What's Wrong with Music Technology

[Dave Bryce]

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..

 

It is quite difficult to decide which programs go into a synth's preset banks. By and large, the presets are intended not only to give the end-user a vast library of sounds from which to select, but to demonstrate the capabilities of the instrument to as wide a variety of musicians as possible. There are sounds in the S80 that you would never use, and there are sounds in there that you consider to be staples that other S80 owners would never use.

 

Now, admittedly, one would think that the fact that the instrument has 88 keys would prequalify that the owner/potential owner is a player - why else would they be considering an 88 note weighted instrument? Wile this may be true more of the time than it is not, there are still some people who want an 88 note weighted unit because they were told by their teacher that it was necessary to have one, or they like to practice piano, but that's not what they play live and they can only afford one synth, etc...

 

As far as guitar programs in synths - I like the fact that they're there, because I like writing with them. It saves me from wasting my guitar player's time when I'm trying things out. I lay down an approximation of what I want the part to sound like, and then I play it for him , and he smiles that little smile, shakes his head, and plays the track so it sounds like a guitar played by a guitar player. Other folks who own an S80 might not have access to a guitar player - having those sounds in there may be helpful to them.

 

 

I know what your thinking, new instruments require new techniques of performance..

 

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends once again who you are as a musician, and on the individual sound. If your muse (forgive the term) don't get it, a new performance idiomatic isn't necessarily going to make that sound/genre/whatever open up for you.

 

 

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.

 

Well, I prefer not to do that - but there are a plethora of examples of folks who are perfectly happy doing so...I think it started with good ol' Digital Native Dance and Fantasia on the D50 to Universe and Pole on the M1...then you have my favorite example of this - the Korg Wavestation - I can't tell you how many commercials and things like that where I can hear a stock patch from it driving the music - in some cases, it IS the music.

 

Then from there, we could talk about the ton of prerecorded loops of other people's music available/in use, and/or preprogrammed loops and patterns on grooveboxes...

 

...but that's a whole other topic...

 

dB

[Guest]

Originally posted by soper2@mindspring.com:

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

Et tu eh? I'm no tech., but my QS8 has been plagued with more problems than every other keyboard I've ever owned combined incl. a 1935 A model Hammond!!!! The Jazz piano card is nice though, and even though I dislike the action on the QS8, I play the card's sounds out on my Triton and they are very nice. But, about that VK7: I bought one of those and it had the problem of cutting out so I took it back and received another one witch worked fine for about 6 months and then started doing the same thing. It's driving me crazy. Since I run it thru a 122, I had to go in and write the bypass mode into all the presets so that when it shuts off on the fly I don't have to reset everything. Is this problem fixable?

[humannoyed]

"It is quite difficult to decide which programs go into a synth's preset banks. By and large, the presets are intended not only to give the end-user a vast library of sounds from which to select, but to demonstrate the capabilities of the instrument to as wide a variety of musicians as possible."

 

Not a job I envy with the hundreds of rom slots to fill.

On a positive note. I love having that many starting points on a programmable instrument. The level of programming on most modern synths has gotten pretty incredible. You guys overall are doing a fantastic job.

 

I think most of the presets on the S80 are outstanding. In fact I've done less tweaking and more playing on the S80 than any keyboard I've owned simply because most sounds are that good. The manufacturers certainly tax the sound programmers' creativity with all those slots to fill. My hat's off to you!

 

"There are sounds in the S80 that you would never use, and there are sounds in there that you consider to be staples that other S80 owners would never use".

 

No doubt that is true. If I tell you I love the harp don't make me out lyre.

I do love delicate and sensitive sounds that require some physical effort to become more aggressive and masculine.I guess that is because that is how a good piano responds,(your own desert island choice wasn't it Dave?) and that has been my main instrument for over 30 years.

My biggest problem with presets in synths is actually more of a overall American cultural problem. And that problem is machismo. Everything has to look and sound so tuff(ALL THE TIME), from the 4 wheel-drive SUVs to our cloths, demeanor, to (that's right) the presets on our synthesizers. (I can't believe you're reading this crap!)

This is the problem: Too many presets are out-front, in-your-face from the get go. Where are the subtle delicate sounds that have a different kind of strength than all the brash lead sounds. To get back to the pipe organs I was discussing earlier. They can sound so magical and delicate yet serene, noble, and then turn around and sound so incredibly powerful and strong. This change however, is done through stop manipulation and not increased physical effort like a piano(except the tracker organ which does require more effort with more stops). I think many Americans have a negative opinion of pipe organs because they rarely, if ever, hear great ones.

A very positive aspect of synths is their ability to stretch both directions from the very delicate and silky smooth to the most painfully edgy. This makes me think back to FM synthesis as a good example of something that could change from delicate(some might say wimpy) to nasty in a BIG hurry without much effort. But there needs to be effort!

I guess I'm just saying I would like to hear more sounds on synths ( and even on the cheaper preset keyboards that parents often buy a child for a first keyboard)that demand more effort to perform and reward for that effort proportionally to it. But I am dreaming in this instant gratification society.

You know many modern pianos don't reward proportionally even though that is the ideal for a fine instrument. I'm thinking of course to many Asian pianos which start off bright and only get brighter and more brittle with effort. These are cold sounding instruments to me. Can you say "Ice Piano"?

 

 

"Now, admittedly, one would think that the fact that the instrument has 88 keys would prequalify that the owner/potential owner is a player - why else would they be considering an 88 note weighted instrument? Wile this may be true more of the time than it is not, there are still some people who want an 88 note weighted unit because they were told by their teacher that it was necessary to have one, or they like to practice piano",

 

I was most amazed at how well my technique transfers from the S80 to a real piano. The S80 is actually stiffer than my old converted player grand which has very long keys, hence light action. I think the S80 has given me more finger strength to tranfer to other "normal" action grands as a result.

 

As far as guitar programs in synths - I like the fact that they're there, because I like writing with them. It saves me from wasting my guitar player's time when I'm trying things out. I lay down an approximation of what I want the part to sound like, and then I play it for him , and he smiles that little smile, shakes his head, and plays the track so it sounds like a guitar played by a guitar player. Other folks who own an S80 might not have access to a guitar player - having those sounds in there may be helpful to them.

 

I know that look. It says, "We rule now and don't you keyboard wimps forget it" Control freaks!

[scottsonicemulations.com]

I think my biggest gripe about technology is many of the software synth user interfaces. So many developers are cramming these small knobs and sliders to emulate the old analog synth or drum machine. Don't get me wrong, I love the sounds that these products make but virtual knobs and computer mice do not get along. WE ARE USING POWERFUL COMPUTERS why are they designing weak interfaces?

 

I just wish developers would create user interfaces that made the software synths easier to use.

[steadyb]

For me, when the knobs, sliders, and switches went away from synths (goodbye Prophet 600/Jupiter 6, hello DX7), people definitely started moving away from programming or modifying sounds to make them unique, and started the "show me the presets" era. I welcome the return of synths with knobs, starting with the SE-1, through all the "analog modeling" synths, and now Andromeda. I think they're all great because they have knobs, they invite the user to "see what'll happen", if they spin the wheel. With pages and menus, you always have the sense that you're going under the hood, to a mysterious and unfamiliar area, but in a bad way.

There was a great article on synth programming that ran in Keyboard in around early 1983 (if my faded memory serves me) that included a kind of programming test, 50 or so sound design/programming challenges i.e. "create the sound of a 150' harp...bowed...underwater, etc." It was a great exercise, regardless of what synth you had at the time, that sharpened your sound chops and left you with a bunch of cool original sounds that were unique to you and your particular synth. If anyone remembers the specific issue or has the article, I'd be very interested in seeing it again.

Thanks,

Byron Gaither- Product specialist - Keyboards/Alesis

 

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?

 

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

[Jonathan Hughes]

"There was a great article on synth programming that ran in Keyboard in around early 1983 (if my faded memory serves me) that included a kind of programming test, 50 or so sound design/programming challenges i.e. "create the sound of a 150' harp...bowed...underwater, etc." It was a great exercise, regardless of what synth you had at the time, that sharpened your sound chops and left you with a bunch of cool original sounds that were unique to you and your particular synth. If anyone remembers the specific issue or has the article, I'd be very interested in seeing it again."

 

That was a great article. I think it was more like 1985, because I had just gotten my SH101 (my only synth at the time), and I remember coming home from school, finding that issue of Keyboard waiting for me, and immediately trying to program every one of those challenges. I still have the article. I'll see if I can track it down.

 

 

Jonathan

[Tom Brislin]

I think the most glaring letdowns are for those of us in the keyboard world who perform live. I love the return of analog style knobs, sliders, etc, but it seems like most of the best innovations sound-wise are happening in the software realm. Look at GigaSampler. Just hearing about an instrument where you could have a piano sound without any loops made me ready to throw my Kurzweil Micropiano out the window. But alas, gigging with this technology means gigging with a (non-laptop) computer running windows 98(can you say "blue-screen?"). Suddenly, you learn to appreciate the half-rack Micropiano and it's "serviceable" piano sound from 1994. As for the virtual analog craze, I think it's great, although it still looks better on paper than it actually sounds(yet). I don't think it's a coincidence that Moogs, Jupiters, etc, sell for so much on Ebay. And, for all the knobs and bells and whistles, many of these new instruments are fitted with keyboard actions that feel as good as that of a pocket calculator. And what happened to aftertouch??

 

I believe that the time has come for a "people's instrument" in the keyboard world. The market is stuffed with workstation-type keyboards crammed with hundreds of average sounds("oh great! more lame alto sax and Disney DX7 piano with too much chorus! Yay!"), and they still cost too much. Look at the Farfisa organ. This instrument had just a few sounds. But they were solid ones, and they used then-current technology in an affordable package. Hundreds of players were able to get ahold of these instruments and join bands. With the home/portable/consumer(read: Casio) keyboards filling that niche, it's no wonder why you don't see too many bands with keyboard players on a local level. While fun and sometimes even inspiring, they just don't have what it takes for live use. Perhaps I'm just dreaming here.........

 

Wow, that became a bit of a rant. thanks for taking the time to read it, as this is my first post. And if I may be so bold as to throw in a shameless plug, I'd like to invite everyone to check out my new column, "Keyboard Basics", in the new issue of Keyboard (and accessible from the front page of this website).

Hope the essay is going well, Jim, and a happy New Year to all.

 

Tom Brislin

 

 

This message has been edited by tombrislin@ureach.com on 01-09-2001 at 03:00 PM

[eris23007hotmail.com]

I have what might be termed a rather different perspective on this matter, primarily due to my background.

 

First of all, I'm 21 and a student in Electrical & Computer Engineering. I have played the drums for almost 11 years now, and I've been slowly getting into keyboarding for about the past year or so. I don't have much in the way of equipment at the moment, but many of my friends do: one even has a Korg Triton Pro.

 

So, what I have to say is really this: I agree with many about the necessary advances in user interface, but I think that something else that needs to be created is a clear and understandable method of teaching people exactly how to program sounds and such.

 

I have found that I picked up sequencing very, very quickly, at least for the most part. I'm still a little hazy on playing with advanced things like control and aftertouch parameters, but for the most part, I found it reasonably straight-forward. However, I'm having a bear of a time learning about shaping and creating sounds. As a trained Electrical Engineer, I have a very good understanding of filtering and modulation, but I still find it exceptionally difficult to create sounds like that which I want to hear. I think the biggest thing I personally wish to understand better are envelopes and effects. Not just how to program them, but exactly what an envelope or each kind of effect is and what it does.

 

However, now I'm starting to get a bit too specific toward my own needs as opposed to the more general question of how to improve this industry.

 

To summarize, I think the critical thing is BETTER AND MORE AFFORDABLE EDUCATION. Not just how to play piano, but the nitty-gritty of actual programming. I understand that much of programming is playing around until something sounds cool, but in order to be able to do so you still need a certain basic level of knowledge.

 

Hopefully I dont end up starting a flame war! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

 

Jake

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Originally posted by tombrislin@ureach.com:

I think the most glaring letdowns are for those of us in the keyboard world who perform live.

 

I agree with you so much, Tom.

 

What's really annoying about this is that it's SO obvious what live keyboard players need and want. There are a couple of keyboards that come close, such as the Kurzweil PC2, but they never quite seem to hit the mark exactly, and there are really not many choices in this category (Yamaha S80? Generalmusic Equinox?

 

The technology's there: acoustic piano? there's all kinds of good-sounding digital pianos around - electric piano? same story - b3? there's a lot of great-sounding digital b3's such as voce, roland vk7 etc. - analog synths? - all kinds of phsically modelled analog-style synths. Someone just needs to put this stuff together in a light-weight controller with the proper controls and interface. Doesn't sound too difficult, right?

