From LISTSERV@AMERICAN.EDU Tue Aug 31 11:58:00 1999
Received: from smtp-gw2.vma.verio.net (smtp-gw2.vma.verio.net [207.97.20.31]) 
	by ice.clark.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA23979 
	for <mcmahon@CLARK.NET>; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:57:59 -0400 (EDT) 
Received: from listserv.american.edu (listserv.american.edu [147.9.238.200]) 
	by smtp-gw2.vma.verio.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA06935 
	for <mcmahon@CLARK.NET>; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:57:58 -0400 (EDT) 
Received: from listserv (listserv.american.edu [147.9.238.200]) by listserv.american.edu (8.9.3/8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27132 for <mcmahon@CLARK.NET>; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:58:31 -0400 
Message-Id: <199908311558.LAA27132@listserv.american.edu> 
Date:         Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:58:31 -0400 
From: "L-Soft list server at AMERICAN.EDU (1.8d)" 
              <LISTSERV@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Subject:      File: "EMUSIC-L LOG9908A" 
To: mcmahon@clark.net 
 
Status: OR

========================================================================= 
Date:         Mon, 2 Aug 1999 20:38:05 -0400 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         "James P. Barr" <dr_barr@JUNO.COM> 
Subject:      Re: univesities for study 
Comments: To: majordomo@hyperreal.org, majordomo@lists.xmission.com, 
          Majordomo@cs.uwp.edu, Majordomo@lists.realtime.net, 
          majordomo@ufsia.ac.be 
 
hi all 
 
im sick of my stupid, dead end job...................have been writing 
music  for 15 years, want to go back to 
school................................................................have 
a decent home studio and wish to study................would anyone care 
to suggest a program? 
 
 
thank you in advance, 
 
james barr 
 
p.s.  i understand Princeton is quite good.any thoughts? 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:24:57 -0400 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         David Mooney <moko@CITY-NET.COM> 
Subject:      Re: Millennium shmillenium 
MIME-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
 
Paulo Mouat wrote: 
 
> mark simon wrote: 
> > 
> > Oh, puh-leeease! 
> > 
> > My definition of a royal pain in the butt is someone who 
> > self-righteously scolds people about the "correct" start of the 
> > millenium. 
> 
> My pleasure.  Glad to be of assistance. 
> 
 
Much more fun are upside  down years, like 1881.  The last one was 
1961.  The next one isn't until 6969.  So if you missed the party in 
1961, you might as well celebrate whichever or both millenium years. 
 
-- 
David Mooney 
dmooney@city-net.com 
http://www.city-net.com/~moko/ 
 
"Opaque melodies that would bug most people" (Frank Zappa) 
 
The Rhythmicon: http://www.city-net.com/~moko/rhome.html 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:53:32 -0700 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Ric Carter <ric@SONIC.NET> 
Subject:      Re: Millennium shmillenium 
MIME-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: David Mooney <moko@CITY-NET.COM> 
 
> Much more fun are upside  down years, like 1881.  The last one was 
> 1961.  The next one isn't until 6969.  So if you missed the party in 
> 1961, you might as well celebrate whichever or both millenium years. 
 
Actually the next upside-down year will be 3003 [depending on your font). 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Tue, 3 Aug 1999 22:17:02 -0400 
Reply-To:     engro@usa.net 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         sara <engro@USA.NET> 
Subject:      Re: univesities for study 
MIME-version: 1.0 
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit 
 
> im sick of my stupid, dead end job...................have been writing 
> music  for 15 years, want to go back to 
> 
school................................................................have 
> a decent home studio and wish to study................would anyone care 
> to suggest a program? 
You wish to study...........................What? 
 
---Sara from Flanders "Home of the Big Duck" 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:23:55 +0100 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Paulo Mouat <Mouat@MARKDATA.PT> 
Subject:      Re: Millennium shmillenium 
MIME-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" 
 
> Much more fun are upside  down years, like 1881.  The last one was 
> 1961.  The next one isn't until 6969. 
 
Wouldn't that be 6119?  Or perhaps 2002? 
-- 
  __|__ 
___\_/___ 
   ___     Paulo Mouat, Home: mouat@mail.telepac.pt 
  |___|          Work, preferred: mouat@markdata.pt 
  |___|        http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/8804 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:52:57 -0400 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         David Mooney <moko@CITY-NET.COM> 
Subject:      Re: Millennium shmillenium 
MIME-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
 
Ric Carter wrote: 
 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: David Mooney <moko@CITY-NET.COM> 
> 
> > Much more fun are upside  down years, like 1881.  The last one was 
> > 1961.  The next one isn't until 6969.  So if you missed the party in 
> > 1961, you might as well celebrate whichever or both millenium years. 
> 
> Actually the next upside-down year will be 3003 [depending on your font). 
 
Won't work.  The 3s are backwards when turned upside down.  Is this 
off-topic? 
 
-- 
David Mooney 
dmooney@city-net.com 
http://www.city-net.com/~moko/ 
 
"Opaque melodies that would bug most people" (Frank Zappa) 
 
The Rhythmicon: http://www.city-net.com/~moko/rhome.html 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:54:16 -0400 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         David Mooney <moko@CITY-NET.COM> 
Subject:      Re: Millennium shmillenium 
MIME-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
 
Paulo Mouat wrote: 
 
> > Much more fun are upside  down years, like 1881.  The last one was 
> > 1961.  The next one isn't until 6969. 
> 
> Wouldn't that be 6119? 
 
We have a winner! 
 
