From John Cage to Radiohead, there are few people in any medium so closely tied to the explorations of experimental music’s frontiers than Cunningham. To understand why music was so important to him – and electronic music in particular – we can listen to Merce himself. He explains that part of this shift in thinking about time came from the eradication of bars and beats in electronic music:

http://ubu.artmob.ca/sound/aspen/mp3/cunningham1.mp3

From an interview on UbuWeb.

(Thanks to Benjamin Dauer for the tip.)

That’s just one example, though; there’s quite a lot more we could talk about. I’d like to do a timeline of Merce’s significant sound collaborations and review some of the moments in electronic music history with which he was involved. On Create Digital Motion, we’ll look back at his LifeForms software and the work he did with motion. But I need your help: please send along resources you think may be helpful, any of your own experiences of the artist and his work, and other tips and questions.

On Create Digital Motion:
Remembering Merce Cunningham, Digital Motion, and Digital Portraits

Merce Cunningham Dies [New York Times ArtBeat]
Merce Cunningham Foundation

MCF and MCD will be receiving visitors today. (See site above.)

140 / curtis + thumb piano from m~fischer on Vimeo.

Synthesis geeks are creating some fun sonic toys for the iPhone. There’s no reason you couldn’t plug in an iPod touch or your phone into a mixer and use them in live or studio creations for a little variety. And as mobile platforms grow in capabilities, other platforms should be close behind. (Not to mention, you can always rescue an entire iPod or PDA and run Pd, often for just the few dollars an app costs!)

At top, the granular sampling app Curtis captures sound from a thumb piano. Curtis costs justs a dollar, but allows you to sample, then visually manipulate recorded sound, using granular techniques. A “smooth” synthesis engine is upcoming, but I rather like the lo-fi sound — hope you’ll allow us to switch engines with a toggle. As seen at Synthtopia.

the strange agency [makers of Curtis, other apps]

The app is named for Curtis Roads, who did much of the seminal research into making granular techniques a technical reality. See his book Microsound
for an excellent overview of compositional, historical, acoustical, theoretical, musical, and, well, every possible aspect of this influential sonic practice. Have a look at the documentary on Roads and granular music we saw last month.

Segue – one early practitioner of granular music was Iannis Xenakis!

iGendyn is a new, free mobile application built around the GENeral DYNamic stochastic synthesis approach of Xenakis: “Imagine a set of control points (CPs) which together define the shape of a time domain waveform; with each new cycle through this waveform, their relative positions are updated using probabilistic distributions.” And yes, that’s GENDYN as in General Dynamic – not, in fact, a character from The Lord of the Rings.

Got that? In the default algorithm, X is amplitude, Y determines how quickly you scan through control points to produce the sound, and tilt changes probability. In other words, whether you understand the underlying approach or not (and hearing is always better, anyway), you can tilt your iPhone around and explore networks of probabilistic sounds.

iGendyn Homepage
iTunes App Store Link

Author Dr. Nick Collins is co-editor of The SuperCollider Book, upcoming from MIT Press, as well as The Cambridge Companion to Electronic Music. Thanks to Raub Roy for the tip!

Meanwhile, mother of all synth-geeky iPhone apps finally got its 1.1 update approved, so have a go with Jasuto 1.1 for a really terrific look at what modular synthesis could be. Jasuto also has a desktop VST version and the two will be able to integrate, so you have lots of possibilities here.

Sometimes, looking back at pioneers can be nostalgic. “Back in my day,” goes the story, “electronic composers were real electronic composers.” But then you hear from someone like Curtis Roads, and his mind-blowing ideas are coupled with a belief that we’re only now reaching the Golden Age of electronic sounds. Rory Ahearn writes to share the latest episode of the show Motherboard on VBS TV, which talks to composer Curtis Roads. Roads was ground-breaking in his early granular synthesis work in the 1970s as he continues to be today.

Motherboard: Curtis Roads – Think Granular

Rory writes:

There are two divergent streams in 20th century electronic music: The one most people are familiar with starts out with goofballs like Jean-Jacques Perrey and Vangelis noodling around on synthesizers and eventually devolves into Kaja Googoo. Curtis Roads is part of the other path, the one that follows insane geniuses like Stockhausen and Morton Subotnik and uses whatever-period-it-happens-to-be’s state-of-the-art computer technology to produce compositions that completely defy conventional music logic and sometimes sound more like a freaked-out ATM than tunes you put on and listen to.

Even having heard him say it before, I never get tired of hearing Roads speak about working with music “below the note level,” and even below the surface level, to sounds that are only perceived when you hear the resulting, total composition. He describes going beyond just notes in the interview:

Electronic music extends the domain of composition from a closed, homogenous set of notes … to an open universe of heterogeneous sound objects … All of a sudden, we’re working with any sound possible. And that really changes the game.

There’s also a rather poetic comment on why synthetic sounds can be wonderful – a notion that always bears repeating:

Natural sounds are beautiful … but the virtual sound world is also beautiful, the world of sine waves, of impulses, of electronically-generated tones. That’s a vast space… Voila!

As seen, as well, on Synthtopia.

The song “Daisy Bell” has a special place in computer history. Max Mathews, who had by the late 50s pioneered digital synthesis using IBM 704 mainframe, arranged the tune in 1961 for vocoder-derived vocal synthesis technology on technology developed by John Larry Kelly, Jr.. Kelly himself is better known for applying number theory to investing in the markets — an unfortunate achievement in the wake of a financial collapse brought down by misuse of mathematical theory.

In 1962, Arthur C. Clarke happened to hear the 704 singing the Mathews/Kelly “Daisy Bell,” and the rest is (fictional) history – the HAL computer in the book and movie sings the song as he is being disconnected, as though the computer had learned this song as a “child.”

Here’s Max himself (namesake for Max, the patching language), overseeing a rendition of his arrangement:

Today, basic vocal synthesis has become part of the fabric of taken-for-granted tech, and the legendary rendition by a singing robotic voice part of our culture. These things are no longer futuristic or strange. Apple this week even launched a music player that announces its own tracks in the form of the new iPod shuffle.

But what happens when those same human beings imitate the computer? That’s the question asked by artists Aaron Koblin and Daniel Massey, crowdsourcing human input by inviting thousands of participants to contribute their voice using custom recording software built in Processing. The basic technique is something Koblin has used before: his Sheep Market massed an Internet labor market, paid two cents on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, to draw walls full of thousands of sheep. Those sheep proved at once massive in quantity and unique in individual quality, and, if you squinted at them, presented a critique of global labor practice.

Koblin has also done various seminal pieces with the Processing coding language that change our perception of data and technology, like his now oft-cited “Flight Patterns,” tracing the paths of overhead planes.

This time, the computer/human relationship is truly inverted. Each singer participant imitates a sound component from the robot singing. The humans are then combined to synthesize the robot sound instead of the other way around. The result: organic technology combined into a cyborg, online chorus. No one singer knows what it is they’re singing in whole. It’s perhaps the first mass-human synthesis of sound, and the results are truly unusual.

And strange synthesis seems to be what Koblin’s work is fundamentally about. Perhaps it’s not Mathews’ sound experiments, but Kelly’s ideas about quantifying global markets that are most relevant. (For an extra dose of irony, Google HAL – you’ll get stock ticker HAL, for Haliburton, one of the few stocks that has grown in this economy.) In our reality, the University of Illinois didn’t create a super-smart, spaceship-controlling robotic brain – but they did create the Web browser.

And after all, all of us are now living in the aftermath of many crowds of people behaving collectively without genuine larger knowledge of what they were doing. Robots were envisioned at the beginning of the 20th Century as out-of-control automatons, crushing civilization, and were often then appropriated as metaphors for fascist government. Now, the vision can be equally apocalyptic, but the meaning is inverted. It’s human beings acting as automatons – without contact with human scale – that threaten to crush the Earth. And this time, they’re capitalists.

On the other hand, the beauty of art is its ability to mean many things at once. Koblin’s sheep and now his singers never cease to be whimsical. And in their beauty, they suggest that perhaps even massed crowds of Internet-connected people can sing in harmony.

For the future of humanity, I hope so. But then, if we fail, we’ll always have the robots.

“Just what do you think you’re doing, Dave?”

Bicycle Built for 2000: Info

Delia Derbyshire, UK electronic composer extraordinaire and BBC Radiophonic Veteran, inspires depths of love and respect from us electronic muzos male and female that defy description. As Tara Busch from AnalogSuicide puts it, people aren’t just fans: they’re Delians. I think if you could see the image inside the heads of Delia fans at the mere mention of her name or the sound of a single sound effect, it’d probably look something like this slow-motion clip Tara posted to AnalogSuicide last fall:

(Well, the editor at the BBC working on the show obviously felt that way.)

