Cripping Virtuosity: Cultivating Virtuosity from Disability through Music Technology
“If disabled people and their knowledge were fully integrated into society, everyone’s relation to her/his real body would be liberated.” – Susan Wendell, Toward a Feminist Theory of Disability
“The case of virtuosity revolves around the essential problem of art, which is the problem of execution, for the virtuoso is by definition an executant of unusual abilities...”
– Paul Valéry, Aesthetics
Abstract
What is the sound of disability? What is the sound of a body that defies and resists normative standards? And further, is disability an instrument and, ultimately, virtuosity itself? For me, these have been everlasting questions. I acquired a disability at the age of seven from a car accident that impaired my left hand. Following the accident, I transitioned from various musical instruments to find one I could adapt to. More recently, this has led to engaging with various music technologies that fit my body. Specifically, I am searching for an instrument that fits rather than resists my body and signals my disability as an asset rather than a deficit in searching for my own virtuosity. Therefore, this article details my interest in reimagining virtuosity through the intersection of disability and digital music technology. I will describe my experience with the MUGIC gestural device (developed by Mari Kimura) and preliminary results from experimenting with the MUGIC. I will include background on the crux of virtuosity and the usefulness of mapping for reimagining virtuosity, as well as musical results and concluding thoughts regarding virtuosity, music technology, and disability. Lastly, I will argue that “cripping” virtuosity involves a widening understanding of what virtuosity can signify, realize, and magnify, cultivating what is curious, authentic, and at the core of art-making -- a fundamental self-expression beyond comparison and not easily replicated and a virtuosity true to oneself.
Keywords
Virtuosity
Disability
Music Technology
Introduction
What is the sound of disability? What does a body that challenges and transcends conventional norms sound like? Furthermore, can disability be seen as an instrument and, ultimately, a form of virtuosity? These questions have long intrigued me. My journey began at the age of seven, when a car accident left my left hand impaired. Since then, I've explored various musical instruments in search of one that I could adapt to my changed circumstances. I have recently delved into different music technologies that accommodate my body. My goal is to find an instrument that complements rather than opposes my body's capabilities and celebrates my disability as an asset rather than viewing it as a limitation in my pursuit of virtuosity.
This article documents my exploration of redefining virtuosity at the intersection of disability and digital music technology. I will share my experiences with the MUGIC gestural device developed by Mari Kimura and the initial findings from experimenting with it. Additionally, I will provide background on the essence of virtuosity and the significance of mapping in reimagining virtuosity. I will also discuss the musical outcomes of my experiments and conclude with reflections on virtuosity, music technology, and disability. From my practice, research, and embodied experience, I have recognized how music technology can challenge conventional ideas of virtuosity that frequently exclude disabled artists, ultimately allowing new and singular forms of virtuosity to emerge.
Further, I contend that embracing “cripping” virtuosity entails expanding the understanding of what virtuosity can represent, achieve, and amplify. “Crip” is a term commonly associated with disability that has historically been used in derogatory contexts to describe disabled individuals. However, it has more recently been reclaimed in a positive light as a means to challenge prejudice, stereotypes, and ableist attitudes. I prefer this term because of its versatility, serving as a noun, verb, or adjective. In this article, I extend its usage to “cripping” virtuosity, redefining virtuosity to align with my physical capabilities rather than conforming to preconceived ideals. This form of virtuosity nurtures qualities such as curiosity, authenticity, and the essence of artistry—an innate self-expression that transcends comparison and cannot be easily replicated. It embodies a virtuosity that remains true to oneself.
Why Virtuosity?
Virtuosity is a highly-valued crux, deriving from ideologies in Western classical and other art music. The concept of virtuosity is perhaps the most esteemed form of performance for any musician to attain across instruments and vocal types. When one compliments a performance as “virtuosic” or praises a performer as a “virtuoso,” it is often not taken lightly. It can instead be deemed a God-like figure of attainment, fulfillment, and ultimately desirement, such as music reviews frequently claiming a performer is “virtuosic” to heap the ultimate praise on one’s performance.
