========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 08:08:39 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City Subject: Re: Jon H. Appleton In-Reply-To: <01IDNMYYEDCO91WBN0@LURE.LATROBE.EDU.AU> from "David Rodger" at Dec 31, 96 10:19:48 am Back at work after New Year's, and a bit crazed on scheduling (half days at work, then run home and into the studio, where eight emusicians are busy scaring the neighbors and livestock). But a moment exists to clear email: David Rodger writes-- >Mike wrote: > >> You don't want to see a list of all of the famous, >> erudite, educated and ground-breaking synthesists who have abandoned >> this list over the years. Why have they left? You figure it out. > >I have. The reason that they left and that so many more have not graced >us with their presence is the same reason that so many of them did not >even try to get to the International Computer Music Conference in Hong >Kong this year. And the music played and performed there showed much >greater diversity than that in Banff the year before (and not just >because of the incorporation of traditional Chinese and Indian instruments). Ah. You're implying that they're fuddy-duddies in a creative rut, and that their clearing out of the playing field has allowed people with real ideas to come forth? Interesting thesis, but only tangential to my own argument, which was that they're leaving because very little of interest to them is happening here. The question then becomes, is what they're hoping to avoid (a) creative new ideas that threaten their cozy existence or (b) drivel about derivative, commercially successful but mentally bankrupt music that teaches nothing of value? For that matter, could (a) and (b) be the same thing...? mike -- "I'm going through a phase where I'm learning how much I don't know, and I don't want to say anything unless it A. is correct and B. contributes.... Geez, all the lists would dry up if everyone was in the same phase." (cikira) ========================================================================== Mike Metlay - ATOMIC CITY - P. O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675 USA = atomic@netcom.com -- http://pd.net/atomic-city -- 800.924.ATOM = CD orders via LOFTY PURSUITS: 800.548.6724 & 904.385.6463, FAX 904.668.5825 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:21:48 +0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mel Ang Subject: Re: Jon H. Appleton hi there mike... EM>happening here. The question then becomes, is what they're hoping to EM>avoid (a) creative new ideas that threaten their cozy existence or (b) EM>drivel about derivative, commercially successful but mentally bankrupt EM>music that teaches nothing of value? why would they teach something that has no value at all? just curious mel ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 22:19:20 -0600 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Stephen David Beck Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies In-Reply-To: <199701021608.IAA27447@netcom23.netcom.com> Mike Metlay wrote: >Ah. You're implying that they're fuddy-duddies in a creative rut, and that >their clearing out of the playing field has allowed people with real ideas >to come forth? Interesting thesis, but only tangential to my own argument, >which was that they're leaving because very little of interest to them is >happening here. The question then becomes, is what they're hoping to >avoid (a) creative new ideas that threaten their cozy existence or (b) >drivel about derivative, commercially successful but mentally bankrupt >music that teaches nothing of value? As one of those "fuddy-duddies", let me respond: The question is not what we are hoping to avoid, but rather what we are hoping to find (and not finding much of it here). I know that I spend far too much time reading e-mail from discussion groups of all kinds (1-2 hours a day). About every six months, I pare down my subscriptions. I just don't have that much spare time. I have often unsubbed and resubbed to this list as my time permits. When faced with mounds of e-mail on subjects covered in my E-A Music 101 class, I sometimes opt to opt-out. In defense of Jon, there are only so many hours in the day, and reading endless queries about elementary e-a music is just not that important to waste time on. But I also know that on occasion, threads of interesting and provocative subjects do work their way through this list (which is why I keep resubbing). Fortunately, my new e-mail program filters emusic-l posts to a separate mailbox that I can browse at my convenience. If you want to discuss the fine points of the aesthetics of synthetic instruments or interactive computer music, okay. I might bite. But don't expect me to read or reply to the standard "how do I make that cool Tesh piano sound on my Borg X/YZ3-D Aliterating Assimilating Sampling Synth?" If you want an answer to that, come to my class. I have my own students to teach... Stephen David Beck P.S. Is the term "sampling synthesizer" is an oxymoron? ======================================================================== Stephen David Beck Director, Electro-Acoustic Music Studios Co-director, The Music & Art Digital (MAD)Studio School of Music Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803-2504 USA email: sdb@comp.music.lsu.edu http://www.music.lsu.edu/faculty/sbeck/sbeck.htm President, SEAMUS The Society for Electro-Acoustic Music in the United States 2550 Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90057 http://comp.music.lsu.edu/seamus/ ======================================================================== ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 00:16:00 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Robby D Subject: Re: Help I agree, 4x may write faster, but I prefer my Sony 2x 920S because it has a buffer size of 1024K, larger than most CDR's which have a buffer of 512K, larger buffer sizes minimize the problem of buffer over run, an insanely annoying little problem with CDR technology. Buffer overrun: it can't keep the buffer full at all times,(especially with a lot of small files) and starts searching for data, can't find it fast enough, then douches your $8 CD. It has been expensive and maddening. Be prepared. Robby D www.loop.com/~mcm At 09:21 AM 12/30/96 EST, you wrote: > I have just recently dived into the CD recording field. It took me a > little of fuddling and fact searching on my own when I first started. > So I'll let you in on what i have found so far. I Believe most CD-R's > now support multi-session... If they don't, it isn't worth getting. > Two Models I recommend is The Sony Spressa 9411... External 2x4 that > also supports CD-RFS(the ability to continually write to a CD-R). > > Other Models that Are good Are the Yamaha, and the Olympus. > > Don't get 4x writer. 4x writing hasn't been made stable yet. Media > is also A big Factor. TDK, Sony and HP I have found to be the best so > far. > > If you are doing any Disk to Disk copying. Make sure you have a SCSI > CD-Rom(I elieve all mac Cd-Roms are) that supports Digital Audio > Extraction (most products won't tell you out right if they suppoort > is, but I know most of the NEC Drives do). > > You should also have a Dedicated SCSI hard drive(Or one with about > 1.6gb of Contigious space free) to store your completed CD-Image to. > A/V Specific Drive anr not nessessary, but help a great deal during > the initial Digital Audio Recording. > > As far as software, Corel CD Creator Does a good job of making mixed > mode CDs. and It follows all red book specification for CD-Audio. Easy > CD PRo is also a Good Package. But For disk at Once Software DAO is > Great. > > Check out the following sites. > > http://www.cdarchive.com > http://www.adaptec.com/cdrec/ > > Sean Wolfe > ...>Spindle Productions > > >______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ >Subject: Help >Author: ptemko@cecasun.utc.edu at Internet >Date: 12/29/96 4:22 PM > > >Hello > >I'm new to the list. I'm hoping this is an appropriate place to ask a >question about CD recording technology. > >I'd like to make a mixed mode CD including audio clips and some >software. I have the audio on DAT. > >I need opinions (Mac Platform) on software and hardware to accomplish >the task. It needs to be multi-session/single volume capable. I think >the audio should be RedBook so that any CD player can play the audio >tracks. > >Since the PowerPC I have access to is not an AV Mac, I need to know also >about what hardware is best for getting audio on to the hard drive. > >I have (honest) done quite a bit of research on my own..and I am getting >lots of mixed messages from various sources. > >If anyone on the list has the patience, I'd appreciate any and all >opinions on the subject. > >Please forgive the intrusion. If this is too tangential, I'll welcome >off-list help. > >Thanks very much for your help >-- >********************* >Pete Temko >Prof. of Music >UT Chattanooga >ptemko@cecasun.utc.edu >********************* > > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 00:21:03 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Robby D Subject: Re: Help I've been using Adaptec's Easy CD Pro, (recently purchased from InCat Systems) has been working good for CD audio and CD-rom, it hasn't had a problem placing a 2 second gap between songs. I don't believe the 4X has a problem related to speed, but perhaps because it's buffer size is too small. Robby D www.loop.com/~mcm At 11:27 PM 12/30/96 +0100, you wrote: >At 09:21 30.12.1996 EST, you wrote: > >> >> Don't get 4x writer. 4x writing hasn't been made stable yet. Media >> is also A big Factor. TDK, Sony and HP I have found to be the best so >> far. > >..err, what makes you say that? I own a Yamaha CDR 100 II and I've never >experienced any troubles at all while writing with 4 x speed > >> As far as software, Corel CD Creator Does a good job of making mixed >> mode CDs. and It follows all red book specification for CD-Audio. Easy >> CD PRo is also a Good Package. But For disk at Once Software DAO is >> Great. >> > >I disagree. Corel CD Creator is easy to use, that's true. Its documentation, >however, is a real pain in the ass. Don't expect any help from that booklet >at all. It's a shame a software company delivers a product dealing with such >a delicate matter as CD-burning with such a poor manual. Anyway, I'm >drifting off topic. As far as the Red Book standard is concerned, I think >you're wrong. Though Corel Creator is capable of copying regular audio discs >(it adds a further two seconds pause between audio tracks during that >process, though), it can't create audio discs following the Red Book thing >exactly. The only two Red Book packages available for the PC are the "Red >Roaster" and the "Triple DAT" software. > >After all, I may nevertheless be totally wrong. Happy New Year to everyone, > >Kai > > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 00:27:02 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Robby D Subject: Re: Help You can buy one Yamaha CBX-D5 processor (4 tracks) for around $1400, connect it too an inexpensive PC with a gig Scuzzy drive, maybe a Mac laptop, or even PC Notebook, for mobility, run a digital cable from out of you DAT into the Yamaha CBX, and record a digital AIF file to your Gig drive, stereo, 16 bit, 44.1 khz. One 3.5 minute song takes up about 35 meg. Buy a Sony 920S RCD drive, now for around $700 and any of the software you've heard about on this thread, and burn your aif or wav files to CD from a cue sheet or cue list that you create. At 12:05 AM 12/31/96 -0500, you wrote: >I have kind of latched on to this thread because it is something that I am >very interested in. Please steer me in the direction of DAT to CD recording. >I run an 11 piece Salsa band in FL and I do productions on the Side... and I >need to go digital. I need gear that will travel and serve in a small >studio. If you would help here, it would be much appreciated... > >Thanks, >Pedro Bullaudy (PETERQCI@aol.com) >Orquesta INFINIDAD > >...cost effectiveness appreciated..... > > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 00:39:07 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Robby D Subject: Re: Jon H. Appleton Has anyone heard the real reason why the synclavier pioneer left the list, or is this all just speculation? At 08:08 AM 1/2/97 -0800, you wrote: >Back at work after New Year's, and a bit crazed on scheduling (half days >at work, then run home and into the studio, where eight emusicians are >busy scaring the neighbors and livestock). But a moment exists to clear email: > >David Rodger writes-- >>Mike wrote: >> >>> You don't want to see a list of all of the famous, >>> erudite, educated and ground-breaking synthesists who have abandoned >>> this list over the years. Why have they left? You figure it out. >> >>I have. The reason that they left and that so many more have not graced >>us with their presence is the same reason that so many of them did not >>even try to get to the International Computer Music Conference in Hong >>Kong this year. And the music played and performed there showed much >>greater diversity than that in Banff the year before (and not just >>because of the incorporation of traditional Chinese and Indian instruments). > >Ah. You're implying that they're fuddy-duddies in a creative rut, and that >their clearing out of the playing field has allowed people with real ideas >to come forth? Interesting thesis, but only tangential to my own argument, >which was that they're leaving because very little of interest to them is >happening here. The question then becomes, is what they're hoping to >avoid (a) creative new ideas that threaten their cozy existence or (b) >drivel about derivative, commercially successful but mentally bankrupt >music that teaches nothing of value? > >For that matter, could (a) and (b) be the same thing...? > >mike > >-- >"I'm going through a phase where I'm learning how much I don't know, and >I don't want to say anything unless it A. is correct and B. contributes.... >Geez, all the lists would dry up if everyone was in the same phase." (cikira) >=========================================================================== >Mike Metlay - ATOMIC CITY - P. O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675 USA > = atomic@netcom.com -- http://pd.net/atomic-city -- 800.924.ATOM = >CD orders via LOFTY PURSUITS: 800.548.6724 & 904.385.6463, FAX 904.668.5825 > > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 00:46:27 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Robby D Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies It's an oxymoron if the waveform is a analog representation of a digitally generated virtual analog sinewave. At 10:19 PM 1/2/97 -0600, you wrote: >Mike Metlay wrote: > >>Ah. You're implying that they're fuddy-duddies in a creative rut, and that >>their clearing out of the playing field has allowed people with real ideas >>to come forth? Interesting thesis, but only tangential to my own argument, >>which was that they're leaving because very little of interest to them is >>happening here. The question then becomes, is what they're hoping to >>avoid (a) creative new ideas that threaten their cozy existence or (b) >>drivel about derivative, commercially successful but mentally bankrupt >>music that teaches nothing of value? > >As one of those "fuddy-duddies", let me respond: > >The question is not what we are hoping to avoid, but rather what we are >hoping to find (and not finding much of it here). > >I know that I spend far too much time reading e-mail from discussion groups >of all kinds (1-2 hours a day). About every six months, I pare down my >subscriptions. I just don't have that much spare time. > >I have often unsubbed and resubbed to this list as my time permits. When >faced with mounds of e-mail on subjects covered in my E-A Music 101 class, >I sometimes opt to opt-out. In defense of Jon, there are only so many >hours in the day, and reading endless queries about elementary e-a music is >just not that important to waste time on. > >But I also know that on occasion, threads of interesting and provocative >subjects do work their way through this list (which is why I keep >resubbing). Fortunately, my new e-mail program filters emusic-l posts to a >separate mailbox that I can browse at my convenience. If you want to >discuss the fine points of the aesthetics of synthetic instruments or >interactive computer music, okay. I might bite. > >But don't expect me to read or reply to the standard "how do I make that >cool Tesh piano sound on my Borg X/YZ3-D Aliterating Assimilating Sampling >Synth?" If you want an answer to that, come to my class. I have my own >students to teach... > >Stephen David Beck > >P.S. Is the term "sampling synthesizer" is an oxymoron? > >========================================================================= >Stephen David Beck >Director, Electro-Acoustic Music Studios >Co-director, The Music & Art Digital (MAD)Studio >School of Music >Louisiana State University >Baton Rouge, LA 70803-2504 >USA >email: sdb@comp.music.lsu.edu >http://www.music.lsu.edu/faculty/sbeck/sbeck.htm > >President, SEAMUS >The Society for Electro-Acoustic Music in the United States >2550 Beverly Boulevard >Los Angeles, CA 90057 >http://comp.music.lsu.edu/seamus/ >========================================================================= > > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 09:55:14 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Michael Millard Subject: Windows NT Has anyone built a studio around Windows NT 3.5 or 4.0? I currently use Sound Forge 4.0, Samplitude for Samples and Recording. I also have Cake Walk Pro Audio 5.0 which I use with the Mark of the Unicorn Midi Express PC. I understand that Sound FOrge and Samplitude are NT ready but Cake Walk and MOTU Midi Express PC don't appear to be. I have not tried yet although I own a copy of NT 3.5 and 4.0 so I would only be out valuable time if it doesn't work. Can anyone give me a bit of advise before I start this effort? Has anyone gotten such a system to work? The reason behind the NT switch is that I now have a dual Pentium Pro board and Windows 95 seems a major waiste of resources. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:34:17 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies In-Reply-To: from "Stephen David Beck" at Jan 2, 97 10:19:20 pm > But I also know that on occasion, threads of interesting and provocative > subjects do work their way through this list (which is why I keep > resubbing). Fortunately, my new e-mail program filters emusic-l posts to a > separate mailbox that I can browse at my convenience. If you want to > discuss the fine points of the aesthetics of synthetic instruments or > interactive computer music, okay. I might bite. You will probably see a message from me in the next few weeks talking about some recent experiences with csound, and proposals of some ideas to put a 1990's face on computer-mediated synthesis. Briefly: csound reminds me of the bad old days of assembler language programming, without the advantage of subroutine calls. Realtime networks are a project of staggering complexity. Experiments with getting perl programs to write scores have been promising; I'm seriously looking into a new non-realtime paradigm based on perl5, extending the language via perl5 objects to implement a kinder environment. I've been working lately in a very different mode from my 1994 album; Mike can attest that none of the stuff I sent him for the 1996 Team session even used a 12-tone scale - I've been experimenting with a technique which allows me to do wavesequencing of a very bizarre sort on the VFXsd. The gamelan piece was the most mainstream of the bunch. --- Joe M. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 08:39:12 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies In-Reply-To: from "Stephen David Beck" at Jan 2, 97 10:19:20 pm Stephen David Beck writes-- > >The question is not what we are hoping to avoid, but rather what we are >hoping to find (and not finding much of it here). >[...] >I have often unsubbed and resubbed to this list as my time permits. When >faced with mounds of e-mail on subjects covered in my E-A Music 101 class, >I sometimes opt to opt-out. In defense of Jon, there are only so many >hours in the day, and reading endless queries about elementary e-a music is >just not that important to waste time on. > >But I also know that on occasion, threads of interesting and provocative >subjects do work their way through this list (which is why I keep >resubbing). Fortunately, my new e-mail program filters emusic-l posts to a >separate mailbox that I can browse at my convenience. If you want to >discuss the fine points of the aesthetics of synthetic instruments or >interactive computer music, okay. I might bite. > >But don't expect me to read or reply to the standard "how do I make that >cool Tesh piano sound on my Borg X/YZ3-D Aliterating Assimilating Sampling >Synth?" If you want an answer to that, come to my class. I have my own >students to teach... This, actually, was my own take on Jon's recent departure. My rhetorical question was originally posed as such because of a certain bitterness that we're losing our more [insert appropriate adjective here: educated? lofty? rarefied? snobbish? detailed? focused? any or all of the above?] readers, slowly but surely. It first happened within my vision waaaay back in Eric Harnden's moderatorship, when Oberlin's Gary Nelson got on the list, lasted about two weeks, and left in disgust, and most recently with the loss of Jon and of my colleague Nick Batzdorf (although the latter, at least for me, was not an unmixed tragedy--we disagree often enough so as not to require a public forum). I am, as ever, torn on the horns of a dilemma here. The Internet is the most even-handed means of communication in existence at this time, in terms of leveling differences in education (if not entirely in locale or monetary resources-- we don't have many Masai or inner-city poor kids popping around yet). That theoretically places EMUSIC-L open to anyone who signs on and participates. I believe that David Rodger, based on his take on the recent ICMC get-together, would argue that this is a good thing, broadening the scope of the community and its influences beyond whatever happens to be in dusty old copies of DIE REIHE (which I admit I'm looking for, if anyone has any to sell ;). But on the flip side of this is my own feeling, one articulated very well by Stephen here: even on a list with as high a signal/noise ratio as EMUSIC-L (and if you think our S/N is no good, try Analogue Heaven or rec.music.makers.synth, I dare ya), there are enough questions asked by the young, the inexperienced, or the Pink to drive the more established members mad sometimes. I have to suppress the overwhelming urge to write a Metlay Manifesto of Emusic Acceptable Minima and post it here once a month, as a sort of bleeding corpse hung up as a warning to trespassers. Needless to say, I don't, because that produces a very noticeable and dangerous chilling effect: those whose only fault is that they have not yet learned enough to keep up become frightened to say anything at all lest they draw the wrath of the greybeards. This ain't an Amish town meeting, y'know. Where do we draw the line? Where it is, I guess, and we tiptoe along as best we can, encouraging the educated to remain and teach and the uneducated to remain and learn. This was begun as an educational list, and I never want to lose sight of that. (That damn Ph.D. gathering dust in my office has to be good for *something*....) And for my own part, I judge questions as either naive or Pink by the tone in which they are stated (and other things, like whether someone bothers to delete any of a 200-line collected mail thread before adding one line of new text), and answer them as informatively as possible, with or without bile as my taste demands. Works for me. mike -- "I'm going through a phase where I'm learning how much I don't know, and I don't want to say anything unless it A. is correct and B. contributes.... Geez, all the lists would dry up if everyone was in the same phase." (cikira) ========================================================================== Mike Metlay - ATOMIC CITY - P. O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675 USA = atomic@netcom.com -- http://pd.net/atomic-city -- 800.924.ATOM = CD orders via LOFTY PURSUITS: 800.548.6724 & 904.385.6463, FAX 904.668.5825 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 08:51:33 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City Subject: Re: Jon H. Appleton In-Reply-To: <199701030839.AAA23922@patty.loop.net> from "Robby D" at Jan 3, 97 00:39:07 am Robby D writes-- > >Has anyone heard the real reason why the synclavier pioneer left the list, >or is this all just speculation? Yes and no. Actually, my raising of this topic as a matter for consideration was based on my own view of the problem, not on anything specific Jon said. The place (both on this list and in the emusic community in general) of academic emusicians is a generally interesting topic, and shouldn't be limited to any one person's motives. But just to set the record straight, I *do* in fact know for certain why Jon left. After he unsubbed, I wrote him a personal letter, and he replied with a short and polite thank-you note. In that note he did state his reasons for leaving, but (a) I don't quote people's private email without permission and (b) his own personal reason for leaving, if stated here in raw form, would probably start a flamewar. Let's just say his own personal cost/benefit analysis of EMUSIC-L was no longer favorable enough to support staying on the list. mike -- "I'm going through a phase where I'm learning how much I don't know, and I don't want to say anything unless it A. is correct and B. contributes.... Geez, all the lists would dry up if everyone was in the same phase." (cikira) ========================================================================== Mike Metlay - ATOMIC CITY - P. O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675 USA = atomic@netcom.com -- http://pd.net/atomic-city -- 800.924.ATOM = CD orders via LOFTY PURSUITS: 800.548.6724 & 904.385.6463, FAX 904.668.5825 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 09:52:04 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City Subject: Sampling synthesizers In-Reply-To: from "Stephen David Beck" at Jan 2, 97 10:19:20 pm Oooh! I almost missed the PS! Stephen David Beck writes-- >P.S. Is the term "sampling synthesizer" is an oxymoron? Categorically and emphatically not! Not even as a joke. To say that "sampling synthesizer" is an oxymoron implies that sampling is not synthesis, and in fact that sampling precludes synthesis (and is therefore not of interest of of practical use). I reject all of these conclusions quite strongly! Now then. Having vented my spleen, let me give a more practical and detailed answer. :) If one regards "synthesis" as the manipulation of sound for the purposes of creating new and unusual timbres, then the definition of a "synthesizer" makes no precondition about the sound with which one starts the process. Despite the great power that filters, amplifiers, envelopes, S&H, ring modulators, and so forth can have to change an initial waveform, the waveform itself is of paramount importance. It can be a wave created by an analog chip or tube, a data stream froma lookup table, the output of a calculation/model... or a sample. I believe that if one examines the 30 years or so that sampling has been practically available in either analog or digital form, and watches how history, technology development, and public taste have interacted, then it becomes quite clear why it may be easy to dimiss samplers as not being synthesizers. (Feel free to catch me on details where needed!) The idea of using real sounds in emusic goes back to the 1940s and the Musique Concrete movement. Pierre Schaffer and Pierre Henry believed that manipulating real-world sounds (on tape) was the way to go, because real-world sounds contained more interesting harmonic information than the primitive synthesized sounds of the day and were therefore more pleasing and interesting to the ear than purely electronic tones. That sort of feeling carried on in some form or another for decades, and led (in part) to the development of the Mellotron, a keyboard that played back tapes when you pressed the keys. You could make your own tape sets for it, a difficult but not impossible process; that made it the world's first commercially available sampler. Later machines used tape loops (the Birotron) or rotating electrostatic discs (the Optigan and Orchestron) to do the same thing. In the very early 1980s, digital sound sampling became practical, and the Emulator became the first sampling keyboard to use digital technology. It was huge, bulky, VERY expensive, and barely held any data at all, but it introduced ideas like looping and so forth. The price/performance barrier was broken in 1984 by the Mirage, and the sampler became a common device. Now here's where technology issues enter the picture. For various reasons, it was cheaper and more efficient to load the early machines with RAM rather than ROM; there was only one "Sample Player" out there, the old and VERY costly 360 Systems Keyboard, and it was vanishingly unpopular. Samplers proliferated, and many technologies vied for supremacy as people worked on ways to squeeze maximum power into tiny, TINY amounts of RAM (by today's standards). Some readers will remember the many, many pages of music magazine space devoted to the digital equivalent of getting angels to dance on the head of a pin. [Personal note: it was the agonies such techniques induced that kept me away from early samplers-- they required a different technique and mindset than I was used to (or wanted).] Early samplers were basically synthesizers with digital waveform memory and mic inputs, but the architecture of the "synth" part was usually very primitive, leading to the sampler/synth dichotomy of thought. A notable exception, which was sadly released about a year too early to give the industry the smack in the head it really needed, was the Korg DSS-1, a fully functional synthesizer that "just happened" to have RAM samples or simple one-wave lookup tables for its oscillators. Brilliant. But several things happened to change things. Korg figured out that most people loved samples but didn't want to record their own, or hunt through disk libraries. So they got a couple Meg of good sounds in ROM, tied them to some cheap effects and a little sequencer, and put out the M1, which is still the most popular keyboard in history... since 1988 or whenever the damn thing came out, they've done nothing but repeat and refine the process, with occasional pauses for real synths like the WS and Prophecy. That had one effect: players lost interest in synthesis per se. The M1 gave you quick, cool sounds, and you didn't worry much about screwing with them. The other thing that happened is that some bright boy developed the idea of prelooping rhythms and riffs and selling them on CD-ROMs. All of a sudden, samplers had cheap and cheerful access to tons of musical snippets that could be turned into collage pieces: essentially, Musique Concrete taken to extremes. The proliferation of cheap RAM and storage made this even easier; no more need to squeeze resources. That had another effect: the sampler stopped being a basis for sonic experimentation and merely became an engine for convenient music-on-demand. And THIS is what makes the question "Is a 'sampling synthesizer' an oxymoron?" not entirely unfounded. We're inundated by the dual demons of Cheap'N'Easy: ROM sample playback machines, and samplers optimized for loop-scooping. It's not surprising that one loses sight of synthesis in all that. Fortunately, exceptions to the rule exist. Setting aside non-digital- memory-based machines like the Prophecy and the K5000S for a moment, there are still machines which do sample (or use samples) and which do have powerful synthesis capabilities out there. There are fewer today than in the recent past, when the flavor of the month was synths and sampleplayers with RAM for adding your own sounds to the internal patches, but they're still out there. Some examples: the Kurzweil K2000 and its many children; the Yamaha SY99; The Emulator Three and Four (and to a lesser extent the cheaper E-mus). Even with only ROM to work with, some manufacturers still give people who want real synth power what they crave, and do it in a way that isn't buried under layers of fiddly menus. The E-mu Morpheus and UltraProteus are good examples as the Peavey Spectrum Synth and new Spectrum Bass II (multimode filters and a lag processor in a bass module?!! Yowza!). Korg's N series and Trinities don't strike me as being very tweak-friendly, but that could be bias on my part. The Ensoniq ASR-10 can be sampler or ROMpler if you put in Flash memory. And the Alesis QSes are very powerful indeed, if you don't mind a front panel LCD the size of a stick of Dentyne. Roland's new workstations aren't as good in these respects as some of their older boxes: I have a U-50 that is at the moment my synth of choice, and despite its advanced age it's better for my purposes than the XP-80 and its ilk. Some other time, I'll talk about how I use sample synthesis techniques to create my own timbres, but I think I've said enough for now. Blather blather blather, mike -- "I'm going through a phase where I'm learning how much I don't know, and I don't want to say anything unless it A. is correct and B. contributes.... Geez, all the lists would dry up if everyone was in the same phase." (cikira) ========================================================================== Mike Metlay - ATOMIC CITY - P. O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675 USA = atomic@netcom.com -- http://pd.net/atomic-city -- 800.924.ATOM = CD orders via LOFTY PURSUITS: 800.548.6724 & 904.385.6463, FAX 904.668.5825 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 09:54:13 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City Subject: Re: Jon H. Appleton In-Reply-To: from "Mel Ang" at Jan 3, 97 11:21:48 am Mel Ang writes-- > >hi there mike... > >EM>happening here. The question then becomes, is what they're hoping to >EM>avoid (a) creative new ideas that threaten their cozy existence or (b) >EM>drivel about derivative, commercially successful but mentally bankrupt >EM>music that teaches nothing of value? > >why would they teach something that has no value at all? > >just curious >mel Heh. Define "value." One man's education in the roots and essentials of electro-acoustic music is another man's boring history lesson, and in the other direction, one man's exciting and fresh new music is another man's technology-induced masturbation. mike -- "I'm going through a phase where I'm learning how much I don't know, and I don't want to say anything unless it A. is correct and B. contributes.... Geez, all the lists would dry up if everyone was in the same phase." (cikira) ========================================================================== Mike Metlay - ATOMIC CITY - P. O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675 USA = atomic@netcom.com -- http://pd.net/atomic-city -- 800.924.ATOM = CD orders via LOFTY PURSUITS: 800.548.6724 & 904.385.6463, FAX 904.668.5825 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:15:47 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Dave Sheremata Subject: Re: Windows NT ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBF978.3C525100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Micheal. I'm a software developer, and do a lot of work on all flavours of = Windows, much of it cross-platform. I've never done any real = multi-media/audio programming (although I intend to soon). =20 Anyway, upon consulting the Microsoft Developers Network, I found a = couple of things.. one of which I'm totally unfamiliar with, that might = give you a clue as to whether the apps will run or not..=20 For one thing, there is very little difference in the API calls that = these programs make... generally, it would have to be that Cake Walk and = Midi Express Pro are doing doing some dirty tricks to get their Jobs = done.=20 1) Windows NT 3.51 could not read IDF files (instrument definition = files - win3.11 and 95 do though). These files replaces the older CFG = files.. but not on NT 2.41. There is no info at Microsoft as to whether = NT 4.0 does or not... Anyway, it's possible that these applications = create/use them, which would have made them unusable on NT 3.51. Who = knows about 4.0, but if you _can_ examine NT 4.0's MIDI mapper is using = them .. I don't have real midi stuff at work here, so I can't help you = with that examination...=20 2) Are these aplications 32-bit? Use MSINFO32 to find the DLLs that = they use - There's a very tricky bug involving MCI playback problems. = To make the story short, if Cake Walk is loading some 16-bit DLLS (even = if it's a 32-bit program), then they're trying to get their way around = this strange bug - and once again, I don't know whether this problem is = limited to NT 3.51 or extends to 4.0 aswell.=20 The good news is, that if you 1) find that NT 4.0 internally uses IDF = files instead of CFG files for instrument mapping, and 2) If these = programs are true 32-bit adn don't load any 16-bit DLLs, then I have not = a single CLUE as to how they could be screwing up! Unless the authors = are _really_ lame programmers...=20 I hope this wasn't too much to chew - probably somebody else's email = with actual experience might be more helpful..=20 Dave ---------- From: Michael Millard Sent: Friday, January 03, 1997 9:55 AM To: Multiple recipients of list EMUSIC-L Subject: Windows NT Has anyone built a studio around Windows NT 3.5 or 4.0? I currently use Sound Forge 4.0, Samplitude for Samples and Recording. I also have Cake Walk Pro Audio 5.0 which I use with the Mark of the Unicorn Midi Express PC. I understand that Sound FOrge and Samplitude are NT ready but Cake Walk and MOTU Midi Express PC don't appear to be. I have not tried yet although I own a copy of NT 3.5 and 4.0 so I would only be out valuable time if it doesn't work. Can anyone give me a bit of advise before I start this effort? Has anyone gotten such a system to work? The reason behind the NT switch is that I now have a dual Pentium Pro board and Windows 95 seems a major waiste of resources. ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBF978.3C525100 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IjASAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEkAYAOAEAAAEAAAAMAAAAAwAAMAIAAAAL AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAAVAAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAEVsZWN0cm9uaWMgTXVz aWMgRGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBMaXN0AFNNVFAARU1VU0lDLUxAQU1FUklDQU4uRURVAB4AAjABAAAABQAA AFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEAAAAWAAAARU1VU0lDLUxAQU1FUklDQU4uRURVAAAAAwAVDAEAAAADAP4P BgAAAB4AATABAAAAIwAAACdFbGVjdHJvbmljIE11c2ljIERpc2N1c3Npb24gTGlzdCcAAAIBCzAB AAAAGwAAAFNNVFA6RU1VU0lDLUxAQU1FUklDQU4uRURVAAADAAA5AAAAAAsAQDoBAAAAAgH2DwEA AAAEAAAAAAAAArU5AQSAAQAPAAAAUkU6IFdpbmRvd3MgTlQAngQBBYADAA4AAADNBwEAAwANAA8A LwAFACgBASCAAwAOAAAAzQcBAAMADAA0ADgABQBVAQEJgAEAIQAAADcxNDg3RUJENzg2NUQwMTFB NzJGMDBBQTAwQkM0M0EwABUHAQOQBgDwCQAAFAAAAAsAIwAAAAAAAwAmAAAAAAALACkAAQAAAAMA LgAAAAAAAwA2AAAAAABAADkAMDkyJKL5uwEeAHAAAQAAAA8AAABSRTogV2luZG93cyBOVAAAAgFx AAEAAAAWAAAAAbv5oiQnvX5IcmV4EdCnLwCqALxDoAAAHgAeDAEAAAADAAAATVMAAB4AHwwBAAAA FAAAAEZGSS9GRklNQUlML1NoZXJlbUQAAwAGEHTi3p4DAAcQjggAAB4ACBABAAAAZQAAAEhJTUlD SEVBTElNQVNPRlRXQVJFREVWRUxPUEVSLEFORERPQUxPVE9GV09SS09OQUxMRkxBVk9VUlNPRldJ TkRPV1MsTVVDSE9GSVRDUk9TUy1QTEFURk9STUlWRU5FVkVSRE8AAAAAAgEJEAEAAABzCAAAbwgA ADcOAABMWkZ16xfWJf8ACgEPAhUCpAPkBesCgwBQEwNUAgBjaArAc2V07jIGAAbDAoMyA8YHEwKD EjMTD2Y0D3poZWzRAyBEbGcCgzUDxQIA2HBycRIgE4V9CoAIz8UJ2TsZLzI1NQKACoGDDbELYG5n MTAzFCAXCwoS8gwBYwBAIEhp1QXQaRGwZQdALgqFCoUASSdtIGEgc2+lAYB3CsBlIA2wdhYwlG9w BJAsH9BuZCCAnm8f0RjABUAgECB3BbC+ayIAA6AHQAMgHAF2CGGbBCAiEVcLgCGAd3MhIGxtdRGw IgJpBUAFAG8dBBAtC1EAMAWwbS4g8x+RILAgbiChBcAhgCZgOSExeSAZMAdAJEFsdBRpLQeAZAcw L2F1FyggIZAXkG8JwGFtbZELgGcgKAdAdGgIYHpnJIBJJMACMAnwIWB0tyGQIAACICkl4R7MQScg 5SBAeSEgdXAikQWgAID/J7IpUSmwIHAeQSURIBEWYH8gpgeiIDAiUSEgKiACEHXvIVEf4AWgLMBs IHAiESmw+SlBcy4l4CbSIhIxMCRxvx+iKrABkBZAJzAwIGYpEP8DEAcwBcAD8CmwISApsCWATSRA aSnwBUBnaSYxef8IYDBSCkEf0AQgKrEyIBIAxxYgBcAtwmFwcAQgA/DdFkFyMCAiAAXAbiHgMYH9 HsxGBbEm0jEjNDIEkCBw/QQAICaBJzAzoAJAMMEoIHMN0DqBbmM6oQOgLcJB+lAqIGMiwTYRNGIt wRHwZyi2BCAAwGtlMYAl4Gf/CfAEkDLyISAk0SJAJ7AhYLcRwCYxKrFiOdI0cUM+wT8jsAdAInAh Qh5AKCAgRe54F5AHkAQgUANgH9AgYv5vKUJDpCAAB4A7oQAgJzDydAUQY2s2Ez8wPaNEwHAgSm9i BCAmwjh+MQ4pJfAjxQewVCAzLn41HfAwgUBBODEnQiFgSVxERiLwAxAHkSgLgHP9RRB1B4ACMCCB SlADACfQqyKRSlQtM+FuSNAxHfA5IUI5NSFyKbQrIiBU/z3TSlQZMAtRPDA9UjDRQEAxJpFDRkdK RDGBYnUPBUBJgiKRSKEyLjQx/yXhTnE6lDgwKjECEB/QBUDHLgg2DEihNC4wIXEHke84BiXgLEYk 0CcEICzQBBD+aQJgQQU9xDchM6A9EEvSzwQgBQAegCpgL3U98S3B/m0hIDIkQBkAwA2wWhMzMb9Z 4AGgMMJRs0jSJeFXKcD8IGs4MEhxAaAIYAVAVWEvISBRIgaQNUNfPRBuX3ggZXgzcSbhVTRXMU3/ ShAqIADANzAmkTrBWeAthe8fwDGBKiAmwScFQEBzJ1T7QmJK4HUN0FNyIkM6ciEg3yAAKhFfoWMi FjBwNUMz8t80RF/0WQM+8h7MMkfxBxCHWgNYc1jYMzItYiTQGj9OQVU98QXgSU5GPk9q0CqiS5Eq kS3RREz+TD1YMyE98UyAUnNXMR/gfzrzRRMnMFEgKWALgCMwbDJ2KUJNQyogC1F5Yv8A0CJwKMFX sT6AUkIhkD6y7y2zSuAFsCcwcynAACA/wT8iIEF4OsEYwEngRCcxNvdq8mzyBfAoIKEDoF8hVxM3 H+Bq1Ci2KTpDPHN5J/9pgjsQLYNFmixxQ1EwEzEh/wQgSuEcISBwb7JMgCFCAiD5PDFhZwtxL8Ji 9F3SNln/OsFxZXRjB3Ak0AmAKqJIpr8FsV/wKmI2E1ViNgB3FjH/OH5OcTTwKvBJYQfQBCAEAP80 NV8lR+FsdTRxVTUqQgSg/zL0EfAEIEoYSsJJ0iIRUGd/L/FhoUrYYVI6EyFCaTJJ/zECPesgUkrx IHB3NUngA6D/YvR0oicDdXiEI3ZhKiBAcw9Jgh/hKUEwwUNMVUX/NfUpwAfgbaNJJEDxBPEH0Osp QizAIWtgbkpxT6QoYPcpsSNhIFJfJ1IzEF/QC2D/RIEoxi8RaB+PoiDhevQgQP5zYxIqsHIhJGIq sR5hB+C/TIBxYlxxcxFEcQbgZCcw/xYwEfBXMVpAC3ADIGbDAND/ZFAncV/wIPEIkDwiNKRA8bcE YCBhZjJmJ7CWr0RAgccezAr0M6AxODAC0Sfg+DE0NA3wDNCh8wtZdXD/CqADYCpgnGBMcKQXCoei y+sMMKOWRgNhOqUeo5YMgv0eM2EWMB4xFkALEaS/pc1/BmACMKb/qAumsEJgLIJKHwBwnIA7ERxg ISAxOTnaN01QOhtwE3BNqc+lzb9yEKwPqAwnsjCyGTBjBSA9nRF0I3MzoErgQpBNVTFrwEMtTK/v qt51Yn5qo9GyD6gLSCigH6EjM942opcUIgwBo5ZINgEnEf8m0lEgAxCQQ2RQKIJ6lUgs/zfyVWFr MTzxCHA8ATtwbdN9CoVTMBM5cXuhXpMGEG1/WMG/UU6xBbHEEweRIUJS/wWSdNIl4iKxZYFAc0Fy CoXrQcNDIkEoczVVcTIlbeP/ZsUt4QrAInGLU5OBHlAFsOcDoEJaCoVQQ8ZTMCEvEfcBkIVmwwVP w4IhQsQZIFI/SKFJwm+SQVTHikITT1T6VUJNQ2LlYWIKwUDDxlP3j9dFEX/ReRIACoUpmSQA+yKh LQFwJzAiEcClIUJVYr9lg0AUAiAzEUDxXlJ2B0D/nIBXsQqFJ9BEgXaTVZNjEv8iQiXhQXAiob5k NQNEgR/g/3WiIhFJ4HBAPfFA8CWhIHD+SQqFzaEAIHr0DcEY0Wsxf74Zg3ACQHZhLUAkcR/heX+I ETKiIjNrMYMyJ1EgAG6/CoVA8DExbKRIoQPhdCRxvzrBNFMqIH3CQHMf4GScgvpQSzFpSxBDEwbg CxEhMn/Hhkg1TWER8HGxH9EAwGr/BbEgQLVhMNNC0QhhT4EevV+7/x1Ho5YKhRhRAPBgAAMAEBAA AAAAAwAREAEAAABAAAcwMCg78575uwFAAAgwMCg78575uwEeAD0AAQAAAAUAAABSRTogAAAAAAMA DTT9NwAAMkQ= ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBF978.3C525100-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:46:21 -0800 Reply-To: jefff@dgii.com Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Jeff Fried Organization: digi international Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies As a second generation "fuddy-duddy" (I studied with some of the founding fathers of electronic music both in the states and europe) I'd like to expand on Stephen's comments. Most of the posts to newsgroups/lists dealing with synthesized music are gear related, there are hardly any discussions of making music. This is also true of synthesizer/keyboard/midi related web sites. If you check out other music sites, especially the guitar related ones, you get transcriptions, lessons, theory, that is, issues directly related to making music. The most musical the synthesist sites get is "how do I get this sound..." as Stephen points out. There is so much we could discuss, for example: (1) Relating microcomposition of sound to macrocomposition (of music), (2) Midi arranging and performance techniques, (3) Analysis/Transcriptions of new compositions, (4) New theories of organizing musical elements, (5) Perception issues related to new methods of organizing musical elements, The list is endless. Personally, I'm interested in all of the above, but especially no 2. I play in a band that does both original material and covers. I'm the only musician in the band who can read and write music notation and do most of the composition/arranging/transcription. A serious problem is how do you communicate musical information to a musician who at best can read tabulature? A practical solution is to supply tab along with a recording (tab gives only basic rhythmic information). This works fine for covers, but for original music I use midi arrangements for sampled instruments to approximate the music and either use tab or sometimes just a list of pitches to show the guitarist or bassist his part. Now I don't necessary advocate composing for sampled instruments as a replacement for the real thing, but here is a practical solution to a problem in music communications. I would imagine the above technique would also work in communicating musical ideas in more "esoteric" situations (eg a "new" music ensemble) than a rock/pop band but would of course require more intimate knowledge of the instruments being composed for than is necessary in my situation. -- Jeff. Stephen David Beck wrote: > > Mike Metlay wrote: > > >Ah. You're implying that they're fuddy-duddies in a creative rut, and that > >their clearing out of the playing field has allowed people with real ideas > >to come forth? Interesting thesis, but only tangential to my own argument, > >which was that they're leaving because very little of interest to them is > >happening here. The question then becomes, is what they're hoping to > >avoid (a) creative new ideas that threaten their cozy existence or (b) > >drivel about derivative, commercially successful but mentally bankrupt > >music that teaches nothing of value? > > As one of those "fuddy-duddies", let me respond: > > The question is not what we are hoping to avoid, but rather what we are > hoping to find (and not finding much of it here). > > I know that I spend far too much time reading e-mail from discussion groups > of all kinds (1-2 hours a day). About every six months, I pare down my > subscriptions. I just don't have that much spare time. > > I have often unsubbed and resubbed to this list as my time permits. When > faced with mounds of e-mail on subjects covered in my E-A Music 101 class, > I sometimes opt to opt-out. In defense of Jon, there are only so many > hours in the day, and reading endless queries about elementary e-a music is > just not that important to waste time on. > > But I also know that on occasion, threads of interesting and provocative > subjects do work their way through this list (which is why I keep > resubbing). Fortunately, my new e-mail program filters emusic-l posts to a > separate mailbox that I can browse at my convenience. If you want to > discuss the fine points of the aesthetics of synthetic instruments or > interactive computer music, okay. I might bite. > > But don't expect me to read or reply to the standard "how do I make that > cool Tesh piano sound on my Borg X/YZ3-D Aliterating Assimilating Sampling > Synth?" If you want an answer to that, come to my class. I have my own > students to teach... > > Stephen David Beck > > P.S. Is the term "sampling synthesizer" is an oxymoron? > > ========================================================================= > Stephen David Beck > Director, Electro-Acoustic Music Studios > Co-director, The Music & Art Digital (MAD)Studio > School of Music > Louisiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803-2504 > USA > email: sdb@comp.music.lsu.edu > http://www.music.lsu.edu/faculty/sbeck/sbeck.htm > > President, SEAMUS > The Society for Electro-Acoustic Music in the United States > 2550 Beverly Boulevard > Los Angeles, CA 90057 > http://comp.music.lsu.edu/seamus/ > ========================================================================= ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:20:58 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: "Mark D. Camp" Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies >But on the flip side of this is my own feeling, one articulated very >well by Stephen here: even on a list with as high a signal/noise ratio >as EMUSIC-L (and if you think our S/N is no good, try Analogue Heaven >or rec.music.makers.synth, I dare ya), there are enough questions >asked by the young, the inexperienced, or the Pink to drive the more >established members mad sometimes. I have to suppress the overwhelming >urge to write a Metlay Manifesto of Emusic Acceptable Minima and post >it here once a month, as a sort of bleeding corpse hung up as a warning >to trespassers. one more question, What make one "Established"? -M *______________*______________* !E.A.C! Astronout 408 SpaceLounge Electronic Artists Collective ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:15:33 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: "Mark D. Camp" Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies snip > >But on the flip side of this is my own feeling, one articulated very >well by Stephen here: even on a list with as high a signal/noise ratio >as EMUSIC-L (and if you think our S/N is no good, try Analogue Heaven >or rec.music.makers.synth, I dare ya), there are enough questions >asked by the young, the inexperienced, or the Pink to drive the more >established members mad sometimes. I have to suppress the overwhelming >urge to write a Metlay Manifesto of Emusic Acceptable Minima and post >it here once a month, as a sort of bleeding corpse hung up as a warning >to trespassers. snip HI!! Thought I'd jump in here. I've been lurking on this list for a few weeks now. And to be honest, the reason why I have not posted anything is because most of the conversations on this list are way over my head. But I still enjoy it. It gives me the opportunity to learn. I dont have a Phd, I'm 26, have a few House, Techno, and Ambient records out. Went to Music school for a while. thats about it. Am I 'experience' enough to be on this list? Shouldnt the love of Electronic Music and the willingness to learn be enough? Whats wrong with the more 'Phd'd Experienced' Electronic Musicians helping out us 'non experienced' Musicians?? -M *______________*______________* !E.A.C! Astronout 408 SpaceLounge Electronic Artists Collective ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:14:20 -0800 Reply-To: jefff@dgii.com Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Jeff Fried Organization: digi international Subject: Test Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City wrote: > > Mel Ang writes-- > > > >hi there mike... > > > >EM>happening here. The question then becomes, is what they're hoping to > >EM>avoid (a) creative new ideas that threaten their cozy existence or (b) > >EM>drivel about derivative, commercially successful but mentally bankrupt > >EM>music that teaches nothing of value? > > > >why would they teach something that has no value at all? > > > >just curious > >mel > > Heh. Define "value." One man's education in the roots and essentials of > electro-acoustic music is another man's boring history lesson, and in > the other direction, one man's exciting and fresh new music is another > man's technology-induced masturbation. If you receive this please disregard. I've been having problems replying to this list, EMUSIC-L gets translated to XINCLXEMUSIC-L. -- Jeff. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:27:13 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Courtney Nielsen Subject: Re: emusic > >But on the flip side of this is my own feeling, one articulated very > >well by Stephen here: even on a list with as high a signal/noise ratio > >as EMUSIC-L (and if you think our S/N is no good, try Analogue Heaven > >or rec.music.makers.synth, I dare ya), there are enough questions > >asked by the young, the inexperienced, or the Pink to drive the more > >established members mad sometimes. I have to suppress the overwhelming > >urge to write a Metlay Manifesto of Emusic Acceptable Minima and post > >it here once a month, as a sort of bleeding corpse hung up as a warning > >to trespassers. > What the hell is this??? This LOOKS like a post from a little kid. So how experienced does one have to be on this list?? Obviously, the person who wrote this isn't that great-- I nor anyone else who has read this has heard of you... I just left another mailing list cause I had originally joined it in the hopes of sharing knowledge, but I unsubscribed because there was an overwhelming amount of messages like this one, people on their high horses who really don't know shit when it comes to making good music. Just remember, it's the young and the inexperienced who are releasing record after record, enjoying what they do and have no lame complaints, while you old and 'experienced' bitchers and moaners can sit and, well, bitch and moan. So please, write your Metlay Manifesto of Emusic Acceptable Minima so it can be deleted. Me, I wanna make music. Best Regards, Courtney ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:36:17 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Courtney Nielsen Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies Mark D. Camp wrote: > > >But on the flip side of this is my own feeling, one articulated very > >well by Stephen here: even on a list with as high a signal/noise ratio > >as EMUSIC-L (and if you think our S/N is no good, try Analogue Heaven > >or rec.music.makers.synth, I dare ya), there are enough questions > >asked by the young, the inexperienced, or the Pink to drive the more > >established members mad sometimes. I have to suppress the overwhelming > >urge to write a Metlay Manifesto of Emusic Acceptable Minima and post > >it here once a month, as a sort of bleeding corpse hung up as a warning > >to trespassers. > > one more question, > > What make one "Established"? > > -M > I think this guy's a teacher. You know the old saying: those who can't do, teach. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:38:31 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Courtney Nielsen Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies Mark D. Camp wrote: > > >But on the flip side of this is my own feeling, one articulated very > >well by Stephen here: even on a list with as high a signal/noise ratio > >as EMUSIC-L (and if you think our S/N is no good, try Analogue Heaven > >or rec.music.makers.synth, I dare ya), there are enough questions > >asked by the young, the inexperienced, or the Pink to drive the more > >established members mad sometimes. I have to suppress the overwhelming > >urge to write a Metlay Manifesto of Emusic Acceptable Minima and post > >it here once a month, as a sort of bleeding corpse hung up as a warning > >to trespassers. > > one more question, > > What make one "Established"? > > -M > > I think you should post that question on here. This is a fun mailing list. Everyone sucks. Let's give 'em a hard time. BASSHEADS ATTACK!!!!!!! "feel my mutha-fuckin' bass in yer face" "mutha-fucka. mutha-fucka. mu-mu-mu-mutha-fucka." BOOM...BOOM...BOOM...BOOM... just make the kick drum a little louder.... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 16:41:27 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: "Mark D. Camp" Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies hmm....for some reason this didnt post the first time it was sent. Appologies if you receive it twice. snip > >But on the flip side of this is my own feeling, one articulated very >well by Stephen here: even on a list with as high a signal/noise ratio >as EMUSIC-L (and if you think our S/N is no good, try Analogue Heaven >or rec.music.makers.synth, I dare ya), there are enough questions >asked by the young, the inexperienced, or the Pink to drive the more >established members mad sometimes. I have to suppress the overwhelming >urge to write a Metlay Manifesto of Emusic Acceptable Minima and post >it here once a month, as a sort of bleeding corpse hung up as a warning >to trespassers. snip HI!! Thought I'd jump in here. I've been lurking on this list for a few weeks now. And to be honest, the reason why I have not posted anything is because most of the conversations on this list are way over my head. But I still enjoy it. It gives me the opportunity to learn. I dont have a Phd, I'm 26, have a few House, Techno, and Ambient records out. Went to Music school for a while. thats about it. Am I 'experience' enough to be on this list? Shouldnt the love of Electronic Music and the willingness to learn be enough? Whats wrong with the more 'Phd'd Experienced' Electronic Musicians helping out us 'non experienced' Musicians?? -M *______________*______________* !E.A.C! Astronout 408 SpaceLounge Electronic Artists Collective ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 20:06:56 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Michael Millard Subject: Re: emusic ------------5B9B743C2C580 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii This looks like the kind of thing many of us have come to hate. I don't know who Courtney is but I think he or she missed the beginning of this thread and may wish to back pedal toward the beginning of it. I suspect that Mike's flameing was touched off by his making offensive remarks toward the young and creative to which this person most probably belongs. In case you are new to the List Mike Metlay is Dr. Mike Metlay and I would bet some large sums of money that he knows very well what creating music and hard work are about. He is also CoModerator of this list. I would argue that while it is often young and all to often arogant and frequently lucky individuales selling mush on record stands it is people like Dr. Mike who are building the sounds, making the albums, and in general wiping the butts of those same musical rabits. It is my opinion that recording a CD and making music do not by nessecity have anything to do with each other. Everyone of any age can be creative and produce music from varied backgrounds and with vastly different educational potentials and acheivements. I don't think Dr. Mike intended do belittle anyone, while it is done quite well by some people themselves. This list will not survive without a cross referance of people and skills. We need Egg heads, hard workers, wonder kids, and even those who trip and fall on their ego so often that they never achieve their pottentials. I have had wonderfull contacts from this list from all sorts of life styles and back grounds. I think that creativity while founded on talent and nurturing it can not blossom without open minded resolve to see the world as it is, in fact even if it isn't. I for one am very disturbed by Jon Appletons departure but I am more concerned by juvinile responces to serious and open discussions. Perhaps this is why few real meaty and flavorfull conversastions on music make in onto the list or last long as a threadwhen they do. All to often some half assed remark flies out of nowhere and the thread desolves into a flaming war. I want to know about where we came from as Electronic Music and I am eager to know more about where we are and where we're going. Basicly If you don't want to get your feet wet get out of the water, PS, I hope I to sound like a Kid because it would be the best company I've been in all week. ------------5B9B743C2C580 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
This looks like the kind of thing many of us have come to hate.  I don't know who Courtney is but I think he or she missed the beginning of this thread and may wish to back pedal toward the beginning of it.  I suspect that Mike's flameing was touched off by his making offensive remarks toward the young and creative to which this person most probably belongs.  In case you are new to the List Mike Metlay is Dr. Mike Metlay and I would bet some large sums of money that he knows very well what creating music and hard work are about. He is also CoModerator of this list.  I would argue that while it is often young and all to often arogant and frequently lucky individuales selling mush on record stands it is people like Dr. Mike who are building the sounds, making the albums, and in general wiping the butts of those same musical rabits.  It is my opinion that recording a CD and making music do not by nessecity have anything to do with each other.  Everyone of any age can be creative and produce music from varied backgrounds and with vastly different educational potentials and acheivements.  I don't think Dr. Mike intended do belittle anyone, while it is done quite well by some people themselves.  This list will not survive without a cross referance of people and skills.  We need Egg heads, hard workers, wonder kids, and even those who trip and fall on their ego so often that they never achieve their pottentials.  I have had wonderfull contacts from this list from all sorts of life styles and back grounds.  I think that creativity while founded on talent and nurturing it can not blossom without open minded resolve to see the world as it is, in fact even if it isn't.  I for one am very disturbed by Jon Appletons departure but I am more concerned by juvinile responces to serious and open discussions.  Perhaps this is why few real meaty and flavorfull conversastions on music make in onto the list or last long as a threadwhen they do.  All to often some half assed remark flies out of nowhere and the thread desolves into a flaming war.  I want to know about where we came from as Electronic Music and I am eager to know more about where we are and where we're going.  
 
Basicly If you don't want to get your feet wet get out of the water,
 
PS, I hope I to sound like a Kid because it would be the best company I've been in all week.
------------5B9B743C2C580-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 20:09:00 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Michael Millard Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies ------------2EC050A4A151 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Those who aren't learning complain. ------------2EC050A4A151 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
 Those who aren't learning complain.
------------2EC050A4A151-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 20:19:38 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Michael Millard Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies ------------56632C236992 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Courtney Nielsen wrote: > > > I think you should post that question on here. >This is a fun mailing list. Everyone sucks. Let's give 'em a hard time. >BASSHEADS ATTACK!!!!!!! >"feel my mutha-fuckin' bass in yer face" >"mutha-fucka. mutha-fucka. mu-mu-mu-mutha-fucka." >BOOM...BOOM...BOOM...BOOM... > just make the kick drum a little louder.... I think some one said just today this class of person wasn't on our list yet, you know the No class type. Keep the faith and attitude its sure to keep my competition down. It's not the list its just an occassional loser. In fact even some people who have made the " Big Time " were and are still losers. Then again even pricks can make good music. I just don't think this list is the place for it. Come back in 15 or 20 years when you get out of puberty. ------------56632C236992 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Courtney Nielsen wrote: > > >   I think you should post that question on here. >This is a fun mailing list. Everyone sucks.  Let's give 'em a hard time.
>BASSHEADS ATTACK!!!!!!!
>"feel my mutha-fuckin' bass in yer face"
>"mutha-fucka. mutha-fucka. mu-mu-mu-mutha-fucka."
>BOOM...BOOM...BOOM...BOOM...
 
>              just make the kick drum a little louder....
 
I think some one said just today this class of person wasn't on our list yet, you know the No class type.  Keep the faith and attitude its sure to keep my competition down.  It's not the list its just an occassional loser.  In fact even some people who have made the " Big Time " were and are still losers.  Then again even pricks can make good music.  I just don't think this list is the place for it.  Come back in 15 or 20 years when you get out of puberty.  
------------56632C236992-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 20:27:17 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Michael Millard Subject: Re: emusic ------------37A73FFD52D64 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >>> Mike Metlay said: > > >But on the flip side of this is my own feeling, one articulated very > > >well by Stephen here: even on a list with as high a signal/noise ratio > > >as EMUSIC-L (and if you think our S/N is no good, try Analogue Heaven > > >or rec.music.makers.synth, I dare ya), there are enough questions > > >asked by the young, the inexperienced, or the Pink to drive the more > > >established members mad sometimes. I have to suppress the overwhelming > > >urge to write a Metlay Manifesto of Emusic Acceptable Minima and post > > >it here once a month, as a sort of bleeding corpse hung up as a warning > > >to trespassers. > > Courtney Said: > What the hell is this??? > > This LOOKS like a post from a little kid. So how experienced does one have to be on this list?? > Obviously, the person who wrote this isn't that great-- I nor anyone else who has read this has heard of you... > > I just left another mailing list cause I had originally joined it in the hopes of sharing knowledge, but I > unsubscribed because there was an overwhelming amount of messages like this one, people on their high horses > who really don't know shit when it comes to making good music. > > Just remember, it's the young and the inexperienced who are releasing record after record, enjoying what they > do and have no lame complaints, while you old and 'experienced' bitchers and moaners can sit and, well, bitch > and moan. > > So please, write your Metlay Manifesto of Emusic Acceptable Minima so it can be deleted. Me, I wanna make > music. > > Best Regards, > > Courtney > This looks like the kind of thing many of us have come to hate. I don't know who Courtney is but I think he or she missed the beginning of this thread and may wish to back pedal toward the beginning of it. I suspect that Mike's flameing was touched off by his making offensive remarks toward the young and creative to which this person most probably belongs. In case you are new to the List Mike Metlay is Dr. Mike Metlay and I would bet some large sums of money that he knows very well what creating music and hard work are about. He is also CoModerator of this list. I would argue that while it is often young and all to often arogant and frequently lucky individuales selling mush on record stands it is people like Dr. Mike who are building the sounds, making the albums, and in general wiping the butts of those same musical rabits. It is my opinion that recording a CD and making music do not by nessecity have anything to do with each other. Everyone of any age can be creative and produce music from varied backgrounds and with vastly different educational potentials and acheivements. I don't think Dr. Mike intended do belittle anyone, while it is done quite well by some people themselves. This list will not survive without a cross referance of people and skills. We need Egg heads, hard workers, wonder kids, and even those who trip and fall on their ego so often that they never achieve their pottentials. I have had wonderfull contacts from this list from all sorts of life styles and back grounds. I think that creativity while founded on talent and nurturing it can not blossom without open minded resolve to see the world as it is, in fact even if it isn't. I for one am very disturbed by Jon Appletons departure but I am more concerned by juvinile responces to serious and open discussions. Perhaps this is why few real meaty and flavorfull conversastions on music make in onto the list or last long as a threadwhen they do. All to often some half assed remark flies out of nowhere and the thread desolves into a flaming war. I want to know about where we came from as Electronic Music and I am eager to know more about where we are and where we're going. Sorry to include most of the previous message I did not think the full effect of the Ass isity could be understood otherwise. Basicly If you don't want to get your feet wet get out of the water, PS, I hope I to sound like a Kid because it would be the best company I've been in all week. ------------37A73FFD52D64 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>>>  Mike Metlay said:
> > >But on the flip side of this is my own feeling, one articulated very
> > >well by Stephen here: even on a list with as high a signal/noise ratio
> > >as EMUSIC-L (and if you think our S/N is no good, try Analogue Heaven
> > >or rec.music.makers.synth, I dare ya), there are enough questions
> > >asked by the young, the inexperienced, or the Pink to drive the more
> > >established members mad sometimes. I have to suppress the overwhelming
> > >urge to write a Metlay Manifesto of Emusic Acceptable Minima and post
> > >it here once a month, as a sort of bleeding corpse hung up as a warning
> > >to trespassers.
> >
   Courtney Said:

> What the hell is this???

> This LOOKS like a post from a little kid.  So how experienced does one have to be on this list??
> Obviously, the person who wrote this isn't that great-- I nor anyone else who has read this has heard of you...

> I just left another mailing list cause I had originally joined it in the hopes of sharing knowledge, but I
> unsubscribed because there was an overwhelming amount of messages like this one, people on their high horses
> who really don't know shit when it comes to making good music.

> Just remember, it's the young and the inexperienced who are releasing record after record, enjoying what they
> do and have no lame complaints, while you old and 'experienced' bitchers and moaners can sit and, well, bitch
> and moan.

> So please, write your Metlay Manifesto of Emusic Acceptable Minima so it can be deleted.  Me, I wanna make
> music.

> Best Regards,

> Courtney

 This looks like the kind of thing many of us have come to hate.  I don't know who Courtney is but I think he or she missed the beginning of this thread and may wish to back pedal toward the beginning of it.  I suspect that Mike's flameing was touched off by his making offensive remarks toward the young and creative to which this person most probably belongs.  In case you are new to the List Mike Metlay is Dr. Mike Metlay and I would bet some large sums of money that he knows very well what creating music and hard work are about. He is also CoModerator of this list.  I would argue that while it is often young and all to often arogant and frequently lucky individuales selling mush on record stands it is people like Dr. Mike who are building the sounds, making the albums, and in general wiping the butts of those same musical rabits.  It is my opinion that recording a CD and making music do not by nessecity have anything to do with each other.  Everyone of any age can be creative and produce music from varied backgrounds and with vastly different educational potentials and acheivements.  I don't think Dr. Mike intended do belittle anyone, while it is done quite well by some people themselves.  This list will not survive without a cross referance of people and skills.  We need Egg heads, hard workers, wonder kids, and even those who trip and fall on their ego so often that they never achieve their pottentials.  I have had wonderfull contacts from this list from all sorts of life styles and back grounds.  I think that creativity while founded on talent and nurturing it can not blossom without open minded resolve to see the world as it is, in fact even if it isn't.  I for one am very disturbed by Jon Appletons departure but I am more concerned by juvinile responces to serious and open discussions.  Perhaps this is why few real meaty and flavorfull conversastions on music make in onto the list or last long as a threadwhen they do.  All to often some half assed remark flies out of nowhere and the thread desolves into a flaming war.  I want to know about where we came from as Electronic Music and I am eager to know more about where we are and where we're going.   Sorry to include most of the previous message I did  not think the full effect of the Ass isity could be understood otherwise.    
 
Basicly If you don't want to get your feet wet get out of the water,     
 
PS, I hope I to sound like a Kid because it would be the best company I've been in all week. 
------------37A73FFD52D64-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 17:42:08 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: "Mark D. Camp" Subject: Fuddy Duddy response hmm....for some reason this didnt post the first or the second time it was sent. Appologies if you receive it twice, or three times. snip > >But on the flip side of this is my own feeling, one articulated very >well by Stephen here: even on a list with as high a signal/noise ratio >as EMUSIC-L (and if you think our S/N is no good, try Analogue Heaven >or rec.music.makers.synth, I dare ya), there are enough questions >asked by the young, the inexperienced, or the Pink to drive the more >established members mad sometimes. I have to suppress the overwhelming >urge to write a Metlay Manifesto of Emusic Acceptable Minima and post >it here once a month, as a sort of bleeding corpse hung up as a warning >to trespassers. snip HI!! Thought I'd jump in here. I've been lurking on this list for a few weeks now. And to be honest, the reason why I have not posted anything is because most of the conversations on this list are way over my head. But I still enjoy it. It gives me the opportunity to learn. I dont have a Phd, I'm 26, have a few House, Techno, and Ambient records out. Went to Music school for a while. thats about it. Am I 'experience' enough to be on this list? Shouldnt the love of Electronic Music and the willingness to learn be enough? Whats wrong with the more 'Phd'd Experienced' Electronic Musicians helping out us 'non experienced' Musicians?? -M *______________*______________* !E.A.C! Astronout 408 SpaceLounge Electronic Artists Collective ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 23:13:52 -0300 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Emiliano Canal Subject: Re: emusic / analog? This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01BBF9CB.C9044C40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Default Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit C'mon, guys! This is the second time I'm subscribed to this list, and the first time I had to unsubscribe because of an endless discussion about classical music lovers vs. haters. Will we start again? I have a question that someone should have done before. I have digital synths, but I want to make them sound more analog. One of them is the Emu Vintage Keys, so I have no trouble with this (although sometimes it doesn't sound analog at all). I know some tricks, like using the MIDI volume control to "open" and "close" the sound. Another one is to blend the sounds with some phaser or something, to add some "random" things, but I guess there are more tricks. I have a sampler too, an Ensoniq EPS16+. Any help? Emiliano Canal -Argentina jcanal@century.com.ar > > What the hell is this??? > > This LOOKS like a post from a little kid. So how experienced does one have to be on this list?? > Obviously, the person who wrote this isn't that great-- I nor anyone else who has read this has heard of you... > > I just left another mailing list cause I had originally joined it in the hopes of sharing knowledge, but I > unsubscribed because there was an overwhelming amount of messages like this one, people on their high horses > who really don't know shit when it comes to making good music. > ------=_NextPart_000_01BBF9CB.C9044C40 Content-Type: text/html; charset=Default Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


C'mon, guys! This is the second time I'm = subscribed to this list, and the first time I had to unsubscribe because = of an endless discussion about classical music lovers vs. haters. Will = we start again?

I have a question that someone should have = done before. I have digital synths, but I want to make them sound more = analog. One of them is the Emu Vintage Keys, so I have no trouble with = this (although sometimes it doesn't sound analog at all). I know some = tricks, like using the MIDI volume control to "open" and = "close" the sound. Another one is to blend the sounds with = some phaser or something, to add some "random" things, but I = guess there are more tricks. I have a sampler too, an Ensoniq EPS16+. = Any help?


Emiliano Canal -Argentina
jcanal@century.com.ar


>
> What the hell is this???
> =
> This LOOKS like a post from a little kid.  So how = experienced does one have to be on this list??
> Obviously, the = person who wrote this isn't that great-- I nor anyone else who has read = this has heard of you...
>
> I just left another mailing = list cause I had originally joined it in the hopes of sharing knowledge, = but I
> unsubscribed because there was an overwhelming amount of = messages like this one, people on their high horses
> who really = don't know shit when it comes to making good music.
>

------=_NextPart_000_01BBF9CB.C9044C40-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 21:41:40 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Michael Millard Subject: Re: Fuddy Duddy response ------------6F5A79B168FB5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mark D. Camp wrote > Thought I'd jump in here. I've been lurking on this list for a few weeks > now. And to be honest, the reason why I have not posted anything is > because most of the conversations on this list are way over my head. But > I still enjoy it. It gives me the opportunity to learn. I dont have a > Phd, I'm 26, have a few House, Techno, and Ambient records out. Went to > Music school for a while. thats about it. Am I 'experience' enough to > be on this list? Shouldnt the love of Electronic Music and the > willingness to learn be enough? Whats wrong with the more 'Phd'd > Experienced' Electronic Musicians helping out us 'non experienced' > Musicians?? I don't think anyone worth listening to on this list has ever made the slightest indication that anyone who loved music should be excluded. The occational jerk might pop up that reguardless of contributions might be undesirable, but overall every one seems welcome. A few years ago when I joined this list I found myself always lost and asking stupid questions that a few people found unacceptable for the list. Joe and Mike torched me every now and then, especially Mike and I made it until I could sometime contribute. I still have a great deal to learn but I'm here listening while many of those who were to good to give me a hand are long gone. I might ask who is the better for those years. I cann't imagine that many of the teachers, inventors, and creative minds that frequent this list are here only for their own benifit. I would suggest their here because they want to offer their insights and skills to the pool. I think it is the mindless drible and Flamers that drive the great and usefull away. I can only hope that many of them come back, and others don't leave. I used to let people like Courtney bug the shit out of me. Now I have seen enough of them come and go that I take it in stride. I wish we could talk about digital vrs. analog sounds. I'd like to know more about mixing samples with synths. What is the best way to layer different synth technologies and is there a key to what mixtures to try? What is the best way to resample a sample after adding effects? If I purchased a Korg Prophecy would the lack of cords really piss me off after the newness wore off? Why didn't the SY99 and SY77 do better sales than they did? I have a million things I'd like to know beyound how ragile a readers skin is. I can not speak for Joe or Mike but I for one think that anyone who loves music and has some mutual respect for the other people on this list should stay as long as they possibly can. May your contributions to Music, Life, and the List last as long as you do. ------------6F5A79B168FB5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Mark D. Camp wrote
 
> Thought I'd jump in here.  I've been lurking on this list for a few weeks
> now.  And to be honest, the reason why I have not posted anything is
> because most of the conversations on this list are way over my head.  But
> I still enjoy it.  It gives me the opportunity to learn.  I dont have a
> Phd, I'm 26, have a few House, Techno, and Ambient records out.  Went to
> Music school for a while.  thats about it.  Am I 'experience' enough to
> be on this list?  Shouldnt the love of Electronic Music and the
> willingness to learn be enough?  Whats wrong with the more 'Phd'd
> Experienced' Electronic Musicians helping out us 'non experienced'
> Musicians??

I don't  think anyone worth listening to on this list has ever made the slightest indication that anyone who loved music should be excluded.  The occational jerk might pop up that reguardless of contributions might be undesirable, but overall every one seems welcome.  A few years ago when I joined this list I found myself always lost and asking stupid questions that a few people found  unacceptable for the list.  Joe and Mike torched me every now and then, especially Mike and I made it until I could sometime contribute.  I still have a great deal to learn but I'm here listening while many of those who were to good to give me a hand are long gone.  I might ask who is the better for those years.  I cann't imagine that many of the teachers, inventors, and creative minds that frequent this list are here only for their own benifit.  I would suggest their here because they want to offer their insights and skills to the pool.  I think it is the mindless drible and Flamers that drive the great and usefull away.  I can only hope that many of them come back, and others don't leave.  I used to let people like Courtney bug the shit out of me.  Now I have seen enough of them come and go that I take it in stride.  I wish we could talk about digital vrs. analog sounds. I'd like to know more about mixing samples with synths.  What is the best way to layer different synth technologies and is there a key to what mixtures to try?  What is the best way to resample a sample after adding effects?  If I purchased a Korg Prophecy would the lack of cords really piss me off after the newness wore off?  Why didn't the SY99 and SY77 do better sales than they did?  I have a million things I'd like to know beyound how ragile a readers skin is.  I can not speak for Joe or Mike but I for one think that anyone who loves music and has some mutual respect for the other people on this list should stay as long as they possibly can.  
 
