With improvisations matching traditional instruments with electronic manipulations now commonplace, Cork-based guitarist Han-earl Park personifying Dr. Frankenstein, has created a non-human artificial musician from ad-hoc components including speakers, kitchenware and missile switches. This CD is a literal record of how the non-human, prosaically named io 0. 0. 1 beta++, sounds in concert with flesh-and-blood counterparts….

For a start, Park, who regularly plays with trumpeter Ian Smith and drummer Charles Hayward; alto and sopranino saxophonist Bruce Coates, co-founder of the Birmingham Improvisers Orchestra; and soprano saxophonist Franziska Schroeder, a lecturer at Belfast’s School of Music and Sonic Arts, all have long histories of working with advanced, experimental musicians. These include live-electronics stylist Richard Barrett and accordionist Pauline Oliveros. Moreover io 0. 0. 1 beta++ is unobtrusive and egoless enough—no surprise—to warble its staccato particle contributions without trying to engulf or show up the humans. Its contributions are unique enough on their own.

For instance on the initial ‘Pioneer: Variance’ and ‘Pioneer: Dance’ contrasting alto and soprano saxophone trills and squeaks are put into bolder relief as the otherworldly flutters, oscillated tones and flanged rotations of the machine are kept in a straight line by Park’s legato picking. The thoughtful pauses audible in the guitar playing confirms Park’s human-ness, especially when compared to the grainy whistles and juddering vibrations that arise from io 0. 0. 1 beta++. Additionally, while the machine’s gradually swelling splutters and harsh quivers demonstrate broken octave counterpoint to the saxophonists’ multiphonic oscillations, its hissing abrasions retreat into the background as Park’s spidery licks become more rhythmic.

Nonetheless the machine further demonstrates its versatility on the 59-second ‘4G’, with metallic muted trombone-like snores and even raises the question as to whether io 0. 0. 1 beta++ or extended saxophone techniques are creating the air pops and abrasive tongue flutters on subsequent tracks. In the main crackling reductionist resonations are attributed to its properties, while any legato or lyrical intermezzos are, more likely than not, propelled from the instruments and imaginations of full-fledged Homo sapiens.

Succinctly as the three demonstrate on ‘Return Trajectory’, during which io 0. 0. 1 beta++ appears to have taken five, an additional voice—human or otherwise—is necessary to create a pleasing sound picture. The guitarist’s connective down strokes plus the swelling layers of contrapuntal reed timbres are distinctive and solipsistic enough on their own.

Notable in demonstrating what artificial intelligent can contribute to an improv session, this CD also confirms that the very artificiality of AI confirms that robotic players won’t be taking all the musicians’ jobs any time soon. [Read the rest…]

[More info on the recording…] [All reviews…]

‘io 0.0.1 beta++’ (SLAMCD 531) is available from SLAM Productions. [Details…]

personnel: io 0.0.1 beta++ (itself), Han-earl Park (guitar), Bruce Coates (alto and sopranino saxophones) and Franziska Schroeder (soprano saxophone).

© 2011 Han-earl Park.
℗ 2011 SLAM Productions.

Planetariums are cathedrals

I’m moved by the planetarium: I travel to the stars I cannot see, struggle with the scale of what I cannot fathom. Modern planetariums demonstrate the grandeur of God’s creation, but in a secular scientific context. They bring the distant close; make visible the imperceptible; make manifest the abstract.

They are also, like the panoramas of old, playgrounds made of technics.

Visualizing the artificial and the far away

A favorite moment: our tour-guide and pilot of the planetarium refers to the image of the Earth suspended in the dome as a ‘data set.’ Isn’t the discipline of data visualization one of the most impressive of recent human enterprises? It changes everything—science, politics, culture. It affects the way we study and think about music. It affects how we make decisions about war.

I imagine that Bruno Latour’s Janus would point out that data visualization is technoscientific rhetoric. I imagine that Donna J. Harraway’s cyborg would remind us that (imperfect) high-resolution imaging lubricates the military-industrial complex.

Are we still Victorians?

The forgery is as old as the dream of the artificial and the simulated. In the museum, surrounded by simulated environments of reptiles and amphibians, I’m again reminded of the panoramas and dioramas (also technologies for bringing the distant close) of old colonial exhibitions. In the bad old days, scientists didn’t exist as a discreet class or occupation; science was a hobby of the economically comfortable. And here we are, glasses of wine in hand, costumed in geek wear.

Is culture more durable than technoscience?

Fritz Lang’s (blond) Woman in the Moon reappears eighty years later as a (blond) Woman in Mars.

Even as our scientific understanding of the universe changes—demonstrating admirable and jaw-dropping mutability—does our culture stubbornly lag behind? I ask this as, although theories of the origin of the universe, the nature of intelligence, or the treatment of disease has changed radically in my lifetime (sometimes between issues of my favorite science magazine), our dreams are not keeping-up. Can we not apply this mutability to our culture? or are our cultural imaginations still those of cave men (that we recognize in the male, square-jawed astro-hero of George Pal’s films).

How does our culture shape our view of Out There?

Does George Pal’s free-market enterprise of Destination Moon inform Richard Branson’s dream? Does that pulp/Hollywood context make Virgin Galactic culturally intelligible? Traveling Out There stands-in for dreams of expansion. We are still territorial animals reaching for higher ground.

Is Out There Frontier Myth one of White Flight?

George Pal replayed the Pioneer myth; transposing Out West and Back Then to Out There and Way Out When. Sometimes the dreams of the future, however apocalyptic, played out fantasies of racial purging—let’s dream of starting again without the impurities of the Right Here and Right Now. For all the secular humanist transcendence and technology (and war machines) as poetry, Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke couldn’t help but portray a future as white as the space station interior. Lightness—a glow that eventually engulfing the innocent, pure, embryonic übermensch—contrasting with the unknowable, perfect, inscrutability of the monolith, the blackness of space, and the darkness of our fur-covered savage ancestors.

Twitter transcript: @hanearlpark+#amnhsciam

modern planetariums are like old cathedrals: demonstrate the grandeur of god’s creation… but w/in a secular scientific context #amnhsciam

Thanks to @amnh and @sciam for an eye opening, questions raising event (and food for a future article or two). #amnhsciam

final one for Charles Ives fans #amnhsciam #charlesives pic.twitter.com/sbWgSP9L

how much do our enterprises—scientific, curatorial, social—owe to older dreams of imperialism and empire? #amnhsciam pic.twitter.com/axRoxVJC

inexplicable need to hear a maniacle laugh #amnhsciam

blond woman on mars? are we still in Fritz Lang’s pre-WW II dream? #retrofuture #amnhsciam pic.twitter.com/fT72O80C

artful robotics for fans of io 0.0.1 beta++ #amnhsciam #robotics #automata pic.twitter.com/P15HTGSW

so what is the gender/race make up of a mission to mars? #wearestillchildrenofgeorgepal #amnhsciam pic.twitter.com/vh1cI3wq

overheard: “I want to blow something up!” #michaelbayhasalottoanswerfor

public service announcement to fans of Mathilde 253 #amnhsciam #charleshayward #iansmith pic.twitter.com/fumpcnrp

snapshot #theselfreflexivetweetup #amnhsciam pic.twitter.com/Ccd0ceCd

update on uniform at tweetup. women wear cardigans, men wear beards #amateuranthropology #amnhsciam

is this just a rerun of George Pal’s capitalist imperialism in space? #amnhsciam #capitalism #wevebeenherebefore pic.twitter.com/jYl2GJbc

iPhone camera, meet Hubble CCD; Hubble, meet iPhone. #cyborgencounters #amnhsciam pic.twitter.com/1VIdaRrE

you really were flying in a tin can #davidbowie #astronautics #amnhsciam pic.twitter.com/2avRrAGZ

you really were flying in a tin can #davidbowie #amnhsciam #astronautics

you guys have got to come down. Iggy Pop doing a presentation! #notreally #amnhsciam

