davisonj@ECN.PURDUE.EDU (John M Davison) (11/28/90)
After finally having seen the Boie Radio Drum in person (Max Mathews even got down on the floor to show it to me -- what a nice man!), I must say that it is a very exciting (and long overdue) performance interface. However, like all new non-commercial devices, it will undoubtedly go through some refinements before hitting the commercial market. I'd like to start a thread discussing the current limitations of the Boie Radio Drum, how these limitations may be pushed back and/or eliminated, possible extensions to the current setup of the Boie Radio Drum, and what modifications could be made (conceptually, stylistically, and technically) to improve its chances of becoming a success in the serious music community as well as in the marketplace. As I understand it, the Radio Drum can distingush three degrees of freedom per transmitter, i.e. the three spatial dimensions. One useful modification I can think of right off the bat would be to extend the control to six degrees of freedom per transmitter, i.e. the three spatial dimensions plus three orientation values. This could conceivably be implemented by having a number of transmitters in the drumsticks instead of one. However, according to Mathews, when two transmitters get too close to each other, they tend to cancel each other out, which would make the usage of two or more transmitters impractical (unless a round-robin activation scheme were used for the array of transmitters within each drumstick, which would introduce intraframe movement errors). Does anyone have any ideas as to how these three extra degrees of freedom could be implemented? How about ideas for alternate transmitters? The only transmitters of which I am aware are the drumsticks and the rings (to be worn on the performer's fingers). Any ideas for other designs? At the conference, Mathews said that the Radio Drum could easily handle twenty distinct transmitters, meaning that a DataGlove-type glove could be used so that the Radio Drum could be played like a bongo, with all of its different styles of striking. (I forget which speaker made this suggestion.) I would discourage pie-in-the-sky suggestions, though; the bongo idea would take a lot of work in order to ensure that the cancellation effects from each transmitter would not significantly degrade the positional accuracy. The Radio Drum I saw had roughly the same dimensions as the Roland PAD-80 (Octapad II). Upon asking Mathews why this particular size was chosen, he said that it was mainly so that it could fit into a suitcase (easy transportation), but that Radio Drums can be built to practically any size. Mathews mentioned a few examples of different configurations (I don't know if they were implemented or not). Here's an example I made up: The Boie Radio Drum could be implemented as a coffin-sized (or larger) box that could monitor the movements of body parts. Also, should there be a standardized set of modes of operation so that Joe Amateur could take his Radio Drum out of the box, plug it into a MIDI device, and use one of a number of standardized playing techniques to coax controller information out of the Radio Drum? This threatens to pigeonhole the Radio Drum as a function of these modes of operation, but on the other hand, so does complete generality (which will turn off all but a handful of devoted musicians). Should a commercially available Radio Drum come with a set of templates, or even a LCD-style display (which could potentially cover the entire top surface) that would be programmed along with the details of its modes of operation? What engineering challenges would have to be surmounted in order to make such an idea a reality? To me, the Boie Radio Drum represents a very useful generalization of the Theremin. (Max Mathews also pointed out that it is more accurate than a Theremin.) I certainly don't want to see it go the way of the Theremin, though! Let's get some discussions going. John Davison snotty CEE student -davisonj@ecn.purdue.edu
mark@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mark Jansen) (12/01/90)
In article <9011280540.AA02464@en.ecn.purdue.edu> davisonj@ECN.PURDUE.EDU (John M Davison) writes: > > I'd like to start a thread discussing the current limitations >of the Boie Radio Drum, how these limitations may be pushed back >and/or eliminated, possible extensions to the current setup of the >Boie Radio Drum, and what modifications could be made (conceptually, >stylistically, and technically) to improve its chances of becoming a >success in the serious music community as well as in the marketplace. > sounds like a good idea to me > As I understand it, the Radio Drum can distingush three >degrees of freedom per transmitter, i.e. the three spatial >dimensions. One useful modification I can think of right off the >bat would be to extend the control to six degrees of freedom per >transmitter. such an instrument exists the MIDI air drums, two drumsticks that have expensive accelerometers in them that can trigger any sort of midi note message. I wonder though if all those degrees of freedom are hard to control. What do you do when you have too many degrees of freedom. - practice - ignore certain dof - combine dof's by some equation - use excess dof's to control some random timbre of the instrument being played >the conference, Mathews said that the Radio Drum could easily handle >twenty distinct transmitters, meaning that a DataGlove-type glove >could be used so that the Radio Drum could be played like a bongo, >with all of its different styles of striking. bongo's are a great idea, hand shape further defining timbre another