object similar to [sms] for ambient light?


    Feb 03 2007 | 4:45 am
    Hi all,
    Ive recently discovered the SMS object that gives you acces to the accelerometers that are hardwired into the later genteration powerbook/macbook/pros. I was wondering if anybody had heard of or had thought about making a similar object that gives you acces to the ambient light sensors built into the intel mac laptops?!?
    im ver much interested in turning my laptop into an interactive musical interface outside of simply pressing buttons and using the mouse and i dont have the money to build or buy midi interfaces.
    thanks
    Will

    • Feb 03 2007 | 7:45 am
      This was something I was trying to figure out last year and kept hitting brick walls....i.e. no API available from Apple. I'm also not much of a programmer. However, I just did another Google and came up with this:
      Looks promising. Perhaps a smart programmer type will soon (or already has?) create an external and we'll all be waving our hands around our laptops like they were theremins. Seems much safer than shaking them around to use the motion sensor. ;)
      Lewis
      Quote: Wilber wrote on Fri, 02 February 2007 20:45 ---------------------------------------------------- > I was wondering if anybody had heard of or had thought about making a similar object that gives you acces to the ambient light sensors built into the intel mac laptops?!? ----------------------------------------------------
    • Feb 03 2007 | 8:14 am
      yeah i found the same article, but again my programming skills arent up to much! ive started working on a stand for my laptop that uses a ball joint to connect to the base so i can make more discreet leaning motions to make use of the accelerometers, didnt like picking it up and shaking it, id probably manage to make the HD actually turn itself off! :/
      keep me posted if you hear anything tho!
      cheers
      Will
    • Feb 03 2007 | 8:50 am
      Hey guys,
      the external is called aka.booklight
      Cheers.
      - Luigi
      --- WillChadwick wrote:
      > > yeah i found the same article, but again my > programming skills arent up to much! > ive started working on a stand for my laptop that > uses a ball joint to connect to the base so i can > make more discreet leaning motions to make use of > the accelerometers, didnt like picking it up and > shaking it, id probably manage to make the HD > actually turn itself off! :/ > > keep me posted if you hear anything tho! > > cheers > > Will >
      ------------------------------------------------------------ THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS FOR THE SOLE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT AND MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. ANY UNAUTHORIZED REVIEW, USE, DISCLOSURE OR DISTRIBUTION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, CONTACT THE SENDER BY E-MAIL AT SUPERBIGIO@YAHOO.COM AND DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE. WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC1-207. ------------------------------------------------------------
      Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091
    • Feb 03 2007 | 9:27 am
      Awesome, thanks! i was hoping to get some sleep tonight but that just went out of the window! :)
      Will
    • Feb 03 2007 | 6:25 pm
      Dreams really do come true *chime sound*. Thanks for the link Luigi! For anyone who's curious, the light sensor does work with my 1.5GHz G4 PowerBook using Max/MSP4.6.2 but not in Max 4.5.7. I guess it's time I figure out why I get errors instantiating certain objects like "split" and switch to 4.6. Seems like I remember posts about that months ago when Cycling released the upgrade....to the archives!
    • Feb 05 2007 | 2:12 pm
      WillChadwick wrote: > yeah i found the same article, but again my programming skills arent > up to much! ive started working on a stand for my laptop that uses a > ball joint to connect to the base so i can make more discreet leaning > motions to make use of the accelerometers, didnt like picking it up > and shaking it, id probably manage to make the HD actually turn > itself off! :/
      This is a brilliant idea, you should turn it into a business and sell those ball joints, this would finally turn the laptop artist into a real musician...
      Stefan
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Feb 06 2007 | 4:23 am
      So movement makes one a real musician? i disagree with the sweating brow theory, but i do think it makes a good show, just not always good music. This is coming from a guy (me) who has actually flung around his laptop during performance and had to replace the HD (i don't have the newest apple yet). -chuck
      WillChadwick wrote: > yeah i found the same article, but again my programming skills arent > up to much! ive started working on a stand for my laptop that uses a > ball joint to connect to the base so i can make more discreet leaning > motions to make use of the accelerometers, didnt like picking it up > and shaking it, id probably manage to make the HD actually turn > itself off! :/
      This is a brilliant idea, you should turn it into a business and sell those ball joints, this would finally turn the laptop artist into a real musician...
      Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
    • Feb 06 2007 | 9:28 am
      >So movement makes one a real musician? >i disagree with the sweating brow theory, but i do think it >makes a good show, just not always good music. This is >coming from a guy (me) who has actually flung around his >laptop during performance and had to replace the HD (i >don't have the newest apple yet). >-chuck
      i tottally agree, for me it just gives me some more options for a more gestural organic control interface withought the expense of a custom interface. Of course though, you can have all the hi-tech or gadgety interfaces in the world and the music can still be rubbish! but i do definately think that more 'theatrical' performance tools allow the audience to better understand the dialogue between performer and laptop/interface and therfore the performance. for me there is a communicational element of some sort missing from purely keyboard based laptop performance.
      Will
    • Feb 06 2007 | 1:14 pm
    • Feb 06 2007 | 2:00 pm
      On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Kasper T Toeplitz wrote:
      > I like to go to concerts however...
      (I'm just in a randomly-posting mood these days!)
    • Feb 06 2007 | 9:48 pm
      i did use 'theatrical' in its loosest terms, im certainly not talking about turning a laptop set into the blueman group, however i disagree with what Laurent says:
      >If you're attending an organ concert in a church >context, you don't even SEE the musician >playing. Is it a problem ? And when you see the >musician, e.g. a violin player, you don't see a >theatrical performance, but two arms struggling >together to produce what is written on the >score. IMO, it's just the same with computer >music. I've played a lot of pieces written for >MaxMSP, performed of course on a computer (with >the trackpad as sole interface in most cases) >and, believe me, "reading" different areas of >the screen and the score at the same time while >moving a finger on the trackpad and clicking a >lot didn't leave me a lot of time to do a little >dance.
      im not saying an entriely new ellement should be added to the performnce,like the piece needs another level to be interesting, however i do believe that how you choose to execute that performance has a huge impact on how the audience relate to the music. IMO, theres a vast difference between a violinist and a laptop. as an audience we are making assosiations between the physical gestures of the violinist and the sounds being produced. Our experience of that performance would be far less if you say closed your eyes. or if you turned a piano around so that you couldnt see the pianists hands. you may aswell listen to a CD on a good sound system, unless spatialisation plays a significant role, in which case that too provides a "dramatic" element to the perfoermance. In the same sense the difference between using a trackpad (small and out of sight) and using say a tablet(larger and in sight), where the audience can make come kind of visual connection between your actions and sound you are playing, are huge in terms of how that performance is perceived. although i know as a performer this is not true, as an audience memeber however for me its the difference between watching someone execute a set of commands dictated by a score and watching someone playing an instrument (be it laptop or other musical interface).
      These are at least my thoughts on this, and i appreciate all the feedback im getting on this issue. i am slightly biased after seeing a lot of "dead" concert hall performances. There is then the whole other issue of venue...
      Will
    • Feb 06 2007 | 10:54 pm
      The problem with performances is basically people go to SEE instead of LISTEN. No matter how much your music may be mind blowing, it will be taken lightly by many who go for the SEE factor. i like to equate this back to the early human cultures. Music has always been a form of communication. Going to see a show is ritual, similar to early gatherings (not much has changed). The performer is the shaman who must draw in the audience and control the room (will not get into size of venues or "vibe" ). Some require movement to feel compelled to become one with the music, others (perhaps more "in tune" with the music) will just use their ears.
      Those who like to go to gigs can utilize the ritual for social aspects, nothing wrong with that, music = communication. If that is what brings you together, so be it. IF you are the type of person whom would rather listen to a cd, you should. For me, live music is ALWAYS better. No matter how fucked up it is (sound or performance). You can feel the music when you are there, experiencing it in real time; on a cd/lp/mp3 you just do not have the same vibration.
      Perhaps we need start a new thread called: "Future Primitive"
      -chuck
      Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
    • Feb 06 2007 | 11:02 pm
      WillChadwick skrev: > i did use 'theatrical' in its loosest terms, im certainly not talking about turning a laptop set into the blueman group, however i disagree with what Laurent says: > >> If you're attending an organ concert in a church >> context, you don't even SEE the musician >> playing. Is it a problem ? [...] Some good points there, Will. Laurent; Is it a problem? No. Would the audience be better served if they could see the sweat on the brow of the organist, him pulling stops and feet flying around in a wild fugue? Absolutely! In fact, the organ is quite the performance instrument, once you've seen a proper organist work it, as I'm sure you know.
      It is clear to me that, all things being equal, if the performance speaks to me visually, and in a way that lets me relate the performers movements to the sound, then there is added enjoyment in it for me. And if I (God Forbid!) can see the performer ENJOYING him-/herself, then I am all the more likely to do so myself, and I also feel it emotes more, as a result.
      Laurent, have you never had the feeling that adding a midi controller or similar to a performance adds not only expression, but enjoyment and fun to the process? I personally know a few people who would rather be caught dead than look like they were enjoying themselves while "performing", naturally. It's academia, after all...
      Best, Andreas.
    • Feb 06 2007 | 11:30 pm
      laurent dailleau wrote: > I disagree with you, Will. If you're attending an organ concert in a > church context, you don't even SEE the musician playing. Is it a > problem ?
      Yes, it is, but its only harder to understand whats going on musically, its not impossible and with an organ its still relatively easy, because the soundworld is wellknown and limited.
      > And when you see the musician, e.g. a violin player, you don't see a > theatrical performance, but two arms struggling together to produce > what is written on the score.
      You see much more than that, you get an idea about the process of making music, especially if you don't play that instrument, you will see the expression and the effort which is necessary to make it happen. This isn't the music itself, but it helps a lot to get into it as a listener.
      > IMO, it's just the same with computer music. I've played a lot of > pieces written for MaxMSP, performed of course on a computer (with > the trackpad as sole interface in most cases) and, believe me, > "reading" different areas of the screen and the score at the same > time while moving a finger on the trackpad and clicking a lot didn't > leave me a lot of time to do a little dance.
      Its only the same if there is something else than a trackpad or mouse. These are the worst controlers for music imaginable, the problem is: you can't close your eyes and just play... I always use at least some faderboxes to control my stuff... The native interface of the computer is the keyboard, not the trackpad. I'd consider a music which needs the trackpad/mouse to be performed badly designed... (though I don't reject it myself... ;-)
      > The choice is musical gestures vs theatrical gestures.
      The choice is visual feedback vs musical feadback... btw. there is no contradiction between musical and theatrical gestures, it could have both at the same time and that helps to make a performance transport the music.
      Stefan
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Feb 06 2007 | 11:33 pm
      Kasper T Toeplitz wrote: > I simply hate when a musician on stage "makes a show"
      But you make very nice shows, nice lights and ambience, very little movements but the process is very transparent. Maybe most "shows" just don't meet your taste...
      Stefan
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Feb 06 2007 | 11:38 pm
      On Feb 6, 2007, at 1:48 PM, WillChadwick wrote:
      > im certainly not talking about turning a laptop set into the > blueman group
      Well, I don't see why not?
      It would sell out in New York, Boston, Chicago, Las Vegas, Berlin, London, Amsterdam, and Alpha Centauri, allowing one to purchase their own rocket for space colonization.
      I eagerly await the elimination of theater entirely so that we can *finally* listen, instead of staring at the violinist's psychedelic eyebrow movement. Man, is that ever disturbing.
      -Joshua
    • Feb 07 2007 | 12:17 am
      >The problem with performances is basically people go to SEE >instead of LISTEN.
      I doubt this is really a problem. Either way you experience "something" and thats what its all about.. no?
      J
    • Feb 07 2007 | 3:29 am
      My 2 cents:
      I don't think it's fair to equate current laptop performers to more "standard" instrumentalists. Do not get me wrong, this isn't an argument of legitimacy since sound is sound etc etc so on and so forth, but part of the reason you don't see too many laptopists closing their eyes and just playing is frankly because they're not good enough yet.
      You'll rarely see a 5th grade violin player close his/her eyes and deliver a magnificent performance aside from a few very very rare cases. Most classically trained musicians who turn pro have been practicing their specific instrument daily since the age of 3...which amounts to decades, with high intensity for anywhere between 4-8 hours a day (this obviously varies through time, but bear with me). By the time you see them in concert, of course they're going to play with their eyes closed and make it look easy because, by that time, it IS easy, and they can shut off the rest of the world and think only about the music.
      Laptop performers, and especially max users (myself included) often do not have this kind of training. We create new patches all the time...sometimes making new setups for each show/concert. Likewise, practicing tends to be "piece" oriented. We don't spend hours twisting a knob over and over again to make sure our accuracy, speed, dexterity is just so outside of that specific action being necessary for a track/performance. We don't drill ourselves with sequences of events (mouse to fader one, hold 'j' key, blow into mic, let go of 'j' key...do it again...this time with a faster metronome setting). Even for those who would say that they do practice their electronic instruments with this sort of methodology and intensity, max/msp hasn't been around long enough for them to have put in their time like a virtuoso organist has. Other instrumentalists do put in this kind of time drilling different types of bowings, articulations, positions, intonation, left hand drills, right hand drills, extended techniques...the list never ends. They don't NECESSARILY wait until they see a technique in a piece to learn it. Even when they do, most of the actions that the piece demands are so ingrained that they don't think about doing them, and can concentrate on that one maneuver.
      I realize there are ensembles created where people don't have much experience with an instrument, but they're able to "close their eyes" and emote (eg punk rock guitarists). Arguably, you could emote the same amount with your trackpad, especially if the music necessitated as much technical demand over said trackpad was punk does for guitarists.
      I don't agree or disagree with physical expressivity in performance. My only point is that if you want to use the laptop as an instrument and make comparisons of laptopists to other instrumentalists, make sure you're extending the comparison far enough to make an apt statement.
    • Feb 07 2007 | 4:39 am
      Bryan Teoh wrote: > My 2 cents:
      What a great post! Thanks!
      > We don't spend hours > twisting a knob over and over again to make sure our accuracy, speed, > dexterity is just so outside of that specific action being necessary > for a track/performance.
      I'd just like to chime in for a moment here and complain that very few performance interfaces support the physical quality and data granularity required for expressive performance... and those that do are often extremely expensive, far beyond the cost of almost all 'beginner' physical instruments.
      And yet I would wager that - having used nothing so sophisticated - the bleeding-edge, high-end interfaces are still largely 'beginner'-quality instruments at best. Where is the responsiveness of the instrument itself and the direct feedback interaction? Where is the combination of both great range and great subtlety? As a reluctant computer musician / composer, my feeling is that we tend to make sacrifices along these lines.
      It is possible to gang interface elements to reach a semblance of expressive depth, for example with gross and fine and scaled controls, but it's no substitute for reality.
      So I guess my point is that while the kind of skill development associated with classical musicianship is largely unlikely with computer music due to human constraints re the development, I would also argue that those skills are equally unlikely to develop due to the crude nature of the instrument itself.
      The trick, of course, is that if we keep all these problems in mind as we develop our idiosyncratic instrument/pieces, we have the ability and resources to work around them. Unfortunately, that particular aspect of our performance, arguably the most elegant or beautiful, is completely removed from a pure audience's experience. How to fix?
      Jon
    • Feb 07 2007 | 4:53 am
      i have seen two musicians on this list achieve that elusive synergy of expressive, professional performance and detailed instrument design:
      hans tammen and jasper speicher.
      fwiw.
      and if it made any sense at all for live visualists to close their eyes, i'd strive to do so.
