MOTM

Hi All -

The patch book idea is terrific - I would gladly contribute.  In fact,
this weekend I will cook up a couple of (what I think are) cool things
and put them into PDF format.  I'll send them to Paul H; if the book
idea or the patch-of-the-week idea matures then beauty.  

I wanted to clarify a little about my general approach to synthesis,
because it is maybe a little different from what I've heard described.
It's an approach that is time-consuming and expeimental, and sometimes
just plain random.  I certainly am not terribly interested in
synthesizing known timbres, though I do understand why some folks are
keenly interested in this aspect of it.  My goal is to hear something
that I've never heard before.  NOTE that that doesn't mean that the
timbre hasn't been done before, it's just that I haven't heard it.

Sometimes I hear that sound in my head and attempt to analyze how I
would create it, then go plug some cables and tweezle some knobs. 
Sometimes, I rip out all of the cables and start from scratch without
any notion of what I'm after.  Sometimes I'm doing a demo and need to
show off the module's capabilities.  For me, it all takes time.  Often
I'll have a patch 'cooking' for days and I will come in and alter it
with fresh ears.  I *always* record the results so I have a running
record - it's surprising how different an 'end' result is from where I
started.  I say 'end' in quotes because this process could go on
pretty much indefinitely.  It only ends when I move on to something else.

As often as not the main timbre results from a pretty simple patch. 
That gets embellished with filigree from stuff like the 410 or the FS.
  Usually, I'll have several 'simple' timbres going at once (helps to
have a medium-big system) and a 'peice' emerges.  Sometimes, it's just
a phrase that may get used later in a larger, unrelated peice.  It's
all good!

Anyway, that's a glimpse of how I approach the monster on the far wall
in the studio.  Maybe it's not that much different from other folks,
after all.

Mike

That was a great post by Mike.  I thought maybe I would explain as 
well what I am after with my synth, since it is somewhat different 
than what Mike does.  

My long term goal is to produce albums of synthesized music.  The 
type of synthesis that I am interested in is the antithesis of 
techno or industrial type music.  I am not particularly interested 
in rhythm.  I love sounds that are pleasing to the ear, or to put it 
another way are aesthetic.  

I have spent a good deal of time studying what exactly makes a sound 
fall into this category.  Its not just consonance, it can also 
involve resolving dissonance.  It's about combinations of harmonics 
and patterns of notes and how they relate to each other.  

I am terribly interested in the synthesis of traditional 
instruments, not so much because I want to replicate them, but 
because I want to understand why their sound is pleasing.  If 
traditional instruments were not pleasant sounding they would never 
have lasted for hundreds of years.  The synthesizer is still very 
young, but it is certainly very capable.  This is not to say that I 
don't like or appreciate other styles and other directions.  But I 
have always been attrracted to music that involves building 
sonorities and that involves symmetry.

I believe that music is something that is hardwired into the brain, 
and that there are certain sounds and combinations of sounds that 
can impart specific emotions.  

So, my goal when I play around with my synth is to create sounds 
that I can combine to produce an emotional response in the listener.

Paul Haneberg

Thank you thank you thank you!  This is what I was hoping would come
of my earlier post.  I am intensely interested in why/how/what other
people do in synthesis, and this is a keen insight indeed.

I think we are after the same thing, ultimately: beautiful music.  I
also think that there is a very large social/cultural component to
people's response to music and what is beautiful or not.  Some of it
is indeed hard-wired, some of it not.  I want to, um, "challenge" the
ear sometimes, although I grant you that I'm rearely successful in
passing it off as 'beautiful" :> even though I sincerely believe it
myself.

What about it folks?  How/why/what do the rest of you do?

Mike

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "paulhaneberg" <phaneber@o...> wrote:

> That was a great post by Mike.  I thought maybe I would explain as 
> well what I am after with my synth, since it is somewhat different 
> than what Mike does.  
> 
> My long term goal is to produce albums of synthesized music.  The 
> type of synthesis that I am interested in is the antithesis of 
> techno or industrial type music.  I am not particularly interested 
> in rhythm.  I love sounds that are pleasing to the ear, or to put it 
> another way are aesthetic.  
> 
> I have spent a good deal of time studying what exactly makes a sound 
> fall into this category.  Its not just consonance, it can also 
> involve resolving dissonance.  It's about combinations of harmonics 
> and patterns of notes and how they relate to each other.  
> 
> I am terribly interested in the synthesis of traditional 
> instruments, not so much because I want to replicate them, but 
> because I want to understand why their sound is pleasing.  If 
> traditional instruments were not pleasant sounding they would never 
> have lasted for hundreds of years.  The synthesizer is still very 
> young, but it is certainly very capable.  This is not to say that I 
> don't like or appreciate other styles and other directions.  But I 
> have always been attrracted to music that involves building 
> sonorities and that involves symmetry.
> 
> I believe that music is something that is hardwired into the brain, 
> and that there are certain sounds and combinations of sounds that 
> can impart specific emotions.  
> 
> So, my goal when I play around with my synth is to create sounds 
> that I can combine to produce an emotional response in the listener.
> 
> Paul Haneberg

And, by the way Paul H, anybody that can articulate what you have in
your post ABSOLUTELY has stuff to contribute to patch-of-the-week
beyond editing/collecting.  I'd love to see patches from the depths of
your experience!

