Interactive Theatre Sound Design: A Collaborative Workshop

Interactive Theatre Sound Design: A Collaborative Workshop Rod Selfridge1[0000000219541611] Edinburgh Napier University, 10 Colinton Rd, Edinburgh EH10 5DT [email protected] Abstract. Astudyintothepotentialofinteractivesounddesignwithin atheatresettingwascarriedoutbymeansofaworkshop.Sounddesign participants and actors collaborated to create sounds for scenes using Foley, samples and procedural audio. Networked sound devices were also introduced as novel means to control the sounds. Results indicate that participants gained new insights into sound design for theatre, valuing the playful and collaborative structure of the workshop. The use of actorcontrolled devices was introduced by means of interactive with a prop. The use of these devices in future live performances was discussed and the importance of early adoption, partnership with other areas of production and a reliable system were highlighted. Keywords: Collaborative Sound Design ·Internet of Sound ·Procedural Audio. 1Introduction Sound design has long played a vital role in theatrical storytelling, dating back to ancient times [5]. In theatre, sound helps establish the setting, convey mood, highlight events, and drive the narrative [22]. Today, the use of specialist software (for example QLab 1)provideshigh-qualitysupportforoperatingsound effects during a performance [7]. This software allows users to store all required sounds and offers features such as multi-voice playback, basic editing, and parameter automation. This remains the most common method to trigger sounds in a commercial theatre [16]. Sound within live theatre performance is believed to have not advanced at the same pace as lighting and projection [20], yet several innovative productions involving sound have been developed and performed, seeking to engage the public. Examples include the use of binaural audio and on-stage Foley in The Encounter by Complicité, where the theatre audience wore headphones to experience the surround sound2.VilkaitisandWigginsdevelopedanambisonicversionofaproAll rights remain with the authors under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Proc. of the 17th Int. Symposium on Computer Music Multidisciplinary Research, London, United Kingdom, 2025 1https://figure53.com/ 2https://www.complicite.org/work/the-encounter Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 137 R. Selfridge duction of King Lear [20]. A study audio augmented reality within participatory performances is given in [11] which includes an overview of the use of interactive technologies in theatre and other performances. This paper documents a workshop experience in which participants and actors collaborate to develop sound design for a short theatrical pantomime performance. A variety of Foley objects, pre-recorded samples, and procedural audio synthesis models were available to sketch and refine the sound design within a rehearsal period, concluding with a short performance. The workshop also prototyped the use of networked sound devices with a view to future studies where an actor would be able to trigger their own sounds. 2RelatedWork 2.1 Collaborative Sound Design Unlike many design practices, sound design is often a solitary activity [10]. Collaborative Sonic Interaction Design (SID) was explored in [10], where participants designed the sounds for concept cars through a) vocal sketches, b) Foley objects, and c) sound synthesis, sampling and processing. The study concluded that SID would benefit when cooperative processes are engaged. Integrating theatrical sound design techniques into SID was also studied within a workshop setting, exploring the differences between hearing the sounds in isolation followed by the same sounds except with a live performer [12]. Acompellingargumentforcollaborationincreativeprocessesisgiveninthe review paper which focuses on the creative collaboration in music and highlights the benefits of collaborative creative learning as a pedagogical tool [1]. The value of creative workshops in learning new skills is the focus of a study by Virkkula, stating it is essential that the interactive activities are authentic in relation to the creative goals [21]. Collaborative sound design is believed to enrich discussion, and enable the consolidation of ideas [8]. This workshop gave sound design participants of varying experience the opportunity to collaboratively develop ideas with actors. Rehearsing the scene together offered a novel way to learn and refine live theatre sound design skills. 2.2 Interactive Sound Effects Procedural audio sound effect synthesis uses models that allow real-time manipulation of sound through adjustable parameters [9]. Different sound models range from swinging objects [15], to thunder [13], to door creaks [6], and more. Often these sound effect models use subtractive and additive synthesis methods and are inspired by the physics that generate the sounds in nature [4]. The Internet of Sounds (IoS) is a research field linking sound and music computing with the Internet of Things [19]. The IoS deals with the communication of music and sound related information over wireless networks, allowing for Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 138 Interactive Theatre Sound Design Table 1. Workshop timetable. Time Task 00:00 - 00:20 Introduction and background details 00:20 - 01:00 Ideation and rehearsal of 1st scene 01:00 - 01:15 Performance of 1st scene 01:15 - 01:30 Coffee break 01:30 - 02:10 Ideation and rehearsal of 2nd scene 02:10 - 02:25 Performance of 2nd scene 02:25 - 03:00 Feedback and data gathering novel sound-based applications. This has been particularly explored in the context of musical instruments where SMART instruments have electronic devices integrated into them to allow the user to create novel performances [18]. An interactive live performance using networked devices was researched in [14] where digital music instruments sent networked messages to a HoloLens causing mixed-reality visuals to reacted with the sounds. The additional cognitive load on performers did not appear to be a significant issue while controlling mixed-reality graphics along with the music. Smart shoes were studied in [17], where the shoes controlled the sound as a sonification of the wearer’s gait. The focus on this was towards medical rehabilitation whereas this study is looking at using similar devices for the control of sound effects during a live theatrical performance, ultimately by the actors. 