Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Blackjack piece now online

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> My recent piece in the blackjack scale for trombone and electronics
> is now available for listening:
>
> http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/140/tuning_lab.html
>
> Of course, the "real" piece will have a live trombone. I'm still
> copying out the part now.
>
> Any commentary will be appreciated.
>
> best,
>
> _________ _______ _________
> Joseph Pehrson

Well, that certainly is microtonal!

I didn't particularly like most of the timbres used. The timbre used
for the chords through the first two-thirds of the piece sounded like
a triangle wave or some other sound with only odd partials. That
would be good for a BP piece, but . . . for "traditional" JI
harmonies, such as the ones featured in this piece, you'll get a lot
more impact using a timbre with both odd and even partials.

Then there's the "metallophone" timbre which plays microtonal
melodies, sometimes forming a weird counterpoint with the trombone
melody. The "metallophone" is quite inharmonic, subverting the JI
feel of the harmony (for me).

Those are my main criticisms. Overall, I liked the piece, though it
made me emotionally a bit uneasy (the alien forces seemed to win out
in the end). I'm proud to have created the scale in which it was
written.

🔗jpehrson@...

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_782.html#783

>
> Well, that certainly is microtonal!
>

Hi Paul!

Thanks for listening!

> I didn't particularly like most of the timbres used. The timbre
used for the chords through the first two-thirds of the piece sounded
like a triangle wave or some other sound with only odd partials.
That would be good for a BP piece, but . . . for "traditional" JI
> harmonies, such as the ones featured in this piece, you'll get a
lot more impact using a timbre with both odd and even partials.
>

I think the harmonies more toward the end have this... I agree, the
first one is mostly like a triangle wave... I'll have to experiment
more with different timbres.

The next blackjack piece is going to be *entirely* electronic, and
I'm hoping to use more of my *own* patches on that one...

> Then there's the "metallophone" timbre which plays microtonal
> melodies, sometimes forming a weird counterpoint with the trombone
> melody. The "metallophone" is quite inharmonic, subverting the JI
> feel of the harmony (for me).
>

Really??... well, you don't want it to always get "sweetie-sweet" do
you?? Just because it's the blackjack scale doesn't mean you don't
want any percussion in it! ??

> Those are my main criticisms. Overall, I liked the piece, though it
> made me emotionally a bit uneasy (the alien forces seemed to win
out in the end).

Well, it does go through quite a few moods... However, I think it
will have a different impact with a live trombone! I believe there
will be more of an "emotional grounding" with the live instrument,
but we'll see... I'm looking forward to getting a recording up as
soon as the live performance happens!

I'm proud to have created the scale in which it was
> written.

You should be! There's lots of potential here, and I've just
scratched the surface! Thanks, also, for the specific commentary...

Your idea of working with other timbres is a good one. It will lend
variety if nothing else. I'll see if I come to the same conclusions
*you* do regarding the types of timbres to use in this scale...

best
_______ ________ ______
Joseph Pehrson

🔗genewardsmith@...

🔗jpehrson@...

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗jpehrson@...

🔗genewardsmith@...

🔗Seth Austen <klezmusic@...>

🔗jpehrson@...

🔗nanom3@...

🔗jpehrson@...

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., nanom3@h... wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_782.html#796

> HI Seth
>
>
>
> It occurred to me the other day that Pluto on your midheaven means
> your music is going to be heard by a lot more people (after the
dust
> clears). Good for you!
>
> Joe I like your composition very much. I wonder what it would
sound
> like if you just used sounds you liked rather than trying to make
> them sound like real instruments (which synths really can't do
unless
> you are using very expensive sets of samples and lots of special
> techniques).
>
> Mary
>

Hi Mary!

Actually, this is quite a good commentary for me and something I have
heard before from MIDIphiles... Well, actually in *this* particular
piece I tried to stay *away* from sounds of traditional instruments,
except for the trombone, which I needed in the "demo" version.

Perhaps I didn't succeed as much as I would have liked, then, in that
department. A while ago a friend of mine made the same
criticism: "Why do you use that 'funky' clarinet sound, etc., it
sounds so hokey..."

Frankly, when I was using sounds like that, I was just taking them
as "found objects..." I really wasn't thinking of a clarinet at all,
but was just using the electronic sound as the "thing in itself."
(Germans have a fancy phrase for that that goes like 'das ding en
sich' or such like, even though that may seem a bit "off color...")
>

Well... this fellow convinced me that, *regardless* of what *I* would
happen to think, *other* people would hear the sound as a damn
clarinet... so I changed my mind about all of this.

