where next with software instruments?

[kuniklo]

There are two ideas getting mixed up here. Generative music, and interface improvements...

I think new interfaces might include some element of randomness but yes, let's not confuse the two things.

[ckatrun411]

Personally, I am not interested in something that creates music for me. I am interested in developments that allow me to interface with the computer environment in more fluid and organic ways.

I know exactly what you are talking about. This is cause, coming from a traditional instrument, to computer music, it is easy to see the limitations. My traditional instrument is guitar, I played for years in bands. I always think to myself, "Guitar is so much faster to interface with."

But the other thought, is guitar has far less dimensions than computer software. Hard to believe, but... It can take hours and hours to just tweak, " a super sound " on a synth, where as on guitar, in 20 seconds flat you can rip out a fat solo.

Than the question becomes, at least to me, when will we have eye glass or helmets or something that we wear, that lets us interface with computers through direct connection with our brains.


That is kinda, Far off, and slightly borgish....


And I don't want to be borg!!



But I do want a computer software synth, that reads my mind, and makes the sound I am thinking of. You know?


We can connect our neurons to the computer, and all the music in our heads can come out in mega huge, electronic orchestra....

[Benedict]

But I do want a computer software synth, that reads my mind, and makes the sound I am thinking of. You know?


We can connect our neurons to the computer, and all the music in our heads can come out in mega huge, electronic orchestra....

I think that is called practice and experience. Did you get to rip big solos after 2 weeks on the geetar?

Play synths with the same ease and the simplest of sould can be alive and magic.

Now if only I learned to play properly - all that theory makes me stop every time

[herboriseria]

I hope for future softsynths a better man-machine interface, see this video and maybe you understand the concept, naturally it will require new controller hardware:
listen this old beast

[BONES]

Also, I don't need precision for some sounds. Control is good when you need it but sometimes more than anything I need *less* control on my way to something new. Isn't this essentially what you're doing with Orion's genetics tool?

Sure, but its a specific task I only perform because I use SE to make my own stuff, which is why I see SE as the real leap forward. It allows me to do exactly what I want to do, instead of waiting around for someone else to do it or compromising by using something less suited to the task at hand.
I also appreciate the way it compartmentalises the process further, in a similar way to keeping a separate audio editor. The audio editor does what I once would have spent countless hours in front of my sampler doing and combining that with what I do in SE means that when I want to focus on writing or production, all my ducks are in a row and I can concentrate on the important aspects of the task at hand. i.e. I don't want to be chopping up samples or searching through endless banks of presets, or even wading through an over-complex synth, when I am trying to chase down a spark of inspiration or a little niggle in a mix.
A big part of that is the simple fact that when you make your own instrument, you know it inside out before you ever get to use it. That might sound like it could be a bit limiting but working out a structure or a signal path almost always opens up far more possibilities that you first expect it will. e.g. The Randomiser in my new synths does far more than I anticipated when I had the idea. I was thinking of the kind of variation I used to get from ORION's old Plucked String instrument, which had a "Random Attack" parameter that added a nice feel to a bassline, but its turned out to offer a lot more, like a kind of speech quality to a synth line when applied to cutoff or resonance. So even though its all come out of my brain, it breaks boundaries for me, allowing me to learn and grow.

[kuniklo]

Sure, but its a specific task I only perform because I use SE to make my own stuff, which is why I see SE as the real leap forward. It allows me to do exactly what I want to do, instead of waiting around for someone else to do it or compromising by using something less suited to the task at hand.

Of course you realize that SE is a perfect example of the kind of tradeoff I'm talking about. You sacrifice the low level control that coding up your own C++ plugins would give you in exchange for a more intuitive and efficient workflow. SE allows you to do things you'd never be able to do otherwise without a much greater level of technical skill.

It seems to me that we're making exactly the same argument. The only difference is the degree of control we're willing to sacrifice for our own efficiency.

[BONES]

Maybe if you're a coder but I'm not sacrificing anything at all. Quite the opposite, Se allows me to do things that I would otherwise never have the opportunity of doing, as does my graphics software and most of the rest of my audio/music software, too.
The difference in the argument is that my sacrifices are wholly outside of the musical arena and designed to maximise my potential inside it. OTOH, you are proposing to make all your sacrifices within the musical arena, yet hope to get more out of it. i.e. I am drawing stuff from outside and putting it to use inside, while you are looking to take things away from inside and still get more. I have serious doubts that what you propose is viable.

[zerocrossing]

I don't think cars are a great analogy either because they're being optimized to perform a practical task. Art is inherently irrational and impractical.

Have you seen how people drive in NYC?

But seriously, look at the guitar. Why is it so popular? Easy to learn, hard to master. It's all about what you can do with constraints and the level of nuance that can be achieved with it. If you took a racing game controller and mapped perimeters to it, you could probably get a really good instrument. Not overly complex, familiar to use and has the possibility to achieve pretty subtile nuance.


Once I saw Robert Moog talk before the opening of the Therimin movie at Cornell University. During the question and answer part of the talk someone asked if Big Brier would ever release a MIDI Therimin. Bob went OFF. He basically said, "The beauty of the Therimin is that it's a very simple sound source but it can be very musical due to the way the musician can interface with it" (He then went off on how sampling sucked, which had nothing to do with the question but it seemed like a pet peeve for Robert)

So why aren't we all playing therimins? Part of it's tradition, but I think a bigger part is that the novelty of the instrument doesn't overcome some limitations. Hard to go from one note to another in a staccato style. Enter a good midi keyboard. Using portamento, pitchbend, aftertouch, volume pedal and a well made patch, I could very easily mimic the sound of a therimin but also get a lot more control over expression. The therimin fails because it's too simple and limiting.

Wiimote? Cute and fun to watch, but limited in similar ways and not all that accurate. A good instrument must be very predictable. You have to be able to become very intimate with it. I hate the fact that my Handsonic's D-Beam is mapped to sound triggering from the factory. It's nearly impossible to get an accurate timing with that technology. Much better for expression than as a trigger, but even that can change if the ambient light in the room changes.

So, you need to get a balance between simplicity and flexibility. It needs to be easy to manufacture so it's not too expensive and it needs to be portable. Music is social (though not to me) and being able to transport your instrument easily is important.

BEHOLD... THE KEYBOARD! Perfect? Perhaps not but it's stood the test of time. It works.

So if anyone is thinking that in 10 years we'll take our flying car over to the guitar center to buy a midi leotard I think you'll be disappointed. Think of it like architecture. Has it changed much in 100 years? Not really. New materials, subtile improvements but nothing radically different has become popular.

[dan_s]

I think software instruments already have too many possibilities to be used to their full potential. We have overdrawn on the potential. The instruments have far surpassed what many people are able to use them for. We need to catch up to the technology first.

[zerocrossing]

This is an interesting point. Do we need our instruments to be perfectly predictable or would some degree of chaos and obscurity in the interface hope find happy accidents.

The answer, quite clearly, is both. Reaktor is great for stuff like Gaugear. It's also good for things like FM or VA too, but that type of thing is more readily available. I'm happy that people are creating both types of instruments in Reaktor (and in general) but the bad part of Gaugear is that your basic keyboard isn't the best way to work with it. If someone would breed my Novation Remote61 with a Jazzmutant Lemur that would allow me to directly interact with the graphics in Gaugear... now that would be sweet. It would also have to change to the look of a miniMoog when I want that kind of interface.

Why is it that you would not have come up with those sounds otherwise? And how did you do it? If it is just a different way of mucking about, that is one thing but what if you get it 80% of the way there and find you cannot be precise enough with the settings to get it perfect - wouldn't you find that frustrating and ultimately useless? I certainly would.

The specific advantage of Gaugear over other synths is that I would never have come up with the same kind of sound *transformations* with another synth. Each point in the curve is accessible by other means but the path of the curve itself is unique. This is what I'm really getting at - navigating among the points in the sound world map in new ways.

Also, I don't need precision for some sounds. Control is good when you need it but sometimes more than anything I need *less* control on my way to something new. Isn't this essentially what you're doing with Orion's genetics tool?

[kuniklo]

Think of it like architecture. Has it changed much in 100 years? Not really. New materials, subtile improvements but nothing radically different has become popular.

Actually, some *very* interesting things have been happening in architecture lately:
http://www.calatrava.com/main.htm

Only made possible by modern materials and methods.

The tools we have today are good enough to make the music of yesterday, but for something new to happen in electronic music we're going to have to try some new approaches. Autechre don't always succeed but if you listen carefully to what they've been doing on their last few albums you can hear something new going on. I'd like to see the kind of expressivity they've achieved made accessible to those of us without their technical chops.

[zerocrossing]

They'll always be experimental buildings and instruments. Mostly they're novelties though. How many of us live and work in buildings like that? Few.

Why don't homes look like Frank Lloyd Wright homes? Hard to heat, lack of privacy and notoriously leaky. However, some of his ideas did leak into the mainstream and I'm sure an architect would be able to point those aspects of my condo out. I'm just happy that my place isn't drafty and has grounded outlets and ethernet wired throughout the place. Oh look! The person who made the living room had the foresight to realize that a TV might go there! (how many times did I live in an hold house where it had to go in front of a long dead fireplace?) Incremental changes, but great for a modern place to live. It doesn't look like a lucite sculpture but it works for humans.

So, the avant guard by it's definition isn't the normal, but society takes the parts of it that it can use and weaves it into what we call culture.

I don't want my main instrument to be floating lucite balls connected by arcs of electricity... just sometimes. Turns on the geeky chicks.... doesn't it? What? No? DAMN!

Think of it like architecture. Has it changed much in 100 years? Not really. New materials, subtile improvements but nothing radically different has become popular.

Actually, some *very* interesting things have been happening in architecture lately:
http://www.calatrava.com/main.htm

Only made possible by modern materials and methods.

The tools we have today are good enough to make the music of yesterday, but for something new to happen in electronic music we're going to have to try some new approaches. Autechre don't always succeed but if you listen carefully to what they've been doing on their last few albums you can hear something new going on. I'd like to see the kind of expressivity they've achieved made accessible to those of us without their technical chops.

[kuniklo]

They'll always be experimental buildings and instruments. Mostly they're novelties though. How many of us live and work in buildings like that? Few.

Calatrava's buildings are hardly avant garde novelties. They're functional public buildings.

WRT music, I'm sure we'll be modulating filter cutoff from a mod wheel for many years to come. I just don't see why anyone should suppose that's as good as it gets.

[kuniklo]

The difference in the argument is that my sacrifices are wholly outside of the musical arena and designed to maximise my potential inside it. OTOH, you are proposing to make all your sacrifices within the musical arena, yet hope to get more out of it.

That's exactly right. I don't see why this wall between programming and performance can't be broken down. Maybe it's a misplaced hope but I think there's tremendous untapped potential to do this. What's more, I don't think there's really much left to do in the old paradigm. We all already have far more options under our fingertips than we can possibly use. If vendors want to keep selling us new tools they're going to have to start innovating with the human interface.

[BONES]

I can't see this wall, which is why I sincerely believe it exists in your head. I can make or do anything. I can get up on stage and perform music with just my laptop that would have required a truck-load of gear when I started out in the mid-80s, if it could be done at all. Sound quality wise it certainly could not have been done at any price back then.
It requires real discipline to maintain focus and build on the strengths, without being distracted by all the possibilities. I'm almost starting to feel a wee bit sorry for you, being trapped in a cage of your own making.

The tools we have today are good enough to make the music of yesterday, but for something new to happen in electronic music we're going to have to try some new approaches. Autechre don't always succeed but if you listen carefully to what they've been doing on their last few albums you can hear something new going on. I'd like to see the kind of expressivity they've achieved made accessible to those of us without their technical chops.

This is nonsense. If people want to make something new, its there for them now. Fact is that few people want to listen to something new because most of what's worth hearing has been done already.
You know, if NOVAkILL got on Letterman, to 99.9% of the audience we would be playing something, the likes of which they had never experienced before in their lives. We could be lauded as pioneers and innovators when the truth is that we are just a couple of try-hard bastards rehashing the glory days of early 90s EBM. "EB-what?", you say. My point exactly.