Electronic Music Workshop in collaboration with Bildungsflügel NGO

This essay investigates a selection of browser-based electronic music composition tools, assessing them through a comparative framework that emphasises instrument “feel”, design affordances for learning and musical engagement, and accessibility for non-technical users.

The research is done within the context of a series of workshops given in collaboartion with Berlin based Bildungsflügel NGO. They are focused in supporting kids with refugee status through free german lessons as well as workshops and activities to help them integrate. In this regard, I provided a series of electronic music workshops to help them understand basic concepts of music but also to enable them to make their own songs through online, freely accessible music composition tools and instruments.

In this regard, the study considers how interface design, interaction metaphors, simplification of signal-flow, visual feedback and ease of access contribute to meaningful creative expression. The selected tools range from beginner-oriented educational sequencers to more advanced browser DAWs.

The goal is to identify (thorugh the abstract comparative framework) which design decisions most strongly support playful exploration, non-technical user inclusion, and rapid onset of creative flow. Based on that, the brief proposes an abstract evaluation framework (parameters and metrics) and applies it to each tool. Finally, the study aims to inform the development of a new borwser-based instrument specifically designed for educational scenarios. 

---

Methodology & Framework

Evaluation Parameters

Drawing from HCI, music education and instrument design literatures (e.g., Bennett 2011, Sachs 2012, Tanaka 2016) I propose the following parameters to evaluate each instrument:

1. Playfulness – the degree to which the interface invites experimentation, discovery, serendipity and immediate feedback.
   
   • 1 = very little play (rigid workflow, steep learning curve)
     
   • 5 = very playful (Low resistance between a user’s idea and his ability to execute it within the instrument)
     
     
2. Non-Technical Engagement – how well the tool supports users with minimal prior music technology experience.
   
   • 1 = designed for expert users, i.e. many technical concepts
     
   • 5 = designed for complete beginners, minimal setup, immediate entry
     
     
3. Technica lAccessibility – this covers (a) no download/installation, (b) cross-platform/browser support (ideally mobile), (c) minimal registration or cost barrier, (d) quick start time.
   
   • 1 = requires download/installation, special hardware, limited browser support
     
   • 5 = fully browser-based, any OS/browser, free or very low cost, ready to play in < 1 min
     
     
4. Instrument Feel / Expressivity – how much does the tool feel like an instrument (rather than a tooling interface)? Does it support real-time interaction, expressive control, immediate sound output, and a sense of “playing” rather than “editing notes”?
   
   • 1 = very static, mainly click-and-edit, little real-time feedback
     
   • 5 = live-play, expressive controls (e.g., modulation, drag-gesture, responsive UI), strong sonic response
     
     
5. Scaffolding / Learning Support – the degree to which the tool offers built-in educational scaffolding (tutorials, templates, guided tasks), or is clearly usable by novices to build meaningful musical ideas quickly.
   
   • 1 = no scaffolding, assume user knows sequencing/synth-editing already
     
   • 5 = strong guided tasks, templates, immediate results, friendly UX for novices
     
     
6. Depth & Growth Potential – how much room is there for growth (i.e., more advanced users can dig deeper, explore sound design, export/share, collaborate)?
   
   • 1 = dead-end toy, no export/share or deeper features
     
   • 5 = full depth, supports export, sharing, advanced editing and potential progression
     
     

---

Selected Tools 

Below are the tools surveyed. I have selected them to cover a spectrum from highly-accessible beginner tools to more feature-rich browser DAWs.

1. Learning Music (Ableton)
   Description: A free interactive website that runs fully in browser, teaching basic concepts of beats, melody, chords and song structure. 
   Evaluation:
   
   • Playfulness: 4 – Offers interactive boxes to click, immediate sound feedback.
     
   • Non-Technical Engagement: 5 – Designed for complete newcomers, minimal barrier.
     
   • Accessibility of Access: 5 – Browser only, free, extensively multilingual (supports over a dozen languages!). 
     
   • Instrument Feel / Expressivity: 3 – While interactive, it remains structured and lesson-oriented rather than free improvisation.
     
   • Scaffolding / Learning Support: 5 – Built lessons, clear progression.
     
   • Depth & Growth Potential: 2 – Not a full production environment; export to Ableton Live (if you have it) but limited in browser.
     
