I've got a few thoughts for features, if you're open to them:
1. Ability to specify where your "played" voice resides in the voicing: As the bass note, as an inner voice, or as the top line.
2. Options for first species, second species, third, florid, etc counterpoint for each of the generated voices. Ex: You play a single note and the upper voice plays two notes for every one of yours, etc, etc.
3. If you want to get real fancy, make the generated voices perform a canon of your played notes.
Have you been able to try it as well would love to hear what you think! Coming back to the features, regarding 1. you can already choose between soprano, alto, tenor or bass. I have still filed an issue for this, will help me remember to take vet this feature. Sometimes it's not as strict as it should be but that's also something I need to work on. Regarding 2. it's a good idea, helps you be in control of the kind of counterpoint you are doing, filed an issue for the same. Please feel free to comment on the issue. 3. is just feels is a little goofy as well I love it. I haver filed an issue for this as well check https://github.com/contrapunk-audio/contrapunk/issues/
If someone wanted to start making computer music I'm not sure I'd recommend this or Curtis Roads' book as a starting point.
These aren't resources for getting started. They're more like encyclopedias for learning about DSP and tech once you've established the fundamentals of music and sequencing.
If a beginner wants practical knowledge for making records with electronic instruments I'd give them a DAW, teach them to record and sequence, teach them basic music theory, and then point them to something like Ableton's synthesis tutorials that will teach them about oscillators, envelopes, filters, LFOs, and basic sample manipulation.
As another commenter below has said, "mathematics might be a useful way to understand music", but it's not how compelling music is made.
Mathematics are fundamental to scales and the harmonic series, and knowing about them will help you refine certain choices, but it's not going to help you write a dramatic melody or an emotionally resonant chord progression, or play an energizing rhythm, even if there are mathematical explanations sometimes.
Good music comes from being a good listener, having a strong sense of what's possible, where it could go, and then delivering something surprising. Telling a story with your melody and supporting the arc of that gesture with harmony that accentuates or contrasts it.
Again, there's a mathematical explanation for harmony and dissonance, but players aren't thinking that granular. They're operating at a higher level of abstraction one, two, or three levels above that: They're thinking about telling a story, evoking an emotion, and exciting an audience in the moment.
You raise an interesting question. How do we keep the meanings of words from diverging so dramatically and so rapidly?
A little bit is natural and expected, but this kind of change in meaning feels like a consequence of a culture that in the last decade has accelerated the practice of re-framing specific words and concepts as something that's "actually a positive" or "actually quite negative if you think about it".
Part of this is a result of our (in the US) culture wars and hijacking of popular terms, but it's also a symptom of social media culture that's always seeking a hot take and creators who are looking to distinguish themselves with (what seems to me) clever re-framing.
The result is a culture that is increasingly fragmented and in which a word can have dramatically different meaning and insinuations depending on it's use in certain social groups or intellectual cliques.
It increasingly feels like I need to download a massive amount of linguistic context before I step into the world of a niche online community because their tight-knit dialogues and shared experiences have now re-framed a word or concept that was largely understood to mean something else.
> How do we keep the meanings of words from diverging so dramatically and so rapidly?
We don’t engage. It’s the only shot we have.
There was a useful article at 404 Media recently about our failure to prevent those on the extreme edges of culture from normalizing their language and behavior: We Have Learned Nothing About Amplifying Morons[0]. See the article, but essentially by engaging we cede ground. Sorta like how both-sides journalism gives space to anti-science nuts and lets them spread falsehoods.
It's always been like this, just on a smaller scale. Every time you join a group, some people can read the room, learning and sensing the cultural implications, while others step in all the landmines and don't even hear the explosions. How do you do this? Not sure how to explain it, mostly calibration through experience!
If you think that everyone else who is worse at you than reading social cues is self centered rather than your way of experiencing the world maybe just not being universal, I feel like you might be the one acting self-centered.
I was more addressing the alternative of “stepping on all the landmines”. Every time I have made progress in being a better listener I have found I suddenly also make fewer social faux pas. That I can hang with a wider range of individuals because I am less rigid in my own thinking.
It’s difficult to imagine someone who is very present with what is happening be truly socially awkward. They might be uncomfortable but they will likely still be funny and caring. But it’s easy to imagine 100 ways in which a more egotistical person could offend, confuse, or otherwise put off bad vibes in a social setting.
> It’s difficult to imagine someone who is very present with what is happening be truly socially awkward. They might be uncomfortable but they will likely still be funny and caring. But it’s easy to imagine 100 ways in which a more egotistical person could offend, confuse, or otherwise put off bad vibes in a social setting.
I think I mostly agree with the sentiment behind this, if not the terminology. I would certainly describe plenty of people who are well meaning but inept as socially awkward, but I agree that for the most part they are less likely to ruffle feathers.
