I realize that I have used the term "crossing the streams" a number of times now on my blog and in my tweets. An explaination seems long overdue so here goes. First, two other expressions I use are related: "moving outside the box" and various allusions I make to the movie "The Matrix" (one of my favorites). I am not that crazy about the other two but the first was great.
What I like about the movie is the idea that one's own mind can become a kind of prison. While I am just using this idea as an analogy I do think that we get stuck in ruts in whatever profession or art form that we we are involved in. I can't tell you how many times I have heard someone tell me that the reason that something should be done a certain way is because that is the way it's always been done and that is a kind of matrix. It limits creativity and in music, that is 90% of the ballgame.
To give you an example, I love the scene in Amadeus when Salieri, after killing his rival Mozart, is asking his therapist if he recognized a few songs. The one he recognized was Mozart's who he despises as a kind of musical creature. The song he did not recognize was Salieri's. Why? Because Salieri's was in the box. It was not bad music but it tried to stay in the lines. In music lines become cliches and music becomes stale if it does not break "out of the box". To break out of the box (or the matrix), the music an/composer must free his/her mind of old cliches. I truely believe that most pop music today is some of the most cliched music every. One person likes a certain sound and then follow it and then it becomes a genre. For example, I just recently learned what dubstep is which is really just a certain sound.
Now realize that I am a gear head and techno geek. I have three hardware synths and who knows how many soft synths and effects not to meantion Moogerfoogers and a few other guitar pedals. Moogerfoogers are not really guitar pedals, they are more like modulare synth modules but I won't get into that here. I also have a few mics and field recording equipment. What I try to do in my music is get out of the box. Now don't get me wrong, if you don't know where the box is, then you risk music sounding totally unintelligible. Believe me, more than once I have crossed that line. In some sense, to know how to go somewhere, you have to know where you have been. It's why I try to study music both its history and its methods. I always am open to learning from the works of the great masters be they classical composers, jazz music ans, rock musicians or the many other talented people making all sorts of wonderful music.
So to get away from the lines, you have to make a bridge. You have to plot a course. That is where all the techno stuff comes in. A ship for example can't just drift aimlessly. It has to plot a course so I watch demos and read manuals and ask questions. "What if I did this" is a common one.
Some of you might know about Alvin Lucier and Karlheintz Stockhausen. One of my mentors if only on paper and in sound. Both Lucier and Stockhausen asked the musical question: "what if I do this" but with musical compass in hand. They had some idea where they were going.
Another movie I really like is "The Perfect Storm" except for the ending. I actually hate the way the movie ends. Not every fisherman in a terrible storms died. I love the spirit of the captain who wants to chart deeper waters which in this movie is the Flemish Cap. You can look it up but its way of the coast of Canada and known for its good fishing but also bad weather. So finding better ways of doing things means risk.
So when I make music, I go out to the Flemish Cap of music as I believe Lucier and Stockhausen did. Well, not every time. Sometimes I stick closer to port. Not every time I go into deeper waters do I find what I want. I get a great idea but sometimes the reality and the idea don't match and I just turn around and come back to port. Music to me, at least the experimental music I write, is musical fishing. It's moving way outside the lines and trying to find a good catch, something that people will listen to and say wow, that's taking me somewhere I have never been, into uncharted musical territory.
So to get there, I try many tools. Psychology, psycho acoustics, technology, music theory, harmony, music history, even math. I don't draw what I see as arbitrary lines between these disciplines. I am not interested in creating a matrix to capture my mind but rather, searching for deeper musical waters and trying to create a new musical ocean in which others can also explore either by listening or creating themselves.
So "crossing the streams" is really about erasing lines not creating them. It's why I keep inviting music therapists and others into my world of music. I am trying to share what I have experienced good and bad. And hopefully, by breaking down those lines and sharing experiences, the music, music therapy and many other disciplines can benefit and we can fish in deeper seas.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Review of Alchemy II - the mysteries of the attack transient
While I may get some keyboard players upset, I have always found being both a guitar player and a keyboard player very complementary although I always have to smile when the latest distorted electric guitar preset comes out and everyone thinks their Jimmy Hendrix on a keyboard. Truth is that what I have always loved about a guitar is how subtle and beautiful a guitar sounds when played by a talented artist. I would not classify myself as one but I can tell you that years of playing have given me a sonic pallet that can't be duplicated by cleverly placed samples. I can place my thumb behind a pick a certain way and get harmonics but I can't really tell you how. You have to feel it and hear it. I did not read a guitar for dummies book. I had to teach my brain by doing it over and over again until it became natural.
So what does all this have to do with Alchemy? Simple. Often, that quintessential aspect of how a musician plays, their style, is much more dictated by that short universe of the attack transient. Much (not all) of the magic seem to lie in that fraction of a second. Now enter the additive world. Additive synthesis is what we call linear. Put simply, it's made of parts that can be added together. Now for the interesting part. A guitar transient is what is called non linear which means that all those partials do a complicated little dance. In fact, I believe that grains are far more applicable than partial in the world of the transient. If the transient is a bunch of partials dancing, the dance does not easily reveal it's secrets. Partials dance in and out like the particles of sub atomic physics. In short, the additive model does not work to well.
The solution of the Akai K5000, a little known but powerful additive synth, was to use both samples and additive models. The transient was created with samples. Alchemy works much the same way and can mix or cross fade a sampled transient. This adds realism.
But here is another problem. One of the benefits of additive synthesis is that one can morph between one sound and another and explore that wonderful sonic universe in between. So far so good right. Well, sort of but to do this one has to connect the partials and if we are talking about transients it's a bit like trying to do a tango on a dollar coaster. Trust me, I gave done a lot of modeling and believe me, you can get some bizarre artifacts when trying to morph sounds and they don't always sound that good. I have re-synthesized many sounds and have reacted as if eating spoiled food, yuck, phooey. I have often felt as if my sonic pallet was assaulted. The secret is to start off with some good material. I always felt that was lacking in Cube. In fact, I always felt it was a collection of samples from experiments rather than an effective library. Alchemy has what seems to me a solid library and of course, one can always use ones own samples but be forewarned, some models just don't mix.
Try morphing a bell into a guitar and you will see what I am talking about. Bottom line this will confuse the re-synthesis engine. Also using AM will do the same thing. Re-synthesize a sin wave modulated by a sub audio LFO and then move it into the audible range. The re-sythesis engine will first interpret it as amplitude modulation and then see it as partials. First they are not there and then they are there like Schrodenger's famed cat or the Cheshire cat of Lewis Carol and said Alice. Here, we have the sonic looking glass. A thought experiment like this will show you that the world of additive synthesis gets stranger and stranger when you take it places it may not want to go.
I will have to have a part III soon. I will be working again with Alchemy soon and I will continue to investigate.
So what does all this have to do with Alchemy? Simple. Often, that quintessential aspect of how a musician plays, their style, is much more dictated by that short universe of the attack transient. Much (not all) of the magic seem to lie in that fraction of a second. Now enter the additive world. Additive synthesis is what we call linear. Put simply, it's made of parts that can be added together. Now for the interesting part. A guitar transient is what is called non linear which means that all those partials do a complicated little dance. In fact, I believe that grains are far more applicable than partial in the world of the transient. If the transient is a bunch of partials dancing, the dance does not easily reveal it's secrets. Partials dance in and out like the particles of sub atomic physics. In short, the additive model does not work to well.
The solution of the Akai K5000, a little known but powerful additive synth, was to use both samples and additive models. The transient was created with samples. Alchemy works much the same way and can mix or cross fade a sampled transient. This adds realism.
But here is another problem. One of the benefits of additive synthesis is that one can morph between one sound and another and explore that wonderful sonic universe in between. So far so good right. Well, sort of but to do this one has to connect the partials and if we are talking about transients it's a bit like trying to do a tango on a dollar coaster. Trust me, I gave done a lot of modeling and believe me, you can get some bizarre artifacts when trying to morph sounds and they don't always sound that good. I have re-synthesized many sounds and have reacted as if eating spoiled food, yuck, phooey. I have often felt as if my sonic pallet was assaulted. The secret is to start off with some good material. I always felt that was lacking in Cube. In fact, I always felt it was a collection of samples from experiments rather than an effective library. Alchemy has what seems to me a solid library and of course, one can always use ones own samples but be forewarned, some models just don't mix.
Try morphing a bell into a guitar and you will see what I am talking about. Bottom line this will confuse the re-synthesis engine. Also using AM will do the same thing. Re-synthesize a sin wave modulated by a sub audio LFO and then move it into the audible range. The re-sythesis engine will first interpret it as amplitude modulation and then see it as partials. First they are not there and then they are there like Schrodenger's famed cat or the Cheshire cat of Lewis Carol and said Alice. Here, we have the sonic looking glass. A thought experiment like this will show you that the world of additive synthesis gets stranger and stranger when you take it places it may not want to go.
I will have to have a part III soon. I will be working again with Alchemy soon and I will continue to investigate.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
First Impressions of Alchemy (part one)
Well, I have Alchemy now. For a long time I have not purchased any soft synths really for two reasons. The 1st is that I really don't need anymore and I am actually trying to reduce what I use. The second is that I wanted to at least have a rudimentary set of synths working on my MacBook Pro. I accomplished the later and I thought I might try my hand again at additive synthesis. My first experience was with Cube and let's just say that that experience did not end well.
I have to admit that there is still an inner Geek within me. OK, yes, I have a Bachelors in Math and a masters in statistics and another less geeky one that shall remain stealthy. I like an element of mystery. Here is the geek part.
1. Fourier
2. Helmholtz
3. Gabor
The first Of these tells use that any periodic (really important word) waveform is made up of simple sinwaves in frequencies that are multiples of the 1st (called the fundamental). The multiples are called partials.
The second tells use that these partials pare how we pwecieve sound. The 1st expressed a mathematical theorum that can be proved. The 2nd is simply wrong. That's will take me to the 3rd but that will have to be in part 2.
So the theory is that you can build any sound from sin waves (partials) so that has a kind of geeky appeal like when synths came out that let you draw waveforms. The problem is that no sound has a waveform that never changes unless a computer or electronics made it. As they say, therein lies the rub and a huge one it is. Well, to fix the problem those who wanted to create a form of synthesis had to divide up time into windows. Now let's now think of the windows as what we call the time domain and the partials the frequency domain. Once one enters into time periods less than the wavelength of the waveform. We enter the sonic twilight zone. Think about it and you might see why.
So it appears to me that Alchemy hides this little dilemma from the user and what Harry Gohs of Virsyn once told me was the dark art of additive synthesis, how to connect the dots, or rather, windows.
Confused, don't be if you stick with Alchemy. No one needs to know how an internal combustion engine works to drive a car. Alchemy hides it and that's good. It's nasty business.
So, Ok, this is all Geeky stuff and why would one want to bother making sounds from sin waves? After all you can sample (record) sounds right? Yes, but there are two advantages to additive synthesis:
1. You can do magic with time.
2. You can morph sounds
Morph just means one sound changes into another. Now some of you might remember the Korg Wavestation which did wave sequencing and cross fading (and very well I might add). Isn't cross fading the same thing? Do you want to follow the rabbit down the hole Alice? Turns out that fir most sounds pitch changes and, and here I become like a Nationwide agent and blow you mind, the pitch change in partials is not uniform. Trust me, morphing and cross fading are different. Alchemy does both of these as well as some really interesting variations. It also makes sense to mix samples and additive synthesis. Kawai did this with there additive synthesizer. It makes sense musically so kudos Camel Audio.
I will leave more of this to part Ii of this but there is a strong tendency to get wrapped up in math with additive synthesis and get list and loose the music in the process. Alchemy avoids this and IMHO is a much better synth than Cube.
I have to admit that there is still an inner Geek within me. OK, yes, I have a Bachelors in Math and a masters in statistics and another less geeky one that shall remain stealthy. I like an element of mystery. Here is the geek part.
1. Fourier
2. Helmholtz
3. Gabor
The first Of these tells use that any periodic (really important word) waveform is made up of simple sinwaves in frequencies that are multiples of the 1st (called the fundamental). The multiples are called partials.
