Phreaking<\/I><\/p>\n
When
\nthe local 2600 group, started organising BrumCon 2007, which took
\nplace on 3 May 2008, I asked if I could present a musical set. They
\nhad never done such a thing before, but they agreed. 2600 is a
\nhacker group (\u201c2600 Meetings\u201d) with roots in phone phreaking
\n(Trigaux), so I decided to reference that in a piece written for the
\ngig.<\/p>\n
As
\nnoted in The Complete Hacker’s Handbook,<\/I> \u201cPhone phreaking\u201d
\nrefers to the practice hacking phone systems in order to get free
\ncalls or just explore the workings of the system. Phone systems used
\nto be controlled by in-band signalling, that is, audible tones that a
\nuser could reproduce in order to gain unauthorised control. For
\nexample, 2600 Hz was a useful tone to \u201cseize\u201d control of a line.
\nOther such sounds commonly found in telephony are Dual Tone Multi
\nFrequency [DTMF] sounds, which are the ones produced by a landline
\nkeypad. (Dr. K.)<\/p>\n
I
\nlooked up red box phreaking on Wikipedia and also DTMF signals and
\nused those tones as the heart of the piece. It starts with a dial
\ntone, then does coin dropping sounds, followed by the sound of
\ndialling and then a ring back sound, followed by a 2600 Hz tone.
\nAfter that introduction, it plays dialling signals and then a beat.
\nThe beat is made up of patterns of sampled drums. The programme
\npicks random beats to be accented, which will always have a drum
\nsound on them and then scatters drum sounds on some of the other
\nbeats also. The loop is repeated between 8-10 times and then a new
\npattern is created, retaining the same accents for the duration of
\nthe piece. If the randomly generated drum pattern seems too sparse
\nor too full of beats, the performer can intervene by pressing a
\njoystick button to add some drum beats or another to remove them. The
\nidea for randomly accenting beats comes a lecture by Paul Berg at
\nSonology in the Hague where he noted that accenting random beats
\nseems like it had a deliberate rhythm when it’s heard by audiences.
\nThis is related to Trevor Wishart’s discussion of Clarence Barlow’s
\n\u201cindispensability factor,\u201d where Wishart notes that changing
\naccents of a steady beat can alter the listener’s perception between
\ntime signatures. (Wishart p 64) It seems that greater randomness in
\npicking accents leads listeners to perceive more complex rhythms.<\/p>\n
After
\nthe beats, a busy signal comes in occasionally. There are also bass
\nfrequencies which are DTMF sine tones transposed by octaves.
\nFinally, there are samples of operator messages that are used in the
\nAmerican phone system. These are glitched and stuttered, the degree
\nof which is controlled with a joystick. Thus, this piece is partly a
\nlive-realisation, self-running piece and partly controlled by a
\nperformer.<\/p>\n
At
\nthe time, I was interested in making computer pieces that necessarily
\nhad to be computer pieces and could not be realised with live
\ninstruments or with an analogue synthesiser. Extremely exact tunings
\nand sample processing are both examples of things that are
\ncomputer-dependant. I was also interested to have more live control
\nand more visible gesture, in order to, as Paine describes in his
\npaper on gesture in laptop performance, \u201cinject
\na sense of the now, an engagement with audience in an effort to
\nreclaim the authenticity associated with \u2018live\u2019 performance.\u201d
\n(Paine p 4) I thought having physical motions would engage the
\naudience more than a live realisation. Conversely and relatedly, I
\nwas also interested in the aesthetics of computer failure, within the
\nglitches I was creating. Cascone writes, \u201c'[Failure]’ has become a
\nprominent aesthetic in many of the arts in the late 20th century,
\nreminding us that our control of technology is an illusion, and
\nrevealing digital tools to be only as perfect, precise, and efficient
\nas the humans who build them. \u201c (Cascone) I thought this
\nintentional highlighting of imperfection would especially resonate
\nwith an audience that largely worked in a highly technical and
\nprofessional capacity with computers. <\/p>\n
I
\nalso find glitches to be aesthetically appealing and have been
\ninfluenced by the extremely glitchy work of Ryoji Ikeda, especially
\nworks like Data.Matrix<\/I>,
\nwhich is a sonification of data. (\u201cDatamatics\u201d) Similarly,
\nin-band signalling is literally a sonic encoding of data, designed
\nfor computer usage.<\/p>\n
When
\nI performed the piece at BrumCon, their sound system did not have an
\neven frequency response. Some sine waves sounded way louder than
\nothers and I did not have a way to adjust. I suspect this problem is
\nmuch more pronounced for sine tones than it is for richer
\nfrequencies. Another problem I encountered was that I was using
\nsounds with strong semantic meanings for the audience. Many of them
\nhad been phreakers and the sounds already had a specific meaning and
\ncontext that I was not accurately reproducing. Listeners without
\nthis background have generally been more positive about the piece.
\nOne blogger wrote the piece sounded like a \u201cdemonic
\nhomage to Gaga\u2019s Telephone,<\/I>\u201d
\n(Lao) although he did note that my piece was written earlier.<\/p>\n
Blake’s
\n9<\/I><\/p>\n
The
\nmusic of the BBC Radiophonic Workshop has been a major influence on
\nmy music for a long time. The incidental music and sound effects of
\nDoctor Who<\/I> during the Tom Baker years was especially
\nformative. I found time in 2008 to watch every episode of Blakes
\n7 <\/I>and found the sound effects to be equally compelling. I spent
\nsome time with my analogue synthsiser and tried to create sounds like
\nthe ones used in the series. I liked the sounds I got, but they were
\na bit too complex to layer into a collage for making a piece that
\nway, but not complex enough to stand on their own. I wrote a
\nSuperCollider programme to process them through granular synthesis
\nand other means and to create a piece using the effects as source
\nmaterial, mixed with other computer generated sounds.<\/p>\n
The ninerrors While Indeed, Although Synthesiser When I’ve by Pauline Oliveros is one such piece, although she realised it in a Even Recently, My It For Bibliography<\/p>\n \u201c2600 Behrman, Bernstein, David. \u201cThe San Francisco Tape Music Center: Emering Art Forms and the American Counterculture, 1961 \u2013 1966.\u201d The San Francisco Tape Music Center: 1960s Counterculture and the Avant-Garde.<\/i> Ed. David Bernstein. Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press, 2008. Print.<\/p>\n Blakes Cascone, Cascone, \u201cDatamatics.\u201d Doctor Dr. Hutchins, Ikeda, Knapp Kuivila, Lao, <http:\/\/thelinusblog.wordpress.com\/2010\/06\/17\/the-music-of-charles-celeste-hutchins\/<\/A>><\/p>\n \u201cManifestoDraft.\u201d Mendoza. <http:\/\/ninerrors.blogspot.com\/2009\/10\/ninerrors-2.html<\/A>><\/p>\n Mendoza. Moller, Olewnick, Oliveros, Paine, \u201cRed Rohruber, http:\/\/lists.lurk.org\/mailman\/private\/livecode\/2011-February\/001176.html<\/A>><\/p>\n Schloss, Sethares, \u201cSonic Trigaux, \u201cThe \u201cThe 5 August 2004. Web. 5 September 2011. United Vanhanen, <http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1080\/0749446032000156946<\/A>><\/p>\n Weidenbaum, Wishart, *<\/A>\u201cze\u201d Phreaking When the local 2600 group, started organising BrumCon 2007, which took place on 3 May 2008, I asked if I could present a musical set. They had never done such a thing before, but they agreed. 2600 is a hacker group (\u201c2600 Meetings\u201d) with roots in phone phreaking (Trigaux), so I decided to reference … Continue reading Dissertation Draft: Solo Live Electronic Pieces<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[76,122],"class_list":["post-181","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorised","tag-celesteh","tag-thesis"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.celesteh.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.celesteh.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.celesteh.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.celesteh.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.celesteh.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=181"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.celesteh.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2380,"href":"https:\/\/www.celesteh.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181\/revisions\/2380"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.celesteh.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.celesteh.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.celesteh.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\ntiming on a micro, \u201cbeat,\u201d and loop level are all in groups of
\nnine or multiples of nine, which is why I changed the number in the
\npiece title. I was influenced to use this number by a London poet,
\nMendoza, who had a project called ninerrors<\/I>
\nwhich ze*<\/A>
\ndescribes as, \u201ca
\nsequence of poems constricted by configurations of 9: connected &
\ndis-connected by self-imposed constraint. each has 9 lines
\nor multiples of 9, some have 9 words or syllables per line, others
\nare divisible by 9. ninerrors <\/B><\/I>is presented
\nas a series of 9 pamphlets containing 9 pages of poetry.\u201d
\n(\u201cninerrors\u201d) I adopted a use of nines not only in the timings,
\nbut also in shifting the playback rate of buffers, which are played
\nat rates of 27\/25,
\n9\/7, 7\/9 or 25\/27. The
\ntone clusters frequencies also are related to each other by tuning
\nratios that are similarly based on nine. I was in contact with
\nMendoza while writing this piece and one of the poems in hir<\/p>\n
\ncycle, an
\nobsessive compulsive disorder<\/I>,
\nmentions part of the creation of this piece in it’s first line,
\n\u201cwashing machine spin cycle drowns out synth drones.\u201d (\u201can
\nobsessive compulsive disorder\u201d)<\/p>\n
\nratios based on nines gave me the internal tunings of the tone
\ncluster, I used Dissonance Curves, as described by William Sethares,
\nto generate the tuning and scale for the base frequencies of the
\nclusters. The clusters should therefore sound as consonant as
\npossible and provide a contrast to the rest of the piece, which is
\nrather glitchy. The glitches come partly from the analogue material,
\nbut also from sudden cuts in the playback of buffers. For some parts
\nof the piece, the programme records it’s own output and then uses
\nthat as source material, something that may stutter, especially if
\nthe buffer is recording it’s own output. I used this effect because,
\nas mentioned above, I want to use a computer to do things which only
\nit can do. When writing about glitches, Vanhanen writes that their
\nsounds \u201care
\nsounds of the . . . technology itself.\u201d (p 47) He notes that \u201cif
\nphonography is essentially acousmatic, then the ultimate phonographic
\nmusic would consist of sounds that have no acoustic origin,\u201d (p
\n49) thus asserting that skips and \u201cdeliberate mistakes\u201d (ibid)
\nare the essential sound of \u201cphonographic styles of music.\u201d (ibid)
\nSimilarly, \u201cglitch is the digital equivalent of the phonographic
\nmetasound.\u201d (p 50) It is necessarily digital and thus is
\ninherently tied to my use of a computer. While my use of glitch is
\noppositional to the dominant style of BEAST, according to Vanhanen,
\nit is also the logical extension of acousmatic music.<\/p>\n
\nthe piece was written with the BEAST system in mind. The code was
\nwritten to allow N-channel realisations. Some gestures are designed
\nwith rings of 8 in mind, but others, notably at the very start, are
\ndesigned to be front speakers only. Some of the \u201crecycled\u201d
\nbuffers, playing back the pieces own recordings were originally
\nintended to be sent to distant speakers, not pointed at the audience,
\nthus give some distance between the audience and those glitches when
\nthey are first introduced. I chose to do it this way partly in order
\nto automate the use of spatial gesture. In his paper on gesture,
\nPaine notes that moving a sound in space is a from of gesture,
\nspecifically mentioning the BEAST system. (p 11) I think that because
\nthis gesture is already physical, it does not need to necessarily
\nrely on the physical gesture of a performer moving faders. Removing
\nmy own physical input from the spatialisation process allowed me more
\ncontrol over the physical placement of the sound, without diminishing
\nthe audience’s experience of the piece as authentic. It also gives
\nme greater separation between sounds, since the stems are generated
\nseparately and lets me use more speakers at once, thus increasing the
\nimmersive aspect (p 13) of the performance.<\/p>\n
\nthis piece is entirely non-interactive, it is a live realisation
\nwhich makes extensive use of randomisations and can vary
\nsignificantly between performances. In case I get a additional
\nchances to perform it on a large speaker system, I would like the
\naudience to have a fresh experience every time it is played.<\/p>\n
\nImprovisation<\/I><\/p>\n
\nI was a student at Wesleyan, I had my MOTM analogue modular
\nsynthesier mounted into a 6 foot tall free-standing rack that was
\nintended for use in server rooms. It was not very giggable, but it
\nwas visually quite striking. When my colleagues saw it, they
\nlaunched a campaign that I should do a live-patching concert. I was
\ninitially resistant to their encouragement, as it seemed like a
\nterrible idea, but eventually I gave in and spent several days
\npracticing getting sounds quickly and then refining them. In
\nperformance, as with other types of improvisation, I would find
\nexciting and interesting sounds that I had not previously stumbled on
\nin the studio. Some of my best patches have been live.<\/p>\n
\nbeen deeply interested in the music of other composers who do live
\nanalogue electronics, especially in the American experimental
\ntradition of the 1960s and 70s. Bye
\nBye Butterfly<\/I><\/p>\n
\nstudio. (Bernstein p 30) This piece and others that I find
\ninteresting are based on discovering the parameters and limits of a
\nsound phenomenon. Bernstein writes that \u201cShe discovered that a
\nbeautiful low difference tone would sound\u201d when her oscillators
\nwere tuned in a particular way. (ibid) Live patching also seems to
\nbe music built on discovery, but perhaps a step more radical for it’s
\nbeing performed live.<\/p>\n
\nmore radical than live patching is Runthrough<\/I>
\nby David Behrman, which is realised live with DIY electronics. The
\nprogramme notes for that piece state, \u201cNo
\nspecial skills or training are helpful in turning knobs or shining
\nflashlights, so whatever music can emerge from the equipment is as
\navailable to non-musicians as to musicians . . .. Things
\nare going well when all the players have the sensation they are
\nriding a sound they like in harmony together, and when each is
\nappreciative of what the others are doing.\u201d
\n(\u201cSonic Arts Union\u201d) The piece is based entirely on discovery and
\nhas no set plan or written score. (ibid) The piece-ness relies on
\nthe equipment. This is different than live-patching because a
\nmodular synthesiser is designed to be a more general purpose tool and
\nits use does not imply a particular piece. Understanding the
\ninteraction between synthesiser modules is also a specialist skill
\nand does imply that expertise is possible. However, the idea of
\nfinding a sound and following it is similar.<\/p>\n
\nI have been investigating ways to merge my synthesiser performance
\nwith my laptop performance. The first obvious avenue of exploration
\nwas via live sampling. This works well with a small modular, like the
\nEvenfall Mini Modular, which is small enough to put into a rucksack
\nand has many normalised connections. It has enough flexibility to
\nmake interesting and somewhat unexpected music, but is small and
\nsimple enough that I can divide my attention between it and a laptop.
\nUnfortunately, mine was damaged in a bike accident in Amsterdam in
\n2008 and has not yet been repaired.<\/p>\n
\nMOTM synthesiser, however, is too large and too complex to divide my
\nattention between it and a laptop screen. I experimented with using
\ngamepad control of a live sampler, such that I did not look at the
\ncomputer screen at all, but relied on being able to hear the state of
\nthe programme and a memory of what the different buttons did. I
\ntried this once in concert at Noise = Noise #19 in April 2010. As is
\noften the case in small concerts, I could not fully hear both monitor
\nspeakers, which made it difficult to monitor the programme.
\nFurthermore, as my patch grew in complexity, the computer-added
\ncomplexity became difficult to perceive and I stopped being able to
\ntell if it was still working correctly or at all. A few minutes into
\nthe performance, I stopped the computer programme entirely and
\nswitched to all analogue sounds. While the programme did not perform
\nin the manner I had intended, the set was a success and the recording
\nalso came out quite well and is included in my portfolio. One
\nblogger compared the track to Jimi Hendrix, (Weidenbaum) which was
\ncertainly unexpected.<\/p>\n
\nis unusual for me to have a live recording come out well. This is
\nbecause of the live, exploratory aspect to the music. If I discover
\nthat the I can make the subwoofers shake the room or make the stage
\nrattle, or discover another acoustic phenomenon in the space, I will
\npush the music in that direction. While this is exciting to play, and
\nhopefully to hear, it doesn’t tend to come out well on recordings. I
\nalso have a persistent problem with panning. On stage, it’s often
\ndifficult to hear both monitors and judging the relative amplitudes
\nbetween them requires a certain concentration that I find difficult
\nto do while simultaneously patching and altering timbres. In order
\nto solve this problem, I’ve written a small programme in
\nSuperCollider which monitors the stereo inputs of the computer and
\npans them to output according to their amplitude. If one is much
\nlouder than the other, it is panned to centre and the other output
\nslowly oscillated between left and right. If the two inputs are
\nclose in amplitude, the inputs are panned left and right, with some
\noverlap. I think this is the right answer for how to integrate a
\ncomputer with my synthesiser. Rather than giving me more things to
\nthink about, this silently fixes a problem, thus removing a
\nresponsibility. An example of playing with the autopanner, from a
\nsmall living room concert in 2011, is included in my portfolio.<\/p>\n
\nfuture exploration, I am thinking of returning to the idea of live
\nsampling, but similarly without my interaction. I would tell the
\ncomputer when the set starts and it would help me build up a texture
\nthrough live sampling. Then, as my inputted sound became more complex
\n(or after a set period of time), the computer interventions would
\nfade out, leaving me entirely analogue. This could help me get
\nsomething interesting going more quickly, although it may violate the
\n\u201cblank canvas\u201d convention of live coding and live patching. In
\nFebruary 2011, there was a very brief discussion on the TopLap email
\nlist as to whether live patching was an analogue form of live coding
\n(Rohrhuber). I do not see that much commonality between them, partly
\nbecause a synthsiser patch is more like a chainsaw than it is like an
\nidea, (\u201cManifestoDraft\u201d) and partly because patching is much more
\ntactile than coding is. However, some of the same conventions do seem
\nto apply to both.<\/p>\n
\nMeetings.\u201d 2600: The Hacker Quarterly.<\/I> Web. 8 September
\n2011. <http:\/\/www.2600.com\/meetings\/<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nDavid. \u201cRunthrough.\u201d 1971. Web. 15 September 2011.
\n<http:\/\/www.ubu.com\/sound\/sau.html<\/A>><\/p>\n
\n7<\/I>. BBC. BBC One, UK. 2 January
\n1978 \u2013 21 December 1981. Television.<\/p>\n
\nKim. \u201cThe Aesthetics of Failure: ‘Post-Digital’ Tendencies in
\nContemporary Computer Music.\u201d rseonancias<\/I>. 2002. Web. 8
\nSeptember 2011.
\n<http:\/\/www.ccapitalia.net\/reso\/articulos\/cascone\/aesthetics_failure.htm<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nKim. \u201cThe Microsound Scene: An Interview with Kim Cascone.\u201d
\nInterview with Jeremy Turner. Ctheory.net<\/I>. 12 April 2001. Web.
\n11 September 2011. <http:\/\/www.ctheory.net\/articles.aspx?id=322<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nryoji ikeda<\/I>. Web. 12 September 2011.
\n<http:\/\/www.ryojiikeda.com\/project\/datamatics\/<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nWho. <\/I>BBC. BBC One, UK. 23
\nNovember 1963 \u2013 6 December 1989. Television.<\/p>\n
\nK. \u201cChapter 9: Phone Phreaking in the US & UK.\u201d Complete
\nHacker’s Handbook.<\/I>
\nWeb. 5 September 2011.
\n<http:\/\/www.telefonica.net\/web2\/vailankanni\/HHB\/HHB_CH09.htm<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nCharles C\u00e9leste. \u201cGig report: Edgetone Summit.\u201d Les
\nsaid, the better<\/I>.
\n6 August 2008. Web. 5 September 2011.
\n<http:\/\/celesteh.blogspot.com\/2008\/08\/gig-report-edgetone-summit.html<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nRyoji, \u201cData.Matrix\u201d 2005. Web. 12 September 2011.
\n<http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=F5hhFMSAuf4<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nand Bortz. \u201cMobilemuse:
\nIntegral music control goes mobile<\/STRONG>.\u201d
\n2011 NIME. University of Oslo, Norway. 31 May 2011.<\/p>\n
\nRon. \u201cDavid Tutor: Live Electonic Music.\u201d Leonardo
\nMusic Journal<\/I>.
\nDecember 2004. 106-107. Web. 12Sepetember 2011.
