Re: Choreography vs. Composition (and environments)

Nick Rothwell (nick@cassiel.com)
6 Jan 1998 14:12:16 -0000

> OK, let's break down the possibilities a bit. I can see at least
> three possibilities, all of which I've tried:
>
> (1) LIVE: The performer hears/sees the result of translation of
> sensor signals immediately. This is the traditional "feedback"
> composition approach, and lends itself to improvisation.
>
> (2) REMIX: As above, except the signals are then replayed and the sounds
> and lighting are remapped; this can be just fine retuning of the
> result or can be used to generate completely different output.

If I understand you correctly, in that (1) is immediate and realtime
and (2) is not, then what I would be interested in doing is a live
version of (2). (And it's lot more than remixing in the conventional
sense.)

> I do exactly the opposite. I record and play with effects live, sometimes
> very strong ones, and adjust my _performance_ to the effects. To me they
> are inseparable, as anyone who has sung with strong reverb will
> understand. The effect makes you sing differently. In the same way
> dancing with live output stringly effects the way you move. So I tend to
> (1) (live).

Fine. But then you've not answered my question. One can still regard
the control data generated by a performance (let me rephrase: DURING a
performance) as an abstraction which can generate (*in realtime*) one
of an infinite number of different outcomes.

(I'm thinking here of another possibility, where both the dancer and
the musician influence the score through a control system; perhaps the
musician performs to set up the control points for the score and the
dancer exercises them.)

-- 
         Nick Rothwell, CASSIEL        contemporary dance projects
         http://www.cassiel.com        music synthesis and control

"...but you? You've got a monkey on your back: dedication."