maverick@mahogany.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) (06/14/91)
To reverse the decay of comp.music into rec.music.synth.backup, Greg Sandell proposes chasing all the synth people away, and then says such researchers as he have no time to contribute. I think the latter is the real problem -- the only way to influence the tone of the newsgroup is by positive contributions. So, since we haven't had any exciting computer-music discussions lately, I'll do my feeble best to start one, with a question that I know lots of people have opinions about. What is the relevance of real sounds to computer music? Gerald Balzano took a radical position in his article "What Are Musical Pitch and Timbre?" [Music Perception 3(3), Spring 1986]: briefly, that the sensations of timbre are really a perception of the dynamic systems underlying the production of the sound, and thus that electronic music is doomed to sound "electronic", i.e. less than musical, unless we tap such dynamic systems in synthesis. I incline much more to the Jim Randall-type position that if some piece of music sounds "merely electronic", that's the fault of the composer or possibly the listener; that nothing intrinsic to "a timbre" prevents our learning to make its context make music of it. Two pieces come to mind as touchstones for my own thought on this issue -- Pauline Oliveros' (analog) piece "II of IV", which is very frankly "just" the sound of a bunch of cheap oscillators and a tape delay, and is fascinating; and Jonathan Harvey's (computer) piece "Mortuos Plango", which uses Fourier analysis of a bell sound (and less successfully, a voice) for its source material, moving intricately in the domain between convincing bell tone and compilations of sine waves. (Without computationally simulating a bell....) Okay, enough maundering. Help save comp.music -- pontificate today! Vance
dpm@hickory07.cray.com (Donald P. Maghrak) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun14.164758.23557@agate.berkeley.edu> maverick@mahogany.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) writes: >To reverse the decay of comp.music into rec.music.synth.backup, Greg >Sandell proposes chasing all the synth people away, and then says such >researchers as he have no time to contribute. I think the latter is >the real problem -- the only way to influence the tone of the newsgroup >is by positive contributions. So, since we haven't had any exciting >computer-music discussions lately, I'll do my feeble best to start one, >with a question that I know lots of people have opinions about. > Hmmm...This is getting confusing. The above paragraph implies that this is a -computer music group- (which I thought it was). I recently recieved mail from a reader of this group claiming it was a -music theory group-. If it is indeed a -computer music group-, then a broad number of topics can and do apply (among them topics of technical/hardware merit). If it is a music theory group, then topics of technical/hardware merit should be moved somewhere else. If the person who sent me mail intended to write -computer music theory- the technical/hardware discussions should probably be held to a minimum but not eliminated entirely. I have noticed the increased number of hardware specific postings. In fact I made a followup post on one and was notified that this is a music theory group. Though the subject line was on Guitar Sounds, the discussion at that point caught my attention when it shifted to tuning's and what made something sound the way it sounds. I felt that this discussion had some merit's for a computer music group. what to do? 1) rename this group comp.music.theory 2) form a new group comp.music.technical 3) use rec.music.synth for technical/hardware topics. > Vance Don Maghrak
sandell@ils.nwu.edu (Greg Sandell) (06/16/91)
In article <152033.16945@timbuk.cray.com>, dpm@hickory07.cray.com (Donald P. Maghrak) writes: > In article <1991Jun14.164758.23557@agate.berkeley.edu> maverick@mahogany.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) writes: > >To reverse the decay of comp.music into rec.music.synth.backup, Greg > >Sandell proposes chasing all the synth people away, and then says such > >researchers as he have no time to contribute. I think the latter is > > > Hmmm...This is getting confusing. The above paragraph implies that this is a > -computer music group- (which I thought it was). I recently recieved mail > from a reader of this group claiming it was a -music theory group-. If it > what to do? > > 1) rename this group comp.music.theory > 2) form a new group comp.music.technical > 3) use rec.music.synth for technical/hardware topics. > > Don Maghrak A reminder: the charter to comp.music says that it is devoted to *research* questions pertaining to the use of computers in music. (At least, this is what I posted previously, and Stephen Page did not contradict this.) I think Steve Smoliar's response and some of