The number of factors effecting the tone of a musical instrument is considerable. Of course, the knowledge of instrument making has grown over hundreds of years. However, what if we think in more fundamental terms. What objects can we find in our homes that can be used as instruments and more importantly what makes them musical?
I would argue that shape and material have the greatest impact of how "musical" an object might be.
For the moment however I ask you only to consider the following shapes:
Rods
Cylinders
Bars
Plates
It is interesting that these shapes are used in physical modeling synths such as Ableton Live's Corpus and Applied Acoustic Systems "Chromaphone". There also seem to be mathematical models for these shapes.
In my exploration of the acoustic properties of objects so far, I have found that objects that have these shapes have a strong series of harmonics which I would suggest makes them musical.
Just an aside. Most things made of glass seem to be musical. It's not a shape and I have no idea why. It's just an observation.
This is just a quick comment on what I hope to be a series of them as part of my "found instruments" project. I very much welcome comments and ideas fir the project. Let me know what you think.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Gothic As a Genre
Anyone who knows me well knows that I am Catholic as well as an electronic music composer. My recent project and future album "Fire Giver" is a musical exploration of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein - The New Promethius". As I prepared to render this gothic literature in musical form I not only read it but wrote some notes and did some research.
The book was written in the middle of a literary movement in England called the "Romantic" movement that in many ways was a counterculture to the industrial revolution. Frankenstein is really a philosophical argument that just because it can be done does not mean it should.
Unfortunately Hollywood turned the novel into a horror and science fiction movie complete with Tesla Coil. Frankenstein does not delight in his creation in the novel but runs from it. The creature literally is the walking dead, an abomination who pursues his creator by destroying all he loves and ultimately, weary of life itself, Victor Frankenstein dies of the pain of his earthly life denying his creature closure as he dies before the creature bursts into his room. The creature fades into the mist and ice of the North Pole denied his final act of vengeance.
So, this is what I wanted to bring to life. Many of the Gothic novels do not romanticize evil as the modern day twilight movies do but show it for what it is. Frankenstein does not have a happy ending. It does have a moral message that as a Catholic I find echoes the Church's own regarding science, technology and progress. The Church is certainly not anti technology or science but rather, believes that such activity can be good or evil. The assumption that all change is good is really what the romantics questioned as do I and as does the Catholic Church.
So, I realize that none of this has much to do with gothic music but I wanted to explain why I am using a gothic and romantic novel as the basis for my music.
I am personally not a fan of twilight and I think if those who like it read the gothic novel "Dracula" or studied some of the historical basis of Vladimir the Impaler they would find the truly gothic version much less sweet to their taste. Leave it to Hollywood to get it wrong again.
So if I refer to my work as gothic, it is because I want to remain faithful to Mary Shelley and the romantic movement.
The book was written in the middle of a literary movement in England called the "Romantic" movement that in many ways was a counterculture to the industrial revolution. Frankenstein is really a philosophical argument that just because it can be done does not mean it should.
Unfortunately Hollywood turned the novel into a horror and science fiction movie complete with Tesla Coil. Frankenstein does not delight in his creation in the novel but runs from it. The creature literally is the walking dead, an abomination who pursues his creator by destroying all he loves and ultimately, weary of life itself, Victor Frankenstein dies of the pain of his earthly life denying his creature closure as he dies before the creature bursts into his room. The creature fades into the mist and ice of the North Pole denied his final act of vengeance.
So, this is what I wanted to bring to life. Many of the Gothic novels do not romanticize evil as the modern day twilight movies do but show it for what it is. Frankenstein does not have a happy ending. It does have a moral message that as a Catholic I find echoes the Church's own regarding science, technology and progress. The Church is certainly not anti technology or science but rather, believes that such activity can be good or evil. The assumption that all change is good is really what the romantics questioned as do I and as does the Catholic Church.
So, I realize that none of this has much to do with gothic music but I wanted to explain why I am using a gothic and romantic novel as the basis for my music.
I am personally not a fan of twilight and I think if those who like it read the gothic novel "Dracula" or studied some of the historical basis of Vladimir the Impaler they would find the truly gothic version much less sweet to their taste. Leave it to Hollywood to get it wrong again.
