EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 10, Number 2 Today's Topics: Request for a listowner (2 messages) Congratulations ICMC computer Muzak The great workstation debate (20 messages) Quest for manuals JamBox desk accessories (2 messages) Kurzweil and E-mu "Magnetic Filings" release (6 messages) MIDI Mentor Transputers and Music (2 messages) Scales, tunings, and spatial modulation (12 messages) MIDI bulletin boards (2 messages) Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon . You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text. The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the University of North Carolina. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Nov 89 13:15:54 EST From: Jim McIntosh Subject: Anyone want to be listowner? I am the LISTSERV maintainer here at The American University. Eric Harnden, formerly of the AU Physics Department, has been the list owner of this list. Unfortunately, Eric is no longer associated with the university and this list currently does not have an owner. I am currently looking for a couple of volunteers to become the owners of this list. The duties are minimal, and include: o Removing subscribers no can no longer receive mail. o Occasionally adding subscribers who cannot get a message or mail to LISTSERV@AUVM. o Answering inquiries about the list. o Holding the list, or removing subscribers who become abusive. I would guess that the duties would take less than an hour a week, and if there are multiple volunteers the duties could be shared. If you are interested, please send me private mail, as I am not subscribed to this list. Let me know who you are (staff, faculty, grad or undergrad); where you are (the closer to AUVM the better); what kind of commitment you are willing to make; and which list you are willing to manage (Eric was the owner of ALLMUSIC, CINEMA-L, EMUSIC-D, EMUSIC-L, and SDL-L). If no one is interested, this list will be dropped. Jim McIntosh (JIM@AUVM) The American University Washington DC 20016 USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 89 10:20:15 EST From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Anyone want to be listowner? Yes, I'll volunteer! EMUSIC-L is one of my favorite lists, and I'd hate to see it drop dead just because of lack of management. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 89 22:41:36 PST From: Dave Hayes Subject: Re: gossip (malicious and otherwise) Congrats Mr. Metlay on your label deal! Let us know when it comes out... we'll be expecting at least ONE song to use that SynthSex patch....:) ------------------------------=== =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<<<<<([Dave Hayes])>>>>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= dave%jplopto@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov | Jet Propulsion Laboratory M/S 300-329 {cit-vax,ames}!elroy!jplopto!dave | 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena, CA 91109 BIX: dhayes | (818) 354-1910 ------------------------------=== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 89 10:11:29 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Computer muzak 7 Nov 89 21:01:55 EST <3703.8911080209@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >It seems that the delight individuals take in producing >interesting "sound effects" and convoluted themes is taking precedence >over delivering to the audience something which they can relate to as >well. You heard some "themes"? You were lucky... :-) I think there are a number of things about "serious" electronic music that I take objection to. I think that a lot of "serious" e-music composers move in circles of like-minded souls and compose and perform music for fellow composers and academics. The "audience" isn't important to them, so why should they acknowledge it? There's something of the Emperor's New Clothes in this, I'm sure - I once saw an interview with a "radical young e-music composer" where he had a Stepp guitar driving an Akai S900 in mono mode, with 6 samples of teaspoons hitting wineglasses. This guy got TV coverage on one of our main arts programs. A more technical point is that modern electronic music is trying to break away from the traditional classical background which has always been concerned with discrete notes (after all, you can harmonise a Bach fugue and play it on milk-bottles - it's the notes that are important). Therefore, this emphasis on timbre and tonal colour rather than anything you can hum or tap your feet to. I don't think this approach is completely negative (although it's got a lot to answer for - it gave us the DX7...), but it certainly seems one-sided. Disclaimer: this is a bit of a generalisation... :-) Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 89 07:43:00 EST From: Mario Vergona Subject: Re: M1R To: , MARIO VERGONA hi, Someone has suggested that you look at the new M3r, which has just the sounds of the M1. Before you do this be advised that this unit, while it only takes up 1 rack space as opposed to the 2 that the M1r takes up, has its own unique way of reading sounds. It will accept the PCM sound sample cards that go into the M1/M1r BUT the actual sound/patch cards are not compatable. The M3r will have its own set of sound cards released. This does not sound good. Anyone remember the same being said for the Korg DS-8? For the Korg P3? For the Korg Orchestrator ???? Nope, this does not sound good. The M3r is one of those transitional units that I do not feel will be very well supported. The M1r is very fine, the sounds are good and I am sure you will find some use for the sequencer. The effects processing is superior to almost all units. Note of no possible interest: I was going to trade up from my Kawai K1 to a an M1, then I checked out the actual feel of the keyboard. It seems that it really doesn't fell as good as my K1, the keys feel very weak/plasticy; My K1 feels a bit more solid, but I have already agreed to sell it to someone for a good price. I am now looking for a K4 which has many of the features of the M1, except for the sequencer (which I have, besides a software one I also have a Kawai Q-80, which is very good) and the excessive price tag. (list on the k4 is 1400) You really should get the M1r, if I found a used one I would go for it. . another odd note: When I was checking out keyboards, I tried the VFX. The keyboard felt a bit strange, but still stronger than the M1. Additionally, while I have been in love with the sound of the M1 form the first time that I saw it at a Sam Ash trade show before it was available to the public, the sound of the VFX seemed a bit more cutting than the M1. Does anyone else find this to be true?? m ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 89 23:56:54 CST From: Jason Keeler Subject: Re: Korg M1R 7 Nov 89 09:22:00 EDT from An M1/M1R is an EXCELLENT addition to any MIDI studio. The sounds are fantastic and the unit is very flexable. Besides being able to add new PCM cards, KORG is now offering a 4-meg expansion board. The built-in signal processing is very comprehensive and well implemented. Over all, I would strongly recommend it. By the way, M1R's are going for $1750CDN here in Regina. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 89 00:51:00 PST From: Willis Dair Subject: RE: Korg M-line I don't have an M1, but I played with one when they first came out. I was quite impressed. In my opinion, I think the M1 was revolutionary when it debuted. The M1 will take its place next to the DX7 in the commercial music scene. As mentioned, the M1 does have fat, full sounds. It lends itself to modern and jazz type music. Yes, there is a rack unit that has M1 sounds and no sequencer. The model is the M3R. I've seen these around $1100 - $1200 locally. To go on a tangent a bit--- I was down at a local music store and had a chance to play around with Korg's new T1. Since I have not fiddled with an M1 for a while, I can't really compare the sound. However, the general impresion most people have is that the T1 sounds better. There are over 200 patch on board and most of them do sound terrific. There as disk in the disk drive, so I around to see if the disk had some sequences. I'm not too familiar with Korg equipment, but after using my W-30, the buttons were pretty intuitive. I got some sequences loaded, and figured out how to start them. Boy, they were great. I really didn't recognize the patches the sequences were playing. If you did not listen too hard, some of the tunes sounded very much like acoustic instuments. The keyboard is pretty big, since it has 88, wooden, weighted keys. This looks like a neat instrument, but I think the $5669 price will deter a lot of people. Atleast for me, it will be a blue-sky type of item; don't think I could ever afford this baby. It is hot, hot, hot... Oh well, we all need something to dream about. In any case, I think the M and T line of instruments from Korg have great sounds. They are definitely very useful. Willis Dair Santa Clara University ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 89 10:14:00 EDT From: "Sample this...!" Subject: Multi-timbral Studio Additions ... Arrgh! My head is spinning ... too much technology, too much on the horizon. I'm ready to move on a multi-timbral sound module, but I can't decide whether I should jump now (I can make a good trade for an M1R, getting rid of my Xk in the process) or wait a little while. I've played the U20, and I was impressed but not blown away ... not like the very first time I played a D50. My friend with the M1R lent it too me, and, frankly, I was disappointed. I've only read about the Proteus, but it sounds like what I want ... Steve's Music in Toronto told me forget it, as they're almost impossible to get. Now I've heard rumours of rack-mounted U20's, and new products along the lines of Proteus from other vendors. Any more advice from the masses out there? (Yeah, I know, send money to you people and you'll know exactly what to do ... but I don't have money, just obsolete equipment that somebody else wants badly ...) BTW, thanks to all who responded to my query about the M1 ... I just don't think it's exactly what I want right now, but I might go for it just to get rid of my Oberhiem trash! -brian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 89 13:10:00 EST From: Chris Iverson Subject: re: Multi-timbral Studio Additions ... I heard (begin rumour here...) from a friend who has used both, that the U-20 sounded better (to him) than the Proteus. The U-20 also has a card port, giving it access to the Roland D-series sound libraries (so I'm told). If this is also the case for the U-20R (???), it would be a more versatile machine than the Proteus. Still, all those 16-bit samples available for under $1K sounds pretty good to me. I'm still strongly considering the Proteus, myself. -chris ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 89 18:33:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: RE: Multi-timbral Studio Additions ... "Oberheim trash"?! Well, all right, I know you were referring to the Xk.... (A note of clarification: I'm often given the unfortunate appelation of "Oberheim apologist." This is far from the truth; I support the company in general because I admire their philosophies and I truly love their older gear (up to and including the Matrix-12, i.e. right before the ECC buyout). I make no claims about anything they've built within the past three years: the jury's still out on their new US-built stuff like the Perf/X and the Matrix-1000, and the stuff that was re-engineered in Japan, like the Xk and the Matrix-6, was largely garbage on the hardware end in many cases. I will defend my Xpanders to the death, I'd kill for a Four-Voice in good working order, and I think the DMX is still the ultimate killer beatbox. But I wouldn't buy another Xk if you put a gun to my head and ordered me to spend $5.) (Footnote on the note: Anyone have old Oberheim literature they could Xerox and send me, esp. on the Four-voice and the SEM?) As for the preponderance of digital multitimbral workstations appearing like flies upon manure this year, I have a few thoughts that I'd like to share with y'all: It helps to have a firm and well-established philosophy in mind when one goes shopping for new gear of any kind. You can call it being "focussed" if you prefer euphemisms, but I prefer to call a spade a spade and give it a better name: narrow-mindedness. Better yet, CYNICISM! The next time you head out to the music stores, carry the following thought with you at all times: "Wow, this new box is hip! Everybody's going to want one! And if I buy it along with everybody else, I'LL SOUND JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE!" Nine times out of ten, you'll drive home no poorer and a lot wiser. You can absorb data like a sponge, file and collate every new listening experience for future reference, and NOT SPEND A CENT. Because if you have a solid, persistent vision of what your music is and what it requires, you can resist the hype of just about anything. Know yourself; know your music. More importantly, know what ISN'T your music. You can learn about trends in technology, hear and play with the boxes that everyone else is buying, and be able to recognize