MOTM

I spent $200 on 16k (yes, K!!!) on a trs-80 once (hey remember those,
paul??:)

Paul


 elhardt@... wrote:

To hear people talk about the wopping $2400-$2500 they spent on a computer
is
amusing. I spent $2400 just on 8Meg of memory for my Mac II, and that was
half
the price some vendors were selling it at during those memory shortage
times.
This was the time when a 1024x768 24bit slow as a snail dumb framebuffer (no
graphics acceleration) graphics card listed for $4000, and how about a $3000
19" monitor to run it on. Today when I hear people complain about the price
of
a new Mac for instance, I just think to myself those ungrateful bastards
have
never had is so good and they don't even know it.

-Elhardt


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Tobias Enhus <tobias@m...> wrote:
> 
> Sorry, just venting my frusration seeing all lap tops running 
Reason, 
> adding to the growing pile of mediocre synth music.
> 
> Tobias

Hmmmm...., maybe the mediocre music is not attributed to technology.  
Perhaps, more mediocre music creators now have access to cheaper and 
faster synth and recording technology.

Folks now in their own home can have a 32 channel digital recording 
studio at a very affordable price.   With all that power, why is 
modern music in general, synth and otherwise not memorable???

Perhaps since it is so easy to record, mix, and sample, the music 
reflects that??

Curious it is.
Andy

::Folks now in their own home can have a 32 channel digital recording
::studio at a very affordable price.   With all that power, why is
::modern music in general, synth and otherwise not memorable???

<BIG RANT>

The *IS* a lot of amazing and adventurous music being done! You just don't
get to hear much of it. Blame it on the Sorry State of the Mainstream Music
Industry.

These completely inartistic suit wearing geeks are:

1. Totally profit driven
2. Only sign artists that they think has sure-fire hit power
3. All artists are ripped off anyway, the suits get most of the money
4. No imagination. Just listen to the damn radio
5. Aren't going to take a chance on anything really inventive and
"different" (See #4)
6. Don't give a crap about music anyway. Only money matters.

To find what you're looking for, you've got to look at the indie labels and
indie radio stations. You'll have to wade through the schlock to find it.
Maybe a "bad" artist is working harder to promote his material! Maybe that's
why he's "bad" - not enough time being spent developing his talents (or lack
thereof). There's some amazing stuff being sold by http://www.soleilmoon.com
for example. There's other labels like this that would rather keep their
artistic integrity than let the "Bottom Line is all that Matters" mentality
of the corporate giants!

Revolt is needed! Down with the Corporate Giants!

</BIG RANT>

Price is  going down by the minute. New G5 introduced, etc, but I have 
yet to see anything exiting done today with a computer that couldn't be 
done 10 years ago (regarding synthesis).
Yes yes, cheaper, more convenient, real-time etc. Oh and graphics.... 
(don't get me started). But were is the frontier??? All the new pluggins 
we're seeing today is the harvest of 80s and early 90s research. 
Granular, convolution wave guide. What happens next? What's the next big 
thing to happen in synthesis? The next big thing that today can only be 
done with a week of non real-time compiling? As far as I can see, not a 
whole lot.

Sorry, just venting my frusration seeing all lap tops running Reason, 
adding to the growing pile of mediocre synth music.

Tobias




elhardt@... wrote:

> To hear people talk about the wopping $2400-$2500 they spent on a 
> computer is
> amusing. I spent $2400 just on 8Meg of memory for my Mac II, and that 
> was half
> the price some vendors were selling it at during those memory shortage 
> times.
> This was the time when a 1024x768 24bit slow as a snail dumb 
> framebuffer (no
> graphics acceleration) graphics card listed for $4000, and how about a 
> $3000
> 19" monitor to run it on. Today when I hear people complain about the 
> price of
> a new Mac for instance, I just think to myself those ungrateful 
> bastards have
> never had is so good and they don't even know it.
>
> -Elhardt
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705032277:HM/A=1564416/R=0/SIG=11ti81skc/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60164797&partid=3170658> 
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.

