Composing with the Computer
Michael Dulaney
orchestral instruments using just Cakewalk? A friend of mine at one point
told me a MIDI keyboard was needed. Is he right? If so, why?
Mike
dana
However, samples can sound better.
dana
Gary Shannon
sound card, an external keyboard/synthesizer, or a software
sampler/synthesizer. If you have a computer it most likely has a sound
card, but the quality of midi sounds on sound cards can vary from absolutely
horrible to moderately horrible.
--gary
"Michael Dulaney" <dul...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:9o5ftj$njf$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu...
Sharon
Well if you use Cakewalk then I would say that a midi keyboard would be
essential. However I would suggest using a sequencing program such as
Noteworthy or such. Save as a midi and then at that point you can
either bring it up in cakewalk to mess with it if you want or simply
record it as and mp3.
just my 2 cents :)
Sharon
KiJJaZ
>
>Is it possible to compose classical music and get the timbre of all the
>orchestral instruments using just Cakewalk? A friend of mine at one point
>told me a MIDI keyboard was needed. Is he right? If so, why?
Lo,
I think it is possible, coz sometimes I apply several classical instruments
(Keyboard Generated) to my composition. I use my Keyboard: Roland XP30 to play
those sounds. The only software I am using is CakeWalk.
If you can get a nice sound module or keyboard (for classical instrus, I
recommend Roland's), you can sometimes create great classical effects.
(Oh, sometimes adding more reverb or reverb time will make the sound of a
classical section more like reality, in my opinion.)
---> KiJJaZ! Instrumentalism
iDeaQuest
> orchestral instruments using just Cakewalk?
Yes.
> A friend of mine at one point
> told me a MIDI keyboard was needed. Is he right? If so, why?
Yes & No.
No because a MIDI keyboard is not absolutely needed. You could enter each
note using the mouse. It is tedious but could be done.
Yes because a MIDI keyboard would simplify the input process.
TIP - use a sound card that supports WAVE FONT (Wave Synthesis) instead of
just FM Synthesis. WAVE FONTS are pre-recorded sampling of real instruments
and makes the simulated instrument more authentic. This is important as a
rich and full sound will inspire you to perform better at your composition.
:o)
Gary Shannon
"iDeaQuest" <idea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9o6ci9$1rb$1...@newton3.pacific.net.sg...
>
> Michael Dulaney <dul...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
> news:9o5ftj$njf$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu...
> > Is it possible to compose classical music and get the timbre of all the
> > orchestral instruments using just Cakewalk?
<snip>
>
> TIP - use a sound card that supports WAVE FONT (Wave Synthesis) instead of
> just FM Synthesis. WAVE FONTS are pre-recorded sampling of real
instruments
> and makes the simulated instrument more authentic. This is important as a
> rich and full sound will inspire you to perform better at your
composition.
Or a software sampler like GigaSampler, which produces AWESOMELY realistic
sounds (if you get the right sample disks) Here's an mp3 of the solo string
sounds as an example:
http://www.nemesysmusic.com/sounds/mp3/DanDean_Strings.mp3
or check out http://www.nemesysmusic.com/ for many more samples of sound
from this synth. BTW: It works with any sound card, although there are some
advanced features that require better sound cards.
--gary
Jarl Sigurd
Michael Dulaney wrote
>orchestral instruments using just Cakewalk? A friend of mine at one point
>told me a MIDI keyboard was needed. Is he right? If so, why?
Actually a MIDI guitar works much better than a keyboard.
Just checkout the realist orchestral sounds I acheive with
my classical guitar concerto which is posted at:
http://www.ampcast.com/JarlSigurd
Jarl Sigurd
to listen to a symphony also composed by Jarl Sigurd, visit
http://www.ampcast.com/search/band.php?id=9098
Big Boots
===
In fact, neither is necessary. Composing is primarily a matter of creativity
and knowledge. However, how do you express all this? Personnaly I only use
the computer keyboard and a powerful but cheap program called Harmony
Assistant. The instrument you use for input has nothing to do with the sound
you will get. This sound must first be in your mind, be written down with a
piece of software and then come out through a sound producing device such as
a sound module or sound card. The quality of this device will have a direct
impact on what you will hear on the computer, whatever mean you used for
input. But the orchestra and the conductor that will play it will determine
the way others hear it and it will be different every time depending on how
each one of them will see it and play it. To learn more about the program I
use, see it and try its shareware ($15) version called Melody Assistant at
the following URL:
http://www.myriad-online.com/enindex.htm
To hear examples of music for a full classical orchestra I wrote using only
my computer keaboard as well as other pieces or songs I wrote the same way,
follow the link below. You will need a plug-in in order to do so and all the
instructions are given on my page as well as the Myriad's page. This plug-in
will allow you to see the score unflod as it plays, you can transpose the
music if you want, slow it down or speed it up, zoom in and out, print it,
save it and follow the lyrics if there are some. You can also hear your
computer sing my songs with the proper module installed (demo of it on
Myriad's site, it is called VirtualSinger). Unlike others I know of, I don't
pretend I'm a great composer, but I have a lot of fun doing it
http://pages.infinit.net/azza/
ln
Knudsen
computer to have at least 128 MB of RAM. The Live! Lets you use your computers
RAM to store samples. The quality of the soundfonts out there varies highly,
and there aren't any good string sections...
WAIT! YES THERE ARE! That's right, I have just completed a 57 MB orchestral
soundfont, 90% BRAND NEW samples, awesome string sections with various playing
techinques (spiccato, marcato, legato, bowed, slurred, pizz, etc) all
selectable via velocity switching.,.. THATS RIGHT! this soundfont doesnt use
velocity to determine dynamics. It only uses velocity to switch playing
techniques (for example, sharp fanfare trumpet, or smooth, rich trumpet. All
selectable via velocity). So you must rely on MIDI volume control messages
which is ideal anyway because orchestral instruments CAN and DO produce dynamic
swells constantly.
---
http://www.poshy.ipfox.com
Order your Poshy CD today! Samples of all tracks on the site!
The 2nd alt.music.4-track compilation 2-CD set
"GEAR ADDICTS ANONYMOUS"
is available for order. Check it out: http://xpub.com/AM4T/
Knudsen
>sounds (if you get the right sample disks) Here's an mp3 of the solo string
>sounds as an example:
>http://www.nemesysmusic.com/sounds/mp3/DanDean_Strings.mp3
>or check out http://www.nemesysmusic.com/ for many more samples of sound
>from this synth. BTW: It works with any sound card, although there are some
>advanced features that require better sound cards.
>
>--gary
Gigasampler is great, but its friggin expensive, then on top of that you
need to shell out a few grand for decent orchestral sample sets...
Gary Shannon
"Jarl Sigurd" <jarls...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:Cf2q7.61080$TW.3...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
>
> Michael Dulaney wrote
> >Is it possible to compose classical music and get the timbre of all the
> >orchestral instruments using just Cakewalk? A friend of mine at one
point
> >told me a MIDI keyboard was needed. Is he right? If so, why?
>
> Actually a MIDI guitar works much better than a keyboard.
<snip>
That's a matter of personal taste and musical training. I've played
keyboards for over 50 years and never picked up a guitar. A midi guitar
would be a complete waste of time for me to try to use. Your claim that it
is "better", therefore, is ill founded.
--gary
HellPope Huey
I'd say guitar has an honest edge in expressiveness due to its nature. I
LOVE synths, but let's be sonically honest: the advantage there is
numerous pitches available at once, as with odd chord clusters you can't
manage on a woodwind, unless you can chord-latch a WX7 like a mofo!
I'd say the ascendancy for true fluidity would be human voice,
woodwinds/sax and violin nose-to-nose, guitar and THEN keyboards.
Pitch-benders, pressure sensing and pedals are muy bueno & all; let's just
be objective and be honest about the pluses and minuses. There's no
"best," but there IS "best for ME" and "best for THIS particular job."
Clarity minus excessive bias equals the most engaging final result, I
think.
Remember, Conlon Nancarrow rocked by punching PLAYER PIANO ROLLS by HAND!
HellPope Huey, hellpo...@subgenius.com
Who put all the DUMBASS in the water?
"I'd say I was a well-wisher...
...in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
- Moe, "The Simpsons"
"America has not always been kind
to its artists and scholars.
Somehow the scientists always seem
to get the penthouse
while the arts and humanities get the basement."
- Lyndon Baines Johnson
"One alligator, one chicken,
one satisfied audience."
- "Frasier"
jim dorey
HellPope Huey wrote:
> I'd say guitar has an honest edge in expressiveness due to its nature. I
> LOVE synths, but let's be sonically honest: the advantage there is
> numerous pitches available at once, as with odd chord clusters you can't
> manage on a woodwind, unless you can chord-latch a WX7 like a mofo!
>
> I'd say the ascendancy for true fluidity would be human voice,
> woodwinds/sax and violin nose-to-nose, guitar and THEN keyboards.
> Pitch-benders, pressure sensing and pedals are muy bueno & all; let's just
> be objective and be honest about the pluses and minuses. There's no
> "best," but there IS "best for ME" and "best for THIS particular job."
> Clarity minus excessive bias equals the most engaging final result, I
> think.
> Remember, Conlon Nancarrow rocked by punching PLAYER PIANO ROLLS by HAND!
--
www.skaar.101main.net from 20:00 to 7:30 AST, ask for free access to the hidden
directories, may be full time soon
www.geocities.com/skaar0 for the full time version, i put the newest stuff on my
home site
moderator of doper...@yahoogroups.com
DOM and proud!!!
HellPope Huey
> anybody ever tell you that you dance like a politician.
No, but I've been told I play like a demon, fuck like a beast, write like
a scholar and smell like a goat.
Sometimes those things have maybe even been true.
Naw, I still stand by what I said. Aside from combatting yer own
tech-ignorance until you can get where you most want to go, the biggest
obstacle I see in the group is too strong a bias/"loyalty" for one device,
practice or another against the much easier path of just drinking it in. A
guitar string IS more immediately expressive in a physical sense than the
pressing of a key into a contact switch or buss bar, but arguing over it
is sophistry. The day you've really arrived is the one on which you accept
that one instrument can produce crap as easily as another. Avoid crap as
much as possible and VOILA, the rest comes more easily.
Now if we can agree on a consistent definition of what CONSTITUTES crap,
THEN the League of Advanced Worlds will finally come down and give us the
cure for rap.
HellPope Huey, hellpo...@subgenius.com
Actual Excerpts From Student Science Exam Papers:
"The hookworm larvae enters the human body
through the soul."
Yeah, I've noticed that.
"Spot does not respond to verbal commands."
- "Star Trek TNG"
"Looks like pee, tastes like crap!"
- "The Oblongs"
You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture.
Just get people to stop reading them.
- Ray Bradbury
jim dorey
equipment gives the best chance of getting what is wanted, even if you want it
to sound like crap. ooh, the turnips are tingling, i think they like the cool
air on their wings. only thing i have to work out is how to get midi from a
homebuilt guitar, but anyways, i have lots of practice to get my guitar playing
beyond BaD punk type stuff, like, i wanna cover dig up her bones as a latin
opera. rebuilding my old comp as an audio work station should be fun. my last
homebuilt keyboard is gone, it wasn't velocity sensitive, my new one is shaping
up to be something really interesting. now time for some more black diamond and
coffee. tastes great, i only tasted espresso once, ick, but this brings back
memories of it, without wanting to spit for a few hours.
nope, 36 hours awake has finally hit, coffee always makes me sleepy, i hear
it keeps some people awake, the only thing about coffee that keeps me awake is
the caffeine makes me wanna whiz a bit more often, wakes me up, if it wasn't a
good dark roast in double strong i'd ignore it, but that makes it taste good.
caffeine is a pretty neat french band.
HellPope Huey wrote:
--
NoSpam
HellPope Huey at Hulk...@crappagammabrick.ouch wrote on 2001-09-20 23:49:
> In article <3BA9B8D4...@ns.sympatico.ca>, sk...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
>
> the biggest
> obstacle I see in the group is too strong a bias/"loyalty" for one device,
> practice or another against the much easier path of just drinking it in.
After having read what you said before and what you say now, aren't you the
perfect example of just that?
Should you be that knowledgeable, you should know that the input device has
nothing to do with the playback sound. Each indivudual note can be edited
and configured at will no matter what you used to enter it on the computer.
HellPope Huey
> in article Hulkturds-200...@208-135-242-234.dial-up.ipa.net,
> HellPope Huey at Hulk...@crappagammabrick.ouch wrote on 2001-09-20 23:49:
> > > In article <3BA9B8D4...@ns.sympatico.ca>,
sk...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
> >
> > the biggest
> > obstacle I see in the group is too strong a bias/"loyalty" for one device,
> > practice or another against the much easier path of just drinking it in.
>>>>>>>>> After having read what you said before and what you say now,
aren't you the
> perfect example of just that?
No. I ADMIT to my pro-Korg bias, for example. I DO learn things here that
clarify points for even me and I've been at it for many years. I had a guy
finally buy a Roland guitar synth because I was able to explain the
improved tracking they'd developed enough for him to test one with more
informed clarity and find that he was satisfied enough to make the
committment. Although I'm a keyboardist and don't give a rat's about
guitar synths as such, I'm glad I gave him the nudge he needed to land a
good tool for HIS goals.
When someone badmouths advice, a given company or type of instrument
beyond the admitted-preference level, it throws into doubt the merits of
even their OPINION. I generally dislike Yamaha gear, but the CS line is a
good one and I'd be a real asswipe if I dissed those who live by their
EXs. Music is too organic and personal to force the issue over which box
you THINK is the "best."
> Should you be that knowledgeable, you should know that the input device has
> nothing to do with the playback sound. Each indivudual note can be edited
> and configured at will no matter what you used to enter it on the computer.
