I would seem in the world of music today there are many many ways to control things and all are completing for the market. Lately, everyone seems obsessed with controlled things with their phone, specifically, their I-Phone. I hate to disappoint my readers who are fans of the legendary I-Phone and now its descendant, the I Pad but frankly, I don't need to do music on my phone.
Let me explain a bit. I have a limited home studio (although its not going to be that limited when I have upgraded it a bit) but it works for me. Two keyboards and effects (to simplify - a lot). But the truth is, I have no desire to control any of it with my phone. I have a Blackberry which works for what I use it for, as a combo phone and day planner as well as an Internet source when I can't get to a computer. Bottom line, it is the right tool to use for well, a phone and isn't that what it is?
Now the I Pad whom thousands neigh millions have wanted to spend every last drop of their dwindling cash supply on is sleek to be sure but its a bigger I-Pad combined with Kindle like book reading technology right? OK, a neat toy but would one use it for music. Perhaps.
But consider the Jazz Mutant Lemur. Well, it has tools itself from which other tools can be built and its designed for sound and many people are trying to bring Live, MAX/MSP and the Lemur together. If you don't believe me Google or You Tube these words together. Interesting and innovative stuff. A bit beyond I-Phone mania and electrtronic toy lust. Although granted I do have gear lust but not so much for phones turned controllers.
For music, my bet is on the Lemur. The I-Phone and yes, even the coveted I-Pad are toys. Sophisticated toys but toys. What one has to ask is what provides the most flexibility and expandability for the future. That is the Lemur in my book but it's just me, I suppose if you are looking to find and app to get you to your kitchen sink, theirs an app for that somewhere.
Now as a controller, the Lemur has its limitations. Its not tactile except for a touch screen and depending on the application, I would favor the continuum but for those who are buying Ableton controllers or other such gadgets, the Lemur does the trick IMHO.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
The Digitization of Music
There has been much discussion in the musical world lately of analog vs. digital. A recall a recent issue of "Sound on Sound" magazine highlighted the virtual explosion of modular synthesizers out there. Moog Music has also had great success in making analog guitar pedals called Moogerfoogers, a remake of the Minimoog (The Voyager), a theremin, a remake of the Taurus bass pedals and the "Little Phatty" not to mention the Moog guitar.
Now there are those who would argue that analog just sounds better. I would agree with that to some extent although I am not a purist. To me music is about, well, music. I use the tools that I have to create the music I want to create. If that means that I use a combination of analog and digital gear and yes, even a the dreaded computer, then that is what I am going to do.
Take computers, ok, they have a tendency to crash and in a live environment that can create a nightmare. I do my music creation in a home studio but if I played live gigs I think I would have a reluctance to use a computer. My latest setup (in progress) is to distribute a lot of sounds and some processing across keyboards and gear. In this way the CPU load can be kept low but yes, a Macbook Pro will have a place in my studio.
On the positive side of computers, lets face it, they have a lot more power than analog gear. I have recently been looking for a sequencer for example. Numerology beats anything analog out there by leaps and bounds. There are a variety of analog step sequencers out there but why use them? With MIDI (or MIDI to CV) its possible to do everything an analogue sequencer would do. Now some might say that they like the knobs and I get that, I really do but products like the Lemur allow a more tactile feel to controlling synths.
Now if you consider sound, that is another ballpark entirely. Granted, you can sample anything from frogs to Melotrons. Without getting into the argument about sampling rates/ect., sure, lets face it, samples sound pretty close the the real thing. The problem is that there are an almost infinite variety of settings for an analog synth. Samples can only represent a small (abliet select) portion of those sounds. I also think analog emulations, while solving the problems of a limited number of sounds, are not the real thing. Yes, there is a difference in the sound. I really like the way my Moog Voyager and my Moogerfoogers sound. I would not have spent a whole lot of money on them if I did not think there was something almost magical about the sound, something almost living. So sure, any computer/digitally based representation of analog is going to fall short.
The digital world also lacks CVs. Here is where I think analog has it all over digital. Sure, there are products like Native Instruments Reaktor that can provide modular connectivity but CVs are much more flexible and they operate at the speed of light. My foogers also can't crash. I am sure that as computers become faster, something like CVs could be introduced into the digital world but at the moment, analog beats digital hands down.
So there you have it. OK, so I am not a purist. Here is my take on the whole argument. If you are talking about sequencing/triggers/gates/ect., why not use computers. There is no difference other than the computer can crash in a live environment. Certainly in the studio, computers can be very effective for this. For sounds, it really depends on what you are looking for. If I want complex, layered instrumental sounds, I would go with my Korg M3 but for raw analog fat goodness, I want my Voyager and foogers. For experimentation with CVs, well, thats something as I said, digital just can't touch analog on.
I think its frankly silly to let music suffer to be a purist. Computers and digital gear have their place. I don't see one being better than the other just different and we live in a wonderful time when we can have both and join them together to make great music.
Now there are those who would argue that analog just sounds better. I would agree with that to some extent although I am not a purist. To me music is about, well, music. I use the tools that I have to create the music I want to create. If that means that I use a combination of analog and digital gear and yes, even a the dreaded computer, then that is what I am going to do.
Take computers, ok, they have a tendency to crash and in a live environment that can create a nightmare. I do my music creation in a home studio but if I played live gigs I think I would have a reluctance to use a computer. My latest setup (in progress) is to distribute a lot of sounds and some processing across keyboards and gear. In this way the CPU load can be kept low but yes, a Macbook Pro will have a place in my studio.
On the positive side of computers, lets face it, they have a lot more power than analog gear. I have recently been looking for a sequencer for example. Numerology beats anything analog out there by leaps and bounds. There are a variety of analog step sequencers out there but why use them? With MIDI (or MIDI to CV) its possible to do everything an analogue sequencer would do. Now some might say that they like the knobs and I get that, I really do but products like the Lemur allow a more tactile feel to controlling synths.
Now if you consider sound, that is another ballpark entirely. Granted, you can sample anything from frogs to Melotrons. Without getting into the argument about sampling rates/ect., sure, lets face it, samples sound pretty close the the real thing. The problem is that there are an almost infinite variety of settings for an analog synth. Samples can only represent a small (abliet select) portion of those sounds. I also think analog emulations, while solving the problems of a limited number of sounds, are not the real thing. Yes, there is a difference in the sound. I really like the way my Moog Voyager and my Moogerfoogers sound. I would not have spent a whole lot of money on them if I did not think there was something almost magical about the sound, something almost living. So sure, any computer/digitally based representation of analog is going to fall short.
The digital world also lacks CVs. Here is where I think analog has it all over digital. Sure, there are products like Native Instruments Reaktor that can provide modular connectivity but CVs are much more flexible and they operate at the speed of light. My foogers also can't crash. I am sure that as computers become faster, something like CVs could be introduced into the digital world but at the moment, analog beats digital hands down.
So there you have it. OK, so I am not a purist. Here is my take on the whole argument. If you are talking about sequencing/triggers/gates/ect., why not use computers. There is no difference other than the computer can crash in a live environment. Certainly in the studio, computers can be very effective for this. For sounds, it really depends on what you are looking for. If I want complex, layered instrumental sounds, I would go with my Korg M3 but for raw analog fat goodness, I want my Voyager and foogers. For experimentation with CVs, well, thats something as I said, digital just can't touch analog on.
I think its frankly silly to let music suffer to be a purist. Computers and digital gear have their place. I don't see one being better than the other just different and we live in a wonderful time when we can have both and join them together to make great music.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Music Notation and the Death of Classical Music
I once contacted some music conservatories to try to find some solid reading material from which to learn music theory outside of actually going back to school. Apart from some good books on harmony, the response from one professor struck me. He explained that in most of his classes they studied the musical score. So, for example, if you want to know how Bach composed, study his scores. Simple enough if one wants to study classical music before the 20th century (and some after) but as one moves into the realm of the early avant guarde and early electronic music, notation fails rather miserably.
