where next with software instruments?

[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.

@_b: Awesome post- absolutely spot on!

You intelligent objectivity is a certain commodity on this board.

Thanks for this, but I am really just one of a number of people here who bring intelligence, insight and even wit to these topics. But thanks again.

[eduardo_b]

You're disagreeing with a dictionary? About the standard definition of a word?

Yeah, I know. I'm looking at the common usage of the terms. It may not be technically correct, but it is what it is. For example, referring to Beethoven as a musician is not how he's described, even on classical music stations. I suppose it's less a matter of right or wrong and more about what is commonly understood. Trust me, as an editor, this is not an unusual dichotomy.

In any case, the measure of lasting musical excellence has been composition for a very long time. Pick up any history of music and look for discussions of famous composers. Then look for discussions of famous instrumentalists who weren't also famous composers. The former outweigh the latter by many orders of magnitude.

Never really thought about this, but it is true that there's composers and then there's revered instrument makers. The musicians themselves are lost to history. I would posit that this changed with the emergence of mass popular culture, which emerged in the latter part of the 19th century. For instance, Jenny Lind is still famous (well, at least to historians and those familiar with the history of music) even though she was never recorded (I think I'm correct on this). Which brings up the technology of recorded music, and what was the coming of age of musicians as being as famous or even more well known than modern composers, at least in the realm of popular culture.

But perhaps you have your own personal definitions of these other words as well.

Very funny.

This does bring up the point that, in the end, music is by humans for humans, and technology hasn't and (in my opinion) won't change this. So the software instruments of the future are going to be interesting, but won't alter this equation.

[BONES]

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?

No. Only idiots take drugs. And I think I'd enjoy rebuilding an engine more than playing boogie-woogie. Which is a nice segue to something else I thought of that makes a decent analogy. I could never get a job as a motor mechanic, yet there is nothing on a car that I couldn't fix, should the need arrive. That's down to 30-odd years of tinkering with cars [and having a brother who is a motor mechanic].
If you want to get good in a hurry, you study and practice and do all that stuff but if you expose yourself to that thing over a long period of time, you'll pick it all up out of necessity. e.g. I couldn't tell you the last time I played a bum note when I was playing around, because I know intuitively what notes work together. A trained musician would be able to say what key something was in or which scale was being used, which I could never do reliably, but it doesn't mean I can't do it. I see it more as a language thing. I learned German at school so I can understand a little of what people are saying but I struggle to put together a sentence of my own. But just because I can't speak the language doesn't mean I can't understand what's being said. e.g. If I showed a trained musician an piano roll, I imagine they would mentally convert it to sheet music to make sense of it but I'm the other way around - if you show me sheet music, I would work out in my head how it looks in my PR and it would then make sense. That's what matters - being able to translate one thing into something that I can understand and work with.
Compare the old notation with the new. What can you tell someone with sheet music? ppp, pp, p, f, ff, fff. Add the default level and we have a range of 7 values. Even MIDI can give me 0-127, your sequencer's internal system can probably go much finer than that. Its a far more precise language that, when understood, gives you far more power and control [one of my favourite Outline songs].

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.

Don't strain yourself, one would be enough. I can't imagine what it would be, though.

If you like so much to be in a limited world that's just fine.

But I don't like it at all, which is why I gave up the trombone when I first discovered the wonderful world of synthesisers.

... 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

That's precisely what I am referring to - he takes the skills he has and attempts to apply them to a different situation. He is not taking any of the extra possibilities provided by the new medium into account, in order to take things to the next level. But just because he can't think outside of the box doesn't mean that there isn't a wide world of possibilities there, just waiting to be tapped.

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.

