What's Wrong with Music Technology

[Guest]

I'm gathering insights and gripes for an essay. I'd love to hear your complaints about technology. Where has it disappointed, failed, or frustrated you?

 

Horror stories are welcome. I'm also interested in comments on avoidable or unavoidable shortcomings in the state of the art. For example, you might feel that MIDI needs more than 127 levels of velocity sensing to match the sensitivity with which you caress the plastic.... Okay, bad example. Maybe you can come up with a better one.

 

--JA

[Mr. G]

Hi Jim,

 

Great to see you here!

 

My problem isn't so much with music technology, it's more with music technology. Let me explain:

 

The tweaky, gear-specific stuff, doesn't frustrate me that much. I can usually find a work-around, or I take the attitude I take with guitar: I'd like to be able to play 128th-note arpeggios at 140 BPM, but I can't, so I won't.

 

For me, the problem with music technology is that after all the years of development, dollars spent, etc., it still gets in the way of being musical. Part of this is user-interface design, part is option-anxiety, but I think it's also the nature of the beast; it requires a different mindset than playing cello or piano. Ever since I got into music technology (from the time I plugged in my first cable) I've had to split my brain -- sometimes less, sometimes more, but there's always that split taking away from the music side of the equation.

 

 

 

------------------

Mitch Gallagher

Editor

EQ magazine

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by jaikin@musicplayer.com:

I'm gathering insights and gripes for an essay. I'd love to hear your complaints about technology. Where has it disappointed, failed, or frustrated you?

 

Hi, Jim! Glad to have you aboard!

 

Okay, here's a minor one, but it's a gripe nonetheless...

 

The first time that I played a Kurzweil K250, I was extremely impressed by this ability that the instrument had - it could sustain held notes with the right tone through a program change! I loved this - I thought that this was the most amazing performance tool. Being able to bring strings in and out under a piano sound - way cool!

 

I don't know if it has an official name, but I've always called it "patch remain".

 

Since then, it had always been one of the things that I look for in a synth, and it never fails to bum me out when it isn't there. I wanna know why there is any synth manufacturer who wouldn't want their instruments to do this? I understand that there are some instruments that do have it where the tone may change slightly due to effects changing, but that can be gotten around. I mean, this was in a synth over 15 years ago (and in every Kurzweil synth since, I believe, except for maybe the K150...) - it's ancient technology!

 

Does anyone see any reason why a synth shouldn't have this feature? Can we organize some sort of petition?

 

Definitely one of my pet peeves. Grumble grumble.

 

dB

[guestuserguestuser.com]

>> Does anyone see any reason why a synth shouldn't have this feature? Can we organize some sort of petition?

 

>> Definitely one of my pet peeves. Grumble grumble.

 

I'm with you 100% on that one. I'm a big fan of patch remain, too.

[Uh Clem]

here, here - It's a must have.

[Guest]

Originally posted by EQ_Editor:

For me, the problem with music technology is that after all the years of development, dollars spent, etc., it still gets in the way of being musical.

 

I can't help but agree. I used to try and define it as something specific (like Jim's example of 127 velocity levels), but then I realized that the further I was removing myself from the process of hands-on music creation, the more my actual songwriting and production was suffering.

 

There is no one right way to create. The interesting thing is that regardless of the elegance of user interfaces and so on, the sheer amount of options you have to create music these days can easily hamper the creative process. Ironic, huh?

 

My writing has been much more prolific and focused over the past couple of years. Why? I turned off the computer and picked up my damn guitar again. Or pulled up a good-sounding piano or organ patch on my synth. When it's time to capture the performance, I'm all in favor of using the coolest stuff that lets me record with the best sound quality and ease of use. But in my experience, if you're one guy who wants to create, perform and record your own stuff, the higher technological tools can sometimes (not always) hurt that crucial first step.

 

------------------

[Erik Norlander]

My biggest problem with music technology is the user interface. ESPECIALLY with digital synths with ten kajillion parameters. Yes, I can learn them, and I HAVE learned them. But man, when you are in the studio on a session, or worse, at a live gig or rehearsal, and you want to edit a patch on almost any digital synth, you have to tweak your brain in such a non-musical way in order to get the job done.

 

Okay, I'm pining for the Minimoog interface. Grab a control and go. The end.

 

A few companies are getting the right idea, though. The recent Yamaha synths, for example, have some easy edit parameters (I don't remember Yamaha's actual term for them) right up on the top level. Things like filter cutoff and resonance, ADSR controls, reverb level, that sort of thing. Not that they got it perfect (they didn't), but this is certainly a move in the right direction.

 

It doesn't necessarily take a fleet of knobs and sliders to make a great user interface (taking nothing away from Jim's Waldorf Q...). It just needs to be *musical*.

 

Some classic examples:

 

- drawbars and percussion on a Hammond

- "instrument" select buttons on the ARP String Ensemble

- the clear signal flow of the Minimoog

- dare I say it, patch cords on a modular synth (eek!)

 

(Yes, I know, I'm an old man.)

 

- the simple parameter / value editing system of the Emu Proteus (albeit a slow process)

- the editing system of the old Alesis D4 (carried on in the DM5) which contained dedicated buttons for a few basic functions with only a few parameters under each button. (BTW, I had nothing to do with this interface. Credit goes to a smart guy named David Miller.)

 

Any other examples of great user interface ideas?

 

My mantra is that if you need the owner's manual, there's something wrong with the UI.

 

And don't get me started on *consumer* electronics interfaces. Yikes.

 

Cheers,

 

Erik

[Dave Bryce]

Any other examples of great user interface ideas?

 

I always liked Emu's concept of interfaces - from the silkscreened menus on the Emulators right up to the Proteus (Proteii?). I don't think I've ever had to open an Emu manual for anything other than reference.

 

My mantra is that if you need the owner's manual, there's something wrong with the UI.

 

I'm actually pretty inclined to agree with you. I've grown accustomed to telling people that an instruction manual is best used as a reference guide - it's more fun (and, I believe educational) to just dive in, get as far as you can, then use the book only as a last resort when you just can't figure something out.

 

dB

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Dave Bryce (edited 10-17-2000).]

[Guest]

With some instruments, particularly if you've been around for a while, it's pretty easy to get along without cracking the manual. E-mu's Proteus series interface has been consistent for years, and once you learn it, you've learned it.

 

On the other hand, I've recently switched to Logic Audio for sequencing, and I have to say, the manual is indispensable. Given the number of power features in this software, there may not be any way to make the UI transparent, but I can think of two or three things they might have designed differently.

 

My least fave software UI is the "panel" stuffed with "virtual" knobs and sliders. Okay, they're easy to understand -- but do you really want to operate 20 million parameters with a mouse? In this kind of situation, being able to tab between data entry fields, as on (shudder) DOS programs, would be a huge improvement.

 

--Jim A.

[Guest]

While the current crop of music goodies is quite good and far more reliable than they used to be, I still feel sometimes like a beta tester.

I've spent countless hours in a digital studio scratching my head, trying to figure out why the software isn't talking to the hardware, only to find out that I need to download a patch. For my retail dollars, I'd prefer that they take a little more time to get the product right.

I also think that assembly lines could be slowed down a bit to ensure that components are of the highest quality possible, rather than glut the market with questionable merchandise. The inside of my QS8 was a hot glue mess. And the Roland VK7 had power connector pins that were too long which caused them to short out every time they touched a circuit card.

These are symptoms of the modern marketplace. It needs to be out there NOW and in great numbers, regardless of the quality. This must stop.

Thanks,

Ken

[dansouth]

Looking forward to the essay! Considering all that this wonderful technology has enabled me to do over the past twenty years, I have little reason to complain. Just a few minor peeves...

 

1) Sync hassles in the digital studio.

 

2) The number of different kinds of CABLES you have to use to connect digital gear.

 

3) Guitar samples that sound like poorly sampled zithers in the upper registers. A guitar sounds great on a $200 CD player. Why can't it sound good coming out of a $3000 sampler?

 

4) Variations in effects settings between program (single channel) and performance (multi channel) modes. Every synth should have a way to ensure that at least one instrument in the performance has the same effects as it did in program mode.

 

5) MIDI timing response varies between instruments, esp. instruments of different manufacturers, making it difficult to get them to groove together.

 

6) Why can't digital mixers provide an indicator that alerts you to the fact that the trim pot has changed from the setting it had when the snapshot is taken? I know that this is part of the analog input circuitry, but the knob position could at least be noted, if not automated. Just tell me how far to the left or right I need to go to replicate the original setting.

 

7) Noisy hard drives, esp. in recording gear. Kind of defeats the purpose of those expensive microphones.

 

8) Service. Gear that comes back from the repair shop is sometimes in worse shape than when it left. And hotlines are, well, not too hot...

 

All the best on an excellent forum!

[guestuserguestuser.com]

As a guy that plays synths, I have been forced to think a lot about user interface. I'm all for more knobs and sliders, and I think there might be an A6 in my future....

 

But anyway, there's a problem on synths that have patch memory and also have knobs and sliders. Namely, when you change patches, how do you get the knobs and sliders to change position so that the knob position matches the new value? Motorized knobs? Maybe. But here's a solution I've thought of. A knob could have a circle of LED's around it, the more, the better. The knob is "infinite", it doesn't have a notch on it. Instead, when the patch changes, the position of the knob is indicated by lighting one of the LED's. You can take this further. Above each knob, there's a digital readout that tells you the knob's current exact value (127, 550hz, 10db, or whatever. Below the knob, there's another digital readout that tells you what the knob's current function is. That is, unless the knob has only one function, then it's not necessary.

 

I know this would be expensive, but maybe someday this will get cheaper. The beauty of this method is that it would make the knob's value really easy to read in the dark.

 

BTW, how does the Andromeda deal with the patch change/knob position/value dilemna?

 

Richard

 

 

[This message has been edited by guestuser@guestuser.com (edited 10-18-2000).]

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by guestuser@guestuser.com:

But here's a solution I've thought of. A knob could have a circle of LED's around it, the more, the better. The knob is "infinite", it doesn't have a notch on it. Instead, when the patch changes, the position of the knob is indicated by lighting one of the LED's.

 

Oh, you're gonna be bummed! It's been done, Richard...the Soundcraft Spirit 328 digital mixer has this feature (and it's really cool!). The Mackie D8B sort of does, as well.

 

I actually pitched it for Andromeda - it wasn't really feasible from a $$$ or real estate point of view.

 

BTW, how does the Andromeda deal with the patch change/knob position/value dilemma?

 

Andy's knob settings instantly jump to whatever position the knob is when you grab it. Older versions of the software used to have a "pass-through" mode, where turning the knob did nothing until you passed through whatever the value was, so that you could easily find out what that was. This may sound better, but it was actually more of a pain, by and large, because grandiose knob activity was frequently required when all you wanted was a subtle change.

 

We talked about having the pass-through mode be switchable, and we talked about it being switchable for only certain knobs, but I'm not up on where that is at right now - I just use it in instant mode - I'm used to it.

 

Also, every knob on Andy gives you a visual feedback as well...what's more, you can just push a "view" button to see your values for just about every parameter in the synth - you don't need to turn a knob to go there. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/cool.gif

 

dB

 

[This message has been edited by Dave Bryce (edited 10-19-2000).]

[Guest]

Hey guys!

 

Nice topic, Jim. Are you writing THE story? The one we never quite got around to? So that I'm not accused of idle chitchat, I'll pitch in here.

 

What gets me about music technology isn't so much the "mechanical" limitations (resolution, etc.) or the user interfaces (like learning guitar is easy?). No, what gets me is that I've become so accommodating to those limitations that my musicmaking is informed more by what isn't possible than by what is.

 

In other words, to paraphrase 8MM (though surely the quote was around before the movie): I have danced with the devil and the devil didn't change. The devil changed me.

 

I find myself shying away from doing certain things because I know they won't sound good on the gear I have, or maybe any gear at all. Or I'll write certain themes or use specific patches because I know they *will* sound good -- never mind that maybe the music demands something different.

 

Some people always find themselves liberated by the possibilities, and I've certainly had my share of exciting and satisfying moments making music that felt right *and* that wouldn't have been possible without the technology.

 

But just as often I find myself catering to form over substance like some kind of keyboard geek automaton. Maybe I've done too many auto demos....

 

Regards to all,

 

Marv

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by marvster@aol.com:

But just as often I find myself catering to form over substance like some kind of keyboard geek automaton. Maybe I've done too many auto demos....

 

Aww...I love doing autodemos!

 

I've always found it really challenging to have to work an entire composing, arranging, editing and mixing session within a single unit (or ROM expansion). I wouldn't call that keyboard geek automaton work, my brother...

 

Good to see you here!

 

dB

[Guest]

Ah, but Dave, are you not a man? You are DAVO!

 

Seriously, I like the challenge of doing a ROM play, but that almost makes my [admittedly narrow] point again: It became more of an intellectual than musical or spiritual exercise.

 

This is going to sound very AA (Autodemoers Anonymous), but for years after doing so much of that work I found it really difficult to write anything long-form. Everything I wrote kind of leaned toward being 1.5 minutes, going through at least three styles, and using exactly 31.9 voices. (Only 32-note polyphony? I'm showing my age.)

 

Such is making music for hire, and I'm not whining: "Ooh, whimper, the technology did it to me." Regardless, being so into writing that stuff had a broader negative impact on my composing.

 

Later handsome,

 

Marv

[Dave Bryce]

çOriginally posted by marvster@aol.com:

<>

 

WARNING! Loaded question ahead!

 

So, are you saying that creating from an intellectual place can tend to pull one away from spirituality or musicality?

 

<>

 

Oh, I'm completely with you here. I'm working on an album right now, and I've converted one or two of my auto demos for the project, so that particular sentiment is definitely hitting home. I'm actually having a ball being able to stretch 'em out, time wise, nad to be able to use things like other synthesizers, guitars, audio...

http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

<>

 

See, it's funny how the same series of stimuli can have such varied results on different folks - I love that. I feel that it helped my composing, because it taught me to be more succinct - to open, say what I had to say, and close in a short period of time without being abrupt or incomplete - kinda like doing a 15 or 30 second spot will do. I actually really like stuff like that.

 

dB

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Dave Bryce (edited 10-19-2000).]

[Synthworld]

Jim said:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

My complaints about music technology really have more to do with marketing and economics than the technology - and this is also a bit related to the thread about synthesizer pricing.

The paradox here is the limitations of synthesizers are brought about by the marketing department of the manufacturers rather than the designers - and understandably so, since they _are_ businesses and must they show a profit so they can make more goodies for us next year.

The pie-chart for the target market now has a smaller slice for professional synthesists than it once did and a larger slice for the general public - i.e. non-professional musicians.

This market-shift (from the early days of professional synthesizers that even included little things like balanced outputs) is really what places the limitations on them.

Adding all those great capabiltiies to a new synth means that Grandma can't buy Little Johnny one for Chrismas. And, if enough Grandmas aren't buying them - then the instrument is considered a failure.

Look at the Roland JD-800 - a great synthesizer by any perspective, yet it was considered a failure because...well, you know...not enough under the Chrismas tree.

I applaud companies, like Alesis and Waldorf (among others), that offer professional level synthesizers that are made for people earning their living with these instruments.

And, I hope they don't feel they need to apologize for charging more money for an instrument that has more features _aimed_ at those who will appreciate those features and make great music with them.

 

Zon

[Erik Norlander]

Originally posted by Dave Bryce:

Oh, you're gonna be bummed! It's been done, Richard...the Soundcraft Spirit 328 digital mixer has this feature (and it's really cool!). The Mackie D8B sort of does, as well.

 

I actually pitched it for Andromeda - it wasn't really feasible from a $$$ or real estate point of view.

 

 

I believe the new Nord Lead III and Nord Electro have this same interface feature - the infinite encoder with LEDs around each one. In the case of the Electro, they have LEDs for simulated Hammond drawbar sliders.

 

Don't know how they'll sound (I'm skeptical...), but the interface idea is GREAT.

 

Cheers,

 

Erik

[Jim Aikin]

I dunno, Zon. Seems to me a great synth -- or an awful one -- can be designed at almost any price point. In theory, anyhow. My original idea for this thread was to get people's feedback on what works for them, or doesn't work, and why.

 

Hi, Marv! Great to have you participating, though on a personal level it's unfortunate that you find yourself suddenly at liberty to do so. To answer your question: Yes. Not for Keyboard, though. You'll be duly credited in an acknowledgment for inspiring the essay, which is slated to appear in a book from Wizoo early next year. For the moment, I'm still keeping the actual phrase (and my actual ruminations on the subject) under wraps....

 

I think your point about how technology shapes one's musical ideas (for better and for worse) is very well taken. Clearly, Chopin would have been unlikely to develop the harmonic ideas he did if he had been writing for harpsichord or lute.

