issue05

EMUSIC-L Digest                                      Volume 34, Issue 05

This issue's topics: Philosophy of Electronic Music
	
	Art, Music and Technology (5 messages)
	EMUSIC-L - What is it? (9 messages)


Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon .
You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with 
the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text.
 
The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the 
University of North Carolina.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 19 Nov 1991 12:43:36 EST
From:         The Radio Gnome 
Subject:      Anyone in it for the art?

Hi,

     When I first subscribed to the list I thought I had found a clone
of SYNTH-L.  Over time, there have been some "music" postings.

     Regarding music vs. technology:  While there is a great deal of
superb EM out there nowadays, most of my all time favorite recordings are
from the 60s and 70s when the technology was stoneage compared to MIDI-age
of today.  One of the artists interviewed on 'Totally Wired' remarked
sarcastically that the overall quality of EM tends to be inversely
proportional to the technology available, that having to really work on
a single sound makes the artist pay closer attention to the music itself.
It may have been Robert Margouleff (Tonto) or David Borden (Mother Mallard),
I can't quite remember...

     Anyone have any clue where to find the following rare recordings from
the 70s?

     Franco Battiato - Sulle Corde d'Aires
     Dorothy Carter - Tree of Life
     Francesco - Cosmic Beam Experience
     Jordan Delasierra - Gymnospheres
     Socrates - Phos

     I've tried Wayside, Lotus, Eurock, ABCD, Fortuna, UK/USA, NMDS,
and others with no luck...

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 22 Nov 1991 19:18:53 GMT
From:         Martin Rootes 
Subject:      Art, Music and Technology

  Recently there has been the Computer wars, followed by the NeXT does/doesn't
do MIDI debate. In between someone (I can't remeber who I tend to read and
delete), suggested that discussions on methods, theories etc. might be more
interesting. They also put forward the idea that virtually anything could be
used to produce electronic music, that what counted was the ideas. Later and
presumably in response to that someone else stated that you couldn't produce
"serious" music with a SoundBlaster, why? Many famous and presumably "serious"
musicians have used far less technologically advanced devices to produce
electronic music (radios, microphones/loudspeaker feedback etc.). Okay the
SoundBlaster is probably low quality (I don't actually know it's capabilities,
I don't own one), but if that's all a person posseses then that's what they'll
use to make music.

   Whether music is "serious" or not is objective and should be based on the
end result not on the devices used. This list should encourage people, not put
them of thinking they'll have to fork out thousands to produce "serious"
music. Whilst the NeXt might be the best thing since sliced bread (food), if
you havn't got lots of bread (money) then owning one is a pipe dream.

  When I started playing electronic music (18 years ago) I possesed: A record
player and sound effects record, a portable cassette tape recorder with
microphone, two pulse generators and voltage controlled amplifiers. Due to the
limited amount of sound sources, I had to employ ingenuity and creativity, a
Favourite trick was to remove the back of the tape recorder and short contacts
with my fingers, this produced some wicked sounds which could be varied with
pressure.

  Now I own an ST, a D50 and several MIDI expanders, the sounds may be cleaner,
more varied, but the creativity is probably less. It is so easy now to get
trapped in the "that patch sounds roughly like what I want, I'll leave it and
work on it latter" syndrome. With analogue and non MIDI equipment you had to
get it right there and then. I'm not trying to knock MIDI or NeXTs (I'd love
one), just sounding a warning. Music comes from you not from devices, the
entire contents of IRCAM is no use unless someone decides to produce a piece
of music with it. Humans produce music, devices only produce sound.
Martin Rootes - Senior Systems Programmer/Analyst - Sheffield City Polytechnic
Email :         M.Rootes@uk.ac.scp (or sysmjr@uk.ac.scp)
Disclaimer:     Sheffield City Polytechnic has no opinions, the ones above are
                mine.

