                                                      .,sssssss,.
 .. .   ....... ..  .,,,,,,ss,,ssssssssSSSSSSSSS%$$$""'       `""ss.
                        s$$                    s""                 `""s
                        $$$                  ."                        "
  ,s$$$$$ :$s  $$$  ,s$$$$$ $$$  ,s$$s,    .,ss$$$   .      .        .,ss$$$
 :$$' $$$ |$$  $$$ :$$'x$$$  "  :$$'`$$: s$$$$""   s$$    s$$      s$$$$""
 |$$  $$$ I$$  $$$ |$$  $$$ $$$ |$$  $$| $$$.      "" .   $$$.     $$$.    `s
 I$$  $$$ $$$  $$$ I$$  $$$ $$$ I$$  $$I $$$:      ;$$:   $$$:     $$$:     `|
 S$$  $S$ SS$  $S$ S$$  $S$ $S$ S$$  $$S I$$I      I$$I   I$$I     I$$I      :
 $"$  $"$ $"$  $"$ $"$  S"S $|$ $"$  $"$ :$$$      :$$$   :$$$     :$$$      :|
 . .  . . . .  . . . .  . . . . . .  . .  $$$s$"    $$$    $$$      $$$s$"    $
 :%:  :%: :%:  :%: :%:  :%: :%: :%:  :%:  $$$"      $$$:   $$$:     $$$"      $
 %S%  %S% %S%  %S% %S%  %S% %S% %S%  %S%  I$$:      I$$:   I$$:     I$$:      $
 S$S  S$S S$S  S$S S$S  S$S S$S S$S  S$S  :$$I      :$$I   :$$I    .:$$I      '
 $$$.,$$$ $$$ ,$$$ $$$.,$$$ $$$ $$$.,$$$   $$$       $$$    $$$ ,ss$$$$$$ ,ss$$
 "$$$$$$$ "$$$$$$$ "$$$$$$$ $$$ "$$$$$$"   I$$:      I$$:   I$$$$""  II$$$$""
    `"$$$      """    `x$$$ """    `"       "^        "^     "^        "^  '
                                              `s                        s"
                                                "ss                 .ss"    iv!
                                                    "ss_         _ss"
                                                         `"""""'`

                               [ ISSUE #2 ]

[ Table of Contents ]

 "Introduction to Audiofile #2"  ............................. Basehead
 "Melody Schtuff"  ........................................... Dynamic Harmony
 "Contemporary Music Theory: Symmetrical Scales, et al" ...... Spyder
 "The Secret of Good tracking?" .............................. Mick Rippon
 "Theory Knowledge and its Relation to Tracking"  ............ Mick Rippon
 "Thoughts on Inspiration"  .................................. LakEEE
 "Evaluating the Interface: Technology isn't Everything" ..... Psibelius
 "The Process: Part II"  ..................................... Necros
 "Reconstructive Surgery: Faking a Filter Sweep"  ............ The Hacker


[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]


 "Introduction to Audiofile #2"
  = - = - = - = - = - = - = - =

        Well folks, as expected, it's been quite awhile since AF1 was released.
For those people who thought this would be a nice weekly publication, i'm sorry
to burst your bubble.  I do apologize for the fact that this issue has been way
too long in the making, but i was waiting on some of the articles for so long
that i never thought they would actually come in.

        I do think this is a quality issue, and as i had hoped, some of the
theory was explored more indepth for those of you who want to know more than
just the bare basics.  Also, as some theory articles spew out a few pages
of information that read like a textbook, i think Spyder and DHarmony do
a good job showing some applications of theory rather than just babbling
about it.

        Anybody who wants to write a quality article for AF3 is welcomed to
email it to me, my address is posted twice in this file.  If you are unsure
of the guidelines for an article, or want to run a topic by me, include
that in your email too.  Also, make sure you tell me your handle and the
correct response address if the mail you sent was not from the account where
you want to receive mail.

        The IRC channel #trax has moved to a newly formed demo/music scene
network, which as of now consists of only one server, irc.demoscene.org --
please update your clients to connect there to join #trax.  There has been
some controversy over whether or not to stay on AnotherNet, but all that
aside i think it is time the scene had it's own dedicated network.  Unlike
some of the other private and better (err sorta) run networks, like AnotherNet,
DalNet, etc... we will allow european servers to connect, and all the servers
that connect will be run by scene people.  If you are in europe and have an
ISP with lots of bandwidth and a webserver or some sort of machine with
not-so-taxing load and you would like to apply to be a server on this demo
network, let me know in your email as well, with the stats of the machine,
who would be adminning it, etc.

        That's about it for now.. hopefully the next issue will be out sooner.
Thanks again to Psibelius for posting this on the TraxWeekly mailing list.

        Until next time..

 -- basehead ... . five musicians . scoop . imphobia
 -- af editor
 -- bh@fm.org


[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]


--melody schtuff-----by Dynamic Harmony/CCS-------------------------------  
  
  Do you wake up in the morning and feel... you know... Not so fresh?
Well this is because you arn't. You have in fact woken up in front of your
computer keyboard, with dozens of empty glasses of cappucino and/or jolt
cola... Your mother is still calling you for dinner... The point is, you 
havn't showered for 3 days. How fresh could you possibly be?

  Why havn't you showered in three days? Well, you've tracked for a few days
and nothing sounds good. You're definately in need of a new trick. You've
tried all your old tactics, and you need something new. Just about everything
you write sounds like every song you and everyone else has made. You need
some sort of new method to get something fresh out. 

  Well, you need to create a good melody. That's all there is to it. Some
people put a lot of emphasis on a great drum track, some put a lot of
emphasis on realistic sound, some like chords, some like basslines... These
are all great, but most people try to listen to the lead/melody of a song.
If you make a song without a good melody, or without a melody all together,
its gonna be that much less interesting for the listener (and you).
  The trick to making a good melody, as I've brainwashed myself to believe,
is to use a good scale for what you're trying to make. 
  Here are some basic scales, which I don't necessarily recommend but I'll
say them anyways for the sake of music theory (Key of C, naturally!):

     [Named according to Trackers (#s only)]
  CHROMATIC SCALE
     C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B (loop)   
 This is your most basic scale, which can be played by pressing these keys
 in this order: "Q2W3E(4)R5T6Y7U(8)" This scale is purely based on semitones,
 or in other words the distance between each note on this scale is called a
 semitone... It's not very complicated if you noticed, but at least you can 
 say that you know a scale :) 

  WHOLE TONE SCALE
     C, D, E, F#, G#, A# (loop)
 This is another kinda basic one, based on purely whole tones. Just like the
 chromatic scale, it has no varying "distance" in tones for the scale. The
 distance between each of the notes on this scale is called a whole tone.
 Not much to it, it does sound "dreamy" if you play runs with it. 
 If you type "QWE567" in a tracker, you can listen to it over and over :)
  
  
  MAJOR SCALE
     C, D, E, F, G, A, B (loop)
 This is another extremely basic level scale. If you use only notes on this
 scale, you make a happy (but cheesy) melody. Unlike the chromatic and whole
 tone scales, it has different "distances" between notes; it consists of both
 whole tones and semitones. Type "QWERTYU" and you've just played it.

