This week I tested a new version of the piece which i developed after the previous test (see last post). This version is much more rhythmic and contains a kick drum and hi-hats that provide a steady pulse for the more abstract found sounds and melodic parts. It also had 12 different sine waves which built up and then became randomised. For this test i bounced 12 separate versions for 12 machines, each of which had unique sounds and and some shared sounds. I wasn't able to upload them all to Soundcloud in time so it was necessary to import the bounces onto the computers from a memory stick. This was very labour intensive and there were only 5 people at the tutorial so some people had to start 3 computers. As a result some machines were significantly later than others. However, the overall effect was still musical and interesting.
The found sound rhythms again worked well, these sounds were were all individually rooted to a different machine as were the sine wave tones. This gave a feeling of movement around the space, as the computers are arranged around the edge of the room which is a large rectangle. The kick drum and hi-hat sounds were each on an individual machine. This meant that there was no movement in these sounds and that was a criticism from some of my peers. I also felt that if i pursue this direction then i would try and make those sounds move too. The next step for the development of this piece is to look into using Max MSP in order to network the computers. This will allow me to have elements of control such as volume, mute, and possibly speed of playback from a central computer. It would also allow me to build a patch that i could install on each computer which would hopefully make performing the piece easier. Another idea I am keen to introduce to the piece is having a selection of material that audience members would be free to start and stop as they see fit. This idea is based on the Terry Riley composition "In C" and the internet collaborative project "in B flat" which was conceived by Darren Soloman (see link below). This material would work on the same principle as both of these works in that it would be in the same key and would work in what ever combination it was triggered. http://www.inbflat.net/
The trial version of the new piece is available below.
On Monday (13th Jan 2014) I tested my piece, as it is (see 5th post), in the Scott 105 using 9 computers. I was quite surprised by the results. It sounded very different to the approximation that i produced in Logic. Hearing it spread out around a large room on multiple machines was very useful and ideas that i had ruled out from the prototype piece such as complex rhythms and lower frequency sounds seem much more possible and even necessary.
Aspects that i felt worked well were the glitchy-found sounds and the other percussion sounds that seemed to jump from machine to machine. This is something that i will build on. Sharp, short sounds seem very effective as your ear can easily detect them appearing in different places in the room. I like the idea of creating complex rhythms that seem to jump around the room in sequences or at random and i think there is a lot of potential for this. The melodic ideas were fixed to particular versions and although they sounded nice, they were a bit boring but pad type sounds maybe useful to counter balance the percussion. The glockenspiel worked quite well as it is semi percussive and you could hear the delay type effect between different machines. Overall i felt that the piece became a bit boring after about 2 minutes and there was a lack of lower frequency sounds. The speakers on the IMacs can cope with frequencies down to around 100hz so i can use some bass and kick drum sounds to remedy this. Another idea that struck me was building up chords or drones gradually with a single note on several different computers. I am definitely now thinking of writing separate versions of the same piece for up to 10 machines. David Strang suggested using sine waves to do this as they will interact with the harmonics and resonance of the space. He suggested looking into the work of Phill Niblock who builds up multiple single tones to make dense, sustained drones. He describes his work on his website.
“I
recorded tones played by an instrument (by an instrumentalist),
arranging these single tones into mutli-layered settings, making
thick textured drones, with many microtones. In the early days, I
prescribed the microtones, tuning the instrumentalist, when I was
using audio tape. Later, I used the software ProTools, and made the
microtones as I made the pieces.”
Niblock
(2013) I like the idea of building up chords or drones using individual tones on separate machines but i want to sequence them and have them move around the room in interesting ways, maybe moving in and out of sequence with the the percussion sounds.
I think my piece is starting to move away from the original idea of the clouds of sound which are a feature of Phil Kline's work and is becoming a composition for multiple machines that will have aspects of a surround sound piece. However, i still want to incorporate some of the original ideas as well as the newer ones. Another consideration is adding another layer of control by networking the computers and having access to volume, mute and speed of play back from one master computer. This would require some work in Max MSP but it should not be too complicated and would also allow me to have playback of the different parts of the composition from the Max patch on the computer. The audience members could select a part from a drop down menu as instructed or at their own choice depending on how the piece develops. This aspect of a hidden layer of control could bring an interesting dimension to the work, possibly similar to the competitive compositions of John Zorn or Iannis Xenakis where players try to gain control of the piece. If I have control of volume and mute perhaps the people sitting at the computers will notice and turn the volume back up. There is certainly a lot to consider but my main focus is still the composition.
