When we first started talking about our ideas for sequencers, I proposed something called the Social Sequencer. This sequencer would take data from a crowd (anything from movement, lights or colors) and provide a computer-based system that would take the data and output sound that correlated to the crowd. A DJ would be able to make decisions somewhat about the sound, but it would be largely based on what was going on in the crowd.

I like the idea of allowing people to control the output of the sound they are enjoying... however, I am not sure that people would feel all that in control of what they are hearing in this scenario, especially since there still would be a DJ or someone moderating the final outcome.

For my midterm, I created a simple sequencer on a large piece of masonite. I wanted it to be big because I wanted multiple people to be able to use it at once. I like the idea of people actively using a sequencer together to create music, but this flat board really should be redesigned to make it more accessible for many people to use at once.

So, out of these considerations comes my proposal for the final project. I'm calling it the Social Sequencer once again, but this time I think it really is a sequencer that people can use socially to produce the kind of music that they want to hear.

This sequencer will be a 6-sided cone. Each of the six sides will have individual controls (so six people can contribute at once), and the top will also have communal controls that anybody can change.

On top there will be a potentiometer that will control the speed of the sequence. There will also be a mode button for going forward, backwards and randomly, as well as playing only the first 4 notes of a sequence and the first note only of the sequence. Finally there are two instrument adjustment buttons. The first will select the side whose instrument you want to change, and the second will be used to cycle through instrument options.

Not pictured is a panic button (to turn off all MIDI notes).

LEDs going down the sides of the hexagon will indicate the current position in the sequence. This will be helpful especially when switching modes.

On each side of the hexagonal pyramid, there will be either magnets (that act as switches) or potentiometers to choose what notes play when. There will also be a switch on the side that allows 2 users to connect their faces and therefore create 16th notes and work together.

The magnet switches are simply magnets covered with copper foil. When another magnet with foil completes the connection between the two pieces of foil on the magnet attached to the board, the arduino will read the input as HIGH and will then play the note. Magnets work well because it is visually clear what is happening, and also since the board will be near vertical, the switches will stay in place.

I will be sending MIDI messages directly from the Arduino, making this device simple to hook up to any output that accepts MIDI. 

This will require a ton of pins, so I will be using the Arduino Mega in conjunction with the MUX shield from Mayhew Labs.

The Mega has 70 pins (16 analog, 54 digital). The MUX (multiplexer) shield provides 48 pins, and uses 7. This will give me a total of 111 pins to use. My major requirements are:

- 40 for magnetic switches/buttons

- 17 for potentiometer controls

I thought this essay was rather interesting, if not a little cumbersome to read. 

There were a few things the author wrote about that I disagreed with. First, he talked about how the idea of literature is very linear with no repetition, and this contrasts with music which has quite a lot of repetition. While I don't dispute that literature is generally linear, I think the idea that written pieces don't feature purposeful repetition is a fallacy. When writing, authors often repeat important points to place emphasis on their arguments. In fiction, authors will repeatedly allude to important events (that either happened or have yet to occur), and allegory might be considered a way of repeating with variation. 

In the above examples, one might argue that the repetition in literature is not exact, whereas in music it often is. However, later on in his essay the author speaks about how good musicians should interpret the repeats slightly differently, and these subtle differences should come out in their musicality. I think the way which an author phrases something is no different that the way a musician subtly alters their performance. In both cases, the message (so to speak) is exactly the same, just with a different feeling. 

This essay also touches on the idea that patterns in music are a type of grammar, and without this grammar some music simply wouldn't exist (especially with older music). The author talks about how the structure of a sonata is essential because it is the structure that defines what a sonata is in the first place. I had never formally thought about this before, despite it being completely true and fairly obvious.

I liked the example of the computer creating sound vs. the kaleidoscope making visuals, the difference between the two being that "the former presents itself as a direct emanation of an artistically creative spirit, while the latter is no more than a mechanically ingenious plaything." This notion of intention being what defines music (as opposed to just sound) was a point that I really liked from our first reading. 

I also completely agree with the idea that repetition in music allows you the opportunity for discovery and reinterpretation. I can think of many examples where I've felt differently about a piece of music once I've heard it a few times, and often the more familiar I become with a song the more my opinions regarding it change. 

Perhaps a little unrelated, but my favorite quote in this essay was from Plato:

For we are conscious of being enchanted by such poetry ourselves; though it would be a sin to betray what seems to use the cause of truth.

I love this early illusion to guilty pleasures, because it represents a similarity among people in the past and people in the present, despite the passing of time.

This week's assignment: compose 32 bars of midi music for a player piano.

Here are the links to the noteflight score, a pdf of the sheet music, the midi file and the wav file.

The strings in this sound more like accordion than anything else, which I think is kind of funny. It makes me think of pirates. 

Anyhow, I started off with a strumming pattern for guitar that I really like, and just changed the notes around from there. The pattern and repetitions are really only in the rhythm. 

I chose this song as an example of repetition because it regularly repeats the guitar hook off and on throughout the song. 

The second chapter of the book about tempo and rhythm I found to be a little less enjoyable than the first chapter and introduction of this book. There were still a lot of examples, but I found they were mostly composed of songs written out. I spent a lot of time either humming songs in my head trying to figure out where the author was going with the example, or looking up the songs online (if I was really interested in seeing his point). This is definitely a chapter where an accompanying CD would have been incredibly beneficial. If the rest of the book continues in this way, I think I will find it much less enjoyable than I had initially thought it would be.

Having said that, though, there are still a few points of interest that stood out to me as I was reading this chapter. The author mentions that different people have different perceptions of when you should be tapping your foot in a song, and I was struck by the image of that one person at a concert clapping opposite of most everyone else in the crowd. He goes on to say that most people find upbeat songs happy and slower songs sad, and this is something I find to be generally true and consistently interesting. I often find that I enjoy music that seems sad, but is actually very happy (if you listen to the lyrics or the progression of the song). I think these sorts of songs appeal to me because they are unusual. Another thing I find curious is that often times I don't mind dark, depressing lyrics if the music is upbeat. It's amazing how the key and the pace of the music can really affect my feeling about the overall mood of a song; it can make what would normally be somber sound instead ironic.

Another thing that the author touched on was how important loudness (or changes in relative loudness) can be to the emotional appeal of songs. Immediately as I read this I thought of several songs (a few of my favorites, in fact) that really move me specifically because of their sudden changes in volume. I'd always referred to this in the past as how a song builds, but I realize now that this is simply volume change. Another thing I find extremely powerful in songs is a key change, something also discussed briefly in this chapter.

Something also discussed in this chapter are time signatures, and this discussion reminded me that I was confused a little by two time signatures presented in class: 6/4 and 6/8. Since they both have six notes to a measure, I don't really understand how having a quarter note vs. an eighth note having one beat makes a difference in the feeling of the music. I'd love to have some examples of music written in these time signatures; I think it would definitely clarify the difference. 

Finally, the mention that the average person can remember tempo remarkably well reminded me of this article I read a while back. It talks about the importance of doing CPR compressions quickly enough, and how the song, "Staying Alive" has the right tempo to do this successfully. People are now trained to do the compressions to this song, and because people can remember tempo it makes it easier for them to complete CPR at the proper speed. I also love the punchline of the article: