Have synths reached a plateau?

[dansouth]

How much better can sample playback synths get? Why isn't physical modeling being used for something other than analog emulations? Is VAST getting a little smaller every year? Is it possible to build a real analog synth and STAY IN BUSINESS?

 

When was the last time you were really excited about a new keyboard? We as musicians are ready for the Next Big Thing, but manufacturers are too busy making beat boxes, loop slicers, and DJ toys to deliver the goods. What IS the next big thing, and how soon will be see it?

[Robert Smedberg]

The progress has been hilarious the last 10 years, and nowdays the manufacturers are almost at the same level.

At least when it comes to soundwise...

 

Do you see any need for something that doesn't exist now?

Do you have sound in your head that existing gear can't produce?

 

My concern is to play and make music with the toys that is present, instead of waiting for something new.

 

Carpe diem, you know. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

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

--Smedis,--

[Rod S]

Progress is not always measured by technical innovation.

 

Today's synths are cheaper and offer more (in general). There's more to choose from. Devices that cater to specific methods of writing and composing, which allow people to focus on music rather than technology (humm, not sure about this one, though)

 

Softsynths have shown the potential of a 'condensed' studio. Soon with a laptop, speakers and a master keyboard (any size you need), you may have everything you need. This may not be the ideal way to work, but you will be able to get good results.

 

If I was still gigging, I would be confortable with taking only one keyboard to a concert. I wouldn't have been a few years back.

 

Sample playback synths have evolved from something barely audible (quality wise, not volume) to someone pretty good that can sound fairly convincing without requiring the use of expensive sample libraries.

 

Building a real analog synth is expensive : Alesis, Studio Electronics, Big Briar. This hasn't gone down in prices significantly. It is a big investment, and not a lot of companies are willing to do it. It's nice to think that companies will cater to our imaginations and desires, but the bottom line is that they are out to make money, and the intense competition nowadays it's tough to justify a big development cost.

 

Yamaha VL series instruments.. how much did they sell? Did they recoup their investment?

 

Well, in any case, I don't think I answered your question. Progress is alot of times a pendulum.. we are seing a lot of 'old is good', but I feel we will soon be back to when dx7s, d50s and m1s ruled the earth. New will be good again http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[dansouth]

Today's synths are wonderful, but I'd like to see something that lessens the sterility of sampled sounds. You press a note twice, and you hear the same sample played twice with no variation. Yes, you can change envelopes, sample attack parameters, filters, etc. but that's like putting new clothes on a Barbie Doll. The doll never changes its expression. Static samples cannot properly emulate real players (guitarists, string players, wind players, piano players, etc.)

 

I'd also like to see a programmable instrument that can emulate the sound and nuances of a real guitarist. Think of it! No guitarists needed - ever!! ... Sorry, got carried away, there...

[Rod S]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

The doll never changes its expression. Static samples cannot properly emulate real players (guitarists, string players, wind players, piano players, etc.)

 

I'd also like to see a programmable instrument that can emulate the sound and nuances of a real guitarist. Think of it! No guitarists needed - ever!! ... Sorry, got carried away, there...

 

The problem is synths are plagued by the limitation of the keyboard itself. Unless someone comes up with a new interface (alesis airsynth), the only thing that changes when you press a key in the velocity. You can introduce random variation, like has been done before (random pitch with every key press, random attack time), but the player has no control. A guitarrist has much more capability (also a wind instrument player) to play the same note different ways than a keyboard player. There's nothing that a new synth engine can do to change that fact. Whether you use your finger or a pick, where you pluck the string, how hard you pluck it all changes the sound.

 

What we need is a new way to play a synthesizer. Maybe that's the next big thing. Mix a breath controller, a theremin and a 2D ribbon controller. Now that's gotta be interesting...

[dansouth]

The problem is synths are plagued by the limitation of the keyboard itself.

 

I see your point, Rod, but who says I synth has to be a keyboard instrument? Sequencers can control multiple continuous controllers in real time. Maybe you can't play the nuances I mentioned live using only a keyboard, but that shouldn't preclude them from being available in a sequencing environment.

 

The ability to program realistic string, wind, and guitar parts would be extremely beneficial to composers and arrangers. The synth should be shipped with controller templates in standard MIDI format. These templates would demonstrate slurs, glissandos, sforzandos, etc. Just load them into your computer and drag and drop the nuances to the appropriate place in your score. Edit the controller data to taste for further customization.

 

Sequenced demos could show off the nuances on the showroom floor, where no one EVER tries out non-standard controllers.

 

alesis airsynth

 

"Air" synth? That would be their entire product line at this point...

[nursers]

Speaking of replacing guitar payers, I went to a Dave Matthews Band concert about a month ago, and the keyboard player played the most amazing guitar solo - first time it has taken me ages to work out who was playing it, as usually you can pick a keyboard played guitar solo at the drop of a hat.

