Student Last and First Name: JeremyHacker
Program, Course or Contract Title: Music, Math, & Motion
Quarter and Academic Year: Fall 2008 + Winter 2009
losing 6 credits
DESCRIPTION: Music, Math, & Motion
We explored the physics of music, sound, and noise; and the composition of music with
computers and other instruments. We used lectures, workshops, readings, seminars,
and individual and group student projects.
In fall, our primary texts were Musimathics by Loy (2006) and Music and Mathematics
from Pythagoras to Fractals, by Fauvel et al. (2003). Seminar texts included Life of
Galileo by Brecht, Contact by Sagan, selections from Whose Science/Whose Knowledge
by Harding, Copenhagen by Frayn, the Harmonograph by Ashton, and His Master’s
Voice by Lem. These were supplemented by articles such as “The Unreasonable
Effectiveness of Mathematics” by Wigner, astrophysics articles on acoustic oscillations in
stars and the cosmic background radiation, and articles on information theory by
Shannon and Weaver. Guest lectures were giving by two composers and an instrument
builder. Students attended a performance of a performance of contemporary and
satirical music, a performance of multi-channel computer music with and without live
instruments, and a performance of the opera “Dr. Atomic.”
In winter, our primary seminar texts included Sex and Temperament by Margaret Mead,
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn, and Dr. Faustus by Thomas
Mann; and collections of cybernetics readings by Mead, Bateson, Whorf, Weiner, Ashby,
Beer, Marianne Brun, Herbert Brun, Howe. Students who chose to focus on physics of
sound also worked intensely with chapters 10-12 of Physics by Douglas Giancoli, while
students who chose to continue computer music programming had were advised to
continue using Computer Music by Charles Dodge and Practical C Programming by
Steve Oualline.
In fall we met once a week for lectures by both faculty, generally twice weekly for
seminars, once weekly for computer music programming workshops, and once weekly
for workshops on physics of sound or project planning. Regular assignments included
Points, Insights, and Questions (PIQs) posted online before seminar by student teams,
individual computer music programming assignments, and individual pre-labs and team
reports for physics and project workshops (in fall). Each student was expected to
complete two short “studies” in computer music. In the first half of fall quarter, students
in each team took turns articulating and developing plans for their creative/research
project and responding online to teammates’ plans. In the last half of fall quarter, teams
worked toward the performance of their creative project and the presentation of their
research for the Green Hill School (a juvenile detention facility).
In winter, students chose to focus on either computer-generated music (Arun) or physics
of sound (Zita) ; then each student met twice weekly with the appropriate faculty
member, in addition to our joint lectures/discussions on Tuesdays and occasional Friday
workshops or films. In addition to regular assignments, in winter students were expected
to complete weekly homework in physics (with access to detailed help sessions from the
faculty) and assignments in computer programming. In winter, students performed two
different projects with different teams, culminating in attendance / participation in the
American Society of Cybernetics conference in Olympia in the final week.
Credit was based on successful completion of the activities described above, with
teammates.
Prerequisites included basic music theory and facility with algebra. Learning goals
included the fundamentals of programming in C; improved quantitative reasoning skills
and understanding of the physics of music; stronger teamwork and planning skills;
expanded abilities to appreciate new forms of music; and deeper understanding of
connections between music and science.
We explored the physics of music, sound, and noise; and the composition of music with
computers and other instruments. We used lectures, workshops, readings, seminars,
and individual and group student projects.
In fall, our primary texts were Musimathics by Loy (2006) and Music and Mathematics
from Pythagoras to Fractals, by Fauvel et al. (2003). Seminar texts included Life of
Galileo by Brecht, Contact by Sagan, selections from Whose Science/Whose Knowledge
by Harding, Copenhagen by Frayn, the Harmonograph by Ashton, and His Master’s
Voice by Lem. These were supplemented by articles such as “The Unreasonable
Effectiveness of Mathematics” by Wigner, astrophysics articles on acoustic oscillations in
stars and the cosmic background radiation, and articles on information theory by
Shannon and Weaver. Guest lectures were giving by two composers and an instrument
builder. Students attended a performance of a performance of contemporary and
satirical music, a performance of multi-channel computer music with and without live
instruments, and a performance of the opera “Dr. Atomic.”
In winter, our primary seminar texts included Sex and Temperament by Margaret Mead,
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn, and Dr. Faustus by Thomas
Mann; and collections of cybernetics readings by Mead, Bateson, Whorf, Weiner, Ashby,
Beer, Marianne Brun, Herbert Brun, Howe. Students who chose to focus on physics of
sound also worked intensely with chapters 10-12 of Physics by Douglas Giancoli, while
students who chose to continue computer music programming had were advised to
continue using Computer Music by Charles Dodge and Practical C Programming by
Steve Oualline.
