X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:46:34 EST
From:         Michael A Squillace <squillac@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: No sight in sounds (fwd)
Comments: To: EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU
              93 9:45 am

Ah...good conversation...Gotta love it!

First, how do you folks "lift" passages from previous letters in order to
guide conversation?  Please bare with me in my indirect references to pieces
of previously written stuff..

With rgard to the point about our learning be so visually-oriented... The
problem with suggesting that keyboards may never be programmed in a
nonvisually-oriented fashon is that we are not talking about learning, here,
but creating.  Creation, as we all know, takes all sorts of forms and, I
again urge, that the keyboard, together with its rows of sliders and knobs,
is quite limited in both sound creation and musical productions.  I am not
familiar with virtual reality much, but this seems like a possibility.  I am a
little hesitant about certain methods of control.  For example, one suggestiong
(Brian Adamson) was to employ three-dimensional joysticks.  This seems to only
complicate the problem for the blind person who (at least in my own case) has
enough trouble visualizing 2D graphic representations.

Too many parameters and not enough controls...  This calls for a change in
vocabulary.  Obviously, if we think of sounds as having parameters, then we
immdiately think of a control which corresponds to each parameter (or, perhaps,
a set of parameters).  Let's talk of sound "characteristics" such as warmth,
sharpness, harshness, darkness, depth, fluidity, etc.  Voice activiated
programming together with commands for comparison (e.g. "brighter than patch
nn") might then be used.  I realize this is all quite vague but my main point
is that our vocabulary changes with technology and, given the drastic changes
in technology, we are going to have to literally think differently about sound
creation.  (A point in favor of nonvisually-oriented learning -- much more
depends on the oral than the visual than one might first suspect.)

Question:  Who is Don Buchka and what's a "Braille Thunder?"

      Mike S.
     Squillac@student.msu.edu

P.S>  These messages are output as speech by my Amiga 1000.  The synthesizer is
built into this machine...one real good reason for my buying it.

   .>
> > > >Michael A Squillace (squillac@student.msu.edu) writes: > >Hey, all: > >
> >As a handicapper (the preferred term for we "physically challenged" persons i
n
> >Michigan), one of my first goals is to promote awareness whenever possible.
> >Hence, I cannot esist the chance to comment on what it's like to program
> >today's synths without sight, since this seems to have stirred a few minds ou
t
> >there.
>
> Thanks for an interesting read, Mike. By the way, how do you follow text
> like this letter on your computer? Do you have a speech synthesizer? A Braille

> encoder of some sort?
>
> >.  One of these days,
> >someone will build a synthesizer that includes speech output.  Why we persist

> >in creating sounds based on visions and graphs is beyond me -- no one would
> >think of creating a painting from sounds (or would they).
>
> We are visually oriented creatures as much or more than we are aurally
> oritented. It's how we evolved. We communicate by sound, but we learn
> primarily by watching. Trying to build machines like synths that can be
> used by the blind short-circuits our normal modes of education.
>
> >Actually, I'm not so sure that the problems I encounter with the D50 are all
> >related to my lack of sight.  Be honest, y'all, there's just too many darn
> >parameters!  I counted once, and there's about 340 parameters per sound on
> >that blinkin' keyboard!!  That's alot to program even if you have eyes.  The
> >next stage in technology is going to require not only more control but some
> >other means of control.  Endless rows of knobs, levers, buttons, and
> >joysticks simply won't cut it.  I'm hoping that, upon such a change, the
> >visually-oriented sound creation will suffer a change as well.
>
> This is the sort of statement that crops up here frequently. There are
> too many parameters, and not enough controls. I have yet to see anyone make
> a constructive suggestion on how to solve this dichotomy; the ones who are
> trying for their own solutions are probably hard at work in basements
> somewhere and too busy to argue the point here. |-> I certainly don't
> know of many people who'd willingly oversimplify all their gear to the point
> where it was in 1970.
>
> >Two questions:
> >
> >     1.  Does anyone know of such "other means of control" in the making or i
n
> >the near future?  Are they as visually-oriented as current technology is?
>
> Not offhand. You ought to talk to Don Buchla about a Braille Thunder.
>
> >     2.  More generally, am I the only one that sees the need to change?  Can

> >we continue to program as we do?
>
> I certainly can. I have only a few instruments, and all of them are in my
> rig at least partially because I find them easy to program. Or at least
> tolerable, he amended, thinking of the U-50. |-P
>
> --
> mike metlay                |
> atomic city                |
> p. o. box 81175            | "'Thppht' spelled backwards is 'thppht'."
> pittsburgh pa 15217-0675   |
> metlay@netcom.com          |
>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU