Follow Up

[Catharsis <catharsis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

David Fodel <DFodel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> i am curious as to how Mike defines "no-input"... where did the flute come
> from?

It is a magic flute...

"I was able to simulate a sound that resembles pulsar synthesis by abusing 
a couple of plugins on the PC. Actually this little combination runs 
'no-input'."

The way I am achieving the simulation of pulsar synthesis runs no input.

Might I add that this technique is immediate and can be controlled 
dynamically in real time and integrated with any VST environment which at 
this time the Pulsar Generator is far from capable. Don't get me wrong what 
I am describing is certainly not a replica of pulsar synthesis, but it 
achieves similar sounds at times.

I am sure sounds like this are easily attainable in Max/MSP, but I have yet 
to try that environment. Look forward to that and SuperCollider; no doubt, 
especially since I program...

I didn't take too much time (15 minutes) to pull up this little example of 
the process. It consists of  a chain of 5 plugins running natively in 
Nuendo with it in "stop". I am manipulating by hand/mouse different 
parameters in a linear fashion. Needless to say what I have come across is 
really cool and can give amazing results; this is nothing really. My CPU 
was at 13% running this example (10% of that coming from the Waves 
Renaissance Reverb). I can have much more going in real time and hook it up 
to my PC-1600 and Drehbank and have a good time at it. It is also very easy 
to obtain loops and small snippets from this process to sequence later.

http://catharsis.egregious.net/tracks/no-input-playing-around.mp3

Philip Sherburne <psherburne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>While there are "glitchy" DSP sounds scattered throughout the track, the
>form is essentially that of standard trance -- unchanging 4/4 beat, periodic
>snare/cymbal rushes and a rather facile four-bar chord progression. As a
>result, the glitchy bits feel tacked on, or colored-within-the-lines

Yes, like I said it is straight up. Nothing new there. I think your comment 
is somewhat fair coming from this list. Sure it is trance; but it is 
accessible to my peers; that was my purpose. The form may fit the basic 4/4 
pattern, but remember that you are evaluating it from a passive listening 
position; where as I will use it from an active frame of view in the mix. 
The glitch part is concealed in the image when all the parts come together. 
When mixing both the first 1.5 and last 1.5 minutes are overlaid having the 
glitch part stand out at the beginning enables me to work with the EQ 
against the track playing previously.

Basically, what I am very excited and happy that I am beginning to achieve 
decent empirical results in regard to audio quality. I learned so much with 
this track; especially being able to use the gear I had access to in SF. 
Most of my current focus is on the empirical; how to obtain a better 
recording, etc. I have much to still get a handle on, but the doorways are 
open.

>(and the flute I found frankly unlistenable).

Right.. This is my fault in part. I am recording a different flute that 
will match the pocket more this week. I am very lucky to work with this 
excellent musician that performs with all sorts of exotic instruments. I am 
trading my studio knowledge for his time. This track convinced him to work 
with me again. At the time this was the closest match that we could get 
(and I had to pitch it down 50 cents to get it closer to the pocket; this 
also messed with the recording quality); he wasn't able to hear the backing 
before the recording took place; we had to go with the flute that matched 
best out of what he brought with him that day.

Thanks for your input; you were the first to make this point! I will be 
working on this soon.

>Not to be ungenerous, but this doesn't really pursue the kind of *formal* 
experimentations which >are an integral part of microsound aesthetics.

Ahh... Here is the gambit; here is what irks my sensibility... The approach 
you mention is valid, but it is limited in contrast to reality; it is a 
simulation. From my perspective I view the world as logic and the world as 
myth; logic being a very small subset. Don't get me wrong. The logical 
subset/viewpoint in this world is very powerful, but more so in an external 
outer worldly realization. It is an area to draw from, but is questionable 
as the only basis of an aesthetic.

