ghosts and monsters: technology and personality in contemporary music || a performer-controlled live...

A Performer-Controlled Live Sound-Processing System: New Developments andImplementations of the Expanded Instrument SystemAuthor(s): David Gamper and Pauline OliverosSource: Leonardo Music Journal, Vol. 8, Ghosts and Monsters: Technology and Personality inContemporary Music (1998), pp. 33-38Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1513397 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 08:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Leonardo Music Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.177 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:42:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1513397?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


TECHNICAL ARTICLE

A Performer-Controlled Live

Sound-Processing System: New

Developments and Implementations of the Expanded Instrument System

David Gamper with Pauline Oliveros

T he Expanded Instrument System (EIS) [1] is a performer-controlled delay-based network of digital sound-

processing devices designed to provide an improvisational environment for acoustic musicians [2]. With the current con-

figuration of the EIS, each performer has appropriate microphones, a computer [3] and a collection of sound-processing electronic devices [4]. Signals from foot switches and

ordinary expression-type foot pedals manipulated by the performer are interpreted by the computer, which then controls the signal routing from the performer's microphones to the sound processors, as well as certain functions of the processors themselves (Fig. 1). Each performer's set-up is referred to as an EIS station (Fig. 2, Color Plate B No. 1). Sound out-

puts from each station are distributed to speakers encircling the performance and audience spaces. The performer sees on the computer screen a display of the available functions to be controlled and their current state (Fig. 3). This display is critical, because many of the functions are controlled by a single foot pedal, which the performer uses to control the desired function. The use of this multi-function pedal helps keep the number of pedals confronting the performer to a minimum. There is also a separate function that allows the performer to store and recall sets of function settings. Al-

though the labels for the functions are necessarily cryptic due to screen-size limitations, performers are able to decode them with a little practice [5].

The EIS emerged from Pauline Oliveros's solo performance and composition work with tape and digital delays, beginning in the late 1950s [6]. One of her interests in devel-

oping the EIS was the effect of multiple delays on tone quality; she observed that as the delayed sounds pile up, a virtual acoustic space is created that colors the sound of the instrument being played. Adding other processing effects such as reverberation or other kinds of ambient effects to delayed in- strumental sounds further transforms the performance space. The experience of improvising using the EIS is diffi- cult to describe, but it is certainly immersive and can be musically stimulating. Although these effects are inherent in playing along with any long audio delay (the seduction of ac- companying oneself is undeniable), the transformations possible with the extensive sound processing of the EIS seem particularly fascinating to many. Over the years, the EIS grew to accommodate the needs of various performers; I was one

ABSTRACT

The Expanded Instrument System (EIS) is a performer-controlled delay-based network of digital sound-processing devices designed to be an improvising environment for acoustic musicians. The EIS emerged from Pauline Oliveros's work dating back to the 1950s. In the last 5 years David Gamper has been developing and expanding the capabilities of the EIS; he describes in this article how performance experience has led to recent technical developments and relates how the current configuration of the EIS has been used in composition, performance and teaching activities. He also dis- cusses why seemingly outdated analog technologies have been re-

such performer. tained in the EIS after adaptation to Oliveros was one of my composi- allow computer control. The core

concept of the current configuration teachers and my thesis advisor ton po to be flexie an at the University of California at San adaptable to many demands, sev- Diego in the early 1970s. At that eral of which are described. time I also participated in her Medi- tation Project, an exploration of meditation technique in relation to music and musicians [7], which she integrated with her series of Sonic Meditations and the development of Deep Listening [8]. I had been working with delays since getting my first tape recorder in the 1960s. A natural partnership formed when I

again began working with Oliveros in 1989 and joined her

Deep Listening Band, performing on piano and wind instruments the following year. At that time, all EIS sound processing was centralized and manually controlled by two performers, vo- calist Panaiotis and me, with other performers (Oliveros on accordion, Stuart Dempster on trombone and didjeridu, and occasional guest musicians) having only limited control of their

primary delays. The other performers sometimes wished they could change parameters or keep them the same when Panaiotis or I changed them. On the other hand, our mixing and routing duties meant that Panaiotis and I were sometimes not able to sing or play when we wanted. Although we experi- mented with various forms of distributed computer control, none proved usable in performance.

