Han-earl Park and io 0.0.1 beta++ (prototype) (Cork, March 26, 2009). Photo © 2009 Franziska Schroeder.

Almost eight years ago, when io-to-be was a bunch of discorporate code fragments, Sara Roberts remarked that the enterprise of constructing a machine improvisers wasn’t so much megalomanic as Frankensteinian.

Fifteen days ago, during the break between beta test sessions, Franziska Schroeder asked a pithy question that cut to the core of this enterprise: what do I hope to achieve? My answer surprised me even as it reminded me of Sara’s observation: my goal with io (and io++) is to encapsulate my take on improvisation—its mechanisms, its sociality, its significance. As I’ve written elsewhere,

improvisation is performance; it is an act; it is something you do. In order to make an artifact behave analogously to an improviser, I need to ascertain what might pass for, or what might function in the place of, improvisation. To venture into the construction of an improviser is to ask what is improvisation.

[read the whole thing…]

I’d anticipated that consulting with other improvisers with different backgrounds, practices and histories would be helpful to this construction, but I hadn’t guessed that it would bring into relief issues that lie at the kernel of this enterprise.

the techno-musical is political? personal?

This is the first time I’ve embodied the role of (techno-musical) project leader. That’s a problematic enough… but the interrogation and problematization of the technical construction was an interrogation and problematization of Han the constructor, improviser and, for lack of better word, theorist.

As I’ve stated elsewhere, I am reminded that this exploding—this interrogation and problematization—is how improvisers evolve, and the conditions under which practices and approaches mutate.

the machine that once could

In a sense io is stuck as a un-mutant improviser. It encapsulates what I though of improvisation seven years ago. Fine then; not now.

In my report to the Arts Council I wrote that

in exploring improvisation… and in the collision with other approaches and sensibilities, I have learned that this enterprise is ever-evolving as it adapts to new situations and contexts.

Although, io 0.0.1 beta++ as a funded project has a (bureaucratically necessary) end, perhaps it, as an entity, and as a focal point of practice and performance, is—road movie-like—a much more open ended enterprise.

Franziska Schroeder and io 0.0.1 beta++ (prototype) (Cork, March 26, 2009)

On the 10th of November 2008 I had the great pleasure to meet io.

She seemed a rather calm, clandestine creature, not saying much… not moving much, in fact not engaging with me much at all. However, she appeared to be a ‘saxophonistic’ persona—shiny, slightly shimmering in the sunlit surroundings.

But who is io? What does she sound like? How would she react to me? Would she respond? Would she challenge me (musically, that is). In other words, would she adopt sensitively to changes, make creative contributions and develop musical ideas suggested by me?

All sorts of questions went through my head before I even had played a note.
I was not told much about io in advance, in order to engage with her without any preconceptions.

I played and I listened…. io’s steady, breathy and rather regular sighs reminded me of a machinic engagement I had in 2000 when working on a piece entitled “Aquas Liberas.” That piece was based on recordings made in the Águas Livres Aqueduct, in Lisbon, Portugal. I had visited several machine rooms where water was pumped across pipes and the breathy machinic air sounds from the Lisbon site were reminiscent of io’s, at times, dis-engaged, de-contextualised replies.

I stopped. We talked. I played again and listened. I had found out a bit more about io and the next time I tried to ‘please’ her. I tried to soothe her into a calm, less hasty, more spacious musical dialogue. We engaged a little better.

I stopped. We talked. I played again. I wanted her to listen. This time she would need to be ‘with’ me. If the musical ideas dried up and we needed to stop she would need to listen. But she ignored me. The musical journey seemed to come to a halt (from my point of listening).

io carried on. I went along, trying to get her to conclude, to find a musical ending. io carried on. Why won’t she listen? Why won’t she acknowledge that we need to finish? io carried on. No surprises. No quest for anything new. No fresh ideas. No aspirations. No ending…

Improvisation, as George Lewis notes, shall become “not so much a practice, but an aspiration toward freedom…” …with io there is not yet in sight this “dangerous hybrid formed by agency and indeterminacy whose ultimate outcome is a continuous transformation of both Other and Self” (Lewis, 2007: Parallax, p.120).

io, we will meet again. I will transform you. You will transform me. Maybe.

[Original article…] [Audio documentation of the testing session…]

There have been major changes since 03-23-2009 as a result of the beta tests with Bruce Coates and Franziska Schroeder. These changes are unfortunately not documented/commented at the moment, but I’m uploading the source files for the record.

beta test 05-12-09_00 [mp3″]

beta test 05-12-09_01 [mp3″]

beta test 05-12-09_02 [mp3″]

beta test 05-12-09_03 [mp3″]

beta test 05-12-09_04 [mp3″]

beta test 05-12-09_05 [mp3″]

beta test 05-12-09_06 [mp3″]

beta test 05-12-09_07 [mp3″]

beta test 05-12-09_08 [mp3″]

beta test 05-12-09_09 [mp3″]

beta test 05-12-09_10 [mp3″]

Performers are io 0.0.1 beta++ (itself), Bruce Coates (saxophone) and Han-earl Park (guitar).

Thanks to the Arts Council of Ireland for supporting this project, to the UCC Department of Music for providing a space in which to carry out this work, to Bruce for his work and feedback on this, and to Jonny Marks for listening and commenting on the proceedings.

Franziska Schroeder and io (Cork, March 26th 2009)

Here is the (not yet annotated) audio documentation of the io++ beta test with Franziska Schroeder on March 26th 2009.

beta test 03-26-09_00 [mp3″]

beta test 03-26-09_01 [mp3″]

beta test 03-26-09_02 [mp3″]

beta test 03-26-09_03 [mp3″]

beta test 03-26-09_04 [mp3″]

beta test 03-26-09_05 [mp3″]

beta test 03-26-09_06 [mp3″]

Performers are io 0.0.1 beta++ (itself) and Franziska Schroeder (saxophone).

Thanks to the Arts Council of Ireland for supporting this project, to the UCC Department of Music for providing a space in which to carry out this work, and to Franziska for her work and feedback on this.

• Greater variation in output.
  • Including pseudo-Braxtonian ‘separation’ implemented via interp tables.
  • Implementation of a meta-banalyzer that shakes up the system depending on input variation.
  • Greater variation in the VL70m settings.
• More responsive to external stimulus.
  • Implementation of a meta-banalyzer (see above).
  • Greater number of elements triggered by the banalyzers and the meta-banalyzer.
  • Fix error in the banalyzer+ class.
  • Variable event buffer.
  • Reduction in the damping and absorption parameters in the VL70m model.
• Less and more machine-esque.
  • Reduction in the damping and absorption variables in the VL70m model which results in a more ‘synthetic’ sound,
  • but also disguises the strongly cyclical generator.

Thanks to the Arts Council of Ireland for supporting this project, and to Bruce and Franziska for their time, labor and expertise.

beta test 12-08-08_00 [mp3″]

beta test 12-08-08_01 [mp3″]

beta test 12-08-08_02 [mp3″]

beta test 12-08-08_03 [mp3″]

beta test 12-08-08_04 [mp3″]

beta test 12-08-08_05 [mp3″]

beta test 12-08-08_06 [mp3″]

beta test 12-08-08_07 [mp3″]

Performers are io 0.0.1 beta++ (itself), Bruce Coates (saxophone) and Han-earl Park (guitar).

Thanks to the Arts Council of Ireland for supporting this project, to the UCC Department of Music for providing a space in which to carry out this work, and to Bruce for his time and labor in support of this project.

io001b.com

Almost eight years ago, when io-to-be was a bunch of discorporate code fragments, Sara Roberts remarked that the enterprise of constructing a machine improvisers wasn’t so much megalomanic as Frankensteinian.

Fifteen days ago, during the break between beta test sessions, Franziska Schroeder asked a pithy question that cut to the core of this enterprise: what do I hope to achieve? My answer surprised me even as it reminded me of Sara’s observation: my goal with io (and io++) is to encapsulate my take on improvisation—its mechanisms, its sociality, its significance. As I’ve written elsewhere,

improvisation is performance; it is an act; it is something you do. In order to make an artifact behave analogously to an improviser, I need to ascertain what might pass for, or what might function in the place of, improvisation. To venture into the construction of an improviser is to ask what is improvisation.

