=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 21 Sep 1995 08:18:41 +1100
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         "Barbara Zakrzewska-Nikiporczyk." <BASIA@BU-UAM.AMU.EDU.PL>
Organization: Main Library of University
Subject:      Re: Interactive Music Instruction
Comments: To: EMUSIC-L%AMERICAN.EDU@plearn.edu.pl

Try to look at:

http://cctr.umkc.edu/userx/bhugh/musici.html

there is the Music Instruction Software Page in the internet.


Barbara Zakrzewska-Nikiporczyk, Poland

(Basia@bu-uam.amu.edu.pl )
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 21 Sep 1995 11:42:01 -0400
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         WALLACE B BOYD <wbb3997@MAILER.FSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Interactive Music Instruction
In-Reply-To:  <35A84157378@bu-uam.amu.edu.pl>

Thanks for the information on the interactive music instruction.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 21 Sep 1995 13:18:13 EST
Reply-To:     STERN@MAIL.LOC.GOV
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Comments:     RE: SAMPLES/OVERUSE, ETC.
From:         JOEL STERN <STERN@MAIL.LOC.GOV>
Subject:      Re: SAMPLES/OVERUSE, ETC.

          Eric Hardin said:
          >i think the synthesizer suffers from
          >a phenomenon of its own creation, that people's expectations of
          >electronically generated sound are that it should always be
          >something they haven't heard before.


          That depends upon who  you mean  by  "the people." Actually, "the
          people" at large seem to want to  hear  the  same thing over  and
          over again and  for  the most part  can  only tolerate change (in
          taste, style) that evolves so  slowly that  it's  not noticeable.
          The people you  mean  are  not particularly mainstream, in  fact,
          they  are almost underground with reference to popular trends and
          tastes. They (we) also suffer from  the syndrome that I've harped
          on before which derives from  the attitude, prevalent among  most
          people active in  the  arts since the industrial revolution, that
          if  it's  not original or  new  it's  not  art. Just  by  way  of
          reference, this  is  not  at  all  the representative attitude of
          artists  in  "traditional"  societies (pre-industrial  revolution
          Western culture, non-Western cultures). Higher value is placed on
          emulation   and  continuity--an  attitude   that   more   closely
          approaches that of the real "people" in our society.

          Joel Stern
          stern@email.loc.gov
          j.stern11@genie.geis.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 21 Sep 1995 22:25:21 -0400
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         Mark Bostel <markb@FUJITSU.CO.NZ>
Subject:      Re: SAMPLES/OVERUSE, ETC.

Joel wrote:

> ...      They (we) also suffer from  the syndrome that I've harped
>          on before which derives from  the attitude, prevalent among  most
>          people active in  the  arts since the industrial revolution, that
>          if  it's  not original or  new  it's  not  art. Just  by  way  of
>          reference, this  is  not  at  all  the representative attitude of
>          artists  in  "traditional"  societies (pre-industrial  revolution
>          Western culture, non-Western cultures). Higher value is placed on
>          emulation   and  continuity--an  attitude   that   more   closely
>          approaches that of the real "people" in our society.
>

I agree, mostly. A musician (perhaps, say, bob dylan) might be described as
a "master of his craft", the sub-text being 'he's been knocking out exactly
the same stuff for 20 years'. But social differences shouldn't put one form
of art over any other, I am no less a 'person' for coming from the culture
that I do. Also, my experience of travels through many "traditional"
cultures is that these societies are far more musically diverse than you
appear to give credit for, they have their own analogues of
'pop','rocknroll','trad','metal','avantegarde' etc. The west has no monopoly
on artistic elitism or commercial-pap-for-proles.

Regards, MarkB
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 21 Sep 1995 23:18:50 -0400
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         Mark Hodgson <mhodgson@ACS.BU.EDU>
Subject:      Interactive Music Instruction
Comments: cc: wbb3997@MAILER.FSU.EDU

re: "I am trying to find interactive
music instruction programs. Can anyone help?"

Check out the following HTTP site:

        http://cctr.umkc.edu/userx/bhugh/musici.html

If you have a Windows machine, allow me to put in a plug for an ear-
training shareware program which I tried, registered, and continue to
use after formal courses have stopped, because it works so damn
well:  WINOYE (found at the above site), and described as "a cool ear
training program for windows. The program plays melodic intervals, harmonic
intervals, short melodies, and two- and three-note chords, which you must
play back by pointing to keys on a keyboard it displays. Winoye requires a
MIDI interface or a sound card."  A more recent version has added four-note
chords, inversions, and expanded the range to a couple of octaves.  I tried
several types of software, including Ibis' "Play It by Ear" demo, and liked
Winoye the best in terms of price/performance. And it's never crashed on me,
which I can't say even for some non-shareware commercial software I use.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 22 Sep 1995 00:19:32 -0400
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         "J.P. Edmund" <jpe@JPEA.COM>
Subject:      Re: CDROM Jukeboxes

>I realize that this is off-topic, but I need advice *urgently*.
>
>I need to purchase a JUKEBOX to enable access to a large (50-100)
>collections of CDROMS. Can anyone make recommendations? Also, does anyone
>know a supplier that will handle an international order and can fax me a
>written quotation very quickly?


                 J . P .   E d m u n d   A s s o c i a t e s
                 Producer & Artist Development and Direction
                 B  r  o  o  k  l  y  n     N  Y     U  S  A
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 22 Sep 1995 10:18:10 EST
Reply-To:     STERN@MAIL.LOC.GOV
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Comments:     RE: SAMPLES/OVERUSE, ETC. ETC.
From:         JOEL STERN <STERN@MAIL.LOC.GOV>
Subject:      Re: SAMPLES/OVERUSE, ETC. ETC.

          Mark Bostel said:
          >I agree, mostly. A musician (perhaps, say, bob dylan) might be d
          >a "master of his craft", the sub-text being 'he's been knocking
          >the same stuff for 20 years'. But social differences shouldn't p
          >of art over any other, I am no less a 'person' for coming from t
          >that I do. Also, my experience of travels through many "traditio
          >cultures is that these societies are far more musically diverse
          >you appear to give credit for, they have their own analogues of
          >'pop','rocknroll','trad','metal','avantegarde' etc. The west has
          >on artistic elitism or commercial-pap-for-proles.


          I was afraid that my comments might come out sounding judgmental.
          They  were  really  meant  to  be analytical. Our  arts,  in  the
          post-industrial world, are driven by two phenomena not related to
          the internal dynamic of   art itself. All arts exist in  a social
          context  in   which  extraneous  elements  interact  with  purely
          aesthetic  dynamics;  but  what  I   am  referring  to   are   1)
          repeatability  and  certainty  of   results,   which   has   been
          tremendously enhanced by technology, and 2) market forces.

          As regards (1), the ability to  mass produce and  mass distribute
          art, as in the recording industry, and the printing industry, has
          resulted in  two  opposed tendencies. For  the consumers of  art,
          there is  a scale and uniformity of distribution that has allowed
          "popular" culture to become a world phenonomen, i.e., more people
          in greater areas of  the world are enjoying the  same things than
          ever before. On  the other hand, this has resulted in  a reaction
          by some producers of art to seek validation of their endeavors by
          exploring new, obscure  or not-yet-popular techniques. A  classic
          example of this is the reaction of  the impressionist painters to
          the popularization of  still images by  means  of photography and
          new  printing techniques. Another  example  is  the  reaction  of
          "avant garde" music  to  the popularization of musical "classics"
          which began with  growing access to music  by  the middle classes
          in   the   19th  century  and  continues  today   with  succesive
          innovations in recording and transmission of music.

          Regarding (2) (market forces) the industrial/post-industrial arts
          are driven to an unprecedented extent by calculations to maximize
          their profitability. This has had  an incalculable effect on  the
          aesthetics of our culture. We all know that music, like the other
          arts,  is  consciously manipulated  by entrepreneurs  to  extract
          profit  from "market segments." Our  popular culture  has  fallen
          victim to this manupulation, and  to that extent has ceased being
          a  truly  popular culture,  that  is,  a  culture  that  emanates
          spontaneously from  the people. This  has affected not  only  the
          "West", but  all cultures and societies that have become enmeshed
          in the world economic system that is characterized by  the search
          for  the widest possible markets. That explains the existence of,
          as  Mark points out, analogues to "pop", "rock  and roll", "trad"
          and  "heavy metal"  in  what  were  once traditional societies. I
          wouldn't hesitate to argue that the amount of
          "commercial-pap-for-proles" in  those societies stands in  direct
          proportion to  the extent to which they  have  been "modernized",
          i.e., drawn into the net of the prevailing world economic system.
          Not  to  say  that there was  no diversity in  the pre-industrial
          world. But different social forces drove aesthetic
          production--notably, conscious production for  a ruling elite  to
          enhance its prestige and power vs. spontaneous/traditional art of
          the masses. Less powerful communication systems  also resulted in
          more regional variation in style.


          Coming  back  to  my  original  point,  in  those  pre-industrial
          societies the motivation to  create something different in  order
          to  be different was practically non-existent. I believe that the
          fact that there are a significant number of  us today, in e-music
          and everywhere else in  the arts, who feel that we can't "use the
          same patch twice" or  in  other  ways  need  to innovate new  and
          hopefully unique techniques, is accounted for by  our reaction to
          the predominance of mass production, mass distribution, and  mass
          communication, and  by  the fact that all  of  that  is driven by
          market forces. This isn't meant to  be  a condemnation of anybody
          or anything. It  is  an attempt to account for why things are the
          way they are.

          Joel Stern
          stern@email.loc.gov
          j.stern11@genie.geis.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 23 Sep 1995 14:18:33 EDT
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         "Eric Harnden (Ronin)" <harnden@PHYSICS.AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject:      ease of use cont'd...

2050,,c:\decnet\sign
Subject: overuse cont'd...
To: emusic-l@american.edu

you really think so, joel?
i agree that the music is the same over and over again... that
there is very little "originality" in most art forms that try to
make a living on the particular market in general, in fact. but
i'm speaking specifically of synthesizer tones... and in a pretty
narrow sense. for example, yes, a lot of producers are now using
"industrial samples", but there seems to me to be a strained
effort toward making each new iteration 'different' somehow.
think for a moment... that taurus pedal sweep that is now for all
intents and purposes the signature sound for rush's "tom sawyer".
it's dead for us now... we can't use it, without invoking that
tune. or from my own experience... when i was doing commercial
work, while for the most part the clients specifically did *not*
want the work to sound electronic, when electronicism was the
goal one had to be careful not to sound derivative... not in a
musical sense, mind you - avante was definitely out... but in a
strictly tonal sense. of course, most of the clients were pretty
unfamiliar with the territory, so we could get away with a lot,
but it was always still a consideration. or again... listen to
popular groups who trade on their 'newness', like depeche mode or
some such. there is a deliberate *in*consistency in their sound.
i think simple minds is one of the few clear counterexamples...
they've been using the same synth wash for years. or even worse
(to bring back a nasty old subject), look at that body of stuff
which we'll have to unfortunately and unfairly lump together as
serious/academic emusic. in conventional music it is expected
that a violin sound like a violin. while some tonal variations
are played around with - better recording techniques, interesting
venues, the 'original instruments' movemement - it's mostly
nuances of performance (or just plain hype) that sell new
recordings. however, horrors! that a new recording of serious
electronic music (we're not talking TD here... they and others
like them have pretty much painted themselves into their own
corners - ah, well, at least it's been with their own brushes...
they can be pretty much credited with having invented the idiom
they're stuck in) should sound like anything else you've ever
heard... except of course that the jumble of newness becomes very
much the same after a while, doesn't it? (let's drag out that old
[norman mailer?] quote and flog it a little, shall we? sure...
why the hell not: "the only thing that hasn't changed in twenty
years is the avante-garde." said over twenty years ago now, i
believe. thirty?) which is why i advocate a little historical
perspective, now that we've been doing this long enough to
actually have a history.
btw, joel (or anyonne else), i don't know if you've been in
contact with joe recently, but it look slike this next concert
won't be sequenced at all.


.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 24 Sep 1995 10:59:15 +1000
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         Dr T Hughes <thughes@EXTRO.UCC.SU.OZ.AU>
Subject:      cd jukes
Comments: To: "J.P. Edmund" <jpe@JPEA.COM>

JP;

Sorry that I can't help you directly, but can offer a place for you to
start. Check with your local, or a larger library. This technology is in
pretty common use there, and those sorts of machines are in use for lots of
reference databases (ERIC, Dissertation Abstracts, Medline, PsychLit, etc).
The systems people at the library should be able to help you, and more, are
usually very willing, something you don't *always* find.

Hope that's been of some help.

T. Hughes

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Dr. T. Hughes                     |    Sydney Conservatorium of Music +
+ Director & Assistant Professor    |              109 Pitt St, Level 4 +
+ Software Development Centre       |                  Sydney, NSW 2000 +
+ Phone (612) 230-3748              |                         Australia +
+ Fax   (612) 230-3747              |   Email thughes@extro.ucc.su.oz.au+
+ Home Page: http://www.usyd.edu.au/~thughes/hello.html                 +
+                 'Life's a Reach, and then you Gybe'                   +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 24 Sep 1995 22:53:37 +0000
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         Martin Russ <mruss@MIDI.DUNGEON.COM>
Subject:      Admin FAQs V1.2 (Last changed 9 July 1995)
Comments: To: SYNTH-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU

This is the fourth posting of the V1.2 Administrative FAQ document.
Apologies for the long gap since the last posting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warning: Long Document (411 lines, 3119 words, about 7 pages)--------------

EMUSIC-L and SYNTH-L Frequently Asked Questions: Administration

This document is posted approximately every two weeks. It is intended that
this document should answer many of the questions asked by newcomers to the
lists. Comments and corrections should be sent to the maintainer, Martin
Russ, at:

mruss@midi.dungeon.com

This is Issue 1.2. 9 July 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added since issue 1.1. 11 June 1995:
- Reply to List or Author (messages, 2/3)
- Mike Metlay returns as list co-moderator (background, 1/3)
- Rough index of topics covered (index, start)
Added since issue 1.0. 14 May 1995:
- AOL subscriber problems with unsubscribing and digest changes (subs, end)
- Contributor list (end)

TOPIC INDEX****************************************************************
- Background
- Max
- Soundcards
- Music mailing lists
- Messages
- Subscriptions etc

BACKGROUND*****************************************************************
"What are the EMUSIC-L and SYNTH-L lists for?"*****************************

EMUSIC-L and SYNTH-L are for the discussion of electronic music in general:
its history, practitioners past and present, equipment, techniques, trends,
research, development, resources, you name it.

They exist as a 'post-moderated' alternative to the rec.music.makers.synth
newsgroup. (post-moderated means that the moderators monitor what is
posted, and sometimes remind posters about the 'rules': see below for the
'rules').

A digest is also available for each list. This collects all the postings
for a day into one e-mailing.

"Who are the moderators?"**************************************************

Joe McMahon and Mike Metlay have been on here for over seven years. Their
aim is to keep the mail flowing and the illegal and blatantly out-of-line
traffic to a minimum.

Joe can be contacted at: mcmahon@clark.net

Mike can be contacted at: atomic@netcom.com

"So, can I post anything I feel like?"*************************************

Well, no. There are some RULES.

The basic thrust of EMUSIC-L is to provide a forum for the discussion of
music made by electronic means. The actual means is secondary (and more the
subject of SYNTH-L). What we are concerned with on EMUSIC-L is the music,
composing, and related topics. Therefore:

1) Ads are not permitted on EMUSIC-L. Advising someone as to whether they
are getting ripped off *if they ask the list* is permissible; otherwise,
use private mail. Requests for addresses of mail-order firms, etc. are OK.
Cutting deals on your own personal equipment is not OK. Please do it
privately, or subscribe to SYNTH-L, where you'll reach a more responsive
audience. Requests for advice as to whether a price is good or not are
marginally OK, but would probably reach a more knowledgeable audience on
SYNTH-L. Prices really aren't so much of interest unless either the entire
world (literally) should know about this great deal, or you have inside
information on a new product or upgrade.

Exception: if someone has gone through the trouble of composing, recording,
and pressing a CD or tape, submitting an article describing the process and
their experiences and mentioning that the tape or CD is available for
purchase is OK. Posting repeated ads for the CD is not. (A single mention
is marginally acceptable; a short mention in a signature file is fine.)

Here's a quick summary (it goes from 'admirable' to 'not acceptable'):

- A ONE-TIME post mentioning that you have completed a CD or tape and a
summary of experiences/etc. in making the recording is admirable.

- An article which contributes to the discussion on the list AND contains a
signature file which mentions CD/tape/album availability is acceptable.

- Repeated postings saying nothing but "My recording is available" are bad.

- Outright ads for records you did not make, hardware, software, used cars,
etc. are very bad.

2) Discussions as to the relative merits of hardware/software/etc. are
permissible, as long as the reviewers state evidence supporting their
opinions. Ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated. Arguments based solely
on personal taste are not acceptable. It is preferable to request private
mailings, which you can summarize and post back to the list. Reviews are
useful. Mutual admiration societies are not.

3) All members *will* be treated with kindness and respect. There is no
such thing as a dumb question on this list. If you can answer, answer, and
be nice about it. Otherwise, say nothing. If you've got a problem with what
someone has had to say, discuss it in a civil manner. If you can't do that,
take it to e-mail, or just forget about it.

4) EMUSIC-L is meant to be for the discussion of electronic music, in the
studio, the classroom, in performance, and on recordings, including
techniques, resources, user reviews and experiences, and speculation on
futures. Some divagations will be tolerated, as it's rather nice to have a
little humor on the list; however, the list owner(s) (Joe McMahon at the
moment) will maintain the final say as to the subject matter on the list
and will move to terminate off-topic, pointless, and (especially) rancorous
discussions.

5) Please refrain from adding to the noise level by commenting about
accidental private posts to the list or the accidental sendings of
SUBSCRIBE requests or suchlike to the list. That is the administrators'
job. If you must pour out your wounded feelings ;-), either to Joe, or to
the offender, use private mail.

6) The listowner(s) are permitted to be as arbitrary as they please. We
have only once had to take action against a member of the list for breaking
these rules, even when they hadn't been stated explicitly. We will notify
offenders via private mail and will wait for a response. But we don't have
time to play Politeness and Germaneness Monitors. We will remove users from
the list only if we must, and we always give people the benefit of the
doubt when possible. But be assured that we will act to preserve the
quality of discussion on this list.

"How did EMUSIC-L and SYNTH-L start?"**************************************

Perhaps a bit of ancient history is in order here, to show where these
lists come from and why they are the way they are....

Many moons ago, when there was for all practical purposes no such thing as
the Internet (and there were certainly few or no commercial online
services), people had access to cyberspace only through a set of large but
mutually exclusive network protocols, generally provided by and germane to
their place of education or work. One of these was the USENET hierarchy of
UNIX machines at universities and laboratories and a few commercial sites;
another was BITNET, an international mail system for mainframe computers
used by scientists. Communication between the two systems was possible only
in a crude and roundabout manner, so they developed separate systems for
dealing with the same needs.

In a rough, very general sense, USENET developed the news hierarchy and
BITNET developed list servers and mailing lists; in the subfield of
electronic music, USENET had the once-quite-small newsgroup rec.music.synth
and BITNET had EMUSIC-L. The 'feel' of these groups was in concert with the
sort of people using them; rec.music.synth was more open, with college
students and commercial users, whereas EMUSIC-L tended toward academic
users. This tended to shape the level of discussion and the topics covered,
but keep in mind that early on, the overlap between the two groups was
relatively small.

Some time later, as reliable gateways between BITNET and the rest of the
growing Internet allowed for the redistribution of newsgroups as mailing
lists, SYNTH-L was launched as a gateway of rec.music.synth posts, so
BITNET users without USENET access could enjoy the news there. It was a
short, hard-learned lesson; the lack of moderation and the huge number of
news articles delivered as email (!) knocked many prospective users for a
loop. It wasn't all that long before the USENET feed was cut and the
gateways to the news hierarchy were removed, isolating SYNTH-L and
effectively removing its reason for existence.

