MOTM

What you say is not "heresy," certainly, but still, I think there is another
way to look at this, and as one of the resident old farts on the list, I
can't allow it to go un-addressed. ;) 

I guess it greatly depends on what you call "advanced," and "advancement,"
and maybe even what you call "the art of electronic music."

We're certainly not in universal agreement that electronic music has
advanced recently. Not by a looooong shot. Certainly some nice music is
being made, but if you ask me, Wendy Carlos' 15-year-old "Beauty in the
Beast" was about the last thing I've heard that made me think that anyone
was truly advancing the frontiers of the art.

But then again, what exactly "electronic music" *is* seems to be wide open
to interpretation, and that alone makes me bristle. When I was a wee lad, EM
was its own idiom, a very experimental form of sound creation. You would
hear some weird sweeping Krell music and know, "THAT is electronic music!"
It wasn't just popular music made with a lot of synthesizers (we called that
'Progressive Music' back in medieval times, another term that has been
recently warped out of shape); electronic music was its own "thing," a form
of music uniquely suited to the strange new machines that created it, and to
ears that were open enough to hear and appreciate sounds that weren't
necessarily imitations of acoustic instruments in the key of C, 4/4 time
signature. In fact, keys and time signatures were originally often foreign
concepts in EM, so radical was it at the time.

To make Krell music, you NEED a modular. That's all there is to it. It's the
right tool for the job.

Today... well let's just say that the music that tends to be called
"electronic" is not what it used to be, while what I personally would call
"electronic music" is found either in the "classical" bins, "new age," or
most likely, nowhere at all. Look up Tomita or Carlos in the CDDB and you'll
see what I mean. Why someone couldn't think up a new term for this new stuff
is beyond me.

So has EM really advanced? It has been *usurped*.

From what I hear, a lot of so-called modern electronic music is little more
than in-your-face production techniques. It really doesn't affect the roots
of the composition, the "music," but just adds some "I wonder how they did
that" gloss to a bed of the same-old-thing. 

For my money, the analog sound and techniques of the 'last century' (gawd!)
were not nearly explored enough. It's exploration was cut short by the
parallel development of digital electronics, which bled over (for obvious
reasons) into electronic instrument development in the 80's, first in terms
of MIDI keyboard control (Damoclean enough on its own, certainly), patch
memorization, and soon after replacing most discrete sound shaping
electronics with cheap, mass-market digital. (Am I complaining? Yes and
*no*-without these lower-cost boxes, I would never have been able to afford
to do the things I've done over the past twenty years. Only *now* can I
afford the modular I've really wanted, but I wouldn't want to have never
done the pieces that I created using Mirages, Proteuses (Proteii?), and so
on.)

However, I think that decades of music, music that would have been much
different from what we actually got, were lost because digital electronics
were so fast in coming.

It's like developing a fast new warp engine, exploring Mars for about a
week, moving onto the next star, and then ten years later snickering at the
guys still back there exploring Mars (hey, maybe there are huge diamond
deposits there that got overlooked because farther stars were suddenly in
reach!).

That's why many of us are interested in analog modulars. Not because we
can't adjust to the tremendously-advancing digital and software technology,
but because we're going back to find something that was lost, tragically
lost, by the wayside. At the very least, a superior user interface. In some
alternate universe, where the development of LSI took a little longer, they
must be enjoying a lot more great music than we ever got our hands on. Of
course, the poor saps are listening to it on vinyl, because the CD player
never got invented...

