analoq

^^^ Looks nerdy enough. Where are the videos of it in action? Yeah get a camera, I have to see that.As for content, I saw this interview with Curtis Roads who has been doing work with granular synthesis since the 70s. Insight on "microsound" composition, interesting landscaping analogy and you get to see the innards of a Hammond organ. Something for everybody:

Thanks Zephyr, it was a lot of work even for something that basic. I have a heightened appreciation for companies like Native Instruments that really make art out of software. Not to soapbox on piracy, but music software really is worth the money... Anyway, one of the blogs I follow is a guy who's been developing live coding software using Haskell. He just posted a new screencast demonstrating it: http://yaxu.org/more-hackery/ I was working on a similar polyrhythmic sequencer for Python's interactive interpreter but I never got near that level of sophistication. Interesting stuff.

I hate to bump old threads but I know at least 2 people were lurking this thread, so I might as well give an update: I made a tracker-style sequencer with simple synths. It's a meagre app but a notable milestone for me as it does provide the bare minimum of features in order to make (chippy) music. Plus, there's some awkward visualizations. Next stop: the piano roll.

I'm with Harmony, I'd be skeptical that a subwoofer mitigates a compromised low-end on monitors. That's not really what a subwoofer is for... A subwoofer is intended to represent the last octave of human hearing, 20-40hz. Not much goes on there in music, in fact most of that range is discarded during the mastering process. That range is mostly used for effect in movies. In a studio, what gives an accurate representation of the bass are the main monitors -- not a subwoofer, not the near-fields. In a home studio you probably won't have the capacity for that kind of setup so you'll have to make do, but my point is that a subwoofer can't really "fill in" for monitors in a way that is accurate for music. It's always better to get the best monitors you can instead of investing in a sub.

analoq signing up. I may end up collaborating or whatnot but I'll attempt to make a contribution of some kind. Right, because the idea of a remix compo never existed before DOD. Ever.

I think Zephyr is misrepresenting the idea with the thread title. A single account for ALL online activity may not be a good idea, but if you could organize your accounts so that all your trivial sites like forums and social networking use a single login while having your important sites like banking/auctions maintain their proprietary logins etc... then that's a good thing. Also worth pointing out is that participating sites won't have your password or sensitive information. Participating sites handshake with your OpenID provider and that's where the authentication happens.

I think it'd be expecting a bit much for anyone who doesn't already have FL to go out and get it, install it, install windows if they're a mac user, and learn to use it just for a compo. Getting FreeAlpha or the plugin Nasenmann mentioned is easy enough for anyone, except maybe Reason users - but most of them have host software as well. edit: Oh and I'm very glad you're interested in hosting this! cheers.

The problem is that doesn't create a level playing field. Someone could be using 3xOSC someone else could be using Reaktor. And then you have to define what's allowed and what's not, like SonikSynth is a synth but it's sample based so it would give an unfair advantage. I think Nasenmann's idea is better.

I like that idea. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help move it forward, e.g. you're welcome to use the compo:TS system. I don't hold grudges. There aren't a lot of free, well-supported crossplatform synth plugins, there's Green Oak Crystal but that's a bit complicated. Linplug's Free Alpha would probably be the best choice going off the top of my head. cheers.

You just don't get it, do you? You can't make claims and then neglect your responsibility to those who wish to scrutinize. You can't award yourself the last word, you have to earn it. What you are practicing is intellectual dishonesty and I don't respect that. Your opinions on this subject are immaterial to me regardless, so I wasn't going to entertain your argument anyways. Besides that, I already suggested it's off-topic...

That's fine, it just struck me as odd as they both represent the 'moog' sound, the modular just allows for more complexities. I wasn't trying to start a discussion about Stockhausen, Carlos or Tomita. I was making a point about this being an old idea (which you have acknowledged) and used them as examples to illustrate my point which was on-topic. You guys ignored my point and went off-topic to opine on my examples. You make an outrageous claim like that and yet I'm the one hijacking this thread? Okay. I meant don't respond to me unless you're willing to engage discussion; wasn't telling you to back out from the entire thread.

I'm a bit bemused. I try to give this concept some perspective by using examples to illustrate that it's as old as the hills, then you and zircon opine on your subjective tastes of the examples I gave as if that were an intellectual response. Ignoratio elenchi much? So the minimoog is your favorite synth, but you don't like the moog sound. Okay. Your concept is the same regardless of hardware or software, so as much as you'd like to catch me in a technicality the fact is we are talking about both. If you're gonna pick your battles then pick them. If you can't participate, don't respond.

