hannahcrockersoprano-blog

[hannahcrockersoprano-blog]

This is a little taster of our installation performance. The piece we are singing here is Lauridsen's ‘O Magnum Mysterium’. There was a great turn-out for this performance and I was so glad that we could finally share what we had created.

Friday: Installation

KCC: Loggia

The week had gone so quickly and it was now time to share what we had created together. We were extremely proud of what we had achieved and hoped that the audience members would be able to appreciate the concept behind Max’s innovative project.

As we were so well rehearsed and didn’t want the performance to become over-sung and stale, we came in at 11am, rather than 10am like the majority of the week. We wanted to keep it alive and fresh.

The day ran as follows:

11am-12pm: We helped Max and Guy to finish setting up all of the necessary equipment and technology, including the 12 speakers, and ensured that it was safe for the audience to walk freely around the performance space by taping down the numerous wires. We then rehearsed the whole performance in the space for the first time. Although we had sung in the Loggia throughout the week to get a feel for the acoustic and explore the spacial placement of our sound, the recordings being emitted from the speakers created a very different and haunting atmosphere. The sound hung in the space and continued resonating even after we had finished singing, which was truly magical! The effect was even greater when we added our live singing on top of this and the sound produced gave me goosebumps on many occasions. I am so glad that we were given permission to do our performance in the Loggia, as opposed to G29, as the sound in G29 is much more dead and the beautiful pieces and the experimental work we have done cannot be fully appreciated. Also, the space is much smaller and the room is full of other things such as chairs and a large grand piano, which would prevent the audience from being able to move freely around the space, defeating the object of the project.

During this time, we also experimented a little with our use of space and whether we would move around with the audience, now that the Loggia was properly set up as it would be for the installation. Collectively, we agreed to stand by the speaker emitting our personal vocal recordings after the long and continuous ‘ssh’, giving the audience room to move around the Loggia. We would then integrate with the audience and sing amongst them for the remainder of the performance, walking round and listening to the individual speakers, to encourage them to do the same.

This is a picture taken from one of our four performances throughout the afternoon. You can see people stood by the speakers in order to hear our individual voices. As you can see, we are fully integrated with the audience, to try and conceal our identity as performers and make them comfortable enough to freely move around the space. To further aid this, we engaged in conversation.

1pm-2pm: Two performances, lasting approximately 20 minutes each with a short break in between to allow the first group of audience members to leave and the second to filter in.

After the first performance, we regrouped and analysed the effectiveness of our performance and the audience participation. We realised that the audience were uncomfortable moving around the space when we were stationary, next to our own speaker. In order to overcome this and encourage them to relax and feel comfortable enough to walk around and fully appreciate the project, we decided not to stand next to the speakers for a set amount of time at any point, but integrate with the audience at all times. We hoped that they would then follow our lead.

3pm-4pm: Two performances, once again lasting approximately 20 minutes each with a short break in between. We then all packed away together and made sure the space was cleared and the technology returned safely. We also took a group photo, to remember our time together and the fun we had had. We really connected as a group and were able to openly share our ideas, which was very refreshing and exactly what I had hoped for in a CoLab project.

Each of our performances varied slightly, due to Max clicking on the different recorded parts live for the first mix and match section, at the beginning of our performance. This kept it fresh and interesting, particularly for those people who returned to listen more than once. One man in particular stayed for a long time and gave us such positive feedback; he said the sound created was incredible and one that you cannot imagine without actually being there to hear it. Also, it is crucial to listen to it live, rather than just a video or a sound recording, as otherwise the surround sound effect cannot be heard and fully appreciated. An integral part of the project and the installation was that the audience could move around and listen to the individual speakers, which obviously isn’t possible if they are only hearing a recording.

All of the feedback we received from the audience members throughout the day was positive and made us proud of what we had achieved. They loved Max’s concept behind the project and felt that the surround sound effect, created through the use of speakers, was intriguing and nothing like they had heard before. They also loved the fact that we incorporated a live element into the performance, as this added a further dimension to the sound created and the element of surprise that we strived to create.

