pd-list-request@iem.kug.ac.at said at "PD-list digest, Vol 1 #366 - 11 msgs."r[2003/04/10 16:06]
From: Marc =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lavall=E9e?= odradek@videotron.ca
A "spaceball" is not too expensive: http://www.3dconnexion.com/products/5000/ http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?query=3Dspaceball
Yes, but it is not a haptic device. (haptic = touch/force feedback) Also the movement range is to restricted.
Gerard
Hi Gerard.
Thanks for the description of your set and how you use it.
One question: how does force feedback affects your music?
I mean: the difference between a physical slider, a on-screen slider, a pad, an hv control or the cnmat strumming surface (thanks you Hans-Christoph) is quite obvious but I don't understand the implications of ff in the performance of music.
Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu.
On Thu, 2003-04-10 at 22:37, vanDongen-Gilcher wrote:
pd-list-request@iem.kug.ac.at said at "PD-list digest, Vol 1 #366 - 11 msgs."r[2003/04/10 16:06]
From: Marc =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lavall=E9e?= odradek@videotron.ca
A "spaceball" is not too expensive: http://www.3dconnexion.com/products/5000/ http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?query=3Dspaceball
Yes, but it is not a haptic device. (haptic = touch/force feedback) Also the movement range is to restricted.
Gerard
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.kug.ac.at http://iem.kug.ac.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
It looks good to have the joystick move by itself :)
I am still exploring. What it does now, is that I can feel the impact of an percussive sound, and at the same time feel the pulse the computer/machine is creating. So this makes the joystick less vague, my actions become embedded in the rythms they create , sort of. My orginal background is in accoustic instruments, and I always miss the physical interaction with most electronic controlers. What I am working on is to match the "feel" of the joystick with the sound aspects that I am controlling. FF is not just pushes, you can also set spring effects, so for instance, if there is a filter with a strong resonance, and you control the pitch with the joystick, you can set it up that you feel when you get into the resonance area. It might push you towards the resonance or away from it, with a deadband on the resonance. Obviously you can hear it if you make a sound, but if the sound is only made when you press the trigger it s nice to have a touch interface of where you are. That way you don't ave to look at the screen f.i.
All in all, it makes the computer a much more physical musical instrument, instead of a box on desk where somebody is doing something that may or may not be related to the sound you hear. With most laptop performances I always suspect that the players are playing quake and I am hearing a CD.
Gerard
Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu said at "Re: [PD] Re:[OT] How do your performance environments looks like?."r[2003/04/10 19:00]
Hi Gerard.
Thanks for the description of your set and how you use it.
One question: how does force feedback affects your music?
I mean: the difference between a physical slider, a on-screen slider, a pad, an hv control or the cnmat strumming surface (thanks you Hans-Christoph) is quite obvious but I don't understand the implications of ff in the performance of music.
Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu.
On 10 Apr 2003, Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu wrote:
I mean: the difference between a physical slider, a on-screen slider, a pad, an hv control or the cnmat strumming surface (thanks you Hans-Christoph) is quite obvious but I don't understand the implications of ff in the performance of music.
For an interesting example of a haptic musical interface, check out the University of York's Cymatic: http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~smr12/main.htm
They use haptic devices to control string and membrane physical models. In that example, the haptic feedback is very straightforward.
.hc
Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu.
On Thu, 2003-04-10 at 22:37, vanDongen-Gilcher wrote:
pd-list-request@iem.kug.ac.at said at "PD-list digest, Vol 1 #366 - 11 msgs."r[2003/04/10 16:06]
From: Marc =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lavall=E9e?= odradek@videotron.ca
A "spaceball" is not too expensive: http://www.3dconnexion.com/products/5000/ http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?query=3Dspaceball
Yes, but it is not a haptic device. (haptic = touch/force feedback) Also the movement range is to restricted.
Gerard
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.kug.ac.at http://iem.kug.ac.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.kug.ac.at http://iem.kug.ac.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
zen
\
\
\[D[D[D[D
For an interesting example of a haptic musical interface, check out the University of York's Cymatic: http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~smr12/main.htm
This gives me a better idea. It is not by chance that they focus on physical modeling. There are many ways to make sounds with a computer where haptic interfaces makes much less sense.
During a recent improvisation workshop, some people complained that I was totally inexpressive while playing, even if I was able to make "gestural" sounds and make use of the whole dynamic range which is more extreme than the rest of the players (instrumental).
I noticed that my teacher can (on occasion) use an artificial gestuality (that is, not justified by strict interaction with the device). For me this is not necessarily a problem, this split being a part of the nature of playing electronic devices.
Regards, Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu.
Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu said at "Re: [PD] Re:[OT] How do your performance environments looks like?."r[2003/04/16 18:08]
For an interesting example of a haptic musical interface, check out the University of York's Cymatic: http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~smr12/
main.htm
This gives me a better idea. It is not by chance that they focus on physical modeling. There are many ways to make sounds with a computer where haptic interfaces makes much less sense.
Of course. Although I think that there are many "pure" synthetic synthesis methods were haptic feedback can be useful as well. example: A midi-fader is also gives some form of haptic feedback, you know the position by touch without having to look at the screen. What I am thinking of are situations where a single controller axis controls multiple interconnected parameters. One parameters is obviously sensable because of the position. Pitch for instance. But an external sound source might determine the portamento or some kind of modulation effect on that sound. Using ff I can make the response of the joystick reflect the synthesis better. For me it is all about designing a performance interface that matches my musical concepts.
During a recent improvisation workshop, some people complained that I was totally inexpressive while playing, even if I was able to make "gestural" sounds and make use of the whole dynamic range which is more extreme than the rest of the players (instrumental).
I noticed that my teacher can (on occasion) use an artificial gestuality (that is, not justified by strict interaction with the device). For me this is not necessarily a problem, this split being a part of the nature of playing electronic devices.
This split is also part of accoustic devices I think. It is also an old discussion in classical music. With a piano the only factors determining the sound are the speed of depressing the keys and the position of the pedals. All movements before and after are "artificial" . There are a lot of bad pianist with fake expresionist movements, there are also very good pianist who move a lot and very good ones who sit like a statue. And then there are conductors and solo guitarist in rockbands, singers ......:)
But I think movement does have an effect, even if only indirectly. It is often easier to get in the rhythm if your body moves with it, for example. I like to move when I perform, an I always stand when I play electronics.
My dislike of laptop performances is more complex than this. I think that a mouse is too simple and too single dimensional an controller for serious music performance and improvisation It is for me anyway. And I think that I can hear this in performances, and see it reflected in the way of sitting at a desk behind a laptop. The attention of the performer seems focused on moving the cursor to place X on the screen, and not on making sound Y in the room.
What I am more interested in is finding ways of making a computer a musical instrument without losing the possibilities. The biggest difference between a computer and a more traditional instrument is in the past and future time of the performance. A traditional instruments acts in the now. A computer has access to what has gone before, and you can project into the future. What I am trying to do is to make an interface that gives me the flexibility of a traditional instrument (instant change and reaction) without losing the extended time-scale of the computer program. To do this I want to have the interface reflect the state of the machine to the player in an intuitive or at least learnable way. One way is graphical, another is haptic. In the example above, the external sound source could also be what I played 1 minute ago. Or something choosen from what I played by pattern matching with neural nets.
So, that is long mail. Hope you find it interesting and not too rambling.
Gerard
Hello.
This issue should be split in two part.
On one side there are consequences of the controls you use on the music you play, on the kind of operation you can do on your music, on the kind of operation you can imagine to do.
On the other side there are consequences on how people listen/see your performance. Since you also talked using yourself as a listener, I thought it was not far from your interests.