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Cap'n F.M. Bleep [mailto:bleep@...] 
Sent:	Thursday, 01 March, 2001 3:19 PM
To:	motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject:	Re: [motm] Re: art of synthesis


> All of this probably explains why music technology has advanced
tremendously
> but the music hasn't.

i disagree... look at ppl like autechre, u-ziq, haujobb, boards of canada,
aphex twin, etc... these people are really advancing electronic music IMO.
and they're "only" pop musicians. but the thing is, most of them are using
their computers to do it... most of the music hardware these days is doing
one of two things, refining rompler/sampler tech or trying to achieve that
"vintage" sound... i mean, we of all people shouldn't be talking about
advancing music technology... heck, we're still using patchcords! *laugh*

this may be heresy to say here, but the sound *we're* chasing has very
little to do with advancements in music. i *love* my MOTM, and i can make
some seriously "advanced" sounds with it... but if i wanted to make
autechre/haujobb-level "advanced" music, only things like csound and
max/msp would do...

okay... sorry, this is getting way off topic.

<flamesuit="on">

bleep.
out.

> So has EM really advanced? It has been *usurped*.
> 
> From what I hear, a lot of so-called modern electronic music is 
little more
> than in-your-face production techniques. It really doesn't affect 
the roots
> of the composition, the "music," but just adds some "I wonder how 
they did
> that" gloss to a bed of the same-old-thing. 

while i think this to be your most salient point, i still disagree.  
i would agree that to a large degree that production techniques have 
largely eclipsed advancement, there are idividuals who are pushing 
the definition of music just as much as any carlos composition.  take 
for example oval's earlier albums, or the most exciting of the 
current breed for me, ryoji ikeda.  ikeda's conceptions of how to 
fill a space with sound are completely in line with what have gone 
before him, but have pushed that into realms not seen before.  

> However, I think that decades of music, music that would have been 
much
> different from what we actually got, were lost because digital 
electronics
> were so fast in coming.

this is very true, and sad really.

but to address bleep's point about what you can and cannot do with 
modulars, i'd venture to say that there seems to be little one 
*cannot* do with modulars.  modern tech just makes it easier.  if 
there's something you can think of, please post.  it's certainly not 
off topic.

the one exception being samplers of course.  i'm still waiting for 
the day when a modular company sees fit to incorporate a REAL sampler 
module instead of this doepfer 8-bit shit.  people combined tape 
loops and synthesis, why not VC'ed samplers?

alex

> What you say is not "heresy," certainly, but still, I think there is another
> way to look at this, and as one of the resident old farts on the list, I
> can't allow it to go un-addressed. ;)

as one of the resident young guns, i can't allow myself to shut my
mouth... :)

> But then again, what exactly "electronic music" *is* seems to be wide open
> to interpretation, and that alone makes me bristle. When I was a wee lad, EM
> was its own idiom, a very experimental form of sound creation. You would

which is essentially what this computer music is now... i could see how it
would be possible to divide the world between "electronic music," which,
unfortunately, i think would refer to the pop/dance stuff) and "computer
music," which would refer to the more experimental/academic stuff coming
out of CPUs everywhere... haujobb etc. would be sort of poppy adaptations
of that...

> So has EM really advanced? It has been *usurped*.

or it has changed directions... moving from PCBs to CPUs, leaving behind a
legacy of what we know as electronic music today...

> >From what I hear, a lot of so-called modern electronic music is little more
> than in-your-face production techniques. It really doesn't affect the roots
> of the composition, the "music," but just adds some "I wonder how they did
> that" gloss to a bed of the same-old-thing.

oh, i'll give you that... the mass-productive force of our society has
beared down onto our little world, and now mass produced machines mass
produce music for the mass audience... karl marx is spinning in his grave
with glow sticks... yeah, i hate it too. :)

> For my money, the analog sound and techniques of the 'last century' (gawd!)
> were not nearly explored enough. It's exploration was cut short by the

are you talking about techniques of working with what is now vintage
equipment? cuz we've still got the equipment... or are you talking about
techniques of electronic design, techniques that would have brought us
"next  generation" vintage equipment? that's an interesting question...

> It's like developing a fast new warp engine, exploring Mars for about a
> week, moving onto the next star, and then ten years later snickering at the
> guys still back there exploring Mars (hey, maybe there are huge diamond
> deposits there that got overlooked because farther stars were suddenly in
> reach!).

yeah... part of that is economics. people decide diamonds are boring and
they'll drop in value, oooh! look at that phrygian ice crystal!!!
unfortunately, musicians who cannot make their own equipment are enslaved
to the market just like the manufacturers are...

> That's why many of us are interested in analog modulars. Not because we
> can't adjust to the tremendously-advancing digital and software technology,
> but because we're going back to find something that was lost, tragically
> lost, by the wayside. At the very least, a superior user interface. In some

agreed... a sound, the immediacy of contact, the smell of solder in the
studio, the connection developed between artists and the machines they
help to build... oh yes, the MOTM on my mom's old coffee table is indeed a
treasure chest of fulfillment and possibliity...

> course, the poor saps are listening to it on vinyl, because the CD player
> never got invented...

that's a whole *other* debate... :)

bleep.
out.

I think the other two major "things" you can't do (effecitvely) with analog
modulars are granular synthesis and additive synthesis.  Unless, of course,
you happen to have walls and walls (and walls!) of oscillators, EGs, and
VCAs.  Modern technology has made it easy to exploit these concepts, whereas
it was (and still is) practically impossible in the analogue domain.

I wouldn't mind a VC'ed sampler.  I had an idea for a VC'ed delay effect,
which clocked the loading and unloading of individual samples into RAM
(instead of a BBD) in the analogue domain, but I'm not technically savvy
enough to touch the design.  And I'm not sure how much you would have to
gain, save for the notion that you could get infinite echos without
resampling (which you would have to do with a BBD).  I'd love someone to
take up the challenge of such a design... (hint?)

I won't argue that analogue synthesis is used up or not-- I'm not in a
qualified place to state.  But I'd guess that there's plenty of room for
growth.  ;)

--PBr

-----Original Message-----
From: perpetual@... [mailto:perpetual@...]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 1:44 PM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [motm] OT - Re: art of synthesis


but to address bleep's point about what you can and cannot do with 
modulars, i'd venture to say that there seems to be little one 
*cannot* do with modulars.  modern tech just makes it easier.  if 
there's something you can think of, please post.  it's certainly not 
off topic.

the one exception being samplers of course.  i'm still waiting for 
the day when a modular company sees fit to incorporate a REAL sampler 
module instead of this doepfer 8-bit shit.  people combined tape 
loops and synthesis, why not VC'ed samplers?

> but to address bleep's point about what you can and cannot do with
> modulars, i'd venture to say that there seems to be little one
> *cannot* do with modulars.  modern tech just makes it easier.  if
> there's something you can think of, please post.  it's certainly not
> off topic.
> the one exception being samplers of course.  i'm still waiting for

and that's what the computer music i'm thinking of basically works with,
sampled (or computer generated) waveforms... whether it's granular
synthesis or algorithmic sample hacking, it's digitaldigitaldigital... and
until we start working with digital modules that deal with data instead of
straight up voltages, our analog modulars are destined for a different
sound...

but as far as control techniques go, modular analog techniques have been
the major influence on computerpopmusic composition... messing with clock
& trigger signals, wildly varying (yet patterned) tempos, etc. etc. so we
can compete and advance in terms of control, but in terms of generation we
are in a different universe...

bleep.
out.

>>>>are you talking about techniques of working with what is now vintage
equipment? cuz we've still got the equipment... or are you talking about
techniques of electronic design, techniques that would have brought us "next
generation" vintage equipment? that's an interesting question...


I just meant composition *independent* of the instruments, in a way.

I love gear, I really do. I got lots of it. And, I've got lots of computers,
sequencing software, digital audio workstation software, and all of that
stuff, too! I'm no dummy! I use what I can get my hands on! I believe in the
best tool for the job; I'm a modular synthesizer nut, but I'm not an idiot.
:) 

Also, I subscribe to Keyboard and EM, even though I think they have largely
fallen into ruin, just because I like to read about new gear.

But I do think that we as electronic musicians have a peculiar curse in the
fact that our instruments change so quickly. Someone learning the violin is,
for the most part, learning a traditional instrument in nearly exactly the
same way that people have done for hundreds of years. And with an acoustic
instrument, you have a certain very personal relationship that develops over
long years that you just can't beat.

But while we as synthesists have the excitement of seeing new tools
barreling down the pike at us, at the same time, we can't ever seem to stop
and explore what we have for very long. The convenience of the new tools is
too enticing, especially with our fast-paced lifestyles. And by the time you
can afford something, you really want the next thing in line. (I thought it
was great when, immediately after buying my Kurzweil K2000, the 2500 came
out, and Carlos (who recorded a few albums with nothing but two K2000s)
commented, "I'm not planning to upgrade. The K2500 has some new features,
but the sound isn't one of them.")

(It's the same with my job, though---I'm in the IT field, and you just can't
rest for a minute! Every week there's something new you have to know. I envy
people like carpenters and such that can, for the most part, just refine
their skill without having to throw out every tool and everything that they
know once a month, just to keep up.)

Certainly nothing is stopping us from saying "hold it! I'm not buying
anything new! I'm going to use what I have!" But not only is that
unrealistic, it leaves us composing with Paia 2700 systems in a world of
MOTM modules!  But for me, MOTM is buying something new & improved while
still being true to the spirit of sticking with one instrument and learning
it really well. If that makes any sense. It's like playing a violin and
upgrading to a Stradivarius, not tossing it out the window for something
completely different.

> >>>>are you talking about techniques of working with what is now vintage
> equipment? cuz we've still got the equipment... or are you talking about
> techniques of electronic design, techniques that would have brought us "next
> generation" vintage equipment? that's an interesting question...
>
> I just meant composition *independent* of the instruments, in a way.

ahhh... but can we do that in electronic music? the "instrument" is right
there in the name, the electron... in your original statement, composition
and technology seemed tied together... one had advanced but the other had
not...

> But I do think that we as electronic musicians have a peculiar curse in the
> fact that our instruments change so quickly. Someone learning the violin is,

i completely agree. when i bought my k2000, i sold everything else i had
in order to do it... i had to readapt and learn a new instrument. then i
got a real job and could afford a nord modular, though my k2000 training
(star wars terms here) was incomplete... and then i got a *better* real
job and could afford a MOTM although my nord training is imcomplete... so
here i've got three *kick ass* synths that i have half-assed skills in.
focus is something unavailable to gear-whore electronic musicians like
us... :)

> MOTM modules!  But for me, MOTM is buying something new & improved while
> still being true to the spirit of sticking with one instrument and learning
> it really well. If that makes any sense. It's like playing a violin and
> upgrading to a Stradivarius, not tossing it out the window for something
> completely different.

good analogy!

bleep.
out.

>>> so here I've got three *kick ass* synths that I have half-assed skills
in.


Ha! I want that on my tombstone! That about sums it all up!  :)

--- In motm@y..., "Cap'n F.M. Bleep" <bleep@w...> wrote:
> > > are you talking about techniques of working with what is now 
> > > vintage equipment? cuz we've still got the equipment... or are 
> > > you talking about techniques of electronic design, techniques 
> > > that would have brought us "next generation" vintage equipment? 
> >
> > I just meant composition *independent* of the instruments, 
> > in a way.
> 
> ahhh... but can we do that in electronic music? the "instrument" is 
> right there in the name, the electron... 

But there are many different technologies of electronic music, analog 
subtractive synthesis being but one.  Just as there are many 
technologies of "breath" music (horns, woodwinds, saxophones, 
dijuridoos, etc.) or "string" music (bowed violin family, hammered 
piano family, plucked harpsichord/clavichord family, etc.).

> in your original statement, composition
> and technology seemed tied together... one had advanced but the 
> other had not...

I would consider it more as the dichotomy between "application" 
(rather than compisition, which is but one application) and 
technology - developments in applications necessarily trail the 
developments in technology (and not just music technology - how many 
years were there between the invention of modem/networking technology 
and the explosive commercial success [and now failure?] of the 
Internet).

