ooooofala!

["Jan Pek" <swirlee@angelfire.com>]

list: (+smiling at FREE++ NN netochka nezvanova ) ;

(nn time wheel aug 2000 MAXMSP list): 
>personally + certain other individuals = would
>very ultra desirous of funding lovely data - max or >otherwise 
>- particularly if ost europa + non.xy konglomerate >evidament.

Ive been thinking about applying for a grant to help me continue 
development of live looping software. it seems that a Linux box with 
M-Audio or RME interface is capable of reliable 1 ms latency. There is a 
lot of discussion amongst the Linux Audio people about creating a portable 
music workstation based in Linux. I think this would really appeal to 
people who shy away from software. It seems to be much less flakey, and a 
hardware user interface could easily be coupled. 

I would need access to a fast PC running Linux. I think a good machine 
could be had for $1000. The M-audio Delta1010, a 10in10out box, can be had 
used for about $500. For $1500-- a stable development platform for 
multichannel polymetric looping software. 

Perhaps there is a benevolent looper in NYC, or an organization to which I 
could write a proposal. I feel that, as people working on the edge of new 
processes for manifesting music, we need to take those methods into our 
own hands, and build fluid interfaces around the community's needs.

best
-jan

aside-----

ive been playing with ableton's Live software (www.ableton.com). here's 
some stuff i sent to the developers:

I was very happy with the interface. The design is clear and uncluttered. 
I was able to work it mostly intuitively. Dropping existing loops into 
slots was easy. I loved the feel of the files windows, where i could 
bring in old material, and the way that new tracks are stored 
automatically, allowing me to use material from one piece in another. 
Another great feature- the FX chain, where I could easily browse 
from my plugins and drop them onto tracks. The sliders, panners, and 
parameter editors were easy to operate. The keyboard shortcuts added 
fluidity. The quantize made lining new parts up easy. The length 
indicators when recording were helpful.

As an instrument, I found it, at times, difficult to operate Live while 
improvising. I set up a template, where keys were mapped to the record arm 
buttons, but was unable to start recording in a slot without either 
clicking on that slot or pressing RETURN. pressing the key assigned to 
that slot only seemed to work for cuing existing loops. though i liked the 
quantizer keeping things in sync, i found its behavior difficult when 
recording. i like to tap record in as i am about to start playing. if i 
happen to tap a bit after the downbeat, the quantizer would wait until the 
next beat before recording. in my looping software, the quantizer lines up 
the loop lengths, not the start and end times. the loop is effectively 
padded at the end. i like this behavior better.

Though I liked the separation of arranger and session windows, I was 
frustrated by it. The session window, with its matrix of cue-able loops, 
seemed to be operating on a time wheel metaphor.  Things revolved. Things 
were circular. But the arranger window was clearly a song timeline. 
Linear. Beginning and ending. I think it was an intelligent design 
decision, making the arranger like a sequencer. That way, loops could be 
unrolled into a 'song', live... and it would lend a degree of familiarity
to people who were already using Acid. but i live by the idea that the 
song is 
the singing. By the process, not the product. The idea of a finished, 
start-to-end 'arrangement' seemed contradictory to the Live metaphor.

I would have liked to see arrangements as circular things, like larger 
time wheels within which the smaller loop time wheels spin. Philip Glass 
once talked about his music in this way. I found myself with a set of 
tracks, grooving along, and wanting to change the groove. If I built up a 
second groove or called in tracks from the archives, I could then switch 
between grooves. But to create a more sophisticated structure Live, I 
found myself having to lay down automation in the arranger, then create a 
loop segment around my automation, then start the groove again. To me, 
this 
felt like two metaphors conflicting. If I enlisted a second person's help, 
i was able to remain more fluid in my improvisation without getting stuck 
in my engineering hat. but i would like to be able to conduct my process 
Live, like an instrument. 

i also found certain commands that were difficult to operate from the 
keyboard. i wanted to say, 'shift the pitch of tracks 1 through 3 down 5 
semitones starting next bar'. or 'map tracks 1-8 across these MIDI keys, 
and set them all to be gated so i can play them', or even, 
'cut up this loop into rhythmic fragments and map them across my midi 
keyboard'. 
these 'macro' abilities would have made it much easier for me to conduct 
while improvising. realistically, i only ever had a few seconds away 
from my instruments. i didnt want to be mousing around. 

you have a tough job, having to anticipate how different people create
music. with offline sequencing software, the degree of flexibility with
user interface is much greater. with Live, you have to remain in fluid,
yet provide a language between musician and computer that is understandable
to both. i was glad for the cue feature. this is DJ wisdom-- 
listen before you bring into the mix. 

i am very happy about your work. i feel it is an important synthesis of 
ideas brought down to Earth in a very usable package. i thought of
imprinting spinning crystals with my improvised resonations. working
in Live reminded me a bit of working with a delay pedal, and a bit of
working in Acid. it is an important bridge to build. it is an amazing
genesis, and i feel that it will mature into something really robust. 
let me know if i can be of help in the building. 

ps. i have included some discussions and ideas regarding my own loop work. 
see below.

best,
jan pekau


------
        ****
   from the max/msp list-- thank you everyone for the discussions on 
looping!

>I'm not much of a looper, what sort of "dream functions" does the ultimate
>looping app have?


Who knows! Very individual, I think. For me, I'm interested in being able 
to
build up a part and come back to it later-- in a session, or by cuing up
loop mixes from disk. I'm interested in being able to have the computer 
help
me conduct the session-- puter, fade my bass loop out over 4 bars. Puter,
bring in that drumloop I recorded last time. Puter, we are switching all
melodic parts up 3 semitones. Puter, cue up these loops on just the monitor
mix so I can work with them before spitting them out. Puter, Jim just 
played
in some amazing shit. Let's timestrech that into the current loop. Only,
unlike an 'arranger' like Cubase, its a sonic continuum, it never stops. 
Its
created with that spirit.

For me its a way to bunk the traditional process of arranging music. I like
to work in the moment, and for me I've never really taken to assembling
pieces of my work and listening and relistening and tweaking. I'm 
interested
in expanding the loop analogy to be flexible enough to work with more
elaborate pieces-- where things get so dynamic, you might be surprised that
looping was a central totem to the process. So I'm trying to expand the
notion of looping to the point where the performer's role is less one of
holding groove or holding space and more one of imagining and directing the
flow of the space, and being a physical channel into that space. yields;
Building a piece so that you give the computer enough information as you
build it that it understands how your piece is structured, and it can
project the piece forwards in time as you continue to manipulate it.

This conjures some scary notions of inhuman music mediated by monotone
robots, but, as I see it, this can only liberate the performers to expand
the flow, rather than hold it. But then, that has been said about 
technology
in general== powerful tools definitely own their users as much as the
reverse is true. Oh, those inorganic beings!

All of this is somewhat rooted in a desire to dissolve the notion of a
'finished product' and to expose the whole process of creation as the
creation itself... and to empower the listener to become a creator by 
making
that process visible and available. I grew up improvising on piano and 
stuff
comes out, it needs to be channeled out, so I sit for hours and it just
bubbles up-- and in my visions I imagine communicating my intention for a
part and having the part build up by itself. Now my first reaction is that
seems a little ala Terrence McKenna machine elves, but then I stop and look
again and somehow 'bringing objects into existence by singing them into
existence' seems like a rational thing to shoot for.

>You got any beta patches yet?


Absolutely! They are messy, but if you can deal with that, I would love to
send you the whole thing, source & all. Then we could resonate together. 
tee
hee.



Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/