The reason that I mention the avant guarde is that I have found do some considerable personal study and interest, that the root of early electronic music are traceable to the avant guarde which can even be traced back to early 20th century music such as Stravinsky or Debussy or back early to Wagner and some others. In other words, there is a more or less unbroken progression as there is for most classical music. Composers draw from other composers. How? Back to that conversation I had with the music professor, by studying their scores.
Now the problem with electronic music is that pop bands soon discovered synthesizers that went from the universities (who where the only people who could afford some of them - especially the early digital ones) to bands. Band like "Pink Floyd", "The Who" and many others soon discovered these marvelous little instruments that could make new sounds in many different ways. So when the first audiences heard a saw wave or better yet, a few playing together slightly detained, well, you had some instant sucess. Although few would take a full Moog Modular on stage save Keith Emerson, the compact gems such as the Minimoog soon made music accessible to the masses which was really the dream of Robert Moog (well done).
During this time of pop experimentation into electronica as it became coined, classical music lost its way. I personally blame it on serialism which for my tastes, sounds like crap, but many the endless experiments, serial or not, left classical music in a fog. Some wanted to be old school or neo classical and others ventured into otherwise unexplored musical territory but the one thing that was lacking, notation or perhaps vision or both.
Now the young pop crowd did not really care all that much. Have guitar and a modest Marshal head and speakers and even the most plain teen could find a garage band and hope to emulate their guitar heroes. Eventually, it even became a game. Must stuff degenerated in my mind. The bluesly delta blues rooted hard rock bands like Led Zeppelin became heavy metal. Have overwound pickups and a high gain amp and you did not have to play all that well (turn up the gain and all those mistakes disappear in a haze of distoration) as long the the ears of your listeners were bleeding after they heard you. Some of those who were interested in synthesizers gravitated to DJ tricks, scratch and then Hip Hop. Some, sadly following those like Klaus Schulze took something interesting and turned it into techno.
Make a long story short, the lemmings followed one another by pied piper record producers and mass produced a few genres of music that more or less sounded the same within the genre. Creativity in my mind did not die but went on life support. Urban creativity in sampling music became hip hop which linked itself with the dark underbelly of gangs and city life even to the destruction and death of some of their the most popular. Techno became the mindless drone of the lost youth of Europe and well, the story just gets worse. The youth loved the dance music as their bodies driven by brains made mad by designer drugs found a new path to dull their brains and soothe their angst.
So why have I lead you to this dessert of music? One reason and one reason only. Notation my friends, notation! In order for music to progress, you have to have something to look at. Go and transpose a Beyonce tune. It's like a serial tone row without any variation, stuck in an endless musical loop from hell but who cares right, you can dance to it. What notation allows us to do is draw from others but only those techniques that we want to use. Notation allows us to talk about what is good and what is bad. Simply saying that we can dance to it and it sounds good, while appealing to the anti-intellectual zombies of our time, does little to truely advance music.
It is my hope that one day, electronic music can go back to its roots. If you read Paul Stump's "Digital Gothic" about the roots of "Tangerine Dream" you might find that "Tangerine Dreams" true roots have much more to do with classical music than the psychedelia per say although there were those influences as well:
http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Gothic-Critical-Discography-Tangerine/dp/0946719187
Read this book for example and you might find the name Ligeti to name one of many. Now there is not way to transcribe much of the artistry of this band or others like them but I do feel that they were more on the right track then others because while they may have been tempted to follow the stream of pop oriented lemming taking their earning from their vanilla dance albums right to the bank, this band had some integrity.
Perhaps, if we can find a way to get some of the techniques used in good electronic music on paper, it will re-merge with the classical tradition it came from and electronic music can move forward. Perhaps new ways of making notations will lead to new hardware and who knows where things go from there. Perhaps.
For the record. I am anti drug. Very very anti drug. Perhaps you may find this suprising from someone who likes, plays and composes electronic music but the truth is that I find some intergrity in some of the better forms of electronic music. For now, I can only hope the electronica rejoins classic music where I believe it has its rightfull place and where it belongs. It remains only a dream for me in the dessert of copy cat mediocrity and danceable serial tone rows stuck in neutral. But I can dream can't I?
The reason that I mention the avant guarde is that I have found do some considerable personal study and interest, that the root of early electronic music are traceable to the avant guarde which can even be traced back to early 20th century music such as Stravinsky or Debussy or back early to Wagner and some others. In other words, there is a more or less unbroken progression as there is for most classical music. Composers draw from other composers. How? Back to that conversation I had with the music professor, by studying their scores.
Now the problem with electronic music is that pop bands soon discovered synthesizers that went from the universities (who where the only people who could afford some of them - especially the early digital ones) to bands. Band like "Pink Floyd", "The Who" and many others soon discovered these marvelous little instruments that could make new sounds in many different ways. So when the first audiences heard a saw wave or better yet, a few playing together slightly detained, well, you had some instant sucess. Although few would take a full Moog Modular on stage save Keith Emerson, the compact gems such as the Minimoog soon made music accessible to the masses which was really the dream of Robert Moog (well done).
During this time of pop experimentation into electronica as it became coined, classical music lost its way. I personally blame it on serialism which for my tastes, sounds like crap, but many the endless experiments, serial or not, left classical music in a fog. Some wanted to be old school or neo classical and others ventured into otherwise unexplored musical territory but the one thing that was lacking, notation or perhaps vision or both.
Now the young pop crowd did not really care all that much. Have guitar and a modest Marshal head and speakers and even the most plain teen could find a garage band and hope to emulate their guitar heroes. Eventually, it even became a game. Must stuff degenerated in my mind. The bluesly delta blues rooted hard rock bands like Led Zeppelin became heavy metal. Have overwound pickups and a high gain amp and you did not have to play all that well (turn up the gain and all those mistakes disappear in a haze of distoration) as long the the ears of your listeners were bleeding after they heard you. Some of those who were interested in synthesizers gravitated to DJ tricks, scratch and then Hip Hop. Some, sadly following those like Klaus Schulze took something interesting and turned it into techno.
Make a long story short, the lemmings followed one another by pied piper record producers and mass produced a few genres of music that more or less sounded the same within the genre. Creativity in my mind did not die but went on life support. Urban creativity in sampling music became hip hop which linked itself with the dark underbelly of gangs and city life even to the destruction and death of some of their the most popular. Techno became the mindless drone of the lost youth of Europe and well, the story just gets worse. The youth loved the dance music as their bodies driven by brains made mad by designer drugs found a new path to dull their brains and soothe their angst.
So why have I lead you to this dessert of music? One reason and one reason only. Notation my friends, notation! In order for music to progress, you have to have something to look at. Go and transpose a Beyonce tune. It's like a serial tone row without any variation, stuck in an endless musical loop from hell but who cares right, you can dance to it. What notation allows us to do is draw from others but only those techniques that we want to use. Notation allows us to talk about what is good and what is bad. Simply saying that we can dance to it and it sounds good, while appealing to the anti-intellectual zombies of our time, does little to truely advance music.
It is my hope that one day, electronic music can go back to its roots. If you read Paul Stump's "Digital Gothic" about the roots of "Tangerine Dream" you might find that "Tangerine Dreams" true roots have much more to do with classical music than the psychedelia per say although there were those influences as well:
http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Gothic-Critical-Discography-Tangerine/dp/0946719187
Read this book for example and you might find the name Ligeti to name one of many. Now there is not way to transcribe much of the artistry of this band or others like them but I do feel that they were more on the right track then others because while they may have been tempted to follow the stream of pop oriented lemming taking their earning from their vanilla dance albums right to the bank, this band had some integrity.
Perhaps, if we can find a way to get some of the techniques used in good electronic music on paper, it will re-merge with the classical tradition it came from and electronic music can move forward. Perhaps new ways of making notations will lead to new hardware and who knows where things go from there. Perhaps.
For the record. I am anti drug. Very very anti drug. Perhaps you may find this suprising from someone who likes, plays and composes electronic music but the truth is that I find some intergrity in some of the better forms of electronic music. For now, I can only hope the electronica rejoins classic music where I believe it has its rightfull place and where it belongs. It remains only a dream for me in the dessert of copy cat mediocrity and danceable serial tone rows stuck in neutral. But I can dream can't I?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Teaching Children Subtractive Synthesis
As anyone who reads my blog knows, I am an avid fan of synthesizers.. I suppose that when I was new to the field, I was more impressed by the further reaches of the realms of synthesis such as additive synthesis which held a certain fascination for me because I understood the mathematics and it made music fit into a neat mathematical realm where music in some sense became a giant equation.
Now, some years latter, my belief about synthesis has changed and I believe that music plays us more than we play music. I have had a recent fascination with music therapy and those doctors and others who write about how the brain processes music. I am also ware of my own abilities as a musician and composer and how I got there as well as how music plays me, how I am influenced by all types of music from rock, Celtic, jazz and classical.
What I have realized over the years is how near music is to us. This latest blog is actually an attempt encourage therapists to buy their families at least a rudimentary analog synthesizer. Now that I think about it, a Doepfer Dark Energy might be nice or a micro Korg:
http://www.doepfer.de/Dark_Energy_e.htm - Dark Engery
http://www.korg.com/Product.aspx?pd=128 - MicroKorg
The Dark Energy is better for teaching subtractive synthesis in depth but the MicroKorg teaching music. With the Dark Energy you would also need a MIDI controller of some sort.
Kids are wonderfully open to ideas. When we get older we develop significant filters over time but childhood is a great time of discovery. Kids love to play X-Box and games like Guitar Hero but I thought about it and why not, why not teach children analog synthesis or even learn it together as a family. I also think that analog synthesis (and digital) have a lot to offer the music therapy world but I am still working on convincing others to look outside their box (the filters I am speaking of).
But I do believe that music is very near to us and in fact, infants learn subtractive synthesis from an early age and indeed, music. From 30 weeks a fetus can hear. And what does a fetus hear, the beating of the mothers heart around 70 beats a minute. When the mother is at rest, the fetus hears an adagio tempo. Isn't it interesting that 40 bpm is "grave" which in Latin can mean sick which certainly corresponds to the rate of the human heart which would be nearly dead at 40 bpm. I digress but the child before even leaving the womb experiences an LFO, a low frequency pulse.
After the baby is born at about 9 weeks it becomes aware (and delighted I might add) with the world of sound around it. Is it any wonder that those like Pauline Oliveros, a composer, would also be interested in what she coined "deep listening" which is in a sense an attempt to return to our very early childhood and remember the wonder of the sounds we first heard.
First, the child coos and becomes aware of it's vocal chords (let's call it the oscillator). The the begins to use filters. baby phrases like "da da" and "ma ma" are simple exercises in using filters. Then he consonants are used (the white noise generator). The child also begins to form full words by shaping the sounds (envelope).
OK, I could go on here but I think I have made my point. A child at a very early age learns subtractive synthesis. We don't remember how we learned language, in those early formative stages, but we do learn to use the synthesizer that is the human voice. In fact, the child uses the same techniques of feedback that are used in many ways by a musician called muscle memory. Learning to connect movements of the muscles with musical phrases. Children learn music much easier at a younger age (and language as well) because their filter cutoff in their brain is high. The are open to the many connections and discoveries that are part of the process of making music.
So, my hypothesis? That the human person at any stage, understand subtractive synthesis which interestingly enough remains the most common form of synthesis in synthesizers today.
So, to my music therapist friends with kids (or not). Buy a synthesizer. You can get some cheap ones (well, for little more than video game maching and a few games) and you can introduce your children and yourselves to a wonderful musical world of notes and sounds.
Now, some years latter, my belief about synthesis has changed and I believe that music plays us more than we play music. I have had a recent fascination with music therapy and those doctors and others who write about how the brain processes music. I am also ware of my own abilities as a musician and composer and how I got there as well as how music plays me, how I am influenced by all types of music from rock, Celtic, jazz and classical.
What I have realized over the years is how near music is to us. This latest blog is actually an attempt encourage therapists to buy their families at least a rudimentary analog synthesizer. Now that I think about it, a Doepfer Dark Energy might be nice or a micro Korg:
http://www.doepfer.de/Dark_Energy_e.htm - Dark Engery
http://www.korg.com/Product.aspx?pd=128 - MicroKorg
The Dark Energy is better for teaching subtractive synthesis in depth but the MicroKorg teaching music. With the Dark Energy you would also need a MIDI controller of some sort.
Kids are wonderfully open to ideas. When we get older we develop significant filters over time but childhood is a great time of discovery. Kids love to play X-Box and games like Guitar Hero but I thought about it and why not, why not teach children analog synthesis or even learn it together as a family. I also think that analog synthesis (and digital) have a lot to offer the music therapy world but I am still working on convincing others to look outside their box (the filters I am speaking of).
But I do believe that music is very near to us and in fact, infants learn subtractive synthesis from an early age and indeed, music. From 30 weeks a fetus can hear. And what does a fetus hear, the beating of the mothers heart around 70 beats a minute. When the mother is at rest, the fetus hears an adagio tempo. Isn't it interesting that 40 bpm is "grave" which in Latin can mean sick which certainly corresponds to the rate of the human heart which would be nearly dead at 40 bpm. I digress but the child before even leaving the womb experiences an LFO, a low frequency pulse.
After the baby is born at about 9 weeks it becomes aware (and delighted I might add) with the world of sound around it. Is it any wonder that those like Pauline Oliveros, a composer, would also be interested in what she coined "deep listening" which is in a sense an attempt to return to our very early childhood and remember the wonder of the sounds we first heard.
First, the child coos and becomes aware of it's vocal chords (let's call it the oscillator). The the begins to use filters. baby phrases like "da da" and "ma ma" are simple exercises in using filters. Then he consonants are used (the white noise generator). The child also begins to form full words by shaping the sounds (envelope).
OK, I could go on here but I think I have made my point. A child at a very early age learns subtractive synthesis. We don't remember how we learned language, in those early formative stages, but we do learn to use the synthesizer that is the human voice. In fact, the child uses the same techniques of feedback that are used in many ways by a musician called muscle memory. Learning to connect movements of the muscles with musical phrases. Children learn music much easier at a younger age (and language as well) because their filter cutoff in their brain is high. The are open to the many connections and discoveries that are part of the process of making music.
So, my hypothesis? That the human person at any stage, understand subtractive synthesis which interestingly enough remains the most common form of synthesis in synthesizers today.
So, to my music therapist friends with kids (or not). Buy a synthesizer. You can get some cheap ones (well, for little more than video game maching and a few games) and you can introduce your children and yourselves to a wonderful musical world of notes and sounds.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Why I am just not that into modulars
Its funny for as long as I have contemplated getting a modular that I have not bought one. I have all the foogers (with the exception of the MURFs - I have the MIDI MURF - my latest purchase of a fooger - don't see the need to buy the others). OK, sure, if I got myself a bunch of modules and a cabinet I could spend hours happily connecting modules and sure, it would be fun but the truth is that I am a musician and composer at heart. Some of my most happy musician moments are sitting down at an upright piano (not mine) and playing or playing my guitars.
I have always agreed with Robert Moog that music is about the musician connecting with the instrument. I guess I am less into technically complicated instruments now and more into connecting to the instrument I am playing. For this reason, I see my studio not as a studio, a bunch of collected parts, but a whole. With the money I just spent on a "Switchblade" matrix router and a MOTU 828, I could have bought a nice modular but the reason I did this (and the reason I bought am MP 201 pedal from Moog) is that I want to integrate my equipment. I want it to be easy to get to the sound rather than rejoicing over technical specs. I have changed in this light.
So what does the Switchblade do? It lets my program all the complicated cable connections between synths and then just hit a foot pedal (I can do this the the MP-201) to change patches or the mix/crossfade/ect. I want a setup that is like that of a large pipe organ with everything either in front of me or at my feet. It also like Live because its organic. It works with the musician rather than trying to fit the musician into a mixer paradigm of creating a musician work.
I also don't see any clear dividing line between composition, performance and recording. I get an idea and then I try to make it happen and ultimately create a recording. How I get there is part of the creative process.
I have always agreed with Robert Moog that music is about the musician connecting with the instrument. I guess I am less into technically complicated instruments now and more into connecting to the instrument I am playing. For this reason, I see my studio not as a studio, a bunch of collected parts, but a whole. With the money I just spent on a "Switchblade" matrix router and a MOTU 828, I could have bought a nice modular but the reason I did this (and the reason I bought am MP 201 pedal from Moog) is that I want to integrate my equipment. I want it to be easy to get to the sound rather than rejoicing over technical specs. I have changed in this light.
So what does the Switchblade do? It lets my program all the complicated cable connections between synths and then just hit a foot pedal (I can do this the the MP-201) to change patches or the mix/crossfade/ect. I want a setup that is like that of a large pipe organ with everything either in front of me or at my feet. It also like Live because its organic. It works with the musician rather than trying to fit the musician into a mixer paradigm of creating a musician work.
I also don't see any clear dividing line between composition, performance and recording. I get an idea and then I try to make it happen and ultimately create a recording. How I get there is part of the creative process.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Dropping the ball
OK, I got on a Twitter rant this morning and I have to finish it but to save my Twitter followers a twitter storm, I will use a blog. Why is it that companies come up with great ideas and then drop the ball.
Example.
Korg OASYS
The whole idea of this flagship (Korg's word) synth is to create a platform that will remain state of the art by supplying a line of new synths for the future. Where are they Korg? I love this idea and frankly, an expandable hard synth is a great idea but Korg clearly lost interest in this one.
Roland V-Synth
I think everyone has forgetten this but when the V-synth came out there was a promise of more V Cards beyond the D50 and vocal processor right? Again, the idea being expandability. Then, they just integrated these into the two synths in one idea and dropped the ball.
Yamaha
Another company that has offered expansion cards but for only part of their line. FM is still a useful form of synthesis but Yamaha has not built on it.
VirSyn
Making a additive soft synth was a great idea. Now don't' get me wrong, I have gone from being a fan of additive synthesis to a skeptic but I don't think this need be a dead issue. But VirSyn dropped the ball at Cube 2 being on the cutting edge and now makes ho hum effect plug ins. sad but I guess that is what sells.
Native Instruments
I have become a bigger fan on this company over the years because for the most part, with the exception of the B4 and "Spectral Delay" (big mistake), Native Instrument continues to develop there soft synths.
I am sure there are others but my point is, why come up with a great idea and then not develop it but this pattern seems to happen again and again. I have provided examples here but there are more.
Anyway, just had to let that rant finish for anyone who wants to listen.
Thanks for reading.
Example.
Korg OASYS
The whole idea of this flagship (Korg's word) synth is to create a platform that will remain state of the art by supplying a line of new synths for the future. Where are they Korg? I love this idea and frankly, an expandable hard synth is a great idea but Korg clearly lost interest in this one.
