois, E., Gray, P., & Nigay, L. (2009). The engineering of mixed reality systems. London: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Gabrielli L., & Squartini S. (2016). Wireless networked music performance. Singapore: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hinden R., & Deering S. (2006). IP version 6 addressing architecture (No. 4291). RFC 4291 (Draft standard). IETF. Retrieved from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4291.txt (Updated by RFCs 5952, 6052)
   Google Scholar
• Husarik S. (1983). John cage and lejaren hiller: Hpschd, 1969. American Music, 00, 1–21. doi: 10.2307/3051496
   Google Scholar
• Jordà S. (1999). Faust music on line: An approach to real-time collective composition on the internet. Leonardo Music Journal, 9, 5–12. doi: 10.1162/096112199750316730
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller D. (2018). Challenges for a second decade of ubimus research: Knowledge transfer in ubimus activities. Revista Música Hodie, 18(1), 148–165. doi: 10.5216/mh.v18i1.53578
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller D., & Capasso A. (2006). New concepts and techniques in eco-composition. Organised Sound, 11(1), 55–62. doi: 10.1017/S1355771806000082
   Google Scholar
• Keller D., Flores L. V., Pimenta M. S., Capasso A., & Tinajero P. (2011). Convergent trends toward ubiquitous music. Journal of New Music Research, 40(3), 265–276. doi: 10.1080/09298215.2011.594514
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller, D., Gomes, C., & Aliel, L. (2018). The handy metaphor: Bimanual, touchless interaction for the internet of musical things. Proceedings of the eighth workshop on ubiquitous music (pp. 180–188), São João del Rei, MG.
   Google Scholar
• Keller D., & Lazzarini V. (2017). Theoretical approaches to musical creativity: The ubimus perspective. Musica Theorica, 2(1), 1–53.
   Google Scholar
• Keller D., & Lazzarini V. (2018). Theoretical approaches to musical creativity: The ubimus perspective. Musica Theorica, 2(1), 00–00.
   Google Scholar
• Keller D., & Lima M. H. (2016). Supporting everyday creativity in ubiquitous music making. In P. Kostagiolas, K. Martzoukou, & C. Lavranos (Eds.), Trends in music information seeking, behaviour, and retrieval for creativity. Vancouver, BC: ICI Global Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keller, D., Otero, N., Lazzarini, V., Pimenta, M. S., de Lima, M. H., Johann, M., & Costalonga, L. L. (2014). Relational properties in interaction aesthetics: The ubiquitous music turn. In Eva. London, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Kostelanetz R. (1986). John cage and richard kostelanetz: A conversation about radio. The Musical Quarterly, 72(2), 216–227. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/948120 doi: 10.1093/mq/LXXII.2.216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, S. W., Freeman, J., Colella, A., Yao, S., & Troyer, A. V. (2011). Collaborative musical improvisation in a laptop ensemble with lolc. In A. K. Goel, D. F. Harrell, B. Magerko, Y. Nagai, & J. Prophet (Eds.), Creativity and cognition (pp. 361–362). Atlanta: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Malloch J., Sinclair S., & Wanderley M. M. (2008). A network-based framework for collaborative development and performance of digital musical instruments. In R. Kronland-Martinet, S. Ystad, & K. Jensen (Eds.), Computer music modeling and retrieval. Sense of sounds (pp. 401–425). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Manzolli J. (2015). Multimodal generative installations and the creation of new art form based on interactivity narratives. Proceedings of 18th generative arts conference. Florence.
   Google Scholar
• Mogul J. (1984). Broadcasting internet datagrams (No. 919). RFC 919 (INTERNET STANDARD). IETF. Retrieved from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc919.txt.
   Google Scholar
• Obici G. L., Fenerich A., & Schiavoni F. L (2013). Marulho transoceânico: Performance musical entre dois continentes. SBCM 2013. Brasília – DF, Brazil.
   Google Scholar
• Obici G. L., & Schiavoni F. L (2011). Concerto para lanhouse. Proceedings of the linux audio conference (pp. 170–174). Maynooth, Ireland.
   Google Scholar
• Oliveros P., Weaver S., Dresser M., Pitcher J., Braasch J., & Chafe C. (2009). Telematic music: Six perspectives. Leonardo Music Journal, 19(1), 95–96.
   Google Scholar
• Rebelo P., & Renaud A. B. (2006). The frequencyliator: Distributing structures for networked laptop improvisation. Proceedings of the 2006 nime (pp. 53–56). Paris, France: IRCAM; Centre Pompidou. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1142215.1142226
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds C. W. (1987). Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model. ACM siggraph computer graphics (Vol. 21, pp. 25–34).
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds C. W. (1988). Not bumping into things. Computer Graphics, G1.
   Google Scholar
• Rofe M., & Reuben F. (2017). Telematic performance and the challenge of latency. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 10(2–3), 167–183. doi: 10.1386/jmte.10.2-3.167_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rottondi C., Chafe C., Allocchio C., & Sarti A. (2016). An overview on networked music performance technologies. IEEE Access, 4, 8823–8843. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2628440
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez-Vives M. V., & Slater M. (2005). From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(4), 332–339. doi: 10.1038/nrn1651
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiavoni, F. L. (2016). Event-based ubiquitous music interaction with mcmm: A musical communication modeling methodology. International symposium on computer music multidisciplinary research (pp. 284–298), São Paulo, Brazil.
   Google Scholar
• Schiavoni, F. L., Queiroz, M., & Bianchi, A. J. (2012). Ferramentas livres para distribuição de áudio em rede. Anais do 3º ubimus, São Paulo, Brazil.
   Google Scholar
• Schiavoni F. L., Queiroz M., & Wanderley M. (2013). Alternatives in network transport protocols for audio streaming applications. Proceedings of the international computer music conference. Perth, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Tsabary, E. (2014). Music education through innovation: The concordia laptop orchestra as a model for transformational education. INTED2014 proceedings (pp. 657–664), Valencia, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Turchet, L., & Barthet, M. (2018). Ubiquitous musical activities with smart musical instruments. Proceedings of the eighth workshop on ubiquitous music, São João del Rei, MG.
   Google Scholar
• Turchet L., Fischione C., Essl G., Keller D., & Barthet M. (2018). Internet of musical things: Vision and challenges. IEEE Access, 6, 61994–62017. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2872625
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang G., Bryan N., Oh J., & Hamilton R. (2009). Stanford laptop orchestra (slork). Proceedings of international computer music conference. Montreal. Retrieved from http://ccrma.stanford.edu/ge/publish/slork-icmc2009.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wasserman K., Manzolli J., Eng K., & Verschure P. (2003). Live soundscape composition based on synthetic emotions: Using music to communicate between an interactive exhibition and its visitors. IEEE MultiMedia, 10(4), 82–90. doi: 10.1109/MMUL.2003.1237553
   Google Scholar
• Weitzner, N., Freeman, J., Garrett, S., & Chen, Y. L. (2012). Massmobile – an audience participation framework. NIME (Vol. 12, pp. 21–23), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
   Google Scholar
• Wright M., & Freed A. (1997). Opensound control: A new protocol for communicating with sound synthesizers. Proceedings of the international computer music conference 1997 (pp. 101–104), Thessaloniki, Hellas, 25–30 September 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Wu Y., Zhang L., Bryan-Kinns N., & Barthet M. (2017). Open symphony: Creative participation for audiences of live music performances. IEEE MultiMedia, 24(1), 48–62. doi: 10.1109/MMUL.2017.19
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar