Hi Cathy… I suggest that you begin with a brief recap of your proposal: the idea you wanted to explore, a bit about AbletonLive. Then an outline of the three day play you put together, the people involved and then the basic set up of the room. Then move to the day by day activities. I’ve done some editing and condensing of the following text. I think there is too much detail. I would suggest you try to collapse more experiments and summarize the activity a bit more. BQ
BASIC SET UP: set up equipment which included 2 microphones each with a pedal nearby to trigger the software to go into record and to begin a loop: a remote keyboard on stage next to one of the mic 'stations': two main speakers. MONDAY A.M. – The goal this morning was to set up and test the software and audio equipment. This took the form of three improvisations: Improv 1 : recorded ‘Laurel’s Blues’ – a series of vocal phrases which were assigned to different keys on the remote keyboard. Improv 2: accordion & vox played along to a looped rhythm created by Philip. Improv 3: with Brian, Laurel, myself and Jessica – each person contributed a sound, and Philip manipulated it (pitch, volume or adding subtracting tracks). Observations: if any… MONDAY P.M. with collaborator Yvonne Ng We gave Yvonne a fairly lengthy explanation of the software, the mic and trigger pedal, and midi keyboard for control of pitch, trigger for loops etc. She then did two improvisations, one solo and one with Yvonne, Laurel, Jessica and Cathy. Philip recorded the improvisation, listened to the recording, then each person drew a 'maps' of our recollections of the improv. Experiment 1 – an improvisation with Yvonne, Laurel, Jessica and myself using the map as our 'score'. Each of us could trigger record and playback, and Philip was manipulating live (controlling volume and selecting tracks for playback). Each person stopped using the drawn score part-way through the improvisation, possibly because the sound was becoming too dense and it was difficult with 4 persons participating to tell what was being recorded, looped and played back and what was 'live', Experiment 2 – Yvonne & Laurel. The mic and trigger was placed upstage behind the wall hidden from view. The instruction was for the person recording to continue until the second person had crossed downstage and returned upstage to the area behind the wall.
Observation: the effect was that the sounds created by the person upstage underscored the movement of the person crossing the stage, and often inspired their choice of movement. The person vocalizing could also see the other person approaching as their shadow loomed larger as they finished their downstage cross and moved upstage. We generally felt that the improv was much more successful with two people: also, when only two tracks were being played back at a time as it was easier to discern what was being amplified and what was being looped and played back. Philip expressed that he was often surprised by the movement: he did some live manipulation of volume and pitch of the loops. Jessica commented on the connection between the vocal sounds we heard and the body movement. Yvonne and Laurel felt that the quality and timbre of the loop they heard as they moved downstage influenced their movement. Experiment 3 – Yvonne solo with mic attached to her and Philip manipulating. Very fascinating to watch and listen – very satisfying to see the direct connection between Yvonne's sounds/loops and her movement quality. Observations: slightly problematic for Yvonne to indicate clearly to Philip when she wanted to go in and out of record, but Philip was very sensitive to her movement and was quite successful in anticipating her wishes. We discussed alternate ways of indicating when to start and stop recording: ultimately the ideal would be to have a trigger that would give a performer the ability to start and stop recording without hampering the creative flow of the moment. Yvonne expressed interest in the software, and that she would enjoy exploring ways in which it could provide an opportunity to have the audience influence a live dance performance. Philip mused whether it would be possible to set up a template that would record only the last 10 seconds of a vocal 'take'. Cathy observed that it was interesting to be able to capture a sound and be able to listen to it again and again, thereby becoming more familiar with it at each pass of the loop. Philip's sensitive manipulation and choices about when to cease or begin a loop had a lot to do with the effective use of the software – otherwise it could be very easy for sounds to 'build up' and become repetitive, disinteresting and indistinguishable from one another. TUESDAY A.M. with CHRISTOPHER HOUSE We gave Christopher a brief instruction about triggering record and playback using the mic and pedals (no preamble about the keyboard) Christopher used the wireless headset – from that time onwards, it was great to not have the participants’ movement restricted by having to go to a fixed mic position to record a loop Christopher Improv 1 – Christopher solo. Philip was manipulating live. Interesting to note that both Christopher and Yvonne made much longer duration of loops than typically used for Ableton in a pop music context.
Christopher Improv 2 - Christopher solo: a second mic and pedal were added to trigger recordings: loops were untreated by Philip. Christopher felt it was more interesting to have Philip manipulate his tracks live rather than be given more ability to affect and process his own tracks during his improv: distinctions between a solo performer with more realtime control of their loops from a duet between dancer and musician/audio manipulator. Christopher Improv 3 – solo: with two mics and pedals stationed about 15 feet apart in the space. As loops were added, only the two latest recorded tracks would play. Interesting how Christopher would approach each one of the stations to create a loop. Christopher suggested trying 3 pedals. Brian observed the difficulty of finding silence using this technology. Christopher Improv 4 – using 3 pedals to trigger recording, stationed in three separate areas of the space (two onstage, one in the house). We had the sense that Christopher created a landscape as he moved through the space and made loops. Christopher Improv.5 - Christopher and Laurel: 3 mics and pedals to trigger loops (two stations onstage, one in house). Added waterphone and shaker at one station, and added keyboard controller onstage which could change the pitch or volume of the latest recorded track. Either person could choose to create a loop and to affect it, or to affect the other persons' loop. Observations: very interesting – felt like a journey. More clarity as only the last two recorded tracks were played back at a time. Laurel would often play or sing a part first before recording it which made for an interesting effect of hearing a sound, becoming familiar with it and then recognizing that it was 'captured' in a loop. The realtime manipulation was fun to witness visually ie. Laurel sang a loop, and Christopher transformed it by pitching it down very low. At another point, one person whispered a loop: when the other person turned the volume up, it was as though something very private was made public: conversely, a loud, more aggressive timbre was dimished by having the volume turned down. Christopher Improv 6 - with Philip and Christopher: again with 3 'stations', but this time the speakers were localized to the microphones and triggers, so that a loop recorded at mic 1 would be played back only on speaker 1, a loop recorded at mic 2 would be played back on speaker 2 and a loop recorded on mic 3 would be played back on speaker 3.. Philip established a rhythmic loop that served as a bed track, and as in Improv 5, only the last two loops were played back at a time over the 'bed track": either person could manipulate the volume or pitch of their own or the other person's loops. They used free association with text (inspired by 'candies for children'). Observations: having the loops localized to the speakers enhanced distinction between loops. The improv had the feeling of a slightly competitive game. It felt sometimes that one person would 'take over' the audio territory by creating a denser loop and turning the volume up. We felt that the rhythmic bedtrack possibly made for a desire for greater density in the improv. Cathy felt that they needed to have more tracks playing back than only two, as the audio texture would begin to build, but would be continually dismantled whenever a new loop was added. TUESDAY P.M.
We began the afternoon with two experiments, making loops of the musical form of a round or canon. Laurel recorded and looped a round she had written entitled "Had I Wings To Fly'. Jessica asked if it was possible to have the speakers pan so that they would 'follow' the sound of the person making the recording in the room. Philip reassigned the mics so that all three mics would go into record together: Laurel and Philip then did an improv using voice and waterphone. The 3 speakers were still assigned so that whatever was recorded at a particular microphone would be played back by that speaker: the effect was that when the improv was looped/played back we could hear Philip and Laurel moving around the room. We all enjoyed the effect, as it made one feel as though they were 'getting inside' the sound (although this was only discernible when the listener was seated in the area between the three stations/speakers). Experiment 3: using Ableton with a group of students. Cathy 'conducted' the students through a vocal improvisation. We observed that it was interesting, but quite quickly became dense after we had more than four or five loops playing simultaneously. Experiment 4: the students were asked to create a soundscape. They were given the suggestion of 'seashore', then made loops to create a soundscape that was evocative of a seashore. We felt that this experiment was an effective use of the software, and the audio landscape they created was very satisfying and gentle. Experiment 5: we tried an improv with Laurel singing, Cathy playing accordion and the four students creating vocal sounds. We found quickly that it was far too dense, as too many audio ideas were being presented at once. Experiment 6: Laurel sang her round "Had I Wings To Fly' and the students were asked to accompany her using the software. Observations: the students noted that they found it difficult to accompany Laurel by creating loops, especially in terms of lining up rhythmic elements with her live singing. Laurel expressed a desire to have more direct contact with the 4 accompanists. We felt that using the software in this fashion caused the 'live' performer to feel compelled to accompany the loops rather than the other way around. At the end of the afternoon we all agreed that sourcing each speaker to the microphone at each station and hearing loops panned and move around the space was a very desirable and satifying element of the audio treatment. WEDNESDAY A.M. with MARTIN JULIEN Experiments 1 through 3: in order to illustrate the software and how the microphones and speakers were to Martin, Philip and Laurel did an improv with voice and waterphone. Cathy followed with an improv using sounds of short duration (footsteps and shaker). Martin then did an improv using the trio of mics and manipulated the pitch and volume of his own loops. We observed that when he pitched down some of his improvised vocal sounds, they sounded like a language, or like a music.