 

So it can be done http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

 

 

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

www.mp3.com/thirdstoreystory

[Rod S]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

I see your point, Rod, but who says I synth has to be a keyboard instrument? Sequencers can control multiple continuous controllers in real time. Maybe you can't play the nuances I mentioned live using only a keyboard, but that shouldn't preclude them from being available in a sequencing environment. ]

 

Arghh... no. I hope the next best big thing is not something in relation to the way I program my sequencer! But as you're saying...

 

The ability to program realistic string, wind, and guitar parts would be extremely beneficial to composers and arrangers. The synth should be shipped with controller templates in standard MIDI format. These templates would demonstrate slurs, glissandos, sforzandos, etc. Just load them into your computer and drag and drop the nuances to the appropriate place in your score. Edit the controller data to taste for further customization.

 

This exists Dan, check keyfax Twiddly bits. It would be nice to have this stuff in the synths though... I think some of the emu modules implement this to a certain extent... you can press a button and get a little 'demo' phrase of how the sound can be used. You can record this into a sequencer to 'analyze it'.

 

I will say this, it would be nice if manufacturer's provided templates to use with common control boxes, like the control freak, phat boy, and pc1600x. Maybe the issue is not so much that we need groundbreaking products, we need more tools to get the most out of it.

 

Sequenced demos could show off the nuances on the showroom floor, where no one EVER tries out non-standard controllers.

 

I think this is an issue of more 'creative programming' than capabilities. Synths like the waldorfs already allow you to map just about any parameter to a controller, and not just your typical cutoff, lfo rate, etc etc.

[dansouth]

Originally posted by Rod CA:

I think this is an issue of more 'creative programming' than capabilities. Synths like the waldorfs already allow you to map just about any parameter to a controller, and not just your typical cutoff, lfo rate, etc etc.

 

Controllers are well-defined. What I object to is static sampled waves. I'd like to see an algorithm that blends them together, interpolates them, or varies sample selections in a musical way. This is a lot to ask, but if someone can pull it off, it will up the "realism" effect bigtime.

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

I'd also like to see a programmable instrument that can emulate the sound and nuances of a real guitarist. Think of it! No guitarists needed - ever!! ... Sorry, got carried away, there...

 

HEY! Them's fightin' words, pardner. Meet me behind the saloon at high noon. Bring yer six-shooter. I'll bring my six-string.

 

Okay, that hardly seems fair upon further analysis. But we're here, we're obnoxious, and we're not going away! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

Now, if you can get rid of the drummers... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

- Jeff

[Bauer]

All synths should come with sound editing software! Shure, there's sound librarians, but would still like to have a nice piece of software from the manufacturers. It possible. Just take a look at the synth-on-a-card products from Korg (OASYS) or Yamaha!

 

I defenetly like fidling with my synths to make them sound the way I like, but it's very time consuming, and I would like to play some too... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

My trusty old ms20 doesn't come with lots of pre-programmed sounds. That would be fun! No factory presets in new synths!

[dansouth]

Originally posted by Jeff, TASCAM Guy:

HEY! Them's fightin' words, pardner. Meet me behind the saloon at high noon. Bring yer six-shooter. I'll bring my six-string.

 

Okay, that hardly seems fair upon further analysis. But we're here, we're obnoxious, and we're not going away! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

Now, if you can get rid of the drummers... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

- Jeff

 

We've got drum machines; why not a guitar machine? Something the can at least strum some chords realistically while we're hashing out an arrangement. That doesn't seem like too much to ask.

 

Don't worry, Jeff. We'll always need guitarists to pose and lip sync in the videos. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

This message has been edited by dansouth@yahoo.com on 09-06-2001 at 10:34 AM

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

We've got drum machines; why not a guitar machine? Something the can at least strum some chords realistically while we're hashing out an arrangement. That doesn't seem like too much to ask.

 

Nope, it doesn't. It's been done, too. Meet the Digitar .

 

Here's more info if you want it.

 

Sorry about the Sweetwater links, but they're the only people that I know who carry it...couldn't get the info I wanted from the Charlie Lab site...

 

It works great - Charlie Lab even licensed it to someone who built it into a synth, but I can't remember the name or the manufacturer right now.

 

dB

[Dave Bryce]

I want to know why synth players are so obsessed with this need for technological innovation.

 

How come no other type of instrument (that I can think of right now, anyway) has people who play it in constant search for newer and better versions? When was the last time anyone did something new to the sax? Or violin? Or guitar? Okay - the Steinberger, maybe... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

Seriously - we have such amazing tools at our disposal right now - way more than any other instrumentalist. We write and record entire symphonies in our bedrooms. Do we really need to get more realistic emulations of other instruments? Geez, guys, if you really want more realistic guitars, make friends with/hire a guitar player - then you get the benefit of actually being able to play music with another human being...it adds a whole different dynamic to things! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

Or, buy one and learn to play it yourself! It'll probably take you less time than trying to find a keyboard solution that will be anywhere near as realistic - plus, you can get a nice acoustic and take it to the beach with you. Chicks dig it... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

Do you have a really discerning ear when it comes to piano samples? Get a piano!!!! Uprights fit into the same space as a digital piano. Really want that realistic piano sound for a critical recording? Try booking space at a recording studio that has a nice grand. It will end up costing you much less time and money than trying to find a sample that comes close. Actually, I don't think any sample comes close...too many possible tonal variations and complex harmonic interactions...also, it's muuuuuuch more fun to play a real piano - something about the feeling of a ton of resonating metal and wood...

 

The reason that I never bought a VL1 was that I said to myself..."Okay, I can spend a bunch of time learning the performance idiomatic of playing sax on a keyboard...using three wheels, four pedals and a breath controller...or I can just spend $50 and hire a sax player when I need one". The latter option just seemed to make more sense. I just recorded a tune that needed horns - I hired a sax player, and called up a certain blonde trombone player that I know, and filled in the rest with synths. It sounds exactly like I wanted it to sound. Plus, I got to play with other people...kinda part of the charm of the whole music thing for me...

 

Okay, I'm done. Sorry for the rant...

 

dB

[Postman]

I think the issue is that the keyboard is now the preferred method of making music for those people who don't have chops. KARMA is perfect example. Keyboards are expected to make marginal players sound, well, not marginal. It allows just about anybody to hold down three or four notes and sound like their doing more. All the other instruments require practice (and a lot of it) to sound good. Don't expect your average synth buyer to do that (not that I think the average synth buyer is a member of this forum).

 

How many people have had the experience of hearing a really good player play an outdated synth? Remember how good it sounded? And let's face it, for a real player a lot of the sounds on today's 'boards are next to useless. Either their attacks are way too slow, or the patch takes too long to develop.

 

It may sound like I have something against this new technology, but I don't. It allows more people to make music, and I think that makes people happy. So, more power to the manufacturers. Besides, there are far more non-players than players in world. Computer assisted performance (to coin a term) offers a huge market if the technology can be developed. I would guess synth manufacturers are going to head that way in droves. Who can blame them?

 

So, no, I don't think they've hit a plateau. There's a lot of work to be done.

 

For the purposes of this discussion, I use the term player to describe anyone who can sit down at an acoustic piano (or perhaps an organ) and play something (anything) that to his or her own ears is a complete piece of music. Fair enough?

[coyote]

Ummm... exactly what would you model, if not an already existing sound source (acoustic instrument, natural sounds) or sound generation method (analog synth, Hammond)?

 

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

How much better can sample playback synths get? Why isn't physical modeling being used for something other than analog emulations? Is VAST getting a little smaller every year? Is it possible to build a real analog synth and STAY IN BUSINESS?

 

When was the last time you were really excited about a new keyboard? We as musicians are ready for the Next Big Thing, but manufacturers are too busy making beat boxes, loop slicers, and DJ toys to deliver the goods. What IS the next big thing, and how soon will be see it?

[coyote]

Ummm... exactly what would you model, if not an already existing sound source (acoustic instrument, natural sounds) or sound generation method (analog synth, Hammond)?

 

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

How much better can sample playback synths get? Why isn't physical modeling being used for something other than analog emulations? Is VAST getting a little smaller every year? Is it possible to build a real analog synth and STAY IN BUSINESS?

 

When was the last time you were really excited about a new keyboard? We as musicians are ready for the Next Big Thing, but manufacturers are too busy making beat boxes, loop slicers, and DJ toys to deliver the goods. What IS the next big thing, and how soon will be see it?

[Rod S]

Dave, I think your rant is legitimate from the standpoint of wether technical innovation allows you to make better music.

 

Speaking only for myself, I like technical innovation because I like it. I'm a geek. I've designed equipment which shouldn't work according to some common laws of physics. I've done designs which had people laughing at my face but eventually got done. I wait for the next big thing because it's cool! I can talk about this stuff until people are bored to death http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif I'm sure I'm an exception, and people will probably question my motives. I make music because it's cool, I enjoy when people like what I'm doing, I enjoy it a lot, but also I like to tinker with synthesizers and learn new things from a technical standpoint. I check the NAMM reports to see what people are coming up next, from a technical innovation and not so only whether it allows me to make music easier or better.

 

How does that quote go? "This is not a means to an goal, it's the goal itself"... something like that. Music for me is not so much about accomplishing results. When I posted the thread about simulating guitar strumming, the purpose was solely to have an understanding of the process. I'm actually learning guitar as we speak. I'm not interested in hiring a sax player. I'm interested in what makes the sax a unique instrument.

