WEBVTT 00:00:00.050 --> 00:00:01.670 The following content is provided 00:00:01.670 --> 00:00:03.810 under a Creative Commons license. 00:00:03.810 --> 00:00:06.540 Your support will help MIT OpenCourseWare continue 00:00:06.540 --> 00:00:10.120 to offer high quality educational resources for free. 00:00:10.120 --> 00:00:12.700 To make a donation, or to view additional materials 00:00:12.700 --> 00:00:16.056 from hundreds of MIT courses, visit MIT OpenCourseWare 00:00:16.056 --> 00:00:18.232 at ocw.mit.edu. 00:00:25.020 --> 00:00:27.020 MARK HARVEY: We have Neil Leonard with us again. 00:00:27.020 --> 00:00:30.100 You all heard the great concert we had on Wednesday. 00:00:30.100 --> 00:00:31.610 So we thought we'd start out just 00:00:31.610 --> 00:00:37.020 by asking if anybody had any questions or comments based 00:00:37.020 --> 00:00:41.202 or that, that you'd like to ask the performer while he's here. 00:00:41.202 --> 00:00:44.652 AUDIENCE: Did it go how you expected it to go? 00:00:44.652 --> 00:00:46.610 NEIL LEONARD: I was pleased with how it worked. 00:00:46.610 --> 00:00:53.340 I didn't really-- I wasn't really sure 00:00:53.340 --> 00:00:55.730 how it would all go. 00:00:55.730 --> 00:00:59.970 I kind of had the basic idea, but there 00:00:59.970 --> 00:01:03.210 was a lot of logistical stuff to do leading up to it. 00:01:03.210 --> 00:01:06.450 I was finishing a piece of the final piece we pay played. 00:01:06.450 --> 00:01:08.610 I'd finished that week, so I just 00:01:08.610 --> 00:01:15.270 had my mind full of details to take care of. 00:01:15.270 --> 00:01:18.620 But I was really pleased at how it went. 00:01:18.620 --> 00:01:25.505 And I also was really pleased because Robin, my collaborator, 00:01:25.505 --> 00:01:28.430 was very enthusiastic and wanted to do it again. 00:01:28.430 --> 00:01:30.510 And so, that's kind of like a goal. 00:01:30.510 --> 00:01:33.960 If I do something with a group of musicians, 00:01:33.960 --> 00:01:38.860 to reach the point where people would want to do it again. 00:01:47.410 --> 00:01:47.980 Anybody else? 00:01:47.980 --> 00:01:49.170 I think last week I threatened to make 00:01:49.170 --> 00:01:50.211 everybody ask a question. 00:01:55.630 --> 00:01:58.200 AUDIENCE: Usually I feel like a lot of the technology 00:01:58.200 --> 00:02:01.612 that people use detracts from the performance, 00:02:01.612 --> 00:02:05.580 but I felt like, definitely, in this performance 00:02:05.580 --> 00:02:10.509 it added a lot of value to what the audience was hearing. 00:02:10.509 --> 00:02:11.630 NEIL LEONARD: How so? 00:02:11.630 --> 00:02:17.040 AUDIENCE: It allows one person to create 00:02:17.040 --> 00:02:20.770 so much variety of sound, and the audience 00:02:20.770 --> 00:02:26.171 was able to here all of the sound at the same time. 00:02:26.171 --> 00:02:29.105 When you're just playing by yourself, 00:02:29.105 --> 00:02:33.727 there's only so much you can do. 00:02:33.727 --> 00:02:35.102 NEIL LEONARD: I guess, especially 00:02:35.102 --> 00:02:36.660 if you're playing a wind instrument. 00:02:36.660 --> 00:02:43.580 I was reading a biography of this really famous sax 00:02:43.580 --> 00:02:45.450 player, Stan Getz. 00:02:45.450 --> 00:02:51.620 And he did a recording in, I'm guessing in the '70s, 00:02:51.620 --> 00:02:54.720 with like a echo kind of box. 00:02:54.720 --> 00:02:56.420 Things a tape delay. 00:02:56.420 --> 00:02:58.080 An analog tape delay. 00:02:58.080 --> 00:03:00.725 And he talked about-- the first recording 00:03:00.725 --> 00:03:02.980 he made was published, it sounds wonderful--. 00:03:02.980 --> 00:03:04.385 Have you ever heard that, Mark? 00:03:04.385 --> 00:03:04.650 MARK HARVEY: Who's the Guy? 00:03:04.650 --> 00:03:04.878 NEIL LEONARD: Stan Getz. 00:03:04.878 --> 00:03:05.030 Playing through the echo. 00:03:05.030 --> 00:03:06.290 MARK HARVEY: Yes, I have. 00:03:06.290 --> 00:03:09.030 NEIL LEONARD: It's called "Another World," 00:03:09.030 --> 00:03:10.680 or something like that. 00:03:10.680 --> 00:03:12.590 He plays wonderfully, but he also 00:03:12.590 --> 00:03:16.980 says that this is a time when, in the jazz world-- and I think 00:03:16.980 --> 00:03:21.450 that in so-called rock music, electronics 00:03:21.450 --> 00:03:23.610 were embraced, and don't really I 00:03:23.610 --> 00:03:25.870 don't remember them being challenged. 00:03:25.870 --> 00:03:30.850 If Pink Floyd , or Jimi Hendrix, or somebody had synthesizers, 00:03:30.850 --> 00:03:33.510 that just seemed like it was OK. 00:03:33.510 --> 00:03:39.010 For jazz musicians, it seemed like it was somehow 00:03:39.010 --> 00:03:41.290 straying from this tradition that 00:03:41.290 --> 00:03:43.120 shouldn't be tampered with. 00:03:43.120 --> 00:03:47.980 And Stan Getz said that it felt natural to him. 00:03:50.640 --> 00:03:52.330 And it gave him something to do, which 00:03:52.330 --> 00:03:52.860 you couldn't do with the sax. 00:03:52.860 --> 00:03:54.060 You play harmony. 00:03:54.060 --> 00:03:56.916 So if he played a delay, he could play one note, 00:03:56.916 --> 00:03:59.290 and while that note's ringing, he could play second note, 00:03:59.290 --> 00:04:01.140 and make chords, basically. 00:04:01.140 --> 00:04:05.930 Which he'd never been able to do before. 00:04:05.930 --> 00:04:10.210 There's also another instance from around that era 00:04:10.210 --> 00:04:11.310 that caught my attention. 00:04:11.310 --> 00:04:17.390 There was a flute player named Paul Horn. 00:04:17.390 --> 00:04:19.640 And he did a recording at the Taj Mahal. 00:04:19.640 --> 00:04:21.640 And I think it was like this gorilla recording 00:04:21.640 --> 00:04:24.557 where he walked in and set up his tape deck. 00:04:24.557 --> 00:04:27.140 Now you probably couldn't take a tape deck into the Taj Mahal. 00:04:27.140 --> 00:04:28.240 I'm guessing. 00:04:28.240 --> 00:04:29.500 Or into the Vatican. 00:04:29.500 --> 00:04:31.847 You'd be screened. 00:04:31.847 --> 00:04:34.430 But he said he pulled the tape deck out and started to record, 00:04:34.430 --> 00:04:35.513 and it was the same thing. 00:04:35.513 --> 00:04:37.400 It is a very, very long reverberation, 00:04:37.400 --> 00:04:42.060 so you can build harmonic structures 00:04:42.060 --> 00:04:46.260 for the flute, which you can't do in a room like this 00:04:46.260 --> 00:04:48.070 without the use of electronics. 00:04:48.070 --> 00:04:55.600 And so, I don't see a difference between using the Taj 00:04:55.600 --> 00:04:59.800 Mahal to do that, versus using, like, analog tape delay. 00:04:59.800 --> 00:05:02.960 If you get to play chords, and that's a really fun thing 00:05:02.960 --> 00:05:06.642 to play with, then I want to experiment playing chords. 00:05:06.642 --> 00:05:08.600 If I can get the Taj Mahal, I'm happy to get it 00:05:08.600 --> 00:05:11.200 but, I'm not going to bring the Taj Majal to Killian Hall 00:05:11.200 --> 00:05:12.664 downstairs. 00:05:12.664 --> 00:05:14.080 Whatever I bring is probably going 00:05:14.080 --> 00:05:17.830 to be some kind of computer software. 00:05:17.830 --> 00:05:19.540 But in principle-- 00:05:19.540 --> 00:05:21.370 AUDIENCE: I wasn't saying like-- I just 00:05:21.370 --> 00:05:25.294 feel that usually things don't work as expected. 00:05:28.350 --> 00:05:32.032 People will bring in things, and mics won't work, or whatever. 00:05:32.032 --> 00:05:34.669 At the end of the performance, it 00:05:34.669 --> 00:05:36.585 might have been better if they just played it. 00:05:36.585 --> 00:05:40.214 But in this case, things worked out the way you wanted them to. 00:05:44.054 --> 00:05:45.970 NEIL LEONARD: Not everything worked perfectly. 00:05:45.970 --> 00:05:54.220 And I was interested in when things didn't work perfectly. 00:05:54.220 --> 00:05:57.320 It was still a performance, and if something doesn't work, 00:05:57.320 --> 00:05:59.129 you go ahead. 00:05:59.129 --> 00:06:00.920 At one point, I put the wrong page of music 00:06:00.920 --> 00:06:04.260 in the music stand, so when we got to that point, 00:06:04.260 --> 00:06:05.620 we missed the first Bar. 00:06:05.620 --> 00:06:08.810 But I figured, just go ahead. 00:06:08.810 --> 00:06:10.480 Don't worry about. 00:06:10.480 --> 00:06:13.230 But I also noticed-- and I don't know if anybody else caught 00:06:13.230 --> 00:06:15.820 this-- but when Robin was doing the first piece, 00:06:15.820 --> 00:06:19.230 he played one piece of just kind of like delays, 00:06:19.230 --> 00:06:21.260 and just like a wah wah on trombone. 00:06:21.260 --> 00:06:23.120 And then he played a second piece, 00:06:23.120 --> 00:06:27.270 that was-- he started with a drum pad, 00:06:27.270 --> 00:06:30.960 and started looping that, and knowing some of those rhythms, 00:06:30.960 --> 00:06:36.090 I knew that if you don't get the loop right in the drum--. 00:06:36.090 --> 00:06:39.010 You can record it with a kind of a glitch, which he did. 00:06:39.010 --> 00:06:44.510 And he didn't remember how to delete 00:06:44.510 --> 00:06:46.250 the last thing he recorded. 00:06:46.250 --> 00:06:49.550 So you just see, do I go ahead with this thing, 00:06:49.550 --> 00:06:52.960 which is not really perfect? 00:06:52.960 --> 00:06:54.910 And at one point I could just see, 00:06:54.910 --> 00:06:56.870 like, he's just going to go with it. 00:06:56.870 --> 00:06:58.700 And put the rest of the stuff in, 00:06:58.700 --> 00:07:00.545 and start over dubbing the trombone. 00:07:00.545 --> 00:07:03.590 And start playing on top of it. 00:07:03.590 --> 00:07:09.470 So I could look back and think of a handful of things 00:07:09.470 --> 00:07:12.457 that, if this is a published DVD, or published recording, 00:07:12.457 --> 00:07:14.290 you would hope you'd be able to fix somehow. 00:07:14.290 --> 00:07:17.120 Or have another take of, or whatever. 00:07:17.120 --> 00:07:19.896 But I think the wonderful thing about a live performance 00:07:19.896 --> 00:07:25.730 is, it's like how do you get out of the situation you're in? 00:07:25.730 --> 00:07:28.060 I've seen sax players, and their neck strap 00:07:28.060 --> 00:07:30.810 breaks during a solo, and they keep playing. 00:07:30.810 --> 00:07:33.500 Or the snare drum breaks in the middle of a solo, 00:07:33.500 --> 00:07:36.352 and the drummer keeps playing. 00:07:36.352 --> 00:07:38.400 In a recording, you would stop. 00:07:38.400 --> 00:07:40.217 But in a performance, it sort of like 00:07:40.217 --> 00:07:42.050 it was like a basketball game, or something. 00:07:42.050 --> 00:07:43.980 You just can't say, I've gotta go tie my shoe. 00:07:43.980 --> 00:07:45.310 Everybody wait. 00:07:45.310 --> 00:07:46.750 You just have to do it, and that's 00:07:46.750 --> 00:07:52.225 a really fascinating kind of challenge You had a question. 00:07:52.225 --> 00:07:55.250 AUDIENCE: What were you doing in between solos, 00:07:55.250 --> 00:07:57.070 when you're going up to your computer. 00:07:57.070 --> 00:07:59.361 Were you changing variables, or just playing new loops? 00:08:01.215 --> 00:08:02.590 NEIL LEONARD: Between the pieces? 00:08:02.590 --> 00:08:03.585 AUDIENCE: No. 00:08:03.585 --> 00:08:04.710 NEIL LEONARD: In the piece? 00:08:04.710 --> 00:08:05.293 AUDIENCE: Yes. 00:08:07.579 --> 00:08:09.120 NEIL LEONARD: I'm trying to remember. 00:08:09.120 --> 00:08:12.750 In the first piece I played--. 00:08:12.750 --> 00:08:14.705 Depends on the piece. 00:08:14.705 --> 00:08:18.030 Sometimes there is a combination of-- I 00:08:18.030 --> 00:08:20.790 would like to be able to do everything on the fly, 00:08:20.790 --> 00:08:25.485 and if I had four hands I could do everything on the fly. 00:08:25.485 --> 00:08:27.050 So I could play the saxophone, and I 00:08:27.050 --> 00:08:28.160 could be in front of the computer, 00:08:28.160 --> 00:08:29.618 and make the computer do its thing. 00:08:29.618 --> 00:08:33.159 So mentally I think I could do that, too. 00:08:33.159 --> 00:08:36.590 I could set it up so more hands-on involvement 00:08:36.590 --> 00:08:38.090 with the computer would be possible, 00:08:38.090 --> 00:08:39.214 but I could still play sax. 00:08:39.214 --> 00:08:41.340 But I only have two hands. 00:08:41.340 --> 00:08:45.700 And the sax is like the banjo. 00:08:48.970 --> 00:08:51.280 Your hands really have to be there. 00:08:51.280 --> 00:08:53.670 You can't really get them off, and keep playing. 00:08:53.670 --> 00:08:56.730 You can't get both of them off and keep playing. 00:08:56.730 --> 00:09:00.829 So some of the music is created in advance. 00:09:00.829 --> 00:09:02.370 So the stuff, which I think it played 00:09:02.370 --> 00:09:04.100 in class last week-- there's a piece I played 00:09:04.100 --> 00:09:05.933 that was like time stretch voice and bells-- 00:09:05.933 --> 00:09:07.020 we talked about that. 00:09:07.020 --> 00:09:10.425 So that is really kind of a module 00:09:10.425 --> 00:09:12.280 of a piece that's composed. 00:09:12.280 --> 00:09:14.067 So a lot of time, it's like working 00:09:14.067 --> 00:09:15.150 in Photoshop or something. 00:09:15.150 --> 00:09:16.200 You sit there and you work, and you work, 00:09:16.200 --> 00:09:17.158 and you work in sounds. 00:09:17.158 --> 00:09:20.760 And you see if they need any modifications. 00:09:20.760 --> 00:09:22.350 You see how to combine them. 00:09:22.350 --> 00:09:26.490 You kind of get a sense of the dramatic flow of the piece. 00:09:26.490 --> 00:09:28.530 You work it out. 00:09:28.530 --> 00:09:31.040 And then you bring that file to the concert. 00:09:31.040 --> 00:09:33.050 And some of that's playback. 00:09:33.050 --> 00:09:35.390 So some of it's play back, and some of it's live. 00:09:35.390 --> 00:09:38.800 Anything that sounded like process saxophone was live. 00:09:38.800 --> 00:09:41.190 But if it sounds like it was voice, then 00:09:41.190 --> 00:09:43.790 that was a vocalist who was recorded, and then processed, 00:09:43.790 --> 00:09:45.830 and then kind of montaged. 00:09:45.830 --> 00:09:49.100 So sometimes it was like triggering the next samples. 00:09:49.100 --> 00:09:51.910 I think in the last piece I played, 00:09:51.910 --> 00:09:54.600 I made the software for that just that week, 00:09:54.600 --> 00:09:55.970 if not a couple days before. 00:09:58.770 --> 00:10:01.920 That one I think I managed to mostly do for the panel. 00:10:01.920 --> 00:10:03.637 But if it was getting squirrelly, 00:10:03.637 --> 00:10:05.220 I may have gone to the computer to try 00:10:05.220 --> 00:10:07.845 to get it to behave better. 00:10:10.630 --> 00:10:13.070 So anything from just triggering files, 00:10:13.070 --> 00:10:15.960 to kind of a small adjustments to keep it all reined in. 00:10:18.880 --> 00:10:21.250 AUDIENCE: So when you were playing the pieces, 00:10:21.250 --> 00:10:23.770 I actually thought that some of the process saxophone 00:10:23.770 --> 00:10:24.850 was recorded. 00:10:24.850 --> 00:10:26.530 As I was watching your foot and seen 00:10:26.530 --> 00:10:28.040 when you pressed the pedal. 00:10:28.040 --> 00:10:30.182 And it looked like the pedal did lots of-- I 00:10:30.182 --> 00:10:32.140 initially expected the pedal would be something 00:10:32.140 --> 00:10:33.725 simple, like the pedal adds the delay. 00:10:33.725 --> 00:10:36.725 But the pedal caused so many different effects 00:10:36.725 --> 00:10:38.855 that I assumed some of the saxophone effects 00:10:38.855 --> 00:10:41.890 has been pre-recorded and the pedal was playing them back. 00:10:41.890 --> 00:10:45.570 What exactly did you program the pedal to do? 00:10:45.570 --> 00:10:48.300 NEIL LEONARD: The pedal just sends a signal to the computer. 00:10:48.300 --> 00:10:50.720 So it's kind of like a mouse. 00:10:50.720 --> 00:10:54.560 It, by itself, is really simple. 00:10:54.560 --> 00:10:56.970 You can read the switches from the computer. 00:10:56.970 --> 00:10:59.580 But the way the computer is set up to respond, 00:10:59.580 --> 00:11:03.250 the way I set it up in a concert to respond to the footwork 00:11:03.250 --> 00:11:06.672 work, was fairly straightforward. 00:11:06.672 --> 00:11:08.970 The computer does three things to the sax. 00:11:11.900 --> 00:11:17.170 It will do different kinds of delays. 00:11:17.170 --> 00:11:21.580 And the delays will-- maybe when we 00:11:21.580 --> 00:11:23.450 get through, if you're still interested, 00:11:23.450 --> 00:11:27.200 I could show how the delay stuff works, 00:11:27.200 --> 00:11:36.200 but-- the delay business works two ways. 00:11:36.200 --> 00:11:37.600 One is, it makes an echo. 00:11:37.600 --> 00:11:42.810 And the second thing it does, if you think about the early tape 00:11:42.810 --> 00:11:49.014 delays, they have a tape loop, that just rotated. 00:11:49.014 --> 00:11:50.680 The tape loop was played, and then there 00:11:50.680 --> 00:11:52.920 were different playback heads, to play it back 00:11:52.920 --> 00:11:54.370 at different points. 00:11:54.370 --> 00:11:56.850 So you have one record head, and then you 00:11:56.850 --> 00:11:59.750 have multiple playback heads that can be moved. 00:11:59.750 --> 00:12:02.060 And if you move, they kind of echo. 00:12:02.060 --> 00:12:04.550 The ricochet kind of effect. 00:12:04.550 --> 00:12:18.400 The echo effect changes from like [MIMING ECHO EFFECT] 00:12:18.400 --> 00:12:21.370 You can change those echoes where there on time. 00:12:21.370 --> 00:12:26.390 If you move the playback head, it's 00:12:26.390 --> 00:12:30.530 also a changing the speed that its reading the tape. 00:12:30.530 --> 00:12:34.265 So if you have a note which is [MAKES NOTE SOUND]. 00:12:34.265 --> 00:12:35.960 And the tape is going like this. 00:12:35.960 --> 00:12:38.320 And you move the playback head this way, 00:12:38.320 --> 00:12:41.890 you're going to get glissando [MAKES NOTE SOUND] 00:12:41.890 --> 00:12:45.090 Because you're increasing the speed at which the tape is 00:12:45.090 --> 00:12:46.690 passing over the playback head. 00:12:46.690 --> 00:12:48.860 If you move it the other way, it goes down. 00:12:48.860 --> 00:12:51.900 So in the digital world, you can get that, too. 00:12:51.900 --> 00:12:59.590 So, the delays are kind of modeling a tape delay system. 00:12:59.590 --> 00:13:03.650 You can speed up, while you're sort of moving the playback 00:13:03.650 --> 00:13:08.630 heads, you get pitch consequences. 00:13:08.630 --> 00:13:12.295 Or kind of result in glassindos, or glassindi, as well. 00:13:16.810 --> 00:13:18.490 The other, third thing which makes 00:13:18.490 --> 00:13:20.410 the delay business complicated, is there's 00:13:20.410 --> 00:13:24.350 a foot pedal which-- not everything's 00:13:24.350 --> 00:13:27.520 going to delay-- which changes things radically. 00:13:27.520 --> 00:13:33.370 So if you play a phrase, and at the end of the phrase 00:13:33.370 --> 00:13:38.050 you feed more of that into the delay, 00:13:38.050 --> 00:13:39.790 it kind of accentuates that one thing. 00:13:39.790 --> 00:13:42.720 Sort of like a sustained pedal on a piano. 00:13:42.720 --> 00:13:44.470 If you put it down for half of the phrase, 00:13:44.470 --> 00:13:47.560 but not the rest of the phrase, one part of the phrase 00:13:47.560 --> 00:13:51.420 has this accentuation, or this effect, that the rest of it 00:13:51.420 --> 00:13:52.110 doesn't have. 00:13:52.110 --> 00:13:56.310 And that can be a tremendous, dramatic change. 00:13:56.310 --> 00:13:59.060 But to keep it short, there's a delay. 00:13:59.060 --> 00:14:04.960 There is kind of like a pitch bend idea. 00:14:04.960 --> 00:14:07.590 There is a flute player you guys might have heard, 00:14:07.590 --> 00:14:11.230 a gun named Robert Dick, who made a glissando 00:14:11.230 --> 00:14:13.250 head for the flute. 00:14:13.250 --> 00:14:19.250 And the way it works is, it slides in and out. 00:14:19.250 --> 00:14:24.700 So you play a note, and there's a thumb thing. 00:14:24.700 --> 00:14:29.180 And use this thumb thing, lever, whatever it is, 00:14:29.180 --> 00:14:31.210 to make this head joint slide. 00:14:31.210 --> 00:14:33.149 So I think that the blow hole's not changing, 00:14:33.149 --> 00:14:35.315 but I think something on this side of the head joint 00:14:35.315 --> 00:14:35.815 is changing. 00:14:35.815 --> 00:14:37.856 So the glissando flute. 00:14:37.856 --> 00:14:38.981 AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] 00:14:38.981 --> 00:14:40.980 NEIL LEONARD: Is it the mouth piece that slides? 00:14:40.980 --> 00:14:42.580 I've never actually seen one. 00:14:47.060 --> 00:14:48.330 OK. 00:14:48.330 --> 00:14:50.820 So I wanted to do that with the saxophone, 00:14:50.820 --> 00:14:55.372 but I resorted to doing it electronically. 00:14:55.372 --> 00:14:57.080 I wanted, like if there was a harmonizer, 00:14:57.080 --> 00:15:00.490 there are three voices playing in harmony. 00:15:00.490 --> 00:15:03.100 I wanted those three pages all to be variable, 00:15:03.100 --> 00:15:05.690 so they could slide in real time. 00:15:05.690 --> 00:15:08.600 And I had particular ways in which I like to slide them. 00:15:08.600 --> 00:15:11.557 But sometimes you heard a harmony, 00:15:11.557 --> 00:15:13.140 and it sounded like there was a whammy 00:15:13.140 --> 00:15:14.580 bar, or sort of a glissando. 00:15:17.580 --> 00:15:21.350 I built like a harmonizer with a glissando mechanism in it. 00:15:21.350 --> 00:15:23.232 And so, the second one. 00:15:23.232 --> 00:15:24.690 And the third one is really simple. 00:15:24.690 --> 00:15:26.650 I don't use it as much. 00:15:26.650 --> 00:15:28.680 Actually, there's four things I've been doing. 00:15:28.680 --> 00:15:34.640 The third one was just a random looping thing. 00:15:34.640 --> 00:15:36.540 It's like so the random cut and paste. 00:15:36.540 --> 00:15:39.600 So I'd play something into the computer, 00:15:39.600 --> 00:15:41.710 and it takes snippets of that, and kind of like 00:15:41.710 --> 00:15:44.950 feeds them back, or replays them in sort 00:15:44.950 --> 00:15:46.840 of an arbitrary fashion a real time. 00:15:46.840 --> 00:15:50.300 So it doesn't sound like a beat-oriented looping effect. 00:15:50.300 --> 00:15:53.150 It's just sending back fragments of what 00:15:53.150 --> 00:15:56.830 you played in a kind of unpredictable way. 00:15:56.830 --> 00:16:02.986 So you get a kind of a stochastic re-compositon, 00:16:02.986 --> 00:16:04.860 or re-improvisiation of something you played. 00:16:04.860 --> 00:16:05.901 That was the third thing. 00:16:05.901 --> 00:16:08.540 AUDIENCE: The final one, I just figured out 00:16:08.540 --> 00:16:16.180 a couple days for the concert, was a kind of freeze effect. 00:16:16.180 --> 00:16:19.830 It's using anybody's intel, like audio engineering. 00:16:19.830 --> 00:16:22.860 It's using fast Fourier transforms, which basically 00:16:22.860 --> 00:16:26.430 take a snapshot of the sound, in terms 00:16:26.430 --> 00:16:31.630 of the pitches that are in the sound. 00:16:31.630 --> 00:16:35.540 Remember when we looked at that piece of software last week? 00:16:35.540 --> 00:16:37.200 We took, I think a trombone sample, 00:16:37.200 --> 00:16:38.430 I think that's what we had. 00:16:38.430 --> 00:16:40.900 And then we were stretching , and we were cutting it up, 00:16:40.900 --> 00:16:42.230 and playing with it. 00:16:42.230 --> 00:16:47.600 So for software like that, you can take a so-called frame, 00:16:47.600 --> 00:16:49.960 we'll say it's a 24th of a second, 00:16:49.960 --> 00:16:54.730 and do a spectral analysis of that 24th of a second. 00:16:54.730 --> 00:16:56.010 And then freeze it. 00:16:56.010 --> 00:17:09.569 Just play those frequencies in the frequency domain, 00:17:09.569 --> 00:17:10.410 and just hold it. 00:17:10.410 --> 00:17:14.079 And so I have, I think eight of those going. 00:17:14.079 --> 00:17:15.740 And every time I hit a peddle, you 00:17:15.740 --> 00:17:17.270 freeze another instance in time. 00:17:17.270 --> 00:17:22.069 So the idea was twofold. 00:17:22.069 --> 00:17:25.579 One was to, again, to build up harmonies. 00:17:25.579 --> 00:17:27.740 So every time I had a not that I wanted to freeze, 00:17:27.740 --> 00:17:30.500 I'd hit the peddle, and that gets sustained. 00:17:30.500 --> 00:17:32.530 But then there was kind of a poetic idea, which 00:17:32.530 --> 00:17:33.950 is really sort of pun in a way. 00:17:33.950 --> 00:17:35.230 But the song I playing was playing 00:17:35.230 --> 00:17:36.688 is a song called, "Round Midnight." 00:17:36.688 --> 00:17:38.920 It's very slow, and very kind of somber. 00:17:38.920 --> 00:17:41.520 And I thought this idea also fit with that song, 00:17:41.520 --> 00:17:43.390 because it's like stillness. 00:17:43.390 --> 00:17:46.410 The song is quiet, slow, still, and this 00:17:46.410 --> 00:17:51.480 would make it extremely still, because it freezes things. 00:17:51.480 --> 00:17:54.930 So I played around a little bit with that. 00:17:54.930 --> 00:17:58.550 So those were the things that you could do with the sax. 00:17:58.550 --> 00:18:01.150 It's actually quite a bit of stuff. 00:18:01.150 --> 00:18:07.100 And when you think of it, when you think of what guitarists 00:18:07.100 --> 00:18:09.830 like Jimi Hendrix used, he didn't have that much stuff. 00:18:09.830 --> 00:18:14.370 He had like fuzz box, he had wah wah pedal. 00:18:14.370 --> 00:18:17.390 And maybe like one more thing. 00:18:17.390 --> 00:18:20.750 I'm not a guitar effects connoisseur. 00:18:23.760 --> 00:18:26.900 There isn't a lot of stuff, but it changes the guitar 00:18:26.900 --> 00:18:28.420 completely. 00:18:28.420 --> 00:18:32.530 So I'm finding that I, too, don't 00:18:32.530 --> 00:18:33.860 need lots and lots of stuff. 00:18:33.860 --> 00:18:37.270 In fact, the fewer things you have to use to process the sax, 00:18:37.270 --> 00:18:40.270 the easier it is, because there's not that many choices. 00:18:40.270 --> 00:18:41.660 So you still think you're playing 00:18:41.660 --> 00:18:44.880 the sax, with a few, fairly straight forward things 00:18:44.880 --> 00:18:46.310 you can vary. 00:18:46.310 --> 00:18:47.810 So that's sort of, I think for Robin 00:18:47.810 --> 00:18:50.240 and myself, soft of the inspiration. 00:18:50.240 --> 00:18:52.614 We found guitar players modifying the guitar, 00:18:52.614 --> 00:18:54.530 we think, well, why can't we do that, as well? 00:18:54.530 --> 00:18:56.202 So, we can. 00:18:56.202 --> 00:19:02.210 We can do it without an extensive background. 00:19:02.210 --> 00:19:05.440 Robin does not have an extensive music technology background-- 00:19:05.440 --> 00:19:08.910 or with a different, more evolved background 00:19:08.910 --> 00:19:12.270 in music technology, which I have. 00:19:12.270 --> 00:19:14.477 And both of them will work. 00:19:14.477 --> 00:19:16.560 In the case of Robin, he's such a good trombonist, 00:19:16.560 --> 00:19:19.030 and improviser, that you give me a couple things, 00:19:19.030 --> 00:19:22.060 and he does great stuff with it. 00:19:25.260 --> 00:19:30.280 Those were some of the things I was playing around 00:19:30.280 --> 00:19:34.427 with, or using the computer to do, to extend the performance. 00:19:34.427 --> 00:19:36.760 MARK HARVEY: Let me shift so we can get our projects in, 00:19:36.760 --> 00:19:38.426 and if people have questions at the end, 00:19:38.426 --> 00:19:41.860 we will hopefully have time for that. 00:19:41.860 --> 00:19:44.790 So we have our teams again. 00:19:44.790 --> 00:19:46.710 And so, what I think we should do is, 00:19:46.710 --> 00:19:48.360 Neil will help with logistics, if you 00:19:48.360 --> 00:19:51.730 want to set up a computer, or whatever you have. 00:19:51.730 --> 00:19:53.160 So we should just go. 00:19:53.160 --> 00:19:55.190 And the team should just say a little bit 00:19:55.190 --> 00:20:00.550 about what it is your idea is, and then enact it. 00:20:00.550 --> 00:20:02.490 So who would like to go first? 00:20:02.490 --> 00:20:05.240 AUDIENCE: So me and Brian, we both recorded sounds 00:20:05.240 --> 00:20:05.740 separately. 00:20:05.740 --> 00:20:08.010 I recorded sounds in my kitchen, and made it 00:20:08.010 --> 00:20:11.090 sort of like a sound stage thing. 00:20:11.090 --> 00:20:14.110 And then, Brian recorded some guitar sounds, 00:20:14.110 --> 00:20:16.440 and other sounds he found [? at the bakery ?], 00:20:16.440 --> 00:20:19.650 and he put on them on this little mini board, which 00:20:19.650 --> 00:20:22.052 you can play different sounds and stuff. 00:20:22.052 --> 00:20:23.593 So I'm using Ableton Live [INAUDIBLE] 00:20:36.530 --> 00:20:39.175 MARK HARVEY: Did you come up with a design, or a framework, 00:20:39.175 --> 00:20:42.840 or is it just going to be sort of spontaneous? 00:20:42.840 --> 00:20:46.190 AUDIENCE: The framework is the kitchen sounds 00:20:46.190 --> 00:20:51.690 kind of form a beat, and we're going to be going around that. 00:20:51.690 --> 00:21:00.875 [MUSIC SOUNDS] I recorded most of the sounds here. 00:21:04.360 --> 00:21:06.280 We'll just go into some of the sounds. 00:21:06.280 --> 00:21:09.340 One was my lamp switching on and off. 00:21:09.340 --> 00:21:11.780 Another is my guitar feeding back. 00:21:11.780 --> 00:21:13.420 Another is an effects pedal that I 00:21:13.420 --> 00:21:16.545 have that does some really wacky pitch shifts 00:21:16.545 --> 00:21:18.300 and dive bombs, essentially. 00:21:21.810 --> 00:21:25.970 And mine, I was banging on random things. 00:21:25.970 --> 00:21:29.514 And then I used a harpoon growler as a jug. 00:21:29.514 --> 00:21:31.502 And some other things. 00:21:31.502 --> 00:21:32.993 I forgot everything. 00:21:32.993 --> 00:21:33.987 Bottle caps. 00:21:33.987 --> 00:22:09.768 [MUSIC PLAYING] 00:22:09.768 --> 00:23:26.210 [MUSIC PLAYING] 00:23:26.210 --> 00:23:30.170 [APPLAUSE] 00:23:30.170 --> 00:23:31.655 NEIL LEONARD: That was cool. 00:23:31.655 --> 00:23:34.685 It sounded like a voice, that last thing. 00:23:34.685 --> 00:23:36.560 AUDIENCE: Yes, that actually was my voice. 00:23:36.560 --> 00:23:40.950 NEIL LEONARD: You've got new careers. 00:23:40.950 --> 00:23:42.430 Very coo. 00:23:42.430 --> 00:23:46.100 AUDIENCE: So we recorded sounds just on an iPad. 00:23:46.100 --> 00:23:48.210 And then, put them on there. 00:23:48.210 --> 00:23:50.402 And we're just playing everything. 00:23:50.402 --> 00:23:54.290 About eight different tracks, [INAUDIBLE], no data tape. 00:23:54.290 --> 00:23:56.845 And we're just going to be looping those all the time, 00:23:56.845 --> 00:23:58.178 on different tracks, on and off. 00:23:58.178 --> 00:24:00.608 And then, I'm going to briefly play the piano, at the start. 00:24:00.608 --> 00:24:02.108 And then just come and control this. 00:24:04.030 --> 00:24:07.680 MARK HARVEY: What are the sounds? 00:24:07.680 --> 00:24:08.594 AUDIENCE: Right. 00:24:08.594 --> 00:24:10.219 It's sort of more ambiance, rather than 00:24:10.219 --> 00:24:12.752 snippets of sound bites. 00:24:12.752 --> 00:24:15.674 It's sorta like longer recordings. 00:24:15.674 --> 00:24:18.324 It's like a shower. 00:24:18.324 --> 00:24:18.990 MARK HARVEY: OK. 00:24:18.990 --> 00:24:20.478 Shower type of-- 00:24:20.478 --> 00:24:22.462 AUDIENCE: Yeah. 00:24:22.462 --> 00:24:26.430 You can figure out what sort of-- 00:24:26.430 --> 00:24:28.414 MARK HARVEY: So it's a challenge. 00:24:28.414 --> 00:24:32.878 We've got to figure out what the sounds are. 00:24:45.278 --> 00:29:05.544 [MUSIC PLAYING] 00:29:05.544 --> 00:29:10.514 [APPLAUSE] 00:29:10.514 --> 00:29:12.850 Did you have that ending worked out? 00:29:12.850 --> 00:29:14.840 AUDIENCE: Yes. 00:29:14.840 --> 00:29:18.245 That was actually a recording of a door creaking, 00:29:18.245 --> 00:29:21.598 that had some pitch to it. 00:29:21.598 --> 00:29:25.085 So we decided to use that. 00:29:25.085 --> 00:29:25.585 [INAUDIBLE] 00:29:32.371 --> 00:29:33.620 MARK HARVEY: Very interesting. 00:29:33.620 --> 00:29:35.900 Very interesting. 00:29:35.900 --> 00:29:38.190 Let's give a round of applause, first of all. 00:29:42.682 --> 00:29:45.720 AUDIENCE: I think a lot of the other groups 00:29:45.720 --> 00:29:48.280 had some mixed background noise that they recorded, and then 00:29:48.280 --> 00:29:51.110 improvised with their instruments on top of that. 00:29:51.110 --> 00:29:53.460 And I was feeling a little sick, and didn't 00:29:53.460 --> 00:29:55.070 want to play my trumpet, so I took 00:29:55.070 --> 00:29:56.700 sort of complimentary approach. 00:29:56.700 --> 00:30:00.600 The sounds I recorded will be the improvisation. 00:30:00.600 --> 00:30:04.380 So I went around my dorm and recorded 15 different sounds. 00:30:04.380 --> 00:30:07.455 And then wrote a Python script that sort of generates 00:30:07.455 --> 00:30:10.190 a random way to play these sounds. 00:30:10.190 --> 00:30:12.940 So at different sections of the song, like at the beginning, 00:30:12.940 --> 00:30:14.495 it only picks from a certain number 00:30:14.495 --> 00:30:16.830 of these sounds, all of which sound like fans. 00:30:16.830 --> 00:30:19.352 At the beginning, it's like a fan and AC, 00:30:19.352 --> 00:30:20.560 a few other things like that. 00:30:20.560 --> 00:30:24.200 And then as it progresses, it adds on more of these sounds. 00:30:24.200 --> 00:30:27.500 I have a little solo section in the middle. 00:30:27.500 --> 00:30:31.850 We'll even hear a couple of appliances, and noises. 00:30:31.850 --> 00:30:34.790 Big solos, and then it goes out to some ending. 00:30:34.790 --> 00:30:40.320 So the direction of the piece is planned, 00:30:40.320 --> 00:30:42.670 but exactly what sound is played, and when, 00:30:42.670 --> 00:30:44.790 and for how long, all that is randomly 00:30:44.790 --> 00:30:47.350 generated each time we play it. 00:30:47.350 --> 00:33:21.405 [MUSIC PLAYING] 00:33:21.405 --> 00:33:25.940 [APPLAUSE] 00:33:25.940 --> 00:33:27.350 MARK HARVEY: So it's your program 00:33:27.350 --> 00:33:28.650 that's doing the improvising? 00:33:28.650 --> 00:33:29.233 AUDIENCE: Yes. 00:33:29.233 --> 00:33:32.200 MARK HARVEY: Very interesting. 00:33:32.200 --> 00:33:34.936 AUDIENCE: So to answer the other question, what it will do 00:33:34.936 --> 00:33:37.890 is, it will play a sound, play random sounds, 00:33:37.890 --> 00:33:39.730 wait for a random amount of time, 00:33:39.730 --> 00:33:41.130 and then play another sound. 00:33:41.130 --> 00:33:43.406 Sometimes it waits until the sound is finished, 00:33:43.406 --> 00:33:44.280 sometimes it doesn't. 00:33:44.280 --> 00:33:46.694 So that it can be positive, that can be restive, 00:33:46.694 --> 00:33:48.110 and there can also be two or three 00:33:48.110 --> 00:33:51.240 sounds playing at the same time. 00:33:51.240 --> 00:33:54.260 The only thing, I put the solos so there was never two solos 00:33:54.260 --> 00:33:55.310 playing at the same time. 00:33:55.310 --> 00:33:57.360 And I made sure that each solo was played once. 00:33:57.360 --> 00:33:58.860 But otherwise, all the other sounds, 00:33:58.860 --> 00:34:00.156 you have multiple [INAUDIBLE]. 00:34:03.250 --> 00:34:08.360 Yes I had the dishwasher sounds not play until the very end. 00:34:08.360 --> 00:34:10.510 And I closed the dishwasher a few times 00:34:10.510 --> 00:34:15.080 until I got a nice satisfying crash and recorded that. 00:34:15.080 --> 00:34:18.699 MARK HARVEY: Did you break anything? 00:34:18.699 --> 00:34:20.000 OK next contestants. 00:34:25.969 --> 00:34:27.409 AUDIENCE: We recorded five sounds. 00:34:27.409 --> 00:34:31.450 A door closing, someone typing on the keyboard, a pencil 00:34:31.450 --> 00:34:35.160 scratching, a zipper, and a microwave turning on. 00:34:39.050 --> 00:34:41.790 I assigned them to different keys on the keyboard, here. 00:34:41.790 --> 00:34:45.280 So I'm going to make a beat with these noises, 00:34:45.280 --> 00:34:48.440 with these sounds, while they improvise. 00:34:51.140 --> 00:34:53.097 MARK HARVEY: Did you say a beat? 00:34:53.097 --> 00:34:53.722 AUDIENCE: Yeah. 00:34:53.722 --> 00:34:56.650 So I'm using them mostly as percussion. 00:34:56.650 --> 00:35:04.830 So the sounds were things that I [INAUDIBLE] homework, 00:35:04.830 --> 00:35:07.952 so I guess that is our theme. 00:35:12.892 --> 00:35:14.374 MARK HARVEY: Homework? 00:35:14.374 --> 00:35:18.326 AUDIENCE: Like you got the drone or a beat 00:35:18.326 --> 00:35:22.278 or just melody or some [INAUDIBLE] 00:35:22.278 --> 00:35:24.748 Whatever you want to do. 00:35:40.100 --> 00:38:17.132 [MUSIC PLAYING 00:38:17.132 --> 00:38:23.650 [APPLAUSE] 00:38:23.650 --> 00:38:26.190 MARK HARVEY: So given that's a sort of existential homework 00:38:26.190 --> 00:38:28.010 moment, what time of the day or night 00:38:28.010 --> 00:38:29.992 would you project that to be happening? 00:38:29.992 --> 00:38:31.237 AUDIENCE: After I just ate. 00:38:31.237 --> 00:38:32.570 MARK HARVEY: After you just ate. 00:38:38.060 --> 00:38:38.820 Very cool. 00:38:38.820 --> 00:38:41.050 Very cool. 00:38:41.050 --> 00:38:42.120 OK. 00:38:42.120 --> 00:38:44.000 Another group. 00:38:57.990 --> 00:38:59.785 AUDIENCE: Each of us had a different idea 00:38:59.785 --> 00:39:02.455 that was discussed in class last time. 00:39:02.455 --> 00:39:04.455 I think we tried all the ideas, and none of them 00:39:04.455 --> 00:39:06.910 really worked, because we didn't have good enough recording 00:39:06.910 --> 00:39:08.451 equipment, and we weren't good enough 00:39:08.451 --> 00:39:11.350 at using that recording equipment to effectively do 00:39:11.350 --> 00:39:12.240 anything. 00:39:12.240 --> 00:39:24.264 So we decided on a-- [INAUDIBLE] So you 00:39:24.264 --> 00:39:25.805 might recognize some of these Sounds. 00:39:32.342 --> 00:39:35.600 We found a sound board on the internet. 00:39:35.600 --> 00:39:37.826 Unfortunately it's mono-phonic, so the amount 00:39:37.826 --> 00:39:39.700 of stuff we could do is a little bit limited. 00:40:02.540 --> 00:40:04.470 We were planning on using this sound [PING] 00:40:04.470 --> 00:40:08.255 as a sort of reset button for between the sections. 00:40:14.125 --> 00:44:19.200 [MUSIC PLAYING] 00:44:19.200 --> 00:44:52.109 [MUSIC PLAYING] 00:44:52.109 --> 00:45:00.840 [APPLAUSE] 00:45:00.840 --> 00:45:01.590 MARK HARVEY: Good. 00:45:01.590 --> 00:45:02.090 Good. 00:45:02.090 --> 00:45:03.590 That the idea. 00:45:06.442 --> 00:45:08.960 AUDIENCE: I don't feel so guilty saying 00:45:08.960 --> 00:45:12.495 that at times I was trying to make you 00:45:12.495 --> 00:45:13.980 guys feel uncomfortable. 00:46:31.012 --> 00:51:07.696 [MUSIC PLAYING] 00:51:07.696 --> 00:51:13.962 [APPLAUSE] 00:51:13.962 --> 00:51:15.670 MARK HARVEY: Thanks for the extra effort. 00:51:15.670 --> 00:51:19.482 That was actually fascinating to watch you do all that stuff. 00:51:24.180 --> 00:51:29.730 Neil, do you want to just make a few comments, 00:51:29.730 --> 00:51:31.310 or whatever you want to do. 00:51:33.422 --> 00:51:35.880 NEIL LEONARD: How many people have done something like this 00:51:35.880 --> 00:51:37.340 before? 00:51:37.340 --> 00:51:39.990 Anybody? 00:51:39.990 --> 00:51:41.720 And suddenly you've done Ableton Live. 00:51:41.720 --> 00:51:43.810 And how many people have done Ableton Live? 00:51:43.810 --> 00:51:44.740 One, two. 00:51:44.740 --> 00:51:47.611 So, what have you done with Ableton Live before? 00:51:47.611 --> 00:51:51.940 AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] Just learning how to use it. 00:51:51.940 --> 00:51:54.665 I really haven't been that into it, 00:51:54.665 --> 00:51:58.881 because I feel very limited, because I haven't actually 00:51:58.881 --> 00:51:59.880 bought the full version. 00:51:59.880 --> 00:52:01.550 NEIL LEONARD: So you're starting to use it now? 00:52:01.550 --> 00:52:01.880 AUDIENCE: Yeah. 00:52:01.880 --> 00:52:02.588 NEIL LEONARD: OK. 00:52:02.588 --> 00:52:03.214 Just curious. 00:52:03.214 --> 00:52:05.442 AUDIENCE: In the past, though, I worked 00:52:05.442 --> 00:52:08.200 with Serato Scratch Live, though. 00:52:08.200 --> 00:52:11.276 Actually, I use that for DJ'ing. 00:52:11.276 --> 00:52:12.160 NEIL LEONARD: OK. 00:52:12.160 --> 00:52:15.585 Yes, but in terms of-- when I asked 00:52:15.585 --> 00:52:17.710 the question of how many of you have done something 00:52:17.710 --> 00:52:23.405 like this live, what I'm wondering about 00:52:23.405 --> 00:52:26.710 is how many people have recorded sounds on their own, 00:52:26.710 --> 00:52:30.090 and used them in a musical performance? 00:52:30.090 --> 00:52:32.799 You have? 00:52:32.799 --> 00:52:33.465 For composition. 00:52:33.465 --> 00:52:34.280 OK. 00:52:34.280 --> 00:52:35.550 And performance is a little bit different, 00:52:35.550 --> 00:52:37.216 but it's a little bit the same, as well. 00:52:42.280 --> 00:52:46.390 It is really interesting to hear what you guys came up with, 00:52:46.390 --> 00:52:48.370 not knowing you very well. 00:52:48.370 --> 00:52:50.680 With my Berkeley students, I always 00:52:50.680 --> 00:52:53.860 feel like, when they bring in their assignments, 00:52:53.860 --> 00:52:55.159 it sounds so much like them. 00:52:55.159 --> 00:52:56.950 But I have a longer time to work with them. 00:52:56.950 --> 00:53:02.150 So I can make some more connections. 00:53:06.700 --> 00:53:11.220 One of the things that came up in watching you perform, 00:53:11.220 --> 00:53:23.120 is where is the value in doing something 00:53:23.120 --> 00:53:25.370 you haven't done before, or something that you may not 00:53:25.370 --> 00:53:26.750 be comfortable with? 00:53:26.750 --> 00:53:31.590 As a sort of experimental adventure. 00:53:31.590 --> 00:53:37.800 And when I listen to Sarah, and Ben's and James's piece, 00:53:37.800 --> 00:53:42.790 one of the things which seems to be interesting, 00:53:42.790 --> 00:53:46.321 is that you guys didn't really know where it was going to go. 00:53:46.321 --> 00:53:48.070 You didn't know where it was going to end. 00:53:48.070 --> 00:53:50.970 You said, that's not quite what we rehearsed. 00:53:50.970 --> 00:53:54.300 And that can be a really wonderful thing. 00:53:54.300 --> 00:53:59.070 Because the opposite is-- when I played the concert that you 00:53:59.070 --> 00:54:01.430 saw, if it happened exactly the way 00:54:01.430 --> 00:54:10.270 it happened a time before, or happened every time, 00:54:10.270 --> 00:54:13.560 you run the risk of the spark dying. 00:54:13.560 --> 00:54:16.380 So the excitement of the performance-- kind 00:54:16.380 --> 00:54:17.980 of like rigor mortis sets in. 00:54:17.980 --> 00:54:21.470 The spontaneity goes away, and the spark. 00:54:21.470 --> 00:54:24.440 The excitement for the performer can 00:54:24.440 --> 00:54:25.730 be linked to the spontaneity. 00:54:25.730 --> 00:54:28.345 And you lose the excitement for the performer, 00:54:28.345 --> 00:54:29.410 and the spontaneity. 00:54:29.410 --> 00:54:30.910 So when you guys were playing didn't 00:54:30.910 --> 00:54:34.410 know where it was going to go, I thought, well, 00:54:34.410 --> 00:54:38.250 that's actually a good thing to just bring up. 00:54:38.250 --> 00:54:39.905 Because that's the desired effect. 00:54:39.905 --> 00:54:42.380 And it's a struggle for the improviser, who 00:54:42.380 --> 00:54:47.020 plays for decades, to keep the thing feeling fresh. 00:54:47.020 --> 00:54:52.980 I know for me, there are things you can do. 00:54:52.980 --> 00:54:54.695 I guess it's like when you're performing, 00:54:54.695 --> 00:54:57.650 and you're distracted, or you're just not really--. 00:55:00.440 --> 00:55:02.510 What I'm getting at is, for me the performances 00:55:02.510 --> 00:55:07.630 are the least satisfying when one of two thing happens. 00:55:07.630 --> 00:55:12.060 Either I can't relax, and get in the play. 00:55:12.060 --> 00:55:15.820 So if it's a concert, like with Robin, 00:55:15.820 --> 00:55:19.550 for example, if I feel for any reason uncomfortable, 00:55:19.550 --> 00:55:22.090 if the challenge of it kinda psych's me out, 00:55:22.090 --> 00:55:25.392 or I don't think I know the music well enough, 00:55:25.392 --> 00:55:27.225 and I start to play, and all of a sudden you 00:55:27.225 --> 00:55:31.670 feel that tension, that anxiety of trying to get to the music. 00:55:31.670 --> 00:55:34.450 It's not like a stage fright, it's not like a performance 00:55:34.450 --> 00:55:37.182 anxiety, but you feel like you're forcing it. 00:55:37.182 --> 00:55:38.890 And once you feel like you're forcing it, 00:55:38.890 --> 00:55:42.100 in a performance of improvised music, 00:55:42.100 --> 00:55:45.600 you begin to lose a little bit of control. 00:55:45.600 --> 00:55:48.200 And then the other thing is if I feel like, 00:55:48.200 --> 00:55:50.180 oh I just played what I played yesterday. 00:55:50.180 --> 00:55:53.380 I did what I knew I could do easily. 