Re: Excitalking

I wrote:

>>I've just uploaded a new piece called "Excitalking Very Much"

to which Jon replied:

>Man, you're doing it again! I actually liked this more than Earlight,
but
>that's just me. I think you really nailed the bass line this time
around - >the sample and phrasing are so much like a 'stand-up'
player, I can almost
>see Christian McBride or Dave Holland playing it live (not to mention the
>couple of bars of Jan Hammer on Minimoog near the end :).

Thanks for that.. its always uplifting to hear praise...
I, too was pretty pleased with the bass. In the first pass,
when the bass is playing alone, it was basically in 12-tet (which was
the default tuning). No adaptation of the pitches occurred because
there was only one note at a time (this piece did not use any
"horizontal" adaptation). So what I did was to play a second line
(that you actually hear later during one of the repeats), do the
adaptation with both lines present, and then delete the second
line. So all the pitch bending is caused by the algorithm retuning
against (an unheard) melody.

>>Anyway, I'd be happy for any comments/critiques/thoughts about the
piece...

>Sure - maybe put the drums a little less hot in the mix, and maybe
just a
>teeny bit drier. Right now it sounds like the band is spread out
around one
>of those big vacant ballrooms in the off-season on the Jersey coast.

These are easily changed, since the reverberation is "added on" at the
mix-down
stage...

>The other thing: I know you are inventive enough to frame this more as a
>piece - how about things come to a semi-close at one point, and then a
>contrasting episode comes in, either a different tempo/rhythmic feel,
or a
>more stark tuning/instrumentation? Then up to you whether you rondo
it out,
>in ABA form, or go somewhere else. Even with the changes in the drum kit
>voices, the 'death march' of the basic groove undercuts (IMO) the
changes
>going above it.

I guess youre saying that the rhythm track is too "steady" throughout.
This is interesting. Maybe the simplest "solution" would be to mute
the drums at various points, thus providing more contrast between
sections. The other solution is to compose a "new" B section with which
to alternate... I'll need to think about this.

>And what a deliciously greasy clarinet thing you've got happening!
This is
>all so good - man would a double CD from you and Prent Rogers be a cool
>thing, with his proto-Mariachi/Norteno bands, and you are nearing
virtual
>klezmer-from-Mars.

The "clarinet" sound comes from a Yamaha VL70m, though I'm not sure I
play it
much like a clarinet is played...

>As always, I'm impressed.

much thanks....

Later, Joe said:

>***I second Jon's comments. It almost comes off as a series of jazz
>*solos...* It might be nice to have it more *polyphonic* in parts...
>layering so that there is more contrast and structure. (I know this
>might "muck up" the sophisticated tuning paradigm, but that can't be
>always forefront...)

It's great to get this kind of hearing... after working on a piece for
several weeks, its nearly impossible to "hear" it as would a new
listener.

You are making the (rather obvious in retrospect) observation that
Excitalking does not have, strictly speaking,
harmonies... rather, its more like a collection of 2 or 3
melodies that happen to occur simultaneously.
Very helpful, this is...

Hi Bill,

One thing up front: sometimes it is hard to tell if people have cast a piece in concrete, if it is a work-in-progress, or if it is simply in the sketch-work stage. So take my comments however you want, and don't develop the piece any further if you are happy with where it is.

{you wrote...}
>I guess youre saying that the rhythm track is too "steady" throughout. >This is interesting. Maybe the simplest "solution" would be to mute the >drums at various points, thus providing more contrast between sections. >The other solution is to compose a "new" B section with which to >alternate... I'll need to think about this.

Another approach would be to continue rhythm but thin things out, especially the backbeats. Maybe a middle section that uses something more akin to hand percussion, or just lighter, less dense elements.

>The "clarinet" sound comes from a Yamaha VL70m, though I'm not sure I play it
>much like a clarinet is played...

Thank gods.

>[Joe] You are making the (rather obvious in retrospect) observation that
>Excitalking does not have, strictly speaking, harmonies... rather, its >more like a collection of 2 or 3 melodies that happen to occur >simultaneously. Very helpful,
>this is...

Actually, I *like* it because of that. There is too much emphasis on harmonic music sometimes around here, and there is an entire world out there of simultaneous melodies (which may at times *imply* harmonic movement) as a compositional form. OTOH, one thing that *might* be cool would be a contrasting section that thins the texture, keeps the bassline, and inserts in a very background manner some very soft chordal pads, maybe a wet, vibes-like patch. To take a very grounded, groove driven ensemble and 'float' it for a while.

Again, just thoughts from the peanut gallery...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"

/makemicromusic/topicId_5625.html#5626

<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> One thing up front: sometimes it is hard to tell if people have
cast a
> piece in concrete, if it is a work-in-progress, or if it is simply
in the
> sketch-work stage. So take my comments however you want, and don't
develop
> the piece any further if you are happy with where it is.
>
> {you wrote...}
> >I guess youre saying that the rhythm track is too "steady"
throughout.
> >This is interesting. Maybe the simplest "solution" would be to
mute the
> >drums at various points, thus providing more contrast between
sections.
> >The other solution is to compose a "new" B section with which to
> >alternate... I'll need to think about this.
>
> Another approach would be to continue rhythm but thin things out,
> especially the backbeats. Maybe a middle section that uses
something more
> akin to hand percussion, or just lighter, less dense elements.
>
> >The "clarinet" sound comes from a Yamaha VL70m, though I'm not
sure I play it
> >much like a clarinet is played...
>
> Thank gods.
>
> >[Joe] You are making the (rather obvious in retrospect)
observation that
> >Excitalking does not have, strictly speaking, harmonies... rather,
its
> >more like a collection of 2 or 3 melodies that happen to occur
> >simultaneously. Very helpful,
> >this is...
>
> Actually, I *like* it because of that. There is too much emphasis
on
> harmonic music sometimes around here, and there is an entire world
out
> there of simultaneous melodies (which may at times *imply* harmonic
> movement) as a compositional form. OTOH, one thing that *might* be
cool
> would be a contrasting section that thins the texture, keeps the
bassline,
> and inserts in a very background manner some very soft chordal
pads, maybe
> a wet, vibes-like patch. To take a very grounded, groove driven
ensemble
> and 'float' it for a while.
>
> Again, just thoughts from the peanut gallery...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***Oh... just as a point of clarification:

In my original post, I was just suggesting that Bill add more
polyphonic texture in sections to create more of a sense of *form* in
line with what Jon had initially stated.

I wasn't really suggesting that *harmony* be an element, even though
I tend to use a fair amount of it in my own stuff...

I'm not sure it would necessarily be applicable or advantageous in
this particular piece...

Joe Pehrson

Bill, I *really* think your piece is quite excellent!

Keep it up. I am ever a fan of your work, compositionally and theoretically.
The alt-tuning community owes you so much....

All Best,
Aaron.

Jon Szantos wrote:

>One thing up front: sometimes it is hard to tell if people have cast a
>piece in concrete, if it is a work-in-progress, or if it is simply in
the
>sketch-work stage. So take my comments however you want, and don't
develop
>the piece any further if you are happy with where it is.

Basically I keep editing and changing until I'm perfectly happy
and the piece is utterly perfect. Then I mix down to mp3.
(This is where I am now with "excitalking".) Then I wait a while
and realize that there are lots of things that need changing.
How could I have been so foolish! I go back and redo things (sometimes
imperceptible to any one else, but often major resturcturing, adding
or deleting instruments or sections...). So the kind of feedback
that you and Rick and Joe are providing is extremely helpful...
it helps me hear things with others' ears. So - I always consider
that the piece is done and finalized, yet almost always come back and
later make changes!

>Another approach would be to continue rhythm but thin things out,
>especially the backbeats. Maybe a middle section that uses something
more
>akin to hand percussion, or just lighter, less dense elements.

To summarize this as a goal: aim for more contrast
(especially in percussion) between sections.

>>The "clarinet" sound comes from a Yamaha VL70m, though I'm not sure
I play it
>>much like a clarinet is played...

>Thank gods.

I guess this is the kind of thing that happens when you play a
"clarinet" on
a guitar (Ztar).

>>[Joe] You are making the (rather obvious in retrospect) observation that
>>Excitalking does not have, strictly speaking, harmonies... rather, its
>>more like a collection of 2 or 3 melodies that happen to occur
>>simultaneously. Very helpful,

>Actually, I *like* it because of that. There is too much emphasis on
>harmonic music sometimes around here, and there is an entire world out
>there of simultaneous melodies (which may at times *imply* harmonic
>movement) as a compositional form. OTOH, one thing that *might* be cool
>would be a contrasting section that thins the texture, keeps the
bassline,
>and inserts in a very background manner some very soft chordal pads,
maybe
>a wet, vibes-like patch. To take a very grounded, groove driven ensemble
>and 'float' it for a while.

Evocative description... when I come back to excitalking, I will try
and see if I can do some of this...

Again, thanks for feedback...

--Bill Sethares

Bill,

{you wrote...}
>Basically I keep editing and changing until I'm perfectly happy and the >piece is utterly perfect. Then I mix down to mp3. (This is where I am now >with "excitalking".) Then I wait a while and realize that there are lots >of things that need changing. How could I have been so foolish! I go back >and redo things (sometimes imperceptible to any one else, but often major >resturcturing, adding
>or deleting instruments or sections...). So the kind of feedback that you >and Rick and Joe are providing is extremely helpful... it helps me hear >things with others' ears. So - I always consider that the piece is done >and finalized, yet almost always come back and later make changes!

Great commentary - unless I happen to be actually composing music for a project/person, this is how my own stuff ends up!

>Evocative description... when I come back to excitalking, I will try and >see if I can do some of this...

Well, do what feels right to you.

>Again, thanks for feedback...

I figure I owe it to you. And you know what? It is kind of painful, because your items always do the same thing to me: makes me want to make music! And the painful part is I don't have time to do that til later this coming spring, but I promise your inspiration will hold...

Cheers,
Jon

Hi Jon!

I know how hard it is to make time for these things, I mean, I
barely had time to go over to microtonal.org and listen to what you
had up there, weeks after I downloaded it.

But I was so glad I did, and I hope you will not hesitate to make
more of this stuff available--it lives, it breathes, it moves, it's
why we do it, thank you.

As to Mr. Sethares, I can only say that his extraordinary
contributions ought to be in print, and readily available.

Cheers,

Pete

Pete,

{you wrote...}

...well, you wrote some very nice things about my stuff. I can only say thanks, and please bear in mind that when time and spirit will have a chance to convene, I'll be able to do much better than that!

As to the following:

>As to Mr. Sethares, I can only say that his extraordinary contributions >ought to be in print, and readily available.

May I suggest you check out his book, "Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale:
http://eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu/~sethares/ttss.html

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Pete,
>
> {you wrote...}
>
> ...well, you wrote some very nice things about my stuff. I can only
say
> thanks, and please bear in mind that when time and spirit will have
a
> chance to convene, I'll be able to do much better than that!
>
> As to the following:
>
> >As to Mr. Sethares, I can only say that his extraordinary
contributions
> >ought to be in print, and readily available.
>
> May I suggest you check out his book, "Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum,
Scale:
> http://eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu/~sethares/ttss.html
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

In particular, check out the *next* edition of the book, since Bill
and I are currently making some *significant* improvements . . . I'm
sure Bill will announce when the next edition will be available for
purchase . . .

-Paul

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
> <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> >
> > >As to Mr. Sethares, I can only say that his extraordinary
> contributions
> > >ought to be in print, and readily available.
> >
> > May I suggest you check out his book, "Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum,
> Scale:
> > http://eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu/~sethares/ttss.html
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jon
>
> In particular, check out the *next* edition of the book, since Bill
> and I are currently making some *significant* improvements . . . I'm
> sure Bill will announce when the next edition will be available for
> purchase . . .
>
> -Paul

Yes, and Paul is a hard task master! The next version will be a while...
I am slated to deliver the final manuscript in January, and then it will
take the publisher several months. I would estimate mid-summer for
actual availablility...

--Bill