At that point, with Joe's blessing, Mike stepped in as conceptual 'parent'
of SYNTH-L, and began to promote it as a nice middle ground between
EMUSIC-L's often rarified discussions and the daily mayhem on
rec.music.synth (now rec.music.makers.s). It was semi-moderated, so
postings stayed (by and large) polite and focussed, but long discussions of
gear, software, technical problems, and so forth that were considered a
waste of time by many EMUSIC-L readers were encouraged, and over the years
since then a de facto division between the two groups, and a healthy
relationship, has settled into place. It's true that the divisions between
topics for the two groups are occasionally blurry, but that's something
most folks simply learn to live with and get a feel for.

"Is SYNTH-L supposed to be technical discussion of synthesizers?"**********
"Does EMUSIC-L cover electronic music in general?"*************************

Very roughly, SYNTH-L is for the detailed technical talk, like gear for
sale, where to download patches, whether synth A is better than synth B
(whatever 'better' means), technical problems and solutions, and so on.
SYNTH-L is the stuff that people on EMUSIC-L don't want to have to wade
through to discuss electronic music.

Conversely, EMUSIC-L is for all the serious (and sometimes not so serious)
philosophical discussion on electronic music in its widest sense. EMUSIC-L
is the stuff that people on SYNTH-L don't want to have to wade through to
discuss gear.

In both cases, one could say that this sort of discussion has its place,
but people sometimes like to see it, and sometimes don't. All the
EMUSIC-L/SYNTH-L division purports to do is allow an approximate separation
between the snobs and the plebs. Where people take that is up to them.

It's true that there seems to be no set focus or set of aims in these
lists. That's deliberate. We are like-minded individuals looking for
someone intelligent and knowledgeable to talk to, and the topics range all
over the place, as well they should in such a forum. One shouldn't expect
any kind of focus in an environment where anything is a potential topic for
discussion.

"What's the point? It's not what I expected!"******************************

The point is that we don't want you to have unreasonable expectations of
what EMUSIC-L and SYNTH-L are 'for'; they are what they are, and most
people seem content to enjoy them as they are or guide them elsewhere,
either for a while or for good...

A good starting point for finding out what the electronic music of EMUSIC-L
and SYNTH-L is all about is the EMUSIC-L World Wide Web page at:
http://sunsite.unc.edu/emusic-l.

MAX************************************************************************
"What is MAX, anyway?"*****************************************************

MAX is a software toolkit which gives a real-time, interactive, graphical
development environment for multimedia, music (and more). Programs are
'written' by connecting together graphical objects, rather than typing
text. Typical applications for MAX include: Editors and Librarians for MIDI
equipment; Compositional Tools; Utilities for analysing musical
performance; and much more.

MAX is often mentioned in these lists. It currently exists in variants for
the Unix environment and on the Apple Macintosh, although a petition has
been mentioned within these lists for a Windows version - contact JOEL
STERN on stern@email.loc.gov or j.stern11@geis.genie.com for details.

For more information on the Macintosh version, you should try contacting
your nearest Opcode dealer. (Opcode distribute MAX for the Mac). Opcode
also have a World Wide Web page at :
http://www.rahul.net/opcode/index.html.

There is also a MAX listserv. Send a message to listserv@vm1.mcgill.ca with
a Subject of: Subscribe Max, and the message text:

SUBSCRIBE MAX <Your name>

You will then receive daily digests of postings to the MAX list.

SOUNDCARDS*****************************************************************
"Where do I find information on Soundcards?"*******************************

Information on soundcards for personal computers can be found in the
following Usenet newsgroup(s)"

comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard.GUS.

MUSIC MAILING LISTS********************************************************
"Anyone know a good MUSIC discussion group on <insert name here>?"*********

The best place for discussion of almost any group, band, artiste,
performer, musician (you get the idea), is the Usenet newsgroups. Try:

alt.fan.<insert name here>

MESSAGES*******************************************************************
"Should I respond to a message on the list?"*******************************

The whole point of this list is that we attract people who are smart enough
to make these decisions for themselves, and do. You can be one of them, if
you let yourself. Think and decide for yourself, make mistakes, correct
them, learn, move on, and enjoy the trip. Or, if you're paralyzed by fear
of doing or saying something wrong, you can choose to lurk forever.

Please also read the "So, can I post anything I feel like?" 'Rules' section
of this document before posting anything to the list.

"How do I send a message to the list?"*************************************

For EMUSIC-L, you send your posting to emusic-l@american.edu. It will be
automatically sent to all of the other subscribers. You will not receive a
copy of your own mail; LISTSERV does this to decrease mail traffic.

For SYNTH-L, you send your posting to synth-l@american.edu.

Should I reply to the List or the Author?**********************************

Questions posted by people who are not long-term subscribers to a mailing
list often say something like 'please reply privately' or 'please respond
off-list'.

This usually has two effects: (1) Probably lots of repetition in the
responses! (2) The rest of the list never hearing about what might be an
interesting topic. Replies are a valuable asset to the list members!

So an unsubscribed person contributes very little to the list, and
probably wastes quite a lot of time sorting through the responses. An
unsubscribed person is also unlikely to post a summary of the received
replies back to the list. Edited summaries can be very valuable assets to
the list members.

Unless a response is really private in content, it is probably best to post
it to the List, not the Author. This encourages people to subscribe;
provides a wide variety of potentially useful information; and discourages
unsubscribed people from posting queries to a list. Most importantly, it is
often replies to a question which trigger off some of the most useful
discussions. Replying privately just short-circuits this process.

Sometimes adverts are posted to the SYNTH-L list (EMUSIC-L does not welcome
adverts) as part of a 'shotgun' approach, where all the music-related lists
and newsgroups receive the same advert. In this case it is best to reply
directly to the Author of the original advert rather than the List.

Off-topic advertisements, chain letters, and other annoyances will be dealt
with by the list administrators. There is no need to reply to or comment on
these - it just adds extra 'noise' to the mailing list.

The SYNTH-L and EMUSIC-L mailing lists went to 'subscriber-posting-only' on
the 6th of July 1995. This means that postings are only accepted from
people who have formally subscribed to the lists. This will not prevent all
adverts, chain letters etc (see above), but it should help to keep the list
clear of many of them.

"Where is the archive of FAQs kept?"***************************************

This is a new document (as of May 1995). As the maintainer adds new
questions this document will be revised, and some questions and answers may
be removed. You will be able to ftp the full FAQ file from the Internet.

SUBSCRIPTIONS**************************************************************
"How do I unsubscribe?"****************************************************

For EMUSIC-L, you send mail to listserv@american.edu with the text

UNSUB EMUSIC-L

as the body. No special subject is required.

For SYNTH-L, you send mail to listserv@american.edu with the text

UNSUB SYNTH-L

as the body. Again, no special subject is required.

If this does not work, you will get a message saying that no entry was
found for your ID. Please contact Joe McMahon (mcmahon@CLARK.NET) directly.