The second tells use that these partials pare how we pwecieve sound. The 1st expressed a mathematical theorum that can be proved. The 2nd is simply wrong. That's will take me to the 3rd but that will have to be in part 2.
So the theory is that you can build any sound from sin waves (partials) so that has a kind of geeky appeal like when synths came out that let you draw waveforms. The problem is that no sound has a waveform that never changes unless a computer or electronics made it. As they say, therein lies the rub and a huge one it is. Well, to fix the problem those who wanted to create a form of synthesis had to divide up time into windows. Now let's now think of the windows as what we call the time domain and the partials the frequency domain. Once one enters into time periods less than the wavelength of the waveform. We enter the sonic twilight zone. Think about it and you might see why.
So it appears to me that Alchemy hides this little dilemma from the user and what Harry Gohs of Virsyn once told me was the dark art of additive synthesis, how to connect the dots, or rather, windows.
Confused, don't be if you stick with Alchemy. No one needs to know how an internal combustion engine works to drive a car. Alchemy hides it and that's good. It's nasty business.
So, Ok, this is all Geeky stuff and why would one want to bother making sounds from sin waves? After all you can sample (record) sounds right? Yes, but there are two advantages to additive synthesis:
1. You can do magic with time.
2. You can morph sounds
Morph just means one sound changes into another. Now some of you might remember the Korg Wavestation which did wave sequencing and cross fading (and very well I might add). Isn't cross fading the same thing? Do you want to follow the rabbit down the hole Alice? Turns out that fir most sounds pitch changes and, and here I become like a Nationwide agent and blow you mind, the pitch change in partials is not uniform. Trust me, morphing and cross fading are different. Alchemy does both of these as well as some really interesting variations. It also makes sense to mix samples and additive synthesis. Kawai did this with there additive synthesizer. It makes sense musically so kudos Camel Audio.
I will leave more of this to part Ii of this but there is a strong tendency to get wrapped up in math with additive synthesis and get list and loose the music in the process. Alchemy avoids this and IMHO is a much better synth than Cube.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Man and Machine Are Doing Fine
I always find it funny how some pride themselves on not using technology as if it were almost a matter of virtue. Truth is, I find technology innert in many ways. It's a tool. Carpenters can actually build houses without nails by making joints and using glue but most are made will nails and hammer and probably most with nail guns. Does that make the carpenters bad carpenters. Not at all, they just learned to use the tools. A good carpenter will make a great house without a hammer but he will make a better one and a quicker one with a hammer and an even better one with a nail gun.
So I bought an I-Pad. Yes, I know I said I would not buy one but I wanted to see what all the fuse was about. You know what. It's a hammer (of sorts). It makes life easier. I use it to surf the web (it's better than either my phone or laptop for that), I read books on it (now my bookshelf will not collapse) and I play my music on it (many times in the car). I also have a bunch of fun musical apps for it. Am I going to write the modern version of Beethoven's 9th with it? No, it mostly just fun and the other stuff. It makes life easier. Is that bad, am I somehow less of a person for giving in. No. I like hammers and I Pads and perhaps sometime when I am pulling up a book that would have been lost of the bottom of a pile, I will smile at those who feel that wasting time is virtuous. Just one way to look at it.
So I bought an I-Pad. Yes, I know I said I would not buy one but I wanted to see what all the fuse was about. You know what. It's a hammer (of sorts). It makes life easier. I use it to surf the web (it's better than either my phone or laptop for that), I read books on it (now my bookshelf will not collapse) and I play my music on it (many times in the car). I also have a bunch of fun musical apps for it. Am I going to write the modern version of Beethoven's 9th with it? No, it mostly just fun and the other stuff. It makes life easier. Is that bad, am I somehow less of a person for giving in. No. I like hammers and I Pads and perhaps sometime when I am pulling up a book that would have been lost of the bottom of a pile, I will smile at those who feel that wasting time is virtuous. Just one way to look at it.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Less is More
I have found that lately I have made somewhat a turn to the more introspective musically. One of my problems is that I have to much equipment and plug ins. There, I said it. Consider the simplicity of bag of gold clubs. Less than 20 clubs can navigate a gold course. I used to play golf a little but perhaps what fustrated me the most was perfecting the swing. But perhaps, therein lies the rub. Perhaps real artistry comes from perfecting ones swing using a limited number of tools. I guess this is somewhat of a question I am putting out there because I am not sure I have the answer and I suspect its a bit more complicated that a yes or no, black and white approach to music.