Via: We Love Delia! More Delia Derbyshire Deliciousness! [Analog Suicide]

I think people’s passions run this deep not simply out of a mad Delian crush, but also because of what she represents for the future of electronic music: Delia Derbyshire seemed to embrace sound with a relentless freshness and playfulness, the kind of spirit that could move forward the future of music in the same way she invigorated its past. And she came out of an entire scene of experimentation at the BBC and in the UK that could now spread virally online and in radiophonic workshops of independent musicians’ own creation.

Darren Landrum on Twitter is nice enough to send along two three newly-posted 1997 interviews with Delia on Radio Scotland. First part above; second part below. In YouTube bizarro fashion, they’re accompanied with strange sweeping slide shows, but Delia’s bubbling personality and insight shine through.

But perhaps you want to wear your Delian adoration on your sleeve, literally. Well, Analog Industries created a t-shirt this morning that, by the time Tom Whitwell (once and future Music thing creator) and myself Twittered and forum commenters posted, is now gone. Look out, Urban Outfitters.

Anyone want to try alternative Derbyshire couture? (Delia Derbyshirts?) Let us know; I have some screenprinting connections.

Part two of the interview:

Plus part three:

And for some Delian sonic creations, here’s her 1972 “Wizard’s Laboratory.” Listening to her work via YouTube videos is not ideal, so I must say I’m rather keen for some disc releases we can buy. But, on the other hand, the montage of who’s who in women in electronic music can serve as a reminder that dudes alone did not construct electronic music history – not unless you ignore a cadre of some of electronic music’s greatest pioneers.

And lastly, for all our friends at the BBC Radiophonic Workshop, here’s a 50th Anniversary of the workshop, also via a previous Analog Suicide post.

Previously:
Delia Derbyshire Recordings Found, Including Ahead-of-its-Time Dance Track
Archivist Responds: Yes, Virginia, Delia Derbyshire Really Was That Awesome
Music Tech History Day: Inside BBC Radiophonic Workshop, and Delia’s Lampshade
Delia Derbyshire: Reel-to-Reel Beat Matching Virtuosa
Doctor Who Theme: Behind the Scenes, Hear the Themes

Apologies; looking at this post, we have some very odd YouTube thumbnails. But it’s worth it for a listen to some of the sounds.

This week, the Web is buzzing over the music video of AutoTune, the (parody) song.

Sadly, this video could have been so much more – not even so much as a Cher reference, really? (Cher’s producers: AutoTuning way before Kanye West, and then lying about it! Brilliant!)

For a bit of AutoTune reflection and history:

Read the 1999 Sound on Sound article in which the producers tried to fool people into thinking they used a Digitech Talker vocoder, which, come to think of it, sounds like it would have actually been a pretty decent idea, anyway. That story is now updated with the correction. I’m sure the producers are relatively sorry about it certain they can’t get away with it any more / it’s hardly a trade secret.

Sasha Frere-Jones wrote a thoughtful article on AutoTune for The New Yorker earlier this year. Best bit:

Someone once asked Hildebrand if Auto-Tune was evil. He responded, “Well, my wife wears makeup. Is that evil?” Evil may be overstating the case, but makeup is an apt analogy: there is nothing natural about recorded music.

That much is true. Of course, it begs the question: does his wife smear lipstick randomly over her forehead? Can you actually see her face? You see my point.

Perhaps feeling the pressure of free tuning and vocal plug-ins now shipping with many audio apps and DAWs, Antares have introduced Auto-Tune efx, a US$99, simplified version of the plug-in for Mac and Windows now available exclusively at Guitar Center. Oddly, a selling point is that it currently comes with a free iLok; given that it’s targeted at beginning users who likely would be shocked that they have to pay extra to use DRM added to a program, that seems like not something one would advertise. (Wow! Thanks!)

In Antares’ defense, though, no, I don’t think AutoTune is evil. In fact, I think ironically, it’s drawn attention to some of the potential fictions of recording – and, through the magic of reverse psychology, made a great case for making changes to the actual vocals and using the computer for more creative tasks rather than seeing it as a panacea for fixing human beings.

Antares also does produce software that can be used to creative effect, like the AVOX2 toolkit and its mutating effects.

