where next with software instruments?

[BONES]

well...yes, making music requires "talent, skill and ability"

I would question the validity of that statement too. Again, I know that I have little ability or skill musically, I don't see them as relevant traits in this day and age. And what ability I do have is simply a product of years of working with the tools at my disposal. Its nothing special. What is special is being creative, and what we have today is the ability to be as creative as we possibly can, unfettered by the constraints of technical ability or equipment. The things that were important in the old days are completely irrelevant now. Mostly it means that talent alone will get you where you want to be. Not the hand-eye co-ordination kind of talent, but creative talent.

My work is another good example. I can't draw to save myself, so I could never have been a graphic artist until computers freed me from that constraint. Once I was able to express my creativity in that medium, I was able to establish a career as a designer and I can easily compete with a lot of people who are far more skilled as artists than I could ever be. But that "skill and ability" only allowed those people to express their talent when I could not. My PC has levelled the playing field so that talent alone gets me by.

traditional musicians trying to create quality music (in their own musical sphere) has nothing to do with the tech-race going on the electronic music sphere.

That because what is relevant in one world is not in the other. i.e. You no longer need to be a skilled musician to play any part that any skilled musician can play. So what those musicians have spent their lives aspiring to has no currency in the world of electronic music. Of course, there are a lot of other skills they will have picked up along the way that will be very handy, but playing ability is irrelevant now in many aspects of electronic music.

[aciddose]

i was using sarcasm.

plus, the third and second worlds don't exist, just like the guy still using analog synthesizers or a pianoforte and ink quill. that's because they're not worth anything. see, the people trying to make money (creators of technology and tools) do it in order to sell those things to people with money, in return for well, money. poor people don't exist. people using old methods "of the poor" don't exist. money is the way of the future, the one kid with the one big red button is the way of the future.

bones, yes you're partially on that track but if you read back at what you were saying about how great your work is (implied) compared to the kid with the button you'll see you're missing out on the fact you're half-way between the quill and the button in what you do.

[aaastronomer]

Don't forget that in another 7 or so years, the first quantum computers may be available to the public (only big government has them now). With quantum computers, things like your eye movement to computer control will be possible to the average person. So your eyes can do the work. Robots will also be more intelligent, so they might be able to write your music for you, while you lay on the couch with your chips and beer, watching TV and doing nothing...wow technology really sucks. I for one would like to get a female robot to replace my wife.

quantum computing has far greater (and stranger) implications than just faster and more capable computers (see http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/ ... ry_062908/). quantum entanglement implies the use of the computation environment (wherever that begins and ends) as part of the computation. of course, though, programs for conventional computers can be designed in bra-ket notation, but the real potential of such programs is to alter the environment. perhaps to the extent of making the environment responsive to 'brain state'.

[aciddose]

a lot of people misunderstand quantum computers also; they're only useful for a very limited set of problems at this time, and in fact that set is for the most part limited to cryptography.

a quantum computer has no more power than a current binary computer to do things like write a musical score unless you write a program that can take advantage of some of the properties of qubits. unfortunately, there are no known advantages to using qubits for most problems. your vsti for example wouldn't work any better (or probably at all) on a quantum computer than it does on your current pc.

sort of like how there is no advantage to having a quad-core cpu if your vsti doesn't take advantage of more than one core/thread at a time. (only taking advantage of qubits is WAY more complicated than parallel processing..)

[aaastronomer]

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.

A couple years ago, I went on a trip of trying to make electronic-sounding music with all live instruments. It was a fun experiment and it made me a much better engineer trying to coax the bottom end of electronic instruments out of acoustic drums and electric basses. Everybody should try it at least once.

didn't piere boulez start this with the Second Piano Sonata of 1947-48? i understand that this was probably the first attempt to create electronic sonorities with an acoustic instrument.

[aaastronomer]

i wouldn't even say the most impressive advancement in cganimation is modeling or rendering - i'd say the motion capture and animation systems of today are extremely, extremely improved against those used when animations like "toy story" were built. today it's possible to connect sensors to a real actor and have all physical properties of their bodies and clothing accurately modeled by the system while oversampled motion capture is done providing for accurate motion-blur and other effects.

the modern quality is like the difference between a bumpmap textured phong shader and a flat shader.

I was using modeling as an example because the thread is talking about improving the interface for music software so it is more intuitive and less in the way. Mudbox and Zbrush have done that for modeling. It is like sculpting and you can just focus on the shape whereas before, you needed a lot of technical skill to not end up in a dead end corner.

how do you use Mudbox and Zbrush for music? with max/msp?

