Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: TD 646: Synth controller keyboards -- how many?

In a recent Tuning Digest, "Arthur W. Green" <goshawk@crosswinds.net>
discussed the Yahama TX802 microtunable synthesizer and the question
of what controller keyboard to use with it.

> As far as a controlling keyboard, you will probably want a keyboard
> of at least 61 keyboard to have some room to play. I really wouldn't
> suggest a keyboard any smaller unless you play strictly in "step".

Hello, there, and I'd agree that a 61-note keyboard (four octaves in a
conventional mapping with 12-note octaves of one sort or another) is a
widely recommended minimum standard. As a TX802 user specializing in
medieval and Renaissance music, I may be "the exception that proves the
rule," as I'll shortly discuss.

However, I wonder if at least for some people involved in historical or
other alternative tunings, there might not be at least potentially
_two_ controller keyboard questions:

(1) How large a keyboard?;
(2) How _many_ keyboards?

Curiously, my own setup for medieval and Renaissance/Manneristic music
of Europe (say 1200-1650) involves two keyboards of 49 notes (4 octaves
each). This is in fact a quite generous range for my purposes, with
four-octave keyboards typical on Renaissance organs and harpsichords.
However, I understand that five-octave keyboards had become more usual
by the time of Bach.

While the vast majority of users playing later music may indeed want to
choose keyboards of 61 notes or more, I wonder if some of them might
find the possible advantages of _two_ such larger keyboards relevant to
their musical interests. For example, might some people prefer two
61-note keyboards to one 88-note keyboard?

An obvious advantage of two keyboards with a polyphonic and
polytimbral synthesizer such as the TX802 -- one that can produce not
only many voices but multiple timbres or "instruments" at the same
time -- is that one can map different "instruments" to each keyboard,
getting the same kind of effect as a two-manual organ. For live
performances, this kind of two-manual setup adds to the variety of
sonority and can also bring out the different melodic lines of a
contrapuntal texture, for example.

Note that this kind of setup for the TX802 is a bit different from a
usual electronic organ for two reasons. An advantage for the
synthesizer is that it typically gives a wider range of "instruments"
and registrations than a traditional two-manual electronic organ --
for example, plucked string sounds ("harpsichords," "harps," etc.).

At the same time, a potential limitation is the limit of 16 voices for
the TX802. For the early European music I play (generally no more than
four written parts), this is generally no major problem, but even here
a possible complication with lavish instrumentations combining several
timbres or "voices" is that I tend to overlap notes for brief periods.
While playing a four-part composition, I may thus actually be pressing
five or more keys at once from a MIDI point of view, possibly causing
some notes to drop out if I have not made allowance for this.

What is an occasional complication for early European music (where
"one instrument per part" is often the most attractive solution) might
be a major disappointment for someone seeking in live performance to
emulate Romantic organ registrations or orchestral sonorities, for
example.

The second advantage of two keyboards for the TX802 may be of special
interest to some alternative tuning people: the possibility of using
the "part-tuning" feature to map a tuning such as 17-note equal
temperament (17-tet) into two 12-note repeating patterns, e.g.

Db D# Gb Ab A#
Keyboard 2: C D E F G A B C
----------------------------------------
C# Eb F# G# Bb
Keyboard 1: C D E F G A B C

This is only one possible solution: for 17-tet, one could also map the
five flats to one keyboard and the five sharps to the other.

Of course, the TX802 also permits one to map 17-tet to a single
keyboard in linear fashion, with octaves repeating every 17 notes
instead of 12. However, especially for live performance, it may be
more intuitive to have two keyboards with usual repeating 12-note
patterns. Also, it can be convenient to be able to play vertical
intervals such as sixths and octaves with a single hand.

From one perspective, this kind of "part-tuning" solution is itself a
kind of kludge: wouldn't keyboards with more than 12 notes per octave,
for example with split accidentals in the Renaissance fashion, be a
more efficient solution? Two such keyboards would provide the same
polytimbral advantages (two manuals with contrasting instruments) as
two conventional 12-note keyboards.

However, if our universe of discourse is for the moment restricted to
ordinary 12-note MIDI keyboards, then the question of one 88-note keyboard
vs. two 61-note keyboards, for example, might be of some interest. Also,
the convenience of two manuals (with conventional 12-note octaves or
otherwise) for live performances with a multitimbral synthesizer such
as the TX802 might be worth mentioning.

Most respectfully,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net

🔗Arthur W. Green <goshawk@crosswinds.net>

>
> In a recent Tuning Digest, "Arthur W. Green" <goshawk@crosswinds.net>
> discussed the Yahama TX802 microtunable synthesizer and the question
> of what controller keyboard to use with it.
>
>> As far as a controlling keyboard, you will probably want a keyboard
>> of at least 61 keyboard to have some room to play. I really wouldn't
>> suggest a keyboard any smaller unless you play strictly in "step".
>
> Hello, there, and I'd agree that a 61-note keyboard (four octaves in a
> conventional mapping with 12-note octaves of one sort or another) is a
> widely recommended minimum standard. As a TX802 user specializing in
> medieval and Renaissance music, I may be "the exception that proves the
> rule," as I'll shortly discuss.
>
> However, I wonder if at least for some people involved in historical or
> other alternative tunings, there might not be at least potentially
> _two_ controller keyboard questions:
>
> (1) How large a keyboard?;
> (2) How _many_ keyboards?
>
> Curiously, my own setup for medieval and Renaissance/Manneristic music
> of Europe (say 1200-1650) involves two keyboards of 49 notes (4 octaves
> each). This is in fact a quite generous range for my purposes, with
> four-octave keyboards typical on Renaissance organs and harpsichords.
> However, I understand that five-octave keyboards had become more usual
> by the time of Bach.
>
> While the vast majority of users playing later music may indeed want to
> choose keyboards of 61 notes or more, I wonder if some of them might
> find the possible advantages of _two_ such larger keyboards relevant to
> their musical interests. For example, might some people prefer two
> 61-note keyboards to one 88-note keyboard?
>
You make a good point. I think in a LOT of cases, the use of two or more
"manuals" is too big an advantage to ignore.

> An obvious advantage of two keyboards with a polyphonic and
> polytimbral synthesizer such as the TX802 -- one that can produce not
> only many voices but multiple timbres or "instruments" at the same
> time -- is that one can map different "instruments" to each keyboard,
> getting the same kind of effect as a two-manual organ. For live
> performances, this kind of two-manual setup adds to the variety of
> sonority and can also bring out the different melodic lines of a
> contrapuntal texture, for example.
>
> Note that this kind of setup for the TX802 is a bit different from a
> usual electronic organ for two reasons. An advantage for the
> synthesizer is that it typically gives a wider range of "instruments"
> and registrations than a traditional two-manual electronic organ --
> for example, plucked string sounds ("harpsichords," "harps," etc.).
>
> At the same time, a potential limitation is the limit of 16 voices for
> the TX802. For the early European music I play (generally no more than
> four written parts), this is generally no major problem, but even here
> a possible complication with lavish instrumentations combining several
> timbres or "voices" is that I tend to overlap notes for brief periods.
> While playing a four-part composition, I may thus actually be pressing
> five or more keys at once from a MIDI point of view, possibly causing
> some notes to drop out if I have not made allowance for this.
>
Fortunately, MIDI has allowed the seamless integration of more synthesizer
modules to accomodate this. Assuming you can keep the channel assignments
separate, nothing stopping you from running one TX802 (or any MIDI
synthesizer) per keyboard to keep the polyphony limits "isolated". If one
part were to exceed the limit, it would not affect the other playing parts.
A more expensive solution, but in my opinion, the most desireable.

> What is an occasional complication for early European music (where
> "one instrument per part" is often the most attractive solution) might
> be a major disappointment for someone seeking in live performance to
> emulate Romantic organ registrations or orchestral sonorities, for
> example.
>
> The second advantage of two keyboards for the TX802 may be of special
> interest to some alternative tuning people: the possibility of using
> the "part-tuning" feature to map a tuning such as 17-note equal
> temperament (17-tet) into two 12-note repeating patterns, e.g.
>
> Db D# Gb Ab A#
> Keyboard 2: C D E F G A B C
> ----------------------------------------
> C# Eb F# G# Bb
> Keyboard 1: C D E F G A B C
>
Yes! I was thinking of something very much on this note the other day
myself. See the "Monolith" link below, this is yet another reason I think
this may be a solution if it ever comes of "fruitation" so to speak.