 

Anyways, this is my point of view. I'm sure everyone else has their own reasons.

 

I disagree about the piano. I've always lived in apt, and most of the time can only practice late at night. An acoustic piano is NOT an option for me. When I have a house, I hope to have an acoustic grand, but that's gonna wait...

[Dave Bryce]

Dave, I think your rant is legitimate from the standpoint of wether technical innovation allows you to make better music.

 

Understood. That's most of where it came from.

 

Speaking only for myself, I like technical innovation because I like it. I'm a geek. I've designed equipment which shouldn't work according to some common laws of physics. I've done designs which had people laughing at my face but eventually got done. I wait for the next big thing because it's cool!

 

Also understood. By and large, any of us who play with stuff that plugs into the wall fall into this category. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

I can talk about this stuff until people are bored to death http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif I'm sure I'm an exception, and people will probably question my motives.

 

I'm not sure that anyone has a right to has a right to question your motives, Rod - nor did I mean to do so. You do what you do because it works for YOU, if you know what I mean.

 

I make music because it's cool, I enjoy when people like what I'm doing, I enjoy it a lot, but also I like to tinker with synthesizers and learn new things from a technical standpoint. I check the NAMM reports to see what people are coming up next, from a technical innovation and not so only whether it allows me to make music easier or better.

 

I understand this as well. You are far from alone in this category. To a degree, I am interested in this is well - it is just that I wonder sometimes if it blinds people and/or holds them back. We have the tools that we have today, and I have heard way too many people complain that they just can't do what they want because the tools limit them, rather than just plunge ahead and find a solution working with what they've got.

 

Take emulating guitar - I actually play the guitar (well, I try, anyway...). Still, I have spent a bunch of time learning how to voice and play a keyboard so that it sounds a lot like a guitar - I have even come up with an overhand technique where I learned to "strum" the keyboard...I can even play the Pinball Wizard acoustic guitar part on an 88-key synth and have it sound pretty realistic. Part of the motivation to do so came from playing the guitar, and a large part of my ability to figure out how to attack and voice it on the keys came from my understanding of how the real thing works. That's what interests me.

 

Same with keyboard drums - I love to play 'em. It takes me down interesting and different creative roads than sitting down at the kit. So, for some tunes I play drums on keys. For others, I get drummers to come over and play the DM Pro kit. For some tunes, I try and play the kit... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif I enjoy it. it's why I do this music thing...

 

How does that quote go? "This is not a means to an goal, it's the goal itself"... something like that. Music for me is not so much about accomplishing results. When I posted the thread about simulating guitar strumming, the purpose was solely to have an understanding of the process.

 

Process versus product. I agree - I am much more interested in the process of making music than I am in the final product. I can always do another mix/version of any piece on which I am working.

 

I'm actually learning guitar as we speak. I'm not interested in hiring a sax player. I'm interested in what makes the sax a unique instrument.

 

To each his/her own. Me, I wanted a real-sounding sax part, so I hired someone - plus, I like to play music with other people. Bill Busch learned to play the VL1 (I think it was a VL1) so it sounds awesome. There is no right or wrong here...

 

Anyways, this is my point of view. I'm sure everyone else has their own reasons.

 

Exactly.

 

I disagree about the piano. I've always lived in apt, and most of the time can only practice late at night. An acoustic piano is NOT an option for me. When I have a house, I hope to have an acoustic grand, but that's gonna wait...

 

Understood. Given those limitations, you will have to settle for something that does not sound the same as a real piano. You are not in any way wrong for doing so, nor did I mean to imply that I think that you are!

 

I personally think that digital pianos sound pretty great these days - I used the DG8 on my last record much more than I used my acoustic. That part of my rant wasn't aimed at you or people who feel as you do anywhere near as much as it was at people who complain that digital pianos suck, and that manufacturers need to get it together so that digital pianos sound and feel just like an acoustic. If a person feel that strongly, then they need to consider another solution, many of which are available - that was my point.

 

dB

[dansouth]

Yes, you can hire a sax player, but you also need the right mic, good micing technique, soundproofing, acoustic treatment, etc. What if you're working at three in the morning? What if you have a 9 am deadline for a flim or TV client? What if you DO hire a guy and he doesn't "get" what you're trying to do. Thirty takes later, you realize that you wasted your time and money and you're not going to get the track finished on time.

 

Yes, you can learn to play the guitar, but how many of us have enough time to devote to learning to play the instrument well enough to play any piece of guitar music we'll ever imagine. The guitar has a vast repertoire. Even the best guitarists have to specialize, to stick to their idiom of choice. Again, what if you're working in the middle of the night? What if noise is a problem? What if you don't have time to mic the real thing? Is it really a lot to ask to have a little gizmo or program that could stum some chords while you try to work out an idea, rather than having to tune, mic, practice, and record an instrument on which you have limited skill in the first place? I'm thinking of this more from the "get the idea down while it's hot" perspective. If you're working on a commercial project with resources and time to spare, it's not an issue. Hire the best guy in town under those circumstances.

