Ken's Documentation Blog

For performance 6, the plan was to utilize the NIMEs for the performance, however, many of us didn’t have it completed due to the difficulty of creating something that had enough depth to be played for a long time and be visually appealing when playing. This led to a limited performance by the group as only Ryan and I had prototypes for the performance that could produce sounds while Daniel showed the visual features of his instrument. For our performance, I tried to use my pitches to harmonize with Ryan who could vary the pitch of his music and the frequency that’s heard. Surprisingly, the pitch heard was more of a bass sound in which I only had to match the beat of the sound to his music. This allowed for depth of sound as there was variety of sounds produced with static sounds and non static sounds. If I were to critique this piece, I would say that it lacks more of a melodic tone within the piece as there is no focus of sound as both noises appear to be harmonic rather than melodic. 

While it was difficult producing the sounds I wanted to make, I think that I’ll ultimately utilize the resistance ladder to create fluctuating sounds that depend on the clashing of conductivity of soft circuits in a half closed acrylic box where string circuits can produce noise within the piece. This would allow for difference of sound clashing as well as variation of sound from the possibilities of circuit connection.  In addition as I plan on playing the piece with acrylic the visuals of the piece will be interesting to see as the audience can see how various strings can create different tones simultaneously.

For performance 5, the topic of our performance was a puppet show where the actions of members was based on the action of the puppet master. I came up with the concept of using a puppet with a soft circuit as I imagined that the frequency would change from the fluctuating frequencies of the pullable string with conductive thread. At first, I imagined that it would work if I utilized just a string, however, the conductivity of the provided conductive wire was much lower than anticipated, thus the hand knit method was needed. Furthermore, in order for me to have more control of the sound, I thought that only exchanging one string of the puppet was needed as changing all of them would create consistency of noise which may lack control or harmony with one another. This led to my first puppet which used the knit string. A video of this puppet’s action can be seen below where the sounds vary upon motion of the angle of pull.

(Above is a photo of the connections for this puppet)

As I thought that one puppet was too minimal for the performance as only one pitch could be made, I added a pompom to another puppet where the creation was a puppet that made pure high pitches at various frequencies. This would help me raise it up to the climax as well as add depth to the piece that was created. 

When performing, I served as the puppet master where my puppets were represented by Daniel (spinning chair and hat), Ryan (cyborgish prop), and Jasmin (hat). They all moved in motions that were similar to the puppet where their instruments were dependent on realizing the movement. When performing, there was difficulty in seeing the actual movement and matching it immediately thus there would be a 0.2-0.5 second delay which added a bit of expressiveness in the sense that the harmonic sound can only be produced when holding motions longer such as making the puppet directly vertical to create a signal to the “puppets” to move in certain patterns. The progression of the piece included slowly approaching a climax of the puppeteer where the puppet’s spirit becomes free and they become an improvised state of being. The freedom of the puppets slowly deteriorate and the puppeteer remains in control until the end where his spirit drops. This leads to the descending part of the composition where there is a diminuendo in the sounds produce where Daniel slowly creates fading sounds with his hat. All in all, I think that this performance was rather successful in terms of visuals, sound, and composition via differences, however, I do agree with Professor Parren that I should’ve linked my sound with the mixer as the sound quality was separated which may have made the sound less independent.

After listening to Radigue’s piece and reading the readings, what stood out most to me was her use of persistent noise as well as her use of panning. Rather than using mono modulation for her pieces, she uses stereo modulation and fixes her sound in both ears where the combination of the music provides a complement to both sides. It is rather interesting how she utilizes the soft development of sound as she mentions in her video to develop melodies in both ears in a slow manner. I think that her music really reflects her philosophy of sound and music revolving around “pulsations, breaths, beatings..” that’s mentioned in her reading. Moreover, I think that technically, the piece is harmonious with developments throughout to provide a relaxing atmosphere for the listener to feel the minimalist nature of sound. Doing so, reflects the pulsations, breaths, and beatings of her music style. 

For the fourth performance I worked with Bruce, but he wasn’t feeling well and didn’t come to school. Thus for the performance, I didn’t work with a live person but rather a recording of sounds. The composition prepared was one that had an introduction of a recurring beat where the melody of high pitches follows. It reaches a climax where the beat becomes the harmony and the melody becomes the harmony. While it’s hard to describe the composition itself, I felt that the duet aspect with a digital sound was mesmerizing at first and made the process easier and complicated. As it’s electronic and pre-recorded, there’s no chance of improvisation from the computer where the same sound is repeated each time it is played. I utilized an LDR sensor sound to accompany this digital piece, but I realized when performing in a quiet room that the computer noise was lost while my LDR was still emitting strong sounds. I think that this was also due to the balance as stated by Professor Parren where a mixer would make the piece stronger and more harmonious. Moreover, I think that as I was utilizing the circuit rather than external sources of instrument, the control was weak, especially as the frequency of my work wasn’t really controlled. Hence, the recommendation provided was to have more variable potentiometers to adjust the sound being made. If I were to reflect on this performance overall, I think that it was weak in the sense that nothing unique was used or made which reduced the possibility of creating a dynamic performance. Below is the recording of Imaginary Bruce.

My understanding of experimental music from the reading was that it was highly dependent on the music composition, orchestration, and reception. It’s music that’s unlike other music in the sense that there is a set score, rather this score of experimental music may be manipulated by the users experiencing as well as their interpretation of the action where the music produced will be fundamentally different each time. This reading discusses what the interaction with music is which relates to the video which shows two people using graphite to create interesting music results. Of which I thought that their usage of conductivity and sound was expressive and could be manipulated in manners that created new interpretations of music. For instance, panning of the music and introduction of the second performer brought about new dynamics to the piece as the listeners already adapted to the first player and could receive the music in its entirety in an accepting manner. Moreover, it could be seen that the performance also considered the performers technique as crucial parts of the performance where they included drawing graphite as part of the performance. This adds more to the composition part of the piece as there can be shifts to the notes that may have been wanted. 

For performance 3, Bruce and I focused on making music simply through rhythm and melody. I was in charge of the harmony where it was a steady beat which would allow for Bruce to be the melody with his solder iron material that could create crashing noise. When we practiced, we found that the capabilities of the solder material could be utilized to create a storm sensation thus we thought that the overall theme could be storm and time where he represented the storm and I represented time with the clashing of the material. 

Our initial preparation was simple, but we wanted to experiment with how noise music could interact with a metronome like sound which impacted our music. When it came time to the performance, I did make a mistake where I didn’t contribute the beat of the metronome in a fast dynamic manner which threw Bruce off. Having already started the beat incorrectly, I thought that it would be too obvious if I change it and continued on with this beat throughout which was more slow and not that vibrant. I think that this changed the power of the piece to be diminished where it appears more soft rather than quick and strong. Despite having this time error, I think that this was overall successful in the sense that there was nothing that we did that hindered the performance obviously to the performance as the players (Bruce and I) adapted to the flow set.