Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    
    	I enjoy TD.  I have a number of their albums.  Enjoyable, yes.
    Pioneers, no way.
    
    							- Karl_1

    A friend lent me the 'Le Parc' album, recorded early '85. While
    it's nice, and really less repetitive than the first impression,
    and they use very nice and warm synth timbres, I find that they
    are addicted to 4/4 time and aren't really very harmonically
    imaginative. Recently heard several Jarre' albums and my response
    was the same... FAR short of amazing.
    
    this may warrant another topic, but I'll put it here. My contention
    is that the bulk of music commercially available is just not that
    stunning. Perhaps it's because I've grown as a musician, it just
    takes more to grab my ears. I dub this the Janzen Syndrome. 
    
    I feel that the quality of output of many 'amateur' musicians in exceeds
    that of the published pros... due to the incredible boom in consumer
    electronics and home studios, the instruments and timbres available
    to us is closer to pro gear than we think. And, since there's no
    record company and/or music marketing types to please, the music
    created by folks who are not 'successful' is in fact MORE attractive
    because it's less diluted by market pressures. 
    
    So, I guess there are several points I wanna make. One is that it
    takes a LOT more these days to really move me, make me listen again
    and again. The second is that the music put out by you and me is
    much closer to 'pro' quality than we might think... and it's generally
    more honest since it's not made under $$ pressures in bigbux studios.
    And, of course, I salute the synthesizer/computer/home studio
    electronics market which brings these wonderful toys within reach.

    k moeller
    

    Karl, this is totally off the subject, but where do you get your
    "nom du jour"s?
    
    len.
     

    re -1.... from my incredibly fertile Right Brain... how about you
    ??? Actually, I've been known to have SEVERAL profile names in one
    day. Recently I posted a fairly vituperative reply in the MARKETING
    conference with the heading 'DIGITAL Had It Now'...re the retirement
    of the 780/785. I WAS gonna post 'DIGITAL Had It, But Now It's TPL'
    .. but as a Software Nerd, I know you don't bite the hand that supports
    you...
    
    km

    Well, I'm so clever that my "nom du jour"s are all SUBLIMINAL!

    len (also a software nerd).
    

While I have heard only *some* of the music of Tangerine Dream, the verdict
is:  YAAAAWN.  And since I'm on the subject, their score for the movie "Legend"
is an absolute joke.  Someone should tell them that film scoring does *not*
mean "make it up as you go along."  (But then again, the movie was so bad
it probably deserved the score).

Jarre's music is yet another bucket of snooze.  A shopping list has more
thrilling moments.               

If people really want to know what can be done with digital synths, listen
to Wendy Carlos' "Digital Moonscapes."  (The selections "Genesis," "Eden,"
and "I.C." are throwaways, but "Io" and "Luna" will TRANSFORM you!)


P.S. If Tangerine Dream are Pioneers, I'm the Pope of Rome.

John M.

    
    
    	Hmmm, what pronoun do I use when referring to Carlos's early
    music?
    
	What I was going to say is that I've never been impressed with
    any of Carlos's pieces, including his/her early pre-electronic stuff.
     I don't think she's a very good composer.
    
							- Karl

    That last reply was enough to make a hard-core Carlosite like myself
    go nonlinear!  C'mon Karl, "Timesteps" is a masterpiece (not to
    mention about 10 other W.C. compositions).
    
    And leave us not forget that W. Carlos was instrumental (no pun
    intended) in the development of the Moog synthesizer.
    
    John M.

    Still, I have to wonder why WC spends so much time doing additive
    synthesis of real instruments rather than trying to use all that
    technology to create new sounds.  Maybe she can't afford to rent
    an orchestra.  Would her music still be "interesting" if played
    by an "ordinary/traditional" orchestra?  What excerpts I've heard
    (admittedly, only excerpts) left me unexcited.  I'd rather listen
    to Suzanne Ciani's jingles.
    
    len.
    

    It's good to see someone else get beat up.  I won't begin to
    explain why I see TD as pioneers as I will probably get beat up
    again (Seems lotsa people want to get into subjective arguments),
    but I do.  A sense of humor is a valuble thing... 
    
    I am not impressed with WC at all.
    
    Todd.
    

    
    	Actually, I continue to buy WC records with all possible good
    intentions.  It's just that I'm usually disappointed.
    
    	The only thing that keeps her going is the success of the
    'Switched on Bach' albums.  She has a name (actually, two :-)).
    If 'Digital Moonscapes' was written for a traditional orchestra,
    I very much doubt that it would ever have been played.  Do you
    really think it stands comparison with Stravinsky, Holst, Mahler,
    Debussy, etc.?
    
    	BUT, if you enjoy Carlos, great!  You're getting enjoyment and
    I'm not.  You win, I lose.  I'm just curious about who likes what
    is this conference.
    						,Karl_1
    
    

Re: .10

I'm glad you asked.  I think one reason W.C. seems to use a lot of imitative
synthesis is that she is a great believer in "sonic vocabularies."  The
orchestra evolved over many years.  Instruments with timbres that didn't
mix well or were unpopular fell by the wayside.  What's left is a system
that works.  If one imitates that system, adding slight changes and
variations,  one is bound to succeed (at least timbrally).

Another reason for using more "imitation" sounds is that it is the fashion.
As we all know, it's not what you want to sell so much as what the public
wants to buy.  Let's face it -- digital synthesizers sell themselves on
their imitative ability (Kurzweil Grand Piano, DX7 Electric Piano {Gagg!},
Sampled ANYTHING).  Right now, that seems to be what people want to hear.

Last, Wendy Carlos is probably the premier synthesist of our age.  The ability
to build a sound "from scratch" and have it sound like the real McCoy is
a measure of one's expertise as a synthesist (there are LOTS of "electronic
musicians" around today, but very few synthesists!).  I was lucky enough
to converse with Wendy Carlos not too long ago, and she absolutely HATES
sampling machines.  A synthesist to the end!

To answer your other question, I have heard "Digital Moonscapes" transcribed
for orchestra.  Frankly, it *wasn't* as interesting as the electronic version.
This was primarily due to the fact that the Digital imitations sounded *better*
than their orchestral counterparts!  The electronic version is also much
tighter.

When you come right down to it, overall, Carlos uses very little imitative
synthesis.  It's just that she blends her timbres so well that the overall
effect *seems* orchestral.  Unlike Tomita (who is also a master) Carlos'
sounds are always in good taste.

Re: .11

Et tu Brute?  Am I the only one left who thinks W.C. is the "crem de la
crem?" Where are all of the other music snobs when you need them? :-)

Such discussions may get nowhere, but they are a refreshing change from
discussing hardware.  

And remember-- "A Clockwork Orange" beats a "Tangerine Dream" anyday! ~/~

John M.



John M.  

    Good points, John, and thank you for taking the time to answer my
    question rather than fly off the handle.  I am especially intrigued
    by the notion of a sort of "natural selection" of orchestral voices;
    are there any "to be discovered" timbres that integrate well with
    traditional sounds?  Are there entire alternative "timbral palettes"
    that integrate well amongst themselves but not with other palettes
    (e.g., the standard rock band configuration of two or more guitars,
    bass guitar and drums is one such alternative; the classical jazz
    combo is another (a subset of the classic orchestral palette?))?
    
    I do appreciate the difficulty of what WC is doing; a long time
    ago as an undergraduate at MIT I took a course called "Analysis
    and Synthesis of Musical Sounds" taught by one Enrico Ferretti, where
    the only assignment was to select one note from a particular instrument
    and resynthesize it from scratch using additive synthesis on a 7094.
    I and my partner selected a clarinet note.  After 20 weeks and 10
    hours of 7094 time we were only getting close.  I'd love to take
    this course again knowing what I do now.  And Prof. Ferretti was
    one cool dude.

    
    	Not to beat a dead horse, but I *agree* that WC is a 'premeir
    synthesist'. I just think she's a stinko composer.  I could do
    as well, and I *know* I'm a stinko composer. 
    
    						- Karl_1

    in the latest Keyboard, someone (a new columnist, anonymously nomed
    'Freff') calls the 'Legend' soundtrack "..the audio equivalent of 
    computer     clip-art. It's everything you should avoid in using
    samples and synth presets."
    
    Gee.. sure glad I avoided the Emulator Trap...
    
    km the warm

    What's "computer     clip-art"?  Art made from computer clips?
    Or was the hyphen misplaced from cli-part, the chunk of software
    that does command line interpretation?  Maybe it's supposed to be
    clipa-RT, a new PC from IBM?  or clip-art as in clip-joint?
    
    God forbid you should use a preset.  Almost as bad as playing on
    an instrument somebody else built!  What must this guy think of
    guitarists and drummers?  Or worse, ordinary orchestral musicians!
    
    I think "Freff" used to write for Creem, or maybe it was Trouser
    Press before they went under (must have been 'cause they only used
    preset fonts).
    
    len the cool  (AC-wise, no undeserved abuse now, please)
    

    I don't know if "clip-art" means anything in the computer world,
    but in the Ad and Publications industry, "clip-art" is a service
    you subscribe to.  You get sent large books of line art on general
    themes which you copy and cut out.  I think the writer made a reference
    to this form of "pre-fab" art.  (For the most part, I agree with
    him.  The "Legend" score is a lesson of what NOT to do with a sampling
    synth.)
    
    John M.

    Thanks John, I have heard the term and didn't recognize it in this
    context.  What a concept - every once in a while you'd get a tape
    or a disk of little fragments of music - riffs, drum patterns,
    chord changes, etc., that you could "paste up" with a sequencer
    to make music of "guaranteed quality"!!  I'm surprised some
    enterprising philistine isn't already advertising such a "service"
    in the back pages of Keyboard or Musician.  Can you do any more than
    get a registered "service mark", like get a patent on a service?
     

    len.
    

    I have to agree with most of the above....  T.D. is usually
    uninspiring, and W.C.'s only great stuff is that which she didn't
    compose herself.  But that's not why I'm posting.  Just wanted
    to point out that, to the best of my knowledge, Tangerine Dream
    plays the Orpheum on JUNE 26, not July 26 as stated in .0.  I've
    known about the concert for 2 months, but readily dismissed the
    idea that the live show would be worth the money.  Still, I
    enjoy listening to much of their work as I'm trying to pass out
    in the evenings... (8^>)  Good Orpheum shows this past Spring?
    Sure... Laurie Anderson was quite enjoyable, that being my first
    live experience with her.  Miles Davis had a strong fusion-like
    lineup, and he'll be returning to the area (Worchester and Providence)
    this summer.  That I would recommend, to anyone who could appreciate
    "power jazz."  (I have rather broad taste, as I'm sure most of us
    do.)
    
    Greg W.

    There are some who feel that selling instrument samples is equivalent
    to selling "clip art".  I don't see anything wrong with clip art
    myself--a friend of mine produced a rather nice landscape using
    clip art with some minor touchups, in about 3 hours work on an Apple.
        John Sauter

    Yeah, I've done the same on my Amiga, but I know how I would feel
    about representing such "art" as "my own".  (I.e., FRAUDULENT).

    Samples is a little less obvious - do artists have to make their own
    paints?  If you buy paint from somebody who specializes in making
    paint, how much credit should the paint-maker get?  How are sound
    samples different from paint?

    len.
    

Re: .22

I don't know that I agree with that analogy (but it all depends on what
you're after).  Are we talking about being just another "electronic musician"
or being a *synthesist*?  To a synthesist, the raw materials are oscillators,
"operators," or what have you.  These all combine to produce your "painting."


Synthesizers were invented with the idea of creating NEW sounds.  We seem
to have lost touch with that.  To me, a piece recorded strictly a-la-sample
is about as inspiring as paint-by-numbers.

John M.

    re;-1
    
    	So then, I take it you don't care for musique concrete?
    
    	I mean, it's *just* samples.
    
    						- Karl

    I suppose a lot of musicians consider themselves to be musicians,
    not synthesists.  I.e., they are interested in making (new) music
    rather than (new) sounds.  To compare such an approach to "paint
    by numbers" strikes me as singularly unjust - by this standard,
    Beethoven, because he wrote mainly for existing instruments (with
    a few unusual quasi-exceptions like the glass harmonica or that
    contraption that Wellington's Victory was composed for) was a "paint-
    by-numbers" composer.  I think my paint analogy is apt; we're talking
    about the distinction between the medium and the message; with "paint-
    by-numbers" the message is predefined, rather different from using
    a predefined medium.  I do not accept Marshall McLuhan's assertion
    that "the medium is the message".
    
    len.
     

I have copied reply .24 and .25 and have moved them, along with my own
    reply, to a new Note file called, CARLOS VS. CLIP ART, there to
    resume the fight..er..discussion.
    
    John M.    
    

    Re: .20
    	Your right!  TD is playing on June 26th - NOT July 26th.  Thanks
    for the correction.
    
    Re: .22
    	Len, I feel your analogy of "musical samples" to "paint" are
    inaccurate.  Isn't the instrument that produced the "musical sample"
    actually the "paint"?  The "musical sample" is paint that has been
    applied to a medium, and can thus be considered sub-art in itself.
    (of course this part of the reply should be in John's new note...)
    
    Todd.
    

    I went to see the Optical Race tour.  This year's
    TD-as-sponsored-by-Atari tour.  I didn't have my hopes up--I haven't
    liked much of their recent stuff.  Good thing I didn't have my hopes
    up.  I thought they were really wretched, unbelievably bad.  And
    it sounded just exactly note for note, parameter change for parameter
    change like the Optical Race CD.  No surprise since it was all the
    same sequence data.  Sometimes when they were feeling a bit too
    embarrassed standing around with their hands in their pockets, they
    would feign (as far as I could hear) playing a fill-in chord or
    two.  I could have stayed home.
    
    Yuk! (And I used to idolize these guys--well, one of them since
    Froese is the only remaining "original" member)
    
    I think maybe it's a technology trap.  You can't improvise, or even
    tweak tracks interactively if you're running Steinberg-Jones on
    an Atari. (Correct me if I'm wrong--I'd be just as happy to put
    it down to brain rot)
    
    It took me a month to try putting the CD on again.  You know what?
    I really like it.  Concert was the pits, though.  Wish I had
    seen the Mellotron and Moog improv. tours of the early '70s.
    You know the ones where they played cathedrals and the like
    "for the acoustics."
    
    	Such a cynic tonight....
    
    	Eirikur
    
                                   

    Reposted by moderator, along with case change.  In context, this reply
    should precede the previous reply. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 CATCH 'EM LIVE                      
YUPPY::OGLE                                          23 lines  31-OCT-1988 17:59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I've been lucky enough to catch T.D. on their last 7 UK tours since
    1976, and the one thing that becomes clear is that they are and
    always be much better live than in the studio. This is probably
    because they are very much an experimental band constantly looking
    for new sound colours and textures with the ever changing hardware.
    
    Certainly, they're not the force they once were, but what do you
    do when you've singlehandedly created a new type of music? Re-hash
    it endlessly, or change direction at the cost of losing your
    established army of fans.
    
    When they first broke though in the U.K., their attraction was the
    abilty to play a concert with no idea of any pre-planned sound or
    direction, just purely playing 'against' one another in a kind of
    reaction and impulse game. If they're not the pioneers in this field
    then who are?