 

I can't see a compelling argument for limitations on realism. Scrap all of your samplers and do all of your arrangements on minimoogs if you don't agree. And please spare me the macho it's not music if you can't play it bullshit. That's so whack, it's pathetic. Should John Williams be restricted to write only those parts that he can play himself on each instrument? Lots of techno/trance/D&B stuff can't be played by hand. This music would sound ludicrous on a piano. Music is not equivalent to manual dexterity.

 

I want a plug in that will translate block chords into realistic rhythm guitar parts and I want it to run on my laptop. I want orchestral emulations that approximate the nuances of the real thing without a month of painstaking, note-for-note programming. If you don't want these things, that's fine, but I think I could put them to good use.

[Felix_dup1]

Synths haven't reached a plateau. Things I'd like to see...

 

Multiple forms of synthesis on the same machine (think Yamaha PLG but to a much greater extent)

 

New forms of synthesis that haven't been invented yet, or have never been available on synths before.

 

So much polyphony that the issue becomes transparent, even after layering, sequencing, etc.

 

Ease of Use - TRUE ease of use - I'm talkin' intuitive simplicity to the point of not needing a manual.

 

Instant, trouble-free computer connectivity and software support.

 

Eventually, I suppose we should expect that synths will reach a plateau, much as the guitar has. But the significance of that plateau may be negligible - after all, the B3 reached its plateau a long time ago...

[Dave Bryce]

Yes, you can hire a sax player, but you also need the right mic, good micing technique, soundproofing, acoustic treatment, etc.

 

Or not. I record sax in my son's untreated bedroom, by pointing a mic at the sax. It worked fine for me.

 

What if you're working at three in the morning? What if you have a 9 am deadline for a flim or TV client? What if you DO hire a guy and he doesn't "get" what you're trying to do.

 

What if you get sick? What if an earthquake happens? What if the power goes out?

 

Stuff happens. You can sit around worrying about what could happen, or you can just try stuff with what you have available, and get the job done...and maybe learn something in the process.

 

Thirty takes later, you realize that you wasted your time and money and you're not going to get the track finished on time.

 

Maybe...or maybe the guy gets it on the first take. Both are possible. I've had both happen. Usually, I get what I want pretty quickly, because I try and choose people who can play...

 

Yes, you can learn to play the guitar, but how many of us have enough time to devote to learning to play the instrument well enough to play any piece of guitar music we'll ever imagine.

 

What does "well enough" mean, anyway? If you can't play like a pro immediately, are you wasting your time? You seem to be taking a dramatically contrary stance to a debate that you and I had months ago about what constitutes being a programmer/player, remember?

 

My brother, who is 34, decided nine months ago that he wanted to play guitar. He bought one, started taking lessons, and now (by squeezing in a half hour here and there) he can play well enough for us to jam on stuff. He is delighted by his achievement, and surprised at how quickly he picked it up. With your attitude, he never would have tried it.

 

The guitar has a vast repertoire. Even the best guitarists have to specialize, to stick to their idiom of choice.

 

...and you don't hear them complaining that they can't get their guitar to sound like a piano, do you? When they want keyboard parts, they either pick them out themselves, or hire/find a keyboard player.

 

Again, what if you're working in the middle of the night? What if noise is a problem? What if you don't have time to mic the real thing?

 

There is always some kind of solution. Record the part at some other time. If you have to record in the middle of the night, use a POD - that's what I do, mostly. Getting caught up in "what if's" keeps stuff from getting done. You can always find some excuse...

 

Is it really a lot to ask to have a little gizmo or program that could stum some chords while you try to work out an idea, rather than having to tune, mic, practice, and record an instrument on which you have limited skill in the first place?

 

Ummm - did you see my post on the Digitar?

 

I'm thinking of this more from the "get the idea down while it's hot" perspective.

 

Do you require a virtuosic performance to try ideas out? There are a variety of solutions...learn to voice guitar on the keyboard so you can hear what you need to hear. Use loops. Learn to hack at the guitar well enough so that you can hear what it'd sound like. You don't need to play like a virtuoso to try things out.

 

If you're working on a commercial project with resources and time to spare, it's not an issue. Hire the best guy in town under those circumstances.

 

Obviously. That isn't at all the point, is it?

 

I can't see a compelling argument for limitations on realism.

 

YOU made the compelling argument:

 

You press a note twice, and you hear the same sample played twice with no variation. Yes, you can change envelopes, sample attack parameters, filters, etc. but that's like putting new clothes on a Barbie Doll. The doll never changes its expression. Static samples cannot properly emulate real players (guitarists, string players, wind players, piano players, etc.)