      On Feb 6, 2007, at 11:39 PM, dlurk wrote:
      > Bryan Teoh wrote: >> My 2 cents: > > What a great post! Thanks! > >> We don't spend hours >> twisting a knob over and over again to make sure our accuracy, speed, >> dexterity is just so outside of that specific action being necessary >> for a track/performance. > > I'd just like to chime in for a moment here and complain that very > few performance interfaces support the physical quality and data > granularity required for expressive performance... and those that > do are often extremely expensive, far beyond the cost of almost all > 'beginner' physical instruments. > > And yet I would wager that - having used nothing so sophisticated - > the bleeding-edge, high-end interfaces are still largely 'beginner'- > quality instruments at best. Where is the responsiveness of the > instrument itself and the direct feedback interaction? Where is > the combination of both great range and great subtlety? As a > reluctant computer musician / composer, my feeling is that we tend > to make sacrifices along these lines. > > It is possible to gang interface elements to reach a semblance of > expressive depth, for example with gross and fine and scaled > controls, but it's no substitute for reality. > > So I guess my point is that while the kind of skill development > associated with classical musicianship is largely unlikely with > computer music due to human constraints re the development, I would > also argue that those skills are equally unlikely to develop due to > the crude nature of the instrument itself. > > The trick, of course, is that if we keep all these problems in mind > as we develop our idiosyncratic instrument/pieces, we have the > ability and resources to work around them. Unfortunately, that > particular aspect of our performance, arguably the most elegant or > beautiful, is completely removed from a pure audience's > experience. How to fix? > > Jon > > >
    • Feb 07 2007 | 5:12 am
      I partially agree with what you say.
      > And yet I would wager that - having used nothing so sophisticated - the > bleeding-edge, high-end interfaces are still largely 'beginner'-quality > instruments at best. Where is the responsiveness of the instrument > itself and the direct feedback interaction? Where is the combination of > both great range and great subtlety? As a reluctant computer musician / > composer, my feeling is that we tend to make sacrifices along these lines.
      I agree that we're still in the beginning stages of understanding/developing setups for electronic performance. Most interfaces resemble an acoustic instrument of some sort or a mixing board. Both options can be equally as frustrating.
      However, what about the case of an instrumentalist playing folk tunes on the pan pipes. The "interface" is simple in that it requires one to blow over the top of a set of pipes to create different pitches. Simple enough, yet by varying breath pressure and tonguing differently, one is able to manipulate the sound enough to make the difference between an expressive performance and a flat one.
      One of the problems with the live situation is that we tend to overcomplexify things. Patches have an incredible amount of bells and whistles, and so do the interfaces. From my experience, a percussionist playing a solo piece for 15 different types of gongs, marimba, monks bowls, chimes, 2 timpani, 3 roto toms, and slide whistle is not going to physically "emote" like the pan piper would. On the contrary, you see the person darting from place to place grabbing pennies and throwing them at things while holding mallets in their mouths for later use and looking at the music which is stored in chunks on 5 different stands around the room, etc.
      Both of these examples...the pan pipe player and the solo percussionist, are situations that can be analagous to an electronic setup. A simple instrument with what seem to be one or two dimensions, can be made to express a wide range of sounds if one learns to manipulate those few dimensions effectively. Likewise, a single person can control 30 or more sound making devices and have an extremely theatrical performance, however, the more we try to do at once, the less we may be able to "emote". I just don't see the purpose of complexifying things if one doesn't have to.
      That said, I am interested in finding alternate solutions to these sorts of problems. I just want to drive home the point that an instrument is only as expressive as the musician playing it, and the possibilities limited only by your pre-conceived notions of what the patch/interface should be able to do. Acoustic musicians face the same problems electronic musicians do which is why it's so exciting when someone comes along and pushes the capabilities of what we once thought we had already thoroughly explored.
      You struck the nail on the head, though, Jon. Keep working, and keep these issues in mind.
    • Feb 07 2007 | 5:21 am
      i am hoping this hits the market and we can run max/msp/jitter on it
      TOUCH SCREEN!
      -chuck
      Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
    • Feb 07 2007 | 5:41 am
      ..... ......
      ......
      note the url.
      On Feb 7, 2007, at 12:21 AM, Chubb wrote:
      > i am hoping this hits the market and we can run > max/msp/jitter on it > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l29zW4_W5E&mode=related&search= > > TOUCH SCREEN! > > -chuck > > > > > ______________ > Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast > with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
      v a d e //
      www.vade.info abstrakt.vade.info
    • Feb 07 2007 | 10:55 am
      WillChadwick wrote: > In the same sense the difference between using a trackpad (small and > out of sight) and using say a tablet(larger and in sight), where the > audience can make come kind of visual connection between your actions > and sound you are playing, are huge in terms of how that performance > is perceived.
      And even more important it makes a huge difference for the performer to transport her musical expression as well. There is more difference between a trackpad and a tablet than between a cheap 50$ violin and a stradivarius... And the price for the latter seems obviously worth it, which tells a lot about how much the instrumental aspects of music matters for some laptop artists... As a good pianist would simply reject a bad piano, a laptop artist can easily reject a trackpad control of the music. (depends how much it should control, its fine to switch to the next part with the mouse...)