The term’s definition varies across encyclopedic sources, including “great skill in music or another artistic pursuit.” It historically stems from the late 15th century, accrediting it to “manly qualities” from the Medieval Latin virtuositas and Late Latin virtuosus (“Virtuosity,” n.d.), relating to norms of masculinity, strength, power, and physicality. These cultural ideologies underpin the concept, making it difficult for people in non-normative bodies to attain. The word’s use over time has significantly increased, with Google Ngram Viewer showing a notable increase from 1860 to 2000 (n.d.), exemplifying its relative popularity despite continually strict and conventional definitions.
As a disabled composer and performer, I have wrestled with concepts of virtuosity that seem to value mobility rather than immobility, complexity rather than simplicity, and ultimately, ability over disability. I questioned if virtuosity was available when I began developing my performing practice following undergraduate and graduate studies as a composer. I sought to find the ultimate root of virtuosity and the potential of such an experience. I aimed for the root of virtuosity as “virtu,” defined by Merriam-Webster as “productions of art especially of a curious nature.” I have been influenced explicitly by musicologist Stefan Sunandan Honisch (2018); who in Music First or Disability First? writes that “Vulnerability and disability, like virtuosity, demand heightened forms of musical engagement, in which the aesthetic demands of music-first performance, and the political interventions of disability-first performance, are inseparable” (para. 14). This statement has provided a crucial resonance and challenge to me in seeking virtuosity from my disabled experience, some of which I believe is vulnerable virtuosity. It encourages a widening understanding of what virtuosity can signify, realize, and magnify, cultivating what is curious, authentic, and at the core of art-making -- a fundamental self-expression beyond comparison and not easily replicated and a virtuosity true to oneself.
My relationship with virtuosity and its attainability for my body has been continually questioned, as I have an impaired left hand from a car accident when I was young. I previously played the violin, and following the incident, I transitioned from instruments, including cello and trumpet, and eventually gravitated towards music composition. Although I wasn’t particularly aware of it then, I was attracted to music composition because I did not have to consciously consider what my hands could or could not do. In my early experiences with cello and trumpet, there was continuous friction between the instruments’ physical expectations and my body's reality. This friction pointed to my inability to attain virtuosity, as conventionally understood. Therefore, music composition was incredibly and physically liberating as a temporary relief from my disability.
I have been fortunate to pursue a professional practice in composition; however, as my career has developed, I have continually been astounded when performers ask for a “fast, impressive” and ultimately “virtuosic” piece to showcase their abilities. When I receive this request, I know it typically emphasizes one form of virtuosity -- prioritizing speed and agility and is immediately conveyed through visual flair. I have been frustrated by this overwhelming focus on extreme physical finesse rather than intellectual interrogation, which is socially constructed and fosters a narrow understanding of what virtuosity can elicit. In my view, there is no quantitative reasoning for what denotes a performance virtuosic or not, yet there seems to be a shared social understanding of it containing physical and visual flair.
This narrow understanding also embraces ableism, which Hehir (2002) defined as the “devaluation of disability.” This definition extends to musical practices that only welcome one form of physical ability and devalue disability aesthetics. Disability aesthetics is defined by Tobin Siebers (2010) as prizing “physical and mental difference as a significant value in itself” and “raising an objection to aesthetic standards and tastes that exclude people with disabilities” (p. 19). However, in new, contemporary works written for classical instruments such as violin, flute, or piano, ableist forms of performativity and, ultimately, virtuosity are reinforced. This can be credited to technical instruments spanning hundreds of years that reproduceparticular ability requirements, such as the standard violin or piano, replicating a problematic and flawed value system even through new compositions.
This has motivated a greater re-examining of what virtuosity can and should mean in artistic and particularly musical contexts, such as Burk (1918), Hamera (2000), and VanderHamm (2017). Virtuosity has become an esteemed “buzzword” within musical contexts, often denoting the highest form of performance and musical or artistic expression. However, as a physically disabled musician, I have wondered if and how I can access this form of highest creative expression through my disabled embodiment, one that will hopefully be recognized on its level and without comparison. I seek to create a virtuosity unique to myself based on physical absence, weakness, impairment, and immobility, all of which are typically shunned in normative practices. I have wondered: When does this normative, virtuosic cycle break? When can we move beyond the problematic, flawed embracing of one form of physical virtuosity and to a more diverse, multiplistic approach and process?
Mapping and Music Technology
Pursuing a more diverse, multiplistic approach and process naturally leads to new music technologies to reimagine musical gestures in performance. Several studies have been authored on the possibilities of the intersection between music technology and disabled musicians, such as Larsen, Overholt, and Moeslund (2016), who outline that historically, only a few musical instruments have targeted users with physical disabilities (p. 328). Further, Skuse and Knotts (2020) argue that disabled people must be at the heart of developing music technology, explicitly stating that by “using Universal Design and the social model of disability, we can explore the concept that everything that is made, should be made by a wide range of people for the full range of people” (p. 115). They additionally state that persevering with any technology that excludes specific individuals would prioritize the leadership or software developer over the group one is aiming to serve (p. 116) and that “when disabled people are instead considered in the context of non-hierarchical networked organisation, we can begin to imagine flexible systems made by and for those involved” (p. 119). Further, Bergsland and Wechsler (2015) developed a hardware/software device for disabled people titled the “MotionComposer.” They outlined mapping parameters to synthesize controls for disabled musicians, ranging from one-to-one to many-to-many (p. 21). Lastly, Wanderley (2001) stresses that “digital musical instruments do not depend on physical constraints faced by their acoustic counterparts,” thereby fostering a “diversity of possibilities regarding sound production” (p. 1).
The discourse surrounding the intersection of music technology and disability emphasizes the necessity of adopting a diverse and inclusive approach. Scholars like Larsen, Overholt, Moeslund, Skuse, Knotts, Bergsland, Wechsler, and Wanderley advocate for the involvement of disabled individuals in the development process of music technology. They argue that such participation ensures that the technology meets the needs of a broader range of users and challenges hierarchical structures inherent in traditional design processes. By embracing concepts such as Universal Design and the social model of disability and creating flexible systems made by and for those involved, the promise for innovative and accessible musical technologies becomes apparent. Prioritizing inclusivity in the development of music technology not only benefits disabled musicians but also enriches the musical landscape as a whole.
Developments with mapping and digital music instruments represent the immense possibility of creating adaptive instruments for users with physical disabilities such as myself, especially considering parameter and customization options. Tanaka (2010) defines mapping as the “translation layer correlation gesture to sound” (p. 89), while Hunt and Wanderley (2002) describe mapping as an act of “taking real-time performance data from an input device and using it to control the parameters of a synthesis engine” (p. 98). They propose several possibilities with mapping, ranging from one-to-one, where one synthesis parameter is driven by one performance parameter, to many-to-one, where one synthesis parameter is driven by two or more performance parameters (p. 99). Regardless of the mapping specifications, these combinations have vast possibilities compared to acoustic instruments and their pre-specified combinations.
Additionally, Tanaka (2010) underscores two affordance levels when considering performance. First, he outlines that the instrument must offer expressive musical action to the performer while affording communicable musical articulation in the performance setting (p. 92). He further says these two affordance levels are “conditioned by form factor, embodiment, and cultural association,” opening up a rich area for more significant investigation (p. 92). At the same time, Hunt and Wanderley (2002) add that because the sound produced by digital musical instruments is generated by an electronic device such as a synthesizer or computer, the physics of vibrating structures that were determinant to the forms and features of acoustic instruments, do not necessarily play a role in digital devices, thus bringing up a whole new set of opportunities in design. I would further point to performance and, ultimately, virtuosic possibilities. Since physical constraints are almost non-existent with digital instruments, physical limitations such as disabilities are not strongly considered or factored into the performance of these instruments (p. 98).
