BONES wrote: ↑
Mon Aug 31, 2020 6:42 pm
e-crooner wrote: ↑
Mon Aug 31, 2020 6:29 am
I think my analogy fits.
No it doesn't and even a moment's examination reveals why. If you don't have a word processor you can still write a book, if you don't have a synth you can't make any patches. The synth is more analogous to language in that a novel is all about language, just as a patch is all about the synth it is made for. Translating a novel into a different language requires the same kind of effort as translating a particular patch from one synth to another. In both cases you are trying to recreate both the intent and feeling of the original in a foreign environment.
99% of all possible parameter combinations on a synth don't sound good and musical.
Rubbish. 99% of the sounds a combination of oscillators, filters and modulation sources is capable of might not be musical but it's the person who designs/develops the synth who weeds those out so that what's left is almost always musical. Some of it is simple, like making sure the pitches it outputs conform to a musical scale/register. Other things are less so, like ensuring the range of values for a particular parameter fall within an area that is musically useful. That's why some synths are great and other aren't - because of the design/engineering of the developer. The person making patches is standing on the shoulders of the person/people who made the instrument. That why you get more people making banks for DUNE or Serum than you do for JX Synth.
It is the sound programmer that turns a soulless frequency generator into a musical instrument.
No, it's the people who make the synth (see above). The proof of it is in how easy it is to use a random patch generator on a synth and see that almost every time it comes up with something musical. Do it enough times and you'll come up with a bank as good as the best "sound designer" can. In fact, looking at the structure of some patches, I think a lot of professionals use patch randomisers to make their patches.
SE is not even freeware. So why anyone would criticize a developer for making and selling a SE plugin is beyond me. In fact, SE needs money as well, and if SE plugin developers were not supposed to make money with their products, most of them would not make the effort in the first place, i.e. not buy SE and not pay the price of a SE license.
That's not true at all. Almost all the best SE plugins were/are free and, in the old days at least, the forums were full of really helpful people who contributed to everyone else's work. So for anyone to think that anything they made in SE was good because of the work they put it is arrogant in the extreme. If I had charged money for any of my synths, I'd have felt like I was cheating a dozen different people who had helped and guided me in getting to a finished product. I repaid their kindness and generosity with my own.
Your idea that things are supposed to be free is off in a world where everyone has to pay their bills. Most people don't lead lives of luxury, they have to think twice how they spend their spare time, and their money.
As do I. I am extremely careful with my money and in any given month I probably only have a few hundred dollars over and above what I need just to survive. So when I decided to give the FBM guy money for MonoFury, for example, that was because I'd decided to do that instead of going to the pub for dinner with friends one night. That's what makes it a meaningful gesture, not a hollow one.
In fact, when a good sound designer makes a commercial sound set for a free synth, that is actually a huge compliment for the synth developer.
How does that work when you don't even think synth developers make anything musical?
The sound designer doesn't have to give anything back. If the synth developer wanted something in return they would not make their synth freeware in the first place.
It wouldn't occur to you that someone might give a synth away for free to encourage others to be similarly generous? That to turn around and charge money for something they have enabled you to do is just kicking dirt in their face?
The dinner analogy is appropriate here - when someone invites you to their home for dinner, you don't turn up empty handed, then eat their food and drink their wine, you turn up with a bottle of wine or a box of chocolates as a reciprocal gesture. They will always say "you didn't have to do that" but everyone knows it is the right thing to do and if you don't at least make an effort, you probably won't get invited back. Selling patches for a free synth is like deciding you don't want to go to dinner at your friend's house and getting someone to pay you $20 so they can go in your place. It's taking someone else's generosity and using it to make money for yourself.
My analogy was about free vs commercial word processors. Not alternatives to word processors.
My analogy was clear: both synth plugins and word processors are software-based tools that evolved from hardware originals. In both realms there are free and commercial products. Free stuff only became possible because of the immaterial nature of software. Unlike with hardware, a company making software does not actually lose anything when giving away software for free.
To me novel is just a term for the type of sequence of letters in a book. That would correspond to the type of combination of parameters of a patach, e.g. brass or bass.
I don't see any possibility of introducing translation into my analogy, no analogy is perfect. Nor is it necessary regarding this thread.
The reason why there are more soundsets for some synths than for others is money. It makes more sense to make sounds for a popular synth and one with more features because there are more possible combinations/sounds and because the more complex a synth gets, the more users might be overwhelmed.
Still, the overwhelming majority of parameter combinations on any synth sound ugly. For instance, just imagine a 2-osc synth. Each has 5 octaves. So you have 60 semitones for each. In synths with a random feature, there are probably internal rules and limitations, else almost every random patch would be out of tune and sound wrong.
A synth as such is just a fancy signal generator, it is sound designers and musicians that turn it into a music instrument. Occasionally the synth developer also makes some of the factory patches, but they are usually not so good in my view.
I don't share your view on SE. Many of those that made good SE plugins also charged for them (Memorymoon, Superwave, Psychic Modulation, etc.). Even Chris Kerry, who contributed a lot to the SE platform, made SE plugins and sold them. He even made his own modules and sold them.
I bought a number of SE plugins myself in the past.
I also donate when I find something is really worth it. But that is directly to the person from whom I get something. However, when I get a freeware synth and make commercial patches for it, I don't sell them to the synth developer, but to fellow users. That doesn't rule out that I donate to the synth developer. One doesn't have to do with the other.
Quite simple, it is a compliment to the synth developer because he made a good tool which I can then make patches for. It is not a compliment to the synth developer's musicality.
The dinner situation is very different. It is a direct give and take between the guest and the host. Basically like donating 20 euros to the synth developer. If however the guest who invited me for dinner gave me a free brush set during the dinner, and I then go home and paint a couple of masterpieces and sell them to collectors, that would be perfectly fine.
I am not a Christian/Jew, but the golden rule, as it is called, is not part of the 10 commandments afaik. It is an old motto from ancient Egypt, Persia etc.