 

That's your quote. It says it pretty well, I think...the technology just ain't there right now. Faced with that, you can either complain, or figure out how to work with what you've got. Maybe that'll change someday, but it doesn't look like it'll happen real soon...and if it does, then you'll still have to learn a whole new performance idiomatic on whatever that turns out to be.

 

Scrap all of your samplers and do all of your arrangements on minimoogs if you don't agree.

 

This coming from the guy who did a killer fugue on a software version of a Prophet-5...from the bass player who learned how to play keys well enough to get what he wanted. Your classical pieces that come out of one module sound pretty great - I really liked them and didn't once find myself wishing that the samples were better, or that the performances were more realistic...

 

And please spare me the macho it's not music if you can't play it bullshit. That's so whack, it's pathetic.

 

Ummm - where did you see that, exactly? I didn't say it...

 

Should John Williams be restricted to write only those parts that he can play himself on each instrument? Lots of techno/trance/D&B stuff can't be played by hand. This music would sound ludicrous on a piano. Music is not equivalent to manual dexterity.

 

No one said that it was...

 

I want a plug in that will translate block chords into realistic rhythm guitar parts and I want it to run on my laptop. I want orchestral emulations that approximate the nuances of the real thing without a month of painstaking, note-for-note programming. If you don't want these things, that's fine, but I think I could put them to good use.

 

You probably could, and so could a bunch of others. I hope that you get them. Meanwhile, I'll be over here working with what's available today.

 

dB

[Postman]

Originally posted by Dave Bryce:

And please spare me the macho it's not music if you can't play it bullshit. That's so whack, it's pathetic.

 

Ummm - where did you see that, exactly? I didn't say it...

 

 

(Before I'm accused of it...)

 

Neither did I. As Louis Armstrong said, "They're only two types of music: good and bad." The means of creating the music is irrelevant. I was merely commenting on where I think keyboard design is going and why.

[Tusker]

I don't know if things have reached a plateau, but for me, they have reached a point of diminishing returns in sampled synthesis. What I mean is that the sounds are so much like the (commonly believed sound of) the real thing, that there is no WOW in it. It's just ho hum. And I can get a ho hum reaction from an audience at 95% fidelity.

 

What's more interesting to me are things like expressiveness and control. I am one of those geeks who likes NEW because it introduces turbulence into the music system. Lucky Man introduced turbulence into the system. Swithed-on-Bach introduced turbulence. Faithful emulations of 20 year old synths will not (sorry AN1x).

 

I think the two conditions reinforce each other:

 

1) Synthesists value variety over expressiveness.

 

2) Synthesizers come with more and more accuracy and variety, that is harder to control.

 

I am not saying that control techniques haven't improved, but they haven't kept pace with the sound creation possibilities, IMO. Expressiveness is hard to attain (as a performer), and hard to package into a box (not even the Karma guarantees it). Expressiveness (to me) comes from new kinds of control, including non-keyboard control. It also seems to come from new forms of synthesis, which allows for new forms of sonic behavior. Notice how easy is to control the human voice, blending different resonances, plosives and envelopes....I think the larger problem of synthesizers will be the same thing that bedevils all electronic devices: human friendly input/output.

 

I would like to see physical modelling take a front seat, not to imitate other instruments, but to create new sounds using natural objects as metaphors. These are some metaphors I would like to see modelled:

 

-voices (human, bird etc.)

- engines (car, air plane)

- piano (guitar & other harp resonance)

- sea (and other friction sounds)

 

Well perhaps we are on a plateau and I want to keep going up the mountain. Thanks for this thread. I am enjoying it hugely.

 

Jerry

 

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

www.tuskerfort.com

[coyote]

I disagree. Look at electric guitar. EddieVH took a technique which had been used by others for a decade or more (two-handed tapping), married it to the same basic Strat/Marshall rig used by others - and introduced turbulence!

 

You could divide music into three technological ages: acoustic, electrically amplified acoustic (includes electric guitars, Hammonds, Rhodes, etc), and electronic. What happened with LuckyMan & Switched will never happen again until the introduction of a brand-new music making technology.

 

 

Originally posted by Tusker:

I am one of those geeks who likes NEW because it introduces turbulence into the music system. Lucky Man introduced turbulence into the system. Swithed-on-Bach introduced turbulence. Faithful emulations of 20 year old synths will not (sorry AN1x).

Jerry

[dansouth]

My brother, who is 34, decided nine months ago that he wanted to play guitar. He bought one, started taking lessons, and now (by squeezing in a half hour here and there) he can play well enough for us to jam on stuff. He is delighted by his achievement, and surprised at how quickly he picked it up. With your attitude, he never would have tried it.

