Conference napalm::commusic_v1

RE 1971.5 by TALK::HARRIMAN 

>		John Mark: It's not my prerogative to pass judgement on what
>			is COMMUSIC and what isn't. But I'm not sure this
>			is what I'd call COMMUSIC. 

	Can you explain further?  The only difference between this one and the
previous is that it used one less synth (the TX81Z).  Does the other piece
receive the same reaction?

	Dan

	Sure, I'll elaborate.

	For sensitivity, which is one of my criteria of musician-as-artist,
	you get high marks. I think the lack of anything electronic, including
	signal processing, makes it even less of a "commusic" piece, WHATEVER
	THAT IS. Remember my qualifier: It is not my prerogative to pass any 
	judgements on this since nobody ever defined what "commusic" is!

	It's a difficult issue, and I'm not sure it's something constructive
	so I'm trying very hard to make it a non-issue. John-Mark is a 
	basically sound piece of production, but it consists of a voice
	and a guitar, primarily. 

	Press On, on the other hand, uses the TX81Z and the drums. Whether
	or not I agree with the type of music is immaterial to whether or
	not the music is well-engineered or executed. I believe I addressed
	the most notable point, and that is more in the engineering department
	as opposed to the musicianship department. 

	My reviewing philosophy has two basic premises, and the ideal for me
	is to apply this universally: One, that whether or not I like a style
	of music, that music is something that someone else believes in and
	is making a statement with. That's why I would ask questions like
	"where is the music going" or "what's it trying to say" instead of
	"this sucks". The second is that, going beyond the music, there is
	a production/engineering aspect of the piece(s) which say something
	entirely different than the music itself. For instance, I bought and
	listened to Prince's "Purple Rain", not because I like the music,
	(in fact I detest it, especially after listening to it a lot), but
	because it's an amazing piece of production/engineering. Likewise
	for much of Commusics I-VI. Face it, we're all amateurs and anyone
	who thinks that they're a pro should remember that they're making their
	money from Digital not ASCAP. If I was making money from ASCAP then
	I wouldn't be sending little ditties to commusic. But I digress; the
	point is that the sharing works two ways. I get to hear other people's
	music both from the artist's statement and the engineer's statement.
	Some people are better engineers than they are artists, some people
	are better artists than they are engineers, and some people do both
	equally well, or not. You can disagree with this since it's only my
	opinion anyway.

	Whatever. I wandered seriously from the original point, which was my
	nebulous statement on "what is commusic and what isn't". I dunno
	really, what is and what isn't, but I still feel that rhetorically
	something that makes no use of technology beyond the printing of the
	music onto tape, while undeniably art, may not be commusic. But that's
	my opinion. It shouldn't preclude you from submitting tapes in any case
	and I'll never advocate making it a requirement that people MUST
	only submit tapes that are "commusic", whatever that is.

	hope it's a bit clearer...

	/pjh 

RE < Note 1972.2 by TALK::HARRIMAN "You're wierd, Sir." >

>	you get high marks. I think the lack of anything electronic, including
>	signal processing, makes it even less of a "commusic" piece, WHATEVER
>	THAT IS. 

>	Press On, on the other hand, uses the TX81Z and the drums. 

	Did you read my liner notes?  As I said before, the only difference
between this piece and the 'Press On' piece is that I didn't use the TX81Z.
They both have my voice, guitar, MKS-7 drums, MKS-7 bass and were sequenced
by the MIDI DJ.  For signal processing, they both used a digital reverb and
a digital delay.  

	I don't want to make any big deal about this either, it's not important.
(And I don't want to get washed into another controversy like the last time I
submitted material).  I am not angry by your remarks, in any way.  The 'John
Mark' piece definately SOUNDS less electronic, by design, but I'd think that
would have some merit in a commusic environment - that is, being able to 
produce a piece using electronics that do not draw attention to themselves.

	Just my thoughts...

	Dan

	I just checked my liner notes and found that the TX81Z was even on
the John Mark piece, layered with the MKS-7 strings.

