issue15

EMUSIC-L Digest                                      Volume 56, Issue 15

This issue's topics:
	
	harrington's expert system was "it's the (...), stupid
	it's the (...), stupid
	life and death (2 messages)
	modus (7 messages)
	operandi (10 messages)
	Random Processes and New Idea Generation (2 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:         Thu, 2 Sep 1993 11:30:11 -0400
From:         idealord 
Subject:      harrington's expert system was "it's the (...), stupid

>
> fill in the blank.
> anything to get off that damn topic.
> harrington has expressed his views to my satisfaction, and i think we
> now know where we all stand. not that it's irrelevant, or even
> uninteresting... just that it's bottomless, and frankly i'd rather
> pursue the mutual interest, not the paths of divergence.

AGREED!
>
> what i have been curious about ever since he mentioned it is harrington's
> 'expert system'. well? drop the other shoe. what kind? what structure?
> what heuristics? what knowledge base? will you make the code available?
> can i play?
>
It's now in about its 5th incarnation - with versions for quartertone
harmonies, 31 note temperaments, and a new version for the Bohlen-Pierce
scale.  It's programmed for my Amiga in C with an optional genetic algo front
end (written in Icon cuz I got kind of lazy and the gen processing was fairly
non-cpu intensive - the cycles were getting eaten up in the brute force runs
through the search space of melodic delay and transposition).

I don't know how useful it would be for anyone else cuz it's designed for my
own compositional needs - kind of like having a grad assistant I can go and
tell "Find me all the ways these 5 melodies will fit together so that
dissonances of 2nds and 7ths are resolved on the beat or resolved by
suspension of one 16th note".  Prior to my programming I was spending most of
my compositional time on these kinds of rote brain taxers.

So I spend most of my time now crafting melodies - I pull up Deluxe Music
Construction Set on my Amy 1000 (a primitive note entry music program) get the
expert system running on a set of melodies, and begin auditioning the results.
 I love how my Amy lets me multi-task my expert system while I compose.  The
best benefit is that can now compose with larger chunks of music instead of
note by note composing like I've done for years.  So far I've used it on my
"Acid Bach" quartertone invention suite (available on MuseNet 93 in a version
obviously re-recorded by the powers that be using Dolby B instead of C and
re-sampled up and down SR's so that it's now slower than I intended but at
least it didn't come out backward....) a string quartet, a piano trio, a set
of piano pieces and a new emusic piece using the BP scale I'm writing now.

CPSMUS (as I call it CounterPointSMUS - for the SMUS Amiga music file format)
has a front end which is basically a set of 17 arguments for the different
depths of delay and transposition space searching and the kinds of files to
save (2, 3, 4 or 5 voice counterpoints.  So I give it an SMUS file - basically
a list of MIDI note numbers and a note length number and the set of arguments
and it creates a list of the note intersections for the arguments of delay and
transposition possibilities.

I haven't made it public domain (I've written about 6 public domain Amiga
music programs) yet - as I don't see it being useful except maybe as a model
because of the Harrington style-specific rule base which is endemic to the
program.  The inspiration for the program was Tanieev's book "Convertible
Counterpoint" (still in print - saw a copy at Patelson's the other day) in
which he presents a bunch of shortcuts for managing a mathematical approach to
contrapuntal composition in the style of Fux.
> i guess i ought to ante up and get the fm simulator out there. i feel nervous
> about it, because it was the first thing of any size i ever did, and i am
> painfully aware of its inelegance and incompleteness. but what the hell.
> it's the same thing as with releasing music, right?

Does is simulate a DX7 or a generic CMusic style FM instrument?

Jeff Harrington
idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1993 10:31:13 EDT
From:         ronin 
Subject:      it's the (...), stupid

fill in the blank.
anything to get off that damn topic.
harrington has expressed his views to my satisfaction, and i think we
now know where we all stand. not that it's irrelevant, or even
uninteresting... just that it's bottomless, and frankly i'd rather
pursue the mutual interest, not the paths of divergence.

what i have been curious about ever since he mentioned it is harrington's
'expert system'. well? drop the other shoe. what kind? what structure?
what heuristics? what knowledge base? will you make the code available?
can i play?

i guess i ought to ante up and get the fm simulator out there. i feel nervous
about it, because it was the first thing of any size i ever did, and i am
painfully aware of its inelegance and incompleteness. but what the hell.
it's the same thing as with releasing music, right?
so... i'll loosen up if you folks will. i know there's alot of interesting
stuff floating around here, and i for one would like to be playing with it.
(i sound like andy hardy... 'hey everybody! i've got an idea! let's all get
together and put on a show!' with the result being the flickering of CRTs
and the hunched twiddling of dials and sliders. very post-modern.)

