EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 68, Issue 09 This issue's topics: Computers for composers Current computers for composition (11 messages) Pen based computers and MIDI Pen based computers ... (2 messages) Platform wars? Not. (2 messages) Current computers for composition mac - pc (3 messages) Platform wars? Not. (3 messages) Stop the World (Re: mac - pc) (2 messages) Platform wars? Not. (2 messages) Stop the World (Re: mac - pc) Platform wars? Not. Current computers for composition 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: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 16:58:24 -0500 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Current computers for composition >I am interested in purchasing a computer for the first time. I would >like to develop some compositional ideas involving sonic topography. >There are some programs that I've worked with (in various labs) that >approximate Pitch/Time graphs, but MIDI is getting pretty passe. I need >to get a 486. Anyone know where I can get a good one? Also, am working >with CSound, and need to get a good sound card. Have called Digital >Audio Labs, but would like to hear some comments from users on the list. >What have you found that works well for you? etc... I know that there are a number of people who swear by the Csound implementation on the NeXT. Admittedly, you'll have to buy a used machine, since they're not in production anymore, but they do have good onboard sound support. The question is what kind of support network there is if the machine breaks down... Has anyone attempted to use the new NeXTStep system for the 486, and if so, have you managed to support anything that can emulate the NeXT? Also, have any of the Mac users any experience with Csound on the PowerPC, particularly in native mode? --- Joe M. -- "This trumpet is flatlining!" (MST3K, "Mr. B. Natural") ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 18:03:03 -0500 From: The Digital Witchdoctor Subject: Re: Current computers for composition As far as soundcards go, Turtle Beach is the only way to go. Most of the nice cards sample 3 speeds (some to 48khz, i beleive) and the onboard emu proteus 1/xr has some really nice sounds. I run it on a 486 and don't have any complaints, except that you don't get the submix outputs that you get on a real proteus rackmount. Csound does run pretty good on a 486, it just takes a lot of tweaking (at least, it did for me) to get it running if your memory configuration isn't just so. phil sps5251@siena.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 17:48:27 -0600 From: Bet my hair is longer than yours! Subject: Re: Current computers for composition >I am interested in purchasing a computer for the first time. I would >like to develop some compositional ideas involving sonic topography. >There are some programs that I've worked with (in various labs) that >approximate Pitch/Time graphs, but MIDI is getting pretty passe. I need >to get a 486. Anyone know where I can get a good one? Also, am working >with CSound, and need to get a good sound card. Have called Digital >Audio Labs, but would like to hear some comments from users on the list. >What have you found that works well for you? etc... First question I have is, do you want a portable or a desktop computer? I find that I'm using my laptop computer more and more and the desktop less and less. Especially now that there are several PCMCIA sound card makers, you can get the same functionality with the laptop as with the desktop, and as a bonus, you can take it with you! Additionally, my laptop is a Compaq Concerto, which is a pen-based computer. That means that you use a pen instead of a mouse. You get the pen close to the screen and it acts just like a mouse. You can point to anything, and then you just tap the pen on the screen instead of clicking a button. The fun part is that you can actually write on the screen and it will recognise your printing! (Don't waste your time with a Newton!) I use Encore for music notation, and boy it sure is nice to use the pen to draw in notes. Much better than a mouse. The Concerto has a 25 MHz 486 in it, and it will run any Windows or DOS application. Most Windows programs work with the pen (the pen functions are built in to Windows), but DOS applications have to be specifically written to use the pen... There are several manufacturers of pen-based computers, IBM, Toshiba, Fujutsu, etc. Unfortunately, the Concerto has reached the "end of its design cycle" and has been discontinued. The nice thing about "end of cycle" is that the price has been lowered. You can still get a Concerto with 4MB RAM and a 120MB hard disk for about $1300. Call Compaq Direct... For desktops, depending upon what kind of money you want to spend, I