issue01

EMUSIC-L Digest                                      Volume 61, Issue 01

This issue's topics:
	
	15,000 Patches? (3 messages)
	A huge collection of patches...
	CAGE ON THE PATCH CONTROVERSY (6 messages)
	I AGREE, MARK
	Original Patches Controversy (5 messages)
	PATCH ART
	PATCHES AND ART (3 messages)
	PATCHY LOGIC (2 messages)
	PRATHFCHEZ (2 messages)
	Pretty much infinite (3 messages)
	Request Synth Patches / Where to get 'em (6 messages)
	Request Synth Patches/Where to get 'em. (3 messages)
	S. AWISAUS VS. N. ROTHWELL
	Synth Patches / Response -- Location of.
	the infinite ear (4 messages)
	To patch or not to patch: THIS is a QUESTION? :-P

Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon .
Please send articles to emusic-d@auvm.american.edu (EMUSIC-D@AUVM for BITNet). Administrative mail should be
directed to listserv@auvm.american.edu (LISTSERV@AUVM for BITNet). Digests will be distributed as time permits.
For faster 
response to questions, subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to EMUSIC-L@AUVM
(emusic-l@auvm.american.edu for Internet subscribers) with the line 
"SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text. The EMUSIC-L discussion group can also 
be accessed through the bit.listserv.emusic-l newsgroup on Usenet.

Subscribers to this list may send articles directly to it; they will be
reviewed and forwarded to EMUSIC-L. Back issues are available from the editor. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 1994 07:35:17 -0400
From:         William Eldridge 
Subject:      15,000 Synth Patches (???)

In response to Nick Rothwell questioning why he'd want to spend the time to
collect 15,000 synth patches instead of programming his own, Steve Awiszus
writes:

> I can audition and organize 13,500 patches into libraries in about
> 2 days and then have a multitude of sounds to choose from
> without wasting my time programming.

Assuming you auditioned and organized patches for two non-stop 8-hour days (and
who could stand two days of such a task?), this would give you less than five
seconds per patch. In this time you can play each patch throughout its range and
with varying velocities, checking to see if the Mod Wheel was routed to anything
interesting, archive it in some useful fashion, then remember anything at all
about the sound?

> One last thought:  Why re-invent the wheel when you can just buy one?

Well, if you're doing commercial music, the answer is: No good reason. If you're
composing art-music, the answer is: To keep your self-respect.


     William Eldridge
     Artistic Director, NEWCOMP
     New England Computer Arts Association
     katzja@hugse1.harvard.edu

------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 1994 18:33:46 -0400
From:         William Eldridge 
Subject:      Re: ART OF PATCHES

Joel Stern quotes my reply to Steve Awiszus' question,
"Why re-invent the wheel when you can just buy one?"

> Well, if you're doing commercial music, the answer is:
> No good reason. If you're composing art-music, the answer is:
> To keep your self-respect.

To which he responds:

> hehehehehehe....

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.
analog synthesizer or a direct synthesis language such as Csound, I'm all but
forced to create my own sounds. If I'm using MIDI to drive digital synths or
samplers, I still feel it's important to create my own patches and samples
rather than use those created by others, which in this context would feel like
plagiarism to me.

If my comments came across as snobbish or smug, I apologize.


                       William Eldridge
                       katzja@hugse1.harvard.edu

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 16 Feb 1994 09:01:46 -0500
From:         Mark G Simon 
Subject:      Re: ART OF PATCHES

> forced to create my own sounds. If I'm using MIDI to drive digital synths or
> samplers, I still feel it's important to create my own patches and samples
> rather than use those created by others, which in this context would feel like
> plagiarism to me.

I'm sorry but I simply cannot understand why you feel this way. It seems
to me a sound is just one of many elements which go into making music,
but it is not music itself. If I write a piece for Cloud Chamber Bowls or
Spoils of War, am I plagiarizing Harry Partch? If I write a piece for
violin am I plagiarizing Antonio Stradivari? Heck, if I write a long rest
am I plagiarizing John Cage?

(parenthetically, and this is completely off the subject, I was just
reminded of one of the "songs" in John Cage's "Songbook" in which the
directions for the whole piece are "Make yourself a ham sandwich". Just
think of all the plagiarism going on in delis across the country)

Mark Simon
mgs2@cornell.edu

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 10 Feb 1994 17:09:18 -0500
From:         "Steven T. Awiszus" 
Subject:      Re: Request Synth Patches/Where to get 'em.

To all synth lovers on the net!

I am a Electrical/Recording Engineer for System X Productions in Minneapolis
 Minnesota.  I am currently out collecting the Roland MKS-xx series of synth
 modules and am looking for patches for the following:

MKS-7
MKS-20
MKS-30
MKS-50
MKS-70
MKS-80

I am also looking for patches for the following:

Korg M1
Korg DW-8000
Korg DS-8

Proteus MP

Yamaha TX-7

I have been on the Internet and found about 10,000 sounds already.  If anyone
 has any information for me on where I can locate Sys-Ex patch files for any of
 the above synths I would greatly appreciate it.
I am also willing to pay individuals for their patches if they have any good
 ones or I can swap some of mine for yours.  I currently have about 15,000
 sounds for my machines and I am collecting more every day.

Please resond!

I will be in your debt!

Thank You!

Steve Awiszus
Electrical/Recording Engineer
717 4th St. South Apt. #1
St. Cloud, MN 56301

--- End Included Message ---

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 16 Feb 1994 21:49:30 EST
From:         "Jason E. Geistweidt" 
Subject:      CAGE ON THE PATCH CONTROVERSY

OK, I have been reading and reading about it and I just have to say something!
If we look at music through Cage's analysis, do we not in fact see that sound
really is not the main issue in composition?  I mean, what we really are doing
is concentrating on form here.  And it really should make no difference which
cool patches we are using.  If all we do as electronic musicians is get all
wound up in the technology of the sound, we are overlooking what music really
is:  significant form.  As Ronin likes to say, "It's just a machine that makes
noise."  Yes, yes.  It makes noise.  It is sound?  No, the synth or piano or
tuba is not the sound but rather an instrument for for creating noise.  It is t
the organization of these noises that is paramount to music.  Also, someone
mentioned that they were searching for sounds "to create an emotion or feeling.

Impossible!  Sounds are incapable of creating emotion.  Oh you know that saying
that is drilled into every composition student when they hit theory I.  Minor
mode sad, major mode happy!!!!!  Get real, what does music have to do with
emotion anyway?  (Or let me rephrase for the musically sentimental) Music is
nothing more than organized sound.  If an enlightening or emotional feeling tha
t the listener has along the way is somehow connected to that, fine.  We except
it and we move on.  But, let's get back to patches and timbres.

Patches are great!  I love a new sound every now and then.  But a good patch
is not the key to a good organization.  Look at the crap we creating in popular



music today!  Same old four bar phrases.  Hey, let's try acoustic.  Acoustic is
the new buzz word.  Hey, same Nirvana song, different patches.  Good for a
listen, but same shit. Remix this, remix that.  sample this and make it rap!
But, give me a new form and , hey, we might have something.