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Marsh" <michaelmarsh@s...> wrote:

> Thank you thank you thank you!  This is what I was hoping would come
> of my earlier post.  I am intensely interested in why/how/what other
> people do in synthesis, and this is a keen insight indeed.
> 
> I think we are after the same thing, ultimately: beautiful music.  I
> also think that there is a very large social/cultural component to
> people's response to music and what is beautiful or not.  Some of it
> is indeed hard-wired, some of it not.  I want to, um, "challenge" the
> ear sometimes, although I grant you that I'm rearely successful in
> passing it off as 'beautiful" :> even though I sincerely believe it
> myself.
> 
> What about it folks?  How/why/what do the rest of you do?
> 
> Mike
> 
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "paulhaneberg" <phaneber@o...> wrote:
> > That was a great post by Mike.  I thought maybe I would explain as 
> > well what I am after with my synth, since it is somewhat different 
> > than what Mike does.  
> > 
> > My long term goal is to produce albums of synthesized music.  The 
> > type of synthesis that I am interested in is the antithesis of 
> > techno or industrial type music.  I am not particularly interested 
> > in rhythm.  I love sounds that are pleasing to the ear, or to put it 
> > another way are aesthetic.  
> > 
> > I have spent a good deal of time studying what exactly makes a sound 
> > fall into this category.  Its not just consonance, it can also 
> > involve resolving dissonance.  It's about combinations of harmonics 
> > and patterns of notes and how they relate to each other.  
> > 
> > I am terribly interested in the synthesis of traditional 
> > instruments, not so much because I want to replicate them, but 
> > because I want to understand why their sound is pleasing.  If 
> > traditional instruments were not pleasant sounding they would never 
> > have lasted for hundreds of years.  The synthesizer is still very 
> > young, but it is certainly very capable.  This is not to say that I 
> > don't like or appreciate other styles and other directions.  But I 
> > have always been attrracted to music that involves building 
> > sonorities and that involves symmetry.
> > 
> > I believe that music is something that is hardwired into the brain, 
> > and that there are certain sounds and combinations of sounds that 
> > can impart specific emotions.  
> > 
> > So, my goal when I play around with my synth is to create sounds 
> > that I can combine to produce an emotional response in the listener.
> > 
> > Paul Haneberg

Unlike Paul H, I am primarily interested in rhythm (which makes sense 
since I am a drummer). I do not confuse rhythm with the 4/4 thumping we 
hear on the radio (and I am not implying that Paul H does).  Music does 
not generally translate into words very easily, but I think of rhythm as 
"forward motion" or "momentum".  A sense of the inevitable. 

I love "un-pitched" sounds. I have a cymbal collection including two 
gongs. 

I disagree that music in hardwired.  It seems that way to us because it 
means so much to us.  There are plenty of people for whom music is like 
wallpaper.  Music may be cultural.

I am interested in music that I am interested in and I try not to judge 
other things going on in the world but I am almost never successful and 
find that I judge Britney et al. constantly.  I am learning to live with 
this character defect.  I would guess that I am interested in aboot 
0.0001% of the music produced.  To get a general idea of where my 
beauty/pain threshold lies, listen to recent King Crimson or early Magma.

I have no desire to challenge anyone other than myself. 

I love the internet since it allows me to engage in learned debate with 
people of similar ilk and thereby rise above the primitive beasties.

I am selling a lot of stuff on eBay to pay for my MOTM.  Boy, do I need 
a power supply!

PLL, BFG
(Peace, light and love,  Big Fat Greg)

Mike Marsh wrote:

> Thank you thank you thank you!  This is what I was hoping would come
> of my earlier post.  I am intensely interested in why/how/what other
> people do in synthesis, and this is a keen insight indeed.
>
> I think we are after the same thing, ultimately: beautiful music.  I
> also think that there is a very large social/cultural component to
> people's response to music and what is beautiful or not.  Some of it
> is indeed hard-wired, some of it not.  I want to, um, "challenge" the
> ear sometimes, although I grant you that I'm rearely successful in
> passing it off as 'beautiful" :> even though I sincerely believe it
> myself.
>
> What about it folks?  How/why/what do the rest of you do?
>
> Mike
>
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "paulhaneberg" <phaneber@o...> wrote:
> > That was a great post by Mike.  I thought maybe I would explain as
> > well what I am after with my synth, since it is somewhat different
> > than what Mike does. 
> >
> > My long term goal is to produce albums of synthesized music.  The
> > type of synthesis that I am interested in is the antithesis of
> > techno or industrial type music.  I am not particularly interested
> > in rhythm.  I love sounds that are pleasing to the ear, or to put it
> > another way are aesthetic. 
> >
> > I have spent a good deal of time studying what exactly makes a sound
> > fall into this category.  Its not just consonance, it can also
> > involve resolving dissonance.  It's about combinations of harmonics
> > and patterns of notes and how they relate to each other. 
> >
> > I am terribly interested in the synthesis of traditional
> > instruments, not so much because I want to replicate them, but
> > because I want to understand why their sound is pleasing.  If
> > traditional instruments were not pleasant sounding they would never
> > have lasted for hundreds of years.  The synthesizer is still very
> > young, but it is certainly very capable.  This is not to say that I
> > don't like or appreciate other styles and other directions.  But I
> > have always been attrracted to music that involves building
> > sonorities and that involves symmetry.
> >
> > I believe that music is something that is hardwired into the brain,
> > and that there are certain sounds and combinations of sounds that
> > can impart specific emotions. 
> >
> > So, my goal when I play around with my synth is to create sounds
> > that I can combine to produce an emotional response in the listener.
> >
> > Paul Haneberg
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/motm/
>        
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>        
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

The 730 was designed for you, then, Greg!  It's all about rhythms,
ploy and otherwise...

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Greg Amann <greg.amann@s...> wrote:
> Unlike Paul H, I am primarily interested in rhythm (which makes sense 
> since I am a drummer). I do not confuse rhythm with the 4/4 thumping we 
> hear on the radio (and I am not implying that Paul H does).  Music does 
> not generally translate into words very easily, but I think of
rhythm as 
> "forward motion" or "momentum".  A sense of the inevitable. 
> 
> I love "un-pitched" sounds. I have a cymbal collection including two 
> gongs. 
> 
> I disagree that music in hardwired.  It seems that way to us because it 
> means so much to us.  There are plenty of people for whom music is like 
> wallpaper.  Music may be cultural.
> 
> I am interested in music that I am interested in and I try not to judge 
> other things going on in the world but I am almost never successful and 
> find that I judge Britney et al. constantly.  I am learning to live
with 
> this character defect.  I would guess that I am interested in aboot 
> 0.0001% of the music produced.  To get a general idea of where my 
> beauty/pain threshold lies, listen to recent King Crimson or early
Magma.
> 
> I have no desire to challenge anyone other than myself. 
> 
> I love the internet since it allows me to engage in learned debate with 
> people of similar ilk and thereby rise above the primitive beasties.
> 
> I am selling a lot of stuff on eBay to pay for my MOTM.  Boy, do I need 
> a power supply!
> 
> PLL, BFG
> (Peace, light and love,  Big Fat Greg)
> 
> Mike Marsh wrote:
> 
> > Thank you thank you thank you!  This is what I was hoping would come
> > of my earlier post.  I am intensely interested in why/how/what other
> > people do in synthesis, and this is a keen insight indeed.
> >
> > I think we are after the same thing, ultimately: beautiful music.  I
> > also think that there is a very large social/cultural component to
> > people's response to music and what is beautiful or not.  Some of it
> > is indeed hard-wired, some of it not.  I want to, um, "challenge" the
> > ear sometimes, although I grant you that I'm rearely successful in
> > passing it off as 'beautiful" :> even though I sincerely believe it
> > myself.
> >
> > What about it folks?  How/why/what do the rest of you do?
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "paulhaneberg" <phaneber@o...> wrote:
> > > That was a great post by Mike.  I thought maybe I would explain as
> > > well what I am after with my synth, since it is somewhat different
> > > than what Mike does. 
> > >
> > > My long term goal is to produce albums of synthesized music.  The
> > > type of synthesis that I am interested in is the antithesis of
> > > techno or industrial type music.  I am not particularly interested
> > > in rhythm.  I love sounds that are pleasing to the ear, or to put it
> > > another way are aesthetic. 
> > >
> > > I have spent a good deal of time studying what exactly makes a sound
> > > fall into this category.  Its not just consonance, it can also
> > > involve resolving dissonance.  It's about combinations of harmonics
> > > and patterns of notes and how they relate to each other. 
> > >
> > > I am terribly interested in the synthesis of traditional
> > > instruments, not so much because I want to replicate them, but
> > > because I want to understand why their sound is pleasing.  If
> > > traditional instruments were not pleasant sounding they would never
> > > have lasted for hundreds of years.  The synthesizer is still very
> > > young, but it is certainly very capable.  This is not to say that I
> > > don't like or appreciate other styles and other directions.  But I
> > > have always been attrracted to music that involves building
> > > sonorities and that involves symmetry.
> > >
> > > I believe that music is something that is hardwired into the brain,
> > > and that there are certain sounds and combinations of sounds that
> > > can impart specific emotions. 
> > >
> > > So, my goal when I play around with my synth is to create sounds
> > > that I can combine to produce an emotional response in the listener.
> > >
> > > Paul Haneberg
> >
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------

> > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
> >
> >     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> >       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/motm/
> >        
> >     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >       motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >       <mailto:motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >        
> >     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> >       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >

"poly" not "ploy"

Sorry - you can tell what my keyboard skils are.  That's OK: I'm a
guitarist!

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Marsh" <michaelmarsh@s...> wrote:
> The 730 was designed for you, then, Greg!  It's all about rhythms,
> ploy and otherwise...
> 
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Greg Amann <greg.amann@s...> wrote:
> > Unlike Paul H, I am primarily interested in rhythm (which makes sense 
> > since I am a drummer). I do not confuse rhythm with the 4/4
thumping we 
> > hear on the radio (and I am not implying that Paul H does).  Music
does 
> > not generally translate into words very easily, but I think of
> rhythm as 
> > "forward motion" or "momentum".  A sense of the inevitable. 
> > 
> > I love "un-pitched" sounds. I have a cymbal collection including two 
> > gongs. 
> > 
> > I disagree that music in hardwired.  It seems that way to us
because it 
> > means so much to us.  There are plenty of people for whom music is
like 
> > wallpaper.  Music may be cultural.
> > 
> > I am interested in music that I am interested in and I try not to
judge 
> > other things going on in the world but I am almost never
successful and 
> > find that I judge Britney et al. constantly.  I am learning to live
> with 
> > this character defect.  I would guess that I am interested in aboot 
> > 0.0001% of the music produced.  To get a general idea of where my 
> > beauty/pain threshold lies, listen to recent King Crimson or early
> Magma.
> > 
> > I have no desire to challenge anyone other than myself. 
> > 
> > I love the internet since it allows me to engage in learned debate
with 
> > people of similar ilk and thereby rise above the primitive beasties.
> > 
> > I am selling a lot of stuff on eBay to pay for my MOTM.  Boy, do I
need 
> > a power supply!
> > 
> > PLL, BFG
> > (Peace, light and love,  Big Fat Greg)
> > 
> > Mike Marsh wrote:
> > 
> > > Thank you thank you thank you!  This is what I was hoping would come
> > > of my earlier post.  I am intensely interested in why/how/what other
> > > people do in synthesis, and this is a keen insight indeed.
> > >
> > > I think we are after the same thing, ultimately: beautiful music.  I
> > > also think that there is a very large social/cultural component to
> > > people's response to music and what is beautiful or not.  Some of it
> > > is indeed hard-wired, some of it not.  I want to, um,
"challenge" the
> > > ear sometimes, although I grant you that I'm rearely successful in
> > > passing it off as 'beautiful" :> even though I sincerely believe it
> > > myself.
> > >
> > > What about it folks?  How/why/what do the rest of you do?
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "paulhaneberg" <phaneber@o...> wrote:
> > > > That was a great post by Mike.  I thought maybe I would explain as
> > > > well what I am after with my synth, since it is somewhat different
> > > > than what Mike does. 
> > > >
> > > > My long term goal is to produce albums of synthesized music.  The
> > > > type of synthesis that I am interested in is the antithesis of
> > > > techno or industrial type music.  I am not particularly interested
> > > > in rhythm.  I love sounds that are pleasing to the ear, or to
put it
> > > > another way are aesthetic. 
> > > >
> > > > I have spent a good deal of time studying what exactly makes a
sound
> > > > fall into this category.  Its not just consonance, it can also
> > > > involve resolving dissonance.  It's about combinations of
harmonics
> > > > and patterns of notes and how they relate to each other. 
> > > >
> > > > I am terribly interested in the synthesis of traditional
> > > > instruments, not so much because I want to replicate them, but
> > > > because I want to understand why their sound is pleasing.  If
> > > > traditional instruments were not pleasant sounding they would
never
> > > > have lasted for hundreds of years.  The synthesizer is still very
> > > > young, but it is certainly very capable.  This is not to say
that I
> > > > don't like or appreciate other styles and other directions.  But I
> > > > have always been attrracted to music that involves building
> > > > sonorities and that involves symmetry.
> > > >
> > > > I believe that music is something that is hardwired into the
brain,
> > > > and that there are certain sounds and combinations of sounds that
> > > > can impart specific emotions. 
> > > >
> > > > So, my goal when I play around with my synth is to create sounds
> > > > that I can combine to produce an emotional response in the
listener.