Combining these possibilities of redefining gesture through mapping and music technology allows for a reimagining of virtuosity. As expressed earlier, since physical music instruments require particular physical abilities of the performer, this can constrict that performer's virtuosic possibilities, as conventionally understood. In turn, through engaging with adaptive music technologies, such as the MUGIC device detailed below, infinite possibilities are made to create a virtuosity genuinely authentic to a performer’s physical capabilities and experience rather than trying to conform to an instrument that one will never conform to. Suppose we reimagine virtuosity, away from a focus on speed, agility, and physical technique. In that case, it can encompass so much more, such as the performer’s vulnerable experience and ultimately a form singularly unique to the performer and not subscribable to expected norms and ideals.
MUGIC Experience
The MUGIC (Music/User Gesture Interface Control) device is a small, versatile, and affordable prototype motion sensor that uses movements to control software parameters. Developed by violinist and composer Mari Kimura, it can connect via USB connection or Wi-Fi to a computer and translates accelerometer/movement data to the computer via software such as Ableton and Max.
I have been using the MUGIC with Max and utilizing the five gesture input parameters: pitch, roll, yaw, energy, and jolt. Using the movement data of these parameters from my left hand, I have been developing a new album/song-cycle project titled “State Change,” which utilizes surgical records from my car accident as musical lyrics and overall inspiration for the album.
Working on this album makes a natural companion for musical instruments that can reflect my left hand’s physicality, such as the MUGIC. As expressed earlier, I long to work with technologies that will foster this and, ultimately, my virtuosity, which is incomparable to others and unique to my disability. That desire, combined with musical lyrics sourced from medical procedures on my left hand, makes a natural companion for artistic material.
The first song I wrote for the MUGIC, titled “August 6, 1999”, was sourced from surgical records of the procedure that occurred on the day of my accident, August 6, 1999. The lyrics include lines such as “no function/no flexor/no extensor” and “in the wound/paint and glass/in the wound/flesh and bone.”
For this song, I applied the MUGIC parameters of “rotation” (based on pronation and supination of the hand) to trigger high-frequency sine tones layered onto each other and “yaw” (rotation on a vertical axis) to trigger low-frequency sine tones. While this approach, explicitly having precise pitches triggered by the positional orientation of the MUGIC (almost like a keyboard), was challenging in that it is difficult to have the device in a consistent aerial position, it also freed me to do something I could never do on traditional keyboard instruments. If I wanted to have a cluster of nearby pitches played together, I would have to lay most of my forearm down on the keyboard to get that effect, and inadvertently, I usually get unwanted pitches in that cluster. While I have grown to welcome the “mistakes” in this, especially with disability artistry and aesthetics embracing imperfections, such as Siebers’ concept of “disability aesthetics” and prizing physical and mental difference as a significant value in itself (2015), it also resulted from my attempt to conform to instruments I would never conform to.
In the second song, “August 9, 1999”, instead of taking a keyboard-like approach, I employed the MUGIC mapping to affect the processing of particular tones rather than triggering a specific pitch. This includes manipulating the volume of an arpeggio-like figure and the overdrive of a bass tone, along with the energy and jolt functions to trigger a volume jump and sustain pink noise. Additionally, the “pad” of filtered sine tones in the work was created by tracking the movements of my left hand through a marker-based motion capture system, thus further creating a musical manifestation of my left hand’s physicality. The lyrics include lines such as “skin is/minimal/flap is/needed” and “bone saw/reset/closure/softness.”
All in all, mapping these parameters allows me to customize the MUGIC to the physicality and disability of my left hand. The ability to adjust the scale of the mappings enabled me to adapt to the physicality of my hand needed on that day and in that particular performance space rather than attempting to conform to an instrument I will never conform to.
