The Logic Off Topic list

I just can't believe you guys continuing this "trance" thread on 
the LUG. It's now turned in to a subject that has absolutely nothing 
to do with "Logic use". And after all the talk about using this OT 
list for that stuff, which would be completely appropriate for that 
and other OT subjects, this list hasn't seen a new post in a couple 
days.

  I would think that someone that uses Logic, would have some logic, 
about getting this and other OT subjects off the LUG list, what is so 
hard about getting this concept.

   Since the push for getting us all subscribed to both list, it seems 
that the OT on the LUG is 10 times worse than usual. I mean just look 
at the subject headers in the last 12 hours on the LUG list. If I were 
getting these by e-mail, and not just by Web only, I would just have 
to unsubscribe, there would be too much OT to wade through.

   Please, please, please, think when you're writing a "post",or even 
a "reply" to this "Trance" subject, which I started, in order to learn 
about techniques that would be related to Logic features, and NO other 
reason what so ever, just put your post/reply here on this list, and 
if you don't think we're gonna see it, for a while, until we get the 
hang of it, maybe just post a short note linking us to this OT list 
to read your comments. once we can get an OT subject over here, I 
don't think it would hard to keep it here.

  When an OT subject gets going over there, it's hard to get it off 
that list, just take it over here....tell us that's what you're doing, 
and we'll come over here to continue it.....I know I'm saying the same 
thing over and over, but some of us just are not getting it.


   Please, just do it. We all use Logic, that must say something about 
our intellegence, (you wouldn't know it from my spelling, huh), but, 
to see all this OT continuing on the LUG, says to me, that anyone who 
does that at this point, either hasn't been here for a while, or is 
not as samrt as you think you are, I apologize for saying this, but I 
think you have to be a little stupid to continue a OT thread for as 
long as it gets continued, without sending over here, where it should 
be.

  Now reply all you want, and tell me how full of crap I am, that's 
fine, but keep it over here. 


Love and regards,

David Floyd

Thoughts from the mind of david@..., 15-06-2001:

>    I just can't believe you guys continuing this "trance" thread on
>the LUG. It's now turned in to a subject that has absolutely nothing
>to do with "Logic use". And after all the talk about using this OT
>list for that stuff, which would be completely appropriate for that
>and other OT subjects, this list hasn't seen a new post in a couple
>days.
>
>   I would think that someone that uses Logic, would have some logic,
>about getting this and other OT subjects off the LUG list, what is so
>hard about getting this concept.

You're absolutely right -- in principle.  The problem is that maybe 
5% of the LUG is subscribed to the OT list, and so there's a big 
chance that, when you reply to person X on the OT-list, this person 
will never see your reply.  OK, CC by private mail, sure, that would 
be possible, although rather clumsy...  Besides, replying or CCing 
privateoy tends to make things "heavier" than they're intended -- 
somehow private mail often is interpreted in a more serious way than 
list-mail is.

But the valid point you make is IMO exactly the reason why everyone 
should be forced to subscribe to the OT list.


cheers,
HJ

-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

--- In logic-ot@y..., Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@k...> wrote:

> You're absolutely right -- in principle.  The problem is that maybe 
> 5% of the LUG is subscribed to the OT list, and so there's a big 
> chance that, when you reply to person X on the OT-list, this person 
> will never see your reply. 

It's so easy to join the list, less than a minute to do it.
d

No offense intended by my subject line, I just wanted to get some 
attention, and get some response here on this list.

regards,

df

> You're absolutely right -- in principle.  The problem is that maybe
> 5% of the LUG is subscribed to the OT list, and so there's a big
> chance that, when you reply to person X on the OT-list, this person
> will never see your reply.

Correct, but this might change soon. ;-)

--
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

Belway Productions      -     http://www.belway.com
List-admin   Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM

> I just can't believe you guys continuing this "trance" thread on
> the LUG. It's now turned in to a subject that has absolutely nothing
> to do with "Logic use".

I agree. I haven't moderated it yet, 'cause I have more than enough work with
moderating the other thread "Michael Bolton stuff etc".

> Since the push for getting us all subscribed to both list, it seems
> that the OT on the LUG is 10 times worse than usual.

Now that I think of it, I have one more question on which I'd like to have
everyone's opinion.
If we want everyone to subscribe to this OT list, what would be the best way?

* either I subscribe everyone directly (well, I can't actually do that, I
need Yahoogroups permission to transfer this amount of addresses.

* or I send an invitation to everyone privately and thereby state that OT is
from now on banned from the LUG.

Let me know what you think.

Bye,
J



--
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

Belway Productions      -     http://www.belway.com
List-admin   Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM

Well why don't we discuss actual trance programming techniques here then. 
I am wondering to what extent things are quantized. 

>  I just can't believe you guys continuing this "trance" thread on 
>the LUG. It's now turned in to a subject that has absolutely nothing 
>to do with "Logic use". And after all the talk about using this OT 
>list for that stuff, which would be completely appropriate for that 
>and other OT subjects, this list hasn't seen a new post in a couple 
>days.

--- In logic-ot@y..., Joeri Vankeirsbilck <joeri@b...> wrote:

> If we want everyone to subscribe to this OT list, what would be the 
best way?

   Well I say, whatever's easiest for you. I think an OT ban on the 
LUG will do it. Is that extra work for you?

   If we want to engage in OT, it's very easy to join this OT list, 
IMO, if some just will not join this list, we wont get to hear from 
them on OT discussions, plain and simple. Of course there will be some 
slightly OT that should be tolerated, if it's based on using Logic.

  How would it work? All OT's at the subject line will not be allowed, 
or will just make a rule?

df

--- In logic-ot@y..., GAmoore@a... wrote:
> Well why don't we discuss actual trance programming techniques here 
then. 
> I am wondering to what extent things are quantized. 

It sounds to me like it's heavily quantized, because the timing is so 
precise, at least what I heard anyway, and that's limited. Drawing in 
the notes, and using arpegiators would be pretty much quantized, 
right?

  And I'm guessing you would think "pattern style" like the old 
sequencers, and drum machines programming. Also as someone said, using 
delays, and eko's sync'd would be a big help getting the effect to 
happen, also.

df

> I think an OT ban on the
> LUG will do it. Is that extra work for you?

ROFL. That's like doubling my admin work! I'm sure I'll have to moderate lots
of mails and people. Before doing so, I'll update the welcome mails and list
descriptions so it's more clear what we expect from people when they
subscribe.

> Of course there will be some
> slightly OT that should be tolerated, if it's based on using Logic.

That's the hard part: deciding what's "too" OT for the LUG. I think a stict
approach my be the most simple solution.

> How would it work? All OT's at the subject line will not be allowed,
> or will just make a rule?

I can't moderate anything else than "people": Yahoogroups doesn't offer me
any subject filters etc.
So I'll have to keep an eye on all mails to see whether they're actually OT
or not.

As with the subject line stuff, it will take 3 weeks or so before most people
actually stop posting OT.

Bye,
J

--
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

Belway Productions      -     http://www.belway.com
List-admin   Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM

> I am wondering to what extent things are quantized.

VERY very quantized. I often do trance stuff and most things are quantized in
some way.
--
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

Belway Productions      -     http://www.belway.com
List-admin   Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM

I've noticed that a good drum loop needs plenty of little quiet notes - 
to give it a moving feeling and I'm convinced they are not quantized. If 
everything is quantized it will sound like crap. 

I'm also wondering how steady the beat is. When there is a pause do the 
drop it down from 130 bpm to 120 then back up or something like that?

>It sounds to me like it's heavily quantized, because the timing is so 
>precise, at least what I heard anyway, and that's limited. Drawing in 
>the notes, and using arpegiators would be pretty much quantized, 
>right?
>
>  And I'm guessing you would think "pattern style" like the old 
>sequencers, and drum machines programming. Also as someone said, using 
>delays, and eko's sync'd would be a big help getting the effect to 
>happen, also.