When Panaiotis left the group in 1993, it was evident that I could not operate the system alone. This immediate need to distribute control to the other performers drove me to conceive a configuration I could implement relatively quickly using inexpensive stock MIDI equipment. The solution proved worthwhile to Deep Listening Band and was adaptable to many combinations of performers. Since then, I have extended the EIS to provide for guest musicians who have limited learning time, and I have adapted it to various compositional requirements and helped numerous composers and musicians explore it during extended installations and demonstrations.

David Gamper (composer, performer, musician), 491 Broadway #3, New York, NY 10012, U.S.A. E-mail: <[email protected]>.

Pauline Oliveros (composer, performer, musician), 156 Hunter Street, Kingston, NY 12401, U.S.A. E-mail: <[email protected]>.

LEONARDO MUSIC JOURNAL, Vol. 8, pp. 33-38, 1998 33 O 1999 ISAST



- - - - - - - - - -

-

[ MIDI Pedalboard ------ - IL 1 1~1 MIDI . . .

I n n n Interface __ MIDI In/Out to U U U U ------I other stations

Multi- Mic function Level Pedals Pedals

Macintosh ToReson8 Quadra 700

Signal typeth Reson8 Audio Nubus card . .To display)

Serial -------- --.-- MIDI --- ---

Control i

Fig. 1. Block diagram of Oliveros's EIS station; other EIS stations are conceptually similar. The PCM 42 is an analog-controlled digital delay from Lexicon. The PCM 70 is a MIDI-controlled digital effects processor, also from Lexicon. The Reson8 is an eight-processor digital signal-processor computer, shared by all stations but programmed and controlled through a Nubus card in this station's Macintosh computer. The mic and line mixers are sections of a Mackie 1604 with OTTO MIDI control. In other stations, Niche ACMs (each a set of 8 MIDI-controlled resistors that can be mixed to stereo) are used. The MIDI pedal board is a Rolls MIDI Wizard foot-switch board that also converts expression pedals to MIDI continuous controller data. The House Mixer distributes outputs to speakers sur- rounding the audience.

ROOTS OF RECENT TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS

My experience performing with Oliveros and others using the EIS has increased my understanding of how the needs of improvising musicians for control of their sound-processing environment differ from those of more strictly compositionally deterministic systems, even though the technologies may be

very similar and improvisation may play a part in both kinds of systems. The most obvious difference is that in the former type of system, such as the EIS, the performer may want to be able to do anything possible at any possible time, although practical and aesthetic considerations tend to limit the range of possibilities. Improvising with vari- able delays and changing ambiance re- quires intense listening, necessitating a minimal number of distractions caused by technical requirements. In order to have extensive choices when using this

technology, one needs a clear, easily learned user interface. Since most instrumentalists' hands are fully occupied with their instruments, their feet are often the most precise and expressive means of independently operating controllers. The number of controller devices must be kept to a minimum in

spite of proliferating numbers of parameters to control. Scarcity of financial resources encourages the use of exist- ing, inexpensive, mass-produced equipment, with customized devices added only when commercial markets do not provide solutions for coveted features. Since it is unusual for a performer to have continuous practice time on the EIS, we found it important to add functions gradually in order to avoid confus-

ing regular users with a frequently changing interface and configuration.

Since Oliveros acquired her first pair in 1983, the Lexicon PCM 42 digital dis-

play processor has continued to serve as the primary delay sound-processor in the EIS because it provides the warmest replay of acoustic sound of any processor that we know. It also features foot- pedal control over delay time in a way that bends the pitch of the delayed sound. Since the advent of fixed sam-

pling frequencies needed for digital input and output, the PCM 42's combina- tion of smooth changes of delay time and related pitch bending has been designed out of digital delays that offer equivalent sound quality. Until another instrument achieves these features, the PCM 42 will remain our delay processor source of choice. This also means that we are firmly planted in the analog sig-

nal domain and must make extensive use of analog signal routing [9].

In 1991 we added a Reson8 digital signal multi-processor computer [10], which runs a program designed to emu- late some of the effects of multiple PCM 42s. With this emulation we were able to achieve computer control of the modulation functions suggested by the manual controls on the PCM 42. Although we

quickly discovered that the sound quality suffered somewhat, particularly in the case of smooth modulations, there were other compensating features. One such feature is the ability to program complex and/or precise modulations not possible with the PCM 42.

In a previous configuration [11], modulation of the read/write speed of one of the Reson8 delays was controlled

through two functions: (1) a combina- tion of wave shape and depth and (2) the speed of modulation. Similar to what is possible through the foot pedal on the PCM 42, read/write speed modulation has the effect of modulating the pitch of whatever sound is being delayed. Leav- ing the depth and/or speed parameters unvaried can have a static result musi-

cally. The modulation is more interest-

ing when a complex modulation function incorporating random variations is utilized. To this end I programmed various modulation algorithms-some smooth and continuous, some step-wise and discontinuous-among which the performer can choose (LMtype in Fig. 3) and vary some aspect of (LMctrl). The precision of control possible with the Reson8 program allowed me to use just- tuning intervals in two types of step-wise modulation functions. Because these al-

gorithms are modular patches, I can easily modify or replace them. One algorithm (named LightningBox) is actually an editable sequence of the other modulation algorithms (however, it is not editable in performance) [12].

Previous experiments to bring computer control to the vintage PCM 42 delay meant giving up direct analog foot- pedal control, a form of control with which Oliveros in particular has developed considerable technique. Recently, aided by Bob Bielecki's engineering, I designed an interface that may success- fully implement this computer control. This interface, nicknamed the BGBox, is a hybrid digital and analog system that uses MIDI for convenient computer control, while retaining the smooth foot- pedal control that is such an important part of the PCM 42 as the heart of the EIS. Although the number of functions

34 Gamper with Oliveros, A Performer-Controlled Live Sound-Processing System



to control greatly increased with the BGBox, I also added a function for

switching to additional multi-function

pedal displays (the "Switch" function in

Fig. 3) to keep the proliferation in check. Extending hands-free functional control to the PCM 42 has also enabled me to design simplified installations when needed without the more cumber- some Reson8 while not giving up all of its advantages.

I have been circling the issue of "smooth analog control" for much of this section and perhaps now is the

place to make a few additional observations. To date, Oliveros's and my efforts at attempting to duplicate the effect of a foot pedal plugged directly into a PCM 42 have not been successful. I suspect that the digital control parameters we have been able to implement have not been fast enough to be smooth. The technical compromises needed to satis-

factorily render the subjective impres- sion of either "smooth" or "fast" control have resulted in the other quality being degraded too much. Oliveros and I also have not had the resources to develop state-of-the-art custom analog-to-digital controller conversion that would be usable with our particular hardware con-

figuration [13, 14]. There are other areas of investigation

I hope to incorporate in the near future, resources permitting. Our configuration

of foot pedals and switches as performance controllers for instrumentalists can be improved upon. I have experi- mented with small modifications that add some switching capabilities to a stock foot pedal, and Bielecki is investi-

gating instrument-mounted controllers that allow free fingers to be used to control the EIS when possible. The capabilities of the BGBox interface may allow the development of a system that will allow a performer to record and save se-

quences of controller movements for

playback at a later time. It can take sev- eral hours to set up an EIS after it has been packed up for transport, no doubt

partly due to my continuous tinkering with it and unwillingness to settle on a

single configuration. A "plug-in-and- play" system might be possible if the

physical configuration can be improved. But the EIS is sure to continue to evolve and be adapted to its users' needs, with more clarity in the user interface and

transparency of the technology.

RECENT USES

IN PERFORMANCE The core of Oliveros's work is composing through listening; she uses the EIS as a tool to enable that process. Pre-com-

position with the EIS means setting up a

system that is responsive to decisions made by the performer while she or he

Fig. 2. Deep Listening Band performing with the EIS at the Winter Garden of the World Fi- nancial Center in New York City. David Gamper is in the foreground playing into a micro-

phone with his Macintosh laptop computer sitting on the mic'ed piano to his left displaying his user interface. In front of him is his EIS station with equipment rack, small mixer, foot

pedals and foot-switch board. Oliveros and Dempster are to the right at their own EIS stations. (Photo: Gisela Gamper)

is listening at the moment of performance. The resulting music (improvised composition) is not predetermined and

depends on what the composer/impro- viser hears and his/her ability to re-

spond immediately. The EIS serves as a fluid environment for the composer/ performer.