At the same time, there are challenges with the MUGIC. The parameter mappings, such as yaw, pitch, and rotation, assume normative hand and positioning functions. While Max’s scale and similar functions allow me to adjust this appropriately, it still places the burden on the disabled performer to “crip” the technology to their needs, adding extra work, time, and burden, since the instrument assumes normative ability. “Crip” is a common disability term that historically was used in derogatory ways to refer to disabled individuals; however, more recently has been positively reclaimed to rebel against prejudice, stereotypes, and ableist attitudes. I favor the term as it can be used as a noun, verb, or adjective, and in this article, extend it to “cripping” virtuosity by adjusting virtuosity to fit my own body rather than striving for previously-prescribed ideals (Hutcheon & Wolbring, 2013).
Additionally, I have had challenges with correctly positioning the MUGIC device. For example, during soundcheck, I will check the positional orientation along with the Wi-Fi connection to the computer. However, once I get up to perform my set (and usually, the MUGIC songs are first in my set because of their limited battery life), the orientation can be set off because getting the exact aerial positioning with each performance is challenging. Therefore, for the August 6, 1999 song, which resembles a keyboard-like function with the layering of sine tones, it is more of a challenge to get consistent orientation and triggering of the tones. With the August 9, 1999 song, I only manipulated processing with the MUGIC parameters, allowing for a more natural functioning of the accelerometer device. With both, I consistently monitor my computer screen to effectively monitor the scaling numbers in the Max software instead of focusing purely visually on my hands. These processes will most likely become more seamless and manageable over time and practice with the device, but they represent initial uphill challenges with performing with adaptive music technology.
Discussion
Murray-Browne, Mainstone, Bryan-Kinns, and Plumbley (2011) outline how there is a conflict underlying many novel musical instruments in that they are “intended to be both a tool for creative expression and a creative work of art in themselves, resulting in incompatible requirements” (p. 56). In my experience working with the MUGIC device, I have utilized it as a tool for creative expression, mapping its parameters to fit my physicality and disability. I have also used it as a work of art, scoring musical material from its unique nature as an accelerometer. Therefore, I believe the conflict applies to disabled performers working with digital musical instruments, whereby they can explore both the digital instrument as a creative work of art and a tool for creative expression by mapping the instrument to fit their capabilities.
Murray-Browne, Mainstone, Bryan-Kinns, and Plumbley (2011) also put forth the idea of “transparency ” in performing with digital musical instruments, defined as a “psychophysiological distance” between the input and output of a device mapping in the minds and how new instruments with unconventional mappings “cannot rely upon this prior knowledge are initially opaque to the audience” (p. 56). This contrasts acoustic instruments, where the mapping is often assumed and familiar to the audience, such as with a traditional violin or piano.
This conflict opens up immense possibilities for recreating or reimagining virtuosity. I can produce a virtuosity unique to myself by performing with the MUGIC and devices that may have been previously unknown to the audience. While acoustic instruments are visually and aurally familiar to most audiences, they also have assumptions of physical ability, and the mappings of a physical instrument are not easily mutable. On the other hand, digital musical instruments have infinite possibilities for adaptation and adjustment. Yet, they require a speaker system and potentially more for mixing, along with the extra work of mapping the instrument, a mapping that may change from piece to piece instead of stating static like that of an acoustic instrument.
Murray-Browne, Mainstone, Bryan-Kinns, and Plumbley (2011) also highlight the inherent challenges with new technology and transparency, in that “an audience new to the instrument will still have the extra mental burden of learning how it works as well as appreciating the music it produces” (p. 57). However, if the instrument is an art form, I believe it can also challenge the audience’s ideas of what an instrument is and, ultimately, what musical performance is (p. 57). This has been my experience working with the MUGIC thus far. I am not pre-composing music on separate software or beforehand and am seeking to learn how to execute it with the MUGIC; I am performing with the MUGIC. I am performing with my disability rather than against it. Performing with my disability promises not trying to fit into instruments or performance standards that I will never conform to, such as traditional instruments or conventional views about virtuosity, and instead setting a stage for my disability to be seen and heard on its terms.