> I'm also wondering how steady the beat is. When there is a pause do the
> drop it down from 130 bpm to 120 then back up or something like that?

The tempo mostly stays the same for the entire song. DJ's have to mix it, so
it's often better to keep things simple.


--
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

Belway Productions      -     http://www.belway.com
List-admin   Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM

Talking about "quantizing" - have you thought about how relative that is? I mean all those drum samples that make up a beat are each of a different duration. If, as an example, you are using a long kick sound you may have to pre-delay its track to give the feel of an "exact quantized beat". So you have to be clear about if you are talking about quantizing after the start point of the sound or after the "main body of attack" in the sound. 

To my ears not everything will "sound like crap if quantized". If you are talking about the timing, that is. But there are other aspects of rhythm than timing - timbre for one, or pitch. Personally I like beats that are (timing-wise) quantized dead on but with a lot of subtle variations in timbre an pitch. On the akai sampler I used to set up different LFO speed for varying the pitch of many of the drum sounds in a kit. I like that a lot and miss it right now in the EXS.



per

  -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
  Från: GAmoore@... [mailto:GAmoore@...]


  I've noticed that a good drum loop needs plenty of little quiet notes - 
  to give it a moving feeling and I'm convinced they are not quantized. If 
  everything is quantized it will sound like crap.  
   

  I'm also wondering how steady the beat is. When there is a pause do the 
  drop it down from 130 bpm to 120 then back up or something like that?


  >It sounds to me like it's heavily quantized, because the timing is so 
  >precise, at least what I heard anyway, and that's limited. Drawing in 
  >the notes, and using arpegiators would be pretty much quantized, 
  >right?
  >
  >  And I'm guessing you would think "pattern style" like the old 
  >sequencers, and drum machines programming. Also as someone said, using 
  >delays, and eko's sync'd would be a big help getting the effect to 
  >happen, also.


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 

        Click for Details 
       

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

I tried joining the OT list and was denied because my email address was not
recognized.
So how do I get it recognized?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

david@... wrote:

>
> It's so easy to join the list, less than a minute to do it.
> d
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Your posts appears on the list, so you're subscribed!

jim seaman wrote:

> I tried joining the OT list and was denied because my email address was not
> recognized.
> So how do I get it recognized?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> david@... wrote:
>
> >
> > It's so easy to join the list, less than a minute to do it.
> > d
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

Belway Productions      -     http://www.belway.com
List-admin   Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM

Thoughts from the mind of david@..., 15-06-2001:

>--- In logic-ot@y..., Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@k...> wrote:
>
>>  You're absolutely right -- in principle.  The problem is that maybe
>>  5% of the LUG is subscribed to the OT list, and so there's a big
>>  chance that, when you reply to person X on the OT-list, this person
>>  will never see your reply.
>
>It's so easy to join the list, less than a minute to do it.
>d

I know -- I've been sub'd to the ot-list ever since I joined the LUG. 
And I've been the first one to suggest what's now in the poll: the 
force all LUGgers to subscribe to the ot-list too.
The point of my msg quoted above was: what use is the ot-list if 
hardly anyone is subscribed to it?  That's why everyone should be 
forced to sub to the ot-list.


tt,
hj
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Thoughts from the mind of Joeri Vankeirsbilck, 15-06-2001:

>If we want everyone to subscribe to this OT list, what would be the best way?
>
>* either I subscribe everyone directly (well, I can't actually do that, I
>need Yahoogroups permission to transfer this amount of addresses.
>
>* or I send an invitation to everyone privately and thereby state that OT is
>from now on banned from the LUG.

First option.  The 2nd sounds like democracy, and we all know 
democracy sucks :-).

Seriously: friendly requests tend to have little effect in cases like 
this, I'm afraid, so, yes, option 1.


hj
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Frankly Joeri I think you should stop messing around and just get on with
it. I am a bit tired of this whole debate now. (not intended to sound like a
rant).

Either make a desion and do it now, or abide by the results of the vote, and
don't care a jot about who objects. If they don't like it they know where
they can go!

OT was fine in small doses on the list but it just got out of hand with the
endless, in depth and detailed stuff which people should have seen sense to
offer to take to the OT, but instead assumed everyone else would somehow
find it interesting. This has kind of killed off the spirit of the list. Now
we just get endless boring topics on the OT list for the sake of it and a
fact only list which is still great in a technical sense but has no
character anymore.

I'm sick and tired of all the moaners who simply do not want to use a filter
to handle their mails in a more efficient way, but think it's OK to post OT
arguments and points regarding the OT messages. I also think the lazy
offenders who cannot be bothered to edit their replies are far worse and
irritating that those who like the odd OT joke or statement.

I'm tempted to post my Logic related stuff to the OT list out of protest!

I'd like to finish by asking a few simple questions.

Are you prepared to make the desision about what is OT?
When you have made that desision are you prepared to argue the point?
Are you prepared to go in to regular battles about this, and are you
prepared to ban people who disobey or disagree?
Are you prepared to make the odd allowance?
Are you prepared to allow people to reply about OT messages when they have
been posted?
Are you prepared for all the people who moan about an OT when it slips
through?
Are you prepared to allow a more long standing member such as Hendrick,
Sascha or f-erenc an odd OT but clamp down on a newcomer?
How do you plan to enforce it?


>If we want everyone to subscribe to this OT list, what would be the best
way?
>
>* either I subscribe everyone directly (well, I can't actually do that, I
>need Yahoogroups permission to transfer this amount of addresses.
>
>* or I send an invitation to everyone privately and thereby state that OT
is
>from now on banned from the LUG.

Phil Angus wrote:
> I also think the lazy
> offenders who cannot be bothered to edit their replies are far worse and
> irritating that those who like the odd OT joke or statement.

Hear hear, totally seconded.
IMO that's the worst thing, people not quoting properly. Very often makes me
use the delete button before even bothering with reading what they wrote.
Some "quoting rules" post could eventually be posted more regularly.

Anyways, my vote is (uhm, I didn't even vote yet, will do that now) to
subscribe everybody to the OT list automatically. I wouldn't be too strict
with the policies at first though, let's just see if people are clever
enough to get it. IMO sometimes an OT post to the LUG might be better than
immediately taking it over to the L-OT (hm, well, maybe not if everybody is
subscribed to both lists).
Of course that would mean no less mails but one could easily continue a
thread going OT on this list which is simply impossible right now as there
are almost no subscribers (not even 10%). Btw, the ones posting here so far
seem to be the ones knowing how to behave on a mailing list anyways.

Sascha

> Frankly Joeri I think you should stop messing around and just get on with
> it. I am a bit tired of this whole debate now. (not intended to sound like a
> rant).

I fully agree with you, but it's a matter of time: this will be very very time
consuming for me and I also got a full-time dayjob + too many other things. :-)
I'll contact Yahoogroups this week and if everything goes well, the transfer
will be done this week or next week.

> OT was fine in small doses on the list but it just got out of hand

Exactly! It's a pity... but there seems to be no choice. It would be nice to
have the LUG traffic down to 200 mails a month or so, which would be much easier
to handle.

> I'm tempted to post my Logic related stuff to the OT list out of protest!

:-))

> Are you prepared to make the desision about what is OT?

I am, but it'll be difficult (and I'll definitely consult some people on that!)
and I'll get lots of complaints (but I don't mind :-).

> When you have made that desision are you prepared to argue the point?
> Are you prepared to go in to regular battles about this, and are you
> prepared to ban people who disobey or disagree?

I definitely won't ban people for that, but I'll give them my reasoning behind
the decision and if they don't agree, I'll invite them to moderate this list and
see how long they are then willing to argue!

> Are you prepared to make the odd allowance?

Not really... I think it's better to treat everyone the same way.

> Are you prepared to allow people to reply about OT messages when they have
> been posted?

Nope.

> Are you prepared for all the people who moan about an OT when it slips
> through?

I'll be quite clear on this. Admin stuff should be done in private.
I'll change the welcome mails and new members are moderated anyway, so after a
while the OT would be almost non-existent (wishful thinking? :).

> Are you prepared to allow a more long standing member such as Hendrick,
> Sascha or f-erenc an odd OT but clamp down on a newcomer?

Definitely not, I'm sorry. Although some people might be a bit more equal than
others (Sascha and Hendrick are people I would never moderate.... but then
they're clever enough not to need any moderation either), the rule should be a
general rule for everyone.

> How do you plan to enforce it?

I can put people in moderated mode. I can also disable their posting ability,
but I prefer not to do so as they're then unable to say anything at all.

Bye,
Joeri
--
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

Belway Productions      -     http://www.belway.com
List-admin   Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM

Thoughts from the mind of Joeri Vankeirsbilck, 19-06-2001:

>  > When you have made that desision are you prepared to argue the point?
>>  Are you prepared to go in to regular battles about this, and are you
>>  prepared to ban people who disobey or disagree?
>
>I definitely won't ban people for that, but I'll give them my reasoning behind
>the decision and if they don't agree, I'll invite them to moderate 
>this list and see how long they are then willing to argue!

Wrong approach imo.  Like I said, I don't believe in "democracy all 
the way" ...  Once you start explaining why you do what you do, 
you'll have a fulltime job writing such mails, I'm afraid.  Since 
you're the moderator of this list, you have a veto-right which you 
can use.  If you forward a mail to the OT-list, then that's your 
decision, and no-one should argue with that.  If they don't agree, 
they can volunteer to become the next moderator once elections are 
held :-). If I were you, I'd have a standard mail ready for such 
occasions: "Dear X, you mail was deemed off-topic and is thus 
forwarded to the off-topic list.  As a moderator of this list, this 
is my decision, which is not open to discussion."  Period.

>  > Are you prepared to allow a more long standing member such as Hendrick,
>>  Sascha or f-erenc an odd OT but clamp down on a newcomer?
>
>Definitely not, I'm sorry. Although some people might be a bit more equal than
>others (Sascha and Hendrick are people I would never moderate....

Justice, finally... :-)

>but then they're clever enough not to need any moderation either

Ha!  Dream on baby...


tataaaaaa,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

> >I definitely won't ban people for that, but I'll give them my reasoning behind
> >the decision and if they don't agree, I'll invite them to moderate
> >this list and see how long they are then willing to argue!
> Wrong approach imo.  Like I said, I don't believe in "democracy all
> the way" ...  Once you start explaining why you do what you do,
> you'll have a fulltime job writing such mails, I'm afraid.

I think I expressed myself in the wrong way: I meant I'd make 1 standard mail with
my reasoning (in general) and that would be it. So, yes, I'd comment on it if
people argue, but no: I don't have enough time to send big mails. I have 130
unanswered mails in my inbox, some dating back tp 1999! :(

> If I were you, I'd have a standard mail ready for such
> occasions:

exactly what I meant. :-)

> >but then they're clever enough not to need any moderation either
> Ha!  Dream on baby...

:-)))

Bye,
Joeri
--
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

Belway Productions      -     http://www.belway.com
List-admin   Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM

Thoughts from the mind of Joeri Vankeirsbilck, 19-06-2001:

>I have 130 unanswered mails in my inbox, some dating back tp 1999! :(

That's where the delete button is for...  If a msg can go unanswered 
for more than a year, it might as well be deleted.

>  > >but then they're clever enough not to need any moderation either
>>  Ha!  Dream on baby...
>
>:-)))

Still laughing, are you...  Just you wait and see... :-)

-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html