What

I will explain how Bendik Hovik Kjeldsberg and I made an interactive sound installation.

Why

We were invited to make a sound installation.

How

I will go trough the process and discuss some issues we encountered.

——–

About the exhibition:

Bendik Hovik Kjeldsberg and I were invited by Bilder Nordic School of Photography to contribute to an exhibition they called Shameless:

«An exhibition by the graduating students  of Bilder Nordic School of Photography:

SHAMLESS IS A REFLECTION ON SEXUALITY

Sexuality is vital for our survival as a species and gives meaning to our lives. The simple function of reproduction is challenged by the complexity of our heart and brain.

Shameless explores contemporary issues of identity in our society, and the notion of feeling ashamed. Self-image, fantasies, puberty, HIV, minority groups and children’s understanding of sexuality are some of the themes we look into.»

from: bildernordic.no

The exhibition had over 5000 visitors and ran over a period of 10 days.

Placement:

They wanted sound to appear three places in the exhibition hall, all should be short sounds triggered by movement. These places and movements were:

1. When someone went into a room.
2. When someone laid down in a bed.
3. When someone went to the toilet.

Sensors:

Wanting to keep things as simple as possible, we figured out that the sensors that would work for all three scenarios where contact microphones. Contact mics are cheap and robust and works well when you just need an on/off signal.

We soldered xlr plugs to some piezo elements and we were ready to go.

For a more sensitive installation, for example if we wanted to measure how fast some one went into the next room or how heavy the person laying in the bed was, we would have to use other kinds of sensors such as cameras and pressure sensors.

Speakers:

We used three pairs of small handheld speakers and pulled many meters of mini-jack extensions all over the exhibition, I was worried there would be some signal-loss because of the cable length and on the speakers furthest away and we had some problems getting the volume high enough, but still it served it’s purpose.

Sounds:

The thought behind the sounds didn’t emerge from a profound reflection over the theme “shameless”, it was rather a simple and naive way to make the audience feel embraced and some how present an aspect of sexuality in music.

To find the sounds we needed we browsed an open source sound library, freesound.org, we also browsed some porn sites, but we found that quite embarrassing and couldn’t keep it serious.

We chose to have two alternating sounds per area:

System:

I made a standalone application in Max/MSP that ran on an iMac and we used an Avid Mbox Pro sound card for in- and output.

I had to define a limit for how frequent the sensors were active, if not, they would have triggered sounds all the time when there were many people in the exhibition hall. In the application you can define this your self in the number box called “antall sekunder å vente”.

As you can see, the program is divided into four sections. The two faders to the left in each section decide the volume of left and right of the first sample, the two faders at the right decide the volume of the second sample, the fader in the middle decides the threshold for the volume needed from the contact microphone to trigger the sample. The “replace”-button lets you load new samples.

The little square in the middle turns everything on and the “open”-button shows you audio preferences.

Downloads:

Standalone (MAC)

Source Code (Max/MSP)

As those of you familiar with Max/MSP might see, it was made in a hurry.

As I had to make the application in the exhibition hall with a limited amount of time, it ended up quite unsymmetrical and with a language mixture of English and Norwegian, this however reminded me that the patches doesn’t have to look good to work as a one-task-tool that only I have to look at. In this scenario it is more important to get it up and running and focusing on the overall experience of the installation rather than on the layout of the program running it.

Stability:

The system ran flawlessly for 10 days in a row without being turned off (except from when a girl turned off the sound card since it “was so warm”), so it is extremely stable, I was at least expecting to have to go down there once to fix it, but it just worked.

Reactions:

On the day of the opening, the exhibition hall was packed with people and the sounds on the bed and when passing into the other room didn’t quite come to it’s right because of all the chattering and frequent triggering of the sounds. But the setup in the toilet was rather successful since there were constantly people going there and they shared their experiences with the people standing in line when they leaved the toilet, so people started talking about the embarrassing experience of going to the toilet. Due to the nature of the triggered sounds (as sown above), to the presence of a dildo and challenging pictures in the bathroom and to the volume level on the speakers placed there, I must say it made quite an impression having to take a pee in those circumstances.

Timelaps:

Thanks to Anders Tveit for lending us some piezo elements.

The post Making an interactive sound installation appeared first on Drums and electronics.

What:

I will analyze and discuss a performance I did together with Sigurd Ytre-Arne (live visuals).

Why:

I want to become more aware of how I work.