-----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >-----------
Eric Harnden (Ronin)
 or 
The American University Physics Dept.
4400 Mass. Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20016-8058
(202) 885-2748  (with Voice Mail)
---------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >-------------------

------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 13 Sep 1993 10:48:21 EDT
From:         ronin 
Subject:      life and death

a few memos ago harrington suggested that a significant cause of the
'demise' of analog equipment was the yamaha lock on fm synthesis...
an argument which was then severely drubbed.
now, i'm not sure that i take the thesis entirely at face value. that is,
i'm not sure that the relation between the two observations on equipment
marketing are strictly causal, but let me dwell for a moment...
in any modern business, innovation is the key to survival. analog equipment,
by its very nature, is limited as to the directions it may take. sampling,
for instance, the basis of all currently popular intruments, is out. in the
analog domain, modulation and control techniques are the main areas where
innovation can occur. to have one of these paths closed off is to severly limit
potential markets. while the lack of fm may not have killed analog, neither
was it strictly the electronic differences. miniaturization and hybridization
were well on the way toward making the technology competitive with its
digital counterparts, and the notion that the 'sound' of analog was in some
way inherently responsible for its collapse is made moot by the current demand
for vintage instruments... a demand fed by new artists raised since the advent
of the dx series who now perceive that sound as innovative. as for piss-poor
management... yes, well, it's true. people do screw up. but generally not on
an industry-wide scale. the stories about arp remind one of atari, do they not?
but don buchla is no damn fool, nor bob moog. and roland really had a good
thing going there, and in fact still does. so it may not be entirely outrageous
to find some culpability in chowning for the semi-collapse of the analog
synth industry. neither mismanagement nor obsolescence seem to be sufficient
explanation.

-----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >-----------
Eric Harnden (Ronin)
 or 
The American University Physics Dept.
4400 Mass. Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20016-8058
(202) 885-2748  (with Voice Mail)
---------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >-------------------

------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 20 Sep 1993 15:06:00 EDT
From:         John Rossi III 
Subject:      Re: life and death

First of all, Bob Moog explains the death of Moog music as a fault of
administrative incompetence.  Don Buchla, while a visionary, never really
marketed anything which he really planned to sell.  As I pointed out earlier,
the effect of the DX7 on the analog market was to give more bang for the
buck.  Simply put, it just raised peoples' expectations as to what to
expect in an under $2000 electronic musical instrument (as far as bells and
whistles go).

John

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1993 09:15:50 -0400
From:         idealord 
Subject:      Re: modus

>
> > please - computer music produced this century is a joke compared
> >to the works of our century's greats.
>
> Hardly. Please try not to assume that your opinions (or even those of folks
> you talk to) define the validity or quality of music.

You're kiddin' right?  The audience assumes full control over the validity of
a piece -  or a genre - my opinion matters especially - because I make it
public :)
>
> >I'm not being selective - it all SUCKS!  Xenakis, Roads, Risset, Subotnick,
> >Chowning, et al - (maybe "sucks" is an exaggeration :-) let me say -
 musically
> >incompetent or musically inconsequential from now on! :)
>
> I don't see how a Luto fan can dis Xenakis, who has produced some
> extraordinary orchestral scores. I think that the early electronic work of
> Xen and Subotnik are quite significant, and I do listen to them for
> pleasure. More recent Subotnik does nothing for me, nor does Chowning.
> There are other modern e-a composers who I do like. I have found a very
> wide range of quality and expression in e-a music, and don't agree with any
> sweeping statements about the genre.
>
Sure Metastasis is kind of cute - but it was a mere display of glissandi -
unlike Livre (Luto) which used glissandi in a musically fascinating manner.
I think that we have all been programmed to accept mediocrity because of the
incredible brilliance and clarity of new emusic pieces.  Listen to Varese -
Desert's or Gesange - and then listen to any ICMC or Wergo or CRI e-amusic
disk -the stuff just doesn't get me off at all :).  While the Varese - dirty -
hokey sounds - man - it really makes sense musically.
> >Please - if you don't believe me - play any ICMC CD - any
 university-sponsored
> >CD of computer music - any CRI computer music CD and then listen to
> >Lutoslawski's 3rd Symphony.  GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!  :)
>
> Once in a while, a great piece shows up on one of those discs. Not often,
> but I think that the quality ratio is close to that for other music,
> including contemporary or classical orchestral, pop music, or whatever.
> >From an earlier post, I gather that you are miffed at the difficulties you
> have had getting pressed on comps such as these. I think you are exposing
> your fragile ego by the sort of statements you made in that post.

My ego fragile - (cough...) hmmm.. you obviously don't know me :) - I'm not
miffed - (what a word) - maybe frustrated in my opportunities for distribution
that's all.  But that has little to do with my admittedly harsh
generalizations of academic emusic.  As with all generalizations - it only has
validitiy in its truthfulness regarding the majority of cases under discussion
- I know there's some good music I haven't heard out there - I can't wait to
hear it - but I'm getting frustrated waiting for that new piece which will
blow me away.  I really think that we settle for too little these days.  I
want my fuckin' socks to be rocked - not just to go: hmmmm.. that was a really
nice piece man - thanks for playing it for me.  I want to be shaken, stirred,
moved  - freaked out - ASTONISHED! - we settle for such mediocrity today.

> >And one more thing :) ask any composer outside of the computer music
 community
> >who is competent - the whole fuckin' modern music community thinks that this
> >university-sponsored computer music is a joke
>
> Well, I know quite a few competent and respected acoustic composers who see
> much validity in some computer music (including, say, Xenakis and
> Subotnick). I also know that I have played e-a pieces for "regular people,"
> and they have enjoyed them quite a bit. Yes, even a few pieces to be found
> on academic compilations. Your attempts to slander entire genres are
> extremely short-sighted, and contribute little to a meaningful discussion
> of music. Take it easy.

Listen - this January I was a composer in residence at the Atlantic Center for
the Arts with Subotnick (two academic emusic composers were there whose music
I'd never heard before that I liked - Orlando Garcia and Jon Christopher
Nelson).  We worked for a month with Mort.  He was totally satisfied with
factory SY77 presets and mechanistic sequencer "performances."  I was
astonished - the music was pretty ordinary - rhythmic - modal - 2nd rate - but
in conjunction with the synthesized sounds and "performances" it was just -
emabarassing.  Mark Caniglio was there - another academic emusic composer
whose music I found I like - but I've yet to see any CD's with either of these
three composer's music on it.

I can't see the need to defend mediocrity.  Mediocrity robs our
artistic institutions of credibility - sounds like you're willing to let the
big name nobodys keep pretending that they are significant... Generalizations
are not blanket inditements - I haven't heard every emusic piece ever written
- but I stand by my right to say - please - people - most of this stuff sucks!
Nobody else is saying it - but I know a lot of people who feel this way - why
- maybe we're all to busy greasin' our wheels...

Will you ever see a bad review of a piece by Risset, Xenakis, Chowning, Roads,
Subotnick in CMJ?  Nope - I'll bet my life on it.  That's a cabal.

I'm getting tired of this argument.  But I have a right to criticize and I
hope others can understand that music has a long history of composer/critics-
Schumann being one of the more important.  We have to make a stand for quality
- no one else is qualified.  :)

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1993 09:18:50 -0400
From:         idealord 
Subject:      Re: MODUS

>
> >We can jabber all we want -- it's the audience that determines the
> >validity of music.
>
>                 [much deleted material]
>
> >And the entire notion of "quality" itself -- though we all know it when we
> >hear it -- has become one of those casualties of academic PC thinking.
> >Another reason why academic art in general "sucks".
>
> Very very true, Mike. A very fine rant it was. I couldn't have said it better.
>
>                          --Mark Simon
>                            tip@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu
>

Yikes!  Do I feel a consensus forming... I change my mind - I LOVE ACADEMIC
EMUSIC!  Don't ever want to side with the majority :)

Jeff Harrington
idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1993 07:24:54 PDT
From:         metlay 
Subject:      Re: modus

>Ultimately, my rant is a product of frustration with distributing "my" music -
>I admit this - but like most of you - I think very highly of "my" music :) I'm
>just sick of getting pieces rejected from every CD solicitation or EMusic
>contest because my music is based on "musical" principles (including tonality)
>instead of atonal process pieces....

Heavens. If I didn't know better, I would almost suspect that our dear
Mr. Harrington was seeking the shelter of a larger endeavour, whether
for monetary reasons or for the recognition/legitimization of his work
by outside "authorities," and is complaining because this avenue has
so far been closed to him. I wouldn't blame him if he was, though. The
nerve of those people, putting up the money and studio time for CD
projects and then daring to exercise control over what they release!

>Don't recommend I press my own CD -
>everybody I know that has done this has a stack of them sitting in their
>apartment :(.

Okay, I won't, he typed, taking a moment to glance from the pile of
CDs stacked in the corner to the rapidly growing stack of positive
reviews and orders on his desk. If you don't want to take the risk
of losing, don't play--but if you don't play, you CAN'T win. Ever.

>What's a poor boy to do who doesn't want to play in a rock and
>roll band?

DIY and take your lumps, or give up and do something less stressful.
Whatever their reasons, the people who put out CDs of computer music
don't owe you or your tastes anything at all. If you think you deserve
to be heard, get your stuff heard, and the public will take it from
there. That's what I did, and I am not unhappy with the results at all.

--
mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Wow, now my hand's all sticky! Yum."                       (metlay's wife)

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1993 14:23:29 CET
From:         Jack Latanowicz 
Subject:      modus

* (my text is mark with *)
* Hay all ! Let's do a short preview...
*
*We have a statement :

From:         HA43942 

When people say a certain style of music or a certain musician sucks,
it is simply their opinion, it doesn't mean it's a universal fact.


*Someone who doesn't fully agree, and divides music, on serious and non-
*serious... :

From:         idealord 

Yikes!  I feel called upon (one more time :) to explain my "academic music
sucks" - comments of late.  Now if you're not part of the "serious" music
scene - (you know what I mean) this might not make much sense to you :)

Jeff Harrington

*A good point of view I agree with :

>From Mark Simon 

By one of those quirks of human nature that makes life so interesting
it so happens that everybody thinks some kind of music is great and
some kind of music sucks, and that the pieces that a person thinks suck
generally have certain common characteristics, such as being in a certain
style. Therefore it is much easier to simply make a blanket statement
that "style XX sucks" rather than a lengthy list of individual pieces
that suck. We've all made statements of this nature, although Jeff
seems to be associated in everyone's mind with the actual word "sucks".
I know he's said that academic music sucks and that rock sucks, yet I
also know that he also likes various music that falls under both headings.

This seems to have been Dump on Harrington week, I don't know why.

