From: JROSSI@EAGLE.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth
Subject: On doing group electronic music projects...
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:02:00 GMT


The two Team Metlay sessions which I attended have provided me with a sub-
stantial amount of insight concerning group dynamics in the production of
electronic music.  Prior to the first Team project, I had never had the
opportunity to interact with more than one other synthesist at a time.  In
fact, after leaving the Montreal music scene in 1976, I really hadn't played
with another synthesist until I started interacting with John Curtis a
couple of years ago here in Dayton (i.e., I use the term synthesist as opposed
to 'keyboard player' because not all synthesists are keyboard players, and
most keyboard players are not synthesists).  Although I had plenty of time
to interact with other synthesists when I was working/consulting at EMSA,
it seems we never actually really got around to doing music, for the most part
we just engaged in business and shared anecdotes chock full of techno-babble.
Anyway, over the years I had often fantasized about what it would be like to
create music with several other synthesists participating simultaneously. I
have been tremendously affected by Tangerine Dream's ability to semi-improvise
as a three piece electronic band and I definately had built up some pretty
major expectations as to what it would be like to do similar quasi-structured
stuff with about four other people.  It is probably sufficient to say that
the Team Metlay experience was startling.

I think that everyone involved in the projects learned quite a bit about a
lot of music related things at both sessions.  As both MNike and Nick have
alluded, I think the most impressive thing which was learned was how much
we really didn't know before the sessions.  The first time (Dec 1990), we
all went into the group experience pretty blind.  Since there was no real
go-by for such an event, Mike (and Dean) took a pretty conservative approach
to preparing for it.  Somewhere early (many months, probably as many as
6) in the process, soon after Mike had decided that we were going to go
through with it, the decision was made that we were going to work on
submissions of material from each of the musicians who would be attending.
This lead to some pretty astonishing (at least to me) realizations about
what you can and can not expect to convey about abstract musical ideas using
generally accepted processes.  For example, at some point Mike, Dean and I
decided that sending UUENCODED SMFs would be an ideal way to allow the group
to interact with eachother's ideas.  Being among the first to try this by
sending a couple of my ideas (in reasonably well documented SMFs) accross
the Atlantic to Nick, I was first learn that there really isn't a whole lot
of abstract information hidden in the note streams of an SMF.  The next
thing we played with was audio cassette interchange.  While somewhat better
than the SMF route, this also left a lot to be desired (perhaps Adam would
like to elaborate a bit on this since his piece ws affected to the greatest
extent).  It seems clear to me that if the idea is to have individual
pre-conceived pieces which will be polished and expanded by the group dynamic,
it is necessary to send both audio cassette and incredibly well documented
SMFs, along with even more information concerning ideas for expansion.

Anyway, to a large extent, the first Team session was very well prepared for.
Months of time went into the preparation for both the music and the more
mechanical aspects.  By the time we all arrived in Pittsburgh, I think we had
a reasonably good idea of what we wanted to accomplish for our own pieces,
and maybe some ideas on how we would like to embellish other people's peices.
As it turned out, thaqt is pretty much the way it went with three major
exceptions.  First, Carl's "Oxygen Feed" was (at least I was lead to believe
through some means) was relatively extemporaneous performance by Carl, Nick
and Mike embellishing an idea which Carl had worked out previously.  Second,
was Kurt's piece, "Netstrophonie", which was assembled to a great extent from
relatively free form performances inspired by Kurt's backing sequences and
percussion tracks.  If I had to come up with a fun-quotient for that first
session, I would say that doing Netstrophonie would have rated 11 out of
10.  In my opinion, it exemplified the best, and most productive, way to work
a piece among a group of somewhat dissimilar musicians.  Finally, there was
Adam's piece, "Killing Chrome", which was transmuted into some foreign object
(to Adam) after the rest of us worked it over using SMF's (Performer files?)
and an audio cassette go-by.  What made this different from the other pieces
was the fact that Adam never personally made it to the session, and his
personal situation made it impossible for him to get the MIDI files and
the cassertte tape to the rest of us until well into the final three days of
the session (that and the delayed bell intro).  On the whole, I was very
satisfied with the "Bandwidth" product as a whole.  I had a lot of fun
at the sessions, but I still felt somewhat musically unfulfilled.  I was
also a little dissapointed that we didn't spend more time doing interactive
spontaneous music.  However, and this is a real big HOWEVER, we did get
Bandwidth done.  So, at least one very important goal was reached.  Also,
we learned quite a bit about eachother's dispositions and methods of music
creation.  I believe that those lessons will be the crux of an eventual non-
let-down session in the future.

Since I wasn't present at the December-91 session, I really can't comment on
how things went at that time.  I'm sure Mike will probably elaborate (correct?)
most of this message anyway.  

