What:

Hedvig and I will analyze a performance we did with Alex Gunia at 300 acting spaces.

Why:

We want to be more aware of how we interact with another musician.

How:

We will state our thoughts and feelings regarding the recording and the preparations for the performance.

——–

Preface:

The 9th of may we were asked to play at 300 acting spaces, an artistic research project initiated by Alex Gunia. Gunia were to join us, so this would be our first performance not as a duo.

Structure:

We did not discuss any structure before we started.

Sensors:

We had been experiencing some problems with the sensors, they were breaking due to their placement on the wrist/hand. We only had one working sensor left for this performance. More on that later.

Right hand:

• Gyroscope on wrist whose function is controlled by Jonas.

Video:

Alanlysis:

• Both: 00:00 – 01:14 Clear minimalistic start. And an obvious link between sound and movement.

• Jonas: 00:00 – 01:14 I think the usage of the sensors might be too extreme, I would like to see something more subtle and slow evolving when we know we are to do such a long performance? Maybe. But it was a nice intro.

• Both: 01:15 Great transition to the next part.

• Both: 02:43 – 02:48 Cool contrast from Hedvig.

• Both: 01:15 – 03:53 Nice and elegant part, not too much, not too little.

• Jonas: 03:53 Back to the intro, great!

• Both: Cool video effect, us “dancing” together.

• Both: 05:20 – 07:00 We feel that this part has no obvious sense of direction.

• Hedvig: When new impulses/patterns appear, we should not be scared to stay in them and we should avoid falling back into old habits in situations like these.

• Jonas: 07:00 – 10:02 nice build up to a new part at 10:02.

• Jonas: 10:02 This is a nice example of rehearsed parts easily being integrated into improvisational pieces.

• Hedvig: 11:52 This is starting to get quite flat and uninspiring.

• Jonas: Agree

• Both: 12:42 Nice, sudden transition and a nice relief from the previous hectic part. The transition wouldn’t have been as relieving as this if the previous part hadn’t been “too long”, so was it too long?

• Both: 12:42 – 14:36 Fresh start, but it might not be obvious enough that Hedvig is controlling the sound, if that is important.

• Both: 14:36 – 18:11 Nice and balanced part, clam and easy.

• Hedvig: It’s obvious that we stand for what we do and that we are on the same page.

• Jonas: I feel that we are calm and just create art together, it’s not pretentious, just playing and having fun.

• Hedvig: 18:11 – 20:30 I think this part was strange and choppy, but I liked it.

• Jonas: The part might be a little undefined, but I like it.

• Jonas: 19:49-19:54 I like that I use this sound just for 5 seconds, and not again.

• Jonas: 19:54 – 22:40 – I like that it is minimalistic, but it could and should have been clearer landscapes musically.

• Hedvig: Nice focus, I like my approach.

• Jonas: 22:57 Nice new musical element. And cool tension to the previous slow evolving part.

• Jonas: 23:29 Cool, I like the lead-approach Alex steps into.

• Both: 23:52 Hedvig gives room, nice.

• Both: 24:30 Hedvig gives even more room, even nicer.

• Both: 25:03 Hedvig articulates her contrasts with nice small gestures. Cool!

• Jonas: 25:18 Obvious change when Hedvig decides to hit the floor. Here Hedvig is really controlling the structure in the music.

• Hedvig: 25:18 I like the feel of a “rewind in movements” from what happened before I sat down.

• Jonas: I feel that this part well represents the shockwaves from the previous part. A well connected piece.

• Both: 25:52 – 26:00 Awesome!

• Hedvig: 26:52 This action summarizes my idea of my “rewinding”.

• Jonas: 26:27 Nice trivial romantic sound.

• Jonas: I like that Hedvig is siting down and dancing with just her hands.

• Both: 28:15 We think that Hedvig easily could have sat down longer, since it was such a clear statement.

• Both: 26:52 – 34:10 A nice part, not too much ambition, but as stated, is is rather trivial and easy to enjoy.

• Jonas: 34:14 I like Hedvig’s contrasts to the slow evolving music.

• Both: Nice calm ending, good recap.

Listen:

Seperate tracks:

Summary and overall thoughts:

The most interesting aspect with this performance was for us the trio format. It made us relax more and give more room as we knew that we could rely on Gunia to put new life into the piece if it were to “die out”. It also made us act more as one instrument since Hedvig’s movements was only controlling the output of the drums. We could think as one instrument and utilize some of the techniques we had rehearsed and enter some of the musical rooms we were accustomed to in interplay with Gunia. The trio format also made us go to places we had never been before and we were challenged to get out of our comfort zone. This is definitely something we will do again.

The post Performing with guitar, drums, electronics and a dancer with sensors appeared first on Drums and electronics.

What:

An analysis and discussion of our first public performance with “Sound Picking”.

Why:

We want to become more aware of how we work and perform.

How:

We will analyze a video of the performance and discuss some thoughts we had regarding the performance.

——–

Preface:

The 20th of April we were hired to perform during an event at the Norwegian museum of technology. They were handing out awards to some outstanding young scientists and we were lucky enough to entertain them for some minutes during the event.

Structure:

As this performance were to last only for 5 minutes, we decided to do some planing and not freely improvise the whole performance. I feel that if a piece is completely improvised, it should last longer to let the audience and the performers establish a shared space.

Based on previous rehearsals, we decided on two parts:

• One slow and massive.
• One rapid and in time.

The cue to change part was to be a single stroke at the crash cymbal.

We also decided on doing a fixed trading part after this, consisting of the following:

After this, I where to do 8 bars of “solo”, then Hedvig would “pick up” my last beats with the sensors and finish the piece her self.

As you can see beneath, it didn’t go quite as planned, but nevertheless it was a good experience.

Sensors:

Right hand:

• Touch sensor in palm that repeats the last sound when pressed.
• Gyroscope on wrist that sets the speed of the repeated sound.

Video:

Analyzis:

We sat down a month after the performance and analyzed the video together. The reason we waited is that we wanted to see the performance with a clear mind, not affected by recently having performed it. I feel that the objectivity and the acceptance for error in the analysis is greater this way.

• Jonas: I take too long before I start. Even though it was kind of a gimmick to sample me slurping, it turned out to be quite awkward.
• Jonas: When we start, I feel it is nice and clear.
• Hedvig: Agree.
• Jonas: Until 01:34, I like the development of the piece.
• Hedvig: I feel we are on the same wavelength, the more clear the sounds are the easier it is to use the sensors, and I feel that we managed this here.
• Jonas: 01:34 – 01:46 I feel the intensity dropped, mainly due to quiet reverb being looped by Hedvig and no drum sound coming trough.
• Hedvig and Jonas: 02:04 – 02:45 Nice trading part, though Hedvig rushes trough and doesn’t give Jonas enough space.
• Jonas: 02:45 I like the sudden contrast between rapid and slow.
• Hedvig: 02:45 – 3:32 I feel I don’t give Jonas enough time to establish his new space because I use the sensors too much.
• Jonas: 03:47 – 03:55 Awkward moment musically. Too fragile sounds.
• Jonas: 03:55 – 05:35 Overall a nice part, I feel we manage to keep it interesting, but the usage of the sensors should maybe be more subtle. I like Hedvig’s repetitive movements that occur from time to time in this part.
• Hedvig: It is challenging to focus on the usage of the sensors when I get caught up in the music. I see that I tend to forget the sensors.
• Hedvig: 05:35 – 06:19 this part emphasizes the fact that this was our first performance and I found it challenging to focus on both the sensors, dance and structure of the overall piece.
• Jonas: 06:19 – 07:00 – This part became to empty, pointless and without substance and direction from my side. I wasn’t aware enough to follow up on Hedvig’s sensor usage.
• Hedvig and Jonas: 07:00 – 07:20, we both like that Hedvig dances with no music, to show that we are equals.
• Hedvig and Jonas: 07:20 we both agree on that the ending is not clear, we have to hold the silence and audience for a longer period of time.

Summary and overall thoughts:

We are quite happy about this performance, even though is colored by it being our first performance together. Jonas should have clearer directions in his music and establish each idea to a greater extent. Hedvig should give Jonas more auditive space and practice to be more aware to the sensors impact on the music. We feel that the “magical” moments which are the goal of this project indeed are present from time to time.

Downloads:

Ableton Live set

The post Short performance with drums, electronics, dance and sensors as a part of an event appeared first on Drums and electronics.

What:

An analysis and discussion of a rehearsal where we explored some improvisation techniques.

Why:

To see the exercises from the outside and experience their expression.

How:

I will analyze and discuss each exercise and explain how we prepared and conducted them.

——–

Preface:

In March of this year we worked on creating clear frameworks for rehearsal purposes, examples of these could be:

• Ugly
• Beautiful
• Tenacious
• Floating
• Silent
• Noisy
• etc…

Simply just adjectives that we try to express together to see how we interpret them.

Some of them resulted in nonsense, others in nice pieces.

It was quite interesting that we had different interpretation of some of these adjectives since that resulted in contrasts and a broader expression.

For example “hollow and large”, Hedvig interpreted by forming a “ring” with her body, I had expected a more “straight up with arms straight out”.

And of course, it was challenging for Hedvig to interpret these adjectives both trough sound (her sensors) and dance, and then try to combine them.

Sensors:

Right hand:

• Touch sensor in palm that tuns on a reverb when pressed.

Left hand:

• Touch sensor in palm that repeats the last sound when pressed.
• Gyroscope on wrist that sets the speed of the repeated sound.

These are some of the exercises we did:

——–

Rapid – 1:

Framework:

• Jonas: Fragile and rapid.
• Hedvig: Repetitions and elaboration of the large and slow underlying pulse.
• Both: Fast interaction.

Video:

Analysis:

00:02: Clear start. Could probably have been more fragile as this was the intention.

00:05: I turn on a delay, this might be confusing as it can be hard to tell how Hedvig controls the sound when I also do similar effects. I probably felt that it was too naked, but should have just kept it that way.

00:15: Elegant sensor usage of Hedvig, I even state that orally with a “ja”, unprofessional of me. The fact that she controls a reverb and I keep things so dry is a nice contrast.

00:31: We listen well to each other and give each other space, good. Until now, I think Hedvig elaborates well my intended underlying pulse.

00:31 – 01:02: Many nice details, but quite messy and with no obvious direction.

01:07: Hedvig uses the left sensor for the first time, elegant, clear and subtle.

01:07 – 01:22: It is clear that I am not in concert mode, as I should be, I am obviously just trying out different things not thinking enough about the overall structure of the piece, but maybe that is good as I might stumble upon something new that I hadn’t dared to try at a concert.

01:23: Again, nice and subtle sensor usage.

01:23 – 01:42: I like the mood we are getting into here.

01:42: I feel the sensor usage here elaborates my intentions, that is great.

01:42 – 01:55: I think I waited and opened up for Hedvig to do the repetition thing again here, as kind of a “trading”-part, but it didn’t come and I unfortunately backed out, and went into a new room.

01:55 – 02:35: I like this part, and I think Hedvig uses the sensors very well.

02:36: As you can see, Hedvig wanted something to happen here, but I didn’t catch it.

02:39 – 02:53: Obvious repeating moves from Hedvig, great, as this was a part of her task. It could easily have lasted longer and/or been developed slower.

02:53 – 03:01: I join Hedvig at her tasks, making a repeating contrast to the rapid sounds. I like it.

03:18 – 03:36: I try to get that trading thing going more than once, since that was a part of the framework (fast interaction). But Hedvig has her mind set at something else, which of course is alright, since this can force new things to happen and me to go new ways.

03:36: Clear sensor usage, Cool! Should have been repeated several times, for example as a part of a trading section.

03:50 – 04:50: Here we have nice interaction. But it could have been faster, as it becomes towards the end, and it could have been clearer that Hedvig actually triggers the sounds that come between my playing. For example by her doing the same movement each time the sound she makes comes, like at 03:36 or at 02:39.

04:50: I should understand that a rehearsal doesn’t have to be this long, especially as I do repeat my self quite frequently.

05:10 – 05:53: When I stay focused and stop playing each time Hedvig uses the sensors, I feel that things work quite well. Still, this way the musical interaction is just one-way. But of course, at this point, our first rehearsal with the actual equipment we where to use, I didn’t expect Hedvig to be even close to this level of compositional consciousness.