Second annotation: there is a point when quantity becomes quality. My experience here is limited to studying doublebass and playing doublebass in chamber groups and didactical and semi-professional orchestras, but I think I can trust that. If it's true that the sound/gesture splitting is always present even in acoustic instruments, it can't be compared to the electonics' case, expecially when you assume the point of view/listening of the public. With acoustic instrument you can build an artificial gesture but only *around* a set of actions which are (again, expecially for the public) extremely precise in their nature and their consequences and so can be easily identified. With electronics you can even completely change your gesture between two performances (even if it's not necessarily a good thing for the quality of the performance!).
Of course what I say it only partially true (but it's hard to be exhaustive by mail) and we can complicate more the discussion since this has relations with all kind of questions I have in mind and other things I talk with my teacher.
I'm sorry if sometimes I say trivial things but I don't have specific education in this field and don't have people to compare with, since in my class most discussions (if any) are still about "if using Csound makes you a computer geek or an artist". So what I say mostly basically reflects what a person can understand walking in the darkness. If it's true that you can find articles on the web about that, understanding the consequences of these issues on thinking music, organizing your own work, preparing a performance, balancing research and production in everyday work is more complicated.
And I think that I can hear this in performances, and see it reflected in the way of sitting at a desk behind a laptop. The attention of the performer seems focused on moving the cursor to place X on the screen, and not on making sound Y in the room.
This is because of
have a positive example in my teacher. I mean that using his limited devices he developed a very good which I currently still lack.
I didn't see many laptop musician performances but from what I saw, what I'm told and what I imagine, I share exactly your same feelings. I also would like to have a similar approach to improvisation and that's why I'm working on my MetaControl. I would only love to get the real result quicker but I think I have to live with that.
I'm glad to read and write the mails in this thread. It makes me feel as I were not completely off road.
Regards,
Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu.
hi,
If you want to build midi instruments and you have some experience in elektronics - maybe the page
will be helpfull ...
i know it is important, to have something haptic in making music but the usual instruments have a huge history in their development. dont forget this ... who is playing for example today a "tiramin" (an instrument from the 20ties last century).
it needs some time to get your intrument in your body/brain too
but i agree - for perfomance it is better to have something to play with ...
greets kiilo
Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu wrote:
Hello.
This issue should be split in two part.
[... snap]
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, kiilo wrote:
i know it is important, to have something haptic in making music but the usual instruments have a huge history in their development. dont forget this ... who is playing for example today a "tiramin" (an instrument from the 20ties last century).
Depends on what range is that "today" meaning, but this instrument (called the Theremin, which is also the name of its inventor), was used extensively in 50's scifi/horror movies, and I know that Jean-Michel Jarre used it live in the 80's. I could presume as well that many different instruments were also created based on the Theremin, either on the input device part or the synthesiser part.
Mathieu Bouchard http://artengine.ca/matju
hum, John Spencer is still using it ))
cheers,
sevy
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, kiilo wrote:
i know it is important, to have something haptic in making music but the usual instruments have a huge history in their development. dont forget this ... who is playing for example today a "tiramin" (an instrument from the 20ties last century).
Depends on what range is that "today" meaning, but this instrument (called the Theremin, which is also the name of its inventor), was used extensively in 50's scifi/horror movies, and I know that Jean-Michel Jarre used it live in the 80's. I could presume as well that many different instruments were also created based on the Theremin, either on the input device part or the synthesiser part.
Mathieu Bouchard http://artengine.ca/matju
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.kug.ac.at http://iem.kug.ac.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Depends on what range is that "today" meaning, but this instrument (called the Theremin, which is also the name of its inventor), was used extensively in 50's scifi/horror movies, and
I know that Jean-Michel Jarre used it live in the 80's.
Jean-Michel Jarre? Are you talking about '80 of the '800? That's not today in any way!
Ok, just kidding!
Did Jarre still played the Rachmaninoff as Clara Rockmore or did he re-arrange it another time?
Ok, still kidding!
It's too easy to laugh on Jarre... not a great contribution. Sorry.
I think Kiilo meant to compare the relative stability of the traditional instruments to the way we are still working today with electronic devices. Theremin may be still in use and have influenced many other interfaces to electronic devices but sure it is not a well established instrument.
Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu.
On Sat, 2003-04-19 at 01:43, Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu wrote:
Theremin may be still in use and have influenced many other interfaces to electronic devices but sure it is not a well established instrument.
And it cannot be described as a complete interface for today's e.a. music performances.
Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu.
hello
I think Kiilo meant to compare the relative stability of the traditional instruments to the way we are still working today with electronic devices. Theremin may be still in use and have influenced many other interfaces to electronic devices but sure it is not a well established instrument.
it is not really a well established instrument, it is true. anyway, there is a list of more than 400 bands and musicians using the Theremine
http://www.thereminworld.com/bands.asp
among them, Jarre (Oxigene 10, 1997) and Spencer, as has been said, but also John Zorn and many other well known musicians.
Moog is selling one and it is MIDIfied...
http://www.moogmusic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.100.exe/products_t.html?L+scstor...
an interesting thing about Theremine that I don't know if it has been transferred to other newer electronic devices is its highly developed technique of playing...
jmb
On Sat, 2003-04-19 at 02:48, jose manuel berenguer wrote:
hello
I think Kiilo meant to compare the relative stability of the traditional instruments to the way we are still working today with electronic devices. Theremin may be still in use and have influenced many other interfaces to electronic devices but sure it is not a well established instrument.
it is not really a well established instrument, it is true. anyway, there is a list of more than 400 bands and musicians using the Theremine
http://www.thereminworld.com/bands.asp
among them, Jarre (Oxigene 10, 1997) and Spencer, as has been said, but also John Zorn and many other well known musicians.
Moog is selling one and it is MIDIfied...
http://www.moogmusic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.100.exe/products_t.html?L+scstor...
an interesting thing about Theremine that I don't know if it has been transferred to other newer electronic devices is its highly developed technique of playing...
This is was also my point in a previous mail. Anyway in this specific case (instrument), as far as I heard the technique is highly developed in the sense of playing traditional music or music that is in fact not very different from traditional music. I never listened to John Zorn playing theremin but since he made several works on cinema, recreating sound tracks for immaginary movies he may have used theremin in a idiomatic manner.
This is specifically true for the original theremin which is an instrument designed to play music of pitches (in fact the theremin is associated to a specific timbre, it's a real traditional instrument). With MIDIfied theremin, that is theremin used as control device (like radio baton etc), this is not true but I think you can use a theremin to exploit something like PD.
When I talk about reaching an instrumental technique on electronic devices, I am not necessarily referring to music written as traditional instrumental music but a music that can possibly exploits the essence of the specific device. In this sense the use of haptic devices "just" for the feeling of an acoustic istrument is not a priority for me (nor it is a tabu).
Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu.
hello, Maurizio Umberto
This is was also my point in a previous mail. Anyway in this specific case (instrument), as far as I heard the technique is highly developed in the sense of playing traditional music or music that is in fact not very different from traditional music. I never listened to John Zorn playing theremin but since he made several works on cinema, recreating sound tracks for immaginary movies he may have used theremin in a idiomatic manner.
This is specifically true for the original theremin which is an instrument designed to play music of pitches (in fact the theremin is associated to a specific timbre, it's a real traditional instrument). With MIDIfied theremin, that is theremin used as control device (like radio baton etc), this is not true but I think you can use a theremin to exploit something like PD.
When I talk about reaching an instrumental technique on electronic devices, I am not necessarily referring to music written as traditional instrumental music but a music that can possibly exploits the essence of the specific device. In this sense the use of haptic devices "just" for the feeling of an acoustic istrument is not a priority for me (nor it is a tabu).
Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu.
i share your opinions
when i was speaking about the "highly developed" technique of Theremine, i only was thinking on the accuracy of movements. in the past, they produced, indeed, pitches, but it could be possible using all this gestural knowledge to control other less idiomatic musical variables.
to play a Helmut Lachenmann's quartet, performers perhaps have spent a lot of years working on control of pitches and levels in time, despite of the fact that his music has more to do with other qualities of sound...
coming back to Theremine again, even if not using the new MIDI features, the frequency of audio signal could be analyzed by means of fiddle~ and mapped to any other set of sonic dimensions. it is not matter of feeling of acoustic instruments in my case. it is only a need to control the life of sounds in real time with the same level of accuracy that was reached by musical works in the past. not always, but sometimes i need that audience communicates, directly with performers, that it follows them, and this is not possible without a high level of control of sound matter.
perhaps this is a mirage...
jm
On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 04:11:49 +0200 jose manuel berenguer jmbeal@telefonica.net wrote:
coming back to Theremine again, even if not using the new MIDI features, the frequency of audio signal could be analyzed by means of fiddle~ and mapped to any other set of sonic dimensions. it is not
If you are interested in pursuing this course of action, the following circuit is very simple & cheap to build. We have used this live several times, although I've never bothered to run it into [fiddle~]. It only uses two ICs and follows the same basic principle of the theremin, but using digital componentry (it doesn't produce the very nice sine-wave that a theremin does, but rather makes a horrible and harmonically rich screaming square type of sound wave).
http://mccormick.cx/gfx/digital%20theremin%20(small%20pic).jpg
I like the way the designer has used cheap hack with the hex-inverter to produce a square wave in the MHz range by feeding the hex output back into itself - ingenious! The capacitance detection and comparison to the original wave is done using a phase-locked-loop IC. Both of these ICs (or similar) are very commonly found in electronics stores. I find that it's useful to put a larger pot (such as 100k) in series next to the 10k resistor to provide a greater level of control, and to take you into realms of dissonance and self-modulation which the circuit was never meant to go to. Note that it does not include a volume control control component (only pitch).
Enjoy the screams, Regards,
Chris. _________________________________ chris@mccormick.cx http://www.mccormick.cx http://www.sciencegirlrecords.com
good morning,
... apologies for drawing this thread yet further off-topic...
On 19 April 2003 at 11:53:26, Chris McCormick wrote: [snip]
If you are interested in pursuing this course of action, the following circuit is very simple & cheap to build. We have used this live several times, although I've never bothered to run it into [fiddle~]. It only uses two ICs and follows the same basic principle of the theremin, but using digital componentry (it doesn't produce the very nice sine-wave that a theremin does, but rather makes a horrible and harmonically rich screaming square type of sound wave).
http://mccormick.cx/gfx/digital%20theremin%20(small%20pic).jpg
wow -- i built this one once myself, and while i eventually did manage to get it to behave like a theremin, it also made a great receiver for the local radio station ;-)
i also got a constant horrible nasty ugly feedback-loop-like scream somewhere >= 10KHz, though, which drove my roommates nuts and made the device rather useless as a sound-source -- have you had similar problems? if so, how do you deal with them?
marmosets, Bryan
Wow what a thread :o)
sombody had a "teremin" (sorry for misspelling) when i was helping for a concert in sprengel-musseum in hannover ... it was an orginal rebuild of the model from the twenties ... but i get the feeling, this instrument is very difficult to control ... it responds to every magnetic field floating in the room - in our days electrosmoog is dimensions more dense ...
but why not ... it is intressting to listen and it even play without a player usualy too :o)
for instruments building i think there are two poles, one is imitating known instruments haptic behavior (midi converter for git. etc ...) and on the other end invitation of complet new instruments like the theremin ...
where do you want your force feedback joystic? why not making music with a motorcycle? ;o)
and this in this "compiler-error lib"-list ;o)
greets + beeps kiilo
[snip]
http://mccormick.cx/gfx/digital%20theremin%20(small%20pic).jpg
[snap]
Sending this again to the list.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 09:53:16 +0200 "Bryan Jurish" moocow@ling.uni-potsdam.de wrote:
good morning,
... apologies for drawing this thread yet further off-topic...