To me, the most interesting (and overlooked) thing about AutoTune is its roots in seismology and geophysical data. Yep, that’s right: founder Andy Hildebrand got his start at Exxon doing things like looking for failure points in pipelines. He went on to study composition at Rice’s Shepherd School of Music, and used his smarts in seismology to solve musical problems.

For more on that history, read the 1999 awards citations in the newsletter of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists [PDF], recognizing Hildebrand. (I love search engines.)

So, knock AutoTune if you like: what it demonstrates is the flexibility of digital algorithms. In fact, the beauty of computers is that they don’t worry about issues like taste or the difference between music and underground oil. And that means you can take a tool and apply it to a radically different job – giving us human beings near endless potential in how we interpret digital tools.

And that suggests that you ought to be able to use AutoTune and your voice and do something that isn’t awful at all.

If you think there aren’t still exciting things happening in synthesizer design in the age of software, you haven’t met people like Stephan Schmitt. Schmitt, founder of Native Instruments and the “mastermind” of Reaktor, could be seen as a mad sonic scientist behind NI. When I met him for dinner in Berlin in October, he had brought along a stack of signal flow diagrams and Reaktor screen grabs in plastic sheet protectors. I knew something brilliant was coming.

Native Instruments calls Schmitt’s latest creation “Spark,” but I like to think of it as the Schmitt Box – like a mysterious, powerful invention from a designer who loves to experiment. Stephan has been evolving the instrument in Reaktor through some 160 iterations. He uses foot pedals to modulate the sound live, and rails against the evils of dull, repeating LFOs. Spark ships as a Kore soundpack, so for US$59 you can fire it up right away and start playing, even without knowing how it works. Even better, though, is if you have a copy of Reaktor 5, because you can use the full-blown UI seen here to design your own sounds or even dig into the plumbing of the patch beneath. (It’s still worth looking at the Kore sound presets, because they’re consistent with Stephan’s approach of designing the sound for live performance.)

Reaktor Spark [info, download]

I think it’s telling that, while Stephan’s emphasis is on playability, he brought those signal diagrams. It’s tough sometimes to put the nuances of synths into words. NI’s own description, that Spark “combines powerful subtractive synthesis with a sophisticated array of internal feedback loops and various other special sound shaping features” doesn’t quite cover it.

So, I instead asked if we could use Stephan’s own words to describe the new instrument. The following is an excerpt from the guide he wrote for sound designers working on presets for Spark. (Scroll to the end for full diagrams of the signal routing inside, fellow geeks!)

If you’re new to this stuff, this will give you some insight into why Spark sounds the way it does. And if you’re a synth designer yourself, I think you’ll really appreciate Stephan’s personality and approach. And it encourages me that, even with a lot of repetition of basic elements (subtractive synthesis, a feedback loop), there are still many possibilities for personal, idiosyncratic instruments to explore.

Here are Stephan’s thoughts:

In the beginning, the design was inspired by "Weedwacker", a Reaktor instrument created in
the year 2000 by Siegmar Kreie. The main concept behind the Weedwacker was the feedback
of the filtered signal to the pulse-width modulation input of a pulse oscillator. The result was a
surprisingly-complex behavior of the simple one-oscillator/one-filter structure. The rich and
organic sound was appreciated by many users. Another influence was the Evolver from Dave
Smith, a hybrid concept with some interesting feedback paths.

The structure of Spark reflects my personal preferences in regards of synthesizers. Instead of creating a full-blown mega/multi-purpose synth, I try to keep it as small as possible and with a
special character.

A main goal is to allow dramatic real-time influence on the sound source. The synth itself offers
only a few simple automatic movements (2 envelopes and 1 monophonic LFO). Like a natural
instrument, it needs to be played expressively and therefore stays a challenge for the player
and the sequencer programmer.

I deliberately do not make use of the following techniques:

• samples
• complex waveforms or wave-tables
• complex shaping curves
• noise or random (except a randomization for pitch at note-on)
• multiple and extensively routable LFOs (the LFO is intended to replace human control or an automation curve)
• multi-breakpoint envelopes or step-sequencers
• multi-oscillator structures (like an FM matrix or additive osc bank)
• pitch envelopes

The idea behind this is that the signals are generated and modified by a small number of very basic mathematical functions. Applied in a certain structure, they can create complex signals that might have their very own nature, behavior, and sound character. That is what fascinates me in synthesizers.