something that works for and with your muse when the time comes. It's a learning experience, that doesn't have to beggar you. More importantly, it doesn't have to totally derail your compositional work while you wrestle with your newest toy. I know a guy who runs a studio in southern Canada. (Other people on this List may know him, though he isn't a member; I won't name names.) He literally spends all of his time buying and selling his equipment, and he takes a huge financial loss with every sale. I've been in corespondence with him for years, and I've never heard three words about WHAT HE PLAYS. Only about what he's selling! I've been in the instrument market for over ten years now, and I own a grand total of three MIDI synths. Two of them are Xpanders. I know what I like, and I know what I want. When somebody makes a digital workstation that does for me what I need it to do, I'll buy it, and I don't care what it costs. But I only have impressions right now; no decisions yet. Some impressions: The U-20 is a fine box. It's 30-voice polyphonic, has good sounds (as opposed to the crummy ones on the U-110), is multitimbral, has some nice features like an onboard arpeggiator, etc. It has, on the other hand, the incredibly non- intuitive Roland left-hand controls, somewhat limited editability of its sounds, and uses RAM cards for data storage. If it had Oberheim levers and a disk drive, I'd buy it in a minute. As it is, I've filed it under "Rogue," for Rogue Music in NYC. Two years from now, when the buzzword is a term we haven't even conceived yet and the U-20 is forgotten, I'll get one for $400 from Rogue and enjoy the hell out of it. The M1 demonstrates yet again Korg's incredible penchant for screwing their consumer base; once again, they've rushed an instrument to market that pioneers a nifty new technology, sold a zillion of them, and used the gripes in the equipment reviews in KEYBOARD to release a new generation of instruments that fixes the hassles. "It's great, but the sequencer's a pain, and there's no disk drive or means of easily adding new waves inexpensively." Hence the T series, with which I admit being impressed. But I've seen the pattern before... the first-series Poly800, the DW6000, the Trident Mk. I, all the same story. So when Korg says, "Hey, look at this!" I say, "Okay, in a year and a half I will." The T3 goes on the "Rogue" list. The VFX, VFXsd, and EPS are made by Ensoniq. The prosecution rests. The W30 I've spoken of before in this List; it was a bright idea VERY poorly executed. Yes, it's brilliant to use a sampler as a workstation base! That's what the Fairlight and Synclavier do! But without the memory to have the needed stuff on hand, and with a poor sound, and no way to use the MIDI network capabilities while loading data, and the same drive for samples and sequences...! You can't cut corners in a sampling workstation. Roland did. The Proteus looks nice on paper, and I would like to hear one. It looks wonderfully flexible, and must be fun to program if you have a computer with a good editor program running, which I don't. And it's the flavor of the month. I think I'll wait a bit, until I can audition one without a crowd around it. The K4 looks intriguing from my standpoint, as it has a number of features I strongly prefer: release velocity, resonant filters (hell, filters at all!), and clean sound with good polyphony. I hesitate to buy it, however; Kawai has a nasty habit (perhaps worse than Korg's in the long run) of obsoleting their own technology on a yearly basis. The K3 was the cat's meow inb 1986; the K5 was big news in 1987; the K1 hit around 1988; and here we are in 1989, with the K4 on the racks. I've always been a mountain-climbing fanatic; I may choose to wait for the "K2" in 1990. The Kurzweils sound very good. Very, very good. Three thousand dollars good? Not in my book. But the polyphony, editability, and processing power are very nice. The K1000SE goes on the "Rogue" list for now, and they should be really affordable when (a) the next generation of Kurzweils comes out or (b) the company goes belly up, whichever comes first. And so on. The point is, there are a whole bunch of people out there trying to get you to spend money. They care about making you a happy customer, because if you're a happy customer you'll come back. But they don't care about helping you find the unit that fits your musical vision; they can't know what that is! That's up to you. And if you take a couple dozen trips to the stores with no chequebook in your pocket, you'll learn what works. metlay | Here's a simple test for people in the (the "m.m." stands for | market for new synths: Would you dare to "my moniker's") | take it home, take it out of the box, metlay@pittvms.BITNET | and immediately erase all of its presets? metlay@vms.cis.pitt.EDU | Think about it.... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Nov 89 09:34:00 EDT From: "Sample this...!" Subject: RE: Multi-timbral Studio Additions ... Oberhiem "trash" of course referring to the Xk. Like I've said, it I could get a good deal on an Xpander I'd do it. As far as analog, what I really want is a Prophet 5. Workstation? How about a Fairlight? Anyway, thanks for the advice (leaving the checkbook at home). I've been burned before ... I think I'll get some new sounds for the D50, and maybe pop some memory boards into my sampler, because I think you are absolutely right - I don't want to sound like everybody else, and you can hear M1 stock sounds every other song. D50 as well, but I can't give it up ... there's about ten patches I can't live without on stage right now (btw, those are the only factory patches left inside my unit - erase all the patches?! Well, almost!). Guess I'll hold on to the Xk, send the M1 back where it belongs, and work on MY sound. -brian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Nov 89 12:30:12 CST From: Jayson Tipp Subject: re: Multi-timbral Studio Additions ... I talked to a friend working in a big E-music type music store here in St. Louis about the Proteus. He said they have one basically for selling against. People are hyped up about it, he says, until he demos it versus a U-20. He points out that the U-20 has card ports, the proteus does not, and the U-20 has a prefereable method for assigning voices? I heard the Proteus also. I liked the guitar sounds, but everything else seemed very thin. The pianos were very unimpressive. My friend mentioned that although the factory demo sequence is impressive, playing around with the sounds is disappointing. - BUZZ. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Nov 89 11:26:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Addendum to the workstation diatribe As of now, I've gotten nothing but praise for my incredibly shortsighted, prejudiced piece on workstations! What's wrong with you people, anyway? Oh, before I forget: one line was omitted accidentally. After the line, "The VFX, VFXsd, and EPS are made by Ensoniq. The prosecution rests," it should read, "The Yamaha V50 uses FM. The prosecution rests." Sorry for the omission. metlay ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 13:21:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: a word to the wise is sufficient (an apology) Something to add to my horrendous diatribe of late: if you buy a synthesizer based on what it's going to have in future revs, then you deserve whatever you get, boyo. May your wallet shrivel and your hair fall out as you wait for that one last fix.... The Oberheim Xpander's manual states, in bold letters, that other applications will be designed and added on its MISC page. (The Matrix-12, in fact, had an extra function or two as part of the MULTI patch MISC page, but they were relatively small utilities. And a similar promise was made for its MISC page, even after these functions were added.) Do you know what they added? Nothing. Not a damn thing, in three years of development and nearly six years of production. And you know what else? The operating system chip for the Xpander, once debugged and crunched to fit, had less than ten BYTES left over. So there was no room to add anything more anyway, and the folks at Oberheim knew it. In popular parlance, this is called a "mistake." Arguably, since the designation of the page came before the last remaining space on the board was taken up by bug fixes and features like scrolling buttons (which were supposed to be there to begin with), it could be termed a "miscalculation." I call it a "lie." Do you want other examples? I have loads; I just thought that spitting on the people who designed my favorite synth of all time would carry more weight. What happened to the huge library of sound cartridges for the Emu E-drum? Where's the working, relatively bug-free OS for the Ensoniq VFX? The huge SCSI implementation for the Korg DSS-1? The sample library for the Yamaha TX16W? And so on. Wise up, people! There's always another ROM upgrade around the corner, another OS just a disk load away, a huge support network to handle any available problem. Ask the people who own Jambox/4s. Or Prophet 2000s. Or Linn 9000s. The synth industry will tell you anything to make you spend money. They have no concept of fairness or decency, and their constant harping on the subject of how satisfied customers keep them alive is just another defense mechanism to convince you of their "sincerity." So the next time you have to decide between two synths, look at the list of features that each model has NOW! As an example, let's consider Buzz and his recent look at the Proteus vs. the U-20. I haven't heard the Proteus yet, but I have heard and worked with the U-20 a bit and I agree with Buzz in that I like its sounds and features quite a lot. But my liking is based strictly on what it has as I audition it. If the salesman says, "And it has a card slot for future upgrades," I say, "So? RAM cards are costly and only offer a slight time savings over a computer dump." And if he says, "Not just RAM, but ROM as well! New waveforms, an infinite number as Roland sends out cards!" I reply, "Where are they? Put them in my hand, right now, and let me listen to them." And if I happen not to like the three or four cards ported over from the U-110, then what? I may buy the U-20 anyway, if I like what it does without cards. But I'd be an idiot to buy it over another synth with equal features just on a salesman's promise that its operating system, breadth of features, and customer support will grow in time to outstrip its competitors. I'd believe that if I were buying a Synclavier. Maybe. So see what the manufacturer makes available RIGHT NOW, and don't believe anything that is said in an ad or by a salesman. They are lying to you. The only evidence that you can trust is your own experience. If you follow it, you'll end up owning a lot fewer synths, perhaps, but they won't keep you lying awake at night. And if you don't believe that, go to your local Oberheim dealer and examine one of the new Perf/X boxes. It has a slot for a RAM card on the left side of the case, for memory expansion. Or at least it has a slot in the case for one; the actual card socket wasn't put on the circuit board. Have a nice day. Sucker. metlay | QUOTE OF THE DAY: (the "m.m." stands for | "my moniker's") | "Mother o' God, I'm a f*ckin' fugitive!" metlay@pittvms.BITNET | metlay@vms.cis.pitt.EDU | --Fritz the Cat ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 17:49:37 EST From: Joe McMahon Subject: Invasion of the Originality Snatchers I'd like to drop in a cent or two on the workstation debate. There are a couple of other things to consider when deciding on whether anything is adequate or not. 1) What are you after? Do you want one box, with sounds, sequencer, and effects built-in, so you can start RIGHT NOW to get your music going? Or can you start out with something minimal and go on from there? 2) Does it bother you to not have "original" sounds? Are you willing to live with someone else's ideas of good sounds? Will your music be debased and damaged unless you have EXACTLY the sound you want? 3) Are the advantages of the box you're spending your money on greater than the compromises you'll be making to live with it? Metlay's final comment about wiping the box was great. I'd hate to do that to a T-3 or M-1. As far as I can see, there's no way to get anything into it if you blow that disk... By the way, I played with a T-3 and a T-1 for a couple of hours on Friday - I really liked them, but the essential non-programmability of the box worries me. If I could build and sys-ex in sounds of my own, well, I'd be more enthusiastic. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 14:18:32 PST From: Dave Hayes Subject: Re: Addendum to the workstation diatribe Ok....don't think YOU have the monopoly on cynical. I think that it doesn't really matter what you use in the long run. Music is music and you can either create it or get stifled by technological overload. :) That was my obligatory flame-starting comment. GO with the flow. BTW: The proteus does have a few limitations, but all in all it sounds great. -Dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 15:49:52 PST From: Dave Hayes Subject: Re: a word to the wise is sufficient (an apology) To quote a bunch of my high school buddies..."You ain't never lied!" While the picture you paint, Sir Metlay (Last of the Gallant Consumer Knights for Decency), is a cynical one... You have a made an extremely valid point. Synth manufacturers are there for the money. Period. Any other assumption is erroneous unless there is a helluva lot of track record to back it up. It really hurts to buy into something only to find out that the company no longer supports it a year later. Folks (us real folk) is gettin tired of having to buy the latest box every 6 months just to keep up. Providing a misleading solution to the problem of expansion is just too much to tolerate. -Dave ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 11:28:00 EST From: JWK%OPUS@MCOIARC.BITNET Subject: Re: a word to the wise is sufficient (an apology) >You have a made an extremely valid point. Synth manufacturers are there >for the money. Period. Any other assumption is erroneous unless there is >a helluva lot of track record to back it up. It really hurts to buy into >something only to find out that the company no longer supports it a year >later. >Folks (us real folk) is gettin tired of having to buy the latest box every >6 months just to keep up. Providing a misleading solution to the problem >of expansion is just too much to tolerate. Not that I entirely disagree with you, but what would you folks recommend to a manufacturer who is trying to survive in today's, shall we say volatile, or possibly, 'fickle', marketplace? Some good companies with reasonably good products (e.g. Sequential Circuits) are no longer with us. Just curious, really. -j. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 09:40:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: Addendum to the workstation diatribe Sorry, Dave, but I agree with you. I had a long argument with a friend recently that if I lost my Xpanders I'd still be able to make perfectly good music, and that the same held for any other piece of gear I owned. He didn't believe me, but then again, he doesn't believe in Santa either. By the way, it is syntactically impossible to start a flame war with any comment ending in a smiley. |-> metlay ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 13:22:41 EST From: Doug Cutler Subject: Re: Addendum to the workstation diatribe As a none-EMusician who "listens in" on this list out of interest because I have some involvment in "more conventional" music:---- TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT A "xxxxxxxx" MAKE!!! Substitute for "xxxxxxx":- "MUSICIAN", "PHOTOGRAPHER", "COMPUTER PROGRAMMER", etc. Consider the musician/composer who wrote still surviving music for one of the lowest technologies, the solo violin and one of the highest (musical) technologies of his era, the might Baroque pipe organ. Doug. Cutler Academic Computing Services, Systems Programmer University of North Carolina. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 13:15:00 CST From: jeff beer Subject: Re: Re: a word to the wise is sufficient (an apology) > >> It really hurts to buy into >>something only to find out that the company no longer supports it a year >>later. > >>Folks (us real folk) is gettin tired of having to buy the latest box every >>6 months just to keep up. Providing a misleading solution to the problem >>of expansion is just too much to tolerate. > Agreed. If you look at the history of the IBM PC and MIDI (both of which opened their domain up to interchangable components usage with hardware device not made by one company) they are some of the biggest success stories. So what some company should do is build their devices along a common exapandable architecture. Have a rack mount or keyboard operation orientation, have the ROM easily expanable, and in some cases, hardware modules retrofitable. The design of electronic musical instruments are at the point where they should be designed so an upgrade on the level of a DX-7 to a DX-7II should be doable by buying a hardware and software card. Jeff Beer ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 14:30:51 PST From: Dave Hayes Subject: Re: Addendum to the workstation diatribe Oh well...I don't believe in Santa either. Does that make me close-minded? BTW...you obviously haven't been on BIX...where it may be syntactically impossible to start a flame war witha comment ending in a smiley...but it happens anyway! -Dave ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 89 13:00:00 EST From: MCINTYRE@MSUPA.BITNET Subject: Quest for manuals One of the drawbacks of being an equipment vulture (i.e. buying used) is that the owner's manual seldom is included. My two most recent purchases fall into that category. So if anyone has the manual for a Moog Liberation or Moog Taurus II pedals, I would be interested in purchasing the manual or paying for photocopies. Please contact me at MCINTYRE@MSUPA. John McIntyre Physics - Astronomy Dept Michigan State University ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 89 16:19:14 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: Southworth JamBox Desk Acessories I recently acquired a JamBox 2. Although the manual says the JamBox desk accessories are functional with the JamBox 2, they are shipped with the JamBox 4+ only (were shipped). The manual also says that I may obtain the desk accessories from Southworth, but unfortuneately Southworth doesn't exist any longer and my local store doesn't have a copy of these wonderful desk accessories. Is there anyone out there who knows how I really might go about getting a copy of this software? Any help is much appreciated. Thanks, Brian Adamson Information Technology NRL adamson@css.itd.nrl.navy.mil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 89 17:29:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: RE: Southworth JamBox Desk Acessories Glenn Workman, an excellent human being and a good friend of mine, was in a similar position to a lot of you guys: he had a Jambox, and then Southworth died. So he did what any concerned owner would do: he bought the entire stock of the company's gear, and set up his own licensed repair and help shop. All three of the major mags have run pieces or letters on his offers of support; you'll find his address and phone no. there. (I have his phone number at home, but not on me, sorry.) Check the last one or two issues of MUSIC TECHNOLOGY, KEYBOARD, and ELECTRONIC MUSICIAN. You're welcome. metlay ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 89 19:52:46 EST From: Cecilia Tan Subject: Company Death Regarding all the talk about Emu going under, (which they aren't...) I saw the front page