Chapter 5 expands upon the previously introduced notion that computers are merely tools for augmenting our expressive capabilities (“extensions”) rather than superior frameworks in and of themselves (“oracles”). Specifically in regards to interaction design, the chapter talks about designing novel instrument interfaces - either by drawing from acoustical instrument designs or by turning everyday objects into music making devices - as opposed to trying to computerize an existing instrument. After all, nothing is better at being a violin than an actual violin, and this underlying ethos is ever present in discussions of the artistic merit of the musical coffee mug and various laptop orchestra instruments. I found myself especially interested in the discussion of novel instrument design and could not help but speculate what the instruments of the future may look, feel, and sound like.
From a design perspective, due to the limitless possibilities that come with a computer, one can imagine making any type of instrument out of anything. For instance, the coffee mug example is not only played as a trumpet - as perhaps the handheld form best lends itself to - but can also function as a drum machine or japanese flute. On one hand, this suggests that a musician could design a completely unintuitive and amusing instrument, but of course, on the other hand, the question of whether doing so is a good idea in the first place is raised. As the chapter mentions, a major issue in physical interaction design is the loss of intimacy between human player and instrument, and certainly, an instrument whose produced sound makes no sense when compared to the expected sound (derived from the form) may mislead the user. Concretely, they may lose all sense that the sound is being produced by the instrument, and the whole musical experience would feel artificial. Thus, while designing crazy instruments may be entertaining in and of itself, I argue that the risk of the instrument failing to embody its produced sound limits the actual artistic merit of such instruments.
Instead, I see instruments of the future drawing heavily from traditional acoustic instruments. Viable computer-based musical instruments would likely have significant physical components: strings with tension, a resonant body to shape or produce the sound, or an authentic material composition (does not feel like a cheap plastic toy). In this case, the use of computers would augment the capabilities of acoustically produced sound or computationally model physical phenomenon, allowing for even more layers of expression for the skilled performer. However, as briefly mentioned earlier, new instruments should never strive to replace traditional ones, or as an example, one should not design an electric violin that attempts to play the same repertoire as and sound exactly like a violin. Rather, the instrument - to continue with the violin example - should perhaps aim to play with the specialization or reverberation of the violin sound.
It is worth noting that the preference for novel instruments that augment existing acoustical ones does not invalidate electric pianos, electric drum sets, etc. In these cases, the electronic counterpart is not designed to replace the traditional instrument - even though they are oftentimes designed to emulate traditional instruments as closely a possible. Rather, they are used for practice, as they are cheaper and more accessible, as well as for certain performances where a certain “less organic” aesthetic is desired.