HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bohdan.kiszczuk@rose.com (bohdan kiszczuk)
Subject: INFO on Roland for AT
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Distribution: bit
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:52:58 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 12-30-92 10:42

"S> Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:34:16 CST
"S> Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AUVM.BITNET>
"S> From:         "Chad S. Mawson" <csm2747@NEBRWESLEYAN.EDU>
"S> Subject: Re: INFO on Roland for AT
"S> 
"S> I would agree that DOS Cakewalk would probably be better than Windows(and ANY
"S> software under windows)  I use a 286 for my day to day work, but I need at leas4
"S>  Meg's of RAM.  I can't recall how much memory Cakewalk/for Win. eats, but
"S> Windows will slow WAY down unless you have at least 4 (preferrably 8)
"S> Megs.  Sorry to ramble but it's late, anyway sounds like a decent set up to
"S> me, Good luck!

I would normally agree with you (DOS vs. Windows) but in this case I 
have found that Cakewalk Pro for Windows is actually better than the 
DOS version. 
---
   RoseReader 1.70 R001028: ======== bohdan.kiszczuk@rose.com ===========
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vms-Mail-To: LIME::UUCP%"EMUSIC-L%AMERICAN.EDU@spool.mu.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:44:40 CST
From:         "My opinions are logical,
              but not supported by facts" <ddg@PROSRV.EMS.COM>
Subject:      MPU Commands Needed
Comments: To: EMUSIC-L%AMERICAN.EDU@spool.mu.edu

HELP!

I'm trying to do two things at once - Move, and Complete a
software program. :<  Unfortunately, my MPU tech manual is
stashed in the "unknown box", and is currently unavailable.

I am putting the ribbons on a DPM edlib, and am having a
problem with my MPU routines.  I currently use the MPU in
UART mode, then RESET the MPU after completion.  The has
the effect of resetting the ECHO/THRU and RESOLUTION modes
of the MPU.

... baaaaad ...

I am looking for the (hex) commands that will place the
MPU into "smart" mode, and the commands for forcing ECHO
and THRU modes.  I am not looking for source code on how
to do it, just the actual command to change the MPU
processing.  An example - $FF is the command for MPU
reset, and $3F forces the MPU into UART mode.  If anyone
have info, please forward ASAP.

BTW, I do not have ftp access, so this'll have to be via
mail.  My address is :

          ddg@lime.ems.com

Thanks - ahead of time - for the help.

===================================================================
[ddg]         | "I built a little empire out of some crazy garbage,
Darwin Grosse |  called the blood of the exploited working class.
EMS,Inc       |  Now they've overcome their shyness,
Milwaukee, WI |  And they're calling me 'Your Highness',
414-359-9800  |  Crying 'Kiss Me, Son of God'".
              |        - They Might Be Giants
===================================================================
- Never did claim 'er, dammit.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:17:35 CST
From:         Mark Borcherding <borch@UGLI.TSD.ITG.TI.COM>
Subject:      Re: PHIL COMP
Comments: To: EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU

> What I wanted to say was that I sometimes use paper when I want to plot out
 the
> development of an idea over a longer period than I feel comfortable trying
> to improvise. I'm currently working on a piece that has pattern changes
> on three temporal levels. I don't feel that I can perform and compose
> something of this complexity simultaneously.
>
> Certainly paper is nice. However, it's just as ephemeral as magnetic media
> if it gets wet. (I speak from experience with a box of music that got
> soaked... fortunately it was all on disk already.)
>
>  --- Joe M.
>

I agree as I find myself operating in this mode. I also wonder why everyone is
fighting over what method is best (better, whatever) when diversity enpowers
people in different fashions. All the methods that people have argued for in
this "thread" have been used successfully to create Great Sound Experiences.

Mark.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:53:00 EST
From:         rg8 <Robert_L_GIBSON@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Fish Middleton Jazz Scholarship Announcement
Comments: To: EMUSIC-L@american.edu

Announcement from the Fish Middleton Jazz Scholarship Fund:


"The Fish Middleton Jazz Scholarship Fund, Inc. (FMJS), a 501 (c)(3)
non-profit organization, is now accepting applications for 1993
scholarships.  FMJS's primary focus is to assist emerging jazz artists in
their artistic development by granting scholarships for performance and
educational purposes.  Scholarships are available for recording studio
experience, concert performance, study with a jazz master, music
education programs and career development seminars."

Eligibility

"Emerging jazz artists who have not recorded commercially released
recordings, performed (for pay) on an average of once per month for a
12-month period, and/or signed contracts with booking agents or
managers are eligible to apply.  There is no age limitation."

For information about submission procedures call (301)933-1822,
fax (301) 933-1151, or write to FMJS, P.O. Box 1768, Silver Spring,
MD 20915-1768.

Deadline for submission of materials is 1/15/93.  There is a $25.00
entry fee to cover administrative expenses.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 16:55:38 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell <cassiel@CASSIEL.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: SOUND Blaster Pro ?
Comments: To: Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@american.edu>

>No nothing came back. So I'm submitting my question again and again...

That's a bit stupid.

                      Nick Rothwell  |  cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk
   CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance  |  cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:23:16 CST
From:         Mark Borcherding <borch@UGLI.TSD.ITG.TI.COM>
Subject:      Re: Composing philosophies from a "gearhead"
Comments: To: EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU

Bob,

You as well as all respondee's so far have misinterpreted the following:


>I am convinced these
>people simply cannot understand what motivates hard-core artists like yourself
>me, and others that seek art for something other a ego massage.


I did not mean that artists could not or should not get an ego boost. But,
rather they had alot of motivations besides just receiving an ego boost that
drives them to create sound or whatever.

Mark.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:08:20 PST
From:         metlay <metlay@NETCOM.COM>
Subject:      Re: PHIL COMP
Comments: To: EMUSIC-L@american.edu
              at Dec 21, 92 5:26 pm

>My apologies to Mike Metlay for bruising his extremely delicate sensibilities.
>He may remember that the original posting was soliciting people to describe
>how they compose, which is what I was doing, and I don't think I needed to be
>flamed for my effort.

At this point, I'm getting you confused with Bob Depin. What precisely
was the content of the putative "flame" and the text that inspired it?

As I can recall, my thesis was merely that you prefer arrangement, and
I prefer timbre, and that there's room enough in this universe for
both of us. Where in all of that was a flame directed specifically at
YOU? I'd truly like to know, because the people who run this list
frown upon such behavior, and I need to determine what I said that
offended you so that (a) I can determine if it really was possible to
construe this as a flame, and (b) I can take appropriate action.  By
private email, if you please.

>     You'd darned well better believe I'd be just as happy having live people
>play my music. Unfortunately this doesn't always happen soon or often enough.
>On the other hand, these machines we like to play with can do a lot of things
>that live musicians can never do, and make a lot of sounds that no other instru
>ment can produce. I can't imagine being without them.

I, on the other hand, haven't worked with an acoustic-instrument band in
years, with the exception of an occasional guitarist in my studio. I find
that I don't miss them at all, although I do like having other people play
other synthesizers with me in a live context (another subject entirely).
I wasn't claiming that you don't "deserve" to use synths or any such silly
thing; they're just boxes that make noise, not Gifts From God. I was merely
pointing our that for the work you appear to do with these boxes, their
function FIRST AND FOREMOST was to provide you with traditional sounds
for traditional arrangements, and the timbral flexibility is a second-order
effect. Was I completely off base?


--
mike metlay                | Today's "Context is everything" quote:
atomic city                |
p. o. box 81175            | "I want to be post-literate,
pittsburgh pa 15217-0675   |  but I've got tinnitus."
metlay@netcom.com          |                            (w. scott)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 01:20:09 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell <cassiel@CASSIEL.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Composing philosophies from a "gearhead"
Comments: To: Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@american.edu>

Composition philosophy: I paint moving pictures. The pieces are visual;
each one has a specific set of colours and textures, and a specific depth
and mood to it. I tend to spend a lot of time working on transitions
(rhythmic, tonal, whatever), so that the pictures change; I consider this
at least as important as the pictures themselves. The colours are very
important, since they help a great deal when doing an arrangement; some
colours go together well, some don't. For example, I wouldn't use the
Waldorf at the same time as a vocoder; the Waldorf is often a deep
red/purple, and vocoders are usually muddy brown. Yuck. And the textures
would look messy. My favourite arrangements currently are blue and white.

The other point is that I always compose in bars. (Sometimes both kinds.)
Even if something has no specific tempo or pulse, I still need to attach a
nominal tempo and bar structure to it, otherwise I can't fit any structure
to it. Without structure, a piece is potentially infinite and never gets
written. Bar counts are also useful when splicing ideas together into some
kind of crossover, and in nuts-and-bolts terms you need bar lines for
splicing in order to get the MIDI control to work properly...

Notation: I don't use conventional notation much unless I want to harmonise
something in a classical sense, and even then I can generally do that by
ear. However, I compose visually, and in three dimensions: vertical is
frequency, horizontal is time, and depth is depth (reverb depth, volume
level, EQ rolloff, whatever). The pictures here are related to the pictures
of the pieces themselves, with the same colours and so on, except that the
time sense is different. As it happens, my main compositional tool
(Performer) lets me lay things out graphically in a similar way to how I
visualise things; I suppose this makes it, by definition, a reasonably good
tool.

Creativity: No, one doesn't learn it. One has it at birth. The trick is
discovering a medium in which to exercise it. Some people find such, some
don't. Whether we're all born equally creative is a topic for the
anthropologists.

                      Nick Rothwell  |  cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk
   CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance  |  cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4beta PL13]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1713
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:59:34 -0500
From:         "Joseph D. McMahon" <xrjdm@CALVIN.GSFC.NASA.GOV>
Subject:      Re: PHIL COMP
Comments: To: EMUSIC-L@american.edu
              at Dec 21, 92 11:26:00 am

Robert Depin writes:
>         I'm not completely sold on the current notation system, but it's all
> we've.  It's universal expandable, and consistent.  I personally hate music
> which I can only hear.  It iterates me that alot of these "New Age" artist
> don't notate their music.  Thus, I have to rely on my hear to understand how
> they created the harmonies, counterpoint, etc.
Well, that's what I did when I composed it... :-)

>         The biggest advantage to notation is for performance.  Your system
> guarentees that only you can perform your music properly.  I personally like
> to hear my music performed by other people and see the audience's reactions.
> It allows me to step back and become the listener.  Taped music has very
> little acceptentance as a performance meduim.  This was a problem never
> overcome by music concrete.  Music is both aural and visual when performed
> live.
I respect this point of view, but I don't happen to agree with it. I am not in
a position where I am an "accepted" composer (by which I mean there are people
willing to perform my pieces). I do my work to tape because that is the
easiest way for me to get it from my hands to a lot of people's ears. Were I
able to dump my day job and perform full-time, I probably would schedule
concerts (and hope people showed up).

Could you define "properly" for me? For Metlay, I know, properly means "with
the exact same equipement because that's what can produce the proper timbres".
For me, some of it is dependent on timbres, other stuff isn't.

>
> A musician makes Music, a composer CREATES Music.
>
And an improviser does both. It's my socially-unacceptable upbringing in jazz.
:-) :-) :-)

 --- Joe M.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4beta PL13]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 274
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 09:47:16 -0500
From:         "Joseph D. McMahon" <xrjdm@CALVIN.GSFC.NASA.GOV>
Subject:      Re: SOUND Blaster Pro ?
Comments: To: EMUSIC-L@american.edu
              at Dec 24, 92 04:55:38 pm

> >No nothing came back. So I'm submitting my question again and again...
>
I'd suggest SYNTH-L, but it's not likely that there'll be much anyone will
have to say there either. Have you checked out any of the new SB books I've
been seeing on the shelves here?