Murray-Browne, Mainstone, Bryan-Kinns, and Plumbley (2011) finally stress that in a time when “musical programming languages have unleashed a bewildering amount of sonic potential, it is the constraints rather than the affordances of an instrument that characterise it” (p. 58). This extends to disability. Disability is often viewed as a deficit rather than an asset. Suppose we can instead switch our view of the so-called constraints of disability, such as physical immobility or non-normative movement, to possibility rather than restriction. In that case, this can lead to immense potential and, in my greatest hope, greater acceptance of disability within musical contexts. I do not wish to offer a singular solution to the virtuosity problem or question but instead disrupt the notion that virtuosity is based on ability rather than disability and that it can embrace both.
Conclusion
Moving forward, I intend to fully embrace the potential of the MUGIC system and other adaptive music technologies, including motion capture systems. Through these tools, I seek to explore the concept of virtuosity through the unique lens of my experience as a disabled musician. By delving into the myriad perspectives surrounding the role of music technology in performance, I am convinced that a rich intersection exists between such technology and disability, offering fertile ground for redefining the essence of virtuosity. This convergence challenges conventional notions of performance, particularly concerning instruments and bodies that deviate from the norm, thus opening up boundless avenues for virtuosic expression. Instruments and technologies designed to adapt to the user's specific needs, rather than vice versa, enable a profound exploration of the sonic landscape of disability and redefine the parameters of virtuosity regarding sound, appearance, and sensation. In essence, they empower individuals to "crip" virtuosity, shaping it around their unique capabilities and thereby fostering an authentic exploration of singular virtuosic expression.
References
Burk, J. N. (1918). “The Fetish of Virtuosity.” The Musical Quarterly 4, no. 2: 282-292.https://www.jstor.org/stable/738057.
Hamera, J. (2000). The Romance of Monsters: Theorizing the Virtuoso Body. Theatre Topics 10(2), 144-53.
Hehir, T. “Eliminating Ableism in Education.” Harvard Educational Review 72, no. 1(2002): 1-33. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.1.03866528702g2105.
Honisch, S. S. “Music First or Disability First?” Public Disability History (blog), March 15,2018. https://www.public-disabilityhistory.org/2018/03/music-first-or-disability-first.html.
Hutcheon, E., & Wolbring, G. (2013). “Cripping” Resilience: Contributions from Disability Studies to Resilience Theory. M/C Journal, 16(5). https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.697.
Larsen, J.V., Overholt, D., & Moeslund, T.B. (2016). The Prospects of Musical Instruments For People with Physical Disabilities. New Interfaces for Musical Expression.
Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. “Virtuosity”. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, May 12, 2022. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtuosity.
Murray-Browne, T., Mainstone, D., Bryan-Kinns, N., & Plumbley, M. (2011). The medium is the message: Composing instruments and performing mappings. New Interfaces for Musical Expression.
Tanaka, A. (2010). Mapping Out Instruments, Affordances, and Mobiles. New Interfaces for Musical Expression.
Siebers, T. (2010). Disability Aesthetics. University of Michigan Press.
Skuse, A. H. C., & Knotts, S. (2020). Creating an Online Ensemble for Home Based Disabled Musicians: Disabled Access and Universal Design - why disabled people must be at the heart of developing technology. Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression, 115--120. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4813266
VanderHamm, D. (2017). The Social Construction of Virtuosity: Musical Labor and the Valuation of Skill in the Age of Electronic Media. [Doctoral dissertation, University ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill]. Carolina Digital Repository.
Wanderley, M. (2001). Gestural Control of Music. International Workshop - Human Supervisionand Control in Engineering and Music. http://recherche.ircam.fr/equipes/analyse-synthese/wanderle/pub/kassel