If you prefer a lot of editing after the fact because it wows you more
than practicing and doing it by hand the first time, cool. I'm simply the
other way around on that one. I also love some techno that couldn't have
BEEN created by human hands entirely. And there's nothing "wrong" with
either method; in fact, you're ahead of the game if you DO use more than
one. And I say you're just plain wrong in one spot: the input device DOES
have a lot to do with how & what you play because the human connection is
different per method. Ex: I love Octapads because mallets make you think
differently than keys do.
If I can see and admit to my OWN biases and still respect things outside
them, I think I have a better chance of producing good music because I'm
trying to be as flexible as possible. You never know what will make
something click for you. I'd stack my real-time playing against strict
computer-editing any time, but I'm sure I'd still dig YOUR results
regardless, if they're really happening. Even if you live in a musical
world of sectors and loop-point matching, keeping a sense of MUSICAL
FLUIDITY is your best tool, so I stand by what I've said.
HellPope Huey, hellpo...@subgenius.com
Actual Excerpts From Student Science Exam Papers:
"The moon is a planet just like the Earth,
only it is even deader."
Especially on Saturday night in Arkansas.
"Place the mask over your face and breathe normally."
Well, no problem there. I always breathe normally
when I'm in an uncontrolled,
600-mile-an-hour vertical dive.
I also s**t normally. Directly into my pants.
- George Carlin
"Art is dangerous. It is one of the attractions:
when it ceases to be dangerous you don't want it."
- Anthony Burgess
"Its not that I don't know how to use it;
I just haven't learned yet."
- "The West Wing"
NoSpam
I still stand by what I said, the input device has nothing to do whith how
it will come out. I've had the same lines entered on a keyboard and the
other one entered by hand and NO ONE could tell the difference between the
2. Too often I had to clean up documents that had been entered either by
guitar, keyboards or other devices by so called "good musicians", rareley if
ever documents that were entered by hand. Unless you are into heavy metal
type of music, don't forget that you have to a mighty good player of your
input device to achieve something that won't need to be touched up to some
degree and that is beyound the reach of most players of most instruments
when you deal with "serious music". In the end, what's the use of arguing
that the guitar is the very best if one can't even play the damn thing and
if the pioano is his instrument? Personnaly, I play both and others too and
I still think that the best input device is the one that you feel most
confortable with and the one that you know best, there are no superior input
device.
jim dorey
find manual edit useful for drum parts.
HellPope Huey wrote:
> If you prefer a lot of editing after the fact because it wows you more
> than practicing and doing it by hand the first time, cool. I'm simply the
> other way around on that one. I also love some techno that couldn't have
> BEEN created by human hands entirely. And there's nothing "wrong" with
> either method; in fact, you're ahead of the game if you DO use more than
> one. And I say you're just plain wrong in one spot: the input device DOES
> have a lot to do with how & what you play because the human connection is
> different per method. Ex: I love Octapads because mallets make you think
> differently than keys do.
--
Steve Leegood
computers for two decades. So I'm not frightened about editing input. And
it's true that whatever the input, I can edit to achieve any desired output.
I could start from scratch!
But I simply dont believe that the expressiveness of a guitar (or any other
touch instrument) can be emulated by any reasonably achievable editing
process. In my case I gave up editing and bought a guitar synth just so I
could get an acceptable result.
It's a bit like Bertrand Russell trying to prove the entirety of Maths using
only basic logic. Yes, it's possible. Yes it's unedifying, it's not
beautiful, it's pointless. Otherwise a fantastically worthwhile way for an
intelligent man to spend his time. Now, let's see your event list, so we can
edit the attack....
Use the right instrument for the right job!
Steve.
"NoSpam" <Loc...@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:B7D151EC.B8C58%Loc...@NoSpam.com...
Dr.Matt
Steve Leegood <steve....@lineone.net> wrote:
>I have no bias. I play guitar and keyboards. And I've earned my living from
>computers for two decades. So I'm not frightened about editing input. And
>it's true that whatever the input, I can edit to achieve any desired output.
>I could start from scratch!
>
>But I simply dont believe that the expressiveness of a guitar (or any other
>touch instrument) can be emulated by any reasonably achievable editing
>process. In my case I gave up editing and bought a guitar synth just so I
>could get an acceptable result.
>
>It's a bit like Bertrand Russell trying to prove the entirety of Maths using
>only basic logic. Yes, it's possible. Yes it's unedifying, it's not
>beautiful, it's pointless. Otherwise a fantastically worthwhile way for an
>intelligent man to spend his time. Now, let's see your event list, so we can
>edit the attack....
>
>Use the right instrument for the right job!
Okay, well, the last piece of mine for computer was 1987. I write for
live players, they bring intelligence as well as cool sounds.
:)
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
"Is there a sarangi in the house?"
Dr.Matt
>
>Steve Leegood wrote in message
><3bec6...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com>...
>>I have no bias. I play guitar and keyboards. And I've earned my living from
>>computers for two decades. So I'm not frightened about editing input. And
>>it's true that whatever the input, I can edit to achieve any desired
>output.
>>I could start from scratch!
>>
>>But I simply dont believe that the expressiveness of a guitar (or any other
>>touch instrument) can be emulated by any reasonably achievable editing
>>process. In my case I gave up editing and bought a guitar synth just so I
>>could get an acceptable result.
>>
>>It's a bit like Bertrand Russell trying to prove the entirety of Maths
>using
>>only basic logic. Yes, it's possible.
>
>some truths ( therorems ??) that could not be proved using any kind of
>formal system of reasoning.
Not quite. He proved that there are well-formed sentences of any
formal system that cannot be evaluated within that formal system. Some
of them may be evaluateable in some extended formal system.
> So Russel could have proved a whole lot
>of math but not the whole thing.
The notion of a math that exists in some sense but cannot be derived
from the foundations of mathematics is a bit of platonism gone awry.
While the whole of mathematics cannot be derived in a finite number of
steps, it can be derived in a set of steps with 1-1 relationship with
the integers. This means that any particular sentence of mathematics can
be derived in a finite number of steps.
The rest of the sentences may be examined for syntactical
well-formedness, but they're either false or idle speculation.
If you want to be a platonist, do it about the real world and propose
that the class of, say, books exists as part of the universe
independently of human agency.
Follow-ups set.
Charles-Emmanuel
<sulfugorATrocketmailDOTcom> wrote:
>
>Steve Leegood wrote in message
><3bec6...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com>...
>>I have no bias. I play guitar and keyboards. And I've earned my living from
>>computers for two decades. So I'm not frightened about editing input. And
>>it's true that whatever the input, I can edit to achieve any desired
>output.
>>I could start from scratch!
>>
>>But I simply dont believe that the expressiveness of a guitar (or any other
>>touch instrument) can be emulated by any reasonably achievable editing
>>process. In my case I gave up editing and bought a guitar synth just so I
>>could get an acceptable result.
>>
>>It's a bit like Bertrand Russell trying to prove the entirety of Maths
>using
>>only basic logic. Yes, it's possible.
>
>No it's not possible :) I think it was Gödel who proved that there were
>some truths ( therorems ??) that could not be proved using any kind of
>formal system of reasoning. So Russel could have proved a whole lot
>of math but not the whole thing.
>
>sulf
>
Gottlob Frege developed a system showing that mathematics was
reducible to logic and which was proved to be inconsistent by a
counterexample of Russell.
Charles-Emmanuel
Mick
steve....@lineone.net says...
>
> But I simply dont believe that the expressiveness of a guitar (or any other
> touch instrument) can be emulated by any reasonably achievable editing
> process. In my case I gave up editing and bought a guitar synth just so I
> could get an acceptable result.
>
It does depend on how much editablity you actually have. Using GM ...
well, nuff said ... but with the sheer number of parameters available in
XG or GS then there is no reason why you could not emulate perfectly what
a guitar could actually do.
That said ... emulating real instruments using synths is more trickery
than reality though. You can fool the ear alot of the time but if you are
going to get really picky .... well! Somtimes I don't believe that what
the likes of Allan Holdsworth plays is actually real ... and he's a
guitarist.
--
Mick
Xscape(UK)
http://www./xscape.btinternet.co.uk
Remove my codpiece to reply. Damn spam!
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
To go back to the "right instrument for the right job", boys, can your
live players can do, say, granular synthesis, fractal improvisation, or
on-the-spot recursive forms? To my ears, there are just so many 'cool
sounds' live players can make with their plumbing and scratch boxes, and
when new sounds, structures, techniques, and ideas need manifestation,
there's at last a way to achieve them. (And achieve them without
complaint and with very little error, but that's another story.)
Computers do an increasingly good job of emulating live players, if
that's what you want. I don't really want that, though my demos for
acoustic pieces become easier & better and very helpful to performers.
Yet in the hands of virtual orchestra masters (including many television
and film composers, but also those who specialize in abstractly, like
Jerry Gerber), the results are very fine indeed -- particularly in a
culture where recorded music vastly dominates live music, the majority
of *that* using electronic assistance from simple amplification to
sampling.
If, Dr. Matt, your last electronic piece was 1987 and if, Steve, you
believe that electronic expressiveness is evaluated only by emulation of
the live player, then you're using either inexperience or
tongue-in-cheek as if it were logic. Though the bulk of my own output is
for acoustic musicians (and for the reasons you give), I know there is a
great deal of music -- particularly music that breaks sonic ground in
this post-acoustic-instruments-bothering-to-break-sonic-ground era we've
been living in for 30 years. We live in a time where it's a stretch to
find anything new and interesting to say with acoustic instruments,
especially for composers writing for the classical ensembles. The
average garage band has more textural interest than the average
penguined chamber group.
There's a lot to be said in every medium, a lot of expressiveness and
communication, imagination and inspiration. But the electronic devices
and the live musicians are no longer competitive, as the unions feared
several decades ago. They are, like film and theatre, very different
media that require different techniques to create, have different
architectures, expect different audiences, and require different styles
of attention.
I can understand composers who choose not to use electronics; like
playwrights, they are faced with a sometimes much larger task in winning
audiences to listen and even musicians to play. But to view electronics
and computers through the lens of acoustics results in a severe
distortion, just as film suffered through the actors and directors who
could not make the transition from stage to screen. The techniques and
imagination needed to create a wonderful score using the computer are no
less demanding, and in terms of the library of skills and depth of
experience and range of studies, they are more than enough for a
separate career that will never involve an oboe.
Dennis
Dr.Matt
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz <bat...@maltedmedia.com> wrote:
>Dr.Matt wrote:
>>
>> In article <3bec6...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com>,
>> Steve Leegood <steve....@lineone.net> wrote:
>> >I have no bias. I play guitar and keyboards. And I've earned my living from
>> >computers for two decades. So I'm not frightened about editing input. And
>> >it's true that whatever the input, I can edit to achieve any desired output.
>> >I could start from scratch!
>> >
>> >But I simply dont believe that the expressiveness of a guitar (or any other
>> >touch instrument) can be emulated by any reasonably achievable editing
>> >process. In my case I gave up editing and bought a guitar synth just so I
>> >could get an acceptable result.
>> >
>> >It's a bit like Bertrand Russell trying to prove the entirety of Maths using
>> >only basic logic. Yes, it's possible. Yes it's unedifying, it's not
>> >beautiful, it's pointless. Otherwise a fantastically worthwhile way for an
>> >intelligent man to spend his time. Now, let's see your event list, so we can
>> >edit the attack....
>> >
>> >Use the right instrument for the right job!
>>
>> Okay, well, the last piece of mine for computer was 1987. I write for
>> live players, they bring intelligence as well as cool sounds.
>>
>
>To go back to the "right instrument for the right job", boys, can your
boys?
>live players can do, say, granular synthesis, fractal improvisation, or
>on-the-spot recursive forms? To my ears, there are just so many 'cool
>sounds' live players can make with their plumbing and scratch boxes, and
>when new sounds, structures, techniques, and ideas need manifestation,
>there's at last a way to achieve them. (And achieve them without
>complaint and with very little error, but that's another story.)
Yeah, and I know some great musicians who enjoy working that way and I
say more power to 'em!
>Computers do an increasingly good job of emulating live players, if
>that's what you want. I don't really want that, though my demos for
>acoustic pieces become easier & better and very helpful to performers.
>Yet in the hands of virtual orchestra masters (including many television
>and film composers, but also those who specialize in abstractly, like
>Jerry Gerber), the results are very fine indeed -- particularly in a
>culture where recorded music vastly dominates live music, the majority
>of *that* using electronic assistance from simple amplification to
>sampling.
Uh huh, it's neat...
>
>If, Dr. Matt, your last electronic piece was 1987 and if, Steve, you
>believe that electronic expressiveness is evaluated only by emulation of
>the live player, then you're using either inexperience or
>tongue-in-cheek as if it were logic.
Nah, I only mention it to call into question Steve's assumption that
new music is all electronic. Okay, so maybe that's tongue in cheek,
but I also am not making any electronic music. Zip. Nada. The basic
elements of my music are melodies and harmonies and rhythms, and A
Cool Sound is frosting... for other people, A Cool Sound comes first.
> Though the bulk of my own output is
>for acoustic musicians (and for the reasons you give), I know there is a
>great deal of music -- particularly music that breaks sonic ground in
>this post-acoustic-instruments-bothering-to-break-sonic-ground era we've
>been living in for 30 years.
Actually, it's more like 65 years. Suddenly in the 60's everybody thought
they were doing something new that Cowell or somebody had done before them.
>We live in a time where it's a stretch to
>find anything new and interesting to say with acoustic instruments,
>especially for composers writing for the classical ensembles. The
>average garage band has more textural interest than the average
>penguined chamber group.
