where next with software instruments?

[kuniklo]

Giving talented people better technology may indeed result in more expressive art. For everyone else, the results may be expressive, but it won't exactly be art.

Sure. There will never be any substitute for talent and ideas. The problem with today's instruments is that they force musicians to think more like engineers.

[kuniklo]

The problem with that is what is good for you is likely to be useless to me. Beyond that, what you describe is pretty ,much ORION's Genetics, which we've had for around 5 years now. You select two presets and press the BREED button.

Reaktor works this way a bit with random preset merging and the Nord G2 takes it a step further with direct preset evolution but what I'm describing would go far beyond either approach. I think it's interesting that you're sure it would be useless to you without even understanding what it is.

[BONES]

Possibly not useless, just not of significantly more use than what I have had access to for 5 years. i.e. It will only be an evolutionary improvement to existing functionality, rather than the revolution you are looking for.

I can't think of a better way for computers and instruments to communicate, control, and synch up with each other. If there were, MIDI would have already gone by the wayside.

I think its more a matter of it becoming largely redundant, in that most hosts use a much better system internally. Plus there are things like ReWire that are far more sophisticated. These days MIDI is really just a bit-player in most people's set-ups.

Talent is so much more important than tools that they're not even in the same planetary system. Never will be.

I don't think so, really. I don't think I have much "talent" per se, but I focus on the important aspects of the process, which allows me to put what talent I do possess to best use.
One problem is that people either rely on the technology too much, rather than back themselves to get the job done properly, or they are just not interested in achieving anything, they just want to play around with shiny toys.
The other problem is that the market caters to these people and those of us with songs to produce are largely marginalised, because we are either too busy getting on with it to have our voices heard [clearly not my problem] and/or we are not a big enough segment of the market to matter [which seems more likely].

Look at what's been done in computer animated films in the last ten years. There's no question that giving people more powerful and expressive tools has made their art more expressive too.

i would suggest that the big improvement there, and its the industry I work in, is rendering. It is now possible to make stuff look a whole lot better than it did 10 years ago but I would argue that Toy Story was every bit as good a film as anything recent. 10 years ago it might take 2 hours to render each frame of a feature [x 24 frames per second x however many seconds the film runs], so things like global illumination, fur, etc had to be compromised in order to get the job finished on time. These days all that stuff can be included and rendering times will still be around one-tenth of what they were 10 years ago. i.e. It is the hardware that has facilitated improvements, rather than anything gee-whizz in the software. Most of us are still working in much the same way we did back then.

[eduardo_b]

The other problem is that the market caters to these people and those of us with songs to produce are largely marginalised, because we are either too busy getting on with it to have our voices heard [clearly not my problem] and/or we are not a big enough segment of the market to matter [which seems more likely].

I would agree that the developers, particularly those with the largest market share and most invested, are focused on maintaining a continuous revenue stream, which requires a combination of expanding product lines, updates and upgrades. Everybody who can code thinks they're in the music software business by having a web site and some means for accepting money. So, there are dozens upon dozens of "companies" selling the same products with different UIs and names. Their willing victims are those who can't stop buying this stuff as it's released. These are the same people who are wanting more technology. There's already more than enough technology. There aren't enough customers who know how to use it well.

[kuniklo]

i would suggest that the big improvement there, and its the industry I work in, is rendering. It is now possible to make stuff look a whole lot better than it did 10 years ago but I would argue that Toy Story was every bit as good a film as anything recent.

That's my industry too. I think strong storytelling and characterization will always be the most important but the better tools we have now make it possible for us to make more fully fleshed out and dynamic characters and convincing sets. Of course, this is partly due to the amount of raw power we now have available for rendering but also owes a lot to the much more powerful tools we have available,

For instance, people used to write shader code by hand. This took a lot of training and experience but made some very powerful and efficient shaders possible. Now this is mostly done by higher level graphical tools and by a lot of people that couldn't write a shader from scratch. This is the right tradeoff though - spend the extra cpu and sacrifice some low level control to give the typical artist a higher level, intuitive approach to their work. I expect we'll see the same trend in music. The tools we've been discussing (Kore, FM8 etc) are already baby steps towards letting musicians thing of *what* they want instead of *how*.

[kuniklo]

Here's another idea - toss out fixed modulators and make modulation merge with performance. Instead of assigning an lfo to a filter, I just drag the filter in rhythmic pattern and that becomes a new modulation. The recordable envelopes in Reaktor and the modulation sequences in the Korg Radias are a bit like this but the idea could be taken a lot further.

[Uncle E]

Here's another idea - toss out fixed modulators and make modulation merge with performance. Instead of assigning an lfo to a filter, I just drag the filter in rhythmic pattern and that becomes a new modulation. The recordable envelopes in Reaktor and the modulation sequences in the Korg Radias are a bit like this but the idea could be taken a lot further.

This is more of a sequencer issue. Acid 2 was great in that it locked automation to the part, whereas in Acid 3 and beyond, automation was a separate event/track like it is in every other sequencer. If the Radias modulation sequencer is like the one in the Electribes, it takes it a step further with the triggered automation (can't remember what they call it) and I would love, love, LOVE to see this implemented into a VSTi.

[kuniklo]

This is more of a sequencer issue. Acid 2 was great in that it locked automation to the part, whereas in Acid 3 and beyond, automation was a separate event/track like it is in every other sequencer. If the Radias modulation sequencer is like the one in the Electribes, it takes it a step further with the triggered automation (can't remember what they call it) and I would love, love, LOVE to see this implemented into a VSTi.

The difference would be that this would be polyphonic.