                      --Mark Simon
                        tip@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu

*Another view on Academic music :

From:         idealord 


This is the "easy" response when there is no real musical criticism going on.
There is and continues to be a real war going on in all the arts.  The only
reason that I am so interested in its outcome is that I have been victimized
by this process.  Since the end of WWII there has been an attitude
disseminated throughout academia that certain kinds of music were good
(12-tone compositions or music involving a lack of pulse) and other kinds of
music (that with a melody and harmonic structures which were designed to
enhance the melody) were "naive" or outright - bad.

Hopefully - by now - you guyz must realize that my comment "rock music sucks"
was a joke (I think... hmmmmm.... never mind... :).

Jeff Harrington
idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org

*There are things I don't agree here, like one that all academic pieces
*are made for reaserch only, and surly are worth nothing :

From:         Joe McMahon 

I remeber reading in passing somewhere the other day (I'll have to look for
it again) that the purpose of academia research is not to produce anything
at all, but simply to research.

Given that Piece A doesn't appeal to a broad spectrum of listeners, maybe
even the composer: it's an exercise, not an attempt to express the deep
inner recesses of the composer's soul. As such, the composer doesn't care
whether or not it is "successful" in this way. Should it be, that's a
bonus. Seen this way, judging the music as anything else other than a "gee,
what happens if I do X" exercise is pointless. These pieces are simply the
the datapoints produced in the course of an experiment. As anyone who has
done research and kept notes knows, lab notebooks make for dull reading in
general.

 --- Joe M.

*No comments, pure truth... :

From:         JASON VANTOMME 

OK - I guess someone should say something in favour of these so-named "ICMC big
wigs".  First of all, I don't think that "most of the ICMC big wigs write this
crap."  I think plenty do, but there is a lot of good stuff as well.  I can
think of more composer's music from ICMC's that I do like than I don't.  You're
giving everyone the impression that all of it sucks!  Well...I and plenty of
other people who are professional musicians and enjoy MANY styles of music would
disagree.  You might want to point out some of the good music next time you
start thrashing away at the computer music community.  Or how about suggesting
titles so that people can have a subjective listen for themselves.  If you are
going to be "brave" enough to dump on people's music, you might as well use
their names!
(...)
Again, you are forgetting, either naively or intentionally, the work that goes
on aside from research on synthesis methods - and there is a lot.  How about
computer-aided analysis?  Or cognitive musicology?  Or interactive performance
systems?  Or computer-based notation?  Or hardware design?  Need I say more...
I think you should read through the ICMC Proceedings of the last five years more
carefully (or the last 10 years for that matter!)

Yeah sure you can laugh at this stuff, everyone is entitled to their own
opinions - just don't misrepresent any the facts, such as the community's
current research or compositional trends, by being selective!

*Looks the same in phisics, mathematics , etc... :

From:         Stephen David Beck 

I say:
Exactly.  Precisely the point.  Academia, in all areas, seems to suffer
from the image that what is being called "research" is dull and boring,
and therefore, inconsequential and a waste of taxpayer dollars (for public
institutions).  The fact of the matter is that in academia's search for
new and interesting ideas and materials, a lot of mundane stuff is found
or created.

But more importantly, academic music (as used by Mr. Harrington) must be
looked at from two vantage points (especially e/a-music).  First is the
search for new technologies for creating sound.  We should keep an ear
out for interesting sounds which have the kind of mutability needed for
musical expression.  This kind of research emancipates composers from the
bounds of 18th and 19th century musical instruments, most of which haven't
changed since the turn of the century.  Aside from the saxophone, there
has been little development of musical instruments which do not use electricity
in some form (let's hear it for Harry Partch).  This is important stuff
that somebody has to pursue.  Otherwise, music becomes a museum of history,
not a reflection of our times.

The second vantage point, the one which is the more problematic, is the
search for new musical ideas.  In post-sonata-form composition, composers
have tried to explore different musical structures and procedures.  Some
have been very successful in creating interesting music, many have not.
Composers have looked towards numerology, stoichastic formulas, radio beacons,
poetry, chaotic systems, anything that could provide either inspiration or
structure and process for the creation of new music.  Some pieces work, many
do not.

*I like this conclusion :

In the courses I've taken, the music I've studied, the great and not-so-great
composers I've worked with, and in the music I have written, I have come to
one absolute conclusion:  Interesting ideas do not always make interesting
music.  But music that does not have an interesting idea is rarely interesting.

It doesn't matter what media you look at (acoustic or e-a), the same holds true.
Composing e-a-music is no different that composing a-music.  Just different
sounds and different possibilities.

-Stephen David Beck

*That's another statement :

"95% of everything is junk" - Buckminster Fuller

*I like this guy :

From:         John Eichenseer 

> please - computer music produced this century is a joke compared
>to the works of our century's greats.

Hardly. Please try not to assume that your opinions (or even those of folks
you talk to) define the validity or quality of music.


                    ..... Your attempts to slander entire genres are
extremely short-sighted, and contribute little to a meaningful discussion
of music. Take it easy.