Although I utilize this form in performance with Oliveros and Deep Listen-

ing Band, I am able to quickly try out various configurations of sound processing with the EIS that I then use in some of my own less improvisational music [15]. My choices and decisions in the

process of programming and configur- ing are an important part of my work as a composer.

The current configuration of the EIS has proved to be flexible and extensible in a number of recent performances and recordings by Deep Listening Band (Oliveros, Dempster and myself). For each of the following performances, I was able to adapt the EIS with relatively small adjustments to the programming and patching:

In 1994, pieces by Ellen Fullman and Pauline Oliveros were commissioned for Deep Listening Band and Fullman's Long String Instrument installation [16]. Two week-long residencies allowed Fullman and me to

experiment with adapting the EIS to her unique instrument, which has more than 200 long, thin metal

strings in just-tuning that Fullman strokes with rosined fingers into lon-

gitudinal vibration. Fullman was es-

pecially taken by the ability she

gained with the EIS to bend and sus- tain her tones. However, the mobility she needed to play her instrument made it impractical for her to operate an EIS station. I programmed my EIS station to allow Fullman to use a subset of it that was limited to the functions she wanted to control. Her TexasTravelTexture combined the

acoustically powerful Long String Instrument ensemble with Deep Lis-

tening Band using the EIS, and with Fullman utilizing occasional EIS processing. In contrast, Oliveros's Epi- graphs in the Time of AIDS featured

Deep Listening Band and Fullman as a quartet using the EIS, with the other Long String Instrument play- ers providing a quiet, cloud-like

background. * On 6 April 1996 Deep Listening

Band gave a three-site concert with Oliveros in Chicago, Dempster in Seattle and me in New York linked

Gamper with Oliveros, A Performer-Controlled Live Sound-Processing System 35



over ISDN (integrated services digital network) telephone lines using PictureTel audio and video provided by the Kitchen in NewYork. Oliveros and Dempster each had a small EIS station that could send MIDI

through additional telephone lines to an EIS station in New York, al-

though unrelated technical prob- lems with the phone lines precluded this at the time of the concert. The PictureTel technology introduces

significant sound delays of its own.

Although the delay-based EIS processing was an appropriate match with PictureTel delays, the experi- ences of the audiences (and performers) at the three locations were

interestingly different from one another since the sound from the re- mote locations arrived with different

delay times. * The number of discrete EIS stations

is limited only by available equipment. Although each station can re- ceive microphone inputs from other

performers, we often provide guest musicians with a guest station simpli-

fied as needed for the practice time available (Fig. 4). One guest configuration I originally programmed for baritone Thomas Buckner substi- tuted a set of faders for the volume- control and multi-function foot pedals, allowing him to control these functions with his fingers. This con-

figuration, which I further adapted for switching between faders and

pedals, was used during Oliveros's

large, extended (4 hr, 33 min) Non

Stop Flight concert at Mills College on 16 September 1996 [17]. During the

preceding week I had introduced a number of composers/performers to the guest EIS station, and each

occupied the station at various times

during the course of the concert. The Hub ensemble [18] was also

among the performers. At their re- quest I programmed the EIS system to send foot-pedal data from all the EIS stations to the Hub's network of

computers and synthesizers; they used the data in their performance. In addition, I added a third means of controlling the guest EIS station,

from the Hub's system itself, which could take over control of "EISing" their and others' sounds. Another compositional approach was taken byJoe McPhee for his commissioned work Unquenchable Fire (1997) [19]. McPhee specified that in certain sections Deep Listening Band was to "EIS" the sounds of his quartet (two wind instruments, cello and percus- sion) without Deep Listening Band itself sounding. I distributed the micro-

phones from each member of the

quartet to inputs of Deep Listening Band's EIS stations and added a function to feed these signals into the EIS. (Of course, this hearkens back to the earlier pre-1993 manifestation of centralized EIS control. The earlier com-

positions of Oliveros's Pauline's Solo and my David's Solo [both 1994], usually performed in succession, utilize variations of this feature. Each piece features the named performer sound-

ing and using his or her EIS station, with the other performer gradually adding additional processing through his or her own EIS station.)

