Testing sensor system on a dancer – temporary solution

photo: Haakon Berg Mathisen

What

I will see if I can use a Phidgets-kit on a dancer, it is NOT wireless.

Why

I am waiting for the Eowave-system to arrive from France and I want some progression in the project.

How

I will go trough available sensors and think of possible solutions.

——–

Sensors:

These are the available sensors and my thoughts on using them:

Circular Touch:

photo: phidgets.com

Too Big.

IR reflective (5mm):

photo: phidgets.com

Measures too short distance (max 5mm).

IR reflective (10cm):

photo: phidgets.com

Measures too short distance (max 10cm).

Force sensor:

photo: phidgets.com

This is both small and sensitive enough to work with.

Magnetic sensor:

photo: phidgets.com

Not favorable since the dancer would have to wear a magnet and the distance to where it starts to sense is too short.

Rotation sensor:

photo: phidgets.com

I don’t want the dancer to turn knobs, I want her to dance. I could have made something with some strings and springs connected to the knob, but that seems extremely stupid to me.

Touch sensor:

photo: phidgets.com

Initially a relevant sensor, but as I tried to put it on a glove, it sensed being on the glove as being touched. I even tried with rubber gloves, still it told me it was getting touched just by sitting on the glove. So I can’t use it.

Motion sensor:

photo: phidgets.com

Initially I thought I would be able to use this, but apparently it just senses when there is movement, not on what axis there is movement and how much tilt. That is probably why it is called a motion sensor. Then again, I could use it, but it would not be very clear what it is doing since the numbers I get are quite messy, I would have to try to filter them somehow.

Slider:

photo: phidgets.com

Once again, I don’t want the dancer to turn knobs or slides, I want her to dance.

Joystick:

photo: phidgets.com

Basically a good idea, but too big for this project.

Temprature sensor:

photo: phidgets.com

Cool, but it would be hard to control the temperature instantly based on immediate reactions to what happens in the music.

——–

Wearing the system:

That leaves me with only the force sensor:

foto: phidgets.com

I imagined it would be best if the dancer could press it with her fingers, so I put two of them on each their glove:

photo: Haakon Berg Mathisen

The dancer would have to wear the interface as well, so I put it on an old belt:

photo: Haakon Berg Mathisen

And of course I had to try it on:

photo: Haakon Berg Mathisen

Summary:

It felt quite comfortable wearing it, let us just hope that the dancer feels the same way.

Since this system is not wireless, there is a major challenge to actually dance with it, but since I am no dancer, I didn’t bother even trying to figure out how that would work.

As mentioned, this is just a temporary solution until I get the wireless system from Eowave, then I will put together a more permanent solution.

The most important aspect I want to research with this solution is how I will map the incoming data to the processing of the audio. This setup facilitates the concept of starting and stopping a loop as mentioned in the idea sketch:

The two flexion sensors are to decide when to start and stop the looping and also the initial length of the loop. When the left hand closes (if the dancer is close to the drums) is sets the starting point for the loop/starts recording into the looper, when the right hand is closed the en point is set and the loop starts playing. When both hands are opened again the loop stops.

I am thinking that after starting a loop, if more pressure is put on the sensor, that decides the speed and pitch of the loop.

I will also look for a gyroscope to go with this solution so I can use the rotation of the dancers hand(s) to control parameters like we did with the Eowave-system.

To be touched by music

What:

My thoughts on being touched by music.

Why:

This was an assignment in a course in esthetics.

How:

I will briefly discuss how I get touched by music.

——–

INTRODUCTION:

In the first semester of my master studies, I collaborated with a dancer. We worked to develop a platform for us to improvise on.

It happened at times, sometimes for only a fraction of a second and sometimes for several minutes, that we felt there was no obstacle between us. During these events communication flowed freely, it was for me like I was playing with a clone of myself and the result was perceived very properly and naturally when we studied the video footage we did.

When we think back on the creation of these stretches, it is often that we do not quite remember what we did, I believe this may indicate that all of our focus was in the conduct and communication.

To provoke these moments, which I see as an ultimate music experience, quickly becomes a little artificial because the concept to provoke something natural is contradictory. Nevertheless, after several hours of exercises and interactions, this occurs more frequently. This probably indicates both that we are becoming more familiar with each others expression and that we are more in agreement about what we as a team want to express. But it also results in that we try to re-create such moments from earlier, then it loses much value to us, but it might feel like it happened there and than for an audience seeing us for the first time?

Sometimes, performing can affected me in a positive sense, but when I look at the recording I don’t get the same feeling. The opposite may also happen: I do not feel much when I perform, but it touches me when I listen to it. Therefore I have chosen to divide this reflection into two categories: “To be touched when performing” and “To be touched when listening”:

To be touched when performing:

Being touched when I perform usually involves that I feel the communication between me and the other practitioners as a completely free flow without obstruction, or that the music’s progression is moving to places I did not know about. In these situations, I am not aware of what I play, but know that it is correct. If I try to analyze what I do, everything pretty much falls together, so this situation often requires that all focus is on the overall outcome of the audiovisual performance, not on what I’m doing as an individual.

To be touched when listening:

One of the factors that touches me when listening to music is when I feel that the musicians performing it are being touched by their own performance. When I see they do not show off their technical skills or are trying to hard to make things work, that they with no effort make the music they know so well or is being produced at that moment. These ideas somehow reflects the ideas presented in the book “Effortless mastery” by Kenny Werner. (Werner 1996).

Another factor that touches me when listening, both to live and recorded music is when I get surprised by the progression in the music or that innovative chances are made and the result takes the piece to a new level.

It also touches me when sounds I have never heard before, or never in the context of music appear. Or when something happens that I cannot explain, be it rhythmically, harmonically or texturally.

This might be a curse for many music students, that we are so used to analyzing the music that we don’t manage to listen without interest to the overall outcome of the music and thereby not enjoying it to the same extent as one not trained in the school of music.

SUMMARY:

As you see what touches me is basically when I discover something new or when I feel there is a free flow between the musicians mind and the musical outcome.

Sometimes I get touched both by performing and by listening to the performance afterwards, or more frequently I will not be touched by either of the occasions. It is probably the first example that has to be pursued. Nevertheless, it depends very much upon the circumstances and other external factors.

Is there something that touches everyone always? That must be what we define as “good music”.

Testing sensor system on a dancer – day 2

What:

I will test Eowave’s Eobody2 HF on a dancer.

Why:

I want to see if this system works with our project.

How:

I will have the sensors control simple parameters.

——–

After the first day we met I made some enhancements to the setup.

If anyone is interested, this is the current MaxMSP-patch.

I consider pitch, speed and volume as three essential parameters to investigate further as those are quite relevant parameters in traditional music.

In the first example, by turning her hand around the z-axis, the dancer would control the pitch and speed of a simple drum loop.

The reason why we chose not to separate pitch and speed was that after some intents with just controlling the speed we felt that excluding pitch was very unnatural, probably because they both reinforce each others effect and historically we are used to them being tied together (slow down a tape or a vinyl and the pitch will drop).

The original idea was that I would measure the distance between her hands to provoke this action, but we figured out that it would be easier to “fake” it by turning her hands while pulling them apart. I got this idea after an inspiring session with Alexander Refsum Jensenius who made it clear to me that to actually measure the distance between her hands was harder than I initially thought.

As you can see, we are starting to enjoy this. And the system is behaving exactly as expected.

Next, I made turning around the x-axis control the volume of the drum loop.

It is quite obvious that the dancer found this somehow more boring, but it had to be tested and I think we can get a use for it because the link between the movement and the music is so clear.

And again, the system is behaving exactly as expected.

In the next test, I combined the two above, so turning around the z-axis will change the speed and pitch and turning around the x-axis will change the volume of the drum loop.

This clip is notably longer since the dancer is now inspired to explore the possibilities further and we felt that we were ready do to a test performance.

I wanted to emulate that I was playing the drums since that is where we are going, so instead of the drum loop we used a loop from a solo performance I did almost a year ago.

I also wanted to challenge the dancer with some other parameters. This time she controls delay feedback and pitch. You can see the parameters in Ableton Live being modulated in the upper left corner.

I like this. Of course it gets boring after a while, but I would gladly make this a part of a performance.

If I were to play instead of the loop there would be an extremely direct interaction between the music and the dance: I would be playing with both what I hear and see the dancer do and she would be inspired by what I play and what she hear she is doing with the music.

I have now applied for some funding to buy the sensor system and develop a performance with this setup.

Even though this seem quite poor from an artistic point of view, I feel that we are on the right way to do something quite original and the possibilities of what this can bring are just starting to show.

More on this project when money comes around.

Testing sensor system on a dancer – day 1

What:

I will test Eowave’s Eobody2 HF on a dancer.