> This is only one possible solution: for 17-tet, one could also map the
> five flats to one keyboard and the five sharps to the other.
>
> Of course, the TX802 also permits one to map 17-tet to a single
> keyboard in linear fashion, with octaves repeating every 17 notes
> instead of 12. However, especially for live performance, it may be
> more intuitive to have two keyboards with usual repeating 12-note
> patterns. Also, it can be convenient to be able to play vertical
> intervals such as sixths and octaves with a single hand.
>
Unfortunately, this assumes your synthesizers allow full keyboard assignment
(keyboard-scaling) as opposed to merely octave assignment. A lot of what
would have been really wicked microtonal machines ended up being impeded by
the octave-scaling limitation (e.g. Kurzweil K150), but with your idea, this
obviously wouldn't really pose a big problem as you said.

>> From one perspective, this kind of "part-tuning" solution is itself a
> kind of kludge: wouldn't keyboards with more than 12 notes per octave,
> for example with split accidentals in the Renaissance fashion, be a
> more efficient solution? Two such keyboards would provide the same
> polytimbral advantages (two manuals with contrasting instruments) as
> two conventional 12-note keyboards.
>
It seems to me the answer would be a definite "yes", but perhaps I am
missing certain key points that saw to the disintegration of the old-style
in the face of the newer one.

> However, if our universe of discourse is for the moment restricted to
> ordinary 12-note MIDI keyboards, then the question of one 88-note keyboard
> vs. two 61-note keyboards, for example, might be of some interest. Also,
> the convenience of two manuals (with conventional 12-note octaves or
> otherwise) for live performances with a multitimbral synthesizer such
> as the TX802 might be worth mentioning.
>
This is precisely the reason beyond the obvious "part" advantages that I
advocate Jacob Duringer's "Monolith". I request that you would take some of
your time by checking out 'http://www.electronic-mall.com/heavenbound/', as
I think (and hope) it will tweak your interest as it did mine. The email
address appears to be dead. I have his current e-mail address somewhere if
you are interested (just can't locate it at the moment).

> Most respectfully,
>
> Margo Schulter
> mschulter@value.net
>
Take care. =)

-- Art

>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Old school buds here:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/4057/1/_/239029/_/959122831/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@egroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@egroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@egroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for the
> tuning group.
> tuning-digest@egroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@egroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
>
>

🔗pvallad1 <pvallad1@tampabay.rr.com>

Unless I missed something, the Monolith appears to be conceptually identical
to Harvey Starr's Z-Board:

http://www.catalog.com/starrlab/zboard.htm

Harvey is the same person who offers the MicroZone (a.k.a. Uath-108), designed
by Erv Wilson, mentioned on this list very recently, and apparently now
shipping. Harvey even showed me some of Erv's design documents.
Unfortunately, I did not possess the background to comprehend the material
presented therein. :) When we fooled around with a prototype MicroZone,
Harvey pointed out to me some interesting patterns (well, interesting patterns
are impossible to avoid on a honeycomb keyboard :)), at least in 12-ET. For
example, if you went in a particular direction, you get the whole-tone scale.

The direct URL to that instrument is:

http://www.catalog.com/starrlab/uzone.htm

For those of you that care, Harvey offers a polyphonic aftertouch-capable
option for both keyboards.

Paolo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur W. Green" <goshawk@crosswinds.net>
To: <tuning@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: TD 646: Synth controller keyboards -- how many?

> This is precisely the reason beyond the obvious "part" advantages that I
> advocate Jacob Duringer's "Monolith". I request that you would take some of
> your time by checking out http://www.electronic-mall.com/heavenbound/, as
> I think (and hope) it will tweak your interest as it did mine. The email
> address appears to be dead. I have his current e-mail address somewhere if
> you are interested (just can't locate it at the moment).

🔗Arthur W. Green <goshawk@crosswinds.net>

> Unless I missed something, the Monolith appears to be conceptually identical
> to Harvey Starr's Z-Board:
>
> http://www.catalog.com/starrlab/zboard.htm
>
Well, my take on the Monolith is that it is a two-dimensional piano-style
keyboard, with the keys basically sized down to the last inch or two as to
allow the keys to be placed in fifteen verticals rows of about 49 keys side
by side. In this manner, I think that while the "offset" black keys have
been "linearized", a lot of applicable piano technique can still be utilized
if viewed as separate piano keyboards stacked in vertical rows. Of course,
beyond the obvious separation by rows, and the standard use of "split"
regions, you can basically assign a XY split, creating a "grid" region for
just about any channel (hence program) or set of layers.

Now, while I may have missed something myself concerning the Z-Board, my
discussion with Margo Schulter was concerning primarily keyboards with
something roughly approximating normal piano technique (in addition to the
new dexterity required to the utilize the "extra dimension"), which I
thought the Monolith was a better solution for in this case. In this case,
while the Z-board seems to share some of the concepts in its design, it
doesn't seem anywhere near as playable. But, I could be very wrong.

> Harvey is the same person who offers the MicroZone (a.k.a. Uath-108), designed
> by Erv Wilson, mentioned on this list very recently, and apparently now
> shipping. Harvey even showed me some of Erv's design documents.
> Unfortunately, I did not possess the background to comprehend the material
> presented therein. :) When we fooled around with a prototype MicroZone,
> Harvey pointed out to me some interesting patterns (well, interesting patterns
> are impossible to avoid on a honeycomb keyboard :)), at least in 12-ET. For
> example, if you went in a particular direction, you get the whole-tone scale.
>
> The direct URL to that instrument is:
>
> http://www.catalog.com/starrlab/uzone.htm
>
> For those of you that care, Harvey offers a polyphonic aftertouch-capable
> option for both keyboards.
>
> Paolo
>
Another interesting invention, which in a lot ways probably far surpasses
the Monolith in terms of experimentation from what I can see. Something I
will give some serious thought to, since the Monolith is nowhere to be found
in production.

Although, my one concern is that while it seems certainly more playable than
the Z-Board, it seems that the kind of synthesizer "horsepower" required
(hence, the expense will far outstep the mere controller itself) steps
beyond what most synthesizers are able to provide since it seems it is
basically a purely microtonal controller (unless you want to have a lot of
redundant/useless "notes" or an odd way of dividing parts diagonally). From
a public perspective, that tends to knock things down a notch, although I
certainly think from my own perspective that this arguement is null, and
that there is a lot of merit to this instrument (thanks for showing this to
me).

It is this reason that I advocate the Monolith is that it can be utilized
with pretty much any array of arbitrary synthesizers, hence the Monolith can
be still very much be utilized for "expanded" play of "conventional" music
(in the eyes of the public) as it can to a rather extended degree for
experimental music. In short, I think that perhaps the Monolith would make
an excellent "bridge" product, that perhaps would ultimately lead up to more
extravagant and tonally interesting instruments such as the MicroZone.

What do you think?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arthur W. Green" <goshawk@crosswinds.net>
> To: <tuning@egroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 10:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: TD 646: Synth controller keyboards -- how many?
>
>
>> This is precisely the reason beyond the obvious "part" advantages that I
>> advocate Jacob Duringer's "Monolith". I request that you would take some of
>> your time by checking out http://www.electronic-mall.com/heavenbound/, as
>> I think (and hope) it will tweak your interest as it did mine. The email
>> address appears to be dead. I have his current e-mail address somewhere if
>> you are interested (just can't locate it at the moment).
>
>

🔗pvallad1 <pvallad1@tampabay.rr.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur W. Green" <goshawk@crosswinds.net>
To: <tuning@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: TD 646: Synth controller keyboards -- how many?

