During the development of the MAX MSP looper tool, it became even more evident to me the degree to which my tools inform my music, how the limitations of each tool sets the trajectory of the music I make. And vice versa; to what degree the music I imagine making decides how the tool should be designed.

In a digital domain, where practically “everything” is possible, an important part of the music making takes place when the tools, or an aggregate of various tools, are being designed. Again, just like in the marking of the space that shape the referents of the ensembles, it is in designing a combination of interesting limitations in the tools, that an important component of my musical expression takes place.

This is obvious. But still.


The digital clicks that appear each time a sound file is looped by the MAX MSP tool, adds coldness. If the loop is short enough, the clicks are more significant than the content of the sound file itself. The sound of the clicks and the content of the sound files establish composites. The clicks almost sound like the attack of Ingar’s mallets on the ceramics. 


I am not a typically versatile guitar player. I have never really wanted to be, either. I want to be able respond fast and precise to impulses, I try to achieve a nuanced full-bodied sound in my instruments. Apart from that, I focus on being convincing in what I play and rehearse and prepare in order to be able to do so.

There seems to be a link between my “analogue tools”­ (playing technique, flexibility and versatility) and the design I set up for the digital tools. They are limited, deliberately limited. Obviously, but still, these limitations inform my music.


Note to self: don’t mess with too many tools at the same time.
Bringing two guitars and a banjo to a Huntsville performance just gives you a headache.
They are different tools.
You are always more satisfied when you stick to the same main tool in the one performance.
It has to do with yeast, remember?