[PD] Re:[OT] How do your performance environments looks like?

[vanDongen-Gilcher]

Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu said at "Re: [PD] Re:[OT] How do your performance 
environments looks like?."r[2003/04/16 18:08]

> > For an interesting example of a haptic musical interface, check out the
> > University of York's Cymatic:  http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~smr12/
> main.htm
> 
> This gives me a better idea. It is not by chance that they focus on
> physical modeling. There are many ways to make sounds with a computer
> where haptic interfaces makes much less sense.
> 
Of course. Although I think that there are many "pure" synthetic synthesis 
methods were haptic feedback can be useful as well.
example:
A midi-fader is also gives some form of haptic feedback, you know the 
position by touch without having to look at the screen.
What I am thinking of are situations where a single controller axis 
controls multiple interconnected parameters.
One parameters is obviously sensable because of the position. Pitch for 
instance.
But an external sound source might determine the portamento or some kind of 
modulation effect on that sound.
Using ff I can make the response of the joystick reflect the synthesis 
better. 
For me it is all about designing a performance interface that matches my 
musical concepts.



> During a recent improvisation workshop, some people complained that I
> was totally inexpressive while playing, even if I was able to make
> "gestural" sounds and make use of the whole dynamic range which is more
> extreme than the rest of the players (instrumental).
> 
> I noticed that my teacher can (on occasion) use an artificial gestuality
> (that is, not justified by strict interaction with the device). 
> For me this is not necessarily a problem, this split being a part of the
> nature of playing electronic devices. 
> 
This split is also part of accoustic devices I think.
It is also an old discussion in classical music. With a piano the only 
factors determining the sound are the speed of depressing the keys and the 
position of the pedals. All movements before and after are "artificial" . 
There are a lot of bad pianist with fake expresionist movements, there are 
also very good pianist who move a lot and very good ones who sit like a 
statue. 
And then there are conductors and solo guitarist in rockbands, singers 
......:)

But I think movement does have an effect, even if only indirectly. 
It is often easier to get in the rhythm if your body moves with it, for 
example. 
I like to move when I perform, an I always stand when I play electronics. 

My dislike of laptop performances is more complex than this. I think that a 
mouse is too simple and too single dimensional an controller for serious 
music performance and improvisation It is for me anyway. 
And I think that I can hear this in performances, and see it reflected in 
the way of sitting at a desk behind a laptop.
The attention of the performer seems focused on moving the cursor to place 
X on the screen, and not on making sound Y in the room.

What I am more interested in is finding ways of making a computer a musical 
instrument without losing the possibilities.
The biggest difference between a computer and a more traditional instrument 
is in the past and future time of the performance.
A traditional instruments acts in the now. A computer has access to what 
has gone before, and you can project into the future.
What I am trying to do is to make an interface that gives me the 
flexibility of a traditional instrument (instant change and reaction) 
without losing the extended time-scale of the computer program. To do this 
I want to have the interface reflect the state of the machine to the player 
in an intuitive or at least learnable way. One way is graphical, another is 
haptic. 
In the example above, the external sound source could also be what I played 
1 minute ago. Or something choosen from what I played by pattern matching 
with neural nets.


So, that is long mail.
Hope you find it interesting and not too rambling.

Gerard