issue10

EMUSIC-L Digest                                       Volume 34, Issue 10

This issue's topics: Total-control synthesis
	
	Non-MIDI Synthesis (4 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:         Wed, 20 Nov 1991 16:10:57 CST
From:         Gregory Taylor 
Subject:      Non-MIDI Synthesis

> No, because you are pointing out a definite fact and weakness (in general)
> of these hot Unix-based boxes: they can reproduce sound themselves, but
> can't talk to most equipment in the world that is designed for that
> purpose.

If by that you mean that they're incapable of it because there is at
present nobody writing IBM or MAC-style MIDI sequencers, then you're
right - at least for now.

If you characterize the market as composed of people who are exclusively
hobby-based "music as event" types who buy other people's software, then
you're also correct.

However, I don't think that you're correctly characterizing the tools
available to persons who do software synthesis as having no standardization,
and I'm further assuming that that's due to a lack of contact with non-MIDI
based music made with computers.

If you were to be involved with the production of music by computer
in any one of hundreds of computer music places around the world, you
would quite probably be using one os the more or less standardized
computer music languages such as

LISP [with hooks for the actual hardware level synthesis]
cmusic [Based out of UC-Sand Diego]
csound [a descendent of the old MUSIC-5 stuff]
cmix [out of Princeton. not as well known, but easily extendable]

It would be pretty hard to have done any computer music without using
one of those languages/tool sets.

In part since many of the above ran in the old days on UNIX machines,
the NeXT was eagerly seized upon rather early on by computer music folks,
since the porting was pretty straight ahead. As of now, all the above
are out and kicking around in public domain [save for the UCSD folks
who charge a "duplication fee" for cmusic]. That's one of the reasons
folks are so hopped up about it. All this was going on while lots of
the "MIDI software industry" was trying to figure out if the machine
would fly.

Finally, the NeXT comes with a pretty well documented software toolkit
rather than a clone of Vision. The trick is that you have to be a programmer
to really make it work.

This isn't a religious issue for me, but I'm probably one of the few
folks around here who divides his time between doing MIDI stuff [mostly
MAX on a Mac] and NeXT work [stuff you cannot do in MIDIland at all -
frequency-domain manipulation, spectral morphologies, flying things
through fictitious rooms at 180 miles/hour, etc.]. My view now, as
always, is that the tool should fit the work. At the moment that someone
puts out a commercially available MIDI program, it'll simply be the
most comprehensive workstation on the market for the buck, hands down.

That hasn't happened yet. It may not. But the potential is difficult to
ignore.

In short, the software synthesis side of the NeXT *is* already integrated,
better so than a large number of other boxes on the market. Best of all,
it's public domain...you just download it and start whacking away. The
MIDI is yet to come, but that's more a function of the innate conservatism
of the MIDI software industry rather than anything about the box itself.

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

Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 1991 15:48:37 EST
From:         "Joseph D. McMahon" 
Subject:      Non-MIDI Synthesis

> Does this refer to, say, my points about the Indigo and NeXT supporting
> music but not MIDI?
>
> I wonder if there's any way we can discuss this without getting into a
> flamefest.
>
No, because you are pointing out a definite fact and weakness (in general)
of these hot Unix-based boxes: they can reproduce sound themselves, but
can't talk to most equipment in the world that is designed for that
purpose.

There is also the strength that these are total-hardware-control boxes;
they have the ability to directly synthesize waveforms and play them
back, and that they also have the horsepower to get something else done
at the same time.

Such a box could be a tremendous asset to a composer, *if* it can be made	to
 integrate with other existing tools.

 --- Joe M.

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

Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 1991 18:03:49 EST
From:         "Joseph D. McMahon" 
Subject:      Non-MIDI synthesis

>
> If by that you mean that they're incapable of it because there is at
> present nobody writing IBM or MAC-style MIDI sequencers, then you're
> right - at least for now.
>
> If you characterize the market as composed of people who are exclusively
> hobby-based "music as event" types who buy other people's software, then
> you're also correct.
>
Actually, I was simply trying to point out that for *some* things, a real
honest-to-god keyboard would be a valuable "peripheral" for such machines.

> However, I don't think that you're correctly characterizing the tools
> available to persons who do software synthesis as having no standardization,
> and I'm further assuming that that's due to a lack of contact with non-MIDI
> based music made with computers.
>
True enough; I've only been reading CMJ for less than a year. There are a
few considerations though (see below).
>
> This isn't a religious issue for me, but I'm probably one of the few
> folks around here who divides his time between doing MIDI stuff [mostly
> MAX on a Mac] and NeXT work [stuff you cannot do in MIDIland at all -
> frequency-domain manipulation, spectral morphologies, flying things
> through fictitious rooms at 180 miles/hour, etc.]. My view now, as
> always, is that the tool should fit the work. At the moment that someone
> puts out a commercially available MIDI program, it'll simply be the
> most comprehensive workstation on the market for the buck, hands down.
Perhaps the most comprehensive, but affordability is a problem for the
home studio artist. I personally would love to get my mitts on such a
beast, but I can't (yet) justify buying an expensive computer system
simply to use it for synthesis. It's not cost-effective for a home
user. Neither are the recently-announced IRCAM boards (for the Mac II,
I think?), or the Kyma/Platypus system. Sure, I have a spare $15,000
to drop on one box; I'll put it right next to my Synclavier II... :-)

What I wish was available was something which would provide the flexibility
and power of such dedicated synthesis and sampling workstations along with the
ability to integrate into my existing setup at a price less than that of
a new car. Something that I could use with the freedom of expression of
a 1/2" tape and a razor blade, with the control of a page layout program
and the price of an expensive ($3-5K, hopefully less) synthesizer. Oh,
can it be compatible with *some* existing home-level machine, too?