Yes, easily. Trouble is that because of the way most people view the medium, no-one will understand the beauty and subtlety of it. e.g. I could load up the same MIDI file into the same instrument and just by changin presets allow it to be performed with a dozen distinctly different feels. e.g. A patch with a lot of velocity modulation on filter cutoff will sound fundamentally different to another patch without it, where velocity modulation might affect something like pulse-width or cross-modulation [FM or Hard Sync, for example].
The thing is you have to treat it like it is it's own thing, just as a cellist would treat a violin very differently, despite the obvious similarities. If you do that, you should be able to see all the possibilities unfold before you. If you stick to the blinkered perspective that because a synth isn't really a cello or a trumpet that it is somehow not as capable, you'll never move past it.

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

Why? It might be nice if we all had limitless time to do so, but I think what is important is to concentrate on what is relevant, which is what I have been bangin' on about for a week or so now.
You know, you are the perfect example of what I am talking about. You see electronics as a viable alternative to something you feel is unattainable - having your own orchestra to perform your work. i.e. You understand that electronics can do the job of an entire orchestra. You may have some issues with the fine detail but I am sure you agree that electronics allow you to do something you would almost certainly never be able to do otherwise, right?

... it becomes exceedingly rare to find synth playing that reaches the qualities of talented musicians on what I'll refer to as traditional instruments.

Again, I would largely put this down to blind prejudice and a lack of vision. You might not find any examples but surely you have to see that it is very possible? That the tools to do it are there, all that is missing is the will to do it.

Just like with current technology. Objective and logical do not equate to emotional and expressive.

You only need to apply your objectivity and logic to the facts of the matter, in order to see what's possible. From there you use your emotional and expressive qualities to get to what you want.

Comparing the parameters of synths to cellists and pianists is totally ILLOGICAL, captain. Light years my a***

Why is it, because you say so? All I'm suggesting is that all of the mechanisims that allow a cellist [or whatever] to create that virtuoso performance are also available to a synth player. What seems to be lacking is to add the two things together, the instruments and the human element, to create a similarly expressive result.

Bones - you've made it abundantly clear that you don't think there's any interesting work left to be done in this arena so why don't you move along to another thread?

Because I hate to see people so easily defeated. I am trying to help you to see the same possibilities I do. Call it an on-going charitable work.

I have yet to hear any synth performance equal the expressiveness of a good blues harmonica.

And I'm yet to hear a harmonica convey the same emotion as any of Billy Currie's great solos. Harmonica, trumpet, digerdidoo, etc, all leave me completely cold but you'd have to think those players could get the same from a synth with a breath controller, wouldn't you?

I love synths for the amazing timbres they can create and the sounds that can be crafted, but expressive realtime playing??? no contest there...

Again, I feel the opposite is true. I have some amazing WaspXT patches that are so sensitive to velocity that I sincerely doubt any player, no matter how skilled, would find them playable at all, or at least in the context in which we use them. It requires the surgical skill of a sequencer to get the best performance. Sure, I could tweak the patch to make it more easily playable but that would inevitably make it less expressive. And think for a moment about the kind of power a Mod Wheel gives us. I can dial in cross-modulation or distortion or anything else at will. Its an amazingly expressive tool and some of the iterations, like the "log" on a KORG Prophecy, take it to another level.
Maybe it comes down to the fact that these other players need to work so hard to get the performance they want, where its just so easy for us that we don't even bother? i.e. They are over-compensating for the limitations of their instruments, where we don't feel we have anything to prove?

Bones if the cello was mic'd up then i would put the cello out through a pretty simple pedal and its been out for years and its a f**king DIGITECH WHAMMY PEDAL then set the ranges and they COULD BEND IT AS FAR HIGH AND LOW AS THEY f**king WANT! its that simple

There you go, you need some technology to extend its possibilities. Hardly a surprise. The best string work I've ever heard was The Flowerpot Men, which featured Ben Watkins [who went on to do Juno Reactor a few years later and Adam Peters. Adam made his violin or cello or whatever he plays sound like an electric guitar. It was very cool because you could tell that it wasn't really a guitar, which actually added an extra dimension to the whole thing. Still an enduring favourite band of mine [had a song on Ferris Bueller's Day Off].

I'm not sure comparing acoustic instruments to synthesizers is really that useful. Let's instead think about how we can bring our own idiom to the same level of maturity and sophistication, in its own way. I think the basic model of a two oscillator synth with a multimode filter is plenty versatile and that three or four axes of realtime control is also adequate. What needs rethinking is exactly the kind of relationships those axes of control have to the underlying engine and how those relationships are defined and manipulated.

I thought that's what we were discussing. Because I think all that's needed is to think the same way about synths as a virtuoso thinks about his/her acoustic instrument. its what I've been talking about all along - the big leap forward will be when people start to approach technology the same way they approach other music. Its easy to be distracted by the technical side of it but if you focus on the creative/expressive side, you can take it all up a notch or two without any fundamental change to the technology itself.

Well that's odd given how little music would mean without the playing part. In fact, without the playing, there is no music.

You're thinking is 120 years out of date. All I have to do is turn on the radio to hear music, or get in a lift.

Well said mate and it just seems some 'human beings?' do not take pleasure from these sound making devices or are even remotely interested in enjoying learning to play or appreciate them or the people whom are outstanding at using them and dedicate their lives to the mastering of their craft but rather the other way round...It dont work that way.

It didn't work that way, but it does now. You just haven't caught up yet. People did all that because it was the only way to achieve the result. i.e. If you couldn't play the instrument proficiently, you could create the music at all. Just as there was a time when if you couldn't hunt, you would starve to death fairly quickly.

Take away anything which remotely resembles an actual instrument (Controller Keyboard, Pads, e-kits, Keytar's , Faders, Pots/Rotary Encoders, Breath Controllers, Expression Pedals...etc) because to have these in the first place means replicating elements of something that is just a sound making device and then think how you would control these synthesizers you are left with: let alone get anything close to good out of them as you would have absolutely no basis from where to begin....blah blah blah

Is your understanding of electronic music really so limited? As I said yesterday, I only use a controller on stage. Every song on each of our three albums was written entirely without any of that stuff. It was all clicked into a sequencer with a mouse. Entirely. In fact, it usually takes me ages to learn how to play some of it for the stage and I often end up having to add a new part that I am capable of playing whilst entertaining an audience.

Infact put your synth through a Digitech Whammy Pedal if you get the chance ever as the range of bends you will be able to get using the pedal and your pitch wheel is crazy

If you ever hear or see me using pitch-bend at all, for anything, you have my permission to shoot me dead.

A synth is an instrument, and I suppose in the right hands might provide the kinds of emotional experience we receive with other forms of music, but as someone else rightly noted, the vast majority (with rare exception, I would say) play synths to the limits of their ability, not the instrument's, and thus cannot create the emotional responses that would otherwise be possible.

That is equally true of any instrument and thus completely irrelevant.

[BONES]

Bottom line - i am still staggered at the lack of insight displayed here. I'm tempted to say that you're all idiots but I'd just be repeating myself and, in any event, it is sufficiently obvious that it doesn't really need saying.
I will reiterate one thing. A few people pointed out that the vast majority of synth performances they have heard do not match the pinnacle of the virtuoso cellist or whatever. The same however, is absolutely true of any instrument, otherwise we wouldn't recognise those few as virtuosos. Its just that because synths seem to be so accessible these days, and the interweb provides access to hear stuff without any quality filtering, you just get to hear more bad synth stuff. But go to any band contest or talent quest and you'll hear a lot worse.

[eduardo_b]

A synth is an instrument, and I suppose in the right hands might provide the kinds of emotional experience we receive with other forms of music, but as someone else rightly noted, the vast majority (with rare exception, I would say) play synths to the limits of their ability, not the instrument's, and thus cannot create the emotional responses that would otherwise be possible.

That is equally true of any instrument and thus completely irrelevant.

Of course it is, along with everything else. What was I thinking. Except that it does seem to matter what kind of music one prefers. For example, your music would seem to be an acquired taste. It would also confirm your theories on software versus musicianship, which you seem to hold in low regard. Creativity, which I agree is vital, is what you look for. All I can say is that musicianship probably has little or no relevance to your favored style of music, thus explaining your position on the matter...and mine.

Cheers

[pdxindy]

Comparing the parameters of synths to cellists and pianists is totally ILLOGICAL, captain. Light years my a***

Why is it, because you say so? All I'm suggesting is that all of the mechanisims that allow a cellist [or whatever] to create that virtuoso performance are also available to a synth player. What seems to be lacking is to add the two things together, the instruments and the human element, to create a similarly expressive result.

That is not so. The subtlety and variety of mechanism of the bow exceeds what you can do with the synths parameters. Maybe not in theory, but in practice they are well apart. And the thing with the bow, it does not require you to type numbers. One stroke with the bow and you are controlling many different qualities. Do a different stroke, and the qualities change and their relationships do too. There is a level of complexity of modulation, including chaotic non-linearities, that synths do not yet match.

It is the same reason many people like the character of true analog synths as compared to their digital recreations, except much more so.

And that difference is part of the reason for this thread in the first place. How to create modulations that control more complex interactions that more closely mimic natural systems.

[kuniklo]

And that difference is part of the reason for this thread in the first place. How to create modulations that control more complex interactions that more closely mimic natural systems.

I think natural systems are possibly a good source of inspiration for this kind of thing but I personally am not that interested in mimicking natural systems. Let cellos and cellists do what they do best and let's instead try to do something new.

[BONES]

That is equally true of any instrument and thus completely irrelevant.Of course it is, along with everything else. What was I thinking. Except that it does seem to matter what kind of music one prefers. For example, your music would seem to be an acquired taste. It would also confirm your theories on software versus musicianship, which you seem to hold in low regard. Creativity, which I agree is vital, is what you look for. All I can say is that musicianship probably has little or no relevance to your favored style of music, thus explaining your position on the matter...and mine.

Which would be fine if that was the only style of music I listened to but the fact is that I rarely listen to it at all these days, for various reasons. Most of the music I listen to is music that I'm sure you would feel requires plenty of musicianship, or would at least benefit from it, but that simply doesn't hold true for me. As someone else said earlier, a great piece of music never has to be performed to be such. Maybe a great performance can lift an average piece in some people's eyes, but to me a bad song is a bad song, no matter what. Moreover, I find that a lot of songs that really connect with me are ridiculously simple, probably because a great idea will stand up on its own, without having to be propped up by any fancy arrangement or performance.

That is not so. The subtlety and variety of mechanism of the bow exceeds what you can do with the synths parameters. Maybe not in theory, but in practice they are well apart. And the thing with the bow, it does not require you to type numbers. One stroke with the bow and you are controlling many different qualities. Do a different stroke, and the qualities change and their relationships do too. There is a level of complexity of modulation, including chaotic non-linearities, that synths do not yet match.

That is ridiculous. At best they are simply different. That you hold one in higher regard is purely down to history, much as the piano was regarded by the establishment when it first appeared. For every kind of interaction between bow and string, there will be similar subtleties that different forms of synthesis will be capable of. They may not be such that they allow the synth player to emulate the performance of the cellist but that is irrelevant. At the end of the day, there are far more ways for me to affect the sound of my instrument than any cellist.

It is the same reason many people like the character of true analog synths as compared to their digital recreations, except much more so.

Absolutely, both groups are equally deluded.

And that difference is part of the reason for this thread in the first place. How to create modulations that control more complex interactions that more closely mimic natural systems.

I think that is such limited thinking. Why do we need to mimic anything? Why can't a synth just be a synth? You know, I'll tell people that we use a lot of strings in our songs but that is not strictly true, because I don't really care for the sound of real strings. What we use are synth strings with similar arrangements to those you would find with the real thing, its just more effective to call it "strings" anyway. But maybe I should start calling them "Saw Pads" or "Ensemble Saws" or something instead, just to combat this anachronistic meme?

[mcnoone]

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

No Bones this thinking is right now, and is still ahead of yours.
http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2008a/08062 ... senic.html

Your thinking, is one sided and close minded. Every coin has two sides, and your only seeing one side. If your thinking is light years ahead, that would mean you would have to be able to travel the speed of light, which is 670,616,629.4 miles per hour. If you would spend more time trying to make a decent plugin, then writing long ass opinionated garbage. Then you might become ahead of your time. I for one like to be here now, and not ahead or behind time. Just remember a synth and a cello are both musical instruments.
Both have equally unique abilities. Your written opinion is very entertaining but not very informative.

[Dean Aka Nekro]

Bottom line - i am still staggered at the lack of insight displayed here. I'm tempted to say that you're all idiots but I'd just be repeating myself and, in any event, it is sufficiently obvious that it doesn't really need saying.

So you enter everything that is your musical output into a computer with a mouse that is really no better than filling out a spread sheet. Your live 'shows' are basically nothing more than karaoke with you playing a dumbed down part you wrote for yourself due to lack of being able to play anything you hear on your record to fool whoever bothers to watch your 'displays' of nothingness into thinking you are a musician. I feel sorry for anyone who has parted their hard earned money on witnessing a lame 'hit play in the sequencer and then dance around a bit and i will touch the controller a few times so it looks like im busy' Gig: Why not compact it even more and record your 'set' to an ipod, jack that into the PA and press play! then sit down with the audience and enjoy

My 3-year old daughter can launch ABLETON LIVE 7, Drag & Drop a VSTi into the SESSION VIEW (The green one and the monster are her choice's currently i do not know why: Green One = ABSYNTH 3 & the monster = MINIMONSTA), Arm the record button, hit the play button then PLAY THE INSTRUMENT USING A USB MIDI KEYBOARD, press stop when she is bored or change presets, LOOP THE SEQUENCE AND REPEAT THAT PROCESS, SAVE THE LIVE SET AND SHUTDOWN ABLETON LIVE 7.

This is done without any help and/or encouragement from me, it is all down to her observation. If She keeps at it She will be a great musician when She grows up

Bottom line - You are an idiot BONES and my 3-year old daughter puts your 'mouse clicking music creation' to shame and you charge money for it!

[Trusty]

Bottom line - i am still staggered at the lack of insight displayed here. I'm tempted to say that you're all idiots but I'd just be repeating myself and, in any event, it is sufficiently obvious that it doesn't really need saying.

So you enter everything that is your musical output into a computer with a mouse that is really no better than filling out a spread sheet. Your live 'shows' are basically nothing more than karaoke with you playing a dumbed down part you wrote for yourself due to lack of being able to play anything you hear on your record to fool whoever bothers to watch your 'displays' of nothingness into thinking you are a musician. I feel sorry for anyone who has parted their hard earned money on witnessing a lame 'hit play in the sequencer and then dance around a bit and i will touch the controller a few times so it looks like im busy' Gig: Why not compact it even more and record your 'set' to an ipod, jack that into the PA and press play! then sit down with the audience and enjoy

My 3-year old daughter can launch ABLETON LIVE 7, Drag & Drop a VSTi into the SESSION VIEW (The green one and the monster are her choice's currently i do not know why: Green One = ABSYNTH 3 & the monster = MINIMONSTA), Arm the record button, hit the play button then PLAY THE INSTRUMENT USING A USB MIDI KEYBOARD, press stop when she is bored or change presets, LOOP THE SEQUENCE AND REPEAT THAT PROCESS, SAVE THE LIVE SET AND SHUTDOWN ABLETON LIVE 7.

This is done without any help and/or encouragement from me, it is all down to her observation. If She keeps at it She will be a great musician when She grows up

Bottom line - You are an idiot BONES and my 3-year old daughter puts your 'mouse clicking music creation' to shame and you charge money for it!

Hmm, so what you are saying is:

"BONES, I resent you and your multiple record deals and live gigs across the globe because my daughter and I can actually play the keyboard sooooo good, and yet no one appreciates our virtuoso abilities."

You sir, are a hater. Plain and simple.

In BONES defense, he did have to think up the tunes, and put them into a song to the best of his ability to satisfy both him (and Sik too) and the fans who appreciate it.

Don't hate on BONES, he uses roughly the same type of technology that makes Ableton LIVE possible for you and your daughter to make songs. It is just a different way. so instead, hate the technology for allowing "non-musicians" (which is a misnomer anyway in this context) an equal playing field for their own creativity.

And yes, I love God, and yes, I can't wait for "I Hate God".

[SadPuppyBlues]

Hmm, so what you are saying is:

"BONES, I resent you and your multiple record deals and live gigs across the globe because my mom did to me what I do to my daughter, which is force the piano lessons ("by observation?"...yeah right...), and yet no one appreciates our virtuoso abilities."

You sir, are a hater. Plain and simple.

In BONES defense, he did have to think up the tunes, and put them into a song to the best of his ability to satisfy both him (and Sik too) and the fans who appreciate it.

Don't hate on BONES, he uses roughly the same type of technology that makes Ableton LIVE possible for you and your daughter to make songs. It is just a different way. so instead, hate the technology for allowing "non-musicians" (which is a misnomer anyway in this context) an equal playing field for their own creativity.

And yes, I love God, and yes, I can't wait for "I Hate God".

I'm pretty sure the resentment here is the asinine shit he says.

It amazes me how long this forum has put up with such a 50 year old spooky goth kid.

[Trusty]

I'm pretty sure the resentment here is the asinine shit he says.

Compared to all the other "asinine shit" that everyone else says around here (me included), I don't quite see the reason to single any one person out for it. Forums like this very made for people to spew "asinine shit".

It amazes me how long this forum has put up with such a 50 year old spooky goth kid.

Probably because he responds in kind to how he is addressed.

Probably because he has been helpful to many people.

Probably because he has contributed some cool synths, effects in the past and continues to do so.

Probably because he likes to spend his time causing everyone else nausea.

I don't know, I am not his spokesman, but he seems like par for the course that is kvr to me...

[BONES]

Your thinking, is one sided and close minded. Every coin has two sides, and your only seeing one side.

No, the opposite is true. I fully accept that a virtuoso performer is capable of amazing things, it just that it means very little to me [although that is irrelevant to the discussion]. I am also seeing the other side of the coin which is that it is possible to do similar things with a synth, as it possesses the means to be manipulated in many more ways, with as much or as little subtlety as you desire. To me it seems a simple matter of having the will to do it, which I see as lacking.
OTOH, you idiots are trying to say that, for some reason that no-one has really even tried to explain, that a synth is not capable of such performance. You are accepting only the obverse, and denying the reverse, if you like.

If you would spend more time trying to make a decent plugin, then writing long ass opinionated garbage. Then you might become ahead of your time. I for one like to be here now, and not ahead or behind time.

And there lies the paradox. Its clear to me that being grounded in the here and now informs your opinion of the instruments I create. Eventually though, even at a paltry 670,616,629.4 miles per hour, you will eventually catch up. Needless to say, I will undoubtedly have moved on by then, such being the nature of genius.

Just remember a synth and a cello are both musical instruments. Both have equally unique abilities.

I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I want to find out why these other idiotts think that only a "real" instrument is capable of great performance?

So you enter everything that is your musical output into a computer with a mouse that is really no better than filling out a spread sheet.

Maybe in your host but certainly not in mine. Of course, whilst filling out a spreadsheet puts money in the bank [travel expense reports], I still get far more pleasure from the results of entering my "musical output into a computer with a mouse". You see, I'm focused on results and the process only matters in that context. i.e. Whatever gets me there via the most direct route with the minimum of delay.

Your live 'shows' are basically nothing more than karaoke with you playing a dumbed down part you wrote for yourself due to lack of being able to play anything you hear on your record to fool whoever bothers to watch your 'displays' of nothingness into thinking you are a musician.

You mean as opposed to someone like Mick Jagger or Bono, who have to rely on others to provide their musical backing? Because that's how I see it. My PC takes the place of a backing band and, just as Bono doesn't expect The Edge [bonus points for knowing where their names came from] to stop playing so he can show the audience how clever his guitar playing is, I don't feel that I need to prove to anyone that I am some kind of musician. Mostly that's because I think of myself as a performer or an entertainer, and being stuck behind a keyboard rack trying to play something really complex, just to stroke my ego, is about as entertaining as listening to your whining.

I feel sorry for anyone who has parted their hard earned money on witnessing a lame 'hit play in the sequencer and then dance around a bit and i will touch the controller a few times so it looks like im busy' Gig: Why not compact it even more and record your 'set' to an ipod, jack that into the PA and press play! then sit down with the audience and enjoy

Most of the successful bands in the genre do exactly that. KMFDM had about three times as many guitar parts coming from Pro-Tools as from their live guitarists and Nitzer Ebb, VNV Nation, Combichrist and Covenant all had their set on DVD, being played from the FoH, when we supported them.
We prefer to keep it all in our sequencer, as it gives us extra flexibility to tailor the sound to the situation. e.g. Pull the bottom end out here and there if the PA or room is too boomy or whatever. It also means we can easily re-order or drop songs if we want to, as well as having that element of the possibility of something going wrong, which keeps us on our toes without affecting the performance itself. In the end its about making appropriate decisions that add to, rather than detract from, the performance on stage. If I had to get people in to play each part, the simple fact is that we would never perform at all. Its hard enough already finding time for the two of us to get together, let alone trying to organise a band around 4 or 5 people's lives. I mean, I'm sure it would boost our esteem in the eyes of people like you but I'm lucky, in that those opinions means less than nothing to me.

You are an idiot BONES and my 3-year old daughter puts your 'mouse clicking music creation' to shame and you charge money for it!

Really? Can I read some of her lyrics? I'm sure they are very insightful. Again, the narrowness of your perspective truly amazes me.
Anyway, we don't often put on our own shows, so its not a matter of us charging people, its that people are more than happy to pay us to perform. I know a bloke who'd probably pay your daughter to do a show too, but she'd have to do it topless. Its a funny old world, ain't it?

[Lunatique]

Whoa, a little less hostility everyone. We're all passionate about music and that makes us allies, not enemies.

BONES - I think maybe we need to break the discussion down to a few points as they are now being discussed as one and muddying things up.

1) Real-time performance vs. non-real-time musical data input.

For me personally, I can appreciate both. One of my favorite electronic tracks is by a guy who inputs his notes into Orion Platinum with a mouse, so I would never say that inputting notes into a sequencer with a mouse is something to be looked down upon. But at the same time, I don't think it's cool to just outright dismiss the talent and hard work of traditional musicians either like you have. Why must the world be black and white to you? I'd think at your age you'd have seen through all that?

2) Composition vs. performance

I admire and respect both. Glenn Gould is a God on the piano, interpreting classical music composed by people long dead, but breathing new life into them in such profound ways that it's simply stunning (if you understood what the originals were like and how he altered them with his own sense of expression). And obviously I respect and admire composers--Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, to modern day film score composers, pop song writers, all the way to hardcore industrial guys who know next to nothing about music theory.

3) Human limitation vs. instrument limitation

Instead of debating about whether acoustic instruments are superior to synths, we should maybe make efforts to either learn to perform a synth at the same level or find examples of those who could. We could also figure out how we can map relevant parameters to controllers in an intuitive manner that will aid us in expressing ourselves with synths.

I completely understand your point about the level of subtlety and expression that automation on a sequencer gives you--we all use those features on our own music so we've all benefited from it. But I guess this particular point tends to evolve into point #2--composition vs. performance (and this is why the discussion gets muddy because we're mixing discussion points).