-- 
David Mooney 
dmooney@city-net.com 
http://www.city-net.com/~moko/ 
 
"Opaque melodies that would bug most people" (Frank Zappa) 
 
The Rhythmicon: http://www.city-net.com/~moko/rhome.html 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:23:18 -0500 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Jeremy <jmartin@IXKS.COM> 
Subject:      Re: Millennium shmillenium 
In-Reply-To:  <61E42105D005D211BD3C004F4D001233297B56@mail.markdata.pt> 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
 
>> Much more fun are upside  down years, like 1881.  The last one was 
>> 1961.  The next one isn't until 6969. 
> 
>Wouldn't that be 6119?  Or perhaps 2002? 
 
6119 upside down wouldn't be 6119 - it'd be 9116, so it's not an upside 
down year. 2002 upside down wouldn't be 2002, since 2's can't be upside 
down. :) I believe the other person, Ric Carter, was correct in saying 3003 
would be the next one, since a 3 upside down is still a 3. 
 
    Jeremy Martin - jmartin@ixks.com ; IXKS, Inc. - Internet Kansas 
                  785.842.9996 - http://www.ixks.com 
                P. O. Box 1761, Lawrence Kansas, 66044 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 11:18:54 -0400 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         "Michael R. Ridderbusch" <mridder@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU> 
Subject:      Re: Millennium shmillenium 
In-Reply-To:  <37A853C9.C6B2D29D@city-net.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; 
              boundary="=====================_7803009==_.ALT" 
 
--=====================_7803009==_.ALT 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
 
Are we talking about a vertical or horizontal axis of symmetry? 
 
At 10:52 AM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote: 
>Ric Carter wrote: 
> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: David Mooney <moko@CITY-NET.COM> 
>> 
>> > Much more fun are upside  down years, like 1881.  The last one was 
>> > 1961.  The next one isn't until 6969.  So if you missed the party in 
>> > 1961, you might as well celebrate whichever or both millenium years. 
>> 
>> Actually the next upside-down year will be 3003 [depending on your font). 
> 
>Won't work.  The 3s are backwards when turned upside down.  Is this 
>off-topic? 
> 
>-- 
>David Mooney 
>dmooney@city-net.com 
>http://www.city-net.com/~moko/ 
> 
>"Opaque melodies that would bug most people" (Frank Zappa) 
> 
>The Rhythmicon: http://www.city-net.com/~moko/rhome.html 
> 
--=====================_7803009==_.ALT 
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" 
 
<html> 
<font size=3>Are we talking about a vertical or horizontal axis of 
symmetry?<br> 
<br> 
At 10:52 AM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote:<br> 
&gt;Ric Carter wrote:<br> 
&gt;<br> 
&gt;&gt; ----- Original Message -----<br> 
&gt;&gt; From: David Mooney &lt;moko@CITY-NET.COM&gt;<br> 
&gt;&gt;<br> 
&gt;&gt; &gt; Much more fun are upside&nbsp; down years, like 1881.&nbsp; 
The last one was<br> 
&gt;&gt; &gt; 1961.&nbsp; The next one isn't until 6969.&nbsp; So if you 
missed the party in<br> 
&gt;&gt; &gt; 1961, you might as well celebrate whichever or both 
millenium years.<br> 
&gt;&gt;<br> 
&gt;&gt; Actually the next upside-down year will be 3003 [depending on 
your font).<br> 
&gt;<br> 
&gt;Won't work.&nbsp; The 3s are backwards when turned upside down.&nbsp; 
Is this<br> 
&gt;off-topic?<br> 
&gt;<br> 
&gt;--<br> 
&gt;David Mooney<br> 
&gt;dmooney@city-net.com<br> 
&gt;<a href="http://www.city-net.com/%7Emoko/" eudora="autourl"><font size=3>http://www.city-net.com/~moko/</a><br> 
<font size=3>&gt;<br> 
&gt;&quot;Opaque melodies that would bug most people&quot; (Frank 
Zappa)<br> 
&gt;<br> 
&gt;The Rhythmicon: 
<a href="http://www.city-net.com/%7Emoko/rhome.html" eudora="autourl"><font size=3>http://www.city-net.com/~moko/rhome.html</a><br> 
<font size=3>&gt; </font></html> 
 
--=====================_7803009==_.ALT-- 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:38:07 -0700 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         dan mcmullen <dog@WELL.COM> 
Subject:      Steve Hillage "Rainbow Dome Musick" 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
 
would anyone care to offer a brief analysis of what's going on in the 1st 
track of this cd, "Garden of Paradise"?  i'm working on my burble/shimmer 
chops & while i've had some interesting results i'm not yet getting what 
Hillage is doing here. 
 
thanks! 
dan 
___ 
dan mcmullen, sf, ca, usa                  don't worry - pay attention 
mailto:dog@well.com                                       707-485-0220 
pgp fingerprint  =  1C70 8D81 6B94 93A9 F2D8  9609 2122 BF70 8619 EDAF 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:27:02 -0500 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Jeremy <jmartin@IXKS.COM> 
Subject:      Re: Millennium shmillenium 
In-Reply-To:  <37A853C9.C6B2D29D@city-net.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
 
>> > Much more fun are upside  down years, like 1881.  The last one was 
>> > 1961.  The next one isn't until 6969.  So if you missed the party in 
>> > 1961, you might as well celebrate whichever or both millenium years. 
>> 
>> Actually the next upside-down year will be 3003 [depending on your font). 
> 
>Won't work.  The 3s are backwards when turned upside down.  Is this 
>off-topic? 
 