> Well, my take on the Monolith is that it is a two-dimensional piano-style
> keyboard, with the keys basically sized down to the last inch or two as to
> allow the keys to be placed in fifteen verticals rows of about 49 keys side
> by side. In this manner, I think that while the "offset" black keys have
> been "linearized", a lot of applicable piano technique can still be utilized
> if viewed as separate piano keyboards stacked in vertical rows. Of course,
> beyond the obvious separation by rows, and the standard use of "split"
> regions, you can basically assign a XY split, creating a "grid" region for
> just about any channel (hence program) or set of layers.

I believe Harvey hand-builds every controller he sells in his shop and I had
the impression he'd be very accommodating if you wanted one with the black and
white keys arranged in a particular manner.

> Now, while I may have missed something myself concerning the Z-Board, my
> discussion with Margo Schulter was concerning primarily keyboards with
> something roughly approximating normal piano technique (in addition to the
> new dexterity required to the utilize the "extra dimension"), which I
> thought the Monolith was a better solution for in this case. In this case,
> while the Z-board seems to share some of the concepts in its design, it
> doesn't seem anywhere near as playable. But, I could be very wrong.

The online photos make the Z-Board keys look smaller than they really are. I
found them to be quite comfortable myself. Maybe you should plan a vacation
trip to San Diego someday... and stop by Harvey's shop between trips to the
San Diego Zoo, Sea World, the Sonic Arts Gallery (where the San Diego
contingent of microtonal "crazies" hang out), the Wild Animal Park, etc. :) :)
:)

> Another interesting invention, which in a lot ways probably far surpasses
> the Monolith in terms of experimentation from what I can see. Something I
> will give some serious thought to, since the Monolith is nowhere to be found
> in production.

Yes, that's the main disadvantage I see to that instrument. The inventor is
still trying to round up investment capital to get going. Harvey's been in
business for quite a while now. It's a miracle that he's stayed in business
as long as he has, actually, because he's not exactly getting rich running
Starrlabs.

[snip]
> It is this reason that I advocate the Monolith is that it can be utilized
> with pretty much any array of arbitrary synthesizers, hence the Monolith can

As can both the Z-board and the Microzone, although it makes less sense to get
the latter if you don't hook up microtunable synths to it. :) The Microzone
page used to recommend only the Kyma/Capybara, but any microtonable synth
should work fine with it - although if you like to use the sustain pedal a lot
you may have to get multiple synths. There's also the computer soft synth
option...

> be still very much be utilized for "expanded" play of "conventional" music
> (in the eyes of the public) as it can to a rather extended degree for
> experimental music. In short, I think that perhaps the Monolith would make
> an excellent "bridge" product, that perhaps would ultimately lead up to more
> extravagant and tonally interesting instruments such as the MicroZone.
>
> What do you think?

Unfortunately, as we all know the Monolith is not available now and who knows
how long you will have to wait? Meanwhile the Z-Board is a mature product and
has even appeared on one or two Allan Holdsworth albums. A few years ago, I
wondered if it would suffer the same fate as the Buchla Thunder (there's a
better replacement available today, but I digress), but Starrlabs just keeps
on tickin' year after year.

Paolo

🔗Carl Lumma <CLUMMA@NNI.COM>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗pvallad1 <pvallad1@tampabay.rr.com>

🔗Arthur W. Green <goshawk@crosswinds.net>

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carl Lumma" <CLUMMA@NNI.COM>
> To: <tuning@egroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 11:05 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: TD 646: Synth controller keyboards -- how many?
>
>
>>> Hmm. I thought they recommended the Kyma, but maybe they were a tad
> pedantic
>>> for a "worse case" conditions as far as experimentation
>>
>> They do recommend Kyma, as the best choice for the keyboard. But last I
>> spoke with Harvey, the software was being developed for the Kurzweil K2500.
>
> I just visited the Kurweil site at http://www.kurzweilmusicsystems.com and
> found that their MSRP for the K2500 is actually _much_ higher than what
> Symbolic Sounds is asking for a Kyma/Capybara.
>
> Paolo
>

[My reply to Margo Shulter didn't seem to come up. Will resend that.]

True enough, but keep in mind that it is merely the base configuration of
the Capybara that they are providing for the amount of money you speak of.
The base configuration provides only two DSP expansion cards (four
processors) worth. While, I admit this is still pretty good, compared to
what most people might find as a more suitable "general-purpose" Kyma
system, it may fall a little short so you may find yourself shelling out
more for more I/O and DSP expansion cards.

