where next with software instruments?

[kuniklo]

The software is vastly better today than 10 years ago. For example, with modeling, there was nothing at all like Mudbox or Zbrush back then. That is some gee whiz software and has allowed modelers to truly sculpt in 3d.

Great example of exactly what I'm talking about. There's a point at which making something quantitatively easier translates to a qualitative change in the result. Right now I think a lot of us hear music in our heads that we can't quite get down on disc because the process to get there is clogged with too many artistically extraneous details.

[whyterabbyt]

The thing that makes the Radias sequences different is that you record them live. You hit a button and then just twist any knob you want and it records the live movements into a sequence that you can then edit. The only thing I've seen that's close in software is the recordable envelopes in some Reaktor synths.

and host-based automation.

[kuniklo]

The thing that makes the Radias sequences different is that you record them live. You hit a button and then just twist any knob you want and it records the live movements into a sequence that you can then edit. The only thing I've seen that's close in software is the recordable envelopes in some Reaktor synths.

and host-based automation.

Similar but not the same, since it's polyphonic and stored with the patch. You should give it a try sometime. It beats the hell out of drawing complex envelopes in by hand for a lot of things. It was the only thing I really liked about the Radias.

[whyterabbyt]

Sticking with the CG analogy, if you compare the expressiveness of the kitchen staff in Ratatouille with the characters in Toy Story there's no question that technology has given talent new means of expression.

which part of the talent? you're talking about Pixar there, and Pixar have one overriding focus - story. there's a reason Pixar, with the best CG technology and animation staff in the world, don't go in for photorealistic CG... its not necessary to their vision. good stories are. and to them, good character animation is still more important than any rendering technology; even Renderman.

if Pixar had made Ratatouille in 1995 instead of Toy Story, it would still have been as successful an animation, even with cruder rendering.

[whyterabbyt]

Similar but not the same, since it's polyphonic and stored with the patch.

how does it work in terms of being polyphonic, may I ask?

You should give it a try sometime. It beats the hell out of drawing complex envelopes in by hand for a lot of things. It was the only thing I really liked about the Radias.

It actually sounds similar to the Pad Motion and Motion Sequence features of my KP3 and Electribe ES-1 respectively.

[kuniklo]

which part of the talent? you're talking about Pixar there, and Pixar have one overriding focus - story. there's a reason Pixar, with the best CG technology and animation staff in the world, don't go in for photorealistic CG... its not necessary to their vision. good stories are. and to them, good character animation is still more important than any rendering technology; even Renderman.

if Pixar had made Ratatouille in 1995 instead of Toy Story, it would still have been as successful an animation, even with cruder rendering.

I work for (but certainly do not officially speak for) Pixar, so I know a little bit about this. You're absolutely right that Pixar's focus is on stories first and technology second but I'm sure Pixar's directors would tell you that they're very happy to have the tools they have available today to tell those stories.

[kuniklo]

Similar but not the same, since it's polyphonic and stored with the patch.

how does it work in terms of being polyphonic, may I ask?

You should give it a try sometime. It beats the hell out of drawing complex envelopes in by hand for a lot of things. It was the only thing I really liked about the Radias.

It actually sounds similar to the Pad Motion and Motion Sequence features of my KP3 and Electribe ES-1 respectively.

I don't remember how it works polyphonically since it's been a while since I had a Radias, unfortunately. I'd guess probably something like the way the multipoint envelopes in Absynth work. It's pretty much exactly the same as the recordable envelopes in Photone and Carbon 2 except you can manually edit the steps.

It is also similar to the KP3 pad motion stuff. I think Korg has been pretty forward thinking about hands-on performance controls in their gear for a while now.

[BONES]

i wouldn't even say the most impressive advancement in cganimation is modeling or rendering - i'd say the motion capture and animation systems of today are extremely, extremely improved against those used when animations like "toy story" were built. today it's possible to connect sensors to a real actor and have all physical properties of their bodies and clothing accurately modeled by the system while oversampled motion capture is done providing for accurate motion-blur and other effects.

Again, mo-cap was around when Toy Story was made, its just the processor power wasn't up to making it work, so the resolution wasn't where its at today.

Do you believe this viewpoint is widely held or unique to yourself?

Despite the fact that it is completely obvious, the dominant paradigm is still the same as it was 50 years ago. At that time, the only way you could create a nuanced, complex piece of music was to be good enough to play it well. Today any idiot can import a MIDI file and press play to get the same result.
When I started playing, I used to practice a lot, because if I wanted to get up on stage and do a creditable job, I had to be able to play two parts and sing at the same time. It was hard and I got to a stage where I was a competent player. Then I bought a MIDI sequencer and suddenly I was free to run around the stage and only play when it made sense to do so - solos, etc. After a few years I my playing ability had atrophied because it was no longer a relevant skill, so I didn't waste any time with it. I'm a krap player now because I don't need to be any better to do a great job. Its obvious.

Creative talent does not exist in a vacuum

Of course it does. Ideas exist in my head and whilst there was a time when the only way to get them out would be to play them on an instrument or on a stave, today I can throw it into my Piano Roll in as rough a way as I like and make it perfect in a few seconds by moving the notes around, or quantising it on the way in [which really takes skill out of the equation]. Then I can sit there and play with all of the other parameters until it sounds exactly the way it did in my head, instead of recording take after take until I got it right. How can this be anything but completely obvious?

I see it inextricably linked to actual talent with the tools at hand. Talent, skill and ability don't become irrelevant simply because you can't claim them for yourself. But at least your honest enough to admit where yours are.

Mine are where they need to be for me to get the results I crave. The only place I use a black & white keyboard these days is on stage. If we didn't play live, I wouldn't even own one any more. Given that I am making the best music of my life in this way, how can I possibly see any value in musicianship?

(i) wouldn't someone, far more skilled as artist, having the same technology be a better graphic artist than you (presuming equal knowledge of the technology)? especially if a haptic interface was involved?

No, because haptic ability is not the key to good design, it simply facilitates it. Good design require a "good eye" for colour, proportion, etc, which is largely an innate ability that can be cultivated. I don't need good hand/eye co-ordination to do any of my work, I just need to understand what looks right and what doesn't, software takes care of the rest.

(ii) there is one flaw to the application of electronics in music--performance. i remember, once, very much liking gary newman's music (e.g., ), then i saw him perform...wonderful one key at a time keyboard technique. oh, well, the tune was good and the staging was perfect!

So music can only be good if it requires some performance skill? I think Mr Numan's bank balance would tend to disprove that assertion. Another good example would be KILLING JOKE. Their keyboard player/front-man has been working for the last 10 or 15 years as a composer/conductor for various symphony orchestras. He even wrote part of the New Zealand National Anthem [even though he is English] but if you listen to any of his work with KILLING JOKE, most of it is incredibly simple, often just a single held note. But its perfect - understanding what a piece needs is a real talent and being sufficiently self-assured to do only as much as required is a talent to be admired. Feeling the need to show how good you are at every opportunity is a sign of real insecurity.

Sure. That's essentially what I'm saying - we don't need *new* synthesis technology as much as we need ways to make the existing technology more expressive and accessible. Right now there's a brick wall between sound designers and musicians and I think there's an opportunity to knock it down. Electronic music is interesting precisely because it allows us to control timbre in complete harmony with other musical considerations but this requires so much analytic knowledge and is such a manual, tedious process now that it limits our ability to exploit that strength.

I think those barriers exist mostly in your head. I feel no such constraints on any part of my process. I feel confident that I can do anything at all that might need to be done. I can be as expressive and subtle and nuanced as anyone or anything that has ever been. More so, in that the level of control we have over sound today is unprecedented in human history.

The software is vastly better today than 10 years ago. For example, with modeling, there was nothing at all like Mudbox or Zbrush back then. That is some gee whiz software and has allowed modelers to truly sculpt in 3d.

Sure it was, it just wasn't as accessible because graphics hardware couldn't make it as interactive. Its something you've been able to do in Maya since about v1.0 AFAIK. Its existing technology that has simply become more accessible thanks to huge improvements in hardware.

[pdxindy]

The software is vastly better today than 10 years ago. For example, with modeling, there was nothing at all like Mudbox or Zbrush back then. That is some gee whiz software and has allowed modelers to truly sculpt in 3d.

Sure it was, it just wasn't as accessible because graphics hardware couldn't make it as interactive. Its something you've been able to do in Maya since about v1.0 AFAIK. Its existing technology that has simply become more accessible thanks to huge improvements in hardware.

The tools in Maya 1.0 were nothing even approaching Mudbox. Maya today still doesn't have the capacity of Mudbox. Character animators are using Mudbox or Zbrush, even if they start the model in Maya.

You are correct that the computing power back then was not enough to do what Mudbox does, but there still was NO software comparable. You can call it evolutionary, but the experience itself is revolutionary.

You do not need to plan ahead now in the way you used to, which allows a huge change into creative flow in the moment. The workflow is radically different and lets people who are sculptors and not particularly technical do world class modeling. You can just sculpt like clay!

This is exactly the sort of thing Kuniklo is talking about... taking the tools and making them more transparent and allowing creative people to create at a higher level without needing to have a detail focused technical mind as well.

[pdxindy]

The software is vastly better today than 10 years ago. For example, with modeling, there was nothing at all like Mudbox or Zbrush back then. That is some gee whiz software and has allowed modelers to truly sculpt in 3d.

Great example of exactly what I'm talking about. There's a point at which making something quantitatively easier translates to a qualitative change in the result. Right now I think a lot of us hear music in our heads that we can't quite get down on disc because the process to get there is clogged with too many artistically extraneous details.

For me I would say that it is not that there is music in my head I cannot get out, but that when the technical aspect is too invasive, it is harder to get into a creative flow where something fresh and creative manifests.

That is one of the big reasons I stopped working as a 3d modeler. I used to fantasize about software like Zbrush or Mudbox!

[BONES]

The tools in Maya 1.0 were nothing even approaching Mudbox. Maya today still doesn't have the capacity of Mudbox. Character animators are using Mudbox or Zbrush, even if they start the model in Maya.

But the technology was very similar, it was just the capabilities of the machine to implement it. In essence it is just painting deformations and textures and stuff in the viewport, which we've been able to do for years. Where Mudbox shines is in leveraging the GPU to allow you an unprecedented view of your work as you do it, which is what makes it so much more usable. But the basic technique is old as the hills, I was doing it with Max and Paint 10 years ago, I just couldn't see the results until I rendered a frame, but back then I had a top-of-the-line 1Mb graphics card and a Pentium 166 so it wasn't the best way to do things.

The workflow is radically different and lets people who are sculptors and not particularly technical do world class modeling. You can just sculpt like clay!

As long as you have a grunty PC. Take it to a Pentium 166 with a 1Mb FireGL card and it would be even more useless than Paint in Max was at that time. OTOH, Combustion in Max is now pretty usable if you want/need to do that without having to go to a specialist application. Of course, now that we own Mudbox, it is in our corporate interest to convince you that you need both, but that doesn't make it so. Just have a look at what Dave King has been able to do in a Max viewport for years if you don't believe me [he has DVDs for sale at Turbosquid].

[ughnonumus]

Sticking with the CG analogy, if you compare the expressiveness of the kitchen staff in Ratatouille with the characters in Toy Story there's no question that technology has given talent new means of expression.

which part of the talent? you're talking about Pixar there, and Pixar have one overriding focus - story. there's a reason Pixar, with the best CG technology and animation staff in the world, don't go in for photorealistic CG... its not necessary to their vision. good stories are. and to them, good character animation is still more important than any rendering technology; even Renderman.

if Pixar had made Ratatouille in 1995 instead of Toy Story, it would still have been as successful an animation, even with cruder rendering.

Cool company. They were working with Silicon Graphics on some of their projects when I was there (SGI), as the story movies were showing people what could be done with animations. As you might know, those were the only machines capable of that stuff at the time.

[Teksonik]

Creative talent does not exist in a vacuum

Of course it does. Ideas exist in my head

Errrrrr........Self deprecating humor or Freudian slip?

[aciddose]

Again, mo-cap was around when Toy Story was made, its just the processor power wasn't up to making it work, so the resolution wasn't where its at today.

come on bones, you've said you work in the industry. the difference is like between cooledit96 and cubase VST, to make an audio analogy. it isn't just processing power because if it was people would still be using the TWENTY year old software. they're not, the new software is much, much better.

[eduardo_b]

I'm a krap player now because I don't need to be any better to do a great job. Its obvious.

I suppose the only way to determine whether or not what you refer to as a great job is anything close to that would require listening to your music to hear how little musicianship is required for your work. You're quite dismissive of most aspects of musicianship, so I'd be most interested to hear what having little to none results in. Where might I find some examples?