variations on a local anomaly

I've just uploaded a new piece called "local variation" to

http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~sethares/local_variation.mp3

This began with the (adaptively tuned) "local anomaly" that some of
you
may remember -- it's semi-permanently on line at my website at

http://eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu/~sethares/mp3s/localanomaly.html

Then I did several layers of signal processing things... which result
in
the variation which is, I guess, a kind of remix of the original.

Like Andy's recent piece, it is not in any particular tuning, unless
you think that an instantaneous adaptation that slides all over the
place is
a tuning.

Comments welcome!

--Bill Sethares

Very hip and cool....I think this is great music for a weird party !!!

Love your work as always!

Best,
Aaron.

P.S. > Bill, we ought to get together for a 2 person midwestern tuning summit
sometime, since I'm in Chicago, and you are in Madison.

On Saturday 28 August 2004 06:15 pm, Bill Sethares wrote:
> I've just uploaded a new piece called "local variation" to
>
> http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~sethares/local_variation.mp3
>
> This began with the (adaptively tuned) "local anomaly" that some of
> you
> may remember -- it's semi-permanently on line at my website at
>
> http://eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu/~sethares/mp3s/localanomaly.html
>
> Then I did several layers of signal processing things... which result
> in
> the variation which is, I guess, a kind of remix of the original.
>
> Like Andy's recent piece, it is not in any particular tuning, unless
> you think that an instantaneous adaptation that slides all over the
> place is
> a tuning.
>
> Comments welcome!
>
> --Bill Sethares
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

In a message dated 8/28/04 7:16:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sethares@... writes:

I've just uploaded a new piece called "local variation" to

http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~sethares/local_variation.mp3

This began with the (adaptively tuned) "local anomaly" that some of
you
may remember -- it's semi-permanently on line at my website at

http://eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu/~sethares/mp3s/localanomaly.html

Then I did several layers of signal processing things... which result
in
the variation which is, I guess, a kind of remix of the original.

Like Andy's recent piece, it is not in any particular tuning, unless
you think that an instantaneous adaptation that slides all over the
place is
a tuning.

Comments welcome!

--Bill Sethares

That sounds good! Great breakdown in the middle there. I dig the
percussion too. Works well with "wacky" tones... sounds like something they should've
use in "I Robot".

Regards,
Andy F.

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

> I've just uploaded a new piece called "local variation" to
> http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~sethares/local_variation.mp3
//
> Then I did several layers of signal processing things...
> which result in the variation which is, I guess, a kind
> of remix of the original.

Hi Bill,

As you know, I'm a huge fan of your music. Also I seldom
give negative feedback of any kind, because there's usually
more positive feedback worth giving than I have time to
give. But I'll say that I just wasn't all that impressed
with the effects here. They didn't really sound all that
good to me, and they seemed to obscure what I liked so much
about the original version of the piece.

Sincerely,

-Carl

--- "Carl Lumma" wrote:

> As you know, I'm a huge fan of your music. Also I seldom
> give negative feedback of any kind, because there's usually
> more positive feedback worth giving than I have time to
> give. But I'll say that I just wasn't all that impressed
> with the effects here. They didn't really sound all that
> good to me, and they seemed to obscure what I liked so much
> about the original version of the piece.

Hi Carl,

I have no problem with negative comments
-- in fact, I often learn more from them than from praise
(though the latter is better for the ego).
As you saw/heard, I was trying out some
new effects and so it was the comparison between the original
"local anomaly" and the derived "local variation" that is of most
concern to me -- and this is precisely the issue you
spoke to.

At first I wasn't sure how much to say about the new one --
should I try to pass it off as a new thing? (It does
sound different, though it really is the same at heart).
By mentioning both parent-song
and child-song, though, I was hoping for a head-to-head
comparison... if I could ask for some more detail... what
is it that you hear as being obscured -- what do you
feel is lost in the local variation? Is anything gained?

Thanks!

--Bill Sethares

Hi Bill,

>At first I wasn't sure how much to say about the new one --
>should I try to pass it off as a new thing? (It does
>sound different, though it really is the same at heart).
>By mentioning both parent-song and child-song, though, I
>was hoping for a head-to-head comparison...

Ok. Thing is, I would have recognized it anyway. But
it's not just that I don't like it as well as the original,
I actually wouldn't like it even if I had never heard the
original.

>if I could ask for some more detail... what is it that
>you hear as being obscured -- what do you feel is lost
>in the local variation? Is anything gained?

I can recognize the original, with the help of your name.
But it sounds to me like a very primitive, un-pleasing
effect, which adds nothing and randomly removes large
swaths of the spectrum. In short, it takes a nice piece
of music and turns it into something which, as far as I'm
concerned, is basically noise. And I am a fan of weird
sound effects.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:

> I can recognize the original, with the help of your name.
> But it sounds to me like a very primitive, un-pleasing
> effect, which adds nothing and randomly removes large
> swaths of the spectrum. In short, it takes a nice piece
> of music and turns it into something which, as far as I'm
> concerned, is basically noise. And I am a fan of weird
> sound effects.

Yikes!

I'm not sure if this happens to everyone, but
I know that when I'm in the throes of creating, editing,
playing, revising, mixing, (etc.) a piece, I end up
listening to a piece so many times and so closely
that I can lose all perspective.
Generally, I don't notice it until I come back to a
piece several months later -- and end up wondering
what in the world I was thinking.
This is what other pairs of ears are good at -
the fresh perspective.

Anyway, my plan right now is to put that variation
idea back onto the shelf -- maybe revisit it in
a few months when I can hear things more clearly...
Thanks for the frank assessment.

--Bill

Hi Bill,

{you wrote...}
>Then I did several layers of signal processing things... which result in >the variation which is, I guess, a kind of remix of the original.

Well, I just wanted to offer a small counter-opinion to Carl's take on this. I did as you hoped, which was to contrast it with the original, and I only did that after listening to the variation.

While I don't find it as compelling as the original, I don't put it in the category of a true 'failed experiment' (nor do I think it is mere noise). And I don't necessarily think you overdid the filtering, but my first thought is that you could do a remix of the original where a couple of breaks could actually segue to the filtered version. It certainly has a gauzy texture to it, which might be a nice foil juxtaposed with some of the original (or not...) which has a lot of crunch.

I always liked "L. A.", and the basic groove reminds me of one of my favorite Cirque du Soleil pockets. When going between the two pieces, I had in mind some of the mixing techniques from one of my current favorite electonica composers, but comparisons aren't really a swell thing unless one specifically requests as much.

I'd say do three more variations and treat them all (including the original) as tracks, and then mix them live!

Or not. :)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Sethares"

/makemicromusic/topicId_7360.html#7360

<sethares@e...> wrote:
> I've just uploaded a new piece called "local variation" to
>
> http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~sethares/local_variation.mp3
>

***I like this, although it sounds like a lot of other sequenced
things I have heard over the years. On the other hand "Pentacle,"
the 5-tET piece is totally original. I've never heard anything like
it at all...

J. Pehrson

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Sethares"

/makemicromusic/topicId_7360.html#7360

<sethares@e...> wrote:
> I've just uploaded a new piece called "local variation" to
>
> http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~sethares/local_variation.mp3
>
> This began with the (adaptively tuned) "local anomaly" that some of
> you
> may remember -- it's semi-permanently on line at my website at
>
> http://eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu/~sethares/mp3s/localanomaly.html
>
> Then I did several layers of signal processing things... which
result
> in
> the variation which is, I guess, a kind of remix of the original.
>
> Like Andy's recent piece, it is not in any particular tuning, unless
> you think that an instantaneous adaptation that slides all over the
> place is
> a tuning.
>
> Comments welcome!
>
> --Bill Sethares

***Oh, I get it! I was supposed to *compare* the two... Duh!

Well, quite frankly, I prefer "Local Anomaly." Although it doesn't
sounds as "classical" in the traditional electronic music sense, it's
more original. The variation sounds like a lot of pieces I've heard
over the years.

Still, the *Pentacle* 5-tET piece is the most original and
spectacular, in my view...

J. Pehrson

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Sethares"

/makemicromusic/topicId_7360.html#7377

<sethares@e...> wrote:
> Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> > I can recognize the original, with the help of your name.
> > But it sounds to me like a very primitive, un-pleasing
> > effect, which adds nothing and randomly removes large
> > swaths of the spectrum. In short, it takes a nice piece
> > of music and turns it into something which, as far as I'm
> > concerned, is basically noise. And I am a fan of weird
> > sound effects.
>
> Yikes!
>
> I'm not sure if this happens to everyone, but
> I know that when I'm in the throes of creating, editing,
> playing, revising, mixing, (etc.) a piece, I end up
> listening to a piece so many times and so closely
> that I can lose all perspective.
> Generally, I don't notice it until I come back to a
> piece several months later -- and end up wondering
> what in the world I was thinking.
> This is what other pairs of ears are good at -
> the fresh perspective.
>
> Anyway, my plan right now is to put that variation
> idea back onto the shelf -- maybe revisit it in
> a few months when I can hear things more clearly...
> Thanks for the frank assessment.
>
> --Bill

***I certainly don't hear this new variation as "noise..." but the
timbres don't sound as distinctive as in the original and it sounds
like a lot of other electronically sequenced music I've heard.

It almost sounds as though you were trying to make the original
more "classical..." which these days is a somewhat futile effort
since our modern "classical" music these days is turning pop. Ask
Kyle Gann...

J. Pehrson