After a very successful afternoon of performances, it was time to tidy up and pack away all of the tech! Sadly, that was the end of my first CoLab project. I can’t wait for next year’s!

[hannahcrockersoprano-blog]

In this video, you can see the layout of some of the recordings on Max’s laptop, in order for him to click and select sections live, during the installation performance. Then the camera moves from speaker to speaker in G29, our main rehearsal space, so that the surround sound effect can be heard and appreciated.

Thursday

The Big Reveal and Refining

KCC: G29

After having had an extremely successful recording session yesterday, I was really looking forward to hearing what Max had produced, ready for the installation. I was also interested to see how the live element would be incorporated and whether it will sound as effective as we had planned.

The morning was assigned for Max to carry out the necessary editing and cutting. As Max is the most experienced in using all of the necessary software, we weren’t required to help in any way. We agreed yesterday to come in for 2pm, to listen to what Max had created and to rehearse the performance in its entirety, now that we will finally have the pre-recorded material to improvise over and sing along with.

We also refined what order and duration we wanted for the conversation section. We want to maintain the interest and attention of the audience and also maintain the element of surprise. Collectively, we agreed that the most effective way to manage this section for the installation would be for Max to mix and match different parts by clicking on them live. This will also mean that each performance is slightly different, keeping it fresh and exciting, both for us and anyone who wishes to listen more than once. The structure of our story will remain the same, to retain a strong framework to base our performance around and ensure we know where we are, ready to start singing when necessary.

The opening section including the conversations, warmup exercises, clapping, clicking, ‘ssh’s etc., before the chosen pieces start, will last for around one minute and will be fast-paced. This will ensure that the audience are fully engaged in the performance and not losing interest in what they are hearing. The fast pace will also help to disorientate them, to the point that they are unsure whether what they are hearing is pre-recorded or being performed live, which is one of our main intentions for this project.

Although we had originally planned for Theo to speak the lyrics of the last section of The Lamb over the top of our 4-bar chord sequence (hummed), it was revealed to us by Max that after trying to record it yesterday this simply didn’t work and made it sound comical, which is not at all the effect we were hoping to create. Instead, we decided to omit the return of the ‘F’ drone at the end of the performance and planned to finish with us improvising over the 4-bar chord sequence instead. We plan to create a cacophony of sound by each taking different lines from The Lamb and singing them at varied tempos and dynamics, coming in and out whenever we want to. Naturally, there will be moments when only one person decides to sing and other moments when everyone will be singing. The two tonally contrasted melodic ideas or motifs in this piece (easily identifiable in the soprano line) means that dissonance is inevitable, making it yet more uncomfortable and unexpected for the audience. To create a distinct ending, Max will conduct when the end is nearing and when to hold whichever note we are singing, even if it happens to be half way through the phrase. Originally, we thought that it would be more effective to finish the phrase we were singing, as each phrase resolves back to an E minor chord after passing through various chromatic notes. This would effectively allow the piece and our performance to resolve. However, when we experimented with the second idea of holding whichever note we are singing, we preferred the uneasy and dissonant sound this created and felt it was more in-keeping with the project; to expect the unexpected.

After having rehearsed the performance in its entirety, we felt ready and excited for the installation performance and created a schedule for tomorrow.

This clearly shows some of the technology that will be required for the installation performance tomorrow. There are a lot of cables and I am glad Max and Guy know what they are doing!

[hannahcrockersoprano-blog]

This is a snapshot of our time in the recording studio at Trinity and the layout of the room required to be able to separate each individual voice. We were stood in voice parts, with sopranos closest to the camera. You can hear the distinct difference in the quality of the sound here, compared to the Loggia; the recording studio creates a very dead and flat sound, with very little resonance, in order to get the best recorded sound.

