Augmented Guitar – An analysis of multiple approaches
Brian Tuohy
Digital Media and Arts Research Centre
University of Limerick
Castletroy, Limerick, Ireland
0743518@studentmail.ul.ie
Abstract
Augmentation is a common approach to the design of
modern musical instruments. Among the most frequently
explored instruments for this purpose is the electric guitar.
This paper analyses a number of methods of augmenting
the guitar and will address the key question of the success
of these modifications. This is achieved by assessing the
consequences of modifying interactions at different stages
in the signal chain. These assessments have been carried
out by researching and experimenting with documented
techniques; comparing the examined instruments to
established design principles; and through critical analysis
of performance footage.
Keywords: Audio Stream Analysis, Augmentation,
Electric Guitar, Extended Techniques, Prepared Guitar.
1. Introduction
This paper will first assess some of the reasons for the
choice of the electric guitar as a basis for augmentation.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 will examine the three different types
of augmentation that are considered in this study. This will
be followed in Section 6 by a discussion on some
interesting points that the examined projects make
regarding the creation of a more natural, expressive
instrument, which boasts significant control over the sonic
capabilities of the sound.
A number of the sources presented here are online
documentations of informal projects. These sources
include blogs, web articles and YouTube videos1. It is the
author’s opinion that examining these sources from an
ethnographic perspective can provide a valuable insight
into the direction in which the area of augmented guitar is
headed. This is due to the mimetic nature of information
sources based on the Internet, where projects inspire
emulation and evolution of ideas in an open environment.
For the purpose of examining such informal sources, an
evaluation will be carried out, where the instruments will
be compared to Perry Cook’s Principles for Designing
Computer Music Controllers [2].The success of the
1
The YouTube videos have been grouped together as one
reference, which will be listed as [a], [b] etc. This is due to the
informal nature of the sources; they are considered as one
collective reference to the direction that guitar augmentation is
taking.
examined instruments will be measured against some of
the most relevant Principles:
1. Some players have spare bandwidth, some do not.
2. Copying an instrument is dumb, leveraging expert
technique is smart.
3. Make a piece, not an instrument or controller.
4. Smart instruments are often not smart/
Programmability is a curse.
These will be referred to in the text with the number of the
principle in brackets after the relevant point, e.g. the
guitarist has significant spare bandwidth (1.). In order to
understand the approach taken to delivering this research,
it is important for some of the structural significance to be
broken down. This paper proposes three stages in the
signal chain in which guitar augmentation might take
effect:
Acoustic – This type of augmentation is related to the
musician’s interaction with the physical instrument. This
addresses acoustical issues only and concentrates on how
the instrument responds to prepared guitar techniques. This
will be discussed in Section 3. Prepared Guitar.
Digital – This is related to augmentation that occurs in the
digital domain. This uses data that is read in from sensors
to manipulate the audio signal once it has reached the
computer. This will be discussed in Section 4. Sensor-
Based Augmentation.
Analysis – This type of augmentation is related to the
control of audio parameters via the use of analysis data
gathered from the audio signal itself or from the player’s
usual interactions with the instrument. This will be
discussed in Section 4. Data-Analysis Methods.
2. Effectiveness of the Electric Guitar
The reasons for the electric guitar being a common choice
for augmentation are difficult to define but could surely be
argued to include its ubiquitous acceptance as a part of
popular culture and its intrinsic connection with
technology and development. The electric guitar, by
nature, is a hybrid instrument. It has contributed to the
redefinition of the concepts of musical sound [3]. This has
largely been achieved by the integration of sonic ideas,
such as controlled feedback, into the palette of acceptable
sources for popular music. The popularisation of
intentional feedback by artists such as Jimi Hendrix stands
to prove the significance of evolving social and cultural
values in narrowing the gap between what is considered to
be “noise” or “musical sound”. The early criticism of
guitar feedback enthusiasts is comparable to that which is
received by many modern computer musicians when they
introduce new concepts, which the popular music
community is not ready to assimilate.
The twentieth century saw the guitar grow to the point
of ubiquity, with recent figures indicating the number of
players in the U.S. to be over 10 million [4]. With this
huge amount of users, the guitar has encompassed a vast
amount of musical genres and techniques. This, in turn,
leads to the evolution of many different concepts regarding
how a guitar can be extended or improved upon. One
factor that has led to the guitar being held in high regard
when it comes to instrument augmentation is the
relationship it establishes between gesture and sound [3].
The instrument provides immediate, multi-modal feedback
in the form of visual, tactile and aural results. This multi-
modal feedback, along with the instrument’s expressive
qualities, when combined with the sonic possibilities of
digital audio processing, provide strong reasoning for a
successful augmentation.
A general examination of the electric guitar against the
first two outlined principles for musical controllers can
provide interesting insight into the basis of this study. Less
than 0.2% of American musicians are practicing
professionals [5]. If this is taken as loosely correlating to
the amount of expert musicians, in this case guitarists, the
remainder is a huge amount of beginner to intermediate
guitar players. A noticeable trend among many guitarists is
an arrival at an intermediate level of skill and little
progression beyond that point [6]. This results in guitarists
who are competent enough in their playing techniques to
naturally play much of their content with little
concentration. This is where the idea of bandwidth comes
into the equation (1.). As the guitarists are comfortable
enough in their musical environment to not have to think
too much about their actions on the fret-board, they have
sufficient bandwidth left to concentrate on controlling the
sound in additional ways such as interacting with sensors.
The idea of leveraging expert technique allows
guitarists to build upon the gestures and interactions with
which they are already familiar and to use these as a source
for extra manipulation of their sound. This touches on the
idea of body mnemonics as outlined by [7]. This suggests
that the movement of our hands within the body space is
perceived by our innate awareness of our body and limbs.
In this way, using our hands to interact with an interface
that is within the reach of the normal movements we
associate with the instrument reduces the attentional
requirement of the interface. Simple associations with
common movements can reduce the cognitive workload.
Perry Cook points out that the musical interfaces we create
are largely influenced by the genre of music we are
interested in, the instruments we are already familiar with
and our available resources [2]. For this reason, it is easy
to see why the electric guitar would be such a popular
starting point for musical interface design.
3. Prepared Guitar
An important approach to guitar augmentation that can
often be overlooked is the implementation of prepared
guitar techniques. These are techniques where the guitarist
alters the original sound by modifying the physical
interactions with the instrument. This affords a higher level
of sonic possibilities in the source sound than is provided
by the relatively limited structure of traditional playing.
Prepared guitar is an augmentation that exists on a physical
and not a technological level. Much of prepared guitar
technique concentrates on the relationship between
physics, music theory and tuning [8]. Some of the most
common methods of guitar preparation will be discussed in
the following sections. These methods have been evaluated
by the author through experimentation with various
documented techniques.
3.1 Third bridge methods
With this method, an implement such as a screwdriver or a
pencil is wedged under the strings at a certain point on the
fret-board. This shortens the length of the strings and
creates a distorted fret-board scale. A common method of
playing with this augmentation is by strumming behind the
bridge and using a slide to create tonal variations. Shorter
strings can provide inharmonic sounds, which can then be
controlled with different playing mechanisms. With low
tuning, percussive sounds can be achieved with the third
bridge method. Lifting the bridge while playing can also
create loud squeals.
Another third bridge method is the weaving bridge
whereby an object is placed woven between the strings,
alternating between under and over. When this is done
using a piece of paper near the pickups of the guitar a
natural fuzz sound can be created, similar to distortion but
with much more present harmonics. An interesting
technique found was to place a small screwdriver
interwoven through an open-tuned guitar over the bar of
the 12th fret. Using an e-Bow on a particular string will
vibrate the screwdriver, creating harmonics and distorted
sounds. Fretting behind the screwdriver on one of the
strings that is underneath the implement will alternate the
height and what strings are affected. The less weight in the
bridge, the closer the vibration patterns come to those
found in a drum [8].
Placing the bridge under just one string and activating it
can achieve a natural sounding delay. This creates a
seesaw effect where the bridge will rock back and forth
repeatedly, exciting the strings until it comes to a natural
stop.
3.2 Buzzing Objects
Attaching objects such as paperclips to the strings can
create distorted buzzing noises, or if attached tighter and
played by pushing down on the top of the paperclip can
create dull bell-like sounds. A similar technique can be
seen in [a] where matchsticks are attached to the strings
and played with a violin bow.
