Re: [MMM] Re: sampling, continued

> Or the young stud with the shiny new technology, only to find (ten
> years down the road) that they are... not cool anymore?

Happens all the time... but is this about being cool? I don't think so. I
see sampling (and pretty much every other thing you could do musically)
as an opportunity. I don't want to rule out any opportunity, because that
means limiting the possibilities for my music. As nearly as I can
determine, there is no logical reason to do this (and probably no
emotional ones either, if you like what you do!)

Sampling is going to stick around, but not as hyped-up as it is now.
Let's face it, everything now is structured to tweak, cut, grab...
basically work with samples. When the manufactures of the "shiny new
technology" get over sampling, I think we will see less and less
non-creative (and exploitative) use of other's material. But right now,
it's sort of an orgy out there.

I think that (somewhat sadly) we will see and end to things like
Plunderphonics and Negativland, because these artists (in my opinion)
have been pushing the envelope more for change than for simply making
art. When change comes, I think sampling can take less of a stand-out
role, and just be used as needed like anything else.

DaveX

Dave!
I agree that there is no rational reason to limit one's vocabulary,
unless one does so for aesthetic reasons. My problem, is and was when i
decided to make instruments, that i preferred to not let others decide
for me which sounds i was going to use. Although with electronics we
have the infamous "unlimited possibilities", more often than not, these
commercial products are designed with future modifications planned years
in advance in order to charge for "upgrades" or new improved models. In
essence unless you are designing you own software and or electronic
instruments, you are being told what to use by people who might or may
not have your own goals at heart. True they give us way more than we can
think of, but something can be lost when we no longer sit back as say,
what would i like to be able to do regardless of whether it is possible
or not.
Lately i have noticed quite a few bands (smaller/unknown) playing
with very unsteady rhythms and playing parts and lines that resemble
weaving more than being strict pulse oriented. It is quite subtle and
not over done, yet that is what they are doing. It seems the computer
would make the "opportunity" for this type of music quite difficult.

Dave X wrote:

> I don't want to rule out any opportunity, because that
> means limiting the possibilities for my music. As nearly as I can
> determine, there is no logical reason to do this (and probably no
> emotional ones either, if you like what you do!)
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

Kraig G wrote:

> these commercial products are designed with future modifications
> planned years in advance in order to charge for "upgrades" or new
> improved models

Heh heh... Yup it sure seems that way, doesn't it? Having been in this
software business from the inside for over 20 years, my experience is this:
Yeah, they want to keep selling you something so they can survive; and a lot
of times, the engineers think they're working on a cool product and they
would rather put all the features in right away. Yes, the first version
doesn't have features that are sometimes planned for later versions. But the
_reason_ all the features don't get into the first version is not typically
willful on their part, it's an emergent phenomenon. Software engineering on
a large scale is _so_ labor intensive and _so_ prone to bugs and scheduling
problems, that it's just IMPOSSIBILE to engineer a major product that has all
of those features the first time around, and get it to market before going
belly up. So there's this Big Dance of Compromise between the engineers, the
engineering managers, and the marketing people. _That_ is why your
statement above is true. You can see that I'm right by looking at open
software and freeware projects. Take Scala for example. It keeps evolving,
but Manuel Op de Coul isn't making money off it; it evolves because his
thinking evolves, and he has finite time in which to engineer the product; at
some point, he puts out a version, but he's certainly got new ideas for the
next version. I used to work on teams doing major operating systems, and
in-house we were always running on software that was at least a year ahead of
what was selling on the streets. By the time _anything_ hits the streets,
it's been obsolete in the lab for over a year.

> Lately i have noticed quite a few bands (smaller/unknown) playing
> with very unsteady rhythms and playing parts and lines that resemble
> weaving more than being strict pulse oriented. It is quite subtle and
> not over done, yet that is what they are doing. It seems the computer
> would make the "opportunity" for this type of music quite difficult.

I don't think it's difficult. It just takes care and patience to do this
with a purely electronic means. The composer/performer has to take the extra
time to tell the computer _NOT_ to keep a clockwork beat.