The biggest thing which set the last session (August 1992) apart form the
first one was that we didn't have a specific musical goal.  Being one of the
most forceful proponents of musical anarchy, I thought that working without
all the pre-thought-out ideas would allow more creativity and production
of a better musical product.  Well, as Mike has said previously, it didn't
exactly work out that way.  Unfortunately (for me), I was so obsessed with
the dream-fulfillment idea that I managed to let most of the session bring
me down.  I felt I was there to play and to relive my more youthful zap-jam
days, and what I faced was continual frustration in actually playing
anything.  There were several things which I think I can tell people who
are planning on doing this (or at least elaborate on what Mike and Nick
have previously stated) which will make things go a lot easier and produce
a lot less frustration (I think that I am more sensitive to frustrations than
either Mike or Nick.  Either that or I control it a lot less well.)...

Source of frustration #1.  The complexity of the equipment and interfaces
becomes so complicated it ceases to be useful.  Oh the idea was wonderful on
paper.  In the first session we used one MTP and had a lot more gear, so
it seemed reasonable to assume that two MTPs and less gear would be more
straight forward.  That might have been true had we been working the way
we were in the first session.  It would have been even more true had we not
seccumbed to Powerbook mania and the quest to develop the world's most
complex multi-computer MIDI network from scratch.  Granted, Mike and Nick
found a lot of very intersting thing about Powerbooks, and we all learned
a lot about MIDI networking, in retrospect I can see no real musically
relevant in the context of the group music paradigm.  I really felt that
re-educating Apple was a little beyond the scope of a music making session.
Of course, adding to that frustration was my well known love for the Mac
icon world, and the fact that since Nick was the only person ther who actually
understood how the WHOLE network worked, he was required to be physically
present with hands on the Macs in order to do almost anything.  Because of
this I am inclined to agree with Nick that a way to do this would be to
synch multiple sequencing platforms to a common clock and time code (where
had I heard that idea before :-)).  Again, since this is another good-sounding
untried concept, it has great potential to be another tremendous source of
frustration at the next Team session.... Final word.  Electronically simpler
is better.  The fewer cables and wires you have the better off you are.
There is a corollary here ... You only have two hands and two feet (maybe
a mouth), having more equipment available than you can control with those
is a waste of both space and electricity.

Source of frustration #2.  Spaghetti is good with red sauce, cream sauce,
and seafod white sauces.  Spaghetti is not a good model for running a
couple thousand feet of audio, MIDI and power cables.  To be fair, we actually
tried our best (best?) to avoid the spaghetti syndrome, however we lost many
hours tracking down noise and hum gremlins which turned out to not have
been there in the first place.  The mistake was that we assumed they were 
there because the cable routings did look like spaghetti, even after the
planning and care we took to install the cabling.

Source of frustration #3.  Musicians not understanding their own instruments
to the point of (a) either trying to get them to make sounds or (b) determining
their capabilities on the fly while others are ready to go.  For the most
part, I think that each of us (with the exception of Joe and William) were
a bit guilty of these things.  For example, Nick and I wasted quite a bit
of time which could have been used more productively, writing FUNs for the
K2000 which tested the limits of the ability of the instrument to use MIDI
clock as a reasonable control source.  More flagrant examples include Mike's
continual failure to understand the function of the on/off switch on his
sub-mixer, and my failure to comprehend the significance of the numbers 1
and 2 as they applied to two MIDI merge boxes.  Seriously, a good rule of
thumb is that if you have not done it before, or you are not absolutely sure
how to do it, do not try to attempt it during a time limited session.  We
are all victims of the what-if syndrome, the trick is not to seccumb when
the result is going to get other less interested people frustrated.

Source of frustration #4.  Stupid local ethanol acquisition laws.  This one
is easy. Don't have sessions in states, countries and cities which force you
to acquire the beverage of your choice during prime session hours.  Also,
know your limits.  If the rhumba beat in a $20 yamaha 2-op synthesizer
captivates you for more than a couple of minutes, you have had too much to
drink.  If the same instrument is capable of keeping your undivided attention
for hours you should probably consider an alcohol self-help program.

Source of frustration #5.  Too much heat.  It is easier to become frustrated
in an uncomfortable environment.  Remember, when you are involved with
electronic systems, heat is produced.  Additionally, most people find 98.6
deg F. to be quite uncomfortable.  The more people you put in a confined
space the quicker the rise in the room to 90 deg +, the equipment adds over
and above that.  If you are going to play in a confined space, remember to
provide for adequate ventilation.  Also, for multi-day sessions, do not
continue to wear the same pink shirt for more than a week.

Source of frustration #6.  Nuclear physicists who preseverate in trying to
accomplish th impossible task of teaching an Englishman to sa Yo!  


After all is over, the reminiscences will generally be positive.  As I said
previously, I overreacted a bit to my frustrations at the last session and
I let them mask a lot of opportunities to acquire positive memories of a
good time with a group of friends.  Still, in retrospect, I had great time
at the last session, and would do it again even if it went exactly as it
went 3 weeks ago.  I would like to acknowledge Joe, William, and Dean for
going the extra mile to participate in a jam session with me and John 4
which commenced at about 3 am the Saturday morning before we left. 

As Mike said, you will not regret doing this sort of thing no matter how it
turns out.  There really is nothing worse that continually playing music
in your own studio by yourself (well, at least from a musicl perspective,
anyway).

John
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth