Polyphonic aftertouch: what is the problem?

[BBFG#]

I couldn’t care less about AT. Liszt didn’t need it. Chopin didn’t need it. Rachmaninoff didn’t need it.

But they did use release velocity!

[lfm]

...or asking a saxophone player
- why do you play the saxophone, it's only one note at a time and just breath control and buttons on/off?

Then listen to a really good saxophone player, and you know the answer - very expressive instrument.

[anomandaris1]

I couldn’t care less about AT. Liszt didn’t need it. Chopin didn’t need it. Rachmaninoff didn’t need it.

Let's go back to water organs then, technology is overrated.

[Cepheus]

Then listen to a really good saxophone player, and you know the answer - very expressive instrument.

or look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiphonic

And about the Roli and release velocity sensoring, release velocity does work. You can see it in the last few seconds in this nice video from Electric Himalaya: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_SMW9PCqYs

[BBFG#]

Comparing ROLI to a standard keyboard controller is like comparing a Theremin to a Minimoog.

What most of us are talking about is the inclusion of features already developed and implemented in past standard keyboard controllers.

I like ROLIs but not enough to get one in its current design. And it could never be my main controller as it is now. In some ways, I find the developers to be deaf to musicians.

And I like poly-after touch. I just feel there are other things which should be made standard in all keyboards first.

[Pashkuli]

Something does not feel right. Why?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What most of us are talking about is the inclusion of features already developed and implemented in past standard keyboard controllers.

I find the developers to be deaf to musicians.

There are other things which should be made standard in all keyboards first.

What features?
Deaf about what?
What "other things" should be made standard first?

[anomandaris1]

What features?
Deaf about what?
What "other things" should be made standard first?

There was a talk on release velocity, if you check the previous page .

[BBFG#]

What most of us are talking about is the inclusion of features already developed and implemented in past standard keyboard controllers.

In some waysI find the developers to be deaf to musicians.

There are other things which should be made standard in all keyboards first.

{1.} What features?
{2.} Deaf about what?
{3.} What "other things" should be made standard first?

1. Read the whole thread.
2. If you want to question a statement I've made, quote the entire statement. Otherwise, it puts you in the same group as "in some ways deaf". i.e. "selective hearing" in both cases. I played the ROLI at their first NAMM and while I liked it, I found it limited me in a couple of ways for my developed techniques. So rather than being an "addition" in playing techniques, it had "trade offs". When I pointed it out to them and then showed them what it was missing on a real keyboard, he "pfft" and walked away. No development had been made to implement that and I suspect it can't be.
3. Again, read the thread!

IMO the ROLI fits a niche, that does attract me. But to believe it is a complete replacement for standard keyboards is maybe even blind to the overall market. (And I do understand why a developer needs "blinders" in developing a product.) But because of it being a controller I would only own as an addition to my setup and in no way as "the one and only", they have yet to come up with a model that fits in that setup.
So yeah, deaf, as in selective hearing and blind, as in their own narrow perspective.
I saw the OP as a question of why basic midi features that were built into previous (standard) keyboards were not yet a standard. Not every keyboard should be MPE and in fact, the physiology of MPE makes it more of a different kind of instrument. (However, the Keith Mcmillan is maybe closer in that regard.)

[Pashkuli]

When I pointed it out to them and then showed them what it was missing on a real keyboard, he "pfft" and walked away. No development had been made to implement that and I suspect it can't be.

Ok, I see. the Roli Seaboard functionality relies 99% on software so anything can be simulated in that respect, including "release velocity" (actually this should be a piece of cake in that case).
The only problem would be any potential increase in latency if all "dimensions" have to be used at full capacity for all possible note trigger scenarios (some massive chords, etc.).

I completely concur to your opinion with regards to release velocity as a standard feature. I quite do not believe that the Seaboard does not have it, but again I had only two encounters with this board for about an hour total.

[zerocrossing]

Poly AT has no equivalent outside of synths. Certainly not among other keyboard instruments. With bowed strings, wind and brass instruments, and vocals you can vary intensity/pressure across the course of a note but those are not generally polyphonic. (A violinist, cellist or a throat singer has some limited duophony, but extremely limited control over individual pressure on those notes.)