 

And contrariwise, if you write music using sample loops, composing your own distinctive melodies and chord progressions becomes quite difficult, so most people don't bother. That's not an indictment of technology per se, but it is something that high-tech musicians need to think about: Is the silicon magician forcing me to pick one particular card out of the pack? And if so, is it the card I actually want?

 

--Jim A.

[Erik Norlander]

Originally posted by Jim Aikin:

I think your point about how technology shapes one's musical ideas (for better and for worse) is very well taken. Clearly, Chopin would have been unlikely to develop the harmonic ideas he did if he had been writing for harpsichord or lute.

 

This is a very good point. On a related point, why is it that an acoustic piano -- a fairly old technology -- allows me to arrange more flexibly than any other single (monotimbral) instrument? I can write for strings, brass, timpani, even synths on a piano, but most synth sounds, and even electric piano or organ sounds, seem to box me in. Is it because the piano is such a familiar timbre? A generic timbre?

 

Sample playback synths have infinitely more timbral flexibility than an acoustic piano, yet the piano remains a superior arranging tool for me. Am I just a dinosaur, or is there something to this?

 

Cheers,

 

Erik

[Jim Aikin]

Interesting point about the piano's timbre, Erik. I've read, and find it largely true, that one reason the piano's timbre is so adaptable is that it isn't actually very interesting. It doesn't have much individual character. Plus, remember that piano makers have had 300 years to perfect the tone so as to give it a more universal appeal. Since things are so much faster paced these days, we might be able to look forward to having some really good-sounding synthesizers in only a third as much time. ;-)

 

Kidding aside, the synth patches that please me most consistently are things like the Roland EP patches, which have some of the same adaptable character. I wouldn't find it too difficult to arrange while playing one of these -- as long as I didn't have to write in the extreme low register. The piano's bass sound, as it consists mostly of overtones, works better than a synth's low bass because the latter is most likely still trying to play the same waveform, which includes lots of fundamental. This drops out as you go below 50Hz or so, which destroys the bottom octave.

 

--Jim A.

[synthetic]

I'm dissapointed by the lack of new ideas in the synth world. I haven't heard a truly new synth in at least 10 years, they all recycle the same technology - our old sample playback synth, but now with more polyphony and blue knobs! And even when a new technology comes along, like modeling, it's used to emulate analog synths.

 

It's the year 2000, where is the ultra-modeling synth with sounds I've never heard before? Like bowing the Golden Gate bridge, or using the Lincoln tunnel as an organ pipe? Haven't processors gotten fast and cheap enough to make this happen?

 

I'm hoping that software synths will drive new technologies into my studio. They can take adantage of the gigaflop sitting in a G4 to render complex physical models.

 

Another possibility is a software modeling synth that doesn't work in real time. Imagine a software program with a built-in sequencer. You play a part into the program, and as you play the program has a sample-playback engine so you can hear what you're doing. But this is just a "scratch" sound so you can hear what you're playing. My example is a string quartet, so I hear strings as I play the part.

 

When I'm finished, I press "render". The software can now take it's time arranging my performance for the string quartet. When it's through with that step, it figures out how to play each part in a carefully programmed physical model of a violin. It determines that when the violin goes from a D to a high B, it needs to switch strings so the first one can continue to resonate for a moment. The next note is the D above that, so the program simulates sliding up to that note.

 

When it's finished rendering the performance (it can take all night for all I care), I get a multichannel AIFF file of the modeled piece. A more advanced version of this software might model several players, all slightly randomised for different pitch, timing and timbre. Another version might also add ambience into the model, for a 5.1 surround modeled file.

 

Here is an example of a synth that could only be made in software. A traditional synth doesn't know what note you're going to play next, so it can't simulate the interaction between notes. Like the big breath you need to take before going for that high G on a trumpet.

 

Maybe someday - anyone want to write this program for me? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif

 

Good luck with your essay, I look forward to reading it. -jl

[maxmallenyahoo.com]

I think it's easy to lose perspective on how technology 'fails' us.

Working with great musicians can be a huge buzz - bouncing ideas off one another in a collaborative process that only stops when someone realise that the songwriting royalties are up for grabs http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

I think that we all unconsciously compensate for the technology available to us (I watch a lot of people recording MIDI stuff playing

*only* the selected quantize value) just as we do when we work with other (mortal) musicians.

