Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    2 replies...
    
    1.   To the general argument that synths are replacing orchestra's...
    
                    So what?
    
         Everything moves on. Those who can adapt, keep up. Those who
         can't, fall by the wayside. I am sick and tired of listening
         to people whine about how good it *used* to be. SOTA - 1 is
         always glorified. Maybe it *was* better. If so, maybe it will
         come back. Then again, maybe it won't. Concepts die just like
         people, without respect to goodness or badness.
    
         Synthesizers are where music went. Next it'll go somewhere
         else. Evolution is trial and error, survival of the fittest.
         Anyone who keeps something from dying a natural death is doing
         a disservice to the dying entity itself and those who have
         a relationship with it. There should be a law against the type
         of legislation decsribed in the article.
    
    2.   To the Unions....
    
         TOO DAMN BAD!!!! 
         
         Don't come looking to me for support! You should have died
         20 years ago. I'll use a synth just to keep you out of work.
         
   
    "Keyboard" had an interview with Alan Parsons. If I remember correctly
    he stated something about, if it "sounds" like a string section,
    it better *be* a string section. Part of his reasoning was musically
    valid. Textures and human-ness. The other part was about union hassles.
    
                             JERKS!
    
    Edd     

    In my next band attempt this fall, I'm planning to replace as many
    musicians as possible with electronics. I'm tired of trying to
    coordinate 4 or 5 part-time musicians that usually have massive
    egos and are irresponsible. My drum machine and synths don't blow
    off practice, smoke, drink, and don't have opinions. I'm thinking
    of getting a sampler so that I can try to replace guitarists (they
    tend to be the worst 8^) ).
    
    Gee, guys, now that us "musical technicians" have the "real musicians"
    dependent on us, what should we make them do for us?
    

    Besides....and this was stated in another conference in one of these
    music notes (commusic, music, guitar)...number of musicians may
    vary and what they play may vary....but it is the artist who will
    stand out.
    	people seem to think thta because synths and midiable equipment
    is so easy to use a 4 year old kid will now be performing at the
    centrum and composing great works of art.
    	puppy poop.
    	the artist of 100 years ago may have been limited in what he/she
    could do because of inferior technology and people of today may
    have an anvantage due to superior technology...but brahms is brahms
    and wether it was then or now, brahms was an artist and would still
    be an artist.
    	just because 100,000 people have recording equipment and synths
    in their music rooms does not make them artists. they'll have a
    lot of fun and impress their friends but they won't make works of
    art.
    	the artist can work with inferior equipment and still make
    art.
    	stop worrying about equipment and worry more about how you use
    what abilities and equipment you have.
    	you can take you 4 track or your 8 track or your 16 track
    and record your own version of she-bop, or little duece coup
    or thick as a brick and, though this shows artistic ability in
    recording, it doesn't show artistic expression in creation.
    	after all the technological changes have occured, 10000000000
    years in teh future....it will be the artist who has adapted and
    lived on and created....
    	we may need less musicians but we'll always need the same
    amount of artists...or more....
    
    	professor rik
    	copies of this diatribe may be burnt as an offering to the
    gods of music and you will recieve, absolutely free of charge,
    for $10, 2 autographed drum sticks and a pick.
    

    Besides, as far as i'm concerned, aint no micro chip can 
    replace the interaction of 4 or 5 live musicians on stage
    all working together to reconstruct a "work of art".
    if everything ends up 1 guy with a pocket full of microchips,
    i'll stop going to concerts.
    	i want to SEE the lead guitarist wail ....and i want to SEE
    the bass player and the drummer and the singer all working
    together...doing their thing....
    	it makes it all come ALIVE!
    
    	hippy rik
    

    
    	The government should subsidize acoustic musicians; so we'll
    have something to sample.
    
    						,Karl :-)

Re: Do Synthesizers replace people

They must.  I just found out the the guy who works one office over from me
in MR0 is just a DX7 in a suit... ;^)

Seriously, It's not synths that are taking jobs away from people as much
as it is the recording companies, whose idea of music is crap.  It has gotten
to the point where even respected artists are digressing and creating crap
to make money.  Synthesizers just happened to become popular at the same
time as musical crap.

Todd.

    re .0	Well, if this is what is replacing journalism...
    
    	And if TV has replaced conversation...
    
    	And if the automobile has replaced our need to walk...
    
    	And if nylon has replaced real gut strings...
    
    	And the transistor ... the vacuum tube...
    
    	Reg
    

    Call me a snob, but I don't think your typical rock music audience
    cares what something sounds LIKE, just so long as it SOUNDS.
    
    
    
    Hey kids, how come with all this new musical technology there are
    fewer electronic *classical* recordings now than in 1970?
    
    
    John M.
    
    P.S. Hats off to Tom for printing that long article! (What made
    the reporter think the Fairlight and Synclavier were sampling machines?)

    
    "You snob."	There.
    
    ( Synclavier aint but Fairlight is, by the way. )
    
    And Todd, noone has yet defined an *objective* way to 
    distinguish "good" music. Therefore SALES is a valid
    (and fairly objective) metric to use. 
    
    But, er, that doesnt make it a *good* one....
    
    Ron
    

(Synclavier *is* and Fairlight *is*)

>    And Todd, noone has yet defined an *objective* way to 
>    distinguish "good" music. Therefore SALES is a valid
>    (and fairly objective) metric to use. 
    
