Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    Shoot.  Not only that, but using a piano is CHEATING.  Yessir! 
    Look at all those wimps who can't play the harp.  You've got to
    FEEL those strings for the music to be valid.  Somehow, when you
    put all those mechanical pieces inbetween the musician and the
    instrument you lose all feeling and the sound becomes cold.  Besides,
    it took a long time for REAL musicians (harp players) to learn their
    craft.  It's kind of sleazy to have something make music by just
    pushing buttons.  Sure, a piano sounds nice, but it doesn't sound
    like a REAL harp ...
    
    Wait a minute.  It's those darned harps that are a CHEAT.  Yeah,
    that's what I *really* meant to say.  REAL musicians don't play
    harps.  They play catgut stretched out on bows of sticks.  Those
    harp players are taking the easy way out ...
    
    oh, yeah ...
    
    ;-}
    
    Steve
    

    "music" & "ethic"? In the same sentence?
    
    Edd

    
    Whom might we be cheating?
    
    This reminds me of someone I once had the pleasure of educating
    at a party in Cleveland a couple of years ago. She walked in, saw
    my Polysix and announced that "electronic machines are cold". Earlier
    in the evening I had spent time with two acoustic players (one playing
    a gut-string guitar, one playing a Japanese woodwind instrument)
    and made a roomful of people understand what the difference between
    "music" and "electronic noise" was. A spirited discussion followed,
    and I was obliged to play again. I'll say that I had a lot of people
    in the room stick up for me - I did a good job of educating.
    
    What I maintained throughout the night was that it's not the medium's
    fault that people make noise as opposed to music with it. They told
    Buchla, Subotnick and many others that machines were cold too. So
    are pipe organs, especially when E. Power Biggs plays them. But
    you can make music with just about anything - look at Airto Moriera
    who plays car radiators sometimes. 
    
    So a sampler is just another tool/instrument. I think a sound out
    of context is just that - a sound. You can copyright music, and
    you can copyright programs, but I see nothing ethically wrong with
    taking sounds out of this world and turning them into data for creating
    sound. Turning it back into music is another story altogether.
    
    'nuff said from here.
    
    /pjh

>     ever-pressing question of:
>     Is using a sampler "cheating" vis-a-vis the electronic music
>     "ethic"?

Ever-pressing?   It never crossed my mind.

/Mitch

    I have to think that you think it is or might be cheating in some
    way Bob only because *I* have no real idea what you think it is
    cheating?
    
    I agree with what I think Edd said, which is that "cheating" is not
    a term that has any defined meaning in music.
    
    Eddie Van Halen describes himself as a "cheat".  For example, he
    invented a technique to do a flamenco guitar-like finger roll 
    (a staccato picked not) without actually having to develope the
    finger roll (or whatever it's properly called) technique which
    could take years.
    
    I guess what you may think of as "cheating" I think of as a "short
    cut" which has less (or no) negative overtones.
    
    	db

  Samplers are not cheating. Samplers make noise, musicians make music.

CHad

    re .7	Sorry about that.
    re .3	Right on!
    re .1	Write on, right on!!
    re .0	I know we're supposed to be talking about samplers,
    		but couldn't the same argument be made about sequencers?
    		It really is what you do with them that matters (or
    		doesn't).  They're just tools.
    
    Wright?
    Bill Allen

    it's cheating to use instruments; we should just send out our
    music telepathically!
    Tom

    Time for my favorite recent analogy between electronic music and
    computer graphics....  I don't really think that sampled waveforms
    are cheating--tell me the difference between that and additive
    synthesis based on Fourier analysis.  The manual approach is just
    less accurate, not qualitatively different.
    
    Sampling today is a lot like digitally scanned images in the graphics
    field.  You get a more natural seeming result than using a synthetic
    approach, but it costs in a number of important ways.  Like scanned
    images, samples have no structure.  You can't pick up some aspect
    like a complex attack and move it to another sample any more than
    you can cut one tree out of an image of a forest and make other
    trees in other images look like it.  Much like images, samples
    require more memory and bandwidth in the processing hardware.
    Much like images, sophisticated DSP hardware and software will
    make things much more flexible.
    
    I'll become a lot more interested in samplers when I can get one to
    analyze a loop, and abstract from it a reasonable formula for the
    spectrum over time--so that I can edit/compress/extend the animation,
    add/subtract/multiply just this computed function with another sample,
    etc.  Imagine being able to apply note number as an input to this sort
    of resynthesis function and not have to do multi-sampling.  (Aside: I
    actually like multi-sampling, and the cracks between samples making
    adjacent notes sound different. I like quirks like that.) One thing
    that I used to use on my modular system was an envelope follower.  It
    would be a really useful, very simple thing to move envelopes between
    samples. etc. 
    