-jhno

*I still don't know if You really changed your mind :

From:         idealord 


Yikes!  Do I feel a consensus forming... I change my mind - I LOVE ACADEMIC
EMUSIC!  Don't ever want to side with the majority :)

Jeff Harrington
idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org
------------------------------The end--------------------------------

* Now let's think a little of all opinions and comments. Some people
* say music can't be judged as good and bad (me too !!!) and some say
* that Academic Music sucks, and is made just for research.
*  Like few mensioned before, if there was no research we still wouldn't
* know what a wheel is. There would be no electronic instruments, there
* wouldn't probably be a piano either, and most of all people would be
* so damn stupid, they couldn't play anything.
*  I believe there can be found many pieces in Academic music which are
* 1000 times better than Dr.Alban for instance, which is probably
* non-academic (??).
*  And I still believe that NO MUSIC SUCKS, if someone sees one, it's
* his own point of view. I agree with statement that 95% of all is a
* junk. But for different people this 5% is different, someone might
* love reggae, and other person might hate it and say it's a junk...
* It's in ones taste to judge things good and bad, but it can't be
* the matter of something external.
*   It's like in food - French like frogs, and I hate thinking about
* them as food ! :-)
*
*  Jack L.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Latanowicz      tel/fax Pl-(0-61) 798-202
Ul.Porzeczkowa 27    Jack@plpuam11.bitnet
61-306 Poznan
 P O L A N D         "exploring life is the sense of living..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1993 10:59:49 -0400
From:         idealord 
Subject:      Re: modus

Maestro Metlay moves -
> >Don't recommend I press my own CD -
> >everybody I know that has done this has a stack of them sitting in their
> >apartment :(.
>
> Okay, I won't, he typed, taking a moment to glance from the pile of
> CDs stacked in the corner to the rapidly growing stack of positive
> reviews and orders on his desk. If you don't want to take the risk
> of losing, don't play--but if you don't play, you CAN'T win. Ever.
>

I'm curious, who is your distributor?  Now that New Music Distribution is
bankrupt - distribution and the $2500.00 are the only things in my way :)

> >What's a poor boy to do who doesn't want to play in a rock and
> >roll band?
>
> DIY and take your lumps, or give up and do something less stressful.
> Whatever their reasons, the people who put out CDs of computer music
> don't owe you or your tastes anything at all. If you think you deserve
> to be heard, get your stuff heard, and the public will take it from
> there. That's what I did, and I am not unhappy with the results at all.

It's a temptation, but as I'm sure you've guessed my music has even less
potential for making $ than yours :) and since you've got to make a minimum
run of 500 copies - sigh - I've depended on mass mailings of my cassettes.
This has garnered me airplay, although the results of this airplay are
invisible.  I'm working on my second cassette of emusic now - and am tempted
to do a CD - but I'm not going to mail free copies of my CD to every radio
station that plays experimental emusic as I did for my cassette.  Any advice
from mike or other self-distributing emusic masters out there?

Jeff Harrington
idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1993 11:50:42 -0400
From:         YOUNG_J@SCSUD.CTSTATEU.EDU
Subject:      Re: modus

>It's a temptation, but as I'm sure you've guessed my music has even less
>potential for making $ than yours :) and since you've got to make a minimum
>run of 500 copies - sigh - I've depended on mass mailings of my cassettes.
>This has garnered me airplay, although the results of this airplay are
>invisible.  I'm working on my second cassette of emusic now - and am tempted
>to do a CD - but I'm not going to mail free copies of my CD to every radio
>station that plays experimental emusic as I did for my cassette.  Any advice
>from mike or other self-distributing emusic masters out there?
>
>Jeff Harrington
>idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org

There is a company in New Hampshire, called IMPS Music (stands for Independent
Music Producers Syndicate), which the band I play with just used to produce
a CD and cassettes (yes, they are also sitting in my living room right now).
They have an option to take one of your tracks (of your choice) and put
it on a sampler disk, which they produce and distribute to a bunch of
subscribers.  (The term "bunch" is unclear, both in numbers - my guess is
a few thousand - and type of listener i.e. radio stations, producers,
or just casual listeners).  What they do is produces sampler disks with
specific styles of music (e.g. country, blues, new wave, etc.).  You
have to provide them with 50 of your CDs to sell.  After the 50, you
can have them distribute your CD through their catalogs and 800 number.
Its an interesting concept, but I don't know how much it will really
help.

If you want to call them for the details, the number is 1-800-677-8838.
We haven't decided whether to use the sampler disk option or not yet.
However, they were extremely cooperative about everything else.  The
turnaround time was great and the quality of the product was excellent.
No complaints.

                                        Good luck,
                                        John Young

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1993 17:51:02 LCL
From:         Michael Vitali 
Subject:      MODUS

Jeff Harrington writes:

 E> I change my mind - I LOVE ACADEMIC EMUSIC!  Don't ever want to side
 E> with the majority

Just what we need -- another contrarian!  :)

Michael Vitali
michael.vitali@twty.chi.il.us

---
 * Freddie 1.2.5 * Nonconformism is a team sport.