Ultimately, the *best* solution would be to create my own patches, or
at least to modify some... I am intending to go more and more in
that direction and I can tell by your commentary you have already
been there to a degree...

thanks for the commentary!

Joe

_______ ________ ________
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗jpehrson@...

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗jpehrson@...

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_782.html#807

> Joe,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >However, with recent world events I'm a little "frozen" at the
> >moment... I hope I "snap out" of this!
>
> You aren't alone, by any means. Even being far away from the
physical site of the tragedy, I've had an enormous challenge
returning to any of the usual life activities. Many of them seem so
small and unimportant in comparison to... everything else.
>
> Stay strong, and be ready when the muse returns. In the meantime,
we're with you.
>
> Regards,
> Jon

Thanks, Jon, I appreciate your comments!

I'm sure I'll be "gearing up" again before too long... Part of the
problem is that it takes me about 5 hours per day just to keep up
with the news! It's amazing how much of it there is to read, but
it's always the same dull, repetitive, destructive stuff...

Of course, seeing the smoke from my window every day doesn't help
either...

thanks again!

By the way, Jon, where are you actually physically based??... is it
San Diego??

Joe

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗jpehrson@...

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_782.html#805

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > My recent piece in the blackjack scale for trombone and
electronics
> > is now available for listening:
> >
> > http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/140/tuning_lab.html
> >
> > Of course, the "real" piece will have a live trombone. I'm still
> > copying out the part now.
> >
> > Any commentary will be appreciated.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > _________ _______ _________
> > Joseph Pehrson
>
> It gets better with repeated listening!

Actually, Paul, the only thing you said about the piece was the fact
that the timbres weren't really "justy" enough for you, and too
inharmonic for you to appreciate the full "JI" effects...

Did you find the structure, on the overall, to be too "loose??" Just
curious... that's basically what I do, anyway, so I doubt I could or
would change that...

What did you think of the harmonies from about the middle of the
piece which were derived stricly from the blackjack lattice?

Did those "chord progressions" seem interesting to you??

________ _______ __________
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /makemicromusic/topicId_782.html#805
>
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > > My recent piece in the blackjack scale for trombone and
> electronics
> > > is now available for listening:
> > >
> > > http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/140/tuning_lab.html
> > >
> > > Of course, the "real" piece will have a live trombone. I'm
still
> > > copying out the part now.
> > >
> > > Any commentary will be appreciated.
> > >
> > > best,
> > >
> > > _________ _______ _________
> > > Joseph Pehrson
> >
> > It gets better with repeated listening!
>
>
> Actually, Paul, the only thing you said about the piece was the
fact
> that the timbres weren't really "justy" enough for you, and too
> inharmonic for you to appreciate the full "JI" effects...

Well, I certainly think you gave "justiness" less than 50% importance
in this piece, but that may have been intentional on your part.
>
> Did you find the structure, on the overall, to be too "loose??"
Just
> curious... that's basically what I do, anyway, so I doubt I could
or
> would change that...

I find the structure to be quite logical on repeated listening . . .
all sort of themes, variations, and development is taking place . . .
as with Partch or other "far-out" composers, one must first get used
to the language before one can hear these structural elements
properly . . .

> What did you think of the harmonies from about the middle of the
> piece which were derived stricly from the blackjack lattice?
>
> Did those "chord progressions" seem interesting to you??

Very much so -- I'd love to hear more music composed in this way. I
can tell you're using some of the chord types in my keyboard-pattern
charts that are not necessarily so easy to see on the lattice -- that
is good! Also, in addition to progressing by common tones, you may
wish to sometimes progress by using contrary stepwise motion . . .
not easy to see on the lattice, but should be quite easy to see on
your "colored" keyboard . . .

I asked Julie Werntz to listen to the piece and she said she
didn't "understand" the music . . . I sort of agree with her on an
emotional level . . . the "story" this piece tells is a difficult
one; perhaps it's easier to "shut it out" than to immerse oneself in
this alien world . . . I find many of the ideas in the piece quite
moving in their own ways, but I'm not sure the whole picture is
something I'm ready to face right now . . . but as you know, I'm kind
of a "pop music" guy myself . . .

🔗jpehrson@...

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_782.html#824

> >
> > Actually, Paul, the only thing you said about the piece was the
> fact that the timbres weren't really "justy" enough for you, and
too inharmonic for you to appreciate the full "JI" effects...
>

> Well, I certainly think you gave "justiness" less than 50%
importance in this piece, but that may have been intentional on your
part.