Wednesday

Recording

KCC: G29 and Recording Studio

While we were waiting for Max and the studio technician to finish setting up the studio, we warmed up together and rehearsed some sections of the pieces, ensuring we were ready to hit the ground running and use our limited time in the studio effectively. Max managed to book six hours in the studio, which sounds a lot but isn’t in reality. We had a lot to get through and wanted to also leave a generous amount of time to go back and re-record parts we weren’t happy with and that were not up to our high standards.

To ensure that we got everything done, we created a recording schedule and made sure we stuck to it. It was as follows:

1)    Chosen pieces – starting with Song for Athene, as we knew it wasn’t too demanding on the voice, while we were still warming up. It was crucial not to over-sing too soon, as we had a long day of singing to get through and didn’t want to compromise the sound created by the end of the day by singing too much first thing. This took up most of our time in the studio, as the pieces require precision and a unified sound. O Magnum Mysterium in particular is full of intricacies that demand a lot of attention and careful thought. As this is the longest piece, it was also a challenge to stay in tune, singing a cappella. Luckily all of the pieces could be easily broken up into smaller and more manageable sections, making it easier to stay in tune and produce a more accurate recorded sound.

2)    Experimental parts, including the warmup sounds, clapping, raindrop sounds etc. Although this was not the main part of our performance, we still allowed plenty of time to ensure what we recorded was high enough quality and would actually add to the final installation performance. We made a conscious decision to ensure that what we produced contrasted the chosen pieces and the rest of the performance.

3)    ‘F’ drone – tried using all of us and all voice types, but then re-recorded it just using the male voices (tenors and basses), singing in octaves.

4)    Re-recording bits we realised didn’t work as well as we had hoped the first time or weren’t as good as we had originally thought – this was a crucial part of the recording process, to ensure that we produced the highest quality of material possible.

5)    Conversations in between takes and while waiting for the go-ahead from the studio technician and Max – unbeknown to us! This included general chatter, a couple of jamming sessions ranging from The Sound of Music to popular music and discussions about the actual music we were performing. Listening back to it was so funny and a complete surprise but I am definitely glad we weren’t aware we were being recorded, as otherwise it would have sounded false or people wouldn’t have felt so free to express themselves. It really captured the idea of general and random chatter from an audience before a performance that we were hoping to replicate, to be used in the installation.

Here is a still image from the video, so you can clearly see the layout of the room and the technology used to record. We had individual microphones, in order to be able to separate each person’s vocal recording. 

[hannahcrockersoprano-blog]

This is us experimenting with the acoustic of the Loggia in the afternoon, to get an idea for how it feels to sing in the space.

Tuesday

Experimenting

KCC: G29 and Loggia

We decided to use Tuesday to experiment with the chosen pieces and the live material, rather than spending too long rehearsing the pieces in their entirety, unsure of whether we were cutting parts anyway.

We discussed and confirmed the running order for Friday's installation, deciding on the following:

1) Pre-recorded conversation – taken from our general chatter between takes and while waiting for the go-ahead from the studio technician and Max. We weren’t aware that we were being recorded, but in hindsight, I am glad we didn’t know as it would have sounded false and probably not as amusing and effective for the installation if we had known. It also involved other sounds such as clapping, clicking, warmup sounds, the calling out of random names etc., all quickly moving around the various speakers.

2) Pre-recorded 'ssh' – beginning with short, sharp ‘ssh’s at quite a loud dynamic moving around the speakers, then a loud long and continuous ‘ssh’, signalling for us to stand by the speaker emitting our personal vocal recording and signalling the start of the chosen pieces.

3) ‘F’ drone using just tenors and basses, singing in octaves - live pitch bends over the pre-recorded 'F' drone. Record drone for a long time to reduce worry of pauses and gaps in the sound as we wanted it to be continuous, leading into the first piece.

4) Bass solo taken from Tavener's Song for Athene – performed by Michael

5) Tavener's Song for Athene - end of piece = pause (let sound hang in Loggia and have moment of silence, to add definition between the different pieces).

