Week 4 - CC

This weeks task was to make an abstract soundscape of the previously recorded and edited paper noises. Then to represent the sound scape with a piece of paper. So a very abstract week really.

Being unable to really get any time in the lab until today, I've really left it too late, and let me tell you, I won't make that mistake again. I've been having a LOT of problems with this. For starters, ProTools doesn't seem to be able to read any of my files. I don't know if that's my old problem with SPEAR playing it up or what. I can't even open the copies in SPEAR. I've tried changing the format of the sounds to .wav and .mp3 and even .ptf, but the program still can't read it. So basically I'm in trouble because if I can't even get my sounds into ProTools, I'm not going to be able to make a soundscape obviously, and of course, can't make a representation of it with the paper. I'm very frustrated at the moment. Maybe it's just me, but I can never get anything to work. I'm going to come in on friday or something for this weeks task so I'm not leaving it late, and if I have these problems I can work it out. Definately going to have to see Christian to work this out. I'm really over being one of the only people that has trouble with all this to be honest.

Well, just to demonstrate that I DO know what's going on, if only to a small extent, I'll say what I was going to do. From what I understood, the idea was to put all the different sounds in ProTools, and layer it so it made a connection of different sounds as one. Not a very good explanation but it's close to what I meant. I was going to base it on building up from the quieter sounds and adding the different parts until it was all big and climatic, and then taking them away the same way I added them. However, clearly I can't do that. I know that you need to get the new session and then new track and import the sounds and everything, but why can't I actually do it in practise?? I really hope it's the sounds and not me. Maybe if we still use the sounds next week I'll re-record them and start from the word go.

That's that. I've tried to not be stupid, but i can't avoid it, it would seem.

Week 4 - Forum - Collaborations

This was the first week of student presentations in forum, and I think they got off to a good start! Collaborations is an interesting subject to pick, because there are so many different possibilities to choose from. However, most presentations were based on successful collaborations.

The one I'd like to focus this blog on was by David, and involved the collaboration between Michael Karmen and Metallica. Symphonic metal is an interesting concept, especially with a band like Metallica that has complex rhythmic and harmonic patterns. The presentation reminded me of an album I own, which is symphonic Pink Floyd. It differs to the collaboration between Karmen and Metallica in that the end product is Pink Floyd music played in an orchestral arrangement, instead of an orchestra playing with the band.

The arrangements and performance is stunning, and allows the audience to see how intricate the music is. I liked this presentation because hearing metal and rock music played with a symphony orchestra is almost an ironic idea, but seems to work so well.

The other presentation that was especially interesting was Sanad's. He talked about the collaboration of two styles, world and western music. He used the topic to start a political argument, which soon became farily charged. His idea was that the collaborations between world musicians and western musicians should be more equal. As it is, the world musicians change their music to fit western structure and rules to be more commercial. His point was that Western musicians should be adapting as well. I'd agree, but not through a real understanding of the problem. More because I'd like to hear the different styles that could be created through such collaborations.

Looking forward to hearing more opinions from the group! We are a rather opinionated bunch it seems.

Week 4 - AA

This week was an extension of week 2's exercise. It was meant to be the week after, but due to the week swap it all got a bit confused. However, I have done it. Not only that, but I actually think that it makes sense!! That's close to being a first.

The idea this week was to show that we know what's going on with getting the signal from the microphones, to the mixer, to the computer, to the speakers. Despite being a little confused during the lesson, I came back and had a quick look one afternoon and worked it out.

So on my plan, which is mostly based on my session plan of week 2 (I changed the bass and first guitar to D/I to stop the mic picking up the drums as well. A tip from someone else in the class), I basically just made a diagram of the birds-eye view of the recording area. I put the vocalist and his guitar in the dead room, because I'd want the vocals to be pure, and not picking up the other instruments.

One problem though, I'm not sure if I could actually set this up properly. I'd have to have a good go of it, which I intend to do as soon as possible. I think I could probably set it up, but then getting the signal through to ProTools and the computer could be more difficult. Although, I did do it last week, so that has to be a good sign. I think that's all that there is to say. I didn't have any problems with the diagram side of it. Which is always a good thing!

Week 3 - CC - SPEAR

This week's task was another that had me a little dubious about my skills, or lack of. The general gist seems easy. Edit the frequencies of the paper sounds from last weeks exercise in SPEAR to make new sounds. I have in fact managed to do this, if a little late. Of course, there has to be a 'but'. Unfortunately, I can't seem to really navigate SPEAR. I'm hoping it's for some reason not my fault, but let's be honest, it probably is. I'm not doing too well at this. I can't seem to get it to playback the sounds. I've used the playback scrub button on the tools window, with many different combinations of other buttons, but can't get anything to play.

Also, when I upload it to ripway, its only saving the data of it. I don't know if thats right or what. So I figure if I jsut change around the structure and post that, you should be able to play that on a MAC. Maybe. Hopefully. It's not really the point though. I'm supposed to be learning what makes it sound different. Well, I'll get into the computers this weekend or friday or something and try it on there. I think that's going to be the plan from now on, until I get my own MAC. To do the exercises at uni. That would solve a whole lot of problems. OK, so here are the edited versions of my original sounds (also thanks to everyone for giving me hints on how to make the link work. I know what I did wrong now. It was stupid. All fixed!):

I hope I've completed this task correctly, despite yet more computer problems. I'm really starting to worry that my computer problems aren't the computer's fault at all. I need to get into the lab at uni to really work out if I'm having trouble, or if my computer is just a bit confused. So there we go. The sounds, in edited form. I hope it actually sounds half decent, but I won't know until tomorrow or later. Fingers crossed.

Week 3 - Forum

This weeks forum was about defining music. Trying to define music is incredibly hard. It really depends on the individual, but still, even then it's hard to decide what you think. Music can be any sound, or a combination of sounds that is pleasant, or a combination of soudns that has tonality and harmony, or none of these. Personally I find it hard to put a definition on what I believe to be music. It's hard to define it without letting preference get in the way. I mean, as much as I hate american hip-hop and generic pop music, I still acknowledge that it is, in fact, music. That said, I love the spoken word, especially to the backing of music, but are the words described as music? Or is it just the music backing that makes it music.

The activity that we did in forum this week divided the class. I think it's one of those things that you either love or hate. We each had a part that was basically different to everyone elses. I believe there were some double ups, but I don't know for certain. Then the rest of it was basically random. There were high noises, low noises, mid-pitch noises, guitar, bass, weird percussion, and people speaking. The idea was that in the time frame given, we would play a part improvised on what the piece said.

The end result was really weird, but interesting. To be honest, I quite like the effect it made. There were periods of utter noise and cacophony, and then almost silence. The complete removal of any rhythmic or harmonic sense made it hard to view as a piece of music, but it was. It did rather go on a bit, considering it took 45 minutes to do much the same thing over and over, but it actually got to a point near the end where I was actually really into the music/sound/noise.

I thought that the way people were divided over the exercise was really interesting. The way our opinions can vary on something so seemingly simple as this is showing how different individuals can be. It's just that there isn't a way to put a definite definition on music. What sounds appealing to you, or what strikes a chord within you can count as music. And that very much relies on the each persons taste, background, and feelings.

Week 3 - AA - QuickStart

Apologies for this one being late, but I had a fairly hard weekend, with a highschool friend passing away in a car accident. It's going to be hard to come to terms with, but I think I'm back on track now.

This week was based around being able to start up and shut down Studio 2. Laura and I did it together, and actually managed to complete a task without too many hassles, making a nice change. We booked in, and turned everything on, going by the DORA anagram. We almost thought that was everything until Freddie came and rescued us from humiliation. So we set everything up again and attempted to get a signal through ProTools. We put the mic in the dead room and picked up an awful radio station. Getting a signal through to the mixer proved to be no problem, once we'd worked out that I'd pressed the wrong button for Main Mix, quite foolishly. It was all going well, and we thought we'd managed to get through a whole exercise without needing outside help. But it wasn't to be. As much as we tried, we couldnt get the signal from the dead room microphone through to the computer, or in fact to ProTools. It was in the mixer, but didn't seem to be getting any further.

In the end, despite us trying everything we could think of on the mixer, we had to get Peter in to see if he could fix it. Apparently, there was something wrong on the input. It was on +4 dBu instead of -10dBV. So once that was fixed up we were set. The computer was picking up the signal and everything worked. I'm almost completely sure I could work it out again. As long as the basic setup is already done properly.

Week 2 - CC - Paper Noises

Well, this has been a troublesome exercise. The idea was to record 5 different noises made with a piece of A4 paper, record them and then edit them using Peak LE 4. After some confusion, such as an M-Box that wouldn't connect, and various other connection problems I managed to do this. I am now attempting for the second time to post this, as last time it deleted half the words. I don't know why. You'd think it would explain. OK, well here are the sounds. They have been uploaded to an outside site (ripway) and I'm hoping that they link properly.

(it can't seem to post this with this link in the file. This is the direct URL lnk though, so maybe that will still work? In fact none of them work, the tag is broken. I'm hoping that if I just post these URL's you will still be able to find the recordings) That sound was made by punching the piece of paper. I then used Peak to change it around and see what different sounds I could make. The finished product has a reversed middle section, and a changed gain envelope. I wanted to slow it down and hear it in slow motion, but couldn't work out how.

- This sound was made by rubbing the paper on the desk. The only edit I did was to put random fades through it. I found that putting a lot of fade ins next to each other created an interesting effect. This one was hard because any effect I put into it wasn't obvious.

This one was just scrunching the paper quickly. I did it slowly as well because I wanted to see if there was any difference. Again, most of the effects used weren't detectable, but I managed to make an interesting effect by fading in and out around major sound parts, like where the sound was the loudest. It made it choppy, and interesting I thought.

This was the slow version of the scrunch, and to be honest, didn't really make much difference. All I did was invert random sections, which didn't seem to do much n this situation, changed the gain, and added something called a boomerang effect. I still don't really know what this does, but I left it there anyway.

This one was a simple tear down the length of the paper. All I really did to this one was reverse the second half. What I'd hoped for was to have it sound like it was tearing, and then repairing itself, but it wasn't as obvious as I'd hoped.

The main problems I encountered were trying to make the sounds sound different to the originals. Most of the noises were too crackly and unsteady to have any real effect from the gain envelope or reversing. And also, posting this blog is becoming difficult. To start with, I couldnt get the music files to load. Now it's having errors posting what I have here. Next time I think I'll write all this on Microsoft Word so at least it won't delete everything again.

I was surprised that I understood Peak though. Even though it was explained during class, I usually don't familiarise myself with programs like this for a fair while, but I'm getting the hang of it pretty quickly.

Now I'm just hoping this posts properly...

Week 2 - Forum - Originality

This week's forum was based around the idea of originality. Steven Whittington held the presentation and explored the many areas involved in the concept of originality. The basic definition of the original was generally accepted to be something that has never been done before. Questions were raised and attempts were made to answer them, but in the end these decisions can only be made by the individual. Where does originality spring from, what is the value of originality, and can originality be created from the synthesis of already formed elements were questions asked during the session.

Where does originality spring from? Well, according to Steven, from one of two places; innocence or experience. The way I saw it, innocent originality was through no idea or preconception of what music is supposed to be like. Innocent of all the rules associated with music. This makes sense to me in one way, because to the composer, it would all be original. But the music may not be original to outsiders who have heard other music. If the composer is just making music that sounds good to them, and they haven't heard many other styles, then who's to say that what sounds good to them didn't sound good to a composer years before? To put it more simply, two people could have much the same idea completely separate to each other. Is that still a form of originality?
On completely the opposite side of the page, originality could also spring from experience. A person experienced in the rules and standards of music could use that knowledge to create something new and different. Knowing those rules means the composer can break out of those boundaries and create something that he knows is different. However, maybe he would be conditioned to use those rules, and could even use them without knowing. If so, is the product still original? Even if some elements are old rules?

This brings us to the question: What is the true value of originality? Why do we place so much store behind original music? Is it the search for the unknown? Or an attempt to explain yet more using music? Maybe it's just an un-ending search to further push the boundaries of music. As much as I try to think of an explanation, I can't. I think that maybe we just like to hear new things, and to create new things. It makes us feel special.

