Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Assad out of a Cabinet

Very nice! :)

...but the PianoTeq sound that has become so prominent on this list just
doesn't do it for me. I know other go gaga for it, though. It sounds very
artificial to me, too clean in some weird way--I much prefer the real thing
or a nice sample set from a soundfont... ;)

This tuning has a nice shimmer, which you exploit well with spaciousness. It
reminds me of the similar shimmer in my "Exploding Daisies" piece, which is
an 11th root of 3 tuning with some extra midstep chromatics:

http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/study_for_lorna-exploding_daisies.mp3

Is it me or is the velocity sensitivity on your settings favoring the
louder, bright touch as opposed to darker and softer touches? Or is it the
nature of the tuning, which gives things an extra 'snarl', like 17-edo does?

AKJ

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:19 PM, christopherv <chrisvaisvil@...>wrote:

> A piano improvisation in my 12th root of Phi tuning.
>
>
> online play and scala file
>
> http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=656
>
>
> direct download
>
>
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/12th-root-phi/daily20110329-Assad_out_of_a_Cabinet.mp3
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

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

🔗chrisvaisvil@...

I apologize for the sound of my pianoteq VSTi. But I do have a question. If you were to create a realistic piano sound in csound wouldn't you have to resort to physical modeling as well?

Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
Sender: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:56:29
To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Assad out of a Cabinet

Very nice! :)

http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/study_for_lorna-exploding_daisies.mp3

AKJ

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:19 PM, christopherv <chrisvaisvil@...>wrote:

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

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

🔗ixlramp <ixlramp@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

You see, MatC is in the majority of liking PianoTeq, so just ignore me here.
:)

But anyway, Csound oddly enough has a physical modelled prepared piano, but
I've not played with it all that much. I doubt its built in capabilities
rival those of PianoTeq, either.

I just use a soundfont of my own making, a sample of a sampled piano, my
Yamaha P200, which I rather like. :)

AKJ

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:59 PM, <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

> I apologize for the sound of my pianoteq VSTi. But I do have a question.
> If you were to create a realistic piano sound in csound wouldn't you have to
> resort to physical modeling as well?
>
> Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> Sender: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:56:29
> To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Reply-To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Assad out of a Cabinet
>
> Very nice! :)
>
> ...but the PianoTeq sound that has become so prominent on this list just
> doesn't do it for me. I know other go gaga for it, though. It sounds very
> artificial to me, too clean in some weird way--I much prefer the real thing
> or a nice sample set from a soundfont... ;)
>
> This tuning has a nice shimmer, which you exploit well with spaciousness.
> It
> reminds me of the similar shimmer in my "Exploding Daisies" piece, which is
> an 11th root of 3 tuning with some extra midstep chromatics:
>
> http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/study_for_lorna-exploding_daisies.mp3
>
> Is it me or is the velocity sensitivity on your settings favoring the
> louder, bright touch as opposed to darker and softer touches? Or is it the
> nature of the tuning, which gives things an extra 'snarl', like 17-edo
> does?
>
> AKJ
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:19 PM, christopherv <chrisvaisvil@...
> >wrote:
>
> > A piano improvisation in my 12th root of Phi tuning.
> >
> >
> > online play and scala file
> >
> > http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=656
> >
> >
> > direct download
> >
> >
> >
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/12th-root-phi/daily20110329-Assad_out_of_a_Cabinet.mp3
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

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

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Perhaps then it is just a case of you being used to what you are used to.

I sat down a friend who had a baby grand for years with pianoteq and he was
blown away with the realism. I feel much the same.

Chris

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
<aaron@...>wrote:

>
>
> You see, MatC is in the majority of liking PianoTeq, so just ignore me
> here.
> :)
>
> But anyway, Csound oddly enough has a physical modelled prepared piano, but
> I've not played with it all that much. I doubt its built in capabilities
> rival those of PianoTeq, either.
>
> I just use a soundfont of my own making, a sample of a sampled piano, my
> Yamaha P200, which I rather like. :)
>
> AKJ
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:59 PM, <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I apologize for the sound of my pianoteq VSTi. But I do have a question.
> > If you were to create a realistic piano sound in csound wouldn't you have
> to
> > resort to physical modeling as well?
> >
> > Chris
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> > Sender: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:56:29
> > To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> > Reply-To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [MMM] Assad out of a Cabinet
> >
> > Very nice! :)
> >
> > ...but the PianoTeq sound that has become so prominent on this list just
> > doesn't do it for me. I know other go gaga for it, though. It sounds very
> > artificial to me, too clean in some weird way--I much prefer the real
> thing
> > or a nice sample set from a soundfont... ;)
> >
> > This tuning has a nice shimmer, which you exploit well with spaciousness.
> > It
> > reminds me of the similar shimmer in my "Exploding Daisies" piece, which
> is
> > an 11th root of 3 tuning with some extra midstep chromatics:
> >
> > http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/study_for_lorna-exploding_daisies.mp3
> >
> > Is it me or is the velocity sensitivity on your settings favoring the
> > louder, bright touch as opposed to darker and softer touches? Or is it
> the
> > nature of the tuning, which gives things an extra 'snarl', like 17-edo
> > does?
> >
> > AKJ
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:19 PM, christopherv <chrisvaisvil@...
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > A piano improvisation in my 12th root of Phi tuning.
> > >
> > >
> > > online play and scala file
> > >
> > > http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=656
> > >
> > >
> > > direct download
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/12th-root-phi/daily20110329-Assad_out_of_a_Cabinet.mp3
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Aaron Krister Johnson
> > http://www.akjmusic.com
> > http://www.untwelve.org
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Yeah, I know what you mean. Of course, that's cool. But to my ears, the 'in
play' sound of PianoTeq is often slick and sterile. Maybe it was your preset
or settings?

