Difference between revisions of "Feedback Shift II"

From CCRMA Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Background)
(Background)
Line 18: Line 18:
 
The cello material was faithfully written according to the 8 section plan. However, due to the pressing schedule I was unable to simultaneously work on the electronic part if I was to send the score to the soloist on time. After finishing the cello part I had winter break to independently realize the fixed electronic concept. For this I designed a Max/MSP patch that would take the MIDI playback rhythms from the Sibelius 6 score of the cello line and use them drive a sampler pulling various non-traditional electric guitar sounds I had recorded. Though the results were fascinating and in line with my initial vision of the work, having lived with the cello writing for months already, I felt this outcome to be competing with the soloist for attention and therefore obscuring much of the carefully composed nuances for the live instrument.
 
The cello material was faithfully written according to the 8 section plan. However, due to the pressing schedule I was unable to simultaneously work on the electronic part if I was to send the score to the soloist on time. After finishing the cello part I had winter break to independently realize the fixed electronic concept. For this I designed a Max/MSP patch that would take the MIDI playback rhythms from the Sibelius 6 score of the cello line and use them drive a sampler pulling various non-traditional electric guitar sounds I had recorded. Though the results were fascinating and in line with my initial vision of the work, having lived with the cello writing for months already, I felt this outcome to be competing with the soloist for attention and therefore obscuring much of the carefully composed nuances for the live instrument.
  
I still felt the piece needed an electronic component, however, due to the limited time to rehearse with the performer I choose to focus on crafting the specifics of the live part rather than rushing into a sloppy electronic placeholder for the premier. After the premier I listened back carefully to the recording and decided.     
+
I still felt the piece needed an electronic component, however, due to the limited time to rehearse with the performer I choose to focus on crafting the specifics of the live part rather than rushing into a sloppy electronic placeholder for the premier. After the premier I listened carefully to the recording and decided that the 8 section form relied on the presence and activity that a canonic fixed electronic part would provide. Now that I determined such a part would be too much competition for focus with the soloist, the 8 sections could be edited down (particularly in the latter half of the work). For this 220C project I am aiming to use the premier recording as source material to then revise and process. I hope to have the electronic component of the piece as more visceral than previously thought, highlighting and extending the timbral palate of the solo cello instead of covering it up.     
  
  

Revision as of 14:38, 8 June 2015

Background

Feedback Shift (2011) was written for Julia Werntz's Microtonal Composition and Performance II Course at the New England Conservatory and premiered by cellist Sebastian Baverstam at Jordan Hall (Boston, MA). The composition began with an idea of creating a single instrumental thread that would hold otherwise dense or complicated music together. I determined that a perpetually oscillating pitch would make for a fascinating thread. From that I recorded and looped myself playing an acoustic guitar, using a coin held diagonally as a pick for more timbral color. Next, I began to find public domain audio samples of electric guitar feedback. In searching through the plethora of samples I looked for recordings which sounded unique and not overly abrasive the ears. The best samples exhibited an inviting opening envelope, a nice sound profile, and a longer decay period. I edited and arranged these clips like a mosaic to create a rich sonic texture of sustain. Once the pre-recored sound part was completed I began to flesh out material for the cello. Here I tried to work in a mindset of restraint, beginning with one note in one range and slowly adding new pitches to the palate. In terms of form, I focused on avoiding clear sections and aimed to let the music gradually develop in a way that felt natural. The role of the cello in Feedback Shift is to provide balance to the pre-recorded sounds; sometimes complementary, but often reactionary.


Premier recording

Original score

Feedback Shift extended (pre-recorded sounds only)

Solo viola version (summer 2014)


Feedback Shift II was composed in the fall of 2014 for cellist Séverine Ballon's January 2015 residency at Stanford University. While planning the structure of the work I initially conceived of 8 sections, each lasting exactly 1'15" and episodic in character. The role of the electronics was to be a rhythmic canon of the cello material, offset by 2 sections (2'30") and realized through extended distorted guitar techniques, a nod back to Feedback Shift I. The goal of this long rhythmic delay (constituting the playback) was to provide an odd sense of similarity to the cello solo, but stripped of any real likeness (such as pitch and timbre). The extreme duration of the delay was also imagined as a way to have listeners question their own perception/memory: what is the relationship between these two seemingly disparate elements?

The cello material was faithfully written according to the 8 section plan. However, due to the pressing schedule I was unable to simultaneously work on the electronic part if I was to send the score to the soloist on time. After finishing the cello part I had winter break to independently realize the fixed electronic concept. For this I designed a Max/MSP patch that would take the MIDI playback rhythms from the Sibelius 6 score of the cello line and use them drive a sampler pulling various non-traditional electric guitar sounds I had recorded. Though the results were fascinating and in line with my initial vision of the work, having lived with the cello writing for months already, I felt this outcome to be competing with the soloist for attention and therefore obscuring much of the carefully composed nuances for the live instrument.

I still felt the piece needed an electronic component, however, due to the limited time to rehearse with the performer I choose to focus on crafting the specifics of the live part rather than rushing into a sloppy electronic placeholder for the premier. After the premier I listened carefully to the recording and decided that the 8 section form relied on the presence and activity that a canonic fixed electronic part would provide. Now that I determined such a part would be too much competition for focus with the soloist, the 8 sections could be edited down (particularly in the latter half of the work). For this 220C project I am aiming to use the premier recording as source material to then revise and process. I hope to have the electronic component of the piece as more visceral than previously thought, highlighting and extending the timbral palate of the solo cello instead of covering it up.


Pre-compositional sketches

2014 December 14 score

2015 January 15 premier recording (CCRMA Stage)

2015 April 02-14

Score edits1

Recording edti1

Score edits2


Pre-recorded sound sources via FreeSound.org

feedback_sax.wav

Guitar Sample Heavy Effects wav.wav

The remains of Mr Bamf :: Weird guitar noise.wav

Feedbacking System :: Feedback-System-with-distortion_18-Jul-2010.wav

baker hall feedback experiment sample

Creaking Metal Desk

Spaghetti-Western Guitar :: western-danger-stab-03.wav


Tape part (version1)