would suggest getting a Pentium, as a basic Pentium system can be purchased for about $1500. These are entry level systems of course, but with some extras, you can have a screaming computer! (First thing to add would be at least 4MB of additional RAM (about $200). Check out the latest Computer Shopper for a review of five Pentium sytems that check in for that price... As for sound cards, boy you're going to be treading in some very religious waters here, and your decision will really depend upon what you want to get from the card. Do you want to be able to program the card yourself, or are you just interested in playing back wave files? I use a Gravis Ultrasound to play back what I've created with Csound, and it sounds just fine, although for serious multi-timbral playback, I go ahead and load the sounds into my Peavey SP sampler. (The SP costs about $700...) It's quite easy to deal with programming the Ultrasound. There is a mailing list, and you can get quite a lot of programming tools from the FTP site. For serious DSP type programming, you should also consider the IBM Mwave card or the Cardinal card... Have a good weekend all! -Doug Doug Wellington doug@sun1paztcn.wr.usgs.gov System and Network Administrator US Geological Survey Tucson, AZ Project Office According to proposed Federal guidelines, this message is a "non-record". Hmm, I wonder if _everything_ I say is a "non-record"... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 20:14:02 -0500 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: Current computers for composition > I know that there are a number of people who swear by the Csound > implementation on the NeXT. Admittedly, you'll have to buy a used machine, > since they're not in production anymore, but they do have good onboard > sound support. The question is what kind of support network there is if the > machine breaks down... Aside from the Csound implementation, the older NeXT machines had the Music Toolkit, which was a collection of excellent objects for MIDI, the built in DSP and other music related things. And of course, the built in DSP always made the old NeXt machines a joy. I still would like to get one... > Has anyone attempted to use the new NeXTStep system for the 486, and if so, > have you managed to support anything that can emulate the NeXT? Also, have > any of the Mac users any experience with Csound on the PowerPC, > particularly in native mode? The problem with NeXTstep for 486 is a) no DSP support (as far as i know) and b) the Music toolkit is no longer bundled with the system. This actually happened before NeXTstep486, around NeXTstep 3.0. -- Arne F. Claassen On the Web: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Somebody's got his finger on a DX7!" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 00:31:04 -0400 From: John Shaft Subject: Re: Current computers for composition > > > I know that there are a number of people who swear by the Csound > > implementation on the NeXT. Admittedly, you'll have to buy a used machine, Speaking of Csound, does anyone out there have it currently running on a Linux box? I am trying to do it, but so far I can't even un tar the file :P. Csound on NeXT really does sound good, though. They have one at Peabody and a guy was showing me some stuff he did. It was beautiful. (partly because of what he wrote, but also because of the machine sound itself.) john ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 04:29:07 -0700 From: atomic city Subject: Re: Current computers for composition Bet my hair is longer than yours! jotteth.... > >laptop is a Compaq Concerto, which is a pen-based computer. That means >that you use a pen instead of a mouse. You get the pen close to the >screen and it acts just like a mouse. You can point to anything, and >then you just tap the pen on the screen instead of clicking a button. >The fun part is that you can actually write on the screen and it will >recognise your printing! (Don't waste your time with a Newton!) I use >Encore for music notation, and boy it sure is nice to use the pen to draw >in notes. Much better than a mouse. The Concerto has a 25 MHz 486 in >it, and it will run any Windows or DOS application. Most Windows programs >work with the pen (the pen functions are built in to Windows), but DOS >applications have to be specifically written to use the pen... Tell me more. I'm intrigued by this conecpt, and saved your previous message on the subject....this sounds quite appealing in some ways. thanx mike -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * atomic@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Oh drat, these computers are so naughty and so complex, I could just PINCH them." (m. t. martian) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 16:46:57 +0100 From: Stefan Scheffler Subject: Re: Current computers for composition >Aside from the Csound implementation, the older NeXT machines had the Music >Toolkit, which was a collection of excellent objects for MIDI, the built in >DSP and other music related things. And of course, the built in DSP always >made the old NeXt machines a joy. I still would like to get one... Yes, I never saw such powerful stuff anywhere else. >The problem with NeXTstep for 486 is a) no DSP support (as far as i know) and >b) the Music toolkit is no longer bundled with the system. This actually >happened before NeXTstep486, around NeXTstep 3.0. As far as I know there are some activities to put sound into NeXTStep for 486. At CCRMA you will be able to get the MusicKit and additional Sound stuff for the NeXT. I am not too sure how far they build a base for NeXTStep for 486. Anyway it is still one of the most interresting computing platforms (not as boring as Windows, Mac or plain Unix). Regarding CSound on PowerMacintosh I can tell you only my assumption that it will blow you away. All the stuff I was doing with math intensive computing was impressive on a PowerMacintosh. We did some comparisons between the 56K DSP in the NeXT and a 66MHz PowerMacintosh, the PowerMac always won. This might be true with a Pentium based system, though I did no math tests yet. When I comparing my 486DX2-66 with a 60MHz Pentium I want to switch immediately. Ciao, Stefan <> stefan@mms-gmbh.de <> Stefan Scheffler, Software Development <> Steinberg Soft- & Hardware GmbH <> Cubase Lite/Score/Audio for Mac/Atari/Windows ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 21:13:46 -0500 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: Current computers for composition > As far as I know there are some activities to put sound into NeXTStep for > 486. At CCRMA you will be able to get the MusicKit and additional Sound > stuff for the NeXT. I am not too sure how far they build a base for > NeXTStep for 486. Anyway it is still one of the most interresting computing > platforms (not as boring as Windows, Mac or plain Unix). What i want is NeXTstep for PowerMac. Last i talked to NeXT, there was no plan for it. They wanted to see how the PowerPC chip did on the market and aside from that, they were busy with working on NeXTstep for Sun. -- Arne F. Claassen On the Web: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Somebody's got his finger on a DX7!" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 15:13:58 MEZ From: Thomas Neuhaus Subject: Re: Current computers for composition > The problem with NeXTstep for 486 is a) no DSP support (as far as i know) > and b) the Music toolkit is no longer bundled with the system. As far as I know, IRCAM in France are working on DSP-Support and a port for the MusicKit for NSfIP. There might be more about that on their ftp site (ftp.ircam.fr). Have fun TN ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 11:15:57 -0600 From: Bet my hair is longer than yours! Subject: Re: Current computers for composition Atomic City Man wrote: >Bet my hair is longer than yours! jotteth.... >>laptop is a Compaq Concerto, which is a pen-based computer. That means >>that you use a pen instead of a mouse. You get the pen close to the >>screen and it acts just like a mouse. You can point to anything, and >>then you just tap the pen on the screen instead of clicking a button. >>The fun part is that you can actually write on the screen and it will >>recognise your printing! (Don't waste your time with a Newton!) I use >>Encore for music notation, and boy it sure is nice to use the pen to draw >>in notes. Much better than a mouse. The Concerto has a 25 MHz 486 in >>it, and it will run any Windows or DOS application. Most Windows programs >>work with the pen (the pen functions are built in to Windows), but DOS >>applications have to be specifically written to use the pen... > >Tell me more. I'm intrigued by this conecpt, and saved your previous >message on the subject....this sounds quite appealing in some ways. Quite appealing in LOTS of ways! Techie stuff is that the Concerto is a quite normal 486 with the addition of a digitizer behind the screen. (486-25, 4MB RAM expandable to 20, 250MB hard disk, B&W display, $1325) The operating environment has built in support for the pen. (Windows for Pen Computers.) Any Windows app that uses the standard "I-beam" cursor for entry is supported for the handwriting recognition. (Actually, that should be "printing" recognition...) There is also a "trainer" where you can practice writing. The computer "learns" how you write, and of course, you learn how it interprets as well. (In the beginning, I had some problems writing 9 and g for instance. But after spending a few minutes with the trainer, I don't