 

I never suggested anything of the sort. I'm stating that a composer might at some time want to record a part on some instrument that's beyond his skill. It doesn't have to be a guitar, it could be an accordian or a bassoon. Are we expected to master every instrument just in case we might need to record a part on one someday?

 

...and you don't hear them complaining that they can't get their guitar to sound like a piano, do you? When they want keyboard parts, they either pick them out themselves, or hire/find a keyboard player.

 

They're rather die than sound like a keyboard player.

 

There is always some kind of solution. Record the part at some other time. If you have to record in the middle of the night, use a POD - that's what I do, mostly. Getting caught up in "what if's" keeps stuff from getting done. You can always find some excuse...

 

By that reasoning, drum machines and samplers are not necessary, because you could use analog drum sounds or record yourself beating on pots and pans. The approach may be novel, but I think we've all benefitted from having good percussion samples. Why not a better system for producing other instrument replications?

 

Ummm - did you see my post on the Digitar?

 

Yes, but I'm not looking for a better controller of sampled sounds, I'm looking for a better sound engine.

 

Do you require a virtuosic performance to try ideas out?

 

It depends on the idea.

 

That's your quote. It says it pretty well, I think...the technology just ain't there right now. Faced with that, you can either complain, or figure out how to work with what you've got.

 

I DO work with what I have, and I'm not complaining. I'm brainstorming. I'm trying to useful directions for the technology of tomorrow. Maybe some brilliant engineer will be inspired by these ideas and begin work in that direction. Maybe people are developing these technologies already. How are we going to know if the subject isn't discussed?

 

This coming from the guy who did a killer fugue on a software version of a Prophet-5...from the bass player who learned how to play keys well enough to get what he wanted. Your classical pieces that come out of one module sound pretty great - I really liked them and didn't once find myself wishing that the samples were better, or that the performances were more realistic...

 

I certainly appreciate the kind words, and I'm not saying that I can't make do with the technology at hand. I'm just trying to imagine where things might be able to go from here. We'll have a whole new array of wonderful technologies at our disposal in twenty years. I can dream, can't I?

 

>> And please spare me the macho it's not music if you can't play it bullshit. That's so whack, it's pathetic.

 

Ummm - where did you see that, exactly? I didn't say it...

 

It was someone else.

 

You probably could, and so could a bunch of others. I hope that you get them. Meanwhile, I'll be over here working with what's available today.

 

Moi aussi.

[Dave Bryce]

I'm stating that a composer might at some time want to record a part on some instrument that's beyond his skill. It doesn't have to be a guitar, it could be an accordian or a bassoon. Are we expected to master every instrument just in case we might need to record a part on one someday?

 

Nope. You (and lots of others) seem to have done more than fine with the available tools...that's my point. You don't necessarily need a wind controller to try out an idea for an oboe part, or even to record it.

 

There are a myriad of options. We, as keyboard players, happen to have most of them available to us, and yet we always seem to want more....that was the gist of my original rant. I worry sometimes that this eye to the future has the potential to prevent us from coming up with innovative solutions now, using what's available now.

 

What do all the other musicians who don't play keys/have synths do? There have sure been a lot of killer compositions written and recorded by a whole bunch of them...

 

They're rather die than sound like a keyboard player.

 

That's funny and all, but I'm afraid that I disagree. If they could play keys, they would. You learned - some of them do as well. Or, they find/hire keyboard players. Or both. They don't seek guitars that can play piano sounds - well, most of 'em don't, anyway... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

By that reasoning, drum machines and samplers are not necessary, because you could use analog drum sounds or record yourself beating on pots and pans.

 

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

What does this have to do with recording at a time when folks are awake, or using a really great amp emulator? Dude - the POD sounds great. Comparing it to beating on pots and pans to replicate drum sounds is just silly. C'mon, you can do better than that...

 

The approach may be novel, but I think we've all benefitted from having good percussion samples. Why not a better system for producing other instrument replications?

snip

I'm not looking for a better controller of sampled sounds, I'm looking for a better sound engine.

 

IMO, modelling seems to be the best avenue of reliably reproducing the countless amount of constantly shifting variations that real instruments produce; and, with a few exceptions, no one has really gotten a handle on it - nor is anything that I have seen even close - and I've seen a whole bunch of stuff not only currently available but in development. What you seek may be a long way off - that's all I'm saying. If and when it does appear, the cost/hassle of using it may be preventative.

 

Hey, I could be wrong...

 

I DO work with what I have, and I'm not complaining. I'm brainstorming. I'm trying to useful directions for the technology of tomorrow. Maybe some brilliant engineer will be inspired by these ideas and begin work in that direction. Maybe people are developing these technologies already. How are we going to know if the subject isn't discussed?

 

Understood, and agreed.