You're right, Ron.  I made a subjective statement.  To pick on the
record companies is the wrong thing to do.  After all, they are just a
business with an objective of making money.  It's the public's fault for
governing the type of music that sells.  

I guess the real statement should be that synths happen to be popular at 
a time when *making money* with music is the main objective...

Todd.

    
    OOPS, you're correct. They *both* are. I guess I
    was thinking of the original Synclavier, which
    did not include sampling ability. Or midi. Or a
    guitar controller. Or SMPTE. 
    
    They've made some great improvements to a fine
    machine. Too bad its unafordable for most of us.
    
    I wonder how many years before technology will
    be able to pack the equivalent functions together
    for under say $2000.
    
    Rsquared    

    I decided to move the discussion from note 891.xxx over here, where
    the direction of the discussion seems to have migrated (we weren't
    really talking about the MT-32 anymore).
    
    I have to agree, at least a little, with everyone who feels that
    a specialist is usually better, than choosing sme preset, predesigned
    sound, or drum patterns (think if we were locked into only Polka
    types of patterns, what fun Michael Jackson would be having).
    
    I think that most musicians (at least the ones that I've been reading
    about here) have some idea about the type of music that they want
    to deal with. Some people are creating new tunes, some do mostly 
    cover tunes, some dabble in both. One danger in enclosing music
    into yourself (Ie, one person doing all of the parts), is that you
    tend to stick with what you are confortable with. This all started
    when I mentioned that I'd like to have a large library of drum
    patterns. I have my favorite patterns & have used them extensively
    (my TR-606 only allows 32 - and It's gotten lots of use in the last
    4 years), so, I've had to comprimise on some of the patterns that
    I was using. It's been mentioned that you might want to bring in
    a 'specialist' to handle some parts. This didn't work so well with
    my TR-606, since I had to deal with potentially 5 hours worth &
    I only had 32 patterns to pick from (16 are exclusively 4/4 R&R
    tempo's). I didn't like the limitation, but, I lived with it.
    I think that when you get more than one persons input (no matter
    what instrument it is), you can bounce Ideas off of each other
    & sometimes you can get a better product (music). In reality,
    I have a desire to replace people whom I don't really want to
    always be a part of my music, but I find thier input valuable.
    
    I used to play Drums (about 15 years ago), I also Used to play Sax
    (nearly 20 years ago), and I played bass guitar for 15 years, as
    well as guitar for 22 years. Keyboards have been an off and on
    instrument for at least 10 years for me. What this says is that
    I know what I like, and I think other people know what they like
    also. I also know that when dealing with other musicians who are
    into playing your songs, they may not have the same vision that
    you do (Many years of frustration involved for me), and, you don't
    get anywhere. Tons of mini-studio tape decks have been sold, so
    that any of us (that have access to them) can go about creating
    what they want to. I feel good about my own abilities to create
    much of what I want, but at the same time, I realise my limitations,
    and welcome the abilities of other musicians, as long as I can
    control the situation.
    
    To me, the thread that holds my favorite music together is the
    beat. It doesn't have to be fast, or slow (it doesn't even need
    drums - take 'Dust In The Wind' by Kansas for example). I find that
    is I have a start point (even If I don't keep the original start
    point), It will allow me to build on my concepts. I agree that 
    pre-defined things can be limiting, but at the same time, look at
    all the music that has evolved from the many pre-set sounding
    instruments that have existed for centuries. So, I start with a
    beat. Sometime things will end up following the pre-defined beat,
    Sometimes they will deviate. 
    
    My feeling is that I may be attempting to replace people, and I
    think that while I may not be able to capture the spontinaity that
    you sometimes get from the random performers, you will at least
    be consistant & you won't have the hassles that you sometimes get.
    If you sequence your music & play along with it, you are also
    replacing musicians, and may potentially obsolete some of them.
    I see that coming. It may take 10 years, maybe it'll never happen,
    but like the coming of TV put a dent in the types of creative
    things that were done on Radio, and the VCR opened up new markets
    allowing more diverse movies, aimed at smaller audiences, to 
    appear, or old classics be re-issued, the Synthetic Age is upon
    us. The Yamaha SHS-10 has a pre-programmed in Bass and Chord
    follow & it does an exceptional job within the limits of this
    cheap machine (you just hold down any three notes & it follows you).
    What is next? I don't think that we all will become music Clones
    who play only the available things that are preprogrammed in, but
    at the same time, There isn't new ground broken by many musicians,
    it's pretty much all a variation on what happened before.
    
    With that thought in mind, I plan to start building libraries of
    start points & hope to become able to use them as they fit.
    
    							Jens 

    Sequencers open uo possibilities. There are still full orchestras,
    there are still big bands, there are still jazz combos, there are
    still pop bands, there will always exist these alternatives for
    people who enjoy their own music. Sequencing is great, from my
    standpoint, in that I can do composing in parts that I don't have
    the experience to play, and I can write and play material without
    having to organize and commit ( and compromise ) with a band. I
    suspect that predicting the extinction of bands is still a little
    premature, in that the collective experience of everyone in the
    band more than makes up for the price.
    
    Sequencers offer the possibility of performing music completely
    on your own, utilizing timbres that can't stand on their own.
    
    The title of this note reveals the underlying currents of technophobia
    that accompany anything that opens up so many possibilities.
    
    						John.

    
    re: .-2
    
      Oh, so what you are saying is that you really want to be a
    *producer*. That way you get the power/ability to make music to
    your specifications/feelings/artistic ability/taste but as part
    of that you include other people's input. Nothing wrong with that.
    
