article on VITAL WEEKLY 38S
article on VITAL WEEKLY 40S
interview for HALANA, usa [or download .pdf file 120k]
interview for XERXES, tokyo [or download .pdf file 68k]
interview for IMMERSE, uk [or download .pdf file 68k]
interview for WIRE, uk [or download .pdf file 80k]
interview for REVUE ET CORRIGÊE #29 [or download .pdf file 112k]
article on PERFECT SOUND FOREVER [or download .pdf file 16k]
interview for BLOW UP, italy [or download .pdf file 20k]
DISCUSSION ON VITAL WEEKLY 40S
ONES AND COMPOSERS AND ZEROES and machinery 'n' stuff
Over the past few years digital technology has become affordable to a large part of Western population. The average mineworker, shoe salesman, or secretary can afford to pay a system that is powerful enough to construct something that might occasionally even pass the test for a work of art. For years almost all digital software was written for Macs, Commodore and Atari computers. I guess this was because these manufacturers had built a standard soundcard into their system. In DOS machines these were absent as they were designed for use as business machines, they only had to compute salesfigures and stuff. However over the past few years DOS machines have entered the livingrooms of people's homes and so in 1994 IBM compatibles have gained a substantial part of the music hard- and software market. DOS operated systems are able to sample sound and computers are fast enough and have storage capacity for hard disc recording and -editing. Still DOS has to work hard to get to the standards that the other systems use for years already. What do composers use for the construction of their electronic music. Some work with self made algorhythms that are fed into the computer, others have digital equipment that can be bought at every music store. Some systems are very expensive, others can be bought for a few dollars. I bought myself a system that functions in my IBM clone and this sparked the idea for a survey.
Below you find descriptions of the systems that are used by composers. They were asked to tell about the can's and can'ts of their system. Followed by a list of software for different computer operating systems.
Part 1: Hardware
Bernhard Guenter Guenter is a German composer, part of Selektion. His work is extremely abstract. He works in what I dare to call a typically "cool" German tradition with sounds boned until the listener is left with sounds that can only be perceived with the outmost attention and will. Nevertheless all that can be heard (ticks, cracks, the initial part of something starting) falls right in place.
Equipment I use an Ensoniq ASR10 (sampler) with 16 MB of RAM, SCSI interface and digital in/out interface, a Tascam DA-30 DAT recorder, a Behringer Pre-Q microphone pre-amp and a Yamaha DEQ7 digital programmable equalizer. The computer is an old Atari 1040 STF running Steinberg's Cubase 2. 5 sequencing software.
Well, the ASR is really a great machine - using the digital in/out interface. Its recording and playback facilities are virtually linear, it has a lot possibilities to treat samples (different types of loops, a really coool digital effect processor that allows digital resampling with effects, etcetera). The SCSI interface I have connected to a 105 MB Syquest removable cartridge drive. I don't like the analog output that much (I think the Ensoniq EPS 16+ I did my first CD with sounds much better when using the analog output); I think it's because the ASR has bitstream D/A converter and I generally don't like the sound of those. That's why almost always use the DA 30 as D/A converter (it's 18 bit). The ASR is capable of full load-while-play (from hard disc or floppies), controlled by the sequencer so I can load different samples into its memory as the sequence progresses. If I need to use recordings larger than the ASR's momemory capacity I can connect my DAT's digital output to the ASR's digital input and start the playback manually (the digital in can be monitored at the digital out). The ASR is even capable of two track hard disc recording, but unfortunately this feature can only be used from its internal sequencer. I haven't figured out a way to use it yet and still hope that Ensoniq will find a way to trigger "audio events" from MIDI.
The DA 30 is very reliable. I like the sound of it and all the in and outputs are switchable from the front panel, which is quite practical.
The Behringer Pre-Q works as a line/mic preamp for my ASR mic input, which is far too noisy itself.
The DEQ 7 allows me to store my favourite EQ settings in 68 program locations. Ihas a typical Yamaha sound, a little cold and matter of factly. IT helps me to get a little distance between the sound and the way it is perceived, making it more abstract, so to speak.
Setup The ASR 10's digital in and out are connected to the DA-30's SPIDIF digital in & out, so I can transfer sound digitally in both directions to sample it and to record the ASR's output. The latter's analog out goes into the preamp's line-in, via the DEQ 7 into the DA 30's analog input. I can play samples, treat them with EQ and sample them right back into the ASR by flicking the switch on the DA 30 from analog to digital. I work out my pieces on the Atari with a Cubase sequencer. The Atari is old, slow and not hip at all, but it does not have a fan. I've been using Cubase for a couple of years now, and am pretty familiar with it. At first I used C-Lab's Notator as a sequencer, which was pretty neat especially when I first started to use the computer and still used definite pitches to compose. I was able to instantly edit things in the score that was created by Notator by moving notes around, changing chords, rhythms and soforth. Soon it became apparent though that the structure of the sequencer is very clearly cut for efficient creation of pop music with its basic structure of Intro, Verse, Refrain, Verse, Bridge, etc. . . and has problems with keeping the tempo consistent when chang from one pattern to the other. Next to that the software crashed often, taking hours of extra work. I would still prefer Notator for making pop music (and I hear a lot of the German Techno guys actually use it - it's great to create repretitive stuff, so if you feel like being the poor man's Steve Reich or such, Notator is the one for you). Some other sequencers, like Intelligent Music's (they're out of business now) "Realtime", I couldn't use because they are designed for keyboard players. To me a keyboard is just an "input device", keeping me from making "keyboard music" filled with instrumental gestures - you know, the "fingers on automatic pilot" kind of stuff. That's why I ended up with Cubase, which is more open to all kind of styles. It works with "arrangements" consisting of "tracks", consisting of "parts". The whole thing is based on a multitrack tape recorder metaphore. I use the possibility of having the parts show the events (includig controller data, which in my work can be more important than the actual notes), so I can visually synchronize those events. I build my pieces by moving little snippets of "tape" around, editing them and so on. The score part of Cubae is still rather poor, but nowadays a note in a score wouldn't mean zilch with the material I use. Therefore I do not use "score edit", "drum edit" or "interactive phrase", most of the time not even the midi mixer and never the "midi effects" (for creating echoes and such). Which leaves me with just the "list editor" and "grid editor and of course the arrangement window - nothing exciting really, but it's all I really need. I don't even know any other sequencers. Might like to look at some but getting to know a modern sequencing program takes a lot of time and who has time, these days?
Actually the whole thing is very basic, following the "less-is-more" school, compared to what many people have, but I nees to keep my mind focused when I work and make full use of the possibilities of my setup. Instead of looking at a dozen sound modules and samplers and EQ's and mixers and compressors and so on. . . I keep reaching fo the manuals.
I do not use any algorhythmic software because the main thing in my music it the composer listening to each sound, trying to figure it out and finally choosing a way to expose the sound within a structure - very intimate thing, too. Using an algorhythm to decide or whatever would mean the end of my music.
COMPOSITION - IMPROVISATION (PART2)
Supplement to Vital 38 featured a letter from German composer Bernhard Guenter written to Peter Duimelinks, one of our editors and member of electroacoustic ensemble THU20. In his letter Guenter made a few general remarks on improvisational music. Peter suggested that this letter would be the starting point of a discussion about the state of improvisation and composition. Below you find the first reaction, sent by Sascha Breker from Germany.
"As I consider myself neither composer nor musician, but someone with exceptionally big ears for structure and the structuring of sounds I approach composition and improvisation in quite different ways. A triadic split of improvisation into "exploration", "conversation", and "quasi-compositional" approach here too will serve as a framework as to me all three are part of a successful piece of music. Although Bernhard Guenter foresees that his standards will be considered old fashioned, an aspect must be elucidated, which only implicitly plays a part in his article, namely that of the control of an art musician over his work. An improvisation becomes successful when the musician marks the precondition and within these preconditions tries to move, if possible free from existing musical, artistical (etc) conventions and when he, through interaction with his material, allows a work to develop. The fact that the forms that materialize from this are picked up and become transformed (conversation) is just as much part of a successful improvisation as is the discovery of new material (exploration). Guenter heads in the right direction when remarking that these two approaches accentuate local time, but it is right here that the key to a successful improvisation is hidden: it leaves linear time (global time) and creates its own time flow within the marked preconditions. To Guenter this latter time flow seems to receive an artistic quality only when it can be measured with common compositorial values. It looks as if his approach would be quite similar to the interaction that I just described between man and material within marked preconditions. (His own words are: material taking a life of its own, having its own demands, etcetera. One of these statements could also refer to an expceptionally beautiful track in mono with even loudness and without manipulating the frequency range! When talking about consciously transporting aesthetics or content, we find ourselves in a different world with different values, which however cannot be transfered onto improvisation. After all, it is not only important to be effective, but also, maybe in the first place, to be affected. This does not mean that man should loose his identity in this situation or even should lay down his musical abilities. The improvisation should however give man the framework for invention, for the exploration and growing of his own abilities. And it is especially this living process (sic) which can determine a major part of the artistic content of an improvisation."