 

It would probably cost a lot. OK, fine, so make it modular, you can buy the basics and and the options you need. Yamaha S80 goes this route, but the options are not well integrated into the opertating system, and it doesn't have enough real-time control. Kurz PC2 has a better design and interface, but falls short - not enough B3 sliders, sound quality falls short of ideal, sound set is not complete, etc.

 

Still, we're getting closer. Problem is, time is slipping by, and I'm sick of waiting. By the time the perfect board comes along, I'll be too old to enjoy it.

 

If this board existed, it would be appreciated by all kinds of players, not just 'live' players.

 

Richard

[justin_fagnaniyahoo.com]

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?

 

My problem isn't with music technology, but with the media (like Keyboard magazine, jim) that put technology ahead of the music.

 

As a semi-pro keyboard player I feel shafted because i'm grouped with DJ's, computer musicians and home studio engineers, and have to sift to reams of junk articles on continous controllers, software reverbs, mic preamps, and lots of crap than has gennerally nothing to do with playing keyboards. Most of the stuff in Keyboard Magazine and MusicPlayer doesn't even have anything to do with keyboards at all.

 

MIDI is not music. MIDI is not keyboards. DAW's are not Keyboards. Learning to program continous controllers is not a Piano lesson. Technology has gotten in the way, it's distracted everyone and marginalized my favorite instrument in popular music. At the same time keyboard instruments are making a huge comback in the improv based "jam band" scene, but you would never know it by reading Kayboard because there's an article on LOW PASS FILTERS!!! getting in the way.

 

Justin

[Jg42]

Well... Nothing's wrong actually - interfaces are better, more useable... Using Pro Tools is a piece of cake, but WHERE'S THE SOUND??? Press a note on a newest E4XT and compare it to EIII or even EII... The answer is obvious... People are now counting bits/khz instead of listening... My point is Music technology should be aiming at good SOUND. Looks like now it's all about the usability and the sound is gone... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/frown.gif

 

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

Kind Regards,

Arseny

www.mp3.com/arseny

[dansouth]

Originally posted by justin_fagnani@yahoo.com:

Originally posted by

As a semi-pro keyboard player I feel shafted because i'm grouped with DJ's, computer musicians and home studio engineers, and have to sift to reams of junk articles on continous controllers, software reverbs, mic preamps, and lots of crap than has gennerally nothing to do with playing keyboards. Most of the stuff in Keyboard Magazine and MusicPlayer doesn't even have anything to do with keyboards at all.

 

MIDI is not music. MIDI is not keyboards. DAW's are not Keyboards. Learning to program continous controllers is not a Piano lesson. Technology has gotten in the way, it's distracted everyone and marginalized my favorite instrument in popular music. At the same time keyboard instruments are making a huge comback in the improv based "jam band" scene, but you would never know it by reading Kayboard because there's an article on LOW PASS FILTERS!!! getting in the way.

 

I understand your position, and I do agree, but in a different way. Technology CAN certainly get in the way. That's why I chuckle when I see people post things like "I can't survive without a G4, a K2600, and a Sony DMX-R100!" These things weren't invented a year ago. How did you make music then?

 

I have found that technology in the studio can quickly reduce productivity to zilch if you have to fiddle with it every time you try to do something. Maybe it's not a problem for big pros, because they have a staff of techs and second engineers turning all the knobs for them. But a bedroom warrior needs a simple, streamlined, reliable, hassle free set up, or (s)he won't get anything done.

 

But back to the magazine issue. First of all, I'm not a keyboard player, but I use keyboards everyday for recording and composing. I'm admittedly on the other side of the fence, i.e. I read Keyboard and other publications primarily for insights into the technical world. But it seems to me that Keyboard has offered some very thorough non-technical features as of late. The Thelonious Monk two-parter was very deep, as was the feature on Latin piano that they ran a couple of years ago.

