Tag Archives: supercollider

Four Hit Combo (2024)

Compositions, Research, , ,

In Four Hit Combo, each laptop ensemble member uses four audio files to create twenty-six flavors. Musical patterns arise from repetitions (loops), and different combinations mark forms in music. The laptop ensemble members prepare their own samples before the performance, and they control loop start points and duration according to the score and the conductor’s cue. Because there are no specific audio files attached to the piece, each performance could give a unique sonic experience.

Download SuperCollider files and Score of Four Hit ComboDownload

Instrument Needed

  1. Laptop: each performer needs a computer with SuperCollider installed
  2. Amp: connect the laptop to a sound reinforcement system. If the performance space is small, it is possible to use the laptop’s built-in speaker.

Pre-Performance Preparation

  1. Determine a conductor and at least three performers. If there are more than three performers, parts can be doubled
  2. Each performer prepares three audio files (wav, aif, or mp3). The first file should contain a voice. The second file should contain a pitched instrument sound. The third file should contain a percussion sound. All files should not be too short (less than a second) or too long (more than a minute). The [voice], [instrument], and [percussion] files should be different for all performers.
  3. While the voice, instrument, and percussion files are different for all performers, they should share one common sound file. This file will be used in the [finale].  
  4. The conductor prepares one audio about 10-30 seconds long. It could be any sound with noticeable changes. For example, a musical passage would work well, while an unchanged white noise would not. 
  5. Download FourHitCombo_Score.pdf, FourHitCombo_Performer.scd, and FourHitCombo_Conductor.scd from www.joowonpark.net/fourhitcombo
  6. Open the .scd files in SuperCollider. Follow the instructions on the.scd file to load the GUI screen.

Score Interpretation

  1. Proceed to the next measure only at the conductor’s cue. The conductor should give a cue to move on to the next measure every 10-20 seconds.
  2. In [voice], [instrument], [percussion], and [finale] rectangle, the performers drag-and-drop the audio file accordingly.
  3. In [random] square, performers press the random button in the GUI.
  4. In the square with a dot, quickly move the cursor in the 2D slider to the notated location.
  5. In the square with a dot and arrow, slowly move the cursor from the beginning point to the end point of the arrow. It is OK to finish moving the cursor before the conductor’s cue.
  6. In a measure with no symbol, leave the sound as is. Do not silence the sound.
  7. In measure 27, all performers freely improvise. Use any sounds except the commonly shared sound reserved for [finale]. 

Ambient in D Flat

Compositions, ,

Ambient in D Flat is a collection of short pieces for melodica and algorithmically generated computer sound. They all have the note Db as an essential part. Feel free to pick and choose which piece to perform or present. The last one in the collection, Fifth (for A Folk Song), is not an original composition- the performer is free to choose any folk song and play it in Gb major along with the computer part.

AmbientInDb_Park.zipDownload

Setup

  • Download and install SuperCollider https://supercollider.github.io/downloads.html 
  • Download a zip file containing AmbientInDb_Mac.scd and AmbientInDb_PC.scd from https://joowonpark.net/ambientdb 
  • Open one of the downloaded SuperCollider files in SuperCollider. One is for OSX, and the other is for Windows.
  • In the SuperCollider menu, select Language-> Evaluate File. A window with performance instructions will appear.
  • Follow the instructions on the screen. Use the keyboard’s space bar and number keys to navigate. 

Performance

  • The middle C in the notation is the very first (the lowest) C in a melodica.
  • All pieces are in rubato. 
  • Feel free to improvise and elaborate on the written part.
  • Due to its algorithmic nature, the computer part does not have a set duration. It is OK if the performer finishes the melodica part earlier or later than the computer part.

Large Intestine 2013 vs 2024 – Brief Analysis

Compositions, Research, , ,

I am at the age where I can make a “How It Started vs. How It’s Going” analysis of my music. Comparing performance practice change over a decade or so is valuable for my growth, especially when the piece involves improvisation and no score. I can see where I came from, where I am now, and where I should go next. Large Intestine for no-input mixer and computer premiered in 2013, and I still present it in concerts. Watching the August 2013 version and the recent June 2024 version in sequence gives me a chance to contemplate my electronic performance practice. Did the technology and style change over 11 years? 

