Are wavetable synths even "musical" at all?

[jancivil]

Any instrument is subjective. All "musical" means is "I like it".

[] ...in any generalization, there are certain number of data points that begin to coalesce until the result is some semblance of objective truth...its not entirely subjective...there are sounds and styles that a larger percentage of listeners find inherently pleasing...

First, I have to note that the high-falutin style here maxes out my bullshit detector at once.
"some semblance of" is a prime example of what we call weasel words. The matter at hand is the fool's errand of defining musicality; is your definition objective or not? In fact you haven't given any definition.You want to basically gainsay the assertion "is subjective"; 'musicality or not is quantifiably objective' will be an extraordinary thing to see, calling for an extraordinary proof.
So of course we aren't supplied one.

"a larger percentage of listeners" is a textbook example of the fallacy argumentum ad populum; and in itself only tells us of the subjectivity of all the members of an imagined majority (none of which were shown as having been polled by you).

sounds that are dissonant or inharmonic are generally found to be thought of as less musical...

found by whom?

the very attribute of music becoming pop, by definition means a majority find it more musical than average...

Two fallacies in the same breath now; predictably, argumentum ad populum again, and as though our definition of musicality is intrinsic to this category of consumers of music. No, the definition remains elusive. We have zero examples of this popular music; so, thus far we have nothing to go by, even to say what is common to all of this music. Aside from this we have not been provided a single such member of this majority of consumers of musical product as though authoritative in the matter. We have literally nothing. So now we're faced with pseudo-science?

there are psychoacoustic cues in certain timbres that the human brain interprets as more pleasing and therefore musical...you can even quantitatively measure how pleasure sensors in the brain light up in response to sounds and playing styles that bound how musical something is..."musical" can definitely be talked about in objective terms and quantifiable ways...

Offered as though 'pleasure' as seen in certain centers of the brain now fill this gap where a definition of musicality is purported to reside. non sequitur; you'd have us believe that "timbres" and "music' are interchangable.
Your arguments for kinda sorta objective are in every case circular to its own premise; there's nothing there. n * 0 = 0.

[jancivil]

Now, as though to fill in the gap where 'common to music that is more popular' might be, from what you've offered we have 'less dissonant'. Do we have a definition of dissonance? We do not. In any case this can never be settled as an objective matter, popularity among the population you're arguably most familiar with personally notwithstanding.

To show this, let's look at what might be definitions, at least 'technically' as pertains to certain sub-categories in music.
So-called classical music, or the common practice period of Western European concert music of the functional harmonic style (cf., Dominant-Tonic paradigm). Here, a harmony constructed using a major triad and a minor seventh is for the most part the important tensor known as the dominant seventh chord, with an implicit 'resolution' to a 'tonic' chord (or a stand-in for it) in that paradigm.
Here we've a dissonance calling for resolution; the 3rd of the major quality and that 7th combine to form the dissonant interval 'a tritone'. In this style there's no real argument it isn't any dissonance.

However this type of music is far from the only music to use this sonority. A James Brown song for instance, or a million other like objects sits there happily, sometimes nothing else happens harmonically. No one is saying 'Please resolve this fuckin' thing, enough already!' The definition is therefore limited to the subject "dominant-tonic paradigm".

Jazz music after a certain point is defined harmonically speaking by such a prevalence of sevenths it's only very rarely omitted. There are other extended constructions that tend to be deemed dissonant by one metric or another, happening all the time, 9ths, 11ths, 13ths.
Now, you can say this is 'less musical' than your supposed pop but once you start you're not going to get away with 'this is objectively the case' (or call it an edge case as you did with Indonesian Gamelan or that) and not be called out.

BTFW, I've never seen this argument that the dissonances or inharmonicity there is purely driven by something in the Hindu religion and not because they like it. And I don't expect to now. Assertion ≠ argument.

[VOODOO U]

How funny, I was just about to say the very same thing (except for the n*0 =0. That was rude).

[chagzuki]

Bermudagold is fairly correct, really, in so far as any academic study is limited in scope and specific to a certain population etc.. But the bigger the data set the more predictive power it would likely have.
Basically, the academic study based around objective principles has to constantly expand to accommodate subjective reports of the experiences of music (it's rearward-facing).
I'm not an academic though, so wtf do I know... there could be methodologies for trying to separate things tied to largely unchanging human physiology and cultural/age etc. contingencies. I mean, the fact that people hear bass as a foundation, or the fact that a sense of forward pace is generated by alternating the frequencies commonly associated with kick and snare drums, that is pretty much a universal experience based on physiology, and presumably a prerequisite for even having a concept of music.
If someone told you that all music was incorrectly constructed in that the kick and snare should be swapped in order for the rhythm to make sense, you'd have to conclude you weren't dealing with any known version of a human.
One thing I've noticed particularly recently is sometimes when I'm working on some music at night, I perceive tempo differently. There seems to be a state of tiredness in which music sounds faster. In that moment I wonder if I made a mistake with the choice of tempo, but the next day all is normal. And then I wonder if the experience of tempo differs more than I might have imagined as a result of physiology, between people.

Then I don't really care, because it makes no difference to me.

Er, but then I probably do care, because AI is going to map and cross-reference almost everything, every data set. Maybe it will adjust the tempo (or entire composition) of some spontaneously generated music in accordance with the biometric data it's getting, or something ridiculous like that.

As for wavetables, if you don't know the particular wavetable then you're twiddling knobs hoping for happy accidents. Synths come with loads of wavetables and I can't be bothered to familiarise myself with them, so for the most part I'd rather build sounds starting with basic waveforms. Probably. On the other hand, there's surely an art to creating happy accidents.

[jancivil]

"Pop": Exactly zero musical attributes were provided for the term but we were to take meaning from it somehow, apparently meant to comport with a pleasant quality owing to an absence of dissonance; and as though this should be considered a key feature of musicality. So the only actual meaning in that argument is found in the word, short for popular. As if all music that has enjoyed popularity must be this one thing, everything neatly conforming to a simple notion.

I don't think a narrower scope than 'all of pop music over time' will have helped very much, but this blanket statement is what we got. Before I drop this bomb, I should mention that a whole lot of super sweet pop songs use a major/major seventh chord, and a fair number end on it.
So if we are going to want a definition of the word dissonance, we won't find an objective definition as if to suit every usage, as musical terms will always be contextual. A glossary of intervals collated pertaining to qualities of or shades of consonance and dissonance is going to call the major seventh dissonant.

One of the more dissonant examples actually. Once Frank Zappa, providing an interviewer quickie examples of the mood of chords said "The major seventh chord means you're in love."

The single most dissonant interval in western 12 note temperaments will be said to be the 'minor second'. Yet we find it in the typically quite romantically poignant minor add2 chord.

It's the first chord in the guitar to a single that reached #9 in the US Pop charts, and charted high in every kind of chart (eg., most played on radio, most heard in jukeboxes etc). Sold 3 million copies. The second chord is minor/major seventh. It's harmonically seriously complex.



Massive hit.

[eLawnMust]

Most anything can be made 'musical' in the right hands but it seems too many desktop dabblers don't know music at all or how to go about it... Sure they know the software but making anything in original 'their style' is not happening... This is evident by so many 'copying' big name styles or licks, or worrying about obtaining a 'FAT SOUND' from a singular synth when a musician would build such a sound from more diverse lesser sounds... You even see them using AI to produce music that 'sounds like' their favorite bands...

[chagzuki]

The single most dissonant interval in western 12 note temperaments will be said to be the 'minor second'. Yet we find it in the typically quite romantically poignant minor add2 chord.

Yeah, it's a curious thing. On the one hand it makes sense to break things down into components and pay attention to the meaning/experience of them in isolation, but on the flip side there wouldn't be such a thing as a composition if there wasn't a relativity to all these components, with the sum being greater than the parts.
The fact that there's a minor second in that minor add2 chord is subordinate to that interval being experienced in relation to the root. If you hear just a minor second interval alone the lower note feels like the root, which determines the dissonance. But in a minor add2 chord the second and third are felt in relation to the root.
In the context of a composition the emphasis of all these parts determines how they're experienced, so of course you can have all sorts of out-of-key grace or passing notes that don't feel destabilising, or feel playful rather than destabilising.

[VOODOO U]

This is why music can be so bland. People over think things and theorize. Music is about communication and the messages come from the spirit world (tbh I am unable to describe in detail what that spirit world is so I'll avoid attempting it. I've tried before but gave it no justice).
Grab an instrument and GO. It can be a guitar or it can be your voice. If you're a theory nerd and want to break free from that garbage then use voice to avoid the rigidity of music theory; it's much easier with voice.
If you pick an instrument most would say you have to know theory to write and that's just a mindset where education blocks intuition. You can't have both, you either use education, or you use intuition.
You'll know something is there by FEELING as opposed to "because this chord works with that chord and blah blah blah bullshit".
Some might say you have to know theory to maneuver within an instrument but theory is nothing more than giving names to positions and patterns. It really is that simple. Some would argue that theory is also about knowing which positions and patterns work best together, which positions and patterns work best in regards to transitions, but so long as you form patterns on an instrument either melodically or making chords, you'll figure out what works because you'll FEEL IT. It's intuitive. You just know it's good. There's no need to THINK about it. Thinking (searching) blocks communication. You can't write Twist and Shout or Start Me Up by theorizing bullshit (thinking).
You get there by loosening up and playing. You can play with a guitar, a wavetable synth or with a hot dog.
With guitar i rely solely on patterns without knowing the names of those patterns or which pattern works with what. I just GO.
If I hear a full song in the mind how do i know what pattern to play to manifest it? I just hit a single position (note) until it gets as close to the sound in the mind. The closest note i find, i form the pattern to make the chord. Once you do it over and over it gets easier. You'll know what hand patterns can manifest that sound and that's without any logic theory implemented (deliberately at least). And anyways 90% of the time i can't quite replicate the tones from the mind using modern day instruments which gets me to be suspicious that the "powers that be" deliberately designed it that way.
If i could replicate the tones/music coming from mind i would probably get a natural high. As we know to well, anything pleasurable especially in a beneficial way is sin and against the law.

[vurt]

no one except elawn is saying you need to know theory, but you do, even if you don't know the lingus. the feel you describe, is imparted by certain intervals following others.
yes, you can write without theory, lots of people do, but to communicate that idea, to another musician, theory language, is like english, a common enough that more musicians understand it than the way you or i might describe a piece.
theory doesn't create rigidity, unless you allow it to. yes, beginners often will "follow the rules exactly" but that's how you learn the language, repeatedly asking for an apple and introducing yourself.
but they arent really rules for writing, they are tools for discussion.

[danielkraemer]

Do potatoes taste good?

[VOODOO U]

Do potatoes taste good?

Yeah i get it. I've just reached a point where you sincerely attempt to make music nerds try to get the point that their approach to songwriting is nonsensical robotics.

[danielkraemer]

Do potatoes taste good?

Yeah i get it. I've just reached a point where you sincerely attempt to make music nerds try to get the point that their approach to songwriting is nonsensical robotics.

That maybe. But most sound designers just drown the source in reverb instead of arguing.

[VOODOO U]

Problem is i don't know which reverb to use. What's the best reverb?

[Winstontaneous]

Problem is i don't know which reverb to use. What's the best reverb?

You just told us that "What" is the best reverb! Why do you even ask?

[Michael L]

We first need to define “musical,” musical and specify the difference.