6) Lauridsen's O Magnum Mysterium – beginning with just the pre-recorded sound, then us doubling a chosen section of the piece, before returning to just the pre-recorded sound. We hoped this would add to the disorientation of the audience as to whether what they were hearing was being performed live or whether it was pre-recorded and being emitted from the speakers. Originally, we had planned to finish with us singing live and to gradually fade out the speakers, but felt this would be more effective instead.

7) Tavener's The Lamb – hum the last 4 bars, using glissandos and pitch bends to make the transitions between each note. We would then use this 4-bar chord sequence on loop to improvise over, with Theo speaking the lyrics over the top. 

We also wanted to explore our use of space in this section of the piece, possibly trying to create a panning/ call and response effect through us standing in small groups in different parts of the room, answering the call of another group. For example, we could stand in voice parts; sopranos sing a phrase, then tenors respond with either the same or a different phrase.

8) Pre-recorded 'F' drone from beginning returns at end, with us improvising live over it - end how we started, creating cyclical feel for audience. We felt it was also in-keeping with and one possible interpretation of this year's CoLab brief: "Different the same".

After having experimented with all of the elements making up the installation, we brainstormed ideas for something abstract and contrasted to the rest of the performance to be included. Our aim behind this was to give our performance a new and different dimension, in the hope of adding another element of surprise for the audience. The majority of the planned installation performance consisted of the singing of the chosen pieces, all with a very similar slow and serene tempo and atmosphere, so we wanted to add something unexpected and a little more up-beat and fast-paced, to maintain the interest and anticipation of the audience. We then decided we wanted to develop a story idea, to connect all of the elements we wanted to include in the performance and to provide some sort of structure.

The story is as follows:

1)    Raindrops – created using the tongue to produce the sound of a water droplet falling into a puddle or onto the ground. This idea was taken from the undergraduate chorus concert from the Autumn term and further developed by us. Max plans to start with the occasional raindrop sound, moving round the speakers, then build it up with more sounds and moving more rapidly. It will then finish with a programmed rainfall sound on his laptop playing over the top of our pre-recorded sounds.

This will represent the audience’s journey to a concert, outside in the rain. When it stops, it will imply that they have entered the building and reached the concert venue.

2)    Pre-recorded conversations – this will represent the general chatter from an audience before a performance or a concert. It will chop and change between different conversations we had throughout the day, to create a more realistic representation of a real audience, talking about anything and everything before the performance starts. We will also include other sounds such as clapping, clicking and the calling out of random names. Alongside this, we will record warmup sounds such as lip trills, glissandos on the voice and short rhymes and tongue twisters, to ensure both the voice and the brain are warmed up and ready to sing.

This will represent the warming up of an orchestra before a performance, which is expected by the audience. However, the audience do not usually hear or see a choir or singer warm up as it is all done backstage, further challenging the preconception of what it is to attend a choral performance. It is also quite exposing for a singer.

3)    Pre-recorded ‘ssh’ – this will represent the lights going down to signal the start of a performance and the hushing of the audience.

This will then lead into the ‘F’ drone and the rest of the performance as mentioned previously.

After the second day, we were well rehearsed and we are ready to record in the studio tomorrow. However, we were also wary not to over-rehearse as it would mean our voices would be overly tired for tomorrow and we would not be able to produce the high quality of recordings we want. I am eager to get started on what I know will be a busy but exciting day.

Here you can really appreciate the height of the Loggia ceiling and the size of the space, helping to create such a fantastic and resonant sound.

[hannahcrockersoprano-blog]

This is a video from Monday afternoon, after having rehearsed in the morning. Ash is conducting to make it easier to stay in time and get a feel for the piece, as we are still learning it and getting used to singing together.

Monday

Morning

KCC: G29 and Loggia

As a first year student, this was my first experience of participating in a CoLab project and it was one of the things that originally drew me to Trinity.

