Author: Tata Cheng

I would like to use the sound of makers concentrated in crafting their work, in an improvisational performance, where I am also in a focused zone. Echoing ‘presence’ in both senses, I present the notion to the audience when they are hopefully very focused too.

The previous blog post included excerpts of the prototype – the improvisation of sounds of crafting. I am quite happy with the decision of using one main sound source. It aligns with the concept of the work of staying focused on one particular event. During the improvisation, I only listened to and manipulated one main sound source to start with. As I re-sampled more and more, it was still originated from the same source. Even for my own learning, re-sampling the same source gave me new perceptions on the sound itself, as well as more ideas on how I can experiment with it. As I am a beginner of Octatrack, sticking to one sound origin made re-sampling and adding on effects much more identifiable than using multiple sources which might end up being chaotic. With one source, I could locate and identify the sound and its quality, then develop.

However, it might not be sonically diverse enough if I only use one sound source in the performance. Even I manipulate, re-sample and add effects, the texture of the sound is still within a certain limit. The outcome is similar to if I manipulate the original track without re-sampling. The re-sampled version could even become blurrier because of the layering up of various effects.

Given the above situations, how can I enrich the sound qualities? Should I incorporate field-recordings of different crafting sounds throughout the improvisation but just use them one by one? Another thing to try could be to record sounds with a wider spectrum and more dynamics so as to allow more versatile use of the sound, producing more variations of manipulation and re-sampling.

Furthermore, for the second project in this course, I am planning to make a feedback instrument. I can potentially record the sound of making the instrument, use the recording and also the instrument itself in this improvisational performance, so there is one more sound element.

If I decided to incorporate sounds of crafting different types of objects, I can also record my course mates’ processes of crafting their projects, e.g. setting up an installation, making a sound sculpture, or building an instrument. It would be great for diversifying the crafting sounds and also for documenting the process of our graduation projects.

I made a few attempts of improvising with the sound of crafting. (Also I find that the word crafting is more accurate than making as it highlights the essence of producing something manually.) In the first few trials, I made use of multi-field-recording of birdsongs and natural soundscapes, adding filter to cut or put emphasis on certain sounds, with spatialisation and re-pitching. Yet, I found that the main focus or ‘protagonist’ would become a bit blurred as the sounds would overlap each other. The emphasis on the sound of crafting would be a bit lost so as the discussion on craftsmanship in sounds. Therefore, I started using one main source of sound. I used field recordings of wood cutting and water boiling by campfire, as well as sounds of pottery throwing retrieved from the internet. I could then focus on manipulating one sound rather than a few sounds.

Technically, using one main source of sound was better executed given that Octatrack was limited to 8 tracks. With one main sound source, I could then utilise the other tracks for instant re-sampling and to acquire more neighbour tracks. Neighbour track receives audio signals from the previous track and functions as an add-on effect, providing more effects and control on the audio chain.

It was also my intention to create limitation for myself by using one main source of sound. When I keep re-sampling, it is also a sound of making, as improvising with sound shares the same idea of crafting.

I recently bought an Elektron Octatrack MKII for future projects and performances. The features that attracted me to get one is live sampling and resampling. It has the flexibility to work as an effect processor for external input, and also works as a looper. I can also play a very long sample, which I can use it to play long field recordings and manipulate them in re-time. The live sampling function also allows me to record the present sounds and layer them up with different effects. It also allows me to have more control to play with time. Capture a few second of the present, then it becomes the sonic material for the future.

Although it is a very powerful and flexible machine for live performances, it also has its limitations. Firstly, Octatrack is a relatively old product, hence, the audio processing may not be as good as other newer samplers such as Digitakt. When it processes long samples and re-pitches very hard, it would create digital lagging sounds. It also has a quite limited number of track – 8 tracks only. And compare to the others, again Digitakt MKII (16 Tracks), it is relatively limited. Not to mention, it has much fewer features than an DAW. However, rather than a computer, performing with a physical instrument with limited functions allows me to focus on the sounds that I am playing. Then I may come up with more creative way to play with the sounds.

I am interested in improvising with field recording. In last year collaborate project, Miles, Aparna and I did an improvisational performance with a Butoh dancer, Mai. In the performance, I used field recording to improvise, which I found interesting, and have a lot potential to use field recording only for improvisation. Later in that year, we had a workshop with Aniruddha Das where his practice are using field recording as sample to improvise. Although his approach is more acousmatic (reduce bit depth and sampling frequency), it still shows the possibility of using field recording as the only source for improvisation.

For this project, I am thinking to only use ‘sound of working’ as the material for an improvising performance. Using field recording to capture the craftsmanship zone (the crafter who is intensive concentrate in presence and constantly making) and perform with it, since performances have the same state of mind (concentrate to the presence). Improvising can put this idea further, where the performers constantly listen to the sounds in presence, and interact with it. No matter is compromising, changing or accompany with presence sounds. It is same as crafting, where the maker have keep checking, refining and adjusting the things that they are making.

I went to Box Hill for wild camping and field recording. The fact that mechanical sounds – such as combustion engine, road noise and plane sound – got amplified easily while recording natural soundscapes and camping activities, annoyed me. I also did some field recording of birdsongs in Hackney Marshes. I borrowed a pair of LOM Basic UCHO from Kit room with Mix-Pre 6 for this recording trip. I would like to use natural soundscapes – nature making- along with the handmade recording.

For the recording of craftsmanship, I went through the field recording archive that contains field recording I did in past two years. I found some sounds of wild cooking and firewood cutting. Also the sound of starting a fire. I am planning to do more recordings of different crafting sounds. For example, I went to Hackney City Farm few months ago for a woodturning workshop. The sounds of shaving the wood were fascinating (I regreted a bit that I didn’t record the sounds of the workshop then). I was also searching in some archives, such as BBC sound effects, to look for different crafting sounds. I also tried to use YouTube, where a lot of people record their processes of making – pottery or wood making.

I am doing some research on the artists who do or did the similar project. I found Owl project instantly after a while of research. ‘Owl Project is a collaborative group of artists consisting of Simon Blackmore, Antony Hall and Steve Symons. They work with wood and electronics to fuse sculpture and sound art, creating music making machines, interfaces and objects which intermix pre-steam and digital technologies. Drawing on influences such as 70’s synthesiser culture, DIY woodworking and current digital crafts, the resulting artwork is a quirky and intriguing critique of the allure and production of technology. The result is a distinctive range of musical and sculptural instruments that critique human interaction with computer interfaces and our increasing appetite for new and often disposable technologies.’

They have two project that are fairly similar to my idea. The first one is SoundLathe. Lathe is a primitive human power machine for wood and bowl turning. The put a sensors on the lathe, and it transfer the shape of the turning wood into data. Then using those data to modulate synth. It is performative project where the lather working on the lathe, and sound artists using those data for electronic music.

Another one is called Rock music. It works similar to SoundLathe. But rather than using Lathe as the sources, it use ‘Knapping’. It is the most primitive way to sharpening the stones, which they claim is a ‘5000 years back in time to one of the oldest known creative processes’. They also place the sensors on flint knapper hand. While the knapper hit the stone, it create signal to modulate the sounds.

Both project try to redundant processes with technology, and explore the traditional craftsmanship and it sounds. The difference to my project is that they only use the crafting action as a data to interact and create electronic music. Where for my project, I am trying to explore and using the sounds of the crafting itself. The ultimate are creating more like soundscape composition, rather than electronic or acousmatic music.

Now I am shifting the idea of human sounds with nature toward the sound of making. Most of the activities in wild camping are manual labour. We bring a lot of tools and resources, such as saw, axe, tents and fire starting tool, but all of them are just helping us to finish all tasks that require our labour. There aren’t any machines to help us, which can see those as our authentic way of living. Since wild camping listening workshop has some practical and ethical issues, I am trying to focus on the sound of human.

One of the fundamental reason why human are difference from other creature is using tools. We make our own tools as we evolve, and making technique and styles change overtime. Making becomes the essential in every culture and society, and it requires specialty. Hand-making becomes more and more rare after industrialisation, more and more making or tasks are replaced by machinery. While hand-making stuffs, the maker are extremely concentrate the present, they step by step carefully making toward the final product. I am thinking to capture this concentrated zone and time by recording the sound of making, and use them as the material for performance, which is another form of being present and making things.

My original idea was bringing participants to a wild camping + listening trip, which I called Sound camping. The main goal of the activity is to explore and listen to the sound of humans in nature. By doing wild camping in a listening workshop setting – listening with collective ears, the workshop aims to seek the relationship between human and nature. Wild camping is a modern way of human surviving in nature, and perhaps is one of the modern activities that is the closest to nature. We are part of the natural soundscape, yet, the sounds we make are completely different from other animal’s sound.

However, after considering a few factors, I decided to do a performance instead of Sound Camping. The first factor is the accessibility. There are different type of soundwalk, but most of them are fairly accessible. This kind of practices are design for most of the people to experience. However, wild camping isn’t welcome for everyone. The physical requirement and people interests may stop them to have a full listening experiences. The land accessibility also is the factor that I considered. When big group of people going wild camping, it can disturb the native biosphere. Although we go there in an intention of study nature, we still have a certain degree of negative impact to the environment. The bioacoustics could be different as well because of our present.

According to Hildegard Westercamp, ‘A soundwalk is any excursion whose main purpose is listening to the environment. It is exposing our ears to every sound around us no matter where we are. We may be at home, we may be walking across a downtown street, through a park, along the beach; we may be sitting in a doctor’s office’ (Soundwalking”, Sound Heritage 3(4), 1974: 18). It is to heighten one’s awareness of the auditory environment. The activity of wild camping put the participant in the different acoustic environment for the period of time and for my personal experience, it could easily to heighten the awareness of the surrounding sonic environment. While one is immerse in the relative quiet environment for a while, the small sounds, that being cover by the overwhelming urban sounds, are become more audible. This effects can accompany with the instruction of sound walking.

Sound Camping – phase one: Soundwalking: Guiding the participants from the nearest town to the campsite. While we are walking, firstly listen the acoustic changes from the rural urban environment (the nearest town) to the walking path (the forest). Listen from the inter to the outer sounds. The footsteps that we made while walking, or the heavy breathing sound that we make while walking in the very steep uphill. While we already increase the awareness to the surrounding soundscapes the we arrived to the campsite.

Sound Camping – phase two: Soundcamping: Listen the sounds that we made while doing camping. The rustling of the tents which we are setting up. Sawing and cutting the firewood. The burning wood hissing sound. The boiling water. The sizzling sounds which we are cooking. Then, how do those sound related to the nature sounds. The rustling leaf and bushes cause by wind and animal. The birdsongs. The snapping sticks. This phase questions the relationship of human and nature.

I am interested in wild camping and I did few project on this topic previously. When I was working on gallery 46 for exhibition, I set up a tent and using few speaker cones to try to recreate wild camping experience. However, thought the transmission of sounds by using different instruments and equipments (microphone, recorder, processing on computer, amplifier and speakers), the listening experience were no longer the same. The acoustic quality, the sounds from others pieces in the gallery, the sensation of indoor and outdoor alter the experience. Hence, the only way for audiences to experience the sonic journey of wild camping is through doing wild camping together, which is similarly to soundwalk. I am thinking to do a practice that is the mixture of wild camping and soundwalk – Sound Camping. The process of Sound Camping is the encourage the participant to listen the natural soundscapes around them, and most importantly, the sounds that we made while doing wild camping. The sounds of balance and imbalance of sounds of wild camping activities. The sounds of cutting and chopping fire wood, the sound of setting up the tents, the sound of burning campfire, the sound of cooking. The sounds of fire and cooking are generally consider as ‘natural’ and it matches the soundscape around us, but it actually a human-made sounds. To contrast campfire, the camping gas stove create a drone which may generally consider disturbing the nature. Then where is the boundary of human-made sounds.