It is certainly the _ideal_ I have witnessed from those supposedly pushing 
the popular microsound genre further, however this proclaimed aesthetic is 
far from reality. I have seen/heard very little if anything from this list 
that falls under "formal" experimentations. I have been on this list for 
over a year; certainly not from the beginning, but long enough. I came to 
this list after learning about microsound from Curtis Roads Computer Music 
Tutorial (the first book I bought when I started with production). Most of 
the music I hear lies under empirical experimentation and has no formal 
basis. Granted my personal collection is not huge in terms of microsound 
releases, but I spent an tremendous amount of time while I was in Europe 
listening to lots of microsound releases; being disappointed with 90% of 
them on technical and aesthetic levels; every genre disappoints me with 
roughly the same percentage and in the case of the microsound genre not 
because I don't understand the processes/techniques/aesthetic/mind set.

I have not seen any formal exegesis accompanying any pieces/releases from 
this area unless press releases and long marketing driven email signatures 
are considered. I have seen no formal documentation or research presented 
to this list or elsewhere in terms of advances made by anyone associated by 
this scene. At best what I have seen are cultural elitist assertions based 
on a thin veneer of co-opted aesthetics from a modernist academic 
tradition/cultural context. There is far more self-proclaimed artistry here 
than letting the music stand on its own.

I am not blaming or pointing fingers at anyone. I have respect for all 
music and the hard work it takes to put out music independently or otherwise.

Currently my process and aesthetic lies on an empirical path. When I 
create; I create with an idea about the sound image I want to convey. 
Microsound music is very visual to the minds eye; at least for me. Music 
and just the act of creation is a centering activity in my life; a form of 
meditation to a certain extent; a way of accessing the internal. I am 
certainly interested in applying more formal concepts. From my programming 
background I have been fascinated with design patterns over the last 6 
years; I am also fascinated with component oriented programming. One day I 
am sure I will draw on these formal ways of describing systems and apply it 
to music let alone all the information available that I have yet to 
incorporate from those that came before me.

I read this quote recently on another music list I think highly of:
"There is something tragic in the degree to which music has gradually
divorced itself from life and become an ego-centric and an artificial
thing.  Already before the war, it had wandered from the source where
all art must find its strength and its continual rebirth; it was no
longer the expression of our soul and of our mind, of our epoch with
its struggles, its agonies and its aspirations.  It lacked emotive
life; it lacked humanity.  In all its branch-- creation,
interpretation, modes of instruction and critique -- it had become a
cold and calculated thing, lifeless and unspirited.  Music was no
longer the emanation of a race and a people, spontaneous birth out of
life.  It was a music of musicians..."
From Ernest Bloch, "Man and Music" October 1933, _The Musical
Quaterly_...

>Regarding this comment, if you're going to initiate a debate, you really
>need to bring some specifics to the table.

"The pHarmanaut" <pharmanaut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>And your comment regarding Kim's presentation is just plain antagonistic 
and unsupported.

Right. I am not so much as wishing to start a debate. I will be glad to 
post more of my thoughts when I have the time and the Tate server is not 
down so I can watch the presentation again (saw it 3 or so weeks ago).

I guess my comment can be seen as antagonistic, but perhaps it is clearer 
if I state that Kim's presentation and his ideas beyond his music disagrees 
with my sensibility; and the presentation finally irked me to the point of 
making my view known. I see nothing wrong with stating that I disagree with 
the presentations assertions or dissent from the "official" aesthetic. Part 
of my dissent comes from a generational rift; I have some common background 
in terms of a musical progression/past that is similar to a lot of people 
on this list (this stays in my inner life and eludes my peers in my area), 
but I have had the opportunity to stay in touch with my peers by being 
involved in dance music. It has been very rewarding to do so...

Besides all of this. I face a challenge. I don't want to be an engineer 
making music; instead I want to keep my engineering knowledge/background 
and work towards composition.

Cheers,
--Mike


Egregious
"Spiritual renewal through music for those outside the heard."
http://www.egregious.net/