Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    COMMUSIC IV submitter replies to submitter replying to reviewers
    
    I quit music at least 5 days a week.. but you know. it's always there
    when I get home. Hang in there. I've lately heard some (multiple)
    opinions that my preelectronic music was best. The piano and I 
    have been friends since I was 9.. but now instead of just a piano 
    there's this equipment rack and computer that happens to use a keyboard
    as a data entry device. It'll take time before I can use it, let
    alone compose with it, with grace and beauty. In the meantime I
    learn by making music that may be slightly down from my best, but
    is the best I can make with all these little computers. I forgive
    myself.
   
    BTW, 9.4 / 10 = 94 out of a possible 100,  I think.
    
    karl

    So, how many COMMUSIC IV notes do we have now?  I think there are
    3 or 4 - the "how to get a copy" note, the "liner notes" note, the
    "reviews" note and the "reply to reviews" note.  I thought we agreed
    there was just gonna be one this time?
    
    len (who has trouble keeping track of more than two of anything).
    

    re: batman
    
    Anyone care to explain?
    
    Loved the depth of the review, great feedback....
    
    dave

    Hang in there, len.  There was no Seseme Street when I was a kid,
    either.  did you ever notice how much alike "what's new pussycat"
    and the sesame street song are?
    
    Excuse, I have to go create the note for response to submitors
    responses.Tom

    Gosh, Tom, you sound like an Yngwie Malmsteen fan!
    
    Lessee now, we have the following categories of individuals (cf.
    the MUSIC conference discussion on Categorization):
    
    	COMMUSIC IV submitters
    	COMMUSIC III submitters
    	COMMUSIC II submitters
    	COMMUSIC I submitters
    	nonsubmitters
    	other
    
    Each of these categories could be:
    
    	reviewing
    	replying to review
    	replying to a reply to a review
    	etc.
    
    Now, we put these all together and we get an arbitrarily large number
    of possibilities, e.g.,
    
    	COMMUSIC III submitter replying to nonsubmitter replying to
    COMMUSIC I submitter's review.  Etc..
    
    And, uhm, no I never noticed the similarity between the Sesame Street
    song and What's New Pussycat.  But then, I last caught Sesame Street
    back in the early '70s.
    
    What do they teach nowadays on Sesame Street with respect to counting?
    2, 4, 1m7, 5, 3m6+9b5?
    
    len (who really only counts 1,2,3,4;1,2,3,4;1,2,3,4;...)
    

      >  re: batman             
                               
      >  Anyone care to explain?
       
    
    I think Carol found the piece somewhat reminiscient of the background
    music to the "BATMAN" TV show.  She was tapping along with it, too.
    
    I guess she liked it.  :-)
    
    

    re .5
    
    Len, 
    
    Why not aim high. I can see it now....
    
        rec.music.commusiciv.submitters
    	rec.music.commusiciii.submitters
    	rec.music.commusicii.submitters
    	rec.music.commusici.submitters
    	rec.music.commusic.nonsubmitters
    	rec.music.commusic.other
    
    "What we need is more categorization!"
                              -B. Rockracy
                               Dept. of Redundancy Dept.

People who don't put a minus zero dB tone, as I did, on their tapes shouldn't 
complain about the levels of their pieces on the master.  Besides, why complain
about noise and distortion?  They have a perfect right to exist and a special
beauty all their own.  You deliberately use distortion pedals, right?  Cymbals
and other percussion are mostly noisy, right?  Sustained noise is like a water-
fall, right (the PDP11s in my lab make it sound like Niagara in there!).  So
pretend Karl is playing next to a waterfall.

Len, if you had a TV, you should have watched Square One on PBS.  They do all
kinds of number tricks, and Blackburn does magic and explains the trick,
and a spoof of Dragnet with Kate Monday, mathematician (WOW!).

I'll try to make a sixel score of the first measure of On D by lunchtime at
ANT::STD:[JANZEN.PUBLIC]OND.SLS.  It's about 2 seconds, not 6 seconds.
Tom

    Yeah, Kate Monday!  My wife doesn't believe it when I get all excited
    when Kate comes on the screen.  Doesn't understand what I see in
    her (not that I lust or anything, mind you).  Reminds me of the way
    Disney girls used to be.  Glad to see I'm not the only fan.
    
    Steve_whose_kid_watches_Square_1_too

>    Gosh, Tom, you sound like an Yngwie Malmsteen fan!
is he from the Baroque period?
    
>    	COMMUSIC IV submitters
>    	COMMUSIC III submitters
>    	COMMUSIC II submitters
>    	COMMUSIC I submitters
>    	nonsubmitters
>    	other
>    
>    Each of these categories could be:
>    
>    	reviewing
>    	replying to review
>    	replying to a reply to a review
>    	etc.
>    
>    Now, we put these all together and we get an arbitrarily large number
>    of possibilities, e.g.,
Arbitrarily large?  C'mon Len, where's the combinatorial math?  Frankly,
the complexity doesn't seem any worse than "10 choose 9".  I say
we assign a commitee to determine the possible combinations, and then
start an overnight batch job to create the topics.

I havn't heard Commusic IV yet so I can't comment on the artists.  I can
only comment on the reviewer's reviews, and the reviews of the reviewer's.

I don't have any children.

Todd.

    Ah, but Todd, your analysis assumes only one level of reply.  I
    assumed that replies to replies were possible, and replies to replies
    to replies, and ...
    
    len.
    

    re .10 & .11 
    
    I'm sure Ramanujan had an infinite series formula to describe all
    this.
    
    The neat thing is it probably converges to 31,250.
    
    dp

Len.  You're on to something.  What NOTES needs is 'subreplies'.  You know,
replies to replies in a tree like heirarchy, just like replies to topics.
And there should be no restriction on replies to replies to replies...

How 'bout self-modifying replies?

Please don't reply.

Todd.

    In response to Steve Sherman's COMMUSIC IV review:

>>	    Peter Laquerre
>>	    
>>	    	- You Better Start

>Oooh.  A little out of tune on the guitar, or is it just the recording?
>Your vocals are good.  Hey, where's the commusic?  Oh, well.  Not my type.

    Yeah, I'm using my synthesizer more and I think my next contributions
    to COMMUSIC V will be more recognizable as "COMMUSIC." On the other
    hand, I like the idea of having a wide variety of stuff on these
    compilations.   As for being out of tune, I'm just listening to my
    original mix again an it sounds okay to me...but maybe I should
    look into a new electronic tuner...
        
>>	    	- Rebecca

>Ahh.  Synths!  I'm not nuts about portamento.  I think this would be helped
>by using maybe some different patches on the synths.  Tune-wise it's okay.
>Good hooks.
 
    Yes, as I mentioned in the liner notes I've been working on some new
    bass patches and I'm looking into ordering a book of CZ patches or a
    cartridge soon.  I just finished a new song the other day with all new
    patches I programmed myself and it really makes a difference.  I think
    I'm just now beginning to take adantage of what my keyboard can do and
    I've had it for almost a year.  I think that's the problem with the
    CZ-1000.  It's a great way to break into synthesis for a small price,
    but it takes time to build up a good set of patches. This is mostly
    because the preset ones are so limited. 
    
    Thanks for the review.  I'm looking forward to getting my copy,
    
    Peter
    

    to Dave Bottom :
    
    'Were there drums on your submission ?' 
    
    Yes, I believe there were.
    
    Of course they weren't REAL drums.
    
    But that WAS real keyboard playing.
    
    Really.

    karl, a bit sunburned
    
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!

About "We're Not Supposed To Die"

> Was that a *real* harmonica?

You bet.  Sampling it would mean missing out on too much fun (and I don't
have a sampler anyway).

About "Leap!"

> Well, this is not my type.  Was there organization to this?

Yes.  I decided in advance that there would be four sections, alternately
in and out of tempo.  I recorded a drum track which followed that plan
and built on that.  That's the macro level organization.  On the micro
level, there's more organization than I have time to talk about...but for
starters, the chord vocabulary is one I've compiled for free improvisation
over a period of time.  Some of the chords are "tonal" and some are "atonal",
but I use them all because 1) I like them and 2) they are very forgiving in
the sense that very few notes will sound wrong against them ("free improvi-
sation" doesn't mean "anything that happens is ok" to me).  The overall
density of the music is also something that was deliberately kept at a
certain level.  Etc.

