EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 52, Issue 06 This issue's topics: "Workstations" (Was: Home Morphing) Atari Artist...Why the Atari might be the workstation for you? Carl - Tudor - Morphing Graphically Again... Computer Music Requirements (2 messages) Csound play for MsDos Csound play for MsDos (me too!) drudgery DRUDGESTATIONS dsp; prophet (2 messages) Home Morphing (2 messages) Melody morphing Modelling of Compositional Processes Modelling of Compositional Processes (Was OOPS! Music... (4 messages) More Blather on WORKSTATIONS (3 messages) More RE:OOPS! "WORKSTATIONS" (3 messages) Morphing from One Waveform to Another (4 messages) Musical morphing Not WORKSTATION anymore... OOPS! "Workstations" (13 messages) OOPS! "WORKSTATIONS"... (3 messages) Sound Morphing, An existing solution (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: Tue, 4 May 1993 20:10:07 GMT From: Netnews Server Subject: "Workstations" (Was: Home Morphing) > Jeff says: > > Bill says: > > > > How do I get started doing this type of synthesis at home? Is it > > even feasible? > Sure it's feasible - but you'll have to wait 12 hours or more just to > audition a minute of music. I bought a NeXT three years ago so I could work at home. You could buy a 486 system, have it run NeXTstep, and have access to a host of music software, including real-time multi-track mixers (RT.app (free), SoundWorks (commercial)). These mixers allow extremely precise digital music production, and their existence totally mocks Jeff's ignorant comments. You'll also have a pretty solid UNIX, and full access to cmix, music4c, csound, cmusic, and a slew of other UNIX music software. Sure, synthesis and processing can be very time-consumming, however, a 66MHz 486 is twice as fast as my NeXT, and the turpentine processor runs at 10:1 - 15:1 (auditioning) on my NeXT. Not at all unreasonable, especially considering that entry of the commandline and its parameters will take longer than the computation time (for short sounds). Other processes are slower, or faster. On a NeXT, FM, Karplus-Strong, waveshaping, and even a brand of flute physical modeling run in real-time using its DSP (motorola 56001) and the musickit. If you are doing something very cpu-intensive (i.e. phase vocoding with oscillator bank resynthesis) you can still program your machine (if it is multi-tasking) while it is working. You can even read the net (as you are now). The musickit and other sound software is not yet running on intel NeXTstep, but many people are busy establishing an audio standard for it. Folks at Stanford are very determined to establish dsp 56001 support for intel boxes. With the hardware audio standard in place, the software port will be trivial. Expect to pay at least $5000 at this point, for a NeXTstep compatible 486. Prices will probably dive with the release of NT and the Pentium. You'll also need a mammoth hard drive. I have a 330M and a 1.2G at home, and this is small for me! Christopher Penrose penrose@silvertone.princeton.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 07:45:47 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Atari Artist...Why the Atari might be the workstation for you? > -=-=-=-=- Today Is The Tomorrow You Dreamed About Yesterday. -=-=-=-=- Well, to be fair, all this functionality is available on other platforms already (such as the Yamaha HD recording box interfacing, MIDI studio descriptions, and so on). All I really see in the Falcon is (i) the ability to do HD recording/sequencing in some way on the machine itself (with limited facilities and quality, so I don't know how much use that's going to be) and (ii) an impressive price/performance ratio, if the machine is rugged and works well. Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 May 1993 08:52:36 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Carl - Tudor - Morphing Graphically Again... Last night I was thinkin' again about this morphing pictures of waveforms and it occurred to me that - a color spectrogram of high enough resolution of a before and after sample could be morphed. What we want is the spectrums to change and as the green pixel representing that high overtone turns into an orange one - you would get a graphical morphing. There's a couple of programs for the Amiga which can do this - RGS - and Spectrogaph? but what you're really doing is cross-fading FFT coefficients - so unless you wanted to use the pics for a video - which would probably be pretty cool - watching the colors change as the sound morphs - you would be just adding another step to the process. You could use DPaint IV to do the morphing! The trouble with CSound and the CARL project is that realistically speaking - they're really only work on workstations. If you want to wait 12 hours for 80 seconds of music to compile - you should give it a shot...Me, I need real time interactive sound editing and playback capabilities - I'm a composer who isn't going to waste the few hours when I'm not doing my dayjob thing waiting. About 8 years ago when I had an avant-garde radio show in New Orleans I played that 4 record John Cage/David Tudor electronic collaboration. You should have heard the calls ;-). (I played it straight - all 4? hours!). Last I heard he was more involved with Zen then music... (but I'm repeating rumors - shame!). Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 10:44:22 EDT From: wbf@ALUXPO.ATT.COM Subject: Computer Music Requirements I innocently ( O:^) ) started a flame fest by asking: > ... How do I get > started doing this type of synthesis at home? Is it even feasible? One of Christopher Penrose's early responses was: > Oops! I misread Jeff's response, and Bill's question! Jeff is quite > right that computer music will not be very responsive on Bill's > current system. I made the mistake that Bill was willing to spend some > money ($5-7K) for a new system. If he is, then he can have a very > comfortable computer music environment. I _am_ considering upgrading my computer (I'd rather have an Xpander!) to a 486 Windows 3.1/UNIX environment or I may just be cheap and add a 3.5" floppy to what I have. The initial reason was that I want a little more beef to do some algorithmic experiments using keynote. My PC restricts me to the non-graphic version. My next reason is the talk about morphing and the music at the Princeton concert I attended last week is beginning to attract me back to that style of composition. And my third reason, the most commercial one, is the desire to do hard disk recording for mastering/ordering mixdowns done to DAT. However, $5-7K is way over what I'm currently able/willing to spend. But I've enjoyed reading the various viewpoints (while dodging flames) and am gathering the data for future use. Bill Fox ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 10:50:49 EDT From: ronin Subject: Re: Computer Music Requirements hmmm. one last odd notion occurred to me while reading that post. in order to accomplish elcheapo digital audio, we've got some students here who are kludging together a storage system that will basically consist of realtime throughput to an exabyte drive. these things are basically available surplus these days, and the driver cards don't cost too much. the software is going to be homebrew but hey... that's part of the fun, right? while doing fine control for writing blocks of synthesized sound out at odd times dependent on the state of the algorithm might be a bit problematic, it seems that this might be an ideal intermediate tool for dat mastering. one exabyte will hold about an hour's worth, i think (or is it two?), and the control software to roll it back and forth between large data blocks is both simple and available. -----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >----------- Eric Harnden (Ronin) or The American University Physics Dept. 4400 Mass. Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20016-8058 (202) 885-2748 (with Voice Mail) ---------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 06:15:35 -0400 From: Hans Strasburger Subject: Csound play for MsDos Does any body have ...? On my PC, I have sound files generated by MIT's Csound that I would like to play through a commercial sound board. One way is to convert them to some other format but I would also like to play them directly. There is a play program included in Csound but I guess it needs adapting to the specific D/A hardware. Does anybody have a compiled working play.exe that would play the Csound format directly? I have not yet decided on which sound board to buy since I would like to see, for which I will have a working play program. Any help appreciated. - Hans Strasburger ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 14:07:15 CDT From: Joseph Fosco Subject: Csound play for MsDos (me too!) >Does any body have ...? >On my PC, I have sound files generated by MIT's Csound that I would >like to play through a commercial sound board. One way is to convert >them to some other format but I would also like to play them >directly. There is a play program included in Csound but I guess it >needs adapting to the specific D/A hardware. >Does anybody have a compiled working play.exe that would play the >Csound format directly? I have not yet decided on which sound board >to buy since I would like to see, for which I will have a working >play program. I would be very interested in any responses you receive to this! Thank you. Joseph Fosco Internet: b38669@anlvm.ctd.anl.gov Bitnet: b38669@anlvm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 16:38:31 EDT From: ronin Subject: drudgery i agree, creative genius is not hindered by technical complication. but it may get bored. there's been a little discussion about the notion of 'absolute' music - music so inherently beautiful that it could be played on a kazoo and still carry meaning. i think there might be a different mindset at work in the creation of that kind of music... something that would not be satisfied with any distance at all. it occurs to me that this distinction might also be part of the debate on tone vs. melody as the primary emusical component. most of the 'slow' techniques seem to be approaches toward sophisticated artificial timbral manipulation. hmmm. sorry. same discussion, isn't it? oh well... in any case, i know that *i* at least have a couple of different modes of musical production, and that tinkling tunes is a lot different for me from tweaking tones. -----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >----------- Eric Harnden (Ronin) or The American University Physics Dept. 4400 Mass. Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20016-8058 (202) 885-2748 (with Voice Mail) ---------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 13:54:13 GMT From: JOEL STERN Subject: DRUDGESTATIONS >My point is it that creating music this way is impracticable. Maybe the problem is thinking in terms of trying to perform the same task on equipment with different capabilities. I would think that you could use an 8086 etc. and with some ability and imagination come up with some pretty interesting music (in fact it's been done many times, as we all know). Technical limitations have never hindered creative genius. Improved technology opens up new horizons, but it doesn't have to close up all the others. Now, whether Bill wants to run Csound on his PC is his decision. Presumably he'll settle on the choice which fits in with his goals and constraints. (Won't you, Bill?) Joel Stern Library Of Congress stern@mail.loc.gov tel:301-588-8061 fax:301-585-7642 GEnie Mail J.STERN11 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 08:26:18 EDT From: ronin Subject: dsp; prophet let's see... first things first... as has been mentioned, there are in fact several boards out there these days that provide pretty crunchy dsp capabilities for 486-ish machines, and they are tending to come in around $300 to $400 - which certainly isn't elcheapo, but is also not damn bad, relative to other things in the industry like samplers, sequencers, and the like. further, more companies are doing it, applying the same basic technologies and techniques simultaneously to different domains - multimedia on a board is bigtime now. one of the effects of this is to push prices down. one of the other effects is that the technology really isn't so sophisticated anymore. the basic toolkit is pretty much the same across manufacturers, and it's the software that makes the difference. of course, the beefier the board, the more you can offload to it and get happening in realtime. but i've seen boards in the $500 range that can handle image, sound, and midi all at the same time - not complicated realtime sound modeling and 3d gouraud shading of moving objects, of course, but you get the point. it's not all quite as cheap as a technics cd player, yet, but it's not a lot more, and the applications are improving faster than we can really critique them. btw... while the 56001 is well known and loved, keep your eyes open for boards using the at&t series of chips. they're about the same price, and floating point is where it's at. a quick note on nextstep - never used it. heard alot about it, some bad, enough good. have used sgi's environments. love it. think i prefer it, for both personal and professional reasons. now, the other item header... does anyone else here have a prophet 5 with the factory midi retrofit? i installed one some time ago that i got from wine country, and didn't use it much for a while. now that i am using it, i am discovering a severe glitch that i would like to know more about - that is to say, is it the kit, the company, the status quo, or me? specifically, the machine seems not to like multichannel information. when i drive it directly from a master keyboard it responds fine, but when i kick in the sequencer it plays a little then freezes. i interpret this as the machine getting confused by the necessity to select information from a wider data stream. or is it just heat sensitivity? got a clue? oh - and the scions of yang all have b.o. -----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >----------- Eric Harnden (Ronin) or The American University Physics Dept. 4400 Mass. Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20016-8058 (202) 885-2748 (with Voice Mail) ---------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 09:38:36 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: dsp; prophet >specifically, the machine seems not to like multichannel information. >when i drive it directly from a master keyboard it responds fine, but when >i kick in the sequencer it plays a little then freezes. i interpret this as >the machine getting confused by the necessity to select information from >a wider data stream. or is it just heat sensitivity? got a clue? Might it just be getting confused by beat clock? Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 09:20:39 EDT From: wbf@ALUXPO.ATT.COM Subject: Home Morphing Last Friday I went with some fellow MMML members to the Computer Music concert at Princeton. Christopher Penrose's "Manwich" was one of the pieces played. I must say that I heard a lot of "morphing" at this concert in the computer generated pieces like "Manwich." Quite impressive and very difficult to describe. > The interpolation mapping function is distributed over the time of the > interpolation (-eTime minus -sTime). It is also a floating point > function which, unlike the sieve function, can be of any length. It > has range restriction of [0.0 - 1.0]. Instances of 0.0 indicate > that the departure soundfile will be wholly present, and instances > of 1.0 indicate that the arrival soundfile will be wholly present. It was very apparent that the last portion of "Manwich" used an interpolation mapping function value at or near 1.0 as the recognition of the Madonna soundfile was quite audible to me. When I took electronic music at Ohio State in the mid '70s, there were no computer facilities available. Since then, I've learned of the existence of techniques commonly employed by Christopher et al. I keep seeing references to Csound, cmix, and carl, etc. What I'd like to know is, what is required to acquire and run these interesting programs? All I have is an ancient PC (640k RAM, 10Meg HD, '186 processor) and the only D/A I have with a digital input is my DAT recorder. How do I get started doing this type of synthesis at home? Is it even feasible? Bill Fox ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 09:34:21 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: Home Morphing > > When I took electronic music at Ohio State in the mid '70s, there > were no computer facilities available. Since then, I've learned of the > existence of techniques commonly employed by Christopher et al. I keep > seeing references to Csound, cmix, and carl, etc. What I'd like to know > is, what is required to acquire and run these interesting programs? All > I have is an ancient PC (640k RAM, 10Meg HD, '186 processor) and the > only D/A I have with a digital input is my DAT recorder. How do I get > started doing this type of synthesis at home? Is it even feasible? > Sure it's feasible - but you'll have to wait 12 hours or more just to audition a minute of music. Csound and Carl are audio compilers - they write code which writes code which produces files of 16 bit audio data - which consumes massive amounts of hard drive space - about 10 megs a minute. So with a scratch pad space for editing you have enough room on your pc for about 20 seconds of music - you could always cut and splice tape - but not DATs... Seriously - this stuff is for work stations - unless you have the patience of a rock. ;-). Soon - though - we'll all be doin' it! Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 12:13:32 EDT From: JASON VANTOMME Subject: Melody morphing Luis Scheker writes: > I am a music major at Dartmouth College and have talked to > Larry Polansky about the subject of morphing. His > success has been in the morphing of melodies, which he has > down to a science. Yes, you are quite right. What I said may have been a bit confusing. > Larry has hinted at the possibility of taking some time > off to study the problem in depth, but the solution still > remains guarded by the ideological barrier of sample > representation. I got this impression too; he is quite interested in the problem. Everyone should keep their eyes on the work being done on this problem at Dartmouth. Good Luck! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Jason D. Vantomme Faculty of Music, McGill University Montreal, PQ CANADA email: vantomme@music.mcgill.ca =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 10:25:26 EDT From: wbf@ALUXPO.ATT.COM Subject: Re: Modelling of Compositional Processes Robert Depin: > ... I don't always know what the > notes will be when I compose but I do know from planning what I have to > accomplish when I compose. What sorts of things do you try to accomplish? Details, please. Bill Fox ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 15:02:47 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Modelling of Compositional Processes (Was OOPS! Music... Bob comments to Jeff's rant :-> > >Wait a minute - how do composers make decisions? We don't even know that yet! > >A lot of music is improvised - whether in the head or with the fingers - how > >do we codify such a beautifully musical process? Does any analytic method > >really describe music? Schenker? Hybrid Post-schenkerian analysis? I don't > >think so. We have no valid models of musical process! > > Every note, every dynamic marking, every chord voicing should have been made by > some decision. Even if that decision is "Sounds best this way." The analy- > tical systems you describe are simply a methid for theorist to communicate > the technical basis for a piece. I agree, their is are no models of the musical > process, however, through analysis certain traits, certain compositional prac- > tices become evident either to the individual composer or the composers of that > particular period. > Yes - but one minute you're talking post-compositional - the next minute theoretical. How does the composer know - Hmmm... time for a surprise. Music without surprises is pretty boring. I guess this demonstrates my fascination with music as a _dramatic_ process. How do you codify the impulse to be dramatic. Do you create a surprise index? Hmmm... it's been going on for the same way a while - surprise index low - better up it! Puhleeze... How do you codify melody - I certainly wouldn't trust any computer with the creation of melody. It can't hear - so how can it see if the tune is hummmmable... hmmmmmmm.... Also, do you _really_ believe that a computer is going to write Beethoven's 10th symphony someday? It would seem you have more faith in musical modelling than in the human composer. Great composers are rare birds and their composing processes dependent on a large extent on their emotional state at the time of the composing. > >Are you really such a cold-hearted musician as to > >trivialize genius? This kind of argument informs my point that there is a > >fundamentally _anti-musical_ bias at work. > > To the contrary, I'd argue that your arguments are anti_musical and less concern > -ed with your creative efforts. Nothing wrong with that. I choosen to labor > and understand why I make choices and thus gain greater insight into my personal > music process/style. > > Bob > I never said I didn't want to understand. I just doubt that a computer can model my _understanding_. Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 15:53:23 -0400 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Modelling of Compositional Processes (Was OOPS! Music... I think I'm hearing two people (Jeff and Bob) who are both passionate about their music, but who are passionate from different directions. Jeff, I gather that you prefer to work at the keyboard, creating as you go (with the assistance of your expert system you mentioned earlier), while Robert prefers to conceive the idea for a piece, codify what he wants to do, and then get cracking with the composition of the piece before playing it. Both of these method can work, or can fail. I personally prefer Jeff's approach, but I have found that planning complex pieces can really be done better on paper than at the keyboard or in my head -- sometimes. I think both of you agree, though, that if you do it and then don't like it, then you try something else. Jeff, you don't assume that it has to be good because it was the result of an inspiration, and Robert, you don't assume it's good simply because you followed your plan. Both of you exercise your taste and judgement to decide whether thr "rules" should be followed or broken in any given place. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 16:40:00 EST From: Robert Depin Subject: Modelling of Compositional Processes (Was OOPS! Music... >Yes - but one minute you're talking post-compositional - the next minute >theoretical. How does the composer know - Hmmm... time for a surprise. Music >without surprises is pretty boring. I guess this demonstrates my fascination >with music as a _dramatic_ process. How do you codify the impulse to be >dramatic. Do you create a surprise index? Hmmm... it's been going on for the >same way a while - surprise index low - better up it! Puhleeze... I plan my music to take the listener on a trip, that trip has certain points where I plan what you'd call "surprises" however, it's more that. Through phrase structure I know when these change/surprises should occur. You seem more inamoured with the compositional process which is okay but my compositional time is limited so I must make the most of it. I don't always know what the notes will be when I compose but I do know from planning what I have to accomp- lish when I compose. >How do you codify melody - I certainly wouldn't trust any computer with the >creation of melody. It can't hear - so how can it see if the tune is >hummmmable... hmmmmmmm.... Why should a tune be hummable ? That's to me seems kind of limiting. That's a pretty lame meteric to determine melody. That also supposes you've heard the melody before you've actually created it, and are not limited by your solfege skills, and are not deaf (Beethoven). There are many things for me that determine the melody, direction, suggestion of new material, developement, how does it contribute to what came before and what will come next, (if I've planned correctly I have a good idea of what comes next), is it the begining, end, or middile of a phrase, etc.. >Also, do you _really_ believe that a computer is going to write Beethoven's >10th symphony someday? It would seem you have more faith in musical modelling >than in the human composer. Great composers are rare birds and their >composing processes dependent on a large extent on their emotional state at >the time of the composing. >From a theoritical standpoint, I believe it highly possible for a computer to "derive" something which could "qualify as Beethoven's 10th symphony. However, this would only be possible if the computer could analyze a large quanity of Beethoven's music (the more the better), and have a complete perspective of the period in which Beethoven lived (wars, personal relationships, financial climate, society, etc.). As far as the last point, we could only guest how socio-economic conditions might have affected his music. However, I doubt will ever have the hardware to perform such a task in anyones lifetime. But is this any different that the "musical dice games" of Mozart ? Or how about the "Schillenger Method" ? I'm sure (and have seen program code) that Schillenger's could be implemented on a moderate computer system. This was the instructional method followed by Glenn Miller and others and it is based purely on mathematics. However, I guess that system wouldn't yeild anything you'd qualify as interesting music. Bob Bob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 09:57:25 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: Modelling of Compositional Processes (Was OOPS! Music... Mr. Depin continues the discussion >Jeff->Yes - but one minute you're talking post-compositional - the next minute > >theoretical. How does the composer know - Hmmm... time for a surprise. Music > >without surprises is pretty boring. I guess this demonstrates my fascination > >with music as a _dramatic_ process. How do you codify the impulse to be > >dramatic. Do you create a surprise index? Hmmm... it's been going on for the > >same way a while - surprise index low - better up it! Puhleeze... > > I plan my music to take the listener on a trip, that trip has certain points > where I plan what you'd call "surprises" however, it's more that. Through > phrase structure I know when these change/surprises should occur. You seem > more inamoured with the compositional process which is okay but my compositional > time is limited so I must make the most of it. I don't always know what the > notes will be when I compose but I do know from planning what I have to accomp- > lish when I compose. > This is an interesting approach - denial of expectations is something I've been interested in. > >How do you codify melody - I certainly wouldn't trust any computer with the > >creation of melody. It can't hear - so how can it see if the tune is > >hummmmable... hmmmmmmm.... > > Why should a tune be hummable ? That's to me seems kind of limiting. That's > a pretty lame meteric to determine melody. That also supposes you've heard the > melody before you've actually created it, and are not limited by your solfege > skills, and are not deaf (Beethoven). There are many things for me that > determine the melody, direction, suggestion of new material, developement, > how does it contribute to what came before and what will come next, (if I've > planned correctly I have a good idea of what comes next), is it the begining, > end, or middile of a phrase, etc.. > I was exaggerating :-) A computer can't hear music! Again - we don't know why do people like different kinds of music - how do they interpret music - again - music is more than a pitch happening at the right time for the right period. > >Also, do you _really_ believe that a computer is going to write Beethoven's > >10th symphony someday? It would seem you have more faith in musical modelling > >than in the human composer. Great composers are rare birds and their > >composing processes dependent on a large extent on their emotional state at > >the time of the composing. > > From a theoritical standpoint, I believe it highly possible for a computer to > "derive" something which could "qualify as Beethoven's 10th symphony. However, > this would only be possible if the computer could analyze a large quanity of > Beethoven's music (the more the better), and have a complete perspective of the > period in which Beethoven lived (wars, personal relationships, financial > climate, society, etc.). As far as the last point, we could only guest how > socio-economic conditions might have affected his music. However, I doubt will > ever have the hardware to perform such a task in anyones lifetime. I'll believe it when I hear it ;-). But, frankly, I doubt that a computer will ever re-create the human listening experience. It is certainly possible that a computer could develop its own (personal) listening experience if it was conscious (sheesh) but, really, this is stretching the argument. Until we know how we perceive - (not just model it rudimentally) - we will not be able to reproduce artistic effects. Whatever happened to gestalt theory? Music is more than a bunch of pitches at the right time! Here's a "Turing/Beethoven" test - (in a "butterfly effect" mode now) Give a computer the first 10 bars of the first movement of the fifth symphony. Tell it to finish it. Now if it really comprehended the human listening experience of Beethoven and had a good grasp of how Beethoven worked (from analysis, maybe neural net feedback from human listening subjects ;-) it should be able to write a comparable development section, etc. Tell a bunch of grad comp students (those who can really write music, that is and not just put a bunch of notes on a page ;-). Play all the versions back and ask a listening group which one was written by a computer... > > But is this any different that the "musical dice games" of Mozart ? Or how > about the "Schillenger Method" ? I'm sure (and have seen program code) that > Schillenger's could be implemented on a moderate computer system. This was the > instructional method followed by Glenn Miller and others and it is based purely > on mathematics. However, I guess that system wouldn't yeild anything you'd > qualify as interesting music. Please - this is so condescending - do you computer musicians really go home and night and put on (after a hard day's work at the hard drive) this kind of music. I doubt if you guyz really listen at home (for pleasure, not for networking ;-) to the stuff that's coming out of our university computer music superstars - puhleeze... music is for listening - are we still stuck in the '60's argument - "Who cares...?" Well, you know me enough by now that I don't find much new interesting music anywhere - except for Lutoslawski - he's my hero... ;-() Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 13:27:20 EDT From: wbf@ALUXPO.ATT.COM Subject: More Blather on WORKSTATIONS An earlier post: >>Sophisticated computer music does _not_ require sophisticated >>technology - but patience and imagination<< And Charles Shriner's addition: > and talent and training........... > Whether the training came from a conservatory or the "real world" is > unimportant. > Talent.....well I think we all know academics and nonacademics > who have access to tremendous equipment and still produce music > that is structurally and aesthetically junk. To which I must (happily) agree. But then Charles turns on a dime and says: > IMHO, I would (and do) only use a Next or Macintosh based system. > DOS machines and music.....hmmm...aren't those contradictions in terms? To which I feel obligated to point out how contradictory that looks to me considering the previous paragraph. I agree that having the right gear doesn't guarantee aesthetic success. (And who am I to judge that for anyone but myself...) But lack of sophisticated technology doesn't seem to be a barrier to achieving aesthetic success. Otherwise, by definition, NOTHING would stand the test of time and from Bach to Beatles (at least) and on through to early Max Mathews, John Cage, Stockhausen, Ussachevsky, et al, (please forgive my spelling of names) we'd be ignoring a LOT of wonderful material! Bill Fox ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 15:05:00 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: More Blather on WORKSTATIONS Mr. Fox blathers -> ;-) > But lack of sophisticated technology doesn't seem > to be a barrier to achieving aesthetic success. Otherwise, by > definition, NOTHING would stand the test of time and from Bach to > Beatles (at least) and on through to early Max Mathews, John Cage, > Stockhausen, Ussachevsky, et al, (please forgive my spelling of names) > we'd be ignoring a LOT of wonderful material! > > Bill Fox > Exactly! There are parts of Sgt. Pepper and Gesange and Deserts which I feel are yet to be surpassed - and these pieces were done on 4 (or 2) track tape... I would gladly give up anything played at _any_ ICMC conference for another Deserts please...(make it not too sweet!)... Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 20:43:58 -0500 From: Charles Shriner Subject: Re: More Blather on WORKSTATIONS >>To which I feel obligated to point out how contradictory that looks >>to me considering the previous paragraph. Just personal preference on my part Bill and your point is well taken. ____________________________________________________________________ charles shriner@butler.edu Music Composition or ccps@mindvox.phantom.com & VOX:317.254.0739 Sound Design FAX:317.283.9930 ATT Woodruff INDPLS., IN ____________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 10:46:42 -0500 From: Charles Shriner Subject: More RE:OOPS! "WORKSTATIONS" >>Sophisticated computer music does _not_ require sophisticated >>technology - but patience and imagination<< and talent and training........... Whether the training came from a conservatory or the "real world" is unimportant. Talent.....well I think we all know academics and nonacademics who have access to tremendous equipment and still produce music that is structurally and aesthetically junk. IMHO, I would (and do) only use a Next or Macintosh based system. DOS machines and music.....hmmm...aren't those contradictions in terms? How much do you want to spend and what do you want to do? Peace. ____________________________________________________________________ charles shriner@butler.edu Music Composition or ccps@mindvox.phantom.com & VOX:317.254.0739 Sound Design FAX:317.283.9930 ATT Woodruff INDPLS., IN ____________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 16:59:59 -0400 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: More RE:OOPS! "WORKSTATIONS" >>>Sophisticated computer music does _not_ require sophisticated >>>technology - but patience and imagination<< > >and talent and training........... >Whether the training came from a conservatory or the "real world" is >unimportant. Good point. >IMHO, I would (and do) only use a Next or Macintosh based system. >DOS machines and music.....hmmm...aren't those contradictions in terms? Not such a good point. If the tool provides what you need, it's a good tool. >How much do you want to spend and what do you want to do? I think this is getting closer to what is really being talked about here. The problems which face a home-based, part-time, non-academic, non-professional composer are n-fold. First, there is a "required investment" problem. The gap between "what I want to do" and "what I can afford to do in terms of both time and money" is still large at the moment for these sophisticated applications of technology to music. Perhaps our perception of part of the gap results from the amazingly useful and cheap tools which we have for less sophisticated applications. It is pretty simple to get a machine (by which I include both musical instruments and personal computers) which can do a lot: imitative synthesis, some basic analog stuff, basic FM. However, esoteric stuff like linear automata synthesis, synthesizers totally controlled by MAX (down to the basic sound-generation level), Karplus-Strong, csound, linear predictive coding, phase vocoding, sample convolution: all of these are still too expensive for a "home computer" (let's say $2500 or less) to do *practically*. To do this stuff practically, a home-based, part-time, non-academic composer has to invest much more in equipment which she may find to be unsuitable for her compositional purposes. This is a real barrier for many folks, who are more concerned with paying the bills. An academic composer is much more free of such strictures. It is likely that the institution has some of the infrastructure (such as mastering facilities, perhaps even the equipment itself) already available to the composer. Second, there is a cultural barrier. Most persons I have met who are in charge of academic music programs do not see any profit in or reason for allowing persons without the "required" music courses under their belts to even experiment with this kind of sophisticated equipment. Admittedly, the last time I tried to get access to computer synthesis was 15 years ago, and required scheduled block time on the university's mainframe computer, which one certainly did not get without serious professorial sponsorship. I do get the impression from reading various articles that there is still resistance to the idea that a "casual" composer could get any value out of sophisticated equipment. Are there, indeed, any music programs which encourage the kind of cross-pollination of ideas that comes from bringing non-traditional, non-academic, "untrained" composers together with the sophisticated equipment and sophisticated ideas and techniques available in the academic environment, short of a full four-year, full-time music degree? It is my opinion that there are contributions that the non-academics can make in this area, if nothing other than a different set of ears and esthetics. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 09:27:05 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: More RE:OOPS! "WORKSTATIONS" >Talent.....well I think we all know academics and nonacademics >who have access to tremendous equipment and still produce music >that is structurally and aesthetically junk. Sure, though it's a personal opinion: there's a culture there and one needs to educate an audience to some extent. I mean, I regard practically all the plink-and-boing academic music I hear as trash (the only good example I've ever heard of this is Beaubourg by Vangelis, as it happens), but then I'm probably into the corresponding culture in dance, and I just lap the stuff up. >DOS machines and music.....hmmm...aren't those contradictions in terms? It's a contradiction to what you've just said. And: Nope. Much as I hate DOS machines, I see no reason why a DOS-box shouldn't be perfect for sequencing (say) with a decent software package. I mean, 80x24 characters is a lot better than your average synth, and I don't recall the display (or the hardware) on the early Fairlights being much better than that... Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 May 1993 23:53:02 GMT From: Tom Benoist Subject: Re: Morphing from One Waveform to Another In article <9304301458.AA13101@sundagger.lerc.nasa.gov> Brian Good writes: >( lots of yelling about sound morphing deleted ) > >I haven't seen this discussed here, so excuse me if this is commmon knowledge, >but--for quick and dirty experimentation with sound, Mathematica 2.0 and >higher (on some platforms) has Play and ListPlay objects that can play either >functions or lists of samples. These tend to be implemented on platforms >like the Mac that aren't notoriously fast, so cpu-intensive things like morphing >might not work well, but you can still do quite a lot. Mathematica has a pretty >good-sized list of built-in functions, which can save you a lot of code-writing >time (e.g. it knows about Bessel functions so you can do simple FM more or less >instantly). > >brian good >bgood@sundagger.lerc.nasa.gov I implemented a sound player for mathmatica on Silicon Graphics Machines if anyone is interested. Mathmatica treats sound output as a custom postscript object. (Kindof strange and a little bulky as its a text file) -Tom Benoist -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Tom Benoist Interactive Effects Inc. benoist@netcom.com 4401 Palo Verde Rd Irvine, Ca, 92715 while(you_wait)graphics(); PH: (714) 856-2739 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 13:19:41 EDT From: JASON VANTOMME Subject: Re: Morphing from One Waveform to Another I was just reading through mail from a few days ago, when I ran across this statement from Jesse Kanner that might be misunderstood. Jesse Kanner writes: Subject: Re: Morphing from One Waveform to Another > C-Sound and many of the other resouces developed at UCSD > are totally bitchin. I too would urge all to serious check > out C-Sound. In fact Csound was NOT developed at UCSD. It was developed (and is ongoing) by Barry Vercoe at the MIT Media Lab. The new release (around March 1993) is available via anonymous ftp from: cecelia.media.mit.