I think I just need my real 1888 Steinway B (7 foot). Ain't nothing like the
real thing, baby.

Of course, you're limited to 12 notes/octave, and it's a pain and time
consuming to tune, but if you need more, you could overtrack.

But for that real sound, it's probably still better than anything that
technology will come up with for the next 50 to 100 years.

AKJ

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>wrote:

> Aaron, can you do this with your P200?
>
> hold down silently C3 E3 G3 and whack C4 E4 G4 as hard as you can
> staccato.
>
> On a real piano C3 E3 G3 will be ringing. With pianoteq C3 E3 G3 will be
> ringing. Will C3 E3 G3 be ringing on your p200?
>
> Chris
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The problem with sampled pianos, especially old ROM-limited ones
> > like the P200, is that they sound terrible. No dynamics, no
> > resonances. Modern multi-GB samples with DSP resonators do, indeed,
> > sound very good, and like pianoteq, are fully capable of revealing
> > the limitations of all current MIDI controllers. Except that
> > new one from Infinite Response. -Carl
> >
> >
> > At 06:17 PM 3/30/2011, you wrote:
> > >You see, MatC is in the majority of liking PianoTeq, so just ignore
> > >me here.
> > >:)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

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

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Saying your real Steinway is better than pianoteq I can understand - but I
have difficulty thinking that your preference for the P200 is something a
lot of people would share.

On the other hand pianoteq pro - which will allow you to detune every string
- even individuals within in the courses, might give your steinway a run for
your money. However, I find what I have adequate and better than any other
acoustic piano sound I have available.

Chris

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
<aaron@akjmusic.com>wrote:

>
>
> Yeah, I know what you mean. Of course, that's cool. But to my ears, the 'in
> play' sound of PianoTeq is often slick and sterile. Maybe it was your
> preset
> or settings?
>
> I think I just need my real 1888 Steinway B (7 foot). Ain't nothing like
> the
> real thing, baby.
>
> Of course, you're limited to 12 notes/octave, and it's a pain and time
> consuming to tune, but if you need more, you could overtrack.
>
> But for that real sound, it's probably still better than anything that
> technology will come up with for the next 50 to 100 years.
>
> AKJ
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...
> >wrote:
>
>
> > Aaron, can you do this with your P200?
> >
> > hold down silently C3 E3 G3 and whack C4 E4 G4 as hard as you can
> > staccato.
> >
> > On a real piano C3 E3 G3 will be ringing. With pianoteq C3 E3 G3 will be
> > ringing. Will C3 E3 G3 be ringing on your p200?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The problem with sampled pianos, especially old ROM-limited ones
> > > like the P200, is that they sound terrible. No dynamics, no
> > > resonances. Modern multi-GB samples with DSP resonators do, indeed,
> > > sound very good, and like pianoteq, are fully capable of revealing
> > > the limitations of all current MIDI controllers. Except that
> > > new one from Infinite Response. -Carl
> > >
> > >
> > > At 06:17 PM 3/30/2011, you wrote:
> > > >You see, MatC is in the majority of liking PianoTeq, so just ignore
> > > >me here.
> > > >:)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

IMO acoustic pianos sound good in real life, but the sound of a piano doesn't translate into recordings well, perhaps because usual micing techniques are silly. Mics inside the piano, LOL. For recordings at least, I think pianoteq is wonderful. And you can lengthen the strings of your virtual piano greatly, making them more harmonic and suited to alternative tunings. Plinky-plonky inharmonic timbres are great for blurring 12-tET and percussive work but they only harm the profile of alternative tuning.