Yes, indeed... and I really was trying to pay attention to the
contrasting dissonances in the scale... which still led me to the
conclusion, on the overall, that blackjack is,
fundamentally, "sunny..."

> >
> > Did you find the structure, on the overall, to be too "loose??"
> Just curious... that's basically what I do, anyway, so I doubt I
could or would change that...
>
> I find the structure to be quite logical on repeated
listening . . .
> all sort of themes, variations, and development is taking
place . . .
> as with Partch or other "far-out" composers, one must first get
used to the language before one can hear these structural elements
> properly . . .
>

Right! You have to get into the "world..." and since it's a
continuation of my composing, in general, it's not so hard for *me.*

Well, certainly I was conscious of the structure. In many of my
pieces, it's all carefully mapped out with thematic analysis and so
forth. I was "winging it" a *bit* more with this piece, but I was
still quite conscious of the overall form and what needed to happen
to make it retain interest -- at least for *me!* :)

> > What did you think of the harmonies from about the middle of the
> > piece which were derived stricly from the blackjack lattice?
> >
> > Did those "chord progressions" seem interesting to you??
>

> Very much so -- I'd love to hear more music composed in this way. I
> can tell you're using some of the chord types in my keyboard-
pattern charts that are not necessarily so easy to see on the
lattice -- that is good!

Yes, I was using *both...*

Also, in addition to progressing by common tones, you may
> wish to sometimes progress by using contrary stepwise motion . . .
> not easy to see on the lattice, but should be quite easy to see on
> your "colored" keyboard . . .
>

Good idea...

> I asked Julie Werntz to listen to the piece and she said she
> didn't "understand" the music . . . I sort of agree with her on an
> emotional level . . . the "story" this piece tells is a difficult
> one; perhaps it's easier to "shut it out" than to immerse oneself
in this alien world . . . I find many of the ideas in the piece quite
> moving in their own ways, but I'm not sure the whole picture is
> something I'm ready to face right now . . . but as you know, I'm
kind of a "pop music" guy myself . . .

I guess I'm a little surprised by Julie Werntz reactions, since I
thought she "liked" rather abstract stuff. She's a Joe Maneri fan,
no?? I thought that stuff that he presented at Johnny Reinhard's
Microthon, which you attended, was considerably more "out there" than
anything in *this* blackjack piece!

I really appreciate the detailed commentary... it's really helpful.
I have had many different reactions to the piece. Dave Keenan, in a
private e-mail, called me a "genius." Of course, regarding his
mathematical prowess, I had previously called *him* a genius...

Most probably we are both mistaken... :)

_________ ________ ________
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> I guess I'm a little surprised by Julie Werntz reactions, since I
> thought she "liked" rather abstract stuff. She's a Joe Maneri fan,
> no?? I thought that stuff that he presented at Johnny Reinhard's
> Microthon, which you attended, was considerably more "out there"
than
> anything in *this* blackjack piece!

Well I'm sure it's largely a matter of what language you're used
to . . . though I'd encourage you to correspond with Julie as she's a
wonderful person, and having a contact at BMS should be quite
valuable to you in terms of getting 72-tET works performed . . .

> I have had many different reactions to the piece. Dave Keenan, in
a
> private e-mail, called me a "genius." Of course, regarding his
> mathematical prowess, I had previously called *him* a genius...
>
> Most probably we are both mistaken... :)

I think a wonderful collaboration of talents has taken place here and
the resulting music is that much better for it . . . I think this
demonstrates quite well the value that theorists can have, even if
they themselves don't compose one note of music . . .

Oh, in case anyone missed them, there are a couple more pieces of
mine over at Tuning Punks: "Glassic" and "Decatonic Swing" as
performed at the last Microthon -- I must apologize again for the
very poor performance, with all kinds of mistakes and omissions, on
both my part and (less so) Ara's . . . but hopefully you can get an
idea of the kinds of things you can do in 22-tET . . .

🔗jpehrson@...