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Jason D. Vantomme Faculty of Music, McGill University Montreal, PQ CANADA email: vantomme@music.mcgill.ca =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 13:31:58 EDT From: JASON VANTOMME Subject: Re: Morphing from One Waveform to Another {LOTS of talk on morphing deleted} Brian Adamson writes: Subject: Re: Morphing from One Waveform to Another > Does the SoundHack algorithm go very far in extracting > excitation characteristics in addition to the > filtering properties? The copy I have only does Phase > Vocoding, convolution, some others. Disabled menu > items include a "Mutation" process ...I wonder what the > author has in mind here? I am surprised that no one has mentioned this sooner. In fact, way back when this discussion started (how long HAS it been!!) I suggested that someone get a hold of Larry Polansky at Dartmouth College. He is one the experts on the idea of morphological mutations applied to music and has written various papers on the ideas. (Check out any ICMC Proceedings from about 1988 on!). His student, Martin McKinney devised a synthesis type called, appropriately enough, "Mutation Synthesis". His MA thesis was on this!! (I'm currently in the process of getting a copy...) There is even a NeXT app with a nice GUI on it that does this synthesis (trying to get a copy of that too...may be on anon ftp soon.) At any rate, the Mutation function on SoundHack is (as far as I understand) going to be this process developed by Polansky and McKinney. Shame on everyone for not taking my advice... ;^) I'll post when I get the details from the thesis and when the app gets put on anon ftp. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Jason D. Vantomme Faculty of Music, McGill University Montreal, PQ CANADA email: vantomme@music.mcgill.ca =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 15:26:33 EDT From: "Luis E. Scheker" Subject: Re: Morphing from One Waveform to Another Jason Vantomme writes: >I am surprised that no one has mentioned >this sooner. In fact, way >back when this discussion started (how >long HAS it been!!) I >suggested that someone get a hold of Larry >Polansky at Dartmouth >College. He is one the experts on the idea >of morphological >mutations applied to music and has written >various papers on the >ideas. (Check out any ICMC Proceedings >from about 1988 on!). His >student, Martin McKinney devised a >synthesis type called, >appropriately enough, "Mutation >Synthesis". His MA thesis was on >this!! I am a music major at Dartmouth College and have talked to Larry Polansky about the subject of morphing. His success has been in the morphing of melodies, which he has down to a science. Unfortunately, when discussing sonic morphing, he brought up the same problems of sample length and representation that others have discussed in previous messages. Martin McKinney's system of Mutation Synthesis yielded some interesting examples, but the results were unpredictable and the transitions between sounds were rather rough. Other students in Dartmouth's Electro-Acoustic Masters Program are working on the same problem, and Larry has hinted at the possibility of taking some time off to study the problem in depth, but the solution still remains guarded by the ideological barrier of sample representation. Luis Scheker ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 13:09:00 EST From: john mcintyre Subject: Musical morphing >From the May 1993 _Keyboard_ magazine: "Scan those import bins for _Treacherous_, a new exercise in pop star abuse from Plunderphonics, a.k.a. John Oswald. _Treacherous_ features a technique developed by Oswald called 'musical morphing', through which 'bit-perfect' vocal samples from CDs are fused to create such new personas as Sinead O'Connick, Jr., Bing Springsteen, and Aretha Vanilli. It comes out this spring in Japan on Oswald's own Avant label." John McIntyre Physics - Astronomy Domine Dept Michigan State University ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 May 1993 23:58:46 -0400 From: John Bickerton Subject: Re: Not WORKSTATION anymore... >The real question is if there were nolimitations on these outlets, would the >public be inclined to attended on purchase it ? I serioulsy doubt it. (if >you think otherwise, fine) Technology has broken down many of these barriers >already anyway. I sure you can find small publishing companies which >special-ize in the off beat music (at least there are for traditional >non-emuisc). >Let us not forget that composers in the past have taken the financial risk >to perform their music at their own cost (V. Thompson, Cage) and in turned >gained musch popularity. My point - their are barriers to getting heard but >they can be overcome. In the words of the immortal Ricky Nelson ....... Well its alright now I've learned my lesson well You can't please everyone Ya got to please yourself. (Keys to composing - 101) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 20:13:59 GMT From: Netnews Server Subject: OOPS! "Workstations" Jeff says: > Sure it's feasible - but you'll have to wait 12 hours or more just to > audition a minute of music. Oops! I misread Jeff's response, and Bill's question! Jeff is quite right that computer music will not be very responsive on Bill's current system. I made the mistake that Bill was willing to spend some money ($5-7K) for a new system. If he is, then he can have a very comfortable computer music environment. With his current hardware, he might want to get a SoundBlaster to play with. Nice things can be done with that, if you like industrial sounds. I have a friend in California who has written several pieces using that 8-bit d/a in his Macintosh plus. He put a BOSS sticker on the top of his machine :) Christopher Penrose penrose@silvertone.princeton.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 08:36:05 PDT From: Peter Uchytil Subject: Re: OOPS! "Workstations" > > The educational prices of NeXT workstations placed them below functionally ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > equivalent (in terms of DSP, digital audio software tools, UNIX, > compilers, etc.) Macs or PeeCees. That's why I bought one. > Well, sorry, but not all of us are students. > NeXT software, however, is stronger than ever, and the educational prices, > which are (according to NeXT reps.) to be in the "few-hundred-dollar" > range, place it well within the grasp of studentia. > Hmmmm, your academic career sounds a bit different than mine was. A "fw hundred dollars" was nothing to sneeze at. Perhaps I was the only poor college student (I must admit that I knew plenty of people who had money to burn). > There is still the issue of hardware costs. NeXTSTEP runs on Intel 486 > machines. Digital audio board prices vary with functionality. > And this is what I think the real key issue is. The NeXT was great because of the 56001 DSP. The NeXT software may be very friendly to musical applications, but if the hardware isn't there you're out of luck. How much does a good DSP board cost for a PC? Surely more than a "few hundred bucks", no? Please tell me if I'm mistaken here. I'm not talking about a Soundblaster. I think the Turtle Beach card has a 56001 on it, but that's $600. > And be glad that NeXT is out there "lowering the bar" for students, as > they have been all along. > Again, not all of us that want to pursue sophisticated computer music are students. I agree it's nice to see companies doing stuff like this (I believe Borland does it too), but not being a student, it doesn't help me much (ok, I'm being self-centered here). And I still am not sure just how "affordable" this is for Joe-average college student. > > ** Casimir J. (Casey) Palowitch - In 1996, there will be two kinds ** > ** Slavic Cataloger - of computer professional : those ** > ** U. of Pgh. Library Systems - who know NeXTStep, and those ** > ** cjp+@pitt.edu - without Jobs. ** > PS. I'll believe this 1996 prediction when I see it. While I have not used NeXTStep, I'll be very surprised if it is the dominant OS. Right now I'm not even sure if there will be a dominant OS! Ugh, it's a mess out there in OS-land... Pete -- Peter Uchytil | ADC Kentrox Industries | "Dreams make their own rules peter@kentrox.com | Portland, Oregon | And it's time to dream out loud" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 08:55:52 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: OOPS! "Workstations" Mr. Penrose sez -> > > Jeff says: > > Sure it's feasible - but you'll have to wait 12 hours or more just to > > audition a minute of music. > > Oops! I misread Jeff's response, and Bill's question! Jeff is quite > right that computer music will not be very responsive on Bill's > current system. I made the mistake that Bill was willing to spend some > money ($5-7K) for a new system. Say What? > If he is, then he can have a very > comfortable computer music environment. With his current hardware, > he might want to get a SoundBlaster to play with. Nice things can be > done with that, if you like industrial sounds. I have a friend in > California who has written several pieces using that 8-bit d/a in his > Macintosh plus. He put a BOSS sticker on the top of his machine :) > > > Christopher Penrose > penrose@silvertone.princeton.edu > Yeah, right - tell the poor "working man" to get a Sound Blaster. Here's what I think he should do - forget non-realtime synthesis - forget the SoundBlaster card - buy a good sampler - learn a little C - compile Mr. Penrose's and other's generous contributions of Ansi C code sound morphing software and use it to process samples. Sure it might have to run all night - but if you want to make the latest cutting edge sounds - that's the quickest way to do it. (More ignorance from a working man composer who doesn't give a fuck about impressing the academic community ;-). Just a quick aside about how academia approaches the issue of the home music workstation - America has almost no research into this problem. The Italians are doing some cool stuff (from what I've read in CMJ) but their solutions are based on custom cards - cheap, but difficult to troubleshoot at home. American research is aimed at impressing their colleagues with "advanced" hardware. Who the hell can afford a Next? What does it accomplish to write NExt software that (ahem) no one for sure can use now - except the few lucky stiffs doing graduate work in the few lucks schools that got 'em. This is not to diss Mr. Penrose whose generous contributions into the software field - HyperUPic (I'd love to fool around with that) and more I applaud - just to point a finger at our universities lack of concern for the majority of emusic composers who aren't going to have "teaching" jobs which supply access to their hardware.... Instead, they might have a Mac, Amiga or PC - but the grad students aren't given the big picture - they'll be lucky to get a job at MickeyD's in a couple of years ;-). Flame gear on full... Fire away! Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 11:04:34 -0400 From: "Casimir J. Palowitch" Subject: Re: OOPS! "Workstations" The educational prices of NeXT workstations placed them below functionally equivalent (in terms of DSP, digital audio software tools, UNIX, compilers, etc.) Macs or PeeCees. That's why I bought one. But it's irrelevant now to people who are buying new machines, as NeXT hardware is no longer being produced or sold. NeXT software, however, is stronger than ever, and the educational prices, which are (according to NeXT reps.) to be in the "few-hundred-dollar" range, place it well within the grasp of studentia. There is still the issue of hardware costs. NeXTSTEP runs on Intel 486 machines. Digital audio board prices vary with functionality. As do RAM and HD with size. Performance varies with how much money you spend. It's one of the phenomena of the market economy. And be glad that NeXT is out there "lowering the bar" for students, as they have been all along. ** Casimir J. (Casey) Palowitch - In 1996, there will be two kinds ** ** Slavic Cataloger - of computer professional : those ** ** U. of Pgh. Library Systems - who know NeXTStep, and those ** ** cjp+@pitt.edu - without Jobs. ** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 15:44:49 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: OOPS! "Workstations" > NeXT software, however, is stronger than ever, and the educational prices, > which are (according to NeXT reps.) to be in the "few-hundred-dollar" > range, place it well within the grasp of studentia. > > There is still the issue of hardware costs. NeXTSTEP runs on Intel 486 > machines. Digital audio board prices vary with functionality. As do RAM > and HD with size. Performance varies with how much money you spend. It's > one of the phenomena of the market economy. > Aren't we still talking - say $4000 for the 486 machine and the NeXTSTEP software? Add another $1,000 for that extra large digital audio hard drive and $500.00 for a Turtle Beach? Card (whatever) - this is still a heap of money. And I can guarantee that you can get just as much cool creative music out of one of those damn synthesizers/samplers than this setup and still have enough money to press your CD. > And be glad that NeXT is out there "lowering the bar" for students, as > they have been all along. > Whoopee!!! Who cares about students? They're (as Satre said) naive and egomaniacal. ;-) And I'm not a student - (who wants to listen to "student" music anyway!) so what good does a "generous" student discount do for the computer music world - except to perpetuate Next. > ** Casimir J. (Casey) Palowitch - In 1996, there will be two kinds ** > ** Slavic Cataloger - of computer professional : those ** > ** U. of Pgh. Library Systems - who know NeXTStep, and those ** > ** cjp+@pitt.edu - without Jobs. ** > | - (I'm not so sure about this ;-) | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 00:09:18 -0400 From: "Casimir J. Palowitch" Subject: Re: OOPS! "Workstations" On Wed, 5 May 1993, Peter Uchytil wrote: (flamage deleted) > And this is what I think the real key issue is. The NeXT was great because > of the 56001 DSP. The NeXT software may be very friendly to musical > applications, but if the hardware isn't there you're out of luck. How much > does a good DSP board cost for a PC? Surely more than a "few hundred bucks", > no? Please tell me if I'm mistaken here. I'm not talking about a Soundblaster. > I think the Turtle Beach card has a 56001 on it, but that's $600. Well, offhand, I don't know of anyone selling low-demand, low-production-run professional-quality digital audio hardware at cost ;-> But I do know of a company called Harvard Toolworks that is making a ISA DSP board for NeXTSTEP Intel machines. Here are a few words from them: "We're also hoping to have our ISA-bus card ready for shipment shortly after the show. [NeXTWORLD EXPO, May 25] This has a 27MHz 56K configured with the same memory mapping as on the NeXT. 8K words memory standard, sockets for more. DSP connector is identical to NeXT's. Price for this card is $295." > > And be glad that NeXT is out there "lowering the bar" for students, as > > they have been all along. > Again, not all of us that want to pursue sophisticated computer music are > students. Yes, well, sophisticated computer music requires sophisticated technology. And sophisticated technology is expensive to make, and therefore expensive to buy. At least at the start. That's why I have supported NeXT. Because as any NeXTSTEP user will tell you, NeXT's products are a fantastic bargain. They provided in their standard 3.0 system release thousands of dollars worth of software (at least at Sun and SGI prices) and have produced things like the Music Kit and Sound Kit, not available anywhere else. And they are doing it again, even better, for 486 machines come May 25th. > And I still am not sure just how "affordable" this is for Joe-average > college student. As you have said, you have not yet used NeXTSTEP, neither for music, nor for productivity applications, nor for custom application development. After you do, go around and try and put together a comparable environment that gives you all the same functionality, productivity, quality, and ease-of-use. Then we'll talk about affordability. > Pete > -- > Peter Uchytil | ADC Kentrox Industries | "Dreams make their own rules > peter@kentrox.com | Portland, Oregon | And it's time to dream out loud" For the pun- and hyperbole-impaired, ;-> | | \ / ** Casimir J. (Casey) Palowitch - In 1996, there will be two kinds ** ** Slavic Cataloger - of computer professional : those ** ** U. of Pgh. Library Systems - who know NeXTStep, and those ** ** cjp+@pitt.edu - without Jobs. ** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 08:58:26 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: OOPS! "Workstations" > > > Again, not all of us that want to pursue sophisticated computer music are > > students. > > Yes, well, sophisticated computer music requires sophisticated technology. Sophisticated computer music does _not_ require sophisticated technology - but patience and imagination. The gentleman with the 8088 chip and the 10 megabyte hard drive and his DAT can do _anything_ you can do with your Next with patience and imagination. I've heard _sophisticated_ computer music done using the Amiga sound chip (8 bits) - you just have to compensate for your lack of hardware with a commodity noticeably lacking in the academic computer music I've heard - imagination - creativity - love. Sorry, to indulge in more of Jeff's hot-headed ranting, but please, musical software is nowhere as sophisticated as the academic community would have us believe. They still can't even do a time-shift reliably in software with sample formant stability. This means that a guy in his basement with a PC and a Turtle Beach card and a tape backup can do anything those guyz at Stanford can do... probably better, cuz she's not worried about impressing her colleagues with a coherent "stylistic" development of the music - and - because she knows that computer sound manipulation is chaos - and she revels in this chaos. Curtis Roads wrote a couple of years ago that there was a developing "style" of computer music and questioned (half-heartedly albeit) that some things could be getting left out of the mix. Russel Pinkston in last months CMJ calls for an opening up of the criteria for selection at computer music conferences. It don't fuckin' matter what your platform is - it just better get me off! Otherwise I'm flippin' the station. Hey, I can express myself cuz I don't work for an academic institution (Smiles abound in freedom!) > And sophisticated technology is expensive to make, and therefore expensive to Blah, blah, blah... > > For the pun- and hyperbole-impaired, ;-> > > | > | > \ / > > ** Casimir J. (Casey) Palowitch - In 1996, there will be two kinds ** > ** Slavic Cataloger - of computer professional : those ** > ** U. of Pgh. Library Systems - who know NeXTStep, and those ** > ** cjp+@pitt.edu - without Jobs. ** > Ha... now I get it... yawn... Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 11:27:00 EST From: Robert Depin Subject: Re: OOPS! "WORKSTATIONS" Thought I'd jump in on the flame fest... >Sophisticated computer music done _not_ require sophistucated tech.. I'd argue the sophistication of your equipment is directly relates to the sophisication of your music. If your current equipment can produce simple sounds in in a rather short time while more complex timbres textures require several hours, I'd be inclined to believe that most people would concentrate their time and computer resources using these limitations. In the hands of a skilled composer the who has used both highend computer systems and personal computers the amount you can do with one verses the other is extremely diff- erent. An anology to consider is sampling technology. Back in the 1950's electronic music was created using sounds made from modified tape recording. I'd argue that the reason only a limited number of composers chosen this meth- odlogy was the time required to create several minutes of music could be several days or more. Current sampling technology has reduce the time for sound manip- ulation to several minutes/seconds on today's more sophisticated computers and samplers thus making composition considerable easier. The above statement is like saying creating sophisticated computer graphics does not require sophisticated technology. In both instantances the capabilities of your hardware directly influence the end result. As far as the cost - I agree technology is expensive that's why good academic institutions provide access to this technology. For many student's and teachers this may be their only access to the technology. Just my thoughts. Bob P.S. in 1996 No one OS will rule, Not NEXTStep, WindowsNT, Pink, or DOS. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 12:08:18 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: OOPS! "WORKSTATIONS" > > Thought I'd jump in on the flame fest... > >Sophisticated computer music done _not_ require sophistucated tech.. > > I'd argue the sophistication of your equipment is directly relates to > the sophisication of your music. If your current equipment can produce simple > sounds in in a rather short time while more complex timbres textures require > several hours, I'd be inclined to believe that most people would concentrate > their time and computer resources using these limitations. In the hands of > a skilled composer the who has used both highend computer systems and personal > computers the amount you can do with one verses the other is extremely diff- > erent. Wait a minute! Why couldn't someone with say a cheap sampler and a synth create a prototype of a piece - save it as a Midi File and then run the CSound Midi file reader and compile the piece with user specifiable instruments - even if you had to leave your computer on for 3 weeks to do it - you could! My point was that when you have access to "dream" equipment you are creating in an enviroment which may not be easily maintained throughout your life. It certainly hasn't been in mine! You make do and then - it's totally up to your imagination. _ANY_ computer process can be replicated if you have the time. After that it's all just file protocols. Please get out of your IVORY TOWERS - ;-).... No hard feelings - I'm finding this the most interesting discussion I've seen on computer music in years... Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 13:28:00 EST From: Robert Depin Subject: Re: OOPS! "WORKSTATIONS" >Wait a minute! Why couldn't someone with say a cheap sampler and a synth >create a prototype of a piece - save it as a Midi File and then run the CSound >Midi file reader and compile the piece with user specifiable instruments - >even if you had to leave your computer on for 3 weeks to do it - you could! >Wait a minute! Why couldn't someone with say a cheap sampler and a synth >create a prototype of a piece - save it as a Midi File and then run the CSound >Midi file reader and compile the piece with user specifiable instruments - >even if you had to leave your computer on for 3 weeks to do it - you could! >My point was that when you have access to "dream" equipment you are creating >in an enviroment which may not be easily maintained throughout your life. My point is it that creating music this way is impracticable. Take your example I make my samples, upload them to my computer and begin my processing - 3 weeks later out comes my music. What then is the music completed ? I rarely get things correct on the first try, so I make some changes, restart the process. during the second week of processing for the second time I blow a fuse and my computer dies - 2 weeks down the drain. I restart. Three weeks later I audition the results and I'm happy with the end result. Total 8 weeks, for me totally unacceptable. The point of having access to dream equipment is to make teaching the complex process possible in the given hour or two of limited class time. The main objective with the dream system is to allow expansion of the imagination so when that dream system is unavailable, you can solve your problems with techniques aquired in the classroom. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 15:12:23 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: OOPS! "WORKSTATIONS" Bob sez -> > The point of having access to dream equipment is to make teaching the > complex process possible in the given hour or two of limited class time. The > main objective with the dream system is to allow expansion of the imagination > so when that dream system is unavailable, you can solve your problems with > techniques aquired in the classroom. Wait a minute - solve them on what platform - your pc? with a "dream" techniquie? didn't you just dispute that point? My point was that it was _possible_ and composers (please) are known for doing the _impossible_. Not me, I wouldn't even consider going near something that wasn't realtime operational - I think anything less is totally unmusical. I'm just playing devil's advocate for the geniuses out there who need a little kick in the pants. Ignore the hype and get to work - anything is possible - ignore all the rules ;-() IMHO - I think CSound in a non-real-time mode is a joke - good for those crappy process pieces everyone is doing now... > > Bob > Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 20:48:25 -0500 From: Charles Shriner Subject: Re: OOPS! "WORKSTATIONS" >>IMHO - I think CSound in a non-real-time mode is a joke - good for >>those crappy process pieces everyone is doing now... BRAVO!!!!!!! ____________________________________________________________________ charles shriner@butler.edu Music Composition or ccps@mindvox.phantom.com & VOX:317.254.0739 Sound Design FAX:317.283.9930 ATT Woodruff INDPLS., IN ____________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 09:26:22 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: OOPS! "WORKSTATIONS" > I'd argue the sophistication of your equipment is directly relates to >the sophisication of your music. I think I understand what sophisticated technology is but I'd need to know your definition of "sophisticated music" to comment properly on this statement. I mean, there's some sophisticated vocal music out there, and the technology for that comes pre-installed. Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 17:27:00 EST From: Robert Depin Subject: Re: OOPS! "WORKSTATIONS"... Joe wrote -- >To do this stuff practically, a home-based, part-time, non-academic >composer has to invest much more in equipment which she may find to be >unsuitable for her compositional purposes. This is a real barrier for many >folks, who are more concerned with paying the bills. An academic composer >is much more free of such strictures. It is likely that the institution has >some of the infrastructure (such as mastering facilities, perhaps even the >equipment itself) already available to the composer. Playing devils advocate, these aren't really concerns. The reason many academic institutions provide such facilities aside from teaching, is research. Many academic composers are required to provide a certain level of research into compositional proceses and performance of original music on a regular basis. I consider the facilities in this instantance as necessary as professional computer programmer being provided a computer by his employer. I guess this argument doesn't carry much wieght with me and sounds more "Other guy's got access to the best equipment (which he didn't necessarily purchase) so why can't I also get the same deal ?" My answer is he's earned it through study and education. Like it or not, highly educated individuals get alot of great breaks, but still have to make car and house payments. >Second, there is a cultural barrier. Most persons I have met who are in >charge of academic music programs do not see any profit in or reason for >allowing persons without the "required" music courses under their belts to >even experiment with this kind of sophisticated equipment. How would you know what to do with it otherwise ? Unfortunately, most academisc facilities are spread so thin that supporting student and facility use may seem next to impossible. Knowing how to use the equipment becomes important since the facility may not be available for more than an hour or two at the most. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 09:01:36 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: OOPS! "WORKSTATIONS"... > > I guess this argument doesn't carry much wieght with me and sounds more "Other > guy's got access to the best equipment (which he didn't necessarily purchase) > so why can't I also get the same deal ?" My answer is he's earned it through > study and education. Like it or not, highly educated individuals get alot of > great breaks, but still have to make car and house payments. Please - this completely ignores the reality of our music schools spitting out emusic composers - veritable factories of composers - who will never get a teaching job. It also ignores the reality that not everyone can tolerate the academic enviroment - me, I abhor it - find it filled with nothing but clever smart-alek types - egomaniacs - who play games. I'd rather work - at a real job contributing to society - than play these games. My education - Tulane, Juilliard is exemplary - but I find that I can't get my pieces played at ICMC - why - I don't owe anybody anything. Sorry, if this sounds like sour grapes - I've made a lot of sacrifices to avoid the academic enviroment - I still have to hope that "musical quality" will carry my music into the ears of those who can understand - so I find other venues/enviroments for its creation and dispensation. I have been told by many composers who do not write "computer" music to avoid the computer music culture - but I feel drawn to its experimental biases. They have said - there's no _real_ composers working in computer music - I have my doubts - but I can only hope - the culture is rich enough to support all types of music and I will soon hear a piece done by an academic computer musician which works musically. I want to be blown away... Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 09:28:32 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: OOPS! "WORKSTATIONS"... >>Second, there is a cultural barrier. Most persons I have met who are in >>charge of academic music programs do not see any profit in or reason for >>allowing persons without the "required" music courses under their belts to >>even experiment with this kind of sophisticated equipment. >How would you know what to do with it otherwise ? >... >Knowing how to use the equipment becomes important since >the facility may not be available for more than an hour or two at the most. That's elitism. So long as the user knows how to turn it on, what the controls do, and how not to wreck it, isn't that enough? Why should she require an academic music course in order to "know what to do with it"? Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 05:56:18 GMT From: Netnews Server Subject: Sound Morphing, An existing solution Here is a write up on a UNIX based audio morphing processor that I have written. It is called "turpentine", and it is written in nearly ansi-c. It compiles on 68040 NeXT machines quite well. I wrote this code last summer, and I have been occasionally debugging it and adding new features since. It is based on the phase vocoder that F. Richard Moore describes in his book, "Elements of Computer Music". I am a music composition graduate student here at Princeton, and I have managed to use some sounds processed with this toy in my most recent computer-kludged composition, "Manwich". I am studying for my general exams so don't expect me to help you too much with it for a month or so. An audio example is available via ftp for listening; it is a mono 44.1KHz sound named: MadonnaMorph.snd. It can be had at the following location: princeton.edu:/pub/music/MadonnaMorph.snd Some legal concerns: Anyone who attempts to commericially exploit this algorithm for profit will be found dangling upside down in a public restroom, with their entire nervous system removed, dangling beside them. The sight will baffle scientists and clergy alike. Keep this in mind: I know how to make voodoo dolls. But seriously... the turpentine audio morphing software and algorithm description is free for unrestricted, non-commercial distribution. Any commercial distribution, or implementation made without consent of Christopher Penrose will be subject to immediate law suit. I will not let corporate greed squander information! Christopher Penrose penrose@silvertone.princeton.edu (C) copyright 1993 by Christopher Penrose Here is the write-up! --- turpentine is an audio processor that attempts to perform audio morphing between arbitrary soundfiles. With some practice by the musician, nifty interpolations between sounds, similar or disparate may be achieved. To many ears, the effect is quite similar to a cross-fade. Often it is. However, turpentine does perform a short-time fourier analysis of each input signal, and it uses an input "sieve" function to exchange portions of the spectrum of one signal with portions of the other. The processor doesn't have any signal intelligence: turpentine makes no state adjustments that are dependent upon the input signal. Thus it can be said that turpentine does not discriminate against non-germanic sounds. turpentine is a general UNIX program, but I haven't compiled it on a machine besides a 68040 NeXT. turpentine is a member of a family of signal processing programs that I have developed. Some of these programs can be found in my package pV.tar.Z, at princeton.edu in the pub/music directory. I use a bunch of useful UNIX "pipe-oriented" soundfile i/o programs. This is a style of work that thrived somewhat at UCSD. I really like the flexibility of working very close to UNIX, so I work this way. here is a sample UNIX command that invokes the turpentine processor: turpentine -R44100 -N1024 -M8192 -D1024 -I1024 -fPicassoDeparture \ -FMadonnaArrival -s1. -e6. -tLinearFunction -TLinearFunction | \ tosf -R44100 -c1 theMorph.snd; tosf is a program which receives floating-point sample data from a pipe (all my processors are written to use floating point samples) and it will generate a new soundfile with a NeXT style header, and a BSD style header at the end of it such that the program is compatible with cmix and carl programs. Turpentine is based on a hacked up version of the phase vocoder. I removed the phase unwrapping code, so that the program simply does windowed short-time fourier analysis of the two input files. Thus, you can learn more about the innards of turpentine, by studying the phase vocoder. here is turpentine's "help" menu: turpentine: sieve-like spectral interpolation turpentine [flags] > floatsams N: fft length [2^n] R: sampling rate M: window size in samples D: decimation factor in samples I: interpolation factor in samples f: departure soundfile F: arrival soundfile t: interpolation mapping function T: optional sieve function table X: sieve table scalar s: begin time of interpolation e: end time of interpolation S: random number seed for sieve table h: this bouncy place turpentine's analysis parameters can be controlled with these particular flags: N: the fft size of the analysis. It must be a power of two. M: this is a special window that is used to control the amount of data that the fft will analyze. If this number is larger than the fft size, the remaining samples will be wrapped into the fft, causing time aliasing (subtle comb-filter or diffusion effects). Doing this however, can speed computation by increasing the amount of windowing overlap. D-I These factors control the amount of window overlap. I should have removed the interpolation (I) parameter as it really isn't necessary. D controls the amount of samples that are read into the analysis window during a single fourier analysis. For the turpentine program. These values should be set to the same values. If you can find an application to make them different (terrifying time scaling), then you can go for it. For test runs of turpentine you can generally use an fft size of 1024, a window size 8 times this (8192), and a decimation and interpolation of 1024. It is normally important to use a decimation factor that is at least 1/8 of the window size such that sufficient overlapping occurs in the analysis. The most conceptually difficult part to understand about turpentine's architecture, is the effect of its sieve function and its index function. The sieve function is given to turpentine as a file of floating-point numbers. '-T' specifies this file name. The sieve function controls what portion of the departure spectrum is exchanged with the arrival spectrum. The interpolation mapping function is simply an index into the sieve function. The sieve function, thus, should have a number corresponding to each possible fourier analysis frequency division. An fft size of 1024 suggests that 512 values should be present in the sieve function. The interpolation mapping function is distributed over the time of the interpolation (-eTime minus -sTime). It is also a floating point function which, unlike the sieve function, can be of any length. It has range restriction of [0.0 - 1.0]. Instances of 0.0 indicate that the departure soundfile will be wholly present, and instances of 1.0 indicate that the arrival soundfile will be wholly present. Values between [0.0 - 1.0] index the sieve function, and the resultant spectrum exchanges the portions of the spectrum in the departure sound with those of the arrival sound that lie along the length of the sieve function from its 0th value to the currently indexed value. As I indicated earlier the MadonnaMorph sound, used a linear sieve function (0-1 with equal increments). Thus, when the index function was approximately .5 in this example, half of the spectrum of the departure sound was passed (11025Hz - 22050Hz), and half of the arrival spectrum was passed (0Hz - 11025Hz). At index value .25, 3/4 of the departure sound was passed (0Hz - 5512.5Hz) and 1/4 of the arrival sound was passed (5512.5Hz - 22050Hz). I have has success using "tiered" sieve functions, I can email code to generate them. Wild index functions are fun to use too. It is not necessary to specify a sieve function with turpentine. It will generate one with a "random" number generator if you do not specify one yourself. If you are serious about learning about these processors, you may want to do some reading about the phase vocoder. F. Richard Moore's "Elements of Computer Music" is a good place to start, as I have built most of my processors around his phase vocoder code. He describes his implementation of the phase vocoder quite effectively in his book. If you heard about turpentine via MadonnaMorph, here is some info: MadonnaMorph was created with two soundfiles equal in duration (7.86 seconds). I think, as I recall, that I gave a start time of 1. and an end time of 7. providing 6 seconds of interpolation. I used a linear sieve function with an exponential index. Recently, I have composed a piece that makes frequent use of this morphing technique. Though many of these effects are transparent, the coda of my recent computer music piece, Manwich, is somewhat of a cheap demo of this processor. Well, that's one way of looking at it! Christopher penrose@silvertone.princeton.edu (C) copyright 1993 by Christopher Penrose ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 01:11:43 GMT From: John F Duesenberry Subject: Re: Sound Morphing, An existing solution This sounds interesting. Any chance you'll port it to the Mac? Or is source code available so that it might be ported to the Mac? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 09:08:00 PST From: Mike Bishop Subject: Splitting sound into its elements This is message is two things: 1) While the brutal side of me likes to see people verbally ripping each other to shreds, I think that it is quite satisfied now and the analytic side of me is taking over to say: Please continue this Yanni discussion via private email. Thank you. 2) Does anyone know of a process that would analyze a sample and split it into a pitch envelope, a amplitude envelope, and a timbre envelope(?). Maybe just a pitch and amplitude envelope and a waveform (that continually changes). I know of CSound, but I would like to see a VISUAL representation of it (granted, I have not used CSound much and maybe it has this feature). Also, has anyone out there written a program (or know of a program) that would allow the user to graphically alter a harmonic spectrum and then graphically show the waveform generated by this series. Thanks again. Mike Bishop BISHOP_M@PLU.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 09:23:27 PDT From: metlay Subject: Re: Splitting sound into its elements >2) Does anyone know of a process that would analyze a sample and split it into >a pitch envelope, a amplitude envelope, and a timbre envelope(?). Maybe just >a pitch and amplitude envelope and a waveform (that continually changes). Hm. Pitch and amplitude are quantifiable physical terms, with specific meaning and scaling (Hz, dB, whatever). But "timbre"? I suspect, from what you write below: > Also, has >anyone out there written a program (or know of a program) that would allow the >user to graphically alter a harmonic spectrum and then graphically show the >waveform generated by this series. ...that what you mean be "timbre" is spectral content over time, which is in some sense related to the Filter in the Oscillator-Filter-Amplifier paradigm the way your other two graphs relate to the other two "modules." To answer your question, 2D and 3D graphs of harmonic spectra have been around for at least as long as the Fairlight, and are common in sample editing software. But not being a sample type, I don't have the personal hands-on experience to answer whether anyone has built a program to "grab" and "alter" a harmonic series in the same way that you can redraw a 1D sample waveform..... -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ren and Stimpy are the gerbil gods who infiltrate ENSONIQ samplers. (j. k.) ------------------------------ End of the EMUSIC-L Digest ******************************