May your contributions to Music, Life, and the List last as long as you do.
------------6F5A79B168FB5-- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 03:42:37 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Paulo Mouat Subject: E-music aesthetics and computer synthesis: Enlightenment? Hello listmembers, ending a substantial period of silence, I would like to develop on the recently referred threads of emusic aesthetics and computer-mediated synthesis and/or composition. Not being a composer by career or even by education (as some of you may recall from a rather interesting discussion quite a while ago, I am a theoretical physicist), I am interested in the activity of musical composition and theory, especially 20th century music and avant-garde. Given the limitation that I am completely outside the medium of discussion and relations with other musicians/composers, I currently endure a solo tour-de-force to extend my knowledge (both by learning and reading whatever I can and by experimentation) of music theory up to the level required to have a proper understanding of the concepts underlying this century's music methodologies. Beyond a proper understanding of these theories and methods, as anybody else with a conscious, musical mind would be, I am interested in exploring composition and synthesis methodologies, towards a preferably unified concept encompassing musical events both in the microlevel (typically represented by sound sythesis) and macrolevels (as reflected, for instance, in a piece's structure or development over time). To this end, over the past few years I have gathered quite a large spectrum of thoughts and notions of what are the concepts and ideas behind many composers (those which I find the most appealing and interesting are Stockhausen, Xenakis, Boulez and Cage, but there are others too) and especially on what would I want my music to be like, particularly what ideas I would like to transmit. But I find it quite difficult to attain a precise personal aesthetic, be it due to lack of experience in the composition activity (what enables one to fully and quickly achieve the practical realization of a musical idea), or due to a certain 'overwhelmingness' in the diversity of ways that are available (technological or others) to that practical realization. Effectively, I don't know how to start and where to turn. I post this somewhat long message to this list hoping that it will generate a few threads on these subjects, and that they may bring this sort of topics to wide and enlightening discussion on this list. I personally find promising the thoughts exposed by Xenakis in his book 'Formalized Music,' both in what relates to instrumental music and to electronic music and sound synthesis. With this in mind, I already experimented with stochastically-composed pieces and generated sounds. I have accomplished interesting stochastic piano pieces and am currently dealing with aspects of stochastic synthesis. Also, one of the concepts that appeals to me the most is Stockhausen's notion of time, as exposed in his much criticized (in a rigorous scientific view) Die Reihe article '...how time passes...' and his overall rock-solid stance towards musical form. I have found that the presentation of ideas I use in my music is quite similar to Stockhausen's older compositions ('50s, '60s), in the way that it deals with a process and not with ideas extraneous to the music itself (I would recall Stockhausen's 'Momente,' 'Gruppen,' 'Kontakte' or any of his Klavierstuecke). I would love to hear about any of you listmember's personal aesthetics and visions about composition, any criticism or comments regarding my own, and to share any experiences in using particular methods of composition or sound generation, software (I use CSound, SoundForge, Max, ...), or anything else for that matter. Best! -- __|__ ___\_/___ ___ Paulo Mouat, |___| mouat@mail.telepac.pt |___| ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 23:22:28 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Michael Millard Subject: My last few emails I wanted to appologize to the list for my last few Emails being goofed today. One of our esteemed contributors gave me some helpfull information about an E-Mail reader I've never used but that was quite cool when used with List Services. It is indeed cool but I am learning how it works and transmitted my E-Mail in less than the desired shape. Please overlook the errors. I am also interested in hearing about the lists input on the synthetic generation of original, I.E. nontraditional sounds and public acceptability of those. Does the introduction of sounds that are new or hybridized versions of recognized sounds contribute favorably as a rule to a musical creation. I tend to think it is solely dependant on the work and the sound. I think some people a rabidly on one side or the other. What does the general public feel seem to be? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 23:30:32 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Michael Millard Subject: Harmonics. I have listened to many different compositions where the texture, pitch, and feel of a piece of music seemed to have a much different feel from instrument to instrument. I have played with this quite a bit using MIDI to assign various sounds to a track to feel the differance given sounds produced. I am curious to know just how much harmonics can be varied with a true Synth and if it has been studied in terms of general effect? Can we add subtle moods to a song intentionally by harmonics modifications? Is it the harmonics that are playing the major part or something else? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 20:32:36 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Courtney Nielsen Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies At 08:19 PM 1/3/97 -0500, you wrote: >Courtney Nielsen wrote: > > > I think you should post that question on >here. >This is a fun mailing list. Everyone sucks. Let's give 'em a >hard time. >>BASSHEADS ATTACK!!!!!!! >>"feel my mutha-fuckin' bass in yer face" >>"mutha-fucka. mutha-fucka. mu-mu-mu-mutha-fucka." >>BOOM...BOOM...BOOM...BOOM... > >> just make the kick drum a little louder.... > >I think some one said just today this class of person wasn't on our list >yet, you know the No class type. Keep the faith and attitude its sure >to keep my competition down. It's not the list its just an occassional >loser. In fact even some people who have made the " Big Time " were and >are still losers. Then again even pricks can make good music. I just >don't think this list is the place for it. Come back in 15 or 20 years >when you get out of puberty. > > WHOAH!!!! This was a message sent privately to a friend!! and he forwarded it. This was a personal response from a message i received earlier from someone on a high horse who appeared to me to have nothing to do with electronic music but complain about it. Anyway, a person responded to me who explained what was going on, and, well, then I found this message on here. So once again, I apologize, I was insulted from a message on this mailing list earlier, I AM out of puberty, I NEVER said anything about "big time" (I was making a statement about young people putting out records-- I am not talking about mainstream, I am talking about starving people who have their lives devoted to electronic music and scrape up whatever they can to release their music to the people. The quotes are from Paul Johnson - a Chicago artist who, even though was shot and permantely affixed to a wheelchair still makes some of the most innovative dance productions around). I don't beleive you have to be a Doctor to be innovative (I'm sure it helps in a lot of areas, but music is from the soul). I apologize to anyone whom this has offended. However, if this is a list for just certain types of electronic music dictated by a few people who were lucky enough to spend a lot of time at college, then please let me know and I will leave you be. If this list is about discussing electronic music, I have some ideas, and I would love to be a part of it. Regards, Courtney ________________________________________ Courtney Nielsen Electronic Artists Collective (408) 275-9972 cnielsen@earthlink.net ________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 21:15:12 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Tony Cappellini Subject: FS : Matrix 6R Comments: To: analogue@hyperreal.com Comments: cc: synth-l@american.edu, arath@ix.netcom.com, Barry Klein , bionaut@aol.com, dark.matter@vt.edu, cord@lance.colostate.edu, davealex@csd.net, ggptlcb@grove.iup.edu, gsfa@netcom.com, deardorf@nas.nasa.gov, audio@ituner.com, theoutcast@earthlink.net, kf@dspacer.com, lhammond@uvic.ca, lx@fht.com, agronda@relay.logical.iunet.it, deardorf@nas.nasa.gov, djeter@utk.edu, dark.matter@vt.edu, siforte@netcom.com, 8640@mne.net, djmaytag@terracom.net, moveracker@intrlink.com, 74723.162@compuserve.com, jfm-3@ix.netcom.com, bfelton@ibm.net, chialee@students.wisc.edu, pdn@linkline.be, rob@secret-secret.com, rverberk@students.wisc.edu, jupiter-8@juno.com, siforte@netcom6.netcom.com, siforte@netcom.com, Fiorenza@ccnet.com, 8640@mne.net, tracy@global2000.net, vance@netcom.com It was my frist synth, but now it's gotta go ... Oberheim Matrix 6R, excellent condition, 3 unit high rack version of the Matrix 6 keyboard, WITH rack ears 6 voice, bi-timbral synth includes 4 Factory patch cassettes owners Manual plus Getting the most out of your Matrix 6 manual (By Jeff Burger) from Alexander Publishing 1000 patches from the Matrix 1000 patches WITH patch names. $475 plus shipping ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 05:31:52 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Paulo Mouat Subject: E-music aesthetics and computer synthesis: Any enlightenments? Hello listmembers, ending a substantial period of silence, I would like to develop on the recently referred threads of emusic aesthetics and computer-mediated synthesis and/or composition. Not being a composer by career or even by education (as some of you may recall from a rather interesting discussion quite a while ago, I am a theoretical physicist), I am interested in the activity of musical composition and theory, especially 20th century and avant-garde. Given the limitation that I am completely outside the medium of discussion and relations with other musicians/composers, I currently endure a solo tour-de-force to extend my knowledge (both by learning and reading whatever I can and by experimentation) of music theory up to the level required to have a proper understanding of the concepts underlying this century's music methodologies. Beyond a proper understanding of these theories and methods, as anybody else with a conscious, musical mind would be, I am interested in exploring composition and synthesis methodologies, towards a preferably unified concept encompassing musical events both in the microlevel (typically represented by sound sythesis) and macrolevels (as reflected, for instance, in a piece's structure or development over time). To this end, over the past few years I have gathered quite a large spectrum of thoughts and notions of what are the concepts and ideas behind many composers (those which I find the most appealing and interesting are Stockhausen, Xenakis, Boulez and Cage, but there are others too) and especially on what would I want my music to be like, particularly what ideas I would like to transmit. But I find it quite difficult to attain a precise personal aesthetic, be it due to lack of experience in the composition activity (what enables one to fully and quickly achieve the practical realization of a musical idea), or due to a certain 'overwhelmingness' in the diversity of ways that are available (technological or others) to that practical realization. Effectively, I don't know how to start and where to turn. I post this somewhat long message to this list hoping that it will generate a few threads on these subjects, and that they may bring this sort of topics to wide and enlightening discussion on this list. I personally find promising the thoughts exposed by Xenakis in his book 'Formalized Music,' both in what relates to instrumental music and to electronic music and sound synthesis. With this in mind, I already experimented with stochastically-composed pieces and generated sounds. I have accomplished interesting stochastic piano pieces and am currently dealing with aspects of stochastic synthesis. Also, one of the concepts that appeals to me the most is Stockhausen's notion of time, as exposed in his much criticized (in a rigorous scientific view) Die Reihe article '...how time passes...' and his overall rock-solid stance towards musical form. I have found that the presentation of ideas I use in my music is quite similar to Stockhausen's older compositions ('50s, '60s), in the way that it deals with a process and not with ideas extraneous to the music itself (I would recall Stockhausen's 'Momente,' 'Gruppen,' 'Kontakte' or any of his Klavierstuecke). I would love to hear about any of you listmember's personal aesthetics and visions about composition, any criticism or comments regarding my own, and to share any experiences in using particular methods of composition or sound generation, software (I use CSound, SoundForge, Max, ...), or anything else for that matter. Best! -- __|__ ___\_/___ ___ Paulo Mouat, |___| mouat@mail.telepac.pt |___| ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 22:57:24 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Dixon Subject: Re: Drum and Bass, Sample Libraries...OK, STIMULATING CHAT. In-Reply-To: <32CD95D1.669A@earthlink.net> Hey all! I am Dixon from Canada... joined about 3 months ago, and after reading the insulting letters on this list, I decided to invite some "essential" conversation..... Like what's influencing people lately.... I get lotsa cool to review so I've been into everything from the new Enigma, to Download, Swamp Terrorists, Delerium, FLA, Oldfield (king), Severed Heads, I am very interested in what everyone else in this group thinks is cool and cutting edge.... of course I have many opinions on this>>>>>> Just was interested if anyone else out there has been getting into the drum and bass vibe from England.... I just picked up the Macro Dub Infection which goes from d & b to jungle to the illbient vibe outta NY. Bill Laswell is on it... he's very cool... Next is, I've been using the new CD sample series from Discovery Music lately (Check out full page as in Keyboard) for putting together wiggid beats, from which I write songs, or sometimes, the other way around.... If a track is full, with 20 parts, whatever, and then add whatever rhythms/noise loops that I need.... it's pretty satisfying. I'm interested in finding out what kind of gear everybody's into, what sequencers they use, samplers, etc...... Maybe this level of chat will please the self-appointed elitists out there.... I've been at it since before Puppy or Enigma, whatever you're into. Gears! Dix ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 01:00:25 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Fleur Weinstock Subject: Project4NewMusic: electronic, experimental, contemporary classical *> Please save this message, as it contains pertinent information on SUBSCRIBING and UNSUBSCRIBING from the =Project4NewMusic= emailing list. 1> To SUBSCRIBE to the =Project4NewMusic= mailing list send a message to "majordomo@husc.harvard.edu" with the content of the message reading "subscribe pronemu-list" 2> To UNSUBSCRIBE from =Project4NewMusic= mailing list, send a message to "majordomo@husc.harvard.edu" with the content of the message reading "unsubscribe pronemu-list" 3> Hello. This mailing list is a function of =Project4NewMusic=. =Project4NewMusic= is officially affiliated with Harvard-Radcliffe Contemporary Music Ensemble and seeks to explore the edge of music, as well as the boundaries of sound. The mailing list exists to discuss ideas, announce events of interest, and invite people to meetings. 4> Postings concerning "what is music", "what is sound", or "what are we doing with everything" are always welcome, and may be sent to <<>>. This means it will reach everyone who has been subscribed to the =Project4NewMusic= mailing list. 5> People who join the mailing list may and do include individuals from around the world who may have no musical background or may be a master in their field. We welcome composers, experimenters, and instrumentalists, as well as anyone. *> As your list-administrator and the initial instigator of =Project4NewMusic=, I do not censor this mailing list. However, feel free to contact me with any questions, concerns, or et cetera at "weinstoc@husc.harvard.edu". Thank you most sincerely, with sound squeezing slyly, Fleur de Vie Weinstock HRCME Project4NewMusic Harvard University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 23:05:54 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Dixon Subject: Re: emusic / analog? In-Reply-To: <02221586009662@century.com.ar> > I have a question that someone should have done before. I have digital > synths, but I want to make them sound more analog. One of them is the Emu > Vintage Keys, so I have no trouble with this (although sometimes it doesn't > sound analog at all). I know some tricks, like using the MIDI volume > control to "open" and "close" the sound. Another one is to blend the sounds > with some phaser or something, to add some "random" things, but I guess > there are more tricks. I have a sampler too, an Ensoniq EPS16+. Any help? > Emiliano Canal -Argentina > jcanal@century.com.ar Hey! I also love my Vintage Keys Plus... I only wish that it had multi-preset functions like the..... which is "a" solution for you...the Morpheus. I love this machine, and the combination of the two are dreamy.... like the great vintage piano #212 Ivory Strings combined with the Morph. As for analog, and fat sounds, I think that the morph has a lot to offer because of the real-time envelope parameter changes that will "morph" the wave as you record to sequencer. This is very cool, and if you're looking for analog sounds that evolve with your track, this may be a good solution for you. Dix ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 01:16:11 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Fleur Weinstock Subject: Re: E-music aesthetics and computer synthesis: Enlightenment? In-Reply-To: <32CDC39D.2E12@mail.telepac.pt> On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Paulo Mouat wrote:> I am interested in 20th century music and avant-garde. I find it quite> difficult to attain a precise personal aesthetic, be it due to lack of > experience in the composition activity (what enables one to fully and > quickly achieve the practical realization of a musical idea), or due to > a certain 'overwhelmingness' in the diversity of ways that are available > (technological or others) to that practical realization. (((i don't understand why you are concerned with "a precise personal aesthetic" at all!!! it seems to me that "a precise personal aesthetic" has nothing at all to do with making good music!!! perhaps you are more concerned with a making some kind of name for yourself in the history books than with making good music, in which case "a precise personal aesthetic" would be Crucial. if you are concerned with history books, i suggested you consult a history list, not a music list.))) > Effectively, I don't know how to start and where to turn. (((it seems to me that not knowing "how to start and where to turn" is an ideal place to be. i think that such a place offers a habitat for tremendous ideas and change; an opportunity to really create. enjoy.))) > I would love to hear about any of you listmember's personal aesthetics > and visions about composition, any criticism or comments regarding my > own, and to share any experiences in using particular methods of > composition or sound generation, software (I use CSound, SoundForge, > Max, ...), or anything else for that matter. ((("personal aesthetics and visions about composition": i really do think it is completely silly to have discussions or thoughts or whatever about one's own "personal aesthetics". rather egotistic. and beyond the point, really. i think the "personal aesthetic" issue should be left to the musicologist. if we're going to be musicians, let's concern ourselves with Creating music, not with fucking worrying about whether our ass-thetic is the right one or not. "visions about composition": here we go: to me composition is about Destroying Visions. "particular methods of composition": i personally am not into Improvisation as an aid in composing. i like to leave improvisation as improvisation and composition as composition. if one is doing a more traditional composition, a visual one with a piece of paper and a pencil or something of the sort, i find it of interest to dive totally into that primarily non-sonic environment. it's an interesting relationship, i think, between something purely visual like a score and the ultimate goal of Sonic Event. i'm trying to exploit that relationship and in that sense i feel the visual score should not only notate the sonic event but should also convey something on a Visual-Artistic level -- i mean the composition should be an artistic work in and of itself, perceived on its own terms and largely not in terms of sound. "particular methods of...sound generation": absolutely any possible. yours, fleur de vie weinstock Bullshit Art Movement, Inc. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 01:18:36 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Fleur Weinstock Subject: Re: new sounds vs. old. In-Reply-To: <32CDDB04.5079@voy.net> On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, Michael Millard wrote: > I am also interested in hearing about the synthetic generation of > original, I.E. nontraditional sounds and public > acceptability of those. Does the introduction of > sounds that are new or hybridized versions of > recognized sounds contribute favorably as a rule to > a musical creation. 1) anything new is good. 2) who cares what the public thinks 3) anything new is good. 4) experimentation is god. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 00:39:23 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: James McCartney Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies Comments: To: mcmahon@CLARK.NET >From: Joe McMahon >You will probably see a message from me in the next few weeks talking about >some recent experiences with csound, and proposals of some ideas to put >a 1990's face on computer-mediated synthesis. Briefly: csound reminds me of >the bad old days of assembler language programming, without the advantage >of subroutine calls. Realtime networks are a project of staggering complexity. >Experiments with getting perl programs to write scores have been promising; >I'm seriously looking into a new non-realtime paradigm based on perl5, >extending the language via perl5 objects to implement a kinder environment. Sounds like what I've done already with SuperCollider for the PowerMac. Here's the blurb on it : SuperCollider is an environment for real time audio synthesis which runs on a Power Macintosh with no additional hardware. SuperCollider features: a built in programming language with real time incremental garbage collection, first class functions/closures, a small object oriented class system, a mini GUI builder for creating a patch control panel, a graphical interface for creating wave tables and breakpoint envelopes, MIDI control, a large library of signal processing and synthesis functions a few of which are found nowhere else, and a large library of functions for list processing of musical data. The user can write both the synthesis and compositional algorithms for their piece in the same high level language. This allows the creation of synthesis instruments with considerably more flexibility than allowed in lower level synthesis languages. Since it is easy to create control panels and graphic displays, SuperCollider is well suited as a tool for teaching various synthesis techniques. SuperCollider reads Sound Designer II and AIFF files and writes Sound Designer II files. It can input and output audio from either the Sound Manager or streamed from/to a file. There is a very short paper on it in the 1996 ICMC proceedings. --- james mccartney james@clyde.as.utexas.edu james@lcsaudio.com If you have a PowerMac check out SuperCollider, a real time synth program: ftp://mirror.apple.com//mirrors/Info-Mac.Archive/gst/snd/super-collider-demo.hqx ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 14:24:29 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Michael Millard Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies ------------10A25C547B240 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Courtney Wrote: > I apologize to anyone whom this has offended. > However, if this is a list for just certain types of electronic music > dictated by a few people who were lucky enough to spend a lot of time at > college, then please let me know and I will leave you be. If this list is > about discussing electronic music, I have some ideas, and I would love to be > a part of it. > > Regards, > > Courtney > > You have no arguement from me. I have seen art and heard music created by people who lacked normal motor functions, even suffering from brain disorders and disfunctions who can create wonderful works of art. I may have over reacted myself but I am quite bothered by the occational musician who thinks an attitude of intollerance will help the music. Harmony and inner vision are products of one another I think. I think it is sometimes painfull, but true creativity is most frequently tied to honesty with our work. The work might be harsh but we don't have to be. Michael ------------10A25C547B240 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Courtney Wrote:
>  I apologize to anyone whom this has offended.
> However, if this is a list for just certain types of electronic music
> dictated by a few people who were lucky enough to spend a lot of time at
> college, then please let me know and I will leave you be. If this list is
> about discussing electronic music, I have some ideas, and I would love to be
> a part of it.