05:53 – 08:44: This could have been a piece of a performance, I feel it contains good interaction, fast changes, we give each other space and the structure holds. Especially at 08:18, when we suddenly agree on going slow. Should probably have ended after that part.

Exercise summary:

In general very elegant and subtle usage of the sensors by Hedvig, as this rehearsal happened quite a while back and we have done several performances after this, I had forgotten that I really liked the flow in this idea and I will try to bring some of it back into our performances. I seem to have forgotten completely the “fragile” factor given in advance. But as this was strictly a rehearsal, it was way too long and too little focused on specific aspects. We had to do it more effectively. So we talked about what we had done, and agreed on doing a short version where Hedvig would not dance and just focus on the sensor usage and we would try to make the fast auditive interaction happen both ways:

——–

Rapid – 2:

Framework:

• Jonas: stop when Hedvig starts.
• Hedvig: Don’t dance, just use the sensors and stop when Jonas starts.

This way we force our self to listen well and be as focused as possible.

Video:

Analysis:

This works quite well although we tend to stop before the other one starts, we probably do that because we get used to a certain speed for when we should change, that was not the stated framework. When Hedvig uses the “repetitions” sensor, I sometimes try to imitate what she did, maybe it is possible to do that both ways when Hedvig gets to practice more with the sensors? This is a good focus exercise that we should do more frequently. We should probably have a set of warm-up exercises we do before each gig.

——–

Beat – 1:

Explanation:

Suddenly, as a part of these spaced out spaces, we stumbled upon a more trivial expression we wanted to record. Lately, as we have been getting a quite large variation of audience, this has turned out to be quite convenient to have in our briefcase.

I play in time on a ping-pong delay, Hedvig dance on the beat and the sensors repetition-effect is quantized to the beat.

Video:

Analysis:

Well, not a clear beginning, but this was intended just as a record for us to remember it.

It is quite nice, except what happens at 00:42 to 00:44, that is awesome. And the ending is quite cool, you can tell we did the previous focus-trading-exercise before this.

——–

Beat – 2:

Explanation:

As we already sailed trough trivial waters, I wanted to try another, more stretched beat:

Video:

Analysis:

This works alright, should probably have some more musical elements going when doing this, a sub-bass for example.

I like how Hedvig uses the sensors to open up the beat from time to time.

This kind of ideas will probably be a cradle for the creation of a more club-like concept that we have been thinking about.

——–

Two Parameters – 1:

Framework:

We choose two parameters each.

• Jonas:

1. Big, slow, heavy sounds.
2. Small, rapid, light sounds.

• Hedvig:

1. Work on the floor.
2. As little contact with the floor as possible.

Video:

Analysis:

I feel that the idea might be to shallow, we should try to do it the other way around: I play rapid when Hedvig is at the floor and slow when she is up. This solution is just too obvious, so obvious that it had to be tested.

Yet some interesting things do happen. Also here I enjoy Hedvig’s short sensor usage.

I apparently understood that I could use the computer to enhance the tasks given in the framework. That is good.

00:43 – 01:18: Here Hedvig use the sensors very smoothly and it is obvious that the sound is connected to a specific movement. And we also give each other space as rehearsed earlier, but it can still improve, particular from my side.

01:41: Change of parameter comes quite obviously, still I don’t manage to do it fast enough and it fades over instead of a sudden change, maybe that was what I wanted, but it doesn’t look convincing.

02:01: There we go, now I’ve managed to change, but it took 20 seconds too much. I like how it sounds.

02:51: I seem to be going somewhere else than planned, combining the two parameters. I don’t remember why. I should have stayed to the plan since this is a rehearsal. Sounds alright though …

03:15: Hedvig is obviously fed up with me fooling around, so she maturely decides that the exercise has finished. Good!

03:28: That was a quite cool usage of the sensors, to really determined throw the sound quickly away. If I just had seen or heard it coming and muted everything. We’ll have to rehears that.

——–

Two Parameters – 2:

Explanation:

Since this is a rehearsal we wanted to streamline the exercise and decided to change faster and simultaneously between the parameters.

Video:

Analysis:

This turned out quite clear and concise. Yet the changes are not instant.

Maybe we should have an auditive or visual cue for the change, which could also actually enhance it.

