What is KVR Audio? | Submit News | Advertise | Developer Account

Options (Affects News & Product results only):

OS:
Format:
Include:
Quick Search KVR

"Quick Search" KVR Audio's Product Database, News Items, Developer Listings, Forum Topics and videos here. For advanced Product Database searching please use the full product search. For the forum you can use the phpBB forum search.

To utilize the power of Google you can use the integrated Google Site Search.

Products 0

Developers 0

News 0

Forum 0

Videos 0

Search  

Why does having "too many" soft synths bother me?

VST, AU, etc. plug-in Virtual Instruments discussion

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

User avatar
KVRAF
 
1551 posts since 17 Apr, 2001, from At the boundaries of time

Postby crimsonwarlock; Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:46 am

aciddose wrote:
crimsonwarlock wrote:it still remains a pompous statement.


Honestly though I'm a bit curious why you're so certain it's a pompous statement?

--- loads of blah blah snipped ---


I'm pretty sure you did get what I was pointing at. Your public posing in this regard doesn't fool me. It's a bit sad though, I did hold you in high regard as I like your synth (a lot) and recognize the level of craftsmanship involved in creating it. However, your statements in this topic show a personality that I seriously dislike. You post something that can easily been taken the way I suggested, and then you come back turning it around with an afterward 'reader beware'. This is actually enforcing your posture that emanated from the initial statement.

I'll leave it with that, got sucked in too much already :roll:
CrimsonWarlock aka TechnoGremlin

Using: Reaper and loads of freeware plugins
User avatar
KVRAF
 
8792 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
 

Postby aciddose; Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:58 am

No, I think you're asserting it's pompous without actually thinking about whether it is or not.

I disagree, it isn't pompous to think that I know better regarding creative expression and so forth than an awful lot of the members of this forum might. It becomes hard to deny when you see people with opinions about the definition of art that do not take into account the artist!

Are these people artists? They're saying the work they do is not their own expression but an expression of society?

As a tool is a conduit for expression of the artist, the artist is merely a conduit for expression of society?

Bullshit. Neither of those statements are true.

Intent is required. Emergence is not intent! Society can not create art, only an individual with intent can do so. Otherwise we'd need to consider anything art "because I said so". Who said so? You? Some group of people you decide have the authority? Who decides they have the authority then?
User avatar
KVRAF
 
2246 posts since 8 Jun, 2009, from UK

Postby Gamma-UT; Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:03 am

aciddose wrote:Are these people artists? They're saying the work they do is not their own expression but an expression of society?

As a tool is a conduit for expression of the artist, the artist is merely a conduit for expression of society?

Bullshit. Neither of those statements are true.


As they're strawmen of your own making, that's hardly surprising.
No longer blank as Frank
Soundcloud
KVRAF
 
13037 posts since 23 Jun, 2010, from north of London ON
 

Postby trimph1; Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:04 am

@aciddose.

These are the structuralists I think. I may be wrong as to which group but I do recall some mention of this type of thing in Frank Lentrecchia's book After The New Criticism.

They wanted to 'wrest' the artist from the art to make it more accessible to their analysis...
Barry
The man who survived mustard gas and pepper spray is now a seasoned veteran
http://www.ambientonline.org/
User avatar
KVRAF
 
2246 posts since 8 Jun, 2009, from UK

Postby Gamma-UT; Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:14 am

Postmodernism - Derrida etc - makes the audience central to the meaning of any work. The author/artist only has a walk-on role. But there are multiple levels to that; from the "that's not art" from people looking at a shark in a fish tank through to the many different analyses of a painting. It gets to the point where we have no idea of what Jan van Eyck intended in the Arnolfini Betrothal other than he almost certainly didn't call it that. So its meaning is whatever people can infer from the symbols in it.
No longer blank as Frank
Soundcloud
User avatar
KVRAF
 
8792 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
 

Postby aciddose; Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:15 am

Gamma-UT wrote:
aciddose wrote:Are these people artists? They're saying the work they do is not their own expression but an expression of society?

As a tool is a conduit for expression of the artist, the artist is merely a conduit for expression of society?

Bullshit. Neither of those statements are true.


As they're strawmen of your own making, that's hardly surprising.


Straw men of my making?

We know the idea that a tool is a conduit for expression of the artist has been expressed in this thread multiple times. It is wrong to think that the choice of tool has no influence on the work, or that the artist takes credit for the contribution of the tool merely for having selected it to be used. If anything a tool modifies the expression of the artist and enables that expression to be transferred into the work. It becomes a part of the process and can not be ignored. To limit yourself to a specific tool or set of tools is to limit the forms of expression you are capable of, there is no doubt of that. A great artist in my opinion selects a tool which best suits the expression in the form desired, in that sense the tool becomes an extension of the artist, or the artist an extension of the tool, however you want to say it it is the same thing.

