One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[wagtunes]

Question: Is using tools like Nora, Kirnu Cream or Sundog Scale Studio allowed, or is it considered cheating? One can easily record the output of these tools into a new midi track and then remove the tool, so nobody will ever know it was used...

I own all 3 of these tools (I know, GAS ), but I just want to play it by the rules.

I don't know what those things are but if they're not paid for FX and don't alter the tone of the sound then I'd say they're allowed. Kind of like using an external sequencer to play notes back.

You'll have to explain what those things do to get a better answer.

[Reefius]

They're all tools that generate midi data (sequencers, chord generators, arpeggiators etc.) and they're all paid for. They're actually just helper tools to quickly create melodies and arpeggio's (usually by playing a chord or even just a single note on the keyboard).

As I said, it is easy to just record the generated midi data into a new track and then remove the tool, leaving no trace behind that it was ever used. But for some reason I feel it's kind of cheating, but then again drawing a few notes manually and then copy/pasting them is not much harder to create beautiful arpeggio's.

I really like Sundog Scale Studio for inspiration, just set the key and scale you want your song to be in and start jamming, it automatically configures your keyboard so you can never play a wrong (out of key) note. Wanna play some Blues? Just select a key, set the scale to blues and everything you play on the keyboard automatically sounds bluesy

[wagtunes]

They're all tools that generate midi data (sequencers, chord generators, arpeggiators etc.) and they're all paid for. They're actually just helper tools to quickly create melodies and arpeggio's (usually by playing a chord or even just a single note on the keyboard).

As I said, it is easy to just record the generated midi data into a new track and then remove the tool, leaving no trace behind that it was ever used. But for some reason I feel it's kind of cheating, but then again drawing a few notes manually and then copy/pasting them is not much harder to create beautiful arpeggio's.

I really like Sundog Scale Studio for inspiration, just set the key and scale you want your song to be in and start jamming, it automatically configures your keyboard so you can never play a wrong (out of key) note. Wanna play some Blues? Just select a key, set the scale to blues and everything you play on the keyboard automatically sounds bluesy

I've already asked and sequencers are fine.

[Taron]

Awww, it's such a pity that Synplant isn't free... but this or something like it would've been quite interesting.
I'm almost just writing this post to subscribe to the thread, haha, but yeah... just wanted to toss that out there.

[z.prime]

There have been non-free OSCs in the past. Many of us are not opposed to buying gear... only issue might be already owning a lot of synths and not really needing or wanting any more (at least, in my case).

[ontrackp]

I don't want to offend anyone, but I think that using a midi note generator to come up with melodies is a cheap work-around to composition. Same for software that doesn't let you play a "wrong" note. Great music is full of "wrong" notes that work well! Arpeggiators are ok because they just provide a shortcut to playing in a lot of notes that you've selected with your chords, and they've been part of electronic music pretty much from the beginning of time, but telling software what key you're in and letting it keep cranking out notes until you are happy rubs me the wrong way. As a composer, I'm proud of my creative skills. I have studied music and have worked really hard producing hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of original music and if people are using software to do the heavy lifting, I think it cheapens our profession. Of course, I understand that not everyone is a pro, or aspires to work at pro level, but I think the quality of the OSC would suffer if we allow computers to write music instead of people.

To be brutally honest, I think if someone is using software to help them compose, I think they should list it so real composers who create their own music have the option of taking points off. I really enjoy listening to all of the pieces every month because of the diversity. It's fun to get to know regular participants by their style of music and hear the similarities month to month. Also, hearing how some of the participants are growing as composers and arrangers is very satisfying. As I've said before, the OSC is really cool because it requires sound design, composing, arranging and mixing. We are unique in that we wear all these hats -- don't turn one over to a computer!


And just to clarify -- I don't care what midi controller you use to find the notes. But they should be your notes, not a computer program.

[Tony Ostinato]

i did a osc tune with windsynth where you not only play the notes but also the expression, breath control, and also subtle human pitchbend from the reed whammy bar.

i'd like to see a computer try for some of that.

i came in #10 but i choose to think i was #1 in the jazz/windsynth category.

[ontrackp]

Tony Ostinato -- I remember that entry, and I think it was great. It was expressive and you're right -- a computer could not do that. Also, you chose your own notes.

[Taron]

It sure isn't easy to respect procedural music, but I'm really not worried about it. I'd be worried about making music a competition for the sake of winning, because it's asking for something insincere as it tries to achieve popularity rather than being a true expression of an artist. There are solid recipes to make a popular track, but how would that be so much different from procedural music, you know.
So at the end a musician has to live with himself/herself. There is no such thing as unfair music. There's just such a thing like ugly opportunism and we're living in a world that's seemingly resting on that principle. I still will not let it corrupt me and if you feel the same, just do the same...stay true to yourself and don't let judgment hold you back from practicing and enjoying your creativity.

I'm almost 100% certain, though, that I wouldn't buy a synth for doing an OSC, to pick up on the other topic. I somehow didn't realize that Synplant was commercial...<caugh> ...it happens.

[bjporter]

Question: Is using tools like Nora, Kirnu Cream or Sundog Scale Studio allowed, or is it considered cheating? One can easily record the output of these tools into a new midi track and then remove the tool, so nobody will ever know it was used...

I own all 3 of these tools (I know, GAS ), but I just want to play it by the rules.

This probably needs to be answered in a formal way in the rules, but as I recall, this did come up back in the day, and wasn't allowed.

EDIT: Arpeggiators were ok though.

[Parduz]

I don't have any problem with any note/chord/melody generators, arpeggiators, or anything related to a program playing notes.
I see the point of ontrackp, but each of us can draw its own line between what is "right" and what is not.... in my OSC75 entry, as well as my OSC71, i did'nt play a single note. They are both made by drawing notes with the mouse in the DAW tracks. Someone could say that music which is'nt played and recorded is'nt good 'cause the human faulty nature is what makes the difference.
I think that "playing programs" are just tools that one artist could find inspiring, useful, or which make the workflow faster, while another one will see them as killing inspiration; it is like virtual and real brushes and canvas for painters.
IMHO, the contest focus is about "getting the best sounds from ONE synth without tampering them with FXs too much". Sure we like to hear composition and mix/master-ing skills (or we could just play chords and arpeggios to demo the sounds) and we vote taking care of it, but this contest focus is on sounds.

I'm more worried by the fact the mentioned plug-ins are paid; as for the allowed FXs, they should be free, for the same reasons.

[mehum]

My take on this is close to Taron's. I really don't mind if someone's using some procedural help...

Composing is not so much coming up with ideas as discriminating between them. Most, or some would argue all, ideas are stolen from somewhere anyway. Explicitly or subconsciously. Ideas are cheap.

These tools are nothing more, in my view, than idea-makers. Sure, they're a bit more automated than having an idea in your mind and then playing or programming it, but it's still just something you might or might not use to make something out of.
If you happen generate something beautiful and choose to use it the choice of using it is much more important than how it was originally made.
This is, of course, a bit of a philosophical question... If allowed I still think it should be mentioned but more for reasons of curiosity for how people work than anything else.
Another question is: Do you as composer feel that you are behind the what has come out? This is a purely personal question. For OSC74 I stole pretty blatantly from Pink Floyd and it's kind of the same thing.
Bottom line: I think it should be allowed. I can agree with Parduz that they fall under "paid plugins" and I can agree with ontrackp that they perhaps should be noted like all other plugs and DAWs used.

Using "scale lock" when playing, well to each their own This is like babies sitting in a walking chair or using support wheels on the bike. A terrible way to learn your instrument and your craft and will probably slow down your development and make you take on bad habits. As ontrackp said, the notes in between are also part of music. Sometimes when you play something wrong it becomes something better than intended.
But: If you choose to use this as aid when making music, so be it. I don't care.

A little disclaimer: I have not tried the tools in question so are only guessing roughly how they work...

[ontrackp]

My take on this is close to Taron's. I really don't mind if someone's using some procedural help...

Composing is not so much coming up with ideas as discriminating between them. Most, or some would argue all, ideas are stolen from somewhere anyway. Explicitly or subconsciously. Ideas are cheap.

I get what you're saying, but have to respectfully disagree. There's a difference between a creator and a curator. It's true that as creators we are constantly faced with the decision as to whether we have a good or bad idea and if we should follow thru on it. However, if you are just considering third party ideas and deciding which one you like better, you are just curating someone (or something) else's creative work. It's like a DJ using samples of songs. That's a skill and an art, but it's not composing. If we're supposed to be composing music, I think we should be composing music, not computer programming.

Re: drawing notes in vs keyboard. That's fine -- I don't care what the midi controller is. Wind, keyboard, guitar, theremin type (if such a thing exists) drawing notes, whatever. As long as you are making the decision what note to play as opposed to selecting the notes that the computer makes for you, I'm good.

[Taron]

Ugh, it's so hard to resist dragging this topic on and on, because there are a number of decent arguments that could excuse the non-musician participation in these challenges. I remember in the visual effects scene, how especially guys like me were quite explosively against those folks, who would use scans or some "cheaty" ways to get to realistic results. It's as though they were hurting the aspirations of all true digital artists, if they'd drew attention away from genuine creativity with baffling tricks of sorts.
But in music, really, I think you can quite clearly tell when something is totally cookie-cutter or primitive as opposed to a genuine composition. If those people at least do the sound-design, then there's some justification of them participating honorably in this challenge, because it's about making one synth do fascinating things...ideally beyond anybody's expectations.

Would I feel better, if it was strictly prohibited to do "auto-composing" stuff? Yeah, honestly, yes, very much so.
Would I insist on it? No. If my music couldn't be respectable against some procedural doodle, I would be merely ashamed a little.

I do, though, stay miles away from putting procedural composition into the same hat as genuine compositions, regardless how easy one might round down the corners around which one has to go to see the similarities. We are all inspired and we are all influenced, but as long as the composer is oblivious to a potential source, the personal touch and expression will always be real and unique. My hairs stand on edge (in a bad way) when ever I hear totally standard harmony progressions, but they sometimes are a matter of musical language. Seen as such they can be cerebrally tolerated, ...doesn't make them more attractive to me, but hey...

[ontrackp]

+1 Taron. I think your perspective is well stated. And to clarify, I am not suggesting that a rule be created against procedural composition. I merely hope to urge the budding composers in this competition to look into their hearts and souls for inspiration, rather than a computer screen.