Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    Haven't had any experience with it, but if it does what they say
    it does, it could become indispensable for a lot of musicians out
    there! 

    The Kahler "Human Touch" was reviewed in a recent issue of Keyboard
    magazine.  Unfortunately, I don't remember exactly which one.
    
    I do recall that the overall impression was luke-warm.
    
    	db

    See May '87, p. 134.  And, yeah, they basically said it was good
    for what it was, but indicated it might not be what some musicians
    are looking for.

    I thought it was the Human Clock.
    
    Anyhow, the guitarist in our band bought one and we tested it out with
    the MC500 at our rehearsal last week.  It was set up to follow the
    kick drum out of the DDD-1, which is controlled via Octapad, in
    turn controlled by a Tama drum kit.
    
    The drummer played the kick twice (first beat of two lead in measures)
    and then the song started at the tempo he had set.  Once the tempo was
    set, it followed his tempo changes very nicely.  He could speed up or
    slow down and it followed him without getting confused, even with
    fairly complicated kick patterns. 
    
    Our bass player disliked the device for this very reason: it lets the
    drummer vary the tempo.
    
    Once, the drummer hit the kick twice for the first two beats of
    a measure instead of the first beat of two measures and the sequencer
    started flying at four times the normal tempo.  It has a reset button
    for just such an emergency.      
    
    If I get to work with it myself, I'll post a review.
    
    Guido
    

This is one toy that is NOT going on my "buy" list.

I have limited taste for rubato, only in certain contexts.  I feel that dynamics
are MUCH more important for adding feeling to music than subtle variations in
tempo, EXCEPT for certain styles where I wouldn't dream of using MIDI equipment
in the first place.

Perhaps if they build a device with a certain fault tolerance I might find it
useful.  Considering how much my sense of rhythm has been helped by practicing
with drum machines, the last thing I want is a device that's a slave to a
sloppy drummer.

Of course, if I could MIDI my bass to such a device, there wouldn't be a
problem!


				Mark

    You *can* drive the unit with your bass....
    
    The unit looks for a 'trigger' signal to fall within a certain window
    calculated by dividing the time between the initial 2 reference
    beats. Any notes falling outside the window are ignored.
    
    Anyone who's ever played live with a sequencer will no doubt see
    the value in this concept. Whether Kahler is the best implementation
    of the concept remains to be seen...
    
    Edd

    Mark,
    
    The purpose of this device is not to allow for dynamics, changes
    in tempo, etc.  You can do all those things easily with most
    sequencers.  In fact, many have a "swing" feature that simulates
    the imperfections you might get with a human drummer.

    The purpose of the device is that it is far more desirable and easier
    to get the MIDI sequenced stuff to sync to the band, rather than
    get the band synced to the MIDI sequenced stuff.

    	db

    re .5	....improved my sense of rhythm by practicing with drum
    machines...Yeah, *THAT'S* why I need one, to improve my sense of
    rhythm, I knew it was a need and not a want, just couldn't identify
    it.  Thanks.
    
    	Reg
    
    	(Lemme see, TR505, 707, 727, or maybe a sequencer, or a home
    computer with lotsa funkie software packages.......,)

    The Keyboard magazine mentioned that had a review was the May issue
    with Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis on the cover.  The article was very
    good and unbiased like some I've read. (Maybe Kahler is not a big
    advertiser like Yamaha, Roland, Korg, Sequential, etc., so they
    weren't afraid to piss someone off.)
    
    They said the device works 95% to what the manual says but that
    the advertising was a bit miss leading.  What they didn't like was:
    
    	A)  Can't change parameters in real time.  You have to stop
    the device to reset the parameters and fire it up again.
    
    	B)  A switch used to set the trigger source from a percsuion
    type sound to a non-transient source (like a bass or keyboard) is
    located on the back of the device.  Not too cool when rack mounted
    and you can reach around.
    
    	C)  Parameters and configurations not MIDI programmable and/or
    stored in memory.  The reviewers consider normal standard features
    for any new MIDI product.
    
    But they said for a first generation product it does do its job,
    though steep at $650 without these added features.
    
    The Japanese will come out with a better box with these features,
    plus more for $300 within the year, just wait...
    
    Dave

OK, so this is meant mostly for live performances then.  Now I understand its 
real purpose.  I have seen so many bands die onstage when their MIDI equipment 
screws up; this is meant to ensure that the band drives the equipment and is 
not driven by it.  The same band might remove the Human Clock during 
rehearsals so that they are forced to play cleanly, so that by the time of the 
gig they can afford to drop the Human Clock back into the chain.

So, it would be real useful if I performed live with MIDI equipment.  I still 
think it's a bit expensive for what it does.


				Mark

    I don't think I like this machine. I mean, you pay a small fortune
    to go and see a band play, and they don't play. That's been the
    case for a while now, and is justification enough for getting your
    money back. But now this gear comes along, and not only does the
    band not need to play the notes, but they don't need to play the
    notes in time! Buy your sequencer/suynth setup, buy your sequences,
    humanize the lot, and hey presto! 
    
    Mr. Musician: "I'd like to be Herbie Hancock, please".
    
    Mr. Salesman: "Certainly, sir. We have three models: Mr Hancock
    at age 15 -- not so typical of his style, that one -- Mr Hancock
    after a few years on the road -- only mono, I'm afraid -- or the
    full-blown, top-of-the-range Herbie Hancock with added digital
    programmable funk. (That's it there -- the button marked 'GET DOWN').
    Oh, and there is an optional 'No Shit' software package, the precise purpose
    of which we have yet to discover."
    
    Mr. Musician: "Will you take my Chick Corea in part exchange?..."
                                               
               
    I do think some of this gear should come with a health warning.
    'WARNING: The Musician's Union concludes that this device can seriously
    damage your ability to play'.
    
    Ned Ludd.

    I'm willing to bet the union is more concerned with their balance
    sheet than whether or not some musician gets put outta work due
    to some machine.
    
    'Midi-bashers' crack me up. 90 years ago they all would have been
    blacksmiths bashing the auto manufacturers for building horseless
    carriages that made their skills less needed.
    
    Want to know what I like best about using sequencers, drum machines,
    samplers and MIDI? I don't have to put up with musicians bitchin'
    about how it was in the good old days.
    
    There's room enough out there for both camps. Noone's twistin' your
    arm and forcing you to listen to anything.
    
    Edd
    

    
    ow, ow, wow, stop twistin my arm Edd...
    
    Oh boy a gripe session! Mine is that these new 'tools'
    are hard to use. And synths are not more expressive 
    these days than the 1st generation. More simultaneous
    notes. No nuance. No new performance features.
    
    But perhaps the most interesting conclusion Ive reached
    is that: The tools have changed quite a bit, and more
    people are able to fiddle with composing, BUT POP MUSIC
    HASNT CHANGED in proportion. Its still the S.O.S.. Drum
    machines and bass synth on sequencer substitute for the
    human touch but are playing the same thing. Some chords
    and a hook or two, vocals, presto....done.
    
    Whats the first music that was popularized with the new
    tools? Classical.    See? Same Old, er, Music.

    Jazz/fusion? Sorry. Now we get to solo on synths and sound
    like a guitar. Jan Hammer's one of my favorite guitarists...
    
    Ok. Some folks did "spacey" music with synths. Thats new?
    No....its not. Check out "20th century composers".
    
    So? Whats really different? We spend lotsa time learning 
    to use the tools apparently, and less time innovating.
    
    ron
    
    

    My opinion on these issues:

    	People should be more concerned with whether it's good rather
    	than how it's done.
    
      db

    re .12:
    
    (Gets up off the floor, dusting himself down).
    
    Yes, but there's no connection with carriage-makers bashing car
    manufacturers. I think sequencers and things are great for studio
    production work. But when I go to see a live band, I expect LIVE
    PERFORMANCE, not some sort of half-baked mime to a sequenced backing
    track.
    
    This rat-hole is where live music's going, and I think any musos
    union worth its salt should be concerned with the state of live
    music. Or should the musos union be run by multinational computer
    companies (Casio Corp Union of Performing Hardware Operators)?
    
    In this respect, at a live gig 'how it's done' is every bit as
    important as 'whether it's good'. 
    
    But for recording, I think electronic assistance is a must. It helps
    those with good musical ideas overcome any lack of facility with
    a keyboard, fretboard, whatever. Keep live music live!
    
    Richard. (Ludd).