“If you can’t hide it, decorate it”.

– Oprah Winfrey

00:19: Elegant musical transition by Hedvig.

00:24: As you probably see, this exercise seem to be quite physically challenging to do for a dancer.

00:30: We are quite in sync here. Even though Hedvig isn’t on the floor until 00:36, but as stated, that was due to the physical nature of the exercise, or a knee injury or something like that.

00:38: That is cool, we are really in sync here.

——–

Summary:

These were good exercises. Even though we had to define them by doing them some times, they resulted in a deeper understanding for what we are actually doing.

As I wrote some times in this texts, some of these exercises we’ll have to do again since the progression from each time doing it was very clear.

We should also engineer a warm-up routine implementing some of these exercises as they proved to enhance our focus and interplay.

The post Exploring improvisation techniques with dance, drums and electronics appeared first on Drums and electronics.

What:

I will see if I can use a Phidgets-kit on a dancer, it is NOT wireless.

Why:

I am waiting for the Eowave-system to arrive from France and I want some progression in the project.

How:

I will go trough available sensors and think of possible solutions.

——–

Sensors:

These are the available sensors and my thoughts on using them:

Circular Touch:

Too Big.

IR reflective (5mm):

Measures too short distance (max 5mm).

IR reflective (10cm):

Measures too short distance (max 10cm).

Force sensor:

This is both small and sensitive enough to work with.

Magnetic sensor:

Not favorable since the dancer would have to wear a magnet and the distance to where it starts to sense is too short.

Rotation sensor:

I don’t want the dancer to turn knobs, I want her to dance. I could have made something with some strings and springs connected to the knob, but that seems extremely stupid to me.

Touch sensor:

Initially a relevant sensor, but as I tried to put it on a glove, it sensed being on the glove as being touched. I even tried with rubber gloves, still it told me it was getting touched just by sitting on the glove. So I can’t use it.

Motion sensor:

Initially I thought I would be able to use this, but apparently it just senses when there is movement, not on what axis there is movement and how much tilt. That is probably why it is called a motion sensor. Then again, I could use it, but it would not be very clear what it is doing since the numbers I get are quite messy, I would have to try to filter them somehow.

Slider:

Once again, I don’t want the dancer to turn knobs or slides, I want her to dance.

Joystick:

Basically a good idea, but too big for this project.

Temprature sensor:

Cool, but it would be hard to control the temperature instantly based on immediate reactions to what happens in the music.

——–

Wearing the system:

That leaves me with only the force sensor:

I imagined it would be best if the dancer could press it with her fingers, so I put two of them on each their glove:

The dancer would have to wear the interface as well, so I put it on an old belt:

And of course I had to try it on:

Summary:

It felt quite comfortable wearing it, let us just hope that the dancer feels the same way.

Since this system is not wireless, there is a major challenge to actually dance with it, but since I am no dancer, I didn’t bother even trying to figure out how that would work.

As mentioned, this is just a temporary solution until I get the wireless system from Eowave, then I will put together a more permanent solution.

The most important aspect I want to research with this solution is how I will map the incoming data to the processing of the audio. This setup facilitates the concept of starting and stopping a loop as mentioned in the idea sketch:

The two flexion sensors are to decide when to start and stop the looping and also the initial length of the loop. When the left hand closes (if the dancer is close to the drums) is sets the starting point for the loop/starts recording into the looper, when the right hand is closed the en point is set and the loop starts playing. When both hands are opened again the loop stops.

I am thinking that after starting a loop, if more pressure is put on the sensor, that decides the speed and pitch of the loop.

I will also look for a gyroscope to go with this solution so I can use the rotation of the dancers hand(s) to control parameters like we did with the Eowave-system.

The post Testing sensor system on a dancer – temporary solution appeared first on Drums and electronics.

I will test Eowave’s Eobody2 HF on a dancer.

Why:

I want to see if this system works with our project.

How:

I will have the sensors control simple parameters.

——–

After the first day we met I made some enhancements to the setup.

If anyone is interested, this is the current MaxMSP-patch.

I consider pitch, speed and volume as three essential parameters to investigate further as those are quite relevant parameters in traditional music.