Why:

I want to see if this system works with our project.

How:

I will have the sensors control simple parameters.

——–

The dancer:

I was lucky enough to make Hedvig Sønstebø Bang, professional dancer and long time friend, interested in joining the project.

Bang has a BA in jazz dance at The National Academy of the arts (Oslo, Norway) and is currently working as a freelance dancer.

I am utterly grateful for her participation and enthusiasm for the project.

Sensors:

We taped the following sensors to the dancer to control and modulate a simple drum loop:

• Flexion

When she closes her hand she can control the loop.

• Gyroscope

One axis controlling the speed and another the reverb.

Transmitter:

Both sensors are connected to a wireless transmitter attached to the dancer.

——–

First tests:

The fact that nothing sounds like it should and the dancer says that she is getting shocked explains most of the outcome of the first test quite well, but that is how a first test should be, right?

Now the sound is more stable and we got the dancer a glove so that she won’t get shocked. Apparently the flexion sensors that Eowave deliver electrify you if you have the conducting side on your skin, it operates at extremely low voltages so it won’t harm you, but it seemed unpleasant.

Now we tried something more relevant to the project, she looped me saying “blablabla” and then she modulated it.

I think I am starting to see the link between music and dance I have been looking for. As you see at 1:16 the dancer is associating the sounds she is creating with her body.

We felt that the range on the speed is too large: the fastest it way too fast and the slowest might be too slow. Also, the mapping seem to be wrong: both axises are controlling the speed.

——–

Sensor placement:

We wanted to experiment further with the sensor system so we decided to place the gyroscope on other parts of the body. We had no specific method, we just wanted to see if we suddenly would stumble upon something.

In later tests it will be reasonable with a more specific method, but since this was our first encounter with the sensor system, we decided to do it like this.

Now there is no sound in the videos, just an image showing what values we get from the sensors, this might be a little to technical for some, but try to think of it like this:

• All the faders you see jumping up and down I can make control any parameter of the music.
• The faders are jumping up and down because of the movements of the dancer, try to see the link.
• If you try to imagine the faders controlling for example reverb, speed and volume you might understand why we are doing these tests.

Stomach:

We get quite clear readings here, this could definitely be used for something. But as Hedvig made me aware of, dancers doesn’t normally dance just like that, so we did a test with some more movements with the gyroscope still on the stomach.

I should probably have put on some music and let her dance, because this seemed somehow too forced.

But the fact that the faders start moving seemingly randomly when she starts dancing could be an interesting aspect. Maybe that way we will stumble upon ways to modulate sound that would never have been done if it was not a part of a dance.

Knee:

It would be cool to “kick” sound, and this way it is certainly possible.

Apart from that I don’t see any immediate use for a sensor at the knee. Suggestions are more than welcome.

Foot:

A sensor placed at the foot also enables the emulation of kicking a sound. Also it seemed more flexible to have it here than at the knee. Maybe a “straight” foot could enable another set of effects than a “flat” foot. For example a “straight” foot would make the stomach sensor control reverb whilst a “flat” foot would make it control a filter?

Choosing the right sensor system for a dancer

What:

I will determine what sensor system to use.

I have to find the most practical and effective solution for collaboration with a dancer.

Why:

I want to be sure I am using the most convenient system before i involve the dancer.

How:

I will discuss the subject with Alexander Refsum Jensenius.

Alexander Refsum Jensenius (BA, MA, MSc, PhD) is a music technology researcher living in Oslo, Norway

www.arj.no

——–

Sensor system:

Jensenius and I discussed the selection of sensor systems and I will narrow it down to this solution based on the following criteria:

• It has to be wireless.

Dancing with a cable going to the computer would be very inconvenient.

• It cannot be based on Bluetooth.

Jensenius explained to me that he has had bad experiences with Bluetooth based systems. They could be stable for a while, but suddenly on some occasions it wouldn’t work. His theory was that many in the audience might have a cellphone with Bluetooth enabled and that could interfere with the system. Also that the structure of some venues simply wouldn’t allow Bluetooth to operate.

• It cannot be based on WiFi.

Most WiFi solutions demand a lot of power which would mean we would have to recharge the system very often. I considered an Arduino system with an Xbee shield and from these battery tests, it seemed quite good. But I have just barely tried to program an arduino and it would demand too much of my time.

• It has to be flexible.

Since I do not yet know what movements I want to register with what sensors, the system i choose has to be flexible in these aspects.