00:55:53.380 --> 00:55:56.220 Then you don't discover anything new. 00:55:56.220 --> 00:55:59.420 And I think that what's kind of fundamental in improvisation 00:55:59.420 --> 00:56:02.450 is this feeling that you're discovering something new. 00:56:02.450 --> 00:56:04.390 Even if small things are new, but you 00:56:04.390 --> 00:56:08.905 keeping that little bit of the activity alive. 00:56:17.020 --> 00:56:19.460 Doing something which is not necessarily comfortable 00:56:19.460 --> 00:56:24.230 or not something you've done before 00:56:24.230 --> 00:56:28.020 can sometimes turn into a big gain. 00:56:28.020 --> 00:56:31.240 The other things I was thinking about with that piece 00:56:31.240 --> 00:56:35.760 are-- At first I was thinking I wanted everybody 00:56:35.760 --> 00:56:36.980 to record yourself. 00:56:36.980 --> 00:56:51.520 And then you guys, Sarah, James, and Ben, 00:56:51.520 --> 00:56:54.529 at first I was a little bit concerned, 00:56:54.529 --> 00:56:57.070 because you just grabbed some sounds from the computer, which 00:56:57.070 --> 00:56:59.050 I told you not to do. 00:56:59.050 --> 00:57:01.120 But the thing which I thought worked really well 00:57:01.120 --> 00:57:05.470 is, we have such a visceral connection to those sounds. 00:57:05.470 --> 00:57:09.350 They have a tremendous meaning for us. 00:57:09.350 --> 00:57:12.350 They give us knee jerk responses, 00:57:12.350 --> 00:57:16.300 Like if my cell phone is in inadvertently right now. 00:57:16.300 --> 00:57:20.270 And I hear a text message sound, all of a sudden I kind of jump. 00:57:20.270 --> 00:57:23.680 My body reacts like I have to do something. 00:57:23.680 --> 00:57:27.490 So those sounds have a tremendous kind of power. 00:57:27.490 --> 00:57:31.050 And we have very important associations, 00:57:31.050 --> 00:57:32.920 strong associations, with those sounds. 00:57:32.920 --> 00:57:35.419 So they're totally loaded, and the way you played with them, 00:57:35.419 --> 00:57:37.362 I thought was really, really fun. 00:57:37.362 --> 00:57:39.420 I think that the Windows operating system 00:57:39.420 --> 00:57:42.770 is more musical than the Mac. 00:57:42.770 --> 00:57:43.280 Side note. 00:57:50.880 --> 00:57:52.690 I'm just putting out some ideas that I 00:57:52.690 --> 00:57:54.880 was thinking about listening to everybody play. 00:57:54.880 --> 00:57:56.320 The other thing I was thinking of 00:57:56.320 --> 00:58:01.980 is-- and this is also very true in Austin's piece-- 00:58:01.980 --> 00:58:05.157 is that working with computers. 00:58:05.157 --> 00:58:06.740 Computers are not nearly as responsive 00:58:06.740 --> 00:58:09.870 as a flute, a violin, as a trumpet. 00:58:09.870 --> 00:58:12.510 You're making music with your index finger. 00:58:12.510 --> 00:58:15.190 You're not using your whole arm. 00:58:15.190 --> 00:58:16.850 You're not using your mouth. 00:58:16.850 --> 00:58:19.730 You're not using your breathing. 00:58:19.730 --> 00:58:21.440 You're not even using your hands. 00:58:21.440 --> 00:58:23.560 Are using your index finger. 00:58:23.560 --> 00:58:24.800 You're moving and clicking. 00:58:29.110 --> 00:58:32.510 But I'm also in my own work, interested 00:58:32.510 --> 00:58:35.920 in the resistance of the materials. 00:58:35.920 --> 00:58:39.380 So, the computer is totally limited. 00:58:39.380 --> 00:58:40.647 Or this assignment I gave you. 00:58:40.647 --> 00:58:42.980 Make a performance, it's going to be three minutes long. 00:58:42.980 --> 00:58:44.313 You only have a week to make it. 00:58:44.313 --> 00:58:46.440 You're going to record sounds in your own. 00:58:46.440 --> 00:58:50.210 Right there it limits what you can do quite a bit. 00:58:50.210 --> 00:58:55.120 But when an artist is presented with limitations, 00:58:55.120 --> 00:58:57.590 it's amazing to see what artists come up with. 00:58:57.590 --> 00:58:59.430 So the resistance of the materials 00:58:59.430 --> 00:59:01.060 takes you someplace new. 00:59:01.060 --> 00:59:04.344 So for example, I'm reviewing a piece of music 00:59:04.344 --> 00:59:06.010 which is very difficult to improvise on. 00:59:06.010 --> 00:59:08.630 A very complicated set of chord changes. 00:59:08.630 --> 00:59:09.710 I tried the other day. 00:59:09.710 --> 00:59:12.240 I'm just going to play with my left hand. 00:59:12.240 --> 00:59:14.790 The metronome was fast, the harmonic progressions 00:59:14.790 --> 00:59:15.552 really hard. 00:59:15.552 --> 00:59:17.510 I'm playing the same thing over and over again. 00:59:17.510 --> 00:59:19.670 I'm finding my rut. 00:59:19.670 --> 00:59:21.753 So what if I just play with my left hand? 00:59:21.753 --> 00:59:23.350 And I tried that for while. 00:59:23.350 --> 00:59:25.290 And all of a sudden, I felt like I'm getting out of my rut, 00:59:25.290 --> 00:59:27.123 because I had to think about it differently. 00:59:27.123 --> 00:59:29.970 I had to find new things that I could do this hand. 00:59:29.970 --> 00:59:31.890 Put them both back into play again, 00:59:31.890 --> 00:59:33.520 and it feels like it's fresh. 00:59:33.520 --> 00:59:40.000 So the idea of doing this very short exercise that 00:59:40.000 --> 00:59:47.110 uses this kind of rigid, somewhat unresponsive tool, 00:59:47.110 --> 00:59:51.340 to make music, has historically produced 00:59:51.340 --> 00:59:55.170 some really interesting things that we haven't got out 00:59:55.170 --> 00:59:58.795 of the previous concert music practice. 01:00:02.090 --> 01:00:05.450 So those are just some of things I was thinking about. 01:00:09.700 --> 01:00:11.680 I think if we were to do this again-- 01:00:11.680 --> 01:00:16.420 if this was a four unit class, of if this was Berkeley 01:00:16.420 --> 01:00:22.860 and you were doing this as your thesis project-- 01:00:22.860 --> 01:00:27.050 I think the kind of challenges I found in the last two pieces 01:00:27.050 --> 01:00:30.060 would be very interesting to continue to explore. 01:00:30.060 --> 01:00:33.010 So what about when you've overextended yourself. 01:00:33.010 --> 01:00:38.360 And you're playing some piano, and some violin, 01:00:38.360 --> 01:00:39.600 and some computer. 01:00:39.600 --> 01:00:42.890 Or in my case-- you heard me in Killian hall-- 01:00:42.890 --> 01:00:45.232 I'm doing delay effects, and I'm playing back samples, 01:00:45.232 --> 01:00:46.315 and I'm playing saxophone. 01:00:46.315 --> 01:00:49.710 And I'm beginning to overextend myself. 01:00:49.710 --> 01:00:53.430 It's an interesting problem, and the solutions 01:00:53.430 --> 01:00:55.622 you found-- it was wonderful to watch you trying 01:00:55.622 --> 01:00:57.330 to grapple with that problem, and come up 01:00:57.330 --> 01:00:59.850 with some very interesting solutions. 01:00:59.850 --> 01:01:04.630 And I am also very keen on this idea of, 01:01:04.630 --> 01:01:06.750 is there a set of sounds that you 01:01:06.750 --> 01:01:09.995 can find that have a really special quality? 01:01:17.280 --> 01:01:20.210 When you hear Glenn Gould play the Goldberg variations 01:01:20.210 --> 01:01:23.380 on piano-- and the aria of the Goldberg variations 01:01:23.380 --> 01:01:28.970 is a very, very simple piece-- and he just sounds phenomenal. 01:01:28.970 --> 01:01:30.170 He's playing quarter notes. 01:01:30.170 --> 01:01:33.102 It's just mind boggling good, and he has barely 01:01:33.102 --> 01:01:34.060 even started the piece. 01:01:34.060 --> 01:01:35.520 This is amazing. 