Aquasonic – underwater music

Music? Underwater? Really? I was both intrigued and excited by the challenge of this. This was one of those things that perhaps had the risk of being, if you’ll pardon the pun, a total wash-out. On the other hand, it had the chance of being amazing. It was amazing.

Aquasonic Percussion Tank with Dea

I really enjoyed working with the Danish group, “Aquasonic”, and with the small, transatlantic team they’d put together to really get to grips with all the issues of making good sounds underwater. We had a mechanical (and usually robotic) instrument maker from Brooklyn, an underwater acoustics professor from Texas, a pioneer in the development of the world’s first musical instrument that actually produces sound directly from water – the Hydraulophone, a “normal, above water”, Danish acoustician, a New York producer who usually works with the likes of Cirque du Soleil and me, the metal percussion specialist who also has some form tuning unusual instruments and figuring out general stuff to do with vibrations and acoustics.

The Aquasonic project has been going on for quite a long time, making discoveries and incremental improvements all along the way. With this new team and concentrated effort though, I think we’ve really pushed things forwards a few great leaps. Firstly, lots of skype conference calls, emails, tests, experiments and simulations. Then, for me, further underwater testing of prototype ideas in a plastic tank with a hydrophone (underwater microphone) in my workshop in Bath. Then a 9 day trip to Aarhus to install, test, tune and troubleshoot new instruments of my creation and some 3rd party instruments too.

So, Aquasonic is now 5 musicians, each with their own large custom-built aquarium – the largest ones clocking in at around 1600 litres. They play (and sing – more on that later) underwater as an ensemble. The audience gets to keep their feet on dry land – the music is picked up by hydrophones, amplified, and relayed through loudspeakers. The musicians have in-ear monitors so they can hear each other. This may be more important than you think. Visual cueing is not so easy with the strange refractive effects looking outwards from inside the big glass water-filled tanks.

Aquasonic group photo

The first big improvement was sourcing and using better quality hydrophones. We were all still very worried about standing wave reflections in the tanks (the wavelengths of sound in water are much longer than in air – the aquaria are very small spaces acoustically speaking) and attenuation issues, not to mention the de-tuning effect of the mass-load of the water on the instruments due to strong coupling because of close acoustic impedances. Musical instruments barely “notice” the air around them, but they really can’t ignore the water if they are in it. The second big improvement came from our acoustician – put the hydrophones right into the corners of the tanks. You get a boundary effect which naturally boosts gain and you also get a fairly nice constant overall amplitude (from summing the mics together) as you move the instruments around within the tanks. Before this breakthrough, it was looking worryingly like we woulShuffling singing bowlsd need spot hydrophones, very precisely placed, on every single instrument (and, in the percussion tank, there are 20 to 30 individual instruments). Standing wave issues, for the most part, were not actually a problem. Though we did spend a good amount of time fine-tuning the position of the 15 or so Singing Bowls to balance their timbres and resonance.

There are major issues with volume and sustain of almost all musical instruments underwater. You can forget wind instruments straight away, though Laila Skovmand and her protege Nanna Bech have mastered an inhale-exhale maintain-a-bubble-in-the-mouth underwater singing technique. Struck and plucked instruments almost all behave as dipoles and front and back sound waves cancel much more readily in the non-compressible water than they do in air. Most instruments have to be massive to have a chance or they need to have a continuing energy input – e.g. from bowing or rubbing.

Gongs work quite well – especially the tuned types, with nipples and collars. Higher overtones tend to be attenuated and pitches shift down by varying amounts. Singing Bowls work surprisingly well, especially larger ones. I did a little re-tuning work on Aquasonic’s extensive collection. Only one bowl broke as a result of the (really quite delicate and tentative) re-hammering. I found that larger Bell Plates were good too, but their aspect ratio needed to change under the water – detuning of the overtone frequencies is not linear. They drop about a fifth overall, but the higher tones drop more than the lower ones. Through the generosity of a local glass workshop (Nyholm Cantrel Glass) we had access to equipment necessary for careful tuning of both ceramic tiles and glass bowls from a custom underwater Glass Armonica – Andy Cavatorta’s Crystallophone.

tuning glass bowls

I spent quite a bit of time in my own workshop trying to get Aluminium Harps (or instruments using the same principal) to work as I thought that they could be good under the water. Getting the right friction was a problem though. It still may work with a glass instrument, but time ran out there and I didn’t get to try it. As a by-product though, I came up with what I later dubbed the “SETIphone” as it rather resembles something you might use to contact little green men from outer space. Using (lacquered to mitigate rusting) rebar clamped in the middle on a frame with a cymbal as a sound radiator you can create quasi-pitched industrial sounds by striking or stridulating the bars.

There was a quest for something to perform a hi-hat function. Normal hi-hats and cymbal stacks just don’t do in water what they do in air. The cymbals are too light and there is too much suction between them. For drummers who have trouble with air-lock, you should try water-lock, it is orders of magnitude worse. We didn’t need foot pedal action, just a short, dry (but not too dry!) sound to propel beats along. We had a “bass drum” from a strategically damped Gong Ageng and a “snare” from a Darbuka (about the only actual drum that works underwater – though I did have high hopes for boo-bams). My best prototype was a cup chime with a triangle stacked on it. The evolution of this, which was more satisfactory, was a larger but still quite heavy cymbal with a triangle stacked over the cup and 6 pairs of tambourine jingles riveted around the periphery. The stacked triangle provided crunch while the jingles added hiss. Each one alone wasn’t enough but the combination was about right.

With the improvements in the hydrophone technique, cup chimes and triangles were found to be much more resonant than early tests had suggested, so we threw some more of those in as stand-alone instruments. The SETIphone actually became overwhelmingly loud and lighter beaters had to be employed!

With the new, expanded and somewhat more hi-fi sound palette, Laila is composing new material. Full length concerts will start happening in mid 2016. There were some short teaser previews at the SPOT festival in Aarhus this May. I was blown away by the video from it, even though it is still at the embryonic stage. I can’t imagine what will develop after another year.

 

Share Button

Castagnettes en Fer

Here is another “authentic” period instrument recreation. This time some “metal castanets” for Samson and Delilah by Saint-Saens. So, I’m working from a picture, but not one I’ve seen. It is in an out of print book and it has been described to me over the phone!

Some people use finger cymbals for this part, often mounted on “castanet machines” to make them easier to play. The reference picture though comes from the book of Joseph Baggers – Saint-Saens’ very own percussionist (and also the teacher, of percussion, to Messiaen, no less). So, again, we’re back to how the composer heard the sound.

What is required is a single piece of metal, forged into a shape somewhat like salad tongs, but with the ends like large spoons and arranged back to back, not face to face. Quite chunky because we need a good spring from the handle and the cups need to be robust. For the first prototype, I’ve gone with Nickel-Silver which I have artificially patinated to look somewhat ancient. There was a slight hiccup. I thought the brief was “like two large Victorian serving spoons”. Apparently it was *soup* spoons. So, I shouldn’t have pointed ends on the cups, they should be much closer to round. Ah well – that refinement will have to wait for prototype #2!

Metal Castanets

Reportedly, the sound and playability are very good. However, a pair would be preferred, to be played on the knees. I quite liked using the one so that you could modulate the timbre somewhat by shaping a cupped hand as you played against it. Perhaps Danse Bacchanale is a little too fast for one-handed playing. Maybe I’ll bring some pairs to PASIC in November and see if anyone else is interested in these.

Update – August 2018

Prototype #2 finally made – indeed, a pair of them. Nigel Shipway (RIP) visited me earlier in the year mostly to try out all sorts of things triangular, with and without rings, open and closed, and I took the opportunity to get his feedback on a revised Castagnette en Fer. I made this one from Spring Steel and had hardened and tempered it after forging it into shape. This new one had cups which were more circular and Nigel was very happy with it – the sound and the feel of playing it. He also suggested that smaller and larger pairs with low and high pitches might be a useful addition. Prototype #3 for another day…

After getting the Seal of Approval from Nigel, I went ahead and made the second of the pair. Here is a little video demo for you – oh yes I have sourced a copy of the Baggers book in the interim:

Share Button

Recreating Baroque Triangles

I’ve been meaning to get around to making some proper old-school triangles for quite some time. Did you know that the original incarnation of this instrument was gap-free and had loose jingling rings on the bottom limb? I’ve had a few requests from possible customers. Period ensembles like to use instruments authentic to the time when the music was written – so that it sounds closer to the composer’s original aural vision. This either means using original / restored instruments or, more often than not, reproductions.

The humble triangle (albeit often the instrument that makes other instruments sound better!) has murky roots. There seem to be different origin stories and, just perhaps, it might be possible that more than one of them is true. Did the triangle evolve from the Ancient Egyptian Sistrum, a ceremonial instrument? Or did it start out as rudimentary horse stirrups which were taken off the straps and used as folk instruments? There’s even an outsider suggestion of a hand-held metal device for making sparks from flints, the fire steel.

Sistrumacciarino_medievaleStirrup    SistrumSistrum3

Officially, the triangle entered the European Orchestra with the fashion for “Turkish” music in the late 1700s to early 1800s, this new section being called the “banda turca”. The triangle had existed in other musics in various places on the planet well before then. Though we only know this from paintings, drawings and wood carvings. I don’t know of any surviving instruments from those times. Today, these ancestors may be classified as early “mediaeval” triangles (closed, with rings, often quite tall and isosceles, sometimes even trapezoidal) or the later “baroque” triangles (open, with or without rings, often with scrolls fashioned into the open ends).

Ting tingBaroque triangle diagram

Of course, nobody today really knows how the originals sounded, we can only guess. Then there’s the question of whether you go the whole hog into authentic materials, construction techniques and hopefully sound or do you make a halfway house. Somewhere between the guess of what the originals sounded like and the modern, open ended, ring-free triangle we are used to hearing now. As a maker, it fascinates me to wonder if there’s some secret buried back there waiting to be re-discovered.

Last year I had a percussionist from an Austrian Orchestra after a “banda turca” triangle. He was disappointed with solutions he’d found elsewhere and wanted something with more sustaining and obvious sizzle – that you can still hear from a distance, through the texture of the orchestra. I had an idea about using cymbal rivets instead of rings and it certainly worked better than rings that pass through holes in the triangle limbs. Still not quite what was wanted though. Then, we tried a pair of tambourine jingles on a small bolt, threaded into the triangle at an angle – perfect! So, we have a triangle that sings for a short – but not too short – time, accompanied by a clear jingling sizzling sussuration. So, not remotely authentic, but it made the sound the player wanted.

Jingle Triangle

This February, I had a different request. For a more authentic baroque style triangle, for Mozart. The suggestion was to have a slightly unorthodox scroll arrangement – both turning upwards. This was perfect for keeping the loose hanging rings from falling off the bottom limb though. The other alternative is to have the triangle gap small enough that the rings can’t get out unless you prise the bars apart. That has issues though, I think. Straight off the bat, this worked better than a rings-through-holes triangle. The rings are much more free to move, and thus they dampen the triangle less.

Baroque triangle with rings

There’s still a question to be answered regarding how many rings, of what material, what size and weight, etc. The originals would have been forged from iron by a blacksmith. For the triangle itself though, my client wanted one of my brighter sounding bronze alloys. Making small rings from this was somewhat out of the question, brass ones would be easy to make, but I don’t think they’d work too well. I found some wrought iron rings (for curtain poles!) – perhaps a little large, or maybe OK. Then also some stainless steel rings which were smaller and felt to be about the right size.

After rehearsal tests at Glyndebourne in late May and early June, the stainless steel rings were found to be the sonic winners, 4 of them on a 9″ triangle. But they don’t look right, of course. The wrought iron ones look the part but are too heavy. So, I cut some down to the same weight as the stainless ones and re-forged them into a smaller ring. So, that should be perfect, right? Wrong. Still the stainless ones work better (good job I had blued some up to make them look more in keeping). My theory is that actually the natural pitch of the rings is important. If the rings resonate at a frequency which is strong in the triangle then they can more easily suck energy out of the instrument. The wrought iron rings were much lower pitched than the stainless ones, and possibly close to one of the main lower partials of the triangle. Only time and making more will tell…

jingle rings

As for mediaeval style triangles with all 3 corners closed (or 4 if a trapezoidal one), I’ve got to figure out some welding smarts for that one. Butted joint? Scarfed joint? Forge-welded or cheating modern methods? I think there may be some other subtle tricks too, to get an instrument that actually sings nicely. Tune in to a later blog to find out!

Update Feb 2016 – though this photo is from November 2015:

I got better at making the scrolls. Here are some more recent editions of my triangle with the “blued” stainless steel rings.

New baroque triangles
Newer edition triangles
Share Button