• It has to be affordable.

I am a student.

The available sensor system which met all these criteria was the Eowave Eobody2 HF (how affordable it is can still be discussed).

Time consumption vs productivity:

The fact that that I am skilled enough to get this system up and running quickly is an important aspect.

As my main focus on my masters degree is to create music, using a lot of time programming a setup would be considered time consumption. This has been one of my main challenges this year, to balance the amount of time used on technology and the amount of time for creating music.

The best way to do this would be to get a system, as simple as it might be, up and running as fast as possible and rather develop it further parallel with the creation of the music and choreography. Then I will know what the system is lacking since I know exactly what I expect it to do. Yet this is a hard situation since I do not know exactly what the system should do before I start creating the music and I do not know exactly what musical possibilities I have before the system is up and running.

It is important that these statements are subjective, you might not consider programming time consumption. Here are some slightly different thoughts on productivity vs. time consumption seen trough the eyes of blogger and programmer Trevor Pascal:

Dancers – concert

As of today we have done two concerts, one at the festival “Serendip” and and one at “Lillestrøm kultursenter”.

The first concert was filmed, and it can be seen bellow:

This was out first public performance as a duo and we were quite excited to see how the outcome would turn out to be.

Analysis:

• 0:05 – The beginning gets another function than earlier since now you can clearly hear the audience calming down.
• 1:25 – I like the length, but I think it should have been cut quicker, not faded out.
• 1:27 – I like this sound as it has the same function as the previous one, but another texture so there is variation.
• 1:46 – Yeah, that worked well. I think that starting with a scape in the middle range, then high range and ending with low range worked well.
• 2:02 – I should be aware of that my body is also a part of the visual aspect.
• 2:20 – I am glad Anette waited for this clear sound that stood out from the previous ones. Yet, this obvious pitching is not favorable. Maybe I should go out and look for a bass stapler or something that makes a similar sound as the pitched down version.
• 2:45 – Anette works out of routine. That is fair enough as this is our first performance and one tends to be nervous in such situations and to stick with what one knows best. Yet I like the room she takes between my “clucks”.
• 2:56 – I can like the decrease in volume, but again, I do not like the following pitching sequence.
• 3:15 – The music is evolving really slowly, yet Anette manages to make it somewhat more interesting.
• 3:36 – NO! I know I keep doing that because I like bass frequencies. Maybe I should try to fade it out, pitch it down and then fade it back in? Or I could get an extremely large singing bowl.
• 3:50 – Anette starts doing the moves I usually “squeak” my cymbals to, I choose not to join her on that, I am doing my own thing.
• 3:53 – I like those small wobbling changes in the “sound carpet”.
• 3:53 – 4:35 – I like this part.
• 4:35 – I notice that Anette is getting more intense and I choose to join on “squeaking” cymbals.
• 4:40 – Anette is done with her “move” and has moved on to something else exactly when I join on “squeaky” cymbals, I think it fits very well.
• 4:51 – It looks like Anette wanted to join that “squeaking” as we had done it before, but since she already did it the usual way with her hands, she does it with her legs. That works quite well, but I would have liked to see what had happened if she stayed in the “new room” she was in at 4:40.
• 5:20 – We start to not follow each other as clearly, mainly as a result of me not getting any sound from my cymbal, that is embarrassing yet inspirational and true.
• 5:50 – Anette keeps on doing her thing even though I stop. It look good.
• 6:15 – I try to sample water I am pouring from my bottle, but I fail. Both because the microphone is not gained high enough and that it is sparkling water and it doesn’t sound as “glugglugglugg” as it should. I feel as a result of that that the music is stagnating. However, Anette comes to my rescue.
• 6:57 – It is way to obvious that that sound was not meant to appear. It looks like I am having focus problem this minute.
• 7:12 – And as a result of my malfunctioning focus, I retreat to old habits, I guess that is what they are for. Since the singing bowl is full of sparkling water, it sounds quite dull, should have thought of that.
• 7:50 – It is easy to tell that we now are more secure, since we have done this before. But we might also be too relaxed. Yet, the audience have never seen this before, is that a valid argument?
• 9:50 – I like the progression until here, but why am I afraid of keeping it going? It sounded good. I might, there and than, have felt that it was too much of a cliche. But I clearly play just to loop it and make music of it later, not to make music with it while I loop it. Bad habit!
• 11:36 – I like the part up to here. By being in the beat, Anette gives more room for the nuances in the music.
• 11:37 – Anette is anticipating something she know I will do since that movement usually goes with the lion roar I trigger with my floor tom. Interesting, yet I do not know if I like it. She might have done that because she thought I would do it there (it would have been quite obvious considering the build-up) and just kept doing it since it would have looked strange if she did it just once, or would it? Anyways, that action shows that we both are affected by what we have rehearsed earlier, that is of course a good thing, but I don’t like it as direct and obvious as this.
• 11:55 – 13:20 – Well, it is that thing again, I am personally tired of it and I think it lasted too long, yet I got the beat slicing (the build-ups to the roars) quite well.
• 13:48 – Horrible pitching. The end result is quite cool, but I have to find a better transition.
• 14:40 – I like the transition into the new “room”, You suddenly realize it was there the whole time.
• 14:40 – 17:26 – This is my cup of tea, I enjoy the progression, the texture and the energy of this part. And I actually manage to stick to just playing for a while.
• 17:26 – Anette does something familiar (11:37), and it must have triggered me to break things up, resulting in the fade out. I have gotten feedback that this might have sounded as if it was not intended for, I should probably try to do it more convincing.
• 18:06 – Anettes rapid movements to my busy music seen out of context would have been quite boring and linear as mentioned in my previous post on this project. But in this context where she had been following the slow lines in the music for a while and then suddenly bursting out in this energy passage I found it quite suitable.
• 18:27 – This stop is much more convincing, maybe because it had happened before but I also felt that the overall energy was much more convincing.
• 18:38 – Anette clearly signs that she is done and it is my turn, based on the trading exercises we did earlier.
• 18:39 – I really enjoy the short glimpse where I am waiting for my own loop to appear, a lot of energy in that moment.
• 18:39 – 19:39 – Even though the volume and density curve is decreasing I feel that this was a good part of the piece.
• 19:39 – Fast interaction with electronics, I am getting there!
• 20:00 – Anette is literally back in the picture. I give her some space.
• 20:16 – Even though what I play here is just for looping it, I feel that it fits to the piece.
• 20:36 – I am slowing down, Anette is speeding up. Cool!
• 20:55 – Anette joins me.
• 21:37 – Anette brings structure to my muddy, shifting sounds.
• 22:05 – The sounds Anette make on the floor have an impact on the total auditive product.
• 23:54 – When Anette goes back to floor level, she marks very well that we are nearing the completion of the piece as this was the same state as she started in. She makes this final when she lies back down in the same position as she started, and luckily(?) the music is also close to what we started with.
• 25:23 – 25:35 – I like these quiet seconds where I, with my appearance keep the audience extremely focused on whether this is the ending or not. I like the ending.