01:01:35.520 --> 01:01:36.760 It's the way he plays. 01:01:36.760 --> 01:01:40.000 But I guess that's the next question I have for you guys. 01:01:40.000 --> 01:01:41.570 Are there particular sounds that you 01:01:41.570 --> 01:01:45.700 hear that would be a good start to a piece? 01:01:45.700 --> 01:01:49.420 That just have that kind of mesmerizing effect. 01:01:49.420 --> 01:01:51.170 And they're not necessarily music. 01:01:51.170 --> 01:01:53.270 I think with the Windows operating system piece, 01:01:53.270 --> 01:01:56.350 you also had the advantage of some 01:01:56.350 --> 01:01:59.610 of those micro compositions. 01:01:59.610 --> 01:02:00.922 Like [MAKES NOTE SOUNDS]. 01:02:00.922 --> 01:02:01.630 Whatever that is. 01:02:01.630 --> 01:02:04.260 That's like the shut down sound, or the boot up sound, 01:02:04.260 --> 01:02:05.106 or something. 01:02:05.106 --> 01:02:07.230 Like there are already kind of audio jingles, which 01:02:07.230 --> 01:02:10.147 have been very, very carefully created. 01:02:10.147 --> 01:02:11.480 And we've heard them many times. 01:02:11.480 --> 01:02:13.200 They have tremendous meaning for us. 01:02:13.200 --> 01:02:17.060 But are there sounds that you hear in the world around you, 01:02:17.060 --> 01:02:19.390 that would make a really good beginning of a piece. 01:02:19.390 --> 01:02:20.790 Let's just forget the whole piece for now. 01:02:20.790 --> 01:02:22.540 Let's just say the beginning of the piece. 01:02:22.540 --> 01:02:24.248 Something that would be fantastic to hear 01:02:24.248 --> 01:02:24.980 at the beginning. 01:02:24.980 --> 01:02:26.855 That would be an interesting thing to pursue. 01:02:32.870 --> 01:02:37.620 I'm trying to remember the other solo artist in this group. 01:02:37.620 --> 01:02:38.800 Jacob, right? 01:02:38.800 --> 01:02:46.425 Jacob, where I would like to see that work go is, 01:02:46.425 --> 01:02:49.000 is there a way that you can share the improvisation 01:02:49.000 --> 01:02:49.750 with the computer? 01:02:49.750 --> 01:02:53.990 So you created a piece of software 01:02:53.990 --> 01:02:57.990 that basically automates an idea about improvisation. 01:02:57.990 --> 01:03:01.326 You have an idea of how the sounds could play. 01:03:01.326 --> 01:03:02.950 Sometimes they play together, Sometimes 01:03:02.950 --> 01:03:03.870 there's silence between them. 01:03:03.870 --> 01:03:05.050 Sometimes there's 3 over 1. 01:03:05.050 --> 01:03:07.150 Sometimes they're dove tailing were overlapping. 01:03:07.150 --> 01:03:09.380 Sometimes they're not. 01:03:09.380 --> 01:03:12.660 Is there a way to extend that so you 01:03:12.660 --> 01:03:15.950 are a physical participant in the improvisation, 01:03:15.950 --> 01:03:19.849 and the computer is playing a disembodied you. 01:03:19.849 --> 01:03:21.390 Because basically what it's doing now 01:03:21.390 --> 01:03:22.473 is like a disembodied you. 01:03:22.473 --> 01:03:27.850 It's your idea implemented as a program that 01:03:27.850 --> 01:03:30.640 will execute your idea. 01:03:30.640 --> 01:03:32.940 Is there a way to have two of you? 01:03:32.940 --> 01:03:37.970 The virtual you, which is what we heard, and the you present. 01:03:37.970 --> 01:03:40.380 So, I'm a teacher, so I'm always thinking 01:03:40.380 --> 01:03:42.360 for my own students, what do I do 01:03:42.360 --> 01:03:44.730 to get everybody to the next step? 01:03:44.730 --> 01:03:45.950 Because we're never done. 01:03:45.950 --> 01:03:47.220 I study all the time. 01:03:47.220 --> 01:03:48.270 I try to learn new stuff. 01:03:48.270 --> 01:03:48.340 I could tell you all about that. 01:03:48.340 --> 01:03:50.140 We don't have the time. 01:03:50.140 --> 01:03:53.920 But I'm always thinking for you guys, what's the next step? 01:03:53.920 --> 01:03:55.920 And I think that for Jacob's work, 01:03:55.920 --> 01:03:57.090 that would be a next step. 01:04:01.420 --> 01:04:03.290 I'll just try to touch on one more. 01:04:03.290 --> 01:04:05.765 Alex, Chelsea, and Chris's, the homework theme. 01:04:10.710 --> 01:04:15.470 I guess, if you hadn't told me it was homework. 01:04:15.470 --> 01:04:18.470 I might have been able to distinguish it from the others. 01:04:18.470 --> 01:04:20.770 But I love the idea of homework. 01:04:20.770 --> 01:04:24.410 And what moment of homework would 01:04:24.410 --> 01:04:26.280 be really great to zero in on. 01:04:26.280 --> 01:04:27.170 It's so rich. 01:04:27.170 --> 01:04:29.790 Is it like procrastination? 01:04:29.790 --> 01:04:34.500 The feeling that you learned something new? 01:04:34.500 --> 01:04:37.669 The anxiety of, oh, no I've got Neil's assignment, 01:04:37.669 --> 01:04:39.460 it's due in and hour and I haven't started. 01:04:39.460 --> 01:04:44.240 There's all kinds of ways to think about homework. 01:04:44.240 --> 01:04:48.880 And it's such a central part of your lives. 01:04:48.880 --> 01:04:52.160 What could you do to take that another step? 01:04:52.160 --> 01:04:54.400 I think it's a great theme. 01:04:54.400 --> 01:04:56.120 And what could you do to distinguish it 01:04:56.120 --> 01:04:58.320 from all the other works we heard? 01:04:58.320 --> 01:05:00.940 So I think that, in short, all these pieces are really 01:05:00.940 --> 01:05:02.510 wonderful beginnings. 01:05:02.510 --> 01:05:10.210 And I don't think any of these beginnings 01:05:10.210 --> 01:05:12.730 is more or less valuable than any other. 01:05:12.730 --> 01:05:15.900 But I guess my bias is thinking, if we 01:05:15.900 --> 01:05:19.150 were to continue this, what would be a next step 01:05:19.150 --> 01:05:21.950 to engage in. 01:05:21.950 --> 01:05:26.899 To take the same ideas and develop them a little bit more? 01:05:26.899 --> 01:05:28.440 MARK HARVEY: Great thank you so much. 01:05:28.440 --> 01:05:28.933 [APPLAUSE] 01:05:28.933 --> 01:05:29.933 NEIL LEONARD: Thank you. 01:05:29.933 --> 01:05:33.753 It was great to hear your work, and good to talk to you guys 01:05:33.753 --> 01:05:34.360 about it. 01:05:34.360 --> 01:05:35.850 MARK HARVEY: Great job everybody. 01:05:35.850 --> 01:05:37.980 Very interesting The only things I would add 01:05:37.980 --> 01:05:42.210 is that I was interested how much the percussive element 01:05:42.210 --> 01:05:44.240 came out in a lot of people's pieces. 01:05:44.240 --> 01:05:46.930 Percussive sounds, the way you've arranged them, 01:05:46.930 --> 01:05:50.150 and also how the live instrumentals played with that. 01:05:50.150 --> 01:05:52.050 And actually, very little silence. 01:05:52.050 --> 01:05:54.770 There were a couple pieces that had more silence than others, 01:05:54.770 --> 01:05:56.790 but interesting to think about that. 01:05:56.790 --> 01:05:59.200 So again, more things to keep in mind. 01:05:59.200 --> 01:06:01.292 NEIL LEONARD: The Windows piece had great silence. 01:06:01.292 --> 01:06:02.000 MARK HARVEY: Yeah 01:06:02.000 --> 01:06:03.900 NEIL LEONARD: And I think the performers 01:06:03.900 --> 01:06:05.499 are kept on edge with that. 01:06:05.499 --> 01:06:07.040 MARK HARVEY: It kept the audience on. 01:06:07.040 --> 01:06:09.310 I didn't know what was going on. 01:06:09.310 --> 01:06:12.340 OK, so please send in just a little statement 01:06:12.340 --> 01:06:14.860 about what this was, this project today. 01:06:14.860 --> 01:06:17.420 And your concert reflection on Neil's concert. 01:06:17.420 --> 01:06:20.320 And we'll see you Wednesday for something completely different. 01:06:20.320 --> 01:06:22.560 Thank you, thank you.