[linux-audio-user] Re: Net jamming

[Jorge Salgueiro]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:19:22 -0700, JP Mercury <swirlee at stickist.com> wrote:
> Shayne, Wolfgang-
> 
> It's good to hear that you two are interested in Net jamming. I read your
> ideas and I think we have a good starting point. Let's have a look-
> 
> > >What I want to do with FreeWheeling is to have users able to connect to a
> > >common jam room. As different users capture loops from their improvisations,
> > >the loops become available to other users in real-time. Since the loops are
> > >syncronized to a common downbeat and tempo, Wolfgang in Germany can take
> > >Latifah in Brooklyn's loops and add them to his own improvisation.
> .
> > that sounds idyllic ... i remember a similar concept with arturia storm
> > (version 2.0, i think) where you could connect to a sort of chat-like
> > room and share loops and samples with other users ... i think a good
> > idea would be to have different "song" rooms, created by a particular
> > user who would define the tempo, key etc of the song - perhaps you could
> > preview a room to see if it took your fancy - and joined by others
> > who would add layers or segments to it ... this would be a pretty complex
> > implementation, though ...
> 
> I like the idea of having different rooms for sharing loops. And I also like
> the idea of previewing.
> 
> Wolfgang seems to be coming at this more from the audio sync point of view,
> while Shayne addressed the ways in which loops could be shared.
> 
> My take on this is that we can allow several users to connect together to form
> a session, or room. A room is populated by users, and also loops. The users
> have both live audio (inputs and outputs) and possibly their own library of
> loops. When we enter a room, we are able to preview the live audio of
> different users to hear what they are doing.
> 
> I don't see having a single audio stream from a room that everyone jams in.
> Wolfgang was mentioning syncronization, and I agree that it would be difficult
> to syncronize all those clients. So I would suggest turning the problem on its
> head-- why not let each user develop his own improvisation using the loops of
> the other users. So the session can go in several directions at once. As
> Shayne grabs a new loop from his guitar, it appears on Wolfgang's screen.
> Playing the loop, Wolfgang is inspired and grabs something else to add another
> layer. Meanwhile, Mercury is listening to Wolfgang's mix and decides to
> improvise a break. He cuts out several of Wolfgang's loops, adds some thinner
> break loops of his own. He does this in his own mix, so it doesn't affect the
> others. Shayne and Wolfgang finish their loopy dialog and see that Mercury has
> gone off on a tangent-- so they grab what Mercury is doing and it becomes a
> break in their own improvisations.
> 
> In this way, I see a session as being a kind of quantum field of musical
> possibilities. Different users contribute new loops as they are inspired. We
> can peer into another user's sound, but we can also work on our own.
> 
> Besides loops, we can share live audio, but we will always be hearing it with
> some latency. Perhaps we can choose whether we want the lowest possible
> latency, or to quantize to the next beat.
> 
> Wolfgang mentioned bandwidth. I agree that's an issue. I think good results
> could be achieved with different codecs, OGG springs to mind. Good quality
> OGGs of loops could be shared quite quickly.
> 
> And if this works, we could allow rooms to persist, so that a server stores
> the loops and 'scenes' (collections of playing loops and settings), allowing
> others to connect later and add to the palette.
> 
> It sounds like both of you would be into testing such a system. If you have
> more design ideas, please let me know. And while this won't save the world, I
> do think that there is a lot of potential for a unique type of collaborative
> music making here. And I do think there are social implications whenever we
> change the way music is made.
> 
> Peace,
> Mercury
> 
> ps Nothing will ever replace two hands touching, two faces looking at each
> other, two birds singing in the wilderness
> 
> > no worries - i'm just glad a few people find this idea worth
> > pursuing, cos i really think the potential is huge - the internet
> > and digital audio has changed the way we think about music, but it
> > hasn't much changed the way we *make* music yet .... imagine ....
> >
> > shayne
> 
> 
its a great idea....I'm a "no musician" sound maker, don't know if i
coud join, but there are 3 things i think should be agreed before
start:

let motif. an abstrat word so everybody sync there minds (like Brian
Eno has done...) it would be beautiful to discover what the word
"love" means for those 4 people playing music. That it means for the 4
not for each one of theam... and how it grows by the passing time of
jamming...

roles. depending in the moment i think people shoud be able to have a
rol in the session so that the efford should be comparted. (One does
the beat, and another a synt stuff, and the next moment they could
change the rol, but in every moment they know what is their roles in
the music)

chating. it may be dificut to make music and type but I have to be
able to say to the other guy, grrreeeeEEEAt beat woooaaaooo eheheheh

sorry for the bad bad english...