  MINOR SCALE (Harmonic)
     C, D, D#, F, G, G#, B (loop)   
 Yet another basic scale. This one may sound "sad" (as opposed to happy)
 when you play it, relative the the major scale. If you write a melody
 with this, it'll be damn cheesy again... But at least it'll sound half
 decent. Again, it consists of semitones and whole tones. Its the same with
 most of the other scales I'll review in this article. Type "QW3RT6U" if you 
 want to hear it (in a tracker).


  Now, these scales are all REALLY BASIC... Therefore REALLY CHEESY. (God,
I'm using the word cheese a lot) At any rate, these scales are virtually
NEVER used in more recent music... At least not often, but they do make
decent runs if you ever have the urge to do one.
  
  I reccomend you experiment with those a bit, then move onto the following
(Unless you have some sort of experience).
  These next few scales are scales which I personally have used, and
reccomend. There's literally dozens of scales out there, but these are some
of my favorites (key of C again):

  ORIENTAL PENTATONICS
     C, D, E, G, A (loop)  
 This one is extremely catchy considering its simplicity. It's used a lot
 in various themes... Especially bagpipe songs :) You can play it by typing
 "QWETY"... But its even easier when you play all the Sharp keys; 
 "567(8)90..." This is the scale transposed into F#. This one sounds really
 nice when you do runs. Its also great for harmony, because if you want to
 make a harmonic line you just play the same melody "two steps behind on the
 scale". More on this later in the article.

  EGYPTIAN "PENTATONICS"
     C, C#, E, F, G, G#, B (loop)
 I really don't think this is a pentatonic scale, but thats what I've heard
 it called. Don't blame me :) This is used a lot in arabic music. I've seen
 some people toss in an A# (Bb) just for the sake of trills and such. If 
 you want to create a tribal kinda song, this is a pretty good plan for 
 writing a melody. Play it by typing "Q2ERT6U".

  Am7 SCALE (AEOLIAN MODE, TRANSPOSED TO C)
     C, D, D#, F, G, G#, A# (loop)  
 This one is used a heck of a lot in the more "popular" songs (top 40, ugh).
 :) At any rate, this one is good for catchy melodies, sometimes runs. But
 its good for making cheese chord progressions too: Just play chords with a
 base of any of the notes in the scale. (Cmin, Dmin, D#maj, etc..) You'll
 probably grow out of this one really fast because its really overused. Type
 "QW3RT67" and you've played it, or even easier play "NMQWERT" to play it in
 the key of A.

  B "NATURAL" SCALE (HYPOPHRYGIAN/LOCRIAN MODE, TRANSPOSED TO C) 
    (Sorry, It's late right now)
     C, C#, D#, F, F#, G#, A# (loop)   
 I personally happen to love this one, but it's been known to cause cancer in
 some small rodents. Meaning that it sounds "satanic". But I love it, not to
 say I worship satan... Our dark lord... =D Sorry.
 Umm, at any rate this one is great for making that really cool sort of
 suspense/horror type music. I don't reccomend using this one at all, unless
 you're really really really good. I personally find it hard at the least.
 Play it by typing "Q23R567"; in the key of B try typing "MQWERTY".

  E "NATURAL" SCALE (PHRYGIAN MODE, TRANSPOSED TO C)
    (Geez it's late! Someone get me some coffee)
     C, C#, D#, F, G, G#, A# (loop)
 I like this one for the same reasons as the Locrian, except this is a little
 more pleasing. Again, great for that angry/freaky song you're trying, but
 complicated to use. If you type "Q23RT67" you hear it, or "ERTYUIO" in the
 key of E.

  ... PENTATONICS PENTATONICS :)
     C, D, E, G, B (loop)
 This one is another great one, probably one of the best actually. It's
 kinda simple though. It makes for nice runs, and I think it sounds cool if
 you take out the B. (But then you're left with only 4 notes to play)
 If you want to make it sound a bit more "sad" (as opposed to happy, again)
 you can change the E to a D#. Play the original with "QWETU", or for the 
 flat E (enharmonically changed to D#) "QW3TU".

  JAZZ/BLUES SCALE
     C, D#, F, F#, G, A# (loop)
 I've heard all sorts of variations on this one, but this is my personal
 version if anyone asks :) Some people take out the F#; sometimes people
 change the D# to an E. I've seen people add in C#s. The reason why this
 happens a lot is because part of jazz is improvisation, and therefore you
 have people throwing in various notes "just for fun" :)
 Anyways, a lot of musical styles use this scale. Jazz, Blues, Funk, and
 even Rock+Dance sometimes incorporate this. It's great for soloing, then
 again it is overused for this kind of thing. Play it with "Q3R5T7" on your
 keyboard.

  QUARTER TONE SCALE
     hehehehehe, no.
 Just for the record, this is a scale where the notes are based on a division
 of 24 tones (called quarter tones! Duh!) There's another version of egyptian
 pentatonics basedon various quarter tones, as well as a lot of other scales.
 If you're trying to track something in this scale, try to find 24 different
 tones between "Q" and "I" (C and C2) and you'll understand :)

  I'm getting tired, but there's still more to a melody than scales. Just
because you know a scale it doesn't mean that you can just pull a melody
out of your ass. I'm not really sure how I can teach that... Its experience.
  However, I can tell you a cool trick which I mentioned a while back:
With the oriental pentatonic scale, track a melody. I'm going to use a run
just for the sake of an example.

 00|C-5 01 .. ...| (Just a bad attempt at tracker emulation :) Oh well) 
 01|A-4 01 .. ...|
 02|G-4 01 .. ...|
 03|E-4 01 .. ...|
 04|D-4 01 .. ...|
 05|C-4 01 .. ...|
 06|A-3 01 .. ...|
 07|G-3 01 .. ...|
 08|C-4 01 .. ...|
   
  There you go, let's pretend thats your melody in the oriental pentatonic
scale. Now what you can do if you want to add a nice harmony to it is play
the same thing "two steps behind" on the scale. What that means is go two
steps higher or lower on the scale, and play the same note at the same time.
(For example, the scale is CDEGAC, so for a G a nice harmony is a C or a D:)
                            ^ ~ ^ <-- note the two step difference.                               
 
 00|C-5 01 64 ...|E-5 01 54 ...| <-- note the volume of the melody is
 01|A-4 01 64 ...|D-5 01 54 ...|     louder than the harmony; enough
 02|G-4 01 64 ...|C-5 01 54 ...|     to "keep the spotlight" on the 
 03|E-4 01 64 ...|A-4 01 54 ...|     melody.
 04|D-4 01 64 ...|G-4 01 54 ...|
 05|C-4 01 64 ...|E-4 01 54 ...|
 06|A-3 01 64 ...|D-4 01 54 ...|
 07|G-3 01 64 ...|C-4 01 54 ...|
 08|C-4 01 64 ...|E-4 01 54 ...|

  Try it, it sounds pretty.


