Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Re: [MMM] Re: Fully fledged microtonal synthesizer

graham@... wrote...

> Why should anybody take you seriously now when you say there's a
> market for flexibly retunable synths?

Well, I didn't say there was a market. I'll assume you're being rhetorical.

> If you want better microtonal support, put your money where your
> mouth is and pay for what's already there.

Not to get huffy here, but... I did so, and I continue to do so. Over the
years, I've bought 3 TX802s, 2 TX81Zs, VAZ2001, Midicode, and Infinity. And
I don't buy _anything_ that doesn't at least give the appearance of having
tuning support.

> Or learn C and get working on Timidity.

Yeah, right. I've been a C programmer since 1978, and I've written C
programs for a living since 1980. I don't want to program for music, I want
to use pre-built tools made by people who do music programming for a
living.

Anyway, I was only trying to be helpful to the conversation. Some of the
software synth makers might not realize there exists any semi-organized
microtonal community who might be interested in purchasing their products
if they were tunable.

Rick

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Rick,

{you wrote...}
>graham@... wrote...
>
> > Why should anybody take you seriously now when you say there's a
> > market for flexibly retunable synths?
>
>Well, I didn't say there was a market. I'll assume you're being rhetorical.

Gad, I *hope* so! There *ISN'T* a market, folks, for microtonal instruments! There *ISN'T*!! We are, and will be for a long time, a small, small niche, and we have to think in those terms and work with those parameters to make music grow. If, and only if, we can develop a significant body of music that will move/convince enough people that it is worth investigating, only then will we start to see numbers large enough to sway markets and developments.

>Not to get huffy here, but... I did so, and I continue to do so.

I'll second that. Rick has been a quiet background voice in these circles, but he has done yeomans work in getting a couple of generations of synths to bark out the microtones. Rick, your commitment is not in question in my eyes, that's for sure.

> > Or learn C and get working on Timidity.

Oh balls. Musicians have the right to have instruments without learning to code! Sure, oboe players have to make reeds, but no other instrumental developments (correct me if I'm wrong) would expect someone to actually learn how to build it before they could play it!

Graham, we need to keep our disciplines straight in this regard; the community is deeply enriched by those people who have both musical and software skills (you and Robert Walker spring to mind right away), but coding in C is not a burden I'd put on any musician - they should be practicing, playing, or composing.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Jeff,

{you wrote...}

> > nor am I blind to the need
> > for no-cost to low-cost items that we could use
>
>For sure!
>
>[snip]
>- Consumer Jeff
>"Me want it. Me want it NOOOOWWWWW Mommy!"
>
>(Anyone know which company ships the free Stradivarii?
>I could use me a few hundred of them for starting a
>fire.)

Well, I see you are fired up in "Biting Sarcasm" mode this morning! :) So to make sure my point was *clear*...

...I'm happy that there is a small selection of tools out (t)here that the authors - for whatever reason - have made available at anywhere from no-cost to low-cost. And as I've said before, there is no one who enters this forum that has any excuse to not get at least a little dirty in microtonality, because you can get started for almost no cost at all.

And, that said, I second what I *think* is your point about dedicated, high-quality instruments/environments/tools: they don't get produced in a vacuum, and they don't get developed without the developers absorbing some major cost issues. Musician's do need to find their own 'price point' of comfortability and decide to invest in their art.

Is some software/equip over-priced? Sure.
Is some of the rest worth the price. I'd say so.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Jeff,

{you wrote...}
>Stealing music tools is no different than stealing someone's guitar out of >the back of his truck

I agree, even if it was stolen from the back of a BMW.

>and pricks who use cracked software should rot in hell and should not be >tolerated in this community.

Um, we can discuss this in a better way. Stay cool.

>Jon, we need a 'no tolerance' rule in this newsgroup for posting info on >where to get cracks and engage in other felonous behaviour such as Dante >is advocating.

I don't believe he advocated it, but I've already posted about the thread. I'll clarify with another post.

>Post once and be permanantly banned from the group.

Thanks for the input, but our rules are already clearly posted, and I'm sure I can handle any and all situations...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Dante Rosati <dante.interport@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Joe,

{you wrote...}
>***Well, this is a good point, and there certainly is no argument that >having superior equipment will be an "enhancement." But, of course, it >only enhances what is *already there!* in the imagination and experience >of the composer.

This is a comment that must be something of a 'gentle disagreement'. I think that for someone like yourself, who has spent the bulk of your work in the acoustic world, and frequently (I'm guessing!) have put pencil to paper for a long time (with maybe a piano helping) until you finally hear a first rehearsal, and then the sounds you imagined from the instruments/voices, come to fruition, frequently matching what you had imagined.

On the other hand, when using many of the synthesis and related electronic tools available, the *process* itself becomes creative. It is not that it can enhance what is already there, but very frequently I have found motives, rhythmic structures, and entire sections of pieces being directly germinated/generated by a new sound that I have either found or created. This is not an exaggeration, but a common occurrence: I start working with a sound, and new ideas pop into my head/fingers/arms. Ideas that did *not* exist before that sound came before me.

It is a synergy that does not replace my active music-making with other humans, but it is much more of a two-way street than a rack of boxes might, on first blush, suggest.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_3035.html#3054

> Joe,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >***Well, this is a good point, and there certainly is no argument
that
> >having superior equipment will be an "enhancement." But, of
course, it
> >only enhances what is *already there!* in the imagination and
experience
> >of the composer.
>
> This is a comment that must be something of a 'gentle
disagreement'. I
> think that for someone like yourself, who has spent the bulk of
your work
> in the acoustic world, and frequently (I'm guessing!) have put
pencil to
> paper for a long time (with maybe a piano helping) until you
finally hear a
> first rehearsal, and then the sounds you imagined from the
> instruments/voices, come to fruition, frequently matching what you
had
> imagined.
>

***Hi Jon!

I guess that *does* describe the traditional method in which I am
reared (sitting mostly on my rear.) I guess this has changed a bit
with my involvement in some electronics and new composing software...

> On the other hand, when using many of the synthesis and related
electronic tools available, the *process* itself becomes creative.
It is not that it can enhance what is already there, but very
frequently I have found motives, rhythmic structures, and entire
sections of pieces being directly germinated/generated by a new sound
that I have either found or created.
> This is not an exaggeration, but a common occurrence: I start
working with a sound, and new ideas pop into my head/fingers/arms.
Ideas that did *not* exist before that sound came before me.
>
> It is a synergy that does not replace my active music-making with
other humans, but it is much more of a two-way street than a rack of
boxes might, on first blush, suggest.
>

***Hmmm. Well, that's very interesting, Jon. Seriously. It's
almost as though the little black boxes are like little jazz
musicians, with their own sounds and potentialities and special
talents, just ready to "kick out the jams..."

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_unknown.html#3055

>
> > ***There has actually been some progress in software
> > development to discourage such activities which, admittedly,
> > will destroy software companies and all those employed at
> > same. For example, take the new notation program _Sibelius_.
> > It is absolutely *impossible* to copy ... Bravo to them.
>
> Thanks for this info Joe.
>
> > (I'm a person, actually, who really *does* pay even his
> > shareware fees out of *encouragement!*)
>
> And it is people like yourself who are a credit to the
> field of music and microtonality, doing what you can to
> support, encourage and allow the development and
> improvement of new forms of musical tools and
> instruments.
>
> Also want to chime in on the Kyma debate -- I remember
> reading the description of this system in the CMJ about
> 14 years ago (1988?) when it first came out and I must
> say that it is not overpriced. It is a very unique
> instrument and capable of amazing expressivity as well
> as of course just about perfect tuning accuracy. These
> types of things are pretty much hand built by extremely
> talented craftsmen and the prices they charge are just
> barely covering their own costs. If it was profitable
> to build experimental musical instruments with esoteric
> features (and yes - tuning support IS esoteric, get
> real!), Capybara, Starr Labs and Buchla & Associates
> all would have gone public some time ago to
> well-recieved IPOs. But that ain't never gonna happen!
> Take Harvey Starr for example -- please do not compare
> him with Bill Gates! He is not becoming rich selling
> handmade musical instrument controllers of interest
> only to microtonalists. Anyway, what I am saying is
> that you might say these things are 'overpriced' or
> 'not worth it' and if that is really so, then we should
> go home now because microtonality is not worth it then.
> This stuff costs money and time to develop and not a
> single person I have mentioned is doing more than
> barely getting by and selling these things at near
> cost. Don't agree? Fine -- anyone who does not think so
> should immediately form their own company and build
> their own inexpensive knockoff of Kyma or Uath 72 or
> Lightning and undersell the competition.
>
> So Graham and Joe and everyone else who supports the
> development of new instruments and tools are microtonal
> heros -- they are supporting the development of these
> fine new experimental instruments and making sacrifices
> in their lives to do so. What great credibility they
> have. Kudos to all of you in this category!
>
> And can it have escaped anyone's notice that the people
> who sacrifice to support this field are also the ones
> *invested* in it creatively as well? The people who pay
> for their tools are the ones who value them enough to
> use them to create actual music that we all can hear!
> There is a definite connection here. These Real
> Composers write real music and that's what this is all
> about.
>
> Now that doesn't change the fact that for some of us,
> we can not afford to spend $8000 on an instrument. Even
> if it *is* worth it, we just don't have that kind of
> cash available. We can save up for what we want, that's
> one option. Also there is an option here too -- many
> old instruments on the used market have fine microtonal
> capabilities. They take time and motivation to learn
> how to use them as musical instruments, just like a
> violin! Look at all that Jacky has accomplished with
> his aging archaic instruments! What an exapmle and
> leader he is of what can be accomplished through modest
> means! There is no substitute for talent -- great music
> can be written with sticks and spoons. Anyone who can
> afford to be paying for internet access and can afford
> a web capable computer can afford the few hundred
> dollars it takes at most to get a reasonable set up.
> And new tools can be gradually added as one becomes
> proficient with old ones as one masters his craft.
>
> - Jeff

***Thanks so much for your nice words, Jeff, and I agree
wholeheartedly with everything you say here. My guess, though, is
that probably *lots* more people pay shareware fees than one might
initially guess, especially if they have even a glimmer enough of
computers and computing to appreciate the work and ability of the
creators... And, of course, it makes obvious economic sense that the
most *specialized* instruments that only see limited sales would have
to have a steep price tag.

Joe

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

> We have a wishlist.
> <http://www.microtonalsynthesis.com/architectures.html>

On the wishlist... There are probably different things that should be said
about software versus hardware synths, and the types of interfaces
appropriate to each. There are different methods of tuning -- for hardware
you have the "spew-tuning-at-hardware" interface and the front-panel
interface. For software models, you have files.

I think also "the bare minimum" could say something about Scala & software
synthesizers, which is a different situation from hardware synthesizers.
Take a look at VAZ. It has only a file load capability with no other
interface. It has 1 cent resolution. It can use outputs of Scala to define
tuning files. So it doesn't need any other editing interface.

Regarding this point:

> tables can be selected using short SysEx messages or the MIDI
> Tuning Standard

Why not add "or a simple text format"? Scala has plenty of outputs that
would be useful.

For software synthesizers, I don't see SysEx or the Midi Tuning Dump as
being any kind of ultimate interface. Those are fine for spewing across
lines to hardware devices... Straight-forward text files would be a much
better interface for software synths -- the files could be edited by hand
if necessary, and/or could be easily generated by home-brew software.

Rick

🔗George Zelenz <ploo@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗George Zelenz <ploo@...>

> Oh look, a straight piece of wood
>
> > > > > I do think Cubasis works with VST/VSTi.
> > > >
> Not only straight, but quite long.
> > >
> > > I might suggest the VX3Z200EXL Pro Quantum Granuglanular Vaporization
> > > Nanomangrove VSTi 4 Plugin, from Hyperneurotechnoquarkologies Inc.
> > >
> > > It has really neat vloorch, and makes a great snardcluk too. One must
> > > experience the fully automatable phoiltors to believe their ears!
> >
> I wonder what the wood wants to be?
>
> > I know exactly what you mean
>
> I know...

It only has resolution to the pleeg. I need at least
resolution to the nanite, or it is completely worthless
to me.

....I'll cut a piece about 2 feet long or so, and make a flute from it.

With the remaining length, I'll cut balophone bars to match the scale of the
flute.

Then I'll invite a friend over to make music with the new instruments.

That will be really neat.