 --- Joe M.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 08:46:46 PST
From:         metlay <metlay@NETCOM.COM>
Subject:      Re: PHIL COMP
Comments: To: EMUSIC-L@american.edu
              "WSCOTT@acs.wooster.edu" at Dec 21, 92 11:36 am

>I agree fully. However, many sythesists take a "post-literate" stand concerning
>compositions, and claim that the sound, in incoporating the structure, is a
>more complete composition, and that simple structural notation is not
>comprehensive enough to include the full work of a sound composer. I can
>understand the sensibilities behind this point of veiw but continue to
>feel dismay at its narcissistic implications. When a composer controls
>every element of the composition down to patterns that occur in the
>basilar membrane (and this is what the "sound composer" does), then
>music loses all vestiges of being a communication art and is nothing
>but expression. This forces music to be less than what it can be.
>
>(IMHO)
>Bill Scott

The last time we got off on this subject, Bill, with General MIDI as
an innocent enough launch point, you were fending off barbs for weeks.
This time I think I'll just agree to disagree with you and leave it at
that. I understand your background and opinions as much as I care to,
and respect if not agree with your approach. I trust you feel the same
way about me.


--
mike metlay                | Hey-YEH!
atomic city                | Walkin' in the Valley of Decision--
p. o. box 81175            | Hey-YEH!
pittsburgh pa 15217-0675   | Reap all the Wages of Sin!
metlay@netcom.com          |                           ('vouf, after d.dax)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4beta PL13]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 645
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:55:31 -0500
From:         "Joseph D. McMahon" <xrjdm@CALVIN.GSFC.NASA.GOV>
Subject:      Re: PHIL COMP
Comments: To: EMUSIC-L@american.edu
              McMahon" at Dec 21, 92 10:25:36 am

Joseph D. McMahon writes:
>
> Mark Simon writes:
> > ...

Well, that was a nice try.

What I wanted to say was that I sometimes use paper when I want to plot out the
development of an idea over a longer period than I feel comfortable trying
to improvise. I'm currently working on a piece that has pattern changes
on three temporal levels. I don't feel that I can perform and compose
something of this complexity simultaneously.

Certainly paper is nice. However, it's just as ephemeral as magnetic media
if it gets wet. (I speak from experience with a box of music that got
soaked... fortunately it was all on disk already.)

 --- Joe M.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 06:45:02 CST
From:         Mark Borcherding <borch@UGLI.TSD.ITG.TI.COM>
Subject:      Re: Composing philosophies from a "gearhead"
Comments: To: EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU

Mike,

> This is very much how I work. I love timbre for its own sake, and my
> works are generally very spare in terms of traditional melody and
> harmony and counterpoint, focusing instead on the ability to let a
> listener take in a timbre, savor it, and place it in the larger
> context of a larger sonic environment. Over the years, various people,
> demonstrating the maturity, wisdom and tact so common to traditional
> musicians, have called my preferences lazy, immature, lacking in depth
> and meaning, and simplistic.  They sometimes choose to ignore the fact
> that my music pleases and moves many of those who listen to it, and
> brings me satisfaction as well, and hold up my timbral explorations to
> be ridiculed as "useless noodlings," "bleeps and bloips," and
> "pointless sound effects." After many years of attempting to reason
> with these people and explain my motivations, I eventually decided
> that doing so was a waste of time, and have resorted (rather
> childishly, I am afraid) to answering their criticisms with equally
> subjective and wrong-minded criticisms of their so-called "REAL
> music."  This brings me only a temporary and childish satisfaction and
> accomplishes anothing, so usually I don't bother. I push at the borders
> I choose to stretch, and take my music where I wish to take it. I push
> myself hard and try to accomplish great things. People who choose to
> ignore this aggravate the hell out of me, and trying to teach them
> where I'm coming from is usually a damned waste of effort.
>

I agree with your line of thought and think it is this very type of exploritory
 thought that takes us new places. Are waterfalls, surfs, lightning, or wind
just a "sound effect". I approach music the same way I draw that is to put
something where there was nothing. I feel compelled to do this. I have seen the
results of people with "Professional training" and not much creativity. They
are so busy analyzing their work with a scanning electron microscope, that they
miss if their listeners (customers) appreciate their work. I am convinced these
people simply cannot understand what motivates hard-core artists like yourself
me, and others that seek art for something other a ego massage.