As an analogy, consider the saxophone.  The instrument was invented 
(that is, the technology came to exist) in the late 1800s (I think? 
early 1900s, maybe?), and the technology has changed little (if at 
all) since.  Yet the great developments in saxophone applications (as 
opposed to technology) came 50-some (Parker) to 70-some (Coltrane) 
years later.  Or the electric guitar - the great advances in 
application (Hendrix etc.) came 15-20 years after the technology (Les 
Paul, Leo Fender) was developed.

> > But I do think that we as electronic musicians have a peculiar 
> > curse in the fact that our instruments change so quickly. 

Yes, if saxophone or electric guitar technologies were "updated" 
and "unupdated" technologies discarded as rapidly as electronic music 
technologies, the world might never have heard a Charlie Parker or 
John Coltrane or Jimi Hendrix, and the applications of those 
instruments would have never reached their full potential.  That, to 
me, would have been a great artistic tragedy.

> > MOTM modules!  But for me, MOTM is buying something new & 
> > improved while still being true to the spirit of sticking with 
> > one instrument and learning it really well. If that makes any 
> > sense. It's like playing a violin and upgrading to a 
> > Stradivarius, not tossing it out the window for something
> > completely different.
> 
> good analogy!

Yes, exactly!  Same technology, more advanced application of the 
technology.  (Or to continue with one of my previous analogies, to 
upgrade one's electric guitar amp from a 50's 15W amp to a late-60's 
Marshall stack - the technology remains the same, but the more-
advanced application of technology allowed for sonic advancements 
that were previously unknown.)

And, of course, there's nothing wrong with combining technologies for 
further innovations in the applications area.  Saxophone and electric 
guitar sound good in a band together.  Voltage-controlled samplers /  
wavetable synths / digital effects are cool!

    -Doug
     ceres@...

In a message dated 01-03-01 16:17:13 EST, you write:

<< To make Krell music, >>



ah, a man after my own heart........... :^)
best,
dave v.

"Brousseau, Paul E (Paul)" wrote:
>
> I wouldn't mind a VC'ed sampler.  I had an idea for a VC'ed delay effect,
> which clocked the loading and unloading of individual samples into RAM
> (instead of a BBD) in the analogue domain, but I'm not technically savvy
> enough to touch the design.  And I'm not sure how much you would have to
> gain, save for the notion that you could get infinite echos without
> resampling (which you would have to do with a BBD). 

Find an old Roland RPS-10. Unlike most of today's digital
delays and rotary encoders, the RPS-10 allowed you to
change the delay smoothly with a normal pot, just like
analog. It also has pitch shifting, and an input on the
back that takes a sine wave to control the amount of pitch
shift. I haven't tried it yet but I'm hoping that the sin
actually controls the clock, so that the sine wave will
also control delay time as well as pitch shift.

I have one in my guitar rack that I use for some very good
backwards delay effects. I've been thinking of finding
another one to stick behind a MOTM panel.

You can get them pretty cheap, under $200.

Tomy

>To make Krell music, you NEED a modular. That's all there is to it. It's the
>right tool for the job.

Actually, you have to build some circuits with vacuum tubes and run them
until they self destruct. Process with lots of tape echo. Don't forget the
spicing block. That's how the Barrons did Krell music.  8^)


>Today... well let's just say that the music that tends to be called
>"electronic" is not what it used to be, while what I personally would call
>"electronic music" is found either in the "classical" bins, "new age," or
>most likely, nowhere at all. Look up Tomita or Carlos in the CDDB and you'll
>see what I mean. Why someone couldn't think up a new term for this new stuff
>is beyond me.

Did I say music? That should have been "electronic tonalities". My apologies.

BTW, I totally ignore the category setting in CDDB, mp3 tags, etc.


>So has EM really advanced? It has been *usurped*.

They used to be afraid that "synthesizers" would put "real" musicians out
of work (hence the aforementioned screen credit euphemism--the Barrons
weren't union members). This may actually be true today with digital tech
(forget pop music, I've heard some awful soundtracks) but I doubt if analog
modulars put too many people out of work.


Seems to me that a lot of people think they can crank something out with a
[whatever gadget], diddle with it some, slap it on a CD (or mix it into a
soundtrack) and I'm supposed to think it's worth listening to, great stuff.
Notice that I didn't say "art" or even "music", I said "worth listening
to". I can think of a whole variety of music that I enjoy listening to. I
can think of a whole lot more that I don't, and sure as hell ain't gonna
buy!

Funny how this split occurs in just about every imaginable genre of
"music". So if it isn't that [your least favorite musical genre] just
intrinsically sucks, what is it that makes a particular piece of music
UN-interesting? Whether or not it WORKS.

(Using one recent electronic band as an example) I was impressed by The
Crystal Method because they actually wrote something remotely resembling
SONGS, memorable assemblages of musical sound as opposed to brain-deadening
regurgitated dance/rhythm tracks. Every time I listen to Vegas I get the
feeling that these guys just simply know how to do it right, and everybody
else (their musical peers) just doesn't get it. It's one of those rare
albums I'd like to be able to say I wrote and recorded myself (well, not
every song but...). So what exactly is it that makes the album work? It's
good. It clicks. It's memorable. It...you know what, I'm not exactly sure.
For some reason it just works.


The current craze over old pre-MIDI Roland x0x boxes for purposes of
cranking out acres of the SAME OLD SHIT has me highly amused. Most of the
best work I've heard done with these machines is not in the recent crop of
hits or long, indulgent exercises that pass for "dance" music these days.
You CAN use a 606 in a good song, it just helps a whole lot if it's a good
song to begin with. Limitations in your timbres is actually helpful in
composition--it forces you to be more creative. And I'm certainly not
knocking synthesized percussion (or anything else. I'd love to have a
modular percussion synth even though I'm not much of a musician myself and
I'm not exactly sure what the hell I would actually do with it). But I've
always had the radical notion that songwriting--which includes picking
timbres--is sort of a key to good music regardless of what kinds of sounds
you've got. The problem with some contemporary music seems to be one of
unprecedented accessibility to a handful of instantly recognizable timbres
used in a totally cliche' fashion undreamt of even thirteen years ago.
Talent, or the lack thereof, seems to have little or no bearing on it.

This does NOT work. Makes Giorgio Moroder's production of "I Feel Love"
sound like one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of musical
composition rather than a slick rip-off of Kraftwerk. I think I'll get the
12" out right now and listen to it just to get the taste back in my
mouth...oh crap, my turntable isn't hooked up and there's not safe place to
set it...maybe I'll just listen to Paul Hardcastle's "19" instead--dammit,
that's on vinyl too! Guess it's nothing but Kraftwerk and The Crystal
method tonight. It's pretty bad when things have gotten so, uh, unworkable
that you stuff you used to think was kind of lame actually starts to be
memorable. OK, I admit it, I actually bought those records but at least I
didn't spring for The Spice Girls (and we know how many people have a copy
of that in the closet), although I'm still trying to get a CD of that first
Milli Vanilli album. Someday it'll be worth more than an old PAiA
synthesizer, you just hide and watch.


(To use a different example) Adrian Sherwood got a lot of mileage out of
processing and editing rhythm tracks. But those tracks weren't laid down
with a computer and some generic machines, they were laid down by some good
musicians using everything from old fashioned acoutic-electric instruments
to cheesy digital sampling. They were much more interesting when he got
done diddling with them so "mixing" is obviously a part of the creation of
good music, too. I guess he just knew how to mix things right, and other
people don't. Obviously he must know what works, and what doesn't.


I could rant on like this all night but you already get the idea. Besides I
want to save some for the next time this flares up.

-- 
Terry Bowman, KA4HJH
"The Mac Doctor"