PEOPLE

There were a wide variety of backgrounds and roles for those attending the workshop, with candidates representing cultures and music across the globe. Everyone brought a fresh perspective on musical collaboration and technology and a wealth of experience in many composition and performance techniques and technologies...

Alan's long and distinguished career in academic and industrial research has taken in many seemingly diverse fields, including computer science, music, psychology, religion and medieval history. From his current base in the Computer Laboratory at Cambridge, he has recently being attempting to bring them together, and encourage work in interdisciplinary subjects, through Crucible. He saw the workshop as an opportunity to explore practise-based research and bring both similar and differing minds together to collaborate on a meeting of music and technology. Alan, in his role as organiser, also looked forward to honing his skills as a facilitator.

Simon has had several years experience integrating micro-controllers and other electronics into installations and musical performances, and has used SuperCollider on many occassions. He has worked with kids in educational environments and is eager to adapt non-musical objects for use in video and music art. He would also like to see a move from the loop- and sample-based aesthetic of modern electronica to an approach more akin to re-orchestration. His goal at the workshop was to investigate what activities other people in the field were (and, critically, weren't) working on.

Rui's studies in composition focus on the electro-acoustic, going slightly beyond the remit of his more traditionally-oriented institute. As such, his considerable experience with music technology (including Max/MSP) is self-taught. He is eager to unite all creative minds in collaborative exercises - acoustic, electro-acoustic, electronic, young, old, etc. - and sees technology as the key to this goal. His objective at the workshop was to become more familiar with technologies that afforded collaboration, such as SuperCollider, and share knowledge with others.

PROJECTS

On the first day, participants met to get to know each other, talk about their expertise and backgrounds and establish directions and goals to pursue on the coming workshop day. Several participants had worked with each other before; some tended towards artistic perspective, others towards the more technical; and each candidate had experience and knowledge of different technologies to varying degrees. As such, participants were broken into three groups with which to collaborate with respect to their background and interest. Efforts were made so that each group had similar goals, but varied experience and perspectives.

Technologies and equipment were available from several sources. In addition to the facilities available at ARU, many participants brought their own software and hardware. A large variety of sensors, micro-controllers and interface circuitry boards was available to be used with each participants own Apple Macintosh laptop. These were at times linked with other more traditional acoustic instrument, belonging to the department and musicians, including a cello, harpsichord and (most of) a piano. Combining so many diverse technologies, some technical problems had to be expected, but aside from occasional computer glitches, difficulties were minimal and participants were quick to adapt.

The workshop day was divided into several sessions and each group proceeded with a similar methodology, for each session: set-up hardware, experiment with different combinations of hardware and software, establish a goal and realise it. The objective of the day wasn't to produce a polished concert or market-ready interaction tool, but to explore the possibilities of collaboration. As such, the fruits of the participants' labours came in the form of small presentations during the scheduled breaks, where a group would demonstrate and explain their ideas.

Some projects built on the previous work of candidates, utiltising software plug-ins or hardware of their own design. In several cases, it is expected that the collaborations and working relationships here will, in turn, fuel future projects...

PROJECT I : "A Little Light Music"
Simon Blackmore, Jason Dixon, Richard Hoadley, Paul Jones, Anton Ludoszevieze

Lit by computer screens, ARU's darkened computer room was the venue for the workshop's son et lumière. The project, building on Paul's previous experience with video tracking, placed Anton centre-stage with his cello. In his hand, he clasped both the bow (a custom design, crafted for greater friction and thicker sonic textures) and a glow ball. A few feet away, a computer recorded and processed both the sound and the image. A firewire camera tracked the different coloured light of the balls and used it to control different elements of the sound processing, with, for example, the ball's vertical height affecting the volume, pitch, etc. of the recorded acoustic sound. Similarly, experiments were made using the sound to drive its own manipulation - such as detecting the recorded pitch and using it to re-synthesise the recording at an inversely proportional frequency, and then layering it with the original sound. To achieve this, the group used a combination of software technologies, including Max/MSP, Jitter and SuperCollider.

Thanks to the expertise and experience of the participants, the project progressed quickly and the group was able to demonstrate their ideas during the morning break. After the presentation, they were able to spend time widening their exploration, experimenting with different synthesis models. Different input and control devices were also looked at, including a multiple-axis game controller and pressure-sensitive glove, the latter of allowed some of the group to shift their focus from software and consumer hardware to lower level electronics.

Equipment: 3 Apple Mac Powerbooks (running SuperCollider, Max/MSP and Jitter), cello (with custom bow), light/glow balls, Shure SM57 microphone, Arduino USB interface board, game controller, pressure-sensitive glove.

PROJECT II : "DVI VIXI TACVI MORTVA DULCE CANO"
Nick Collins, Julio d'Escrivan, Jamie Forth, Dan Tidhar (and Iris Garrelfs)

This project takes its title from the latin inscription written on the department's harpsichord, which translates as "In life, I was silent; in death, I sweetly sing", originally an epitaph for the wood used in its construction. Adding a further lease of life to the instrument, and perhaps to compensate for its lack of tuning, the group combined the harpsichord with sound and video computer processing.

The earlier sessions had been spent testing how various sensors and micro-controllers interacted with each other and with software such as SuperCollider and Max/MSP. Each member demonstrated and explained technologies (for some, their own) to the others, and the group explored the potential of uniting them. This exchange continued throughout the day, and in the later sessions culminated with Nick and Dan leading an effort to exploit the potential of the disused harpsichord lying nearby, using ideas .

With Dan at the keyboard, a firewire camera was used to monitor the movement of his hands over the keys, achieved by tracking the white light reflected by his fingers using a computer running Max/MSP. Simultaneously, a microphone was positioned under the instrument's sounding board to record the acoustic output, which was fed into a second computer running SuperCollider, where it fed a software (re-)synthesizer. Then, using Open Sound Control (OSC), the data from the first computer (the video tracker) was fed into the second to manipulate the synthesizer process, allowing the keyboardist to not only manipulate the sound directly, using the harpsichords hammers and strings, but also indirectly, through his fingers and the computer.

Equipment: 4 Apple Mac Powerbooks (networked, running SuperCollider, Max/MSP, Jitter and OSC), harpsichord, microphone, Unibrain Fire-I webcam, Edirol FA101 audio interface, Korg Kaoss control pad, Logitech Wingman gamepad, custom sensor breakout box (wrapped into SuperCollider), USB interface board and various sensors and micro-controllers (including sliders, benders, rotary knobs, gyroscope, accelerometers).

PROJECT III : "The Prosthetic Piano Party"
Owen Green, Tom Hall, Alex Harker, Jin Hyun Kim, Andrew Lovett, Rui Penha (and Iris Garrelfs)

This project was inspired by the hulk of an old upright piano, sitting neglected in ARU's corridor. Mute, due to the removal of its hammers, the piano was otherwise in good condition and the team set about restoring its musical status, attempting to retain its input control (the keyboard) and resonant chamber (strings, chassis), but replace the driver (hammers) with computers and electronics.

The group took a methodical approach, taking time to discuss and plan their attack in the morning session. The group then broke into pairs and threes to tackle the problems of interface design, electronics and computer processing.

A number of electronic sensors and micro-controllers, such as sliders and force sensors, were integrated into the keyboard and pedals of the instrument, feeding a Phidgets USB interface board before entering a computer running Max/MSP. The computer would use the input device data to control low-frequency noise-based sound generators, which were then outputted to loudspeakers. The speakers, however, did not address the audience, but were placed against the piano's sound board, so as to induce vibrations in the piano chassis and strings. Because of the chassis's construction, a direct coupling was difficult to achieve and vibrations, though present, were not of the volume required for performance. Undeterred, the group placed a contact microphone against the strings of the instrument and piped the recorded sound back to the speakers to set up a feedback loop that not only amplified the sound, but also produced a new sonic texture that was at the same time original and yet not entirely divorced from the familiar piano timbre.

Andrew, as an experienced pianist and composer of contemporary music, was able to exploit the piano's new character in the group's presentation. In addition to using the electronic control methods, he would also rap on the piano's chassis and pluck the strings directly to further excite the sound caught in the feedback loop. Following the presentation, the group experimented with variations on the system, including different synthesis and re-synthesis techniques, using Max/MSP and SuperCollider. Although a full concert was not possible, the overwhelming opinion in the group was that their was a lot of potential for future collaboration in the project and group.

Equipment: 2 Apple Mac Powerbooks (running Max/MSP), 1 Apple Macbook Pro (running SuperCollider), Mobile I/O audio interface, Edirol UA25 audio interface, piano chassis, Phidget USB interface board, contact microphone, Impact game controller, Marshall Guitar Amp (mini), Genelec monitors, speakers and various sensors and micro-controllers (including force sensors, sliders, Apple HDD tilt sensor).

FEEDBACK AND CONCLUSIONS

At the end of the day, all participants met one last time over coffee to talk about the workshop: what they had achieved, whether it met their expectations and whether it was a good model for future events.

The response was overwhelmingly positive - everyone had found the event both educational and enjoyable. Many had made contacts that they looked forward to working with in the future; others had got a taste of technologies that could take their work and art in new directions.

One criticism shared by nearly all the participants, however, was that the workshop was simply too short, and that one day was not enough. In addition to being a little rushed, the participants felt that the limited time led to a focus on developing and evaluating technologies, and didn't allow for much artistic exploration of how such technologies could be used. Many would have liked to have longer, so that they could refine their projects, perhaps with the aim of preparing polished performances or a concert. The general consensus was that the event should be between two days and one week long. Within these extra days, other participants said they would also welcome masterclass sessions, from experts in different fields on different subjects.

These factors aside, as an initial foray into the field, the event proved highly successful and demonstrated the value of practise-based research in live coding and performance, as well as music (and media) technology in general.