The two oscillators deliver two very basic waveforms which are contrasting and complementary: Pulse and Sine. The Pulse has a bright sound and a wide spectrum of overtones which can be filtered. The Sine has a very soft sound and a narrow spectrum that can be widened up by FM, amplitude modulation or wave-shaping. By using feedback loops which contain linear filters and non-linear functions, complex and quasi-chaotic waveforms become possible. This is why the sound spectrum includes more organic and aggressive timbres than a classical analogue synth.

In some settings, the structure behaves similar to a physical modeling synth. The Oscillator section becomes the exciter, while the feedback loop around the filter, shaper, and delay behaves like a resonator.

My favorite range of sounds is percussive – similar to pianos, mallets and plucked string instruments. Since I was always fascinated by electric guitars, you can get a lot of distorted and feedback sounds out of it.

By its sound and playability Spark might be suitable for:

• Rock and Blues
• Jazz, World Music
• Noise, Free, Experimental
• Industrial, Dark Wave, Gothic, Psychedelic
• IDM, Elektro and EBM
• Sound Tracks
• Sound-Design (where the output is sampled)

In my music projects, the instrument has replaced the DX7-II (+ external Effects). Spark gives me similar aggressive, non-harmonic spectra, the fast percussive response, and the very wide dynamic and spectral range controlled by velocity. But it also delivers dramatic and fat filter sounds that are hard to get from the old FM synths (not to mention the crazy feedback stuff).

The pedals allow much deeper sound modulation and the effect chain adds a lot of processing. Spark’s character is not always impressive, fat, brilliant and shiny. It can often sound cheap, ugly, and mean. I made no big efforts to minimize aliasing or to optimize the filter behaving in order to achieve the typically-favored analog "sound quality".

Sometimes the behavior is unpredictable and hard to tame. The feedback structure can cause surprising self oscillations and levels, where the limiter has to jump in. But that’s part of the
concept. It can feel a bit like beast in a cage…

How to play it

The velocity sensitivity of the two envelopes plays a great role in the real-time variation of the
sound. It can be used to create a very wide dynamic range of loudness and timbre.

The full expression potential becomes available by moving the three Macro Controllers. The set
of controls is designed to be a great environment for improvising musicians.

The Macro Controllers would be typically assigned to a Volume pedal, an Expression pedal and
the Mod Wheel. But they can also be easily controlled by sequencer automation curves.
Spark needs to be played in an expressive way. In the sequencer environment it takes the role
of the wave generator, that needs intense work with the "movements".

Recently I have added an LFO as an internal source of periodic movements. It can replace
automation or pedal movements (maybe only temporarily) and helps you to get the hands-free
for sound modifications.

Full Block Diagram

(click through for larger version)

Feedback Diagram

(click through for larger version)

Current’s Parisa Vahdatinia describes it thusly:

I’d like to share with you a short piece we recently produced here at Current TV all about the MPC–a brief history, how it was created by Roger Linn, and how it’s effected contemporary music, followed with some interviews with Damu The Fudgemunk, P-Fritz, K-Murdock who share their sentiments on how the MPC has shaped their music.

I’m just going to have to imagine how great this piece is as I’m stuck on a train with only phone-as-modem access, so you get to sort of scoop me. As I wait, there are some great comments up there already, haiku-like:

“I mistook them for drum machines….”

“mpc is the hip hop guitar!”

Couldn’t have said it better myself. But it raises the question, given the endless variety of even pre-digital musical instruments, what’s next? That’s a question I know Roger cares about, which is why he helped us judge a design challenge last spring. I’m personally excited by the idea that some designs are already here, and more are likely to come out of someone’s studio, without the major product maker label on it.

Okay, now I’ve seen it. Good to be back off the train and able to download videos. It does come off strangely as an ad for Akai, but there’s another way to look at it — as an executive summary of how MPC users describe their axe. Talk to any MPC user, and you get a case study in why the design of integrated hardware matters to people. I believe those principles are absolutely applicable to the design of software, as well. And the immediacy of the monome is entirely related, as a computer-based instrument, to the MPC as a hardware instrument. It’s easy to get hung up on the philosophy of instruments, but what really matters to people is (surprise) sound and how they manipulate it.

