The first concert was filmed, and it can be seen bellow:

This was out first public performance as a duo and we were quite excited to see how the outcome would turn out to be.

Analysis:

• 0:05 – The beginning gets another function than earlier since now you can clearly hear the audience calming down.
• 1:25 – I like the length, but I think it should have been cut quicker, not faded out.
• 1:27 – I like this sound as it has the same function as the previous one, but another texture so there is variation.
• 1:46 – Yeah, that worked well. I think that starting with a scape in the middle range, then high range and ending with low range worked well.
• 2:02 – I should be aware of that my body is also a part of the visual aspect.
• 2:20 – I am glad Anette waited for this clear sound that stood out from the previous ones. Yet, this obvious pitching is not favorable. Maybe I should go out and look for a bass stapler or something that makes a similar sound as the pitched down version.
• 2:45 – Anette works out of routine. That is fair enough as this is our first performance and one tends to be nervous in such situations and to stick with what one knows best. Yet I like the room she takes between my “clucks”.
• 2:56 – I can like the decrease in volume, but again, I do not like the following pitching sequence.
• 3:15 – The music is evolving really slowly, yet Anette manages to make it somewhat more interesting.
• 3:36 – NO! I know I keep doing that because I like bass frequencies. Maybe I should try to fade it out, pitch it down and then fade it back in? Or I could get an extremely large singing bowl.
• 3:50 – Anette starts doing the moves I usually “squeak” my cymbals to, I choose not to join her on that, I am doing my own thing.
• 3:53 – I like those small wobbling changes in the “sound carpet”.
• 3:53 – 4:35 – I like this part.
• 4:35 – I notice that Anette is getting more intense and I choose to join on “squeaking” cymbals.
• 4:40 – Anette is done with her “move” and has moved on to something else exactly when I join on “squeaky” cymbals, I think it fits very well.
• 4:51 – It looks like Anette wanted to join that “squeaking” as we had done it before, but since she already did it the usual way with her hands, she does it with her legs. That works quite well, but I would have liked to see what had happened if she stayed in the “new room” she was in at 4:40.
• 5:20 – We start to not follow each other as clearly, mainly as a result of me not getting any sound from my cymbal, that is embarrassing yet inspirational and true.
• 5:50 – Anette keeps on doing her thing even though I stop. It look good.
• 6:15 – I try to sample water I am pouring from my bottle, but I fail. Both because the microphone is not gained high enough and that it is sparkling water and it doesn’t sound as “glugglugglugg” as it should. I feel as a result of that that the music is stagnating. However, Anette comes to my rescue.
• 6:57 – It is way to obvious that that sound was not meant to appear. It looks like I am having focus problem this minute.
• 7:12 – And as a result of my malfunctioning focus, I retreat to old habits, I guess that is what they are for. Since the singing bowl is full of sparkling water, it sounds quite dull, should have thought of that.
• 7:50 – It is easy to tell that we now are more secure, since we have done this before. But we might also be too relaxed. Yet, the audience have never seen this before, is that a valid argument?
• 9:50 – I like the progression until here, but why am I afraid of keeping it going? It sounded good. I might, there and than, have felt that it was too much of a cliche. But I clearly play just to loop it and make music of it later, not to make music with it while I loop it. Bad habit!
• 11:36 – I like the part up to here. By being in the beat, Anette gives more room for the nuances in the music.
• 11:37 – Anette is anticipating something she know I will do since that movement usually goes with the lion roar I trigger with my floor tom. Interesting, yet I do not know if I like it. She might have done that because she thought I would do it there (it would have been quite obvious considering the build-up) and just kept doing it since it would have looked strange if she did it just once, or would it? Anyways, that action shows that we both are affected by what we have rehearsed earlier, that is of course a good thing, but I don’t like it as direct and obvious as this.
• 11:55 – 13:20 – Well, it is that thing again, I am personally tired of it and I think it lasted too long, yet I got the beat slicing (the build-ups to the roars) quite well.
• 13:48 – Horrible pitching. The end result is quite cool, but I have to find a better transition.
• 14:40 – I like the transition into the new “room”, You suddenly realize it was there the whole time.
• 14:40 – 17:26 – This is my cup of tea, I enjoy the progression, the texture and the energy of this part. And I actually manage to stick to just playing for a while.
• 17:26 – Anette does something familiar (11:37), and it must have triggered me to break things up, resulting in the fade out. I have gotten feedback that this might have sounded as if it was not intended for, I should probably try to do it more convincing.
• 18:06 – Anettes rapid movements to my busy music seen out of context would have been quite boring and linear as mentioned in my previous post on this project. But in this context where she had been following the slow lines in the music for a while and then suddenly bursting out in this energy passage I found it quite suitable.
• 18:27 – This stop is much more convincing, maybe because it had happened before but I also felt that the overall energy was much more convincing.
• 18:38 – Anette clearly signs that she is done and it is my turn, based on the trading exercises we did earlier.
• 18:39 – I really enjoy the short glimpse where I am waiting for my own loop to appear, a lot of energy in that moment.
• 18:39 – 19:39 – Even though the volume and density curve is decreasing I feel that this was a good part of the piece.
• 19:39 – Fast interaction with electronics, I am getting there!
• 20:00 – Anette is literally back in the picture. I give her some space.
• 20:16 – Even though what I play here is just for looping it, I feel that it fits to the piece.
• 20:36 – I am slowing down, Anette is speeding up. Cool!
• 20:55 – Anette joins me.
• 21:37 – Anette brings structure to my muddy, shifting sounds.
• 22:05 – The sounds Anette make on the floor have an impact on the total auditive product.
• 23:54 – When Anette goes back to floor level, she marks very well that we are nearing the completion of the piece as this was the same state as she started in. She makes this final when she lies back down in the same position as she started, and luckily(?) the music is also close to what we started with.
• 25:23 – 25:35 – I like these quiet seconds where I, with my appearance keep the audience extremely focused on whether this is the ending or not. I like the ending.

Summary:

When there is more time between my comments, I feel we are doing something right since I have nothing to criticize. As you see, these parts appear in the middle of the piece, so our main problem seems to be the beginnings and the ends. That is why we decided to prepare how we were to start, but I feel that it might have affected the overall piece too much. Even though it might not seem so from the audiences perspective, it actually takes 14 minutes and 40 seconds before we are really improvising. Of course one can always say there is improvisation to a certain extent for that period too and one can ask why it has to be improvised. The only thing I can say to that is that I enjoy performing much more when I do not know anything about what is going to happen, yet I do not feel we did anything wrong since this had to be done for me to realize this.

At my request, the audio and video from the concert was streamed live to another room at the venue, where some audio and video artists did the following remix right after our concert. I enjoy this way of remixing, especially when video is included, since then, the link to the original material is much more obvious. Thanks to Bendik Baksaas (Electronics), David Aleksander Sjølie (Guitar) and Sigurd Ytre-Arne (Video).

This somehow concludes my first semester and first encounter with dancers and inter-art-form-collaborations.

The post Dancers – concert appeared first on Drums and electronics.

Despite what I stated in the previous post,

We agreed on that we had reached a state where we temporarily are agreeing on the expression of the concept and should for a while just improvise together without any specific tasks to solve.

after reviewing our rehearsals we found some things we wanted to explore.

The “call and response” as in the previous rehearsal at 13:45:

I like this tool, but as previously stated:

(…) I might think that one or two times is enough, if it occurs for a longer time than that, it might seem we have locked us self’s too tight. That will of course depend on the context.

Unfortunately it’s quite clear that we didn’t agree clearly enough on this being strictly a “call and response” rehearsal before we started.

But it feels good to have repeated it, because now, it’s a more established tool than before.

We also wanted to look into the concept of following each other completely linear:

I did not like this at all. There is no depth in it and it feels way too naive. There can of course exist a touch of it when we for example want to gradually change who is in focus or just playing with the tension between us, but I feel it can not be as obvious and naive as this.

One interesting aspect that came out of this is where our visual focus was when trying to do the same thing at the same time. Anettes focus was on my hands, and my focus on her legs, so we were focusing on the limb closest to the most obvious communication act. Maybe, if we instead had eye contact, we could have shared intentions and been “one step ahead”?

Last Rehearsal:

Analysis:

• 0:00 – Obvious beginning, setting the mood, I’m glad that it lasts as long as it does.
• 1:08 – Unnecessary sounds, my intentions were that they would be “ambient” sounds, but it didn’t turn out as I hoped. I was inspired by the sounds in theroom from the light bulbs and other “cracking sounds” and that intention I feel is right.
• 1:21 – This sound has the ambient quality I was looking for and it triggers Anette to do her first movement.
• 1:36 – Too early for cymbals, I should have saved those frequencies for later.
• 1:42 – 1:56 – I try to do too much, cymbals, rims and “chair cracking”, it’s not clear enough what I want to express.
• 1:57 – This I consider an obvious statement. Anette gives room to me.
• 2:14 – You see that Anette already started a movement and when I introduce another sound, it affects how she carries it out.
• 2:19 – 2:30 – A “call and response” where Anette starts and when she stops, I take over, probably not conscious, but since we have rehearsed it, the the technique lives in our sub consciousness.
• 2:36 – Extremely unprofessional of me not to put my phone in silent mode.
• 2:40 – I get inspired by this happening and decides to try to get some auditive results out of the vibration feature on my phone, but fails to do so. Than again, this gives more room to Anette.
• 2:52 – In curiosity of why it doesn’t work, I tap the microphone to check it’s gain level, this of course has an auditive result which I like. This is a “technique” I have continued to use.
• 2:58 – This again inspires me to use other body parts as input source, and then of course, the most obvious, is the mouth.
• 3:12 – I change to a new texture, should have restricted my self to one.
• 3:22 – Unnecessary sounds. All the sound should have come from Anette moving on the floor.
• 3:49 – I’m back to my earlier “accident” and I like it.
• 3:56 – I like the change in background texture, but I think the change should have been faster, if not immediate.
• 4:00 – I really like the interaction between Anette and me until now, we give and take place as we feel is right, and I do not think we steel focus from each other. She could of course have done the directly opposite of what I am doing by moving a lot with extreme energy, but I think that would have been to much.
• 4:15 – I stop and Anette takes focus. It’s been back and forth for a while now.
• 4:30 – Even tough I now change the texture back to what it was initially, Anette now continues her “story” and puts the texture in a new context, I feel this presents a new room in the peace.
• 4:41 – Unnecessary sounds.
• 5:05 – Took to long before my sound reappeared looped, it should come immediately, and I have to avoid that pitching scale thing, I am extremely tired of it!
• 5:20 – I should have held the background texture longer. It is an interesting aspect with gaps and stops, but I should have saved it, I am generally too impatient. Than again, I like the new “room”.
• 5:30 – I like the sounds Anette make on the floor.
• 5:45 – More rapid actions, I like the intention, but I feel I don’t manage to keep it going.
• 6:04 – New room, I really like it, because of the acoustic organic sounds blending with the pulsating loop.
• 6:48 – For some strange reason it looks like I think what I’m doing is boring and decides to do something else, not good!
• 6:55 – Why this pause?!
• 6:59 – Same intention, new sounds, should have kept the same sounds, I liked them.
• 7:24 – I change again, not cool.
• 7:42 – Again, now with reverbs. Seems like I’m afraid of just playing on top of a loop even tough it sounds good, I’ll have to work on that.
• 7:49 – As I start looping my self, Anette also starts to loop her self, that’s cool, I don’t think it is conscious, but I like it.
• 8:13 – As previously stated, I don’t like that pitching, why do I keep doing it?
• 8:41 – Anettes loop keeps going even tough I stop, good!
• 9:00 – Anettes looping stopped, and I seem to have taken a new direction, new room.
• 9:30 – Even though I’m quite “busy”, Anette keeps her calmness emphasizing the underlaying slow rhythm.
• 9:54 – I seem too obsessed with breaks this day. I would have liked to see that idea evolve. Yet, I like the new room.
• 10:09 – Anette keeps doing looping. I like it!
• 10:23 – Perfect sync! I really enjoy when these moments appear.
• 10:32 – Anette takes the lead, good!
• 10:43 – Everything goes well until I start pitching and Anette stops.
• 10:53 – We’re back after 10 seconds of nothing.
• 10:56 – Anette is calming down, I would have liked her to keep it up and continue the lead.
• 11:10 – 13:10 – Suddenly we entered a room with great communication and I felt it was very natural and good what we did.
• 13:10 – I decide to take some space, and Anette seem to agree and gives me space.
• 13:31 – I like the way Anette slowly starts to illustrate the underlying massive slow rhythmical intentions I have, and doesn’t just go for the first most obvious impulse.
• 14:09 – YES! Once again, perfect sync!
• 14:12 – Anette starts to take back the focus.
• 14:21 – 14:50 – We decide to go hand in hand for a while and react quite linear to each other, I think that in this context and for this short period, it works well.
• 14:50 – I decide to let Anette back in focus.
• 15:07 – I decide to join and Anette keeps going, but makes space for me. It might sees as we have a common understanding of how much place there is in the total expression and adjust our selfs to this.
• 15:07 – 16:14 – I like this.
• 16:14 – 16:32 – My interaction with the electronics is way to slow.
• 16:32 – 16:37 – YES! Another sync, and many in a row.
• 17:32 – Even though it’s a cliché, I like how this room ends.
• 17:32 – I think Anette does a good job here, just keeping her loop and processing it.
• 17:58 – I don’t like what I do here, but that is probably because I am so tired of that sound.
• 18:23 – I like that Anette kept her loop as long as this, she could also have kept it even further. I get the feeling that we just do what we always do on that sound here, but I saved it for so long so it might get another effect, but unfortunately, it didn’t. We just fell into old habits.
• 18:55 – Unnecessary sounds.
• 19:00 – 21:00 – You can clearly see that I’ve lost focus and that I am still falling into old habits.
• 21:00 – 21:04 –  For a short period I feel we are onto something more aggressive, extreme here, would be cool to test it out.
• 21:29 – The same feeling comes back, should have kept it.
• 21:36 – 21:38 – The “accident” at the beginning is back. Cool.
• 21:38 – Still old habits, guess it is because we are not used to play for this long and we are loosing focus. That is bad and has to be worked on.
• 22:22 – Way too sudden fade out.
• 22:42 – And it is back, I don’t see any artistic reason for this 20 seconds absence of that loop.
• 22:42 – 26:21 – We (at least I) are still just falling into old habits and I seem quite out of focus, yet, to someone that has not heard this earlier, it might sound good?
• 26:21 – 28:31 – Even though it is quite cliché improvisation with this abrupt beat, I like how it floats on top of the all too familiar loop.
• 28:58 – It becomes too clear after a while that my intentions with playing this is mainly for looping it and pitching it down. Instead of thinking about the end result and start playing something based on that, I should instead think of what I could do with what I already am playing, than it might not sound as forced as it now does. However, I consider it a good thing to have a clear direction/goal with what I am doing since than it might sound more convincing, but the end result does not have to be what you intended it to be. So what I am saying is that I can make a plan, as I did here, regarding where to go, but then be open to derive from that plan if I sense it will sound unnatural as I should have done here.
• 29:27 – Too fast fade out.
• 29:53 – I love the ending with the trading and all the space, air and individuality.

