Some Answers to Michaela's Questions

1)

It is possible to group digital musical instruments into three broad categories:

a - instrument like - A control interface that tends to reproduce each feature of an existing instrument (ie an electric guitar, keyboard, sax etc)

- instrument inspired - A sub-group of instrument like controllres. An interface that is largely inspired by an existing instrument but it is intended for a different and often more general purpose (ie the Digital Trumpet)

Buchla Marimba Lumina

Electronic Sax

c - augmented instrument - An existing controller which has been fitted with additional sensors in order to provide extra elements of control/synthesis

Disklavier

d - alternative controller - A controller which does not follow the design of an established instrument

Reactable

Originally in this project I was leaning towards an "instrument inspired" controller. There were two main reasons for this. The first is conceptual ease of design. I felt that because I don't have any background in product design and manufacture that perhaps it would help me when it came to actually designing the control interface if I already had some preexisting notion of the general shape, size and materials my controller could consist of. The second reason is to address questions of ease of use and playability. Reports suggest that when one first comes across a new musical control interface, the key aspect in terms of playing is ease of use. Once the basics have been learned the emphasis shifts on learnability, the ability to spend time with an instrument in order to learn more subtle and masterful control. I felt that using an instrument inspired controller should help in the first instance of ease of use, since many players would already have to a greater or lesser extent a notion of the kinds of gestures that are suitable to such an instrument. At the same time the choice of transducers could produce interesting challenges for even established players of the original instrument since they could effect and change for example the established attack gesture (for example a pressure pad used to trigger sounds on a guitar-like interface, changing the typical attack gesture from a plectrum attack to applying varying pressure or perhaps short percussive whacks).

Recently, David Creasey highlighted the importance of physical feedback when it comes to musical control so this is some thing I'd really like to think about. My above idea involving a pressure pad may be a good one since applying pressure to the pad would naturally produce some kinesthetic feedback. David suggested considering an augmented instrument controller in order to have physical feedback "built-in". This is an interesting approach which I will look into and post some articles and examples.

I also remember an earlier post regarding a slightly ambitious idea of equipping an instrument inspired controller with a resonator (some how) and passing the synthesis signals through it via some form of transducer. Having this resonator could possibly add an extra element of physical feedback useful for control, especially if combined with other techniques.

2)

one could say: "yes, we can build a lot of different kinds of new electronic musical instruments, but in the end it all comes down to doing the synthesis (in programmes like max/msp), so why bother, they can all sound the same..." what would your response be?

I think my response would be to talk about the expressivity possible with a given synthesis algorithm and controller combination. That is to say, not particularly the core of the sound which is the algorithm's responsibility, but rather how that sound is used to make music. Not the way it sounds but the way it is played. At the moment I could define two elements of expressivity. The first is the kind of physical feedback mentioned in (1).

The second element is related to the controller itself and its transducers. The choice of transducers for a controller can have a large impact on the possible expressivity of the resultant sound. To take an extreme example one could compare a controller like the one from a past post to the digital trumpet. The first controller triggers sounds using a small pressure button. The second has a pressure sensor mounted behind a trumpet mouth piece which detects even the smallest changes in the blowing style of the player. It is clear that hypothetically if they both trigger the same synthesis algorithm, the digital trumpet would allow sounds to be played with much greater control. Another question here however is ease of use and learnability. One could argue that the trumpet controller would be harder to use and almost impossible for most players to truly master (to possibly a greater level than the player in the video exhibits). In this respect perhaps for a lot of users the simpler button controller would be more appropriate. Linked to ease of use of course is the style of controller itself. Guitar players may find it much easier to use the first controller whilst trumpet players would be more comfortable with the second. If an alternate controller could be used all players would likely be of approximately equal physical skill to begin with.

I think it is possible to see that the choice and design of a controller is an important one since it effects the way in which a player can create the sounds produced by the synthesis. Another important point however is that of course the synthesis algorithm must be such that it is able to respond to the parameters made available by the controller. For example if a very simple algorithm which trigger sounds simply via an on or off stage were controlled by the trumpet controller, much of its expressivity would be lost. It would no longer be possible for example to produce crescendos using increasing breath pressure.

It seems that neither the controller nor the algorithm should be underestimated in their contribution to the expressivity and playability of the complete system. I think this question is definitely some thing to be looked into further. I think it would also be worth while looking further into mapping techniques and the possibility of introducing mapping layers to allow controllers to be portable from one algorithm the next...

3)

I think for this project i'd like to focus on ways of playing, since we've done quite a lot of synthesis work over the past 2 years. The issue is however that, as I mentioned above, however complex I make the controller I will have to design an algorithm sufficiently complex enough to respond to that controller's parameters. May be a better answer then would be that i'll have to focus on both. Actually David Creasey advised me that the best way to approach this kind of project is to try and keep the advancement of each section at roughly the same level so that the complete system has a chance of coming together as a whole. Or at least if the end goal cannot be reached then the system can still function well together for a presentation (instead of for example having a very simple bread board circuit of a controller and a complex synthesis program).

The fun thing for me would be actually playing the instrument and feeling at least some what involved in the sound making process.