On 19 April 2003 at 11:53:26, Chris McCormick wrote: [snip]
If you are interested in pursuing this course of action, the following circuit is very simple & cheap to build. We have used this live several times, although I've never bothered to run it into [fiddle~]. It only uses two ICs and follows the same basic principle of the theremin, but using digital componentry (it doesn't produce the very nice sine-wave that a theremin does, but rather makes a horrible and harmonically rich screaming square type of sound wave).
http://mccormick.cx/gfx/digital%20theremin%20(small%20pic).jpg
wow -- i built this one once myself, and while i eventually did manage to get it to behave like a theremin, it also made a great receiver for the local radio station ;-)
i also got a constant horrible nasty ugly feedback-loop-like scream somewhere >= 10KHz, though, which drove my roommates nuts and made the device rather useless as a sound-source -- have you had similar problems? if so, how do you deal with them?
Mine produces a very definite pitch, even if it is pretty screamy. At different points there are several different higher level harmonics coming through modulating a bit with the main pitch, but it's useable. Any other quirks we just worked into the show to add character.
Chris. _________________________________ chris@mccormick.cx http://www.mccormick.cx http://www.sciencegirlrecords.com
here is a shoddy theremin in that i put together in flash for a multimedia project in school. it is simple but illustrates the concept.
http://gethyper.com/flash/theremindos.html
-alex
Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com
those are awesome! i've actually had the chance to try one and
hear some recordings of a theramin master. i think you can even buy new ones from moog that have midi output. however i wouldn't trade my guitar for one of them :)
scott
On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, kiilo wrote:
i know it is important, to have something haptic in making music but the usual instruments have a huge history in their development. dont forget this ... who is playing for example today a "tiramin" (an instrument from the 20ties last century).
Depends on what range is that "today" meaning, but this instrument (called the Theremin, which is also the name of its inventor), was used extensively in 50's scifi/horror movies, and I know that Jean-Michel Jarre used it live in the 80's. I could presume as well that many different instruments were also created based on the Theremin, either on the input device part or the synthesiser part.
Mathieu Bouchard http://artengine.ca/matju
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.kug.ac.at http://iem.kug.ac.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates, 1981
On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 19:02:39 -0400 (EDT) Mathieu wrote:
and I know that Jean-Michel Jarre used it live in the 80's.
The Beach Boys used it, too, on one of their tunes (CAn't recall which but maybe 'Surfing USA'?).
./MiS
Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu said at "Re: [PD] Re:[OT] How do your performance environments looks like?."r[2003/04/17 11:01]
Hello.
This issue should be split in two part.
I am not sure about this. The more I think about it, the more I think that the "performative" and the "controling" are aspects of the same thing. But for discussion it is useful to choose one perspective.
With electronics you can even completely change your gesture between two performances (even if it's not necessarily a good thing for the quality of the performance!).
Yes, you can redesign your interface, you could even make te computer decide what kind of interface there will be. In the last case the performance is a search. That can be very good, depending on who does the searching. It requires meta-skills in a certain way, a different kind of virtuosity. You lose fine control on the event level, I believe. But that is just one of may choices you have to make.
- little elaboration of their playing/improvising technique. Here I
have a positive example in my teacher. I mean that using his limited devices he developed a very good which I currently still lack.
Limitations are necessary. You can either decide te limitations in the shop, or you have to program them in. I would call it focused though. I think musical instruments are focused. Besides it takes practice. How many hours does it take to play thumb positions in tune on the double bass? Why should a computer take less time, especially considering that your designing the instrument and developing the methodology as well.
I'm working on my MetaControl.
What are the concepts behind this?
Gerard
On Sat, 2003-04-19 at 15:01, vanDongen-Gilcher wrote:
Why should a computer take less time, especially considering that your designing the instrument and developing the methodology as well.
I'm aware of that. I sometimes just need to compare with other people, not to decide who is better (which is often not a parameter in art) but just to be sure I'm not following some false ideal instead of keeping my head on the real issue. I think it's easy in this field.
I'm working on my MetaControl.
What are the concepts behind this?
I don't think there is anything exceptionally new in fact.