of the Boston Business News saying that Kurzweil was filing for bankruptcy. Apparently they have always made a small number of very high-end machines, and have never made any profit on them--in fact, in 1988 they made something like $20,000 net. But in fiscal 1989 they were $2 million in the hole. Anyone know anything about it? Just thought I'd bring it up. ctan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 89 19:46:52 EST From: Cecilia Tan Subject: THE Tape Yes, I am thinking of sending the tape to Keyboard and Electronic Musician, the two mags that people have suggested to me. Voluminous thanks to John McIntyre who even sent me a few bucks to pick up some more blank tapes/help with postage/etc... Next year I think I'll put some time into thinking about using/renting a multi-cassette duplicator. If we really plan ahead, we might even be able to get it professionally done... (there a plenty of places around Boston that will even make nice covers/liner notes for you) And yah, I'll get a piece on next year, I bet. -ctan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Nov 89 20:37:41 EST From: Cecilia Tan Subject: Tape in the mail THE TAPE (which I entitled MAGNETIC FILINGS, by the way) is now IN THE MAIL to the following people: Joe McMahon Carl T. Donath Chris Iverson Dan Bornstein (actually I gave it to him in person) Jari Riitala in Finland (airmail) Nick Rothwell in U.K. (airmail) John McIntyre William Angel Benny Lebovits in Israel (airmail) Loren Dickerson and will soon be on its way to: Joseph Klingler John Young Mark Loomis Jim Turner Don Lewis Cornell Kindernecht Lee Calhoun Duy-Minh Nhieu Harold Corbin Tapio Ala-Nissila D. Majumder Keyboard Electronic Musician If you sent me a tape, and your name is not on this list, please e-mail me as I am fairly sure that these are all the tapes I have right now. If you're lucky, about half those on the "didn't yet get" list will be going out on Monday, Nov. 13th, and the rest, maybe the following Monday. That's it! AND, remember, anyone still wanting a copy of the tape can send me their blank cassette (90 or 100 minute) and return postage, and they will be put on the list. My address: Cecilia Tan 438 Wickenden Street Apt. 3 Providence, RI 02912 USA OK? OK! Bye! -ctan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 15:00:00 EST From: Chris Iverson Subject: Magnetic Filings ctan- I got my copy of the tape today. Haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but I thought you might like to know that it made it here. Can't wait to listen to this sucker... -chris ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 09:58:00 EST From: Chris Iverson Subject: Mag. Fil. liner notes I just wanted to make a small correction in the liner notes. The line about not using sequencing, etc. that is included with my blurb on "Ruminations" should have been applied to the blurb on "Waditis". "Ruminations" was done real-time, but the majority of the credit for that piece should go to Steve Shanholtzer, author and guitarist on "Ruminations". All I did on that piece is add some embellishments. -chris ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 12:28:00 EST From: CTDONATH@SUNRISE.BITNET Subject: The Tape Cecilia: I got the tape yesterday! Good, strange stuff. Sudstern (Nick Rothwell) was particularly good. And could William Angel give some detail on how he did his North Indian Ragas? I'm curious about using faractaql(ignore that) fractals to create music. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 20:22:43 EST From: Cecilia Tan Subject: Re: The Tape OOPS OOPS OOPS OOPS OOPS OOPS!! I gave my address again after the list of people getting the tape. BUT, I gave the wrong zipcode. My correct address is: Cecilia Tan 438 Wickenden Street, Apt. 3 Providence, RI 02903-4428 USA Send blank cassette, with return address and return postage if you want a copy of the TAPE. (Chrome tapes best.) -ctan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 15:51:12 PST From: Dave Hayes Subject: MIDI Mentor Anyone out there heard of the MIDI Mentor...supposedly the *ultimate* in MIDI patch-bay/routing/merging/etc. According to the literature, this is almost a MIDI OS for a live synth setup. -Dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 19:24:55 EST From: alnitak@TARDIS.CS.ED.AC.UK Subject: Transputers & Music Hi there. This is my first posting to this list for about six months, as I lost my right to use ListServers. Now, thankfully, all is back to normal, and so here I am again. Now for the reason for this posting. For my 3rd year Degree Project, some friends and I are building a (digital) synthesiser using INMOS Transputer Microprocessors. This synthesiser will work mainly on the wave-table principle, allowing both Subtractive and Additive synthesis and we will probably be able to implement FM Synthesis as well. We've got 4 T800's (32 bit processor with Floating Point Unit [FPU]) with 2 Mb of RAM each, and 32 T414's (32 bit, no FPU) with internal RAM (2k v. v. fast RAM) only. For output we have a 16 bit stereo DAC working at 44.1 kHz and we have a similar spec. ADC for taking samples. The front end for the Synthesiser will be provided by a Sun 3/50 work- station, running our own wave-editing and sequencing software. There will also be a dual channel MIDI interface to the synthesiser. I am interested in making contact with any other readers of this list who have experience (or who are interested) in this field, especially w.r.t. the use of Transputers (both in signal generation and signal processing applications, there is a 'sister' project in progress investigating the implemenation of a Digital Mixing Desk using Transputers). We have very high hopes for this project, it makes a change these days to be able to make your own synthesiser using digital technology. Gone are the days when the hobbyist could do better than was commercially available and the technology used in today's digital synths is generally way beyond the reach of all but the R&D departments of the major synth manufacturers. -- On a slightly different topic, could someone (Eric?) please let me know what the overall result of the `Sound Description Language' discussion which was going on when I had to leave the list. It showed great promise at the time, and I was most disappointed not to be able to participate further. If anything came of it, then I'd be most interested in implementing the SDL on my synthesiser. -- Ray Bellis (Engineering and Computing Science Undergraduate, Oxford University, England) [but e-mail to Edinburgh] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ray Bellis: JANET: u87rpb@uk.ac.oxford.ecs alnitak@uk.ac.ed.cs.tardis BITNET: alnitak@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk INTERNET: alnitak%tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 20:24:00 EST From: "Kevin R. Weiner" Subject: Re: Transputers & Music You may already be familiar with this work, but a paper was just presented at ICMC entitled "A Transputer-based Additive Synthesis Implementation" by Ian Bowler et al., University of Durham, U.K. Regarding SDL, Eric appears to have moved on to other endeavors and is no longer actively involved with any of these lists. The listserv administrator recently announced the pending demise of SDL and I haven't heard any screams. Any volunteers yet? Kevin Weiner Lehigh University Computing Center (215) 758-3991 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 10:04:50 GMT From: "Pete Lucas, NCS-TLC 0793-411613" Subject: Say 'NO' to Scales! Food for thought. Why is it that traditional musical instruments (and by 'traditional' i mean almost all the instruments produced over the last thousand years) employ discrete, fixed scales of frequency? OK I admit that theres the 'even tempered' scale, but who uses that? And its still fixed! Since you can have an infinite range of frequencies within the audible sound spectrum, restricting yourself to a small subset just because they fit into a 'scale' seems, IMHO, to limit creativity and stifle imagination. With few exceptions, musical instruments give you the choice of notes at particular spacings, and if you want a note somewhere in between, tough! Modern (and not so modern - remember the Ondes Martenot? and the Theremin?) electronics allow the creation of non scale-based music. So why is everyone still stuck with the antique, restrictive and unnecessary musical scale system? Come on, all you leading-edge, creative musicians - what about some works for scale-less instruments? I guess someone will have to develop a notation for actually writing down and describing in human-readable form, the required frequencies and sounds. ++Pete ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 09:30:00 EST From: The Mad Doctor Subject: RE: Say 'NO' to Scales! [lots of stuff deleted] >So why is everyone still stuck with the antique, restrictive and unnecessary >musical scale system? >Come on, all you leading-edge, creative musicians - what about some works >for scale-less instruments? I guess someone will have to develop a notation >for actually writing down and describing in human-readable form, the >required frequencies and sounds. > > ++Pete When I owned a Commodore 64, I managed to be able to program it for quarter steps; the results were quite fascinating. As far as notation was concerned, I used & beside a note to raise it one quarter step and % to lower it. I was just playing around, and I know this is still "fixed", but get over it. I'm sure some people out there can do interesting things with it! I think if you play around with it you'll find that there are many strange dissonant chord progressions possible as well as a better flowing melody, because the space between the notes is shorter. Notes are like peoples; they tend to want to move the least distance possible! Have fun! // _ \X/ |he /\/\ad |)octor!! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 09:39:00 EST From: Chris Iverson Subject: Re: scales Gee...I thought most people used scales 'cuz their music sounded better with 'em than without 'em. Actually, on the now-famous EMUSIC-L tape, "Magnetic Filings" (for ordering info [it's real cheep] talk to Cecilia Tan, ST902235@BROWNVM.BITNET), there are several excellent examples of scale-less music. As for musical scales being "antique, restrictive and unnecessary...", don't forget to add "intuitive, expressive and aesthetically pleasing". I use traditional scales because I like what I get as a result, and I find it very difficult to convey certain emotions without using them. For me, they are necessary. -chris ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 09:58:22 EST From: "T. Shawn Johnson" Subject: Re: Say 'NO' to Scales! 14 Nov 89 10:04:50 GMT from Get a slide whistle ;-) -T.Shawn... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 10:01:45 EST From: "T. Shawn Johnson" Subject: Re: Say 'NO' to Scales! 14 Nov 89 10:04:50 GMT from But seriously .... Unfortunately Pete , you're never going to get away from scales . Many people believe that in order for music to be MUSIC it has to be organized in some fashion . And , you'll find they do it with scales every time . Yes ! Its true :-) . I'm not just talking about pitch of course . I'm talking scales of rhythm , of timbre , of amplitude , of location , and well , if you must of space (pitch) . Even if you get down to micro tones , you're going to have a problem with organization if you dont make some kind of scale . It can be as simple as three elements (high medium low ) or as complex as every second herz . -T.Shawn... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 09:53:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: RE: Say 'NO' to Scales! If one throws open all limits in one's compositional directions, one often finds oneself blasting off in random directions at high speed and not getting anything accomplished. I leave the exploration of scaleless and alternatively scaled music to those who feel it important to them, and concentrate my efforts on developing new timbres, time/note relationships, and psychoacoustic tricks with space and depth. In short, I can only spread myself so thin, and a twelve-note equally tempered scale is one limitation I voluntarily and willingly accept. This says NOTHING about the obvious legitimacy and importance of such explorations. metlay ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 13:02:00 CST From: jeff beer Subject: RE> Say NO to Scales Actually, when I was doing my undergrad work I lived in a house where most people were musicians. Being into free jazz as a was then I would yell "NO MAJOR SCALES" at anyone who practiced them. Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 12:50:00 CST From: jeff beer Subject: scales Well, not so, the string instruments can play in any intonation, as the voice and the trombone. It is just that they play music written in a 12 note octave. It was decided to use a equal tempored system, (some which say was a compromise for gaining the ability to modulate.) However, even traditional European music uses other tunings. Often just tuning is used for certain pieces, and most classical musicians are trained to hear the difference between just and equal tempored. There has already been much research on non-equal tempored tuning systems. Even "Electronic Musician" has had articles on them. The East Indians have used a 22 pitch system for thousands of years. Non-western music systems regularly employ non-equal tempored systems. Modern Western composers starting with Charles Ives and Harry Partch, up to Wendy Carlos and others are in the microtonal bag. A recent article in Computer Music Journal called "Yet Another 72-Noter" defines a 72 note scale, and transcribes Louis Armstong singing "St. James Informary" in that system. (And some people thought he was singing out of tune) I have microtone capability on my TX-802. They give a variety of quarter and 1.8 tone scales, just, phythagorean scales. I have also tuned up a 22 note Indian system, and a 43 tone Partch. Not composed anything yet, but it is neat. Jeff Beer, Chicago ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 13:40:00 CST From: jeff beer Subject: Space and Depth >From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET >Subject: RE: Say 'NO' to Scales! > >efforts on developing ...................................., and psychoacoustic >tricks with space and depth. >metlay This, I think is a fascinating area, sounds that move spatially. Unfortunately, with stereo, there are only two dimension sof movement, that being left/right and depth. I have read research articles on spatal processing of sound, and they state that 4 speakers is all you need to obtain the maximum sound field. I am skeptical of that, but I do agree that the maximum number of speakers you can use for headphones is 2, since 1 ear by itself has no directional sensitivity (except depth, but that is due to ambiant reverberation) The number of composers working in this field is too numerous to mention. One trouble with this direction is that it may make too many demands on the performance space. But yet, if all you had to do was set up 4 or 8 speakers, it shouldnt be too bad. In computer music journal, I have seen reports on spatial sound processors, but they are very expensive. (>$10K) There are spatial processors for home stereos too, for which you can use additional amps and speakers to process your stereo music into a variety of ambiances. They are programmable, and some of the preset programs purport to recreate a variety of ambiances, from German cathedrals and a jazz clubs. I have not heard these, and invite comment from other users on their work with any kind of spatial sound processing. Jeff Beer, Chicago ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 15:43:59 EST From: Joe McMahon Subject: Spatial Modulation Spatial modulation from "front" to "back" of the stereo image can be done, albeit crudely, with more/less reverb/muting (sort of like the "blue distance" effect in photos). Pink Floyd's "Welcome to the Machine" does this pretty well -- the "machine" seems to hover in the background, while the strummed guitar is "in your face" :-). MIDI-controllable effects boxes (I suppose even those in the "workstations") should be able to do some of this stuff. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 17:00:00 CST From: Cornell Kinderknecht Subject: RE Say NO to scales About scales... Apparently, you're talking about Western music, instruments, and scales. Take many Eastern instruments (e.g. Indian Folk Instruments). They do not necessarily play in our traditional Western modes. Even though there will always be some sort of 'scalar' definition, where we are used to having a half step, there are many more tones between these two 'notes' defined by many Eastern modes. I got hold of a recording by Easly Blackwood on which he demonstrates pieces written for scales which contain 13 to 24 notes per octave. Of course, it is performed on electronic instruments. I'll try to remember to look up what label it is recorded under. Very good and educational. I believe I read on the jacket notes that he notated all the pieces in some sort of notation that showed the 'micro-tones'. There are many attempts to notate this sort of writing but I don't believe any standard has been set. I'll try to find some references to look into. --- Cornell Kinderknecht ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 21:02:30 EST From: "Kevin R. Weiner" Subject: Re: Say 'NO' to Scales! The most dominant orchestral instruments (strings) have provided a scaleless palette for composers for hundreds of years. Guess no one noticed. :-) Kevin Weiner Lehigh University Computing Center (215) 758-3991 Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 13:59:05 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: MIDI Bulletin Boards Hey, Do any of you guys know anything about any of these E-Music bulletin boards (e.g. IEMUG) or such? I'm kind of interested in seeing what kind of patches, etc are flying around on these services. I tried to call the D.C. local IEMUG chapter today, but got no answer. Anyway, I was just wondering if I am wasting my time or not. Thanks for any help. Brian Adamson adamson@css.itd.nrl.navy.mil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 11:53:00 PST From: Willis Dair Subject: RE: MIDI Bulletin Boards I've used the "home office" IEMUG in Oklahoma, called Mid-West MIDI. It is quite extensive, but also depends on the equipment you have. I get the feeling that they lean a little towards the IBM PC type software, though they support most other computers. There are quite a few sequences you can download. I have Roland synths, and they don't seem to have many patch there for these instruments. I have not checked the others though. There are a few samples too. For me, calling from San Jose, CA the cost of a long-distance call averages about 13 cents a minute no matter where I call, even in California. So calling to this one is cheap as calling the ones in CA. You can be a member of IEMUG for a yearly fee. They have changed their fees lately, so I don't recall the cost. If you are a member, you can have additional privs such as more time on the system per day, more kilobytes you can download per day, and a newsletter. If you are a member, you can call the other IEMUGs and have the same privs there. You can also call and be a freebee person, but you have less privs; less time on system, less data you can download, and restriction on areas you can view and download. I don't have their phone number handy here, but if there is demand, I can get the latest phone numbers of all the IEMUG boards, and post it. There is also a MIDI conference on Compuserve, but I am not familar with this service. Willis ------------------------------ ---------------------- End of EMUSIC-L Digest **********************