Re: PC appeal

Thanks to everyone who responded to my appeal (TD 287.4).

[Kraig Grady, TD 287.13:]
> In relation to Midi as someone experimented extensively with the
> inversion of tetrads (4 note Chords) I found that the accumulated
> error in MIDI unusable. A system where even the Pythagorean
> pentatonics is out of tune, or the error has passed on to another
> degree, caused all forms of beating problems that I found made it
> impossible to investigate the simplest of tuning structures. When I
> can perform such operations I might join you, until then, I'm not
> going to sit around and wait

I haven't experienced problems with tuning accuracy, so I'm curious.
Also, the term "accumulated error" would seem to indicate a different
way of using MIDI to tune. I'd be glad to address the problems you've
had - would you e-mail me (jadl@idcomm.com)? If we figure out what's
happening, we can let the list know what pitfall(s) to avoid.

(Although it seems you're leaving the list for a while...)

[Jimmy Lewis and/or Olushola, TD 287.7:]
> I'm amazed at this myself, I don't understand it.

Which makes me think you might be agreeing with me...

> I'm a firm believer that people should be committed to organic
> processes. Practicing and playing an instrument for years definitely
> has a significant shaping factor that is tied to how we express our
> music; which is why it may not be possible for a musician to use a
> MIDI controller in place of an acoustic instrument. Comments?

Which seems clearly NOT to agree. I think the route of committment to
an organic instrument is great. I love playing a grand piano, for
example, but, unfortunately, that grand can't be tuned on the fly, which
is where I'm going in music, so I must use a synth and/or sound card.

> However I have found that technological tools are indispensible in
> areas related to analysis, prototyping and production.

No argument there!

[Daniel Wolf, TD 287.11:]
> I have to disagree with this appeal. Over the years, I've encountered
> list members with every sort of Mac, every version of DOS or Windows,
> at least one Amiga and one Atari, quite a few Unixers, and a growing
> number of Linux or BeOS users. Although software is sometimes
> discussed, the concerns of this list are largely platform-independent,
> if not computer-independent; indeed, many of us still work primarily
> with pencil and paper! In any case, this platform variety is a real
> part of this list's character.

I cannot disagree.

> I agree heartily that computers are wonderful tools . Calculations,
> graphics, and tables are all easy to make, and the ability to
> synthesize .WAV files in my home studio has profoundly changed the way
> in which I work, although my finished scores are still intended to be
> read by instrumentalists and singers.

No argument again.

> While I'm not yet satisfied with the Internet as a vehicle for
> transmitting recordings of music, it is an excellent way to transmit
> news, theoretical writings, technical information etc., most of that
> encodable in plain ASCII. Isn't that already a large enough task for
> this list?

.wav and even .mp3 files are large enough to be a problem, but .mid(i)
files are very small. Perhaps I should have appealed less for PC's
specifically and more for any platform capable of receiving and playing
.midi files.

> There is also a political argument to add here. The pressure to
> constantly upgrade comes at a high real cost to most users. The newer
> platform or operating system or program may include a lot of
> attractive new features, but they are seldom made with any real sense
> of economy other than the desire to convince consumers that their
> existing system is out of date. I still drive my Rayna box with an
> Atari ST without a harddrive, getting sophisticated, musical sounds
> with an operating system that fits on a single floppy, while Windows
> 98 is eating up the better part of a gigabyte on my PC.

By all means, use your existing hardware as long as it does the job!
I've got a string of now-obsolete computers, etc., etc. that I've used
to make music, and I certainly didn't let someone else's judgement that
a box was old make me stop using it!

On the other hand, the "pressure to constantly upgrade", real though it
is, is not, of course, a mandate. When I buy a computer, PC or
otherwise, my usual course is to use it with the capabilities it's got,
not to spend large amounts of money upgrading it. If, a couple or three
years later, something is available at 4 times the speed, half the
price, and capable of doing things I've always wanted to do but couldn't
afford till now, I may bite again!

Yes, Windows may take a gig, but a 10 gig hard-drive is now amazingly
CHEAP. The cost of storing Windows falls even as it gets fatter.

> Some of my favorite electronic music was composed with a minimum of
> resources -- Richard Maxfield's _Night Music_ used only a tape
> recorder and a high frequency oscillator and some Latin American
> composers have used simple bamboo instruments to simulate synthesized
> sounds. The whole Early Music movement has also demonstrated that
> advances in technology do not necessarily bring improvements in music,
> but rather that particular technologies may often be more appropriate
> to a given music.

Ok, I can't knock anyone using using simple resources to achieve vital
music. I've used basic stuff, too, but am delighted to be able to
discard the hissy medium of cassette tapes for the clean medium of
CD quality digital sound!

Nevertheless, your response is well argued and I find little to quarrel
with.

[Zhang2323, TD 287.15:]
>>... advances in technology do not necessarily bring improvements in
>> music, but rather that particular technologies may often be more
>> appropriate to a given music.
>
> WHOLE-HEARTED AGREEMENT from me...
> there is such thing as "Appropriate Technologies"
> ... ties in with the whole "Small is Beautiful"
> ethics/ aesthetics.
>
> For example, the only reasons why I seek a synthesizer that is
> capable of non12TET scales:
>
> 1) to be able to play many different sounds that
> do not exist or are unwieldy to cart around or
> to expensive for me to make or have made
>
> 2) to create wide variety of UNEQUAL Just Intonation
> scales & to be able to experiment with same w/o
> too much "techno-obsessive compulsiveness" or
> "techno-consumerism."
>

Yes, well I certainly HOPE I'm not guilty of "techno-obsessive
compulsiveness", but each one of us has to decide how much constitutes
too much. Any tool can swallow creativity if it becomes the focus.
I've been there, done that, with other kinds of "toys". But my
experience with computers is that having a fast PC enhances rather than
restricts musical expression.

JdL

[John ff, TD 290.1:]
> Some of use prefer to use other machines than PCs! There are others
> you know, and some them actually work. And yes I am a Computing
> Professional.

Sorry if I stepped on your toes. Yes, I am well aware there are many
choices, and that many offer valuable and powerful features. See my
response to Daniel Wolf, TD290.3, for more in that vein.

Does what you use allow you to receive and play .midi files? That was
the main focus of my appeal, though it may not have been clear from my
original post.

JdL

Message written at 24 Aug 1999 21:35:00 +0100
CC: tuning@onelist.com

In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.19990824070907.007acc70@idcomm.com> (jadl@idcomm.com)
References: <3.0.6.32.19990824070907.007acc70@idcomm.com>

No, my toes are still intact. My Linux machine can play MIDI files,
either through Rosegarden or through timidity, but in general I find
MIDI too restrictive for anything I want to do. I expect that teh Mac
can do something as well, and I have never bothered on the SGI. I
prefer software synthesis, as it is more flexible. But then real-time
has not interested me much.
==John ffitch

Message written at 24 Aug 1999 21:35:00 +0100
--- Copy of mail to tuning@onelist.com ---
In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.19990824070907.007acc70@idcomm.com> (jadl@idcomm.com)
References: <3.0.6.32.19990824070907.007acc70@idcomm.com>

No, my toes are still intact. My Linux machine can play MIDI files,
either through Rosegarden or through timidity, but in general I find
MIDI too restrictive for anything I want to do. I expect that teh Mac
can do something as well, and I have never bothered on the SGI. I
prefer software synthesis, as it is more flexible. But then real-time
has not interested me much.
==John ffitch

[John ffitch, TD 293.2:]
> No, my toes are still intact. My Linux machine can play MIDI files,
> either through Rosegarden or through timidity, but in general I find
> MIDI too restrictive for anything I want to do. I expect that teh Mac
> can do something as well, and I have never bothered on the SGI. I
> prefer software synthesis, as it is more flexible. But then real-time
> has not interested me much.

Hmmm, I see from past posts that you use Csound. I've been meaning to
give that a try - it seems several list members use it (did you write
it? Your name seems close to it...). MIDI is, of course, no good for
many types of music, including singing for starters. But it's compact
and fully tuneable (at least using pitch bends and channel separation,
it is...), and is a great medium for what I'm working on at the moment
(Project Retune, TD 291.18, as well as my own keyboard music).

BTW, I used Unix for many years, and still use MKS Toolkit (Unix-like
commands) on the PC. Moving from 32-bit Unix to the PC professionally
in 1994, when 16-bit compilers were still the norm, I griped loudly and
long about 64K crunches. Now, at last, the 32-bit world has (almost!)
come to PC's running Windows. Halla-flogging-leulia!

What do you think of Red Hat Linux, or what Linux do you use, and what
hardware?

JdL

Message written at 4 Sep 1999 12:56:33 +0100

>>>>> "John" == John A deLaubenfels <jadl@idcomm.com> writes:

John> Hmmm, I see from past posts that you use Csound. I've been meaning to
John> give that a try - it seems several list members use it (did you write
John> it? Your name seems close to it...).

It was written by Barry Vercoe of MIT. I have however maintained it
for a number of years, rewriting, extending, fixing, adding
bugs.... the usual stuff.

John> MIDI is, of course, no good for
John> many types of music, including singing for starters. But it's compact
John> and fully tuneable (at least using pitch bends and channel separation,
John> it is...), and is a great medium for what I'm working on at the moment
John> (Project Retune, TD 291.18, as well as my own keyboard music).

I have never found MIDI easy to use, and less so to tune. Csound is
much more flexible in that. It does however require thought about the
sounds themselves.

John> BTW, I used Unix for many years, and still use MKS Toolkit (Unix-like
John> commands) on the PC. Moving from 32-bit Unix to the PC professionally
John> in 1994, when 16-bit compilers were still the norm, I griped loudly and
John> long about 64K crunches. Now, at last, the 32-bit world has (almost!)
John> come to PC's running Windows. Halla-flogging-leulia!

I am a newcomer to unix, having started about 1983, when I introduced
the first Unix machine (PDP11/45) to the university as a teaching
machine. I use Windows to prepare software, but not to develop it.

John> What do you think of Red Hat Linux, or what Linux do you use, and what
John> hardware?

I am using Debian for no particular reason. I did install a RedHat
system for a friend in Massachusetts last year, and found the disk
partitioning stuff horrid -- I gave up and did it with low-level
tools. At present linux is on a 266MHz gateway PC, but all being well
I will get a 500MHz machine in a few days, and then that will be teh
Linux m/c, and the 266 will be the W95 machine. Leaves an older
machine off the bottom....

I actually still use SGI/Irix4 for development as I find it easier to
use, and has so much better sound. But it is not Y2K compliant.

==John ff