Summary:

I feel we generally had good communication and flow trough out the piece, yet the long period of falling out of focus can not be tolerated and I have to work on that. I mean that no professional improviser can blame the surroundings or the flow of the day for a bad performance, one has to deliver quality music every time. Yet, some interesting aspects arose in the areas between full focus and the lack of it, where I noticed less seriousness and more playfulness from my side. This is where I feel that some of the most interesting and innovative turns happened, I have to remember that to play does not only mean to perform music, it also means what children do when they are free to do what they want.

I have to emphasize that there is nothing as exciting for me like when we suddenly are in sync for just a fraction of a second.

It is hard to equally divide the roles that music and dance have in the performance since people with a background in dance will probably focus more on the dance and vice versa. One could ask someone that have the same amount of experience in both dance and music, but people will look at it individually and you can, as far as I know, never have a completely neutral relationship to art.

However, it is nice for us working towards a feeling of equality.

The post Dancers – part 4 appeared first on Drums and electronics.

We were growing tired of our usual framework, so we decided to try something completely different and “free”:

To do this didn’t feel any harder than working with the usual framework, since within the framework we had been working more on the concept than on the “composition”.

We agreed on that we had reached a state where we temporarily are agreeing on the expression of the concept and should for a while just improvise together without any specific tasks to solve.

We somehow feel that what we do is natural, whatever that would mean.

When we throw away the framework, we get more clear in the head and are willing to test new ideas and push them even further.

Knowing we have established a platform for us to fall back on if something doesn’t work out is also extremely motivational for going further away from what we have previously done.

Analysis:

0:00 – Starting is hard and might sound insecure.

0:30 – Too linear.

1:00 – She keeps her moves even though I stop, good.

1:45 – She decides to go somewhere else.

1:50 – I decide to tag along.

2:26 – Anette covers her ears, I find this quite interesting, since then she draws a line between the two aspects, and you might realize that you have seen them as one … This also triggers me to take some more space, and “solo”.

3:05 – Anette keeps her idea even though I stop, this shows that we stand as equals.

3:45 – “back to start”, I like this … “red line”.

4:15 – Anette takes the lead, and I’m just creating a space for her. I like that her rhythm and intentions are so clear.