How:

I will analyze a video of the performance and discuss some thoughts I have on improvising together with a VJ.

——–

Preface:

I was invited to perform at “Musikkbaren”, a stage where students at my academy can present what they are working on. I intended to bring the project “Sound Picking“, but since the dancer was not available at that date, I had to find something else to present. For a while I considered just doing a solo performance, but I decided I wanted to take advantage of the situation and bring in another element to challenge my self. As stated in my project description, I want to:

Look into how I can make video react on sound or controllers using the MaxMsp extensions Jitter and Vizzie.

The perfect man to help me with this was my friend Sigurd Ytre-Arne

Since I trust him as a person and enjoy his work as an artist, I decided we would not rehearse, we would just meet at the venue for some hours before the performance and share thoughts. He challenged me in advance to gather some video clips that he should use so that I would have more impact on the overall outcome of the performance, at this task I completely failed.

I suggested massive and intense videos such as:

But he humbly rejected them and after getting to know his approach both trough this performance and another that I will write about soon, I realized that the beauty of his work lies in the trivial and minimalistic shades of daily life.

Video:

Analysis:

• 00:06: Nice and clear start, I like that Sigurd wait with the visuals so that the audience can start focusing on one element at the time.
• 00:23: It is good that you already can see the connection between the audio and the video, that it is triggered.
• 00:38: I like that I work with the texture in the drum
• 01:14: I make a lot of open space and keep the ideas clear. Good.
• 01:29: Could have waited longer with the low frequencies.
• 02:00: I should try to avoid hitting the cymbals by accident, but hey, it was an accident …
• 02:04: Nice sudden change in texture. Would have been better if what was before the change was higher in pitch.
• 03:07: I should have been more clear about using that sample, sound like I didn’t mean to do it … Maybe I didn’t …
• 03:23: I’m glad I just used that repeater once. But it was quite a messy build-up, maybe I should start making clearer ideas in advance and rather improvise the transition between them.
• 03:34: Nice drop.
• 04:22: Could have stayed in that idea longer.
• 04:22 – 04:53: I Like that I take my time with this idea.
• 04:57: Elegant transit, well done by Sigurd Ytre-Arne.
• 05:47: I like the part until here, but now it got too loud.
• 05:58: The looping process goes almost undetected, good.
• 06:07: The reversing of the sound destroyed the flow …
• 06:07 – 06:39: Too messy part, didn’t like it, not clear enough.
• 06:57: The video clearly get’s the focus as I just let the loop go, nice part even though I’m quite tired of that sound.
• 07:41: Sigurd leads me into a new part by changing the video drastically, I should probably have presented a clearer change than just continuing with the slow and large sound I had already done for quite some time …
• 07:51: Should have stopped the loop.
• 08:18: I start to like it, the drums are so clear that they act as a soloist on top of the loop.
• 08:18 – 09:19: I like this part.
• 09:22: Should have stopped the resonating loop as I was clearly moving somewhere new …
• 09:40: Sigurd is with me though, bringing more red to the set.
• 10:03: Nice beat repeat.
• 10:06: The loop that had been going on for so long was cut in a way that it seemed like it was an mistake, not cool! But it’s at least good that I choose to stop it.
• 10:07: Cool new room, both auditive and visually. I had been going with long and strong sounds for ten minutes now, it was nice to change texture.
• 11:24: Should not have moved, seemed like I was done, I should have trusted that I know what I am doing …
• 11:38: Nice new element, and very fitting visuals.
• 12:22: As we see someone walking by in the background on the visuals, I feel it somehow destroys the illusion that we tried to create for the audience to step into. Bad luck.
• 12:40: Talking/blowing into the microphone … That was not cool and a bad idea in this context … I’m not trying to make the soundtrack for star wars here …
• 13:03: Cool visuals! Blending in different movie clips with the live video-feed of me enhances the illusion that we try to create …
• 13:37: I don’t think the poem fitted into this context either, too “epic”.
• 14:22: I like that I start presenting higher pitches again, but still in a floating form.
• 15:36: Should have kept it going instead of going to the common “fast playing on the side of the drums in abrupt patterns”.
• 15:48: It definitely helps with some delay.
• 15:58: Nice place to cut the loop with the low frequencies.
• 15:58 – 16:37: I like this space.
• 16:37 – 16:54: I like this space even better, should have kept it for longer …
• 16:54: Well played by Sigurd keeping the picture frozen. Could have kept it like that even longer.
• 17:43: Nice visuals, I feel they directly reflect the music. I probably stayed longer in this musical room since I saw Sigurd was with me on it. Good interaction.
• 18:48: Yeah! Cool minimalistic music and video. Could have kept it going.
• 19:50: Apparently I felt like I was in a hurry and didn’t know where to go since I had to fall back to this, an idea I definitely use way too much. But it was a nice and clear change. Could have had more high end though.
• 20:35: I don’t hit the kick hard enough so the sample isn’t triggered, but it sounds good and I manage to work with it and the video response is nice and clear.
• 21:14: Same thing happens, probably because I learned from before that it was cool.
• 21:23: The transition from being played to being looped seems quite subtile on the recurring, but I fear that the loss of the direct sound from the kick in the room probably decreased the intensity of the flow in a negative way.
• 21:50: I think it starts to get boring.
• 21:52: I feel that the visuals bring new life to the musical flow by taking focus, good job Sigurd!
• 22:50: You see only visible audience member gets interested in understanding the relevance between what is going on at the canvas and what is happening in realtime. A good proof that the visuals are in focus.
• 19:50 – 23:00: This part, as mentioned is somehow my safe place and I am starting to get extremely bored with it. I’ll try avoiding it at all costs from now on. But still I hope the audience enjoyed it since. It is a clear and strong musical room.
• 23:00: Nice with a change in pitch.
• 23:57: Apparently  I suddenly decide to play in time, since that is such a strong statement in this context I should have done it much clearer. Too much hihat.
• 24:22: Using my voice here is a strong statement that I like and is how I should have started the previous phrase.
• 24:22 – 25:30: I think I like this part. It’s good because it is on one side something different from the rest as it is in time and still it keep the “native” touch the whole piece has (hard to avoid when just using drums). The aspect I don’t like about it is that it sounds quite messy and I feel it’s starting to be a “clich’e” to play drums with delay.
• 25:48: Here I present another comfort sone of mine, it has nice musical impact, but I’m tired of it …
• 27:27: It’s not good that the volume drops when I turn on the reverb.
• 28:37: Should have kept the cymbal-thing going for a little longer …
• 30:02: Nice long fade-out and we managed to keep the audience silent together with us for a while.

