Conference napalm::commusic_v1

            <<< DNEAST::SYS$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]COMMUSIC.NOTE;2 >>>
             -< * * Computer Music, MIDI, and Related Topics * * >-
================================================================================
Note 2550.1                 COMMUSIC VIII reviews...                      1 of 1
AQUA::GRUNDMANN "Bill DTN 297-7531"                  13 lines  16-JAN-1991 21:54
                     -< 91 deg out of phase with reality! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I've just listened to part of COMMUSIC VIII, and I *have* to tell you
    what I think happened to the mixdown of "Rumble"! It's the phase of
    left and right channels - one of them is 180 degrees out of phase. I
    switched my amp from stereo to mono - and zap! - the bass vanished.
    
    Heard on headphones, the sound has a characteristic quality of
    "out-of-phaseness" - I don't know how to describe it.
    
    To prove to myself that it is the phasing, I ran the left channel
    through my *cheap* mixer, but skipped the mixer with the right side. I
    know the mixer inverts the signal (!!! I had trouble with it once for
    similar reasons...) That cures the problem! Now the bass sounds better
    - but the high end is getting nailed...

    I suspected the phase thing as soon as I realized I had a problem. The
    odd thing is, it didn't do it in the studio. (Maybe I have 2 phase
    reversals?).
    
    And I've always been carefull to observe polarity. It's possible I made
    a mistake, of course, but I tend to think maybe the reversal is
    internal to the amp I use in the studio...
    
    Oh well, mono is for wimps....:^)
    
    Edd

            re T Janzen's review of Ripping Off the Monks:
    >The count of eight completely undermines the fluid ametric sense of 
    >the chant to the point of monotony.  It wasn't necessary to use a 
    >regular meter or even drums.  
    
    Yes, it was.  I like the interplay of the rhythm track and the 
    flowing vocals.  Monotony is another word for minimalism.  I love
    the drums.  I use irregular meter in "Sunscape" and you managed to
    bash that, too.  The phrase "can't win" comes to mind...
    
    Ingram Marshall, on his CD Penitential Voices, has 6 pieces titled
    Hidden Voices 1-6.  On Hidden Voices, he lifts vocals from foreign
    records, Russian and MidEastern, and builds arrangements around them,
    much as I did in Ripping Off the Monks.  The funny thing is,
    my piece is far more listenable and has more energy than his do.
    The only thing separating his music and mine is snobbery.
    
    Marshall is a well-respected 20th century classical composer.  A long-
    time friend and collaborator of Morton Subotnick.
    
    karl

    I couldn't find the COMMUSIC VIII base note, just the "nowrite" update
    note.  So I'll ask here.  How do we non submitting dweebs get copies of
    COMMUSIC VIII or is it a limited edition?
    
    len.
    

    re .4,   me too.
    
    But without having heard the tape, and therefore not knowing whether I
    agree with him or not, I found Tom's review of this tape to be
    absolutely hilarious.
    
    
    	"And he said: Hey!
    	 Are you talking to me?
    	 Or are you just practicing
    	 For one of those performances of yours?"
    
    		- Laurie Anderson
    		  "Language is a Virus"
    		  from the album "Home of the Brave"

     re .5 
     My feeliings exactly. Great quote. Great entertainment
     in the conference!
     
     Dave

    Sure, it was funny, but I guess I was hoping for a little more
    constructive criticism. I find it difficult to sort out serious
    comments from sarcastic ones... Or was it 100% sarcastic?

    100%

    I thought Tom's review was honest, and funny. To know him is to kinda
    like him.
    
    Edd

Sarcasm? In this conference? Oh, yeah, s-u-u-ure! I'll just bet! The whole
*conference* is sarcastic! (etcetera...)

          <<< Note 2551.9 by DCSVAX::COTE "Edd, 18.5 - Mousies, 15" >>>

    >I thought Tom's review was honest, and funny. 
    
    Oh, I don't know.  
    
    It looked like he took an opportunity to practice elliptical vitriol in 
    the guise of performance art in the guise of a music review.
    
    >To know him is to kinda like him.
    
    Oh, I don't know.
    
    karl
    

    If you look hard enough you'll find whatever you want to.
    
    Me, I'm with Edd.
    
    len.
    

re: Edd's review of my submission "Rain."

Yes, there are distinct problems in the area of volume swells with no timbre
change.  Actually, the orchestration (what instruments are playing) should
change.  The swells are actually velocity changes, since I don't have a swell
pedal.  That big-sounding orchestra was actually played in one pass; it's a
3-way layer of 2 samples from an el-cheapo Korg O3.  I like to fool around in
real time, so I would really like an instrument powerful enough to do the
timbre shifts, too.

Hmm, I've got a number of MIDI processors that allow velocity cross-fades,
maybe I could get something going there between the two string samples and the
horn samples.  Particularly if I used the two outputs and used eq on one....

	Eir�kur

    If you're doing that on an O3 I doff my hat in your direction...
    
    Edd

<My responses to reviews on my submissions:

Brians's review:

    Rick Ryen set himself up for a tough sell by covering three classic
    rock tunes, because the immediate comparison is to the originals, and
    in that context, well, they aren't as good.  I was very impressed with
    the drum programming on the Hendrix tunes, trying to even *approximate*
    Mitch Mitchell's over the top style is quite a feat.

< Thanks Brian, you are quite kind. There seems to be some differing opinions
< on the drums. I programmed these patterns from a score, that was 
< quite complete. Fire was programmed by a friend of mine for the MT32.
< I punched it up a bit , and translated it to the XR. Mitchell does push the
< envelope of the MC300 Rhthym track a bit!
<    
< I think that I learned that one of Hendrixes greatest streangths was
< a killer rhythym section.
<
                        -< Tom's review of commusic 8 >-
Rick Ryen 
Foxy Lady
	While listening to Rick's songs, I transcribed the lyrics word-
	for-word to make sure I was listening.
<
< Tom, I would sure like to have a copy of your transcription.
<	
	When he says at the end, "You make me feel like a s**t like a stained 
	foxy lady", he examines the ambiguity, even the essential 
	androgeny, of an intense sexual meeting, the exchange of identities, 
	and the confusion and conflict that follows as identities fight 
	to re-establish themselves.  Or maybe he said something else it was 
	hard to hear.  :-)

< Tom, you obviously have keen musical apreciation skills, to have so astutely
< observed these subtilties in my presentation. I think that you understand the
< essense that I was trying to acheive.

Fire
	I thought pick-ups were passe' (and unhealthy).  But I guess we can
	reminisce.
	"I've only want fun and desire
	Like a sandwich to your fire"
	
<  Oops. I think that I forgot to include these words! Were these in the
< original? Dosen't matter, I'll add them anyway. Jimi, RIP.

	The image is powerful one, that of a hot roast beef sandwich being
	heated on an intensely hot grill until it almost burns.	
	And a little S&M implied:
	"Aint' gonna hurt you baby"

< Ah Ha, You were listening!
< I may have exercised a bit of artistic freedom again with the words here, but
< you're essentially correct in assuming my state of mind. I like your
< description so much, that I'm planning on using this imagery in the 
< video. 

	twang twang buzz thump boom thump boom pzzzzzz (cymbals)
	Kind of old fashioned.  But I don't know the sources; I've only
	heard a couple rock songs, both by Debbie Harry on Saturday Night
	Live.  It reminds of that, I guess.

< Debbie Harry, IS, of course, my musical mentor. Isn't it sad that the 
< good die young. Although these sounds may sound "old fashioned", they WERE
< created with the very latest in trendy computer technology, and at
< great personal expense, which I believe socially redeems them.

Riders on the Storm
	The lyric is very good.
	"into this house we're born
	into this world we're thrown	
	Riders on the Storm"

< As long as we are able to repeat these words, JIM LIVES!

	"an actor out alone" I can relate to that, all my lectures are
	solo.

< May you find solice in Southern Comfort.

	There seems to be a warning about pedophiles preying on kids
	in cars.  Perhaps this is the meaning of the song, that the
	general statement of life's "storm" there is a particular
	storm of a threat of a molestation.  The mood was suitably
	maintained.

< No comment. I believe that the work speaks for itself in this regard.

	There's an intrument there that sounds as bad as my violin, maybe it's
	a sustained guitar.  It is out of tune with the synth.	Monotonous 
	rhythms track.

< Monotony can be a powerful musical statement. I plan on dedicating my life
< to illustrating this point. Wait until I submit an
< ORIGINAL composition! Then we are going to talk major earth-moving monotony.

            <<< DNEAST::SYS$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]COMMUSIC.NOTE;2 >>>
             -< * * Computer Music, MIDI, and Related Topics * * >-
================================================================================
Note 2550.3                 COMMUSIC VIII reviews...                      3 of 3
WEFXEM::COTE "Edd, 18.5 - Mousies, 15"              170 lines  23-JAN-1991 11:47
                            -< Expanded review... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've listened to the tape for a week now, both passively and actively,
and figure it's time to spill the beans...

RICK RYAN
<
< RyEn! Weird Huh?
<
"Foxy Lady" - As stated before, doing a cover leaves one open to 
comparisons with the original, and having worn out my copy of "Are You
Experienced" in the late '60s, I think I can say this is a decent cover.
Not perfect mind you, but I can see the beer drinkers in any bar eating
this up.
<
< Thanks, Ed, you are too kind. Are you a beer drinker yourself?
<
A couple things stick out production wise. Namely the overbearing tambourine.
Too far up in the mix, and not needed to begin with. And where are the crash
cymbals? The drum programming is over-all OK though, if a bit stiff.
<
< Good input on the tambourine. I tried to add it in to add some 'realism',
< and to eliminate some of the stiffness. I guess that I wasn't too sucessful.
< I have to listen again for the crashes.
<
"Fire" - Again, a live version of this would probably have the joint jumping.
The drums are mechanical in places, most noticeable in the rolls where it 
has no "weak arm - strong arm" dynamics. Rick seems to have the essence of
Hendrix in his guitar playing, and the attempt is commendable even if it
doesn't quite sound like Hendrix. Hey, who does? The guitar could be locked
up a bit tighter with the bass.
<
< I was just trying to get a 'Hendrix' feel. I don't even have a prayer
< of trying to duplicate such a master guitarwise. But, I do find it 
< incredibly fun to play along with these drum and bass lines.
< Mitch Mitchel does push my MC300 a bit.
<
"Riders On The Storm"

%OOPS-F-BKBTBNKERS, Back beat bonkers... 

Repeat after me, one TWO three FOUR. The backbeat goes on TWO and FOUR.

< one (anna) TWO (anna) three (anna) FOUR !!!

(I ripped out my copy of LA Woman to check.) Maybe Rick's making an artistic 
statement by shifting the snare to one and three? I found it disconcerting 
to say the least...
<
< Actually, no intentional musical statement intended. (I'm not that cleaver)
< All three of us who worked on this must have missed this. I'll have to have a listen to
< the original myself (I don't know if I have a copy)
<
Other than this faux pas, I can't say much. My tape is stretched, and the speed
drifts horribly thru this tune. How bad is it? The signature 16th note riff
actually goes UP. Sorry, Rick. For reasons beyond your control this piece
is to painful to listen to...
<
< Hope you can get a better copy. Mine came out decent, but did sound a bit
< slow.

<
<
< Thanks For the critiques. 
< They are both fun and Useful.
<
< Regards, Rick (call me Jimi) Ryen
<

    re: Rick Ryen
    
    > Edd Cote... tasty pitch bends.
    
    I'm glad you picked up on that. Why? Because there's not a single
    pitch bend in the entire solo!
    
    The entire thing was done in MONO mode, using fingered portamento
    to get the "bends". T'was an experiment that apparently worked...
    
    Edd

    
    "Rumble" is in 4/4. Try to key on to the foot-closed hi-hat during
    the middle solo...
    
    Edd

            <<< DNEAST::SYS$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]COMMUSIC.NOTE;2 >>>
             -< * * Computer Music, MIDI, and Related Topics * * >-
================================================================================
Note 2550.6                 COMMUSIC VIII reviews...                      6 of 6
AQUA::ROST "In search of the lost biscuit drop"      20 lines   5-FEB-1991 13:54
                          -< Nobody's Perfect Dept. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
>	Mountain Awakening
>..is missing on my tape.
    
    This tune made it onto the original master but I found my C-90 master
    tape was longer than the XL-IIs I was dubbing to.  Edd Cote got this
    because he gave me a C-100...a veritable colector's item tape  8^)  8^)
    
>I make no claims to have perfect pitch, but listening to my own 
>pieces, they sounded flat and slow.  And indeed, they are between 1/2 and a 
>full step flat.  And so are yours, probably.  
    
    Welcome to the world of endless cassette dubs.  From the submissions, I
    copied to the master and again from the master to the copies.  Assuming
    that the tape speeds on my decks are not quite identical (quite likely)
    plus neither probably will match anyone else's, etc., the obvious
    question is why do these things always end up flat instead of sharp?
    8^)  8^)
    
    						Mr. Xerox

'Cause tape stretches?

    'cause doing n  bounces on a machine that's x% slow results in a
    final tape that's n*x% slow
    
    karl

Karl- I take it you mean "bouncing" from one machine to another as opposed to
track-to-track. For a two-copy production sequence, the worst case would be that
in the copying process, the source deck is consistently slower than the record
deck. Then you'd get the result you predict, with n=2.

(Ya think this replaces SMPTE vs. FSK as the most heated discussion in COMMUSIC
these days?)

Bob

    Actually it's worse than linearly multiplicative, it's exponential;
    if the source machine is s% slower than than the destination machine,
    after t transfers from the source machine to the destination machine,
    the final result is
    
    	(((1 + s/100)^t) - 1) * 100
    
    % slower, relative to the destination machine.
    