In the first example, by turning her hand around the z-axis, the dancer would control the pitch and speed of a simple drum loop.

The reason why we chose not to separate pitch and speed was that after some intents with just controlling the speed we felt that excluding pitch was very unnatural, probably because they both reinforce each others effect and historically we are used to them being tied together (slow down a tape or a vinyl and the pitch will drop).

The original idea was that I would measure the distance between her hands to provoke this action, but we figured out that it would be easier to “fake” it by turning her hands while pulling them apart. I got this idea after an inspiring session with Alexander Refsum Jensenius who made it clear to me that to actually measure the distance between her hands was harder than I initially thought.

As you can see, we are starting to enjoy this. And the system is behaving exactly as expected.

Next, I made turning around the x-axis control the volume of the drum loop.

It is quite obvious that the dancer found this somehow more boring, but it had to be tested and I think we can get a use for it because the link between the movement and the music is so clear.

And again, the system is behaving exactly as expected.

In the next test, I combined the two above, so turning around the z-axis will change the speed and pitch and turning around the x-axis will change the volume of the drum loop.

This clip is notably longer since the dancer is now inspired to explore the possibilities further and we felt that we were ready do to a test performance.

I wanted to emulate that I was playing the drums since that is where we are going, so instead of the drum loop we used a loop from a solo performance I did almost a year ago.

I also wanted to challenge the dancer with some other parameters. This time she controls delay feedback and pitch. You can see the parameters in Ableton Live being modulated in the upper left corner.

I like this. Of course it gets boring after a while, but I would gladly make this a part of a performance.

If I were to play instead of the loop there would be an extremely direct interaction between the music and the dance: I would be playing with both what I hear and see the dancer do and she would be inspired by what I play and what she hear she is doing with the music.

I have now applied for some funding to buy the sensor system and develop a performance with this setup.

Even though this seem quite poor from an artistic point of view, I feel that we are on the right way to do something quite original and the possibilities of what this can bring are just starting to show.

More on this project when money comes around.

The post Testing sensor system on a dancer – day 2 appeared first on Drums and electronics.

I will test Eowave’s Eobody2 HF on a dancer.

Why:

I want to see if this system works with our project.

How:

I will have the sensors control simple parameters.

——–

The dancer:

I was lucky enough to make Hedvig Sønstebø Bang, professional dancer and long time friend, interested in joining the project.

Bang has a BA in jazz dance at The National Academy of the arts (Oslo, Norway) and is currently working as a freelance dancer.

I am utterly grateful for her participation and enthusiasm for the project.

Sensors:

We taped the following sensors to the dancer to control and modulate a simple drum loop:

• Flexion

When she closes her hand she can control the loop.

• Gyroscope

One axis controlling the speed and another the reverb.

Transmitter:

Both sensors are connected to a wireless transmitter attached to the dancer.

——–

First tests:

The fact that nothing sounds like it should and the dancer says that she is getting shocked explains most of the outcome of the first test quite well, but that is how a first test should be, right?

Now the sound is more stable and we got the dancer a glove so that she won’t get shocked. Apparently the flexion sensors that Eowave deliver electrify you if you have the conducting side on your skin, it operates at extremely low voltages so it won’t harm you, but it seemed unpleasant.

Now we tried something more relevant to the project, she looped me saying “blablabla” and then she modulated it.

I think I am starting to see the link between music and dance I have been looking for. As you see at 1:16 the dancer is associating the sounds she is creating with her body.

We felt that the range on the speed is too large: the fastest it way too fast and the slowest might be too slow. Also, the mapping seem to be wrong: both axises are controlling the speed.

——–

Sensor placement:

We wanted to experiment further with the sensor system so we decided to place the gyroscope on other parts of the body. We had no specific method, we just wanted to see if we suddenly would stumble upon something.

In later tests it will be reasonable with a more specific method, but since this was our first encounter with the sensor system, we decided to do it like this.

Now there is no sound in the videos, just an image showing what values we get from the sensors, this might be a little to technical for some, but try to think of it like this:

• All the faders you see jumping up and down I can make control any parameter of the music.
• The faders are jumping up and down because of the movements of the dancer, try to see the link.
• If you try to imagine the faders controlling for example reverb, speed and volume you might understand why we are doing these tests.

