Difference between revisions of "Mike's project proposal"

From CSWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 7: Line 7:
 
Possible features:
 
Possible features:
  
* PLOrk stations (of indefinite #?) divided into two groups?
+
'''* PLOrk stations (of indefinite #?) divided into two groups?'''
 
** One group using 'unpitched' samples (selected by the PLOrkers?)
 
** One group using 'unpitched' samples (selected by the PLOrkers?)
 
** The other group using pitched samples (selected by the PLOrkers?) or maybe synthesized sounds
 
** 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?)
 
** Groups relatively autonomous from each other, but interactive between the groups (interactive via GUI, or just sharp ears?)
  
* Live sampling of So
+
'''* Live sampling of So'''
 
** One or both of the PLOrk groups' samples could be obtained from this.
 
** One or both of the PLOrk groups' samples could be obtained from this.
 
** Is this a pain in the behind logistically?
 
** 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:
+
'''* 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?
 
** 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?
 
** (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'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.
+
'''* I imagine trying this in ChucK and doing something with Processing for the interface, but not sure yet.'''
  
 
==Comments==
 
==Comments==

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