Digital Library Tool Development

Although the primary motivation for this research was to develop and augment existing theory, it has also uncovered two sets of recommendations for digital library annotation tool development.

The first major set of recommendations concerns the performative-intellectual distinction addressed above. The physical and technical nature of the musician participant’s annotations on musical scores suggests that people who are interacting with performative artifacts like musical scores need systems that support action rather than support interaction with the artifact itself. Instead of allowing for a static and text-based intellectual interaction with the artifact, digital systems that support performance and action need to provide functionality for

numerous, easily relatable and highly adaptable interactions. Other recommendations related to the performative-intellectual dichotomy are:

1) Most of the annotations analyzed in this study reflected the language/symbol system of the primary artifact. Systems that support music performance specifically should provide a menu of musical symbols as a first-line annotation. Although there were some annotations (glasses, stars, exclamation points, individual textual phrases) that were not based on elements already present in musical notation, those could be easily added to a system. In the case of musical scores, the primary language is formal and mainly symbolic, but it might also be numeric or text.

2) Digital annotations should be easily differentiated from the primary artifact. This is not a new recommendation (Marshall, 1997), but it is important for the functionality of annotation systems, so it should be repeated as often as possible. Musicians implied that, during performance, they use their annotations as if they were landmarks rather than as specific instructions, and that they strove, through rehearsal and repetition, for independence from the primary artifact, the score. Further research, like eye tracking studies to see where musicians really do look during performance, would provide more insight into actual musician use of the score and the annotations. Again, Marshall (2005) has already alluded to this “landmark” functionality, but it would be interesting to see if there are differences in the use of “geographical marker” annotations by performative / intellectual workers, and those working with text, images, numbers, or symbols. As regards this recommendation, for the important “landmark” functionality to remain, annotations must be easily differentiated from the primary document.

3) Systems that support performance or action should allow micro-level anchoring of annotations. In the case of music, “micro level” refers to individual notes or elements within the score. The technical annotations analyzed in this study, which made up 78% of all annotations, referred for the most part to individual notes or musical elements within the primary artifact. Comparatively few annotations were focused on providing general notes for phrases or sections of a piece.

4) Performative artifacts, most notably musical scores and dramatic scripts, remain primarily analog because of the mobile nature of rehearsal and performance, and because the physicality of the representation is important. Music is published on specially sized (larger) paper to enhance ease of use. Musical notes need to be easily discernable in half-light and at a glance, and they cannot emit light (it would be distracting for the audience). It is unclear that, given the limitations of existing tools and projection techniques, music annotation systems would in the near future be realistic in the performance context. Annotation systems would be useful for the relatively static rehearsal period, though, and musicians could print out their annotated scores when performances began.

The second major set of recommendations regards developing a system architecture that would support annotation preservation, collaboration, and dissemination. Because there are few annotation systems in existence that support performative artifacts, these system recommendations are necessarily descriptive rather than prescriptive. Further research in this area, which would include building a system that supports annotation of performative artifacts, would be valuable.

1) System users should be able to access previous users’ annotations. Almost all of the participants in this study said that they thought it would be interesting or useful to look at the annotated parts of other musicians, specifically those musicians who were important to them, like former teachers, or famous musicians. Because the more skilled musicians in this study made more annotations than did the less skilled musicians, annotation could be seen as an element of skilled practice. In addition to helping musicians learn the piece by highlighting difficult passages, demonstrating specific physical performance strategies, and illustrating individual interpretations, seeing the annotations of more skilled performers might also model positive annotative behavior for the beginning musician. Although this research does not answer the question as to why professional musicians annotate more than amateurs, or what effect extensive annotation has on comprehension or performance, the fact remains that the professional musicians who participated in this study annotated more than non-professionals. Further research might shed light on the effect of annotation on performance success, interpretative complexity, comprehension, and continuation in the field.

2) Ability to “push” annotations. There is a huge dissemination problem in orchestral performance contexts. The conductor and concertmaster decide on the bowings for the strings sections, and then they have to distribute those annotations to fifty or sixty people, ensuring that each of those people take the time to reliably mark the instructions on their individual copy of the part. It is a very messy process. In this situation specifically, the ability to push annotations to the entire group would be wholeheartedly welcomed. On a less institutional note, a number of participants, but

specifically the semi-professional concertmaster for the university symphony orchestra, equated annotation with success (Interview 17). If the conductor or concertmaster could “push” annotations out to the rest of the orchestra, that theory could be tested. This would indicate the need for definition of hierarchical groups or roles: conductor, concertmaster, section chairs, and individual chairs.

5.6

Conclusion

This chapter reviewed the three major discussion points suggested by this research. 1) Although Goodman’s (1976) allographic-autographic distinction is valuable, and his definition of notation is robust and may be useful in the development of other notational systems for variable works, his theories regarding authenticity of music performance ignore many of the realities of performance and are not perhaps the best means to ultimately determine authenticity. 2) Griesemer and Starr’s concept of boundary objects is a valuable construct for expanding the discussion and comprehension of performative artifacts. Conceptualizing musical scores as standardized form boundary objects allows for a deeper understanding of the forms annotations take, the methods of interaction among the members of the group; and the means by which the vocabularies are shared and learned. 3) Catherine Marshall’s annotation framework (1998) led to incomplete analysis of the performative artifacts analyzed in this study. This framework was developed in terms of Marshall’s work with textual, intellectually motivated annotations, and was augmented and re-organized as a result of the work with the largely symbolic annotations, motivated by performance, that were analyzed in this study.