Our first morning of the project was spent exploring the concept behind Max's idea and discussing what we wanted to have achieved by the end of our week together. Guy Harries helped to focus our discussion and asked us to brainstorm initial ideas, individually, to get us thinking creatively and outside of the box. We each had the opportunity to share our favourite idea, or the one we thought would work most effectively alongside Max's original idea for the project. I thought using canon would work well within one of the pieces chosen by Max and hoped we could explore our use of space within the performance, to add a further element of surprise for the audience members, as they would not know where the sound was going to come from. This would further disorientate the audience, along with the surround sound effect created by the speakers, challenging the preconception of what is to be expected from a choral performance. Collectively, we decided that we wanted to explore the possibility of creating a multi-sensory experience for the audience. For example, we had discussed blindfolding the audience members for part of the performance, hoping to further disorientate them and also heighten their other senses. This would allow the individual vocal lines to be heard more effectively and ensure that the surround sound effect was fully appreciated. It was also decided that it was crucial to add a live element to the performance, adding to the confusion of whether what was being heard was live or pre-recorded and it would also give us room to improvise live and have more opportunity to experiment with the chosen pieces, adding a further texture on top of the pre-recorded material. We also agreed that moving around the performance space and being amongst the audience was integral to add to the unknown for the audience; they would be unsure as to where the sound was going to come from next, whether it was live or pre-recorded and left wondering who was performing and who was a part of the audience. To make this effective, we would have to also move from speaker to speaker, listening to the individual vocal lines and engage in conversation about the performance, as we hoped the audience members would be doing.

As well as brainstorming ideas, we each thought of an improvisatory idea that we could could each lead and incorporate into the performance, either in the form of pre-recorded material or performed live, depending on the idea itself. I thought that it might be interesting to incorporate a sound painting section, as I had really enjoyed experimenting with this technique in my Engaging Audiences module in my first term at Trinity. It is a fantastic way to challenge the performers and also give them room to improvise quite freely, while following a few simple instructions (through the use of hand gestures) from the leader. Each gesture gives a different instruction to the performers and it would be easy to follow, even amongst the audience members, as the gestures can me made big enough so that they can be seen by all performers.

After exploring everyone's ideas, we decided to begin rehearsing the chosen pieces, as written to begin with, to ensure they were rehearsed and together enough before attempting to record on the Wednesday. Ash conducted and also aided parts of the pieces with a simplified piano accompaniment, allowing us to hear our vocal lines and it helped immensely. Luckily many of the group had sung some, if not all, of the pieces before, which made the learning process quicker as those of us who were unfamiliar with the pieces felt supported by them and could turn to them for guidance if we were struggling. It was necessary to spend some time on allocations of parts where vocal lines split, to add texture and extra harmonic layers to the pieces. Initially, I sang all of the first soprano line, but we realised it was necessary for me to take the second soprano line at times, to ensure all parts were covered and to create a better balance of sound. Without me doing this, there were too many first sopranos and only one person, or even no one, on the second soprano line. Although I love taking the top line and enjoy singing the top notes, of which there were plenty, on reflection I am grateful that I was able to sing a harmony line for a change, rather than always having the melody. I thoroughly enjoyed the challenge that this brought as I am not used to having to provide harmony and it is a skill I would definitely like to develop. 

Above is the Loggia, set up ready for the performance, with the speakers installed.

We then decided to explore the spatial possibilities within the Loggia and get a feel for the acoustic created when we sing. We began by each choosing our own space within the Loggia, at a distance from each other and experimented with the idea of detuning. Guy Harries conducted the exercise, indicating with his hands when we needed to be in unison, when to begin to detune the note and by how much, before returning to the original note provided by a member of our group. Firstly, we tried to detune the note by less than a semitone, ensuring we moved chromatically and slid between the different pitches. The transitions were not supposed to be clean and we wanted the sound to be intense and uncomfortable, which was definitely aided by the hollow sounding acoustic of the space, creating lots of resonance and reverb. We then tried the exercise again, moving further than a semitone away from the original note, assessing the different atmosphere and sound created. We decided we preferred the openness and distance created by the latter exercise, providing a feeling of instability, and it was certain that we wanted to incorporate this into the live element of our performance. As we had already decided that moving around the performance space was going to form an integral part of the performance on Friday, we tried it one last time, while moving freely around the Loggia, still ensuring we could see Guy, conducting. Luckily, it still worked just as effectively, which was reassuring for Friday. 

Afternoon

In the afternoon, after rehearsing the pieces in the Loggia, standing in a circle and now without the aid of any piano accompaniment but with Ash still conducting, we returned to G29 to reflect on the day and reassess our aims for the project. We discarded the idea of using improvisatory ideas from each person, as they did not have enough of a connection to Max's original concept behind the project and it would lose its impact if we drifted from this. Originally, a Thursday performance was scheduled, as part of the lunchtime concert series at St Alfege Church in Greenwich. However, we decided to discard the concert, as it would have detracted our focus away from the main installation on Friday. We also didn't feel that it was in-keeping with the concept behind the project, as it would not have been possible to use the speakers in the church, which was integral in creating the surround sound effect. 

We also discussed the running of the Friday installation, including the running order, exploring the idea of using canon somewhere within the performance and the possibility of cutting parts of Lauridsen's O Magnum Mysterium as we felt it was perhaps too long to sing straight. I felt that it wasn't necessary to cut it, but rather do something unexpected with it through live singing. Initially I thought canon would be interesting, but realised it would be difficult to time perfectly with the pre-recorded material of the piece in its original form and in its entirety. At this point, it wasn't yet clear what we were going to do with it and left it at that for the end of the first day, hoping people would come the next day with ideas of what we could do with it. We needed something simple yet effective.

As it stood after the first day, the running order was as follows:

1) Conversation

2) Drone

3) Improvisation at end too - cyclical, familiar to audience, reminding them of the beginning 

By the end of our first day, we had successfully decided what it was we wanted to have achieved by the end of the project, become familiar with the chosen pieces and begun to explore the live element of the performance. Crucially, we were able to bond and connect as a group and were also able to produce a concise plan for the rest of the week, to ensure that we stayed on schedule and were able to get everything done and to the highest possible standard. This stood us in good stead for the rest of the week.

[hannahcrockersoprano-blog]

Surround Sound - CoLab 2017

Home

Each year, Trinity Laban abandons its timetables and hosts two weeks of innovative and collaborative projects, known as CoLab. It allows students to work with other disciplines including musical theatre and dance.

As a vocal student at Trinity, the main focus of my training is to improve my vocal technique and gain experience performing as a soloist, so when it came to choosing my preferred CoLab projects, I wanted to choose something that was different and that would give me the opportunity to explore other musical situations.

I decided to apply for the Surround Sound project, as I liked the concept behind it and wanted the chance to sing as part of a small chamber choir, but not in the conventional way. Max Winter, who devised and led the project, wanted to create a surround sound effect, with each speaker used emitting the recording of an individual voice. This was not something I had had the opportunity to try before and was intrigued as to what the final performance would entail.

The first two days of the project involved lots of discussions and the sharing of ideas, to consolidate exactly what it was we wanted to have achieved by the end of this week-long project. The whole of Wednesday was assigned to the recording of material, in the Trinity recording studio. Max had to carry out all of the necessary editing on the Thursday morning, followed by a whole group rehearsal and the chance to hear what he had produced from the recordings. 

The project culminated in an installation performance in the Loggia at KCC, using a mixture of pre-recorded material and live performance. Our aim was to disorientate the audience members to the point that they would be unable to distinguish what was live and what was being emitted from the speakers.

Above is one of the speakers we will be using for the installation performance. Each one is numbered so that Max knows which person’s voice it will be emitting.