 --- Joe ("Welcome...to Fantasy Island." "Look, boss! De synth! De synth!") M.

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

Date:         Thu, 21 Nov 1991 16:40:23 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Non-MIDI Synthesis

>There is also the strength that these are total-hardware-control boxes;
>they have the ability to directly synthesize waveforms and play them
>back, and that they also have the horsepower to get something else done
>at the same time.

Well, not true of the Indigo, at least when I played with it. The playback
of sound would halt or glitch whenever I moved a window.  I wasn't
impressed.

        Nick.

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

Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 1991 10:48:16 EST
From:         "Joseph D. McMahon" 
Subject:      Re: Usage poll

>                       ... if it is, then why do the manufacturers build
> things like the wavestation, which, if my bias were true, would be
> inaccessible to most users?
Good question, I would note that the last time I was in a local music store,
the Wavestation was missing its power cord; the 01/W was not. :-/ Given
that, the only thing in the store that sounded remotely interesting was
an old Juno-106... I think that the presets do sell the box, which is one
of the reasons neither the Wavestation nor the MicroWave is doing well.
Then again, the 01/W wouldn't go home with me if I walked out and found it
in the car. It's just too polished and completed.

> can we get some kind of straw poll here? i would like to know, not necessarily
> on any particularly empirical level, how much people here actually use what
> they have. how complex a beast do you own? how much do you tweak it? are you
> primarily a player, a button-pusher (moderately-informed programmer), or
> a crazed sonic deviant?
>
I have the VFXsd (as most well know by now). I bought it to have something
that in some way remotely resembled a synthesizer. I do tend to turn it on
and noodle, but more and more I'm finding that I need to create the sounds
that I want to get the overall effect that makes the proper Gestalt. I'm
in the player-learning-to-be-a-button-pusher stage right now. I'm trying
to refine my compositional techniques and performance to the point that
I can take bigger steps into uncharted sonic territory. I view it as sort
of like art; you can do an abstract expressionist work by sloshing paint
on the canvas, and do pretty well that way, but after a while, your
esthetic sense tells you that you need better control of your materials
to achieve the things that your inward ear hears, but your hands can't
play. So I'm learning more of the physical performance requirements of
my current equipment.

I will also say that if I could find a couple old modulars and three or
four good reel-to-reel recorders, I'd be making different music altogether.

Now there's a topic. How would one go about using a "computer music system"
such as the NeXT to build a "traditional" modular electronic music studio?
I grumble about not having real-time control over sounds, and I realize that
my tape collage pieces really couldn't have been "real-time" either; they had
to be assembled out of lots of little pieces of tape over weeks. NeXTers:
any ideas here? Does anyone else miss this kind of thing?

 --- Joe ("I can't get the grease pencil inside my cassette deck") M.

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

Date:         Thu, 21 Nov 1991 11:02:04 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Re: Usage poll

>the Wavestation was missing its power cord; the 01/W was not. :-/

Interesting, given that (i) the Wavestation and 01/W have a very similar
raw sound quality, and (ii) the WS, being older, must be quite a bit
cheaper. So either (i) people are more interested in the "new" box than the
"old" one or (ii) it's the presets that sell it, as Joe suggests.

>Then again, the 01/W wouldn't go home with me if I walked out and found it
>in the car. It's just too polished and completed.

Well, I have nothing against "polish", but I find the 01/W to be totally
boring. I had a quick play with one and it did absolutely nothing for me. I
even messed around with the waveshaping. Nothing. When I heard a WS for the
first time, it did at least sound *interesting*.

But, the 01/W is a Super-M1 with lots of instrument samples. The
Waveshaping is a total red herring. This isn't meant to be a synthesiser of
any degree. It's a sample player with preset sounds on tap (and a lot of
them). If that's what you're after, fine. Don't come crying to me in three
months when you're bored stupid with the thing... :-)

>I have the VFXsd (as most well know by now). I bought it to have something
>that in some way remotely resembled a synthesizer. I do tend to turn it on
>and noodle, but more and more I'm finding that I need to create the sounds
>that I want to get the overall effect that makes the proper Gestalt.

I sometimes do this. More often I have sessions of pure synthesis (making
new sounds by experiment, not caring about the music), and then make music
by drawing on, and altering, the sounds I built a week or two ago. Doing
both at once is difficult - there are two many options in too many
directions, and it's very hard to stay focussed. One of my current dance
projects is built around a heavily modulated, heavily processed, vector mix
of vocals and bells on the WS. I knocked it up in five minutes while having
a cup of tea, and casually played the sound to one of the dancers. She said
she loved the sound and could work with it, so I built the piece from
there. I generally find this a much more productive way to work than trying
to put together music and sound at the same time.

        Nick.

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