Pianists, guitarists, drummers, etc. all manage to play expressively without any equivalent to aftertouch.

You’re making the mistake of thinking of polyphonic aftertouch as a thing that’s supposed to emulate how a single instrument behaves. A synthesizer is often trying to emulate a brass or string section in an orchestra, where each monophonic player is adding their own expression. From there the emulation breaks down but it’s still the idea that a pad is trying to sort of be something that used to take a group of people to create.

Also, MPE is great for doing what most guitar players do when they bend an individual string in a chord. I’m not sure what other instruments do that, but it’s great. Different than polyphonic aftertouch, but you can bend an individual note with polyphonic aftertouch in a somewhat similar way.

[foosnark]

You’re making the mistake of thinking of polyphonic aftertouch as a thing that’s supposed to emulate how a single instrument behaves.

Fair enough

Mostly I'm objecting to the general argument that expressive electronic music is impossible without (insert feature here).

[Pashkuli]

In fact Polyphonic Aftertouch is quite a good tool to have if implemented correctly with a good range of control (time dependent, which might be a challenge to achieve with hardware means). For example:
· giving some raspy/dist character to your notes
· assign a specific time effect to it (flange, delay, reverb, etc) in junction with a 'split keyboard' fol low and high notes ranges
· pitch bend in the style of a no-whammy guitar (normal guitar pitch bend) - this should be done with a good range though, not with the current 1mm, 2mm depth of aftertouch (hardware challenge!)
· instant "octave" portamento might be interesting as well as a PA implementation

I good Aftertouch (also Polyphonic) motion range should be something between 3~5mm (maybe even 6mm) depth to get a good control over its assigned parameter.
This could be achieved and I have been thinking about implemeting it in my Pashkuli keyboard, but the hardware to do it was going to delay me further more, so I dismissed it and left it with the old-school aftertouch strip.

I am wondering how it's been implemented on the Hydrasynth?
Any first hand experience here?

Polyphonic aftertouch without good motion range (depth) is... mostly useless, especially on medium to fast tempos.

[BBFG#]

When I pointed it out to them and then showed them what it was missing on a real keyboard, he "pfft" and walked away. No development had been made to implement that and I suspect it can't be.

Ok, I see. the Roli Seaboard functionality relies 99% on software so anything can be simulated in that respect, including "release velocity" (actually this should be a piece of cake in that case).
The only problem would be any potential increase in latency if all "dimensions" have to be used at full capacity for all possible note trigger scenarios (some massive chords, etc.).

I completely concur to your opinion with regards to release velocity as a standard feature. I quite do not believe that the Seaboard does not have it, but again I had only two encounters with this board for about an hour total.

Actually in that regard, I wasn't speaking of release velocity, however I did find it had a lag as well which kind of defeated the purpose. And since it was the first inceptions, I would assume there's been improvement on that.
My main complaint is in multiple triggers of the same note in "one handed" 4/5/6 strokes. They stated that I'm the only musician they've seen play that way. I believe I'm not the only one. Most classical players use the technique in one way or another, but perhaps not in mimicking strings and winds as I do. But I'm sure if I do it, there are others that do it even better.
(I did at one point make a mock-up of the Vanderhooten and developed a certain technique from that. Maybe the scale in a round inspired me to develop this technique?)

Again, this seems OT to me as it is a different instrument where the similarity between the two is mainly just the layout.

[Pashkuli]

My main complaint is in multiple triggers of the same note in "one handed" 4/5/6 strokes.

I see now. On my Pashkuli keyboard you can play tremolos by just swivelling your finger and triggering the dome-shape of the respective key. It is very similar to a tremolo technique using a guitar pick on a string.
It is so easy actually, I consider it ridiculous at this point.

[boombaxx]

I have 2 synths both with poly at the original wavestation and ensoniq eps 16. Both made in 1990 still going strong i suppose the were expensive at the time. But i can't see why manufacturers cannot implent poly at if they could do it 30 years ago. Thats one of the reasons i never bought the wavestate. No poly at and stupidly small keyboard whats wrong with 61