That being said, I do think the parent comment was speaking specifically about the ability to adapt to new groups with different expectations on the fly. At least based on personal experience, I don't find it particularly difficult to imagine a circumstance where good intent is not enough for someone who struggles to read social cues to still encounter some initial friction with a new social group that doesn't closely resemble one they're familiar with, but I'd agree that it's probably less likely than someone who genuinely doesn't care about whether they offend anyone.
In any case, I appreciate your elaboration on this! I don't think I inferred the point you were trying to make very well initially, so the extra context was helpful to understand where you're coming from.
Today “loudness” is an aesthetic choice and good mixers and producers know how to craft a record that is both loud and of good sonic quality.
There is a place for both dynamic records (in the sense of classical or old jazz records) and contemporary loudness aesthetic.
Can inexperienced producers/mixers do a hack job trying to emulate the loud mixes of pros? Yes. The difference comes down to taste and ability to execute with minimal sonic tradeoffs.
Source: I have a long history producing, mixing, and mastering records and work among Grammy winners regularly. Very much in the dirt on contemporary records.
From my observations and from industry people I've read opinions from, the early '90s were the peak for mastering quality. Digital was well-understood, but wasn't being abused.
Listen to the original pressings of songs like "Creep." That guitar noise punched through because there were still dynamics back then. Music was fun to listen to, especially with headphones. The soundscape of an album sometimes led me to give music a second chance that I might not have bothered with if it didn't sound so good.
Now, even very catchy music is tiresome and quickly abandoned because of dynamic compression. It's fatiguing (if not grating) to listen to. Yes, there are a few exceptions here and there. "Gives You Hell" by the All-American Rejects comes to mind. But in general music sounds like ass now. Take Coldplay... regardless of what you think of the content, this music should sound great. But it's sonically dull trash.
The thing about mastering is that unless you're a part of the production team and get to hear the before/after you'll almost never know what the mastering engineer's contribution actually was. Done well, their role is invisible.
Mastering engineers work with the record that they receive from the mixer. It's entirely possible that the smashed (over-limited) record was handed to them by the mixer and approved by the artist. In that case the ME's hands are usually tied. They work with what they receive.
Likewise, the mixer may receive a reference mix (from the producer) that is smashed. The mixer has far more ability to influence the sonics than the ME (waaay more), but they too can have their hands tied if the artist is really attached to the vibe of that rough producer mix.
Professional mixers and ME's are well aware of the negative effects of the loudness wars. It's well understood by any working professional today. Ultimately the buck stops with the record's producer and the artist. They're the ones seeing the project through from beginning to end.
The difference falls on them, between a "loud" record that sounds like lifeless trash and a "loud" record crafted with skill, taste, and intention that has depth and impact. As I said, amazing "loud" records do exist when all stages of the record's production team are aligned. But it requires restraint and taste on the production team and the artist.
---
You're not wrong that something changed around the mid 90s. Until the late 80s records were being mixed primarily for vinyl. The limitations of the medium (namely the needle would skip out of the groove if you tried to print a loud or bass-y mix) kept the loudness in check. You simply COULDN'T make a record that loud. This limitation acted like speed bumps. But perceptual loudness has always been an objective of recording engineers since the dawn of recording.
What happened is that in the 90's digital tools (particularly digital limiting) in combination with digital playback mediums (CDs) opened up the door to squeeze greater loudness and new sonic aesthetics out of records. As such, these tools have been abused and over-cooked. In some cases that abuse may be the objective.
Today we're well aware of the trade-offs and to some artists it just doesn't matter. They WANT it smashed. It ultimately comes down to restraint, taste, and good technical know-how to get a flavor of loudness that doesn't have too many tradeoffs.
The question is what's going on with the mass "re-mastering" of entire back catalogs. I very much doubt that labels are going back to source material and crafting a judicious result. Aren't they, in most cases, just running their previously-released material through a compressor and barfing it out?
Not in my experience. The mastering engineers I know and work with care deeply about fidelity to the original work and not "crushing the baby".
Not to say it can't happen, but it's rare for an album of any consequence to be given to a mastering engineer who hasn't proven themselves to be a good steward of the music.
If a major label decides to re-master a part of their old catalogue (especially popular albums) it will be given to an ME with a proven record of good work. And that means NOT overcooking the album.
As an ME, the best way to get hired back is A) to be a pleasure to work with and B) to not strangle the production team's hard work on the final leg of the race.
I'd liken playing multiple instruments to coding in multiple languages. There's a baseline understanding of the fundamentals that is necessary to overcome in the beginning, but once you get confident with them they transfer across multiple instruments/languages.