There's not even a comparison with P200s and such, those really don't have much to do with real "piano" at all- the whole point of the piano was piano through forte, that is, dynamics, "touch". What does a stiff synthetic klank-klank sound have to do with that?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> The problem with sampled pianos, especially old ROM-limited ones
> like the P200, is that they sound terrible. No dynamics, no
> resonances. Modern multi-GB samples with DSP resonators do, indeed,
> sound very good, and like pianoteq, are fully capable of revealing
> the limitations of all current MIDI controllers. Except that
> new one from Infinite Response. -Carl
>
> At 06:17 PM 3/30/2011, you wrote:
> >You see, MatC is in the majority of liking PianoTeq, so just ignore
> >me here.
> >:)
> >
>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

lobawad wrote:
>IMO acoustic pianos sound good in real life, but the sound of a piano
>doesn't translate into recordings well,

Totally agree.

>perhaps because usual micing techniques are silly.
>Mics inside the piano, LOL.

I use a pair of measurement mics (ultra-flat omnidirectional
condensers... Behringer ECM8Ks can't be beat for the price;
Earthworks if you're spendy). If there's a room of ideal size
and construction, I place them about a meter apart, a meter
above the floor, 3 meters from the instrument.

Otherwise it's direct sound only, and technically you only need
one of the mics for a grand, with the lid off and the mic
suspended from the ceiling dead center above the instrument and
about 1 meter above it.

For uprights, I think you're ideally behind the instrument, but
they're often placed against walls so I take the front cover off
and place the mics on short stands on the floor, pointing up at
the keyboard, about 1 meter away from the instrument on either
side of the bench.

Then again I record everything with measurement mics, and people
think I'm nuts. If I could afford Schoeps I could escape
ridicule. They're the only larger-capsule condenser that sounds
"correct". I begged them to tell me how they do it, but they
wouldn't divulge.

>There's not even a comparison with P200s and such, those really don't
>have much to do with real "piano" at all- the whole point of the piano
>was piano through forte, that is, dynamics, "touch". What does a stiff
>synthetic klank-klank sound have to do with that?

I once tried to render some of Aaron's MIDIs on pianoteq and
they didn't come out well because the velocity values were
jacked. They sounded better with P200-like lofi samples, which
naturally compressed the sound. I spent a ton of time tweaking
pianoteq to reproduce this, without much luck. It's inherently
a very dynamic instrument. I should have reshaped the velocities
in the MIDI files, but I've not done much of that kind of thing
and it would have taken me forever.

-Carl

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

I think recording everything with measurement mics is a great idea.
Anything else and you're actually already into sound design- which is fine and dandy of course but it's not really "recording" in the strictest sense of the word.

Many times, IMO, people don't actually want what they think they want.
What they really want is a radically formalized officially sanctioned infinitely repeatable abstraction of an instrument. In other words,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robosexual

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> lobawad wrote:
> >IMO acoustic pianos sound good in real life, but the sound of a piano
> >doesn't translate into recordings well,
>
> Totally agree.
>
> >perhaps because usual micing techniques are silly.
> >Mics inside the piano, LOL.
>
> I use a pair of measurement mics (ultra-flat omnidirectional
> condensers... Behringer ECM8Ks can't be beat for the price;
> Earthworks if you're spendy). If there's a room of ideal size
> and construction, I place them about a meter apart, a meter
> above the floor, 3 meters from the instrument.
>
> Otherwise it's direct sound only, and technically you only need
> one of the mics for a grand, with the lid off and the mic
> suspended from the ceiling dead center above the instrument and
> about 1 meter above it.
>
> For uprights, I think you're ideally behind the instrument, but
> they're often placed against walls so I take the front cover off
> and place the mics on short stands on the floor, pointing up at
> the keyboard, about 1 meter away from the instrument on either
> side of the bench.
>
> Then again I record everything with measurement mics, and people
> think I'm nuts. If I could afford Schoeps I could escape
> ridicule. They're the only larger-capsule condenser that sounds
> "correct". I begged them to tell me how they do it, but they
> wouldn't divulge.
>
> >There's not even a comparison with P200s and such, those really don't
> >have much to do with real "piano" at all- the whole point of the piano
> >was piano through forte, that is, dynamics, "touch". What does a stiff
> >synthetic klank-klank sound have to do with that?
>
> I once tried to render some of Aaron's MIDIs on pianoteq and
> they didn't come out well because the velocity values were
> jacked. They sounded better with P200-like lofi samples, which
> naturally compressed the sound. I spent a ton of time tweaking
> pianoteq to reproduce this, without much luck. It's inherently
> a very dynamic instrument. I should have reshaped the velocities
> in the MIDI files, but I've not done much of that kind of thing
> and it would have taken me forever.
>
> -Carl
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗akjmicro <aaron@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> I once tried to render some of Aaron's MIDIs on pianoteq and
> they didn't come out well because the velocity values were
> jacked. They sounded better with P200-like lofi samples, which
> naturally compressed the sound. I spent a ton of time tweaking
> pianoteq to reproduce this, without much luck. It's inherently
> a very dynamic instrument. I should have reshaped the velocities
> in the MIDI files, but I've not done much of that kind of thing
> and it would have taken me forever.
>

Maybe this experience soured me on PianoTeq for the time being, but I must say, I'm not thrilled yet with what I perceive to be the artificial quality of the PianoTeq sound.