I'd never expect the drummer in a local cover band to be able to do"that Gadd thing" with any real conviction (although he might surprise me :-) )

My only complaint I guess is that technology drives our expectations without driving our talent http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

Michael Allen BALD guy

[Jim Aikin]

Originally posted by synthetic:

It's the year 2000, where is the ultra-modeling synth with sounds I've never heard before? Like bowing the Golden Gate bridge, or using the Lincoln tunnel as an organ pipe? Haven't processors gotten fast and cheap enough to make this happen?

 

Sounds like you're lusting after Kyma, from Symbolic Sound. Cheap, no.

 

Another possibility is a software modeling synth that doesn't work in real time.... When I'm finished, I press "render". The software can now take its time arranging my performance for the string quartet. When it's through with that step, it figures out how to play each part in a carefully programmed physical model of a violin. It determines that when the violin goes from a D to a high B, it needs to switch strings so the first one can continue to resonate for a moment. The next note is the D above that, so the program simulates sliding up to that note.

 

Why not just hire a string quartet? :-) Seriously, the level of artificial intelligence you're describing here is technically feasible, but it would take years to develop, and the market for the result would be small. Software and hardware developers have to put their time and effort into things they expect or hope to be able to sell in quantity. That's an important reason why "analog" instruments are so popular. But we _are_ seeing little bells and whistles on the virtual analogs that provide new classes of sounds.

 

Manufacturers who try other things (such as Kawai with their fantastic but not, I believe, very successful K5000S) seem to find that it's hard to explain the instruments to musicians. Ditto with the Yamaha VL-1: Great instrument, limited market. I wonder how many VL-70 boards they're selling....

 

--Jim Aikin

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Me:

 

But here's a solution I've thought of. A knob could have a circle

of LED's around it, the more, the better. The knob is "infinite", it

doesn't have a notch on it. Instead, when the patch changes, the

position of the knob is indicated by lighting one of the LED's.

 

 

Dave:

 

Oh, you're gonna be bummed! It's been done, Richard...the Soundcraft

Spirit 328 digital mixer has this feature (and it's really cool!). The

Mackie D8B sort of does, as well.

 

Me again:

 

Yes, I've seen that feature on that Soundcraft mixer, but I actually

thought of it before I saw it anywhere. Not that I'm taking credit

for inventing it or anything, it's one of those types of things that a

lot of people would have though of, I'm sure.

 

But anyway, an interesting note about this feature: I understand that

the new Oberheim OB-12 uses this for some of it's knobs. At least, that's what it says in

one of the press releases I read.

 

Richard

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by guestuser@guestuser.com:

I understand that

the new Oberheim OB-12 uses this for some of it's knobs. At least, that's what it says in

one of the press releases I read.

 

I didn't notice anything like that on the OB-12 when I played it, but then again, I wasn't looking for it.

 

As Mr. Norlander noted above, the Nord Lead 3 is doing this also, using what looks like the the same sort of knob that Mackie has on the D8B, but intead of the circle of LEDs, a little slash appears on the knob's skirt. Very cool!

 

dB

[Guest]

To synthetic and Jim Aikin,

 

I agree that it seems that nothing new in synthesis technology has been happening lately. I still remember how excited I was from the Keyboard "The Next Big Thing" issue when the VL-1 came out.. but then Yamaha PM synth since that has been a scaled down version of the same original VL. Why???? This technology should be expanded, especially with cheaper processors! At least Korg when in the right direction by going to a polyphonic model, but the MOSS algorithm is still basically the same as in the prophecy! It's like they forgot to update it or something. I sometimes feel this way about Roland models too, like will they ever recognize that the Vdrums are not perfect? That to some extent they've ruined the sound of King Crimson by taking the life away?

 

Luckily, there is Kyma.. which I will gladly have an opportunity to work with in the starting mid January, provided it's still working in my school's studio. There's also Max and MSP if you really want to fool around with stuff, but before I'd consign several months of my life away to learn those programs, I think I will first have to check out Tassman, the new PM softsynth recently reviewed in EM. They've got the Bowed beams you're after, synthetic.

 

The other way to go is with an OASYS PCI card which can do anything you can think of... or a creamware Scope system... tweaking on either of those is absolutely endless. I just wish Korg had actually released that beautiful OASYS keyboard http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/frown.gif

 

 

What's weird, though, is that as much as there haven't been any revolutionary new concepts in synthesis (other than GigaStudio, I guess), overall audio quality in all synthesizers has gone up tremendously in the last five years. My favorite example is the Roland XP/JV series versus the new XV. I just never got into the Roland stuff... whnever I played it, I thought, "hmmph, Roland." Even when I hear it on recordings, from They Might Be Giants to other more synth based bands, I still think... "ugh, they're using those Rolands." But they got it right with the Xv's. They finally sound musical, open, lively. I think it's the effects, but I'm not sure to tell the truth..