I'm dying to meet a professor with a white lab coat and a super computer, punching in numbers and
telling me were the future is going
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To quote one of my old bosses: "It's really hard to schedule a breakthrough."

Paul S.

Geez Les, thanks for the URL!  I can't believe how much good stuff 
is there...

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Les Mizzell" <lesmizz@s...> wrote:
> 
> ::Folks now in their own home can have a 32 channel digital 
recording
> ::studio at a very affordable price.   With all that power, why is
> ::modern music in general, synth and otherwise not memorable???
> 
> <BIG RANT>
> 
> The *IS* a lot of amazing and adventurous music being done! You 
just don't
> get to hear much of it. Blame it on the Sorry State of the 
Mainstream Music
> Industry.
> 
> These completely inartistic suit wearing geeks are:
> 
> 1. Totally profit driven
> 2. Only sign artists that they think has sure-fire hit power
> 3. All artists are ripped off anyway, the suits get most of the 
money
> 4. No imagination. Just listen to the damn radio
> 5. Aren't going to take a chance on anything really inventive and
> "different" (See #4)
> 6. Don't give a crap about music anyway. Only money matters.
> 
> To find what you're looking for, you've got to look at the indie 
labels and
> indie radio stations. You'll have to wade through the schlock to 
find it.
> Maybe a "bad" artist is working harder to promote his material! 
Maybe that's
> why he's "bad" - not enough time being spent developing his 
talents (or lack
> thereof). There's some amazing stuff being sold by 
http://www.soleilmoon.com
> for example. There's other labels like this that would rather keep 
their
> artistic integrity than let the "Bottom Line is all that Matters" 
mentality

> of the corporate giants!
> 
> Revolt is needed! Down with the Corporate Giants!
> 
> </BIG RANT>

The frontier is a very sad one (please prove me wrong!). I'm current 
with MIT media lab, Csound user group, CMJ. I visited Stanford just a 
few months ago, but all they talk about is how to make things real-time 
and cheaper. Csound especially, all they talk about is real-time. 
Probably because they've been "real time deprived" for so long. New 
sounds, nothing, nada, nil! Very sad considering that's been the 
computer frontier for the past forty years.
The only new thing on the horizon within past three years is "scanning 
synthesis". Witch is merely a derivative of wave shaping...

I'm dying to meet a professor with a white lab coat and a super 
computer, punching in numbers and telling me were the future is going

Tobias

>
> Hence the frontier, if there is one, would be found in academia. 
> That's where FM, granular, wave guide techniques all came from. Since 
> I'm no longer hanging out at a university, I don't know whether the 
> Computer Music Journal et al is currently giving some indication of 
> future developments.
>
> --Adam
>
>     Price is  going down by the minute. New G5 introduced, etc., but I
>     have yet to see anything exiting done today with a computer that
>     couldn't be done 10 years ago (regarding synthesis).
>     Yes yes, cheaper, more convenient, real-time etc. Oh and
>     graphics.... (don't get me started). But were is the frontier???
>     All the new pluggins we're seeing today is the harvest of 80s and
>     early 90s research. Granular, convolution wave guide. What happens
>     next? What's the next big thing to happen in synthesis? The next
>     big thing that today can only be done with a week of non real-time
>     compiling? As far as I can see, not a whole lot.
>
>     Sorry, just venting my frusration seeing all lap tops running
>     Reason, adding to the growing pile of mediocre synth music.
>
>     Tobias
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245454.3115308.4434529.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705032277:HM/A=1457554/R=0/SIG=11c6fnta2/*http://ipunda.com/clk/beibunmaisuiyuiwabei> 
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.

> Geez Les, thanks for the URL!  I can't believe how much good stuff 
> is there...

 - shameless plug - 
buy the psychoacoustic soundclash volume one cd
last i looked they were going for a dollar each
that's me (circa 1994-1996)
lots of signal generators and crap samplers... 

cheers
paul b
sheffield
uk

Tobias writes:
>>Price is  going down by the minute. New G5 introduced, etc, but I have yet to 
see anything exiting done today with a computer that couldn't be done 10 years 
ago (regarding synthesis).<<

There are a couple of problems with this thinking. First is that there is quite 
a bit of new stuff coming out regarding synthesis and synthesis related 
processing.  Examples like Spectral Delay real-time FFT manipulation software, 
Yamaha's new vocal software giving you realistic artificial vocals, realtime 
independent pitch/time/formant manipulation software, finally new powerful 
additive synthesis with features never before available, EQ curve extracting 
software, harddrive streaming samplers (semi-new), and so on.

The other problem is that there is more available now than any person could 
fully explore in his lifetime.  When I hear people clammering for more, more, I 
think, why?  Are you being held back from creating something because there are 
too few software/synth choices?

gooboworks writes:
>>Hmmmm...., maybe the mediocre music is not attributed to technology. Perhaps, 
more mediocre music creators now have access to cheaper and faster synth and 
recording technology.<<

That's an observation I've also made.  I've thought many times that I kind of 
wish synths and computers were still really expensive items.  That would 
eliminate most who jump into synths just because they are trendy at the moment.

Les Mizzell writes:
>>2. Only sign artists that they think have sure-fire hit power<<

Some of this has to do with visual image rather than music, especially if you 
want to reach the teenage girl market. They don't listen because of the music, 
they listen because they think the band is cute.

>>4. No imagination. Just listen to the damn radio<<

When you have a few song writers writing songs for most of todays groups, 
they're all going to sound the same.

Paul Haneberg writes:
>>However, programming is becoming a lost art.  It used to be that programs had 
to be efficient, both in size and in speed.  But with virtually unlimited 
memory and speed available, code no longer can be considered to be elegant.  In 
the early days of many apps code was precise and concise.  Now it tends to be 
sloppy and with so much excess that it is often undecipherable and certainly 
always bloated.<<

Exactly. As computers get faster, software gets slower.  When I handed over my 
source code to my latest game to Infogrames so they could port it to another 
computer, they refered to my code as archaic.  That's right, and proud of it.  
It's about 50% assembly language.  Excuse me, but I still adhere to the old 
efficient size and fast speed way of thinking.  They are into the new, slow 
loading, memory hogging, bloated, and bug infested code philosophy.

-Elhardt

I think it's a mistake to prematurely underestimate the new territory being discovered as a result of making traditionally "academic" computer music tools *realtime* and *affordable* .

Cheap amplification allowed three guys with guitars to make more noise than an orchestra, and that changed everything.

Sad to say, the results of non-realtime computer music have not historically been of much interest to most humans. Making these instruments affordable and real-time means that people are PERFORMING MUSIC with them -- which is the sure path to relevancy.

I understand your dismay at the state of "basic research" in academia right now. But I think that neither the lack of research, nor the cheap availability of music tools are responsible for "bad music." I would look to the more pedestrian forces of human sloth and your own personal grumpiness.

Cheers,

Max Lord


--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Tobias Enhus <tobias@m...> wrote:

> You are still talking about technologies that were available almost 
> fifteen years ago. Perhaps not on your lap top, but these products are 
> simply commercialized versions of early discoveries. The buffer of 
> "innovations to come" and current software is pretty much on the same 
> page these days. There are no more "natural" resources to tap in terms 
> of innovations that couldn't be done because of slow computers. This 
> leads to a stagnation in peoples interest to explore. Like you say, 
> everything is available and it would take a lifetime to explore.....

