Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Re: [MMM] Instrument building questions

At 02:21 PM 12/13/2006, you wrote:
>Some qustions for those of you who build your own instruments:
>
>Sometimes I play with making stupid string instruments from various
>household items in my house... but they all lack loudness. Recording and
>playing back the sound amplified shows that the sounds are interesting and
>satisfying in all other respects however. Are there any strategies for
>making accoustic instruments louder? Do you need steel strings? Do
>you need to tense the strings really hard? Do you need a bridge to
>transfer sound into a resonator to get it loud enough? Must the resonator
>be made of something hard?
>
>Thanks,
>Magnus Jonsson

The resonator should be lightweight and rigid (not necessarily hard).
The material of the strings shouldn't matter so much.

The better the speaking length of a string is terminated, the less
energy is transferred to the resonator, which makes the instrument
quieter but its sustain longer. The physics of these things can get
out of hand quickly. (See for example
http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/weinreic/weinreic.html
where you'll find a theory of how pianos manage to have both loudness
and sustain.)
Which means experimentation is probably your best bet.

There are others around these parts who know more about this than I.
Paul Erlich, John Starrett, John de Laubenfels, and Clark Panaccione
come to mind.

-Carl

🔗Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...>

Thank you Carl! That link was sure interesting and it clarified some things for me, and the relationship between loudness and decay is very good to know.

Right now I have a few rubberbands stretched around a thin wooden clementine box. Please don't laugh at me (too much :)). It's almost loud enough, but the decay is short already. I find that it's louder if I press the box hard against a table or a wall. Rubberbands seem to have the bad property of vibrating at more than one frequency too... I've also tried with cotton thread but that works even less well, the pluck dies out almost immediately. Probably my wooden box is not rigid enough...

/ Magnus Jonsson

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Carl Lumma wrote:

> At 02:21 PM 12/13/2006, you wrote:
>> Some qustions for those of you who build your own instruments:
>>
>> Sometimes I play with making stupid string instruments from various
>> household items in my house... but they all lack loudness. Recording and
>> playing back the sound amplified shows that the sounds are interesting and
>> satisfying in all other respects however. Are there any strategies for
>> making accoustic instruments louder? Do you need steel strings? Do
>> you need to tense the strings really hard? Do you need a bridge to
>> transfer sound into a resonator to get it loud enough? Must the resonator
>> be made of something hard?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Magnus Jonsson
>
> The resonator should be lightweight and rigid (not necessarily hard).
> The material of the strings shouldn't matter so much.
>
> The better the speaking length of a string is terminated, the less
> energy is transferred to the resonator, which makes the instrument
> quieter but its sustain longer. The physics of these things can get
> out of hand quickly. (See for example
> http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/weinreic/weinreic.html
> where you'll find a theory of how pianos manage to have both loudness
> and sustain.)
> Which means experimentation is probably your best bet.
>
> There are others around these parts who know more about this than I.
> Paul Erlich, John Starrett, John de Laubenfels, and Clark Panaccione
> come to mind.
>
> -Carl
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

At 11:30 PM 12/13/2006, you wrote:
>Thank you Carl! That link was sure interesting and it clarified some
>things for me, and the relationship between loudness and decay is very
>good to know.
>
>Right now I have a few rubberbands stretched around a thin wooden
>clementine box. Please don't laugh at me (too much :)). It's almost loud
>enough, but the decay is short already. I find that it's louder if I press
>the box hard against a table or a wall. Rubberbands seem to have the bad
>property of vibrating at more than one frequency too... I've also tried
>with cotton thread but that works even less well, the pluck dies out
>almost immediately. Probably my wooden box is not rigid enough...
>
>/ Magnus Jonsson

I love this kind of thing. I did a multitrack thing with raisin
cans and an old bell some years ago.

-Carl

🔗mopani <mopani@...>

Dear Magnus

I've found that with boxes, ie zitherish instruments, decent straight grained wood and solid ply or hardwood back and sides with a good bridge can work well and will project almost as well as a conventional chamber instrument.

james

----- Original Message -----
From: Magnus Jonsson
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:21 PM
Subject: [MMM] Instrument building questions

Some qustions for those of you who build your own instruments:

Sometimes I play with making stupid string instruments from various
household items in my house... but they all lack loudness. Recording and
playing back the sound amplified shows that the sounds are interesting and
satisfying in all other respects however. Are there any strategies for
making accoustic instruments louder? Do you need steel strings? Do
you need to tense the strings really hard? Do you need a bridge to
transfer sound into a resonator to get it loud enough? Must the resonator
be made of something hard?