	Dan

	Whatever. Yes, I did read the liner notes. I've also heard the tunes
	about 20 times now. I understand your point about making the music
	sound "non-computer'ed", i.e. not drawing attention to the computer
	aspects. I call that sensitivity. If I didn't hear them being used
	(which I don't but I'll listen more) then I stand by what I said.

	end of discussion? 

	/pjh

I would say that a multitrack recording, with overdubs, possible bouncing, then
mixed down to stereo, is considerably more "tech" than just "printing the music
to tape", and should fit here even if the material being recorded is purely
acoustic.  As in many notes files, the original name of this one no longer
describes what is discussed here, which is primarily the *production* of music,
of all kinds.

>>>    The six year old John Arnold stuff was a lot of fun and well done,
>>>    actually more lively than most of the other submissions here.  So what
>>>    do you do *these* days? 
    
    Flippant answer: buy things (and think abot buying things) that
    I never have time to use!
    
    More realistic answer:  I upgraded my studio to 8-track (a long
    time ago) and, I hope, this summer will embark on newer versions
    of my songs or new songs all together.  Since I've gotten Master
    Tracks Pro (for Mac) and the Kurzweil PX1000, I'm thinking of trying
    to sequence as much of ELP's "Pirates" as I can and do a cover of
    that.  More realistically, my brother and I may just go for a cover
    of The Nice's "The Cry of Eugene" just for fun.
    
    Glad you liked it.  It was lots of fun recording it!
    
    - John -

    re reviews .5 pjh
    
 >   	Hitchmough: 200FT: Interesting. Too long, however. Six minutes? Oof.
 
    You're right. Now changed. I was so thrilled to do something longer
    than 30 secs I got carried away
    
 >		Speedster: I love the car samples at the beginning. I think
 >			you're right about the guitar, maybe it's the envelope
 >			of the sample you are using.
    
   Unfortunately, can't take credit for the car samples (or the blame
    for the guitar sampling, just for using it in the first place).
    They are stock Roland samples. I need to figure out how to articulate
    the guitar. It's useful to have a guit sample while the tunes being
    created but I really should have used a *real* guitar eventually.
     Someone also mentioned they HATE the bass patch ( Iassume it's
    this one). Me too, its a piano patch (FM Piano) and I couldnt find
    a substitute. Point is well taken though.
     
 >		Walking: Ho-hum. Yup, sounds depressing. Goes into tedium,
 >			and doesn't deviate very far. Too bad, it could
 >			do more with some variety. It sounds like a starting
 >			idea.
    
    Told you it was depressing!! Good point though is that it's short.;-)
                                                                      
    All in all *I'm* pleased. They are my first ever pieces and *I*
    enjoy listening to them (and so did some non-COMMUSICERS).
    
    I look forward to my own reviews when I get the tape..hint hint.
    
    Thanks for the input.
    
    Ken
                     
    

	re: .-1 Ken

	Tapes go in the mail this week. My time has been rather in demand
	lately, and this master madness has made me want to quit. You too,
	Janzen.

	re: .-? about P.M. song.

	Ayuh, it wasn't supposed to be *serious*. 

	/pjh

    Hi Paul,
    
         You mentioned '...subliminal message....etc' in your review
    of the tune I submitted. I've been scratching my head since I read
    it, trying to figure out what you meant. My liner notes weren't
    too descriptive, as I didn't realize that that mail message I sent
    you was to appear in the liner note note. Oh well, no biggie. Did
    you mean the tune was spacy, maybe incoherent, or something along
    those lines? 
    
        For those who are interested how the tune came about, you can
    read on. Otherwise, next unseen.
    