\n<http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/1513516<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nLinus. \u201cThe
\nmusic of Charles Celeste Hutchins.\u201d
\nPringle’s
\nHardware Store<\/I>.
\n17 June 2010. Web. 8 September 2011.<\/p>\n
\nTopLap<\/I>.
\n14 November 2010. Web. 12 September 2011.
\n<http:\/\/toplap.org\/index.php\/ManifestoDraft<\/A>><\/p>\n
\n\u201can obsessive compulsive disorder\u201d ninerrors<\/I>.
\n2009. Web. 9 September 2011.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cninerrors: Poetry Series.\u201d Web. 9 September 2011.
\n<http:\/\/ninerrors.blogspot.com\/<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nPolly. \u201cPre-concert Q&A Session.\u201d Edgetone New Music Summit.
\nSan Francisco Community Music Center, San Francisco, California, USA.
\n23 July 2008.<\/p>\n
\nBrian. \u201cLive Electronic Music.\u201d
\nAllMusic<\/I>.
\nWeb. 12 September 2011.
\n<http:\/\/www.allmusic.com\/album\/live-electronic-music-w95765\/review<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nPauline. \u201cBye Bye Butterfly.\u201d 1965. Web. 12 September 2011.
\n<http:\/\/open.spotify.com\/track\/3sqvayIhGIvWcYG6G1pf8m<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nGarth. \u201cGesture and Morphology in Laptop Music Performance.\u201d
\n2008. Web. 8 September 2011.
\n<http:\/\/www.activatedspace.com\/papers\/files\/gesture-and-morphology-in-laptop-performance.pdf<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nbox (phreaking).\u201d Wikipedia<\/I>.
\nWeb. 5 September 2011.
\n<https:\/\/secure.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/en\/wiki\/Red_box_%28phreaking%29<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nJulian. \u201c[livecode]
\nanalogue live coding?\u201d
\nEmail to livecode list. 19 February 2011. <<\/p>\n
\nW. Andrew. \u201cUsing Contemporary Technology in Live Performance: The
\nDilemma of the Performer.\u201d Journal of New Music Research<\/I>.
\n2002. Web. 11 September 2011.
\n<http:\/\/people.finearts.uvic.ca\/~aschloss\/publications\/JNMR02_Dilemma_of_the_Performer.pdf<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nWilliam. \u201cRelating Tuning and Timbre.\u201d Web. 11 September 2011.
\n<http:\/\/sethares.engr.wisc.edu\/consemi.html<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nArts Union\u201d. UbuWeb<\/I>. 1971. Web. 15 September 2011.
\n<http:\/\/www.ubu.com\/sound\/sau.html<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nRobert. \u201cThe bible of the phreaking faithful.\u201d St
\nPetersburg Times<\/I>.
\n15 June 1998. Web. 5 September 2011.
\n<http:\/\/www.sptimes.com\/Hackers\/monhackside.html<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nTransparent Tape Music Festival.\u201d SF
\nSound.<\/I>
\nWeb. 12 September 2011. <http:\/\/sfsound.org\/tape\/oliveros.html<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nTruth About Lie Detectors (aka Polygraph Tests)\u201d American
\nPsychological Association.<\/I><\/p>\n
\n<http:\/\/www.apa.org\/research\/action\/polygraph.aspx<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nStates v. Scheffer , 523 U.S. 303. Supreme Court of the US, 1998.
\nCornell
\nUniversity.<\/I>
\nWeb.16 June 2011.
\n<http:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/supct\/html\/96-1133.ZS.html<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nJanne. \u201cVirtual Sound: Examining Glitch and Production.\u201d
\nContemporary
\nMusic Review <\/I>22:4
\n(2003) 45-52. Web. 11 September 2011.<\/p>\n
\nMark. \u201cIn London, Noise = Noise.\u201d Disquiet<\/I>.
\n7 May 2010. Web. 12 September 2011.
\n<http:\/\/disquiet.com\/2010\/05\/07\/charles-celeste-hutchins\/<\/A>><\/p>\n
\nTrevor. Audible
\nDesign<\/I>.
\nOrpheus the Pantomime Ltd, 1994. Print.<\/p>\n
\nand \u201chir\u201d are gender neutral pronouns<\/DIV><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"