As for the P-200, it's not a real piano, never would be mistaken for one, and not as sensitive to velocity as PianoTeq, but somehow sounds more right in the electronic piano stuff I've done. Could be that I'm used to playing it, too. I also think many folks around here are more used to hearing electonic pianos like PianoTeq than real grands, and they get used to that, start to prefer it, even. Like when Cameron said he preferred harmonic spectra, etc.

That said, I'm curious to buy and play around with PianoTeq. Nice that there's a Linux version, I feel compelled to support that move. Like you say, it could be that the settings and sensitivity you had it on were not right for the pre-existing files I made, which were done with the P200's own keyboard.

What's a good 88-weighted key controller these days? Light, but deep enough to fit a laptop on the top?

Anyway, I happen to own one of the most beautiful acoustic instruments I've ever played. And no Chris V., PianoTeq pro would not give it a run for the money. That's like saying a GM violin sample played by Yanni is a Stradavarius played by Heifetz.

AKJ

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Hi Aaron,

>Maybe this experience soured me on PianoTeq for the time being, but I
>must say, I'm not thrilled yet with what I perceive to be the
>artificial quality of the PianoTeq sound.
>
>As for the P-200, it's not a real piano, never would be mistaken for
>one, and not as sensitive to velocity as PianoTeq, but somehow sounds
>more right in the electronic piano stuff I've done. Could be that I'm
>used to playing it, too.

It has a characteristic sound that suits certain things very
well, like those Halloween files. I would say pianoteq is more
realistic overall, but it does have some telltale graininess in
the upper partials sometimes, which always lets me recognize it.
As much as I hate to admit it, modern multi-GB piano samples are
pretty damn good. Their main limitations seem to be a lack of
good MIDI controllers, and the fact that speakers will never sound
like a soundboard. (I notice Korg is using a transducer with a
wooden board on some of their latest digital pianos -- an idea I
suggested to Paul Erlich years ago. I'm planning to hunt down a
showroom to audition them... not an easy task in this day and age
unfortunately.)

>That said, I'm curious to buy and play around with PianoTeq. Nice that
>there's a Linux version, I feel compelled to support that move. Like
>you say, it could be that the settings and sensitivity you had it on
>were not right for the pre-existing files I made, which were done with
>the P200's own keyboard.
>What's a good 88-weighted key controller these days? Light, but deep
>enough to fit a laptop on the top?

If I were rich I'd gift you an Infinite Response controller.

-Carl

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

These are made to mount on wood. Apparently there are a number of these out
there.

http://www.amazon.com/Dayton-Audio-DAEX25-Sound-Exciter/dp/B001EYEM8C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1301607204&sr=1-1

I got them for yet another guitar project...

Chris

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
>
> >Maybe this experience soured me on PianoTeq for the time being, but I
> >must say, I'm not thrilled yet with what I perceive to be the
> >artificial quality of the PianoTeq sound.
> >
> >As for the P-200, it's not a real piano, never would be mistaken for
> >one, and not as sensitive to velocity as PianoTeq, but somehow sounds
> >more right in the electronic piano stuff I've done. Could be that I'm
> >used to playing it, too.
>
> It has a characteristic sound that suits certain things very
> well, like those Halloween files. I would say pianoteq is more
> realistic overall, but it does have some telltale graininess in
> the upper partials sometimes, which always lets me recognize it.
> As much as I hate to admit it, modern multi-GB piano samples are
> pretty damn good. Their main limitations seem to be a lack of
> good MIDI controllers, and the fact that speakers will never sound
> like a soundboard. (I notice Korg is using a transducer with a
> wooden board on some of their latest digital pianos -- an idea I
> suggested to Paul Erlich years ago. I'm planning to hunt down a
> showroom to audition them... not an easy task in this day and age
> unfortunately.)
>
>
> >That said, I'm curious to buy and play around with PianoTeq. Nice that
> >there's a Linux version, I feel compelled to support that move. Like
> >you say, it could be that the settings and sensitivity you had it on
> >were not right for the pre-existing files I made, which were done with
> >the P200's own keyboard.
> >What's a good 88-weighted key controller these days? Light, but deep
> >enough to fit a laptop on the top?
>
> If I were rich I'd gift you an Infinite Response controller.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > I once tried to render some of Aaron's MIDIs on pianoteq and
> > they didn't come out well because the velocity values were
> > jacked. They sounded better with P200-like lofi samples, which
> > naturally compressed the sound. I spent a ton of time tweaking
> > pianoteq to reproduce this, without much luck. It's inherently
> > a very dynamic instrument. I should have reshaped the velocities
> > in the MIDI files, but I've not done much of that kind of thing
> > and it would have taken me forever.
> >
>
> Maybe this experience soured me on PianoTeq for the time being, but I must say, I'm not thrilled yet with what I perceive to be the artificial quality of the PianoTeq sound.
>
> As for the P-200, it's not a real piano, never would be mistaken >for one, and not as sensitive to velocity as PianoTeq, but somehow >sounds more right in the electronic piano stuff I've done. Could be >that I'm used to playing it, too. I also think many folks around >here are more used to hearing electonic pianos like PianoTeq than >real grands, and they get used to that, start to prefer it, even. >Like when Cameron said he preferred harmonic spectra, etc.