Do *NOT* post unsubscribe messages to the list. They don't help, and simply
irritate other readers.

AOL subscribers may experience some problems with unsubscribing from the
listserv.  This may be a communications problem or an incompatibility... If
you cannot unsubscribe then please save any messages that you may receive
from the listserv and send them to Joe McMahon (mcmahon@CLARK.NET).

"How do I subscribe?"******************************************************

To join the discussion group on a message-by-message basis, send a mail
message to listserv@american.edu with the text

SUB EMUSIC-L <your name>

where "<your name>" is your actual first and last name (at a minimum;
LISTSERV insists on at least two blank-separated words here). Do not send
subscription requests to the list address, as they only serve to annoy the
other list members.

For SYNTH-L, you do exactly the same, but replace the text 'EMUSIC-L' with
'SYNTH-L'.

"How do I subscribe to the daily digest?"**********************************

If you would like to get daily digests of the mail to EMUSIC-L, send the
following mail to listserv@american.edu:

SUB EMUSIC-L <your name>
SET EMUSIC-L DIGEST

where "<your name>" should be replaced by your first and last name (at a
minimum; LISTSERV insists on at least two blank-separated words here). Note
that these two commands should be on separate lines: SUB EMUSIC-L <your
name><CR> SET EMUSIC-L DIGEST<CR> so that the listserv will interpret them
correctly.

Do not send subscription requests to the list address, as they only serve
to annoy the otherlist members.

For SYNTH-L, you do exactly the same, but replace the text 'EMUSIC-L' with
'SYNTH-L'.

"How do I unsubscribe from the full list and subscribe to the digest?"*****

If you would like to get daily digests of the mail to EMUSIC-L instead of
the message-by-message form, just send the  following mail to
listserv@american.edu:

SET EMUSIC-L DIGEST

You will then get one message per day, which consists of a list of topics,
followed by all the messages which have been posted in the previous 24
hours.

For SYNTH-L, you do exactly the same, but replace the text 'EMUSIC-L' with
'SYNTH-L'.

AOL subscribers may experience some problems in changing their subscription
details via the listserv. This may be a communications problem or an
incompatibility... If you cannot change to a digest then please save any
messages that you may receive from the listserv and send them to Joe
McMahon (mcmahon@CLARK.NET).

Contributors:**************************************************************
Mike Metlay, Joe McMahon, Ned Kartchner, Clive McFarland and others

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Russ EMUSIC-L & SYNTH-L Admin FAQ Maintainer mruss@midi.dungeon.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 24 Sep 1995 22:14:40 +0100
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         Nick Rothwell <nick@CASSIEL.COM>
Subject:      Re: ease of use cont'd...

>i think simple minds is one of the few clear counterexamples...
>they've been using the same synth wash for years.

An obvious example in this vein is Vangelis. OK, so he's made some moves to
newer, more "up-to-date" sounds, some sampled stuff here and there, but the
mainstay is still heavy percussion, electric piano and that Oberheim horn.
The same sounds permeate his albums over the last twenty years.

I suppose one would argue from this that Vangelis is not in fact an
electronic musician? I suspect I'd agree with this.

   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:         Mon, 25 Sep 1995 08:58:36 -0500
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         Glenn Williams <gwilliam@NSLS1.NSLSILUS.ORG>
Subject:      Electronic Music Composition Course Syllabus

Music teacher in Illinois teaching a new class on Electronic Music
Composition.  Please assist in where to find materials, or, people to
contact who are teaching similar courses.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 25 Sep 1995 13:54:13 EST
Reply-To:     STERN@MAIL.LOC.GOV
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Comments:     EASE OF OVERUSE...CON'T.
From:         JOEL STERN <STERN@MAIL.LOC.GOV>
Subject:      EASE OF OVERUSE...CON'T.

          Eric - What I can extract (and contort to  my own uses) from what
          you said, is:
          1) The market for artistic products (like everything else) is not
          only dominated by conformity, but  it  also  uses  the promise of
          newness ("new and improved") to extend its reach.  I  think  we'd
          agree that this newness is contrived and falls into  the category
          of advertising rather than aesthetic development. But  it  points
          out  an  irony  in  popular taste--people  prefer  conformity  to
          experimentation, but they  can  be enticed into believing that  a
          minor variation in  a  familiar product constitutes something new
          and justifies further expenditure on  their  part.  Although  not
          artistic commodities, the  computer  software  market exemplifies
          this syndrome perfectly (not to mention soap powder, automobiles,
          yoghurt brands, and synthesizers).

          2)  The market will even attempt to accomdate those with  a taste
          for  the avant, and avant garde thus becomes an  -ism with fairly
          predictable consumer behavior. Market researchers know that those
          of  us who shy away from using the same patch twice are out there
          and that our money is just as good as anyone else's money.

          Let us know when your next concert is going to be.

          Joel Stern
          stern@email.loc.gov
          j.stern11@genie.geis.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 23 Sep 1995 17:08:34 +0100
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         Nick Rothwell <nick@CASSIEL.COM>
Subject:      Re: SAMPLES/OVERUSE, ETC. ETC.

>          I believe that the
>          fact that there are a significant number of  us today, in e-music
>          and everywhere else in  the arts, who feel that we can't "use the
>          same patch twice" or  in  other  ways  need  to innovate new  and
>          hopefully unique techniques, is accounted for by  our reaction to
>          the predominance of mass production, mass distribution, and  mass
>          communication, and  by  the fact that all  of  that  is driven by
>          market forces.

Although it's egotistical perhaps to agree to being (or seeing oneself as)
one of these emusic innovators, Joel has certainly put his finger on the
issue, I think. I do what I do as a deliberate attempt to make it "new and
hopefully unique." I consider that essential, whereas sounding like someone
else (or like myself in earlier projects) would be totally pointless. It's
the search for new experience which makes it worth doing. Of course, I
can't explain *why*.

The trick, I guess, is to be innovative (artistically rather than
economically) and successful at the same time. I mean continually
innovative, not consistent with one innovated idea.

One comment I'd add to Joel's article is that there are mass markets which
are geared to change, but in a conservative way; teenage pop music is one.
Teenagers love to revel and think they're new and different, and so the
music industry panders to that - to an extent, and no more.

   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, 26 Sep 1995 02:16:04 -0400
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         Cheaser@AOL.COM
Subject:      Apple midi manager

Can anyone give me info about Apple's midi manager?

Or where I can find it...  How is it available and why should I use it?

