On 8/3/07, Kenneth Elhardt put forth:
>Mark writes:
> >>It's what you used for your demos. The point being that imitative
>synthesis requires imitative playing. Which means without an
>unusually sophisticated CV controller such playing would require MIDI.<<
>
>This has gone on so long and it's just going arond in circles. I just use a
>keyboard with velocity and a pedal for most of my stuff. Nothing unsual.
>The point is those who can't play a musical instrument like a keyboard
>wouldn't be a market for this.
It's going around in circles because you are being too obstinate to
concede the simplest of points. You used MIDI (which is nothing
unusual) and almost anyone else playing a musical instrument like a
keyboard to imitate other instruments would be using MIDI.
> >>That would be so much less cumbersome using a computer interface.
>Even if the DSP was done in separate hardware, and that hardware had
>CV inputs and other interface features, it still would make much more
>sense to program it with a computer. Not only would that result in a
>much more mechanically reliable product, but it would make it much
>easier to add analysis features, store patches, program changes, etc.
>Unless it has motorized controls, any device that has patch storage
>or automation is not WYSIWYG.<<
>
>Well the same could be said for a modular synth.
Perhaps it could be said for an entire modular -- which is the main
idea behind the recent Buchla 200e -- but it cannot be said for
individual modules. Individual modules are rather simple and easy to
control without a computer.
>You just keep flip-flopping. Before it was the
>computer that you didn't want, now that's what you want. I can't keep track
>of what's going on anymore
No, I'm not flip flopping at all. What I have been saying all along
is that there are certain types of synthesis that are much better
using a computer interface, and that using a filter with 52
parameters would be another example.
>A stereo 1/3 octave EQ has 62 sliders. I'm still not seeing the problem.
Graphic equalizers are extremely familiar, easy to use, have a wealth
of practical uses, and a huge market. And it's because whoever
invented the graphic equalizer had a very good idea -- a
cost-effective tool with an intuitive user interface that could solve
common problems.
> >>Again, you are using your own made-up definitions of "musical" and
>"melodic".<<
>
>No I'm not. I've already posted the definition once for music. Might as
>well get it all out there. Music: "an art of sound in time that expresses
>ideas and emotions in significant forms through the organized elements of
>rhythm, melody, harmony, and dynamics.". Melodic: "of, having, or producing
>melody. pleasant-sounding."
Yet, somehow, in your mind that doesn't apply to techno even though
it clearly fits every aspect of that definition.
>My idea of techno is based on having to hear 9 years of it, including stuff
>that people told me was "good techno". None of it is complex in its use of
>sounds, unless you think stealing / sampling somebody elses work and pasting
>it can be creditted to techno.
No doubt that's also based on your own homespun definition of
"complex". Also, besides vocals and sub-genres that use drum loops,
there is very little "stealing / sampling somebody elses work" in
techno.
> >>Regardless, structured music such as techno which is based on notes,
>rhythm, and a discernable arrangement of instruments is way more musical and
>melodic than beatless ambient and various forms of electro-acoustic music.<<
>
>Melody is not an element of techno. Therefore it's not melodic.
Tautology.
>It's not based on notes either,
Since you claim you've been hearing techno for nine years, and I
would presume that you know what notes are, I have no idea why
you would make such a blatantly false and absurd statement.
>in fact most techno creators don't know how to play a
>keyboard and some don't even own one, unless you consider a sound at a
>different pitch being triggered at some point. Techno lacks all in the
>definition of music above except rhythm. And those rhythms are simplistic,
>repetitive and unoriginal/predictable.
Well, it's obvious at this point that you simply have no idea what
you are talking about.
>The point was that this is not them market for a complex filter bank.
While I agree with that, it's not because techno isn't melodic,
musical, or less complex in it's use of sounds. Techno producers are
always looking for ways to make new sounds -- some notable examples
have gone so far as to design and build their own hardware or write
their own software. It's that your idea for a complex filter bank
sucks.
> >>This does not mean that electronic music that relies more on texture or
>less on traditional musical elements is more simplistic in its use of
>synthesizers.<<
>
>Maybe, but most synth use is rather simplistic. That's the problem. There
>aren't many people with the attention spans to put towards using a 52 band
>filter bank for it's main purpose of creating complex resonant instrument
>bodies.
No, that's not the problem. The problem is not everyone else. The
problem is that your idea for a module is horribly ill-conceived.
It's impractical, poorly implemented, and economically unfeasible.
It has nothing to do with anyone else's attention span. There are
plenty of music producers out there intensively programming
incredibly sophisticated and complex things with SuperCollider,
MAX/MSP, Kyma X, etc.
While, imho, the imitative synthesis of musical instruments doesn't
have much commercial application (considering all the sample
libraries and session players out there), imitative synthesis of
non-instrument sounds is an important part of designing foley and
sound effects for television and film, where sound designers will
often spend days on a single sound. While they do not have to move a
filter up and down a musical scale, it often involves extremely
sophisticated use of synths to imitate sounds.
> >>It's not obvious to me. Some rack gear is dirt cheap, but most of it
>is not reliable, sounds terrible, or has a very minimal interface.
>It also has a much larger market. An Alesis MEQ 230 has 31 sliders,
>but it's crap -- it's noisy, distorted, and is almost guaranteed to
>break. What you are suggesting is a cheaply-built product that needs
>to be mass-manufactured for a small quality-conscious market. That's
>not going to work.<<
>
>I'm not talking cheaply built, but I'm not talking overkill with sealed pots
>or $5 slider caps either. There is a middle ground. The point is whether
>there was a market in the first place which I said no, not much of one.
>Then you've argued back and forth for whatever reason.
I'm arguing because you say things like "obviously it would be in the
hundreds of dollars range, not the thousands" which isn't true, and
that it wouldn't sell well even at that impossible price "because of
the current lethargic attitude toward synthesis". It's not because
of anyone else's attitude. It's not because others don't have the
"knowledge or expertise". It's not because everyone else is a bum.
It's not because producers aren't willing to spend thousands of
dollars on single piece of kit. It's because your idea is crap.
In contrast, rather than some ridiculously long narrow box with 52
sliders, a standard 1U rackspace -- that could be mounted almost
anywhere -- containing a two-channel filter with USB, MIDI and a
CV/pedal inputs; and a software editor/librarian to control it --
allowing the user to store presets, generate filter curves based on
analysis, draw curves with a mouse or tablet, change the number and
type of filter bands, support microtunings, etc. -- would not only be
better for imitative synthesis, it would have many other uses. If it
was done right, it might be very successful.