have that problem any more...) Like all Intel based personal computers, you have a choice of Operating Systems and/or Operating Environments. I know that you can get pen support for DOS, MS-Windows and OS/2. I bet that you'll be able to get pen support for Windows NT as well, although I haven't looked at it yet. I'm also exploring the possibility of adding pen extensions to Linux. (Try doing all that with a Newton!) Additionally, since this is a standard laptop, I have a parallel port and two PCMCIA slots. I use the Music Quest 2port/SE parallel port MIDI interface for communicating with my Rack-O-Synths(tm). There are now four PCMCIA soundcards being shipped, with more on the way. I'm waiting for the Turtle Beach Daytona card myself... (With that, it will be possible to write music anywhere and hear a fairly good representation of it.) Compaq makes a "docking bay" for the Concerto. I got the "Enhanced Flexconnect", as it's called, which includes the usual keyboard, mouse, serial, parallel, and external display ports. The enhanced version also includes a SCSI port and an ethernet port. I have the SCSI hooked up to my Peavey SP sampler. Since the SCSI port has an ASPI driver, I can use SampleVision or any other program that supports ASPI. (I wrote a SMDI sample transfer program myself.) I like how using a pen is so direct- that is, you point at exactly the place you want to go. Trying to use a mouse is much harder I think. Using Corel Draw on the Concerto is just like using an electronic Etch-A-Sketch! Since the keyboard can be detached from the Concerto, it even looks like an Etch-A-Sketch... One thing that I particularly like is that you don't have to find a flat surface to put your mouse on! It is even possible to walk around while using the pen. Standing at a bus stop, I can play a game of Solitaire, or edit my papers, or write music, or work with csound... Since I'm a programmer, I also look at programmability. Both Visual Basic and Visual C++ have all the tools necessary to write programs that use the pen. I have been working on several music oriented programs that use the pen extensively. I am working on a rather large project ("DIME" - Doug's Integrated Music Environment) which I ultimately want to use as a realtime performance controller. In other words, I plan to hook up a long MIDI cable to the Concerto and walk around on stage controlling everything with the pen. Look out Nick Rothwell! ;-) Hmm, downsides? Well, the Concerto really doesn't sit in your lap too well if you're trying to use the keyboard, and at six pounds, it's a little heavier than a lot of other laptop computers. Let me know if you have any other questions! -Doug Doug Wellington doug@sun1paztcn.wr.usgs.gov System and Network Administrator US Geological Survey Tucson, AZ Project Office According to proposed Federal guidelines, this message is a "non-record". Hmm, I wonder if _everything_ I say is a "non-record"... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 14:14:10 -0500 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: Current computers for composition Bet my hair is longer than yours! writes: > Since I'm a programmer, I also look at programmability. Both Visual Basic > and Visual C++ have all the tools necessary to write programs that use the > pen. I have been working on several music oriented programs that use the > pen extensively. I am working on a rather large project ("DIME" - Doug's > Integrated Music Environment) which I ultimately want to use as a realtime > performance controller. In other words, I plan to hook up a long MIDI cable > to the Concerto and walk around on stage controlling everything with the > pen. Look out Nick Rothwell! ;-) While you're at it, why not get some the wireless MIDI system. :) This doesn't happen very often, but i wish that this technology was available for Mac. Apple, are you listening? Drow the newton and make a pen based powerbook! I just cannot go back to PC, it's against my religion. -- Arne F. Claassen On the Web: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Somebody's got his finger on a DX7!" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 11:38:10 -0700 From: atomic city Subject: Pen based computers and MIDI Arne Claassen ISE jotteth.... > >This doesn't happen very often, but i wish that this technology was available >for Mac. Apple, are you listening? Drow the newton and make a pen based >powerbook! I just cannot go back to PC, it's against my religion. Me too, alas. I have a PC with Windows on my desk, and I've learned enough to decide that I was right to use a Mac at home for the way I tend to think and work with computers. I can't see buying a Concerto for MIDI, although it does sound like ea lovely way to work. *sigh* mike -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * atomic@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "You probably never thought of Bing Crosby as an electronic musician.... Some of you may have never thought of Bing Crosby as a musician."