While the MSRP of the K2500 is substantial, the actual practical price is
considerably lower. Actually, if you purchase from Germany, I have heard
from several people who have bought the K2500 (and any K2[X]00 synth for
that matter) for considerably cheaper than what you could normally find in
the US. But once again, you may find "one not enough". So, you have to
decide what kind of points you stress if you are to decide between these
two.

-- http://www.musicians-gear.com
Make sure you specify the conversion to your local currency with the
respective tax with the drop-down menu, and that should be it. While, as I
have said previously that I can't recommend anything that I have personally
never tried, I have heard from enough people who say it worked out quite
well. To my knowledge these are new units, not rejected or refurbished
stock.

Hope this was of help.

-- Art

🔗composer <ricktagawa@earthlink.net>

🔗graham@microtonal.co.uk

Arthur W. Green wrote, on Tuesday (30th May):

> > I just visited the Kurweil site at
> > http://www.kurzweilmusicsystems.com and
> > found that their MSRP for the K2500 is actually _much_ higher than
> > what
> > Symbolic Sounds is asking for a Kyma/Capybara.
> >
> > Paolo

> True enough, but keep in mind that it is merely the base configuration
> of
> the Capybara that they are providing for the amount of money you speak
> of.
> The base configuration provides only two DSP expansion cards (four
> processors) worth. While, I admit this is still pretty good, compared to
> what most people might find as a more suitable "general-purpose" Kyma
> system, it may fall a little short so you may find yourself shelling out
> more for more I/O and DSP expansion cards.

Funnily enough, my base configuration Kyma system was delivered within
hours of me first reading this. Yes, it looks pretty good, although there
are things the DSPs can't cope with. I'm still working through the
tutorial, so I don't know how this affects high-level synthesis. That's
the only thing relevant for comparison to the Kurzweil, isn't it, how well
it works as a synth?

For live work, you can probably get it so the sound quality's as good as
the PA, assuming you've got the same budget for both. And maybe some
external effects as well. For studio work, you don't have to do
everything in real time. 4 channel sound is good enough for a
synthesizer, but not a mixing desk.

Probably, the difference is that a "normal" synthesizer will have a load
of presets, to give you the popular instruments. Whereas with Kyma,
everything has to be programmed at low-level. The average musician would
probably prefer a plug-and-pray type solution, and not appreciate being
told to get a complex system like Kyma.

But I'm sure most retunable synths could be coerced to work with these
multi-channel keyboards, provided you only want to play each synth
single-timbrally (so you don't run out of channels). If the automatic
channel allocation isn't convenient, it should be easy to get a Windows PC
to convert it all. Unfortunately, in reality, Windows programs tend to
crash if you do anything unusual with them, and sometimes if you don't, so
they aren't so easy to write. You also tend to get locked into libraries
that don't work with newer compilers. But such a program is certainly
possible.

Where was I?

Oh yes, I expect the idea is that if you're spending a small fortune on a
keyboard you may as well spend a slightly larger one on a good synthesizer
as well. Not that a cheaper synth won't work at all.

I thought those ZTars looked good. They solve the poseability problem of
keyboards. I can't think of a cooler instrument to be seen on stage with.
But they do that by looking like guitars of course, and so won't be so
easy for keyboard players.

Right, that's it, I'll try and get some sleep now.

Graham

Re: TD 646: Synth controller keyboards -- how many?

🔗M. Schulter <MSCHULTER@VALUE.NET>

🔗Arthur W. Green <goshawk@crosswinds.net>

🔗pvallad1 <pvallad1@tampabay.rr.com>

🔗Arthur W. Green <goshawk@crosswinds.net>

🔗pvallad1 <pvallad1@tampabay.rr.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <CLUMMA@NNI.COM>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗pvallad1 <pvallad1@tampabay.rr.com>

🔗Arthur W. Green <goshawk@crosswinds.net>

🔗composer <ricktagawa@earthlink.net>

🔗graham@microtonal.co.uk