    For small values of s and t, this is pretty close to (s * t), so it
    doesn't really matter.
    
    len.
    

    re: .22 - very good. Now build enema-models for the tape machines and
    show us how you do that in EMA-eeese. Then Brian can use that output
    to make some FM and COMMUSIC will become terminally work related.
    You have 20 minutes, startinggggg - now!
    
    	bob

<<< Note 2551.18 by AQUA::ROST "In search of the lost biscuit drop"  20 lines   5-FEB-1991 13:54
    
>......the obvious
>    question is why do these things always end up flat instead of sharp?
>    8^)  8^)
    
    Because entropy is an operative concept... until IT runs down.
    
    karl

__Here's my answer to the reviews of my computer's pieces.
__note 2117 describes the software in deceptively complex detail.
__if it wasn't obvious, AlgoRhythms can be made to sound like almost
__anything (except Rock, that was deliberate ;-) );  It's very good with
__swelling sine tones if you want new age.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>WEFXEM::COTE "Edd, 18.5 - Mousies, 15"               42 lines  16-JAN-1991 12:47
>...
>    Tom Janzen and Bill Grundmann are the closest to real "computer" music
>    here.  Based on Tom's stuff, the AlgoRhythms program is an impressive
>    piece of work.  Congratulations on the sonics, too, many of his past
>    submissions were marred by really poor sound, while this is quite good.
>...

__Yeah, I had submitted acoustic things.  Electronics makes hifi easy.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>WEFXEM::COTE "Edd, 18.5 - Mousies, 15"              170 lines  23-JAN-1991 11:47
>                            -< Expanded review... >-
>...
>TOM JANZEN
>
>I don't know whether to review the software or the music. 

__It's music software

>Tom's programming
>certainly seems to have the flexibility to spit out interesting riffs, but
>knowing Tom's eclectic (bizarre?) tastes in music, it's hard for me to tell
>if he hit the mark or not.

__AlgoRhythms doesn't know about riffs, it doesn't follow melodies, doesn't
__generate or repeat motifs or subjects or phrases, just plays random notes
__or steps up and down the scale randomly.
__It's true, AlgoRhythms suits my taste to a 'T'.

>"Piano Concerto" - Interesting riffs and sections but ultimately frustrating.
>Too long, but I'll be damned. It has an ending.

__the actual form is a twenty-minute form.  This is just an excerpt.  The
__most interesting thing AlgoRhythms does is follow a slowly rising and falling
__level of energy, and to here that you need to listen for 10 minutes at least,
__the more the better because you hear different combinations of energy from
__different flows. (Am I being too technical?).

>"Gamelan" - More accessible than the first, but still contrived. What happened
>at the end? Did you run outta RAM?

__AlgoRhythms runs in 35K bytes and doesn't take more.  The piece stops because
__it is a static form that can run for days, but there is a time limit on
__commusic tapes.

>"Jam 2" - Even as a fan of such folks as Ornette Coleman and James Ulmer, I 
>found this piece tiring. I suspect the timbres used have more to do with it 
>than the piece itself. I hope my TZ never acts up like that.
>...

I am still learning how to select patches, and not to go by the names.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>VOLKS::RYEN "Rick Ryen 240-6501 AET1-1/A6"          108 lines  30-JAN-1991 21:08
>                    -< Ricks Review - Good work everybody >-
>...
>Tom Janzen
>
>	I quickly wrote a C++ based music appreciation program, and let it 
>	listen to these passages. It loved these three tunes! Unfortunately,
>	I didn't much. I don't really understand the value of
>	auto-composition. 

__Automatic composition can make music for industrial sound systems (retail and
__office), make it possible to experiment very quickly with different 
__rules for making music (writing music takes forever), make it possible to
__send unique cassette tapes to people instead of just copies of a master,
__easily implement mathematical algorithms for making music, more cheaply
__make production music cues, help students learn composition, etc. etc. etc.

>	The piano concerto was too random, and lacking of melody.
>	I must admit that the more I listen, the more it grows on me.

__Yes, it is random and is not a melody.  It is a form.  AlgoRhythms forms
__do not depend on melody or harmony.  This was the design I had in '76
__(really).  Tonal music is dead, I reasoned; we now can make music out of
__noises and other complex sounds (best with a sample, of which I have none),
__but such sounds can't be organized with Bach's counterpoint or Schenker's
__approach to harmony, so we need a new way to make forms: gradually rising
__and falling mean and variances of pitch, dynamic, and duration.

>	Gamelan<d> was better, with more appropriate instrumentation.
>	More listenable. Kind of like the Maxwell House Coffee Jingle!

__AlgoRhythms is for making new unfamiliar musics that surprise people, 
__but if you can match up
__the scale, the instrumental patches, and the movement, you can make its
__output resemble something familiar, such as in this example.  it's not really
__much of a gamelan, it's not enough bells.  

>	I would have named Jam2, the "Battle of the Ethnic Robots"!
>
>	Okay Tom, I'll admit that this is very interesting, if not quite
>	commercial music yet. Please keep trying, and keep submitting

__Uh, I don't like commercial music; I always fast forward through the 
__musical guests on Letterman and SNL.  I'm not trying to be commercial.

>	this 'real commusic'. I have to think about it some more.

__I think the problem was the kazoo-harmonica patch, call "mellow tenor"
__or similar that I used.  I have to chose or make better patches.

>...
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>SALSA::MOELLER "hoards Post-It Notes (tm)."         134 lines   5-FEB-1991 12:37
>...
>TOM JANZEN
>             o  Piano Concerto 6:00
>'50's and '60's university computer music bleeps live.  I don't get it. <FF>.

__Are you complaining that it's old?  Like those 700-year-old chords you use? ;-)
__I think the point is that the technique first explored in batch mode on 
__mainframes in the engineering department at midnight can now be used much
__more efficiently on  microcomputers with windowed interfaces in real time.
__Applying a previous idea with modern tools is often powerful.
__Why don't you like the bleeps?  They're just factory TZ patches.
__Bleeps are sounds.  Blame Yamaha.  

>             o  Gamelan 3:00
>I liked it.  The timbres match the content.  Harmonic content is nil, but
>the fast tuned percussion is fun.

__What I said before, AlgoRhythms if for new music, but you can combine
__sounds, effects, scales, and rhythm to resemble something familiar for people

>             o  JAM2 3:00
>A DADA berserk Erik Satie march on acid, except the music is played by 
>screechy synth timbres.<FF>.

__This was killed the wrong lead patch, in my humboldt opinion.
__I was shooting for a jazz thing, although that's not what the s/w if for.

>...
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Note 2550.6                 COMMUSIC VIII reviews...                      6 of 6
>GLOWS::COCCOLI "still monitoring reality"           128 lines   7-FEB-1991 21:20
>                         -< after 4 listens..(almost) >-
> Tom Janzen
>   Is it music?. Is it musak?. Speaking for myself, this musac definately 
>  causes an autonomic reflex manifesting itself in a spastic jab at the
>  FF button.

__I think it's muzak.  I think i could make a mint.  You know what companies
__pay for industrial music?

> Piano Concerto
>   Just doesn't do anything for me. Unmercifully long.

__Actually, this is just an excerpt.  It's 20 minutes long, but can run for hours.

> Gamelan
>  Interesting, but things like it (but better) have been done before.

__Automatically?

> Jam2
>  Grating at any volume.

__Yeah, I think we've established that.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>NWACES::PHILLIPS                                    133 lines   8-FEB-1991 17:04
>                        -< Get me back on COMMUSIC IX >-
>Tom Janzen
>Piano Concerto: I guess I will have to say the program needs to listen to more
>Bach, Mortzart etc to gain a better sense of structureand form. Interesting but
>the fun is in the playing as far I am concern so step entry and even 
>quantization (is that a word) is not my bag, why will I want my computer
>to compose?? What's next?...  Hmm... Oh no not with my wife you don't!! 

__I studied classical form in school, ending with Berry's advanced book, and
__then threw it all away.  This program implements a design I did in my 
__senior year 16 years ago.  It has nothing to do with tonality.  It was just
__simpler at first to use the factory patch sounds, which imitate old
__instruments made for tonal music.

>
>Gamelan:Listenable, I actually enjoyed this piece a bit reminds me of
>some other percussive stuff I have heard.
>
>JAM2:Where is the jam? May be a better title. This was painful to 
>listen to. (Another appropriate title). Actually when I am in a
>mood for dissonant stuff I'll put this on. 

__Hm.  The TX81Z can put two instruments in parallel (pitch offset by a sixth).
__I used some minor scale, maybe Hungarian, or maybe harmonic minor.  Maybe I
__should make a blues scale, but that would be more dissonnant and wouldn't
__work right because the blues scale depends on putting chromatic notes in the
__correct metric position, and AlgoRhythms doesn't know how to do that.

__Thanks for listening.
__Tom

__AlgoRhythms doesn't know about riffs, it doesn't follow melodies, doesn't
__generate or repeat motifs or subjects or phrases, just plays random notes
__or steps up and down the scale randomly.
__It's true, AlgoRhythms suits my taste to a 'T'.

                    Kinda like entropy with power steering?

>                    Kinda like entropy with power steering?

exactly
tom

Regarding Tom's work... and automatic composition in general...

Well, I have always theorized that a major contributor to creativity
was randomness. Kind of like, you have an organism, there is a random
mutation of it's DNA, and voila, you have an new and unique organism!
Now that's creativity, almost in the biblical sense!

The random mutation contributed to the new creation.

But clearly, all components of the organism cannot change, because
it would be unlikely to survive. (are you following this contrived logic?)

Anyway, getting back to automatic composition... There is the structure
component, and there is the random component (or at least seed). From
what I gather, Toms technique utilizes both.

But, I see that most music is very structured, with small changes being made to
create new compositions. Tunes that sound familiar, but have a sufficiently 
different component to be unique, are acceptable to more people.

Two major elements of structure that I recognize are harmony and melody.
(at least my own simple western definitions of these, since I am not formally
trained in musical theory). I hear the harmonic structure in Tom's submissions,
since it appears to fall nicely into
a particular scale (or key). What is more obviously lacking is the structure
and familarity of a melody line.

I am getting at this in a round about way, but my basic point is that I think
that Tom's work would be more generally acceptable, (ie; leaning more toward the
"commercial" end of the spectrum), if the ratio of structure to randomness was
higher.
 
Now what interests me very much is the following thought. What if the random
component we replaced with a chaotic component? 
(chaos being defined as randomness within certain more defined limits)
I have seen graphics generators which automatically produce visuals that
are incredibly beautiful, and simulate natural scenes that resemble
natural landscapes (mountains and streams especially).

Perhaps the additional structure of the chaotic (as oposed to the random)
factor, would be sufficient, when added to the existing structure within
AlgoRhythms to produce massive amounts of commercial muzak, and the
corrosponding monetary rewards!

To clarify one use(or misuse) of a word. When I say commercial, I really mean 
"acceptable to a very wide audience", and not a value judgement, 
or specific musical style.

Just a few bazzar thoughts, spawned by listening to the output of
AlgoRhythms, and hearing the discussions. 

    Once I finally realized that Rick had typed "organism" not "orgasm"
    -.1 made more sense.
    
    Th bizarre thing is it made a certain amount of sense *before* I realized
    I'd read it wrong...
    
    Edd

Re .29:

Serendipity can at times be an even more creative force than entropy, IMHO.
Didja ever think whether in the dawn of time life began amidst a sea of tiny
micro-orgasms? A titillating thought, certainly.

Re .28:

I know what you mean about the role of "inter-note structure" in music. Many
algorithmic composition approaches do actually make use of this, and I recall
reading of at least one which is indeed based on fractals. I found the section
on algorithmic composition in F. Benjamin Moore's "The Elements of Computer
Music" pretty interesting; if you're interested in this topic, you might also.
I think the output of Algorhythms bears more of a resemblance to "tone poems"
or studies in sound "texture" (my own term, for want of a better one) than to
music as a lyrical or melodic sequence of notes.

Bob

>Ryen
> Tunes that sound familiar, but have a sufficiently 
>different component to be unique, are acceptable to more people.

	yeah, that's the part I don't care about.  Actually, there is no point
	to hearing the same thing twice; we should try to hear new pieces
	all the time.  There are too many new pieces of music being written
	for anyone listening 24 hours/day to different things in each 
	ear phone to hear everything being written (just new things).
	I like new things.  I hate familiar things most of the time.
	(I like some familiar things to play for fun at the piano, such as
	the Rite of Spring, Beethoven symphonies, at least I used to when
	i played, but that's fun playing, that's different).
	I know that the appeal of popular art is the sameness, the lack of
	challenge to sensibilities of values, the reinforcement of value
	systems.  The whole push for rock in teh 60's was that it
	reinforced the value systems of young people trying to break from
	their parents (now look at them, but they still use rock as an
	emblem, it's all they have left).  Sitcoms, movies, popular books,
	all do this; thus the sameness of sitcoms: repeating the familiar
	icons, reinforcing values (comradeship, love, hard work for itself,
	material possessions!).  

	There is another art.  A whole other world of art that I know 
	educated engineers know about, but do not usually immerse themselves
	in, an art for newness, to challenge oneself, to grow, to 
	broaden one's sensibilities, to become more of a person, a deeper
	person.

	I should not have compromised by trying to imitate popular things
	with AlgoRhythms, but it has taken me until now to learn the
	TX well enough to make really unusual sounds that I like.
	Submitting my things to tapes and people interested soley or
	primarily in rock has really jarred me, shocked me, and at times
	upset me.  I should not have expected any approval from an
	audience with values completely disjunct from my own (musically
	speaking), but I did until recently and that was the biggest
	mistake.

	Snow thought British education fostered two cultures of art and
	science; I think we also have two cultures of the popular and the
	experimental.

	Incidental, popular art routinely takes ideas from experimental
	art in superficial ways when it suits its purpose.  Just don't
	forget the source.  The major chord you use were experimental
	700 years ago.  The FM synths you use were invented by an
	experimental electronic composer. (on a PDP10)

	tom

	there is a fractal music program for the Amiga, I don't know anything
	about it.  I thought about non-linear simultaneous differential
	equations for my  music, but didn't pursue it.  I only just passed
	that semester by arguing with the teacher about my answer to 
	Laplace question
Tom

Re: various and sundry

Geez, Tom, you sound kinda defensive- please don't be! Music is lotsa things to
lotsa people; personally, I think that the human approach to sensation,
experience, and all that is to seek patterns, whether familiar or new. Even
listening to Algorhythms' output I think that the mind attempts this (whether
successfully or not).

Many composers have argued the validity of completely random noises as "music;"
whether one agrees with this or not, I don't think that *all* music with
elements of structure in it should be automatically eliminated from the
aspirations to creativity, newness, and depth which you so passionately extol.