Thanks,
Magnus Jonsson

__________ NOD32 1920 (20061213) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...>

Thanks James,

I'm indeed aiming for something zitherish. Maybe in the end I'll have to crawl to the cross and work with some real wood and tools.

/ Magnus

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, mopani wrote:

> Dear Magnus
>
> I've found that with boxes, ie zitherish instruments, decent straight > grained wood and solid ply or hardwood back and sides with a good bridge > can work well and will project almost as well as a conventional chamber > instrument.
>
>
> james
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Magnus Jonsson
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:21 PM
> Subject: [MMM] Instrument building questions
>
>
> Some qustions for those of you who build your own instruments:
>
> Sometimes I play with making stupid string instruments from various
> household items in my house... but they all lack loudness. Recording and
> playing back the sound amplified shows that the sounds are interesting and
> satisfying in all other respects however. Are there any strategies for
> making accoustic instruments louder? Do you need steel strings? Do
> you need to tense the strings really hard? Do you need a bridge to
> transfer sound into a resonator to get it loud enough? Must the resonator
> be made of something hard?
>
> Thanks,
> Magnus Jonsson
>
>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 1920 (20061213) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>> I love this kind of thing. I did a multitrack thing with
>> raisin cans and an old bell some years ago.
>
>I'm in good company then :-)
>Do you have any of that sound material on line?
>/ Magnus

That material was lost in a car robbery, unfortunately, along
with a whole bunch of other stuff. James however has a bunch
of good tracks up:

http://www.wyness.org/audio/audio.html

One of the things I like so much about the approach you seem
to be taking is that you're literally seeking out sounds. And
with any luck, you'll find what you're after because you're
looking for it honestly, without worrying about whether
there's a graphite truss in your guitar neck, or if it is in
fact only steel.

Even in a project like this

http://www.corporeal.com/art_inst/showinst/inst95.html

I got bogged down with technical details to some extent.

A few years ago, at least, there was a healthy 'deep listening'
scene in SF. One of the artists I saw was:

http://www.quietamerican.org

Another artist (or what is this guy?) used highly sensitive
mics to make recordings of insects, and live sounds like a
foley artist with balloons, cardboard boxes, pieces broken
glass, and for the grand finale, letting drops of his own blood
fall into a bucket of dry ice (with mics in the bucket).

Some of this stuff goes too far in the other direction IMO,
but it was interesting to see. I lost touch when the crew
running one of the venues lost their warehouse/loft space and
got broken up (or at least, stopped their mailing list).

-Carl

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

Magnus,

> Right now I have a few rubberbands stretched around a thin wooden
> clementine box.

Nice. I've used rubber bands and other household objects myself, typically
by sampling rather than using them live...

One overall approach you might consider is creating a sound font, using a
good, close microphone. The "sfz" format fonts are fairly easy to make, if
you can get yourself some well-recorded samples of the thing at various
frequencies. There are free soundfont editors that also can do a decent job
making "sf2" fonts... That would allow you to play the thing audibly by
cranking up the volume on the computer. :-)

You could do some tests with one WAV file and TobyBear's free "Helios" VST.

> Probably my wooden box is not rigid enough...

My hunch would be that it's probably not *resonant* enough.

Rick

🔗kevin ryan <bentivi_cdo@...>

Check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowercase_(music)

--- Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:

> >> I love this kind of thing. I did a multitrack
> thing with
> >> raisin cans and an old bell some years ago.
> >
> >I'm in good company then :-)
> >Do you have any of that sound material on line?
> >/ Magnus
>
> That material was lost in a car robbery,
> unfortunately, along
> with a whole bunch of other stuff. James however
> has a bunch
> of good tracks up:
>
> http://www.wyness.org/audio/audio.html
>
> One of the things I like so much about the approach
> you seem
> to be taking is that you're literally seeking out
> sounds. And
> with any luck, you'll find what you're after because
> you're
> looking for it honestly, without worrying about
> whether
> there's a graphite truss in your guitar neck, or if
> it is in
> fact only steel.
>
> Even in a project like this
>
>
http://www.corporeal.com/art_inst/showinst/inst95.html
>
> I got bogged down with technical details to some
> extent.
>
> A few years ago, at least, there was a healthy 'deep
> listening'
> scene in SF. One of the artists I saw was:
>
> http://www.quietamerican.org
>
> Another artist (or what is this guy?) used highly
> sensitive
> mics to make recordings of insects, and live sounds
> like a
> foley artist with balloons, cardboard boxes, pieces
> broken
> glass, and for the grand finale, letting drops of
> his own blood
> fall into a bucket of dry ice (with mics in the
> bucket).
>
> Some of this stuff goes too far in the other
> direction IMO,
> but it was interesting to see. I lost touch when
> the crew
> running one of the venues lost their warehouse/loft
> space and
> got broken up (or at least, stopped their mailing
> list).
>
> -Carl
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Have a burning question?
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

At 04:13 PM 12/14/2006, you wrote:
>Check out
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowercase_(music)

Kevin,

Yes, this definitely looks on-target. It lists Francisco Lopez,
who I saw do a show with Daniel Menche in San Francisco in 2003.

And I double-checked, Quiet American is Aaron Ximm, who ran the
Field Effects concert series in SF that I was referring to.

It's all coming back now. Jon, I mentioned you to him and he
said he remembered you (from e-mail I think).

Unfortunately, as I said, the warehouse he was living in and using
for the series (a wonderful space) was condemned for structural
reasons in 2005 (or was it '04).

-Carl

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

Carl,

{you wrote...}
>And I double-checked, Quiet American is Aaron Ximm ... It's all coming back now. Jon, I mentioned you to him and he said he remembered you (from e-mail I think).

Yep. This is all conflating, because after I had taken a short perusal of the Junk Music forum, a post there led me to the LowerCase group(s), which wasn't of total interest but continued me to the Phonography group (and movement). It was in phonography and field recording that I finally felt a home, and soon became acquainted with Aaron's work (and his site/moniker, Quiet American).

Frequently our microtonal groups become (to an extent, rightfully so) with microtones and *only* microtones, sometimes forgetting the forest for the trees. The sound worlds that a lot of the phonographers create/capture cover a lot of territory that melds with us, as long as you aren't locked into a very traditional (and mostly European) idea of what "music" is. The great thing is that, on balance, they seem more open-minded about creativity.

I contributed a piece to his "One-Minute Vacations" series, which included portions of a microtonal prepared piano session, so I guess that ties it in here. A good number of Dan Stearn's works would not be _totally_ out of line in their world.

Anyway, here's to completely smudging any remaining boundaries, and hoping Magnus finds the inspirations/resources he is after.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...>

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Carl Lumma wrote:

> That material was lost in a car robbery, unfortunately, along
> with a whole bunch of other stuff. James however has a bunch
> of good tracks up:
>
> http://www.wyness.org/audio/audio.html

Too bad about the robbery :(

I'll listen to some of James' material but it'll take a while as his songs are really huge.

> One of the things I like so much about the approach you seem
> to be taking is that you're literally seeking out sounds. And
> with any luck, you'll find what you're after because you're
> looking for it honestly, without worrying about whether
> there's a graphite truss in your guitar neck, or if it is in
> fact only steel.

I've been spending a long time developing synthesizers and effects on the computer, but no matter what I do they don't sound as good as a simple physical instrument built of household waste with no experience at all. :)

I find that the computer sounds make me feel nauseous after about two hours of work.

> Even in a project like this
>
> http://www.corporeal.com/art_inst/showinst/inst95.html
>
> I got bogged down with technical details to some extent.

This looks like just the kind of thing I'd like to build if I only had the tools and the confidence. I notice how you use a metal piece as your bridge. How much did the materials cost approximately?

> A few years ago, at least, there was a healthy 'deep listening'
> scene in SF. One of the artists I saw was:
>
> http://www.quietamerican.org

I can't decide whether this is music or a sound collage but I don't mean this in a bad way.

> Another artist (or what is this guy?) used highly sensitive
> mics to make recordings of insects, and live sounds like a
> foley artist with balloons, cardboard boxes, pieces broken
> glass, and for the grand finale, letting drops of his own blood
> fall into a bucket of dry ice (with mics in the bucket).

Crazy stuff...

> Some of this stuff goes too far in the other direction IMO,
> but it was interesting to see. I lost touch when the crew
> running one of the venues lost their warehouse/loft space and
> got broken up (or at least, stopped their mailing list).
>
> -Carl
>
>

🔗Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Jon Szanto <jszanto@...> wrote:

> Frequently our microtonal groups become (to an extent, rightfully
so) with microtones and *only* microtones, sometimes forgetting the
forest for the trees. The sound worlds that a lot of the phonographers
create/capture cover a lot of territory that melds with us, as long as
you aren't locked into a very traditional (and mostly European) idea
of what "music" is. The great thing is that, on balance, they seem
more open-minded about creativity.