Thanks

"Newman"
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 26 Sep 1995 09:16:46 -0700
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         Timothy Kelly <midivox@IX.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:      Re: Electronic Music Composition Course Syllabus

You wrote:
>
>Music teacher in Illinois teaching a new class on Electronic Music
>Composition.  Please assist in where to find materials, or, people to
>contact who are teaching similar courses.
>
Hi,
   2 excellent textbooks that could be used in teaching Electronic
Music Composition are " Becoming A Computer Musican. "  and
" The Desktop Musican. " Both have cdroms with software included.
    Also very good for exercies ideas are Classical Sequencing for
Musicans and Sequencing for Musicans.
    If students are advanced Peter Alexanders book Electronic Arranging
and Orchestration offers many tips, and exercies and uses examples from
the great symphonys, etc.
    Any composition textbook can be adapted to use with electronic
music composition.
    Another good book full of ideas on layering, doubling, and using
synth features in creative ways is Using Midi.
    Happy Teaching.
    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:         Tue, 26 Sep 1995 11:46:30 PDT
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Comments:     RFC822 error: <W> Incorrect or incomplete address field found and
              ignored.
From:         Ann Sultan <Annie.Sultan@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Announcement:  Position at Stanford's CCRMA

 CCRMA FACULTY POSITION

The Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics (CCRMA)
at Stanford University hopes to fill a junior faculty (tenure-track)
position in computer music*.  Teaching responsibilities at the
undergraduate and graduate levels will include seminars and lecture
ourses in the candidate's areas of expertise.  Stanford University
is an affirmative-action employer and actively encourages women and
minority candidates to apply.

Candidates should send a letter of interest containing a brief
description of relevant experience, a current curriculum vitae, and
names and addresses (physical, e-mail, and FAX, if possible) of three
referees to:
     CCRMA Search Committee
     Attn: Annie Sultan
     Department of Music
     Stanford University
     Stanford, CA  94305-3076
The preferred date for receipt of the above materials is on or before
November 1, 1995. Please do not send any supplementary materials at
this time.

     *Computer music is a multidisciplinary field drawing on more
traditional fields such as Music, Engineering, Psychology, Computer
Science, Physics, and Applied Mathematics.  Qualified candidates may
have doctoral degrees in any of these or related areas. An overview
of CCRMA research and teaching programs is available online via World
Wide Web at http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/

=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 27 Sep 1995 12:56:10 +1000
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         clive@PELICAN.DBE.CSIRO.AU
Subject:      Re: Apple midi manager

>Can anyone give me info about Apple's midi manager?
>
>Or where I can find it...  How is it available and why should I use it?
>
Well, since no-one else has replied...

It's used by some applications to talk to MIDI devices connected to the
Mac.  Some applications need it, others don't (they have their own
drivers), still others will let you choose.  If you want/need to use MIDI
Manager it's a good idea to get hold of a copy of Patchbay as well: this
lets you determine the connections between applications and MIDI Manager.

I think you can get MIDI Manager and Patchbay from Apple, or they are
supplied with some Mac software, eg lime-demo-215.hqx.  This can be
obtained from info-mac mirrors.  I use archie.au, in the
/micros/mac/info-mac/snd/util directory.

Why you should use it?  I'm not qualified to judge: it appears to arouse
strong emotions in users.  I use it if the application requires it, and
don't if it doesn't.

Regards

Clive

Clive McFarland         CSIRO Australia         clive@pelican.dbe.csiro.au
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 27 Sep 1995 16:17:54 +0800
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         ICMC <icmc96@CS.UST.HK>
Subject:      1996 International Computer Music Conference

PRESS RELEASE - UPDATE

Please Post:

1996 International Computer Music Conference

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and the Hong Kong Urban
Council will host the International Computer Music Conference from
19 to 24 August, 1996.  The conference will have the theme, "On the Edge,"
celebrating Hong Kong's cultural environment "on the edge" between Asia
and the West.

The conference organizers seek installation pieces with computer for a
"Garden of Sound" taking advantage of indoor and outdoor spaces in the
university's beautiful architecture overlooking the Pacific ocean.
Artists intending to submit proposals for installation pieces
are urged to request special information regarding the available spaces
to facilitate preparation of their final proposals.
DEADLINE:  for final installation proposals:  21 OCTOBER, 1995.

We encourage submissions of pieces for Chinese instruments and computer or
tape and pieces for other Asian instruments and computer or tape.  We also
seek computer or tape pieces with live performers for Javanese or Balinese
gamelan, saxophonist Daniel Kientzy, percussionist Steven Schick and the
vocal quartet VOX NOVA (SATB).  Interactive pieces for any of these
performers are also appropriate.  Opportunities for tape pieces include
the Guangdong Modern Dance Company Concert, the Siri Rama Indian dance
concert, the Zuni improvised theatre concert, a number of outdoor
concerts on the campus, and the special one-minute "Identity Pieces"
concert.

The conference will also feature papers, posters and demonstrations
of current computer music technology.  Note: Full papers must be submitted
with abstracts.

DEADLINE:  for music and paper submissions:  21 DECEMBER, 1995.

All submissions require submission forms.  For a detailed brochure and
submission forms, please contact (and include your snail mail address):

Dr. Lydia Ayers, Conference Chair
ICMC 1996
Department of Computer Science
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Clear Water Bay, Kowloon
HONG KONG

Telephone:    (852) 2335-0558
Fax:          (852) 2358-1477
Email:        icmc96@cs.ust.hk
http://www-mitpress.mit.edu/Computer-Music-Journal/Documents/ICMC_1996.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 27 Sep 1995 13:52:24 UTC
Reply-To:     an390503@anon.penet.fi
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         Urban Spaceman <an390503@ANON.PENET.FI>
Organization: Anonymous forwarding service
Subject:      Release velocity on DS-330

Hi All,
        I have a BOSS DS-330 which apparently can use release
velocity information.  Does anyone know if the effect of release
velocity varies for each voice or not.

                                                   Thanks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
If you reply to this message, your message WILL be *automatically* anonymized
and you are allocated an anon id. Read the help file to prevent this.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 27 Sep 1995 16:53:39 GMT
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         "Eric Harnden (Ronin)" <harnden@PHYSICS.AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject:      overuse cont'd...

you really think so, joel?
i agree that the music is the same over and over again... that
there is very little "originality" in most art forms that try to
make a living on the particular market in general, in fact. but
i'm speaking specifically of synthesizer tones... and in a pretty
narrow sense. for example, yes, a lot of producers are now using
"industrial samples", but there seems to me to be a strained
effort toward making each new iteration 'different' somehow.
think for a moment... that taurus pedal sweep that is now for all
intents and purposes the signature sound for rush's "tom sawyer".
it's dead for us now... we can't use it, without invoking that
tune. or from my own experience... when i was doing commercial
work, while for the most part the clients specifically did *not*
want the work to sound electronic, when electronicism was the
goal one had to be careful not to sound derivative... not in a
musical sense, mind you - avante was definitely out... but in a
strictly tonal sense. of course, most of the clients were pretty
unfamiliar with the territory, so we could get away with a lot,
but it was always still a consideration. or again... listen to
popular groups who trade on their 'newness', like depeche mode or
some such. there is a deliberate *in*consistency in their sound.
i think simple minds is one of the few clear counterexamples...
they've been using the same synth wash for years. or even worse
(to bring back a nasty old subject), look at that body of stuff
which we'll have to unfortunately and unfairly lump together as
serious/academic emusic. in conventional music it is expected
that a violin sound like a violin. while some tonal variations
are played around with - better recording techniques, interesting
venues, the 'original instruments' movemement - it's mostly
nuances of performance (or just plain hype) that sell new
recordings. however, horrors! that a new recording of serious
electronic music (we're not talking TD here... they and others
like them have pretty much painted themselves into their own
corners - ah, well, at least it's been with their own brushes...
they can be pretty much credited with having invented the idiom
they're stuck in) should sound like anything else you've ever
heard... except of course that the jumble of newness becomes very
much the same after a while, doesn't it? (let's drag out that old
[norman mailer?] quote and flog it a little, shall we? sure...
why the hell not: "the only thing that hasn't changed in twenty
years is the avante-garde." said over twenty years ago now, i
believe. thirty?) which is why i advocate a little historical
perspective, now that we've been doing this long enough to
actually have a history.
btw, joel (or anyonne else), i don't know if you've been in
contact with joe recently, but it look slike this next concert
won't be sequenced at all.



<--- Entropy Always Wins, And I Like To Be On The Winning Side --->
  Eric Harnden (Ronin) harnden@physics.american.edu (202)885-2746

=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 27 Sep 1995 09:40:26 -0500
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         Joseph O'Sullivan <VLIBAJWO@VICVX2.VIC.UH.EDU>
Subject:      DA-20

I was hoping the group could answer a question that would probably have me
flamed out of existence on the DAT list.

The question is: What are the multitracking capabilities of that unit, and,
what is its ability to change speeds or record in reverse?

I am about to purchase a 4-track cassette deck, as I am in dreadful need
of a cleaner method of producing my dense, sonic attack style of music
(a bit of a paradox, it would seem, but while I want it to be full, I would
like it to be free of hiss). I missed the early discussions on this type of
gear, so when EM says, "It's like a DA-xx, only less expensive.." they are
building on a meaningless reference (to me).

Now that the DA-20 costs in the same range as the Tascam unit I've been
checking out, I would like to find out more about it. I obviously have
no commercial aspirations, so absolute clarity of digital recording is
not as important as these other features I mentioned.

Thanks in advance.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 27 Sep 1995 16:48:05 -0400
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         Joe McMahon <mcmahon@CLARK.NET>
Subject:      Re: DA-20
In-Reply-To:  <01HVRLEXOJ7M0004CI@Post-Office.UH.EDU> from "Joseph O'Sullivan"
              at Sep 27, 95 09:40:26 am

> The question is: What are the multitracking capabilities of that unit, and,
> what is its ability to change speeds or record in reverse?
>
Two-track stereo, single speed. Think of it as an incredibly-high-quality
cassette mastering deck.

> Now that the DA-20 costs in the same range as the Tascam unit I've been
> checking out, I would like to find out more about it. I obviously have
> no commercial aspirations, so absolute clarity of digital recording is
> not as important as these other features I mentioned.

Then the non-DAT unit is much more in line with your needs. Essentially,
the DAT is useful for damn-near-perfect reproduction at CD samplling
rates, making it the ideal medium for those who will be mastering for
CD pressing, or for those who want to provide a clean-as-possible
master tape.

 --- Joe M.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 27 Sep 1995 20:03:18 +0100
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         Nick Rothwell <nick@CASSIEL.COM>
Subject:      Re: EASE OF OVERUSE...CON'T.

>          Market researchers know that those
>          of  us who shy away from using the same patch twice are out there
>          and that our money is just as good as anyone else's money.

But there are less of us, and less of it.

   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:         Wed, 27 Sep 1995 17:13:00 -0500
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         "Daniel W. Hosken" <dwhosken@STUDENTS.WISC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: DA-20

"Joseph O'Sullivan" <VLIBAJWO@VICVX2.VIC.UH.EDU> wrote:
>The question is: What are the multitracking capabilities of that unit, and,
>what is its ability to change speeds or record in reverse?

The Tascam DA-20 is a two-track R-DAT (generally used for stereo). It
supports 3 sample rates (I think 32, 44.1, and 48KHz), but is is not
designed to change rates midstream. To do the kinds of things you're
talking about, you need a sampler or a computer with sample editing
software. The R-DAT is really just designed to make final mixdowns (or
record source material for editing by a computer or sampler). Multi-track
DATs (usually called A-DAT) do exist, but they are much, much more
expensive.

If you own a computer (that can do 16 bit, 44.1KHz sound either through a
soundcard or the built-in hardware), you might be better off getting
multi-track recording software (a good low end product is Session by
Digidesign or Deck II by OSC) and a sample editor (such as Sound Designer
by Digidesign or Alchemy by Passport Designs). If your budget is tight, you
could get by with just Sound Designer---it has a mix feature to combine up
to four soundfiles into one. With this software, you would record your work
to the computer (through a soundcard), edit it the way you want (change the
playback rate, reverse it, etc.), and then arrange it in multiple tracks,
and record the mix from your computer to an R-DAT or Cassette deck.

I hope this was helpful...




Dan Hosken
DMA student in Composition
University of Wisconsin--Madison School of Music

dwhosken@students.wisc.edu
(608) 243-7913 (home)
(608) 262-9293 (School of Music Computer Lab)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 28 Sep 1995 08:36:08 EST
Reply-To:     STERN@MAIL.LOC.GOV
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Comments:     RE: EASE OF OVERUSE, ETC....
From:         JOEL STERN <STERN@MAIL.LOC.GOV>
Subject:      Re: EASE OF OVERUSE, ETC....

          >But there are less of us, and less of it.


          But enough of us and it that there's definitely a niche.
          God, this is getting cryptic...

          Joel Stern
          stern@email.loc.gov
          j.stern11@genie.geis.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 28 Sep 1995 22:00:57 +0900
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         Masayuki Okada <VI9M-OKD@J.ASAHI-NET.OR.JP>
Subject:      Performer Patchlists

Hi, I have recently bought a Roland JV1080 and a user of Performer 5.01. I
thought I could control all the patch and banks with real patchnames (not
the numbers) thorough Performer. However, unlike with my previous synth
(viz. X2), it doesn't show any patchnames and banks aside from GM
patchlists. I hope there is a pre-fabricated patchlist for the Patchlist
Manager and if anyone outta there could spare one, please let me know.

Thanx in advance

Masa Okada

p.s. There should be an easy way to update the stuff other than messing
around with the Patchlist Manager. Does anyone know it?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 28 Sep 1995 09:44:34 EDT
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         "Eric Harnden (Ronin)" <harnden@PHYSICS.AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject:      oops.

my apologies to the assembly for the weirdly timed and repeated messages.
i think i've got this newfangled thingummy down now... (wait... that
logo... there, on the top of the word processor... 'underwood'?)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 28 Sep 1995 09:48:00 EST
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         roger king <jollyroger@IQUEST.NET>
Subject:      Re: overuse cont'd...

Eric:
This is a terrific response.  Please let me share the "ah hah" I received from
your prose regarding sample versus "song" originality:
   When studying electronic music at school in the 1970's, we composed the
song first; and then, after structuring the melody, harmony, and rhythm,
students were sent to the oscillators and filters to create the timbre.
Inventing new tone colours only addresses one quarter of composition, albeit a
fascinating one. "Samples" and "original instruments" can not make up for a
lack of melody, harmony, and/or rhythm.
   We have the promotion structure of the record industry to thank for the
fame of bands that focus primarily on timbre.

>you really think so, joel?
>i agree that the music is the same over and over again... that
>there is very little "originality" in most art forms that try to
>make a living on the particular market in general, in fact. but
>i'm speaking specifically of synthesizer tones... and in a pretty
>narrow sense. for example, yes, a lot of producers are now using
>"industrial samples", but there seems to me to be a strained
>effort toward making each new iteration 'different' somehow.
>think for a moment... that taurus pedal sweep that is now for all
>intents and purposes the signature sound for rush's "tom sawyer".
>it's dead for us now... we can't use it, without invoking that
>tune. or from my own experience... when i was doing commercial
>work, while for the most part the clients specifically did *not*
>want the work to sound electronic, when electronicism was the
>goal one had to be careful not to sound derivative... not in a
>musical sense, mind you - avante was definitely out... but in a
>strictly tonal sense. of course, most of the clients were pretty
>unfamiliar with the territory, so we could get away with a lot,
>but it was always still a consideration. or again... listen to
>popular groups who trade on their 'newness', like depeche mode or
>some such. there is a deliberate *in*consistency in their sound.
>i think simple minds is one of the few clear counterexamples...
>they've been using the same synth wash for years. or even worse
>(to bring back a nasty old subject), look at that body of stuff
>which we'll have to unfortunately and unfairly lump together as
>serious/academic emusic. in conventional music it is expected
>that a violin sound like a violin. while some tonal variations
>are played around with - better recording techniques, interesting
>venues, the 'original instruments' movemement - it's mostly
>nuances of performance (or just plain hype) that sell new
>recordings. however, horrors! that a new recording of serious
>electronic music (we're not talking TD here... they and others
>like them have pretty much painted themselves into their own
>corners - ah, well, at least it's been with their own brushes...
>they can be pretty much credited with having invented the idiom
>they're stuck in) should sound like anything else you've ever
>heard... except of course that the jumble of newness becomes very
>much the same after a while, doesn't it? (let's drag out that old
>[norman mailer?] quote and flog it a little, shall we? sure...
>why the hell not: "the only thing that hasn't changed in twenty
>years is the avante-garde." said over twenty years ago now, i
>believe. thirty?) which is why i advocate a little historical
>perspective, now that we've been doing this long enough to
>actually have a history.
>btw, joel (or anyonne else), i don't know if you've been in
>contact with joe recently, but it look slike this next concert
>won't be sequenced at all.
>
>
>
><--- Entropy Always Wins, And I Like To Be On The Winning Side --->
>  Eric Harnden (Ronin) harnden@physics.american.edu (202)885-2746
>
>
>
Roger King
jollyroger@iquest.net

swashbuckler of cybersonics
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 28 Sep 1995 12:02:30 -0700
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         Jeff Adkins <jadkins@INFI.NET>
Subject:      Re: Performer Patchlists

Masa Okada wrote:

>Hi, I have recently bought a Roland JV1080 and a user of Performer 5.01. I
>thought I could control all the patch and banks with real patchnames (not
>the numbers) thorough Performer. However, unlike with my previous synth
>(viz. X2), it doesn't show any patchnames and banks aside from GM
>patchlists. I hope there is a pre-fabricated patchlist for the Patchlist
>Manager and if anyone outta there could spare one, please let me know.

You may want to join the jv-1080/xp50 mailing list and ask over there--I'm
not a Performer user, but there's bound to be someone there who is, and I
know we've shared a 1080 Galaxy librarian module I use.  Anyone who wants
to subscribe can send mail to:

etogek@etn.ericsson.se (Geir Kilsti)

(who is not an automatic server, btw).

There's also a jv-1080/xp-50 homepage:

http://www.math.uni-hamburg.de/~fk5a005/jv-1080.html

--Jeff
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 23 Sep 1995 17:05:54 +0100
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         Nick Rothwell <nick@CASSIEL.COM>
Subject:      Re: samples/overuse, repeat repete

>i guess i would consider a sound
>overused it if it is used not only frequently but inappropriately
>or lazily. for instance, the "digital native dance" on the D50

Coincidentally, I can hear that patch at this very instant on Klaus
Schulze's EN=TRANCE, which I bought a few days ago and am just getting
round to listening to.

My objection to the patch is that it's too complex and static, being
essentially a miniature orchestration. It's like having a sample of ten
seconds of a symphony.

Anyway, back to earlier parts of this brain-dump of Ronin's (sorry, I'm in
packet-mode at present, so this is mix and match):

Samplers: my Peavey got stolen from the Royal Mail parcels service about a
year ago or so, and when the insurance money came through it went on an
UltraProteus. I have no inclination to get another sampler right now, and
if I did I wouldn't plug it into my old record collection or my TV set. If
anything, I'd use it as a kind-of performance HD recording system,
capturing specific sound treatments for live work. Nothing more.

Why? Dunno. The Sampling Mindset gave me a headache, for a start. I really
didn't like it. Too slow, and too concrete. The other reason is one of
pride: I'm proud to have a performance rig with no samplers. It suits my
working methods, and it means I can differentiate myself from the crowds of
teckkno cyber-musicians who seem to equate "electronic music" with
"sampler-based music", which is a sadly narrow-minded viewpoint.

>but by the same token i do tell my students
>that one of the rational criteria for purchasing an
>instrument is how long it takes you to get a standard effect
>out of it (like the lowpass filter sweep), when encountering
>it cold.

"Standard effect" Eric? Let me see, on my Wavestations I couldn't do a
resonant sweep at all without using MIDI control of the effects processors.
My R-8 drum machine (also an "instrument") can't do filter sweeps at all.
Then again, the UltraProteus can do wonderful formant sweeps, with a
different character for ever note. Pretty standard, perhaps, but nothing
else can do it.

Is a good instrument one which can give you the sound that's in your head,
or one which puts a new sound there instead? (Hey, I like that.)

   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, 28 Sep 1995 19:28:16 -0700
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From:         Todd Eric Moore <fuzen@IX.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:      Re: overuse cont'd...

Crap!  The synthesizer swells of Tom Sawyer still sound good dude!
It's your ears that are getting tired.

Analog is for generation.
