TAPE EXCHANGE PROPOSED

Hello!

I'm wondering if you might consider setting up some kind of service for those of us who are getting into home or semi-professional recording and would like to try private distribution of our products. What I envision is some kind of review column for those who send their product in. Then for those reviewed, advertising space giving details about purchasing the tapes reviewed. I think that this would be a wonderful alternative to the corporate controlled system of music marketing that exists today. Such a system would be particularly helpful to all of us electronic music enthusiasts who want to contact other enthusiasts and hear their work.

Thank you very much for your time.
Chuck Larrieu, Corte Madera, CA

POLYPHONY would indeed be interested in helping musicians distribute their their home recordings. There are several ways such a project could be handled, and I would like to solicit opinions from our readership on how they think it would best be implemented.

First, the entire operation could be completely outside of Polyphony with one or two people solely responsible for maintaining a library of tapes, cataloging recordings, sending lists to interested persons and selling tapes to other readers. Polyphony could aid by publishing reviews of the new recordings as they are received and periodically listing tapes that are available. Another alternative could be to operate an individualized exchange program. As a reader finishes a recorded work, or compilation of works, a copy could be sent to Polyphony for review. Interested readers could then send the musician a recording of some of their own work, and in exchange he would make a copy of his reviewed composition and send it to the reader. Possibly this could be handled as an extension of Local Happenings. Readers could ask to be listed in a TAPE section, along with the format they have available to work with — reel, cassette, or 8-track (or even video, I guess!). Interested parties could then contact others directly to work out a trade. Of course, those artists who have published their work on album or tape can send a copy to Polyphony for a regular review. With reviews we inform the readers of cost and ordering procedure. I'd like to hear your suggestions as to how we can make this system work. Send your ideas to us; we'll print them for everyone's consideration, and hopefully we can get a system such as this into operation a couple of issues from now.
Marvin

COMPUTER AIDED MUSIC

Marvin —
I was just reading over my old issues of POLYPHONY and found some things I want to comment on.

Concerning Charles Bodeen's letter on automated music typography (Nov. '77 issue — you know, the one with the great front cover), I'd like to offer an alternate approach to a "universally accepted" computer music language. The problem I see with a high-level language of this nature is that it can't take into account many aspects of computer generated or computer controlled music. Obviously the technique used will affect the subroutines that make up a language — that is, the actual commands of a language will not be affected, but the way they are executed will differ greatly from a computer-controlled analog synthesizer and a wholly digital synthesis scheme. What that means, then, is that a language carried beyond the format and logical structure stage into actual working implementation on a particular system, is bound for obsolescence. How useful will the MUS1 PROM be on a totally digital PAIA 14700/S? Again, the commands for the language won't change, but the implementation will and probably new commands will be added for "extended" versions of the language (which often tends to confuse the language). It would be nice to create a language which could, indeed, cover all possible aspects of music, I just don't think it is possible, or at least, it will be a big, clumsy, expensive system. More importantly, it will take a long time to develop and would require establishing totally new (and totally universally acceptable) conventions for certain aspects of the music. One of these new conventions would be music notation. In order to derive maximum utility from the language, the notation system would have to be capable of expressing all characteristics of the music, not just tempo, pitch and duration, but patch changes, different types and depths of effects — everything that can be executed on the computer music system (presumably the ultimate music system will be capable of every parameter that can be controlled). The old system of notation really can't handle this, at least, it wouldn't be the most efficient at handling this. Another problem of this language is that, somewhere along the line, it must be able to interpret real-time playing of the material which is an entirely different set of circumstances than composing by typing in the information. The actual playing of the piece involves complex human inflections which usually aren't notated and are not precise, yet the program must interpret these accurately. It should be clear that the techniques for real-time interpretation are quite different from straight composition. All in all, it sounds like this high-level language would be one hairy beast and any attempt to limit it to a certain form would only hasten obsolescence (can you predict what we will be doing musically in 2001?).

I would prefer that you simply establish some conventions as to how a few of the more commonly notated characteristics can be coded onto a cassette. In this manner, someone who already has a computer music system can link the notation subroutine to his language, no matter what techniques he uses to produce computer music (presumably all systems can specify pitch, note durations, tempo, etc.) and with it dump a coded cassette with the proper data and proper format to be interpreted by the automatic typography machine. A good analogy would be something like the BYTE standard cassette interface for microcomputers. This interface is carried out using many different hardware approaches and many different types of control software, yet they are compatible. They even have been carried out on different processors, yet it is still possible to read someone elses BYTE cassette on your BYTE interface. You can load a program that was dumped by an 8080 into your 6502, naturally the program won't run, but it will still be the same data that was stored on the 8080 and data is what we are concerned about here. As long as the system can provide data for pitch, tempo, etc. in a format that can be interpreted correctly, it doesn't matter how that data was generated. It is not necessary that everyone be running the same music language software (that universally acceptable one you mentioned) they simply need a routine to dump the proper data in the proper format. This could require a complex interpreter to convert between the user's language and the tape format language (ie the conventions of the tape-format. The conventions might require that A sharp be stored as an ASCII A# or that A sharp be stored as some other hex code, etc. These conventions must be determined, with many variables going into this determination — ie, should it be stored in ASCII so people can understand it? Or should it be stored as the HEX code to a DAC, or is there some easy way to express things so that interpretation between the user's language and the conventions are simplified). I would prefer that the linkage between the user's language and the typography conventions (wait, I'll use one of John's favorite words, make that typography protocols) be as simple as possible so that the interpretting software at the typographers handle the major burdens (remember, the interpreter must be capable of actually making the music, even if you never intended to have it do so — annotating the music is another form of performing it, at least to the computer). This would put the least burden on the user by not forcing every user to buy a complex, expensive language that he/she may not want. It's much more efficient to have a single intelligent central system (the typographer's interpreter) with a lot of simple peripherals (the user's systems) in this case, as only one high priced system is needed. Of course, most software dealers would prefer to sell a lot of expensive systems, but that's not how PAIA operates, right?

An example of how a user's system might differ could be: One person has a computer with a video graphics display which allows him to actually draw notes on his screen. A second person has a high-level language which allows him to enter music information in english words (like "A#") and a third person has a solely realtime data entry system like a digital sequencer. In these cases, each must have a mini-interpreter which will convert from their systems storage format (graphics bit patterns for the first, ASCH words for the second and binary words for the third — obviously, all three have their information stored in binary code, but all three codes are different) into standardized format of the music notation system (whatever is decided to be the most efficient in terms of hardware and interpretting). Each person's cassette interface may be executed in a different manner, but each must be capable of dumping the interpreted information in the standardized format (for example, a possible format might be one block for pitches, 1 block for on duration, 1 block for off duration, 1 block for tempo, etc. Or each block may contain all the information for a single note.) 'Til next time.
Bob Yannes

A TROUBLESHOOTER'S COLUMN?

Yep, I too enjoy the new look of POLYPHONY recently. Especially the fact that you seem to be putting more into each issue.

First, I agree 100% with Dave Mays (Letters, April/May '78). A common problem and troubleshooters guide hits the nail right on the head. I guess everyone has, at one time or another, had icky little problems pop up unexpectedly. They don't seem worth the trouble to pack up and send back to the manufacturer (let alone the time involved). But sometimes we hesitate to tear into our synthesizers, especially if it is a very subtle problem. A small tip or modification or circuit update column in each issue could be a real lifesaver.

I was somewhat disappointed that there were only six patches in the last issue. This is my favorite section!

Oh, by the way, when does my subscription expire? I figure I should be about due. I sure don't want to miss anything.

Bye —
Ron Jones, Placentia, CA

Ron —
Thanks for the comments on POLYPHONY's new look. The idea for a troubleshooters column has met with a fairly good response from our readers and we are working on making this a permanent column. With all the brands of synthesizers on the market, we could discuss various types of problems without ever running out of material! One thing we need to know from our readers, though, is: what little problems have you been having with your gear, what make is it, and what the model and serial number is. We need the latter information because many "bugs" are modified by the factory and are only applicable to units in a particular range of serial numbers. Also, be sure to check with local service agencies for your type of equipment. Many manufacturers will issue an announcement to their service centers notifying them of small circuit modifications which the factory has started adding to later models. Customers with earlier units can usually have the update installed for minimal cost at the service center. POLYPHONY occasionally runs Spotlight features on service centers around the country, and don't forget to check the Yellow Pages for service centers if your manufacturer didn't provide a list with the instrument.

I'm sorry about the decreasing number of patches in POLYPHONY, however this sections seems to get little response from most readers. If you readers are in fact interested in more patches, send us your favorites to help us build up a good selection for publication. POLYPHONY, in general, is based very heavily on suggestions, requests, and (most important) contributions from our readers. If we don't hear from readers concerning a particular column or article, we think you would rather see other types of material. Please let us know.

POLYPHONY subscriptions are valid until you receive a letter in the mail asking you to re-subscribe. If you suspect that you need to renew, please don't send a subscription until we notify you, as this confuses our computer (temperamental devils aren't they). We will notify readers in plenty of time so they won't miss an issue, don't worry! Thanks for the good words.
Marvin