This research follows a practice-based methodology in which artistic creation is both the subject and the method of inquiry. As Robin Nelson suggests, practice-based research “involves a dialectic between creative and critical modes of thinking and doing” (Nelson, 2013, p. 8). My process evolves through a cyclical interplay between improvisation, analysis, reflection, and composition, allowing intuition and intention to coexist and inform each other.

1. Exploration and Recording

Between February 2024 and June 2025, I recorded extended solo improvisation sessions, using my instrument and pedalboard as exploratory tools. A key element in this phase was the Habit pedal by Chase Bliss, chosen for its unpredictable memory-based behaviors and rich creative possibilities.

In this stage, I embraced the role of the performer-researcher: improvising freely, exploring parameters, and generating sound material across diverse sonic landscapes. The aim was not to produce finished compositions, but rather to be guided by sound itself, capturing moments of curiosity and sonic potential. This immersive phase included written reflections, describing the qualities of each sonic result, its potential use, and its limitations — creating a kind of personal user guide for the sonic behavior of the pedal. (see Fig. 1 ) 

2. Listening, Selection, and Fragment Curation

The second phase consisted of focused listening and the curation of sound fragments. This selection was guided by intuition rather than formal criteria — fragments that caught my attention, that evoked a sense of possibility, were selected and catalogued.

To maintain clarity and avoid redundancy, I imposed a rule: to retain only diverse fragments, avoiding repeated use of the same settings or similar musical gestures. This generated a personal sound repository, a collection of unique sonic textures that would later serve as raw material for analysis and transformation.

                                                                                                   “The act of selection is already an act of composition”
                                                                                                           (Lucier, paraphrased in Cox & Warner, 2004)

3. Parameter Definition and Visual Translation

With the curated fragments, I moved into a more compositional mindset, aiming to define a set of musical and technical parameters for each fragment. These parameters were derived from my own interpretation of the sound, and always limited in number (no more than four per fragment) to retain focus and connection to the original material.

Parameters were named using simple, intuitive terms — either musical (e.g., pitch, volume) or metaphorical/visual (breath, bounce). To support these verbal descriptions, I created minimal visual representations (see fig.2): framed drawings based on a sort of XY-axis, where parameters could interact through intensity and time. These were not intended as full graphic scores, but as visual aids to enhance understanding and interpretation.

4. Application, Feedback, and Iteration

This phase led to two forms of artistic output:

• Compositional, where I developed structured pieces using the distilled fragments and the analysis as foundational material;

• Performative, where the analyzed fragments were shared with fellow artists, inviting them to improvise and reflect on their experience using the tools.

These collaborative sessions were crucial: they provided external perspectives and feedback, allowing me to assess the flexibility and clarity of my tools in different artistic contexts. 

This feedback loop naturally leads to further iterations: new recordings, new selections, and new tools — refining the process each time.(see Fig.3)

This recursive model mirrors what Nelson describes as the “multi-modal dynamic between doing, observing, and theorizing” (Nelson, 2013, p. 32).