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1993 16:15:56 EDT
From:         ronin 
Subject:      operandi

anyway...
so i've really been dissatisfied lately with the performance paradigms
enforced by the midi mechanism, especially the programmed control structure
environment, and the more i thought about my earlier statements about how
violinists control the entire parametric envelope by gesture th more i thought
that i really wanted to do that...
so i programmed a couple of patches on synths to effectively have no envelopes
at all, and to respond entirely to pressure control for their amplitude,
and initial velocity for their timbre. so you've got to *press* the key to
get a sound.
i hated it. the keyboard was unresponsive, the parametric map was coarse,
the whole thing was unmusical.
midi is really beginning to irritate me. is it just me, my particular
machines, or the whole idea?

-----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >-----------
Eric Harnden (Ronin)
 or 
The American University Physics Dept.
4400 Mass. Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20016-8058
(202) 885-2748  (with Voice Mail)
---------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >-------------------

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1993 15:59:45 -0500
From:         Arne Claassen ISE 
Subject:      Re: operandi

> so i programmed a couple of patches on synths to effectively have no envelopes
> at all, and to respond entirely to pressure control for their amplitude,
> and initial velocity for their timbre. so you've got to *press* the key to
> get a sound.
> i hated it. the keyboard was unresponsive, the parametric map was coarse,
> the whole thing was unmusical.
> midi is really beginning to irritate me. is it just me, my particular
> machines, or the whole idea?

I think it's a combination of things, such as trying to do things on a
keyboard that were not meant for a keyboard, having a narrow range of values
to control timbre (1-127) and pressure on keyboards not responding very
sensitively. What would be useful for something like you've attempted is a
keyboard that has a little more resistance to the key and could sense pressure
through the entire depressing action, not just the last millimeter or so. I
think this would give you a much better response for those patches.

Does anyone know of a keyboard that can sense more than just note on off of the
keys, excluding the sensitivity to pressure of a fully depressed key?

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Arne F. Claassen                            |
|                                                     |
| "It is by my will alone I set my mind in motion"                       |
|                                             finger for PGP public key  |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1993 17:02:19 -0400
From:         Joe McMahon 
Subject:      Re: operandi

>so i programmed a couple of patches on synths to effectively have no envelopes
>at all, and to respond entirely to pressure control for their amplitude,
>and initial velocity for their timbre. so you've got to *press* the key to
>get a sound.
>i hated it. the keyboard was unresponsive, the parametric map was coarse,
>the whole thing was unmusical.
>midi is really beginning to irritate me. is it just me, my particular
>machines, or the whole idea?

I think it's cognitive dissonance. You're used to (and your muscles are
used to) playing a "keyboard" instrument in a particular way, and you're
essentially throwing away a lot of the automatic responses you've built up
over the time you've been playing, plus adding a different way of thinking
about how the machine works.

Most percussion instruments (and the piano/keyboard is certainly one) are
struck and then released to allow the vibration to occur. If you hit a note
on a marimba and then pressed the mallet down on it, you'd kill the sound.
You're essentially telling your ingrained musical and muscular reflexes
_and_ your unconscious understanding of the mechanics of how "percussion"
instruments make a sound that they are wrong and don't apply.

Also, there's no or incongruous physical feedback. The pressure sensor
probably doesn't go gradually from a soft resistance to a harder one,
giving you kinesthetic feedback as to how you're doing. Sort of like trying
to turn a tiny little knob just a tenth of a degree without looking at it.

I suppose inverting the two (velocity controls timbre, pressure controls
envelope) might work a bit better, but I can think of any number of patches
on the VFX which do exactly that. So maybe that's not quite what you're
looking for.

I guess it might be better to think through a model of the physical act of
playing instrument X and trying to translate that to your synths. A breath
controller might be a good thing to try, since that involves different (and
possibly untrained, or less trained) physical responses. My guess is,
though, that being a continuous controller, the breath controller is likely
to respond too slowly to use standard articulation techniques. Or maybe I
should say that the receiving synth is likely to not be able to handle the
incoming messages fast enough. Certainly worth exploring, though.

Maybe we need better implementations of continuous controllers.

 --- Joe M.

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1993 11:04:16 EDT
From:         Bill Fox 
Subject:      Re: operandi

Eric Harnden on his performance paradigm experiment:
> i hated it. the keyboard was unresponsive, the parametric map was coarse,
> the whole thing was unmusical.

MIDI is a simpleminded keyboard/percussion note on/note off paradigm with
some controllers and velocities thrown in.  To expect to play any
non-keyboard or non-percussion sound via MIDI with the desired nuances is
probably going to be problematic.  Trying to capture a violinist's
performance gestures, or a guitarist's or saxophonist's, is a real feat of
engineering.  Mapping those parameters from a keyboard sounds equally
difficult.  Eric, I wish you the best of luck in your efforts.  I like
Joe's suggestion of trying a breath controller.  I'd like to extend the
idea to any non-keyboard controller and even encourage you to invent a
few.

Bill Fox

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1993 11:42:07 -0400
From:         idealord 
Subject:      Re: operandi

>
> anyway...
> so i've really been dissatisfied lately with the performance paradigms
> enforced by the midi mechanism, especially the programmed control structure
> environment, and the more i thought about my earlier statements about how
> violinists control the entire parametric envelope by gesture th more i thought
> that i really wanted to do that...
> so i programmed a couple of patches on synths to effectively have no envelopes
> at all, and to respond entirely to pressure control for their amplitude,
> and initial velocity for their timbre. so you've got to *press* the key to
> get a sound.
> i hated it. the keyboard was unresponsive, the parametric map was coarse,
> the whole thing was unmusical.
> midi is really beginning to irritate me. is it just me, my particular
> machines, or the whole idea?
>
Well, I'm totally frustrated but I don't think it's MIDI's fault.  I've
resorted to a kind of Glenn Gould note-tampering of my performances - playing
the piece with the keyboard - then re-shaping it with sequencer envelopes
where appropriate - then adding realtime sysex reverb, panning, total dynamic
envelopes.  It's starting to work, but I'm still not convinced it's the "most"
musical way I could be using my SY77 and computer.  Ultimately, it's probably
not MIDI's fault but your dependence on these black and white plastic
keyboards for expressive performances.  My most satisfying music (aside from
my Nancarrow-blitz style quartertone pieces the "Acid Bach Suite") has been
music I improvised using customized mouse-based MIDI controllers.  I can be
musical with larger shapes and although the "harp" performance paradigm isn't
appropriate for every kind of musical gesture I've been customizing it in some
interesting ways.  (It's kind of like Laurie Spiegel's MusicMouse program but
I find it much faster and more expressive).

For the curious - I've placed my first tape - "Obliterature" in the EMusic
archive and if you want a copy straight from me - send me a tape of your music
and I'll drop you a copy of mine :).  "Obliterature" is 90% improvised music
with the "Acid Bach" suite and another composed piece "CDIGE" both written
using my expert system - improvised with my mouse-based controller - not
banging away on my synth :)

Jeff Harrington
idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1993 21:51:43 -0800
From:         Mike Friesen 
Subject:      Re : operandi

>>> [Eric Harnden (Ronin) :
>>> [discussion of the limitations of the keyboard controller in articulating
>>> [non-percussive sounds.  A violin was described as the 'target'.

A few years back I heard Bob Moog discussing an XYZ controller pad that
could sense the location of your finger on the pad as well as the amount of
pressure you were applying.  It sounded very neat, and was (at the time)
destined to be part of a new Kurzweil synth.

In the meantime, you could try Max Mathews' "Radio Baton" approach : record
the series of notes as raw pitches.  Then use a pair of batons to control
timbral, frequency, amplitude, or even timing characteristics.  Talk about
changing performance paradigms!!  You might even try playing the notes with
one hand while using a baton in the other hand : one hand controls coarse
pitch, timbre, and amplitude characteristics via key number, velocity, and
pressure; while the other does the fine shaping using a baton.

Having defended the MIDI spec earlier this year (cf. "firewire"), I must
now admittedly offer this shortcoming : given the density of MIDI data
generated by the prolific use of continuous controllers, the current MIDI
spec is not up to speed.  I certainly feel that it's sufficiently complex
-- after all, it does allow 14-bit controller resolution, even if few
manufacturers are taking advantage of it.  But if we're generating masses
of 14-bit controllers, then we're going to need a faster spec.

Granted, we can use double-running status where both the status byte and
the MSB are omitted (if unchanged from the previous message), but with
16384 values to play with, we're still going to be sending a heck of a lot
of data.  Assuming that we're only messing about with a single controller,
it's going to take us more than 5 seconds to sweep through every possible
value.  This also assumes that the receiving module can handle full-bore
MIDI data.  Yucky, yucky, yucky.

Hmmm.  Has anybody ever bothered to test a concert pianist's 'velocity
resolution'?  Mere mortal that I am, I'm not sure that I can play a
keyboard to 127 levels of velocity...



Michael Friesen              North Peace Secondary School
          Fort St. John,  British Columbia, Canada
         Weeee... are the knights who say... MIDI!!
*********************************************************

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1993 13:35:00 GMT+0100
From:         Chris Gray 
Subject:      FWD: RE: Re : operandi

This reminds me about something I've wanted to know for a long time.

Are 14-bit cc messages sent little-endian or big-endian, and on which end
does the synth change its parameters?

If you can omit unchanging MSBs, that would imply that it is receipt of the
LSB which triggers parameter change in the synth (and also that MSB is sent
first).  However I thought some controllers only sent MSB, which would seem
to contradict this.  Hopefully the synth doesn't change its parameters for
both MSB and LSB, or we'd risk trouble when going from e.g. 00000001111111
to 00000010000000.

Confused,

Chris

__________________________________________________________________________
Chris Gray        cgra@se.alcbel.be         Compu$erve: 100065.2102
   Ignore my broken mailer - the addresses above are the only truth
__________________________________________________________________________
Kurt Masur fuer President!

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1993 16:16:26 +0200
From:         Adam MIROWSKI 
Subject:      Re: FWD: RE: Re : operandi

> This reminds me about something I've wanted to know for a long time.
>
> Are 14-bit cc messages sent little-endian or big-endian, and on which end
> does the synth change its parameters?
>
> If you can omit unchanging MSBs, that would imply that it is receipt of the
> LSB which triggers parameter change in the synth (and also that MSB is sent
> first).  However I thought some controllers only sent MSB, which would seem
> to contradict this.  Hopefully the synth doesn't change its parameters for
> both MSB and LSB, or we'd risk trouble when going from e.g. 00000001111111
> to 00000010000000.