I have three synths: A Korg M3, a Moog Voyager and a Waldorf Blofeld. Then I have a lot of other soft synths but I want to talk hardware for now. My Korg M3 is a masterpiece of complexity. You want to change cutoff, ok, three menus down and to the left but make sure that you know what layer of sound you are talking about when you tweak it. OK, to be fair, if you can figure it out you can assign thinks to sliders, the joystick, the XY pad, ect., which is a nice idea since you can record those movements but you get the idea, not an easy synth to program. Modulation matrix? Forget it! There are so many ways to modulate and combine modulation sources that you get dizzy thinking about it. The matrix would be enormous.
When I was younger musically, I thought that was great. Make a synth with 10 layers of menus I would say give me 20. But I often find digging into that many menus tedious and unnatural. Am I going to sell my M3? Not a chance. The upside is that it makes beautiful sounds so I can excuse how awkward at times the menus are. And it has some great presets. Yes presets. Boos from the purist gallery.
Now the Voyager is another animal. It's simple. Very simple although the latest addition of MIDI has adds a few layers of menus. The Voyager is in face more like one big all in one module with lots of CV ins and outs especially if you get the expansion module and the CP 251 or get the XP which is basically the same but in one box. But the Moogs knobs are meant to be tweaked and add an MP 201 pedal, you have another sophisticated tweaking mechanism or to put it simply, an instrument. So tweaking is part of the performance, of the instrument. OK, you can do this with a Korg M3 but it's only 8 sliders and some other controllers try to remember which one does what.
The Voyager is meant to be tweaked as you play it. It reveals its secret in the tweeks. The subtle settings that provide a certain sound. It seems to me this is more what true artistry is. Not the bold or what I would call "let's see if we can make spot howl" approach, although I have given into that myself at times, but the subtle realms of musical expression that can be found in tweaking just the right know at the right time, lets call it improving the golf swing with the knobs being the clubs.
Then there is the Blofeld. An amazing little piece of machinery for the money. I read a add for some IPad wizardry to make the Blofeld one of the multilayered synths more like the M3. OK, but truth but told, most of the parameters you would need to tweak on the Blofeld that are going to work musically are right there. Only a few knobs you say? Yes, but buttons that change what those knobs do in a way that is so natural that I learned most of their functions in a day. I am still trying to learn Korg's KARMA system and forget about getting the software and talking it down more menu levels so deep that you come out in China.
OK, I know, I can be a blatherskite at times. But my numerous words are only to suggest that sometimes its nice to have a really familiar set of clubs so that one that sunny day when the sun is in the right position and the wind is just right, the ball can soar into the sky and the music can find heavenly heights.
Then again, you can buy a Jupiter 80 and have a whole orchestra playing at the same time. I'm just not sure it's in tune and who can track 80 golf balls hit into the sunny sky? Hope the analogy works.
I have three synths: A Korg M3, a Moog Voyager and a Waldorf Blofeld. Then I have a lot of other soft synths but I want to talk hardware for now. My Korg M3 is a masterpiece of complexity. You want to change cutoff, ok, three menus down and to the left but make sure that you know what layer of sound you are talking about when you tweak it. OK, to be fair, if you can figure it out you can assign thinks to sliders, the joystick, the XY pad, ect., which is a nice idea since you can record those movements but you get the idea, not an easy synth to program. Modulation matrix? Forget it! There are so many ways to modulate and combine modulation sources that you get dizzy thinking about it. The matrix would be enormous.
When I was younger musically, I thought that was great. Make a synth with 10 layers of menus I would say give me 20. But I often find digging into that many menus tedious and unnatural. Am I going to sell my M3? Not a chance. The upside is that it makes beautiful sounds so I can excuse how awkward at times the menus are. And it has some great presets. Yes presets. Boos from the purist gallery.
