A Performing Electronic Musician’s Stage

Self-assessment of solo set performances from 2011 to 2022

I analyzed instruments, gear, and repertoire of my solo electroacoustic sets from 2011 to 2022.  For the sake of discussion, I categorize a set performance as a long-form performance (about 20 to 50 minutes) by artists without interruption or intermission. I find preparing, performing, and refining solo sets to be one of the best practices for live electronic music skills. In this article, I analyze the changes in hardware and repertoire in my solo electroacoustic performance by comparing video recordings of past shows. I hope the analysis serves the readers and me on what could be worth exploring in live electronic music. 

Here are three video recordings of my solo sets as a point of reference. 

The videos represent my performance practices in three periods in three cities I worked and lived: Philadelphia (2009-2014), Oberlin (2014-2016), and Detroit (2016-current). The oldest solo set video I could find is from 2011 in Seoul, but the above videos are unabridged and have direct outs from the house mixer. 

Performance Preparation

Practicality and flexibility matter in a set performance.  Venues have sound systems with varying designs, and sharing the stage with other artists doing a set is common. Therefore, I choose pieces according to the external limitations I cannot control. My gear is compact and travel-friendly to set up and strike quickly, regardless of the venue’s PA capacity. I plan 15 minutes or less to set up, get ready to go on stage, and carry an extra direct box and cables. 

The most efficient setup could be solo laptop performance. But I am not inclined to present in that format as the audience cannot see movements behind the computer screen. The gear placement reinforces the visual cues in my shows. I value establishing a connection between what I do on stage and what the audience hears. In the reference videos above, the laptop is on the right side of the table. Most sound-generating objects and body actions are in the center and have an unobstructed view. When possible, I place the front panel of electronic instruments observable to the audience. For example, the picture below is my setup in October 2022. I put the gear on a piano bench for the audience to see the fingers moving across the buttons and sliders. The laptop created sound, but it was tucked below the bench. I launched the SuperCollider patch before the show and did not need to touch or look at it when performing. Not shown well in the picture is a small three-channel mixer on the floor. Like the laptop, there was no need to touch the mixer after the sound check, and it did not need to be on the table along with the instruments.

The 2013 Set

The diagram below depicts the connection of the hardware used in the set. The three boxes in the diagram contain the no-input mixer patching method, a list of SuperCollider patches, and compositions incorporated in the set. SuperCollider is the sole software I have used in solo performances since the early 2000s. No-input mixer patching details differ from artist to artist, and it is worth documenting my preferred patching for comparison. I will use the diagram in the same format for the 2016 and 2020 sets.

Hardware choices depend on the repertoire. The title track of the performances in 2013 was Toccata, an improvisational piece featuring a wooden board, various acoustic objects, and a live processing SuperCollider patch. A combination of a contact microphone and a small diaphragm condenser mic captured sent audio signals in the air and the board. The condenser mic doubled as an audio input for other pieces like Retrace, Introvert, and Elegy. Retrace is my first SuperCollider composition incorporating an acoustic instrument. The solo set format allowed me the repeated performance of Retrace and gave me multiple chances to refine it.  The picture below, taken at a 2013 Indeterminacies series in Tennessee, is an example of a typical performance layout. 

The microphones were connected to an audio interface with four inputs and outputs. Audio inputs 3 and 4 allowed me to connect outputs from a no-input mixer. In 2013, the sounds of the no-input mixer and the synths took up a small portion of the show. I used them for the first time to create videos for the 100 Strange Sounds project and was not proficient in performing them. From 2013-14,  many objects I experimented with in 100 Strange Sounds became part of Toccata. It refined the piece composed in 2009 for four or more years.

Video projection was also part of a performance in 2013. Both Introvert and Elegy have accompanying videos, and I often used the laptop’s built-in camera to project the hand movement on the wooden board. The 2015 performance at New Music Gathering is an example of such a set. The on-stage live video reinforces the connection between what I do and what the audience hears, but not all venues can accommodate large-screen projection systems. Setting up a proper video meant extra tech time, a possible nuisance for tech people and other artists on the same show. The reduction in practicality led me to retire the video features from the set gradually.


The 2016 Set

I avoid unintentional silences between the pieces in a set performance. In 2013, I often played pre-recorded sounds while adjusting SuperCollider patches for the next piece. In 2016, all transitions became superpositions of the end of a piece and the beginning of the next one. The crossfade time got longer and smoother with more experience, blending multiple works. This approach stimulated new compositions combining two or more previously featured instruments.  Consequently, my set became a single long-form improvisation featuring all the instruments I could carry comfortably. The 2016 WOBC video recording serves as an example.

Out-of-town gigs outnumbered in-town opportunities when I lived in Oberlin. Traveling with a carry-on bag full of gear became burdensome, and thus I sought to develop a set with as few instruments as possible without degrading the quality. In 2015, I had an opportunity to perform on a double-decker tour bus. The setup time was short, and the performance space was small due to the particular nature of the gig. So  I chose to abandon the laptop, the instrument I am most skilled at, and performed with a no-input mixer and a monophonic synthesizer. The success and fun I had in the gig encouraged me to add more non-computer elements to the set. 

The 2020 Set

By 2016, I felt at home performing with a contact mic and found objects. But doing so felt less exciting and challenging. In contrast, my interest in drum machines and MIDI controllers grew.  The resulting pieces were Cobalt Vase and Page Turner’s Agony. By combining Cobalt Vase with no-input mixing, I composed Func Step Mode. These three pieces are currently the main ingredients of my solo set of electronics-only improvisation. The video made for La Escucha Como Acción’s COVID online performance series is an example.

The current set does not include visually expressive works like Toccata. Microphones and found objects are absent, limiting sonic and visual possibilities. But I gained mobility and a chance to showcase my skills on specific instruments in return. The set sends mono output and can work without an audio interface. The output choice is efficient but could be risky in a genre that values high-fidelity and multi-channel audio. But I identify the most with the sound of the current set. 

Findings from Analysis

Reviewing a decade of set performances was an opportunity to evaluate what I value most in live electroacoustic music. I value practicality and refinement. I accept that practicality gets priority over aesthetics in my music. Some pieces are no longer in the setlist because they involve more physical labor and are prone to technical errors. The longest surviving instrument over a decade, besides SuperCollider,  is a no-input mixer: it takes a short time to set up and is immune to software updates. This reliability led to more time spent with the mixer. A deliberate decision on one instrument is worth noting in technology-based performance, in which one can access an uncountable number of synthesizers and controllers. Currently, I feel proficient at performing a no-input mixer. I am developing a similar feeling toward Korg Volca Beats.  Efficiency affects aesthetic choices in my music.


I recommend designing, executing, and revising a solo set for electronic musicians. Preparing and practicing sets builds muscle memory and opportunities to overcome weaknesses. Compositions featured in a set get continuously refined with repeated performances. Combining and remixing works in a set often inspires new compositions. The refining process is a luxury for compositions written for others, but set performances demand it by nature.

Nested Duets (2022)

In Nested Duets, an ensemble of any size and kind can improvise with one or more laptops running a generative music app. The computer has two roles:  it provides possible pitch choices for the human performers and creates accompanying electronic sounds. The performance instruction is on the computer screen. 

Download and Recording

DropBox Download: contains instructions and SuperCollider file

Performers: Kevin Declaire, Samuel Khalil, De’Andre Little, Jose Llanas, Logan Macka, Lucas Manther, James McCloskey, Joseph Mcelwain, Mal McNitt, Niko Poljanac-Leboeuf, Christopher Reid, Abby Thibodeau, Nathan Zonnevylle
Recording Team: Sinead Cassar, Kevin Declaire, Logan Macka, James McCloskey, Niko Poljanac-Leboeuf, Christopher Reid

Hardware and Software Requirements

  • Computer: PC or Mac. There can be one or more computers. In general, have one computer per 2-3 performers.
  • SuperCollider: Download and Install the app https://supercollider.github.io/downloads.html Mac users will need admin access to the computer to authorize the app
  • NestedDuets.scd file: Download NestedDuets.scd file from https://joowonpark.net/nestedduets
  • Amp and cable: Connect the amp to the computer. If the ensemble is miking the instruments, connect the output of the computer to the house mixer.

Running the Computer Part

  1. Open NesteDuets.scd in SuperCollider.
  2. Select Menu->Language->Evaluate File.
  3. For transposing instruments, enter the transposition in half-steps (positive number only).
  4. Press the “1. Click to start” button. You should hear sounds after a countdown. There is no need for a synchronized beginning when using multiple computers.
  5. When ending, press the “2. Running. Click to end” button. Wait for all sounds to end. Coordinate when to end the piece with the ensemble members.
  6. Press the “3. End. Click to reset” button to reset. Repeat steps 1-5 for replay.

Performance Instruction

  1. Improvise using the pitches displayed in the GUI.
  2. The pitch choices changes at a random pace after a countdown in the top-right corner of the GUI.
  3. Improvise dynamics and articulations.
  4. Make a noticeable change on the “downbeat” after the countdown.
  5. Play like an ambient track. Less is more. Blend in. Play complimentary sounds to the computer part.
  6. Percussionists can improvise freely in ambient style. Avoid making beats if possible.

Commission Info

Nested Duets was part of the 2022 Black Mountain College Radio Art program. 103.3 Asheville FM’s Lucid aired the piece on December 12, 2022. Electronic Music Ensemble of Wayne State (EMEWS) thanks BMC and 103.3 Asheville FM for the opportunity!

Logic In C

Instructions and resources to perform In C with a laptop ensemble

The below link contains a Logic Pro template for the performance of Terry Riley’s In C. Use this Logic file to play a part in a laptop ensemble to experience In C.

LogicInC.logicx (.zip)

Hardware and Software Needed

  • Mac running Logic Pro X (10.7.4)
  • LogicInC.logicx file downloaded from www.joowonpark.net/logicinc
  • Sound amplification system to amplify the audio output of Logic
  • A score of In C – link to Google search result

Instructions

  • Each laptop ensemble member opens LogicInC.logicx in Logic Pro. All patterns are pre-recorded in the Logic session.
  • Click Loop1 [1] to start the piece. Proceed to the next pattern by clicking the next loop
  • Since all note sequences are automated, laptop performers should change musical elements other than pitch and rhythm. Improvise by modifying the following parameters on stage
    • [2] Modify oscillators, filters, envelopes, and LFOs in the default synth
    • [3] Switch the software instrument and modify it in real-time
    • [4] Add effects and modify their parameters
    • [5] Octave shift MIDI notes
    • [6] Change volume

Demo

Excerpt of In C- laptop ensemble version

Full version is available at https://vimeo.com/764305060 (cue to 40min)

Performers

  • Sinead Cassar
  • Kevin Declaire
  • Samuel Khalil
  • De’Andre Little
  • Jose Llanas, Logan Macka
  • Lucas Manther
  • James McCloskey
  • Joseph Mcelwain
  • Mal McNitt
  • Niko Poljanac-Leboeuf
  • Christopher Reid
  • Abby Thibodeau
  • Nathan Zonnevylle
  • Joo Won Park, director

A Listening Guide to Unrecordable Electronic Music

The original article was published on September 30th, 2018, in Highwire Lab. The site no longer exists, so I transferred the writing to this blog. 


A Listening Guide to Unrecordable Electronic Music
By Joo Won Park


On November 30th, 2018, artists and researchers from the University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Wayne State University will hold a concert and a symposium on live electronic music. Particularly, the event will feature various technologies developed for performances and installations rather than those designed to improve or facilitate recording and mixing. During the symposium, the presenters will discuss how the recent development and research in performance technology are changing the way we present, experience and think about music. They will also express and share their artistic ideas through the technology in the evening concert. 

This article provides four guidelines on what to listen for in the evening concert, as there will be performance practices that are not regularly present in non-electronic concerts. I believe that the guidelines could be used for any concert highlighting performing technologies, such as newly developed instruments, laptop ensemble, live coding and electronic ensemble in general. 


1. Find Sounds That Are Uniquely Electronic

The first listening activity one can do in an electronic music concert is to question whether the electronic instrument and their sounds are the most suitable choice for the performance. If a sound can be made better by human and acoustic instruments alone, perhaps it is best to present them without electronics. Otherwise, there is a risk of the electronic part being an unsatisfying imitation of the acoustic performances. In my experience, an electronic piece is interesting when the composers and the performers let the machine act like a machine.

The machines, particularly the computers, can do certain tasks better than the humans. A few lines of code can make instrument repeat tasks with precision. The human operator can also let the program to make objective choices. Playing the note C for 1,435 times in 10.234 seconds, while randomly shifting octave positions is not so daunting for a computer program. Using a machine is sometimes the only way to test or realize a composer’s idea. The audience may search for the activities on stage that can only be done with the aid of technology and see how it is applied in a musical context. 

Another function of technology in performance is to extend the sonic capacity of the known instruments. Listen for those sounds. In Armor+2 for clarinet and computer, I created an algorithm to extend the physical limitation of a solo clarinet performance. The computer part processes the sound of the clarinet to add harmonies, extra parts and multiple room characteristics. I chose the computer to add harmonies instead of an ensemble because the added pitches are the result of a mathematical function involving probability, and the range and timbre of the computer part seemed impossible to be realized otherwise. The phrasing length of the repeated computer part is also chosen by an algorithm so that the performers and audiences listening to the piece in multiple performances may listen to similar but slightly different versions. 


2. Find the Limitations Imposed by the Composer 

Focusing on uniquely electronic sounds can initially excite the composers, performers and audience. I doubt the fascination will hold for the duration of the piece unless the electronic sound is an integral part of the composition. For me, an electronic music composition is a process of choosing some sounds among all other possibilities. When any and every sound is possible to record, synthesize and playback with the use of technology, the composer’s decision as to what not to do is as interesting as what to do.

Alvin Lucier’s works are my inspirations for making conscious compositional limitations. In I Am Sitting In A Room and Music On A Long Thin Wire, Lucier focuses on a single idea or process that he wants to share. Then he subtracts everything else. The “everything” often includes conventional notions of melody, phrase, ensemble and other elements of musical patterns and organizations. By eliminating these elements, audiences are directed to listen for sonic phenomena caused by the interaction of the electronics and the acoustics: the room reveals its harmonic contents through a repetition of a specific recording process, and an interaction between a wire, magnet and audio signal creates continuously changing timbre. I delight in listening to a piece that focuses on a clear and novel idea because it leaves room to imagine what composers decide not to do in order to achieve his/her goal.  

In one of the lessons during my graduate study, my former teacher and I discussed that a compositional decision is like choosing a meal from a menu. The choice I make in creating a piece is not like finding one correct answer in a multiple-choice test, but rather picking one among all potentially good choices. In Hallelujah for vibraphone and computer, I wanted to pay homage to Lucier and focused on one idea while letting other things go. I took advantage of what a computer can do best (i.e. following precise instructions unbiased) to create a beat pattern from slight frequency differences between the computer and the vibraphone part. Think of an old out-of-tune piano, but it is a vibraphone instead and the detuned state is changing at every note.