RE < Note 750.15 by MARVIN::MACHIN >

	I don't usually get involved in these ratholes, but one thing is very
clear to me that seems missing in all the previous replies; it's the audiences,
not the unions, that are the ones to decide where the state of live music will 
go.  They're the ones paying the money (or not paying, whichever the case may
be).  If more people find it worth their hard-earned bucks to go and see a
silicon chip gyrating on a club stage, you can bet that no union is going to
be able to stand in its way.

	My feeling is this - fads come and go.  People's tastes are different.
People quickly get tired of the latest 'thing' and cry out for something new
or, in many cases, a revival of something old.  Technology will work it's way 
into most anything, people will adapt.  Some will remain purists and there will
be a market for them.  Others will consider themselves 'progressives' and be
dazzled by the latest and greatest in technologies and the artists that subdue 
them (or are subdued by them, whichever the case may be).

	Dan

    re .16
    
    You're right about the audiences, I hope. But record companies must
    be attracted by the possibility of touring their product with a
    'front' band designed only to sell it and no 'artists' to get in
    the way. In this way a few song engineers can churn out a library
    of sequences, and the top 40 will comprise one huge cut and paste
    job. Audience choice here might be restricted to 'like it or live with it'.
    
    I know that the rationale behind most large-scale concerts is to
    sell records, and I realise that this might be a much better way
    of doing it. But I regret the loss of distinction between
    live and recorded music. We play a record to listen to the music,
    not to watch the record player work (hi-fi buffs excepted). We
    go to a concert to see the music performed and interpreted.
    I hope this variety of experience offered by the occasion of a piece
    of music isn't fading, and I hope audiences will continue to expect
    it. That's all.
    
    Richard.
     

    with the disclaimer that it may not be the same anymore...
    it used to work like:
    
    Band in studio _losing money_ (even if on contract) to create record/album.
    More money spent to get Record on radio.
    Record on radio to generate sales for the album.
    Sales of album to recoup studio costs but more as publicity for
    	a tour.
    Concert tour for the band to _make_ some survival money.
    Money on concert tour spent on drugs and the next studio sessions...
    
    Well, maybe Im off a little...even more so for the 'established' band.
    
    But very few (Paul Simon is one) artists can generate enough income
    from record sales only to keep on going.
    
    so you wanna be a rock n roll star....
    
    

    I'm surprised that the concert bit was the earner. I assumed most
    money came from the records, apart from the odd hyper-concert.
    
    I expect the big concert bucks are made by the record company's
    Field Service engineers...
    
    Richard

I'd always heard that money is LOST on concerts, particularly arena concerts, 
but that they were viewed as a public relations necessity to keep a band in 
the limelight between albums.

I always thought albums promoted concert tours, rather than the other way 
around.  Guess that's because I wouldn't spend $20 to hear music I hadn't 
previously been exposed to or knew nothing about.


				Mark

    What does any of this have to do with the "Human Touch"?

    re: .20
    
    I don't know what is generally true, but Steve Morse has said the
    exact opposite.  The band makes no money from recordings, only from
    tours, merchandising, etc.
    
    For bands with limited success (like the Dregs) you are right in
    that albums ARE to promote the tours which allow the artists to
    make the money.
    
    It's almost like the record companies say "well, if you let us keep
    all the profits, we'll fund and release your album so that you can
    get people to come to your concerts."
    
    	db

    Commusic hasn't had some good flames in a while.  I'm tired of beating
    the old "computers in music ain't art" syndrome, but here goes once more. 
    I gave up in MUSIC due to the level of ignorance there.


  Time to stand on the Soapbox...

    It's not so easy as not having to know about music and just pushing a
    button.  Someone has to program the stuff.  If it's a cover tune you
    can now *buy* the MIDI data.  What we're seeing is fundamental shift
    in the way popular music artists work.  The industry is being computerised.
    The same thing has happened to most other major industries like typsetting,
    accounting, manufacturing, etc.  Popular music is no different.  It
    is a commodity like magazines, movies, TV shows, sporting events, etc.
    or any other type media. There is a tremendous market for new material 
    rehashing the same old ideas with a slight twist done by new faces and 
    names.  When it's done "well" the performer/product are considered "hot"
    and the public wants to see/hear whether a Bon Jovi, Moonlighting,
    the NY Mets, Stephen King's lastest book, whatever.

  Re: .14 Amen!

  Re: .17

    >You're right about the audiences, I hope. But record companies must
    >be attracted by the possibility of touring their product with a
    >'front' band designed only to sell it and no 'artists' to get in
    >the way. In this way a few song engineers can churn out a library
    >of sequences, and the top 40 will comprise one huge cut and paste
    >job. Audience choice here might be restricted to 'like it or live with it'.

    You don't think this has been happening for years?  The Monkess,
    the Osmonds, the Archies?  I'm sure these people think they are artists.
    What constitutes a "true artist"?  Someone that is more of writer than
    musician, or more of a performer than writer,  or more of a engineer/
    programmer than performer, etc.  Pretty subjective, huh?
    
    A new breed of musician has evolved.  The Musician/*programmer*/engineer.
    95% of the population is non-musician.  Most don't know or care
    that computers were used to help with the productions of the music
    they are listening to.  They do know who and what they like and will buy.
    The market place takes care of the rest.

    Any of these professional performers/writers/technicians love their 
    choosen "art" and understand the power of the media.  They also will
    find and use the tools that will make/keep them succesful.  Again,
    for the billionth time, computers are just a tool.

    Dave

    
    Re .-1
    
    Didn't Donny Osmond used to play a Farfisa ?
    
    				
    					Paul.

    re .1
    
    Ah yes! Those old Farfisas! 
    
    I remember I went to a gig once -- may have been an Osmonds
    gig, as I remember. And the sound of that Farfisa! I seem to 
    recall that the evening was a little soured when the bassist appeared
    to go crazy and attack me with his bass. All I was doing was taking
    a closer look at some sort of device connected to the back of the
    organ -- I suspected electronic trickery, of the 'Kahler Human Touch'
    variety. 
    
    Now what was I going to say...
    
    Richard.

    A friend recently lent me his Human Clock for several weeks. Let
    me say this : it doesn't work !
    
    Clarification : in my environment, it doesn't work. Scenario : a
    good rock piece built around tinky, crappy-sounding drum machine
    drums. I ran the drum signal thru an EQ to eliminate everything
    but the bass drum, then that audio into the Clock. I did indeed
    get it to emit a MIDI sync tone, one which my Mac could slave to,
    (important point follows:) when I started it manually. Of course
    as I knew I wouldn't have the Clock forever, I then attempted to
    send the sync tone to my Yamaha YMC-10 MIDI to FSK converter,
    intending to record it on an edge track, later to slave the Mac
    to the FSK sync track.
    
    Well, THAT didn't work. After LOTS of head scratching I finally
    monitored the FSK audio output of the YMC-10 when being fed MIDI
    sync by the Clock. It (YMC-10) never generated anything but the 'carrier'
    tone.. didn't receive a 'start sequence' MIDI command, and thus the
    YMC-10 never actually started generating an FSK sync track. Then
    I remembered having to start the Mac sequencer (Performer) by hand.
    
    My conclusion: the Human Clock WILL indeed sync to audio input,
    and it will indeed send MIDI Sync. However unless you're willing
    to start your sequencer manually, or you have a sync-to-tape unit
    that will generate sync audio without ever receiving a 'start'   
    command, it doesn't work.
    
    karl

    Dooo ya hafta start the sequencer AFTER the KHC starts sending clock
    or can you hit the "start" button on the slave sequencer and have
    it just sit there stupidly until the clock starts coming???
    
    Edd

>Dooo ya hafta start the sequencer AFTER the KHC starts sending clock
>or can you hit the "start" button on the slave sequencer and have
>it just sit there stupidly until the clock starts coming???

    Well, I'm used to 'starting' Performer with the Mac in 'external
    clock' mode (wait state) and then starting the tape transport, 
    and having Performer start up as soon as the FSK sync starts 
    grinding away. And of course the FSK track was created originally 
    from the Mac in 'internal clock' mode, sending MIDI sync.
    
    However, with the Clock, my YMC wouldn't ever create a real FSK
    sync tone.. that is, there's something different in the way the
    Mac running either Performer or Opcode starts sending MIDI sync
    and the way the Human Clock does. Or doesn't, rather. I na�vely
    call this the 'start sequence' command. 

    So back to your question, with the Clock, you haveta wait until
    it starts sending MIDI sync, and then hit 'start' on the sequencer
    RIGHT ON '1'. Sux, no ?    
    
    karl