Now the Voyager is another animal. It's simple. Very simple although the latest addition of MIDI has adds a few layers of menus. The Voyager is in face more like one big all in one module with lots of CV ins and outs especially if you get the expansion module and the CP 251 or get the XP which is basically the same but in one box. But the Moogs knobs are meant to be tweaked and add an MP 201 pedal, you have another sophisticated tweaking mechanism or to put it simply, an instrument. So tweaking is part of the performance, of the instrument. OK, you can do this with a Korg M3 but it's only 8 sliders and some other controllers try to remember which one does what.
The Voyager is meant to be tweaked as you play it. It reveals its secret in the tweeks. The subtle settings that provide a certain sound. It seems to me this is more what true artistry is. Not the bold or what I would call "let's see if we can make spot howl" approach, although I have given into that myself at times, but the subtle realms of musical expression that can be found in tweaking just the right know at the right time, lets call it improving the golf swing with the knobs being the clubs.
Then there is the Blofeld. An amazing little piece of machinery for the money. I read a add for some IPad wizardry to make the Blofeld one of the multilayered synths more like the M3. OK, but truth but told, most of the parameters you would need to tweak on the Blofeld that are going to work musically are right there. Only a few knobs you say? Yes, but buttons that change what those knobs do in a way that is so natural that I learned most of their functions in a day. I am still trying to learn Korg's KARMA system and forget about getting the software and talking it down more menu levels so deep that you come out in China.
OK, I know, I can be a blatherskite at times. But my numerous words are only to suggest that sometimes its nice to have a really familiar set of clubs so that one that sunny day when the sun is in the right position and the wind is just right, the ball can soar into the sky and the music can find heavenly heights.
Then again, you can buy a Jupiter 80 and have a whole orchestra playing at the same time. I'm just not sure it's in tune and who can track 80 golf balls hit into the sunny sky? Hope the analogy works.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Short Review and Reflection on the Jupiter 80
It seems that what is old is new again. Certainly Roland's new Jupiter 80 is no exception. Roland seems to be trying to take advantage of some of the programming they have already done for the V-Synth and their new "super natural" pianos (whatever that means). I sense that they are using something likened to the V-Synth "AP Synthesis" and combined it with the new "Super Natural" modelling. It's hard to tell. This synth seems is strong in two areas: Layering (massive layering) Instrument Sounds OK, nice, but in a way the two are contradictions. If you want to do arranging then sure, having a lot of layers is a plus but then get one of the "Vianna" packages or another set of instrument samples and let loose. Yes, but you might respond: "It's a performance instrument!". OK, sure, but then don't layer. I see the two as a contradiction. This is like having a symphony orchestra with every instrument trying to be the soloist. Perhaps I am wrong here but just saying. I do like the touch screen. Some have a problem with it but having a Korg M3, I can tell you that I prefer the way Roland creates screens that look more like a massive collection on knobs and sliders. By the way, that is what it would take and why this instrument does not have them. The preset keys are nice for performance and after all, that is what this instrument is about except if you really used all the layers it would drown every other member of the band with its wall of sound approach. Nice collection of ins and outs including digital. A slight improvement over an M3. Effects - yawn, clearly imported from other keyboards, nothing new here. Might I also point out that Korg M3 effects let you modulate many of the parameters which can be very powerful. I don't see that here but this is a cursury review. Corrections welcome. D-Beam - old Roland tech - yawn Stereo recorder - why bother when lots of nice little portable units are available - Icing on the cake - lots of sugar. OK, I don't mean to be so harsh here and if someone dropped one of these in studio for free I would have lots of fun with it but I have come to the following conclusion. That synthesis is about modulation and expression. I am thinking particulary about the Eigenharp. Not really an instrument per say but much more than a MIDI controller. Find a more integrated way to combine a controller like that and an expressive model like AP synthesis or whatver is in the Jupiter 80 and it would peak my interest. That also said, the new Korg Kronos is far more of a heavy weight (an OASYS for the poor). So what does the JP 80 add to the mix of lack luster offerings in the synth word. Nothing much other than what is old is new again. Perhaps one day, something that is new will in fact truly be new but until then. P.S. Roland - still waiting for you to come out with new expansion cards for the V-Synth. Or did you ever intend to do that? Sure, packaging old tech is a lot cheaper when you can sell it for the cost of a workstation.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The Hidden Agenda
As many of the music therapists who follow me know, I am always trying to encourage you to use synthesizers in your therapy. There are a few reasons why. First, I respect what music therapists do and I feel that music can have as much healing power as medicine does just in a different way. The second reason is that friends always share what they love. Before I was in high school I stumbled across a Morton Subotnick album "Sidewinder". At that time I did not have the slightest idea what the difference between a Moog and a Buchla was but years latter I can talk about models and modules with barely a thought. I know the difference between music box and mini Moog and many other sonic tid bits. I have knowledge that I want to share not only with other electronic artists who understand all the technical details of what I am talking about but to those who may be new to electronic music and synthesizers. I love to teach and share what I know. The third reason, and perhaps the most important is that I really do believe that synthesis has a lot to bring to music therapy for reasons that I will discuss. It is also my hope that my attempts are not annoying. I am not trying to be pushy (well, maybe a little) but it's only in the interest of trying to show some friends something new and perhaps helpful. Up until know you have been silent on my electronic music tweets but things can change right?
So why use synthesizers when there are drums, pianos and guitars (which from what I have observed are the tools of the music therapy trade)? Well, first, they are more flexible. I know that some of music therapists use what I would call arranger keyboards which are small versions of the old home organs. These can be nice but there are a whole universe of more powerful synthesizers that can open up a sonic universe to the listener and musician.
I realize that the first limitation might be price. I can understand that but a piano is not cheap nor a guitar (at least a good one) There are also software synthesizers that are sometimes only 1/10 of the price of a hardware synthesizer. I have some hardware synths but for a specific reason. For a starter synth for those who already own a laptop a soft synth might be a better chooice. I use soft synths as well. Other than a Kurzweil K2000 which I sold, my first softsynth was Native Instrument Absynth (an amazing synth by the way but perhaps not a good starter synth). I notice that MTs seem to be into laptops. A low cost audio interface and what is called a DAW is the price of admission into the soft synth world. Some MTs also use garage band (a low costs DAW - digital audio workstation - which comes with Macs for free). That will get you started and before long you will be using Ableton Live :) Sort of an inside joke but many electronic artists including myself use it for reasons that are way to complicated to explain in a short post. If you are really interested some of my Twitter friends have great web sites with demos you might want to watch. Just ask and I will introduce you.
I would also suggest to you that there are a lot of free synths and effects out there. Absynth is not one of them but a freeware synths can be a good introduction into synthesis. Start with subtractive if you are interested. Most synths in fact do some form of subtrative synthesis.
I also would add as a caveat that mobility is an issue. I almost got a hernia moving an 88 key Korg M3 up a flight of stairs. It's a great keyboard and has piano like action but not mobile. For those who don't have roadies, size can be an issue with hard synths although there are some nice small ones that are a lot easier to deal with. There are also a wide variety of cheap controller keyboards out there. And when you ready, Ableton controllers :) MTs should just let me know and I can recommend some of them.
Soft synths weigh nothing and install onto your laptop. Interfaces are small and a low watt amp is loud enough to use in most applications is enough to go mobile. You can put it all in a backpack.
So you might still ask why? Simple, synthesizers are much more flexible than real instruments. They can make an incredibly wide variety of sounds which may open up new avenues when working with a client. For example, I have boomwhacker samples so if I want to play boomwhackers I can do that on my keyboard using a form of synthesis called sampling. Thee are also a wide variety of drum samples from diffferent countries that will literally turn you keyboard into a drum kit.
There has also been an explosion of new controllers which could be used to open up a musical universe to those with limited mobility which I see as a major advantage. Body movement and even brain waves to mention just a few can be used to control a synth. Products like Percussa Audio Cubes provide multi-sensory feedback (see, I am learning your vocabulary). The Cubes glow and are easy to move and create music with.
I also think that various minimalistic music forms might help autistic patients. The repeating yet changing patterns of a sequencer might give them something to focus on.
So that is my agenda. I don't want it to be hidden but if I am annoying at times trying to get you to cross the streams. My version of advocacy :)
I wish all my music therapist friends the best of success in your carriers and God bless you efforts to help people with the gift of music. If you are interested in following the rabbit into a vast landscape of new sounds, let me know and I can get you started. Where it goes from there is up to you.
P.S. - There is an Electro Music festival in Heugenot NY. A good time is had by all. It's lots of fun and lots of great people and perhaps a way to follow that rabbit. Warning however, once you get hooked on synths well, there is no helping you after that so take heed :) Us EM types are already addicted so it does not matter to us :)
So why use synthesizers when there are drums, pianos and guitars (which from what I have observed are the tools of the music therapy trade)? Well, first, they are more flexible. I know that some of music therapists use what I would call arranger keyboards which are small versions of the old home organs. These can be nice but there are a whole universe of more powerful synthesizers that can open up a sonic universe to the listener and musician.
I realize that the first limitation might be price. I can understand that but a piano is not cheap nor a guitar (at least a good one) There are also software synthesizers that are sometimes only 1/10 of the price of a hardware synthesizer. I have some hardware synths but for a specific reason. For a starter synth for those who already own a laptop a soft synth might be a better chooice. I use soft synths as well. Other than a Kurzweil K2000 which I sold, my first softsynth was Native Instrument Absynth (an amazing synth by the way but perhaps not a good starter synth). I notice that MTs seem to be into laptops. A low cost audio interface and what is called a DAW is the price of admission into the soft synth world. Some MTs also use garage band (a low costs DAW - digital audio workstation - which comes with Macs for free). That will get you started and before long you will be using Ableton Live :) Sort of an inside joke but many electronic artists including myself use it for reasons that are way to complicated to explain in a short post. If you are really interested some of my Twitter friends have great web sites with demos you might want to watch. Just ask and I will introduce you.
I would also suggest to you that there are a lot of free synths and effects out there. Absynth is not one of them but a freeware synths can be a good introduction into synthesis. Start with subtractive if you are interested. Most synths in fact do some form of subtrative synthesis.
I also would add as a caveat that mobility is an issue. I almost got a hernia moving an 88 key Korg M3 up a flight of stairs. It's a great keyboard and has piano like action but not mobile. For those who don't have roadies, size can be an issue with hard synths although there are some nice small ones that are a lot easier to deal with. There are also a wide variety of cheap controller keyboards out there. And when you ready, Ableton controllers :) MTs should just let me know and I can recommend some of them.
Soft synths weigh nothing and install onto your laptop. Interfaces are small and a low watt amp is loud enough to use in most applications is enough to go mobile. You can put it all in a backpack.
So you might still ask why? Simple, synthesizers are much more flexible than real instruments. They can make an incredibly wide variety of sounds which may open up new avenues when working with a client. For example, I have boomwhacker samples so if I want to play boomwhackers I can do that on my keyboard using a form of synthesis called sampling. Thee are also a wide variety of drum samples from diffferent countries that will literally turn you keyboard into a drum kit.
There has also been an explosion of new controllers which could be used to open up a musical universe to those with limited mobility which I see as a major advantage. Body movement and even brain waves to mention just a few can be used to control a synth. Products like Percussa Audio Cubes provide multi-sensory feedback (see, I am learning your vocabulary). The Cubes glow and are easy to move and create music with.
I also think that various minimalistic music forms might help autistic patients. The repeating yet changing patterns of a sequencer might give them something to focus on.
So that is my agenda. I don't want it to be hidden but if I am annoying at times trying to get you to cross the streams. My version of advocacy :)
I wish all my music therapist friends the best of success in your carriers and God bless you efforts to help people with the gift of music. If you are interested in following the rabbit into a vast landscape of new sounds, let me know and I can get you started. Where it goes from there is up to you.
P.S. - There is an Electro Music festival in Heugenot NY. A good time is had by all. It's lots of fun and lots of great people and perhaps a way to follow that rabbit. Warning however, once you get hooked on synths well, there is no helping you after that so take heed :) Us EM types are already addicted so it does not matter to us :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)