You are still talking about technologies that were available almost 
fifteen years ago. Perhaps not on your lap top, but these products are 
simply commercialized versions of early discoveries. The buffer of 
"innovations to come" and current software is pretty much on the same 
page these days. There are no more "natural" resources to tap in terms 
of innovations that couldn't be done because of slow computers. This 
leads to a stagnation in peoples interest to explore. Like you say, 
everything is available and it would take a lifetime to explore. Sure, 
but that comes with the luggage of knowing that what you're working on 
right now probably already exists on a sample lib! The notion that 
everything has been discovered or will be very shortly, puts an extreme 
time pressure to come up with good stuff. It's almost like saying, -I 
can cover most areas with my commercial sample lib and if there's 
something missing then I'm not going to take the time to cook up my own 
sounds because It will probably be covered by a new sample lib by tomorrow.
This knowledge sets the bar very high and leaves little or no hope for 
new exploration. Or I should say in depth exploration that yields 
passionate results.

This problem comes from the same fabric that runs through the entire 
music industry. It's the same dilema wether you're a mix engineer, 
songwriter or a sound designer.

The Synclavier is a good example of a product that lend itself towards 
great discoveries. Only a few people could afford it, and it was way 
ahead of it's time. These circumstances led to an oasis of exploration. 
People did things with samples and FM that had sounded amazing! They 
dared to spend long hours of tedious mapping etc., because they knew 
they were pushing new ground. The Synclav window of opportunity lasted 
almost ten years! Ten years of quiet time for the driven experimentalist 
to explore! Explore without having your invested time interrupted by a 
pluggin that can do almost exactly what your doing.

I saw the Yamaha vocal software in action almost to date five years ago. 
I am more than thrilled to see that it's going to be released, and not 
put on ice as first intended.

Tobias

elhardt@... wrote:

>
> There are a couple of problems with this thinking. First is that there 
> is quite
> a bit of new stuff coming out regarding synthesis and synthesis related
> processing.  Examples like Spectral Delay real-time FFT manipulation 
> software,
> Yamaha's new vocal software giving you realistic artificial vocals, 
> realtime
> independent pitch/time/formant manipulation software, finally new 
> powerful
> additive synthesis with features never before available, EQ curve 
> extracting
> software, harddrive streaming samplers (semi-new), and so on.
>
> The other problem is that there is more available now than any person 
> could
> fully explore in his lifetime.  When I hear people clammering for 
> more, more, I
> think, why?  Are you being held back from creating something because 
> there are
> too few software/synth choices?
>

Tobias writes:
>>You are still talking about technologies that were available almost fifteen 
years ago. Perhaps not on your lap top, but these products are simply 
commercialized versions of early discoveries.<<

When some decade old non-realtime computer code running on a university 
mainframe is now commercialized and brought to the public in a useable form on 
their PC, then that is progress and opens up new ideas and uses.

>>The buffer of "innovations to come" and current software is pretty much on 
the same page these days.<<

If you're just looking behind the scenes and trying to see what will be here 15 
years from now, then that's the wrong viewpoint.  And like any maturing field, 
the innovation is the first invention. It's usually incremental steps from that 
point on.

>>There are no more "natural" resources to tap in terms of innovations that 
couldn't be done because of slow computers. This leads to a stagnation in 
peoples interest to explore. <<

Not sure what that means, but it's because of the fast speed of computers that 
we are doing many things on them we won't have wanted to way back when 
computers were slow. I can patch up a modular softsynth like Reaktor, play it 
and manipulate the sound in realtime. If I go back 15+ years to "Turbo Synth" 
or "Soft Synth" on my ancient Mac II, I had to hit a compute button and wait a 
while for it to compute a wave file of the sound and then download it into a 
sampler to play. In this case similar technology as you say, but the newer is 
easy and fun to use and explore with versus the old that was such a pain the 
software was never used for anything and would be considered useless today.

>>Like you say, everything is available and it would take a lifetime to 
explore. Sure, but that comes with the luggage of knowing that what you're 
working on right now probably already exists on a sample lib!<<

Sample lib? That's like saying because no new colors have been invented, every 
painting or picture has already been created.  Not even close.

>>It's almost like saying, -I can cover most areas with my commercial sample 
lib and if there's something missing then I'm not going to take the time to 
cook up my own sounds because It will probably be covered by a new sample lib 
by tomorrow. This knowledge sets the bar very high and leaves little or no hope 
for new exploration.<<

You seem to have a very limited view of what synthesis is capable of.  It's an 
infinite open ended instrument.  There will never come a day when all sounds 
will have been created, anymore than there will be a day when all possible 
books will have been written.

>>The Synclavier is a good example of a product that lend itself towards great 
discoveries. Only a few people could afford it, and it was way ahead of it's 
time. These circumstances led to an oasis of exploration. People did things 
with samples and FM that had sounded amazing! They dared to spend long hours of 
tedious mapping etc., because they knew they were pushing new ground. The 
Synclav window of opportunity lasted almost ten years! Ten years of quiet time 
for the driven experimentalist to explore!<<

The Synclavier commercialized availabe technology, but didn't break much new 
ground.  Additive synthesis was here decades before and sampling was already 
well explored on the Fairlight.  People are still free to buy a Synclav cheap 
these days and enter an oasis of exploration.  Or they could buy any other 
powerful synth and also spend decades exploring.  A movie producer doesn't stop 
making movies just because other people are also making movies.  Synthesizers 
have been around for a while now and as a result most people don't feel the 
need to push them to their limits to prove what they can do.  They just want to 
get the job done fast.  So there is plenty of room for the few people left that 
will spend days on a unique patch.

If any complaint should be waged, it should be about synth companies stopping 
development or discontinuing unique products.  Physical modeling was 
mentioned.  It's pretty good at brass, OK at woodwinds, lousy at some other 
stuff.  In other words, maybe some synthesis methods need to be finished rather 
than looking for something completely different.

I finally gave in and ordered Spectral Delay today. Just an example of 
something totally new and unique even if the programmers didn't invent all the 
technology from scratch themselves.

-Elhardt

One comment^H^H^H^H^H^H^H rant inline:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rreprobate [mailto:lord@...] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 11:58 AM
> To: motm@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [motm] Re: what do we do our computers??
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's a mistake to prematurely underestimate the new 
> territory being discovered as a result of making 
> traditionally "academic" computer music tools *realtime* and 
> *affordable* .
> 
> Cheap amplification allowed three guys with guitars to make 
> more noise than an orchestra, and that changed everything.
> 
> Sad to say, the results of non-realtime computer music have 
> not historically been of much interest to most humans. Making 
> these instruments affordable and real-time means that people 
> are PERFORMING MUSIC with them -- which is the sure path to relevancy.
> 
> I understand your dismay at the state of "basic research" in 
> academia right now. But I think that neither the lack of 
> research, nor the cheap availability of music tools are 
> responsible for "bad music." I would look to the more 
> pedestrian forces of human sloth and your own personal grumpiness.
> 


There is a severe and profound disconnect between academia and the "real
world". Not to denigrate one or the other but the academic world has
little seeming awareness of what is happening and little interest in
learning.  They are "stuck" in their own world and have evolved into a
very specialized cadre only interested in self replication.  Darwin's
Finches come immediately to mind.

I was with joy when I first ran into the Computer Music Journal in 1976.
I got every copy and devoured it.  This was when Bernie was publishing
Electronotes and I thought that CMJ would offer a sort of large and
future view where Bernie was offering a circuit design newsletter.

I got way more from Electronotes and the mainstream popular media (
Keyboard, Mix, etc. ) than I ever got from CMJ.  I am holding in my hand
the 20th annual issue: Vol20 #1, ISSN 0148-9267 Spring 1996.  The theme
for the issue is The State of the Art.

In it, I run into an article from the head honcho and another person at
CCRMA ( J-C Risset and S. VanDuyne ) describing: Real-Time Performance
Interaction with a Computer-Controlled Acoustic Piano.  Fourteen pages
including bibliography to say that they are using a MAC running MAX to
control a Yamaha Disklavier with MIDI.  A quick Google shows that the
Disklavier was introduced nine years prior to the publication date of
the article.  State of the Art indeed...

Equipment reviews in the back of the journal are also wonderful.
They tout the Yamaha VL7 mono synth as new but Yamaha says it was
released in 1994 - two years prior to the publication date.
They announce the Korg OASYS but we are looking at 1993 for its release.
Three years.  State of the Art again...

I am not trying to deny these people their fun but when they set
themselves up to be progenitors of today's music tools, I have to say
"nuts to you sir - you are wrong!"

John Chowning's FM work (a derivation of Fourier's) was instrumental in
a lot of the initial synthesizers but it was Yamaha offering Stanford U.
a mega-royalty check that shook that development out and brought it into
the real world where it flourished.  They made it real-time whereas all
the University Music Labs had it as batch jobs: Submit a card deck and
come back tomorrow to pick up your tape...  If you are lucky...  If all
your cards were correctly punched...  If the operator didn't drop the
deck...


Also, this is not sour grapes or ignorance on my part - I grew up in an
academic family, I took academic music courses (organ at U. Pitt.) and
spent a lot of time in college (primary work was biology at Boston U.).
I made the decision to leave the academic world when I got frustrated by
not being able to do "real work" and also by my own limitation of not
being willing to participate in the communal circle-jerk that passes for
academic scholarship, hiring and tenure.

I will close with two-point-one observations:

#1) - None of the people that I read in the table of contents of CMJ are
names that I hear about in music today.
I am still interested in experimental music (own an MOTM after all...),
go to interesting shows at U.Washington, etc...

#2.0) - There was another "Journal" (and I mean this in the most
honorable of terms) - this is the Experimental Musical Instruments
Journal published by Bart Hopkin.  This puppy started publication in
1985 and I am proud to have an almost complete set of it. These are
people who made music for the fun of it, who innovated with whatever
they had at hand, who were the real driving forces behind what is
experimental music today.

#2.1 - scanning quickly through a couple issues of it, I recognize lots
of names who are still involved in music.  In the last five years, I
have seen or heard about performances of people who I was first made
aware of through this Journal.
http://www.windworld.com/emi/

> Cheers,
> 
> Max Lord
> 
> 
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Tobias Enhus <tobias@m...> wrote:
> > You are still talking about technologies that were available almost
> > fifteen years ago. Perhaps not on your lap top, but these 
> products are 
> > simply commercialized versions of early discoveries. The buffer of 
> > "innovations to come" and current software is pretty much 
> on the same 
> > page these days. There are no more "natural" resources to 
> tap in terms 
> > of innovations that couldn't be done because of slow 
> computers. This 
> > leads to a stagnation in peoples interest to explore. Like you say, 
> > everything is available and it would take a lifetime to explore.....
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> ---------------------~-->
> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's 
> Important Questions.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/VpLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------~->
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
>

David Halliday writes:
>>I got way more from Electronotes and the mainstream popular media (Keyboard, 
Mix, etc. ) than I ever got from CMJ.<<

I used to subscribe to CMJ too and I don't think I ever got anything useful 
from it. In fact I quite often got the impression they didn't know what was 
happening in the commercial field and they were milling around on ideas that 
had already been in the marketplace for years.  It seemed like all talk and no 
substance.

>>John Chowning's FM work (a derivation of Fourier's) was instrumental in a lot 
of the initial synthesizers but it was Yamaha offering Stanford U. a mega-
royalty check that shook that development out and brought it into the real 
world where it flourished. They made it real-time whereas all the University 
Music Labs had it as batch jobs: Submit a card deck and come back tomorrow to 
pick up your tape...<<

As long as university people can survive or get government grants for their 
little experiments, they can putz around on projects and there's not much 
incentive to commercialize them.

-Elhardt