Now that's an exaggeration, and I think it's an exaggeration based largely
on the way post-WW2 composers didn't see that Stravinsky and Schoenberg
emerged gradually out of a tradition. For a while, probably until about
1980, there was a herd mentality around the hypothesis that a composer
wasn't really saying anything new unless they singlehandedly revolutionized
music with a new technique, a break with the past, new orchestration and
syntax and if possible stuff that would be barely recognizable as music.
The result of that spurt of creativity was that pretty much everything
became readily recognizable as music, so the trend self-destructed.
>There's a lot to be said in every medium, a lot of expressiveness and
>communication, imagination and inspiration. But the electronic devices
>and the live musicians are no longer competitive, as the unions feared
>several decades ago. They are, like film and theatre, very different
>media that require different techniques to create, have different
>architectures, expect different audiences, and require different styles
>of attention.
Well... the whole market has shifted, and art music, both live and
electronic, has been a barely visible player in that shift. Records,
tapes, CDs, and networks have made possible worldwide uniformity of
listening habits in ways that are more akin to TV than even to film.
>I can understand composers who choose not to use electronics; like
>playwrights, they are faced with a sometimes much larger task in winning
>audiences to listen and even musicians to play. But to view electronics
>and computers through the lens of acoustics results in a severe
>distortion, just as film suffered through the actors and directors who
>could not make the transition from stage to screen.
I for one would rather not spend my time whining about how stupid and
unable to understand the marking "dolce" or "modo di klezmer" C-sound
is! Those who enjoy making music with C-sound should not have to
suffer through what I'd be tempted to do with it! Using your analogy,
I'm like a director who steps aside and doesn't get involved in making
film at all, leaving that to people who are steeped in it, and
appreciating their work without aspiring to do the same.
>The techniques and
>imagination needed to create a wonderful score using the computer are no
>less demanding, and in terms of the library of skills and depth of
>experience and range of studies, they are more than enough for a
>separate career that will never involve an oboe.
Or in other words, It's The Art, Stupid!
Richard Smol
Mick <mi...@codpiece.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.165702979...@news-central.giganews.com...
> That said ... emulating real instruments using synths is more trickery
> than reality though. You can fool the ear alot of the time but if you are
> going to get really picky .... well! Somtimes I don't believe that what
> the likes of Allan Holdsworth plays is actually real ... and he's a
> guitarist.
And it's all still nice ;)
I personally don't think computer-music is better or worse
than 'life' music... they can complement eachother very nicely.
You could think about letting the guitar be the guitar...
and use the synth for stuff it's best at, like making new,
exciting sounds. You could play guitar solos with a background
of synth and drum-loops...so basically, your computer could be
your hard-disk recording system with added benefit.
I would advise you to learn how to program a synth, to
keep things more interesting sonically. Nowadays you hear
too many people use the same presets over and over again.
This holds true for both 'normal' and guitar synths.
Greetz,
RS
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
Dr.Matt wrote:
>
> boys?
My hair's thinning a lot the past few months. Feels gooder to say boys.
> Nah, I only mention it to call into question Steve's assumption that
> new music is all electronic. Okay, so maybe that's tongue in cheek,
> but I also am not making any electronic music. Zip. Nada. The basic
> elements of my music are melodies and harmonies and rhythms, and A
> Cool Sound is frosting... for other people, A Cool Sound comes first.
'Cool sounds' was used in ironic response to your 'cool sounds', because
it seems to be how acoustic composers think of (and diss)
computer/electroacoustic music (even though 'cool sounds' (vide infra)
are a shorthand for the textural exploration pretty near to used up in
acoustics). Some of the other things I mentioned -- granular synthesis,
fractal improvisation, and on-the-spot recursive forms -- are more to
the heart of it. And what are nigh impossible with musicians and
acoustic forms. And what do not of any necessity lose melody, harmony,
and rhythm ... but do transform them in ways unfamiliar yet akin to
variations -- in another dimension, so to speak.
[Dennis]
> > there is a
> >great deal of music -- particularly music that breaks sonic ground in
> >this post-acoustic-instruments-bothering-to-break-sonic-ground era we've
> >been living in for 30 years.
>
> Actually, it's more like 65 years. Suddenly in the 60's everybody thought
> they were doing something new that Cowell or somebody had done before them.
The POST-a-i-b-t-b-s-g era, not the era itself. 30 years ago was when it
basically stopped, not started. Textural exploration in acoustic music
stopped shortly after minimalism and new romanticism arose.
[Dennis]
> >We live in a time where it's a stretch to
> >find anything new and interesting to say with acoustic instruments,
> >especially for composers writing for the classical ensembles. The
> >average garage band has more textural interest than the average
> >penguined chamber group.
>
> Now that's an exaggeration, and I think it's an exaggeration based largely
> on the way post-WW2 composers didn't see that Stravinsky and Schoenberg
> emerged gradually out of a tradition. For a while, probably until about
> 1980, there was a herd mentality around the hypothesis that a composer
> wasn't really saying anything new unless they singlehandedly revolutionized
> music with a new technique, a break with the past, new orchestration and
> syntax and if possible stuff that would be barely recognizable as music.
> The result of that spurt of creativity was that pretty much everything
> became readily recognizable as music, so the trend self-destructed.
That seems retrospective/reactionary to me. I believe the path just
moved over as more rockers came into 'serious' composition (diversifying
the gene pool, so to speak), and a lot of composers (and about-to-be
composers) moved to computers/electroacoustics instead of squeezing the
last squawk of textural advance out of unwilling performers and aging
audiences. If you saw the CBC report on the Toronto Symphony and the
look of *that* audience in their video... eeeeuw.
> I for one would rather not spend my time whining about how stupid and
> unable to understand the marking "dolce" or "modo di klezmer" C-sound
> is! Those who enjoy making music with C-sound should not have to
> suffer through what I'd be tempted to do with it!
And back to the "right instrument for the right job".
What I sense in your and Steve's comments is a combination discomfort
and knowledge/experience gap, and maybe a dismissal of the validity of
computers/electroacoustics because of it. Maybe you just don't have
time, inclination, or willingness to work in that area -- a legitimate
position.
But you have written in many posts dealing with music's social scene and
how the schmooze is important. I don't disagree -- that's why I love
concerts, too -- but I think that may skew your opinion of the inherent
'worth' of the music at the abstract level, meaning acoustic music with
the 'intelligence' of live musicians somehow gives it greater
significance or gratification than something perceived as borne out of
electrons. To me, "the last piece of mine for computer was 1987. I write
for live players, they bring intelligence as well as cool sounds" has
the strong sound of dismissal, no?
(You mention the art music niche/market is getting smaller. I think
that's because the definition is broader. Viva nonpop!)
Okay, this leaves out my point of view, which I better put up or shut
up.
I've always thought of music as sound ... oh, yeah, obvious, right? Not
quite. In imagining music as sound (and not initiated by, as a
collection of, or as a development of melodies and harmonies and rhythms
and whatever else comprise the traditional elements), I get into the
trouble of finding the medium to express that imagined result. It's
sometimes pretty abstract in concept, though to me very grounded and
expressive.
Possibly because I'm badly schooled or started composing late or am a
thoroughly unenthusiastic performer, I do not attach sonic ideas
immediately to acoustic orchestrations. I don't play stuff. I don't work
it out, I imagine it out. And that gets me into trouble. I imagine what
cannot be played, takes too much lung, or is uncountable, or is (in the
generous cant of orchestrators) unidiomatic.
But I also came of age with "Gesang der Junglinge" (as well as "Duke of
Earl," but that was confection). "Gesang" and its stylistic compatriots
didn't have to grow on me; I was passionate about them from the first
hearing. "Ascension" hit me the same time as "Gesang". Those two told me
that there were no limits to imagining sound.
Yet there were limits in its expression. In those days, save for a few,
performers ran from incompetent to hostile. Electronics were
rudimentary, homemade -- or expensive. In the race between performer and
electronics, electronics won the technique *and* the expressiveness.
Because we're enjoying a remarkably renewed interest in the range of new
music and the quality of its human performers today, some have forgotten
(or weren't old enough to remember) the bad old days that forced many of
us to learn electronic techniques early.
Once I learned the techniques, though, I found them profoundly
energizing in both their immediate feedback and how they could be made
to respond to my imagination. And later, as tape editing faded and
digital tools grew, the psychological investment in experimenting
lessened. Short pieces and experiments could be drafted and destroyed
without regret.
And, though I loved acoustic composition, its practicalities were
frustrating -- the lack of competence (still speaking of 30+ years ago),
the unwillingness to perform what was asked, and, naturally, the limited
resources available to a composer outside the university. I was forever
writing pieces for amateurs -- a good discipline, but not rewarding as
the years passed.
In the meantime, computers/electroacoustics not only kept up, as I said,
they raced ahead with possibilities. A temporary setback came with the
melding of traditional perceptions and computer technology -- scoring
programs and Midi. Because they were designed from the point of view of
traditional musicians, their implementation at the same time became
popular and left out the experimental composer.
I stopped creating electronic/electroacoustic music for more than a
decade after the rise of this mainstream hardware and software, and
concentrated on acoustic work alone. I found acoustics pretty limiting
if only because I was still restraining my performable pieces to the
abilities of the players -- even magnificent performers, who ran up
against muscular impossibilities.
When flexible (and affordable) hardware and software returned, so did I.
From my first electronic piece in 1969 until 1982 when I left
electronics behind for a while, 39 of 140 pieces used electronics; from
1983-92, the 'away' period, a mere five of 102 pieces used any
electronics; since my return in 1993, 26 of 79 pieces have been partly
or entirely electronic.
Now, you and others who know my stuff would likely not consider it
groundbreaking; I'm often behind the latest nonpop music curve (having
missed new complexity entirely). But I do feel that untampered-with
acoustic music (save for the occasional retro fads such as "unplugged"
sessions) is fading, and its audiences with it. By defending
computers/electronics in music, I'm not trying to do an end-run around
my own obsolescence, but I do feel that as an artist with some desire to
be on the edge left in my spirit, I want to use the materials of my own
time to express that, and I see a depth of possibility in them that I no
longer feel for acoustics.
Dennis
--
Dennis Báthory-Kitsz
MaltedMedia Productions: http://maltedmedia.com/
Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar: http://kalvos.org/
The Transitive Empire: http://maltedmedia.com/empire/
OrbitAccess Accessibility: http://orbitaccess.com/
Downloadable Scores: http://maltedmedia.com/scores/
ICQ: 10526261 / AIM: DenBathory
Dr.Matt
The model composer of that stuff, Crumb, slowed down around '85....
>[Dennis]
>> >We live in a time where it's a stretch to
>> >find anything new and interesting to say with acoustic instruments,
>> >especially for composers writing for the classical ensembles. The
>> >average garage band has more textural interest than the average
>> >penguined chamber group.
>>
>> Now that's an exaggeration, and I think it's an exaggeration based largely
>> on the way post-WW2 composers didn't see that Stravinsky and Schoenberg
>> emerged gradually out of a tradition. For a while, probably until about
>> 1980, there was a herd mentality around the hypothesis that a composer
>> wasn't really saying anything new unless they singlehandedly revolutionized
>> music with a new technique, a break with the past, new orchestration and
>> syntax and if possible stuff that would be barely recognizable as music.
>> The result of that spurt of creativity was that pretty much everything
>> became readily recognizable as music, so the trend self-destructed.
>
>That seems retrospective/reactionary to me. I believe the path just
>moved over as more rockers came into 'serious' composition (diversifying
>the gene pool, so to speak), and a lot of composers (and about-to-be
>composers) moved to computers/electroacoustics instead of squeezing the
>last squawk of textural advance out of unwilling performers and aging
>audiences. If you saw the CBC report on the Toronto Symphony and the
>look of *that* audience in their video... eeeeuw.
So you're exchanging one mode of idealized performance--the classical
concert, which isn't so stuffy after all--for another: the rock concert.
Nu?
>> I for one would rather not spend my time whining about how stupid and
>> unable to understand the marking "dolce" or "modo di klezmer" C-sound
>> is! Those who enjoy making music with C-sound should not have to
>> suffer through what I'd be tempted to do with it!
>
>And back to the "right instrument for the right job".
>
>What I sense in your and Steve's comments is a combination discomfort
>and knowledge/experience gap, and maybe a dismissal of the validity of
>computers/electroacoustics because of it. Maybe you just don't have
>time, inclination, or willingness to work in that area -- a legitimate
>position.
I write software all day, did computer music continuously 1980-86, and I
just don't have time to do everything. Gotta make some time to master
ASL and fly to Vermont and stuff.
>
>But you have written in many posts dealing with music's social scene and
>how the schmooze is important. I don't disagree -- that's why I love
>concerts, too -- but I think that may skew your opinion of the inherent
>'worth' of the music at the abstract level, meaning acoustic music with
>the 'intelligence' of live musicians somehow gives it greater
>significance or gratification than something perceived as borne out of
>electrons. To me, "the last piece of mine for computer was 1987. I write
>for live players, they bring intelligence as well as cool sounds" has
>the strong sound of dismissal, no?
I stand by what I said on the radio. Some folks like the control they
get with computers, but I hate the added responsibility.
Schmooze is a separate component of music, the appreciating side,
where lots of people who appreciate art just hang out together and
reflect on it. It's a much more mellow thing than the on-the-spot
electricity of ensemble performance.
Part of what makes my position interesting--in fact downright
comical-- is the fact that I ended up concentrating on composition
because I suck as a performer.
>(You mention the art music niche/market is getting smaller. I think
>that's because the definition is broader. Viva nonpop!)
The definition getting broader shrinks the market? Explain! I'd
always expect the opposite....
>Okay, this leaves out my point of view, which I better put up or shut
>up.
>
>I've always thought of music as sound ... oh, yeah, obvious, right? Not
>quite. In imagining music as sound (and not initiated by, as a
>collection of, or as a development of melodies and harmonies and rhythms
>and whatever else comprise the traditional elements), I get into the
>trouble of finding the medium to express that imagined result. It's
>sometimes pretty abstract in concept, though to me very grounded and
>expressive.
Mmmmm, nah, it's actually pretty classical, goes back either to Varese
or to clapping and stomping, take your pick. I'm not an Ivesian "what
the hell does sound have to do with music" kind...
>Possibly because I'm badly schooled or started composing late or am a
>thoroughly unenthusiastic performer, I do not attach sonic ideas
>immediately to acoustic orchestrations. I don't play stuff. I don't work
>it out, I imagine it out. And that gets me into trouble. I imagine what
>cannot be played, takes too much lung, or is uncountable, or is (in the
>generous cant of orchestrators) unidiomatic.
Even the best of composers does that. What's idiomatic and countable
is constantly expanding.
>But I also came of age with "Gesang der Junglinge" (as well as "Duke of
>Earl," but that was confection). "Gesang" and its stylistic compatriots
>didn't have to grow on me; I was passionate about them from the first
>hearing. "Ascension" hit me the same time as "Gesang". Those two told me
>that there were no limits to imagining sound.
Yeah...
>Yet there were limits in its expression. In those days, save for a few,
>performers ran from incompetent to hostile. Electronics were
And the few who weren't--the Zukovskys and Slonimskys and Chris Finckels
and Jan DeGaetanis etc.--were heavily in demand everywhere.
This is still the case. Hence albums like Future Flute, etc.
>rudimentary, homemade -- or expensive. In the race between performer and
>electronics, electronics won the technique *and* the expressiveness.
I felt that way when I first heard the computer music of Stanford in 1985.
>Because we're enjoying a remarkably renewed interest in the range of new
>music and the quality of its human performers today, some have forgotten
>(or weren't old enough to remember) the bad old days that forced many of
>us to learn electronic techniques early.
Not me.
>Once I learned the techniques, though, I found them profoundly
>energizing in both their immediate feedback and how they could be made
>to respond to my imagination. And later, as tape editing faded and
>digital tools grew, the psychological investment in experimenting
>lessened. Short pieces and experiments could be drafted and destroyed
>without regret.
Been there, done that. The digital domain was even better for that, even
before MIDI arrived...
>And, though I loved acoustic composition, its practicalities were
>frustrating -- the lack of competence (still speaking of 30+ years ago),
>the unwillingness to perform what was asked, and, naturally, the limited
>resources available to a composer outside the university. I was forever
>writing pieces for amateurs -- a good discipline, but not rewarding as
>the years passed.
So we're people of our times... or places. Nowadays, the opening up of
Eastern Europe totally changes affordability and availability of
willing, capable humans.
>In the meantime, computers/electroacoustics not only kept up, as I said,
>they raced ahead with possibilities. A temporary setback came with the
>melding of traditional perceptions and computer technology -- scoring
>programs and Midi. Because they were designed from the point of view of
>traditional musicians, their implementation at the same time became
>popular and left out the experimental composer.
But at the same time, Max and C-sound and similar tools were coming to
the desktop and coming of age.
>I stopped creating electronic/electroacoustic music for more than a
>decade after the rise of this mainstream hardware and software, and
>concentrated on acoustic work alone. I found acoustics pretty limiting
>if only because I was still restraining my performable pieces to the
>abilities of the players -- even magnificent performers, who ran up
>against muscular impossibilities.
See, I'm inclined to think of a never-ending line as
belonging to an oboe, two violins, and a harmonium rather than a
single violin... maybe that makes me crazy...
>When flexible (and affordable) hardware and software returned, so did I.
>From my first electronic piece in 1969 until 1982 when I left
>electronics behind for a while, 39 of 140 pieces used electronics; from
>1983-92, the 'away' period, a mere five of 102 pieces used any
>electronics; since my return in 1993, 26 of 79 pieces have been partly
>or entirely electronic.
Yeah....
>Now, you and others who know my stuff would likely not consider it
>groundbreaking; I'm often behind the latest nonpop music curve (having
>missed new complexity entirely). But I do feel that untampered-with
>acoustic music (save for the occasional retro fads such as "unplugged"
>sessions) is fading, and its audiences with it. By defending
>computers/electronics in music, I'm not trying to do an end-run around
>my own obsolescence, but I do feel that as an artist with some desire to
>be on the edge left in my spirit, I want to use the materials of my own
>time to express that, and I see a depth of possibility in them that I no
>longer feel for acoustics.
Yeah, of course. I say go for it!
But there can also be something inately sexy about a singer, say, and
I mesh better with the "obsolete" tools than with the latest stuff.
In real life, folks know I'm not lazy--but the level of work it'd take
to make an electronic piece that I'd be proud to put my name on daunts
me, even though I know others find routes to what they like to do and
find it more expedient for them.
>Dennis
>
>--
>Dennis Báthory-Kitsz
>
>MaltedMedia Productions: http://maltedmedia.com/
>Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar: http://kalvos.org/
>The Transitive Empire: http://maltedmedia.com/empire/
>OrbitAccess Accessibility: http://orbitaccess.com/
>Downloadable Scores: http://maltedmedia.com/scores/
>ICQ: 10526261 / AIM: DenBathory
Dr.Matt
the folks around me who were making computer music were saying to each
other: "I made a sound that starts out as a bell and at the end of
the note is a singing voice!" "I found a way to have a sound start
out as crowd noise and meld together into the voice of Dillan Thomas
reading his own work!" etc. A lot of these devices would have to be
pointed out as technologically amazing for their time in order to be
not just another funny sound in an otherwise boring piece.
At about the same time, Pixar put 15 computers to work for 2 weeks
and came out with a 2-minute film, "Tin Toy". This was mostly a
demonstration of photo-realism, but it had a cute little story that
hadn't been thought out well enough to last beyond 2 minutes. Later a
lot of the exact same footage became Toy Story, using great great
granddaughters of the same technology--and adding some heavy-duty
creative artists to the team in addition to the original core of
programmers. What's really odd is that they used human actors for
the voices! Go figure.
Samuel Vriezen
<bat...@bathory.org> wrote:
>Textural exploration in acoustic music
>stopped shortly after minimalism and new romanticism arose.
However, Ligeti's violin concerto.
Though generally, I increasingly feel it's good to know and do a bit
of electronics. I can't say whether it's more vital or anything than
purely acoustic music, but it is sufficiently different and easier qua
needed infrastructure to become a vital interest for any composer. Me,
I never did electronics (save for one dance project which was cool)
and am expecting to fill the gap within a few years.
--
Samuel
De toestand was niet hoopgevend, maar dat is de toestand nooit.
