Blog : Speak To The Lasers Bi-yatch!

Speak to the lasers bi-yatch!

As Brisbanites should by now be aware, Robin Fox will be premiering his 'smoke & lasers' show for qld audiences next thursday, (the 18th of may) in the IMA galleries, fortitude valley.  If you've never come across Robin's audio-visual work before, suffice to say that it's an exploration of sound and light at their most fundamental levels, and you must seek out his dvd "Backscatter" at your earliest convenience.  And, of course, come to his gig - it's even a freebie! (I think).  Also performing for the first time in qld ( i think?) will be melbourne sound sculptor/ installation artist/ whatever you call it Ernie Althoff.  I' not sure what Ernie will be doing on the night exactly, but I'm very fond of his recorded works and look foward to seeing him (or his machines, whatever..) in action.  To intice you further, here is a interview with Robin Fox (conducted by myself over email during the last week) in which he talks about the move from screen based a/v work to the laser show, his work with Anthony Pateras, (which you can see on SET, next tuesday) and some of his other projects.....

let the infotainment begin!

jm: how have you found the move from working with the flat screen of the oscilloscope to the 3 dimensions of laser & smoke?

rf: What I loved about working with the oscilloscope was the potential for a real depth of image (a kind of 3 dimensionality). Unfortunately, although that depth was apparent on the small cathode ray screen it rarely translated too well after being fed through a DV cam and flung out of a projector. A big part of moving on to the laser was about achieving that three dimensionality as logically as possible without entering the spooky area of holographics (the next logical step I guess). There is a big difference though, logistically for example, I now need a smoke/haze machine to make the performance work and also need to address a whole raft of OHS (occupational health & safety [jm.]) issues given the paranoid and over-regulated culture we find ourselves in.


jm: has the compositional process changed at all?, and if  so, how much of that has to do with technological limits of the laser as opposed to the oscilloscope?

rf: The composition process has changed fundamentally and as a direct result of the technologies involved in both projects. Essentially the shift is from an analog situation to a digital situation in terms of the difference between continuous and discrete forms of motion. The oscilloscope uses electromagnets at four points around the light source to drag the photons according to their relative charges. This information is a continuous voltage. In comparison, the laser is distributed spatially by interacting with two tiny mirrors (x and Y) attached to galvos (tiny high speed motors). These galvo's are essentially stepper-motors, i.e. they move in discrete steps hence the 'digital' analogy. Although these motors are specked to hit 30,000 points per second, this doesn't translate to an ability to accept 30,000hz. Basically all audio sent to the laser needs to be bandlimited. At the moment the visual aspect is band-limited to 10,000hz. Given that a lot of the lushness achieved with the CRO came from combining quite high frequencies, which therefore took up a lot of the compositional space, the laser presents a whole new range of sonic problems.

jm: any problems with preferred settings for performances (theatres vs clubs, etc etc)?

rf: Given the strength of the laser, it is harder to play smaller spaces, which is a shame as i really enjoy the intimacy of places like that. Also, anything with raked seating makes it hard to pinpoint the centre of the laser's throw above the heads of the audience (one of the ohs concerns).

jm: can you elaborate a little more on these so-called 'ohs'concerns?

rf: Basically the laser is quite bright and powerful so there are some major issues with ensuring that it doesn't flatline into an audience member's eye!! That's why the default point (Zero if you like) has to be positioned above the audience. I also have safety circuits built in to the circuitry that amplifies the soundcard voltage in order to scale it to that required by the galvo's. The safety circuits ensure that, if there isn't enough signal getting through, the laser switches off automatically. There are also relatively minor concerns re: photoepilepsy inducing strobe frequencies, but no more than in a botborg set i guess. I test all laser states on myself while developing the work and can ensure people that it is safe. As long as the laser is moving, no damage can be done, and the safety circuits ensure that it can't stay still. Having said that, I probably wouldn't perform the set for more than an hour.


jm: does the added dimensionality of the experience'confuse' audiences as to what should be the focus of their attention (ie, what angles provide the best veiwing experience when there's no obvious 'screen' focus), is there a perspective you'd recommend taking?

