What should we call "the synthesizer"? Should we change it's name?

[Dan South]

Originally posted by MurMan:

Call me picky, but 'synthesizer' and 'rompler' describe form (the internal architecture), not function.

 

'Piano' describes function, i.e. an instrument that could play softly, unlike the harpsichord.

Almost! "Piano" is short for pianoforte, an instrument that could play across the entire dynamic range unlike harpsichords and clavichords.

[Togakure99]

Originally posted by peake(at)pacificnet(dot)net:

Originally posted by Togakure:

Kurzweil Keyboard Dept. Manager

There's that "k" word ;-)

 

Or is that intentional (Young Chang etc.)?

Well, we do sell digital pianos as well, and all of our synths here (with the exception of the rack modules) are keyboard instruments, so "keyboard" seems to cover all of the bases without making my signature line extremely obtuse.

 

More names:

 

Bleepers

Noisemakers (at least that's what my boss is thinking when he tells me to close the door to my room here )

Organic Digital Devices (i'm sure a number of us could relate to being called ODD players )

 

Ok, now my brain is spent for the day.

[ABECK]

Originally posted by Togakure:

Inspired by peake...

 

Presenting:

 

The Amalgamachine.

How 'bout the Amalgamatron? Or Amalgaproximator?

[resigned]

Actually I don't like any of the suggestions so far anymore than I liked "synthesizer" in the first place. My original thought was more of how the word "synthesizer" is perceived by the audience, not so much by us (the users). Since it's a derivative word then it's pretty obvious that most people would assume that you are synthesizing something if you use a synthesizer. Synthesizing is commonly thought of as creating something artificially, which in fact is what a lot of us do with keyboards: synthesizing a flute or trumpet or UFO or a unique sound altogether using electronic filters and oscillators and/or samples. The word further suggests that the final result will be synthetic. I wish it was named something non-derivative, like "Mellotron" - which is a very nice name that really doesn't tell you at all what the actual instrument does and therefore has no preconceptions that come with it (except by people who already know what it is). So "Oscillatron" for example relates to electronic oscillators and carries some pre-conceived associations... "Wondertron" would not. Not that I especially want to play a "Wondertron" but you get the idea.

 

In my own publicity material I never use the word "synthesizer" but I do use the term "advanced keyboards" a lot.

[Pim]

Synthgods!

 

Actually we have to decide what a synthesizer is.

 

Does it has to have:

1. Knobs?

2. Keys?

3. Display?

4. Patch board?

5. non sampling based synthesis

 

TMHO:

1. y

2. n

3. n

4. n

5. difficult... (Korg Wavestation has samples, and that's a synth to me) So a 'n' for point 5.

 

Ofcourse a *true* synthesizer is monophonic! (and has to sound electronic)

 

Your thoughts?

[Tusker]

Originally posted by Pim:

Ofcourse a *true* synthesizer is monophonic! (and has to sound electronic)

There goes the wavestation then.

 

Its a great question you pose.

 

I would suppose that any software or hardware based system of sound generation is a synthesizer as long as it provides "performance control" of timbre, pitch and volume and relies primarily on electrical or electronic generation mechanisms.

 

This definition would allow you to include samplers with robust filters and modulation matrixes while excluding phrase/loop samplers.

 

Of course I have now shifted the problem to definine what "performance control" is.

 

What do you think?

 

Jerry

[marino]

Originally posted by Pim:

Ofcourse a *true* synthesizer is monophonic!

Why in the world?!?

[dementia13]

The Amalgamachine

How about the Amalgamorphinachine?

 

I wonder if audiences really do have negative preconceptions about what a synthesizer is these days? Krakit put it well- people don't think about where the word "synthesizer" came from anymore, it just means what it's come to mean. When something's bad, we say it "sucks": we throw that word around a lot, and hardly ever stop to think about what a vulgar connotation that expression really has. It's so common that it's become divorced from its original meaning. So it is with the word "synthesizer", and I apologize for only being able to come up with such a negative analogy, but it's what came to mind.

[Togakure99]

Synthamaphone?

[TrancedelicBlues]

I've got it!

 

Seriously.

 

The Wavotron (pronounced Wave-oh-tron)

 

I had to get out of bed and turn on my computer to post that one

 

Now I can go back to sleep.

[Dasher]

"Electrophone" would be more correct perhaps, but it's also more generic and less elegant.

Well, there was a big drive when the Hammond organ was first introduced to call it an "Electone" or "Electrotone", as organs required reeds or pipes and air blowing over/through them. Laurens Hammond challenged the critics to the very first organ shoot-out, had a pipe organ and a Hammond placed behind the stage curtains and bet they couldn't tell which was which. The critics weren't able to definitely choose, so Hammond wpn the right to call his box an 'organ.'

 

So 'synthesizer' might more properly be called something like an 'electronic musical instrument', or an 'Electromuse', but I have always felt the term was pretty accurate - we combine elements of sonic architecture to produce (usually) musical sound.

 

I also have heard beginning analog synthesists (and would-be DX7 programmers produce sounds that I could only describe as 'cacaphonus', perhaps it should be called the 'cacaphone'?

 

Dasher

[PianoJazz1951]

...sorry lads, the dictionary is already written.

Synthesizer, synth, keyboard, even Moog-are part (foundation?) of the keyboardists language.

Yes-there will be evolutionary adjustments just as in any "dictionary"-but these terms will remain.

[Raymar]

Howzabout the Aural Gratifier?