> Regards,

> Courtney


You have no arguement from me.  I have seen art and heard music created by people who lacked normal motor functions, even suffering from brain disorders and disfunctions who can create wonderful works of art.  I may have over reacted myself but I am quite bothered by the occational musician who thinks an attitude of intollerance will help the music.  Harmony and inner vision are products of one another I think.  I think it is sometimes painfull, but true creativity is most frequently tied to honesty with our work.  The work might be harsh but we don't have to be.
 
 
 
Michael
------------10A25C547B240-- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 15:45:46 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Michael Millard Subject: Csound ------------22C4C52617 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I am certain I have seen a recent message from Joe or perhapps someone else on the subject of Csound. I know very little about it but it sounds like it could be quite interesting. Can someone share with me more info on the program and its additions and uses? ------------22C4C52617 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
I am certain I have seen a recent message from Joe or perhapps someone else on the subject of Csound.  I know very little about it but it sounds like it could be quite interesting.  Can someone share with me more info on the program and its additions and uses? 
------------22C4C52617-- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 21:35:57 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Paulo Mouat Subject: "Precise personal aesthetics" Fleur Weinstock wrote: > (((i don't understand why you are concerned with "a precise personal > aesthetic" at all!!! it seems to me that "a precise personal > aesthetic" has nothing at all to do with making good music!!! perhaps > you are more concerned with a making some kind of name for yourself in > the history books than with making good music, in which case "a > precise personal aesthetic" would be Crucial. if you are concerned > with history books, i suggested you consult a history list, not a > music list.))) It seems there is a serious misinterpretation here. I find your ironic comments throughout the reply a bit abusive, but I'll try to overcome that. My search for a "precise personal aesthetic" is nothing more than trying to find a way to express myself in a way that first and foremost I can identify myself with. Perhaps you interpreted my statement as "how should I create something very new, as different as possible of what currently exists?" Indeed a misinterpretation. Your remarks about making a name for myself are nonsense. I think everyone who composes music searches for some ideal way of expressing thoughts in a coherent manner. Almost everyone is searching for a convenient and coherent way to express their thoughts through the music. And this "convenient and coherent way" is simply one which you, the composer, feel happy and comfortable with. > > Effectively, I don't know how to start and where to turn. > > (((it seems to me that not knowing "how to start and where to turn" is > an ideal place to be. i think that such a place offers a habitat for > tremendous ideas and change; an opportunity to really create. > enjoy.))) I can understand the importance of "not knowing where to start" since it forces further exploration and experimentation. But I did not meant to get replies to my query saying "this is good" or "this is bad--avoid it." I only expressed my position of being in a cross-road and of trying a little bit of everything. It is an experience I wished to share. As I stated above, I don't feel fully comfortable with some of my compositions yet--that recurring feeling that they're not yet finished. Also, a "precise personal aesthetics" mustn't be something static. It may also be a dynamic process. > ((("personal aesthetics and visions about composition": i really do > think it is completely silly to have discussions or thoughts or > whatever about one's own "personal aesthetics". rather egotistic. > and beyond the point, really. i think the "personal aesthetic" issue > should be left to the musicologist. I am simply asking "why do you compose in a certain way?" The "personal aesthetics" thing may be understood as the set of axioms by which you rule your own way of composition. Yes, the musicologist is there to perform that analysis, but he is there also to present his own limited interpretation of a composer's style or method. No one would be better placed to present (if he indeed has established them, and wishes to do so) the why's and how's than the composer himself. Why do you find it egotistic? What's the problem if I want to constrain my composition methods to my own searched-and-found aesthetics (even if it is Bach revisited)? > if we're going to be musicians, let's concern ourselves with Creating > music, not with fucking worrying about whether our ass-thetic is the > right one or not. "Right one"? That concern is a *personal* concern, only you can judge your aesthetic, for I think you would not adopt a method only because it is generally accepted, disregarding your own feelings toward it. And Creating Music is not incompatible with its formulation via a personal aesthetic. > "visions about composition": here we go: to me composition is about > Destroying Visions. An opinion, as valid as many others. I don't agree with it, at least as generally as you state. It seems that *you* are indeed worried about destroying the established and creating something very new (pardon the direct reference). > "particular methods of composition": i personally am not into > Improvisation as an aid in composing. i like to leave improvisation > as improvisation and composition as composition. I never talked about improvisation. This all seems that there was a huge misunderstanding. I asked about methods of composition, like "do you use any method derived from free twelve-tone composition," "do you use atonality" or "do you use method XYZ effectively?" "In that piece I used method XYZ but in that other I turned to and I managed to achieve but I had to circumvent " > if one is doing a more traditional composition, a visual one with a > piece of paper and a pencil or something of the sort, i find it of > interest to dive totally into that primarily non-sonic environment. > it's an interesting relationship, i think, between something purely > visual like a score and the ultimate goal of Sonic Event. i'm trying > to exploit that relationship and in that sense i feel the visual > score should not only notate the sonic event but should also convey > something on a Visual-Artistic level -- i mean the composition should > be an artistic work in and of itself, perceived on its own terms and > largely not in terms of sound. Finally, the first constructive comment of your entire reply. Although it is very interesting that a score may be a work of art in itself (as, for instance, Ligeti's Artikulation), I can't agree with the "should be." At least as long as it interferes with the music it is intended to represent. The composition should not be subordinate to the score, but rather the other way around (unless the intention is to primarily "compose" the score). This doesn't mean there should be no attempts in creating an interesting unified composition of music and score--but if music is ultimately the objective, then the score can't take precedence. > "particular methods of...sound generation": absolutely any possible. OK, but are you kind enough to share your past experience with the methods I was talking about, namely in computer synthesis? Regards. -- __|__ ___\_/___ ___ Paulo Mouat, |___| mouat@mail.telepac.pt |___| ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 16:56:40 EST Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Scott Lehman Subject: Re: Csound In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 04 Jan 1997 15:45:46 EST." <32CEC179.381C@voy.net> > I am certain I have seen a recent message from Joe or perhapps someone > else on the subject of Csound. I know very little about it but it > sounds like it could be quite interesting. Can someone share with me > more info on the program and its additions and uses? Csound is kind of a synth toolkit. It has a ton of features and is quite powerful, but it does take some time to learn how to use it. A recent (or current) issue of Keyboard has an article about it that you should take a look at (or it might have been Electronic Musician). It's tradionally been text file based for creating instruments, but I know people have been working on a GUI that might be available already. If you're into programming, Csound is pretty handy since it already does the hard work of getting sound in and out of the computer. Writing your own opcodes isn't too hard once you get the hang of it. There's a section in the back of the manual that explains the details. You can grab the manual and/or source at ftp://sound.media.mit.edu. PC versions can be found on the web as well. Scott ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |Scott Lehman slehman@mit.edu | |### Harmony Central Music Page - http://www.harmony-central.com/ ### | |"We didn't want a victory, we just wanted to fight" - New Model Army | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 22:26:19 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Paulo Mouat Subject: Re: Csound > I am certain I have seen a recent message from Joe or perhapps someone > else on the subject of Csound. I know very little about it but it > sounds like it could be quite interesting. Can someone share with me > more info on the program and its additions and uses? CSound is a piece of software for computer music composition and sound synthesis. It works by specifying an instrument file and a score file which will produce a sound file or produce sound in real-time (depending on the platform you're working on). It uses a kind of programming language and, using its internal modules, enables you to specify synthesis processes of almost arbitrary complexity. This information is typically contained in the instrument file. The score file is a collection of the sound events you want to produce with the defined instruments, organized in time. You can check detailed info on CSound at http://www.leeds.ac.uk/music/Man/c_front.html Best! -- __|__ ___\_/___ ___ Paulo Mouat, |___| mouat@mail.telepac.pt |___| ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 18:37:02 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Eric Monse Subject: FS: Kurzweil K2000 Keyboard For Sale: Kurzweil K2000s Sampling Keyboard - sampling option - pram expansion (programming memory upgrade) - 40 megs sample ram - version 3.16 - mint condition (2 yrs. old, studio use only) - skb hard shell flight case - all original manuals - original factory demo disks - stratus power pack (16 disks of progs and samples from sweetwater sound) - best of dance (6 disks of techno samples from sweetwater sound) Everything for $2600 I’m posting this for my friend, Jasper Lin. He has been my K2000 ‘guru’ for over a year and will provide unlimited technical support to whomever buys it. He is selling to upgrade to a K2500. References are available upon request. Preferable in New York/New Jersey area. Call Jasper at (201) 222-3463 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 11:21:51 +1000 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: David Rodger Subject: Re: Csound A premier Csound site is at Leeds University. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/music/ Regards, David musdr@lure.latrobe.edu.au http://farben.latrobe.edu.au/d_rodger/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 19:44:03 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: "Frederick J. Hartline" Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies In a message dated 97-01-04 14:47:24 EST, you write: >musician who thinks an attitude of intollerance will help the music. >Harmony and inner vision are products of one another I think. I think >it is sometimes painfull, but true creativity is most frequently tied to >honesty with our work. The work might be harsh but we don't have to be. > > > >Michael bravo:-0 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 12:19:57 +1000 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: David Rodger Subject: What have I started here? Hi emusic folks, boy did I start something when I replied to Mike Metlay's original post. I didn't check my mail for a day and I came back to find all this! As the one who is at least partly responsible for sparking this thread, I feel I should explain. Had I not neglected to check my mail, a lot of unpleasantness might have been avoided. I wrote: >he reason that they left and that so many more have not graced >us with their presence is the same reason that so many of them did not >even try to get to the International Computer Music Conference in Hong >Kong this year. And the music played and performed there showed much >greater diversity than that in Banff the year before (and not just >because of the incorporation of traditional Chinese and Indian instruments). to which Mike Metlay replied: >Ah. You're implying that they're fuddy-duddies in a creative rut, and that >their clearing out of the playing field has allowed people with real ideas >to come forth? Mike then went on to explain possible reasons for people leaving, which are valid. (I've left lists for those very reasons myself!) The inference that Mike drew from my post was not what I intended. I don't mean to say that the "old guard" of emusic are all fuddy-duddies; some of them continue to make very good work. The question of what is good has more to do with my "precise personal aesthetics" (see a later exchange between Fleur and Paulo) than some empirical measure of worth. (Can there be the latter? I don't know and I'm not really interested. Suffice to say that I recognise music that I don't necessarily like as having an important place in history and thus contributing to the advancement of emusic anyway.) What I _really_ meant was that there is a certain fashion in academic electroacoustic/computer-music circles which was very evident at Banff, and less so at Hong Kong. That fewer of the (mostly American) proponents of this fashion stayed away did,as Mike suggests, open the field for other styles (and not necessarily from younger people). I never said that the absent folks were fuddy-duddies, nor did I say that they were in a creative rut. But, for various reasons some of which are historical, their aesthetic and methodologies seem to predominate at meetings such as ICMC. So what is the connection with people leaving this list? Perhaps it is this (Which I didn't adequately explain at the time): Because this list is open to all sorts from many different backgrounds and using many different methods and approaches to their work, it has a diversity which is often lacking in the "traditional" ea/cm circles. If certain people are not interested in so-called "ambient" or "techno" (and discussion of those genres does dominate at certain times according to the various threads existing at any time), then they might find that this list has little to offer them. Also, it is sometimes difficult to separate aesthetics and methods. So I am not surpirsed that certain people leave after a while (sometimes a short while!). And I am not sad about it. While I value their contribution (if they care to make one), I can't make them stay and wade through what is to them a lot of dross. As Stephen David Beck said: >In defense of Jon [Appleton], there are only so many >hours in the day, and reading endless queries about elementary e-a music is >just not that important to waste time on. Quite. I trust that most of us are that discriminating. This is why I am annoyed by people who, say, subscribe to the digest version and then reply to the list. Of course, their subject headings are something like "EMUSIC-L DIGEST: 2 to 3 Jan" rather than "The topic at issue". There are also those who put no subject in. If we have appropriate subject headings, then we are able to filter our messages manually (by simple inspection). Mike Metlay later said: >That theoretically places EMUSIC-L open >to anyone who signs on and participates. I believe that David Rodger, >based on his take on the recent ICMC get-together, would argue that >this is a good thing, broadening the scope of the community and its >influences beyond whatever happens to be in dusty old copies of DIE >REIHE Yes, I do think this. But it does leave us open to the impatient, inexperienced and ignorant. Before anyone flames me, I intend the first term to be perjorative. I am impatient with the impatient. One can't, as someone suggested, come in halfway through a conversation and expect to know what's going on. I'm sure we've all done it with people in the same room and that it was embarrassing. Most of the long-time members here know that it's just as easy to commit such a faux-pas on-line! The second term is not meant as perjorative. It is frustrating to read the same questions from neophytes, but, as Mike and Joe often remind us, if we don't want to answer such tiresome questions, then we shouldn't. There are those here who will answer, either on the list or privately, and then the matter will be resolved. Flaming neophytes is just bad manners. Finally, the term ignorant is, I feel, an approprate description of some people who sign on here. This is not a judgment of their general knowledge or intellectual capacities; rather, they are ignorant of the field we are discussing. The advantage of having them here is that they often ask questions which elicit responses whose details might just patch a hole in others' knowledge (I've learned a lot by reading responses to simple questions). The disadvantage is that many seem to think that the wealth of theory, methodology and knowledge acquired by many people is worthless, especially when it does not pertain to the music the former are interested in. I think that this attitude is revealed in the following: >1) anything new is good. 2) who cares what the public thinks 3) anything >new is good. 4) experimentation is god. (I have chosen not to remind readers of the origin of this exceprt!) Others are much more humble and are trying to learn what the list is about: >I've been lurking on this list for a few weeks >now. And to be honest, the reason why I have not posted anything is >because most of the conversations on this list are way over my head. But >I still enjoy it. It gives me the opportunity to learn. I dont have a >Phd, I'm 26, have a few House, Techno, and Ambient records out. Went to >Music school for a while. thats about it. Am I 'experience' enough to >be on this list? Shouldnt the love of Electronic Music and the >willingness to learn be enough? Whats wrong with the more 'Phd'd >Experienced' Electronic Musicians helping out us 'non experienced' >Musicians?? Allow me to answer your questions, Mark: Yes, you are experienced enough to be on this list. You have a love of music and a willingness to listen. You are honest enough to admit your limitations and to ask questions (rather than be awed by the seeming greatness of others). You have enough experience of life to value civility, and to practise it. This is what I value most of all on this list: diversity and civility. Thank yuou for reading. David Rodger musdr@lure.latrobe.edu.au http://farben.latrobe.edu.au ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 19:37:52 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Timothy Kelly Subject: Re: emusic / analog? Hi All, I too like the Morpheus. It may be the most expressive sound module ever. It really shines in a stack of layered synths, giving a sense of organic analog type movement to many sounds that can really grab the listeners attention and take them on a sound journey. Coming up with interesting sounds, and wonderful sound combinations is something emusic excells at. One can make use of octaves, filters, freg, sounds, and combinations just not used by a modern symphony, or any ensemble of acoustic or amped instruments. I dont worry about if any of my gear is analog, digital, or something else. I want to know what sounds can I get out of it, and then how can I turn the sounds into music. More sound exploration is one of my new years resolutions for 1997. Moving my personal emusic into new territory. Happy 1997 to All Timothy Kelly MidiVox -- MidiVox - Worlds 1st Voice to Midi. Real Time Hardware. BioSensor Neckband. Rack Mount Brain. Sing, Hum, Scat, Croon, Rap, Talk, Scream . AES Best in Show. EM's Editors Choice. Become a Human Sequencer & Human Vocoder. Can You Hum a Bass, Sing Like a Sax? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 04:39:23 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Paulo Mouat Subject: Official Stockhausen site It may be interesting for some to know that Stockhausen and Stockhausen-Verlag have an official site on the net. It can be found at http://www.jimstonebraker.com/stockhausen.html and they sell most of his works either recorded on CD or their respective scores. A note though: the CD's are expensive because they always carry extensive notes or books about the music. There are downloadable catalogues on .pdf format. A great site. Best! -- __|__ ___\_/___ ___ Paulo Mouat, |___| mouat@mail.telepac.pt |___| ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 21:26:03 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Tony Cappellini Subject: The first JMJ thread for 97 ! :) Comments: To: analogue@hyperreal.com I know JMJ's gear has been discussed a lot, but has anybody ever noticed the liner notes on the Magnetic Fields CD ? There is an excerpt from his notebook that shows the words Failright (this we already knew, rigth ?), Oberheim, and Arp. Under Arp, it shos the position of the 4 ADSR sliders, and references the oscillators/not names as Osc A C2, Osc B, G3, Osc 3 LFO. Not being an Arp user myself, does this reference a 2600, or is he well known for using other Arp gear ? I just love his sounds, whatever they are coming from :)) Thanks ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 00:09:07 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Robby D Subject: Re: Windows NT I don't beleive many programs are tailor made for NT yet, but 95, yes At 09:55 AM 1/3/97 -0500, you wrote: >Has anyone built a studio around Windows NT 3.5 or 4.0? I currently use >Sound Forge 4.0, Samplitude for Samples and Recording. I also have Cake >Walk Pro Audio 5.0 which I use with the Mark of the Unicorn Midi Express >PC. I understand that Sound FOrge and Samplitude are NT ready but Cake >Walk and MOTU Midi Express PC don't appear to be. I have not tried yet >although I own a copy of NT 3.5 and 4.0 so I would only be out valuable >time if it doesn't work. Can anyone give me a bit of advise before I >start this effort? Has anyone gotten such a system to work? The reason >behind the NT switch is that I now have a dual Pentium Pro board and >Windows 95 seems a major waiste of resources. > > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 00:55:30 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Robby D Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies If this is an educational list, then seasoned veteran's should develop a little more patience with novices who ask easy questions. This should be a forum where someone can go for some help and benefit from others' experience, and not have to tip toe around or try to impress people with their knowledge. If the list is inundated with a lot of amatuerish topics at one particular point in time, no one should get defensive if an electronic music genius leaves because his mind has not been challenged enough. Maybe there should be seperate intermediate and advanced e-music lists. Robby D www.loop.com/~mcm At 08:39 AM 1/3/97 -0800, you wrote: >Stephen David Beck writes-- >> >>The question is not what we are hoping to avoid, but rather what we are >>hoping to find (and not finding much of it here). >>[...] >>I have often unsubbed and resubbed to this list as my time permits. When >>faced with mounds of e-mail on subjects covered in my E-A Music 101 class, >>I sometimes opt to opt-out. In defense of Jon, there are only so many >>hours in the day, and reading endless queries about elementary e-a music is >>just not that important to waste time on. >> >>But I also know that on occasion, threads of interesting and provocative >>subjects do work their way through this list (which is why I keep >>resubbing). Fortunately, my new e-mail program filters emusic-l posts to a >>separate mailbox that I can browse at my convenience. If you want to >>discuss the fine points of the aesthetics of synthetic instruments or >>interactive computer music, okay. I might bite. >> >>But don't expect me to read or reply to the standard "how do I make that >>cool Tesh piano sound on my Borg X/YZ3-D Aliterating Assimilating Sampling >>Synth?" If you want an answer to that, come to my class. I have my own >>students to teach... > >This, actually, was my own take on Jon's recent departure. My >rhetorical question was originally posed as such because of a certain >bitterness that we're losing our more [insert appropriate adjective >here: educated? lofty? rarefied? snobbish? detailed? focused? any or >all of the above?] readers, slowly but surely. It first happened >within my vision waaaay back in Eric Harnden's moderatorship, when >Oberlin's Gary Nelson got on the list, lasted about two weeks, and >left in disgust, and most recently with the loss of Jon and of my >colleague Nick Batzdorf (although the latter, at least for me, was not >an unmixed tragedy--we disagree often enough so as not to require a >public forum). > >I am, as ever, torn on the horns of a dilemma here. The Internet is >the most even-handed means of communication in existence at this time, >in terms of leveling differences in education (if not entirely in >locale or monetary resources-- we don't have many Masai or inner-city >poor kids popping around yet). That theoretically places EMUSIC-L open >to anyone who signs on and participates. I believe that David Rodger, >based on his take on the recent ICMC get-together, would argue that >this is a good thing, broadening the scope of the community and its >influences beyond whatever happens to be in dusty old copies of DIE >REIHE (which I admit I'm looking for, if anyone has any to sell ;). > >But on the flip side of this is my own feeling, one articulated very >well by Stephen here: even on a list with as high a signal/noise ratio >as EMUSIC-L (and if you think our S/N is no good, try Analogue Heaven >or rec.music.makers.synth, I dare ya), there are enough questions >asked by the young, the inexperienced, or the Pink to drive the more >established members mad sometimes. I have to suppress the overwhelming >urge to write a Metlay Manifesto of Emusic Acceptable Minima and post >it here once a month, as a sort of bleeding corpse hung up as a warning >to trespassers. > >Needless to say, I don't, because that produces a very noticeable and >dangerous chilling effect: those whose only fault is that they have >not yet learned enough to keep up become frightened to say anything at >all lest they draw the wrath of the greybeards. This ain't an Amish >town meeting, y'know. > >Where do we draw the line? Where it is, I guess, and we tiptoe along >as best we can, encouraging the educated to remain and teach and the >uneducated to remain and learn. This was begun as an educational list, >and I never want to lose sight of that. (That damn Ph.D. gathering >dust in my office has to be good for *something*....) And for my own >part, I judge questions as either naive or Pink by the tone in which >they are stated (and other things, like whether someone bothers to >delete any of a 200-line collected mail thread before adding one line >of new text), and answer them as informatively as possible, with or >without bile as my taste demands. Works for me. > >mike > >-- >"I'm going through a phase where I'm learning how much I don't know, and >I don't want to say anything unless it A. is correct and B. contributes.... >Geez, all the lists would dry up if everyone was in the same phase." (cikira) >=========================================================================== >Mike Metlay - ATOMIC CITY - P. O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675 USA > = atomic@netcom.com -- http://pd.net/atomic-city -- 800.924.ATOM = >CD orders via LOFTY PURSUITS: 800.548.6724 & 904.385.6463, FAX 904.668.5825 > > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 03:13:55 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Dixon Subject: Re: What have I started here? In-Reply-To: <01IDUPDL3UU28WW3FR@LURE.LATROBE.EDU.AU> David wrote: > Allow me to answer your questions, Mark: > Yes, you are experienced enough to be on this list. You have a love of music > and a willingness to listen. You are honest enough to admit your limitations > and to ask questions (rather than be awed by the seeming greatness of others). > You have enough experience of life to value civility, and to practise it. > > This is what I value most of all on this list: diversity and civility. > > Thank yuou for reading. > David Rodger Can anyone else say condescending? Man, I've talked privately to different list members about your views expressed here, and I am happy that I'm not alone in thinking that this elitist mentality of yours and members on the group should be kept inside, rather than shared every time you get a chance... For me, the experience of my personal marraige to the computer, and also the music are all about really trying to LISTEN to what everyone has to say... For the sake of my personal knowledge, because I am a newspaper publisher without a phd, at 29 years, I approach each interview with people in the field (KMFDM, Makyo, FLA, Acumen, John Bergin, Vampire Rodents, Noisebox, BKS, Hennie Bekker, Pitchshifter, and on and on) with a youthful relish... because I am very much more interested in gleaning every bit of knowledge about their process than I am with my own views.... it's for this reason alone that I've managed to get the chats that I have, and also why many of these bands stay in touch with me. These are some of the biggest people in the world in regards to electonic music, and if I approached them with anything but a willingness to learn, I think that I might not have crossed the borders of music that I have... In any case, I would very much like to know more about what's on Mark's mind... what kind of stuff you've released, what gear you use, why, samples?, techniques, sequencing, programming, influences, etc. I would like to try to encourage more of this level of thought, and for me also, this is one of the main reasons that I don't engage in conversations with most of the members... I don't really feel qualified to discuss a lot of these subjects either. Gears, Rivets, and much Cyber Peace! Dix ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 03:20:06 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Dixon Subject: Re: emusic / analog? In-Reply-To: <199701050337.TAA07203@dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com> On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Timothy Kelly wrote: > I too like the Morpheus. It may be the most expressive sound module > ever. It really shines in a stack of layered synths, giving a sense of > organic analog type movement to many sounds that can really grab the > listeners attention and take them on a sound journey. I figured out a long time ago that there was no way that I could ever be like some of the programmers that I know, and you probably know... I also realized that I was really a lot more interested in just making music, and lots of it.... If I have 4 hours a day, I could spend that sampling, recording, engineering tracks, masterring, working with sounds, etc... for me personally, it became real simple... That's why I love the Morpheus... it's like they took all of the great qualities of some of my earliest synths.... mainly real-time parameter variation, that, like you said, takes the audience on a journey, and packed it into one little wonder. The first time I heard it, I knew... and now it's totally my fave.... I just heard the N-364 and I'm thinking of getting on later this month... anyone else out there heard it? On my ambient vibe lately, with beat influences, this may be another wiggid' bomb! Dix ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 09:46:33 -0600 Reply-To: flwehr@wt.net Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Fred Wehr Subject: Re: Csound There is an article in the Feb97 Keyboard magazine on Csound, and Keyboard has assembled a couple of Csound packages available from their website (http://www.keyboardmag.com/studio/csound.html). -- Fred Wehr flwehr@wt.net ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 15:04:04 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Bill Scott Subject: Re: Precise personal aesthetics regarding a "convenient and coherent way" to express oneself musically: This may be a search for mutually exclusive dimensions. Convenience is a synonym for compromise. Methinks you gotta choose one or the other. Still here. Bill Scott WScott@acs.wooster.