Tell you what, ambient, just for you I'm going to let you upload your mix here: http://compo.thasauce.net/rounds/view/PRC147 But don't tell anybody else! It's for your eyes only cheers.

The album is mainly done on a Moog modular which is subtractive. Actually I see there is this page which lists everything. Non-synthesis electronic keyboard instruments like the mellotron, rhodes and clavinet are listed. So I concede not entirely subtractive.

Fixed that for you. The skilled performance and sound design of Switched-On Bach is beyond what any amateur is capable of. Even if you took away the synth, it is still a good Bach performance. You obviously haven't heard much of Tomita's stuff if you think this.

If you want imitative synthesis, check out Tomita. The great thing about Switched-On Bach was that instead of having flimsy imitations of acoustic instruments, it reproduced works by Bach with new sounds. That's far more interesting, in my opinion.

Tons of music has been made this way. One of the most successful "classical music" albums was done this way, back in the late 60s, Switched-On Bach. If you're interested in this sort of thing check out Isao Tomita's stuff from the 70s, like Holst's Planets suite recorded from effectively a single synth. Stockhausen did that back in the 50s. Well, minus the FF4.

My impression of your write-ups is that they are your personal observations. Your write-ups often contain opinions not just about the music but about video games, movies and current events. They're pretty subjective and in my opinion, informal. When contrasted with the artist profiles which are intended to provide factual information that is ascertained, you may see how I could be uncomfortable with one but not the other. Though you do have a point when it comes to practicality; someone reading your write-ups would be left with the same conclusion on my sex even if it were removed from the profile page. My consolation is there are no doubts to whose opinions are represented in the write-ups. Yet the artist profile pages do not list authors or cite specific references, so visitors wouldn't know whether the information on that page was provided by myself or assumed by a staff member.

If the choices are binary then I can't confirm or deny without implicitly offering the information that I wish to keep private in formal contexts. It's not my intent to be unreasonable. I know I'm probably the only person who would be uncomfortable in this situation so I don't expect anyone to bend over backwards for me. But if there is a means to which my sex can be unspecified on my artist profile, I'm willing to do what it takes to make that happen. If not, I can accept that I have no control over it - whether I like that or not.

I do live in the real world. I don't mind when people say "Yes m'am" or "Yes sir" when I'm at a restuarant or pumping gas because those are all informal situations. The difference is you are trying to provide "factual information" as you say and present it authoritatively. That's a formal context which I expect to have higher standards for accuracy than when ordering a chalupa. To ascertain is to "find out with certainty" and since I did not offer the personal information in question nor do I consider it accurately available in public record, I don't agree that you've made certain of it.

For the last 7 years I've had a public profile on OCR which contained only information which I had consciously provided, so yesterday's observation sparked my concern. I accept that my expectations were the result of a false sense of control inflated by years of mere coincidence. I understand the intentions now. You could obtain my telephone number thru a public phonebook but it wouldn't be appropriate to post it, so help me understand where the line is drawn. At the moment I see fields for Real Name, Sex, Birthdate and Birthplace. I expect if any of that information is determined to be publicly available, requests to omit it will not be entertained. Is this correct? What other fields can you conceive being added in the future? The sex/gender distinction isn't specified on the profile pages. The symbol has no label. And while I know my gender cannot be ascertained publicly, I don't necessarily agree my sex can. I don't specify my sex on any public profile, nor are relevant medical records nor testimony of those who've examined my genitals publicly available*. One could certainly make assumptions based on my youtube videos, but it would still be an assumption. You may consider that to be an unrealistically high benchmark for accuracy or just frivolous but if it's my privacy we're talking about, I'll consider everything. *Or at least I very much hope not...

This change may have happened six months ago or 6 seconds ago but I checked my remixer profile today and noticed an image "male.png" next to my name that ostensibly identifies my gender. I wouldn't go as far to say that this bothers me but I'm not happy about it. My expectation is to only see personal information on my remixer profile that I've offered when submitting music or updating my forum profile. I did not offer my gender, age, sexual orientation or any other number of other personal things about myself so I don't expect to see them on this site in any formal context like the artist pages. Is this an unreasonable expectation? EDIT: This is more generally about privacy concerns rather than specifically about gender privacy, changing thread title to reflect this.

hahaha, I used this same gimmick back in 2003, only I used a Kiwi Strawberry Snapple bottle. So while I can't pretend to be impressed by the idea I can appreciate the execution; what I did was mere pissing about by comparison. A for effort, you can almost take this remix seriously.

Your vote would need to be removed by Doulifee first before you can revote. I could do it but it's not my call to make, Doulifee makes the ORC decisions. He may just readjust the scores instead. cheers.

I am the compo admin. I can see you masturbating.