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_782.html#826

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > I guess I'm a little surprised by Julie Werntz reactions, since I
> > thought she "liked" rather abstract stuff. She's a Joe Maneri
fan, no?? I thought that stuff that he presented at Johnny
Reinhard's Microthon, which you attended, was considerably more "out
there" than anything in *this* blackjack piece!
>

> Well I'm sure it's largely a matter of what language you're used
> to . . . though I'd encourage you to correspond with Julie as she's
a wonderful person, and having a contact at BMS should be quite
> valuable to you in terms of getting 72-tET works performed . . .
>

Good idea! Could you please forward her e-mail address to me...??
maybe privately would be best... I will write to her, now that she's
listened to my piece. The fact that I'm a big 72-tET fan has to mean
*something* to her, even if she doesn't care for the music! :)

>
> I think a wonderful collaboration of talents has taken place here
and the resulting music is that much better for it . . . I think this
> demonstrates quite well the value that theorists can have, even if
> they themselves don't compose one note of music . . .
>

Absolutely! And it's a good testimonial to the Internet, where we can
pool all our resources from all over the world!!!

> Oh, in case anyone missed them, there are a couple more pieces of
> mine over at Tuning Punks: "Glassic" and "Decatonic Swing" as
> performed at the last Microthon -- I must apologize again for the
> very poor performance, with all kinds of mistakes and omissions, on
> both my part and (less so) Ara's . . . but hopefully you can get an
> idea of the kinds of things you can do in 22-tET . . .

I see 4 recent pieces on the Punks. They're great. I particularly
enjoyed the one called _Erlich3..._ Was that up there before...? If
so, I missed it.

_________ _________ ______
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗jpehrson@...

🔗Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

JP,

{you wrote...}
>My recent electronic piece in "Blackjack" called _Blect_ is now online ...

Joe, you are *really* making progress! Not only have you gotten a good handle on the multi-timbral aspects of your boxes, but you are getting pretty deep into Miracle (isn't that what it is on this piece?).

I was wary at the beginning (more about that in a moment) but really liked the pyramid-style organ chords/clusters around 2:00 or so, and I REALLY liked what happened at the end! You seemed to be summing up a journey at that point, with fragments of the theme bouncing around in shorter segments, and then the fast 'mallet' part comes out of nowhere.

OK, so you're the composer, but I had a thought: at the end, you've spun out the material in a variety of ways, and during the very last part it seems to be 'cycling' in an interesting, kaleidoscopic way. And then... you end with the big smear downward (trb gliss?). Me, I think another small amount of time of that cycling material, with a gradual fade, as if the colored bits are endlessly changing-but-not-changing until you don't hear it anymore.

At least that's how it struck *me* - a bit too abrupt of an end, in this instance.

There seem to be a lot of people on the list(s) that use the 81z's and 802's - I'd like to find a good way to share sysex patch dumps! As long as we are still somewhat limited in full-kbd tuneable synths, we can make the most (music) of these old boxes. For instance, the organ that is so prominent in the beginning, a suggestion: if you stick with this traditional organ patch, with the quick attack, I would go back and tweak the start times of the notes so that you've got good attacks for the entire chord (some notes speak early or late); whether you want to straighten up, or semi-clean up the releases is more debatable. What *might* be nice is an 'organ' patch that has just a slightly gentler attack, which not only might make the chord changes less abrupt (unless you want them that way) but tends to make it sound a little less 'synthy' and a little more organic. Only the slightest edge off the attack could be musical, I think.

Then again, if you are going to have the bulk of this as the accompaniment tape for the soloist, you'll probably do some post-production on it, and I see you've gotten some good offers on the list. Even if, as you've mentioned before, that you want "focused listening" to the tuning, it is really asking for just a wee bit of air around the sounds, and I think a good engineer (even yourself, maybe, with Samplitude?) could add a bit of breath and sheen to the static sounds. You also should consider a volume control pedal, which is *so* easy to use - you can record your track, and then go back and just overlay the pedal to let the phrases ebb and flow a bit, rather than being somewhat mono-dynamic.

All that said - and, typically, I've said too much! - you have a very good piece here, and what is left is refinement, not new composition or wholesale revamping. I like it, and I like where you are going with the tunings: you've not only found some wonderful chord progressions, but I just wish I could hear them on harmonic canons! Just remember: the only people, pretty much, that are primarily listening to tunings are the microtonalists; everyone else is listening to the music, and that is a very good bottom line, IMHO.

Congrats,
Jon

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_782.html#2018

>
> Joe, you are *really* making progress! Not only have you gotten a
good handle on the multi-timbral aspects of your boxes, but you are
getting pretty deep into Miracle (isn't that what it is on this
piece?).

****Thanks so much, Jon! Yes, it's Blackjack, which is the 21-
variant of the Miracle tunings.

>
> I was wary at the beginning (more about that in a moment) but
really liked the pyramid-style organ chords/clusters around 2:00

****I believe that's where I'm playing with alterations of
the "smaller' Blackjack inflection of 33 cents.

>
> OK, so you're the composer, but I had a thought: at the end, you've
spun out the material in a variety of ways, and during the very last
part it seems to be 'cycling' in an interesting, kaleidoscopic way.
And then... you end with the big smear downward (trb gliss?). Me, I
think another small amount of time of that cycling material, with a
gradual fade, as if the colored bits are endlessly changing-but-not-
changing until you don't hear it anymore.
>
> At least that's how it struck *me* - a bit too abrupt of an end, in
this instance.

****Thanks, Jon, for your observation. In this case I wanted it to
sound a bit like someone was "pulling the plug"... but I'll think
about your alternative.

>
> There seem to be a lot of people on the list(s) that use the 81z's
and 802's

****Probably because these older boxes were actually *FULLY TUNABLE*
yes??

- I'd like to find a good way to share sysex patch dumps! As long as
> we are still somewhat limited in full-kbd tuneable synths, we can
make the most (music) of these old boxes. For instance, the organ
that is so prominent in the beginning, a suggestion: if you stick
with this traditional organ patch, with the quick attack, I would go
back and tweak the start times of the notes so that you've got good
attacks for the entire chord (some notes speak early or late);
whether you want to straighten up, or semi-clean up the releases is
more debatable. What *might* be nice is an 'organ' patch that has
just a slightly gentler attack, which not only might make the chord
changes less abrupt (unless you want them that way) but tends to make
it sound a little less 'synthy' and a little more organic. Only the
slightest edge off the attack could be musical, I think.

****Well, this is a valuable observation, Jon. Actually I used that
particular patch... 8-16-32 or something it's called (I'm not at home
at the moment) because it is the patch that has the *least* beating
of anything on the TX81Z, so I was hoping to emphasize the Just
Intonation that way... I *did* clean up some attacks here and
there. Of course too much "clensing" might make things a
bit "mechanical" sometimes, but it depends, surely.

>
> Then again, if you are going to have the bulk of this as the
accompaniment tape for the soloist, you'll probably do some post-
production on it, and I see you've gotten some good offers on the
list. Even if, as you've mentioned before, that you want "focused
listening" to the tuning, it is really asking for just a wee bit of
air around the sounds, and I think a good engineer (even yourself,
maybe, with Samplitude?) could add a bit of breath and sheen to the
static sounds.

****I think part of the problem with this, Jon, was that I really had
a misconception of "reverb." I believe I was thinking more of "In
the Boom Boom Room..."

It didn't occur to me that just a *very, tiny tiny* amount of reverb
could really enhance matters... even just barely audible. So I guess
my approach to reverb is developing the more I work with it.

Certainly _Samplitude_ could do a lot in this direction, but I think
there is even more that I can do with _Sound Forge_ now that I have a
different "conception" of reverb...

You also should consider a volume control pedal, which is *so* easy
to use - you can record your track, and then go back and just
overlay the pedal to let the phrases ebb and flow a bit, rather than
being somewhat mono-dynamic.

****This might be *very* valuable, but I'll have to figure out how to
get it to work with the 'Z...

>
> All that said - and, typically, I've said too much!

****Hardly. I really appreciate the commentary.

- you have a very good
> piece here, and what is left is refinement, not new composition or
> wholesale revamping. I like it, and I like where you are going with
the tunings: you've not only found some wonderful chord progressions,
but I just wish I could hear them on harmonic canons!

****Well, that would be fun, indeed, to write pieces for the Partch
instruments like Elizabeth Brown and Muhal Richard Abrams (who lives
in my building) did... I'd need to spend quite a bit of time with
the instruments, though, before I'd want to try that!

Just remember: the only
> people, pretty much, that are primarily listening to tunings are
the microtonalists; everyone else is listening to the music, and that
is a very good bottom line, IMHO.
>

****Absolutely! That's a point that can't be stressed too much. Oh,
I should note that there is some confusion about the Blackjack
pieces, and I've contributed to the confusion myself, since we've
been talking about two different pieces on two different lists:

_Blect_ is solely electronic. The other piece, called _Blackjack_ is
for *trombone* and electronics:

http://artists.mp3s.com/artist_song/1831/1831747.html

Thanks again, Jon, for the commentary!

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Joe,

{you wrote...}
>****Thanks so much, Jon! Yes, it's Blackjack, which is the 21-variant of >the Miracle tunings.

Yes, stupid me, it *said* Miracle right at the top of your original msg!

>****Thanks, Jon, for your observation. In this case I wanted it to sound >a bit like someone was "pulling the plug"... but I'll think about your >alternative.

Welll, in that case, and Especially since it is a stand-alone elect piece, I think your original is good. Maybe a morphing of the two ideas: the cycling starts to fade, and then the UnPlug! If you keep the effect, how about making it really dramatic? Just brainstorming here, which sure as heck doesn't happen often when people write music! Just say 'when' and I'll clam up...

>****Probably because these older boxes were actually *FULLY TUNABLE* yes??

Yep. But damn if Graham didn't remind me that the JV is tunable at the octave level, and there are certainly a number of tuning/scales with 12 notes or fewer that I would find of interest, and the sounds are much nicer. We'll see...

>****I think part of the problem with this, Jon, was that I really had a >misconception of "reverb." I believe I was thinking more of "In the Boom >Boom Room..." It didn't occur to me that just a *very, tiny tiny* amount >of reverb
>could really enhance matters... even just barely audible. So I guess my >approach to reverb is developing the more I work with it.

Yes, that is very important. No need to dump the entire box of curry powder in when a pinch is all that's needed to inflect the dish. So much to learn, huh? At least we're all in 'sharing' mode!

>****This might be *very* valuable, but I'll have to figure out how to get >it to work with the 'Z...

I forget what your master kbd is, but mine (right now) is an old DX11. There should be a jack in the back, next to wherever the sustain pedal plugs in, that accepts a FC pedal. Your kbd should (hopefully) have a setting as to what data that pedal will affect, whether it is the volume (midi volume), which is what I would use in this case, or affect the filter, or other. It may be that you could, alternately, program one of the sliders or knobs to send the volume controller (I believe it is controller #7) to do this in lieu of a foot pedal. If you want to inflect a line live (like a woodwind line, which seems more intuitive this way than with key pressure/touch) you can do it while playing; otherwise you can overlay the data on a second pass and not have to worry about playing the notes, but merely massaging the phrasing.

If this is an electronic piece, then all this tweaking is going to seriously affect your end result, as will experimenting with different patches. The great part about a midi sequence is changing patches while it is playing to see what you like...

>_Blect_ is solely electronic. The other piece, called _Blackjack_ is for >*trombone* and electronics:

Ah, yes. Sorry.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_782.html#2046

>
> >****I think part of the problem with this, Jon, was that I really
had a misconception of "reverb." I believe I was thinking more
of "In the Boom Boom Room..." It didn't occur to me that just a
*very, tiny tiny* amount of reverb could really enhance matters...
even just barely audible. So I guess my approach to reverb is
developing the more I work with it.
>
> Yes, that is very important. No need to dump the entire box of
curry powder in when a pinch is all that's needed to inflect the
dish. So much to learn, huh? At least we're all in 'sharing' mode!

#####This has been *particularly* valuable. It seems that the *idea*
of "reverb" is as much a "conception" as anything else. I think I
wanted it to do *too much!* Even when it's almost unnoticable, it
still adds *something.* I'm going to try to work with it in Sound
Forge like that for a change.

However, I have to say that "Samplitude" is a seriously cool piece of
software... like having *many* Sound Forges running simultaneously.
I'll probably spring for the $400 at some point.

>
> I forget what your master kbd is, but mine (right now) is an old
DX11. There should be a jack in the back, next to wherever the
sustain pedal plugs in, that accepts a FC pedal. Your kbd should
(hopefully) have a setting as to what data that pedal will affect,
whether it is the volume (midi volume), which is what I would use in
this case, or affect the filter, or other.

####Hmmm. Regrettably, it doesn't look like my keyboard will do
this. It has a nice sustain pedal that *works* but that's about it.
It was only $500 for a *full size* keyboard, but it has limitations,
obviously. No volume pedal is obviously one of them. It's
called "Studiologic." Pretty nice piano "touch" though...

>It may be that you could, alternately, program one of the
> sliders or knobs to send the volume controller (I believe it is
controller #7) to do this in lieu of a foot pedal.

#### It doesn't have sliders or knobs, either! :(

I'm going to have to find another way. Generally speaking, I've been
adjusting volume using different "velocities." Is that a common
approach??

Sometimes I've had trouble when changing "volume levels" in a track.
It seems to affect the *entire* track and I can't seem to figure out
how to adjust the volume as it "goes along." I can't seem to adjust
the volume "curves" in the sequencer... Dunno why. Maybe the TX81Z
doesn't respond to it in that way.

However, "velocity" I *can* adjust moment by moment, but I don't get
good crescendo or diminuendo effects. I don't think my sequencer
does that. It does a nice *accelerando* though... :)

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Joe,

{you wrote...}
>Even when it's almost unnoticable, it still adds *something.*

I agree, and it is surely an area where "less is more".

>However, I have to say that "Samplitude" is a seriously cool piece of >software... like having *many* Sound Forges running simultaneously. I'll >probably spring for the $400 at some point.

Again, agreed. I downloaded the demo and worked with it for about 30 minutes last night, very nice indeed, *especially* if one wants to mix midi and audio together. If anyone already has ProTools experience, I'd recommend their *free* ProTools version, but it is definitely not as user-friendly.

>####Hmmm. Regrettably, it doesn't look like my keyboard will do this.

I did a quick look at the StudioLogic line, and that looks to be true.

>#### It doesn't have sliders or knobs, either! :( I'm going to have to >find another way. Generally speaking, I've been adjusting volume using >different "velocities." Is that a common approach??

No, in a couple of ways. I don't know your sequencer, but most of them will let you at least alter the midi data like velocity, and at best will let you draw curves. But the 'velocity' parameter refers to not volume but is a measure of the velocity of the keystroke, and while the volume of the sound is one component, lower and higher velocities are very frequently used to change the timbre of the sounds as well, just as a loud piano strike 'sounds' different (it *is* different) than a soft piano strike.

The actual midi volume control message affects the literal volume of the output of that patch, so even if you had banged on the kbd FFF for ten bars, cause 'loud' and bright sounds to come out, if you then go back in and slowly close down a volume control foot pedal (or slider) it will gradually diminuendo, still having the bright attack that came from the velocity.

I think.

In any event, it is a good way, *in addition to good use of touch on the kbd*, to add subtleness to the phrasing, and is (I think) paramount to take 'keyboardness' out of string and woodwind parts in sequences.

There are add-on boxes that have sliders and midi outputs, but maybe you have - or someone else does - a spare midi synth or keyboard that *does* have a VC foot pedal input (it is a 1/4 inch mono jack just like the sustain pedal). You could simply put the midi cable onto that board if you wanted to go back and inflect; probably a dozen ways to get this done.

None of this is show-stopper, because you are obviously getting good work done. It's just the next logical (and musical) step.

>Sometimes I've had trouble when changing "volume levels" in a track. It >seems to affect the *entire* track and I can't seem to figure out how to >adjust the volume as it "goes along."

Yes, if you change the level it will stay there until you change it again. I'm talking about curves (like dims and crescs...).

>I can't seem to adjust the volume "curves" in the sequencer... Dunno >why. Maybe the TX81Z doesn't respond to it in that way.

It's not the TX (since obviously I can get it to happen) but your sequencer and ability to input the data in someway. What sequencer and what platform (PC/Mac) are you using? Let's ask the group, someone will know a way!

Cheers,
Jon

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_782.html#2051

> >Sometimes I've had trouble when changing "volume levels" in a
track. It seems to affect the *entire* track and I can't seem to
figure out how to adjust the volume as it "goes along."
>
> Yes, if you change the level it will stay there until you change it
again. I'm talking about curves (like dims and crescs...).
>
> >I can't seem to adjust the volume "curves" in the sequencer...
Dunno why. Maybe the TX81Z doesn't respond to it in that way.
>
> It's not the TX (since obviously I can get it to happen) but your
sequencer and ability to input the data in someway. What sequencer
and what platform (PC/Mac) are you using? Let's ask the group,
someone will know a way!
>

****GEES-US Jon! I was *entirely* wrong! It works like a charm!

(Voyetra Digital Orchestrator Pro).

All I have to do is go back in there and draw curves!

I would actually *rather* do it that way than a foot pedal, anyway!

It *does* work!

So, now I'll go back and put more "dynamics" into a new piece I'm
working on. Some people had actually commented on my lack of
dynamics before.

Why haven't I been doing this before??

I'm so glad I'm here on MakeMicroMusic!

This is the best!

Joseph

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Joe,

{you wrote...}
>****GEES-US Jon! I was *entirely* wrong! It works like a charm! (Voyetra >Digital Orchestrator Pro). All I have to do is go back in there and draw >curves!

HeyHeyHey! Now you're cookin' with gas!

>I would actually *rather* do it that way than a foot pedal, anyway!

Oh, that is absolutely a good way to do it, *especially* in a composed piece where you know just how you want things phrased and inflected. 'Draw' on your musical side, as it were.

>It *does* work!

Wonderful - I'm glad you found such a quick solution.

>So, now I'll go back and put more "dynamics" into a new piece I'm working >on. Some people had actually commented on my lack of dynamics before.

No one wants to be the bearer of such news, but you'll see that once you start tweaking these kind of pieces, you'll have a hard time coping with the ones you *hadn't* Dyno-mized(tm).

>Why haven't I been doing this before??

Hey, you've been busy learning new tunings, making Scala talk to TX, etc. It's not like you've been sitting on your thumbs...

>I'm so glad I'm here on MakeMicroMusic! This is the best!

But, Joseph, we're just getting started!

Very happily yours,
Jon

🔗monz <joemonz@...>

🔗graham@...

In-Reply-To: <a4fett+seha@...>
jpehrson2 wrote:

> ****GEES-US Jon! I was *entirely* wrong! It works like a charm!
>
> (Voyetra Digital Orchestrator Pro).
>
> All I have to do is go back in there and draw curves!

If you check the TX81Z programming manual, you'll find there are special
settings for dealing with (I think) breath control and aftertouch. If
you're happy drawing things in, these are as easy to do as volume control.
One trick is to set the LFO to alter different FM oscillators differently
as you change the setting. It's not something I've played with, as I
don't have a breath controller, but I can see it as a great way to get the
maximum expressivity out of the synthesizer.

One thing I've moved towards is getting the key velocity to control timbre
rather than volume. You can do this by turning down the velocity response
for oscillator 1. Then, you can play expressively from the keyboard and
adjust the balance using a controller.

As far as sharing patches go, I've had my standard bank available for a
long time from <http://x31eq.com/xx991203.zip>. It's a MIDI
file that resets all your user patches, so make sure you've backed up
first.

Graham

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_782.html#2061

>
> Wonderful - I'm glad you found such a quick solution.
>
> >So, now I'll go back and put more "dynamics" into a new piece I'm
working on. Some people had actually commented on my lack of
dynamics before.
>
> No one wants to be the bearer of such news,

****Hi Jon!

Well, a few people "complained" about it, but nobody, except you,
told me how to "fix" the problem! I'm glad you were so *insistent*
that it *must* be done!

but you'll see that once you
> start tweaking these kind of pieces, you'll have a hard time coping
with the ones you *hadn't* Dyno-mized(tm).

****Oh absolutely! Dynamics are, of course, a crucial part
of "traditional" composing, and it's something I've been missing.
Now my "electronic" composing is *even more* like my previous
acoustical efforts.

Of course, I'm tempted to go back and "improve" some of my earlier
pieces, and I might do that. Generally, though, and this doesn't
just apply to *this* but to *all* my work on the overall, I prefer to
go *ahead* and spend time incorporating the new things in *new*
pieces.

So, the dynamic component will certainly be enhanced, at least from
this point onward!

Thanks again!

Joseph

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., graham@m... wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_782.html#2067

> In-Reply-To: <a4fett+seha@e...>
> jpehrson2 wrote:
>
> > ****GEES-US Jon! I was *entirely* wrong! It works like a charm!
> >
> > (Voyetra Digital Orchestrator Pro).
> >
> > All I have to do is go back in there and draw curves!
>
> If you check the TX81Z programming manual, you'll find there are
special settings for dealing with (I think) breath control and
aftertouch. If you're happy drawing things in, these are as easy to
do as volume control.
> One trick is to set the LFO to alter different FM oscillators
differently as you change the setting. It's not something I've
played with, as I don't have a breath controller, but I can see it
as a great way to get the maximum expressivity out of the synthesizer.

****Thanks, Graham. Actually, I *was* reading the manual over again,
and I saw some of these options. Altering the LFO can, of course,
radically change the sound, particularly in the *pitch* domain, but
maybe it can be set in a different way, according to the parameters
you suggest. I noticed right "off the top" that I could do some
interesting "pitch bend" effects by "drawing in" so I'll probably try
that as well...

>
> One thing I've moved towards is getting the key velocity to control
timbre rather than volume. You can do this by turning down the
velocity response for oscillator 1. Then, you can play expressively
from the keyboard and adjust the balance using a controller.

***Thanks, Graham. Well, basically that's what I was doing *wrong*
since I didn't know how to control volume other than by changing key
velocity settings.

> As far as sharing patches go, I've had my standard bank available
for a long time from <http://x31eq.com/xx991203.zip>.
It's a MIDI file that resets all your user patches, so make sure
you've backed up first.
>

****Thanks, Graham. I'll "check these out..."

Joseph