Paula Rosenbauer was the first of a number of weekly speakers who will talk to us about certain aspects of the music industry in Australia. She was a representative from APRA (Australasian Performing Right Association), a company which "collects and distributes royalties for songwriters, composers and publishers through licensing agreements with music users. APRA currently has over 41,000 members but represents over a million songwriters worldwide through it's affiliations with overseas societies". I copied that from the introduction on the course outline we were handed out, but as you can see the "it's" in the last sentence is wrong, because "it's" is an abbreviation for "it is". A better word in that place would have been "its". Having decided to copy most of the paragraph word by word, however, I found it hard to resist the temptation of also copying the mistake and later pointing it out. That later is now, and I pointed it out in the last sentence as well as this one. I will now cease to point out the mistake for the remainder of the review.
Paula explained that in Australia, APRA takes care of protecting the rights of music makers and performers by monitoring the industry and making sure they are paid all the royalties they should be. While in Australia copyright exists as soon as you put an idea into a physical form (which can be as little as writting some notes on a page) it is hard for individuals to know if their rights are being infringed. Basically it is good to be a member if you want to earn royalties from your music in any way.
FACT!!!
1 in 400 Austarlians is an APRA member. So if you walk down Rundle Mall you might see 1 or so. You can then proceed to interact with him/her. Females can also apply to be APRA members; there are currently no gender restrictions.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Semester 2 Week 1 Year 3
This blog will talk about the week.
This semester started off well since most of the classes so far show potential of developing into subjects with content that can be useful to me in the near future. The Australian music subject is a good example of this since it seems we will be learning a lot about how the industry works, where the money is and how to get it. The movie sound subject is good because it is a skill I want to know, and we are also required to make our own movies which is also useful. Overall, most classes show a lot of promise. Forum is... unique still.
In the movie subject we had a look at Luke Harrold's honours project, a witty short film describing the monotony of factory work. Having worked in a factory myself, I can sympathize with Luke but cannot understand how one can work full time in such a place; it is hell. The sounds were done on an early Pentium but sounded decent. They were recorded individually and placed over the images after. There was hardly any sound from when the scenes were actually shot. The one thing I felt was missing was a sound for the lentil bags falling on top of each other, but apart from that it was well synchronized. We were also given some sheets to read including a list of some movies which have well worked sound. I rewatched one of these movies (Raging Bull, with Robert De Niro) with the sound in mind and noticed some nice passages. The title sequence is especially effective, with soft orchestral music playing to images of a hooded boxer shadow-boxing in a ring. Apart from the "oldschool" fighting scenes that did not really impress the movie is a very good one.
In forum we got introduced to the concept of making instruments by hand. This is not really my cup of tea, but then again forum hardly ever was. I can see how there are lessons to be learned here, how knowing how to make sound with some batteries and a speaker can be good to know, but the sound quality of these "instruments" (electric circuits) is poorer than even the most basic 1960 synths. We got shown a demonstration of some of the concepts in action and I was not sold; it sounded like PC speaker gone horribly wrong, and PC speaker is pretty wrong. This time could be used to analyze successful (oops the S word, that is NEVER to be used in an academic environment) music, but of course this is not what an academic environment is meant to teach. How then, I wonder, are we ever expected to become successful musicians? I have not heard the word chorus mentioned once in a lesson and I feel sorry for those who intend to go down the musician or producer path. Or maybe we are NOT meant to be successful musicians? Maybe the academic environment is meant for those with an academic industry interest? Hmmmmmm...
However, as previously mentioned, the semester shows a lot of potential for developing into a useful one, but forum is still questionable.
This semester started off well since most of the classes so far show potential of developing into subjects with content that can be useful to me in the near future. The Australian music subject is a good example of this since it seems we will be learning a lot about how the industry works, where the money is and how to get it. The movie sound subject is good because it is a skill I want to know, and we are also required to make our own movies which is also useful. Overall, most classes show a lot of promise. Forum is... unique still.
In the movie subject we had a look at Luke Harrold's honours project, a witty short film describing the monotony of factory work. Having worked in a factory myself, I can sympathize with Luke but cannot understand how one can work full time in such a place; it is hell. The sounds were done on an early Pentium but sounded decent. They were recorded individually and placed over the images after. There was hardly any sound from when the scenes were actually shot. The one thing I felt was missing was a sound for the lentil bags falling on top of each other, but apart from that it was well synchronized. We were also given some sheets to read including a list of some movies which have well worked sound. I rewatched one of these movies (Raging Bull, with Robert De Niro) with the sound in mind and noticed some nice passages. The title sequence is especially effective, with soft orchestral music playing to images of a hooded boxer shadow-boxing in a ring. Apart from the "oldschool" fighting scenes that did not really impress the movie is a very good one.
In forum we got introduced to the concept of making instruments by hand. This is not really my cup of tea, but then again forum hardly ever was. I can see how there are lessons to be learned here, how knowing how to make sound with some batteries and a speaker can be good to know, but the sound quality of these "instruments" (electric circuits) is poorer than even the most basic 1960 synths. We got shown a demonstration of some of the concepts in action and I was not sold; it sounded like PC speaker gone horribly wrong, and PC speaker is pretty wrong. This time could be used to analyze successful (oops the S word, that is NEVER to be used in an academic environment) music, but of course this is not what an academic environment is meant to teach. How then, I wonder, are we ever expected to become successful musicians? I have not heard the word chorus mentioned once in a lesson and I feel sorry for those who intend to go down the musician or producer path. Or maybe we are NOT meant to be successful musicians? Maybe the academic environment is meant for those with an academic industry interest? Hmmmmmm...
However, as previously mentioned, the semester shows a lot of potential for developing into a useful one, but forum is still questionable.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
I'm colliding baby, i'm colliding
Want to hear winchimes but live in an area with no wind?
Want to hear music but sick of tonal chord proggressions?
Want to hear some sinewaves?
WANT TO LONGER!
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Or is it...
The Colleidoscope! On a Collision course to COLLIDERTOWN! Now with collidervision and sound, in 1.1 mono (and with no visual). Prepare to be collided... the oldschool way.
In the beggining people were just colliding by hand. It was a slow, tedious process that led to much frustration and wasted energy. Then, somebody had the idea of making colliding a digital process and invented Collider, a sequence of digital processes that synthesizes colliding inside the computer! Collider made an impact, as expected, and its owner Bill Tocollide became a billionare within hours of its release. But something was wrong... while the program was colliding, it was not SUPER colliding. This problem was addressed in 1987 when Sony, Microsoft and BMW (SMB for short) joined forces in an effort to create the next logical step in Collider's evolution. With plently of resources and the leading scientists at NASA leading the charge, Super Collider 1 was finally released. To say it made an impact on the music world would be like saying John Cage was only a "pretty cool" guy. The shockwave experienced after its release changed music forever, like Cage changed his clothes every day. And boy, were they some clothes...
SMB enjoyed the financial compensation for this epic discovery, but the tensions between segments within the company grew. Those more interested in music and the entertaining power of Supercollider wanted to build a collider that could not only collide, but be enjoyed by the whole family in 3d graphics plugged into a TV. They wanted to release "Colliding station". The programers in the company wanted to release "Collider '95", a Colliding program that would come with every new computer and feature a free internet browser, "Collide Arouser". The third section of SMB wanted to make high quality European cars instead. So the company split appart, into Sony (who went on to create the Playstation based on its colliding concepts), Microsoft (who created Windows 95 and Internet Explorer as a way to share colliding projects with other enthusiasts around the globe) and BMW, who went on to make European cars.
The company that took over was Machintosh, a contaminated apple company somewhere in France. Machintosh wanted a collider that could not only Supercollide, but Supercollide 2. After many failed attempts Super Collider 2 was finally released.
Its welcome was as expected, and even cinemas sold out their special "SuperCollider 2" 3 hour previews. In 1991 an enthusiastic John Cage got hold of the SuperCollider 2 concepts, and, in an effort to mix the new, digital Supercollider 2 with original analogue concepts of colliding by hand, created Supercollider 3. The new collider offered unprecedented sound quality, and due to its construction could make sinewaves as pure as John Cage's concepts. It also included a random function.
Supercolider 3 is often taught in musical institutions as an alternative to colliding by hand, or composing real music.
It is with this program that I made the following piece:
http://www.box.net/shared/c4si2hu49v
The work uses 4 sinewave synths that either add notes above or bellow the note currently playing. The choice it makes of the next note is a weighted random value, so for example in the semitone synth there is a 25% that the next note will be a semitone up or down, 17% that it will be 2 semitones up or down etc. up to about 5-6 notes. There is also a chance the note repeats. In addition, the longer the synth has been playing the more chance the notes have of not playing at all, or playing (if the synth started silent). The song uses these 4 random note synths layered on top of each other (towards the middle you will hear about 7 semitone synths playing almost 10 notes a second each). The synths also play at different speeds.
May this collide with your soul as my soul collided with this program.
Also check out
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Supercollider
My contribution to uncyclopedia.
Cheers to Ben for pointing it out to me!
Want to hear music but sick of tonal chord proggressions?
Want to hear some sinewaves?
WANT TO LONGER!
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Or is it...
The Colleidoscope! On a Collision course to COLLIDERTOWN! Now with collidervision and sound, in 1.1 mono (and with no visual). Prepare to be collided... the oldschool way.
In the beggining people were just colliding by hand. It was a slow, tedious process that led to much frustration and wasted energy. Then, somebody had the idea of making colliding a digital process and invented Collider, a sequence of digital processes that synthesizes colliding inside the computer! Collider made an impact, as expected, and its owner Bill Tocollide became a billionare within hours of its release. But something was wrong... while the program was colliding, it was not SUPER colliding. This problem was addressed in 1987 when Sony, Microsoft and BMW (SMB for short) joined forces in an effort to create the next logical step in Collider's evolution. With plently of resources and the leading scientists at NASA leading the charge, Super Collider 1 was finally released. To say it made an impact on the music world would be like saying John Cage was only a "pretty cool" guy. The shockwave experienced after its release changed music forever, like Cage changed his clothes every day. And boy, were they some clothes...
SMB enjoyed the financial compensation for this epic discovery, but the tensions between segments within the company grew. Those more interested in music and the entertaining power of Supercollider wanted to build a collider that could not only collide, but be enjoyed by the whole family in 3d graphics plugged into a TV. They wanted to release "Colliding station". The programers in the company wanted to release "Collider '95", a Colliding program that would come with every new computer and feature a free internet browser, "Collide Arouser". The third section of SMB wanted to make high quality European cars instead. So the company split appart, into Sony (who went on to create the Playstation based on its colliding concepts), Microsoft (who created Windows 95 and Internet Explorer as a way to share colliding projects with other enthusiasts around the globe) and BMW, who went on to make European cars.
The company that took over was Machintosh, a contaminated apple company somewhere in France. Machintosh wanted a collider that could not only Supercollide, but Supercollide 2. After many failed attempts Super Collider 2 was finally released.
Its welcome was as expected, and even cinemas sold out their special "SuperCollider 2" 3 hour previews. In 1991 an enthusiastic John Cage got hold of the SuperCollider 2 concepts, and, in an effort to mix the new, digital Supercollider 2 with original analogue concepts of colliding by hand, created Supercollider 3. The new collider offered unprecedented sound quality, and due to its construction could make sinewaves as pure as John Cage's concepts. It also included a random function.
Supercolider 3 is often taught in musical institutions as an alternative to colliding by hand, or composing real music.
It is with this program that I made the following piece:
http://www.box.net/shared/c4si2hu49v
The work uses 4 sinewave synths that either add notes above or bellow the note currently playing. The choice it makes of the next note is a weighted random value, so for example in the semitone synth there is a 25% that the next note will be a semitone up or down, 17% that it will be 2 semitones up or down etc. up to about 5-6 notes. There is also a chance the note repeats. In addition, the longer the synth has been playing the more chance the notes have of not playing at all, or playing (if the synth started silent). The song uses these 4 random note synths layered on top of each other (towards the middle you will hear about 7 semitone synths playing almost 10 notes a second each). The synths also play at different speeds.
May this collide with your soul as my soul collided with this program.
Also check out
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Supercollider
My contribution to uncyclopedia.
Cheers to Ben for pointing it out to me!
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Mastering Exercise
http://www.box.net/shared/anxmm0mdh5
(mastered)
As opposed to:
http://www.box.net/shared/mytyldcb9q
(original)
This is the result of the mastered version of my song. I am fairly happy with it, considering when I started I did not expect to get anything too solid from the process. But I think the file selecting had a lot to do with it too. Because it was so weak, it was easy to EQ and compress without distorting, something that cannot be said for my previous master attempt. Because it was totally electronic, it was also free of distortion, and this made it unnecessary to try and iron out "mistakes" from the recording process.
Basically I made 2 copies of the file and treated both fairly separately. In one I boosted the low end as well as a narrow Q around the 100 hz mark for the bassdrum, as well as the mid highs and highs. I also compressed and stereo imaged it a bit (narrowed the highs and left lows alone). It sounded powerful but lacked the snare punch. For this, I treated the second copy. I EQ'd the mid highs and mids to around the area of the snare, but was carefull to take out a narrow band where the a synth stood (around 1000 hz). I also compressed it a lot harder so the snare stood out more.
In addition to these 2 tracks, I also mixed in the original track at a lower volume to try and give it a bit of life. The main issue with 3 identical tracks is phasing but because the tracks were treated so differently, this is not too obvious to my ears, and the powerful sound more than makes up for the small amount of phasing that could be present. I think it's a decent attempt, not fantastic but definately better than my last and somethign I'm happy with. Enjoy!
(mastered)
As opposed to:
http://www.box.net/shared/mytyldcb9q
(original)
This is the result of the mastered version of my song. I am fairly happy with it, considering when I started I did not expect to get anything too solid from the process. But I think the file selecting had a lot to do with it too. Because it was so weak, it was easy to EQ and compress without distorting, something that cannot be said for my previous master attempt. Because it was totally electronic, it was also free of distortion, and this made it unnecessary to try and iron out "mistakes" from the recording process.
Basically I made 2 copies of the file and treated both fairly separately. In one I boosted the low end as well as a narrow Q around the 100 hz mark for the bassdrum, as well as the mid highs and highs. I also compressed and stereo imaged it a bit (narrowed the highs and left lows alone). It sounded powerful but lacked the snare punch. For this, I treated the second copy. I EQ'd the mid highs and mids to around the area of the snare, but was carefull to take out a narrow band where the a synth stood (around 1000 hz). I also compressed it a lot harder so the snare stood out more.
In addition to these 2 tracks, I also mixed in the original track at a lower volume to try and give it a bit of life. The main issue with 3 identical tracks is phasing but because the tracks were treated so differently, this is not too obvious to my ears, and the powerful sound more than makes up for the small amount of phasing that could be present. I think it's a decent attempt, not fantastic but definately better than my last and somethign I'm happy with. Enjoy!
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Piece that we have to master
This week we have to master an electronic piece and luckily we are able to try it on one of mine. The piece I chose is fairly weak sounding on purpose and lacks a lot of punch, however might be able to be pumped up a bit with mastering. I haven't started mastering it before I posted this up so this is where I'm starting from too:
Enjoy! :D
http://www.box.net/shared/mytyldcb9q
Enjoy! :D
http://www.box.net/shared/mytyldcb9q
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Week 11 Forum Review
Well, deconstruct me a constructor, we had another week of deconstruction talks. I found the deconstruction element to feature more widely in these talks as opposed to construction. What do people have against construction? Is it because my house is next to one getting built and you don't want to offend me? Or is it because we attend the CON servatorium, and we feel we need to make up for the missing DE in our lives?
Either way, Simon Whitelock was first. I don't understand the "DJ" movement, and I have to say I never heard of my mentor using such commercial equipment. All cage needed was a bowl and some dice, as well as 1-2 well prepare mushroom meal ideas. Instead, we are hearing talks about people stealing ideas from other people (JACKONSTRUCTING) and CONSTRUCTING a new work from them. Is this a good idea? All I know is that if it's not random it's not worth doing. The devil's work, such as DJing is trying to alure you into a world of magical logical harmony and constant beats. The chance of the bassdrum comming up on exactly the first crotchet of every bar if you are randomizing it to semiquaver levels is 2^16, and the fact that this occours throughout the piece PROVES it is not random. Also, tonality seems to live and breathe through this music and this is somethign we need not encourage. Free yourselves. Take a break from this jibberish, I say, take a chance and roll the dice.
Nathan Shea was next, and the presence of strong noise content in poor quality recordings was a welcome change from the bestiality we had been subjected to. I could relate this to my own interests and if the guitars had been replaced with a sinewave modulated by the drums which could be teapots, we would be on to something.
Last and best, John Delay. A man among men. A trooper against adversity. The real deal. If we had a war, John should be the commander in chief. A veteran of rhythm and a pariot of harmony. John Delay is all this, and was even more in his eye opening presentation. Any music with little percussive content and slow constant change is to be appreciated, but the examples he played gave me a tingling in my ningling I hadn't experienced since "4'33: Live aus Berlin" came out. A wonderful expansion of the senses, and one that made sense. What a way to end the day, and what a day it was.
Either way, Simon Whitelock was first. I don't understand the "DJ" movement, and I have to say I never heard of my mentor using such commercial equipment. All cage needed was a bowl and some dice, as well as 1-2 well prepare mushroom meal ideas. Instead, we are hearing talks about people stealing ideas from other people (JACKONSTRUCTING) and CONSTRUCTING a new work from them. Is this a good idea? All I know is that if it's not random it's not worth doing. The devil's work, such as DJing is trying to alure you into a world of magical logical harmony and constant beats. The chance of the bassdrum comming up on exactly the first crotchet of every bar if you are randomizing it to semiquaver levels is 2^16, and the fact that this occours throughout the piece PROVES it is not random. Also, tonality seems to live and breathe through this music and this is somethign we need not encourage. Free yourselves. Take a break from this jibberish, I say, take a chance and roll the dice.