I only know that for Bank Select MSB and Bank Select LSB
control change messages in the GS standard, values are actually
taken into account only at the next program change message.
The situation is the same on my SY-85, which uses these
two messages extensively (while ignoring program change
messages above 64).

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1993 21:25:29 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Re: Re : operandi

Let me just take aim at the crux of this MIDI bandwidth discussion ... up a
bit ... left a bit ...

>But if we're generating masses
>of 14-bit controllers, then we're going to need a faster spec.

Erm, nope, not quite on target ... carefully does it...

>This also assumes that the receiving module can handle full-bore
>MIDI data.  Yucky, yucky, yucky.

BLAM! Gotcha! This really is the issue, I feel. While manufacturers insist
on building instruments (and processors) with marginal performance based on
slow hardware, the speed of MIDI transmission is almost a total red
herring. (It does figure in some considerations of audio synchronisation,
but that's about all.) My D-70's LFO's slow down when I play thick chords.
My MTP's hang notes if I play too many notes through them at once. My MRC
reports DUART overflows if I reset all notes and controllers at once. So,
why would I benefit from a faster protocol?


                        Nick Rothwell   |   cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk
     CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance   |   cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 3 Sep 1993 21:25:51 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Re: FWD: RE: Re : operandi

>Are 14-bit cc messages sent little-endian or big-endian, and on which end
>does the synth change its parameters?

The question as posed is void, I believe, since the LSB and MSB are
independent messages. I don't recall whether the MIDI spec. says that, when
working 14-bit, they have to be paired, and/or in order.

Pitchbend is 14-bit all the time, by the way. I forget which way round it
is, except that Craig Anderson's book has a discussion based on the wrong
order.


                        Nick Rothwell   |   cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk
     CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance   |   cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1993 11:27:48 -0400
From:         Jon Crystal 
Subject:      Random Processes and New Idea Generation

Jeff Harrington's recent observations regarding the shortcomings of some
"academic" compositional approaches have made me look again at how I make
use of some related tools. I wanted to share a different view on the
subject, and invite response.

I utilize a variety of approaches to both designing a particular patch as
well as crafting a composition. *Among* these approaches is the use of
various random processes. My inclination in this direction is partly a
result of years of study and teaching of creative problem solving.

For example, in coming up with new patches, I will use the "randomize"
function included in some synths (i.e. TG33) and many universal editors
(i.e. Unisyn). In Unisyn I might define parameters to change, or I might
initiate a gradual morphing from one patch to another. Either way the
program will generate 50-60 new sounds. I'll go thru them quickly,
discarding 98%,  but saving the handful which have merit. Then I'll begin
modifying envelopes, modulators, etc. The real value to me is the stimulus
of a new idea deriving from a random process, a sonic insight which might
never have occurred to me otherwise.

In a similar vein, sometimes I will use so-called algorithmic or
interactive composition programs to define a starting point, to stimulate
new ideas. I've worked some with Sound Globs, Ovaltune, IPG in Cubase, etc.
In each instance as a result of using this tool I'll generate some
material, most of which I may discard, but some of which is worth the
effort of additional crafting to make it "musical".

I also make use of more "traditional" approaches to sound design and
composition, but feel the above techniques often open new horizons and
possibilities.

Reactions, comments and other *constructive* articulations of alternative
approaches are most welcome!

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1993 11:58:58 -0400
From:         idealord 
Subject:      Re: Random Processes and New Idea Generation

Jon Crystal continues ->
> Jeff Harrington's recent observations regarding the shortcomings of some
> "academic" compositional approaches have made me look again at how I make
> use of some related tools. I wanted to share a different view on the
> subject, and invite response.
>
[interesting stuff on random patch creation deleted]

> In a similar vein, sometimes I will use so-called algorithmic or
> interactive composition programs to define a starting point, to stimulate
> new ideas. I've worked some with Sound Globs, Ovaltune, IPG in Cubase, etc.
> In each instance as a result of using this tool I'll generate some
> material, most of which I may discard, but some of which is worth the
> effort of additional crafting to make it "musical".

This is a great way to get ideas for "texture-based" composing.  Additionally,
I've used a prgram written by Nick Didkovsky called "MarkovSMUS" which takes
Amiga SMUS files converts them into a first-order Markov set and then randomly
creates new materials from that set.  It's especially interesting with the
kinds of melodies I often compose which may come back to a "root" or "base"
note repeatedly.

I would love to have more real-time MIDI instrument paradigms for texture
shaping.  The creation of large "sound-clouds" in real-time is mind boggling
to me and even if I have a sketch for the improvisation in realization I
usually stray from it as the clouds begin shaping their _own_ realization.
>
> I also make use of more "traditional" approaches to sound design and
> composition, but feel the above techniques often open new horizons and
> possibilities.
>
> Reactions, comments and other *constructive* articulations of alternative
> approaches are most welcome!
>

I don't care what tools you use to make your compositions whether it's dice or
melodies composed at a piano - if it gets me off - if it's fresh - it's cool!

Jeff Harrington
idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org

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