- Remco Campert
Mick
> And it's all still nice ;)
Nice? Its incredible! he is a superb guitarist (and a user of the
synthaxe aswell)
>
> I personally don't think computer-music is better or worse
> than 'life' music... they can complement eachother very nicely.
>
> You could think about letting the guitar be the guitar...
> and use the synth for stuff it's best at, like making new,
> exciting sounds. You could play guitar solos with a background
> of synth and drum-loops...so basically, your computer could be
> your hard-disk recording system with added benefit.
> I would advise you to learn how to program a synth, to
> keep things more interesting sonically. Nowadays you hear
> too many people use the same presets over and over again.
> This holds true for both 'normal' and guitar synths.
The words "Granny", "Eggs", "Teach" and "Suck", (though not necessarily
in that order) spring to mind here.
8-)
Richard Smol
> The words "Granny", "Eggs", "Teach" and "Suck", (though not necessarily
> in that order) spring to mind here.
What?
Mick
> keep things more interesting sonically.
Whoe exactly was this point aimed at?
--
Mick
Dr.Matt
Mick <mi...@codpiece.btinternet.com> wrote:
>In article <PmqH7.752481$2n1.24287173@Flipper>, jaz...@dds.nl says...
>>
>> Mick <mi...@codpiece.btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1657a3f5...@news.btinternet.com...
>>
>> > The words "Granny", "Eggs", "Teach" and "Suck", (though not necessarily
>> > in that order) spring to mind here.
>>
>> What?
>>
>> I would advise you to learn how to program a synth, to
>> keep things more interesting sonically.
>
>Whoe exactly was this point aimed at?
First baseman.
Richard Smol
Mick <mi...@codpiece.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1658a434e...@news-central.giganews.com...
> In article <PmqH7.752481$2n1.24287173@Flipper>, jaz...@dds.nl says...
> >
> > Mick <mi...@codpiece.btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1657a3f5...@news.btinternet.com...
> >
> > > The words "Granny", "Eggs", "Teach" and "Suck", (though not
necessarily
> > > in that order) spring to mind here.
> >
> > What?
> >
> > I would advise you to learn how to program a synth, to
> > keep things more interesting sonically.
>
> Whoe exactly was this point aimed at?
A lot of people using synths stick to presets, since they don't know
or don't WANT to know how a synth works. I understand this
somehow, since programming a synth properly is not always very
easy. Especially people used to 'real' instruments tend to stay
far from it, which is a shame, since making new sounds can be a
lot of fun :)
So yes, I am giving this guitar player the advice to actually learn
how to program a synthesizer.
Greetz,
RS
Mick
>
> So yes, I am giving this guitar player the advice to actually learn
> how to program a synthesizer.
Fair enough .... you replied to me though.
8-)
kort
I'm from South Africa and is looking at purchasing Cakewalk products e.g.
Fruitlyloops 3.0 and Sonar XL (yes we have computers in RSA ;o)
I'm quite new to the MIDI scene and would like to know if these products
will suffice, aiming at producing music like "Massive Attack" "Faithless"
"Chemical Brothers" "Dido" etc.?
I've been a piano player all my life but don't rate myself a solo musician.
Also what controller should I use?
Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
Pse Pardon my ignorance...
Tom Duff
> and came out with a 2-minute film, "Tin Toy". This was mostly a
> demonstration of photo-realism, but it had a cute little story that
> hadn't been thought out well enough to last beyond 2 minutes. Later a
> lot of the exact same footage became Toy Story, using great great
> granddaughters of the same technology--and adding some heavy-duty
> creative artists to the team in addition to the original core of
> programmers. What's really odd is that they used human actors for
> the voices! Go figure.
This is so complete a misrepresentation to be laughable.
--
Tom Duff. Realville is a swing version of these people enjoying
themselves.
Dr.Matt
>> At about the same time, Pixar put 15 computers to work for 2 weeks
>> and came out with a 2-minute film, "Tin Toy". This was mostly a
>> demonstration of photo-realism, but it had a cute little story that
>> hadn't been thought out well enough to last beyond 2 minutes. Later a
>> lot of the exact same footage became Toy Story, using great great
>> granddaughters of the same technology--and adding some heavy-duty
>> creative artists to the team in addition to the original core of
>> programmers. What's really odd is that they used human actors for
>> the voices! Go figure.
>
>This is so complete a misrepresentation to be laughable.
They didn't use human voices? Ever seen Tin Toy?
Tom Duff
>
> In article <3BF2A717...@pixar.com>, Tom Duff <t...@pixar.com> wrote:
> >> At about the same time, Pixar put 15 computers to work for 2 weeks
> >> and came out with a 2-minute film, "Tin Toy". This was mostly a
> >> demonstration of photo-realism, but it had a cute little story that
> >> hadn't been thought out well enough to last beyond 2 minutes. Later a
> >> lot of the exact same footage became Toy Story, using great great
> >> granddaughters of the same technology--and adding some heavy-duty
> >> creative artists to the team in addition to the original core of
> >> programmers. What's really odd is that they used human actors for
> >> the voices! Go figure.
> >
> >This is so complete a misrepresentation to be laughable.
>
> They didn't use human voices? Ever seen Tin Toy?
You're right, the part about the
voices isn't a misrepresentation.
--
Tom Duff. Cum grano salis.
Jamal
"kort" <ko...@freemail.absa.co.za> wrote in message
news:3bf21...@batman.vip-za.com...
> Hi,
>
> I'm from South Africa and is looking at purchasing Cakewalk products e.g.
> Fruitlyloops 3.0 and Sonar XL (yes we have computers in RSA ;o)
Great choice with Fruity Loops 3, you might prefer to buy it from their
website rather than the boxed version, especially if you are going to buy
Sonar as well. The boxed version contains DreamStation dxi, the on-line
version has lifetime free upgrades instead. Since Sonar includes Tassman,
you won't really need the boxed version of Fruity Loops.
You might want to try the Sonar demo - www.cakewalk.com
> I'm quite new to the MIDI scene and would like to know if these products
> will suffice, aiming at producing music like "Massive Attack" "Faithless"
> "Chemical Brothers" "Dido" etc.?
> I've been a piano player all my life but don't rate myself a solo
musician.
> Also what controller should I use?
If you are a piano player, then I really suggest you skip the usual crappy
controller keyboards and spend the money to get a really nice keyboard. You
probably won't be comfortable with the 49 key models - they're just useless.
However, if you can't find a decent full size model , one of the 61-key jobs
will have to do. The most important thing however is the feel of the
keyboard - make sure you visit a few music stores and try 'em out. Trust
your instincts, don't trust the sales people.
L.Grohn
> But I simply dont believe that the expressiveness of a guitar (or any other
> touch instrument) can be emulated by any reasonably achievable editing
> process. In my case I gave up editing and bought a guitar synth just so I
> could get an acceptable result.
I agree. But composing and 愎laying the music are two different things.
Let also computers compose and let also computers play it:
http://users.skynet.be/belgia/midi/gallery.html
Its even better if you let people play the music...