3WorkshopDesign The venue for the workshop was The Dibble Tree Theatre, Carnoustie, home of the amateur theatre company, called The Carnoustie Theatre Club. The workshop served both public engagement and research purposes, introducing individuals of various backgrounds to sound design within theatre as well to using networked sound devices. The event provided participants with the unique opportunity to collaboratively ideate and sketch their sound design while working with the actors as they rehearsed a scene. The workshop was scheduled to be 3 hours long and was timetabled as shown in Table 1. Following the introduction, sound designers and actors were split into 2 groups, one situated in the main theatre, while the other in one of the rehearsal rooms. Two costumed actors were assigned to each performance space (see Fig. 1). There were 4 scripts in total, each primarily involving 2 characters, although some supplementary lines from additional characters were required. Each group had a unique script for each session so that there was no repetition. Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 139 R. Selfridge Fig. 1. Two of the actors Fig. 2. Asounddesignerusingaslidewhistle for Foley 4Methodology 4.1 Equipment The venue had two spaces for the workshop participants to use. The main theatre area is a typical small theatre, with stage, lighting and sound booth, and approximately 45 seats. The scenes performed in this space were set in a pirate’s cove. The second space is a typical small rehearsal room with no sound equipment. Soundcard and monitor speakers were provided by the author to ensure sound reproduction sufficient for the space was present. Anumberofdifferentsoundsourceswereavailableinboththeperformance spaces based on the scene. Foley items provided included, empty bottles, slide whistles, rain sticks, thunder tube, whoopee cushions and wooden pegs (see fig. 2). Windows laptops running the live performance audio software, Soundplant3were provided in each space. This software allows samples to be assigned to keyboard keys, which trigger playback when pressed. All samples were uploaded to the windows laptops to act as a backup should the networked devices fail, or as an alternative option for the sound designers. Atotalof9networkedsounddeviceswereprovidedtothesounddesigners, 4inonespaceand5intheother.Thecombinedoutputfromthesedevices had a total of 16 different sound effects. All networked devices were controlled by Arduino MKR 1010 units connected to dedicated routers. Each room had a MacBook Pro also connected to the router, and running the interactive audio software, Pure Data4. 9outofthe16soundsavailableviathenetworkedsounddevicesareprerecorded samples which either compensate for characters not present, reaction from the chorus or reaction from the audience (common in pantomime perfor3https://soundplant.org/ 4https://puredata.info/ Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 140 Interactive Theatre Sound Design Fig. 3. Asounddesignerwithnetworked devices Fig. 4. Networked devices used within the sound booth mances). A pre-recorded sample was triggered using a motion sensor light and photoresistor, both situated in a prop. Rotary knobs were used to trigger and control the volume of 2 pre-recorded samples, while 4 networked sound devices controlled procedural audio synthesis models. The interfaces for these were an accelerometer, force sensitive resistor, a button and a circular potentiometer. The procedural synthesis models were either developed by the author or adapted from Farnell’s models [4]. Images of the networked devices in both spaces can be seen Figs. 3 and 4. 4.2 Participants Atotalof11participantstookpartintheworkshop,7participatingassound designers and 4 as the actors. Sound Designers Among the sound designers 6 identified as female and 1 as male. Ages ranged from 16-18 years to 57-69 years, more than half in the 57-69 age range. 5 had acted in amateur theatre, 1 has directed and produced films, including Foley. 4 have also performed backstage roles, producing theatre performers, musical director, sound recorder and lighting director. None of the participants had experience creating a new sound design for a theatrical performance from a blank slate. Actors All of the actors identified as male with 3 out of 4 in the age range of 57-69 and 1 between 31-43. Previous experience of the actors include 1 who has produced a number of plays, 2 who have been musical directors and 1 who has triggered sound effects in the past. Again, none of the actors have had any direct experience in sound design for live theatre performances. Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 141 R. Selfridge Table 2. Median responses to Likert statements. Question Sound Designers Actors I enjoyed the workshop Strongly Agree Strongly Agree I feel more knowledgeable about the role of a Sound Designer for theatre productions Strongly Agree Agree Iunderstoodthedifferenttypesofsound effects present (Pre-recorded samples, Synthesised, interactive sound effects, etc) Agree Agree Iunderstandhowsomeofthesesounddesign challenges transfer to other media, e.g. film, audiobooks, radio, etc. Strongly Agree Agree 4.3 Data Collection Data collection was conducted in 2 parts, using a sequential mixed-methods design [3]. The first data collected was via a questionnaire, gathering quantitative and qualitative data immediately following the workshop (see Table 1). Within 14 days following the workshop, semi-structured interviews were carried out to obtain richer qualitative data. All participants (or their parents) signed consent forms prior to data collection. Data was gathered from both sound designers and actors to ensure all opinions available were recorded. Sound design participants are referred to as P01, P02, etc., while actor participants are referred to as A01, A02, etc. 5 Findings 5.1 Post-workshop questionnaire The first part of the questionnaire was 4 Likert statements to gather data relating to participants understanding and enjoyment of the workshop. The statements participants were asked to rate were the same for sound designers and actors, and median values are given in Table 2. Qualitative data was recorded through 5 further questions, slightly adapted depending on the participants role during the workshop. When asked what they learned during the workshop P01 stated that they now appreciate the different ways of creating sound effects, while P03 found that the workshop strengthened the need to dig deeper than what is indicated in the script. All the actor participants indicated that they also learned about different sound creation methods, with A04 specifically referring to the networked sound effect controlled by interaction with a prop. When asked what was the easiest thing about creating a sound design, 3 of the sound designers stated it was deciding where the sounds should occur within the scene, while others stated it was performing with the Foley objects. When asked about the most difficult aspect of sound design, the main issue mentioned was deciding on the actual sound to use. The task of performing Foley while the Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 142 Interactive Theatre Sound Design actors were performing was found challenging by P04, highlighting the challenge of keeping an eye on the actors, an eye on the script and using the Foley items as intended at the same time introduced a significant cognitive load. Actor participants gave varied responses when asked what felt easiest when acting during the sound design process. A01 stated that they found the collaboration easy while A03 said they felt more in control and the sound was reacting to the acting. When asked what was most challenging when acting during the sound design process A02 found the timing challenging and A03 stated there was an additional cognitive load remembering the different sounds and the fact that multiple sound designers were creating the sounds. A04 highlighted technical issues with the networked devices as a challenge. 5.2 Interviews Due to conflicting commitments P06, P07 and A04 were not able to take part in the interview process. The semi-structured interviews were based on 16 questions, adjusted depending on the participants role during the workshop, and occasionally adapted based on the responses during the interview. All interviews were recorded and transcribed before transferred to Nvivo software5for thematic analysis [2]. A total of 7 overarching themes were identified through indicative thematic analysis, each with a number of sub-themes. The theme of Actor-Led Sound Design (Benefits and Challenges) (121)6was identified, exploring how participants perceived the pros and cons of actors triggering their own sound effects during a live performance. The subtheme of Identified Challenges of Actor Control (45) included increased cognitive load for actors, technology reliability, potential audience distraction, and integration with costumes and scene changes. Perceived Benefits of Actor Control (40) focused on the benefit of timing between the actor and sound triggering, enhanced authenticity as well as the increased freedom for improvisation. An example of this theme was given by A01, who stated, “sometimes try to get the sound effect to coordinate with the actors actions on stage is extremely difficult and so that’s something that can be initiated by the actor themselves, I think that’s, that’s, that’s the future I think of actually a brilliant idea”. Working with the actors early during the development of interactive sound effects was also identified - Importance of Actor-Sound Collaboration in Creative Process (25).SoundsinvolvingphysicalinteractionwerecentraltoPreferred Types of Actor-Controlled Sounds (11), with slapstick sounds being commonly considered appropriate. The theme Positive Participant Experience and Engagement (71) highlighted the constructive aspects participants gained from the workshop. There was a clear sub-theme of the Value of Collaborative Learning Environment (28) where participants enjoyed working with others, exploring sound design options. The variety of sounds available provided many participants with 5https://lumivero.com/products/nvivo/ 6Number of identified codes Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 143 R. Selfridge New Insights and Food for Thought (18).Overall Workshop Enjoyment (15) was apparent from interview responses as well as Appreciation for Workshop Structure and Playfulness (10),highlightingthegeneralsuccess of the workshop, with P03 stating, “I think the group benefited from, from that it just encouraged an atmosphere of playfulness, which is really important”. Participants had a variety of previous sound design experience and motivation for attending the workshop - Participant Background and Motivation (65).Prior Sound Design Experience (34) varied from Foley design for film to no experience, while Motivation for Workshop Participation (16) included curiosity for new technology, progressing theatre