what I say incidental to music theory in my Timbre Perception posting discourages option no. 1. What is usually called music theory may not be inappropriate material for comp.music, but the fact is, it's hardly ever discussed here. (The guy who said that comp.music is a -music theory group- was off base.) Option no. 2 is a little better, but it still neglects to indicate the research premise of the group. How about comp.music.research to get to the point? As far as option no. 3 is concerned, I think that technical/hardware issues per se are by no means inappropriate topics for discussion on comp.music. Discussions of synthesizer system architecture, or questions about synthesis algorithms seem appropriate to me. A query about the Wavestation's MIDI System Exclusive message, however, does not...it belongs in rec.music. synth. Queries about DSP boards for Macs or SPARCs fall within the cracks between these two groups, I think, but comp.dsp is the best place to get a sound reply on that subject. It is hard to draw the line, but if the question concerns a particular commercial product exclusively, it just doesn't belong on comp.music, IMHO. -- Greg Sandell sandell@ils.nwu.edu
edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun14.164758.23557@agate.berkeley.edu> maverick@mahogany.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) writes: >What is the relevance of real sounds to computer music? Gerald Balzano >took a radical position in his article "What Are Musical Pitch and >Timbre?" [Music Perception 3(3), Spring 1986]: briefly, that the >sensations of timbre are really a perception of the dynamic systems >underlying the production of the sound, and thus that electronic music >is doomed to sound "electronic", i.e. less than musical, unless we tap >such dynamic systems in synthesis. I incline much more to the Jim >Randall-type position that if some piece of music sounds "merely >electronic", that's the fault of the composer or possibly the listener; >that nothing intrinsic to "a timbre" prevents our learning to make its >context make music of it. Why look for a simple distinction? Our perception of timbre is strongly affected by experience--both personal and evolutionary-- of those "dynamic systems" around us. But this isn't necesarily an end-point for synthesis; rather, it can be a stepping-off point. "Natural" sounds carry a lot of experiential baggage with them-- baggage that can be musically very useful (or merely distracting). One of the things that technology allows us to do is to play on these associations. As a simple example, consider simulations of room acoustics: models of reverberation can serve a role analogous to perspective in the visual arts. By playing on the listener's experience of the sonic ambiance of different spaces, we have a tool for suggesting the size and even the construction of our "environment," and even a reference point for movement within it. Never mind that this "space" might be as artificial as an Escher print, with parametric changes that defy physical law. It still can be heavily evocative of moods and associations within the listener. In my opinion, this tapping of the listener's experiences is near- essential for creating anything beyond a superficial involvement in a piece of music. (The experiences can be quite recent--even involving the same piece of music--or can go back to more primal things from commonly-experienced physical, cultural, or evolutionary events [by "evolutionary" I mean "neurobiological"].) What gets interesting for me is when the simultaneous sensations of recognition and surprise produce a new experience--one of musical pleasure. -Ed Hall edhall@rand.org
mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun14.164758.23557@agate.berkeley.edu> maverick@mahogany.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) writes: >To reverse the decay of comp.music into rec.music.synth.backup, Greg >Sandell proposes chasing all the synth people away, and then says such >researchers as he have no time to contribute. I think the latter is >the real problem -- the only way to influence the tone of the newsgroup >is by positive contributions. I think the time issue is as much as anything a matter of wading through all the synth-head postings; even junking and killing takes time. My own complaint is the spooling space absorbed on my machine, as I do not run a full news feed and I am NOT a university -- I have my own system and space is valuable, and would not like to deny myself access to comp.music research postings because a university has decided not to carry rec.music.synth (for the same reasons of space, processor and modem time that I don't carry it) resulting in synth people putting their postings on comp.music or cross-posting. It's a bugger of a problem because *someone* is going to have to give up hardware time and space, but Greg's right in that it needs to be the systems whose users are interested in rec.music.synth, not those of us who have to accept such postings second-hand in the wrong newsgroup. Those users are going to get their synth postings out on the net one way or another, so those systems will still be carrying such traffic -- they might as well give access to the right newsgroup for it. Cheers, --Mark ======================================== Mark Gresham ARTSNET Norcross, GA, USA E-mail: ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham or: artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu ========================================
mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (06/19/91)
In article <152033.16945@timbuk.cray.com> dpm@hickory07.cray.com (Donald P. Maghrak) writes: >what to do? > >1) rename this group comp.music.theory >2) form a new group comp.music.technical >3) use rec.music.synth for technical/hardware topics. Door number three. But not all. What bothers comp.music hardliners is the 'should I buy a [Brand X] or a [Brand Y] synth?' or 'I think [computer X] is better for synth sequencing than [computer Y] because [computer X] brand stuff is cool.' Technical discussions of 'are there reasonable alternatives to [transformation X] methods which produce [Y] without [Z] problems?' are probably right down the line of comp.music intent. Cheers, --Mark ======================================== Mark Gresham ARTSNET Norcross, GA, USA E-mail: ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham or: artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu ========================================
lwyse@central.bu.edu (Lonce LaMar Wyse) (06/22/91)
> maverick@mahogany.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) writes: > What is the relevance of real sounds to computer music? I think the primary relevence of real sounds to computer music is that they provide a constant reminder of how far we are from developing a set of tools for the arbitrary manipulation of sound. (Have you ever heard a good simulation of a piece of paper being crumpled?) Sure, theoretically, by adding sine waves of the appropriate amplitude, phase and frequency over time, any sound can be replicated exactly. Practically, however, this ``tool'' is not very useful. The question is really one of representation. A thought experiment: What is ``in between'' the sound of a bowed saw and ewe's bleat? It depends entirely upon how the sounds are modeled, that is, what parameters are available. If addative synthesis is the model, then ``in between'' suggests that the amplitude of each frequency be set to a value halfway between that frequency's level in the two different sounds. If the sounds are represented by an FM model, adjusting the frequencies and amplitudes of the carrier and modulator to values in between those for the two different sounds yields a very different ``in between'' sound than in the additive synthesis case. In making models of sounds for music, it is not adequate to just synthesize a given sound sound well. There is no limit to the variety of ways that any given sound can be constructed. In music, the question of how one sound relates to another is of paramount importance. The question can be answered in terms of a good model. Due to a strong bias of musicians toward notes, an incomplete understanding of how we hear, and a lack of funds, far more resources have been devoted to modeling traditional instruments than other sound sources. Kurzwiel did a great job for the piano (after intensive efforts). What we need next, is a more general understanding of how to model, and how the models we use to make the sounds for music effect how we hear and listen to it. - lonce XXX XXX Lonce Wyse | X X Center for Adaptive Systems \ | / X X Boston University \ / 111 Cummington St. Boston,MA 02215 ---- ---- X X X X "The best things in life / \ XXX XXX are emergent." / | \ |
carroll@ssc-vax (Jeff Carroll) (06/25/91)
In article <1299@artsnet.UUCP> mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) writes: >In article <152033.16945@timbuk.cray.com> dpm@hickory07.cray.com (Donald P. Maghrak) writes: >>what to do? >> >>1) rename this group comp.music.theory >>2) form a new group comp.music.technical >>3) use rec.music.synth for technical/hardware topics. > >Door number three. But not all. What bothers comp.music >hardliners is the 'should I buy a [Brand X] or a [Brand Y] >synth?' or 'I think [computer X] is better for synth sequencing than >[computer Y] because [computer X] brand stuff is cool.' > >Technical discussions of 'are there reasonable alternatives to >[transformation X] methods which produce [Y] without [Z] >problems?' are probably right down the line of comp.music intent. I was distressed by this thread when it appeared; I was afraid I'd have to go to me Friendly Neighborhood University and buy an MMus in order to be allowed to continue to read this group. "comp.music" is for the discussion of computing related to music. In order to argue that synth users should not post here, you'd have to argue that a digital synth is not a computer. Tough sledding, if you ask me. Nor am I convinced that "comp.music.theory" is properly descriptive; there are people asking apparently legitimate questions here that have to do with applications rather than theory, such as "Which scoring program should I buy?", or "How do I report a bug in program X?". I think that what you have in mind is probably better described by "comp.music.experimental" or "comp.music.academic". -- Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com
sandell@ils.nwu.edu (Greg Sandell) (06/26/91)
In article <4188@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP>, carroll@ssc-vax (Jeff Carroll) writes: > > I was distressed by this thread when it appeared; I was afraid I'd have > to go to me Friendly Neighborhood University and buy an MMus in order to > be allowed to continue to read this group. [ in summary, complains about the "keep comp.music pure" movement, makes innuendos about elitism... ] I have noticed a common thread to all the postings complaining about topics being excluded from comp.music. None of them mention rec.music.synth. Some questions: do you recognize rec.music.synth as a viable place to talk about synthesizers? Do you think that there is a reason to have a second group to talk about the same subjects? If rec.music.synth started filling up with questions about historical musicology, music education, ethnomusicology and manuscript verification, wouldn't you complain that it was getting hard to weed through all the extraneous postings? Or would you protest against any such complaints on the grounds that the arguments were petty, territorial and elite? (Not that you used these words, but someone else did.) USENET, everybody knows, provides a variety of very specific topics of interest to computer users. Specializing offshoots of groups happens all the time on USENET, as I'm sure you know, and people take the trouble to do so with a call for votes. Take a look at how many specialized groups there are for the Macintosh (I count 11). Comp.music was formed, I suspect, to handle the traffic from a certain subset of rec.music.synth posters which merited having a group of its own. So aren't its readers and contributors justified in complaining about material appear that looks just like the stuff that is available in another group? -- Greg Sandell sandell@ils.nwu.edu
edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) (06/26/91)
In article <4188@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> carroll@ssc-vax.UUCP (Jeff Carroll) writes: >"comp.music" is for the discussion of computing related to music. In order >to argue that synth users should not post here, you'd have to argue that >a digital synth is not a computer. Tough sledding, if you ask me. It's snowing in June. If a synth is always to be considered a computer, then so should be most microwave ovens. Both are appliances that happen to use computers internally. Actually, I see absolutely no reason why synth users shouldn't post questions/comments/ideas about synth algorithms, programming, and other computationally-related questions. >Nor am I convinced that "comp.music.theory" is properly descriptive; there >are people asking apparently legitimate questions here that have to >do with applications rather than theory, such as "Which scoring program >should I buy?", or "How do I report a bug in program X?". These probably should go in rec.music.synth. They seem to get better answers there, anyhow. Of course, rec.music.synth is loaded with instant experts and folks who regularly post just to see their own words written in phosphor. I unsubscribed some months ago because of the high mis-information content and frequent pissing contests. I think the original complaint was one of "Where's the beef?"--i.e. why are there no technical discussions here, or discusions on the aesthetics of computer-generated sound? I have the same feeling of despair every time I see a "Does anyone know if NoteWacker III, with All New 1/f Fractal Energizer, works on an Amiga with one disk drive?"-type question. Perhaps the question is a legitimate one, but to some of use it merely reminds us of what this group isn't, but could become: an intelligent forum on the computer as it relates to music. -Ed Hall edhall@rand.org
carroll@ssc-vax (Jeff Carroll) (06/27/91)
In article <2271@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu> sandell@ils.nwu.edu (Greg Sandell) writes: > >Some questions: do you recognize rec.music.synth as a viable place >to talk about synthesizers? Do you think that there is a reason to >have a second group to talk about the same subjects? I'm not a synth owner/user; my interest is definitely along the more traditional lines of this group. (In fact I was a research assistant at the Northwestern Computer Music Lab for a while back in the late 70's when I was at NU.) Back then we didn't have digital synthesizers. (I also spent a quarter up in the attic of the music building working on the Moog.) The only digital synthesizer I remember seeing back then was the Synclavier on display at the 1978 ICMC in Evanston. But technology marched on, and within a few years digital synthesizers were in the hands of the public. This is a success story that would be almost unparalleled in the history of technology, were it not for the simultaneous introduction of affordable microcomputers. >If rec.music.synth started filling up with questions about historical >musicology, music education, ethnomusicology and manuscript verification, >wouldn't you complain that it was getting hard to weed through all >the extraneous postings? Or would you protest against any such >complaints on the grounds that the arguments were petty, territorial and >elite? (Not that you used these words, but someone else did.) Well, no, because I don't read rec.music.synth. (I find it interesting that you made that assumption.) But I will point out that none of the topics you happened to mention belong in comp.music, either. >USENET, everybody knows, provides a variety of very specific topics >of interest to computer users. Specializing offshoots of groups happens >all the time on USENET, as I'm sure you know, and people take the trouble >to do so with a call for votes. Take a look at how many specialized >groups there are for the Macintosh (I count 11). Comp.music was >formed, I suspect, to handle the traffic from a certain subset of >rec.music.synth posters which merited having a group of its own. So >aren't its readers and contributors justified in complaining about material >appear that looks just like the stuff that is available in another >group? I suspect that comp.music was not formed that way; certainly the academic study of computer music predates the widespread availability of synthesizers. But what you are talking about is *not* computer music; it is music theory in general, and thus doesn't belong in the "comp" hierarchy. I don't know where it does belong, but not here. -- Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com
carroll@ssc-vax (Jeff Carroll) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun25.204416.12144@rand.org> edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) writes: >In article <4188@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> carroll@ssc-vax.UUCP (Jeff Carroll) writes: >>"comp.music" is for the discussion of computing related to music. In order >>to argue that synth users should not post here, you'd have to argue that >>a digital synth is not a computer. Tough sledding, if you ask me. >It's snowing in June. If a synth is always to be considered a >computer, then so should be most microwave ovens. Both are appliances >that happen to use computers internally. Microprocessors are not central to the function of a microwave oven. There are microwave ovens that *don't* have microprocessors in them. To the contrary, a digital synthesizer is *nothing but* a computer that has been customized for the purpose of making music. In other words, a product of the computer music industry. I'm starting to see snow, but it's all on my CRT :^) -- Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com
edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) (06/28/91)
In article <4208@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> carroll@ssc-vax.UUCP (Jeff Carroll) writes: >Microprocessors are not central to the function of a microwave oven. >There are microwave ovens that *don't* have microprocessors in them. > >To the contrary, a digital synthesizer is *nothing but* a computer that >has been customized for the purpose of making music. In other words, a >product of the computer music industry. There are synths which don't use computers. Some people actually prefer their sound. But I think you're missing my point. If you read the rest of my article (omitted for brevity) I think you'll see that I want *more* articles which treat synths AS COMPUTERS. What I was objecting to is articles which assume that anything about digital synths is approriate because they happen to contain computers--which makes as much sense as assuming that an article about microwave ovens will belong in the comp.* hierarchy because most microwave ovens have MPU's in them. Computer music is a multi-disciplinary field, combining acoustics, electronics, mathematics, and other academic disciplines in persuit of musical sound. It existed long before "the computer music industry" did. Much of what goes on in a commercial digital music synthesizer is based upon research and experimentation that originated in the computer music community years or even decades before. Now, I'm not trying to be exclusionary, here; I can 'n' through articles with the best of them. But I really would like to see more articles on computer music, and less on musical computers. -Ed Hall edhall@rand.org