Technology-in-use as script

The script perspective (Akrich Reference Akrich, Bijker and Law1992) has been accepted within the STS research community as useful for analysing the social construction of technology on a user level. The term script is suggested by Akrich (Reference Akrich, Bijker and Law1992) for the analysis of the relationship between users and technologies. Like a film script, ‘technical objects define a framework of action together with the actors and the space in which they are supposed to act’ (Akrich Reference Akrich, Bijker and Law1992, p. 208). A study applying the script perspective will focus on how designers of technical objects ‘define the users with specific tastes, competences, motives, aspirations, political prejudices’, and so on. A major task for innovators is therefore that of ‘inscribing’ a vision of the world in the technical content of a new object (Akrich Reference Akrich, Bijker and Law1992). One of the analytical strengths in the script perspective is the way it proposes active and well-informed users and designers, as opposed to a more conservative view of users as consumers (Thrall Reference Thrall1982). In the script perspective, the designer of a technical artefact is supposed to imagine the object as used by its user in the future, and this scenario will be applied by the designer for instance to make ‘decisions about what should be delegated to a machine and what should be left to the initiative of human actors’ (Akrich Reference Akrich, Bijker and Law1992, p. 216). Users, on the other hand, interpret the meaning of technical artefacts in various ways. Some users will apply devices in ways that do not diverge too radically from those predicted by the designer, and according to Akrich, it is then ‘likely that the script will become a major element for interpreting interaction between the object and its users’ (Akrich Reference Akrich, Bijker and Law1992, p. 216). However, many users will tend to use devices in other ways than predicted by the designer. In Akrich's (Reference Akrich, Bijker and Law1992) terms, these users will not follow the script. Other scholars have suggested an extension of the script perspective, for example Gjøen and Hård (Reference Gjøen and Hård2002) who apply the term ‘user scripts’ to the way electric vehicle owners drive and view ‘automobility’ differently than the established ‘political and engineering scripts’. In this study of Groovebox users it seems relevant to look for the designer's script in the physical presentation of the Groovebox and in the way it is promoted, and user scripts in the way users take up the Groovebox in their music-making activities.

A problem with the script perspective is that it presents the representation of the user ‘as a one-time static view constructed by the developers of a technology in the design phase of its life cycle’ (Lindsey Reference Lindsey, Oudshoorn and Pinch2003, p. 31). Based on the analysis of users of the TRS-80 computer from 1977 until today, Lindsay (Reference Lindsey, Oudshoorn and Pinch2003) concludes that user representations are developed throughout the life history of a technology and also by the users themselves, as opposed to the views of Akrich (Reference Akrich, Bijker and Law1992) and Woolgar (Reference Woolgar and Law1991), who consider projections and configurations of users being only related to designers' work in the initial design process of technologies. Hence, the script and configuring the user perspectives ‘conceptualise the successes and failures of technologies mainly in terms of the extent to which designers adequately anticipate users' skills and behaviour’ (Oudshoorn and Pinch Reference Oudshoorn and Pinch2003, p. 15). Perhaps one may apply the notion of usage trajectory to the dynamically constructed user representations throughout a specific technological artefact's life history, such as that studied by Lindsay (Reference Lindsey, Oudshoorn and Pinch2003). In this article I suggest the notion of different user trajectories, to represent how individual users (re-)construct their musical identity and work practice with the Groovebox over time. According to Dosi, a technological trajectory may be defined as ‘the pattern of “normal” problem solving activity on the ground of a technological paradigm’ (Dosi Reference Dosi1982, p. 152). One may imagine the technological trajectory as a ‘cluster of possible technological directions whose outer boundaries are defined by the nature of the [technological] paradigm itself’ (Dosi Reference Dosi1982, p. 154). I suggest that a user trajectory may be thought of as an individual (or collective) development of use of a specific technological artefact. Users may well construct user trajectories that include construction of new user scripts, or develop their practices within an already established script.

While many personal technologies, or gadgets, like PDAs and the recent Apple iPhone, are sold on the basis of high ‘desirability’ (Bruner and Kumar Reference Bruner and Kumar2007), users end up using technologies differently, on the basis of their daily practices, knowledge, interests, social networks, support, and so on. The initial idea of why a specific technology would be useful (as anticipated from a distance) may not very well be reflected in the specific (daily) use situation when the technology later has been acquired. A user trajectory may for one Groovebox user include waiting-enthusiastically, playing-around-with-it, being-disappointed, finding-advice-on-the-Internet, narrowing-to-one-advanced-use, and so on. As I will rehearse in the discussion, a user trajectory may therefore tie various scripts together over time for each technology user.

While STS perspectives mainly include notions of technologies as socially constructed, musicological perspectives have taken a very different approach to the role of music technologies. Several researchers and performers in this area have explored and discussed the role of the computer in music composition and performance for over twenty years.

Making music with machines

In the literature about the role of computers within musicology there is a more or less common understanding of the computer as a tool for making music, or for mediating the musical idea of a composer. ‘From a musical point of view, computers turn abstractions into concrete perceptions. Computers are of interest to musicians, therefore, not in themselves but insofar as they provide a vital link between musical imagination and reality’ (Moore Reference Moore1990, p. 5). A number of different configurations between composer and computer are suggested, computer-assisted composer, computer-composer (Moore Reference Moore1990, p. 398), the latter on the basis of stochastic or predetermined elements (Dodge and Jerse Reference Dodge and Jerse1985, p. 265), a method also used by W.A. Mozart, J. Haydn and C.P.E. Bach in ‘Dice Music’ (Loy Reference Loy, Mathews and Pierce1989, p. 302), whereas Johann Joseph Fux in 1725 used a ‘Counterpoint Solver’ as a composing machine (Schotterstaedt Reference Schottstaedt, Mathews and Pierce1989). Set-ups have included performers for real-time controlling or interacting with computers (Dodge and Jerse Reference Dodge and Jerse1985, pp. 331–2) and direct sound specification (Moore Reference Moore1990, p. 398). In the history of music, several (mathematically based) musical algorithms have been developed, such as Micrologus (in Guido D'Arezzo in 1026), Affligemesis' rules (ca 1130), isorhythm (by Philipp de Vitry in the thirteenth century), the canon (in the Netherlands around 1450), musical acrostics (for instance by J.S. Bach in the Bb-A-C-H theme in the Art of the Fugue), the Componium (by D. Winkel in 1821), serialism (Schönberg, Berg and Webern in the twentieth century), principled composition and Musamaton (by Joseph Schillinger and Leon Theremin in the 1930s and early 1940s), formalised music (by Iannis Xenakis from the early 1950s), experimental music (such as Hiller's ‘Illiac Suite’ from 1957, based on use of the Illiac computer at the University of Illinois) and deterministic compositional automata (for instance by Max Mathews in the 1960s) (Loy Reference Loy, Mathews and Pierce1989, pp. 297–311; Roads Reference Roads and Roads1985, p. xiv). Hence, composers have for the last thousand years been exploiting opportunities to automate or semi-automate composing by developing algorithms and implementing these on mechanical machines or computers.

Another interesting line of thought that has been brought forward and implemented in computer music is the development of ‘composing automata’ that may achieve new musical results within a style that is loaded into a computer program (Cope Reference Cope1991). A musical work in the style of Bach may then be created on the basis of a dictionary of chords, melodies and rhythms from Bach together with other stochastic operations built into the program (Cope Reference Cope1991, p. 18). The MC303 Groovebox represents one variant of such ‘style-reproducing’ composing automata, as promoted by Roland, the manufacturer.

The Roland MC303 Groovebox

Introduced in the early 1980s, the Roland TR-808 and TR-909 Rhythm Composers and the TB-303 Bassline were programmable machines that used analogue sound synthesis to produce rhythms and bass and drum sounds. The drum sounds that such machines produced only resembled actual drum sounds, so when digital rhythm machines came out in the mid-1980s, machines that used ‘new’ digital technology to play back samples of ‘real’ drum sounds, the Roland TR-808 and TR-909 lost much of their popularity and ended up in pawn shops and second-hand musical instrument stores. Searching for affordable drum machines and musical instruments, early rap and techno musicians were often relegated to second-hand bins and pawnshops (Alien Underground website).Footnote ¹ Many of these groundbreaking artists ended up using the quirky, analogue drum sounds of the then-outdated 808 and 909, a fact that was a factor in defining the sound of these genres. The records that these early hip-hop and electro-funk artists (such as Run DMC, LL Cool J, Afrika Bambaata & the Soulsonic Force, and Grandmaster Flash) produced became seminal works of rap/hip-hop and early techno. The sounds of these old Roland rhythm machines became closely associated with these emerging musical styles (Alien Underground website). Ten years later, in the mid-1990s, the rap and techno styles had become mainstream and developed into various sub-styles. Roland now anticipated there would be a market for an upgraded composing machine, with a similar way of working and with copies of the original sounds, but with digital sound generation, hence better programming stability. Representing one element at the beginning of a period of ‘analog fetish’ (Berk Reference Berk and Shapiro2000, p. 200), the MC303 Groovebox was introduced in 1996.

The Roland Corporation, the manufacturer of the Groovebox, described the MC303 in the following way:

We can note from this passage that the MC303 Groovebox appeared at a time in which the ‘bandness’ of popular music was being challenged (for instance with the popularity of DJs) and when digital sound generation was becoming accessible for amateur musicians and composers on low budgets. The new device was extensively marketed, as the manufacturer's description shows, to hit a growing market of would-be music composers/producers ‘with little or no musical training’.

Research methods

In this article I will present data collected during observation of a closed Internet discussion group concerned with the MC303 Groove Box, and via an e-mail-mediated qualitative questionnaire. The MC303 Yahoo Group was established in August 2000 and had at the end of 2005 798 members and approximately 2000 posted messages. All postings in the years 2001–2005 were recorded by using Yahoo Group's digest service. Further, in August 2001, I posted an invitation to members in the discussion group to participate in a questionnaire study with mostly open-ended questions about the use of the Groovebox, reasons for using it, expectations of it, limitations of use, other experiences from the use of the Groovebox, as well as musical style and changes in these. In general, the questionnaire was aimed at collecting users' experiences of composing and performing with the Groovebox, as well as their reflections on how the use of the instrument may have changed the way they composed and/or performed music. These issues had very rarely been mentioned within the user group discussion. To attract respondents, I announced that they would be entered into a random prize draw of CDs to the value of $100. This resulted in thirteen informants (two women and eleven men), with an average age of thirty (nineteen to forty-nine), and with an average experience of using the MC303 Groovebox of 2.3 years (6 months – 5 years). Although the response was low, all thirteen respondents had elaborated on the questions in the questionnaire quite extensively with the effect of adding more focused empirical material to the discussion group data.

Ethical issues concerning research on the Internet involve several features that are different from social research in the ‘real world’: these include blurred distinctions between public and private domains, ease of anonymity or pseudonymity, geographical dispersion of users, ease of recording communication, and the opportunity to track participants technologically (Mann Reference Mann and Thorseth2003, p. 32). In the observation of the MC303 discussion group, the blurred public–private distinction is especially interesting. On one hand, it is possible to argue that discussion in a Yahoo Group is within the public sphere, in which research normally may take place without informed consent from participants. On the other hand, although private communication takes place in public places, these interactions are not necessarily open to (and intended for) external observers (Mann and Stewart Reference Mann and Stewart2000, p. 46). Even though some users are more active than other users in the MC303 discussion group, postings are generally addressed to all users as such, as for public consumption (Paccagnella Reference Paccagnella1997). Moreover, the forum is public in the sense that anyone may join the group. When reporting from the MC303 discussion group I have nevertheless referred to relevant positions represented in discussions by using pseudonyms. The overall aim is to protect participants from being exploited for research purposes and thereby to make sure that social researchers will still be welcomed as observers and participants in Internet discussions groups.

The sound of the Groovebox

The respondents in the questionnaire study use the Groovebox in various ways, and there is no single use that stands out significantly from the rest. However, the most popular use of the Groovebox among my respondents (10/13) is as a composition tool together with other instruments. Within the discussion group, there are many questions and suggestions on how to communicate between different hardware or software and the Groovebox. Several respondents also used the Groovebox as a stand-alone composition tool (7), sound module (7) and live instrument (6), but only a few of them used it as a sequencer with other MIDI instruments (4) and as a source for sampling (2), and none used it as a DJ instrument. The questionnaire respondents seem to use the Groovebox in a greater variety of ways than discussion group participants, who would often use the Groovebox as a sample source. We cannot generate from this a distribution of usage modes among Groovebox users in general, and can conclude only that there are many different forms of usage among our group of respondents.

As promoted by the manufacturer, it is the retro style sound library within the unit that forms the most important basis for its use, and many of the respondents indeed report that the sounds were the most attractive aspect of the Groovebox.

So, for many respondents, the Groovebox offers, in one reasonably priced package, a set of classic synth sounds that have been given a renaissance because of new musical styles. Moreover, these sounds have been put together with a sequencer for programming tunes sequentially, as well as knob and key controllers to ‘tweak’ sounds as one goes. As the Groovebox is directed towards amateur, less-experienced users, the price tag (around £100 in 2008) is of great importance.

Using the Groovebox

There seem to be three main uses of the Groovebox; as a composition tool, as a live instrument, and as a module in a home studio setup. One of the most obvious characteristics of the Groovebox, which is promoted both by the producer and reported by the respondents, is the all-in-one concept. The Groovebox makes it possible for users to compose and produce music on their own without having a complete studio at their disposal.

Many users have a background in rock bands. They acknowledge the freedom of being able to make arrangements without having to bring in the whole band.

Hence, the immediate use of the MC303 is as a stand-alone composer's tool, for playing around with rhythmical and tonal patterns, turning and twisting of filter knobs, and internally recording sound settings and control parameters as they are manipulated. One important facility of the Groovebox is the organisation of patterns, some of them pre-programmed from the factory and others for the users to program. This structure lets users prepare patterns that they can mix and manipulate in a live performance. The interface enables users to create and experience their own ‘jam-sessions’, combining tracks and patterns they have programmed or that are pre-programmed from the factory. Real-time controls, without having to run through menus, facilitate live performances with the Groovebox. Six of the thirteen respondents report that they use the Groovebox in live situations.

The important facility for using the Groovebox live is the combination of easy (intuitive) user interface, good sounds and portability. In acknowledging the Groovebox as a live instrument, users compare the Groovebox on the first hand with computers, which may be more flexible in the composition process, but usually with more cumbersome user interfaces,Footnote ³ and on the other hand with DJing, in which the user has less flexibility regarding which, and how many, tracks to put together, but a very immediate user interface (vinyl records, two turntables and a mixer). In the live situation, however, the user also needs to handle some of the limitations of the Groovebox.

In addition to limitations of programming, users report a range of limitations of the Groovebox that relate to limited communication with other instruments. The most commonly used connection between electronic music instruments is MIDI.Footnote ⁴ However, users discover rather soon that the Groovebox's MIDI interface is very limited, that preset patterns may not sound good enough, that there are too few editing options for the internal sounds, and that memory is extremely limited.

Several of the respondents address the problem of setting up the MC303 Groovebox, for example, in a home studio and making it communicate with other instruments and computers. For efficient communication between units, the Groovebox would need to have a more well-developed MIDI implementation to send and receive control signals to and from other musical instruments and a computer. This means that the most intuitive aspect of the Groovebox of tweaking sounds in real time with on-board knobs is not available when controlling the box from other instruments. Several respondents report that the MIDI implementation is one of the most serious limitations of the Groovebox.

The communication problem is a serious one since most musicians using electronic equipment need to have several separate units synchronised. All modern electronic musical instruments (synthesizers, drum machines, sequencers, and so on) have MIDI connections. However, different instruments vary in the ‘depth’ of the MIDI implementation, for instance which control parameters are MIDI-controllable. Users that plan to use the Groovebox to control other sound sources via MIDI might have to revise such plans because of limitations in the Groovebox.

The MIDI limitations are quite serious compared to various other newer products in the same category. However, as my respondents have reported, there are ways around some of the problems and there are conveniences with the Groovebox that at least some users seem to appreciate.

The Groovebox as a change agent

One important question is in what way buying and starting to use a Groovebox is part of a strategy for changing how users want to produce music or the kind of music they compose. Ten of the thirteen respondents reported that using the Groovebox had changed their music, or their compositional process. Of these, six respondents reported a deliberate change, or a strategy, of which the Groovebox was part. Such changes included musical style and performance venue.

The other four respondents suggested that the Groovebox imposed more accidental or unintended changes:

These respondents discovered that the use of the Groovebox imposed a change on their musical style. Other users saw that the Groovebox led them into totally different musical genres than they could perform previously, and also that the Groovebox fostered an interest and appreciation of these genres.

The respondent attributes a kind of will or deliberate direction to the Groovebox, which helped him integrate multiple instruments and appreciate other kinds of music than punk. Hence the user acknowledges and applies the designer's script as communicated through advertisements, manuals and the physical layout of the Groovebox itself, to move in a particular musical direction. A key point here is that the limitations of the Groovebox may actually be applied in a strategic way to direct musical development towards specific genres. As the title of this article suggests, the Groovebox may be a technologically mediated inspiration to move music-making into the electronic dance scene.

In contrast to this view, some respondents see the Groovebox as ‘just another tool in [one's] arsenal’ (resp-8) and not as something that directs creativity. The idea of the Groovebox as a tool reflects this emphasis on the task (of making a song from a musical idea) that exists independently of the tool itself. However, as mentioned by a majority of the respondents, obtaining the Groovebox is often part of a musical change strategy, indicating that the Groovebox is more than a tool. The task (the song or the type of music) is then not given independently of the Groovebox, but expected to be ‘the effect of the box on [the user's] inspiration’ (resp-5). The Groovebox may be regarded as invisible as technology, and therefore ‘absorbed wholly into those that play them as expressive extensions of the performing body’ (Gilbert and Pearson Reference Gilbert and Pearson1999, p. 112), like the electric guitar in a rock aesthetic. This leads us to the question about the stylesFootnote ⁵ of music within which the respondents apply the Groovebox. The respondents themselves label their music in various ways, ‘house, techno, trance’; ‘electronic music’; ‘tranceydanceytechnodiscore’; ‘rock/pop/electronic’; ‘ambient’; ‘jazz’; ‘electronica’; and ‘trance/hardcore/funk/uplifting’. The genres that the users are committed to are closely related to those suggested by the designer of the instrument, ‘techno, rap, jungle, hip-hop, acid and other dance styles’ (Roland website). In that sense, the designers have effectively scripted a dance music ‘composer’ into the Groovebox.

However, three respondents (1, 5, 8) had the notion of the Groovebox as a ‘tool’ that did not change their music. This statement may be interpreted in several ways. First, one may assume that these users already produced music very close to the styles suggested by the instrument designer. Second, the Groovebox may be used alongside other instruments, giving the Groovebox less ‘impact’ on the overall sound from a user's production. Third, one may assume that some users are not willing to admit how the use of a specific piece of technology may have influenced their musical style. This argument derives from the idea of art as an expression of personal creativity and inspiration, rather than a result of putting together prefabricated ‘building blocks’ of sound from a commercially available machine. It does not mean, however, that these users did not acknowledge the Groovebox as an aid for realising this personal creativity. It is also interesting to note that one of the respondents (resp-13 cited above) was hoping for a change that did not happen. This situation could be understood as the user having a very strongly established musical style, within which he or she will compose with any sort of instrument.

User trajectories

Analysis of the interactions within the discussion group reveals a polarisation of uses of the Groovebox. Some experienced users put much effort into developing software to support communication between the Groovebox and their computers, while other users either use the Groovebox as a stand-alone instrument, as a sample source, or they stop using it.

A phenomenon that stands out as important is how users may totally alter their practice with the device during a long period of usage. After a while some users develop the desire to have the Groovebox communicate with other devices and software in a larger setup. In general, many respondents report that this integration is problematic and turns into a disappointment. However, other users conclude after some usage that the Groovebox is useful, despite serious limitations, as long as one does not ‘challenge’ the unit's limitations dramatically, but rather finds ways around the problems. On the question of the motivation for using the Groovebox, one of my respondents replied:

Instead of producing whole songs on the unit, within the promoted all-in-one concept, this user applies the Groovebox as a sound module. But with limited MIDI capabilities, the user has chosen not to integrate the Groovebox-as-sound-module through the MIDI standard, as other modules. Rather, the user creates sound material for sampling with the Groovebox, hence working around the unit's limited capability by applying other instruments in his setup (i.e. sampler, sequencer and keyboard) to play back some of the sampled Groovebox sounds.

Although the Roland MC303 Groovebox has serious limitations, there is a potential in the unit that may not have to do with sound quality, programming flexibility, inter-system communication or expandability, but rather the portability, the immediate interface (knobs and buttons instead of a computer mouse, as well as immediate sound response) and the all-in-one concept. The Groovebox may, for instance, act as a MIDI sound source, but only in combination with a sequencer, and, as reported here, with more limitations and working-around-problems than were promoted by Roland. To use the Groovebox as a sound source for sampling, however, would for most users imply less synchronisation pain, but loss of flexibility since sounds from the Groovebox would be ‘conserved’ as audio samples. An important observation is that, whereas the sound-module-by-MIDI strategy is promoted by the manufacturer, the sound-module-by-audio strategy is not. That leads us to a discussion of scripts.

Within the script perspective (Akrich Reference Akrich, Bijker and Law1992) we may analyse how users apply technological artefacts differently from what was intended by the designers. In this study, the designer script is articulated by the manufacturer's description of the unit, as well as the unit itself. In promoting the Groovebox, the Roland company has focused on the all-in-one concept, but also promised other functionalities, for instance as MIDI sound module (sound-module-by-MIDI script), that have only to a limited degree been implemented. Even in such a narrowly dedicated instrument as the MC303 Groovebox, the designer script has to be both discovered, tested, and further refined, or challenged, by the users.

As many of the respondents have reported, testing the sound-module-by-MIDI designer script may include disappointing discoveries of serious limitations. However, these discoveries provoke potentially different user trajectories. Some users accept the limitations, and may find themselves comfortably working with the Groovebox close to a designer script, or applying an accept-limitations-and-use-Groovebox-for-quick-sketches script. Other users, however, work around the problem by applying the sound-module-by-audio script. In this case, the user trajectory is represented by the move from the sound-module-by-MIDI (designer) script to the sound-module-by-audio (user) script. In general, users may go through several different usages during their use of the Groovebox. Many users will incorporate an immediate all-in-one usage, getting to know the sounds and how to program the sequencer, either by playing around with the interface or by following the step-by-step introduction, which is part of the ‘getting started’ user manual. Many users never leave this form of usage. For some of these users, the Groovebox will be the only unit they possess that is related to music composition and production. These users stay with the all-in-one script, as a static use concept (Lindsay Reference Lindsey, Oudshoorn and Pinch2003), but may well develop very good skills during long time practice within this script. Users in this study, however, have generally a more developed use of the Groovebox, as expressed by their membership of the Yahoo user group. In the user group discussion, there seems to be a polarisation of users and an underlying conflict between new users' expectations and need for help and the advanced users' interests in developing software to communicate with the Groovebox on a system command level, more within a culture of enthusiast tinkering (Waksman Reference Waksman2004).

The users in the discussion group have constructed, and still construct, different user trajectories, as they move back and forth between modes of usage. New users have usually started within an all-in-one script, but may try to get help from the discussion group to move into the sound-module-by-MIDI script. But also advanced users might move back to the more immediate, although limited, all-in-one script.

The disappointing discovery of the Groovebox's technical limitations, for example when it comes to MIDI communication or programmability, makes the Groovebox less useful for some users than they may have imagined. The imagined sound-module-by-MIDI script may fail and the users re-incorporate the Groovebox as an all-in-one unit, ‘sitting with the unit on one's lap’, constructing the accept-limitations-and-use-Groovebox-for-quick-sketches script. Other users extend the all-in-one script, by using other equipment in their setup (for example a sampler and sequencer), incorporating a sound-module-by-audio script, by which they apply the all-in-one appeal of the Groovebox to generate sound, but at the same time integrating the sampled Groovebox sound (not the box in itself) in a larger setup, and thereby working-around the sound-module-by-MIDI hassle.

That great feeling: discussion

By applying the script perspective in the Groovebox case, we have identified two designer scripts, the all-in-one and the sound-module-by-MIDI scripts, and two user scripts, the sound-module-by-audio and the accept-limitations-and-use-Groovebox-for-quick-sketches scripts. I have also shown how the sound-module-by-audio user script comes about because of a limited MIDI implementation, although these capabilities have been promoted as part of the instrument. For technological artefacts such as the Groovebox, most users will conform to usage modes, or scripts, that are closely related to those suggested by the designer, such as the all-in-one concept. The all-in-one script is well developed and the main selling feature of the Groovebox: it is where the Groovebox, for most users, is still ahead of available competing technical solutions in the same second-hand price range. A main argument for the success (of this script) has to do with the fairly simple interface, with immediate sound as a reward for the novice user. In that sense the Groovebox applies the idea that novice users may produce a musically sensible output. In support of this, Bamberger (Reference Bamberger2003) has demonstrated that musically untrained college students may produce ‘sensible tunes’ by using interactive musical computer software with immediate sound feedback. From a Human–Computer Interaction perspective, Jordà (Reference Jordà2002) and Robson (Reference Robson2002) demonstrate how intuitive user interfaces may provide possibilities for musical performance for people at all levels of technical proficiency, using computer-based and manual/electronic controllers, respectively. A basic principle, as advocated by Jordà (Reference Jordà2002), is to design intuitive user interfaces, such as shown by Norman (Reference Norman1990) in the case of scissors. Although the MC303 Groovebox is (probably for most people) less immediate than a pair of scissors, the way dedicated knobs and buttons are laid out makes it possible for users to produce sound quickly, which is not necessarily the case when composing on computers, for instance. To apply this all-in-one script with the immediate sound, without too much hassle, seems to satisfy a (perhaps downwards adjusted) user requirement, also congruent with the idea of music as a social activity rather than the result of a few genius composers (Small Reference Small1996).

Many of my questionnaire respondents are quite experienced with using the Groovebox (over half of them with more than two years of experience), but they seem to come back to an all-in-one script, reframed as an accept-limitations-and-use-Groovebox-for-quick-sketches script, often in combination with a sound-module-by-audio script (which is based on sound produced in the all-in-one script). The portability of the Groovebox is part of the all-in-one concept and makes it a potential ‘constant companion’ (Schiffer Reference Schiffer1991, p. 4), within a home-based do-it-yourself recording culture. In a similar way that personal stereos create individual privatised listening spaces (Bull Reference Bull2000), the Groovebox may provide a privatised space for composition, needing no extra equipment than headphones. Hence, the all-in-one concept also facilitates a growing individualisation of popular music production, which is a more general trend (Taylor Reference Taylor2001).

This strategy, also adopted by experienced users, of moving back to the all-in-one script, may be a reaction to the hassle with having the Groovebox synchronise to other instruments in a larger setup, but may also be seen in relation to the ever more complex tasks of making several other units (synthesizers, drum machines, computer hardware and software) work together. The increased possibilities of working with music entirely on the computer has eliminated some of the hassles with synchronisation of external units, but has still pushed many amateur would-be-musicians to spend more of their time trying to solve technical issues to make hardware and software work together, as well as test an endlessness of software demos, ‘warez’ (cracked software), freeware and shareware. As noted by Cook,

Cook (Reference Cook2001) argues that a technical artefact, in this case a musical instrument, may be more than a tool. For many of the Groovebox users, this instrument is the only way to make music. The technical artefact is in this case more an inspiration than a tool only, as it defines the composition process and the musical output, rather than only mediating a musical idea that was conceived independently of the instrument. In the beginning of this article, I referred to the computer music literature to identify the tradition of making music by mathematically defined algorithms, as well as the interest in using computers to perform such mathematical algorithms (‘computer-composer’) or assist a composer in other ways (‘computer-assisted composer’) (Moore Reference Moore1990). In the sense that this musicological literature refers to technical artefacts as part of the compositional process, of conceiving as well as mediating ideas, these scholars support the idea that technology may be a prerequisite for defining and generating specific musical ideas. This is not to turn to technological determinism, but to acknowledge that some musical ideas may not be conceived without specific technologies. Still, it is the human composer's work with the technical artefact that produces the results, which means that different users will produce different results with the same piece of equipment. The script perspective is compatible with this idea in contemporary electronic music, namely that composers develop and apply special technologies as a ‘framework of [compositional] action’ (Akrich Reference Akrich, Bijker and Law1992, p. 208). The Groovebox is designed for specific genres, to which most of the users conform, as a strategy or because of perceived restrictions (designer scripts) of the Groovebox. However, this does not imply that another user could not produce music with the Groovebox that is far from the musical styles for which it was made (alternative user scripts).

Although the user manual for the Groovebox provides information for the more advanced user, such as MIDI implementation charts, lists of system messages, parameter address maps and so on, a user group may, in addition, exchange problem-solving hints and tips, programs and user presets as well as shareware/freeware help-programs for computers. As mentioned by Lindsay (Reference Lindsey, Oudshoorn and Pinch2003) in the case of TRS-80 computer enthusiasts, the Internet provides an arena for a community where users may swap ideas, solve problems and develop software for a product, for which the manufacturer has terminated technical support. The MC303 user group interaction reflects both a democratic rationalisation (Feenberg Reference Feenberg1999) and domestication (Lie and Sørensen Reference Lie, Sørensen, Sørensen and Lie1996, p. 13), in which users are active towards systemic qualities of the process through which technology is consumed. For ‘special interest’ technologies, such as the Groovebox, support groups are important sources for the users to develop new user scripts, for instance by the way they provide suggestions to each other's creative use of technologies. Individual use of technology, and the development of such use, may therefore be seen as a collective effort.

The study of musical instruments such as the Groovebox can provide some insight in how users look for a ‘change agent’ and inspiration in a particular technical artefact, or an affordance (Hutchby Reference Hutchby2001) of musical evolution, accepting a technological shaping of the composition (Brech Reference Brech and Braun2002, p. 211). The strong-held anti-technology-determinist notions within STS (science and technology studies) that technologies are socially constructed (Pinch and Bijker Reference Pinch, Bijker, Bijker, Hughes and Pinch1987) or shaped (MacKenzie and Wajcman Reference MacKenzie and Wajcman1999) have been important. However, STS researchers may have been too persistent in arguing against the relevance of inherent immediate inspirational ‘affordances’ in technological artefacts. Certainly, the social context of technologies-in-use influences how they are applied. But the caution against accepting a technological shaping of creative practice may have obstructed sound analyses of the role of artefacts and tools in a number of areas.

This study has documented the dynamic aspect of the use of technological artefacts, as the users move back and forth between various scripts, constructing different user trajectories. By an array of experiences with the Groovebox – facilitation, limitation, exploitation and liberation – the enthusiast users move between various usage modes or scripts, constructing their personal user trajectories. Consequently, a fairly simple electronic music instrument like the MC303 Groovebox may also support experienced composers in their work within an accept-limitations-and-use-Groovebox-for-quick-sketches script. The potential for creative autonomy in the use of the Groovebox therefore seems to be related to the development of a user trajectory leading to usage modes in which users may be liberated by the technology's limitations rather than fighting them. This insight into how users' interpretations of limited technical possibilities can change during long-term usage may explain how and why different enthusiast users come to hate and love the same piece of technology.