> > > >
> > > > Paul Haneberg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
> > >
> > >     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > >       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/motm/
> > >        
> > >     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > >       motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >       <mailto:motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >        
> > >     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > >       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >

Note that I am not getting e-mails from this list.  If this remains permanent, then my participation in on this board is going to be severly limited.  Let's see if this post at least makes it onto the forum pages.


charlesosthelder writes:
>>When people call a particular module "boring", they aren't playing with it hard enough!  Yes, a subharmonic generator can be rather dull, but what if you do THIS...<<

If you run a hardsync'd sound source into it, you can get hardsync'd squarewaves out of it.  That's one way to get around nothing but boring squarewaves.  I used that module to divide down kybd gates to alternate between two sounds.  Run noise into it and you can get a goofy computer archade game type noise sound out of it.  But in general it is still a boring module.  Imagine a subharmonic generator that wasn't limited to square waves, nor limited to octaves below the incoming tone.  Imagine it could output any waveform and at any interval above or below, plus a bunch of other things I don't want to mention.  I've already got something like that working.

Paul Haneberg writes:
>>I'd like to learn not just how he synthesizes, but I'd also like to learn how he decides how to synthesize.<<

It involves biorhythm charts, pyramid power, and Jim Ignatowsky's discovery of dynamic perfection.  It's all very confusing.

>>My long term goal is to produce albums of synthesized music.  The type of synthesis that I am interested in is the antithesis of techno or industrial type music.  I am not particularly interested in rhythm.  I love sounds that are pleasing to the ear, or to put it another way are aesthetic.<<

This is what I like to hear about.  Sometimes I wish I could find enough people so that each person could contribute a couple of pieces for an all analog synth CD of actual music that was meant to be listened to, not random aleatoric stuff (bug music).  Hell, it might even be fun to do synth versions of music that's already out there too.  The Moog Cookbook guys did it, but their's is so simplistic and cheesy sounding.  I'd like to see something of quality.  It could be called "The Vintage Synth Vol. 1" and so on as new ones are released.

>>There have been a lot of recent studies that seem to indicate that music is hardwired into the brain.<<

Unfortunately if not exposed to decent music at an early age, connections don't form properly.  That leads to people being fascinated by the most basic and repetitive sounds and being musically stunted.  That's what would make it hard to tap into all people even if "music" is hardwired into the brain.

>>There have, for instance, been studies that show that music causes activity in the emotional centers of the brain in newborns. This is somewhat perplexing, because it would seem to indicate that there is a survival benefit attached to having an emotional response to music, (or else why would we have evolved it?)<<

Art or laughter don't benefit survival either.  Evolution is a mostly a fraud, and many are moving away from it.

-Elhardt

"a superior intelligence has guided the development of man in a definiate direction" - Alfred Wallace, Darwin's coauthor and simultaneous inventor of evolution by natural selection.

what's the 730?

- chris

On May 27, 2005, at 4:23 PM, Mike Marsh wrote:

> The 730 was designed for you, then, Greg!  It's all about rhythms,
> ploy and otherwise...
>
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Greg Amann <greg.amann@s...> wrote:
>
>> Unlike Paul H, I am primarily interested in rhythm (which makes sense
>> since I am a drummer). I do not confuse rhythm with the 4/4  
>> thumping we
>> hear on the radio (and I am not implying that Paul H does).  Music  
>> does
>> not generally translate into words very easily, but I think of
>>
> rhythm as
>
>> "forward motion" or "momentum".  A sense of the inevitable.
>>
>> I love "un-pitched" sounds. I have a cymbal collection including two
>> gongs.
>>
>> I disagree that music in hardwired.  It seems that way to us  
>> because it
>> means so much to us.  There are plenty of people for whom music is  
>> like
>> wallpaper.  Music may be cultural.
>>
>> I am interested in music that I am interested in and I try not to  
>> judge
>> other things going on in the world but I am almost never  
>> successful and
>> find that I judge Britney et al. constantly.  I am learning to live
>>
> with
>
>> this character defect.  I would guess that I am interested in aboot
>> 0.0001% of the music produced.  To get a general idea of where my
>> beauty/pain threshold lies, listen to recent King Crimson or early
>>
> Magma.
>
>>
>> I have no desire to challenge anyone other than myself.
>>
>> I love the internet since it allows me to engage in learned debate  
>> with
>> people of similar ilk and thereby rise above the primitive beasties.
>>
>> I am selling a lot of stuff on eBay to pay for my MOTM.  Boy, do I  
>> need
>> a power supply!
>>
>> PLL, BFG
>> (Peace, light and love,  Big Fat Greg)
>>
>> Mike Marsh wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Thank you thank you thank you!  This is what I was hoping would come
>>> of my earlier post.  I am intensely interested in why/how/what other
>>> people do in synthesis, and this is a keen insight indeed.
>>>
>>> I think we are after the same thing, ultimately: beautiful music.  I
>>> also think that there is a very large social/cultural component to
>>> people's response to music and what is beautiful or not.  Some of it
>>> is indeed hard-wired, some of it not.  I want to, um, "challenge"  
>>> the
>>> ear sometimes, although I grant you that I'm rearely successful in
>>> passing it off as 'beautiful" :> even though I sincerely believe it
>>> myself.
>>>
>>> What about it folks?  How/why/what do the rest of you do?
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "paulhaneberg" <phaneber@o...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That was a great post by Mike.  I thought maybe I would explain as
>>>> well what I am after with my synth, since it is somewhat different
>>>> than what Mike does.
>>>>
>>>> My long term goal is to produce albums of synthesized music.  The
>>>> type of synthesis that I am interested in is the antithesis of
>>>> techno or industrial type music.  I am not particularly interested
>>>> in rhythm.  I love sounds that are pleasing to the ear, or to  
>>>> put it
>>>> another way are aesthetic.
>>>>
>>>> I have spent a good deal of time studying what exactly makes a  
>>>> sound
>>>> fall into this category.  Its not just consonance, it can also
>>>> involve resolving dissonance.  It's about combinations of harmonics
>>>> and patterns of notes and how they relate to each other.
>>>>
>>>> I am terribly interested in the synthesis of traditional
>>>> instruments, not so much because I want to replicate them, but
>>>> because I want to understand why their sound is pleasing.  If
>>>> traditional instruments were not pleasant sounding they would never
>>>> have lasted for hundreds of years.  The synthesizer is still very
>>>> young, but it is certainly very capable.  This is not to say that I
>>>> don't like or appreciate other styles and other directions.  But I
>>>> have always been attrracted to music that involves building
>>>> sonorities and that involves symmetry.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that music is something that is hardwired into the brain,
>>>> and that there are certain sounds and combinations of sounds that
>>>> can impart specific emotions.
>>>>
>>>> So, my goal when I play around with my synth is to create sounds
>>>> that I can combine to produce an emotional response in the  
>>>> listener.
>>>>
>>>> Paul Haneberg
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> --
>
>>> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>>>
>>>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>>>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/motm/
>>>
>>>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>>       motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>>       <mailto:motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>>>
>>>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>>>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------------- 
> ~-->
> What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
> Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/rKxVKC/SOnJAA/n1hLAA/VpLolB/TM
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

VC Divider, very cool.  There's a demo in the files section...

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Chris Walcott <cedub@m...> wrote:
> what's the 730?
> 
> - chris
> 
> On May 27, 2005, at 4:23 PM, Mike Marsh wrote:
> 
> > The 730 was designed for you, then, Greg!  It's all about rhythms,
> > ploy and otherwise...
> >
> > --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Greg Amann <greg.amann@s...> wrote:
> >
> >> Unlike Paul H, I am primarily interested in rhythm (which makes sense
> >> since I am a drummer). I do not confuse rhythm with the 4/4  
> >> thumping we
> >> hear on the radio (and I am not implying that Paul H does).  Music  
> >> does
> >> not generally translate into words very easily, but I think of
> >>
> > rhythm as
> >
> >> "forward motion" or "momentum".  A sense of the inevitable.
> >>
> >> I love "un-pitched" sounds. I have a cymbal collection including two
> >> gongs.
> >>
> >> I disagree that music in hardwired.  It seems that way to us  
> >> because it
> >> means so much to us.  There are plenty of people for whom music is  
> >> like
> >> wallpaper.  Music may be cultural.
> >>
> >> I am interested in music that I am interested in and I try not to  
> >> judge
> >> other things going on in the world but I am almost never  
> >> successful and
> >> find that I judge Britney et al. constantly.  I am learning to live
> >>
> > with
> >
> >> this character defect.  I would guess that I am interested in aboot
> >> 0.0001% of the music produced.  To get a general idea of where my
> >> beauty/pain threshold lies, listen to recent King Crimson or early
> >>
> > Magma.
> >
> >>
> >> I have no desire to challenge anyone other than myself.
> >>
> >> I love the internet since it allows me to engage in learned debate  
> >> with
> >> people of similar ilk and thereby rise above the primitive beasties.
> >>
> >> I am selling a lot of stuff on eBay to pay for my MOTM.  Boy, do I  
> >> need
> >> a power supply!
> >>
> >> PLL, BFG
> >> (Peace, light and love,  Big Fat Greg)
> >>
> >> Mike Marsh wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Thank you thank you thank you!  This is what I was hoping would come
> >>> of my earlier post.  I am intensely interested in why/how/what other
> >>> people do in synthesis, and this is a keen insight indeed.
> >>>
> >>> I think we are after the same thing, ultimately: beautiful music.  I
> >>> also think that there is a very large social/cultural component to
> >>> people's response to music and what is beautiful or not.  Some of it
> >>> is indeed hard-wired, some of it not.  I want to, um, "challenge"  
> >>> the
> >>> ear sometimes, although I grant you that I'm rearely successful in
> >>> passing it off as 'beautiful" :> even though I sincerely believe it
> >>> myself.
> >>>
> >>> What about it folks?  How/why/what do the rest of you do?
> >>>
> >>> Mike
> >>>
> >>> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "paulhaneberg" <phaneber@o...> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> That was a great post by Mike.  I thought maybe I would explain as
> >>>> well what I am after with my synth, since it is somewhat different
> >>>> than what Mike does.
> >>>>
> >>>> My long term goal is to produce albums of synthesized music.  The
> >>>> type of synthesis that I am interested in is the antithesis of
> >>>> techno or industrial type music.  I am not particularly interested
> >>>> in rhythm.  I love sounds that are pleasing to the ear, or to  
> >>>> put it
> >>>> another way are aesthetic.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have spent a good deal of time studying what exactly makes a  
> >>>> sound
> >>>> fall into this category.  Its not just consonance, it can also
> >>>> involve resolving dissonance.  It's about combinations of harmonics
> >>>> and patterns of notes and how they relate to each other.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am terribly interested in the synthesis of traditional
> >>>> instruments, not so much because I want to replicate them, but
> >>>> because I want to understand why their sound is pleasing.  If
> >>>> traditional instruments were not pleasant sounding they would never
> >>>> have lasted for hundreds of years.  The synthesizer is still very
> >>>> young, but it is certainly very capable.  This is not to say that I
> >>>> don't like or appreciate other styles and other directions.  But I
> >>>> have always been attrracted to music that involves building
> >>>> sonorities and that involves symmetry.
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe that music is something that is hardwired into the brain,
> >>>> and that there are certain sounds and combinations of sounds that
> >>>> can impart specific emotions.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, my goal when I play around with my synth is to create sounds
> >>>> that I can combine to produce an emotional response in the  
> >>>> listener.
> >>>>
> >>>> Paul Haneberg
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

> > --
> >
> >>> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
> >>>
> >>>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> >>>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/motm/
> >>>
> >>>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >>>       motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >>>       <mailto:motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >>>
> >>>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> >>>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------------- 
> > ~-->
> > What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
> > Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/rKxVKC/SOnJAA/n1hLAA/VpLolB/TM
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > ~->
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Just so some of those who talked about a patch book idea don't think 
absolutely nothing will happen here, I might be working something out 
with Paul S. for me to draw up and document some of my patches along 
with some sound files to post.  I'm motivated to at least get a couple 
of things out there to see how it goes and how much work is involved.  
I have no idea whether it's a subscription thing or what, or how long 
it would go on.

Also, about the idea I mentioned about a Vintage Synth series of analog 
synth CDs.  If there are any people who have pretty good musical and 
synth skills, who think an idea of a callaborative synth CD might fly, 
or who have or will release their own CD's in commercial outlets (ie. 
Moog Cookbook, Thelonious Moog, Dana Countryman, etc) and have any clue 
as to the minimum number that could be sold, please speak up.  Perhaps 
there is an analog synth revival that can be tapped into in the general 
public if the word can be gotten out.  With detailed equipment 
listings, it would also make a good synth demo CD.

Note that I'm talking about a CD with actual music meant to be listened 
to.  Not an album of noises, beats, random sounds, or unpitched 
percussion.  There's already too much of an anti-music attitude among 
those buying synths.  We need to get back to music.

-Elhardt

"And I saw some guys my age wearing earrings.  No guys in the future 
are going to wear earrings.  That couldn't possibly happen." - written 
in 1937

Hello all, Neither here nor there, but in 1999, I contributed a few tracks to a vintage synth demonstration CD that was mentioned on Analog Heaven: Let s see

Andrew Sanchez writes:
>>Neither here nor there, but in 1999, I contributed a few tracks to a
vintage synth demonstration CD that was mentioned on Analog Heaven: From
what I understand, very few copies sold. Maybe it was priced too high, I
don't know. Hopefully since the MOTM list is more of a specialized and
focused group, a CD or online subscription would generate more interest than
the project I was involved with.<<

Yeah, I knew there was something done by AH members a while back.  I don't
know if the CD you mention is the same one.  But those CDs seem to be known
mostly to just AH members and I'm not sure they were ambitious projects.
Seemed like anybody could throw something onto them.  I'm wondering about CD
sales when they make it into better known retail channels such as
Amazon.com, record stores, and little reviews that pop up in magazines like
Keyboard.  It seems like the first CD from the Moog Cookbook guys must have
been enough of a success to cause them to do a second CD.  And their CDs are
really simplistic and basic as far as synthesis is concerned.  Dana
Countryman must be doing his Jean-Jacues Perrey collaboration CD for more
than a few dozen sales to list members.  It would be interesting to hear
where that is planned to go.

-Elhardt

apologies to paul & the group for a hotheaded response...  i couldn't 
find the "undo" button, but i've at least deleted it from the 
archive...  

b
--- 
In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Kenneth Elhardt" <elhardt@w...> wrote:
> Andrew Sanchez writes:
> >>Neither here nor there, but in 1999, I contributed a few tracks 
to a
> vintage synth demonstration CD that was mentioned on Analog Heaven: 
From
> what I understand, very few copies sold. Maybe it was priced too 
high, I
> don't know. Hopefully since the MOTM list is more of a specialized 
and
> focused group, a CD or online subscription would generate more 
interest than
> the project I was involved with.<<
> 
> Yeah, I knew there was something done by AH members a while back.  
I don't
> know if the CD you mention is the same one.  But those CDs seem to 
be known
> mostly to just AH members and I'm not sure they were ambitious 
projects.
> Seemed like anybody could throw something onto them.  I'm wondering 
about CD
> sales when they make it into better known retail channels such as
> Amazon.com, record stores, and little reviews that pop up in 
magazines like
> Keyboard.  It seems like the first CD from the Moog Cookbook guys 
must have
> been enough of a success to cause them to do a second CD.  And 
their CDs are
> really simplistic and basic as far as synthesis is concerned.  Dana
> Countryman must be doing his Jean-Jacues Perrey collaboration CD 
for more
> than a few dozen sales to list members.  It would be interesting to 
hear

> where that is planned to go.
> 
> -Elhardt

I'm volunteering the use of my studio for any MOTM project.
I can't quite do it for free, but I will HEAVILY DISCOUNT my normal 
rates (60% off.)  
My studio is equipped with a ProTools HD3Accel System with an 
expanded ProControl, nearly every plug-in available including the 
Waves Diamond Bundle and Genelec monitors.
I have a really BIG MOTM available (somewhere around 140 modules) as 
well as an Andromeda and a Voyager and quite a number of that other 
kind of synth too.  V-Drums, various guitars and basses are also 
available.
I am also equipped to do small duplication runs and can print on the 
CDs, but cannot print booklets.
Please note, that I'm not really trying to make a profit on this at 
all.  I would like to do it for free, but I just have to cover my 
expenses.
If you wish to record elsewhere I can also do the mastering, as long 
as the formats are compatible.

Paul Haneberg

On Thursday 09 June 2005 18:14, paulhaneberg wrote:

> I have a really BIG MOTM available (somewhere around 140
> modules) 

omg....

The most recent photo I have of my synth can be found on the second 
last page of the Synthesis Technology catalog (July 2004 edition.)
The cabinet which is 5 rows high and 34 units wide is now full and I 
have a number of modules laying around loose.

I'm having new cabinets built, but have been experiencing the usual 
cabinetmaker problems.

I'm planning on doing a new website for my studio which will also 
include lots of synth stuff, as well as including some of my music.

Problem is, right now I'm so busy with the day gig and with evening 
sessions that I just haven't had the time.  Once I get it up and 
running I'll let everyone know.

My synth consists of the following modules:
4 - 101
2 - 110
2 - 120
6 - 190
9 - 300
6 - 310
3 - 320
2 - 380
2 - 390
2 - 410
3 - 420
3 - 440
2 - 480
3 - 490
2 - 510
2 - 700
10 - 800
4 - 820
6 - 830
4 - 850
3 - 890
6 - 910
1 - 940
11 - Larry Hendry Octave/Interval Switchers
6 - Encore Modules
12 - Blacet Modules
9 - Oakley Modules
2 - Wiard Modules
7 - Ken Stone Modules
Several Modules of my own design

I also have on order the following
1 - 300
2 - 450
2 - 485
2 - 520
4 - 600
2 - 650
2 - 730 (not really on order, but I told Paul I'd take them)

If I okay the prototype, each of the new cabinets will hold 6 rows 
of 12 U each.  I'm planning on 5 cabinets.

I'm hopelessly addicted to this thing, so I need the studio to keep 
making money.  The only problem with that is the busier I am in the 
studio, the less time I have for doing my own stuff.

Paul Haneberg