The Bob Moog Foundation is still urgently seeking support so it can work to preserve not only Bob Moog’s legacy, but his massive archives pertaining to the history of music technology in general. Propellerhead is donating money and came up with the lovely idea of sharing a free ReFill for Reason 4 for the occasion. Reason 4 users, have a go and enjoy, and to everyone, the foundation really could use your support.

The ReFill sounds like nice stuff. Vintage synth gurus Mark Vail (Keyboard), Craig Anderton (EQ), and Gordon Reid (Sound on Sound) contributed 20 patches in Reason 4’s Thor synth. Propellerhead explain — as though they have to explain who Bob Moog was — that “each time you use a sawtooth waveform in Thor” you’re experiencing his legacy. I’d say it’s in quite a lot more than just that sawtooth. Moog’s archives are some of the only documentation we have of those heady days, not only of his work but all the composers, musicians, and technologists around him.

Propellerhead and the Moog Foundation
Free ReFill Download
Official Moog Foundation Website, including online donations (which, nicely enough, come with free swag!)

Reason 4 users, let us know what you think, and if you have some Moog-inspired patches of your own you’d like to share, by all means, send them our way!

Previously, we spoke with Craig Anderton about Moog’s influence on the way he thinks about sound, about the Foundation’s work, and a sound set along these lines for Cakewalk’s Rapture:
Craig Anderton’s Tribute to Moog: Rapture Presets, and a Call to Save History

After 35 years immersed in the world of computer music, the composer Paul Lansky talks with wonder about the enormous capacities of primitive objects carved from trees or stamped from metal sheets: violins, cellos, trumpets, pianos.

"To create the sound of a violin – wow!" he said in a recent interview. "I can’t do that on a computer."

Paul Lansky: An electronic-music pioneer pulls the plug

The Times seems to want to spin this as the end of an era. But while it correctly argues that electronic music is out of the lab and onto the laptop, to me this is more about Lansky’s own personal reinvention. I like this quote:

“Here I am, 64, and I find myself at what feels like the beginning of a career.”

Whether you’re 64, 84, or 24, the ability to feel like you’re making music as if for the first time is truly invaluable. Whatever you have to do to achieve that, it’s worth it.

Lansky does reveal that some elements of electronic music and computer music no longer appeal to him. But we should be clear about how specific he’s being when referring generally to computer music. Of course, the world of computer music as embraced by many CDM readers is not only technologically different from traditional, academic acoustic music. It also represents a different approach to process. The Times’ Daniel Watkin says, “what drives many creators of computer music is the desire to have total mastery over how a piece of music sounds.” And that indeed seems to be true for an earlier generation of computer composers.

By contrast, the last decade or two, even in the academy, has been dominated by musicians interested in building interactive instruments and interfaces, “playing” electronic music live, introducing uncertainty into composition and sound, and – in conjunction with a much wider, non-academic underground of hackers – doing strange things with DIY electronics and hacked digital gadgets.  These to me are the electrically-powered equivalent of some of Lansky’s primitive devices. And many of these people also like playing things made from trees. Some of this exploration has much earlier roots in those same laboratories, but those experiments were often a minority, or limited by available technology.

That’s not to say any one working style is better than another. I love going back to the tightly-controlled worlds created by people like Lansky. I likewise enjoy talking about electronic music with one of my teachers, David Olan, who was one of the punchcard-using composers – he has a perspective that I don’t have. In fact, I never cease to be struck by the way in which early electronic pieces seem to change over time – not because the piece itself has evolved, but because our ears have. And I find that lots of people inside and outside academia are likewise falling in love with tracks that, previously, they would have thought un-listenable.

I think it would be a real tragedy if the conventional wisdom that “everything’s been done” were allowed to apply to electronic music, when it remains very young. There are plenty of new sounds to discover in electronic realms, and they’re in no way mutually exclusive to working with acoustic sound. Acoustic instruments have a millenia-long head start. I hope we can approach electronic sound with the same freshness Lansky did – and now will bring to things made of wood.

Maintaining that freshness, though, does require occasionally unplugging. Personally, after months of electronic composition, I have a piece to work on for the rebec, which hasn’t been big since about the 16th Century. Now that’s retro.

If you want to check out some of Lansky’s music (plugged and unplug), plenty is available. Here’s where to start:

PAUL LANSKY – “Notjustmoreidlechatter” [paperthinwalls, with free stream by So Percussion]

Paul Lansky MP3s

Discography (many available via iTunes)

Thanks to Jacob Joaquin for the tip!