:D:D(just kidding, although a separate category for EPs would do)
Zen - classification
-
- KVRAF
- 24414 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia
Well, then a separate category for EPs and separate one for clavinets? :D:D
(just kidding, although a separate category for EPs would do)
:D:D(just kidding, although a separate category for EPs would do)
-
- KVRAF
- 37409 posts since 14 Sep, 2002 from In teh net
This is where distinguishing between Instrument type and mode is useful - both are keys obviously and both are electronic but the mode of sound production is different in that one is struck (as in a piano) and the other is plucked (as in a harpsichord). So have a Type category, Keyboards and another for Mode (i.e. sound creation method) with sub categories for plucked and struck, synthetic, additive, physically modelled, and so on, and it should be possible to distinguish between them without creating separate categories for each instrument.DragonSagoth wrote:Well, then a separate category for EPs and separate one for clavinets?
(just kidding, although a separate category for EPs would do)
-
- KVRAF
- 25015 posts since 12 Jul, 2003 from West Caprazumia
Yes, when cooking Thai, I can use lemongrass, lemon-leaves, lime-juice and lemon-balm to add a certain freshness to the flavour - all serve more or less the same purpose and their name honours this - but despite this they appear to be fundamentally different from each other.Big Tick wrote:All true - but is this really the way you look up for sounds ? I mean, where you are in a middle of a track, are you thinking, "How about some funky pattern with plucked strings action-ed by a keyboard ?". Probably not.
To use an analogy, I don't think a chef would go, "How about adding some C12H22O11 to balance out the NaCl taste of this meal ?". No. They would add sugar and salt. It shouldn't be any different for music.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3388 posts since 29 May, 2001 from New York, NY
I actually think that when looking up sounds, we work by analogy, and go for things that are similar to something we know.
- A lot of users know the auditive difference between a Piano, an EP, and a Clavinet. So they would start their search with one of these categories.
- Some users's internal audio memory bank might be more accurate: they would not look for just an EP, but for a Rhodes or a Wurlitzer, and mentally "hear" the difference between both.
- A classical composer would directly go for an oboe, or a bassoon, or a flugelhorn. A hip-hop producer might not, and would start his search at "woodwinds". But he might know the difference between the snares of a LinnDrum, a 707 and a Simmons.
- A lot of users know the auditive difference between a Piano, an EP, and a Clavinet. So they would start their search with one of these categories.
- Some users's internal audio memory bank might be more accurate: they would not look for just an EP, but for a Rhodes or a Wurlitzer, and mentally "hear" the difference between both.
- A classical composer would directly go for an oboe, or a bassoon, or a flugelhorn. A hip-hop producer might not, and would start his search at "woodwinds". But he might know the difference between the snares of a LinnDrum, a 707 and a Simmons.
-
- KVRian
- 806 posts since 1 Sep, 2008 from US
There's no way to please everyone, but a good-enough system (consistent) will do. I still think top level should be very limited to each instrument to 1 category. Right now it's dominated by type, sub category can be more specific (whichever way).
Don't get us started on debating whether it's EP or modeled EP, just give us a tag
Timbre still passable, but genre tag was the biggest fail ever in the whole Kore thing.aMUSEd wrote:I think it's very important to separate out the subjective and objective elements. In NI Kore there are 4 main sound categories: Type, Genre, Mode and Timbre. Out of those I generally find sounds by Type (e.g. piano, guitar, lead, bass etc) and Mode (additive, subtractive, dry, processed, evolving, etc) but I find the Timbre (warm, fat, cold etc) and Genre hopelessly subjective and of limited value. What is warm and fat to one person is often cold and digital to another and as for genre I'd say most sounds can be used for most genres so where do you start?
However it ends up, please do make sure there's at least 1 tag call something like "modeled" or whatever. I always run into perceived headache when categorizing. E.g. something sounds like a real flute, plays like a real flute, but whole thing is from synthesis. So is it woodwind/acoustic or woodwind/synthetic? Synthetic is the correct answer but that's never the place you want to find it in (if it sounds like an acoustic inst). Better to do woodwind/acoustic+modeled instead.- A lot of users know the auditive difference between a Piano, an EP, and a Clavinet. So they would start their search with one of these categories.
Don't get us started on debating whether it's EP or modeled EP, just give us a tag
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3388 posts since 29 May, 2001 from New York, NY
well if it sounds and plays like a real flute - this is a real flute. Who really cares whether it's been sampled, modeled, of synthesized using XYZ technology ?
-
- KVRian
- 806 posts since 1 Sep, 2008 from US
True, but there're quite a few that's "like" a flute but again not quite. What about one that's 70% like a real flute (e.g. something i make in Z2, or addictive one in Alchemy)? I think depends on the genre I work in, sometimes it'll be a thing that I'm interested (e.g. hiphop) but sometimes not (e.g. orchestral work). It can help me filter out when I don't want them.Big Tick wrote:well if it sounds and plays like a real flute - this is a real flute. Who really cares whether it's been sampled, modeled, of synthesized using XYZ technology ?
-
- KVRAF
- 24414 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia
'Tick, perhaps a good idea would be to rename "Woodwind" to just "Winds", or something like that. Or not. Looks weird a bit. I'm talking crap. xD You decide.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3388 posts since 29 May, 2001 from New York, NY
I guess you will need sampled / modeled / synthesized tags then. Or pushing it further, you will need synthesized (FM), synthesized (additive), synthesized (others)
Just keep in mind that tags are only useful if they are applied to presets in a consistent way. With more and more synths and presets added daily, the only way to make it possible will be to open tagging to everyone, including anonymous users - similar to wikipedia. I'm reluctant to do that, though, because I don't know how to deal with tags vandalism.
Just keep in mind that tags are only useful if they are applied to presets in a consistent way. With more and more synths and presets added daily, the only way to make it possible will be to open tagging to everyone, including anonymous users - similar to wikipedia. I'm reluctant to do that, though, because I don't know how to deal with tags vandalism.
-
- KVRian
- 806 posts since 1 Sep, 2008 from US
Personally I don't need that many differentiation, but someone else may say otherwise... However much abstraction deem useful.Big Tick wrote:I guess you will need sampled / modeled / synthesized tags then. Or pushing it further, you will need synthesized (FM), synthesized (additive), synthesized (others)
I think most of us will just be happy to have something that works, your pick. Just throwing my worth of 2 cents out there.Just keep in mind that tags are only useful if they are applied to presets in a consistent way. With more and more synths and presets added daily, the only way to make it possible will be to open tagging to everyone, including anonymous users - similar to wikipedia. I'm reluctant to do that, though, because I don't know how to deal with tags vandalism.
-
- KVRAF
- 24414 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia
Add another for synthesized (subtractive).
That one is the most common anyways.
That one is the most common anyways.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3388 posts since 29 May, 2001 from New York, NY
Allright. Then before adding tags that might never get used, I would rather do it the other way around, see how many instruments we get and how much additional refinement is required to reduce search results to a manageable size. To use softska example of a flute, if there are only 10 flutes in the database, you don't really need additional tags to differentiate them. If you have 200, then you don't want to audition all of them and you need a way to drill down further.
-
- KVRAF
- 24414 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia
Once again, good thinking! 
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3388 posts since 29 May, 2001 from New York, NY
Based on some of the feedback from the first release, here are some thoughts for tags/categories.
I am more and more convinced that attempting to define a universal categorization system is bound to fail - it will lead to a proliferation of tags, most of them being useless for any given user.
The problem as I see it, is that a rap producer will be happy with a global "woodwinds" category, but will want "Linn", "Simmons", "TR707", ... under "Drums" - while a classical composer will be happy with just "Drums", but will want everything from "Oboe" to "Flute" under "woodwinds".
This is because each user has his own set of "relevant" tags, based on his own musical experience and culture.
Therefore, I am considering a fully user-defined tagging system, which would work as follows:
- the global list of all tags would be owned by the community, and ever expanding
- each user would customize the tags he wants to see, and how he wants to see them (e.g, define his own lists for instruments, timbre, style, .... as well as hierarchy)
Every user would be able to add his own public tags to any preset. When selecting a preset, Zen would display the tags associated with the preset, including the tags defined by other users. Users could drag/drop the tags into the various lists, in effect saying, "this tag is relevant to me" - then these tags would be always available in the list, where they would used for filtering.
I think this would make the whole thing more intuitive - and, needless to say, so much better than any other preset browser out there
Comments ?
'Tick
I am more and more convinced that attempting to define a universal categorization system is bound to fail - it will lead to a proliferation of tags, most of them being useless for any given user.
The problem as I see it, is that a rap producer will be happy with a global "woodwinds" category, but will want "Linn", "Simmons", "TR707", ... under "Drums" - while a classical composer will be happy with just "Drums", but will want everything from "Oboe" to "Flute" under "woodwinds".
This is because each user has his own set of "relevant" tags, based on his own musical experience and culture.
Therefore, I am considering a fully user-defined tagging system, which would work as follows:
- the global list of all tags would be owned by the community, and ever expanding
- each user would customize the tags he wants to see, and how he wants to see them (e.g, define his own lists for instruments, timbre, style, .... as well as hierarchy)
Every user would be able to add his own public tags to any preset. When selecting a preset, Zen would display the tags associated with the preset, including the tags defined by other users. Users could drag/drop the tags into the various lists, in effect saying, "this tag is relevant to me" - then these tags would be always available in the list, where they would used for filtering.
I think this would make the whole thing more intuitive - and, needless to say, so much better than any other preset browser out there
Comments ?
'Tick
-
- KVRAF
- 5234 posts since 25 Feb, 2008
It would definitely be an improvement, BUT I would still like to be able find patches by typing in relevant key words and searching a global database of all tags attached to all patches, rather than filtering from a fixed list of tags. Even if the tags list is my own customized one, it's still fixed.
Also - my user tags list has grown to a fair size already, and I can see that continuing. I actually think it would be nice to be able to just add as many tags as I want to any one patch, making new tags up as and when I think I need them, rather than have to limit myself to choosing from my fixed list. So it seems that some means of flexible tag management is what's called for.
Also - my user tags list has grown to a fair size already, and I can see that continuing. I actually think it would be nice to be able to just add as many tags as I want to any one patch, making new tags up as and when I think I need them, rather than have to limit myself to choosing from my fixed list. So it seems that some means of flexible tag management is what's called for.