>                                 I don't understand free jazz, and doubt
>   that I could listen to it over and over again, but nice, nonetheless. 

But that's how you learn to understand it...  (smiley face)

    Well, I'm glad some listeners liked my selections, and the others
    just passed on commenting.  I want to clear up a couple unimportant
    points.
    The first piece, by Stravinsky has good timbres. Read the liner
    notes to see how they were done.
    The second piece is by Johann Sebastian Bach, not by me.
    The third piece, a repetition on some chords, is played twice,
    first at the score's tempo, then extremely fast until the tape runs
    out (which is OK with me, I just wanted to show off how fast a
    PDP11 can play).  On D, the last piece, has a D pedal (i.e., there
    is a "D" on the bottom and on the top of every chord).
    The chords are played in sixteenths, an arpeggio of 3 16's in the
    top chord, 4 16's in the bottom.  It takes 12 16's to come around
    again in this pattern.  The chords are: D Major, Dsus4, D#sus4,
    b minor, G Major, em7, e-a-d, dminor, D major. I think I didn't
    leave out any.  Each chord is played lots of times.
    Tom

    Frank Rene..yeah I hear the breathing on Born In Chicago too...it
    may be the dolby on the 8 track, it may have been a heavy hand on
    the yamaha GB2020..I don't know for sure which...
    
    the ending of TV eye is our standard "live" ending...the band was
    always big on dynamics and we used to make TV eye drop to a whisper
    it gets people's attention..how many bands have you ever seen that
    could fade live?
    
    glad you enjoyed it...LA East was always about having fun
    
    dave

>    my copy very saturated (NOT a complaint Dave..I wish I could offer a 
>    solution.)
    
    No problem.  I've requested honest input on the audio quality.

    I thought I should explain this.
    
    What happened on your submission is that the submission tape was
    EXTREMELY bassy.  The first time I mastered it you could hardly
    hear anything but the bass cause the bass was pushing the needles
    into the red.
    
    As you remember, I contacted you about permission to do an EQ job
    on the bass.  You had explained that this was mixed on headphones
    (explaining the bass saturation) and that I should go ahead and
    EQ it.
    
    Well I did, and then I noticed that the extreme high end was also
    overly saturated (my EQ has a graph).  Now here's where I sorta
    did a stupid thing.  Out of some misguided sense of "preserving
    artistic value" or something like that, I figured that I shouldn't
    EQ anything other than the bass because that's all I talked to you
    about.
    
    I'd be surprised if your tape is actually "saturated" (recording
    level too high).  My guess is that the high end is in the range
    that Dolby compresses and that the Dolby is either mistracking or
    just distorting when it expands it.
    
    Part of why I believe this is that it plays back generally ok (way
    too much high end but no distortion) on my good ($400) deck.
    
    Again, I reiterate my offer to remaster, but I think in order to
    do much better I'd need to have you remix the submission tape.

Note 1201.28                   COMMUSIC IV Reviews                      28 of 28
BAVIKI::GOOD "Michael Good"                          30 lines  25-FEB-1988 00:10

>    The latter is my major gripe about the tape.  I think that many
>    submissions go on too long for their material and their development. 

    Agreed.
    
>For instance, one of my second-favorite pieces, Karl's "Walk in Music",
>would have been in the top 3 had it been about 2/3 the length.  

    Agreed. A fadeout would have worked just fine. I was coming to 
    this from  more of a new-age sensibility, where the piece is 
    hypnotic and goes on and on (and on). But in a pop or rock-music 
    context it needs to be shorter, especially when there's no
    further development in the piece... This is a hard lesson to 
    learn. Brad, are you listening ?
        
>(Actually, I'm disappointed we didn't get "Andean Agogo in 11/8"
>    as Karl's third piece.)

    Well, Dave Bottom has a tape with that piece on it.. Dave, is/was
    "Andean Agogo" Commusic material ? Tell the truth.    
    
karl    
    

sure is Karl, but since I have a copy already it didn't bother me that
    it wasn't on CMIV...
    
    dave

Reply to Peter's review:

>PETER LAQUERRE
>
>- You Better Start
>
>Now I wish I hadn't submitted this one.  I have some others that probably
>would have been more suitable for COMMUSIC IV, but at the time, it seemed like
>a good choice.  The quality of the recording doesn't seem up to the others on
>the tape.  I've got some work to do. 
>
>- Rebecca

>Yup.  In comparing this to the others so far, I've got some work to do...
>

I'm glad you *did* submit your stuff.  It did not detract from the quality
of the tape.  Don't know about you, but I'm quickly becoming my own worst 
critic.  I guess this happens I tend to hear my pieces ad nauseam and because 
as much as we all want to support each other, having my stuff critiqued by a 
fellow noter can carry quite a sting to it.  Yet, that sting is what I want so 
I can improve.

>STEVE SHERMAN
>
>- Just About Enough
>
>The intro to this works well leading up to where the organ and horn parts come
>in.  Real down home gospel feel...right down to the organ patch.  I think this 
>is an effective use of synthesizer sounds to imitate a style of music.  The 
>horn patches sound realistic.  You say in your liner notes that you used a
>CZ-101 for some of the voices.  Which ones are CZ voices? 

A CZ organ patch was used layered with the TZ Farcheeza patch.  I thought it 
kind of lended a fulness to have the TZ about an octave lower than the CZ.
The other voices were stock presets on the TZ, though it was necessary to spot
where the ranges are effective (I could have done better, of course).  I'm 
playing more now with patch diddling...

BTW - I'm learning from all of the reviews, as anticipated.  Thanks!


Steve

            <<< QUILL::$222$DUA16:[NOTES$LIBRARY]COMMUSIC.NOTE;1 >>>
KIM::HARMON                                         149 lines  29-FEB-1988 07:29
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Karl Moeller 'Seven'
>-   Some right-hand rhythmic inaccuracies make
>the first part feel a little uncomfortable.

    As I said in my liner notes, in later mixes the righthand chords
    hold off for two measures. Everything else is absolutely intentional.
    You may not be accustomed to syncopation over seven.
    
>-   In places, the 'sax' doesn't phrase quite the
>way a sax really would; maybe the articulation
>is what I'm missing.
    
    Maybe so. I've also gotten asked who the sax player was.

>-   Overall, I miss some kind of definitive melodic
>statement - the melody often sounds like a good
>accompaniment to me.
    
    There's lots of personal definitions of music. This piece sounds
    complete to me... I'm not addicted to having a linear, whistleable
    melody there.. this piece is an extension of my solo piano style, 
    which doesn't always have a 'melody' either.    
    
    But thanks for your positive comments, too!
    
    karl
    

re: 1202.23

>>Karl Moeller 'Seven'
>>-   Some right-hand rhythmic inaccuracies make
>>the first part feel a little uncomfortable.
>
>    As I said in my liner notes, in later mixes the righthand chords
>    hold off for two measures. Everything else is absolutely intentional.
>    You may not be accustomed to syncopation over seven.

Specifically, I was talking about the second and third measures (if "seven"
means "7/4") after the left hand begins.  Was this your intention?

      ^^ ^ ^               ^^ ^ ^               <- Right hand rhythm
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
^                          ^
|                          |
Left hand begins           Group of notes where I hear a problem

What I meant when I used the word "inaccuracies" was that it sounded to me 
like you intended to play 8th notes, but that the notes weren't landing 
"on the dots".  Listening again, I'm hard-pressed to say whether it's the
right hand or something under it that sounds off to me...it's difficult to
say, hearing everything together.  But the upshot is, it sounds to me like
something at that point needs quantizing.  Tsk, tsk - all these words about
less than two seconds of music!

>                             I'm not addicted to having a linear, whistleable
>    melody there.. 

Neither am I.  By melody, I meant nothing more than "upper-most horizontal 
activity" (UHA).  Given the rhythm-section context, I thought much of the UHA 
sounded like part of an accompaniment.  I suspect this boils down to "there's 
no accounting for taste".

