where next with software instruments?

[herodotus]

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.

How about giving these things some time?

Violins and cellos and trumpets have an ancient tradition behind them: a vast literature and a well established pedagogy hundreds of years old. Synths have less than a century behind them, and the first Minimoog, the beginning of playable synthesizers that didn't weigh over 1000 pounds, was released less than 50 years ago, in 1970.

And I agree with Bones, playing is overrated. Bach's 3 part fugue from the Musical Offering was great music before anyone ever played it. If the only version ever performed were through a sequencer with no performance subtleties at all, it would still be great music. The human factor would still be there. After all, it wasn't a machine that chose those themes, or developed them contrapuntally with such skill and dramatic progression.

Unless you think that a composer who doesn't play any instruments with great proficiency is somehow less of a musician than a virtuoso who doesn't compose with any great proficiency?

Which would make Paganini a greater musician than the late Beethoven.

[kuniklo]

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?

[Howard]

Synths are already way ahead of pianos and celli and trumpets in terms of flexibility, sure. I think the main problem here is that so few players take the time to learn how to play ONE PATCH expressively. On the other hand, the "parameters" (and how they interact) in acoustic instruments are (is) much more complex than in synthesizers. I love playing my Yamaha VL-7, but still...

[pdxindy]

I think it is absurd to say synths are as expressive as acoustic instruments. (Bones, you are lost in your own hype)

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

Or how about Miles Davis on his trumpet... Or a digeradoo... or a shakuhachi... etc etc etc

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

oh, and skill does matter...

[Dean Aka Nekro]

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

[kuniklo]

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 also think it's worth exploring new ways of manipulating samples. The kind of resynthesis Alchemy does seems like it has a lot of potential, particularly with the right kind of performance controls.

[eduardo_b]

And I agree with Bones, playing is overrated.

Well that's odd given how little music would mean without the playing part. In fact, without the playing, there is no music. You might as well say the samples are more important than the playing, which is also simply not true. The playing is what makes samples even worth listening to. So, I have to completely reject your contention.

Unless you think that a composer who doesn't play any instruments with great proficiency is somehow less of a musician than a virtuoso who doesn't compose with any great proficiency?

Which would make Paganini a greater musician than the late Beethoven.

Less of a musician would be an apt description unless we want to eliminate talent, proficiency and skill. I realize that competency is not always considered important (the Palin effect), but I am never going to accept mediocre playing as acceptable simply because the composition is of high quality. When there are no standards, the difference between excellence and everything else is lost, and what good is that?

[eduardo_b]

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.

Only if you eliminate humans from the equation. Software instruments don't exist in a vacuum. Without humans to play them, these instruments are little more than sound making devices.

[herodotus]

And I agree with Bones, playing is overrated.

Well that's odd given how little music would mean without the playing part. In fact, without the playing, there is no music. You might as well say the samples are more important than the playing, which is also simply not true. The playing is what makes samples even worth listening to. So, I have to completely reject your contention.

Unless you think that a composer who doesn't play any instruments with great proficiency is somehow less of a musician than a virtuoso who doesn't compose with any great proficiency?

Which would make Paganini a greater musician than the late Beethoven.

Less of a musician would be an apt description unless we want to eliminate talent, proficiency and skill. I realize that competency is not always considered important (the Palin effect), but I am never going to accept mediocre playing as acceptable simply because the composition is of high quality. When there are no standards, the difference between excellence and everything else is lost, and what good is that?

What Talent? What skill?

Why are musical standards so intimately concerned with the minutiae of performance (in your view)? Are you really saying Paganini was a greater musician than late Beethoven? The guy who wrote Ode to Joy and the rest of the ninth symphony? The guy who wrote the late quartets and the Grosse Fugue? Hell, Joe Satriani would have to be a better musician as well by those standards.

Perhaps we have a lexical misunderstanding. The American Heritage Dictionary defines 'musician' as "One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music". note that 'composes' comes first.

And your idea that 'In fact, without the playing, there is no music.' is actually vitiated by centuries of history. In fact, for much of history, people who made audible music were looked down upon by their abstract brethren (If you're curious, you can read about this bizarre state of affairs in this book).

In any case,what do you call the grand design in a composers head before they commit it to paper? Or after they have done this but before it is performed?

[Sascha Franck]

Synths are already way ahead of pianos and celli and trumpets in terms of flexibility, sure. I think the main problem here is that so few players take the time to learn how to play ONE PATCH expressively.

And that's *the* most important point in what this entire discussion has gone to (at least for now).
I would even agree that Bones might have a point (as he usually has), but really, true masters of "analog" instruments usually spend half their lives in exploring each and every nuance of their chosen instrument. That's pretty much the reason why we can find (at least once familiar with a few parameters, such as style) extraordinary, haunting and touching performances coming from them.
I am in no way saying that this wouldn't be possible using synths, but it's defenitely not that common. Most "typical" (whatever that might mean...) synth players use a really broad range of sounds, so it's just clear that they can't concentrate on one single sound as much as, say, the already mentioned cellist.

Now, whether concentrating on a "single sound" instrument has more worth in terms of artistic expressiveness than using a whole bunch of sounds while not exploring each single sound as much - that's completely beyond me.
Personally, I prefer using a mixture of both (still practising guitar while at the same time using all sorts of effects and synths sounds).

- Sascha

[Kriminal]

most ppl play to their limitations, not the instruments limitations.

[Dean Aka Nekro]

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.

Only if you eliminate humans from the equation. Software instruments don't exist in a vacuum. Without humans to play them, these instruments are little more than sound making devices.

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. Take samples out of the way which would have had to be played by some real musician's and fine ones at that and you would be left with just synthesis to work with. 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

Can it not be accepted and respected that both can happily co-exist and also complement one another. I have the upmost respect for good synth player's and know many whom have the same respect for good 'real' instrument player's and both are equally musician's in my eyes - that to me is open minded

Both will prevail, but only time will tell how

@ BONES: my coming across as hostile about a Cello and Digitech Whammy pedal to achieve pitch bends which would not be possible due to the instrument's design is not meant as hostile - it is to merely prove that its easily possible to do with zero synthesis/samples involved. Yes you could do it with a decent sample set like the Garritan Cello Library and something like IK Multimedia's AmpliTube 2 which has a Digitech Whammy Pedal 'model' but i know which approach i would use given a choice: that is all. 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 - that's my idea of doing something you may not normally do and Electro Harmonix have some mad crazy boxes for little money too which are also worthy of any synth processing and you might even like it (but i know you would not justify the price of such pedals but their is no harm in taking your laptop or synth to a store and test driving man)

Anyway this topic is not for me so im gonna bow out

[eduardo_b]

Perhaps we have a lexical misunderstanding. The American Heritage Dictionary defines 'musician' as "One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music". note that 'composes' comes first.

It may indeed be lexical. Do you remember the thread months ago about whether a vocalist was a musician? I took the point of view that a musician is traditionally regarded as someone who plays an instrument, as opposed to someone who sang, wrote, conducted and so on. Of course, an individual could possess more than one skill set, but I've never heard a conductor referred to as a musician, whereas that term is applied to those who actually play instruments within the orchestra. To me, a composer is just that. He or she composes pieces that are played by musicians. So, given this perspective, I must respectfully disagree with the AHD regarding this matter.

And your idea that 'In fact, without the playing, there is no music.' is actually vitiated by centuries of history. In fact, for much of history, people who made audible music were looked down upon by their abstract brethren (If you're curious, you can read about this bizarre state of affairs in this book).

Your information is both interesting and simply an artifact of a far distant time. In today's musical reality, the musician is the music, regardless of who wrote the composition. Now, perhaps this isn't how it should be viewed, but common acceptance of the term is he or she who plays an instrument. In fact, a superb musician can make a less than stellar piece sound better than it really is.

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. Changing the interface is not going to resolve this issue if you believe, as I do, that the performance is in the hands of the person playing the instrument. Automation is not going to produce the same kind of emotional results.

In any case,what do you call the grand design in a composers head before they commit it to paper? Or after they have done this but before it is performed?

I don't think I call it anything prior to its existence on paper. Be it a concerto, symphony, song or whatever, it is the script that musicians will turn into music that expresses their emotional response to playing it. I say this realizing that some musicians compose their own work but cannot read or write music, and must have it transcribed for it to exist in written form. Not sure why you asked this question.

[ughnonumus]

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.

[herodotus]

Perhaps we have a lexical misunderstanding. The American Heritage Dictionary defines 'musician' as "One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music". note that 'composes' comes first.

It may indeed be lexical. Do you remember the thread months ago about whether a vocalist was a musician? I took the point of view that a musician is traditionally regarded as someone who plays an instrument, as opposed to someone who sang, wrote, conducted and so on. Of course, an individual could possess more than one skill set, but I've never heard a conductor referred to as a musician, whereas that term is applied to those who actually play instruments within the orchestra. To me, a composer is just that. He or she composes pieces that are played by musicians. So, given this perspective, I must respectfully disagree with the AHD regarding this matter.

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

When there are no standards, the difference between excellence and everything else is lost, and what good is that?

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.

I'm not saying that I agree with this point of view. Not at all. These are thorny issues. But if there are accepted standards of musical excellence, the scholarly consensus is that these standards concern composition.

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