  Anyhow, there's more stuff you can do to make a cool melody besides just
taking scales and throwing down the notes in various patterns. One cool
tactic is taking the chord you're currently playing, and finding its root...
Find the major/minor/natural scale starting on its root. What you do for the
melody is make the melody based on the notes of the chord, with the little
addition of notes from the scale. For example:

Lets say the proggy is |Gmaj7|Em7|Am7|D7|, key of G.

Here are the notes of the chords:
The notes of Gmaj7 are: G ,  B ,  D,  F#
The notes of Em7 are:   E ,  G ,  B,  D
The notes of Am7 are:   A ,  C ,  E,  G
The notes of D7 are:    D ,  F#,  A,  C

Here are the notes of the scales of the chords' tonics:
The scale of Gmaj7's is: G, A, B, C, D, E, F#
The scale of Em7's is:   E, F#, G, A, B, C, D
The scale of Am7's is:   A, B, C, D, E, F#, A
The scale of D7's is:    D, E, F#, G, A, B, C

Then you mix the two together, putting a lot of emphasis on the chords'
notes by putting them on stronger beats. As well, most jumps should be
to and from notes of the chords as opposed to notes of the scales.
Here's a quick tune (excuse me, I can't write a good tune without being able
to hear it). 01 represents a "magical chord instrument" which can change from
a maj7 to a m7 to a 7 magically! 02 will be a melody thing.

 00|G-4 01 .. ...|G-5 02 .. A06| (ST3 EFFECT, speed to 06)
 01|... .. .. ...|... .. .. ...|
 02|... .. .. ...|G-5 02 .. ...|
 03|... .. .. ...|A-5 02 .. ...|
 04|E-4 01 .. ...|B-5 02 .. ...|
 05|... .. .. ...|G-5 02 .. ...|
 06|... .. .. ...|E-5 02 .. ...|
 07|.... .. .. ...|D-5 02 .. ...|
 08|A-4 01 .. ...|C-5 02 .. ...|
 09|... .. .. ...|D-5 02 .. ...|
 0A|... .. .. ...|E-5 02 .. ...|
 0B|... .. .. ...|G-5 02 .. ...|
 0C|D-4 01 .. ...|F#5 02 .. ...|
 0D|... .. .. ...|F#5 02 .. SD3| (ST3 EFFECT, note delay for swing)
 0E|... .. .. ...|E-5 02 .. ...|
 0F|... .. .. ...|F#5 02 .. ...|
 10|G-4 01 .. ...|G-5 02 .. ...|

  Trust me, it's cool if done properly. :) [Do not see above] :)


  Finally a wicked idea, which is hard to use properly, is to "play around
a melody". Do this by starting a basically monorhythmic melody:

 00|G-5 01 .. ...| <-- note the distance between notes is actually 4, look
 04|G-5 01 .. ...|     at the numbers on the far left. :)
 08|A-5 01 .. ...| <-- also note that if you try to claim this tune as your
 0C|B-5 01 .. ...|     own you are pathetic.
 10|G-5 01 .. ...|                                        
 14|B-5 01 .. ...|
 18|A-5 01 .. ...|              
 1C|D-5 01 .. ...|
 
  Let's say thats your basic melody. What you do is change the rhythms
around from there... Give it more of a swing feel:

 00|G-5 01 .. ...|  <-- Continue to note the distance between lines is 2,
 02|... .. .. ...|      instead of the previous four. The rhythm is getting
 04|... .. .. ...|      a little more complex.
 06|G-5 01 .. ...|              
 08|A-5 01 .. ...| 
 0A|B-5 01 .. ...| 
 0C|... .. .. ...|                                        
 0E|... .. .. ...|              
 10|G-5 01 .. ...| 
 12|G-5 01 .. ...| 
 14|B-5 01 .. ...|                                        
 16|... .. .. ...|              
 18|A-5 01 .. ...| 
 1A|... .. .. ...| 
 1C|D-5 01 .. ...|                                        
 1E|D-5 01 .. ...|              

  Then from there, you start adding notes in between, while adding some
complex rhythms and stuff.

 00|G-5 01 .. A06| <-- The effects are ST3 style, tempo changes and delays.
 01|A-5 01 .. SD2| <-- Also note the cool rhythm stuff :) Its gone as far
 02|G-5 01 ... SD4|     as every line plus note delays.
 03|... .. .. ...|                                        
 04|F#5 01 .. ...|              
 05|... .. .. ...| 
 06|G-5 01 .. ...| 
 07|... .. .. ...|                                        
 08|A-5 01 .. ...|              
 09|... .. .. ...| 
 0A|B-5 01 .. ...| 
 0B|... .. .. ...|                                        
 0C|... .. .. ...|              
 0D|... .. .. ...|              
 0E|... .. .. ...| 
 0F|... .. .. ...| 
 10|G-5 01 .. ...|                                        
 11|... .. .. ...|              
 12|B-5 01 .. ...| 
 13|... .. .. ...| 
 14|A#5 01 .. ...|                                        
 15|... .. .. ...|              
 16|B-5 01 .. ...| 
 17|... .. .. ...| 
 18|A-5 01 .. ...|                                        
 19|... .. .. ...|              
 1A|F#5 01 .. ...|              
 1B|... .. .. ...| 
 1C|E-5 01 .. ...| 
 1D|... .. .. ...|                                        
 1E|D-5 01 .. ...|              
 1F|... .. .. ...|

  If you hear the original, then this last randition, you'll hear a lot of
similarities... But then you'll be able to tell which one sounds generally
more interesting.

  Anyways, that should be enough to make you want to track something with
your new found knowledge. At any rate, you would probably have stopped really
reading by this point :) If by chance you read this little thing at the
bottom of my article, I reccomend you go back and read everything. There's
little things here and there :) And I apologize for any typos, or musical
naming blunders.
  It was my pleasure writing this, for this amazing mag :)


[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]


Contemporary Music Theory for Beginners
Symetrical Scales and Chord Structures
by Spyder/NOSIE

[intro]
Ok, before you all get perplexed by that title and skip this article, let me 
state that the fundamentals in this article are well within the reach of
musicians with very little music theory background, although the more you
have the better.  Many articles on theory have been written such as the one
by Aahz in the last audiofile.  I encourage you all to seek out these
articles and study up.  This article will also make references to a song I
wrote called "To the Sky" on many instances.  This is not shameless self-
promotion, in fact its an older tune, but it contains most of the elements
expounded upon here all in one place.  To get this tune go to
http://www.shelbynet.net/~dostalek/mymusic.html. And now, lets get started.