Summary:

When there is more time between my comments, I feel we are doing something right since I have nothing to criticize. As you see, these parts appear in the middle of the piece, so our main problem seems to be the beginnings and the ends. That is why we decided to prepare how we were to start, but I feel that it might have affected the overall piece too much. Even though it might not seem so from the audiences perspective, it actually takes 14 minutes and 40 seconds before we are really improvising. Of course one can always say there is improvisation to a certain extent for that period too and one can ask why it has to be improvised. The only thing I can say to that is that I enjoy performing much more when I do not know anything about what is going to happen, yet I do not feel we did anything wrong since this had to be done for me to realize this.

At my request, the audio and video from the concert was streamed live to another room at the venue, where some audio and video artists did the following remix right after our concert. I enjoy this way of remixing, especially when video is included, since then, the link to the original material is much more obvious. Thanks to Bendik Baksaas (Electronics), David Aleksander Sjølie (Guitar) and Sigurd Ytre-Arne (Video).

This somehow concludes my first semester and first encounter with dancers and inter-art-form-collaborations.

Dancer controlling sound with sensors – Idea sketch

foto: Jonas Barsten Johnsen

(…) a sensor based setup for a dancer and a drummer, where the dancer can pick up sounds played by the drummer and process them with movement (…)

My project description

What:

Dancer wearing sensors – controlling sound.

The idea is that the dancer can approach my drum set (sound source) and pick up the sounds I am making at that instant. Then he or she can modulate the sounds with movements and try to make it artistically interesting and fitting to the rest of the music if there is any.

Why:

Concrete interaction between music and dance.

The main motivation behind this is that I want to experience a more concrete interaction between a dancers movements and a musician sounds in a live performance setting.

How:

I will make a patch in Max/MSP, buy sensors and rehears with a dancer.

