Wiardgroup

> From: "konkuro" <konkuro@aol.com>
>
> [...8<...]
>> But I am not sure that I would consider this particular instrument
> as an example of meshing art with electronics.<
> 
> It isn't.  It's about meshing electronics with electronics.  I did
> not create that vocoder as furniture, but as a signal processing
> device.

Exactly my point, as the comparison was between apples and oranges.
While I would never place a functional vocoder in a living area, a Wiard
has a personality that transforms it into a conversation piece, even
among those that do not value synths as much as we do.  The nature of
the graphics in both instruments serves a different purpose.

>> Wiard's graphics are of a different nature. We may discuss the fact
> that they perhaps do not support the functionality of the synth and
> so it could be a design
> weakness, yet they support the personality of the instrument, and that
> is a strength in differentiating itself from the rest and creating an
> emotional connection.<
> 
> This is really going to get me in trouble, but the ideal synth should
> have no personality.  It should be a pure means to an end. The panel
> of a synth should help you to achieve a sound, not entertain you.
> For the most part.

No trouble, but some people revel in looking at an instrument for the
instrument itself - that is a fact of life.  I contemplate my Serge
from time to time, and admire it as an electronic sculpture of sorts.
I am sure folks have the same reaction to their instruments of choice.
You probably have this feeling about your vocoder and that is a good
thing. 

As a side example, many of us in this list own Fenixes.  The Fenix is
an instrument that has been criticized for the lack of symmetry in its
functions (a forte, IMO) and the quirky-hard-to-follow graphics located
in the banana patch bay area.  Not exactly functional, nor pure nor
square, yet it has a personality that is hard not to love.

But I do understand.  Maybe the best example of such principle is the
ARP 2600, where the panel shows the actual flow of the instrument and
is 100% supportive of music making.

> [...8<...]
> 
> But is a hammer just a glorified paperweight in the hands of a master
> carpenter?  I have seen many a beautiful piece of furniture, yet I
> have yet to see a hammer that was exquisitely carved.
> 
> Did Wendy Carlos need modules festooned with convoluted arabesques to
> create The Well Tempered Synthesizer?  Would they have helped in any
> way?

I am afraid I disagree with the example being presented. An example of
one in some realm of discourse does not prove or disprove a statement,
it  merely exemplifies it. The hammer example, unfortunately, does not
illustrate the point being discussed - if you talk about a hammer, then
we should be talking about screwdrivers, clearly not the center of our
discussion.

Have you seen the Baroque clavichords, their ornaments and fine woods?
It is possible to play an object of beauty as beauty does not detract
from the music being made.  And some people would even find that such
ornamentation actually enhances their appreciation of the music being
performed, or heard.

I don't know Wendy Carlos personally, but I would venture that she
could make music on either, and would have enough artistic sensitivity
to appreciate an object for what it is.  It is unlikely that ornaments
would enhance an instrument, although the holes in a Gibson ES335 come
as close as you can get to a blend of art and function.  What could be
said is that the emotional response of a player performing on such
instrument is enhanced or detracted by the reaction of the performer
to the instrument.  I doubt that someone as Wendy Carlos would approach
an antique clavichord in the same way she would a vocoder.

Again, it is a personal thing to find Wiard's graphics beautiful or
detracting - it all comes down to a matter of taste.

>> Which leads me to believe that Wiard's art does not create that
> emotional connection that you seek; hence, even if functionally
> exceptional, it is probably not the instrument for you.<
> 
> Yes.  And no!  I'd love to get my hands on one for a week.

I understand.  There are things that grow on you - a Wiard might be one
of those.


Regards,

Bill
______________________________________________________________________
 Bill Sequeira, Ph.D.
 Principal, Axon Hillock