[read the whole thing…]

I’d anticipated that consulting with other improvisers with different backgrounds, practices and histories would be helpful to this construction, but I hadn’t guessed that it would bring into relief issues that lie at the kernel of this enterprise.

the techno-musical is political? personal?

This is the first time I’ve embodied the role of (techno-musical) project leader. That’s a problematic enough… but the interrogation and problematization of the technical construction was an interrogation and problematization of Han the constructor, improviser and, for lack of better word, theorist.

As I’ve stated elsewhere, I am reminded that this exploding—this interrogation and problematization—is how improvisers evolve, and the conditions under which practices and approaches mutate.

the machine that once could

In a sense io is stuck as a un-mutant improviser. It encapsulates what I though of improvisation seven years ago. Fine then; not now.

In my report to the Arts Council I wrote that

in exploring improvisation… and in the collision with other approaches and sensibilities, I have learned that this enterprise is ever-evolving as it adapts to new situations and contexts.

Although, io 0.0.1 beta++ as a funded project has a (bureaucratically necessary) end, perhaps it, as an entity, and as a focal point of practice and performance, is—road movie-like—a much more open ended enterprise.

On the 10th of November 2008 I had the great pleasure to meet io.
She seemed a rather calm, clandestine creature, not saying much… not moving much, in fact not engaging with me much at all. However, she appeared to be a ‘saxophonistic’ persona – shiny, slightly shimmering in the sunlit surroundings.

But who is io? What does she sound like? How would she react to me? Would she respond? Would she challenge me (musically, that is). In other words, would she adopt sensitively to changes, make creative contributions and develop musical ideas suggested by me?

All sorts of questions went through my head before I even had played a note.
I was not told much about io in advance, in order to engage with her without any preconceptions.

I played and I listened…. io’s steady, breathy and rather regular sighs reminded me of a machinic engagement I had in 2000 when working on a piece entitled “Aquas Liberas”. That piece was based on recordings made in the Águas Livres Aqueduct, in Lisbon/Portugal. I had visited several machine rooms where water was pumped across pipes and the breathy machinic air sounds from the Lisbon site were reminiscent of io’s, at times, dis-engaged, de-contextualised replies.

I stopped. We talked. I played again and listened. I had found out a bit more about io and the next time I tried to ‘please’ her. I tried to soothe her into a calm, less hasty, more spacious musical dialogue. We engaged a little better.

I stopped. We talked. I played again. I wanted her to listen. This time she would need to be ‘with’ me. If the musical ideas dried up and we needed to stop she would need to listen. But she ignored me. The musical journey seemed to come to a halt (from my point of listening).
io carried on. I went along, trying to get her to conclude, to find a musical ending. io carried on. Why won’t she listen? Why won’t she acknowledge that we need to finish? io carried on. No surprises. No quest for anything new. No fresh ideas. No aspirations. No ending…

Improvisation, as George Lewis notes, shall become “not so much a practice, but an aspiration toward freedom…” …

with io there is not yet in sight this “dangerous hybrid formed by agency and indeterminacy whose ultimate outcome is a continuous transformation of both Other and Self” (Lewis, 2007:Parallax, p.120).

io, we will meet again. I will transform you. You will transform me. Maybe.

beta test 11-10-08_00 [mp3″]

beta test 11-10-08_01 [mp3″]

beta test 11-10-08_02 [mp3″]

beta test 11-10-08_03 [mp3″]

beta test 11-10-08_04 [mp3″]

beta test 11-10-08_05 [mp3″]

Performers are io 0.0.1 beta++ (itself), Franziska Schroeder (saxophone) and Han-earl Park (guitar).

Thanks again to the Arts Council of Ireland for supporting this project, to the UCC Department of Music for providing a space in which to carry out this work, and to Franziska for lending her time and expertise to this enterprise.

Thanks to the Arts Council of Ireland for supporting this project, the UCC Department of Music for providing a space in which to carry out this work, and to Franziska for taking time to do this.

More documentation will be forthcoming in the coming days…

Incidentally, Franziska and I will also be performing at Stet Lab that evening. [Details…]