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,
      go here:
      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.
    • 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.
    • 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!)
      brad
    • 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.
    • 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.
      Bryan
      --
      http://www.techniquolor.com
    • 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.
      Bryan
      --
      http://www.techniquolor.com
    • 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.
    • 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.
      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
    • 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
      Bradford Garton wrote:
      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|
    • 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
      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 :)
      Bryan
      --
      http://www.techniquolor.com
    • 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.
      brad
    • 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|
    • 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
    • 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! ;)
      Bryan
      --
      http://www.techniquolor.com
    • 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