Thanks again! Corrected.
It is not a usual situation, but this content is separated to smaller items so it's easier to reuse them. Intro is here:
http://musicgames.wikidot.com/inc:scratch-intro/edit/true
The need for additional explanation in all such situations is now noted.
The error I spotted was in the introductory paragraph above (I should have said)
If I click edit whole page I go to something else…
"'Draft Constitution of a Scratch Orchestra' (Musical Times, June 1969) and is currently in use by the Sratch Orchestra."
You can see the 'Sratch'
This subpage works well, but it is set up as a list of separate Rites.
If you click on the rite, you go to it's page
for example: http://musicgames.wikidot.com/sub:scratch-030
and there you may correct the error (and I already corrected a typo at #30).
The subpage for specific rite also serves to display the rite alongside Notes to it.
I added explanation under the edit button here, thanks for pointing to that.
Yes, that's a bit of a problem, apart from adding attribution right away, I wonder how to organize it in general.
There were three rites that were selected some time ago as the most fitting to the whole "music gaming" approach.
They were inserted to the library with strict rules on formatting (all rules have same headers).
After the Nature Study Notes digitalization, there is a double.
When I try to edit this page (to make a small typo correction!) Get something that is not this page….
very odd
This Rite is by Cornelius Cardew (CC)
Not officially confirmed, but the next meeting for discussing the "Ways of Being Together" is currently planned for 9th of January.
The time will be close to 1p.m. ET / 19:00 CEST.
Keep an eye here or at Twitters for exact details and updates! :)
EDIT: Postponed to later in January
(FEEDBACK ABOUT SESSION ON MONDAY 5th DEC)
In a paradigm where platforms like YouTube and TikTok encourage users to communicate with strangers using comments and comments on comments; the prospect of interacting with strangers verbally seems like the next inevitable step. You may be blazing a very important and world-changing trail!
In addition to comments already made, I’d like to share more about the experience of being a first-timer in the kind of cyber-social environment which you’ve created. I am in agreement that a round of introductions is inappropriate in this drop-in context - however, I would have benefited from some kind of acknowledgment from the host. Being ignored is like being told you’re not welcome. Given the drop-in format, there is no opportunity for an icebreaker, so reaching out to new users as they arrive would be a constant effort; there is no easy solution to this.
I enjoyed the collaborative annotation drawing although (as I have discussed with Izaak!), I’m sceptical about how well this kind of illustration can be used practically as a graphic score. When the interpretation is so loose, it renders any interpretation rather arbitrary.
I didn’t enjoy the part in which those who were in a kitchen made breakfast. I felt like I was waiting for it to be over. I was tethered to my studio PC, and also it was 4pm in the UK!
I was expecting the session to involve more music and instruments. Free improvisation lends itself extraordinarily well to online jamming, so I was looking forward to making some noise. Unfortunately Zoom isn’t ideal for online jamming because the app assumes only one person is “speaking” at a time. It is designed to mute everyone except “the person speaking”, therefore multiple instruments will find themselves being muted. I can’t suggest any alternative though. I’ve done plenty of online jamming recently using the browser-based conferencing app CleanFeed - but it’s audio-only.
The whole event was a great idea and demonstrably the end-result of a great deal of planning and preparation. I’d like to help make it better!
Regards, BENEDICT
Thanks! Still no luck with the invite link, but you can tap me on Twitter or by email if the access information doesn't work. I think some judgement will always be required from the host, and there has to be a gradual introduction to more engagement from other participants. Just speaking for my intentions though, I don't think team-building is a real objective. But I do see how it could match up as a structure. We'll see how it goes / how it feels tomorrow.
The icebreaker questions are very relevant to the Q&A section! I'm tempted to add that link as an extension, not that we need one, but just out of a sort of greed for options.
I have also added something like breadcrumbs, as you suggested, in the new version of the score.
See you tomorrow, and thanks!
Jennie
Sorry about the karma, actions taken, but not sure if it's fixed.
But the meeting ID is enough to join from here: https://zoom.us/join
Maybe don't share a description of a new version now: in a way it should be self-explanatory as a process, so testing is better when done blind.
As for structure, it indeed may fall closer to structured process/team-building excercises than board games.
I don't think we have an expert on that, I personally dislike engaging in such stuff although there is something interesting in that too. The experience is even more loose there than in "party games" in game design.
Especially your Q+A part made me think of something like: https://icebreaker.range.co/
See you tomorrow! ;)
Thank you for this! I agree with all the issues you raised. Social skill is a big issue, especially when people are only sharing virtual space, and not physical space. It takes more work to create a shared context.
