Since we already had a substantial documentation of practical experiments from earlier sessions, we decided to not document these sessions with video and written reflections. One could of course say that the sessions are still documented with audio recordings, although I would characterize these different modes of documentation so differently that they require different treatment and impacts the production and the reflection if very different ways. We as musicians are quite used to working in the studio, used to being recorded, and familiar with the scrutiny that follows from this process. Close miking in an optimal recording environment brings out details that you would not necessarily notice otherwise.  The impact of the difference in documentation methods and documentation purpose is the aim of this blog post.

During the practical sessions earlier in this project, we had done what I would call a full video documentation. This consisted of a written session report form (with objectives, listing of participants and takes, reflections during and after the session), a 4-camera video recording of the full session, with reflection interviews after the session, a video digest with highlights of the raw video takes, and a blog post summing up and presenting the results. This recipe was developed as a collaboration between Andreas Bergsland and myself, with Bergsland leading the interviews and taking care of all parts of the video production. A documentation software tool (docmarker) was also developed by me, to aid in marking significant moments in time during sessions, with the purpose of speeding up the process of sifting through the material when editing.

Such an extensive documentation format of course requires substantial resources, but care was taken to try to ensure that the artistic process should not be slowed down by documentation work. We had dedicated personell doing the documentation, for most sessions Bergsland would transparently take care of the video production. The reflective interviews were done after all performing activities were completed, and we also had considerable technical assistance from studio engineers (led by Thomas Henriksen). All this should ensure that any burden of documentation should not impose any hindrance to the workflow of the artistic process being documented.

Still, when we did these final rehearsals in May 2018 without this kind of documentation, I realized that the process and the workflow was much faster. It seems for me like the act of being documented influence the flow of the process in a very significant manner. I relate this to a difference between a pure artistic process, and an artistic research process. I do not propose that what I say here has any form of general validity, but I do recognize it within my own experience from this project and from earlier artistic research projects. It appears to be related to being aware of one’s own intentions on an intellectual level, as opposed to “just doing”. During my doctoral research project “New creative possibilities through improvisational use of compositional techniques, – a new computer instrument for the performing musician” finished in 2008, I also noted this difficulty of doing research on my own process. The being inside while looking from the outside.  The intuitive and the analytic. The subjective and the attempt at being objective. During an earlier session in the crossadaptive project, Bergsland asked me right after a take what I had done during that take. I replied that I did exactly what I said I should (before the take). He then noted that it did not sound as if this was what happened, and I needed to check my settings and realized, yes, … I had actually done some adjustments early in the take “just to make it work”.

After this insight in the May sessions, I have discussed this issue with several collagues. Many seem to agree with me that it would be interesting to try to document the moment when an artistic process ignites, the moment when “it happens”. Many also recognize the inevitable slowdown due to an analytical component being introduced into the inner loop of the process. Others would say that I must be doing something wrong if the act of documentation slows me down so much. The way I experience this, the artistic process has several layers, each with it’s own iteration time. Parts of the process iterates on the time scale of years, where reflective insight and slow learning influence the growth of ideas. Other intermediary layers also exist as onion skin layers before we get to the inner loop that is active during performance. Here, the millisecond interactions between impulses and reactions is at the most sensitive to interruptions and distractions. Any kind of small drag at this level impedes the flow and slows down the loop, sometimes to the extent that it will not work, it stops. As if it was a rotating wheel with a self-preserving spin, delicately balancing between friction and flow. On the longer time scales, documentation does not imede the process, but rather it can enrich it. On those time scales I also recognize the accumulation of material, of background research, technical solutions, philosophical perspectives and so on. It may seem like the gunpower to allow something to ignite is collected during those longer loops, while the spark… well that is a fickle and short-lived entity more vulnerable to analytical impact. In quantum physics there are also (as far as I know) particles too small to be observed, where the act of observation collapses a potentiality. Maybe there is a similar uncertainty principle in artistic research?

At the NIME conference (New Instruments for Musical Expression) at Virginia Tech, we presented a paper: “Working Methods and Instrument Design for Cross-Adaptive Sessions” by Oeyvind Brandtsegg, Trond Engum & Bernt Isak Wærstad
http://nime2018.icat.vt.edu/

We published a paper on the developments of new convolution techniqiues in Applied Sciences: “Live Convolution with Time-Varying Filters”
by Øyvind Brandtsegg, Sigurd Saue and Victor Lazzarini.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/8/1/103

Brandtsegg presented the project at the Forum IRCAM Workshops in March 2018.
http://forumnet.ircam.fr/

Brandtsegg and Engum presented the project at the European Platform for Artistic research in Music 2018, in Porto.
https://www.aec-music.eu/events/european-platform-for-artistic-research-in-music-2018

We published a paper for Frontiers in Digital Humanities: “Applications of Cross-Adaptive Audio Effects: Automatic Mixing, Live Performance and Everything in Between”
by Joshua D. Reiss and Øyvind Brandtsegg
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdigh.2018.00017/full

At the ICLI conference (International Conference on Live Interfaces) in Porto, we presented a paper: “Instrumentality, perception and listening in crossadaptive performance” by Marije Baalman, Simon Emmerson and Øyvind Brandtsegg
http://www.liveinterfaces.org/

Brandtsegg present the project at the International Grieg Research School symposium “Knowing Music -Musical Knowing: Cross disciplinary dialogue on epistemologies” in Trondheim, October 2018.
https://www.uib.no/en/rs/grieg/116427/knowing-music-musical-knowing-cross-disciplinary-dialogue-epistemologies

Full text available here:
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0641v1r0

The program for the evening was:

Michael Duch – double bass
Oeyvind Brandtsegg – live convolver

Kim Henry Ortveit – electronics and percussion
Maja Ratkje – vocals, electronics
Oeyvind Brandtsegg – crossadaptive processing, Marimba Lumina

Ada Mathea Hoel – presentation of crossadaptive video and audio production

Trond Engum – crossdaptive processing, guitar
Carl Haakon Waadeland – percussion
Tone Åse – vocals, electronics
Oeyvind Brandtsegg – crossadaptive processing, Marimba Lumina

The whole event was recorded, and the video can be found here:
https://vimeo.com/292993129/589519efcb
Since this was a local concert, the verbal presentation is in Norwegian.

Kim Henry’s instrument

The session was done as an interplay between Kim Henry on his instrument and Øyvind Brandtsegg on vocals and crossadaptive processing. It was conducted as an initial exploration of just “seeing what would happen” and trying out various ways of making crossadaptive connections here and there. The two audio examples here are excerpts of longer takes.

Self convolution

David Moss – vocals
Øyvind Brandtsegg – crossadaptive processing, vocals
Alberto De Campo – observer
Marija Mickevica – observer, and vocals on one take

More details on these tracks will follow, currently I just upload them here so that the involved parties might get access.

Then we did some explorations of David telling stories, live convolving with Øyvind’s impulse responses.

And we were lucky that student Marija Mickevica wanted to try recording live impulse responses while David was telling stories. Here’s an example:

And a final take with David and Øyvind, where all previously tested effects and crossadaptive mappings were enabled. Selective mix of effects and modulations was controlled manually by Øyvind during the take.

Source

The source sounds are prepared as a stereo file, with sound A in the left channel and sound B in the right channel. Sound A is assembled from sounds downloaded from freesound.org , all made by user Corsica_S (files “alpha.wav”, “bravo.wav”, “charlie.wav”, “delta.wav”). Sound B is a drumloop programmed by Oeyvind Brandtsegg some time in the late 90’s.

Source sounds for the convolution demo.

Liveconv

Sound A is recorded as the impulse response for liveconv. The length of the filter is approx 0.5 seconds (the duration of the spoken word used as source). It is replaced approx every 5.5 seconds, manually automated to line up with when the appropriate word appears in the source. This way, the first IR contains the word “alpha”, then it is replaced after 5.5 seconds with the word “bravo”, and so on until all 4 words have been used as an IR.

Liveconv demo using above source sounds.

tvconv

Sound A and sound B runs continuously through the filter. No freezing of coefficients is applied. The filter length is 23768 samples, approximately 0.74 seconds at a sample rate of 44.1 kHz.

tvconv demo using the above source sounds.

In addition to the researchers presenting, we also had an audience of students from the music technology and the jazz departments, as well as other researchers and teachers from NTNU. We are grateful for the input from the audience to enrich our discussions.

Program:

Thursday 2. November

Practical experiments

Introduction and status. [slides]
Øyvind Brandtsegg

Performance
Maja S.K. Ratkje, Øyvind Brandtsegg, Miller Puckette (standin for Stian Westerhus)

Work methods and session reports. Experiences, insights, reflections.
Trond Engum (with team)[slides],  Bernt Isak Wærstad (with team) [slides]

Instruments and tools

Instrumental affordances, crossadaptivity as instrumental gesture.
Marije Baalman [slides]

Performance
Tone Åse, Carl Haakon Waadeland, Trond Engum

Instrument design and technological developments. [slides]
Sigurd Saue, Victor Lazzarini, Øyvind Brandtsegg

Friday 3. November

Reflection. Aesthetic and philosophical issues

Documentation methods [slides]
Andreas Bergsland

Performance
Bjørnar Habbestad, Gyrid N. Kaldestad, Bernt Isak Wærstad

What does it mean for the performer, for the audience, for the music? How does it change the game?
Solveig Bøe [notes], Simon Emmerson [slides]

Wider use and perspectives

Experiences with Philippe Manoury and Juliana Snapper, thoughts on instrumental control, and a performance
Miller Puckette [PD patches]
(with Øyvind Brandtsegg for a brief liveconvolver performance)

Looking at the music from the mix perspective. Viability of effects as expression. The wider field of automatic mixing and adaptive effects.
Gary Bromham [slides], Josh Reiss [slides]

Outcomes and evaluation. [slides]
Moderator: Øyvind Brandtsegg