I also would love to see something like the Radias modulation sequences in a vst. Somebody should just steal that idea outright.

[ckatrun411]

Rapture has modulation sequences... I don't know much about the korg radias though... but, Rapture has extensive sequencing ability.....

[aaastronomer]

i'd like trainable 'style generators' with my next gen synths. just load samples of reference music into a training set and the synth: (1) analyzes the sonic content of the training set to generate presets that fit the style, (2) analyzes the beat structure to generate appropriate midi, (3) detects and analyzes any effecting (probable) in sample set to generate appropriate presets, (4) lightly randomizes generated contents, (5) plays back new contents for review.

Buy yourself a radio, you sad f**k. Is that really all music means to you? A random collection of styles? Its pathetic.
But it brings up an interesting aspect to all of this, which is that it seems most people want the equipment to do more of the work for them. As much as there are parts of the process that shit me to tears, it makes achieving the result all the more satisfying. Take out the hard work and what would be the point? You may as well go and join a band, FFS.

you troglodytic f**k!

music is and always has been a collection of styles (e.g., the "Langen Mandra Wanara" opera style developed at the end of the 19th century in Yogyakarta or secular vs. sacred renaissance music). to not recognize this you must has missed elementary education somewhere!

of course people want machines to do ever more work for them. this is what is called 'progress' in western culture. (i assume you'd prefer to be sawing on some cat gut wood box somewhere.) what is 'process' today will not be 'process' in, say, ten years. for example, it use to be 'process' to write out orchestral score by hand and then have it copied out to individual parts by copiest. now, of course, you just use notation software. it is also now possible to send the parts to the individual players on stage by wireless intranet.

a style generator, as i envision it, does not compose a unique piece of music for you, rather a generic or stereotypical piece. it's still up to the 'composer' to construct ornamentation, modulations, tempo variants, and the large scale structure of a piece. of course, the line between 'composer' and compositional software does get blurred, but who's afraid of a little ambiguity of attribution?

what you call hard work today, will be child's play tomorrow. such technology not only democratizes the making of music, but can lift the bar on musical quality. further, just because i have a certain level of technology doesn't enable me to use it to the degree that the pros can!

you, sir, come off as an ignorant ninny.

[aaastronomer]

This theme arises every so often, and it really is about gear versus creativity. Given how much mediocre music is being produced with the huge variety of tools already available, I simply don't accept the premise that software and music technology need improvement. It's the users who need improvement. They can't accomplish much with what they have now, so we can only expect no better in the future.

Sorry, this really is an irritating topic. I can hardly wait for the parade of "music" from those who snapped up Omnisphere as if finally, now, they can create the music they've only dreamed of.

Talent is so much more important than tools that they're not even in the same planetary system. Never will be.

/rant off

Carry on.

as nothing is perfect, everything needs improvement! technology merely raises the bar for quality. there was lots of mediocre 19th century piano music (which you find out if you undertake a traditional course of piano study). going from candle light to gas light probably didn't change that situation from the 18th century. i would think that even the most accomplished users of a given technology expect (and can point out) what improvements need to be made of a technology. a tool is just a tool. however, it is obvious a tool can increase productivity and precision in the hands of a skilled user of the tool.

[ckatrun411]

[aaastronomer]

The other problem is that the market caters to these people and those of us with songs to produce are largely marginalised, because we are either too busy getting on with it to have our voices heard [clearly not my problem] and/or we are not a big enough segment of the market to matter [which seems more likely].

I would agree that the developers, particularly those with the largest market share and most invested, are focused on maintaining a continuous revenue stream, which requires a combination of expanding product lines, updates and upgrades. Everybody who can code thinks they're in the music software business by having a web site and some means for accepting money. So, there are dozens upon dozens of "companies" selling the same products with different UIs and names. Their willing victims are those who can't stop buying this stuff as it's released. These are the same people who are wanting more technology. There's already more than enough technology. There aren't enough customers who know how to use it well.

"already more than enough technology" for what?

[aciddose]

a piece of dried intestine tied between two ends of a curved stick should be "enough technology" to create wonderful music, and it certainly is. now go ahead and try.

...of course robots and other forms of mechanization are not needed in industry or agriculture either, and the fact we have so much food and goods available that everybody is becoming obese whilst listening to their i-pods is a terrible, terrible thing. let's do everything by hand again, sure everybody will be poor except a privileged few, but we'll be those few won't we?

when you cry about ejay or related terrible, terrible technologies or tools you're only crying for fear of your worth disappearing. you'll be replaced, eventually. get used to it.

[eduardo_b]

of course people want machines to do ever more work for them. this is what is called 'progress' in western culture.

It might indeed by called progress by some, but whether progress is actualy what it is remains quite open to question. Player pianos might have been considered progress, but they hardly represented an improvement over what a piano could sound like in the hands of someone with talent and ability. I think I see the reason for your perspective in your statement below:

what you call hard work today, will be child's play tomorrow. such technology not only democratizes the making of music, but can lift the bar on musical quality. further, just because i have a certain level of technology doesn't enable me to use it to the degree that the pros can!

Well, to begin with, the unfettered democratizing of the making of music is not necessarily a desirable thing, because it changes the very qualities of the experience that makes it what it is. Using a "machine" to create music is like painting by numbers. Yes, you end up with something that resembles art, but it clearly isn't art. A style generator that allows the user to add music bric-a-brac is the equivalent of using a Bedazzler to add shiny objects to a piece of clothing. The whole thing becomes just that much more mediocre in the process of so-called creativity. Why have any artistic standards at all?