[what is a symetrical scale or chord?]

There are two definitions of a symetrical scale.  One of them states that a
symetrical scale is an equal division of an octave into parts.  Most of you
are probably familiar with the Major and Minor scales and you know that they
are made up of a mixture of WHOLE steps and HALF steps... therefore these are
NOT symetrical because the parts within the octave are different sizes.
Going by this definition here are some symetrical scales:

CHROMATIC SCALE: A scale comprised of 12 half steps (ie. all the white and
black notes on the keyboard).  There is only one chromatic scale, although
the notes within the scale can have different names (meaing F# can also be
Gb, or Eb can be Fbb, etc...) Here it is: C-C#-D-D#-E-F-F#-G-G#-A-A#-B.

WHOLE TONE SCALE: A scale comprised of 6 whole steps.  There are two of these
scales, although the notes within the scale can have diffent names:
#1- C-D-E-F#-G#-A#
#2- C#-D#-F-G-A-B

FULLY DIMMINISHED 7th CHORD: This chord is comprised of 4 minor3rds (a minor
third is the interval formed by 3 half steps, like A-C).  Its probably called
a chord rather than a scale because it was built out of tertian harmony
(chords based on stacking 3rds), but it is symetrical, and very important to
our later discussions.  There are three of these chords, although the notes
within the chords can have different names.  These are important!
#1- C-D#-F#-A  (note that correct tertian labeling would be C-Eb-Gb-Bbb :)
#2- C#-E-G-A#
#3- D-F-G#-B

AUGMENTED CHORD: As you can probably see how this sequence is going, this
chord is formed by 3 major3rds (a major third is the interval formed by 4
half steps).  Its a symetrical chord, but is actually a subset of the whole
tone scale, so I won't go into it, but you can for practice if you'd like.
As you may guess there are 4 types.  An example of its usage can be found in
the tune "Journey of Knowledge" by Spyder).

TRITONE: This is just a di-ad actually, but its the last way to symetrically
split up an octave so I mention it for completeness.  Its defined as the
interval formed by 6 half steps.  For example C-F# or D-Ab, etc.

Now recently some theorists have expanded the idea of the symetrical scale
to include any scale that is symetrical within its self.  That may sound
confusing, but if you think about it as meaning the scale has no begining or
ending it might help.  For example, you can play a major scale and you should
always be able to tell where it begins and ends (ie. the keynote), but if you
were to try the same thing with a chomatic scale you would find that it
doesn't matter where you start or stop, because its symetrical.  Here is a
favorite scale of mine that fits into this category.

OCTATONIC: A scale comprised of an alternation of half steps and whole steps.
It may start with either the half step first or the whole, it doesn't matter.
Because of this fact there are three types, although the names of the notes
in the scales may change.  Please note how they are closely related to the
fully dimminished 7th chord.
#1- C-D-D#-F-F#-G#-A-B  (whole-half)
#2- C-C#-D#-E-F#-G-A-A# (half-whole)
#3- C#-D-E-F-G-G#-A#-B  (half-whole, other subset)


[ok great, now how do I use them?]

Some of you might be saying now "who cares? these scales sound weird! why
don't I just write whatever I want and be weird?".  Ok well there are very
good uses for these scales, but for this article I will only go over the four
that I think will be of most use to you in practical tracker compositions.


[tonal ambiguity]

Now since the quality that all of these scales have in common is no starting
or ending point, we can use that to our advantage- we can define our own or
just leave it up to the listener.  If you take a whole tone scale and play
around with it, you will find that it has a 'floating' quality because you
never know where its gonna end.  That might be a good thing if you are going
for a dreamscape or some simmilar ambient mood.  The other way you can use it
is if you want to go note X to note Y in a trasition but you have funky
harmonies going on to build tension or whatever.  If both notes X&Y fall
within a common whole tone scale you can use that scale to connect them
without influencing the harmonic movement that is going on around it.  For
an example check out "To the Sky", the transition going from pattern 14 to 15
(hex).  You can also use the chromatic scale very effectively as a transition
scale when you don't want to influence the underlying harmony with your lead.


[tone clusters]

A tone cluster, also known as a sound mass, is a group of closely spaced
notes used for their effect as a sound rather than a particular harmonic
function.  For example C-C#-D.  See "To the Sky" patterns 6 through 13 (hex)
to see how I used this tone cluster.  For a tone cluseter to be successful
you need to do two things... USE DYNAMICS, and USE TENSION/RESOLUTION.  By
tension/resolution I mean that these tone clusters create an awful lot of
tension because of their inherent disonance which you can effectively harness
if you follow the tone clusters by something more consonant (a major or minor
chord perhaps, or if you want to stay ambiguous, at least an open fifth, like
C-G).


[tonal teasing]

One of the things I love doing is taking your lead line and having it play in
the octatonic scale which is ambiguous, but keeping your accompaniment going
in a tonally functional way.  You have to be pretty smart in this or you will
just end up with a big disonant mess.  Check out "To the Sky" patterns 15 to
16 (hex) for this.


[***modulation***]

Ok this is the coolest part of this article so I hope you are paying
attention.  You have to know a little about fuctional harmony for this to
make sense, so go find Vegas a bug him for music lessons (hehe).  In order
to do this modulation trick we are going to take advantage of the dimmished
chord's symetrical structure.  If you will recall from you music theory, in a
major scale there is a fully dimmished chord built on the seveth degree (in
the key of C major this would be B-D-F).  Also in minor scales this is the
chord built on scale degree two (in C minor this would be D-F-Ab).  Ok now
these are the only chords we are gonna be dealing with.  Now, I appologize to
those that are unfamiliar with functional harmony roman numerals, but its the
best way to describe this next part.  Basically the number tells you which
degree of the scale the chord is built on.

Western tertian functional harmony shows us that in a major scale the (vii)
(dim) chord has a STRONG tendency to move to (I) and in a minor scale the
(ii) (dim) chord has a tendency to move to (V) (which in turn would move to
[i]).  So lets look at how this works with chords.  Note that I've moved the
order (or inversions) of the notes around in some cases to produce better
voice leading.  Also whenever I have written (dim) this is to mean a fully
dimmished 7th chord, and should not be confused with half dimmished 7th, or
just a plain dimminished chord.  Its the one we've been talking about (4
symetrical notes).

       B          C                      B      B     C
       Ab         G                      Ab     G     G
       F          E                      F      F     Eb
       D          C                      D      D     C

C:   vii(dim)     I          cmin:   ii(dim)    V7    i

Ok, now to the fun.  Since the two dim. chords we've talked about here are
symetrical there's no way for the ear to decide what the "root" of the chord
is.  Sometimes in a chord progression its pretty obvious (like the ones
above), but you can usually trick the ear depending upon which note you put
in the bass.  I don't know if you see it yet, but this can become your
hamonic gateway to numerous modulations (which by the way, I don't think
there are enough of these in tracks I hear).  This diminished chord you use
is going to become a PIVOT chord.  For example, look at the C minor
progression listed above.  Lets say that instead of resolving to (i) like I
did up there I wanted to modulate to EbMajor.  We would just do this:

         Eb   Eb   F     D        Eb 
         C    C    C     B        Bb 
         G    Ab   Ab    Ab       G
         C    Eb   F     F        Eb 
cmin:    i    VI   iv   ii(dim)
                Ebmaj:  vii(dim)  I   

Ok, if you can follow that modulation where the diminished chord becomes the
PIVOT chord (means it has fuctions in both of the tonal regions), then you
are well on you way to becoming a modulating master.  By using this method
you can modulate from the key of Cmajor or Cminor to Ebmaj/min, F#maj/min
(not recomended), and Amaj/min. If you really want to get fancy you can mix
some half dimminished chords in there and be able to get to the other 16 keys
without ever having to touch that boring circle of fifths :), but that is
beyond the scope of this article.


[extro]

Well that is probably more information then you ever wanted to know about
symetrical scales, but if you experiement with them some and PRACTICE I think
you'll get very good results and perhaps add a new dimension to your tracking
style.  Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about
anything in this acticle you would like clarified, but *no* I do not conduct
regular music theory lessons via email or irc.  Also I'd be happy to hear
your thoughts about this article or if you'd like to see further articles on
contemporary music techniques or modulation.


[contact]

Spyder/NOISE (Kevin Dostalek)
Email:   dostalek@shelbynet.net
www:     http://www.shelbynet.net/~dostalek
         http://www.citenet.net/noise       (NOISE)


[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]

 
  The Secret of Good Tracking? 


If the secret was so clear, it would've been discovered by now, and there
would be no such thing as a rich musician. Music is just too subjective to
let such a secret out so easily. The discovery of the secret lies within
the question of 'what is good mus ic?'

'Good' music is governed by the rules of personal taste. Personal musical
taste is dictated mostly by the elements that you listen to, and look for.
Commercial music is designed to be a money making machine, and tends to
spread these elements out evenly to appeal to as many people as possible.
A good piece of music may well have its elements tailored perfectly to
your level of taste, but what turns a great piece into your favourite is a
strong level of emotional association. That is, the composer has man aged
to activate a response by using a musical device which conjures an
emotional extremity or nostalgia. 

Because everybody has their own tastes, you're stuck with the problem of
what tastes to nurture in your tune. The ability to be able to express
every element perfectly is probably the best talent to have, and the
flawless integration of all the elements i s just as important. You may be
a great melody writer with an uncanny ability to write percussion tracks
and basslines, but the ability to track these parts so they're in perfect
communication is probably more important than the crafty implementation of
a ny element. [ "Just like a football team!", says Astrid :) ]

Writing emotionally is basically a question of sincerity. If you're really
feeling what you're trying to track, then you won't have problems
expressing yourself emotionally in your music. Some people still feel they
have troubles, and it's not because of insincerity, but mainly to do with
the techniques they employ when they track. You'll find people who don't
play a musical instrument are usually the ones with this problem. This is
mainly because they haven't explored the boundaries of musical expression
 with the depth of a person who has mastered an instrument. Emotional
expression is mainly a subconscious process on a real instrument, so even
instrumentalists find it hard to turn their emotive brain to the tracker. 

Over the next few articles I write, I hope to explore everything above in
a lot more depth, particularly the art of orchestration and emotional
expression. I want mail with elaborative ideas about everything I write
above. I want people's ideas about anyt hing. The reality is that I cannot
possibly know everything, and the collaboration of everyone's insights
will certainly help in the success of this series. There's a chance I've
written something above completely wrong, and if you don't agree with
someth ing, then I'll voice your opinion in the next article.

        - Mick Rippon           Email: rip@hunterlink.net.au


[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]


Theory knowledge and its relation to tracking
    					 	By Mick Rippon


One's involvement with music, regardless of how little, or how big,
involves a variable amount of perception. Perception is the step before
interpretation, since you have to actually hear the music and apprehend
the music before you can interpret it. Interpretation in this context is
defined very loosely, since interpretation can be as simple as nodding
your head to the rhythm of the music. It's fairly important that you
understand the variation of people's perception when you expose your
music, since it helps you to understand your own work in the eyes of
another.

Music theory is simply an intellectual explanation of what we perceive and
interpret as music, not music itself.  It's a common misconception that
knowing theory will turn the 'claytons' musician with esteem problems into
a fairly able tracker, but usually the problems don't originate from lack
of theory knowledge.

What all musicians must understand, is that a conceptual view of music is
far superior than any knowledge of written theory. Having a concept of
'what sounds good', and 'what sounds bad' is a handy attribute to develop,
since understanding 'why' helps you to recreate quality and eliminate
trash very quickly. Developing this skill is simply obtained through
analysis of music which you understand as good music. A similar
understanding of poor music would increase your ability to eliminate
problems in your own. When listening to any music of any quality, force
yourself to express in words the good and bad points about that song.
Always dwell on why the good and bad points exist and apply it to your own
tracking. Be as specific as possible, and always trust your ears.

Having the knowledge of theory to most musicians is used as a creative
assistant more than an actual creative device. Certain genres, like
classical music, really need a good musical knowledge because the original
composers had extensive knowledge themselves which they expressed in their
music. Certain styles of music, which were tailored by the intellectual
(particularly 17th century) are pretty much impossible to replicate
accurately without knowledge of the music from that particular period.
There have probably been times where people have emulated the feel of post
18th century music pretty accurately, but the advantage of knowing the
hows and whys of the music from that period rules supreme over talented
perception.

What were dealing with here is are two sides of musical thinking. One side
deals with music as an expression of sound, whereas the other side deals
with its mathematical explanation. Understanding both sides contributes to
the completion of a musician, but the function of theory rests on the
shoulders of existing talent. It should be understood that theory gives
you the notes, but talent gives you the magic, and it's safe to say that
the magic matters more than the notes.

        - Mick Rippon           Email: rip@hunterlink.net.au


[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]

Thoughts on Inspiration
= = = = = = = = = = = =

	Do you ever sit in front of your computer and fire up the tracking 
program, without any idea of what you want to compose?  Do you continue to
load samples and lay out basic beats in a silent stupour, with no
excitement or eargerness at all?  Songs that are born out of this sort of
conscious usually have a severe lacking of creative impression.  Well, 
obviously if a song is made from a boring state, the tune is doomed to be
boring itself. This may sound like a useless, rhetorical statement, but
realistically, for any musician there is always a hiatus in successful
composition.  Sometimes, the instruments are blamed for the wretched
contraption of a song, and other times the melody is presumably at fault;
Most of the time, it's a combination of these and others, but none of it
can be resolved unless the composer summons a 'Messiah' to lead all the
elements of a song to success: Inspiration.

	Inspiration - By far the most important thing to composing music,
is also the mother of your song's soul... and very difficult to find. 
Personally, I've rarely ever found it in my pocket, or under a rock, or on
my dinner plate; all I'd find there was lint or bugs or a cracker. 
However, I did find it in the sky once... right in front of me as though I
was meant to find it.  And when I looked at it, it didn't hit me as sounds
or notes or anything audible, but as pure feeling and intuition that this
was going to take me somewhere amazing.  The sky was blue, stretching so
immense and limitless, and I could see nothing else but flight through the
clouds and in between incredible airships and floating castles and angels
and storms...  but I never thought of music once during that journey.  It
was only later when I sat down at my computer that I remembered my
daydream and wrote it into my tracker not as a song, nor as a sound, but
as my trip into the sky.  Fortunately, the end result of my work was
indeed a song, a form that everyone could relive my flight by. 
Inspiration is the only thing in my world that can take a chunk of memory
or emotion and bake a tune out of it;  other entities, like boredom or
necessity, never manage to bake a song right - they consistently forget a
vital ingredient or drop it on the floor by accident.  My tracking program
is merely the oven I use, and it usually satisfies my needs except for the
occasional case where my song requires a larger oven. 

	For me, and for everyone I'm sure, there's always a journey to take in
everything significant we experience... be it sleeping on a hammock or
driving to Mexico, your imagination will always enhance a feeling to a
unique independent level.  Remember fishing at your cottage and staring at
the rippling water and the reflections of colourful trees in them?  Remember
when you first got dumped by your girlfriend or boyfriend?  I'm sure you can
already picture the general mood of a tune reflecting those different
experiences.  Music is a transcendental - It's made of nothing but pieces of
energized emotion so there's no use in composing with anything else.  So, in
the end, creating a song is not about program tricks or even musical
techniques, but about being able to remember your previous daydreams and
immersing yourself in them, seeing every part of it and playing out every
decision or aspect that the vision can stretch... and finding where
inspiration is hiding inside.

	Gee, how nice and flowery all this sounds, you think.  As if
remembering a past memory is going to improve my tracking by tenfold, you
think.  There's no way I can guarantee a spiritual fulfillment in
composition by saying all of this, without a doubt.  But what is music? 
True music is sonic poetry, and poetry is expression of a feeling, a
state, an event or a person.  When you read a poem, you're given several
images and elements of a memory or a daydream, and you construct a vision
of your own with them.  Hence, a tune without the poem is not even worth
listening to... it's like reading a blank sheet of paper.  Some types of
melodies evoke certain feelings, and experimentation with combinations of
these will eventually lead to more and more specific emotions and memories
even.  In the end, when you string these together, you'll have sonic
poetry. 


Kenji Toyooka
LakEEE / Craw Productions
craw@magi.com


[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]


 Evaluating the interface: Technology isn't everything.
 by Gene Wie (Psibelius)
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Well, here it comes again, another spanking issue of AudioFile.  I guess
 this seems kind of critical, but it's nice to write for a publication that
 deals with the serious side of this music scene we all love so much.  It's
 a fresh relief from dealing with scene politics and the assorted garbage
 that accompanies it.  That aside, on to fun stuff...

  Let's face it.  When a coder writes a tracking program, the concerns and
 wants of many musicians are not always up front, where they should be.  The
 task of putting together an efficient and useful music writing program is a
 huge one, and the coder already has enough problems with all the different
 song formats, playing routines for sound cards, and non-standard video.
 It's a daunting task, for any coder.  And since most trackers that aren't
 free will not be accepted on a large scale in the scene, monetary compen-
 sation for all the work put into creating a program probably is not some-
 thing to count on.  So why would anyone want to do it?

  Tracking on the PC has advanced quite a bit since the days of modedit and
 kingmod.  Before, we struggled and gagged with 8bit samples in a grand
 space of four channels to create incredible music.  Not to mention the
 infamous 640k limit on conventional memory.  Yes, music writing was one
 interesting adventure, in which those who were able to write *efficiently*
 held the edge in tracked music.  Now, what do we have?  Ah yes...we have
 sixty-four channel digital tracking, with 16bit samples with a virtual
 limit of 4GB, volume, panning, and pitch envelopes, realtime tracking
 capabilities, new effects, tons of RAM, and other things which have made
 the approach toward "realism" in tracked music almost possible.  However,
 all thes advances don't mean anything unless one central item is in place:
 the interface.  Many times, we will overlook the importance of the tracker
 interface to rant and rave about all the effects.  But tracking isn't just
 about entering effects.  Tracking is also about being able to write music
 in an environment that aids, rather than hinders, the musician.

  The ScreamTracker3 interface, found in (obviously) ST3 and now Impulse
 Tracker, is very functional.  Utilizing an easy-to-read textmode interface,
 entering notes and effects is fairly simple.  Also, the cut/copy/paste
 commands are well done.  What is annoying is the default five channel
 display.  ST3 absolutely needs a scrollable/selectable channel display.
 When I write a four channel mod, I want to see just four channels.  If I
 want to write an 8+ channel mode, I want to see an eight channel display
 (which is about the best you can get at a readable size).  The current
 options to display more than 5 channels is clumsy at best, requiring
 constant whacking of ctrl-key functions.  It is here that FastTracker2
 beats ST3 pants down.  The interface included in FT2 is user definable up
 to 12 channels (although at 12, things are a *tad* hard to read =).
 Lining up beats and recalling lines already entered is much easier.

  Okay, enough about the interface.  It's the addons that make the tracker
 appealing right?  FastTracker2 pretty much cleans out in this arena.  The
 built in sampler is excellent, samples come in clean through then cd-dump,
 and the ability to save single patterns to disk (for cutting and pasting
 between songs) is extremely useful.

  I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks. =)  I'm still a sticker for
 Renaissance's MultiTracker.  Yes, it has no new features, doesn't use EMS,
 and hasn't caught on with the mainstream.  However, I love it for the
 excellent interface design.  Nothing else comes quite close.  The sample
 and pattern editors are on a single screen.  Switching between the two
 requires no flipping between different screens, and selecting samples in
 the editor uses a good set of keys ([ and ]; what's with the shift-< and
 shift-> in st3???).  The more we get into complicated key combinations,
 the closer we get to the "WordPerfect" syndrome.  I'm sure many of you will
 share experiences of attempting to use WordPerfect's ludicrous function key
 commands, which have mystified amateur and experienced pc'ers alike.

  So I am stuck with an old format.  What do you do with this aging MTM?
 Well, Impulse Tracker has a great solution: import it and save as an IT.
 The song is already done.  Now, use the features of the new tracker to
 really embellish the work, swap out cheap samples for good ones, etc...
 No doubt many of us appreciate the ability to make the transition from our
 old favorites to new technology much easier.

  What I would like to see is a GUI based tracker that supports multiple
 open files, complete import/export of every major module format, dynamic
 format correction for those imports/exports, and a completely user define-
 able custom interface.  Now, wouldn't that be a dream? =)  Someday, when I
 can finally code, given the time, I would want to make this project a goal.
 Somehow, I already know it will be stalled by work, taxes, and other social
 problems.  I guess we'll just have to see...

  Something to remember: the usability of the tracker and the number of
 features it has is no replacement for your brain and inspiration.  I
 remember awhile ago during the midst of that silly ST3 vs. FT2 debate
 someone went off about how music from one of the programs was "so much more
 advanced."  Sure, the numbers look great, the filesize is huge, and it
 needs a pentium to play.  Whatever.  Your ears and your heart tell you what
 you like and what you want to listen to and what you want to write.  Not
 the format.  Not the high state of advanced technology.  None of it.  We
 have had a whole wave of music in which good tracking technique and decent
 sound was shoved aside in favor of using as many channels and effects as
 possible.  So aside from the "realism" style that is so popular today, why
 aren't new compositions completely outdistancing the works of the composers
 who didn't have 16-bit 48khz 64 channel sound?  Because we have neglected
 to concentrate on the total package that makes good music.  We have become
 so obsessed with trying to be on top with the newest technology that we
 have lost sight of what music writing is really about.

  Use your brain, put your talent to use, and stop worrying about the
 fancy ---- (or lack thereof) in your music.  A good musical composition is
 timeless.  It does not get worse because sound quality or writing programs
 become better.  Take a look at the rest of the music world.  The musicians
 of the previous centuries wrote using quills on manuscript.  We have yet to
 see the mouse and tablet composers completely surpass the genius of those
 long dead innovators.  The music of Antonin Dvorak, Jean Sibelius, and
 Aaron Copland was incredible yesterday, will be incredible today, and will
 still be incredible tomorrow and beyond when some future generation listens
 to and/or performs it.


      "...Man is still the most extraordinary computer of all."
                                                  -John F. Kennedy


 Au revoir, mes amis.

 Gene Wie (Psibelius)
 gwie@csusm.edu

 -----

  As of the time of this publication, the newest versions of the programs
 discussed in this article can be obtained at the following locations:

  Impulse Tracker v2.05 - Jeffrey Lim
     ftp.cdrom.com /pub/demos/incoming/music/programs/it205.zip
  Fast Tracker 2(.06) - Triton
     ftp.cdrom.com /pub/demos/music/programs/trackers/xm/ft206.zip
  MultiTracker 1.01b - Renaissance
     ftp.cdrom.com /pub/demos/music/programs/trackers/mtm/mmed101b.zip

  Don't even ask about modedit or kingmod.  For those of you aching for that
 nostalgic feeling, it's time to turn off the computer and get out of the
 house. =)

  Any feedback on this opinion piece would be greatly appreciated.  Please
 note that I have only covered trackers that are freely available and work
 without a major cash contribution to a source.  While all three have some
 benefits for donations, none of the programs *require* any program changes
 and/or registration to be useful.


[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]


                              [ The Process ]
                       [ necros / five musicians ]
               [ email: necros@fm.org / asega@ic.sunysb.edu ]       

                                   [ #2 ]     

Well today I don't feel like rambling about 'tracking tips' per se, instead
I want to talk a little bit about inspiration, and where (sometimes) it can
come from. Many times it seems the case that a lot of people have a fair
amount of tracking skill, but apply it to some very uninspired ideas, and
the resulting product isn't as well-done as it could have been. This isn't
the affliction of the newbie tracker though, in fact a lot of times this
happens to your 'better' trackers quite often.

What is 'inspiration' anyways? Some people think it's this sort of magical
vibe that comes into you, prompting large amounts of creative randomness
and semi-genius wanderings. Others think it's what happens when you listen
to the same CD over and over and over and over and end up getting it so
ingrained into your head that you unintentionally try to emulate the style.
In truth, however, it's a bit harder to define. I like to think of it as
the underlying current which drives your musical pieces, the vision which
sits in your head and compels you to do something creative.

The reason inspiration is so important is a simple one. The vast majority of
musical works out there simply don't have it. So many songs out there are
astoundingly devoid of any sort of vaguely original idea, or even a decently
groovy feel. Now, the judgement of musical value is of course a _highly_ 
relative system, this should be kept in mind. However, I believe it to be
rather plain that you can tell, at least in some semi-subjective way, whether
or not a piece has something 'inspirational', be it on the technical or the
artistic end. Conversely, it's rather easy to tell when someone has taken
a well-done song and has tried to 'copy' the style (and usually sounding
not even half as good as the original). 

Getting vibrant and 'new' ideas in your work is a very important part of the
compositional process. Whether it's fresh samples, interesting hooks, or
even simply a weird time signature, anything can contribute to the originality
of a piece. This is all a side effect of the original composer's inspiration.
If he approaches the work from a lackadaisical perspective, the work will
end up sounding stale and tired. I've had this problem myself lately. There
are times when I concentrate too much on the technical aspects of a piece and
forget about the original reason I tracked it, the feeling, the inspiration
behind it. 

Learning from your mistakes though is an invaluable way to improve youself.
Take an honest listen to your recent tunes. Are they up to the standard that
you want to be at? Even if the work sounds 'cool', is it as cool as it could
be, if you worked harder at it? And even if it's technically wonderful, is
it still a _good song_? Is it catchy? Is it supposed to be catchy? Could
you groove to it? Hum to it? Dance to it? Does it evoke the emotions that
you wanted it to? Be honest with yourself. More often than not, there is
more room for improvement than you think.

Every work comes from a kernel, some cluster o' groove, that manifests itself
into a full-blown work. But where do you get this inspirational kernel from?
There are many ways, but here are some of the ones that I utilize:

  - LISTEN TO NEW MUSIC. You can't expect to sit on a desert island and
    not take notice of the musical community around you. (Else you'll end
    up producing avant-garde cheesy pretentious artsy minimalist garbage ;)
    Download new tunes when you can, filter through the mounds of crap,
    until something catches your ear. Listen to good radio. Suffer through
    reruns of MTV's 120 Minutes for the few good songs in the hour :) (Hey,
    they played Orbital last week, I was surprised)

  - Listen to CD's and songs that impressed you in the past, and figure
    out why they did so. Critique them the same way as if you were listening
    to a tracked tune. Pick out bits that you find interesting.

  - Try to imagine more than the musical element. Sometimes people try to
    write stories, or imagine visuals to their music. While you can't usually
    convey this to the listener directly, a lot of times it'll help you form
    a better sense of the work in your own mind.