Stomach:

We get quite clear readings here, this could definitely be used for something. But as Hedvig made me aware of, dancers doesn’t normally dance just like that, so we did a test with some more movements with the gyroscope still on the stomach.

I should probably have put on some music and let her dance, because this seemed somehow too forced.

But the fact that the faders start moving seemingly randomly when she starts dancing could be an interesting aspect. Maybe that way we will stumble upon ways to modulate sound that would never have been done if it was not a part of a dance.

Knee:

It would be cool to “kick” sound, and this way it is certainly possible.

Apart from that I don’t see any immediate use for a sensor at the knee. Suggestions are more than welcome.

Foot:

A sensor placed at the foot also enables the emulation of kicking a sound. Also it seemed more flexible to have it here than at the knee. Maybe a “straight” foot could enable another set of effects than a “flat” foot. For example a “straight” foot would make the stomach sensor control reverb whilst a “flat” foot would make it control a filter?

The post Testing sensor system on a dancer – day 1 appeared first on Drums and electronics.

I will determine what sensor system to use.

I have to find the most practical and effective solution for collaboration with a dancer.

Why:

I want to be sure I am using the most convenient system before i involve the dancer.

How:

I will discuss the subject with Alexander Refsum Jensenius.

Alexander Refsum Jensenius (BA, MA, MSc, PhD) is a music technology researcher living in Oslo, Norway

www.arj.no

——–

Sensor system:

Jensenius and I discussed the selection of sensor systems and I will narrow it down to this solution based on the following criteria:

• It has to be wireless.

Dancing with a cable going to the computer would be very inconvenient.

• It cannot be based on Bluetooth.

Jensenius explained to me that he has had bad experiences with Bluetooth based systems. They could be stable for a while, but suddenly on some occasions it wouldn’t work. His theory was that many in the audience might have a cellphone with Bluetooth enabled and that could interfere with the system. Also that the structure of some venues simply wouldn’t allow Bluetooth to operate.

• It cannot be based on WiFi.

Most WiFi solutions demand a lot of power which would mean we would have to recharge the system very often. I considered an Arduino system with an Xbee shield and from these battery tests, it seemed quite good. But I have just barely tried to program an arduino and it would demand too much of my time.

• It has to be flexible.

Since I do not yet know what movements I want to register with what sensors, the system i choose has to be flexible in these aspects.

• It has to be affordable.

I am a student.

The available sensor system which met all these criteria was the Eowave Eobody2 HF (how affordable it is can still be discussed).

Time consumption vs productivity:

The fact that that I am skilled enough to get this system up and running quickly is an important aspect.

As my main focus on my masters degree is to create music, using a lot of time programming a setup would be considered time consumption. This has been one of my main challenges this year, to balance the amount of time used on technology and the amount of time for creating music.

The best way to do this would be to get a system, as simple as it might be, up and running as fast as possible and rather develop it further parallel with the creation of the music and choreography. Then I will know what the system is lacking since I know exactly what I expect it to do. Yet this is a hard situation since I do not know exactly what the system should do before I start creating the music and I do not know exactly what musical possibilities I have before the system is up and running.

It is important that these statements are subjective, you might not consider programming time consumption. Here are some slightly different thoughts on productivity vs. time consumption seen trough the eyes of blogger and programmer Trevor Pascal:

The post Choosing the right sensor system for a dancer appeared first on Drums and electronics.

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.

(…) a sensor based setup for a dancer and a drummer, where the dancer can pick up sounds played by the drummer and process them with movement (…)

My project description

What:

Dancer wearing sensors – controlling sound.

The idea is that the dancer can approach my drum set (sound source) and pick up the sounds I am making at that instant. Then he or she can modulate the sounds with movements and try to make it artistically interesting and fitting to the rest of the music if there is any.

Why:

Concrete interaction between music and dance.

The main motivation behind this is that I want to experience a more concrete interaction between a dancers movements and a musician sounds in a live performance setting.

How:

I will make a patch in Max/MSP, buy sensors and rehears with a dancer.