3.3 Clasping Objects
Attaching objects that clasp the strings can also have a
huge effect on the timbre and the envelope of the resulting
sound. An example of this is shown in [b] where Brian
Green attaches crocodile clips to the strings of the guitar
and plays them with an electric motor. From
experimenting with clasping objects such as crocodile clips
and springs in particular, it has become quite clear that
these minor augmentations can have a major effect on the
resulting sound. Attaching a spring to a string just above
the bridge pickup hugely increased the volume of the
sound produced and created a tone similar to a multi-
voiced synthesised bell or a fuzz sound depending on
playing style. Also notable was the creation of a sound that
was remarkably close to a phaser effect. One advantage of
this method was that it completely afforded normal left
hand fretting, which was not always the case with some of
the other examples.
3.4 Prepared Guitar in Practice
Several artists have adopted prepared guitar as their main
method of creating music. Glenn Branca was an early
experimenter with his “Mallet Guitar” [9]. This was an
open tuned guitar, which he played by hitting the strings
with a drumstick. Branca delved into the issues of density
and loudness of the electric guitar and used prepared
techniques to stimulate harmonics. Hans Tammen has
experimented with different agitators for the strings of the
guitar such as cymbals, stones, metal etc. [10]. Nick
Collins examined similar techniques with his “Backwards
Electric Guitar” [11]. Collins connected a radio to the input
of a guitar amp and the output of the amp to the jack on his
guitar. This passed the radio signal through the guitar’s
pickups and created tiny vibrations in the strings. This
vibration was then picked up with a piezo pickup. This
method of sound generation created sounds with great
emphasis on the overtones. This shifted the control of the
sound from the knobs and faders of the radio to the domain
of the guitarist’s technique on the effected strings. The
goal of the piece was to bring external sounds into the
strings to create an unusual, playable signal process.
Some of these methods may seem like idle
experimentation but the sounds they create are unlike any
that can be created by effects pedals. Most effects pedals
create one specific sound. With prepared guitar, tiny
variations in the playing technique can create entirely
different sounds. This method of investigating microscopic
sounds and the relationships between different objects
allows for great individuality in the creation of guitar tone
and lends itself well to improvisational music. The effect
that tuning has on prepared guitar cannot be over-
emphasised. It is comparable to the sensitive dependence
visible with the chaos theory; slight alterations can
radically change the interactions between string, agitator,
additional elements and pickup.
4. Sensor-Based Augmentation
Sensor-based augmentation is by far the most common
approach covered in this paper. With the electric guitar,
both hands are dedicated to the sound production process.
This means that any supplementary control of effects must
be transferred to the peripheries of the playing area, so as
not to impede on the primary actions of the musician. This
indicates that augmentations must be designed in a way
such that they take advantage of the little free space
available on the guitar and are easily accessible during the
guitarist’s free movements. The low cost of sensors and
availability of information on augmentation methods has
made the area of sensor-based guitar augmentation very
popular.
4.1 Supplementary Gestural Control
A common approach to this kind of augmentation is to use
gesture data to gain extra control over the sound. This is a
method that has been greatly helped by the availability of
devices such as the Wiimote and the iPhone , which can
provide a great amount of resources for interfacing with a
computer. These devices allow for more time to be spent
on issues such as musical expression and interaction rather
than dedicating unnecessary resources to hardware.
Traditionally, to control the parameters of a certain
effect, the guitarist needs to refer to some kind of contact
point where they can interface with the control and
manipulate the parameters. Also with traditional effects
pedals, the guitar becomes less of an instrument and more
like a system of interconnected modules. This environment
may easily grow to be out of the physical reach of a single
musician [14]. With an accelerometer, this is not the case.
There is no control interface, which reduces the space the
guitarists needs to be familiar with and allows to dedicate
more concentration to their playing technique. As there is a
certain amount of upper-body movement involved in guitar
playing anyway, the use of an accelerometer allows the
guitarist to leverage that technique in order to further their
control of the sound (2.).
