Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Open source and music education RIME 2011

No description
by

Ketil Thorgersen

on 19 July 2011

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Open source and music education RIME 2011

An examination of affordances of the application of ‘open source’ to music education Ketil Thorgersen (Sweden) Lauri Väkevä (Finland) Mikko Myllykoski (Finland) Steve Dillon (Australia) Alex Ruthmann (USA) Collaborate with a person sitting next to you and try to define meanings of
"open source" and possible implications for music education Perhaps answers lie in a value ecology metaphor that shifts thinking to:
• Co-creators of value (Inclusive and democratic models of Participation enhanced through technological agency)
• Network thinking & value (Knowledge is distributed, situated and relational)
• An emphasis on the value to the network of learners.
• Complex co-opetition (Productive tension between cooperation and competition)
• Strategy in the ecology. Both Philosophical and instructive. ( Adapted from Hearn 2007 p5) http://youtu.be/gjtYprwI4bw professor in music education at Sibelius Academy
main research interests: Afro-American music
popular music pedagogy
history of popular music
pragmatist aesthetics
philosophy of music education
informal learning
digital music culture Teacher in University of Jyväskylä´s Music Department
Research interest: music education technology field,
Develops mobile music making environments and tools for children Senior lecturer of Music and Sound and music education in the Faculty of Creative Industries, Queensland University of Technology
Research interest: application of a theory of meaningful engagement with music making through the development of purpose-built music technology software jam2jam Assistant professor of music education at the University of Massachusetts Lowell
Research interest: development and use of online, mobile and creative technologies and pedagogical strategies in support of music and media learning and teaching Assistant professor at Stockholm University
Research interests: - music educational history
-pragmatist and aesthetic
- philosophy
- music technology, open source and music education How should music educators relate to different arguments for and against creative recycling in the digital music culture?
Is it possible to teach music taking seriously the argument for Music 3.0, and if it is, how can we support creativity full-scale in music education recognizing this possibility?
How can we offer versatile musical content and tasks with educational open source applications?
How to maintain people’s individual rights to their own musical content in open shareable software environments?
Might "Music" be the original "open source" project? What might we gain or lose by looking toward technological models for music education?
What might be afforded by providing students with the tools to design and build theri own musical environments?
What are the relational pedagogies needed for this approach?
How can we apply the philosophy of ‘open source’ technology in music education? Two Examples Melody Morph Scratch Researchers: 20
Developers: 10 (+20 students)
Teachers: 6
Children: 100
Companies: 2
Countries: 4 EU countries Might "Music" be the original "open source" project? What might we gain or lose by looking toward technological models for music education?

What might be afforded by providing students with the tools to design & build their own musical environments? Alex Ruthmann University of Massachusetts Lowell @alexruthmann License: GPLv2,
which is [1] Open Source and [2] Free Software License. [1] Open Source Initiative, The Open Source Definition,http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd[2] Free Software Foundation, Inc., The Free Software Definition,http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html JamMo's default musical materials: Copyrights owned by UMSIC research project JamMo software Music made by any means utilizing part of this material bank will be under the same license
Still, copyright holder of this piece is the creator (not creators of JamMo). Free use of audio samples/loops and backing tracks (listen, share, edit, compile, remix…) Participatory Open-Source Musicking: Creating, Coding and Sharing Musical Environments Mikko Myllykoski,
University of Jyväskylä, Dept. of Music, Finland
mikko.myllykoski@campus.jyu.fi www.umsic.org Created by Eric Rosenbaum Created by the MIT
Lifelong Kindergarten Group Browse "Imagine,
Create,
Play" Upload Share http://scratch.mit.edu ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Questions? Cognitive surplus in the Music 3.0 era:

Some pragmatist implications for general music education Lauri Väkevä
Sibelius Academy
lvakeva@siba.fi Cognitive Surplus people are globally engaged in social networking with different goals and values, driven by intrinsic motivation rather than external awards

Shirky (2010) cognitive surplus in popular music Is it all about sharing? Music 3.0? Owinski (2009): Music business is changing, so
Forget the middleman!
Contact your audience!
Build a tribe!
Give! (your music)
Be there! (in social network) Or? Are we giving up to monkeys with typewriters?
(Keen 2007) Music education 0.5–1.0? music education lags behind?
What should we do?
more than new business models implied?
new aesthetics of openness?
"Into the Mix"
Väkevä (2010) How should music educators relate to different arguments for and against creative recycling in the digital music culture? Thesis 1 Music education offers more freedom than copyright laws and organizations would like us to believe.

We should see this as a possibility
rather than as a threat. Question 2 Is it possible to teach music taking seriously the argument for Music 3.0, and if it is, how can we support creativity full-scale in music education recognizing this possibility? Thesis 2 It is, but we have to
rethink our aesthetics
Open our eyes to Music 3.0
renegotiate the values of ME But How? One solution:
to pick up Pragmatist lenses Question 1 Source code can be ported to any platform (future development) How can we offer versatile musical content and tasks with educational open source applications?

How to maintain people’s individual rights to their own musical content in open shareable software environments? European Union says (Umsic-ethics check list) :

"...Any form of registration of users to allow access must adhere to personal data protocols and needs to be handled appropriately. The storing of music created by project participants and users thereafter needs to be treated as intellectual property...." COpyright law says:
- "presenting" music at schools, ok
- "distribution", not ok without permission from the copyright holder
- Storing copyrighted music to networked storage, not ok
- modifying (arranging) copyrighted music, not ok without permission from the copyright holder Linux schools
in Finland, 2011 freedom to listen
freedom to make own remixing/modifications (not in all Open source licenses)
freedom to redistribute copies
freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others Mobile applications as a new field of musical open source - issues with licensing and copyrights Public funding Computer software Ownership Licencing Intellectual property Licencing Ownership Creative commons Public schools Open Source Public schools Research Licencing Creative commons Ownership Public funding Computer software Ownership Licencing Intellectual property Licencing Ownership Creative commons Public schools Open Source Public schools Research Licencing Creative commons Ownership FREE RIGHTS right to
obtain art
and knowledge Civil
rights TRANSPARENCY not for
profit liberty or
freedom liberating processes of production are open for inquiry or even input from anyone DEMOCRACY broad societal sense
individual sense Individual's voice No discrimation Emancipation 1) Inviting participants to generate a definition of open source and how the idea might refer to music education practice.

2) Presentation of five, five-minute insights.

3) Engage the audience to participate with us in analysing and examining the questions raised by each presenter Music education?? “Control over the use of one’s ideas really constitutes control over other people’s lives; and it is usually to make their lives more difficult”

Richard Stallman, (Founder of GNU/linux, GPL licenses) Can be about anything
e.g Lesson plans Generative & regenerative Collaborative
composing Problems
individual ownership vs
common ownership A way of taking part of the pupils music someone always pays
Full transcript