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 17:12:21 -0300 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Emiliano Canal Subject: Morpheus Thanks. I've heard wonderful things about the Morpheus. Anyone else have one of these? > Hey! I also love my Vintage Keys Plus... I only wish that it had > multi-preset functions like the..... which is "a" solution for you...the > Morpheus. I love this machine, and the combination of the two are > dreamy.... like the great vintage piano #212 Ivory Strings combined with > the Morph. > > As for analog, and fat sounds, I think that the morph has a lot to offer > because of the real-time envelope parameter changes that will "morph" the > wave as you record to sequencer. This is very cool, and if you're looking > for analog sounds that evolve with your track, this may be a good solution > for you. > > Dix ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 00:01:24 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Paulo Mouat Subject: Re: Precise personal aesthetics Bill Scott wrote: > regarding a "convenient and coherent way" to express oneself > musically: > This may be a search for mutually exclusive dimensions. Convenience is > a synonym for compromise. Methinks you gotta choose one or the other. I agree. But isn't there always compromise when you compose something? For one, you must limit yourself to the material you're working with, be it the instrument's characteristics, the performer's capabilities or the music hardware's limitations. The "convenient" way is the one that best translates your inspiration or vision to the final product. As Xenakis has put it, I would ask, what is the minimal set of constraints that produces "an acceptable" work of art? And coherence is not necessarily exclusive of convenient. Bach or Webern are coherent, and both use *convenient* methods... Perhaps the very elaboration and existence of these convenient methods have obfuscated other notions of expressing art these composers might have had or might evolve to? Best! -- __|__ ___\_/___ ___ Paulo Mouat, |___| mouat@mail.telepac.pt |___| ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 21:26:01 -0700 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Dixon Subject: Re: Precise personal aesthetics In-Reply-To: <32D032A0.73BD@mail.telepac.pt> On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Paulo Mouat wrote: > > The "convenient" way is the one that best translates your inspiration or > vision to the final product. As Xenakis has put it, I would ask, what > is the minimal set of constraints that produces "an acceptable" work of > art? Paul... I don't know about this area we all seem to be treading... I just had the same discussion at the big family dinner tonite... it got heated! Although a given piece of music comes to me personally in bits, the rest of it unfolds one part at a time, and then often gets deleted... so there really isn't a :"vision to the final product" process, but rather a series of organized improvisational inspirations that weave themselves into each other endlessly. I, for one, don't seem to be as hung up on aesthetics of the form as much as others here, (or there) are. Maybe I am not as talented as some, or as emotional about the process, but my music just sort of, creates itself. Cyber parapsychology for the 90's: Automatic writing (music), how about that?>>> thanks, dix ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 06:09:38 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Paulo Mouat Subject: Re: Precise personal aesthetics Dixon wrote: > Although a given piece of music comes to me personally in bits, the > rest of it unfolds one part at a time, and then often gets deleted... > so there really isn't a :"vision to the final product" process, but > rather a series of organized improvisational inspirations that weave > themselves into each other endlessly. Hello Dixon, Don't get me wrong, I do not mean that the piece is entirely composed in your head and only then transcribed. The "vision of the final product" is no more than that first idea you get to compose a piece in a certain way (if you explore processes of composition) or to reflect certain ideas or states of mind--giving that you start from somewhere (an idea, an inspiration...) Of course, the piece unfolds gradually, and sort of composes itself on the way. Usually you have to tame your initial propositions to get better artistic results (the "convenience" I was talking about); this is why purely processual compositions are rightfully called art (the composer is the master everytime, if he dislikes a certain detail, he should bend the rules). > I, for one, don't seem to be as hung up on aesthetics of the form as > much as others here, (or there) are. Maybe I am not as talented as > some, Not every good piece is a result of a deep concern on form. Aesthetics of form is not a synonym for talent. It is just an artistic form on another level. > or as emotional about the process, but my music just sort of, > creates itself. Ah... But for some (myself included), the process is at least as interesting as the final product (and I have purely non-processual compositions, of the kind that were assembled step-by-step, on a solely pleasant hearing basis!). > Cyber parapsychology for the 90's: Automatic writing (music), how > about that? Oh well... If the idea of reading EEG data directly to oscillators is a tad outdated, then this dream crosses many people's minds... And I belong to that group that wonders about it. Regards. -- __|__ ___\_/___ ___ Paulo Mouat, |___| mouat@mail.telepac.pt |___| ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 10:18:34 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: FS: Kurzweil K2000 Keyboard In-Reply-To: <970104183700_843808965@emout11.mail.aol.com> from "Eric Monse" at Jan 4, 97 06:37:02 pm I'd like to remind folks that for-sale items should go to SYNTH-L and not EMUSIC-L. Tnoy, you know about this, because I've told you before. --- Joe M. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 10:26:59 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: mark simon Subject: Re: "Precise personal aesthetics" I'm very sorry, folks, but this is the kind of discussion I find irresistable, so in spite of all my pledges to practice restraint, here I am. My search for a "precise personal aesthetic" is nothing more than >trying to find a way to express myself in a way that first and foremost >I can identify myself with. I think Paolo is quite correct to want to have a personal aesthetic. If you are to make any kind of music that means anything, you has to know where you stand. You have to care about what it is you're trying to accomplish, because if you don't care, how is anyone else supposed to? What follows is a little piece of my own "personal aesthetic" which I offer because Paolo confessed that he didn't know which way to turn. Paolo described the books and articles he'd read and the types of music he'd listened to, which is, again, quite legitimate. Only by observing what you like and dislike in other people's music and thoughts about music can you come up with any idea of what you'd like to see in your own. Some of the other posts in this thread have seemed to suggest that excessive erudition only serves to stifle the true creative instinct. "Music is of the soul" is often given as an excuse for not thinking too hard about what you're doing, or of lapsing into routine cliches. I say that provided you do have a genuine musical feeling in your soul, it's going to come out no matter what intellectual stuff you fill your head with. In fact the more options you give yourself intellectually, the more you give your musical "soul" something to emote about. Now here's where the other shoe drops. Don't let your intellectual aesthetic explorations be a substitute for gut instincts. If you have to read a learned tome by Xenakis or Boulez to know how you feel about music, it's like asking "are we having fun yet?" So Paolo, since you asked for advice, here it is: read as much as you can, listen to as much as you can, know as much as you can. Absorb it all into your system. Then chuck all your books out the window and write whatever sounds good to you. All the intellectual work you did should have percolated down to the subconscious level, ready to express itself as genuine musical feeling. If it hasn't, it's probably not worth putting into your music anyway. So, my personal aesthetic restated in a single sentence: Music is of the soul, but I prefer to listen to an intelligent soul. Sorry for the blather. It's out of my system now and I feel better. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Mark G. Simon Music cataloger Central Tech. Services Cornell University Libraries mgs2@cornell.edu ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 10:33:01 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Precise personal aesthetics In-Reply-To: <32D08912.6444@mail.telepac.pt> from "Paulo Mouat" at Jan 6, 97 06:09:38 am Metlay can tell you that the musical directions I've taken in the last year are vastly different than the ones he'd seen from me when we last got together in 1994 (though "Let's Go Tease The Fire Ants" was a BIG signpost in the direction I was headed). I've moved from lyrical jazz-influenced stuff to a much more austere area which blends process music with a sort of Stockhausen esthetic - carefully selected gestures which repeat over long periods, slowly phasing in and out of time with one another. The music depends greatly on both planned and accidental juxtapositions of events as they evolve. One piece was termed as sounding like "a Balinese rolling mill". In other words, no beat and you can't dance to it, unless you are a centipede on a sublethal dose of cone-shell neurotoxin. This is a step along the way of exploring the synthesis resources of my equipment to their absolute maximum. James McCartney mentioned his outstanding program, SuperCollider, which I have checked out the demo of. I think that the csound/Perl or SuperCollider direction is probably where I will spend some time for a while. Still working on the "csound thoughts" article, --- Joe M. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 11:17:54 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Eric Monse Subject: Re: new sounds vs. old. >>On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, Michael Millard wrote: >> >>I am also interested in hearing about the synthetic generation of original, I.E. >>nontraditional sounds and public acceptability of those. Does the introduction of >>sounds that are new or hybridized versions of recognized sounds contribute >>favorably as a rule to a musical creation. > >On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Fleur Weinstock wrote: > >1) anything new is good. Yeah, redundancy sucks. >2) who cares what the public thinks I sometimes like to let 'the public' hear my compositions and give me suggestions as to the direction. 'The public' for me includes friends, family, and fellow musicians. As a musician who listens to A LOT of music, I fear losing touch with the average listener. I would like my music to appeal to a broad base. In a sense, I am compromising the die-hard underground aspect of my music, but at the same time, I am opened up to creating other styles and forms I would otherwise not have created. >3) anything new is good. Yeah, redundancy sucks. >4) experimentation is god. I would agree with you. Experimentation is the basis of human progress. However, as someone's excellent sig says, "Growth for it's own sake is the ideology of cancer" (Edward Abbey) Eric Monse insickness@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 08:40:25 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies In-Reply-To: from "James McCartney" at Jan 4, 97 00:39:23 am James McCartney writes-- > >Sounds like what I've done already with SuperCollider for the PowerMac. For what it's worth, Eirikur Hallgrimsson showed up for the 1996 Team Metlay recording sessions with nothing but a Korg X5D and a PowerPC Powerbook running SuperCollider out of its audio ports. He was still getting a grip on what the program could do, but it sure was easy to make scary noises. mike -- "I'm going through a phase where I'm learning how much I don't know, and I don't want to say anything unless it A. is correct and B. contributes.... Geez, all the lists would dry up if everyone was in the same phase." (cikira) ========================================================================== Mike Metlay - ATOMIC CITY - P. O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675 USA = atomic@netcom.com -- http://pd.net/atomic-city -- 800.924.ATOM = CD orders via LOFTY PURSUITS: 800.548.6724 & 904.385.6463, FAX 904.668.5825 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 08:47:34 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City Subject: On fuddy duddying To quickly summarize important points on the recent discussion: a. Please to note that my description of a putative "Manifesto" was, in context, an occasional impulse I've so far managed to forestall. I think that minus the name-calling, the mere hint of its existence has produced a lot of worthwhile ideas and discussion, and I'm glad that most folks on this list are willing to step back, take a deep breath, and return to the subject at hand. Sorry if I got anyone's back up about this. b. Of the aforementioned recently-suggested topics, I have to say that following up a retort to a flame with something constructive and interesting is a very good habit to have. However, I've just finished tracking an album and am now mixing it down, and don't have time to do more than skim the mail flow. I'll jump in when I can. c. Mark Camp, your mail is getting out fine. EMUSIC-L doesn't send a copy back to you unless you specifically ask it to. d. Millard, I owe you several leters but as stated before I'm tight on time. I'll get to the replies ASAP. And that's it for now. (Well, actually there was one more point, but I think launching one flamewar a month is about my limit. ;) mike -- "I'm going through a phase where I'm learning how much I don't know, and I don't want to say anything unless it A. is correct and B. contributes.... Geez, all the lists would dry up if everyone was in the same phase." (cikira) ========================================================================== Mike Metlay - ATOMIC CITY - P. O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675 USA = atomic@netcom.com -- http://pd.net/atomic-city -- 800.924.ATOM = CD orders via LOFTY PURSUITS: 800.548.6724 & 904.385.6463, FAX 904.668.5825 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 10:51:07 -0600 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Randy Holder Subject: Resources for Roland D-20 Please forgive me if this is not the place to ask. Does anyone have any resources for Roland D-20 keyboards? In particular, I'm looking for RAM cards with sets of additional patches. I've tried contacted Vahalia, but received no response from them. (A few years ago they produced accessories for the D-20s). Thanks in advance Randy Holder Keyboard Hobbyist ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 12:02:27 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Michael Millard Subject: Re: Precise personal aesthetics ------------8EA254B5FC4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Please, what is Supercolider? ------------8EA254B5FC4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Please, what is Supercolider? 
------------8EA254B5FC4-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:17:05 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City Subject: Re: Morpheus In-Reply-To: <20163630812328@century.com.ar> from "Emiliano Canal" at Jan 5, 97 05:12:21 pm Emiliano Canal writes-- > > Thanks. I've heard wonderful things about the Morpheus. Anyone else have >one of these? This thread should move to SYNTH-L, please. People who are worried that they are being denied a forum for talking about gear and tweaks should remember that a whole mailing list exists for the subject, and that it exists quite deliberately and in parallel with EMUSIC-L for the very purpose of letting EMUSIC-L concentrate on other things. And far from being some kind of purgatory or dumping ground, SYNTH-L is at least as vital and interesting as EMUSIC-L (and has a wider audience, too). Ever the bad cop, mike -- "I'm going through a phase where I'm learning how much I don't know, and I don't want to say anything unless it A. is correct and B. contributes.... Geez, all the lists would dry up if everyone was in the same phase." (cikira) ========================================================================== Mike Metlay - ATOMIC CITY - P. O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675 USA = atomic@netcom.com -- http://pd.net/atomic-city -- 800.924.ATOM = CD orders via LOFTY PURSUITS: 800.548.6724 & 904.385.6463, FAX 904.668.5825 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:23:06 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Mike Metlay ++ Atomic City Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies In-Reply-To: <199701050855.AAA13693@patty.loop.net> from "Robby D" at Jan 5, 97 00:55:30 am In response to my: >>But on the flip side of this is my own feeling, one articulated very >>well by Stephen here: even on a list with as high a signal/noise ratio >>as EMUSIC-L (and if you think our S/N is no good, try Analogue Heaven >>or rec.music.makers.synth, I dare ya), there are enough questions >>asked by the young, the inexperienced, or the Pink to drive the more >>established members mad sometimes. I have to suppress the overwhelming >>urge to write a Metlay Manifesto of Emusic Acceptable Minima and post >>it here once a month, as a sort of bleeding corpse hung up as a warning >>to trespassers. Robby D writes-- > >If this is an educational list, then seasoned veteran's should develop a >little more patience with novices who ask easy questions. This should be a >forum where someone can go for some help and benefit from others' >experience, and not have to tip toe around or try to impress people with >their knowledge. If the list is inundated with a lot of amatuerish topics >at one particular point in time, no one should get defensive if an >electronic music genius leaves because his mind has not been challenged enough. Fortunately, my response to this was already in the same posting: >>Needless to say, I don't, because that produces a very noticeable and >>dangerous chilling effect: those whose only fault is that they have >>not yet learned enough to keep up become frightened to say anything at >>all lest they draw the wrath of the greybeards. This ain't an Amish >>town meeting, y'know. >> >>Where do we draw the line? Where it is, I guess, and we tiptoe along >>as best we can, encouraging the educated to remain and teach and the >>uneducated to remain and learn. This was begun as an educational list, >>and I never want to lose sight of that. (That damn Ph.D. gathering >>dust in my office has to be good for *something*....) And for my own >>part, I judge questions as either naive or Pink by the tone in which >>they are stated (and other things, like whether someone bothers to >>delete any of a 200-line collected mail thread before adding one line >>of new text), and answer them as informatively as possible, with or >>without bile as my taste demands. Works for me. I have nothing to add to that. Robby also wrote: >Maybe there should be seperate intermediate and advanced e-music lists. I don't think so, because who's to say which is which? You don't divide by experience, because experience is a continuum; there is no line you step over to go from novice to expert. What we have always needed is more attention to what we have: a pair of lists for different topics within the overall subject of emusic. EMUSIC-L for the brainwork and arguing, SYNTH-L for the gear and product-related stuff. One those rules are followed, a little tolerance and willingness to teach/learn will carry us the rest of the way. mike -- "I'm going through a phase where I'm learning how much I don't know, and I don't want to say anything unless it A. is correct and B. contributes.... Geez, all the lists would dry up if everyone was in the same phase." (cikira) ========================================================================== Mike Metlay - ATOMIC CITY - P. O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675 USA = atomic@netcom.com -- http://pd.net/atomic-city -- 800.924.ATOM = CD orders via LOFTY PURSUITS: 800.548.6724 & 904.385.6463, FAX 904.668.5825 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:36:40 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: "Mark D. Camp" Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies >WHOAH!!!! > >This was a message sent privately to a friend!! and he forwarded it. I think this has already been cleared up. But I just wanted to note that I did not forward this message to the list. -M *______________*______________* !E.A.C! Astronout 408 SpaceLounge Electronic Artists Collective ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 13:41:15 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Michael Millard Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies ------------881271814695 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Is SupweCollider only available for the Mac? ------------881271814695 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Is SupweCollider only available for the Mac? 
------------881271814695-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 10:45:21 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Marshall Otwell Subject: Re: E-music aesthetics and computer synthesis: Enlightenment? Thanks to Paulo for a thought-provoking post... > I personally find promising the thoughts exposed by Xenakis in his book > 'Formalized Music,' both in what relates to instrumental music and to > electronic music and sound synthesis. I'm a former musician (even have a degree in music from UCSD) who has been a software engineer for the last twelve or so years. I'm wanting to get back into my (now obsolete of course) MIDI studio to create some- thing a little more meaningful than business software. I'm not familiar with 'Fomalized Music' but gather from your brief comments that it would be a valuable read. Do you have any other suggestions of essential reading for one interested in rekindling his emusic (not "house", not "ambient", not "techno", but _electronic_ _music_) muse? Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 14:19:41 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Fuddy-duddies In-Reply-To: <32D1474A.596@voy.net> from "Michael Millard" at Jan 6, 97 01:41:15 pm > Is SuperCollider only available for the Mac? To my knowledge, yes. It's also only usable on the PowerMac. That said, it's enough like a real programming laguage to make me VERY interested. I'm still looking at whether it is feasible or reasonable to rewrite large sections of csound in perl for the sake of having code I can actually FIX when it's broken. And I gave up wrting assembly language a while ago. Don't want to do it again. --- Joe M. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 16:32:34 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: SCHMUCK Stephane Subject: Re: EMUSIC-L Digest - 5 Jan 1997 to 6 Jan 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- From : SCKStef@aol.com To : everybody winth the NT dilemna Date : 06 Jan 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- Ok, Ok, Ok, ... I know Microsoft made some great and big publicity for Windows 95 about 1 year ago, and now the best is Windows NT !! Oh no, don't believe all what some good publicists and marketing mens says... I' m software developper and 3 month ago I changed my old Windows 3.11 and now I have Win NT. For made some proffessional music or sound you don't need it, only if you want to be "IN" and if you have money and time to waste... For the "normal" applications, they don't run better on Win NT, you just need more ressources, memory, processor speed, and free space on your hard drive. Where is your need ??? A few french words says :"Best is the enemy of good" and in this case I say YES ! On Win NT there are not many real applications wich uses all ressources, the others applications runs better on Win 95 or Win 3.11 If you have some precise questions, simply ask to me ... By SCHMUCK Stephane :-) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 14:27:27 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Marshall Otwell Subject: Re: Csound Hi - > I'm still looking at whether it is feasible or reasonable to rewrite > large sections of csound in perl for the sake of having code I can > actually FIX when it's broken. > > And I gave up wrting assembly language a while ago. Don't want to do it > again. > Is the source for Csound actually in assembler now, or is it written in C (as its name implies)? (haven't written assembler for ten years, but I have pretty good C and perl) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 22:58:37 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Paulo Mouat Subject: Re: Precise personal aesthetics I can only thank everyone that replied so promptly to my query. I'd like to say that my post, besides the advice asked, was more of a thread to suggest sharing the knowledge each of the interested members would have in the particular subject of computer aided composition and/or synthesis. Lacking the exchange of ideas one usually has when immersed on the academic medium of emusic, I presented my own lack of experience in the field, or should I say, that kind of experience of what is manageable and practical--not everything is contained in the literature. Being so, I would like to extend the exposition of my own personal aesthetic to any of the members' who wish to share it with the list. Personally, I would like to know which methods of composition are preferred--not in the sense of being more "acceptable" or "prone to success" than others, but just the why's of the how's. Perhaps this would serve to shed some light on these erudite matters in what concerns the "silent membership" of the list--personally, it would be a fine substitute to those academic conversations which I am unable to maintain. This including, of course, any experience with the software tools commonly available or any custom-made software. If the fellows at SYNTH-L discuss "how can I achieve this timbre with my XYZ machine?" maybe it would be interesting to discuss "how can I squeeze interesting sound from this brand new, customizable, wavelet synthesis package?" (or is this a gear-oriented thread?) Since we are talking about making emusic, maybe we could discuss it on a practical level, which would bring benefit to the less-experienced members of the list (myself included), and perhaps would convey further sources of inspiration to the more experienced. So, any experienced members out there would like to share anything? (this all is what I wished from this list, not that it is bad in any way, but it would surely be of service to a wider audience) Answering Marshall Otwell, > I'm not familiar with 'Fomalized Music' but gather from your brief > comments that it would be a valuable read. Do you have any other > suggestions of essential reading for one interested in rekindling his > emusic (...) muse? well, my experince is rather scarce, but I can state that the following contributed greatly and were instrumental to my interest in music (christ, when I started I *hated* it all, but step by step I managed to fall under the spell of avant-garde music and emusic): Xenakis, 'Formalized Music: Thought and Mathematics in Music,' revised edition, Pendragon Press, 1992. A lot (too numerous to mention) of interesting new approaches to composition with new propositions on sound synthesis. Schaeffer, 'Traite des Objets Musicaux,' 2e, Seuil, 1966/77. The bible of musique concrete, with essays on the status of musical creation and perception, among an extensive range of subjects. Manning, 'Electronic and Computer Music,' 2e, Oxford, 1994. Historical reference, but with a number of rather detailed examples (such as the very first electronic etudes by Stockhausen). There are a few other interesting books, but these I think are the most revealing for someone that started from square one and only had a basic formal education in music. Thanks for the replies, once again (one thing that is lacking in SYNTH-L is this kind of philosophically-oriented threads, which are most appealing...) Best! -- __|__ ___\_/___ ___ Paulo Mouat, |___| mouat@mail.telepac.pt |___| ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:17:43 -0800 Reply-To: jefff@dgii.com Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Jeff Fried Organization: digi international Subject: Re: E-music aesthetics and computer synthesis: Enlightenment? Marshall Otwell wrote: > I'm not familiar > with 'Fomalized Music' but gather from your brief comments that it would > be a valuable read. Do you have any other suggestions of essential > reading for one interested in rekindling his emusic (not "house", not > "ambient", not "techno", but _electronic_ _music_) muse? > > Thanks. Here's some others I've found useful: Fundamentals of Computer Music - Moore Music Machines - Rhodes, MIT Press. Also, the article "A Panolopy of Stochastic Canons" published in the Computer Music Journal, contains several of the stochastic algorithms mentioned in Formalized Music in pseudo code (the explanations are easier to understand as well). This article is reprinted in Music Machines. Finally, there's J Harvey's biography of Stockhausen written in the late 70's I think. It has some excellent descriptions of his serial and electronic works. -- Jeff. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 19:56:19 -0500 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Scott Lehman Subject: Re: Csound >Is the source for Csound actually in assembler now, or is it written in C >(as its name implies)? (haven't written assembler for ten years, but I >have pretty good C and perl) The source is written in C. You can get the package at ftp://sound.media.mit.edu/pub Scott ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Scott Lehman slehman@mit.edu | | Harmony Central Musicians Resource - http://www.harmony-central.com/ | | "We didn't want a victory, we just wanted to fight" - New Model Army | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 17:21:14 -0800 Reply-To: jefff@dgii.com Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Jeff Fried Organization: digi international Subject: Re: Csound Marshall Otwell wrote: > > Hi - > > > I'm still looking at whether it is feasible or reasonable to rewrite > > large sections of csound in perl for the sake of having code I can > > actually FIX when it's broken. > > > > And I gave up wrting assembly language a while ago. Don't want to do it > > again. > > > > Is the source for Csound actually in assembler now, or is it written in C > (as its name implies)? (haven't written assembler for ten years, but I > have pretty good C and perl) CSound is written in C. I don't know perl, but I've look at the CSound source and wouldn't want to rewrite it (or any large program) in any language. However, writing new CSound operators in perl might be feasible. -- Jeff. -- Jeff. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 12:10:00 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Peter_Mueller@UCSDLIBRARY.UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: E-music aesthetics and computer synthesis: Enlightenment Comments: To: mouat@MAIL.TELEPAC.PT Hello listmembers, ending a substantial period of silence, I would like to develop on the recently referred threads of emusic aesthetics and computer-mediated synthesis and/or composition. Given the limitation that I am completely outside the medium of discussion and relations with other musicians/composers, I currently endure a solo tour-de-force to extend my knowledge (both by learning and reading whatever I can and by experimentation) of music theory up to the level required to have a proper understanding of the concepts underlying this century's music methodologies. You might take a look at the Collected Writings of Brian Ferneyhough, published by Harwood Academic Publishers. Ferneyhough is one of the leaders of the European "New Complexity" movement, even though he has been living in San Diego for several years. You might want to brush up on some Adorno before you tackle this though. A very good beginning set music set theory book is by Joseph Straus. Giving your strong math background, this book may be a little obvious for you - it was intended for undergraduate level theory classes. Another book I personally really like is "Composition with Pitch Classes" by Robert Morris (Yale U. Press) You also might want to lurk on the Algorhythmic composition list. Its called algocomp. Sorry, I don't have the subscription info in front of me, but I'm sure can find it easily enough with a little digging. -Peter ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 12:33:00 -0800 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Peter_Mueller@UCSDLIBRARY.UCSD.EDU Subject: Re[2]: "Precise personal aesthetics" Comments: To: mgs2@CORNELL.EDU Mark Simon wrote: Now here's where the other shoe drops. Don't let your intellectual aesthetic explorations be a substitute for gut instincts. If you have to read a learned tome by Xenakis or Boulez to know how you feel about music, it's like asking "are we having fun yet?" So Paolo, since you asked for advice, here it is: read as much as you can, listen to as much as you can, know as much as you can. Absorb it all into your system. Then chuck all your books out the window and write whatever sounds good to you. All the intellectual work you did should have percolated down to the subconscious level, ready to express itself as genuine musical feeling. If it hasn't, it's probably not worth putting into your music anyway. I basically agree with everything that Mark has said. I would just like to emphesise that the more one knows about music, and the many different kinds of music the larger your musical vocabulary will be. If all you find yourself doing is dance music, liten to 3 dozen different North Indian Alaps, plus one or two the long pieces by LaMonte Young or Morton Feldman. If all your doing is experiemntal music, how can a little techno, or a little old time music, hurt? Plus its a good idea to get to know a few pieces REALLY well, something far beyond a mere phonographic recognition. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 04:01:33 +0100 Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List From: Paulo Mouat Subject: Brian Ferneyhough > You might take a look at the Collected Writings of Brian Ferneyhough, > published by Harwood Academic Publishers. Ferneyhough is one of the > leaders of the European "New Complexity" movement, even though he has > been living in San Diego for several years. You might want to brush up > on some Adorno before you tackle this though. I've been trying to find some of his pieces of most renown, but it has been hard ('Funerailles/Funerailles I & II, Carceri d'Invenzione' for instance). I know that Funerailles I & II was released by Erato, but I don't know if the other pieces were ever released on CD. Any hints? Also, do you know if 'Unity Capsule' was released? It spices my curiosity, since it is the piece that builds on Varese's Densite 21.5 as the latter built on traditional solo-flute repertoire. I have 'Intermedio alla ciaccona' performed by Arditti and it is wonderful (but then, I love string music for scarce number of instrumentalists and Irvine Arditti...) As for the 'New Complexity,' have you ever seen a Ferneyhough's score? I have a sample page on a book (from Carceri III) and it is... dense. Denser beyond imaginable. I always wondered what it would sound like. Some strong game with our perception abilities, here. I'll try to find Ferneyhough's Collected Writings. Thanks for the tip! -- __|__ ___\_/___ ___ Paulo Mouat, |___| mouat@mail.telepac.pt |___|