A case study with disabled musicians. Teodoro Dannemann.
I will use this blog post to write about an article published at the NIME conferences. In 2023, Teodoro Dannemann from Centre for Digital Music on Queen Mary University of London did a case study with disabled musicians. As a part of the course Interaction Design 1, I will discuss my thoughts about his article.
I chose Dannemanns article because it has a certain relevance to my design and research topic. The aim of the study is to explore the possibility to design new or modified instruments, focusing on a character of disability. The researchers went through three stages to fulfill the needs of musicians with different disabilities:
- A semi-structured music jam session and subsequent analysis
Undergraduate students, researchers and lecturers assisted to arrange jam sessions for four children from the Teletón rehabilitation center (hereafter referred to as the performers). The performers got the opportunity to choose which instrument to play, and worked in teams together with coordinators. Some of the coordinators worked as tempo leaders, and some as normal musicians. The performers actions were observed and recorded.
In the beginning of the session, each group created a musical score based on a template (see picture below). The performers were welcome to freely create their own unique notation language. The group started the jam based on their home-made score. After a while, the tempo leaders initiated improvisation for ten minutes.
In the end of each round, the facilitator talked to the group to learn what they liked about the jam, what problems they faced, and their overall interaction experience. Then, teams were told to make a slightly more complicated score and start jamming again. This process was repeated three times.
- Obtain individual performers profiles from the data collected
Each group of coordinators discussed the obtained data. Based on the results, they created profiles for each performer comprising the four dimensions: (1) movements and embodiment, (2) musical preferences, (3) difficulties, and (4) capabilities. This helped them organize the collected data and get an overview of the needs of each performer.
- Prototype music instruments
A team of designers got the task to elaborate a proposal of one or two instruments for each performer. They based the prototypes on the data gathered in each individual performer profile. The instruments needed to take into account not just the specific needs of each performer and their musical and performance styles, but they also had to be feasible in terms of time (around two months for construction) and budget constraints. Each team got feedback from coordinators and tutors, and iterated the prototypes up to the final delivery event. Each performer was handed their corresponding instrument and got one hour to explore its possibilities. In the end, all participants of the project gathered for a final jam session with additional instruments.
In the end of the written article, final results are being discussed. They describe two cases of designed instruments, corresponding to two very different performers. The first of the two performers ended up getting a digital cello that could be played with one arm, and a 3D-printed prosthetic forearm. The performer showed a special interest for the prosthesis. However, it was found that the forearm socket needed more fine tuning for them to be able to exert more pressure against the cello. The other performer received a one-handed flute. Even though the performer was really excited about the idea, they were most interested in using the flute to make all sorts of unusual sounds and effects. So, the team ended up making a special „magic flute“. This flute was set up for the performer to easily change how it sounds using a computer, so they could try out different sounds. The design team also put together a simple guide to help the performer get started with fun activities. This would help them focus better on specific tasks and get into a rhythm.
My thoughts
I find the study meaningful and inspiring. It pertains to such an important topic, and the results are effective. I think the article communicated the research and outcomes in an organized manner. Each step in the study is described thoroughly, and the author evaluate how the steps could have been possibly done different. Dannemann is aware of weaknesses in the study, but I also noted down some concerns.
Firstly, I think the performers should have been involved more in the prototyping phase. This is mentioned by the author in the paragraph: FINAL REMARKS: A CRITICAL REFLECTION. Based on the feedback the performers gave in the delivery event, it becomes clear that there should have been conducted user tests in an earlier stage. Especially concerning the prosthetic forearm that needed more fine tuning. If they tested the prototype iteratively on the real end-user, the prothesis could have worked properly against the cello. Each person with disabilities is different, so it is crucial to involve the designated end-user in an early stage.
I am also curious about the instrument’s limitations. Does a one arm flute offer the same possibilities as a normal flute? It is designed for such a small user group, and I imagine how difficult it is to create it without any other limitations. It would be interesting to read more about every instrument they made and how they differ from the standards.
Reference
Dannemann, T. (2023). Music jamming as a participatory design method. A case study with disabled musicians. Centre for Digital Music, Queen Mary University of London. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://core.ac.uk/download/567597778.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwilpbWjpeKFAxWp4gIHHVSDDEwQFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1JJvVU71_5dazv_tB-4NSt
