Re: Digest Number 9

>It is true that it's very difficult to make *exact* reproductions of
>many acoustic instruments using electronic means, but if one is to play
>this argument in reverse, and try to make electronic-sounding effects
>using acoustic instrumentation, the comparison is just silly. Even more
>puzzling to me is how people seem fond of the *exact* details of the
>original instrument, criticizing the electronic duplicate for not having
>some artifacts of the original which are of dubious value musically.
>
>My own rather ears, which have been informally trained on large amounts of
>techno, and can pick out electronic timbres very well, find many
>traditional instruments to be of dubious quality to begin with. For
>example, while I love the rich sound of a grand piano, smaller pianos
>sound very cheap to me. Likewise, 'classical' guitars sound very good to
>my ear, but regular 'acoustic' ones just sound like cheap knockoffs of
>their very pure-sounding and versatile electric cousins.

I am quite new to this wonderful world of microtonal scales, however I
am not new to this constant babble of acoustic vs electronic instuments.
I mean no disrespect but am just stateing my point of veiw.
To say any tone is more pure than another is rediculous. I have, for the
last year, been working in the synth manufacturing biz and at the same
time have taken up playing the Sitar. My days are spent with a K2500 and
a piece of teak. What a Sitar does the K2500 never will. There is no way
to account for room tempiture and the manner which a player sits, both
have a profound effect on the tone of the instument. The state of your
callouse for another exsample. At the same point the Sitar does not do
what the K2500 is capable of. (particularly with the KDFX)
The one thing I do find is both are equally life long persuits as
instruments. Both offer and endless array of options and ways to approach
what you are trying to create.
I choose the tone I require for what I am composeing at that time. More
often I choose an instruments whos limits I understand. (I have not been
writting for Sitar or the K2500) Those effect the manner in which I
compose. When will these silly comments about diffrent instuments
electronic and acoustic end. If some one is attracted to electronic
sounds then great. If acoustic fine, but to ever state any sound is more
"pure", or "correct" or "natural" is dumb. If you can hear it than it is
pure, correct and natural. It is a sound.
A upright piano sounds like an upright piano. Thank god it doesn't
sound like a grand. I would find that quite borring.
We build what we build with the materials we like. This is like saying
my lincon logs are better than yours. A TX81Z is a capable of haveing a
profound effect on a listener as the K2500 even though the K2500 have a
much vaster (sorry couldn't resist) array of of ways controlling the
sound. It has to with the composition and sensitivity that one uses with
there instument. Same goes for cheap and exspensive guitars, basses,
pianos, percussion ect.
Again this is not ment to get anyone in a huff, it is just my point of
veiw. Also I just joined and only caught part of this thread. Well it is
one way to say hi.
As I learn more about this meathod of organization I hope to be able to
add more to the conversation of the group. For now I have lots of reading
to do.
happy thinking
jeff cordero

Gary Morrison wrote:
=======
Let me ask you folks this question: When URLs are cited in tuning-list
messages, how many of you actually "take them up on their offer"? With a
list, you'll already have downloaded the sound and pictures, so viewing or
auditing them becomes free rather than having to go back on line and all
that. Speaking for myself in particular, I suspect that it being "free"
would more than double the percentage of such things I'd actually take
advantage of.
....
I presonally think that a newsgroup would be a great approach. Let's
hear some counterarguments.
========

I do look up URLs iff they interest me. If we want a way for everyone to
share non-ASCII resources, I think that hosting a web page (or even just an
FTP site) for sounds, diagrams, etc, is the way to go. For one thing, the
material is then automatically archived for future reference. I
definitely would *not* subscribe to a second list that might generate
megabytes of mail.

It's been ages since I read a newsgroup, and I doubt I ever will again. As
public fora, they are too easily spammed and cross-posted. Mailing lists
were invented to avoid the notorious signal/noise problems of Usenet. It
seems to me that this list is very well focused to its small & serious
audience,

> If we want a way for everyone to
> share non-ASCII resources, I think that hosting a web page (or even just an
> FTP site) for sounds, diagrams, etc, is the way to go. For one thing, the
> material is then automatically archived for future reference.

That's a good point.

How would you recommend such a thing be managed? That in the sense of how
a lot of people can add pages to a single site that (as far as I know)
inherently only one person can store files to.

< Let me ask you folks this question: When URLs are cited in tuning-list
<messages, how many of you actually "take them up on their offer"?
I always do.

John Starrett
http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~jstarret

> I always do.

Good to hear. That then might bode well for a website of auxiliary
tuning-list material.