rf: The removal of the screen focus definitely transfers the nature of the experience more to the viewers position. People have approached viewing the work in a number of ways but the way i work on the material is from the perspective of looking at the laser unit straight on in order to envelope myself in the three dimensionality of the work. Given that, I guess the sweet spot is at the back of the room in the centre. Others have told me that the work can be equally enjoyed from the side and others still, who don't really like the brightness of the full frontal angle, tend to turn to the back of the space and look at the projected image. The projected image tends to take in the whole venue so there is interplay on a number of surfaces like mirror balls, light rigging etc that lends that perspective a life of it's own, completely unintentional from the compositional point of view.

jm: are there particular effects that you're looking to obtain (or haven't been able
to achieve yet)?

rf: Definitely, I have found the process of working with the laser much less intuitively responsive than the oscilloscope. Where I was able to improvise with the scope and develop materials 'on the fly' the laser seems to need a lot more lower level programming and considered 'research' to make it behave in certain ways. The challenge is to make work that is sustainable, varied and interesting with what is essentially a reduced set of possibilities. I am working on distinct patterns and geometric configurations that can maximise the use of diverse spaces. The last laser show at the Northcote Social Club in Melbourne posed an interesting problem as the roof is quite low, meaning that a lot of information was lost. While this didn't really detract too much from the end result it is something that I'm trying to resolve at the moment. Basically though, I have been able to grasp and master the simple elements of the laser interface but need to work on some more complex arrangements while retaining the one-to-one relationship between what is heard and what is seen.

jm: how do you approach doing audio/visual work with suh a strong focus on tthat one to one relationship? do you start from one medium or the other, or is the process more simultaneous? do you let either medium have more of a guiding hand over the process?

rf: When I started working with visuals it was, almost instantly, a visual medium. Initially sounds were tested to see what they would look like and only those that looked good would make the cut. Eventually as I came to understand the workings of the system a little better, I would design sounds to produce certain visual results. So, although the sound is the starting point, it is the visual aspect that determines the end-point. I've found myself generating audio that I would never have generated as audio alone in order to facilitate visual outcomes.

jm: is that a problem? do you end up with things you think sound like shit but look shit hot? had to ditch great sounding stuff because it looks like shit?

rf: In a word, yes. It is a problem and yes to both scenarios as well. It is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the av project as a whole. Trying to marry interesting sounds to interesting visuals doesn't always work and given it's the direct relationship between the audio and visual electrical signal that creates the real-time interest i'm often reluctant to 'cheat' that relationship to facilitate a happier cross-over. The work is full of compromise at that level but, as well as being frustrating, it's also what motivates me to keep looking for answers.

jm: do you hate terms like new/ multi media?

rf: These are terms that are generated to form arbitrary distinctions between art-forms in order to facilitate rationales for funding bodies etc when they have to carve the meagre pie. I wouldn't use them in a sentence unless I was writing a grant application as they are pretty meaningless descriptors in terms of discussing any work in any depth. I don't necessarily hate them but do put them in that class of functional, economically rational rhetoric to be used only in states of dire poverty in order to beg for cash.

(note that robin completely avoided using the terms new/ multi media in this answer -jm.)

jm: shannon o' neil said (on the net), more or less, that your laser show is like the "last 15 years of electronic music come full circle - from rave to microsound & back again, funny & sublime". the 'rave' element of smoke & lasers can't be avoided here...what are your thoughts on that..?

rf: Yes...the rave aspect cannot be ignored! I like the way Shannon put's it actually (makes it sound important or something). It was actually my major fear that, given that I have never attended a rave party, I would be presenting something naff and really tired. There have definitely been requests for glow sticks and chupa-chups to be thrown into the audience but, generally the consensus seems to be that it's turned out less like a late nineties rave and more like a rave that will happen in 2020 or something. I'm totally happy with that. I think since the Sydney debut I have come a long way toward addressing the rave feel. At that early stage, the heavy reliance on automated patterns with quite turgid repetitive qualities added weight to the rave analogy.

jm: really? never even ended up at one accidently? didn't think to go to one, just for the 'professional research' value? the fox don't dance?

rf: Damn straight! The fox don't dance! Last time i remember dancing was a few years ago at my cousins wedding, the wedding party had to dress in full scottish regalia so I looked like some demented take on Braveheart and it seemed logical to dance then. Yeah...don't know why it never happened, raves just seemed to be something that happened to other people. Was actually thinking about going to the MSO spectacular (lasers, fireworks and all the classical cliche's in one arena!) as research (read: to see what not to do). But the dates didn't line up.

