Wiardgroup

--- In wiardgroup@y..., "konkuro" <konkuro@a...> wrote:
> >Wiard has more functions on their modules, 
> thereby, eliminating the need for long patchcords to go across 
the 
> surface of the instrument.<
> 
> But it also locks you into the "macro-module" concept a la 
Serge.  
> You may end up with functions you don't want or need.  To me, 
this is 
> not the way to create an efficient system.

Eliminating long patchcords and providing exceptional functional
density might be argued as being efficient. This is why Doug 
was
able to bring his Wiard to the Hayward gathering and you had to 
leave The Beast at your apartment ;-)

> >About the issue of " (An aside: How come nobody with a 
Wiard does 
> classical?)" , Classical Music is not the barometer to define 
whether 
> or not an instrument is viable or valuable.<
> 
> Ah, but it is!  It is probably the best metric for evaluating a 
> modular synthesizer.  It's like an analogy I recently used on 
TGS 
> about painting.  Anybody--even a monkey--can create abstract 
art.  
> There is no skill involved in throwing caviar at a canvas and 
calling 
> it "art."  

There is skill involved in producing something which others in
your field will recognize as valid and valuable, even if it is not
their particular preference. 

>It is quite another matter, however, to paint like Tissot 
> or Ingres.  It takes a great deal of talent, skill and time to create 
> a painting of a person that looks like a person, and any defects 
in 
> such a painting will be immediately apparent to all eyes, 
trained or 
> untrained, because we all know what a person is supposed to 
look like.

That is a result-driven argument. I create for the process which
pleases myself the most. 

Most especially, music is one of the more abstract arts. 
Beginning
with the goal of pleasing the most peoples' recognition of
validity is a bad way to approach abstract arts. This has caused
me lots of discomfort in my days, and has limited my sonic
output. No more, I tell you :-)

And you are incorrect to submit that photo-realism is more 
important than another form of expression such as bauhaus.
It's simply a difference in tastes. _What pleases and drives 
YOU?_

THAT is art. If another person cannot identify it, it does not
reduce its validity to you. 

> The same is true for sound.  Any eight-year-old can get sound 
out of 
> a synthesizer.  There is no real way to evaluate the sound of a 
> blarkus or a blork, but if you set out to create French horn and it 
> doesn't sound like it, then the faults will be immediately 
obvious.

Imitative synthesis is one aspect of the many...but not the sole
aspect. 

> Now, say you wanted to evaluate the sound of a new grand 
piano on the 
> market.  From which could you discern more: sequences of 
random 
> banging, or a Chopin etude?  The former has no frame of 
reference, 
> the latter does.  

That depends entirely upon whether you enjoy sequences of
random banging or not (or if they are indeed random).

> How well do Wiard oscillators track?  How good are the filters 
for 
> creating formants?  These kind of criteria cannot be 
ascertained from 
> random squawks and banal, numbingly repetitive sequencer 
riffs.

That's a good question; how good is the Wiard for music which
requires oscillators which track? Smoo has a record almost due
out, and some soundbites in the Files section which 
demonstrate
that the Wiard is indeed capable of tonal music.

I like it for the rest of musical types. Unless it has a killer electro
bass sound. Who knows? :-)

> >Grant has built an instrument that has its own 
> sound and playability. The Electronic Music Community is lucky 
to 
> have another Designer, in its fold, creating new ideas and 
designs.<
> 
> True! 
> 
> >The Synthesizer and Classical music issue has been done 
and 
> exhausted.<
> 
> Oh, not true!  My lament is that the synthesizer barely got 
started 
> in the classical realm.  It got sidetracked by pop and rock, as 
an 
> expedient novelty.  Today, it is used as a "band in a box"--and 
not a 
> very good band at that.  This is true even for the music of 
Carlos.  
> Carlos' analog works were outstanding and brought 
something really 
> new to music.  Carlos' digital works tend toward sounding like 
cheesy 
> imitations that could be had on a K-mart Casio (I refer you to 
Peter 
> and the Wolf, S-0B 2000, and Tales of Heaven and Hell.)
> 
> >Like you said, " It is the *music* that matters ", appreciate the 
> Wiard System for it's sonic character, control functions and it's 
> music making abilities. Later, its Design esthetics might grow 
on 
> you. :)<
> 
> Highly unlikely.  But who knows?   :-)
> 	
> 	
> johnm

You have to admit that we didn't have enough time on Doug's
Wiard to be able to know the functions of all of the LEDs, and
from that, to determine whether, _for us_, any were superflous
or not. It did seem like information overload at first, but with
a closer glance, it became evident that each had importance.

Easier,

-Mike