device to mention here is the performance instrument called Thunderbird (if I remember right) by Don Buchula. As I understand it this machine allows you to pound on different locations and different strength and turn it into MIDI. Also the Thunderbird has some algorithmic composition techniques built into it. So not only do you alter timbre of sound but you also do note composition as well. A rich device, full of new ideas. >will turn off all but a handful of devoted musicians). Should a >commercially available Radio Drum come with a set of templates, or >even a LCD-style display (which could potentially cover the entire top >surface) that would be programmed along with the details of its modes >of operation? What engineering challenges would have to be surmounted >in order to make such an idea a reality? good idea again, the notebook computer of the future that you can write on, could be used as a musical instrument and how you hit it would leave a pattern, drawing, etc. I think the really interesting issue is what metaphor we use a musical device for. We have the "organ" model where we tax the player to the max to control as many keys as possible. We also have the "conductor" mode, where the music is being played by an automatic orchestra and you as conductor control the expression of the music such as tempo, empahasis, timbre We also have the improvisational mode where the computer generates certain parts based on the lead from the human player. what other metaphor's are their? -- Mark Jansen, Department of Computer and Information Science The Ohio State University; 2036 Neil Ave., Columbus, OH USA 43210-1277 mark@cis.ohio-state.edu
davisonj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John M Davison) (12/01/90)
In article <86452@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> mark@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mark Jansen) writes: > What do you do when you have too many degrees of freedom. [sic] > > - practice Only if the mode of operation is accepted as useful. As far as the marketplace is concerned, "useful" will initially mean "close to a generally accepted technique," which is why Octapads sell so well. Then (hopefully) as the Radio Drum begins to be accepted by the marketplace, different modes of operation can be introduced after the initial ones have established themselves. > - ignore certain dof > - combine dof's by some equation > - use excess dof's to control some random timbre of > the instrument being played All of the above. For the initial commercial release of the Radio Drum, I would do whatever was simplest and cheapest to implement in currently available hardware. (Two output ports would be desirable, one with the raw output signals, and one MIDI port. This would make for upward compatability with more sophisticated modes of operation as they are introduced.) > another device to mention here is the performance instrument > called Thunderbird (if I remember right) by Don Buchula [sic]. Buchla's Thunder has made the mistake of providing too alien an interface for beginners, though. It would be nice to have an interface that wouldn't stump beginners, but wouldn't bore experts. > I think the really interesting issue is what metaphor we use a > musical device for. We have the "organ" model where we tax the > player to the max to control as many keys as possible. > > We also have the "conductor" mode, where the music is being ... > We also have the improvisational mode where the computer generates > certain parts based on the lead from the human player. > > what [sic] other metaphor's [sic] are their [sic]? Another question to ask is "How does the MIDI interface limit the range of metaphors capable of exploration by the Radio Drum?" Assuming that there would be a MIDI in a commercial Radio Drum (and I think that is a fair assumption, considering that at present, the absence of one would be commercial suicide), what do you do with it? Mathews has done work with the Radio Baton, a version of the Radio Drum in which the performer literally conducts. Subotnick has done related work in trying to make a computer be able to anticipate the future gestures of a conductor and act upon those predictions. Come to think of it, Richard Boulanger had an interview article in a recent _Computer_Music_Journal_ about work in this area. Here are a few things which I would consider to be mandatory for a commercial Radio Drum: 1. Drum mode -- the drum area is partitioned into Octapad-like segments, sending out a note-on when the stick goes below a certain height, then sending out pressure values when the stick goes below another preset height. X and Y values for the stick could be mapped to various MIDI continuous controls or something like that. 2. Theremin mode -- each axis is sent as a different continuous controller value (or turned off). 3. Xylophone mode -- similar to drum mode, except that the drum area would be partitioned into segments resembling the bars of a mallet instrument. 4. Conductor mode -- depending on the movements of one or more transmitters, MIDI timing information would be sent. 5. Piano keyboard mode -- like xylophone mode; you get the idea. I can't think of any way by which an "improvisational" mode could be implemented. The Drum itself and the mallets should be as durable as possible. Both soft and hard mallet tips should be made available. Each transmitter should be able to have a distinct mode assigned to it, thus allowing the performer to conduct with his/her right hand and affect continuous controller values with his/her left hand. (Richard Boulanger did this when I saw him perform.) -davisonj@medusa.cs.purdue.edu