jm: who is you spiritual god parent, ina-grm dropout jean michelle jarre or english exanded cinema pioneer liz rhodes?

rf: I'd like to think that I'm more aligned with Rhodes than Jarre, but I am also prone to delusions of granduer....so...it's probably an open question.


jm: shouldn't you just cut to the chase & do these gigs in sun ra style headgear & besequinned kaftans?

rf: Maybe, I have the build for a moo-moo with a beard to match. Problem is it's so dark... the theatre would be lost. Anyway I don't want to draw attention from the fact that I'm trying to blind people with light not rupture spleens with laughter at the sight of me trying to actually get energised on-stage!!

jm: interesting you should say that, as i've found the bulk of your work quite 'funny'. i think there's definitley an element of humour at play, particularly in the duo with pateras... a kind of "cartoonish" sense of dynamics (fast, choppy, unpredictable, unafraid of fart noises etc). how intentional is this? (or is this whole perception just me, who is prone to find lots of 'serious' art pretty funny...or at least respond to it with unstoppable giggling- keiji haino live, hardline austrian experimental concrete films etc etc)

rf: You're right. There is definitely humour in most things I do and particularly in the duo with Pateras (which we like to call a blend of comedy and violence) and the beta erko quartet. I'm also working on a forcefeedback piece for the 'Twitch' ensemble (see ABC TV next tuesday night) which involves wiring the players up to muscle stimulators so that 50% of their movement is involuntary, creating a comedic take on the puppetry of composition for performers. So, it's definitely there, i guess the whole kaftan thing was just a bit much...funny is one thing...that's quite another.

jm: that leads quite nicely into talking about your work with pateras.  what's odd or, perhaps more aptly, noteworthy, about this duo is that you have 'pieces' that you play, rather than just making it all up on the spot.  having seen you play the same piece twice in one show, and being able to recognize it as the same was pretty weird.  what's the process by which you come to these pieces?

rf: It's interesting that you say that. I think i know what you're referring to. We use a process toward the end of the set that is a refrain from the opening number. It's quite disctinctive sonically but i guess i wouldn't call it the same piece really.

jm: I know what you mean by that, but I was actually referring specifically to the launch for "flux compendium" @ synaesthesia, where the 1st piece you'd played (apocalypse now & then, maybe?) was played again for fashionable melbourninan latecomers..

rf: Ok, now i understand. I had forgotten the reprise of that track for the latecomers.

jm: that's ok. please, continue...

rf: The process has really been one of extensive playing together over a number of years. The set-up has changed considerably since the first gig which was basically a grand piano, a mic and an early version of the audio-mulch granulator! We played through a number of instrumentations working largely in an improvised way. It was never free improv though, we always (and still do) have a macro plan where the large scale aspects of a set are sorted out but the moment-to-moment detail of the performance is free to move and is often so contingency based that it is impossible to repeat. Eventually, once we started touring for longer periods, the set-up seemed to stabilise into the most convenient touring version of the duo. This put vocal sound sources and the suitcase synthi A at the fore in terms of convenience for Pateras.

Then after a couple of years with this set-up we found ourselves really getting to know it and working out quite quickly what we thought worked and didn't work. Often the things that worked really well didn't warrant an extended live exposition, like the opening track on flux compendium, it only needs three minutes. We found ourselves moving away from the lopeing improv format and decided to do the 'noodling' in rehearshal and present a noodle free performance. It has been quite a satisfying (yet often nerve-wracking) way to present material. Particularly to such a specialised audience accustomed to the 45+ minute meander. Funnily enough it has become a bit of a talking point and, on the whole, it seems that people find themselves suprisingly comfortable with it. In my view it gives the listener a quick chance to re-set and prepare for the next idea rather than searching for connections between things that may not really be connected at all. I guess that's the essence of it. We could have contrived a set of elisions designed to make the pieces flow together but it would have been unecessarily artificial.

jm: so is this a self imposed limit you guys use even when you don't have to now? the duo only works with materials that can be easily taken on the road/performed live? you don't do any stuff with a view towards recording only?

