Improvisation as Tool and Intention: Organizational Practices in Laptop Orchestras and Their Effect on Personal Musical Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improvisation is a practice as old as music; the laptop orchestra possibly the newest of ensembles. How can this ancient practice and this ultra-modern ensemble intersect? How does technology affect the way music is organized? How does such musical organization affect the performers?
 
 This paper looks at the variety of improvisational practices in laptop orchestras and ensembles using the repertoire of the Laptop Orchestra of Louisiana (of which I am a member) as a starting point. Laptop orchestras have developed out of musical situations rooted in the Western European classical tradition (and its experimental fringe). Although this tradition has lost much of its connection to improvisation, the rise of laptop orchestras has (re)introduced improvisation as a fertile musical practice. This paper will consider how practicing improvisation has affected the musical outlook of members of these ensembles.
 
 Five pieces from the repertoire of the Laptop Orchestra of Louisiana (LOLs) serve as case studies for exploring improvisation as an organizational practice. We see how improvisation is used as a tool to facilitate the discovery and development of new instruments, and to address local content in situations where a commonly understood system of notation does not exist. We also see how improvisation becomes the intention of other musical settings. These findings are reinforced by a survey of leaders of other laptop orchestras.
 
 The last century of traditional academic performance studies has not privileged improvisation in a significant way; therefore, many musicians participating in laptop orchestras are new to improvisation, or even biased against it. Interviews with some of these musicians show how their experiences have changed their attitudes and approaches towards improvisation.
 
 Through these perspectives, one can see how technological constraints and aesthetic ideals interact to create a variety of organizational approaches for laptop orchestras, and how these approaches in turn affect the musical lives of the participants. While these ensembles will not likely cause improvisation to become a dominant mode of operation in academic music, they constitute another step in the continued development of improvisation as a respected and sanctioned musical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".