The use of accelerometer data in augmentation projects
has been well documented with varied results [12], [c], [d],
[e], [f]. One of the main problems noticed was the over-
simplicity of mapping. Many of the mappings would
dedicate a movement to different extremes on the x-axis to
separate effects and the same for the y-axis. This seems
like a relatively limited approach for an instrument that
might be proposed for use in a live situation. This point
contrasts with principle (4.) regarding smart instruments,
as it would appear that instruments could also not be smart
enough. A particular example, which demonstrates an
effective mapping that compliments the expressivity of the
instrument, is [13]. Here, the orientation of a Wiimote
attached to the guitar is mapped to the parameters of a
pitch bend effect. This makes good use of the guitarist’s
body movements while playing a solo and provides a
strong visual connection between cause and effect for the
audience.
The issue of causality is common in the development of
computer music controllers. Visible effort contributes to
the appreciation of a live performance. In this way,
augmenting the electric guitar has an advantage over
creating a controller from scratch as it builds on an
established set of skills and common efforts. Also included
in the category of gestural control is the use of devices
such as proximity sensors. [10] shows an application of
this device, which works as a switch for certain effects
when his head breaks the path of the infrared light. This is
a much more subtle gesture and is intended to not be
noticed by the audience. The guitar is laid out on a table
and placing the sensor in front of it affords interaction via
subtle, cognitively light movements.
4.2 Additional Contact Points
A more subtle method of control than the gestural
approaches achieved with accelerometers is the use of
force sensors. These have been applied to the back of the
guitar’s body in order to measure the pressure between the
guitarist and the instrument at different points and map the
data to the signal process [14]. This approaches a much
more tangible form of interaction than gestural control.
There is a physical feedback from the instrument and the
musicians can gauge how much pressure they are applying.
The reliance of this method is on the musician’s ability to
interact with the additional artifact while maintaining
proper control of the instrument. This is not always
achieved. This ties in again with the idea of spare
bandwidth (1.).
The augmentation can surely not be considered a
success if the original techniques and abilities of the
guitarist are limited by the effort that the additional
interface requires. This is seen in [h], [12], [15] where the
playing style of the guitarist has been hugely limited by
their need to constantly refer back to their control method.
In [h], the guitarist does not even control the interface
himself; he has an additional user to assist him. This
detracts from the musical aesthetic of the system and
provides evidence for the argument that these systems
were from motivated by technological experimentation
than any aspirations towards musical aesthetic.
Reconsidering existing control mechanisms can provide
a more natural method of extending the control prospects
of the guitar’s system. When a musician has become
familiar with the traditional processes involved in
manipulating their signal, re-mapping the results of these
methods can prove to be a very useful process. This is
exemplified in [16], where the function of the tone knob on
the guitar is altered to wirelessly send MIDI data to a
computer as a means of controlling a filtering envelope.
This is example of how mimetic technique can lend itself
greatly to the additional processes permitted by the
augmentation. By building the instrument on existing
knowledge, there is significantly less cognitive strain put
on the musician (2.).
4.3 Integrating Interfaces
The addition of another interface such as the iPhone to
the guitar could be considered as a different type of
augmentation to simple sensors. This has been referred to
as adding another instrument to the guitar – one that is
situated and designed in such a way that it can be played
simultaneously with the initial instrument [15]. In order to
control such an interface, exceptional dexterity is required.
This is a common trait of skilled guitarists and hence takes
advantage of their techniques (2.). The device has its own
inherent capabilities and methods of use that have to be
developed. Often, the iPhone is used as a control interface
for DAW software such as Ableton Live [h], [10], [15].
This allows the guitarist to control complex procedures not
only relating to the guitar sound but also connected to loop
playback and broader elements of the performance.
Essentially, this is re-appropriating the device as a mixer
and mounting it on the guitar to allow the user to assume
the identity of musician and engineer with minimal effort.
This, again, relates back to the issues of mnemonics
mentioned earlier. The guitarist will recognise the interface
as a mixer and will require less cognitive energy to interact
with the device while playing Whereas adding effects
pedals was expanding the guitarist’s interaction
environment, the addition of a device such as the iPhone to
the surface of the guitar itself, greatly reduces the
stretching needed to perform.
Another advantage of adding such devices is the visual
feedback provided by the screen. Depending on how the
GUI is designed, this provides more opportunity for visual
recognition of parameter values than analog pedals can
achieve with knobs and dials. This is due to the ability of
the screen to encourage representation rather than
emulation. It is possible that a guitarist might respond
quicker to a visual cue that indicated the status of a
parameter by relating it to something physical in the real
world other than a dial or a slider. This could be the
amount of water in a glass, how open a door is, the
brightness of a light. This is purely theoretical but serves
as testament to the fact that modern augmentations allow
us to redefine our interaction with instruments. We can
make new connections with our music and bring our
knowledge of the real world and experiences with our
instrument to the table in order to build the most effective
relationship attainable.