In fall we met once a week for lectures by both faculty, generally twice weekly for
seminars, once weekly for computer music programming workshops, and once weekly
for workshops on physics of sound or project planning. Regular assignments included
Points, Insights, and Questions (PIQs) posted online before seminar by student teams,
individual computer music programming assignments, and individual pre-labs and team
reports for physics and project workshops (in fall). Each student was expected to
complete two short “studies” in computer music. In the first half of fall quarter, students
in each team took turns articulating and developing plans for their creative/research
project and responding online to teammates’ plans. In the last half of fall quarter, teams
worked toward the performance of their creative project and the presentation of their
research for the Green Hill School (a juvenile detention facility).
In winter, students chose to focus on either computer-generated music (Arun) or physics
of sound (Zita) ; then each student met twice weekly with the appropriate faculty
member, in addition to our joint lectures/discussions on Tuesdays and occasional Friday
workshops or films. In addition to regular assignments, in winter students were expected
to complete weekly homework in physics (with access to detailed help sessions from the
faculty) and assignments in computer programming. This quarter, students performed
two different projects with different teams, culminating in attendance / participation in the
American Society of Cybernetics conference in Olympia in the final week.
Credit was based on successful completion of the activities described above, with
teammates.
Prerequisites included basic music theory and facility with algebra. Learning goals
included the fundamentals of programming in C; improved quantitative reasoning skills
and understanding of the physics of music; stronger teamwork and planning skills;
expanded abilities to appreciate new forms of music; and deeper understanding of
connections between music and science.
EVALUATION: Written by E.J. Zita (Ph.D., physics)
Jeremy was a quiet presence in both quarters of this program. He stood out primarily in
the performances, where his band played very loud music. He spoke and wrote little,
and it was difficult to tell what he thought or learned. His ultimate understanding of
music, sound, and noise, among other things, seems confused.
The hands-on Physics workshops & labs in fall appeared to be high points in Jeremy’s
learning. He usually came to class prepared with good prelabs; these enabled him to
more fully engage in workshops, and his description of his learning is quite clear. This
experience motivated him to move into the physics module in winter, where the
quantitative homework proved too hard, despite his attendance at help sessions as well
as classes.
He turned in no work in winter, despite help sessions. He says he did the HW, but it was
too hard. His experience in the computer music pat of the program was similar. It was
required in fall, and too difficult. He tried it two weeks in winter, then jumped to physics.
His essays and responses are not in his portfolio, but are complete online.
Jeremy’s teammates (JB and KH) took primary responsibility for generating and posting
most of the team’s PIQs. Jeremy wrote brief, generous peer evals. Teammates agree
that he was often absent:
“Jeremy Hacker failed to show up a lot more [this quarter]. He still managed to play his
part in our project and submitted PIQ's when he couldn't be there with us” (KH).
“Jeremy Hacker couldn't come to meetings but he usually e-mailed us his PIQs when he
couldn't come” (MF)
One particularly generous teammate wrote an evaluation inconsistent with the others:
“Jeremy was present for almost every group meeting ... Nonetheless, he was always
prepared, even if that meant sending his PIQs by email. His main goal was arriving at a
meaningful final product while challenging himself and peers at the same time. This
quality came through during our PIQ sessions and project discussions. Jeremy is a great
guitar player and noteworthy keyboard player. It was immensely enjoyable writing music
and jamming with him” (JB).
Jeremy’s statements in his final survey often confused me. For example, in one place,
he said “My essays i felt i worked hard and spent alot of thought processing them into
good writing,” and in another place he said “my essays seemed to just be essays,
nothing special.” I agree with the latter assessment.
I did not see a self-evaluation from Jeremy. It would be very useful for him to try to sort
out his progress and his goals.
Jeremy seems to have been confused about the logistics and content of many aspects
of the program, to a rather extreme extent. For example, Jeremy says he did most of
the work, yet admits he missed most of the physics homework. I encourage him to talk
with advising services to see if there are any factors interfering with his ability to meet his
full academic potential. I hope he will develop the basic learning skills he needs to do
better in his future work.
FALL EQUIVALENCIES:
CREDITS EARNED: 15
4/4 computer music composition in C
4/4 physics of sound
4/4 creative and research project and performance
2/2 seminar readings
1/2 class participation
WINTER EQUIVALENCIES:
CREDITS EARNED: 11
1/1 cr: 1 lecture session per week
1/2 cr: 1-2 seminar sessions per week, including PIQs
4/4 cr: 2 performance sessions
3/3 cr: 2 essays and 4 responses
2/4 cr : 1-2 Physics of sound workshops / help sessions per week with assignments
TOTAL CREDITS EARNED: 26