I really liked much of what was said regarding this thread, most of what I
added was of the "amen brother!" variety, but I decided to include a lot of
the previous responses for "the sake of clarity." I'd like to hear more from
others in these regards.
In a message dated 3/23/2000 6:44:27 PM,
revtor@... writes:
>Has anyone thought of a modular synth in terms of being an instrument in
>its
>own?
You've come to the right place!
Now think about how a piano sounds
>when
>98% of pianists play it. The same as any other piano. These virtuosos
>are
>indeed able to master it and bring out that sound tht the other 98% just
>can't. Now consider the modular. Can there be a virtuoso? (Carlos and
>Tomita are generally considered to be the closest thing) First of all
>no
>modular is the same. No controller is standard. No modules comprise a
>standard modular. "Playing" a modular therefore means nothing. In a piano
>you have no other option than the keys. (Except those who bang on the
>case,
>pluck the strings, throw things in there etc.. this doesnt count) but
>in a
>modular you can equip it with a keyboard and this imposes piano like
>standards on it. Keyboard chops shouldn't define ones ability in playing
>a
>modular. Could there ever be a virtuoso? Virtuoso: 1: An experimenter
>or
>investigator, esp. in the arts or sciences (we are therefore all virtuosos)
>
>3: One who excels in the technique of an art.
I did look up the words "virtuoso" and "virtuosity" and was surprised at the
different meanings they have. But in typical usage (especially musical) they
connote a certain dexterity and repeatability of an "intuitive nature"
regarding performance. I think one of the least important aspects of EM (as
EM) is this limited notion of performance. For that reason I think the word
virtuoso is the wrong choice.
I think of VC EM as being much closer to composition (deliberate choices
rather than practiced dexterity). While occasionally people may refer to a
composer as a virtuoso, I think it is much more common to refer to composers
as "genius" or similar, and performers as virtuoso. It seems a very
interesting coincidence that in Art Music, we have a significant rise in EM
during a time (the last fifty years especially) when the division between
composer and performer is so great (i.e., one typically either composes OR
performs) -- it is also interesting that other types of music have been more
accommodating to "composer/performer" types of music during this period in
the Art Music world.
I don't like to use the term "genius" since it seems almost devoid of meaning
at this time (e.g., "comedic genius Adam Sandler..."). I also think that we
are at a time in VC EM much more like a small specialized renaissance in
Europe (work with me here people), where we have a significant number of
talented people using a (frequently small) box of generalized tools to
accomplish very different ends. As such, I think a more appropriate term
would be the related word, ingenuity. Maybe we're all just craftsmen (or
craftspersons -- or maybe just crafty).
Is it being able to patch
>up a sound that pops up in ones mind and have it be almost perfect when
>you
>turn up the volume?
I think this is very useful, since it minimizes the setup time.
or is it one who is able to go deep into the modular
>making an evolving sound for hours that is never stagnant and not overly
>repetitious?
This is something I, like several others on this list, am very interested in,
and when one can make interesting music like this I believe it definitely
shows great ingenuity.
I guess these are two things that i'd like to be able to
>do..
>Who is the best programmer/patcher you know?
Me, of course! But I don't get out much these days.
I guess there can never
>be a
>virtuoso of a modular.. there are just too many possibilities
>~Steve
>(I have one module so far!!)
It would be very difficult to be a virtuoso with one module, you need at
least three!
In a message dated 3/24/2000 11:38:14 AM,
improv@... writes:
>Interesting idea, one I've put some thought into as well. IMHO, being a
>virtouso involves not just being a good player, but having that extra
>quality of "effortless mastery." I don't remember where I first heard that
>term, but it's one that has stuck in my mind over the years. I'm sure you
>know what I mean, that quality of being so connected with the instrument
>that the creation just seems to flow. It's like Michael Jordan, or Herbie
>Hancock, or any of a hundred different geniuses I could name. So, who are
>the synth players with this quality? I honestly don't know. The virtousos
>that generally come to mind aren't using modulars, and if they are, are
>using them in fairly mundane ways. I mean, no one can doubt Keith Emerson's
>keyboard ability, but I wouldn't say he's a genius at getting synth sounds,
>in fact I thought most of his sonds were pretty lame. Jan Hammer definitely
>had a thing with the Minimoog as a performance instrument, but again it
>was
>his keyboard phrasing that made it work more than the "synth" qualities,
>though I think he had some very cool sounds. Joe Zawinul? Some of the
>Weather Report stuff had a use of electronics that was, I think, very
>innovative for the time, and didn't depend on traditional keyboard
>virtuosity. Wayne Horvitz blew me away in the '80's, doing free improv
>with
>a DX-7, reprogramming it from the front panel on the fly and making great
>music at the same time. Maybe some of the Techno cats, like Aphex Twin,
>Richie Hawtin or Carl Craig? There's a German free-improv player named
>Thomas Lehn who uses an ARP 2600, I haven't heard him yet, but have been
>told by people I trust that he's the most interesting electronic improviser
>EVER. I'm meaning to order one of his CD's, I'll report when I do hear
>him.
>
>I've had occaisional glimpses of this kind of effortless mastery when
>playing, I'm sure everyone has had that feeling of being totally "in the
>zone", getting to that place where everything you do is musical, and it
>just flows. It's probably rarer on the modular, but I've had a few of those
>weird late-night patching sessions, as I'm sure we all have. I think a
>virtouso is someone who can tap into that kind of space every time they
>play, not just the rare glimpses the rest of us get.
>
>I think that the main thing it takes to develop this effortless mastery
>is
>time on the instrument. Carlos and Tomita probably spent more time on
>modulars than just about anyone else (who else is there from that
>generation of players who worked so extensively with modulars? Subotnick?
>Richard Teitlebaum maybe? Pat Gleeson? Larry Fast?). Since the modular
>is
>still a pretty new instrument, and the MOTM in particular, maybe we just
>haven't had the time to develop this level of mastery. Maybe we're the
>virtuosos in training....
Great points Dave! I have to give Emerson a bit more credit however, since I
remember him doing some interesting timbre exploration (and the like) through
works like Carlos Chavez's piece Toccata along with several others. He is
such a great keyboard player, I think this part of his early work was
overlooked. I have to admit not listening to any of this work for years, and
not having heard anything he's done since the mid seventies.
And I agree with your points about Horvitz, Zawinul, Hancock, Titlebaum,
Gleeson, and Subotnick too. Since I don't think of what I do as composing for
EM, but just making general music (using whatever instrument I'm thinking of
at the time), I'm not very interested in thinking about modular (only)
geniuses. So I might add to the list: the Barons (Forbidden Planet
soundtrack), Xenakis, Varese, Ussachevsky, Henri and Schaffer (and digital
guys like Carl Stone, and John Oswald's Plunderphonics series -- a rare great
use of sampling!) as well as non-electronic guys like: Cowell, Nancarrow,
Penderecki, Ligeti, Partch, Pharaoh Sanders, Hendrix, who've all reshaped
the palette of musical gestures including those of the electronic studio.
But your point about EM being such a recent innovation is a great one. With a
piano in a large proportion of households, it's easy to imagine that keyboard
virtuosi are encouraged greatly, while EM geniuses are lucky to have the
chance to find their own mode of expression.
In a message dated 3/24/2000 4:56:57 PM,
ivancu@... writes:
>Remember the days of the synthesizer programmers? There used to be a "sound
>virtuoso" who would get the sounds for the "artist" to play. They were
>not
>one and the same.
One of my old instructors (Rod Oakes, for anyone who's interested) was the
first American to visit/use several studios behind "the iron curtain" in the
early 80s. During these trips, he also worked at several studios in Europe
where Stockhausen had previously worked. He came back with some disappointing
stories from engineers who'd told him how Stockhausen would specify a basic
patch to the engineers, and then go off to have coffee while they set it up
-- please tell me more about the "sound virtuoso."
In a message dated 3/24/2000 5:23:16 PM,
improv@... writes:
>True. And one of things about the modulars is that the line between
>programming and playing gets pretty blurry. Most of my favorite patches
>jsut kind of play themselves, lots of interacting controllers, LFO's and
>sequencers, etc that constantly evolve the sound.
>
>I know some local, very good keyboardists that can play absolute circles
>around me, but when they play synths, they tend to just use presets. I've
>actually offered to program sounds for a couple of them, but the general
>response has been that that is unneccesary. I try to get the point across
>that part of developing an individual voice on the synth is developing
>the
>sounds themselves, but the concept just seems foreign to them. So I gave
>up, and just develop my own sounds for my own use.
When I was first taking EM classes about 20 years ago, there seemed to be a
few kinds of students: 1) the people who'd studied music (theory and
composition) a fair bit and came to EM because of either the timbral
possibilities or the compositional possibilities (i.e., sequencers), 2)
musicians (keyboard or guitar players generally) who wanted to expand their
timbral palate wrt their instruments, 3) people who hadn't played an
instrument previously, but were VERY interested in music. I remember thinking
how those people who fell into the second category often made the least
interesting music, and quickly dropped out of the classes when confronted
with the large EMu modular.
In a message dated 3/25/2000 8:40:33 AM,
improv@... writes:
>While that's definitely true of Gleeson and Subotnick, I haven't heard
>anything by Teitlebaum that hasn't been at least interesting. In fact,
>I
>think he's one of the few modular pioneers who made the switch to digital
>and continued doing good stuff, unlike Subotnick whose career can be very
>easily divided (pre-FM = great, post-FM = not).
It used to be the distinction made around Subotnick was pre/post ghost
electronics. Since I had a recording instructor who built ghost boxes for
Subotnick, I've always erred on the side of empathy for what he was doing. I
have to admit that I'm not very familiar with much of what he's done over the
past decade or so, but I did/do admire his efforts in the ghost box area, in
that when electronics actually coexist with standard orchestral
instrumentation, it will indicate a significant maturity of both composers
and audiences understandings of the possibilities.
As I said, I'd like to hear more in this line of inquiry.
Best!
John (virtuoso W-annabe) Barlow