Summary:

I remember feeling quite good about this performance and I believe it was due to the calm and slow evolving nature of the piece. In hindsight, as stated, I fell that it was maybe too slow. But still a nice piece with good structure.

Regarding the interaction between Sigurd and I, I think we had a fairly good interaction (see analysis). The clearest moments of interaction where of course those where the video and music where mirroring each other (eg glitchy music and glitchy video), Other interesting moments, that might not have been as clear, were when the video inspired the music to take new directions and vice versa. Another concept of interplay that was present from time to time was contrasts, that one stood still and the other moved or that one was choppy and the other floating. These are concepts that we could pursuit in the future through rehearsal techniques similar to those I have been doing in Sound Picking and Dancer.

The post Performing with live improvised visuals, drums and electronics appeared first on Drums and electronics.

What:

I made a song based on samples from an iron monument.

Why:

I was hired to do it.

How:

I sampled the monument and processed the samples in Ableton Live.

——–

Finished piece:

Download:

Ableton Live Project

Preface:

The museum “Maihaugen” in Lillehammer, Norway, hired me to do an electronic composition for the anniversary of their founder: “Anders Sandvig”. The composition were to be based on sounds I could make from their new monument of Sandvig.

A presentation of Maihaugen as found on maihaugen.no/en/:

Maihaugen is an open air museum with 200 old and new buildings, exhibitions, cafes and lots of activities. It was founded by the dentist Anders Sandvig in 1887. Maihaugen is a part of Lillehammer museum, together with Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson’s Aulestad, Sigrid Undset’s Bjerkebæk, the Norwegian Olympic Museum and the Norwegian Post Museum.

The monument consists of many tall vertical iron columns shaped slightly differently so that they together project the face of “Anders Sandvig”, see picture at top.

Procedure:

I went to Lillehammer one week before the show to sample the monument with a zoom h4n. Afterwards I took the two and a half hour long trip back home to Oslo, where my recorder was stolen and I had to go back to Lillehammer the next day with a borrowed recorder to do everything again.

I am a backup maniac, I use both dropbox, icloud and jotta, but apparently the handheld recorder I used is not synced to neither of these services. I learned:

Always make sure important files are backed up.