Primarily I needed to
I'm currently using it with PD) 2) have something stable. PD is great but the UI is not stable, often crashes (0.36 more than ever) and has unpredictable behaviours.
to work with a graphic tablet
standard GUI widgets. I have a reduced set of controls
-a 2d+n surface (similar to [grid] but with pressure, since my graphire has no tilt), This surface is zoomable, but zoom doesn't work good right now. -a hypervectorial surface. Here I want to develop hypervectorial control technique more in depth. For example I can use layers of hyper-spots and activate/deactivate them at will but there are a number of other improvements than can make hvc much more expressive and usable. -I'm adding a strumming surface ("harp") like cnmat's one should allow me to play and control groups of events. -frames with auto-built sliders
I also have a containter which can hold 4 of those controls at once. But I'm no pushing more in that direction. I prefer to have one of them on the screen and switch between them with key bindings. Something that it's hard to do with PD but also very important.
I'm using Scheme interpreter and I can bind scripts to key bindings.
even if "how it sound" is what matters and I partially play things
like "black boxes", I often like to read the values of the parameters. So most of the time they are displayed on the screen.
I'm using regex in several places to control things in group and not have to code lots of UI.
So there are two kind of reasons for developing MetaControl, musical and technological, and they are often linked together. Part of the thing are there because I used it while playing in past (for example in PD), another part because I think they will allow me do play certain things in a certain way in future.
I attempted to do or did most of these things or things working *almost* like that in PD before. The problem that almost makes often the different between usable and unusable.
Here are some snapshots:
http://space.virgilio.it/maurizio.umberto.puxeddu@virgilio.it/Screenshot-Met...
also look at
Screenshot-Metacontrol-dataset-config.png
Screenshot-Metacontrol-receiver-config.png
Screenshot-Metacontrol-grid-config.png
Screenshot-Metacontrol-scheme-console.png
Screenshot-Metacontrol-script-config.png
Screenshot-Metacontrol-hv-layer-config.png
Screenshot-Metacontrol-sliders.png
Screenshot-Metacontrol-hv.png
Screenshot-Metacontrol-snapshots-config.png
Screenshot-Metacontrol-hv-spot-config.png
Screenshot-Metacontrol-target-config.png
Screenshot-Metacontrol-keybinding-config.png
I don't know if it's a good thing or a complete waste of time that I should spend in front of CoolEdit composition a piece. There are a number of arguments pro and against each aspect of this thing and the choices I made. I guess that if I manage to make good music with it soon it's ok, if not it's a waste of time.
Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu.
I am personally very interested in figuring out how to provide useful haptic feedback for methods of synthesis where there isn't a correlation between the physical world, and the way the sound is generating, as there is with physical modelling.
I am currently building an instrument to control a Phase Vocoder using a Force Feedback Joystick and a regular mouse. I am working on mappings; first mapping the axes and buttons to controlling the sound, then next on mapping the sound to the haptic feedback.
The most basic idea, which I got from the U of York's Cymatic, is to have the mouse act like a bow of a violin, with the sound being fed directly into the mouse so that as you move the mouse, it vibrates with the sounds its making (unfortunately, the drivers haven't been written yet for Linux, so this will happen in the future). I think this will greatly enhance the experience of playing it. It is that direct vibration that I miss from my days of playing the trumpet.
The mapping of the joystick forces is what I am still struggling with. So far I have only really thought of things like making the force get higher as the pitch higher, or making small notches of resistance representing the borders between changes in parameters. But this seems too literal, and basically just an emulation of a knob with detents. There must be more useful mappings, that's what I am struggling with.
.hc
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, vanDongen-Gilcher wrote:
Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu said at "Re: [PD] Re:[OT] How do your performance environments looks like?."r[2003/04/16 18:08]
For an interesting example of a haptic musical interface, check out the University of York's Cymatic: http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~smr12/
main.htm
This gives me a better idea. It is not by chance that they focus on physical modeling. There are many ways to make sounds with a computer where haptic interfaces makes much less sense.