Boy is that assessment wildly off base, LOL. I can't count the hours of grand piano I've listened to. A good chunk of that a gorgeous late-19th Century Steinway of a size no longer made, AFAIK, between B and D. It's just that after all these years, I realize that I find the inharmonicity of the piano a kind of half-assed thing, a fudge. I generally prefer either more harmonicity or more inharmonicity. I was pleased the other day with how suited a Fazioli F308 was for vocal accompaniament, under the right touch.

>
> That said, I'm curious to buy and play around with PianoTeq. Nice that there's a Linux version, I feel compelled to support that move. Like you say, it could be that the settings and sensitivity you had it on were not right for the pre-existing files I made, which were done with the P200's own keyboard.
>
> What's a good 88-weighted key controller these days? Light, but deep enough to fit a laptop on the top?
>
> Anyway, I happen to own one of the most beautiful acoustic instruments I've ever played. And no Chris V., PianoTeq pro would not give it a run for the money. That's like saying a GM violin sample played by Yanni is a Stradavarius played by Heifetz.
>
> AKJ
>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Hey Cam,

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:36 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <aaron@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I once tried to render some of Aaron's MIDIs on pianoteq and
> > > they didn't come out well because the velocity values were
> > > jacked. They sounded better with P200-like lofi samples, which
> > > naturally compressed the sound. I spent a ton of time tweaking
> > > pianoteq to reproduce this, without much luck. It's inherently
> > > a very dynamic instrument. I should have reshaped the velocities
> > > in the MIDI files, but I've not done much of that kind of thing
> > > and it would have taken me forever.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe this experience soured me on PianoTeq for the time being, but I
> must say, I'm not thrilled yet with what I perceive to be the artificial
> quality of the PianoTeq sound.
> >
> > As for the P-200, it's not a real piano, never would be mistaken >for
> one, and not as sensitive to velocity as PianoTeq, but somehow >sounds more
> right in the electronic piano stuff I've done. Could be >that I'm used to
> playing it, too. I also think many folks around >here are more used to
> hearing electonic pianos like PianoTeq than >real grands, and they get used
> to that, start to prefer it, even. >Like when Cameron said he preferred
> harmonic spectra, etc.
>
> Boy is that assessment wildly off base, LOL. I can't count the hours of
> grand piano I've listened to. A good chunk of that a gorgeous late-19th
> Century Steinway of a size no longer made, AFAIK, between B and D. It's just
> that after all these years, I realize that I find the inharmonicity of the
> piano a kind of half-assed thing, a fudge. I generally prefer either more
> harmonicity or more inharmonicity. I was pleased the other day with how
> suited a Fazioli F308 was for vocal accompaniament, under the right touch.
>
>
I just put that little bit at the end to check that you were awake ;) You
are, so carry on!

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

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

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Hi Aaron,

I finally got to your piece. A portion (0:27) a bit reminiscent of Bartok, (
http://youtu.be/FpoTxL-uOco ) except very microtonal.

I have to say I don't care if your piece was rendered in general midi I
still would judge the composition based on its own merits and not the
instrument or sound set you can afford. Obviously I have invested a lot of
money in sample sets as you see them listed with my work posted here. There
are a number of reasons for that - one of which is that is makes composing
microtonally easier. On the other hand the general listener seems to have a
difficult time making the distinction between the quality of the sound and
the quality of the composition. I have posted weaker compositions /
improvisations at other sites that much to my surprise people go gaga over
because "it sounds pretty". But I don't think that is a true measure of my
worth as a composer.

So when you complained about pianoteq it made me think that you were
listening to the timbre instead of the important part - the notes.

Chris

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
<aaron@...>wrote:

>
>
> Very nice! :)
>
> ...but the PianoTeq sound that has become so prominent on this list just
> doesn't do it for me. I know other go gaga for it, though. It sounds very
> artificial to me, too clean in some weird way--I much prefer the real thing
> or a nice sample set from a soundfont... ;)
>
> This tuning has a nice shimmer, which you exploit well with spaciousness.
> It
> reminds me of the similar shimmer in my "Exploding Daisies" piece, which is
> an 11th root of 3 tuning with some extra midstep chromatics:
>
> http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/study_for_lorna-exploding_daisies.mp3
>
> Is it me or is the velocity sensitivity on your settings favoring the
> louder, bright touch as opposed to darker and softer touches? Or is it the
> nature of the tuning, which gives things an extra 'snarl', like 17-edo
> does?
>
> AKJ
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:19 PM, christopherv <chrisvaisvil@...
> >wrote:
>
>
> > A piano improvisation in my 12th root of Phi tuning.
> >
> >
> > online play and scala file
> >
> > http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=656
> >
> >
> > direct download
> >
> >
> >
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/12th-root-phi/daily20110329-Assad_out_of_a_Cabinet.mp3
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Hi Chris,

You complain at the end of your last email that you suspect I wasn't
listening to the notes over the timbre.

I'm wondering then what you thought I might have meant when I said, at the
very outset "Very nice" and later on, "This tuning has a nice shimmer, which
you exploit well with spaciousness."

AKJ

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>wrote:

> Hi Aaron,
>
> I finally got to your piece. A portion (0:27) a bit reminiscent of Bartok,
> (
> http://youtu.be/FpoTxL-uOco ) except very microtonal.
>
> I have to say I don't care if your piece was rendered in general midi I
> still would judge the composition based on its own merits and not the
> instrument or sound set you can afford. Obviously I have invested a lot of
> money in sample sets as you see them listed with my work posted here. There
> are a number of reasons for that - one of which is that is makes composing
> microtonally easier. On the other hand the general listener seems to have a
> difficult time making the distinction between the quality of the sound and
> the quality of the composition. I have posted weaker compositions /
> improvisations at other sites that much to my surprise people go gaga over
> because "it sounds pretty". But I don't think that is a true measure of my
> worth as a composer.
>
> So when you complained about pianoteq it made me think that you were
> listening to the timbre instead of the important part - the notes.
>
> Chris
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
> <aaron@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Very nice! :)
> >
> > ...but the PianoTeq sound that has become so prominent on this list just
> > doesn't do it for me. I know other go gaga for it, though. It sounds very
> > artificial to me, too clean in some weird way--I much prefer the real
> thing
> > or a nice sample set from a soundfont... ;)
> >
> > This tuning has a nice shimmer, which you exploit well with spaciousness.
> > It
> > reminds me of the similar shimmer in my "Exploding Daisies" piece, which
> is
> > an 11th root of 3 tuning with some extra midstep chromatics:
> >
> > http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/study_for_lorna-exploding_daisies.mp3
> >
> > Is it me or is the velocity sensitivity on your settings favoring the
> > louder, bright touch as opposed to darker and softer touches? Or is it
> the
> > nature of the tuning, which gives things an extra 'snarl', like 17-edo
> > does?
> >
> > AKJ
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:19 PM, christopherv <chrisvaisvil@...
> > >wrote:
> >
> >
> > > A piano improvisation in my 12th root of Phi tuning.
> > >
> > >
> > > online play and scala file
> > >
> > > http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=656
> > >
> > >
> > > direct download
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/12th-root-phi/daily20110329-Assad_out_of_a_Cabinet.mp3
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Aaron Krister Johnson
> > http://www.akjmusic.com
> > http://www.untwelve.org
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

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

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

that is not what I said.

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
<aaron@...>wrote:

>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> You complain at the end of your last email that you suspect I wasn't
> listening to the notes over the timbre.
>
> I'm wondering then what you thought I might have meant when I said, at the
> very outset "Very nice" and later on, "This tuning has a nice shimmer,
> which
>
> you exploit well with spaciousness."
>
> AKJ
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...
> >wrote:
>
>
> > Hi Aaron,
> >
> > I finally got to your piece. A portion (0:27) a bit reminiscent of
> Bartok,
> > (
> > http://youtu.be/FpoTxL-uOco ) except very microtonal.
> >
> > I have to say I don't care if your piece was rendered in general midi I
> > still would judge the composition based on its own merits and not the
> > instrument or sound set you can afford. Obviously I have invested a lot
> of
> > money in sample sets as you see them listed with my work posted here.
> There
> > are a number of reasons for that - one of which is that is makes
> composing
> > microtonally easier. On the other hand the general listener seems to have
> a
> > difficult time making the distinction between the quality of the sound
> and
> > the quality of the composition. I have posted weaker compositions /
> > improvisations at other sites that much to my surprise people go gaga
> over
> > because "it sounds pretty". But I don't think that is a true measure of
> my
> > worth as a composer.
> >
> > So when you complained about pianoteq it made me think that you were
> > listening to the timbre instead of the important part - the notes.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
> > <aaron@...>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Very nice! :)
> > >
> > > ...but the PianoTeq sound that has become so prominent on this list
> just
> > > doesn't do it for me. I know other go gaga for it, though. It sounds
> very
> > > artificial to me, too clean in some weird way--I much prefer the real
> > thing
> > > or a nice sample set from a soundfont... ;)
> > >
> > > This tuning has a nice shimmer, which you exploit well with
> spaciousness.
> > > It
> > > reminds me of the similar shimmer in my "Exploding Daisies" piece,
> which
> > is
> > > an 11th root of 3 tuning with some extra midstep chromatics:
> > >
> > > http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/study_for_lorna-exploding_daisies.mp3
> > >
> > > Is it me or is the velocity sensitivity on your settings favoring the
> > > louder, bright touch as opposed to darker and softer touches? Or is it
> > the
> > > nature of the tuning, which gives things an extra 'snarl', like 17-edo
> > > does?
> > >
> > > AKJ
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:19 PM, christopherv <chrisvaisvil@...
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > A piano improvisation in my 12th root of Phi tuning.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > online play and scala file
> > > >
> > > > http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=656
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > direct download
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/12th-root-phi/daily20110329-Assad_out_of_a_Cabinet.mp3
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron Krister Johnson
> > > http://www.akjmusic.com
> > > http://www.untwelve.org
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

I said "So when you complained about pianoteq it made me think that you were
listening to the timbre instead of the important part - the notes."

"It made me think. "

CHris

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
<aaron@...>wrote:

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

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Okay, fair enough, I wrote "suspect", and you wrote "think".

Either way, I hope I clearly pointed out that I was paying attention to the
music, and showed you again what I wrote, in case you forgot.

AKJ

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>wrote:

> I said "So when you complained about pianoteq it made me think that you
> were
> listening to the timbre instead of the important part - the notes."
>
> "It made me think. "
>
> CHris
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
> <aaron@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > You complain at the end of your last email that you suspect I wasn't
> > listening to the notes over the timbre.
> >
> > I'm wondering then what you thought I might have meant when I said, at
> the
> > very outset "Very nice" and later on, "This tuning has a nice shimmer,
> > which
> >
> > you exploit well with spaciousness."
> >
> > AKJ
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...
> > >wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Hi Aaron,
> > >
> > > I finally got to your piece. A portion (0:27) a bit reminiscent of
> > Bartok,
> > > (
> > > http://youtu.be/FpoTxL-uOco ) except very microtonal.
> > >
> > > I have to say I don't care if your piece was rendered in general midi I
> > > still would judge the composition based on its own merits and not the
> > > instrument or sound set you can afford. Obviously I have invested a lot
> > of
> > > money in sample sets as you see them listed with my work posted here.
> > There
> > > are a number of reasons for that - one of which is that is makes
> > composing
> > > microtonally easier. On the other hand the general listener seems to
> have
> > a
> > > difficult time making the distinction between the quality of the sound
> > and
> > > the quality of the composition. I have posted weaker compositions /
> > > improvisations at other sites that much to my surprise people go gaga
> > over
> > > because "it sounds pretty". But I don't think that is a true measure of
> > my
> > > worth as a composer.
> > >
> > > So when you complained about pianoteq it made me think that you were
> > > listening to the timbre instead of the important part - the notes.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
> > > <aaron@...>wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Very nice! :)
> > > >
> > > > ...but the PianoTeq sound that has become so prominent on this list
> > just
> > > > doesn't do it for me. I know other go gaga for it, though. It sounds
> > very
> > > > artificial to me, too clean in some weird way--I much prefer the real
> > > thing
> > > > or a nice sample set from a soundfont... ;)
> > > >
> > > > This tuning has a nice shimmer, which you exploit well with
> > spaciousness.
> > > > It
> > > > reminds me of the similar shimmer in my "Exploding Daisies" piece,
> > which
> > > is
> > > > an 11th root of 3 tuning with some extra midstep chromatics:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/study_for_lorna-exploding_daisies.mp3
> > > >
> > > > Is it me or is the velocity sensitivity on your settings favoring the
> > > > louder, bright touch as opposed to darker and softer touches? Or is
> it
> > > the
> > > > nature of the tuning, which gives things an extra 'snarl', like
> 17-edo
> > > > does?
> > > >
> > > > AKJ
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:19 PM, christopherv <
> chrisvaisvil@...
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > A piano improvisation in my 12th root of Phi tuning.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > online play and scala file
> > > > >
> > > > > http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=656
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > direct download
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/12th-root-phi/daily20110329-Assad_out_of_a_Cabinet.mp3
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Aaron Krister Johnson
> > > > http://www.akjmusic.com
> > > > http://www.untwelve.org
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Aaron Krister Johnson
> > http://www.akjmusic.com
> > http://www.untwelve.org
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

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

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Yes, it was only a first impression Aaron. I'm very sure you did listen to
it - I was when I read your entire reply.

I'll stand by my point about production though - but that conversation
didn't start with you.
I've been beating that drum for a while - mostly because I've seen good but
but poor songwriters
and composers be ignored and even insulted by others over production when
the
composition being discussed had more to it then the person throwing the
insults could muster.

Of course, within the context of something like 60x60, production is
obviously important and can't be ignored - must be of the highest quality.
But within the confines of this list - I will take the position it is the
composition not the production that should take precedence.

Thanks for your reply,

Chris

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>wrote:

>
>
> Okay, fair enough, I wrote "suspect", and you wrote "think".
>
> Either way, I hope I clearly pointed out that I was paying attention to the
> music, and showed you again what I wrote, in case you forgot.
>
> AKJ
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...
> >wrote:
>
>
> > I said "So when you complained about pianoteq it made me think that you
> > were
> > listening to the timbre instead of the important part - the notes."
> >
> > "It made me think. "
> >
> > CHris
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
> > <aaron@...>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Chris,
> > >
> > > You complain at the end of your last email that you suspect I wasn't
> > > listening to the notes over the timbre.
> > >
> > > I'm wondering then what you thought I might have meant when I said, at
> > the
> > > very outset "Very nice" and later on, "This tuning has a nice shimmer,
> > > which
> > >
> > > you exploit well with spaciousness."
> > >
> > > AKJ
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Aaron,
> > > >
> > > > I finally got to your piece. A portion (0:27) a bit reminiscent of
> > > Bartok,
> > > > (
> > > > http://youtu.be/FpoTxL-uOco ) except very microtonal.
> > > >
> > > > I have to say I don't care if your piece was rendered in general midi
> I
> > > > still would judge the composition based on its own merits and not the
> > > > instrument or sound set you can afford. Obviously I have invested a
> lot
> > > of
> > > > money in sample sets as you see them listed with my work posted here.
> > > There
> > > > are a number of reasons for that - one of which is that is makes
> > > composing
> > > > microtonally easier. On the other hand the general listener seems to
> > have
> > > a
> > > > difficult time making the distinction between the quality of the
> sound
> > > and
> > > > the quality of the composition. I have posted weaker compositions /
> > > > improvisations at other sites that much to my surprise people go gaga
> > > over
> > > > because "it sounds pretty". But I don't think that is a true measure
> of
> > > my
> > > > worth as a composer.
> > > >
> > > > So when you complained about pianoteq it made me think that you were
> > > > listening to the timbre instead of the important part - the notes.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
> > > > <aaron@...>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Very nice! :)
> > > > >
> > > > > ...but the PianoTeq sound that has become so prominent on this list
> > > just
> > > > > doesn't do it for me. I know other go gaga for it, though. It
> sounds
> > > very
> > > > > artificial to me, too clean in some weird way--I much prefer the
> real
> > > > thing
> > > > > or a nice sample set from a soundfont... ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > This tuning has a nice shimmer, which you exploit well with
> > > spaciousness.
> > > > > It
> > > > > reminds me of the similar shimmer in my "Exploding Daisies" piece,
> > > which
> > > > is
> > > > > an 11th root of 3 tuning with some extra midstep chromatics:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/study_for_lorna-exploding_daisies.mp3
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it me or is the velocity sensitivity on your settings favoring
> the
> > > > > louder, bright touch as opposed to darker and softer touches? Or is
> > it
> > > > the
> > > > > nature of the tuning, which gives things an extra 'snarl', like
> > 17-edo
> > > > > does?
> > > > >
> > > > > AKJ
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:19 PM, christopherv <
> > chrisvaisvil@...
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > A piano improvisation in my 12th root of Phi tuning.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > online play and scala file
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=656
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > direct download
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/12th-root-phi/daily20110329-Assad_out_of_a_Cabinet.mp3
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Aaron Krister Johnson
> > > > > http://www.akjmusic.com
> > > > > http://www.untwelve.org
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron Krister Johnson
> > > http://www.akjmusic.com
> > > http://www.untwelve.org
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

Assad out of a Cabinet

🔗christopherv <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗chrisvaisvil@...

🔗ixlramp <ixlramp@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗akjmicro <aaron@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>