Mark.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 08:39:00 EST
From:         Robert Depin <DEPIN@TARGET.COM>
Subject:      MORE COMP STUFF...
Comments: To: EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU

Make Simon writes:
> I can't imagine being without them. (synthesizers)

        Does this mean you wouldn't compose music if synthesizers weren't
        available ?

Joel Stern writes:

          Will
>         musicologists be  researching how  to  produce  an  accurate  Arp
>         Odyssey or  DX7 tone  in  300 years? Not  if  our tapes are still
>         around  or  if  there  are  some  carefully preserved  pieces  of
>         hardware and s ome sequences lying about.

        Probably not.  But only time will tell if any of the current electronic
        music will stand the teset of time.

>         This  is  because  of   a  deeply  ingrained  crisis
>          mentality that comes from believing that inspiration will dry  up
>          permanently and  I'll  never  have another  idea  again.

        This is the problem which studying other music written or otherwise
        tries to correct.  Composers who make a living writting music must face
        deadlines and demannds just like other professions.  One can not always
        count on inspiration when meeting these demands.  (And I'll agree with
        anyone who argues that this doesn't always produce good music.)

Bob
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4beta PL13]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 296
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:56:56 -0500
From:         "Joseph D. McMahon" <xrjdm@CALVIN.GSFC.NASA.GOV>
Subject:      Re: PHIL COMP
Comments: To: EMUSIC-L@american.edu
              Gnome" at Dec 22, 92 01:13:27 pm

The Radio Gnome writes:
> Were any of the following notated before performance/recording:
>
> Terry Riley - Harp of the New Albion

Some of it; other portions are improvised. I'm not sure what notation was
used for theses sections.

A very good summation, I think. Thanks, Andy.

 --- Joe M.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 10:31:44 PST
From:         metlay <metlay@NETCOM.COM>
Subject:      Re: Composing philosophies from a "gearhead"
Comments: To: EMUSIC-L@american.edu
              Squillace" at Dec 22, 92 11:34 am

>Hi, all:
>
>I can definitely relate to Mike Metlay's frustrations.  I have an experience
>of my undergrad days that speaks to this matter.

[deleted]

Thanks for the story, Mike. It wasn't as bad at the Oberlin Conservatory,
where I went to school, because of the strong and popular presence of the
now-world-famous TIMARA (Technology In Music And Related Arts) program,
but there were still occasional incidents where narrow-minded faculty
members crossed swords with the emusic people. Generally, if a piano major
wanted to take TIMARA classes, the response was, "What? Why would you want
to do THAT? Well, okay, if you're curious, that IS why you're in college.
Just make sure you get in your practicing hours and be ready for your
Juries."

What floored me about your story was:

>One other comment.  I, having been trained in piano for so many years, learned
>toread and write music.  I have lost my vision since my stay at CMU (it's not a
>big deal...I knew it was coming) and have not missed notation at all.  Metlay's
>emphasis on timbre is, to a large extent, inexpressible in written notation as
>are so many other factors and aspects that the e-musician contends with.

I was struck by another memory: being in a music store in NYC in 1982, watching
a salesman gently dragging a blind keyboardist's hand across the front panel
of a Prophet, saying, "And this is the filter section, four knobs in a group.
Okay? This one's cutoff, this one's resonance, this is envelope tracking...."
At the time I merely noted the salesman's conscientiousness, but nowadays I
see keyboards with one slider and an LCD display and I shudder to think at
what a visually impaired musician would have to go through to program them.

--
mike metlay                | Today's "Context is everything" quote:
atomic city                |
p. o. box 81175            | "I want to be post-literate,
pittsburgh pa 15217-0675   |  but I've got tinnitus."
metlay@netcom.com          |                            (w. scott)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU