Abstract Interest is growing in how relational ontologies and more-than-human design methodologies – so-called ‘entanglement’ theories – might inform digital music research. To what extent does the growing popularity of such theories portend a change in technical or musical practices versus putting new gloss on long-standing ideas? Can or should entanglement theories be distilled into concrete design frameworks? This paper starts from the opposite premise: rather than offering an unambiguous roadmap for designers, entanglement theories are at their most powerful in destabilising ideas and worldviews that have become so ingrained as to become invisible. In digital musical instrument (DMI) design, this barely visible infrastructure consists partly of an ecosystem of stable, context-agnostic concepts about music: analytical descriptors such as notes, pitches, onsets and gestures which get inverted into the building blocks of sound-producing technical systems. However, design is not as simple as inverted analysis. This paper argues that treating familiar musical concepts as authoritative is responsible for several long-standing conundrums facing DMI research. The paper juxtaposes ideas from entanglement literature with brief vignettes concerning instruments new and old, arguing that musical instruments enact the very concepts they take as pre-existing, and that everything about musical discourse and practice should remain up for grabs.
Andrew P. McPherson (Wed,) studied this question.