I pedicabbed for five years, and the job is very much what you put into it.
You can be passive and low-effort, or you can be active and hustle rides by chatting up strangers. My roommate could squeeze blood from a stone when it came to persuading strangers to hop in her cab. She had a real talent for connecting with people and stretching out the ride in a way that was mutually beneficial for her (well paying) and the passengers (fulfilling concierge experience). In some ways she was like an escort you'd hire for good conversation at the bar. Minus the sexual expectations.
We all experienced bad actors (malevolent, drunk, immature, entitled) while working, but you can defuse the situation with finesse and charm, or you can bluntly and persistently deny them until they get worn down and steam off down the street to be someone else's problem.
I began as a largely introverted person and came to love the 5-15 minute window that I would have to get to know my clients while we traveled. It's a real captive audience and most people are down for the conversation and the connection. You learn how to listen and you learn to draw people out of their shells and be their best selves.
Some people were so great that on a few occasions I parked up my cab at our destination and spent the rest of the evening hanging out with them.
The job really rewards open-mindedness and a "yes, and" approach to dealing with people. Certain interactions with clients had a way of becoming very fun and adventurous if you kept an open mind and went along with your fares.
As a pedicabber of five years this is solid advice. Negotiate before you depart. I always made it a point to get buy-in from my passengers before we took off. Nobody wants to be surprised.
What many people don't understand is that pedicabs are independent contractors in many cities. We have full autonomy to charge as we see fit. Sometimes pedicabbers will gouge and sometimes it means the passenger will be surprised by an otherwise reasonable fee.
I haven't yet read the essay, but I will jump at the opportunity to share my experiences working as a pedicab driver in Austin, TX for 5 years:
Pedicabbing is one of the most satisfying, fun, and rewarding jobs that I've ever had for a handful of reasons:
1. I had full autonomy to operate how I see fit. I work when I want, I retire when I want, I roam where I please, and I select (or deny) customers I want to serve. I can hustle as hard as I want to drum up work and persuade other to take a ride or I can sit passively and wait for people to approach me.
2. It taught me a lot about sales, negotiation, value-based fees, soft skills, being an entertainer, and showing people a good time.
3. I was pedaling for dollars and hauling up to three full-grown adults at a time. Sometimes uphill. The physical exertion gets easier, but remains challenging. Quite often I am doing the equivalent of high intensity interval training for 8 hours a day. By the end of a shift I am operating on a runner's high.
I got home every night at 3a, took a shower, and then passed out in bed like a stone. Then I rose and ate 1500 calories for breakfast. Not to mention my constant food intake while working.
Gallons of water would flow through me. Quite often the heat was so much that I'd go hours without the need for a bathroom break because it was all coming out through my skin.
4. I met a LOT of fascinating people and got to spend 5-15 minutes at a time getting to know them. Having good conversations. If we hit it off well enough I have it within my power to park up my cab and spend time with them. I've ended up spending entire nights hanging out with people who I really enjoyed. Off the clock.
5. If all else fails and work is slow that evening I still have a custom stereo strapped to my cab and (for a music lover like me) that is all I need to keep going. People had to listen to some WEIRD shit on my cab, and often I would meet people who were just as passionate as I am and want to share their favorites.
6. The job is improvisatory, surprising, and rewards those with an open mind and an eye for opportunity. Those with a "yes, and" mindset. If you're down for it, you can follow your nose to some wonderful surprises.
7. You get to know the city intimately. You take pride in navigating well and in a creative manner. Being a pedicab affords you a lot of flexibility in how you travel, that cars cannot access.
8. Your fellow pedicabbers. A very colorful bunch. People from all walks of life do the job. Artists, crusty punks, 65 year-olds, family-men (and women), students, athletes, entertainers, the fabulously extroverted. My friend was a marine biologist for the city whose day job had him out in the river in a wetsuit taking water samples and working in a lab by day, and he was pedaling for dollars on the weekend. One of us was a clerk at the Capitol and was studying law. A common thread amongst us were people who had alternate lifestyles and this was a good hustle that suited our needs.
Many of us were musicians. I originally got into the job because I did a lot of touring with my band throughout the year. I needed a job where I could hit the road for two months and then jump back in as soon as we got back into town.
I could go on, but the job was so much fun. It's not for everyone and it takes a certain type, but for my five years on the cab I wouldn't trade them for anything.
I've got a few thoughts for features, if you're open to them:
1. Ability to specify where your "played" voice resides in the voicing: As the bass note, as an inner voice, or as the top line.
2. Options for first species, second species, third, florid, etc counterpoint for each of the generated voices. Ex: You play a single note and the upper voice plays two notes for every one of yours, etc, etc.
3. If you want to get real fancy, make the generated voices perform a canon of your played notes.
reply