The solution I want to try first is to have everyone begin in the same room, and then they can choose to start an activity-specific room or join one when they see how it works. But until there are more than a few people who know what is happening, it doesn't make sense to split up. This seems like a necessity since with these kinds of events it's very hard to judge how many people will turn up. I will keep thinking about this and make a version 2 of the slides, maybe with a suggested rotation of activities. Last time there were more activities than active participants, which was challenging.
The polling feature of Zoom can also be used periodically to see what people want to do. I think I will build that in. It is an easier entry to participating than raising hands or speaking up. Ideally people should be able to observe for some time before being prompted to make a decision publicly. And the host can make decisions about the spaces according to what is happening.
I like the idea of splitting up the questions. It's much better to focus that way.
One of the big issues I've created here is how to create a balance between freedom and structure. Too much freedom, people feel confused/lost. That's where it is now, so I guess I can build in more structure and see if it goes too far.
I will work on the second version and share it hopefully before Saturday.
Here is the Zoom info. I can't post the link here (my "karma" is too low) but this should be enough?
Jennie Gottschalk is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
Topic: Ways of Being Together
Time: Dec 5, 2020 10:00 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Meeting ID: 243 815 1672
Passcode: 964310
Here from the direct experience with the game. It's quite hard to talk about 'pure problems' independently of some ideas for solutions that jump to the head. ;)
I think I can frame most of it around the single notion of skills.
Expectations from the participant are imo unnecessary high, but here technical Zoom trouble is not a lot — even if I got stuck once. ;)
I'm very curious of what direction you have in mind right now.
I look forward to contributing game design ideas too. I will follow this forum closely : )
Hi everyone - thanks for starting this discussion! I'd be very happy for input, and I can also share my thoughts and some necessary changes from the first experience, once the discussion gets going. Mainly I think there was so much freedom built in that it became easy to get lost, either because of technology or because more people would be needed to fill and manage all the spaces. I have some ideas about how to fix it but I am still thinking about the mechanics of it.
After the seemingly successful previous discussion on the work "Imagined Seconds", we can now turn the game design eye towards a more complex work (as agreed at Twitter). I had a pleasure of tuning in to the online action during the Boston Music Festival, but I'll leave some time for your first impressions over just the score first. So please if you have thoughts from your gaming experience, please share. Here's description of the work.
—-
There are hosts running the process and it's occuring in the "main Zoom room" and 3 breakout rooms: Tones, Sounds, Words.
In every of the four spaces, slides are being displayed. Available here:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Dgx8NBu-sGUMWsKAOSuhXX8vWpkmP-DQmUjQTQc8TNY/edit
Participants may ask to be assigned to the room and also for the specific slide to be set, and slides have "tasks" that are central to the participatory experience.
—-
Notes from the action:
- "Tones" room — this one is certainly the most within music gaming. It has the very fun and useful method of sharing the graphic score live through Zoom "annotations" feature (first time I saw it).
- "Sounds" is more involved and is for found sound work. Personally haven't even been to this one room — the work is big.
- "Words" is huge by itself, I dived with the then present users into Q&A which was interesting to me the most even just from seeing the score beforehand.
Anyway, the great big content is there ;) may we now use the power of game design to help a bit with the structure?
Some standalone apps are already added to the page, but it would be best to approach this subject in a solid reusable fashion.
Some sort of a system for different tools helpful for music games preview or display. I was giving it thought, and can put together something quickly (think the first draft may arrive live on this weekend). If you could have such a g4m subsite to use, would you find some features especially helpful?
So far I have in mind different sets of dice to bring up on screen, meeples, tokens and small piano keyboard input.
This will let you randomize notes and numbers in different ranges.
The workframe will hopefully be easily extendable. Importing assets as for game boards and cards decks from our other content to the "virtual tabletop" should be within reach.
I'm settling for an inefficient-but-easy coding approach with jQuery.UI — if anyone would like to help with that side of things, let's coordinate the efforts. Code will be here with the free license.
EDIT: first version here: http://musicgames.wdfiles.com/local--html/app%3Ahub/9759cddd39059df29890fc0f5cc490b6337d9955-1417275777453948845/musicgames.wikidot.com/
Indeed, thanks :(
Only some clips now.
Unfortunately, the link in this post appears to have become unavailable !
Hey guys,
I'm Benedict from England. I am fascinated by music improvisation and hope to use this resource to learn more about it.
I love the unpredictability and surprises that can emerge from improvised music. When combined with game mechanics (rules, restrictions and elements of chance), improvisation is elevated to a palatable artform appropriate for popularisation.
I recently started producing the Auki Podcast to explore and promote the idea of game music.
auki.uk | Auki - the Gamified Music Improvisation Podcast
#Let'sPlay!
And how about this one? What suggestions?
http://musicgames.wikidot.com/local--files/forum:thread/Twitter%20-%20infostrips.png
I think it's not enough, but ideas for improvement?
Worth adding that both on twitter and in wiki content there will be some accompanying text.
