Utting CMPO 306 Major 2 Project Report
Successes and failures
•The most noticeable success (for me) with this piece was the creative stability that came from basing the whole piece around a score. In the past it was very difficult as part of the improvisatory/compositional process to record anything at all. Everything that would possibly go wrong did, and by the time I got everything working satisfactorily I had lost two hours and run out of creative energy. Using a score meant that the technical documentation of the piece did not interfere with the flow of generative and selective creativity, which was very freeing.
•Complete flexibility of notation was key to this piece’s construction. For a long time I sort of shunned musical notation (beyond primitive guitar tab and basic performance instructions) because of the negative influence it can have on the interaction between performer and the sound they’re sculpting. In each of the 16 events (they’re not really bars) in the piece, time is fluid and the sounds are represented by colours.
•The piece is difficult to replicate. The hum was often surprisingly different; not just in the character of it but the level too, and exponentially more so towards the end of each event and the end of the piece.
•The bass guitars would often produce slightly different harmonic beating rhythms, which changed the character of different phrases. The tuning of both instruments had to be carefully reset between takes. It was well worth doing though because the altered tunings offered some fantastic rhythmic information, especially when sustained with the compressor.
•Using the hums and buzzes that were present (rather than working technically to minimise them in the middle of a creative flow) was a suprisingly natural process in which the equipment was explored with both curiosity and presicion. This should be taken to much greater lengths, and is something that would really help with slow/drone music in general.
Creative method and workflow
•The piece spent a lot (too much; months) of time in limbo before it was finally nailed down. An engineering approach turned out to be the best: The piece simply needed to exist, and it needed to have a function and fulfill it well. To be anything more than that would hinder it’s purpose. That function was to illustrate the sounds present by approaching them phenomenologically and unfolding them in a logical fashion for the listener.
•The piece was originally going to be for one bass guitar and ChucK (real-time musical porgramming language) but it was difficult to find a reliable, simple way to make ChucK respond to and interact with a live performer. Several short programs were experimented with but to take them further seemed like it would lead to a different kind of project. Instead, seeing as I have two basses, it occurred to me that maybe I could tune them slightly apart from one another and just play those.
•Having a dedicated space to work in really helped with the creative process. Packing the gear down between sessions basically had the effect of changing the piece every time. It didn’t change it a lot, but it was just enough that it got very confusing as to what the piece was actually going to be. It was easy to get off topic and ultimately cost me several weeks in a fairly heavy creative block. Leaving everything set up meant that when I returned to it, it still sounded the same and responded in the same ways. This drastically improved creative flow.
•I find it really easy to find a sound or tone I like, and a few note combinations that illuminate it. Larger structures are more difficult. Notes (not the musical kind) and chords that worked well together (following each other) were written down in google docs, which was left open the whole time; including the times when I wasn’t actively working on the piece. This is something I’m going to try and do for every project in future. It meant that tweaks and passing thoughts could easily be slipped in.
•The tab-based system was great because it worked in a text editor, rather than on paper or in a midi program. The blue and yellow colours were added later by hand, and serve as a description of the levels of the two sounds at any given time (the two sounds being the guitars and the hums). I wasn’t sure if they were neccessary but it was clear when it came to the recording: I could stay in a technical mindset while playing (setting levels, camera and mic positions etc.) and let my past (creative state) self unfold from the page. The colours made the score more visually interesting and easier to follow.
Tips for future work:
•It might sound weirdly simple, but use Chion’s Reduced Listening technique. If you like to play within an established musical context, it’s the only way to truly know what your gear is capable of. In this piece it transformed the background hum from a dreaded lump in my heart to a volatile instrument full of worth and fascination.
•Leave everything set up and the files open. This preserves the nature of the piece.
•Make snap, rash decisions for creative reasons. If for whatever reason it doesn’t work later, you’ve learned something about yourself and your sounds and you know how to fix it.
•Have a day (or a week) without Reddit and other social media. You’ll need content so badly you’ll make it yourself, and you’ll make sure it’s good.
•Max out your compressor. You’re making new music, not fixing kick drums. There’s a whole world above that threshold.
The most important thing I gained in writing this work:
•The fast/cheap/good triangle is a lie. With large creative works, a lot of work done quickly is rewarding, exciting, and bound together by it’s temporal proximity to itself; resulting in a homogenous and thorough creation.
No comments:
Post a Comment