Adambrinkmann's Blog

Text Functions was a task created for the module Musical New Media. The proposed outcome of this task was to make aware three functions of text as either information, typography/design and also abstract shapes. Various techniques were used including shape and motion tweening and also breaking apart letter and words to add effect. I decided I could create a promotional video for myself in this task in which I would have different letters bounce and rebound off each other to spell out my name. I also recorded and found some sounds to add a sound design perspective to this task as well as creating an orchestral composition for the later stages of the video.
Video below coming soon…..

So a few weeks ago now I attended a game making event with some 3^rd year degree students on the game making, visual effects and animation degrees, the aim was to make a basic game in 12 hours. We had an introduction by two people from an independent games company who showed examples of the type of game each group should be working on. We were only allowed to use 2 buttons per player which narrowed down the type of game we could make. We then had to form our own groups in which we then discussed the type of game we would make. Craig, the concept designer in our group basically had an idea of a joisting type game, but after the discussion with the rest of the group we decided on a game that would eventually be called ‘Sumo-Bash’. I think this was also a more open game for composing and sound design as well.

The game was going to feature two slopes, one either side of the screen. Separating the two slopes would be a river and the aim of the game was to get your sumo down the hill and jump without going into the water. We also decided to add in floating bonus points which would include a bowl of rice and a sandwich. There is also pink pants which increases mass which means your sumo wont be able to jump as high. This would be based on a button bash type game, so if the player button bash’s faster they will gain more speed going down the ramp. It is also possible to button bash to jump.

So When we first started working on the game I started to compose an orchestral composition which seemed very intense for the unserious type of game it is. After thinking about it we decided this could be an intro for the game. I carried on to compose game-play music, intro’s for each sumo and game winning music. After I had completed the music I had to wait as the others we still working on the visuals and the mass of different objects within the game.

When it was time to put the sound in through code we only had about 40 minutes left and we only managed to program the game-play sound as well as some sound effects for when the sumos hit each other in the gameplay.

Overall it was a very interesting day and it was a good experience working in a team on a project like that. I also enjoyed the target of trying to compose all the music in a day which I thought was going to be harder than what it was.

You can play the game at this url:

http://www.rickyhodgson.com/sumo/sumo.html

Red sumo controls are:

Q = Button bash to roll/move quicker

W= Jump

Blue sumo controls are:

P = Button bash to roll/move quicker

O = Jump

Here is all of the music I composed for the game, some was and some wasn’t used

Over the christmas period I worked on some new compositions to try and get enough material to put together a show-reel of some of my work so far. With music for films/games in mind I composed various amounts of music in which I have produced a showreel. Many composers have inspired me with some of these compositions such as mariusz jasionowicz, Richard Jacques, Jesper Kyd, Joris de Man, Michael McCann and Tim Larkin.

All the clips of the compositions in this showreel below were composed using Supercollider.
Anyway here is the showreel

Since our last performance in front of the other laptop orchestras, Matt Hollis, Gabriel Halford, Jason Leech and myself went away and each recorded our individual piece. We then imported each file into logic in which we synced up all the files in time. We done this, so that by going into the next Laptop Musicianship lecture we would already be prepared with all our files imported into logic, then we would be ready to test our piece over the speakers in the lecture room. When the Laptop Musicianship lecture came along Julio was also very interested in playing our piece through the speakers, as each member from my orchestra would have a designated speaker. Whilst listening it was very interesting to hear how I perceived the piece compared to when we played the piece live through the laptop speakers. The piece had very deep moments and at times seemed very intense and I was impressed with what results we had so far.
After playing our piece to the rest of the groups we were then shown how to pan different tracks to different speakers.

We started by panning the start of Jason’s track coming from the back left and back back right speakers to the front left and front right speakers which gave a good perception as the track started to build up. I think we got a bit carried away after this as we panned a lot of things circling all four speakers which on some parts of the piece was nice but overall it sounded very messy. We went back over this and decided to circle certain parts of Gabriel’s piece as he had some good things which built up and it had a good effect on this.

We also used the volume tool to adjust certain parts of the tracks which were too loud.

We also added limiters on each members track as when it was played over the speakers certain parts would peak. The limiter took a lot of the dynamics of out the piece but I think overall it hasn’t taken too much away from the overall piece. We added some chorus onto my track as it gave a really effect and just made everything fit together more nicely. We also added some reverb onto Gabriel track which brought a different edge to the piece as it took the edge off some of the sounds he created.

Overall I think our laptop orchestra piece has been very successful although I would change some things if I done it again. I would re-record the whole piece as I think each member could of played it slightly better and I would of spent more time panning and organising the volume in logic.

Supercollider Composition 2 by brinky-1

I have slightly changed my Supercollider composition as before I didn’t really have any tempo change. After experimenting with different things I composed a tempo change which fitted well, as before I couldn’t compose anything which worked well. If I could change anything about my composition I would try and include more scales and different tempo changes as I think my piece doesn’t change into other sections as well as what I would I’ve liked it to. I have already started working on two other Supercollider compositions as I know I can create much better compositions using this software.

MIDIClient.init;

m = MIDIOut(0, MIDIClient.destinations.at(0).uid);

(

(
//Persian Santoor
(Pdef(\santoor,
Pbind( \type, \midi, \midiout, m,\chan, 0,

\scale, [0,2,3,5],

\degree, Pseq([2,10,7,8,2,10,7,8], 1),

\dur, Pseq([0.25, 2.0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.25, 0.50, 1.0, 0.50, 0.25], 9.25*1),
\db, -3)
)
);

//Persian Santoor2
(

Pdef(\santoor2,
Pbind( \type, \midi, \midiout, m,\chan, 0,

\scale, [0,2,3,5],

\degree, Pseq([2,10,7,8,2,10,7,8], 2),

\dur, Pseq([1.0, 2.0, 0.50, 0.25, 1.0, 2.0, 0.50, 0.25], 9.25*2),
\db, -3)
)
);

//Persian Santoor3
(Pdef(\santoor3,
Pbind( \type, \midi, \midiout, m,\chan,0,
\scale, [0,2,3,5,7,11],
\degree, Pseq([4,8,7,2,3,11]-1,  2),
\octave,5,
\dur, Pseq([2.0, 1.0, 1.0, 2.0, 2.0, 1.0, 0.50, 1.0], 9.25*2),
\db, -6)
)
);

//latin baby bass1
(

Pdef(\bass1,
Pbind( \type, \midi, \midiout, m,\chan, 1,
\dur, Pseq([2.0, 0.25, 0.25, 2.0, 2.0, 1.0, 1.0, 2.0], 9.25*2),
\scale, [0,2,3,5,7],
\degree, Pseq([4,6,7,10,6,7]-1, 2),
\octave, 3),
\db, -1)
)

);

//violin
(

Pdef(\violin,
Pbind( \type, \midi, \midiout, m,\chan, 2,

\scale, [0,2,3,5],

\degree, Pseq([2,10,7,8,2,10,7,8], 2),

\dur, Pseq([0.25, 0.50, 2.0, 1.0, 0.25, 0.50, 2.0, 1.0], 9.25*2),
\db, -6)
)
);

//lute
(Pdef(\lute,
Pbind( \type, \midi, \midiout, m,\chan,6,
\scale, [0,2,3,5,7,11]+1,
\degree, Pseq([4,8,7,2,3,11]-1,  2),
\octave, Prand([5,3], inf),
\dur, Pseq(([1.0,1.0,0.50,2.0,2.0,1.0,1.0,2.0,0.50,0.50]*0.50), 11.50*4),
\db, -6)
)
);

//latin baby bass2
(

Pdef(\bass2,
Pbind( \type, \midi, \midiout, m,\chan, 1,
\dur, Pseq(([1.0,0.50,1.0,1.0,2.0,0.50,0.50,1.0,1.0,2.0,0.50,0.50]*0.50), 11.50*4),
\scale, [0,2,3,5,7,11]+1,
\degree, Pseq([4,8,7,2,3,11]-1, 2),
\octave, 3),
\db, -1)
)

//pluck3
(Pdef(\pluck3,
Pbind( \type, \midi, \midiout, m,\chan,5,
\scale, [2,3,5,7,11]+1,
\degree, Pseq([4,8,7,11]-1,  4),
\octave,6,
\dur, Pseq(([0.25,0.50,1.0,1.0,0.50,0.25,0.25,2.0,1.0, 0.50,1.0,0.50,0.25,0.50,0.25,2.0]*0.50), 11.50*4),
\db, -5)
)
);

//Persian Santoor6
(
Pdef(\santoor6,

Pbind( \type, \midi, \midiout, m,\chan, 0,

\scale, [0,2,3,5],

\degree, Pseq([2,10,7,8,2,10,7,8], 2),

\dur, Pseq([0.50,0.25,0.50,0.25,0.25,0.75,0.25,0.50], 3.25*2),
\db, -3)
)
);

//Persian Santoor7
(Pdef(\santoor7,
Pbind( \type, \midi, \midiout, m,\chan,0,
\scale, [0,2,3,5,7,11],
\degree, Pseq([4,8,7,2,3,11]-1,  2),
\octave,5,
\dur, Pseq([0.25,1.0,0.25,0.50,1.0,0.25, ], 3.25*2),
\db, -6)
)
);

//latin baby bass3

(Pdef(\bass3,
Pbind( \type, \midi, \midiout, m,\chan, 1,
\dur, Pseq([1.0, 0.25, 0.25, 1.0, 0.50, 0.25], 3.25*2),
\scale, [0,2,3,5,7],
\degree, Pseq([4,6,7,10,6,7]-1, 2),
\octave, 3),
\db, -1)
)

//Ethnic pluck
(Pdef(\pluck,
Pbind( \type, \midi, \midiout, m,\chan, 5,

\scale, [0,2,3,5],

\degree, Pseq([2,5,10,8,5,6]-6, 1),

\dur, Pseq([2.0,1.0,0.25,1.0,0.50,0.25,0.25,0.25], 9.25*1),
\db, Prand([-6,-7, -8, -12, -7], inf)
))
);

//flute
(Pdef(\flute,
Pbind( \type, \midi, \midiout, m,\chan,4,
\scale, [0,2,3,5,7],
\degree, Pseq([4,8,7,11]-1,  1),
\octave,4,
\dur, Pseq([2.0, 0.50, 1.0, 1.0, 0.50, 2.0, 0.50], 7.50*1),
\db, -3)
)
);

//Persian Santoor5
(Pdef(\santoor5,
Pbind( \type, \midi, \midiout, m,\chan, 0,

\scale, [0,2,3,5,7],

\degree, Pseq([4,8,7,11], 2),

\dur, Pseq([1.0, 0.25, 2.0, 0.25, 0.50, 1.0, 0.50, 2.0, 0.50, 1.0, 2.0], 7.50*2),
\db, 4)
)
);

//Tibetan singing bowls2
(Pdef(\bowls2,
Pbind( \type, \midi, \midiout, m,\chan,3,
\scale, [0,2,3,5,7],
\degree, Pseq([4,8,7,11]-1,  4),
\octave,6,
\dur, Pseq([0.25, 0.25, 0.50, 0.25, 0.50, 0.50, 0.25, 0.25, 0.50, 0.50], 3.75*4),
\db, Prand([-6,-7, -8, -12, -7], inf)
)
);

//violin2
(Pdef(\violin2,
Pbind( \type, \midi, \midiout, m,\chan, 2,

\scale, [2,5,4,8,6],

\degree, Pseq([3,4,9,6,5,10,7,8], 2),

\dur, Pseq([2.0,1.0,0.50,1.0,0.50,1.0], 8.00*2),
\Octave, -1),
\db, Prand([-6,-7, -8, -6, -7], inf)
))
);

//lute2
(Pdef(\lute2,
Pbind( \type, \midi, \midiout, m,\chan,6,
\scale, [2,5,4,8,6],
\degree, Pseq([3,4,9,6,5,10,7,8]-1,  2),
\octave, Prand([5,6], inf),
\dur, Pseq([1.0,0.50,0.50,2.0,1.0,0.50,2.0,0.50], 8.00*4),
\db, -6)
)
);

//latin baby bass4

(Pdef(\bass4,

Pbind( \type, \midi, \midiout, m,\chan, 1,

\dur, Pseq([2.0,0.50,1.0,1.0,0.50,1.0], 7.00*2),
\scale, [2,5,4,8,6],
\degree, Pseq([3,4,9,6,5,10,7,8]-1, 2),
\octave, 3),
\db, -2)
)

);

((
Ppar([Pdef(\santoor)],1)
++
Ppar([Pdef(\santoor2),Pdef(\santoor3),Pdef(\bass1)],1)
++
Ppar([Pdef(\santoor2),Pdef(\santoor3),Pdef(\bass1),Pdef(\violin)],1)
++
Ppar([Pdef(\lute),Pdef(\bass2),Pdef(\pluck3)],2)
++
Ppar([Pdef(\santoor6),Pdef(\santoor7),Pdef(\bass3)],2)
++
Ppar([Pdef(\violin2),Pdef(\lute2),Pdef(\bass4)],1)
++
Ppar([Pdef(\pluck)],2)
++
Ppar([Pdef(\flute),Pdef(\santoor5),Pdef(\bowls2),Pdef(\pluck)],2)

).play
)

I am now happy with my musique concrete piece which I have tried to improve several times to try and imitate Pierre Schaeffer. I recorded many different objects at home and then cut up various sections and brought sounds in at different times. I listened to Pierre Schaeffer’s album L’CEuvre Musicale in which some good techniques are used such as the fading of different noises in the piece ‘Andante’ when the classical piano section which eventually fades into some discordant sounds. My first approach to my piece left it with too much of a narrative as I had too many of the same sounds on going through out the whole piece. I eventually started leaving silence in between different sounds which I wasn’t originally doing, and this brought a whole new texture to the piece. After this I created build ups of different sounds, so I would have several sounds with silence in between and then I would suddenly have more things happening at the same time to try and differ the piece from being too predictable to the listener.

you can hear it below

At the end of the most recent laptop musician lecture we were introduced to live recording in ixi Quarks. I new straight way that some interesting sounds could be created in a live atmosphere rather than having some audio already loaded into certain instruments. Live coding could be intriguing if we incorporated some into our laptop orchestras.

Before recording in ixi Quarks audio in must be selected from the utilities tab. Once the audio in utility has appeared the input has to be changed from 1,0 to 2,3 otherwise feedback will occur whilst recording.

Recorder is also selected from utilities in which the channel also has to be changed from 1,0 to 2,3. This is so that the recorder can record any signal coming through audio in. It is then possible to do some live recording and import the recording into an instrument located in ixi Quarks.

To find the recording, buffer pool must be selected in which the file which has been recorded must be opened up. The file will be in the sounds folder located in the ixi Quarks folder with in applications. It is then possible to select an instrument to run the recording through.

I recorded myself breathing in which I got some really nice ambient sounds after I put it through the soundscratcher instrument. My orchestra have several ideas of how we can include this live recording into our piece which could make it more interesting.

M-log/I-log

I also found this really good video on youtube which was made for Thor Magnusson (ixi software). The video features a test for a usb plugin made by company Owl Project called the M-log which is a device that can be used to control different instruments in ixi Quarks, which I’m looking to purchase very soon. The M-log has different dials which control timbres within the different instruments. By tilting the M-log forward and backwards it alters the pitch similar to how the iphone can be used as a midi device by tilting it in different positions to alter pitch and volume.

Since this previous youtube video has been made a new model called the I-log has been made and you can see the testing of it here.

also check out the owl project website here www.owlproject.com

Last week each laptop orchestra played their piece to the rest of the group which was very successful. Yesterday each group had to play their piece once again to the rest of the group to show any areas which they may of changed to improve on their performance since last week. Each group changed something within their piece to what they had previously played the week before. Again it was very interesting to see these changes in comparison to last weeks lecture since all the groups have greatly improved.

Group 1
Group 1 carried on with their improvisation piece which works extremely well as I think they are the only group to create the whole piece feeding off each others ideas and improvising on the spot. I think this brings an uncertainty element to the music which is different from all the other groups, and its definitely something which I would like to include into my groups piece as we have a set structure.

Group 3
Group 3 improved a lot since last week as they just slightly altered different aspects of their structure and different sounds which brought a whole new edge to the piece. They used a certain technique of having sounds fade in and out dramatically which built up tension in the piece and overall made it interesting to listen to.

Group 4
Group 4 changed a lot to their previous piece the week before. This week they unfortunately had a couple of members missing from their orchestra so two of them had to play the whole piece. Considering this they did a great job by improvising with different instruments. They also stopped using the drum loop which was the only thing which let them down this week and through that they had a much more interesting piece.

Group 5
Group 5 used the same principle for their piece as last week, but they did make some significant changes. Last week they started their piece with a fast drum loop which slowed down and everyone was then incorporated into the piece. This week they used a similar process by keeping the drum loop going throughout the whole piece which the speed was then played around with. This gave some nice dimensions to the music and it also built up tension similar to group 3′s but in a different way.

Group 2 (my group)
During the last week since our previous performance in front of the other groups we had a couple of practises in which we discussed possible ideas which we could include for this weeks performance. We thought we could create new sounds and add in new sections to make the piece a bit more diverse. But when we practised this it seemed to get a little messy and certain areas of the piece weren’t as clean as we played the week before. We decided to stick with the structure from last week as it worked fairly well with everyone playing their piece and then certain members of the orchestra fading out.

I have been using the poly machine most with in the laptop orchestra as I like the way I can create a basic rhythm and then gradually add in other notes to build up the piece.
Here are some of the notes which I lay down to start of the piece on the polymachine running through the sample of a talking clock.

As you can see I can gradually add in more and more boxes as the piece moves forward. I tend not to fill too many in as I like gaps in between the different bleeps.

During the practises since last weeks performance I experimented with the predator instrument as this gave some nice random sounds which I thought I could use at the start of the piece to then gradually lead in the poly machine. After this I would cut out the Predator and improvise using the sound scratcher. During practises I have been using distortion and slight reverb on the poly machine as it gave a rough edge to the piece but due to previous practises when all my sound cut out I decided not to chance it during the performance.

Here is the predator instrument which I have been using. I’m not much of a fan of it but I like the random different sounds it brings to the start of my groups piece.

Overall I think our performance this week was steady but not as good as last week. This could be down to the fact that Jason wasn’t in this week so we lost some ambience and our starting cue, but I think we could still improve by breaking down the structure and listening to each other more.

Here is my Supercollider composition
Supercollider Composition 1 by brinky-1