Casio CZ/ VZ/ FZ - Pro Series

i'm considering a new toy, and recently someone suggested that i look into 
a waldorf microwave. i listened to some microwave sounds that were posted 
online, and they all sound like either a casio CZ or a modified (slayer + 
fm) korg poly-800.

can anyone on these lists give me an opinion of the microwave, compared to 
the CZ and/or modified poly-800?

thanks...


-- 
         ...atom

  ________________________
  http://atom.smasher.org/
  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
  -------------------------------------------------

 	"Everyone thinks of changing the world,
 	 but no one thinks of changing himself."
 		-- Tolstoy

I have a Microwave. All synths are different and have their own
character, BUT the Microwave is far superior to a poly-800 and better
than a CZ series for most things.

Ideally, I would have all 3, but if I had to choose, the Microwave is
by far the best of the lot. It's best to think of it as a sort of
updated PPG Wave.

Try asking the Q on a Waldorf mailing list and see what reaction you get.
I'd recommend user-forum@...

On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Atom Smasher <atom@...> wrote:
> i'm considering a new toy, and recently someone suggested that i look into
> a waldorf microwave. i listened to some microwave sounds that were posted
> online, and they all sound like either a casio CZ or a modified (slayer +
> fm) korg poly-800.
>
> can anyone on these lists give me an opinion of the microwave, compared to
> the CZ and/or modified poly-800?
>
> thanks...
>
>
> --
>         ...atom
>
>  ________________________
>  http://atom.smasher.org/
>  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
>  -------------------------------------------------
>
>        "Everyone thinks of changing the world,
>         but no one thinks of changing himself."
>                -- Tolstoy
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

>It's best to think of it as a sort of
> updated PPG Wave.

Well, it IS an updated PPG, but the PPG Wave is far more rare than 
the Microwave, so its not best to think of it as an updated version 
of something most people have never heard if those people actually 
want to get some idea of what it sounds like without hearing one.  

There were several versions of the Microwave, the original was 
12bit.  I've never used one but I'm familiar with its sound signature 
from various CDs I listened to a jillion times in the 1990s back when 
ones music library was limited by ones budget.  I think describing 
its sound as somewhere between the Poly 800 and CZ is pretty 
accurate. I'm sure you've read the technical details, the Microwave 
is a 'real' wavetable synth.  When I think of Microwave I think of a 
digital-sounding analogish sample-hold circuit making bubbly sounds 
sort of like a TB-303, but not really.  It seems to allow for quite a 
bit of real-time variation, for example, if you trigger it on a 4/4 
rhythm you can get it to constantly put out a slightly different hit 
on each beat, by setting it randomize some of its modulation 
parameters (which is what makes it sound like a sample-hold 
circuit).  Intermix's first album is loaded with Microwave without a 
lot of additional effects applied, so it's a good album to listen to 
for hearing the Microwave's potential.  Personally, I don't think 
they're really worth the price they command on the used market.  
Wavetable is the cheapest digital synthesis method to impliment, but 
I guess because Waldorf and PPG were small companies they were not 
able to mass-produce like Casio, Yamaha or Roland, thus their cheaper 
technology ends up costing more.  For $300-500 I'd rather get a K2000 
or even a Yamaha SY77.  Those synths aren't known for a 
particular 'sound' because they can make so many sounds.  A Microwave 
can probably make a lot of different sounds, too, but it seems like 
most people use that bubbly sample-hold sound exclusively, relegating 
it to a one-trick pony.  This leads me to believe that it may be 
difficult to program other sounds, sort of like how you can very 
easily turn the ring mod or noise source on on the CZ with the press 
of a button, but getting anything else requires much deeper 
programming.

    

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, Jez <jezosaurus@...> wrote:
>
> I have a Microwave. All synths are different and have their own
> character, BUT the Microwave is far superior to a poly-800 and 
better
> than a CZ series for most things.
> 
> Ideally, I would have all 3, but if I had to choose, the Microwave 
is
> by far the best of the lot. It's best to think of it as a sort of
> updated PPG Wave.
> 
> Try asking the Q on a Waldorf mailing list and see what reaction 
you get.
> I'd recommend user-forum@...
> 
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Atom Smasher <atom@...> wrote:
> > i'm considering a new toy, and recently someone suggested that i 
look into
> > a waldorf microwave. i listened to some microwave sounds that 
were posted
> > online, and they all sound like either a casio CZ or a modified 
(slayer +
> > fm) korg poly-800.
> >
> > can anyone on these lists give me an opinion of the microwave, 
compared to

> > the CZ and/or modified poly-800?
> >
> > thanks...
> >
> >
> > --
> >         ...atom
> >
> >  ________________________
> >  http://atom.smasher.org/
> >  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
> >  -------------------------------------------------
> >
> >        "Everyone thinks of changing the world,
> >         but no one thinks of changing himself."
> >                -- Tolstoy
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

You say:
"in the 1990s back when ones [sic] music library was limited by ones
[sic] budget." 
My music library is still limited by my budget.  Can you advise?

-synergeezer


--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "zoinky420" <zoinky420@...> wrote:

>
> 
> >It's best to think of it as a sort of
> > updated PPG Wave.
> 
> Well, it IS an updated PPG, but the PPG Wave is far more rare than 
> the Microwave, so its not best to think of it as an updated version 
> of something most people have never heard if those people actually 
> want to get some idea of what it sounds like without hearing one.  
> 
> There were several versions of the Microwave, the original was 
> 12bit.  I've never used one but I'm familiar with its sound signature 
> from various CDs I listened to a jillion times in the 1990s back when 
> ones music library was limited by ones budget.  I think describing 
> its sound as somewhere between the Poly 800 and CZ is pretty 
> accurate. I'm sure you've read the technical details, the Microwave 
> is a 'real' wavetable synth.  When I think of Microwave I think of a 
> digital-sounding analogish sample-hold circuit making bubbly sounds 
> sort of like a TB-303, but not really.  It seems to allow for quite a 
> bit of real-time variation, for example, if you trigger it on a 4/4 
> rhythm you can get it to constantly put out a slightly different hit 
> on each beat, by setting it randomize some of its modulation 
> parameters (which is what makes it sound like a sample-hold 
> circuit).  Intermix's first album is loaded with Microwave without a 
> lot of additional effects applied, so it's a good album to listen to 
> for hearing the Microwave's potential.  Personally, I don't think 
> they're really worth the price they command on the used market.  
> Wavetable is the cheapest digital synthesis method to impliment, but 
> I guess because Waldorf and PPG were small companies they were not 
> able to mass-produce like Casio, Yamaha or Roland, thus their cheaper 
> technology ends up costing more.  For $300-500 I'd rather get a K2000 
> or even a Yamaha SY77.  Those synths aren't known for a 
> particular 'sound' because they can make so many sounds.  A Microwave 
> can probably make a lot of different sounds, too, but it seems like 
> most people use that bubbly sample-hold sound exclusively, relegating 
> it to a one-trick pony.  This leads me to believe that it may be 
> difficult to program other sounds, sort of like how you can very 
> easily turn the ring mod or noise source on on the CZ with the press 
> of a button, but getting anything else requires much deeper 
> programming.
> 
>     
> 
> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, Jez <jezosaurus@> wrote:
> >
> > I have a Microwave. All synths are different and have their own
> > character, BUT the Microwave is far superior to a poly-800 and 
> better
> > than a CZ series for most things.
> > 
> > Ideally, I would have all 3, but if I had to choose, the Microwave 
> is
> > by far the best of the lot. It's best to think of it as a sort of
> > updated PPG Wave.
> > 
> > Try asking the Q on a Waldorf mailing list and see what reaction 
> you get.
> > I'd recommend user-forum@
> > 
> > On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Atom Smasher <atom@> wrote:
> > > i'm considering a new toy, and recently someone suggested that i 
> look into
> > > a waldorf microwave. i listened to some microwave sounds that 
> were posted
> > > online, and they all sound like either a casio CZ or a modified 
> (slayer +
> > > fm) korg poly-800.
> > >
> > > can anyone on these lists give me an opinion of the microwave, 
> compared to
> > > the CZ and/or modified poly-800?
> > >
> > > thanks...
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >         ...atom
> > >
> > >  ________________________
> > >  http://atom.smasher.org/
> > >  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
> > >  -------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >        "Everyone thinks of changing the world,
> > >         but no one thinks of changing himself."
> > >                -- Tolstoy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "synergeezer" <synergeezer@...> wrote:
>
> You say:
> "in the 1990s back when ones [sic] music library was limited by ones
> [sic] budget." 
> My music library is still limited by my budget.  Can you advise?
> 

yeah, there are these things called "mp3 files" and you can download 
them for free from things called "p2p networks" or "bit torrents".  Not 
that I recommend music piracy, but it works for me.  Another side 
effect of the "mp3 revolution" is that CDs have dropped considerably in 
value, so much so that I now only buy them from thrift stores for $2 
each, whereas when I started buying CDs I was paying $20-$30 each.  So 
now with the same amount of money I can buy 10 or 15 times as many.  I 
also started collecting thrift store vinyl about 10 years ago, which 
has given me access to some recordings that are not and will never be 
available on CD (and not likely mp3, either).  Unfortunately a large 
local thrift store chain (Value Village) jacked the price of their 
vinyl up by over 150% a few years ago, and other thrift stores are 
pretty well picked through these days, so you have to go frequently, at 
least once a week, in hopes of coming across a new shipment before 
someone else does.  That might not be feasible for people with regular 
employment, but then if I had regular employment I'd probably buy 
whatever I would want off the internet, including wacky vinyl...

Ain't it great live in a post-ethical society!  I wish I could join
you there.  Where can I go to steal your products?

synergeezer

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "zoinky420" <zoinky420@...> wrote:

>
> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "synergeezer" <synergeezer@> wrote:
> >
> > You say:
> > "in the 1990s back when ones [sic] music library was limited by ones
> > [sic] budget." 
> > My music library is still limited by my budget.  Can you advise?
> > 
> 
> yeah, there are these things called "mp3 files" and you can download 
> them for free from things called "p2p networks" or "bit torrents".  Not 
> that I recommend music piracy, but it works for me.  Another side 
> effect of the "mp3 revolution" is that CDs have dropped considerably in 
> value, so much so that I now only buy them from thrift stores for $2 
> each, whereas when I started buying CDs I was paying $20-$30 each.  So 
> now with the same amount of money I can buy 10 or 15 times as many.  I 
> also started collecting thrift store vinyl about 10 years ago, which 
> has given me access to some recordings that are not and will never be 
> available on CD (and not likely mp3, either).  Unfortunately a large 
> local thrift store chain (Value Village) jacked the price of their 
> vinyl up by over 150% a few years ago, and other thrift stores are 
> pretty well picked through these days, so you have to go frequently, at 
> least once a week, in hopes of coming across a new shipment before 
> someone else does.  That might not be feasible for people with regular 
> employment, but then if I had regular employment I'd probably buy 
> whatever I would want off the internet, including wacky vinyl...
>

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "synergeezer" <synergeezer@...> wrote:
>
> Ain't it great live in a post-ethical society!  I wish I could join
> you there.  Where can I go to steal your products?
> 

Pretty much any of the sites CDbaby allows to exploit my recorded 
output.  It's weird, they encode your CD and send mp3s to dozens of 
different mp3 vendors, some of which turn around and give the mp3s 
away, and some of which sell them for a dollar or so.  For some 
reason, even though they're available for free on some sites, people 
still buy them for a dollar from others.  

Incidentally, I've never had an ethical problem downloading mp3s, and 
I was a very early adopter.  I was a little concerned about the 
artists livelihood at first, but I've been downloading mp3s for over 
10 years now and recording artists seem to be making more money than 
ever, including myself (though a 100% increase in almost nothing 
still isn't much).  Those mp3 sites CDBaby seeds have provided me 
with the bulk of my CDBaby earnings, rather than the CDs that CDBaby 
sells for me.  Although, almost all of that revenue has come from a 
single song I titled 'StunnaShades' because I've been wearing big 
chunky ridiculous sunglasses since long before the Oakland 'hyphy' 
movement popularized them.  Anyway, now I get over 1000% more 
downloads for that song than any other, probably because people are 
expecting a rap song, which they don't get, but by then it's too late!

Anyway, like I said I have no qualms about downloading mp3s, and 
never have.  I think the main reason for that is because any mp3 I 
want will be from some artist who is fairly Big, and is already 
making scads of money as a hot new trend.  Any sad-sack act that 
isn't a hot new trend can't give their mp3s or 'demos' away fast 
enough.  The CD shelves of those thrift stores I mentioned are filled 
with CDs put out by local nobodies that nobody buys, and I suspect 
every thrift store in North America is filled with similar local 
fodder.  Anyone who really 'cares about supporting music' would be 
buying those up, or better yet, buying them before they wind up in 
the thrift store.  But they suck, and that's why nobody cares.

Now, here's a case in point about a band that is currently considered 
hot and trendy:  A few days ago I was watching Tom Green's talk show 
and his musical guest was Leslie and the Lys.  I liked their 
performance so I searched Google for their product.  Turns out they 
had released a few albums through CDBaby.  But the CDBaby pages 
representing those albums only had the mp3s for sale, not the 
original CDs.  You see, the band had become so hot and trendy, the 
early birds got all the worms.  Those CDs are now collectors items, 
and worth a lot more than those people paid for them.  So, you want 
to support music?  Scour CDBaby for new stuff that totally rocks, 
that you're sure will be the next big thing, and buy their CD.  Not 
only will you be injecting cash into the bank accounts of artists who 
not only need it the most, and also deserve it the most, you'll be 
investing in an item that you may be able to resell at a later date 
for several times what you paid for it.  How many people do you think 
actually do that?  Not many, and even fewer who bother maintaining an 
obsolete notion of morality regarding mp3 files.  

I would've bought one of those Leslie and the Lys CDs from CDbaby, 
but I was too late.  And that's not the only out-of-print album from 
CDbaby I've wanted to buy.  I wanted Spookey Rueben's CDbaby albums 
too, but they're all sold out, too.  See the pattern developing 
here?  If you're some cool underground artist people actually like, 
you will have no problem selling your product, and those smart and 
savvy enough to buy it (even if they only plan on flipping it on Ebay 
next year) will have no problem shelling out for it, either.   

Fact is, if my music were good enough, I'd be selling out my CDs on 
CDBaby.  So rather than whine about nobody giving me a 'big break', I 
decided to keep working on making my music better, so that someday it 
will be worth buying.

dunno even how necessary it is to add to such a bloated topic...
particularly on a synth forum... oh well, here's some more thoughts:

i sympathize with yr position and i do agree that the ethics are
pretty grey these days.

but i think you're deploying some highly selective logic.

it's common sense that when buying a cd from a touring band becomes an
act of charity (guilt drives you to "support the musicians"), rather
than an act of self-interest ("i want to listen to this at home"), a
big part of the economic mechanism is broken.

it was scary when i started noticing that our band was selling more
vinyl than cd's on our tours. vinyl is coveted by nerds (i'm a nerd),
and partially for its scarcity, not by people who are casually
attracted to the music but would like to have it in their car. the
profit margin is much lower for vinyl and not every artist can manage
to produce it in the first place.

if you think cdbaby (which has paid out $14million TOTAL to artists
over its ENTIRE existence) is an adequate substitute for being able to
sell enough (audible) merchandise to support a tour, you've never
tried to make a living as an independent musician. this was never an
easy thing to do, and it is now accepted as basically impossible.
everyone is a weekend warrior these days, or at the very least they're
spending more time on their t-shirts and less time on their albums...

of course, nine inch nails can afford to give away their music and
rake in millions from touring. that's nice enough, but these
high-profile "new economic structures" are only possible because the
twentieth century already happened. we are spending our accumulated
cultural capital, and despite the many many flimsy justifications i
hear (like, i'm sorry, yours), the fact is everyone listens to music
all the time now, and few people pay for it.

that's not the worst thing in the world, maybe. art without commercial
interest is certainly liberated in some way.

for example, myspace lets everyone be heard, including a lot of great
werid stuff and a tremendous amount of utterly lame and derivate
stuff, and some stuff that's just weird and bad (eye of the beholder
applies). one could argue that this is a needed injection of democracy
to the system, and non-professional music is cool. i agree, but i hate
spending time on myspace, and i hate the sound of their
mega-compressed flash player, and i miss hearing albums that are
produced with some care and craft because the band had time to
practice and some cash to put into recording sessions, even though
they're making quirky music that's never going to be licensed for car
commericals or clearchannel radio.

and this is because talented underground artists used to be able to
make money touring, without sponsorships or movie tie-ins.

now we have to go to europe where tradition demands we at least will
be well fed and given a place to sleep. usually pays pretty good too,
so you can go home with some money in your pocket despite the fact
that you sold about 35 cd's to 35 enthusiastic crowds over the last
month and a half. america? not even so kind.

besides all that, most mp3's just sound bad... (oops...) i can't
imagine hearing all my music on an iPod, with terrible cheap little
earbuds, in 192kbit mp3's, "sound enhancer" -ed... on a train...
what's the point? and yet this mode of listening appears to be
tremendously popular. gah...

call me a snob but i can't help thinking that these two forms of
devaluation are related, somehow.

maybe ubiquity isn't really the greatest goal for music. maybe you got
more enjoyment from those CD's you paid for in the 90's than from any
track that you'll download and trash after 30 seconds, because you can
and because there's a billion more tracks to try and not enough time
left in all your remaining days to hear them all.

maybe a piece of music that could make the rest of your life more
pleasurable is worth more than 99 cents... or nothing...

sorry, i'm done

/eb

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:29 PM, zoinky420 <zoinky420@...> wrote:
> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "synergeezer" <synergeezer@...> wrote:
>>
>> Ain't it great live in a post-ethical society! I wish I could join
>> you there. Where can I go to steal your products?
>>
>
> Pretty much any of the sites CDbaby allows to exploit my recorded
> output. It's weird, they encode your CD and send mp3s to dozens of
> different mp3 vendors, some of which turn around and give the mp3s
> away, and some of which sell them for a dollar or so. For some
> reason, even though they're available for free on some sites, people
> still buy them for a dollar from others.
>
> Incidentally, I've never had an ethical problem downloading mp3s, and
> I was a very early adopter. I was a little concerned about the
> artists livelihood at first, but I've been downloading mp3s for over
> 10 years now and recording artists seem to be making more money than
> ever, including myself (though a 100% increase in almost nothing
> still isn't much). Those mp3 sites CDBaby seeds have provided me
> with the bulk of my CDBaby earnings, rather than the CDs that CDBaby
> sells for me. Although, almost all of that revenue has come from a
> single song I titled 'StunnaShades' because I've been wearing big
> chunky ridiculous sunglasses since long before the Oakland 'hyphy'
> movement popularized them. Anyway, now I get over 1000% more
> downloads for that song than any other, probably because people are
> expecting a rap song, which they don't get, but by then it's too late!
>
> Anyway, like I said I have no qualms about downloading mp3s, and
> never have. I think the main reason for that is because any mp3 I
> want will be from some artist who is fairly Big, and is already
> making scads of money as a hot new trend. Any sad-sack act that
> isn't a hot new trend can't give their mp3s or 'demos' away fast
> enough. The CD shelves of those thrift stores I mentioned are filled
> with CDs put out by local nobodies that nobody buys, and I suspect
> every thrift store in North America is filled with similar local
> fodder. Anyone who really 'cares about supporting music' would be
> buying those up, or better yet, buying them before they wind up in
> the thrift store. But they suck, and that's why nobody cares.
>
> Now, here's a case in point about a band that is currently considered
> hot and trendy: A few days ago I was watching Tom Green's talk show
> and his musical guest was Leslie and the Lys. I liked their
> performance so I searched Google for their product. Turns out they
> had released a few albums through CDBaby. But the CDBaby pages
> representing those albums only had the mp3s for sale, not the
> original CDs. You see, the band had become so hot and trendy, the
> early birds got all the worms. Those CDs are now collectors items,
> and worth a lot more than those people paid for them. So, you want
> to support music? Scour CDBaby for new stuff that totally rocks,
> that you're sure will be the next big thing, and buy their CD. Not
> only will you be injecting cash into the bank accounts of artists who
> not only need it the most, and also deserve it the most, you'll be
> investing in an item that you may be able to resell at a later date
> for several times what you paid for it. How many people do you think
> actually do that? Not many, and even fewer who bother maintaining an
> obsolete notion of morality regarding mp3 files.
>
> I would've bought one of those Leslie and the Lys CDs from CDbaby,
> but I was too late. And that's not the only out-of-print album from
> CDbaby I've wanted to buy. I wanted Spookey Rueben's CDbaby albums
> too, but they're all sold out, too. See the pattern developing
> here? If you're some cool underground artist people actually like,
> you will have no problem selling your product, and those smart and
> savvy enough to buy it (even if they only plan on flipping it on Ebay
> next year) will have no problem shelling out for it, either.
>
> Fact is, if my music were good enough, I'd be selling out my CDs on
> CDBaby. So rather than whine about nobody giving me a 'big break', I
> decided to keep working on making my music better, so that someday it
> will be worth buying.
>
>

zebra, I like most of what you have said.

I don't agree that the "ethics are pretty grey these days".  I find
that theft of property is pretty easy to identify.  These days, it is
very easy to steal movies, music, and computer software, with almost
no chance of being held accountable.  The issue as I see it is that
ethics is just not a consideration for most of the people in the
U.S.A. (I can't speak for elsewhere.)  "Ethics" has been reduced to
the question of "What can I get away with?"

Also, I think that these discussions are appropriate on every forum!

I think that there are many reasonably good substitutes for the
Microwave and the Poly-80.  I have found no good substitute for a CZ.

-synergeezer


--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, zebra <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:

>
> dunno even how necessary it is to add to such a bloated topic...
> particularly on a synth forum... oh well, here's some more thoughts:
> 
> i sympathize with yr position and i do agree that the ethics are
> pretty grey these days.
> 
> but i think you're deploying some highly selective logic.
> 
> it's common sense that when buying a cd from a touring band becomes an
> act of charity (guilt drives you to "support the musicians"), rather
> than an act of self-interest ("i want to listen to this at home"), a
> big part of the economic mechanism is broken.
> 
> it was scary when i started noticing that our band was selling more
> vinyl than cd's on our tours. vinyl is coveted by nerds (i'm a nerd),
> and partially for its scarcity, not by people who are casually
> attracted to the music but would like to have it in their car. the
> profit margin is much lower for vinyl and not every artist can manage
> to produce it in the first place.
> 
> if you think cdbaby (which has paid out $14million TOTAL to artists
> over its ENTIRE existence) is an adequate substitute for being able to
> sell enough (audible) merchandise to support a tour, you've never
> tried to make a living as an independent musician. this was never an
> easy thing to do, and it is now accepted as basically impossible.
> everyone is a weekend warrior these days, or at the very least they're
> spending more time on their t-shirts and less time on their albums...
> 
> of course, nine inch nails can afford to give away their music and
> rake in millions from touring. that's nice enough, but these
> high-profile "new economic structures" are only possible because the
> twentieth century already happened. we are spending our accumulated
> cultural capital, and despite the many many flimsy justifications i
> hear (like, i'm sorry, yours), the fact is everyone listens to music
> all the time now, and few people pay for it.
> 
> that's not the worst thing in the world, maybe. art without commercial
> interest is certainly liberated in some way.
> 
> for example, myspace lets everyone be heard, including a lot of great
> werid stuff and a tremendous amount of utterly lame and derivate
> stuff, and some stuff that's just weird and bad (eye of the beholder
> applies). one could argue that this is a needed injection of democracy
> to the system, and non-professional music is cool. i agree, but i hate
> spending time on myspace, and i hate the sound of their
> mega-compressed flash player, and i miss hearing albums that are
> produced with some care and craft because the band had time to
> practice and some cash to put into recording sessions, even though
> they're making quirky music that's never going to be licensed for car
> commericals or clearchannel radio.
> 
> and this is because talented underground artists used to be able to
> make money touring, without sponsorships or movie tie-ins.
> 
> now we have to go to europe where tradition demands we at least will
> be well fed and given a place to sleep. usually pays pretty good too,
> so you can go home with some money in your pocket despite the fact
> that you sold about 35 cd's to 35 enthusiastic crowds over the last
> month and a half. america? not even so kind.
> 
> besides all that, most mp3's just sound bad... (oops...) i can't
> imagine hearing all my music on an iPod, with terrible cheap little
> earbuds, in 192kbit mp3's, "sound enhancer" -ed... on a train...
> what's the point? and yet this mode of listening appears to be
> tremendously popular. gah...
> 
> call me a snob but i can't help thinking that these two forms of
> devaluation are related, somehow.
> 
> maybe ubiquity isn't really the greatest goal for music. maybe you got
> more enjoyment from those CD's you paid for in the 90's than from any
> track that you'll download and trash after 30 seconds, because you can
> and because there's a billion more tracks to try and not enough time
> left in all your remaining days to hear them all.
> 
> maybe a piece of music that could make the rest of your life more
> pleasurable is worth more than 99 cents... or nothing...
> 
> sorry, i'm done
> 
> /eb
> 
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:29 PM, zoinky420 <zoinky420@...> wrote:
> > --- In CZsynth@...m, "synergeezer" <synergeezer@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ain't it great live in a post-ethical society! I wish I could join
> >> you there. Where can I go to steal your products?
> >>
> >
> > Pretty much any of the sites CDbaby allows to exploit my recorded
> > output. It's weird, they encode your CD and send mp3s to dozens of
> > different mp3 vendors, some of which turn around and give the mp3s
> > away, and some of which sell them for a dollar or so. For some
> > reason, even though they're available for free on some sites, people
> > still buy them for a dollar from others.
> >
> > Incidentally, I've never had an ethical problem downloading mp3s, and
> > I was a very early adopter. I was a little concerned about the
> > artists livelihood at first, but I've been downloading mp3s for over
> > 10 years now and recording artists seem to be making more money than
> > ever, including myself (though a 100% increase in almost nothing
> > still isn't much). Those mp3 sites CDBaby seeds have provided me
> > with the bulk of my CDBaby earnings, rather than the CDs that CDBaby
> > sells for me. Although, almost all of that revenue has come from a
> > single song I titled 'StunnaShades' because I've been wearing big
> > chunky ridiculous sunglasses since long before the Oakland 'hyphy'
> > movement popularized them. Anyway, now I get over 1000% more
> > downloads for that song than any other, probably because people are
> > expecting a rap song, which they don't get, but by then it's too late!
> >
> > Anyway, like I said I have no qualms about downloading mp3s, and
> > never have. I think the main reason for that is because any mp3 I
> > want will be from some artist who is fairly Big, and is already
> > making scads of money as a hot new trend. Any sad-sack act that
> > isn't a hot new trend can't give their mp3s or 'demos' away fast
> > enough. The CD shelves of those thrift stores I mentioned are filled
> > with CDs put out by local nobodies that nobody buys, and I suspect
> > every thrift store in North America is filled with similar local
> > fodder. Anyone who really 'cares about supporting music' would be
> > buying those up, or better yet, buying them before they wind up in
> > the thrift store. But they suck, and that's why nobody cares.
> >
> > Now, here's a case in point about a band that is currently considered
> > hot and trendy: A few days ago I was watching Tom Green's talk show
> > and his musical guest was Leslie and the Lys. I liked their
> > performance so I searched Google for their product. Turns out they
> > had released a few albums through CDBaby. But the CDBaby pages
> > representing those albums only had the mp3s for sale, not the
> > original CDs. You see, the band had become so hot and trendy, the
> > early birds got all the worms. Those CDs are now collectors items,
> > and worth a lot more than those people paid for them. So, you want
> > to support music? Scour CDBaby for new stuff that totally rocks,
> > that you're sure will be the next big thing, and buy their CD. Not
> > only will you be injecting cash into the bank accounts of artists who
> > not only need it the most, and also deserve it the most, you'll be
> > investing in an item that you may be able to resell at a later date
> > for several times what you paid for it. How many people do you think
> > actually do that? Not many, and even fewer who bother maintaining an
> > obsolete notion of morality regarding mp3 files.
> >
> > I would've bought one of those Leslie and the Lys CDs from CDbaby,
> > but I was too late. And that's not the only out-of-print album from
> > CDbaby I've wanted to buy. I wanted Spookey Rueben's CDbaby albums
> > too, but they're all sold out, too. See the pattern developing
> > here? If you're some cool underground artist people actually like,
> > you will have no problem selling your product, and those smart and
> > savvy enough to buy it (even if they only plan on flipping it on Ebay
> > next year) will have no problem shelling out for it, either.
> >
> > Fact is, if my music were good enough, I'd be selling out my CDs on
> > CDBaby. So rather than whine about nobody giving me a 'big break', I
> > decided to keep working on making my music better, so that someday it
> > will be worth buying.
> >
> >
>

Interesting text!

;)


2008/8/8, zebra <ezra.buchla@...>:
>
>   dunno even how necessary it is to add to such a bloated topic...
> particularly on a synth forum... oh well, here's some more thoughts:
>
> i sympathize with yr position and i do agree that the ethics are
> pretty grey these days.
>
> but i think you're deploying some highly selective logic.
>
> it's common sense that when buying a cd from a touring band becomes an
> act of charity (guilt drives you to "support the musicians"), rather
> than an act of self-interest ("i want to listen to this at home"), a
> big part of the economic mechanism is broken.
>
> it was scary when i started noticing that our band was selling more
> vinyl than cd's on our tours. vinyl is coveted by nerds (i'm a nerd),
> and partially for its scarcity, not by people who are casually
> attracted to the music but would like to have it in their car. the
> profit margin is much lower for vinyl and not every artist can manage
> to produce it in the first place.
>
> if you think cdbaby (which has paid out $14million TOTAL to artists
> over its ENTIRE existence) is an adequate substitute for being able to
> sell enough (audible) merchandise to support a tour, you've never
> tried to make a living as an independent musician. this was never an
> easy thing to do, and it is now accepted as basically impossible.
> everyone is a weekend warrior these days, or at the very least they're
> spending more time on their t-shirts and less time on their albums...
>
> of course, nine inch nails can afford to give away their music and
> rake in millions from touring. that's nice enough, but these
> high-profile "new economic structures" are only possible because the
> twentieth century already happened. we are spending our accumulated
> cultural capital, and despite the many many flimsy justifications i
> hear (like, i'm sorry, yours), the fact is everyone listens to music
> all the time now, and few people pay for it.
>
> that's not the worst thing in the world, maybe. art without commercial
> interest is certainly liberated in some way.
>
> for example, myspace lets everyone be heard, including a lot of great
> werid stuff and a tremendous amount of utterly lame and derivate
> stuff, and some stuff that's just weird and bad (eye of the beholder
> applies). one could argue that this is a needed injection of democracy
> to the system, and non-professional music is cool. i agree, but i hate
> spending time on myspace, and i hate the sound of their
> mega-compressed flash player, and i miss hearing albums that are
> produced with some care and craft because the band had time to
> practice and some cash to put into recording sessions, even though
> they're making quirky music that's never going to be licensed for car
> commericals or clearchannel radio.
>
> and this is because talented underground artists used to be able to
> make money touring, without sponsorships or movie tie-ins.
>
> now we have to go to europe where tradition demands we at least will
> be well fed and given a place to sleep. usually pays pretty good too,
> so you can go home with some money in your pocket despite the fact
> that you sold about 35 cd's to 35 enthusiastic crowds over the last
> month and a half. america? not even so kind.
>
> besides all that, most mp3's just sound bad... (oops...) i can't
> imagine hearing all my music on an iPod, with terrible cheap little
> earbuds, in 192kbit mp3's, "sound enhancer" -ed... on a train...
> what's the point? and yet this mode of listening appears to be
> tremendously popular. gah...
>
> call me a snob but i can't help thinking that these two forms of
> devaluation are related, somehow.
>
> maybe ubiquity isn't really the greatest goal for music. maybe you got
> more enjoyment from those CD's you paid for in the 90's than from any
> track that you'll download and trash after 30 seconds, because you can
> and because there's a billion more tracks to try and not enough time
> left in all your remaining days to hear them all.
>
> maybe a piece of music that could make the rest of your life more
> pleasurable is worth more than 99 cents... or nothing...
>
> sorry, i'm done
>
> /eb
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:29 PM, zoinky420 <zoinky420@...<zoinky420%40yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
> > --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com <CZsynth%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "synergeezer" <synergeezer@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ain't it great live in a post-ethical society! I wish I could join
> >> you there. Where can I go to steal your products?
> >>
> >
> > Pretty much any of the sites CDbaby allows to exploit my recorded
> > output. It's weird, they encode your CD and send mp3s to dozens of
> > different mp3 vendors, some of which turn around and give the mp3s
> > away, and some of which sell them for a dollar or so. For some
> > reason, even though they're available for free on some sites, people
> > still buy them for a dollar from others.
> >
> > Incidentally, I've never had an ethical problem downloading mp3s, and
> > I was a very early adopter. I was a little concerned about the
> > artists livelihood at first, but I've been downloading mp3s for over
> > 10 years now and recording artists seem to be making more money than
> > ever, including myself (though a 100% increase in almost nothing
> > still isn't much). Those mp3 sites CDBaby seeds have provided me
> > with the bulk of my CDBaby earnings, rather than the CDs that CDBaby
> > sells for me. Although, almost all of that revenue has come from a
> > single song I titled 'StunnaShades' because I've been wearing big
> > chunky ridiculous sunglasses since long before the Oakland 'hyphy'
> > movement popularized them. Anyway, now I get over 1000% more
> > downloads for that song than any other, probably because people are
> > expecting a rap song, which they don't get, but by then it's too late!
> >
> > Anyway, like I said I have no qualms about downloading mp3s, and
> > never have. I think the main reason for that is because any mp3 I
> > want will be from some artist who is fairly Big, and is already
> > making scads of money as a hot new trend. Any sad-sack act that
> > isn't a hot new trend can't give their mp3s or 'demos' away fast
> > enough. The CD shelves of those thrift stores I mentioned are filled
> > with CDs put out by local nobodies that nobody buys, and I suspect
> > every thrift store in North America is filled with similar local
> > fodder. Anyone who really 'cares about supporting music' would be
> > buying those up, or better yet, buying them before they wind up in
> > the thrift store. But they suck, and that's why nobody cares.
> >
> > Now, here's a case in point about a band that is currently considered
> > hot and trendy: A few days ago I was watching Tom Green's talk show
> > and his musical guest was Leslie and the Lys. I liked their
> > performance so I searched Google for their product. Turns out they
> > had released a few albums through CDBaby. But the CDBaby pages
> > representing those albums only had the mp3s for sale, not the
> > original CDs. You see, the band had become so hot and trendy, the
> > early birds got all the worms. Those CDs are now collectors items,
> > and worth a lot more than those people paid for them. So, you want
> > to support music? Scour CDBaby for new stuff that totally rocks,
> > that you're sure will be the next big thing, and buy their CD. Not
> > only will you be injecting cash into the bank accounts of artists who
> > not only need it the most, and also deserve it the most, you'll be
> > investing in an item that you may be able to resell at a later date
> > for several times what you paid for it. How many people do you think
> > actually do that? Not many, and even fewer who bother maintaining an
> > obsolete notion of morality regarding mp3 files.
> >
> > I would've bought one of those Leslie and the Lys CDs from CDbaby,
> > but I was too late. And that's not the only out-of-print album from
> > CDbaby I've wanted to buy. I wanted Spookey Rueben's CDbaby albums
> > too, but they're all sold out, too. See the pattern developing
> > here? If you're some cool underground artist people actually like,
> > you will have no problem selling your product, and those smart and
> > savvy enough to buy it (even if they only plan on flipping it on Ebay
> > next year) will have no problem shelling out for it, either.
> >
> > Fact is, if my music were good enough, I'd be selling out my CDs on
> > CDBaby. So rather than whine about nobody giving me a 'big break', I
> > decided to keep working on making my music better, so that someday it
> > will be worth buying.
> >
> >
>
> 
>



-- 
Patrick Wichrowski

tecladista e maluco de plantão
www.myspace.com/patrickwichrowski


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, zebra <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>
> dunno even how necessary it is to add to such a bloated topic...
> particularly on a synth forum... oh well, here's some more thoughts:
> 
> i sympathize with yr position and i do agree that the ethics are
> pretty grey these days.
> 

I'm not looking for any sympathy, I knew Synergeezer was baiting me 
when I chose to respond.  My ethics aren't 'grey', either.  

> but i think you're deploying some highly selective logic.

I read your whole post and didn't see you actually challenging 
anything I said.  And besides, if you use logic to develop ethics, 
you're abusing logic.

> the
> profit margin is much lower for vinyl and not every artist can 
manage
> to produce it in the first place.

Whereas the profit margin for mp3s is high, they're easy to produce, 
and more people want them than want vinyl.  

> 
> if you think cdbaby (which has paid out $14million TOTAL to artists
> over its ENTIRE existence) is an adequate substitute for being able 
to
> sell enough (audible) merchandise to support a tour, you've never
> tried to make a living as an independent musician.

You're putting words in my mouth.  I said that I make more money off 
of CDBaby than I did before CDBaby, but that "next to nothing still 
isn't much".  As for CDBaby having paid out $14million, you're 
wrong.  CDBaby has paid out a total of $80million to date, and pays 
out $2.5million per month.  But those stats are meaningless, because 
the money is divided up unequally.  Even an average would be 
meaningless because the fact is just because you spent $50 to 
register a CD on CDBaby doesn't mean you deserve to make a living off 
of it, or even make your $50 back.  You seem to have missed my point 
entirely.  I pointed out that the really successful artists who had 
been on CDbaby are no longer in print there because they have been 
picked up by labels.  That's what happens to successful bands.  


> this was never an
> easy thing to do, and it is now accepted as basically impossible.
> everyone is a weekend warrior these days, or at the very least 
they're
> spending more time on their t-shirts and less time on their 
albums...
>

There are lots of band signed to independent record labels that go on 
tours and make a living as a band.  I don't know whether there are 
more or less than there were during some fabled halcyon days of the 
past, but I've been at this for 18 years now and I don't remember any 
glory days.  And I think the only thing making it any harder is the 
fact that musicians now compete with a lot more forms of 
entertainment for attention.  Mp3s have only helped musicians, as 
have Ipods.  What has hurt musicians is YouTube, DVDs, Playstation, 
Xbox, Guitar Hero, tons of channels available to tv cable or 
satellite subscribers, karaoke, and a jillion other things that 
people can be doing rather that listening to your album or going to 
your show.
 
> of course, nine inch nails can afford to give away their music and
> rake in millions from touring. that's nice enough,

You know what?  I haven't listened to Nine Inch Nails since their 
first album.  And I was all over their first album for the first two 
years it slow-burned before charting.  After that, I lost interest.  
Nine Inch Nails probably make a thousand times as much money as they 
did when I listened to them, and the same pattern plays out with most 
of the bands I've been into over the years.  The way it works is, I 
find the cutting-edge music, people who know that I am always 
listening to the best music ask me what's good these days, and then 
whatever I say is good gets popular later on.  Not because of me, but 
because of hundreds of other people just like me, finding the good 
stuff and then introducing it to the masses.  And by the time the 
masses are into it, we're onto something else.  And you think we 
should feel guilty for this?  We should be getting PAID for it!

 but these
> high-profile "new economic structures" are only possible because the
> twentieth century already happened. we are spending our accumulated
> cultural capital, and despite the many many flimsy justifications i
> hear (like, i'm sorry, yours), the fact is everyone listens to music
> all the time now, and few people pay for it.
> 

First, I only justify my actions to myself.  Second, as I said I 
think fewer people listen to music than ever before, and we're damn 
lucky mp3s and Ipod's came along or we'd be even more destitute.  
Third, I've seen no compelling evidence that people need to pay for 
music.  I get similar if not more revenues from sites hosting my mp3s 
and paying me with ad revenue as I do from ITunes which pays me for 
mp3s being sold.  

> that's not the worst thing in the world, maybe. art without 
commercial
> interest is certainly liberated in some way.
> 

Only if you think that getting fired 'liberates' one from having to 
collect a paycheck.

> for example, myspace lets everyone be heard, including a lot of 
great
> werid stuff and a tremendous amount of utterly lame and derivate
> stuff, and some stuff that's just weird and bad (eye of the beholder
> applies). one could argue that this is a needed injection of 
democracy
> to the system, and non-professional music is cool. i agree, but i 
hate
> spending time on myspace, and i hate the sound of their
> mega-compressed flash player, and i miss hearing albums that are
> produced with some care and craft because the band had time to
> practice and some cash to put into recording sessions, even though
> they're making quirky music that's never going to be licensed for 
car
> commericals or clearchannel radio.

I have no interest in MySpace and Facebook or similar sites.  I think 
they look terrible, are pointless, and are for kids.  While there are 
plenty of 'celebrities' who have pages at those places, nobody gets 
famous from them unless they've done something that deserves 
worldwide ridicule.  

> 
> and this is because talented underground artists used to be able to
> make money touring, without sponsorships or movie tie-ins.
> 

Did they?  Who paid for those tours?  Why aren't these tours making 
money anymore?  I thought this was about lost revenue from recorded 
product, now you're talking about tours.  The only thing I can think 
of that would make tours less profitable now than before is the price 
of gas.

> now we have to go to europe where tradition demands we at least will
> be well fed and given a place to sleep. usually pays pretty good 
too,
> so you can go home with some money in your pocket despite the fact
> that you sold about 35 cd's to 35 enthusiastic crowds over the last
> month and a half. america? not even so kind.

And this is because they don't listen to mp3s in Europe, and go to 
concerts instead?  I'm not getting your point here... your post is 
all over the place.


> 
> besides all that, most mp3's just sound bad... (oops...) i can't
> imagine hearing all my music on an iPod, with terrible cheap little
> earbuds, in 192kbit mp3's, "sound enhancer" -ed... on a train...
> what's the point? and yet this mode of listening appears to be
> tremendously popular. gah...

So did AM radio, and so did cassettes.  Personally I think, no, I 
KNOW that mp3s at 192kbit sound better than vinyl.  CDs can sound 
better, though, but that depends on how well they were mastered in 
the first place. 

> 
> call me a snob but i can't help thinking that these two forms of
> devaluation are related, somehow.

I don't think muddled thinking is particularly snobish.

> 
> maybe ubiquity isn't really the greatest goal for music. maybe you 
got
> more enjoyment from those CD's you paid for in the 90's than from 
any
> track that you'll download and trash after 30 seconds,

Uh no, if I trash a song after 30 seconds it would be because I don't 
like it, so if I had paid for that same song on CD I'd be much more 
disappointed.  I have a large mp3 collection saved to CDs and DVDs, 
and I wouldn't even want all of those on CD if I could afford it, 
because they'd take up way too much space.

> because you can
> and because there's a billion more tracks to try and not enough time
> left in all your remaining days to hear them all.

I seem to have more of a problem tracking down anything worth 
listening to, than having too much to listen to.  

> 
> maybe a piece of music that could make the rest of your life more
> pleasurable is worth more than 99 cents... or nothing...
> 

The rest of my life?  I can't even listen to most of my favorite CDs 
from the 1990s, because in the 1990s I listened to them so many times 
I no longer find them enjoyable, they sound extremely 'overplayed' to 
me now.  Had I access then to the amount of selection I do now, I 
would likely still find them enjoyable to listen to once in a while.

it's cool dude, i obviously don't expect you to agree wth me on much.
although i think you're probably picking at more points than you need
to; it seems like we both agree that the situation is complicated. i'm
gonna follow the point-by-point format i guess, because you have, but
i think it's kind of unnecessary.

> I read your whole post and didn't see you actually challenging
> anything I said. And besides, if you use logic to develop ethics,
> you're abusing logic.

i don't rely follow that. or maybe i just don't agree.

>> the
>> profit margin is much lower for vinyl and not every artist can
> manage
>> to produce it in the first place.
>
> Whereas the profit margin for mp3s is high, they're easy to produce,
> and more people want them than want vinyl.

but that's my point... those things are true, so why am i making more
money off vinyl in 2008? well, beause people STEAL mp3's, to use a
somewhat hysterical verb. if you relly read all my posts yu'd see that
i don't care that much.

>>
>> if you think cdbaby (which has paid out $14million TOTAL to artists
>> over its ENTIRE existence) is an adequate substitute for being able
> to
>> sell enough (audible) merchandise to support a tour, you've never
>> tried to make a living as an independent musician.
>
> You're putting words in my mouth. I said that I make more money off
> of CDBaby than I did before CDBaby, but that "next to nothing still
> isn't much". As for CDBaby having paid out $14million, you're
> wrong. CDBaby has paid out a total of $80million to date, and pays
> out $2.5million per month. But those stats are meaningless, because
> the money is divided up unequally. Even an average would be
> meaningless because the fact is just because you spent $50 to
> register a CD on CDBaby doesn't mean you deserve to make a living off
> of it, or even make your $50 back. You seem to have missed my point
> entirely. I pointed out that the really successful artists who had
> been on CDbaby are no longer in print there because they have been
> picked up by labels. That's what happens to successful bands.

ok, i apologize (and also if the number was wrong, i pullsed it from
an interview with the CEO tht might be a couple years old now).

my point is that profit-wise, that kind of distribution channel is
pretty marginal compared to what we're losing in the plague of
bankruptcy among crick-and-mortar retailers.

>> this was never an
>> easy thing to do, and it is now accepted as basically impossible.
>> everyone is a weekend warrior these days, or at the very least
> they're
>> spending more time on their t-shirts and less time on their
> albums...
>>
>
> There are lots of band signed to independent record labels that go on
> tours and make a living as a band. I don't know whether there are
> more or less than there were during some fabled halcyon days of the
> past, but I've been at this for 18 years now and I don't remember any
> glory days. And I think the only thing making it any harder is the
> fact that musicians now compete with a lot more forms of
> entertainment for attention. Mp3s have only helped musicians, as
> have Ipods. What has hurt musicians is YouTube, DVDs, Playstation,
> Xbox, Guitar Hero, tons of channels available to tv cable or
> satellite subscribers, karaoke, and a jillion other things that
> people can be doing rather that listening to your album or going to
> your show.

a lot of my favorite independent labels from the 90's are going out of
business or reconfiguring enormously: merging with majors, or
switching to licensing and management: kill rck starts, troubleman,
touch and go... the list goes on and on and on.

the ones that stay in business seem to be pursuing a couple different
strategies: 1) stop signing bans that are interesting and only sign
bands that you think will make money (meaning the probably sound like
something you'v heard before), or 2) sign lots and lots of bands in
the hope that one of them will produce a license-able single, but
don't put very much money into any of them.

maybe this is why you're not hearing as much new music you like? dunno.

> You know what? I haven't listened to Nine Inch Nails since their
> first album. And I was all over their first album for the first two
> years it slow-burned before charting. After that, I lost interest.
> Nine Inch Nails probably make a thousand times as much money as they
> did when I listened to them, and the same pattern plays out with most
> of the bands I've been into over the years. The way it works is, I
> find the cutting-edge music, people who know that I am always
> listening to the best music ask me what's good these days, and then
> whatever I say is good gets popular later on. Not because of me, but
> because of hundreds of other people just like me, finding the good
> stuff and then introducing it to the masses. And by the time the
> masses are into it, we're onto something else. And you think we
> should feel guilty for this? We should be getting PAID for it!

i don't care about nine inch nails. (i also don't really care about
your music tastes, and i'm quite sure you don't care about mine...) i
still think they're n interesting example of a band as a money-making
machine that is really trying to duck and weave with the changing
landscape... they are actually giving away high quality downloads of
the new record with no expectation of any compensation. so naturally
this is a fvorite example if you want to show that people can be
successful pro musicians in a context of total loss of recording
profit. to which my response is usually that they wouln't be able to
do that now if they hadn't sold so many records in 1994.

just an example.

> First, I only justify my actions to myself. Second, as I said I
> think fewer people listen to music than ever before,

really? i take the train to work everyday and probably 3 out of 4
people are plugged into something. it makes me wonder. it can't sound
very good.

 and we're damn
> lucky mp3s and Ipod's came along or we'd be even more destitute.
> Third, I've seen no compelling evidence that people need to pay for
> music. I get similar if not more revenues from sites hosting my mp3s
> and paying me with ad revenue as I do from ITunes which pays me for
> mp3s being sold.

because both of those quantities are pittances?

>> for example, myspace lets everyone be heard, including a lot of
> great
>> werid stuff and a tremendous amount of utterly lame and derivate
>> stuff, and some stuff that's just weird and bad (eye of the beholder
>> applies). one could argue that this is a needed injection of
> democracy
>> to the system, and non-professional music is cool. i agree, but i
> hate
>> spending time on myspace, and i hate the sound of their
>> mega-compressed flash player, and i miss hearing albums that are
>> produced with some care and craft because the band had time to
>> practice and some cash to put into recording sessions, even though
>> they're making quirky music that's never going to be licensed for
> car
>> commericals or clearchannel radio.

> I have no interest in MySpace and Facebook or similar sites. I think
> they look terrible, are pointless, and are for kids. While there are
> plenty of 'celebrities' who have pages at those places, nobody gets
> famous from them unless they've done something that deserves
> worldwide ridicule.

i don't think that's totally true. i agree that the significance of
myspce is overrated (hence me rant about it??) but there are
exceptions. deerhunter comes to mind. no age come to mind.

but the point is that a tremendous amount of (young) people do turn
to myspace to tell them about new music. they really do. i can't
believe it either.

>> and this is because talented underground artists used to be able to
>> make money touring, without sponsorships or movie tie-ins.
>>
>
> Did they? Who paid for those tours? Why aren't these tours making
> money anymore? I thought this was about lost revenue from recorded
> product, now you're talking about tours. The only thing I can think
> of that would make tours less profitable now than before is the price
> of gas.

um... i'm talking about selling cd's on tour. or tapes, or records, whatever

this used to happen. now it doesn't. that's a huge financial loss.

and yeah, gas prices are a big deal. combine these factors and it
means that a lot of bands just won't tour anymore... this is happening
right now.

>> now we have to go to europe where tradition demands we at least will
>> be well fed and given a place to sleep. usually pays pretty good
> too,
>> so you can go home with some money in your pocket despite the fact
>> that you sold about 35 cd's to 35 enthusiastic crowds over the last
>> month and a half. america? not even so kind.
>
> And this is because they don't listen to mp3s in Europe, and go to
> concerts instead? I'm not getting your point here... your post is
> all over the place.

could be. sorry i'm not a better writer. the point is that in europe
you get paid MUCH better for shows, and hospitality is better so you
don't have to spend as much on food and lodging, making tour profits
less depndent on merchandise.

actually i think they steal MORE mp3's over there.

>>
>> besides all that, most mp3's just sound bad... (oops...) i can't
>> imagine hearing all my music on an iPod, with terrible cheap little
>> earbuds, in 192kbit mp3's, "sound enhancer" -ed... on a train...
>> what's the point? and yet this mode of listening appears to be
>> tremendously popular. gah...
>
> So did AM radio, and so did cassettes. Personally I think, no, I
> KNOW that mp3s at 192kbit sound better than vinyl. CDs can sound
> better, though, but that depends on how well they were mastered in
> the first place.

ok, it's not important. every recording medium has its own kind of
distortion. i'm a little sad that mp3 is the new standard and it's
considerably wore than digital music sounded in 1990. the analog
purists are starting to have a point; that kind of sucks because i'v
been defending digital audio for a long time and now i feel sort of
betrayed by it....

but i was actually talking about listening habits, more than actual media.

forget the rest, it was rhetorical in the fist place... though (i
hope) not totally deserving to be trashed.

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, zebra <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>
> it's cool dude, i obviously don't expect you to agree wth me on 
much.
> although i think you're probably picking at more points than you 
need
> to; it seems like we both agree that the situation is complicated. 
i'm
> gonna follow the point-by-point format i guess, because you have, 
but
> i think it's kind of unnecessary.

I think it's far preferable than claiming you're going to refute a 
thesis, then proceeding to refute a strawman rather than the actual 
content of the thesis.

> 
> > I read your whole post and didn't see you actually challenging
> > anything I said. And besides, if you use logic to develop ethics,
> > you're abusing logic.
> 
> i don't rely follow that. or maybe i just don't agree.
> 

Ok, but if you don't agree with that, you're just plain wrong.  A 
leap of faith is required to get from logic to ethics or morality.  
Various thought experiments, like the Prisoner's Dilemma demonstrate 
that taking that leap can be beneficial under certain circumstances, 
and so far that's about the best we can do in order to arrive at 
ethical behavior through reason.  But even in the Prisoner's Dilemma, 
humans have to be logical beings, and they have to be aware of the 
Prisoner's Dilemma, and they have to be aware of their partner-
prisoner's awareness of the Prisoner's Dilemma for ethical behavior 
to be beneficial, and since humans are definitely not well-informed, 
and are definitely not logical beings, it still appears that the best 
strategy for the individual, in the Prisoner's Dilemma, is to act in 
an unethical manner.  Luckily, the Prisoner's Dilemma is not a 
situation that ever arises in most, if anybody's life.  In our 
society, it is in most cases easier to act in an ethical manner, and 
will generate fewer hassles.  But that's only because of our 
extensive punative legal system.  In the case of mp3 downloading, 
unless the long arm of the law can catch and punish a lot of mp3 
downloaders, people will choose to download mp3s.  If the legal 
system cannot stop the widespread illicit downloading of mp3s, then 
an alternative means of doing business must be developed.  A law that 
the majority of the population ignores is not a good law, period.  



> >> the
> >> profit margin is much lower for vinyl and not every artist can
> > manage
> >> to produce it in the first place.
> >
> > Whereas the profit margin for mp3s is high, they're easy to 
produce,
> > and more people want them than want vinyl.
> 
> but that's my point... those things are true, so why am i making 
more
> money off vinyl in 2008?

Because there is a niche market for vinyl, and far fewer choices 
available to those who want it.  I'm in the process of developing a 
quad 8-track.  Yes, there are still people who listen to 8-tracks, 
and quad (four channel) ones are especially coveted.  I happen to 
have a high-end quad recording deck so I think it would be fun to 
record one, and I know that when I post about it's release on the 
various 8-track collecting websites, I'll sell more copies of my quad 
8-track than I've ever sold in any other format.

You are simply shrewdly exploiting an under-exploited market, and a 
market small enough that many big movers & shakers in the industry 
don't want to bother with, so you have a niche where you can thrive 
better than you could in a bigger market with tougher competition.


> well, beause people STEAL mp3's, to use a
> somewhat hysterical verb. if you relly read all my posts yu'd see 
that
> i don't care that much.

What I read from your post is a series of contradictions.  I don't 
get the impression you've made up your mind on any of this.  A strong 
opinion is a consistent one, not one with a lot of emotion behind it 
(thankfully you haven't tried to back yours up with much emotion, 
though).

> 
> a lot of my favorite independent labels from the 90's are going out 
of
> business or reconfiguring enormously: merging with majors, or
> switching to licensing and management: kill rck starts, troubleman,
> touch and go... the list goes on and on and on.
> 

Independent labels go up and down all the time.  How did Rough Trade 
go out of business with New Order and the Smiths?  It was badly 
managed, that's how.  BTW, I had a flame war with the management of 
Kill Rock Stars, and they seemed like a bunch of arrogant twits to 
me. 

> the ones that stay in business seem to be pursuing a couple 
different
> strategies: 1) stop signing bans that are interesting and only sign
> bands that you think will make money (meaning the probably sound 
like
> something you'v heard before), or 2) sign lots and lots of bands in
> the hope that one of them will produce a license-able single, but
> don't put very much money into any of them.
> 

and perhaps the biggest factor: 3) stop putting all the profits into 
management's crack cocaine habits...


> maybe this is why you're not hearing as much new music you like? 
dunno.

I'm not hearing as much new music I like because I'm not interested 
in most of it, not because there is a shortage in new music.  I see 
more bands getting popular in the underground than ever before.  The 
only trend that sickens me is Christian Rock becoming a viable 
commercial force after decades of the ridicule it deserves.

> i don't care about nine inch nails. (i also don't really care about
> your music tastes, and i'm quite sure you don't care about mine...)

I wasn't telling you about my music tastes.  I was reinforcing the 
same simple point I've been making all along here: If you're any 
good, you'll get somewhere, and if you're stupid, you'll blow it 
somehow.  Not exactly a story we can't find zillions of examples of 
in the industry...

 i
> still think they're n interesting example of a band as a money-
making
> machine that is really trying to duck and weave with the changing
> landscape... they are actually giving away high quality downloads of
> the new record with no expectation of any compensation. so naturally
> this is a fvorite example if you want to show that people can be
> successful pro musicians in a context of total loss of recording
> profit. to which my response is usually that they wouln't be able to
> do that now if they hadn't sold so many records in 1994.
> 

Great, now if only you could quit trying to argue both sides by 
pointing out that you said 'this' after your paragraph about 'that' 
was refuted. 

> just an example.
> 
> > First, I only justify my actions to myself. Second, as I said I
> > think fewer people listen to music than ever before,
> 
> really? i take the train to work everyday and probably 3 out of 4
> people are plugged into something. it makes me wonder. it can't 
sound
> very good.

So? You see these people listening to music during their commute, 
which is the only thing they can do during their commute.  They 
listen to it there and then do other things for the rest of the day.  
Just because you see them with Ipods plastered to their ears on the 
train doesn't mean you should assume that when they get off that 
train they spend the rest of the day with Ipods plastered to their 
ears.  Fact is, fewer people (per capita) are listening to music than 
ever, because they have far more entertainment choices than the 
past.  What keeps the industry alive is population growth.

> 
>  and we're damn
> > lucky mp3s and Ipod's came along or we'd be even more destitute.
> > Third, I've seen no compelling evidence that people need to pay 
for
> > music. I get similar if not more revenues from sites hosting my 
mp3s
> > and paying me with ad revenue as I do from ITunes which pays me 
for
> > mp3s being sold.
> 
> because both of those quantities are pittances?

And why do you assume I deserve more?  You know nothing about my 
music.  Perhaps it is only worth a pittance...

> but there are
> exceptions. deerhunter comes to mind. no age come to mind.
> 

Never heard of them.  Maybe because I don't do MySpace.  Dane Cook 
apparently made some MySpace splash by signing up more friends than 
anyone else.  But Dane Cook steals other comedians jokes, then passes 
them off as his own.  Get back to me when someone is doing that to 
your music, then you'll actually have a valid complaint.


> but the point is that a tremendous amount of (young) people do turn
> to myspace to tell them about new music. they really do. i can't
> believe it either.

I know they do, but I don't care. And I'm also not complaining about 
them not buying my music.  You said you get a thrill out of some punk 
listening to your tunes off MySpace.  I used to be on mp3.com and 
before that I hosted my own mp3 files (in fact, I hosted them before 
Winamp even existed), and I got over the thrill of seeing my download 
numbers pretty quick.  MySpace has no means of directing a revenue 
stream back to me, so it does me no good to be hosted there.  You 
know, if you actually thought about all this with perhaps a little 
more effort, perhaps you, too, could develop a consistent viewpoint 
and strategy which won't have you finding yourself simultaneously 
defending and complaining about free downloads.

> um... i'm talking about selling cd's on tour. or tapes, or records, 
whatever
> 
> this used to happen. now it doesn't. that's a huge financial loss.
> 
> and yeah, gas prices are a big deal. combine these factors and it
> means that a lot of bands just won't tour anymore... this is 
happening
> right now.

Well I can't comment on experience, but I'm reluctant to take your 
experience at face value simply because you've been wrong about so 
many other aspects of this conversation.  It seems to me that if fans 
don't have to pay for the music, that's money they can use to buy 
stickers, or t-shirts, or other 'merch', including tickets to the 
show itself...



> could be. sorry i'm not a better writer. the point is that in europe
> you get paid MUCH better for shows, and hospitality is better so you
> don't have to spend as much on food and lodging, making tour profits
> less depndent on merchandise.

I think this has more to do with the type of music you're making.  If 
you're here in a synth yahoogroup, you probably make electronic-type 
music which is far more popular in Europe than North America.  You 
probably get treated there the same way people trying to copy 
Nickelback or Blackeyed Peas get treated here.  

> 
> actually i think they steal MORE mp3's over there.
> 

Probably.  They were, afterall, impoverished by World War II and the 
Cold War.  Until recently, even Ireland's infrastructure resembled 
the Eastern Bloc.

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "zoinky420" <zoinky420@...> wrote:
>>  i
> > still think they're n interesting example of a band as a money-
> making
> > machine that is really trying to duck and weave with the changing
> > landscape... they are actually giving away high quality downloads of
> > the new record with no expectation of any compensation. so naturally
> > this is a fvorite example if you want to show that people can be
> > successful pro musicians in a context of total loss of recording
> > profit. to which my response is usually that they wouln't be able to
> > do that now if they hadn't sold so many records in 1994.
> > 
> 
> Great, now if only you could quit trying to argue both sides by 
> pointing out that you said 'this' after your paragraph about 'that' 
> was refuted. 
> 

Sorry, although my statement still stands, in this particular case I 
did not read the last sentence of your paragraph, and os I did not 
respond to this particular paragraph very well, which I will now 
attempt to remedy.

>to which my response is usually that they wouln't be able to
>do that now if they hadn't sold so many records in 1994.

To which my response is that they would not have sold so many records 
in 1994 if people like me, college radio DJs, and nightclub DJs, had 
not been hyping and spinning their record in 1990.  Unfortunately, 
relying on your understanding of your own motivations most likely, you 
thought I was trying to brag about having been into Nine Inch Nails 18 
years ago.  When in fact, what I have been trying to convey is that in 
my opinion the same machinations that made NIN popular enough in 1990 
to be able to become a massive commercial success in 1994, are still 
available to any other artist capable of recording an album as 
prescient and groundbreaking as NIN's first album.

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "zoinky420" <zoinky420@...> wrote:
> To which my response is that they would not have sold so many records 
> in 1994 if people like me, college radio DJs, and nightclub DJs, had 
> not been hyping and spinning their record in 1990.  Unfortunately, 
> relying on your understanding of your own motivations most likely, 
you 
> thought I was trying to brag about having been into Nine Inch Nails 
18 
> years ago.  When in fact, what I have been trying to convey is that 
in 
> my opinion the same machinations that made NIN popular enough in 1990 
> to be able to become a massive commercial success in 1994, are still 
> available to any other artist capable of recording an album as 
> prescient and groundbreaking as NIN's first album.
>

And by the way, as I mentioned earlier, NIN's first album was a sleeper 
that was only enjoying success in nightclubs for two years before it 
finally charted.  For those of us who knew about it before it charted, 
it was a somewhat special record.  It sounded like nothing else out 
there, and clearly had more of a chance to make a dent in the 
mainstream than Ministry did.  So we hyped it, we wanted the rest of 
the world to know about NIN.  And like I said, most of us were on to 
other things by 1994, and more than a few of us, including myself, made 
fun of NIN and the posers who liked them.  So if you don't understand 
what I'm trying to say about the way good bands become a success, 
you've missed the boat entirely on any understanding of the structure 
of pop culture.  In those days, people didn't walk into record stores 
to buy product from acts they'd never heard of.  People walked into 
record stores and bought product from acts they'd heard on the radio, 
or spun at nightclubs.  Now they buy product from acts they've heard 
mp3s of and they don't need to trek to the record store to do so.  
There may be a slight shift in the make-up of the winners and losers, 
but no more so than in any other minor infrastructure shift in the 
industry (for example, when CDs were first marketed, classical and jazz 
recordings got a big boost in sales because most people buying CDs were 
trying to buy 'quality' sound.  Rock & Roll and pop music was not seen 
as the market for CDs at that time, so CDs of those genres were not 
marketed at all.  Obviously their sales suffered)

Can't we all just play our casios?

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: zoinky420 
  To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 5:44 AM
  Subject: [CZsynth] Re: waldorf microwave vs CZ & poly-8


  --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, zebra <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
  >
  > it's cool dude, i obviously don't expect you to agree wth me on 
  much.
  > although i think you're probably picking at more points than you 
  need
  > to; it seems like we both agree that the situation is complicated. 
  i'm
  > gonna follow the point-by-point format i guess, because you have, 
  but
  > i think it's kind of unnecessary.

  I think it's far preferable than claiming you're going to refute a 
  thesis, then proceeding to refute a strawman rather than the actual 
  content of the thesis.

  > 
  > > I read your whole post and didn't see you actually challenging
  > > anything I said. And besides, if you use logic to develop ethics,
  > > you're abusing logic.
  > 
  > i don't rely follow that. or maybe i just don't agree.
  > 

  Ok, but if you don't agree with that, you're just plain wrong. A 
  leap of faith is required to get from logic to ethics or morality. 
  Various thought experiments, like the Prisoner's Dilemma demonstrate 
  that taking that leap can be beneficial under certain circumstances, 
  and so far that's about the best we can do in order to arrive at 
  ethical behavior through reason. But even in the Prisoner's Dilemma, 
  humans have to be logical beings, and they have to be aware of the 
  Prisoner's Dilemma, and they have to be aware of their partner-
  prisoner's awareness of the Prisoner's Dilemma for ethical behavior 
  to be beneficial, and since humans are definitely not well-informed, 
  and are definitely not logical beings, it still appears that the best 
  strategy for the individual, in the Prisoner's Dilemma, is to act in 
  an unethical manner. Luckily, the Prisoner's Dilemma is not a 
  situation that ever arises in most, if anybody's life. In our 
  society, it is in most cases easier to act in an ethical manner, and 
  will generate fewer hassles. But that's only because of our 
  extensive punative legal system. In the case of mp3 downloading, 
  unless the long arm of the law can catch and punish a lot of mp3 
  downloaders, people will choose to download mp3s. If the legal 
  system cannot stop the widespread illicit downloading of mp3s, then 
  an alternative means of doing business must be developed. A law that 
  the majority of the population ignores is not a good law, period. 

  > >> the
  > >> profit margin is much lower for vinyl and not every artist can
  > > manage
  > >> to produce it in the first place.
  > >
  > > Whereas the profit margin for mp3s is high, they're easy to 
  produce,
  > > and more people want them than want vinyl.
  > 
  > but that's my point... those things are true, so why am i making 
  more
  > money off vinyl in 2008?

  Because there is a niche market for vinyl, and far fewer choices 
  available to those who want it. I'm in the process of developing a 
  quad 8-track. Yes, there are still people who listen to 8-tracks, 
  and quad (four channel) ones are especially coveted. I happen to 
  have a high-end quad recording deck so I think it would be fun to 
  record one, and I know that when I post about it's release on the 
  various 8-track collecting websites, I'll sell more copies of my quad 
  8-track than I've ever sold in any other format.

  You are simply shrewdly exploiting an under-exploited market, and a 
  market small enough that many big movers & shakers in the industry 
  don't want to bother with, so you have a niche where you can thrive 
  better than you could in a bigger market with tougher competition.

  > well, beause people STEAL mp3's, to use a
  > somewhat hysterical verb. if you relly read all my posts yu'd see 
  that
  > i don't care that much.

  What I read from your post is a series of contradictions. I don't 
  get the impression you've made up your mind on any of this. A strong 
  opinion is a consistent one, not one with a lot of emotion behind it 
  (thankfully you haven't tried to back yours up with much emotion, 
  though).

  > 
  > a lot of my favorite independent labels from the 90's are going out 
  of
  > business or reconfiguring enormously: merging with majors, or
  > switching to licensing and management: kill rck starts, troubleman,
  > touch and go... the list goes on and on and on.
  > 

  Independent labels go up and down all the time. How did Rough Trade 
  go out of business with New Order and the Smiths? It was badly 
  managed, that's how. BTW, I had a flame war with the management of 
  Kill Rock Stars, and they seemed like a bunch of arrogant twits to 
  me. 

  > the ones that stay in business seem to be pursuing a couple 
  different
  > strategies: 1) stop signing bans that are interesting and only sign
  > bands that you think will make money (meaning the probably sound 
  like
  > something you'v heard before), or 2) sign lots and lots of bands in
  > the hope that one of them will produce a license-able single, but
  > don't put very much money into any of them.
  > 

  and perhaps the biggest factor: 3) stop putting all the profits into 
  management's crack cocaine habits...

  > maybe this is why you're not hearing as much new music you like? 
  dunno.

  I'm not hearing as much new music I like because I'm not interested 
  in most of it, not because there is a shortage in new music. I see 
  more bands getting popular in the underground than ever before. The 
  only trend that sickens me is Christian Rock becoming a viable 
  commercial force after decades of the ridicule it deserves.

  > i don't care about nine inch nails. (i also don't really care about
  > your music tastes, and i'm quite sure you don't care about mine...)

  I wasn't telling you about my music tastes. I was reinforcing the 
  same simple point I've been making all along here: If you're any 
  good, you'll get somewhere, and if you're stupid, you'll blow it 
  somehow. Not exactly a story we can't find zillions of examples of 
  in the industry...

  i
  > still think they're n interesting example of a band as a money-
  making
  > machine that is really trying to duck and weave with the changing
  > landscape... they are actually giving away high quality downloads of
  > the new record with no expectation of any compensation. so naturally
  > this is a fvorite example if you want to show that people can be
  > successful pro musicians in a context of total loss of recording
  > profit. to which my response is usually that they wouln't be able to
  > do that now if they hadn't sold so many records in 1994.
  > 

  Great, now if only you could quit trying to argue both sides by 
  pointing out that you said 'this' after your paragraph about 'that' 
  was refuted. 

  > just an example.
  > 
  > > First, I only justify my actions to myself. Second, as I said I
  > > think fewer people listen to music than ever before,
  > 
  > really? i take the train to work everyday and probably 3 out of 4
  > people are plugged into something. it makes me wonder. it can't 
  sound
  > very good.

  So? You see these people listening to music during their commute, 
  which is the only thing they can do during their commute. They 
  listen to it there and then do other things for the rest of the day. 
  Just because you see them with Ipods plastered to their ears on the 
  train doesn't mean you should assume that when they get off that 
  train they spend the rest of the day with Ipods plastered to their 
  ears. Fact is, fewer people (per capita) are listening to music than 
  ever, because they have far more entertainment choices than the 
  past. What keeps the industry alive is population growth.

  > 
  > and we're damn
  > > lucky mp3s and Ipod's came along or we'd be even more destitute.
  > > Third, I've seen no compelling evidence that people need to pay 
  for
  > > music. I get similar if not more revenues from sites hosting my 
  mp3s
  > > and paying me with ad revenue as I do from ITunes which pays me 
  for
  > > mp3s being sold.
  > 
  > because both of those quantities are pittances?

  And why do you assume I deserve more? You know nothing about my 
  music. Perhaps it is only worth a pittance...

  > but there are
  > exceptions. deerhunter comes to mind. no age come to mind.
  > 

  Never heard of them. Maybe because I don't do MySpace. Dane Cook 
  apparently made some MySpace splash by signing up more friends than 
  anyone else. But Dane Cook steals other comedians jokes, then passes 
  them off as his own. Get back to me when someone is doing that to 
  your music, then you'll actually have a valid complaint.

  > but the point is that a tremendous amount of (young) people do turn
  > to myspace to tell them about new music. they really do. i can't
  > believe it either.

  I know they do, but I don't care. And I'm also not complaining about 
  them not buying my music. You said you get a thrill out of some punk 
  listening to your tunes off MySpace. I used to be on mp3.com and 
  before that I hosted my own mp3 files (in fact, I hosted them before 
  Winamp even existed), and I got over the thrill of seeing my download 
  numbers pretty quick. MySpace has no means of directing a revenue 
  stream back to me, so it does me no good to be hosted there. You 
  know, if you actually thought about all this with perhaps a little 
  more effort, perhaps you, too, could develop a consistent viewpoint 
  and strategy which won't have you finding yourself simultaneously 
  defending and complaining about free downloads.

  > um... i'm talking about selling cd's on tour. or tapes, or records, 
  whatever
  > 
  > this used to happen. now it doesn't. that's a huge financial loss.
  > 
  > and yeah, gas prices are a big deal. combine these factors and it
  > means that a lot of bands just won't tour anymore... this is 
  happening
  > right now.

  Well I can't comment on experience, but I'm reluctant to take your 
  experience at face value simply because you've been wrong about so 
  many other aspects of this conversation. It seems to me that if fans 
  don't have to pay for the music, that's money they can use to buy 
  stickers, or t-shirts, or other 'merch', including tickets to the 
  show itself...

  > could be. sorry i'm not a better writer. the point is that in europe
  > you get paid MUCH better for shows, and hospitality is better so you
  > don't have to spend as much on food and lodging, making tour profits
  > less depndent on merchandise.

  I think this has more to do with the type of music you're making. If 
  you're here in a synth yahoogroup, you probably make electronic-type 
  music which is far more popular in Europe than North America. You 
  probably get treated there the same way people trying to copy 
  Nickelback or Blackeyed Peas get treated here. 

  > 
  > actually i think they steal MORE mp3's over there.
  > 

  Probably. They were, afterall, impoverished by World War II and the 
  Cold War. Until recently, even Ireland's infrastructure resembled 
  the Eastern Bloc. 



   


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Ok, but if you don't agree with that, you're just plain wrong. A
> leap of faith is required to get from logic to ethics or morality.
> Various thought experiments, like the Prisoner's Dilemma demonstrate
> that taking that leap can be beneficial under certain circumstances,
> and so far that's about the best we can do in order to arrive at
> ethical behavior through reason. But even in the Prisoner's Dilemma,
> humans have to be logical beings, and they have to be aware of the
> Prisoner's Dilemma, and they have to be aware of their partner-
> prisoner's awareness of the Prisoner's Dilemma for ethical behavior
> to be beneficial, and since humans are definitely not well-informed,
> and are definitely not logical beings, it still appears that the best
> strategy for the individual, in the Prisoner's Dilemma, is to act in
> an unethical manner. Luckily, the Prisoner's Dilemma is not a
> situation that ever arises in most, if anybody's life. In our
> society, it is in most cases easier to act in an ethical manner, and
> will generate fewer hassles. But that's only because of our
> extensive punative legal system. In the case of mp3 downloading,
> unless the long arm of the law can catch and punish a lot of mp3
> downloaders, people will choose to download mp3s. If the legal
> system cannot stop the widespread illicit downloading of mp3s, then
> an alternative means of doing business must be developed. A law that
> the majority of the population ignores is not a good law, period.

 the problem is that the underlying technology has a built-in bias
towards letting music be copied. i agree that legalities are pretty
worthless in this situation.

ethics as self-interest seems to work, and you seem to be in favor of
that idea. certainly it's the basis of capitalism. right now,
self-interest among consumers will dictate that more of them take the
free music than the paid-for music. that is broken, on whatever level
you choose to analyze it (laws, technologies, morals...)

ethics and economics seem pretty intimately related, to me... but i
studied math and music in college, not philosophy or whatever that is
up there.

> Independent labels go up and down all the time. How did Rough Trade
> go out of business with New Order and the Smiths? It was badly
> managed, that's how. BTW, I had a flame war with the management of
> Kill Rock Stars, and they seemed like a bunch of arrogant twits to
> me.

ok. those people are my friends, sometimes. i argue with them too, and
arrogance is part of the package, but i don't think they're twits.

thing is, EVERY label is making less money than they used to. the ones
who make the least will fold. i think "least" might actually represent
a bigger chunk than i want to accept. maybe the answer is that no-one
needs labels, including musicians. but i suspect it will be harder to
coalesce people around a style, hard to keep the the stylistic
momentum that drives innovation and creates new imitation-worthy
stuff, when every artist is struggling tooth-and-nail against each
other for the attention of a few marketing behemoths, without the
small-group support network that "the label" used to provide.

the labels that are hurting most are the ones that offer the biggest
cuts to artists. screwed up.

anyway, the bands' bottom line is also suffering.

> So? You see these people listening to music during their commute,
> which is the only thing they can do during their commute. They
> listen to it there and then do other things for the rest of the day.
> Just because you see them with Ipods plastered to their ears on the
> train doesn't mean you should assume that when they get off that
> train they spend the rest of the day with Ipods plastered to their
> ears. Fact is, fewer people (per capita) are listening to music than
> ever, because they have far more entertainment choices than the
> past. What keeps the industry alive is population growth.

really? yuck. i kind of do think that that time on the train might be
worth something, though.

and i suspect that some people use itunes and winamp, from time to
time... even while playing videogames!

>> and we're damn
>> > lucky mp3s and Ipod's came along or we'd be even more destitute.
>> > Third, I've seen no compelling evidence that people need to pay
> for
>> > music. I get similar if not more revenues from sites hosting my
> mp3s
>> > and paying me with ad revenue as I do from ITunes which pays me
> for
>> > mp3s being sold.

>> because both of those quantities are pittances?
>
> And why do you assume I deserve more? You know nothing about my
> music. Perhaps it is only worth a pittance...

ok, but let's assume that at least some music is worth something
significant. or maybe we can't agree on that, in which case i give up.

i wish small bands (the kind that play instruments in groups) weren't
having such a hard time surviving, no matter how critically acclaimed
they get. no one can stand to do it for more than a couple years any
more. there's no chance to grow and become something worth imitating
in future generations (going back to the sonic youth example).

it's a very different prospect to render out some techno and get a few
dollars a month from ads.

>> but there are
>> exceptions. deerhunter comes to mind. no age come to mind.
>>
>
> Never heard of them. Maybe because I don't do MySpace.

oh well. these are people who started self-releasing and on myspace,
and are now on kranky and sub pop. deerhunter might be best known as
the current NIN opener slot, succeeding peaches and bauhaus.

>
> I know they do, but I don't care. And I'm also not complaining about
> them not buying my music. You said you get a thrill out of some punk
> listening to your tunes off MySpace.

no, i could give half a crap about myspace. what i appreciate is being
able to go to portugal and play to a large sold-out crowd of stoked
kids; i suspect that "the internet" has something to do with this.
this is the most awesome aspect of digitally distributed music, to me:
reaching a lot more people in different places than you could with
mail-order catalogues. the less awesome aspect is not being able to do
it full-time because there's no money in it. i can survive on tour but
i don't want to have to tour 10 months a year, like the kids in my
band's "touring lineup" do...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-gmh6ShJD4 in case you're actually
interested (the video sucks, the mix sucks, you hate the songs...
whatever)

> Well I can't comment on experience, but I'm reluctant to take your
> experience at face value simply because you've been wrong about so
> many other aspects of this conversation.

oh, sure... so WRONG...

It seems to me that if fans
> don't have to pay for the music, that's money they can use to buy
> stickers, or t-shirts, or other 'merch', including tickets to the
> show itself...

i addressed this somewhere else. the show used to function as a portal
to get people to buy recordings. now it doesn't. i think it's retarded
to have to be a popular clothing designer as well as a popular
musician in order to make money off your music. it also sucks to have
to charge $10 or $15 a head to get into a punk rock show; really
limits the audience. if you could expect 30% of those people to buy a
record, you could charge less or even make the shows free (because so
many more potential record customers would show up).

plus the profit margin for records sold at shows is WAAAY higher than
through any distributor, digital or otherwise.

> I think this has more to do with the type of music you're making. If
> you're here in a synth yahoogroup, you probably make electronic-type
> music which is far more popular in Europe than North America. You
> probably get treated there the same way people trying to copy
> Nickelback or Blackeyed Peas get treated here.

hm, maybe. but i kind of doubt it. i've been in rock bands. i think
music styles are more geographically distributed than they used to be,
for obvious reasons. the difference in the economic value attached to
culture in europe vs. america is vast and reaches across styles and
art forms. it's really astounding to experience.

my point there was that even though people have less disposable income
in, say, spain or slovenia, even though they are way more cost-minded
with their technology (which means linux and filesharing are huge), i
STILL get paid more as a musician in slovenia than i do in america.
it's not because the style of music i play is somehow more respected
there than it is in my hometown of los angeles. these kids already
have the mp3's but they still buy records! it's amazing!!!

maybe bands that know how to play live music will just disappear from
america. i don't really think that's cool, but whatever...

are anyone excerpt mr zoinky boinky and mr mado ezrado interested ? please lift this discussion somewhere else mates.

--- Den mån 2008-08-11 skrev ezra buchla <ezra.buchla@...>:

Från: ezra buchla <ezra.buchla@...>
Ämne: Re: [CZsynth] Re: waldorf microwave vs CZ & poly-8
Till: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
Datum: måndag 11 augusti 2008 23.43






> Ok, but if you don't agree with that, you're just plain wrong. A
> leap of faith is required to get from logic to ethics or morality.
> Various thought experiments, like the Prisoner's Dilemma demonstrate
> that taking that leap can be beneficial under certain circumstances,
> and so far that's about the best we can do in order to arrive at
> ethical behavior through reason. But even in the Prisoner's Dilemma,
> humans have to be logical beings, and they have to be aware of the
> Prisoner's Dilemma, and they have to be aware of their partner-
> prisoner's awareness of the Prisoner's Dilemma for ethical behavior
> to be beneficial, and since humans are definitely not well-informed,
> and are definitely not logical beings, it still appears that the best
> strategy for the individual, in the Prisoner's Dilemma, is to act in
> an unethical manner. Luckily, the Prisoner's Dilemma is not a
> situation that ever arises in most, if anybody's life. In our
> society, it is in most cases easier to act in an ethical manner, and
> will generate fewer hassles. But that's only because of our
> extensive punative legal system. In the case of mp3 downloading,
> unless the long arm of the law can catch and punish a lot of mp3
> downloaders, people will choose to download mp3s. If the legal
> system cannot stop the widespread illicit downloading of mp3s, then
> an alternative means of doing business must be developed. A law that
> the majority of the population ignores is not a good law, period.

the problem is that the underlying technology has a built-in bias
towards letting music be copied. i agree that legalities are pretty
worthless in this situation.

ethics as self-interest seems to work, and you seem to be in favor of
that idea. certainly it's the basis of capitalism. right now,
self-interest among consumers will dictate that more of them take the
free music than the paid-for music. that is broken, on whatever level
you choose to analyze it (laws, technologies, morals...)

ethics and economics seem pretty intimately related, to me... but i
studied math and music in college, not philosophy or whatever that is
up there.

> Independent labels go up and down all the time. How did Rough Trade
> go out of business with New Order and the Smiths? It was badly
> managed, that's how. BTW, I had a flame war with the management of
> Kill Rock Stars, and they seemed like a bunch of arrogant twits to
> me.

ok. those people are my friends, sometimes. i argue with them too, and
arrogance is part of the package, but i don't think they're twits.

thing is, EVERY label is making less money than they used to. the ones
who make the least will fold. i think "least" might actually represent
a bigger chunk than i want to accept. maybe the answer is that no-one
needs labels, including musicians. but i suspect it will be harder to
coalesce people around a style, hard to keep the the stylistic
momentum that drives innovation and creates new imitation-worthy
stuff, when every artist is struggling tooth-and-nail against each
other for the attention of a few marketing behemoths, without the
small-group support network that "the label" used to provide.

the labels that are hurting most are the ones that offer the biggest
cuts to artists. screwed up.

anyway, the bands' bottom line is also suffering.

> So? You see these people listening to music during their commute,
> which is the only thing they can do during their commute. They
> listen to it there and then do other things for the rest of the day.
> Just because you see them with Ipods plastered to their ears on the
> train doesn't mean you should assume that when they get off that
> train they spend the rest of the day with Ipods plastered to their
> ears. Fact is, fewer people (per capita) are listening to music than
> ever, because they have far more entertainment choices than the
> past. What keeps the industry alive is population growth.

really? yuck. i kind of do think that that time on the train might be
worth something, though.

and i suspect that some people use itunes and winamp, from time to
time... even while playing videogames!

>> and we're damn
>> > lucky mp3s and Ipod's came along or we'd be even more destitute.
>> > Third, I've seen no compelling evidence that people need to pay
> for
>> > music. I get similar if not more revenues from sites hosting my
> mp3s
>> > and paying me with ad revenue as I do from ITunes which pays me
> for
>> > mp3s being sold.

>> because both of those quantities are pittances?
>
> And why do you assume I deserve more? You know nothing about my
> music. Perhaps it is only worth a pittance...

ok, but let's assume that at least some music is worth something
significant. or maybe we can't agree on that, in which case i give up.

i wish small bands (the kind that play instruments in groups) weren't
having such a hard time surviving, no matter how critically acclaimed
they get. no one can stand to do it for more than a couple years any
more. there's no chance to grow and become something worth imitating
in future generations (going back to the sonic youth example).

it's a very different prospect to render out some techno and get a few
dollars a month from ads.

>> but there are
>> exceptions. deerhunter comes to mind. no age come to mind.
>>
>
> Never heard of them. Maybe because I don't do MySpace.

oh well. these are people who started self-releasing and on myspace,
and are now on kranky and sub pop. deerhunter might be best known as
the current NIN opener slot, succeeding peaches and bauhaus.

>
> I know they do, but I don't care. And I'm also not complaining about
> them not buying my music. You said you get a thrill out of some punk
> listening to your tunes off MySpace.

no, i could give half a crap about myspace. what i appreciate is being
able to go to portugal and play to a large sold-out crowd of stoked
kids; i suspect that "the internet" has something to do with this.
this is the most awesome aspect of digitally distributed music, to me:
reaching a lot more people in different places than you could with
mail-order catalogues. the less awesome aspect is not being able to do
it full-time because there's no money in it. i can survive on tour but
i don't want to have to tour 10 months a year, like the kids in my
band's "touring lineup" do...
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=C-gmh6ShJD4 in case you're actually
interested (the video sucks, the mix sucks, you hate the songs...
whatever)

> Well I can't comment on experience, but I'm reluctant to take your
> experience at face value simply because you've been wrong about so
> many other aspects of this conversation.

oh, sure... so WRONG...

It seems to me that if fans
> don't have to pay for the music, that's money they can use to buy
> stickers, or t-shirts, or other 'merch', including tickets to the
> show itself...

i addressed this somewhere else. the show used to function as a portal
to get people to buy recordings. now it doesn't. i think it's retarded
to have to be a popular clothing designer as well as a popular
musician in order to make money off your music. it also sucks to have
to charge $10 or $15 a head to get into a punk rock show; really
limits the audience. if you could expect 30% of those people to buy a
record, you could charge less or even make the shows free (because so
many more potential record customers would show up).

plus the profit margin for records sold at shows is WAAAY higher than
through any distributor, digital or otherwise.

> I think this has more to do with the type of music you're making. If
> you're here in a synth yahoogroup, you probably make electronic-type
> music which is far more popular in Europe than North America. You
> probably get treated there the same way people trying to copy
> Nickelback or Blackeyed Peas get treated here.

hm, maybe. but i kind of doubt it. i've been in rock bands. i think
music styles are more geographically distributed than they used to be,
for obvious reasons. the difference in the economic value attached to
culture in europe vs. america is vast and reaches across styles and
art forms. it's really astounding to experience.

my point there was that even though people have less disposable income
in, say, spain or slovenia, even though they are way more cost-minded
with their technology (which means linux and filesharing are huge), i
STILL get paid more as a musician in slovenia than i do in america.
it's not because the style of music i play is somehow more respected
there than it is in my hometown of los angeles. these kids already
have the mp3's but they still buy records! it's amazing!!!

maybe bands that know how to play live music will just disappear from
america. i don't really think that's cool, but whatever...
 














      __________________________________________________________
Ta semester! - sök efter resor hos Kelkoo.
Jämför pris på flygbiljetter och hotellrum här:
http://www.kelkoo.se/c-169901-resor-biljetter.html?partnerId=96914052

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

done

On 8/12/08, KW <memtechlist@...> wrote:
> are anyone excerpt mr zoinky boinky and mr mado ezrado interested ? please
> lift this discussion somewhere else mates.
>
> --- Den mån 2008-08-11 skrev ezra buchla <ezra.buchla@...>:
>
> Från: ezra buchla <ezra.buchla@...>
> Ämne: Re: [CZsynth] Re: waldorf microwave vs CZ & poly-8
> Till: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
> Datum: måndag 11 augusti 2008 23.43
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Ok, but if you don't agree with that, you're just plain wrong. A
>> leap of faith is required to get from logic to ethics or morality.
>> Various thought experiments, like the Prisoner's Dilemma demonstrate
>> that taking that leap can be beneficial under certain circumstances,
>> and so far that's about the best we can do in order to arrive at
>> ethical behavior through reason. But even in the Prisoner's Dilemma,
>> humans have to be logical beings, and they have to be aware of the
>> Prisoner's Dilemma, and they have to be aware of their partner-
>> prisoner's awareness of the Prisoner's Dilemma for ethical behavior
>> to be beneficial, and since humans are definitely not well-informed,
>> and are definitely not logical beings, it still appears that the best
>> strategy for the individual, in the Prisoner's Dilemma, is to act in
>> an unethical manner. Luckily, the Prisoner's Dilemma is not a
>> situation that ever arises in most, if anybody's life. In our
>> society, it is in most cases easier to act in an ethical manner, and
>> will generate fewer hassles. But that's only because of our
>> extensive punative legal system. In the case of mp3 downloading,
>> unless the long arm of the law can catch and punish a lot of mp3
>> downloaders, people will choose to download mp3s. If the legal
>> system cannot stop the widespread illicit downloading of mp3s, then
>> an alternative means of doing business must be developed. A law that
>> the majority of the population ignores is not a good law, period.
>
> the problem is that the underlying technology has a built-in bias
> towards letting music be copied. i agree that legalities are pretty
> worthless in this situation.
>
> ethics as self-interest seems to work, and you seem to be in favor of
> that idea. certainly it's the basis of capitalism. right now,
> self-interest among consumers will dictate that more of them take the
> free music than the paid-for music. that is broken, on whatever level
> you choose to analyze it (laws, technologies, morals...)
>
> ethics and economics seem pretty intimately related, to me... but i
> studied math and music in college, not philosophy or whatever that is
> up there.
>
>> Independent labels go up and down all the time. How did Rough Trade
>> go out of business with New Order and the Smiths? It was badly
>> managed, that's how. BTW, I had a flame war with the management of
>> Kill Rock Stars, and they seemed like a bunch of arrogant twits to
>> me.
>
> ok. those people are my friends, sometimes. i argue with them too, and
> arrogance is part of the package, but i don't think they're twits.
>
> thing is, EVERY label is making less money than they used to. the ones
> who make the least will fold. i think "least" might actually represent
> a bigger chunk than i want to accept. maybe the answer is that no-one
> needs labels, including musicians. but i suspect it will be harder to
> coalesce people around a style, hard to keep the the stylistic
> momentum that drives innovation and creates new imitation-worthy
> stuff, when every artist is struggling tooth-and-nail against each
> other for the attention of a few marketing behemoths, without the
> small-group support network that "the label" used to provide.
>
> the labels that are hurting most are the ones that offer the biggest
> cuts to artists. screwed up.
>
> anyway, the bands' bottom line is also suffering.
>
>> So? You see these people listening to music during their commute,
>> which is the only thing they can do during their commute. They
>> listen to it there and then do other things for the rest of the day.
>> Just because you see them with Ipods plastered to their ears on the
>> train doesn't mean you should assume that when they get off that
>> train they spend the rest of the day with Ipods plastered to their
>> ears. Fact is, fewer people (per capita) are listening to music than
>> ever, because they have far more entertainment choices than the
>> past. What keeps the industry alive is population growth.
>
> really? yuck. i kind of do think that that time on the train might be
> worth something, though.
>
> and i suspect that some people use itunes and winamp, from time to
> time... even while playing videogames!
>
>>> and we're damn
>>> > lucky mp3s and Ipod's came along or we'd be even more destitute.
>>> > Third, I've seen no compelling evidence that people need to pay
>> for
>>> > music. I get similar if not more revenues from sites hosting my
>> mp3s
>>> > and paying me with ad revenue as I do from ITunes which pays me
>> for
>>> > mp3s being sold.
>
>>> because both of those quantities are pittances?
>>
>> And why do you assume I deserve more? You know nothing about my
>> music. Perhaps it is only worth a pittance...
>
> ok, but let's assume that at least some music is worth something
> significant. or maybe we can't agree on that, in which case i give up.
>
> i wish small bands (the kind that play instruments in groups) weren't
> having such a hard time surviving, no matter how critically acclaimed
> they get. no one can stand to do it for more than a couple years any
> more. there's no chance to grow and become something worth imitating
> in future generations (going back to the sonic youth example).
>
> it's a very different prospect to render out some techno and get a few
> dollars a month from ads.
>
>>> but there are
>>> exceptions. deerhunter comes to mind. no age come to mind.
>>>
>>
>> Never heard of them. Maybe because I don't do MySpace.
>
> oh well. these are people who started self-releasing and on myspace,
> and are now on kranky and sub pop. deerhunter might be best known as
> the current NIN opener slot, succeeding peaches and bauhaus.
>
>>
>> I know they do, but I don't care. And I'm also not complaining about
>> them not buying my music. You said you get a thrill out of some punk
>> listening to your tunes off MySpace.
>
> no, i could give half a crap about myspace. what i appreciate is being
> able to go to portugal and play to a large sold-out crowd of stoked
> kids; i suspect that "the internet" has something to do with this.
> this is the most awesome aspect of digitally distributed music, to me:
> reaching a lot more people in different places than you could with
> mail-order catalogues. the less awesome aspect is not being able to do
> it full-time because there's no money in it. i can survive on tour but
> i don't want to have to tour 10 months a year, like the kids in my
> band's "touring lineup" do...
> http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=C-gmh6ShJD4 in case you're actually
> interested (the video sucks, the mix sucks, you hate the songs...
> whatever)
>
>> Well I can't comment on experience, but I'm reluctant to take your
>> experience at face value simply because you've been wrong about so
>> many other aspects of this conversation.
>
> oh, sure... so WRONG...
>
> It seems to me that if fans
>> don't have to pay for the music, that's money they can use to buy
>> stickers, or t-shirts, or other 'merch', including tickets to the
>> show itself...
>
> i addressed this somewhere else. the show used to function as a portal
> to get people to buy recordings. now it doesn't. i think it's retarded
> to have to be a popular clothing designer as well as a popular
> musician in order to make money off your music. it also sucks to have
> to charge $10 or $15 a head to get into a punk rock show; really
> limits the audience. if you could expect 30% of those people to buy a
> record, you could charge less or even make the shows free (because so
> many more potential record customers would show up).
>
> plus the profit margin for records sold at shows is WAAAY higher than
> through any distributor, digital or otherwise.
>
>> I think this has more to do with the type of music you're making. If
>> you're here in a synth yahoogroup, you probably make electronic-type
>> music which is far more popular in Europe than North America. You
>> probably get treated there the same way people trying to copy
>> Nickelback or Blackeyed Peas get treated here.
>
> hm, maybe. but i kind of doubt it. i've been in rock bands. i think
> music styles are more geographically distributed than they used to be,
> for obvious reasons. the difference in the economic value attached to
> culture in europe vs. america is vast and reaches across styles and
> art forms. it's really astounding to experience.
>
> my point there was that even though people have less disposable income
> in, say, spain or slovenia, even though they are way more cost-minded
> with their technology (which means linux and filesharing are huge), i
> STILL get paid more as a musician in slovenia than i do in america.
> it's not because the style of music i play is somehow more respected
> there than it is in my hometown of los angeles. these kids already
> have the mp3's but they still buy records! it's amazing!!!
>
> maybe bands that know how to play live music will just disappear from
> america. i don't really think that's cool, but whatever...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>       __________________________________________________________
> Ta semester! - sök efter resor hos Kelkoo.
> Jämför pris på flygbiljetter och hotellrum här:
> http://www.kelkoo.se/c-169901-resor-biljetter.html?partnerId=96914052
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, KW <memtechlist@...> wrote:
>
> are anyone excerpt mr zoinky boinky and mr mado ezrado interested ? 
please lift this discussion somewhere else mates.
>

Please stop making demands of me and please stop using high-ascii.  The 
moderator of this group makes the decisions, not you.  If the moderator 
decides that my input is not appreciated, I'm sure he/she will let me 
know and I will not waste my time gracing you all with my superior 
intelligence any more.  I consider anyone lucky enough to read anything 
I've written to be the recipient of a valuable, unique gift.  If that 
gift is not welcome, I can go look for some corner of the internet 
where it is.

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, KW <memtechlist@...> wrote:
>
> are anyone excerpt mr zoinky boinky and mr mado ezrado interested ? 
please lift this discussion somewhere else mates.
> 

By the way, who the hell is Mr. Mado Ezrado?  The person who is writing 
the second-most voluminous contribution to this thread is named Ezra 
Buchla.  You may be able to get away with calling me 'boinky' since I 
dared to stick up for myself against your bullying, and as usual, the 
small minds who make up the bulk of the population are wont to blame 
the victim, but you have no excuse whatsoever for pathetically trying 
to ridicule Ezra's name since he hasn't responded to your baiting at 
all.  I think I've conclusively demonstrated that you are the 
troublemaker, not me, and not Ezra.

thanx very much ezra, kisses and hugs from me, a person that don't use english as his first language and make stupid topics instead of extremely intelligent ones. ;=)

--- Den tis 2008-08-12 skrev ezra.buchla@... <ezra.buchla@...>:

Från: ezra.buchla@... <ezra.buchla@gmail.com>
Ämne: Re: [CZsynth] Re: waldorf microwave vs CZ & poly-8
Till: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
Datum: tisdag 12 augusti 2008 12.19






done

On 8/12/08, KW <memtechlist@ yahoo.se> wrote:
> are anyone excerpt mr zoinky boinky and mr mado ezrado interested ? please
> lift this discussion somewhere else mates.
>
> --- Den mån 2008-08-11 skrev ezra buchla <ezra.buchla@ gmail.com>:
>
> Från: ezra buchla <ezra.buchla@ gmail.com>
> Ämne: Re: [CZsynth] Re: waldorf microwave vs CZ & poly-8
> Till: CZsynth@yahoogroups .com
> Datum: måndag 11 augusti 2008 23.43
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Ok, but if you don't agree with that, you're just plain wrong. A
>> leap of faith is required to get from logic to ethics or morality.
>> Various thought experiments, like the Prisoner's Dilemma demonstrate
>> that taking that leap can be beneficial under certain circumstances,
>> and so far that's about the best we can do in order to arrive at
>> ethical behavior through reason. But even in the Prisoner's Dilemma,
>> humans have to be logical beings, and they have to be aware of the
>> Prisoner's Dilemma, and they have to be aware of their partner-
>> prisoner's awareness of the Prisoner's Dilemma for ethical behavior
>> to be beneficial, and since humans are definitely not well-informed,
>> and are definitely not logical beings, it still appears that the best
>> strategy for the individual, in the Prisoner's Dilemma, is to act in
>> an unethical manner. Luckily, the Prisoner's Dilemma is not a
>> situation that ever arises in most, if anybody's life. In our
>> society, it is in most cases easier to act in an ethical manner, and
>> will generate fewer hassles. But that's only because of our
>> extensive punative legal system. In the case of mp3 downloading,
>> unless the long arm of the law can catch and punish a lot of mp3
>> downloaders, people will choose to download mp3s. If the legal
>> system cannot stop the widespread illicit downloading of mp3s, then
>> an alternative means of doing business must be developed. A law that
>> the majority of the population ignores is not a good law, period.
>
> the problem is that the underlying technology has a built-in bias
> towards letting music be copied. i agree that legalities are pretty
> worthless in this situation.
>
> ethics as self-interest seems to work, and you seem to be in favor of
> that idea. certainly it's the basis of capitalism. right now,
> self-interest among consumers will dictate that more of them take the
> free music than the paid-for music. that is broken, on whatever level
> you choose to analyze it (laws, technologies, morals...)
>
> ethics and economics seem pretty intimately related, to me... but i
> studied math and music in college, not philosophy or whatever that is
> up there.
>
>> Independent labels go up and down all the time. How did Rough Trade
>> go out of business with New Order and the Smiths? It was badly
>> managed, that's how. BTW, I had a flame war with the management of
>> Kill Rock Stars, and they seemed like a bunch of arrogant twits to
>> me.
>
> ok. those people are my friends, sometimes. i argue with them too, and
> arrogance is part of the package, but i don't think they're twits.
>
> thing is, EVERY label is making less money than they used to. the ones
> who make the least will fold. i think "least" might actually represent
> a bigger chunk than i want to accept. maybe the answer is that no-one
> needs labels, including musicians. but i suspect it will be harder to
> coalesce people around a style, hard to keep the the stylistic
> momentum that drives innovation and creates new imitation-worthy
> stuff, when every artist is struggling tooth-and-nail against each
> other for the attention of a few marketing behemoths, without the
> small-group support network that "the label" used to provide.
>
> the labels that are hurting most are the ones that offer the biggest
> cuts to artists. screwed up.
>
> anyway, the bands' bottom line is also suffering.
>
>> So? You see these people listening to music during their commute,
>> which is the only thing they can do during their commute. They
>> listen to it there and then do other things for the rest of the day.
>> Just because you see them with Ipods plastered to their ears on the
>> train doesn't mean you should assume that when they get off that
>> train they spend the rest of the day with Ipods plastered to their
>> ears. Fact is, fewer people (per capita) are listening to music than
>> ever, because they have far more entertainment choices than the
>> past. What keeps the industry alive is population growth.
>
> really? yuck. i kind of do think that that time on the train might be
> worth something, though.
>
> and i suspect that some people use itunes and winamp, from time to
> time... even while playing videogames!
>
>>> and we're damn
>>> > lucky mp3s and Ipod's came along or we'd be even more destitute.
>>> > Third, I've seen no compelling evidence that people need to pay
>> for
>>> > music. I get similar if not more revenues from sites hosting my
>> mp3s
>>> > and paying me with ad revenue as I do from ITunes which pays me
>> for
>>> > mp3s being sold.
>
>>> because both of those quantities are pittances?
>>
>> And why do you assume I deserve more? You know nothing about my
>> music. Perhaps it is only worth a pittance...
>
> ok, but let's assume that at least some music is worth something
> significant. or maybe we can't agree on that, in which case i give up.
>
> i wish small bands (the kind that play instruments in groups) weren't
> having such a hard time surviving, no matter how critically acclaimed
> they get. no one can stand to do it for more than a couple years any
> more. there's no chance to grow and become something worth imitating
> in future generations (going back to the sonic youth example).
>
> it's a very different prospect to render out some techno and get a few
> dollars a month from ads.
>
>>> but there are
>>> exceptions. deerhunter comes to mind. no age come to mind.
>>>
>>
>> Never heard of them. Maybe because I don't do MySpace.
>
> oh well. these are people who started self-releasing and on myspace,
> and are now on kranky and sub pop. deerhunter might be best known as
> the current NIN opener slot, succeeding peaches and bauhaus.
>
>>
>> I know they do, but I don't care. And I'm also not complaining about
>> them not buying my music. You said you get a thrill out of some punk
>> listening to your tunes off MySpace.
>
> no, i could give half a crap about myspace. what i appreciate is being
> able to go to portugal and play to a large sold-out crowd of stoked
> kids; i suspect that "the internet" has something to do with this.
> this is the most awesome aspect of digitally distributed music, to me:
> reaching a lot more people in different places than you could with
> mail-order catalogues. the less awesome aspect is not being able to do
> it full-time because there's no money in it. i can survive on tour but
> i don't want to have to tour 10 months a year, like the kids in my
> band's "touring lineup" do...
> http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=C-gmh6ShJD4 in case you're actually
> interested (the video sucks, the mix sucks, you hate the songs...
> whatever)
>
>> Well I can't comment on experience, but I'm reluctant to take your
>> experience at face value simply because you've been wrong about so
>> many other aspects of this conversation.
>
> oh, sure... so WRONG...
>
> It seems to me that if fans
>> don't have to pay for the music, that's money they can use to buy
>> stickers, or t-shirts, or other 'merch', including tickets to the
>> show itself...
>
> i addressed this somewhere else. the show used to function as a portal
> to get people to buy recordings. now it doesn't. i think it's retarded
> to have to be a popular clothing designer as well as a popular
> musician in order to make money off your music. it also sucks to have
> to charge $10 or $15 a head to get into a punk rock show; really
> limits the audience. if you could expect 30% of those people to buy a
> record, you could charge less or even make the shows free (because so
> many more potential record customers would show up).
>
> plus the profit margin for records sold at shows is WAAAY higher than
> through any distributor, digital or otherwise.
>
>> I think this has more to do with the type of music you're making. If
>> you're here in a synth yahoogroup, you probably make electronic-type
>> music which is far more popular in Europe than North America. You
>> probably get treated there the same way people trying to copy
>> Nickelback or Blackeyed Peas get treated here.
>
> hm, maybe. but i kind of doubt it. i've been in rock bands. i think
> music styles are more geographically distributed than they used to be,
> for obvious reasons. the difference in the economic value attached to
> culture in europe vs. america is vast and reaches across styles and
> art forms. it's really astounding to experience.
>
> my point there was that even though people have less disposable income
> in, say, spain or slovenia, even though they are way more cost-minded
> with their technology (which means linux and filesharing are huge), i
> STILL get paid more as a musician in slovenia than i do in america.
> it's not because the style of music i play is somehow more respected
> there than it is in my hometown of los angeles. these kids already
> have the mp3's but they still buy records! it's amazing!!!
>
> maybe bands that know how to play live music will just disappear from
> america. i don't really think that's cool, but whatever...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
> Ta semester! - sök efter resor hos Kelkoo.
> Jämför pris på flygbiljetter och hotellrum här:
> http://www.kelkoo. se/c-169901- resor-biljetter. html?partnerId= 96914052
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
 














      __________________________________________________________
Ta semester! - sök efter resor hos Kelkoo.
Jämför pris på flygbiljetter och hotellrum här:
http://www.kelkoo.se/c-169901-resor-biljetter.html?partnerId=96914052

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>
>  the problem is that the underlying technology has a built-in bias
> towards letting music be copied. i agree that legalities are pretty
> worthless in this situation.
> 
> ethics as self-interest seems to work

No, they don't.  If ethics 'worked', if 'karma' existed, we would not 
need a legal system.  We have a legal system in order to mitigate, 
albeit as much as possible, which is never as much as we'd like, the 
unjust nature of the world.  But when that system is so inapplicable 
to a particular case that it fails wholesale, as it does in the case 
we are discussing, then we must seek an alternative.

> ethics and economics seem pretty intimately related, to me... 

Well as PT Barnum put it, a sucker is born every day.  Ethics are 
related to economics as hope is related to fact.  You cannot expect 
your competitor to act ethically in abscense of punative law if he 
doesn't.  You're living a self-righteous pipe dream if you don't 
think that even YOU would leverage whatever advantage you could in a 
society devoid of punative law.  You'd run slipshod over everyone 
while simultaneously deluding yourself into thinking your actions are 
the epitome of ethical behavior, just like the robber barons did at 
the turn of the 19th century.

 i think "least" might actually represent
> a bigger chunk than i want to accept. maybe the answer is that no-
one
> needs labels, including musicians. but i suspect it will be harder 
to
> coalesce people around a style, hard to keep the the stylistic
> momentum that drives innovation and creates new imitation-worthy
> stuff, when every artist is struggling tooth-and-nail against each
> other for the attention of a few marketing behemoths, without the
> small-group support network that "the label" used to provide.
> 

Ok, well obviously you are very concerned about this subject, and are 
motivated to put considerable energy into thinking about it.  But, I 
think you are having so much trouble with it because you are scared 
of its implications.  I think that if you were more confident, you'd 
be more optimistic.  The people telling us to stop talking about this 
here certainly aren't the ones who are going to come up with any 
ingenius solutions, but someone like you certainly could, if you 
manage to get your priorities straight.

> really? yuck. i kind of do think that that time on the train might 
be
> worth something, though.

Well today I had to take my mother to the eye clinic and while I was 
waiting in the car for her outside and all the people were arriving 
to work at the hospital across the street, almost all of them had 
Ipods on.  I was surprised they were that ubiquitous, I had no idea.  
Just goes to show what sheep most people are.  There are lots of mp3 
players on the market, most just as flashy as the Ipod these days, 
but everyone and his yuppy cousin has to have an Ipod.  At least we 
know they're listening to mainstream crap artists who can't even make 
a spurious claim about being impoverished by mp3 downloading.  Of 
course my original statement stands, they are only listening to Ipods 
the way to and from work, not all day long, but I am still surprised 
by how many Ipods are actually in use these days during the rushhour 
commutes.

> > And why do you assume I deserve more? You know nothing about my
> > music. Perhaps it is only worth a pittance...
> 
> ok, but let's assume that at least some music is worth something
> significant. or maybe we can't agree on that, in which case i give 
up.

I'm the one who could be exasperated enough to give up, since you're 
clearly working hard to misunderstand, misrepresent, or completely 
ignore things I've repeatedly said in this thread.  I'm now going to 
spell it out for you one last time, and if you continue to pretend 
you didn't read it, I will copy and paste it every time you do so:

Bands obtain the value of the worth of their output, period.  If the 
value of the worth of the output of mediocre bands drops to that of 
the value of the worth of lousy bands, I don't have a problem with 
that.  I strive for excellency, not mediocrity.  I will be pleased 
when those mediocre bands can no longer make a living at music so 
they have to get real jobs.  I've got four words to say to 
them: "Move over, comin' thru!"  Besides, they don't have to get day 
jobs necessarily, they can simply let the medicore band break up, 
then form another band with other guys who have the desire to strive 
for excellence.  Besides, I'm a huge advocate for a livable welfare 
income for the unemployed.
 
The day excellence stops being worth the highest value is the day the 
world will go to hell in a handbasket, and not a moment sooner.  It 
is the responsibility of the excellent to provide for the incapable, 
not the mediocre.  Because the mediocre are not incapable, they are 
capable of excellence but do not try to excell, for whatever reason 
(such as laziness, delusion, ignorance, and various other reasons the 
mediocre remain the mediocre).


> 
> i wish small bands (the kind that play instruments in groups) 
weren't
> having such a hard time surviving, no matter how critically 
acclaimed
> they get. no one can stand to do it for more than a couple years any
> more.


There has always been critically acclaimed art that does not 
translate into commercial success.  That's not mp3 downloading's 
fault, that's bad taste's fault.  But you're not rallying for better 
taste in consumers, because your priorities in this subject are mixed 
up.


> there's no chance to grow and become something worth imitating
> in future generations (going back to the sonic youth example).
> 

Your Sonic Youth example is weak, mine's solid.  Did you even stop to 
think about what you were writing when you said that Sonic Youth's 
early messy noise would not have propelled them onto better things if 
people had been able to obtain high-quality recordings of that messy 
noise?  If you had, it might have dawned on you that 'messy noise' 
and 'hi fidelity' are somewhat diametrically opposed.  Sonic Youth, 
like all indie band in the 80s, thrived on tape-trading among die-
hard music fans.  Then, in order to gain commercial success, they 
thrived on albums being purchased by less-than-die-hard-fans.  Now, 
how many times are you going to prompt me to repeat that?  Will you 
ever simply accept that you haven't come up with any arguments I 
haven't already heard plenty of times, and so you aren't going to be 
bringing me around to agreeing with me, no matter how many times you 
repeat yourself or I repeat myself.

> it's a very different prospect to render out some techno and get a 
few
> dollars a month from ads.
> 

So now you're saying only techno can thrive from mp3 downloads?  
Nonsense.  Look, a techno artist generally only has to pay himself.  
A band has three or four members.  And lo and behold, the latest 
trend is massive ensembles like Polyphonic Spree and Arcade Fire.  If 
these 'hot new' band are afraid of not making enough money to survive 
due to mp3 downloading, and they can't afford to tour, why the hell 
do they have so many friggin members on the payroll???

Look, every time you come up with a hypothetical point I completely 
trash it with facts.  You're going to have to do a lot better than 
that if you want to win this argument with something other than 
browbeating.

> >> but there are
> >> exceptions. deerhunter comes to mind. no age come to mind.
> >>
> >
> > Never heard of them. Maybe because I don't do MySpace.
> 
> oh well. these are people who started self-releasing and on myspace,
> and are now on kranky and sub pop. deerhunter might be best known as
> the current NIN opener slot, succeeding peaches and bauhaus.
> 

Well it was a good movie, but not exactly an inspired band name!  Why 
do so many band names suck these days, anyway?

> You said you get a thrill out of some punk
>  listening to your tunes off MySpace.
> 
> no,

"if some teenager halfway across the world downloads my record and is
stoked enough on it to share it with 500 of his online friends, many
of whom are also stoked, how could i not be happy" - you.





 i could give half a crap about myspace. what i appreciate is being
> able to go to portugal and play to a large sold-out crowd of stoked
> kids; i suspect that "the internet" has something to do with this.
> this is the most awesome aspect of digitally distributed music, to 
me:
> reaching a lot more people in different places than you could with
> mail-order catalogues. the less awesome aspect is not being able to 
do
> it full-time because there's no money in it. i can survive on tour 
but
> i don't want to have to tour 10 months a year, like the kids in my
> band's "touring lineup" do...

As usual, I'm having trouble finding a point in that paragraph.  If 
you want to tour, then tour, and do it for as long or as short of a 
period as you want.  If you manage it well, you'll probably make more 
money than if you didn't tour, but you don't necessarily have to tour 
into order to survive.  XTC stopped touring in the mid 80s after Andy 
Partridge's nervous breakdown and they survived till 2005, and I 
really doubt they split up over mp3 downloading.

> > Well I can't comment on experience, but I'm reluctant to take your
> > experience at face value simply because you've been wrong about so
> > many other aspects of this conversation.
> 
> oh, sure... so WRONG...

Yes, and unfortunately, like most people, you tie your desire to not 
be wrong to your ego.  But at least you're smart enough to know the 
topic is worth discussing, unlike many in the peanut gallery here, 
and you're self-confident enough to think you are doing a good enough 
job of arguing this topic when you're not, to keep arguing it, which 
is both good and bad (that is, it's good to stick to your guns, but 
not after all your limbs have been chopped off and you still want to 
fight, like the knight from the Monty Python movie)...  The only 
thing better than being wrong is being right.  Being wrong gives you 
the chance to find out what's right, but most people who, upon 
discovering they're wrong about something, aren't glad to find that 
out, and refuse to accept the information that is right.  And there's 
not much those of us on a higher frequency can do about that other 
than point it out and hope that nobody accuses us of being insulting.

> 
> It seems to me that if fans
> > don't have to pay for the music, that's money they can use to buy
> > stickers, or t-shirts, or other 'merch', including tickets to the
> > show itself...
> 
> i addressed this somewhere else. the show used to function as a 
portal
> to get people to buy recordings. now it doesn't.

That's ridiculous.  Nobody (or at least, VERY few) people buy tickets 
to concerts of bands who they've never heard before.  People go to 
concerts after they've listened to the bands recordings (previously, 
from radio, friends, and records bought after hearing them on radio 
or from friends - and now, from mp3s, friends, and records bought 
after hearing mp3s or from friends).  

> i think it's retarded
> to have to be a popular clothing designer as well as a popular
> musician in order to make money off your music. 

And I think it's ignorant to make that claim.  The artists who start 
up clothing lines do so because they want to make $20 million this 
year instead of $5 million like last year.


>it also sucks to have
> to charge $10 or $15 a head to get into a punk rock show; really
> limits the audience. if you could expect 30% of those people to buy 
a
> record, you could charge less or even make the shows free (because 
so
> many more potential record customers would show up).
> 

There are festivals of every size happening all the time all over the 
place, hundreds if not thousands of them all over north america this 
summer, and they all need crappy little nobody bands to play, and 
they all pay well from corporate sponsors or govt. entertainment 
funds.  A few years ago my exgirlfriend dragged me to her gay karaoke 
friend's regular gig in a cover-band at a dive bar out in the 
sticks.  They were paid $700 a night and played every night, and this 
is too patrons whose only income is their welfare cheques.  There is 
absolutely no shortage of work for musicians who want to work.  But I 
suppose you'll say you don't want to play in a crappy cover bar band 
to welfare cases.  You want Chad Kroeger to sign you to 604 so you 
can be a rock star.  Yeah, well I've heard it all before, long before 
the term 'mp3' existed.  Very little has changed, and certainly not 
nearly as much as you keep squaking about, Chicken Little!
 

> plus the profit margin for records sold at shows is WAAAY higher 
than
> through any distributor, digital or otherwise.
> 

Of course there's the fact that unless you're already popular enough 
to be making a living as a recording artist, nobody will be able to 
find your mp3s to download for free anywhere online because nobody 
will bother encoding them and passing them around, because nobody 
wants them because nobody's heard of you.  So if they go to your 
show, and want to hear your recorded output, they have no choice but 
to buy your CD at the show, that is, until you become successful 
enough that people are encoding and uploading your mp3s to pass 
around.  But you don't want to hear that, no, you'd rather pretend 
there is a crisis that doesn't exist. 

> my point there was that even though people have less disposable 
income
> in, say, spain or slovenia, even though they are way more cost-
minded
> with their technology (which means linux and filesharing are huge), 
i
> STILL get paid more as a musician in slovenia than i do in america.

Great, thanks for proving my point.  They download more illicit mp3s 
in europe and you make more money from europe.  Hence, more illicit 
downloading of mp3s equals more money for artists.  Case closed.

> these kids already
> have the mp3's but they still buy records! it's amazing!!!

And yet, encouraging americans to adopt a more cosmopolitan, 
international viewpoint like the europeans isn't part of your non-
existent strategy of solution. 


> 
> maybe bands that know how to play live music will just disappear 
from
> america. i don't really think that's cool, but whatever...
>

Right, and peak oil will bring Mad Max out of the desert and into the 
city, and y2k bug will send airplanes falling out of the sky.  9/11 
was an inside job.  The jews orchestrated the holocaust themselves.  
Any other outrageous nonsense or fearmongering you'd like to add?

i really don't want to talk about this here anymore. people don't want
to hear it. of course they don't. (everyone else, i'm sorry, i'm not
good at ignoring bait but i'm really done after this.)

i only have one question, i've asked it a few different ways,
everything else is tangential, and i don't believe you've come close
to answering it:

do you think it's ok for people who listen to a lot of music to do so
exclusively through illegal downloads?

(that was what you seemed to be saying in the first place (not just to
me). if it's a straw man, i'm sorry: i just want to hear you say yes
or no.)

this question applies to a lot of people, whatever you might imagine
and whatever justifications you might make for your personal behavior
(which, by the way, i'm not even calling into question).

i live in an underground music scene. i believe what i believe (sorry,
never did join the debate team, not interested). i'm not perfect or an
epitome of righteousness but i think i've done more than my part to
contribute to the art that i love, and i'm sick of seeing apathy all
around me. i'm sick of people professing to be "fans" of music who
refuse to buy anything or even put something in the donation jar
(whether it's the guilt-plus-convenience market of the iTunes store or
a literal jar in the punk house basement). i think obtaining ALL your
music through filesharing is a symptom of apathy and moral weakness,
and hurts art forms (like the album) which i will be sad to see the
last of.

somehow the kids in europe fileshare AND pay money for music, and the
kids in the US don't. i believe this really is an issue of ethics and
the relative value placed on arts and artists. fans of strange music
in europe have made the decision that their enlightened self-interest
will be best served by supporting the people that make the art that
they consume. the details of the system that enable this are
unimportant as long as it works somehow (capitalism, utopianism...
whatever).

if you sincerely want to answer to this, fine. if all you want to do
is keep telling me how naive i am, or that my community doesn't
matter, please refrain.

i admit to being very confused by a lot of what i see out there; i'm
still trying to figure things out; i doubt that anyone has all the
answers. i know that there are ways to make things work for all kinds
of practitioners of music, i'm just afraid that the potential
solutions are not coming fast enough or gaining wide enough
acceptance.

i Do insist that my perspective is valid: i've spent my whole life
surrounded by professional musicians, i've played literally Thousands
of shows myself, i've helped run venues and labels (which, btw, are
not unsuccessful to this day), and i think things have gotten very
noticeably worse just in the last 8 years or so.

mybe you disagree on that, maybe it's just my little bubble-world that
is suffering (though it really can't be THAT little). i respect that,
i'll admit to the limited big-picture relevance of myself, my friends,
my art, my taste, and my stylistic community, and i want to drop it.

i'm really, really done now. there are better things to do.

i'm working on a 3-D phase distortion wave terrain synthesizer
(cz-inspired !) and you probably won't hear from me until that's done.

thanks, apologies, be peaceful and prosper.

- ezra b.

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:04 AM, zoinky420 <zoinky420@...> wrote:
> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>>
>> the problem is that the underlying technology has a built-in bias
>> towards letting music be copied. i agree that legalities are pretty
>> worthless in this situation.
>>
>> ethics as self-interest seems to work
>
> No, they don't. If ethics 'worked', if 'karma' existed, we would not
> need a legal system. We have a legal system in order to mitigate,
> albeit as much as possible, which is never as much as we'd like, the
> unjust nature of the world. But when that system is so inapplicable
> to a particular case that it fails wholesale, as it does in the case
> we are discussing, then we must seek an alternative.
>
>> ethics and economics seem pretty intimately related, to me...
>
> Well as PT Barnum put it, a sucker is born every day. Ethics are
> related to economics as hope is related to fact. You cannot expect
> your competitor to act ethically in abscense of punative law if he
> doesn't. You're living a self-righteous pipe dream if you don't
> think that even YOU would leverage whatever advantage you could in a
> society devoid of punative law. You'd run slipshod over everyone
> while simultaneously deluding yourself into thinking your actions are
> the epitome of ethical behavior, just like the robber barons did at
> the turn of the 19th century.
>
> i think "least" might actually represent
>> a bigger chunk than i want to accept. maybe the answer is that no-
> one
>> needs labels, including musicians. but i suspect it will be harder
> to
>> coalesce people around a style, hard to keep the the stylistic
>> momentum that drives innovation and creates new imitation-worthy
>> stuff, when every artist is struggling tooth-and-nail against each
>> other for the attention of a few marketing behemoths, without the
>> small-group support network that "the label" used to provide.
>>
>
> Ok, well obviously you are very concerned about this subject, and are
> motivated to put considerable energy into thinking about it. But, I
> think you are having so much trouble with it because you are scared
> of its implications. I think that if you were more confident, you'd
> be more optimistic. The people telling us to stop talking about this
> here certainly aren't the ones who are going to come up with any
> ingenius solutions, but someone like you certainly could, if you
> manage to get your priorities straight.
>
>> really? yuck. i kind of do think that that time on the train might
> be
>> worth something, though.
>
> Well today I had to take my mother to the eye clinic and while I was
> waiting in the car for her outside and all the people were arriving
> to work at the hospital across the street, almost all of them had
> Ipods on. I was surprised they were that ubiquitous, I had no idea.
> Just goes to show what sheep most people are. There are lots of mp3
> players on the market, most just as flashy as the Ipod these days,
> but everyone and his yuppy cousin has to have an Ipod. At least we
> know they're listening to mainstream crap artists who can't even make
> a spurious claim about being impoverished by mp3 downloading. Of
> course my original statement stands, they are only listening to Ipods
> the way to and from work, not all day long, but I am still surprised
> by how many Ipods are actually in use these days during the rushhour
> commutes.
>
>> > And why do you assume I deserve more? You know nothing about my
>> > music. Perhaps it is only worth a pittance...
>>
>> ok, but let's assume that at least some music is worth something
>> significant. or maybe we can't agree on that, in which case i give
> up.
>
> I'm the one who could be exasperated enough to give up, since you're
> clearly working hard to misunderstand, misrepresent, or completely
> ignore things I've repeatedly said in this thread. I'm now going to
> spell it out for you one last time, and if you continue to pretend
> you didn't read it, I will copy and paste it every time you do so:
>
> Bands obtain the value of the worth of their output, period. If the
> value of the worth of the output of mediocre bands drops to that of
> the value of the worth of lousy bands, I don't have a problem with
> that. I strive for excellency, not mediocrity. I will be pleased
> when those mediocre bands can no longer make a living at music so
> they have to get real jobs. I've got four words to say to
> them: "Move over, comin' thru!" Besides, they don't have to get day
> jobs necessarily, they can simply let the medicore band break up,
> then form another band with other guys who have the desire to strive
> for excellence. Besides, I'm a huge advocate for a livable welfare
> income for the unemployed.
>
> The day excellence stops being worth the highest value is the day the
> world will go to hell in a handbasket, and not a moment sooner. It
> is the responsibility of the excellent to provide for the incapable,
> not the mediocre. Because the mediocre are not incapable, they are
> capable of excellence but do not try to excell, for whatever reason
> (such as laziness, delusion, ignorance, and various other reasons the
> mediocre remain the mediocre).
>
>>
>> i wish small bands (the kind that play instruments in groups)
> weren't
>> having such a hard time surviving, no matter how critically
> acclaimed
>> they get. no one can stand to do it for more than a couple years any
>> more.
>
> There has always been critically acclaimed art that does not
> translate into commercial success. That's not mp3 downloading's
> fault, that's bad taste's fault. But you're not rallying for better
> taste in consumers, because your priorities in this subject are mixed
> up.
>
>> there's no chance to grow and become something worth imitating
>> in future generations (going back to the sonic youth example).
>>
>
> Your Sonic Youth example is weak, mine's solid. Did you even stop to
> think about what you were writing when you said that Sonic Youth's
> early messy noise would not have propelled them onto better things if
> people had been able to obtain high-quality recordings of that messy
> noise? If you had, it might have dawned on you that 'messy noise'
> and 'hi fidelity' are somewhat diametrically opposed. Sonic Youth,
> like all indie band in the 80s, thrived on tape-trading among die-
> hard music fans. Then, in order to gain commercial success, they
> thrived on albums being purchased by less-than-die-hard-fans. Now,
> how many times are you going to prompt me to repeat that? Will you
> ever simply accept that you haven't come up with any arguments I
> haven't already heard plenty of times, and so you aren't going to be
> bringing me around to agreeing with me, no matter how many times you
> repeat yourself or I repeat myself.
>
>> it's a very different prospect to render out some techno and get a
> few
>> dollars a month from ads.
>>
>
> So now you're saying only techno can thrive from mp3 downloads?
> Nonsense. Look, a techno artist generally only has to pay himself.
> A band has three or four members. And lo and behold, the latest
> trend is massive ensembles like Polyphonic Spree and Arcade Fire. If
> these 'hot new' band are afraid of not making enough money to survive
> due to mp3 downloading, and they can't afford to tour, why the hell
> do they have so many friggin members on the payroll???
>
> Look, every time you come up with a hypothetical point I completely
> trash it with facts. You're going to have to do a lot better than
> that if you want to win this argument with something other than
> browbeating.
>
>> >> but there are
>> >> exceptions. deerhunter comes to mind. no age come to mind.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Never heard of them. Maybe because I don't do MySpace.
>>
>> oh well. these are people who started self-releasing and on myspace,
>> and are now on kranky and sub pop. deerhunter might be best known as
>> the current NIN opener slot, succeeding peaches and bauhaus.
>>
>
> Well it was a good movie, but not exactly an inspired band name! Why
> do so many band names suck these days, anyway?
>
>> You said you get a thrill out of some punk
>> listening to your tunes off MySpace.
>>
>> no,
>
> "if some teenager halfway across the world downloads my record and is
> stoked enough on it to share it with 500 of his online friends, many
> of whom are also stoked, how could i not be happy" - you.
>
> i could give half a crap about myspace. what i appreciate is being
>> able to go to portugal and play to a large sold-out crowd of stoked
>> kids; i suspect that "the internet" has something to do with this.
>> this is the most awesome aspect of digitally distributed music, to
> me:
>> reaching a lot more people in different places than you could with
>> mail-order catalogues. the less awesome aspect is not being able to
> do
>> it full-time because there's no money in it. i can survive on tour
> but
>> i don't want to have to tour 10 months a year, like the kids in my
>> band's "touring lineup" do...
>
> As usual, I'm having trouble finding a point in that paragraph. If
> you want to tour, then tour, and do it for as long or as short of a
> period as you want. If you manage it well, you'll probably make more
> money than if you didn't tour, but you don't necessarily have to tour
> into order to survive. XTC stopped touring in the mid 80s after Andy
> Partridge's nervous breakdown and they survived till 2005, and I
> really doubt they split up over mp3 downloading.
>
>> > Well I can't comment on experience, but I'm reluctant to take your
>> > experience at face value simply because you've been wrong about so
>> > many other aspects of this conversation.
>>
>> oh, sure... so WRONG...
>
> Yes, and unfortunately, like most people, you tie your desire to not
> be wrong to your ego. But at least you're smart enough to know the
> topic is worth discussing, unlike many in the peanut gallery here,
> and you're self-confident enough to think you are doing a good enough
> job of arguing this topic when you're not, to keep arguing it, which
> is both good and bad (that is, it's good to stick to your guns, but
> not after all your limbs have been chopped off and you still want to
> fight, like the knight from the Monty Python movie)... The only
> thing better than being wrong is being right. Being wrong gives you
> the chance to find out what's right, but most people who, upon
> discovering they're wrong about something, aren't glad to find that
> out, and refuse to accept the information that is right. And there's
> not much those of us on a higher frequency can do about that other
> than point it out and hope that nobody accuses us of being insulting.
>
>>
>> It seems to me that if fans
>> > don't have to pay for the music, that's money they can use to buy
>> > stickers, or t-shirts, or other 'merch', including tickets to the
>> > show itself...
>>
>> i addressed this somewhere else. the show used to function as a
> portal
>> to get people to buy recordings. now it doesn't.
>
> That's ridiculous. Nobody (or at least, VERY few) people buy tickets
> to concerts of bands who they've never heard before. People go to
> concerts after they've listened to the bands recordings (previously,
> from radio, friends, and records bought after hearing them on radio
> or from friends - and now, from mp3s, friends, and records bought
> after hearing mp3s or from friends).
>
>> i think it's retarded
>> to have to be a popular clothing designer as well as a popular
>> musician in order to make money off your music.
>
> And I think it's ignorant to make that claim. The artists who start
> up clothing lines do so because they want to make $20 million this
> year instead of $5 million like last year.
>
>>it also sucks to have
>> to charge $10 or $15 a head to get into a punk rock show; really
>> limits the audience. if you could expect 30% of those people to buy
> a
>> record, you could charge less or even make the shows free (because
> so
>> many more potential record customers would show up).
>>
>
> There are festivals of every size happening all the time all over the
> place, hundreds if not thousands of them all over north america this
> summer, and they all need crappy little nobody bands to play, and
> they all pay well from corporate sponsors or govt. entertainment
> funds. A few years ago my exgirlfriend dragged me to her gay karaoke
> friend's regular gig in a cover-band at a dive bar out in the
> sticks. They were paid $700 a night and played every night, and this
> is too patrons whose only income is their welfare cheques. There is
> absolutely no shortage of work for musicians who want to work. But I
> suppose you'll say you don't want to play in a crappy cover bar band
> to welfare cases. You want Chad Kroeger to sign you to 604 so you
> can be a rock star. Yeah, well I've heard it all before, long before
> the term 'mp3' existed. Very little has changed, and certainly not
> nearly as much as you keep squaking about, Chicken Little!
>
>
>> plus the profit margin for records sold at shows is WAAAY higher
> than
>> through any distributor, digital or otherwise.
>>
>
> Of course there's the fact that unless you're already popular enough
> to be making a living as a recording artist, nobody will be able to
> find your mp3s to download for free anywhere online because nobody
> will bother encoding them and passing them around, because nobody
> wants them because nobody's heard of you. So if they go to your
> show, and want to hear your recorded output, they have no choice but
> to buy your CD at the show, that is, until you become successful
> enough that people are encoding and uploading your mp3s to pass
> around. But you don't want to hear that, no, you'd rather pretend
> there is a crisis that doesn't exist.
>
>> my point there was that even though people have less disposable
> income
>> in, say, spain or slovenia, even though they are way more cost-
> minded
>> with their technology (which means linux and filesharing are huge),
> i
>> STILL get paid more as a musician in slovenia than i do in america.
>
> Great, thanks for proving my point. They download more illicit mp3s
> in europe and you make more money from europe. Hence, more illicit
> downloading of mp3s equals more money for artists. Case closed.
>
>> these kids already
>> have the mp3's but they still buy records! it's amazing!!!
>
> And yet, encouraging americans to adopt a more cosmopolitan,
> international viewpoint like the europeans isn't part of your non-
> existent strategy of solution.
>
>>
>> maybe bands that know how to play live music will just disappear
> from
>> america. i don't really think that's cool, but whatever...
>>
>
> Right, and peak oil will bring Mad Max out of the desert and into the
> city, and y2k bug will send airplanes falling out of the sky. 9/11
> was an inside job. The jews orchestrated the holocaust themselves.
> Any other outrageous nonsense or fearmongering you'd like to add?
>
>

Huzzah! Ezra B.!

I know lots of people who have ethical beliefs which are more
restrictive than the mere law (and especially considering the limited
enforceability of current hi-tech law).

But I want to know more about your "3-D phase distortion wave terrain
synthesizer".  I've been studying musical waveforms for many years,
with an eye toward re-synthesizing "natural" sounds, especially using
phase distortion, iPD, FM, plus additive.  I love CZs, VZs, Yamaha
DXII, TX816 and FS1R, and Synergy DKII (hence, my moniker).  I've
worked (mostly using Mathematica) to find algorithms with associated
_ranges_ of parameters to synthesize "natural" instruments that don't
exist.  I could describe my _ranges_ of parameters as a third
dimension of the sound.  But, what do _you_ mean?

What is your goal with your "3-D phase distortion wave terrain
synthesizer" and how are you approaching it?

- synergeezer

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:

>
> i really don't want to talk about this here anymore. people don't want
> to hear it. of course they don't. (everyone else, i'm sorry, i'm not
> good at ignoring bait but i'm really done after this.)
> 
> i only have one question, i've asked it a few different ways,
> everything else is tangential, and i don't believe you've come close
> to answering it:
> 
> do you think it's ok for people who listen to a lot of music to do so
> exclusively through illegal downloads?
> 
> (that was what you seemed to be saying in the first place (not just to
> me). if it's a straw man, i'm sorry: i just want to hear you say yes
> or no.)
> 
> this question applies to a lot of people, whatever you might imagine
> and whatever justifications you might make for your personal behavior
> (which, by the way, i'm not even calling into question).
> 
> i live in an underground music scene. i believe what i believe (sorry,
> never did join the debate team, not interested). i'm not perfect or an
> epitome of righteousness but i think i've done more than my part to
> contribute to the art that i love, and i'm sick of seeing apathy all
> around me. i'm sick of people professing to be "fans" of music who
> refuse to buy anything or even put something in the donation jar
> (whether it's the guilt-plus-convenience market of the iTunes store or
> a literal jar in the punk house basement). i think obtaining ALL your
> music through filesharing is a symptom of apathy and moral weakness,
> and hurts art forms (like the album) which i will be sad to see the
> last of.
> 
> somehow the kids in europe fileshare AND pay money for music, and the
> kids in the US don't. i believe this really is an issue of ethics and
> the relative value placed on arts and artists. fans of strange music
> in europe have made the decision that their enlightened self-interest
> will be best served by supporting the people that make the art that
> they consume. the details of the system that enable this are
> unimportant as long as it works somehow (capitalism, utopianism...
> whatever).
> 
> if you sincerely want to answer to this, fine. if all you want to do
> is keep telling me how naive i am, or that my community doesn't
> matter, please refrain.
> 
> i admit to being very confused by a lot of what i see out there; i'm
> still trying to figure things out; i doubt that anyone has all the
> answers. i know that there are ways to make things work for all kinds
> of practitioners of music, i'm just afraid that the potential
> solutions are not coming fast enough or gaining wide enough
> acceptance.
> 
> i Do insist that my perspective is valid: i've spent my whole life
> surrounded by professional musicians, i've played literally Thousands
> of shows myself, i've helped run venues and labels (which, btw, are
> not unsuccessful to this day), and i think things have gotten very
> noticeably worse just in the last 8 years or so.
> 
> mybe you disagree on that, maybe it's just my little bubble-world that
> is suffering (though it really can't be THAT little). i respect that,
> i'll admit to the limited big-picture relevance of myself, my friends,
> my art, my taste, and my stylistic community, and i want to drop it.
> 
> i'm really, really done now. there are better things to do.
> 
> i'm working on a 3-D phase distortion wave terrain synthesizer
> (cz-inspired !) and you probably won't hear from me until that's done.
> 
> thanks, apologies, be peaceful and prosper.
> 
> - ezra b.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:04 AM, zoinky420 <zoinky420@...> wrote:
> > --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@> wrote:
> >>
> >> the problem is that the underlying technology has a built-in bias
> >> towards letting music be copied. i agree that legalities are pretty
> >> worthless in this situation.
> >>
> >> ethics as self-interest seems to work
> >
> > No, they don't. If ethics 'worked', if 'karma' existed, we would not
> > need a legal system. We have a legal system in order to mitigate,
> > albeit as much as possible, which is never as much as we'd like, the
> > unjust nature of the world. But when that system is so inapplicable
> > to a particular case that it fails wholesale, as it does in the case
> > we are discussing, then we must seek an alternative.
> >
> >> ethics and economics seem pretty intimately related, to me...
> >
> > Well as PT Barnum put it, a sucker is born every day. Ethics are
> > related to economics as hope is related to fact. You cannot expect
> > your competitor to act ethically in abscense of punative law if he
> > doesn't. You're living a self-righteous pipe dream if you don't
> > think that even YOU would leverage whatever advantage you could in a
> > society devoid of punative law. You'd run slipshod over everyone
> > while simultaneously deluding yourself into thinking your actions are
> > the epitome of ethical behavior, just like the robber barons did at
> > the turn of the 19th century.
> >
> > i think "least" might actually represent
> >> a bigger chunk than i want to accept. maybe the answer is that no-
> > one
> >> needs labels, including musicians. but i suspect it will be harder
> > to
> >> coalesce people around a style, hard to keep the the stylistic
> >> momentum that drives innovation and creates new imitation-worthy
> >> stuff, when every artist is struggling tooth-and-nail against each
> >> other for the attention of a few marketing behemoths, without the
> >> small-group support network that "the label" used to provide.
> >>
> >
> > Ok, well obviously you are very concerned about this subject, and are
> > motivated to put considerable energy into thinking about it. But, I
> > think you are having so much trouble with it because you are scared
> > of its implications. I think that if you were more confident, you'd
> > be more optimistic. The people telling us to stop talking about this
> > here certainly aren't the ones who are going to come up with any
> > ingenius solutions, but someone like you certainly could, if you
> > manage to get your priorities straight.
> >
> >> really? yuck. i kind of do think that that time on the train might
> > be
> >> worth something, though.
> >
> > Well today I had to take my mother to the eye clinic and while I was
> > waiting in the car for her outside and all the people were arriving
> > to work at the hospital across the street, almost all of them had
> > Ipods on. I was surprised they were that ubiquitous, I had no idea.
> > Just goes to show what sheep most people are. There are lots of mp3
> > players on the market, most just as flashy as the Ipod these days,
> > but everyone and his yuppy cousin has to have an Ipod. At least we
> > know they're listening to mainstream crap artists who can't even make
> > a spurious claim about being impoverished by mp3 downloading. Of
> > course my original statement stands, they are only listening to Ipods
> > the way to and from work, not all day long, but I am still surprised
> > by how many Ipods are actually in use these days during the rushhour
> > commutes.
> >
> >> > And why do you assume I deserve more? You know nothing about my
> >> > music. Perhaps it is only worth a pittance...
> >>
> >> ok, but let's assume that at least some music is worth something
> >> significant. or maybe we can't agree on that, in which case i give
> > up.
> >
> > I'm the one who could be exasperated enough to give up, since you're
> > clearly working hard to misunderstand, misrepresent, or completely
> > ignore things I've repeatedly said in this thread. I'm now going to
> > spell it out for you one last time, and if you continue to pretend
> > you didn't read it, I will copy and paste it every time you do so:
> >
> > Bands obtain the value of the worth of their output, period. If the
> > value of the worth of the output of mediocre bands drops to that of
> > the value of the worth of lousy bands, I don't have a problem with
> > that. I strive for excellency, not mediocrity. I will be pleased
> > when those mediocre bands can no longer make a living at music so
> > they have to get real jobs. I've got four words to say to
> > them: "Move over, comin' thru!" Besides, they don't have to get day
> > jobs necessarily, they can simply let the medicore band break up,
> > then form another band with other guys who have the desire to strive
> > for excellence. Besides, I'm a huge advocate for a livable welfare
> > income for the unemployed.
> >
> > The day excellence stops being worth the highest value is the day the
> > world will go to hell in a handbasket, and not a moment sooner. It
> > is the responsibility of the excellent to provide for the incapable,
> > not the mediocre. Because the mediocre are not incapable, they are
> > capable of excellence but do not try to excell, for whatever reason
> > (such as laziness, delusion, ignorance, and various other reasons the
> > mediocre remain the mediocre).
> >
> >>
> >> i wish small bands (the kind that play instruments in groups)
> > weren't
> >> having such a hard time surviving, no matter how critically
> > acclaimed
> >> they get. no one can stand to do it for more than a couple years any
> >> more.
> >
> > There has always been critically acclaimed art that does not
> > translate into commercial success. That's not mp3 downloading's
> > fault, that's bad taste's fault. But you're not rallying for better
> > taste in consumers, because your priorities in this subject are mixed
> > up.
> >
> >> there's no chance to grow and become something worth imitating
> >> in future generations (going back to the sonic youth example).
> >>
> >
> > Your Sonic Youth example is weak, mine's solid. Did you even stop to
> > think about what you were writing when you said that Sonic Youth's
> > early messy noise would not have propelled them onto better things if
> > people had been able to obtain high-quality recordings of that messy
> > noise? If you had, it might have dawned on you that 'messy noise'
> > and 'hi fidelity' are somewhat diametrically opposed. Sonic Youth,
> > like all indie band in the 80s, thrived on tape-trading among die-
> > hard music fans. Then, in order to gain commercial success, they
> > thrived on albums being purchased by less-than-die-hard-fans. Now,
> > how many times are you going to prompt me to repeat that? Will you
> > ever simply accept that you haven't come up with any arguments I
> > haven't already heard plenty of times, and so you aren't going to be
> > bringing me around to agreeing with me, no matter how many times you
> > repeat yourself or I repeat myself.
> >
> >> it's a very different prospect to render out some techno and get a
> > few
> >> dollars a month from ads.
> >>
> >
> > So now you're saying only techno can thrive from mp3 downloads?
> > Nonsense. Look, a techno artist generally only has to pay himself.
> > A band has three or four members. And lo and behold, the latest
> > trend is massive ensembles like Polyphonic Spree and Arcade Fire. If
> > these 'hot new' band are afraid of not making enough money to survive
> > due to mp3 downloading, and they can't afford to tour, why the hell
> > do they have so many friggin members on the payroll???
> >
> > Look, every time you come up with a hypothetical point I completely
> > trash it with facts. You're going to have to do a lot better than
> > that if you want to win this argument with something other than
> > browbeating.
> >
> >> >> but there are
> >> >> exceptions. deerhunter comes to mind. no age come to mind.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Never heard of them. Maybe because I don't do MySpace.
> >>
> >> oh well. these are people who started self-releasing and on myspace,
> >> and are now on kranky and sub pop. deerhunter might be best known as
> >> the current NIN opener slot, succeeding peaches and bauhaus.
> >>
> >
> > Well it was a good movie, but not exactly an inspired band name! Why
> > do so many band names suck these days, anyway?
> >
> >> You said you get a thrill out of some punk
> >> listening to your tunes off MySpace.
> >>
> >> no,
> >
> > "if some teenager halfway across the world downloads my record and is
> > stoked enough on it to share it with 500 of his online friends, many
> > of whom are also stoked, how could i not be happy" - you.
> >
> > i could give half a crap about myspace. what i appreciate is being
> >> able to go to portugal and play to a large sold-out crowd of stoked
> >> kids; i suspect that "the internet" has something to do with this.
> >> this is the most awesome aspect of digitally distributed music, to
> > me:
> >> reaching a lot more people in different places than you could with
> >> mail-order catalogues. the less awesome aspect is not being able to
> > do
> >> it full-time because there's no money in it. i can survive on tour
> > but
> >> i don't want to have to tour 10 months a year, like the kids in my
> >> band's "touring lineup" do...
> >
> > As usual, I'm having trouble finding a point in that paragraph. If
> > you want to tour, then tour, and do it for as long or as short of a
> > period as you want. If you manage it well, you'll probably make more
> > money than if you didn't tour, but you don't necessarily have to tour
> > into order to survive. XTC stopped touring in the mid 80s after Andy
> > Partridge's nervous breakdown and they survived till 2005, and I
> > really doubt they split up over mp3 downloading.
> >
> >> > Well I can't comment on experience, but I'm reluctant to take your
> >> > experience at face value simply because you've been wrong about so
> >> > many other aspects of this conversation.
> >>
> >> oh, sure... so WRONG...
> >
> > Yes, and unfortunately, like most people, you tie your desire to not
> > be wrong to your ego. But at least you're smart enough to know the
> > topic is worth discussing, unlike many in the peanut gallery here,
> > and you're self-confident enough to think you are doing a good enough
> > job of arguing this topic when you're not, to keep arguing it, which
> > is both good and bad (that is, it's good to stick to your guns, but
> > not after all your limbs have been chopped off and you still want to
> > fight, like the knight from the Monty Python movie)... The only
> > thing better than being wrong is being right. Being wrong gives you
> > the chance to find out what's right, but most people who, upon
> > discovering they're wrong about something, aren't glad to find that
> > out, and refuse to accept the information that is right. And there's
> > not much those of us on a higher frequency can do about that other
> > than point it out and hope that nobody accuses us of being insulting.
> >
> >>
> >> It seems to me that if fans
> >> > don't have to pay for the music, that's money they can use to buy
> >> > stickers, or t-shirts, or other 'merch', including tickets to the
> >> > show itself...
> >>
> >> i addressed this somewhere else. the show used to function as a
> > portal
> >> to get people to buy recordings. now it doesn't.
> >
> > That's ridiculous. Nobody (or at least, VERY few) people buy tickets
> > to concerts of bands who they've never heard before. People go to
> > concerts after they've listened to the bands recordings (previously,
> > from radio, friends, and records bought after hearing them on radio
> > or from friends - and now, from mp3s, friends, and records bought
> > after hearing mp3s or from friends).
> >
> >> i think it's retarded
> >> to have to be a popular clothing designer as well as a popular
> >> musician in order to make money off your music.
> >
> > And I think it's ignorant to make that claim. The artists who start
> > up clothing lines do so because they want to make $20 million this
> > year instead of $5 million like last year.
> >
> >>it also sucks to have
> >> to charge $10 or $15 a head to get into a punk rock show; really
> >> limits the audience. if you could expect 30% of those people to buy
> > a
> >> record, you could charge less or even make the shows free (because
> > so
> >> many more potential record customers would show up).
> >>
> >
> > There are festivals of every size happening all the time all over the
> > place, hundreds if not thousands of them all over north america this
> > summer, and they all need crappy little nobody bands to play, and
> > they all pay well from corporate sponsors or govt. entertainment
> > funds. A few years ago my exgirlfriend dragged me to her gay karaoke
> > friend's regular gig in a cover-band at a dive bar out in the
> > sticks. They were paid $700 a night and played every night, and this
> > is too patrons whose only income is their welfare cheques. There is
> > absolutely no shortage of work for musicians who want to work. But I
> > suppose you'll say you don't want to play in a crappy cover bar band
> > to welfare cases. You want Chad Kroeger to sign you to 604 so you
> > can be a rock star. Yeah, well I've heard it all before, long before
> > the term 'mp3' existed. Very little has changed, and certainly not
> > nearly as much as you keep squaking about, Chicken Little!
> >
> >
> >> plus the profit margin for records sold at shows is WAAAY higher
> > than
> >> through any distributor, digital or otherwise.
> >>
> >
> > Of course there's the fact that unless you're already popular enough
> > to be making a living as a recording artist, nobody will be able to
> > find your mp3s to download for free anywhere online because nobody
> > will bother encoding them and passing them around, because nobody
> > wants them because nobody's heard of you. So if they go to your
> > show, and want to hear your recorded output, they have no choice but
> > to buy your CD at the show, that is, until you become successful
> > enough that people are encoding and uploading your mp3s to pass
> > around. But you don't want to hear that, no, you'd rather pretend
> > there is a crisis that doesn't exist.
> >
> >> my point there was that even though people have less disposable
> > income
> >> in, say, spain or slovenia, even though they are way more cost-
> > minded
> >> with their technology (which means linux and filesharing are huge),
> > i
> >> STILL get paid more as a musician in slovenia than i do in america.
> >
> > Great, thanks for proving my point. They download more illicit mp3s
> > in europe and you make more money from europe. Hence, more illicit
> > downloading of mp3s equals more money for artists. Case closed.
> >
> >> these kids already
> >> have the mp3's but they still buy records! it's amazing!!!
> >
> > And yet, encouraging americans to adopt a more cosmopolitan,
> > international viewpoint like the europeans isn't part of your non-
> > existent strategy of solution.
> >
> >>
> >> maybe bands that know how to play live music will just disappear
> > from
> >> america. i don't really think that's cool, but whatever...
> >>
> >
> > Right, and peak oil will bring Mad Max out of the desert and into the
> > city, and y2k bug will send airplanes falling out of the sky. 9/11
> > was an inside job. The jews orchestrated the holocaust themselves.
> > Any other outrageous nonsense or fearmongering you'd like to add?
> >
> >
>

probably the best thing is just to wait til it's done...

remaining are the tedious bits of wrapping the algorithm and data into
an app or plugin or dsp chip that handles the i/o. course that's the
part that takes the longest cause its so damn boring, and this isn't
my job, it's just a side project.

but anyway... you know the idea of phase distortion as used in the cz
series. you have a table containing a waveform, and you index into it
with a ramp at the target frequency. then you put an inflection point
into the ramp and bend it into two linear segments. modulate the
inflection point and its output level with an envelope or whatever.
pick the right waveforms and you have a cz. the characteristic
waveforms that you're all familiar with are the sine, half-sine (with
a discontinuity), saw (-ish), and some kinda high-order polynomal
spike thing; maybe something else i'm forgetting. changing the
inflection point has different effects on the harmonic content for
these different waveforms.

wave terrain synthesis is a pretty similar idea, been kicking around
academic literature for a long time but no commercial applications
that i'm aware of. the idea is using a stack of wavetables and
traversing through it with some index that can be phase-locked with
the base index or weirdly independent (introducing a kind of timbral
modulation characteristic of... certain... old modular oscs...).
sticking with the phase-locked case, you basically make another
inflection point bending the index into 3-space.

it's really just a more convenient, all-purpose, potentially richer
representation of wavetable morphing/blending/crossfading. one osc to
rule them all, kinda thing.

in my case there will probably be other options than linear piecewise
phase distortions. ellipses are nice.

i'm having good results with terrains made of different blends of
various-ordered chebyshev polynomials. also some discontinuous shapes
to inject high-order stuff, and some linear-square blends produced by
various forms of soft and hard saturation. nice thing about those is
that the 3-d phase distortion (as i implement it) gives you potential
asymmetry, and an asymmetrical soft shaper is sortof analogous to some
kinds of distortion characteristic of vacuum tubes.

anyway, check back in some weeks. in the meantime i've got some other
stuff on the stove to take care of. if i manage to stay out of flame
wars i might get it all done.

-eb

On 8/12/08, synergeezer <synergeezer@...> wrote:
> Huzzah! Ezra B.!
>
> I know lots of people who have ethical beliefs which are more
> restrictive than the mere law (and especially considering the limited
> enforceability of current hi-tech law).
>
> But I want to know more about your "3-D phase distortion wave terrain
> synthesizer".  I've been studying musical waveforms for many years,
> with an eye toward re-synthesizing "natural" sounds, especially using
> phase distortion, iPD, FM, plus additive.  I love CZs, VZs, Yamaha
> DXII, TX816 and FS1R, and Synergy DKII (hence, my moniker).  I've
> worked (mostly using Mathematica) to find algorithms with associated
> _ranges_ of parameters to synthesize "natural" instruments that don't
> exist.  I could describe my _ranges_ of parameters as a third
> dimension of the sound.  But, what do _you_ mean?
>
> What is your goal with your "3-D phase distortion wave terrain
> synthesizer" and how are you approaching it?
>
> - synergeezer
>
> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>>
>> i really don't want to talk about this here anymore. people don't want
>> to hear it. of course they don't. (everyone else, i'm sorry, i'm not
>> good at ignoring bait but i'm really done after this.)
>>
>> i only have one question, i've asked it a few different ways,
>> everything else is tangential, and i don't believe you've come close
>> to answering it:
>>
>> do you think it's ok for people who listen to a lot of music to do so
>> exclusively through illegal downloads?
>>
>> (that was what you seemed to be saying in the first place (not just to
>> me). if it's a straw man, i'm sorry: i just want to hear you say yes
>> or no.)
>>
>> this question applies to a lot of people, whatever you might imagine
>> and whatever justifications you might make for your personal behavior
>> (which, by the way, i'm not even calling into question).
>>
>> i live in an underground music scene. i believe what i believe (sorry,
>> never did join the debate team, not interested). i'm not perfect or an
>> epitome of righteousness but i think i've done more than my part to
>> contribute to the art that i love, and i'm sick of seeing apathy all
>> around me. i'm sick of people professing to be "fans" of music who
>> refuse to buy anything or even put something in the donation jar
>> (whether it's the guilt-plus-convenience market of the iTunes store or
>> a literal jar in the punk house basement). i think obtaining ALL your
>> music through filesharing is a symptom of apathy and moral weakness,
>> and hurts art forms (like the album) which i will be sad to see the
>> last of.
>>
>> somehow the kids in europe fileshare AND pay money for music, and the
>> kids in the US don't. i believe this really is an issue of ethics and
>> the relative value placed on arts and artists. fans of strange music
>> in europe have made the decision that their enlightened self-interest
>> will be best served by supporting the people that make the art that
>> they consume. the details of the system that enable this are
>> unimportant as long as it works somehow (capitalism, utopianism...
>> whatever).
>>
>> if you sincerely want to answer to this, fine. if all you want to do
>> is keep telling me how naive i am, or that my community doesn't
>> matter, please refrain.
>>
>> i admit to being very confused by a lot of what i see out there; i'm
>> still trying to figure things out; i doubt that anyone has all the
>> answers. i know that there are ways to make things work for all kinds
>> of practitioners of music, i'm just afraid that the potential
>> solutions are not coming fast enough or gaining wide enough
>> acceptance.
>>
>> i Do insist that my perspective is valid: i've spent my whole life
>> surrounded by professional musicians, i've played literally Thousands
>> of shows myself, i've helped run venues and labels (which, btw, are
>> not unsuccessful to this day), and i think things have gotten very
>> noticeably worse just in the last 8 years or so.
>>
>> mybe you disagree on that, maybe it's just my little bubble-world that
>> is suffering (though it really can't be THAT little). i respect that,
>> i'll admit to the limited big-picture relevance of myself, my friends,
>> my art, my taste, and my stylistic community, and i want to drop it.
>>
>> i'm really, really done now. there are better things to do.
>>
>> i'm working on a 3-D phase distortion wave terrain synthesizer
>> (cz-inspired !) and you probably won't hear from me until that's done.
>>
>> thanks, apologies, be peaceful and prosper.
>>
>> - ezra b.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:04 AM, zoinky420 <zoinky420@...> wrote:
>> > --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> the problem is that the underlying technology has a built-in bias
>> >> towards letting music be copied. i agree that legalities are pretty
>> >> worthless in this situation.
>> >>
>> >> ethics as self-interest seems to work
>> >
>> > No, they don't. If ethics 'worked', if 'karma' existed, we would not
>> > need a legal system. We have a legal system in order to mitigate,
>> > albeit as much as possible, which is never as much as we'd like, the
>> > unjust nature of the world. But when that system is so inapplicable
>> > to a particular case that it fails wholesale, as it does in the case
>> > we are discussing, then we must seek an alternative.
>> >
>> >> ethics and economics seem pretty intimately related, to me...
>> >
>> > Well as PT Barnum put it, a sucker is born every day. Ethics are
>> > related to economics as hope is related to fact. You cannot expect
>> > your competitor to act ethically in abscense of punative law if he
>> > doesn't. You're living a self-righteous pipe dream if you don't
>> > think that even YOU would leverage whatever advantage you could in a
>> > society devoid of punative law. You'd run slipshod over everyone
>> > while simultaneously deluding yourself into thinking your actions are
>> > the epitome of ethical behavior, just like the robber barons did at
>> > the turn of the 19th century.
>> >
>> > i think "least" might actually represent
>> >> a bigger chunk than i want to accept. maybe the answer is that no-
>> > one
>> >> needs labels, including musicians. but i suspect it will be harder
>> > to
>> >> coalesce people around a style, hard to keep the the stylistic
>> >> momentum that drives innovation and creates new imitation-worthy
>> >> stuff, when every artist is struggling tooth-and-nail against each
>> >> other for the attention of a few marketing behemoths, without the
>> >> small-group support network that "the label" used to provide.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Ok, well obviously you are very concerned about this subject, and are
>> > motivated to put considerable energy into thinking about it. But, I
>> > think you are having so much trouble with it because you are scared
>> > of its implications. I think that if you were more confident, you'd
>> > be more optimistic. The people telling us to stop talking about this
>> > here certainly aren't the ones who are going to come up with any
>> > ingenius solutions, but someone like you certainly could, if you
>> > manage to get your priorities straight.
>> >
>> >> really? yuck. i kind of do think that that time on the train might
>> > be
>> >> worth something, though.
>> >
>> > Well today I had to take my mother to the eye clinic and while I was
>> > waiting in the car for her outside and all the people were arriving
>> > to work at the hospital across the street, almost all of them had
>> > Ipods on. I was surprised they were that ubiquitous, I had no idea.
>> > Just goes to show what sheep most people are. There are lots of mp3
>> > players on the market, most just as flashy as the Ipod these days,
>> > but everyone and his yuppy cousin has to have an Ipod. At least we
>> > know they're listening to mainstream crap artists who can't even make
>> > a spurious claim about being impoverished by mp3 downloading. Of
>> > course my original statement stands, they are only listening to Ipods
>> > the way to and from work, not all day long, but I am still surprised
>> > by how many Ipods are actually in use these days during the rushhour
>> > commutes.
>> >
>> >> > And why do you assume I deserve more? You know nothing about my
>> >> > music. Perhaps it is only worth a pittance...
>> >>
>> >> ok, but let's assume that at least some music is worth something
>> >> significant. or maybe we can't agree on that, in which case i give
>> > up.
>> >
>> > I'm the one who could be exasperated enough to give up, since you're
>> > clearly working hard to misunderstand, misrepresent, or completely
>> > ignore things I've repeatedly said in this thread. I'm now going to
>> > spell it out for you one last time, and if you continue to pretend
>> > you didn't read it, I will copy and paste it every time you do so:
>> >
>> > Bands obtain the value of the worth of their output, period. If the
>> > value of the worth of the output of mediocre bands drops to that of
>> > the value of the worth of lousy bands, I don't have a problem with
>> > that. I strive for excellency, not mediocrity. I will be pleased
>> > when those mediocre bands can no longer make a living at music so
>> > they have to get real jobs. I've got four words to say to
>> > them: "Move over, comin' thru!" Besides, they don't have to get day
>> > jobs necessarily, they can simply let the medicore band break up,
>> > then form another band with other guys who have the desire to strive
>> > for excellence. Besides, I'm a huge advocate for a livable welfare
>> > income for the unemployed.
>> >
>> > The day excellence stops being worth the highest value is the day the
>> > world will go to hell in a handbasket, and not a moment sooner. It
>> > is the responsibility of the excellent to provide for the incapable,
>> > not the mediocre. Because the mediocre are not incapable, they are
>> > capable of excellence but do not try to excell, for whatever reason
>> > (such as laziness, delusion, ignorance, and various other reasons the
>> > mediocre remain the mediocre).
>> >
>> >>
>> >> i wish small bands (the kind that play instruments in groups)
>> > weren't
>> >> having such a hard time surviving, no matter how critically
>> > acclaimed
>> >> they get. no one can stand to do it for more than a couple years any
>> >> more.
>> >
>> > There has always been critically acclaimed art that does not
>> > translate into commercial success. That's not mp3 downloading's
>> > fault, that's bad taste's fault. But you're not rallying for better
>> > taste in consumers, because your priorities in this subject are mixed
>> > up.
>> >
>> >> there's no chance to grow and become something worth imitating
>> >> in future generations (going back to the sonic youth example).
>> >>
>> >
>> > Your Sonic Youth example is weak, mine's solid. Did you even stop to
>> > think about what you were writing when you said that Sonic Youth's
>> > early messy noise would not have propelled them onto better things if
>> > people had been able to obtain high-quality recordings of that messy
>> > noise? If you had, it might have dawned on you that 'messy noise'
>> > and 'hi fidelity' are somewhat diametrically opposed. Sonic Youth,
>> > like all indie band in the 80s, thrived on tape-trading among die-
>> > hard music fans. Then, in order to gain commercial success, they
>> > thrived on albums being purchased by less-than-die-hard-fans. Now,
>> > how many times are you going to prompt me to repeat that? Will you
>> > ever simply accept that you haven't come up with any arguments I
>> > haven't already heard plenty of times, and so you aren't going to be
>> > bringing me around to agreeing with me, no matter how many times you
>> > repeat yourself or I repeat myself.
>> >
>> >> it's a very different prospect to render out some techno and get a
>> > few
>> >> dollars a month from ads.
>> >>
>> >
>> > So now you're saying only techno can thrive from mp3 downloads?
>> > Nonsense. Look, a techno artist generally only has to pay himself.
>> > A band has three or four members. And lo and behold, the latest
>> > trend is massive ensembles like Polyphonic Spree and Arcade Fire. If
>> > these 'hot new' band are afraid of not making enough money to survive
>> > due to mp3 downloading, and they can't afford to tour, why the hell
>> > do they have so many friggin members on the payroll???
>> >
>> > Look, every time you come up with a hypothetical point I completely
>> > trash it with facts. You're going to have to do a lot better than
>> > that if you want to win this argument with something other than
>> > browbeating.
>> >
>> >> >> but there are
>> >> >> exceptions. deerhunter comes to mind. no age come to mind.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Never heard of them. Maybe because I don't do MySpace.
>> >>
>> >> oh well. these are people who started self-releasing and on myspace,
>> >> and are now on kranky and sub pop. deerhunter might be best known as
>> >> the current NIN opener slot, succeeding peaches and bauhaus.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well it was a good movie, but not exactly an inspired band name! Why
>> > do so many band names suck these days, anyway?
>> >
>> >> You said you get a thrill out of some punk
>> >> listening to your tunes off MySpace.
>> >>
>> >> no,
>> >
>> > "if some teenager halfway across the world downloads my record and is
>> > stoked enough on it to share it with 500 of his online friends, many
>> > of whom are also stoked, how could i not be happy" - you.
>> >
>> > i could give half a crap about myspace. what i appreciate is being
>> >> able to go to portugal and play to a large sold-out crowd of stoked
>> >> kids; i suspect that "the internet" has something to do with this.
>> >> this is the most awesome aspect of digitally distributed music, to
>> > me:
>> >> reaching a lot more people in different places than you could with
>> >> mail-order catalogues. the less awesome aspect is not being able to
>> > do
>> >> it full-time because there's no money in it. i can survive on tour
>> > but
>> >> i don't want to have to tour 10 months a year, like the kids in my
>> >> band's "touring lineup" do...
>> >
>> > As usual, I'm having trouble finding a point in that paragraph. If
>> > you want to tour, then tour, and do it for as long or as short of a
>> > period as you want. If you manage it well, you'll probably make more
>> > money than if you didn't tour, but you don't necessarily have to tour
>> > into order to survive. XTC stopped touring in the mid 80s after Andy
>> > Partridge's nervous breakdown and they survived till 2005, and I
>> > really doubt they split up over mp3 downloading.
>> >
>> >> > Well I can't comment on experience, but I'm reluctant to take your
>> >> > experience at face value simply because you've been wrong about so
>> >> > many other aspects of this conversation.
>> >>
>> >> oh, sure... so WRONG...
>> >
>> > Yes, and unfortunately, like most people, you tie your desire to not
>> > be wrong to your ego. But at least you're smart enough to know the
>> > topic is worth discussing, unlike many in the peanut gallery here,
>> > and you're self-confident enough to think you are doing a good enough
>> > job of arguing this topic when you're not, to keep arguing it, which
>> > is both good and bad (that is, it's good to stick to your guns, but
>> > not after all your limbs have been chopped off and you still want to
>> > fight, like the knight from the Monty Python movie)... The only
>> > thing better than being wrong is being right. Being wrong gives you
>> > the chance to find out what's right, but most people who, upon
>> > discovering they're wrong about something, aren't glad to find that
>> > out, and refuse to accept the information that is right. And there's
>> > not much those of us on a higher frequency can do about that other
>> > than point it out and hope that nobody accuses us of being insulting.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> It seems to me that if fans
>> >> > don't have to pay for the music, that's money they can use to buy
>> >> > stickers, or t-shirts, or other 'merch', including tickets to the
>> >> > show itself...
>> >>
>> >> i addressed this somewhere else. the show used to function as a
>> > portal
>> >> to get people to buy recordings. now it doesn't.
>> >
>> > That's ridiculous. Nobody (or at least, VERY few) people buy tickets
>> > to concerts of bands who they've never heard before. People go to
>> > concerts after they've listened to the bands recordings (previously,
>> > from radio, friends, and records bought after hearing them on radio
>> > or from friends - and now, from mp3s, friends, and records bought
>> > after hearing mp3s or from friends).
>> >
>> >> i think it's retarded
>> >> to have to be a popular clothing designer as well as a popular
>> >> musician in order to make money off your music.
>> >
>> > And I think it's ignorant to make that claim. The artists who start
>> > up clothing lines do so because they want to make $20 million this
>> > year instead of $5 million like last year.
>> >
>> >>it also sucks to have
>> >> to charge $10 or $15 a head to get into a punk rock show; really
>> >> limits the audience. if you could expect 30% of those people to buy
>> > a
>> >> record, you could charge less or even make the shows free (because
>> > so
>> >> many more potential record customers would show up).
>> >>
>> >
>> > There are festivals of every size happening all the time all over the
>> > place, hundreds if not thousands of them all over north america this
>> > summer, and they all need crappy little nobody bands to play, and
>> > they all pay well from corporate sponsors or govt. entertainment
>> > funds. A few years ago my exgirlfriend dragged me to her gay karaoke
>> > friend's regular gig in a cover-band at a dive bar out in the
>> > sticks. They were paid $700 a night and played every night, and this
>> > is too patrons whose only income is their welfare cheques. There is
>> > absolutely no shortage of work for musicians who want to work. But I
>> > suppose you'll say you don't want to play in a crappy cover bar band
>> > to welfare cases. You want Chad Kroeger to sign you to 604 so you
>> > can be a rock star. Yeah, well I've heard it all before, long before
>> > the term 'mp3' existed. Very little has changed, and certainly not
>> > nearly as much as you keep squaking about, Chicken Little!
>> >
>> >
>> >> plus the profit margin for records sold at shows is WAAAY higher
>> > than
>> >> through any distributor, digital or otherwise.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Of course there's the fact that unless you're already popular enough
>> > to be making a living as a recording artist, nobody will be able to
>> > find your mp3s to download for free anywhere online because nobody
>> > will bother encoding them and passing them around, because nobody
>> > wants them because nobody's heard of you. So if they go to your
>> > show, and want to hear your recorded output, they have no choice but
>> > to buy your CD at the show, that is, until you become successful
>> > enough that people are encoding and uploading your mp3s to pass
>> > around. But you don't want to hear that, no, you'd rather pretend
>> > there is a crisis that doesn't exist.
>> >
>> >> my point there was that even though people have less disposable
>> > income
>> >> in, say, spain or slovenia, even though they are way more cost-
>> > minded
>> >> with their technology (which means linux and filesharing are huge),
>> > i
>> >> STILL get paid more as a musician in slovenia than i do in america.
>> >
>> > Great, thanks for proving my point. They download more illicit mp3s
>> > in europe and you make more money from europe. Hence, more illicit
>> > downloading of mp3s equals more money for artists. Case closed.
>> >
>> >> these kids already
>> >> have the mp3's but they still buy records! it's amazing!!!
>> >
>> > And yet, encouraging americans to adopt a more cosmopolitan,
>> > international viewpoint like the europeans isn't part of your non-
>> > existent strategy of solution.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> maybe bands that know how to play live music will just disappear
>> > from
>> >> america. i don't really think that's cool, but whatever...
>> >>
>> >
>> > Right, and peak oil will bring Mad Max out of the desert and into the
>> > city, and y2k bug will send airplanes falling out of the sky. 9/11
>> > was an inside job. The jews orchestrated the holocaust themselves.
>> > Any other outrageous nonsense or fearmongering you'd like to add?
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>

It occurred to me a few years ago that a general-purpose two-dimensional lookup table (z as a function of x and y) could be a very powerful synthesis tool, and not even particularly computationally expensive (even with fancy interpolation).

Standard digital waveform playback, FM, phase distortion, waveshaping (as in the Korg 01W), PPG-style wavetables, and Ensoniq-style loop point modulation could all be considered a subset of this (given sophisticated enough tools for generating this matrix of values, anyway).  Cascading multiple stages of this, and even allowing simultaneous realtime reading and writing of the data would get you well into uncharted territory.

Of course I've got other things to do, so I haven't looked into it further than "oh that would be neat".

I'm not sure if this is what's in mind, but I recognize that it's very rich territory anyway.

To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com

From: synergeezer@...
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:48:47 +0000
Subject: [CZsynth] Re: waldorf microwave vs CZ & poly-



















    
            Huzzah! Ezra B.!



I know lots of people who have ethical beliefs which are more

restrictive than the mere law (and especially considering the limited

enforceability of current hi-tech law).



But I want to know more about your "3-D phase distortion wave terrain

synthesizer".  I've been studying musical waveforms for many years,

with an eye toward re-synthesizing "natural" sounds, especially using

phase distortion, iPD, FM, plus additive.  I love CZs, VZs, Yamaha

DXII, TX816 and FS1R, and Synergy DKII (hence, my moniker).  I've

worked (mostly using Mathematica) to find algorithms with associated

_ranges_ of parameters to synthesize "natural" instruments that don't

exist.  I could describe my _ranges_ of parameters as a third

dimension of the sound.  But, what do _you_ mean?



What is your goal with your "3-D phase distortion wave terrain

synthesizer" and how are you approaching it?



- synergeezer



--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:

>

> i really don't want to talk about this here anymore. people don't want

> to hear it. of course they don't. (everyone else, i'm sorry, i'm not

> good at ignoring bait but i'm really done after this.)

> 

> i only have one question, i've asked it a few different ways,

> everything else is tangential, and i don't believe you've come close

> to answering it:

> 

> do you think it's ok for people who listen to a lot of music to do so

> exclusively through illegal downloads?

> 

> (that was what you seemed to be saying in the first place (not just to

> me). if it's a straw man, i'm sorry: i just want to hear you say yes

> or no.)

> 

> this question applies to a lot of people, whatever you might imagine

> and whatever justifications you might make for your personal behavior

> (which, by the way, i'm not even calling into question).

> 

> i live in an underground music scene. i believe what i believe (sorry,

> never did join the debate team, not interested). i'm not perfect or an

> epitome of righteousness but i think i've done more than my part to

> contribute to the art that i love, and i'm sick of seeing apathy all

> around me. i'm sick of people professing to be "fans" of music who

> refuse to buy anything or even put something in the donation jar

> (whether it's the guilt-plus-convenience market of the iTunes store or

> a literal jar in the punk house basement). i think obtaining ALL your

> music through filesharing is a symptom of apathy and moral weakness,

> and hurts art forms (like the album) which i will be sad to see the

> last of.

> 

> somehow the kids in europe fileshare AND pay money for music, and the

> kids in the US don't. i believe this really is an issue of ethics and

> the relative value placed on arts and artists. fans of strange music

> in europe have made the decision that their enlightened self-interest

> will be best served by supporting the people that make the art that

> they consume. the details of the system that enable this are

> unimportant as long as it works somehow (capitalism, utopianism...

> whatever).

> 

> if you sincerely want to answer to this, fine. if all you want to do

> is keep telling me how naive i am, or that my community doesn't

> matter, please refrain.

> 

> i admit to being very confused by a lot of what i see out there; i'm

> still trying to figure things out; i doubt that anyone has all the

> answers. i know that there are ways to make things work for all kinds

> of practitioners of music, i'm just afraid that the potential

> solutions are not coming fast enough or gaining wide enough

> acceptance.

> 

> i Do insist that my perspective is valid: i've spent my whole life

> surrounded by professional musicians, i've played literally Thousands

> of shows myself, i've helped run venues and labels (which, btw, are

> not unsuccessful to this day), and i think things have gotten very

> noticeably worse just in the last 8 years or so.

> 

> mybe you disagree on that, maybe it's just my little bubble-world that

> is suffering (though it really can't be THAT little). i respect that,

> i'll admit to the limited big-picture relevance of myself, my friends,

> my art, my taste, and my stylistic community, and i want to drop it.

> 

> i'm really, really done now. there are better things to do.

> 

> i'm working on a 3-D phase distortion wave terrain synthesizer

> (cz-inspired !) and you probably won't hear from me until that's done.

> 

> thanks, apologies, be peaceful and prosper.

> 

> - ezra b.

> 

> 

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:04 AM, zoinky420 <zoinky420@...> wrote:

> > --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@> wrote:

> >>

> >> the problem is that the underlying technology has a built-in bias

> >> towards letting music be copied. i agree that legalities are pretty

> >> worthless in this situation.

> >>

> >> ethics as self-interest seems to work

> >

> > No, they don't. If ethics 'worked', if 'karma' existed, we would not

> > need a legal system. We have a legal system in order to mitigate,

> > albeit as much as possible, which is never as much as we'd like, the

> > unjust nature of the world. But when that system is so inapplicable

> > to a particular case that it fails wholesale, as it does in the case

> > we are discussing, then we must seek an alternative.

> >

> >> ethics and economics seem pretty intimately related, to me...

> >

> > Well as PT Barnum put it, a sucker is born every day. Ethics are

> > related to economics as hope is related to fact. You cannot expect

> > your competitor to act ethically in abscense of punative law if he

> > doesn't. You're living a self-righteous pipe dream if you don't

> > think that even YOU would leverage whatever advantage you could in a

> > society devoid of punative law. You'd run slipshod over everyone

> > while simultaneously deluding yourself into thinking your actions are

> > the epitome of ethical behavior, just like the robber barons did at

> > the turn of the 19th century.

> >

> > i think "least" might actually represent

> >> a bigger chunk than i want to accept. maybe the answer is that no-

> > one

> >> needs labels, including musicians. but i suspect it will be harder

> > to

> >> coalesce people around a style, hard to keep the the stylistic

> >> momentum that drives innovation and creates new imitation-worthy

> >> stuff, when every artist is struggling tooth-and-nail against each

> >> other for the attention of a few marketing behemoths, without the

> >> small-group support network that "the label" used to provide.

> >>

> >

> > Ok, well obviously you are very concerned about this subject, and are

> > motivated to put considerable energy into thinking about it. But, I

> > think you are having so much trouble with it because you are scared

> > of its implications. I think that if you were more confident, you'd

> > be more optimistic. The people telling us to stop talking about this

> > here certainly aren't the ones who are going to come up with any

> > ingenius solutions, but someone like you certainly could, if you

> > manage to get your priorities straight.

> >

> >> really? yuck. i kind of do think that that time on the train might

> > be

> >> worth something, though.

> >

> > Well today I had to take my mother to the eye clinic and while I was

> > waiting in the car for her outside and all the people were arriving

> > to work at the hospital across the street, almost all of them had

> > Ipods on. I was surprised they were that ubiquitous, I had no idea.

> > Just goes to show what sheep most people are. There are lots of mp3

> > players on the market, most just as flashy as the Ipod these days,

> > but everyone and his yuppy cousin has to have an Ipod. At least we

> > know they're listening to mainstream crap artists who can't even make

> > a spurious claim about being impoverished by mp3 downloading. Of

> > course my original statement stands, they are only listening to Ipods

> > the way to and from work, not all day long, but I am still surprised

> > by how many Ipods are actually in use these days during the rushhour

> > commutes.

> >

> >> > And why do you assume I deserve more? You know nothing about my

> >> > music. Perhaps it is only worth a pittance...

> >>

> >> ok, but let's assume that at least some music is worth something

> >> significant. or maybe we can't agree on that, in which case i give

> > up.

> >

> > I'm the one who could be exasperated enough to give up, since you're

> > clearly working hard to misunderstand, misrepresent, or completely

> > ignore things I've repeatedly said in this thread. I'm now going to

> > spell it out for you one last time, and if you continue to pretend

> > you didn't read it, I will copy and paste it every time you do so:

> >

> > Bands obtain the value of the worth of their output, period. If the

> > value of the worth of the output of mediocre bands drops to that of

> > the value of the worth of lousy bands, I don't have a problem with

> > that. I strive for excellency, not mediocrity. I will be pleased

> > when those mediocre bands can no longer make a living at music so

> > they have to get real jobs. I've got four words to say to

> > them: "Move over, comin' thru!" Besides, they don't have to get day

> > jobs necessarily, they can simply let the medicore band break up,

> > then form another band with other guys who have the desire to strive

> > for excellence. Besides, I'm a huge advocate for a livable welfare

> > income for the unemployed.

> >

> > The day excellence stops being worth the highest value is the day the

> > world will go to hell in a handbasket, and not a moment sooner. It

> > is the responsibility of the excellent to provide for the incapable,

> > not the mediocre. Because the mediocre are not incapable, they are

> > capable of excellence but do not try to excell, for whatever reason

> > (such as laziness, delusion, ignorance, and various other reasons the

> > mediocre remain the mediocre).

> >

> >>

> >> i wish small bands (the kind that play instruments in groups)

> > weren't

> >> having such a hard time surviving, no matter how critically

> > acclaimed

> >> they get. no one can stand to do it for more than a couple years any

> >> more.

> >

> > There has always been critically acclaimed art that does not

> > translate into commercial success. That's not mp3 downloading's

> > fault, that's bad taste's fault. But you're not rallying for better

> > taste in consumers, because your priorities in this subject are mixed

> > up.

> >

> >> there's no chance to grow and become something worth imitating

> >> in future generations (going back to the sonic youth example).

> >>

> >

> > Your Sonic Youth example is weak, mine's solid. Did you even stop to

> > think about what you were writing when you said that Sonic Youth's

> > early messy noise would not have propelled them onto better things if

> > people had been able to obtain high-quality recordings of that messy

> > noise? If you had, it might have dawned on you that 'messy noise'

> > and 'hi fidelity' are somewhat diametrically opposed. Sonic Youth,

> > like all indie band in the 80s, thrived on tape-trading among die-

> > hard music fans. Then, in order to gain commercial success, they

> > thrived on albums being purchased by less-than-die-hard-fans. Now,

> > how many times are you going to prompt me to repeat that? Will you

> > ever simply accept that you haven't come up with any arguments I

> > haven't already heard plenty of times, and so you aren't going to be

> > bringing me around to agreeing with me, no matter how many times you

> > repeat yourself or I repeat myself.

> >

> >> it's a very different prospect to render out some techno and get a

> > few

> >> dollars a month from ads.

> >>

> >

> > So now you're saying only techno can thrive from mp3 downloads?

> > Nonsense. Look, a techno artist generally only has to pay himself.

> > A band has three or four members. And lo and behold, the latest

> > trend is massive ensembles like Polyphonic Spree and Arcade Fire. If

> > these 'hot new' band are afraid of not making enough money to survive

> > due to mp3 downloading, and they can't afford to tour, why the hell

> > do they have so many friggin members on the payroll???

> >

> > Look, every time you come up with a hypothetical point I completely

> > trash it with facts. You're going to have to do a lot better than

> > that if you want to win this argument with something other than

> > browbeating.

> >

> >> >> but there are

> >> >> exceptions. deerhunter comes to mind. no age come to mind.

> >> >>

> >> >

> >> > Never heard of them. Maybe because I don't do MySpace.

> >>

> >> oh well. these are people who started self-releasing and on myspace,

> >> and are now on kranky and sub pop. deerhunter might be best known as

> >> the current NIN opener slot, succeeding peaches and bauhaus.

> >>

> >

> > Well it was a good movie, but not exactly an inspired band name! Why

> > do so many band names suck these days, anyway?

> >

> >> You said you get a thrill out of some punk

> >> listening to your tunes off MySpace.

> >>

> >> no,

> >

> > "if some teenager halfway across the world downloads my record and is

> > stoked enough on it to share it with 500 of his online friends, many

> > of whom are also stoked, how could i not be happy" - you.

> >

> > i could give half a crap about myspace. what i appreciate is being

> >> able to go to portugal and play to a large sold-out crowd of stoked

> >> kids; i suspect that "the internet" has something to do with this.

> >> this is the most awesome aspect of digitally distributed music, to

> > me:

> >> reaching a lot more people in different places than you could with

> >> mail-order catalogues. the less awesome aspect is not being able to

> > do

> >> it full-time because there's no money in it. i can survive on tour

> > but

> >> i don't want to have to tour 10 months a year, like the kids in my

> >> band's "touring lineup" do...

> >

> > As usual, I'm having trouble finding a point in that paragraph. If

> > you want to tour, then tour, and do it for as long or as short of a

> > period as you want. If you manage it well, you'll probably make more

> > money than if you didn't tour, but you don't necessarily have to tour

> > into order to survive. XTC stopped touring in the mid 80s after Andy

> > Partridge's nervous breakdown and they survived till 2005, and I

> > really doubt they split up over mp3 downloading.

> >

> >> > Well I can't comment on experience, but I'm reluctant to take your

> >> > experience at face value simply because you've been wrong about so

> >> > many other aspects of this conversation.

> >>

> >> oh, sure... so WRONG...

> >

> > Yes, and unfortunately, like most people, you tie your desire to not

> > be wrong to your ego. But at least you're smart enough to know the

> > topic is worth discussing, unlike many in the peanut gallery here,

> > and you're self-confident enough to think you are doing a good enough

> > job of arguing this topic when you're not, to keep arguing it, which

> > is both good and bad (that is, it's good to stick to your guns, but

> > not after all your limbs have been chopped off and you still want to

> > fight, like the knight from the Monty Python movie)... The only

> > thing better than being wrong is being right. Being wrong gives you

> > the chance to find out what's right, but most people who, upon

> > discovering they're wrong about something, aren't glad to find that

> > out, and refuse to accept the information that is right. And there's

> > not much those of us on a higher frequency can do about that other

> > than point it out and hope that nobody accuses us of being insulting.

> >

> >>

> >> It seems to me that if fans

> >> > don't have to pay for the music, that's money they can use to buy

> >> > stickers, or t-shirts, or other 'merch', including tickets to the

> >> > show itself...

> >>

> >> i addressed this somewhere else. the show used to function as a

> > portal

> >> to get people to buy recordings. now it doesn't.

> >

> > That's ridiculous. Nobody (or at least, VERY few) people buy tickets

> > to concerts of bands who they've never heard before. People go to

> > concerts after they've listened to the bands recordings (previously,

> > from radio, friends, and records bought after hearing them on radio

> > or from friends - and now, from mp3s, friends, and records bought

> > after hearing mp3s or from friends).

> >

> >> i think it's retarded

> >> to have to be a popular clothing designer as well as a popular

> >> musician in order to make money off your music.

> >

> > And I think it's ignorant to make that claim. The artists who start

> > up clothing lines do so because they want to make $20 million this

> > year instead of $5 million like last year.

> >

> >>it also sucks to have

> >> to charge $10 or $15 a head to get into a punk rock show; really

> >> limits the audience. if you could expect 30% of those people to buy

> > a

> >> record, you could charge less or even make the shows free (because

> > so

> >> many more potential record customers would show up).

> >>

> >

> > There are festivals of every size happening all the time all over the

> > place, hundreds if not thousands of them all over north america this

> > summer, and they all need crappy little nobody bands to play, and

> > they all pay well from corporate sponsors or govt. entertainment

> > funds. A few years ago my exgirlfriend dragged me to her gay karaoke

> > friend's regular gig in a cover-band at a dive bar out in the

> > sticks. They were paid $700 a night and played every night, and this

> > is too patrons whose only income is their welfare cheques. There is

> > absolutely no shortage of work for musicians who want to work. But I

> > suppose you'll say you don't want to play in a crappy cover bar band

> > to welfare cases. You want Chad Kroeger to sign you to 604 so you

> > can be a rock star. Yeah, well I've heard it all before, long before

> > the term 'mp3' existed. Very little has changed, and certainly not

> > nearly as much as you keep squaking about, Chicken Little!

> >

> >

> >> plus the profit margin for records sold at shows is WAAAY higher

> > than

> >> through any distributor, digital or otherwise.

> >>

> >

> > Of course there's the fact that unless you're already popular enough

> > to be making a living as a recording artist, nobody will be able to

> > find your mp3s to download for free anywhere online because nobody

> > will bother encoding them and passing them around, because nobody

> > wants them because nobody's heard of you. So if they go to your

> > show, and want to hear your recorded output, they have no choice but

> > to buy your CD at the show, that is, until you become successful

> > enough that people are encoding and uploading your mp3s to pass

> > around. But you don't want to hear that, no, you'd rather pretend

> > there is a crisis that doesn't exist.

> >

> >> my point there was that even though people have less disposable

> > income

> >> in, say, spain or slovenia, even though they are way more cost-

> > minded

> >> with their technology (which means linux and filesharing are huge),

> > i

> >> STILL get paid more as a musician in slovenia than i do in america.

> >

> > Great, thanks for proving my point. They download more illicit mp3s

> > in europe and you make more money from europe. Hence, more illicit

> > downloading of mp3s equals more money for artists. Case closed.

> >

> >> these kids already

> >> have the mp3's but they still buy records! it's amazing!!!

> >

> > And yet, encouraging americans to adopt a more cosmopolitan,

> > international viewpoint like the europeans isn't part of your non-

> > existent strategy of solution.

> >

> >>

> >> maybe bands that know how to play live music will just disappear

> > from

> >> america. i don't really think that's cool, but whatever...

> >>

> >

> > Right, and peak oil will bring Mad Max out of the desert and into the

> > city, and y2k bug will send airplanes falling out of the sky. 9/11

> > was an inside job. The jews orchestrated the holocaust themselves.

> > Any other outrageous nonsense or fearmongering you'd like to add?

> >

> >

>




      

    
    
	
	
	
	


	


	
	
	
	
	


_________________________________________________________________
Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live.
http://revealyourinnerathlete.windowslive.com?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WLYIA_whichathlete_us

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

yeah, something like that.

john bischoff wrote some software to do this kind of stuff in 1976.
it's not new, in fact its been the subject of lots of interesting
work.

even seen stuff with different fixed cycloid orbits and such, and an
undulating wave terrain fed from realworld data.

but yeh, i recently got interested enough in the mathematics of
scanning orbit and surface interaction to make a stab at a usable
implementation (e.g. 'actual instrument'). i also think i've boiled
down a nice handful of orthogonal (-ish) control parameters, which
most of the older work stopped short of attempting.

most of the older work also restricts itself to symmetrical orbits and
continuous surfaces; i tend to think when you've heard one chebyshev
waveshaper you've heard them all, and the real interesting sounds
involve asymmetries and discontinuities (witness the half-sine cz
waveform... utterly bonkers, if all you wanna think about are
continuous functions.)

this has its limits of course; it's fun babbling into a waveshaping
buffer with a microphone, but there's already plenty of ways of
producing chaos in the world...

if i ever get anything done that's releasable, i'll certainly make
some utilities to generate wave surface data as well. dunno how
'sophisticated' any of this'll be; probably not very; probably pretty
crude since software i make on my own time tends to be for my own,
crude, amusement; not gonna spend my life making pretty gui's if i
don't want to use them myself.

played a little with interpolation. not even sure if i can even hear
the difference between linear and higher-order in this particular
case, given that the tables are sufficiently large (couple mb of ram
doesn't hurt too bad, these days...)

i have worked out some nice optimizations of how to lay out the
surface data for linear interpolation speed, so prolly stick with
that. it is a damn effficient method overall.

