where next with software instruments?

[BONES]

Or maybe it just shows that I appreciate music for what it is and have no need to search for anything deeper to make me feel good about my choices? And I try not to use ridiculous descriptors like "incredibly static sound". What does that even mean? Because I am listening to Enter the Exterminator and Anything [Viva] in my head and hearing some of the most dynamic music ever.

[kuniklo]

Because I am listening to Enter the Exterminator and Anything [Viva] in my head and hearing some of the most dynamic music ever.

Thirlwell *is* good but the stuff he did as Steroid Maximus would support your point a lot better than the early Foetus records.

Wake me up when you enter the 21st century. Until then you're on my ignore list.

[SadPuppyBlues]

Or maybe it just shows that I appreciate music for what it is and have no need to search for anything deeper to make me feel good about my choices? And I try not to use ridiculous descriptors like "incredibly static sound". What does that even mean? Because I am listening to Enter the Exterminator and Anything [Viva] in my head and hearing some of the most dynamic music ever.

Oh brother.
You're basically saying being pelted by the same sound over and over again is the most dynamic thing ever. It really shows you appreciate music for what it is...


...through your rose-tinted steampunk goggles.

[pdxindy]

I think we can all agree that you *can* create very expressive and dynamic music with the electronic instruments of today. Let's talk about what we can do to take it to the next level. I'm sure *some* of you must have some concrete ideas.

What?! Are you actually trying to get us back on topic!? THE NERVE!

OK, I'll bite.

When I've been able to catch my breath after the hysterics the BONES insights in me (BONES, a lightyear is a unit of distance so does that mean that your thinking doesn't belong in this solar system?) I started thinking "Who's my favorite synth player? Someone who really is amazingly expressive on the instrument.

I couldn't really think of many... hardly any in fact. None that I'd put in my top ten musicians. Why is that?

It's not just me either. I bet if you did a random sampling of people and asked them that question you'd probably come up blank most of the time. I bet they could think of singers, drummers and guitarists though. So, the synth has been out for a long time... Where is it's Hendrix? I use Hendrix as an example because he's not considered the best guitarist by most guitarists, but most often considered one if the icons of rock guitar and a great rock/pop composer. I've never seen him preform but I have seen many films and I've had chills watching them. I've never had a visceral response like that from a synth player. Ever.

The interface for playing the synth is rudimentary compared to a guitar or flute. The closest I have seen for playing synths is a wind controller. With that you can at least control volume as you play sustained sounds.

In some ways, the synth is more compositional.

None of my top musicians are synth players either. I've never heard a synth anything like Pete Cosey on guitar, playing with Miles Davis (as just one example)

I'd love to see a truly expressive, agile guitar controller or even a voice controller. One of the things is, the keyboard is one means of playing, but it cannot begin to describe the characteristics of bowed and wind instruments (for example)

[BONES]

Thirlwell *is* good but the stuff he did as Steroid Maximus would support your point a lot better than the early Foetus records

That stuff bored the living shit outta me. I so wanted to like it but in the end I sold those albums years ago. There just wasn't enough of the good stuff to hold my interest after his break-down. Can't really think of a more recent example of that specific thing, as its not really something that anyone does any more, is it? I mean. I'd love to find some new stuff in that vein but it seemed to tap itself out in the early 90s, or move off into other things [like Steroid Maximus].

You're basically saying being pelted by the same sound over and over again is the most dynamic thing ever. It really shows you appreciate music for what it is...

You really oughta listen to the stuff before you make an idiot of yourself. Seriously, that album has more light and shade than any 10 other albums. Of course, if you'd like to point me to something that you feel is more dynamic, it might help to resolve whether or not we are simply misinterpreting each other. If you want to refresh yourself, you can listen to it at LastFM, here:
http://www.last.fm/music/Foetus/_/The+O ... igdom+Come Its just a snippet but it gives you some idea of the dynamics

ude any of the real "big" stuff. But you can hear the various strings samples, choir, brass and other parts - probably a dozen all up in just that small snippet.

The interface for playing the synth is rudimentary compared to a guitar or flute. The closest I have seen for playing synths is a wind controller. With that you can at least control volume as you play sustained sounds.

I could also do that with after-touch or by assigning the Mod Wheel to volume/gain or to a pedal. Or I could simply do it with a multi-point envelope. Whichever way you choose to do it, its trivial. It says to me that you just don't approach it in the right way. Or maybe your understanding is not sufficient for you to be able to see these options/solutions. Whatever, it reinforces my opinion that its attitude which limits most people.

[SadPuppyBlues]

Hm. Seeing how anything with any shift in volume or tone will do the trick.

How about a Madonna album, run through 300 compressors?

[pdxindy]

The interface for playing the synth is rudimentary compared to a guitar or flute. The closest I have seen for playing synths is a wind controller. With that you can at least control volume as you play sustained sounds.

I could also do that with after-touch or by assigning the Mod Wheel to volume/gain or to a pedal. Or I could simply do it with a multi-point envelope. Whichever way you choose to do it, its trivial. It says to me that you just don't approach it in the right way. Or maybe your understanding is not sufficient for you to be able to see these options/solutions. Whatever, it reinforces my opinion that its attitude which limits most people.

After-touch on most controllers is crap... on the few controllers where it functions like an actual controllable range, it is still crude compared to the subtlety of breath while playing a flute. And then AT has the limitation that you have to keep one finger pressed down on one key to use the controller continuously.

The modwheel takes one hand away from playing and it is basically an unrefined tool with not many gradations. And the expression pedal is also crude, really not smooth in its gradations, and does not allow subtle swift changes fluidly. And I have a keyboard controller with some of the best AT around, I use the modwheel extensively, and I have a couple foot pedals that I also have mapped to various presets. I use these tools, and I also see how limited they are compared to 'analog' tools like my breath, or a bow on the string or hand on the drum.

When I play my flute, both my hands are free to play notes, and my breath controls the sound with an intuitive subtlety that crude keyboard controllers do not come close to.

There is not one keyboard controller on the market today that has the specs I would choose. If anything, controllers have gone backwards in recent years.

Synths now have the capacity to sound like an entire orchestra, plus a whole lot more, but we do not have interfaces that come even vaguely close to the range of input devices of that orchestra. How many keyboard controllers even have a breath control input?

I love playing my synths and make do with the interface tools as they are, but I recognize that they are crude in comparison to acoustic instruments. The modwheel has 128 steps, as do key velocity, AT, etc. Most keyboards do not even make good use of them. Go look at the CC data.

Then go into the guitar shop and look at all the time and history put into the action of the guitar, different shape of the neck, fretboard, different types of strings, bridge height, etc. and any old guitar shop has such variety and every guitar player comes in and tries different instruments. They are not just trying out the sound, but also the 'controller interface'.

Compare that to synths... geez...

[EkleipSiS]

If a piano is an expressive sound a midi keyboard can be as expressive....the only thing is the sound...to have a sound that has as much complexity and variations compared to a physical sound.So i dont see the controller as a problem there.The same with knobs or other controllers...if your sound is really complex in terms of how the controller change it ,it will sound flexible.

About the future of sound i really think theres a HUGE area where it will improve.
I compare this to 3D CGI where i think sound is way behind compared to 3d CGI
modeling.In CGI they can model almost anything to make it appear totally real and physical.whether its an existing thing or unatural thing...human or monsters or anything.They are able to model the laws of physics as a base...the complex interactions in the real world...and then may choose to stretch them or create something new out of them...most of the video games are "fantasy games"...so the goal there is not to simulate existing things...but make them appear "real".

In the sound area they cant even model a trumpet in a realistic way yet...samples is still the best way.
I thought physical modeling was going to make huge improvements and create new sounds some 10 years ago when i first heard about it.I have a yamaha
EX5,theres some VL physical modeling in it...while the sound themselves are not so close to the original thing ,the interesting thing is that with system exclusive you have access to hundreds of parameter and can tweak them way beyond physical possibilities...really unreal sound...but really "alive" ..complex...in terms of how the sound changes ...and responds to even a simple "pressure parameter" knob change.
But for some reasons they stopped any developement towards that and started using it only to simulate analog synths or old hardware.

So again the goal there is not to simulate real things only...but to achieve the complexity ,responsiveness and interactions a sound has in the real world...to make it appear as if it were there...physically...like a CGI video sequence or video game...the textures...the way the thing moves...the light interacts with it...etc. make it looks like its made out of physical attributes.And it takes more then a simple cutoff velocity switch or some Envelops and Lfos on "classic" synths parameters.

Xoxos here is exploring physical modeling and his machines sometimes come up with some pretty unique expressive and different than usual sounds.

So to me the future is there...and is wide open.

[Meffy]

@EkleipSiS: I suspect -- and this is admittedly guesswork! -- that part of the reason why many audio emulations aren't as convincing or impressive as CGI simulations is the nature of the physics involved. Most CGI involves nice predictable solids, while the physics behind audio has to deal with difficult-to-calculate fluid behaviors as well. When CGI takes on fluids the results look realistic only when massive rendering power is brought to bear (or certain "cheats" are employed).

There's also this: I think for most people, eye candy is easier to devour and digest than ear candy.

[edit: Sounds like I'm talking about Hallowe'en treats.]

[EkleipSiS]

There's also this: I think for most people, eye candy is easier to devour and digest than ear candy.

Hmm interesting...really true...most people can appreciate any video or imagery possible..even abstract ones...but abstract and different sounds? gosh ,it is still taboo and considered madness and "just noise" for most people...hehe..

Reminds me of Rusolo and futurism in like beginning of the 1900s...where he said machinery sounds and noises were beautiful...and that human had to embrace the new sounds men were creating...there were themselves performing with noise machines...and people wanted to hang them....
At least people today dont try to kill us...but i wonder how that mentality changed since 100 years...hmmm

[aciddose]

just listen to any modern electronic album - what do you have? a combination of tribal percussion with mechanical and mechanical melodies. what does that hoover pad sound most like in the real world, for example? a chain saw? a fast moving belt driven machine with some sort of blades attached at least, it sounds the least like a vacuum cleaner.

the first thing i'm reminded of when hearing modern quality electronic (it is very easy if you get the drift to understand what i'm referring to here as "not quality") is mecha of some sort, industrial machines and robotics. if you've never worked out running excavators, bulldozers and that sort of stuff or you've never been inside automated factories it might be hard to understand. i'm sure you can find some youtube video of that sort of stuff though.

we've definitely embraced it, even if not consciously.

before anybody jumps on me for the "not quality" thing, it's just all about how i define "electronic". my definition is not just music where electronic instruments are used since that would then be 100% of all modern music. every modern recording at some point uses electronic equipment, unless you're entirely live and playing only acoustics. (which is another type of quality, just not 'electronic') my definition is where the specific properties of the instruments are used, not just that they're electronic, but what seperates them from other instruments. the difference between acoustic and electronic is emphasized resulting in music which could not possibly be defined as anything other than 'electronic music'.

example: http://xhip.cjb.net/temp/public/hahah2.mp3

(that clip was a two-minute thrown together thing. sampled stage mk1, a break, not at all analogous to anything other than 'electronic')

[Lunatique]

before anybody jumps on me for the "not quality" thing, it's just all about how i define "electronic". my definition is not just music where electronic instruments are used since that would then be 100% of all modern music. every modern recording at some point uses electronic equipment, unless you're entirely live and playing only acoustics. (which is another type of quality, just not 'electronic') my definition is where the specific properties of the instruments are used, not just that they're electronic, but what seperates them from other instruments. the difference between acoustic and electronic is emphasized resulting in music which could not possibly be defined as anything other than 'electronic music'.

example: http://xhip.cjb.net/temp/public/hahah2.mp3

(that clip was a two-minute thrown together thing. sampled stage mk1, a break, not at all analogous to anything other than 'electronic')

That's an interesting point. A song composed of entirely acoustic instruments can indeed become "electronic music" if enough manipulation is done to it. Even without using any computers or synths--just by cutting up tapes of recordings and rearranging them will result in an "electronic sound," and that opens up a whole new discussion of "just what is electronic music?"

[Meffy]

I've always considered musique concrète to be... erm... music. Other listeners exhibit varying degrees of want.

[aciddose]

"just what is electronic music?"

well, as i said due to the fact you couldn't possibly produce that "sound" without electronic equipment, that therefore is "electronic". that's why i define it this way, since simply playing a composition using electronic equipment doesn't make the composition itself electronic. it could just as easily be played on any instrument, and if that is the case it is automatically "not electronic".

the real point though was if you listen to modern electronic productions they're almost all related in some way to mecha and automation. the whole 4/4 repeating bar itself was really only invented after the industrial revolution. it ties back to our fundamental musical roots, in my opinion, where pounding, grinding and so on were done for survival. the most efficient manner in which to work is in a repetitive, repeatable mechanical fashion.

if you want to take a step back and forget even "electronic" music, you can easily hear the influence of industry in all musical styles starting in the mid 1800s. it wasn't simply a business revolution, it was a cultural revolution with an effect in every aspect of our lives.

[kuniklo]

and that opens up a whole new discussion of "just what is electronic music?"

I'm still holding on to a very slim hope of this thread actually producing something useful, so for the purposes of this discussion let's not worry about definitions and just focus on what we'd like to see happen with software instruments.