Mikhail Bakhtin has a posse!
we are not making music - it may be boring and that is ok - don't have ideas about what would be "good"
I like the idea of a system where we are listening for some trigger, and then when that trigger happens, it triggers a rotation or shift in the system. Here is an instance of the famous self-playing Krell patch. It seems related: https://youtu.be/Y4hdvmix9Uo . I am enough of a Cage disciple to be suspicious of intuitive improvisation all the time. Aleatoric rules are a great way to break "intuitive" habits.
I personally have a hard time with the idea of no words, because words to me are sound - the same way that words have meaning, also sound does, so why should words be eliminated? Words from languages I do speak have more intrinsic meaning than words from languages I do not speak - but my brain will always be connecting, or trying to connect some meaning, be it to sounds or words. While I agree that a part of improvisation is letting go of meaning, I think that it's in that letting go that we find connections we didn't know were there - hence "building" something...
In short, I feel that to go into foreignness, it could be fun to short circuit words, but I'm not sure it'd serve us best so early on in our process. Maybe it's about building constraints around language that bind us, but do not bind language? Like, being able to use only a first or last syllable of a word, or its vowels, or its consonants?
I would say let's try to do a session with no "speaking", no "words" at all, nothing we could recognize as such. Is that possible? Can we find a foreign territory? an interesting territory? can we give room to each other's strangeness? can we listen? can we also allow ourselves to be bored ?
Try to have a unified background for your image.
Connexion one hour before: talking together, adapting, attuning - deconnecting.
Listen individually to our last utterings. Reconnexion
We all do as we think is intuitively appropriate.
Before starting our second utterings after listening to Stabat Mater de Penderecki we discussed constraints and decided to determine each of us our own in-, duration- and out-triggers, that we would not communicate before.
... So this is what I like about these online collaborations. There are multiple times, but there is no single “real” time. And it requires different kinds of attention, listening, attenuation, adaptation, and improvisation by the participants. But we are mistaken if we think that what we are hearing is what everyone else is hearing. And of course this is true every time anyone talks to anyone else at all. It’s just that the giant submerged metal water tank of the live internet foregrounds these slippages. So I wouldn’t try to lose or overcome the slippages with “more accurate” technology, because the slippages are to me what make future collaborations worth pursuing. Just like the massive reverb echoes in the undergound water tank weren’t bugs Oliveros was trying to overcome. They were the features she actively sought out, outside of a standard recording studio environment.
This short article on the history of “time lag accumulation” seems relevant:
next time it would be nice to do a durational version
What kind of triggers could that be?
Hi, this is Curt. Everyone could adopt some kind of system that has
1. a trigger leading to...
2. a behavior that ends when...
3. another trigger happens.
So for example:
1. i feel anxious there is too much silence...
2. i make noise with my hands until...
3. someone says a few words in English.
Everyone's could be different, and you could have several. You might not wind up using any of them, and they wouldn't have to make up the bulk of your contribution. Just some wildcard things.
Beware of "pinning," a system that leads to a dead end and no variability.
So for example, if we all adopted:
1. feel anxious...
2. remain silent until...
3. someone says something...
That could lead to the end of the performance at some point (which might be fine).
Here is a patch I made last night that is aleatoric and self-composing (no intuition required): http://lab404.com/audio/patches/aleatory.mp4
Do you mean Curt that as in the patch we only have limited possibilities?
Could this work?
1 When Annie hears something she becomes silent
2 After not hearing any sound for 10 sec Annie starts to mumble
3 But if she hears an "aaaah" she starts to hum a song anyway
Or if I go with what you propose:
1. when I feel anxious I start humming a song
2. I remain silent untill I hear an animal like noise (this only works if there is also a rule to silence me
3 if someone used a single consonant I become silent
and so now I will only be humming or be silent :)
Not solely and exclusively using the constraints, but inserting the constraints into an otherwise normal improvisational performance. In an analog synthesizer system, there has to be some source (seed) oscillation sending audible waves through the machine, or all of the other modulation algorithms and constraints don't result in any audible sound. The modifications occur, and the rules are applied, but they are applied by and on inaudible waves. So we need to start doing something (and probably continue doing something). So while one person or another is applying one of her constraints, the rest are carrying on with whatever they feel is intuitively appropriate.
I wound up humming along with the audio artifacts that the zoom compression was generating. Also, it seemed like someone was very quiet in my earphones, and I only ever heard myself and at most two other people at any given time. I don't know whether that was the system, or whether we were all just more quiet this time.
The silencing produced by the algorithm is something I'm struggling with, both on the conceptual and practical level.
Constança: My trigger remains unused! It was:
once Curt pronounces french words, I go
exit on 30 sec timelapse.
Annie: I will only use vowels, but not "a"'s in my intuitive parts.
When I recognize a word I use only "a"'s, till I recognize another word, than I will stay silent before going back to intuitive mode.
Curt: My only one was that if it was silent for more than ten seconds, I would start quietly speaking in tongues and gradually get louder and higher until someone else spoke or I ran out of octave room. For better or worse, that happened at the very beginning, and then never again!
Derek: i wanted to use non vowel noises for the whole time as a rule
and only hum or whistle otherwise, and be really gentle
my one trigger active was if someone did a "freak out" (a loud moment) i allowed myself one loud moment in response
Nerina: if somebody says an actual word, I have to only listen until the next actual word is said. At some point, it was very hard telling which were words and which weren't... so I stayed silent for what felt like a really long time...