I can't say this is a novel approach to interfacing with a computer. In fact, my Sonic Jumper came to fruition as a reaction to the works of Japanese composer Suguru Goto. Suguru is well known for his own body suit interface system. I was soon having passionate discussions with him about new instrument designs.
We both came to the conclusion that if our interface ideas were to be acknowledged as a new form of instrument, we would have to dedicate a considerable amount of time - perhaps a lifetime - to defining and individualizing the skills necessary to play the instrument as well as developing the 'action' and 'voice' of the instrument. We compared this to learning how to play the piano. The rules for playing the piano are, however, already extremely codified. Here we really see the accepted distinction between what is and what is not an instrument. The comportment associated to piano playing allows us to label the piano as a real instrument.
Next, in my opinion, the largest dilemma was how to satisfy the audience's need to see the instrument. For whatever reason, we think of music making as requiring an object that can be manipulated. Even the voice is trained to conform to an instrumental standard and is actively shaped during a performance. Should we truly consider the visual element as an integral identifying factor? I have many composer colleagues who prefer to close their eyes during a concert. The Sonic Jumper has no buttons or keys, neither ebony nor brass parts. To confront the idea, "you get what you see", I had to decide how much of the actual gadgetry to show. Was I going to uncover all of the sensors attached to my body as well as show their connecting cables?
|