article on VITAL WEEKLY 40S
interview for HALANA, usa [or download .pdf file 120k]
interview for XERXES, tokyo [or download .pdf file 68k]
interview for IMMERSE, uk [or download .pdf file 68k]
interview for WIRE, uk [or download .pdf file 80k]
interview for REVUE ET CORRIGÊE #29 [or download .pdf file 112k]
article on PERFECT SOUND FOREVER [or download .pdf file 16k]
interview for BLOW UP, italy [or download .pdf file 20k]
DISCUSSION ON VITAL WEEKLY 40S
ONES AND COMPOSERS AND ZEROES and machinery 'n' stuff
Over the past few years digital technology has become affordable to a large part of Western population. The average mineworker, shoe salesman, or secretary can afford to pay a system that is powerful enough to construct something that might occasionally even pass the test for a work of art. For years almost all digital software was written for Macs, Commodore and Atari computers. I guess this was because these manufacturers had built a standard soundcard into their system. In DOS machines these were absent as they were designed for use as business machines, they only had to compute salesfigures and stuff. However over the past few years DOS machines have entered the livingrooms of people's homes and so in 1994 IBM compatibles have gained a substantial part of the music hard- and software market. DOS operated systems are able to sample sound and computers are fast enough and have storage capacity for hard disc recording and -editing. Still DOS has to work hard to get to the standards that the other systems use for years already. What do composers use for the construction of their electronic music. Some work with self made algorhythms that are fed into the computer, others have digital equipment that can be bought at every music store. Some systems are very expensive, others can be bought for a few dollars. I bought myself a system that functions in my IBM clone and this sparked the idea for a survey.
Below you find descriptions of the systems that are used by composers. They were asked to tell about the can's and can'ts of their system. Followed by a list of software for different computer operating systems.
Part 1: Hardware
Bernhard Guenter Guenter is a German composer, part of Selektion. His work is extremely abstract. He works in what I dare to call a typically "cool" German tradition with sounds boned until the listener is left with sounds that can only be perceived with the outmost attention and will. Nevertheless all that can be heard (ticks, cracks, the initial part of something starting) falls right in place.
Equipment I use an Ensoniq ASR10 (sampler) with 16 MB of RAM, SCSI interface and digital in/out interface, a Tascam DA-30 DAT recorder, a Behringer Pre-Q microphone pre-amp and a Yamaha DEQ7 digital programmable equalizer. The computer is an old Atari 1040 STF running Steinberg's Cubase 2. 5 sequencing software.
Well, the ASR is really a great machine - using the digital in/out interface. Its recording and playback facilities are virtually linear, it has a lot possibilities to treat samples (different types of loops, a really coool digital effect processor that allows digital resampling with effects, etcetera). The SCSI interface I have connected to a 105 MB Syquest removable cartridge drive. I don't like the analog output that much (I think the Ensoniq EPS 16+ I did my first CD with sounds much better when using the analog output); I think it's because the ASR has bitstream D/A converter and I generally don't like the sound of those. That's why almost always use the DA 30 as D/A converter (it's 18 bit). The ASR is capable of full load-while-play (from hard disc or floppies), controlled by the sequencer so I can load different samples into its memory as the sequence progresses. If I need to use recordings larger than the ASR's momemory capacity I can connect my DAT's digital output to the ASR's digital input and start the playback manually (the digital in can be monitored at the digital out). The ASR is even capable of two track hard disc recording, but unfortunately this feature can only be used from its internal sequencer. I haven't figured out a way to use it yet and still hope that Ensoniq will find a way to trigger "audio events" from MIDI.
The DA 30 is very reliable. I like the sound of it and all the in and outputs are switchable from the front panel, which is quite practical.
The Behringer Pre-Q works as a line/mic preamp for my ASR mic input, which is far too noisy itself.
The DEQ 7 allows me to store my favourite EQ settings in 68 program locations. Ihas a typical Yamaha sound, a little cold and matter of factly. IT helps me to get a little distance between the sound and the way it is perceived, making it more abstract, so to speak.