Fig. 3. Macintosh computer screen read-out of a typical EIS user interface, programmed in Opcode's Max. The upper-left window in- cludes readouts of the volume-control pedals. The lower-left window shows information about presets for the multi-function pedals. The middle and right windows are displays for the two multi-function pedals displaying the last values of each function and the function being controlled.

r File Edit New Max Font Windows Options

'- **QuadraRollsCon [LPed I 0MIDIPgm] -I--F = [RPed42BGControls] =I il

, Left ~ L70prg ProgrammT T RMtype [Just andom Pedal JSJJJI 2 R70ctl I RMctrl F

Rg _ [I R8-L70 ORdelaTi-O O 1] Pedal IJJ2 Switch Control &tR8&70 __ Oi LsMte mooth DrunkmJ 42->42 IR->Au typLNtype 2 Aux->L

LMctrl Fi I AMtypeloff I~ ~~~~~~~noff =, r |Lfdbck I Ip AIctrl AMctrl of

SLEFT RIGHT MfIC LdelaTi Fr 11750 1 Afdbck Il [PresetSender] wia |,Left

Default i init.lt Default is init.rt i -Mic AdelaTi 0I I

RECALL SAVE RECALL SAVE Ped Out[ | I/. | Store [, Store Hu--t-Hst

6 I Load 3 | LoadHun st Lft Presets Rght Preset INIT LEFT 73 INI RIGHT68

INIT RIGHT-8


? B 7



u 1 i t 1 sa-ve and recall lo I ti setsof PCM 70*3 1 3 5 7

P eda I programs here 2 4 6 8 _Pedal ^a2 4 6 8 jjjj'~ 1D IB 1

Control Mode

REBEM Faders Faders Port 14

'70Prg I[jConcertHall I

7OCont - :70Sr~ R8 70 S r c 42

ModTyp

Feedbakl R8DelTi- 11184

Volume Volume

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~ is

.-..i IL Hunt Lastl

INIT Mu ti Pedal 0

Fig. 4. Macintosh computer-screen read-out of a typical, simplified EIS guest station programmed in Opcode's Max. Display and functions have been restricted to a single multi-function pedal (right window), but control of the functions can also be switched to a MIDI fader box for a performer with a hand free.

RECENT USES IN DEMONSTRATION AND EDUCATIONAL SET 1INGS

The EIS has proved itself in public demonstrations and in study and exploration. When a musician, composer or even a musically untutored child has the

opportunity to experience the immersive sound processing of the EIS, it seems to lead many to new modes of listening and musical interaction. I am sure this is a result of its long development and re- finement as a working musical instrument, grounded in Oliveros's aesthetic, with input from a wide variety of com-

posers/musicians. Where appropriate and logistically

possible at Deep Listening Band con- certs and other events where we are us-

ing the EIS, we sometimes have an

"open mic" time before or after the concert. Children seem most creative and interested in publicly making sounds and hearing them transformed by one or more of the performers. The immediate feedback of being surrounded by one's own delayed sound, whether ma-

nipulated further or not, can be exciting and enlightening. At one event, ajaw harpist filled the space with what developed into beautiful soulful music, a re-

suit far beyond idle noise making. At another, a child turned a spoken story into a drama with sound effects and music.

These "open mic" demonstrations are also opportunities for us to demystify the technological processes we are using in concert. We have always wanted performing with the EIS to be accessible to audiences as well as to composers and musicians. There is no reason for this means of sound transformation to be obscure or esoteric. We try to keep the

technology as transparent as possible; familiarity is one means to that end. The

practice of Deep Listening that Oliveros has developed (and for which the band is named) is inclusive and melds the performer with both the performance environment and the audience as fellow lis- teners. When the audience becomes familiar with the sometimes surprising sounds coming from the speakers all around them, they can move beyond the

novelty and connect with the music. In November 1997, I installed the EIS

at Mills College in Oakland, California, where Oliveros was teaching for the se- mester. During a weekend "Composing a Career" conference sponsored by the

Bay Area Women's Philharmonic, I dem- onstrated the EIS to small groups of

composers and, in the week following,

worked with three advanced music classes and many individual students and local composers. Oliveros and I noted a number of interesting observations that coalesced during this residency.