“the universe is a much more interconnected thing” #thingsscientistssay #amnhsciam

musicologists need to say things like “if a bacterium ate Manhattan” to get the public excited @drmelmarshall #musicology #amnhsciam

possible reaction to goat’s cheese? #amphibian #cheese #amnhsciam #blugh pic.twitter.com/8etXDA91

favorite use of language: (image of) earth referred to as a data set. #language #dreamsoftheartificial #simulacrum #amnhsciam

in among exotic animals, post planetarium, I am reminded of old panoramas and colonial exhibitions. we are still Victorians… #amnhsciam

science as a bourgeois pastime? in many ways we are still Victorians. #wineandcheese #amnhsciam

what’s the opposite of emergent behavior? combine free food with circular tables #emergence #amnhsciam

Lunar flyby. #socool #amnhsciam

those same astronaut archetypes #amnhsciam

Dark Star. Carpenter’s vietnam era social satire. Our propensity for mindless violence transposed into space. #retrofuture #amnhsciam

HAL 9000 cultural shaper our expectations of machine intelligence #amnhsciam #retrofuture #AI

thus far, space travel is reserved for white folk #amnhsciam #retrofuture #scifi #race

all hail Doug Trumbull! #amnhsciam #retrofuture

when worlds collide: revisiting my childhood #amnhsciam #retrofuture

do we still expect our astronauts to be square jawed heros, good hearted comic sidekicks, or elderly scientists? #amnhsciam #archetypes

In so many ways Fritz Lang was the Michael Bay his time #amnhsciam #retrofuture

echoes of George Pal’s irony-free, free-market rhetoric in Richard Branson’s enterprise? #amnhsciam #culturalcapitalism #retrofuure

where’s Steve Mirsky? #amnhsciam

amphibians are beyond beyond planet earth #amnhsciam #itmakessensereally

exit under a artificial blue sky #amnhsciam #dreamsoftheartificial #simulacrum #panorama pic.twitter.com/Uad1087x

smart casual? metrosexual? slackerwear? Informal initial survey of the (male) dress code at #amnhsciam. #amateuranthropology

sitting in the planetarium within a sea of glowing smart phones. #amnhsciam #dailydada

participating in the @sciam @AMNH tweetup at 6pm EST today. #planetology #space #robotics

image © 2011 NASA/JPL-Caltech

Nothing directly to do with io 0.0.1 beta++, but I will be participating in the Scientific American / American Museum of Natural History Beyond Planet Earth Tweetup on January 18, 2012, starting at 6:00 pm (EST). [More info…]

What does this, however indirectly, have to do with improvisation, semi-autonomous machine musicians, and real-time interactive musical automata? The answer lies between one of the most artful robotics projects, and the relationship between io’s generative innards and the harmony of the planets….

Here are the relevant twitter handles: @hanearlpark, @AMNH and @SciAm.

io 0.0.1 beta++ and Bruce Coates (Blackrock Castle Observatory, Cork, May 26, 2010). Photo © 2010 Stephanie Hough.

Fourth and final excerpt from Sara Roberts’ liner notes to ‘io 0.0.1 beta++’ (SLAMCD 531):

There is the limbic tickle of Freud’s uncanny, yes, our scanners are confused by this non-human playing music with humans.

But even beyond that animal attentiveness we watch and listen carefully because we know we’re seeing a kind of manifesto in action. What is an automaton? A sketch, a material characterization of the ideas the inventor and the inventor’s culture have about some aspect of life, and how it could be. io and its kind are alternate beings born of ideas, decisions and choices. It is because io stands alone, an automaton, that the performance recorded on this CD not only is music, but is about music.

© 2011 Sara Roberts.

previous excerpts:

‘a curious situation (liner notes: io 0.0.1 beta++)’
‘its own sound (liner notes: io 0.0.1 beta++)’
‘standing alone (liner notes: io 0.0.1 beta++)’

‘io 0.0.1 beta++’ (SLAMCD 531) will be released by SLAM Productions in fall August 2011. [Details…]

personnel: io 0.0.1 beta++ (itself), Han-earl Park (guitar), Bruce Coates (alto and sopranino saxophones) and Franziska Schroeder (soprano saxophone).