I think the distinction between horizon-expanding, innovative music and
reiterations of musical cliche is a valid one. The only kicker is, IMHO, that
one person's innovation might totally miss another's sensibilities- but I'm
still glad that music *is* a subjective, artistic experience, not a
fully-defined (and therefore closed) science. Your contribution to it is, for
me, a welcome addition.

Cheers,
	Bob

(You know, reading this over I can't tell if anyone will know what I'm talking
about. Sigh.)

     I have Tom's Algorhythm program and enjoy listening to
     what it can do. I disagree with his ideas about commercial
     music making superficial use of creative ideas. Sure some
     of it is devoid of the original spirit, but some of the real
     geniuses are the ones who can bridge/integrate/merge/combine
     the leading edge ideas with more common place ideas. They
     move people ahead while the truly "out there" folks
     close other people's minds, forcing retreat from innovation.
     The people who are identified as leaders of "schools"
     of art or music are those who bridge the gap pulling others
     along rather than the first people who create the gap.
     Both the gap creators and the gap bridgers are needed.
     
     Dave

	i am not defensive.  this is a good discussion.  hey dave, 
	AlgoRhythms is much faster now (the user interface is not
	much improved yet).  But I cna't upload binary any more, so if
	any more wants to overflow the MIDI buffer on their synth, send mail
	tom

re; .31 (Tom)

>	I know that the appeal of popular art is the sameness, the lack of
> 	challenge to sensibilities of values, the reinforcement of value
>	systems.  The whole push for rock in teh 60's was that it
>	reinforced the value systems of young people trying to break from
>	their parents (now look at them, but they still use rock as an
>	emblem, it's all they have left). 

I really have to disagree with you here. I can't see that the appeal of
popular art is sameness, although clearly there is some copy-cat artists out
there. Once, to have long hair, wear strange clothes, and be a hard rock
band was very unique and different. I statement AGAINST sameness. I am sometimes
suprised to see so many "FORMULA" bands, who use these tired props and
antics as their 'statement'. They certainly don't do anything for me.
But, when I first saw these things in the 60's, there were new and original,
and I was impressed.

On the other hand, there are guys like Phil Collins, who consistently
create new tunes (not drastically new), but new songs that I find myself
enjoying. 

I even get a kick out of a well done cover now and then. Say for instance
Bonnie Rait's Runnaway remake. 

>	Submitting my things to tapes and people interested soley or
>	primarily in rock has really jarred me, shocked me, and at times
>	upset me.  I should not have expected any approval from an
>	audience with values completely disjunct from my own (musically
>	speaking), but I did until recently and that was the biggest
>	mistake.

Well, I can't say that I am solely interested in rock, but certainly that is
my prefered idiom, because I see it as very broad. I think I can find a place
in my definition or rock for the type of music you have submitted. 
You have my approval, but you may find me somewhat confused, and questioning.
DOn;t take that as a lack of 'acceptance', and appreciation. I just need to
think about this form more that the easier and more familiar forms, such as
popular 'rock'. What better place to showcase newness.

>	I think we also have two cultures of the popular and the
>	experimental.

How would you classify something like DEVO. I consider them highly experimental,
but they were also quite popular, at least to a subset of the Saturday Night
Live Audience. And what about Frank Zappa and the Mothers. Very unconventional
to say the least, but with an impressive amount of record sales.
Pink Floyd? Kraftwerk? These have to 'grow' on you also.

The reason that I am spending so many words on the subject of your submissions
is that I find them intriguing. Most music that I like, I like simply because
I have an immediate emotional reaction to it. But, knowing that a song was
created partially by automation, I find that my most significant reaction is
intellectual. It leads me to ask many questions....

Is this really music? (I would say yes.) If I bought your program, and it
produced a work at the level of the say Bach, to whom would the copyright
belong, to me (the owner), or to you, the original writer?
If it produced such a work, should I be threatened (as a mediocre mnusician)?
In 5 or 10 years, just when I've figured out how to write and perform a
decent tune, will there be a $99 computer program that will far exceed my
hard earned abilities? Would I buy it? To replace what, or would it be 
an entirely new something? 

Gad, do I ramble or what?
Does anybody else react to this the same way as I?

/Rick

re: .29 (Edd)

>  Once I finally realized that Rick had typed "organism" not "orgasm"
>    -.1 made more sense.
    
>    Th bizarre thing is it made a certain amount of sense *before* I realized
>    I'd read it wrong...
    

Well, it probably would have been a MORE INTERESTING discussion anyway!
I'm not sure that even 'organism' made much sense.!!!

(I'm beginning to suffer Ronald Reagan syndrome....ie; I have the strong
 desire to start every sentence with "Well,.." )

Okay, nuff from me. I better shut up and just listen before I either make
sombody angry, or show more of my ignorance.

Re .37:

There you go again!

    
    now in .28 i got an idea('bout time).  This probably requires a
    multi-threaded beast to beat on several SGU's, but what if you
    started with;
    
    	a. a string of notes output from tom's program.
    
    	b. input to a cell program - plays a bit, then sub-divides.
    
    	c. implement a healthy mutation rate in the sub-division process.
    
    	d. whole thing runs until resources consumed. planet dead!
    
    while i realize that for tom there may be initially too much repetition
    of a phrase (ie > 1), i thinks if there was enough processor and sgu
    power it could get to be quite interesting.  Sounds of life - 8 billion
    gazillion rats who could assume so many interesting voices. 
    
    
    	As per Mr. Janzen's views on modern mass consumed music - he's got
    a point, and i don't really quarrel with his assumptions. Doesn't mean
    i can't sit and appreciate all them old ideas each time they come out
    of the blender though.  I listened to 92.9 the other night during a
    new-age segment, and tried really hard to a) like what i heard, b)
    convince myself something new and interesting was happening, and c)
    the digital piano this guy was playing was actually a steinway, but
    i didn't like it, his compositions were a series of borrowed bits
    woven into highly unoriginal stretches, and the bass notes inparticular
    had a nasty electric grundge that gave it all away.  I'd rather write
    rock/pop songs where you don't even bother to pretend you don't steal.
    (It's like eating cheez-it's or frito's, reach, grab, munch. No strain
    expect for perhaps fingers on pen/keyboard or however!)
    
    	And then the next day, i dug out this recording of the only song
    the other Beatles were completely successful to keep from the world
    by John Lennon, the quirky "What's the New Mary Jane".  Now this
    song starts stupid enough, John, George, anyone else around, a large
    bag of pot, and some truely stupid lyrics. But it gets better - a
    somewhat out tempo piano overdub, before the whole disappers into a
    raid of the Abbey Road sound-effects closet. Tom would frown, since
    a couple of places in the middle of who knows, little snitches of
    the melody sort of poke thru the surface, only to quickly slide back
    down, but unlike the famous Revolution #9, there are no other annoying
    repetitions - each listen to this is quirky and fun. Seems to me this
    dead guy who could write a swimming pool each time out (often the
    driving emotion for all those hits, a pool, a new rolls, mansion etc)
    also had a taste for the not-done yet.  
    
    	There's a plenty of room for more stuff to come out of the blender.
    Choose your setting, pop, rock, dance, classical, new age - they all
    are constructed out of well worn musical bit's and pieces, a musical
    erector set if you will. And every so often someone comes along and
    contructs one in some different way we may not be familiar with but
    just really is pleasing to hear!  And that's cool.
    
    	Then there are folks like Tom and and company whose only rule
    appears to be no rules(or damn few), and they come out with these
    strange pieces that may amuse or bore you, but don't conform to any
    familiar musical rules you may understand. And then there are all
    those musicians in India who get bored with everything we do since
    their rules are far more complex than western music.  Uh, ok i'll
    stop - it just doesn't matter!
    
    	bob
    

	what he said

re .-1

Okay... I can buy that...

	I was listening to Windham Hill (December) the other night.
	There were a few slow passages that reminded me of Piano Concerto.

	I also picked up Bach's Brandenberg concerto's (1-6), 
	done on antique instruments. Killer! I'm trying to expand
	my mind beyond rock, at Tom's recomendation.

Rick

            <<< DNEAST::SYS$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]COMMUSIC.NOTE;2 >>>
             -< * * Computer Music, MIDI, and Related Topics * * >-
>================================================================================
>Note 2550.9                 COMMUSIC VIII reviews...                      9 of 9
>RICKS::SHERMAN "ECADSR::SHERMAN 225-5487, 223-3326"  85 lines  18-APR-1991 01:57
>                 -< 'not typically' should be 'now typically' >-
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>We also need to learn to break away from repetitive and predictable chord
>progressions and drum tracks.  I think that's why I appreciate Tom Janzen's
>submissions so much this time.  By using the computer, we can get a little
>help for breaking out of the traps and ruts we all tend to fall in.

>Tom Janzen
>Piano Concerto/Gamelan/JAM2: These are the best computer compositions I have
>heard, ever.  Now, I detest computer compositions.  But, these, unlike most,
>were listenable.  I could hear occasional structures rather than strictly
>random stuff.  Tom, you're really on to something and I hope you continue
>to develop this.  There are usually one or two pieces that make a Commusic
>tape "important".  I think these are the ones for this tape.

	Thanks, Steve. If you would like more samplers of this output let me
know.  The notes etc. are random, but the guiding form sort of rises and falls
gradually.  I am not developing it much, at least while preparing a 
performance in Boston in June.   I know I look forward to your resumption of
MIDI madness.

Tom

 

    Thanks, Tom!  Maybe off-line (or here if you want) I'd like to come to
    understanding of how the algorithms work.  Of course, I can understand
    if you want to keep it under wraps.
    
    Steve

	cf. 2117 ff. for details on AlgoRhythms' algorithms.
Tom

    Ah, yes ...