Although everyone needs some period of instruction, even musicians with no experience with sound-processing technology are able to learn to operate an EIS station. Once they reach a basic level of proficiency, they proceed to ex-

plore fascinating and varied avenues of music making. Kurt Erickson, a com-

poser/performer at Mills college wrote to us:

With some initial trepidation, I recently had the opportunity to work with the EIS and I must relate how quickly those intimidations vanished once I started working with it. The thing that surprised me the most about the system was its accessibility and opportunity for immediate artistic gratifi- cation [20].

Using the EIS for multiple delays, feedback loops and long reverberant ambient processing, a performer can extend and expand musical materials. One can produce a lot of material from

simple sound sources. A composer dis- closed to me at the beginning of a ses- sion that due to a long illness he had not

Gamper with Oliveros, A Performer-Controlled Live Sound-Processing System 37

r;rfiqr --- - - 1 I 1 lli rnnA1 hlP1- rF w -X I-~~~~DY' _C?L~Y I~ IL

v

i-

ilw

wrrlrrsP1

,u,est DG subset

'j- 5S1

3? t

n D?l! [ GuestMulti7Pgm] - I=

1iInf Rep - - I



been able to practice any of his instruments for more than 15 minutes at a time. He had previously had limited ex-

perience with the EIS and wondered if it could function as a sort of prosthesis. I left him after the training period and returned an hour later to find him still

playing. Fortunately, the person with the

following appointment did not appear and he was able to continue for another hour and a half. He seemed elated that he had been able to make music again for an extended time.

Another composer/performer, saxo-

phonistJohn Ingle, wrote us:

I am a skeptic when it comes to electronic processing of the acoustic sound of my saxophone. While I am interested in electronic music, I have usually been disappointed in the sound quality when I have had my sound processed in a real-time performance situation. Be- cause of my interest in resonance, the harmonic series, and difference tones, I was eager to test the EIS. As an avid im- proviser, I found the EIS to be full of immediately gratifying musical possibilities, all in the "moment at hand" rather than through preconceived structures. In improvising with delay units, one must immediately deal with the preceding moment, or musical ges- ture. This can be a great tool for ear training, playing with a linear rhythmic pulse, and concentration [21].

Because of Oliveros's and my experi- ences at this and other residencies, we decided to implement a small, perma- nent EIS installation at the new Studio at Deep Listening Space in Kingston, New York (owned by the Pauline Oliveros Foundation), which was possible due to the development of the new BGBox PCM 42 MIDI interface. I am

developing a self-guided tutorial to in- troduce composers and performers to the various control functions and overall

operation of the interface. I also plan improvements to the programming interface that will allow experienced users to experiment with designing their own modulation algorithms and modulation

sequences, which could then be applied to appropriate control parameters. Many have expressed interest in such a

facility, and we expect that a wide variety of compositions and performances will come from it.

References and Notes

1. The EIS is a project of the Pauline Oliveros Foundation. The name "Expanded Instrument Sys- tem" is trademarked by the Pauline Oliveros Foun- dation, Inc.

2. Pauline Oliveros and Panaiotis, "Expanded In- strument System (EIS)," Proceedings of the Interna- tional Computer Music Conference (Montreal: ICMC, 1991) pp. 404-407.

3. We use Macintosh computers running Opcode's Max programming environment. Max allows me to build displays quickly for the performer as well as program higher-level functions, such as modulation algorithms and complex multiple-control outputs, from a single controller.

4. We always use a Lexicon PCM 42 digital delay as the first sound processor in the system. Other sound processors we use are Lexicon PCM 70 or 80 reverberation units and the Reson8 multiple digital signal- processor computer running a delay program. The single Reson8 is shared by all musicians through four channels AD/DA (analog-to-digital/digital-to-analog) conversion. Other devices, such as an automated Mackie 1604 mixer and Niche ACM MIDI-controlled amplifiers, provide for microphone preamplification, gain control and signal routing and mixing.

5. More technical information can be found on the EIS Web site: <http://www.artswire.org/pof/ EIShome.html>.

6. Pauline Oliveros, "Acoustic and Virtual Space as a Dynamic Element of Music," Leonardo Music Jour- nal5 (1995) pp. 19-22.

7. Pauline Oliveros, "On Sonic Meditation" and "Meditation Project," in Software for People: Collected Essays 1963-1980 (Baltimore, MD: Smith Publica- tions, 1984) pp. 138-164.