(m. simon) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 18:26:06 EDT From: Michael Bellusci Subject: Re: Pen based computers ... I wonder why there is such line in the sand drawn between the IBM and Apple platforms. I work in both environments and can honestly say that I don't have a preference for either. They both work well and don more things than I need to do. I also work with Atari and Amiga. The latter are really not up to snuff, but there is not much between the two major platforms. CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 17:35:09 -0500 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: Pen based computers ... > I wonder why there is such line in the sand drawn between the IBM and Apple > platforms. I work in both environments and can honestly say that I don't have > a preference for either. They both work well and don more things than I need > to do. I also work with Atari and Amiga. The latter are really not up to > snuff, but there is not much between the two major platforms. not to stir up an age old battle... but if you're just hoping between major applications in windows and on the mac, teh two are quite comparable. but when it comes to specialized apps, working with the environment on a more fundamental level, the differences do show. Music reasons not to go PC again: StudioVision, Digidesign software and hardware (turbosynth), MAX, Quicktime (yeah, it' son the PC, but it's not the same to work with) and OMS. Personal preferences, sure, but i'm stuck in them.. -- Arne F. Claassen On the Web: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Somebody's got his finger on a DX7!" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 07:24:01 -0700 From: atomic city Subject: Platform wars? Not. Arne Claassen ISE jotteth.... > >[Michael Bellusci says] >> I wonder why there is such line in the sand drawn between the IBM and Apple >> platforms. I work in both environments and can honestly say that I don't have >> a preference for either. They both work well and don more things than I need >> to do. The problem is that the two machines are reasonably compatible in terms of how one works at this point (modulo the usual flamewars about how the Mac sucks, Windows sucks, etc.), but that as Arne points out, individual music programs are available which direct one's way of working. When there's a working, integrated environment from Opcode (OMS, controlling Vision, Galaxy and MAX) running on an Intel based machine as well as it works on Macs, I may well jump ship for the easily obtained and inexpensive PC clone hardware. But until then, I can't. And it has to be the whole package, not bitznpieces, to work practically. I suppose a Compaq Concerto running the purported real-soon-now-unless-it's-just-a-rumor Vision for Windows would work for a small portion of my output, but I need the integrated environment for most of what I do. I have a lot of music in my head and a very tight deadline to get it all out; I need something that works NOW. >Music reasons not to go PC again: StudioVision, Digidesign software and >hardware (turbosynth), MAX, Quicktime (yeah, it' son the PC, but it's not >the same to work with) and OMS. Personal preferences, sure, but i'm stuck in >them.. Arne's needs are a superset of mine, but the integration is what I'm on about. Given time, the PC platform will settle down and offer what I want, maybe even the same apps and functionality exactly, but I can't wait. 'Personal preference' is a nice way of saying that if one has a tool that works, one doesn't throw it away for one that might work better someday. Not if one's on deadline. I have friends who are burning it up on PCs with Cakewalk Pro and so forth, but I need a Mac. >> I also work with Atari and Amiga. The latter are really not up to >> snuff, but there is not much between the two major platforms. THIS, on the other hand, is the sort of statement that will start a major flamewar in no time flat. While the number of Amiga apps is not as great as that of the other platforms, Amigaphiles are fiercely proud (and rightly so!) of the capability of their hardware, and a lot of folks are doing damn good music and other things on them; and the Atari was the Euro standard for years and is still quite musically competitive. It's dangerous to ask why two factions can't get along, while summarily dismissing two others. I would humbly (?) submit that we can ALL get along if we so choose, and ask that this go no further? mike -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * atomic@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Pushing