Posts Tagged ‘ Improvisation ’
Rehearsal for California Electronic Music Exchange Concerts on 4.27.2012 and 4.28.2012
Using custom hardware (pucktronix tabulaRasa and snake.corral, etc) and software – http://www.gregsurges.com/
4ep is available now.
The recordings on this release were made in early 2011 using handmade analog electronic hardware. Using a homebrew interface, the analog sound-generation hardware was coupled to custom laptop software which derived its parameters via real-time analysis of the analog sound signals. These improvisations are the result of the composer/performer/maker interacting with a set of electronic systems, which themselves are largely out of his control.
Not intended for listening on headphones.
I just added this to the page for my piece Gates (No. 1).
Gates (No. 1) is a software instrument, programmed in Pure Data. Inspired by other instrument builders, particularly David Tudor’s electronic instruments, Gates (No. 1) provides the performer with high-level control of musical events, while the moment-to-moment details emerge from the patch itself.
The main interface for Gates (No. 1).
Central to the sound of the instrument is a set of three feedback networks. Implemented using recursive delay lines, each network emphasizes a particular frequency range: low, medium, and high. The frequency ranges are user-selectable, allowing for coarse control over the register of a particular musical event. Slight changes in delay time and filter cutoffs destabilize the feedback, producing glissandi and other effects.
Feedback network producing low frequency sounds.
The pitch register is selected through a combination of key-presses, which also determines other parameters of the sound. The first of those other parameters is a selection of one of 6 sound-processing algorithms which is applied to the selected feedback network. The 6 processing types are: amplitude modulation by line segments, ring modulation by filtered noise, ring modulation by a sine wave, recursive delay with delay time modulation, a chorus effect, and a set of bandpass filters in series (creating phase cancellations).
ASCII-based input module.
Inner workings of the patch. Above are the different processing modules, routed through an echo effect, and out to the DAC.
The second parameter is a selection of one of 50 different, hand-drawn wave shapes. The wave shapes provide control data for the modulation sources described above.
One set of wave shapes, used to control the sound processing modules.
The key-press combination also determines the duration and number of repeats of a sound, ranging from short, repetitive events to long drones. Finally, the performer can choose to route the output of the instrument through a secondary processing unit, which modifies its processing algorithms according to the rhythmic onsets of the generated sound.
The secondary effects module adds a layer of digital grit, contrasting with the cleaner sounds of the instrument.
The variety and diversity of sound generation, processing, and control algorithms ensure that the instrument is never fully under the control of the performer. Rather than a flaw, this is a feature, as it ensures an exciting challenge for the performer, and produces performances which can retain similar characteristics while varying widely in structure and duration.
The show last night was a success, turnout was pretty good (lots of friends) and music seemed to be well received.
Set list:
1) Improvisation – drones juxtaposed against flurries of rhythm.
2) Fission - Performance premiere of this piece, very short middle section – fun!
3) Improvisation – Glitchy, sparse, and responsive.
4) Mediation (David Collins) – Good performance, solid cueing.
5) Radio Gamelan - Premiere also, small tech difficulties getting started, but got into some really weird and cool sonic areas.
6) Improvisation – Again, drones moving towards ambience w/ percussion.
“Sound Virus”
For Many Performers With Loud Sounds
For car horns, trumpets, percussion, megaphones, trash cans, voice, etc.
Four of the performers begin situated on the four opposing street corners of a major intersection. The intersection should be surrounded by similar streets and intersections – the street layout should be as grid-like as possible. The remaining performers should begin to disperse into the city, while attempting to remain within earshot of at least one other performer.
Sound (a simple motive, rhythm, or fragment) begins in the original, central location. When a performer who is not playing begins to hear the original sound, he or she should begin to play a similar sound. After a performer has begun playing, he or she can stop and move to the next street corner at any point. (Performers should always aim to be playing at a street corner.) If a performer can no longer hear others, he or she should return to a point where the sound is again audible.
When moving, performers should actively encourage passers-by to join the piece. Pausing to explain the situation is acceptable, and passers-by can use an available means of sound production.
The piece is over when all performers have ceased.
On the eve of my second semester of grad school, I’ve created a page for the second of the pieces completed over break, RadioGamelan. The piece is for networked laptops, and is a blast to play. I plan on posting the software score (made in Max/MSP, using OSC to communicate over wi-fi), as well as a recording which will be released on Petcord in March, 2010.
The new release will be made up of improvisations and compositions performed by the trio of David Collins, Steve Schlei, and myself.
Pretty restrained and/or atmospheric.
Just posted a video from a concert I did last year w/ Chris Burns. It’s live-coding (an improvised performance practice, in which performers program their instruments in concert), using Pure Data. This is the first set, using Vanilla PD. There’s a second set, using the NRCI networking library – don’t know if that one still exists…
Christopher Burns and Greg Surges Live Coding – 12.11.2008 from Greg Surges on Vimeo.
Here are two recordings of improvisations by David Collins and myself.
Recordings were made on a Tascam DR-07, with just a tiny bit of EQ after the fact.
I stumbled across an essay on using improvisation in composed works by the French composer Vinko Globokar. Here’s the link, from the IIMA. Globokar did a lot of work integrating improvisation/reactive situations into composed music. His piece Correspondences is a great example of this. I found this article just as I’ve been struggling with similar issues in my current work.
This first sentence is quite telling:
The interdependence between composer and performer has nowadays become one of the fundamental problems in our music.
He writes of the desire to engage and involve the performer more deeply in a given work, by allowing them more of the responsibility than is traditionally given, but warns that this can compromise the aesthetics of the piece. (I think this can be overcome in a few ways, maybe most importantly by knowing your performers, but also by playing your own music.)
Globokar suggests a few techniques he uses to allow ‘improvisation’ in his works, without risking changes to his pieces. He defines five ways in which musicians can ‘react’ in a musical situation:
Imitation is the most obvious, and I think ‘hesitate’ is maybe the least. It implies a sort of ‘disintegration’ of material, in which a player gradually breaks away from and eventually stops playing a given idea.
I think it’s important to note that although he uses the term ‘improvised’, he’s really referring to music that is primarily pre-composed, containing some parameters that are improvised or (more accurately) reactionary. An example of this (he gives a few) is a situation in which one performer has a set of pitches, and the other performers have to follow her pitches using their own prescribed rhythm. This creates a very interesting web of interdependence, and strikes me as a way to encourage a very active way listening in the performers.
He also writes a bit about the differences in writing this music for musicians with whom you’re familiar and comfortable with, and writing for yet unknown musicians.
He also leaves us with some direction:
Almost unexplored are moreover the various aspects offered by the reaction between performers. Even the relation: performer-performer – in which, for example, a performer, having material at his disposal which we have prescribed him in an incomplete form “searches for” the absent elements (which are, however, necessary if he wants to play) within the playing of his neighbour – yields extremely tense and engaged results. Even more interesting are the situations which oblige the performer to react simultaneously to the playing of two of his neighbours, thus having to analyse two materials at the same time.
It seems important today for us to create relations between performers in order that they should be tied more closely together, that they should be interdependent, that they should have the possibility of influencing each other. Exactly if we succeed in creating a variety of relations between them, not just musical ones but also psychologically, we arrive at making them interested in participating.
Finally, there are some good score examples, with explanatory notes. Go check it out, if you haven’t already. I also encourage looking at some of his scores, they’re beautifully hand-notated and generally pretty clear.
Edit: There appear to be quite a few interesting articles on similar (?) topics here.
Musician/hacker living in San Diego, CA. Studying computer music at UCSD.