Sound does nothing, music does nothing!

OK, I think I have ranted and raved enough to make my point.  Thanks for par-
ticipating!

Jason E. Geistweidt                               231 Nebraska Hall
The American University                           4400 Mass. Avenue, N.W.
jg8602a@american.edu                              Washington, D.C.  20016
(202) 885-6762                                    Dept. of Performing Arts
                     "Go ahead!  Shoot the messenger"

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 17 Feb 1994 09:51:23 CST
From:         "Harry F.P. Haecker" 
Subject:      Re: CAGE ON THE PATCH CONTROVERSY

Jason Geidtweit writes:

>If we look at music through Cage's analysis, do we not in fact see that sound
>really is not the main issue in composition?

I think that is somewhat true, as long as you are going to just emulate Cage,
but I'm sure that by his very musical nature he would've disliked that concept.
But Mr. Cage was interested in sound as well as the spaces between sounds.  He
must've been interested in timbre as well, unless the tacks, paperclips,
rubberbands, etc. in his prepared piano was just for sadistic pleasure!

>I mean, what we really are doing is concentrating on form here.

Who are "we"? Where is "here"? If you mean all electronically minded composers
in this list, I think that's a narrowly conceived statement: form could mean
timbre exclusivly; that is, excluding any attempt at preconceived temporal
concepts, using aleatoric methods.

>And it really should make no difference which cool patches we are using.  If
>all we do as electronic musicians is get all wound up in the technology of the
>sound, we are overlooking what music really is:  significant form.

I agree that some people (probably very few, though) own synths just to be able
to impress their friends with "neat" patches and answering machine messages,
and are unable to make a single minute of organized sound that shows musical
insight. But why do you think that timbre and temporal arrangement are
exclusive of each other??  I think inspired music is a happy marraige of the
two.

>As Ronin likes to say, "It's just a machine that makes noise."  Yes, yes.  It
>makes noise.  It is sound?  No, the synth or piano or tuba is not the sound
>but rather an instrument for for creating noise.

Noise is a subset of sound.  The synth, piano, tuba or Spoils of War are
instruments for creating sounds, some of which can be noise.

>It is the organization of these noises that is paramount to music.

An oxymoron.  If you organize noise, it is by definition no longer noise.  But
yes, I think I agree with what you are trying to say, but would phrase it:
"It is the organization of sounds and spaces between sounds vertically (timbre)
and horizontally (temporal) that is paramount to what humans call music.

>Also, someone mentioned that they were searching for sounds "to create an
>emotion or feeling. Impossible!  Sounds are incapable of creating emotion.

Have you ever been in a war zone and heard the sound (noise, in this case) of
exploding bombs and mangled, dying humans?  Neither have I, but have seen films
of it, and if it fails to create an emotion of *some* kind in you, then I'd be
quite surprised.

>Oh you know that saying that is drilled into every composition student when
>they hit theory I.  Minor mode sad, major mode happy!!!!!

True, that's not always the case; but look at the overtone series, which mimics
the major mode: by reinforcing the overtone series, the major scale
(particularly the M3rd and M6th) can certainly create a sense of a lack of
tension, which could be interpreted as "happy".

>Get real, what does music have to do with emotion anyway?

Get real: if it didn't, then why make music?  Just get a frontal lobotomy and
listen to nothing or just chance sounds.

>Sound does nothing, music does nothing!

See above paragraph, second sentence.

>OK, I think I have ranted and raved enough to make my point.  Thanks for par-
>ticipating!

You're welcome.  Good topic, Jason!
                         Harry Haecker, sentimental fool
                              (haeckerh@osprey.nwrc.gov)

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 17 Feb 1994 14:11:30 -0500
From:         Alper Kerman 
Subject:      Re: CAGE ON THE PATCH CONTROVERSY

> OK, I have been reading and reading about it and I just have to say something!
> If we look at music through Cage's analysis, do we not in fact see that sound
> really is not the main issue in composition?........
>
>
> ...... Bunch of stuff deleted!..........
>
>
> ............But, give me a new form and , hey,
> we might have something.
>
> Sound does nothing, music does nothing!


I'm sorry to say, that I disagree with some of what you've said
above.  First of all, while I agree with you on the importance
of choosing and/or creating some musical form (since it
happens to be some style of musical expression, more or less),
however, I disagree with you when you say that the main
issue, or concentration on composing music should be simply
based on a musical form.  I don't think there is such thing
called "main issue" in writing music.  There are many
"main issue"s in composing a piece of music, and each one
being equally important and supportive of one another.
You can't just say, "But, give me a new form and, hey, we
might have something.".  Because, your "something" is going
to be more or less a copy of what you've got in the first
place.  You have to do something with that "new form" to
express what YOU want to say!  And to do that, you need some
tools (the right tools).  It's just like building a house.
You need the "right" type of lumber for appropriate sections
of the house!  Otherwise, you'll end up building a shack
(unless, if it is what you wanted in the first place!)
Ofcourse, its always a matter of taste, isn't it!...

So, when you say "Music is nothing more than organized sound",
you be carefull with what you mean with "organized"!
Because, one organizes music in such a way, that in turn, the
organized piece of music delivers something to the listener,
and hopefully it is what you wanted to get across in the
first place (whether it be humor, emotion, feel, politics,
weirdness, or whatever, etc.)  In the absence of "right"
sound patches (tools) you may not be able to express what
YOU really want to say as well, or not at all, even if you
have the right form. It would be almost like listening to
a piece of music that was not equalized.  Thus, using the
"right" sound patches is equally important as well as other
components in composing (tempo, loudness, spaces,...etc.)

To tie everything I said together, IMHO its okay to use
somebody else's patch (I know we agree on this) if it's the
"right tool" for what and how you want to say in composing
your own piece of music.  On the other hand, if you don't
have the right sound, please don't just settle for another
sound and say "that'll do!" and let that part of your musical
creativity degrade.  Learn how to be able to create that new
sound also!  Let's use every bit of technology available to
our advantage, not push it away!...After all, we'll only get
better!...

                                The Young Turk

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 18 Feb 1994 09:24:50 -0500
From:         Mark G Simon 
Subject:      Re: CAGE ON THE PATCH CONTROVERSY

>
> To tie everything I said together, IMHO its okay to use
> somebody else's patch (I know we agree on this) if it's the
> "right tool" for what and how you want to say in composing
> your own piece of music.  On the other hand, if you don't
> have the right sound, please don't just settle for another
> sound and say "that'll do!" and let that part of your musical
> creativity degrade.  Learn how to be able to create that new
> sound also!  Let's use every bit of technology available to
> our advantage, not push it away!...After all, we'll only get
> better!...
>
>                                 The Young Turk

Certainly in an ideal world this would be the way to go. But to really
master the intricacies of musical structure, that is, the "organized
sound" aspect of music, requires a lifetime of experience. Learning to
program those exquisite patches to make that organization come alive
requires another lifetime. Most of us only have one lifetime. In
non-electrified music there's a convenient division of labor that allows
one group of musicians (composers) to concentrate on the organizational
aspects and another group (performers) on making the sounds. Maybe if
there was something analogous to this situation in the electronic realm
it would lead to some improved music making.

Mark Simon
mgs2@cornell.edu

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 18 Feb 1994 12:16:20 -0500
From:         Alper Kerman 
Subject:      Re: CAGE ON THE PATCH CONTROVERSY

> Certainly in an ideal world this would be the way to go. But to really
> master the intricacies of musical structure, that is, the "organized
> sound" aspect of music, requires a lifetime of experience. Learning to
> program those exquisite patches to make that organization come alive
> requires another lifetime. Most of us only have one lifetime.


I agree with you on that, except, I hope you are not
suggesting that we should all pack it up and drop this
endeavor, because it'll cost us a life time or more
to master it!  You are not, are you?  Because, I think,
at least for myself (perhaps for most of us), the journey
that one takes to reach his/her goal is more fruitfull and
enjoyable, than actually reaching the goal itself (or
rather having to "master" something).  If we are able to
progress, why should we stop?!, why not go forward and
get better, and enjoy the ride?!...


> In
> non-electrified music there's a convenient division of labor that allows
> one group of musicians (composers) to concentrate on the organizational
> aspects and another group (performers) on making the sounds. Maybe if
> there was something analogous to this situation in the electronic realm
> it would lead to some improved music making.


I also understand what you've presented by the "division of
labor" model, though how do you suppose we close the gap between
these two groups, so that each group facilitate each other
better, and thus leading all of us to improved music making?

                                        The Young Turk

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 18 Feb 1994 15:55:21 -0500
From:         Mark G Simon 
Subject:      Re: CAGE ON THE PATCH CONTROVERSY

>
> > In
> > non-electrified music there's a convenient division of labor that allows
> > one group of musicians (composers) to concentrate on the organizational
> > aspects and another group (performers) on making the sounds. Maybe if
> > there was something analogous to this situation in the electronic realm
> > it would lead to some improved music making.
>
>
> I also understand what you've presented by the "division of
> labor" model, though how do you suppose we close the gap between
> these two groups, so that each group facilitate each other
> better, and thus leading all of us to improved music making?

My first reaction is "darned if I know". I would imagine we'd have to
start by being more collaborative in our music making. Musician X who's
primarily interesting in programing sounds could team up with Musician Y
who prefers composing to programing. Assuming their personalities and
tastes mesh, they could each contribute their specialized skills to the
finished product, similar to the way that lyricists and songwriters work
together. Each should know enough about what the other does so that they
can communicate effectively. Beyond this I think I ought to open the
floor to anyone else who might have ideas about how a composer-sound
designer relationship ought to work. I ought to ask Mike Metlay if any of
his "team" sessions have evolved so that some people have functioned more
in one capacity or the other. He once posted something to the effect (at
least this is how I interpreted it) that he was designing sounds for
other musicians. Is this true, Mike? Please tell us about it. Or did I
misunderstand?

Mark Simon
mgs2@cornell.edu

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 18 Feb 1994 17:00:17 GMT
From:         JOEL STERN 
Subject:      I AGREE, MARK

          Mark Simon:
          >I have a feeling I've wandered off the original topic. Perhaps i
          >much to expect a polished essay on a e-mail bulletin board.


          You've hit the nail on  the head (at least from where I'm looking
          at it) .  I agree, I agree, please don't make me say it again...I
          agreeeeeeee.........

          Joel Stern
          stern@mail.loc.gov
          tel:301-588-8061  fax:301-585-7642

------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 1994 10:11:10 GMT
From:         JOEL STERN 
Subject:      ART OF PATCHES

          >Well, if you're doing commercial music, the answer is: No good r
          >If you're composing art-music, the answer is:To keep your self-r


          hehehehehehe....

          Joel Stern
          stern@mail.loc.gov
          tel:301-588-8061  fax:301-585-7642

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 17 Feb 1994 18:59:35 -0400
From:         William Eldridge 
Subject:      Original Patches Controversy

What at lively debate! The usual technical chit-chat on this list, valuable as
it might be, fails to reveal how thoughtful and articulate are many of the
subscribers...
---------

A few responses:

Mark Simon and Joel Stern objected to my use of the word "plagiarism" in regard
to borrowed sounds. Note, however, that I had written *in this contex
primarily to the late '40s and early '50s (Varese, Henry, Stockhausen, etc.).
This tradition is a direct outgrowth of the modernist search for "progress" in
art music ("classical" music), most obviously in the realm of timbre but also
involving new approaches to pitch, rhythm, texture, and so on. Whatever the
debatable merits of the notion of "progress" in music, I have to admire
composers who were willing to closet themselves in the early studios for a year
or more to produce a 5-minute piece, recording sounds from surplus radio test
equipment or from nature, then laboriously cutting them up into short pieces of
tape and hand-splicing them into a composition. When I work in this genre, I
frequently think of their noble efforts, and any tendency to whine to myself
about the work involved in programming my own patches is quickly squelched by my
glee at not having to suffer as they did.

No, I don't consider myself a plagiarist when writing for string quartet. That's
a different context.
--------

Mike Metlay and Joel Stern encouraged me not to apologize for writing in
response to the question, "Why re-invent the wheel?"

> Well, if you're doing commercial music, the answer is: No good reason.
> If you're composing art-music, the answer is: To keep your self-respect.

I wasn't apologizing for my opinion, only for my *tone*. I try to be sensitive
to the fact that, ever since Emerson, Lake and Palmer, the world of electronic
music has been shared by trained composers from the "classical" tradition and
musicians involved in popular styles. It behooves us to be diplomatic and
attempt get along together, and besides, these days many of us have or have had
feet in both camps.

Having done much teaching in electronic music composition classes with a mixed
population of composition students and liberal arts majors with a popular music
outlook, I'm well aware of how outraged some people can become at any
intimations of a hierarchy of music, with some music being "higher" than others
(for the best discussion of musical hierarchies, see Leonard B. Meyers fine
book, *Music, the Arts and Ideas*). Many undergraduates these days have bought
heavily into a crude cultural relativism which they frequently use to attempt to
rationalize their own ignorance and parochialism.

The feathers really fly when they learn that noodling over a bass ostinato
accompanied by a thumping backbeat from a drum machine isn't going to cut the
mustard as far as class composition projects are concerned. My attitude is that
they're already familiar with pop music, but that getting a college education
involves broadening their horizons to confront things of which they were
previously unaware (such as the tradition of electronic art music). They're not
required to love it, only to engage it seriously. I want them to stretch their
minds and try to expand their conceptions of form beyond 32-bar song form or
ostinato-forms. They must create original sounds and find ways to sculpt them
into meaningful, extended forms. I can't help but believe that doing so will
enrich their lives even if they stay oriented exclusively toward pop music after
completing the course.

I try to lesson the sting by acknowledging how much fun it is to rock out in the
studio with all the groovy toys, that I do it myself from time to time, and that
they're welcome to sign up for open time-slots to play around any way they wish,
as long as it's "on their own time."
------------

Thom Cox writes:

> I can't help but feel the need to express my opinion that the most
> organic and expressive electronic music tends to be that which uses
> sounds that were created to express the motivic and orchestral needs
> of the material.

