========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 00:24:50 -0600 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Henry Throop Subject: Re: Equal temperament In-Reply-To: <199508080500.BAA41126@atlanta.american.edu> from "Automatic digest processor" at Aug 8, 95 01:00:00 am william.b.fox writes: > If you can get your hands on a frequency counter and determine the > frequency of 19 pitches in an octave, you can tell if they're equally > tempered by checking to see if the frequencies increase by the 19th root > of two. Or, any other integer. I did some composition awhile back using a scale credited to John Pierce where frequency ratio between `octaves' was a factor of three, not two. This was a 19-note scale; there were some combinations of notes that were nice and ugly, some that were the same as in a normal 12-tone scale. I had some real fun with it. -henry throop@bogart.colorado.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 03:34:53 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Dustin McIntyre Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops >>>Sample loops aren't designed to give meaning, they're designed to let you >graft someone else's talent into your music as a sort of vampiric youth >elixir.<< > > This is a tad heavy handed. It depends who, what and where. >>No generalizations are 100% correct, but let's just say that I have yet to hear a convincing counterexample to my statement.<< Do you have an inherent dislike for the genres likely to use sample loops? This might explain the difficulty you are experiencing in finding proper examples. Seeing them as "designed to let you graft someone else's talent into your music as a sort of vampiric youth elixir" seems to intimate that people like David Crosby or Perry Como are resorting to them in an effort to sound more "hip" or "contemporary," when, in actuality, it's quite a youth oriented dance culture that has embraced them and the idea of sonic collage to make music (this is not an endorsement of copyright infringement or other slights against the artist(s) who created the source material). If that was strictly a metaphor for life and essence, not age, OK. But I would still mantain that you run the risk of sounding like "dad" ranting about those "jungle rhythms" just not being music. Not like good old Benny Goodman (I can't wait for the generation when this will be supplanted by Sid Vicious), anyway. Now THAT was music, you young punks ! The fact is, there are plenty of artists who have willingly let or collaborated with those who would use their samples (loops or otherwise) in a new composition, to good effect, or at least the mutual satisfaction of both parties. The people who should have gotten compensated did and everyone was happy. This may not make you happy. But so be it. I'd proffer 'Pump Up The Volume' by MARRS and 'Numb' by U2 (if Eno and Lanois don't object *call me a lemming if you must* neither will I) as fantastic examples of using loops and "found sound" creatively. 'Pump Up The Volume' even got played on some rock stations when it was released back in 1987, so it must have had some artistic or commercial merit to fend off the fogies (even if it was an early example that didn't allow for proper credit and/or the aforementioned compensatory arrangements). DFM Richard Basehart IS good....but not great like Crow or Richard Kiel. p.s. Are generalizations really 100 percent correct? THAT explains WW2 and those canny Germanic assessments... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 08:51:01 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: "Ronald S. Herhuth" Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops I suppose also no of you have ever hired a professional drummer to "creatively" spice up a track before (paying for someone elses talent to call your work) or ever ever used factory or presets obtained from anyone else except yourself! or ever used a chord or melody progression that hasnt been totally unique to you? My point is, music in my book is an artistic form of expression not any more or less. To say that everything we create is fresh and new is silly. synth2max@aol.com Ron Herhuth (flames politelly ignored, have a nice day) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 09:40:16 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mark G Simon Subject: Mozart, style, and originality In-Reply-To: <01HTTWV8Y0WO984KVU@LURE.LATROBE.EDU.AU> > Hi Paul, > about MOzart... > IMO, _he_ wrote the same piece about 100 times! Well, considering that his list of works goes up to 626, that leaves 526 different -- and different-sounding -- pieces. Pretty darn fantastic track record, as far as I'm concerned. Now, what constitutes "different-sounding" is a subjective thing. Music is not a universal language, as is often claimed. There are various styles, that is, groups of pieces that share numerous common features. People listen to certain styles because they enjoy those common features. It may be a matter of instrumentation, or certain scales or chord progressions, rhythmic patterns, or various stock phrases that come back time and time again. The characteristics which define a style can be quite specific. You almost never hear of anyone playing purely "ambient" or "techno" or "house" music because these styles are so narrowly defined as to allow no deviance from the norm without bringing in some sort of hyphenated label. So if you enjoy a style, you relish all those common stylistic characteristics. You expect, as a matter of course that they'll be there. What you listen to are the little things that change from piece to piece. To you, every piece in this style will sound different, because it's the differences that you concentrate on when you listen to the music. If you don't enjoy a certain style, all you're going to hear are those common stylistic features and you'll say that every piece sounds the same. This makes me question the assertion brought up on the "stuck in a rut" thread that originality is something particular to Western culture, and cited various African and Asian cultures where the people are perfectly content to sing songs that sound pretty much the same from song to song. How do you know it all sounds the same to them? So, the fairly obvious road to musical success is to find a set of stylistic characteristics that you enjoy, and that other people enjoy, use them a lot, and figure out inventive ways to make people think you're doing something different each time. Expression in music may be defined as the difference between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 10:36:55 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mark Hughes Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops In-Reply-To: Dustin McIntyre "Re: Meaningless Sample Loops" (Aug 8, 3:34am) On Aug 8, 3:34am, Dustin McIntyre wrote: > you run the risk of sounding like "dad" ranting about those "jungle > rhythms" just not being music. I think the point was (and I agree completely) that to include someone else's sample loops (which frequently include all the percussion: the sounds, the timing, *everything*) in your own composition is to include someone else's *music*, not just sounds. Not that the music isn't good (I'm being generous: I really don't like the genres that tend to do this), just that it isn't *your* music anymore when you have included a significant musical element that you didn't write. Mark -- frivolous line of characters: ******************************************** redundant email address: mhughes@pms104.pms.ford.com common-sense disclaimer: This is my opinion, not my employer's stupid quote: "Magnetic media? How quaint." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 16:01:49 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops >After all, >BANDWIDTH and BALLISTIC both seem to have loops (or repeated patterns) >as far as I can tell. None of those were sample loops or presets. Hell, a number of them would be impossible to loop anyway since I used the UltraProteus to randomly morph the filters on a note-by-note basis. >> (who has decided to let the morph thread drop ...) >Agreed. *Heh.* Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com "Success can be measured by only one thing: the hairs on the back of your neck." -- Twyla Tharp ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 13:41:13 EST Reply-To: STERN@MAIL.LOC.GOV Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List Comments: RE: DOIN' SOMETHIN' NEW From: JOEL STERN Subject: Re: DOIN' SOMETHIN' NEW >Anyway, two of the greatest masters of the 19th century proved t >genius in two completely different ways. Mozart took the establi Er, Paul...Mozart died in 1791. Joel Stern stern@email.loc.gov j.stern11@genie.geis.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 14:11:54 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: john rossi Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops In-Reply-To: On Tue, 8 Aug 1995, Nick Rothwell wrote: > >After all, > >BANDWIDTH and BALLISTIC both seem to have loops (or repeated patterns) > >as far as I can tell. > > None of those were sample loops or presets. Hell, a number of them would be > impossible to loop anyway since I used the UltraProteus to randomly morph > the filters on a note-by-note basis. > In addition, we didn't even have a sampler at the _Bandwidth_ sessions, and while we had a pair of EPSs at the _Saturnalia_ session, except for sampling a DAT recording Nick made of a thunderstorm, we never sampled anything. At the _Ballistic_ sessions we had my K2k and a pair of Pro-Tools computers. As well as I can remember, we sampled the occasional weird noise from equipment interactions (odd hum and the like) but the only real sampled sounds on _Ballistic_ were the Drum-Fu sounds on 'Collateral Damage'. While much of the Drum-Fu rhythm was sequenced, there were no loops, and a good bit of the Drum-Fu was played live to tape. John 3 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 14:15:39 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Gus Alden Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops Ron said: >To say that everything we create is fresh and new is silly. Hello- I love the city of Boston for it's blend of architecture, new & old. Or when I go to my rock garden, though it doesn't contain a flower that can't be found elsewhere, it's the unique arrangement of plants and flowers that's been put into it that makes it a place worthy of experiencing. Music is music is music, be it played on an ancient Stradivarius, or with a brilliantly programmed set of patches on a 64 voice synthesizer. Or even if one was to use a bunch of 'meaningless sample loops', if they're used well, it can still be (IMHO) good music. $.02. P.S. I wish my synth had a digederoo sample. Ah shucks. Gus Alden ------------ aldenoob@biddeford.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 14:15:46 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Gus Alden Subject: Re: Mozart, style, and originality >> Hi Paul, >> about MOzart... >> IMO, _he_ wrote the same piece about 100 times! Mark said: >Well, considering that his list of works goes up to 626, that leaves 526 >different -- and different-sounding -- pieces. Pretty darn fantastic track >record, as far as I'm concerned. Hello- Though I can sympathize with anyone's perception that Mozart all sounds the same, (I once had the same feeling), I would recommend try slapping on his last three symphonies and cranking them up until the chandelier starts to rockin', and you WILL be converted. Then, listen to his Requeim, and I bet you'll be trading in your heavy metal CD's for a collection of Mozart. And by the way, to whoever was asking about the Beethoven movie (I'm sorry, I forgot who), go ahead and rent it; as long as you're not looking for something on the level of 'Amadeus', you'll enjoy it. My, my, what Amadeus & Ludwig could have done with a rack of synthesizers! Which brings me to my next question. People! Who is today's master of electronic music? Gus Alden ------------ aldenoob@biddeford.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 18:47:55 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: "Ronald S. Herhuth" Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops Gus replied: >Or when I go to my rock garden, though it doesn't contain a >flower that >can't be found elsewhere, it's the unique arrangement of >plants and flowers >that's been put into it that makes it a place worthy of >experiencing. Thats my point exactly! Just because I use the same color red (sample loop) in my painting that another person uses, doesnt mean the painting will look the same or even close. There are tons of ways I manipulate my loops over time using the extensive synthesis capabilities of the K2000, to ensure my loops change color or have movement during a song. Im just tired of people knocking sample loops and the such, truth is it has nothing to with the loops themselves, just the lack of creativity on the users part. Synth2max@aol.com Ron Herhuth ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 19:11:17 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops In-Reply-To: <199508081816.OAA27503@river.biddeford.com> from "Gus Alden" at Aug 8, 95 02:15:39 pm > Music is music is music, be it played on an ancient Stradivarius, or with a > brilliantly programmed set of patches on a 64 voice synthesizer. Or even if > one was to use a bunch of 'meaningless sample loops', if they're used well, > it can still be (IMHO) good music. $.02. > > P.S. I wish my synth had a digederoo sample. Ah shucks. > May I recommend snagging a 3-4 foot length of PVC pipe and *making* one! Just about the lowest-tech instrument possible. A tall Ultimate stand tube makes an excellent one, by the way. Toughest part is mastering the circular breathing, but even that's not too hard once you get the hang of it. --- Joe M. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 14:53:53 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: ihnns738.ih.att.comGG!greg@ATT.COM Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops Hi all, Well... in an effort to learn something, I'll take the risk of sticking my foot in my mouth, and propose a counterexample. I don't even own a sampler, so perhaps I'm missing the point here, but here goes... I don't quite recall the attribution chain here, but I assume Dustin is replying (below) to something mike wrote (above): > Dustin McIntyre writes-- > > > >>>Sample loops aren't designed to give meaning, they're designed to let you > >graft someone else's talent into your music as a sort of vampiric youth > >elixir.<< > > > > This is a tad heavy handed. It depends who, what and where. > and mike (metlay of course...) replies: > No generalizations are 100% correct, but let's just say that I have yet to > hear a convincing counterexample to my statement. Couldn't I create my own sample loop (by banging on things around my house, flushing my toilet, trying to start my 1948 Hudson, ...). Does that result in grafting someone else's talent into my music (like the guy who designed the toilet, or the Hudson)? -- Greg Youngdahl (who doesn't own a sampler, or a 1948 Hudson for that matter, but thought that if he did he might be able to produce an interesting sample). gregory.a.youngdahl@att.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 22:09:41 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: RonG225zt@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops Wow! I haven't been on for a few days and this thread has spun off into something new! >Couldn't I create my own sample loop (by banging on things around my >house, flushing my toilet, trying to start my 1948 Hudson, ...). Does that >result in grafting someone else's talent into my music (like the guy who >designed the toilet, or the Hudson)? This is exactly what I was trying to do with my sample loops, in my composition. In addition to sampling some things off my TV (none of which worked out and were dumped) I created a sample loop out of water dripping into a steel washtub. In the past I've created some really cool loops using old slide-tape (you remember those from grade school?) cassettes on maintaing some kind of industrial ventalation system. As of yet, I've never sampled any "music" or songs, other than a a single Mozart riff I used in a techno piece. I think of sample loops as "looped sample data" regardless of what is being sampled. Ron ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 22:20:57 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: John Rossi III Subject: Re: Mozart, style, and originality >People! Who is today's master of electronic music? > Why, Team Metlay, collectively, of course... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 22:23:29 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Bruce Edwards Subject: Re: Vampire Elixir Loops (1) 8/8/95 >From 8/4/95 1.>>Sample loops aren't designed to give meaning, they're designed to let you graft someone else's talent into your music as a sort of vampiric youth elixir.<< 2>>I wish I could have the luxury of carrying around a laptop to do my >>sketching. Now *thats* the best of both worlds. :-) 2a.>No it's not. Computers are vampyric. The most valuable addition to my studio this year cost me about $5: an A4 hardcover plain-paper sketchbook.< I found it vaguely amusing, perhaps a little ironic, to find message 2a coming to me (8/4/95) on an virtual graffiti board dedicated to electronic music via the net. Nick, you are clever enough to recognize that live music and recorded music are not mirror images of the same thing (while perhaps both mythical and both painted with a very fine camel's hair brush they are very different beasts) my morphing license says its ok to use both a computer and a pad of paper. Pens & paper, as a rule, are no less part of the massive manufacturing-distribution infrastructure than are laptop computers . . . a familiar of my acquaintance suggests that years ago paper, pens -- standardized printed language -- where seen as the thief of memory as a wedge dividing people and their ability to communicate . . . I am just as certain that the well tempered scale and the piano which demanded it were seen as abominations of laziness. . . Laptops are now cool, strangers appear at your elbow, bright, shinny woman stroke their smooth surface with lacquered talons. For balance (and to get any work done) a pen and spiral pad in your shirt pocket are necessities. It is a lot more painful to drop a lap top on your toe and realize you have just shaken loose the hard drive cable (a half hour before you are due to go on-stage). Darn -- actually had intended to talk about samples -- but a different phone is ringing ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 00:16:41 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: RonG225zt@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Vampire Elixir Loops (1) >its ok to use both a computer and a pad of paper. Actually, I use two of each. A computer is nothing more than a tool. So is paper, so is the keyboard. If the computer distracts you from your work then you aren't using it correctly or you don't need it at all. Ron rong225zt@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 00:22:22 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Vampire Elixir Loops (1) In-Reply-To: <950809001639_133928521@aol.com> from "RonG225zt@AOL.COM" at Aug 9, 95 00:16:41 am I really hope someone's gping to snag the title of this thread and use it in a piece that proves me violently wrong. --- Joe M. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 00:52:36 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Gus Alden Subject: Re: Mozart, style, and originality >>People! Who is today's master of electronic music? >> > >Why, Team Metlay, collectively, of course.. Please, tell me more. Gus Alden ------------ aldenoob@biddeford.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 19:11:43 -1000 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Paul LaVigne Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops In-Reply-To: <199508081453.AA04402@internet-mail.ford.com> On Tue, 8 Aug 1995, Mark Hughes wrote: > someone else's *music*, not just sounds. Not that the music isn't good > (I'm being generous: I really don't like the genres that tend to do this), > just that it isn't *your* music anymore when you have included a > significant musical element that you didn't write. > > Mark I can understand why someone would feel that way, but I always felt that the nature of that included music changes depending on how the person doing the sampling uses it. I see it like a collage, and if there's a concious and intended manipulation, placement, and fitting in relation to the new piece, then what's the big deal?? Writers quote each other all the time, and throughout time western composers have felt at liberty to use each other's melodies. It's like part collage, part original work, wherein the previously recorded material becomes part of the new piece. Consent is a whole other issue, of course. I agree, alot of sampling is pure theft, though. After all, this discussion started over ambient, techno, house, (pop) etc.... Sampling as a compositional technique isn't so bad though. Paul paulnles@interpac.net And lo, the Lord sayeth, there shall be much flaming and gnashing of teeth. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 03:01:33 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: "Efendovich, Avner" Subject: frequency of notes Hello all, Does anybody know how I can calculate the frequency of each note in a certain octave? I know it has something to do with sqrt(12), but I forgot the formula. I think one should know also the frequency of a basic note (A) to start calculating the others, so I need this info too. Any help appreciated Avner Efendovich "When there's a wind, there's a way!" Jerusalem, Israel aefendov@ndc.co.il ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 17:18:30 EST Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Neal Sievwright Subject: Re[2]: Meaningless Sample Loops Or you could use the "Urban Aboriginal Digi":- THE NOZZLE OFF THE HOUSEHOLD VACUUM. 'cause trees are scarce in the concrete jungle. And remember to use the rug setting for tuning. Neal Sievwright sievwrn@agric.nsw.gov.au >From the Downunder (other) side of the World - aaargh !!!!! PS this is not an original idea, Ernie Dingo, an Australian Comedian was first on a popular Midday show. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops Author: Electronic Music Discussion List at smtpgwy Date: 8/9/95 9:45 AM > Music is music is music, be it played on an ancient Stradivarius, or with a > brilliantly programmed set of patches on a 64 voice synthesizer. Or even if > one was to use a bunch of 'meaningless sample loops', if they're used well, > it can still be (IMHO) good music. $.02. > > P.S. I wish my synth had a digederoo sample. Ah shucks. > May I recommend snagging a 3-4 foot length of PVC pipe and *making* one! Just about the lowest-tech instrument possible. A tall Ultimate stand tube makes an excellent one, by the way. Toughest part is mastering the circular breathing, but even that's not too hard once you get the hang of it. --- Joe M. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 04:31:03 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Dustin McIntyre Subject: Re: Nosferatu's Sampling Conscience On Tue, 8 Aug 1995, Mark Hughes wrote: >>I think the point was (and I agree completely) that to include someone else's sample loops (which frequently include all the percussion: the sounds, the timing, *everything*) in your own composition is to include someone else's *music*, not just sounds. Not that the music isn't good (I'm being generous: I really don't like the genres that tend to do this), just that it isn't *your* music anymore when you have included a significant musical element that you didn't write.<< Ah, but it is still YOUR music if you have the original creator as a willing subject/participant , not resolutely puritanical or adversely affected by the perfectly reasonable notion that someone ELSE could have a relevant or heaven forbid, *catchy* reinterpretation of their original work, be it tone, rhythm, or melody, waiting dormant in their pointy little sampling head. While I freely acknowledge that the vast majority are a profound waste of time, this is precisely the reason that the "re-mix" exists. As I was careful to note in my last post, I do not believe in the fleecing of musicians by merely pillaging their work in the name of the advancement of sampling, Hip Hop, Techno or whatever else, but do bristle at suggestions by fellow musicians (electronic ones at that) that seek to diminish or discredit the work of other musicians who happen to employ methods, theories, or production techniques that don't fall into the main or have widespread understanding or acceptance. It's an easy shot to take and not likely to stand as particularly profound once more artists from the genres involved become "acceptable" to other musicians, and, more importantly for the bottom line, the masses. It seems to me, while different in a number of important ways, eerily similar to (circa the fifties to the present) "rock 'n roll is only three chords." Ergo, no one in rock 'n roll is creating anything of their own or of worth 'coz it's all only three chords anyway. Well, while you might not be lauded for using only three chords in all of your music today (or ever), far fewer people would line up to accuse you of it because the music has prospered and EVOLVED (important word) and we now all happily drink out of the same fountains. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 08:09:11 EDT Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Pete Schoenhoff Subject: Re: frequency of notes These are the graceful words of Avner Efendovich: -> Hello all, -> Does anybody know how I can calculate the frequency of each note in a -> certain octave? I know it has something to do with sqrt(12), but I -> forgot the formula. I think one should know also the frequency of a -> basic note (A) to start calculating the others, so I need this info -> too. -> Any help appreciated Try this: 440 Hz is the accepted standard for A-above-middle-C So, to find any other frequency, count the number of half-steps from A up to that note. - For example, from A to B is 2 half-steps. From A to E is 7 half-steps. Call the frequency of the note you just chose "X" Call that half-step interval "I" - now, -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- I/12 Frequency X = 440 (2 ) If you choose to find "E," then: 7/12 12__ 7 X= 440 (2 ) Also can be expressed x = 440 ( \/ 2 ) You can then correct for desired octave by multiplying the result by two for each octave you wish to raise the answer, or dividing by two for each octave you wish to lower the result. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- To work with a system where there are a different number of equal semitones in an octave, (such as 19 equal semitones) substisute that number (19) for 12. To work with a system where the concept of an "octave" does not mean a ratio of two, substitute that number for 2. Also remember to substitute the same way when correcting for octaves in the final step. To work in a system where a different frequency value (442) is accepted for "A," substitute that value (442) for 440. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 07:37:13 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City Subject: Masters? In-Reply-To: <199508081816.OAA27515@river.biddeford.com> from "Gus Alden" at Aug 8, 95 02:15:46 pm Sorry if this is a repost; my telnet link seized in mid-transmit. Gus Alden writes-- > >People! Who is today's master of electronic music? Ooooh, do you have a permit to carry a loaded question? :) Several answers come to mind instantly: 1. Me! (Hey, weirder things have happened, right?) 2. My band! (Oops, Rossi beat me to that one, never mind.) 3. The guy Joe saw in concert a couple months ago! (his ads SAID so.) 4. Fiorella Terenzi! (*NOT*) 5. Nobody! (probably the closest to the truth; the genre's too young.) There are people I find inspiring, admirable, exciting, or talented, and there are people whom I like, respect, wish to emulate in certain respects, and enjoy. But no one person embodies all of these things for me, and I'll bet that my list differs from everyone else's. And I don't think I want to throw out any choices that I then have to defend or elaborate upon just now, as I barely have enough time to formulate answers to the threads I'm alraedy embroiled in. Anyone else, feel free, as long as you include reasons with your lists.... mike -- mike metlay * atomic city | .......one new telephone - a pressure cooker - a = atomic@netcom.com = | ventilator - four bars of chocolate - six pairs cd mailorder po box 81175 | of socks - a yellow clock - a pink ski shell - a pittsburgh, pa 15217-0675 | box of condoms - one baby leopard - a pot of jam or order from our website | - a safety pin - an iron - a red shoe - a camera http://pd.net/atomic-city | - one ton of peanuts - a black bra - a silver or via infinite illusions | fork - a typewriter - an electric train - three toll free: 1-800-548-6724 | tons of strawberriestrawberriestrawberries...... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 07:43:03 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City Subject: Re: Mozart, style, and originality In-Reply-To: <199508090453.AAA25630@river.biddeford.com> from "Gus Alden" at Aug 9, 95 00:52:36 am Gus Alden writes-- > >>>People! Who is today's master of electronic music? >> >>Why, Team Metlay, collectively, of course.. > >Please, tell me more. Gus, send me email about this. It's not suitable EMUSIC-L fodder. mike -- mike metlay * atomic city | .......one new telephone - a pressure cooker - a = atomic@netcom.com = | ventilator - four bars of chocolate - six pairs cd mailorder po box 81175 | of socks - a yellow clock - a pink ski shell - a pittsburgh, pa 15217-0675 | box of condoms - one baby leopard - a pot of jam or order from our website | - a safety pin - an iron - a red shoe - a camera http://pd.net/atomic-city | - one ton of peanuts - a black bra - a silver or via infinite illusions | fork - a typewriter - an electric train - three toll free: 1-800-548-6724 | tons of strawberriestrawberriestrawberries...... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 07:48:20 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City Subject: Re: Stuck in a rutt? Waddya do? In-Reply-To: <01HTPN1KVI8U90MUSO@LURE.LATROBE.EDU.AU> from "David Rodger" at Aug 5, 95 11:11:05 am David Rodger writes-- > >Nick said >> Paper calms the mind, I find; computers do the opposite. > >I find that, with e-mail, the niceties and considered etiquette of snail >mail, fly out the window. Perhaps some of us have become so accustomed to >working with computers in our music and it's so fast working this way, Fast? I stopped using the sequencer and patch librarian in my computer nearly a year ago, and find that I work much faster without them.... >that we have discarded paper (whether for the dots and lines or conceptual >drawings or textual notes). Writing by hand is slower so allows you more >time to plan. ...however, I am unconvinced that the music I have created that way on my own, without other musicians to play with, is of higher quality than that created with a computer sequencer. The computer allows me more precision and a better range of expression because it allows me to record in several passes, without a multitrack tape recorder (which I find I still prefer), but I would never, ever call working with it 'faster'. When I compose on paper, I can go much quicker than by any other method shy of simply improvising to tape, which has a very low Sturgeon factor. In other words, the answer to this conundrum is the same as that of many others we face. Your Mileage May Vary. mike -- mike metlay * atomic city | .......one new telephone - a pressure cooker - a = atomic@netcom.com = | ventilator - four bars of chocolate - six pairs cd mailorder po box 81175 | of socks - a yellow clock - a pink ski shell - a pittsburgh, pa 15217-0675 | box of condoms - one baby leopard - a pot of jam or order from our website | - a safety pin - an iron - a red shoe - a camera http://pd.net/atomic-city | - one ton of peanuts - a black bra - a silver or via infinite illusions | fork - a typewriter - an electric train - three toll free: 1-800-548-6724 | tons of strawberriestrawberriestrawberries...... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 08:20:44 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops In-Reply-To: <9508071819.AA05071@acropolis> from "william.b.fox" at Aug 7, 95 02:19:58 pm william.b.fox writes-- > >Mike, may I safely assume that you are referring to loops from a sample >disk or loops made from a lift off of another's work? If one creates a >loop from scratch, i.e. not borrowed or stolen or used with permission, >then that's a different situation than what I perceived you to say. May >I safely further assume that this is OK in your opinion? After all, >BANDWIDTH and BALLISTIC both seem to have loops (or repeated patterns) >as far as I can tell. Please correct any and all faulty logic I may >have spewed forth. That's pretty much what I mean. After reading all sorts of followups on this topic, including some much more terse and well-written notes about BANDWIDTH and BALLISTIC by my fellow band members than I would have written, I'll add the following: The instrument is created. The instrument makes a sound. The sounds are recorded. The sounds are organized by the creator. The resulting organization of sounds is called a finished piece of music. Everyone takes his or her own stance as to where in the creative process listed above the creator must take full control of the process for it to be truly creative work. We've all heard the old backandforth: "If you don't program all your sounds from scratch you're not original!" "Oh yeah? Well, where do you get off using a synthesizer SOMEONE ELSE BUILT?!" And so on. My stance is that if a sound works in a context, you use it, and if you didn't program it yourself that's okay. I don't think Steve Winwood's first solo album suffered much for the presets he used. However, I balk at taking an instrumental part that was played by someone else in a different musical context for a final purpose that had no direct relation to mine (whether intended for another album, or intended for a sort of generic tinkertoy you-might-find-this-usefulness) and using it as a basis for my work. Taking sounds someone else made and looping them in a pattern yourself is different from taking someone else's loop; you've abrogated the decision on how to organize your sounds to another creative intellect, and likely as not it's an intellect that doesn't know you or your music exists and couldn't care less. So that's where I draw my line. I don't insist on recording, sampling, or creating each and every individual timbre, nor do I (usually) build my own gear...but when it comes to lifting sounds that are already arranged in a musical context and grafting new stuff onto them to make something 'new', I get very suspicious and hard to please. I've done sound collage and found-sound construction before, and I know what's involved, and very little of it is compelling to me...but that'll get me onto another rant, and I think it's Mark's turn on that subject. Again, your mileage may vary. But every piece of music I have heard that uses pre-existing loops, or reuses original loops too much, ends up stamping itself with a label that says to me, "I don't care enough to do it right." mike -- mike metlay * atomic city | .......one new telephone - a pressure cooker - a = atomic@netcom.com = | ventilator - four bars of chocolate - six pairs cd mailorder po box 81175 | of socks - a yellow clock - a pink ski shell - a pittsburgh, pa 15217-0675 | box of condoms - one baby leopard - a pot of jam or order from our website | - a safety pin - an iron - a red shoe - a camera http://pd.net/atomic-city | - one ton of peanuts - a black bra - a silver or via infinite illusions | fork - a typewriter - an electric train - three toll free: 1-800-548-6724 | tons of strawberriestrawberriestrawberries...... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 21:18:07 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Massimiliano Viel Subject: help for sonograms Is there anybody here who can tell me if and where is it possible to find a freeware or shareware program that generates sonograms from an audio file (on HD, not coming from mikes or others)? What I am looking for is a softvare that deals essentially with graphic representation of audio files, allowing to save it in a graphic format or at least to print it in some way. Also f you know about graphic-audio software that generates other kind of graphic analysis (even FFT or waveform) - and, I repeat, with the capability to save in graphic format - that I don't know, please tell me, maybe it can be very useful for me. Thank's'n'bye. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Massimiliano Viel max.viel@planet.it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 19:36:04 +0300 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: frequency of notes In-Reply-To: <9507098079.AA807987850@ccmail.ndc.co.il> On Wed, 9 Aug 1995, Efendovich, Avner wrote: > Hello all, > > Does anybody know how I can calculate the frequency of each note in a > certain octave? I know it has something to do with sqrt(12), but I > forgot the formula. I think one should know also the frequency of a > basic note (A) to start calculating the others, so I need this info > too. The equally tempered scale, the one that's become the standard for the past two centuries. has all semitones equal to each other. Since equal pitch difference means equal ratio between frequencies. There are 12 semi-tones in one octave. A note an octave higher has afrequency which is double the frequency. X is the ratio between frequencies of two notes which are a semi-tone apart. X^12 (X bekhezkat shteim-esre) = 2 which makes X equal the twlfth root of two X=1.0595 The Basic note (A)=440 Hz (some tunings assume that there is such a note C=1 Hz, we can't hear that of course, and then all C's are powers of two, but we get a slightly lower A then) Uri ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 15:00:36 CDT Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: "Michael V. Briggs" Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops Mike Metlay wrote: > Again, your mileage may vary. But every piece of music I have heard that > uses pre-existing loops, or reuses original loops too much, ends up > stamping itself with a label that says to me, "I don't care enough to do it > right." I didn't know there was a "right" way to do music, especially emusic.... Earlier, Bruce Edwards wrote: > Laptops are now cool, strangers appear at your elbow, > bright, shiny women stroke their smooth surface with lacquered talons. ....but a laptop sounds like a good place to start :-) Michael Briggs mbriggs@nexrad.osf.uoknor.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 22:48:58 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Massimiliano Viel Subject: Re: Masters? >Mike Metlay answers-- >> >>People! Who is today's master of electronic music? >4. Fiorella Terenzi! (*NOT*) I used to be a friend of Fiorella a lot of years ago in Milano (Italy), even if I used not appreciate a lot her ideas on music (I'm talking exspecially about star-music and so on). Well, please tell me (e-mail) or to the list (if you think it is interesting) what happened to her and her music, as it's look like you know her name at least, and I don't know absolutely anything about her since, let's say 8/9 years. I'm just curious - Bye <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Massimiliano Viel max.viel@planet.it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 16:49:16 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mark Bostel Subject: Re: Re[2]: Meaningless Sample Loops Neil says (to make a digeridoo) : > Or you could use the "Urban Aboriginal Digi":- > > THE NOZZLE OFF THE HOUSEHOLD VACUUM. > > 'cause trees are scarce in the concrete jungle. > > And remember to use the rug setting for tuning. > > >Neal Sievwright > >sievwrn@agric.nsw.gov.au > >>From the Downunder (other) side of the World - aaargh !!!!! > >PS this is not an original idea, Ernie Dingo, an Australian Comedian was first >on a popular Midday show. > Brilliant! This could be the start of an interesting thread (cries of 'Oh no it wouldn't'), has anyone else had any success using 'household implements' to provide useful (sampleable) noises? I've done the usual stuff with blown bottles and made nice tabla-like sounds from the super-sucker tube attachment to a hoover (silly really, since I have a real tabla set). Also, hitting the end of a wide-necked jar with the palm of the hand gives a nice 'wump'. I read somewhere of someone getting results from putting a condom on a mic, putting it into a milk-bottle full of water and sampling various noises beamed at the bottle (where do you find milk-bottles these days though?). The trick is, I guess, to avoid having the sound being identified - having a heavy rock piece where it's obvious that the 'drummer' is beating her/his pillow with a copy of womens weekly for instance, not good for cred. Regards, MarkB ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 16:57:12 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Wendell Carroll Subject: Re: Nosferatu's Sampling Conscience Question, if you sample someone's music say about two bars and use it for your own creative project, don't you owe the original artist royalities? Or, do you just take his original ideas as your own and call it being creative? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 17:38:57 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Re[2]: Meaningless Sample Loops In-Reply-To: <199508092049.IAA00836@oberon.fujitsu.co.nz> from "Mark Bostel" at Aug 9, 95 04:49:16 pm > Brilliant! This could be the start of an interesting thread (cries of 'Oh no > it wouldn't'), has anyone else had any success using 'household implements' > to provide useful (sampleable) noises? I'm contemplating the possibilities of a contact-miked Slinky (one of the new neon-pink ones) strung overhead for use during a live set. --- Joe M. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 14:43:07 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Lorne Hammond Subject: Re: Re[2]: Meaningless Sample Loops In-Reply-To: <199508092049.IAA00836@oberon.fujitsu.co.nz> an old hendrix sound: a cymbal suspended on say a chopstick through the middle, across a small aquarium, fill aquarium until half the cymbal is submerged. Strike cymbal and mike it. Or use a pot lid and your sink. Lorne ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 15:46:20 PDT Reply-To: dunn@intellicorp.com Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: dunn@INTELLICORP.COM Subject: Re: Re[2]: Meaningless Sample Loops In-Reply-To: <199508092049.IAA00836@oberon.fujitsu.co.nz> kitchen items - oven racks, suspended, with a mic in the wire. sounds vast! and cheap!!! - big water basins.with a slight amount of water, mic'ed up misc items - vibrator on bass guitar. best just for the visual effect. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 18:53:08 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: "Ronald S. Herhuth" Subject: Re: Re[2]: Meaningless Sample Loops ill add a couple of samplable household items: the old crystal glass with water in it, then run a moist finger around the rim for a haunting sound. put a mic under a sofa cushion and strike the cushion for an awsome kick drum ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 16:00:37 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Lorne Hammond Subject: Re: Re[2]: Meaningless Sample Loops In-Reply-To: <199508092139.RAA18513@clark.net> Ummmmh, stick with metal, better sound. I still like the reverb spring on the floor-stomp, which is how bar bands used to do "we will, we will rock you". Lorne On Wed, 9 Aug 1995, Joe McMahon wrote: > > Brilliant! This could be the start of an interesting thread (cries of 'Oh no > > it wouldn't'), has anyone else had any success using 'household implements' > > to provide useful (sampleable) noises? > > I'm contemplating the possibilities of a contact-miked Slinky (one of the > new neon-pink ones) strung overhead for use during a live set. > > --- Joe M. > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 09:44:14 +1000 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: clive@PELICAN.DBE.CSIRO.AU Subject: Re: Re[2]: Meaningless Sample Loops Joe wrote-- > >I'm contemplating the possibilities of a contact-miked Slinky (one of the >new neon-pink ones) strung overhead for use during a live set. > Or even two mikes, one at each end, and a little judicious sweeping between the two. Heating elements from electric fires are even better. Or clamp one end to the skin of a toy drum or a piece of rubber stretched over a length of drainpipe (move the pipe up and down in a bucket of water to vary it's effective length). Ahh, happy days... Regards Clive Clive McFarland CSIRO Australia clive@pelican.dbe.csiro.au ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 10:11:26 +1000 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: David Rodger Subject: Re[2]: Meaningless Sample Loops Hi home samplers, Joe said... > I'm contemplating the possibilities of a contact-miked Slinky (one of the > new neon-pink ones) strung overhead for use during a live set. That would look really cool. But with the slinky slinking all over the place in every direction, you'd need one of those electronic feedback killers inserted into the slinky's mic channel. Regards, David musdr@lure.latrobe.edu.au ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 09:05:05 WST Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Cameron Newham Subject: Household Samples (was: meaningless loops) I've sampled quite a few kitchen impliments - the most impressive was dropping a draw full of utensils onto the kitchen floor. :) Can anyone tell me how to generate (preferably from ordinary household goods -ha ha :) a nasty screeching noise - exactly like the one at the start of Depeche Mode's "I Feel You". No fancy synths that have this built in - I'd just like to know how one would describe the noise and reproduce it - its a sort of feedback, I suppose. c. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 22:01:13 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Gus Alden Subject: Re: Masters? Hi- Gus Alden wrote: >>People! Who is today's master of electronic music? Mike Metley answered with an: >Ooooh, do you have a permit to carry a loaded question? :) >Several answers come to mind instantly: >5. Nobody! (probably the closest to the truth; the genre's too young.) No Mike, I must confess before this esteemed foundation of scholarly musicians that I have no permit to be asking such questions. And I must go on to say that I don't own a permit for anything that I do; sinister, rebellious critter that I am. ;^> However, have or not, I think I've asked a question without knowing what it was I was asking. This is probably a subject for a FAQ, and if it's already been covered, my apologies, but I'm standing in need of a definition of what electronic music is. The reason I've clipped answers 1-4 to my previous question (above), is that #5 is what particularly struck me. Not that I harbor any doubts about your 1st answer, but when you refer to electronic music as a genre in it's youth, I begin to wonder if my understanding of the term 'electronic music' is perhaps incorrect. So allow me to formulate my question. Just what is 'electronic music', anyway? And do you have a permit to answer this question? Regards, Gus Alden ------------ aldenoob@biddeford.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 22:02:57 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Julia Miller Subject: Re: help for sonograms Dear Massimiliano do you know the program MAX? This is very detailed and *very powerful*. I also have some (extremely simple) shareware programs you might be interested in. jamz69@aol.com Julia ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 19:13:35 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City Subject: Re: frequency of notes In-Reply-To: from "Uri Bruck" at Aug 9, 95 07:36:04 pm Uri Bruck writes-- >X^12 (X bekhezkat shteim-esre) = 2 Bekhezkat shteim-esre? Well, we've had French, Russian, Spanish, Polish, Swedish and who knows what else on here...I guess Hebrew deserves equal time. For those who were wondering, the above phrase is 'to the power of 12', 'shteim-esre' meaning 'two tacked on ten,' or '12.' If a twelfth-power rule seems rather arcane, consider the 'alpha' and 'beta' scales of W. Carlos, where the power rule is something above 200....makes for REALLY clean intervals, but to play it she needed a special keyboard with one octave of keys and one HELL of an octave knob. (No, really!) L'hitraot, mike -- mike metlay * atomic city | .......one new telephone - a pressure cooker - a = atomic@netcom.com = | ventilator - four bars of chocolate - six pairs cd mailorder po box 81175 | of socks - a yellow clock - a pink ski shell - a pittsburgh, pa 15217-0675 | box of condoms - one baby leopard - a pot of jam or order from our website | - a safety pin - an iron - a red shoe - a camera http://pd.net/atomic-city | - one ton of peanuts - a black bra - a silver or via infinite illusions | fork - a typewriter - an electric train - three toll free: 1-800-548-6724 | tons of strawberriestrawberriestrawberries...... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 19:24:30 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City Subject: Re: Masters? In-Reply-To: from "Massimiliano Viel" at Aug 9, 95 10:48:58 pm Massimiliano Viel writes-- > >I used to be a friend of Fiorella a lot of years ago in Milano (Italy), >even if I used not appreciate a lot her ideas on music (I'm talking >exspecially about star-music and so on). Well, please tell me (e-mail) or >to the list (if you think it is interesting) what happened to her and her >music, as it's look like you know her name at least, and I don't know >absolutely anything about her since, let's say 8/9 years. >I'm just curious - Bye She released a CD of her stuff entitled _Music from the Galaxies_ and is now a regular at new-music conferences, academic music shows, and has even appeared on TV in the USA a few times. I bought her CD, read her articles on her music, and came to my own conclusions, which would not be polite to share here....I suppose I could email you with those, but if you were a friend of hers I don't think you want to hear them. mike -- mike metlay * atomic city | .......one new telephone - a pressure cooker - a = atomic@netcom.com = | ventilator - four bars of chocolate - six pairs cd mailorder po box 81175 | of socks - a yellow clock - a pink ski shell - a pittsburgh, pa 15217-0675 | box of condoms - one baby leopard - a pot of jam or order from our website | - a safety pin - an iron - a red shoe - a camera http://pd.net/atomic-city | - one ton of peanuts - a black bra - a silver or via infinite illusions | fork - a typewriter - an electric train - three toll free: 1-800-548-6724 | tons of strawberriestrawberriestrawberries...... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 03:06:41 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: "Efendovich, Avner" Subject: Re: frequency of notes Comments: To: WSIMPSON@HBS.HARVARD.EDU I received many answers to my question, and I would like to thank every one who took the time to answer. Avner Efendovich "When there's a wind, there's a way!" Jerusalem, Israel aefendov@ndc.co.il ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 17:04:01 EST Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Neal Sievwright Subject: Re[4]: Meaningless Sample Loops Some other useful samples I've created:- differing lengths of pvc pipe and conduit played as if a trumpet, My french horn's metal stop mute bashed on the bell end with the flat of my palm for a pop/whock sound. (also makes a great duck call!) various trumpet and trombone mutes tapped (or hit or thrown depending on frustration/age/usefulness of mute) with various strikers for effects ranging from drum sounds to basis of tuned percussion. This is also useful with differents lengths of pvc pipe, the larger, longer, stiffer the better. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Re[2]: Meaningless Sample Loops Author: Electronic Music Discussion List at smtpgwy Date: 8/10/95 8:19 AM Neil says (to make a digeridoo) : > Or you could use the "Urban Aboriginal Digi":- > > THE NOZZLE OFF THE HOUSEHOLD VACUUM. > > 'cause trees are scarce in the concrete jungle. > > And remember to use the rug setting for tuning. > > >Neal Sievwright > >sievwrn@agric.nsw.gov.au > >>From the Downunder (other) side of the World - aaargh !!!!! > >PS this is not an original idea, Ernie Dingo, an Australian Comedian was first >on a popular Midday show. > Brilliant! This could be the start of an interesting thread (cries of 'Oh no it wouldn't'), has anyone else had any success using 'household implements' to provide useful (sampleable) noises? I've done the usual stuff with blown bottles and made nice tabla-like sounds from the super-sucker tube attachment to a hoover (silly really, since I have a real tabla set). Also, hitting the end of a wide-necked jar with the palm of the hand gives a nice 'wump'. I read somewhere of someone getting results from putting a condom on a mic, putting it into a milk-bottle full of water and sampling various noises beamed at the bottle (where do you find milk-bottles these days though?). The trick is, I guess, to avoid having the sound being identified - having a heavy rock piece where it's obvious that the 'drummer' is beating her/his pillow with a copy of womens weekly for instance, not good for cred. Regards, MarkB ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 09:34:33 +0200 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Marc Resibois Subject: Re: Re[4]: Meaningless Sample Loops | Brilliant! This could be the start of an interesting thread (cries of 'Oh no | it wouldn't'), has anyone else had any success using 'household implements' | to provide useful (sampleable) noises? Another great stuff : put your head in the washing maching and shout ! Wierd reverb effect garanteed. Marc. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 10:03:48 +0200 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Miroslav Teker Subject: Re: help for sonograms In-Reply-To: <950809220256_70549544@aol.com> from "Julia Miller" at Aug 9, 95 10:02:57 pm > > Dear Massimiliano > > do you know the program MAX? This is very detailed and *very powerful*. I > also have some (extremely simple) shareware programs you might be interested > in. > jamz69@aol.com > Julia > Hello Julia. I'm also interested in such programs.Could you please post your favorite ones,and if possible, the sites they can be downloaded from? Also, for which hardware platform is the MAX built? I only have access to PCs,SGI R3000/R4000 machines and SUNs (Sparc series).No Mac :-< Thanx. Miro ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 07:52:04 EDT Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Pete Schoenhoff Subject: Re: Household Samples (was: meaningless loops) In-Reply-To: <9508100105.AA14491@adied.oz.au>; from "Cameron Newham" at Aug 10, 95 9:05 am Try this: fill you iron with water, and iron some clothes on full steam. every so often, pick the iron up away from the ironing board and turn it upright. The whooshing sound of the steam is quite eerie. Mic at close range, and for some reason, older models seem to work better. -Pete Schoenhoff _\|/_ pschoenh@pen.k12.va.us ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 08:07:40 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: "Ronald S. Herhuth" Subject: Re: Household Samples (was: meaningless loops) Im sure this isnnt an original idea, but here goes anyway: I just bought a novation basstation rack that allows you to run audio through the filter. You must open the filter by midi though, So I set my sequencer to trigger sixteenth notes and used a microphone through a distortion box, moving it around my monitors creating feedback. This was pretty cool but I got way out control and started changing the filter envelope, filter cutoff frequency, and resonance, with midi. Changing the note timings, velocities, lengths, altered the rythmic structure . I just kept the tape recorder rolling and did a "live performance" and went back later and sampled my heart out! synth2max@aol.com ron herhuth ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 08:10:59 EDT Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Pete Schoenhoff Subject: Re: Masters? In-Reply-To: <199508091437.HAA21269@netcom20.netcom.com>; from "Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City" at Aug 9, 95 7:37 am ->>People! Who is today's master of electronic music? The genre is much too diverse now to have a master. Electronic music is also used in every other kind of music now, so it's hard even to pin down what is definitive "electronic music." If you can't do that, you sure can't pick a master. It would have been easier 30 years ago when there were only a few electronic musicians to define the genre. -- KILROY WAS HERE ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 08:19:13 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Don Newcomer Subject: Re: Re[2]: Meaningless Sample Loops In-Reply-To: <199508092139.RAA18513@clark.net> Gee, sounds like Patrick Moraz on his "I" album! It did make for a somewhat interesting effect. He used a metal one, though. =============================================================================== Don Newcomer Dickinson College newcomer@dickinson.edu P.O. Box 1773 newcomer@dickinsn.bitnet Carlisle, PA 17013 "If God is your co-pilot, switch seats!" On Wed, 9 Aug 1995, Joe McMahon wrote: > > Brilliant! This could be the start of an interesting thread (cries of 'Oh no > > it wouldn't'), has anyone else had any success using 'household implements' > > to provide useful (sampleable) noises? > > I'm contemplating the possibilities of a contact-miked Slinky (one of the > new neon-pink ones) strung overhead for use during a live set. > > --- Joe M. > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 09:28:28 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mark G Simon Subject: Sample ethics: the 3 alternatives In-Reply-To: <199508091520.IAA24510@netcom20.netcom.com> > > So that's where I draw my line. I don't insist on recording, sampling, or > creating each and every individual timbre, nor do I (usually) build my own > gear...but when it comes to lifting sounds that are already arranged in a > musical context and grafting new stuff onto them to make something 'new', I > get very suspicious and hard to please. I've done sound collage and > found-sound construction before, and I know what's involved, and very > little of it is compelling to me...but that'll get me onto another rant, > and I think it's Mark's turn on that subject. Thank you. I'm not feeling very tempermental today (amazing isn't it) but I just want to add that if you're going to use samples you've got 3 choices: 1) Use something that's not copyrighted. 2) Use something that's copyrighted and get the copyright owner's permission. 3) Use something that's copyrighted and mess around with it until it doesn't sound anything like the original thing you sampled. My feeling is that option 3 is perfectly ethical. If anyone feels otherwise, it's your turn to rant. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 10:11:38 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Wired4Soun@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Masters? Gus Alden writes-- > >People! Who is today's master of electronic music? The Show Business - they don't call it show art. The major manufacturers really lead us around by the nose. I don't want to waste energy on a major rant, but it does seem to be worthwhile to consider some observations about how our tools dictate what we make. I admit I make pretty normal kinds of music these days because it is so frustrating trying to get past the engineered front end on today's machines. Well-tuned, equal tuned, "dial a tune." Don't worry about what might happen if your pitches just accidentally crystalize into something fresh - "we've taken care of that for you." Velocity curves, midi mapping, pitch and mod wheels. Everything is so carefully predictable. Even with digital painting you at least get you "swirl together" your own colors - easily. All the sequencers are cookie cutter clones of each other. It's tough to find any personality in these ways of knocking out another hit. When things are not working, "just try a different drum pattern." Is there mastery in this? Now I _truly_ do like the coolest, newest gadgets, but we must have some genuine awareness about making electronic music with equipment made to sell to the most common buyer. Yes, there are interesting things like Max, M, Megalomania, air drums, glove controllers, and more. But, the "business" is dictated by "those 61-key marvels that will play anything!" :> So, who are today's Masters of Electronic Music? To me they don't seem to be the musicians... Tom Jordan Wired for Sound! - computer music for kids ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 09:51:35 +0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Andrew B Mc Donough Subject: Re: Re[2]: Meaningless Sample Loops >the middle, across a small aquarium, fill aquarium until half the cymbal >is submerged. Strike cymbal and mike it. Or use a pot lid and your sink. >Lorne i wonder how many whacky things one might get people to do with the promise on a "killer" sample at the end. at midnight, under a full moon, strike a brake drum from a 64 tbird half submerged in virgin olive oil with moderate force using a vic firth #2 25cm from the edge .......:-) _________________________________________________________________________ andy mcdonough ...at&t bell laboratories, middletown,nj... (908)957-6674 abm@att.com =========================================================== _________________________________________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 09:46:45 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: James McCartney Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops At 1:00 AM 8/10/95, metlay wrote: >get very suspicious and hard to please. I've done sound collage and >found-sound construction before, and I know what's involved, and very Ha Ha! I first read that as 'food-sound construction'! --- james mccartney james@astro.as.utexas.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 12:42:33 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Dustin McIntyre Subject: Re: Nosferatu's Sampling Conscience Apologies if this is a duplicate. AOL is acting strangely. On Wed, 9 Aug 1995, Wendell Carroll wrote: >>Question, if you sample someone's music say about two bars and use it for your own creative project, don't you owe the original artist royalities? Or, do you just take his original ideas as your own and call it being creative?<< Did you read the post you are responding to? It's clear stance was LACK of support for unauthorized use of another's work in a new composition. Yes, you would be obligated to pay royalties or a flat fee, whichever was mutually agreed upon. And yes, if the finished product was pleasing to the ears and tastes of a few or a great many, that could be called creative. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 12:42:40 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Dustin McIntyre Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops Apologies if this is a duplicate. AOL is acting strangely. On Wed, 9 Aug 1995, Mike Metlay wrote: >>Everyone takes his or her own stance as to where in the creative process listed above the creator must take full control of the process for it to be truly creative work.<< This is really the ultimate point on this issue I guess, but it reminds me of abortion and I think that's sad. If it sounds good and no one was hurt..good (no guilt). >>I balk at taking an instrumental part that was played by someone else in a different musical context for a final purpose that had no direct relation to mine and using it as a basis for my work. You've then abrogated the decision on how to organize your sounds to another creative intellect, and likely as not it's an intellect that doesn't know you or your music exists and couldn't care less.<< While definitely another ramification of a deeply personal choice, this is hubris. Music that just "happens" and doesn't have some fixed origin, relation, tie, meaning or inspiration is just as valid as that which is premeditated to the most minute detail. Many would argue that it's better, but that's just another dollop of closemindedness that achieves nothing but self satisfaction. A sample from elsewhere does not insist on being the "basis" of new work nor does it (IF you're being creative) take away your freedom to organize your sounds as you see fit. Sampling is liberating, not confining. You don't need the empathy or deep understanding of another creative intellect to know that something is sonically effective and speaks to you. While this is obviously not everyone's cup of tea, it's far from meaningless. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 17:24:13 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: frequency of notes >(X bekhezkat shteim-esre) Since, on another thread, we're discussing titles for new projects, consider this one henceforth ringed with striped PVC tape. Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com "Success can be measured by only one thing: the hairs on the back of your neck." -- Twyla Tharp ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 19:14:18 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Massimiliano Viel Subject: Re: Masters? >mike writes-- >> >I came to my own conclusions, which would >not be polite to share here....I suppose I could email you with those, >but if you were a friend of hers I don't think you want to hear them. Why not? - no problem. I've just heard some sample of her "star-music" on TV years ago and I thought it was very easy to produce this kind of audio stuff. The aesthetical relationship with the listener should have been something like the one with Cage's music (even if I don't think this is Fiorella's way of thinking). Anyway I have just heard few seconds of sound and maybe it is completely different from the one on CD, so I'm still curious (and not so friend to be unobjective) to know what is she doing. Do you know Gerard Grisey's "le noir de l'etoile" (for percussions and electronics)? It's an interesting work (and the only one I know besides Fiorella) that uses radioscopes material (a real time contact with pulsars) with acoustic instruments linked toghether by means of a composed process (he is a composer who founded the france spectral movement in contemporary music). bye <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Massimiliano Viel max.viel@planet.it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 19:14:22 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Massimiliano Viel Subject: Re: help for sonograms >Dear Massimiliano > >do you know the program MAX? This is very detailed and *very powerful*. I >also have some (extremely simple) shareware programs you might be interested >in. >jamz69@aol.com >Julia To begin, thankyou for your answer. Are you talking about Opcode Ircam's Max program? In that case it deals with programming midi events and has nothing to do with audio (except from being used as an interface to audio programs as Chant, Unison, Csound). - this Max is for Mac, Next and SGI (what is it?). It is not shareware and is available from www: bousac@ircam.fr - I have programs like Soundview, Soundapp, Soundeffects, Soundhack, Soundhandle, Soundextractor and Soundmachine. If you have other Soundsomething that you think can be interesting, please e-mail me names, addresses and so on. Again thakyou and bye. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Massimiliano Viel max.viel@planet.it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 17:24:01 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Re[2]: Meaningless Sample Loops >I'm contemplating the possibilities of a contact-miked Slinky (one of the >new neon-pink ones) strung overhead for use during a live set. Tell me: are the metal ones no longer available? (I still have one of the metal ones. I can see it now: Roland JV-50000 with a PCM sample set including "MetlSlinky" and "PlasSlinky".) Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com "Success can be measured by only one thing: the hairs on the back of your neck." -- Twyla Tharp ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 13:58:44 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Gus Alden Subject: Re: Masters? >Gus Alden posed the question: >>People! Who is today's master of electronic music? Tom Jordan's response: >The Show Business - they don't call it show art. > >The major manufacturers really lead us around by the nose. I don't want to >waste energy on a major rant, but it does seem to be worthwhile to consider >some observations about how our tools dictate what we make. I admit I make >pretty normal kinds of music these days because it is so frustrating trying >to get past the engineered front end on today's machines. > >Well-tuned, equal tuned, "dial a tune." Don't worry about what might happen >if your pitches just accidentally crystalize into something fresh - "we've >taken care of that for you." Hello- Yes Tom, I hear you. Having played around with digital synthesis for about a year now, I'm beginning to confront some of it's limitations. But is this not a problem musicians of every age have had to cope with, the limitation of the instruments available to them, as well as that of the players that played them. But they whom we look upon as masters of their art are they who challenged those limitations and transcended them, are they not? >So, who are today's Masters of Electronic Music? To me they don't seem to be >the musicians... Inarguable, but in my mind, debatable. Hasn't it always been that musicians (Beethoven excluded perhaps) are controlled more or less by another power, be it by the Church, or a king, or a totalitarian government, etc.? Yet it's Bach, Mozart, and Shostachovich whom we remember. And even Beethoven had to deal with God. Anyway, what I'm asking is this: In this rather absurd culture that we've created for ourselves, with it's heartless competition, and the financial anxiety that accompanies it, dictated by an industry that keeps putting out new toys for us to entertain ourselves with, populated by an audience brainwashed by mediocrity, who is the one that has taken the cards dealt to him, and is creating something marvelous with it, something great enough to endure through time as the work of all great masters has? Respectfully, Gus Alden ------------ aldenoob@biddeford.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 11:31:27 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City Subject: Re: Re[2]: Meaningless Sample Loops In-Reply-To: from "Nick Rothwell" at Aug 10, 95 05:24:01 pm Nick Rothwell writes-- > >>I'm contemplating the possibilities of a contact-miked Slinky (one of the >>new neon-pink ones) strung overhead for use during a live set. > >Tell me: are the metal ones no longer available? (I still have one of the >metal ones. I can see it now: Roland JV-50000 with a PCM sample set >including "MetlSlinky" and "PlasSlinky".) You can still get them; the company apparently considers them a worthwhile 'retro' alternative to the new type, despite their greater tendency to be dangerous if for some reason one end is snapped and becomes sharp. mike -- You can't juggle three Slinkys. Better men than you have tried, believe me. ========================================================================== Mike Metlay ~ ATOMIC CITY ~ P. O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675 USA = atomic@netcom.com = http://pd.net/atomic-city = All of our CDs can now be ordered directly from our WWW site, or by calling INFINITE ILLUSIONS: vox 904-385-6463 or 1-800-548-6724, or FAX 904-668-5825 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 11:33:57 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City Subject: Re: Re[2]: Meaningless Sample Loops In-Reply-To: <9508101351.AA20139@mtispan.mt.att.com> from "Andrew B Mc Donough" at Aug 10, 95 09:51:35 am Andrew B Mc Donough writes-- > >i wonder how many whacky things one might get people to do with the >promise on a "killer" sample at the end. -- You can't juggle three Slinkys. Better men than you have tried, believe me. ========================================================================== Mike Metlay ~ ATOMIC CITY ~ P. O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675 USA = atomic@netcom.com = http://pd.net/atomic-city = All of our CDs can now be ordered directly from our WWW site, or by calling INFINITE ILLUSIONS: vox 904-385-6463 or 1-800-548-6724, or FAX 904-668-5825 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 15:50:12 -0200 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: damian keller Subject: morphing I completely agree with Herbert. Calling morphing any transformation you do to sound does not let you grasp the idea behind morphing. There is a nice software (it just got to my hand) SOUNDHACK that allows you to transform a sound into ano0ther. This has nothing to do with volume. It works on frequency and amplitude at the same time. That means that the envelope is modified so that the attack of the first sound gets similar to the attack of the second . Same thing about the spectrum, etc. Damian ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 14:43:21 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Lorne Hammond Subject: Re: morphing In-Reply-To: <9508101750.AA26447@guarany.cpd.unb.br> Re: soundhack. I've heard it wa good, but is it Macintosh only? Is there a DOS/Windows version? Lorne lhammond@sol.uvic.ca ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 18:37:55 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Gus Alden Subject: Re: A Quaking Curiosity Hi everybody, Tim ia having trouble getting through, and he's asked me to forward this for him. Well, here it is: >Hi! Sorry to bother you like this, but the EMUSIC list is ignoring >my postings. So if you could post it for me... > >"Has anyone ever recorded the infrasound of an earthquake and sped it >up to put it into the audible spectrum? I'd be curious to know what >it sounds like." > >Tim Robinson, (tim@liro.fri.cri.nz) _ NZ Logging Truck >Logging Industry Research Organisation, / | =|====|= =|====|= >PO Box 147, Rotorua, New Zealand |_| =|====|= =|====|= >Ph. 0064-7-3487-168 Fax. 0064-7-3462-886 OO~~~~~~OO~---OO~~~~OO Gus Alden ------------ aldenoob@biddeford.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 01:52:30 +0300 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: Re[4]: Meaningless Sample Loops In-Reply-To: <9508100734.AA26880@nit.be> On Thu, 10 Aug 1995, Marc Resibois wrote: > > Another great stuff : put your head in the washing maching and shout ! > Wierd reverb effect garanteed. > > Marc. > On what program whould I run the wahing machine ;) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 10:07:54 +1000 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: David Rodger Subject: Re: help for sonograms Hi Massimiliano... > Are you talking about Opcode Ircam's Max program? In that case it deals > with programming midi events and has nothing to do with audio (except from > being used as an interface to audio programs as Chant, Unison, Csound). > - this Max is for Mac, Next and SGI (what is it?). "What is it?" If you're asking about SGI, it stands for Silicon Graphics Inc. They make high end machines which are particularly favoured by serious graphics and animation people. Increasingly, they're being used by sound and multimedia people. There's some work of that sort at the Australian Centre for Art and Technology at the Australian National University. If you're interested, e-mail DAvid Worrall. David.Worrall@anu.edu.au (tell him DAvid Rodger, the MIDI Corset man, sent you). MAX does have dsp objects. If you have a Mac, you need Digidesign hardware. If you have a NeXT, you need the IRCAM ISPW board (very expensive). I don't know about SGIs but it wouldn't surprise me if you could just use the machine without any extra hardware, given the amazing horsepower of them. Hope this helps, David musdr@lure.latrobe.edu.au ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 21:43:15 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Julia Miller Subject: Re: help for sonograms Miro I think MAX is only for mac, but maybe windows. It's by Opcode. The best shareware I've found is Soundhandle 1.0.1 You can email dveeneman@gte.com for a copy :>)Julia ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 08:08:31 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Re[4]: Meaningless Sample Loops >put your head in the washing maching and shout ! I tried that, but the machine refused to operate with the door open. Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com "Success can be measured by only one thing: the hairs on the back of your neck." -- Twyla Tharp ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 08:09:03 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Masters? >The major manufacturers really lead us around by the nose. I don't want to >waste energy on a major rant, but it does seem to be worthwhile to consider >some observations about how our tools dictate what we make. Perhaps, but it's also a temptation to throw one's hands into the air and bemoan the lack of good electronic music by blaming the dearth of instruments. Sure, there's a lot of crap around, but that just requires one to be a little creative and informed in one's choice (or construction) of tools. >But, the "business" is >dictated by "those 61-key marvels that will play anything!" :> That's rather like saying that the music business is dominated by pop videos (which is a more serious concern). I don't care *how* many Korg X07Re's there are in the local store, as long as I can buy things like, oh, the MicroWave, the UltraProteus, a Wavestation or two (racks only, since I do agree with you about keyboards), a handful of fader boxes, a package like MAX which runs on small portable computers which can be rackmounted, small versatile effects processors like the Lexicon LXP-1 and LXP-5, and so on. One might envision a complete live electronic score for (say) a contemporary dance performance, maybe as long as 31 minutes 15 seconds, being realised on such a selection of equipment. While there are companies (or divisions) turning out interesting instruments from time to time, I don't much care about the crap that sits in the shop windows. Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com "Success can be measured by only one thing: the hairs on the back of your neck." -- Twyla Tharp ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 08:09:34 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops >Ha Ha! I first read that as 'food-sound construction'! Yeah, Mike, get to it quickly while Julia's the right age... Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com "Success can be measured by only one thing: the hairs on the back of your neck." -- Twyla Tharp ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 09:47:25 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Massimiliano Viel Subject: Re: robinsot:[2]: Masters? >Judging by the amount of flack Fiorella is picking up, she must be >pretty good! "The most talked about artist in emusic today." >There's no such thing as bad publicity. > What can I say? I'm just asking about a girl I don't hear from since years. Actually it's better we go on talking about her privately (e-mail), if there is something to talk about. Another thing to talk about is: is it so important to be "The most talked about artist in emusic TODAY"? Maybe tomorrow (just tomorrow) I (we) shall not be talking about her any more. And if you'll buy her CD after this "today's talk", well, what's wrong? I'm sure you can judge what we are talking about and what you're listening to by your own. So good luck! - and about the money she's gaining if you'll buy her stuff: who cares? I know you (and others) won'y buy something about her just after this "today's" mail, isn't it? - ;-) !! bye <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Massimiliano Viel max.viel@planet.it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 09:19:02 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Masters? >It's an >interesting work (and the only one I know besides Fiorella) that uses >radioscopes material There's Robert Schroeder's GALAXIE CYGNUS-A, a tasty little work for PPG Wave, VCS-3 and radio-telescope (well, some white noise from the latter). Pure 70's Berlin-school stuff (it's on the IC label, back when Klaus Schulze ran it) but really rather nice. It's probably the spaciest music I've come across since Dominique Perrier and Roger Rizzitelli did SPACE ART. Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com "Success can be measured by only one thing: the hairs on the back of your neck." -- Twyla Tharp ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 09:20:12 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Re[2]: Meaningless Sample Loops >You can still get them; the company apparently considers them a worthwhile >'retro' alternative to the new type, despite their greater tendency to be >dangerous if for some reason one end is snapped and becomes sharp. On my metal slinky, the ends are strapped down with a metal binding, making it safe. >You can't juggle three Slinkys. Better men than you have tried, believe me. "Hey, darling. I've got a really slinky outfit for you to wear. Here, try this on." Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com "Success can be measured by only one thing: the hairs on the back of your neck." -- Twyla Tharp ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 09:18:24 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops > While definitely another ramification of a deeply personal choice, this >is hubris. Let me look up "hubris" in my dictionary... >Sampling is liberating, not >confining. Ah-HA, now there's a deeply personal choice if ever I saw one. During the time I had a sampler, I found it to be anything but liberating. Having it alongside six or seven synthesisers was actually confining, because it demanded a different mindset and set of experiences and techniques and detracted from my concentration on working with the synthesisers (which is a different technique). Only when it was gone did I feel comfortable again. Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com "Success can be measured by only one thing: the hairs on the back of your neck." -- Twyla Tharp ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 09:19:58 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Masters? >Yes Tom, I hear you. Having played around with digital synthesis for about >a year now, I'm beginning to confront some of it's limitations. I don't mean to condescend, but that's unlikely. However I'm sure you've been confronting the limitations of commercial digital synthesisers. This is no limitation of digital synthesis per se; it's down to commercialism and market forces; these things are digital only because that's now a cheap and efficient way to mass-produce such instruments. >And even Beethoven >had to deal with God. Trivially true since he's, well, dead. Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com "Success can be measured by only one thing: the hairs on the back of your neck." -- Twyla Tharp ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 07:58:55 EDT Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Pete Schoenhoff Subject: Re: Re[4]: Meaningless Sample Loops In-Reply-To: ; from "Nick Rothwell" at Aug 11, 95 8:08 am These are the graceful words of Nick Rothwell: ->>put your head in the washing maching and shout ! -> ->I tried that, but the machine refused to operate with the door open. You left the door open? -- -Pete Schoenhoff _\|/_ pschoenh@pen.k12.va.us ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 08:29:56 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: "Ronald S. Herhuth" Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops ...hmmm maybe its not the sampler... >During the time I had a sampler, I found it to be anything but >liberating. >Having it alongside six or seven synthesisers was actually >confining, >because it demanded a different mindset and set of >experiences and >techniques and detracted from my concentration on working >with the >synthesisers (which is a different technique). Only when it >was gone did I >feel comfortable again. synth2max@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 08:32:36 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: "Ronald S. Herhuth" Subject: Re: Re[4]: Meaningless Sample Loops I took the metal slinky thing one step further: take the metal slinky and streach it out across the room . then take and old extension cord strip off the white wire and solder it to one end of the slinky. Using a long strip of wire connect the other end of the slinky to the extension cords' black lead. then using a vintage mic such as a nuemann, (to make sure you capture all the warmth) plug the extension cord in. MAKE SURE THE MIC IS PLACED CORRECTLY THE FIRST TIME! disclaimer: I am a lunitic, taking advice from me would be a bad, bad thing. synth2max@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 06:21:45 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City Subject: Re[4]: Meaningless Sample Loops (fwd) I think this was meant to go to EMUSIC-L. Watch those headers, folks! robinsot@liro.fri.cri.nz writes-- >From robinsot@liro.fri.cri.nz Thu Aug 10 14:28:17 1995 >From: robinsot@liro.fri.cri.nz >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 09:14:13 +1200 >Message-ID: <02a77160@liro.fri.cri.nz> >Subject: Re[4]: Meaningless Sample Loops >To: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Description: cc:Mail note part > >Try a *magnetised* iron slinky, and use a coil pickup. > > >______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ >Subject: Re: Re[2]: Meaningless Sample Loops >Author: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City at tawa >Date: 10/8/95 11:31 AM > > >Nick Rothwell writes-- >> >>>I'm contemplating the possibilities of a contact-miked Slinky (one of the >>>new neon-pink ones) strung overhead for use during a live set. >> >>Tell me: are the metal ones no longer available? (I still have one of the >>metal ones. I can see it now: Roland JV-50000 with a PCM sample set >>including "MetlSlinky" and "PlasSlinky".) > >You can still get them; the company apparently considers them a worthwhile >'retro' alternative to the new type, despite their greater tendency to be >dangerous if for some reason one end is snapped and becomes sharp. > >mike > >-- >You can't juggle three Slinkys. Better men than you have tried, believe me. >=========================================================================== >Mike Metlay ~ ATOMIC CITY ~ P. O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675 USA > = atomic@netcom.com = http://pd.net/atomic-city = >All of our CDs can now be ordered directly from our WWW site, or by calling >INFINITE ILLUSIONS: vox 904-385-6463 or 1-800-548-6724, or FAX 904-668-5825 > -- You can't juggle three Slinkys. Better men than you have tried, believe me. ========================================================================== Mike Metlay ~ ATOMIC CITY ~ P. O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675 USA = atomic@netcom.com = http://pd.net/atomic-city = All of our CDs can now be ordered directly from our WWW site, or by calling INFINITE ILLUSIONS: vox 904-385-6463 or 1-800-548-6724, or FAX 904-668-5825 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 09:27:39 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Gus Alden Subject: Re: Masters? >>Yes Tom, I hear you. Having played around with digital synthesis for about >>a year now, I'm beginning to confront some of it's limitations. > >I don't mean to condescend, but that's unlikely. However I'm sure you've >been confronting the limitations of commercial digital synthesisers. This >is no limitation of digital synthesis per se; it's down to commercialism >and market forces; these things are digital only because that's now a cheap >and efficient way to mass-produce such instruments. Food for thought. Well yes, ofcourse, I'm using a $600 sound module. This is obviously the limitation I am dealing with. And I was just on the verge of converting to analogue. Thanks for pointing this out. So tell me, are there no instruments available on the market that tap into the potential that digital synthesis offers? (For under $700.........just kidding) >>And even Beethoven >>had to deal with God. > >Trivially true since he's, well, dead. Who, Beethoven or God? I would debate you on either, but this is probably material for another discussion list. I am curious though. If you could have one electronic instrument custom made to your own specifications, what would it be capable of doing that commercial synthesizers aren't able to do? Respectfully, Gus Alden ------------ aldenoob@biddeford.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 10:00:28 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Masters? In-Reply-To: <199508111327.JAA04403@river.biddeford.com> from "Gus Alden" at Aug 11, 95 09:27:39 am > Food for thought. Well yes, ofcourse, I'm using a $600 sound module. This > is obviously the limitation I am dealing with. And I was just on the verge > of converting to analogue. Thanks for pointing this out. So tell me, are > there no instruments available on the market that tap into the potential > that digital synthesis offers? (For under $700.........just kidding) The VFX (non-sd version) goes for around that now, used. Metlay and Nick will tell you that it has a lot of synthesis potential, if you're willing to throw away your conceptions of what things should sound like and just go nuts. The Roland JD-800 (that's the one with all the sliders) is capable of making some truly heinous noises as well. > I am curious though. If you could have one electronic instrument custom > made to your own specifications, what would it be capable of doing that > commercial synthesizers aren't able to do? > It would have a knob for every parameter, and would allow me to internally cross-connect anything's output to anything's input, and would be capable of either sampling or real-time digitizing an incoming external signal and using it as a signal input wherever I chose. --- Joe M. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 16:03:46 +0200 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Marc Resibois Subject: Re: Masters? | I am curious though. If you could have one electronic instrument custom | made to your own specifications, what would it be capable of doing that | commercial synthesizers aren't able to do? Mine would at least get a lot more customizability in signal routing. Probably it would end up being something like Kyma. Cheers, -+-> Marc. <100126,1007> ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 08:26:14 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Lorne Hammond Subject: Re: Re[4]: Meaningless Sample Loops (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199508111321.GAA02241@netcom23.netcom.com> Very few metal slinky's around anymore. Try Wine County, I hear they have a lead on a factory in Russia that used to make them for Leo Theremin. The ones with MIDI are really pricey though. Lorne ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 12:41:56 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mark G Simon Subject: Sounds like a great synth In-Reply-To: <199508111400.KAA12764@clark.net> > > > It would have a knob for every parameter, and would allow me to internally > cross-connect anything's output to anything's input, and would be capable > of either sampling or real-time digitizing an incoming external signal and > using it as a signal input wherever I chose. > > --- Joe M. While you're at it, please order one for me too. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 12:50:36 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Gus Alden Subject: Re: Masters? >> So tell me, are there no instruments available on the market that tap into >>>>the potential that digital synthesis offers? (For under $700.........just >>>>kidding) >The VFX (non-sd version) goes for around that now, used. Metlay and Nick will >tell you that it has a lot of synthesis potential, if you're willing to >throw away your conceptions of what things should sound like and just go nuts. What conceptions? I'm already nuts. Please tell me what this thing is capable of? I recall you mentioning the VFX before. If you think the other list (SYNTH-L) is the more appropriate place to post a response, I'll be looking for it over there. Thanx. >It would have a knob for every parameter, and would allow me to internally >cross-connect anything's output to anything's input, and would be capable >of either sampling or real-time digitizing an incoming external signal and >using it as a signal input wherever I chose. Sounds cool as hell. I have to assume you're not the only musician in the world who would like to get his fingers dancing on this thing (or are you?). Then why is it unavailable? Market forces, as Nick R. has mentioned, I assume? What this country needs is a King (with an indulgent appetite for electronic music). Gus Alden ------------ aldenoob@biddeford.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 20:36:38 +0300 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: Masters? In-Reply-To: On Fri, 11 Aug 1995, Nick Rothwell wrote: > Perhaps, but it's also a temptation to throw one's hands into the air and > bemoan the lack of good electronic music by blaming the dearth of > instruments. Sure, there's a lot of crap around, but that just requires one > to be a little creative and informed in one's choice (or construction) of > tools. > Avery age had a lot crap going on. 19th cent. crap just didn't quite make it to our time. Uri ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 18:04:12 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Wired4Soun@AOL.COM Subject: Kyma? >>> | I am curious though. If you could have one electronic instrument custom | made to your own specifications, what would it be capable of doing that | commercial synthesizers aren't able to do? Mine would at least get a lot more customizability in signal routing. Probably it would end up being something like Kyma. Cheers, -+-> Marc. <100126,1007> >>> Marc, Are you a Kyma user, have you been? Please illuminate me. I got another card from them this week. Tom Jordan Wired for Sound! - computer music for kids ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 18:04:05 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Wired4Soun@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Masters? Yes, Nick! >But, the "business" is >dictated by "those 61-key marvels that will play anything!" :> That's rather like saying that the music business is dominated by pop videos (which is a more serious concern). I don't care *how* many Korg X07Re's there are in the local store, as long as I can buy things like, oh, the MicroWave, the UltraProteus, a Wavestation or two (racks only, since I do agree with you about keyboards), a handful of fader boxes, a package like MAX which runs on small portable computers which can be rackmounted, small versatile effects processors like the Lexicon LXP-1 and LXP-5, and so on. One might envision a complete live electronic score for (say) a contemporary dance performance, maybe as long as 31 minutes 15 seconds, being realised on such a selection of equipment. While there are companies (or divisions) turning out interesting instruments from time to time, I don't much care about the crap that sits in the shop windows. Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com >>> Yes, yes! I'm getting excited thinking about what you might brew up! My old Rhodes Chroma was really cool to play in a live improv situation because it had all of those odd arppegiators and they wouldn't sync to an external siganl. You had to creatively design what you would do given those limitations - the pedals and the velocity sense were exciting next to the older gear. Now, I get to play around with body resistance, infrared trigs, and wireless remote triggers. But, the "monumental projects" that I used to do have a tough time getting off the ground these days! Nick, one project that i worked on for a few years was a piece for dancers tethered to wires, and a prepared electronic floor. The dancers mixed the music through their skin (including each other!) Unfortunately it was too complex to mount and un-roadable. I keep hoping that adventurous sponsors will return and they will shun the glitzy plastic of today. Tom Jordan Wired for Sound! - computer music for kids ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 18:04:08 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Wired4Soun@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Masters? >>> I am curious though. If you could have one electronic instrument custom made to your own specifications, what would it be capable of doing that commercial synthesizers aren't able to do? >>> Oooo, juicy question, but I've got to get on the rest of my life... How 'bout a controller that sort of looks like a big wad of clay and every time you moosh it around you change the shape of "the sound" - realtime! :> Cool, huh? And there's a new Theremin-like device that uses infrared to sense your body movement - converts it to midi. And I'll take a "linear sequencing" software package that has a bunch of modules (like Legos) so that I can do old analog sequencer things or Dr. T KCS style manipulation, and I can patch any kind of logic switches into this thing that I want to diddle with. Steve Reich permutation pieces, random external events that edit the action, yes that's good. I know, Max is on my list. It's not so much the bucks as it is the time I need to invest. Tom Jordan Wired for Sound! - computer music for k ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 18:03:59 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Wired4Soun@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Masters? >>>Inarguable, but in my mind, debatable. Hasn't it always been that musicians (Beethoven excluded perhaps) are controlled more or less by another power, be it by the Church, or a king, or a totalitarian government, etc.? Yet it's Bach, Mozart, and Shostachovich whom we remember. And even Beethoven had to deal with God. Anyway, what I'm asking is this: In this rather absurd culture that we've created for ourselves, with it's heartless competition, and the financial anxiety that accompanies it, dictated by an industry that keeps putting out new toys for us to entertain ourselves with, populated by an audience brainwashed by mediocrity, who is the one that has taken the cards dealt to him, and is creating something marvelous with it, something great enough to endure through time as the work of all great masters has? >>> I'm drowning in mediocrity! All things plastic and disposable. I guess we could say that Bach was able to rise above the common work of his time and eventually find recognition after his death. (Would his genius have surfaced if there had been the simple, efficient tools for cranking out cookie cutter music like we have today? Would the music money/opportunities have gone to another easy, less trouble, composer?) I wanted to pose the provocative questions and scratch at some "old sores" just a bit. The "Masters" question is too important to just be lightly addressed as a naive, rock-n-roll trivial pursuit. Who played the Theramin on the Beach Boys' Good Vibrations? I don't know, but it's an interesting part of electronic music history. ;-) Tom Jordan Wired for Sound! - computer music for kids Beethoven and Mozart were both visionaries - able to transcend apparent barriers and blow us away! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 18:04:16 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Wired4Soun@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Masters? >>> > I am curious though. If you could have one electronic instrument custom > made to your own specifications, what would it be capable of doing that > commercial synthesizers aren't able to do? > It would have a knob for every parameter, and would allow me to internally cross-connect anything's output to anything's input, and would be capable of either sampling or real-time digitizing an incoming external signal and using it as a signal input wherever I chose. --- Joe M. >>> How about voice recognition with some kind of alpha controller. Then you could just play/create and be able to keep on handling things while you yell commands at it! I almost chased after one of those Navigators for Mac a few years back for that very purpose ;> I knew a few quadraplegic folks that were getting around in incredibly "counter-productive" circumstances and that Navigator made sense. Tom Jordan Wired for Sound! - computer music for kids ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 17:14:38 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Spamboy Subject: Arrangement rates I'm about to do an arrangement of a popular song for a vocalist's demo tape. The plan was to do a full orchestral arrangement, but her budget might not afford it. What is a good rate for doing a synth arrangement of a prewritten tune? And if anyone knows, how much more (or less)(excluding musician and studio fees) could I get if I did a live orchestral arrangement (assuming I'm doing all the copying)? Thanks for you help. Randy Budnikas * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Randy@isaac.biola.edu 8182 Glengarry Green *SPACE MONKEY ENTERPRIZES * 714-522-BITE Buena Park, CA 90621 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * fax/modem:714-522-6323 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 22:49:22 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Marshall Tuttle Organization: Torii Station 26Gig online at 405-733-7083 Subject: Re: MASTERS? > had to deal with God. Anyway, what I'm asking is this: In this > rather > absurd culture that we've created for ourselves, with it's heartless > competition, and the financial anxiety that accompanies it, dictated > by an > industry that keeps putting out new toys for us to entertain > ourselves > with, populated by an audience brainwashed by mediocrity, who is > the one > that has taken the cards dealt to him, and is creating something > marvelous > with it, something great enough to endure through time as the work > of all > great masters has? an interesting diatribe, and not without merit!!! unfortunately, there can be no greatness without an audience - and that is a two edged sword. those composers you mention were great in interaction with a society that had a forward-looking vision which continues to inspire us today on levels beyond the merely artistic, one need merely look at the achievements of the eighteenth century to see that therein lie all the seeds of modern society: electricity was controlled, the industrial system began, democracy returned to western civilization after two millenia, etc. one finds that the greatest artists appear at those times when society is in a state of revolution, looking forward and redifining itself on all levels, not only artistically. were great artists to emerge in todays cultural environment some conditions would have to be met which i believe now to be absent: 1) there would have to be a set of common needs and wants among large groups groups of people. 2) there would need to be a common vision about the future evolution of society. 3) there would need to be a context in which they could be heard. none of these are in place. while there is a context for new music, there is no context for yesterday's or last week's music on any level beyond the nostalgic. it would appear that great masters cannot appear in a devolving society, in our culture where everything is aimed more and more towards the individual, where rather than coming together we are splitting into tribes, and in so doing serving the social order, in our culture where newness is a substitute for evolution there is no hope of the emergence of masters. the social order simply will not allow it. mt ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 08:24:42 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Re[4]: Meaningless Sample Loops >->>put your head in the washing maching and shout ! >-> >->I tried that, but the machine refused to operate with the door open. > > You left the door open? DAMN, I knew there was something I was doing wrong. Hang on, I'll be back in a second... Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com "Success can be measured by only one thing: the hairs on the back of your neck." -- Twyla Tharp ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 08:27:56 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Masters? >So tell me, are >there no instruments available on the market that tap into the potential >that digital synthesis offers? (For under $700.........just kidding) I dunno, what's the street price on a Morpheus these days? Or a Wavestation SR for that matter. These are still pretty commercial, but can be made to do some pretty crazy things. >I am curious though. If you could have one electronic instrument custom >made to your own specifications, what would it be capable of doing that >commercial synthesizers aren't able to do? Off the top of my head: something like the Morpheus with user-programmable filter cubes, more flexible modulation architecture, sample RAM, a powerful control spec. and a good front panel (like a Roland-style programmer). Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com "Success can be measured by only one thing: the hairs on the back of your neck." -- Twyla Tharp ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 08:25:25 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops >..hmmm maybe its not the sampler... .. and...? Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com "Success can be measured by only one thing: the hairs on the back of your neck." -- Twyla Tharp ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 08:26:20 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Re[4]: Meaningless Sample Loops >MAKE SURE THE MIC IS PLACED CORRECTLY THE FIRST TIME! > >disclaimer: I am a lunitic, taking advice from me would be a bad, bad thing. Tell me about it. Anyone tried putting a Slinky into a microwave? Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com "Success can be measured by only one thing: the hairs on the back of your neck." -- Twyla Tharp ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 10:25:35 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: "Raymond G. Baker" Subject: Cubase/Yamaha MU-80 Hi, I am using a Yamaha MU-80 Sound Module, with Cubase. Would like to know if anyone knows of, or has access to any Mixermaps and or Drumaps for the MU-80 using Cubase? Thanks for any info. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 11:12:17 EDT Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Ted Subject: Re: Sounds like a great synth In-Reply-To: Message of Fri, 11 Aug 1995 12:41:56 -0400 from Gentlemen....I am a electronic composing pre-neophyte who wants to compose song s on my computor via use of my sound blaster compatible & bottom end Casio CKT- 530 keyboard. I have been playing accordian (joke time eh?) since I was 9 year s old (30 years), but I don't read music! I have a Finale Notation program, an a Band in The Box & Sequencer that is with it. I actually need someone to "Wa lk me through" as to how to play a melody on my midi'd keyboard into the comput or, add instruments around it & rhythems, activate & integrate my sound cards s ample sounds with my keyboards sounds. I want to be able to play a dominant me lody on the keyboard, fuse that with that same melody (in various other instrum ents) and then assign various rhythems around those so as to create a fully orc hestrated song. Is this possible????....AlsoI need to know how to store this i info and then transfer it on to cassettes. I teach 4 handicapped childrenand o ver the years we have made some songs fo them where they actually wrote/created the words!...It would be a great gift to them if I can create their songs and hand them the finished product on cqassette. Again however, I don't know how. So...I'm appealing to your benevolence if anyone is of the helping kind. Mayb e I'm way out of line, but sometimes people like to take on challenging project s. Hopefully., it does'nt hurt to ask! Respectfully, Ted. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 13:10:25 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Masters? >Nick, one project that i worked >on for a few years was a piece for dancers tethered to wires, Wired to the mains if I had my way... I've not done any of this kind of thing yet, mainly because dancers here are still trying to get their heads round the idea of music which doesn't come from a cassette (and I'm trying to get my head around how dancers cue and mark time from musical cues which are part of what I improvise), but there are some dancers/choreographers who understand some of this stuff; hopefully more will follow. Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com "Success can be measured by only one thing: the hairs on the back of your neck." -- Twyla Tharp ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 13:09:59 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Masters? >What this country needs is a King (with an indulgent appetite for >electronic music). Years ago, I heard this true story about Queen Elizabeth visiting Australia, and meeting the film crew of one of the big Hollywood blockbusters, Dances with Wolves or somesuch. She was being introduced to the various technical people, including the main cameraman who described himself as a photographer. "What a coincidence," said Her Majesty, "since I have a cousin who's a photographer." [Snowdon?] "What a coincidence," replied the man, "since I have a cousin who's a queen." Her Majesty moved on without further comment or any break in her composure. Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com "Success can be measured by only one thing: the hairs on the back of your neck." -- Twyla Tharp ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 13:49:39 CET Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Jacek Latanowicz Subject: Re: Re[2]: Meaningless Sample Loops Comments: To: Electronic Music Discussion List In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 9 Aug 1995 16:49:16 -0400 from On Wed, 9 Aug 1995 16:49:16 -0400 Mark Bostel said: >Neil says (to make a digeridoo) : >> Or you could use the "Urban Aboriginal Digi":- >> >> THE NOZZLE OFF THE HOUSEHOLD VACUUM. >> >> 'cause trees are scarce in the concrete jungle. >> >> And remember to use the rug setting for tuning. >> >> >>Neal Sievwright >> >>sievwrn@agric.nsw.gov.au >> >>>From the Downunder (other) side of the World - aaargh !!!!! >> >>PS this is not an original idea, Ernie Dingo, an Australian Comedian was first >>on a popular Midday show. >> > >Brilliant! This could be the start of an interesting thread (cries of 'Oh no >it wouldn't'), has anyone else had any success using 'household implements' >to provide useful (sampleable) noises? I've done the usual stuff with blown >bottles and made nice tabla-like sounds from the super-sucker tube >attachment to a hoover (silly really, since I have a real tabla set). Also, >hitting the end of a wide-necked jar with the palm of the hand gives a nice >'wump'. I read somewhere of someone getting results from putting a condom on >a mic, putting it into a milk-bottle full of water and sampling various >noises beamed at the bottle (where do you find milk-bottles these days >though?). The trick is, I guess, to avoid having the sound being identified >- having a heavy rock piece where it's obvious that the 'drummer' is beating >her/his pillow with a copy of womens weekly for instance, not good for cred. > >Regards, MarkB 'Listen to it, it's beautiful...I'll use it on my new solo tape' "But these are only dogs barking !!!" 'yeah, *pure art* man...' (from movie about "The Beach Boys" history) Jacek L. Ps. Maybe You have to use drugs to understand the combination of such sounds in music....btw, will it still be music or acoustic background ? Here's the idea, take a porta 48whatever, go to a factory, plug in some mikes, record 4 minutes with fade-in , fade-out and sell it to millions. The selection would depend on consumer needs. Need METAL music ? Go to a metalurgy plant. Need electornic music ? Go to electronic equipment factory. Need new age music ? Go to an aiport...need reggae ? go to Jamaica.... Ps1. Once I did a piece which was developed on 8 bit sampler. All the samples were made by a microphone and by my (human?) voice. Sounded something like Bobie McFerrin's "Don't worry, be happy" mixed with Crystal's "Tut-tut-turut-tut-tururut..." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 09:57:17 EDT Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Pete Schoenhoff Subject: Re: Arrangement rates In-Reply-To: ; from "Spamboy" at Aug 11, 95 5:14 pm These are the graceful words of Randy "Spamboy" Budnikas: ->I'm about to do an arrangement of a popular song for a vocalist's demo ->tape. The plan was to do a full orchestral arrangement, but her budget ->might not afford it. What is a good rate for doing a synth arrangement ->of a prewritten tune? And if anyone knows, how much more (or ->less)(excluding musician and studio fees) could I get if I did a live ->orchestral arrangement (assuming I'm doing all the copying)? Thanks for ->you help. "The Musician's Business and Legal Guide," in its revised 4th edition (1991) says (based on American Federation of Musician standards): "Arrangers, orchestrators, and copyists' scales are set according to a detailed pay schedule based on the extent of the work done, per page or per line, and sometimes hourly. For example, page rates for orchestrators depend on what you do: for transcibing a melody from voice, instrument, or mechanical device, including chords, symbols and lyrics (one staff) you get $35.00 for the first page (up to 32 bars) and $25.00 for each additional page. Arrangers usually negotiate their own rates, based in part on orchestrators' rates. Copyists get paid at least $14.80 per hour, or per page, according to certain detailed criteria set forth in the Agreement." The "Agreement" mentioned refers to the current AFM agreement controlling recordings, performances, television, etc. Agreements expire periodically. The "Agreement" mentioned here was current in 1991. I don't know whether it has expired, been extended, or replaced. Hope this is helpful, -Pete Schoenhoff _\|/_ pschoenh@pen.k12.va.us ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 14:00:31 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Gus Alden Subject: Re: MASTERS? MT said: >unfortunately, there can be no greatness without an audience - and that is a >two edged sword. those composers you mention were >great in interaction with a society that had a forward-looking vision ...... >one finds that the greatest artists appear at those times when society is >in a state of revolution...... > >were great artists to emerge in todays cultural environment some conditions >would have to be met which i believe now to be absent: > >1) there would have to be a set of common needs and wants among large groups > groups of people. > >2) there would need to be a common vision about the future evolution of > society. > >3) there would need to be a context in which they could be heard. > >none of these are in place. while there is a context for new music, there is >no context for yesterday's or last week's music on any level beyond the >nostalgic. I would propose, however, that we have the means before us to put one into place, if one hasn't already been, though it would not necessarily or even likely have influence or recieve applaud from a mass audience. >it would appear that great masters cannot appear in a devolving society, >in our culture where everything is aimed more and more towards the individual, >where rather than coming together we are splitting into tribes, and in so >doing serving the social order, in our culture where newness is a substitute >for evolution there is no hope of the emergence of masters. the social >order simply will not allow it. Beneath my shining armor of optimism stands a closet sceptic, and as bleak as your portrayal of present day culture is, I must concur. However, appearances can be decieving. Who's to say that in the midst of these ruins, a new society is not emerging from it's ashes? Where is John Galt? (Atlas Shrugged). Particularly at this very unique juncture of human history that we find ourselves situated in, with the technological and spiritual resources presently available to us, I would propose that the potential for a new revolution, and thus a new cultural renaissance, is great. Now excuse me, I must go polish my armor. Respectfully, Gus Alden ------------ aldenoob@biddeford.