    Getting back to my graphics analogy....Today's samplers are essentially
    a slide show.  A synthesizer with a good performance interface (or
    an advanced sampler) is more like a light show.  And tired old hippies
    will go for the light show every time :-)
    
    	Eirikur
    
    
    
    
    

    Sampling per se is not cheating.  Sampling from someone ELSES' music
    may be cheating.  If you sample one note, that's not cheating, it's,
    uh, borrowing timbres.  If you sample an entire phrase and use it 
    intact, like these rappers and hip-hoppers do James Brown, now that's 
    cheating.
    
    I recently rented the video '2010'.. hi-fi stereo, some of the
    spaceship environments and outer space sound environments (yeah
    I know there's no sound in a vacuum) were hip, and I was VERY tempted 
    to tape some on a cassette and use later in some sort of sound 
    collage/composition... but I couldn't do it.. THAT would be cheating.
    
    So as others have said, a sampler is just a tool, a digital recorder
    with a short memory.  It's what is done with it, and where your
    personal ethic lines are drawn.  I personally don't have a problem
    'lifting' single notes; snare hits, sax notes.. 'sound bites'. 
    It's when the sample uses recognizable phrases from someone else's
    work that I have a problem with it.  Didn't the Beastie Boys use
    a measure or two of Zep's John Bonham thru an entire tune ?  Thumbs
    DOWN.
karl

    < Note 1767.10 by DDIF::EIRIKUR "Hallgrimsson, CDA Product Manager" >
>                       -< It's a lot like graphics.... >-

>You can't pick up some aspect
>like a complex attack and move it to another sample 
    
    SURE you can.. even without graphical help, I can graft one sample's
    attack portion on to the sustain/decay of another.  Classical barking
    piano.  Singing drums.  Musical technicians.
    
>    I'll become a lot more interested in samplers when I can get one to
>    analyze a loop, and abstract from it a reasonable formula for the
>    spectrum over time--so that I can edit/compress/extend the animation,
>    add/subtract/multiply just this computed function with another sample,
>    etc.  
    
    I think you should read up on the EMAX' 'SE' software architecture.
    It allows two or more samples to be resynthesised harmonically.
    There's a large writeup on this at home, if I remember I'll bring
    it in..

karl    

re:.11
    
>            I personally don't have a problem
>    'lifting' single notes; snare hits, sax notes.. 'sound bites'. 


    Aw geez, this is probably the worst offense of all!  I mean, 
    James Brown can sue Yes, and other bands that have lifted identifiable
    chunks out of his music, but Stewart Copeland would have little
    legal recourse if ssomebody were to sample his "trademark" snare
    sound, and key it in during a song.  Same with something like a
    David Sanborn legato note.
    
    I have a bunch of songs that are in a weird key (well, not E, A,
    G or D  :^))  , so I'll sample my electric bass, so I won't have
    to use weird tunings or make really difficult fingerings.  This
    to me is the purpose of sampling.  Using smidgens of my voice to
    simulate a chorus or a simmons tome is okey doke.  
    
    But taking someone elses stuff ain't cool at all.  In my younger
    days, I admit that I got one of the orchestra hits off of a copy
    of the Chicago Symphony doing Beethoven's 5th.  This is (in my book)
    a definite no-no, now.  Oh well... (good thing nothing I used it
    on got airplay, huh? :^))
    
    Sampling isn't cheating.   Stealing is.

    Ashley

    
    This note wasn't to discuss the legalities or ethics of "sound bites";
    it's about:
                                                                  
    
    Dubious Statement #1: 
    
    	Electronic music is "different" from other music in some basic
    	way.
    
    		If you disagree, hit KP<comma>.
    
    		If you agree, call this difference �.
    
                        
    
    Dubious Statement #2:
                                              
    	Samplers violate this differencing attribute �
    
    		If you agree, can you describe �?           
                                                
    		If you disagree, can you show why � doesn't exist?
    
                                                           
    
    I agree with both statements- but I can't describe �.  
    
    I also feel that a lot of what is on the COMMUSIC tapes lacks this
    discriminating attribute �, and hence really doesn't belong on a
    COMMUSIC tape.  (N.B.  This isn't to say that it isn't good art-
    it's just to say that it doesn't have that elusive � that
    differentiates electronic music from other music.)
    
    	-Bill
    

    I agree with .7
    
    	;-} Mark
    

    My terminal won't display whatever it is you represented with those
    bass-ackward question marks, so I don't know what to think.
    
    ...but I'm probably against it.
    
    Edd

    Well, Bill, since you refused to or were unable to define it in the 
    topic note, I don't feel badly that I didn't exactly follow you...

> Dubious Statement #1: 
> Electronic music is "different" from other music in some basic way.
> If you agree, call this difference �.

    How do you make the "�" sign ?? Electronic music 'traditionally'
    uses oscillators as the building blocks of sound.
    
> Dubious Statement #2: Samplers violate this differencing attribute �

    Well, they don't use oscillators ! 
    
> If you agree, can you describe �?           

    Yes, I agree, there IS a difference.. oscillators are much more
    boring and require major filtering/shaping to sound interesting.

> I agree with both statements- but I can't describe �.  

    Does the phrase "much pure electronic music is BORIMG and STATIC" 
    seem to fit ?
    
>    I also feel that a lot of what is on the COMMUSIC tapes lacks this
>    discriminating attribute �, and hence really doesn't belong on a
>    COMMUSIC tape.  
    
    Yes, again we agree, much of the music on the compilation tapes
    is NOT boring/static.  Much of it, though possibly generated via
    MIDI and samplers and oscillator-driven synths, is actually pleasant
    and interesting to hear.  Of course, a minority of it really violates 
    the electronic music "ethic" and originated as vibrations in the air 
    generated by human voices or guitars or something equally archaic.
    And, of course, that sort of music is obviously unsuitable for a tape 
    with  a name like COMMUSIC.            
    
    karl
    

    
 >       How do you make the "�" sign ?? 
    
    Hit Compose (or if in DECWindows, Compose-Spacebar), then E, 
    then ^.  But that's not important now... :-)
                                         
    -------
    
    Yes, I agree a single oscillator gets boring real fast... but 
    even a micromoog has two....  
    
    Maybe that's what � is; the ability and talent of the sound creator
    to build an interesting sound out of boring oscillators, boring
    filters, boring modulators, and boring envelopes. 
                                                              
    Samplers don't require this talent (listen to "Sample the dog" by
    Tim-buc-2) and hence violate �. 
                                                                 
    In that case, samplers are "cheating" and don't belong on the COMMUSIC
    tapes. :-)
                                                        
    		<<< Now, where were those asbestos long-johns? >>> 
    
    -----
    
    (corrollary problem:  How do we decide what makes a sound boring? What
    property (call it B) makes a sound boring or non-boring? How do people
    detect the presence or absence of B?  (B is definitely neither entropy
    nor the lack thereof- because I do understand "boring" and both a
    single unmodulated sine wave and white noise are boring!) 
                                                    
    	-Bill          

    Methinks you won't get a definition of boring, as boring is "not
    interesting" and what is interesting, or "emergent" in the gestalt
    psych. sense is a function of the total state of the listener.
    
    Pity we can't swap a lot of that internal state stuff around yet.
    I think it would be good for society.  Ramble....
    
    	Eirikur
    

    Hey, don't you love it when somebody that hates electronic music
    tries to reinforce their arguments by playing something for you
    on the stereo ...
    
    Steve

A raw sample is usually boring too.  A little LFO, or filtering (like on a
synth -- gee, wasn't this the sample <> synth question) etc. makes it much 
more interesting.  Then add some DSP like reverb, flanging, or whatnot.

Chad

    Since I have no idea of the domain of discourse here (if it can even
    be described that way) , I can only comment on one thing: what does 
    or does not belong on a Commusic tape.
    
    IMO:
    
    What does or does not belong on a Commusic tape, should be determined
    by what Commusic tape listeners want to hear.   I believe that whatever
    it's title, that was the true purpose of doing these tapes.
    
    I believe that what most people want to heard are the serious efforts
    of other Commusic noters.   It is my hope that what folks want to see
    on the tape is  not determined by stylistic or qualitative criteria.
    
    There have been things on the tape I didn't care for, but I was glad
    they were there so that I may associate some MUSIC with noter.
    
    Perhaps you should argue instead that the Commusic tape is misnamed.
    I'd certainly buy that.
    
    Perhaps you can complain that the Commusic tapes have been "taken
    over" by non-computer music.  I'd probably have to grant you that
    too.
    
    But I don't think there's a single contribution you can point to
    that I would agree "doesn't belong".
    
    	db

    
    
    re: computers and music
    
    
      Gee, I thought my EPS had two microprocessors in it. My 'recordings'
    are all 'recorded' as MIDI events. My drums are digitally recorded
    'samples' managed by yet another computer. I process the analog
    signals generated by all these computers with (you guessed it) yet
    more computers, dedicated to processing analog signals. My non-samplers
    are still class-B computing devices. 
    
      And my music sounds conventional, or so I've heard. What gives?
    
    Might it be that the state of the art now allows those of us who
    have been around this stuff a while to forego the obvious avant-gardism
    of earlier 'computer music' and apply the technology to our various
    interpretations of our art?
    
    /pjh

    re: "obvious avant-gardism of earlier computer music"
    Computer music still has an avant-garde thread; it just never gets
    discussed here.  I imagine that the reason that early computer
    music was expressionistic and often serial was that the 
    musicians with access to computers were university music professors
    with friends in engineering faculty, and until recently there were
    no rock or pop music professors in universities, although there
    were jazz professors after some date.  these expressionistic
    university composers believed in the hegemony of expressionism and
    serialism, and also couldn't get any performances, so a computer
    slave performer was a dream come true.
    The second rockers could use computer electronics in music, they
    did.  
    But experimental composers still count among their ranks
    computer musicians making non-pop non-traditional music with computers.
    There is also a vast array of non-computer experimentalists, but
    they often use microprocessor-based processing devices, such as
    delays and harmonizers.
    Tom

    Uhm, what is this note about?
    
    len.
    

    Samplers don't cheat. 
    
    Records are just presets for your sampler, sometimes stored
    inconveniently.
    
    Richard. (phnar phnar).

    Uhm, seems to me that EH has one (or more) Mirages on their
    submissions, no?  So yank 'em off ... &*}

    Same dumb discussions went on when bow/arrow & spears gave way to guns
    & gunpowder, or when horse/carriage gave way to automobiles. 

-b

>      Same dumb discussions went on when bow/arrow & spears gave way
>    to guns
>      & gunpowder, or when horse/carriage gave way to automobiles. 
 
    Careful -- none of these are particularly pleasant developments!
    
    How about 'when measles gave way to vaccine'?
    
    I agree, "yank 'em off and be damn'd". 
    
    Richard.

    re .-a few
        
    	Sorry, no, EH doesn't own a single sampler.  Not even a rusted
    Mirage.  We have recently acquired two broken PaIa modular synths,
    however.  Both are equipped with the patented PaIa UltraDrift
    oscillators.  We will be touring with them in the near future :-).   
    
    -----
         
    Uh, we were discussing whether samplers were "cheating" (whatever
    cheating is), in the context of the electronic music esthetic (whatever
    that is).  We weren't defining any terms, to make it easier to argue.
    :-) 
    
    -----
    
    No rockers in Engineering universities?  What about the professor who
    had the office across the hall from me?  His name was John Tichy, PhD,
    and besides several textbooks on supersonic airframes, he also played
    bass guitar for Commander Cody and his Lost Planet Airmen (check out
    the credits for "Hot Rod Lincoln"). 
                                                                 
    	- Bill
                                       

    
    re: Janzen, .-1
    
       I rest my case. When electronics got easier to use, more people
    used them. 
    
       You should hear my early stuff. I used to be avant-garde, but
    it got boring when nobody listened.
    
    ;^)

    It got into my stash of Pepperidge Farm "Milano" cookies...
    
    PFrey

    Re:  Rap music and Samplers
    
    Rap music is very raw and "anti-establishment", sort of like early
    Rock'n'Roll (which ripped of blues riffs).  Rappers are heavy into
    samplers, and they make collages of sound with them.
    
    It's defiant to use other peoples sounds and put them into such
    a crude, raw, aggresive context.  Do you think a poor, black,
    uneducated kid from the ghetto cares about white establisment
    music business "ethics"?  The whole point is to rub establishment
    the wrong way while energizing thier peer group.   Rap music is
    an attitude and a statement.
    
    I was in Digital, Atlanta last week and some black kids had a rap
    tune crank in the parking lot.  Some business suits got out their
    car and said "What the hell is that noise?".  Teen defiance, off
    course!
    
    James Brown is the god of rappers.  His stuff is sampled alot.
    
    Rap music is getting more sophisticated.  Some rappers are very
    good programmers as it developes as an art form...   
    
    

    RE .-1
    
    I read an article on Bomb the Bass. It was suggested he may be ripping
    people off -- notably the much-sampled James Brown. He said that
    he does, in fact, pay royalties to James Brown's record company,
    but in fact his records provoked a repressing of the original Brown
    records as punters played 'find the sample' with them.
                                                                 
    Not so much parasitic as symbiotic.
    
    Richard.

    Last month's KEYBOARD is devoted to rappin'.  I don't personally
    care for it, but there's money to be made, I guess.  Most of it
    strikes me as kind of dumb and morally warped, in the same class as
    WWF wrestling, sitcoms and soap operas.  There is probably some good, 
    intelligent rapping going on, but I have yet to hear it ... maybe some
    old Blondie (nawwww...) ... once heard something called the White Boy
    Rap that was moderately funny.  
    
    Steve