 

As I said, I have seen a lot of the ideas in development, and I find that I am usually led back to the same thing as a musician - we have really great tools right now. Longer samples? See Gigasampler. Modelling? To me, most of it doesn't quite hit it, and/or there's a great expense and/or bizarre new performance technique required that I'd rather skip, and either hire a real player , use what I've got, learn how to play the instrument in question, or maybe combine a few of these (record two horns, sequence the rest, blend 'em all together).

 

I certainly appreciate the kind words, and I'm not saying that I can't make do with the technology at hand. I'm just trying to imagine where things might be able to go from here. We'll have a whole new array of wonderful technologies at our disposal in twenty years.

 

Maybe...I'll agree that it is more likely to be the case than not; but then again (technologically speaking) not much has changed in the past decade, and with a few exceptions the guitar hasn't really changed at all since Les Paul messed with it

 

I can dream, can't I?

 

Absolutely. But if you're gonna do it out loud, then I get to play too.

 

That's okay, right? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

dB

[Dave Bryce]

Carlo -

 

I went to respond to your post, and I hit the Edit button instead, and wiped out your thoughtful reply.

 

http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/rolleyes.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif

 

I'm a complete idiot...my sincerest apologies...I suppose I'll just have to send you my Chroma now...

 

dB

[Tusker]

Originally posted by coyote:

I disagree. Look at electric guitar. EddieVH took a technique which had been used by others for a decade or more (two-handed tapping), married it to the same basic Strat/Marshall rig used by others - and introduced turbulence!

 

You could divide music into three technological ages: acoustic, electrically amplified acoustic (includes electric guitars, Hammonds, Rhodes, etc), and electronic. What happened with LuckyMan & Switched will never happen again until the introduction of a brand-new music making technology.

 

I like your Eddie example. I find the three ages to be a useful subdivison, and like you I don't believe that turbulence only occurs at transitions between ages (as per your Eddie example). I also agree with your last statement, except my version will probably say until the "introduction of a brand-new application of music-making technology."

 

So I think we are saying the same things. I am still looking for that brand new application, in the areas I described.

 

Regards,

 

Jerry

 

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

www.tuskerfort.com

[joegerardi]

I've held out of this thread for a while, watching what every was saying. It's a great debate, and I figured I'd finally chime in.

 

I think synths reached a plateau about 10 years ago. Everything since has been a rehash of the technology, mainly adding more bells and whistles. Do I think that a bad thing? No. It's time for people to step back and use what they have. For example: Every time ELP toured in the 90's the Monster Moog was the first synth everyone looked for. Why was that? My feeling is because as anachronistic as it is, Emo really has a mastery of it, and can make it sing. We, (keyboard players as a group) are too fond of looking for the "next best thing" and take too little time to master the instruments we have.

 

Someone mentioned Eddie V.H. (At his age, is he now Eddie VH1?) using a 10 year old technique. Good for him. All he did was use his existing equipment with skill. (BTW: Steve Hackett of Genesis claims to have invented that style of fretboard tapping.)

 

Want a different piano sound? Try crossfading between different sounds and different SYNTHS. Perhaps a QS8 has your favorite hard piano sound. velocity crossfade it with another synth that has your favorite soft piano sound via MIDI. Viola! Instant nuance.

 

The point is, there's a whole barrage of ammunition available out there. Learn how to use it.

 

As to having to get that sax part down? Learn how a sax is played, and then play your board the same way. Steve Winwood had a terrible sax emulation on "While You See The Chance," but it sounds tits because he knew the phrasing. Learn how strings work chordally, with their open harmony. It'll make your existing synths sound better.

 

Don't expect the technology to make up for lack of education. If you don't know how instruments work, then you have no business trying to record imitative examples of them from a synth. Learn both the dynamic and tonal ranges of the instrument you're trying to emulate, and you'll find that the synths you have are sonically more powerful than you know.

 

How is it that people like Tony Banks, Emo, Rick Wakeman, Richard Wright, et al, were able to create such sonic masterpieces on the antique stuff they used? Might you say because they were trying to be imitative? I don'y know... I listen to "Mars, The Bringer of War" on ELPowell, and I hear some amazing orchestrations in there...

 

Oh, one more thing:

And please spare me the macho it's not music if you can't play it bullshit. That's so whack, it's pathetic.

 

That was probably me. Though I never said it's not MUSIC, I simply said "If I can't play it, I DON'T play it."

 

It's not "whack" at all. (I *think.* I'm not really sure what "whack" is, but I don't think it's complimentary.) It's taking the responsibilty to learn my craft. I'm a keyboard player. I don't use sequencers, because to me they're a cop-out. A crutch to let technology make up for my laziness at not learning that really tough part, or developing proper technique. In all the years I played out, I used a sequencer on exactly 2 songs, and they simply had a repeating pattern.

 

Fortunately for me, the music I play doesn't require them. And believe me, I don't select what I play simply because it doesn't need a sequencer.