Equipment and procedure:

The dancer will have to wear some kind of gloves and maybe some socks/shoes with the following sensors:

Gyroscope:

foto: wikipedia.org

A gyroscope is a device for measuring or maintaining orientation, based on the principles of angular momentum. Thanks to the fast development in smartphone technology they are now extremely small and quite cheap and can look for example like this (not the coin):

foto: sparkfun.com

In this context the gyroscope will be used mainly for detecting the rotation of the dancers feet and hands.

More on gyroscope sensors here.

Flexion (bend):

Flexion sensors, (from Latin flectere, ‘to bend’) also called bend sensors, measure the amount of deflection caused by bending the sensor. There are various ways of sensing deflection, from strain-gauges¹⁾ to hall-effect sensors²⁾. The three most common types of flexion sensors are:

• conductive ink-based
• fibre-optic
• conductive fabric/thread/polymer-based

www.sensorwiki.org

foto: sensorwiki.org

The flexion sensors will be used to detect when the dancer is closing or opening his or her hands.

More on flexion sensors here.

Distance (Infrared):

These sensors uses infrared light whose waves are those just below the visible spectrum of frequencies. I will use one of these to determine the distance between the dancers hands.

foto: mcustore.com

More on infrared sensors here.

Radio-frequency identification:

Radio-frequency identification (RFID) is a technology that uses radio waves to transfer data from an electronic tag, called RFID tag or label, attached to an object, through a reader for the purpose of identifying and tracking the object.

I will place a RFID tag on the dancer and RFID readers by the drums and in the buckets (see explanation further down) or the other way around so that when he or she gets close to the buckets or drums it gets registered.

RFID tags can look like this:

foto: alibaba.com

RFID readers can look like this:

foto: phidgets.com

More on RFID sensors here.

Movement tracking:

I would also like to track the dancers movement on stage, for example with a Kinect so that the sounds that are being carried can be panned to the corresponding location on stage.

Buckets:

The idea also includes some buckets with RFID sensors where the dancer can place the sounds so that they stay looped while he or she continues the performance. It would also be convenient with some lights in the buckets representing if they contain a loop or not.

…

Mapping:

Once again the most challenging factor is the mapping, mapping is to choose what the sensors/controllers should do. A crucial point for me is that the sensors functions are obvious.

I am not quite sure of the gyroscopes function yet, but I guess it will be a filter, delay, distortion or a reverb or a combination of all of them. I could of course say that the dancers placement on stage or another parameter should decide what effect to use, but I will try to keep my feet at the ground and restrict my self until further on in the process so that it will be easier to start working on it.

The two flexion sensors are to decide when to start and stop the looping and also the initial length of the loop. When the left hand closes (if the dancer is close to the drums) is sets the starting point for the loop/starts recording into the looper, when the right hand is closed the en point is set and the loop starts playing. When both hands are opened again the loop stops.

The distance sensor in one of the hands sees the distance to the other hand and, if a loop is playing, decides the speed and pitch (not sure about pitch yet) of the loop. When the hands are closer, the loop plays faster and when the hands are further apart, the loop plays slower.

The RFID sensors, as already mentioned, are to decide if the dancer can record new sounds or not and to tell when a sound is supposed to keep on looping “in a bucket”. If the closed hand is in a bucket wile it is released, it keeps on looping and the dancer can go make another loop.

So the left hand has:

• Flexion.
• Gyroscope.
• RFID.

The right hand has:

• Flexion.
• Gyroscope.
• Distance.

For now, the feet will just have each their gyroscope.

Hypothesis:

I think the first rehearsal will just be amusement over the feeling to “touch sound” and over-using it – like when a guitarist gets a new pedal. Further down the road we will probably encounter problems if we want to play in time and we want loops to be in sync, then I will have to create some kind of transport control and we will need a metronome or backing track.

I think the main challenge will be for the dancer to merge the performance of music and dance. I might have to compose something that he or she can dance, maybe not down to the finest detail, but I think it will be a challenge to improvise well with this setup, then again, hopefully I am wrong.

Reflection:

We will obviously have to practice a lot to make the end result a good experience. I feel that the concept is not strong enough to stand by it self for more than the first 5 minutes of amusement over the technology. I might realize that this is just a dead end, but I have a strong feeling it will not result in that because of earlier experiences with the common denominator between music and dance (see the “Dancers-section of this blog).

Special thanks to Haakon Berg Mathisen for thoughts on how to write well for the internet.