But how original do you need to be to have your work claimed as original? Does every element have to be completely new? Or can an original work simply be a new way of putting together old ideas? The latter was the impression given by Steven in the forum; that an original work could be anything from a piece of music composed without form or rules, to a mesh of already composed songs in a different format. I like this interpretation best, because it allows for a flow of ideas, without a boundary. Considering the definition of originality, I think something that's never been done before can include a new way of putting old ideas together.

The topic of originality is an interesting one. Although a lot of the questions it brings up just leads to more questions. I think I'll be considering this one for a fair while.

Over and out.

AA - Week 2 - Session Planning

This week in Audio Arts we looked at the preparation needed before a recording session. In particular, we looked at devising a session plan.

The first thing the engineer needs to do before a recording session is make sure it is all planned and can run smoothly. To do this, he or she needs to have a clear idea on what the musician wants from the recording. For example, the style of music, the sound they are looking for, and the instruments used. They would also need to know of any effects the musicians wanted in the music.

Once they have gathered this information it needs to be put into a session plan. I can see that this would make everything faster and more efficient, and makes a lot of sense. The session plan is a record of all the instruments and their microphones.

I decided to use a band that I would like to record as the project later in the year. The band is called The Nameless and is a punk rock band. They have 4 musicians, a vocalist who also plays the rhythm guitar, a bass player, the lead guitarist and a drummer. Because their sound is so grunge and rock, i put emphasis on the drum microphones. Many of their songs are well driven by the bass and drums, so I needed to make sure those two instruments in particular had sufficient microphones. I'd also have to talk to the boys, because sometimes the bass player sings a harmony line. So whether he needed a microphone would depend on the song being recorded. I assumed this one wouldn't need it.

Other notes I would need to remember is that they like to use effects. So I would have to find out what, if anything, they wanted done and allow for that in the plan.

The other points brought up in class involved mike placement. Things like making sure the microphones aren't getting any feedback, or catching the other instruments.

With this session plan, I would be feeding it directly into DigiDesign's ProTools, eliminating the need for the mic amp/EQ/Patching mentioned on the example sheet given to us in class.

MusTech Forum - Wk 1 - Introduction

The first week of Music Technology Forum was basically an information session to let myself and the other first-years know what the purpose of the forum was. It combines all the years, and sometimes the VET and degree students. As far as I can see, the basic formula is that the first half is to talk and discuss problems and interests we have encountered during the week. Having the second and third years there will really help I think, as they have the experience to help with any minor problems or confusion. It’s also good to know who else is doing the program, especially for the extra support.

The second half of the forum is for the presentations. Each week a group of people will present their ideas and research on a certain topic. I assume then that the group discusses the ideas, or at least the presentation is entered into their online blog for comments. The different topics seem interesting, and I have been allocated “Gender In Music Technology”. This is something I have an interest in, being one of the only women doing the degree, and am entering a male dominated field of work. However, I don’t think it is an important issue because I can’t see that a male or female engineer would have many different ideas or styles, considering we’re trained in the same way. Of course, I can use that as part of my presentation. I’m looking forward to hearing other people’s opinions on the topic too.

I like the idea that we mix with the VET students, if only once in awhile, because it’s just another whole lot of people to meet with the same interests. It also builds contacts which might be useful. They might also be experiencing the same problems as me, so that could be another way of working things out without needing to interrupt the lecturers with small matters. I’m looking forward to forum and getting other peoples opinions on certain ideas and topics.

AA1 - Week 1 - Facilities Introduction

The first blog of many is going to be used to describe what we did the first week of Audio Arts. Most wasn't very practical, so we just went through the course outline. It all sounds very exciting, and I'm really ready to get into it. I have almost no experience in the area, so even the small amount we learnt was new to me. Learning the studio protocol was easy, and the rules like the no eating or drinking policy and the booking sheet are already set in my head. All the microphone care was graspable and I can even put away a stand correctly now. From what I've seen so far, which admittedly isn't much, the studio has everything a studio needs. I haven't had enough of an oppurtunity to come to grips with anything yet, but it all seems to be top quality. I'm looking forward to experimenting with ProTools and the other software and hardware that I haven't seen.

The main problematic areas I've seen would be the timing issues. I don't think it will be a problem until the ends of semesters, but it will be hard to fit everyone in for all the time they will want and/or need. The only other problem I can see, is that with so many people doing the course now, the area will be harder to keep organised.