5. Data-Analysis Methods interdisciplinary performance encompassing modern
classical guitar, emerging technologies and popular
This is a method of augmentation that takes place entirely
culture. This is achieved by mapping data gathered through
in the digital domain and does not require any additional
the analysis of the guitar signal to the actions of the
interaction from the guitarist. This control method is based
characters in the video game Mortal Kombat. This suggest
on the inherent actions of the guitarist while playing. This
the plucking of a guitar note as being similar to the
method could present itself via the analysis of left hand
function of a discrete button, in that it represents a brief
techniques or by analysing the audio stream itself. Data
change from one stat to another. This theory leads to the
extracted from these sources is then mapped to
guitar being regarded as a momentary controller.
manipulative processes, which will affect the sound.
These analysis methods come in many different forms
Some of the differences between this kind of control
and some have not even been presented as augmented
and the supplementary gestural control outlined above are
controllers but as mechanisms for studying technique.
slight but they create the potential for very different
Such is the case with [20]. This study suggests that much
results. Much of the difference lies in the consciousness of
of the essence of guitar music stems from subtleties in
the guitarist. When using accelerometer data to alter digital
technique, which vary dependant on the player’s style. The
processes, the guitarist must consciously interact with the
method proposed is to measure minute details of the
instrument in a way that is not natural to his technique.
guitarist’s left hand movements by using capacitive
This means that a connection must be established between
sensors on the fret-board to measure distance from the
the sensor and the musical output by creating an
fingers whilst playing. This provides a heady resource for
augmented routine. When analysing inherent content of the
analysing technique and emulating styles. However, the
guitarist’s performance, this routine is already established
author does not seem to have considered the live mapping
and the manipulative process merely represents an
of this data to control parameters in order the colour the
extended connection.
sound as has been done with the other augmentations
An example of this can be seen with [14]. Here, palm-
examined.
muting the guitar is given added significance when it is
The use of data analysis appears to be a powerful tool in
used to activate processes in the digital domain; analysing
creating expressive, non-intrusive methods of manipulating
the spectral content of the audio and comparing it to the
audio signals. This method seems to have the least
usual content of an unmated signal achieve. Detecting a
consequence on the guitarist’s playing technique while still
reduction in certain frequencies, the system is able to use
demonstrating the ability to control complex procedures.
this as a trigger to set processes into action. This allows for
This seems to be a promising area, which will hopefully
an intrinsic connection between palm-muting and
develop further as its possibilities are uncovered.
distortion, for example. This is not a process that the
guitarist needs to consider any more than he considers the 6. Discussion
affect of normal palm-muting. The digital processes can
With the acoustic guitar, the interface and the sound source
simply become a part of the playing technique. This would
are one and the same. From the study carried out in this
seem to open up much more ground for expressivity in
paper, we can ascertain that much of modern electric guitar
augmented instruments.
augmentation has focused on maintaining this relationship
This is a form of indirect acquisition of performance
between cause and effect while still affording the vast
data and can prove much less intrusive than sensor-based
possibilities of digital signal processing [21].
equivalents [17]. With hexaphonic pickups, we can detect
The ubiquitous nature of the electric guitar has led to
the signal of each string individually and virtually map
the common presence of spare bandwidth among many
every movement of the guitarist’s fingers to a
musicians (1.). However, in order to create a successful
corresponding process in the digital domain [18]. An
augmentation, this bandwidth must be examined and
example of this is shown in [14], where the bending of a
utilised carefully. Many examples of casual augmentations
string is mapped to the parameters of a wah effect. This is
exhibited signs of limitations imposed by the modifications
achieved by using pitch detection to trigger certain actions.