     
2. Audiotool
   Description: A browser-based DAW with modular synth racks, drum machines, virtual cables, sample library and publishing features. (Wikipedia)
   Evaluation:
   
   • Playfulness: 5 – The modular rack metaphor invites exploration, patching cables, visual feedback, very playful.
     
   • Non-Technical Engagement: 3 – While browser-based, the modular metaphor has a steeper curve and may intimidate novices.
     
   • Accessibility of Access: 4 – It runs in browser, free; but the UI may require strong browser/computer and you must register to publish.
     
   • Instrument Feel / Expressivity: 5 – Strong sense of instrumentality: real-time patching, modulations, expressive modules.
     
   • Scaffolding / Learning Support: 2 – There is less built-in tutorial scaffolding for true beginners (it is more like a full tool).
     
   • Depth & Growth Potential: 5 – Very high: supports collaboration, publishing, sample editing, advanced routing.
     
     
3. Amped Studio (Online DAW)
   Description: Browser-based DAW with MIDI/audio track editing, built-in synths, sample library, supports VST (premium), designed for cross-device, quick start. (ampedstudio.com)
   Evaluation:
   
   • Playfulness: 4 – Easy to start, good layout, drag & drop loops, decent playfulness.
     
   • Non-Technical Engagement: 4 – Good entry point; fewer abstractions than Audiotool but more complexity than “beginner only” tools.
     
   • Accessibility: 4 – Browser-based; free tier; some premium features require subscription; may require decent browser/hardware.
     
   • Instrument Feel / Expressivity: 4 – Good expressivity via synths and track editing; maybe less immediate real-time tactile interaction than a modular rack.
     
   • Scaffolding / Learning Support: 3 – Some templates and loops, but less structured tutorial support than a dedicated learning site.
     
   • Depth & Growth Potential: 4 – Substantial depth; the growth path is clearly supported.
     
     
4. BrowserDAW
   Description: A free, browser-based MIDI sequencer & clip editor, synth engine with simple subtractive oscillator/filter/envelope. (BrowserDAW)
   Evaluation:
   
   • Playfulness: 3 – Basic grid/sequencer layout; still needs some knowledge of MIDI/clips.
     
   • Non-Technical Engagement: 3 – Some familiarity assumed (MIDI, piano-roll).
     
   • Accessibility: 5 – Fully browser-based, free, no install.
     
   • Instrument Feel / Expressivity: 3 – Expressivity is moderate; fewer real-time gestures, simpler synth.
     
   • Scaffolding / Learning Support: 2 – Less tutorial content visible; fairly minimal.
     
   • Depth & Growth Potential: 3 – Fair for simple sequencing; limited sound-design / export features according to description.
     
     
5. Incredibox
   Description: Browser game / beat-making for children/novices where users drag/drop sound icons onto characters to build beatbox mixes. (Wikipedia)
   Evaluation:
   
   • Playfulness: 5 – Very playful, game-like, immediate feedback, highly accessible.
     
   • Non-Technical Engagement: 5 – Extremely accessible, no prior knowledge needed.
     
   • Accessibility: 4 – Works in browser; might be more limited in depth but excellent for quick start.
     
   • Instrument Feel / Expressivity: 2 – It is more a toy/game than a full instrument; expressivity limited.
     
   • Scaffolding / Learning Support: 4 – Implicit scaffolding through game mechanics; but not explicit music theory teaching.
     
   • Depth & Growth Potential: 2 – Depth is shallow; limited progression into full music production.
     
     
6. BeepBox
   Description: Browser-based tool for sketching and sharing chiptune melodies; highlighted in educators’ toolboxes. (Building Beats)
   Evaluation:
   
   • Playfulness: 4 – Easy to jump in, intuitive grid for melody, sharing facility.
     
   • Non-Technical Engagement: 4 – Straightforward interface, minimal theory needed.
     
   • Accessibility: 5 – Browser only, free.
     
   • Instrument Feel / Expressivity: 3 – Melodic sketching is good, but fewer advanced controls for sound manipulation.
     
   • Scaffolding / Learning Support: 2 – Minimal built-in guided lessons; more sandbox mode.
     
   • Depth & Growth Potential: 3 – Good for melody/idea sketching; less for full track production.