Journal website: http://tandc.ac.nz
ISSN 2382-0349
Published by the Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research
Teachers and Curriculum
________________________________________________________________________________
Volume 22 Issue 2, 2022.
Special Issue: The Arts in the classroom: Advocacy, theory and practice
Rethinking music technology pedagogy: A New Zealand focus
Fabio Morreale
Special Issue Editors: Millie Locke, Robyn Ewing and Terry Locke
To cite this article: Morreale, F. (2022). Rethinking music technology pedagogy: A New Zealand focus. Teachers and Curriculum,
22(2), 127–133. https://doi.org/10.15663/tandc.v22i2.404
To link to this volume: https://doi.org/10.15663/tandc.v22i2
Copyright of articles
Authors retain copyright of their publications.
Articles are subject to the Creative commons license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode
Summary of the Creative Commons license.
Author and users are free to
Share—copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt—remix, transform, and build upon the material
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms
Attribution—You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were
made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or
your use
Non-Commercial—You may not use the material for commercial purposes
ShareAlike—If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under
the same license as the original
No additional restrictions – You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict
others from doing anything the license permits.
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely
available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
Corresponding author:
Fabio Morreale [email protected]
ISSN: 2382-0349
Pages. 127–133
RETHINKING MUSIC TECHNOLOGY PEDAGOGY: A NEW ZEALAND FOCUS
FABIO MORREALE
School of Music, University of Auckland
New Zealand
Abstract
In the creative sector, "music technology" refers to a wide range of musical practices, tools and devices
enabled or facilitated by computers. Yet the music technology curriculum in New Zealand, as in other
parts of the world, is dominated by two specific tools: commercial Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs)
and notation software. In this chapter, I problematise this limitation by showing the pedagogical issues
deriving from this exclusive model and by unpacking the ideological substrate of these tools, which is
firmly grounded on neoliberal practices and principles. My analysis covers the ontology of these tools—
what they are, what they do—and their business model. I then compare these tools against alternative
approaches to music technology based on free-to-use, open-source software and programming
languages based on principles of inclusion, collaboration and creative exploration.
Keywords
Open-source pedagogy; neo-colonialism; politics of music technology; DAW
Introduction
Music technology is an umbrella term that comprises various computer tools (software and hardware)
used to compose, produce and perform music. Some of the most common of these tools and practices
are digital audio workstations (DAWs); notation software; programming languages for sound design,
algorithmic composition and live coding; modular synthesisers; interactive and audiovisual
installations; circuit bending; and embedded hardware for music instrument design. Despite this wide
range of tools, most pre-tertiary and tertiary music technology courses in New Zealand are limited to
teaching students how to use DAWs and notation software.
i
DAWs are the most widespread software
for modern music production, as they generally package in a single solution all that is needed for the
various phases of production: recording, editing, mixing and mastering. Their success is also linked to
the idiomatic composition techniques available in DAWs, particularly sampling and looping, and to
their seamless integration with MIDI devices, audio plugins and sound libraries that allow one to easily
manipulate acoustic components of the song being produced. Notation software is a necessary tool for
classical composers and performers, as they are de facto augmented scores, i.e., surrogates, with added
functionalities or paper-based scores. These two tools are thus originally designed to be used by a subset
of musicians—producers and composers—and to create or support the creation of specific musical
aesthetics.
The dominance of these two specific tools in music technology syllabi is problematic, as they influence
students’ expectations of what music technology is or should be. The aim of this chapter is to initiate a
long overdue discussion about the narrowness of our offering in the field. If we fail to engage in this
discussion, we implicitly support the current one-sided view of the field.
I will leverage this narrowness to introduce a more far-reaching and problematic aspect of our music
technology curriculum: the closed-source, commercial nature of (most) DAWs and notation software
commonly taught in schools and universities. Closed-source software
ii
is for-profit proprietary
(commercially licensed and protected) computer programs based on a centralised model. Users interact
with the software via an interface but cannot access the underlying code, in which the functionalities of
the program are inscribed.
128 Fabio Morreale
Teachers and Curriculum, Volume 22, Issue 2, 2022: Special Issue: The Arts in the classroom:
Advocacy, theory and practice
An alternative model is offered by open-source software. As opposed to closed software, the underlying
code is open: anyone can access it. Importantly, open-source is not only a matter of access but also of
contribution. Its model is decentralised; thus, anyone who has coding experience can indeed contribute
to improving the code or create derivative versions (technically, a separate instance or fork). In most
cases, open-source solutions are completely free. The most commonly used open-source music
technology tools are programming languages such as SuperCollider and PureData. However, it must be
noted that closed vs open-source does not equal DAWs vs coding. There exist open-source DAWs (e.g.,
Reaper and Ardour) and notation software (e.g., MuseScore), just as there exist closed-source music
programming environments (e.g., Max, ChucK, and [in part] Juce).
The politics of access
The first problematic aspect of music technology tools that follow a closed-source model is the high
cost, either lump sum or subscription. The cost of these commercial tools raises clear inclusivity issues,
as it fosters a socially inequitable model that grants access to creative tools on a classist basis. In
addition to the purchase or subscription cost themselves, these tools usually require their users to
periodically update their machines to the latest versions of the operative system, which, in turn, forces
users to upgrade or replace the machine every few years. Notably, these costs are not only absorbed by
private users or students, but also educational institutions, which are expected to offer students these
expensive commercial tools under the current model, and thus need to purchase hundreds of licences
every year. In the case of public institutions, this typical neoliberal flow of money from the public to
the private is particularly problematic as taxpayers’ money effectively subsidises commercial
companies. Furthermore, once they have left their institution, students who learn to use specific
commercial tools and plugins probably end up needing to purchase these tools unless they decide to
obtain them in illegal ways.
An additional access issue is connected to the nature of modern DAWs, which comes from the inherent
computational and storage cost of plugins, sample packs and sound libraries. These tools require a
massive amount of storage space and an ever-increasing computational power to work, thus demanding
new hardware purchases.
Open-source music technology tools, by contrast, are free to use, as they are based on a decentralised
model of peer-production, where tools are supported and developed by a community of volunteers. It
might be argued that these tools are not as powerful as commercial tools. However, open-source audio
programming languages, like Supercollider and Pure Data, have potentially illimited possibilities
regarding what sounds or music can be created, as they are Turing-complete (McPherson & Tahıroğlu,
2020). Furthermore, the required storage space is also minimal compared to DAWs. For example, as of
the end of 2021, a complete installation of SuperCollider is 253Mb, whereas Logic Pro requires 72Gb
for the software plus the full Sound Library—284 times bigger.
Of relevance to this theme are the antithetical positions of closed- and open-source solutions when it
comes to allowing access to the underlying functionalities of the tools. When learning to use closed-
source DAWs, students learn specific and discrete functionalities. For instance, they learn to use a (very
expensive) plugin to add reverb to a track and change some of its parameters (e.g., room size, damping,
decay time). However, with the code being inaccessible, they can only change the parameters made
available by the company as their underlying functionalities—mostly equations—that are at the basis
of all these tools are inaccessible.
This obscurantist practice renders commercial tools take-it-or-leave-it, impenetrable black boxes.
Students can’t look under their hood and learn how they work. They can learn how to interact with the
tool, but this knowledge is software-specific and can transfer to other programs only to a limited degree.
The functionalities pre-packaged by the company thus limit creative exploration. For instance, in the
case of DAWs, students’ experience is limited to learning how to select loops, samples and effects
within a finite list of available options. The range of what is creatively possible is thus bounded by the
Rethinking music technology pedagogy 129
Teachers and Curriculum, Volume 22, Issue 2, 2022: Special Issue: The Arts in the classroom:
Advocacy, theory and practice
list of available functionalities, which end up shaping the creative process. Closed-source music
technologies thus channel the creative process along predefined tracks, thereby standardising musical
outcomes.
Open-source tools allow everyone to freely look under the hood, learn how the system works and
potentially even modify the code. Thus, when students gain enough confidence, they can re-write part
of the code, invent new functionalities and enjoy virtually infinite customisation. Musical practice thus
becomes a genuinely exploratory, open-ended activity. The pedagogical consequences are enormous.
First, students can access the code and the underlying algorithms and learn precisely how these work.
This knowledge is not bound to any specific tool but can be generalised and transferred when learning
new tools and programming languages. Second, students learn to tweak their tools as they wish, even
appropriating them for purposes other than what the developer initially intended (Masu & Morreale,
2021). Enabled to tweak the code to their liking, anyone can create their own sound/effect tailored to
their practice.
The very ontology of the student evolves from being users to being creators—from having their creative
practice shaped by the tool to literally shaping the tool. Students thus learn to relate to technology as
something that can be used and misused to the extent that is needed, rather than being limited and
influenced by the constraints embedded in all closed software solutions. By accessing the underlying
code, students learn to relate to technology not as a take-it-or-leave-it closed box but rather as something
that can and should be analysed, critiqued and challenged. Developing the ability to critically reflect on
the implications of, and relationships between, technology and music, students develop a critical lens
they can apply to the impact of using technology in general.
Ideological underpinnings
As tools of cultural production and cultural symbols, tools for making music are inherently political
(Morreale et al., 2020) despite IT companies conveniently labelling creative tools and technologies as
inherently neutral. This alleged neutrality frees them to avoid engaging with ethical matters, which are
considered the remit of moral philosophers. This argument has been dismantled by several scholars in
philosophy and social science (Ihde, 1990; Keyes et al., 2019; Verbeek, 2005).
Technology is not neutral; the tools we use instantiate implicit or explicit aesthetic, cultural, social and
political ideologies. Commercial music technology tools are indeed firmly and unequivocally linked to
a specific political substrate, which can be identified by the recent interest of capitalist firms in cutting-
edge music technology companies (Morreale, 2021). Sterne and Razlogova (2021) recognise that this
trend shows that the political affiliation of new music technology tools are “just the latest chapter in a
long story of capitalism failing to fully account for culture” (p. 16).
An archetypal example of the capitalist drift of music technology companies is offered by the recent
coalition (Music Creation Group) formed between the music technology companies Native Instruments
and iZotope (Francisco Partners, 2021a). This coalition was made possible by the influx of capital from
the private equity firms EMH Partners and Francisco Partners. Francisco Partners framed their
investment as an effort to “democratise music production” (Francisco Partners, 2021b). Leaving aside
the fallacy of the vision about democratising music creation, which I have already exposed with some
colleagues (see Morreale et al., 2020), this vision becomes problematic when considered against another
statement released by the investors: “With Francisco Partners, Native Instruments is planning to …
drive consolidation in the growing and fragmented market for digital music creation” (Franscico
Partners, 2021b). The narrative goes like this: a fragmented music creation industry is a problem that
can be solved by creating an end-to-end, music creation platform. This typical techno-solutionist
narrative (Morozov, 2013) considers musical ability an issue, something that must be addressed with
technology (Morreale et al., 2020). In 2017, Native Instruments had already received €50 million
investments to “unlock the future of music creation” (Synthopia, 2017) as if musical creativity was a
deficit that needed to be remedied by some technological solution.
130 Fabio Morreale
Teachers and Curriculum, Volume 22, Issue 2, 2022: Special Issue: The Arts in the classroom:
Advocacy, theory and practice
The Native Instrument is not an isolated case in the gold rush to create a monopolistic, end-to-end music
platform. Spotify, the hyper-capitalistic, publicly listed music company leader in the music
consumption sector, owns the browser-based DAW Soundtrap and is developing tools to help artists
optimise their songs with the help of AI (Morreale, 2021). Their mission is clear: from the conception
to the release, Spotify is the only ecosystem you need. Creating the end-to-end, music technology
ecosystem is an attempt to restrain and fence a vibrant, complex and multifaceted environment into a
homogenised space. This attempt can be framed borrowing theoretical lenses from Glitch Feminism
(Russell, 2020): creative approaches to music technology are not welcomed by capitalist firms as they
are difficult to frame, commodify and advertise.
The alternative model is offered by non-commercial open-source tools. Linked to the hacker movement
of the sixties, this model endorses open and modifiable solutions to support playfulness and exploration.
This model challenges the status quo of the homogenous consumer front and reflects the cyberfeminist
endeavour of opposing boxed approaches and welcoming in the “differences and spaces in-between”
(Russell, 2020, p. 25). Peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing, which is at the core of the open-source movement,
can be thought of as the exact opposite of this crusade to close and standardise music technology. P2P
leverages people’s intrinsic motivations to collaborate and foster common values through joint effort
(Masu & Morreale 2021). When working with open-source software and hardware, students are
exposed to communities that resist capitalist models, economies of scale, mass production, private
property, copyrights and patents. Open source finally offers the socio-technical infrastructure needed
to encourage peer-to-peer knowledge sharing among musicians, who can redistribute copies of their
modified versions to others, thereby building a sense of community.
Idiomaticity and neo-colonialism
Musical instruments have idiomatic characteristics—i.e., music passages, interaction patterns or
compositional styles that are easier or more intuitive to perform—and music technology tools are no
different. As explained by McPherson and Tahıroğlu (2020), when comparing various computer-based
tools for music creation, “the design of any tool favours certain types of thinking, certain modes of
interaction, certain outcomes over others” (p. 53). Music instruments, indeed, do not passively transmit
human expressiveness, but they interfere with the creation process by enabling and constraining
performers to act in a certain way (Jordà Puig, 2005; Gurevich & Treviño, 2007).
Magnusson (2009) and McPherson and Tahıroğlu (2020) discussed the idiomatic aspects of DAWs and
the MIDI-ecosystem and stressed the centrality of the equal-tempered scales and standard time
signatures (mostly 4/4). These aspects are firmly centred on Western conception and values of music,
thus successfully exporting the supremacy of Western music hegemony from Western classical music
to modern genres like Electronic and Hip-hop. This instance in which software becomes normative is
another example of standardisation. Despite everything being possible, and despite the slogan that “you
can create any sound”, IT companies purposely facilitate specific software uses and discourage, or
bluntly impede, unwanted uses. Consequently, these companies end up influencing how users adopt the
interface (Morreale & Eriksson, 2020; Stanfill, 2015). The widespread dissemination of these
technologies radically influenced non-Western popular music, thus sustaining a white racial framing of
music (Ewell, 2021). Fortunately, some DAWs have been recently developed centred on non-Western
tonal systems and idiosyncratic aspects (the most notable example being Khyam Allami's Apotome and
Leimma).
Sampling, one of the most commonly used DAW techniques, is another feature that has evident traits
of neo-colonialism. Simply put, sampling is about using and often manipulating existing recordings in
new compositions. These recordings might be recorded by the artist or purchased from commercial
sound packages. However, the original sounds are usually harvested from sources without consultation
or proper acknowledgement. The fact that “everyone does it” cannot justify us overlooking engaging
with students the problematic aspects of this practice. This practice is indeed another example of
modern-day colonialism, where everything can be possessed, exploited, occupied and eventually
Rethinking music technology pedagogy 131
Teachers and Curriculum, Volume 22, Issue 2, 2022: Special Issue: The Arts in the classroom:
Advocacy, theory and practice
commodified. (For deeper discussions on the political costs of sampling, see Franklin, 2021.)
Decolonising the music technology space also involves rethinking the Western consumeristic imaginary
of technological innovation, central in music technology. Commercial DAWs, plugins and MIDI
controllers are constantly updated with every new version, offering incremental changes that are often
negligible yet marketed as necessary. This consumeristic drive for constantly upgrading is problematic
in many ways, from the environmental cost of the constant creation of electronic waste to labour
exploitation in technological space.
Addressing these issues in the classroom
In this section, I offer three suggestions for teachers who are interested in incorporating alternative
models in their music technology courses.
1. Broaden the spectrum of our music technology offerings: When selecting tools and teaching
material for the school curriculum, we act as knowledge gatekeepers, and we have the honour
and burden of influencing students’ creative outcomes. We show them that some of these tools
are more important than others and—possibly more significantly—that the music they can
make with these tools is more important. We are thus helping them imagine what sort of music
they can make with computers and how computers can be used to make music. Thus, it is of
paramount importance to broaden our offering in music technology, which is currently limited
to DAWs and notation software, and include other forms of computer music. Obviously, this
expansion would require teachers to educate themselves on these other technologies in the first
place.
2. Ditch commercial software: In Aotearoa, as elsewhere, music technology classrooms are
currently dominated by a handful of highly influential private companies. While these
companies clearly benefit from recruiting future users at an early stage and being recognised as
the go-to solution for music technology, it is not clear how students themselves benefit from
being taught how to use specific commercial software. It might be argued that music studios
expect music graduates to master specific commercial tools like Pro Tools or Logic Pro. This
expectation is aligned with typical capitalist views of education, which should “produce and
reproduce a work force and citizenry and set of consumers fit for Capital” (Hill, 2010, p. 16).
As music technology teachers, we have the power to frustrate this expectation. Besides this
ideological reason, in practical terms the few students who will indeed end up working in music
studios will be able to learn how to use commercial software in no time if their preparation is
solid and grounded on generalisable concepts.
3. Stimulate a critical approach to technology: I invite colleagues to design coursework
material and activities that are aimed at stimulating students to critically understand the
complex relationship between technology and musical choice. Discuss with students the
exploitative nature of sampling, reflect on instances in which computer tools can indeed be
beneficial to musicians and instances in which they lead to musician redundancy (Morreale,
2021), and present them with alternative perspectives to proprietary tools, which defy
economies of scale and mass production, and private property copyrights (Masu & Morreale,
2021).
Discussion
In this chapter, I problematised an industry-pleasing music technology curriculum in which students
are taught how to use a specific category of commercial music software. As I argued, this model more
or less unwittingly traps students in the use of this form of software. It is urgent that we address the
political consequences of this model, start truthful conversations about our role as teachers in this
context and incorporate alternative pedagogies in music technology courses.
132 Fabio Morreale
Teachers and Curriculum, Volume 22, Issue 2, 2022: Special Issue: The Arts in the classroom:
Advocacy, theory and practice
The arguments that I have set out in this article can be taxed with quixotism, excessive reliance on
ideology and impracticality. In the end, it might be argued, students that will be hired by professional
music studios will be expected to be able to proficiently use specific commercial software. I argue,
however, that learning to use specific software should be the remit of professional training courses.
Rather, pre-tertiary and tertiary courses in music technology should instead have a holistic approach to
the discipline, based on a variety of tools that differ from the current DAW monoculture based on
commercial software that imposes normative use that results in the creation of specific music in specific
styles.
My aim in this article was to demonstrate that alternative models of music technology are possible—
models that are anti-capitalist and anti-colonialist and are based on collaboration, sharing and de-
standardisation. I argue that Aotearoa could be the perfect starting point to rethink music technology
pedagogy, given the increased commitment in the country to developing decolonising methodologies
and pedagogies. Learning music technology is not about being users of commercial software but about
seeing beyond the boundaries of the present, to the creation of new musical interactions, vocabularies
and possibilities. This is my view about the role of music technology in the music curriculum: an
unconstrained playground for students. What student profile are we contributing to shaping if we fail
to address this matter?
References
Ewell, P. (2021). Music theory’s white racial frame. Music Theory Spectrum, 43(2), 324–329.
https://doi.org/10.1093/mts/mtaa031
Francisco Partners. (2021a). Traditional capital for technology companies.
https://www.franciscopartners.com/investments/native-instruments-and-izotope.
Francisco Partners (2021b). Native Instruments gets €50 million outside investment to ‘unlock the
future of music creation’. https://www.franciscopartners.com/news/emh-partners-and-native-
instruments-founding-shareholders-to-sell-majority-ownership-in-native-instruments-to-
francisco-partners.
Franklin, M. I. (2021). Sampling politics: Music and the geocultural. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190855475.001.0001
Gurevich, M., & Treviño, J. (2007). Expression and its discontents: Toward an ecology of musical
creation. In M. Gurevich & J. Treviño (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference
On New Interfaces For Musical Expression (pp. 106–111). Association for Computing
Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1279740.1279759
Hill, D. (2010). Class, capital, and education in this neoliberal and neoconservative period. In
S. Macrine, P. McLaren, & D. Hill (Eds.), Revolutionizing pedagogy (pp. 119–143). Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230104709_6
Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Indiana University Press.
Jordà Puig, S. (2005). Digital Lutherie — Crafting musical computers for new musics performance
and improvisation [Doctoral thesis, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona].
https://www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/575372#page=1
Keyes, O., Hoy, J., & Drouhard, M. (2019). Human-computer insurrection: Notes on an anarchist
HCI. In S. Brewster & G. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–13). Association for Computing Machinery.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300569
Levy, S. (1984). Hackers: Heroes of the computer revolution (vol. 14). Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Magnusson, T. (2009). Of epistemic tools: Musical instruments as cognitive extensions. Organised
Sound, 14(2), 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355771809000272
Masu, R., & Morreale, F. (2021). Composing by hacking: Technology appropriation as a pedagogical
tool for electronic music. In B. Stevens (Ed.), Teaching electronic music: Cultural, creative,
and analytical perspectives (pp. 157–171). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367815349-
13
McPherson, A., & Tahıroğlu, K. (2020). Idiomatic patterns and aesthetic influence in computer music
languages. Organised Sound, 25(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355771819000463
Rethinking music technology pedagogy 133
Teachers and Curriculum, Volume 22, Issue 2, 2022: Special Issue: The Arts in the classroom:
Advocacy, theory and practice
Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. Public
Affairs.
Morreale, F. (2021). Where does the buck stop? Ethical and political issues with AI in music creation.
Transactions of the International Society for Music Information Retrieval, 4(1).
https://doi.org/10.5334/tismir.86
Morreale, F., Bin, S. A., McPherson, A., Stapleton, P., & Wanderley, M. (2020). A NIME of the
times: Developing an outward-looking political agenda for this community. In Proceedings of
the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (pp. 160–165).
Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4813294
Morreale, F., & Eriksson, M. (2020). “My library has just been obliterated”: Producing new norms of
use via software update. In R. Bernhaupt & F. Mueller (Eds), Proceedings of the 2020 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–13). Association for Computing
Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376308
Morreale, F., Moro, G., Chamberlain, A., Benford, S., & McPherson, A. P. (2017). Building a maker
community around an open hardware platform. In G. Mark & S. Fussell (Eds.) Proceedings of
the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 6948–6959).
Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3026056
Russell, L. (2020). Glitch feminism: A manifesto. Verso Books.
Stanfill, M. (2015). The interface as discourse: The production of norms through web design. New
Media & Society, 17(7), 1059–1074. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814520873
Sterne, J., & Razlogova, E. (2021). Tuning sound for infrastructures: Artificial intelligence,
automation, and the cultural politics of audio mastering. Cultural Studies, 35(4–5), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2021.1895247
Synthopia. (October 26, 2017). Native instruments gets €50 million outside investment to ‘unlock the
future of music creation’. https://www.synthtopia.com/content/2017/10/26/native-instruments-
gets-e50-million-outside-investment-to-unlock-the-future-of-music-creation/.
Verbeek, P. P. (2005). What things do. Penn State University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9780271033228
i
https://www.nzqa.govt.nz/framework/explore/domain.do?frameworkId=75936
ii
Hardware can also be closed- and open-source, but for the matters of this manuscript I will only focus
on software. Readers interested in open-source music technology hardware can refer to Morreale et al.,
2017.