in the system. In many cases, at least one of the guitarist’s
The performance capabilities of this kind of
hands became intermittently dedicated to the task of sensor
augmentation have been proven [10], [19]. With his
control [c], [12], [15]. This would be an acceptable trade-
“Endangered Guitar” [10], Hans Tammen uses the audio
off if it was implemented in such a way that took
signal from the guitar to manipulate effects in a live
advantage of the free cognitive space afforded by rests in a
situation. This is combined from sensor data and prepared
musical piece or integrated with techniques such as
techniques to deliver a highly augmented form of guitar
strumming to facilitate a combination of actions with one
music. Hindman displays another novel approach to the
gesture (2.). The projects that have seemed most successful
use of audio stream analysis in the manipulation process
in this light have been those that consider gestural methods
with the “Modal Kombat” project [19]. This piece
such as accelerometer data or audio stream analysis. These
proposes the use of audio stream analysis to deliver an
methods more easily afford a natural, expressive playing
technique. That is not to say that additional sensors and
interfaces cannot provide great advantages to the system –
they must just be given due consideration with regard to
the aesthetics of performance.
The use of inexpensive sensors and hacking interfaces
such as the Wiimote has provided much inspiration for
guitarists who wish to experiment with the possibilities of
their sound. Problems arise, however, in attempting to
decipher between the goals of an inventor and a musician.
Regarding this issue, Andrew Schloss commented: “A
computer music concert is not an excuse/opportunity for a
computer programmer to finally be on stage.” [22]. Many
projects seem to be exasperated attempts at overanalyzing
methods of manipulating a sound without due
consideration for musical practice. This ties in greatly with
principle (3.) as listed above. In relation to his electronic
instrument “The Hands”, Michel Waisvisz noted that there
is a point where the designer should stop changing the
instrument and focus on playing [21]. Many of the projects
investigated here did not seem to dedicate sufficient effort
to developing relevant performance skills.
Depending on the style of playing and location of
additional controls, some processes such as pushing
buttons on a Wiimote or interacting with a touch screen
can temporarily disable the guitarist from generating new
sound. This is significantly contradictory to the view that
an augmented system must be “designed to support
expressive interaction and rapid changes in direction” [20].
With the electric guitar, the designer is provided with a
familiar interface, which has already developed and been
improved upon to the point of it being considered the
precursor of augmentation [14]. This allows for simplicity
in mapping ideas where well-defined control functions can
fit seamlessly into a performance. This is best achieved
with systems that incur static rather than evolutionary
mapping, where a certain action has a defined outcome and
the musician’s concentration can be directed primarily at
delivering a performance.
7. Conclusion
It would appear that guitar augmentation provides a
particular advantage in the area of digital interface design
as it allows the musician to build on a skill-set that is
usually highly developed and requires low cognitive
attendance. With this said, the effectiveness of any
instrument relies on the musician’s application to the task
of mastering its technique. This consideration of musical
aesthetic has been demonstrated by many of the academic
projects outlined in this paper. It may be unfair, then, to
look upon some informal practices of augmentation with
disdain – critical analysis is simply employed in order to
identify the most useful approaches to the subject. It is this
author’s opinion that the area of guitar augmentation will
continue to develop into the future, examining further
aspects of gestural control of signal processing from both
sensor-based and audio stream analysis perspectives.
Perhaps, unfortunately, the area of prepared guitar does not
hold the same prospect – regardless of its possibilities of
discovering new microtonal sounds. The primary concern
with guitar sound today seems to be with digital signal
processing. Perhaps it would be equally beneficial for us to
reinvestigate the sound that we are manipulating and
discover how our relationship and interactions with the
sound source can greatly influence the music we create.
References
[1] Video References
[a] B. W. Green. (2010, October 9) See You In Sleep -
Bowed Guitar Prepared with Matches. [Online].
Available:
http://seeyouinsleep.com/blog/2009/10/7/bowed-guitar-
prepared-with-matches.html
[b] B. W. Green. (2010, October 9) See You In Sleep -
Prepared Guitar W/ Alligator Clips & Motors + Ableton
Live. [Online]. Available:
http://seeyouinsleep.com/blog/2009/6/4/prepared-guitar-w-
alligator-clips-motors-ableton-live.html
[c] J. A. Romero. (2010, October 10) Guitar + Gamepad
& Wii Remote # SuperCollider . [Online]. Available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=383DmSJtVic&feature
=related
[d] D. Smith. (2010, October 10) Guitar Sense Project.
[Online]. Available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5nwnmH9GFA
[e] U. Nieto and J. Salamon. (2010, October 10) G-Tar -
The Gesture Enhanced Guitar. [Online]. Available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPHAXM7az1Q
[g] Marcelovid. (2010, October 10) MacBook Pro +
Wiimote + Guitar. [Online]. Available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahiP8uFaqA&feature=r
elated
[h] Rayhan314. (2010, October 10) IPod Touch As MIDI
Controller. [Online]. Available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_G8hwjuug0
[2] P. Cook, “Principles for designing computer music
controllers,” Proceedings of the 2001 conference on New
interfaces for musical expression, 2001, pp. 1–4.
[3] G. Carfoot, “Acoustic, Electric and Virtual Noise: The
Cultural Identity of the Guitar,” Leonardo music journal,
2006, pp. 35–39.
[4] A. J. Millard, The Electric Guitar: a History of an
American Icon. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University
Press, 2004,
[5] “Musicians, Singers, and Related Workers.” United States
Occupational Outlook Handbook 2010-2011 [Online].
Available: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos095.htm.
[Accessed: 15-Nov-2010].
[6] H. Quine, Guitar Technique: Intermediate to Advanced.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2002,
[7] J. Ängeslevä, S. O’Modhrain, I. Oakley, and S. Hughes,
“Body Mnemonics,” in Mobile HCI Conference, vol. 16,
2003.
[8] Y. Landman, “Perfect Sound Forever: Experimental String multitouch-guitar-plus-an-open-source-iphone-solution-
Instruments,” Dec-2008. [Online]. Available: too/#more-9485
http://www.furious.com/perfect/experimentalstringinstrume [16] J. Carrascal. (2010, October 10) Look, Ma, No Wiimote!
nts.html. [Accessed: 08-Oct-2010]. [Online]. Available: http://jpcarrascal.com/blog/?p=202
[9] C. Gagne. (2010, October 10) Grove Music Online: Branca, [17] C. Traube, P. Depalle, and M. Wanderley, "Indirect
Glenn. [Online]. Available: Acquisition of Instrumental Gesture Based on Signal,
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.proxy.lib.ul.ie/subscrib Physical and Perceptual Information," Proceedings of the
er/article/grove/music/[21]732?q=glenn+branca&search=q 2003 conference on New interfaces for musical expression,
uick&pos=1&_start=1 2003, pp. [21] - 47.
[10] H. Tammen, “Endangered guitar,” in Proceedings of the 7th [18] L. Reboursiere, C. Frisson, O. Lähdeoja, J.A. Mills III, C.
international conference on New interfaces for musical Picard, and T. Todoroff, “Multimodal Guitar: A Toolbox
expression, p. 482, 2007. http://www.tammen.org/ For Augmented Guitar Performances.”
[11] N. Collins. (2010, October 9) A Brief History of the [19] D. Hindman, “Modal Kombat: Competition and
Backwards Electric Guitar. [Online]. Available: Choreography in Synesthetic Musical Performance,” in
http://www.nicolascollins.com/texts/BackwardsElectricGui Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on New Interfaces for
tar.pdf Musical Expression (NIME06), Paris, 2006.
[12] N. Bouillot, M. Wozniewski, Z. Settel, and J.R. [20] E. Guaus, T. Ozaslan, E. Palacios, and J. Arcos, “A left
Cooperstock, “A mobile wireless augmented guitar,” hand gesture caption system for guitar based on capacitive
International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical sensors,” Proceedings of NIME, 2010, pp. 238–243.
Expression, Genova, Italy, 2008. pp 189 - 192 [21] B. Bongers, “Electronic musical Instruments: Experiences
[13] A. Jones. (2010, October 10) Inventing The Future. of a new Luthier,” Leonardo Music Journal, 2007, pp. 9–
[Online]. Available: 16.
http://thephoenix.com/boston/life/82943-inventing-the- [22] W.A. Schloss, “Using contemporary technology in live
future/ performance: The dilemma of the performer,” Journal of
[14] O. Lähdeoja, “An approach to instrument augmentation: the New Music Research, vol. 32, 2003, pp. 239–242.
electric guitar,” Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on
New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME08), 2008.
[15] P. Kirn. (2010, October 9) Create Digital Music - Touch:
Meet the Multitouch Guitar – Plus An Open Source, IPhone
Solution, Too. [Online]. Available:
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2010/02/11/touch-meet-the-