the process may start simultaneously for all three controllers (in a performative setting), from the same distance. one swing of any of the three wiimote controllers. In my remix of this piece i was rather interested in relation between the objects, which was carried by the pendulum motion rather than in the process in reich’s terms.įor me, the core and the smallest element of the process is a swing. this is a performative sound installation, which starts once the people (performers) put the microphones into motion, from the same distance, at the same time, while the audience observes the whole process. In steve reich’s pendulum music, sound result of this “audible sculpture” (feedback) is a medium which leads our attention to the comprehension of the musical (compositional) process which takes place when the microphones moving in their own individual times, keep getting in and out of sync with each other, until they finally meet in the point of continuous feedback which is at the end stopped manually by the ones at the mixing desk. each of the three samples is being looped constantly, and the volume of each fades in and out as the controller enters the the highest acceleration point. each of them consists of several glitch samples distributed in a random manner in timespan of around three or four seconds. each occupies one frequency range, so that there are high sounds, the ones in medium range and ones in the lower range. I have used “ready-made” glitch samples, and compiled them in three versions (one for each laptop). opposite to analogue information, digital information is neutral in shape and as soon as the motion is translated into numbers, it can become anything. the main reason is that the kind of information is different in these two works. in other words, sound and visual occurrences are depended on the pendulum motion and acceleration of the swinging wiimote only, and not to the position of wii in relation to the laptop like it was the case in original piece. i have staged this misplay of objects so that it draws similarities with the old piece in terms of its visual construction. My intervention in translating these meanings, belongs to a field of design rather than to that of conceptual thought.
it is a symbolic element of a music genre which tells about the intention of experimental musicians of that time to use existing musical object and by the means of destruction, cause the unexpected result which becomes a new object.Įquivalent of today is a glitch. in general, in this piece i wanted to translate these symbolic objects which would work based on the same principle of pendulum motion, and whose interaction would be based on the unwanted, faulty and above all symbolically wrong relationship. the whole concept surrounding it such as the ways of creating it, its causes and re-invented intention of its use, appear to me to be much more valuable as a miniature cultural symbol, than only the sound result itself. today, we know about countless music genres which use glitch as their main sound source or a source of inspiration and some of which are even called glitch-pop, glitchcore, glitch-house etc.Īudio feedback became a part of sound palette of electronic/experimental musicians in the late 60’s and has been widely used since than. acceptance of a damage in existing media, imperfections and intentional destructions of media have a long history in art, but only in the XX century did they become widely accepted, and even a part of popular art and music. just like feedback, glitch was something to be avoided, to be removed and fixed. glitch is a short error, unexpected break in the event which is taking place on the computer. In the same way as feedback, glitch was in the beginning regarded as a fault, mistake, a sign that something went wrong while you were doing something else.
0 kommentar(er)
