Re: Choreography vs. Composition (and environments)

Nick Rothwell (
6 Jan 1998 14:12:16 -0000

> OK, let's break down the possibilities a bit. I can see at least
> three possibilities, all of which I've tried:
> (1) LIVE: The performer hears/sees the result of translation of
> sensor signals immediately. This is the traditional "feedback"
> composition approach, and lends itself to improvisation.
> (2) REMIX: As above, except the signals are then replayed and the sounds
> and lighting are remapped; this can be just fine retuning of the
> result or can be used to generate completely different output.

If I understand you correctly, in that (1) is immediate and realtime
and (2) is not, then what I would be interested in doing is a live
version of (2). (And it's lot more than remixing in the conventional

> I do exactly the opposite. I record and play with effects live, sometimes
> very strong ones, and adjust my _performance_ to the effects. To me they
> are inseparable, as anyone who has sung with strong reverb will
> understand. The effect makes you sing differently. In the same way
> dancing with live output stringly effects the way you move. So I tend to
> (1) (live).

Fine. But then you've not answered my question. One can still regard
the control data generated by a performance (let me rephrase: DURING a
performance) as an abstraction which can generate (*in realtime*) one
of an infinite number of different outcomes.

(I'm thinking here of another possibility, where both the dancer and
the musician influence the score through a control system; perhaps the
musician performs to set up the control points for the score and the
dancer exercises them.)

         Nick Rothwell, CASSIEL        contemporary dance projects        music synthesis and control

"...but you? You've got a monkey on your back: dedication."