4:36 – The sound that Anette makes against the floor is an interesting aspect since I felt that it somehow triggered me to do something else.

4:45 – I feel that Anette gives away all the focus to the music, since it’s obvious she is listening.

5:34 – As her feet start to move, she presents the entrance to a new space. I feel it’s clear that something new is about to happen.

6:40 – The sounds Anette make are really having an impact on the auditive aspect.

7:14 – That scale thing sounds really bad.

7:19 – Anette fills out the static drone with intense rhythms, I feel we complement each other here.

7:32 – As soon as I start getting more busy, she calms down, keeping the contrast.

7:50 – It looks like I’m ready to get some impulses from Anette, but apparently, she is somewhere else.

8:05 – I feel this part is quite diffuse, it doesn’t point in any direction, too stagnant.

8:22 – Anette takes responsibility – New room, new energy.

8:54 – New room escalated and stopped too fast, I liked that room, should have taken more time to explore it.

9:18 – I find it quite unclear what Anette wants to communicate with her face-touching. If I remember correctly I thing she mentioned it as a focus glitch and “just had to repeat it to make it not seem like one”.

9:36 – I feel that Anette wants somewhere more aggressive. She is tired of my slow evolving sounds.

10:00 – I start to follow her on that. We play together in the same energy.

11:21 – Anette wants to go somewhere else, but I want to stay, creates a contrast and gives more focus to the music.

11:30 – She joins me again.

12:08 – 12:12 – I like that we suddenly can be in sync for a while and then step back out of it again.

12:24 – Yeah! Since my sequence is quite random, when it syncs up with the dancer, it get even more effect full.

12:25 – Calming down.

12:31 – The concept of integrating theater must be looked into, I feel it gives a nice touch to the performance when it’s done in as small doses as this.

12:47 – I decide to take more space.

12:54 – Anette gets my intentions and we build it up together, I feel we’re in sync here, in a good way, and our accents fall at the same places (13:04-13:31).

13:31 – Anette keeps on going. We have been talking about being independent, and it’s starting to show.

13:45 – I take over, and Anette gives me all the focus and we establish a “trading concept” like “call and response”. Maybe Anette could have covered her ears to give more focus to the music instead of fixing her hair? Hehe, very well …

14:01 – 14:06 – I don’t like this gap, and that it mainly is my fault, I should have kept on going until Anette released me if we were to keep the “call and response” idea we had entered, but from this experience I might think that one or two times is enough, if it occurs for a longer time than that, it might seem we have locked us self’s too tight. That will of course depend on the context.

14:47 – Anette takes the initiative to something new. A nice reaction to what just happened if you ask me.

15:10 – Suddenly a new room, fast reaction.

15:50 – A clear ending.

Summary:

After around 7 minutes, I feel things started to establish quite well, we had good communication and we clearly stood as two individuals.

An interesting aspect is that now, when we didn’t use the framework we used to, the interaction seems faster and also the impulses and the overall rhythm in the performance seems to have seeded up. I like this.

Yet, the beginning seemed insecure since we didn’t have the starting point we were used to, and we needed some minutes to tune into each other.

Even though I liked this, we didn’t want to afford our first public performance to start bad and might not evolve anywhere because of all the unknown factors. So we decided to start in the usual position with the usual sound.

One aspect that concerned us this day was the lighting in the room. We felt that with a dim or warmer light, it was easier to be calm and patient with our ideas, and it was easier to “step into another world”, focus and open the flow of creativity. And we decided to rehears with the lights on at the next rehearsal and rather be blessed with its dim properties in a concert setting, in other words make it harder for us when rehearsing.

The post Dancers – part 3 appeared first on Drums and electronics.

After some reflections covering our first rehearsal, Anette and I got together once again to rehears.

We felt that the interplay between us in the last rehearsal was to linear, there was no friction, we just followed each other. This is definitely a good thing in certain contexts, but we wanted to create more tension, depth and range.

We used some specific methods to try to reach this:

1 – What ever the first reaction to an impulse were, we should wait for the second or third one. This way the performance becomes more profound because we get time to interpret the impulse and the context.

2 – We can choose to hold on to our ideas even though the music or dance change. Then we will get more tension and the audience experiences two courses at the same time and the interplay between them.

Watch the first attempt here, I did some enhancements to the audio recording method (replacing the microphone on an iPhone) but the image got very blurry … Something I actually think was quite cool.