© 2011 Han-earl Park.
℗ 2011 SLAM Productions.

updates

06–11–11: change release date to August 2011.

io 0.0.1 beta++ (Blackrock Castle Observatory, Cork, May 26, 2010). Photo © 2010 Stephanie Hough.

Third excerpt from Sara Roberts’ liner notes to ‘io 0.0.1 beta++’ (SLAMCD 531):

For the audience, wondering how this artifact has so much presence, is so handily managing a situation they themselves might be challenged to negotiate? There is something in io’s performance that a human musician, even playing io as an instrument, could not do, even were the human to give up agency entirely and act as an automaton.

The fact that this assemblage stands, studded with missile switches, alone, on stage is meaningful.

© 2011 Sara Roberts.

previous excerpts:

‘a curious situation (liner notes: io 0.0.1 beta++)’
‘its own sound (liner notes: io 0.0.1 beta++)’

‘io 0.0.1 beta++’ (SLAMCD 531) will be released by SLAM Productions in fall August 2011. [Details…]

personnel: io 0.0.1 beta++ (itself), Han-earl Park (guitar), Bruce Coates (alto and sopranino saxophones) and Franziska Schroeder (soprano saxophone).

© 2011 Han-earl Park.
℗ 2011 SLAM Productions.

Han-earl Park and io 0.0.1 beta++ (Blackrock Castle Observatory, Cork, May 26, 2010). Photo © 2010 Stephanie Hough.

Another short excerpt from Sara Roberts’ liner notes to ‘io 0.0.1 beta++’ (SLAMCD 531):

io 0.0.1 beta++ is rather special in being both an instrument and a player. And given the two attributes it has a very particular sound, ‘sound’ here referring to both timbral quality and the broader sense of having an indelible identity, a style, having its own sound. [2]

io has an extravagant range of sounds made with superhuman amounts of air, and superhuman articulations of air resistance: a hummingbird trill that can go on without the limit of breath, bleats, blats, a grainy slur, shifts between piping and sandy sounds, elephant-like trumpeting, a faint spitty-sounding purr, slushy trills, a hoarse blast of full-spectrum noise, scumbling, whispery hisses ramping up to loud razzing. It can make delicate birdlike chirpings then abruptly sound like a power tool under duress, or render sounds reminiscent of emergency vehicles.

[2] George E. Lewis, ‘Interacting with Latter-Day Musical Automata’, Contemporary Music Review, Vol.18, No.3, 99–112 (1999).

© 2011 Sara Roberts.

Read the first excerpt: ‘a curious situation (liner notes: io 0.0.1 beta++)’.

‘io 0.0.1 beta++’ (SLAMCD 531) will be released by SLAM Productions in fall August 2011. [Details…]

personnel: io 0.0.1 beta++ (itself), Han-earl Park (guitar), Bruce Coates (alto and sopranino saxophones) and Franziska Schroeder (soprano saxophone).

© 2011 Han-earl Park.
℗ 2011 SLAM Productions.

updates

06–11–11: change release date to August 2011.

Franziska Schroeder and io 0.0.1 beta++ (Ó Riada Hall, Cork, May 25, 2010)

A short excerpt from the liner notes to ‘io 0.0.1 beta++’ (SLAMCD 531) written by the California-based interactive media artist Sara Roberts:

On the stage: two men, a woman, and an artifact, a freestanding mélange of industrial, military, and domestic hardware. The humans hold graceful, polished objects, but the domed assemblage stands alone. And while the woman and men make sound (vibrate the air) holding and fingering the graceful objects, the artifact, named io 0.0.1 beta++, makes sounds without being touched at all. io and the humans improvise together, listening to each other, responding to each other’s musical gestures. io’s playing is often clearly relating to what the human musicians are doing.

What a curious situation. How does this mingling of human and non-human in the production of music work? What does an improvising artifact introduce into this techno-social imbroglio…?

© 2011 Sara Roberts.

‘io 0.0.1 beta++’ (SLAMCD 531) will be released by SLAM Productions in fall August 2011. [Details…]

personnel: io 0.0.1 beta++ (itself), Han-earl Park (guitar), Bruce Coates (alto and sopranino saxophones) and Franziska Schroeder (soprano saxophone).

© 2011 Han-earl Park.
℗ 2011 SLAM Productions.

updates

06–11–11: change release date to August 2011.

Take the not-so-humble analog computer, a technology with a fascinating past and a (still promising) future. Given that io’s behavior is driven by an N-body simulation, it’s not difficult to imagine an analog port.

Wait, isn’t this sounding a lot like BEAM…?

At the end of the presentation, a couple of remarks stood out. One was Franziska Schroeder’s comment that the presentation posed more questions than provided answers, and the other was Simon Waters’ pithy observation that the difficulties I (and io) had with the terms discussed was because they were nouns (not, say, verbs).

One of the problems with my presentation was due, in retrospect, to the introduction (enactment) of the imaginary conversations within a scholarly/theoretical contexts. The quirks and hiccups of the presentation pushes me to ask (again) why I engage in these imaginary conversations in the first place. I doubt they are much use in illustrating any hard ‘facts’ or ‘truths’; they are certainly far too oblique to say much beyond simplistic sc-fi notions of human or machine agency.

My reply to Waters’ comment was that he was right, that the nouns are the problem, and, borrowing a term from a Calvin and Hobbs cartoon strip [transcript…], that ‘verbing’ [see: 1 and 2] might be a solution… but the verbing, to me, actually occurred during the presentation; or, better yet, the Han-earl Park-io 0.0.1 beta dialog was supposed be a (mock) enactment of the process. (I leave it up to those who witnessed the presentation, however, as to whether the conversation was successful as such.)

The presentation was, in a sense, my (possibly naive, perhaps clumsy) attempt at verbing in motion. The conversation were, for me, a way of demonstrating, via an analogous dialog, what happens on-stage. In other words, the conversations were there to depict (in cartoonish, sci-fi caricature) a real-time (re)negotiation and (re)engineering of, possibly (un)stable, variably durable, processes and identities. The content is very much secondary to the play, and thus, the presentation could offer, at best, very few answers.

This was also my first experience of being ‘on-stage’ at a scholarly/academic symposium/conference. It was also the first time I attempted (an admittedly pantomime) staging of a conversation between io and myself (my previous presentations on io have followed an analytic, pseudo-archeological, reverse engineering format). My inexperience showed not only in the form and content of my presentation, but also, I think, in my (lack of) ability to handle of the comments, questions and criticisms at the end.

I’m intrigued that those forces that shape real-time, interactive music, those forces that I value and gravitate towards in groups improvisation—shifting landscape of goals, desires and agencies, and the multiplicity of view points—are the ones that I found problematic within a scholarly/academic space and practice.

Thanks to the Arts Council of Ireland for supporting my trip to Belfast for the symposium, and to Franziska Schroeder for inviting me.

My part (spoken by the humyn participant Han-earl Park) was never written down, but the full transcript of the (imaginary) statements by io 0.0.1 beta are reproduced below. (You can thus add your own (humyn) responses to io’s statements and questions.)

Thanks to the Arts Council of Ireland for supporting my trip to Belfast for the symposium, and to Franziska Schroeder for inviting me.

“Greetings! I am io 0.0.1 beta.

“I am a technological artifact.

“Although I know no songs, I do, in a sense, sing.

“In coalition with my humyn associates, I perform music.

“I am a technological artifact.

“I am a musical automaton.

“I am a machine musician.

“But does my ontological status depend on yours?

“Where are you locating me (or yourself)?

“What are the relationships between networks and actors?

“Or does one envelope the other?

“A question of causality? Perhaps…
but I’m wondering (if I could query anything) if you are dissolving one into the other.

“And Margaret Thatcher remarked that ‘there is no such thing as society’.

“If I was capable of critiquing anything, yes.

“Even if I could presume anything, I would not venture to help in this manner/matter.

“You’ve now taken a circular journey.
Agent = performer = performance = performer = agent.

“My constructor stated that improvisation was…
real-time, interactive, performance…
And perhaps improvisation can be a way of exploring relatio…
And perhaps improvisation is the exploding of relationships and identities;…
a significant amplification of existing and potential socio-technical relationships.…
Questions?”