That's one approach, with the "material" (equal-tempered pitches in a metrical
matrix?) preceding the sounds. Another approach, one that I often employ, is to
do some sound design and consider the *sounds* my starting material. Then these
sounds suggest other, related sounds for me to design and may imply or suggest
melodic and rhythmic material, which may point me toward ideas for structuring
the form of the work. Each aspect of the compositional process influences all
the others. This approach can provide a sense of organic interrelatedness I find
very satisfying.
-----------

Jason Geistweidt writes:

> Sounds are incapable of creating emotion.

and

> Sound does nothing, music does nothing!

Jason, try telling that to the folks on FILMUS-L@IUBVM.UCS.INDIANA.EDU, the film
music discussion list!
------------

In the feisty Steve Awiszus' latest posting, he writes:

> I am looking for a Roland PG-200 programmer for my MKS-30
> Planet-S (the same as for a JX-3P).  I am sick of trying to create new
> patches for my machine one parameter a time!

Wait a minute... Isn't this the same Steve Awiszus who only a few days ago
wrote:

> ...without wasting my time programming.  I agree one should know
> how to program their own machine modules but I have better and
> more important things to do with my time...

???

Now I'm confused...

                   William Eldridge

------------------------------
Date:         Sun, 20 Feb 1994 14:29:03 -0500
From:         Mark G Simon 
Subject:      Re: Original Patches Controversy

>
> Mark Simon and Joel Stern objected to my use of the word "plagiarism" in
 regard
> to borrowed sounds. Note, however, that I had written *in this contex
> primarily to the late '40s and early '50s (Varese, Henry, Stockhausen, etc.).
> This tradition is a direct outgrowth of the modernist search for "progress" in

etc.

> No, I don't consider myself a plagiarist when writing for string quartet.
 That's
> a different context.

Now if I get you right, you're saying that one essential difference
between electronic and acoustic music are that in electronic music, the
sound itself is an essential part of the compositional concept and is
therefore just as much a part of the creator's intellectual property as a
melody. Well, give me some time to process this one, and I'll tell you
later if I agree or disagree.

But if I do accept your reasoning then it follows that something like
"Plunderphonics" is totally bogus, morally reprehensible, wholesale
theft, and that its creator ought to be hung by his balls for such a misdeed.
Now I've never heard Plunderphonics and cannot myself make such a
statement, nor can issue any similar condemnation of anyone who would
criticize Plunderphonics. But I do remember that last time the
Plunderphonics issue came up that a lot of people were adamant that all
sounds be free for all to use. How will you face their wrathful flames?

Mark Simon
mgs2@cornell.edu

------------------------------
Date:         Sun, 20 Feb 1994 16:51:31 -0400
From:         William Eldridge 
Subject:      Re: Original Patches Controversy

Mark:

You wrote:

> Now if I get you right, you're saying that one essential
> difference between electronic and acoustic music is that
> in electronic music, the sound itself is an essential part of
> the compositional concept...

Yes.

> ...and is therefore just as much a part of the creator's intellectual
> property as a melody.

Whoa... I hadn't meant to get into that one. I was talking more about feeling
like I wasn't shirking an artistic duty to myself in terms of what I want to do
with my electronic music. And I guess there's an element of judgement of other
works involved. If I knew in advance that a work of purported "art" electronic
music used borrowed sounds, I'm sure it would affect how I thought of it. When I
hear a piece that contains some really amazing sound, I want to be able to give
credit where credit is due.

As far as intellectual property goes, that's something for the legal system. Has
anyone ever heard of such a case? Sampling law seems to be taking some
comprehensible shape, but as far as I'm concerned patch-theft law would going
way too far and probably unworkable in any form.

Although I do notice that only some Csound composers share their instrument
designs on the Csound mailing list and in books, and only some of the time. Of
course, Csound instruments are not only patches but instrument architectures --
and Stanford patented Chowning's FM algorithms.

What is Plunderphonics? The name is suggestive, but I'm ignorant on this one --
and probably disadvantaged in the face of the P-phonics fans' "wrathful flames."
Help me out here...

I do enjoy Carl Stone's incredible sampling pieces in which he plunders Motown
and other sources. I might like Plunderphonics as well. This stuff probably
constitutes a sub-genre of electronic music that should be judged on its own
terms.


-- William Eldridge

------------------------------
Date:         Sun, 20 Feb 1994 17:09:32 -0400
From:         William Eldridge 
Subject:      Re: Original Patches Controversy

Mark:

I forgot to mention that I once designed an automated plundering machine: a
simple voltage-controlled Serge patch named "Carl Stone Is Not Alone" that could
rapidly flick between multiple audio inputs (Motown, Beethoven, whatever) and
route them to multiple outputs. I wish I owned a MIDI-controlled mixer so I
duplicate the patch in Max with realtime control.

-- William Eldridge

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 17 Feb 1994 09:10:09 GMT
From:         JOEL STERN 
Subject:      PATCH ART

          Thom Cox:
          >Joel, I agree for the most part but I can't help but feel the ne
          >express my opinion that the most organic and expressive electron
          >music tends to be that which uses sounds that were created to ex
          >the motivic and orchestral needs of the material.


          Oh, alright:)

          Joel Stern
          stern@mail.loc.gov
          tel:301-588-8061  fax:301-585-7642

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 16 Feb 1994 11:43:11 GMT
From:         JOEL STERN 
Subject:      PATCHES AND ART

          >If my comments came across as snobbish or smug, I apologize.
          >
          >
          >                       William Eldridge
          >                       katzja@hugse1.harvard.edu



          No, no, no...no apology needed or wished for. However, I  rest on
          my belief that it's  not necessary to create new sounds to create
          new music. I  like new sounds as  much  as  the  next person. But
          using a preset or a patch designed by someone else  = plagarism??
          This  whole  thing  of getting  a  "new"  sound  really  goes  to
          extremes.  And  the manufacturers  use  it  to  sucker  the  more
          gullible the same way car makers sucker people into buying a  new
          car every 3 years. Sure, new synths and new sounds are attractive
          and  desirable,  but  they're  not  necessary  to   create  good,
          personal, original, artistic music, even in the electronic realm.

          Joel Stern
          stern@mail.loc.gov
          tel:301-588-8061  fax:301-585-7642

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 16 Feb 1994 15:50:38 -0500
From:         Thom Cox 
Subject:      patches and art

         >                                                        I  rest on
         > my belief that it's  not necessary to create new sounds to create
         > new music. I  like new sounds as  much  as  the  next person....
         > .................. Sure, new synths and new sounds are attractive
          and  desirable,  but  they're  not  necessary  to   create  good,
          personal, original, artistic music, even in the electronic realm.

          Joel Stern


Joel, I agree for the most part but I can't help but feel the need to
express my opinion that the most organic and expressive electronic
music tends to be that which uses sounds that were created to express
the motivic and orchestral needs of the material.  Often, matching
pre-existing sounds to the music produces a "tail wagging the dog"
effect.  There is also the reality that synth patches hve a very
limited tessitura, hence several versions of a patch are often
required to produce a convincing legato.

Thom Cox
New England Conservatory of Music
nec_twc@flo.org

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 17 Feb 1994 13:11:21 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Re: PATCHES AND ART

>          This  whole  thing  of getting  a  "new"  sound  really  goes  to
>          extremes.  And  the manufacturers  use  it  to  sucker  the  more
>          gullible the same way car makers sucker people into buying a  new
>          car every 3 years.

There's a dead horse here that's waiting for a beating, but there's one
point here: manufacturers "sucker" buyers by offering them sounds which are
new but common to all purchasers; this is why people are locked into the
buying cycle since if I buy a Morpheus (say) and use factory preset #21
"MorphDigiWaveSurfAnalogPadFlangeMegaBass1" and everyone else does, then
we're back to square one, like in any arms race, and it's back to the
chequebook for the next round. The issue of composers creating their *own*
sounds is one that manufacturers do not address (the JD-800 took a dive,
market-wise), and that's a different gether altothing.

I agree with you anyway on the other points.


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

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 17 Feb 1994 11:34:11 GMT
From:         JOEL STERN 
Subject:      PATCHY LOGIC

          Nick:

          >...without a FAR more expressive controller which would allow me
          >of freedom to work on personal expression through just "one" sou
          >guess.


          Good point Nick. Still the expressive range of the violin family
          (and  most  other "accoustic" instruments) has  been limited  and
          codified in practice so that what  was acceptable during the  300
          year heyday of those instruments was pretty much a narrow variety
          of  amplitude  envelopes,  a   couple   of  different  types   of
          oscillation (pitch  and  amplitude),  and  a  bit   of  frequency
          modulation achieved by position of  the  bow  in relation to  the
          bridge. Nevertheless, the  amount  of  music written  for  string
          quartet,  etc.,  is  for  practical purposes  infinite  (not  all
          good)...my point remaining that the means don't determine the end
          and that I don't need 15,000 or infinite possibilities.

          The other thing is that in my vision of the the "shared community
          of patch creation" most of  us are doing some patch creation some
          of the time, and perhaps some of us all the time.  New sounds get
          created and used: it doesn't matter to me if someone else uses my
          patch or I use theirs.

          Joel Stern
          stern@mail.loc.gov
          j tel:301-588-8061  fax:301-585-7642

------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 22 Feb 1994 19:04:41 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Re: PATCHY LOGIC

>          The other thing is that in my vision of the the "shared community
>          of patch creation"

I don't see any difference between the "shared community of patch creation"
and that of music creation (and as for the latter, I have the T-shirt). But
then, as you know, I don't differentiate that strongly between what is
sound design and what is music composition.

>          New sounds get
>          created and used: it doesn't matter to me if someone else uses my
>          patch or I use theirs.

Other people have used my patches in the past. I know; I get sporadic email
asking me how to download them, even for D-50 sounds that I did five years
ago. But I still don't have any particular desire to use anyone else's
sounds, any more than I want to compose other people's music. If I was into
that, I'd buy a copy of Bland-in-a-Box.


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

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 17 Feb 1994 11:43:11 GMT
From:         JOEL STERN 
Subject:      PRATHFCHEZ

          Nick: >this is why people are locked into the
          >buying cycle since if I buy a Morpheus (say) and use factory pre
          >MorphDigiWaveSurfAnalogPadFlangeMegaBass1" and everyone else doe
          >we're back to square one, like in any arms race, and it's back t
          >chequebook for the next round. The issue of composers creating t
          >sounds is one that manufacturers do not address (the JD-800 took
          >dive, market-wise), and that's a different gether altothing.


          I agree with  you  here too. Quick, say something I disagree with
          or all is lost.


          Joel Stern
          stern@mail.loc.gov
          tel:301-588-8061  fax:301-585-7642

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 18 Feb 1994 17:11:25 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Re: PRATHFCHEZ

>          I agree with  you  here too. Quick, say something I disagree with
>          or all is lost.

Er... "Macs are superior to PC's?"

No, I'm not getting into that, except to note that a PowerBook 170 running
MAX and driving a Radius fullpage greyscale screen via a PowerView is an
absolute joy to use. MAX in colour (or even 8-bit grey) on a good screen is
incredibly sweet.

Does anyone out there have Vision 2.0 yet? How much does it make use of
colour? I'm planning to dedicate the fullpage display to the PowerBook for
MAX and get a second portrait display (a Pivot if I can afford it) for the
SE/30 to run Vision. Would be nice to use Vision in landscape mode,
certainly. Colour pivots are pricey, so I could do with an excuse for
needing one.

Sorry, this is getting too gearheady.


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

------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 1994 08:39:02 GMT
From:         "Steven D. Bramson" 
Subject:      Pretty much infinite

Just thought I would add my spark to this small flame.

Suppose I have an arbitrary synthesizer with 16 digital parameters which each
have 8 bit values.  Now assume due to my limited human ears I can only really
hear 4 bits so that it makes any difference.  Then my theoretical synth has

2 to the power 64 settings = 2 with 19 noughts after it (approx)

This number comes up in the grains of wheat on the chess board problem and
although it is finite, it is certainly more combinations than a human being
can worry about in his or her lifetime.

On a slightly different but not totally unconnected track, I am sometimes
amazed that even with 12 notes in the (western) scale and a similar number of
notelengths, people still come up with some good new tunes.  I guess if you
think about it, for a 6 note tune you have

12 notes x (say) 12 lengths raised to the power 6 = 9 with 12 noughts
(approx) so I guess some of the combinations have to sound good.

 Steven D Bramson    Data Management Group   JET Joint Undertaking
 Abingdon     Oxfordshire              OX14 3EA     United Kingdom
 E-mail sdb@jet.uk   Voice 0235 465 013           Fax 0235 465 399
------------------------------------------------------------------
 JET is Europe's fusion research project
 Disclaimer: Any views expressed are mine and do not represent those of JET

------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 1994 10:48:09 EST
From:         David Lunney 
Subject:      Re: Pretty much infinite

Steven Bramson calculates the number of possible synth settings and the
number of possible simple tunes. In his book _The Infinite Variety of
Music_ Leonard Bernstein (God rest his soul) said that a mathematician
had shown that the number of possible pieces of music was equal to
aleph-null, a transfinitely denumerable number.

                                          -- David Lunney

------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 1994 23:18:51 PST
From:         Mike Friesen 
Subject:      Re: Pretty much infinite

Steven D. Bramson suggests:
>Just thought I would add my spark to this small flame.
>
>Suppose I have an arbitrary synthesizer with 16 digital parameters which each
>have 8 bit values.  Now assume due to my limited human ears I can only really
>hear 4 bits so that it makes any difference.  Then my theoretical synth has
>
>2 to the power 64 settings = 2 with 19 noughts after it (approx)

I actually tried this with my V50. Not including sound effects or
performance effects (delay, pan, & chord), the instrument has a sufficient
quantity of parameters and values to yeild 2*10^84 possible values.
Granted, Steven's point re. the limitations of hearing (and the high
likelihood that MANY combinations will be sonically irrelevant or
indistinct from each other) remains valid.

But the experiment does offer real-world verification of the point made by
Steven (and Nick, I think).

Me, I've adamantly resisted the impulse to buy patches. The closest that
I've come is to try to find a source for the original bank of TX802
performances (the doofus who owned the one I've got loaded all the RAM with
FM drum sounds. Yikes!)

Every time I've felt the impulse to buy patches, I've been forced to
conclude that I'm looking for a way to kick-start the creative process.
Then I force myself to either program something new OR approach an old
sound in an entirely new manner.

I would also like to address the point made by William Eldridge, who wrote:

>Well, if you're doing commercial music, the answer is: No good reason. If
 >you're composing art-music, the answer is: To keep your self-respect.

I'm of much the same opinion. I'll use the tools that I've got. If they're
not up to the task at hand, I'll put something together that DOES do the
trick. Of course, I've got a day job, so I can afford the luxury of minimal
compromise. Mind you, I've never walked away from a client yet, so it's not
as though I'm always taking the easy road.

I guess the real reason for my creating my own patches is that I am
committed to the concept of CRAFT. It's like weaving the canvas on which
you paint. Or making the clay from which you create pottery...

As Margaret Atwood might say - "It's the essential DOING of the thing that
matters."

Pax.


Michael Friesen              North Peace Secondary School
          Fort St. John,  British Columbia, Canada
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yeild."-Tennyson
*********************************************************

------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 1994 18:27:13 -0500
From:         "Steven T. Awiszus" 
Subject:      Request Synth Patches / Where to get 'em

     Thanks to all synth lovers on the net!  I have received many helpful
 responses to my
query entitled "Request Synth Patches / Where to get 'em" and will respond in
 time to those of
you who asked for information from me.
     I would like to specifically address a response I received from Mr. Nick
 Rothwell of
CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance who questioned why anyone would go about
 collecting
3rd party sounds for synths and ( after assuming that I'm a brain dead,
 uncreative engineer )  just
spend the time wasted chasing after sounds to just program my own ( assuming of
 course that
I, a Computer Engineer, would actually know how to program a microprocessor
 based device ).
     It appears Mr. Rothwell that we have a fundamentally different philosophy
 on approaching
sound synthesis ( which is fine ).  I have read some of your other responses and
 you appear to
have knowledge about synths and programming them.  This is good and you should
 be able to
identify with my philosophy also.  Of the 15,000 sounds that I currently have
 collected,
approximately 13,500 are FM sounds ( aka DX/TX-7 & TX81Z/DX21/27/100 ) which, as
 you
already know, utilize Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier's discovery that an
 'infinite' ( more about this
term later ) number of sinusoid waves can be summed to produce a periodic
 waveform.  In
layman's terms the FM synthesis technique developed at Stanford University is
 very theoretical
and requires a certain amount of Dirichlet mathematics to produce desired
 waveforms, therefor
it is somewhat difficult to program ( at least to some of us ).
     My philosophy with FM machines is to take the labors of some other patch
 programmer
and 'Tweak' their sound to my preference instead of starting from scratch.  By
 "knowing my
machine" and taking this approach I have become more efficient by saving time
 for writing and
producing versus patch programming.  I can audition and organize 13,500 patches
 into libraries
in about 2 days and then have a multitude of sounds to choose from without
 wasting my time
programming.  I agree one should know how to program their own machine modules
 but I have
better and more important things to do with my time ( maybe I could hire you to
 do this tedious
busy work? ).  Just extend this philosophy to my other synths and you have my
 approach.  As
a producer it is vital to have a multitude of sounds at my disposal so that the
 artists I work with
don't end up sounding the same ( and of the 13,500 FM sounds I have collected I
 probably use
under 100, I keep the rest for others who want sounds for their machines ).
     By the way, 'infinity' is a concept and not a number.  It is very astute of
 you to note that
infinity is >> ( much greater than )  15,000 but I question your claim that "If
 you learn a
machine well enough, then the potential sound library for it is pretty much
 infinite...".  I would
like you to show to me how you are able to get "pretty much infinite.." number
 of sounds from
a synth with a FINITE sound generating capability.  If you've ever taken a
 course on Statistics,
which I'm sure you have, you should know that the number of possible sounds a
 synth is capable
of generating is the product of the total range of all programmable parameters.
 Which, as I and
every other Engineer knows, is definitely NOT "pretty much infinite...".  By the
 way, the guy
sitting next to me wants to know just exactly what "pretty much infinite..."
 means anyway?
Sounds like a true oxymoron to him also.
     One last thought:  Why re-invent the wheel when you can just buy one?

                                             Steve Awiszus
                                             Electrical / Recording Engineer

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 16 Feb 1994 09:43:29 EST
From:         ronin 
Subject:      Re: Request Synth Patches / Where to get 'em

oh horseshit.
spare us the lecture on fourier, which has less to do with fm than
does basic radio technology. fourier is simply an analysis technique,
and while is the actual 'basis' for some machines like the k5 and the
old gds/synergy, is a poor model for what happens in fm, in which
interesting sounds often have inharmonic components.
and wherever did you get the idea that programming a synth had anything
to do with programming a computer? or that you had to know jack shit about
math (bessel functions, actually, my dear) to do anything worthwhile on
an fm synth, or for that matter any damn synth at all? don't attempt
to mystify it, man... it's just a box making noise, not a goddamn telecom
satellite.
now, i do have to say, first, that as a teacher i consider it important
that my students know everything relevant to the subject so i do in fact
pump them through the math... it's my job. and second, that 'tweaking'
has a long and venerable history, even (especially?) among us 'experts'.
if you want to approach your instruments gingerly, nervously, and without
patience, fine... i for one cannot criticize. but don't make excuses.
your method is your method. don't back yourself into a corner by
'justifying' your approach with a smokescreen of ersatz technoism.

-----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >-----------
Eric Harnden (Ronin)             Voice:202-885-2748
American University Physics Dept., 4400 Mass.Ave.,NW, Wash.,DC 20016-8058
   "Entropy eventually wins... and I like to be on the winning side"
--------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >--------------------

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 16 Feb 1994 17:54:45 MEZ
From:         Thomas 
Subject:      Re: Request Synth Patches / Where to get 'em

Eric Harnden wrote:
>your method is your method. don't back yourself into a corner by
>'justifying' your approach with a smokescreen of ersatz technoism.

As a German I wonder what "a smokescreen of ersatz technoism" might be
and why it uses  German

Thomas

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 16 Feb 1994 12:20:53 EST
From:         David Lunney 
Subject:      Re: Request Synth Patches / Where to get 'em

Thomas asks about "ersatz technoism." Technoism is a coinage I have
never seen before. I don't think it's standard English. The German word
"ersatz" was adopted by English a long time ago, (probably during WW
II). English, especially American English, is a shameless thief of other
people's words.
                                   -- David Lunney

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 16 Feb 1994 12:58:58 -0600
From:         Arne Claassen ISE 
Subject:      Re: Request Synth Patches / Where to get 'em

> Eric Harnden wrote:
> >your method is your method. don't back yourself into a corner by
> >'justifying' your approach with a smokescreen of ersatz technoism.
>
> As a German I wonder what "a smokescreen of ersatz technoism" might be
> and why it uses  German
>
> Thomas

As another German i might remark that words such as angst and ersatz just
had that cool ring to it and got adopted into English. I believe that it
all started with Jung and Freud, and had nothing to do with my mother...

Long live the Eigenvector!

ObligSynthContent: Anyone actually play with a Morpheus yet, or still only slinging spec sheets?

--
Arne F. Claassen               |"In cows we trust    | EPS Classic * D4
   | E pluribus Moo"     | Juno 106
            | MTV for eMpty minds | Mac Centris 650

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 18 Feb 1994 11:14:28 +0100
From:         Rick Jansen 
Subject:      Re: Request Synth Patches / Where to get 'em

In article <9402161858.AA14261@ebs330>, Arne Claassen ISE
 writes:
|> > Eric Harnden wrote:
|> > >your method is your method. don't back yourself into a corner by
|> > >'justifying' your approach with a smokescreen of ersatz technoism.
|> >
|> > As a German I wonder what "a smokescreen of ersatz technoism" might be
|> > and why it uses  German

|> As another German i might remark that words such as angst and ersatz just
|> had that cool ring to it and got adopted into English. I believe that it
|> all started with Jung and Freud, and had nothing to do with my mother...
|>
|> Long live the Eigenvector!

As a Dutchman I might remark that 'Eigen value' in Dutch is the word for
'self esteem'. I never quite got the hang of what it had to do with *me*...

Rick Jansen
--
rick@sara.nl

  S&H's a module and s&h's looking good

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 10 Feb 1994 22:15:53 -0700
From:         GREEN JOHN CRAIG 
Subject:      Re: Request Synth Patches/Where to get 'em.

Are there any FTP sites which contain synth patches? I am new to this group
and would be very happy to learn more about this. Thanks.

                                                John

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 11 Feb 1994 13:17:00 CST
From:         Jesse Traynham 
Subject:      Re: Request Synth Patches/Where to get 'em.

There are several places you can FTP to get MIDI files.  You may try cs.uwp.edu
for all kinds of music in general (tab for guitar, lyrics, GIF's)...Specific
MIDI sites are:ucsd.edu; louie.udel.edu; ussprinceton.princeton.edu; xcf.berkele
y.edu; ux1.cso.uiuc.edu; archive.cs.ruu.nl.
        have fun!
P.S. I got this imfomation from a list at cs.uwp.edu /pub/music/lists

------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 1994 17:22:19 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Re: Request Synth Patches/Where to get 'em.

> I currently have about 15,000
> sounds for my machines and I am collecting more every day.

But why? How many of these 15,000 sound have you actually listened to? In
the time it would take to audition every one of them, you could become
proficient enough at programming your MKS machines to be able to design new
sounds as and when required. In the time it would take to find a particular
library sound for a piece of music, you could program it from scratch.

I find that there are few things which dampen creativity so much as
trawling through third-party sounds (or onboard sounds for that matter; my
Wavestation SR has over five hundred of them in ROM, and I think I listened
about a dozen of them when I first bought it). If you learn a machine well,
then the potential sound library for it is pretty much infinite, and
infinity is much bigger than 15,000.

\end{rant}


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

------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 1994 09:59:09 GMT
From:         JOEL STERN 
Subject:      S. AWISAUS VS. N. ROTHWELL

          In the developing Awiszus vs. Rothwell debate I think I'm  a  bit
          more on  Steve's side. 15,000 patches IS an absurdly large number
          of patches, bu  I agree with the philosophy of sharing the effort
          of  patch  creation  among  the  synth community  to  leave  more
          individual time for music creation . Among synth-l-ers there is a
          faction who, judging by their posts, definitely are more into the
          art of creating sounds than that of creating music. I don't think
          Nick is one, but he can get on  a bit  of  a high horse about his
          personal creative abilities or intentions, and one  can  see that
          he highly values building his  works absolutely from  the  ground
          up. That's fine, but  I wouldn't be angered or intimidated by it.
          Personally, I'm  glad  that there  are people who  enjoy creating
          patches more than I do and who are generous enough to share their
          creations with others.  I  love  the  nearly infinite palette  of
          synth colors and textures,  but  even  if there were just  a  few
          sounds, all programmed by someone else,  I  think  I  could write
          decent music with them. Some  time  back  many  folks spent their
          lifetimes writing pretty good stuff for a kind of  wooden box  in
          three sizes with gut strings that they had no part in designing.

          Joel Stern
          stern@mail.loc.gov
          tel:301-588-8061  fax:301-585-7642

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 4 Jan 1980 18:09:27 CST
From:         "Steven T. Awiszus" 
Subject:      Synth Patches / Response -- Location of.

To all synth lovers on the net:

        I have been receiving mail about these 13,500
patches I have collected.  What a stir this posting has
made.  Hopefully most of you have found this humurous and
informative!  Just for the record, here's what they are:

        approx. 9,000 of the sounds are DX/TX-7 6-op.
                some of these are quite good and they
                are already organized into libraries.
                Just download the sound file type you want
                and violla!  These were found at:

                ucsd.edu        /midi/Patches/DX7

                Many of these files are headerless Sys-Ex
                dumps.  I have written a dump utility for
                the Atari-St that works fine for these.
                If anyone wants it just E-mail me.
        approx. 1000 of these sounds are TX81Z/DX21/27/100
                4-op sounds.  They are at ucsd.edu and also
                louie.udel.edu  /pub/midi/Patches

        The remaining 3,500 sounds are assorted types.  The
        M1 patches are killer! Here are the other FTP sites
        that I know of:

                ussprinceton.princeton.edu
                xcf.berkeley.edu
                ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
                archive.cs.ruu.nl

                cs.uwp.edu              info lists

        I also know of FTP lists for other synths/samplers:

                Roland JV-80
                EPS-16+ Samples
                Kurzweil K2000
                TX16W Samples
                EMAX I & II
                Roland D-70

        If you need these IP addresses let me know.


        I'm working to get patches for the Roland MKS-xx:
        -------------------------------------------------


        MKS-7   SUPER QUARTET:  Like a JUNO-106(sort of) no             RAM, mus
t send any patches
 you want to use                to its buffer. Nick Rothwell told me this?
                Apparently you can use an HS-60 to program
                this module.  I have an excellent JUNO-106
                editor for the Atari-ST that should also do
                the trick.  Let me know if you want it.

        MKS-10  PLANET-P:  I don't own this module and I've
                never heard anything good about it.  If any
                of you know otherwise please let me know.

        MKS-20  DIGITAL PIANO:  Not much for patches, but
                this machine can do some awesome Rhodes
                sounds (ex. Chicago(David Foster), etc...)

        MKS-30  PLANET-S:  This is the rack version of the
                JX-3P without the sequencer.  Nice sounds.

        MKS-50  xxxxxxxx:  I haven't got this one in the
                mail yet so I don't know its name.  This
                is the rack mount of the Alpha Juno 1. This
                machine is supposed to sound great.

        MKS-70  SUPER-JX:  This is the rack of the JX-10
                with the exception of the sequencer.  Very
                nice sounds.  A powerful module.

        MKS-80  SUPER JUPITER:  This is the rack of a type
                of JUPITER 8.  I have to buy this one yet.
                I've been told it's the Holy Grail of the
                MKS-xx series!

        That's all the info for now.  I'll keep you posted
when I find out more on patches or editing utilities for
these.  If any of you know of any patches for these machines PLEASE let me know.

        By the way, the debate between Nick Rothwell and I
wasn't meant to be too hostile.  We all have our views!
Some of your responses though were quite entertaining.  Try
not to argue(debate) subjects on which you may not possess
all of the facts.  Ha Ha Ha Ha at some of you!

                Steve Awiszus
                Electrical/Recording Engineer

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 16 Feb 1994 17:19:44 CST
From:         bq Mackintosh 
Subject:      the infinite ear

>Subject:      Re: Pretty much infinite
>Steven D. Bramson suggests:
>
>>Just thought I would add my spark to this small flame.
>>
>>Suppose I have an arbitrary synthesizer with 16 digital parameters which each
>>have 8 bit values.  Now assume due to my limited human ears I can only really
>>hear 4 bits so that it makes any difference.  Then my theoretical synth has
>>
>>2 to the power 64 settings = 2 with 19 noughts after it (approx)
>
>I actually tried this with my V50. Not including sound effects or
>performance effects (delay, pan, & chord), the instrument has a sufficient
>quantity of parameters and values to yeild 2*10^84 possible values.
>Granted, Steven's point re. the limitations of hearing (and the high
>likelihood that MANY combinations will be sonically irrelevant or
>indistinct from each other) remains valid.

For a time, i thought that the limits of human hearing (20-20,000 Hz) meant
that all frequencies beyond that spectrum were irrelevant in sound generation
and recording.  Thus, i was skeptical when i heard that some CDs are now being
recorded at 40 MHz.  Hm, well.  The advantages of a sub-woofer in a speaker
set-up are quite well-known (semantic note:  three hyphenated words in one
sentence:  wow).  Anyway, it not only generates frequencies that are felt
with the body, but the resultant overtones make for clearer, crisper sound.
Does it not therefore stand to reason that the resultant undertones of
frequencies above 20K Hz would as well make for a clearer, crisper, more
marketable (irony) sound?



>As Margaret Atwood might say - "It's the essential DOING of the thing that
>matters."

Atwood references?  The presence, purpose and function of German in English?
Semantic asides?  Ah, well, it's only menschlich.


bq Mackintosh

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 16 Feb 1994 20:28:45 -0600
From:         Ken Fansler 
Subject:      Re: the infinite ear

>For a time, i thought that the limits of human hearing (20-20,000 Hz) meant
>that all frequencies beyond that spectrum were irrelevant in sound generation
>and recording.  Thus, i was skeptical when i heard that some CDs are now being
>recorded at 40 MHz.  Hm, well.  The advantages of a sub-woofer in a speaker
>set-up are quite well-known (semantic note:  three hyphenated words in one
>sentence:  wow).  Anyway, it not only generates frequencies that are felt
>with the body, but the resultant overtones make for clearer, crisper sound.
>Does it not therefore stand to reason that the resultant undertones of
>frequencies above 20K Hz would as well make for a clearer, crisper, more
>marketable (irony) sound?

If I am not mistaken, and according to Nyquist, an accurate sample can NOT be
achieved unless the sample is recorded at twice the Hz of the original sound.
Anything less than that will prove to be an inadequate reproduction. (Thus the
CD sampling rate of 44,100 times per second.)

But I also have been led to believe that in the analog to digital conversion
process, all frequencies above the range of human hearing 20kHz are _removed_
via a low-pass filter (the process is called anti-aliasing). This means that
all overtones over 20kHz are nonexistent.

But then a question crosses my mind - Why do "professionals" sample at 48kHz,
and everyone else (CD, DAT) sample at 44.1? If we couldn't hear the overtones
to begin with at 44.1, why sample at 48?

Lots more questions, but my wife's here, so I have to go.

Please clear me up if you can.

Ken Fansler
kwfansle@ilstu.edu

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 17 Feb 1994 01:02:54 -0400
From:         William Eldridge 
Subject:      Re: the infinite ear

Ken:

1) Low-pass filters cannot be "brick walls" that pass all frequencies below the
cutoff and none above. They roll off frequencies on a slope (adding their own
coloration to the sound).
2) Thus, the higher the sampling rate, the better.
3) While the 48k sampling rate is superior, "professionals" who record digital
audio at 48k had better be prepared for a painful sample-rate conversion (which
takes time and produces unfortunate artifacts) if they ever want their music to
appear on CD.

I hope this helps.


               William Eldridge

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 17 Feb 1994 20:47:20 +0200
From:         Kostas Moshos-IEMA 
Subject:      Re: the infinite ear

Well the problem is not so mutch the 20KHz but lower frequences such as
10KHz where with SR 40KHz you have only 4 points (samples) to discribe
the waveform. That meens that foreign overtones are possibly added to the
reproduction that the lowpass filter dont cut and that is why the digital
recording sounds "harder". The SF of 48KHz doas an improovement of 20%.
The Nyiquist theorem says not twice but "at least" twice the Hz of the
original sound.

A good help is the "Introduction to Digital Signal Processing"
Roman Kuc, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Singapore, 1988


Kostas Moschos
I.E.M.A. Greece
kmos@leon.nrcps.ariadne-t.gr

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 16 Feb 1994 08:39:32 -0800
From:         metlay 
Subject:      To patch or not to patch: THIS is a QUESTION? :-P

William Eldridge writes:
>If my comments came across as snobbish or smug, I apologize.

Don't apologize; there's no point to it. This particular debate
surfaces again and again on these lists and news groups, and people
state their positions and some of them flame each other and no one
changes his mind. So don't be sorry for having a position you believe
in. I used to sling mud in these debates with the best of them, but
it all develops a certain grey sameness after a while. In brief:

Some people use other people's sounds and concentrate their musical
energies on traditional compositional endeavours (meaning melody,
harmony, etc. but not necessarily timbre) and are happy. Some subset
of them call timbre-creators anal-retentive snobbish control freaks
who perch on their sonic vaults like tumblebugs on cowflop, crowing
about their purity of vision to hide their musical incompetence.

Some people believe strongly in the creation of new timbres, either
for their own sake or as a subset of more traditional compositions,
and are happy. Some subset of them call patch-borrowers wet-brained
imaginationless geeks who hide their ignorance and timbral impotence
behind a wall of shrill yammer about "sharing" and should have their
synths taken away, since they don't appreciate them.

This is life.

--
mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Connellion to the nutput jaek." (o.c.r. attempting to grok xpander manual)

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