[Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]

Simple Arpeggio constructed in Ableton Live.

  • Master control goes from 0 at beginning, to 127 at 1 minute mark, back to 0 by the end
  • Master control alters 3 qualities of an arpeggiator: sync rate (tempo), distance (tonal range of arpeggiator), and step (amount of notes to hit to get to said tone)
  • original tone is sin wave played at middle c, repeating   

Positive elements of this sound:

  • swelling energy that could be good for conveying photosynthesis. 
  • having one master signal control multiple elements leads to exponential change in sound.

Negative elements:

  • sounds a bit robotic, electronic and cold.
  • Dynamics and expression are lacking.
  • choosing a C note for starting tone comes with its own ideological constructs.

This experiment comes from some ideas, Chris Graves (aka the recording artist- Colongib) shared:

For kind of relatable sounds that might impact the listener, it might be interesting if there is a sound going on when the plant is photosynthesizing and a different one when the plant is respiring. In photosynthesis the plant is storing energy, in respiration it is releasing it, so really they are kind of opposites that change with the sunlight intensity. One could think of it like a battery that is charging and discharging. People will listen mostly during the day, which will be mostly charging/photosynth. Discharging/respir could then be a kind of more bassy sound. Personally I would try to avoid all drones (very long sustained notes) in this, because that seems to be really common. Then perhaps it is repeating arpeggios, and the photosynth vs respir completely changes the notes range involved (respir at a lower octave and with a different feeling to the notes used). So that would be controlled by whether the photosynth rate or respir rate is greater. The actual rates, those could control either the ranges of the arpeggios, or the tempo (or both). Regarding the ranges, that could also be implemented a bit different, like turning up the volume of a new arpeggio in a similar range which gives it a slightly different feeling. It could also be nice to add harmonics above and below so it is a big full sound when photosynthesis is really going strong. As for the transition between photosynth and respir, maybe some kind of detuning happens during the switch of melodies so you can kind of feel it about to happen.


This could probably be most simply implemented by having an audio filter after the melodies, e.g. the whole melody plays all the time during photosynth, and the filter widens with greater photosynth rate to “reveal” the higher+lower frequencies and makes a fuller sound. Probably easier (and maybe similar or even better effect) than triggering new notes in the arpeggio - the rates simply control the filter width.


As for the wind, I’m not sure exactly what that effects, but it is a bit more drastic. It might deserve it’s own sound, which could be triggering something that sounds a bit more drastic. Not violent, and could still be notes (or could be noise-type sounds that rise and fall quickly with filters).

Thoughts on the sounds.

As a novice sonic manipulator myself, I am consistently coming back to this translation point between the data garnered from the tree and the sound that the audience will hear. I have minimal experience in MAX programing, but I am well aware of how a series of numbers can be used to automate a sound parameter.

The main question, for me, seems to be what parameters do you pick? We want to give a voice to the breath of a tree.

What parameters shape my voice? Can this help think of giving voice to the data from the tree?

  • Breath is essential, without it, there would be no sound. It is both our mode of sonic communication, as well as our intermingling with the atmosphere. Inspiration and expiration, consistently. Could the flow of tree data be thought of as breath?
  • The vocal chords vibrate as breath passes over them. In the tree’s case, the vocal chords could be the computer program itself, as the data passes through the computer program it is ‘vocalized’  (Thinking of Stephen Hawking, the famous scientist who uses a computer program to speak)
  • Volume: The amount of breath intensifies the sonic signal. 
  • Tone: A representation of tension, lower is more relaxed, higher is more tense.
  • Diction (?): Shaping of the sound into chunks and syllables that are culturally taught. This is quite a challenge, as our audience has a cultural expectation of what a language should sound like.

And then it get’s overly complex for me, as I start wondering about Chomsky and linguistics…  So it becomes imperative to keep things simple yet effective.

To that end, I question using a sample as a starting point for this work. For me, I think it unnecessarily adds a layer of ideological interpretation that is more about the author of the sound, than either the tree, the process or the audience experience said process. Simplifying the original sound into a pure sin wave would draw the focus onto the changes of that tone. I think that using an organic sample is helpful for achieving a certain aesthetic texture, but it may complicate the goal of giving voice to the data changes coming from the tree.

~Noel

[Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]

Beech trees (12/12/10): branches rustling and a car passing. 

Recording device: Edirol r09hr

[Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]

Another recording from the beech trees (12/12/10) of fallen leaves rustling underfoot. 

Recording device: Edirol r09hr

[Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]

Ambient recording from a group of beech trees in the Chilterns, you can hear a plane flying overhead, birds, a dog barking and perhaps even a train. Unfortunately there is quite a lot of noise in the recordings from the internal mics. 

Recording device: Edirol r09hr 

Tags: Eden3