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Scott Nordlund <gsn10@...> wrote:
>
> It occurred to me a few years ago that a general-purpose two-dimensional
> lookup table (z as a function of x and y) could be a very powerful synthesis
> tool, and not even particularly computationally expensive (even with fancy
> interpolation).
>
> Standard digital waveform playback, FM, phase distortion, waveshaping (as in
> the Korg 01W), PPG-style wavetables, and Ensoniq-style loop point modulation
> could all be considered a subset of this (given sophisticated enough tools
> for generating this matrix of values, anyway). Cascading multiple stages of
> this, and even allowing simultaneous realtime reading and writing of the
> data would get you well into uncharted territory.
>
> Of course I've got other things to do, so I haven't looked into it further
> than "oh that would be neat".
>
> I'm not sure if this is what's in mind, but I recognize that it's very rich
> territory anyway.
>
> To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
> From: synergeezer@...
> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:48:47 +0000
> Subject: [CZsynth] Re: waldorf microwave vs CZ & poly-
>
> Huzzah! Ezra B.!
>
> I know lots of people who have ethical beliefs which are more
>
> restrictive than the mere law (and especially considering the limited
>
> enforceability of current hi-tech law).
>
> But I want to know more about your "3-D phase distortion wave terrain
>
> synthesizer". I've been studying musical waveforms for many years,
>
> with an eye toward re-synthesizing "natural" sounds, especially using
>
> phase distortion, iPD, FM, plus additive. I love CZs, VZs, Yamaha
>
> DXII, TX816 and FS1R, and Synergy DKII (hence, my moniker). I've
>
> worked (mostly using Mathematica) to find algorithms with associated
>
> _ranges_ of parameters to synthesize "natural" instruments that don't
>
> exist. I could describe my _ranges_ of parameters as a third
>
> dimension of the sound. But, what do _you_ mean?
>
> What is your goal with your "3-D phase distortion wave terrain
>
> synthesizer" and how are you approaching it?
>
> - synergeezer
>
> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> i really don't want to talk about this here anymore. people don't want
>
>> to hear it. of course they don't. (everyone else, i'm sorry, i'm not
>
>> good at ignoring bait but i'm really done after this.)
>
>>
>
>> i only have one question, i've asked it a few different ways,
>
>> everything else is tangential, and i don't believe you've come close
>
>> to answering it:
>
>>
>
>> do you think it's ok for people who listen to a lot of music to do so
>
>> exclusively through illegal downloads?
>
>>
>
>> (that was what you seemed to be saying in the first place (not just to
>
>> me). if it's a straw man, i'm sorry: i just want to hear you say yes
>
>> or no.)
>
>>
>
>> this question applies to a lot of people, whatever you might imagine
>
>> and whatever justifications you might make for your personal behavior
>
>> (which, by the way, i'm not even calling into question).
>
>>
>
>> i live in an underground music scene. i believe what i believe (sorry,
>
>> never did join the debate team, not interested). i'm not perfect or an
>
>> epitome of righteousness but i think i've done more than my part to
>
>> contribute to the art that i love, and i'm sick of seeing apathy all
>
>> around me. i'm sick of people professing to be "fans" of music who
>
>> refuse to buy anything or even put something in the donation jar
>
>> (whether it's the guilt-plus-convenience market of the iTunes store or
>
>> a literal jar in the punk house basement). i think obtaining ALL your
>
>> music through filesharing is a symptom of apathy and moral weakness,
>
>> and hurts art forms (like the album) which i will be sad to see the
>
>> last of.
>
>>
>
>> somehow the kids in europe fileshare AND pay money for music, and the
>
>> kids in the US don't. i believe this really is an issue of ethics and
>
>> the relative value placed on arts and artists. fans of strange music
>
>> in europe have made the decision that their enlightened self-interest
>
>> will be best served by supporting the people that make the art that
>
>> they consume. the details of the system that enable this are
>
>> unimportant as long as it works somehow (capitalism, utopianism...
>
>> whatever).
>
>>
>
>> if you sincerely want to answer to this, fine. if all you want to do
>
>> is keep telling me how naive i am, or that my community doesn't
>
>> matter, please refrain.
>
>>
>
>> i admit to being very confused by a lot of what i see out there; i'm
>
>> still trying to figure things out; i doubt that anyone has all the
>
>> answers. i know that there are ways to make things work for all kinds
>
>> of practitioners of music, i'm just afraid that the potential
>
>> solutions are not coming fast enough or gaining wide enough
>
>> acceptance.
>
>>
>
>> i Do insist that my perspective is valid: i've spent my whole life
>
>> surrounded by professional musicians, i've played literally Thousands
>
>> of shows myself, i've helped run venues and labels (which, btw, are
>
>> not unsuccessful to this day), and i think things have gotten very
>
>> noticeably worse just in the last 8 years or so.
>
>>
>
>> mybe you disagree on that, maybe it's just my little bubble-world that
>
>> is suffering (though it really can't be THAT little). i respect that,
>
>> i'll admit to the limited big-picture relevance of myself, my friends,
>
>> my art, my taste, and my stylistic community, and i want to drop it.
>
>>
>
>> i'm really, really done now. there are better things to do.
>
>>
>
>> i'm working on a 3-D phase distortion wave terrain synthesizer
>
>> (cz-inspired !) and you probably won't hear from me until that's done.
>
>>
>
>> thanks, apologies, be peaceful and prosper.
>
>>
>
>> - ezra b.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:04 AM, zoinky420 <zoinky420@...> wrote:
>
>> > --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@> wrote:
>
>> >>
>
>> >> the problem is that the underlying technology has a built-in bias
>
>> >> towards letting music be copied. i agree that legalities are pretty
>
>> >> worthless in this situation.
>
>> >>
>
>> >> ethics as self-interest seems to work
>
>> >
>
>> > No, they don't. If ethics 'worked', if 'karma' existed, we would not
>
>> > need a legal system. We have a legal system in order to mitigate,
>
>> > albeit as much as possible, which is never as much as we'd like, the
>
>> > unjust nature of the world. But when that system is so inapplicable
>
>> > to a particular case that it fails wholesale, as it does in the case
>
>> > we are discussing, then we must seek an alternative.
>
>> >
>
>> >> ethics and economics seem pretty intimately related, to me...
>
>> >
>
>> > Well as PT Barnum put it, a sucker is born every day. Ethics are
>
>> > related to economics as hope is related to fact. You cannot expect
>
>> > your competitor to act ethically in abscense of punative law if he
>
>> > doesn't. You're living a self-righteous pipe dream if you don't
>
>> > think that even YOU would leverage whatever advantage you could in a
>
>> > society devoid of punative law. You'd run slipshod over everyone
>
>> > while simultaneously deluding yourself into thinking your actions are
>
>> > the epitome of ethical behavior, just like the robber barons did at
>
>> > the turn of the 19th century.
>
>> >
>
>> > i think "least" might actually represent
>
>> >> a bigger chunk than i want to accept. maybe the answer is that no-
>
>> > one
>
>> >> needs labels, including musicians. but i suspect it will be harder
>
>> > to
>
>> >> coalesce people around a style, hard to keep the the stylistic
>
>> >> momentum that drives innovation and creates new imitation-worthy
>
>> >> stuff, when every artist is struggling tooth-and-nail against each
>
>> >> other for the attention of a few marketing behemoths, without the
>
>> >> small-group support network that "the label" used to provide.
>
>> >>
>
>> >
>
>> > Ok, well obviously you are very concerned about this subject, and are
>
>> > motivated to put considerable energy into thinking about it. But, I
>
>> > think you are having so much trouble with it because you are scared
>
>> > of its implications. I think that if you were more confident, you'd
>
>> > be more optimistic. The people telling us to stop talking about this
>
>> > here certainly aren't the ones who are going to come up with any
>
>> > ingenius solutions, but someone like you certainly could, if you
>
>> > manage to get your priorities straight.
>
>> >
>
>> >> really? yuck. i kind of do think that that time on the train might
>
>> > be
>
>> >> worth something, though.
>
>> >
>
>> > Well today I had to take my mother to the eye clinic and while I was
>
>> > waiting in the car for her outside and all the people were arriving
>
>> > to work at the hospital across the street, almost all of them had
>
>> > Ipods on. I was surprised they were that ubiquitous, I had no idea.
>
>> > Just goes to show what sheep most people are. There are lots of mp3
>
>> > players on the market, most just as flashy as the Ipod these days,
>
>> > but everyone and his yuppy cousin has to have an Ipod. At least we
>
>> > know they're listening to mainstream crap artists who can't even make
>
>> > a spurious claim about being impoverished by mp3 downloading. Of
>
>> > course my original statement stands, they are only listening to Ipods
>
>> > the way to and from work, not all day long, but I am still surprised
>
>> > by how many Ipods are actually in use these days during the rushhour
>
>> > commutes.
>
>> >
>
>> >> > And why do you assume I deserve more? You know nothing about my
>
>> >> > music. Perhaps it is only worth a pittance...
>
>> >>
>
>> >> ok, but let's assume that at least some music is worth something
>
>> >> significant. or maybe we can't agree on that, in which case i give
>
>> > up.
>
>> >
>
>> > I'm the one who could be exasperated enough to give up, since you're
>
>> > clearly working hard to misunderstand, misrepresent, or completely
>
>> > ignore things I've repeatedly said in this thread. I'm now going to
>
>> > spell it out for you one last time, and if you continue to pretend
>
>> > you didn't read it, I will copy and paste it every time you do so:
>
>> >
>
>> > Bands obtain the value of the worth of their output, period. If the
>
>> > value of the worth of the output of mediocre bands drops to that of
>
>> > the value of the worth of lousy bands, I don't have a problem with
>
>> > that. I strive for excellency, not mediocrity. I will be pleased
>
>> > when those mediocre bands can no longer make a living at music so
>
>> > they have to get real jobs. I've got four words to say to
>
>> > them: "Move over, comin' thru!" Besides, they don't have to get day
>
>> > jobs necessarily, they can simply let the medicore band break up,
>
>> > then form another band with other guys who have the desire to strive
>
>> > for excellence. Besides, I'm a huge advocate for a livable welfare
>
>> > income for the unemployed.
>
>> >
>
>> > The day excellence stops being worth the highest value is the day the
>
>> > world will go to hell in a handbasket, and not a moment sooner. It
>
>> > is the responsibility of the excellent to provide for the incapable,
>
>> > not the mediocre. Because the mediocre are not incapable, they are
>
>> > capable of excellence but do not try to excell, for whatever reason
>
>> > (such as laziness, delusion, ignorance, and various other reasons the
>
>> > mediocre remain the mediocre).
>
>> >
>
>> >>
>
>> >> i wish small bands (the kind that play instruments in groups)
>
>> > weren't
>
>> >> having such a hard time surviving, no matter how critically
>
>> > acclaimed
>
>> >> they get. no one can stand to do it for more than a couple years any
>
>> >> more.
>
>> >
>
>> > There has always been critically acclaimed art that does not
>
>> > translate into commercial success. That's not mp3 downloading's
>
>> > fault, that's bad taste's fault. But you're not rallying for better
>
>> > taste in consumers, because your priorities in this subject are mixed
>
>> > up.
>
>> >
>
>> >> there's no chance to grow and become something worth imitating
>
>> >> in future generations (going back to the sonic youth example).
>
>> >>
>
>> >
>
>> > Your Sonic Youth example is weak, mine's solid. Did you even stop to
>
>> > think about what you were writing when you said that Sonic Youth's
>
>> > early messy noise would not have propelled them onto better things if
>
>> > people had been able to obtain high-quality recordings of that messy
>
>> > noise? If you had, it might have dawned on you that 'messy noise'
>
>> > and 'hi fidelity' are somewhat diametrically opposed. Sonic Youth,
>
>> > like all indie band in the 80s, thrived on tape-trading among die-
>
>> > hard music fans. Then, in order to gain commercial success, they
>
>> > thrived on albums being purchased by less-than-die-hard-fans. Now,
>
>> > how many times are you going to prompt me to repeat that? Will you
>
>> > ever simply accept that you haven't come up with any arguments I
>
>> > haven't already heard plenty of times, and so you aren't going to be
>
>> > bringing me around to agreeing with me, no matter how many times you
>
>> > repeat yourself or I repeat myself.
>
>> >
>
>> >> it's a very different prospect to render out some techno and get a
>
>> > few
>
>> >> dollars a month from ads.
>
>> >>
>
>> >
>
>> > So now you're saying only techno can thrive from mp3 downloads?
>
>> > Nonsense. Look, a techno artist generally only has to pay himself.
>
>> > A band has three or four members. And lo and behold, the latest
>
>> > trend is massive ensembles like Polyphonic Spree and Arcade Fire. If
>
>> > these 'hot new' band are afraid of not making enough money to survive
>
>> > due to mp3 downloading, and they can't afford to tour, why the hell
>
>> > do they have so many friggin members on the payroll???
>
>> >
>
>> > Look, every time you come up with a hypothetical point I completely
>
>> > trash it with facts. You're going to have to do a lot better than
>
>> > that if you want to win this argument with something other than
>
>> > browbeating.
>
>> >
>
>> >> >> but there are
>
>> >> >> exceptions. deerhunter comes to mind. no age come to mind.
>
>> >> >>
>
>> >> >
>
>> >> > Never heard of them. Maybe because I don't do MySpace.
>
>> >>
>
>> >> oh well. these are people who started self-releasing and on myspace,
>
>> >> and are now on kranky and sub pop. deerhunter might be best known as
>
>> >> the current NIN opener slot, succeeding peaches and bauhaus.
>
>> >>
>
>> >
>
>> > Well it was a good movie, but not exactly an inspired band name! Why
>
>> > do so many band names suck these days, anyway?
>
>> >
>
>> >> You said you get a thrill out of some punk
>
>> >> listening to your tunes off MySpace.
>
>> >>
>
>> >> no,
>
>> >
>
>> > "if some teenager halfway across the world downloads my record and is
>
>> > stoked enough on it to share it with 500 of his online friends, many
>
>> > of whom are also stoked, how could i not be happy" - you.
>
>> >
>
>> > i could give half a crap about myspace. what i appreciate is being
>
>> >> able to go to portugal and play to a large sold-out crowd of stoked
>
>> >> kids; i suspect that "the internet" has something to do with this.
>
>> >> this is the most awesome aspect of digitally distributed music, to
>
>> > me:
>
>> >> reaching a lot more people in different places than you could with
>
>> >> mail-order catalogues. the less awesome aspect is not being able to
>
>> > do
>
>> >> it full-time because there's no money in it. i can survive on tour
>
>> > but
>
>> >> i don't want to have to tour 10 months a year, like the kids in my
>
>> >> band's "touring lineup" do...
>
>> >
>
>> > As usual, I'm having trouble finding a point in that paragraph. If
>
>> > you want to tour, then tour, and do it for as long or as short of a
>
>> > period as you want. If you manage it well, you'll probably make more
>
>> > money than if you didn't tour, but you don't necessarily have to tour
>
>> > into order to survive. XTC stopped touring in the mid 80s after Andy
>
>> > Partridge's nervous breakdown and they survived till 2005, and I
>
>> > really doubt they split up over mp3 downloading.
>
>> >
>
>> >> > Well I can't comment on experience, but I'm reluctant to take your
>
>> >> > experience at face value simply because you've been wrong about so
>
>> >> > many other aspects of this conversation.
>
>> >>
>
>> >> oh, sure... so WRONG...
>
>> >
>
>> > Yes, and unfortunately, like most people, you tie your desire to not
>
>> > be wrong to your ego. But at least you're smart enough to know the
>
>> > topic is worth discussing, unlike many in the peanut gallery here,
>
>> > and you're self-confident enough to think you are doing a good enough
>
>> > job of arguing this topic when you're not, to keep arguing it, which
>
>> > is both good and bad (that is, it's good to stick to your guns, but
>
>> > not after all your limbs have been chopped off and you still want to
>
>> > fight, like the knight from the Monty Python movie)... The only
>
>> > thing better than being wrong is being right. Being wrong gives you
>
>> > the chance to find out what's right, but most people who, upon
>
>> > discovering they're wrong about something, aren't glad to find that
>
>> > out, and refuse to accept the information that is right. And there's
>
>> > not much those of us on a higher frequency can do about that other
>
>> > than point it out and hope that nobody accuses us of being insulting.
>
>> >
>
>> >>
>
>> >> It seems to me that if fans
>
>> >> > don't have to pay for the music, that's money they can use to buy
>
>> >> > stickers, or t-shirts, or other 'merch', including tickets to the
>
>> >> > show itself...
>
>> >>
>
>> >> i addressed this somewhere else. the show used to function as a
>
>> > portal
>
>> >> to get people to buy recordings. now it doesn't.
>
>> >
>
>> > That's ridiculous. Nobody (or at least, VERY few) people buy tickets
>
>> > to concerts of bands who they've never heard before. People go to
>
>> > concerts after they've listened to the bands recordings (previously,
>
>> > from radio, friends, and records bought after hearing them on radio
>
>> > or from friends - and now, from mp3s, friends, and records bought
>
>> > after hearing mp3s or from friends).
>
>> >
>
>> >> i think it's retarded
>
>> >> to have to be a popular clothing designer as well as a popular
>
>> >> musician in order to make money off your music.
>
>> >
>
>> > And I think it's ignorant to make that claim. The artists who start
>
>> > up clothing lines do so because they want to make $20 million this
>
>> > year instead of $5 million like last year.
>
>> >
>
>> >>it also sucks to have
>
>> >> to charge $10 or $15 a head to get into a punk rock show; really
>
>> >> limits the audience. if you could expect 30% of those people to buy
>
>> > a
>
>> >> record, you could charge less or even make the shows free (because
>
>> > so
>
>> >> many more potential record customers would show up).
>
>> >>
>
>> >
>
>> > There are festivals of every size happening all the time all over the
>
>> > place, hundreds if not thousands of them all over north america this
>
>> > summer, and they all need crappy little nobody bands to play, and
>
>> > they all pay well from corporate sponsors or govt. entertainment
>
>> > funds. A few years ago my exgirlfriend dragged me to her gay karaoke
>
>> > friend's regular gig in a cover-band at a dive bar out in the
>
>> > sticks. They were paid $700 a night and played every night, and this
>
>> > is too patrons whose only income is their welfare cheques. There is
>
>> > absolutely no shortage of work for musicians who want to work. But I
>
>> > suppose you'll say you don't want to play in a crappy cover bar band
>
>> > to welfare cases. You want Chad Kroeger to sign you to 604 so you
>
>> > can be a rock star. Yeah, well I've heard it all before, long before
>
>> > the term 'mp3' existed. Very little has changed, and certainly not
>
>> > nearly as much as you keep squaking about, Chicken Little!
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> >> plus the profit margin for records sold at shows is WAAAY higher
>
>> > than
>
>> >> through any distributor, digital or otherwise.
>
>> >>
>
>> >
>
>> > Of course there's the fact that unless you're already popular enough
>
>> > to be making a living as a recording artist, nobody will be able to
>
>> > find your mp3s to download for free anywhere online because nobody
>
>> > will bother encoding them and passing them around, because nobody
>
>> > wants them because nobody's heard of you. So if they go to your
>
>> > show, and want to hear your recorded output, they have no choice but
>
>> > to buy your CD at the show, that is, until you become successful
>
>> > enough that people are encoding and uploading your mp3s to pass
>
>> > around. But you don't want to hear that, no, you'd rather pretend
>
>> > there is a crisis that doesn't exist.
>
>> >
>
>> >> my point there was that even though people have less disposable
>
>> > income
>
>> >> in, say, spain or slovenia, even though they are way more cost-
>
>> > minded
>
>> >> with their technology (which means linux and filesharing are huge),
>
>> > i
>
>> >> STILL get paid more as a musician in slovenia than i do in america.
>
>> >
>
>> > Great, thanks for proving my point. They download more illicit mp3s
>
>> > in europe and you make more money from europe. Hence, more illicit
>
>> > downloading of mp3s equals more money for artists. Case closed.
>
>> >
>
>> >> these kids already
>
>> >> have the mp3's but they still buy records! it's amazing!!!
>
>> >
>
>> > And yet, encouraging americans to adopt a more cosmopolitan,
>
>> > international viewpoint like the europeans isn't part of your non-
>
>> > existent strategy of solution.
>
>> >
>
>> >>
>
>> >> maybe bands that know how to play live music will just disappear
>
>> > from
>
>> >> america. i don't really think that's cool, but whatever...
>
>> >>
>
>> >
>
>> > Right, and peak oil will bring Mad Max out of the desert and into the
>
>> > city, and y2k bug will send airplanes falling out of the sky. 9/11
>
>> > was an inside job. The jews orchestrated the holocaust themselves.
>
>> > Any other outrageous nonsense or fearmongering you'd like to add?
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live.
> http://revealyourinnerathlete.windowslive.com?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WLYIA_whichathlete_us
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Ezra,
I think I'm working toward something similar to your work.  The key
thing I'm looking at is an algorithmic replacement for what you term 
"linear piecewise phase distortions".  I think!
I'm avoiding the emulation of Butterworth or Chebyshev filters (no
prejudice against them) for what I see as the more fundamental
waveshaping functions of the CZs, VZ's, Yamaha DX's, TX's, and Synergy
DXII's.
Adding filters would be great fun!

As you said, "probably the best thing is just to wait til it's done..."

I'm waiting, expectantly, and I hope you will.

- synergeezer

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, ezra.buchla@... wrote:
>
> probably the best thing is just to wait til it's done...
> 
> remaining are the tedious bits of wrapping the algorithm and data into
> an app or plugin or dsp chip that handles the i/o. course that's the
> part that takes the longest cause its so damn boring, and this isn't
> my job, it's just a side project.
> 
> but anyway... you know the idea of phase distortion as used in the cz
> series. you have a table containing a waveform, and you index into it
> with a ramp at the target frequency. then you put an inflection point
> into the ramp and bend it into two linear segments. modulate the
> inflection point and its output level with an envelope or whatever.
> pick the right waveforms and you have a cz. the characteristic
> waveforms that you're all familiar with are the sine, half-sine (with
> a discontinuity), saw (-ish), and some kinda high-order polynomal
> spike thing; maybe something else i'm forgetting. changing the
> inflection point has different effects on the harmonic content for
> these different waveforms.
> 
> wave terrain synthesis is a pretty similar idea, been kicking around
> academic literature for a long time but no commercial applications
> that i'm aware of. the idea is using a stack of wavetables and
> traversing through it with some index that can be phase-locked with
> the base index or weirdly independent (introducing a kind of timbral
> modulation characteristic of... certain... old modular oscs...).
> sticking with the phase-locked case, you basically make another
> inflection point bending the index into 3-space.
> 
> it's really just a more convenient, all-purpose, potentially richer
> representation of wavetable morphing/blending/crossfading. one osc to
> rule them all, kinda thing.
> 
> in my case there will probably be other options than linear piecewise
> phase distortions. ellipses are nice.
> 
> i'm having good results with terrains made of different blends of
> various-ordered chebyshev polynomials. also some discontinuous shapes
> to inject high-order stuff, and some linear-square blends produced by
> various forms of soft and hard saturation. nice thing about those is
> that the 3-d phase distortion (as i implement it) gives you potential
> asymmetry, and an asymmetrical soft shaper is sortof analogous to some
> kinds of distortion characteristic of vacuum tubes.
> 
> anyway, check back in some weeks. in the meantime i've got some other
> stuff on the stove to take care of. if i manage to stay out of flame
> wars i might get it all done.
> 
> -eb
> 
> 
> On 8/12/08, synergeezer <synergeezer@...> wrote:
> > Huzzah! Ezra B.!
> >
> > I know lots of people who have ethical beliefs which are more
> > restrictive than the mere law (and especially considering the limited
> > enforceability of current hi-tech law).
> >
> > But I want to know more about your "3-D phase distortion wave terrain
> > synthesizer".  I've been studying musical waveforms for many years,
> > with an eye toward re-synthesizing "natural" sounds, especially using
> > phase distortion, iPD, FM, plus additive.  I love CZs, VZs, Yamaha
> > DXII, TX816 and FS1R, and Synergy DKII (hence, my moniker).  I've
> > worked (mostly using Mathematica) to find algorithms with associated
> > _ranges_ of parameters to synthesize "natural" instruments that don't
> > exist.  I could describe my _ranges_ of parameters as a third
> > dimension of the sound.  But, what do _you_ mean?
> >
> > What is your goal with your "3-D phase distortion wave terrain
> > synthesizer" and how are you approaching it?
> >
> > - synergeezer
> >
> > --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@> wrote:
> >>
> >> i really don't want to talk about this here anymore. people don't
want
> >> to hear it. of course they don't. (everyone else, i'm sorry, i'm not
> >> good at ignoring bait but i'm really done after this.)
> >>
> >> i only have one question, i've asked it a few different ways,
> >> everything else is tangential, and i don't believe you've come close
> >> to answering it:
> >>
> >> do you think it's ok for people who listen to a lot of music to do so
> >> exclusively through illegal downloads?
> >>
> >> (that was what you seemed to be saying in the first place (not
just to
> >> me). if it's a straw man, i'm sorry: i just want to hear you say yes
> >> or no.)
> >>
> >> this question applies to a lot of people, whatever you might imagine
> >> and whatever justifications you might make for your personal behavior
> >> (which, by the way, i'm not even calling into question).
> >>
> >> i live in an underground music scene. i believe what i believe
(sorry,
> >> never did join the debate team, not interested). i'm not perfect
or an
> >> epitome of righteousness but i think i've done more than my part to
> >> contribute to the art that i love, and i'm sick of seeing apathy all
> >> around me. i'm sick of people professing to be "fans" of music who
> >> refuse to buy anything or even put something in the donation jar
> >> (whether it's the guilt-plus-convenience market of the iTunes
store or
> >> a literal jar in the punk house basement). i think obtaining ALL your
> >> music through filesharing is a symptom of apathy and moral weakness,
> >> and hurts art forms (like the album) which i will be sad to see the
> >> last of.
> >>
> >> somehow the kids in europe fileshare AND pay money for music, and the
> >> kids in the US don't. i believe this really is an issue of ethics and
> >> the relative value placed on arts and artists. fans of strange music
> >> in europe have made the decision that their enlightened self-interest
> >> will be best served by supporting the people that make the art that
> >> they consume. the details of the system that enable this are
> >> unimportant as long as it works somehow (capitalism, utopianism...
> >> whatever).
> >>
> >> if you sincerely want to answer to this, fine. if all you want to do
> >> is keep telling me how naive i am, or that my community doesn't
> >> matter, please refrain.
> >>
> >> i admit to being very confused by a lot of what i see out there; i'm
> >> still trying to figure things out; i doubt that anyone has all the
> >> answers. i know that there are ways to make things work for all kinds
> >> of practitioners of music, i'm just afraid that the potential
> >> solutions are not coming fast enough or gaining wide enough
> >> acceptance.
> >>
> >> i Do insist that my perspective is valid: i've spent my whole life
> >> surrounded by professional musicians, i've played literally Thousands
> >> of shows myself, i've helped run venues and labels (which, btw, are
> >> not unsuccessful to this day), and i think things have gotten very
> >> noticeably worse just in the last 8 years or so.
> >>
> >> mybe you disagree on that, maybe it's just my little bubble-world
that
> >> is suffering (though it really can't be THAT little). i respect that,
> >> i'll admit to the limited big-picture relevance of myself, my
friends,
> >> my art, my taste, and my stylistic community, and i want to drop it.
> >>
> >> i'm really, really done now. there are better things to do.
> >>
> >> i'm working on a 3-D phase distortion wave terrain synthesizer
> >> (cz-inspired !) and you probably won't hear from me until that's
done.
> >>
> >> thanks, apologies, be peaceful and prosper.
> >>
> >> - ezra b.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:04 AM, zoinky420 <zoinky420@> wrote:
> >> > --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> the problem is that the underlying technology has a built-in bias
> >> >> towards letting music be copied. i agree that legalities are
pretty
> >> >> worthless in this situation.
> >> >>
> >> >> ethics as self-interest seems to work
> >> >
> >> > No, they don't. If ethics 'worked', if 'karma' existed, we
would not
> >> > need a legal system. We have a legal system in order to mitigate,
> >> > albeit as much as possible, which is never as much as we'd
like, the
> >> > unjust nature of the world. But when that system is so inapplicable
> >> > to a particular case that it fails wholesale, as it does in the
case
> >> > we are discussing, then we must seek an alternative.
> >> >
> >> >> ethics and economics seem pretty intimately related, to me...
> >> >
> >> > Well as PT Barnum put it, a sucker is born every day. Ethics are
> >> > related to economics as hope is related to fact. You cannot expect
> >> > your competitor to act ethically in abscense of punative law if he
> >> > doesn't. You're living a self-righteous pipe dream if you don't
> >> > think that even YOU would leverage whatever advantage you could
in a
> >> > society devoid of punative law. You'd run slipshod over everyone
> >> > while simultaneously deluding yourself into thinking your
actions are
> >> > the epitome of ethical behavior, just like the robber barons did at
> >> > the turn of the 19th century.
> >> >
> >> > i think "least" might actually represent
> >> >> a bigger chunk than i want to accept. maybe the answer is that no-
> >> > one
> >> >> needs labels, including musicians. but i suspect it will be harder
> >> > to
> >> >> coalesce people around a style, hard to keep the the stylistic
> >> >> momentum that drives innovation and creates new imitation-worthy
> >> >> stuff, when every artist is struggling tooth-and-nail against each
> >> >> other for the attention of a few marketing behemoths, without the
> >> >> small-group support network that "the label" used to provide.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Ok, well obviously you are very concerned about this subject,
and are
> >> > motivated to put considerable energy into thinking about it. But, I
> >> > think you are having so much trouble with it because you are scared
> >> > of its implications. I think that if you were more confident, you'd
> >> > be more optimistic. The people telling us to stop talking about
this
> >> > here certainly aren't the ones who are going to come up with any
> >> > ingenius solutions, but someone like you certainly could, if you
> >> > manage to get your priorities straight.
> >> >
> >> >> really? yuck. i kind of do think that that time on the train might
> >> > be
> >> >> worth something, though.
> >> >
> >> > Well today I had to take my mother to the eye clinic and while
I was
> >> > waiting in the car for her outside and all the people were arriving
> >> > to work at the hospital across the street, almost all of them had
> >> > Ipods on. I was surprised they were that ubiquitous, I had no idea.
> >> > Just goes to show what sheep most people are. There are lots of mp3
> >> > players on the market, most just as flashy as the Ipod these days,
> >> > but everyone and his yuppy cousin has to have an Ipod. At least we
> >> > know they're listening to mainstream crap artists who can't
even make
> >> > a spurious claim about being impoverished by mp3 downloading. Of
> >> > course my original statement stands, they are only listening to
Ipods
> >> > the way to and from work, not all day long, but I am still
surprised
> >> > by how many Ipods are actually in use these days during the
rushhour
> >> > commutes.
> >> >
> >> >> > And why do you assume I deserve more? You know nothing about my
> >> >> > music. Perhaps it is only worth a pittance...
> >> >>
> >> >> ok, but let's assume that at least some music is worth something
> >> >> significant. or maybe we can't agree on that, in which case i give
> >> > up.
> >> >
> >> > I'm the one who could be exasperated enough to give up, since
you're
> >> > clearly working hard to misunderstand, misrepresent, or completely
> >> > ignore things I've repeatedly said in this thread. I'm now going to
> >> > spell it out for you one last time, and if you continue to pretend
> >> > you didn't read it, I will copy and paste it every time you do so:
> >> >
> >> > Bands obtain the value of the worth of their output, period. If the
> >> > value of the worth of the output of mediocre bands drops to that of
> >> > the value of the worth of lousy bands, I don't have a problem with
> >> > that. I strive for excellency, not mediocrity. I will be pleased
> >> > when those mediocre bands can no longer make a living at music so
> >> > they have to get real jobs. I've got four words to say to
> >> > them: "Move over, comin' thru!" Besides, they don't have to get day
> >> > jobs necessarily, they can simply let the medicore band break up,
> >> > then form another band with other guys who have the desire to
strive
> >> > for excellence. Besides, I'm a huge advocate for a livable welfare
> >> > income for the unemployed.
> >> >
> >> > The day excellence stops being worth the highest value is the
day the
> >> > world will go to hell in a handbasket, and not a moment sooner. It
> >> > is the responsibility of the excellent to provide for the
incapable,
> >> > not the mediocre. Because the mediocre are not incapable, they are
> >> > capable of excellence but do not try to excell, for whatever reason
> >> > (such as laziness, delusion, ignorance, and various other
reasons the
> >> > mediocre remain the mediocre).
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> i wish small bands (the kind that play instruments in groups)
> >> > weren't
> >> >> having such a hard time surviving, no matter how critically
> >> > acclaimed
> >> >> they get. no one can stand to do it for more than a couple
years any
> >> >> more.
> >> >
> >> > There has always been critically acclaimed art that does not
> >> > translate into commercial success. That's not mp3 downloading's
> >> > fault, that's bad taste's fault. But you're not rallying for better
> >> > taste in consumers, because your priorities in this subject are
mixed
> >> > up.
> >> >
> >> >> there's no chance to grow and become something worth imitating
> >> >> in future generations (going back to the sonic youth example).
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Your Sonic Youth example is weak, mine's solid. Did you even
stop to
> >> > think about what you were writing when you said that Sonic Youth's
> >> > early messy noise would not have propelled them onto better
things if
> >> > people had been able to obtain high-quality recordings of that
messy
> >> > noise? If you had, it might have dawned on you that 'messy noise'
> >> > and 'hi fidelity' are somewhat diametrically opposed. Sonic Youth,
> >> > like all indie band in the 80s, thrived on tape-trading among die-
> >> > hard music fans. Then, in order to gain commercial success, they
> >> > thrived on albums being purchased by less-than-die-hard-fans. Now,
> >> > how many times are you going to prompt me to repeat that? Will you
> >> > ever simply accept that you haven't come up with any arguments I
> >> > haven't already heard plenty of times, and so you aren't going
to be
> >> > bringing me around to agreeing with me, no matter how many
times you
> >> > repeat yourself or I repeat myself.
> >> >
> >> >> it's a very different prospect to render out some techno and get a
> >> > few
> >> >> dollars a month from ads.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > So now you're saying only techno can thrive from mp3 downloads?
> >> > Nonsense. Look, a techno artist generally only has to pay himself.
> >> > A band has three or four members. And lo and behold, the latest
> >> > trend is massive ensembles like Polyphonic Spree and Arcade
Fire. If
> >> > these 'hot new' band are afraid of not making enough money to
survive
> >> > due to mp3 downloading, and they can't afford to tour, why the hell
> >> > do they have so many friggin members on the payroll???
> >> >
> >> > Look, every time you come up with a hypothetical point I completely
> >> > trash it with facts. You're going to have to do a lot better than
> >> > that if you want to win this argument with something other than
> >> > browbeating.
> >> >
> >> >> >> but there are
> >> >> >> exceptions. deerhunter comes to mind. no age come to mind.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Never heard of them. Maybe because I don't do MySpace.
> >> >>
> >> >> oh well. these are people who started self-releasing and on
myspace,
> >> >> and are now on kranky and sub pop. deerhunter might be best
known as
> >> >> the current NIN opener slot, succeeding peaches and bauhaus.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Well it was a good movie, but not exactly an inspired band
name! Why
> >> > do so many band names suck these days, anyway?
> >> >
> >> >> You said you get a thrill out of some punk
> >> >> listening to your tunes off MySpace.
> >> >>
> >> >> no,
> >> >
> >> > "if some teenager halfway across the world downloads my record
and is
> >> > stoked enough on it to share it with 500 of his online friends,
many
> >> > of whom are also stoked, how could i not be happy" - you.
> >> >
> >> > i could give half a crap about myspace. what i appreciate is being
> >> >> able to go to portugal and play to a large sold-out crowd of
stoked
> >> >> kids; i suspect that "the internet" has something to do with this.
> >> >> this is the most awesome aspect of digitally distributed music, to
> >> > me:
> >> >> reaching a lot more people in different places than you could with
> >> >> mail-order catalogues. the less awesome aspect is not being
able to
> >> > do
> >> >> it full-time because there's no money in it. i can survive on tour
> >> > but
> >> >> i don't want to have to tour 10 months a year, like the kids in my
> >> >> band's "touring lineup" do...
> >> >
> >> > As usual, I'm having trouble finding a point in that paragraph. If
> >> > you want to tour, then tour, and do it for as long or as short of a
> >> > period as you want. If you manage it well, you'll probably make
more
> >> > money than if you didn't tour, but you don't necessarily have
to tour
> >> > into order to survive. XTC stopped touring in the mid 80s after
Andy
> >> > Partridge's nervous breakdown and they survived till 2005, and I
> >> > really doubt they split up over mp3 downloading.
> >> >
> >> >> > Well I can't comment on experience, but I'm reluctant to
take your
> >> >> > experience at face value simply because you've been wrong
about so
> >> >> > many other aspects of this conversation.
> >> >>
> >> >> oh, sure... so WRONG...
> >> >
> >> > Yes, and unfortunately, like most people, you tie your desire
to not
> >> > be wrong to your ego. But at least you're smart enough to know the
> >> > topic is worth discussing, unlike many in the peanut gallery here,
> >> > and you're self-confident enough to think you are doing a good
enough
> >> > job of arguing this topic when you're not, to keep arguing it,
which
> >> > is both good and bad (that is, it's good to stick to your guns, but
> >> > not after all your limbs have been chopped off and you still
want to
> >> > fight, like the knight from the Monty Python movie)... The only
> >> > thing better than being wrong is being right. Being wrong gives you
> >> > the chance to find out what's right, but most people who, upon
> >> > discovering they're wrong about something, aren't glad to find that
> >> > out, and refuse to accept the information that is right. And
there's
> >> > not much those of us on a higher frequency can do about that other
> >> > than point it out and hope that nobody accuses us of being
insulting.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> It seems to me that if fans
> >> >> > don't have to pay for the music, that's money they can use
to buy
> >> >> > stickers, or t-shirts, or other 'merch', including tickets
to the
> >> >> > show itself...
> >> >>
> >> >> i addressed this somewhere else. the show used to function as a
> >> > portal
> >> >> to get people to buy recordings. now it doesn't.
> >> >
> >> > That's ridiculous. Nobody (or at least, VERY few) people buy
tickets
> >> > to concerts of bands who they've never heard before. People go to
> >> > concerts after they've listened to the bands recordings
(previously,
> >> > from radio, friends, and records bought after hearing them on radio
> >> > or from friends - and now, from mp3s, friends, and records bought
> >> > after hearing mp3s or from friends).
> >> >
> >> >> i think it's retarded
> >> >> to have to be a popular clothing designer as well as a popular
> >> >> musician in order to make money off your music.
> >> >
> >> > And I think it's ignorant to make that claim. The artists who start
> >> > up clothing lines do so because they want to make $20 million this
> >> > year instead of $5 million like last year.
> >> >
> >> >>it also sucks to have
> >> >> to charge $10 or $15 a head to get into a punk rock show; really
> >> >> limits the audience. if you could expect 30% of those people
to buy
> >> > a
> >> >> record, you could charge less or even make the shows free (because
> >> > so
> >> >> many more potential record customers would show up).
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > There are festivals of every size happening all the time all
over the
> >> > place, hundreds if not thousands of them all over north america
this
> >> > summer, and they all need crappy little nobody bands to play, and
> >> > they all pay well from corporate sponsors or govt. entertainment
> >> > funds. A few years ago my exgirlfriend dragged me to her gay
karaoke
> >> > friend's regular gig in a cover-band at a dive bar out in the
> >> > sticks. They were paid $700 a night and played every night, and
this
> >> > is too patrons whose only income is their welfare cheques. There is
> >> > absolutely no shortage of work for musicians who want to work.
But I
> >> > suppose you'll say you don't want to play in a crappy cover bar
band
> >> > to welfare cases. You want Chad Kroeger to sign you to 604 so you
> >> > can be a rock star. Yeah, well I've heard it all before, long
before
> >> > the term 'mp3' existed. Very little has changed, and certainly not
> >> > nearly as much as you keep squaking about, Chicken Little!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> plus the profit margin for records sold at shows is WAAAY higher
> >> > than
> >> >> through any distributor, digital or otherwise.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Of course there's the fact that unless you're already popular
enough
> >> > to be making a living as a recording artist, nobody will be able to
> >> > find your mp3s to download for free anywhere online because nobody
> >> > will bother encoding them and passing them around, because nobody
> >> > wants them because nobody's heard of you. So if they go to your
> >> > show, and want to hear your recorded output, they have no
choice but
> >> > to buy your CD at the show, that is, until you become successful
> >> > enough that people are encoding and uploading your mp3s to pass
> >> > around. But you don't want to hear that, no, you'd rather pretend
> >> > there is a crisis that doesn't exist.
> >> >
> >> >> my point there was that even though people have less disposable
> >> > income
> >> >> in, say, spain or slovenia, even though they are way more cost-
> >> > minded
> >> >> with their technology (which means linux and filesharing are
huge),
> >> > i
> >> >> STILL get paid more as a musician in slovenia than i do in
america.
> >> >
> >> > Great, thanks for proving my point. They download more illicit mp3s
> >> > in europe and you make more money from europe. Hence, more illicit
> >> > downloading of mp3s equals more money for artists. Case closed.
> >> >
> >> >> these kids already
> >> >> have the mp3's but they still buy records! it's amazing!!!
> >> >
> >> > And yet, encouraging americans to adopt a more cosmopolitan,
> >> > international viewpoint like the europeans isn't part of your non-
> >> > existent strategy of solution.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> maybe bands that know how to play live music will just disappear
> >> > from
> >> >> america. i don't really think that's cool, but whatever...
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Right, and peak oil will bring Mad Max out of the desert and
into the

> >> > city, and y2k bug will send airplanes falling out of the sky. 9/11
> >> > was an inside job. The jews orchestrated the holocaust themselves.
> >> > Any other outrageous nonsense or fearmongering you'd like to add?
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

> I think I'm working toward something similar to your work. The key
> thing I'm looking at is an algorithmic replacement for what you term
> "linear piecewise phase distortions". I think!

hm, not sure... i'm using that term quite specifically.

> I'm avoiding the emulation of Butterworth or Chebyshev filters (no
> prejudice against them) for what I see as the more fundamental
> waveshaping functions of the CZs, VZ's, Yamaha DX's, TX's, and Synergy
> DXII's.

yeah, i'm also talkin about memoryless transfer functions
(waveshaping). very simple. a chebyshev polynomial is just an
interesting set of orthogonal polynomial bases which have many useful
characteristics, especially when used as waveshaping functions (they
produce specific harmonics of the input sinusoidal components.)

(if you're on mathematica there's even a reserved function:
ChebyshevT[n,x], to evaluate the cheby poly of order n given input x.
i use matlab or scilab, personally, but there you are...)

chebyshev filters are something else entirely... simple analog
circuits, pretty complicated and expensive to implement digitally. the
name comes from the fact that the chebyshev polynomials can be used to
calculate the amplitude response, but the actual toplogy is pretty
arcane. as far as filtering goes, i tend to think that the butterworth
topology is more musical (less ripply), unless you really need a sharp
transition to the stopband for some particular purpose. anyway yeah,
i'm not making a filter.

indeed, the cz architecture's emphasis on memoryless waveshaping to
produce filtering effects was genius, way effective use of computing
capacity before 'virtual analog' was a gleam in anyone's eye...

here's an interesting patent describing (i think) the cz synth
architecture and implementation, including the phase-reset and
smoothing stage which i haven't mentioned yet. pretty cool.

http://music.calarts.edu/~ebuchla/phase_distortion_patent.pdf

anyways, back to work...

> Adding filters would be great fun!
>
> As you said, "probably the best thing is just to wait til it's done..."
>
> I'm waiting, expectantly, and I hope you will.
>
> - synergeezer
>
> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, ezra.buchla@... wrote:
>>
>> probably the best thing is just to wait til it's done...
>>
>> remaining are the tedious bits of wrapping the algorithm and data into
>> an app or plugin or dsp chip that handles the i/o. course that's the
>> part that takes the longest cause its so damn boring, and this isn't
>> my job, it's just a side project.
>>
>> but anyway... you know the idea of phase distortion as used in the cz
>> series. you have a table containing a waveform, and you index into it
>> with a ramp at the target frequency. then you put an inflection point
>> into the ramp and bend it into two linear segments. modulate the
>> inflection point and its output level with an envelope or whatever.
>> pick the right waveforms and you have a cz. the characteristic
>> waveforms that you're all familiar with are the sine, half-sine (with
>> a discontinuity), saw (-ish), and some kinda high-order polynomal
>> spike thing; maybe something else i'm forgetting. changing the
>> inflection point has different effects on the harmonic content for
>> these different waveforms.
>>
>> wave terrain synthesis is a pretty similar idea, been kicking around
>> academic literature for a long time but no commercial applications
>> that i'm aware of. the idea is using a stack of wavetables and
>> traversing through it with some index that can be phase-locked with
>> the base index or weirdly independent (introducing a kind of timbral
>> modulation characteristic of... certain... old modular oscs...).
>> sticking with the phase-locked case, you basically make another
>> inflection point bending the index into 3-space.
>>
>> it's really just a more convenient, all-purpose, potentially richer
>> representation of wavetable morphing/blending/crossfading. one osc to
>> rule them all, kinda thing.
>>
>> in my case there will probably be other options than linear piecewise
>> phase distortions. ellipses are nice.
>>
>> i'm having good results with terrains made of different blends of
>> various-ordered chebyshev polynomials. also some discontinuous shapes
>> to inject high-order stuff, and some linear-square blends produced by
>> various forms of soft and hard saturation. nice thing about those is
>> that the 3-d phase distortion (as i implement it) gives you potential
>> asymmetry, and an asymmetrical soft shaper is sortof analogous to some
>> kinds of distortion characteristic of vacuum tubes.
>>
>> anyway, check back in some weeks. in the meantime i've got some other
>> stuff on the stove to take care of. if i manage to stay out of flame
>> wars i might get it all done.
>>
>> -eb
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/08, synergeezer <synergeezer@...> wrote:
>> > Huzzah! Ezra B.!
>> >
>> > I know lots of people who have ethical beliefs which are more
>> > restrictive than the mere law (and especially considering the limited
>> > enforceability of current hi-tech law).
>> >
>> > But I want to know more about your "3-D phase distortion wave terrain
>> > synthesizer". I've been studying musical waveforms for many years,
>> > with an eye toward re-synthesizing "natural" sounds, especially using
>> > phase distortion, iPD, FM, plus additive. I love CZs, VZs, Yamaha
>> > DXII, TX816 and FS1R, and Synergy DKII (hence, my moniker). I've
>> > worked (mostly using Mathematica) to find algorithms with associated
>> > _ranges_ of parameters to synthesize "natural" instruments that don't
>> > exist. I could describe my _ranges_ of parameters as a third
>> > dimension of the sound. But, what do _you_ mean?
>> >
>> > What is your goal with your "3-D phase distortion wave terrain
>> > synthesizer" and how are you approaching it?
>> >
>> > - synergeezer
>> >
>> > --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> i really don't want to talk about this here anymore. people don't
> want
>> >> to hear it. of course they don't. (everyone else, i'm sorry, i'm not
>> >> good at ignoring bait but i'm really done after this.)
>> >>
>> >> i only have one question, i've asked it a few different ways,
>> >> everything else is tangential, and i don't believe you've come close
>> >> to answering it:
>> >>
>> >> do you think it's ok for people who listen to a lot of music to do so
>> >> exclusively through illegal downloads?
>> >>
>> >> (that was what you seemed to be saying in the first place (not
> just to
>> >> me). if it's a straw man, i'm sorry: i just want to hear you say yes
>> >> or no.)
>> >>
>> >> this question applies to a lot of people, whatever you might imagine
>> >> and whatever justifications you might make for your personal behavior
>> >> (which, by the way, i'm not even calling into question).
>> >>
>> >> i live in an underground music scene. i believe what i believe
> (sorry,
>> >> never did join the debate team, not interested). i'm not perfect
> or an
>> >> epitome of righteousness but i think i've done more than my part to
>> >> contribute to the art that i love, and i'm sick of seeing apathy all
>> >> around me. i'm sick of people professing to be "fans" of music who
>> >> refuse to buy anything or even put something in the donation jar
>> >> (whether it's the guilt-plus-convenience market of the iTunes
> store or
>> >> a literal jar in the punk house basement). i think obtaining ALL your
>> >> music through filesharing is a symptom of apathy and moral weakness,
>> >> and hurts art forms (like the album) which i will be sad to see the
>> >> last of.
>> >>
>> >> somehow the kids in europe fileshare AND pay money for music, and the
>> >> kids in the US don't. i believe this really is an issue of ethics and
>> >> the relative value placed on arts and artists. fans of strange music
>> >> in europe have made the decision that their enlightened self-interest
>> >> will be best served by supporting the people that make the art that
>> >> they consume. the details of the system that enable this are
>> >> unimportant as long as it works somehow (capitalism, utopianism...
>> >> whatever).
>> >>
>> >> if you sincerely want to answer to this, fine. if all you want to do
>> >> is keep telling me how naive i am, or that my community doesn't
>> >> matter, please refrain.
>> >>
>> >> i admit to being very confused by a lot of what i see out there; i'm
>> >> still trying to figure things out; i doubt that anyone has all the
>> >> answers. i know that there are ways to make things work for all kinds
>> >> of practitioners of music, i'm just afraid that the potential
>> >> solutions are not coming fast enough or gaining wide enough
>> >> acceptance.
>> >>
>> >> i Do insist that my perspective is valid: i've spent my whole life
>> >> surrounded by professional musicians, i've played literally Thousands
>> >> of shows myself, i've helped run venues and labels (which, btw, are
>> >> not unsuccessful to this day), and i think things have gotten very
>> >> noticeably worse just in the last 8 years or so.
>> >>
>> >> mybe you disagree on that, maybe it's just my little bubble-world
> that
>> >> is suffering (though it really can't be THAT little). i respect that,
>> >> i'll admit to the limited big-picture relevance of myself, my
> friends,
>> >> my art, my taste, and my stylistic community, and i want to drop it.
>> >>
>> >> i'm really, really done now. there are better things to do.
>> >>
>> >> i'm working on a 3-D phase distortion wave terrain synthesizer
>> >> (cz-inspired !) and you probably won't hear from me until that's
> done.
>> >>
>> >> thanks, apologies, be peaceful and prosper.
>> >>
>> >> - ezra b.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:04 AM, zoinky420 <zoinky420@> wrote:
>> >> > --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> the problem is that the underlying technology has a built-in bias
>> >> >> towards letting music be copied. i agree that legalities are
> pretty
>> >> >> worthless in this situation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ethics as self-interest seems to work
>> >> >
>> >> > No, they don't. If ethics 'worked', if 'karma' existed, we
> would not
>> >> > need a legal system. We have a legal system in order to mitigate,
>> >> > albeit as much as possible, which is never as much as we'd
> like, the
>> >> > unjust nature of the world. But when that system is so inapplicable
>> >> > to a particular case that it fails wholesale, as it does in the
> case
>> >> > we are discussing, then we must seek an alternative.
>> >> >
>> >> >> ethics and economics seem pretty intimately related, to me...
>> >> >
>> >> > Well as PT Barnum put it, a sucker is born every day. Ethics are
>> >> > related to economics as hope is related to fact. You cannot expect
>> >> > your competitor to act ethically in abscense of punative law if he
>> >> > doesn't. You're living a self-righteous pipe dream if you don't
>> >> > think that even YOU would leverage whatever advantage you could
> in a
>> >> > society devoid of punative law. You'd run slipshod over everyone
>> >> > while simultaneously deluding yourself into thinking your
> actions are
>> >> > the epitome of ethical behavior, just like the robber barons did at
>> >> > the turn of the 19th century.
>> >> >
>> >> > i think "least" might actually represent
>> >> >> a bigger chunk than i want to accept. maybe the answer is that no-
>> >> > one
>> >> >> needs labels, including musicians. but i suspect it will be harder
>> >> > to
>> >> >> coalesce people around a style, hard to keep the the stylistic
>> >> >> momentum that drives innovation and creates new imitation-worthy
>> >> >> stuff, when every artist is struggling tooth-and-nail against each
>> >> >> other for the attention of a few marketing behemoths, without the
>> >> >> small-group support network that "the label" used to provide.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Ok, well obviously you are very concerned about this subject,
> and are
>> >> > motivated to put considerable energy into thinking about it. But, I
>> >> > think you are having so much trouble with it because you are scared
>> >> > of its implications. I think that if you were more confident, you'd
>> >> > be more optimistic. The people telling us to stop talking about
> this
>> >> > here certainly aren't the ones who are going to come up with any
>> >> > ingenius solutions, but someone like you certainly could, if you
>> >> > manage to get your priorities straight.
>> >> >
>> >> >> really? yuck. i kind of do think that that time on the train might
>> >> > be
>> >> >> worth something, though.
>> >> >
>> >> > Well today I had to take my mother to the eye clinic and while
> I was
>> >> > waiting in the car for her outside and all the people were arriving
>> >> > to work at the hospital across the street, almost all of them had
>> >> > Ipods on. I was surprised they were that ubiquitous, I had no idea.
>> >> > Just goes to show what sheep most people are. There are lots of mp3
>> >> > players on the market, most just as flashy as the Ipod these days,
>> >> > but everyone and his yuppy cousin has to have an Ipod. At least we
>> >> > know they're listening to mainstream crap artists who can't
> even make
>> >> > a spurious claim about being impoverished by mp3 downloading. Of
>> >> > course my original statement stands, they are only listening to
> Ipods
>> >> > the way to and from work, not all day long, but I am still
> surprised
>> >> > by how many Ipods are actually in use these days during the
> rushhour
>> >> > commutes.
>> >> >
>> >> >> > And why do you assume I deserve more? You know nothing about my
>> >> >> > music. Perhaps it is only worth a pittance...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ok, but let's assume that at least some music is worth something
>> >> >> significant. or maybe we can't agree on that, in which case i give
>> >> > up.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm the one who could be exasperated enough to give up, since
> you're
>> >> > clearly working hard to misunderstand, misrepresent, or completely
>> >> > ignore things I've repeatedly said in this thread. I'm now going to
>> >> > spell it out for you one last time, and if you continue to pretend
>> >> > you didn't read it, I will copy and paste it every time you do so:
>> >> >
>> >> > Bands obtain the value of the worth of their output, period. If the
>> >> > value of the worth of the output of mediocre bands drops to that of
>> >> > the value of the worth of lousy bands, I don't have a problem with
>> >> > that. I strive for excellency, not mediocrity. I will be pleased
>> >> > when those mediocre bands can no longer make a living at music so
>> >> > they have to get real jobs. I've got four words to say to
>> >> > them: "Move over, comin' thru!" Besides, they don't have to get day
>> >> > jobs necessarily, they can simply let the medicore band break up,
>> >> > then form another band with other guys who have the desire to
> strive
>> >> > for excellence. Besides, I'm a huge advocate for a livable welfare
>> >> > income for the unemployed.
>> >> >
>> >> > The day excellence stops being worth the highest value is the
> day the
>> >> > world will go to hell in a handbasket, and not a moment sooner. It
>> >> > is the responsibility of the excellent to provide for the
> incapable,
>> >> > not the mediocre. Because the mediocre are not incapable, they are
>> >> > capable of excellence but do not try to excell, for whatever reason
>> >> > (such as laziness, delusion, ignorance, and various other
> reasons the
>> >> > mediocre remain the mediocre).
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> i wish small bands (the kind that play instruments in groups)
>> >> > weren't
>> >> >> having such a hard time surviving, no matter how critically
>> >> > acclaimed
>> >> >> they get. no one can stand to do it for more than a couple
> years any
>> >> >> more.
>> >> >
>> >> > There has always been critically acclaimed art that does not
>> >> > translate into commercial success. That's not mp3 downloading's
>> >> > fault, that's bad taste's fault. But you're not rallying for better
>> >> > taste in consumers, because your priorities in this subject are
> mixed
>> >> > up.
>> >> >
>> >> >> there's no chance to grow and become something worth imitating
>> >> >> in future generations (going back to the sonic youth example).
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Your Sonic Youth example is weak, mine's solid. Did you even
> stop to
>> >> > think about what you were writing when you said that Sonic Youth's
>> >> > early messy noise would not have propelled them onto better
> things if
>> >> > people had been able to obtain high-quality recordings of that
> messy
>> >> > noise? If you had, it might have dawned on you that 'messy noise'
>> >> > and 'hi fidelity' are somewhat diametrically opposed. Sonic Youth,
>> >> > like all indie band in the 80s, thrived on tape-trading among die-
>> >> > hard music fans. Then, in order to gain commercial success, they
>> >> > thrived on albums being purchased by less-than-die-hard-fans. Now,
>> >> > how many times are you going to prompt me to repeat that? Will you
>> >> > ever simply accept that you haven't come up with any arguments I
>> >> > haven't already heard plenty of times, and so you aren't going
> to be
>> >> > bringing me around to agreeing with me, no matter how many
> times you
>> >> > repeat yourself or I repeat myself.
>> >> >
>> >> >> it's a very different prospect to render out some techno and get a
>> >> > few
>> >> >> dollars a month from ads.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > So now you're saying only techno can thrive from mp3 downloads?
>> >> > Nonsense. Look, a techno artist generally only has to pay himself.
>> >> > A band has three or four members. And lo and behold, the latest
>> >> > trend is massive ensembles like Polyphonic Spree and Arcade
> Fire. If
>> >> > these 'hot new' band are afraid of not making enough money to
> survive
>> >> > due to mp3 downloading, and they can't afford to tour, why the hell
>> >> > do they have so many friggin members on the payroll???
>> >> >
>> >> > Look, every time you come up with a hypothetical point I completely
>> >> > trash it with facts. You're going to have to do a lot better than
>> >> > that if you want to win this argument with something other than
>> >> > browbeating.
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> but there are
>> >> >> >> exceptions. deerhunter comes to mind. no age come to mind.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Never heard of them. Maybe because I don't do MySpace.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> oh well. these are people who started self-releasing and on
> myspace,
>> >> >> and are now on kranky and sub pop. deerhunter might be best
> known as
>> >> >> the current NIN opener slot, succeeding peaches and bauhaus.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Well it was a good movie, but not exactly an inspired band
> name! Why
>> >> > do so many band names suck these days, anyway?
>> >> >
>> >> >> You said you get a thrill out of some punk
>> >> >> listening to your tunes off MySpace.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> no,
>> >> >
>> >> > "if some teenager halfway across the world downloads my record
> and is
>> >> > stoked enough on it to share it with 500 of his online friends,
> many
>> >> > of whom are also stoked, how could i not be happy" - you.
>> >> >
>> >> > i could give half a crap about myspace. what i appreciate is being
>> >> >> able to go to portugal and play to a large sold-out crowd of
> stoked
>> >> >> kids; i suspect that "the internet" has something to do with this.
>> >> >> this is the most awesome aspect of digitally distributed music, to
>> >> > me:
>> >> >> reaching a lot more people in different places than you could with
>> >> >> mail-order catalogues. the less awesome aspect is not being
> able to
>> >> > do
>> >> >> it full-time because there's no money in it. i can survive on tour
>> >> > but
>> >> >> i don't want to have to tour 10 months a year, like the kids in my
>> >> >> band's "touring lineup" do...
>> >> >
>> >> > As usual, I'm having trouble finding a point in that paragraph. If
>> >> > you want to tour, then tour, and do it for as long or as short of a
>> >> > period as you want. If you manage it well, you'll probably make
> more
>> >> > money than if you didn't tour, but you don't necessarily have
> to tour
>> >> > into order to survive. XTC stopped touring in the mid 80s after
> Andy
>> >> > Partridge's nervous breakdown and they survived till 2005, and I
>> >> > really doubt they split up over mp3 downloading.
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Well I can't comment on experience, but I'm reluctant to
> take your
>> >> >> > experience at face value simply because you've been wrong
> about so
>> >> >> > many other aspects of this conversation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> oh, sure... so WRONG...
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, and unfortunately, like most people, you tie your desire
> to not
>> >> > be wrong to your ego. But at least you're smart enough to know the
>> >> > topic is worth discussing, unlike many in the peanut gallery here,
>> >> > and you're self-confident enough to think you are doing a good
> enough
>> >> > job of arguing this topic when you're not, to keep arguing it,
> which
>> >> > is both good and bad (that is, it's good to stick to your guns, but
>> >> > not after all your limbs have been chopped off and you still
> want to
>> >> > fight, like the knight from the Monty Python movie)... The only
>> >> > thing better than being wrong is being right. Being wrong gives you
>> >> > the chance to find out what's right, but most people who, upon
>> >> > discovering they're wrong about something, aren't glad to find that
>> >> > out, and refuse to accept the information that is right. And
> there's
>> >> > not much those of us on a higher frequency can do about that other
>> >> > than point it out and hope that nobody accuses us of being
> insulting.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It seems to me that if fans
>> >> >> > don't have to pay for the music, that's money they can use
> to buy
>> >> >> > stickers, or t-shirts, or other 'merch', including tickets
> to the
>> >> >> > show itself...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> i addressed this somewhere else. the show used to function as a
>> >> > portal
>> >> >> to get people to buy recordings. now it doesn't.
>> >> >
>> >> > That's ridiculous. Nobody (or at least, VERY few) people buy
> tickets
>> >> > to concerts of bands who they've never heard before. People go to
>> >> > concerts after they've listened to the bands recordings
> (previously,
>> >> > from radio, friends, and records bought after hearing them on radio
>> >> > or from friends - and now, from mp3s, friends, and records bought
>> >> > after hearing mp3s or from friends).
>> >> >
>> >> >> i think it's retarded
>> >> >> to have to be a popular clothing designer as well as a popular
>> >> >> musician in order to make money off your music.
>> >> >
>> >> > And I think it's ignorant to make that claim. The artists who start
>> >> > up clothing lines do so because they want to make $20 million this
>> >> > year instead of $5 million like last year.
>> >> >
>> >> >>it also sucks to have
>> >> >> to charge $10 or $15 a head to get into a punk rock show; really
>> >> >> limits the audience. if you could expect 30% of those people
> to buy
>> >> > a
>> >> >> record, you could charge less or even make the shows free (because
>> >> > so
>> >> >> many more potential record customers would show up).
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > There are festivals of every size happening all the time all
> over the
>> >> > place, hundreds if not thousands of them all over north america
> this
>> >> > summer, and they all need crappy little nobody bands to play, and
>> >> > they all pay well from corporate sponsors or govt. entertainment
>> >> > funds. A few years ago my exgirlfriend dragged me to her gay
> karaoke
>> >> > friend's regular gig in a cover-band at a dive bar out in the
>> >> > sticks. They were paid $700 a night and played every night, and
> this
>> >> > is too patrons whose only income is their welfare cheques. There is
>> >> > absolutely no shortage of work for musicians who want to work.
> But I
>> >> > suppose you'll say you don't want to play in a crappy cover bar
> band
>> >> > to welfare cases. You want Chad Kroeger to sign you to 604 so you
>> >> > can be a rock star. Yeah, well I've heard it all before, long
> before
>> >> > the term 'mp3' existed. Very little has changed, and certainly not
>> >> > nearly as much as you keep squaking about, Chicken Little!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> plus the profit margin for records sold at shows is WAAAY higher
>> >> > than
>> >> >> through any distributor, digital or otherwise.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course there's the fact that unless you're already popular
> enough
>> >> > to be making a living as a recording artist, nobody will be able to
>> >> > find your mp3s to download for free anywhere online because nobody
>> >> > will bother encoding them and passing them around, because nobody
>> >> > wants them because nobody's heard of you. So if they go to your
>> >> > show, and want to hear your recorded output, they have no
> choice but
>> >> > to buy your CD at the show, that is, until you become successful
>> >> > enough that people are encoding and uploading your mp3s to pass
>> >> > around. But you don't want to hear that, no, you'd rather pretend
>> >> > there is a crisis that doesn't exist.
>> >> >
>> >> >> my point there was that even though people have less disposable
>> >> > income
>> >> >> in, say, spain or slovenia, even though they are way more cost-
>> >> > minded
>> >> >> with their technology (which means linux and filesharing are
> huge),
>> >> > i
>> >> >> STILL get paid more as a musician in slovenia than i do in
> america.
>> >> >
>> >> > Great, thanks for proving my point. They download more illicit mp3s
>> >> > in europe and you make more money from europe. Hence, more illicit
>> >> > downloading of mp3s equals more money for artists. Case closed.
>> >> >
>> >> >> these kids already
>> >> >> have the mp3's but they still buy records! it's amazing!!!
>> >> >
>> >> > And yet, encouraging americans to adopt a more cosmopolitan,
>> >> > international viewpoint like the europeans isn't part of your non-
>> >> > existent strategy of solution.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> maybe bands that know how to play live music will just disappear
>> >> > from
>> >> >> america. i don't really think that's cool, but whatever...
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Right, and peak oil will bring Mad Max out of the desert and
> into the
>> >> > city, and y2k bug will send airplanes falling out of the sky. 9/11
>> >> > was an inside job. The jews orchestrated the holocaust themselves.
>> >> > Any other outrageous nonsense or fearmongering you'd like to add?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>
> > I think I'm working toward something similar to your work. The key
> > thing I'm looking at is an algorithmic replacement for what you term
> > "linear piecewise phase distortions". I think!
> 
> hm, not sure... i'm using that term quite specifically.
> 
Hm, to you, too.  Could you give me a reference for your specific
term?  I'm eager to learn!
I'm an autodidact in this area, so my terminology may be personal. 
"linear piecewise phase distortions" puts me in mind of the
Karplus-Strong algorithm, and the CZ's Phase Distortion methods.  I'm
focusing my efforts at the point of generating waveforms, which is
what I see the CZs, VZ's, etc., as doing.  I still think in analog
terms, so I think of filtering as something that happens after the
generation of the waveform.  I realize that, in the digital domain,
this may be an artificial distinction, but I think it is a
conceptually useful one.
> > I'm avoiding the emulation of Butterworth or Chebyshev filters (no
> > prejudice against them) for what I see as the more fundamental
> > waveshaping functions of the CZs, VZ's, Yamaha DX's, TX's, and Synergy
> > DXII's.
> 
> yeah, i'm also talkin about memoryless transfer functions
> (waveshaping). very simple. a chebyshev polynomial is just an
> interesting set of orthogonal polynomial bases which have many useful
> characteristics, especially when used as waveshaping functions (they
> produce specific harmonics of the input sinusoidal components.)
> 
> (if you're on mathematica there's even a reserved function:
> ChebyshevT[n,x], to evaluate the cheby poly of order n given input x.
> i use matlab or scilab, personally, but there you are...)
> 

I aspire to using 10% of the functionality of Mathematica!

> chebyshev filters are something else entirely... simple analog
> circuits, pretty complicated and expensive to implement digitally. the
> name comes from the fact that the chebyshev polynomials can be used to
> calculate the amplitude response, but the actual toplogy is pretty
> arcane. as far as filtering goes, i tend to think that the butterworth
> topology is more musical (less ripply), unless you really need a sharp
> transition to the stopband for some particular purpose. anyway yeah,
> i'm not making a filter.
> 
> indeed, the cz architecture's emphasis on memoryless waveshaping to
> produce filtering effects was genius, way effective use of computing
> capacity before 'virtual analog' was a gleam in anyone's eye...
> 
> here's an interesting patent describing (i think) the cz synth
> architecture and implementation, including the phase-reset and
> smoothing stage which i haven't mentioned yet. pretty cool.
> 
> http://music.calarts.edu/~ebuchla/phase_distortion_patent.pdf

Huge thanks for this link!!!
20 years ago (or so) I called Casio to see if they could tell me any
way in which I could determine by what method the audio spectrum of
the CZ'z waveforms were being generated (I may have referred to it as
a "transfer function").  I made it known to them that I just wanted to
 be able to predict the spectra of waveforms which were generated by
the available parameters.  They said it was a secret!  It didn't
remain so.
> 
> anyways, back to work...
As you said, back to work!

- synergeezer

>> > "linear piecewise phase distortions". I think!

> Hm, to you, too. Could you give me a reference for your specific
> term? I'm eager to learn!

nothing fancy, just means a function that's made out of line segments
(in this case a transfer function for distorting the phase)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piecewise_linear_function

this is how the cz produces the initial waveforms (system iii in the
patent). then there's an FM stage implemented as a hard reset of the
phase ("higher harmonics control signal generator", or system iv in
the patent), with a rather clever smoothing algorithm (just multiplies
by a decreasing ramp at the modulation frequency! sweet.)

anyway, since 1983 people have come up with many additional
interesting phaser distortion functions, ellipses and cycloids being
particularly friendly. i find that sticking with various chopped up
linear functions, and wavetables with pretty simple harmonic content
(1st through 5th order or so), still gives more than adequately rich
timbral results.

> Karplus-Strong algorithm,
now there's quite another beastie altogether.

http://music.calarts.edu/~ebuchla/karplus_strong_patent.pdf

that's KS's original idea for a digitar based on the excitation of a
virtual string by random noise bursts. i made some programs a while
ago (following the lead of folks like david jaffe at stanford), using
a KS-like model of masses connected by springs, but introducing more
complexity by using nonlinear terms in the force equations for the
springs, and doing crazy stuff like connecting them all in a ring
instead of a bridge-termination, and making arbitrarily weighted
connections between non-adjacent masses (ending up with something more
like a "spherical membrane" than a string, or anything else in the
real world...)... also using these things as chaotic resonantors by
using audio input for excitation rather than saws, impulses, or random
number bursts...

then lo and behold, recent releases of ableton live include a rather
sophisticated stringlike physical modelling synth (called...
"tensor"?), complete with nonilnearity, different excitation
functions, variable damping, all kindsa stuff. neat!

in general this kind of thing is lumped together under the umbrella of
waveguide synthesis. jaffe and julius smith at stanford have written
quite a lot about it.

smith maintains his extensive collection of papers for free on his website.
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/

perry cook at princeton has a nice book about synthesis inspired by
physical models. it's useful without being overly math-y. "real sound
synthesis for interactive applications."

places to find patents on the intertubes:

patentstorm.us (gives you the text, pay for the figures)
pat2pdf.org (free pdf conversion if you know the patent number already)

ok

/eb

> nothing fancy, just means a function that's made out of line segments
> (in this case a transfer function for distorting the phase)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piecewise_linear_function

you know what, i just looked at this, and damn wikipedia is weird. a
few people seem to genuinely want to craft useful explanations of
things, some (like this guy, i'm afraid), just want to show off and
throw around the most abstruse math jargon they can possibly think of.
no-one who's looking up linear functions is likely to know or care
what a "polytope" is... jeez.

\rant

> smith maintains his extensive collection of papers for free on his website.
> http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/

just going to plug this again. sooooo good, practically a computer
music MA's worth of information...

Thanks. And thanks for the links.
Here's one for you, the complete text of Prof. David L. Benson's (of
the U. of Aberdeen) "Music: a Mathematical Offering":
http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/~bensondj/html/maths-music.html

Then there's Electronotes, another useful site:
http://electronotes.netfirms.com/

Does anyone know where I can learn about designing physical
waveguides?  Bose seems to make speaker cabinets using this
information, but I haven't located it, yet.  I had found Julius
Smith's excellent (I think it's excellent - but it's mostly over my
head!) site while looking for the subject, but could only find digital
waveguide info, there.

- synergeezer

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>
> >> > "linear piecewise phase distortions". I think!
> 
> > Hm, to you, too. Could you give me a reference for your specific
> > term? I'm eager to learn!
> 
> nothing fancy, just means a function that's made out of line segments
> (in this case a transfer function for distorting the phase)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piecewise_linear_function
> 
> this is how the cz produces the initial waveforms (system iii in the
> patent). then there's an FM stage implemented as a hard reset of the
> phase ("higher harmonics control signal generator", or system iv in
> the patent), with a rather clever smoothing algorithm (just multiplies
> by a decreasing ramp at the modulation frequency! sweet.)
> 
> anyway, since 1983 people have come up with many additional
> interesting phaser distortion functions, ellipses and cycloids being
> particularly friendly. i find that sticking with various chopped up
> linear functions, and wavetables with pretty simple harmonic content
> (1st through 5th order or so), still gives more than adequately rich
> timbral results.
> 
> > Karplus-Strong algorithm,
> now there's quite another beastie altogether.
> 
> http://music.calarts.edu/~ebuchla/karplus_strong_patent.pdf
> 
> that's KS's original idea for a digitar based on the excitation of a
> virtual string by random noise bursts. i made some programs a while
> ago (following the lead of folks like david jaffe at stanford), using
> a KS-like model of masses connected by springs, but introducing more
> complexity by using nonlinear terms in the force equations for the
> springs, and doing crazy stuff like connecting them all in a ring
> instead of a bridge-termination, and making arbitrarily weighted
> connections between non-adjacent masses (ending up with something more
> like a "spherical membrane" than a string, or anything else in the
> real world...)... also using these things as chaotic resonantors by
> using audio input for excitation rather than saws, impulses, or random
> number bursts...
> 
> then lo and behold, recent releases of ableton live include a rather
> sophisticated stringlike physical modelling synth (called...
> "tensor"?), complete with nonilnearity, different excitation
> functions, variable damping, all kindsa stuff. neat!
> 
> in general this kind of thing is lumped together under the umbrella of
> waveguide synthesis. jaffe and julius smith at stanford have written
> quite a lot about it.
> 
> smith maintains his extensive collection of papers for free on his
website.

> http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/
> 
> perry cook at princeton has a nice book about synthesis inspired by
> physical models. it's useful without being overly math-y. "real sound
> synthesis for interactive applications."
> 
> places to find patents on the intertubes:
> 
> patentstorm.us (gives you the text, pay for the figures)
> pat2pdf.org (free pdf conversion if you know the patent number already)
> 
> ok
> 
> /eb
>

I wonder if any of you guys having a deeper knowledge about 
psychoacoustics. It might be less costly to create algorithms that 
fits to our limited perception than trying to recreate physical 
models or exact waveform copies...
  
Just my 2 cents!

...Summa


On 16 Aug 2008 at 0:27, synergeezer wrote:

> Thanks. And thanks for the links.
> Here's one for you, the complete text of Prof. David L. Benson's (of
> the U. of Aberdeen) "Music: a Mathematical Offering":
> http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/~bensondj/html/maths-music.html
> 
> Then there's Electronotes, another useful site:
> http://electronotes.netfirms.com/
> 
> Does anyone know where I can learn about designing physical
> waveguides?  Bose seems to make speaker cabinets using this
> information, but I haven't located it, yet.  I had found Julius
> Smith's excellent (I think it's excellent - but it's mostly over my
> head!) site while looking for the subject, but could only find digital
> waveguide info, there.
> 
> - synergeezer
> 
> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
> > > >> > "linear piecewise phase distortions". I think! > > > Hm, to
> you, too. Could you give me a reference for your specific > > term?
> I'm eager to learn! > > nothing fancy, just means a function that's
> made out of line segments > (in this case a transfer function for
> distorting the phase) >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piecewise_linear_function > > this is how
> the cz produces the initial waveforms (system iii in the > patent).
> then there's an FM stage implemented as a hard reset of the > phase
> ("higher harmonics control signal generator", or system iv in > the
> patent), with a rather clever smoothing algorithm (just multiplies >
> by a decreasing ramp at the modulation frequency! sweet.) > > anyway,
> since 1983 people have come up with many additional > interesting
> phaser distortion functions, ellipses and cycloids being >
> particularly friendly. i find that sticking with various chopped up >
> linear functions, and wavetables with pretty simple harmonic content >
> (1st through 5th order or so), still gives more than adequately rich >
> timbral results. > > > Karplus-Strong algorithm, > now there's quite
> another beastie altogether. > >
> http://music.calarts.edu/~ebuchla/karplus_strong_patent.pdf > > that's
> KS's original idea for a digitar based on the excitation of a >
> virtual string by random noise bursts. i made some programs a while >
> ago (following the lead of folks like david jaffe at stanford), using
> > a KS-like model of masses connected by springs, but introducing more
> > complexity by using nonlinear terms in the force equations for the >
> springs, and doing crazy stuff like connecting them all in a ring >
> instead of a bridge-termination, and making arbitrarily weighted >
> connections between non-adjacent masses (ending up with something more
> > like a "spherical membrane" than a string, or anything else in the >
> real world...)... also using these things as chaotic resonantors by >
> using audio input for excitation rather than saws, impulses, or random
> > number bursts... > > then lo and behold, recent releases of ableton
> live include a rather > sophisticated stringlike physical modelling
> synth (called... > "tensor"?), complete with nonilnearity, different
> excitation > functions, variable damping, all kindsa stuff. neat! > >
> in general this kind of thing is lumped together under the umbrella of
> > waveguide synthesis. jaffe and julius smith at stanford have written
> > quite a lot about it. > > smith maintains his extensive collection
> of papers for free on his website. > http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/ >
> > perry cook at princeton has a nice book about synthesis inspired by
> > physical models. it's useful without being overly math-y. "real
> sound > synthesis for interactive applications." > > places to find
> patents on the intertubes: > > patentstorm.us (gives you the text, pay
> for the figures) > pat2pdf.org (free pdf conversion if you know the
> patent number already) > > ok > > /eb >
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 

CZ/VZ 		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CZsynth
FMHeaven	mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fmheaven/
FS1R 		mailing list	: http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/fss-list
Vokator		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vokator
FM-Synthesis    mailing list         : 
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/fm-synthesis/

http://www.summasounds.de/

I'm certainly not claiming a deeper knowledge of psychoacoustics! 
Many members of the group are much, much more knowledgeable than I.

But the two questions I'm trying to answer in my work, are:
1. What are the minimum parameters required to re-synthesize an
analyzed instrument sound and have it sound right?  (My first-cut
analysis always yields a "distinction without a difference" for many
parameters - which ones can I omit?)
2. Which parameters can be varied in a (more-or-less) random way in
order to re-synthesize the kind of natural variation produced by
"natural" instruments?

I think #1 addresses your comment.  #2 is the reason I started down
this path of inquiry.

- synergeezer

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "Summa" <flotorian@...> wrote:

>
> I wonder if any of you guys having a deeper knowledge about 
> psychoacoustics. It might be less costly to create algorithms that 
> fits to our limited perception than trying to recreate physical 
> models or exact waveform copies...
>   
> Just my 2 cents!
> 
> ...Summa
> 
> 
> On 16 Aug 2008 at 0:27, synergeezer wrote:
> 
> > Thanks. And thanks for the links.
> > Here's one for you, the complete text of Prof. David L. Benson's (of
> > the U. of Aberdeen) "Music: a Mathematical Offering":
> > http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/~bensondj/html/maths-music.html
> > 
> > Then there's Electronotes, another useful site:
> > http://electronotes.netfirms.com/
> > 
> > Does anyone know where I can learn about designing physical
> > waveguides?  Bose seems to make speaker cabinets using this
> > information, but I haven't located it, yet.  I had found Julius
> > Smith's excellent (I think it's excellent - but it's mostly over my
> > head!) site while looking for the subject, but could only find digital
> > waveguide info, there.
> > 
> > - synergeezer
> > 
> > --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@> wrote:
> > > > >> > "linear piecewise phase distortions". I think! > > > Hm, to
> > you, too. Could you give me a reference for your specific > > term?
> > I'm eager to learn! > > nothing fancy, just means a function that's
> > made out of line segments > (in this case a transfer function for
> > distorting the phase) >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piecewise_linear_function > > this is how
> > the cz produces the initial waveforms (system iii in the > patent).
> > then there's an FM stage implemented as a hard reset of the > phase
> > ("higher harmonics control signal generator", or system iv in > the
> > patent), with a rather clever smoothing algorithm (just multiplies >
> > by a decreasing ramp at the modulation frequency! sweet.) > > anyway,
> > since 1983 people have come up with many additional > interesting
> > phaser distortion functions, ellipses and cycloids being >
> > particularly friendly. i find that sticking with various chopped up >
> > linear functions, and wavetables with pretty simple harmonic content >
> > (1st through 5th order or so), still gives more than adequately rich >
> > timbral results. > > > Karplus-Strong algorithm, > now there's quite
> > another beastie altogether. > >
> > http://music.calarts.edu/~ebuchla/karplus_strong_patent.pdf > > that's
> > KS's original idea for a digitar based on the excitation of a >
> > virtual string by random noise bursts. i made some programs a while >
> > ago (following the lead of folks like david jaffe at stanford), using
> > > a KS-like model of masses connected by springs, but introducing more
> > > complexity by using nonlinear terms in the force equations for the >
> > springs, and doing crazy stuff like connecting them all in a ring >
> > instead of a bridge-termination, and making arbitrarily weighted >
> > connections between non-adjacent masses (ending up with something more
> > > like a "spherical membrane" than a string, or anything else in the >
> > real world...)... also using these things as chaotic resonantors by >
> > using audio input for excitation rather than saws, impulses, or random
> > > number bursts... > > then lo and behold, recent releases of ableton
> > live include a rather > sophisticated stringlike physical modelling
> > synth (called... > "tensor"?), complete with nonilnearity, different
> > excitation > functions, variable damping, all kindsa stuff. neat! > >
> > in general this kind of thing is lumped together under the umbrella of
> > > waveguide synthesis. jaffe and julius smith at stanford have written
> > > quite a lot about it. > > smith maintains his extensive collection
> > of papers for free on his website. > http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/ >
> > > perry cook at princeton has a nice book about synthesis inspired by
> > > physical models. it's useful without being overly math-y. "real
> > sound > synthesis for interactive applications." > > places to find
> > patents on the intertubes: > > patentstorm.us (gives you the text, pay
> > for the figures) > pat2pdf.org (free pdf conversion if you know the
> > patent number already) > > ok > > /eb >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ------------------------------------
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> CZ/VZ 		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CZsynth
> FMHeaven	mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fmheaven/
> FS1R 		mailing list	: http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/fss-list
> Vokator		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vokator
> FM-Synthesis    mailing list         : 
> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/fm-synthesis/
> 
> http://www.summasounds.de/
>

On 21 Aug 2008 at 23:31, synergeezer wrote:

> I'm certainly not claiming a deeper knowledge of psychoacoustics! Many
> members of the group are much, much more knowledgeable than I.
> 
> But the two questions I'm trying to answer in my work, are:
> 1. What are the minimum parameters required to re-synthesize an
> analyzed instrument sound and have it sound right?  (My first-cut
> analysis always yields a "distinction without a difference" for many
> parameters - which ones can I omit?) 2. Which parameters can be varied
> in a (more-or-less) random way in order to re-synthesize the kind of
> natural variation produced by "natural" instruments?
> 
> I think #1 addresses your comment.  

No, since resnynthesis is already some kind of a brute force method, 
analysing the atomic particles of a sound, but having all the data 
isn't the same as conceiving the true nature/essence of the sound.
To me a synthesizer that mimicrys a real instrument is boring as 
h*ll, unless it enables me to access/change certain basic parameters 
of the sound, like formants (especially their movement) 
texture/roughness and timbre. But timbre (pure waveform) is the least 
important part of regognising a sound, since human ear/brain can only 
distinguish about 50 waveforms, this parameter doesn't have to be 
very accurate, what might already answers your question...
It's rather that I think/experienced that all this synthesis methods 
all that math can be fold down to ways to manipulate those basic 
parameters I just mentioned...
You only get different results since they're providing another point 
of view and other tools to manipulate, but in general it's the same 
picture and when understanding this it's getting "easy" (still can be 
cumbersome) to get very similar results from different synthesis 
methods...

Regards!
        Summa



> 
> - synergeezer
> 
> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "Summa" <flotorian@...> wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if any of you guys having a deeper knowledge about 
> > psychoacoustics. It might be less costly to create algorithms that
> > fits to our limited perception than trying to recreate physical
> > models or exact waveform copies...
> >   
> > Just my 2 cents!
> > 
> > ...Summa



-- 

CZ/VZ 		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CZsynth
FMHeaven	mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fmheaven/
FS1R 		mailing list	: http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/fss-list
Vokator		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vokator
FM-Synthesis    mailing list         : 
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/fm-synthesis/

http://www.summasounds.de/

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "Summa" <flotorian@...> wrote:
>
> On 21 Aug 2008 at 23:31, synergeezer wrote:
> 
> > I'm certainly not claiming a deeper knowledge of psychoacoustics! Many
> > members of the group are much, much more knowledgeable than I.
> > 
> > But the two questions I'm trying to answer in my work, are:
> > 1. What are the minimum parameters required to re-synthesize an
> > analyzed instrument sound and have it sound right?  (My first-cut
> > analysis always yields a "distinction without a difference" for many
> > parameters - which ones can I omit?) 2. Which parameters can be varied
> > in a (more-or-less) random way in order to re-synthesize the kind of
> > natural variation produced by "natural" instruments?
> > 
> > I think #1 addresses your comment.  
> 
> No, since resnynthesis is already some kind of a brute force method, 
> analysing the atomic particles of a sound, but having all the data 
> isn't the same as conceiving the true nature/essence of the sound.
> To me a synthesizer that mimicrys a real instrument is boring as 
> h*ll,
Thanks!  You demonstrate that you have understood point # 2!  The
mimicry of natural instruments is merely the proof of concept!  The
original question I wanted to answer was "Why did my $35 Sears guitar
sound good to me, always"?  I sold it to my cousin, then borrowed it
back for a few months.  I found WONDERFUL synthesizer sounds on the
EML 101/200/400 I was able to borrow from Auburn University in 1974!
The WONDERFUL sounds I found began to suck just a few weeks later.
The question was "Why did a $35 guitar have a more pleasing sound than
 a synthesizer that cost 50 times more?
> unless it enables me to access/change certain basic parameters 
> of the sound, like formants (especially their movement) 
> texture/roughness and timbre. But timbre (pure waveform) is the least 
> important part of regognising a sound, since human ear/brain can only 
You are defining timbre in a novel way.  I am more comfortable with
the definition provided by the dictionary I can reach from where I sit
- The Random House College Dictionary: "the characteristic quality of
a sound" - or from Wikpedia: the quality of a musical note or sound
that distinguishes different types of sound

> distinguish about 50 waveforms, this parameter doesn't have to be 
> very accurate, what might already answers your question...
> It's rather that I think/experienced that all this synthesis methods 
> all that math can be fold down to ways to manipulate those basic 
> parameters I just mentioned...
I look forward to you providing these parameters without math!

> You only get different results since they're providing another point 
> of view and other tools to manipulate, but in general it's the same 
> picture and when understanding this it's getting "easy" (still can be 
> cumbersome) to get very similar results from different synthesis 
> methods...
> 
> Regards!
>         Summa
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > - synergeezer
> > 
> > --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "Summa" <flotorian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I wonder if any of you guys having a deeper knowledge about 
> > > psychoacoustics. It might be less costly to create algorithms that
> > > fits to our limited perception than trying to recreate physical
> > > models or exact waveform copies...
> > >   
> > > Just my 2 cents!
> > > 
> > > ...Summa
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> CZ/VZ 		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CZsynth
> FMHeaven	mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fmheaven/
> FS1R 		mailing list	: http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/fss-list
> Vokator		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vokator
> FM-Synthesis    mailing list         : 
> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/fm-synthesis/
> 
> http://www.summasounds.de/
>

On 23 Aug 2008 at 9:15, synergeezer wrote:

> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "Summa" <flotorian@...> wrote:
> >
> > On 21 Aug 2008 at 23:31, synergeezer wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm certainly not claiming a deeper knowledge of psychoacoustics!
> > > Many members of the group are much, much more knowledgeable than
> > > I.
> > > 
> > > But the two questions I'm trying to answer in my work, are:
> > > 1. What are the minimum parameters required to re-synthesize an
> > > analyzed instrument sound and have it sound right?  (My first-cut
> > > analysis always yields a "distinction without a difference" for
> > > many parameters - which ones can I omit?) 2. Which parameters can
> > > be varied in a (more-or-less) random way in order to re-synthesize
> > > the kind of natural variation produced by "natural" instruments?
> > > 
> > > I think #1 addresses your comment.  
> > 
> > No, since resnynthesis is already some kind of a brute force method,
> > analysing the atomic particles of a sound, but having all the data
> > isn't the same as conceiving the true nature/essence of the sound.
> > To me a synthesizer that mimicrys a real instrument is boring as
> > h*ll,
> Thanks!  You demonstrate that you have understood point # 2!  The
> mimicry of natural instruments is merely the proof of concept!  The
> original question I wanted to answer was "Why did my $35 Sears guitar
> sound good to me, always"?  I sold it to my cousin, then borrowed it
> back for a few months.  I found WONDERFUL synthesizer sounds on the
> EML 101/200/400 I was able to borrow from Auburn University in 1974!
> The WONDERFUL sounds I found began to suck just a few weeks later. The
> question was "Why did a $35 guitar have a more pleasing sound than
>  a synthesizer that cost 50 times more?

Could have several reasons, never played an EML so I can only 
guess...

a) Since you're grown up with guitar sound, you might be used to the 
timbre...
b) Synths don't sound instantly you have to make them sound, you may 
had problems to get really good sounds out of the synth.
c) The synth misses the user interface and playability of a guitar.
d) The attack phase of plucked intruments if filled with formant 
movements.

It's for sure not the randomness, since other than todays digital 
synths old fat analog boxes do have quite some fluctuations in 
sound...


> > unless it enables me to access/change certain basic parameters of
> > the sound, like formants (especially their movement)
> > texture/roughness and timbre. But timbre (pure waveform) is the
> > least important part of regognising a sound, since human ear/brain
> > can only 
> You are defining timbre in a novel way.  I am more comfortable with
> the definition provided by the dictionary I can reach from where I sit
> - The Random House College Dictionary: "the characteristic quality of
> a sound" - or from Wikpedia: the quality of a musical note or sound
> that distinguishes different types of sound

This wasn't an attempt to find another definition for timbre, it's 
just my lack of finding a better english word for what I really 
wanted to say, since english it's not my native language. 
From my point of view you, since the meaning was obvious, your 
reaction wasn't exactly appropriate.

> > distinguish about 50 waveforms, this parameter doesn't have to be
> > very accurate, what might already answers your question... It's
> > rather that I think/experienced that all this synthesis methods all
> > that math can be fold down to ways to manipulate those basic
> > parameters I just mentioned...

> I look forward to you providing these parameters without math!

This is basic psychoacoustic knowledge, as usual preception is hard 
to prove. Math isn't exactly helpfull here, except maybe statistics. 
I might be able to find some free english documents online, but I 
don't have the time for this, since I have soundjobs and deadlines...
I'm not here convince you, just want to share some of my experience 
as sounddesigner. Take it or leave it...

> > You only get different results since they're providing another point
> > of view and other tools to manipulate, but in general it's the same
> > picture and when understanding this it's getting "easy" (still can
> > be cumbersome) to get very similar results from different synthesis
> > methods...
> > 
> > Regards!
> >         Summa

Regards!
      Summa

-- 

CZ/VZ 		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CZsynth
FMHeaven	mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fmheaven/
FS1R 		mailing list	: http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/fss-list
Vokator		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vokator
FM-Synthesis    mailing list         : 
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/fm-synthesis/

http://www.summasounds.de/

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "Summa" <flotorian@...> wrote:
>
> On 23 Aug 2008 at 9:15, synergeezer wrote:
> 
> > --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "Summa" <flotorian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 21 Aug 2008 at 23:31, synergeezer wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I'm certainly not claiming a deeper knowledge of psychoacoustics!
> > > > Many members of the group are much, much more knowledgeable than
> > > > I.
> > > > 
> > > > But the two questions I'm trying to answer in my work, are:
> > > > 1. What are the minimum parameters required to re-synthesize an
> > > > analyzed instrument sound and have it sound right?  (My first-cut
> > > > analysis always yields a "distinction without a difference" for
> > > > many parameters - which ones can I omit?) 2. Which parameters can
> > > > be varied in a (more-or-less) random way in order to re-synthesize
> > > > the kind of natural variation produced by "natural" instruments?
> > > > 
> > > > I think #1 addresses your comment.  
> > > 
> > > No, since resnynthesis is already some kind of a brute force method,
> > > analysing the atomic particles of a sound, but having all the data
> > > isn't the same as conceiving the true nature/essence of the sound.
> > > To me a synthesizer that mimicrys a real instrument is boring as
> > > h*ll,
> > Thanks!  You demonstrate that you have understood point # 2!  The
> > mimicry of natural instruments is merely the proof of concept!  The
> > original question I wanted to answer was "Why did my $35 Sears guitar
> > sound good to me, always"?  I sold it to my cousin, then borrowed it
> > back for a few months.  I found WONDERFUL synthesizer sounds on the
> > EML 101/200/400 I was able to borrow from Auburn University in 1974!
> > The WONDERFUL sounds I found began to suck just a few weeks later. The
> > question was "Why did a $35 guitar have a more pleasing sound than
> >  a synthesizer that cost 50 times more?
> 
> Could have several reasons, never played an EML so I can only 
> guess...

Any older, good analogue synthesizer is a fair substitute.

> 
> a) Since you're grown up with guitar sound, you might be used to the 
> timbre...

Actually, guitar was my third instrument, after trombone and
euphonium, but before flute, cello and drum set.

> b) Synths don't sound instantly you have to make them sound, you may 
> had problems to get really good sounds out of the synth.

The main point is this: even after you find a good sound in a synth,
it always sounds exactly the same, every time, unless you find a way
to add variations; velocity, after touch, breath pressure, etc.
I'm trying to find still more appropriate ways to vary the sound in
subtle ways.

> c) The synth misses the user interface and playability of a guitar.

My Godin xtSA, Akai EWI and EVI help with this problem.

> d) The attack phase of plucked intruments if filled with formant 
> movements.

Shifting formants is not a useful way of describing the complexity of
the attack phase of a plucked instrument.  It probably could be done,
but it is too broad a stroke to describe the very fine details of a
plucked-string attack.  

> 
> It's for sure not the randomness, since other than todays digital 
> synths old fat analog boxes do have quite some fluctuations in 
> sound...
> 

The word "randomness" _is_ inadequate.  What I intend to describe is
the subtle, uncontrollable, yet describable (modelable, I hope!)
variations in the timbre of "natural" instruments.  A good musician
either singing or playing an instrument, and trying to repeat a
performed note, cannot do it.  I can prove it, using a sampler and
computer.  They can come close, and sometimes I might not hear the
difference.  There may be some who can always hear the difference. 
Those differences are important, I think.  I believe I can identify
and mathematically describe these variations, and use this info to
improve the quality of synthesized sound.

> 
> > > unless it enables me to access/change certain basic parameters of
> > > the sound, like formants (especially their movement)
> > > texture/roughness and timbre. But timbre (pure waveform) is the
> > > least important part of regognising a sound, since human ear/brain
> > > can only 
> > You are defining timbre in a novel way.  I am more comfortable with
> > the definition provided by the dictionary I can reach from where I sit
> > - The Random House College Dictionary: "the characteristic quality of
> > a sound" - or from Wikpedia: the quality of a musical note or sound
> > that distinguishes different types of sound
> 
> This wasn't an attempt to find another definition for timbre, it's 
> just my lack of finding a better english word for what I really 
> wanted to say, since english it's not my native language. 
> From my point of view you, since the meaning was obvious, your 
> reaction wasn't exactly appropriate.
> 

Maybe we should use the French word then - "timbre".

> > > distinguish about 50 waveforms, this parameter doesn't have to be
> > > very accurate, what might already answers your question... It's
> > > rather that I think/experienced that all this synthesis methods all
> > > that math can be fold down to ways to manipulate those basic
> > > parameters I just mentioned...
> 
> > I look forward to you providing these parameters without math!
> 
> This is basic psychoacoustic knowledge, as usual preception is hard 
> to prove. Math isn't exactly helpfull here, except maybe statistics. 
> I might be able to find some free english documents online, but I 
> don't have the time for this, since I have soundjobs and deadlines...
> I'm not here convince you, just want to share some of my experience 
> as sounddesigner. Take it or leave it...
> 

Thanks!


> > > You only get different results since they're providing another point
> > > of view and other tools to manipulate, but in general it's the same
> > > picture and when understanding this it's getting "easy" (still can
> > > be cumbersome) to get very similar results from different synthesis
> > > methods...
> > > 
> > > Regards!
> > >         Summa
> 
> Regards!
>       Summa
> 

You certainly have a modest user id!

- synergeezer

> -- 
> 
> CZ/VZ 		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CZsynth
> FMHeaven	mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fmheaven/
> FS1R 		mailing list	: http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/fss-list
> Vokator		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vokator
> FM-Synthesis    mailing list         : 
> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/fm-synthesis/
> 
> http://www.summasounds.de/
>

well, maybe its worth noting that when i talk about "physical
modelling" synthesis i'm not necessarily talking about trying to
duplicate existing sounds or waveforms or whatever.

take the karplus-strong algortihm. this is a numerical model of a
system of masses and springs that can be set into oscillation. it is
quite computationally efficient. it sounds a little like a guitar
string or other kinds of strings, but based on the parameters and the
excitation methods, they can soundlike weird new stuff (you can't, for
example, sing into a string in the real world, or wrap the string in a
circle...)

where this gets interesting to me is with the addition of nonlinear
terms and other sources of chaos to the equations. now you have a
situation where it is very difficult to analytically predict what
orbits (read: waveforms) will be produced, and the best way to observe
the system is to compute it. this exact problem (or very near) was the
subject of the historical work by fermi, pasta, and ulam at los alamos
in the 1950's, which formed the basis for modern chaos theory and
numerical analysis...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Pasta%E2%80%93Ulam_problem
http://www.physics.utah.edu/~detar/phycs6720/handouts/fpu/FermiCollectedPapers1965.pdf

point is (for me) that physics and math problems can suggest novel
ways of producing sound.on coputers, often with great efficiency, and
suggest control prameters that interact with the output waveforms in
complex ways that would be difficult to approach with other methods
(like table
lookup...)

there are people who want to use powerful dsp's to emulate vacuum
tubes or something. that's not so innteresting to me. what is
interesting is virtual toroidal gongs and pianos made out of rubbery
non-wood that you can bend into a horseshoe....

i really would check out perry cook's work and his "synthesis toolkit"
c/c++ library if you'e even the slightest bit interested in realtime
(not lookup) synthesis informed by physics.

-eb

On 8/23/08, Summa <flotorian@...> wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2008 at 9:15, synergeezer wrote:
>
>> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "Summa" <flotorian@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 21 Aug 2008 at 23:31, synergeezer wrote:
>> >
>> > > I'm certainly not claiming a deeper knowledge of psychoacoustics!
>> > > Many members of the group are much, much more knowledgeable than
>> > > I.
>> > >
>> > > But the two questions I'm trying to answer in my work, are:
>> > > 1. What are the minimum parameters required to re-synthesize an
>> > > analyzed instrument sound and have it sound right?  (My first-cut
>> > > analysis always yields a "distinction without a difference" for
>> > > many parameters - which ones can I omit?) 2. Which parameters can
>> > > be varied in a (more-or-less) random way in order to re-synthesize
>> > > the kind of natural variation produced by "natural" instruments?
>> > >
>> > > I think #1 addresses your comment.
>> >
>> > No, since resnynthesis is already some kind of a brute force method,
>> > analysing the atomic particles of a sound, but having all the data
>> > isn't the same as conceiving the true nature/essence of the sound.
>> > To me a synthesizer that mimicrys a real instrument is boring as
>> > h*ll,
>> Thanks!  You demonstrate that you have understood point # 2!  The
>> mimicry of natural instruments is merely the proof of concept!  The
>> original question I wanted to answer was "Why did my $35 Sears guitar
>> sound good to me, always"?  I sold it to my cousin, then borrowed it
>> back for a few months.  I found WONDERFUL synthesizer sounds on the
>> EML 101/200/400 I was able to borrow from Auburn University in 1974!
>> The WONDERFUL sounds I found began to suck just a few weeks later. The
>> question was "Why did a $35 guitar have a more pleasing sound than
>>  a synthesizer that cost 50 times more?
>
> Could have several reasons, never played an EML so I can only
> guess...
>
> a) Since you're grown up with guitar sound, you might be used to the
> timbre...
> b) Synths don't sound instantly you have to make them sound, you may
> had problems to get really good sounds out of the synth.
> c) The synth misses the user interface and playability of a guitar.
> d) The attack phase of plucked intruments if filled with formant
> movements.
>
> It's for sure not the randomness, since other than todays digital
> synths old fat analog boxes do have quite some fluctuations in
> sound...
>
>
>> > unless it enables me to access/change certain basic parameters of
>> > the sound, like formants (especially their movement)
>> > texture/roughness and timbre. But timbre (pure waveform) is the
>> > least important part of regognising a sound, since human ear/brain
>> > can only
>> You are defining timbre in a novel way.  I am more comfortable with
>> the definition provided by the dictionary I can reach from where I sit
>> - The Random House College Dictionary: "the characteristic quality of
>> a sound" - or from Wikpedia: the quality of a musical note or sound
>> that distinguishes different types of sound
>
> This wasn't an attempt to find another definition for timbre, it's
> just my lack of finding a better english word for what I really
> wanted to say, since english it's not my native language.
> From my point of view you, since the meaning was obvious, your
> reaction wasn't exactly appropriate.
>
>> > distinguish about 50 waveforms, this parameter doesn't have to be
>> > very accurate, what might already answers your question... It's
>> > rather that I think/experienced that all this synthesis methods all
>> > that math can be fold down to ways to manipulate those basic
>> > parameters I just mentioned...
>
>> I look forward to you providing these parameters without math!
>
> This is basic psychoacoustic knowledge, as usual preception is hard
> to prove. Math isn't exactly helpfull here, except maybe statistics.
> I might be able to find some free english documents online, but I
> don't have the time for this, since I have soundjobs and deadlines...
> I'm not here convince you, just want to share some of my experience
> as sounddesigner. Take it or leave it...
>
>> > You only get different results since they're providing another point
>> > of view and other tools to manipulate, but in general it's the same
>> > picture and when understanding this it's getting "easy" (still can
>> > be cumbersome) to get very similar results from different synthesis
>> > methods...
>> >
>> > Regards!
>> >         Summa
>
> Regards!
>       Summa
>
> --
>
> CZ/VZ 		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CZsynth
> FMHeaven	mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fmheaven/
> FS1R 		mailing list	: http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/fss-list
> Vokator		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vokator
> FM-Synthesis    mailing list         :
> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/fm-synthesis/
>
> http://www.summasounds.de/
>
>

Hi Ezra,

sorry for the late reply, was pretty busy last week... 

On 25 Aug 2008 at 17:33, ezra.buchla@... wrote:

> well, maybe its worth noting that when i talk about "physical
> modelling" synthesis i'm not necessarily talking about trying to
> duplicate existing sounds or waveforms or whatever.

I played around with the tassman that includes some physical 
modelling elements. I wasn't exactly satisfied with the results and 
the predictability of the results, one might getter results if he's 
into building real world instruments and having profound knowledge 
about their resonance bodies...

> take the karplus-strong algortihm. this is a numerical model of a
> system of masses and springs that can be set into oscillation. it is
> quite computationally efficient. it sounds a little like a guitar
> string or other kinds of strings, but based on the parameters and the
> excitation methods, they can soundlike weird new stuff (you can't, for
> example, sing into a string in the real world, or wrap the string in a
> circle...)

I always thought it's a tunable comb filter (that basicly is a delay) 
with some feedback that needs a short impulse burst to oscillate. I 
at least get some marvelous plucked string sounds using formants in 
conjunction with comb filters.... 

Here some Comb-Filter examples I did with the microQ some years ago.

http://www.summasounds.de/files/mQcomb.mp3

 
> where this gets interesting to me is with the addition of nonlinear
> terms and other sources of chaos to the equations. now you have a
> situation where it is very difficult to analytically predict what
> orbits (read: waveforms) will be produced, and the best way to observe
> the system is to compute it. this exact problem (or very near) was the
> subject of the historical work by fermi, pasta, and ulam at los alamos
> in the 1950's, which formed the basis for modern chaos theory and
> numerical analysis...

Even so chaos theory is pretty fascinating, especially when it come 
to weather or big bang prediction, when it comes to sounds I'm rather 
interested in results than in theory. It simply doesn't need that 
much chaos to trick the ear/brain combination, it can trace a very 
limited amount of parameters at once only.
I must admit that I'm more interested in practical, emotional 
playable, in multiple aspect changeable sounds, than in unpredictable 
coincidental generated stuff.  
 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Pasta%E2%80%93Ulam_problem
> http://www.physics.utah.edu/~detar/phycs6720/handouts/fpu/FermiCollect
> edPapers1965.pdf
> 
> point is (for me) that physics and math problems can suggest novel
> ways of producing sound.on coputers, often with great efficiency, and
> suggest control prameters that interact with the output waveforms in
> complex ways that would be difficult to approach with other methods
> (like table lookup...)

I still think our perception is to limited, so it's like throwing 
pearls before the swine and at the end (to us/our minds) it might do 
nothing more than adding a nice texture to the sound ;) I'm not sure 
if this would be worth all the effort, at least when it comes to 
sound generation...
 
> there are people who want to use powerful dsp's to emulate vacuum
> tubes or something. that's not so innteresting to me. what is
> interesting is virtual toroidal gongs and pianos made out of rubbery
> non-wood that you can bend into a horseshoe....

I simply want good sounding (high audio bandwidth) tools that are 
powerfull enough to make my sonic fantasies come true, giving me the 
most easy and direct access to certain sonic parameters...
 
> i really would check out perry cook's work and his "synthesis toolkit"
> c/c++ library if you'e even the slightest bit interested in realtime (not
> lookup) synthesis informed by physics.

I'm pretty sure that simulation isn't the way I want to go, even so 
it might be a shorcut for ppl. that aren't really into deep synthesis 
stuff or don't have a feeling for sound, to simply giving them a tool 
to reach something complex/pleasing sounding...

Best regards!

...Summa

> On 8/23/08, Summa <flotorian@...> wrote:
> > On 23 Aug 2008 at 9:15, synergeezer wrote:
> >
> >> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "Summa" <flotorian@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 21 Aug 2008 at 23:31, synergeezer wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I'm certainly not claiming a deeper knowledge of
> >> > > psychoacoustics! Many members of the group are much, much more
> >> > > knowledgeable than I.
> >> > >
> >> > > But the two questions I'm trying to answer in my work, are: 1.
> >> > > What are the minimum parameters required to re-synthesize an
> >> > > analyzed instrument sound and have it sound right?  (My
> >> > > first-cut analysis always yields a "distinction without a
> >> > > difference" for many parameters - which ones can I omit?) 2.
> >> > > Which parameters can be varied in a (more-or-less) random way
> >> > > in order to re-synthesize the kind of natural variation
> >> > > produced by "natural" instruments?
> >> > >
> >> > > I think #1 addresses your comment.
> >> >
> >> > No, since resnynthesis is already some kind of a brute force
> >> > method, analysing the atomic particles of a sound, but having all
> >> > the data isn't the same as conceiving the true nature/essence of
> >> > the sound. To me a synthesizer that mimicrys a real instrument is
> >> > boring as h*ll,
> >> Thanks!  You demonstrate that you have understood point # 2!  The
> >> mimicry of natural instruments is merely the proof of concept!  The
> >> original question I wanted to answer was "Why did my $35 Sears
> >> guitar sound good to me, always"?  I sold it to my cousin, then
> >> borrowed it back for a few months.  I found WONDERFUL synthesizer
> >> sounds on the EML 101/200/400 I was able to borrow from Auburn
> >> University in 1974! The WONDERFUL sounds I found began to suck just
> >> a few weeks later. The question was "Why did a $35 guitar have a
> >> more pleasing sound than
> >>  a synthesizer that cost 50 times more?
> >
> > Could have several reasons, never played an EML so I can only
> > guess...
> >
> > a) Since you're grown up with guitar sound, you might be used to the
> > timbre... b) Synths don't sound instantly you have to make them
> > sound, you may had problems to get really good sounds out of the
> > synth. c) The synth misses the user interface and playability of a
> > guitar. d) The attack phase of plucked intruments if filled with
> > formant movements.
> >
> > It's for sure not the randomness, since other than todays digital
> > synths old fat analog boxes do have quite some fluctuations in
> > sound...
> >
> >
> >> > unless it enables me to access/change certain basic parameters of
> >> > the sound, like formants (especially their movement)
> >> > texture/roughness and timbre. But timbre (pure waveform) is the
> >> > least important part of regognising a sound, since human
> >> > ear/brain can only
> >> You are defining timbre in a novel way.  I am more comfortable with
> >> the definition provided by the dictionary I can reach from where I
> >> sit - The Random House College Dictionary: "the characteristic
> >> quality of a sound" - or from Wikpedia: the quality of a musical
> >> note or sound that distinguishes different types of sound
> >
> > This wasn't an attempt to find another definition for timbre, it's
> > just my lack of finding a better english word for what I really
> > wanted to say, since english it's not my native language. From my
> > point of view you, since the meaning was obvious, your reaction
> > wasn't exactly appropriate.
> >
> >> > distinguish about 50 waveforms, this parameter doesn't have to be
> >> > very accurate, what might already answers your question... It's
> >> > rather that I think/experienced that all this synthesis methods
> >> > all that math can be fold down to ways to manipulate those basic
> >> > parameters I just mentioned...
> >
> >> I look forward to you providing these parameters without math!
> >
> > This is basic psychoacoustic knowledge, as usual preception is hard
> > to prove. Math isn't exactly helpfull here, except maybe statistics.
> > I might be able to find some free english documents online, but I
> > don't have the time for this, since I have soundjobs and
> > deadlines... I'm not here convince you, just want to share some of
> > my experience as sounddesigner. Take it or leave it...
> >
> >> > You only get different results since they're providing another
> >> > point of view and other tools to manipulate, but in general it's
> >> > the same picture and when understanding this it's getting "easy"
> >> > (still can be cumbersome) to get very similar results from
> >> > different synthesis methods...
> >> >
> >> > Regards!
> >> >         Summa
> >
> > Regards!
> >       Summa
> >
> > --
> >
> > CZ/VZ 		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CZsynth
> > FMHeaven	mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fmheaven/ FS1R
> > 		mailing list	: http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/fss-list
> > Vokator		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vokator
> > FM-Synthesis    mailing list         :
> > http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/fm-synthesis/
> >
> > http://www.summasounds.de/
> >
> >
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 

CZ/VZ 		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CZsynth
FMHeaven	mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fmheaven/
FS1R 		mailing list	: http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/fss-list
Vokator		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vokator
FM-Synthesis    mailing list         : 
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/fm-synthesis/

http://www.summasounds.de/

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Summa <flotorian@...> wrote:
> Hi Ezra,
>
> sorry for the late reply, was pretty busy last week...
>
> On 25 Aug 2008 at 17:33, ezra.buchla@... wrote:
>
>> well, maybe its worth noting that when i talk about "physical
>> modelling" synthesis i'm not necessarily talking about trying to
>> duplicate existing sounds or waveforms or whatever.
>
> I played around with the tassman that includes some physical
> modelling elements. I wasn't exactly satisfied with the results and
> the predictability of the results, one might getter results if he's
> into building real world instruments and having profound knowledge
> about their resonance bodies...

i don't know what that is but it seems smart for people making
physical modelling synths to have some experience with real objects. i
guess.

>> take the karplus-strong algortihm. this is a numerical model of a
>> system of masses and springs that can be set into oscillation. it is
>> quite computationally efficient. it sounds a little like a guitar
>> string or other kinds of strings, but based on the parameters and the
>> excitation methods, they can soundlike weird new stuff (you can't, for
>> example, sing into a string in the real world, or wrap the string in a
>> circle...)
>
> I always thought it's a tunable comb filter (that basicly is a delay)
> with some feedback that needs a short impulse burst to oscillate.

you're right, the term "Karplus-Strong" usually describes that very CS
implementation of the string model from physics (which itself has been
around for hundreds of years). the relevant sonic characteristic is
the way the various harmonics decay... with a direct  implementation
of the connected-mass system, you can change the spacing of the
harmonics with a stiffness coefficient, and their decay times with a
damping coefficient... this corresponds to delay time and feedback in
the comb filter implementation. (i did, after all, carefully read the
Karplus-Strong patent application that i posted earlier...)

but in the direct implementation, you can also change the order or
topology of the force equation, which produces enharmonic as well as
harmonic components. you can't get this from a comb filter (but you
could get them, i suppose, from some kind of really really weird
complicated APF phaser implementation... hm)

> at least get some marvelous plucked string sounds using formants in
> conjunction with comb filters....

sure... BTW, already when you say "formant" in this context you are
invoking a physical modeling concept (the sets of frequencies produced
by the vocal tract when forming different vowels...)

> Here some Comb-Filter examples I did with the microQ some years ago.

> http://www.summasounds.de/files/mQcomb.mp3

very nice... sounds like there's an awful lot of stuff on there...
delays... multiband compression...  already by introducing formant
filtering (by any numerical or analog means you care to choose), this
becomes a whole new ballgame (compared to the humble comb filter), and
indeed a very chaotic one if you're filtering or waveshaping the
feedback path (as it sounds like you are...)... you're going to end up
hearing a lot of artifacts resulting from "limitations" or "flaws" in
the actual hardware or software... totally "chaotic" stuff.

>> where this gets interesting to me is with the addition of nonlinear
>> terms and other sources of chaos to the equations. now you have a
>> situation where it is very difficult to analytically predict what
>> orbits (read: waveforms) will be produced, and the best way to observe
>> the system is to compute it. this exact problem (or very near) was the
>> subject of the historical work by fermi, pasta, and ulam at los alamos
>> in the 1950's, which formed the basis for modern chaos theory and
>> numerical analysis...
>
> Even so chaos theory is pretty fascinating, especially when it come
> to weather or big bang prediction, when it comes to sounds I'm rather
> interested in results than in theory. It simply doesn't need that
> much chaos to trick the ear/brain combination, it can trace a very
> limited amount of parameters at once only.
> I must admit that I'm more interested in practical, emotional
> playable, in multiple aspect changeable sounds, than in unpredictable
> coincidental generated stuff.

i guess i wouldn't argue with that. i spend part of my time building
modular synthesizers that employ a relatively "traditional" sound
design paradigm, but even in the guts of an analog waveshaper there is
much beautiful folded strangeness to be found. hard to understand
anything in circuit design without some nonlinear analysis tools.

i happen to enjoy designing synthesis algorithms in my "spare time,"
and i happen to have a numerical modelling background, so it makes
sense to use that paradigm when it's useful. most things having to do
with sound are "chaotic," including (for example) the spectra
resulting from the cz-series phase-reset synthesis algorithm that i
was talking about earlier.

(interested in the chaotic dynamics of coupled oscillators? no? how
bout cross-modulated FM oscillators? how bout that
formant-combfilter-feedback patch? these can all be studied with
"chaos theory," and indeed coupled-oscillator problems form one of the
most fruitful areas of recent research...)

anyway... here's a single "pluck" from a KS synth i made a few years
ago, with nonlinear force terms and arbitrary correlation between
masses; it sounds more like a gong than a string:

http://music.calarts.edu/~ebuchla/mp3/losalamos.mp3

as you say, that's not a playable instrument, its the raw output of a
numerical system, an array of 8 floats and some very very simple DE's.
as i mentioned before, ableton's "tensor" is a playable, commercial
implementation of a similar algorithm (or so i surmise.)... i like it
ok... anyway, it's easy to get the demo and play with it, and decide
for yourself...

anyways, i wouldn't know how to make that sliding enharmonic decay
stuff without some very intricate programming of sinusoids... or a
super, SUPER weird phaser (that does not yet exist)... anyway it would
take a lot more "effort" than 8 floats and two DE's...

>
> I still think our perception is to limited, so it's like throwing
> pearls before the swine and at the end (to us/our minds) it might do
> nothing more than adding a nice texture to the sound ;) I'm not sure
> if this would be worth all the effort, at least when it comes to
> sound generation...

ok. i guess i don't agree. our ears and minds are fucking amazing,
capable of incredible feats of acoustic analysis: pitch
discrimintation, rhythmic discrimination, spectral feature extraction,
masking...

i grew up on a diet of experimental electronic music and close
listening. i think "texture" is very deep. you're a sound designer so
you probably do too, i'd imagine...

in any case, i don't understand your distaste for researching novel
synthesis architectures. they don't have to be more complicated or
chaotic. they could be more flexible and computationally efficient,
like wave terrain synthesis, or the original KS algorithm in its
day... in my observations, it really looks like most useful audio
technologies being life as unplayable academic toys...

i guess i keep thinking about if my father and bob moog hadn't thought
to apply FM (a telecom engineering method) to musical synthesis in the
1960's, on the grounds that the resultant sounds were too
"unpredictable," and unnecessary for the ingenious patchmaker (hey,
you got sines, saws, squares and AM, what more do you need?)...
chowning formulated the "musical" characteristics of FM in the late
'70's...

i would love it if someone would formulate the "musical"
characterstics of nonlinear mass-spring systems (what are the
frequencies of the enharmonic orbits? how fast do they decay?). i
tried once, but it's very very very tricky...

>> there are people who want to use powerful dsp's to emulate vacuum
>> tubes or something. that's not so innteresting to me. what is
>> interesting is virtual toroidal gongs and pianos made out of rubbery
>> non-wood that you can bend into a horseshoe....
>
> I simply want good sounding (high audio bandwidth) tools that are
> powerfull enough to make my sonic fantasies come true, giving me the
> most easy and direct access to certain sonic parameters...

sure... fortunately you have that in abundance, these days. might as
well move forward.

>> i really would check out perry cook's work and his "synthesis toolkit"
>> c/c++ library if you'e even the slightest bit interested in realtime (not
>> lookup) synthesis informed by physics.
>
> I'm pretty sure that simulation isn't the way I want to go, even so
> it might be a shorcut for ppl. that aren't really into deep synthesis
> stuff or don't have a feeling for sound, to simply giving them a tool
> to reach something complex/pleasing sounding...

hm. well, thanks for that... jeez...

anyway, if you actually read any of cook's work (as i again recommend
to anyone interested), you'll see that a great deal of it is concerned
with isolating the parametric handles on the numerical models that
have the greatest psychoacoustic effect (and hence are the most
"playable....")

in a lot of ways i totally agree with your exhortation to use simpler
tools with more imagination. if i understood that right. but i also
like making tools, and it seems stupid to make the same ones over and
over again (software is cheap), and i can still think of some stuff
that i want that doesn't exist yet.

but, you know, i don't care much.

i just realized that i've never read anything i needed to read on this
list. i subscribed cause i wanted a cz-101 service manual.

now unsubscribing.

take care,

- eb.

Hi Ezra,

On 2 Sep 2008 at 15:47, ezra buchla wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Summa <flotorian@...> wrote: >


> >> well, maybe its worth noting that when i talk about "physical
> >> modelling" synthesis i'm not necessarily talking about trying to
> >> duplicate existing sounds or waveforms or whatever.
> >
> > I played around with the tassman that includes some physical
> > modelling elements. I wasn't exactly satisfied with the results and the
> > predictability of the results, one might getter results if he's into
> > building real world instruments and having profound knowledge about
> > their resonance bodies...
> 
> i don't know what that is but it seems smart for people making
> physical modelling synths to have some experience with real objects. i
> guess.


I rather meant that it might looks like a good idea using on first 
sight less abstract looking real world objects and parameters like 
size but still a typical user, that has no knowledge about building 
instruments, can't anticipate how those parameters change the sound. 
He could as well using Operators, Frequencies, delays and filters...
 
> >> take the karplus-strong algortihm. this is a numerical model of a
> >> system of masses and springs that can be set into oscillation. it
> >> is quite computationally efficient. it sounds a little like a
> >> guitar string or other kinds of strings, but based on the
> >> parameters and the excitation methods, they can soundlike weird new
> >> stuff (you can't, for example, sing into a string in the real
> >> world, or wrap the string in a circle...)
> >
> > I always thought it's a tunable comb filter (that basicly is a
> > delay) with some feedback that needs a short impulse burst to
> > oscillate.
> 
> you're right, the term "Karplus-Strong" usually describes that very CS
> implementation of the string model from physics (which itself has been
> around for hundreds of years). the relevant sonic characteristic is
> the way the various harmonics decay... with a direct  implementation
> of the connected-mass system, you can change the spacing of the
> harmonics with a stiffness coefficient, and their decay times with a
> damping coefficient... this corresponds to delay time and feedback in
> the comb filter implementation. (i did, after all, carefully read the
> Karplus-Strong patent application that i posted earlier...)
> 
> but in the direct implementation, you can also change the order or
> topology of the force equation, which produces enharmonic as well as
> harmonic components. you can't get this from a comb filter (but you

Can't find a proper translation for enharmonic, but as far as my 
experience with Comp filter goes, you can create harmonic as well as 
nonharmonic overtones, what is depending on the spectre of the input 
impulse. 

> could get them, i suppose, from some kind of really really weird
> complicated APF phaser implementation... hm)


> > at least get some marvelous plucked string sounds using formants in
> > conjunction with comb filters....
> 
> sure... BTW, already when you say "formant" in this context you are
> invoking a physical modeling concept (the sets of frequencies produced
> by the vocal tract when forming different vowels...)

The term formant isn't limited to vowels, it's also describes the 
prominent frequencies of instruments, mostly generated by the 
resonance body. Still, a set of bandpassfilters or a few static 
harmonics (for instance oscillators at a static frequency) can do the 
thing as well.

Here a list with the formants of some orchestral instruments...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Music/orchins.html

 
> > Here some Comb-Filter examples I did with the microQ some years ago.
> 
> > http://www.summasounds.de/files/mQcomb.mp3
> 
> very nice... sounds like there's an awful lot of stuff on there...
> delays... multiband compression...  already by introducing formant
> filtering (by any numerical or analog means you care to choose), this
> becomes a whole new ballgame (compared to the humble comb filter), and
> indeed a very chaotic one if you're filtering or waveshaping the
> feedback path (as it sounds like you are...)... you're going to end up
> hearing a lot of artifacts resulting from "limitations" or "flaws" in
> the actual hardware or software... totally "chaotic" stuff.

Well, it's completely Waldorf microQ (3 Oscillators + Noise, 2 
multimode Filters (including Comb+/-)) based, no additional effects 
has been used, no additional EQ or multiband compression. Since the 
built in FX is rather crappy, I used them rather sparse.
The microQ has the abilitity to manipultate voice groups separately, 
even so this is limited by the amount of mod-matrix and modifier 
slots, it can add quite some sonic diversity to the sound...
When it comes to the formants, I added oscillators at a static 
frequency to the impulse (created by short pitchmodulation) to create 
them...  

> >> where this gets interesting to me is with the addition of nonlinear
> >> terms and other sources of chaos to the equations. now you have a
> >> situation where it is very difficult to analytically predict what
> >> orbits (read: waveforms) will be produced, and the best way to
> >> observe the system is to compute it. this exact problem (or very
> >> near) was the subject of the historical work by fermi, pasta, and
> >> ulam at los alamos in the 1950's, which formed the basis for modern
> >> chaos theory and numerical analysis...
> >
> > Even so chaos theory is pretty fascinating, especially when it come
> > to weather or big bang prediction, when it comes to sounds I'm
> > rather interested in results than in theory. It simply doesn't need
> > that much chaos to trick the ear/brain combination, it can trace a
> > very limited amount of parameters at once only. I must admit that
> > I'm more interested in practical, emotional playable, in multiple
> > aspect changeable sounds, than in unpredictable coincidental
> > generated stuff.
> 
> i guess i wouldn't argue with that. i spend part of my time building
> modular synthesizers that employ a relatively "traditional" sound
> design paradigm, but even in the guts of an analog waveshaper there is
> much beautiful folded strangeness to be found. hard to understand
> anything in circuit design without some nonlinear analysis tools.

Analog circuits tend to behave nonlinear when driven into 
saturation... 

> i happen to enjoy designing synthesis algorithms in my "spare time,"
> and i happen to have a numerical modelling background, so it makes
> sense to use that paradigm when it's useful. most things having to do
> with sound are "chaotic," including (for example) the spectra
> resulting from the cz-series phase-reset synthesis algorithm that i
> was talking about earlier.

I haven't followed your complete discussion with Synergeezer briefly, 
so I'm not aware of any phase reset synthesis algorithm within the 
CZ. At least the term is unkown to me, the creator of the VAZ Modular 
probably used other terms to describe the principles of his Cosmo 
Oscillators.

 
> (interested in the chaotic dynamics of coupled oscillators? no? how
> bout cross-modulated FM oscillators? how bout that

Crossmodulated FM or PM? With or without the DC-Offset those coupled 
FM oscillators tend to create? 
I'm allready be able to create my formants, even shifting ones, using 
synced waveshaper/Oscillator combinations... 

> formant-combfilter-feedback patch? these can all be studied with
> "chaos theory," and indeed coupled-oscillator problems form one of the
> most fruitful areas of recent research...)

As you may have recognised, I'm already able to create formants with 
a simple Comb-Filter and without the help of the chaos theory.  

> anyway... here's a single "pluck" from a KS synth i made a few years
> ago, with nonlinear force terms and arbitrary correlation between
> masses; it sounds more like a gong than a string:
> 
> http://music.calarts.edu/~ebuchla/mp3/losalamos.mp3

Reminds a bit on some old tape loop experiments and it unfortunately 
doesn't contain any frequencies above 2khz so it sounds a bit 
"muffled" (hope this is the right expression for it). It's rather 
clean, without texture...

> as you say, that's not a playable instrument, its the raw output of a
> numerical system, an array of 8 floats and some very very simple DE's.
> as i mentioned before, ableton's "tensor" is a playable, commercial
> implementation of a similar algorithm (or so i surmise.)... i like it
> ok... anyway, it's easy to get the demo and play with it, and decide
> for yourself...
> 
> anyways, i wouldn't know how to make that sliding enharmonic decay
> stuff without some very intricate programming of sinusoids... or a
> super, SUPER weird phaser (that does not yet exist)... anyway it would
> take a lot more "effort" than 8 floats and two DE's...

Hmmm, don't get me wrong it might be academicly challenging project, 
but seems to be quite some effort for a nice little drone...

 
> > I still think our perception is to limited, so it's like throwing
> > pearls before the swine and at the end (to us/our minds) it might do
> > nothing more than adding a nice texture to the sound ;) I'm not sure
> > if this would be worth all the effort, at least when it comes to
> > sound generation...
> 
> ok. i guess i don't agree. our ears and minds are fucking amazing,
> capable of incredible feats of acoustic analysis: pitch
> discrimintation, rhythmic discrimination, spectral feature extraction,
> masking...

Never mind but I don't understand a word of what you're talking 
about, could be the language, you might remember that english isn't 
my native language. But before telling marvels about our perception 
have you read a single article about psychoacoustics, how easy it is 
to trick our perception? I unfortunately have mostly german papers, 
otherwise I may would have been able to provide some links... 

 
> i grew up on a diet of experimental electronic music and close
> listening. i think "texture" is very deep. you're a sound designer so
> you probably do too, i'd imagine...

I have a pretty wide scope of music/sounds I'm listening too...
 
> in any case, i don't understand your distaste for researching novel
> synthesis architectures. they don't have to be more complicated or
> chaotic. they could be more flexible and computationally efficient,
> like wave terrain synthesis, or the original KS algorithm in its
> day... in my observations, it really looks like most useful audio
> technologies being life as unplayable academic toys...

I simply don't think that we get any appreciable progress if we built 
instruments that are rather based on physical or mathematical 
experiments and completely ignoring psychoacoustics...

> i guess i keep thinking about if my father and bob moog hadn't thought
> to apply FM (a telecom engineering method) to musical synthesis in the
> 1960's, on the grounds that the resultant sounds were too

I'd guess this is a foorseeable step when using an oscillator (and an 
LFO is nothing else) for vibrato and increasing it to audio speed to 
see what happens... ;)  I guess the result at least soundwise 
somewhat reminded him to radio noise but except that FM-Radio is also 
modulating the frequency of the carrier wave with the audio signal I 
think their is not that much analogy between radio waves and 
Oscillator FM ;) 

> "unpredictable," and unnecessary for the ingenious patchmaker (hey,
> you got sines, saws, squares and AM, what more do you need?)...
> chowning formulated the "musical" characteristics of FM in the late
> '70's...

Using physical models, trying to simulate real instrument isn't 
really new to the world of audio algorithms. While psychoacoustics is 
a relatively new science...  

> >> there are people who want to use powerful dsp's to emulate vacuum
> >> tubes or something. that's not so innteresting to me. what is
> >> interesting is virtual toroidal gongs and pianos made out of
> >> rubbery non-wood that you can bend into a horseshoe....
> >
> > I simply want good sounding (high audio bandwidth) tools that are
> > powerfull enough to make my sonic fantasies come true, giving me the
> > most easy and direct access to certain sonic parameters...
> 
> sure... fortunately you have that in abundance, these days. might as
> well move forward.

Well, not really, at least not realtime...

> in a lot of ways i totally agree with your exhortation to use simpler
> tools with more imagination. if i understood that right. but i also
> like making tools, and it seems stupid to make the same ones over and
> over again (software is cheap), and i can still think of some stuff
> that i want that doesn't exist yet.
> 
> but, you know, i don't care much.
> 
> i just realized that i've never read anything i needed to read on this
> list. i subscribed cause i wanted a cz-101 service manual.
> 
> now unsubscribing.
> 
> take care,

Couldn't you say that at the beginning of your mail, this would spare 
me a lot of writing... ;)

Take care too!

...Summa


-- 

CZ/VZ 		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CZsynth
FMHeaven	mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fmheaven/
FS1R 		mailing list	: http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/fss-list
Vokator		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vokator
FM-Synthesis    mailing list         : 
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/fm-synthesis/

http://www.summasounds.de/