      I seriously doubt that bands will become extinct. There's a big
    difference between a group of people playing spontaneously, a rehearsed
    group of people playing, and a sequencer playing. 
    
      However. There's no way I ever gonna get four string musicians
    to come into my studio for no money and lay down three string
    background tracks. I have traditionally had a hard time teaching
    drummers how to do drum parts, and miking drums is an expensive
    proposition, let alone shelling out for drums, writing charts, etc.
    u-name-it. I think that the technology opens up the ability to be
    extremely creative, to get your ideas committed to tape quickly
    and much more cheaply than traditional methods dictated, and besides,
    you can have more fun.
    
    /pjh

    agree with your last paragraph. BUT...
    
    Theres no way you will match the nuance and performance of
    the real string section, or drummer, unless you have spent
    the years and years that they have.
    
    When was the last excellent guitar solo you heard that was
    done on a synth? 

    Of course, for some music, this may not matter.

    ron 
    

>    When was the last excellent guitar solo you heard that was
>    done on a synth?
    
    Keyboard magazine soundpage, about 6 months ago.
    

    I prefer to think that most __________ists don't have the technique
    to play what I can program using a __________ patch.
    
    Edd

    
    re: .-2, .-3
    
    yeah, I suppose, but to me it's more a combination of things. If
    you know what you want it to sound like, you can, with a little
    bit of practice, sound pretty close, at least close enough so that
    92% of the listeners don't hear the difference. Of course there's
    nothing you can do to the other 8% but what the heck.
    
    Like that sax solo on Commusic IV. It took a lot of listening to
    hear that it was sampled.
    
    /pjh

    Since I sort of started this discussion by "challenging" Jens' desire
    to get a real drummer in to provide him with a library of drum
    patterns, I feel obligated to throw my own two cents in here.  Most of
    this discussion is completely irrelevant to the point I was trying
    to make and the issue I was trying to raise.
    
    The issue is not whether or not synths can sound like real instruments.
    In many cases, it's neither necessary or desirable for synthetic
    sounds to sound "real".  One of the things synthesis offers us
    is the opportunity to create new sounds and define new performance
    idioms.  When it is appropriate to reproduce familar sounds and
    playing styles, the tools we have available today allow us (in most
    cases) to come arbitrarily close, subject to "diminishing returns"
    on the amount of effort applied.  The issue is not so much whether
    it's possible but whether it's worth the effort.
    
    Put another way, the issue is also not whether or not synths can
    or will replace people.  If you want my opinion, synths will not
    "replace" people, but will change what people do and what skills
    are important or useful.  There's not a whole lot of demand for krummhorn
    builders these days, and nobody seems terribly concerned about that.
    But it works both ways.  I for one would mourn the absence of the
    harpsichord revival, though it's taken a while for the instrument
    to return to its original principles (the harpsichords built during
    the early part of the revival, driven by players like Wanda Landowska,
    were built like pianos and had massive steel frames).  Now there's
    a small but thriving business in harpsichord building, and a lot
    of music that might otherwise have disappeared, or been "ported"
    (sometimes to horrible effect) to the piano, can be heard the same
    way its composers heard it (and forgive me for not wanting to get
    into a discussion of whether or not that's a virtue).
    
    So, like anything else, music changes and evolves.  Electronic
    instruments are part of that evolution.  And, like most situations,
    people taking extremist positions (the new instruments are a pox
    on music, or the old instruments are a drag on innovation) are going
    to be wrong; the near future is going to look like the near past,
    but not exactly so.  There will be some new stuff and some old stuff,
    and it is the synergy between the new and the old, the familiar
    and the unfamiliar, that makes things interesting.
                          
    Partly I was reacting to the general sense that it's ok to treat
    drums in ways that nobody would dare treat other instruments, an
    approach which demeans my skills as a drummer, drummers' contributions
    to music in general, drums as an instrument, etc..  While drums
    provide a metronomic foundation for certain styles of music, drums
    are not fancy metronomes.  Once more, for the record, this says
    and implies *nothing* about who can program drum machines "best",
    or whether drum machines are tools of the devil.  It simply asks
    the question, "what is different about drums and drumming that fosters
    these widespread attitudes?"  Please note also that asking this question
    does not imply that such attitudes are prevalent in this conference.
    
    I'm surprised that Jens, having played drums in the past, finds
    it necessary or appropriate to amass a library of drum patterns.
    I am familiar with a large variety of patterns that I keep as a
    "library" in my head, but that's no different than remembering a
    lot of tunes.  Do I approach songwriting from the perspective of
    "well, I'll use that tune with this chord progression and that
    drum pattern"?  No, of course not.  I make a new tune from scratch.
    I make new drum patterns (one, two, four, whatever-bar phrases,
    actually) that grow and evolve from the needs of the song.  I draw
    on my past experience and knowledge of what "works", but I do not
    assemble songs from parts pulled from a stockroom.
    
    I had a TR-606 for a long time.  It was my first drum machine.  I didn't
    think of it as holding patterns, I thought of it as holding songs.
    It would only hold 7 songs, but I usually ran out of memory (and
    patterns) with one or two songs.  So I'd reload it, by hand.  I
    didn't let the limitations of the instrument dictate my options.
    Once, when I needed more than 32 distinct patterns for a particular
    song, I split the song into two successive sections that each could
    be done within the 32 pattern limit, and then tried to get them
    segued by pausing/unpausing the recorder.  It didn't work terribly
    well, so I bit the bullet and rented a TR-909 so I could do it right.
    Later I was able to buy a -707.  Now I'm up against a 99 pattern
    limit in my MC-500.  When I need more, I sequence the drums as a
    synth track, which doesn't know or care about patterns, just notes.
    99 patterns is not enough for a pop tune with realistic drum
    programming, where every bar may differ in some detail.
    