Roland V-Synth
I think everyone has forgetten this but when the V-synth came out there was a promise of more V Cards beyond the D50 and vocal processor right? Again, the idea being expandability. Then, they just integrated these into the two synths in one idea and dropped the ball.
Yamaha
Another company that has offered expansion cards but for only part of their line. FM is still a useful form of synthesis but Yamaha has not built on it.
VirSyn
Making a additive soft synth was a great idea. Now don't' get me wrong, I have gone from being a fan of additive synthesis to a skeptic but I don't think this need be a dead issue. But VirSyn dropped the ball at Cube 2 being on the cutting edge and now makes ho hum effect plug ins. sad but I guess that is what sells.
Native Instruments
I have become a bigger fan on this company over the years because for the most part, with the exception of the B4 and "Spectral Delay" (big mistake), Native Instrument continues to develop there soft synths.
I am sure there are others but my point is, why come up with a great idea and then not develop it but this pattern seems to happen again and again. I have provided examples here but there are more.
Anyway, just had to let that rant finish for anyone who wants to listen.
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Pychomantiums, Music and Music Therapy
I am currently reading "Musicophilia", a fascinating book on music and the brain. It is interesting that this book discusses how the innate appeal of music to most people seems to defy both the notion that all human traits can be traced back to an evolutionary purpose. Music of couse can't help us to survive so it would seem to fall outside the Darwinian framework which so often in the realm of scientism, seems to claim to be a univesal explaination for all that is alive and indeed, all that is human.
Recent studies on where music comes from in the brain also seems to refute this in that music does not come from one single part of the brain and in fact, is both a right and left brained activity.
What we do know about music if we speak outside of the scientific realm, is that it seems to speak to our soul, to what is most human in us. Not a biological collection of evolved functions but what is human. It speaks to hour hope, our fears, our dreams, our anger and perhaps at times, our nightmares as well. Music in effect acts as a mirror on our soul. As I have said many times, we don't play music it plays us.
So what interests me, and why I sometimes frequent music therapy web sites, is that they seem to be attune to the healing aspects of music but also its strong psychological effects, negative and positive. What I am interested in is if there are universal Jungian type archetypes of sound? R Murray Schafer speaks about this in his "The Tuning of the World". Consider for example the power of the sound of the bell in many cultures. Is there anything universal about these sounds?
And if so, then where does this put the synthesizer. Before it, we were limited to fixed instrument sounds but now, the possibilities are greatly expanded. We can produced sounds that nobody has heard before.
So the synthesizer can in a sense act as a psychomantium to illicit emotional responses in us before not possible or so it might seem. What I am interested in doing is trying to learn the hidden language of the mind so as to use a synthesizer as a tool to speak that very language.
Recent studies on where music comes from in the brain also seems to refute this in that music does not come from one single part of the brain and in fact, is both a right and left brained activity.
What we do know about music if we speak outside of the scientific realm, is that it seems to speak to our soul, to what is most human in us. Not a biological collection of evolved functions but what is human. It speaks to hour hope, our fears, our dreams, our anger and perhaps at times, our nightmares as well. Music in effect acts as a mirror on our soul. As I have said many times, we don't play music it plays us.
So what interests me, and why I sometimes frequent music therapy web sites, is that they seem to be attune to the healing aspects of music but also its strong psychological effects, negative and positive. What I am interested in is if there are universal Jungian type archetypes of sound? R Murray Schafer speaks about this in his "The Tuning of the World". Consider for example the power of the sound of the bell in many cultures. Is there anything universal about these sounds?
And if so, then where does this put the synthesizer. Before it, we were limited to fixed instrument sounds but now, the possibilities are greatly expanded. We can produced sounds that nobody has heard before.
So the synthesizer can in a sense act as a psychomantium to illicit emotional responses in us before not possible or so it might seem. What I am interested in doing is trying to learn the hidden language of the mind so as to use a synthesizer as a tool to speak that very language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)