This brings up a really good topic, too, for electronic composers who work
with sequencers. Do people take the time to add slight rhythmic changes and
changes in the velocity of adjacent notes, or slight accents on the beat and
that kind of thing?

Rick

Rick,

{you wrote...}
>This brings up a really good topic, too, for electronic composers who work
>with sequencers. Do people take the time to add slight rhythmic changes and
>changes in the velocity of adjacent notes, or slight accents on the beat and
>that kind of thing?

Yes. Well, I do...

Jon

Rick !
Thanks for filling me in on how all this comes about with products.
its makes sense.
Also is it possible to tell a computer not to play a strict beat?
And would it not be difficult to have a commuter do it in the same way
as people? (I guess one would have to figure out just what they where
doing. )

Rick McGowan wrote:

> Software engineering on
> a large scale is _so_ labor intensive and _so_ prone to bugs and
> scheduling
> problems, that it's just IMPOSSIBILE to engineer a major product that
> has all
> of those features the first time around, and get it to market before
> going
> belly up. So there's this Big Dance of Compromise between the
> engineers, the
> engineering managers, and the marketing people. > Lately i have
> noticed quite a few bands (smaller/unknown) playing
> > with very unsteady rhythms and playing parts and lines that resemble
>
> > weaving more than being strict pulse oriented. It is quite subtle
> and
> > not over done, yet that is what they are doing. It seems the
> computer
> > would make the "opportunity" for this type of music quite difficult.

>
>
> I don't think it's difficult. It just takes care and patience to do
> this
> with a purely electronic means. The composer/performer has to take
> the extra
> time to tell the computer _NOT_ to keep a clockwork beat.

>
> This brings up a really good topic, too, for electronic composers who
> work
> with sequencers. Do people take the time to add slight rhythmic
> changes and
> changes in the velocity of adjacent notes, or slight accents on the
> beat and
> that kind of thing?

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

Kraig--

This is very true, about how things we use influence us. I try as much
as I can to undertstand how things work, so I can build me own, or at
least, know enough to work outside the box if I need to. There is also
the element of having possibilites present affect you-- for instance, if
cool edit didn't have a flange effect, might you still think you needed
one on "X" song?

DaveX

Kraig --

Accidentally sent my last mail too soon. Slip of the mouse.

As I was saying, software, hardware, instruments, etc... affect you. I
try to work in this way:

1) think of what I am wanting to do
2) figure out how I can do this
3) look to see if anything I have can accomplish this task
4) if not: build it, borrow it, etc..

This tends to help me stay a little bit more "clear" in how I go about
things.

Dave!

{you wrote...}
>1) think of what I am wanting to do
>2) figure out how I can do this
>3) look to see if anything I have can accomplish this task
>4) if not: build it, borrow it, etc..

Sounds like the life-script of one Harry Partch!

And don't you also find the creative drive going in the 'opposite' direction sometimes? For me, I may have gathered tools and ideas for one reason, but sitting there with the gathered forces I find things I hadn't thought of previously, and new paths open up.

When this cycle is good, it can get pretty synergistic! And I think this is one reason why I have a love/hate relationship with constant upgrades and new gear: just when you are feeling like your setup is really an organic thing, firing on all cylinders, you have to back up, learn a new tool, see how it integrates, etc.

All in all, however, I love what is at our disposal these days!

Cheers,
Jon

> Also is it possible to tell a computer not to play a strict beat?

Absolutely. A computer is a very precise instrument. I does exactly what
you program it to do... You can program the precise duration & attack of
every note.
Often it can be time consuming to make micro-adjustements in tempo, etc.
But it's not hard to do.

One thing you can do, to figure out "how a person does it" is to play
something & record with MIDI, then sit down and analyze the resulting
variations in timing and so forth.

Rick

Rick,

{you wrote...}
>One thing you can do, to figure out "how a person does it" is to play >something & record with MIDI, then sit down and analyze the resulting >variations in timing and so forth.

There is a feature in the PC based sequencer, Cakewalk, that has had this functionality for a few years. I believe they call it "groove quantize", and you can not only choose from various groove templates, but you can take a track, analyze it, and use that as a template for other tracks.

Or, you can apply varying degrees of looseness to timing information for a less structured approach.

I am sure that there are programs quite more sophisticated than that, and there are already a number of "roll your own" style midi programs that let you cobble your own modules together, and timing looseness would be a fairly straightforward one to implement.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_317.html#320

> Dave!
> I agree that there is no rational reason to limit one's
vocabulary, unless one does so for aesthetic reasons. My problem, is
and was when i decided to make instruments, that i preferred to not
let others decide for me which sounds i was going to use.

Actually, Kraig... I can see why you might not be so inclined to
allow people to sample the sounds of your instruments... after all
that work on them.

Is it possible to copyright the SOUND of an instrument... or is that
somehow part of the PATENT for the instrument??

Just curious...

Not that that's going to necessarily stop infringement...

_________ ________ _______
Joseph Pehrson

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_317.html#341

> Rick,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >This brings up a really good topic, too, for electronic composers
who work
> >with sequencers. Do people take the time to add slight rhythmic
changes and
> >changes in the velocity of adjacent notes, or slight accents on
the beat and
> >that kind of thing?
>
> Yes. Well, I do...
>
> Jon

This is a really interesting comment, because I find that, in
electronic music, it's a REAL CHALLENGE to put in elements of
dynamics and accentuation. It seems when I write for a piece with
electronics and live instrument, I'm *always* writing in all this
stuff for the live instrument but then STRUGGLE to get just a BIT of
it in the electronic part!!!

________ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

Joe,

{you wrote...}
>This is a really interesting comment, because I find that, in
>electronic music, it's a REAL CHALLENGE to put in elements of
>dynamics and accentuation. It seems when I write for a piece with
>electronics and live instrument, I'm *always* writing in all this
>stuff for the live instrument but then STRUGGLE to get just a BIT of
>it in the electronic part!!!

I would suggest you need to investigate the tools more. There are many ways to breathe life into sequenced/MIDI music. For just one example there was an issue of Keyboard magazine last year (sorry, don't remember the month) that had an extensive article with James Newton Howard, and a fair amount told how he utilized other controller tracks to affect dynamics and other aspects of phrasing, taking sampled instruments (as well as synths) into more musical phrasing.

Jon

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_317.html#371

> Joe,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >This is a really interesting comment, because I find that, in
> >electronic music, it's a REAL CHALLENGE to put in elements of
> >dynamics and accentuation. It seems when I write for a piece with
> >electronics and live instrument, I'm *always* writing in all this
> >stuff for the live instrument but then STRUGGLE to get just a BIT
of
> >it in the electronic part!!!
>
> I would suggest you need to investigate the tools more. There are
many ways to breathe life into sequenced/MIDI music. For just one
example there was an issue of Keyboard magazine last year (sorry,
don't remember the month) that had an extensive article with James
Newton Howard, and a fair amount told how he utilized other
controller tracks to affect dynamics and other spects of phrasing,
taking sampled instruments (as well as synths) into more musical
phrasing.
>

Thanks, Jon, for the info...

Joe

________ ________ ______
Joseph Pehrson

Joe,

{you wrote...}
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>Thanks, Jon, for the info...

Ah, rats, that wasn't very helpful! So I go nuts when I know I have the stuff, and so I went and found the issue:

Keyboard Magazine, Dec. 2000
Cover story: Secrets of MIDI Orchestration - Composing Tips and Gear Tricks from James Newton Howard and others.

Honestly, I think you (and probably some others) would find a lot of information in this issue valuable. But wait, there's more!...

At the Keyboard mag site, you'll find an online version of the Howard article:
http://www.keyboardmag.com/features/jnhoward/index.shtml

Finally, some concrete leads! You could still backorder the issue, and it would probably be worth it...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., Rick McGowan <rick@u...> wrote:

> This brings up a really good topic, too, for electronic composers
who work
> with sequencers. Do people take the time to add slight rhythmic
changes and
> changes in the velocity of adjacent notes, or slight accents on the
beat and
> that kind of thing?

You bet -- on the MusicTheory list, for example, this is one of the
subjects that comes up from time to time. Personally, I like
performing in real time.