    That's the issue for me.  How do we use this technology?  Do we let
    its limitations dictate our styles, or do we find ways to work
    around them?  If I can't do it well, I don't do it.  Much as I'd
    love to do stuff like Karl's, I can't (I don't know that pianistic
    idiom well enough), so I don't do a roboticised techno-drivel version
    of it.  I can't play heavy metal guitar, so I don't write tunes
    that require heavy metal guitar.  Yes, you can claim I'm limiting
    myself stylistically, giving up to the limitations of the technology
    and my knowledge, but I find there's more than enough stuff that
    I *can* do to keep me busier than I have time for anyway.
    
    len.
     

    
    Do you have any patterns that I can port to
    my HR-16, len?
    
    ron
   

    re .20 - Sure - just plug your HR-16 into my MC500 and I'll send
    it whole songs' worth of drum patterns.
    
    len.
    

    You are correct Len, in that the amount of variations are endless.
    My experiance, however, says that if you take some quantity of
    drum patterns, there will be X amount of songs that you can play
    with them, if they are simple, clean & un-encumbered. I've lived
    with a limitation of 32 (maximum) drum patterns for years & have
    been successful. I agree with your analogy or the metronome and
    Drums - they are not to be considered the same thing at all. I,
    and thousands of other people, have been using drum patterns for
    live work & living with it.
    
    Since I used to play drums, I find it hard to use a single pattern
    all thru a song, as is commonly done by a lot of Duo's, and Trio's
    (go to a hotel lounge & listen to thier band & see what I mean).
    I like to be able to change the use of the hi-hat every now and
    then, without changing the Bass Drum/Snare Combination, or throw
    in an extra Bass Drum hit, where it feels good. This gives a closer
    approximation of reality to the performance. I'm just discovering
    ways to do this on my MMT-8 (user interfaces on these stand alone
    machines tend not to be exactly what I want, so, I have to work
    with them a bit). For instance, I've arrived at a goal, and that
    is it define 100 (thats how many parts I can have on the MMT-8)
    seperate drum patterns where I set up the tracks like this:
    
    1: Bass Drum/Snare
    2: Simple Hi-Hat usage
    3: Fancier Hi-Hat usage
    4: Additional Bass Drum Hits
    5: Additional Snare Hits
    6: Add a Symbol
    7: Start ticks
    8: Ending Symbol Smash
    
    (not all would be set up this way, but this is a general template).
    
    This way, track 1 is always the Bass Drum / Snare combination, and
    track 2 is always the generic Hi-Hat used. Track 7 would always
    be the start ticks (I need em to get in sync), and when the song
    is over, then track 8 will be Bass Drum, Snare and Crash Cymbol.
    
    I plan to define Drum Rolls, and Fills as seperate entities, but
    have not quite gotten to that point yet. 
    
    So, while I'm in part mode, with the machine set to loop, I can
    select any different part that I want, when ever I need it. It's
    got potential for being clumsy, since I must switch stuff while
    I'm playing guitar, and while it's playing, the pattern swap occurs
    in real time (it doesn't wait until the end of a measure - I wish
    that it did), however, if I tell the machine to swap patterns (to
    where the Fills / Drum rolls are), it will finish out the pattern,
    go to the next pattern, play it, and while that's occurring, I can
    tell it to return to the original, or another pattern. This can
    get complex, but, at the same time, it seems quite workable for
    Live work. Also, I want to be able to define Fox Trots, Waltz's,
    Bossa Nova, Various 3/4 time beats, Country, Big Band and any other
    organized drum patterns into one big massive library, that can be
    loaded into the machine via MIDI (I have a Yamaha MIDI Filer).
    
    Once this is in place, when I want to sequence a song, I'll first
    load in all drum patterns, delete the ones that are inappropriate,
    and start from there. I tend to have to add all sorts of patterns
    in various areas, but generally tend to stick with basic patterns
    (often with slight variations) for most of my songs.
    
    I've had 3 other people helping me put this together, since I do
    consider the drum parts to be exceptionally important, and I won't
    play some songs unless the drums are just right.
    
    In this respect, you can live without a 'Live' drummer while playing
    local jobs, and potentially anywhere else. I've never said that
    the Beat, and the ability to create drum patterns are nothing more
    than mechanical, they, like any other instrument, require a dedication
    to are & understanding the instrument. At the same time, they do
    provide for reducing the amount of personel in the band.
    
    I severly dislike having to be stuck with a single pattern for a
    whole song (this rarely works out well, unless this is the only
    song of the set that is limited in this fashion). I've noticed that
    a lot of Duo's and Trio's are picking a single pattern & that's
    the basis of the whole song (It works, but is marginal in my book).
                                                            
    We also don't use a bass player (I do play a double neck - 6 string
    bass, so we can have a driving 'real' bass guitar when we want it),
    since the keyboard player can usually cover the Bass parts quite
    well (I modified his equipment back in 1982 - before MIDI was available
    - to allow keyboard splits - His miniMOOG maps into the lower octave
    of his KORG strings/piano synth - its switch selectable).
    