8. Oliveros writes: "The basis for all of my work as a composer/performer is a practice created for myself which I call Deep Listening. It began with a meditation that came to me in 1957: 'Listen to ev- erything all the time and remind yourself when you are not listening.' After 41 years of this practice I am still learning about listening." More information on Deep Listening can be found at <http:// www.deeplistening.org>.

9. For a description of the Lexicon PCM 42, see Oliveros [6] p. 21.

10. Jean-Baptiste Barriere, Adrean Freed, Pierre- Francois Baisnee and Marie-Dominique Baudot, "A Digital Signal Multiprocessor and a Musical Appli- cation," Proceedings of the International Computer Mu- sic Conference (Computer Music Association, 1989) pp. 17-20.

11. See Oliveros [6] p. 22.

12. The LightningBox modulation algorithm was inspired by Oliveros's piece The Lightning Box. See Oliveros [6] p. 21.

13. The recent addition of digital signal processing to the Max program coupled with an analog-to-digital input card with frequency response down to zero may allow a solution. Information on David Zicarelli's MSP is available at <http:// www.cycling74.com>.

14. Our optimism about finding solutions remains

intact. Readers are welcome to contact me to dis- cuss ideas at <[email protected]>.

15. Excerpts from some recent works are at <http:/ /www. artswire.org/dgamper>.

16. Oliveros's Epigraphs in the Time of AIDS (1994) was commissioned with funding by the Composer's Program of the National Endowment for the Arts. Fullman's TexasTravelTexture (1994) was commissioned by the Pauline Oliveros Foundation, Inc., with funding provided by Meet the Composer/ Reader's Digest Fund, Inc., and the National En- dowment for the Arts. These two works comprise the CD Suspended Music (P0010) (Seattle, WA: Periplum, 1997).

17. The concert was part of the thirtieth-anniver- sary celebration of the Center for Contemporary Music. An article inspired by the event by David Bernstein can be read at <http://www.mills.edu/ LIFE/CCM/CCM_Archives.html> and a CD of excerpts has been released by Music and Arts. (See Discography below. The CDs listed in the Discogra- phy can be ordered from the Deep Listening Cata- log at <http://www.deeplistening.org/dlc/ 21dlb.html>).

18. The Hub is a computer network ensemble whose members (at this performance Chris Brown, Scott Gresham-Lancaster, Tim Perkis, Phil Stone andJohn Bischoff) are all designers and builders of their own hardware and software instruments. The group electronically coordinates the activity of their individual systems through a central computer, the Hub itself, which received foot-pedal data from the EIS and could control the guest EIS station.

19. Unquenchable Fire was commissioned by Deep Listening Band with support from the Mary Flagler Cary Trust; it premiered 9 August 1997 at the Lin- coln Center Out of Doors Festival in New York City in a performance by Deep Listening Band and the Joe McPhee Quartet, with Rachel Pollack reading from her text.

20. Quoted with the permission of Kurt Erickson from a personal E-mail dated 17January 1998.

21. Quoted with the permission ofJohn Ingle from a personal E-mail dated 7January 1998.

Discography: Recordings Using the Current EIS Configuration

Deep Listening Band, Sanctuary, Mode 46 (composed 1993/1994, released 1995).

Deep Listening Band, Tosca Salad, Deep Listening DL 3 (composed 1993-1995, released 1995).

Deep Listening Band and the Long String Instru- ment, Suspended Music, Periplum P 0010 (composed 1994, released 1997).

Deep Listening Band and Guests, Non Stop Flight, Music and Arts CD-1030 (composed 1996, released 1998).

Manuscript received 27 February 1998.




COLOR PLATE B

No. 1. Deep Listening Band performing with the EIS at the Winter Garden of the World Financial Center in New York City. (Lighting by Jason Sturm) Pauline Oliveros is in the foreground with her accordion with clip- on microphones and another mic for voice and small instruments. The equipment rack and automated mixer to her left and foot pedals, foot-switch board and computer monitor in front of her make up her EIS station. David Gamper is to the rear with mic'ed piano and auxiliary mic fed to his own EIS station comprised of another equipment rack, mixer and a laptop computer. (Photo: Gisela Gamper) (See article by David Gamper with Pauline Oliveros.)



ghosts and monsters: technology and personality in contemporary music || a performer-controlled live...

Documents