 

I think we're in a kind of golden age for music technology. Manufacturers finally recognize that ease of use and musicality are more important than technical specs. All the manufacturers have included upgradability in their synthesizers, so no one will have to feel like a Korg owner in the 80's http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif. You can now even expand a Proteus, for god's sake! Plus, the effects quality on all synthesizers has finally started to equalize.. I think it's just amazing how many strong products are out on the market and how few really bad things there are left. It may be that the latest and greatest synths don't have much that's new in the way of technology, but they really have something new in that they're more playable, more musical, and they just all sound better than in the past.

 

As for softsynths, well that's another story and I've already written too much...

[Guest]

Jim:

 

Lovely subject. I am looking forward to reading the essay.

 

I think we have too many choices. ( of sounds, styles, etc.)... thanks to machines.

 

We have audiences with shorter attention spans for these choices... thanks to machines.

 

Insight comes at the expense of more and more time spent with the machines.

 

It reminds of the movie Blowup by Antonioni (Vanessa Redgrave is in it.) A photographer thinks he has accidentally taken a picture of a killing. So he begins to blow-up his negatives to look at them more closely. He thinks he gets more insight, but is less certain of his conclusions.

 

I would like one of two things. Either

 

1) a re-simplification of sound - Take out stages (controller to midi to synth to audio to mix to effects to master to...)... or

 

2) If the machines really want me to negotiate this labyrinth with my creativity intact they need to help me implement ideas. (One of the other posters mentioned a string quartet) An intelligent layer that sits above the tool and helps me use it.

 

Nah... scratch option #2. It will probably be as irritating as those microsoft office assistants.

 

Cheers,

 

Jerry

[humannoyed]

Hi Mr Jim,

Okay, this has been something that I have been needing to vent on for a while. Thanks for the therapy session.

Although computerized keyboards have improved and become less expensive, they are still chocked full of sounds that have little or no performance value for our centuries of keyboard music that is (or still should be) part of our culture. Case in point, my Yamaha S80, which I love, has only a few midi okra pipe organ programs but a ton of overdriven out front, in-your-face electric guitar programs. This is ridiculous considering that the S80 is a KEYBOARD. Its not that I think that electric guitar sounds have no place on a keyboard. It is the degree of emphasis. I love sight-reading baroque music with modified jazz electric or nylon string guitar presets on the S80. But there are way too many sounds programmed for wow factor. You place your hand on the keyboard, listen to that aggressive bite on a guitar patch or all the swirling and echo in an ambient pad, say Wow! then what do you do? You go to the next program cause you cant perform with that sound in the traditional sense. I know what your thinking, new instruments require new techniques of performance. Okay, but even if you were into ambient sounds, you wouldnt perform/record with a high profile preset from such a popular instrument would you? Please say no. Again, it is fine to have some of these sounds on the burned in presets, but by far the greatest emphasis should be on sounds that have some value to our centuries of keyboard literature-sounds with some stately subtlety and power-not just garish, obnoxious in-your-face noise(sorry, showing my age). This is especially true for the cheaper preset instruments made by Yamaha and Casio often bought by parents for a childs first keyboard. If you consider the amount of memory required to sample an organ wave effectively as opposed to other sounds then there is no reason why even the cheap preset instruments should not be full of wonderful pipe organ sounds from some of those great European organs. (Has anyone heard the gigasampler pipe organ demo on the Nem site? It is pretty amazing, but I dont believe you need anywhere near gigasampler level of memory to sample organs effectively).

My suggestion for the programmers of burned in presets is this. If you dont play the literature yourself, at least download some midi files of actual performances (not the many step entry ones) from midiworld or classicalarchives and program sounds to those.

Keyboard educators have a level of performance to maintain. If electronic instruments are ever to gain acceptance among them (they still havent),programmers should put more emphasis on playable sounds (in the traditional sense) and much less emphasis on wow sounds, especially on the instruments that are not programmable. They are after all keyboards, an instrument with a lot of history.