rf:That's a good question. When we get together to develop material it is usually with a performance or a string of performances in mind. Therefore we tend to develop work with the materials we feel we can carry with us. Also, the material on the new record was developed for touring and then refined on the road, so when it came to record we didn't feel the need to move outside of that. The situation was  the same with 'coagulate'. Even though there is a piano frame involved we used to drag the fucker to gigs all the time, so the recorded materials are really documents of what we present live.


jm: how similar are these pieces each time you play them? when are they 'finished' if ever?

rf:The similarity between performances varies. 'Apocalypse now and then' is pretty much the repeatable hit on the record but any of the other more concrete (as in musique...I don't have accents here) pieces like $2.50 and the vocal works are contingent upon a) the processing algorithms being quasi-randomised so no two versions will be identical and b) the acoustic nature of the space which determines feed levels from the source to the processing. There is also a lot of room for variation depending on the audience response (the 'vibe' if you like) and the nature of the venue itself which leads on to your next question.

jm: is everything you guys play in public a 'set piece',or do you sometimes just cut loose?

rf: I know this sounds like a self-glorifying tug but the occasions where we 'cut-loose' from the set and go AWOL are usually encores. i.e. we play the set... more is required...so we turn the whole system on and 'see what happens'. Sometimes it's great and others it's not so great...so we open ourselves up to the moment there a bit. It's important to note, however, that the set is really only formalized on the macro-level and that, within each piece, there's plenty of scope for real-time invention and extension. I couldn't stand performing it so much if that wasn't the case.

jm: do you have "hits"?

rf: Not really, we treat 'Apocalypse' as the hit because it's pop song length.. and it's such a pop song.

jm: ever in a situation like... "oh, shit, they hate us, we're too noisy... quick ,.. play $2.50?" or what?

rf: Usually we size up the venue first and decide whether the quieter tracks are going to work. When it looks like they won't we do what we call 'the punk set' which is essentially extended versions of the harder tracks. It also depends partly on what event organisers are asking. If the designated set length is 45-50 minutes then we don't have much choice but to play it all.


jm: and what have people said in response to this duo? do different reigons have differnt takes on it? do people obsessed by the "freedom" of improvised music find your working from basic ideas/structures 'sterile' ,'rigid', 'cheating' or anything like that?

rf: It's surprising, but in Europe, the 'song' format was the first thing people would comment on and, on the whole, in a positive way. They'd say 'Wow, it was great that you played a series of short pieces! They were like...songs or something'. It was a real indication on the last tour that the 'experimental' or 'improv' scenes had been stagnating a little under the weight of the developmental, predictably enveloped format of the long improv set. A performance ideology had developed and I guess we were presenting an alternative view. As for the sterility factor, I'm sure there are some improv evangelists who would argue that but in counter I would say that the hegemonic pursuit of musical freedom through free improvisation has led to a bizarre reduction in stylistic diversity. If musical freedom has to sound like Derek Bailey then improv has gone down the same dark path as 'free' jazz, which, in it's current manifestation, seems about as free as a guantanamo inmate.

jm: do you have a similar process in your duo with clayton thomas?, as in are there 'pieces' that you play, ideas you're interested in exploring, or is that more spontaneously improvised?

rf: We have a couple of set ideas that we want to get across. The long track on sub-station 'dust on the diodes' is a favourite for both of us. We like the endurance angle. For Clayton the endurance is physical, for me it's more about trying to manage my sonic turets (Sp? spell tourettes? fucken t, fucken o, fucken u fucken double motherfucken r....oh, erm... (jm)) syndrome. Also, there is just a lot more improvisation associated with the project. We have hardly had any time to play together and develop ideas so when we get the chance to perform we have to improvise. I'm not saying that that would change if we played together more...there's no reason why that duo should head in same structuralist direction as the duo with Pateras.

jm: speaking briefly about fucken sonic tourettes syndrome - and so called "avant mutant hiphop" quartet beta erko...(which is far better simply heard, than heard talked about...) how is the rest of the world dealing with "i'm ok, you're ok"? are you getting reviews saying "this is either the worst album ever or the best"???

rf: That's pretty much been the response which marries well with how i feel about the record. I really love it but partly because i still can't decide if it's amazing or...not. The reviews have all been sort of confused along the same lines. I certainly enjoy the live performances though, really liberating real-time nonsense.

jm:finally, just addressing another topic ...you've worked with some pretty unique old synths as well as doing your more recognised computer music, on the fivefold galactic bells project, and i believe you're pretty up to speed about australian electronic music of the 60's/70's etc... can you briefly educate us as to some these synths, & the people who made them we might not other wise know about?

rf: I was really lucky to inherit an analog studio which consists of two EMS machines (the synthi A and the VCS 3), an analog rack module based on the VCS3 but built in Melbourne around 1976, and Kieth Humble's old electronic music nerve centre custom built by the Optronics company in the late 1960's.

The EMS (Electronic Music Studios) company is based in London and, due to the arrival of Tristam Carey (one of the EMS founders) to teach in Adelaide in the mid 1970's, these units became the Australian standard for teaching electronic music until the dreaded midi revolution of 1983. Kieth Humble installed them in the Grainger museum, which was in a shocking state of neglect, in the late 1960's and before long they were also appearing at the Council for Adult Education under Felix Werder and the Phillip Institute of Technology under David Tolley (the latter forming the basis of Dave Brown's introduction to experimental electronic music).

The analog racks modelled on the VCS3 were built by my step-father Jim Sosnin and his short time business partner Bruce Bryan around 1976. They formed a company called 'transaudio' which was responsible for some beautiful machines but lapsed by 82. The units were built to extend the LaTrobe music department's analog studios and three of them were fished out of a dumpster by Michael Munson (the other half of Fivefold Galactic Bells) when the department was closing in 1999.

The optronics company were responsible for making high end recording gear (4 and 8 track tape machines) from about the mid-fifties onward in Melbourne. The head of the company Graham Thurkle (sp?) designed and built the unit commissioned by Humble around 1968. The most interesting aspect of the unit is the centre-piece. An old piece of italian medical equipment designed to read brainwaves called the omni-voila.

jm: could you do alvin lucier /pierre henry "cortical art" style thinking music into existence shit with these 'omni voila' units? have you? how controllable are these parts of the machine, do you get better with practice, etc.  does thinking about say, sex, sound different from thinking about politics?

rf: I guess you could do similar 'cortical art' styled things with the omni-voila, but I haven't ever got my hands on the right transducers to make it function in that way. I simply abuse it and see what happens, it does some freaky stuff to overdriven earth hum for example. Apparently with the brainwave transducer systems you do get better with practice and, depending on how you feel about politics, i guess the two would sound diferent, begs the question though, what if you're thinking about sexual politics, is that a kind of cerebral convolution synthesis?

so there you go. if you were paying attention, and put 2+2 together here, you'd realise that if Robin got the brainwave parts of one of these old synths he has working, he could use brainwaves to trigger the muscle stimulators he talked about to make performers involuntarily spasm... he could well have a legendary piece of experimental music on his hands.  think about it.  how amazing would that be to see performed.  hint hint.

anyway.  while you all drool at the thought of that, here's some freebies relating to robin fox.

the new album by the pateras & fox duo is out on editions mego.  it's great. you can hear the "hit":http://www.anthonypateras.com/audio/flux_apocalypsenowandthen.mp3 and the 'b' side:
http://www.anthonypateras.com/audio/flux_2dollarsfifty.mp3 courtesy of anthony pateras's website http://www.anthonypateras.com/
anthony is another member of the beta erko quartet, along with trilingual mc vulk makedonski (also of curse ov dialect) and turntable butcher martin ng.  you need to hear it.  pateras knows this and he's bringin' you the love: http://www.anthonypateras.com/audio/beta_otvorenzasite.mp3
that hilarious picture is also from anthony's site. thanks heaps for these anthony!!
as was mentioned above, anthony pateras is the featured peformer on "SET" next tuesday (abc, 10pm) if you'd like to be living a few days into the future like Robin is, you can download the audio from this show as mp3 from here http://www.abc.net.au/tv/set/3.htm  the first three episodes are available, so if you missed one, or have to have a copy of it, it's there for you.  Gotta love 'em.  Be sure to send 'em an email saying how much you love it -  even if you haven't been watching it, and cane the abc's bandwidth some, because that'll have more effect in getting more of this kinda stuff made than actually watching it, sadly enough.  but you should watch it anyway.

and guess what!! Robin Fox doesn't have a website or a fucking myspace page!!!
this isn't it either: http://www.geocities.com/robinfox_2000/

Added by jpeatt on 10 May 2006