the envelope of the German angst tradition....blowing the roof off of tonality, and what an exciting roof blowing it is!" (thom) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 11:23:48 -0400 From: "Prof. Alvin Toro" Subject: Re: Platform wars? Not. I agree with Mike, we are all prety big to start this mine-is-bigger-mine-is-better discusions. Although I haven't ever used a Atari or Amiga I'have seen them in action and they make some really good music. I have used Macs and PCs and there really is difference between them. But it's not a thing of "Whitch is best". It's a thing of "What I need, what I like, what I'm used to " Peace, Alvin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 11:57:32 -0600 From: Bet my hair is longer than yours! Subject: Re: Current computers for composition Arne wrote: >This doesn't happen very often, but i wish that this technology was available >for Mac. Apple, are you listening? Drow the newton and make a pen based >powerbook! I just cannot go back to PC, it's against my religion. That's too bad. I mean about your religion. My guess is that in a couple years, Apple will be just another computer vendor. What I mean is, you'll just buy some CPU from some vendor and some OS from some other vendor, and you won't really care that much which is which... When IBM finally gets a PowerPC based computer out there, it probably won't be much different from Apple's. How are you going to reconcile your religion then? Just by the name on the box? -Doug Doug Wellington doug@sun1paztcn.wr.usgs.gov System and Network Administrator US Geological Survey Tucson, AZ Project Office According to proposed Federal guidelines, this message is a "non-record". Hmm, I wonder if _everything_ I say is a "non-record"... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 08:16:25 LCL From: Michael Carnes Subject: Re: mac - pc ---------- X-Sun-Data-Type: text X-Sun-Data-Description: text X-Sun-Data-Name: text X-Sun-Content-Lines: 7 X-Sun-Content-Length: 458 Let's not get the religious war about Mac vs. PC going again. I have both machines and use the PC for business and the Mac for music. My only caution is not to underestimate your needs. As you get some experience with MIDI, you will undoubtedly want more. When it comes time to move up to a more full-featured program, make sure your computer has the power to handle it. In other words, get more computer (a lot more) than you think you need. Good luck. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 11:04:00 +0200 From: Sven [last name removed by administrator - 20061208] Subject: mac - pc hey I am on the decission now, to work with a MAC or a WIN-PC I want to have a cheap sequenzerprogramm (on PC I thought about POWER- TRACKS - I saw it running an a fair - and it's quite o.k. for my needs (I think) ) but on the MAC I dont know anything about sequenzers even not how to get MIDI - sockets on power books (I only wanto work with notebooks) things I want to do in the future is probably sample editing synthesizer editing - and one of the most necesary things is editing of effect machines ( like Quadraverb - or lexicon - etc.) I also want to do all the mail stuff with this notebook then. (at this time I am working with a PC- DOS notebook ) Is there anybody who maybe got some experience with working on both plattforms, and could tell me about differences between those machines. I know MAC is a little bit more expensive, but perhaps its weighted out with more functionality or so... or there are editing programms that does not exist on PC's ... sven sven@asd.bb.bawue.de ## CrossPoint v3.02 ## ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 17:35:47 -0500 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: mac - pc > In other words, get more computer (a lot more) than you think you need. > Good luck. Some of the best advice i've heard in a while. I can't sit comefortably from all the times i've kicked myself getting the Centris650 without FPU. FPU? I don't need no stinking FPU. Then i wanted to do more digitial processing and got into Rendering. Shoot myself, that's what i should do. No matter what you get, you'll outgrow it. This probably goes along with, whatever you buy will be outdated next week.. ho hum. no win. -- Arne F. Claassen On the Web: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Somebody's got his finger on a DX7!" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 18:43:56 +0100 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Platform wars? Not. >Although I haven't ever used a Atari >or Amiga I'have seen them >in action and they make some really good music. I have several Macs, but I will point out that *I* make the music, not them. Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 16:24:33 +0100 From: Stefan Scheffler Subject: Re: Platform wars? Not. >I have several Macs, but I will point out that *I* make the music, not them. With todays music programs you can find that you interact with the music created by the computer ;-) though it is based on your input. But why should have the computer not an input/impact on the music. Don't get me wrong, you are one who decides which music is worth to remember or to make permanent. Did you ever got the chance to see Henning Berg playing with his Tango ? He is a trombone player who has written a jazz accompanion program which will "listen" to his input and create its own reply. (Yes it is very much based on his input and programming) You can use the computer as a tool which will assemble your music or you can use it as a source for ideas. (My favourite Henning Berg comment after a concert, "Did you realize the phrase at the beginning of the last piece ? Tango did that modulation never before!") There are other examples, where the computer programs "create" music. There're M,JamFactory,Band-In-A-Box,some Bach composition programs, etc. There are always human beings are involved, but can they predict what kind of music will be generated, but for sure they make the decision about the results to keep. Ciao, Stefan Note: Even though I work for the company which distributes Tango, I would still like it if somebodyelse would distribute it. It is incredible. <> stefan@mms-gmbh.de <> Stefan Scheffler, Software Development <> Steinberg Soft- & Hardware GmbH <> Cubase Lite/Score/Audio for Mac/Atari/Windows ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 12:04:23 +0100 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Platform wars? Not. >With todays music programs you can find that you interact with the music >created by the computer ;-) though it is based on your input. But why >should have the computer not an input/impact on the music. OK, fair point: but the process of art, of whether something is music, then moves to the listener (or human participant) rather than the generator. But that's cool. (As it says in blue neon letters high above a trendy bar here in Edinburgh, "LET'S TALK ABOUT ART. MAYBE.") Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 12:05:45 +0100 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Stop the World (Re: mac - pc) What the hell, devil's advocate hat to the ready. >As you get some experience with MIDI, >you will undoubtedly want more. When it comes time to move up to a more >full-featured program, make sure your computer has the power to handle it. As I gain more experience with MIDI, I undoubtedly want less. Two years ago I used 20U of gear and 200ft of MIDI cables. It looked superb on stage, but I got sick of the setup procedure and hassles and risk in driving something that complex. And at the same time, the major MIDI programs were starting to get really bloated; Performer in particular, with bug-fix releases coming out and more and more useless features being rolled into it for no particular gain (for me) and ever more hassle. Running two computers and two MIDI Time Pieces didn't help either, what with all the MIDI fader boxes and stuff. That and the MIDI OS wars really burned me out. These days I perform with a 6U rack with a couple of Wavestations and a couple of Lexicons. Or I'll swap in the MicroWave. And a simple 1-in, 1-out MIDI interface ($50). I have three obsolete Macs, each with a tiny (by today's standards) 40Meg disk. That's enough. The slow, underpowered PowerBook 100 with its dead battery is great as a waveform editor for Alchemy. The 170 is an ideal MAX platform, despite being black and white only. And the SE/30 runs Vision and Galaxy. All three machines run System 7.0.1 from years ago (I need 7.5, PowerTalk, OpenDoc, QuickTime, QuickDraw GX, General MIDI and a talking computer like I need a hole in the head). And for the first time in years, my rig is stable and accessible, and I can keep its operation completely in my head at one time. And even with this setup I have much more power than had been available for some of the best electronic music albums I can think of. I cancelled my MacUser subscription a couple of months ago. Computer technology is vampiric, and there are lots of big companies and rich advertising agencies pulling you by the nose to keep buying more and bigger, and living with the hassles, distractions and incompatibilities. Basically, I stopped the world and got off. I wanted to do music, not follow computers around. Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 06:48:03 CDT From: HARRY HAECKER Subject: Re: Stop the World (Re: mac - pc) To paraphrase N. Rothwell (I don't have a fancy email program to inc. the original message): "As I gain experience with MIDI, I want less of it" I agree with you, not only in the $$ sense (cents?), but also in regards to composition. The more gear, the more options. the more options, the more difficult it becomes to make choices. Not impossible, of course; but one HAS to limit the content of a piece to a finite subset of the infinite. Most of the higher end synths out there today have so many settable (sp?) parameters, confusion may reign. I like to artificially limit myself to just a couple of pieces because of this phenomenon, especially if I find myself using a synth or FX module just because it's there. Harry Haecker ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 13:14:39 GMT From: Stuart Anderson Subject: Re: Platform wars? Not. >>With todays music programs you can find that you interact with the music >>created by the computer ;-) though it is based on your input. But why >>should have the computer not an input/impact on the music. > >OK, fair point: but the process of art, of whether something is music, then >moves to the listener (or human participant) rather than the generator. But >that's cool. > >(As it says in blue neon letters high above a trendy bar here in Edinburgh, >"LET'S TALK ABOUT ART. MAYBE.") > > > Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com > But what would they know, the beer is crap there so they are all 'Tennents Lager Heads' anyway!! Cheers Stuart BTW Someone has offered me MAX for 120 (yes it's legit). Do you thinks it's a good deal or should I go for a kosher version so I can get upgrades ? How stable is the current version ? I'd only be running on a 475... Thanks ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 17:14:18 LCL From: Mike Chandler Subject: Re: PLATFORM WARS? NOT. Platforms count. The fact that my Amiga natively has 4 channels that can playback digitized samples without an add-on sound board, including text-to-speech, makes a difference in what I am able to do.... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 19:05:48 PDT From: Casey Dunn Subject: Stop the World (Re: mac - pc) nick's comments should go in the "mysterious FAQ" for this, and snyth-l as well. It is so so so so easy to be distracted doing this computer/midi stuff. Hell, I think I have had more actual sonic fun this last few months beating on my gong agung and tooting the damn zurna than tormenting the computers into shape. casey ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 10:00:53 -0400 From: "Prof. Alvin Toro" Subject: Re: Platform wars? Not. Sorry, I was talking about their sound capability not their composing ability. Have you ever heard a .MOD file? >I have several Macs, but I will point out >that *I* make the music, not them. altoro@inter.ui.clu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 13:27:34 -0500 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: Current computers for composition > That's too bad. I mean about your religion. My guess is that in a couple > years, Apple will be just another computer vendor. What I mean is, you'll > just buy some CPU from some vendor and some OS from some other vendor, and > you won't really care that much which is which... When IBM finally gets > a PowerPC based computer out there, it probably won't be much different > from Apple's. How are you going to reconcile your religion then? Just > by the name on the box? Well, my "religious" beliefs are less a "pro Mac" then a "die Windows die" religions. it's one of the old religions that does not believe in the kinder gentler god, but sure as hell believes in the temptations of Satan. Just kidding. If the integration of the Apple GUI, and a number of Apple system specific features and software were available on another platform, i would not hesitate considering it. Alas, at this time, i have not found a platform that satisfies me in this fashion. For the comming years, i will take the best power/price platfrom as long as the operating system of my choice would run on it. Whether Apple can pull the system I hope for off, i cannot tell. What i'm really hoping for is a system as well integrated and slick and fun to develop in as nextstep, but with the special features of Apple's System, such as true Quicktime 2.0, Quickdraw GX, applescript. I have not found any worthy system (IMHO), in Windows or Windows NT, and while the unix system is great, i find Xwindows and Openwindows primitive in terms of GUI integration. OS/2 is a system I respect and nextstep is a system i dream off, but only System 7 is a system i have found to serve all my needs at this point in time. -- Arne F. Claassen On the Web: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Somebody's got his finger on a DX7!" ------------------------------ End of the EMUSIC-L Digest ******************************