Raw samples:

I imported the sound files into ableton live and extracted the clearest and most distinct parts into new audio files.

Structure:

The piece was going to be presented with several dancers and two musicians playing on top of it, me playing live on the monument and Andreas Ljones playing the Jew’s Harp.

I was asked to satisfy many needs:

• It had to be in tune with the Jew’s Harp.
• It had to be in 5/4.
• It had to have a touch of traditional Norwegian folk music.
• It had to be danceable.
• It had to last for 10 minutes.
• It had to be simple and minimalistic.
• It had to be obvious that the sound was made from the statue.

I chose to use a side-chain compressor on every beat to make it easier for the dancers to follow, and I made the 5/4 timing quite diffuse so it wouldn’t confuse them. The emphasis on the first and fifth beat is my attempt to make it more like Norwegian folk music, I try to draw a parallel to “Rørospols” where they emphasize the first and third beat in 3/4 timing.

As you might have discovered by now, the piece is looped once, with the structure ABAB, where the second AB is an exact copy of the first AB. That might be a quite cheap and lazy trick, but I think it worked well …

Watch:

News Reportage:

Video from the audience:

Summary:

It was interesting to have such a short deadline and having to satisfy all the mentioned criteria. It would obviously have been better if I had more time, but it is good to know that I can make something that is good enough within a small time frame.

The post Making a song from samples of an iron monument appeared first on Drums and electronics.

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.

My thoughts on being touched by music.

Why:

This was an assignment in a course in esthetics.

How:

I will briefly discuss how I get touched by music.

——–

INTRODUCTION:

In the first semester of my master studies, I collaborated with a dancer. We worked to develop a platform for us to improvise on.

It happened at times, sometimes for only a fraction of a second and sometimes for several minutes, that we felt there was no obstacle between us. During these events communication flowed freely, it was for me like I was playing with a clone of myself and the result was perceived very properly and naturally when we studied the video footage we did.

When we think back on the creation of these stretches, it is often that we do not quite remember what we did, I believe this may indicate that all of our focus was in the conduct and communication.

To provoke these moments, which I see as an ultimate music experience, quickly becomes a little artificial because the concept to provoke something natural is contradictory. Nevertheless, after several hours of exercises and interactions, this occurs more frequently. This probably indicates both that we are becoming more familiar with each others expression and that we are more in agreement about what we as a team want to express. But it also results in that we try to re-create such moments from earlier, then it loses much value to us, but it might feel like it happened there and than for an audience seeing us for the first time?

Sometimes, performing can affected me in a positive sense, but when I look at the recording I don’t get the same feeling. The opposite may also happen: I do not feel much when I perform, but it touches me when I listen to it. Therefore I have chosen to divide this reflection into two categories: “To be touched when performing” and “To be touched when listening”:

To be touched when performing:

Being touched when I perform usually involves that I feel the communication between me and the other practitioners as a completely free flow without obstruction, or that the music’s progression is moving to places I did not know about. In these situations, I am not aware of what I play, but know that it is correct. If I try to analyze what I do, everything pretty much falls together, so this situation often requires that all focus is on the overall outcome of the audiovisual performance, not on what I’m doing as an individual.

To be touched when listening:

One of the factors that touches me when listening to music is when I feel that the musicians performing it are being touched by their own performance. When I see they do not show off their technical skills or are trying to hard to make things work, that they with no effort make the music they know so well or is being produced at that moment. These ideas somehow reflects the ideas presented in the book “Effortless mastery” by Kenny Werner. (Werner 1996).

Another factor that touches me when listening, both to live and recorded music is when I get surprised by the progression in the music or that innovative chances are made and the result takes the piece to a new level.

It also touches me when sounds I have never heard before, or never in the context of music appear. Or when something happens that I cannot explain, be it rhythmically, harmonically or texturally.

This might be a curse for many music students, that we are so used to analyzing the music that we don’t manage to listen without interest to the overall outcome of the music and thereby not enjoying it to the same extent as one not trained in the school of music.

SUMMARY:

As you see what touches me is basically when I discover something new or when I feel there is a free flow between the musicians mind and the musical outcome.

Sometimes I get touched both by performing and by listening to the performance afterwards, or more frequently I will not be touched by either of the occasions. It is probably the first example that has to be pursued. Nevertheless, it depends very much upon the circumstances and other external factors.

Is there something that touches everyone always? That must be what we define as “good music”.

The post To be touched by music 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.