You yourself defined art as that defined by society. In doing that you've limited the artist to produce only works which are "approved" by society, any other work is "not art" as you yourself have said. Society however is an abstract concept which can not be used in this context for any sensible purpose. Society is made up of many individuals with their own unique opinions, each one an artist themselves. It is not possible to assert as you have done that what an artist considers art is "not art" without support from society without admitting that you have merely shifted things around. So essentially you have asserted that art may only be judged by those who are not the creator. Fair enough, but this is your own opinion and has nothing to do with the definition of art. In order to think what you have described is the definitive definition you would need to be entirely ignorant of the countless alternative definitions and the root meaning of the word - the application of a skill to create a work, one who creates such a work, the work itself, or something interpreted as such.

Where is the straw-man?
User avatar
KVRAF
 
2256 posts since 5 Jun, 2012

Postby fluffy_little_something; Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:18 am

Without having read all pages, maybe people with too many plugins notice that the mere choice is counterproductive. I am most productive (unfortunately not nearly enough in absolute terms, though) when I focus on one plugin.

But I am also more and more interested in sample stuff these days because with synths you can only do so much, there simply is no replacement for the familiar sound of real strings, brass and so on. I have not found a solution yet that would give me all the samples I need at the right quality. I have one rompler, but the more I use it, the less I like it.

Anyway, if I were you I would probably keep only two synhs, whichever you use the most and feel best about. The stuff that you read and think is great, but nevertheless hardly use, is probably not your cup of tea and never will be.
User avatar
KVRian
 
726 posts since 16 Jan, 2004

Postby OzoneJunkie; Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:26 am

Echoes in the Attic wrote:
OzoneJunkie wrote:.., my possession compression obsession ruled me


I love that term! Is that real? PCO? Just googled, nope. I'm going to use that. I've always had that. Less so recently since I bought a house, thus necessitating tools and well, a few other things to put in it.


Feel free to use it :) It's something that I lived with for a long time. It's also a lyric... not in any completed song yet.

Anyway, I started reading this thread a bit, and I see it got pretty long. I'm going to read through it when time permits.

I think that for me, when I notice something about myself, in this case, what was a very long path to reduce my possessions, I find that analyzing the 'why' of the whole thing insightful. I won't go into the reasons here, but I will say this - I think that self-awareness and analyzation will often, and maybe always, as inherent to the system, yield the answer, for oneself. This answer differs from person to person.

And that's part of what I enjoy about life, digging deeper into myself and finding out what makes me tick.

My latest internal path is something different though: seeing myself, and therefore indirectly, others, as more than the current state of what we are. We're all born differently, but the other side of the coin is that we're given similar tools.

I see myself now as a tool. No, just kidding. I see that my brain and body are merely tools, and don't define 'me'. Therefore, I can use these tools to accomplish what I want, which is closer to the 'me' that I define as myself than my body and brain.

So, in this, my brain is another tool in the system. Capable of being developed, but of course also flawed. But I don't hold onto these flaws as part of who I am at my core. The brain is just an organ, and therefore exists as part of the functional system. What my brain is thinking is partially shaped by who I am and what I am experiencing, who I was and what I experienced, and who I want to be and what I want to experience, but my brain is NOT WHO I am. It's simply part of the functional system that I've been given. Who we are is more than just this body, this brain, these memories. That's a part of the whole.

So, after clearing out possession, I went back to the brain attic and starting clearing out thoughts, philosophies, ideas, and so on, to discover more of who I am, not as defined by my memories, but what I love, what drives me, what I feel closest to.

If I find myself thinking about something, I'll analyze it. Often I'm finding now that thoughts are there, but they actually don't align with the person, the me that I want to be. It's interesting, because I can now have thoughts, and say, these are just thoughts that have entered my brain, but are not actually how I FEEL. This allows me to short-circuit these thoughts, to rewire in a way. Often that means that I'll just cut off a thought train in process, by having awareness that that thought path isn't one that I want to finish, because it's not who and what I actually align with. Once that awareness is there, I stop the process by refocusing on my breathing.

It's an interesting paradigm shift for me. It's allowed me to become much better at being self-centered, in a positive way. I love reading philosophy and self-help stuff, as well as watching reality shows as a way of studying human psychology. But ultimately, now, I am able to ask myself who I am, and what I want, and how I want to live my life, without looking for answers externally.
Last edited by OzoneJunkie on Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:41 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
KVRAF
 
2246 posts since 8 Jun, 2009, from UK

Postby Gamma-UT; Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:26 am

aciddose wrote:
Gamma-UT wrote:
aciddose wrote:Are these people artists? They're saying the work they do is not their own expression but an expression of society?

As a tool is a conduit for expression of the artist, the artist is merely a conduit for expression of society?

Bullshit. Neither of those statements are true.


As they're strawmen of your own making, that's hardly surprising.


Straw men of my making?

We know the idea that a tool is a conduit for expression of the artist has been expressed in this thread multiple times. It is wrong to think that the choice of tool has no influence on the work, or that the artist takes credit for the contribution of the tool merely for having selected it to be used. If anything a tool modifies the expression of the artist and enables that expression to be transferred into the work. It becomes a part of the process and can not be ignored. To limit yourself to a specific tool or set of tools is to limit the forms of expression you are capable of, there is no doubt of that. A great artist in my opinion selects a tool which best suits the expression in the form desired, in that sense the tool becomes an extension of the artist, or the artist an extension of the tool, however you want to say it it is the same thing.

You yourself defined art as that defined by society. In doing that you've limited the artist to produce only works which are "approved" by society, any other work is "not art" as you yourself have said. Society however is an abstract concept which can not be used in this context for any sensible purpose. Society is made up of many individuals with their own unique opinions, each one an artist themselves. It is not possible to assert as you have done that what an artist considers art is "not art" without support from society without admitting that you have merely shifted things around. So essentially you have asserted that art may only be judged by those who are not the creator. Fair enough, but this is your own opinion and has nothing to do with the definition of art. In order to think what you have described is the definitive definition you would need to be entirely ignorant of the countless alternative definitions and the root meaning of the word - the application of a skill to create a work, one who creates such a work, the work itself, or something interpreted as such.

Where is the straw-man?


You've conflated two (possibly more) arguments and then used the idea that because "society is abstract" to try to create a logical falsehood out of the combination. At no point have I argued that the artist is a "conduit for expression of society". Only that whether something is considered art is not really up to the creator of the work. You've also ignored references that I've provided, claiming that it's "only my opinion". Look around you. Look at the continuing arguments over "what is art?" since the beginning of the modern age. Read some of the philosophy of art texts you pretended to know well earlier in the thread. An ancient definition isn't very useful when the modern practice is quite different.
No longer blank as Frank
Soundcloud
KVRAF
 
13037 posts since 23 Jun, 2010, from north of London ON
 

Postby trimph1; Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:38 am

Well. There are those who did say that, at best, the artist had no role other than a 'walk-in' part. So, in a sense, Miley Cyrus is that walk-in twerking queen then. :)

The commodification of art people? :wink:
Barry
The man who survived mustard gas and pepper spray is now a seasoned veteran
http://www.ambientonline.org/
User avatar
KVRAF
 
8792 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
 

Postby aciddose; Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:39 am

Gamma-UT wrote:You've conflated two (possibly more) arguments and then used the idea that because "society is abstract" to try to create a logical falsehood out of the combination. At no point have I argued that the artist is a "conduit for expression of society". Only that whether something is considered art is not really up to the creator of the work.


Of course whether something is art is not up to the creator, it is either art or not art, otherwise the definition is not a definition at all but entirely arbitrary and subjective. If the work exists and it was created, it is automatically art. That is the definition of the word, that is the only definition of the word. All the other philosophy associated with it is built on top of that. Are you talking about "high art" ? What are you talking about? Whatever it is, it isn't art.

Logical falsehood out of the combination? No this is really quite simple. What you assert boils down to exactly what you've just repeated yourself: "Only that whether something is considered art is not really up to the creator of the work."

You assert that it is up to "society". What is society? A collection of individuals, all of them with their own unique subjective opinions. So all you have done is shifted things around from the creator to another person and taken what is a definitive, objective definition and mixed it up with a whole lot of needless subjectivity.

Gamma-UT wrote: You've also ignored references that I've provided, claiming that it's "only my opinion". Look around you. Look at the continuing arguments over "what is art?" since the beginning of the modern age. Read some of the philosophy of art texts you pretended to know well earlier in the thread. An ancient definition isn't very useful when the modern practice is quite different.


Modern practice is different you say? Then how is it possible that works I have never published are granted copyright? Hmm? It seems society considers my unpublished works to be art.

But keep building that house of cards!
User avatar
KVRAF
 
2246 posts since 8 Jun, 2009, from UK

Postby Gamma-UT; Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:44 am

aciddose wrote:Modern practice is different you say? Then how is it possible that works I have never published are granted copyright? Hmm? It seems society considers my unpublished works to be art.


From the US Copyright Act:

"Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works."

I see no use of the word 'art' in that lot. I don't have a problem with that. I'm curious as to why you feel it so important that you don't create 'works' but 'art'.
No longer blank as Frank
Soundcloud
User avatar
KVRAF
 
8792 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
 

Postby aciddose; Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:49 am

Gamma-UT wrote:I see no use of the word 'art' in that lot. I don't have a problem with that. I'm curious as to why you feel it so important that you don't create 'works' but 'art'.


It isn't important, the point I'm making is that they're the same thing.
KVRAF
 
13037 posts since 23 Jun, 2010, from north of London ON
 

Postby trimph1; Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:49 am

@Gamma-UT.
And why you seem to have issues with aciddose calling his work...art. :shrug:
Barry
The man who survived mustard gas and pepper spray is now a seasoned veteran
http://www.ambientonline.org/
User avatar
KVRAF
 
8792 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
 

Postby aciddose; Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:51 am

Also nice job leaving out where they define "works":

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.


So either it's science or useful arts. If you'd like to say my software is science, that is fine, I'll laugh at you, really hard too, but fine.

Now if you want to claim that me yelling "bocka bocka bocka" in a microphone is science I'll be a bit worried.
PreviousNext

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

Return to Instruments