Experiment 4: Martin at 3 stations triggering his own loops improvising vocal sounds. Whatever was recorded at a particular station would play back on that speaker. When Martin moved to make a new loop at a station, it would replace the loop playing at that station. Philip did some manipulation of the loops. Observations: very interesting to watch his physical reactions in response the loops that he created. It was also very interesting to watch him listen to himself (his first two loops playing together.) At one point Martin was lipsyncing to his own voice, which was a curious effect. Brian observed that he lost track of when Martin was triggering a loop and when Martin was making vocal sounds 'live' that were not being looped. Philip commented that at one point Martin made a sound, then reacted to his loop in such a way that inspired Philip to lower the pitch: this in turn caused Martin to (re)act fearfully to that speaker (what is a more eloquent way of saying this?) Experiment 5: 'throwing your voice'. Martin would choose when to go into record, and which speaker he would like the sound to come from. It was a challenging experiment for Philip, as he had to constantly reassign the loops to whichever speaker Martin indicated. Experiment 6: with Martin and Philip, and Laurel as technician. Laurel would choose when to come in and out of record. The pitch was assigned so that it could only be manipulated on the last recorded track Experiment 7: with Martin using 3 stations, and interacting 'live' with the recorded/looped voices. Experiment 8: with Martin using 3 stations and existing text Experiment 9: with Martin using 3 stations as 3 different characters, he skillfully created a fascinating narrative by looping bits of improvised text. He was able to manipulate the pitch and volume of his loops. Martin also created a fourth character which interacted live with the recorded/looped characters. In this experiment, the loops suggested a character who was recalling events that had happened. The loops were also perceived as actualizing internal thoughts. Martin's use of the technology was very interesting to observe: interesting to watch him listen to the recorded loops, and he used a wide range of dynamics in his improvisations. Experiment 10: Martin using a single line of text: 3 stations with ability to affect volume and pitch. Interesting to observe Martin's speed and intention as he moved from each mic 'station' to the control keyboard to manipulate his loops. A general observation at the end of the morning: we noted that we haven't been 'missing' reverb or digital delay. Brian observed that over the past days we've learned how to set up templates and parameters that are useful to participants using the technology themselves. Philip suggest another possibility for future experiments – to have all 3 pedals at one central position with the mic and speakers in different locations.
LEE PUI MING – WEDNESDAY afternoon We began with a brief introduction to Pui Ming of the mic, software and control keyboard and she did a trial improvisation. Her second improv was at one vocal station. During the improv, she asked Philip to alter volumes of some of her loops and to remove some of her earlier loops to 'thin out' the texture of her improv. Pui Ming wanted control of which tracks were playing, and also wanted the ability to make abrupt breaks in the texture Improvisation 3 – at a single station with the control keyboard. ("So I don't need you anymore, right?") Pui Ming was given control of volume and start/stop of 8 'shelves' of 7 tracks each (the white keys A through G on the keyboard) Improvisation 4 – Pui Ming using 2 'stations' (a mic with a footswitch trigger next to it) and keyboard controller. This was a very interesting use of the controller, and very interesting to watch Pui Ming shift from 'performance' energy (very intense and 'in the moment') when she creates the loops to a more impartial, 'matter-of-fact' energy when she manipulates her loops Improvisation 5 – Cathy briefly played with Pui Ming's vocal samples on the keyboard Improvisation 6 – Philip illustrated some other ways to manipulate the loops (what were they?) We noted that we should have considered altering the lighting on stage earlier – we felt that the lighting was more condusive to our work when we weren't using the florescent work lights. Improvisation 7 – with Pui Ming and Laurel. similar setup to Improvisation 6 (but what was that exactly?) Laurel wore the wireless headset, Pui Ming used the mic at one of two stations to record. Pui Ming indicated that she didn't want control of Laurel's voice. Very interesting to watch the difference between using a stationary mic and a wireless headset. Pui Ming indicated that she enjoyed not being the sole person responsible for the manipulation of the sound. She also indicated a preference for performing live in the improv over using Ableton. We noted that one way to signal Philip during the improv was to repeat a sound. Brian observed that it was difficult sometimes to tell what was 'live' and what was being being recorded and played back. This distinction was blurred by the fact that Laurel was always being amplified whether she was in record or not. Pui Ming indicated that she would have liked to have a trigger on her person, and that it was a distraction from the creative moment to have to return to the pedal and microphone 'station'. Philip liked hearing the mix of acoustic and amplified sound, and enjoyed hearing the sound of the building itself respond and reverberate with the sounds created in the improv. A short conclusion by you and by Philip and Laurel would be great: what you learned, what you will/may do next…
Thanks, Brian.