Technology

I took the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” approach for Large Intestine in terms of the hardware and the software. The SuperCollider patch I coded 11 years ago is almost identical to the 2024 version. There were maintenance updates, such as replacing a deprecated UGen with a current one, but the signal-processing algorithm is untouched.  The hardware signal flow is also unchanged, although I upgraded the mixer for increased possibility and flexibility. 

I perform the piece by changing the mixer settings and SuperCollider patch. The SuperCollider patch consists of eight effect processors, and I turn on and off those effects in different combinations. It is much like playing a guitar with a pedal board. Over the past 11 years, I have bought a “new guitar” but am using the “same pedal.” The sonic possibilities remain the same, but how I play the instrument, the style in other words, has changed.  

Download and run the SuerColider patch for Large Intestine as a reference. You can test it using a mic or any other instrument.

Large Intestine SuperCollider FileDownload

Style

I observed the following differences in the 2013 and 2024 versions of Large Intestine. 

20132024
Mostly slow and gradual parameter changes Mostly fast and abrupt parameter changes
I discover things on stageI present previously experienced sounds
The mixer supports computer soundsThe computer supports mixer sounds
Long duration (10+ minutes)Short duration (less than 8 minutes)

When I was a no-input beginner, I could not make quick transitions and variations. In the 2013 version, I treated the mixer as one of many sound sources that could pass through signal processors. Like its umbrella project, 100 Strange Sounds, Large Intestine featured my SuperCollider capacity. The 2024 version shows that I reduced the dependency on the computer part. I also learned to say more within less time.

Gained confidence also changed the performance goal. I make a one-sentence goal when I am improvising solo. My goal for Large Intestine used to be “Let me figure out what no-input mixer can do on stage,” as it delighted me to discover the mixer’s unique sound and its augmentation by the computer. 11 years later, there are much less delightful discoveries in the piece. But I can now expect the sound I can create. The current  motto is, “Let me show you my favorite no-input mixer moments I learned previously on stage.” 

Evaluation

I am my work’s biggest supporter and critic, but that does not help my career development. The audience ultimately decides the longevity of the work. Large Intestine was fortunate to be liked by the audience on many occasions. It received some honors, such as being included in the SEAMUS CD series (2015), a peer-reviewed annual album released by the Society for Electroacoustic Music in the United States. There were multiple invitations to perform at different venues, and it became an integral part of my solo performance practice. The positive feedback from presentations motivated me to delve further into the no-input mixer world. I composed the following pieces based on the learnings from Large Intestine.

There are also clear limits to Large Intestine and my solo electroacoustic improvisation. I don’t expect other performers to play Large Intestine as it lacks score or instruction. The experience and joy I had with the piece are not transferable to other performers. This bothered me. I tackled this issue by teaching others how to play no-input mixers. I currently enjoy organizing no-input mixer workshops and no-input ensemble sessions. The mixer is a great introductory instrument for electronic music performance.

Motivation Quadrants for Musicians

Influences, Research, , , ,

What motivates me to write or practice a piece? As I grow older with less time and energy, I must strategize what to do for the next research or creative activity. The decision-making process is multidimensional, but a simplified guideline helps me. I ask two questions before I commit to a project.

  • Do I want to do it?
  • Do I know how to do it?

Answers to these two questions yield four degrees of motivation plotted as four quadrants in a graph. My goal is to identify in which quadrant I start the project so that I can identify the level of motivation and amount of work. I also find that the answers to the above questions change at the end of the project, sometimes.  

I am most eager to work on a project that starts in Quadrant IV and ends in Quadrant I. Changing the “I don’t know” axis to the “I know” axis takes time and energy, but that process is what being a researcher, artist, and student is all about. Learning SuperCollider was an IV-I move. Going to graduate school to be a teacher was IV-I. Improvising on a no-input mixer was IV-I. Spending a few months of the COVID quarantine time to learn Mark Applebaum’s Aphasia was IV-I. 

Quadrant IV is also a fandom area. While some pieces move from VI to I, like Aphasia or Alvin Lucier’s Music on a Long Thin Wire, I don’t mind Jeff Mills’ Exhibitionist Mix 3 and Bach’s music staying in Quadrant IV. Discovering and admiring awe-inspiring pieces is what being a researcher, artist, and student is all about.  The permanent Quadrant IV pieces become motivations for new pieces as well. Cobalt Vase is my homage to Exhibitionist, and 847 Twins is my Bach fan art.  

Ideally, all projects should end up being in Quadrant I, where I am happy to do the work with the skills I know. Realistically, many works fall into quadrants II and III. Dismissing them is not always possible, especially when the projects involve benefits like money, graduation, future opportunities, etc. Some projects in Quadrant III move into Quadrant I through education and repeated experience. Many dance and sound installations were my III-I projects because I learned more about the benefits of collaboration as I got more experience and studied more. Witnessing students doing the III-I move is equally exciting as students doing the IV-I move in my music technology classes. 

In contrast to the III-I or IV-I move, II-I moves are much rarer. Projects in Quadrant II often stay in Quadrant II, and they involve extra motivational factors, like deadlines or funding, to accept and finish the project. Some projects move from Quadrant I to II due to burnout or changed interest. Such regression, however, was not always bad, as it pointed me to new artistic/aesthetic directions. I am currently not focusing on further developing free improvisation skills as I feel the plateau or burnout. This condition led me to make notated electronic music less dependent on an individual’s improvisation skills. My notated electronic pieces gain more performance opportunities nowdays, and I am happy to present both improvisational and no-improvisational pieces in a show. Music career is cumulative. 

Evaluating the need to start a project by asking two simple questions with four possible answers clarified my thoughts.  Perhaps I could extend this to plot listener reactions. I want the audience, colleagues, or commissioners to feel Quadrant I when they listen to my piece  (I want to play it, and I think I figured out the technology!). The audience feeling Quadrant IV could be good (I don’t know how he’s making that sound, but I want to try!), especially if they are scholars or performers. Learning opportunities and capable institutions abound for the audience in Quadrant IV. I hope my pieces do not fall into Quadrants II and III. 

Endorsement – SuperCollider for the Creative Musician

Announcement, Research, ,

I wrote a book endorsement for SuperCollider for the Creative Musician by Eli Fieldsteel. 

“SuperCollider for the Creative Musician teaches how to compose, perform, and think music in numbers and codes. With interactive examples, time-saving debugging tips, and line-by-line analysis in every chapter, Fieldsteel shows efficient and diverse ways of using SuperCollider as an expressive instrument. Be sure to explore the Companion Code, as its contents demonstrate practical and musically intriguing applications of the topics discussed in the chapters.“

The endorsement had a word count limit. This book deserves a more detailed review. I agree with Fieldsteel’s statement in the Introduction that the book is a  “tutorial and reference guide for anyone wanting to create electronic music or experimental sound art with SuperCollider.” Musicians, media artists, and programmers will learn the fundamentals and practical applications of SuperCollider by reading the book from cover to cover. I especially recommend this book to musicians seeking the connection between creative coding and their artistic practice. Electronic musicians learn to express musical ideas in numbers and symbols when they code music.  Coding trains users to think of music differently as a result, and the author does an excellent job of teaching how to do so. 

Fieldsteel’s expertise in composing, performing, and teaching SuperCollider for over a decade is evident in every chapter. The author correctly anticipates common beginner challenges and provides the most efficient solutions. I love Tip.rand sections dedicated to troubleshooting and debugging. They are essential in increasing productivity and decreasing the frustration of learning a new environment. The book’s biggest strength, as demonstrated in Tip.rand, is its accessibility. The language, style, and examples do not assume that the readers have previous programming, music synthesis, or audio engineering experience. Included figures, tables, and example codes are also effective and pedagogical. I was happy to see that the printed codes’ font is identical to the default font of SuperCollider IDE.  It reconfirms the author’s effort in creating inviting chapters to learn a language with a considerable learning curve.  

I spend the first month of my SuperCollider class helping students overcome the initial steep learning curve. The book will dramatically reduce the time and frustration of going over that hump. I don’t think other existing SuperCollider resources will help as much as Fieldsteel’s book for that purpose.