In the first post about dancers, I made this statement:

I’ve made a temporary holding point for my self: if the musics intentions are not clear enough for the dancer to interpret it as I intended it, it’s not good enough.

After some reflection, I find that quite stupid. It provokes a monotone and linear behavior which excludes all the discussed qualities I want in the performance. It’s always good to have some temporary guidelines, but this one didn’t last for very long.

But there is something in the statement, about being clear and concise which I find very important. Less is as we all know – more. I’ll have to, in time, try to rephrase this statement.

You might wonder why we are doing the same framework every time. The reason for that is that when we first met, we were not sure about where we would go. I didn’t know Anette’s dancing very well, and she didn’t know the intentions with my music. That way, working with the same framework for improvisation every time was actually a really good thing, because then it was more clear what worked and what didn’t and we could focus more on the interplay then on the improvisation.

This method was not a conscious decision from us, rather a concept that emerged from the process.

We have been discussing to what extent composition and frameworks should be a part of the performance and the only thing we know for certain is how we shall start, the first sound and the starting position for the dancer. This gives us peace and a room where to start building the performance.

We rehearsed our framework once again, but this time we tried to continue even further.

Now, after entering the “unknown”, we felt that this was the right way to go. After all the reflections and thoughts regarding our previous rehearsals we had established a way of communication that could work as well with the mentioned framework as with any other improvised piece.

We wanted to try something “completely different” as shown bellow:

The framework that we rehearsed established some borders for our expression. Or in other words, it defined somehow our expression. This I regard as something good.

I like the concept that every thing should be open and free, and even tough what we are going to present during performances is already somehow defined, I was free to not invite Anette to dance, she was free to say no, we were free to decide that we didn’t like what we were doing and cancel or play hip-hop instead. So our defined expression came from something very open and free. And that’s good enough for me, for now.

Thanks to Anton Ligaarden for great promo photos:

The post Dancers – part 2 appeared first on Drums and electronics.

– Look at the possibilities for at external sources, such as the audience, a net stream, dancers, humidity, lights etc. can control the development in the music and in the video trough out a performance by using alternative sensors, controllers and programs.

I want to look into collaboration with dancers. The last month I’ve invited professional dancers Hedvig Bang and Anette Boge to collaborate with me.

One of the main things I discovered was that improvising with dancers is not so different from improvising with musicians: we can choose to follow each other or we can choose to do something completely different that might inspire the others. We can also decide upon to what extent composition should be a part of the performance.

This collaboration also presents an embodiment of the energy in my music, this I can say, with out a doubt, is very interesting, since I easily can see if the dancers interpret my music as I intended it.

I’ve made a temporary holding point for my self: if the musics intentions are not clear enough for the dancer to interpret it as I intended it, it’s not good enough.

Regarding the musical aspect, lately I’ve been very influenced by Amon Tobin and as some of you might hear in the following recording I’m mainly just playing around with the sounds from Tobin’s song Big Furry Head.

Here you can see and hear rehearsal 1 & 2, both 15 minutes. The dancer is Anette Boge. Both video and sound is recorded with my phone, so the resolution on both is quite bad, but I want to emphasize that this is just to show the earliest stage with a collaboration with a dancer.

After this we sat down and watched the recording and processed it mentally.

Musically I liked the progression of the piece and it’s beginning, but when it hits it’s peak I don’t feel I manage to keep it there. I’ll need some more practice with these sounds.

We spoke about making the beginning a stronger statement.

We both agreed that we liked the interaction on 5:07 and would try to develop this further the next time.

Apart from this, there were some minor ideas and adjustments, then we did it again:

This time I played a little louder, so on the recording you actually can hear what I’m doing.

As previously discussed, we took our time at the beginning. I really enjoyed that and I think an audience would to, this because you get time to empty your mind and get ready to perceive or perform a performance.

As you can see at 3:42 and on, we develop what we talked about regarding 5:07 in the previous video.

Musically I felt this time went better than the last one, but I still need to play more with those sounds to make it sound more convincing.

The development we had at the beginning and at 3:42 resulted in that those two parts came almost immediately after each other and constructed a framework for how we want to start the piece. So from recording and evaluating, the peace slowly takes form. How strict we’ll want to be regarding the form, only time can tell.

Thanks to Anette Boge and Hedvig Bang for showing interest in collaborating with me. And thanks to Anders Tveit and Erik Strutz for introducing me to Amon Tobin’s music.

The post Dancers appeared first on Drums and electronics.