  - Experiment. Many people are too concered with making a totally mind-blowing
    kick-ass new song that they forget to screw around every once in a while.
    Sometimes you end up surprising yourself in the midst of random drivel :)

  - GET FRESH SAMPLES. Put down that fucking Second Reality lead synth and
    that stupid cheesy-ass piano strings sample :) Get on the nets and download
    like a crazed rabbit, and then rip rip rip. Also credit credit credit of
    course what you rip rip rip. Or i'll have to beat your head in :>

Finally, when everything seems to be coming out like stale borscht, take a
break. Sometimes not tracking anything can be inspiration enough. If you
try to force music out, the listener can usually notice. Instead, go climb
a tree or something. Play with your cat. Conquer some small Eastern European
countries. Whatever. :)

Anyways until next time,
Cheers,
Andy

# necros / fm
# necros@fm.org


[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]

... reconstructive surgery:  faking a filter sweep ..........................
.........................................by krisjanis p. gale (theHacker)....

    The tb303 acid box uses them to allow seemingly infinite timbre variety.
You've heard an example of one in the world's most ripped .mod sample:
the infamous "resonatix" (see spa.mod [space debris]).  In fact, they
encompass much of synthesized music today.  I speak of course of filters.
Flange, resonance, modulated frequency equalization; it's all the same.
It's a way to add interest to an otherwise plain instrument timbre.
    Unfortunately, it's very diffucult to implement the use of a filter
in any tracked format; the reason being that there simply is no "filter
effect."  There is nothing in any tracker that allows you to ask it to
take the current sample being played and filter it.  You can fake reverb
with additional channels and volume changes; you can fake a flange by
playing the same sample simultaneously on two channels and modifying the
pitch slightly on one or the other; but you simply cannot fake a filter
sweep.  Or can you?
    You have surely seen .mod's with multi-part synths, usually consisting
of 3, 5, or 7 samples.  The first sounds simple, the next is comprised
of more complex wave geometry; the last is most complex, looking like
what you'd obtain from a broken oscilloscope, and sounding like it could
break windows if played at the right pitch and much volume.  Well, this
is one primitive example of filtering.  Whoever created these samples
hooked up an analogue synth to their sound card and played around with
certain knobs on the synth, sampling all the while, in an attempt to
capture the filtering effect.  Unfortunately, the end result is quite
crude; quantized to a fault.  You'd have to take many more samples to
capture the effect.  This proves impractical, as you end up with
multiple copies of what is, essentially, the same instrument.
    Another primitive form of capturing an analogue effect is sampling
a pad synth that's being filtered, dumping the result to one very long
sample.  However, we still have the same problem of increasingly huge
modules; not to mention that the sample has no tie to the rhythm of your
tune.  Studio composers will often try to match the progression of filter
usage to the song rhythm.  If you play with synthesizer parameters
arbitrarily while sampling, there is absolutely no guarauntee that the
effect will synchronize; even less so if you just rip such samples from
other modules.
    So what are we to do?
    I don't know.  (Wait around for those coder-phreaks in Cubic Team
to put their Fast Fourier Transforms to good use and implement real-time
filters in a tracker? =)
    But I have discovered a particularly neat thing you can do with
a filtered key-hit synth, some creative volume envelopes, and about  
30 minutes of spare time.  The end result can be quite impressive,
given enough effort.  (A word of caution at this point:  I am partial
to Fasttracker II, so what follows may or may not make more sense to
users of FT2 than it will to InertiaTracker musicians.  Also, users
of ScreamTracker3 and Multitracker will not be able to implement the
method to its full extent, since neither supports volume envelopes.)
Here's what you do:
    Step 1) Acquire a sample.  Short key hits are best, but any sample
that seems to be the product of analogue filtering, and that has clear
and definite peaks and valleys occuring at regular intervals, will work.
    Step 2) Deconstruct the sample into some arbitrary number of shorter
samples.  That number is entirely up to you.  It all depends on how
accurately you want to be able to reconstruct the filter effect.  Take
a good look at the sample and approximate how many peaks you see.  Let's
say you have a sample that has 35 or so clear peaks.  That means the
sample is probably a sinewave (or other periodic function) that has been
filtered over 35 periods.  Zoom in and take a closer look.  You'll soon
notice that each sinusoid is unique, as a result of the filtering.  What
you want to be able to do is capture the essence of the filter.  How
do you do this?  Quite simply.  Copy an arbitrary number of sinusoidal
portions, in order, and save them as new samples.  In our 35-sinusoid
example, we may want to take 9 sub-samples.  Save the first, fourth,
eighth, twelfth, sixteenth, twentieth, twenty-fourth, twenty-eighth,
and thirtieth sinusoid to new samples.  For the trigonometrically
impaired, here's what you're looking for:

     previous -->|<------ target sinusoid ------>|<-- next
                 |     ****                      |    ****  
                 |  ***    **                    |   *    * *
                 | *         **                  | **        *
          ------*|*------------**---------------*|*----------**----
                *|               ****        *** |             **
          *   ** |                   **    **    |              **
           ***   |                     ****      |               **

    Step 3) Edit the sinusoids so that they loop, and loop clean.  Clicks
are evil.  Eliminate them.  The easiest way to get a clean loop is to make
sure that it begins and ends on the axis.  Fade a very small portion of the
beginning and end to make sure that they fade in/out to zero, if necessary.
    Step 4) Tune your loops.  This is the most time consuming and crucial
part of the surgical procedure.  Leave the first sample as is, and tune
the others relative to the first.  There's no easy way to do this.  Bite
the bullet and invest some time.  When you think you're done, play around
and see if every sample is in tune with every other one.  Do some fine
tuning if you must.
    Step 5) Get creative with volume envelopes.  I can only suggest two
guidelines.  Make your loop sound less like a loop, and more like an
instrument.  Make provisions for some form of sustain, either using a
post-attack envelope loop with a fadeout, or by using the fadeout option
directly.  Outside of these guidelines, allow yourself to go nuts.  Also,
although you may want to make a standard envelope and use it for every
loop, feel free to make a unique envelope for each.  Remember, there are
no rules.
    Step 6) Track something!  The effect sounds best when you use enough
channels so that the sustain on each loop has enough time to die off
completely, especially if you track with sequential instruments.  One
loop will mix with the next while it's dying off, and you have a clean
filter sweep.
    That's it.  Congratulations, you've performed reconstructive surgery.
What have we gained by this method?  Much.  We've taken a plain old key-hit
synth and turned it into something completely different; something totally
original; something totally fresh and new.  Not only that, but now you
can move stepwise through the filter effect with direct correlation to
the rhythm of your tune.  The unification of filter and rhythm has been
reestablished.  w00w00!

krisjanis p. gale
theHacker [KFMF/Ultrabeat/FYooZHeN]
kgale@attila.stevens-tech.edu
10/24/95 @ 1:22am


[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]

                        A  U  D  I  O  F  I  L  E
                               Issue #2

                        Released: October 22, 1996
                       Editor: Basehead (bh@fm.org)
                       Font: Inner Vision / Carcass
           New Issues: ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/demos/incoming/news

  Thanks to this issue's contributors: Dynamic Harmony, Mick Rippon (twice!),
  LakEEE, Psibelius, Necros, The Hacker and Spyder.

[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]--[II]