      Stefan
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Feb 07 2007 | 11:28 am
      hi
      sorry, i don't agree. I buy/bought quite a lot of controllers, wrote pieces using them etc etc. I still find (that's after trying most of the stuff - not all, sure...) than the Mac's trackpad is, - for me - the most expresssive controller i found so far...
      I can not play a concert with a mouse, nor with a 3rd party trackpad (I bought a "cirque", only not to use it) - but i certainly find the trackpad to be the most precise/expressive thing I found so far.... Even when i used other controllers i NEVER did a (computer) concert NOT using the trackpad - for the most "experssive" parts
      so the choice NOT to use a large tablet can also be a musical choice
      __good/bad and expensive instruments....: just like Sonic Youth did use for years "broken" guitars, or what guitar should one use to have the Hound Dog Taylor's sound (certainly not a "custom shop gibson").... or would fats waller need a Bosendorfer???
      ___as for the visual connection... hummm. Are you sure it is needed?? If so how come I have so many CD's at home (and no TV, by the way, no videos)???
      all the best
      kasper
      >WillChadwick wrote: >>In the same sense the difference between using a trackpad (small and >>out of sight) and using say a tablet(larger and in sight), where the >>audience can make come kind of visual connection between your actions >>and sound you are playing, are huge in terms of how that performance >>is perceived. > >And even more important it makes a huge difference for the performer >to transport her musical expression as well. There is more >difference between a trackpad and a tablet than between a cheap 50$ >violin and a stradivarius... >And the price for the latter seems obviously worth it, which tells a >lot about how much the instrumental aspects of music matters for >some laptop artists... >As a good pianist would simply reject a bad piano, a laptop artist >can easily reject a trackpad control of the music. (depends how much >it should control, its fine to switch to the next part with the >mouse...) >
      -- Kasper T. Toeplitz noise, composition, bass, computer http://www.sleazeArt.com
    • Feb 07 2007 | 11:49 am
      www.mamito.com/incastro
      use the gamepad!
      :-P
      Il giorno 07/feb/07, alle ore 12:28, Kasper T Toeplitz ha scritto:
      > hi > > sorry, i don't agree. I buy/bought quite a lot of controllers, > wrote pieces using them etc etc. I still find (that's after trying > most of the stuff - not all, sure...) than the Mac's trackpad is, - > for me - the most expresssive controller i found so far... > > I can not play a concert with a mouse, nor with a 3rd party > trackpad (I bought a "cirque", only not to use it) - but i > certainly find the trackpad to be the most precise/expressive thing > I found so far.... > Even when i used other controllers i NEVER did a (computer) > concert NOT using the trackpad - for the most "experssive" parts > > so the choice NOT to use a large tablet can also be a musical choice > > __good/bad and expensive instruments....: just like Sonic Youth did > use for years "broken" guitars, or what guitar should one use to > have the Hound Dog Taylor's sound (certainly not a "custom shop > gibson").... or would fats waller need a Bosendorfer??? > > ___as for the visual connection... hummm. Are you sure it is > needed?? If so how come I have so many CD's at home (and no TV, by > the way, no videos)??? > > all the best > > kasper > > >> WillChadwick wrote: >>> In the same sense the difference between using a trackpad (small and >>> out of sight) and using say a tablet(larger and in sight), where the >>> audience can make come kind of visual connection between your >>> actions >>> and sound you are playing, are huge in terms of how that performance >>> is perceived. >> >> And even more important it makes a huge difference for the >> performer to transport her musical expression as well. There is >> more difference between a trackpad and a tablet than between a >> cheap 50$ violin and a stradivarius... >> And the price for the latter seems obviously worth it, which tells >> a lot about how much the instrumental aspects of music matters for >> some laptop artists... >> As a good pianist would simply reject a bad piano, a laptop artist >> can easily reject a trackpad control of the music. (depends how >> much it should control, its fine to switch to the next part with >> the mouse...) >> > > -- > Kasper T. Toeplitz > noise, composition, bass, computer > http://www.sleazeArt.com > > http://www.myspace.com/sleazeart > >
    • Feb 07 2007 | 1:09 pm
    • Feb 07 2007 | 1:31 pm
      >On 7-Feb-2007, at 12:28, Kasper T Toeplitz wrote: > >>sorry, i don't agree. I buy/bought quite a lot of controllers, >>wrote pieces using them etc etc. I still find (that's after trying >>most of the stuff - not all, sure...) than the Mac's trackpad is, - >>for me - the most expresssive controller i found so far... > >The above is true, simply because choice of intrument is a very personal one. > >I wouldn't want to perform with a trackpad, but I'm glad for you >that you've found a controller you're happy with. >
      this is exactly what i meant, that's why i said it works - for me.
      and what i don't agree with is writing than since people use the trackpad (and not a tablet) it means something like their involement in musicality is not very deep, or something...
      ___and when speaking of all sort of sensors, instruments tablets etc, one single test could be (often is) to check how much of those tools do people actually use when recording the music, in a studio. If at that moment you go back to your mouse/trackpad, doesn't it it mean the said controlled does not add much musically?? (beside the "show" part)
      I have certainly seen it happen many times: the fantastic instrument not being used in the studio (it did happen to my own pieces many times - i never used a Kaoss pad when recording, nor a fancy midi controller.. for sure it made me think again before using them on stage)
      best
      kasper
    • Feb 07 2007 | 2:34 pm
      I liked your article, cause its non exclusive and just based on personal experience, it gives an idea how much music relies on context and too often this is not put into question at all. I think most music at ICMCs is actually studio music, music wich works in the studio and no where else, even not in a living room. Nowadays we have a lot of different contexts to choose from, and this should be done consciously, which is rarely the case. A composer would just take any opportunity to get his music played (including me ;-). If its played badly or in the wrong context, it doesn't matter, the fact that it has been played is more important than anything else...
      Of course there are also valuable attempts to play it well, and well, they fail, but thats a different story, any artist has to take risks as well... (well, well, well...)
      Stefan
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Feb 07 2007 | 2:58 pm
      Chubb wrote: > The problem with performances is basically people go to SEE > instead of LISTEN.
      It might be, or it might be not. Its up to the artist to focus on it as a problem or as a usable fact. If you as an artist think its a problem you have all tools to adress it. Like Z'ev, who would give concerts in complete darkness (I mean really complete, even little wholes in the doors had to be covered...).
      This focusing on certain problems is actually an aspect I think is crucial for the presentation of new music in general, you have to lead the audience to what you,e as artist, are focussing on, they won't find out on their own. (Thats why you are the artist, and the audience is the audience...)
      Its all about context, you could ignore the context, but then you give away the most powerful aspect of your artistic expression...
      Stefan
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Feb 07 2007 | 3:09 pm
      >Like Z'ev, who would give concerts in complete darkness (I mean >really complete, even little wholes in the doors had to be >covered...).
      hummmm... you mean francisco lopez, I guess....
      best
      kasper
    • Feb 07 2007 | 4:27 pm
      On 7-Feb-2007, at 14:31, Kasper T Toeplitz wrote:
      > this is exactly what i meant, that's why i said it works - for me.
      Sorry, I was skimming, so I overlooked the context > and what i don't agree with is writing than since people use the > trackpad (and not a tablet) it means something like their > involement in musicality is not very deep, or something...
      which I completely agree with.
      But, hey, there are people who will say that if you play with an electric bass, or in a rock quartet, or in a symphony orchestra, or listen to music through an iPod, or something else... that you're not serious. So I don't take any of these generalizations seriously.
      Where I maybe take a different stance is the aversion to "show". Music isn't always theatrical, but it's not always not theatrical.
      The exemplary band that tried to cover up lack of musicality with show is Kiss. That I'm not interested in. But there is also a kind of visuality that underscores real musicality, sometimes subtly, sometimes less subtly, but it *supports* the music rather than attempting to mask unmusicality.
      Say, don't you play with Atua sometimes?-)
      Best -- P.
      -------------- http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/ ------------- Peter Castine +--> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter Universal Binaries on the way iCE: Sequencing, Recording & Interface Building for |home | chez nous| Max/MSP Extremely cool |bei uns | i nostri| http://www.dspaudio.com/ http://www.castine.de
    • Feb 07 2007 | 4:36 pm
    • Feb 07 2007 | 4:42 pm
      On Feb 7, 2007, at 9:27 AM, Peter Castine wrote:
      > > But there is also a kind of visuality that underscores real > musicality, sometimes subtly, sometimes less subtly, but it > *supports* the music rather than attempting to mask unmusicality.
      For example, Tool.
      ---- Steven M. Miller
      Home SFIFEM Atrium Sound Space OVOS
    • Feb 07 2007 | 4:55 pm
      I vote everyone in this thread must perform their next concert/ performance in strict KISS makeup and boots. This will provide a valuable data point and supply us with much needed quantitative information to make an accurate statement regarding theatrics/ performance and musicality.
      *cough*
      You know you secretly want to.
      On Feb 7, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Peter Castine wrote:
      > The exemplary band that tried to cover up lack of musicality with > show is Kiss. That I'm not interested in.
      v a d e //
      www.vade.info abstrakt.vade.info
    • Feb 07 2007 | 5:25 pm
      Since when is "show" less intrinsically valuable than "musicality"? Frankly, I think separating the two is misleading and unnecessary, but then again, I never studied Music.
      AB
    • Feb 07 2007 | 5:53 pm
      for me using sensors like that is not about "the show", organic input in any and all forms is a great asset for a digital toolbox http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsPtW59Ozac
      On 2/7/07, andrew benson wrote: > > Since when is "show" less intrinsically valuable than "musicality"? > Frankly, I think separating the two is misleading and unnecessary, but > then again, I never studied Music. > > AB >
    • Feb 07 2007 | 6:09 pm
      Quote: Patrick Delges wrote on Wed, 07 February 2007 08:15 ---------------------------------------------------- > I had an organist at hand today and spoke to him about Laurent's point > of vue. He told me it's now common practice to have a camera and a > screen at organ concerts. He personnaly prefers when the audience can > see him, he has the feeling the audience is more invoved into the music > he plays.
      I once toyed with the idea of displaying either the direct output of my screen or mounting a camera overhead to capture screen and hands manipulating keyboard, mouse, etc for the audience to be able to see what was going on behind the glowing Apple logo to help connect them to the musicality of my performance. I decided against it because I thought it would distract focus from the music and also look like I was trying to show off my crafty Max patchery or something. I'm curious if others have done this, or considered it or other thoughts on this can of worms, etc.
      > what I can see and what can be heard) is interesting, because you look > deeply involved in the musical process. It is not always the case, > neither with laptops, nor with classical instruments. ----------------------------------------------------
      I think this is a great point (among many - what a great thread). I've found more and more that what I look for in a performance is the attention the performer gives to what they are doing. I much prefer hearing a piece which I think is crappy if the performer is really putting their full focus into each and every sound coming from their instrument (that goes for laptops too which can easily produce more sounds than a performer/audience member can focus on) than hearing a piece I like which is performed by someone who is thinking about their after show beer or the cute boy/girl in the front row. That being said, I usually close my eyes throughout much of a performance anyway so I can focus on the music. Maybe that's not typical though. Also, this is a total generalization and it's not always possible to tell how focused a person is...I try to judge every performance on its own merits, content, etc.
      Finally, I played theremin in a band for a while and I'll tell you that people go ape shit when you wave your hands around like crazy (which of course makes the most unmusical sounds). I can't wait to go nuts with flash lights and flailing hands around my laptop. ;) JOKES!
    • Feb 07 2007 | 6:14 pm
      Kasper T Toeplitz skrev: > but also, this is the point I am trying to develop - no need to have > "tricks" (gestures, sensors etc) to "help" people to understand what > you do/play. Playing the music should be enough > I can only speak for myself here, but the key word here, for me, is "enough". If the artist believes that a certain experience is "enough" for the audience, then surely there is nothing to be said about this. But all things being equal, if one adds a visual layer, either subconciously by "performing" more, or consciously, for instance by adding a generated video stream or similar, then the audience may experience "more" than "enough".
      For me it's not a matter of the audience not understanding a piece, but rather; them getting emotional as well as intellectual insight into the mind of the performer while performing the piece.
      "Playing the music should be enough" as an argument seems to me to differ quite a bit from other musicians (and, perhaps, non-programmers?) - the full-body movements of classical players are part neccesity (straining to hit the right notes, etc) part show, part tradition - because it does something... extra. Also on a subconscious level for the audience I would suspect a performance that looks effortless would convey a sense of that effortlessness, leaving us with less of an impression? I think if the player could ask the audience to leave their eyes at home, then we wouldn't have this discussion...
      Anyway, enough uneducated ranting from me. Andreas.
    • Feb 07 2007 | 7:05 pm
      I performed a live processed piano piece a few months ago, and used a video camera. The piece was performed backstage with the output of the laptop run through the pa in the performance hall and a live video feed being projected. This was partially practical since I wanted to hide the dry sound of the piano and have the audience only experience the processed bits, yet still see that it was a live performance and not a tape piece. I set the camera up so that people could see my midi interface, my laptop (although they couldn't see the screen very much) and the piano keyboard (there were pedals used too, but I couldn't get them in the frame).
      By having a better view of my hands and the various devices I was using, the audience was able to see the sound sculpting process from start to finish. This particular audience also wasn't used to seeing electronic or electro-acoustic performances, so by seeing what I was doing I hoped it would help them listen to some of the more microscopic elements of the sound, and to realize that although a computer was being used, all the ideas originated from a human...no matter how large or small.
      It seems like the problem is less practical than it is an egotistical one. If one wants people to see more of what [s]he's doing, there are ways to make your instrument more visible (turn sideways like a pianist, use a projector, etc). If one wants people to understand how the instrument works, write a program note or deliver a brief intro before the set. If one wants people to experience something more theatric, hire dancers, get a vj, or set up a laser/light show. Let's, however, not confuse music performance with theatrics. If you want a show to be more visually stunning, do it with the intent of making it visually stunning, and don't fool yourself into thinking that it's somehow necessary for the performance.
      I love talking about this stuff, but I'll shut up now. Thanks for humoring me :)
    • Feb 07 2007 | 8:03 pm
      Kasper wrote:
      >___as for the visual connection... hummm. Are you sure it is >needed?? >If so how come I have so many CD's at home (and no TV, by the way, >no >videos)???
      the point i was getting at is that people coming to a performance come for just that-a performance, i myself would rather sit t home and listen to the CD, unless the performance brings something more to the equation, i.e some visual comunication that makes the experience more than just listening to the CD.
      will
    • Feb 07 2007 | 8:22 pm
      Vade, You must have been at my last gig, i always perform in corpse paint and have several day glo body painted midgets dancing in circles. -chuck
      www.chuckbettis.com
      Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
    • Feb 07 2007 | 9:20 pm
    • Feb 07 2007 | 9:24 pm
      thanks for the comments Stefan! Bear in mind I wrote that over 10 years ago -- yikes!
      comment below...
      On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Stefan Tiedje wrote:
      > Bradford Garton wrote: >> http://music.columbia.edu/~brad/writing/papes/Why_I_Hate_Concerts.html > > Nowadays we have a lot of different contexts to choose from, and > this should be done consciously, which is rarely the case. A composer would > just take any opportunity to get his music played (including me ;-). If its > played badly or in the wrong context, it doesn't matter, the fact that it has > been played is more important than anything else...
      I've had the experience with many pieces that the context can utterly destroy them. I have absolutely hated a piece of music, only to hear it in a radically different context and really enjoy it. And vice-versa, too. Makes you wonder about 'getting it out there' at all costs (I'm also guilty as charged, of course) if in fact it demolishes what you intend as the composer.
