Goldberg: Observations

Subject 3 found all three interfaces to be useful tools.

• Subject 3 saw possible applications for all three versions of the interface.
• He viewed the Rating interface (without naming or visual representations) as a good exploratory tool. The lack of information means that the user explores somewhat randomly, with many unexpected results.
• Subject 3 viewed the Choosing interface as more appropriate for refining an idea once a good general idea was formed.
• He viewed the Music Processor as a useful general framework, suggesting, as did the other subjects, that it be integrated with at least one of the other interfaces to allow both "word processor" and exploratory styles of interaction while working on a single piece of music.
• Although he preferred to have the names, Subject 3 was the only subject to suggest that there was some use to having anonymous variations: by depriving the user of information, Goldberg forces him/her into a more random, exploratory mode which can yield unexpected results.

Conclusion: for a composer of eclectic styles and tastes, any incarnation of Goldberg can provide an interesting tool. If Goldberg offers enough user-configurability, it could be used in at least several different ways.