From: barrett@snoopy.cs.umass.edu (Daniel Barrett)
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth
Subject: Re: Parting with old synths
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:07:46 GMT
Reply-To: barrett@snoopy.cs.umass.edu (Daniel Barrett)
Organization: BLAZEMONGER INCORPORATED


In article <9209012216.AA08572@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu> metlay@PHYAST.PITT.EDU (metlay) writes:
>When I write a song, it's just that: a song. It could be performed by
>any orchestration of instruments, by and large. I find that if a melody
>is strong and catchy, it can translate very well to a number of different 
>timbres....
>I have never been of the opinion that a song requires a rigid timbre 
>selection....

	This is one way to think about composition with synths, but there
are also others for which this philosophy will not work.  I am of the opinion
that there is little difference between a "sound" and a "song", except for
how we use the material.

	As a means of introducing the concept, let me ask:  Is a sample of
the first 2 minutes of Beethoven's 5th Symphony a "sound" or a "song"?  What
if you shorten it to 1 minute?  10 seconds?  0.5 seconds?  Where is the
dividing line?  And with today's synthesizers being capable of making
very long "sounds" (my envelope generators play for 30 minutes, nyah
nyah), the distinction between "sound" and "song" based on length becomes
very unclear.

	In my way of thinking, the question of "where is the dividing line"
is irrelevant.  This might seem totally obvious, but it depends on how you
USE the sample (in this example).  If you press a key and play back 2
minutes of Beethoven's 5th alone, it's a song.  But if you play it softly in
the background during the middle 2 minutes of a "sound collage" while sirens
and explosions and screeching hyenas battle for supremacy, it's a sound.
There is no hard-and-fast rule for distinguishing "sound" and "song", but
one attempt might be:  a sound is a component, and a song is a finished
product.  (Yes, of course one can think of exceptions.  I told you it wasn't
hard-and-fast. :-))

	What does this have to do with Neil Weinstock's question of selling
old synths, and Mike's answer?  Well, if you have scored a piece (or "song")
to begin with a 30-second sound creation from your YamaKorgerheim
Blitz-Synth, and your new synths can't recreate it, then Mike's philosophy
of "a song stands on its own" doesn't apply.  The sound IS the piece, or
is at least an irreplacable part of the piece.  I'm not talking about
"sound effects" as Mike described them, but sound that literally *is*
the piece.

	When you are dealing with traditional concepts like melody, harmony,
and rhythm as *the* components of your piece (or, if you like simple
conformity: "drums", "bass", "chords", and "vocals" to make a "song"),
Mike's philosophy works fine.  (I am not knocking Mike here.)  But many
modern composers don't organize their musical thoughts that way.

	A classic example of this difference is the inability of traditional
musical notation (5 bar lines, note heads, key signatures, etc.) to
represent modern experimental music.  If you music = your notes, you are
fine.  But as soon as your music = your sound, forget it.  And this
is quite different from what Mike is saying about:

>...assuring that a piece can stand on its own with no reliance on cute 
>technical tricks or "signature" noises.

In my mind, "tricks" and "noises" are short bits of sound.  I'm talking
something larger.

	All IMHO, of course....

                                                        Dan

 //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
| Dan Barrett -- Dept of Computer Science, Lederle Graduate Research Center |
| University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA  01003  --  barrett@cs.umass.edu |
 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth