where next with software instruments?

[zerocrossing]

No! Cellos can't make music!

[keyman_sam]

No! Cellos can't make music!

[Dean Aka Nekro]

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.

Seriously, you really need to start thinking outside of your box and maybe trying to experiment a little and respecting others opinion's, Far starters it would bring some fresh idea's and even some inspiration to your table plus you have not got anything to lose either

[zerocrossing]

Has anyone but me realized that if you took all the robots out of that movie every other single aspect of that movie came true?

With that in mind, we can end this thread because it's quite clear that this is what the future of instruments is going to be like:



and possibily this:



I wonder if they'll be using MIDI over subspace by then...

[presswerk]

I think that the breakthrougs we need are in

1. Processing Power - so we can be less worried about running out of notes etc.

2. Integration - VST is great but the way it integrates into Hosts is not really well sorted yet. This may be an issue of User Interface more than software protocols.

3. Interface - the hardware paradigm tends to stick because it appeals to us. What I think we need is coming from the ditection of things like Novation's Automap but that (for good reason) is only part of the way. I think if we had a kind of morphing hardware interface that made genuine representation of the VST in hardware then it would be the perfect interfaceof hard and soft. To use existing paradigms imagine having a project with a VST Jupiter 8 and VST Moog and as each instrument takes focus the controller instantly looks just like it with all the knobs positioned correctly. A fair stretch I know but that wold be a great step forward.

Sorting 1 & 2 will take us a long way alone. 3 wold be magic (literally I think)

1) Track freeze is a technology that fixes this.

2) Get rid of Steinberg & Midi.

3) This does need a lot of work, but people are obsessed with pretty over usability, generally.

Ok, I don't quite understand number 3, but for number 1, 'track freeze' is a workaround not a fix or a solution and getting rid of the initial innovators of vst is no good as this seems to be the current standard of things. The future options to be initiated will have to take these older technologies (vst) into consideration for there to be a steady progress into newer technologies.
I'm certain that Midi will be replaced one day as it does have it's limitations. It has had one hell of a good life span though eh?

Get rid of Steinberg? What respect for the company that gave you software instruments, and unlike others I won't mention, let developers go at it freely to encourage the abundance and diversity of the instruments you use... Way off base on that.

Get rid of MIDI? Why? It works great. I use it to not only trigger notes, but also run light shows and control my software. A revision maybe, more CCs, and perhaps integration into web based stuff such as Flash... But rid of it?

We should be thinking of imaginative ways to stop mimicking hardware, and come up with new ways of modulating and manipulating audio.

[Kriminal]

this is the future of music.....

[presswerk]

I can't think of a better way for computers and instruments to communicate, control, and synch up with each other.

Really? A 31.25kbaud serial interface, which can only handle 16 device channels, is limited to 127 note values (restricted to the context of semitone-based scale increments, no less), and only defines a horribly limited number of parameter controllers which have a precision of a mere 127 values? You cant think of anything better? Wow.

If there were, MIDI would have already gone by the wayside.

Fallacy. Just because it hasn't been replaced doesn't mean it couldn't have been replaced.

a good argument. It does need updating. We've gotten VST updated, so MIDI update would be great. Personally, I would like to see the midi cable evolve into a usb type port, with support for more finer control values and yes... More channels. But I still love it just the way it is...

The key to updating it would be usability.

[BONES]

Alright, take 3 [I've just started again from scratch for the 3rd time]. What I want you to do is apply what you are saying about cellists and horn players to pianists. You have no problem with that, right? i.e. A concert pianist is right up there with those other musicians, right?
OK, now look at what a pianist does, its a subset of the tools that we have available. Its quite limited by comparison but the skill level is comparable. So if you get that same concert pianist and put him in front of an expressive synth with pitch-bend, mod wheel, after-touch and the rest of it, how can it possibly be that the guy with those mad piano skills is suddenly rendered a second-class citizen, so to speak? It simply makes no sense.
But the kicker is the fact that we can record his performance and capture all his skills in action. Velocity, timing, pedals - its all trivial. Once we do that, we can deconstruct that performance and rework it any way we like. Its ours now and we no longer need the pianist or his skills. They are irrelevant, obsolete, an anachronism. Sure, there might still be the pleasure of mastering an instrument but it is no longer a necessary prerequisite for doing good work. In fact, to me its not necessary at all. The only time I need any real playing skill is on stage, which is a whole 'nuther thing.

Someone asked for a demo file but I really don't see the need. Instead, how about I list just a few of the parameters I can control that put even a simple synth way ahead of even the most accomplished cellist, etc. Things like:

- Envelope Interpolation. OK, a pianist can use his damper pedal and a cellist can control the way strings are plucked but with a synth I can choose from any number of different profiles. So if a sound needs a percussive pluck or a smooth "S" curve, I can cover it. Add some modulation of the envelope segments itself - attack, decay, etc - and you've got a range of expression that no virtuoso can match with an old-fashioned instrument.

- Filters. Mixing low-pass, high-pass, etc to create the exact blend of harmonics a piece requires. A virtuoso can get some of that kind of thing but with nothing like the range or flexibility we have. Its why a synth can emulate so many other instruments so successfully.

- Unison. Instant ensemble without the need to hire an orchestra.

- PWM. Pretty cool stuff that you really can't do in the "real". The right kind ff modulation can add amazing subtlety to a performance. e.g. use a little velocity to mix up your pulse-width so that brighter notes sound closer to square waves or whatever. Endless possibilities.

- Portamento. Obvious one, really.

- Pitch Bend. A virtuoso might be able to do something subtle but what about a 2 octave bend?

That's a few but there are countless others - multi-point envelopes, after-touch, etc. Sure you might be able to say that a certain instrument can do this and another can do that but a synth can do them all. Its like having all the control of a wind instrument and a string section and guitar and piano and all the rest of it, rolled into a single, powerful beast of an instrument.

Yet, despite all this, some of you still can't wrap your head around the possibilities at your fingertips. I struggle to get my head around how this isn't completely and utterly obvious to anyone who can play an instrument at any level. Its very, very sad.

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.

No, the problem is that they are not made to be so. Mostly that comes down to the fact that the vast majority of people who buy/use them see little or no value in that, which is perfectly valid. OTOH, its something I put a reasonable amount of effort into for my synths - lots of mod routing for Velocity and Mod Wheel makes automation largely redundant.

Seriously, you really need to start thinking outside of your box and maybe trying to experiment a little and respecting others opinion's, Far starters it would bring some fresh idea's and even some inspiration to your table plus you have not got anything to lose either

Like what? My thinking is light-years ahead of yours or any other expressed here. Its completely objective and totally logical.

[mztk]

so i take it we're all invited over to yours for a cup of char, a spliff and to hear you hammer out some ole time boogie woogie on yer ivories, then, Bonesy? dunno bout you, but my keyboard skills are shite, and i'm still trying to be a half-decent guitarist.
i'm not going to play down the skills we do have as...'music technologists',
and i'm tired of hearing of the supremacy of 'real' music. we're all multi-instrumentalists, leading and
arranging our virtual or otherwise orchestras...i've learnt so much more about music since i started looking at sequencers, and believe that the old style of teaching music is anachronistic, and holds people back more than anything...
thing is, i don't have to be able to play. nor did the classical composers, really....anyway, we've all heard this before... what were you all talking about? oh yeah: i dug out some synth samples the other day to compare with VSTi's....mmm...
anyway, the future of music is here, right now, ain't it?

[Shy]

You refer to synths vs acoustic instruments in terms of better vs worse. Your thinking is not light years ahead, it's light years away of reality. An acoustic instrument's sound and the way you play it are hardly even comparable to a synth's. There are different kinds of "expressiveness", and the few parameters you've listed are so crudely comparable to those of real instruments', but you think synths' expressiveness is above all and everything else is inferior. I could list so many ways you can't shape a synth's sound that it's ridiculous, and so many instruments no synth can sound anything like, but I just won't. Ridiculous better vs worse arguments on this subject are boring as hell. If you like so much to be in a limited world that's just fine. At least you think you're in a boundaryless nirvana.

[Chris Walton]

A good cello player will perform better than the average synth player. But the synth player can emulate all the nuances of the cello player. Maybe not live, but he can in the box. Furthermore, with all these fancy envelopes and stuff we have in the box, we have even more flexibility. So the cello player can do his thing live, and it will sound great, but the synth player can capture it and make it even better (if he chooses to do so), even applying it to completely different sounds. I think BONES isn't referring to live cello vs. live synth, but to recorded cello vs. the flexibility you have with a synth in non-realtime (i.e. in a studio situation).

And I agree with it (and yes, I play acoustic instruments)

[Lunatique]

Alright, take 3 [I've just started again from scratch for the 3rd time]. What I want you to do is apply what you are saying about cellists and horn players to pianists. You have no problem with that, right? i.e. A concert pianist is right up there with those other musicians, right?
OK, now look at what a pianist does, its a subset of the tools that we have available. Its quite limited by comparison but the skill level is comparable. So if you get that same concert pianist and put him in front of an expressive synth with pitch-bend, mod wheel, after-touch and the rest of it, how can it possibly be that the guy with those mad piano skills is suddenly rendered a second-class citizen, so to speak? It simply makes no sense.