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 22 Nov 1991 23:17:37 PST
From:         more dark than shark 
Subject:      EMusic, personal, labor, silence

Interesting that a semi-thread should arise surrounding the idea that
emusic is inherently more personal than, say, chamber music or racknrole.

both the latter are hidebound daresayi tribal in spirit; the forms the riffs
the chops. the recognized "here comes the drum solo" | "here comes the funky
plucked strings" | "here comes the robertfripp-like ostantanto" | "oh this
is the part where they take the popsickle sticks and the peices of string and
bow the piano strings" yessir.

so here is a music where one of the concerns is; "here is the sound of a person
sampling a congac-soaked sponge, flaming, being run over by a samoan on a
mountianbike", or "here is the sound of a decaying orbit, oh, and here is
the tumbling bit!"

hours of work, say, in a direction spectered whimwise - insights amok. this
emusic is the sound of the dissolution. a more academic bent: the
deconstruction, the arc of capital's ever seperating blade...what culture but
this West could afford such an ART?

yes, this offender has spent too many hours setting the filters to keen, the
chorus to phase - and it's a joy when a dance troupe or film maker somehow
connects with the sound! True!
where does this music go? who does it interest? Why is there any group of
people who are inspired by a sound- not a score not a phrase not a theme but
a simple sound? (ok so it's not a simple sound...)

and it's not so interesting to wonder about this generation, raised amoung
artifacts that beep their readiness, chime their acceptance, peal their
dispair, howl their discontent - but where did Varese, say, come from? did
the serialists arise from an attempt at the department's chair or did they
actually imagine a sound? Partch? fergodsake. Partch?

I thinke we, and those immediatly afore us, imagined a sound "over there", but
how did it start?

casey
-------

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 25 Nov 1991 08:58:47 CST
From:         michael whitten 
Subject:      Re: Art, Music and Technology

Martin makes the case well.  Humans make music.  Its the most abstract
thing I can think of, but not so abstract that we can't talk about it....
which is what I think Nick was intimating:  talk can't replace what music
does, but it doesn't mean we can't talk about it (especially without
sounding like newspaper critics).  Talk is one of the things we do best.

Again, regarding what Martin was saying, I remember my first forays in EM.
Equipment: a trusty Grundig sound-on-sound reel deck, a shortwave radio,
and a well-developed tuner-dial technique.  You know, I just had so much
dang fun with that!  I just may chuck what I'm using now.

michael

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 25 Nov 1991 09:26:51 CST
From:         michael whitten 
Subject:      Re: EMusic, personal, labor, silence

>where does this music go? who does it interest? Why is there any group of
>people who are inspired by a sound- not a score not a phrase not a theme but
>a simple sound?
"Nothing to say, but I know how to say it."  - same group.

>and it's not so interesting to wonder about this generation, raised amoung
>artifacts that beep their readiness, chime their acceptance, peal their
>dispair, howl their discontent - but where did Varese, say, come from? did
>the serialists arise from an attempt at the department's chair or did they
>actually imagine a sound?
"Victims of a series of accidents, as are we all."  - Vonnegut.
>casey
>-------

michael

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 1991 14:30:36 CST
From:         michael whitten 
Subject:      This ListServ.

Hi.
    I've only been subscribed to this list for about a week, now, and I must
say I'm a bit disappointed.  It may be because members only have ascii char-
acters to send and receive to and from one another that the subject of this
very listserv is only danced around.  (Joe...have I inadvertently subscribed
to MUSIC-ELECTRONICS?)  No one has yet figured out how to effectively send
music itself thru the net, but, were it even so, discussion would probably
degrade into the BEST player, BEST sampling rate, BEST compression, BEST s/n
ratio, BEST frequency response, ad nauseum.  Too bad.  Anybody in it for
the art, raise your hand............
    John Q. SeriousMidiRig could have the most fabulous state o'art system
ever conceived, and know every technical stat and technique.  This means
nothing.  I hope no one has forgotten that.  In *Electronic Music*, I believe
one word is a qualifier of the other, but I wonder sometimes (a lot, actually),
what serves what?  In my world, the bottom line is and always has been
*whatever works*.....and that BTW is a subject and a verb.  (Sorry if I'm
starting to sound sarcastic - its a really bad character flaw.)  I think
that's always BEEN the bottom line......don't you?  All the great artists
from Bach to Picasso didn't care squat about the resolution of their quill or
the coarseness of their canvas.  Whatever works; whatever serves.  Let the
beholder behold.  Music is not in the piano; it is in the brain.  All form
and no content makes Jack a dull boy.  And so on.  Here's a word: musicality.

       But, then, if we can't flame it up over our computer taboos or our
*serious midi rigs* with our psycho-hardware angst, what ever might we do?
In the absence of being able to listen to other people's electronic music and
to respond to THAT, well, sorry.....I've no good answer there.  But....what
ever might we NOT do?  Well........how about less of Defend-or-Die mindset on
this ListServ?  There's an 11-year-old girl out there hacking automata-
generated waveforms on her 8-bit sampler.  (The manually-derived ones just
didn't have the smooth phasing quality needed in her newest quartet sonata.)
Don't bum her out.  That's music you and the rest of the world may never hear.

Michael


------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 19 Nov 1991 11:11:45 CST
From:         michael whitten 
Subject:      TicklingEarHairs

  These so-called *serious* and *professional* stances on hardware are wearing
thin for me.  These posts usually contain nothing but negative criticism.
This kind of musical snobbery reeks of high-brow intellectualism, except that
the longest words seem to be the name-brands of commercial products.  Are
people who like to read these kinds of posts in EMUSIC-L so caught up in their
precious hardware that musical ideas and experiences elude them?  I rather
think they want to be encouraged, not discouraged.....they don't want to hear
*Mine's better than yours*.  If these posters like to consider themselves a
members of the elite few....with all the *right* (politically correct, even)
equipment, that's fine; I hope it helps them reach ever greater pinnacles of
creativity, but they must surely know that ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
OTHER.  They seem to be smart people; why the evangelism, I don't know.  I
guess we just have to put up with E-MUSIC.Advocacy, E-MUSIC.Hardware and
E-MUSIC.LockerRoom all rolled in to one.
   Whoops...sorry, I'm evangelizing.  There......I did it again........


------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 19 Nov 1991 09:58:51 TZONE
From:         andym@ATTMAIL.COM
Subject:      this forum

to emusic-l folks...

i have not been a big contributor to this service, but i do enjoy it.
i would - i think - enjoy it more, if it were a bit more serious.  i
gerenerally don't blast anyone (character flaw), but agree with the
recent comments about the quality of discussion.  equipment and
economics are important  (discussions of these are a bit like painter's
brushes and practical working environs), but in the absence of creative
thought....well, you know. most of us salivate more when the sam ash
catalogue comes in. there really is as much excitement in making music - it's
just more difficult to discuss!

it would be interesting and educational to hear more about what we
are all doing and like or would like to *do*. notice please that i
chose the word "do" not buy.

i talk to many young people about music (recently on a daily basis at
a local college).  i encourage discussion of how to ###### (fill in
the blank with play, practice, write, create, combine, build, etc.)
many young people try to add what they would like to own, be seen with,
turn up to ten.  it has become important to me to show young players
that while owning the right instrument can be important, the ability
to play it is the objective.  likewise, all this talk of "things" is
fun, but there is another more important objective.

                                                        andy
                                                        andym@attmail.com
ps
thanks, mr. president, for posting the rules again.

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 19 Nov 1991 12:16:20 EST
From:         ronin 
Subject:      emusic-l threads

my own feeling is: if you have a desire for conversation of a
different tenor, start it.
further, it goes without saying for me that music is the motivation
for all of those activities that i pursue that are germain to this
list's topic. do i really need to state this? what do you think i'm doing
with this filter project? years ago i started this group with a discussion
of what implications various methods of spectral control had for the
orchestration of new music. like any serious practitioner, i am now engaged
in the pursuit of understanding my tools.
i also happen to make music. but that is a communication of its own, and
not empirically discussable. i have no inclination (or training) to
transliterate what i say with my instruments to the english language.
but perhaps someone here *has* a language. so... articulate it. you wanna
talk chord structures, go ahead... i'll shut up and learn. interested in
performance technique? philsophies of the role of art? great. do it.
11-year-old bit-bangers? far out. any source will do. do we
sound hostile to musical ideas around here? i think not.
but remember... this is just what comes out of *our* heads. and we don't
own this list, we just do most of the talking. but this needn't be so.
rather than saying 'hey... *you* folks... please start something else
for me', you might say 'hey, *i'm* starting something else for you.'
we're open. we just have our particular angles, modes, and inclinations...
which we express. got something different? express it. we're more open
than i think we've been given credit for.
sorry... this whole thing was just a little less coherent than i had
hoped. which is probably its own best argument. if i (or others here) lack
a facility in discussing non-technical topics, that is no reason why they
can't be broached. it's just going to take someone else to initiate it.

-------------------< Cognitive Dissonance is an Art Form >---------------
Eric Harnden (Ronin)
 or 
The American University Physics Dept.
Washington, D.C

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 19 Nov 1991 16:05:12 EST
From:         ronin 
Subject:      em threads, cont'd

a culture is defined by the transaction of understood symbols.
for any of these parameters to be changed (transaction, understanding,
or symbology) often requires a radical act.
emusic-l is not an entity. it is a culture. it's nature is entirely
dependent on the things said within its context. that context is not
fixed. it is mutable, as well as limitable.
it is unreasonable to expect the participants in a culture to reshape
their own culture to suit the demands of an external one. it is not
unreasonable for that culture to reshape itself under the influence of
new ideas. such a change requires adaptation.
we can adapt. can you provide new ideas?
this is not a font from which you drink. this is a pool, in which you
must swim.
be radical. act.

-------------------< Cognitive Dissonance is an Art Form >---------------
Eric Harnden (Ronin)
 or 
The American University Physics Dept.
Washington, D.C

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 19 Nov 1991 16:54:33 EST
From:         ronin 
Subject:      EMUSIC-L - What is it?

please allow me to express, in as non-confrontational a way as possible,
confusion over this interchange:

>
>   >      When I first subscribed to the list I thought I had found a clone
>   > of SYNTH-L.  Over time, there have been some "music" postings.
>I agree, I trash a lot of EMUSIC-L messages because I am not a keyboardist.

on the one hand, we have a generalized (and potentially valid) complaint that
emusic-l tends toward gear-headedness. this concern is real, and i by no
means intend to belittle the comment itself. i do have some problems with
the manner of its framing, which i have expressed in other posts.
on the other hand, we have a computer programmer who is attracted to
electronic music instruments for much the same reason i originally was...
in order to express a strongly felt internal artistic sense while lacking
certain formal skill in 'traditional' performance or compositional methods.
but why is this person discarding so much material from this group?
what, exactly, is he agreeing with? is mr basham requesting, as a non-
keyboardist, that there be more discussion of music composition? that
there be more discussion of computer music? is he uninterested in listings
and arguments of keyboard-based instrument attributes?
i'm honestly not being sarcastic here... the reply just doesn't parse.

-------------------< Cognitive Dissonance is an Art Form >---------------
Eric Harnden (Ronin)
 or 
The American University Physics Dept.
Washington, D.C

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 19 Nov 1991 22:16:55 EST
From:         ronin 
Subject:      Re: TicklingEarHairs

aahh... the argument gels...
and in fact i find myself agreeing.
on the one hand, i have a high degree of attraction to zingpow hardware.
so much so, in fact, that i have elected to save my bucks for an Indigo,
rather than a NeXT. (this is not a random 'my cpu is better than yours.'
it is an opinion rapidly proferred for the sake of argument. as to its merits
i will expand later.)
at the same time, i cannot countenance the concept of 'seriousness' in emusic
as put forward in ken's post. not, in all honesty, that the concept has no
validity for me at all. i guess i'd just draw the line elsewhere.
as a counter-example, i will put forward the case of the akai s612 sampler.
whereas most samplers were designed to faithfully reproduce their inputs,
so as to provide the user with the pristine sounds of strings and shakuhachi,
the s612 is a cuisinart. no. make that a lawn mower. it is impossible to
retrieve from it anything even remotely resembling what was recorded. it
aliases, it chipmunks, it clicks when it loops, it's monotimbral.
i love it. much more than any other sampler i have ever worked with.
it's highly idiosyncratic, which, like most 'real' instruments, makes
it highly idiomatic within its own context. it provides, by its limitations,
a unique sound pallette which both constrains and frees my imagination.
in fact, i do much more 'serious' work with it than i tend to do with the
roland d50, which mostly just sits there and sounds pretty.
not that high-level gizmos and attendant skills are not also within the
realm of 'serious' emusic. but 'seriousness' really is a function of
attitude, not of technology (nor even, i say as an iconoclast, of technique).

-------------------< Cognitive Dissonance is an Art Form >---------------
Eric Harnden (Ronin)
 or 
The American University Physics Dept.
Washington, D.C

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 1991 09:21:24 TZONE
From:         Bryan Basham 
Subject:      Interest in EMUSIC-L (was: EM Roots (was: Anyone in it for the art?))

I'll be short, and to the point...

   >					  is mr basham requesting, as a non-
   > keyboardist, that there be more discussion of music composition?
Yes :-(

   > that there be more discussion of computer music?
Absolutely :-(

   > 						      is he uninterested in listings
   > and arguments of keyboard-based instrument attributes?
Mostly ;-)

-Bryan

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 1991 17:16:00 GMT
From:         Eric McCormick <0004775674@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      EM Subjectivo

As I see it, Eletronic Music is many things to many people.  To some, it is
freedom of performance with sounds and instruments to which they have never
before had access; they use synthesizers/samplers because they do not have
control over a complete group of musicians with their own instruments and
expertise.  To others, synthesizers and Electronic Music provide them with
sounds that they cannot get from conventional acoustic instruments.  Others
still may not even be musicians; they enjoy and are interested by the new
sounds and creativity of others.  There are even those who have no formal
musical background or instrumental dexterity that turn to Electronic Music
and MIDI and Sequencing as a way to express themselves through the wonders
of quantizing and rerecording a part at a time. (Anyone interested in a
conversation over whether to quantize or not quantize?  ;D)

My two cents,

      +--------------------------------------------------------------+
      |       |\/\/\/|                                               |
      |       |      |      Eric McCormick                           |
      |       |      |                                               |
      |       | (o)(o)      MCI Telecommunications                   |
      |       C      _)                                              |
      |       | ,___|       Internet: 0004775674@MCIMAIL.COM         |
      |       |   /                                                  |
      |      /____\                                                  |
      |     /      \                                                 |
      +--------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 1991 09:41:00 EDT
From:         RAY BROHINSKY 
Subject:      What is EMUSIC-L?

I have to object to the turn EMUSIC is taking. The recent amiga-mac
proto-rwar is unnecessary and uninteresting to me, and (I believe)
to the Emusic community at large. If you wish to indulge in amiga
or mac bashing, there are groups that love that kind of stuff.

We were supposed to be talking about electronic music from a theoretical
and practical view, not nyahhh-nyahhh.

As an instance, Ken Morton's post (by no means a personal attack on Ken,
there were others) could have easily stated the limiting parameters
of the amiga's sound (if he knows), the increase in quality available
from the mac system he uses now (indicating such things as noise, flexibility,
general cost of software, if he wants to get into nuts and bolts, or
a more objective observation of the mac's system's qualities from
a compositional/performance point of view) and even enumerate
some of the things that the NeXt does that make it better still.

If I wanted to see blank verse on how good or bad amigas and/or macs
are, I'd still be subscribed to amiga-relay 8^(

raybro

------------------------------
End of the EMUSIC-L Digest
******************************