Next musical Instrument ?

[mauriziodececco]

OK, may be better state what i mean by a musical instrument first.

 

I intend a musical instrument the physical object itself, but also all the culture that musicians, composer and listeners created for that instrument.

 

When you think of a Piano, you do not think only of strings and hammers, or samples, or physical models. You think about Chopin and McCoy Tiner, you think about chord voicing, fingering techniques, the music written for the piano, the instrument character and role, and the couple of centuries of history, evolution of the techniques, the instrument and the music around it.

 

The Piano is all this.

 

The Hammond organ is all this.

 

The Rhodes is all this (and all his siblings).

 

The Minimoog is all this, together with the analog synth family.

 

May be, and it can be discussed, the DX7 and the FM family is all this (at least, in part).

 

Here for me come the big frustration about the current electronic music industry; yes, you can startup Reaktor or Max (or jMax ,

and build up your shiny new instrument, and use it for your composition, but it will not be an instrument, unless all of the above build up around it.

 

But i do not see any real new instrument (culturally) emerge; on the contrary, we are forced to discuss the latest and greatest recreation of a classical instrument, from a piano to an analogue synth.

 

So, what do you think ? I am pessimist ? What next ?

 

Maurizio

[Outkaster]

No unfortunately that is the reality of it.

[Ken Beaumont]

There are many that consider an MPC groovebox an instrument no different from a drumset, Timpani or any other percussive instrument.

 

In general a computer be it attached to a midi controller, wind controller, Kaossilator or Maschine is becoming the instrument for many.

 

As such it will develop a history of innovations, improvements and techniques. Just like the piano or guitar.

 

Change is not necessarily bad, time marches on.

 

We talk about sampling, modeling, sequencing arpeggiators here more than we talk about felt, hammers etc.

 

And any listening to modern music will tell you there is a culture of younger composers and performers than I am that are using these to create a music that is uniquely theirs.

 

[non ce futuro]

Mmmm, I think you just have to be more patient

 

The piano is all you said, but it took 250 years to be what it is today for us. You think of Chopin and McCoy Tyner, and those two were separated by 130 years. Bach was shown a brand-new piano on his time, and he disliked it.

 

The Hammond organ you quoted started as a poor imitation of a church organ, and then developed its own personality, but that don't happen overnight.

 

In fact, some people are start cosidering a turntable and a MIDI controller an instrument (not me), averything it's just a matter of time.

 

So, I agree with Toano (reading his post while writing)

[CEB]

As technology adavnace eventually no physical musicianship skills will be required only imagination, thoughts and ideas.

 

I wanted to be an architect be my drafting skills were horrible. I couldn't do a set drafting papers without eraser marks and smudges to save my life. Now it is all CAD based and you print your drawings using computers. If I 17 today I would probably be going into Architecture or Engineering.

 

Eventually anyone without imagination can be a musician. Since anyone can do there probably won't be a market for it.

[Ken Beaumont]

Since anyone can do there probably won't be a market for it.

 

I disagree, true artistry will always find a way. It may become more of a commodity but their will always be those that recognize genius.

 

While anyone can use a computer and a digital camera, there are still professionals that produce amazing images. And there are still those using film or paint and chalk for that matter.

 

If I were 17 and using CAD , I have the same odds at becoming the next Frank Lloyd Wright whether I use pencil and rule or a computer. In my case the odds are zero.

[resigned]

"I intend a musical instrument the physical object itself, but also all the culture that musicians, composer and listeners created for that instrument."

 

The iPad may qualify. I turned on CNN this morning and saw an all-iPad musical group playing "Where The Streets Have No Name". It wasn't bad.

 

In the future we may have artists who are extremely adept with the iPad interface and can learn to play on the level of a virtuoso. Music could be written specifically for instruments that are only available on the iPad. And the supporting culture is here today.

 

Or at least that's how I am convincing myself to buy my first iPad...

[non ce futuro]

Or at least that's how I am convincing myself to buy my first iPad...

 

[mauriziodececco]

OK, as the result of the discussion i'll add the MPC and sampling to the list of instruments (sampling as sampling loops, not as sampling piano to remake a piano).

 

It is also true that i cut a few corners there: i take the iPad as an example: soundwise, saying the iPad is an instrument make no sense; but as interaction technique, and so playing technique, make a lot more sense; so, there are a few more level of interpretation of the concept of intrument to take in account.

 

Anyway, today, if i go in a keyboard shop, i'll evaluate a new keyboard by evaluating how good is able to reproduce a set of well known instruments (piano sound, hammonds, strings, synth pads and so on).

 

I would be happy to find a keyboard that pretend to present something intrinsically new, that want to be a new instrument,

and not just an good reimplementation of existing one.