So if I refer to my work as gothic, it is because I want to remain faithful to Mary Shelley and the romantic movement.
Monday, May 21, 2012
The Cure to Gear Addiction
I am always amazed at the seemingly never ending parade of the latest, greatest piece of gear, synth or controller on the market. I admit to being a gearaholic myself but perhaps in the end, the best cure is music itself.
One of the best definitions of music that I have heard especially electronic music is by Edgar Varese who defined music as organized sound. In an odd way, some of the worst advertisements for products I have seen are satisfied customers who much like a child, want to show you their new toy and so make any assortment of sounds with it. The problem here is that these videos lack the second part of the Varese' definition, "organized".
As a gearaholic, I must admit to being guilty of that same childlike delight over a new "sound maker" although I do identify a SoundCloud recording as "demo" which implies it is more sound than organization.
My recordings that I consider musical works involve far more planning as yes, organization. At times they do come from experimentation and that pure childlike delight over sound in the tradition of John Cage but at times they involve a far more developed concept or one might say, the "organized" side of electronic music.
So, I now come to the reason I wrote this. I was watching videos if various gearaholics demoing the Ehkdahl Moisturizer, a spring reverb with open springs and built in filter that can be played. A few caught my eye or ear in a negative sense. One was a guy banging on the thing with sticks and randomly (not organized) twiddling with filter knobs. Apparently he thought this was interesting. I would rather listen to disco than this cacophony of random unorganized sounds.
The next was a guy with this simple sample and hold circuit which he thought made melodies (he emphasized how impressed he was by this) run though the moisturizer while he twiddled with knobs and banged on the springs. Same negative effect for me.
The only video that I thought was interesting was from Richard Devine that showed some novel avenues to a more musical and yes, organized use of this product.
So now I come to the cure. In the future, before jumping on every gear bandwagon, I want to ask myself a question. Can I use a product in a musical and organized way or am I just buying another expensive toy to bang on with a rattle.
This is not necessarily a criticism of the moisturizer because I do think it has real musical applications but rather to suggest that demos need to weigh in more heavily on the organized part of music as "organized sound" and ask the question "How can this product be used musically" rather than how can I make sounds with it. The difference I suggest is the difference between sound and music.
One of the best definitions of music that I have heard especially electronic music is by Edgar Varese who defined music as organized sound. In an odd way, some of the worst advertisements for products I have seen are satisfied customers who much like a child, want to show you their new toy and so make any assortment of sounds with it. The problem here is that these videos lack the second part of the Varese' definition, "organized".
As a gearaholic, I must admit to being guilty of that same childlike delight over a new "sound maker" although I do identify a SoundCloud recording as "demo" which implies it is more sound than organization.
My recordings that I consider musical works involve far more planning as yes, organization. At times they do come from experimentation and that pure childlike delight over sound in the tradition of John Cage but at times they involve a far more developed concept or one might say, the "organized" side of electronic music.
So, I now come to the reason I wrote this. I was watching videos if various gearaholics demoing the Ehkdahl Moisturizer, a spring reverb with open springs and built in filter that can be played. A few caught my eye or ear in a negative sense. One was a guy banging on the thing with sticks and randomly (not organized) twiddling with filter knobs. Apparently he thought this was interesting. I would rather listen to disco than this cacophony of random unorganized sounds.
The next was a guy with this simple sample and hold circuit which he thought made melodies (he emphasized how impressed he was by this) run though the moisturizer while he twiddled with knobs and banged on the springs. Same negative effect for me.
The only video that I thought was interesting was from Richard Devine that showed some novel avenues to a more musical and yes, organized use of this product.
So now I come to the cure. In the future, before jumping on every gear bandwagon, I want to ask myself a question. Can I use a product in a musical and organized way or am I just buying another expensive toy to bang on with a rattle.
This is not necessarily a criticism of the moisturizer because I do think it has real musical applications but rather to suggest that demos need to weigh in more heavily on the organized part of music as "organized sound" and ask the question "How can this product be used musically" rather than how can I make sounds with it. The difference I suggest is the difference between sound and music.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
It's Just a Matter of Time
I think one of the greatest blind ally's in electronic music is that the most important consideration in composing music is the waveform. The reason I believe this is not the case is expressed in one simple word that embraces all music and that is "time". Music, unlike the visual arts happens in time. So to of our experience of timbre.
Take the example of the filter sweep. No one ever remarks, wow, I love that setting you used for the filter cutoff. No, rather, music is modulation, change. By sweeping a filter we experience a waveform in a different way not as static but dynamic.
Consider a sculpture. To really experience it you have to walk around it. Language is a series of constantly changing timbres.
What got me thinking about this is Izotope's new Iris synth. When I used it in a static way by selecting frequencies the results were somewhat disappointing but once I started to think in terms on sweeps like movements of a brush stroke, I started getting interesting results.
This I believe proves my point. Working only in the frequency domain is boring but once visuals express flow and change the whole musical landscape changes. I rather like to see timbre as dynamic. It's the difference between a 2D painting and a 3D sculpture. And in the end, it's just a matter of time.
Take the example of the filter sweep. No one ever remarks, wow, I love that setting you used for the filter cutoff. No, rather, music is modulation, change. By sweeping a filter we experience a waveform in a different way not as static but dynamic.
Consider a sculpture. To really experience it you have to walk around it. Language is a series of constantly changing timbres.
What got me thinking about this is Izotope's new Iris synth. When I used it in a static way by selecting frequencies the results were somewhat disappointing but once I started to think in terms on sweeps like movements of a brush stroke, I started getting interesting results.
This I believe proves my point. Working only in the frequency domain is boring but once visuals express flow and change the whole musical landscape changes. I rather like to see timbre as dynamic. It's the difference between a 2D painting and a 3D sculpture. And in the end, it's just a matter of time.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Izotope Iris Review
Ok, I have been using Iris for a few weeks now so I thought I might write a review about it. I suppose the greatest complement to a synth is to use it in a composition. So far, I have only fiddled around with it so the jury is out on that. I can say that I have used Alchemy more than once in a composition.
Off the bat, Iris should remain at the introductory price. Alchemy can pretty much do what it does and does 10 times more. That being said, Iris is a specialty synth but that said, once again it should be priced as such.
In support of Iris, the interface is simple so it lends itself to experimentation. I know that I often find complex interfaces an obstacle to creativity at times.
However, a few simple tools would help. 1st, I would like to see a graphic environment more like Adobe illustrator. This way, regions could be much more easily identified and edited.
I would also like to see a blur brush. A gradient tool to lighten or darken would also be nice to create cross fades.
I would also like to be able to accurately identify what frequencies and times correspond to selections (perhaps a small indicator next to the selection).
Iris is fun and does open one up to creativity but it's almost like version 0.5 to me. It could be a much stronger synth without loosing simplicity then it might be worth the price.
Off the bat, Iris should remain at the introductory price. Alchemy can pretty much do what it does and does 10 times more. That being said, Iris is a specialty synth but that said, once again it should be priced as such.
In support of Iris, the interface is simple so it lends itself to experimentation. I know that I often find complex interfaces an obstacle to creativity at times.
However, a few simple tools would help. 1st, I would like to see a graphic environment more like Adobe illustrator. This way, regions could be much more easily identified and edited.
I would also like to see a blur brush. A gradient tool to lighten or darken would also be nice to create cross fades.
I would also like to be able to accurately identify what frequencies and times correspond to selections (perhaps a small indicator next to the selection).
Iris is fun and does open one up to creativity but it's almost like version 0.5 to me. It could be a much stronger synth without loosing simplicity then it might be worth the price.
Friday, April 27, 2012
The Problem with Partials
It would seem that with my new collection of additive synths I would go down a road before and start delving into how partials effect timbre. I guess at some level this appeals to the geeky mathematician in me. But I also concluded a long time ago that pattials where really not that important unless we speak in broader terms of shape. In fact, this is why Blade and Razor will be more successful than Cube because they focus on broader shapes of partials than the individual partials themselves.
I have a knob on my Moog Voyager for waveform and you would think that by moving the knob one would hear dramatic differences in sound. Guess again. You can hear a change but not nearly as dramatic as sweeping a filter.
I did another experiment last night on looking at the 1st twenty odd partials and the 1st twenty odd partials with only the primes. I could barely discern a difference.
I am going to make a statement that some in the world of psychoacoustics would shudder at. That what happens in the frequency domain (partials) is co- dependent with what happens in the time domain.
Let me clarify before I seem to geeky. What we hear and respond to musically is change and not just in notes but timbre. By sweeping a filter over a waveform we can experience the waveform in a way we can just by listening to it. I also suggest that where partials do matter is in broad shapes. For example, creating peaks in partials will create formants which firm the basis of all the vowels in language.
Our brains are also hard wired to hear partials. In some sense our brains are powerful spectrum analysis tools but I suggest the brain follows movement. The same is true visually. If we are standing in an otherwise motionless environment our brains will sense motion even on the periphery.
I suggest to you that the new additions to the additive world would not be very interesting if they were only about partials as much as modulating them. Both Blade and Razor do this in there own way.
I think at least the partial motivation for these synths is Dubstep. Why is Dubstep popular? One reason - Wob Wob Wob. Modulation and that is where it's at. Not that I am a Dubstep fan but it's a useful illustration.
I have a knob on my Moog Voyager for waveform and you would think that by moving the knob one would hear dramatic differences in sound. Guess again. You can hear a change but not nearly as dramatic as sweeping a filter.
I did another experiment last night on looking at the 1st twenty odd partials and the 1st twenty odd partials with only the primes. I could barely discern a difference.
I am going to make a statement that some in the world of psychoacoustics would shudder at. That what happens in the frequency domain (partials) is co- dependent with what happens in the time domain.
Let me clarify before I seem to geeky. What we hear and respond to musically is change and not just in notes but timbre. By sweeping a filter over a waveform we can experience the waveform in a way we can just by listening to it. I also suggest that where partials do matter is in broad shapes. For example, creating peaks in partials will create formants which firm the basis of all the vowels in language.
Our brains are also hard wired to hear partials. In some sense our brains are powerful spectrum analysis tools but I suggest the brain follows movement. The same is true visually. If we are standing in an otherwise motionless environment our brains will sense motion even on the periphery.
I suggest to you that the new additions to the additive world would not be very interesting if they were only about partials as much as modulating them. Both Blade and Razor do this in there own way.
I think at least the partial motivation for these synths is Dubstep. Why is Dubstep popular? One reason - Wob Wob Wob. Modulation and that is where it's at. Not that I am a Dubstep fan but it's a useful illustration.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Iris 0.5
One of the things I have noticed about product reviews is that they tend to be very positive. I know that I myself can only review products that I use and if I use them I like them.
But now I am going to do something that got me thrown of a VirSyn's board and that is make suggestions for improvements. First, let me say that I have decided to buy Iris. My honest evaluation is that Iris is a good start but Izotope should have added a few more features before releasing it.
First, Iris is not the Photoshop of spectrograms. Photoshop is tool rich compared to Iris. Let me suggest a few tools that would make Iris a better product:
1. A blur and sharpen brush
2. A feature to allow image files to be imported as spectrograms and the ability to export spectrograms to image files.
3. Identifying each region as an object and allow objects to be saved for use in other patches.
4. Develop a library of useful shape
5. Develop a tool to deform a spectrogram such as creating a fun house like mirror effect (a spectral LFO if you will)
Just a few suggestion on how Iris might be a stronger product.
But now I am going to do something that got me thrown of a VirSyn's board and that is make suggestions for improvements. First, let me say that I have decided to buy Iris. My honest evaluation is that Iris is a good start but Izotope should have added a few more features before releasing it.
First, Iris is not the Photoshop of spectrograms. Photoshop is tool rich compared to Iris. Let me suggest a few tools that would make Iris a better product:
1. A blur and sharpen brush
2. A feature to allow image files to be imported as spectrograms and the ability to export spectrograms to image files.
3. Identifying each region as an object and allow objects to be saved for use in other patches.
4. Develop a library of useful shape
5. Develop a tool to deform a spectrogram such as creating a fun house like mirror effect (a spectral LFO if you will)
Just a few suggestion on how Iris might be a stronger product.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)