Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: [tuning] Re: the sound of a distant acoustic horn...

AMiltonF!
One of the problems of doing music on a computer is that one will not develop skills like
one does on an instrument unless you see typing 80 words a minute a technique. Waiting for
computers to catch up and surpass corporeal instruments is like waiting for the second coming.
First you have to convince me that electronic music is "improving": do modern
synth./computers sound better than old moogs? many would say no and they are the youngest.
Electronic music changes and offers more control , but what you have to do to your brain to
control more is think about things that are already a given on an acoustic instrument. More
choices are not necessarily a good thing. If i go into a market maybe i really don't want to
have to decide between 17 type of canned corn. The computer is indeed a powerful tool but
power has little to do with poetic statements unless you are the type that thinks music is
just the "interaction of formal relations".
f..k this damn thing......go ahead and worship it . I am turning it off right now!!!!!!!!
I have more f..king power than any of these things :-)

AMiltonF@aol.com wrote:

>
> This is exactly what I'm talking about. The old ways are severely outdated,
> the notation system sucks and we're trying to adapt an adaptation just to
> hear something which was there from the start. What would happen if a
> programmer set out to code a music composition application and just said to
> hell with backward compatability? How would the composition process be
> implemented? What kind of music would be heard?

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

🔗M. Edward Borasky <znmeb@teleport.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kraig Grady [mailto:kraiggrady@anaphoria.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 7:27 PM
> To: tuning@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: the sound of a distant acoustic horn...
>
>
> AMiltonF!
> One of the problems of doing music on a computer is that one
> will not develop skills like
> one does on an instrument unless you see typing 80 words a
> minute a technique. Waiting for
> computers to catch up and surpass corporeal instruments is like
> waiting for the second coming.
> First you have to convince me that electronic music is
> "improving": do modern
> synth./computers sound better than old moogs? many would say no
> and they are the youngest.
> Electronic music changes and offers more control , but what you
> have to do to your brain to
> control more is think about things that are already a given on an
> acoustic instrument. More
> choices are not necessarily a good thing. If i go into a market
> maybe i really don't want to
> have to decide between 17 type of canned corn. The computer is
> indeed a powerful tool but
> power has little to do with poetic statements unless you are the
> type that thinks music is
> just the "interaction of formal relations".
> f..k this damn thing......go ahead and worship it . I am turning
> it off right now!!!!!!!!
> I have more f..king power than any of these things :-)

Thanks, Kraig!! I knew there was something I liked about you besides your
music. :-) Seriously, though, I am totally incompetent as a performer on
conventional instruments. Even when I was younger and practiced an hour or
so a day, I was never competitive as a flute player, although I enjoyed
playing in the band and playing jazz. It's been over ten years since I even
tried to play the thing; about the only performing I do these days is
karaoke, at least until the smoke in the karaoke bar gets to me and I have
to leave. If I am to make music at all, I need a computer. :-)

And you're right about most computer music not sounding appreciably better
than the old Moogs. I can tell you why that is. The paradigm used in
computer music programs is a lot like the paradigm of the Moog --
oscillators, filters, noise generators, buses, reverb units and so on. To
some extent, that is a necessary simplification to make computer music
accessible at all to musicians ... the underlying mathematics of
sampled-data systems and the mechanics of generating the sound samples are
decidedly non-trivial and something like a "patch panel" is required to
facilitate understanding.

As I said earlier, I have been studying computer music for nearly 40 years,
and I prefer to build my own tools. And I think a "music theory" for
computer music *will* emerge; I've seen hints of it in Michael Gogins'
"Silence", in the work on algorithmic composition since "ILLIAC Suite" and
in the Audio Groups work at MIT that led to the MPEG-4 Structured Audio
standard. But that's just me; I won't expect you to make computer music and
hope that no one will expect me to learn to play the Diamond Marimba :-).
--
M. Edward Borasky
mailto:znmeb@teleport.com
http://www.borasky-research.com

Cold leftover pizza: it's not just for breakfast any more!

🔗Carl Lumma <CLUMMA@NNI.COM>

Kraig,

>One of the problems of doing music on a computer is that one will not
>develop skills like one does on an instrument unless you see typing 80
>words a minute a technique.

Does that mean that using a MIDI controller with a synthesizer is not
computer music?

>First you have to convince me that electronic music is "improving": do
>modern synth./computers sound better than old moogs?

Sound better (!?), who would disagree? Even if all you want are annoying
lead timbres, modern digital synths can do everything and far more than
old analog machines could do... Not to mention timbres which are suitable
for rendering polyphonic music tastefully. The master of this with analog
machines was Wendy Carlos, and she proved that far more could be done on
modern equipment with albums like _Digital Moonscapes_! Marcus Hobbs'
_From on High_, which is one of the most important achivements in the
history of computer music, wouldn't have been possible with anything less
than Kyma, which is a very recent developement.

>Electronic music changes and offers more control, but what you have to
>do to your brain to control more is think about things that are already
>a given on an acoustic instrument.

I understand and agree with what you are saying, and I've argued this
here many times in the past. But that's a problem of controllers, not
of timbre generation. There are plenty of things to control with current
digital timbres -- all we need are sensible controllers, and these, as
I hope to prove, are not a hard thing.

>I have more f..king power than any of these things :-)

Sounds like issues to me. It probably won't comfort you to know that
you may live to see "machines" more intelligent than any human.

I've got issues too. For example, we all participate in this medium,
generally considered a type of "advanced" communication, which, the idea
often seems to go, is a very recent phenomenon, and which we are therefore
very privileged to use, living recently as we do. But what does "advanced
communication" really mean? I think it's easy to confuse the medium,
which I could see calling "advanced", with the communication, which I
consider rather primitive. I believe that humans communicate ideally in
small troops, when fed with fresh food, when basing their report for
complex work by sharing simple work like farming, when speaking face to
face, when able to spend their time communicating instead of sitting
behind the wheel of a car, when breathing fresh air...

-Carl

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>

[Carl Lumma wrote:]
>I've got issues too. For example, we all participate in this medium,
>generally considered a type of "advanced" communication, which, the
>idea often seems to go, is a very recent phenomenon, and which we are
>therefore very privileged to use, living recently as we do. But what
>does "advanced communication" really mean? I think it's easy to confuse
>the medium, which I could see calling "advanced", with the
>communication, which I consider rather primitive. I believe that humans
>communicate ideally in small troops, when fed with fresh food, when
>basing their report for complex work by sharing simple work like
>farming, when speaking face to face, when able to spend their time
>communicating instead of sitting behind the wheel of a car, when
>breathing fresh air...

Yes. I probably agree with everything on your list. Society has
evolved too quickly for our genetic expectations, and sudden rapid
advancements of knowledge and technology have been a big part of it,
with huge upsides AND downsides. We aren't quite "ready" for the
present or the future.

Luckily, our brains are already evolved to be flexible in the face of
unexpected challenges. I consider the electronic medium of the tuning
list to be very capable of exchanging ideas (feelings and thoughts) in
spite of what is missing compared to face-to-face encounters.

And I do very truly feel "privileged" not to have missed the tools we
possess today. As, I suspect, do you, whatever the challenges.

JdL

🔗Joseph Pehrson <pehrson@pubmedia.com>

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/14658

>
> Yes. I probably agree with everything on your list. Society has
> evolved too quickly for our genetic expectations, and sudden rapid
> advancements of knowledge and technology have been a big part of
it, with huge upsides AND downsides. We aren't quite "ready" for the
> present or the future.
>
> JdL

Not to get too involved in this, but please keep in mind that we
would not be conversing much with a *LOT* of the people on this list
if it weren't for the present technology.

Sure, I would be talking to Johnny Reinhard and maybe David
Beardsley, if I happened to see him in New York, and perhaps John
Link. But,I'm not going right now to Boston to talk to Paul Erlich
or Dan Stearns, not to LA right now for Kraig Grady or San Diego for
Joe Monzo, nor to Colorado for Neil Haverstick and John Starrett...
surely I'm not ocean-hopping right now to see Graham Breed in England
or going to Paris (well, not right at this instant) to see Wim
Hoogewerf or, finally, the short trip to Australia to talk to David
Keenan.

And yet, all our contacts and friends all around the world are
conversing with us EVERY DAY! And it's about a TOTALLY specialized
topic, with some of, I believe, the most knowledgable individuals.

No, no cave hut for me please, nor hunting and gathering with tom
toms by the fire. Sure, that's fun... and the emotional responses are
more "readable" -- that's why we have to be so careful in this
medium...

But, I, personally, will trade the computer screen for the grass
hut, thank you...
____________ _____ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

Carl Lumma wrote:

> Kraig,
>
> Does that mean that using a MIDI controller with a synthesizer is not
> computer music?

no of course not and with a keyboard technique can be developed. what does it say that
computers work best when they borrow "controllers" from traditional instruments

> Sound better (!?), who would disagree?

There is something about Hendrix i just can't get by. The electronic modification of acoustic
sources still sounds better to my ear than pure synth sounds.

> Even if all you want are annoying
> lead timbres, modern digital synths can do everything and far more than
> old analog machines could do... Not to mention timbres which are suitable
> for rendering polyphonic music tastefully. The master of this with analog
> machines was Wendy Carlos, and she proved that far more could be done on
> modern equipment with albums like _Digital Moonscapes_! Marcus Hobbs'
> _From on High_, which is one of the most important achivements in the
> history of computer music, wouldn't have been possible with anything less
> than Kyma, which is a very recent developement.

haven't heard his latest so can't say.

> I understand and agree with what you are saying, and I've argued this
> here many times in the past. But that's a problem of controllers, not
> of timbre generation. There are plenty of things to control with current
> digital timbres -- all we need are sensible controllers, and these, as
> I hope to prove, are not a hard thing.

you are probably right about it being controllers. Still the lack of certain controls in
acoustic instruments is what i believe makes them easier to play . you only have to do so many
choices, the others are made for you.
I can't imagine if one never heard an orchestra, that one would come up with those
combination of timbres. It is not balanced at all and this great imbalance between sections is
what inspires some good music. or did inspire. I am not sure if it hasn't reached it sunset.
It is one thing when composers grew up in a world where this was there instrument ( i don't
think this type of musical isolation exist where a composers does nothing but think and
breathe these instruments. Stravinsky might be the last true master. Not saying there hasn't
been great orchestral music since but not on this level.
Igor brings up a question of how certain can be done on electronics but might never mean
the same thing. take a flute starting low playing a set of quick note ending on a tone that is
taken up by a violin harmonic. With instruments we hear two instruments, with electronics we
have only a slight tweak of a sound. Instruments create a whole associations of very diverse
sounds associated under one personality.

But prove me wrong, I like it.

When i first started, electronics weren't even a good possibility, and at the time those
who where interested in that direction had to wait. When I first started, orchestral music
wasn't even a possibility (still isn't), and those that were interested in that direction had
to wait.
I am not Penelope waiting for Ulysses for 20 years only to end up with some blood drenched
madman standing in the living room among a pile of dead bodies. (according to Kazantzakis)
Sure he is finally here but it may not be what you expected.

>
>
> >I have more f..king power than any of these things :-)
>
> Sounds like issues to me. It probably won't comfort you to know that
> you may live to see "machines" more intelligent than any human.
>
> I've got issues too. For example, we all participate in this medium,
> generally considered a type of "advanced" communication, which, the idea
> often seems to go, is a very recent phenomenon, and which we are therefore
> very privileged to use, living recently as we do. But what does "advanced
> communication" really mean? I think it's easy to confuse the medium,
> which I could see calling "advanced", with the communication, which I
> consider rather primitive. I believe that humans communicate ideally in
> small troops, when fed with fresh food, when basing their report for
> complex work by sharing simple work like farming, when speaking face to
> face, when able to spend their time communicating instead of sitting
> behind the wheel of a car, when breathing fresh air...
>
> -Carl

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

🔗Carl Lumma <CLUMMA@NNI.COM>

>what does it say that computers work best when they borrow "controllers"
>from traditional instruments

Well... I would say the idea of a keyboard comes naturally from our
physiology, with the hands and fingers and all. It has been transplanted
across several technologies... organs, harpsichords, pianos... what's
so different about synthesizers?

>> Sound better (!?), who would disagree?
>
>There is something about Hendrix i just can't get by. The electronic
>modification of acoustic sources still sounds better to my ear than pure
>synth sounds.

Agreed. But I thought it was analog synths (like Moogs) vs. digital synths.
In that case, the modern gear must win, and win big.

>haven't heard his latest so can't say.

? Chalmers played it for me on my way up to see you in '98. You _must_
get a hold of it!

>take a flute starting low playing a set of quick note ending on a tone
>that is taken up by a violin harmonic. With instruments we hear two
>instruments, with electronics we have only a slight tweak of a sound.

For $3500 you can get a basic Kyma setup, which will enable you to
model an entire orchestra, with as many independent "instruments" as you
like.

>When i first started, electronics weren't even a good possibility, and
>at the time those who where interested in that direction had to wait.

Absolutely. Even today the sound of acoustic chamber ensembles is my
favorite. As you know, I really appreciate what you've done in this area.

But I'm starting now, and as far as the waiting goes, things are reversed.
It now costs _less_ to do a digital orchestra, in whatever tuning I like,
than it would to build and maintain even a small percussion ensemble, as
you have done... and the sound is good enough to jump for joy.

-Carl

🔗AMiltonF@aol.com

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <CLUMMA@NNI.COM>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <pehrson@pubmedia.com>

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Carl Lumma <CLUMMA@N...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/14747

> >All right, Kraig, get back to us when a computer can flick your
power switch off instead of the other way around.
>
> Bite your tongue. While I know of no reason machines would ever
want to turn us "off", we may soon have to think twice about turning
them off.
>
> -Carl

I read in the NY Times the other day (obviously the true source for
all knowledge) that robots are now capable of designing and
manufacturing OTHER robots from the "ground up."

Of course, their engineering skills are a little on the primitive
side... I believe they ended up with little moving cars, or something
of the like... but they are bound to improve...
___________ ____ __ _ _
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Paolo Valladolid <phv40@hotmail.com>

>Message: 25
> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:43:04 -0000
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <pehrson@pubmedia.com>
>Subject: robots pushing our buttons
>I read in the NY Times the other day (obviously the true source for
>all knowledge) that robots are now capable of designing and
>manufacturing OTHER robots from the "ground up."
>
>Of course, their engineering skills are a little on the primitive
>side... I believe they ended up with little moving cars, or something
>of the like... but they are bound to improve...
>___________ ____ __ _ _
>Joseph Pehrson

Down here in Central Florida, there was a recent furor raised over a "flesh-eating" robot. It turned out to be a gross misunderstanding of statements made by its creator. He designed it to "eat" sugar (you "feed" it sugar, it extracts energy from it to operate). Someone had asked him if it could "eat" meat. His reply was not at the moment, but it would not be impossible to modify the robot to do so.

Paolo
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.

🔗Carl Lumma <CLUMMA@NNI.COM>

>I read in the NY Times the other day (obviously the true source for
>all knowledge) that robots are now capable of designing and
>manufacturing OTHER robots from the "ground up."
>
>Of course, their engineering skills are a little on the primitive
>side... I believe they ended up with little moving cars, or something
>of the like... but they are bound to improve...

Do you know who did this work? Let me know off-list.

To avoid going too far OT, the interested person should check out
Kurzweil's _The age of Spiritual Machines_. I think he's wrong about
what the stuff will be like, but I think he's right that it's coming
(you can believe his particular time table as much as you believe his
data on the number of switches in various brains). For what it will be
like, do a search for Mark Tilden.

To summarize, in the future we will probably be using a wide range of
machines that make use of emergent phenomena -- everything from growing
finished goods from the molecular level (diamond is a favorite) to
thinking machines that, in my lifetime, may very well be our superiors.

-Carl