 

[Tusker]

Three observations as we make an analogy between a historical "classic" instrument, and a potential future "classic."

 

- The pace of change is rapidly increasing, meaning less time for people to rush up the learning curve of technique before new types of devices appear.

 

- Consumer interfaces like the Ipad don't yet provide tactile feedback loops for the development of advanced technique. One day in the future they might even provide direct feedback from the brain. (http://www.npr.org/2012/05/18/153015273/stroke-victims-think-robotic-arm-acts)

 

- History tells us that "the musical intention" is as important as "the musical instrument." Paganini converted the violin into a solo instrument. Emerson made us believe a modular synth is for playing melodies on. Bela Fleck makes the banjo a jazz instrument.

 

Perhaps the answer is to pick up some device (anything) up and travel with it to the edge of what you can imagine. Then look back. These kinds of questions may be better answered with passion and hindsight than with analysis and foresight.

 

Jerry

[johnchop]

Jerry, nicely put, especially that last bit.

 

There are indeed lots of ways to "move air".

 

See Diego Stocco.

 

 

[mauriziodececco]

Interesting observations.

 

- The pace of change is rapidly increasing, meaning less time for people to rush up the learning curve of technique before new types of devices appear.

 

I am not really fully convinced; actually my point is exactly the contrary; yes, there are new devices, that are new ways to do exactly the same thing; sometimes, there are new device that allow to do things at a sensibly different cost point (for example, with Reaktor and a laptop you can do things that at the end of the 80s you could

do with very expensive equipment in research centers).

 

But qualitative changes in paradigms are a lot less frequent todays in the electronic music *industry* than in the 80s, for example, that saw quite a few revolutions.

 

Quantitative changes are daily; new versions, new products, new plugins, that make our life difficult; more menu options, more detailed control, more keyboard short cuts.

 

- History tells us that "the musical intention" is as important as "the musical instrument." Paganini converted the violin into a solo instrument. Emerson made us believe a modular synth is for playing melodies on. Bela Fleck makes the banjo a jazz instrument.

 

Perhaps the answer is to pick up some device (anything) up and travel with it to the edge of what you can imagine. Then look back. These kinds of questions may be better answered with passion and hindsight than with analysis and foresight.

 

There are two point of view here, the industry point of view and the musician point of view. My analysis was more industry wise.

 

Moving to the musician point of view, you are certainly right, but having worked almost ten years in a contemporary music research center (as a software researcher, not as a musician) i know that today it is a very risky approach; the technology offer so many ways of experimenting, that experimenting risk to be the focus point of your work, and not the passion for music. Anyway, this is another discussion :->

 

Maurizio

[Tobias Åslund]

Nord Lead!

[Tusker]

Interesting observations.

 

- The pace of change is rapidly increasing, meaning less time for people to rush up the learning curve of technique before new types of devices appear.

 

I am not really fully convinced; actually my point is exactly the contrary; yes, there are new devices, that are new ways to do exactly the same thing; sometimes, there are new device that allow to do things at a sensibly different cost point (for example, with Reaktor and a laptop you can do things that at the end of the 80s you could do with very expensive equipment in research centers).

 

I am not trying to convince you.

 

It's just a conversation. I am referring primarily to interfaces, such as accelerometers and physics engines not software synthesis ... which I agree is reaching diminishing returns. While you work in software, the purpose of your question is to broaden your view correct? I've tried several iPad apps for example, and that interface appears to be rich and evolving. Expect change, especially in interfaces.

 

There are two point of view here, the industry point of view and the musician point of view. My analysis was more industry wise.

 

Yes. I recognized as much in your initial post, which is why I wanted to add the context of musical history to the discussion. Perhaps I borrowed an idea from Churchill: "The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see."

 

I appreciate that you used the word "instrument," as opposed to device. "Instrument" suggests players, audiences, music ...

 

If music is sound with meaning, then the industry will do well to focus on meaning as well as sound.

[Synthoid]

Eventually anyone without imagination can be a musician. Since anyone can do there probably won't be a market for it.

 

Quite sad.

[stepay]

OK, may be better state what i mean by a musical instrument first.

 

I intend a musical instrument the physical object itself, but also all the culture that musicians, composer and listeners created for that instrument.

 

When you think of a Piano, you do not think only of strings and hammers, or samples, or physical models. You think about Chopin and McCoy Tiner, you think about chord voicing, fingering techniques, the music written for the piano, the instrument character and role, and the couple of centuries of history, evolution of the techniques, the instrument and the music around it.

 

The Piano is all this.

 

The Hammond organ is all this.

 

The Rhodes is all this (and all his siblings).

 

The Minimoog is all this, together with the analog synth family.