Nathan Shea was next, and the presence of strong noise content in poor quality recordings was a welcome change from the bestiality we had been subjected to. I could relate this to my own interests and if the guitars had been replaced with a sinewave modulated by the drums which could be teapots, we would be on to something.
Last and best, John Delay. A man among men. A trooper against adversity. The real deal. If we had a war, John should be the commander in chief. A veteran of rhythm and a pariot of harmony. John Delay is all this, and was even more in his eye opening presentation. Any music with little percussive content and slow constant change is to be appreciated, but the examples he played gave me a tingling in my ningling I hadn't experienced since "4'33: Live aus Berlin" came out. A wonderful expansion of the senses, and one that made sense. What a way to end the day, and what a day it was.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Week 11 Audio Arts
This week we had to master a stereo file we previously mixed. I chose to use this mix:
http://www.box.net/shared/rsj69b7gji
(last week's submission)
And here are the 3 mixes I tried doing. The 2nd might be the best but I'm not happy with any.
Mix 1: http://www.box.net/shared/qdk3812ban (Too much high frequency adds to the peaks... however, drowns them out in a weird way and is less obvious than I thought it would be)
Mix 2: http://www.box.net/shared/8viqk1ea44 (Better than mix 2, less highs, more compression. Piano sounds less natural than I would like and a lot worse than the original, however, so by taking the annoying 15,000 frequency out I killed the piano sound)
Mix 3: http://www.box.net/shared/42u0xoemnb (Highs are reduced then amplified with a 2nd EQ later on... Result is annoying peak is still there. Sounds more open than 2nd mix but peaks are a lot more obvious)
I found it very difficult to get a decent result. I tried using a lot of different EQ and compressor settings but the fact that the recording was not perfect (had some peaks) was accentuated with every attempt. This was especially evident in the piano. In addition, the mixed version (not mastered) sounded solid to me and I could find little to actually fix. The drums were probably the weakest instrument, and the bass could have a little more volume higher up (around 100-150hz) but appart from that I was very happy. The mixing was mainly an effort into taking the peaks out and compressing it a little. I also wanted to give it just a little more top end and bass, but not much. However, whenever I took out the piano peaks (which sit around 15,000 hz) by EQing them heavily, the overall sound suffers a LOT especially in the piano and drums (snare mainly). To make up I tried adding a 2nd EQ to boost the overall high frequency range (over 10,000) after taking out the 15,000, but the result was still flat. Also I found no way of boosting the drums or making them sound better. Basically here are 3 attemps I went through, but I still preffer the original (especially since the addition of any EQ's either flattens the sound by taking the peaks away or makes them even MORE obvious). Compression also adds to the peaks. Overall I tried a lot of different things but would like to learn more about this topic before I am happy with my skills. Luckily we're doing more next week!
http://www.box.net/shared/rsj69b7gji
(last week's submission)
And here are the 3 mixes I tried doing. The 2nd might be the best but I'm not happy with any.
Mix 1: http://www.box.net/shared/qdk3812ban (Too much high frequency adds to the peaks... however, drowns them out in a weird way and is less obvious than I thought it would be)
Mix 2: http://www.box.net/shared/8viqk1ea44 (Better than mix 2, less highs, more compression. Piano sounds less natural than I would like and a lot worse than the original, however, so by taking the annoying 15,000 frequency out I killed the piano sound)
Mix 3: http://www.box.net/shared/42u0xoemnb (Highs are reduced then amplified with a 2nd EQ later on... Result is annoying peak is still there. Sounds more open than 2nd mix but peaks are a lot more obvious)
I found it very difficult to get a decent result. I tried using a lot of different EQ and compressor settings but the fact that the recording was not perfect (had some peaks) was accentuated with every attempt. This was especially evident in the piano. In addition, the mixed version (not mastered) sounded solid to me and I could find little to actually fix. The drums were probably the weakest instrument, and the bass could have a little more volume higher up (around 100-150hz) but appart from that I was very happy. The mixing was mainly an effort into taking the peaks out and compressing it a little. I also wanted to give it just a little more top end and bass, but not much. However, whenever I took out the piano peaks (which sit around 15,000 hz) by EQing them heavily, the overall sound suffers a LOT especially in the piano and drums (snare mainly). To make up I tried adding a 2nd EQ to boost the overall high frequency range (over 10,000) after taking out the 15,000, but the result was still flat. Also I found no way of boosting the drums or making them sound better. Basically here are 3 attemps I went through, but I still preffer the original (especially since the addition of any EQ's either flattens the sound by taking the peaks away or makes them even MORE obvious). Compression also adds to the peaks. Overall I tried a lot of different things but would like to learn more about this topic before I am happy with my skills. Luckily we're doing more next week!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
