Communications with NI re. FM7 (was Re: Agnula and SC... (and Absynth))

Hi,

Well, it was very casual. I just used their online form to inquire about the microtonal support in FM7, in particular about whether it at least supported TX-802/DX-7II type tuning tables & resolution. I got a reply the next day from Daniel Richter , Native Instruments Online Marketing Assistant, saying that the FM7 did support microtunings to a "high resolution" and that I should try the demo.

By this time I'd found out it only supported 12 note tunings, and I'd seen that there's been previous communication between members of this list & NI regarding implementation of the MIDI Tuning Standard. So, I responded by letting him know about this and that besides considering implementing the MIDI Tuning Standard, FM7 should be able to import & implement tuning tables that exist in Yamaha's SY, DX, & TX machines, which I pointed out were still very much in use by microtonalists & others.

I also pointed him to this list & the Tuning list as places to find people who are seriously interested in this sort of thing.

Daniel replied thanking me for my input. So, the more voices that they hear asking for this kind of support, the better the chances they'll make the effort.

So, give it a shot, go to http://www.native-instruments.de & send them a message using the feedback form.

I don't think sample-playback synths are good for microtonality, which (I believe) by it's nature requires pure synthesis - FM, additive, physical modeling, analog, whatever. My perception is that it's purer from fundamental to overtones. Sounds that are born at their designated pitch behave more realistically, like actual acoustic instruments, which is a good thing if you happen to write for acoustic instruments. I'm speaking from an end-user, low-technical-speak threshold, just-want-to-turn-it-on-and-make-music point of view.

While I'm at it, just want to let any French footie fans on the list know I still have my fingers crossed. Of course the fingers on my other hand are crossed for Portugal. You never know... Ooh, Germany just made 8-0...!!!

Cheers,
Joel

On Saturday, June 1, 2002, at 10:14 , tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Communications with NI re. FM7 (was Re: Agnula and SC... (and Absynth))

Oh crap, I meant to send that to MakeMicroMusic. Why the bloody heck are there so many tuning lists ? Perhaps our numbers are now so numerous they don't fit on one list...

- Joel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Rodrigues" <joelrodrigues@mac.com>
>
> On Saturday, June 1, 2002, at 10:14 , tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> > Communications with NI re. FM7 (was Re: Agnula and SC... (and Absynth))
>
> Oh crap, I meant to send that to MakeMicroMusic. Why the bloody
> heck are there so many tuning lists ? Perhaps our numbers are
> now so numerous they don't fit on one list...

Let's start another list to discuss it!

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

On Sunday, June 2, 2002, at 12:01 , Joel Rodrigues wrote:

> On Saturday, June 1, 2002, at 10:14 , tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
>> Communications with NI re. FM7 (was Re: Agnula and SC... (and >> Absynth))
>
> Oh crap, I meant to send that to MakeMicroMusic. Why the bloody > heck are there so many tuning lists ? Perhaps our numbers are > now so numerous they don't fit on one list...
>
> - Joel

Opps, sorry if that came out wrong. Sleep deprivation. I was clearing my out box with one eye open.

I have been meaning to ask nicely though. So, why there are all these splinter groups. I really don't think threads of math, music, theory, etc. discussion should be separated.

This is especially important for anyone new to this/these lists, which is my main concern, and the reason I thought I'd speak up.

I think it's sometimes lost that outside of the tuning list(s) and other well informed communities, there is still an enormous amount of misinformation & lack of basic understanding of things microtonal.

At worst it may take all of a minute to simply scan through a tuning digest, unifying the lists may make the main tuning list about 10 to 20 kb larger everyday, which is no biggie. It's a bigger to keep track of what thread is running where & which list you're supposed to post to. Microtonalists, of all people, know nothing is black & white.

Also, Yahoo has become a pain, so how about moving everything to tuning@music.columbia.edu - the one at <http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/tuning> ?

Sincerely,
Joel

Joel, I agree with you. It seems that some are intimidated by the big list.
Some want to be with more immediate friends, or to vent, or to wax
mathematical, etc.

The difficulty is in the extended bureaucracy of managing the information.
It may reflect increasing regionalization, favorites in technology and tuning
approach, or reflect hurt feelings in what are sometimes very tough
commentary.

Regardless, an already fragmented study (microtonality) is further
fragmented. But there is less mail in the box, good for some, bad for
others. I'm not sure anything will change. However, if you want to vent,
you best go to metatuning.

:)
Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., Joel Rodrigues <joelrodrigues@m...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37154.html#37163
>
> I have been meaning to ask nicely though. So, why there are all
> these splinter groups. I really don't think threads of math,
> music, theory, etc. discussion should be separated.
>
>

***Hello Joel.

As a "newbie" here, perhaps you should be "filled in" on the detail.
The splinter lists only started about a *year* ago or so. Before
that there *was* only one list, and for many years.

Several people, including myself, were opposed to the splinter lists,
but we have been "outvoted" by the majority.

Many people did not want overly math-intensive posts on this list and
the people who *did* want them felt inhibited since there was so
much "carping" about them: hence the "Tuning Math List."

Many people really wanted to concentrate on *making microtonal music*
and felt that the present list was too "snippy," critical, and
theoretical all the time: hence the *MakeMicroMusic* list.

And many people felt that matters that do not pertain to tuning
should not be on the main list. This splitoff was actually one of
the first: *MetaTuning* list.

So, Joel, I'm afraid you're outvoted on this, as are several other
people who would prefer *one* list. So, you'll just have to try to
keep up with the three main ones, as *I* do now.

Frankly, as it turns out, I'm beginning to think the splintering
decision was right after all. Each separate community has its own
*flavor* and tends to encourage particular discussions. I guess I
didn't realize it would happen like that when I originally opposed
the "splitoffs."

best,

Joe Pehrson

Hello Joe, Johnny, and everyone else,

> As a "newbie" here,
And I'll always remain so in many ways, but I've been around since 1998. It's complicated, unnecessary, & uninteresting.

I understand what you both are saying, and I did see some of the discussion of the time the splits occurred. It's all more than a little sad though, isn't it ?

Nice to know that both of you and probably many others (there are 500+ groupies aren't there ?) share some of my naive idealism. I know the tuning list & it's many illustrious members have served an important function & has helped add to the wealth of knowledge about microtonality. But in many ways it fails miserably, and perhaps it may just as well be remarked upon that microtonality may yet succeed in becoming the norm someday, *in spite of* the tuning list.

I think it's easily demonstrable that most constructive & tangible progress in microtonality continues to take place outside the tuning list & it's direct sphere of influence.

Still, these lists remain interesting places to be, to learn in, & most importantly, to meet others who share our interests.

Regards,
Joel

My response is to scan other lists on occasion, but to post foremost to the
big list.

Johnny Reinhard