3's are backwards when flipped horizontally, but when flipped vertically 
they're still a 3. Take a piece of paper, write a 3 on it, and turn the 
paper over and upside down. See, we're not just rotating the #'s 180 
degrees, we're actually 
 
    Jeremy Martin - jmartin@ixks.com ; IXKS, Inc. - Internet Kansas 
                  785.842.9996 - http://www.ixks.com 
                P. O. Box 1761, Lawrence Kansas, 66044 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:30:15 -0500 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Jeremy <jmartin@IXKS.COM> 
Subject:      Re: Millennium shmillenium 
In-Reply-To:  <37A853C9.C6B2D29D@city-net.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
 
>> > Much more fun are upside  down years, like 1881.  The last one was 
>> > 1961.  The next one isn't until 6969.  So if you missed the party in 
>> > 1961, you might as well celebrate whichever or both millenium years. 
>> 
>> Actually the next upside-down year will be 3003 [depending on your font). 
> 
>Won't work.  The 3s are backwards when turned upside down.  Is this 
>off-topic? 
 
3s are not backwards when truly turned upside down. They're backwards when 
rotated 180 degrees, i.e. 3 to E, but when truly rotated on their axis 
they're just fine upside down. Get a scrap piece of paper and write a 3 on 
it. Hold the two edges of the paper and turn the paper upside down (i.e, 
the back of the paper will now be facing you, and you'll see the 3 you 
wrote (hopefully) THROUGH the paper now). The 3 still looks the same. :) 
So, 3003 is sooner than 6116 (which is what I thought the next one would be 
at first, as well...) 
 
Staying on the topic ALL of the time limits the conversation too much - 
unfortunately there aren't any upside_down_numbers-l mailing lists out 
there yet! 
 
    Jeremy Martin - jmartin@ixks.com ; IXKS, Inc. - Internet Kansas 
                  785.842.9996 - http://www.ixks.com 
                P. O. Box 1761, Lawrence Kansas, 66044 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 13:46:27 -0700 
Reply-To:     cerf-volant@acica.com 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Frank <cerf-volant@ACICA.COM> 
Organization: hibou 
Subject:      Re: Millennium shmillenium 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
 
hahaPaulo Mouat wrote: 
 
> > Much more fun are upside  down years, like 1881.  The last one was 
> > 1961.  The next one isn't until 6969. 
> 
> Wouldn't that be 6119? 
 
We have a winner! 
 
I'm waiting till 10001. 
 
Frank 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 19:13:14 +0100 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Paulo Mouat <Mouat@MARKDATA.PT> 
Subject:      Re: Millennium shmillenium 
MIME-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" 
 
>6119 upside down wouldn't be 6119 - it'd be 9116, so it's not an upside 
>down year. 2002 upside down wouldn't be 2002, since 2's can't be upside 
>down. :) I believe the other person, Ric Carter, was correct in saying 
> 3003 would be the next one, since a 3 upside down is still a 3. 
 
I understood "upside down" as when you write the numbers on a sheet and 
turn it upside down, i.e. you rotate it 180 degrees around its center and 
about a vertical axis. 
 
And 2002 would be correct if written in a 7-led font. 
-- 
  __|__ 
___\_/___ 
   ___     Paulo Mouat, Home: mouat@mail.telepac.pt 
  |___|          Work, preferred: mouat@markdata.pt 
  |___|        http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/8804 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 21:47:37 EDT 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Bill Thompson <Boob70@AOL.COM> 
Subject:      Re: Millennium shmillenium 
MIME-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
 
what about 1001 (depending on font, of course--i guess...if you're nerdy 
enough to get...technical....... 
b. 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 21:49:53 EDT 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Bill Thompson <Boob70@AOL.COM> 
Subject:      Re: Millennium shmillenium 
MIME-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
 
wouldn't this also depend on if you flip the #'s right over left as opposed 
to all #'s flipped bottom to top....what have we become.... 
b. 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 22:16:45 EDT 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         "B.I. Simpson" <RVHorror@AOL.COM> 
Subject:      Re: Millennium shmillenium 
MIME-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
 
Yikes a roni!  Geez, does anyone know how to program a Korg MS-10 so it 
sounds like a lawnmower, or do I need to come upt with reversable year first? 
 
8-) 
 
RVH 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 23:14:44 -0400 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Colin Hinz <asfi@INTERLOG.COM> 
Subject:      where to study... 
Comments: cc: Colin Hinz <asfi@smtp.interlog.com> 
In-Reply-To:  <199908030501.BAA54756@listserv.american.edu> from "Automatic 
              digest processor" at Aug 3, 99 01:01:50 am 
Content-Type: text 
 
> From:    "James P. Barr" <dr_barr@JUNO.COM> 
> Subject: Re: univesities for study 
> 
> hi all 
> 
> im sick of my stupid, dead end job...................have been writing 
> music  for 15 years, want to go back to 
> school................................................................have 
> a decent home studio and wish to study................would anyone care 
> to suggest a program? 
 
Sounds like you should avoid Cornell. Their undergrads can't count 
from one to 2000 without dropping a count somewhere along the way. 
;) ;) ;) 
 
- Colin Hinz 
  University of Saskatchewan alumnus, 1986. 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1999 23:56:20 -0500 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Jeremy <jmartin@IXKS.COM> 
Subject:      Horse Tricks by Mark De Gli Antoni 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
 
A new fairly decent "electronic" album has been released by Mark De Gli 
Antoni, the "sampler-man" of the renowned multi-genre group Soul Coughing 
(which has a guitarist/vocalist, an upright electric bass player, a 
drummer, and Mark De Gli Antoni playing a sampler/synth), named Horse 
Tricks. It's worth checking out. It's been called a work of a "minimalist", 
as well as "cartooney". He does some interesting things with voices. 
 