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 14:00:39 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Gus Alden Subject: Re: Masters? >>>> >I am curious though. If you could have one electronic instrument custom >made to your own specifications, what would it be capable of doing that >commercial synthesizers aren't able to do? >How 'bout a controller that sort of looks like a big wad of clay and every >time you moosh it around you change the shape of "the sound" - realtime! :> >Cool, huh? Way cool. Gus Alden ------------ aldenoob@biddeford.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 13:56:30 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Timothy Kelly Subject: Re: Sounds like a great synth >ver the years we have made some songs fo them where they actually wrote/created > the words!...It would be a great gift to them if I can create their songs and >hand them the finished product on cqassette. Again however, I don't know how. > So...I'm appealing to your benevolence if anyone is of the helping kind. Mayb >e I'm way out of line, but sometimes people like to take on challenging project >s. Hopefully., it does'nt hurt to ask! Respectfully, Ted. > Hi Ted, I have worked with handicapped kids a lot. They hummed their own melodies and ideas into the sequencer using MidiVox. All your goals are possibe with the gear you have, espeiclly if you are using Ver 6 of Band in the Box with the auto harmony. You can record directly to tape, out of the audio or line out on your keyboard, and also out of the audio out on the sb. The computer will be your conducter and play your songs. It would also be possible to use both the sb and the casio at the same time with a multi port midi interface. Anyway, could you be more specific. You dont know how to setup the software? the midi cables? Happy to help. Timothy Kelly MidiVox -- MidiVox-Worlds 1st Voice to Midi Converter. Real Time. No Delays. Hum a Bass, Croon a Sax, Scat a Horn, Scream a Guitar, Rap some Drums, Sing a Cello. Become a Human Sequencer, Human Vocoder, Human Breath Controller. AES "Best in Show." EM "Editors Choice." " MidiVox Roars." Keyboard. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 17:04:17 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: john rossi Subject: Re: Re[4]: Meaningless Sample Loops In-Reply-To: On Sat, 12 Aug 1995, Nick Rothwell wrote: > > Anyone tried putting a Slinky into a microwave? > I don't think that there is enough room in a microwave for a slinky. Maybe if you stretched it and positioned the cable around all of the electronics you could get one to fit. Before anybody tries this, I think it would be advisable to get in touch with Waldorf to find out if putting a slinky in a microwave will void the warranty. John 3 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 17:41:17 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Dustin McIntyre Subject: Re: Meaningless Sample Loops >>During the time I had a sampler, I found it to be anything but liberating. Having it alongside six or seven synthesisers was actually confining, because it demanded a different mindset and set of experiences and techniques and detracted from my concentration on working with the synthesisers (which is a different technique). Only when it was gone did I feel comfortable again.<< Well shucks. You've got me there. I changed my mind. Those goldurn' samplers 'll be the death of us. Confound it..( Purposely less verbose to require no dictionary. Good?) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 09:56:17 +1000 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: David Rodger Subject: Re: Re[4]: Meaningless Sample Loops Hi Nick... > Anyone tried putting a Slinky into a microwave? A metal or a plastic one? I's put the microwave down one end of a very long room, and yourself and the mic up the other end! When you put the slinky in and press start, run like hell to that up-turned sofa a bit more than half way down! Regards, David musdr@lure.latrobe.edu.au ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 19:59:56 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Ronnie Cristobal Subject: Re: New Powers Music --- Online Zine Anybody out there in 'space know of any good techno web pages, ftp, usenet, mailing list. Ron ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 21:31:03 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Marshall Tuttle Organization: Torii Station 26Gig online at 405-733-7083 Subject: Re: MASTERS? > I would propose, however, that we have the means before us to put one into > place, if one hasn't already been, though it would not necessarily or even > likely have influence or recieve applaud from a mass audience. but the problem is that all the past "greats" worked with the language at hand and definitely intended it for a specific context and audience. anything created in an unintelligible language will simply not have a following, and cannot therefore rise to the level of greatness. > Beneath my shining armor of optimism stands a closet sceptic, and as bleak > as your portrayal of present day culture is, I must concur. However, > appearances can be decieving. Who's to say that in the midst of these > ruins, a new society is not emerging from it's ashes? Where is John Galt? > (Atlas Shrugged). > > Particularly at this very unique juncture of human history that we find > ourselves situated in, with the technological and spiritual resources > presently available to us, I would propose that the potential for a new > revolution, and thus a new cultural renaissance, is great. Now excuse me, I > must go polish my armor. the tofflers have propounded such a theory, and not without some merit, but they are naively optimistic in presuming certain things about human nature which history has demonstrated not to be true. I am not sure my protrayal of society is bleak - greater cultures than ours have come and gone. the fact that our energy is not longer aggregating but rather dissipating is not necessarily a totally bad thing, it merely places limitations on certain types of individual achievement. mt ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 03:27:51 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Dustin McIntyre Subject: Re: "During the time I had a sampler" p.s. >>During the time I had a sampler, I found it to be anything but liberating. Having it alongside six or seven synthesisers was actually confining, because it demanded a different mindset and set of experiences and techniques and detracted from my concentration on working with the synthesisers (which is a different technique). Only when it was gone did I feel comfortable again.<< If it was so at odds with the synths, why buy one? If this kind of problem is at all common someone should tell Kurzweil to keep the synth engine and the sampler in different devices for pete's sake..What WERE they thinking? We could all be killed. And it's so dashed inefficient.... ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 11:02:30 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Gus Alden Subject: Re: MASTERS? >but the problem is that all the past "greats" worked with the language at >hand and definitely intended it for a specific context and audience. anything >created in an unintelligible language will simply not have a following, and >cannot therefore rise to the level of greatness. I would question, for example, if Igor Stravinski's 'Rite Of Spring' was made any less great by the public's unacceptance of it. Of course not. Rather, Stravinski's audience was challenged to percieve reality in a new context. Do you think a work of art can be regarded as great only if the audience that it was presented to accepts and embraces it? > > Who's to say that in the midst of these > > ruins, a new society is not emerging from it's ashes?.................. > > ............................. I would propose that the potential for a new > > revolution, and thus a new cultural renaissance, is great. >the tofflers have propounded such a theory, and not without some merit, but >they are naively optimistic in presuming certain things about human nature >which history has demonstrated not to be true. > >..... greater cultures than ours have come and gone. the fact that our energy >>is not longer aggregating but rather dissipating is not necessarily a totally >>bad thing, it merely places limitations on certain types of individual >>achievement. In the same manner that an individual can transcend, with effort, the psychological and emotional limits placed upon him by his lineage, I believe that a society has the ability to reverse the historical tendency to dissolve once it's reached it's peak. And even if that society should fail to do so, as they usually do, I question how that would put any limit on individual achievement? Does genius depend on a progressive or responsive society? Did Franz Lizt require an audience of swooning women to create his art? (That may not be the best example) Of course, any artist hopes for his work to be appreciated, and everybody needs to make money, but should the public's ignorance of a piece of art prevent it from rising to greatness? May it not be discovered by another culture in another age of history? Or even if it shouldn't be, does greatness need to be recognized to be great? Does a falling tree not make noise if no one is there to hear it? Gus Alden ------------ aldenoob@biddeford.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 13:54:28 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Gus Alden Subject: Portamento Portamento, Nice name. What are you? How do you operate? What do you sound like? Regards, Gus Alden ------------ aldenoob@biddeford.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 22:00:02 +0300 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: MASTERS? In-Reply-To: <199508131501.LAA25820@river.biddeford.com> On Sun, 13 Aug 1995, Gus Alden wrote: > I would question, for example, if Igor Stravinski's 'Rite Of Spring' was > made any less great by the public's unacceptance of it. Of course not. > Rather, Stravinski's audience was challenged to percieve reality in a new > context. Do you think a work of art can be regarded as great only if the > audience that it was presented to accepts and embraces it? An anecdote I once heard about Stravinsky's 'Rite of Spring' When the piece premiered, Claude Debussy, who has already made a name for himself by then was int he audience. When the performance was over Stravinsky was very anxious to hear what the great composer would have to say, but Debussy just got up and started leaving, so Stavinsky caught up with him and asked:"Well, what do you think?". Debussy replied :"Everyone's got to start somewhere" and left. As far as the truth value of the anecdote is concerend, probably as much as any other anecdote. Uri ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 15:31:05 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Matthew Ross Davis Subject: Re: MASTERS? >An anecdote I once heard about Stravinsky's 'Rite of Spring' >When the piece premiered, Claude Debussy, who has already made a name for >himself by then was int he audience. When the performance was over >Stravinsky was very anxious to hear what the great composer would have to >say, but Debussy just got up and started leaving, so Stavinsky caught up >with him and asked:"Well, what do you think?". Debussy replied >:"Everyone's got to start somewhere" and left. > >As far as the truth value of the anecdote is concerend, probably as much >as any other anecdote. Saint-Saens *hated* it. I think it is said he left after the first couple of minutes. Matthew Ross Davis Quantum Research Corporation mdavis@qrc.com, (301) 657-3070 http://muon.qrc.com/mdavis/mdavis.html ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 16:30:51 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Marshall Tuttle Organization: Torii Station 26Gig online at 405-733-7083 Subject: Re: MASTERS? > I would question, for example, if Igor Stravinski's 'Rite Of Spring was > made any less great by the public's unacceptance of it. Of course not. > Rather, Stravinski's audience was challenged to percieve reality in a new > context. Do you think a work of art can be regarded as great only if the > audience that it was presented to accepts and embraces it? any work of art that has no audience is of limited value. the fact that the original audience was unsympathetic is irrelevant, it is sufficient that later audiences have found value in the piece. as for the original audience, they had good reason to be upset, they came to see nubile young nymphettes in tu-tu's, and they probably paid good money for that! > In the same manner that an individual can transcend, with effort, the > psychological and emotional limits placed upon him by his lineage, I > believe that a society has the ability to reverse the historical tendency > to dissolve once it's reached it's peak. can we leave elements of faith outside this discussion please? in the absence of a counterexample you are living in a fantasy here > And even if that society should > fail to do so, as they usually do, I question how that would put any limit > on individual achievement? Does genius depend on a progressive or > responsive society? Did Franz Lizt require an audience of swooning women to > create his art? (That may not be the best example) it may not be the best example but it is extremely germaine. the answer is yes. > Of course, any artist hopes for his work to be appreciated, and everybody > needs to make money, but should the public's ignorance of a piece of art > prevent it from rising to greatness? without a public art is merely another form of masturbation. (substitute your own form of personal therapy here if that offends you) > May it not be discovered by another > culture in another age of history? like all that great byzantine music from say 400-1453 ad produced by the greatest culture of its time????????? > Or even if it shouldn't be, does > greatness need to be recognized to be great? Does a falling tree not make > noise if no one is there to hear it? if you don't succeed in communicating something important to someone the use of the term greatness is the essence of vanity. mt ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 17:21:02 -0400 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Wired4Soun@AOL.COM Subject: Dancers >>I'm trying to get my head around how dancers cue and mark time from musical cues which are part of what I improvise >>_Dancers_ who improvise are rare, but lots of fun! The classically trained ones have been told their whole lives how to do exactly every move. Improvising is nowhere in there lexicon. Dancers and race horses...nah. Never mind :> Tom Jordan Wired for Sound! - computer music for kids