The four kingdoms of sound and instruments v effects

[bard]

Hi everyone- I've been visiting this forum regularly for a couple of years and really enjoyed and learnt a lot- especially the 'deeper' discussions. This is my first post.

You could say there have been four kingdoms of musical sound and instruments. First and originally: the acoustic kingdom that has produced countless incredibly subtle and satisfying instruments whether as simple in form as the didgeridoo or a mechanical marvel like a piano or modern trumpet. Then came the electric kingdom that's produced a handful of classic, distinctive instruments with their own special playing techniques, great soloists, etc- the electric guitar, Hammond, Rhodes and a few others. Then came the analogue electronic realm and arguably one new 'classic'- the monophonic synth lead with its distinctive resonant filtered timbre and playing techniques- portamento, pitchbend, legato mode etc. The final kingdom: the digital electronic- and for all its wealth of synthesis methods, midi possibilities, has it given us a single unique unforgettable instrument?

Is this a failing of the technology or is it more to do with being in a time when traditional playing is rather marginal to what's most compelling in 'cutting-edge' music? I love just playing, jamming, developing my chops and I always will, and I love exploring new digital versions of old classics- physically modelled e-pianos for example- but when I cast around for something to make a track strange and new, and what most arrests me in new soundscapes I hear-it tends to be in the field of effects and processing- especially of sampled acoustic sources like the human voice. Here's where the digital realm is really producing the new vital sound experiences- check out the many wierd, inventive new digital effects- many of them free. They seem to have more shaping power, more 'shock of the new' than most new synths- although I realize sound synthesis and effct processing can't be totally separated.

What do you think?

[RABid]

First of all, welcome to the forum.

 

I dont see a lot of difference between the electric and acoustic kingdoms. A piano, a Rhodes, and GigaPiano with a good controller are more like than an acoustic guitar, a piano and a trumpet. To me the separations are more like ages of musical instruments rather than kingdoms.

 

Something I notice is a shift in how sounds evolve. Simple acoustic instruments create a fairly consistent sound. As you shift through the electric group to the digital realm single instruments begin to loose a focused identity. Also, as you move toward the digital realm you add the ability to play a virtual instrument from a variety of controllers. Keyboard, drum pads, MIDI guitar, etc. It seems that the concept of an instrument is fragmenting.

 

Robert

[Bobro]

I suspect that'll we'll have to give it some time before we know what's really "classic" in contemporary sounds...(there's some kind of tautology in there )

 

Seems to me that many things we consider "music" were percieved originally as "effects". Parallel organum probably sounded like some far-out spacey shit, especially in big stone halls, when it first hit the scene, then they started throwing in those bizarre dissonances, thirds, and so on- same with instrumental timbres. For example, hunting horns- wonder what images that sound effect evoked when first heard in orchestral work? Then the horns evolved into full-blown (ha ha) expressive and flexible instruments in their own right.

 

We could already talk about say, "classic metallic stereo sweeps" in the movies, I've been comparing them on headphones, it's fun.

 

-Bobro

[coyote]

I think digital hasn't given us a "single, unforgettable instrument" because it's not given us any amazing, unforgettable new sounds. What does digital do well?: SAMPLING. Problem is, sampling is nothing more than digital recording, so anything produced this way is necessarily a reference to another sound-producing device. Even the DX7, digital's leading contender for 'unforgettable' status, was primarily used as a lightweight replacement for the big & heavy Rhodes. It's capable of far more, but there's always the question of real musical usefulness. Based on the quantity of "non-tine" DX7 output, one must arrive at the conclusion that it wasn't a very useful instrument.

 

It also has to do with timing. Had digital predated analog, we might have had all the innovators using the first digital synths instead of Minimoogs & Arps.

[Synthguy]

Another reason for the lack of freshness with the latest digital wondersynths is the fact that the synthmakers load up their instruments with many of the same patches, rich juicy timbres which will fit into many musical contexts, with a few showoff patches tossed into the mix. And another is the laziness of the keyboard community in relying on these patches rather than learning synth programming and exploring these instruments to their fullest. To a great extent, the synth loaded with presets have shaped the music of the past 20 years, and so it's up to mavericks such as Trent Reznor and Brian Eno to broaden the musical context for us. I'm hoping to make some small contributions in this regard, but... darn it, those presets do sound awfully good...