 

Your post begs a very important question, one that the editors of all of these magazines should consider carefully. Can a music magazine really offer "music lessons" to its readers? A magazine is great for conveying new ideas, like reharmonizing with chord substitutions, or what a son motuno is and how to play it against a 3:2 clave. But the knowledge that one will derive from an article pales in comparison to what you'd learn from a teacher. The main problem is feedback. If you don't understand some concept in the article, or if you make mistakes in applying the information, no one can correct you and guide you to the right path. So, while I agree that Keyboard might do well to offer more pure keyboard concepts, I would caution the reader to expect too much. I wouldn't want to fly in a plane with a pilot who learned to fly by reading magazine articles; would you?

 

I learned a lot from the theory lessons that Dick Grove used to write in 'down beat' many years ago. I'd like to see a theory column in EVERY serious music magazine. Again, it's not a substitute for a class or study with a teacher, but it would open a lot of doors for kids whose idea of theory is a comping or soloing lick from a famous player.

[KnightShow]

I really hate how technology has dictated how music is made... i mean, it's obvious that technology is needed to advance things and keep things fresh, but in the end you end up with crap bands like limp bizkit and korn that use the technology to MAKE the music, as opposed using technology to HELP you MAKE music. there truly is a big difference. Everyone is getting the "perfect take" using many takes... everyone is looping things to save time... everyone is pushing the envelope of what and how we can hear things... its annoying... anyone with a DAW system can make a crappy guitarist sound like Santana. In the end we end up with more crap. Whatever happened to people with talent creating music? Oh yeah, that's right.. they end up in the bottom of the marketing pile... a good example... the Smashing Pumpkins... I consider them to be ONE OF the only true FEW innovators of the 1990's... and they were left behind by their record label because they wanted to try new things and they didn't fit into the whole "lets smash the chorus to 0vu then compress it, and smash it some more" genre. the record industry is at an all time low right now... i don't condone napster, and i'd like it gone, but i think that the record industry had this coming to them... people are like "pay $17 for a cd that sounds like 49 other cds out right now? yeah right! how about i just buy a $0.50 CD-R and burn it from napster"... maybe if they increase quality of music and lower prices, people wouldn't be so quick to rip them off... or maybe they would... what do i know? the bands out there right now don't give a damn about the art... all they care about is the money, and since record labels care only about that too, its a perfect match. as nine inch nails say in a song... "bow down before the one you serve, you're going to get what you deserve."

[Dave Bryce]

This was (and still is) a great thread...many of you haven't seen it.

 

Anyone want to add any thoughts?

 

C'mon, guys - it's for Jim... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

dB

[Raymar]

Personally I love technology because its opened up my creativity and I've been able to get away from trying to recreate the sound of a band which I felt I had to do for a long time. Its allowed me to chuck tradition out the window and get more abstract. I'm not one to hear music in my head prior to creating it but having an infinite universe of sound opens up endless possiblilites and I don't have to spend countless hours trying to sound like other people. I still listen to other people but I sound more original now. I've also loved spending countless hours reading about synths and MIDI in this magazine! I'm not too keen on the automated end of it like using other sampled loops but I enjoy creating a set of loops of different lengths and letting them slowly drift out of synch, then again I also enjoy playing with several sounds in real time for an hour onto tape without MIDI or into a sequencer, sometimes modifying them as I go along and then listening to where I've been. With MIDI, in the same way that you can speed up music you can also slow it way down to get things nice and spaced out. You're really free to do whatever you want, you can do as little technically or as much as you like.

 

 

 

This message has been edited by Raymar on 06-11-2001 at 10:34 PM

[Gus Lozada]

I am one of those persons which couldn't exist without ever meeting Keyboard Magazine...

 

Current technology has made possible for me and my band mates to exist and to do what we do. I have not the money to have at home the bunch of synthesizers I have as virtual ones or sampled in my sampler. I could not afford to have PRO TOOLS at home... I could not afford to pay a digital studio to get my tunes recorded...

 

I actually hated ACID when it was released since I was thinking every singly common person could become an actual musician by looping rhythms easily... then I discovered IT HAS its own degree of expertise to actually getting musical results...

 

MIDI is not magic... it is a tool... just like every single piece of technology. I love it !!

 

What do I hate?.... mmm...

 

There is not yet a NEW CONNECTIVITY STANDARD. We have to deal nowadays with A LOT of different things... ADAT Light pipes, AES xxx , S-PDIF, mLan, MIDI, SCSI, USB, FireWire... STOP !!!

 

Thanks... I feel better now http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

GusTraX

[b_3guy]

I played full time making a living from '74 until '83. Played part time until '86. Started playing part time again in '93. Been playing since then. In '74, a Les Paul cost about $800 Can. A B-3 cost $4,200.00. A Wulitzer cost $1,400.00, a Rhodes 73 cost $1,800.00. I earned about $120.00 a week playing. Minimum wage was $.65. That's right, 65 cents. You could buy a full sized van for $3,700.00. Mini-moogs were $6,900.00. Something that was polyphonic was $19,000.00!!! This however did separate full timers from part timers. Back then, I did feel the pressure when Stevie Wonder was using the Mutron that I had to get one. All of a sudden synths were everywhere, I had to get something. But I didn't have the money. Now if I want something, I do a little planning & get it. Today you can get a Strat & amp starter kit for less than $500.00.

 

Because of technology we can afford to buy instruments. Music can be made by the masses, which is a good thing. I understand the pressure of the full time musician. Competition is heavy. People willing to do gigs too cheap, DJ's, Karioke, Dance Mix, Electronica. Hell I know a guy that can't play anything who is doing keyboard based music for TV shows. As Martha Stewart says, It's is a good thing. But it's also a bad thing.

[Magpel]

I don't hate anything about music technology at the moment, except perhaps my inability to keep up with it conceptually and financially.

I think it's a good time to be home-studio rat.

 

Magpel

[synthiboy1]

Ok I did not read al the answers but this is my way.

I like the music technology .

The best thing was that I was in the beginnig of midi.

I had Ideas but it was difficult.

Now it is very easy to make them come true.

The only point now is that you can do alot .

The best way for me is to make it simple.

What is in your mind and what do you want (equipment)

But also I make a sound and I get an idea.

I see a lot of guys these days wich use 5 plugins together for a drumloop and they forget to make music with melody chords etc.

Everything must sound well and they spend a lot of times behind the computer.

The best thing I did was to listen to great classical composers and find out what they were doing (Harmonic counterpoint etc)

I never went to a musicschool but I bought books about counterpoint Harmonic etc and learn it my own way.

After that I realize that All that I had learn to let go and do my own things.

Music technology is a great tool to use but the beginning is in your head.

 

C

 

C

[d-kay]

Originally posted by 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.

 

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.

 

.....

 

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.

 

 

 

Jesus!, I've been thinking on exactly this subject!. This is why I don't understand people who are satisfied with music produced by only MIDI. All sequencer are built around MIDI when they actually don't have to be. Yes, MIDI is fine for connecting stuff to your computer but it doesn't mean that all music has to be created in a MIDI-realtime-way. I've actually heard of a "music-renderer" but I don't remember it's name.

 

This may sound stupid but, a reversed hihat is impossible to do in realtime midi!. Because the synth will have to know when the note is going to stop, BEFORE it actually starts playing the note!. The easy solution is to adjust the pitch of the reversed hihat to get the correct length of it. But this is soo non-intuitive.

When I compose music in a sequencer I'd like to compose to real musicians, and not to a computer, who I have to instruct differently than I'd instruct a normal musician.

 

"Ok, Pete, I want you to start that snare-roll here and end it 2 bars later when I start playing the bass"

 

"Ok, Computer I want you to start that snare-roll here and end it sometime later when I say stop. I'm not sure, but I think you'll have to timestretch the sample. I'll have to "try & error" this a couple of times"

 

Who plays an instrument by just looking at the note being played at the moment?????.

 

This is where my technical background kick in. "MIDI is causal music!" that is, it depends only on the notes that has been played ,as opposed to non-causal music where the music that are being played depends on the notes that have been played as well as future notes!.

 

THIS should have been thought of , a loong time ago. Steinberg, are you listening?.

 

/d-kay

 

This message has been edited by d-kay on 06-14-2001 at 08:34 AM

[analogman1]

My main gripe with music technology is a philisophical one...

why does it seem that they realease stuff a little bit at a time, so that you are roped into the constant "upgrade for the better sound" syndrome?? It kills the whole seriousness of the concept of being "an electronic musician"...that's why the guys with the modular analog synths probably laugh when they see all the ads for "the next greatest thing" in all the magazines.

And by the way, I have a ton of synths so even though I'm complaining, I still buy 'em like everyone else!

Tom