Comments & Corrections

Dear PAIA POLYPHONY PEOPLE;

As a music teacher I am impressed with Marvin Jones' concise pedagogy in the "Fundamental Music Notation" series, but have a few additions and corrections to suggest. First, in mentioning relative keys, you omitted telling how to find out which minor is relative to which major (the minor is a third lower). Perhaps people could figure it out from the two examples given, but it would have been nice if you could have told them. It would also have been helpful if you had told how to figure out key signatures simply (the next to the last flat is the name of the key, or the next note up from the last sharp). Also helpful to know is the order of flats BEADGCF and sharps (reverse the order of flats).

In the section on TIME SIGNATURES you implied that C stands for "Common Time". This is a popular misconception. In truth it stems from the earliest days of notation when 3/4 was considered "perfect" time, (related symbolically to the trinity - remember the first guys to write music down were monks) and represented by the circle, the "perfect" geometric. Thus 4/4, or "imperfect" time was represented by a broken circle.

I know that all this seems very academic, and is probably of interest only to music historians, but you don't want your magazine publishing falsehoods, now, do you?

You also implied that the TIE was used only between two or more measures. It is also used to represent time values within measures that can't be shown otherwise (i.e. two and a half beats).

In addition to the single measure repeat there is a double measure repeat (figure n) which is useful in notating longer ostinato passages. Finally, in regards to TEMPO markings, I prefer to use both a metronome marking and a verbal marking (not necessarily in Italian if your intentions can be expressed more explicitly in English) to avoid confusion. Metronome markings, whenever used, should be regarded ONLY as approximations, to be varied according to individual taste. I look forward to seeing the rest of the series - especially the final segment on electronic music notation where there is so much diversity.

I would also like to say a few words about a concept that hasn't been discussed in Polyphony: System design. While a lot has been said about the design of individual modules, nothing is mentioned about putting them together to form a well planned synthesizer system. Although your equipment would be functional no matter what the arrangement of modules, certain configurations lend themselves to a more orderly thought process when making patches.

To begin with, it is necessary to classify modules into basic functional groups: Sound sources, Controllers, and Processors. Synthesizer sound sources are VCO's and Noise Generators (unfortunately, the PAIA Noise Generator is associated with the Control Oscillator which is is a controller, fouling up the logical set-up somewhat). Other controllers are the keyboard, Sequencer, and Envelope and Function Generators. Everything else is a processor (the Envelope follower/Trigger is sort of a special case since it processes a signal source for use as either a signal or a control).

O.K., so far pretty basic, but the point is to use these classifications in setting up a system. What happens in most sounds that are created is that a sound source gets controlled and processed (the processors may also be controlled). In signal flow charts (patch diagrams) signal flow is from left to right and control is from bottom to top. The implications for system design are obvious. Wherever possible controllers should be below sound sources and processors, while sound sources should be to the left of processors. This, of course, assumes more than one row of modules. If there is only one row as in the basic 2720 packages it should be set up left to right - controllers, sound sources, processors.

Positions within these groupings may vary, but logic should be applied to the decision making process. Within the controller group the control oscillators should be placed nearest the sound sources because of the noise generator, mentioned earlier (incidentally, I strongly disagree with the reasoning in the manual that the control oscillator isn't "likely to be duplicated within any single system".) Some of the most interesting effects can be achieved by having multiple oscillators controlling a VCO or a VCF or triggering an Envelope Generator. The variety of effects available by changing the relative frequencies and amplitude of the Control Oscillators is endless. On the other hand I can see no reason to ever duplicate a noise source (except as a possible spare in case one fails) since the only way to vary the noise is through processing, and the signal from one source can be split to be processed as many ways as desired. Perhaps when the 4700 series control oscillator arrives this problem will be rectified; but enough of this. There should be nothing to decide on concerning arrangement of VCO's, unless you have 2720 and 4700 series modules mixed, in which case decisions would be aesthetic, based on front panel finish. With processors, the Mixer should probably be the last module, although if you have multiple VCO's you may want one between them and the other processors. The VCA should probably be next to last. Filters seem to work best as one of the first processors.

In my own system the original keyboard/case unit is devoted to controllers: a Sequencer, two control oscillators and a Function Generator plus the keyboard and power supply. Atop that is a Road cabinet with Six VCO's (admittedly six is a luxury - but I couldn't resist the 4720's when they came out). To their right is a Wing cabinet with Band-pass, Low pass and Multiple function VCF's, a VCA and a Sine converter/PWM. Still awaiting adequate financial support are a mixer and additional processors, but you get the idea. I'm not saying that my design is the only way to go. Each system should reflect the owner's unique intended use, but I do think planning module placement to represent anticipated flow is a concept that should be used by anyone with any modular type synthesizer.

I'm glad that I finally got around to writing to you folks about my ideas. I've sure appreciated your magazine and the chance to share other users' thoughts. Keep up the good work.

Synthetically,
Joseph Adams

Musician vs. Machine?

Dear Polyphony;

It doesn't take much foresight or imagination to see one potential application of "Computer Drums". With a lot of memory and an easily programmable microprocessor based system (such as SWTP 6800), or even a cascading of the new PAIA Programmable Drum Set (and they're inexpensive enough to do just this) a keyboard musician who kicks bass (on a synthesizer of course) and sings as well as plays leads could book himself some nice gigs. Oh, I'm not talking about some cafeteria where some organist is pumping out "Tea for Two" with a tango beat. I'm referring to the very real potential for a multiple keyboardist to program a whole set of complicated jazz, rock or even disco and have the machine "Go To" whatever tune, whenever, with complete bridges, intro's, jams, etc. Disco's watch out! The live performance element that is impossible to replace could be had for a fraction of the cost. And, how interesting the whole thing would be!

One question, though - how are the unions going to take this? A lot of my friends are drummers. Will it put them out of work? The answer is, I think, an emphatic NO. String synthesizers aren't putting string players out of business... no machine will ever approach the subtleties of a good human performance. But, appreciated for what it is, an interesting application of technology to the arts, I know that I for one, find it fascinating. Peace,

Jim Riter

Music Languages Exist

To the Editor;

In Polyphony 4/76 Mark Lutton was dreaming of a "music compiler" to enable a composer to feed a composition to a computer. Actually, several such music languages exist. Among them is a "Music System for the PDP-10" (not exactly a microcomputer!) by P. R. Samson and R. Clements of MIT project MAC and Digital Equipment Corporation. The system of notation used is described in a write-up available to members of the Digital Equipment Computer Users Society, for zilch the last time I checked, and possibly to ordinary mortals as well.

It's worth a try. DECUS write-up 10-9; the address is DECUS, (Contact Details).

Sincerely,
Richard S. Holmes