    							Jens 

	Some remarks in this topic hint that the true motivation for some
is to 'save time' and 'dispense with the work, let's get down to having
fun'.  If an instrument can make wonderful sounds, all I have to do is
put them together in some pleasing way and, voila, I'm now a musician.

	Karl can make a 'patch' sound like a guitar or sax.  Karl's
ability, though, is due his ears *not* his technology.  He developed his
ears long before and independently of the instruments that allow him to
expand.  Alas, I fear that Karl is one of a dying breed.  Len, while
perhaps lacking the mechanical skills to be a fine keyboardist,
nevertheless surrounds himself with literature and undertakes painstaking
and detailed study of music as a science.  He, too, has developed an Ear. 

	Music merely reflects society.  It's no coincidence that musical
technology is driving today's musical practicianer to sacrifice depth for
apparent width.  Rock and roll is merely one such symptom...cliche'd 4/4
beats with cliche'd chord progressions over cliche'd song formulas.  It
leads some people to think that all they need to do is collect a library of
'standard' patches, riffs, fills, runs, etc and they, too, can cut and
paste a hit song.  Granted, there *is* room for someone to be musical using
such methods...provided they have The Ear. 

	I'm appalled at the lack of basic musical skills in many
'successful' musicians.  Not in their ability to play an instrument, but in
their ability to *think* music.  Many have absolutely *no clue* as to *why*
when they play a certain thing is *sounds* that way.  Yet, the mere fact
that they *are* successful in terms of having their art heard by and affect
the lives of large groups of people, suggests that they have *sufficient*
and acceptable skill levels. 
	
	Musical illiteracy has already dimished the capacity for the many
people to either produce or even appreciate vast amounts of historical
music.  Forget about stretching the experience with new ideas today.  Noone
wants to waste the time. 

    re .23:
    
    To a certain extent I agree - However, what you express as a lack
    of musical variety I believe is just a popular musical idiom. It's
    hard to imagine someone improvising to a song that has modulation
    every other measure or so. There are some, but they are few and
    far between. Now, I am in no way defending this, but it might just
    be that people like music they can play along with. This may be
    an important criteria for which albums to purchase for many people.
    Also many people like music they can dance to, a variation on the
    audience participation theme. Despite the apparent lack of quality
    music, one has to admit that music is flourishing like it never
    did in ancient times.
    
    In other words, it's a double edged sword. No, you don't have to
    like it to think it's OK.
    
    I think I agree with the mistake you cited regarding musicians who
    let audience approval go directly to their egos. One thing is for
    certain with modern music, popularity is not based purely on talent.
    
    I'm sure we all know disco sucks.
    						John.

    
    re: .24
    
    	Perhaps in my hastily typed .23, I overemphasized rock and roll
    as an example of something that doesn't live up to my standards.
    I didn't intend to demean the quality of any particular type of music.
    I was merely making an observation that, in my opinion, the degree
    to which a musician needs to understand how music works *seems*
    to go down as the ability of an instrument to do more rises.  I
    just happen to currently be in a rock and roll band where at one 
    member of the band is playing at the peak of his abilities playing
    the same material that  other members of the band don't even break
    a sweat over.  
    
	The implication is this: as less external demands are made on the
    player (be it by better technology, lowered market expectations or
    whatever) the less benefit a player will see by making more demands of
    himself.  
    
    	But, that might be ok.  I'm just calling things as I see 'em.

	By the way, live music, at least in our area, is virtually dead
    compared to five years ago.  Live rock music at the local level is
    dying because of stronger liquor laws (long-time MUSIC_V2 readers may have
    read my rather strong opinion about that :^)). Although record sells or
    radio station Arbitron ratings may be up, I question whether the art of
    music is actually flourishing right now.  The number of concerts
    in all genres is down, music education has been virtually erased
    from many school curriculems, etc.

    re .24 - beware of the conclusion that simple raw materials necessarily
    limit the value of a construction.  We can all think of some three
    chord songs that are classics, because of skillful exploitation
    of the idiom.  To make this point a little clearer, consider some
    analogies from other disciplines - haiku in poetry, or bread in
    cooking.
    
    My concern is with mindless assembly of standard riffs (on *any*
    instrument).
    
    And my question, still unanswered, is why is it reasonable to consider
    using a single drum pattern unchanged throughout a song when nobody
    (except maybe a minimalist who considered it "innovative") would
    do the same thing with a guitar or keyboard part?  Is there something
    different about drums?  Or is it drums in the rock/pop context?
    Or is that people are, for the most part, blissfully ignorant of
    drums and drumming?
    
    Why don't we hear people asking for libraries of keyboard parts,
    or libraries of guitar riffs?
    
    len.
    

    >    
>    And my question, still unanswered, is why is it reasonable to consider
>    using a single drum pattern unchanged throughout a song when nobody
>    (except maybe a minimalist who considered it "innovative") would
>    do the same thing with a guitar or keyboard part?  Is there something
>    different about drums?  Or is it drums in the rock/pop context?
>    Or is that people are, for the most part, blissfully ignorant of
>    drums and drumming?
>    
>    Why don't we hear people asking for libraries of keyboard parts,
>    or libraries of guitar riffs?
>    
>    len.
    
