Difference between revisions of "Mike's project proposal"
From CSWiki
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ==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). | ||
Revision as of 14:29, 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
