and mystic wolves!When quantum computers are available, we will control everything on the computer with our eyes. This technology is already available to big government, then sooner or later to the general public. Playing an on screen keyboard with my eyes...hmmm.
I think you are trying to make a point that doesn't stand up to real world examination. That a cello won't sound like a synth is obvious and irrelevant. That a synth can, to a limited degree, emulate a cello is equally irrelevant because the synth cannot be played with the expression and emotional complexity of a real cello. And, cellos are difficult to master, so those who play them well can offer nuance and complexity that no synth player can. This is not about being inside the box. It's about reality.BONES wrote:A cello can only sound like a f**king cello. Yet somehow, because it sounds more like a cello than a synth, it is inherently superior. f**k off! I can do a much better emulation of a cello with the simplest synth than the best cellist in the world can do trying to get their cello to sound like a Virus...how about the cellist? A few fingers and a bow? That's like playing a synth with one hand tied behind your back. Its trivial and all the subtlety and nuance is available to us, just as it is to the cellist...Seriously, a lot of you guys really need to start thinking outside the box.
Thank you eduardo man, you restored a bit of faith into me: *practically every live show i go to see involves human beings playing real instruments and if they dont cut it live then they wont be seeing a penny from me being spent on a record of theirs (regardless of how good or bad a job the live sound FOH did). I will often buy merch if i was impressed as this is their income whilst on tour and after that the majority have to go back to a regular day job despite having a recording contract*eduardo_b wrote:In fact, for many of those who go to concerts, the expectation is that they will hear variations of recorded versions. Otherwise, with the possible exception of concert sound levels, one could achieve the same experience by simply listening to recorded audio at home. The interactions of musicians among themselves and with the audience are what makes the live music experience unique.Vectorman wrote:In most other musical genres, a greater degree of human feel and emotional connection than is readily achieved by entering notes with a mouse on a computer screen is widely considered desirable.
Despite all of the technological innovation both now and in the future, there are things that cannot be replicated, and one of these is what happens when people play real musical instruments. This is the same reason that expectations regarding artificial intelligence were doomed to disappointment. Organic neural networks encompass attributes that cannot be replicated by artificial simulations of them. Trying to program emotions doesn't work.
The idea that anyone can control 10 parameters at once is quite out of the question. It's a form of multitasking, with half a dozen being considered the outer limit for humans, and even that is dependent on the tasks at hand. I think someone pointed out that there's no particular reason why more than six is even necessary.
All that matters is that the emotional energy of a musician can be heard in their playing. If music is more than just sound, if it really is about the connection between player and listener, then the technology is only as good as it allows musicians to experience their musical emotions without compromise.
Thank you eduardo man, you restored a bit of faith into me: *practically every live show i go to see involves human beings playing real instruments and if they dont cut it live then they wont be seeing a penny from me being spent on a record of theirs (regardless of how good or bad a job the live sound FOH did). I will often buy merch if i was impressed as this is their income whilst on tour and after that the majority have to go back to a regular day job despite having a recording contract*eduardo_b wrote:In fact, for many of those who go to concerts, the expectation is that they will hear variations of recorded versions. Otherwise, with the possible exception of concert sound levels, one could achieve the same experience by simply listening to recorded audio at home. The interactions of musicians among themselves and with the audience are what makes the live music experience unique.Vectorman wrote:In most other musical genres, a greater degree of human feel and emotional connection than is readily achieved by entering notes with a mouse on a computer screen is widely considered desirable.
Despite all of the technological innovation both now and in the future, there are things that cannot be replicated, and one of these is what happens when people play real musical instruments. This is the same reason that expectations regarding artificial intelligence were doomed to disappointment. Organic neural networks encompass attributes that cannot be replicated by artificial simulations of them. Trying to program emotions doesn't work.
The idea that anyone can control 10 parameters at once is quite out of the question. It's a form of multitasking, with half a dozen being considered the outer limit for humans, and even that is dependent on the tasks at hand. I think someone pointed out that there's no particular reason why more than six is even necessary.
All that matters is that the emotional energy of a musician can be heard in their playing. If music is more than just sound, if it really is about the connection between player and listener, then the technology is only as good as it allows musicians to experience their musical emotions without compromise.
You're missing something quite fundamental here.BONES wrote:OK, if you don't want to read that, the bottom line is that I cannot believe how narrow-minded, blinkered and outright bigoted some people around here are. You're carrying on as though a synth was like an organ, yet you'll probably tell me how much more expressive a big church organ is than any synth. You're all idiots.
To suggest that we are more hamstrung than a trumpet player is patently absurd. A trumpet is monophonic FFS! A cello can only sound like a f**king cello. Yet somehow, because it sounds more like a cello than a synth, it is inherently superior. f**k off! I can do a much better emulation of a cello with the simplest synth than the best cellist in the world can do trying to get their cello to sound like a Virus.
As for control, what does a trumpet player have? three finger [valves] and his mouth. Well guess what, ladies? I can buy a breath-controller and do that easily. how about the cellist? A few fingers and a bow? That's like playing a synth with one hand tied behind your back. Its trivial and all the subtlety and nuance is available to us, just as it is to the cellist. The difference is that we're not restricted to sounding like a cello.
Seriously, a lot of you guys really need to start thinking outside the box.
BONES IS AWESOME! He misses nothing! Just check out his music and you'll see. My hero!keyman_sam wrote:You're missing something quite fundamental here.BONES wrote:OK, if you don't want to read that, the bottom line is that I cannot believe how narrow-minded, blinkered and outright bigoted some people around here are. You're carrying on as though a synth was like an organ, yet you'll probably tell me how much more expressive a big church organ is than any synth. You're all idiots.
We're all here to make music. Musicians make music. Music is sound that sounds so wonderful, so pleasant that it appeals to the human mind and emotion.
And thats on a good day![The]Windy[Season] wrote:If anyone wants my humble opinion, it seems that you all quickly fall into pretentious arguments with notes of barely restrained hostility.
That's strange, as your f***ing plugins or soundfonts in a wrapper, are the most boring plugins I've ever heard. Of course made using a PC.BONES wrote:How f**king boring would that be? How could you place any value on something so easily achieved? Sounds like something Apple would do.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until you can produce a coherent string quartet, for instance, I can't take your claim seriously. Trial and error won't get you everywhere.BONES wrote: As I said before, I feel that I could tackle anything, any style at all, with currently available tools.
I don't think that's it at all. Many of us compose a very wide-range of styles and are passionate about more than just one school of thought. We combine all disciplines and styels--from underground avant-garde, hardcore industrial, experimental IDM, classical, jazz, film/video game scores, sound design, rock, pop, trip-hop, prog rock, to whatever else. We utilize both acoustic and electronic instruments, and we are well-versed in playing both acoustic and electronic instruments. we can program synthesizers, compose/orchestrate for symphony orchestras, and can improvise jazz or rock out on instruments. We can find beauty in the performance of instrument masters like Yo-Yo Ma, Larry Adler, Les Claypool, Itzhak Perlman, Jordan Rudess, Glenn Gould, John Coltrane..etc, and we also can find beauty in a Kraftwerk concert, or lose ourselves in the wonderful world of synths and drum machines. We believe that some styles of music require us to step up in our knowledge of theory and performance skills, while other styles of music require us to learn to program and think in non-traditional manners. We believe in trying everything and learning everything, and to hybridize our knowledge and skills to make something that moves us personally. How is that narrow-minded? It appears to me that's far more open-minded than musicians who just focus on one style and do things one way.BONES wrote:OK, if you don't want to read that, the bottom line is that I cannot believe how narrow-minded, blinkered and outright bigoted some people around here are. You're carrying on as though a synth was like an organ, yet you'll probably tell me how much more expressive a big church organ is than any synth. You're all idiots.
keyman_sam wrote: A cello, when played properly, can move you, can make you feel happiness, sadness, etc. It can be perceived as "beautiful" music. A synth can do no such thing without EMULATING other instruments.
I ask you to post music made using only a synthesizer sound, that is not an emulation of anything else, that has character of its own, and makes beautiful music. I understand that there's a lot of subjectivity to it, but i hardly think anyone would disagree that yo yo ma can make the cello sing whereas there's no such person for the synthesizer world.
kind of ironic and sort of undermines your point to a degree, eh?... 
agreed - and it's strange that a few people don't realize that while supplying arguments that support this view.kuniklo wrote:I think synthesizers *can* be as expressive as acoustic instruments, perhaps even more so in some ways, but right now making them so is a lot harder than I think it has to be. Hence this thread.
Submit: News, Plugins, Hosts & Apps | Advertise @ KVR | Developer Account | About KVR / Contact Us | Privacy Statement
© KVR Audio, Inc. 2000-2026