 

I'm trying to break the mold and see what these marvels of technology can do. I'm going to try and rely more on the Kurzweil and Nord Modular and less on the Triton and Roland. Perhaps that will make a difference.

[¾]

Excuse me, for I am about to quibble.

 

[Quibble Mode ON]

 

Originally posted by Rabid:

Simple acoustic instruments create a fairly

I would quibble strongly (and mean STRONGLY) with this. Every acoustic instrument is not simple. Hence the difficulty in reproducing them digitally.

 

Even a guitar string never sounds the same way twice. A single, simple guitar string can never ever be hit or struck the same way twice in a row. And this leads to complex waveforms that are pleasing to our ears.

 

If anything, the biggest downfall (which engineers are working on) is the repetative-waveform nature of a digital sample. Every time you play a sample of a guitar string being pluck, it is the same. And somehow this "same-ness" is something our ears do not like ~ no matter how good the sample is.

 

I do like the evolution of instruments, but we still have far to go with digital instruments. To be fair ~ these digital instruments have only been around for 10 years, maybe 20.

 

Your average violin or guitar design is 200 years.

 

as you move toward the digital realm you add the ability to play a virtual instrument from a variety of controllers. Keyboard, drum pads, MIDI guitar, etc. It seems that the concept of an instrument is fragmenting.

Yes and no.

 

True, we have more options ~ but often those options are there to make up for basic deficiencies in the sound.

 

I wish Yamaha had continued on with their (what was it called?) VL-1 synths ~ with more random variation of the sound.

 

The concept of an instrument is expression ~ we have not yet got the same level of expression in digital as we have with the human voice, or the human hand plucking a guitar string.

[coyote]

This is an inherent limitation of sampling. other technologies for emulating acoustic instruments (physical modeling, for instance) which could bring us much closer to 'real' than we are now. However, I doubt the nuances of the guitar will ever be adequately synthesized. The piano, with its uniform striking position, will be easier to emulate despite its many variables.

 

But sampling will never do it right.

 

Originally posted by [ ¾ ]:

Excuse me, for I am about to quibble.

[Quibble Mode ON]

Originally posted by Rabid:

Simple acoustic instruments create a fairly

I would quibble strongly (and mean STRONGLY) with this. Every acoustic instrument is not simple. Hence the difficulty in reproducing them digitally.

Even a guitar string never sounds the same way twice.

The concept of an instrument is expression ~ we have not yet got the same level of expression in digital as we have with the human voice, or the human hand plucking a guitar string.

[Tusker]

I think the strengths of digital are it's weaknesses. Perfection has no character. Infinite variety can be boring.

 

Of late, I've been trying to use same two lead sounds no matter what. The reason? People would always ask what kind of instrument sound I was playing. And I would say it's a synth sound. And they would like kinda dissapointed like, yeah but what instrument is emulating?

 

So far it's working. I'm playing better. People seem happy with it. Less is more.

 

Jerry

[¾]

Oh, I think sampling doesn't have to do it right ~ it has to develop into something or better.

 

Sampling (and digital synthesis) will have to continue developing the mathematics until the chaos factor enters in. This will involve coupling samples and reverb (resonance) random variables.

 

Uh, what I mean is that they'll have to escape the MIDI limitations of 0-128 in keyboard velocities and other controlling factors. Some sort of organic flipping of numbers will have to happen so that your own musician's touch will count for more of the sound.

 

My minimoog for example never gets the same sound twice and I like that. Plus, on any given day it sounds better or worse. Depends on climate, depends on how long it has warmed up.

 

Plus I have to ride different knobs to keep the sound in control ~ without it ever being fullly in control.

 

We need more uncontrollable power, more unweildly power inside the digital, something dangerous that can shred our ears or hands. Then we'll get something great out of digital gear.

 

It's getting there.

 

We need more power.

[Tusker]

Originally posted by [ ¾ ]:

We need more uncontrollable power, more unweildly power inside the digital, something dangerous that can shred our ears or hands. Then we'll get something great out of digital gear.

 

It's getting there.

 

We need more power.

I agree.

 

I like power too. Ain't nothing like a modular moog. But let me suggest looking at the problem differently.

 

It is not truly necessary for digital to be unstable. It is only necessary for digital to destabilize you the performer, and force you to engage your synaptic equipment completely. Digital can be made to do that if you are willing to be unconventional. Consider these destabilizing exercises ....

 

1) Use a spring loaded controller (pitch wheel, joystick) to control one of the major dimensions (pitch, timbre) in such a manner that the default position of the controller is outside of the swwet spot. For example you could detune (fine tune) the oscillators so that the the 3/4 position of the pitch wheel renders an in tune sound. And the "normal" 1/2 position is out of tune. Now YOU have to work to achieve normal pitch.

 

Or ...

 

2) In a joystick situation, let the default position be silence or a sine wave (with the filter closed), and the timbral sweet spot (say a brassy tone with filter opened) be with mod depth (Y dimension) partially engaged. Disengage the filter envelope. Now you have to work to get the tone. Whether the attack is plucked or brassy is up to you.

 

I suggest that in either of the two above situations, you will find new forms of expression that are yours and yours alone. They may be hard to control, but that's when the power appears. A barely controlled, yet artistically focused human being is an attractive projection of power. It always has been.

 

The real power is still in you.

 

Best,

 

Jerry

[Dan South]

Maybe I have superhuman memory power, but I consider all of the following "unforgettable."

 

Fairlight (high-end sampling and sound design)

PPG Wave 2.3 (wavetables with analog filters)

Synclavier (complete production system including notation)

Emulator 2 (relatively affordable sampling)

K250 (first effective digital piano)

DX7 (digital for the masses)

D50 (more digital for the masses)

M1 (the template for all modern digital keyboards)

K2000 (staggering feature set)

LinnDrum (revolutionized recording)

R-8 (used on a million records)

JV-80 (PCM expansion)

VL-1 (physical modeling)

GigaSampler (no more sample size limitations)

 

Each was revolutionary in its own way. Each one either changed what was possible with a keyboard instrument or changed what it was possible to do ON A BUDGET.

 

Digital instruments continue to develop in both hardward and software versions. The impact of instruments like the Neuron or Absynth may not be fully understood at this date. On the other hand, something like the Pro-53 which can produce ten or more Prophet 5 models on a single computer has again revolutionized the price vs. performance balance.

 

Revolutionary soft synths:

Arturia Moog Modular V

Arturia CS-80V

Emagic ES2

Emagic EXS24

NI Pro-53

NI Absynth

NI FM7

NI Kontakt

MOTU MachFive

Steinberg HALion

Propellerheads ReBirth

Propellerheads Reason

 

What each of these programs can do on a single computer would require a large and expensive array of hardware to duplicate. A new revolution is upon us, and yes, I consider several of these instruments to be "unforgettable."

[Bobro]

Originally posted by coyote:

It also has to do with timing. Had digital predated analog, we might have had all the innovators using the first digital synths instead of Minimoogs & Arps.

Oddly enough, digital- softsynths at that- DID predate most of what we consider "vintage analog" and "classic synth hardware". Sure it was on some mainframe, and not real-time, but John Chowning was working with "softsynth" FM in 1966 (go ahead and google all this), long before most of the "analog classics" on Ebay were born.

 

If that sounds far out, get this- first softsynth was in 1957, Music I by Max Matthews.

Moog started in 1961. So, not counting tube-based pre-war synths (bad idea cuz they're still the best sounding, but anyway), you could at least argue that digital and analog synthesis are, from our point in time, about the same age.

 

-Bobro

[Raymar]

Personally I like the un-natural sound of samplers and romplers where you obviously know that it isn't the real deal.

 

For instance I have a patch on my U20 I made that has an acoustic/Rhodes layered patched with panned echo. I like doing pitch bends with it, sounds like a piano on acid.

 

I like the munchkinization of a stretched sample, paticularly a loop of a sound that repeats(not a music or drum sample), the way it speeds up in the higher registers, slows down in the lower ones.

 

The ablility to detune percussion sounds a few octaves, then pitch bend them too.

 

The ability to combine different synth types and any recorded sound imaginable in a patch with all the above artifacts.