Wiardgroup

--- In wiardgroup@y..., "konkuro" <konkuro@a...> wrote:
> Mike Peake wrote:
> 
> >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 ;-)<
> 
> Hahahahaha!  Touche!
> 
> (That one is going to cost you, bud...)

I almost laughed out loud.. But I had a mouthful of diet pepsi
and that's not going anywhere but into the caffeine receptacle
:-)

> >>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.<
> 
> See my paragraph on aesthetic masturbation.

See my further response, a bit further in..

> >Most especially, music is one of the more abstract arts.<
> 
> If that were true, there would be no need for a 1V/Oct reference.

Buchla, EMS, EML, etc. 

Like I said to you the other day.. "No Bach on Buchla!"
(As in, it's probably not possible.)

> >Beginning with the goal of pleasing the most peoples' 
recognition of
> validity is a bad way to approach abstract arts.<
> 
> This argument has filled museums with piles of rocks from 
Home Depot, 
> crushed beer cans, and other mediocrities from 
> poseurs.  "Recognition" is what art is all about.  If you have to 
be 
> told what a dead fly on squirrel's head means, then the art 
piece 
> failed to communicate.

What does the odor communicate? (joke)

And I agree that art should move the viewer, even negatively
or into discomfort (that is still communication). Which is why
some art may only move the creator. That is enough. 

I explore synths for self-fulfillment. I enjoy finding new things
and discovering suprises. I enjoy challenging myself and
succeeding. I'm good at some aspects of synthesis and
enjoy honing the skills, and developing new ones. I love
hearing how someone did something that I can't figure
out and learning and applying new technique. It's a blank
canvas, a tabula rosa. 

If you enjoy the results, then so much the better. 

> >And you are incorrect to submit that photo-realism is more 
> important than another form of expression such as bauhaus.<
> 
> I was not speaking of photo-realism, which is parroting what a 
camera 
> does (in most cases, "photo-real" paintings begin as tracings 
of 
> photographs.  What's the point of that?).  And Bauhaus isn't a 
form 
> of expression, but a validation of expediency.  Oh, what lovely 
> buildings the 1960s produced!  Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

I regretted saying "photo-realism" almost right away. Bad
example, and I knew what you meant in the larger sense. 

You won't enjoy the mounted print I have up of a bauhaus
exhibition... :-)

> >It's simply a difference in tastes.<
> 
> I have never bought that argument.  There are universal 
constants of 
> beauty that are built into the species.  A rose is as lovely and 
> smells as sweet in the USA as in China.  A plate of dog poo 
would 
> likely garner a negative reaction in both locales.

What is the dog poo being used to communicate? As you said,
if it communicates something, and I say that discomfort is also
communication, then it may be art(istic). 

And yes, we are geared to be drawn to symmetry, strongly so,
which is why cubism and abstraction appeal to other areas of
our being. I'm going to be sorry that I've brought up cubism,
aren't I. 

> >What pleases and drives YOU?<
> 
> This isn't the forum for that question.  :-)

D'oh!

> >THAT is art. If another person cannot identify it, it does not
> reduce its validity to you.<
> 
> Then why even bother to create it?  If only you can understand 
and 
> appreciate something you create, why bother making it real?  
Why not 
> just leave it as a thought in your own mind? 

I saw "Ghandi" when it first came out; it was quite an experience.
At the end of the film, my girlfriend and I sat there quietly, in 
contemplation, but only for a moment as the two women behind
us said "What lovely scenery" and so forth. We couldn't believe
that they had missed the entire message of the film, of Ghandi's
life. Why should they have bothered making "Ghandi"? ;-)

> >Imitative synthesis is one aspect of the many...but not the 
sole
> aspect. <
> 
> True!  But it does demonstrate the skill of the synthesist and 
the 
> merit of his chosen synthesizer.  

Not particularly. To your standards, yes. I'm good at a few
aspects of imitative synthesis, and flat broke on others. Given
the appropriate modules on almost any synth, I can come up
with a given sound, depending upon certain parameters. This
is a bold, untested statement. I would not consider a synth
to lack merit if it did not allow me to acheive certain sounds,
as it may have strengths in other areas. Such as the Buchla.
I'm not going to get particular sounds out of it no matter how
hard I try; the functionality just isn't there (at least in my system).
However, it does what it does so well.. And sounds so good...
And is such a pleasure to navigate. (Another friend used it
recently and said "the Buchla is from deep space".)

> WHERE IS THE WENDY OF THE WIARD? 

Step up and claim that title ;-)

> That's what I want to know. 
> Ken Elhardt's demos give me an idea of what he as a 
synthesist can 
> do, and what the MO*M synthesizer can do [calm down, Mike.  
:-) ]  

Which is why his Doepfer demos are equally impressive. I'm
not sure if there is anything that couldn't be done just as well
on both systems. At least, I'd like to find out. 

Dang, was that a double-negative?

> The banga-banga-banga stuff can be done on any synth, 
including PAIA 
> (long may it play!).  Can a Wiard produce a predictable, 
recognizable 
> outcome?  I don't know--and I want to know.

There was an mp3 in the Files area that is no longer there...
"Analogueslowmotion". I have a copy and will send it to you.

> Mind you, this isn't to say that traditional music is the ONLY 
metric 
> for quality.  If somebody could sound like Subotnick on a 
Wiard---
> well then, that would sell me.

I'm sure that it would be easier to do than on anything other
than a Buchla...

> >> 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).<
> 
> So get a cheap honky-tonk piano to bang on and reserve the 
> Boesendorpher, if that's how you spell it, for the real deal.

Unless you dislike the sound of such detuned piano strings.
I don't care much for honkey-tonk tonalities. 

> >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 do not know what Smoo is, but will check out the files section.

Smoo is "Waveform100". I'm sorry if I'm calling him out.. 

> >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.<
> 
> To mating nudibranchs, perhaps.  Now, take my Arrick (don't 
you 
> DARE!).  You can look at the LED on the ADSR or the oscillator 
and 
> tell exactly what is going on (well, almost--Synthesizers.com 
LEDs on 
> the oscillators are 180 degrees out of phase with the output, 
but I 
> digress).  But what does a row of tri-colored LEDs signify?  A 
> pulsing red LED is more than enough to tell you what you need 
to 
> know.  A tri-colored LED is a lightshow.  Again, buy having a 
single 
> format that dictates LEDs *must* be present, you are locked 
into a 
> system in which some of those LEDs are guaranteed to be no 
more than 
> glorified power indicators.
> 
> BTW, if Doug wants to bring his Wiard to my pad and change 
my mind, 
> he is more than welcome!  I'm open to it.
> 
> JM

Easier,

-Mike