3. Listen For the Composed Space

I was introduced to Lucier’s music by listening to his albums. I am grateful that my school’s library had those recordings, but these pieces made a true impact when I heard them live in a concert hall and a gallery. When Music On A Long Thin Wire was installed in a gallery, unpredictable patterns of the magnetized string and external stimulants such as the wind and the visitor’s actions guaranteed different timbre for each visit. In an I Am Sitting In A Room performance, I was delighted to discover the hidden harmony of the concert hall I thought I knew well. As each step revealed more resonant frequencies, I could hear the whole space; left, right, up, down, close and far, gradually being tuned to a giant instrument. The performance of I Am Sitting In a Room relies on the recording technology, but my favorite experience of the piece requires me to be in the acoustic space not different from the one the technology is in. The listening space and how the sounds are presented in that space are as important as the piece itself.

I propose that the audiences treat the space in which the electronic sounds are being projected as a part of the composition. A precise and deliberate control of spatial position is what electronic sound can do better than any acoustic instruments. Some pieces use eight or more speakers to move the sounds around. Some pieces are written and presented for the specific place’s acoustics. Like a well-composed melody, a thoughtful composition of the space can narrate and express. In Singaporean Crosswalk for laptop ensemble, I tried to capture the busy streets of Singapore where the man-made sounds and the natural sounds are blended into a unique soundscape. The score instructs four to 12 performers to walk around at the performance space with their device to evoke the constantly moving and changing sonic landscape. The linked video shows how one version of the piece was performed outdoors. Note that this could not document the audience’s spatial experience which I thought was the most interesting part of the piece.


4. Play With the Electronic Instruments

One of the enjoyments in experiencing music live is witnessing the expertise of the performer. I play a little bit of guitar and have enough tactile experience to understand that what I see and hear from a professional guitarist on stage is a result of hard work and dedication. I admire the guitarist and his/her ability rather than the quality of the guitar itself. In an electronic music concert, there could be a reverse situation where the instrument itself is perceived as a focal point for admiration. The difficulty of sensing the performance expertise in an unfamiliar electronic instrument may lead to an assumption that the musician’s actions on the stage does not require practice or are irrelevant. If the listeners can sense or gauge the electronic musician’s performance expertise more accurately, their concert experience could be more valuable.  

One way to develop critical ears and eyes for technology-based music is to gain experiences in creating or performing electronic music. It is easy to access a digital audio workstation, a program used for recording, editing and mixing, from any computer platform or mobile devices. The price of many electronic instruments also became affordable, and there are cheaper (or free) software instruments that users can download. Use them, get familiarized in them and make some unique electronic sounds. Open Garageband in a Mac and record/mix some tracks. Find ways to compose or manipulate the space. Play the synthesizer along with the musicians playing acoustic instruments. Doing musical activities with electronics, however little or brief, will give the users a basis for appreciation and critical listening.

Another hands-on activity I recommend is to record audio. With mobile devices and affordable recorders abound, anybody can record sounds at any time. When consciously looking for an interesting sound to record, the recordist listens to their surroundings differently.   Recording the nature, people and the culture were the best ear training sessions during my graduate school years. By concentrating to find and archive sonic signatures in places, I learned to find musicality in everyday sounds. Perhaps the concert attendants use their phones to record some interesting environmental sounds prior to the concert as a warm-up. New music performers cannot ask for anything better than actively-seeking ears and curious minds!


The four guidelines are my attempt to answer questions asked by friends and audiences attending my concerts. Inquiries such as “what were you doing on stage?,” “what was I supposed to listen and appreciate in that piece?,” “how is this live version better than listening to a recording at home?,” etc. are challenges and inspirations for my compositions. What I like most about my field is that, as you may witness in the November 30th symposium, my answers to the challenges of presenting electronic music are quite different from the answers of my colleagues. I named this symposium The Unrecordables since the essence of the music that will be presented are impossible to be captured and archived with current technology. I invite you to come to the symposium, apply the guidelines provided in here and find your favorite ways in which the music technology is used on stage.