Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    Well, Bill, if you've got something on your mind, let's
    hear it !
    
    karl

    It seems that everyone looking at the liner notes for "Last Moonlight"
    thinks that though there was a lot of equipment ("a veritable candy
    shop") that it wasn't used effectively.
    	
    Ans: probably true.  We had no multitracking whatsoever; in fact,
    we couldn't even cut-in instantly, because PCM-F1's need several
    seconds of CLEAN digital before they sync up and give output.
    Therefore, it had to be played and recorded as a live take.
    	
    So, we have five people.  One is on the board, one is on the bass
    guitar, two are playing flutes (in front of live mikes - so must be
    verrrry verrrry quiet.  No cheating and hitting keyboard keys. :-(  ).
    That leaves one to play all the other keyboards (helped out by one
    sequencer- for some reason, the QZ and ESQ sequencers were not speaking
    to each other that day). 
    
    	But this wasn't really bad- the song is *meant* as a very slow
    simple, and quiet introduction to an album that will have to be compressed
    in dynamic range to fit onto a CD!  The next cut starts (in the
    ideal case) at 40 dB and hits 150 db forty seconds later.  We can't
    play it, nor can we record it, but that is the way the part is written.
    (and yes, what's 150 dB- a Saturn V taking off from 50 yards?  Yep!) 
    We'll just have to compromise.  
    
    Too much equipment?  Maybe, but I doubt it.  Remember, each of the band
    members wants to have something moderately functional all by themselves
    at home.  I'm not sure if it's a cause, a symptom, or just an
    incidental thingie.  When you get together to play, you end up with a
    lot of stuff.  The only things that weren't bought used or borrowed
    were patch cords, one of the flutes, and the Seil (now sold in favor
    of a Polaris Chroma, bought used).  So though you see lots of stuff,
    it wasn't very expensive.  In fact, it was pretty cheap, when you
    divide it five ways.  The bought-new flute was the most expensive
    thing there.
    
    
    Now that I know the "style" of COMMUSIC I'll know what to submit
    for COMMUSIC IV!   Misjudging the audience, they call it.  (actually,
    the cut that made it was the second choice from the band.  First
    choice would have been about a minute too long for the tape.  After
    hearing the comments and the COMMUSIC tape, maybe we'll resubmit
    our first choice, or something else with a little more complexity.)
    	
    A question to the reviewers:
    	If you hadn't looked at the liner notes and seen the piles of
    	old analog equipment; just *heard* the music, what would you
    	have said?  What would you have said if you heard it *live*
    	(no multitrack recording) ?  
    	
    (and yes, we're taking your hints.  The songwriter in the group is
    saving his pennies for a Fostex eight-track, which will make it
    possible to repair timing glitches without inserting new ones. 
    It will also accomodate a click track, so we can use the QX-7 and
    ESQ together.  So, reviewers, thanks- you *will* be hearing better
    from us.)               
    	
     
    
    	
    
    
    

Bill:

>    It seems that everyone looking at the liner notes for "Last Moonlight"
>    thinks that though there was a lot of equipment ("a veritable candy
>    shop") that it wasn't used effectively.
 

     I really would like to hear that tune. Just curious, but how much
     money do you think you all had in equipment in the place you recorded
     "Last Moonlight"?

    re. 765.46:

>   Do we plan to make a record? Actually, we do. We even... a record
>   company, but they went broke.

    What happened there? Can you be a little more specific? Just to
    have more up-down histories from you guys.
   	

>    	But this wasn't really bad- the song is *meant* as a very slow
>    simple, and quiet introduction to an album that will have to be compressed
>    in dynamic range to fit onto a CD!  The next cut starts (in the
>    ideal case) at 40 dB and hits 150 db forty seconds later.

    I thought CD had a more flexible dynamic range. Can you give more
    details on this?
    
    	
Orlando


Karl:

   Have you recieved my cassette?

    
    
    Hey It's me again .3
    
    Can anyone tell me what happened to the last line of .3 reply?
    
    It keeps saying that there is one line left.. and there isn't
    
    I know this is not the Vax-Notes technical conference... but you
    may know.
    
    Orlando Saez

    Well, a CD (at best) gives you 16 bits --> 1 part in 64K.  As a
    rule of thumb, CD's are 96 dB S/N ratio and 96 dB dynamic range. 
    
    We need about 120 dB dynamic range and 40 dB of S/N at the bottom.
    So, CD ain't enough!
    	
    Total investment: probably on the order of 1K/person.  Like I said,
    we buy a lot of used stuff.  Oh yeah; I bought my stand and one
    stomp box new.  The ESQ was used, the DX a demo unit, etc.  You
    can go pretty cheap if you borrow and buy used.  The PCM-F1 and the
    board and mikes were owned by a friendly radio station.
                                                             
    Oh, it's gonna get worse; the lead kb sold the Seil and bought a
    Roland monophonic AND a Tocatta AND a Polaris Chroma (all used).
    The Chroma does MIDI (it sounds VERY nice, if you see one for sale,
    buy it!)  Neither of the other two do- but the Tocatta is fully
    polyphonic (gangs of separate oscillators!)  Total outlay was like
    $200 over what he got for the Seil.   

I haven't heard the COMMUSIC III tape yet, but my master doesn't have serious
audio problems.  I think I'll drop the last chord.  Also, are you sure you're
not hearing chorusing and octave-pitch changing as an out-of-tune piano?
It is a little out of tune, though.  There is some noise, but the sound is
much higher than the noise anyway (from bouncing tracks), because it's loud.
Tom

RE < Note 955.2 by CTHULU::YERAZUNIS "depleted uranium speaker cabinets?" >

	As long as I'm being quoted, I think I should respond.

	I really had no intention to say to you 'You've got too much equipment
for the piece' or 'It looks like you're trying to show off with an enormous
equipment list...'  Really, the comment was meant to be nothing more than a
comment.  I become wide-eyed, like a kid in Toys'r'Us, when I see long lists
of equipment being used in a single project.  I *like* analog, and I am
particularly pleased when *older* models (bought at bargain prices) are used
and used effectively.  If my wife were'nt so gosh-darned practical ('honey, we
need socks for the kids'...) I'd have a basement *full* of the stuff myself!!
Now, maybe I should go back and re-read my review to check and see if I sounded 
particularly 'pointed' in my remark about the candy shop...

	If I were to re-word the thing about all the equipment, it'd probably be
something like 'Wow, look at all the keyboards!!'  Nothing more.

	Now.  Aren't you sorry you started this note?  8^)

	Dan

RE .5   This is not really about this note,  but there is a Chroma Polaris
    for sale *used* at Music Workshop on Salem NH for $300! For a  six
    voice, multitimbral, splittable/layerable (with dynamic allocation),
    MIDI, velocity-sensitive keyboard (with a built-in sequencer) -- that's
    a good deal! Just had to mention it to go along with .5's recommendation.

    I *am* accepting tactfully offered complaints about the audio quality
    of the Commusic III copies.
    
    I'd be interested to hear the opinions of the contributors who have
    received their tapes.
    
    	db

RE < Note 955.9 by DREGS::BLICKSTEIN "Dave" >

	I am extremely satisfied with the quality of the copy I rec'd.  I
have commented  on individual entries about the ability to listen through my
cheap walkman and headphones at work.  This is true about the overall quality
of the tape, as well.  Considering the additional generations each submission 
had to go through, that says a lot to me.  

	My congradulations to Dave for a fine quality tape.

	Dan

    Yeah, Dave.  The tape's great!  I would imagine you're your own
    worst critic, here.  I think you've done us all a GREAT service.
    
    
    Steve_who'll_get_to_doing_a_review_right_after_the_DECSIM_Workshop

    re: Steve and Dan
    
    The quality coming out is of course a reflection of the quality coming
    in.
    
    Thanks,
    
    	db

    I thought the tape quality was fine.  The one piece I mastered survived
    quite well.  I believe the role of the COMMUSIC masterer is to simply
    pass the submissions on as received, and I think Dave did a super
    job.  Of the three COMMUSIC compilations I have, this is the first
    that had no "glitches".
    
    len.
    