production and generally learning new skills. P04 exemplified this by stating, “Curiosity and because I’m always open to learning new things and I’m, I’m really interested in sound”. In Initial Workshop Expectations (15),itwasfoundanumberofparticipants attended without assumptions. Important for continuing research, the theme of Future Application of Sound and Interactive Technology (56) revealed thoughts on how new technology might be integrated into future performances. Within Envisioned Settings for Future Use (30),oftenthestyleoftheproductionwascommented on or the type of character that may use interactive sounds. An example of this was given by P05, “I would definitely like to think about it for pantomime and the characters in pantomime”. The importance of Incorporating Sound Early in Rehearsals (26) was strongly emphasised by participants. The theme of Workshop Impact on Sound Design Approach (48) describes how the experience influenced participants’ thinking. This was highlighted by the comment from P01, who stated, “So it’s now enabled me to look at the script differently, because the sound workshop showed me how different sounds can make a difference”. The most apparent sub-theme was Awareness of New Sound Creation Methods (27) which identified how the presence of networked sound devices was a novel experience. The Preference for Handson or Physical Sound Creation (8) provided insight into how participants had preference more embodied interactions rather than button pressing. A Shift in Script Interpretation (8) acknowledges how the workshop increased the priority of sound in a production. Finally, Enhanced Connection to Performance through Participation (5) shows how direct engagement created a stronger connection to the performance. In Specific Sound Types (Foley vs. Digital, Spot vs. Atmosphere) (35) participants indicate how they interacted with the different sound creating methods. Interaction with Digital and Sensor-based Tools (19) was a key area for the research and often explored, whereas Engagement with Foley Sound Production (10) identified the strong affinity participants felt towards Foley. The comment by P03 affirmed this when they said, “every single time I ended up using the black box (networked device) because it just felt that the sound you were creating was more tangible when you were doing the action for it.”. The sub-theme of Understanding of Spot vs. Atmosphere Sounds (6) is where participants gained understanding on how to differentiate these. Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 144 Interactive Theatre Sound Design The actor specific theme of Comparison with Previous Performance Experience (34) examined how the workshop compared to previous performing experiences. A clear sub-theme of Shifts in Actor Responsibility and Involvement (17) was identified with respect to sound design involving actors triggering the sounds and the collaborative process towards successfully achieving this. A03 commented directly on this when saying, “the actor, actors were able to contribute some ideas to them using the tools that were there, so it was very interactive I think”. This is complemented with New Approaches to Technical Integration (9) with a redefining of the role of the actor, integrating with the sound rather than being a distinct separate entity. Rehearsing Without Traditional Direction (8) was specific to the workshop structure, where sound designers and actors worked together to produce their performance, without a specific individual taking a leadership role. 6Discussion The workshop was well-received by all participants and generated a rich dataset across multiple aspects. A key focus of this research was to understand how sound designers and actors might collaborate through the use of the different sound creating devices, including networked sound devices. To this end, it can be stated from the themes that the value of collaborative learning was highly supported, and this learning was additionally scaffolded by not having a specific producer-like individual directing the performance. Creating sounds or performing alongside networked devices was a new experience for all participants. Reliability was an issue identified by a number of participants, as during the workshop the devices often dropped offthe Wi-Fi connection which would cause concern for integration into a live production and an area for future development. During the workshop it was noted by the author that the device that acted like a digital rainstick and the device that triggered a sample when a case was opened, were the two networked devices that participants engaged with the most. This was echoed by P01 who stated, “I really enjoyed being able to physically take part and hands on”. This indicated that the more tangible and embodied devices, that operate closer to the Foley items, should be considered when developing new networked sound devices. The overall enjoyment with the Foley objects was a common theme throughout the interviews and reinforces the belief that embodied devices would be preferable. Integrating networked sound devices was a central concern of the workshop, where identifying perceived benefits as well as potential challenges was paramount. One of the more prominent benefits identified by participants is the timing of the sounds. There was no perceived difference in latency between the networked devices and the laptop pre-loaded with samples, with the biggest cause of miscues being a incongruence between operator and actor. Two types of networked sound devices were identified for future use. The 1st one where an actor interacts with a prop which triggers the sound. In the workshop, this device was operated by A04 who stated, “the triggers for cast are great”, and Proc. of the 17th International Symposium on CMMR, London, UK, Nov. 3-7, 2025 145