    • Feb 08 2007 | 8:01 am
    • Feb 08 2007 | 10:17 am
      Kasper T Toeplitz wrote: >> Like Z'ev, who would give concerts in complete darkness (I mean really >> complete, even little wholes in the doors had to be covered...). > > hummmm... you mean francisco lopez, I guess....
      no, its a percussionist very connected to metal percussion, you'd love his music...
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Feb 08 2007 | 10:20 am
      On 8-Feb-2007, at 9:01, laurent dailleau wrote: > (alphanumeric) Keyboard being the computer "native" interface is > highly questionable. I think that, historically, punchcard readers > were the first computer interfaces.
      The punchcard reader used on mid-20th C computers was an intermediate step: punchcards were prepared by a simplified typewriter keyboard. Similarly, paper tape was prepared by a teletype keyboard--another modified typewriter.
      Historically, we can go back earlier than the Z3 and ENIAC. The oldest computer listed on Wikipedia's "History of computer hardware" is the abacus. But historical priority is not necessarily the most effective way to define "native interface". Teletype keyboards have been used as a primary user input interface with computers for so long that few will join you in arguing the aptness of the adjective 'native'.
      That doesn't mean that a typewriter keyboard is 'best' for all purposes.
      [ Bill Buxton has some wonderful analyses of the 'usefulness' of a wide variety of interfaces; anyone seriously interested in this topic should take the time to read his work. ]
      As I wrote previously, the best control interface for performing music is a very personal choice. Is a 'cello "better" than a trumpet? Of course not!
      Make the best music you can with the control interface that suits you.
      --
      I have already written more than enough on the 'visuality' front. It's ironic that I find both Kasper's and Laurent's performances visually engaging. Even more so when you perform with Mr. Atua T.-)
      Best -- P.
      -------------- http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/ ------------- Peter Castine +--> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter Universal Binaries on the way iCE: Sequencing, Recording & Interface Building for |home | chez nous| Max/MSP Extremely cool |bei uns | i nostri| http://www.dspaudio.com/ http://www.castine.de
    • Feb 08 2007 | 10:25 am
      Andreas Wetterberg wrote: > For me it's not a matter of the audience not understanding a piece, but > rather; them getting emotional as well as intellectual insight into the > mind of the performer while performing the piece.
      Thats I believe describing perfectly what I mean with a transparent process. The only reason I think its important, is my own experience with listening to music. If I understand the process emotionally and intellectually I enjoy the music always. Thats why I care about the audience, just because I have my own experience of being audience...
      How to achieve that is not important, and I agree, if a trackpad is used as expressional input it is valid, and the audience will realise it. (I was much more reffering to the focus which is taken by controlling different parameters with the mouse, you need to have this visual feedback to do it, and that would destract me from listening and creates an emotional distance, but my musical interest is the opposite...)
      Stefan
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Feb 08 2007 | 1:23 pm
      >Kasper T Toeplitz wrote: >>>Like Z'ev, who would give concerts in complete darkness (I mean >>>really complete, even little wholes in the doors had to be >>>covered...). >> >>hummmm... you mean francisco lopez, I guess.... > >no, its a percussionist very connected to metal percussion, you'd >love his music... > >http://www.rhythmajik.com/ > we just spend last week recording, Z'ev & myself; But i never heard him about playing in the dark, nor ever saw any of his concert in the dark.
      best
      kasper -- Kasper T. Toeplitz noise, composition, bass, computer http://www.sleazeArt.com
    • Feb 08 2007 | 5:09 pm
      laurent dailleau wrote: > I'd say just the opposite. But it's so personal.
      The nice thing about the eyes is, that you can close them as you like - not that easy with the ears...
      Stefan
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Feb 08 2007 | 6:11 pm
      > The nice thing about the eyes is, that you can close them as you like - > not that easy with the ears...
      Wise words, grasshopper! ;)
    • Feb 09 2007 | 10:33 am
      Peter Castine wrote: > I have already written more than enough on the 'visuality' front. It's > ironic that I find both Kasper's and Laurent's performances visually > engaging. Even more so when you perform with Mr. Atua T.-)
      For visuals the same is true as for music, what you don't show is eventually more intriguing than what you show, we will all create our own image and thats a valuable part of any piece of art work. (Also true for erotics, well dressed shows much more than nudity...)
      "the notes you don't play are the important ones"... (I couldn't find it on wikiquote, I thought it was Miles, but he said: "Don't play what's there, play what's not there." which fits as well.) This is especially true for grooves...
      One of the best visualisations of literature I have seen yet is "le parfum". As the book couldn't transport the actual smells, the cinema can't do it either, and both media do exceptionally well transport the idea of a smell...
      Stefan
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Feb 09 2007 | 10:46 am
      Kasper T Toeplitz wrote: > we just spend last week recording, Z'ev & myself; But i never heard him > about playing in the dark, nor ever saw any of his concert in the dark.
      Well, it was many many years ago in Berlin, where I attend a workshop he held, it was a wonderful experience, ask him... To put this up as regular concert is difficult nowadys, as safety restrictions would not allow it. Even back then you'd need to set up a special context...
      Stefan
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com