Difference between revisions of "Mike's project proposal"
From CSWiki
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Main Idea== | ==Main Idea== | ||
| − | Under construction -- more to follow as I think of it, comments welcome! | + | ''Under construction -- more to follow as I think of it, comments welcome!'' |
| − | I'm intrigued by the idea of doing something with So + PLOrk (and possibly Matmos if it seems to make sense). | + | '''I'm intrigued by the idea of doing something with So + PLOrk (and possibly Matmos if it seems to make sense).''' |
Possible features: | Possible features: | ||
Latest revision as of 14:46, 15 October 2008
Main Idea
Under construction -- more to follow as I think of it, comments welcome!
I'm intrigued by the idea of doing something with So + PLOrk (and possibly Matmos if it seems to make sense).
Possible features:
* PLOrk stations (of indefinite #?) divided into two groups?
- One group using 'unpitched' samples (selected by the PLOrkers?)
- The other group using pitched samples (selected by the PLOrkers?) or maybe synthesized sounds
- Groups relatively autonomous from each other, but interactive between the groups (interactive via GUI, or just sharp ears?)
* Live sampling of So
- One or both of the PLOrk groups' samples could be obtained from this.
- Is this a pain in the behind logistically?
* As suggested by our discussion in the first week of seminar, Dan's wacky metronome, and some features of Jascha's proposal:
- Flexibility of rhythm. A slightly hiccup-y, broken metronome to guide the PLOrkers?
- (Semi-)Independence of So from the PLOrk group's metronome? So more atmospheric, PLOrk more rhythmically active, for example, or vice-versa?
* I'm game for trying a collaborative project if any of this resonates with anyone.
* I imagine trying this in ChucK and doing something with Processing for the interface, but not sure yet.
Comments
Link back to main LAP page
take me back to PLOrk_538