I feel like confessing--more and more I think some of the most potent
stuff out there has no (discreet) pitch system whatsoever--free use of
the continuum. In a sense, that's microtonal, but it's both more and
less than that too.

In a way, that's how I worked with Andy in "divide by pi". I would
load a synth with a tuning table that was non-12, but it would depart
often from being only that, due to use of the wheel, or the way a
patch had built in pitch envelopes, etc.

It's more organic that way, like the way the human voice works. Just
you and your ears, and what they want to taste.

Someone on this list said they couldn't stand Morton Subotnick because
he didn't care about tuning. I think I might just like him for the
very *same* reason!!! (although I happen to simultaneously care about
tuning, if you know what I mean)

James Wyness's link were posted today, and that was a good thing. I
re-discovered some of those files--he has a really sensitive ear for
beautiful sound texture. Great stuff, up there IMO with some of the
best stuff in that genre, and not at all 'tuning first please' driven...

-A.

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>> That material was lost in a car robbery, unfortunately, along
>> with a whole bunch of other stuff. James however has a bunch
>> of good tracks up:
>>
>> http://www.wyness.org/audio/audio.html
>
>Too bad about the robbery :(

It did suck. Fortunately/unfortunately, it was one of the worst
things I've ever had to deal with.

>> One of the things I like so much about the approach you seem
>> to be taking is that you're literally seeking out sounds. And
>> with any luck, you'll find what you're after because you're
>> looking for it honestly, without worrying about whether
>> there's a graphite truss in your guitar neck, or if it is in
>> fact only steel.
>
>I've been spending a long time developing synthesizers and effects on the
>computer, but no matter what I do they don't sound as good as a simple
>physical instrument built of household waste with no experience at all. :)
>
>I find that the computer sounds make me feel nauseous after about two
>hours of work.

I listened to a lot of electric rock in high school. Ever see a
movie that you kinda liked, only to have your opinion completely
changed by only a one-liner from a friend who didn't like it? I
saw I Heart Huckabees on a plane, and thought it was interesting.
Then my girlfriend (now wife) said it sucked, and instantly, I knew
she was right. That movie was total crap.
Well, it was kinda like that for acoustic vs. electric when I met
Kraig Grady in LA in 1998 (three years out of high school or
something like that). He didn't say electric music sucked, he just
said something like, 'I prefer acoustic music'. And instantly, I
kinda knew I did too.
I even worked for Keyboard magazine and played with all kinds of
synths. And they all sounded pretty 1-dimensional to me. No matter
how weird I tried to make the sounds, they always kinda sounded the
same. Partly this is because 99% of synths are either wavetable
synths or subtractive synths. And partly I think it's because
I was using the same controllers (MIDI keyboards) for all of them.
But I digress.

>> Even in a project like this
>>
>> http://www.corporeal.com/art_inst/showinst/inst95.html
>>
>> I got bogged down with technical details to some extent.
>
>This looks like just the kind of thing I'd like to build if I only had the
>tools and the confidence. I notice how you use a metal piece as your
>bridge. How much did the materials cost approximately?

$120. I can send you instructions if you like.

>> A few years ago, at least, there was a healthy 'deep listening'
>> scene in SF. One of the artists I saw was:
>>
>> http://www.quietamerican.org
>
>I can't decide whether this is music or a sound collage but I don't mean
>this in a bad way.

I wouldn't call it music. But when I go into a rock concert and
it's at an ear-bleed 100dB, I'm not in a hurry to that music, either.

-Carl

🔗kevin ryan <bentivi_cdo@...>

also,
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,52397,00.html
In "Haunted Weather," David Toop wrote about the style
(before it was tagged with it's current moniker).
For me, any of the non-tonal musics that focus
primarily on timbre are in a sense microtonal - the
pitches are just organized (intuitively) in the
harmonics instead of across time.
here's something I've been listening to for over a
year now
www.sitesakamoto.com/chainmusic/
it keeps changing! part of the beauty of it is that
every time I notice something I never noticed before
(which happens every time I listen - it's very
intricate) I never know whether it was there before,
or if someone added it recently!

--- Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
wrote:

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Jon Szanto
> <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> > Frequently our microtonal groups become (to an
> extent, rightfully
> so) with microtones and *only* microtones, sometimes
> forgetting the
> forest for the trees. The sound worlds that a lot of
> the phonographers
> create/capture cover a lot of territory that melds
> with us, as long as
> you aren't locked into a very traditional (and
> mostly European) idea
> of what "music" is. The great thing is that, on
> balance, they seem
> more open-minded about creativity.
>
> I feel like confessing--more and more I think some
> of the most potent
> stuff out there has no (discreet) pitch system
> whatsoever--free use of
> the continuum. In a sense, that's microtonal, but
> it's both more and
> less than that too.
>
> In a way, that's how I worked with Andy in "divide
> by pi". I would
> load a synth with a tuning table that was non-12,
> but it would depart
> often from being only that, due to use of the wheel,
> or the way a
> patch had built in pitch envelopes, etc.
>
> It's more organic that way, like the way the human
> voice works. Just
> you and your ears, and what they want to taste.
>
> Someone on this list said they couldn't stand Morton
> Subotnick because
> he didn't care about tuning. I think I might just
> like him for the
> very *same* reason!!! (although I happen to
> simultaneously care about
> tuning, if you know what I mean)
>
> James Wyness's link were posted today, and that was
> a good thing. I
> re-discovered some of those files--he has a really
> sensitive ear for
> beautiful sound texture. Great stuff, up there IMO
> with some of the
> best stuff in that genre, and not at all 'tuning
> first please' driven...
>
> -A.
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>Well, it was kinda like that for acoustic vs. electric when I met
>Kraig Grady in LA in 1998 (three years out of high school or
>something like that). He didn't say electric music sucked, he just
>said something like, 'I prefer acoustic music'. And instantly, I
>kinda knew I did too.

Listening to Kraig's instruments helped too. :)

I should point out that much in the spirit of 'junkmusic' is
the "circuit bending" scene -- guys who modify speak 'n spells
and stuff to make music with.

Back on the acoustic side, let's not forget about Prent Rodgers'
balloon drums... Hmm, he had a page on how he made them and
sampled them, but I can't find it now.

Oh, Water Cooler jugs! One of two job I've ever been fired from
was a temp position at Unisource paper. I was caught playing an
empty water cooler jug in the break room.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtcOZ-h_7y4
I've tried to get one ever since, but they're hard to come by.
The water guy where I subsequently worked wouldn't give me one!

Wow, this is some damn fine overtone flute playing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaWxxytV55A
Nice visuals, too.

-Carl

🔗Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...>

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Well, it was kinda like that for acoustic vs. electric when I met
> Kraig Grady in LA in 1998 (three years out of high school or
> something like that). He didn't say electric music sucked, he just
> said something like, 'I prefer acoustic music'. And instantly, I
> kinda knew I did too.

It's been more of a growing realization for me.

> I even worked for Keyboard magazine and played with all kinds of
> synths. And they all sounded pretty 1-dimensional to me. No matter
> how weird I tried to make the sounds, they always kinda sounded the
> same. Partly this is because 99% of synths are either wavetable
> synths or subtractive synths. And partly I think it's because
> I was using the same controllers (MIDI keyboards) for all of them.
> But I digress.

Yes you probably nailed most of the reasons there. Another reason, I think, is that accoustic sounds something we meet everyday in different situations so they have some meaning to us. Electronic sounds on the other hand only come from synths and computers so they don't relate as deeply to the rest of our reality. Except for video game nostalgia of course...

You can feel the force or lightness of a string pluck... that becomes part of our emotional involvement in the song. Similarly we hear emotions and effort/ease in human voices...

Digital instruments ignore or at best try to imitate the very physics that we can relate to.

But I digress.

>>> I got bogged down with technical details to some extent.
>>
>> This looks like just the kind of thing I'd like to build if I only had the
>> tools and the confidence. I notice how you use a metal piece as your
>> bridge. How much did the materials cost approximately?
>
> $120. I can send you instructions if you like.

That's not too bad. I'll get back to you if I decide to do it.

/ Magnus

🔗Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...>

🔗threesixesinarow <CACCOLA@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Jon Szanto <jszanto@...> wrote:

>
> Frequently our microtonal groups become (to an extent, rightfully
so) with microtones and *only* microtones, sometimes forgetting the
forest for the trees. The sound worlds that a lot of the phonographers
create/capture cover a lot of territory that melds with us, as long as
you aren't locked into a very traditional (and mostly European) idea
of what "music" is. The great thing is that, on balance, they seem
more open-minded about creativity.

You could interpret the micro part in different ways (science fiction
acoustic lens, http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c348/mireut/alsketch.
jpg). I am reminded about this page http://www.jonroseweb.com/
f_projects_violano.html

Clark

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>> I even worked for Keyboard magazine and played with all kinds of
>> synths. And they all sounded pretty 1-dimensional to me. No matter
>> how weird I tried to make the sounds, they always kinda sounded the
>> same. Partly this is because 99% of synths are either wavetable
>> synths or subtractive synths. And partly I think it's because
>> I was using the same controllers (MIDI keyboards) for all of them.
>> But I digress.
>
>Yes you probably nailed most of the reasons there. Another reason, I
>think, is that accoustic sounds something we meet everyday in different
>situations so they have some meaning to us. Electronic sounds on the other
>hand only come from synths and computers so they don't relate as deeply to
>the rest of our reality. Except for video game nostalgia of course...

Actually I forgot probably the biggest reason. Acosutic sounds
radiate in different ways. Electronic ones all come from a speaker.
It's why even recordings of acoustic sounds, or very good wavetable
piano synths, don't sound as good as the real thing.

-Carl

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

Gentlemen,

{you wrote...}
>Actually I forgot probably the biggest reason. Acosutic sounds radiate in different ways. Electronic ones all come from a speaker. It's why even recordings of acoustic sounds, or very good wavetable piano synths, don't sound as good as the real thing.

And another very important thing: unless you are 'just' a composer, you probably are a performer as well. Nothing, nothing at all, can match playing acoustic instruments for immediate feedback, response to imperative and inspiration-of-the-moment, and the luxury of bathing in soundwaves. I think this is one of the reasons why even simple sound-sources/instruments have a power to move us, and to please us in both listening and playing. When I do outreach concerts for school kids, and take a vanload of percussion, they frequently ask my favorite instrument. And while that is hard to answer, I always tell them the last instrument I would part with are my conga drums. With those instruments, it is flesh on skin, hand on 'head', with the body of the drum cradled between your legs. No stick to insulate you from the experience of feeling the impact, and plenty of energy travelling into your core.

All things that Partch knew in his bones, many, many years ago.

But I'm waxing rhapsodic...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...>

🔗kevin ryan <bentivi_cdo@...>

I checked out some of the other videos of this
Nadishana guy: I like his music and I like his
soundsources even better... at first I thought his
introductory tags were just silly attempts at humor
("This ritual used in pagan Russia for tea ceremony to
produce the holy water for it" from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RcslxZKdt0&mode=related&search=
)
but this crossed the line:
"Berimbao - The music for an ancient ukrainian martial
art - gopak"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgQRx3izugI&mode=related&search=
ok, so there are only a handful of musical
"dance-martial arts" in the world, but this is the
first time I've seen someone get them mixed up that
badly! (I've been playing capoeira (and berimbau) for
5 years)
-K

> Oh, Water Cooler jugs! One of two job I've ever
> been fired from
> was a temp position at Unisource paper. I was
> caught playing an
> empty water cooler jug in the break room.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtcOZ-h_7y4
> I've tried to get one ever since, but they're hard
> to come by.
> The water guy where I subsequently worked wouldn't
> give me one!
>
> Wow, this is some damn fine overtone flute playing
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaWxxytV55A
> Nice visuals, too.
>
> -Carl
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>but this crossed the line:
>"Berimbao - The music for an ancient ukrainian martial
>art - gopak"
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgQRx3izugI&mode=related&search=
>ok, so there are only a handful of musical
>"dance-martial arts" in the world, but this is the
>first time I've seen someone get them mixed up that
>badly! (I've been playing capoeira (and berimbau) for
>5 years)

It's real

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huKyHxHi-04

Remember, the human body presents a set of contraints that
mean the same gymnastics movements will be rediscovered again
and again (compare standard Western vaulting horse routines
to the ground work of breakdancing, for example).

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗kevin ryan <bentivi_cdo@...>

I've known about hopak's existence (and Kalarypayat,
etc.) for a long time. Musical bows are found all
over the world, but the Berimbau is Afro-Brazilian and
there is only one martial art that uses it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W88-9Xaiy8k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd7TWgYmgak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XlX6t-ujJo

--- Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:

> >It's real
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopak
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huKyHxHi-04
> >
> >Remember, the human body presents a set of
> contraints that
> >mean the same gymnastics movements will be
> rediscovered again
> >and again (compare standard Western vaulting horse
> routines
> >to the ground work of breakdancing, for example).
>
> On the other hand, though Hopak is old, it looks
> like
> "fighting hopak" dates from the 1980s...
>
> -Carl
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com