I love this little platform game, Get Home, that accompany the song “Weathervanes and Chemicals” by Norwegian band Team Me. Cunningly enough, you have to make it through before the song is over to win, which means that you (or at least I) end up listening to the song many, many times trying to jump higher and run faster. After nearly an hour I admitted to myself that I’m really not a very dexterous gamer and watched someone else play it on YouTube – and oh, how sweetly the game mechanics and narrative speak to the message of the song.

I’ve not really been following the video game accompanying new music trend. Local game company Mwahaha made a simple platform game for Eye Emma Jedi’s Lights, which is fun. As far as I was able to play it it doesn’t add a lot to the song as Get Home does, but it does have an ornamental sort of function – or maybe it should be understood more along the lines of dancing, or choreographing the audience? I have to admit, my terrible skills at platform games might mean I missed something really interesting going on on the upper levels of the game because I never reached them. Please leave me a comment if that’s the case! The creators of the Lights game also wrote a nice little post mortem about the development of the game.

A couple of years ago Arcade Fire’s The Wilderness Downtown was a great example of a personalised, engaging web experience programmed to go perfectly with a song. It was created by Chris Milk, who has a few other “experimental” projects listed on his portfolio.

Do you know of any interesting games or “online experimentations” to music that I should check out?


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. Walter Iriarte

    There is an older Red Hot Chilli Peppers song titled, “Californication”. It is music video that imitates a video game. However, it is not interactive.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.