[eduardo_b]

well...yes, making music requires "talent, skill and ability"

I would question the validity of that statement too. Again, I know that I have little ability or skill musically, I don't see them as relevant traits in this day and age. And what ability I do have is simply a product of years of working with the tools at my disposal. Its nothing special. What is special is being creative, and what we have today is the ability to be as creative as we possibly can, unfettered by the constraints of technical ability or equipment. The things that were important in the old days are completely irrelevant now. Mostly it means that talent alone will get you where you want to be. Not the hand-eye co-ordination kind of talent, but creative talent.

Do you believe this viewpoint is widely held or unique to yourself? Whatever disagreement I might have with aaastronomer over technology versus talent is dwarfed by my utter dismay at your assertion. It seems, well, more self-serving than anything else. Creative talent does not exist in a vacuum, and while you may think it does, I see it inextricably linked to actual talent with the tools at hand. Talent, skill and ability don't become irrelevant simply because you can't claim them for yourself. But at least your honest enough to admit where yours are. All the musicians I appreciate have both creative talent and traditional talent.

[aaastronomer]

a lot of people misunderstand quantum computers also; they're only useful for a very limited set of problems at this time, and in fact that set is for the most part limited to cryptography.

a quantum computer has no more power than a current binary computer to do things like write a musical score unless you write a program that can take advantage of some of the properties of qubits. unfortunately, there are no known advantages to using qubits for most problems. your vsti for example wouldn't work any better (or probably at all) on a quantum computer than it does on your current pc.

sort of like how there is no advantage to having a quad-core cpu if your vsti doesn't take advantage of more than one core/thread at a time. (only taking advantage of qubits is WAY more complicated than parallel processing..)

yes...although there are some crude qubit circuits around (but, who knows what the spooks have got--or gotten themselves into), 'quantum computing' is more of a mathematical computing formalism like the Von Neumann machine.

this is not to say that there aren't real world applications. there are, see:

http://www.gap-optique.unige.ch/ and
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1367-2630/4/1/341

they are just real experimental at the moment.

[aaastronomer]

i was using sarcasm.

plus, the third and second worlds don't exist, just like the guy still using analog synthesizers or a pianoforte and ink quill. that's because they're not worth anything. see, the people trying to make money (creators of technology and tools) do it in order to sell those things to people with money, in return for well, money. poor people don't exist. people using old methods "of the poor" don't exist. money is the way of the future, the one kid with the one big red button is the way of the future.

bones, yes you're partially on that track but if you read back at what you were saying about how great your work is (implied) compared to the kid with the button you'll see you're missing out on the fact you're half-way between the quill and the button in what you do.

poor people don't exist. people using old methods "of the poor" don't exist

are you still using sarcasm?

the third and second worlds don't exist

for second world try morocco! for third try zimbabwe (a newly emergent 3rd world country)!

money is the way of the future

i guess that is reasonable, if you consider 'property' the way of the past.

the one kid with the one big red button is the way of the future

not sure what you mean here, but that kid will be Trig Palin!

[aaastronomer]

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.

All well and good, but the emphasis is on the tools, not the processes of creation, of artistic growth, of expression. Just listen to the uneven, fairly good to utterly horrible music being produced by this technology in the hands of anyone and everyone. Some even produce an "album" of the stuff, one or two tracks of some artistic interest surrounded by rapidly descending awfulness.

Listen to the same technology in the hands of the truly gifted and it's a completely new experience. No amount of technology ultimately can change that critical component. Another poster noted the progress in animation technology and tools, but without compelling story lines and characters it's all meaningless. Shiny but boring...or worse.

wait...this is wrong forum for a discussion of the technology to change "anyone and everyone" to "the truly gifted". you'll find that discussion in yahoo/neuroscience or something similar. nothing in the real world is beyond being improved by technology!

[aaastronomer]

well...yes, making music requires "talent, skill and ability"

I would question the validity of that statement too. Again, I know that I have little ability or skill musically, I don't see them as relevant traits in this day and age. And what ability I do have is simply a product of years of working with the tools at my disposal. Its nothing special. What is special is being creative, and what we have today is the ability to be as creative as we possibly can, unfettered by the constraints of technical ability or equipment. The things that were important in the old days are completely irrelevant now. Mostly it means that talent alone will get you where you want to be. Not the hand-eye co-ordination kind of talent, but creative talent.

My work is another good example. I can't draw to save myself, so I could never have been a graphic artist until computers freed me from that constraint. Once I was able to express my creativity in that medium, I was able to establish a career as a designer and I can easily compete with a lot of people who are far more skilled as artists than I could ever be. But that "skill and ability" only allowed those people to express their talent when I could not. My PC has levelled the playing field so that talent alone gets me by.

traditional musicians trying to create quality music (in their own musical sphere) has nothing to do with the tech-race going on the electronic music sphere.

That because what is relevant in one world is not in the other. i.e. You no longer need to be a skilled musician to play any part that any skilled musician can play. So what those musicians have spent their lives aspiring to has no currency in the world of electronic music. Of course, there are a lot of other skills they will have picked up along the way that will be very handy, but playing ability is irrelevant now in many aspects of electronic music.

there are two problems with all of this, from my perspective:

(i) wouldn't someone, far more skilled as artist, having the same technology be a better graphic artist than you (presuming equal knowledge of the technology)? especially if a haptic interface was involved?

(ii) there is one flaw to the application of electronics in music--performance. i remember, once, very much liking gary newman's music (e.g., ), then i saw him perform...wonderful one key at a time keyboard technique. oh, well, the tune was good and the staging was perfect!

[aciddose]

"are you still using sarcasm?"

not my personal view, so yes, but in terms of reality? i don't think my sarcastic statements are so far from being truthful pessimistic ones.

it depends upon what you care about. the majority in this world don't want music or care for it in any way what-so-ever. we're the minority. it used to be that only the minority would care enough to put the effort in to find or create things they appreciated and saw as beautiful.

today it's easy enough that you can make a buck without caring and as time passes the distance between those "making a buck" and "real artists" gets smaller and smaller in terms of the income they make and the notice and/or praise they receive.

it just depends how you define "exist" and "matter", "important" and so on. in my opinion i think it'd be best for the kid with the button to f**king die, but my definition of "kid with button" applies to a lot more people than another's definition may.

the people who designed copyright law did not understand it's consequences entirely. with this transformation of art these changes in what is "important" are inevitable. it used to be that actors and poets would freely use each other's material and attribution to it's rightful author was all that was required. artists would live almost in poverty, but their work would involve nothing but their passion and so they led in their opinions better lives than the majority of the rich.

today we're half-way through the decline of our culture, mostly due to the commercialization of every aspect of our lives. every moment must be spent creating income. every action must be designed with a monetary return in mind. with these as the ideals of our culture, "true" art forms, or those produced with a passion for the work itself as their motivation, are inevitably destined to decline.

believe it or not, the "true" art that is still produced is right in front of your faces. those "cats doing back-flips" videos on youtube, for example.

you're simply witnessing a transformation of our culture. the creations you most likely attribute to "real" artists are in fact most likely to be the least "true" of all.

[Cordelia]

nothing in the real world is beyond being improved by technology!

Wow. Nothing?

(i) wouldn't someone, far more skilled as artist, having the same technology be a better graphic artist than you (presuming equal knowledge of the technology)? especially if a haptic interface was involved?

(ii) there is one flaw to the application of electronics in music--performance. i remember, once, very much liking gary newman's music (e.g., ), then i saw him perform...wonderful one key at a time keyboard technique. oh, well, the tune was good and the staging was perfect!

(i) Not necessarily. The "art" is in your head/heart. A specific skill set is not a prerequisite (or a substitute) for a wonderful imagination.

(ii) I've seen as many fantastic performances by "electronic" musicians as I have "traditional" instrumentalists. I've seen as many tedious performances by "traditional" instrumentalists as I have "electronic" musicians.

[kuniklo]

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

The thing that makes the Radias sequences different is that you record them live. You hit a button and then just twist any knob you want and it records the live movements into a sequence that you can then edit. The only thing I've seen that's close in software is the recordable envelopes in some Reaktor synths.

[kuniklo]

But most of that technology has been around for a long time, it just never got put in until the hardware could make it usable.

Sure. That's essentially what I'm saying - we don't need *new* synthesis technology as much as we need ways to make the existing technology more expressive and accessible. Right now there's a brick wall between sound designers and musicians and I think there's an opportunity to knock it down. Electronic music is interesting precisely because it allows us to control timbre in complete harmony with other musical considerations but this requires so much analytic knowledge and is such a manual, tedious process now that it limits our ability to exploit that strength.

Sticking with the CG analogy, if you compare the expressiveness of the kitchen staff in Ratatouille with the characters in Toy Story there's no question that technology has given talent new means of expression.