    Tune: VITOUR
    Written/recorded: Frank Rene
    Where: in a corner of a cold damp cellar 8^)
    
    Instruments:  Ensoniq Mirage
                  Ensoniq SQ-80
    
    Fostex X-15  track config:
           1) drums
           2) bass
           3) piano
    	   4) any other noodling that is heard (synth, B3)
    
       mixed in MONO/added some digital reverb for ambience
    
      The tune was composed/developed as I recorded it. It took about
    3 nights (total ~ 6 hours). Every where my mind wondered, so did
    the keys. I don't think the tune has any real motif to it, as I
    had intended it not to. Didn't want the verse/chorus type tune
    this time. I wanted it to start simple and get increasingly
    more complex/'intense' as it went along. 
    
       I really liked this one when I was done with it. Still do in
    fact. My wife ( a dedicated Huey Lewis fan) had the usual 
    "..that's uh,, nice honey...what is it?" comments 8^).
    
    Oh well,   hope to get a hold of the whole tape soon so I can listen
         to the rest of you!!!!
    
    Frank 

    
    re: .-1 Frank
    
    	Maybe it was the lack of liner notes. Don't get me wrong, I like
    	the piece. By "subliminal message" I was referring to the ELP/space
    	shot atmosphere created by the piece, not like whether or not you
    	had some submerged track saying "I buried Paul" backwards... I
        guess that's because I listen to too much space music.
    
    	enjoy. Thanks for the liner notes. Brad, could you append them to
    	the liner notes?
    
    	/pjh

    re:-1  Paul H.
    
         I own only one ELP album of which I haven't had for too long.
    I was awed and mystified by thier sound....kinda like playing in
    a very large hall with plenty of reverberation. I hadn't listened
    to it in a few weeks when I recorded this tune. I was TRYING to
    capture some of that type of atmosphere. No wonder it reminds some
    people of ELP! The whole mix is very 'wet' with a moderately dull
    reverb. 
    
    P.S.  if you were to play it backwards, you would hear the words..
    
        '.....I buried my Mirage.....'   8^)   8^)   
    
    Frank

re: 1971.5

> kind of like a junior high school tenor
> sax student being backed up by a more advanced band.

Ummm ... ahhh ... thanks!

Steve

    
    re: Steve
    
    	well, you asked for a review. I gotta be honest...! The rest of
    	the band sounded fine. I've been working on my sax sound since
    	I heard karl Moeller's sax back on commusic IV (I think it was
    	his saxsample anyway), and I'm not totally happy with it either.
    	You'll hear it soon, that's your chance to rip me apart as well ;^)
    
    

    No, no, no ... I took it as a compliment that it sounded like a
    high school kid!  That's a *lot* better than sounding like a machine.
    I *do* want strokes.  Go ahead ... bring out that cat o' nine tails!
    
    Steve

re: why did I twiddle?

'cuz I like to play Carlos Santanna sometimes...

dbii

    
    re: 1971.last [peter laquerre]
    
    	thanks for the review. Some explanations:
    
    The Casio I mentioned in the liner notes was the cheapo Casio DH-100,
    which is a $100. Boehm-fingered breath-controlled toy, which happens to
    have a MIDI port (channel 1, please)... At the time I was trying to
    figure out how to "breathe" with a sax sample. Likewise with the flute
    on the PM song, although I definitely lost any trace of natural flute
    feel on *that* solo ;^)...
    
    Light and Form was done entirely on the KCS, including the aftertouch
    and program patch parts (i.e. the sax digs, slurs, etc). The PM song
    was mixed onto 8-track and the three vocals and flute solo were brought
    onto it then. I hate the mix. 
    
    Regarding the lyrics to P.M., I don't remember but I believe I credited
    Jeff Cooper (not the one in DEC) with the lyrics. It's kind of cryptic,
    I'll admit, but the "M" stands for "Mexicana", if you can figure it out
    from there then it might make more sense. Otherwise, just forget it ;^)
    
    It's been a while since VI, and I never got around to sending a mix
    down for VII. I have about 20 pieces which piled up between then and
    now.  I'm trying to put a bunch together into one tape, if I had some
    interest in people hearing more of what I do, I'd be more inclined to
    get it together. (yes, that's a hint).
    
    Like I said, thanks for the honest review.
    
    /pjh