Pr9t 140

Hi Cathy & Laurel Here are some of my thoughts - for the record - not extensive but it is what it is: cheers, PHiL Pure Research personal experience: - I found that the chosen array of equipment and software was fairly malleable. We were usually able to quickly reconfigure the apparatus to accommodate new ideas and whims of the participants - including ourselves.

- As an operator, I found it hard to keep track of what was happening when more than 4 or 5 recordings were actively looping.

- One interesting and unforeseen development was the use of our multiple microphones simultaneously to record a surround sound "impression". When played back over multiple speakers (corresponding to each microphone), the movement of the performers was reproduced as well as the sound itself. This effect could be described as "ghostly".

- In all but one experiment (with Pui Ming), I played an active role in the performance as the shaper of the composition. The simplest way of participating was to gradually subtract recordings (loops) to create a sense of sonic progression - and to prevent the composition from becoming a "stack of sound' that progressively gets louder and more dense. But all manner of manipulation was applied in some cases creating quite an alien soundscape. Even so, the origin of manipulated sounds seemed to remain clear unless very heavy manipulation was applied.

- Putting the performers in control of the equipment was only interesting (to me) when they interacted emotionally with the devices they were using to manipulate the sound. Otherwise this interaction seemed to distract from the quality of the composition and the performance both.

- In any given performance, all recordings following the first loop contained some artifacts of previous recordings due to the microphone picking up playback from the speakers as well as whatever was being performed into the microphone. This created "ghosts" of previous tracks in consecutive recordings even when the original tracks were removed from the mix.

- There did seem to be something inherently engaging about the "deja-vu" (dejaecouté?) effect of hearing sonic reproductions live a performance we had just witnessed.

- Martin Julian's experiments with text lead to some very engaging interaction between the recorded sound and live performance - as if his character's internal converstations had suddenly been externalized and made real - or perhaps we had entered his head!

Dear Philip, Thanks for sending your notes for inclusion in the Pure Research report.

Once I have finished transcribing my notes, I'll send them to you and Laurel. Originally I had thought that your notes might somehow integrate with mine, but after reading your notes, I think it might suit the report better if your observations are presented in the fashion you sent to Laurel and I. Which makes me raise the question - Laurel, would you like to create a set of notes/observations of your own for inclusion in the final report? If this idea has appeal to you, please fashion your notes in the next week or two, and they will be presented in the final report of our project - or if you would like to look over my notes once they're compiled and add your thoughts to them, that would be fine too! As well, I think I recently cc'd you the email from Brian inviting you to include some jpgs from the pictures you took during our sessions, so please take a look and select some of your favourites. xoxo Cathy

Hi Cathy, Just thought I should add a couple more personal notes while I'm thinking of them. Just to mention that I thought the research was very rewarding and productive to the extent that we intend to pursue these techniques in future projects. I might also mention that Christopher House commissioned a new work to be based entirely on the live recording and interaction research we conducted in this workshop! cheers, PHiL