EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 20, Number 2 This issue's topic: Electronic music classes Back to the curriculum (4 messages) Curriculum thoughts (2 messages) Graduate Programs in E-music (lists?) 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, 5 Sep 90 11:44:28 EDT From: ronin Subject: Back to the curriculum well, it seems that my questions regarding a couple of types of synthesis got buried there in that Usenet mess, but... what the heck. anyway, as far as the semester goes, i think i've got it... First... i've figured out how to approach the mass of information in a reasonably cohesive manner. i'm going to implement two simultaneous trajectories through the material. the first will focus on methods of tone generation, in roughly chronolgical/technological order; so we start with analog oscillators, of course, then on to digital oscillators that reproduce single stored wave cycles, then to longer wave storage, and finally to complex realtime calculation. the second path will examine dynamic timbral change techniques, with something like the following organization: 1) reshaping the wave after generation (analog filtering, digital filtering, and other processing); 2) moving between different waveshapes (complex synthesis, cross-modulation, wavetable mixing/sequencing); 3) controlling the output of the wave generation process (mostly modulation). i think i like this approach... does it make sense to you? touching on each permutation of these subtopics once in the semester will give the students immediate conceptual access to the various instruments available, and should provide a functional groundwork for more applied (real programming) work in the next semester. Second... those damn labs. as usual, i am not as confident of this aspect of the course. i have this rather vague notion regarding the labs that views them as being devoted to three tasks. 1) to provide hands-on implementation of fundamentals presented in the lecture. to turn the talk into action, as it were. to demonstrate and practice the specific operation and usage of studio elements. 3) to bring together the functions of (1) and (2) in order to produce meaningful work. in short.. to make music. notice that (2) isn't there. that's because i can't figure it out. there must be some way of defining the conceptual bridge between (1) and (3), but i don't have it, yet, and until i figure it out i can't finish designing the lab exercises, which should provide practice in all three areas. the nearest i can come to it is that (2) is to provide a qualitative understanding of the formal elements presented in (1). along the lines of, say, "ok... now that you've got down what a lowpass filter is, and how it responds to voltage control, this is what you do with it... do you *hear* the usefulness of this effect?" see what i mean? i could use a little help on structuring this one. ----------< Extremism In The Pursuit Of Good Noise Is No Vice >---------- Eric Harnden (Ronin) | V.P., Chief Engineer | Transmedia Music, inc. The American University Physics Dept.| (202) 347-8050 Washington, D.C | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 12:41:23 EDT From: "Daniel B. Singer" Subject: curriculum Labs..... The best way for a student to learn (in my opinion as a student and a teacher) his or her way around the different things you can do with today's synthesis techniques is two fold: first, show how different factory sounds SOUND the way they do by analyzing how the modules add to the timbre and envelope. Turn certain ones on and off, and demonstrate their effect. second, let the student loose in the studio for some hours. Suggest that the student copy a factory sound that they like and modify it. Just let them play. That's the best way to really grasp what the acoustical effect of various FM methods. In guiding the student to experiment on his or her own, you might suggest that the student should try to duplicate an acoustical instru- ment using FM synthesis. You might even bring in an O-scope and that instrument to your studio class and have the performer play for a while; let the students listen and watch the waveform. You might even take a snapshot of the scope screen and post the photo (enlarged) near the FM machine. Do not tell them which algorithm to use... or even what machine, for that matter. Tell them: anything but the sampler. DBS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ D A N I E L B. S I N G E R Return addresses: dbs4@lehigh.bitnet ////// dbs4@ns.cc.lehigh.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 09:44:15 bst From: Nick Rothwell Subject: back to the curriculum >well, it seems that my questions regarding a couple of types of >synthesis got buried there in that Usenet mess, but... what the heck. >anyway, as far as the semester goes, i think i've got it... I'm going to stir up a hornets' nest here, I can tell. I'm also probably going to be accused of being a snob (perhaps rightly, I dunno - do tell me if that's the case). But, anyway: \begin:ContentiousPointOfView: Regarding a lot of the material that Eric has slated for his course: I'm not sure I can see the point of teaching about things like filtering, wavetables, modulation, and so on *IN AS MUCH AS THEY REFER TO CURRENT TECHNOLOGY RATHER THAN NEW IDEAS*. Why? Well, it depends on who you're attracting to the course. Anybody who's keen on synthesisers and so on will either have some feel for what filtering is doing, or will pick it up after 5 minutes playing with a Juno or whatever. Ditto for polyphony, wavetables, and a lot of other things. Dedicating a large amount of time of the course to these things seems a little superfluous. And for those who require detailed instruction about what synthesisers do and what filtering is - well, are they on the right course, if they can't pick the stuff up pretty quickly? >"ok... now that you've got down what a lowpass filter is, and >how it responds to voltage control, this is what you do with it... do you >*hear* the usefulness of this effect?" Which perhaps illustrates my point. If the students don't see, or can't get a feel after five minutes of moving sliders and altering envelopes, what are they going to get out of the course? \end:ContentiousPointOfView: Note that I still see a lot of merit in the *academic* side of the course. It's the introductory material which I see as a little superfluous. Over here in the UK, there are very few emusic/computer music labs, so most of the people who hack around with synths are (like me) totally self-taught. There are recording/production seminars and courses open to "professionals" who want to learn about hi-tech recording, video sync, and so on, but these are aimed at professionals, and aren't part of the education system. Ok, flame away. I'm not sure I fully support my points above - I just want to put across a certain point of view. And I'm *sure* I'm being big-headed with my "I taught myself everything" comment. But anyway... comments welcome. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 17:58:21 EDT From: ronin Subject: Re: back to the curriculum die, nick, die... no, no... i don't mean that... i'm just trying to sound like a flame so you'll feel comfortable. anyway, about your contentions... keep in mind that the course i teach is part of the core curriculum for a degree in Audio Technology. as such, teaching these nitty gritty details is part of the gig. we're not part of a music school... we teach knobs. also, i get a very wide range of people, who know anything from nothing to almost everything, and who are interested in degrees from very to not at all about the subject. so a braod range of topics is in order, and that kind of stuff must be included. there are, for example, students with ample curiosity, for whom certain ideas just don't 'click' until you give them a certain perceptual framework involving the background technology. i was one of these myself, which is why i tend to emphasize the view. ----------< Extremism In The Pursuit Of Good Noise Is No Vice >---------- Eric Harnden (Ronin) | V.P., Chief Engineer | Transmedia Music, inc. The American University Physics Dept.| (202) 347-8050 Washington, D.C | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 08:45:56 ADT From: EDWR000 Subject: Curriculum thoughts The course that I have been teaching, and will be starting again soon follows similar lines to Eric's outline posted a while ago. While I agree with Nick that it would be more interesting to speculate on the future, the bottom line is that the people who took my course were divided roughly in half: those who had a synth and wanted to get more out of it, and those who had nothing, and wanted to know how to get started. I give this sort of help enough on an individual basis that I appreciate the oppurtunity to reach many people at once in a class. An important part of this is letting people see what different equip- ment can do and how it can be used, something the usually cannot be done in shops or studios, the only other places that this equipment is found. I am also starting a series of seminars this year in conjunction with the local music shop, each of which will be devoted to a particular synth. There is a great need for this, for although some of us are self taught, there are a lot of people out there that buy a synth, use the factory presets, and don't get much further. I think that the biggest cause of this is the manuals that have obviously been translated from Japanese into Swahili, then very roughly into English. (I like Roland's MT32 MIDI Imprementation ). Years of reading computer manuals has given me the ability to understand these tomes, but I know many others cannot. Until the interfaces become friendlier to the point where it is obvious what the machine is capable of, the manuals better, and sales- people better informed, there will be a need for courses that teach what is currently out there, and how to use it. Not everyone has the incentive or ability to teach themselves. Then again, most courses are just regurgitation of known material, with some hypothesizing on new ideas just to get the mental gears started. Comments...? Alan Edwards UNB Physics Canada ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 08:54:00 EDT From: "William R(ay) Brohinsky" Subject: RE: curriculum thoughts I think a case in point might be illustrative: I have a friend who plays piano. She is very good, musical (a rarity in some music-related fields, it seems), but not technically bright. She is a mother of three, accompanies hymns and ersatz groups in her church, and has belonged to numerous Christian bands, mostly soft rock. To her, a piano is a box with a keyboard; the feel of the action is important to her, but the action, itself, is a mystery. (some effort on my part caused her to become a piano tuner, which has relieved some of the blockage on this matter.) I undertook to teach her to use her synths, which she bought largely out of a need for portability and volume. She was immediately faced with the fact that, not knowing anything about electronics, voicing (`what do you think I am, an Organist?'), velocity-sensing, etc, she bought something that the store owner claimed was hot. Then she tried to use it. (it was a korg, 1600 or so). I played bass in one of the bands, and in discussion, she revealed an abysmal knowledge of technology, and a profound desire to learn, if it would just help her go from making noise to making music. We started with some theory, bolstered with my DX-100, an oscilloscope, the Scientific American book on Musical SOund, my 10 years of electrical/ electronic/Emusic experience, and numerous other aids (including Carlos' Secrets and the NonSuch 2-record set). The results were spectacularly unfruitful. Her entire musical background had taught her that the box couldn't be understood at any level other than intuitively; learn the box's touch and feel, then play. Harmonics were a total amazment, modulation was a deep mystery, it goes on... Finally, I asked her to describe the sound of the piano, to listen as she played simple chords, to decompose the thump, attack, and sustain characteristics... Simply put, when I went back to things she was familiar with and forced her to consider them, things with the synth went better. Frankly, in this country, if not in England, there has been a tendency on the part of elementary school teachers to teach the black box (regardless of the subject) and to avoid digging into internals. If a class has `slow' students, the teacher may democratically decrease what little scratching of the surface that might otherwise have been done, in order to gain a more uniform result. In my limited experience, this sort of thing is worst in states where an educational board of regents is lacking, and less so in states where standards are inforced, and still less in those where the enforced (apologies for earlier spelling) standards are high. I thought that the original curriculum plan seemed reasonable, given the mix of students that probably will attend. We hope that a student will have learned to think by the time he/she/it gets to college. Sometimes, though, we have to make them think about different things from what they are used to. Filters, especially, are non-intuitive for a lot of people, especially musicians. raybro ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 20:00:21 GMT From: Billy Quinn Subject: Graduate Programs in E-music (lists?) I am sure this question has been addressed before, however, I am new to the 'Net' and I am interested in finding a list (or even single entries) of graduate programs in electronic music. Is there a list of schools and addresses that any one might know of? Any suggestions or references would be greatly appreciated. I will compile what I recieve and make it accessable here (at U.K. in a public music directory) for others to look at too. thanks in advance! Billy Quinn (billq@ms.uky.edu) -- Billy Quinn (billq@ms.uky.edu) (pr01527@ukpr.uky.edu) (home phone: 606-233-1568) ------------------------------ End of EMUSIC-L digest ******************************