If you're interested, here is a link to hear in Real Audio format the first 
30 seconds of the first five tracks on this album for free: 
 
http://www.cdnow.com/cgi-bin/mserver/redirect/leaf=switch/from=cr-4687154/ta 
rget=buyweb_purchase/itemid=652951 
 
    Jeremy Martin - jmartin@ixks.com ; IXKS, Inc. - Internet Kansas 
                  785.842.9996 - http://www.ixks.com 
                P. O. Box 1761, Lawrence Kansas, 66044 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 08:23:22 -0400 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         mark simon <mgs2@CORNELL.EDU> 
Subject:      Re: where to study... 
In-Reply-To:  <199908050314.XAA26585@shell1.interlog.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
 
>> hi all 
>> 
>> im sick of my stupid, dead end job...................have been writing 
>> music  for 15 years, want to go back to 
>> school................................................................have 
>> a decent home studio and wish to study................would anyone care 
>> to suggest a program? 
 
If you want to escape from a dead end job, I would say that music is the 
very last field of study you want to go into. 
If you have a decent home studio, you're probably handy with computers, so 
try computer science (Cornell has a pretty good program in that, but so 
does MIT and a lot of other places) 
 
>Sounds like you should avoid Cornell. Their undergrads can't count 
>from one to 2000 without dropping a count somewhere along the way. 
>;) ;) ;) 
 
Electronic music is not one of the strong areas in Cornell's music dept., 
although they do have David Borden on the faculty, who does some 
interesting work. 
 
And Colin, I can't vouch for the counting ability of Cornell's 
undergraduates. I only got my doctorate from there. 
 
 
 
 
 
//////XXX\\\\\\XXX//////XXX\\\\\\XXX//////XXX\\\\\\XXX//////XXX\\\\\\ 
Mark G. Simon                                      \\\\\XXX//////XXX\\\\\\ 
 
Music cataloger                                   \\\\\\XXX//////XXX\\\\\\ 
Central Tech. Services                      \\\\\\XXX//////XXX\\\\\\ 
mgs2@cornell.edu                           \\\\\\XXX//////XXX\\\\\\ 
//////X\\\\\\XXX//////XXX\\\\\\XXX//////XXX\\\\\\XXX//////XXX\\\\\\ 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 15:49:19 -0400 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         David Mooney <moko@CITY-NET.COM> 
Subject:      Re: Millennium shmillenium 
MIME-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
 
Michael R. Ridderbusch wrote: 
 
>  Are we talking about a vertical or horizontal axis of symmetry? 
 
Well, the way it was presented in the original Mad Magazine article, you 
write it on a piece of paper and then pivot the paper 180 degrees to 
turn it over, so I guess that would be the vertical axis.  But Ric is 
right if you use the horizontal axis 3003 works.  It's like anything 
else...Now we have to have rules!!! 
 
> 
> 
> At 10:52 AM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote: 
> >Ric Carter wrote: 
> > 
> >> ----- Original Message ----- 
> >> From: David Mooney <moko@CITY-NET.COM> 
> >> 
> >> > Much more fun are upside  down years, like 1881.  The last one 
> was 
> >> > 1961.  The next one isn't until 6969.  So if you missed the party 
> in 
> >> > 1961, you might as well celebrate whichever or both millenium 
> years. 
> >> 
> >> Actually the next upside-down year will be 3003 [depending on your 
> font). 
> > 
> >Won't work.  The 3s are backwards when turned upside down.  Is this 
> >off-topic? 
> > 
> >-- 
> >David Mooney 
> >dmooney@city-net.com 
> >http://www.city-net.com/~moko/ 
> > 
> >"Opaque melodies that would bug most people" (Frank Zappa) 
> > 
> >The Rhythmicon: http://www.city-net.com/~moko/rhome.html 
> > 
 
 
 
-- 
David Mooney 
dmooney@city-net.com 
http://www.city-net.com/~moko/ 
 
"Opaque melodies that would bug most people" (Frank Zappa) 
 
The Rhythmicon: http://www.city-net.com/~moko/rhome.html 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1999 19:49:53 -0400 
Reply-To:     dsee@preferred.com 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         David See <dsee@PREFERRED.COM> 
Organization: Rampaging Arpeggios 
Subject:      Re: Millennium shmillenium 
MIME-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
 
I always did have a tough time distinguishing inversion from retrograde and R.I. 
At any rate I'm marking my calendar for 3003. Glad to know there are other Mad 
fans still around. It was a much more enjoyable mag in the '60s, though, when I 
was 10 and didn't know better. 
Dave 
 
David Mooney wrote: 
> 
> Michael R. Ridderbusch wrote: 
> 
> >  Are we talking about a vertical or horizontal axis of symmetry? 
> 
> Well, the way it was presented in the original Mad Magazine article, you 
> write it on a piece of paper and then pivot the paper 180 degrees to 
> turn it over, so I guess that would be the vertical axis.  But Ric is 
> right if you use the horizontal axis 3003 works.  It's like anything 
> else...Now we have to have rules!!! 
> 
> > 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 13:17:36 -0700 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         mark givens <markeg@IVILLAGE.COM> 
Organization: iVillage Free Email  (http://fe-mail.ivillage.com:80) 
Subject:      freeware shareware 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
 
dear list: where can i get music production free shareware for the pc. especially a good steinberg recyle susbstitute 
 
 
-- 
Visit http://www.ivillage.com for your FREE iVillage.com email account. 
iVillage.com: The #1 Women's Network -- Real Solutions for Real Women. 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 17:03:28 -0500 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Jeremy <jmartin@IXKS.COM> 
Subject:      Re: freeware shareware 
In-Reply-To:  <NJBDJGINCAOOCAAA@ivillage.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
 
>dear list: where can i get music production free shareware for the pc. 
especially a good steinberg recyle susbstitute 
 
If you look at the archives for this list, someone about two or three weeks 
ago asked nearly the same exact question. Just do a search on "shareware" 
dated from about two months (just to be safe - my sense of time has been 
quite inaccurate lately) to about two weeks ago. 
 
Unfortunately, for some of the more very specified and recently invented 
applications, such as ReCycle I'd imagine, don't yet have 
shareware/freeware equivalents. And keep in mind that almost all shareware 
these days is just a demo for a certain number of days or uses! While the 
usually $10-$30 or $40 requested for shareware is a lot less than the 
typical $300-700 you'd spend on some of the "professional" audio 
applications, it's still $$ if you were looking for something free. 
 
Alas, shareware for the PC rarely is free these days. Everyone wants their 
cut of the ever expanding computer business. 
 
Maybe you should check out using Linux as at least a secondary OS. You can 
run Linux and Windows95/98 on the same PC fairly easily (provided you don't 
switch to the FAT32 that Windows98 encourages to make more effect use of 
your hard drive - I'm not sure if Linux supports FAT32 yet - does anyone 
know if it does?), and I'm sure Linux has at least BETTER if not MORE 
freeware music programs. 
 
    Jeremy Martin - jmartin@ixks.com ; IXKS, Inc. - Internet Kansas 
                  785.842.9996 - http://www.ixks.com 
                P. O. Box 1761, Lawrence Kansas, 66044 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 1999 19:03:43 EDT 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Seersys@AOL.COM 
Subject:      Recycle sub -->Re: freeware shareware 
MIME-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
 
In a message dated 8/6/99 3:13:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jmartin@IXKS.COM 
writes: 
 
Try WaveSurgeon by Square Circle at http://www.wavesurgeon.com/ . 
 
> Unfortunately, for some of the more very specified and recently invented 
>  applications, such as ReCycle I'd imagine, don't yet have 
>  shareware/freeware equivalents. 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 00:04:36 -0500 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Jeremy <jmartin@IXKS.COM> 
Subject:      Re: Recycle sub -->Re: freeware shareware 
In-Reply-To:  <87f57525.24dcc3cf@aol.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
 
It looks like WaveSurgon "basic" costs $35 and WaveSurgon "advanced" costs 
$52. Too bad there aren't any free ones in this specific genre for the 
Windows OS. :( 
 
>Try WaveSurgeon by Square Circle at http://www.wavesurgeon.com/ . 
> 
>> Unfortunately, for some of the more very specified and recently invented 
>>  applications, such as ReCycle I'd imagine, don't yet have 
>>  shareware/freeware equivalents. 
 
 
    Jeremy Martin - jmartin@ixks.com ; IXKS, Inc. - Internet Kansas 
                  785.842.9996 - http://www.ixks.com 
                P. O. Box 1761, Lawrence Kansas, 66044 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 02:37:35 -0400 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Owen aka 01 <omathewson@CLARKU.EDU> 
Subject:      Re: Recycle sub -->Re: freeware shareware 
In-Reply-To:  <3.0.6.32.19990807000436.00838ca0@lawrence.ixks.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 
 
At 12:04 AM 8/7/99 -0500, Jeremy wrote: 
>It looks like WaveSurgon "basic" costs $35 and WaveSurgon "advanced" costs 
>$52. Too bad there aren't any free ones in this specific genre for the 
>Windows OS. :( 
 
 
X-Razor is free.  It's like recycle, but supports stereo samples, exporting 
to Samplecell and MIDI timing file.  Has beat sequencing, and supports VST 
plugins for FX processing.  E-mail me privately for a copy. 
 
~owen 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------------- 
Owen aka 01 aka electr01 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------------- 
01=B2 Studios - low cost solutions for the web: 012@starmail.com 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------------- 
http://i.am/electr01/ 
http://www.mp3.com/electr01/ 
ICQ#: 2613090 
AIM: amorfous 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------------- 
#1 ambient single on mp3.com for three straight weeks. 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 07:10:10 -0700 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         mark givens <markeg@IVILLAGE.COM> 
Organization: iVillage Free Email  (http://fe-mail.ivillage.com:80) 
Subject:      Re: freeware shareware 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
 
 sorry i just joined . where are the archives located. 
-- 
 
On Fri, 6 Aug 1999 17:03:28    Jeremy wrote: 
>>dear list: where can i get music production free shareware for the pc. 
>especially a good steinberg recyle susbstitute 
> 
>If you look at the archives for this list, someone about two or three weeks 
>ago asked nearly the same exact question. Just do a search on "shareware" 
>dated from about two months (just to be safe - my sense of time has been 
>quite inaccurate lately) to about two weeks ago. 
> 
>Unfortunately, for some of the more very specified and recently invented 
>applications, such as ReCycle I'd imagine, don't yet have 
>shareware/freeware equivalents. And keep in mind that almost all shareware 
>these days is just a demo for a certain number of days or uses! While the 
>usually $10-$30 or $40 requested for shareware is a lot less than the 
>typical $300-700 you'd spend on some of the "professional" audio 
>applications, it's still $$ if you were looking for something free. 
> 
>Alas, shareware for the PC rarely is free these days. Everyone wants their 
>cut of the ever expanding computer business. 
> 
>Maybe you should check out using Linux as at least a secondary OS. You can 
>run Linux and Windows95/98 on the same PC fairly easily (provided you don't 
>switch to the FAT32 that Windows98 encourages to make more effect use of 
>your hard drive - I'm not sure if Linux supports FAT32 yet - does anyone 
>know if it does?), and I'm sure Linux has at least BETTER if not MORE 
>freeware music programs. 
> 
>    Jeremy Martin - jmartin@ixks.com ; IXKS, Inc. - Internet Kansas 
>                  785.842.9996 - http://www.ixks.com 
>                P. O. Box 1761, Lawrence Kansas, 66044 
> 
 
 
-- 
Visit http://www.ivillage.com for your FREE iVillage.com email account. 
iVillage.com: The #1 Women's Network -- Real Solutions for Real Women. 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 07:11:12 -0700 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         mark givens <markeg@IVILLAGE.COM> 
Organization: iVillage Free Email  (http://fe-mail.ivillage.com:80) 
Subject:      Re: Recycle sub -->Re: freeware shareware 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
 
 Dear sir Thank you> i am mark e givens 27 south third st harrisburg pa 17101 
-- 
 
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999 02:37:35    Owen aka 01 wrote: 
>At 12:04 AM 8/7/99 -0500, Jeremy wrote: 
>>It looks like WaveSurgon "basic" costs $35 and WaveSurgon "advanced" costs 
>>$52. Too bad there aren't any free ones in this specific genre for the 
>>Windows OS. :( 
> 
> 
>X-Razor is free.  It's like recycle, but supports stereo samples, exporting 
>to Samplecell and MIDI timing file.  Has beat sequencing, and supports VST 
>plugins for FX processing.  E-mail me privately for a copy. 
> 
>~owen 
> 
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>---------------- 
>Owen aka 01 aka electr01 
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>---------------- 
>012 Studios - low cost solutions for the web: 012@starmail.com 
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>---------------- 
>http://i.am/electr01/ 
>http://www.mp3.com/electr01/ 
>ICQ#: 2613090 
>AIM: amorfous 
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>---------------- 
>#1 ambient single on mp3.com for three straight weeks. 
> 
 
 
-- 
Visit http://www.ivillage.com for your FREE iVillage.com email account. 
iVillage.com: The #1 Women's Network -- Real Solutions for Real Women. 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 08:46:33 -0600 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Mike Metlay <atomic@TESSER.COM> 
Subject:      Re: Oldfield (was Re: Jarre's new album) 
In-Reply-To:  <l03130300b3c2c21a3940@[202.161.100.133]> 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
 
>>Mike Oldfield will also release a new album for the millenium 
>>transition, with the provisional title "The Millenium Bell" (true ! I'm 
>>not making this up !). 
> 
><flamebait> 
>Oldfield seems to have become the epitome of the postmodern condition: a 
>jumble of ideas, improperly developed, and he can't stick to any one of 
>them for more than about 2 minutes! 
></flamebait> 
> 
>How I long for "Incantations". 
 
Oh, I don't know; while his stuff can be very uneven, I thought that THE 
SONGS OF DISTANT EARTH was actually very nicely unified in timbre and 
theme, the closest thing to INCANTATIONS he's managed since, well, 
INCANTATIONS. A very good usage of more modern feels and sounds meshed with 
his signature guitar sounds etc. 
 
Admittedly that's the only Oldfield since FIVE MILES OUT I've been able to 
listen to all the way through more than once, but hey. 
 
mike 
 
-- 
"Given how much a computer can sap one's creative energy, I find that 
 there's something refreshing about having a great big box of buttons 
 in charge of everything."                              (n. rothwell) 
 ========================================================================== 
Mike Metlay * ATOMIC CITY * P.O. Box 17083 * Boulder, CO * 80308-0083 * USA 
   + atomic@tesser.com  *  800-924-ATOM  *  http://www.atomiccity.com  + 
           Order our CDs through the CDmuse online music catalog: 
tollfree 877.CDMUSE3, 904.385.6463, fax 904.668.5825, http://www.cdmuse.com 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 08:48:25 -0600 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Mike Metlay <atomic@TESSER.COM> 
Subject:      Re: contemporary emusic structures 
In-Reply-To:  <3.0.3.32.19990729093430.0074c0f0@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu> 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
 
Mark Simon sez: 
>> 
>>Agreed also. Remind me: what were we arguing about again? 
>> 
>>-- 
>> 
>>            Nick Rothwell                  Cassiel.com Limited 
> 
>Ummm..... let's see..... uh.... I dunno. 
 
I love this list. I love this list. I love this list. 
 
mike 
 
-- 
"Given how much a computer can sap one's creative energy, I find that 
 there's something refreshing about having a great big box of buttons 
 in charge of everything."                              (n. rothwell) 
 ========================================================================== 
Mike Metlay * ATOMIC CITY * P.O. Box 17083 * Boulder, CO * 80308-0083 * USA 
   + atomic@tesser.com  *  800-924-ATOM  *  http://www.atomiccity.com  + 
           Order our CDs through the CDmuse online music catalog: 
tollfree 877.CDMUSE3, 904.385.6463, fax 904.668.5825, http://www.cdmuse.com 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 08:50:36 -0600 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Mike Metlay <atomic@TESSER.COM> 
Subject:      Re: 12 stage phasing 
In-Reply-To:  <19990719215827.5831.qmail@hotmail.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
 
>Anybody who can explain to me what exactly is meant by 8,12 and 16-stage 
>phasing,as opposed to combining a wave with a delayed inversion(termed 
>4-stage phasing in this context)? 
 
Arrrrh. I should be able to but I can't. I'll go consult an EE friend who's 
explained it to me before and see if I can't get back to you with an answer 
soon. 
 
mike 
 
-- 
"Given how much a computer can sap one's creative energy, I find that 
 there's something refreshing about having a great big box of buttons 
 in charge of everything."                              (n. rothwell) 
 ========================================================================== 
Mike Metlay * ATOMIC CITY * P.O. Box 17083 * Boulder, CO * 80308-0083 * USA 
   + atomic@tesser.com  *  800-924-ATOM  *  http://www.atomiccity.com  + 
           Order our CDs through the CDmuse online music catalog: 
tollfree 877.CDMUSE3, 904.385.6463, fax 904.668.5825, http://www.cdmuse.com 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:12:12 -0600 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Mike Metlay <atomic@TESSER.COM> 
Subject:      Re: Steve Hillage "Rainbow Dome Musick" 
In-Reply-To:  <3.0.5.32.19990804083807.008a27e0@mail.well.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
 
Dan McMullen asks: 
>would anyone care to offer a brief analysis of what's going on in the 1st 
>track of this cd, "Garden of Paradise"?  i'm working on my burble/shimmer 
>chops & while i've had some interesting results i'm not yet getting what 
>Hillage is doing here. 
 
Well, let's see. [drops CD into player, puts on headphones, reads liner notes] 
 
This track takes advantage of the fact that nothing bells like bells. The 
Fender Rhodes should not be thought of as a cheap way to carry a piano 
around, but actually as a carillon that you can play with keyboard 
technique. All of the shimmering melody lines and bell tones and deep 
resonant bass figures are Fender Rhodes, run through a very tasty reverb 
(given the era, I'd guess an EMT plate of some sort). The harmonic 
structure of bells is very appealing to the ear, and the Rhodes gave access 
to those timbres very easily and conveniently. FM and other digital 
synthesis has been successful in large measure because of its ability to 
ape that harmonic motion. 
 
The repeating melodic/textural lines that I believe you're referring to as 
"burble/shimmer" are actually very simple in structure: an ARP synth or two 
being controlled by sequencers. The secret here is not to think of the 
sequencer as a means of creating melodic or percussive loops, as we think 
of them today, but rather as a means of forcing individual note events to 
meld together into an overall meta-event. The sequencers are being run very 
fast to turn simple notes into glissandi, which are then run through tape 
echo, multitracked, and panned while being very gently phase-shifted (or 
perhaps a slow LFO is affecting the filter frequency of the ARPs directly 
as they play). Two different sequences overlaid on one another with 
differing pitches and speeds provide the multilayered effect that works so 
well here. (Note that it's called a "double sequencer" in the liner notes; 
this kind of thing has been a Hillage/Giraudy trademark since their work 
together in Gong.) 
 
The occasional 'ding's are Tibetan Bells, a fetish Miquette Giraudy has had 
for going on 30 years now. There isn't actually any guitar in this track 
until nearly ten minutes into it, and it's the usual Hillage long notes 
with expressive volume control and vibrato to make them sing. Add gobs of 
reverb and a very wet, distant mix and blend EQ carefully until it gels. 
Not sure where the deep drone chords are coming from, though. My guess is 
an ARP fed through an Eventide Harmonizer, but that's just a guess. 
 
A brilliant piece of music, all the more so for being a good ten years 
ahead of its time. The only person doing this sort of thing regularly when 
this album was cut was Brian Eno, and he was just getting started. 
Interestingly, right after this album there was a slew of cassette music 
along these lines from the real, original New Age movement, which has 
little to do with the commercialized crap you'll find in the Newage (rhymes 
with sewage) bins these days. Most of those original artists have long 
since vanished... Pauline Anna Strom, Lotussongs.... 
 
mike 
 
-- 
"Given how much a computer can sap one's creative energy, I find that 
 there's something refreshing about having a great big box of buttons 
 in charge of everything."                              (n. rothwell) 
 ========================================================================== 
Mike Metlay * ATOMIC CITY * P.O. Box 17083 * Boulder, CO * 80308-0083 * USA 
   + atomic@tesser.com  *  800-924-ATOM  *  http://www.atomiccity.com  + 
           Order our CDs through the CDmuse online music catalog: 
tollfree 877.CDMUSE3, 904.385.6463, fax 904.668.5825, http://www.cdmuse.com 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 11:38:39 -0500 
Reply-To:     Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         "Edwards, Bruce D" <bruce.d.edwards@VANDERBILT.EDU> 
Subject:      composition styles 
MIME-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII 
 
>From:    mark simon <mgs2@CORNELL.EDU> 
>Subject: Re: contemporary emusic structures 
>>This is why I consider 
>>the sound design/composition arguments to be rather 
>>misguided in this 
>>particular genre: there's no boundary here. 
> 
>I wouldn't say misguided, because as you can see, there 
>are many on this list who don't see it that way. I don't 
>see it that way, but I think it interesting that things 
>can be seen that way. This is a view that only one who 
>works with synthesizers all the time would take, and one I 
>would have never encountered outside of emusic-l. 
 
A fried of mine, irate over my style of play, once said, 
"If you don't follow the rules! you might as well forget 
'volleyball' and call it 'batting the round thing over the 
net'!" (When I pointed out that the 'thing' batted 
approximated sphere not round and that the 'net', in this 
case, was actually a long piece of rope zigzagged between 
two trees I thought he was going to hit me).  Anyone can 
use whatever criteria they want to determine what 
composition might be and who might be allowed to be a 
composer (a writer being someone that is paid to write?) 
(or to spin the Zappa '200 Motels' quote around (or perhaps 
it was a flo & eddy improvisation) if your two primary 
questions are not "where's the beer?" & "when do we get 
paid?" then you fail to be a "pro" musician)  If you can 
get at least one other person to agree with your 
definitions then you found a school. 
 
As composition tools & models proposed by the pythagoreans 
reached a fruition in 18th century Europe, a "composer" was 
no longer tied to the tyranny of the village voice . . . as 
it became possible to abstract the composition from the 
performance a composer no longer had to be instrument 
maker, producer/promoter, concert master, conductor, & 
performer.  The tools not only assisted in the composition 
of a vast number of powerful works but allowed those pieces 
of music to be passed with relative ease and accuracy to 
succeeding generations . . . no small feat.  I still 
consider myself to be a "note" based composer yet if 
playback technology that supports my recordings disappears 
(a very high probability) than it is extremely 
doubtful that even an approximation of the intent of 
majority of mult-voice works could ever be achieved.  Yet 
the tools (psyco-social as well as technical), as with all 
dialectic processes, which extended profound freedoms also 
impose their own tyrannies . . . and more to the point of 
this thread represent only a single and relatively isolated 
approach to composition. 
 
I am not a musicologist and my interpretations are designed 
to assist what it is I do, which means simply that it is 
not impossible for me to gloss over incomplete and 
inaccurate details while I try to abstract that which is 
most significant to me . . . My understanding of Gamelon is 
that the word can apply to a performance, to a specific 
instrument and the ensemble all at the same time . . . that 
while to my western ears performances might sound very 
similar, traditionally the evolution & development of the 
Gamelon was a family/clan function & fiercely guarded to 
protect its uniqueness . . . that any specific performance, 
any specific composition was inseparably intertwined in the 
design and manufacture of the instrument -- Gamelon is 
dependent on the Gamelon: family instrument style 
performance. 
 
In Hawaiian slack key guitar (which may well share some 
Darwinian antecedents with modern gamelon) it was just as 
important to develop clan-specific unique scales and 
tunings, methods of playing, as to create unique sequences 
of notes. 
 
Slack key had a significant impact on the development of US 
blues which in turn had an important role in the evolution 
of Jazz . . . one of the elements that defines jazz is the 
use of note-events that defy notation (in pitch, duration 
and accent: flatted, sort of; the bracket notes of a 
triplet, sort of, with kind of a discredited rubato feel, 
sort of; with something that isn't syncopation but sort of 
feels like it) another is employment of the individual as 
opposed to standardized voice.  I do not think there would 
be too much debate that Ellington was one of the most 
"European" of the early jazz composers.  Nor do I think 
there is any doubt that the ensemble in general and 
specific bands in particular played a significant role in 
Ellington compositional process (even the most superficial 
analysis of the complex Strayhorn-Ellington-ensemble 
relationship defies any note-event alone definition of 
composition). 
 
For Mark Simon the composition process is defined by 
creation of specific note-events.  While I might be as 
surprised by his inability to accept an expanded definition 
as he is that those definitions exist I am not arguing that 
he is wrong (and certainly not trying to convince him). 
And I am sure he can resurrect logical refutations to my 
examples to sound-design composition not being unique to 
synthetic or electronic music.  The debate cannot be 
resolved.  To not accept the specific "tyrannies" of 
particular models of composition would pretty much defeat 
one's ability to compose at all.  Without well temperament 
or a standardized orchestration it is hard to imagine how 
Beethoven's 9th could have even been conceived let alone 
articulated.  I genuinely enjoy Nick's last CD (AtomCD-13) 
(though as a casually interesting aside the young women 
with whom I was living when it arrived was unable to 
appreciate it on any level, actually forbade me to play it 
when she was in the house.  I don't typically listen to 
music via headphones but one afternoon with headphones on 
Nick's Zoo Station Transit came up in the shuffle with four 
other discs, she came into the room saying, "You're 
listening to THAT CD again aren't you . . . " and not being 
able to listen she had to move) but I doubt it could have 
been created by any permutation of note-event composition. 
I also doubt that Nick would create the things he does if 
he could even imagine that note-event composition was a 
viable alternative. 
 
Not only to refine effort but to create at all I am 
compelled, within the process, to accept some of my biases 
as gospel.  Does music's implementation of time allow one 
to side step the rule of contradiction? In music can a 
thing both exist and not exist in harmony? (aside to David 
Rodger: as it was along this type of axis my music as 
language traveled you should, of course, be glad that I 
never sent a more rigorous treatment.) But when not in the 
"process" I think it is important to examine the weaknesses 
and limitations of any theory employed.  The solitary 
nature, specific not only to a single composer but to a 
single machine, of much synthetic/electronic music is such 
a weakness. Mark Simon's note-event standardized 
orchestration is one way to deal with specific weaknesses. 
Nick's collaboration with dance/performance projects is 
another. 
 
regards, 
 
--------------------------------------- 
Edwards, Bruce D 
Vanderbilt University 
Email: bruce.d.edwards@Vanderbilt.Edu 
========================================================================= 
Date:         Sat, 7 Aug 1999 13:21:47 -0700 
Reply-To:     cerf-volant@acica.com 
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU> 
From:         Frank <cerf-volant@ACICA.COM> 
Organization: hibou 
Subject:      Re: Recycle sub -->Re: freeware shareware 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
 
> X-Razor is free.  It's like recycle, but supports stereo samples, exporting 
> to Samplecell and MIDI timing file.  Has beat sequencing, and supports VST 
> plugins for FX processing.  E-mail me privately for a copy. 
> 
> ~owen 
> 
 
        OK Owen, gona take you up on that. If in case you don't have my e-mail 
from the header, it's   cerf-volant@acica.com      . 
 
        Frank 