I don't think anyone is saying that acoustic performances are automatically better--we're just talking about what's happened thus far in history in terms of realtime performance. I can't recall any synth performance that's on the same level of emotional expressiveness as a masterfully played acoustic instrument (or electric instrument with pickups)--except for one or two extremely rare occassions--and it usually involves someone who is classically trained. Even Jordon Rudess, as amazing as he is, hasn't really done anything on a synth that's all that remarkable in terms of expressiveness--he's mostly just blindingly fast. And while a kickass pianist can get on a synth a rock out, the problem I find is that most guys who do that tend to just take a preset and then starts jamming out--without doing much to actually add expressiveness that all the synth parameters make available to him--it's almost always some cliched lead patch that wails like a guitar wannabe, but not as interesting in timbre changes or in articulation.

A performance on a piano may sound amazing, but if you translate that performance on a synth using a synth patch, then you are already altering the nature of the performance because the piano has a very specific sound--a sound that is loved by so many for centuries. Maybe it's possible to design a synth preset that is just as beautiful sounding as a piano but different, and that same performance would sound just as amazing played with that preset. I've heard Sakamoto Ryuichi play some amazing shit on a synth, but it's a different kind of expressiveness. There's just a certain inherent quality about the sound of acoustic instruments that's very different from synths. But not all acoustic instruments are created equal either--some are significantly more expressive and beautiful sounding than others (then again, it's a taste thing--someone can jump up and say that the kazoo is far more expressive than a violin, and to him, it probably is). At the same time, I have never seen or heard any acoustic performance that oozes the same high-tech coolness as some of my favorite electronic music.

I have seen a few really impressive performances on the keyboard for high-end sample libraries like the Prominy or Garritan stuff. It's not quite the same idea as controlling synth parameters, but keyswitches, expression pedal, modwheel, pitchbend..etc are all within the same realm:

Garritan Stradivari Violin Modeling Synth:


Demonstrating the control methods:


Prominy Guitar played on keyboard:


Can someone post an amazing synth performance that's NOT based on acoustic instrument samples or emulating acoustic instruments that's still totally amazing? I'd love to see one.

As far as recording only goes, I really don't care how someone enters musical data into the sequencer--as long as the end result is compelling to me. I can be awed by both acoustically performed music or heart-stopping coolness of an electronic track--I have no bias. The only firm stance I have is to try to be open-minded and try not to develop tunnel vision in your taste and process--embrace it all. Also, don't automatically reject a certain school thought just because it's "old and boring and elitist" or "lacks formal training and knowledge." Both sides have merits and it's the guys that can be at ease in both worlds and know how to bridge them that are the real winners. I find that when people get all huffy and puffy is when they limit themselves to just one side, and either have a prejudice, feel insecure, or lack understanding about the other side. If we embrace it all then there would be no need to get all red in the face.

I think if people can walk away from this discussion with one thing, then ideally it would be that we should try to embrace it all, and it's pointless trying to pit different schools or styles or methods against each other--we should be trying to broaden our horizon and learn as many different styles and methods as we can, and be as versatile as we can. I find it extremely appealing when the different sides are staring each other down huffing and puffing, the open-minded ones will simply learn to be able to bridge those gaps and become well-versed in both worlds. I don't understand why very few people seem to recognize the attractiveness of that ideal. I want to do it all. I want all the flavors of ice cream available to me--not just chocolate or vanilla.

And to get back on track with the original discussion, I would love to see advances like the recent ones where digital technology is fusing with acoustic ones (like the hybrid guitars)--then we'd have the best of both worlds in each instrument.

[eduardo_b]

My thinking is light-years ahead of yours or any other expressed here. Its completely objective and totally logical.

It might seem that way because you are assessing functionality of traditional and synthetic instruments, but it's the playing that actually matters, and here is where it becomes exceedingly rare to find synth playing that reaches the qualities of talented musicians on what I'll refer to as traditional instruments. I suggest that this is why the "instruments of tomorrow" are not going to matter much in terms of music. They may result in even more unusual sounds, but without the human factor, that's all they are...sounds. Just like with current technology. Objective and logical do not equate to emotional and expressive.

[Howard]

Sigh...

...how about I list just a few of the parameters I can control that put even a simple synth way ahead of even the most accomplished cellist, etc...

A virtuoso might be able to do something subtle but what about a 2 octave bend? That's a few but there are countless others - multi-point envelopes, after-touch, etc.

My thinking is light-years ahead of yours or any other expressed here. Its completely objective and totally logical.

Objective? Logical? You mixed instruments and humans in your tortuous argument. Comparing the parameters of synths to cellists and pianists is totally ILLOGICAL, captain. Light years my a***

[fabi]

I suggest that this is why the "instruments of tomorrow" are not going to matter much in terms of music. They may result in even more unusual sounds, but without the human factor, that's all they are...sounds.

seems you missed the point of the thread. or chose to ignore it. ... really, in the context of the thread your post makes very little sense. especially the part quoted.