Setup The ASR 10's digital in and out are connected to the DA-30's SPIDIF digital in & out, so I can transfer sound digitally in both directions to sample it and to record the ASR's output. The latter's analog out goes into the preamp's line-in, via the DEQ 7 into the DA 30's analog input. I can play samples, treat them with EQ and sample them right back into the ASR by flicking the switch on the DA 30 from analog to digital. I work out my pieces on the Atari with a Cubase sequencer. The Atari is old, slow and not hip at all, but it does not have a fan. I've been using Cubase for a couple of years now, and am pretty familiar with it. At first I used C-Lab's Notator as a sequencer, which was pretty neat especially when I first started to use the computer and still used definite pitches to compose. I was able to instantly edit things in the score that was created by Notator by moving notes around, changing chords, rhythms and soforth. Soon it became apparent though that the structure of the sequencer is very clearly cut for efficient creation of pop music with its basic structure of Intro, Verse, Refrain, Verse, Bridge, etc. . . and has problems with keeping the tempo consistent when chang from one pattern to the other. Next to that the software crashed often, taking hours of extra work. I would still prefer Notator for making pop music (and I hear a lot of the German Techno guys actually use it - it's great to create repretitive stuff, so if you feel like being the poor man's Steve Reich or such, Notator is the one for you). Some other sequencers, like Intelligent Music's (they're out of business now) "Realtime", I couldn't use because they are designed for keyboard players. To me a keyboard is just an "input device", keeping me from making "keyboard music" filled with instrumental gestures - you know, the "fingers on automatic pilot" kind of stuff. That's why I ended up with Cubase, which is more open to all kind of styles. It works with "arrangements" consisting of "tracks", consisting of "parts". The whole thing is based on a multitrack tape recorder metaphore. I use the possibility of having the parts show the events (includig controller data, which in my work can be more important than the actual notes), so I can visually synchronize those events. I build my pieces by moving little snippets of "tape" around, editing them and so on. The score part of Cubae is still rather poor, but nowadays a note in a score wouldn't mean zilch with the material I use. Therefore I do not use "score edit", "drum edit" or "interactive phrase", most of the time not even the midi mixer and never the "midi effects" (for creating echoes and such). Which leaves me with just the "list editor" and "grid editor and of course the arrangement window - nothing exciting really, but it's all I really need. I don't even know any other sequencers. Might like to look at some but getting to know a modern sequencing program takes a lot of time and who has time, these days?
Actually the whole thing is very basic, following the "less-is-more" school, compared to what many people have, but I nees to keep my mind focused when I work and make full use of the possibilities of my setup. Instead of looking at a dozen sound modules and samplers and EQ's and mixers and compressors and so on. . . I keep reaching fo the manuals.
I do not use any algorhythmic software because the main thing in my music it the composer listening to each sound, trying to figure it out and finally choosing a way to expose the sound within a structure - very intimate thing, too. Using an algorhythm to decide or whatever would mean the end of my music.
COMPOSITION - IMPROVISATION (PART2)
Supplement to Vital 38 featured a letter from German composer Bernhard Guenter written to Peter Duimelinks, one of our editors and member of electroacoustic ensemble THU20. In his letter Guenter made a few general remarks on improvisational music. Peter suggested that this letter would be the starting point of a discussion about the state of improvisation and composition. Below you find the first reaction, sent by Sascha Breker from Germany.
"As I consider myself neither composer nor musician, but someone with exceptionally big ears for structure and the structuring of sounds I approach composition and improvisation in quite different ways. A triadic split of improvisation into "exploration", "conversation", and "quasi-compositional" approach here too will serve as a framework as to me all three are part of a successful piece of music. Although Bernhard Guenter foresees that his standards will be considered old fashioned, an aspect must be elucidated, which only implicitly plays a part in his article, namely that of the control of an art musician over his work. An improvisation becomes successful when the musician marks the precondition and within these preconditions tries to move, if possible free from existing musical, artistical (etc) conventions and when he, through interaction with his material, allows a work to develop. The fact that the forms that materialize from this are picked up and become transformed (conversation) is just as much part of a successful improvisation as is the discovery of new material (exploration). Guenter heads in the right direction when remarking that these two approaches accentuate local time, but it is right here that the key to a successful improvisation is hidden: it leaves linear time (global time) and creates its own time flow within the marked preconditions. To Guenter this latter time flow seems to receive an artistic quality only when it can be measured with common compositorial values. It looks as if his approach would be quite similar to the interaction that I just described between man and material within marked preconditions. (His own words are: material taking a life of its own, having its own demands, etcetera. One of these statements could also refer to an expceptionally beautiful track in mono with even loudness and without manipulating the frequency range! When talking about consciously transporting aesthetics or content, we find ourselves in a different world with different values, which however cannot be transfered onto improvisation. After all, it is not only important to be effective, but also, maybe in the first place, to be affected. This does not mean that man should loose his identity in this situation or even should lay down his musical abilities. The improvisation should however give man the framework for invention, for the exploration and growing of his own abilities. And it is especially this living process (sic) which can determine a major part of the artistic content of an improvisation."