    I am quite happy with the quality of 'Agua Caliente'.. thanks, db!
    
    re Tom Janzen.. I know the difference between chorus/flange/pitch
    shift and being out-of-tune.. this was out-of-tune big time...
    
    karl

    As one of the vocalists on the Synergy contribution (can you guess
    which one?  I knew you could...) :-), I have to admit that my vocals
    weren't exactly as well done as I would have liked.  I would contribute
    part of it to lots of treble on the microphones' parts, the onset
    of a not so fun cold, a bit of nervousness (don't ask me why I get
    myself so worked up over before these things... maybe I thrive on
    stress!), and most of the song being in my weaker range (I sing
    higher parts with a bit more gusto).
    
    I was quite impressed with the quality of the tape, db.... (I'm
    not biased just becuz we're in the same band, either!).  I'll put
    my review of the tape in the appropriate note.
     
    						*** Kristy ***

    To answer Karl Moller, yes, in fact, we did have a contract.  The
    recording company was Fortuna, and they supported the work to the
    tune of $1000 up front (which bought the Seil and the QX-7).  Fortuna
    did this on the basis of a demo tape which was much worse than what
    appears on COMMUSIC III.       
    
    An annoying thought- could it be that the same lack of good judgement
    that brought financial ruin to Fortuna is shown in their acceptance
    of our demo tape? 
    
    		 :-) & :-(  ?                              
                                   
    	
    Now, Fortuna has folded, their in-house stock of material, recording
    rights, and options on contracts are now owned by CBS, which has not
    taken any actions worthy of civilized men on said contracts.  They
    have put all contracts on the "to be renegotiated" que, via a
    convenient escape clause in the original Fortuna contracts.  We did
    get a call from Belitnikoff (VP for new-age music at CBS) who said
    (I am not making this up!) "Well, just send your digital tape in
    and we can work out the contract later".  That's a quote.  Maybe
    CBS has better ears, maybe they have worse ears, but they certainly
    have the best lawyers money can buy.  It's those lawyers we want
    to avoid. 
    	                           

    Since the question of how the artists react to criticism has been
    raised as a possible impediment to reviews by non-contributors,
    I thought I'd answer the criticism of our submission which has been
    almost completely negative.
    
    I agree with pretty much everything that has been stated.  Many
    of the criticisms that were mentioned were things I was quite
    cognizant of as flaws before anyone ever mentioned them.
    
    For example, Len described that piano sound as being somewhat grating.
    After we had recorded the basic tracks, I noticed that the keyboard 
    track sounded quite different from the sound we get when we just play 
    that ESQ patch through my amp.  On tape, it seems to distort quite a bit.
    
    On comments about the production.  Couldn't agree more.  This was
    our first recording effort.  I learned a lot from it, and learned
    that there is even far more to learn.
    
    Regarding comments about the song, I pretty much agree.  I don't
    think that Daryl (he wrote it) would argue that this is a "serious"
    composition, even though both our hearts lie in writing more serious
    stuff (Tom might not agree with our definition of "serious".)  My
    own feeling is that this is intended as a catchy "pop tune".  I'm
    sort of like Rik Sawyer in that I don't like sappy
    love songs and so the lyrics to this aren't my cup of tea, but I've
    always thought the music was solid if not inspired.
    
    There's a lot in it I don't like, a lot that could have been recorded
    better, a lot that could have been played better, but there's quite
    a few things I like including what the drums do (if not how they
    sound), the rhythm guitar, and the guitar solo.
    
    And the main thing was that it was a lot of fun and educational.
    I can't wait to do another song.
    
    Now, regarding criticism, I'd be lying to you if I said that I don't
    feel a certain sense of dissapointment when we get a negative
    criticism.   But ask anyone in my band: I *beg* to be criticized.
    When something is done wrong at practice, I tell the person at fault in the
    hopes that my blunt honesty will encourage them to be honest with
    *me*.
    
    Criticism is very valuable and if it's offered as an honest thoughtful 
    constructive comment, and not as an insulting put-down, I greatly
    appreciate the input.   FYI, I have not felt the least bit "insulted" 
    by anything anyone has said so far.

    While I can't speak for the other Commusic contributors, I wouldn't
    be surprised if they all felt as I do.  They welcome criticism (both
    kinds) as long as its offered as a constructive comment and not
    a putdown.

    So, "fire away".

    	db - artiste

    Hear hear, dB!
    	
    The band had been arguing a long time as to whether we needed to spend the
    bucks to go to multitrack capability; now it's no longer a question
    of do we need to but rather how many tracks!  Given that we don't
    have a drum machine (rather, a drumsound generator that has to be
    driven from a sequencer), are 8 tracks enough?
    	
    So critics, please blast away.  Even if our music isn't good, we
    want it to be good, and I really do appreciate (and read (and HEED!))
    what you have to say!
               

    
    re: break out the hash pipe....finer praise was never heard by this
    child of the late 60's...thanks...have some for me....
    
    re: room size...can you say more?? I'm assuming that you are referring
    to the split between the two lead guitars. That was intentional
    so that something on the tune was reminiscint of stereo...
    
    re: the vocal changes...you caught me. the first part vocal was
    done months later to patch a glitch in the vocals...due to the
    vagairites of a not-as-advertised punch-in/punch-out (the 234 has
    some time lag on punch out) I ended up redoing not just one line but
    the entire first verse...and was I pissed, since I couldn't quite
    get the bite on my voice that I had after hours of recording when
    I first recorded the song. 
    
    re: monotonous drums.......yes
    
    re: muddy drums......yes but improving with each commusic tape
    
    re: Tried so hard leads not working as well as the accompanyment
    of the verses...yes, in one spot I nearly redid the entire lead
    as the echos sort of overran the lead....but I was tired and just
    left it in...in my defense I must say that the solo had minimal
    planning...mostly it's live/improvised....this song came together
    in a way I never expected anyway, the echo part that everyone seems
    to love was an afterthought of the process....
    
    re: the middle of tried so hard needing work...I agree...what you
    see is what you get this time through...if I re-record this at Len's
    I'll have to actually break down and practice for the session :-)
    suggestions from my keybored hero are welcomed...how would you have
    done it? I threw this into the song when I combined two unfinished
    pieces to make the whole...
    
    re: tape quality....dave I'm satisfied with my copy...you wanna
    hear poor listen to my copy of Commusic I (Edd...don't hit me Edd!!!
    :-))
    
    For those of you who enjoyed my stuff, many thanks. If you didn't
    thanks for listening, it takes all kinds to make a world and a
    commusic tape.
    
    dave_back_from_clonmel_after_drinking_too_much_smithwicks
    
    
    oh yeah that was jeans and no shirt :-) I like my psuedo blues sweaty
    :-)
                                                  

RE < Note 955.19 by MTBLUE::BOTTOM_DAVID >

>    re: room size...can you say more?? I'm assuming that you are referring
>    to the split between the two lead guitars. That was intentional
>    so that something on the tune was reminiscint of stereo...

	My comments on this were based on the idea I have in my mind of each
instrument needing reverb amounts that cause them to sound like they are all
playing together in the same surroundings.  When multi-track recording, and
especially when limited to a fourtrack, it seems to me necessary to 're-build'
a room to 'connect' the separate tracks and takes.  As I was listening to
Payday in particular, I had less of a feeling of a 'common room' and more of
a feeling of tape tracks layered together.  Do you get what I mean?  This kind 
of thing is under the 'finesse' category and can be considered a compliment to
someone who has obviously done very well with mastering the basics of 
multi-track recording.

	Dan

	Everyone has their own way of writing that they use to best express 
their normal way of speaking, their personality.  Usually this adds to the
discussion the 'local' humor needed to make an otherwise 'sterile' medium a
bit more human.  But it is an instance of this that I'd just like to ask for 
clarification.  It may mean nothing, but I would just like to ask...

	Karl, what did you mean, when reviewing 'Out in the Desert', you said
'Good, uh, production values'?  Particularly the 'uh'.  I wasn't sure to
recognize that as sarcasm or simply a vocal (written) pause to think of the
right word.

	Thanks,

	Dan

    Well, Dan, I did my 'review' in several passes.. listen, scribble,
    EDT, listen, scribble, EDT, finally posting the .TXT as a reply.
    
    The 'uh' was because as I was entering the final comment on your
    piece I realized I'd used the phrase 'production values' too many
    times already.. that being unclear as your piece comes early in
    the review. So it was, uh, a comment on my lack of, uh, vocabulary,
    rather than a slam on your [production values] (substitute appropriate
    term).
    
    karl moeller

> an example of how this type of music can seem generic.

Gee, good thing it wasn't *actually* generic ...  otherwise, I might be faced
with the ugly specter of a recording contract down the road ...

>"Tantara" is more baroque sounding than 
>"Night Shade" but is still rather anonymous sounding.

Now, I looked up 'baroque': of, charasteristic of, or like a style of music
characterized by highly embellished melodies and fugal or contrapuntal
forms.  True for 'Tantara'.  Not for 'Night Shade'.  Hey, doesn't bother me
about 'Night Shade'.  Yeah, it needs more embellishment.  But, 'anonymous'?: 
not easily distinguished from others or from one another because of a lack of 
individual features or character.  What 'others' are just like 'Tantara'?
It freely floats between meters.  Aargh!  Oh, well.  I'm glad you listened! :-)

Thanks for the reviews, gang.  I'm glad you've listened.  Thanks for the 
compliments, and for the criticisms.  All have been mentally noted, and *all*
(even 'anonymous') have been duly noted.  Next time I'll blow your socks off!
(Well, maybe... mostly *I'll* have fun, anyway... )     ;-)


Steve_who_realizes_this_is_all_for_fun___(well,isn't_it?)

    re .24 - maybe he meant it sounded like it was by the notorious
    "anonymous" composer/COMMUSIC noter?
    
    re. 18 - whether you have a drum synth that's driven by a separate
    sequencer or a drum machine (which is a drum synth with a built
    in sequencer) will not make any difference with respect to the number
    of tracks you need.  I have both (i.e., my Roland TR-707 has a built
    in sequencer, but I usually use the MC500's rhythm track to drive
    it, as it has more capacity and a more flexible programming interface),
    and the choice of which way I go only determines what sync connections
    I have to set up (e.g., TR-707 is master and MC500 slaves to it,
    or MC500 is master and TR-707 syncs to it), not whether I use up
    a track for sync (both the MC500 and TR-707 can sync to tape) or
    how many tracks I use (I record the drums in stereo in either case).
    
    As should be obvious from COMMUSIC III, you can do some pretty neat
    stuff with 4 tracks, but you can do even neater stuff with 8.  8
    gives you more flexibility, and because the medium is not cassette,
    somewhat better quality.
    
    len.
    

    I spoke with Brian off line about what 'anonymous' meant.  He has
    a valid point.  It's that when using synths, and especially when
    using preset timbres, the sounds can be much the same.  In the stuff
    I do, I usually take a preset that sounds close and tweek the
    parameters until it sounds like what I want.  I spend most of the
    time in composition, rather than in creating new sounds.  So, the
    sounds I get *do* sound 'generic' and 'anonymous' since there's
    not much new in terms of timbre.  Since my purpose is to have fun
    in composition, it's okay in my book to just get a sound that fits.
    It can get expensive in terms of time and money to always seek new
    or well-emulated sounds.  
    
    I suppose in the future I'll get a sampler and an LA synth, but
    only so the technologies can be represented in my 'studio'.  What
    I have now is just fine for doing what I enjoy doing.
    
    Steve

RE < Note 946.32 by HAMPS::NORTON_A "Andrew Norton, @BST" >
   
>    I think this is the best song on the tape. Did you write it? 

	Thank you very much.  No, I didn't write it.  See liner notes.

> I hated the lyrics because I hate religion ...

	It's funny for me to hear comments like this because, believe it or not,
I don't consider this a 'religious' piece.  It's a love song.  The object, 
rather than being a woman, is my God.  Kinda on the idea of Paul Kent's piece in
a previous COMMUSIC tape, written to a manager (well, maybe not a *love* song to
a manager, I don't know...).

	My relationship with God is a living, vital thing.  The day when it 
becomes calculated, stale and 'religious' is the day I die inside.

	Does that make any sense?

	Dan

    Well, Dan, I consider your piece a superb pop ballad, but the lyrics
    missed me by a mile.. but as I said in my review, the music probably
    wouldn't have happened that way without the lyrics.. uh, which DID
    come first on that one ? lyric or music ?
    
    karlhild shepler

RE < Note 955.28 by SALSA::MOELLER "Ponce de L�on overcompensated" >

>    uh, which DID come first on that one ? lyric or music?

	Couldn't tell you...
    
	Dan

    Can one artist "strike back" for another?  ;-)
    
    This is in regards to Brad Schafers review of Tom Benson's Boingers
    theme.
    
    I think that you are not aware of the "context" that this piece
    was created for.  This is intended as satire.  It's supposed to
    be a song done by a band from a cartoon strip.  
    
    I think the lead vocals were darn good and especially for the context.
    Saying that the supporting vocals were "weak" is really a complement.
    It's supposed to be a 'star struck Billy fan' and I thought they
    were perfect.
    
>   The trombone didn't add anything.
    
    I really thought the trombone added "humor".  Even if it doesn't
    sound like a Tuba, I thought it was funny.  I still chuckle when
    I hear it.

    This is not a flame btw.  Your review was tactful, constructive,
    and offered in a very "positive" way.  I just think that you missed
    the idea.
    
    I'm responding only because I thought Tom was so overwhelmingly
    successful.  I heard the winning entry and I can't understand
    how Tom DIDN'T win.  After hearing the 2nd place winner I even
    suspect the contest was fixed.  The 2nd place tune didn't sound
    like it was even written for the contest at all.  They just dubbed
    in a Tuba in one or two places and sent what was probably an old
    punk rock song.
    
    It's one of my favorite things on the tape.
    
    	db
    
    BTW, thanks for all the nice statements about the guitar parts on
    the Synergy piece.  I even agree with the criticism that I didn't
    manage to fit the lead in too well.  We decided the song desperately
    needed some "edge" (it was too uniform and flat) and so we decided
    to do it in the guitar solo, but I didn't do it too well.
    
    I really liked the rhythm part that came in from time to time though.
    I thought that was a good fit.  I felt it sorta helped with the
    "uniformity" problem.  Oh well, to each his own.

    
    
    why would anyone bother to stike back?
    or strike in the first place...
    
    everyone is entitled to their opinions...
    and everyone's opinion in here is equal.......0.
    
    joe blow don't like my songs?
    so what?
    
    pete smith loved them!  well, that's nice but , again..
    so what?
    
    unless pete owns rca and wants to sign me it doesn't do
    me much good...
    
    and i'm certainly not going to change my style or artistry
    just because joe blow (who probably has no style or artistry of
    his own) doesn't like or understand my music....
    
    it's a lot easier to review other peoples works (positively
    or negatively) than it is to produce works of your own..
    
    far as i'm concerned, i'll write and record according to how i
    feel and think....
    and i'll submit my works on compilation tapes when i feel like
    it....
    
    and , though i like and appreciate the positive feedback...
    and i  gladly accept any positive criticism...
    i'll just ignore most of the "i hate that song" stuff....
    
    hell, man...what does anyone in here know anyway except
    for what they like?
    
    and lots of people like stuff that i hate and vice verse....
    
    

    
    someone inquired as to the percussion on
    periwinkle (i agree, the guitar did get long and boring...
    	when i play it live i do a lot more but when i record
    	i just get bogged down....donknowhy)
    
    it was a cheese curl can with the cheese curls removed
    (and probably flushed by then) and stuffed with socks.
    
    

    Well.
    
    I've been thinking about my review of Commusic vol III.
    
    two things come to mind.. first, I stand by my opinions.. that is,
    more [critical] listenings haven't changed my mind. 
    
    Second, I feel that I expressed myself too harshly, and by my dourness
    kinda stepped on a project that is supposed to be for FUN. So I
    remind myself that everyone isn't in the same place, and many make
    music because it's FUN. And I've been having FUN in the studio lately,
    too !
    
    karl

    I've appreciated all comments.  It's been fun, and I plan to submit
    on a regular basis.  You're right, Karl, it IS for fun.  I think
    that taking a little risk of embarrassment makes it also more
    worthwhile.  The fact that the tapes are informal and make no
    promises allows for a nice environment.  It seems to me that most 
    (if not all) of the reviews have been honest and helpful.  The
    critique hurts and the praise feels great.  The audience is select.
    
    Steve