Paul

p.s.  C'mon, Karl - it isn't nice to tantalize us by mentioning stuff like
      "Big Thing Stomps Around" if we don't get to hear it...

    Re: "aliasing noise"
    I can't hear it on my master.  I can only hear it on the distributed
    tape.  I think it's called quantization noise; it's the 7.9 kHz
    tone of the sample rate, because the audio output steps a straight
    line to the next value.  I just cut the highs with an EQ.
    This was not sufficient.
    I should have used the PAiA low pass with a high Q.
    I could have had aliasing noise by building a wave on the VAX
    that had too many high harmonics, that on high notes aliased in
    their high harmonics, but I didn't becuase I calculated and
    implemented wavs with harmonics too low to alia
    	s.  Aliasing would have produced low tones,
    not ones at the sample rate.  You people can hear flyback generators
    on TVs, too, can't you? 8-).
        
    what th heck editor is this anyway and why doesn't somebody
    fix the 'e' on this common terminal?                        
    	I havn't been working on this for weeks.  Maybe I should implement
    dynamics.  Next to each pitch byte I could store a byte of how many
    	times to shift a sample right to get quieter than the maximum.
    I currently shift everything a couple bits left.  4 samples 8 bits
    each can add to 10 bits max.  Shift left 2 times to use 12 bits
    of conversion.  If I instead shifted the samples before adding them,
    I could get more or less real 12 bits range, with dynamic control.
    Dynamic control leads to envelope control, but in 6dB steps.Gee,
    I do have a FP11 IC.  Hm.
    Tom

    reply to Len's review:
    
    Gee, Len, you were a lot more kind to me than I thought you'd be!
    ;-)
    
    My Commusic V submission (in the works, give me a month or two to
    do a good job on it) will be a marvel of drum-machine programming.
    As to the brass, I like brass.  But, in this next submission there
    will be new patches used for the CZ and the TZ.  So, I'll probably
    continue to use brass-like stuff, but there will be more
    tayloring/construction of patches to fit the song.  It's all part
    of my growing up ...  This next submission looks like it will be
    12/4.  I'm learning, however, to spice things up a bit by introducing
    pauses, subtle tempo variations (like slowing down just a tad when
    things get complicated), skipping beats and otherwise trying to
    out-manuever the listener in a playful but sensible way.  I agree
    about not enough attention being paid to the drum parts in my
    submission. (That's why I made my apologies, half-hearted though they
    be, up front.)  But, I am still high on the learning curve and loving
    it!  Some day, maybe I'll take my submissions, re-hack 'em using
    everybody's criticisms and get a million bucks for an album.  Hey,
    stop it ... stop it ... it's RUDE to snicker!
    
    Thanks for the review, Len!  You're comments from a drummer's point
    of view add a good perspective.

    Steve_the_below-average_MIDIot

         This reply is not a specific reply to a reviewer but to a
    few of you who have asked where the drums came from on my submissions.
    The drums came from the Mirage driven by the ESQ-1 sequencer. "learning
    to sail" used sampled accoustic drums. "we can be" used sampled
    electronic drums. The samples used for these drums were on a disk
    that was available through Ensoniq back in '85. I bet there are
    better ones available now. I think the relative volumes of the 
    different peices of the drum 'kit' need to be changed...hihat
    is too load...kick drum needs to come up...etc. 
    
    
      Frank
    

    
    IDIOMATIC:== Early Ford transmission designed by twits, as in
    "1977 Fairlane, 427 CI w/idiomatic, nice shape. $3995"
                                   
                                     *
    
    "...when Karl could only play one piano..."
    
    I love it. Can't ya just picture 8 or 10 bikers all clamoring about
    a stage producing great music and yelling "FEED ME!!!"? ;^)
    
    ...can't wait for Karl's reaction!!!  :^)
    
    "Edd Cote" sound. Is this like Phil Spector's "Wall Of Sound"?
     Is it a compliment? 
    
    ;^)
    
    Edd
                                      

    I feel like I should go hide for a couple of days.
    
    Yeah, "Edd Cote feel" was meant as positive remark.
    
    len.
    