>   
    Basically, Len, I mean len, any 4/4 drum part can "fit" any rock
    song.  however, keyboards and guiatrs are pitched instruments,
    and if you try to mix any keyboard part with any other song, you
    are likely to be in the wrong key.  Good, transpose the riff to
    be the right key; oops, it's the wrong degree chord; fix to be the
    right degree; oops, the non-chord tones in the riff are out of 
    character in the wrong places, so move them too; oops, the melodya
    riff is going the wrong direction (up or down) for the current
    tension of the melody......
    So because these are pitched instruments, standard riffs are harder
    to automate, but not impossible.  In fact, it's sort of here in
    a way in experimental work (cf. CMJournal), and the Great Predicto
    predicts that there will be disks of keyboard riffs for keyboard
    tabula rasas including software for chossing and conforming riffs
    to particular songs.
                              To explicitly (I hate eve) answer
    why don't people endlessly repeat piano riffs, it's becuase
    the riff would conflict with the changing harmonie.
    Incidientallyy, blues and funk DO endlessly repeat pitched riffs,
    but transpose them through the blues progrsesion.
    So the answer is, THEY DO DO THAT, LEN!
    Drums don't have clear narrow-bandwidth pitch, so they don't conflict
    with the essential source of meaning in whestern mhusic: PITCH.
    
On siskel & ebert decide the oscars yesterday, the oscar-nominated songs
    they played part of sounded like they had unchanging drum parts;
    S&E pointed out that the drums were in the FOREground of the mix.
       THE OSCAR NOMINEES have auto-drums!!!!!!!!!! If they do it,
    why should amatuers go out of their way???? Becuase we love music,
    that's what amatuer means.
    Tom

    You CAN buy midi sequencer dumps of "professional performances",
    for your ESQ-1, QX-7, Mark of the Eunichhorn ( :-) ) etc.
    	
    Check out the ads in the back of Keyboard.
    
    It's really not much different than the old player-piano rolls,
    you know.  (Hey, I thought they were a really nifty idea!)
                 
    ---------------------------
    
    On reusing a short (like 2 to 4 bar) keyboard pattern:
    	
    They do do that!  Roger Waters does it!  Jim Morrison did it!  Even
    Maggie Bach did it!  Lots of little repeat chunks.  Check out
    The End, What's Behind the Wall, etc.
                                         
    

    I'd really love to have a MIDI version of the old Gershwin Rhapsody in
    Blue piano roll.
    
    I've been thinking of sequencing that one for my own amusement. 
    Learning to actually play that piece has been a lifelong goal of mine,
    but I haven't been able to work on it that much and after 8 years the
    most I've been able to play through correctly was the first 4 pages or
    so.
    
    	db

    Actually, this weekend was very productive. Along with seqenced
    drum patterns, Fills, rolls, and some Latin Precussion, I created
    a bank of Bass Patterns that are commonly used (I used to play
    Bass guitar also). With these linked together, I can play (with
    not too much effort) many of the wonderous 3 chord progression songs
    that we often get requests for (like, Louie Louie, Hang On Sloopy,
    Twist & Shout, La Bamba, etc.) This let me put together songs on
    my sequencer very quickly, then, I went back & added Drum fills,
    or re-did a Bass part to fit better.
    
    Needless to say, these are not songs at thier artistic peak, but
    the 5/4 time version of Take 5 sounds quite good (thanks to a
    creative drummer helping me with the various parts). It's great
    to jam on (with my guitar). The drummer was quite interested in
    the concept (as he spends a great deal of his time working on
    variations on common patterns), and we recorded many variations
    in Drum beats, Snare, Ride Cymbol, Hi-Hats, and how they related
    to each other. I got some stuff that I would never have been able
    to pull off on my own. I'm up to 18 4/4 patterns, 6 3/4 patterns
    and 1 5/4 patterns, as well as thier associated part variations.
    Of the 8 tracks, I did this sort of thing (each one of these is
    considered a pattern - some are 1 measure, most are 2 measures,
    a few are 4 measures):
    
    1) Bass Drum Pattern
    2) Variation on Bass Drum
    3) Snare Pattern
    4) Variation on Snare pattern
    5) Hi-Hat Pattern 1
    6) Hi-Hat Pattern 2
    7) Hi-Hat Pattern 3
    8) Added Cymbol
                         
    I plan on writing these out at some time, and seeing what is what.
    I found that quantizing things (even at 1/64 notes) screwed things
    up pretty badly - so much for rock solid event spacing.
    
    I did find that he could play much better than my MMT-8 could record
    the data, but, that's a problem with the data aquistion speed of
    a cheap sequencer (It had problems with bursts of 32 notes, at
    faster tempos - missing about 1 out of 3, and giving weird sorts
    of quantized sounding playback on what it could record), the concept
    appears to be sound.
                                                          
    	       			Jens_who_was_buzy_this_weekend

    I think I'm kind of in len's camp.  I have yet to use one of the
    presets on a drum machine in anything I've done.  But, I have used
    a repeating pattern that I've worked up.  If done well, it helps
    and adds to the song.  It can fill in the empty spaces, add a little 
    tension or anticipation, or whatever.  I'm learning now how important 
    velocity is to making things more interesting.  5 levels is a crude 
    approximation.  I've seen response to about 64 levels on the 505.  
    Doesn't the stuff in KEYBOARD load directly into the 505?  If so, it 
    probably doesn't take much advantage of velocity.  I think what these 
    patterns are good for is a jump-off point if you get stuck.  But, they 
    should probably be hacked to fit.  I agree with the assertion that
    most songs nowadays work with just about any 4/4 pattern.  But, I
    don't *like* most songs that I hear on the radio, which is why I got 
    into this stuff in the first place.  But, that's just me ...
    
    I vote that the drum parts need careful attention and that preset
    stuff doesn't work.  So, NYYYAAAAAAA!!! (to quote Mr. Ross).  :-)
    
    Steve

    A word of advice for rhythm parts and quantizing and velocity and
    so on . . . I find the parts that sound best are the ones that sound
    as though they were done within the immediate vicinity of gravity.
    You also have to consider how a drummer's limbs work, and the lazyness
    principle. The drummer is going to move his limbs in the most work
    efficient manner, loosening his joints for a fluid style. Some part
    of the fundamental rhythm comes through on all parts. Velocity is
    only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Changes in the fundamental
    rhythm rarely occur instantaneously ( This is different than the
    "beat" ), so expect phase differences with transitions. A really
    excellent drummer lets you know in advance what is going to happen,
    and sometimes does this so subtly that you hardly notice it. Before
    programming a part, practice it and notice what happens to it as
    you start using your whole body.
    
    If software gets sophisticated enough, perhaps there will be a program
    that will take a stock pattern and figure out how a drummer would
    play it. Feed it a bunch of patterns and a profile, it drops the
    hits it doesn't have enough limbs for, and adds it's own peculiar
    style. You could buy profile modules for your favorite drummers,
    etc. A true simulated performance.
    						John.

    I try to use velocity in a way that makes sense.  For example, the
    drummer sometimes sort of bounces the stick on the cymbals so that
    the velocity starts out high and tapers off.  But, I tend to draw
    the line at limiting the drummer to just playing as many instruments
    as a 'real' drummer would.  If this is a problem with the listener,
    maybe I could tell him that I really have a drum section, or two 
    drum sets, ...
    
    Steve

    Actually, somebody HAS given the same piano music to different pianists
    and asked them to tap it out on the table, or play it, and then
    analyzed the different sizes of beats and changing emphasis.
    I don't remember who, but his name is in my old CMJ article.
    about the "shapes of phrases".
    Tom

    I'd disagree that *any* 4/4 pattern can go with any rock tune.
    It's exactly that sort of thinking that set me off.
    
    The piano roll analogy is inapt.  And db, if you can't play it,
    that's what step time programming and a good editor are for.
    If you can read it, you can program it.
    
    The kind of time offsets that characterize the "feel" of a drummer
    are in the 5 to 15 millisecond range.  Offsets much larger than that
    are perceived as rhythmic changes.  These figures are based on
    measurements made and reported in an Electronic Musician article
    sometime last year.  At 120 qpm (quarter notes per minute), and 96
    clocks per quarter note (a typical resolution for sequencers), a
    clock tick (resolvable time unit) for the sequencer is a little over
    5 milliseconds (1000/192, to be precise).  It's not clear what's the
    smallest offset from a rhythmic pulse that's reliably detectable
    by a listener as a change in "feel", but at least it's possible for
    a typical sequencer to make a crude approximation.  I have moved other
    instrumental parts as much as 30 milliseconds to change the feel.
    (Specifically, the second note of each of the duplets in the sax
    break to "In The Still of the Night".)  30 milliseconds, or 6 ticks,
    corresponds to a 64th note.  The effect is clearly audible.  Offsets
    of 40 milliseconds were easily perceived as exaggerated.
    
    len.
    

    > db, if you can't play it, that's what step time programming and 
    > a good editor are for.
    
    Well, when I say I can't play, I mean that I can't play it at speed.
    
    I find it MUCH easier to program it in real time at a slower speed.
    
    Dare I say that I also find that the results have a distinctly less 
    mechanical feel then when they are entered in step mode.  Pieces
    so entered 
    
    	1) tend to have every note quantized (have you entered rolled
    	   chords in step time or do you just not bother?)
    
    	2) each note has the EXACT duration of its time value, 
    
    	3) the dynamics tend to be uniform or unnatural (how much time does 
    	   it take you to enter a proper crescendo in step time - or do 
    	   you even bother?), 
    
    	4) etc. etc.
    
    I doubt I'll ever do a piece that I can't play at 25 BPM.  In my
    case, its just MUCH faster and produces a more natural result.
    I can appreciate that my being (to some extent or another) a keyboard
    player makes it a bit easier for me.
    
    Y'know Len, I think there are similar reasons why lots of the drum
    machines on the Commusic tapes don't sound "real".  In my own
    listening (and watching), I've been focusing in on drummers these days 
    (almost to the exclusion of all else at Springjam on Sunday).
    
    One conclusion I came to awhile back is that a big reason is because
    people let themselves be influenced by the limitations of their drum
    machine sequencers.  That is, they don't do things which drummers
    regularly play that require a little extra effort because of the way
    drum sequencers work.
    
    I'm talking about things like flams, rolls, and drum patterns that
    have several notes of different quantum values (like a snare fill
    that has both 8ths and 8th triplets).
    
    In addition to letting the machine's limitations influence their
    patterns, you also have the opposite side of the coin where
    the drum machines abilities cause folks to ignore the limitations
    of real drums.
    
    Now none of these things are "wrong" but if the goal is to make it
    sound like a drummer, I guess you have to think about these things.
    
    I'm very new to drum programming.  I'm not saying that I know how to
    do it "right".  In fact, I am HORRIBLY unproductive at it.  It takes
    me hours to come up with things that are at best mediocre.  But
    recently I made an investment that has greatly improved my output.
    
    I bought myself a pair of drum sticks for $2.95.  My method of
    producing drum patterns is to air drum (w. sticks) to a sequencer
    running a loop, and then analyze and enter the stuff I come up with
    that I like.
    
    It might not work for everyone else, but it sure works well for me.
    
    	db

    Has anybody tried to put Varese's famous percussion piece on a drum
    machine? You know, the one I have a score for (Is is ionisation?)
    with a piano or two, sirens, and everything else?  Can MIDI do it?
    Would everything have to be sampled first?
    Tom

    re .36 - yep, I agree with your observations about drum machine
    sequencers.   Regarding rolled or arpeggiated chords, yes, I displace
    the individual notes; I usually enter the whole chord as if it
    were played "perfectly", all notes at the same time, then go in
    and move things around.  I also extensively edit velocities (the
    MC500 records velocity in step mode, but it's hard to be consistent
    when playing "nonrealtime").  It's just a matter of how much work
    you're willing to put into it.  It's not unusual for me to perform
    a thousand or more individual note edits for a few minutes worth
    of music.  It doesn't take as long as you'd think on the MC500,
    maybe a couple of hours.  It'd probably make more sense for me to
    spend the time mastering the keyboard, but I'm a stubborn old codger,
    fixed in my ways.
    
    One beneficial side effect of this laborious process is it forces
    me to think about what's going on in the music, something I probably
    wouldn't bother with if I was a competent player.  I suppose if
    all you're interested in is results this might not seem worthwhile,
    but for me understanding is everything.  We've had this discussion
    before - I'm one of those weirdos for whom understanding how the
    rainbow works makes it that much more breathtaking.
    
    len.
    

    I'm currently reading a book called " The structure of Rhythm ".
    It's quite rare to find a book concerning rhythm, mostly because
    the complexity of rhythm leaves most would be analysts confounded.
    
    I'm on the first real chapter called Architectonic levels. Most
    striking about what the author has to say is that the lower levels
    are very rarely pure groupings. A pure grouping is more or less
    a complete song, disjunct and separated from the whole. He specifies
    some jargon for describing the accents within groupings and how
    groups are formed. There are many ways for grouping notes together,
    among them:
    
    Notes may be temporally closer.
    Notes may be tonically closer.
    Groups may begin through stress.
    Once established, groups tend to repeat.
    
    Over all, it looks like interesting reading.
    							John.

    Is it The Rhythmic Structure of Music by Cooper and Meyer?
    I thought it went out of print when I bought the paperback in 1973
    (when I was 5)
    Tom

    I've got it at home, I'll get more details. I picked it up this
    weekend from the Harvard Coop, paperbound. I had been looking for
    a book like this, as everything else I've seen or read has been
    concerned mostly with tonics. The introduction at the front of the
    book reaffirms my observation that not many theorists understand
    rhythm, nor attempt to. One book I read appeared to be more of a
    statistical summary of western music. Whereas "sometimes" and
    "occasionally" beg the question of what notes appear when, this
    book on rhythm sheds alot of light on how tones fit into musical
    structure. I find myself in disagreement with alot of theorists
    when it comes to the low end. I find it very pleasing sometimes
    to have the root located somewhere in the middle range and to let
    the bass do it's thing. It's like building a musical animal rather
    than a musical vegetable. Of course, rhythm becomes that more important
    when the beast is on the move . . .
    
    						John.

    Maybe you bought the Berry Structural Functions of Music?? re-published
    by Dover. I bought it recently.  It rehashes the Cooper/Meyer and
    Shenker analysis (on which Cooper/Meyer is partially based).
    In college ca. 1976 I helped the kids in the theory seminar using the 
    Berry because I had read the Cooper.  I read the Salzer later,
    and the published Shenker 5 Musical Analyses, all from Dover.
    The dual-volume work of Salzer was meant to be the whole theory
    course from beginning to end for 3 years, so is faulted in sections
    (e.g., counterpoint, which was an obsolescent treatment), but gives
    some help with Shenker.  
                        The Cooper/Meyer Rythmic STructure fo msuci
    also has psychological research behind it, it terms of grouping,
    e.g.,
    
    1 2 3    4 5 6
    Do you group the 3 and 4 together above, or the 1,2,3 and then the
    4 5 6? By proximity, we will group the 1&2&3, and 4&5&6.
    They could also be grouped by similarity, for example, of color.
    We could make the 1&4 red, the 2&3 blue, the 5&6 grean. That would
    make a repeating pattern, too. We could make the 1 bigger and the
    5 bigger, that would link them as important figures.
    Sound works the same.  Notes are grouped by proximity, by similar
    timbre, by repetition, which breaks groups up.  
    It's a very powerful analysis, and can readily analyze self-similar
    constellations.  The Creston book on rhythm is interesting, but
    merely a compendium of rhythmic detail already established in the
    literature, with all of Western's music's misunderstanding and
    misdirection of rhythm.
    Tom

    Well, I did some more reading last night, this time noticing who
    the authors were. This is " The rhythmic Structure of Music " by
    Cooper/Meyer. I'm working on a tune now that seems very sensitive
    to grouping. It's got a very odd chord progression:
    F G A em F fm G and has the bass accentuating the thirds on the
    A and the fm and the fifth on the em. I'm fairly satisfied with
    the cadence I have for it, landing on D, but I'm having some trouble
    finding something that continues from the previous section yet leads
    towards D. I'm trying some downward skips by fourths and fifths,
    but the key changes a couple times during that section. I think
    what I'll have to do is to forego the continuity for now and ease
    into it through another section.
    						John.