Of course. Although I think that there are many "pure" synthetic synthesis methods were haptic feedback can be useful as well. example: A midi-fader is also gives some form of haptic feedback, you know the position by touch without having to look at the screen. What I am thinking of are situations where a single controller axis controls multiple interconnected parameters. One parameters is obviously sensable because of the position. Pitch for instance. But an external sound source might determine the portamento or some kind of modulation effect on that sound. Using ff I can make the response of the joystick reflect the synthesis better. For me it is all about designing a performance interface that matches my musical concepts.
During a recent improvisation workshop, some people complained that I was totally inexpressive while playing, even if I was able to make "gestural" sounds and make use of the whole dynamic range which is more extreme than the rest of the players (instrumental).
I noticed that my teacher can (on occasion) use an artificial gestuality (that is, not justified by strict interaction with the device). For me this is not necessarily a problem, this split being a part of the nature of playing electronic devices.
This split is also part of accoustic devices I think. It is also an old discussion in classical music. With a piano the only factors determining the sound are the speed of depressing the keys and the position of the pedals. All movements before and after are "artificial" . There are a lot of bad pianist with fake expresionist movements, there are also very good pianist who move a lot and very good ones who sit like a statue. And then there are conductors and solo guitarist in rockbands, singers ......:)
But I think movement does have an effect, even if only indirectly. It is often easier to get in the rhythm if your body moves with it, for example. I like to move when I perform, an I always stand when I play electronics.
My dislike of laptop performances is more complex than this. I think that a mouse is too simple and too single dimensional an controller for serious music performance and improvisation It is for me anyway. And I think that I can hear this in performances, and see it reflected in the way of sitting at a desk behind a laptop. The attention of the performer seems focused on moving the cursor to place X on the screen, and not on making sound Y in the room.
What I am more interested in is finding ways of making a computer a musical instrument without losing the possibilities. The biggest difference between a computer and a more traditional instrument is in the past and future time of the performance. A traditional instruments acts in the now. A computer has access to what has gone before, and you can project into the future. What I am trying to do is to make an interface that gives me the flexibility of a traditional instrument (instant change and reaction) without losing the extended time-scale of the computer program. To do this I want to have the interface reflect the state of the machine to the player in an intuitive or at least learnable way. One way is graphical, another is haptic. In the example above, the external sound source could also be what I played 1 minute ago. Or something choosen from what I played by pattern matching with neural nets.
So, that is long mail. Hope you find it interesting and not too rambling.
Gerard
zen
\
\
\[D[D[D[D
Hans-Christoph Steiner said at "Re: [PD] Re:[OT] How do your performance environments looks like?."r[2003/04/18 02:06]
The mapping of the joystick forces is what I am still struggling with. So far I have only really thought of things like making the force get higher as the pitch higher, or making small notches of resistance representing the borders between changes in parameters. But this seems too literal, and basically just an emulation of a knob with detents. There must be more useful mappings, that's what I am struggling with.
One of the ones I like to use is a spring with a deadband, but the forces reversed. So, assuming the "detent" is in the center, you can hold it there easily, but if you move a little bit away you will be pulled to the edge. Operating a control like this is sort of balancing a broomstick on a finger. Maybe the width of the deadband could vary with pitch. Not sure if the idea is useful for you.
I think that simple mappings can be good too though. F.i. if you control more than one instrument with the same joystick, changing the simple haptic "map" makes it easy to know which one you are currently controlling without looking at the screen.
Gerard
Le jeu 10/04/2003 à 16:37, vanDongen-Gilcher a écrit :
Yes, but it is not a haptic device. (haptic = touch/force feedback) Also the movement range is to restricted.
There's an article about "pseudo-haptic" feedback using a spaceball: http://www-rocq.inria.fr/i3d/i3d/people/lecuyer/article_color.pdf
So apparently, visual feedback can feel like haptic feedback.
Other articles by the same author here: http://www.irisa.fr/siames/GENS/alecuyer/page1.html