    Here's some response to the reviews of my material so far.  In general,
    I want to thank everyone for the positive comments.  I guess my
    self-imposed criticism was a little harsh?  I'm sure most of commusic
    folks know what I'm feeling--when you look back at your previous work,
    you tend to see all the ways you could have done it better.  My
    favorite work is always the most recent piece I've finished.  And then,
    when I've finish the next piece, the previous one sounds sucky. 

    Here's some more specific responses. 

    Peter
-----------------

In response to David Bottom's review:

>    Peter Laquerre
>    
>    Reminded me of Steely Dan. The guitar leads are very nice, tasteful
>    and not too dominating...lower guitar strings and bass seemed to
>    be muddy and distorted.
>    
>    You better start  6.7
>    Rebecca           6.4
 
Thanks for the kind words.   Being a Steely Dan fan for a long time 
makes that comparison kind of hard to believe, but thanks.  

You're right about the muddiness of the guitar and bass.  There was an 
interesting note in here a while ago about miking guitars.  I still 
haven't mastered that problem and on certain chords, my acoustic booms 
and the situation is made worse when I add a bass line.  I'm still 
working on that one.  I've found recently that using the right CZ bass
patch is a solution on songs where it's appropriate.

---------------
In response to Frank Rene's review:

>Peter Laquerre: You better start
>
>	Sounds like James Taylor..nice..very refreshing.oops...guitar go
>   out on ya? 8^) After hearing you CMIII submission I looked forward to
>   this one...not disappointed at all...excellent vocals/harmonies
>
>Peter Laquerre: Rebecca
>
>	My favorite tune on the tape...seems like your family has a very
>   positive influence on what gets on your four track ! great synth
>  patch...relaxing..enjoyed it alot.

Once again, thanks for the kind words.  This is encouraging!  I've 
been working on my songwriting, trying to experiment with different
topics and song styles, but it all takes time.  Your comments
encourage me to keep at it...  

Thanks.

---------------------------------

In response to Paul Harmon's review:

>Peter LaQuerre
>
>    You Better Start
>            +   Catchy.
>            +   Nice vocal harmony.
>            -   You've heard enough about intonation, right?
>            -   Just from a songwriting point of view, I'd
>                like to hear some kind of variation within
>                the verses; they feel too parallel (within themselves) to 
>		 me.
>
>    Rebecca
>            +   Very catchy - I find myself humming it from time to time.
>            +   I like the chord changes.
>            +   I like the arrangement.
>            +   I like the drums.
>            -   Those places where the melody holds a note out,
>                and then that note becomes a fourth above the
>                next bass note (e.g., "she's not imprisoned like
>                *me*") really bother me...if it were my song, I
>                would change the melody or the timing to make that
>                go away.

Your comment about the verses being too parallel is interesting.  Good
criticism.  This is a case where I wrote the lyrics and music 
simultaneoulsy for the most part.  I think that hurt this song. 

Another good criticism is your suggestion about changing the melody at 
the end of the chorus.  I guess I never did work that transition just
right, did I?  Just FYI, the progression goes like this: 

	G, Fmaj9, G, Dm7, G, Ebmaj9

..and then repeats.  For some reason, the melody sounded best when 
the phrase worked around "Bb" and ended on "C".  Which causes
the problem you've identified because there is no "C" in Ebmaj9(!).
Problem is when I tried ending the on "Bb," which made more sense, it
just didn't work.  It's got something to do with the fact that my next 
stop is a G chord when repeating and a C chord when moving to the
verse.  I tried fixing it several ways, but no changes improved the
melody, so I stuck with it. 

I should have spent some more time working that problem out.  Good
catch. 

--------------------------------
From Len Fehsken's review:
	
>        Peter Laquerre:  These tunes were just too much like Peter's
>    	COMMUSIC III submissions.  This time however, the sense of 
>    	"eavesdropping" that wasn't present for COMMUSIC III *was* 
>    	there, and made me uncomfortable.  The lyrical gesture of
>    	repeating phrases became almost predictable.  These are good 
>    	tunes (both of them stick in my mind), but the lyrics don't
>    	work for me.  I'm really unhappy about not being able to rave
>    	about these, especially given Peter's own unduly harsh 
>    	comparisons with the rest of the tape.  The arrangements
>    	are the simplest on the tape, so it's not fair to judge them 
>    	solely in that regard.  I also feel uncomfortable criticising
>    	original tunes when almost all of my own projects are covers.
>    	At least Peter's writing his own stuff, which is more than I 
>    	can say for myself.

Your comment about these sounding too much like COMMUSIC III is
accurate.  My wife just gave me a talking to about that the other
night when she previewed the newest song I'm working on.  Using too 
many similar CZ patches and TR-505 rhythms is the cause of that
problem, I believe.  Based on the criticism, I'm working on that.
Thanks. 

I agree about the repetition of the lyrics in "You Better Start."  

As for original vs. cover: Because of the way I learned to play music,
I've always had trouble doing accurate covers.  Writing new songs has
always been easier for me and more fun.  But that approach has it's
drawbacks.  I'm not able to learn from a long experience of playing
other people's songs and it's kind of tough at jam sessions... 

re: 1201.32

>                                            I couldn't help but note
>         that the ride cymbal plays through the fills.

Uh-oh!  Chalk one up to experience.  I began to wonder after I mailed my
submission tape whether anybody would catch that or not...now I know.
   
>              The Dr. Rhythm just doesn't make it; the juxtaposition of
>         real and patently fake timbres is jarring, which is a shame
>         given the quality of the programming.

I couldn't agree with you more about the Dr. Rhythm.  I gave it to a friend
some time ago and afterward wondered if I had really done him a favor.
Thanks for the compliment about the programming, but there really wasn't
much.  The steady ticks on the high-hat were the only thing programmed;
everything else was played in real time on the touch pads, and I just turned
the high-hat pattern off and on when I wanted to go out of/into time.

Paul

>Note 1201.46                   COMMUSIC IV Reviews                      46 of 49
>IOENG::JWILLIAMS                                    239 lines  31-MAR-1988 13:36

>Karl Moeller
>One or two rushes wouldn't hurt, it might help pull me into your space 
>a little more. 

    Uh, I'm not familiar with 'rushes' in the musical sense. Clarify?
    Like the music speeding up ? Like when your heart feels like an 
    alligator?
        
>Seven - There could have been a melody here...
    
    Yeah, and a sampled sax might have played it. 
    
>Walk In Music

>The keyboards were a little too busy in spots... but too many expressions 
>layered on top of each other can quickly render an otherwise good piece 
>expressionless.

    Is this like 'too many notes' ? Seriously, I thought this piece
    was extremely simple in concept... two main sections, alternating,
    only 4 or 5 layers of sound at its busiest.. drums, bass (with 
    repeating right hand component), piano, high Fairlight 'vocal' sweep.
    
>Too many themes is like no theme at all. A genius knows when 
>the piece if finished.
    
    Are you certain we're talking about 'Walk In Music' ? I'm not being
    snide, I don't connect your comments with these two extremely simple
    pieces at all. Some of my extended piano compositions have had many
    interleaving themes, 'Fantasy in "F"' from my Still Life cassette 
     comes to mind... 

    karl

    The best way I can describe a rush is that it is a sudden upturn,
    a dramatic modulation, for example a tonic minor key to a tonic
    major. It is generally used for a full cadence by way of direct
    modulation. I like to think of it as the light at the end of the
    tunnel. Maybe it would work, maybe not, I don't know . . . It depends
    on the composition. I was thinking that the song should stand on
    it's own. If that's not the effect you were going for, then I'm
    out of line.
    
    In regards to "too many notes", I was merely stating that too many
    expressive structures tend to detract from the overall expression
    of the song, unless they are carefully coordinated. Each one, with
    various phase modulation was very expressive, but together you get
    some odd intervals happening. I could focus on one layer at a time,
    and it sounded very good, but together they seemed to lack root
    at times.
    
    I hope you know that I liked your music. I know that alot is a matter
    of taste, and I was merely suggesting ways I thought the songs could
    be made better. The boundaries between objective and subjective
    are very hard to define. These suggestions are merely things you
    might want to try. You decide.
    
    						John.