MOTM

I must say, this 4-month-and-running thread has been most entertaining.

George

Mark wrote:
> 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.