 

May be, and it can be discussed, the DX7 and the FM family is all this (at least, in part).

 

Here for me come the big frustration about the current electronic music industry; yes, you can startup Reaktor or Max (or jMax ,

and build up your shiny new instrument, and use it for your composition, but it will not be an instrument, unless all of the above build up around it.

 

But i do not see any real new instrument (culturally) emerge; on the contrary, we are forced to discuss the latest and greatest recreation of a classical instrument, from a piano to an analogue synth.

 

So, what do you think ? I am pessimist ? What next ?

 

Maurizio

 

I posted something about this years ago, but I see now that Tumbtronics no longer is making "The Thummer". Seemed a cool idea. See here -

 

[ProfD]

IMO, it will always take the imagination and creativity of a musician to exploit the highest potential of an "instrument" when it comes to making music.

 

It has been done with every orchestral and electromechanical instrument, synths, samplers and turntables.

 

But, it remains to be seen whether a musician will come along capable of effectively using an instrument or device (iAnything) to influence and/or change the way music is made similar to the musical revolutions that brought us Bebop Jazz, Rock and Roll, Hip-Hop and Electronica.

 

As Jerry mentioned, I'm not so sure that it can happen in a time when the world is shrinking and technology, styles and trends change so rapidly.

 

There are so many options diluting the entertainment pool that attention spans may not be long enough to notice or care.

[GovernorSilver]

The Harpejji is an interesting new instrument. Jordan Rudess has been using one for a while now. Stevie Wonder was reportedly seen playing one at a recent awards show.

 

http://www.marcodi.com/

[mauriziodececco]

Interesting observations.

 

I am not trying to convince you.

 

It's just a conversation.

 

Sure, it was just a way to express the concept :->

 

Anyway, seeing the whole subject from another point of view, a question for everybody: when it was the last time that you got or tried a new something (device, instrument, software, whatever) and you realized that what you were using could really qualitatively change your capability as a musican (interpreter or composer) ?

 

And i propose to exclude those changes that are more quantitatives, i.e. allows you to make the same thing as before but better, with more choice, less cost and so on (like, for myself, moving from an hardware akai sampler to a software sampler).

 

Personally, i clearly identify three key points: my first computer based sequencer (was a Yamaha CX5M, that later became an Atari ST, then a Windows PC and finally a Mac Pro). My first set of serious electronic instruments (a TX16W sampler, a TX802 FM synth, and a Matrix 1000).

And of course, my first acoustic piano (with the bundled piano teacher .

 

Maurizio

[Tusker]

 

Anyway, seeing the whole subject from another point of view, a question for everybody: when it was the last time that you got or tried a new something (device, instrument, software, whatever) and you realized that what you were using could really qualitatively change your capability as a musican (interpreter or composer) ?

 

And i propose to exclude those changes that are more quantitatives, i.e. allows you to make the same thing as before but better, with more choice, less cost and so on (like, for myself, moving from an hardware akai sampler to a software sampler).

 

Some of these might be excluded, since that which creates a significant degree of change for one person could be seen as doing the same but better by another.

 

- Piano and later organ which provided sustained notes and swell pedals.

- Synths for "unreal" sounds.

- Nord Modular for controlling inharmonicity very tightly and expressively. (mostly audio rate modulations)

- Breath controller for detailed control of solo voice

- Am experimenting with multi-touch XY controllers (on Touchosc for Ipad). The jury is still out on the last one. I think some kind of relative vector calculation would be preferable for each finger.

 

[whurly]

I just bought a Korg DW-80000

[David Loving]

It's all software from now on, IMO.

[David Loving]

The Harpejji is an interesting new instrument. Jordan Rudess has been using one for a while now. Stevie Wonder was reportedly seen playing one at a recent awards show.

 

http://www.marcodi.com/

 

Quite cool. That is not new, however. It's a dulcimer or zither, just set up differently

[GovernorSilver]

The Harpejji is an interesting new instrument. Jordan Rudess has been using one for a while now. Stevie Wonder was reportedly seen playing one at a recent awards show.

 

http://www.marcodi.com/

 

Quite cool. That is not new, however. It's a dulcimer or zither, just set up differently

 

Except those older instruments are not designed to be played chromatically - like a piano - with up to 10 note polyphony. They also do not have an isomorphic note layout like the Harpejji.

[ProfD]

Anyway, seeing the whole subject from another point of view, a question for everybody: when it was the last time that you got or tried a new something (device, instrument, software, whatever) and you realized that what you were using could really qualitatively change your capability as a musican (interpreter or composer) ?

For me, it was the Akai MPC60II. I loved that d*mn thing from a music production standpoint but quickly realized it could never be my "voice".