I’ve been browsing YouTube today for various videos relating to music technology and I found some interesting things – and I say interesting, not all of these are in my opinion succesful examples! Some of these examples I have written some critisism or praise about…
The tangible sequencer ring:
Sonic City, Wearable Design:
Eric Singer, Sonic Banana 2002:
Mapping, Sonic example:
“The Sonic Banana consists of four bend sensors in a row, running the length of a rubber tube, with a pushbutton switch at the end. Software in Max converts this data into musical functions, turning the Sonic Banana into a versatile performance instrument.
Arpeggiator: The bend sensors are used to play an arpeggiation algorithm in Max. The sensors control several parameters of the algorithm, including chord selection, tempo, note duration, tempo and volume.” (ericsinger.com 2006)
My main criticism of Singer’s Sonic Banana is that the sonic material he uses is too tonal. The experience for me is not then a new piece of music, it is just an arpiggiator constantly running, with a man taking himself very seriously, bending a tube to alter the (for me) very static sound image he creates. I think that there is nothing wrong with the way Singer performs, but for me it almost becomes comical that he looks so serious when the tonal material sounds so simplistic. Had he chosen the soundscape approach I think that the “banana” had been more successful / believable, as the mapping seems to work rather well. It looks responsive, and it offers some resistance to the performer, so that the force applied is proportional with the sonic result.
Recreation of Russolo’s Intonrumori:
Reactable, basic demo #1:
Petecube:
NeuroGlove:
Michael Waisvisz – the Hands 2003:
This example is for me personally one of the most sonically pleasing examples. That is because the material he uses is his own voice; it is clear what and where the material he uses comes from. It is also clear when he is adding new material and when he is just working on the previous input. He alters the sonic material with his hands, which seems like an obvious part of the performance. You can also clearly see where he gets his sounds from (his mouth) and where they are going (the microphone attached to the glove). What is not obvious is the gesture mapping relationship. In this case however, it works. What is clear is that many things are happening with less amount of action. That means that we have a one to many relationship between gesture and mapping.
Matthew Burtner – Metasax:
LEMUR Installtion, Beall Center for Art & Technology:
Kinetic Cube Interface:
JamFone:
Ed Snyder – Henri Matisse song 1982:
This is a pre-MIDI example of a one to one mapping. Snyder has taken components from an ordinary keyboard and re-attached them on his fingers. He starts off with a call-response, reciting a line of poem and then exposition of the main rhythmic / tonal “theme”, which can be said to be relatively simple – easily explained by the obvious simplicity of the layout of the keys on the fingers. What strikes me when I watch the video is why did he have to do this when he could easily have achieved the same sonic result (or perhaps a better) with using a conventional keyboard? I am sure Snyder could justify this at the time, but it is hard to find any evidence of this today when I looked for writing on the performance. For me this then stands as the prime example on how one to one mapping is, not perhaps pointless, but more annoying than sonically pleasing. The positive factor I can draw from this performance however is a very clear cognitive link between what Snyder is doing with his fingers and the sonic outcome, something I want to achieve as well.
Posted by Tage 
Here’s how the glove looks initially
The inside
After the glove has been taken off, you can see the 4 sensors
Carefully peeling off the sensors
Taking off the front top to get the sensors loose without breaking them
Top of the glove, note the Piezo in the middle of the black thing.
I think I’m going to use this part for a different project 