Equipment and procedure:

The dancer will have to wear some kind of gloves and maybe some socks/shoes with the following sensors:

Gyroscope:

A gyroscope is a device for measuring or maintaining orientation, based on the principles of angular momentum. Thanks to the fast development in smartphone technology they are now extremely small and quite cheap and can look for example like this (not the coin):

In this context the gyroscope will be used mainly for detecting the rotation of the dancers feet and hands.

More on gyroscope sensors here.

Flexion (bend):

Flexion sensors, (from Latin flectere, ‘to bend’) also called bend sensors, measure the amount of deflection caused by bending the sensor. There are various ways of sensing deflection, from strain-gauges¹⁾ to hall-effect sensors²⁾. The three most common types of flexion sensors are:

• conductive ink-based
• fibre-optic
• conductive fabric/thread/polymer-based

www.sensorwiki.org

The flexion sensors will be used to detect when the dancer is closing or opening his or her hands.

More on flexion sensors here.

Distance (Infrared):

These sensors uses infrared light whose waves are those just below the visible spectrum of frequencies. I will use one of these to determine the distance between the dancers hands.

More on infrared sensors here.

Radio-frequency identification:

Radio-frequency identification (RFID) is a technology that uses radio waves to transfer data from an electronic tag, called RFID tag or label, attached to an object, through a reader for the purpose of identifying and tracking the object.

I will place a RFID tag on the dancer and RFID readers by the drums and in the buckets (see explanation further down) or the other way around so that when he or she gets close to the buckets or drums it gets registered.

RFID tags can look like this:

RFID readers can look like this:

More on RFID sensors here.

Movement tracking:

I would also like to track the dancers movement on stage, for example with a Kinect so that the sounds that are being carried can be panned to the corresponding location on stage.

Buckets:

The idea also includes some buckets with RFID sensors where the dancer can place the sounds so that they stay looped while he or she continues the performance. It would also be convenient with some lights in the buckets representing if they contain a loop or not.

…

Mapping:

Once again the most challenging factor is the mapping, mapping is to choose what the sensors/controllers should do. A crucial point for me is that the sensors functions are obvious.

I am not quite sure of the gyroscopes function yet, but I guess it will be a filter, delay, distortion or a reverb or a combination of all of them. I could of course say that the dancers placement on stage or another parameter should decide what effect to use, but I will try to keep my feet at the ground and restrict my self until further on in the process so that it will be easier to start working on it.

The two flexion sensors are to decide when to start and stop the looping and also the initial length of the loop. When the left hand closes (if the dancer is close to the drums) is sets the starting point for the loop/starts recording into the looper, when the right hand is closed the en point is set and the loop starts playing. When both hands are opened again the loop stops.

The distance sensor in one of the hands sees the distance to the other hand and, if a loop is playing, decides the speed and pitch (not sure about pitch yet) of the loop. When the hands are closer, the loop plays faster and when the hands are further apart, the loop plays slower.

The RFID sensors, as already mentioned, are to decide if the dancer can record new sounds or not and to tell when a sound is supposed to keep on looping “in a bucket”. If the closed hand is in a bucket wile it is released, it keeps on looping and the dancer can go make another loop.

So the left hand has:

• Flexion.
• Gyroscope.
• RFID.

The right hand has:

• Flexion.
• Gyroscope.
• Distance.

For now, the feet will just have each their gyroscope.

Hypothesis:

I think the first rehearsal will just be amusement over the feeling to “touch sound” and over-using it – like when a guitarist gets a new pedal. Further down the road we will probably encounter problems if we want to play in time and we want loops to be in sync, then I will have to create some kind of transport control and we will need a metronome or backing track.

I think the main challenge will be for the dancer to merge the performance of music and dance. I might have to compose something that he or she can dance, maybe not down to the finest detail, but I think it will be a challenge to improvise well with this setup, then again, hopefully I am wrong.

Reflection:

We will obviously have to practice a lot to make the end result a good experience. I feel that the concept is not strong enough to stand by it self for more than the first 5 minutes of amusement over the technology. I might realize that this is just a dead end, but I have a strong feeling it will not result in that because of earlier experiences with the common denominator between music and dance (see the “Dancers-section of this blog).

Special thanks to Haakon Berg Mathisen for thoughts on how to write well for the internet.

The post Dancer controlling sound with sensors – Idea sketch 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.